P. 1
project 1

project 1

|Views: 116|Likes:
Published by Ansari Shahbaz

More info:

Published by: Ansari Shahbaz on Mar 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/22/2012

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • 1 INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1 BACKGROUND
  • 1.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
  • 1.3 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
  • 1.4 AFFECTED REGIONS AND SETTLEMENTS (VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND OBAS4)
  • 1.5 SCOPE OF RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
  • 2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
  • 2.1 NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
  • 2.1.1 Turkish Constitution
  • 2.1.2 The Legal Framework and Customary Land Rights
  • 2.1.3 Expropriation Law
  • 2.1.4 Forests and Treasury Lands
  • 2.1.5 Sub-division of Agricultural Land
  • 2.2 WORLD BANK / IFC POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
  • 2.2.1 The IFC Policies
  • 2.2.2 The Equator Principles
  • 2.3 ENERJISA’S CORPORATE POLICY
  • 3 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AFFECTED POPULATIONS
  • 3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE
  • 3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY
  • 3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFFECTED PEOPLE
  • 3.3.1 Characteristics of the Respondents
  • 3.3.2 Characteristics of the Households
  • 3.3.3 Economic Characteristics of the Households
  • 3.3.4 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups
  • 3.4 AFFECTED ASSETS
  • 3.5 OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT13
  • 3.6 PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE
  • 4 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
  • 4.1 GENERAL
  • 4.2 LAND ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS
  • 4.3 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
  • 4.3.1 Public Owned Lands
  • 4.3.2 Privately Owned Lands
  • 4.3.3 Usufruct Lands
  • 4.4 VALUATION
  • 4.4.1 Valuation Methodology for Immovable Assets
  • 4.4.2 Consultation and Negotiation
  • 4.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPENSATION
  • 4.6 MINIMIZATION OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS ACQUISITION
  • 5 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
  • 5.1 IMPACTS ON IMMOVABLE ASSETS
  • 5.1.1 Impacts
  • 5.1.2. Mitigation Measures
  • 5.2 IMPACTS ON PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE
  • 5.2.1 Impacts
  • 5.2.2 Mitigation Measures
  • 5.3 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
  • 5.3.1 Economic Benefit of the Project: Work Opportunities for the Local People
  • 6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE
  • 6.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
  • 6.1.1 Stakeholder Identification
  • 6.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement (Public Participation)
  • 6.1.3 Comments and Recommendations of Project Affected People
  • 6.2 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
  • 6.3 GRIEVANCE MECHANISM
  • 7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
  • 7.1 RAP MONITORING FRAMEWORK
  • 7.2 INTERNAL MONITORING
  • 7.3 EXTERNAL MONITORING
  • 7.4 RAP COMPLETION AUDIT
  • 7.5 STAFF AND RESPONSIBILITIES
  • 8 BUDGET
  • 8.1 COSTS FOR RAP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
  • 8.2 COSTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
  • 8.3 PROJECT FINANCING
  • 9 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
  • REFERENCES

EnerjiSA Power Generation Company

HACININOLU WEIR AND
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT PROJECT





RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN








Ankara
April 2009







Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 BACKGROUND 6
1.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 7
1.3 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT 8
1.4 AFFECTED REGIONS AND SETTLEMENTS (VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND OBAS) 8
1.5 SCOPE OF RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN 11
2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 13
2.1 NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK 13
2.1.1 TURKISH CONSTITUTION 13
2.1.2 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CUSTOMARY LAND RIGHTS 13
2.1.3 EXPROPRIATION LAW 14
2.1.4 FORESTS AND TREASURY LANDS 15
2.1.5 SUB-DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND 16
2.2 WORLD BANK / IFC POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 16
2.2.1 THE IFC POLICIES 16
2.2.2 THE EQUATOR PRINCIPLES 17
2.3 ENERJISA’S CORPORATE POLICY 18
3 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AFFECTED POPULATIONS 20
3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE 20
3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY 21
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFFECTED PEOPLE 22
3.3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS 22
3.3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS 22
3.3.3 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS 25
3.3.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF VULNERABLE GROUPS 25
3.4 AFFECTED ASSETS 26
3.5 OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT 27
3.6 PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE 28
4 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 30
4.1 GENERAL 30
4.2 LAND ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS 30
4.3 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 30
4.3.1 PUBLIC OWNED LANDS 30
4.3.2 PRIVATELY OWNED LANDS 31
4.3.3 USUFRUCT LANDS 33
4.4 VALUATION 34
4.4.1 VALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR IMMOVABLE ASSETS 35
4.4.2 CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION 36
4.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPENSATION 39
4.6 MINIMIZATION OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS ACQUISITION 40

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 2
5 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 41
5.1 IMPACTS ON IMMOVABLE ASSETS 43
5.1.1 IMPACTS 43
5.1.2. MITIGATION MEASURES 44
5.2 IMPACTS ON PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE 45
5.2.1 IMPACTS 45
5.2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES 47
5.3 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT 48
5.3.1 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT: WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE LOCAL PEOPLE 48
5.3.2 INFRASTRUCTURAL BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT AT COMMUNITY LEVEL: IMPROVEMENT OF
ACCESS ROAD AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY 49
5.3.3 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT AT COMMUNITY LEVEL: CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL
ECONOMY 50
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE 51
6.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION 51
6.1.1 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION 52
6.1.2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (PUBLIC PARTICIPATION) 53
6.1.3 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE 55
6.2 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 56
6.3 GRIEVANCE MECHANISM 57
7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 58
7.1 RAP MONITORING FRAMEWORK 58
7.2 INTERNAL MONITORING 59
7.3 EXTERNAL MONITORING 59
7.4 RAP COMPLETION AUDIT 60
7.5 STAFF AND RESPONSIBILITIES 60
8 BUDGET 63
8.1 COSTS FOR RAP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 63
8.2 COSTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION 64
8.3 PROJECT FINANCING 64
9 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 65
REFERENCES 66


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 3
Appendices
Appendix 1: Overview Map of the Project Location
Appendix 2: Protocol Agreement with Special Provincial Administration of Kahramanmara
Appendix 3: Permission for Use of Forestry Land
Appendix 4: Household Questionnaire
Appendix 5: Census of Affected Persons and Assets
Appendix 6: Compensation and Replacement Value data by Household
Appendix 7: Preliminary Meeting Minutes
Appendix 8: Meeting Report Form
Appendix 9: Community Brochure
Appendix 10: Grievance Form

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This report has been prepared by PAR Consulting with valuable inputs from a large number
of EnerjiSA staff. The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) summarized
in this report has been under implementation for several years. First, the Project was
designed by ERE, and a number of land acquisition activities have taken place by it. To
facilitate the acquisition of land, the Office of Land Registration has spent a year preparing
and completing the cadastral surveys.

When EnerjiSA took over the Project from ERE it continued the land acquisition process. It
also carried out, as did ERE, numerous consultative processes to inform the affected
communities and households of the Project as well as its land acquisition activities. It has
assured the affected communities that EnerjiSA’s objective was to replace and improve
incomes. EnerjiSA also designed and implemented a community development project to
improve the quality and reliability of village drinking water.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was prepared to describe the framework and
procedures followed in the acquisition and compensation of land and other assets affected
by Hacınınolu Weir and Hydroelectric Power Plant (HEPP) in the three affected rural
settlements. RAP also provides an insight into the actions taken during the period of May
2007 – February 2009 and highlights the mitigation measures to be taken subsequent to the
RAP study carried out within the affected settlements.

The resettlement impacts of the Project are minor with only one household to be physically
displaced. By all standards, the Project’s impacts on affected communities as well as affected
households were modest.

• Most of the land needed for the Project belongs to the Forest Department and the
Treasury;
• Private parcels affected were limited to 11 percent of all households in the affected
communities;
• Only 52 households lost immovable assets; of these one lost a home built on treasury
lands;
• A total of 90 parcels of land belonged to the affected households (about 2 parcels per
household). Of these 18 belong to the treasury but were cultivated by villagers who
also received compensation;
• A predominant number of affected parcels were owned by one person only;
• The 37 households interviewed (among the 51 that lost land) owned an average of 21
602 sqm of land
1
; of this amount they lost little over 5 300 sqm.
• Affected households lost, on average, 25 percent of their land holdings. Most (54
percent) households lost less than 25 percent. Those losing up to 50 percent
constituted 19 percent of the affected households. Only 11 percent of affected
households lost 51-75 percent of their land and 16 percent lost over 76 percent of their
holdings.

All affected lands were acquired through willing buyer/willing seller procedures at prices
well above the valuation conducted by an independent firm, in consultation with a major
local NGO (Chambers of Agricultural Engineers). The affected households received $ 16.893,16
for the small amount of land that they lost.

A community development initiative consisted of the improvement of potable water and
was designed and implemented through full participation of affected communities.

1
A total of 245 077 sqm of land has been acquired for the Project from 51 families that lost land. This gives an average affected
household loss of 4.805,44 slight smaller than the average obtained from the 37 households interviewed. However, given the
small number of affected households the difference is not statistically significant.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 6
1 INTRODUCTION

This Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was prepared to describe the framework and
procedures followed in the acquisition and compensation of land and other assets affected
by Hacınınolu Weir and Hydroelectric Power Plant (HEPP) in the three affected rural
settlements. RAP also provides an insight into the actions taken during the period of May
2007 – February 2009 and highlights the mitigation measures to be taken subsequent to the
RAP study carried out with the affected settlements.

The sections below:
Analyze the legislative approach followed during land acquisition;
Describe the socio-economic profile of the affected settlements through household
questionnaires and in-depth interviews;
Provide a census of affected private and communal assets;
Provide information on attitudes towards the Project and priority areas for local
assistance;
Identify current and potential Project impacts and areas of intervention;
Design monitoring and evaluation framework for land acquisition and income
restoration; and
Prepare a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action budget.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Hydro-power is one of the prominent sources of renewable energy. It is also important for
Turkey as it seeks to meet the energy demand in a cost efficient, reliable and sustainable
manner.

In the energy sector, the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Model was introduced in 1984 in
order to facilitate private sector involvement. In addition with the accession process to the
European Union, the Turkish energy legislation was harmonized with the corresponding
European Communities’ legislation and the ‘Electricity Market Law’ numbered 4628 was
enacted in 2001 to enable progress into a liberalized electricity market and to provide for fair
and transparent market regulation.

In 2004, feasibility studies were carried out under the name Kandil Energy Group Projects
(KEGP) for four dams and HEPP projects on Ceyhan River. The licenses of the KEGP were
first bought by the ERE Elektrik Üretim ve Daıtım Sanayi ve Ticaret A.. and then sold to
EnerjiSA. Hacınınolu is one of these four projects of the KEGP to be built and operated by
EnerjiSA for 49 years.

In addition to its contribution to the Turkish economy and energy market, operation of
Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP will create new opportunities in the region, including
employment during its construction and operation phases.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 7

1.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP will have an installed power of 142 MW and produce an annual
average of 372 GWh Energy. This value is approximately 24 percent of the total energy
targeted (1.525,03 GWh) for the KEGP, which has a total of 501,60 MW installed power. It
will provide a total energy of nearly 1050 GWh/year. A map illustrating the Project-affected
area is shown in Figure 1-1. An overview map showing the Project location is included in
Appendix 1.


Fig 1-1 Map Illustrating the HEPP on the Project Site



The project components include a weir, small reservoir, power tunnel, power plant,
switchyard, electricity transmission lines and access roads. The scope of the RAP covers all
components of the Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP with the exception of the transmission lines;
as the transmission route is not yet identified but if any land is needed for it relevant IFC
policies will be applied. Three new access roads are required to establish the project. These
are referred to throughout the document as:

• Been Road: Connects Been village to the Power Plant;
• Kısık Road: Links Been, Kertmen and Hacınınolu villages (subject to final design);
• The Hacınınolu Right Bank Road: Connects Hacınınolu and Kertmen to the Weir.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 8

1.3 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT

In addition to its importance for the energy sector in Turkey, the Hacınınolu Weir and
HEPP project has benefits for the local economy and local communities whether they are
directly affected
2
by the project or not. The benefits of the project can be classified as follows:
• Work opportunity for the local communities: With the pre-construction phase of the
Project, need for skilled and unskilled labor emerged. Currently 88 people out of 250
working for the project are from local settlements. These local people are working for
EnerjiSA and for different contractor firms. All local people like the rest of the
employees are registered workers and are covered by social insurance scheme
3
. It is
expected that approximately 150 people will be employed during the construction
period and 15 people will be employed throughout the operations. The local
workforce will have the opportunity to develop their skills and thus their chances for
employment in similar jobs elsewhere in the country will be substantially enhanced.
• Improvement in infrastructure: EnerjiSA will improve infrastructure in the area.
There are three road projects planned to be built in collaboration with Special
Provincial Administration (SPA) of Kahramanmara. The road to the HEPP area,
which is passing through Been village, and the road from the weir area to the HEPP
area, which follows the river, will shorten the distance and the travel time of the
people living in the region while they go to Ilıca and Kahramanmara. Moreover this
new road will be less affected from harsh weather conditions during winters.
• Support for local economy: EnerjiSA procures some food, such as bread and
yoghurt, to meet the daily needs of the construction site from nearby villages. These
are brought daily and regularly and provide support for the local economy. In
addition, some of the employees for the project stay in apartment hotels in Ilıca, a
local thermal spring touristic center. This provides support to the local economy as
otherwise the tourist season in Ilıca is limited to 3 months of summer.
1.4 AFFECTED REGIONS AND SETTLEMENTS (VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND
OBAS4)

In accordance with the National Legal Framework and World Bank/IFC Standards, EnerjiSA
aims at minimizing adverse impacts of the Project to local communities from the
Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project. Turkish legislation protects rights of people who lose
their lands and assets as a result of similar investment projects. The WB/IFC Performance

2
Affected communities are those that will lose land and/or other immovable assets to facilitate the construction of the
Project
3
In Turkey unregistered employment is common and especially in construction sector, contractors usually employ people
without registering them to social security schemes. Most of the employees are part of a social security scheme for the first
time in their life.
4
In the Project area, villages consist of small clusters which, are locally referred to as obas.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 9
Standards, which broadens the understanding of the rights of project affected populations,
provides further guidance to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to local
communities.

One of the potential adverse impacts which should be carefully appraised through social
assessment concerns impacts arising from the involuntary taking of land of the households
living in the vicinity of the Project. The land acquisition process is considered as involuntary
when affected individuals or communities do not have the right to refuse land acquisition
resulting in displacement (IFC PS 5, 2006, p.18). In these circumstances, lands can be
acquired through expropriation in accordance with the national legal legislation. However,
expropriation is not the only way of land acquisition for the privately-owned parcels; they
can be acquired through willing buyer/seller arrangement. EnerjiSA recognized in its land
acquisition activities that willing buyer/seller negotiation is the best option. There are
instances, however, where the willing sellers / confront difficulties in handling land
acquisition through negotiations, such as when there is dispute among owners. In such
cases
5
, the Government agency in charge of the energy sector can declare public interest and
expropriate the land within the national legal framework.

Land acquisition in a project might lead to displacement for the local communities. For IFC,
there are two types of displacements; physical and economic. Physical displacement is
defined as the actual physical relocation of people resulting in a loss of shelter, productive
assets or access to productive assets (such as land, water, and forests) whereas the economic
displacement refers to an action that interrupts or eliminates people’s access to productive
assets without physically relocating the people themselves (IFC, 2002).

The Project acquired both public and private lands as shown in Table 1-1 to establish the
Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project. Most (53 percent) of the land required for the Project
belongs to the Forestry Department whereas the percentage of the privately owned land is
relatively low (See Table 1-1).

Table 1-1: Distribution of the Lands Required for Hacınınolu Project
Type of Land Required
Size of the Land
Acquired
(m
2
)
Portion of Lands within
the Total Acquired
(%)
Treasury Land 86.250,00 12
Forestry Land 370.000,00 53
Privately-owned Land 245.077,27 35
TOTAL 701.327,27 100

The rural settlements affected by the Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project remain in the
jurisdiction of one district center within Kahramanmara Province. A total of 3 obas located
within the border of 3 villages (Hacınınolu, Kertmen, and Been) are affected by the
construction of the weir, HEPP and the road network being developed.


5
The most typical case involves disputed land deeds.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 10

Table 1-2: Project-Affected Settlements and Households
Province
Settlements
(Villages)
Obas
Total Size of
Privately-owned
Affected Land
(m
2
)
# of Affected
Parcels
# of Affected
Households
Hacınınolu Central Oba 14.474,32 5 2
Kertmen Tilkiler Oba 130.790,84 51 27 Kahramanmara
Been Türközü Oba 99.812,11 34 23
245.077,27 90 52

These villages are forestry villages that are composed of several quarters (“oba”s) which are
relatively far from each other. The scattered mode of settlement helps minimize the number
of both publicly and privately owned parcels purchased and thus minimizes the area of total
affected land and number of affected structures. Table 1-2 shows the number of affected
parcels by settlement. Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project required the purchase of 90
privately owned parcels affecting 52 households. In the context of the total number of
households in each village, only 11 percent of the households in these settlements were
affected by the land acquisition process (See Table 1-3). The Project required the physical
displacement of only one household in Kertmen village.

Table 1-3: Total and Affected Households by Community
Villages Total # of HHs
# of Affected
Households
Portion of the
Affected Households
within communities
(% total households in
each community)
Hacınınolu 125 2 2
Kertmen 160 27 17
Been 200 23 12
TOTAL
485 52 11

Although the obas are relatively far from each other, houses are clustered in Hacınınolu
and Kertmen. These villages do not have sufficient irrigable, fertile and large agricultural
lands because the topography is extremely hilly and land is mostly stony. For this reason, the
current agriculture activities are based on wheat and barley production, and fruit growing
primarily for household consumption. Accordingly, the main economic activity for affected
households is subsistence crop production. Tenancy or squatting is not observed in these
villages.

For the Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project, EnerjiSA acquired all private land through
willing seller/buyer arrangement. Negotiation between EnerjiSA and landowners was the
basic tool for the purchase of lands. The basic reason why negotiations were successful is due
to high level of payments well over the fair method of valuation conducted by independent
parties of the affected assets and land. The owners were compensated for assets existing on
their properties including crops, orchards and structures well above current market values.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 11
All of the affected households accepted the offer made by EnerjiSA and there was no need to
carry out expropriation procedures for the parcels required to establish the Weir and HEPP
facilities. This included one household which was physically displaced. The land and other
immovable assets of this household were purchased; EnerjiSA has helped build another
residential unit for this household.

