ESIA Albania Section 7 – Stakeholder Engagement Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 2 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 4 7.1 Introduction 4 7.2 Engagement Approach and Outcomes of Previous Engagement 6 7.2.1 Engagement Approach 6 7.2.2 Phase 1: Pre-Scoping 7 7.2.3 Phase 2: Route Refinement 7 7.2.4 Phase 3: Scoping 8 7.3 Main ESIA Engagement Activities 10 7.3.1 Objectives 10 7.3.2 Stakeholder Groups 10 7.3.3 Engagement Activities 11 7.3.3.1 Overview of Engagement Stages 11 7.3.3.2 Stage 1 and 2 Engagement Activities and Methodologies 14 7.3.4 Format for Consultation Meetings 16 7.4 Outcomes of Main ESIA Engagement Phase 17 7.4.1 Overview 17 7.4.2 Issues Relating to Routing 17 7.4.3 Issues Related to Potential Project Impacts and Benefits 19 7.4.4 Issues Related to Development Priorities gathered through the Household Survey 32 7.5 Evaluation of Consultation Effectiveness 34 7.5.1 Evaluation Method and Results 34 7.5.2 Limitations 36 7.6 Grievance Mechanism 38 7.7 Next Steps 39

LIST OF TABLES Table 7.2-1 Phase 3: Outcomes ...... 9 Table 7.3-1 Stakeholder Groups ...... 11 Table 7.3-2 Meetings Summary ...... 16 Table 7.3-3 Communication Materials...... 17 Table 7.4-1 Issues Raised Per Issue and District (Actual Number and (%)) ...... 20 Table 7.4-2 Summary of Household Survey results by Region – Top 3 Community Challenges ...... 33 Table 7.5-1 Evaluation Results (Actual Number & (%)) ...... 35

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 7.2-1 Phases of Engagement ...... 6 Figure 7.3-1 Pictures of Meetings ...... 15 Figure 7.4-1 Issues Raised...... 20 Figure 7.4-2 Stakeholder Issues Map – Devoll District ...... 22 Figure 7.4-3 Stakeholder Issues Map – Korca District ...... 24 Figure 7.4-4 Stakeholder Issues Map – Skrapar District ...... 26 Figure 7.4-5 Stakeholder Issues Map – Berat District ...... 28 Figure 7.4-6 Stakeholder Issues Map – Fier District ...... 30 Figure 7.4-7 Question 3.5 - Greatest Community Challenges ...... 32

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 3 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

LIST OF BOXES Box 7.1-1 EBRD Perspective of Stakeholder Engagement ...... 4 Box 7.1-2 Defining Stakeholders ...... 4 Box 7.2-1 Phase 1: Outcome ...... 7 Box 7.2-2 Phase 2: Outcome of Route Refinement Stakeholder Engagement ...... 8 Box 7.3-1 Meetings with National Level Stakeholders (Stage 3 of Engagement) ...... 13 Box 7.3-2 Meetings with Local Level Authorities in Potom Commune (Stage 4 of Engagement)...... 13 Box 7.3-3 Meetings with Local Level Authorities in Durres and Tirana Regions (Stage 5 of Engagement)...... 14 Box 7.3-4 Main ESIA Engagement: Media Campaign ...... 16 Box 7.4-1 Dardhe Area Stakeholder Feedback ...... 18 Box 7.5-1 Settlements where No Meetings were Held ...... 37

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 4 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 7.1 Introduction

Stakeholder engagement is a key element of the ESIA process. The purpose of stakeholder engagement is to allow for stakeholders to interact with the decision making process, express their views and influence mitigation and technical solutions to concerns voiced during the process.

Stakeholder engagement is an inclusive and culturally appropriate process which involves sharing information and knowledge, seeking to understand the concerns of others and building relationships based on collaboration. It allows stakeholders to understand the risks, impacts and opportunities of the project in order to achieve positive outcomes. Box 7.1-1 EBRD Perspective of Stakeholder Engagement “The EBRD considers stakeholder engagement as an essential part of good business practices and corporate citizenship, and a way of improving the quality of projects. In particular, effective community engagement is central to the successful management of risks and impacts on communities affected by projects, as well as central to achieving enhanced community benefits.” (1) Source: EBRD (2010) The main objectives of stakeholder engagement is: i) to ensure that adequate and timely information is provided to those affected by the Project; ii) to provide these groups with sufficient opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns; and iii) to ensure that comments are received in a timely manner so that they can be taken into account in Project decisions.

Box 7.1-2 Defining Stakeholders

The Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) defines a stakeholder as ‘any individual or group who is potentially affected by a project or can themselves affect a project’. The objective of stakeholder identification is therefore to establish which organisations and individuals may be directly or indirectly affected (positively and negatively) by the Project, namely (“affected parties”) and those that may have an interest in the project (“other interested parties”). The process also aims to identify which stakeholder may have a positive or negative impact or influence on the Project. Stakeholder identification has been an ongoing process which has evolved as the route has been refined and settlements identified. Different issues are likely to concern different stakeholders. Therefore, stakeholders have been grouped based on their connections to the project. Having an understanding of the connections of a stakeholder group to the project helps identify the key objectives of engagement. Source: ERM Stakeholder Engagement Plan, 2010 (TAP-FEED-AL-EIA-REP-7009) TAP AG has been engaging with stakeholders since 2005, when the TAP Project was announced at national and regional level. Engagement has continued in alignment with the following national and international requirements:

• Albanian national requirements for consultation, including Article 102 of the Albanian Constitution, paragraph 2 of Article 6 on the Law no 8990 (23.01.2003);

• Performance Requirements (PR) of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD);

(1) EBRD (2010) PR 10: Information and Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement. Environmental and Social Policy.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 5 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

• Article 6 of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Aarhus Convention: Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

• UN Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in a Transboundary Context – the Espoo Convention; and

• TAP AG’s corporate standards, including their Code of Conduct.

Each of these requirements is described in detail in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) (TAP-FEED-AL-EIA-REP-7009) for the Albania section of the Project route. The SEP is a “living document” that is updated and adjusted as the ESIA progresses and project planning evolves.

This Section focuses on stakeholder engagement that has been undertaken in support of the ESIA phase. It is divided into the following sections:

• Engagement approach and outcomes of previous phases;

• Main ESIA phase engagement activities;

• Outcomes of main ESIA phase;

• Evaluation of engagement effectiveness;

• Grievance mechanism; and

• Next steps.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 6 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7.2 Engagement Approach and Outcomes of Previous Engagement

7.2.1 Engagement Approach

The process of stakeholder engagement to support the TAP ESIA is being undertaken through 6 phases which are shown in Figure 7.2-1 below. As shown in the figure, Phases 1-4 have been completed and Phases 5-6 are planned. The outcomes of Phases 1-3 are summarised below. Further detail on the activities undertaken and outcomes of each phase can be found in the SEP.

Figure 7.2-1 Phases of Engagement

Phase 1- Pre-Scoping: Strategic engagement with government and key informant groups in order to provide overall information about the Project, gauge its viability and identify any key issues early.

Phase 2 – Route Refinement: Introduce the Project to key stakeholders including national, regional and local authorities and potentially affected communities, to identify any key issues and sensitivities such as sites of interest to be considered in route selection as well as identify any vulnerable groups and gather baseline information. C C C C o o o o m m m m p p p p l l l l e Phase 3 – Scoping: e e e t t t t e e e Revisit the stakeholders contacted during the Route Refinement phase at a national e d d d d

and regional level along with those along the chosen route in order to provide further detail on the project and generate feedback on the scope, approach, key issues and key stakeholders to be consulted.

Phase 4 – Main ESIA Phase: Maintain the relationships developed during the previous phases and ensure all stakeholder issues have been identified. Revisit national and regional authorities and affected communities along the chosen pipeline route to provide a project update and an opportunity to comment, express any concerns and discuss issues. Also familiarise stakeholders with the grievance mechanism and provide information on the next stages of the project.

Phase 5 – ESIA Finalisation and Disclosure: Present stakeholders with the final ESIA report at the end of the ESIA process. P P P Includes providing information on the project impacts and mitigation measures P l l l l a a a a n n n designed to minimise or to enhance them. n n n n n e e e e d d d Phase 6 – Ongoing Engagement: d

Continue to engage with stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle in order to manage the relationship between TAP and stakeholders.

Source: ERM (2011)

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 7 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7.2.2 Phase 1: Pre-Scoping

Phase 1 was the initial step in launching the TAP Project at a national and regional level which involved introductory meetings with all concerned authorities. This Phase of engagement was carried out between June 2005 and January 2009 and consultation included a total of 11 meetings with the following stakeholders:

• The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration;

• The Territory Adjustment Council of Gjirokastra County and Fier County;

• The Council of the Regulation of the Territory of the Republic of Albania (CRTRA);

• The Albanian Head of the Institute of Monuments & Culture; and

• The Department of Economy, Trade and Energy.

