THE ABAYA GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The Great Eye – Divine Rulers (2018) by Ms. Katrin Fridriks
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN
VERSION 01
July 2019
RG SEP–01: 2019
Contents
LIST OF TABLES 5
LIST OF FIGURES 5
REPORT REVIEW & VERIFICATION 6
ACRONMYS 7
1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Overview 8
1.2 Objectives of Stakeholder Engagement 8
1.3 Scope of Application 9
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10
2.1 Project Location 10
2.2 Project Settings 10
2.3 Project Description 11 2.3.1 Abaya Prospect & RG Concession 11 2.3.2 Project /Study Area 12 2.3.3 Drilling Area 13
2.4 Impacts, Benefits 13 2.4.1 Geothermal Project Impacts 13 2.4.2 Geothermal Project Benefits 14
2.5 Project Area of Influence 14
3 NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 16
3.1 Overview 16
3.2 Policies 16 3.2.1 Environmental Policy and Strategy, 1997 16 3.2.2 Ethiopian National Policy on Women, 1993 16 3.2.3 IFC PSs on Environment and Social Sustainability (2012) 17 3.2.4 IFC Good Practice Handbook on Stakeholder Engagement 18 3.2.5 Other Relevant International Policies and Conventions 19
3.3 National Laws 20 3.3.1 The Constitution 20 3.3.2 Environmental Protection Organs, Proclamation No. 295 /2002 20 3.3.3 Environmental Impact Assessment, Proclamation No. 299 /2002 21 3.3.4 Geothermal Resource Development Proclamation No. 981 /2016 21
4 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION /MAPPING 22
4.1 Introduction 22 4.1.1 Primary Stakeholder 22 4.1.2 Secondary Stakeholder 22 4.1.3 Tertiary Stakeholder 22
4.2 Stakeholders Identification 22
2
RG SEP–01: 2019
4.2.1 Government Officials 23 4.2.2 Project Proponent 23 4.2.3 Project Affected Persons 23 4.2.4 Vulnerable Groups 24 4.2.5 CSOs, NGOs and Conservation Organizations 25 4.2.6 Development Partners 26 4.2.7 Media 26
4.3 List of Stakeholders 26
4.4 Project Phases & Stakeholders Engagement 27 4.4.1 Pre-feasibility & Feasibility Study Phase 27 4.4.2 Operation Phases 29 4.4.3 Decommissioning Phases 30
4.5 Applicability of IFC PS7 30
5 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS 32
5.1 General Information 32 5.1.1 Stakeholder Analysis 32 5.1.2 Conceptual Framework and Proposed Structure 35
5.2 Stakeholder Methods 36 5.2.1 General Information 36 5.2.2 Activities and Methods 36
6 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 39
6.1 Background 39
6.2 Information Disclosure Consultations 39
6.3 Household Survey 43
6.4 Identified Impacts & Mitigation Measures Disclosed 45
6.5 Disclosure of SEP & RPF /RAP, Grievance Redress Mechanism 45
7 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN 46
7.1 Plan Overview 46
7.2 ESIA Implementation 46
7.3 Final ESIA Disclosure & Consultation 49
7.4 Indicative Timeframes 49
8 RESOURCES FOR SEP IMPLIMENTATION 51
8.1 Resources & Responsibilities 51 8.1.1 Management Resources 51
8.2 Resources and Responsibilities 52 8.2.1 Environmental & Social Manager 52 8.2.2 Environmental & Social Unit 53 8.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement Materials 54
9 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM 55
3
RG SEP–01: 2019
9.1 Introduction 55 9.1.1 Objectives 55
9.2 RG’s Roles & Responsibilities 55
9.3 Procedure for Grievance /Comment Response 55
9.4 Record Keeping 57
9.5 Appeal & Disclosure 58 9.5.1 Appeal 58 9.5.2 Disclosure 58
10 MONITORING & EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED SEP 59
10.1 Definition & Purpose 59
10.2 Monitoring the SEP Implementation Inputs 59
10.3 Monitoring the SEP Implementation Process 59
10.4 Methods of Monitoring the Efficiency of the SEP Implementation Process 59 10.4.1 Monitoring the Overall Efficiency of SEP Implementation 59 10.4.2 Developing Summary Indicators 60 10.4.3 Indicators of the Efficiency of Individual SEP Activities 60 10.4.4 Studying Community Level Organizations 60
10.5 Impact Evaluation 60 10.5.1 Estimation of Net Impacts 61 10.5.2 Comparison of ‘Effectiveness’ of 2 or More Alternative Strategies 61
10.6 Tools for Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation 61 10.6.1 Quantitative Surveys 61 10.6.2 Focus Group Discussions 61
10.7 Reports and Deliverables 61 10.7.1 Weekly CLOs Reports 62 10.7.2 Monthly Reports 62 10.7.3 Quarterly Reports 62 10.7.4 Annual Reports 62
11 LIST OF APPENDICES 63
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Engagement Forms 64 Appendix 1.1: Grievance & Concerns Logging Form 64 Appendix 1.2: Feedback Logging Form 65 Appendix 1.3: Simple Grievance & Concerns Logging Database 66 Appendix 1.4: Simple Commitment Register 66
Appendix 2: Project Disclosure & Information Dissemination 67 Appendix 2.1: Hobicha Digiso 68 Appendix 2.2: Hobicha Bongota 70 Appendix 2.3: Abala Longana 72 Appendix 2.4: Abala Qolshobo 74 Appendix 2.5: Abala Gafata 76 Appendix 2.6: Abala Maraka 78 Appendix 2.7: Abaya Chawkare & Abaya Gurucho 80 Appendix 2.8: Abaya Bilate 83 Appendix 2.9: Abaya Bisare 85
Appendix 3: Disclosure of ESIA & ESMP Impacts and Mitigation Measures 89
4
RG SEP–01: 2019
LIST OF TABLES
Table Description Page
Table 1: Project /study area coordinates ...... 13 Table 2: Population of local communities (kebeles) included in the AoI (Project area) ...... 24 Table 4: Source of livelihood of households ...... 25 Table 6: CSOs and NGOs actively working in the Project AoI ...... 26 Table 7: Stakeholders bodies and their relevance to the Project ...... 26 Table 8: Stakeholder analysis ...... 33 Table 10: ESIA implementation – Project disclosure and consultation ...... 47 Table 11: ESIA implementation – Interim /preliminary results ...... 47
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Description Page
Figure 1: Location of the Abaya geothermal concession (orange polygon) ...... 10 Figure 2: Zones of SNNP Regional State ...... 11 Figure 3: The Abaya geothermal prospect (approx. the red box) ...... 12 Figure 4: Kebeles in the Project /Study area for baseline and geoscience studies (marked in blue) ...... 12 Figure 5: Drilling area map with three possible water plans and two tentatively located well-pads ...... 13 Figure 10: Stakeholder analysis matrix ...... 32 Figure 11: Expected communication flow through stakeholder engagements ...... 35 Figure 6: Stakeholder participants in Abala Longana kebele ...... 41 Figure 7: Stakeholder participants in Abala Qolshobo kebele ...... 41 Figure 8: Stakeholder participants in Abaya Bilate kebele...... 41 Figure 9: Key Informant Interview at Abala Gafata kebele ...... 43 Figure 12: Possible structure for the E&S system...... 51 Figure 13: Grievance Redress Mechanism ...... 57
5
RG SEP–01: 2019
REPORT REVIEW & VERIFICATION
Prepared for/client: Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity, GRMF Project name: Ethiopia – Abaya RG report number: 17004-17 Project manager: ESIA: Loftur R. Gissurarson Author(s): Reykjavik Geothermal
Distribution of all Reykjavik Geothermal reports is restricted as the general rule, unless otherwise stated.
Report review and verification: Description Date Responsible (signature not necessary) Internal draft prepared February 2017 Loftur Reimar @RG
Internal draft completed September 2017 Loftur Reimar @RG
External draft reviewed September 2017 African Union Commission /RGMF
External draft updated October, 2017 Loftur Reimar @RG
External draft updated August, 2018 Loftur Reimar @RG
External draft approved July, 2019 Jon Örn @RG
1st version published July, 2019 Reykjavik Geothermal
6
RG SEP–01: 2019
ACRONMYS
AfDB Africa Development Bank AoI Area of Influence CBO Community Based Organizations CDP Community Development Plan /Program CLO Community Liaison Officer CSOs Civil Society Organizations CSA Central Statistics Agency CSR Community and Stakeholder Relations CSR Corporate Social Responsibility EE Environmental Experts EEPO Ethiopian Electric Power Office EHS Environment and Social Sustainability EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB Europe International Bank EPA Environmental Protection Authority EPs Equator Principles E&S Environmental and Social ESAP Environmental and Social Action Plan ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan ESMS Environmental and Social Management System FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia FGDs Focus Group Discussions FPIC Free, Prior, and Informed Consent HIV /AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus /Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome H&S Health and Safety ICP Informed Consultation and Participation IFC International Finance Corporation IPP Independent Power Producer IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan ISS Integrated Safeguards System KII Key Informant Interview KPI Key Performance Indicator masl Meters above sea level M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MFI Micro Finance Institutions MoM Ministry of Mines MoWIE Ministry of Water, Irrigation & Electricity NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NTS Non-Technical Summary OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OMS Operational Manual Statement OP Operation Policy PAP Project Affected Persons /People PM Project Manager PS Performance Standards RAP Resettlement Action Plan RFP Resettlement Policy Framework RG Reykjavik Geothermal SE Stakeholder Engagement SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SNNP Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region TGE Transitional Government of Ethiopian TV Television UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe WB World Bank
7
RG SEP–01: 2019
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The Government of Ethiopia and Reykjavik Geothermal (RG) entered into an agreement in October 2013 to develop and operate geothermal power of up to about 1,000 MW in phases. The first plant will be built inside the Corbetti Caldera which is currently in progress. The second, power plant is planned in the Tulu Moye Caldera. The third power plant with up to 300 MW capacity is planned in the Abaya region, SNNP Regional State; which is the subject of this study.
Reykjavik Geothermal (the Proponent) Limited is a geothermal development company focused on the development of high enthalpy geothermal resources for utility scale power production. RG specifically identifies and targets locations where quality geothermal resources can be efficiently harnessed to meet the local demand for power and clean dependable energy. RG has been responsible for projects in over 30 countries including spearheading the development of one of the world’s largest geothermal power plants in Hellisheidi, Iceland.
The objective of the proposed Abaya Geothermal Development Project (the Project) is to provide up to 300 MW of clean electric power from a renewable source. The Project will be developed in two phases: Phase I, power installation up to 50 MW; and Phase II, power installation from 50 MW up to 300 MW.
RG commissioned an Ethiopian environmental service and an Icelandic engineering service to conduct baseline studies and ESIA, respectively. Prior to conducting baseline studies of the Abaya region, stakeholder engagements were carried out and Project information disseminated. Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is available to be worked into a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). All studies have been carried out in accordance with Ethiopian laws and regulations as well as fulfilling International Finance Corporation (IFC) standards and guidelines. International donors’ guidelines, including World Bank (WB), Equator Principles (EPs), Africa Development Bank (AfDB), and European Investment Bank (EIB) have been consulted.
This document referred to as Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) for the Abaya Geothermal Development Project, is designed to ensure that engagement with stakeholders during all phases of development are communicated.
SEP is a living document, meaning that it is being developed progressively, and updates will be issued throughout various phases of Project planning and implementation. This current SEP report aims at covering operations at feasibility phase which include geo-scientific exploration, civil work, water system and pipelines, exploration drilling and power plant construction.
1.2 Objectives of Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Engagement (SE), including consultation and the disclosure of information, is a key element of project planning, development and implementation. Effective stakeholder engagement assists good design, builds strong relationships with local communities and reduces the potential for delays through the early identification of issues to be addressed as a project progresses.
Stakeholder Engagement activities for the Project should be done in compliance with Ethiopian policies, laws and regulations as well as applicable international good case practice, policies and guidelines prescribed by the Project’s development partners.
Stakeholder engagement is aimed at achieving the following objectives: • Promote the development of respect and open relationships between stakeholders and Project proponent. • Identify Project stakeholders and understand their interests, concerns and influence in relation to Project activities.
8
RG SEP–01: 2019
• Provide stakeholders with timely information about the Project, in ways that is appropriate to their interests and needs, taking into account factors such as location, language, culture, access to information, and also appropriate to the level of expected risk and adverse impact. • Give stakeholders the opportunity, through consultation and other feedback mechanisms, to express their opinions and concerns about the Project development. • Support compliance with Ethiopian legislation for public consultation and disclosure for EIA and alignment with financing standards of International Best Practice and guidelines for stakeholder engagement for ESIA. • Record and resolve any grievances arising from Project-related activities.
1.3 Scope of Application
The SEP applies to all activities and facilities that fall under the Geothermal Proponent’s direct jurisdiction and control. Activities relating to other facilities are not covered in this SEP. The Proponent cannot act as funders or operators of such facilities and therefore cannot assume a leading role in the related engagement process.
This SEP focuses on engagement with external stakeholders. Involvement with internal stakeholders, including Project staff, shareholders and contractors are not covered in this SEP.
9
RG SEP–01: 2019
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The Main Ethiopian Rift constitutes the northernmost part of the East African Rift System, an area characterized by active extensional tectonics and associated volcanic activities. The Abaya geothermal prospect is located some 275 km south of Addis Ababa as shown in Figure below. The greater Abaya geothermal area could be some 2500 km2 but the current Reykjavik Geothermal Abaya licence is about 520 km2.
The Figure below shows the location of Abaya geothermal concession (orange polygon), as well as other nearby geothermal areas (Corbetti, Aluto, Tulu Moye) and their corresponding calderas in red. Name of major towns are shown in italic. Yellow tracks are roads and blue rivers.
Figure 1: Location of the Abaya geothermal concession (orange polygon)
2.2 Project Settings
Administratively, the Abaya area covers basically parts of the Wolayita and Sidama Zones in Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) Regional State. The Woredas are: Humbo and Damot Weyde in Wolayita, and Dale in Sidama.
10
RG SEP–01: 2019
Population is as follows (source National Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia projection in 2013 for 2014-2017): • Damot Weyde (114,004) • Humbo (145,542) • Dale (317,246)
Figure 2: Zones of SNNP Regional State
2.3 Project Description
Geothermal power generation involves drilling deep exploration and production wells into the Earth’s crust to harness the thermal energy contained in underground reservoirs of geothermal waters or steam. Wells are drilled in clusters with each cluster /drill pad typically comprising two to five wells. These wells bring a mixture of steam, gas and water (referred to as brine) to the surface where the steam is separated and used to power turbines to produce electricity. Brine and condensation removed by separators will be returned to the ground via injection well.
If the first exploratory drilling results are favourable, the Project will continue with drilling of additional wells, design, construction and commissioning of a power plant and associated facilities such as a substation and transmission lines to connect power to the national grid.
2.3.1 Abaya Prospect & RG Concession
The greater Abaya geothermal area could be some 2500 km2 but the current Reykjavik Geothermal Abaya license /concession area is about 520 km2.
The Figure below shows the Abaya geothermal prospect (approximately the red box) with geothermal fields with numbers ordered in decreasing intensity. Current RG licence is shown by the black polygon.
11
RG SEP–01: 2019
Figure 3: The Abaya geothermal prospect (approx. the red box)
2.3.2 Project /Study Area
During Inception study phase a Project /Study /Focus area was defined within RG license area /concession based on available information and logistics such as to focus on one Zone, Woreda and limited number of kebeles.
Following is a Figure of the Project /study area for geochemical sampling, geophysical surveying and baseline studies.
Figure 4: Kebeles in the Project /Study area for baseline and geoscience studies (marked in blue)
12
RG SEP–01: 2019
Table 1: Project /study area coordinates
Area 186 km2 WGS84 /UTM 37N Point Easting Northing 1 367844 724376 2 378837 748218 3 379866 747312 4 383944 746175 5 380225 729132 6 377905 729905 7 375887 729475 8 371697 724338
2.3.3 Drilling Area
Surface explorations have been carried out in Abaya. Geochemical work involved surface sampling of rocks, gases and fluids for chemical analysis for evidence of geothermal activity. Geophysical work involved Magneto Telluric (MT) and Transient Electro Magnetic (TEM) resistivity measurement technologies; once analysed along with geochemical sampling and analysis, the data yields parameters on the geothermal resource such as depth, size, temperature and other information.
The geothermal target zones within the Project /study area of geophysical and geochemical interest have been assessed. The conclusion of the exploration phase was to locate a Drilling area in the Project /study area. The Drilling area will include: The power plant, drill pads and flowlines linking the locations to the geothermal plant. The exact locations of these wells, flowlines and plant will be determined following the exploration drilling and detailed engineering design.
Based on this information, Drilling area was defined within the Project area. See Figure below.
Figure 5: Drilling area map with three possible water plans and two tentatively located well-pads
2.4 Impacts, Benefits
2.4.1 Geothermal Project Impacts
13
RG SEP–01: 2019
Certain environmental and social impacts associated with the operation of geothermal development may include: • Water quality issues. • Geophysical effects of fluid withdrawal. • Thermal effects. • Chemical pollution. • Air quality and climatic effects. • Noise. • Ecological impacts. • Geological disturbances. • Land-use and landscape change. • Land acquisition and resettlement. • Tourism and recreational impacts. • Unplanned in-migration (influx) and consequent socio-economic impacts (such as competition for jobs with local residents). • Physical and social Infrastructure capacity exceeded, and service delivery constraints increased. • Increased traffic and consequent increase in risk profile for community exposure to accidents.
2.4.2 Geothermal Project Benefits
However, there are significant benefits that will be derived from the Project. They may include, but not be limited to, the following: • Creation of jobs; local workers will be hired and national partners chosen whenever possible. • Technical training will be provided to local staff and expertise passed on to local entities; this transition will include training and education of local experts and cooperation with regional institutions and local contractors and consultants. • UN University geothermal programs will be introduced and utilized to develop the competence of employees and partners with respect to geothermal energy production. • Improvements to existing roads, and construction of new roads leading to and around project sites. • Production of clean, cost-effective renewable energy. The Project will play a role in reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions in Ethiopia. • Sustainable use of the geothermal resource will result in the needs of the present to be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. • Decrease in reliance on other sources of energy, thereby increasing energy sovereignty. • Stronger and more stable economy for the communities and region overall. • Potential export of energy to neighbouring countries. • More supply of electricity will enable the rural economies to modernize and thereby producing higher output and increasing their income. • Potential investment opportunity for different economic energy intensive sectors such as food, chemical, and metallic and non-metallic industries.
2.5 Project Area of Influence
The International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Performance Standard (PS) 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts (2012) requires that the Project’s Area of Influence (AoI) is determined based on the following guidance:
“Where the project involves specifically identified physical elements, aspects, and facilities that are likely to generate impacts, environmental and social risks and impacts will be identified in the context of the project’s area of influence. This area of influence encompasses, as appropriate:
• The area likely to be affected by: (i) the project and the client’s activities and facilities that are directly owned, operated or managed (including by contractors) and that are a component of the project; (ii) impacts from unplanned but predictable developments
14
RG SEP–01: 2019
caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location; or (iii) indirect project impacts on biodiversity or on ecosystem services upon which Affected Communities’ livelihoods are dependent. • Associated facilities, which are facilities that are not funded as part of the project and that would not have been constructed or expanded if the project did not exist and without which the project would not be viable. • Cumulative impacts that result from the incremental impact, on areas or resources used or directly impacted by the project, from other existing, planned or reasonably defined developments at the time the risks and impacts identification process is conducted.