Land Acquisition impacts attributable to the Project are considered as minor as the vast
majority of affected households (with the exception of one) were not obliged to be physically
displaced and the land purchase is limited to a few parcels among 11 percent of affected
communities’ households. Although, 79 percent of affected households lost more than 10
percent of their land only a few lost most of their land holdings. EnerjiSA, in accordance with
IFC PS 5, minimized the adverse project affects on affected people through two major
actions: i) compensation at values substantially higher than independent valuation levels;
and ii) facilitating work opportunities within EnerjiSA and its Contractor. The purpose of the
RAP is to describe how impacts to livelihoods were implemented and how monitoring will
be undertaken to ensure the mitigation is successful.

1.5 SCOPE OF RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN

Scope of the RAP developed and implemented for the Hacınınolu Project covered the
following key components:

• Determination of the Project-affected area and assets, as well as the affected owners
and tenants/users;
• Description of the legal framework;
• Completion of the land acquisition process including public consultation, interviews
with a majority sample of project-affected land owners, valuation of assets and
description of compensation and other resettlement assistance to be provided;
• Conduct of a socio-economic survey of the affected persons in the 3 affected rural
settlements;
• Description of institutional arrangements for implementation;
• Procedures for grievance redress;
• Arrangements for monitoring and implementation; and
• Preparation of implementation schedule and the budget.

RAP-related activities that have already been completed to date and those planned were
surveyed, analyzed and reported. The chapters below give details of these activities as
follows:

Chapter Two describes the national legal framework considered for land acquisition,
resettlement and compensation processes and World Bank/IFC Policies and Equator
Principles to be adopted in these issues;


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 12
Chapter Three provides detailed information about the socio-economic characteristics of the
project-affected populations interviewed with a brief socio-economic baseline of the project-
affected region;

Chapter Four describes the land acquisition procedures followed by EnerjiSA and the
implementation process, including valuation of assets, land acquisition, compensation and
consultation, with regard to recent Turkish legislation;

Chapter Five presents the current and future impacts attributable to the Project and areas of
intervention with appropriate mitigation measures for loss of immovable assets including
productive assets, building, and infrastructure;

Chapter Six explains the public consultation and disclosure processes and activities to be
carried out within the context of RAP, including the provision of a mechanism for grievances
and dispute resolution;

Chapter Seven outlines the monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the RAP, including
the provision for expert monitoring;

Chapter Eight details RAP costs and the budget actualized for all works carried out through
the acquisition process and its following steps; and

Chapter Nine presents the schedule for RAP implementation along with the details of
implementation responsibilities.


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 13
2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter focuses on legal framework of land acquisition. The Project affects only one
residential unit
6
; thus physical displacement was avoided. Since the adverse Project impacts
are limited to land acquisition this chapter deals with the acquisition rather than a
resettlement process.

This chapter therefore covers the Turkish national legal framework as well as the relevant
World Bank / IFC Performance Standards.

2.1 NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.1 Turkish Constitution

The Turkish Constitution, as amended in October 2001, includes important elements to
protect the public interests and private property during the process of expropriation. In
order to benefit from expropriating public lands and assets, private users should pay
compensation to the public at large. Even in the case of expropriation of private lands and
assets which are acquired for public interest, public agencies are required to pay the value of
the expropriated assets to a private bank account in advance of land appropriation and
project construction.

Article 46 of the Turkish Constitution allows expropriation of property for public interest. In
case of this Project, EMRA (Energy Market Regulatory Authority) is the relevant public
authority to determine public interest.
2.1.2 The Legal Framework and Customary Land Rights

Customary land rights are recognized by modern laws to a certain extent. In case of
agricultural lands in Turkey, a formal title for holding these lands is a relatively recent
development. More common is the recognition of the rights of users/cultivators. The right of
ownership through usufruct is also recognized by modern law under certain circumstances,
when, for instance, the land is used for 20 years without any dispute or interruption by the
same person or the family.

The Turkish Civil Code Law No. 4721, amended in 2001, provides equal rights of inheritance
to all successors regardless of their gender and age. Traditions often hinder women’s ability
to exercise their entitlements. It is common practice to distribute land among male heirs.
There is limited female ownership of land in the Project area. Often, the cultivation of family
land is carried out by men residing in the affected communities; however, when land is
acquired by a second party, some female heirs ask for their share of the sale revenue.

6
The affected household has already settled elsewhere in the community. EnerjiSA has facilitated the building of a new
residence.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 14

2.1.3 Expropriation Law

In accordance with the constitution all expropriation processes are conducted according to
the Expropriation Law (No. 2942) amended in 2001 (No. 4650). A decision of Public Interest
is necessary for expropriation of any immovable asset to be carried out. Only public agencies
are allowed to acquire land as a result of decision of Public Interest. For energy projects a
decision of Public Interest is taken by EMRA in accordance with Article 5 of the
Expropriation Law.

The expropriation law sets time for determining public interest and ensures that affected
people are paid in full before the land changes hands. The Law requires that the valuation
process is completed and certified attempts are carried out to negotiate the transfer of the
ownership or use rights, and full payment in cash is made to the personal bank accounts of
the titleholders. The disputes among owners or heirs on their shares will not stop this
process since the public authority has the right to appeal to the court to allow expropriation.
In this case the value of the land is held in an interest earning bank account to be paid once
the courts determine the entitled land holders.

It is necessary to complete related expropriations within six months after the decision of
Public Interest is taken. If it cannot be completed within six months an official permission is
required to extend the right of expropriation.

The land acquisition for Hacınınolu Project was primarily purchased through willing
buyer/seller negotiations. The Expropriation Law was therefore not applied except possible
for a small number of private land parcels (subject to final design). The land parcels used for
the auxiliary facilities (e.g., roads) were expropriated by a public agency. SPA is the
administrative body for expropriation for provincial roads. In the case of the Project, an
exception was applied in the case of the Been road through Protocol Agreement, as
described below. This exception made it possible for the affected households to receive cash
compensation well over the prices that would have been paid by public agencies. This is
because public agencies cannot make payment over the valuation they receive from the
Chambers of Agricultural Engineers. The exemption EnerjiSA received allowed equitable for
all affected persons.

In order to establish the Been road the Project Proponent (at that time ERE) signed a
protocol agreement with SPA to undertake the land acquisition on their behalf (Appendix 2).
This ensured an efficient process as well as the application of the same valuation methods
and process that were used for the acquisition of land needed for the core component of the
Project. The Protocol Agreement stated that SPA would co-ordinate the permissions required
by the Government for building the road, while the Project Proponent would pay the
determined price of land and other assets as well as the administration costs of acquisition. It
also stated that valuation of the land would be based on independent review. Letters of

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 15
consent were signed between the Project Proponent and the landowners to enable the road to
pass through their lands. Compensation was paid accordingly as described in Chapter 4.

The other roads to be constructed, the Kısık road and the Hacınınolu Right Bank Road will
likely affect private as well as Treasury and Forestry lands. The legal framework for
acquiring the public lands is described in the next section. The private lands will be acquired
by SPA as they require sub-division of agricultural lands. Section 2.1.5 describes the legal
framework and process for acquiring agricultural lands that will be sub-divided.

2.1.4 Forests and Treasury Lands

The law offering adjustments in the Forestry Law no: 5192 (Official Gazette dated 3 July 2004
and numbered 25511) for the facilities located in the forest areas states that “in case of public
benefit or exigency concerning the location or construction of defense, transportation,
energy, communication, water supply, wastewater, petroleum, natural gas, infrastructure
facilities and solid waste disposal sites; sanatoriums, dams, ponds and cemeteries;
governmental health, education and sports facilities and related places in governmental
forest areas, real and legal persons can be licensed by the Ministry of Environment and
Forestry (MoEF) in return for the determined value.” In accordance with this clause EnerjiSA
applied for the required licenses from the General Directorate of Forestry. The General
Directorate of Forestry determined the value according to the method described in Chapter
4, Section 4.4.1.5. With reference to Article 60 of Part 12 of the Regulation about Permissions
given for Forestry Lands (Principles of Valuation) EnerjiSA paid the determined value which
included the costs of reforestation, permission costs for the facilities and lands and costs of
the guarantee. A copy of the Permission for Use of Forestry Land is provided in Appendix 3.

In order to acquire Treasury lands EnerjiSA is required to apply to EMRA to determine
public interest. Provided that public interest is decreed, EnerjiSA is eligible to apply to the
Treasury Department for the use of these lands. The use will be granted based upon site
inspection. During operations a yearly rental is paid to the Treasury Department for the land
impacted by the Project.

In accordance with a temporary amendment (No. 5346) made to Law on Utilization of
Renewable Energy Sources for the Purpose of Generating Electrical Energy (No. 4628) energy
companies in Turkey have been granted rights of use the reservoir areas of dams that are
owned by the Treasury without payment provided that an energy project is:
• Based on renewable sources;
• Declared to be in the public interest by EMRA;
• Completed by 2012.





Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 16
2.1.5 Sub-division of Agricultural Land

The Protection of Agricultural Land (No. 5578) law in Turkey stipulates that agricultural
plots of land cannot be sub-divided into areas of less than 20 decares ( 1 decare = 1000 m
2
) if
uncultivated. EnerjiSA has a requirement to acquire very small areas of land to construct the
Kısık and Hacınınolu Right Bank Road. As described above, this road will be managed
under the administration of SPA upon its completion. As the land requirement is so small,
EnerjiSA did not wish to purchase the entire private parcels adjacent to the road to minimize
the extent of impact, just the small sub-divided sections that it requires. However, the
acquisition of these small sections of land results in the creation of land parcels that are less
than 20 decares.

The farming in this area is primarily subsistence or small scale production. Therefore it is not
expected that the land parcels of less than 20 decares will affect production in the area. Due
to the legal requirement however, the acquisition of the land cannot be undertaken through
willing buyer/seller negotiation. It was determined in consultation with villagers, that these
lands would therefore be acquired through SPA to enable the acquisition of the small land
areas required.

2.2 WORLD BANK / IFC POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

Since the project is partly funded by a consortium of banks, it has to comply with the World
Bank Group/IFC Policies as well as the Equator Principles. The policies and principles
related to land acquisition are described.

2.2.1 The IFC Policies

For social aspects of the Project, EnerjiSA took into consideration certain basic documents of
World Bank Group Policies and Guidelines. These were Operational Policy 4.12 issued on
December 2001, the Performance Standard 5 Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement
issued on April 2006 and IFC’s Handbook on Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan utilized
in the preparation of RAP.

The main objective of these documents is to ensure that potential adverse impacts on the
community are mitigated through planning and that appropriate measures are undertaken
so that any people displaced as a result of a specific project financed by the World Bank
Group receive benefits from the project. Considering these core issues, the following policy
objectives of OP 4.12 are taken into account:


(a) Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized,
exploring all viable alternative project designs.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 17

(b) Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should
be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing
sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project
to share in project benefits. Displaced persons should be meaningfully
consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and
implementing resettlement programs.

(c) Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their
livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to
pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of
project implementation, whichever is higher.”(WB, OP 4.12, p.1)

As involuntary resettlement is unavoidable for Hacınınolu HEPP Project, EnerjiSA paid
compensation at full replacement cost
7
for the loss of assets as a result of the Project.
According to OP 4.12, where domestic law does not meet the standard of compensation at
full replacement cost, compensation under domestic law is supplemented by additional
measures necessary to meet the replacement cost standard. In order to meet this
requirement, EnerjiSA, paid compensation, through open and transparent negotiations with
affected households at prices well over the levels determined by an independent firm and a
NGO; it also met all the transaction costs.

In addition to providing compensation for the lost assets, as the requirement of WB Policy
and IFC’s PS 5, the Project Owner should focus on the improving or at least restoration of the
livelihood and standards of living of displaced persons. Resettlement assistance is also
important to focus on other kinds of losses like access to public services, customers and
suppliers and areas used for fishing or grazing. Thus it is necessary to facilitate equivalent
and socially and culturally acceptable resources and opportunities. Considering these issues,
EnerjiSA has also conceived the resettlement process as an opportunity for improving the
livelihood of the affected people.

Furthermore, the Policy stresses that the Project Owner should focus on the needs of the
poorest groups among those displaced. These people may for example, not have eligible
formal or legal titles to land but are affected by the project. OP 4.12 requires that such an
absence of legal titles should not hinder compensation for such people. As well as the
poorest groups, vulnerable groups should be considered within compensation plans since
they might not be included in national legal frameworks.

2.2.2 The Equator Principles


7
Replacement Cost is the method of valuation of assets that helps determine the amount sufficient to replace lost
assets –market value of the affected assets- and cover transaction costs. In applying this method of valuation,
depreciation of structures and assets should not be taken into account.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 18
The Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) adopted a group of principles, which
was issued in 2006 and developed for determining, assessing and managing social and
environmental risk in project financing, so as to ensure that the projects financed by the
EPFIs are socially and environmentally responsible,. Accordingly, they point out the
significance of the Principles to the borrowers, as the party responsible for the planning and
implementation of the Project activities so that negative impacts on project-affected
ecosystems and communities can be avoided where possible, and if these impacts are
unavoidable, they should be reduced, mitigated and/or compensated for appropriately (EP,
2006, p.1).

According to the EPs, projects should be classified according to possible risks and impacts
and then the applicable social and environmental standards of IFC. The standards will be
used for the assessment of the risks and impacts resulting from the project and will also be
assessed in compliance with the national laws and regulations. This assessment is needed to
design and implement project specific action plans and management systems, which will
help to describe necessary actions for implementation of mitigation measures.

The EPs state that for projects with significant adverse impacts on affected communities, the
process will ensure their free, prior and informed consultation and facilitate their informed
participation as a means to establish, to the satisfaction of the EPFI, whether a project has
adequately incorporated affected communities’ concerns (EP, 2006, p.3).

2.3 ENERJISA’S CORPORATE POLICY

The general corporate policies of EnerjiSA comprises of five major and mutually
complementary policies which are as follows: Management Policy, Human Resources Policy,
Quality Policy, Environmental Policy and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Policy.

EnerjiSA that is committed to being the Turkey’s premier Energy Company as stated in the
Quality Policy intends to build and operate environment friendly and highly efficient plants
in order to contribute to the development of the society. Hacınınolu Hydroelectrical Power
Plant Project has been carried out in compatible with the main goal. EnerjiSA’s
environmental policy relates not only to the physical environment but also the social
environment in which its activities are undertaken. In this respect undertaking activities in
an environmentally friendly manner requires undertaking activates with least impact to
villages affected by EnerjiSA Projects. In this respect EnerjiSA will meet all Turkish legal and
IFC/World Bank requirements to ensure that land acquisition activities have as minimal an
impact as is possible.

In addition EnerjiSA has a corporate plan for ensuring the engagement of stakeholders, as a
prerequisite of internationally recognized policies and standards. The Plan has been
developed to describe how to engage governmental stakeholders, local residents and
communities, NGOs, media, and other interest groups in all phases of a proposed Project. It

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 19
“is an ongoing, multi-faceted plan designed to inform and consult with project affected
people

and other project affected groups about the Project and its potential impacts on an
ongoing and constructive manner.” In preparing the Plan, EnerjiSA took account of the
public consultation and disclosure guidelines set out in IFC’s “Doing Better Business through
Effective Public Consultation and Disclosure – A Good Practice Manual” (October 1998).
Stakeholder engagement as part of the land acquisition at Hacınınolu was and will continue
to be undertaken in accordance with the Stakeholder Engagement Plan. Details on the public
consultation and disclosure process are given under Section 6.


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 20
3 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AFFECTED POPULATIONS
3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE

Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project principally affect three villages located in the central
district of Kahramanmara Province. The villages of Hacınınolu, Kertmen and Been
comprise several separate obas three of which are directly affected by the reservoir area and
other auxiliary facilities of the HEPP. However, the magnitude of the Project impact on these
settlements varies according to the location and size of the Project component. No entire
villages are affected by the Project, rather one oba from each village is affected (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: The Affected Settlements
Villages Obas Reason of Impact
Total # of
obas
Total # of
Affected obas
Hacınınolu Central obas
Construction site,
construction of weir,
reservoir area
4 1
Kertmen Tilkiler Construction site 6 1
Been Türközü
Access road to power
house
6 1


The villages affected from Hacınınolu HEPP Project, are located in a mountainous area 85
km from the Kahramanmara city center. The area is subject to the continental climate. The
soil types vary from clay and silt-clay to sand-silt. The soil structure is formed by red-brown
forest, red-Mediterranean forest, and brown forest. Agricultural land is generally composed
of alluvial soils deposited by rivers inside the valleys, terraces constructed by manpower on
the hills, and a very small portion of plots formed by transported topsoil from elsewhere.
The land ownership is scattered and fragmented because of the topography and inheritance
law.

These features profoundly affect agricultural production and constrain the production
pattern to a great extent. The fragmented, scattered structure and small size of land inhibit
the use of agricultural technology in the region. This results in less yield and high costs per
unit in agricultural production, making profitable production infeasible. As a result, family
farming and subsistence cropping is the dominant mode of production in the affected
villages.

The project affected villages have small areas of irrigated land located in the river valleys
and most of the horticultural production is undertaken in these areas. As the areas are small
the horticultural production is relatively low. Crop farming activities are carried out on the
upper hills and because of steepness; rockiness and topography, the land is classified as
category four and category five among the agricultural land categories, indicating low land
use capability, low potential for the use of farm machinery and thus low crop yields.



Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 21

3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY

To understand the demographic characteristic and socio-economic profile of the PAPs, a
survey was conducted in the affected obas of the three villages. Prior to the survey, an initial
site visit was carried out so as to obtain initial feedback and determine attitudes of the PAPs
to the Project and land acquisition. The first set of interviews with the headmen (muhtars)
and some of the affected people enabled the development of the survey questionnaire
(Appendix 4). Indicators on demographic, social, economic characteristics of the affected
households, including description of productive systems, and household organization,
livelihoods, as well as attitudes towards the HEPP Project were included in the
questionnaire.

The scope of the survey covered the people who are both physically
8
and economically
9

affected by Hacınınolu HEPP Project. There is only one household that lost their home
attributable to the Project and had to be physically relocated in Kertmen. Since there were
some cases where a household included more than one land owner, the number of land
owners exceeded that of the households.