Discussions were predominately focused around Project authorisation and approval to proceed with ESIA studies. The outcome for this phase is summarised below in Box 7.2-1.

Box 7.2-1 Phase 1: Outcome

Phase 1 Outcome: Based on the requirements contained in Decision n. 1 of the Council of the Regulation of the Territory of the Republic of Albania CRTRA (14.08.07), TAP AG was requested not to cross Hotova National Park. Following this request and in line with international best practice, TAP AG undertook a route refinement process involving Albanian and international experts to identify the optimal route as described in Phase 2. Source: ERM (2011)

7.2.3 Phase 2: Route Refinement

Phase 2 was undertaken between May 2009 and March 2010 and included two periods of intensive fieldwork that included wider stakeholder engagement to introduce the proposed project to all potentially affected stakeholders and gather additional information pertinent to the route refinement process. During this phase, 4 regional, 6 districts, 30 communal and 68 village authorities were consulted.

After completion of the route refinement process, a public disclosure program was carried out during June and July 2010. This involved 8 national level institutions (6 ministries and 2 agencies), a focus group discussion with NGOs and 7 meetings at a regional and local level including NGOs and commune and village representatives. These meeting informed stakeholders about the results of the route selection process and the location of the proposed route corridor. A full account of this process is provided in Appendix 1-11 of the Route Refinement Report (TAP- FEED-AL-EIA-REP-7001).

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 8 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Box 7.2-2 Phase 2: Outcome of Route Refinement Stakeholder Engagement

The vast majority of stakeholders at the national, regional and local levels had a positive perception towards the TAP and no preference was expressed for a particular route - each village requested that the project be routed through their land, believing that this would bring development in the form of roads, jobs and open up the area to other opportunities. Alternatives 3 and 6 were considered the most technically feasible and faced similar challenges in view of safety, socioeconomic and cultural heritage impacts. However, Alternative 6 faced less challenges in the area of environmental impacts, interferences with official planning zones and lower costs. TAP AG therefore decided to use alternative 6 as base case for its further planning and approval process in Albania. Picture: Consultation with Village authorities and local residents in Hotova Region Source: ERM (2011)

7.2.4 Phase 3: Scoping

Phase 3 commenced in late 2010 following the identification of the preferred route with the aim of defining the required scope of the ESIA. Scoping disclosure engagement was carried out in April 2011 with the participation of government and NGO representatives and local authorities including regional representatives, heads of commune/municipality and heads of village. Meetings were also held in Tirana with national government representatives and NGOs.

In total, 11 meetings were held with 37 representatives from national level authorities based in Tirana including Ministries, governmental agencies and regulators. In addition, a meeting was held with NGOs and other interested parties comprising of 12 organisations from a variety of sectors.

Additionally regional, commune and village level government stakeholders were invited to participate in meetings organised by TAP AG in Korca, Corovoda, Berat and Fier. These included regional representatives from 7 communes and 21 settlements along the proposed pipeline route in which there were 66 participants.

During this phase, the main channel of communication with local communities was through the local authorities. Heads of villages were provided with materials to support them to inform their communities of the scoping process and provide channels for communication back to the Project. They were officially asked to put the posters and leaflets in an accessible place in each village or town (i.e. communal premises, school building) and make the scoping report available. In addition a daily notice was broadcasted in national newspapers and local TV stations to make sure all community members and other interested parties locally were informed about the Project and the ESIA Scoping process as well as the mechanism to provide comments.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 9 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Overall, stakeholders were highly accepting of the Project with the view that it will bring economic growth and development to the country. Additionally a number of representatives from government departments offered their support and expertise in evaluating impacts of the TAP Project and were keen to participate in field work. However a number of issues were raised as summarised in Table 7.2-1 below.

Many of these themes continued into the main ESIA phase engagement as presented in Section 7.4 (Outcomes of ESIA Engagement) in which consultation was carried out with settlements along the pipeline route.

Table 7.2-1 Phase 3: Outcomes

Issue Raised

Concerns regarding compensation: This was a key concern especially in relation to landowners and farmers. One government official at the Ministry of Agriculture observed that the economic situation of the farmers along the proposed pipeline route is highly vulnerable and suggested appropriate compensation measures should be implemented. Additionally, the representative of the Regional Council in Berat expressed his concern regarding the impact on agriculture and land owners, as 80% of the agricultural land is private. TAP AG stressed all losses will be thoroughly assessed and the compensation defined in a transparent manner through consultation with stakeholders. Concerns regarding natural resources: At the meeting in Korca, the representative of the Ministry of Environment and Water Administration explained that each forestry department will produce reports on the status of forests and forestry in their area which will include an evaluation of potential Project impacts and necessary mitigation measures. Communication regarding project risks: It was highlight during the meetings in Berat and Corovoda that there is a need to disseminate more detailed information highlighting the risks and impacts of the project, such as those relating to the environment and health and safety. Emergency preparedness and response: Emergency plans relating to fires, earthquakes, landslides etc need to be established and capacity to cope needs to be increased. For example, in Berat, it was stressed that landslides are a regular occurrence and that the regional emergency response service is weak. It was mentioned that the service does not have the capacity to respond appropriately to possible Project related emergencies. Options for compressor stations: One participant advised that TAP AG should define the proposed location of the compressor station in Fier as soon as possible in order to secure the required plot and preserve it from other developments. Concerns regarding offshore activities: Stakeholders at the Ministry of Public Works Transport and Telecommunications expressed their concern regarding damage to underwater archaeological findings, sediments, and potential interference with shipping and fisheries during construction and operation. Upgrades and impacts relating to infrastructure: Clarifications relating to road upgrades were requested and a point was raised suggesting the temporary roads should be utilised rather than demolished in order to minimise traffic on existing roads. Additionally, it was stressed that attention should be paid to irrigation and drainage systems. For example, in Fier these areas are not mapped and registered underground channels could exist. Absence of community representatives: During the meeting at Corovoda, it was highlighted that there was an absence of various commune and village representatives who had been invited to the meeting. This was explained with the upcoming elections which were due near the time of consultation. It was explained that TAP AG was committed to continue engagement with stakeholders throughout the lifespan of the project and that during the main ESIA phase TAP AG would be visiting all localities to engage with authorities and communities at large. Source: ERM (2011) Detailed information on the stakeholder engagement process conducted during the scoping phase can be found in the Albania Stakeholder Engagement Plan (TAP-FEED-AL-EIA-REP- 7009).

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 10 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7.3 Main ESIA Engagement Activities

7.3.1 Objectives

The objective of this phase of stakeholder engagement was to complement the scoping engagement that was held in April 2011 in order to ensure that stakeholders had an opportunity to learn about the Project, to ask questions and raise concerns. Engagement was also used to gain information that was of importance in the assessment of impacts and development of mitigation measures (see Section 3 of the ESIA), as well as to further refine the pipeline route (see Section 7.4.2).The views and concerns of stakeholders raised at this juncture were used to further refine the route in the ongoing ESIA process.

As the focus of the scoping engagement had been on authorities and national level NGOs, this phase of engagement focused at the local level.

The Project team also ensured that stakeholders were familiar with the grievance mechanism and provided with information on the next stages of the project.

7.3.2 Stakeholder Groups

Table 7.3-1 presents the stakeholder groups who were identified as relevant for the main ESIA phase for the onshore and offshore elements of the TAP Project in Albania.

A full list of stakeholders consulted and associated meetings held during this phase are provided in Annex 7, Section7.1.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 11 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Table 7.3-1 Stakeholder Groups

Stakeholder Group Connection to the Project

Affected Parties Settlements / local communities, including village and May experience impacts (positive or negative) as a result Commune heads within the 2 km corridor – 76 in total of the Project activities. Vulnerable groups within the 2 km corridor: • Women May have expectations regarding development and benefits in their local area. • Elderly

• Children A source of information on the local community status and • Farmers / land owners / fruit and olive growers needs. This information will assist in the identification of potential impacts and mitigation measures. • Ethnic Groups / Roma • Fisherman (Fier) Other interested parties Authorities and institutions: Representatives of the villages/municipalities being consulted. • National level authorities

• Heads of communes/municipalities May have expectations regarding development and • Heads of villages benefits for the country or in the local area. Key Informants: May have expectations regarding development and benefits for the country or in the local area. • Agencies responsible for service provision (health, education, flood management, sewerage and water) • Agencies responsible for economic sectors (urban A source of information regarding the local community that planning / local development, fishing, labour, tourism, will enable the identification of potential impacts and forestry) mitigation measures as well as identify community needs. National and local level NGOs May raise concerns about the project and mobilise opposition to proposed activities/or could facilitate positive contact with local impacted communities.

