Public Disclosure Authorized

MURATLI HEPP

Public Disclosure Authorized ARMAHES ELEKTRIK URETIM A.S.

REPORTING FORM FOR LAND ACQUISITION

Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

1

REPORTING FORM FOR LAND ACQUISITION

ARMAHES ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A.Ş.

1. Information About Project

Name & Location of MURATLI HEPP located in Çamoluk district, committed to province. Sub-project Some parts of the lands are in Gölova district committed to province. Project Sponsor ARMAHES ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A.Ş. Project Cost 63,186,991 USD Installed Generation 3 units*11 MW/unit + 1 unit*4,7 MW/unit= Capacity 33 MW + 4,7 MW = 37,7 MW 99,844,071 kwh/year electricity generation.

Key Dates of First quarter of 2009: Developing scaled plans demonstrating the owners, Implementation borders, surface area and type of immovable properties on land. EMRA gave authorization to sub borrower in order to determine the owners from title deeds. The certificates of competency was given to relevant institutions such as municipality, title deed and land registration offices, administrative district office, forest district office.

Second quarter of 2009: According to the determined cadastral plans, EMRA issued the Public Benefit Document and took the expropriation decision.

Third quarter of 2009: Court dates were on August 2009. Public consultation meetings according to EIA Regulation were held on 11th of August 2009 in the headman’s office of Yaylaçayı village and on 12th of August 2009 in the headman’s office of Sarpkaya village. The public announcement of the meetings were on the clipboard of village headmen offices of both villages and cafes of the villages between the days 1st - 10th August. The construction facilities began on 19th August of 2009 by the construction permit given by of .

General Information Muratlı HEPP Project is located between two provinces (Sivas & Giresun) that’s why it has land parcels from both of these two districts. We can classify the entire area into three groups as private owners’ lands, village legal entity lands and forest areas. The project is located in a mountainous rural area at which there is not much vegetation on the lands utilized for the project. The district is not a densely populated area and the habitants of the two villages concerned do not live there in all the times of the year. The details of the land acquisition are explained below.

Of the total 383,167.37 m² surface area of the lands, private owner lands are 228,099.24 m², village legal entity lands are 42,775.13 and the rest 112,293 m² belongs to forestry. First two groups of the lands were obtained by expropriation (private owner according to article 27, village legal entity according to article 30 of the expropriation law) and total surface area of the expropriated land is 63,490.26 m². The third group which belongs to Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) has the land usage permission. Types of the private owner lands are generally gardens and fields and there are no

2

agricultural facilities on the lands, we can say these are pasture areas. Also there isn’t any facility on the lands belonging to the village legal entity. Total compensation amount for expropriation and for forest land utilization permission is 430,156.93 TL.

• Sivas province, Gölova district, Yaylaçayı village:

1. Private Owner Lands: There are 59 private owners having totally 192,034.22 m² area of which 42,456.61 m² (22 % of the total area) is expropriated. 9 owners have some properties on their land and the expropriated structures on these lands are totally 663 m². These structures are 5 masonry houses, 1 wire fence, 3 mortarless stone walls. 2. Village Legal Entity Lands: There are 3 parcels (total area 41,990.19 m²) belongs to the village legal entity and 21 % of these lands (8,731.67 m²) assigned to Treasury according to article 30 of expropriation law. There was a fountain on one of the village legal entity land.

• , Çamoluk district, Sarpkaya village:

1. Private Owner Lands: There are 18 private owners of totally 36,065.02 m² area of 11,517.04 m² (32 % of the total area) is expropriated. 2. Village Legal Entity Lands: There is only one parcel (total area 784.94 m²) belongs to the village legal entity and 100 % of this land (784.94 m²) assigned to Treasury according to article 30 of expropriation law. 3. Forestry Lands: Giresun province, Şebinkarahisar Forest Management Directorate has 112,293 m² land area. Permission was taken from Ministry of Environment and Forest with the decision number 437 with the date of 10.09.2008. Permission is valid since 13.03.2057.

2.Inventory of Land & Assets Acquired from Private Owners

All of the private owners’ lands are taken due to the expropriation process.

Name of Owners/land user The number of the owners of the private lands is 77 and details about them are given on ARMAHES Land Acquisition Table. Project Component: Area(s) / plots(s) Total area of the expropriated lands acquired for the acquired (ha) project from private owners is 53,973.65 m². (42,456.61 m² are in Sivas province and the rest 11,517.04 m² are in Giresun province.) Owner’s/user’s total land holding (ha); Total area of the lands which belong to private owners % taken for project. is 228,099.24 m². (192,034.22 m² are in Sivas province and the rest 36,065.02 m² are in Giresun province.) So totally only 24% of the private owners’ lands were expropriated. (from Sivas province 22 % and from

3

Giresun 32 % of the private owners’ lands were taken for project.) Land use: pasture, agriculture, residence, etc. All the lands belong to private owners are gardens and fields that can be specified as pasture. No agricultural facility on the lands. Inventory of any structures or other fixed or 8 ownership from Sivas province; 5 of them had productive assets (wells, fences, trees, field adobe, masonary houses, 3 of them have mortarless crops, etc) affected. stone walls and the rest 1 has wire fence. 107 trees from Yaylaçayı village (Sivas) and 106 trees from Sarpkaya village (Giresun) Indicate if land was rented or No. informally used by another party. Indicate if non-owner users had assets, No non-owner users. trees, crops, etc affected Indicate if land-based activity is primary None of the lands expropriated for the project are source of income for owner or land user. primary source of income. Compensation paid. For Sivas province: 169,594.81 (for exprop. Article 27) 18,119.66 (for trees) + 46,054.20 (for expropriated structures on the lands) 233,768.67 TL

For Giresun province: 59,199.66 (for exprop. Article 27) + 35,087.84 (for trees) 94,287.50 TL

For both provinces: 328,056.17 TL

Dates delivered. For Sivas province: 233,768.67 → 22.07.2009

For Giresun province: 94,287.50 → 24.07.2009

Impact on income of owner. No negative impact on income of owners.

