Phase 4 - Main ESIA Stakeholder
Engagement
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Overview of SEP Process
Since the commencement of the project screening and alternatives assessment processes in
mid-2009, TAP has been engaging with stakeholders in Albania with the aim of understanding
the views of interested parties so that these can be taken into account in the project design and
implementation.
This report presents the main ESIA engagement process for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline Project
(TAP), in Albania. Table 1-1 below. provides an overview of the municipalities/communes and
settlements along the base case route that were included in this phase of consultation.
Table 1-1
Administrative Entities and Settlements crossed by the Pipeline Route
Region
District
Communes /
Municipality
Settlement
Korça
Devoll
Bilisht Qender
Hoçist
Bilisht
Progër
Pojan
Qendër
Drenovë
Vishocicë, Trestenik, Kuç
(Land Only)
Bilisht
Cangonj, Vranisht, Progër
Zëmblak, Pojan,Terrovë, Pendavinj
Çiflik, Bulgarec, Malavec, Shamoll
Ravonik, Turan
Voskop
Mollaj
Vithquk
(Land Only)
Pulahë, Ujebardhë
(Land Only)
Potom
Backë, Qafë, Potom
Çorovoda
Qender
Çorovoda
Korça
Berat
Skrapar
Berat
Vendreshe
Arizaj, Buzuk, Çerenishte,Munushtir,
Orizaj, Osoje, Polenë
Therpel, Vëndreshë e vogël, Ustië, Valë
Bogove
(Land Only)
Poliçan
Poliçan
Vërtop
Berat
Bregas, Fushë peshtan, Mbrakull, Vërtop,
Vodicë
Berat, Uznovë
Velabisht
Otllak
Duhanas, Malinat,
Moravë, Otllak, Ullinjas
Ura Vajgurore
Guri i bardhë, Konisbaltë, Ura vajgurore,
Vokopolë
Poshnjë, Ciflik
Poshnjë
Cukalat
Kutalli
Roshnik
(Land Only)
Drenovicë, Kutalli, Pobrat, Protoduar,
Rërëz-kumarak, Sqepur
(Land Only)
Region
District
Communes /
Municipality
Settlement
Fier
Fier
Strum
Kurjan
Roskovec
Mbrostar
Libofshë
Qendër
Dermenas
Strum
(Land Only)
(Land Only)
Kallm i vogël, Mbrostar ura, Petovë, Verri,
Rreth Libofshë
Mujalli
Dermenas, Hoxarë, Hamil, Sulaj
Topoje
Kavaklli, Seman, Seman i ri, Gryke, Fushe
The objective of this phase of stakeholder engagement was to complement the scoping
engagement held in April 2011 in order to ensure that stakeholders had an opportunity to learn
about the Project, to ask questions and raise concerns. The engagement was also used to gain
information that was of importance in the assessment of impacts and development of mitigation
measures. The Project team also ensured that stakeholders were familiar with the commenting
and grievance mechanism and provided with information on the next stages of the Project.
In addition to local level consultation, supplementary engagement was carried out with statutory
key stakeholders and NGOs to assess project interference with protected areas in January 2012
and February 2012 respectively. This engagement was carried out in order to re-confirm issues
that had been raised during the ESIA process concerning these areas of interest.
The main ESIA phase of engagement (herein named ‘ESIA engagement’) represents the fourth
phase of stakeholder engagement for the project, following pre-scoping, route refinement and
ESIA scoping activities (see Table 1-2).
Table 1-2
Phases of Stakeholder Engagement in Albania and Progress to Date
Phase
Completed/ Planned
Phase 1: Pre-scoping
Completed
Phase 2: Route Refinement
Completed
Phase 3: ESIA Scoping
Completed
Phase 4: Main ESIA Preparation Phase
Completed (Subject of this Report)
Phase 5: ESIA Disclosure and Consultation
Planned
Phase 6: Ongoing Engagement during Project Implementation
Planned
Source: Albania Stakeholder Engagement Plan (TAP-FEED-AL-EIA-REP-7009)
The outcomes of all of the meetings held during Phase 4 are provided in this report, including
information regarding the evaluation of the engagement.
2. ENGAGEMENT PROCESS DURING THE MAIN ESIA PHASE
2.1
Summary of Engagement Meetings
During the main ESIA preparation stage, settlement engagement meetings were held within the
2 km corridor along the pipeline route to provide information about the Project, to discuss impacts
and mitigation measures to answer questions and understand concerns of those that will be most
affected by the Project.