May provide information regarding the local community and their needs that will assist in the identification of potential impacts and mitigation measures. Source: ERM (2011)

7.3.3 Engagement Activities

7.3.3.1 Overview of Engagement Stages

The main ESIA phase of engagement was carried out in 5 stages:

• Stage 1 – The first stage involved engaging with stakeholders along the pipeline route (Alternative 6) that was selected as a result of the route selection process and evaluated in the scoping report. This stage of consultation was completed in June 2011;

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 12 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

• Stage 2 – Subsequent to stakeholder concerns / issues with certain aspects of the proposed Alternative 6 route raised during the Stage 1 engagement, a re-routing process was required. The re-routing produced a new proposed pipeline route, known as Alternative 6A, starting from the Greek-Albania boarder in the village of Trestenik (Bilisht municipality, Devoll district) to Ujëbarde (Mollaj commune, Korca district). Engagement for this route took place in September 2011. Section 2.6 of the ESIA (Project Alternatives) provides further detail regarding the re-routing process and subsequent micro-routing that resulted from the Stage 2 consultations;

• Stage 3 – The majority of engagement with national level government authorities and NGO’s was conducted during the ESIA scoping phase, which is described in detail in Annex D of the Albania Stakeholder Engagement Plan (TAP-FEED-AL-EIA-REP-7009). However; additional meetings were held with traffic authorities during February 2012 to discuss the proposed assessment of Project traffic interaction on local road networks along the pipeline route. Meetings were also held with representatives of the Ministry of Environment and two environmental NGOs to present TAP AG’s approach addressing the potential interaction of the Project with Protected Areas along the route. Additionally, TAP AG also met with the Head of Albanian Archaeological Services, to discuss future collaboration and present TAP AG’s cultural heritage field survey plans. A list of these meetings can be found in Annex 7, Section 7.1;

• Stage 4 – As a result of the proposed re-routing to avoid the construction of the Mali Ostrovice tunnel (see Section 2.6 of the ESIA (Project Alternatives)), TAP AG went back to the area to assess a new route, known as Alternative E (Potom Route), and its related new access roads (AR7 and AR8). During the field survey that took place in July 2012, local authorities in Potom Commune were consulted about the new route; and

• Stage 5 – The proposed new location to the south of Durres of the main pipeyard (Synej commune, Tirana region), the CS02 and CS03 grid connections and a sample of 6 new access roads located along the pipeline corridor (AR1,2,3,4,5,and AR8), including the new road in Durres Municipality (AR1) were also surveyed in July 2012. In September 2012, TAP AG went back to Durres Municipality, Rrashbull and Synej communes and engaged with the concerned local authorities to better understand their concerns and expectations. Additionally, TAP AG met with the Durres Port Authority to discuss the use of the port as the main entry point for project supplies. Section 2.6 of the ESIA (Project Alternatives) provides further details about the proposed changes.

Details regarding Stages 3 to 5 are provided in Box 7.3-1 and Box 7-6 , The remainder of this Section focuses on the engagement carried out with local communities and other local stakeholders during Stages 1 and 2.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 13 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Box 7.3-1 Meetings with National Level Stakeholders (Stage 3 of Engagement)

In February 2012, TAP AG held 7 meetings with 16 participants to discuss the Protected Areas appropriate assessment and traffic assessment. Participants included representatives from the following organisations: • Institute of Transport; • Directorate of Road Transport Services; • Directorate of Transport Planning and Policies, MPTT; • Ministry of Environment; • 2 environmental NGOs - EDEN and INCA. The outcomes of the meetings were as follows: Appropriate assessment: Discussions focused on the approach proposed for addressing the potential interaction of the TAP Project with areas of interest along its route (currently protected areas, proposed Emerald Sites, and other areas proposed for protection). TAP AG provided information regarding the extensive route refinement process to avoid sensitive and protected areas such as Hotova National Park and the Vjosa River Valley. They proposed to follow the same system in Albania that is currently applied in the European Union, known as Appropriate Assessment. Traffic assessment: TAP AG presented and discussed the approach for gathering traffic data from the local road networks along the pipeline route and to exchange existing traffic data relevant to the Project study area.

Box 7.3-2 Meetings with Local Level Authorities in Potom Commune (Stage 4 of Engagement)

In July 2012, TAP held 2 meetings with the local authorities concerned with the Potom Route, namely the Head of Potom Commune/settlement and the heads of Staravek, Helmesi and Backa (Old and New) settlements. During the meeting TAP AG presented the new route alternative and explained the changes to the access road program in the area. The outcomes of the meetings were as follows:

Valuation on the Potom Route: All heads of settlements consulted expressed a more favourable valuation on the Potom Route and the new access road program.

Community needs and priorities: The needs in the Potom area are great in terms of lack of infrastructure and services. In this regard, local authorities presented TAP AG with an account of the needs in the area: road upgrades (all settlements), irrigation systems (Backa and Helmesi), access to water (all settlements) and improved access services (health, emergency services, electricity and waste).

Road improvement program: The authorities in Backa suggested a further road improvement to ensure connection with Shtylle settlement. This would require a road upgrade from Neck of Marta to Shtylle (Korce) and the construction of a new road to complete the connection (5 km in length to connect Old Backa to Neck of Marta). A letter informing NGOs about the potential new route was sent to all the NGOs well in advance of the field survey

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 14 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Box 7.3-3 Meetings with Local Level Authorities in Durres and Tirana Regions (Stage 5 of Engagement)

In September 2012, TAP held 3 meetings with local authorities in Durres Municipality and Rrashbull commune (Durres region) and Synej commune (Tirana Region) to present the project and discuss the impacts on their territory from the establishment of an access roads (AR1) and the main pipe yard. Additionally, TAP also met with the Durres Port authority. The outcomes of the meetings were as follows:

Durres Municipality: It was confirmed that the municipal development plan under preparation is totally compatible with the use of access road AR1, a national road under the administration of the General Road Directorate, for project activities. In the event that access road AR1 would require any upgrades or improvements, these would require the favourable opinion of the concerned LGUs.

Rrashbull Commune: The head of the commune confirmed that access road AR1 is located within the jurisdiction of Durres Municipality. However, land within the corridor along the road belongs to Rrashbull Commune. Rrashbull authorities also confirmed that the use of the road for project purposes does not interfere with the activities to be described in the communal development plan due for submission to national government authorities in November 2012. Rrashbull head requested TAP AG not to allow trucks to transit the area during touristic season (June to August) and during peak traffic hours (from 8 am to 8 pm).

Synej Commune: Synej head confirmed that the communal development plan under preparation should be delivered to national government authorities in November 2012 and that no incompatibilities with the establishment of the main pipe yard were raised. The deputy head of the commune and the head of planning department stressed that the area is rapidly developing both for residential and for industrial purposes. The area to be occupied by the pipe yard has a complex ownership structure and it is owned by at least 60 individual landowners.

Port of Durres Authority: TAP AG stressed the need to establish fruitful cooperation with the Port of Durres as it is going to be the main entry point for all goods and materials. The port authority has already started improvements to access road AR1 as part of the overall port development program. The port authorities stressed its willingness to cooperate with TAP AG in support of the Project.

7.3.3.2 Stage 1 and 2 Engagement Activities and Methodologies

During Stages 1 and 2, various methods of engagement were conducted to ensure that information regarding the Project was disseminated to all stakeholders, including vulnerable groups. These were as follows:

• Settlement meetings within the 2 km corridor to provide information about the project, to discuss impacts and mitigation measures to answer questions and understand concerns of those that will be most affected by the Project.; and

• Focus group discussions and key informant interviews primarily to collect baseline data but also to act as a forum for these groups to communicate their opinions and concerns regarding the TAP Project. A household survey that was realised for baseline purposes also provided information related to community development priorities.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 15 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Figure 7.3-1 Pictures of Meetings

Pictures: Top left – key informant interview in Poshnjë (Berat); top right – women’s focus group in Qafë (Potom Commune, Skrapar); bottom left – community meeting in Seman (Topoje Commune, Fier); bottom right - community meeting in Trestenik (Progër Commune, Devoll). Source: ERM (2011)

Meetings were organised through national and regional authorities and heads of villages. Additionally, a media campaign was carried out. This involved working with the Albanian branch of the international advertisement agency DDB to disseminate information through newspaper, television and radio adverts. This is described in Box 7.3-4 below.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 16 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Box 7.3-4 Main ESIA Engagement: Media Campaign

A series of media announcements were placed in national and local press. Once the date, time and location of each consultation meeting was confirmed, a press release was prepared in Albanian and broadcasted as follows: • Publication of media announcement in 7 national newspapers 7 days prior to each of the planned meetings; and • Announcement on local television stations 5 and 2 days before each meeting. Consultation posters were also distributed throughout the settlement 3 days in advance of meetings which were held in the mornings and evenings in order to increase attendance.

Picture: Men looking at a consultation poster in Pendavinj (Pojan Commune, Korca) Source: ERM (2011)

During the main ESIA phase of stakeholder engagement approximately 1462 participants were consulted during 140 consultation events. Table 7.3-2 provides a summary of the meetings held and the number of participants. A full listing is provided in Annex 7, Section 7.1.