In the event of risks and impacts in the Project’s area of influence resulting from a third party’s actions, the client will address those risks and impacts in a manner commensurate with the client’s control and influence over the third parties, and with due regard to conflict of interest.
Where the client can reasonably exercise control, the risks and impacts identification process will also consider those risks and impacts associated with primary supply chains, as defined in Performance Standard 2 (paragraphs 27–29) and Performance Standard 6 (paragraph 30).”
At present, AoI is Project /study area. AoI will be further determined by following: • Areas of immediate Project footprint due to exploration drilling: o Area required for construction of access roads to drill pads o Area required for drilling for water and water pipeline o Area for drill pads (about 5,000 m2 each) and possible injection site(s) o Area about 600 – 1.200 m radius around each drill pad because of noise • Agricultural plots located around the area, also along the existing gravel road to be used by the Project for transportation of equipment and materials • Settlements in and around the area, and along the road track through the area • Settlements located along Highway #7 closest to and passing by the area • Area required for separation station, power station, and other installations • Area required for transmission line(s), to be determined in later stages of the Project development • The 10 kebeles in the Project /study area that may feel the impact of the operation but may also benefit from employment and direct and indirect economic opportunities
Kebeles within the Project area: 1. Abela Mareqa 2. Chokare 3. Abela Gefeta 4. Abola Qolshobo 5. Abela Longena 6. Hobicha Bongota
Nearby kebeles within AoI: 7. Hobicha Borkoshe 8. Hobita Bada 9. Burqe Dongola 10. Abola Furacho
15
RG SEP–01: 2019
3 NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Overview
Public consultations and participation in a development project is anchored in the Laws of Ethiopia. This SEP is designed to meet laws of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) and IFC Performance Standards on Environment and Social Sustainability. Public consultation is a mandatory part of the project development as outlined in the Constitution as well as the IFC standards. Stakeholder engagement must adhere to national requirements, as specified by the Environmental Protection Proclamation 295 /2002 and related regulations and ordinances.
FDRE has signed and ratified several International Conventions, which relates to access to information, public participation in decision-making, and public access to justice in relation to the environment.
It is also important to mention that donors have policies, standards and guideline that strictly uphold the spirit of stakeholder engagement and public participation in development project. This chapter looks at the general legal, policy and administrative frameworks that emphasize consultations and stakeholder participation, both at national and international levels.
3.2 Policies
3.2.1 Environmental Policy and Strategy, 1997
The policy goal is to improve the health and quality of life of the people of Ethiopia and to promote sustainable social and economic development through sound management and use of natural, human-made and cultural resources and the environment as a whole so as to meet the present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs.
The policy seeks to ensure empowerment and participation of the people and their organizations at all levels in environmental management activities. One of the guiding principles of the policy is to promote equality among women and men who are key actors in natural resource use and management, and empower them to be totally involved in policy, programme and project design, decision making and implementation.
This policy therefore promotes meaningful consultation with stakeholders.
3.2.2 Ethiopian National Policy on Women, 1993
Apart from being a signatory of major conventions that protects women from discrimination and other, the Transitional Government of Ethiopian (TGE) expressed its commitment to gender equity and equality by issuing a National Policy on Women (1993). The policy has the following objectives:
• Facilitating conditions conductive to the speeding of equality between men and women so that women can participate in political, social and economic life of their country on equal terms with men and ensuring that their right to own property as well as their other human rights are respected and that they are not excluded from the enjoyment of their fruits of their labour or from performing public functions and being decision makers; • Facilitating the necessary conditions whereby rural women can have access to basic social services and to ways and means of lightening their work load; and • Eliminating step by step, prejudices as well as customary and other practices that are based on the idea of male supremacy and enabling women to hold public office and to participate in the decision-making process at all levels.
Compliance with this policy during consultations throughout the project life cycle is therefore expected.
16
RG SEP–01: 2019
3.2.3 IFC PSs on Environment and Social Sustainability (2012)
IFC standards stipulate that when host country regulations differ from the levels and measures presented in the Performance Standards (PS) and EHS Guidelines, projects are expected to achieve whichever is more stringent. If less stringent levels or measures are appropriate in view of specific project circumstances, a full and detailed justification for any proposed alternatives is needed as part of the site-specific environmental assessment. This justification should demonstrate that the choice for any alternative performance level is protective of human health and the environment.
(a) PS1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts PS1 requires effective community engagement through disclosure of project-related information and consultation with local communities on matters that directly affect them. It states that when affected communities are subject to identified risks and adverse impacts from a project, the proponent is required to undertake a process of consultation in a manner that provides the affected communities with opportunities to express their views on risks, impacts and mitigation measures, and that the proponent considers and responds to them.
PS1 further requires that the extent and degree of engagement required by the consultation process should be commensurate with the project’s risks and adverse impacts and with the concerns raised by the Affected Communities.
According to this standard, effective consultation is a two-way process that should: • Begin early in the process of identification of environmental and social risks and impacts and continue on an ongoing basis as risks and impacts arise. • Be based on the prior disclosure and dissemination of relevant, transparent, objective, meaningful and easily accessible information which is in a culturally appropriate local language(s) and format and is understandable to Affected Communities. • Focus inclusive engagements on those directly affected as opposed to those not directly affected. • Be free of external manipulation, interference, coercion, or intimidation. • Enable meaningful participation, where applicable. • Be documented. The proponent will tailor its consultation process to the language preferences of the Affected Communities, their decision-making process, and the needs of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. If proponents have already engaged in such a process, they will provide adequate documented evidence of such engagement.
Performance Standard 1, emphasizes the importance of conducting an Informed Consultation and Participation (ICP) in projects with potentially significant adverse impacts on Affected Communities, resulting in the affected communities’ informed participation. This process entails a more in-depth exchange of views and information, and an organized and iterative consultation, leading to the proponent’s incorporating into their decision- making process the views of the affected communities on matters that affect them directly, such as the proposed mitigation measures, the sharing of development benefits and opportunities, and implementation issues.
It states that the consultation process should: • Capture both men’s and women’s views, if necessary through separate forums or engagements. • Reflect men’s and women’s different concerns and priorities about impacts, mitigation mechanisms, and benefits, where appropriate. The proponent will document the process, in particular the measures taken to avoid or minimize risks to and adverse impacts on the Affected Communities, and will inform those affected about how their concerns have been considered.
(b) PS5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement PS5 requires that the proponent engages with Affected Communities, including host communities, through the process of stakeholder engagement described in Performance Standard 1. Decision-making processes related to resettlement and livelihood restoration should include options and alternatives, where applicable.
17
RG SEP–01: 2019
Disclosure of relevant information and participation of Affected Communities and persons will continue during the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of compensation payments, livelihood restoration activities, and resettlement to achieve outcomes that are consistent with the objectives of this Performance Standard.
(c) PS7: Indigenous Peoples This Performance Standard applies to communities or groups of Indigenous Peoples who maintain a collective attachment, i.e., whose identity as a group or community is linked, to distinct habitats or ancestral territories and the natural resources herein. It may also apply to communities or groups that have lost collective attachment to distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area, occurring within the concerned group members’ lifetime, because of forced severance, conflict, government resettlement programs, dispossession of their lands, natural disasters, or incorporation of such territories into an urban area. The PS7 puts a disclaimer that the proponent needs to ascertain whether a particular group can be considered as Indigenous, by using competent professionals.
This PS specifies that the proponent ensure the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Affected Communities of Indigenous Peoples. It also works towards promotion and preservation of culture, knowledge and practices of Indigenous Peoples.
(d) PS8: Cultural Heritage Where a project may affect cultural heritage, the proponent should consult with Affected Communities within the host community who use, or have used within living memory, the cultural heritage for long-standing cultural purposes. The proponent should consult with the Affected Communities to identify cultural heritage of importance, and to incorporate into the decision-making process the views of the Affected Communities on such cultural heritage. Consultation should also involve the relevant national or local regulatory agencies that are entrusted with the protection of cultural heritage
3.2.4 IFC Good Practice Handbook on Stakeholder Engagement
This guideline provides steps for interactive consultations listed below: • The public should have a say in decisions about actions that could affect their lives. • Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision. Public participation pro-motes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision-makers. • Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. • Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate. • Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way. • Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.
In addition to consultation, the negotiation process may provide further assurance to affected parties by giving them a greater say in the outcome. It also provides them with the additional clarity, predictability, and security of a signed agreement detailing precisely what the company commits to doing, and the roles, if any, for the affected stakeholders.
Good faith negotiations are transparent, considerate of the available time of the negotiating parties, and deploy negotiation procedures and language readily understood and agreed to by all parties.
The common interest that brings parties together is often some aspect of development, such as environmental stewardship, public health, social inclusion and community investment, or local economic development.
For projects with environmental and social impacts, grievances are a fact of life. How a company responds (or is perceived to be responding) when such grievances surface is important and can have significant implications for business performance. A grievance mechanism should be scaled to fit the level of risks and impacts of a project. Having a good overall community engagement process in place and providing access to information on a regular basis can substantially help to
18
RG SEP–01: 2019
prevent grievances from arising in the first place, or from escalating to a level that can potentially undermine business performance.
• A company’s grievance procedures should be put into writing, publicized, and explained to relevant stakeholder groups. People should know where to go and whom to talk to if they have a complaint, and understand what the process will be for handling it. • At a minimum, communities need to have access to information. Companies can facilitate this by providing project related information in a timely and understandable manner. In cases where significant imbalances in knowledge, power, and influence exist, a company may wish to reach out to other partners to assist in the process. • Projects that make it easy for people to raise concerns and feel confident that these will be heard and acted upon can reap the benefits of both a good reputation and better community relations. • It is good practice for a company to publicly commit to a certain time frame in which all recorded complaints will be responded to (be it 48 hours, one week or 30 days) and to ensure this response time is enforced. • Whether it is simply keeping a log book (in the case of small projects) or maintaining a more sophisticated database (for bigger projects with more serious impacts), keeping a written record of all complaints is critical for effective grievance management. • Don’t impede access to legal remedies. If the project is unable to resolve a complaint, it may be appropriate to enable complainants to have recourse to external experts.
Stakeholders’ involvement in project monitoring will encourage them to take more responsibility for their environment and welfare in relation to the project, and to feel empowered that they can do something practical to address issues that affect their lives. One way to help satisfy stakeholder concerns and promote transparency is to involve project-affected stakeholders in monitoring the implementation of mitigation measures or other environmental and social programs. In relation to any type of stakeholder involvement in project monitoring, care should be taken in the choice of representatives and the selection process should be transparent.
Reporting to stakeholders is essential. The same principle applies to stakeholder engagement. Once consultations have taken place, stakeholders will want to know which of their suggestions have been taken on board, what risk or impact mitigation measures will be put in place to address their concerns, and how project impacts are being monitored.
3.2.5 Other Relevant International Policies and Conventions
(a) Equator Principles The Equator Principles (EPs) are set of standards for determining, assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing. The EPs, are based on the IFC performance standards on social and environmental sustainability and on the World Bank Group’s Environmental, Health and Safety general guidelines. Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) are committed to financing projects where the borrower is able to comply with social and environmental policies and procedures as outlined in EPs.
For all category A and category B projects, the EPs requires that the borrower demonstrates an effective stakeholder engagement as an ongoing process in a structured and culturally appropriate manner with affected communities and, where relevant, all Stakeholders. For Projects with potentially significant adverse impacts on affected communities, the borrower is expected to conduct an Informed Consultation and Participation (ICP) process.
Equator Principle number 5 (EP5) on stakeholder engagement requires that stakeholder engagement be free from external manipulation, interference, coercion and intimidation. The borrower should account for, and document, the results of the stakeholder engagement process, including any actions agreed resulting from such process. For projects with environmental or social risks and adverse impacts, disclosure should occur early in the assessment process, in any event before the project construction commences, as well as during the other phases of the project.
19
RG SEP–01: 2019
(b) AFDB Policy on Participation and Consultation The Bank recognizes participation as an essential tool for the achievement of its objectives which include; poverty reduction and sustainable development. Participatory approaches have been shown to enhance project quality, ownership and sustainability.
Integrated Safeguards System (ISS) stipulates that a meaningful consultation and participation in the context of safeguards is vital. ISS sets out clear requirements for greater public consultation among and participation by communities and local stakeholders that are likely to be affected by the Bank’s operations. It further requires that the consultation must meet the requirements of being obtain access to information and to be informed prior about the project and of achieving broad community support, especially in high-risk projects or projects affecting vulnerable groups.
ISS makes it clear on how consultations should be integrated into specific steps in the assessment process, such as developing draft terms of reference for ESIA, draft ESIA, and draft Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMP) for Category 1 projects.
(c) Rio Declaration Ethiopia is a signatory of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1991). Principle 10 of the Declaration states that; “Each individual shall have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes, facilitated by the widespread availability of information”.
(d) Aarhus Convention United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision making and Access to Justice in International Environmental Matters (1998) is the most comprehensive legal instrument relating to public involvement. It indicates that; “Public participation should be effective, adequate, formal and provide for information, notification, dialogue, consideration and response”.
3.3 National Laws
3.3.1 The Constitution
As the major binding document for all other derivative national and regional policies, laws and regulations, the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), (proclamation 1 /1995) has several provisions, which are relevant to consultation and participation. The right of the public and the community to full consultations and participation is enshrined in the following articles; 35.6, 43.2 and 92.3 of the constitution.
Article 35.6 of the Constitution states that, women have the right to full consultation in the formulation of national development policies, the designing and execution of projects, and particularly in the case of projects affecting the interests of women.
Article 43.2 states that, nationals have the right to participate in national development and, in particular, to be consulted with respect to policies and projects affecting their community.
Article 92.3 states that people have the right to full consultation and to the expression of views in the planning and implementation of environmental policies and projects that affect them directly.
3.3.2 Environmental Protection Organs, Proclamation No. 295 /2002
This is the proclamation that establishes Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), whose mandate is to formulate policies, strategies, laws and standards, which foster social, economic development in a manner that enhances welfare of humans and safety of environmental sustainability and spearheading effectiveness in their implementation.
Engagement and consultations at different levels of governance is very crucial in any development project. This law stipulates the need to establish a system that enables to foster coordination among
20
RG SEP–01: 2019
environmental protection agencies at federal and regional levels. The proclamation also indicates the duties of different administrative levels in order to apply the Federal law. Depending on the physical condition of the Regions, Woredas and Kebeles they will have their own authoritative mandates, responsibilities and duties.
The EPA, Regional, Woreda and Kebele Authorities are therefore considered critical partners for meaningful stakeholder engagement.
3.3.3 Environmental Impact Assessment, Proclamation No. 299 /2002
The Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation No. 299 /2002 gave great emphasis for all projects about the mandatory to be undertaking environmental impact assessment for categories of projects specified under a directive issued by the EPA whether such projects belong to public or private bodies. This proclamation is a proactive tool to harmonise and integrate environmental, economic, cultural, and social considerations into a decision-making process in a manner that promotes sustainable development.
Article 8 (1) states that an environmental impact study report shall contain sufficient information to enable the Authority or the relevant regional environmental agency to determine if and under what conditions the project shall proceed. Stakeholder feedback provides clear documentation of public perception, support or lack thereof of a project. It is therefore critical to ensure that an ESIA report provides comprehensive recommendations on issues raised during stakeholder engagement process.
Article 15 (1) declares that EPA or relevant regional environmental agency shall make the EIA study accessible to the public and solicit comments on it. Article 15 (2) elaborates further that EPA or relevant regional environmental agency shall ensure that the comments made by the public and in particular by the communities likely to be affected by the implementation of the project are incorporated into the environmental impact study report as well as in its evaluation.
The Public disclosure process during ESIA is therefore well defined in the regulations.
3.3.4 Geothermal Resource Development Proclamation No. 981 /2016
The Geothermal Resource Development Proclamation No. 981 /2016 states in Article 22 (1) the obligation to give employment preference to the Ethiopian citizens, provided that such persons have the required qualifications; give preference to the purchase and use of domestic goods and services, where they are readily available at a competitive price and are of a comparable quality; and, to minimize impacts on the environment and communities and, where appropriate, provide mitigation for those impacts in accordance with the approved environmental and social plan.
Article 39 states that geothermal operations shall be carried out in such a manner as to prevent unnecessary waste of or damage to geothermal or other energy and mineral resources; to protect and enhance the quality of surface and ground waters, air and other natural resources, including wildlife, soil and vegetation; and preserve cultural resources, including archaeological, scenic and recreational resources.
And, Article 39 says, that any person lodged application for geothermal well-field development and use license shall include a written community development plan, developed by the applicant in consultation with the communities existing in or adjacent to the license area; and such plan shall include an implementation plan including allocation of funding to support community welfare.
21
RG SEP–01: 2019
4 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION /MAPPING
4.1 Introduction
IFC’s Performance Standard 1 defines stakeholders as: “...persons, groups or communities external to the core operations of a project who may be affected by the project or have interest in it. This may include individuals, businesses, communities, local government authorities, local nongovernmental and other institutions, and other interested or affected parties”.
The objective of stakeholder identification is to establish which organizations and individuals may be directly or indirectly affected (both positively and negatively), or have interests in the Project. Stakeholder identification is an ongoing process, requiring regular review and updates. Stakeholder engagement is therefore, a basis for building strong, constructive and responsive relationship that are essential for successful management of a project.
To date, a large number of potentially affected and interested parties have been identified through contacts that RG has already made with communities, government departments and other organisations as part of its consultation process, disclosure and government relations activities.
Stakeholders have been identified and categorized as follows:
4.1.1 Primary Stakeholder
This is the category that will be directly affected by the proposed project. They include: • Project Proponent • Potentially Displaced Persons • Project Affected Communities • Indigenous Peoples, if any
4.1.2 Secondary Stakeholder
Secondary stakeholders are those who have an indirect interest in the proposed project. They may include: • Federal and Regional government ministries and institutions • Institutions with regulatory functions (e.g. EPA, Offices and Bureaus) • Regional government representation at Zonal, Woreda and Kebele levels
4.1.3 Tertiary Stakeholder
These are stakeholders who can influence the project outcome. They can be grouped as: • Media • NGOs and CBOs • Universities with geothermal interest
4.2 Stakeholders Identification
Stakeholders in the Abaya Geothermal Development Project can be identified and categorised into the following main groups: • Government officials (at various levels from Federal, Regional, Zonal, Woreda, Kebele) • Project Proponent (RG) • Project Affected Persons in several kebeles • Vulnerable groups • CSOs, NGOs and Conservation Organizations • Development Partners
22
RG SEP–01: 2019
• Media
This list of stakeholders will expand or change in composition as the Project moves through different phases of development.
4.2.1 Government Officials
The Government of Ethiopia consists of a parliamentary representative of the democratic republic, whereby the Prime Minister is the head of Government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the Government. Legislative power is vested in both the Government and the National Assembly. The Judiciary is independent of the Executive and the Legislature.
(a) Administrative Officials The following principal Government departments have been identified: • Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Electricity • Ethiopian Energy Authority • Ministry of Environmental Protection and Forest • Ministry of Finance and Economic Development • Ministry of Agriculture • Ministry of Health • Ministry of Culture and Tourism • Ministry of Higher Education • SNNP Regional State and relevant departments • Wolayita Zone administration and relevant offices • Humbo Woreda administrations and relevant sector offices • Project Affected Kebele administrations
• Later: o Sidama Zone administrations and relevant offices o Dale Woreda administrations and relevant offices in Sidama Zone o Damot Weyde Woreda administrations and relevant offices in Wolayita Zone
Most of the officials in this group have been consulted for the RG geothermal development projects in Ethiopia.