The survey aimed to interview 100 percent of the Project affected households. However, not
all household representatives could be contacted during the survey period; as a result a total
of 85 percent of affected households were interviewed as shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Total numbers of Households affected and interviewed
Villages
Total # of
Affected H/H
Total # of
Interviewed H/H
%
Hacınınolu 2 2 100
Kertmen 27 25 93
Been 23 17 74
Total 52 44 85

A majority of interviewed households who undertake agricultural production in the village
(47/50 in total) reside and cultivate within their village. The dominant form of agricultural
production is subsistence farming; other forms of cultivation such as tenancy/sharecropping
farming are not undertaken. Therefore landowners and land users coincide.


8
Physically-affected persons: IFC defined the concept of physical displacement as the actual physical relocation
of people resulting in a loss of shelter, productive assets or access to productive assets (such as land, water,
and forests) (IFC, 2002).
9
Economically-affected persons: IFC conceptualized it as economic displacement and defined as an action that
interrupts or eliminates people’s access to productive assets without physically relocating the people
themselves (IFC, 2002).

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 22
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFFECTED PEOPLE
3.3.1 Characteristics of the Respondents

Survey respondents were generally the male heads of households; a few of the
questionnaires were answered by their sons (5 persons) and wife (1 person).
3.3.2 Characteristics of the Households

3.3.2.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Households

Household Size
The average household size is 5.45, ranging from 1 to 10 and showing variation from one
community to the other. The below table gives detailed information regarding the sizes of
the households affected by the Hacınınolu Project in the three villages:

Table 3-3: Size of the Affected Households
Household Size
Village
# of households Mean Minimum Maximum
Hacınınolu 2 3,5 2 5
Kertmen 25 6,56 3 10
Been 17 4,06 1 9
Total 44 5,45

Age Distribution
Concerning the age distribution of the 240 people affected by the Hacınınolu Project in the
three villages, the median age is 20. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 give detailed information regarding
the age distribution of the affected people.

Table 3-4: Age Distribution of the Household Members
Age
Village
# of the affected
people
Median age
Hacınınolu 7 45
Kertmen 164 17
Been 69 25
Total 240 20


Table 3-5: Distribution of the Population of the Households by Age Groups
Age Groups
Village
0-14 15-64 65-+ Total
Hacınınolu 0 6 1 7
Kertmen 71 84 9 164
Been 19 37 13 69
Total
90 127 23 240

As seen from Table 3-5, 53 percent (127 out of 240) of the affected population falls under the
age group 15-64 and can be considered economically active. There are 62 men from the

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 23
affected households who can potentially work in Project some of which already do so.

Distribution of Sex by the Affected Households
Among the 240 people affected by the Hacınınolu HEPP Project, 52 percent are male and 48
percent are female. There are differences between the three communities with respect to sex
distribution as presented in Figure 3-1.


Figure 3-1: Sex distribution of the PAPs interviewed by village




Educational Profile of Affected Households
The education level of the interviewed households is low with 56 illiterate people (28%),
whereas 43 people (22%) are literate with no formal education and 80 people (40%) are
primary school graduates. Among the 240 affected people, 40 are pre-school age children.
The education profile of individual communities is shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Education Levels of PAPs
Education
University University
Villages
Illiterate
Literate but
no formal
education
Primary
Education
Secondary/
Vocational
School of
equal rank
High school/
Vocational
school of equal
rank
(2 years)
(4 years or
higher)
Total
Hacınınolu 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 7
Kertmen 29 32 55 11 3 1 0 131
Been 26 9 22 5 0 0 0 62
Total 56 43 80 16 4 1 0 200*
Percent 28 21,5 40 8 2 0,5 0 100
*Although the total population of the interviewed households number 240, the total number of PAPs on Table 7 is given as 200 since 40 are
aged 0-6.

Employment Status of the People within the Affected Households
Information related to employment in the three project affected settlements is shown in Table
3-7. Of the 62 male members of the Project affected households in the three villages who can

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 24
be included in the workforce, 10 (Ref. Table 3-8) are unemployed
10
and 1 is retired. Of the
employed workforce there 17 are producers, 28 waged workers and 1 tradesman. Most of the
people falling under the category of worker had been producers before the construction of
the project started.


Table 3-7: Employment Status of the PAPs
11

Employment Status
Village
Producer
House
wife
Student
Waged
worker
Retired Tradesman Unemployed Other Total
Hacınınolu 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 7
Kertmen 6 34 3 24 1 1 8 7 85
Been 10 19 0 3 0 0 5 0 37
Total 17 56 3 28 1 1 13 6 127

The distribution of the unemployed people among those affected by the project according to
gender is given in Table 3-8 which shows most (77%) are male.

Table 3-8: Sex-based Characteristics of the Unemployed People
#
Village
# of unemployed
Male Female
Hacınınolu 0 NA NA
Kertmen 8 6 2
Been 5 4 1
Total 13 10 3
% 100 77 23

Of particular importance for the Project is the fact that there are 22 people in the affected
households who work in dam construction (and associated jobs). In addition, 26 households
have members who would like to work in dam construction. Table 3-9 shows the number of
households that have members working in construction and those who would like to work
in construction.

Table 3-9: Opportunities by Affected Households for Work in Dam Construction
Households having a member
working in the dam construction
Households having a member who would
like to work in the dam construction
Village # #
Hacınınolu 1 1
Kertmen 18 14
Been 3 11
Total 22 26

Discussions with the households having indicated that jobs are composed of construction
and construction associated works; including tunnel works, office works, topographic works,
cafeteria works, and security. The potential workforce has qualifications of driving license,
construction work experience, computer literacy, electrical works, and central heating system

10
According to TURKSTAT the term unemployed refers to those household members above the age 15, who are
not employed and seeking to be employed at the reference date. Reference: EUROSTAT.
11
Employment status refers to the status of an economically active person with respect to his or her employment,
that is to say that the type of explicit or implicit contract of employment with other persons or organizations that
the person has in his/her job. Reference: EUROSTAT.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 25
worker license.
3.3.3 Economic Characteristics of the Households
For economic analysis of the affected households, Gross Production Value (GPV), Gross
Agricultural Income (GAI) and Variable Costs were calculated. GPV was obtained by
multiplying total production with producer price. GAI was calculated by subtracting
variable cost from GPV. Total Family Income (TFI) was calculated by adding nonagricultural
income to the GAI.

Affected households have small family farms. These are all mixed and are used for both crop
and animal production. The family members are the main source of labor on the farms.
When demand for workforce is high collective work through contributions of other
households is carried out (this is called “imece”).

The average farm size is 22 decares. The holdings are smaller when compared with Central
District and Kahramanmara province for which the same figure is 45 decares and 62 decares
respectively. Land fragmentation is high with each farmer holding an average of 6 different
parcels. Almost 64 percent of the farm land is used for crop land, 14 percent for vegetable, 11
percent for horticulture land, and 11 percent for vineyard. The average size of cropland was
21,6 da and 10 percent of this was irrigated
12
.

Gross Agricultural Income per household was $5 263 on an average farm for one year and 80
percent of this came from crop production. The gross agricultural income per capita was
$966 and is 54% of the average per capita agricultural income for Turkey. In the affected
households the average non agricultural income was stated to be $2 742 per annum. Of the
total non-agricultural income 39 percent was from Project construction work, and as such, is
very significant. The average Gross Total Family Income was $8 005 per annum.

3.3.4 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups

This section provides information about existing vulnerabilities of people living in the region
as well as any other groups that may potentially be disadvantaged in their access to
compensation or benefits provided by the Project.

Age-based Vulnerable Groups:
In Households that were interviewed, 23 household members were above the age of 65.
Although excluded from the employment group, eleven of these members are producers and
contribute to the household in-kind income. In this sense they are not dependent on the
household, but are contributors. In the rural areas of Turkey, the culture is for elderly people
to stay within the family contributing in different ways, for example through child care,
household chores and farm work. This was also the case in the Project affected settlements.

12
The questions related to income were answered by 41 affected farm owners; 2 producers did not want to answer those
questions and the data from 2 questionnaires was not eligible for calculations. Therefore evaluations were made for 39 farms in
the income section.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 26

Gender-based Vulnerable Groups:
Due to the fact that villages are so far from these centers, the families do not send their
daughters to those schools, while boys have the chance to go for further education. During
the household interviews and interviews with women, young girls stated that although they
want to go have higher education and acquire a profession; since they cannot they get
married at the ages of 15 and 16. In addition, women living in Been village also stated that
they have difficulties in using their right of getting information about family planning and
child-care due to lack of health services. It was also observed that, in villages of Hacınınolu
and Kertmen women come together for bread and pastry making and socialize during these
activities, women living in Been village cannot come together since the village is scattered
and houses are so far from each other.

There are 3 women landowners and 3 women usufruct land users within the affected
settlements. Four of the six households were interviewed during the survey. It was discussed
during the interviews that woman may have less rights to their land share and income
derived from their land. It was however observed that in relation to the Project, women do
not have any disadvantage in accessing information about the project. Equally important,
women stated that they do not have any disadvantage of getting information about the
Project. During interviews, it was observed that women have obtained as much information
about the Project as men have.

Handicapped People:
Among the 44 households interviewed, there are 8 handicapped people and approximately
18 percent of interviewed households have a handicapped child. People stated that the
reason was the lack of health services in the region, especially in winter times, and a high
rate of kin marriage within the villages and quarters. These people are either mentally or
physically disabled and do not benefit from special care and education.

Other Disadvantaged Groups:
Landowners who shared compensation with others: There are 12 landowners (2 of which are
women) who had to share their land acquisition compensation with other people. They were
disadvantaged in the following manner: if the land is not acquired they cultivate the land
and keep much of the produce; when the land is sold, they have to share the compensation
with others and thus have reduced income.

3.4 AFFECTED ASSETS

In a HEPP project, types of the affected assets have different characteristics. First, there are
productive immovable assets such as land and fruit trees; secondly, there is infrastructure
such as irrigation; and, lastly, immovable structures such as homes, barns, etc. Some of these
assets are owned by individuals and some of them are communal. Pasture land, access roads
and irrigation canals are examples of the publicly owned assets.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 27

Most of the affected assets are privately owned. In particular, immovable assets consist of
land, cultivated crops on affected land, trees grown on the affected plots and buildings. All
assets affected by the Hacınınolu Project are provided in Table 3-10 by village. A
breakdown of each affected asset by household is provided in Appendix 5.

Table 3-10: Project-affected Assets by Villages
Types of the Project-Affected Assets
Villages
Immovable Productive Assets Immovable Structures
Hacınınolu
Agricultural land and orchard (plot and
trees), uncultivated lands
Unused mill
Kertmen
Agricultural land, orchard (plot and
trees), uncultivated lands
House and auxiliary
building
Been
Agricultural land, orchard (plot and
trees), uncultivated lands
None

As seen from the table, in all villages, some orchards are affected as a result of land
acquisition process. On the affected orchards, fruit trees grown consist of: walnut, mulberry,
apple, peach, apricot, quince, fig, green plums, and pomegranate. These trees are mainly
found in Kertmen and Hacınınolu and some households earn income by selling their fruits.
In addition there are also limited amount of vineyards, some of which also have an economic
value. A wide range of vegetables are grown in the Project affected villages; tomato,
cucumber, green pepper, and bean are among these. Fruit trees and vegetable production are
the main income source for these households during the survey. Crop cultivation is carried
out primarily for subsistence. Wheat and barley are the main crops.

In Hacınınolu and Kertmen villages the affected households can easily reach the river for
irrigation water. In Kertmen and to a limited extent in other villages the irrigated lands are
affected by the Project. There are also examples in which irrigation canals both for trees and
fields were affected.
3.5 OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT
13


Opinions of the affected people about the Project’s benefits and potential problems were
obtained through the RAP survey. For respondents, employment opportunity to be provided
by the Project was stated as the major benefit of the Project Rehabilitation of village roads is
seen as the second main benefit of the Project, particularly in Kertmen and Been. In
Hacınınolu, for the affected households interviewed, the employment opportunity and
rehabilitation of village roads were stated to be equally important. There are also
respondents in Kertmen and Been who stated that there will be no direct benefits of the
Project for themselves and their communities. As an interesting point, in Kertmen and Been
the number of interviewed respondents who think there will no direct benefits of the Project
is higher than those who stated that cash compensation for land is a significant benefit of the
Project.

13
The question of the survey relating to the awareness of the affected population about the project was answered affirmatively
by 39 of the respondents among 44 affected households. In Kertmen three of the households answered this question
negatively whereas in Been this number was two.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 28

The survey also addressed perceived impacts of the Project. Most of the affected households
stated that damage to land and crops, and dust were the potential greatest impacts of the
Project. Noise impacts resulting especially from use of explosives in tunnel construction was
also mentioned. On the other hand, a quarter of the responses in Been village felt that there
would be no adverse impacts (Table 3-11).

Table 3-11: Perceived Problems attributable to the Projects (% in the village)
Villages Noise
Disruption
of roads
Dust
Increase
in traffic
Security
Disruption
of land and
crops
Damage to
settlement
areas
Damage to
communal
area
No
disruption
Hacınınolu 25,0 0,0 25,0 0,0 0,0 50,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Kertmen 17,3 1,9 28,8 3,8 1,9 30,8 13,5 1,9 0,0
Been 0,0 0,0 15,0 5,0 0,0 50,0 0,0 5,0 25,0

3.6 PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Priorities of the project-affected settlements for local assistance, their needs and requests for
their households and communities were ascertained.

The survey showed that general problems perceived in affected villages consist of
unemployment; low incomes, inadequate housing, and inadequate education services. The
priorities are shown Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2: Most Important Problem Perceived by Affected Households (%)

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 29
43,2
7,0
1,7
20,5
37,2
2,1
2,3
4,7
4,5
11,6
18,6
4,5
9,3
18,6
2,3
4,7
4,7
9,1
7,0
7,0
9,1
16,3
23,3
4,7
most important problems second important problems third important problems
unemployment low income
insufficient roads inadequate health services
inadequate drinking water inadequate irrigation water
inadequate housing inadequate education services


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 30
4 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
4.1 GENERAL

The land acquisition process for the Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP which included land
acquisition procedures, valuation of affected assets, clarification of payments of
compensation and consultation with PAPs was undertaken in accordance with Turkish
Expropriation Law and World Bank/IFC Standards.

4.2 LAND ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS

In order to establish the Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP, private and publically owned land
was acquired. A total area of 70 ha was acquired by the Project as shown in Table 4-1. The
Project land acquisition affected three villages; Hacınınolu (Central Oba), Kertmen (Tilkiler
Oba) and Been (Türközü Oba). Each oba is affected by a different part of the Project. The
central oba of Hacınınolu village is affected by the weir and reservoir whereas Tilkiler oba
is affected by the construction site and reservoir; Türközü oba is both affected by power
plant and road enabling access to construction site.

Table 4-1: Overview of total area of land affected and number of parcels acquired
Type of Land Required
Size of the Land
Acquired
(m
2
)
Portion of Lands within
the Total Acquired
(%)
Treasury Land 86.250,00 12
Forestry Land 370.000,00 53
Privately-owned Land 245.077,27 35
TOTAL 701.327,27 100

More recently the Project has determined a need to acquire small areas of land related to the
construction of a new access road (Kısık) between the end of the Been road to Hacınınolu,
which links to Sarıgüzel. The exact land requirement is not yet known and is not therefore
shown in Table 4-1, as EnerjiSA is awaiting the finalization of the road design. However it is
expected that the road will mostly impact the Forestry and Treasury lands and a few
privately owned parcels.

4.3 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
4.3.1 Public Owned Lands

As shown in Table 4-1 the Hacınınolu HEPP Project impacted on Treasury and Forestry
owned land. Treasury and Forestry land was not purchased but has been rented for use for a
period of time in accordance with Turkish law governing these lands. The legal framework

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 31
for the public lands is described in Chapter 2. In summary lands are declared to be required
in the public interest by the Energy Market Regulation Authority (EMRA). After the public
interest is declared EnerjiSA can make an application to the relevant authority to obtain the
rights of use and determine the rental period and price.

For forestry lands the required land area was rented for a period of 49 years. EnerjiSA paid
the Forestry Department the permitting costs to the Forestry Directorate for the rental of the
land. The permitting costs were determined by the Forestry Department which included a
cost of re-planting the same number of affected trees elsewhere. The details of how the
forestry land assets were valued are included in Section 4.4.1.5.

As described in Chapter 2 energy companies in Turkey have been granted rights of use of
Treasury owned lands provided that an energy project is declared to be in the public interest
by EMRA. These rights of use are granted without payment provided construction is
completed by 2012 as per the period of time granted by the law. EnerjiSA has not yet made
the application to EMRA as they are awaiting the finalization of the Kısık road design which
affects the Treasury land, however when this is completed, EnerjiSA will apply to the
Treasury for rights of use for the affected areas.

4.3.2 Privately Owned Lands

Privately owned lands can be divided into the following categories for the purpose of
describing the different methods of acquisition:

• Land purchased by EnerjiSA for the Project;
• Land purchased by EnerjiSA on behalf of the Special Provincial Authority (SPA) for
road construction/improvement;
• Small area of land which will be expropriated (owing to legal inability to purchase
through sub-division)for the Kısık road; and

4.3.2.1 Lands Purchased by EnerjiSA for the Project

Land acquisition of the privately owned lands for the Hacınınolu Project was
undertaken with reference to both the Turkish Expropriation Law and the World Bank/IFC
Performance Standards. IFC PS 5 states that where resettlement cannot be avoided,
negotiated settlements should be implemented by providing fair compensation. This was the
primary objective of EnerjiSA when purchasing lands. EnerjiSA achieved this objective for
Hacınınolu and to date all private land parcels have been purchased through willing
buyer/seller negotiations. No expropriation has been required. The procedure for
negotiating the prices for the land and its assets are briefly described below.

The land acquisition process was managed by the EnerjiSA Land Acquisition Team (refer to
Section 4.5). The main steps followed for purchases of these lands are as follows:

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 32

1. Identification of owners of each of the affected parcels;
2. Disclosure meetings to inform PAPs about the project and the valuation method;
3. Inventory and valuation of the immovable affected assets by an independent agency;
4. Meetings and/or face-to-face interviews with the land owners to negotiate the
valuation amount stated by the independent agency;
5. Completion of follow-up site visit to address issues raised by the land owners;
6. Revision of the valuation amount of affected assets and determination of a premium
over the stated valuation price;
7. Calculation of final offers and disclosure of those offers to the land owners;
8. Agreement on purchase price between buyer and sellers;
9. Establishment of a bank account in the name of each land owner (all costs are covered
by EnerjiSA);
10. Transfer of the purchase price to the account;
11. Finalizing the land deed transfer formalities in the Deed Offices (all transaction costs
are covered by EnerjiSA as well as the transportation, refreshments and
accommodation when necessary).