Table 7.3-2 Meetings Summary

Meeting Type Approx. Number of Participants

7 National level meetings with government authorities and NGO’s 16 71 Local level meetings across 32 communes and 76 settlements 1,234 • Devoll – 8; Korca – 16; Skrapar – 13; Berat – 22; Fier – 12 38 focus groups 162 • Devoll – 6; Korca – 7; Skrapar – 7; Berat – 10; Fier - 8 24 key informant interviews 50 • Devoll – 4; Korca – 7; Skrapar – 3; Berat – 5; Fier - 5 Total 1,462 Source: ERM (2011)

7.3.4 Format for Consultation Meetings

Consultation meetings involved a presentation of the Project followed by a question and answer session. Focus groups and key informant interviews were guided by a protocol to enable targeted discussions about specific topic areas for baseline data collection. However, as mentioned earlier, these types of meetings also offered an opportunity to provide information regarding the project and use project maps as a trigger for participants to further engage in the ESIA process.

Meetings were held in a variety of locations such as municipality and commune offices, coffee shops, community social areas, general stores and in some cases outside in the middle of the settlement.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 17 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

A description of all the communication materials used for ESIA consultation and their purpose are summarised in Table 7.3-3 below. These tools are presented in the SEP.

Table 7.3-3 Communication Materials

Material Description Purpose

Poster A poster presenting project details and the ESIA To provide a brief overview of the process. Information on the time, date and location for project and inform residents of the meetings to be held in the settlement. project meeting. Presentation Presentation of the ESIA process, project description, Consult on impacts and disclosure project progress to date, future project plans, of mitigation measures. timeframes, expected impacts and mitigation measures Leaflet Two page leaflet in Albanian summarising the project, Allow stakeholders to take the ESIA process and future project plans. Also information home and have TAP AG provides contact details for TAP AG. contact details for later comments or questions. Television and Radio A short television and radio advertisement on 5 local To ensure that stakeholders are Ads television/radio channels over a 2 day period informing aware in advance of meetings. consultants of the date, time and location of consultation meetings. Source: ERM (2011)

7.4 Outcomes of Main ESIA Engagement Phase

7.4.1 Overview

Generally there was a positive perception towards the TAP Project regarding benefits to the country, such as employment and taxes aiding economic development. Moreover, local communities engaged during Stages 1 and 2 were pleased to see TAP AG engage at a settlement level rather than relying on details to be communicated via the authorities.

Levels of interactions at the settlement level meetings were high and important concerns related to the routing of the pipeline were raised. These are presented in Section 7.4.2 along with how the Project is consequently undertaking major and minor re-routings.

Away from the route, many other issues were raised which related to the Project and negative impacts or benefits that may result from engagement activities. These issues are presented in Section 7.4.3.

7.4.2 Issues Relating to Routing

During the first stage of engagement held in June 2011, a number of issues were raised in the Dardhe area of Drenovë, in the Korca region related to the forest and tourist activities which would potentially be impacted by the project. Further details on these issues are provided in Box 7.4-1. These engagement results supported a decision by the Project to re-route the pipeline in this area. See Section 2.6 of the ESIA (route alternatives) for further information on the re- routing.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 18 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Box 7.4-1 Dardhe Area Stakeholder Feedback

Settlement Consultation and Tourism Focus Group with the Local Community In the spring/summer time, Dardhe receives about 50,000 tourists and activities consist of hiking, rock / mountain climbing, rafting visiting of historical sites (there are approximately 24 churches in Dardhe). During the winter, about 5,000 visit Dardhe for skiing and hunting.

The local community have been encouraged to upgrade their homes for the home stay tours which are one of the main income generating activities in the area. On average they can receive an additional 200 Euros per month additional salary on top of their normal income. Other income generating activities include managing and working in hotels / restaurants (e.g. chefs, waiters etc.) and tour guides.

Interview with the Commune Tourism Engineer Drenovë: Stated that Dardhe is a protected area and that there are 2 key plans for the Dardhe area:

1. Encourage more home stay tours.

2. A map is in the process of being developed by a

company called SNV to promote tourist hotspots.

Interview with Head of Forestry Police and Head of Forestry Management, Korca Region: Areas of the forest used by local communities range from 1000-2000 ha per commune. In Dardhe 3000 ha of forest is protected and managed by the regional forestry authority. The Project should do its best to avoid the forest and should have a plan to manage forest degradation. When shown the Korca loop, authorities stated that there were no restricted areas apart from the Drenovë National Park. Pictures: Top left – settlement meeting and tourism focus group in Dardhe. Bottom right– picture of tourists from the US in the 1920’s who used to come to Dardhe to go skiing. Source: ERM (2011)

In addition, many minor re-routes were undertaken as a result of the identification of environmental, socioeconomic and cultural heritage sensitivities, some of which were informed by stakeholder feedback. As a result of this, 5 other settlements have been identified within the 2 km corridor. Due to the timing of this re-routing process, it has not been possible to include these settlements in engagement activities to date. However, they will be included in all future engagement activities (refer to Section 7.7).

The re-route process is reported in Section 2 of the ESIA.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 19 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7.4.3 Issues Related to Potential Project Impacts and Benefits

A total of 359 issues were raised relating to potential Project impacts and benefits at meetings held during this phase of stakeholder engagement. It is noted that these issues do not include those raised along the area of Miras route as these are no longer applicable to the TAP Project. These have been broadly categorised into the following areas. Within Annex 7, Section 7.2 these issues are further described summarising the comments and questions raised.

• The TAP Project: A diverse range of questions were raised to gain further clarity on aspects of the Project particularly around the routing and location of block valve stations and worker camps. The standards that the Project would apply were also a common area of questioning;

• Loss of livelihoods and compensation: Impacts to land based livelihoods and the compensation that those affected might receive were a key area of concern. Specific issues, such as how subsidies provided by the European Union would be compensated for and reduced land values were raised. A number of stakeholders shared their views and expressed previous poor experiences related to land compensation;

• Other impacts and their management: Questions were raised with regard to how a range of impacts would be managed. Examples include: noise and disturbance, potential contamination of water resources; disruption to access routes; interaction with local development areas; cultural heritage and impacts to forestry;

• Project benefits: Many stakeholders asked questions with regard to benefits that they might receive from the Project. Sometimes, these questions were articulated as community needs, with the hope that the Project may be able to provide support. Key areas of benefit raised were: training and employment opportunities; road improvements; improvement to community infrastructure such as irrigation and sewerage; and improvement to education and health facilities;

• Purchase of gas: The potential that the Project would improve access to gas was raised in many meetings. Some consultees were also interested in the source of the gas;

• Health & safety: There was some concern with regard to health or safety implications of the gas pipeline and associated facilities;

• Stakeholder information and information disclosure: Stakeholders were very keen to remain informed about the Project and be able to provide further views as the Project plans develop. They stated a preference for direct consultation rather than consultation through authorities; and

• Government role: Concern was expressed with regard to the capacity of the government to regulate the Project effectively to ensure that standards are upheld. Stakeholders were also interested in how revenues levied from the Project would be shared at the local level.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 20 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

As shown in Figure 7.4-1, livelihoods and compensation was raised most often (25%) followed by potential benefits that may result from the Project (21%). The frequency of these issues raised is further broken down in Table 7.4-1 which presents the types of issues raised per district.

Figure 7.4-1 Issues Raised

Source: ERM (2011)

Table 7.4-1 Issues Raised Per Issue and District (Actual Number and (%))

No of Issues Raised Total Meetings Loss of Potential TAP Health Purchase Impacts & Stakeholder Government Livelihoods & Benefits Project and of Gas their Engagement Role Land Safety Management compensation Devoll 18 21 5 9 4 5 4 0 0 48 (44%) (10%) (19%) (8%) (10%) (8%) (0%) (0%) Korca 30 13 8 5 5 8 8 2 1 50 26% 16% 10% 10% 16% 16% 4% 2% Skrapar 23 13 27 10 12 5 6 3 0 76 17% 36% 13% 16% 7% 8% 4% 0% Berat 37 37 24 20 26 10 8 9 1 135 27% 18% 15% 19% 7% 6% 7% 1% Fier 25 8 11 11 6 4 5 3 2 50 16% 22% 22% 12% 8% 10% 6% 4% Total 92 75 55 53 32 31 17 4 (26%) (21%) (15%) (15%) (9%) (9%) (5%) (6%) 359 Source: ERM (2011)

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 21 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

The types of issues raised are reflective of the socio-economic conditions of the settlements along the proposed route as described in Section 6.7 (Onshore Socioeconomic Environment). The main issues raised per district and within particular communes are summarised in Figure 7.4-2 to Figure 7.4-6. In summary:

