SUSTAINABLE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT A NORWEGIAN-GEORGIAN COOPERATION PROGRAM. A Citizen s Guide. Communication and Hydropower EIA

Transcription

1 Communication and Hydropower EIA September, 2014

2 Dhillion, S.S. and Bakhtadze, M A Citizen s Awareness Guide: Communication and Hydropower EIA. Sustainable Hydropower Development in Georgia. Report No.3b (12 pages), Norsk Energi, Oslo. ISBN: Available from: დილიონი ს.ს. და მ. ბახტაძე, 2014, მოქალაქის დირექტივა - კომუნიკაცია, გზშ და ჰიდოენერგეტიკა. ჰიდროენერგეტიკის მდგრადი განვითარება საქართველოში, ნორს ენერჯი, ოსლო, 12 გვერდი. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 What is this guide about and why should citizens care? Classification of Hydropower Projects by Capacity Impacts from Hydropower Development How is Sanitary Flow Dealt With in Georgia? What happens to the river and its use if sanitary flow is not maintained? Hydropower Plant Development in Georgia Who are the Key Governmental and Non-governmental Players Involved? What are the Steps of Hydropower Plant Development in Georgia? Construction Permitting Process Environmental Impact Permitting Process How is the EIA evaluated? How to Participate Effectively and Review EIAs? Top Considerations for an EIA report...10 The development of a hydro power plant requires that a developer undertake several key steps from the start to production (Figure 1). Figure 1 The main steps of the process of HPP development in Georgia. 2

3 1 What is this Guide about and why Citizens should care? This Citizen s Guide broadly introduces hydropower projects, communication and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development and processes. It is not exhaustive in nature as it aims to highlight key features that would trigger citizen s involvement in aiding in decision making on hydropower projects. Globally citizen involvement in decision making is seen as a vital part of participatory processes. The lack of citizen involvement has had devastating results in the past and continues to do so as impacts of hydropower projects (HPP) can result in loss of environments, livelihoods, cultural heritage and most importantly trigger involuntary resettlement. Citizens risk losing their stake in their environment and being fairly compensated by not participating in decision making and voicing their opinions. This Guide aims in enhancing an understanding of EIA related process in hydropower development. 1.1 Classification of Hydropower Projects by Capacity Water can be harnessed on a large or small scale, ranging from micro-hydro power plants of less than 0.5 kw, up to the large over 100 MW (Table 1). Generated electricity from large hydropower projects/plants (HPP) usually feed into electric grids (this kind systems usually are called on-grid systems). Smaller plants can provide energy to remote regions without connecting to the grid main distribution system. This kind of standalone systems (also called as off-grid systems) can provide a smaller community with electricity. Table 1 below outlines the basic categories of hydropower plants to define the power output from hydropower and provides information on permit requirements for each type of HPP. Table 1: Classification of Hydropower Projects by Size and Permit Requirements in Georgia Type Generation Off-take of energy Permit requirements Large hydro > 100 MW usually grid connected EIA permit required Medium hydro MW usually grid connected EIA permit required Small hydro 1 13 MW usually grid connected > 2 MW EIA Permit required Mini hydro 100 kw 1 MW grid connected and off-grid Not required Micro hydro kw off-grid (provide power in rural or remote areas) Not required 1.2 Impacts from Hydropower Development The impacts from hydropower development on surrounding physical, biological and social-cultural environment should be determined by the location, scale, nature and design of the project, and the nature of affected people. One of the most important factors in determining the extent of environmental and social impacts is whether or not reservoir construction is required, particularly in large-scale projects. Significant aspects which need close study are geology and land stability, water resources, land 3