As part of step 11, there was one complicating factor in that not all title deeds were
registered in the name of the rightful owner of the land. This was as a result of the previous
cadastral survey and registration process which was undertaken in some cases incorrectly.
This is a common problem in some areas of Turkey. In order to resolve the problem both the
rightful and registered owners were taken to the title deed office and the negotiated price
was paid to the rightful owner with the consent and co-operation of the registered owner.
There were no disputes regarding this process.

All title deed registration, administration and transport/subsistence costs were covered by
EnerjiSA.

In addition to cash compensation, income support is provided through preferential
employment for permanent and temporary positions as part of the Hacınınolu Weir and
HEPP Project.

4.3.2.2 Land purchased by EnerjiSA on behalf of the Special Provincial Authority
(SPA)

As described in Chapters 1 and 2 there is a requirement to build three new roads referred to
as the Been, Kısık and Hacınınolu Right Bank Roads which will become part of the
provincial road network. These roads, although associated with the Project will be managed
and maintained by SPA. In accordance with the Turkish land expropriation system, SPA
would normally acquire lands required to establish provincial roads. In this case of the Been
road however, the Project Proponent
14
entered into a Protocol Agreement with SPA to

14
At this time the Project Proponent was ERE, EnerjiSA’s predecessor on the Project.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 33
undertake the acquisition. This was undertaken to ensure an efficient process and to best
ensure that the same price was applied.

The required land was not purchased from the landowners. Instead a Letter of Consent was
signed between the Project Proponent and the landowner to allow the road to pass through
their land. The landowner was paid a compensation price for this consent which included
the full valuation price plus an additional negotiated compensation price for the land and
any affected assets.

4.3.2.3 Land Expropriated for Sub-division

The small land area that have recently been identified as being required to construct the
Kısık road effect a small number of private land parcels (number to be determined after
design finalization). To minimize the impacts EnerjiSA will acquire only the lands to be
affected, and as such the parcels will be sub-divided. As described in Chapter 2 it is not
legally possible to sub-divide a parcel of land which results in a sub-divided area less than 20
da. The purchase of the required areas for the Kısık road will in all cases create parcels less
than 20 da. As a result and in consultation with the affected land owners these lands will be
expropriated through SPA.

EnerjiSA will apply to SPA to acquire these parcels in accordance with the Turkish
Expropriation Law. As part of the application EnerjiSA will provide an Expropriation Plan to
SPA which includes details of the project, land parcels, affected areas and valuation
amounts. The valuation price will be determined by the independent agency (see also Section
4.4 for valuation methods). After the submission of the Expropriation Plan the SPA will
provide an Expropriation decision. If positive, EnerjiSA will provide the value price of the
affected lands to SPA. SPA will then negotiate the purchase prices with the affected land
holders. If the negotiated price is above the valued price EnerjiSA will provide additional
funds to SPA. After agreement on the price the money will be deposited by SPA into the
affected landowner’s bank accounts and the title deed transfer will take place. Title deed
rights will be passed to SPA. Any administration, registration, transport/subsistence costs of
SPA and the landowners will be paid by EnerjiSA.

If SPA cannot reach agreement with the landowners regarding a price the case will be
referred to the courts and managed in accordance with the Expropriation Law, described in
Chapter 2.
4.3.3 Usufruct Lands

‘Usufruct Lands’ are the land that is owned by state agencies but under illegal use by
villagers. In Been village, there were some land users who use public lands for grazing,
cultivation and fruit production. There were eight such affected households. In accordance
with good practice defined by WB and IFC standards users of public lands whether legal or
illegal are compensated for permanent and temporary assets on this land. In addition

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 34
EnerjiSA paid compensation to the land users for the land that they used. The price was
agreed between the Project Proponent and the land users. This compensation was over and
above Turkish legal and WB/IFC requirements.

Figure 17: Photo of the Road affecting lands of Been village


4.4 VALUATION

As discussed under Section 2.2.1., EnerjiSA determined the compensation amounts with
reference to principles described in IFC OP 4.12. The valuation method was based upon in
the replacement cost of lost assets. Replacement costs for agricultural lands including crops,
trees and orchards as well as structures were calculated by using different valuation
methodology as described below.

During the valuation process, the independent agency determining the values for assets
considered the following criteria:

• The nature of the land or building;
• The size of the land or building;
• Characteristics and elements affecting the value of the land or building; including the
separate value of those elements;
• Any taxes paid or to be paid on the land or building;
• Previous amounts awarded in compensation for land acquisition;
• Net income that could be obtained from the asset and/or the resource;
• For the house plots, the amount for which similar house plots have been sold without
any change in the use to which it is put;

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 35
• For buildings, official unit prices at the date of land purchase, estimates of the cost of
rebuilding and depreciation
15
for wear and tear.

4.4.1 Valuation Methodology for Immovable Assets

4.4.1.1. Valuation Methodology for Land

The value of agricultural lands is calculated by using net income
16
approach. Net income is
calculated by subtracting total costs from Gross Production Value (GPV). The valuation of
agricultural land is based on the capitalization of net income from the land to be purchased.
The formula used for assessing the value of lands is simply K=R/f which mean;

K = Value
R = Net income (GPV – production cost)
f = capitalization rate (a type of risk related to the capital invested in agricultural land)

For the land valuation process of Hacınınolu Project, capitalization rate
17
was accepted as 5
percent.

4.4.1.2. Valuation Methodology for Trees

For valuation of fruit or fruitless trees, ages of each tree is considered in calculating the
present value of income to be generated from it based on market values of produce
(including timber) expected from the trees for the rest of their lives if they were not cut as a
result of the Project.

4.4.1.3. Valuation of Buildings

Valuation of buildings was done according to their type and building cost based on unit
values stated in “Notification about 2007 Average Unit Costs of Buildings used for
Calculation of Costs for Consulting on Architecture and Engineering Works promulgated
March 26, 2008 numbered 2682”. Depreciation rates are also considered, whether any

15 Although depreciation rate for the assets is calculated as a requirement of domestic law, depreciation for the
calculation of assets’ value is not deducted in compatible with definition of Replacement Cost stated in WB
OP 4.12 document. For WB Policy, in determining the replacement cost, depreciation of the asset and the
value of salvage materials are not taken into account, nor is the value of benefits to be derived from the project
deducted from the valuation of an affected asset.
16 The net income is the income that the land would probably bring in if it continued to be used without any
change, taking into account the location and conditions of the land and resources at the land acquisition date.
Firstly, the yearly average net income from the agricultural lands in the area is learned through consultations
and market research. Then the actual market prices of these lands are determined through market research
and investigation of the title deeds. The ratio of this annual average net income to the average market-selling
price will give the capitalization rate (Yusufeli Dam and HEPP Project RAP, 2006, Chp 4, p.7).
17 Since the capitalization rate is calculated based on the actual market prices in the expropriation / land
acquisition area, this rate will gave the full replacement cost of the agricultural lands to be purchased
(Yusufeli Dam and HEPP Project RAP, 2006, Chp4, p.7).

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 36
maintenance and repair was done or not. Values of the structural ruins were calculated as
the value of materials that might be used after demolishing of the structure. However, the
value of the market price was not deducted while determining the compensation value
because loss of structures/buildings was compensated at full replacement cost
18
. In addition
to compensation the Project provided in-kind compensation by providing technical
assistance in the relocation or reconstruction of structures.

4.4.1.4. Valuation of Auxiliary Facilities

As the first step borders of affected parcels were confirmed in the field in accordance with
the cadastral survey. For this determination, detailed measures were done. Auxiliary
facilities within the determined borders were listed and valued considering slope of the land,
depth of the soil, irrigation status, flood danger, accessibility case, age of trees etc.

4.4.1.5. Valuation of Forestry Areas
Valuation of forestry lands was done by General Directorate of Forestry. On the basis of
Regional Directorates, valuation of forestry lands was done by calculation of cost of
reforestation, cost for permission for land, development cost of forest villages, reforestation
and erosion control cost and cost of guarantee.

Cost of reforestation is calculated by multiplying gross cost of unskilled labor with the total
area (da). Labor cost was calculated as 1615 hour/da for the coniferous forests and 1748
hour/da for broad-leafed forest. Cost of permission for land was calculated as 5 percent/per
year of the total cost of the project. Cost of development of forest villages was calculated as 3
percent of the total project cost that would be paid once. Cost of reforestation and erosion
control was calculated as 2 percent of the project that would be paid once. Cost of guarantee
was determined by General Directorate in regard to related law every year.

4.4.2 Consultation and Negotiation

The land acquisition process in Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project started in 2000 (period
of ERE). 35 of PAPs had already been compensated during this early period. EnerjiSA, after
taking over the Project from ERE, had limited land acquisition activity. Thus, EnerjiSA had to
purchase fewer parcels (90 parcels that belong to 52 households) affected from construction
site and the road between power plant (Been Village) and the construction site.

Parcels taken in Hacınınolu and Kertmen Villages were privately owned and for these
parcels EnerjiSA offered on average 43 percent higher compensation values (6,00 TL per

18
According to OP 4.12 document of WB, "Replacement Cost" is defined as follows: For houses and other
structures, it is the market cost of the materials to build a replacement structure with an area and quality
similar to or better than those of the affected structure, or to repair a partially affected structure, plus the cost
of transporting building materials to the construction site, plus the cost of any labor and contractors' fees, plus
the cost of any registration and transfer taxes.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 37
sqm) than the ones calculated by Kahramanmara Chamber of Agricultural Engineers (4,14
TL per sqm) and the independent company recruited for purposes of valuation. EnerjiSA
consulted with all affected people; therefore no disagreement occurred between local people
and EnerjiSA during land acquisition process of Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project.

For the usufruct parcels in Been village, EnerjiSA paid compensation for the trees and/or
crops as well as for the land. Although users did not have title rights EnerjiSA agreed a price
for the land to be paid to the land users. This amount, although less than that paid to titled
land holders, was in excess of expectations.

All immovable assets were valued at full replacement cost (Table 4-2) and compensated by
using different compensation strategies under different circumstances (Figure 4-1).

Table 4-2: Distribution of Replacement Values and Compensation by Settlement
19

Villages
Replacement
Value (RV) of
Assets
Purchased (TL)
Compensation
Value (CV) of
Assets
Purchased (TL)
Ratio of Increase
Btw RV and CV
(%)
HACININOLU 59.923,70 86.845,94 45
KERTMEN 658.224,91 929.760,29 41
BEEN 35.863,79 50.103,32 40
TOTAL 754.012,40 1.066.709,55 41


19
Figures shown in Table 4-2 do not include usufruct land compensation prices.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 38
Figure 4-1: Illustration of Compensation Strategies for RAP of Hacınınolu HEPP Project













































*Currently income support refers to preferential employment opportunities for temporary and permanent
positions on the Project.
** Technical assistance refers to assistance in relocation or reconstruction of structures, primarily the home
that was affected.
Agricultural Land or Trees affected by
Road between Con. Site and Power Plant

Assets
Affected by
Agricultural Land or Trees
Affected by Construction Site
Structures affected by
Construction Site
Forest Lands affected by Road between
Construction Site and Power Plant

Cash
Income
Support*
Technical
Assistance*
*
SITUATION 5
The plots owned by
Forestry and there is no
income generating
activity done on it.
STRATEGIES
Cash compensation is paid
to the Forest Department and no
other payment is needed.
SITUATION 3
Structure privately
owned and affected by
the project.
STRATEGIES
Cash compensation is provided for
the owner. Additionally technical
assistance for relocation is given.
Income support is also provided
same as Situation 1 and 2.
SITUATION 4
The plots partially
affected, cultivated by
private users and
owned by public.
STRATEGIES
Cash compensation for the crops
and trees is provided to the user,
compensation is paid to the public
for the land. Income support is
also provided for the user.
SITUATION 1
The plots privately
owned and lies partly
within the affected area
STRATEGIES
It is allowed to continue cultivation
within the partially un-affected
lands and cash compensation is
given and income support is
provided.
SITUATION 2
The plots privately
owned and fully
affected by the project.
STRATEGIES
Cultivation is allowed to continue
until required by the Project.
Affected households use the
revenues. Cash compensation is
given and income support is
provided.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 39
4.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND
COMPENSATION

EnerjiSA assigned the Land Valuation to be conducted by an independent agency
comprising a private firm (Ekin Mühendislik) working in coordination with the
Kahramanmara Chamber of Agricultural Engineers (an NGO). The agency carried out
the valuation process described above. Their role of valuation was based on the following
principles:
Land was classified based on its physical, agricultural characteristics (i.e. clay soil,
agricultural soil, dry soil etc);
It was assumed that the land will be utilized for a certain number of years in the
future and the estimated income is calculated according to the crops expected to
be gathered from the land (shift of crops is also taken into consideration in the
calculations);
Value of existing crops and trees were determined;
Values of existing structures (i.e. houses, barns etc.) were determined;
The data collected during the valuation process was kept in a standard format and
photographs of all affected assets were kept on file; and
All transaction costs were paid by EnerjiSA.

The EnerjiSA Land Acquisition Team consists of members from Survey and Expropriation
Team, a financial expert and one person from the construction site (usually the site
manager or the administrative officer who also acts as the community liaison). The Survey
and Expropriation Team within the Projects Directorate is headed up by an experienced
team leader who has worked at the General Directorate of DSI as an expropriation expert
for many years. The team consisting of two more surveying engineers received the
valuation data from the independent valuation agency (see above) and analyzed it to
present to EnerjiSA administration.

The roles and responsibilities for the Land Acquisition team are as follows:

• Land Acquisition Team conducted disclosure meetings, informing the public first
about the project and the project affected areas. Then the valuation methods and
the amount each affected person was to receive under this method were explained
to project affected people particularly if people had concerns regarding the Project
or the valuation method. The contact numbers of the team and construction site
were also provided in case they need to be contacted after these meetings;
• These meetings were usually carried out over several visits to ensure everybody
was contacted and informed;
• Depending on the concerns of the land owners, an additional valuation trip to the
site was conducted. In some cases, the land owner stated that he had more trees
planted than stated in the valuation report which required a second visit by the
team and a recounting of the trees;

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 40
• All the valuation results and outcomes of disclosure meetings were considered in
an internal executive meeting and a premium over the valuation price was
determined;
• It was ensured that all land owners were treated in the same manner and their
land valuation was consistent and equitable. If a modification / revision in the
prices or valuation method becomes necessary, EnerjiSA makes sure that it was
applied to every land owner;
• In cases where the affected part of the parcel was larger than the remaining part
and where agricultural production would no longer sustain the household or
allow effective/profitable cultivation, the entire plot was purchased;
• All affected farmers are allowed to continue their production until the affected
parcels are to be used by the Project. Indeed, those who were paid in full some 4
years ago by the previous owner of the Project (ERE) continue cultivating until
their land will be required. By doing so they not only maintained their livelihoods
but made good returns on their investments
20
;
• The final offers were calculated and disclosed to the land owners in a group
meeting; and
• Once an agreement was reached, a bank account was established in the name of
each land owner (all costs were covered by EnerjiSA), the purchase price was
transferred to the account. Then, the land owner was taken to “Title Deed Office”
to finalize land deed transfer formalities. All official expenses for the land deed
transfer were also covered by EnerjiSA as well as the transportation, refreshments
and accommodation when necessary.
4.6 MINIMIZATION OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS ACQUISITION

One of the aims when considering Project Alternatives was minimizing immovable assets
acquisition. Project alternatives were described in the EIA Report of Hacınınolu HEPP
Project. During the site selection process a suitable location for the weir axis and other
auxiliary facilities were evaluated with reference to topographic and geologic
characteristics as well as the location of immovable assets which may be affected. Other
sites considered presented environmental hazards and did not necessarily reduce the
volume of assets to be affected. Thus, taking account of public safety considerations the
present sites were identified. The results of this process and the many considerations that
formed the basis of the relevant decisions were shared with affected communities through
the EIA disclosure.


20
Some of these households let their money in a bank account to fetch interest; during the past 8 years
interest on TL has averaged at least 25-30 percent. Others have purchased additional land elsewhere in the
village and thus expanded their agricultural production. Still others bought residential land or flats in the
nearby city; realestate prices have substantially increased in the area since then and thus this group enjoys
potential capital gains.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 41
5 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project affect three rural settlements: Hacınınolu, Kertmen
and Been villages of the Central district of Kahramanmara. Since it is a run-of-river type
Project (without storage) plant not spreading over a large area, there is no one settlement
which is completely affected by the Project. Only 3 obas out of 16 which belong to these
villages are affected.

The Project requires both public and private lands. The land purchased as a result of the
Project is gathered under the following categories: forest land, Treasury land and
privately owned land. The total land acquired is 701.327,27 m
2
. The percentages of types
of land acquired are shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1: Distribution of the Lands Purchased for the Project
53%
12%
35%
Forestry Land Treasury Land Privately-owned Land


The area of the privately owned lands affected by the Project varies by settlement. As seen
from Figure 5-2, the majority (53%) of the affected private land belongs to landowners
living in Kertmen.

Figure 5-2: Distribution of the Privately Owned Lands Purchased by Settlements
6%
53%
41%
HACININOGLU KERTMEN BESEN


Total number of the privately owned parcels affected by Hacınınolu Project is 90 and
differs by village. The number of affected parcels is 5 in Hacınınolu whereas this number
rises to 51 in Kertmen. With the exception of one parcel, all parcels purchased are less

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 42
than 20 dc. The majority of the affected parcels (69%) are smaller than the average size
whereas only 12 percent of the affected parcels are larger than 5.000 m
2
. The average
number of affected parcels per household is 2; ranging from 1 to 5.

The total number of the affected households in the three obas is 52. The percent of the
household having more than 2 parcels acquired is 20 whereas 56 percent of the affected
households have only one parcel acquired by the Project. No residential areas will be
inundated by the Project reservoir however one house in Kertmen village is directly
affected by the establishment of the construction camp site (see Section 5.1.1 below).

In accordance with WB OP 4.12, the land acquisition process required for a project can
bring about major impacts which can be classified as follows:

• Loss of shelter resulting in relocation;
• Loss of productive assets and/and access to them; and
• Loss of income sources or means of livelihood.