• Loss of livelihoods and land compensation was of particular concern in the districts of Devoll (44% of issues rose in the district), Berat (27%) and Korca (26%). This is related to the high level of profitable agricultural productivity in these districts, especially cultivation of fruit and olive trees. Communities are consequently concerned about restrictions to land use and levels of compensation that they may receive;

• In comparison, the main concern in Skrapar was potential benefits (36%) with a focus on road improvement. The area is situated in mountainous terrain, many of the villages are isolated and there is a lower level of service provision than in other districts. For example, schools in Polenë and Qafë are in very poor condition and there is very limited access to healthcare because of the road conditions;

• Fier is a more industrialised and urban region. Most issues raised related to project benefits, especially employment and details regarding the TAP Project (each accounting for 22% of issues raised);

• Health and safety was also commonly raised as a concern, particularly in Berat (19%) and Skrapar (16%). Key issues raised regarding this category were related to gas explosions and leaks. Additionally communities were concerned about how the pipeline would be managed and the existence of procedures in case of an emergency;

• The possibility of access to gas was also of high interest as it would improve the quality of life by providing a cheaper source of energy for heating and cooking and would reduce pressure on forests which are already being degraded in some areas. While the number of times access to gas was raised was relatively less than for other issues (e.g., Korca 16%; Devoll 10%), it is noted that this issue is more specific than for other categories of issues that may have been discussed and thereby unlikely to be raised more than once during a single consultation meeting; and

• Other points of discussion included: the stakeholder engagement process; the capacity of the Government to ensure that national regulations were complied with; and whether local communities would benefit from tax generated from the Project.

A full list of the issues have been recorded in the TAP Stakeholder Consultation Database, in the consultation log for the purpose of being uploaded to the TAP stakeholder engagement database. The log is included in the TAP Albania Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). How the Project has responded to issues raised by stakeholders is detailed in the separate impact assessment sections in Section 8.

AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 22 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Figure 7.4-2 Stakeholder Issues Map — Devoll District

Key issues: Progër Commune

Project opposition: Time and financial investment (up to 50k Euros) dedicated to growing trees (10-15 years), planting restrictions in the 8 metre strip and health and safety concerns regarding explosions.

High compensation: Related to significant investment and planting restrictions.

Land restoration and impacts to soil quality: Special soil alluvial compound which makes the area highly productive distinguishing the area from other districts. Concern for restoring the land.

Re-routing proposal: TAP to use the 50 metre strip either side of the river where there are no trees because of potential soil erosion, flooding etc. Key Issues: Bilisht Municipality / Commune Subsidies: Concern how the 70-80% of farmers in the commune who plant fruit trees, on the basis of Ministry of Agriculture, subsides will be Project opposition: Time and investment in tree plantations and compensated. planting restrictions.

High compensation: Related to significant investment and planting restrictions.

Powerlessness and distrust: In Kuç a road was built using gravel from the river which caused widening thus soil erosion and loss of land, No compensation was provided and they feel powerless—they do not trust TAP or the Government.

Project benefits: Interest in investments such as roads, employ- ment and access to gas to relieve forest degradation, especially near the Greek border.

Subsidies: Concern how TAP will manage compensation of Ministry of Agriculture subsides.

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Devoll District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-2 22/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 23 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Issues Raised Stakeholder Voices

The Project will have to take into consideration the investments that that families have made as the cost of compensation will be very high. - Focus group meeting with farmers in Vranisht (Progër commune)

The main problem in the commune is the fruit trees in the 40 metre corridor.— 80% of com- munities will be directly affected by the Project. - Key informant interview in Progër Commune - Urban Planning for Devoll.

How will TAP restore the land so that the quality of the soil is not affected? - Community meeting in Progër (Progër Commune)

What happens if we do not agree with the pipeline because of health and safety as well as it going through the land? - Community meeting in Cangonj (Progër commune)

How will TAP make sure that the pipeline does not explode? - Community meeting in Cangonj (Progër commune)

An apple tree in full production takes 40 years to grow – how is TAP going to compensate for this? - Community meeting in Trestenik (Bilisht Municipality)

The Ministry of Agriculture encourage the planting of trees. If the pipeline passes through my land how is TAP going to manage this? - Community meeting in Trestenik (Bilisht Municipali- ty)

50 metre strip for proposed re-routing Apple trees in Devoll What happens if I have plans to construct on the pipeline? You are ruining my plans. — Community meeting in Vishocice (Bilisht Municipality)

Will people be able to access gas? Currently the community uses the forest close to the Greek boarder as the rest of the forest in the area is too degraded. – Community meeting in Bilisht (Bilisht municipality)

Afalfa—animal feed Trestenik community meeting

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map—Devoll District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-2 23/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 24 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Figure 7.4-3 Stakeholder Issues Map - Korca Key Issues: Drenovë

Access to gas: Hopes that Albania will be able to purchase gas.

Key Issues: Pojan & Qënder Land compensation & land aquisition: Compensation process and timing, land aquired by TAP and concsderation for land which Water resources and potential re-routing: Concerns regarding impacts by farmers obtained land under law 7501. to aquifers, especially in the area of Plase, and plans to build water pipelines to feed into other villages in the commune. It was suggested that Detailed map: Frustration in Urëbardhe regarding access to the pipeline move alongside the river. detailed maps and concern for who exatly will be affected.

Animal feed: 40% of land is covered in Alfalfa which grows 2 meters Potential benefits: Employment opportunities, taxes. underground used for animal feed.

Impacts to soil & land compensation: Concern for investments made on apple plantations, questions regarding the compensation process, planting restrictions and sceptism that compensation will be provided. Also concern regarding the impact to soil.

Access to gas: Questions regarding access to gas to relieve the pressure on forest resources.

Potential benefits: Improvements to the road in Terrovë and benefits to the community.

Key Issues: Mollaj

Tourism & local developments: Alignment with Key Issues: Vithkuq the local tourism strategy in terms of upgrading infrastructure and making these available to the Potential benefits: Opportunity for a road to be built local population. connecting Korca and Çorovode, improved infrastructure, especially schools and health centres, and employment Land compensation: Timing and process for opportunities. providing compensation, amount compensated, concern for documents that have not been updated. Health & safety: Fear of gas leaks and explosions caused by the pipeline, request for information regarding Health & safety: Damage to roads causing hazards the distance between the pipeline and the population. and safety of the pipeline.

Access to gas: Possibility for the community to access Access to gas: Government negotiations with gas gas. suppliers.

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Korca District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-3 24/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 25 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Issues Raised Stakeholder Voices

The proposed pipeline route (as mapped) is going to pass right through the current and planned development area. This will cause problems for the commune and the project. It is suggested that the pipeline move alongside the river as this area will not be devel- oped any further. - Key informant interview with the Commune Office for Urban Plan- ning and Development in Qendër

Why isn't the government already negotiating for the gas so they build pipelines to each village now? – Community meeting in Pulahë (Mollaj commune)

What will happen if the government does not comply with national regulations regarding the management of this Project? – Drenovë commune (Korca)

The sewage system is poorly maintained. The community has raised their concerns to the commune but nothing is being done to improve the conditions. - Focus group meet- ing with the elderly in Ujëbardhë (Drenovë commune)

What will happen in the future if I want to plant olive trees on my land over the pipeline - will TAP compensate me then? – Community meeting in Shamoll (Qendër commune)

People are frustrated because they have asked for a detailed map a number of times to TAP but have not received one. – Community meeting in Ujëbardhë (Drenovë com- mune)

Development plans Qender commune Shamoll I am worried that I will not be compensated for the land. – Community meeting in Ter- rovë (Pojan commune)

The information that has been provided is good for a first step and they hope to be pro- vided with more detailed information in the future. - Focus group meeting with the elder- ly in Shamoll (Qendër commune)

There is a need to align the local tourism strategy with the TAP project in terms of up- grading infrastructure and making these available to local population. – Meeting with sub-head of Mollaj commune

Elderly focus group in Ujebardhe Community meeting in Terrovë

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Korca District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-3 25/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 26 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Figure 7.4-4 Stakeholder Issues Map—Skrapar District

Key Issues: Qënder

Potential benefits: In Çerenishite, and Polenë interested in benefits such as road upgrades and water supplies. Employment was also raised. Schools are also in poor condition in Polenë and there is a need for Key Issues: Çorovoda teaching aids.

Access to gas: Installation of gas pipes in houses for Land compensation and legacy issues: Land aquired for the central heating and hot water. Would reduce forest degra- development of an electricty station has not been compensated. dation and improve the quality of life.

Road upgrade: From Çorovode to Backë to bring more people into the area.

Health & safety: Concern regarding health and safety related to Backë tunnel construction.

Detailed map: To specifically identify the impacts of the Key Issues: Vëndrëshe, Bogove, Poliçan Project on the municipality.

Health & Safety: Fear of explosions and security concerns. Specific request in Ustië and Valë regarding construction of a bridge for evacuation due to poor road conditions.