4 and forest resources and their use, biological resources and diversity, socioeconomic characteristics and livelihood dependence, social fabric and networks, cultural heritage and resettlement requirements. Single HPP projects may have an acceptable number of environmental impacts, which may be mitigated and/or reduced substantially. Projects can however have compounded and substantial impacts when considered in conjunction with other hydropower projects and/or industrial activities taking place nearby or in the same river. Thus cumulative impacts are to be considered in an EIA in Georgia, as required by Georgian EIA legislation. The term cumulative impact refers to combined effects on the environment from separate activities, including other hydropower projects, industry and other land uses (e.g. forestry and agriculture). 1.3 How is Sanitary Flow Dealt with in Georgia? Hydropower project operations, of reservoir dams in particular, generally alter natural river flows, which may affect humans and environment in different ways. Reduced river flow on downstream of the river may impact aquatic and terrestrial environment. It also might impact fisheries, recreational activities and/or downstream water users. In order to minimize impacts, it is important to maintain a sufficient downstream river flow regime. The term Sanitary Flow used in Georgia (also called ecological, minimum or sustainable or environmental flow) refers to the amount of water needed in a watercourse to maintain healthy ecosystems and their use. There is no law regulating the sanitary flow requirements in Georgia, and thus there are no guidelines for calculating sanitary flow. Common practice in Georgian EIA studies points to the use of 10% of mean annual flow as the minimum value for sanitary flow. This approach creates uncertainties of the impacts and mitigation measures, due the lack of rationale for its use. 1.4 What Happens to the River and its Use if Sanitary Flow is not Maintained? Restructuring of the river ecosystem may among other things lead to reduction in the aquatic species, fish stock and availability of water for human use, including agriculture. To reduce impacts on fish hydropower schemes need to explore different fish friendly installations (e.g. turbines, intake screens, fish passage spills, fish bypasses). It is important that sanitary flow levels account for sustainability of the river ecology and human needs: If it does not, alternatives must be found. Loss is inevitable in many hydropower projects but impacts may be reduced if a wide range of mitigation options are explored. 4

5 2 Hydropower Plant Development in Georgia The HPP development involves participation of different institutional authorities at different steps of the development process, including issuance of the construction and environmental impact permit. 2.1 Who are the Key Governmental and Non-governmental Players? The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia (MENRP) is the administrative body issuing permit for impact on the environment. The following departments of the MENRP are involved: Department of Licenses and Permits receives permit applications, provides developers with initial consultations, and communicates with other departments of the MENRP to make final decision on the Environmental Impact (EI) permit. Inspectorate of Environment Protection carries out state environmental control. The Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia (MoED) becomes involved in the EIA system when the activity requires a construction permit. Technical and Construction Supervision Agency (TCSA) under MoED issues construction permit (EI and Construction permits are combined). The Ministry of Energy of Georgia (MoE) is involved in the development process at the site selection step and responsible for inclusion of the sites to the list of priority HPPs and for giving permission to the Developer on size and location of the site. Permission for the development of a full feasibility in new project sites is granted upon the approval of a pre-feasibility document (Order No.40, of 10 April 2014). This institution can also liaise with Developers to foster new projects. The Developer (investor) is the initiator of carrying out activity subject to construction and EI permitting, and applicant to the corresponding administrative body in order to obtain permits. Each Developer is obliged to conduct an EIA study, and is also responsible for informing the public about the planned project. EIA Consulting Firms perform EIA studies for Developers and prepare EIA reports. Consulting firms also assist developers in the processes of informing public, holding public hearings and other requirements of impact assessments. Environmental NGOs are involved in permitting procedures. Various NGO s are applying actively to the MENRP and MoE with open letters and comments on EIA reports to influence permitting decisions. 5

6 2.2 What are the Steps of Hydropower Plant Development in Georgia? A summary of process of applications, evaluations and permit issuance by various stakeholders is given in Table 2 below. See also Figure 1 on page 2. Table 2 Process of applications and permit issuance by various stakeholders Permit type Applicant Responsible Body 1.Inclusion of a potential HPP to the Project Developer MoE list of priority HPPs 2.Land ownership verification Project Developer MoED or private land owner 3.Environmental Impact Permit (EIP) (over 2 MW) Project Developer Division of Permits, Department of Environmental Permits, MENRP 4.Construction Permit Project Developer TCSA (under MoED) (over 50 kw) 5.Generation license (over 13 MW) Project Developer Georgian National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission 2.3 Construction Permitting Process The various stages and time allocations for the issuance of the construction permit (number 4 in above Table) are given below (Fig. 2). The Construction permit is issued in 3 stages: Stage 1 Land ownership verification and documentation; Stage 2 Approval of Construction documentation and EIA Approval; Stage 3 Issuance of the Construction Permit. STAGE 1 No more than 30 days STAGE 2 No more than 20 days STAGE 3 No more than 10 days Land ownership verification and documentation. State owned land needed for construction of HPPs is sold by the MoED to the investors for a nominal price. If the land is privately owned, the investors have to directly contact the owner for negotiation of a price. Documentation of the above transactions (including terms and conditions for land use) have to be prepared for approval at Stage 3. Approval of Construction Documentation and EIA. The investor has to develop and submit construction (technical) documentation together with the EIA to the MoED for approval. The EIA is sent to the MENRP of Georgia to receive clearance (Environmental Impact Permit, EIP) based on an EIA review (Ecological Expertise). Note: HPPs under 2 MW do not require an EIP. Issuance of Construction Permit. In order to receive a construction permit the investor/developer has to submit the above package of documentation (Stage 1 and 2) in accordance with the Resolution #57. Figure 2 Stages and time allocations for Construction permit process 6