(b) Elected Officials Role of the elected officials is to represent interest of their electorate. The Parliament of Ethiopia is made up of two chambers • Upper chamber – The house of Federation • Lower chamber – The house of People’ Representatives
A number of officials have been consulted during the independent power producer (IPP) negotiations.
(c) Ethiopian Electric Power The Ethiopian Electric Power Office has been instrumental in negotiating power purchasing agreement and other agreements necessary for the geothermal development operation. • Board and Managing Directors of Ethiopian Electric Power Office
4.2.2 Project Proponent
Reykjavik Geothermal (RG) Limited is focused on the development of geothermal resources for power production in the area. RG will be responsible for the entire Project cycle, from inception through construction, operation to decommissioning.
4.2.3 Project Affected Persons
23
RG SEP–01: 2019
Project Affected Persons (PAPs) will be affected through components of the natural or social environment as a consequence of various aspects of the proposed Project and in varying degrees over the Project life cycle.
According to CSA data from 2007, the total number of household units in the selected ten kebeles is 10,352. The total population of kebeles included in the Project area is 59,166 from which 50.5 percent are female. Among the kebeles the most populated is Hobicha Bongota with population size of 9,203 and the least populated is Abela Lonegena with population size of 4,010.
Data obtained from the respective Kebele Administration Offices in Humbo Woreda during Baseline studies in 2019 are presented in the Table below.
Table 2: Population of local communities (kebeles) included in the AoI (Project area) Male Female No. of Kebele Total No. % % households Hobicha Bada 4.436 49,1 4.617 50,9 9.053 1.509 Hobicha Bongota 5.317 50,1 5.288 49,9 10.605 1.768 Hobicha Borkoshe 1.873 48,1 2.024 51,9 3.897 650 Abala Longana 2.108 49 2.194 51 4.302 717 Buqe Dongola 2.286 48,2 2.454 51,8 4.740 790 Abala Faracho 1.313 48,7 1.381 51,3 2.694 449 Abala Qolshobo 1.616 46,7 1.844 53,3 3.460 577 Abala Gafata 2.449 46,2 2.850 53,8 5.299 883 Abala Maraka 1.894 50,5 1.855 49,5 3.749 625 Chawkare 1.564 49,4 1.599 50,6 3.163 527 Total 24.856 26.106 50.962 8.494
TBD: Kebeles in Damot Weyde Woreda (Wolayita Zone) and Dale Woreda (Sidama Zone)
4.2.4 Vulnerable Groups
Stakeholder identification and engagement also seeks to identify any potentially vulnerable or disadvantaged group or individuals in the local community.
• Within the area there are different vulnerable groups to be identified, like widows that in general are running their own household. • In the area there is a large group of youth that are unemployed and are searching for work. They do help out at the household level, but there is not enough work for all youth within the communities. This does cause young people to migrate to the town or elsewhere. • In the rural area communities there are the elderly people that have always lived there. They live with their children in the same compound.
(a) Dependency Ratio The Baseline survey result indicated that most of the household heads are married (Error! R eference source not found.). The household average dependency ratio was 0.92046, that implies that for every 100 working age persons, there were 92 people who were dependent. Hence, the study was consistence with the national dependency ratio (0.91). According to CSA (2018), highest dependence ratio in Ethiopia was reported in Oromia national regional state (1.01) followed by SNNPR State (1.00).
(b) Indigenous People During Baseline consultation the community representatives indicated there were no indigenous people who have unique culture or subculture from the main Wolayita
24
RG SEP–01: 2019
community. As the Community members indicated the main reason was that the local community was sedentary and agrarian for more than centuries and protestant Christianity was first introduced in Ethiopia in Wolayita area. This was probably the foremost reasons which mixed up all the local dwellers creating homogenous community in cultural setup. Thus, there was no isolated or some segment of the community which practice some unique or different way of life which has environmental or cultural importance for conservation.
(c) Employment Statistics The population density is believed to be high and the unemployment rate is also high. The major job in the Study area is agriculture and the people engaged in agriculture ranges between 32% in Abela Longena and 84% in Chokare. The unemployment rate is found 3.2% in Hobicha Bongota and 27 % in Hobicha Borkoshe which is relatively similar to the regional average of 24.5 %.
As far as the livelihood of the households were concerned the respondents indicated that mostly it was based on fathers (male household heads) income, see Error! Reference s ource not found..
Table 3: Source of livelihood of households Source of livelihood of the households % Fathers (male household heads) 82,3 Mothers (female household heads) 15,2 Children 2,5
There are a number of unemployed youths who completed high school and university.
(d) Poverty Self-wealth ranking of the respondents indicated more than 33.9% of them as poor. Similarly, the other 22.6% and 12.5% ranked themselves as very much poor and extremely poor respectively. From this it could be possible to concluded that more than three fourth of the respondents are poor.
(e) Youths & Women Associations For tackling economic constraints women and youth in the Study area established different income generating associations and involving in different activities. Except in Abela Faracho and Abela Gefeta, all kebeles have established youth associations. The areas of their interventions /engagements include furniture manufacturing, stone quarry, sand selling, coble stone preparation, beekeeping, fattening, fruit and vegetable production, and loading and unloading (Abela Mareka).
The number of women associations is significantly less than youth associations. Four kebeles (Abela Faracho, Hobicha Bada, Hobicha Bongota, and Chokare) have no established women associations whereas Boke Dongola, Hobicha Borkashe, Abela Longena, Abela Kolshobo and Abela Gefeta have only one association and Abela Mareka has 17 associations almost all involving in saving and credit provision services.
This shows that less attention has been made for woman economic challenges in most of the kebeles in the Study area.
4.2.5 CSOs, NGOs and Conservation Organizations
CSOs and NGOs working in the Project influenced Woredas (Damot Weyde, Humbo, Dale and Mirab Abaya) most likely cover various fields of development activities such as: education, health, sanitation, water supply, agriculture, livestock, women and children issues, saving and credit services, etc. These CSOs and NGOs actively working in the project influence area will be described in the Table below.
25
RG SEP–01: 2019
Table 4: CSOs and NGOs actively working in the Project AoI CSOs & NGOs Area of Activities Location World Vision – carbon Rehabilitation of forest resources Humbo project COWASH Community-Led Accelerated WASH to Humbo provide sustainable manner of water Wolayita Development Integrated agricultural initiatives Humbo Association Terepeza Development Provide immediate aid during various Humbo Association humanitarian crisis
4.2.6 Development Partners
IFC has been identified as one of the main potential development partners to the Project. Other possible development partner is the European Investment Bank (EIB). Compliance with development partners’ policies and guidelines is important, and in case there is conflict with the Ethiopian Laws, then comprise has to be made. In most cases it is the government laws that take precedence. The IFC standards state that in such a situation, then, justification should demonstrate that the choice for any alternative performance level is protective of human health and the environment.
4.2.7 Media
Media will be an important stakeholder in this Project not only because they potentially have a significant influence over the local population, but they can also become useful in the dissemination of Project related information. Radio, TVs and newspaper available in the area will be used depending on the most effective mode of information dissemination in the area.
4.3 List of Stakeholders
List in the Table below provides names of stakeholders identified and their relevance to the Project.
Table 5: Stakeholders bodies and their relevance to the Project Stakeholder Group Stakeholder Body Relevance to the Project RG Top management at RG Project Proponent
RG staff with mandates in Environment and Social management of RG projects Project Affected Several kebeles within the Local communities may be adversely affected Persons (PAPs) Project /Study Area by construction and operational impacts but also may benefit from employment and indirect economic opportunities Potentially displaced Landowners within the Entitles to compensation for land acquired in Project Affected Project area and those living accordance with the Resettlement Action Plan Persons in the areas where access (RAP) that will be developed as part of the ESIA roads, pipelines, and process powerhouses will be located International Financial WB, IFC, AfDB, EU, EIB Financiers and regulators Institutions /Donors National Government Ministry of Water, Irrigation It manages water resources and electricity, incl. Departments and Electricity geothermal energy Ethiopian Energy Authority It manages the issue licenses for generation, transferring, distribution and selling, as well as the import and export of electricity in the country Ministry of Environmental Meeting country's environmental law and the Protection and Forestry international standards Ministry of Finance and Coordination of financial and economic issues Economic Development related to project implementation
26
RG SEP–01: 2019
Stakeholder Group Stakeholder Body Relevance to the Project Ministry of Agriculture Custodian of land use type for agricultural land Ministry of Health Coordination of health and occupational issues related to project implementation Ministry of Culture and Coordination and supervision of cultural and Tourism historic sites in the project area Ministry of Higher Education Management of higher education and that may involve and include future geothermal programs Regional and Local SNNP Region Water, Mineral Meeting country's environmental and social Government & Energy Bureau impact assessment law and standards Departments SNNPR Roads Authority Coordination of road access issues related to project implementation Wolayita Zone Water, Mineral Meeting country's environmental and social & Energy Bureau impact assessment law and standards Woreda Water, Mineral & Meeting country's environmental and social Energy Bureau impact assessment law and standards Kebele administrations and Expectation of improved socio-economic elder /chiefs /sheiks conditions of the Project area and possible negative and environmental and social impacts NGOs and Civil Society All CSO AND NGOs listed Protect the rights of the residents of the local Organizations and under Section 3.2.5 above community during project implementation NGO Media Radio, Newspapers, TVs, Informing the local people about the planned Internet activities during project implementation
This list will be updated through the entire Project cycle. Various levels of stakeholder engagement throughout the cycle are summarised in the section below.
4.4 Project Phases & Stakeholders Engagement
4.4.1 Pre-feasibility & Feasibility Study Phase
Exploration phase of geothermal development usually involves assessment and confirmation of energy development potential of a Geothermal License Area. Within the Abaya area, other land uses are already on-going within and around the geothermal area. These include agriculture, residential uses, historical monuments, livestock farming, administrative functions and commerce. It is therefore clear that there is a possibility of interaction between the local community and the exploration staff.
(a) Preliminary Stages At this commencement stage, RG is expected to interact with Federal and Regional Government officials. At the state level, interactions at Regional, Woreda and Kebele level are also expected to occur. The Woreda and Kebele officials will also play a role as an entry point to the local communities within the geothermal license area. Queries, requests for clarification as well as requests for employment may also arise at this early stage.
Depending on the level of interaction with the local community, grievances may also arise in the event that the community is not clear of what activities RG is conducting. They may also have fears and uncertainties based on lack of clear information on the impact of the exploration activities and the Project as a whole.
(b) Pre-feasibility Study Phases At this stage, concession rights are acquired (if not already), geoscientific studies are conducted as well as assessments to determine the technical and financial viability of the geothermal development site. At this stage, stakeholder engagement is conducted both for Project planning purposes as well as during environmental and social assessments.
Analysis of alternatives is also done during Project feasibility stages. At this point, stakeholder engagement can provide an insight on identified issues regarding social,
27
RG SEP–01: 2019
environmental and sometimes technical viability of the various alternatives under consideration. Findings from the engagement process can also be used to enhance the benefits of the optimum option picked at the end of the analysis of alternatives.
Stakeholder engagement at this point should focus on meaningful participation as opposed to pure information dissemination. Feedback from various stakeholders especially those who stand to experience direct Project impacts, should be taken seriously during development of mitigation measures and Project programs. Stakeholders involved in the ESIA study stage may be keen to check which of their suggestions and proposals have been integrated into the project designs, plans and programs. A clear demonstration of how this was done, can help foster ownership of the Project and its related plans and programs.
Compliance with environmental and social safeguard requirements on meaningful stakeholder engagement can also be demonstrated through a clear summary of the stakeholder proposals that have been incorporated into the Project’s plans and programs.
(c) Disclosure of Pre-feasibility Study Findings (ESIA and RAP) Certain aspects of the pre-feasibility study phase may be disclosed to the public. These may include a clear description of impacts and mitigation measures from Project activities during public presentation of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) study findings. This platform can therefore be used to safely disseminate information on the Project and to give clarifications on misconceptions, assuage fears and promote stakeholder buy-in into the sustainable development agenda presented by the Project.
The disclosure platform can also be used to get stakeholder buy-in into the proposed Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMP) for the pre-construction, construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the Project. Government regulatory agencies as well as NGOs and CBOs can have a positive influence over the participation of primary stakeholders in participatory monitoring of the implementation of the ESMP. This platform can therefore be used to validate some of the assumptions in the proposed environmental and social management programs to be developed under the ESMP, or as a result of the stakeholder engagement process during the feasibility studies.
These may include: • Environmental restoration programs • Conservation and habitat protection activities • Pollution (air, water, noise and vibrations) prevention and abatement • Emergency response plans including evacuation procedures where necessary • Heritage protections and management of physical resources of archaeological and cultural value • Interventions for environmental health management and prevention of communicable diseases • Employment programs • Gender mainstreaming activities • Targeted inclusion of vulnerable and minority groups • Community liaison strategies • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs
At this stage, there is a risk of other groups with conflicting interests that may use or misuse the information disclosed to their own ends with specific groups among the primary stakeholders. It is therefore critical that the correct information is disseminated to all stakeholders in a transparent manner to reduce conflicts arising from miscommunication or speculation. Information disclosure should also be done in a manner that facilitates openness and dialogue in problem solving approaches to grievance management.
(d) Feasibility Phases During this phase, stakeholders are likely to have direct interaction with the Project site team which may include the Project management team, contractors and their staff. At this point, the physical and social impacts of the Project are actually felt and seen by the stakeholders. The production and power plant construction phase ESMP usually
28
RG SEP–01: 2019
anticipates these impacts and provides for measures to eliminate or minimise them and where this is not possible, it provides for compensation of the affected persons. For this effect, Compensation committee shall be established to undertake inventory of the land acquired for the Project use and losses of public and individual properties and assets due to access road(s), drill pads and other Project structures; and they estimate compensation and delivery of compensation before the commencement of Project construction.
At this stage therefore, whether the Proponent takes the initiative to engage stakeholders or not, interaction with stakeholders will be inevitable especially when grievances connected to Project activities arise. Structured stakeholder engagement is therefore encouraged from the start to prevent reactive or defensive communication with stakeholders. In the long run, grievances that are not handled at Project level present a litigation risk to the Project.
At this stage, the Proponent can also begin to establish communication systems and build positive relationships with stakeholders that can be utilized in future phases of the Project.
Stakeholder engagement during construction also provides opportunities for participatory monitoring and evaluation of the ESMP’s performance in management of environmental and social impacts of the Project. The focus of stakeholder engagement can therefore easily shift to grievance management, negotiation and relationship building.
At this stage, beneficiary participation is not high. However, attainment of Project benefits that are expected at the construction phase can also be checked with the feedback being received from stakeholders. These may include expectations on employment opportunities, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs by the proponent or his contractor and livelihood enhancement measures within the Project’s resettlement programs.
Regulatory agencies supervising Project activities are also considered a key stakeholder at this stage. The regulatory agencies involved at this stage can be expected to be more than operation phases due to the diverse nature of infrastructure development and activities ongoing at the time. In this Project context, this may include: • Development of a road network • Establishment of water, sanitation and power infrastructure • Exploitation of material site(s) /lay-down area • Operation of processing plant with materials such as cement, ballast and bitumen • Temporary construction camps including residential facilities for construction staff • Storage areas for bulky, hazardous and non-hazardous materials
Interaction with regulatory agencies can therefore occur during permitting activities, audits, issuance and confirmation of implementation of corrective orders.
4.4.2 Operation Phases
The Project focus at this stage is expected to shift to operation and maintenance of power production and transmission activities. Project benefits as defined in the planning stages are now expected to be manifest at the regional and national level. At the local level, communities around the Project area would ideally expect improvement in their quality of life either through socio- economic growth and increase in commercial activities directly serving the power plants or indirectly through servicing the population that deals with the project.
Unlike the construction phase, employment of the local community may diminish as the focus shifts to skilled and semi-skilled workers to be employed in the power industry. Operational phase impacts as predicted in the ESMP will also become evident. With continued interaction from the construction stage, social changes arising from construction activities that take a while to manifest may also become evident. It is therefore possible from some grievances from the construction phase to be carried on to the early stages of the operation phase.
Occupational and community health and safety issues arising from geothermal power production may also begin to come up. Proper documentation of the pre-project and post-construction
29
RG SEP–01: 2019
indicators can therefore help to clarify any issues that arise at this stage. A good environmental and social monitoring plan is therefore critical to ensure that the Project Proponent has adequate information to support grievance resolution processes. Stakeholder engagement through participatory monitoring and evaluation can also help develop credibility on the qualitative aspects recorded in the monitoring and audit reports.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities can also take the forefront at this stage to facilitate continued benefit sharing with the immediate community. The nature of these CSR activities may also shift to long-term goals that are not necessarily connected to the proponents core business i.e. power production, but towards demonstration of good corporate citizenship. These may include investments in education, culture, youth development and health sectors within the immediate project area. RG will consider Community Development Program (CDP) in cooperation with local administration, possibly with focus on clean drinking water.
Opportunities for public fora for stakeholder engagement are now reduced unless the Proponent is proactive in facilitating them. The modes for information dissemination may also shift to mass media based on an established communication strategy as the proponent’s stakeholder base expands to include the beneficiaries of the power production activities.
4.4.3 Decommissioning Phases
Decommissioning for a geothermal development area can be categorized as follows: • Decommissioning of feasibility /exploration drilling phase related infrastructure and facilities • Decommissioning of a power plant or a component of the power production system while the rest of the geothermal area is still producing power from other plants • Change in the operators of the power plant • Decommissioning of the entire geothermal area
These changes can result in reduction of activity or a complete stop to power generation in the area. It may result in retrenchment of staff or reduced incomes in the general Project area due to reduced economic activities as a direct result of out-migration from the Project area. A once vibrant economy can now revert back to the pre-Project situation or to a totally different scenario depending on the social and economic changes that occurred or were sustained by the Project operation.
Environmental and social liabilities may also occur. In such cases, stakeholder engagement during due diligence audits, close down audits or ESIA for decommissioning of the geothermal development area can help identify the risks that arise from the decommissioning process. Stakeholder engagements should also encourage dialogue, compromise and problem solving approaches.
Issues that may arise include: • Restoration of environmentally degraded sites • Retrenchment of staff • Reduction or elimination of funding for on-going CSR activities • Management of change in land use from geothermal uses and related infrastructure to the original or alternative uses • Dilapidation of public infrastructure and social amenities that were being maintained by funds from project activities • Conflict or legal cases from unresolved grievances that arose during the construction or operation phase • Grievances from attempts to relocate encroachers or squatters from the project’s way leaves, easements and right of way
4.5 Applicability of IFC PS7
SNNP Regional State is one of the nine ethnically based regional states of Ethiopia, accounting for more than 10% of the country’s surface area. The population is estimated at 15-18 million; around
30
RG SEP–01: 2019
a fifth of the country’s population. It is overwhelmingly rural, with only 8-9% living in urban areas. The region is divided into 13 administrative zones, 133 Woredas and 3512 Kebeles, and its capital is Hawassa (Awassa). The SNNP is an extremely ethnically diverse region of Ethiopia, inhabited by more than 80 ethnic groups, of which over 45 (or 56 percent) are indigenous to the region (Central Statistics Agency, CSA). These ethnic groups are distinguished by different languages, cultures, and socioeconomic organizations.
Tentative AoI has been confirmed, baseline socio-economic study carried out and the presence of Indigenous Peoples has been investigated.
During Baseline consultation the community representatives indicated there were no indigenous people who have unique culture or subculture from the main Wolayita community. As the Community members indicated the main reason was that the local community was sedentary and agrarian for more than centuries and protestant Christianity was first introduced in Ethiopia in the Wolayita area. This was probably the main reasons which mixed up all the local dwellers creating homogenous community in cultural setup. Thus, there was no isolated or some segment of the community which practice some unique or different way of life which has environmental or cultural importance for conservation.