Considering these potential losses attributable to the Project, impacts of the Project on the
local people who are directly affected by the land acquisition process are grouped as
shown in the Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Typology of Impacts of the Hacınınolu Project
IMPACTS
Criteria for
the Magnitude of Impacts
Cases in
Hacınınolu Project
Category of
Displacement
IMPACT ON ASSETS
- Loss of the immovable
structure (shelter) and other
buildings (inc. lands)
1 H/H in Kertmen Physical disp.
Loss of shelter (houses
and other buildings)
- Loss of other buildings (i.e.
barn) not the shelter
1 H/H lost an unused
mill in Hacınınolu
No displacement (No
need for relocation)
- Loss of all the productive assets
0 H/H
Both economically
and accordingly
physically displ.
- Loss of some portion of the
productive assets
29 H/H Economically displ.
Loss of productive
assets
- Loss less than 10 percent of the
productive assets
8 H/H
Economically displ.
(minor impact)
IMPACT ON PAP


- Loss of all sources of income
NA
Both economically
and accordingly
physically displ.
- Loss of some portion of income 29 H/H Economically displ.
Loss of income source
or means of livelihood
- Loss less than 10 percent of
income
8 H/H
Economically displ.
(minor impact)


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 43
5.1 IMPACTS ON IMMOVABLE ASSETS
5.1.1 Impacts

Loss of Structure/Buildings

The villages affected from the Project site are widely scattered and the size of the affected
residential areas is small. There are only two households whose structures and buildings
were affected by the Project. One of the households is located in Kertmen and one
residential home and an animal shed were affected
21
. As the house is affected, the owner
was required to relocate his residence. The second affected household
22
whose flour mill
is affected by the Project did not have to relocate and the mill was not in operating
condition.

Loss of Productive Assets

Productive assets affected by the Project comprise agricultural lands, standing crops on
these lands and fruit trees. A total area of 245.077,27 m
2
of agricultural land owned and
used by 51 households in three affected obas was purchased for the HEPP Project (n.b. all
private land purchased was used for productive purposes). The average size of affected
land per household is equal to 4.805,44 m
2
. Table 5-2 shows the distribution of land by
settlement; in particular, majority (53%) of the privately-owned land purchased belongs to
Kertmen.

Table 5-2- Number of Households and Land size Affected by Settlement
Villages
Total # of
H/H
# of Affected
H/H
23

Total Size of
Privately-owned
Land Purchased
(m2)
Portion of the Land
Purchased in total
Land Purchased (%)
HACININOLU 125 1 14.474,32 6
KERTMEN 160 27 130.790,84 53
BEEN 200 23 998.12,11 41
TOTAL 485 51 245.077,27 100

The magnitude of impact attributable to the loss of agricultural lands was classified by
three categories of impact which are as follows: those who lost all lands (significant
impact), those who lost some part of the lands (moderate impact) and those who lost less
than 10 percent of their lands (minor impact). Note that the proportion of the land lost
data is only available from interviewed households and, of those 44 households

21
The house and the shed affected by the construction site of Hacınınolu HEPP are owned by by a
landowner in Tilkiler Quarter of Kertmen Village. The owner consented with EnerjiSA on the
compensation amount stated by Kahramanmara Chamber of Agriculture and decided to build a new
house to a land situated on upland above the construction site.
22
The mill is very old and not used by the villagers for many years. However, EnerjiSA paid money to the
owner of the land and the mill.
23
The number of affected household was given as 1 because the other affected household in Hacınınolu
didn’t loss any agricultural land (Ref.Section5.1.1.Loss of Structure/Building). For this reason, total
number of affected household losing their lands is stated as 51.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 44
interviewed, 37 households provided information on their total land holdings. Findings
of the survey
24
conducted show that 10 households lost more than 50 percent of their
lands whereas 8 households lost less than 10 percent of their lands. There is no one among
the interviewed households who lost all productive assets (See Table 5-3). For these
reasons, impact of the Project on the land can be accepted as moderate.

Table 5-3: Privately-owned Land by Settlement
Criteria of Magnitude
of Loss of Land
# of Affected
HH
Portion of the H/H
Lost their Lands (%)
Those who lost all 0 0
Those who lost some
portion of the land 29 78
Those who lost less
than 10% of the land 8 22
TOTAL 37 100

5.1.2. Mitigation Measures

Measures taken for the affected structures: For the single home affected, EnerjiSA paid
compensation for the house and the shed. EnerjiSA also provided resettlement assistance
with the affected household during their moving through constructing a road to their new
house. EnerjiSA supplied machinery and equipment to facilitate the new construction on
a piece of land that the affected land owner owned prior to the Project. Total amount of
this in-kind contribution of EnerjiSA was 4 395 TL (approximately $2 750). This was in
addition to the compensation amount paid for the owners lost land and assets in
accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 4.

Measures taken for the affected productive assets: Majority of the land owners received their
compensation payments at levels well over the valuation conducted by the independent
valuation agency as summarized in Table 5-4. A full breakdown and comparison of
replacement value and compensation payment by household is included in Appendix 6.
EnerjiSA paid on average a 42 percent higher price for lands, standing crops and trees of
the affected households in three obas. For the project-affected people in Hacınınolu and
Kertmen villages, on average a 45 percent higher price for the affected agricultural land
and crops was paid and on average a 25 percent higher price for trees and orchards in
Kertmen was paid by EnerjiSA. In Been village, the affected land and crops were
compensated at prices on average 40 percent higher than the ones initially valued. In
Been, 13 households (56%) among the 23 affected received compensation on average 50
percent higher than the valuation price whereas 7 households (30%) received
compensation on average 30 percent higher than the initial valuation price
25
.

24
For the details of portion of lands lost for each affected households, see Appendix 6.
25
For the type of land which a less unit price is valuated (1,00 TL per sqm), EnerjiSA paid a higher level of
compensation (%50) over the unit prices, whereas for the lands which are valuated as 1,92 TL per sqm, %30
percent compensation is given over the unit prices. This was done to mitigate the magnitude of impact.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 45

Table 5-4: Distribution of the Total Values of Replacement and Compensation for
Productive Assets by Settlement
Villages
Replacement
Value (RV) of
Land Purchased
(TL)
Compensation
Value (CV) of
Land Purchased
(TL)
% Increase
Btw RV and
CV
HACININOLU 59.923,70 86.845,94 45%
KERTMEN 606.224,91 860.365,29 42%
BEEN 35.863,81 50.103,32 40%
TOTAL 702.012,42 997.314,55 42%


5.2 IMPACTS ON PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE
5.2.1 Impacts

Loss of agricultural incomes: The primary impact of a land acquisition process relates to
the potential reduction of livelihood as a result of reduced agricultural incomes. In
addition, the affected households may have to modify the structure of their income. The
potential need for such an alteration in and adaptation to a new or modified situation
depends on the extent of the impact of the Project on the productive assets, which are vital
for livelihood. However, the number of affected households is small (See Table 5-5) and
many families (73%) among the interviewed ones loss less than half of their total land
holdings. This loss was minimized due to the fragmented nature of such holdings.

Table 5-5: Affected Households by Settlement
Villages
Total # of
H/H
# of Affected
H/H % Affected H/H
HACININOLU 125 2 2
KERTMEN 160 27 17
BEEN 200 23 12
TOTAL 485 52 11

On the basis of figures related to total land holdings obtained during the survey the
reduction of agricultural incomes of the affected households was estimated
26
as shown in
Table 5-6. The percentage decrease of gross agricultural income was calculated by
considering the ratios of the total size of all land holdings of the 37 sampled households to


26
As stated in Chapter 4, value of the affected lands (including crops, trees) was calculated by considering
their economic life. This value, for this reason, is equal to the agricultural income obtained from the lands
acquired for the Project. In other words, loss of agricultural income obtained from the land acquired can be
regarded as the total valuation amount for the lands purchased. In line with that, it is possible to estimate the
ratio of loss of agricultural income as equal to the ratio of loss of land if it is assumed that type of all land
holdings is the same with the type of land acquired for the Project.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 46
the size of lands purchased. The average percentage decrease in gross agricultural income
was thereby estimated to be 25 percent. The number of households in which the reduction
of agricultural income is less than the average loss is 20 (54%). This figure shows that most
of the affected and interviewed households (54%) lost less than 25 percent of their
agricultural income. The majority of landowners (32%) lost between 11 and 25 percent of
their incomes.

Table 5-6: Distribution of Ratios of the Estimated Reduction of Gross Agricultural
Incomes
Criteria of Magnitude of
Estimated Loss of
Agricultural Income
# of Affected
HH
% of the
Affected HH
Those who lost more than
75% of their incomes 6 16
Those who lost between 51%
and 75% of their incomes 4 11
Those who lost between 26%
and 50% of their incomes 7 19
Those who lost between 11%
and 25% of their incomes 12 32
Those who lost less than 10%
of their incomes 8 22
TOTAL 37 100

The share of gross agricultural income within total household income is relatively high
(66%) compared to the share of non-agricultural income sources (34%). Although
agriculture is the main sources of income for the residents of Hacınınolu, Kertmen and
Been villages, they can also earn money from some non-agricultural income sources such
as working in constructions or working as rural guards.

Vulnerable Groups: The vulnerable groups described in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3 most
likely to be impacted by acquisition activities in the affected settlements are the women
and land holders who share compensation with others. The Project analyzed the
payments/compensation made to these groups and the potential reduction in their
agricultural incomes. Table 5-7 shows the payments made to the women landowners and
usufruct land users.

Table 5-7: Distribution of the Total Values of Replacement and Compensation for women
households by Settlement
Status
Replacement
Value (RV) of
Land Purchased
(TL)
Compensation
Value (CV) of
Land Purchased
(TL)
% of Increase
Btw RV and
CV

Hacınınolu
1 Land owner 9.957,85 14.431,67 45
Been
1 Land owner 617,74 851,61 38
2 Land user Not Applicable 2.575,73 Not Applicable
3 Land owner 3.202,99 4.704,49 47
4 Land user Not Applicable 5.944,91 Not Applicable

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 47
5 Land user Not Applicable 6176,30 Not Applicable

The one affected woman landowner in Hacınınolu settlement was paid 45 percent above
the replacement value of her land which is in accordance with the average paid to the
affected landowners in Hacınınolu (Table 5-4). The two women landowners in Been
village were paid on average 41.5 percent above the replacement value of their land. The
women land users were compensated as described in Chapter 4 for the Usufruct lands.
The values are shown in Table 5-67 When impact to women landowner household
agricultural incomes are considered the women households are shown to be more
impacted than the average household. On average these households have a potential
reduction in agricultural income of 43 percent while the average reduction was 25 percent.
However, given the extremely small size of the two groups the differences are not
statistically significant.

There are 12 landowners who share the compensation payment with the others in the
affected settlements living in Kertmen and Been. Landowners in Kertmen shared the
compensation payments with 3 people on average whereas those in Been shared with on
average of 4 people. The landowners in Kertmen who share the payment with others were
paid on average 26 percent above the replacement value of their land. This is below the
average percentage of increase between replacement value and compensation value (41%)
in Kertmen. In Been those who share the payment with others were paid on average 47
percent above the replacement value of their land. This is slightly higher than the average
percentage of increase between replacement value and compensation value (40%) of
Been.

When impact to agricultural incomes is considered for the households that shared
compensation, these households have a potential reduction in agricultural income
of 25 percent which is the average across all the landowners.

5.2.2 Mitigation Measures

Regardless of the extent and scope of impact certain basic principles should form the basis
of any social mitigation strategy including reducing poverty, improving well-being and
adaptation capabilities of affected people, enhancing resilience and livelihood adaptation
and ensuring natural resource sustainability.

For mitigating the impacts on the livelihoods on agricultural producers, alternative
livelihood opportunities have been created by the construction of the Project
27
and these
opportunities will increase as construction expands (Section 5.3). Where possible the
employment opportunities will focus on the few vulnerable households. One of the

27
As one of the major benfefits of the Project for the local affected people, job opportunities that were
provided by EnerjiSA was explained in detail under 5.4.1 Economic Benefit of the Project at Household
Level: Work Opportunities for the Local People.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 48
women landowner households has already benefited from employment to date. In
addition, improved roads will enhance the ability of villagers to transport their products
to central markets thereby potentially enhancing incomes. Perhaps most importantly,
affected people will generate income or potential capital gains from the cash
compensation received. Loss of agricultural incomes of the affected people was fully
compensated at prices well above market values (Section 5.1.2) thereby ensuring that
financial gains from re-investing the money can materialize.

Monitoring of livelihood restoration will be undertaken as part of the RAP monitoring
(Chapter 7) and the Project will ensure that the vulnerable groups are addressed as part of
the monitoring and CIP will be developed as necessary.

5.3 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
5.3.1 Economic Benefit of the Project: Work Opportunities for the Local People

In project-affected villages, the unemployment ratio is much lower than the comparable
ratio in the provincial center. Investigations clearly revealed positive impacts created by
employment opportunities as work associated with the construction of the Hacınınolu
HEPP Project was the primary source of wage income for the PAPs. Prior to the start of
works on the Project survey respondents indicated that it was difficult to find non-
agricultural work. This was especially the case for young people who aspired to settle in
urban centers, seeking temporary or permanent work often in unskilled capacities. Job
opportunities for the project affected population are now provided by the Hacınınolu
construction and other HEPP Projects.

During the pre-construction phase, 88 people were employed by EnerjiSA and its
Contractors, see Table 5-8. It is expected that this number will increase to approximately
150 during the construction phase. There will also be opportunities for approximately 15
local workers during the operation of the Project. Overall it is expected that the job
opportunities during the construction and operations phase of the Project will create
benefits not only for PAPs but for the settlements as a whole. It is expected that the job
opportunities will continue to increase livelihoods of the affected households. EnerjiSA
has taken concrete steps to ensure that job opportunities are provided to affected people
by including contractual clauses in its dealings with the Contractor.


Table 5-8: Locally Employed People
Employed by EnerjiSA
Village The # of Employed People Jobs
Hacınınolu 6 Office boy, cook,
Kertmen 6 Unskilled Labor
Been 1 Unskilled Labor

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 49
Other (Ilıca, Sarıgüzel) 5 Unskilled Labor
Total 18
Employed by Gündüz Construction
Village The # of Employed People Jobs
Hacınınolu 0
Kertmen 32 Unskilled Labor
Been 7 Unskilled Labor
Other (Ilıca, Sarıgüzel) 1 Unskilled Labor
Total 40
Employed by Projima Construction
Village The # of Employed People Jobs
Hacınınolu 4 Unskilled Labor
Kertmen 2 Unskilled Labor
Been 0 Unskilled Labor
Other (Ilıca, Sarıgüzel) 2 Unskilled Labor
Total 8
Employed by Vatan Construction
Village The # of Employed People Jobs
Hacınınolu 9 Unskilled Labor
Kertmen 6 Unskilled Labor
Been 2 Unskilled Labor
Other (Ilıca, Sarıgüzel) 5 Unskilled Labor
Total 22
Total 88

An indirect but important benefit of the Project will be a reduction in out-migration from
the Project area. The availability of job opportunities for young people living in these
villages may result in a decrease in the temporary or permanent migration to district and
provincial centers for regular or seasonal work.

This also means that as the young people continue staying with their family in the same
house and working close to their homes. By so doing, they can save the money they
would otherwise pay for accommodation at the district and provincial center and thus
look forward to a better future based on work experience on a Project associated with a
reputable and well-known company in Turkey.

5.3.2 Infrastructural Benefit of the Project at Community Level: Improvement of
Access Road and Drinking Water Supply

The Project provides some infrastructural benefits for the affected settlements. For easy
access to the construction site and other auxiliary facilities, new roads are under
construction in collaboration with SPA. As discussed in Chapter one this will provide

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 50
safer and more direct access to town/district centers.

In addition to road construction, EnerjiSA is improving the drinking water quality of
Been village by building new drainpipes. This initiative benefits the affected as well as
other resident households.
5.3.3 Economic Benefit of the Project at Community Level: Contribution to
Local Economy

EnerjiSA supplies some of the daily needs of the construction workforce such as bread,
yoghurt etc., from nearby villages. These products are bought daily and regularly from
selected villagers, which is a small financial support for the local economy. Moreover,
some employees have taken residence and others regularly visit the Project site and stay
in hotels in Ilıca, near the construction site. This also creates support for the economy of
Ilıca.


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 51
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE

The Project’s potential stakeholders include the affected population, local authorities,
NGOs, civil society or other representatives of affected population. Consultation and
public disclosure in a transparent manner should be an indispensable component of the
public involvement process of social assessment studies undertaken for preparation and
implementation of a RAP.

EnerjiSA has launched its public involvement process by providing information and
targeting village leaders and other residents; in particular, the local residents to be
affected from the Project. Simultaneously, consultations with the land affected PAPs were
undertaken. Since all the land acquisition was based on willing buyer / seller
arrangements, EnerjiSA shared information about the land valuation and met with the
villagers both collectively and individually until a consensus was reached. During this
process, disclosure meetings with the local authorities, stakeholder consultation meetings
and interviews were held; illustrated brochures and newsletters were also distributed.

6.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

EnerjiSA used a Stakeholder Consultation Methodology which formed the framework for
its Stakeholder Engagement Plan developed in 2009. The methodology aims at:

• Defining the project affected people and other project affected groups such as
NGOs, media, academics, government authorities;
• Providing an interactive system that provides to give free, objective and prior
information, receive feedbacks at the level of local and national during the
planning, construction, operation and afterwards;
• Providing opportunities for other project affected groups especially NGOs to be
interactive / participate in the project during the project cycle; and
• Defining detailed action plans, monitoring and reporting procedures.

To achieve these goals, EnerjiSA adhered to the following principles of the consultation
processes:

Written and oral communications in a language understandable to all
stakeholders;
Easy accessibility to both written information and to the consultation process by
relevant stakeholders;
Use of oral or visual methods to explain information to the public; and
Clear mechanisms to respond to people’s concerns, suggestions and grievances.

In the light of these principles, EnerjiSA undertook a stakeholder analysis as a part of the

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 52
consultation process of the Project. Steps followed for stakeholder analysis are given
below.
6.1.1 Stakeholder Identification

Primary Stakeholders of EnerjiSA Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project are grouped as:
governmental authorities, local non-governmental organizations (local NGOs) and the
project affected people. These groups are discussed in turn in the following sections.