The main ESIA phase of engagement was carried out in 3 stages:
•
Stage 1 – The first stage involved engaging with stakeholders along the route (Alternative 6)
that was selected as a result of the route selection process and evaluated in the scoping
report. This stage of consultation was completed in June 2011;
•
Stage 2 – Due to routing constraints that were identified by consultations in June 2011, a rerouting process was undertaken. For the Reroute section known as Alternative 6A (so
called Korca Loop) stakeholder engagement took place in September 2011. The re-route
section starts from the Greek-Albania boarder in the village of Trestenik (Bilisht municipality,
Devoll district) to Ujëbarde (Mollaj commune, Korca district); and
•
Stage 3 – The majority of engagement with national level government authorities and NGO’s
was conducted during the ESIA scoping phase, which is described in detail in Annex D of the
Albania Stakeholder Engagement Plan (TAP-FEED-AL-EIA-REP-7009). In February 2012,
additional 7 meetings were held with high level stakeholders. This included traffic authorities
to discuss on the approach proposed for the traffic assessment of the potential interaction of
the TAP Project with traffic movements along the route (construction traffic and road
crossings). Meetings were also held with representatives of the Ministry of Environment and
two environmental NGOs to present TAP’s approach to addressing the potential interaction of
the Project with designated or protected areas along the route. Additionally, TAP also met
with the Head of Albanian Archaeological Services, to discuss about future collaboration and
present TAP’s cultural heritage field survey activities.
Details regarding Stage 3 are provided in Box 2-1. The remainder of this Section focuses on the
engagement carried out with local communities and other local stakeholders during Stages 1 and
2.
Box 2-1
Meetings with National Level Stakeholders (Stage 3 of Engagement)
In February 2012, TAP held 7 meetings (total 16 participants)
On Traffic and Transportation:
•
Institute of Transport;
•
Directorate of Road Transport Services;
•
Directorate of Transport Planning and Policies, MPTT;
On Nature Conservation and Designated / Protected Areas:
•
Ministry of Environment;
•
2 environmental NGOs - EDEN and INCA.
During Stage 1 and 2 focus group discussions and key informant interviews were held. Although
these were organised primarily to collect information for the social baseline element of the ESIA,
they also acted as a forum for these groups to communicate their opinions and concerns
regarding the TAP Project.
In total, 1,462 participants were consulted during 140 consultation events. Table 2-1 provides a
summary of the meetings held and the number of participants.
Table 2-1
Meetings Summary
Meeting Type
Approx. Number of
Participants
7 National level meetings with government authorities and NGO’s
16
71 Local level meetings across 30 communes and 76 settlements
1,234
•
Devoll – 8; Korca – 16; Skrapar – 13; Berat – 22; Fier – 12
38 focus groups
•
24 key informant interviews
•
162
Devoll – 6; Korca – 7; Skrapar – 7; Berat – 10; Fier - 8
Devoll – 4; Korca – 7; Skrapar – 3; Berat – 5; Fier - 5
50
Meetings were organised through national and regional authorities and heads of communities.
Additionally,
a media campaign
which involved working with the Albanian branch of the
international advertisement agency DDB was undertaken on behalf of TAP AG to disseminate
information through newspaper, television and radio adverts. This involved the placement of a
series of media announcements in national and local press. Once the date, time and location of
each consultation meeting was confirmed, a press release was prepared in Albanian and
broadcasted as follows:
•
1 weeks prior to consultation, adverts were placed in 7 national newspapers.
•
5 and 2 days before each meeting the same adverts were announced on local TV stations.
•
Consultation posters were sent to heads of the local communities prior to the consultation,
who distributed them to community members. Posters were also placed in public places by
TAP AG representatives 2-3 days in advance of the meetings.
Meetings were held in a variety of locations such as municipality offices, coffee shops,
community social areas and general stores.
Figure 2-1
Pictures of Meetings
Pictures: Top left – key informant interview in Poshnjë (Berat); top right – women’s focus group in Qafë (Potom
Commune, Skrapar); bottom left – community meeting in Seman (Topoje Commune, Fier); bottom right - community
meeting in Trestenik (Progër Commune, Devoll).
Source: ERM (2011)
Consultation meetings involved a presentation of the Project followed by a question and answer
session. Focus groups and key informant interviews were guided by a protocol to enable targeted
discussions about specific topic areas for baseline data collection. However, as mentioned
earlier, these types of meetings also offered an opportunity to provide information regarding the
Project and use satellite and route maps as a trigger for participants to further engage in the
ESIA process.