It is concluded that PS7 does not need to be triggered by the Project with respective provisions that apply to the process of FPIC.
31
RG SEP–01: 2019
5 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
5.1 General Information
For the engagement process to be effective and meaningful, a range of techniques need to be applied specifically tailored to the identified stakeholder groups. The format of every consultation activity should meet general requirements on accessibility, i.e. the consultation events should be held at venues that are easily reachable for all representatives of the community, should not require entrance fees, and are culturally appropriate.
The consultation activities should also be based on the principle of inclusiveness, i.e. engaging all segments of the society, including disabled persons, the elderly, minority groups, and other vulnerable individuals. If necessary, logistical assistance may be provided to enable disadvantaged representatives to attend meetings.
5.1.1 Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder analysis recognizes that stakeholders are diverse in character and project interests, and that consultation, disclosure and engagement must be appropriate to stakeholder diversity. According to this method, stakeholder groups can be placed in a matrix with two axes.
These axes indicate: • The extent to which the Project will impact the stakeholders, and /or the extent to which they have an interest in it • The degree of influence that stakeholders might have, over the progress and success of the Project
The following characteristics have been used to locate stakeholders in the analysis matrix. • Physical location relative to the Project, and hence potential for impacts (positive and negative) • Attachment to the area that might be affected by the Project (including issues like heritage, land ownership and use, and livelihoods) • The degree to which the Project is relevant to the mandate or jurisdiction of an institutional body with regulatory influence
The guideline presents the general criteria used to determine stakeholder location on the impact /interest and influence axes.
Figure 6: Stakeholder analysis matrix
Table below presents an analysis of the stakeholder identified during the development of this SEP.
32
RG SEP–01: 2019
Table 6: Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder Impact /Interest Influence Proposed Engagement Platforms Group Project Affected Persons High – Most affected communities will potentially High – The direct affected ▪ Household Surveys experience high degree of impact. communities have great influence ▪ Focus Group Meetings with community leaders on the project implementation as ▪ Public meetings in affected communities they are the ones to experience the ▪ Information dissemination and feedback from Project direct and indirect impacts of the project. Their quality of life can Proponent through public platforms including public therefore easily by negatively or meetings and mass media positively affected by project activities. Project affected communities can therefore be development partners or against the project as an aggrieved group.
Possible presence High – Most affected communities will potentially HIGH – Impact on Indigenous If present: Indigenous Peoples experience high degree of impact. People will have influence on ▪ More thorough project information and consultations to project implementation. Their PS 1 ICP, considering social structures, leadership, quality of life can easily be decision-making processes, social identities etc. impacted negatively by project
activities. If adversely impacted: ▪ GFN process to reach FPIC ▪ Resulting in agreement to develop IPP / CDP
Federal Government High (especially the environmental regulators) – HIGH – They are partners in Information disclosure based on requirements, focused Departments National and regional Government regulate and efficient program implementation. consultation: oversee environment al and social management They can also be partners in ▪ Phone /Fax /Email programs. They provide licensing and approvals, sharing of practical strategies for ▪ Occasional one-on-one /focus group meetings as in accordance with various Laws. environmental and social required management. As custodians of ▪ Distribution of documents government policies and regulations, they hold key ▪ Recording of comments /feedback on comments information on any updates ▪ Round table discussions for decision making and occurring in the realm of consensus. environmental and social management for sustainable development.
33
RG SEP–01: 2019
Stakeholder Impact /Interest Influence Proposed Engagement Platforms Group Regional Government High – in terms of Environmental management, High /medium –Local government ▪ One-on-one meetings with officials and Departments land acquisition, compensation issues and is a key partner to the EPA in ▪ Partners in distribution of non-technical Project livelihood restoration programs. confirmation of the efficacy of information, dissemination and feedback from Project environmental and social Proponent through public platform. management plans during both construction and operation. They ▪ Round table discussions for problem solving, review are therefore partners in an update of procedures for environmental and social sustainable development within the management programs including participatory Project area. evaluation of the efficacy of the SEP
CSOs and NGOs High – CSOs and NGOs are actors in community High – They can be partners in Inclusive and focused consultation: development and advocacy especially at the development interventions by an ▪ One-on-one meetings as required grassroots level. They understand pertinent organization at community levels. ▪ Focus group meetings issues in their areas where they are acting. They are good informants in Given the unique biodiversity and endemic participatory, monitoring and species, CSOs and NGOs are a critical evaluation. They can also be stakeholder; they have vested interests having adversaries in case of conflicting been working in the Project area. interests
International Financial High – Development projects funded by donors High– Enforcement of the ▪ Meetings Institutions /Donors have to be incompliance with their environmental implementation of environmental and social safeguards. Lack of compliance can and social programs including lead to delay in project implementation through Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) sanctions such as withholding and in very bad and corrective actions is a critical cases outright withdrawal from the project. element to sustainable development.
Media Medium to High – Mass media provides platform MEDIUM - High – Depending on ▪ Press conferences to send out information to a very large population presentation of news and opinions, with technological advancement in broadcasting, mass media with clout in a information can cross international borders. community can influence public Depending on the situation and /or how opinion towards an organization information is packaged, the media can be a and its activities. partner or an adversary to the Project.
34
RG SEP–01: 2019
5.1.2 Conceptual Framework and Proposed Structure
The following conceptual model in the Figure below outlines the expected communication flow among stakeholders.
Various stakeholder groups are bound to interact with various departments of officials within RG. A clear communication loop should therefore be established to ensure that RG staff are aware of their roles responsibilities and mandates with regard to stakeholder engagement.
The communication flow suggests that there are various channels of interaction between the various groups. There is also a possibility of interaction between stakeholders and various officers within RG based on their day to day activities for power production.
Potentially Displaced Persons Regional Government
CSOs and NGOs
RG Federal Government Agencies
PAPs and the General Public
Media Development Partners
Figure 7: Expected communication flow through stakeholder engagements
The following procedure is proposed to establish a precise entry point into and within RG and then on to the rest of the stakeholders:
• Interaction with the local community should be from the grassroots to the relevant desk within RG. As such, continuation of current system of Community Liaison Officer(s) is recommended.
• The community liaison structure should be embedded within an environmental and social management system to ensure comprehensive address of issues arising from environmental and social sustainability issues.
• Federal and regional government agencies are more inclined towards regulatory and overseeing functions in accordance with their mandate. Communication with this group should be therefore be in a formal manner and brought to the attention of RG management through a designated Environmental and Social Manager (E&S Manager). A manager can therefore be designated to cover this role.
• Officials at kebele level are likely to be in continuous interaction with the Community Liaison Officer(s), but the higher-level officials (Woreda and Zonal) would have limited interaction with them but can directly link with the E&S Manager. When issues on biophysical environment occur, involvement of Environmental Experts (EE) will suffice. The apex point
35
RG SEP–01: 2019
of interaction between RG and the different stakeholders should be the E&S Manager, who will co-ordinate internal communication within the various desks in RG.
• The E&S Manager should have access to top management (decision makers) within RG.
• Development partners are expected to interact with RG top management. The feedback loop to and from the grass roots should be through the E&S Manager and his CLOs.
• The general public and beneficiaries can be engaged through mass media and written communication that should be recorded in a community engagement and / or feedback log.
• It is recommended that direct communication with mass media be done through an in- house or contracted public relations firm.
5.2 Stakeholder Methods
5.2.1 General Information
This section outlines information on further stakeholder engagement activities. Procedures for public engagement should be periodically reviewed during M&E of the SEP to adapt to the changes in social structure in the Project area and ensure relevance throughout the Project cycle.
For all activities involving community members, it is recommended that public meetings in the Project area should not be set on the following days unless it is totally unavoidable:
• Fridays – This is a day of worship for the majority Muslim community • Tuesdays – This is a market day, so majority of the targeted attendees would be absent
During planting and harvest seasons, timing for the meeting should be adequately discussed with kebele administration to avoid slotting them when the community is working in their farms.
5.2.2 Activities and Methods
During the stakeholder engagement process the following engagement activities are recommended:
(a) Public Meetings Public meetings can be defined as meetings that are open to everyone with no restrictions on access. They are the best tool to disseminate information at grass root levels as they allow for real time clarifications on misconceptions, misinformation and false perceptions and fears. Due to unrestricted access, public meetings can have an attendance of more than one hundred persons. The key to such high attendance lies in adequate mobilization. Critical aspects to consider when organising for a public meeting are:
• Entry points into the community: In the Project area, the most recognized entry point is Kebele administration. Authority for conducting a public meeting must be granted by the regional administration through an introductory letter from the Zonal, Woreda levels before reaching the Kebele administration.
• Notice for meetings: It normally takes 3-4 days between a request for a public meeting, at the Kebele level and when it actually occurs. Information dissemination is usually on critical path, to ensure that the attendees are informed of the meeting in time.
• Public notice for meetings: In practice, the Kebele administration disseminates information mostly by word of mouth through zone (got) leaders directly to the village heads and down to household levels. Each zone has about 20-30 villages. Supplementary notices can be given through public posters at the zone level.
36
RG SEP–01: 2019
• Adequate representation of community members: Necessary attentions is required for inviting the public so as to ensure adequate representation, especially of women and young people in the community.
• Promotion of participation: By their nature, public meetings are not suitable for in- depth discussions but they do well in terms of exchange of straight forward information and reading the general public mood towards a certain issue. It is therefore important to manage the meeting to ensure that at least all the various factions represented, get a chance to talk.
• Recording of proceedings: This is done through minutes of meeting, photography and recording of attendance (attendance sheets). For the Project area, public meetings should be conducted and recorded in the national language (Amharic), and translated to local language. Meeting team therefore should have at least one member who is conversant with spoken and written local language.
• Approval of minutes: Minutes of meeting are usually signed in duplicate by members of the Kebele cabinet who are present for the meeting. The minutes are kept by the Kebele administrator and the convenor of the meeting.
(b) Workshops & Seminars Workshops and seminar are good tools to deliberate on crosscutting issues. Attendance is controlled through formal invitations to ensure that an optimum number attends. Workshops can also be used to disclose critical findings and seek validation to assumptions and proposed mitigation measures. It is therefore important to ensure that the target groups are well represented by stakeholders from both public and private sectors. Community participation can be enhanced through nomination or election of representatives.
Use of visual aids such as maps, presentations and panels provide good reference materials during the workshop sessions. It is therefore important that workshop materials are prepared adequately in advance for dissemination to attendees. Information packages can also be prepared and distributed to attendees to carry with them after the workshops. Records of workshop proceedings can be kept in the form of minutes, reports and photos.
(c) Round Table Meetings Round table meetings consist usually of smaller number of attendees (10-15 persons) to facilitate in-depth discussion, consensus building, conflict resolution and decision making. They are usually based on a certain issue and thrive best when there fewer agendas for discussion.
A round table meeting should therefore target stakeholder representatives with the authority to speak and make decisions on behalf of the larger group. Inclusion of mandated government official usually lends further credibility and continuity on decisions made. Community representation has to be by bona fide leaders who have been endorsed by the larger community. Community mobilisation for selection, election or nomination and validation should therefore be done before this platform can be used.
The principle of prior informed consent should be upheld at all times to avoid reneging on agreements made. Sometimes there is need for technical expertise and even legal representation in such meetings. Rule of engagement should also be discussed and agreed including the mandate of all present.
Records of round table meetings proceedings can be kept in the form of minutes of discussions and deliberation, agreement and in some cases memoranda of understanding.
(d) Focus Group Discussions Focus group discussions are mainly composed of about 10 to 15 people with similar backgrounds or experiences meeting to discuss specific topics of interest or issues that directly affect their wellbeing. FGDs are led through by a skilled moderator in terms of understanding the issues as well as skills in simulating discussion especially among quieter member of the group.
37
RG SEP–01: 2019
Notice for meeting should be through the Kebele administration. Emphasis should be made to ensure that those interest groups are clearly represented. Participation by CSOs and NGOs should be encouraged. FGDs can also be organised for government agencies to discuss crosscutting issues such as pollution management gender mainstreaming livelihood restoration benefit sharing and corporate social responsibilities.
Records of deliberation are kept in the form of notes of the meeting. Photos of the meetings are equally important as evidence of the meetings. Contact sheets are a good source for developing a stakeholder database.
(e) One on One Interviews One on one interviews can either be guided (using an interview schedule) or open ended. They are usually done with key informants but require triangulation with outcomes of other stakeholder engagement platforms to avoid bias. Guided interviews are best for record keeping purposes as they allow the interviewer to cover as many sub issues as possible.
Records of deliberation are kept in the form of notes of the meeting. Photos of the meetings are equally important as evidence of the meetings. Contact sheets are a good source for developing a stakeholder database.
(f) Key Informant Interviews Courtesy calls and interviews with key government officials can and will be carried out: • Zonal Administrators • Woreda Administrators • Office of the Women, Youth and Children Affairs • Office of the Lands Management • Investments Office • Culture and Tourism Office
(g) Press Conferences Press conferences can be used to present an organizations position of the greater public. Press conferences should be supported with a clear communication strategy. Public Relations firms are good resource to guide an organization on proper planning and execution of communication strategies through mass media.
(h) Observation and Photography Participant observation and photography can also be used as data collection methods for this study. Behaviour of women, role of men and type of housing structures in the Project area will be made through observation. Pictures will be taken to show evidence of activities that were carried out during the field studies.
38
RG SEP–01: 2019
6 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
6.1 Background
The IFC Performance Standards trigger several disclosure and consultation issues to be considered. Stakeholder engagements will be a continuous progress.
1. A number of stakeholder engagements have already taken place with national and local government officials by Reykjavik Geothermal since 2008. These have involved administrative and elected officials on various issues at different levels from Federal, Regional, Elected, Woreda to Kebele. A number of meetings have been held with the off-taker, Ethiopian Electric Power Office. Furthermore, a number of high-level stakeholder engagements have taken place with potential development partners (e.g. EIB), NGOs (USAID /Power Africa, Clinton Foundation, SOS Children’s Villages), and also with local administrative officials and some farmers when preparing and during geoscience field work. A number of Ethiopian media events have taken place since signing and defining the Project with the Government and pledging to harvest 1.000 MW of geothermal energy in Ethiopia.
Some of these meetings are documented in minutes while others have resulted in agreements of various sorts.
2. Project disclosure and dissemination of information to stakeholder were carried out in 2018 before start of baseline studies, geochemical sampling and geophysical surveying. Consulted during this period will be; Regional, Zonal, Woreda, Kebele administrations as well as Project Affected Persons (PAP) and impacted community members including women and elders.
The objectives of the above disclosure activities were to: • Publicize the development of the Project both at local, regional and national levels • Engage key stakeholders by introducing the pre-feasibility study, the feasibility exercise and ESIA process • Identify additional potential and key stakeholders • Identify concerns and opportunities to be addressed by the ESIA process
These initial meetings reveal interest of stakeholders and support of the proposed Project. Main concerns raised during these meetings were related to impacts on loss of land, effect on private properties and the need to maintain transparent and open consultation during the entire Project cycle. Of key interest and importance among those consulted, was the potential for the proposed Project to create employment for the locals, in particular the young people.
3. As part of ESIA baseline preparation, a household survey was administered in the Project /Study area in Abaya early 2019. It was carried out with a team of supervisors and enumerators who were trained to administer a questionnaire to an adult member of the household (usually the household head and women) except for a child headed household, where they administered the questionnaire to the eldest responsible person. The interviews were conducted on a one-on-one and face-to-face basis. Enumerators recorded contact references of the respondents for future verification. Sample of over 350 households were interviewed for the household sample data.
Data was analysed and reported in the Environmental and Social Baseline Study Report for the Abaya Geothermal Development Project.
6.2 Information Disclosure Consultations
North South Consulting carried out Project information disclosure consultations with stakeholders in November 2018. Orientation meetings were conducted with Federal, Regional, Zonal, Woreda
39
RG SEP–01: 2019
administrations, followed by meetings with disclosure consultations with potentially affected community members including women and elders.
Details and meeting minutes about these consultations are provided in SEP and in a special report by North South Consulting: Assessment Report: Stakeholder Engagement. The objectives of the disclosure activities were to: • Disseminate information about the Project at local, regional and national levels • Introduce upcoming pre-feasibility and ESIA process starting with Baseline studies • Sensitize the community on the objectives of the assignment • Collect preliminary concerns, queries and feedback on the proposed geothermal activities.
For the community conversations with key participants following 10 kebeles were covered: • Hobicha Digiso (Hobicha Bada is within this kebele) • Hobicha Bongota • Abala Longana • Abala Faracho • Abala Qolshobo • Abala Gafata • Abala Maraka • Abaya Chawkare • Abaya Bilate • Abaya Gurucho
Some kebeles will be more affected than others in Humbo Woreda. The area is still facing food security problems and any change within their socio-economy might influence this situation positively or negatively. In general, it is observed that the people in the Project area are living in a remote area with limited access to potable water and electricity. Road access in certain areas is very difficult as well. Communities showed interest in being involved in the project, especially for unemployed youth. Unemployed youth is expected to be positively affected with opportunities for direct employment with the Project or by increased business opportunities in other areas. Within the area there are different vulnerable groups to be identified, like widows that in general are running their own household.
These initial meetings revealed stakeholders’ overall interest and support of the proposed Project. Main concerns raised during these meetings were related to impacts on land loss, effect on private properties and the need to maintain consultation during the entire Project cycle. Of key importance among those consulted, was the potential for the proposed Project to create employment for the locals and accessibility of electricity.
40
RG SEP–01: 2019
Figure 8: Stakeholder participants in Abala Longana kebele
Figure 9: Stakeholder participants in Abala Qolshobo kebele
Figure 10: Stakeholder participants in Abaya Bilate kebele
41
RG SEP–01: 2019
(a) Mitigation Resettlement People raised this issue due to bad experiences in the past. They really want to express themselves in their disappointment and were requesting to minimize the resettlement as much as possible.
All actions related to resettlement should be handled in a timely manner by the local government and the company. The government requirements should be followed and where needed adjusted.
The ESIA will provide more detailed information on the mitigation of resettlement, as this is related to the procedures of the company and the IFC /World Bank.
(b) Employment Opportunities to Benefit All The main concern of the community was that currently their youth is sitting unemployed in their community. They accepted that for some work one may need a technical education or experience, but people mentioned that they wanted to take any opportunity to work seriously.
The community would like to see that the Project succeeds as it will create some jobs for the local youth and will prevent the youth from migration to the town or anywhere else in the country.
(c) Trust During the different meetings with the local governments and communities, transparency was rated as very important. Involving the local government and inviting them to join the field now and then was strongly suggested to be continued (with the permission of the head or the major of the town).
Trust can be restored with the community, when considering their past experiences and acknowledgement of it. It is crucial to build up trust and show respect for community rules. From the local kebele it is important to pick some people to come along and mention that a team will be in their area.
(d) Environmental Protection The community was concerned on different environmental impacts, and the ESIA team might use our initial analysis to work this out into more detail.
Pollution At the feasibility stages no pollution is expected. Research teams go into the field to collect rock samples, water samples and initial measurements on the surface will be made to collect specific data to identify the heat sources.
When it will be decided to start drilling, the paths to bring machines into the area will have to be made. Apart from diesel used to run the drill, during drilling no hazardous chemicals are expected, only water for drill lubrication. The water that will be pumped up, will also be injected down into the same earth layer.
Carbon Forest The Project might be located in one of the kebeles where different kebeles may be benefiting. It will be an income generating activity. During the ESIA more detailed information can be collected on the percentage contribution to the household income in the beneficiary kebeles.
