Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Gibe III

Gibe III – Environmental and Social Impact Assessment 300 ENV R CS 002 C - A9003099
Table 9.11: Impact Scores of different schemes considered in EPSEMP, of GG II HEP and GibeIII
Scheme
Land
lost
People
affected
Access Cultural Downstream
Aquatic
Systems
Beles 0 0 0 0 2 1 12
Geba 1 and 2 8 2 1 0 1 1 41
Halele-Werabesa 10 1 1 0 2 2 49
Baro 1 and 2 6 2 3 0 1 2 50
Aleltu East 2 3 2 0 1 3 55
Aleltu West 2 3 2 0 1 3 55
Chemoga-Yeda 4 4 3 2 1 3 75
Genale 2 and 3 4 5 3 3 3 2 85
Gilgel Gibe II 1 0 0 0 1 1 9
GIBE III 10 3 2 1 2 3 53
As shown in the above table Gibe III scheme, compared to all the hydroelectric schemes reported in the
EPSEMP, has a medium-high score mainly due to the area considered as grazing and it is related to
downstream and aquatic ecosystem effects that may be significant.
In the following Table 9.12 a relationship between the installed capacity (in terms of MW) and the score
(calculated according to EPSEMP methodology) of the considered hydroelectric schemes is evaluated
calculating the relevant ratio.
Table 9.12: Installed Capacity/ Impact Scores of different schemes considered in EPSEMP, of GG
II HEP and Gibe III
Scheme Score
Installed Capacity
(MW)
Ratio Installed
Capacity/Score
Beles 12 460 38.33
Geba 1 and 2 41 254 6.20
Halele-Werabesa 49 374 7.63
Baro 1 and 2 50 669 13.38
Aleltu East 55 214 3.89
Aleltu West 55 186 3.38
Chemoga-Yeda 75 440 5.87
Genale 2 and 3 85 338 3.98
Gilgel Gibe II 9 420 46.67
GIBE III 53 1870 35,28
The above table shows the relationship of the installed energy with the Environmental Score of each scheme
and demonstrate that the most attractive plant is Gilgel Gibe II, followed by Beles and Gibe III.
It is to be noticed that the hydropower plants have been implemented, by EEPCo, in accordance with the
above Environmental Impact Score.
CESI SpA - Mid-Day International Consulting Engineers Page 261
Score