Issues raised during meetings
were recorded
and are summarized
in Section 3 below.
Stakeholders were also invited to submit follow-up questions and comments by post or through the
Project website.
3. OUTCOMES OF ENGAGEMENT
3.1
Summary of Outcomes of Phase 4 Engagement during ESIA Preparation
During
stakeholder engagement in the ESIA preparation stage, issues raised during the previous
phases were reiterated, especially those relating to land acquisition and compensation, economic
development and employment. The impact of the Project on landowners and natural resources
were also stressed as key concerns. It is noted that these issues do not include those raised
along the old Korca route as these are no longer applicable to the current TAP Project.
Livelihoods and compensation was raised most often (25%) followed by potential benefits that may
result from the Project (21%).
The main comments raised during the meetings were the following:
Impact on Land, Properties and Livelihoods and Compensation: Impacts to land based livelihoods and
the compensation that landowners or users might receive were a key area of concern in the
districts of Devoll (44% of issues raised in the district), Berat (27%) and Korca (26%). This is
related to the high level of profitable agricultural productivity in these districts, especially cultivation of
fruit (apple) and olive trees. Communities are consequently concerned about restrictions to land
use and levels of compensation that they may receive. Specific issues, such as how cases where
the pipeline impacts on land and production that has received subsidies by the European Union
would be compensated for and concerns about reduced land values due to restrictions by the
pipeline were raised specifically by farmers and land owners in Korça. They suggested that by
implementing the Project, TAP AG would be hindering these opportunities.
TAP Project Detail and Pipeline Route: Consultees seeked information on Project details, such as the
exact route and location of block valve stations and camps. A diverse range of questions was raised
to gain further clarity on the Project, particularly around the technical aspects of the pipeline,
including
construction.
The
technical
standards
that
the
Project
would
apply
(Albanian/EU/international) were also of frequent interest.
Management of Impacts: Questions were raised with regard to how a range of impacts would be
managed. Examples include: noise and disturbance, potential pollution of water resources; disruption
to access routes; impact of pipeline safety zones on local development areas; cultural heritage and
impacts to forestry;
Project Benefits: The possibility of access to gas and employment were seen as benefits which the
‘Project should provide, and consultees felt that if these opportunities were not available, there
would consequently be no benefits. Unemployment is a key issue for all communities throughout the
pipeline route and therefore questions were raised regarding the number of employment opportunities
and types of jobs available throughout the Project. Additionally, many stakeholders asked questions
with regard to benefits that they might receive from the Project in the form of community
investments made by TAP AG. The potential that the Project would improve access to gas for
community households was raised in many meetings. Some consultees were also interested
in
the source of the gas. Skrapar was the district where potential benefit expectations where
raised the most (36% of issues raised) and had a special focus on road improvement.
Health & Safety: There was some concern expressed with regard to public health and safety
implications of the gas pipeline, especially with regard to the pressure of gas and how the block
valve stations would prevent gas explosions and leaks. Consultees were also concerned about how
an emergency situation would be managed and the lack of local capacity to respond.
Stakeholder
Engagement
Process
and
the
Role
of
the
Government:
Consultees
were
concerned with regards to the capacity of the government to regulate the Project effectively to
ensure that standards are upheld, its involvement in the compensation process as well as the use
of funds raised from the Project. Overall communities stated a preference for direct consultation with
the Project rather than consultation through authorities and were very keen to remain informed about
the Project and be able to provide further views as the Project plans develop.
The consultation
evaluation
indicates that stakeholders
at community level were generally
satisfied with the consultation process and were able to ask all the questions that they wanted to ask.
Nonetheless, stakeholders were keen to be provided with more detail regarding the exact route and
specific land plots that would be affected by the Project in order to establish if they would be
affected and how they would be compensated.
disclosed
during
the
next
phase
of
Further and more detailed information will
engagement,
Phase
5
-
ESIA
Disclosure
be
and
Consultation, which will provide communities with more clarity about the Project, particularly in relation
to the pipeline route, land and land use impacts and mitigation measures, opportunities and
benefits.
Discussions with statutory stakeholders in charge of protected areas, i.e. the Ministry of
Environment and two NGOs focused on the assessment approach for addressing the potential
interaction of the TAP Project with areas of conservation interest along its route (currently
protected areas, proposed Emerald Sites, and other areas proposed for protection). TAP AG
provided information regarding the extensive route refinement process to avoid sensitive and protected
areas such as Hotova National Park and the Vjosa River Valley. For the sections where the route is
still crossing or approaching sites of conservation importance, it was agreed that the Project follows
the same assessment approach like in the EU, i.e. to undertake a an Appropriate Assessment similar
to the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive.
