07.01.2013 Views

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Gibe III

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Gibe III

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Gibe III

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Gibe</strong> <strong>III</strong> – <strong>Environmental</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> 300 ENV R CS 002 C - A9003099<br />

where:<br />

• SIS is the Scheme <strong>Impact</strong> Score;<br />

• Cw is the Criterion weight;<br />

• Cs is the Criterion score;<br />

• Mps is the Maximum possible criterion score<br />

9.3 The <strong>Impact</strong> of <strong>Gibe</strong> <strong>III</strong><br />

As described in Chapter 7 the <strong>Gibe</strong> <strong>III</strong> is likely to have important impacts on the main environmental issues<br />

as summarized in the following Table <strong>and</strong> its final environmental impact score is reported in Table 9.10.<br />

Table 9.9: <strong>Impact</strong>s of the <strong>Gibe</strong> <strong>III</strong> HPP<br />

L<strong>and</strong> lost (Ha): Forest > 3,000<br />

Agricultural l<strong>and</strong> (cultivated <strong>and</strong> grazing) 84+17,158<br />

People affected (n°) 329 22<br />

Access Medium 23<br />

Cultural (n° of monuments lost) 1<br />

Downstream effects Medium<br />

Aquatic ecosystems Medium<br />

Table 9.10: <strong>Impact</strong> Score of the <strong>Gibe</strong> <strong>III</strong> HPP<br />

Criteria Weight Score Range Score Weighted score<br />

L<strong>and</strong> lost: Forest 5 1-5 5 5<br />

Agricultural l<strong>and</strong> 15 1-5 4 12<br />

People affected 35 1-5 1 7<br />

Access 15 0-3 2 10<br />

Cultural 5 0-3 1 2<br />

Downstream effects 10 0-3 2 7<br />

Aquatic ecosystems 15 0-3 2 10<br />

TOTAL 100 53<br />

A comparison between the <strong>Gibe</strong> <strong>III</strong> scheme, the GGIIHEP <strong>and</strong> the schemes discussed in the EPSEMP is<br />

reported in the following Table 9.11.<br />

22 The n° of affected households reported is 47, the total affected people are estimated considering 7 persons per<br />

household.<br />

23<br />

Considering mitigation <strong>and</strong> compensation represented by reallocation of the Chida-Sodo road <strong>and</strong> the provided boat<br />

service.<br />

CESI SpA - Mid-Day International Consulting Engineers Page 260

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!