PHASE 2: JOINT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT for
ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT IN ITALY
A. Route Alternatives Assessment – Brindisi
1
Methodology
The overall objective of stakeholder engagement during the alternative assessment ( equivalent
t o Route Refinement in other countries) of the ESIA is to gather additional information which is
not available during desktop studies or field surveys as well as to verify data and identify social
sensitivities that should be taken into account during the assessment. Stakeholders are a
potentially important source for this data. It is also important
to identify whether there is the
potential for support or opposition from local communities or authorities towards the Project.
The approach for undertaking stakeholder engagement during the alternatives assessment phase
consisted of three main stages:
•
•
•
Stage 1: Notification to Authorities and Engagement with Key Stakeholders
Stage 2: Broader Stakeholder Engagement
Stage 3: Verification Activities
2
Stage 1: Notification to Authorities and Engagement with Key Stakeholders
A key objective during Stage 1 was to identify any potential Project show stoppers associated
with the route alternatives. A number of key issues and therefore stakeholders were identified as
a priority to consult with during Stage 1.
During this consultation, the team aimed to:
•
•
•
•
formally introduce the Project and the Project team – or provide an update;
collect any additional secondary data available;
discuss the key issues identified for each stakeholder; and
gain a better understanding of the local populations (local administration, demographics,
presence of vulnerable groups, land use, livelihoods, etc. and any specific issues at the local
level).
In preparation for the field visit and as a first step in launching the Project locally, TAP organised
an introductory meeting with the President of the Apulia Region and relevant Regional
Department Managers (e.g. Economic Development, Tourism, Environment) to introduce the
Project and the work to be undertaken by the Project team.
The TAP team also consulted relevant authorities at the regional and local level in order to:
•
•
•
introduce the work of the Project team;
request their support during implementation of field activities; and
confirm the list of stakeholders to be engaged.
3
Stage 2: Broader Stakeholder Engagement
The overall objective of the broader stakeholder engagement was to identify vulnerable groups
and social sensitivities that should be taken into account during the assessment.
Stakeholders
provide a potentially important source for this data. It was also important to identify whether there
is potential for support or opposition from local communities or authorities towards the Project.
The main discussion areas during this stage of consultation were as follows:
•
•
•
formally introduce the Project and the Project team or provide an update;
explain TAP’s stakeholder engagement approach;
provide an overview of the field work;
•
•
•
•
•
4
check completeness of the stakeholder groups identified;
identify any key sensitivities such as sites of interest or vulnerable groups;
gain a better understanding of the local populations (local administration, demographics,
presence of vulnerable groups, land use, livelihoods, etc. and any specific issues at the local
level);
discuss the approach to consultation and the management of expectations, concerns and any
misconceptions;
discuss key issues and answer stakeholder questions to the extent possible at this stage of
development of the Project.
Outcomes of Stages 1 and 2 Consultation Activities
Summary of Stakeholders Met
Engagement activities during Stages 1 and 2 of the alternatives assessment process were carried
out between October and December 2009. TAP team met around 50 stakeholders and used
the following three main methods of stakeholder engagement:
• Face to Face Meetings: 46 stakeholders met;
• Focus Group: 1 Focus Group organised with 5 environmental NGOs;
• P lenary meeting: 1 Meeting organised with inhabitants and owners along the
Alternative 4D route.
Face to Face Meetings
Face to face meetings were held with:
•
•
•
•
•
•
11 public administration authorities;
11 utilities and infrastructure organisations;
3 universities and research centres;
4 trade unions;
16 industrial, agricultural and craftsmanship associations; and
1 religious representative.
It was not feasible to meet with all identified stakeholders during this early consultation stage, so
they were contacted and informed that they will be contactedin future for consultation at later
stages. These are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trade associations: AIAB (organic agriculture), APA (livestock farming), Federpesca and
Legacoop (Fisheries association),
Caritas (religious charity),
Mesagne Municipality,
NGOs: Fondazione di Giulio, Medicina Democratica,
Ministry of Cultural Heritage (Archaeological Department, Architecture and Landscape
Department), and
Prefecture.