3.1. Inventory of Public, Community, or State Land Acquired

Land parcels / plots acquired (ha). 42,775.13 m2 Land type / land use: Forest, commons for grazing, other. Pasture Ownership: State, community, other. The owner is village legal entity. There was only a fountain on Yaylaçayı village legal entity Structures or other fixed assets. land. Compensation, land transfer, or other In Sivas province; there are 3 parcels (total area 41,990.19 measures to mitigate impacts on land m²) belongs to the village legal entity and 21 % of these lands users. Specify measures and dates of (8,731.67 m²) assigned to Treasury according to article 30 of delivery. expropriation law

In Giresun province; there is only one parcel (total area

4

784.94 m²) belongs to the village legal entity and 100 % of this land (784.94 m²) assigned to Treasury according to article 30 of expropriation law.

Compensation amount for Sivas was 37,321.93 TL and is paid 10.06.2010. Compensation amount for Giresun was 15,000.00 TL and is paid 09.06.2010. Totally of the 42,775.13 m² village legal entity lands, only 22 % (9,516.61 m²) is expropriated for this project. Total compensation amount is 52,321.93 TL

New fountain will be put up on any other appropriate village legal entity land.

3.2. Inventory of Public, Community, or State Land Acquired

112,293.00 m2 Land parcels / plots acquired (ha). Land type / land use: Forest, commons Forest land. for grazing, other. Ownership: State, community, other. The owner is Ministry of Environment and Forests. Structures or other fixed assets. No structure or fixed assets. Compensation, land transfer, or Guarantee amount: 3,900.00 other measures to mitigate impacts (29.06.2009) on land users. Specify measures Payment for trees: 42,278.22 and dates of delivery. (29.06.2009) 1st year land usage- permission payment : 1,746.64 (29.06.2009) 2nd year (30.09.2010): + 1,853.96 49,778.82 TL

Since there are no land users there is no impact. Compensation amounts were paid to Şebinkarahisar Forest Management Directorate of Giresun province. Land usage- permission payments will continue during the whole period covering the generation license which is 49 years.

4.Public Awareness, Consultations, and Communication

Dates of consultations Public consultation meetings according to EIA Regulation were held on 11th August 2009 in the headman office of Yaylaçayı village and o on 12th of August 2009 in the headman office of Sarpkaya village. The public announcement of the meetings were on the clipboard of village headmen offices and cafes of the villages between the days of 1st - 10th August. Concerns raised at In Sivas province, • 5 of the houses of private owners which would be affected by public consultation the project were specified again and the sub borrower declared to build new houses for them although he had already paid the compensation amounts.

5

• 3 of the private owners have mortarless stone walls on their lands. These walls were 70 years mortarless ones

Concerns raised outside public By the help of the talks in detail between the project sponsor and consultation many of the owners and court experts; most of the owners of the private lands are agree with the compensation amounts. How these concerns were • When the project was implemented, two of the houses were resolved? not affected by the project therefore nothing was done for these two householders. The lands were used for the road. In place of other 3 houses the company built 4 new houses by signing contracts with the owners of the houses. These three houses were dismantled for canal of the power plant. • All three mortarless stone walls were dismantled but the compensation amounts were paid and no problem occurred..

5.Status of Land Acquisition

Completed Pending Court decision On-going Follow-up X

6.Other Measures or Assistance provided (beyond cash compensation)

Beneficiary(s) 3 people (owner of the dismantled houses). 20 people (villagers from Sarpkaya and Yaylaçayı village) Relocation assistance For the three private owners of the lands, four new houses were built.One of the owners demanded two houses for her two children, so two houses were built to her instead of her one house. Alternative Land No Livelihood restoration measures 12 men from Sarpkaya village and 8 from Yaylaçayı village were employed in the construction of the HEPP. Summary of impact addressed • Place of worship for two villages Sarpkaya and Yaylaçayı were built. • A meeting building for the villagers was constructed in Yaylaçayı village. • A pedestrian bridge was constructed in Sarpkaya village. • Cultural center was constructed in Çamoluk district. • The asphalt of the roads of the two villages Elibüyük and Yaylaçayı which are in boundary of Sivas province was resurfaced. • The asphalt of the roads of the two villages Sarpkaya and Bayır which are in boundary of Giresun will be resurfaced.

7.Identification of Vulnerable People

Beneficiary 2 of the owners of the dismantled houses were widows. Method of identification During the communications between the project sponsor and villagers. Assistance or other measures provided. New houses were built.

6

8.Grievance Redress

Mechanism(s) made available for project-affected Both of the two village headmen were informed about the project. Project sponsor wanted them to persons to register grievances or complaints. learn opinions of the villagers in every step and to inform construction site manager if any problem exists. Up to now no complaints were received. Were affected people made aware of grievance The villagers or affected people whenever they redress mechanism? If so, when and where? need could talk to the village headmen or construction site manager or any responsible person in the site from project sponsor’s company. Was the grievance redress mechanism easy to Yes. access and free of cost to affected parties? Was an independent third party engaged in Both of the two village headmen. facilitating grievance redress? E.g.: community leaders, NGOs, or other mutually-respected independent parties.

7