TAP AG presented traffic relevant aspects such as construction logistics, anticipated construction
traffic and road crossing construction to representatives of the Ministry of Transport and Police
representatives and discussed potential traffic impacts and mitigation.
4. EVALUATION OF ENGAGEMENT
This main ESIA phase of stakeholder engagement was broadly successful in meeting its
objectives. Information was directly disseminated to nearly all settlements within the 2 km
pipeline corridor with approximately 1,462 individuals attending the settlement level meetings.
Focus group discussions were generally well attended and key informant interviews were well
organised with much enthusiasm to participate.
Many issues were raised, some of which have contributed to significant project design changes in
terms of re-routing. Stakeholder feedback is an aspect that informs the evaluation of impacts and
the development of mitigation measures.
4.1
Evaluation Method and Results
Unlike Stage 1 of engagement in June 2011 as described in the limitations under Section 4.2, an
evaluation of engagement was carried out at the end of meetings during the Stage 2 of
consultation in September 2011. At the beginning of meetings organised during Stage 2,
consultees were informed that they would be provided with an evaluation questionnaire to be
handed out during the discussion session to maximise completion. The questions were based on
whether the meetings were viewed to be;
•
Free of manipulation, interference, coercion, and intimidation, and
•
Conducted on the basis of timely, relevant, understandable and accessible information in a
culturally appropriate format.
In total, 123 out of 228 (54%) participants in Stage 2 meetings, where an evaluation was carried out,
completed the questionnaires. The results of the evaluation show that consultees were satisfied with the
information provided during the presentation and that it was presented in a clear manner. Moreover, they
felt that they were able to ask questions and express their views during the meetings. Generally the
meetings held during this stage of the engagement in Korca and Devoll were also held outside work
hours which further encouraged participation.
4.2
Limitations
Whist the engagement was considered to have been generally successful and of great value at the
project and local communities, there were number of limitations which are identified as follows.
•
Meetings not held: There were a number of issues which hindered engagement in several
settlements:
o
Despite
of the media
campaign
that was implemented
prior
to engagement,
meetings
Corovode
result of
heads did
were not possible in 2 settlements in Skrapar (Poliçan Commune,
Municipality), 1 settlement in Berat (Vodicë in Vërtop Commune). As a
the period of political transition due to elections, commune and village
not inform the communities of the date and the time of the meetings.
o
Accessibility and health and safety concerns due to poor access and weather
prevented 1 settlement meeting in Osoje (Qendër Commune).
o
Re-routing of the pipeline to avoid sensitivities identified during the ESIA data
collection resulted in 5 additional settlements coming within the 2 km corridor. These
settlements were consequently not consulted during the main ESIA phase of engagement.
However, they will be engaged during ESIA disclosure.
•
Working hours: The engagement
was carried out during the summer
period which
corresponds with the peak period of cultivation. During the second stage of consultation in
Korca, greater emphasis was placed on holding meetings only in the mornings and
evenings which allowed an increased number of participants. However, it was noted that
individuals sometimes worked late into the evening preventing their attendance.
•
Representation of women:
In most cases the meetings were dominated by men in the
community with women either being totally absent or poorly represented. This is the cultural
norm in Albania. In response, the ESIA focused on holding women’s focus groups in order to
hear the “female voice”. Nevertheless, it is recognised that the focus groups do not allow for
broad information dissemination and engagement in settlement meetings and that only a
subset of women could be invited to participate in focus groups.
•
Representation of ethnic groups, particularly Roma:
1 settlement within the 2 km
corridor is known to have a Roma population (Mbroster settlement, Mbroster commune,
Fier). Whilst a community meeting was held in the settlement, it is not believed that any
Roma attended the meeting. Therefore, within Mbrostar, a focus group was therefore organised
with the Roma population at which information regarding the Project was presented.
In the ESIA disclosure engagement phase particular emphasis will be placed on consulting
directly with settlements that were not directly engaged in the main ESIA phase. The Project will
also consider alternative means to provide information and gain feedback with individuals who are
unable to attend meetings through the media and other channels. In the meantime,
further
data
gathering and engagement on ethnic minorities will be undertaken through the Human Rights
Impact Assessment that is being undertaken by TAP / ENT. HRIA will cover
stakeholder
activities
concerning
more
vulnerable groups, land and easement.
specific
issues
including
a
range
of
worker management rights,