Consequences for Water The current activities should not affect the ground water. Samples of water that have been taken have been tested for fluoride content. As the company is aware that this is a big problem for the public health in this area.
The community was informed that drilling will take place at 2,000 meters depth which is below the drinking water surface. Also the water will be pumped back to that level. No drinking water well will be touched.
42
RG SEP–01: 2019
(e) Final Work on Capacity Building It is very important for the company to bring on board Ethiopian researchers in order to learn from the geothermal Project and start to professionalize experts and technicians. It is important also to stress the working ethics to them.
With the Ministry of Education, the State Minister of Higher Education a short discussion was held on what would be the best University to partner with. It was suggested to approach the Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, where a presentation on the Project was held in November 2018. In the short discussion that followed the team from engineering departments and head of renewable energy department showed high interest in connecting to RG and discussing the opportunities to engage in monitoring activities.
6.3 Household Survey
As part of ESIA Baseline preparation, Green Sober Environmental Management Consultant administered a household survey in the Project /Study area in Abaya early in 2019. It was carried out with a team of supervisors and enumerators who were trained to administer a questionnaire to an adult member of the household male or female. Data was analysed and is reported in detail in Abaya Geothermal Development Project: Baseline Study - annexed to this ESIA report.
The socio-economic and environmental baseline study employed a cross-sectional survey design following a mixed research methodology. The mixed methodology combined quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess the social, economic and environmental context of the Project area. For the quantitative data, the household survey and other numerical data from desk reviews was used. The qualitative component involved Community Consultation and Key Informant Interview (KII).
To represent the total number of household units in the selected /targeted ten kebeles within Humbo Woreda of 10,352, the total sample size for the household survey was calculated to be 368 household that were subsequently presented with a Household survey questionnaire. Further Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews were carried out.
In all the Project areas, the key informants informed that they have good information about Abaya geothermal project. On behalf of their kebeles, they confirmed that all community members had good willing for the upcoming Project and were willing to cooperate. They pointed out that the existence of rampant unemployment problem and persistent drought problems due to rain shortage to feed agriculture. Regarding their expectations from the Project; what they expressed was that, it will be blessing if the Project develops water for irrigation and domestic supply as first priority, and job opportunity for their unemployed youth as second priority.
Figure 11: Key Informant Interview at Abala Gafata kebele
43
RG SEP–01: 2019
Exceptionally Abala Gafata kebele’s key informant prioritized access road problem. Similarly, the key informant in Abaya Chawukare indicated irrigation headwork collapse due to heavy flood of River Bilate. This led the community to lose irrigation water supply for the last two years. Hence because of collapse of the irrigation scheme they would not able to grow their usual fruits and vegetable for the last two years.
Following is summary of the participants’ answers to the major proving questions.
(a) Information About Abaya Geothermal Project All the participants of the PAP consulted confirmed that they do have enough information about the geothermal Project. As the participants indicated the source of the information was Humbo Woreda officials and Reykjavík Geothermal workers. Moreover, the kebele chief Administrators and kebele Managers indicated, they participated in one day introductory and briefing workshop on Abaya Geothermal development project a month ago in Humbo Tebela town.
(b) Income Source, Land Tenure system, Cultural & Natural Resources Status The participants indicated that the main source of income of the kebele or the woreda is agriculture. The major types of crops grown in the kebele were maize, Haricot bean, Sorghum soy bean, sweet potato and Casaba. Besides farm activity the local youth engaged in nonfarm activity like production of construction materials through manual stone drilling, chiseling and crushing to produce coarse and fine quarries. Similarly, the consulting firm also witnessed that there were stone quarry producing sites in the kebele. Regarding the existence of natural /physical resource like forest, river, park, wetland and /or cultural heritages like scared places, the community members revealed that there were no as such important resources of environmental or social concern in the entire project Kebeles.
The community representatives consulted further indicated, there were no indigenous people who have unique culture or subculture from the main Wolayita community (Ethnic group). As the community members indicated the main reason was that the local community was sedentary and agrarian for more than centuries on one hand and protestant Christianity was first introduced in Ethiopia in Wolayita area on the other hand. This was probably the foremost reasons which mixed up all the local dwellers creating homogenous community in cultural setup. Thus, there was no any isolated or some segment of the community which practice some unique or different way of life which has environmental or cultural importance for conservation.
(c) Risks & Opportunities of the Project As far as concerning the opportunities and risks of the project the participants said that if the projects’ execution fully or partially damages private or public property they expect proper compensation and relocation based on consensus or prior agreement. On the other hand, they expect the project will develop water supply schemes, create job opportunity, knowledge and technology transfer.
(d) Persistent Socio-economic & Environmental Problems in the Kebeles & Expectation from the Project In all the project kebeles PAP indicated, chronic drought, persistent drinking and irrigation water shortage, youth unemployment and productivity decline were major problems. During field data collection Green Sober witnessed that the socioeconomic and environmental problems were persistent and chronic in the Project areas. Moreover, the second growth and transformation plan (GTP II, 2015) of SNNPR Agricultural bureau categorized Humbo Woreda as one of the most drought prone and food in-secured woredas in the region.
Regarding the community expectation from the Project, in the entire 10 Kebeles PAP expectations were almost similar. In short, they expect development of drinking water supply and irrigation scheme as first priority, job opportunity as secondary priority. Besides proper relocation and compensation if their property will be damaged or relocated or they themselves displaced.
Exceptionally, Abala Maraka kebele community indicated drainage problem due to Addis Ababa- Sodo-Arbaminch asphalt road construction and over flooding of River Hamessa in
44
RG SEP–01: 2019
rainy seasons. Similarly, Farancho kebele community requited the rehabilitation and maintenance of the irrigation scheme which was intended to irrigate 160ha using Zigire River. The PAP informed that this scheme was not functional for couple of years due to canal bed erosion. Likewise, Abala Gafata kebele PAP prioritized the problem of access road. Finally, Chawkare PAP presented the overflow of river Bilate breaking out its natural course scheme two years ago. This posed a serious difficulty in diverting the river water to the irrigation field. Because of water flow unavailability, the kebele community could not irrigate their farm land and produce their usual crops of any type.
6.4 Identified Impacts & Mitigation Measures Disclosed
[To be written]
6.5 Disclosure of SEP & RPF /RAP, Grievance Redress Mechanism
[To be written]
45
RG SEP–01: 2019
7 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN
7.1 Plan Overview
Next stakeholder engagements will occur at the following stages: 1. Initial Project disclosure and dissemination of Project information - Completed 2. Initial identification of impacts and mitigations measures for ESMP 3. First version SEP and RPF, incl. Grievance Redress Mechanism 4. Final ESIA report disclosure and consultation (resp. MoWIE and / or RG) 5. RAP, valuation committee and livelihood restoration strategies 6. Access road and drill pad design, civil work getting ready to start 7. Mobilization of drill and rig, transportation and traffic management plans, other ESMPs 8. Evaluation of effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented 9. Results from exploration drilling, and next steps
Further stakeholder engagements may be defined as work progresses.
7.2 ESIA Implementation
Consultations during the ESIA implementation stage will be in accordance with following sequence:
1. On completion of identification of preliminary ESIA mitigating and enhancement measures, involving provision of information on ESIA progress and preliminary ESMP results. This is also a stage when certain impact issues are by and large clear, other issues may be more important than first thought and new impact issues may be identified that need investigation. This stakeholder engagement will only occur when sufficient information on likely impacts and mitigation measures is available to enable meaningful consultation with stakeholders on the expected risks /impacts and the ways in which they will be managed and, if appropriate, monitored. The consultation results will be incorporated into the work programme leading to preparation of the ESIA report.
2. During the ESIA work, disclosure of a copy of the latest SEP and RPF /RAP to those concerned and who were consulted in the Baseline stage plus stakeholders who have expressed an interest in being kept informed.
For the engagement process to be effective and meaningful, a range of techniques will be applied specifically tailored to the identified stakeholder groups. The format of every consultation activity will meet general requirements on accessibility, i.e. the consultation events will be held at venues that are easily reachable for all representatives of the community, do not require entrance fees, and are culturally appropriate. The consultation activities will also be based on the principle of inclusiveness, i.e. engaging all segments of the society, including disabled persons, the elderly, minority groups, and other vulnerable individuals. If necessary, logistical assistance may be provided to enable disadvantaged representatives to attend meetings.
The Ministry of Water, Irrigation & Electricity (MoWIE) plays a role in the determining the extent and type of consultations for ESIA on a case-by-case basis. It will be important for the Project Proponent to liaise with the MoWIE to reach agreement on stakeholder engagement activities that meet both Ethiopia legal requirements and are compliant with PS 1.
Suggested approach to ESIA implementation consultation activities is presented in the Tables below.
46 RG SEP–01: 2019
Table 7: ESIA implementation – Project disclosure and consultation Stakeholder Category Stakeholder Engagement Timetable/ Disclosure Materials Methods Location(s) All stakeholders consulted during baseline By email and /or hand-delivery Q-4, 2018 • Copy of PP slides and /or non- /scoping ESIA stage plus other stakeholders Q-1, 2019 technical summary who a) have expressed an interest in the Request for comments on the • As /if necessary, also Feedback Project, and b) stakeholders recommended planned activities of the TM Forms /Comments Sheet as being appropriate recipients. geothermal dev. project
Table 8: ESIA implementation – Interim /preliminary results Stakeholder Category Stakeholder Engagement Location(s) Disclosure Materials Means of Advance Notification Methods /Timetable Affected Communities: One public meeting in central Hawassa or Sodo • SEP and draft ESMP available in • Local radio, television and /or • Population residing in the nearest location. depending on publicly accessible locations in newspapers settlements to /within the Project sites facilities advance of the meetings • Posters in prominent publicly /Focus area 2-5 clustered focus groups: • Leaflets summarizing risks accessible locations in each consisting of representatives Locations in the • Owners /occupiers /users of land likely /impacts and management settlement as well as in publicly from the Affected communities. Affected communities to be acquired by the Project. measures distributed to each accessible locations en route
• Vulnerable people living in the nearest Discussion on preliminary Q-3, 2019 household Adama to Assela settlements to the Project sites impacts results, mitigating • PPT presentation on the Project • Government Agency for Public • Owners /occupiers /users of land measures and seek feedback progress and design changes (if Information located along existing gravel road(s) in on progress and to help identify any). PPTs will be presented at • Community Development the Project sites gaps/issues which may need to the beginning of the meeting Officers • Local people occasionally using areas be addressed in more detail or • Feedback forms • Personal invitations to attend within the Project’s AoI for traditional new concerns /issues that the meeting will be delivered to and recreational activities (bathing, need to be investigated de the owners /occupiers /users of hiking or hunting) novo. land likely to be acquired by the
• Owners /occupiers /users of land Project located along the Highway #79 • Assistance from local mosques and churches
National government: Ministries /Agencies 2-3 round-table meetings Addis Ababa • Dissemination of electronic copies • Invitation by letter Q-3, 2019 of draft ESMP and SEP in Regional governments at Zonal, Woreda The objective of the round advance of the meeting and Kebele levels table meeting will be to discuss TBD in the field • PPT presentation on the Project the preliminary ESIA results Q-3, 2019 progress and design changes (if impacts and mitigating any). PPTs will be presented at measures, seek feedback on progress and to help identify gaps /issues which may need
47 RG SEP–01: 2019
Stakeholder Category Stakeholder Engagement Location(s) Disclosure Materials Means of Advance Notification Methods /Timetable to be addressed in more detail the beginning of the meeting and or new concerns /issues that form the basis for discussion need to be investigated de novo. NGOs and CSOs in the area One round-table meeting for Hawassa or Sodo • Dissemination of electronic copies • Targeted invitations by letter NGOs and members of the Q-3, 2019 of draft ESMP and SEP in and Email interest groups. advance of the workshop • PPT presentation of project The objective of this meeting design changes and ESIA results will be to discuss the scoping to date. PPTs will presented at study results and the preliminary ESIA results beginning of workshop and form (impacts/mitigating measures), the basis for discussion seek feedback on progress and • Leaflets to help identify gaps/issues • Feedback forms which may need to be addressed in more detail or new concerns/issues that need to be investigated de novo. Media: Media will be kept informed by Periodic • Press releases and Project status • Targeted invitations to media regular press releases, press updates briefings/press conferences • National Broadcasting Corporation and post-meeting media • Government Agency for Public briefings and press Information conferences as to Project • Local radio /newspapers /ESIA developments.
Workforce: Staff members /employees will Periodic • Internal briefing notes and news in • N/A be kept informed and engaged SharePoint • Employees of the Geothermal to promote clarity and prevent Consortium. unrealistic expectations being • Labour Union(s) – if employees are raised in communities. Special wholly or partly unionized. focus will be given to staff working on the Project including especially Community Liaison Officer /Community Contact(s).
48 RG SEP–01: 2019
7.3 Final ESIA Disclosure & Consultation
In late 2019, liaison will occur with the MoWIE to agree as to the disclosure and consultation activities to be undertaken at this stage. It is expected that they will be similar to those outlined below, but some specific details may change. Should there be a change then this will be reflected in an updated version of this SEP.
The ESIA report, including an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), will be made available for public review for a reasonable period of time. Subject to disclosure will also be a Non- Technical Summary (NTS) which will convey the main findings and impact mitigation measures in a readily understandable manner, as well as the version of the SEP that is current at the time of ESIA report disclosure. The NTS will be released in the public domain simultaneously with the ESIA report and will be available for stakeholder review during the same period of time.
Disclosure of materials will occur by making them available at venues and locations frequented by the community and places to which the public have easy access. Also through www.rg.is web site.
Printed copies of the ESIA report, NTS and the SEP in English will be made accessible for the general public at the following preliminary locations: • The Project office in Addis Ababa. • The Project public reception office in Sodo (should it be decided to open such an office).
At some stage, the Proponent will consider electronic copies of the ESIA, NTS and SEP and other documents to be placed on a Project web-site. This will allow many stakeholders to view information about the planned development and to facilitate their involvement in the consultation process.
In cooperation with the MoWIE, meetings will be organised to discuss the conclusions of the ESIA report and impact mitigation measures proposed therein. Following meetings are expected: • Two public meetings: one for Affected communities (as defined above in the AoI subsection) and one in in Addis Ababa (as this is a Project of national importance). • Round table meeting with the regulatory and executive governmental bodies. • Round table meeting with NGOs and interest groups.
The media may be invited to a briefing session either or both of the two meetings.
The mechanisms that will be used for facilitating input from stakeholders and inviting them for the meetings will include press releases, announcements and notifications published in the media, dissemination of information through the community development officers, as well as the local mosques and churches and posting of information in prominent community locations such as shops, post office and community noticeboards.
7.4 Indicative Timeframes
The disclosure process and consultation activities for this phase of the Geothermal Development Project will be implemented within the following indicative timeframes: • Project disclosure and dissemination of information to stakeholders: Q-4, 2018 [Done] • Making SEP and RPF available to those stakeholders already consulted and others identified during scoping consultations: Q-3, 2019 • Consultation meetings to present and discuss the preliminary ESIA results on mitigation and enhancement measures for ESMP: Q-3, 2019 • Consideration of stakeholder comments in drafting of ESIA Report: Q-3, 2019
49 RG SEP–01: 2019
• Placement of the ESIA report package (including ESIA Report, NTS and SEP) in the public domain: Q-3, 2019 • Disclosure period for the ESIA package in cooperation with MoWIE: Q-4, 2019 • ESIA package consultations to inform government decision-making: Q-4, 2019
50 RG SEP–01: 2019
8 RESOURCES FOR SEP IMPLIMENTATION
8.1 Resources & Responsibilities
This section proposes responsibilities for implementing, monitoring, advising and supporting various aspects of stakeholder engagement during the life of the Project.
8.1.1 Management Resources
(a) Top Management Decisions on an organisation’s policy and approach are driven by top management. Top management are tasked with defining the information to be disclosed to the public. In cases where grievances arise, some decisions cannot be made at the lower levels of management. Other decisions carry grave consequences and therefore lower cadre staff may not have the authority to make announcements to the stakeholders.
Top Management are therefore critical players in stakeholder engagement.
An Environmental and Social Manager (E&S Manager) in Addis Ababa, headed by a SPV CEO /RG Head of QHSE, would ensure that the roles regarding stakeholder engagement are integrated into the overall environment and social management procedures within RG. It is proposed that the E&S Manager be part of the RG Abaya Project Management.
(b) Environmental & Social Manager Qualification requirements for a E&S Manager include environmental management, community liaison, communication skills especially in public participation in the realm of environment and social management.
Since it may be difficult to get one individual with all the qualifications for both biophysical and socio-economic environments, the position for stakeholder engagement and community affairs can be re-delegated to a Community Liaison Coordinator who reports the E&S Manager. A proposed structure is presented below.
E&S Manager
CLO Coordinator Environmental Coordinator
Community Liaison Environmental Officers Officers
Figure 12: Possible structure for the E&S system
(c) Community Liaison Officers It is proposed that for the Project activities to have a direct and immediate impact on the ground, it is advisable that each directly affected kebele should have one CLO working
51 RG SEP–01: 2019
closely with the relevant kebele administration. CLOs will be reporting to the CLO Coordinator. Salaries for these CLOs will be as per RG’s policy, but should be in line with Ethiopian employment laws.
(d) Qualifications for a CLO Candidate Successful CLOs applicants should be persons with excellent interpersonal skills, with the ability to interact and liaise with a wide range of people. They should also have excellent writing skill. They must be competent in Computer packages such as Word, Excel and Email. Successful applicant must possess multimedia and publishing skills e.g. Photoshop.
It is preferred that a Community Liaison Coordinator, must in addition to the above description, possesses a first degree in Sociology /Rural Development or Anthropology with at least 2 years’ experience in Community mobilization.
It can be suggested, that RG should invest in the current CLOs as they have some practical experience but would benefit from additional academic qualifications.
(e) Equipment Office Space & Logistics It is proposed that a fully furnished office with computers and stationery be set in the Project area, to coordinate field activities.
(f) Capacity Building To improve the capacity of the CLOs, this plan proposes that RG should motivate them through training in emerging issues and best practices. The training can be undertaken both locally and internationally. Training should be in the following areas; • Consultation and public participation • Administrative and management courses • Event planning • Guidance and referrals • Crisis management and support services • Conflict management and resolution • Negotiations and problem solving skills • Communication skills • Report writing
Capacity building can be done through the following channels: • Formal courses at tertiary level institutions in the form of certificate, diplomas, higher diplomas, post graduate diplomas, bachelor degrees and master degrees. • Exchange programs with other organisations that have experience in community liaison in the region or in other parts of the country. Focus should be in power sector, renewable energy and where possible geothermal power production. • Some local government officials in Ethiopia have experience in community engagements, environmental management and livelihood restoration programs. Liaison with federal and regional government official can be a good point to share experiences on community engagement. Training though workshops and benchmarking in above mentioned areas undertaken by both RG and both governments officials can improve on impacts of RG activities.
8.2 Resources and Responsibilities
8.2.1 Environmental & Social Manager
The Environmental and Social (E&S) Manager will take full responsibility for the Project both at construction and operations for overall environmental, community and stakeholders relations.