Focus Group Discussion
The following Environmental NGOs participated in the Focus Group Discussion:
•
•
•
WWF;
Legambiente;
Italia Nostra;
•
•
LIPU; and
Forum Ambiente Salute.
Plenary Meeting
A meeting was organised with inhabitants, landowners and stakeholders neighbouring the
Alternative 4D route. Two hundred invitations were distributed and the meeting was broadly
announced in media, but the number of attendees was significantly lower. The possible reasons for
this could be that:
•
•
•
the local population (and in Italy in general) are unfamiliar with this type of public participation
event;
a gas pipeline Project does not raise major concerns;
the TAP Project is not yet widely known publically, and the permitting process has not yet
been initiated, so the invited stakeholders did not see any need to attend such a meeting at
this stage.
Summary of Discussions with Stakeholders
The main general findings of the consultations were as follows:
•
•
•
•
5
No show-stoppers were identified on the new Alternative 4D route;
The Apulia Region, the marine scientific researchers and several other stakeholders
confirmed that Alternative 4D would be the preferable option;
Most of the parties consulted appreciated the approach of early consultation adopted by TAP,
especially considering previous tensions between industrial developers and the community in
Brindisi;
Farmers are familiar with gas pipeline installation, since the network is widespread in Italy,
and the issue is perceived as routine, where there are no perennial crops (vineyards, olive
trees).
Stage 3: Verification Activities
A consultation programme targeting national and local authorities to inform them on the results of
the assessment was planned and initiated after completion of the Alternative Assessment Report
(end of February 2010).
The objective of the verification activities was to:
•
•
•
•
validate the results of the alternatives assessment report;
inform about the new base case;
discuss any key concerns;
discuss the objectives and format of the public disclosure meeting in Brindisi and the strategy
to be adopted.
TAP met Brindisi Municipality to explain the outcomes of the Route Alternatives Assessment and
the reasons for judging Alternative 4D as the best alternative. The mayor informed TAP that the
City parliament instructed the municipal administration on March 15th to initiate the establishment
of a new Urban Development Plan (Piano Urbanistico Generale, PUG). A first strategy paper
was issued on March 15th (Atto di Indirizzo), which earmarks the North of Brindisi for urban
development as all other areas are blocked by other users (military, airport, industrial and
energy production
zones). The mayor suggested that TAP should revisit its current landfall
location in order to avoid any interference with tourism and urban development. He indicated that
alternative 3 seems to be a better option as it passes through an industrial area and would not add
any constraint to the development vision for the city of Brindisi.
The common understanding between the Municipality and TAP was to further assess Alternative
3 and to continue the consultation process in order to jointly identify a mutually acceptable
solution.
During verification activities TAP met the Ministry of Environment to inform them about the status
of the Alternatives Assessment and of the stakeholder engagement activities. The Ministry
confirmed that the route option should be accepted at local level before entering the permitting
process. A routing through the contaminated site of Brindisi is not considered an advisable option
by the Ministry’s representatives met, due to its costs and to the complexity of the related
burocratic procedure.
Further studies carried out on Alternative 3 concluded that this was also not acceptable, due to
the crossing of an area with extensive industry infrastructure and buildings. The alternative also
interferes with Natura 2000 protected area (Posidonia oceanica) and passes through areas of
heavy soil contamination.
Therefore the focus of the alternatives assessment was moved to the area of Lecce.
B. Alternatives Assessment Stakeholder Engagement – Lecce
1
Methodology
The overall objective of stakeholder engagement during the alternative assessment of the ESIA
is to gather additional information which is not available during desk based studies or field
surveys as well as to verify data and identify social sensitivities that should be taken into account
during the assessment. Stakeholders are a potentially important source for this data. It is also
important to identify whether there is the potential for support or opposition from local
communities or authorities towards the Project.
2
Summary of Stakeholders Met
Preliminary studies on Route 0a have shown that this route can be a real alternative to Route 4D
in Brindisi. Therefore, TAP properly evaluated Route 0a and 4D to make a final decision. This
evaluation required that the level of detail of Route 0a was comparable to Route 4D. It was
therefore necessary to initiate a Stakeholder Engagement process in the municipalities affected
to identify all socio-environmental advantages, disadvantages, potential impacts and risks.