7 2.4 Environmental Impact Permitting Process In order to get the environmental impact permit, the developer should undergo the following main steps: Developer Contracts an EIA Consulting Firm EIA report is prepared by Consulting Firm days Developer publishes information about planned activity and public hearing of EIA report 1 week Developer submits the initial EIA report to MENRP Developer submits final version of EIA report to MENRP with application for EIP (including public hearing comments) 20 days Public Hearing Developer holds public hearing of EIA report Ecological Expertise (EE) of MENRP reviews EIA Report Decision Making YES / NO MENRP Issues EIP MENRP does not issue EIP Developer commences construction (provided a Construction Permit has been granted by TCSA, (under MoED) Figure 3 Stages and time allocations for Environmental Impact permit (EIP) process 7

8 3 How is the EIA evaluated? After development of the EIA and submitting all necessary documentation, MENRP has to carry out an evaluation, called the Ecological Expertise (EE). MENRP selects and approves experts for conducting EE. In each particular case a commission of experts is established by the ordinance of the Minister. The commission elaborates the final statement on the basis of summarized single expert conclusions (the Conclusion of the Ecological Expertise). EE should be performed not less than 10 and not more than 15 days after submission of the EIA report and project documentation (total process allocation of 20 days, including administration work). The positive conclusion of the EE is essential ground for issuing an environmental impact permit, which facilitates the further issuance of the Construction Permit. Following granting of the permit, the next step is the construction process and monitoring of conditions defined by EIA report. 4 How to Participate Effectively and Review EIAs? Community members at the site location, upstream and downstream of a project need to know of the impacts of the project and its safety. Georgian legislation provides opportunities for public involvement during the hydropower project approval decision making process (see Fig. 1 and 3). Often, people living near the site of a proposed Figure 3 AEIA public hearing in Georgia project are more familiar with the potential environmental or social impacts. Thus, they may introduce new ideas or identify possible impacts that may not have otherwise been considered. Citizen s may also complain about possible impacts and require clarification and/or revising project scenario. Comments on EIA report are important contribution from citizens. Below are tips and suggestions on how to prepare effective written comments to a hydropower EIA document (Box 1). 8

9 Box 1: Tips for Preparing Effective Written Comments to EIA Documents Draft focus oriented comments rather than making general statements about how the project affects surrounding communities and/or environment. Generally, comments that are solution oriented, also comments that provide specific examples are more effective that those that oppose the project. It is most likely that quality comments (with depth of detail, and the accuracy of facts) will strongly influence on decision making; Make sure that comments specifies provisions of legislation that the EIA or project violate; It might also be a good idea to consult with different background experts, who might understand the impact of the proposed project and are willing to support citizens in drafting qualified comments. Comments should be written in a factual and neutral manner. In order to draft relevant focus oriented questions on an EIA document, affected community needs to know what to expect from EIA report as well as understand the issues provided in EIA report. Thus it is highly recommended to citizens to make an effort, where possible, in researching of a proposed project by reading available EIA documents (e.g., summary, public reports, specialist reports on which the EIA is based). The Georgian legislation requires HPP developers to engage community only at EIA development stage and no pre-eia hearing/consultations are required. The involvement of independent parties (e.g. consultants and/or NGOs) is necessary for fairly conducted consultations. Box 3 below provides some general tips on public rights and provides effective participation tools. Box 3: General Tips for Effective Participation & Public Rights in the EIA Process Georgian legislation requires that the public has an access to the EIA report and relevant documents. Hence, if project information is not available citizens should insist that they have the right to access EIA and related documents. Monitor local newspapers for official announcements or articles about a proposed project and opportunities to submit comments or attend hearings. Request hydropower project Non-Technical Summary (NTS) for better understanding the project scope, cover, impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Identify the ministries or agencies that have decision-making authority over the proposed project (above see chapter 2.1 on key players involved during EIA 9