The E&S Manager needs to oversee all planned and in process stakeholder engagement activities. Furthermore, he /she needs to ensure that all stakeholder engagement aspects are a permanent
52 RG SEP–01: 2019
item on all high-level management agendas, and that all actions arising from management decisions are implemented. Hence, it is important that the E&S Manager reports directly to the Project Manager /Management and is able to interact freely with key decision-makers in the Project, e.g. HR and H&S managers, Project -, Drilling - and /or Engineering managers, and PR or Corporate Affairs managers. Responsibilities of the Social Manager include the following:
• Develop, implement and monitor all stakeholder engagement strategies /plans for the Project as described in this SEP. • Oversee all stakeholder engagement related activities for the Project (Administration, CLO). Act as mediator between the Proponent and stakeholders. • Manage or be part of the Grievance Redress Mechanism. • Interact with related and complementary support activities that require ad hoc or intensive stakeholder engagement (community development, land acquisition and resettlement planning and implementation). • Liaise with various government agencies and other company managers to ensure that stakeholder engagement requirements /protocols are understood. • Proactively identify stakeholders, project risks and opportunities and inform the Project Manager /Management to ensure that the necessary planning can be done to either mitigate risk or exploit opportunities. • Take the initiative in social /environmental affairs as required by international standards. Be company representative in following through compensation, livelihood restoration and resettlement. • Keep statistics on all Key Performance Indicators as defined in SEP and other documents. These may include weekly, quarterly and annual reports on KPIs and other indicators. • Identify community needs for social development or engagement requirements.
8.2.2 Environmental & Social Unit
An E&S Unit could be established with adequate manpower and appropriately management tools. This Unit would report to the E&S Manager. Some duties /responsibilities are presented below;
(a) Community Liaison Coordinator Reporting to the E&S Manager and duties can include but are not limited to: • Manage all community liaison related tasks and assignments • Develop a Community Development Plan /Programme (CDP) based on the community needs based on proposals from the community • Implement community engagement strategies and oversee all community liaison related matters • To be the RG representative in compensation committee • Manage the grievance mechanism set up for the Project-affected areas • Oversee implementation and monitoring of CDP • Establish a monitoring and evaluation plan and other ‘tools’ established such as grievance register, and possibly commitment register and consultation register • Together with the Environmental Coordinator monitor ESMP and update Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP), that is the living document of ESMP • Provide reports to concerned bodies • Carry out other identified activities which will be decided by the H&S Manager
(b) Community Liaison Officers Reporting to the Community Liaison Coordinator and the duties can include but are not limited to: • Perform community engagement. This includes coordination of the Company’s response to all issues related to the grievance mechanism set up by the Company • Provide liaison between Community Development Program measures and implementing partners • Manage arising community matters
53 RG SEP–01: 2019
• Perform monitoring and evaluation to track progress of implementation of mitigation measures and assess if progress and performance of mitigation actions being undertaken to ensure objectives are met • Liaise with the appropriate Company personnel to ensure that grievances are tracked, reported and responded to accordingly as necessary
8.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement Materials
The following documents can be used to generate records for stakeholder engagement and community relations:
• Grievance and Concerns logging form – and procedure provides a mechanism for communities and affected parties to raise complaints and grievances and allows the Project to respond to and resolve the issues in an appropriate manner. • Feedback logging form – can be used to track grievances and concerns from the time it was registered up to the time of making resolution. It would be signed by officers concerned. • Grievance and Concerns logging database – for registering and developing record of all grievances that are reported to the CLOs. • Commitment Register – can be used to record any public commitments made by RG to the public about the activities that require action. • Stakeholder Register - can be used to document all stakeholders, providing their contacts and the level of influence. • Comments and Concerns Register – can be used to ensure that accurate and detailed record of information and views is gathered at every stakeholder meeting, with a consultation meeting note also written up. Prior to all consultations, responsibility could be appointed to one member of the Project team to take detailed notes and write up these notes immediately after the consultation using a consultation note format. These minutes must be signed after the meetings.
Samples developed under the SEP study are presented in Appendix 1.
54 RG SEP–01: 2019
9 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM
9.1 Introduction
A grievance is a perceived or actual concern or problem raised by an individual or group that may give ground to complaint. RG will therefore work proactively to prevent grievances through the implementation of proposed mitigation measures as per the ESMP and as identified through the Grievance and Concerns logging forms as registered by the CLOs.
9.1.1 Objectives
The objectives of grievance management and comment response include: • To provide stakeholders with a clear process for providing comment and raising grievances • To allow stakeholders the opportunity to raise comments /concerns anonymously /in secret through using the community suggestion boxes to communicate • To structure and manage the handling of comments, responses and grievances, and allow monitoring of effectiveness of the mechanism • To ensure that comments, responses and grievances are handled in a fair and transparent manner in line with the Project Proponent internal policies, international best practice and lender expectations.
9.2 RG’s Roles & Responsibilities
All the RG’s employees and /or contractors are responsible for reporting any comment response, and grievance concerning the community to the Community Liaison Officer (CLO), which will then be cascaded upwards to the E&S Manager for decision and action. The CLO is responsible for receiving comment response, and grievances and ensuring that they are correctly documented. The CLO is the main point of contact for community level comment response, grievances, and will be responsible for maintaining clear communications and updating the aggrieved in line with time frames.
The E&S Unit will coordinate the investigation and response to grievances and be responsible for on-going monitoring and review of the effectiveness and efficacy of the Grievance Mechanism.
9.3 Procedure for Grievance /Comment Response
Anyone will be able to submit a grievance to the Project, if they believe any practise by the Project is having a detrimental impact on the community, the environment, or on their quality of life. They may also submit comments and suggestions.
Any comments or concerns can be brought to the attention of the Project proponent either verbally or in writing (by post or Email) or by filling in a grievance form.
The steps taken for receiving and handling any comments pertaining to the Project are outlined below.
STEP 1: Submitting a comment to RG
A comment can be submitted to the RG in a number of ways: • During regular public meetings held with the communities • Through Consultative forums with Woreda experts • During any informal meetings
55 RG SEP–01: 2019
• Through communication directly with management – for example a letter addressed to site management, or other operational offices • By telephone • Placing a comment in the community suggestion boxes at the CLO’s office(s) • Through the Community Liaison Officer (CLO) • Through registering a complaint in a Grievance and Concerns logging form.
For comments that have been submitted informally, the CLO will arrange for a meeting where the comment can be explained in full and written down on a Grievance and Concerns logging form See Appendix 1. For all comments the CLO will be the main point of contact, and will be responsible for making sure that response reach the commenter.
STEP 2: Logging the comment
Complaints are received in the form of oral /written, mail and phone.
All comments and concerns must be logged in a Grievance and Concerns logging database. An example is found in Appendix 1.
A person who is responsible for handling complaints is appointed.
Decision is then made to either process or reject the complaint.
STEP 3: Providing the response
All grievances will be acknowledged within 5 days. If immediate corrective action is available, it will be taken within 5 days; if no immediate corrective action is available, a response will be provided within 10 days. The response to a comment will be provided within twenty (20) working days the latest, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Grievances during construction will be categorized based on validity and risk level by RG and their CLOs. Where investigations are required, Project staff and outside authorities where appropriate, will assist with the process. The CLO will collaborate with the RG to identify an appropriate investigation team with the correct skills to review the issue raised and to decide whether it is Project related or whether it is more appropriately addressed by a relevant authority outside the Project.
The CLO will explain both in writing and orally the manner in which the review was carried out, the results of the review, any changes to activities that will be undertaken to address the grievance and how the issue is being managed to meet appropriate environmental and social management systems and requirements.
STEP 4: Investigating the grievance
Then the grievance should be investigated. RG the Proponent shall aim to complete investigation within two weeks of the grievance first being logged. Depending on the nature of the grievance, the approach and personnel involved in the investigation will vary. A complex problem may involve external experts.
The CLO will continually update the aggrieved on the progress of the investigation and the timeline for its conclusion.
STEP 5: Concluding /resolving the root cause of the grievance
The grievance is recorded and dated.
The Project will outline the steps taken to ensure that the grievance does not re-occur. Consultation with aggrieved parties and views sought about company recommendations.
The root causes should be considered and eliminated.
STEP 6: Taking further steps if the grievance remains open
56 RG SEP–01: 2019
If the grievance still stands, then the CLO will initiate further investigation and determine the steps for future action.
Registering a Receiving a complaint in a log Complaintcomplaint book (oral/written form, mail, phone)
Appointing person responsible for handling a complaint
Making a decision to RejecteRejected process or reject a d Explain reasons for complaint rejection
Process Taking measures not No later than 10 days Immediate corrective Yes Taking measures measures to resolve upon receipt of a within 5 days upon complaint the problem where receipt of a possible complaint
Taking measures informing complainant.
RecordingRecording andand Datingdating of Grievancegrievance
Figure 13: Grievance Redress Mechanism
9.4 Record Keeping
All comments, responses and grievances are to be logged using the stakeholder engagement tools. This includes details of the grievance /complaint, the commenter /aggrieved, and ultimately the steps taken to resolve the grievance. Hard copies of the form will to be kept at the RG Office in Addis Ababa, while soft copies can be saved on RG Headquarter server. Any accompanying documentation e.g. written statements, photographic evidence, or investigation reports will be filed along with the grievance log both in hard and soft copies.
A master database will be maintained by the E&S Manager to record and track management of all grievances and complaints, and audited by Head of QHSE. This will serve to help monitor and improve performance of the Grievance Mechanism and comment responses.
57 RG SEP–01: 2019
9.5 Appeal & Disclosure
9.5.1 Appeal
The Grievance Mechanism does not replace existing legal processes. If the Grievance Mechanism fails to provide results, PAPs can still seek alternative legal remedies through the courts in accordance with the applicable Ethiopian laws and regulations.
9.5.2 Disclosure
The grievance mechanism will be disclosed to local community stakeholders by means of posters and /or leaflets. Copies of the poster will be displayed in prominent external and internal locations, where there is easy public access in each village.
Possibly, copies of a leaflet (in Amharic) explaining the grievance mechanism with a “tear-off” form for lodging a grievance can be distributed to every household in each village.
58 RG SEP–01: 2019
10 MONITORING & EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED SEP
10.1 Definition & Purpose
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are practical tools which should form an essential part of good management practice. Monitoring is an internal activity designed to provide constant feedback on the progress of a project, the problems it is facing, and the efficiency with which it is being implemented. Evaluation, on the other hand, is mainly used to help in the selection and design of future projects.
Monitoring and evaluation are designed to provide project management, and national and international development agencies with timely and operationally useful information on how efficiently each stage of a project is operating, the degree to which intended impacts are being achieved and the lessons for future projects.
10.2 Monitoring the SEP Implementation Inputs
This will be done through performance monitoring which aims at assessing the extent to which SEP inputs are being used in accordance with the approved budget and timetable. It will also gauge whether the intended outputs are being produced in a timely and cost-effective manner.
This particular type of monitoring will guide the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) process of the SEP implementation. Although the final outcomes of the SEP implementation are expected to be affected by the availability of the necessary resources, in practice an equally important determinant is the way in which the SEP was actually implemented.
In the monitoring of the SEP implementation inputs RG will employ the use quantitative surveys and direct observation to collect data. Results of the surveys will be compared with the set objectives to check if the implementation team is achieving the its targets.
10.3 Monitoring the SEP Implementation Process
The purpose of Process Monitoring is to provide feedback on the efficiency and effectiveness of the SEP delivery system. Areas of particular importance are: • The analysis of how the stakeholder engagement activities are perceived by the target population • How the SEP operates at the level of the target groups • The effectiveness of the communication and organizational linkages between the SEP implementers and the target stakeholders • The costs incurred during SEP implementation vis à vis the expected and realised outputs of the stakeholder engagement process
10.4 Methods of Monitoring the Efficiency of the SEP Implementation Process
10.4.1 Monitoring the Overall Efficiency of SEP Implementation
The evaluation by RG will include a descriptive analysis of factors such as the following: • Achievement of SEP objectives
59
RG SEP–01: 2019
• Satisfaction of participating stakeholders with the overall co-ordination of the SEP program • Effectiveness of communication actions and problem-solving mechanisms • Effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring and evaluation systems • Financial administration and control
10.4.2 Developing Summary Indicators
The following will be key performance indicators (KPIs) used by RG in this comparative analysis: • Achievement of SEP objectives • General efficiency of organizational procedures and stakeholder interactions (including inter-departmental co-ordination within RG) • Actual costs incurred as compared with budgeted amounts • Accessibility /affordability to the target stakeholders • Replicability • Flexibility and adaptability
The above indicators will be reviewed separately and then combined to produce an overall index of project efficiency.
10.4.3 Indicators of the Efficiency of Individual SEP Activities
Special criteria can be applied to each component but it is also useful to develop a set of indicators which can be used for comparative purposes, as presented below: • Speed of SEP implementation in comparison with the planned schedule of activities • Cost of implementation as compared to the original estimates • Responsiveness of stakeholders in comparison with the expected achievements • Accessibility to the target population • Replicability of the procedures and design
10.4.4 Studying Community Level Organizations
One of the expected outcomes of stakeholder engagement with communities is the social change that arises in terms of leadership, representation and active participation. This usually occurs as a response by communities to the exposure, advocacy and investment in active participation.
Consequently, it will be important to evaluate how continued community engagement through the SEP affects community organisation and community relations with RG and its activities. The following methods can be used to evaluate the impact of SEP implementation on community level organisations: • Studying communication linkages between RG and the community and how this evolves over time (how many people are informed about the organization and its activities, are people consulted, how actively do they give their feedback, etc.) • Studying the level of participation of different sectors of the community especially the vulnerable groups • Studying the changes in communication skills by RG staff actively involved in SEP implementation activities • Studying the changes in perceptions (if any) by RG staff on stakeholder engagement over time • Observing the trends and changes in the decision making processes by the community
10.5 Impact Evaluation
Two main approaches that will be used by RG for the quantitative estimation of Project impacts include:
60
RG SEP–01: 2019
10.5.1 Estimation of Net Impacts
This approach is to compare the conditions of benefits of the SEP with what they would have been if the SEP had not been implemented.
10.5.2 Comparison of ‘Effectiveness’ of 2 or More Alternative Strategies
This approach will be used to compare the effects of alternative strategies as developed or evolved during the SEP evaluation process to determine which produces the greatest benefits.
10.6 Tools for Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation
10.6.1 Quantitative Surveys
One of the most common methods for obtaining information on how a project is operating is to design a questionnaire and to apply it to a sample of project participants. The questionnaires can be issued periodically or at the end of sampled stakeholder engagement activities.
RG will design a questionnaire containing the following types of information (among many others): • Information to find out how stakeholders have been participating in the SEP implementation • Stakeholder perceptions on the SEP implementation activities and processes (efficiency, timeliness, relevance etc.) • Knowledge about the SEP and its objectives • Opinions on the SEP, its organization, the people and organizations involved • Changes which the SEP implementation process has produced
This information can be compared over time with the previous information collected through-out the SEP implementation process. It can also be used to determine changes and trends that may have outside influences such as political situations, project stage impacts etc.
10.6.2 Focus Group Discussions
Participants of an FGD drawn from various stakeholder groups can be a good source of data for the M&E process. The participants can be sensitised on the goals and activities of the SEP then asked to discuss specific issues with regard to the efficacy and effectiveness of the SEP. An active FGD can also be used to identify bottlenecks to the SEP implementation process from their perspective hence assist in identification of root causes of inefficiencies or challenges being faced during SEP implementation.
10.7 Reports and Deliverables
The E&S Manager will prepare reports /deliverables on the assignment as set out below:
• Prior to construction and in conjunction with the Proponent, develop and implement a results-based, gender-sensitive Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework /plan for the SEP, that monitors the implementation of the SEP and includes the following indicators: • Number of consultation meetings and other public discussions (forums, focus groups, etc.) conducted within a reporting period. The reporting period will be defined in the framework (e.g. monthly, quarterly, or annually). • Percentage (%) of women participating in consultations by reporting period. • Number of grievances received within a reporting period, number of those resolved within the prescribed timeline, disaggregated by sex of the complainer.
61
RG SEP–01: 2019
• Number of project-related press materials published /broadcasted in the national media. • Other information to be collected shall include: • Geographic origin and type of grievances received, and reasons for non-resolution within the prescribed timeline including an analysis of trends. • Analysis of project-related press releases content: proportion that is favourable, unfavourable, neutral, and trends.
10.7.1 Weekly CLOs Reports
Individual weekly reports will be prepared by each CLO and presented to the supervisor. All these reports will then be submitted to the E&S Manager.
The monthly report prepared by the CLO should include: • Activities conducted during each month • Public outreach activities (meetings with stakeholders) • Entries to the grievance register • Entries to the commitment register • Number of visitations to the information centre (TBD) • Progress on partnership and other social projects • New stakeholder groups (where relevant) • Plans for the next month and longer term plans
10.7.2 Monthly Reports
Based on CLOs reports, the E&S Manager will provide a monthly (structured) field report to the Proponent including consultations undertaken, attendance registers (where applicable), concerns raised, requests raised, concerns resolved, potential risks, grievances or opportunities identified.
10.7.3 Quarterly Reports
The H&S Manager shall prepare quarterly reports based on the monthly reports received and submit them to RG Management, separately or as part of quarterly status reporting provided by the PM for the Project. It should be presentable for external stakeholders on stakeholder engagement activities undertaken during the previous quarter including the current status of M&E actions.
The quarterly report shall include summarised information on participatory methods employed, grievances received from stakeholders (including information on incidents and events that resulted in grievances) and will be collated by the responsible staff and referred to the Project Manager (PM). These summaries will be accompanied by information on the implementation status of associated corrective and preventative actions and recommendations.
It is recommended that the H&S Manager’s office conduct some due diligence activities on a sample of reports received from the ground. The quarterly report should also include lessons learnt and corrective actions that should be communicated back to the CLOs for action.
10.7.4 Annual Reports
Annual report providing an updated SEP results will be prepared. This report will provide a summary of all stakeholder consultation issues, grievances and resolutions. The report should also include a section on the performance and efficacy of the SEP vis a vis budgetary and resource constraints. It should also highlight lessons learnt and propose corrective actions for adoption in the next SEP annual cycle.
Relevant parts of the SEP annual report can be included in the RG Annual Management Review and shared with relevant stakeholders.
62
RG SEP–01: 2019
11 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Engagement Forms Appendix 1.1: Grievance and Concerns Logging Form Appendix 1.2: Feedback Logging Form Appendix 1.3: Simple Grievance and Concerns Logging Database Appendix 1.4: Simple Commitment Register
Appendix 2: Project Disclosure & Information Dissemination Appendix 2.1: Hobicha Digiso Appendix 2.2: Hobicha Bongota Appendix 2.3: Abala Longana Appendix 2.4: Abala Qolshobo Appendix 2.5: Abala Gafata Appendix 2.6: Abala Maraka Appendix 2.7: Abaya Chawkare & Abaya Gurucho Appendix 2.8: Abaya Bilate Appendix 2.9: Abaya Bisare
Appendix 3: Disclosure of ESIA and ESMP Impacts and Mitigation Measures
63
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 1: Stakeholder Engagement Forms
Appendix 1.1: Grievance & Concerns Logging Form To be disseminated to stakeholders to file grievances /complaints
Reference /Log. No.: [To be logged by Project Proponent]
Personal Information (Note: if you prefer, you can keep this field anonymous) Full Name
Name of Organization /Position
Contact Address: Details
Tel.: Mobile:
Email:
How would you prefer to be By post: By phone: By Email: contacted?
Nature of concern /complaint Please describe the concern /complaint, whom is impacted, when, where and how many times, as relevant.
What is your suggested resolution, if any?