Potential benefits: Employment and tax. Concern that there will be conflict if benefits are not evenly assigned.

Loss of livelihoods & land compensation: Disruption to daily activities causing loss of livelihoods, sensitivity regard- Key Issues: Potom* ing land take due to history of land allocation. Potential benefits: In Backë it was mentioned that their Forestry & access to gas: Questions raised concerning priorities were 1. road 2. employment 3. health clinics. In access to gas for settlements along the route. Suggestion Qafë, priorities were infrastructure, access healthcare and that the forest should be protected. schools. Mentioned that the roads in Backë and villages of Shtylla and Vithkuq in Korca should be upgraded/ constructed. People stated that they will be disappointed if TAP do not construct this road. They said that this was promised by TAP in three earlier meetings in Çorovode. Settlements also asked about employment opportunities.

Land compensation: Asked about the process of land compensation and eligibility.

* Potom, Starvecke,-Sulejmane, Helmesi communities have not been consulted about the project. These settle- ments have been considered after rerouting in the area.

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map—Skrapar District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-4 26/29

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 27 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Issues Raised Stakeholder Voices

The communes surrounding the municipality should invest in the installation of gas pipes in houses to be used for central heating and hot water. Gas to communities will reduce forest use and degradation. It will also improve the quality of life by making living condi- tions more comfortable during the winter. – Meeting with sub-head of Çorovoda munici- pality

Residents travel to the market on a daily basis to sell dairy products. This is the primary source of income for the households. Loss of this income will significantly impact the household. – Community meeting in Ustië and Valë (Vendreshe commune)

The land is unstable and has collapsed in an area where a water pipeline was construct- ed, near the village/bridge. The residents fear that the land will subside and the gas pipe- line will break and leak gas – Community meeting in Zgërbonjë (Vërtop commune)

The biggest concern in the community is related to safety and security and the fact that often the villages are isolated due to the lack of a bridge. If there is an emergency related to the pipeline they fear that they will not be able to get away quickly. – Focus group with farmers in Valë (Bogove commune, Skrapar)

Development of a road would provide more opportunities for women in terms of selling produce and visiting family. - Focus group meeting with women in Backë (Potom com- mune)

Issues regarding the development of electricity transmission lines constructed by an Alba- nian company to support the concession of the HEC project. The local community were Road leading to Backë Access to gas—Backë not compensated for land acquired for this project. They are still angry and do not trust TAP to provide compensation. – Community meeting in Polenë (Qendër commune)

People fear that decisions will be made without their consent i.e. affected villages will not be properly consulted. – Therpal (Vëndreshë commune)

This is of key priority as the community do not have adequate access to educational facili- ties and healthcare. The roads are also bad quality and for the community, it is important that the road is upgraded. - “the road is life” – for transport, hospitals and transporting children to school. – Community meeting in Qafë (Potom commune)

Community meeting in a school in Polenë Lady from farmer focus group in Munushtir

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Skrapar District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-4 27/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 28 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Key Issues: Cukalat & Otllak Figure 7.4-5 Stakeholder Issues Map — Berat District Emergency response: Capacity and confidence to cope in an emergency Key Issues: Ura Vajgurore due geographical exclusion and poor access roads in Cukalat. Concerns regarding the management of H&S, community health and explosions in Potential benefits: Questions regarding investment in roads in particular in Otllak. Konisbaltë/Vokopolë, employment opportunities and access to gas to Key Issues: Kutalli & Poshnjë Project communication: Lack of clarity regarding project communication improve the quality of life. channels and getting their voices heard due to location. Land loss & compensation: Clarification regarding the compensation process, including government involvement. Also asked about land aquired by TAP and Loss of land & land compensation: Concern regarding loss of farm land a the process of providing compensation. Land compensation: Clarification regarding the compensation process.in restrictions to land access affecting livelihoods. Otllak specifically, request for TAP to help to obtain documents. There were

Project implementation: Timing for construction and clarification also a number of questions concerning the compensation process and impli- Disruption to greenhouses: Concern whether greenhouses would be main- cations of not accepting compensation. tained during construction and if they would be allowed in the 10m strip. regarding the project footprint.

Potential benefits: Questions regarding training and employment opportunities, Key Issues: Berat taxes gained from the Project, access to gas and community investments by TAP. Local development: Consideration for local devel- Health & Safety: Concerns regarding H&S management and the safety of children opment plans and concern regarding village and town in Kutalli. expansion.

Project implementation & definition: Timing for construction and locations of Stakeholder engagement: General distrust the camps and other facilities process and feeling that local authorities are not able to influence project decisions. Comment that levels of education across the area may limit understanding of the Project. Key Issues: Velabishit & Roshnik Health & Safety: Assurance for safety and security Local developments and potential benefits: Poor access road in Malinat (17km) of the pipeline, concern regarding interference with and clarifications on general community benefits. Concern that the planned and the pipeline (fencing proposed). much needed water pipeline from Uznove to Duhanas and Roshnik would be im- pacted.

Health & safety: Concerns regarding explosions . Air emissions and pollution are of key concern due to legacy issues regarding a decommissioned battery factory. Key Issues: Vërtop & Poliçian

Land compensation: Compensation process including government involvement Access to gas: Questions regarding if settlements and compensation for crops due to pipeline maintenance. Question regarding would be able to access gas. project opposition in Duhanas. Compensation for loss of communal land, negotia- tion process, and consistency of standards across the three countries was also Loss of livelihoods & compensation: In Vërtop, raised in Roshnik. question regarding planting seasonal crops over the pipeline and suggestion by the community that TAP could provide them with a maintenance schedule. Key Issues: Tërpan

Health & safety: Concern for impact of wild fires caused by herders for cooking and warmth and fear of explosions caused by the pipeline.

Legacy issues and potential benefits: Related to American oil company who falsely promised benefits. Keen to understand benefits of the TAP Project.

Land ownership and compensation: Lack of land ownership documents and requirements for providing compensation due to low prices provided by the govern- ment. Compensation for use of land by TAP e.g. rent to access the pipeline or project facilities.

CLIENT: 03 11/12/12 Issued for Information NE VC VC

TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Berat District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE

Albania ESIA Report No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-5 28/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 29 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Issues Raised Stakeholder Voices

TAP must operate in full compliance with Albanian legislation and ensure that all sub-contractors do the same. There are many qualified and experienced people in the region that should be hired who should not only be used for manual labour. Unemployment levels are high, there are plenty of people registered on the database. - Key informant interview regarding labour (Berat)

Land is being used to its full capacity; there is no space for expansion of land under cultivation and therefore production. There is a focus on improving the technology used as a means of increasing the levels of production. Land take would further limit the capacity of the farmers to increase production and incomes. - Focus group meeting with fruit and olive growers in Vela- bisht commune.

There have been numerous companies exploring for gas (one American and one Italian oil com- pany). They also promise benefits but nothing ever arises. These companies never come back. - Community meeting in Tërpan commune

TAP should consult the relevant engineers/ contractor to identify the route of the planned water pipeline and ensure that their design does not limit or hinder the construction of the planned wa- ter pipeline – Community meeting in Dunhas (Velabisht commune)

Central government and the local municipalities are two different authorities and it seems that developers request comment and input from the local municipality but that the concerns do not influence the decision of government to issue the permit. It seems that the developers already have the permit/ permission to proceed. – Community meeting in Uznovë (Berat municipality)

Old battery factory in Dunhas Greenhouses in Bregas There are often wild fires in the area caused by the herders who light small fires for cooking and warmth. These regularly get out of control. Will this affect the pipeline and potential cause safety risks. - Community meeting in Tërpan commune

Concern that the gas pipeline would cause air pollution. The community has already been im- pacted negatively by air emissions from the battery factory (now decommissioned). They say that the soil is still polluted from the emissions and continues to impact their health. – Community meeting in Dunhas (Velabisht commune)

Key informant interview with doctors Meeting in Uznovë

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Berat District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-5 29/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 30 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Key Issues: Libofshë Key Issues: Mbrostar Figure 7.4-6 Stakeholder Issues Map — Fier District Land compensation: Clarifications regarding compensation for investments Potential benefits: Roma community in the commune in land and what TAP would do if the community opposed the Project. and expressed need for employment and improved ac- cess to public services. Other settlements also asked Access to gas: Questions regarding if Albania will be able to use the gas about employment opportunities and earning potential. In transmitted through the pipeline. Petovë, expressed scepticism regarding employment and concern that all the tax incurred from the Project will not Exact route & effect on the environment: Request for information be fed down to the community. regarding where the pipeline will pass and if there will be any impacts on the environment during construction. Also requested information on locations of Land ownership, compensation & legacy issues: block valve and compressor stations. Request for TAP to help obtain land ownership docu- ments. Petovë, distrust in compensation process due to Key Issues: Topoje Potential benefits: Request for information regarding employment past experience and expressed the need to know in ad- opportunities. vance of construction if their land is going to be affected Potential benefits: Clarifications regarding who will be due to seasonal investment between October and June. employed by the Project and what type of work opportu- Clarifications regarding the land compensation process. nities will be provided.