6.1.1.1. Governmental Stakeholders

At national, provincial, district and village level, all authorities were visited at different
consultation stages so as to inform them, agree with them or obtain feedback from them
and they participated to the process in accordance with their interest and influence.

These authorities can be grouped as governmental authorities and local government
authorities for purposes of RAP and comprise:

Government Authorities:
Ministry of Environment and Forestry;
DSI XX. Regional Directorate;
MoEF, Regional Directorate of Forestry;
MoEF, Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry;
Kahramanmara Governorship;
Kahramanmara Special Provincial Administration;
Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Agriculture;
Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry;
Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism; and
Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Highways.

Local Government Authorities include:
Kahramanmara Municipality; and
Hacınınolu, Kertmen and Been Headmen (Muhtars).

6.1.1.2. Local Residents and Communities

In Hacınınolu, Been and Kertmen villages, people whose assets were affected by the
components of the Project are the primary stakeholders for all project-related activities
(social assessment studies and RAP). From the beginning, locally affected people were
involved in the consultation activities through village meetings and/or individual
interviews. First disclosure and public participation meetings and interviews were held
under the coordination of ERE and then, continued with EnerjiSA.


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 53
Throughout the Project planning and implementation process, the primary stakeholders
in the project-affected communities were recognized as those persons whose immovable
assets were directly affected by the Project. As the Project do not only affect the owners of
the assets but also other members of their families, participation of the project-affected
households to the consultation process was considered and encouraged.

The number of affected households in the Project area is 52. Most of the PAPs still live in
their villages. This has enabled EnerjiSA to contact easily with the project-affected people
when necessary. Moreover, of the 52 households 8 households from Been village were
compensated in full during the ERE period. They were also involved to the public
consultation activities by EnerjiSA.

6.1.1.3. NGOs, Media and Other Interest Groups

NGOs with an interest in agriculture, animal husbandry or other land-based livelihood
issues in Kahramanmara Province, the media, local universities, foundations or
associations are stakeholders in the Project and were included in the consultation
processes.

These stakeholders that were consulted include:
Kahramanmara Sütçü mam University;
Chamber of Agricultural Engineers;
Industrialists and Businessmen Association of Kahramanmara;
Independent Industrialists and Businessmen Association; and
National and Local Media.

6.1.1.4. Others

There were also some other institutions relevant to the Project who have been visited at
the early stages (during preliminary consultation and the initial mobilization processes) of
the Hacınınolu Project.

These partners are:
Provincial Gendarmerie Command; and
Provincial Directorate of Security.
6.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement (Public Participation)

For the Hacınınolu Weir and HEPP Project, public information disclosure and
consultation activities were started in accordance with the requirements of the EIA study
and the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation (dated 16
December 2003 and no. 25318).


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 54
6.1.2.1. Preliminary Consultation Activities

Preliminary consultation activities had already been completed when EnerjiSA took over
the Hacınınolu Project from “ERE”. Appendix 7 includes minutes of meetings held
between ERE and Project stakeholders. Two meetings were held in December 2006 with
local governmental and non-governmental agencies, and local people affected by the
Project, respectively. But, before these public participation meetings on 04.11.2006 a key
informant survey was conducted with the headman of Hacınınolu Village in which both
information regarding the project, EIA studies and the public participation meeting were
given and information on the opinions, concerns, requests of the villagers was obtained.

According to Article 9 of the EIA Regulation, before the scoping meeting the Public
Participation Meeting was held to inform the public about investment and take their
comments and suggestions on 26.12.2006 in Kahramanmara Province, Central District,
Hacınınolu Village, and Hacınınolu Primary School. Prior to the meeting necessary
preparatory activities were undertaken. This included announcing the date of the meeting
via website, newspapers and posters; putting the Project Inception Report on the website
of MoEF; contacting the headmen of the affected villages; and contacting relevant
representatives of the closest municipalities, district governorship and provincial
governorship. The purpose was to ensure a high and relevant participation in the Public
Participation Meeting. The meeting was chaired by the representative of the Provincial
Directorate of MoEF and 47 stakeholders participated in the meeting. In addition to
villagers, representatives of the following governmental agencies attended the meeting:
MoEF, Provincial Directorate of Environment, Regional Directorate of Forestry, Special
Provincial Administration, Provincial Directorate of Agriculture, Provincial Directorate of
Health and Regional Directorate of State Hydraulic Works. Appendix 8 includes a report
form for gathering stakeholder feedback during the meeting. One of the major findings of
the public participation meeting is that the local people were mainly concerned with the
expropriation issue rather than other possible impacts of the project on the environment
and community (EMP, 2008, p.74).

When EnerjiSA started to work in the region, villagers were welcomed to visit the site
manager and obtain information of the land acquisition process that EnerjiSA had
planned. Most people living in Kertmen and Been villages were informed during these
visits. EnerjiSA arranged a community meeting with project affected people in
Hacınınolu village in September 2007 to inform them about EnerjiSA’s taking over as
well as the project’s technical properties, environmental and social impacts. There were
also many unscheduled meetings people requested in different places with the site
manager.

All related authorities such as Governor, Kahramanmara Provincial Directorates etc.
were visited and informed about Project details and Project affected people. In addition,
planned procedures of expropriation and negotiation were introduced and
communication materials were distributed.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 55

6.1.2.2. Consultations

In order to inform local governmental and non-governmental agencies regarding the
technical, economic, social and environmental aspects of the Kandil Energy Group
Projects including Hacınınolu Regulator and HEPP Project, a consultation meeting was
conducted by EnerjiSA on December 11, 2006. Participant agencies generally expressed
their opinion based on their legislative framework, but emphasized that they were
expecting benefits of the project to the development of the region and the country.

The consultation activities for local people, local NGOs and other institutions were carried
out by EnerjiSA with official and unofficial meetings, individual interviews, etc. To make
these efforts more systematic and to build positive and independent relations between the
project and the local people a Community Relations Plan was prepared.

In accordance with this Plan, additional community meetings were arranged to negotiate
with affected populations and inform relevant public institutions on land acquisition
procedures. The first meeting was arranged in May 30, 2007 with the participants of
EnerjiSA, Kahramanmara Governor, Provincial Directors, Sub-governors and local
people. Projects on Ceyhan River were introduced to participants. After this meeting, it
was decided that valuation suggestions should be taken from independent (external)
experts. Additionally, EnerjiSA informed villagers about the process of expropriation that
EMRA (Energy Market Regulatory Authority) would carry out when title deeds require
legal expropriation and/or negotiations fail.

Another meeting was arranged with people living in Been Village around this time who
were affected by the new road. At this meeting the compensation process was discussed
for the ones who had been cultivating the forest lands without having the land titles. As
this case should include a different valuation process when compared with registered
lands, a different negotiation method was developed and implemented in Been Village.

Finally, the land acquisition team of EnerjiSA arranged public interviews between July 21
and 25, 2008 with affected people living in Hacınınolu, Kertmen and Been villages so as
to negotiate on values of affected assets calculated by the independent agency.

6.1.3 Comments and Recommendations of Project Affected People

Consultation activities carried out up to date revealed that the public have some
expectations and concerns regarding the project. The focal point is expropriation /land
purchase process rather than potential impacts of the Project on the environmental or
social issues.


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 56
Interviews conducted in January, 2009 shows that when 44 out of the 52 affected
households were asked for when, how and from whom they have already heard about the
Project and its impact on their assets: 13 heads of households stated that they heard about
the project when first land surveys were completed by the General Directorate of DSI in
the region between the years of 1950 and 1960. On the other hand, 27 of them stated that
they first heard during surveys of ERE between the years 2000 and 2006. This data shows
that people living in Hacınınolu, Kertmen and Been had already been informed about
the power plant project before EnerjiSA took over the project. However, some stated that
EnerjiSA was the first to visit all affected people one by one, informing them about their
case and asking for whether they accept the value they offer or not.

Additionally, 39 of 44 households interviewed were pleased and satisfied with the process
they had been involved and believed that there will not be any problem caused by the
hydroelectric power plant. These people stated that they had been involved in all decision
making processes of EnerjiSA such as determining the responsible agency to undertake
the independent valuation. It was also observed during the survey conducted in January
2009, that PAPs were not only pleased with the amount of money they received as
compensation but were also satisfied with the sensible attitude and participatory
approach EnerjiSA adopted.
6.2 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

Disclosure of the Project and associated environmental and social information is an
integral part of effective and successful public consultation process. To ensure
participation of the public to the Project’s planning and implementation processes, at the
beginning, ERE and then, EnerjiSA provided the PAPs with clear and explanatory
information about the Project, its benefits, its potential adverse impacts and associated
mitigation measures as early as possible. In addition to the positive and potential negative
aspects of the Project, EnerjiSA shared how valuation of the affected assets would be
conducted, what the criteria to be considered would be during the asset valuation works,
and what the roles and responsibilities of EnerjiSA would be during the works associated
with asset inventory, valuation and compensation.

EnerjiSA succeeded in managing the public consultation and disclosure process through
the meetings held with the affected groups collectively and individually. The success of
willing buyer/seller arrangements is the best indicator for the effective management of
the public consultation and disclosure activities.

Another important issue for effective public disclosure management is to provide
information which easily understood by the affected people. To ensure the information
disclosed was understandable EnerjiSA also considered the form of the disclosed
information. Considering the educational profile of these affected settlements, EnerjiSA
prepared a brief and clear presentation summarizing the Project’s benefits and impacts.
As ERE had already informed people about the Project, EnerjiSA preferred to organize

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 57
several meetings with small groups of people that enabled PAPs to attend them in
Kertmen and Been villages. As there are only two households affected in Hacınınolu
village, face-to-face meetings were preferred to public participation meetings in this
community.

In addition to disclosure activities directly managed by EnerjiSA, an additional
informative material (a brochure) was distributed to the PAPs interviewed during the
social survey (Appendix 9). This brochure included a general description of the Project
and the affected settlements and described EnerjiSA’s approach to the public participation
as the first priority for all their investment projects and contact details.

EnerjiSA recognizes that continued accessibility of Project information for all stakeholders
should be ensured even though the number of directly affected households is few. In
addition to putting the relevant documents on the website, they will be made accessible to
the public via liaison offices. Furthermore, it is planned that roundtable meetings with
project affected group will be conducted during the construction period every six months.
These meetings will be open to all project affected groups, including representatives of
local governments, local public, NGOs, local media. EnerjiSA aims to establish feedback
tools which allow all stakeholders to state their comments, concerns and suggestions. All
future stakeholder engagement will be undertaken with EnerjiSA’s Stakeholder
Engagement Plan.
6.3 GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

EnerjiSA will be accessible for its stakeholders and respond to complaints and grievances
in the shortest time possible. A grievance mechanism is designed to fit the context and
needs of PAPs to ensure all complaints are dealt with appropriately with corrective.

On-site staff will be responsible for collating written complaints and communicating them
to the Corporate Communication representative in Ankara who is responsible for
recording and coordinating responses to all complaints. A Project hotline number is also
established which links to the Corporate Communication representative in Ankara. The
hotline number will be communicated to PAPs through village meetings, by providing to
the Muhtars and other village representative and by posting in central meeting points.
Both verbal and written complaints will be recorded in the Grievance Form shown in
Appendix 10.


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 58
7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

This chapter defines the methodology of internal and external monitoring, its indicators
and responsible groups, frequency of reporting, content of internal and external
monitoring and integration of feedback from external monitoring into implementation
process.
7.1 RAP MONITORING FRAMEWORK

The purpose of resettlement monitoring will be to ensure that compensation measures
were effective in restoring PAPs living standards and income levels. Also the effectiveness
of the grievance mechanism provided by EnerjiSA will be followed up. As part of the
monitoring and evaluation process, changes in RAP procedures will be put into effect if
necessary.

For the Hacınınolu Project, EnerjiSA’s Environmental and Social Group will undertake
the RAP monitoring for the Project.

The monitoring and evaluation framework consists of three elements:
Internal monitoring carried out by EnerjiSA’s Environmental and Social Group ;
External monitoring realized by a three-person panel of independent experts; and
A RAP Completion Audit.

Indicators have been established in order to measure RAP activities, results, objectives
and goals. There are five categories of indicators for performance monitoring. The first
three; input, output and process indicators, are mostly used for medium term measures to
ensure that the RAP is relevant, effective and efficient. The last two, outcome and impact
indicators, are mostly used for long term measures for assessing the results.

Input indicators cover the human and financial resources that are utilized in the
RAP activities;

Output indicators include activities and services produced with the inputs.
Examples for output indicators in a RAP can be a database of land acquisition,
compensation payments made for the loss of assets etc.;

Process indicators represent the changes before and after the RAP in terms of
quality and quantity of access and extent of activities and services provided. An
example would be the creation of grievance mechanism, and the establishment of
public consultation and disclosure channels.

Outcome indicators cover delivery of mitigation activities and measures to
compensate physical and economic losses created by the project such as

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 59
restoration and compensation of agricultural production and overall income
levels, changes in PAPs and community attitudes towards the project, use of
compensation payments for income generating activities; and

Impact indicators define the change in medium and long-term measurable results
in behavior and attitudes, living standards, and conditions. Impact indicators aim
to assess whether restoration activities of the RAP are effective in maintaining and
even improving social and economic conditions of PAPs.

An overview of the RAP monitoring framework is shown in Table 7-2 at the end of this
chapter.
7.2 INTERNAL MONITORING

Internal monitoring measure the progress of activities defined in the RAP. EnerjiSA’s
Social-Environmental Group will be responsible for this process with support from
appointed experts as necessary. EnerjiSA will follow up its activities which are stated
below:

Continuous monitoring;
Ensuring that special needs of vulnerable groups are addressed; and
Follow up of grievances (number of grievances lodged, auctioned, closed out).

Data collection tools developed for effective and efficient monitoring will be:

Public Consultation and Informative Meetings;
Data collected by EnerjiSA during the process of land purchase and acquisition;
Field Observations; and
Grievance records.

7.3 EXTERNAL MONITORING

External monitoring activities will verify the process defined in the RAP which is realized
by EnerjiSA and its implementing partners (e.g., the Contractor). External monitoring will
be carried out by a three-person panel of independent experts. The anticipated data
collection tools will include semi-annual reports for the first two years, yearly reports
until Hacınınolu HEPP construction is completed, records of interviews realized with
PAPs to review, and report of the progress the RAP.

Differences in socioeconomic, health, educational and cultural status before and after land
acquisition will be identified and compared via defined indicators which will put forth
the details of;


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 60
Changes occurred in the living standards of affected people;
Number of skilled and unskilled project affected people engaged in construction
workforce;
Additional support measures provided by EnerjiSA;
Process of grievances and complaints; and
Extent of restoration for quality of life and living standards of PAPs.

Both internal and external monitoring will be ended with RAP Completion Audit.
Detailed process and reporting periods of internal and external monitoring is given in
Figure 7-1.

Figure 7-1: Monitoring Process
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
No Item
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Land Acquisition
2
Construction of
Hacınınolu Weir

3 Internal Monitoring
4 External Monitoring










5 Completion Audit

7.4 RAP COMPLETION AUDIT

A RAP completion audit will be undertaken when previous monitoring has indicated that
there are no significant outstanding issues regarding livelihood restoration. The RAP
completion audit will be undertaken by EnerjiSA with support from external experts as
required. The RAP completion audit will provide final indication that the livelihood
restoration is sustainable and no further interventions are required.
7.5 STAFF AND RESPONSIBILITIES

There are two teams responsible for monitoring process-- internal and external
monitoring teams:

EnerjiSA’s Social-Environmental Group, will be responsible for regular reporting
for internal monitoring and following other actions defined for internal
monitoring;
A three-person panel of independent experts will be responsible for reporting for
external monitoring; and
EnerjiSA staff will be responsible for evaluating monitoring reports prepared by
authorized teams and provide information to the concerned stakeholder.

Table 7-1 sets out the reporting responsibilities EnerjiSA related to the RAP process.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 61

Table 7-1: Reports of Internal and External Monitoring
Report Content
Monthly Reports by Site representative to
E&S Group
• Community liaison activities carried out.
• Community liaison activities planned.
• Grievances
• Requests
Annual Reports to Lenders at the corporate
level for the first 2 years
• Disclosing information regarding economic, social and
environmental yearly activities.
Annual Reports to lenders at the corporate
level for the following years
• Disclosing information regarding economic, social and
environmental yearly activities.

An overview of the RAP monitoring framework is set out below in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2: RAP Monitoring Framework
RAP Monitoring Framework
Monitoring
Area
Indicators and Measures
Monitoring
Frequency
Duration
Monitoring
Responsibility
Efficiency and
Effectiveness of
RAP
• Progress in signing land acquisition
agreements – % complete.
• Payment of compensation to right
holders - % complete.
• Amount of land acquired for
construction - m
2
in total.
• Title deed registrations of contractor –
number, % complete.
• Households replaced – number
complete, % in total.
• Defined and working grievance
system– number of grievances
lodged/closed out.
• Public consultation process defined –
log of activities, number of meetings
held.
• Monitoring process defined –
responsible teams appointed.
Monthly From Land
Acquisition to
RAP
Completion
EnerjiSA Field
Representatives and
Social-Environmental
Group
Restoration of
Living
Standards
• Cash compensation to landowners –
amount, number, % complete.
• Cash compensation to other users –
number, % complete.
• Compensation paid in line with agreed
rates and time – number of payments,
% in total.
• Other losses (roads, irrigation channels,
drains etc) of right owners
compensated/restored – type and
number of other compensations, % in
total.
• Occasions where special needs of
vulnerable groups addressed – number
and type of aid/support.
• Following up health and safety
regulations for EnerjiSA employees –
number of trainings gives, number of
grievance about health and safety
Monthly

Biannual
(for the first 2
years)

Yearly
(for the
following years)
From Land
Acquisition to
Construction
Completion
EnerjiSA Field
Representatives and
Social-Environmental
Group

Panel of Experts
Restoration of
Income and
Livelihood
• Changes occurred in income and
expenditure patterns of before and after
the project – amount or % of income
increase.
Quarterly (for
the first 2 years)
Six Monthly
(for the
From Land
Acquisition to
RAP
Completion
EnerjiSA Field
Representatives and
Social-Environmental
Group

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 62
RAP Monitoring Framework
Monitoring
Area
Indicators and Measures
Monitoring
Frequency
Duration
Monitoring
Responsibility
following years)
Panel of Experts
Community
Satisfaction
• Attitudes of PAPs to the land
acquisition process – observation and
feed back collected through interviews.
• Attitudes of PAPs to the activities
living standards restoration -
observation and feed back collected
through interviews.
• Attitudes of PAPs to the activities of
livelihood and income restoration -
observation and feed back collected
through interviews.
• Attitudes of stakeholders to public
consultation – observation and feed
back collected through interviews.
Ongoing From Land
Acquisition to
RAP
Completion
EnerjiSA Field
Representatives and
Social-Environmental
Group

A three-person panel
of independent
academician experts
Public
Consultation
and Grievance
• PAPs understanding of land acquisition
and compensation process -
observation and feed back collected
through interviews.
• Types of grievances – number of
lodged and closed grievances and
outcomes.
Ongoing From Land
Acquisition to
RAP
Completion
EnerjiSA Community
Liaisons and Social-
Environmental Unit

Panel of Experts


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 63
8 BUDGET

As IFC states in Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, “the RAP budget must
include a justification of all assumptions made in calculating compensation rates and
other cost estimates and must take into account both physical and cost contingencies.”