Date
Signature
64
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 1.2: Feedback Logging Form
To be filled out by Project Proponents Date of Receipt
Received by
Location where concern /complaint was received /submitted and in what form
Date when categorized as a grievance and reasons
Project staff responsible /assigned to address and resolve grievance
Date when the investigation was initiated
Date when the investigation was completed
Results of the investigation and decision
Proposed resolution /corrective actions (sent to initiating party unless anonymous)
Date of response submission
Date of resolution /closure
Signed by both parties to confirm acceptable resolution
65
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 1.3: Simple Grievance & Concerns Logging Database
Ref. Date Name Organization Contact Anonymous Description of Date of One-time Ongoing Expected Action identified to Date Taken Is resolution If no, No /Position address Y/N grievance grievance grievance or resolution resolve the taken by whom satisfactory? why? repeated /redress grievance
Appendix 1.4: Simple Commitment Register
Ref Location Impact or risk to manage Information Description and Action Undertaken No. Source Recommended Action Planning Contract Construction Maintenance /Design Administration
66
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2: Project Disclosure & Information Dissemination
General: Core issues raised by the participants:
At the initial stage of the meeting we start with introduction of the project and questions about what the people will expect. From there it is possible to clear out any type of misunderstanding or false expectations. This will prevent disappointment in the future. In the initial part of the discussion people are expecting that the project will resolve electric supply problem in this area.
The indirect benefits what the people were expecting are creation of employment opportunities. Benefits to the region & the country in general is that there will be additional electric power supply to the region
Key issues forwarded to the participants
What are your doubts, fears and assumed risks? Why the foreign company is running this project? Why not Ethiopian companies? How did you choose this location while you have many places in the country with hot spring spots? Will the power plant produce smocks with bad smells? If so how will you prevent the smell from disturbing and contaminating the community? We have protected forest of Carbon project in this area and can you confirm that the project will not harm our protected forest? What are your suggestions and proposals to avoid the issues you precise as risk and drawbacks?
Suggestions of participants of the community meeting We suggest everything to come through a formal system of the government. Also, we expect furthermore discussion on community awareness development. One-time discussion is not enough. At each phase the project consultation has to be made. There shouldn’t be any kind of hidden agenda that is not disclosed now but in case to be revealed in the future. Something we need to know make everything clear now. If you hide some issues and then the thing disclosed at latter time, that affects our communication and sprit of collaboration.
General and conclusions The participants expressed their interest of collaboration with the project as far as it keeps in its promises and doesn’t engage in activities that hamper our livelihood, our properties and our environment. Our place is very peaceful and where anyone should feel at home. They noted further that they will host the project with gratitude.
67
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.1: Hobicha Digiso
Wereda Humbo No of participants 17 Kebele Hobicha Digiso Male 14 Direction: 204.10 SW Location/venue Coordinates: 6045'19"N, 37053'18"E Female 3 Altitude: 1802.7 masl 1. Matewos Balcha Date Tues Oct 13, Facilitated by: 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator 18 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time started 4:30 AM Time Completed 6:30 AM
Transcription of the Meeting
Samuel Barata (male age, 43 farmer) We thank you for the opportunity you have brought to work with us. We have been expecting such kind of projects for many years. Now I have two main questions: You are going to dig boreholes. How can you be sure that it will not result extinction of the hot springs? Do you have any experience in Ethiopia? So how did you manage it to keep the water safe? The other issues is that we are not connected to electricity line. Will your project assist us get connected?
Yilma Lema (male age, 49 farmer) When the Carbon project started here there was disagreement among the people with directors of the project. But after awareness was developed and lessons share to the community, latter consensus reached and community members became cooperative to the project. The project paved roads to us, built grain stores to keep harvests. Like that, we expect from you roads, water and electric light. Also, we expect your project create a job opportunity to our youth. We hope our locality could be tourist destination, farther widening off farming business opportunities to our women. Therefore, we are happy with your project. Keep going and try to finish it on time. We will collaborate from our end.
Bogale Cholu (male age, 67 elder) Thank you for coming here to explain about the project. Our key problem is that the youth who have graduated from universities and college are now jobless. We hope this project will create employment opportunities for some of the graduates. Also I have some fear. Look our Kebele is densely populated and we do not have enough land for farming. In case if your project displaces people from this Kebele, where do you plan to resettle? Besides, if our properties and our farm is affected for sure you will pay compensation for the affected people. But the problem is that we have some bad experience in this area. EEPCo paid compensation for farmers where electric transmission tower was erected. The government valued good compensation, but some cheaters took famers’ many for themselves. So I hope that will not be your case.
In general, we are very happy with the initiative and the way that you are making the conversation with our language and with the experts that are well accustomed to our culture and norms. We appreciate the project as it is an industry that will contribute for the development in one or the other way. We as people of Wolayita never resist modernization and positive changes. We are peace loving people and will cooperate with you, and we hope you will keep this mode transparency and open culture.
68
RG SEP–01: 2019
Participants -Hobicha Digiso
69
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.2: Hobicha Bongota
Wereda Humbo No of participants 26 Kebele Hobicha Bongota Male 18 Hobicha Bongota Kebele administration Location/venue Compound. Female 8 Direction: 228.10 SW Coordinates: 6045'28"N, 37054'44"E Altitude: 1638.5 masl 1. Matewos Balcha-Research Coordinator Date Tues Oct 13, Facilitated by: 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator 18 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time started 4:30 AM
Time Completed 6:30 AM
Transcription of meeting
Kebede Belachew – Sex: Male – Age 55, Farmer Thank you for calling us for this meeting. Our chairman told us you came here last time with letter of support from the Wereda. He informed us to take part in the meeting. It is so interesting that you have come here today as per your appointment. Many failed to keep their schedule and their promises. Also it so good to hear about the project of generating light from hot spring.
It is saddening when I tell you that this Kebele is the most marginalized Kebele in Humbo Wereda. I think it can be also the most marginalized in Wolayita Zone as a whole. We are deprived of road, water supply, electricity, health service and almost everything. We are at border of the Zone. Similarly, we have been set aside from all services of the government. Teachers are leaving schools because there is no drinking water for them. Access is closed. Mothers and girls are traveling long distance to fetch water. Many girls failed to attend classes. We have numerous problems. Therefore, we warmly welcome your project because we expect that officials will probably see the way we live here, and they may plan to improve our situation. We also expect that your project will assist us supplying water, paving roads and creating employment opportunities.
Milkyas Mita, Sex: Male, Age 50, Farmer We are very interested to see the project functioning. But I have the following questions:
We know Gibe III, the Hydro Power plan which was built in Kindo Didaye Wereda, Wolayita. It is the main power plant to Ethiopia. But it is not generating any benefit to local people. The power plan should have paid power fee to local people so that local people could get better benefit. We heard that the power plant is paying no thing to local people. In your case will your project pay energy tax like that of Carbon project to our people?
We heard some corrupt officials at Damot Woyde and Kindo Didaye Weredas cheated compensation fund for project affected people. We know that we will be compensated if our properties are affected or demolished due to the project. However, when there will be compensation, there has to be independent committee to facilitate the process so that the probability of corruption could be avoided, and beneficiaries will be properly compensated. Will your project cooperate to form independent body for valuation of properties and to manage the process of compensation?
Belay Bergene: Sex Male, Age 45...Farmer Our youth have no employment opportunities. We have many unemployed youths in the Kebele. People who have graduated with Degree and Diploma are now staying at home without job. As many graduates struggle to get jobs, even students are now not motivated to attend classes and study in the schools being demotivated. We see that youngsters are migrating in mass to other places in search of jobs dropping their schools. The situation is really not interesting. Therefore, we have a hope on your project somehow. We hope that it will create job opportunities for graduates and non-graduates in the Kebele. My question here is that will there be a quota to employ people from each of the Kebeles in the project’s catchment?
70
RG SEP–01: 2019
Beyene Busha: Sex Male: Age 60—Kebele Chair Man This is the beginning and I hope the trend of discussing with local structures will continue during the project execution stage too. And it is interesting to discuss with you without a translator, with you who speak our language and understand our culture.
One of my main worry is that, what will happen for our hot springs? You know the irrigation project at down streams are consuming a lot water and the consumption has resulted in water shortage. Does your project have a probability to result extinction of the hot springs? You know; our life without those hot springs is at risk. We have no other source of water. If they extinct then that may result life to be jeopardized. Therefore; we just want be sure that your project will not affect the water volume.
The second issue which I just want to raise is: there is a village down at about three kilometers from here. There is a big sound wave underground. We tried to dig the ground to find out why the sound is. We think it may be a movement to burst of hot spring. We suggest you to make study on the spot as you have scientists and machines. Please let your people come and see the place.
Also we just want to be sure that your project will not harm our protected forest. And how can you stop that from happening?
And finally; as you have seen our Kebele is with many problems. We have no road access for transportation. Water is a serious problem even its shortage has been main cause for disease. We expect your project will assist this community in some way. To cooperate with the community will help you for successful implementation of the project.
Participants -Hobicha Bongota
71
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.3: Abala Longana
Wereda Humbo No of participants 24 Kebele Abala Longana Male 20 Abala Longana Kebele adminstration Location/venue Direction: 271.00 W 4 Coordinates: 6042'42"N, 37052'6"E Female Altitude: 1432.6 masl Facilitated by: 1. Matewos Balcha-Research Coordinator Tues Oct 13, 18 Date 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time started 10:00AM
Time Completed 12:00 AM
Transcription of meeting
Eyasu Mega, male, 40 years – farmer (Former Soldier) We appreciate your intent of engagement in the communities in due course of the project process. When we get more information about the project, that will lead us to trust you. Trust is very important. We hope there won’t be something hidden. Your transparency is appreciated and we expect you to maintain it. Now I have few issues to mention.
The first is in relation to direct benefit of the project to our community. Many projects do benefit local communities. We hear that in some parts of the World like Nigeria, the villages remained poor while oil is produced form their village making many people rich. Here do not want others get rich with our resource and our people get poorer again. We want the government to do something in this case. When energy is generated and sold, some amount, say 20% of the sales need go for community development. If you are telling me that this project is going to bring additional energy to this country. Yes that is good, but we need to be differently treated as power is generated from our resources. If you are telling that we will get light for our households that is ok, but everyone will get that light. I mean what will be a special benefit to this community due to this project? I just want to be clear in that aspect.
One thing which I want to add is that, your experts should travel together with local people all the time. Sometimes people may quarrel with due to misunderstanding. The Kebele need to know where you stay. Please take some people from the Keble so that you will be safer more.
Badebo Balta, Male, 50 years – farmer & church elder We discussed with many people who came from different organizations to this places for different purposes. We have experience of discussing on many issues. The problems is that the discussions end only with discussion. We hope your project will not end with discussion. We just want to see a functioning benefiting project like that of our Carbon project. A functioning project that will add some benefits to our communities.
The other issue is that we want to be sure about the issues of displacement and land acquisition. Will your project take over our land, our houses and other properties? This case is a serious concern to us. We know there will be compensation for the affected people. But if you talk about resettlement, it would be very difficult for us to afford. As you may see here, we don’t have extra land to resettle displaced people. Therefore, we seriously suggest that you need to avoid any kind of resettlement options. And the most important thing which I would like to stress is the issue of the carbon project. We have developed this project in last 10 years. Really it changed our environment and the ecology. Therefore, we want the project to avoid any harm to the forest. I suggest you to make discussion with World Vision, which has initiated the project and has been support the forest protection activities. And lastly, please get here our confirmation that we will support the project as far as its goes to avoid negative effects to our environment, hour households and to our livelihood.
Aster Tantu, Female, 28 years – farmer and women representative We are delighted to discuss about the forthcoming project. I believe that it will add something to our community. I suggest you need to seriously consider the issues of resettlement and land acquisition as mentioned by earlier speakers. I just want to stress that, these days no one wants to be displaced and
72
RG SEP–01: 2019
resettled. We invested a lot on our household assets. We have social organization like Idir and Equub. It costs us more than money when we are displaced. Our asset is our social life which give great value. Therefore, please tell us what is the probability of displacement?
Again, as you have seen we have no potable water. We are using running water, which is dirty and causing a lot of disease to our children. Adults are also getting sick. Therefore, do you have any budget to support to solve our water supply problem?
Also, as you have seen, we have very bad road. Please tell the government that we are locked off here. We raised this issue so many times but no one listens. I really say this freely because you are not from the group of Cadres who dare to stop us speaking our problems I hope your project will assist us improving our road so that we will get better transportation services. In that way we can easily move our products to the market and can sale for better price than we do here for local merchants.
And finally, we assure you that you will not face problems in this community. You respect the people, the culture then you will be a king here; I assure you. Good luck.
Teshome Kanido, Male, 50 years – School Director We are happy to have you here for discussion. Yes, discussion helps for mutual understanding and for building trust. I think this is an appropriate way to begin the project. In our part we will let our students know about the project. Now I have some issues to point out:
The first one is that if you are going dig boreholes, does the sound of the machine disturb our students in class? So what measure are you going to take to stop it from disturbing our students? Or what will be the season that you will dig the boreholes? I suggest you make it during the school break season. The other issues is that as you see our school facility is very poor. We are hosting many students. However, we are suffering from the lack of desk, furniture and class room. Classrooms are not suitable for our students to attend. As you see this is very hot area and the poorly built and unventilated classrooms are making problems. Many students hardly attend classes in the afternoon. Therefore, please consider this problem as part your community support package.
Participants -Abala Longana
73
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.4: Abala Qolshobo
Wereda Humbo No of participants 21 Kebele Abbala Qolshobo Male 17
Location/venue Direction: 293.90 NW Female 4 Coordinates: 6041'11 "N, 370 51' 55"E Altitude: 1426.245masl Facilitated by: 1. Matewos Balcha-Research Date Oct 8, 2018 Coordinator Time started 9:30AM 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time Completed 1:00 PM
Transcription of Minutes of the meeting
Tilahun Paulos (male age 62, farmer and community elder) Peace be up on you. Welcome to this place. We trust in God. During the beginning of Carbon Project some people suspected it. Personally, I said let God’s will happen to this people. We at our church prayed saying let the project stop if it will harm us; let it flourish if it will benefit our people. You know at the beginning you have many things you know and you suspect. But the Carbon Forest project benefited our people. I have questions for you for my understanding;
Why the foreign company is running this project? Why not Ethiopian companies? As I know even the Grand Renaissance Dam has been managed by Ethiopians. Now you told us the company is from Europe; don’t you have Ethiopian company to do the project? I have seen some white men traveled this way to Salo mountain areas. Some people from Chawkare area also told me that you even traveled to the hot spring spot, which is very difficult to access.
How did you choose this location while you have many places in the country with hot spring spots? As I know there is hot spring in Langano, in Oromiya. Even I went to Sodere for a workshop few years ago. So, can you tell us why this place is chosen for you in priority?
Guuda Maatiyossa (male age, 58 local elder) When I was a child I used to boil fresh maize on the hot spring. We eat our food there when keeping our cattle together with my friends, but after growing up I was asked myself that why is not some kind of projects which invests on these area come to work like other areas? Therefore, praise God this is one of the answers for our prayer. Now my question is this; will smoke from the industry affect the environment and the community? How will you manage the problem of smokes? Also some people saying that the smoke has bad smells; is it true that it will have really bad smell of the smoke form the factory?
Matewos Gama (male age, 38 farmer) Mostly in our area what we see is that, the company employs and/or hires relatives of managers and supervisors. People expect employment opportunities for locals. However, the current projects are not meeting expectation of the community. This is what we have seen in the previous projects. I hope in your case there will be some benefits to the by way of creating employment opportunities and other allied ones.
Also I have a question; as you may know that we have protected forest of Carbon project in this area. It is protected and managed by seven Kebeles in Humbo. Do you have any connection with World Vision? Can you confirm that the project will not harm our protected forest?
Berhanesh Bade, Female, 35 years –Farmer and Women representative I really thank you. You gave us very good explanation about the project. One question is that do you have a fund to support our communities, our schools and our forest project?
I do understand what it will do. I do understand it is not going to harm our community if I have to trust what you are explaining. Therefore; at this level I have to trust on what you speak! Also I would like to suggest that everything has to come through a formal system of the government. Also we expect further more
74
RG SEP–01: 2019
discussion on community awareness development. One time discussion is not enough. At each phase the project consultation has to be made. There shouldn’t be any kind of hidden agenda that is not disclosed now but in case to be revealed in the future. Something we need to know is that you have to be ready to make everything clear. If you hide some issues and then the thing disclosed at latter time, that affects our communication and sprit of collaboration. I wish you success, God Bless you.
Participants -Abala Qolshobo
75
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.5: Abala Gafata
Wereda Humbo No of participants 21 Kebele Abala Gafata Male 19 Direction: 92.20E 2 Location/venue Coordinates: 6040'5 "N, 370 51' 46"E Female Altitude: 1396.5masl Facilitated by: 1. Matewos Balcha-Research Coordinator Date Tues Oct 13, 18 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time started 2:00 PM
Time Completed 4:00 PM
Abrham Ayano: Farmer: Age 55 We like when people come to our villages and ask about our impression regarding an initiative. At this level really we cannot say what you do is good or bad. It is too early to make any judgment at this level. We really know nothing what you will do, what you will do and where you will do. You are telling that some beneficial to the community is coming. It is good that you are speaking our language. You understand our culture and the way we live here. I hope something that harms the community will not come as you say.
The problem is that many people walked here over the hills and they have been telling us that different industries will be established. But we are stilled locked up. We have no road, no water, and no electricity. This is the way we lead our life. We hope if your project comes to us help solve the problems. That is the only thing we expect from you. Of course we hear many rumors regarding oil exploration. We heard oil has been found around Abaya many years ago but nothing appeared since have been told. I hope your case will not replicate the same way.
We want your project should not displace people, block our roads as other investors did here, and we expect it employ many people who have no jobs in our villages.
Mr. Lera Dogalo,75, Elder: Lera Dago is Elder of the community. He is 75 years old.
He stopped us in the middle of the discussion and Said” Lets pray first”. We agreed and closed our eyes vowing down our heads. Every one of the meeting did like we did, because it customary to do if someone to pray. He prayed saying “God let your will be here if this project is to benefit us. God block this project if it is to harm us. Let your will be up on us”. He continued as follow.
In the last 30 years many people from different organizations traveled here to make conversation with people, but later they disappeared. We hope yours will end up with a successful outcome. We are suspicious in some cases based on our experiences.
A says goes in Wolayita proverb: “Tumuusiree,shamaasiree”. The meaning is: “Is the suspicion has a base or is it in vain?”
He followed; our suspicion has practical ground. Don’t blame and don’t take wrong us if we suspect you. Some investors come here and they told us they will benefit the community. We trusted what they said but finally they started to block our roads which we move the forest to fetch grass, wood and drink cattle water. Therefore; we have suspicion but let’s see what you do really. Then you will be judged on what you show us practically. The burden of building trust falls on you.
We settled here from other parts of Wolayita and from different places in Ethiopia in the last 40 years. This place was completely a wild place and with all our labor and many sacrifices we made this habitable place. Now we fear your project may displace us form this place. We want to be sure that this project doesn’t displace any of us. Displacement is not appreciable. It is painful. In my case I am 75 now. I cannot move anywhere from this place. That costs me a lot and I cannot afford it. Also many people in the community
76
RG SEP–01: 2019
are not willing to move from here. Therefore; please let us know clearly how your project will do to avoid displacement of people.
Actually, we heard prophesies many years ago that your mountains will yield money for you in the way you have never expected. That has become real; the carbon project on the mountains is yielding us some money. We hope your project will also do some miracles on the mountains so that we will get benefits.
Aster Dema: Female Farmer: Age 45 We expect compensation to project affected households and communities, but as we have had bad experience with the mode and amount of compensation paid for affected people by EEPCo, how can you confirm that the affected will be appropriately compensated.
Really we are happy for that you came speaking our language. We hope something bad will not come. We hope you do not venture with an entity that brings bad to our community. For God’s sake we believe you are not hiding anything from us. So that we trusted in you. And I speak clearly my concerns here without any fear. We feared because sometimes we were harassed for that we strongly criticized some land grabbing activities done in this Wereda, in this Kebele.