Seman river: Changes its course every couple of years. Suggest TAP should be aware of this when building the Key Issues: Kurjan & Bubullimë (Lushnhje Region) pipeline. Potential benefits: In Kurjan, investment regarding Detailed map: Expressed the need for a detailed map to investment for upgrading the road. know the exact route of the pipeline. Impact on the environment: Concern regarding disturb- Health & safety: In Seman and Kavailli it was advised ance and air emissions such as dust during construction. that TAP should avoid working at night close to houses. Access to gas: Request for access to gas to relieve the pressure on forests and suggestion to put procedures in place to preserve the environment.

Key Issues: Qendër Key Issues: Strum

Health & safety: Concern regarding responsibility of Legacy issues & land compensation: Distrust in the health and safety management. compensation process due past experience with MNC/Al Petrol. Request for a clear understanding of compensa- Potential benefits: Request for information regarding tion process, including how compensation will be provided employment opportunities. for unplanned incidents caused by the pipeline.

Land compensation: Questions regarding timing and Safeguarding of roads: Concern that roads will be process of land compensation. damaged by the Project.

Stakeholder engagement and participation: Keen to be involved in the operational phase of the project and request for clarifications regarding the TAP credentials and experience.

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Fier District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-6 30/39

Size:A4 AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009_03 31 of 39 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Issues Raised Stakeholder Voices

Seman Rivers runs to the sea and it changes its course/location every couple of years. TAP should be aware of this when building the pipeline.—Community meeting in Seman and Kavakilli (Topojë commune)

Concerns were expressed that the government is going to obtain all the funds earnt from the pipeline and it will not be fed down to the local community.—Community meeting in Petovë (Mbrostar commune)

The community has a great distrust regarding the TAP project because of MNC. The company names as AI Petrol previously invested in the area and left the community with many out- standing issues resolved. Main issues related to compensation, rehabilitation of the road, not sharing benefits to the local community.– Comment meeting in Strum (Strum commune)

If the project disrupts the dragnets then this will be a big problem. The drag nets work for three hours going up the coast. If this is disrupted it will cause problems and they wont be able to use the dragnets.—Key informant interview for fishing in Fier.

The community would ne happy for the pipeline to pass through their village and they want em- ployment for the young people. Focus group meeting with Roma community in Mbrostar (Mbrostar commune)

New houses close to the pipeline route in Rërëz Compressor station site option 1 in Fier - green- All new housing will be built along the road so the pipeline shouldn't go along this area. Focus houses in the distance -Kumarak group meeting with local development in Topojë (Fier)

Farmers would like to know in advance of the construction phase of the project if their land is going to be affected as they invest money, time and effort between October and June.— Community meeting in Petovë (Mbrostar Commune)

The community want the pipeline to be constructed as soon as possible. They have been provid- ed with the same information a number of times.—Community meeting in Verri (Mbrostar Com- mune)

Community meeting in Seman Meeting with the Roma community in Mbrostar

CLIENT: 03 Issued for Information NE VC VC TRANS ADRIATIC PIPELINE 11/12/12 REV DATE ISSUE, SCOPE OF REVISION PREP. CHECK APR.

TITLE: PROJECT: Stakeholder Issues Map - Fier District Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP)

Albania ESIA Report SCALE PROJECT DRAWING NO: PAGE No scale 0131979 Figure 7.4-6 31/39

Size:A4 Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 32 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7.4.4 Issues Related to Development Priorities gathered through the Household Survey

In total 553 household surveys were conducted in June and September 2011 in the study area using a sampling strategy as described in Section 5.1.7 of Annex 5 - Baseline and Impact Assessment Criteria (AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1007-at01). As mentioned earlier, the household survey was primarily used to inform the socioeconomic baseline. However, it also allowed for an assessment of community challenges (and therefore development priorities) along the study area.

Figure 7.4-7 presents the results of question 3.5 of the household survey and Table 7.4-2 provides a summary of the top 3 community challenges by district as identified by survey respondents.

Figure 7.4-7 Question 3.5 - Greatest Community Challenges

Source: ERM (2012)

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 33 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Table 7.4-2 Summary of Household Survey results by Region – Top 3 Community Challenges

District Greatest Challenges (% of Respondents) Devoll 1. Poverty alleviation (95%) 2. Employment (88%) 3. Roads / transportation (70%) Korca 1. Employment (90%) 2. Poverty alleviation (80%) 3. Roads / transportation (60%) Skrapar 1. Employment (90%) 2. Roads/transportation & poverty alleviation (70%) 3. Sanitation (toilets) & waste removal (68%) Berat 1. Employment (88%) 2. Roads/transportation (80%) 3. Poverty alleviation (75%) Fier 1. Employment (98%) 2. Roads/transportation (92%) 3. Poverty alleviation (58%) Source: ERM (2012) As shown in Table 7.4-2, the greatest community challenges articulated by survey respondents were employment, poverty alleviation and roads/transportation. Detail regarding these issues is provided in Section 6.7 of the Environmental, Socioeconomic and Cultural Heritage Baseline (AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1008) and briefly outlined below.

Employment: Many consultees asked questions regarding employment opportunities provided by the TAP Project, such as how many people would be employed and the types of jobs that would be available. Albania has been affected by the economic crisis both directly and indirectly through the country’s reliance on remittances from Greece and Italy. Additionally, agriculture remains the most important sector, accounting for almost 45% of total employment.

Formal unemployment figures are difficult to obtain due to the high level of private agricultural activity and subsistence farming and residents who are not formally employed are mainly involved in subsistence agricultural activities

The unemployment rate is dominated by long-term unemployment, which accounts for 90% of the total unemployment figures (EIU, 2009). Lack of employment opportunities was widely reported to be an issue particularly for the younger generation within the socioeconomic study area, a driving factor behind migration to Greece and Italy.

Poverty Alleviation: The poorest regions in Albania are found in the mountainous area to the north, followed by the Central region, which includes the Districts of Berat and Skrapar. The risk of poverty is higher amongst the self-employed, which in 2001 accounted for 89.9% of the rural (agricultural) population. This issue is heavily linked with employment and the reliance of crop productivity to generate income.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 34 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Roads/transport & other infrastructure: Although the other districts along the Project area are mainly composed of asphalt and gravel roads, fewer than 20% of roads in Albania are currently paved and this still remains an issue along the study corridor with many consultees asking questions regarding the upgrade of roads to increase access to markets to sell produce and to visit family in other parts of the country. Road infrastructure is of particular concern in Skrapar as the majority of settlements are connected via gravel or dirt roads (80%). Sanitation facilities and waste management were also raised as key priorities in Skrapar which reflects the poor socioeconomic conditions of this area in particular.

7.5 Evaluation of Consultation Effectiveness

This main ESIA phase of stakeholder engagement was broadly successful in meeting its objectives. Information was directly disseminated to nearly all settlements within the 2 km pipeline corridor with approximately 1,462 individuals attending the settlement level meetings. Focus group discussions were generally well attended and key informant interviews were well organised with much enthusiasm to participate.

Many issues were raised, some of which have contributed to significant project design changes in terms of re-routing. Stakeholder feedback is an aspect that informs the evaluation of impacts and the development of mitigation measures.

7.5.1 Evaluation Method and Results

Unlike Stage 1 of engagement in June 2011 as described in the limitations below, an evaluation of engagement was carried out at the end of meetings during the Stage 2 of consultation in September 2011. At the beginning of meetings organised during Stage 2, consultees were informed that they would be provided with an evaluation questionnaire to be handed out during the discussion session to maximise completion. The questions were based on whether the meetings were viewed to be;

• Free of manipulation, interference, coercion, and intimidation, and

• Conducted on the basis of timely, relevant, understandable and accessible information in a culturally appropriate format.

In total, 123 out of 228 (54%) participants in Stage 2 meetings, where an evaluation was carried out, completed the questionnaires.

Table 7.5-1 presents the results of the evaluation.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 35 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

Table 7.5-1 Evaluation Results (Actual Number & (%))

Question Yes No Partially

Overall, was the process used to seek your comments during this phase of the 120 3 N/A project (i.e. route selection) adequate? (98%) (2%) Was the information provided to you in advance of and during this meeting 82 32 9 sufficient for you to provide comments? (67%) (26%) (7%) Was the information provided to you prior to and during the meeting presented 119 4 N/A in a manner that is clear and understandable? (97%) (3%) Have you been able to provide your comments either prior to or during the 111 12 N/A meeting? (90%) (10%) Was this meeting organised in a manner which made it easy for you to 116 7 N/A participate and provide comments? (94%) (6%) Have you been in any way intimidated or coerced during this consultation 19 104 N/A process? (15%) (85%) Have you been unduly incentivised to be supportive of the Project? 16 107 N/A (13%) (87%) Source: ERM (2012) The results of the evaluation show that consultees were satisfied with the information provided during the presentation and that it was presented in a clear manner. Moreover, they felt that they were able to ask questions and express their views during the meetings. Generally the meetings held during this stage of the engagement in Korca and Devoll were also held outside work hours which further encouraged participation.