The following stakeholders were met during the alternatives assessment in Lecce:
Public Authorities
• Ministry of Cultural Heritage
•
•
•
•
•
•
Puglia Region, Public Works Office
Puglia Region, Environmental Sector
Regional Authority for Cultural Heritage and Landscape
Province of Lecce and Environment Sector of the Province
Municipalities of Melendugno, San Donato di Lecce, Lequile, Cavallino, Lizzanello, Castri di
Lecce, Vernole, Acaya e Roca
Cultural Heritage Authority – Architecture (Soprintendenza).
Environmental NGOs
•
•
•
•
Italia Nostra, Lecce
WWF Salento, Lecce
SAVE Salento
Legambiente Lecce
Economic Entities and Associations
•
•
•
Snam Rete Gas
Confindustria – Lecce Division
Tourism Associations of Pisignano and Vernole
3
Summary of Discussions with Stakeholders
The main environmental and social issues raised during these early phases of stakeholder
engagement are summarised in the following Table B.1. These issues will be addressed by TAP
by increasing the detail of information and analysis during subsequent phases of the ESIA.
As no show-stoppers were identified during route alternatives
engagement, TAP proceeded to the Scoping Phase.
assessment stakeholder
Table B.1
Key Environmental and Social Issues Raised during the Route
Alternatives Assessment Stakeholder Engagement- Lecce
Issue Title
Issue Description
Olive trees
A concern was expressed about the possibility to re-plant mature or
young olive trees on the working corridor and on top of the pipe. It
was clarified that a strip of 8 m (safety zone) will be needed where
deep rooted plans cannot be planted. SAIPEM advised that new
Italian practices allow the planning of new trees within the safety
zone but a review will be done to confirm this possibility. This issue
was left open for further clarification.
Details about the shore approach with micro-tunnel were requested
to specifically identify where the pipe, on the sea floor would no
longer be buried under the sand, It was agreed that Saipem would
provide further material.
Micro-tunnel
Main Stakeholder(s) Who
Raised The Issue
•Municipalities
representatives
•Municipalities
representatives
Issue Title
Issue Description
Constraints on What will be the constraints on beach tourism, swimming, fishing,
Beach tourism navigation. It was clarified that the route will be indicated on the
and navigation nautical maps and that no anchorage will be allowed on the pipeline
corridor.
Pressure
A concern was raised about the large extension of the pressure
reduction
reduction station (250x200 m) and its air emissions as well as risks
Station and
associated with the presence of the pipeline. It was explained that air
pipeline
emissions can derive from gas flaring and are an infrequent event
pressure
during equipment maintenance. The extension of the pressure
reduction station will not be fully occupied by buildings but it is
intended to guarantee a safety distance from the flare and the
fencing.
Coastal area
Concerns were raised about constraints on the coastal area deriving
and landscape from the coastal and landscape planning tools in force. TAP will
protection
further investigate.
Local content
Local industries should be involved in the construction of the pipeline
and the pressure reducing terminal. TAP has already studied the
territory and is also willing to work with the association to develop
strategies to maximize local content.
Off-shore
TAP was advised that the region has requested offers for the contract
biology
of mapping the seabed to identify areas of coralligenous areas which
will become future protected areas (SIC).
Biocenosis characterization of the seabed will be required as part of
the ESIA work.
Expected impact on the fish population will also have been
documented as part of the ESIA work.
Recommendation to develop a Relazione Paessagistica (Landscape
Cultural
Impact report) addressing:
heritage
a.
Cultural and landscape impacts
b.
Restoration of land and structures
c.
Impacts on cultural heritage elements
Recommendation to develop Carta del Rischio Archeologico
(Archaeology risk map).
Recommendation to consider the requirements for the reconstruction
of dry rock walls.
Main Stakeholder(s) Who
Raised The Issue
•Municipalities
representatives
•Municipalities
representatives
•WWF
•Confindustria
•Apulia Region
•Ministry of Cultural Heritage