In line with World Bank/IFC’s description in this chapter the detailed budget tables show
actual and planned costs for all resettlement activities including development,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of RAP and other contingencies. Timetables
for expenditures; sources of funds; and arrangements for timely flow of funds are also
shown. The table shows the total cost and unit cost per household during the planning,
implementation and monitoring stages.
8.1 COSTS FOR RAP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Costs for RAP development and implementation can be listed as:

Land acquisition administration costs of EnerjiSA;
Consultancy services for social impact studies and RAP implementation;
Land acquisition payments including privately owned lands and compensation ;
Resettlement and transportation of PAPs (1 from Hacınınolu);
Contingency for potential extra land acquisition costs over the life time of the
Hacınınolu Project; and
Costs for Grievances Mechanisms & Procedures.

All budgeted costs shown in Table 8-1 are met by EnerjiSA. Costs planned for
development and implementation of RAP include not only the payments done until now
but also planned budget for forthcoming expenses that will/may occur during
construction and operation processes. In addition to these direct costs, RAP budget
involves management costs. Accordingly, total cost for RAP (excluding acquisition cost
for forestry lands, and costs for monitoring and evaluation activities) between September
2007 and 2012 was budgeted as $ 878.444,25. Unit Cost for RAP was calculated as
$ 16.893,16 including land acquisition costs per household affected by the Hacınınolu
Project.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 64

Table 8-1: Cost Table of RAP Development and Implementation
ITEMS TOTAL TL TOTAL $*
PERIOD OF
EXPENDITURE
SOURCE OF
FUNDING
Consultancy Services (Survey studies,
SIA, and RAP implementation) 53.118,00 34.269,67 Jan 2009 to Apr 2009 EnerjiSA
Land Acquisition Administration Costs
(Valuation, title deed registration, cadastral
fees, stamp tax) 78.575,61 50.693,94 2007-2009 EnerjiSA
Land Acquisition of Privately Owned
Lands 106.4814,55 686.977,13 2007-2008 EnerjiSA
Compensation Fees for Usufruct Users
(Been Road) 36.904,65 23.809,45 EnerjiSA
Transport and settlement of 1 PAP to a new
site 4.395,00 2.835,48 2007-2008 EnerjiSA
TOTAL BUDGET 1.237.807,81 798.585,68
Contingency 123.780,78 79.858,57 2007-2012 EnerjiSA
TOTAL RAP BUDGET 1.361.588,59 878.444,25
*Exchange used was 1.55 USD to TL (Central Bank of Turkey February 2009)

8.2 COSTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Total cost of monitoring and evaluation issues of RAP was budgeted as $ 25806,4 as
detailed in Table 8-2. As stated in Chapter 7, internal monitoring and evaluation activities
will be realized by EnerjiSA and external monitoring and evaluation activities will be
realized by an independent team of experts.

Table 8-2: Cost Table of RAP Monitoring and Evaluation

TOTAL TL
TOTAL
$
PERIOD OF
EXPENDITURE
SOURCE OF
FUNDING
RAP MONITORING
AND EVALUATION
Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
External Monitoring 40.000,00 20.000,00 10.000 10.000
25806,4

3 years
(2009-2012)
EnerjiSA
TOTAL 40.000 20.000 10.000 10.000
25806,4

EnerjiSA

8.3 PROJECT FINANCING

All costs for RAP development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation will be paid
by EnerjiSA in addition to staff and administrative costs. The price stated for the valuation
of lands owned by private and public landowners and payments of crop compensation to
landowners/land users are discussed in Chapter 4. Payments for permanent land
acquisition and assets compensation were paid directly to the owners prior to land entry
of EnerjiSA.


Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 65
9 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Activities mentioned in the Implementation Schedule of Hacınınolu HEPP Project were
grouped as construction, RAP implementation, operation and monitoring activities,
which defines activities of land acquisition, preparation of the RAP, valuation of affected
assets, consultation and disclosure of the RAP, resettlement activities, developing and
implementing monitoring and evaluation activities and implementation of CIP
(Community Investment Program). These activities run throughout the periods of pre-
construction, construction and operation.

For Hacınınolu HEPP Project, preparation of the RAP started concurrently with the land
acquisition process of affected lands. EnerjiSA consulted with affected people one by one
on values stated by Kahramanmara CAE during 2008 and started to resettle the one
house affected by the project. Consultation and disclosure with affected population and
related public institutions started when EnerjiSA took over the project from ERE 2007.
However; meetings were also arranged during EIA preparation process so as to inform
local people about the project between the years 2000 and 2007.

For land acquisition, negotiations were scheduled for private and public landowners and
additionally for usufruct land users between 2007 and 2008. Payments for land and other
assets were paid after negotiation with affected people and legal procedures for title deed
registrations and taking over were realized.

Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Activities will be followed by EnerjiSA during
negotiation, land acquisition, construction and operation processes and it is planned that
external monitoring activities will be followed by an independent team of experts every
six months along two years.

Hacınınolu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 66
REFERENCES

BTC Project Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), Turkey EIA Final Report (2002)
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9006630&contentId=7013811

The Equator Principles, available on the website
http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/Equator_Principles.pdf

IFC (1998) A Good Practice Manual: Doing Better Business through Effective Public
Consultation and Disclosure, available on the website
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_pubconsult/$FILE/P
ublicConsultation.pdf

IFC (2007) Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social & Environmental
Sustainability, available on the website
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/GuidanceNotes

Kahramanmara Tarım l Müdürlüü (2008) Çalıma Raporu

The World Bank Operational Manual, (2001) Operational Policies, OP 4.12
Involuntary Resettlement, available on the website
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTFORESTS/Resources/OP412.pdf

World Bank, Stakeholder Analysis, available on the website
http://go.worldbank.org/EWEVXGTDP0

Scoones, Ian. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working
Paper 72, June 1998. Available on the website
www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp72.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT AFFECTED REGIONS AND SETTLEMENTS (VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND OBAS) SCOPE OF RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN

6
6 7 8 8 11

2
2.1

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

13
13

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5
2.2 2.3

2.2.1 THE IFC POLICIES 2.2.2 THE EQUATOR PRINCIPLES

WORLD BANK / IFC POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ENERJISA’S CORPORATE POLICY

TURKISH CONSTITUTION THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CUSTOMARY LAND RIGHTS EXPROPRIATION LAW FORESTS AND TREASURY LANDS SUB-DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

13 13 14 15 16

16 17

16

18

3
3.1 3.2 3.3

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AFFECTED POPULATIONS
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFFECTED PEOPLE

20
20 21 22

3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4
3.4 3.5 3.6

AFFECTED ASSETS OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS CHARACTERISTICS OF VULNERABLE GROUPS

22 22 25 25
26 27 28

4
4.1 4.2 4.3

LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
GENERAL LAND ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

30
30 30 30

4.3.1 PUBLIC OWNED LANDS 4.3.2 PRIVATELY OWNED LANDS 4.3.3 USUFRUCT LANDS
4.4 4.5 4.6 VALUATION

30 31 33
34

4.4.1 VALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR IMMOVABLE ASSETS 4.4.2 CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND COMPENSATION MINIMIZATION OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS ACQUISITION

35 36
39 40

Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP

April 2009

1

5
5.1 5.2 5.3

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACTS ON IMMOVABLE ASSETS IMPACTS ON PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT

41
43

5.1.1 IMPACTS 5.1.2. MITIGATION MEASURES

43 44

5.2.1 IMPACTS 5.2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES

45 47 48

45

5.3.1 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT: WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE LOCAL PEOPLE 5.3.2 INFRASTRUCTURAL BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT AT COMMUNITY LEVEL: IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS ROAD AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY 5.3.3 ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT AT COMMUNITY LEVEL: CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL ECONOMY 6
6.1

48

49 50 51
51

PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE
PUBLIC CONSULTATION

6.1.1 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION 6.1.2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (PUBLIC PARTICIPATION) 6.1.3 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE
6.2 6.3 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

52 53 55

56 57

7
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

MONITORING AND EVALUATION
RAP MONITORING FRAMEWORK INTERNAL MONITORING EXTERNAL MONITORING RAP COMPLETION AUDIT STAFF AND RESPONSIBILITIES

58
58 59 59 60 60

8
8.1 8.2 8.3

BUDGET
COSTS FOR RAP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROJECT FINANCING

63
63 64 64

9

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

65

REFERENCES

66

Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP

April 2009

2

Appendix 1: Overview Map of the Project Location Appendix 2: Protocol Agreement with Special Provincial Administration of Kahramanmara Appendix 3: Permission for Use of Forestry Land Appendix 4: Household Questionnaire Appendix 5: Census of Affected Persons and Assets Appendix 6: Compensation and Replacement Value data by Household Appendix 7: Preliminary Meeting Minutes Appendix 8: Meeting Report Form Appendix 9: Community Brochure Appendix 10: Grievance Form Appendices Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 3 .

When EnerjiSA took over the Project from ERE it continued the land acquisition process. EnerjiSA also designed and implemented a community development project to improve the quality and reliability of village drinking water. as did ERE. the Office of Land Registration has spent a year preparing and completing the cadastral surveys. numerous consultative processes to inform the affected communities and households of the Project as well as its land acquisition activities. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 4 .ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been prepared by PAR Consulting with valuable inputs from a large number of EnerjiSA staff. To facilitate the acquisition of land. the Project was designed by ERE. First. and a number of land acquisition activities have taken place by it. It has assured the affected communities that EnerjiSA’s objective was to replace and improve incomes. It also carried out. The Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan (LARAP) summarized in this report has been under implementation for several years.

893. RAP also provides an insight into the actions taken during the period of May 2007 – February 2009 and highlights the mitigation measures to be taken subsequent to the RAP study carried out within the affected settlements. of this amount they lost little over 5 300 sqm. in consultation with a major local NGO (Chambers of Agricultural Engineers). A predominant number of affected parcels were owned by one person only. Of these 18 belong to the treasury but were cultivated by villagers who also received compensation. A total of 90 parcels of land belonged to the affected households (about 2 parcels per household). given the small number of affected households the difference is not statistically significant. the Project’s impacts on affected communities as well as affected households were modest. However. 1 A total of 245 077 sqm of land has been acquired for the Project from 51 families that lost land. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 5 . The affected households received $ 16. Affected households lost. The resettlement impacts of the Project are minor with only one household to be physically displaced. 25 percent of their land holdings. • • • • Most of the land needed for the Project belongs to the Forest Department and the Treasury. The 37 households interviewed (among the 51 that lost land) owned an average of 21 602 sqm of land1. A community development initiative consisted of the improvement of potable water and was designed and implemented through full participation of affected communities.44 slight smaller than the average obtained from the 37 households interviewed.805. Only 11 percent of affected households lost 51-75 percent of their land and 16 percent lost over 76 percent of their holdings. By all standards.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was prepared to describe the framework and procedures followed in the acquisition and compensation of land and other assets affected by Hacınıno lu Weir and Hydroelectric Power Plant (HEPP) in the three affected rural settlements. • • • All affected lands were acquired through willing buyer/willing seller procedures at prices well above the valuation conducted by an independent firm. Only 52 households lost immovable assets. This gives an average affected household loss of 4. Private parcels affected were limited to 11 percent of all households in the affected communities. of these one lost a home built on treasury lands. Those losing up to 50 percent constituted 19 percent of the affected households. Most (54 percent) households lost less than 25 percent.16 for the small amount of land that they lost. on average.

1

INTRODUCTION

This Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was prepared to describe the framework and procedures followed in the acquisition and compensation of land and other assets affected by Hacınıno lu Weir and Hydroelectric Power Plant (HEPP) in the three affected rural settlements. RAP also provides an insight into the actions taken during the period of May 2007 – February 2009 and highlights the mitigation measures to be taken subsequent to the RAP study carried out with the affected settlements. The sections below: Analyze the legislative approach followed during land acquisition; Describe the socio-economic profile of the affected settlements through household questionnaires and in-depth interviews; Provide a census of affected private and communal assets; Provide information on attitudes towards the Project and priority areas for local assistance; Identify current and potential Project impacts and areas of intervention; Design monitoring and evaluation framework for land acquisition and income restoration; and Prepare a Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action budget. 1.1 BACKGROUND

Hydro-power is one of the prominent sources of renewable energy. It is also important for Turkey as it seeks to meet the energy demand in a cost efficient, reliable and sustainable manner. In the energy sector, the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Model was introduced in 1984 in order to facilitate private sector involvement. In addition with the accession process to the European Union, the Turkish energy legislation was harmonized with the corresponding European Communities’ legislation and the ‘Electricity Market Law’ numbered 4628 was enacted in 2001 to enable progress into a liberalized electricity market and to provide for fair and transparent market regulation. In 2004, feasibility studies were carried out under the name Kandil Energy Group Projects (KEGP) for four dams and HEPP projects on Ceyhan River. The licenses of the KEGP were first bought by the ERE Elektrik Üretim ve Da ıtım Sanayi ve Ticaret A. . and then sold to EnerjiSA. Hacınıno lu is one of these four projects of the KEGP to be built and operated by EnerjiSA for 49 years. In addition to its contribution to the Turkish economy and energy market, operation of Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP will create new opportunities in the region, including employment during its construction and operation phases.
Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 6

1.2

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP will have an installed power of 142 MW and produce an annual average of 372 GWh Energy. This value is approximately 24 percent of the total energy targeted (1.525,03 GWh) for the KEGP, which has a total of 501,60 MW installed power. It will provide a total energy of nearly 1050 GWh/year. A map illustrating the Project-affected area is shown in Figure 1-1. An overview map showing the Project location is included in Appendix 1.

Fig 1-1 Map Illustrating the HEPP on the Project Site

The project components include a weir, small reservoir, power tunnel, power plant, switchyard, electricity transmission lines and access roads. The scope of the RAP covers all components of the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP with the exception of the transmission lines; as the transmission route is not yet identified but if any land is needed for it relevant IFC policies will be applied. Three new access roads are required to establish the project. These are referred to throughout the document as: • • • Be en Road: Connects Be en village to the Power Plant; Kısık Road: Links Be en, Kertmen and Hacınıno lu villages (subject to final design); The Hacınıno lu Right Bank Road: Connects Hacınıno lu and Kertmen to the Weir.

Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP

April 2009

7

1.3

BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT

In addition to its importance for the energy sector in Turkey, the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP project has benefits for the local economy and local communities whether they are directly affected2 by the project or not. The benefits of the project can be classified as follows: • Work opportunity for the local communities: With the pre-construction phase of the Project, need for skilled and unskilled labor emerged. Currently 88 people out of 250 working for the project are from local settlements. These local people are working for EnerjiSA and for different contractor firms. All local people like the rest of the employees are registered workers and are covered by social insurance scheme3. It is expected that approximately 150 people will be employed during the construction period and 15 people will be employed throughout the operations. The local workforce will have the opportunity to develop their skills and thus their chances for employment in similar jobs elsewhere in the country will be substantially enhanced. Improvement in infrastructure: EnerjiSA will improve infrastructure in the area. There are three road projects planned to be built in collaboration with Special Provincial Administration (SPA) of Kahramanmara . The road to the HEPP area, which is passing through Be en village, and the road from the weir area to the HEPP area, which follows the river, will shorten the distance and the travel time of the people living in the region while they go to Ilıca and Kahramanmara . Moreover this new road will be less affected from harsh weather conditions during winters. Support for local economy: EnerjiSA procures some food, such as bread and yoghurt, to meet the daily needs of the construction site from nearby villages. These are brought daily and regularly and provide support for the local economy. In addition, some of the employees for the project stay in apartment hotels in Ilıca, a local thermal spring touristic center. This provides support to the local economy as otherwise the tourist season in Ilıca is limited to 3 months of summer.

1.4 AFFECTED REGIONS AND SETTLEMENTS (VILLAGE COMMUNITIES AND OBAS4) In accordance with the National Legal Framework and World Bank/IFC Standards, EnerjiSA aims at minimizing adverse impacts of the Project to local communities from the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project. Turkish legislation protects rights of people who lose their lands and assets as a result of similar investment projects. The WB/IFC Performance
2 3

4

Affected communities are those that will lose land and/or other immovable assets to facilitate the construction of the Project In Turkey unregistered employment is common and especially in construction sector, contractors usually employ people without registering them to social security schemes. Most of the employees are part of a social security scheme for the first time in their life. In the Project area, villages consist of small clusters which, are locally referred to as obas.

Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP

April 2009

8

00 12 370. Physical displacement is defined as the actual physical relocation of people resulting in a loss of shelter. For IFC. In such cases5.00 53 245.000. productive assets or access to productive assets (such as land. EnerjiSA recognized in its land acquisition activities that willing buyer/seller negotiation is the best option. however. where the willing sellers / confront difficulties in handling land acquisition through negotiations. provides further guidance to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to local communities. physical and economic. the Government agency in charge of the energy sector can declare public interest and expropriate the land within the national legal framework. they can be acquired through willing buyer/seller arrangement. and Be en) are affected by the construction of the weir. and forests) whereas the economic displacement refers to an action that interrupts or eliminates people’s access to productive assets without physically relocating the people themselves (IFC. 2006. The Project acquired both public and private lands as shown in Table 1-1 to establish the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project.27 35 701. There are instances. such as when there is dispute among owners. there are two types of displacements. A total of 3 obas located within the border of 3 villages (Hacınıno lu. p. HEPP and the road network being developed. water. which broadens the understanding of the rights of project affected populations.250. 2002). One of the potential adverse impacts which should be carefully appraised through social assessment concerns impacts arising from the involuntary taking of land of the households living in the vicinity of the Project. Table 1-1: Distribution of the Lands Required for Hacınıno lu Project Type of Land Required Treasury Land Forestry Land Privately-owned Land TOTAL Size of the Land Portion of Lands within Acquired the Total Acquired (m2) (%) 86. However. Most (53 percent) of the land required for the Project belongs to the Forestry Department whereas the percentage of the privately owned land is relatively low (See Table 1-1).18).27 100 The rural settlements affected by the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project remain in the jurisdiction of one district center within Kahramanmara Province. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 9 .Standards.327. In these circumstances.077. The land acquisition process is considered as involuntary when affected individuals or communities do not have the right to refuse land acquisition resulting in displacement (IFC PS 5. Land acquisition in a project might lead to displacement for the local communities. Kertmen. 5 The most typical case involves disputed land deeds. expropriation is not the only way of land acquisition for the privately-owned parcels. lands can be acquired through expropriation in accordance with the national legal legislation.