We have salt (Aduwaa) for our cattle around ”Chalga” hot spring area down. Our livestock can't survive without that mineral (salt). We use it for fattening of livestock and also milking cows give better when they eat. It is like additive materials for cattle. We take it for free. Therefore; please tell us what will happen in if you take over the area. We don’t want to lose it due to the project.
And also, we conserved our forest with the support of Carbon project in collaboration with World Vision int. The desert has now looking nice. It is looking green because we did a lot of activities of conservation. We have male and female cooperatives here which are getting some benefits. We need the forest to be protected. Do you have any connection with World Vision? What will follow in case if your project affects the protected forest?
General conclusions The participants expressed their gratitude for that some kind of new industry is coming to their locality. They all vowed to cooperate with the project as far as it stands for mutual benefits and refrain itself from harming our environment and our land resources. We will extend our keen support and eager to the project start to function as soon as possible.
Participants -Abala Gafata
77
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.6: Abala Maraka
Wereda Humbo No of participants 23 Kebele Abala Maraka Male 17 Kebele Administration office compound 6 Location/venue Direction: 63.40 NE Female Coordinates: 6040'14"N, 37047'22"E Altitude: 1444.5 masl Facilitated by: 1. Matewos Balcha-Research Coordinator Date Tues Oct 9, 18 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time started 2:00 PM
Time Completed 4:30 PM
Transcription: Abala Maraka Kebele
Medhin Eyasu, Male, 55 years -Farmer
We are really happy that you are commencing the project after making awareness to the communities. Our Kebele is the Kebele which the biggest hot spring, Chalaga and Boramita is found. I used to be a cowboy for many years during my youth age. I have seen many people traveled in the forest of Humbo. They have been taking samples of rocks, soil, hot spring water, minerals, and so on. At the time we were told that the samples were taken just to construct industry in our area. Since then nothing has come. Just recently, oil exploration people came. We participated in the session arranged across the river. Later we heard that oil is found at our part here down at the side of the lake. We were happy when we heard oil was going to be produced. But latter they rumor disappeared, the company disappeared and now we have no clue.
Now we hear that you are going to produce electric energy from the hot springs. Ok that is miracle really! It is miracle, but we are tired of hearing hearsays. You guys, it is very hectic to hear some tales for the last 40 years; really!! Are you going to practice it? Or still you are you doing experiments still? I think is time to be practical. Even I doubt what this government is doing? If you have come to do it and let us see it in practice. If you require our support let you ask us clearly and we can tell you here what we can do and can’t do. You people, enough is for discussion, and time for action.40 year is too long for discussion.
Abayanesh Ushacho, Female, 65years- widow and Female Farmer She started with a proverb: “Erraa ay yootaneeQaraa ay leefanee”
The meaning is that you don’t council a wise man, as you don’t sharpen a sharpen sward”. She intended to say like they are the wise men of this location.
And no one tell you better than we tell you about our area. If someone from Wereda, from Zone of anywhere told you different from what we tell you, take what we tell you is perfectly true. We know some people telling lies to you. And we know why they lie. Because they are trading with our land, our forest, or life.
We consider the area, the vegetation, the rocks and the land like our friends. They were with us when there was no one with us. We were alone in the wilders as cast outs. To make this place habitable, we fought with snakes, with lions, with apes and monkeys with other many beasts in the wild. We fought with some tribes across the lake, as they often come to raid our cattle. Many died and starved. We had no water supply, no health post and no service at all. We paid a massive sacrifice to develop this place and a place that now people come, visit and run to take over the land we developed with many sacrifices of life, blood, age and energy. I am 65 now. I lived for more than 40 years here. I feel annoyed when someone comes and blocks the only bad roads which we take our cattle to water. Some are telling us that we can't graze and we can't get fire wood. At least if you tell me about resettlement, I can't hear. My only resettlement place is within the heavens; I am now closer to there due to my age.
78
RG SEP–01: 2019
Tesfaye Botara: 40: Farmer and member of Kebele administration bodies: It is good that you are here with us to discuss about the project. It is appreciated that you are telling benefits of the project and how it will be working. It always goes good at the beginning. We have experienced this with many commercial farm investors, rock crashing companies for many times. The problem is that, after a little while they forget what they discussed, and they take completely different direction form the initial agreement. Many conflicts occurred due to disagreement with the investors. The investors arrested our people and our cattle. Some of them blocked our access rod to forest and to water. They fenced areas which were not allotted to them. When we go to the Wereda, they block everything as they have money and later they criminalized us on our soil. We have such bad experience with some greedy investors. [He listed the names, but they are omitted it here]
We hope yours will follow a different approach. To respect the local communities, to fulfill promises and to do right thing is helpful. We advise you to do not follow the tracks which these investors on farms and rocks have taken. Some of them destroying the forests and everything. Many rock crashing companies are making messes here. Please do not do like them.
The other issue is that, we have mineral “Aduwaa”, down on the way to Abaya area. We use to feed cattle so that they will easily get fat and give good milk. It is the only place for the whole Wolayita. Therefore, you do not have to touch it. It has to be kept well. Besides, we have a limestone which we use for painting our houses. May be for the future paint factory could be established there. For now, we are using it and it has to be kept.
Some companies bringing workers form other places ignoring the promise they make at the start of the project. Please don’t bring people from somewhere when we have many unemployed people here. Even graduates have no jobs. Therefore, we advise you to give priorities to our communities including employment opportunities.
Participants - Abala Maraka
79
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.7: Abaya Chawkare & Abaya Gurucho
Wereda Humbo No of participants 37 Kebele Abaya Gurucho and Abaya Chawkare Male 29 Abaya Gurucho Location/venu Direction: 125.90 SE Female 8 e Coordinates: 6036'20 "N, 370 56' 15"E Altitude: 1186.87masl 1. Matewos Balcha-Research Coordinator Date Oct 9, 2018 Facilitated by: 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator Time started 10:00 am 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time Adjourned 12:am
Introduction
This community level focus group discussion was conducted at the venue of Abaya Gurucho Kebele, by involving 37 percipients form Abaya Chawkare and Abaya Gurucho Kebeles. We combined the sessions as as Chawkare Kebele changed our fixed schedule and recommend organizing a joint session. The place is located at downstream area where majority of hot spring spots are located. Residents of these Kebeles are not only farmers, they were workers of Abaya commercial farms in the area, which was previously owned by the government and currently ceased to function.
Regasa Burisa (male, 47 religious leader) I just start by thanking God because we are still alive despite numerous problems we have. Also thank you for coming here and thank you for arranging this meeting.
You guys; I don’t to know whether you know the situation. We had very productive commercial farm in this Abaya town. Here about 1,200 workers lived during the time the big cotton and fruit planation farm was active. Latter government sold the farm to a private owner. The private owner managed the farm for about 10 years and finally got bankrupt. Now people leading life without job; imagine life without job, terrible really. Just recently we heard the farm is sold to a floriculture company. We hope the farm will start to operate again so that people will get jobs. In addition, I hope your project will also create some jobs to the people so that some of our problem could be resolved. I believe God will help you and our community.
Ayelech Tura (female age, 36 woman representative) We have been praying for this place, for our people. This people have slide back from the fortune life they led. We had good farms, salary, milking cows and all we wanted. This people have never starved but now it does. It is not because we are lazy people. Our problem occurred due to the closure of the farms and as a result of that flood damaged our farms. We used to work both at the company farms and at our farms. Now the problem is multiplied; first the commercial farm ceased its operation and many people became jobless. Later the lake backfilled and eroded our farms damaging all the crop. The land has got swampy and we cannot cultivate. So at this place life without job and without any dependable income is very difficult; you can imagine. Some youth go to the lake to do fishing and they generate some income. Otherwise life is very difficult here.
We see you speaking our language and you understand our culture, and the way we are leading life. Please tell to the Government of Ethiopia and to the government of Wolayita that the people who have been known to be very brave and hardworking are now starving due to the lack of opportunities. Officials of the government should come and see how the people is leading life here in Abaya.
In your case you told us that you are going to generate electricity from the hot springs. That is really interesting and I am eager to see it working. I hope the project will create some opportunities to the communities at least people get some buyers for their shops and for services they arrange. Therefore; I am ready to support your project and I hope this community will remain supportive to your project.
80
RG SEP–01: 2019
Tsehaynesh Debisa (female age, 41 farmer) Hello; welcome to Abaya town. Abaya is the place where people share true love. Here our people live caring one another well. Our fates are of common type. We are like people on the same boat. When bad wave comes on the lake the probability of sinking is for all of the people on the boat. So we are facing serious problem as a community and, not at individual level. Our income and our living situation is almost similar. Now if some benefit comes to this community as a result of your project and if it manages to hire some people, then that would be great to the community of Abaya as a whole. Therefore; I am so much pleased to know that you are going to commence the project and I wish you good lack and success of your engagement.
Mesfin Geta (male, 54 local elder) We live here by winning many obstacles and challenges. No one can understand our challenges, we were informed about our water, road and electric light problem many times and years by different Woreda administrators. No one has answered about it. We thank you for your coming, we hope that you have come here to work with us and help us. Since the land is ours and you come to solve our problems; no one can ignore and chase you. Take the land from where ever you wish to work, we are with you, no one can harm you.
And we have a say in Wolaita that goes like:
“Dankiyaka Dogookoo, ..Danchikiyaka Dogookoo” Meaning: we do not miss both the harms and the benefit from an engagement.
For sure we understand there will be drawbacks of the project to the lake and to the environment as it goes to bring some benefits to our community. Of course, energy is very important to our country. But we just want to know that will your project use chemicals which will contaminate the lake and the river? In addition, will it displace people? If so, how many households are expected to be displaced?
Degefa Desta (male, 60, Gov. worker) As you can see teeth of the youth is stained. The stain is due to the high content fluoride in the water we use. The water we use is full of fluoride, you may understand much fluoride results in bone disease as it stains the tooth. In this area spinal bone of people is bending at early age. If you see people of 50 years of age they look like they are 75 at other places. This is because we don’t have clean and well treated water. Recently the government dug a borehole and pure water appeared, but they locked it for the reason we do not understand. It was really nice water, I tested it. It is like a bottled water, but they closed it for the reason we don’t understand. I think you have machines and technologies to assist us supplying potable water. So, if you are here to work in collaboration with our community, we request you to help us solving our water supply problem. That will be really very important support to our community. If you need contribution from our community, we can mobilize resources.
Core Issues
What are your doubts? Mostly investors never keep their first word of promises, in what way does your project help the community?
Investors make this kind conversation at initial level and later they do different things from the directions they discussed. How can we be confident for that you will function as you speak?
What are your fears and perceived risks? In the last 40 years the commercial farm has been using agro-chemicals without proper care and that affected Abaya Lake and Bilate River in our area. Are you also going to use chemicals? If so how will you manage to protect the environment and water resources from contamination?
We expected companies and other organizations to do things as they promise. We faced so many cheaters who used to function differently from their initial agreement.
81
RG SEP–01: 2019
Transparency and sincerity is the value that we appreciate and if your company maintain that value, we will support with every direction that we can afford.
Using local people as employees will maintain mutual benefit of the company and our community.
Other issues raised by the participants
When will the project start to function and for how long will last functioning?
Where will be the exact location construction the power plant?
We have been frequently affected by flood of the lake and overflow of Bilate River. Do you have some means to assist us to avoid the flooding problem?
Participants -Abaya Gurucho & Abaya Chawkare
82
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.8: Abaya Bilate
Wereda Humbo No of participants 21 Kebele Abaya Bilate Male 15 Direction: 346.30 N Location/venu Coordinates: 6036'20"N, 37056'15"E Female 6 e Altitude: 1186.83 masl 1. Matewos Balcha-Research Coordinator Date Oct 9, 2018 Facilitated by: 2. Almaze Anjulo-Translator 3. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time started 1:30 pm Time Adjourned 3:00am
Introduction
This community level focus group discussion was conducted at the compound of Abaya Bilate Kebele. Kebele by involving 21 participants, from which 15 are male and 6 are female participants. Abaya Bilate Kebele is located at downstream area where hot spring spots at northern tip of Abaya area are located. Most of residents of these Kebele farmers who were settled in the area some 17 years ago.
Transcription of Meeting minutes
Eyob Geta Sex male (age, 50 Farmer) It is 30 years since I have lived here. We had a lot of fertile land. We had good grazing land so that we could let the cattle graze open. There was no serious problem except the malaria problem. Now we are locked up as we are surrounded by a lot of commercial farms. The land has been distributed to new settlers and we have problem of land shortage. Therefore; we advise you to take proper care to protect the people from any kind of relocation.
In the last 10 years flood from overflow of Bilate river has been affecting our farms. We were relocated for three times. This place is not the place we lived before. We came here two years ago after the flood demolished everything that belonged to us. We do not know what will happen to us in the coming rainy season. If you have any flood protection technology, please consider to support this community. I wish you success with your project so that it will be good to us.
Ayelech Moliso (Age, 45 women representative) Thanks for arranging this meeting. Also I thank our Kebele chairman for that he called women to participate in the meeting. We have experience with some investors here who have commercial farms. At the beginning they are good looking and charming. We welcome them; we protected their properties. We showed them ways and assisted them to settle. We worked at their farms for wage. Their wage was so miserable. Later they shut down the farm and disappeared without paying our wages. You know we have experiences of such kind of organizations and individuals. Now you are charming and good looking. We just want to see this charming situation will sustain or not. We have experience of both cheating and genuine people. Probe that you are not here to cheat, but to benefit the community. If this project will benefit our community we will collaborate with you.
Asefash Getachew (Age, 39 Women representative) Many of us are settlers here. We came here from different parts of Wolayita. It has been about 15 years since we have lived here. We are a people who are forgotten by the government. We are deprived of water, electricity and other basic services. We drink water from irrigation canal which is very dirty and sometimes contaminated by chemicals from farms. Many projects have studied about the resources of the area but, no have started any kind of project. So, we are interested in your project; who knows the government may look to us on its way to see your project. Therefore; we stand to support project. We also expect get some jobs. But I have question; when will it start to operate? Where will be your office? Are you going to hire large number of people like the commercial farms which have stopped to work?
83
RG SEP–01: 2019
Participants - Abaya Bilate Kebele
84
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 2.9: Abaya Bisare
Wereda Humbo No of 22 participants Kebele Abaya Bisare Male 12
Abaya Bisrare Kebele Administration Location/venue Compound. Female 10 Direction: Coordinates: 6040.4468N, 380 02.534’E
4. Matewos Balcha-Research Coordinator Date Feb. 1/2018 Facilitated by : 5. Lukas Bezabih: Transcriber Time started 11:00AM Time 12:30 pm Completed
Abaya Bilate Kebele is one of the Kebels in Humbo Wereda. The Kebele has estimated population of 1,470 people, of which 717 are male and 753 are. Previously the Kebele was part of Abaya Chakare Kebele. It was formed after a recent decision of Humbo Wereda to divide Abaya Chakare (Chawkare) Kebele in to four Kebeles including Abaya Bisare and Abaya Chawkare itself. There about 385 households in the Kebele. The residents are resettled people who were from different Weredas from Wolayita Zone. There are a few pastoralists from Sidama ethnic group who lead their lives by rearing cattle. The people lead life by cultivating crops mainly maize. Some farmers cultivate tomatoes and onions using irrigated water from Bilate river by using small pumps. There are some commercial farms in the environs of the Kebele.
Transcription of discussion at Abaya Bisare Kebele
85
RG SEP–01: 2019
Yohannes Bateno: Sex Male, Age 50 (Elder of the community) Good that you came here to discuss with as about your project. It is 20 years since I have settled here at Bisare through resettlement program the government. We cleared the forest and converted it in to farmland. Actually, it required a lot sacrifice to make this place habitable. Many died due to malaria. Some were poisoned by snakes. Still we don’t have potable water and we drink running water from the river. We use the hot spring for cattle sometimes. We do not have good access road and electric supply. We expect the government will have a look due to your project. Therefore, we welcome your project and we will extend any support from our side in our capacity.
In the last 10 years flood from overflow of Bilate river has been affecting our farms. We were relocated for three times. This place is not the place we lived before. We came here two years ago after the flood demolished everything that belonged to us. We do not know what will happen to us in the coming rainy season. If you have any flood protection technology, please consider to support this community. I wish you success with your project so that it will good to us.
Thomas Goa: Sex Male, Age 45 (Local Milisha Member) We are grateful to have you here to discuss with us about your envisaged project. In fact, many people came here to make different researches on the hot spring since we have settles here. We support the project as far as it brings benefit to our community and the country in general. Of course, we heard the information from the people in Abaya Bilate and Guruchu Kebeles. Therefore, we do not have objection on the project.
On the other hand, we just want to be clear that the project won’t take over our farm land. Also, we want to be sure that in case it starts to use the water, whether it will limit our access to water. Here the flow of Bilate river has been declining as the commercial farms have diverted the water to their farms we don’t get enough water from the river. So that we depend partly on the hot spring. So that would you please give us more clarification as we have some doubts?
Tamrat Shanks: Sex Male, Age 30 (Farming expert) We appreciate your approach that you discuss with affected communities before the projects start to operate. People here just want to see the project function. We expect the project to create some jobs for unemployed youth. As you have seen we have road problem. Also, we don’t have drinking water. As you see kids go to the river to get water under the sand. We expect the project will support this community in solving those problems. Also, we understand that it will benefit the country by way of bringing additional electric power. Therefore, we will cooperate in a way that we could do.
Aster Ade: Sex Female, Age 45 (Farmer) Thanks for the chance to speak. We are happy to hear about the project. I just want raise a question. What benefit the project will bring to this community? As you see teeth of our children stained due to bad water. We have a acute problem of drinking water. How will your project help us solve this problem?
Besides, as you see the community is suffering from bad road. It goes muddy during rainy season and very dusty during dry season. We expect something good will happen due to this project. And we wish you success. Let God be with you.
Zewdinesh Seta: Sex Female, Age 40 (Farmer) We heard that your company is going to generate power from hot spring. That is really miracle and I happy that we will get electric supply to our community. As you see we don’t have any power supply here. Even our health post has only a small solar lamp. Life difficult without electric power and we hope we will get the line soon. That is what we expect.
86
RG SEP–01: 2019
You know sometimes miracles bring misery. I have some more concern; are you going to construct a dam like at Gibe III? You now that Gibe III displaced many farm households. My parents are one the displaced people. They left their land and all their properties including their houses. They suffered with very unfair compensation and their life distorted. So how can we be sure that this kind of distortion will not happen for us here due to the project?
Mesfin Meskele, Sex male, Age 50 (Kebele Chairman) Our Wereda administration informed as to cooperate with the project in addition our discussion of last during your first visit to our Kebele. We understand that the project will not affect our water significantly as to your note here. We will cooperate with the project for its successful accomplishment. Meanwhile, we will be closely following issues which will adversely affect our community. I just want note here, that your experts have to communicate us every time when they come to here. We will farther inform all the residents through our channels.
Conclusion: ❖ Participants of the meeting as well as other residents whom we approached informally have reflected that they will cooperate with the project in a way that they could do. ❖ There is high expectation form the community that problems related to road access, potable water supply, and power supply will be resolved due to the project either directly with support of the project or with engagement of other entities. ❖ Displacement, land acquisition, loss of properties and displacement issues are concern of the participants which requires careful attention.
87
RG SEP–01: 2019
Pictures from the field
Part of the meeting
Some of the participants
88
RG SEP–01: 2019
Appendix 3: Disclosure of ESIA & ESMP Impacts and Mitigation Measures
[To be written.]
89