10 system). Identify the key individuals who will be responsible for the decisions that concern community. Collaborate and join forces with organizations or groups that share a similar interest in the concerning issues. Participate at every possible opportunity provided by the government or project proponent/developer, whether by submitting written comments or attending a public hearing. At some cases public hearings are covered by mass media. Alert the media, to make sure they cover citizen s concerns discussed during the hearing. Note that media representatives may not stay for the whole hearing and may be influenced by what takes place early on. Source: Information was adapted from guide for evaluating Mining Project EIA s; Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide, July 2010; and good practice notes from See also the Aarhus Convention website in Georgia. 5 Top Requirements for an EIA report Determining HPP sustainability usually requires collection and detail assessment of various data. The list of issues, that citizens need to know in order to better understand proposed project development and to define project sustainability, is presented below. If most of the parameters (listed below) are met by the project, it can be assumed that project is developed wisely and with appropriate care. Information on citizen s rights can also be obtained in Georgia from the Aarhus Center housed at the MENRP. 10

11 1. The project is located to minimize environmental and social impacts. Project components (roads, dam site and power house, office and camp buildings, transmissions lines) do not lead to significant loss in natural resources, biodiversity and cultural heritage, and have minimal impact on lands and the environment. Have project impact areas/zones been clearly identified? 2. Potential risks to natural resources (land, water and forests), biodiversity, ecosystems and agricultural resources have been identified. The project documents show that the surveys were conducted and full accounts are given of the potential direct and indirectly impacted environment and social settings. 3. Identified potential impacts and risks are analyzed and mitigation suggested to avoid risks. Risks and mitigation have been presented in a clear and understandable fashion, and acceptable way. Has sanitary flow (environmental flow) taken into account social and environmental impacts? Have cumulative aspects been addressed, particularly in light of current and future multiple water and land users along the stretch of the river. 4. Affected stakeholders have been contacted and meaningful consultations were held. Consultations were conducted during the EIA process and a public hearing was conducted during planning process and community members were given ample opportunity to provide meaningful input to the project, and their input were taken seriously, and incorporated appropriately. Stakeholders include all affected communities. 5. There has been ample information and disclosure on the Project over time. Have the affected people and stakeholders been informed and consulted beyond prior to the completion of the EIA and public hearing? During the course of consultations was information on the project made available? Was the time line of the EIA process and project disclosed? When meeting or interviews have been held has the purpose clarified? Have concerns and questions posed during consultations been addressed in meetings? Are there records on meetings which have been made available (public)? 6. Sufficient baseline data were collected to design safeguard and monitoring needs. A management plan has been drafted and shared with stakeholders showing how impacts are proposed to be mitigation and avoided. Monitoring for post-construction and operation phases has been proposed, to be conducted by independent and the appropriate expertise. 7. The technical project component (e.g., weir/dam, diversion, penstock, tailrace) design minimizes impacts associated with those affecting fish migration, sediment movement, slope stability/erosion, and flooding. The project is using appropriate fish friendly technologies, where possible. Have project alternatives been presented and discussed? 11

12 8. Alternatives are considered. There must be an analysis of more than just the no action alternative and the proposed action. Document should include outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the reasons for selecting above alternative (taking into account the environmental effects). 9. The types, locations and extent of roads, power lines and changes in access have been identified. The impacts of roads and power lines as these alter accessibility to and from the project area and its surroundings has been addressed in relation to local communities mobility and vulnerability, project traffic, worker influxes, entrepreneurs and opportunists, natural resources (logging and poaching), and possible boom town impacts. 10. Safety has been addressed and grievance procedures proposed. Potential project traffic, infrastructure, waste material and non-local worker impacts to the safety of local communities, youth and school children has been addressed. Warming systems and emergency help will be set-up. Has a grievance procedure (grievance redress procedure) been recommended in the EIA? 11. Project related outcomes, compensation and potential benefits are defined and understood. The affected communities have been identified by the project. If there is a need for physical relocation have potential relocation sites been identified or alternatives discussed in the EIA. Resettlement policy and compensation packages have been considered in the Resettlement Planning, if a framework is ready. Livelihood restoration options have been proposed and potential future benefits have been explored for full development in the proposed project management plans. Responsibilities of the developer/investor and the Government have been made clear. 12