Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Gibe III

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gibe III – Environmental and Social Impact Assessment 300 ENV R CS 002 C - A9003099 Agriculture, Livestock, Fishing, Roads, etc facilities washed away. With this regulation, areas prone to frequent flooding can be used for agricultural purposes. Tourism Activities: The reservoir offers potential for eco-tourism, environmental education, etc. for bird watching and sport fishing. Job opportunity during construction: Comparison with other projects of broadly similar type and magnitude, suggests that the total workforce on construction contract comprising the overall project is likely to be more than 5,000 persons at peak time. The production of more hydropower would allow the expansion of powerrequiring industries and factories in the surrounding urban areas creating more permanent job opportunities for the displaced and other people in the area. Gender Issues: Women as well as men will benefit equally from the employment opportunities that will be created and from convenient and safe access road facility. Women often run shops and bars in the area and obviously during the construction period, there will likely be more women engaged in income-generating activities, running restaurants and bars, or selling local products to construction camp workers. These activities will benefit mainly women who are very often the sole supporters of their families. It is also recommended for the contractor to use his best endeavors to maximise local hire of labour and give priority to women, in so far as this is compatible with his skill requirements, and to maximise local procurement of supplies. 0.6.2 Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Dam and Reservoir On the basis of the findings of this ESIA the key environmental impacts during the construction and operation and maintenance phases of the project have been identified. The potential negative impacts of the proposed Gibe III Hydropower Project on the physical, biological and socio-economic environment have been identified and benefit enhancement and mitigation measures that should be adopted to avoid or minimise potential adverse impacts are recommended. Of which, some involve good engineering practices while others viewed from socio-economic as well as humanitarian angle. There are no confirmed occurrences of geothermal activity in dam area and because of its distance from the major Ethiopia seismic centres, located in the rift valley, any tectonical event will have negligible effects on the project area. Impacts on Protected Areas: No adverse direct or indirect impacts are anticipated in respect of sensitive habitat, National Parks, Wildlife Reserves, or National Forest Priority Areas. The reservoir area is neither contiguous with, nor in close proximity with any of these nationally protected areas like national parks nor wildlife sanctuaries reserves and designated ecologically sensitive areas. There is also no endangerment of endemic or rare species in the impounded areas. Impacts on Natural Vegetation: The loss of woodland grassland on the hillslopes of the valley and narrow riparian vegetation along the river and streams would not bring about marked differences in the carrying capacity. However, to compensate this loss an estimated 60,000 ha of land around the reservoir will be developed as buffer area and it is expected to support the bio-diversity conservation by enhancing the biological value of the area. Impacts on Wildlife Resources: The area harbours only limited number of wildlife species and does not rate well with areas in Lower Omo. Therefore, there will only be a minimum opportunity cost loss suffered by CESI SpA - Mid-Day International Consulting Engineers Page 17
Gibe III – Environmental and Social Impact Assessment 300 ENV R CS 002 C - A9003099 the dam construction and creation of reservoir. During survey it was observed that on average the human settlement in the area is limited to an altitude of 1,300 m a.s.l. For the wildlife there are ample sites on both side of the river (up or down stream) as the maximum water level remains at around 900 m a.s.l. Therefore, most terrestrial animals can take refuge in the area between these two altitudes (900 and 1,100 m a.s.l.). Impacts on Farmland and other Privately owned Assets: The direct impact of the project in terms of loss of assets and property is summarized in Table 1 below. The project will affect a total of 355 households, about 188.94 hectares of privately owned land of which 138.7 ha is farmland, (excluding the TL) 47 residential housing units, and 71,852 perennial crops and other trees (see Table 0.1). The impacts of the Gibe III-Sodo transmission line include 192 households, 129 ha of farmland and 26,892 perennial crops and other trees. Table 0.1: Summary of Project Impact on Household Assets by Wereda and Project Component Households Private Land Affected (ha) (No) Total Land Farmland Residential (No) Houses Perennial Crops and Trees (No) By Wereda Kindo Didaye 165 81.89 63.62 31 58,388 Kindo Koyisha 69 25.56 19.14 2 613 Loma 121 81.49 55.94 14 12,851 Total 355 188.94 138.7 47 71,852 By Project Component Reservoir 58 97.55 70.14 0 6,523 EEPCO Camp 47 22.95 14.38 29 51,748 Chida - Sodo Road Realignment 250 68.44 54.18 18 13,581 Total 355 188.94 138.70 47 71,852 Gibe III-Sodo-Transmission Line Kindo Koyisha 105 - 70.79 105 7,320 Sodo Zuriya 20 - 30.90 20 1,523 Damot Sore 67 - 27.52 67 18,047 Total 192 - 129.21 192 26,892 As we can see from the figures in Table 0.1, one of the most important points to note is that although the Gibe III project is one of the largest hydropower projects ever undertaken in the country, the impact from the reservoir in terms of population displacement is very small. This is because the impounded water will be confined within the gorge of the river far from large population settlement areas. The census survey (for the reservoir, EEPCO camp and the realignment road) revealed that all PAPs would prefer to receive their compensation in the form of cash for loss of farm land, perennial crops and other trees and houses and other structures. Therefore, given their preferences cash compensation and employment within the project has been recommended. Due to the acute shortage of resources especially land and the low income and poverty of the population, it is believed that the main benefits for PAPs will come from the income restoration and social development programmes. The recommended plan has two components: the income restoration and improvement component, which directly targets PAPs and a community or social development components for communities as well as PAPs to be implemented for project affected kebeles. The communities around the future reservoir area will also be affected directly as well as indirectly by the project including among others: • increased human and livestick health hazards, CESI SpA - Mid-Day International Consulting Engineers Page 18
Page 2 and 3: Gibe III - Environmental and Social
Page 78 and 79:
Gibe III - Environmental and Social
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358:
show all

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Gibe III

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?