In some cases consultees felt that the information provided was not sufficient. This was however generally related to questions regarding the exact route and the amount of compensation that will be provided to individuals where further information was not yet available to provide. This was of particular concern in areas of high agricultural productivity, namely in areas of apple tree cultivation.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 36 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7.5.2 Limitations

Whilst Stage 1 and 2 engagement was considered to have been generally successful and of great value for the local communities and Project development, there were a number of limitations which are identified as follows.

• Meetings not held: There were a number of issues which hindered engagement in several settlements:

o Despite the media campaign that was implemented prior to engagement, it was not possible to hold meetings in 2 settlements in Skrapar (Poliçan Commune, Corovode Municipality), 1 settlement in Berat (Vodicë in Vërtop Commune) and 4 settlements in Fier (Dermenas, Hoxarë, Hamil and Sulaj in Dermenas Commune and Fushe in Topoje Commune). As a result of the period of political transition due to elections, commune and village heads did not inform the communities of the date and the time of the meetings. Further details concerning the settlements where stakeholder meetings did not take place can be found in Box 7-10.

o Accessibility and health and safety concerns due to poor access and bad weather conditions prevented 1 settlement meeting in Osoje (Qendër Commune).

o Re-routing of the pipeline to avoid sensitivities identified during the ESIA data collection resulted in 5 additional settlements identified within the 2 km corridor. These settlements were consequently not consulted during the main ESIA phase of engagement. However, they will be engaged during ESIA disclosure.

Further detail on the settlements where meetings were not held is provided in Box 7.5-1.

• Working hours: The engagement was carried out during the summer period which corresponds with the peak period of cultivation. During the second stage of consultation in Korca, greater emphasis was placed on holding meetings only in the mornings and evenings which allowed an increased number of participants. However, it was noted that individuals sometimes worked late into the evening preventing any possibility of attending the meeting;

• Representation of women: In most cases the meetings were dominated by men in the community with women either being totally absent or poorly represented. Although representation is improving in some regions, this is the cultural norm in Albania. In response, the ESIA focused on holding women’s focus groups in order to hear the “female voice”. Nevertheless, it is recognised that the focus groups do not adequately allow for broad information dissemination and engagement that was possible to realise through settlement meetings and that only a subset of women were invited to participate in focus groups;

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 37 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

• Representation of ethnic groups, particularly Roma: 1 settlement within the 2 km corridor is known to have a Roma population (Mbroster settlement, Mbroster Commune, Fier). Whilst a community meeting was held in the settlement, it is not believed that any Roma attended the meeting. Within Mbroster, a focus group was therefore organised with the Roma population at which information regarding the Project was presented; and

• Evaluation: During Stage 1 of engagement, the evaluations at settlement meetings proved problematic due to a combination of tight timelines and logistical factors. This was rectified during engagement during Stage 2.

Box 7.5-1 Settlements where No Meetings were Held

Due to re-routings: • Devoll: Mançurisht (Proger Commune) • Korca; Floq (Mollaj Commune) • Berat: Kodras (Roshnik Commune), • Fier: Imesht (Bubullime Commune) and Vajkan (Mbostar Commune), Details of other meetings not held: Polican Commune: The local authorities did not cooperate with the stakeholder engagement team in setting up a settlement meeting. The aimed to compensate for this by distributing leaflets to individuals in public locations including the library, newspaper shop, mini markets, coffee shops, and the local hairdressers. The team also held key informant interviews with the head nurse and a teacher at the high school. Vodicë (Vërtop Commune) Elected officials had not yet been officially appointed and they were not willing to meet the team or coordinate the meeting. The team tried to convene a meeting, but this was unsuccessful. Osoje (Qendër Commune): Due to very heavy rain, the poor road to Osoje became too hazardous to use and consequently the meeting was cancelled. Corovoda Municipality: Although the meeting had been organised, on the day of the meeting the team were told no- one would attend due to elections. A large funeral was also taking place at the time scheduled for the meeting. Dermenas, Hoxarë, Hamil and Sulaj (Dermenas Commune) and Fushe (Topoje Commune): As a result of the period of political transition due to elections, commune and village heads did not inform the communities of the date and the time of the meetings. Despite many attempts, local authorities did not cooperate with the stakeholder engagement team. Source: ERM (2011 and 2012)

In the ESIA disclosure engagement phase particular emphasis will be placed on consulting directly with settlements that were not directly engaged in the main ESIA phase and with the Roma. The Project will also consider alternative means to provide information and gain feedback with individuals who are unable to attend meetings through the media and other channels. In the meantime, further data gathering and engagement on ethnic minorities will be undertaken through the Human Rights Impact Assessment that is being undertaken by TAP AG / ENT. In the meantime, further data gathering and engagement will take place with a range of stakeholder activities concerning more specific issues including worker management rights, vulnerable groups, land and easement.

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 38 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

7.6 Grievance Mechanism

TAP AG has established a grievance mechanism to be aware of and respond to stakeholders ’concerns and to facilitate a resolution for stakeholders’ grievances. The grievance mechanism will address concerns promptly and effectively, using an understandable and transparent process that is culturally appropriate and readily accessible to all segments of the affected parties, at no cost and without retribution.

The mechanism includes an independent, objective appeal mechanism, which will not impede access to judicial or administrative remedies. Through engagement and the media, TAP AG has begun to inform stakeholders about the grievance process.

The process requires the following steps:

• Identification;

• Registration and categorisation;

• Acknowledgement;

• Investigation/response;

• Communication of the response and request for stakeholder’s feedback; and

• Close-out.

In order to ensure that the grievance mechanism is inclusive and culturally appropriate stakeholders have several methods of communication available to them to report a grievance. These are:

• Verbally: Stakeholders can contact the TAP AG country office based in Tirana on the following number +0355 44 308 770. Verbal grievances are directed to a TAP AG representative, who will fill out grievance form with all required details and pass it over to the Stakeholder Manager at head office; and

• In writing: Stakeholders can submit by completing a grievance form which are available at the country office, or more conveniently, they can be submitted by email (complaints@tap- ag.com) or in writing at the following address: Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG – Albania (Branch Office) Torre Drin, Abdi Toptani Street Fax: + 355 42 265 685 Tirana, Albania

Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement

Page 39 of 39 Area Comp. System Disc. Doc.- Ser. Code Code Code Code Type No. Project Title: Trans Adriatic Pipeline – TAP AAL00-ERM-641-Y-TAE-1009 Document Title: ESIA Albania Section 7 - Stakeholder Engagement Rev.: 03

An acknowledgement letter will be sent to the complainant within 7 calendar days of receipt of a verbal or written grievance. An acceptance or rejection letter will then be sent to the complainant within 21 calendar days of the issuance of the acknowledgement letter. Closure of grievances is targeted maximum within 90 calendar days from the date of issuing the acknowledgement letter.

A detailed description of the grievance mechanism is provided in the SEP.

7.7 Next Steps

The next phase of engagement will be ESIA disclosure. This involves dissemination and presentation of the final ESIA report in Albanian to all stakeholders.

Prior to ESIA disclosure, the ESIA report will be submitted to the Government prior to the report being presented to the public. The ESIA disclosure process will enable TAP AG to provide further information on re-routings as a result of their inputs during previous phases of consultation, and greater detail on Project impacts and mitigation measures. It will also provide an opportunity for further questions and answers regarding the Project, enabling continued participation of stakeholders in the TAP Project.

Comments raised by stakeholders will be documented as an addendum to the ESIA along with how the Project has taken these comments into account.

In Phase 6 (Engagement during Project Implementation) TAP AG will continue to undertake stakeholder engagement activities throughout the Project development and implementation, and will monitor and evaluate outreach effectiveness for further improvement of the process if needed. During Project construction, TAP AG will inform about construction activities through community bulletins on the Project website and via press and media announcements and local postings in the settlements. TAP AG will be in close contact to the local municipalities via the Community Liaison Officers (CLOs) who will also follow-up on grievances that may occur. Also during Project operation, TAP AG will keep stakeholders informed on planned activities (e.g. pipeline maintenance or station venting) and will proactively provide information on pipeline safety and emergency response through leaflets, information events and other means of communication.

Trans Adriatic Pipeline AG – Albania (Branch Office) Torre Drin, Rruga Abdi Toptani Tirana, Albania Tel.: + 355 44 306 937 Fax: + 355 42 265 685 [email protected] www.tap-ag.com

Date 01/2013

Copyright Reserved: This document may not be copied, shown to or placed at the disposal of third parties without prior consent of TAP AG. The latest version of the document is registered in the TAP Project's Database.