Table 1-3: Total and Affected Households by Community Villages Total # of HHs # of Affected Households 2 27 23 52 Portion of the Affected Households within communities (% total households in each community) 2 17 12 11 Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en TOTAL 125 160 200 485 Although the obas are relatively far from each other.077.812. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 10 . The owners were compensated for assets existing on their properties including crops. In the context of the total number of households in each village. and fruit growing primarily for household consumption. the main economic activity for affected households is subsistence crop production. only 11 percent of the households in these settlements were affected by the land acquisition process (See Table 1-3). For the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project. Accordingly.84 99. Table 1-2 shows the number of affected parcels by settlement. fertile and large agricultural lands because the topography is extremely hilly and land is mostly stony. EnerjiSA acquired all private land through willing seller/buyer arrangement. Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project required the purchase of 90 privately owned parcels affecting 52 households. Tenancy or squatting is not observed in these villages.Table 1-2: Project-Affected Settlements and Households Province Settlements (Villages) Hacınıno lu Kahramanmara Kertmen Be en Obas Central Oba Tilkiler Oba Türközü Oba Total Size of Privately-owned Affected Land (m2) # of Affected Parcels # of Affected Households 14. These villages do not have sufficient irrigable. the current agriculture activities are based on wheat and barley production. Negotiation between EnerjiSA and landowners was the basic tool for the purchase of lands. The scattered mode of settlement helps minimize the number of both publicly and privately owned parcels purchased and thus minimizes the area of total affected land and number of affected structures. The Project required the physical displacement of only one household in Kertmen village. The basic reason why negotiations were successful is due to high level of payments well over the fair method of valuation conducted by independent parties of the affected assets and land.32 130.790.474. For this reason. orchards and structures well above current market values.11 245.27 5 51 34 90 2 27 23 52 These villages are forestry villages that are composed of several quarters (“oba”s) which are relatively far from each other. houses are clustered in Hacınıno lu and Kertmen.

The land and other immovable assets of this household were purchased.5 SCOPE OF RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN Scope of the RAP developed and implemented for the Hacınıno lu Project covered the following key components: • • • Determination of the Project-affected area and assets. Description of institutional arrangements for implementation. Although. Land Acquisition impacts attributable to the Project are considered as minor as the vast majority of affected households (with the exception of one) were not obliged to be physically displaced and the land purchase is limited to a few parcels among 11 percent of affected communities’ households. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 11 . This included one household which was physically displaced. interviews with a majority sample of project-affected land owners. The purpose of the RAP is to describe how impacts to livelihoods were implemented and how monitoring will be undertaken to ensure the mitigation is successful. as well as the affected owners and tenants/users. The chapters below give details of these activities as follows: Chapter Two describes the national legal framework considered for land acquisition. Description of the legal framework. Arrangements for monitoring and implementation. 1. and ii) facilitating work opportunities within EnerjiSA and its Contractor. in accordance with IFC PS 5. • • • • • RAP-related activities that have already been completed to date and those planned were surveyed. valuation of assets and description of compensation and other resettlement assistance to be provided. analyzed and reported. EnerjiSA has helped build another residential unit for this household. Completion of the land acquisition process including public consultation. minimized the adverse project affects on affected people through two major actions: i) compensation at values substantially higher than independent valuation levels. Procedures for grievance redress. 79 percent of affected households lost more than 10 percent of their land only a few lost most of their land holdings. resettlement and compensation processes and World Bank/IFC Policies and Equator Principles to be adopted in these issues. and Preparation of implementation schedule and the budget.All of the affected households accepted the offer made by EnerjiSA and there was no need to carry out expropriation procedures for the parcels required to establish the Weir and HEPP facilities. EnerjiSA. Conduct of a socio-economic survey of the affected persons in the 3 affected rural settlements.

Chapter Three provides detailed information about the socio-economic characteristics of the project-affected populations interviewed with a brief socio-economic baseline of the projectaffected region. including valuation of assets. building. Chapter Five presents the current and future impacts attributable to the Project and areas of intervention with appropriate mitigation measures for loss of immovable assets including productive assets. including the provision of a mechanism for grievances and dispute resolution. and infrastructure. and Chapter Nine presents the schedule for RAP implementation along with the details of implementation responsibilities. with regard to recent Turkish legislation. Chapter Eight details RAP costs and the budget actualized for all works carried out through the acquisition process and its following steps. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 12 . compensation and consultation. including the provision for expert monitoring. land acquisition. Chapter Six explains the public consultation and disclosure processes and activities to be carried out within the context of RAP. Chapter Four describes the land acquisition procedures followed by EnerjiSA and the implementation process. Chapter Seven outlines the monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the RAP.

In order to benefit from expropriating public lands and assets. 6 The affected household has already settled elsewhere in the community. when land is acquired by a second party. Even in the case of expropriation of private lands and assets which are acquired for public interest. In case of agricultural lands in Turkey. includes important elements to protect the public interests and private property during the process of expropriation. The Project affects only one residential unit6. thus physical displacement was avoided. Traditions often hinder women’s ability to exercise their entitlements. The right of ownership through usufruct is also recognized by modern law under certain circumstances. More common is the recognition of the rights of users/cultivators. private users should pay compensation to the public at large. however.1 NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK 2. 2. This chapter therefore covers the Turkish national legal framework as well as the relevant World Bank / IFC Performance Standards. the cultivation of family land is carried out by men residing in the affected communities. public agencies are required to pay the value of the expropriated assets to a private bank account in advance of land appropriation and project construction. when. for instance. There is limited female ownership of land in the Project area. It is common practice to distribute land among male heirs. Article 46 of the Turkish Constitution allows expropriation of property for public interest.1.1. a formal title for holding these lands is a relatively recent development. 4721.2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK This chapter focuses on legal framework of land acquisition. amended in 2001. 2. The Turkish Civil Code Law No. provides equal rights of inheritance to all successors regardless of their gender and age. the land is used for 20 years without any dispute or interruption by the same person or the family. some female heirs ask for their share of the sale revenue. Often.2 The Legal Framework and Customary Land Rights Customary land rights are recognized by modern laws to a certain extent. EMRA (Energy Market Regulatory Authority) is the relevant public authority to determine public interest. EnerjiSA has facilitated the building of a new residence. as amended in October 2001.1 Turkish Constitution The Turkish Constitution. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 13 . In case of this Project. Since the adverse Project impacts are limited to land acquisition this chapter deals with the acquisition rather than a resettlement process.

SPA is the administrative body for expropriation for provincial roads. while the Project Proponent would pay the determined price of land and other assets as well as the administration costs of acquisition.3 Expropriation Law In accordance with the constitution all expropriation processes are conducted according to the Expropriation Law (No. A decision of Public Interest is necessary for expropriation of any immovable asset to be carried out. If it cannot be completed within six months an official permission is required to extend the right of expropriation.. The land parcels used for the auxiliary facilities (e. This exception made it possible for the affected households to receive cash compensation well over the prices that would have been paid by public agencies. It also stated that valuation of the land would be based on independent review. In order to establish the Be en road the Project Proponent (at that time ERE) signed a protocol agreement with SPA to undertake the land acquisition on their behalf (Appendix 2). The Protocol Agreement stated that SPA would co-ordinate the permissions required by the Government for building the road. Only public agencies are allowed to acquire land as a result of decision of Public Interest.g. Letters of Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 14 . The Law requires that the valuation process is completed and certified attempts are carried out to negotiate the transfer of the ownership or use rights. The land acquisition for Hacınıno lu Project was primarily purchased through willing buyer/seller negotiations. For energy projects a decision of Public Interest is taken by EMRA in accordance with Article 5 of the Expropriation Law. This is because public agencies cannot make payment over the valuation they receive from the Chambers of Agricultural Engineers. The Expropriation Law was therefore not applied except possible for a small number of private land parcels (subject to final design). It is necessary to complete related expropriations within six months after the decision of Public Interest is taken. The exemption EnerjiSA received allowed equitable for all affected persons. as described below. an exception was applied in the case of the Be en road through Protocol Agreement. This ensured an efficient process as well as the application of the same valuation methods and process that were used for the acquisition of land needed for the core component of the Project. 4650). The disputes among owners or heirs on their shares will not stop this process since the public authority has the right to appeal to the court to allow expropriation.1. 2942) amended in 2001 (No. roads) were expropriated by a public agency. The expropriation law sets time for determining public interest and ensures that affected people are paid in full before the land changes hands. In the case of the Project. and full payment in cash is made to the personal bank accounts of the titleholders.2. In this case the value of the land is held in an interest earning bank account to be paid once the courts determine the entitled land holders.

Section 2. ponds and cemeteries. energy. education and sports facilities and related places in governmental forest areas. The legal framework for acquiring the public lands is described in the next section. Provided that public interest is decreed. The other roads to be constructed. The private lands will be acquired by SPA as they require sub-division of agricultural lands. The General Directorate of Forestry determined the value according to the method described in Chapter 4. infrastructure facilities and solid waste disposal sites. • Declared to be in the public interest by EMRA.consent were signed between the Project Proponent and the landowners to enable the road to pass through their lands. Compensation was paid accordingly as described in Chapter 4. governmental health. With reference to Article 60 of Part 12 of the Regulation about Permissions given for Forestry Lands (Principles of Valuation) EnerjiSA paid the determined value which included the costs of reforestation.1.4. petroleum. 4628) energy companies in Turkey have been granted rights of use the reservoir areas of dams that are owned by the Treasury without payment provided that an energy project is: • Based on renewable sources. The use will be granted based upon site inspection. communication.1. During operations a yearly rental is paid to the Treasury Department for the land impacted by the Project. the Kısık road and the Hacınıno lu Right Bank Road will likely affect private as well as Treasury and Forestry lands. sanatoriums.5 describes the legal framework and process for acquiring agricultural lands that will be sub-divided. 5346) made to Law on Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources for the Purpose of Generating Electrical Energy (No. A copy of the Permission for Use of Forestry Land is provided in Appendix 3. 2. In order to acquire Treasury lands EnerjiSA is required to apply to EMRA to determine public interest. In accordance with a temporary amendment (No. transportation.1. wastewater.” In accordance with this clause EnerjiSA applied for the required licenses from the General Directorate of Forestry. water supply. natural gas. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 15 . permission costs for the facilities and lands and costs of the guarantee.4 Forests and Treasury Lands The law offering adjustments in the Forestry Law no: 5192 (Official Gazette dated 3 July 2004 and numbered 25511) for the facilities located in the forest areas states that “in case of public benefit or exigency concerning the location or construction of defense. real and legal persons can be licensed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) in return for the determined value. EnerjiSA is eligible to apply to the Treasury Department for the use of these lands. • Completed by 2012.5. Section 4. dams.

or minimized.12 are taken into account: (a) Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible. As described above. Considering these core issues. the acquisition of these small sections of land results in the creation of land parcels that are less than 20 decares. Therefore it is not expected that the land parcels of less than 20 decares will affect production in the area. that these lands would therefore be acquired through SPA to enable the acquisition of the small land areas required. 2. exploring all viable alternative project designs.1. the Performance Standard 5 Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement issued on April 2006 and IFC’s Handbook on Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan utilized in the preparation of RAP. The main objective of these documents is to ensure that potential adverse impacts on the community are mitigated through planning and that appropriate measures are undertaken so that any people displaced as a result of a specific project financed by the World Bank Group receive benefits from the project.2. 5578) law in Turkey stipulates that agricultural plots of land cannot be sub-divided into areas of less than 20 decares ( 1 decare = 1000 m2) if uncultivated. As the land requirement is so small. EnerjiSA did not wish to purchase the entire private parcels adjacent to the road to minimize the extent of impact. However.2 WORLD BANK / IFC POLICIES AND GUIDELINES Since the project is partly funded by a consortium of banks. just the small sub-divided sections that it requires. 2. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 16 . EnerjiSA took into consideration certain basic documents of World Bank Group Policies and Guidelines.2. Due to the legal requirement however. EnerjiSA has a requirement to acquire very small areas of land to construct the Kısık and Hacınıno lu Right Bank Road. the following policy objectives of OP 4. These were Operational Policy 4. The farming in this area is primarily subsistence or small scale production.12 issued on December 2001. it has to comply with the World Bank Group/IFC Policies as well as the Equator Principles. It was determined in consultation with villagers. the acquisition of the land cannot be undertaken through willing buyer/seller negotiation. this road will be managed under the administration of SPA upon its completion. The policies and principles related to land acquisition are described.1 The IFC Policies For social aspects of the Project.5 Sub-division of Agricultural Land The Protection of Agricultural Land (No.

Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 17 . Considering these issues. whichever is higher. depreciation of structures and assets should not be taken into account. (c) Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them. Thus it is necessary to facilitate equivalent and socially and culturally acceptable resources and opportunities. OP 4. through open and transparent negotiations with affected households at prices well over the levels determined by an independent firm and a NGO.1) As involuntary resettlement is unavoidable for Hacınıno lu HEPP Project. EnerjiSA paid compensation at full replacement cost7 for the loss of assets as a result of the Project.12. In addition to providing compensation for the lost assets. in real terms. the Project Owner should focus on the improving or at least restoration of the livelihood and standards of living of displaced persons. Displaced persons should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs. not have eligible formal or legal titles to land but are affected by the project.12. customers and suppliers and areas used for fishing or grazing. to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation.and cover transaction costs. In applying this method of valuation. where domestic law does not meet the standard of compensation at full replacement cost. Resettlement assistance is also important to focus on other kinds of losses like access to public services. compensation under domestic law is supplemented by additional measures necessary to meet the replacement cost standard. p. it also met all the transaction costs.2. OP 4. as the requirement of WB Policy and IFC’s PS 5.2 The Equator Principles 7 Replacement Cost is the method of valuation of assets that helps determine the amount sufficient to replace lost assets –market value of the affected assets. In order to meet this requirement. providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share in project benefits. vulnerable groups should be considered within compensation plans since they might not be included in national legal frameworks.12 requires that such an absence of legal titles should not hinder compensation for such people. paid compensation. the Policy stresses that the Project Owner should focus on the needs of the poorest groups among those displaced.(b) Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement. These people may for example. According to OP 4. EnerjiSA. As well as the poorest groups. resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs. Furthermore. EnerjiSA has also conceived the resettlement process as an opportunity for improving the livelihood of the affected people. 2.”(WB.

local residents and communities.. The EPs state that for projects with significant adverse impacts on affected communities. which was issued in 2006 and developed for determining. assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing. NGOs. The standards will be used for the assessment of the risks and impacts resulting from the project and will also be assessed in compliance with the national laws and regulations. p. mitigated and/or compensated for appropriately (EP. EnerjiSA that is committed to being the Turkey’s premier Energy Company as stated in the Quality Policy intends to build and operate environment friendly and highly efficient plants in order to contribute to the development of the society.3). projects should be classified according to possible risks and impacts and then the applicable social and environmental standards of IFC. 2. they point out the significance of the Principles to the borrowers. whether a project has adequately incorporated affected communities’ concerns (EP. which will help to describe necessary actions for implementation of mitigation measures.3 ENERJISA’S CORPORATE POLICY The general corporate policies of EnerjiSA comprises of five major and mutually complementary policies which are as follows: Management Policy.1). 2006. Accordingly.The Equator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) adopted a group of principles. and if these impacts are unavoidable. Human Resources Policy. Environmental Policy and Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Policy. The Plan has been developed to describe how to engage governmental stakeholders. so as to ensure that the projects financed by the EPFIs are socially and environmentally responsible. to the satisfaction of the EPFI. It Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 18 . as a prerequisite of internationally recognized policies and standards. In this respect EnerjiSA will meet all Turkish legal and IFC/World Bank requirements to ensure that land acquisition activities have as minimal an impact as is possible. EnerjiSA’s environmental policy relates not only to the physical environment but also the social environment in which its activities are undertaken. and other interest groups in all phases of a proposed Project. 2006. Quality Policy. prior and informed consultation and facilitate their informed participation as a means to establish. the process will ensure their free. In this respect undertaking activities in an environmentally friendly manner requires undertaking activates with least impact to villages affected by EnerjiSA Projects. In addition EnerjiSA has a corporate plan for ensuring the engagement of stakeholders. media. p. as the party responsible for the planning and implementation of the Project activities so that negative impacts on project-affected ecosystems and communities can be avoided where possible. they should be reduced. Hacınıno lu Hydroelectrical Power Plant Project has been carried out in compatible with the main goal. According to the EPs. This assessment is needed to design and implement project specific action plans and management systems.

” In preparing the Plan. EnerjiSA took account of the public consultation and disclosure guidelines set out in IFC’s “Doing Better Business through Effective Public Consultation and Disclosure – A Good Practice Manual” (October 1998).“is an ongoing. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 19 . multi-faceted plan designed to inform and consult with project affected people and other project affected groups about the Project and its potential impacts on an ongoing and constructive manner. Details on the public consultation and disclosure process are given under Section 6. Stakeholder engagement as part of the land acquisition at Hacınıno lu was and will continue to be undertaken in accordance with the Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

The soil types vary from clay and silt-clay to sand-silt. making profitable production infeasible.3 3. rockiness and topography. the land is classified as category four and category five among the agricultural land categories. construction of weir. rather one oba from each village is affected (Table 3-1). No entire villages are affected by the Project. low potential for the use of farm machinery and thus low crop yields. The villages of Hacınıno lu. Kertmen and Be en comprise several separate obas three of which are directly affected by the reservoir area and other auxiliary facilities of the HEPP. Crop farming activities are carried out on the upper hills and because of steepness. and a very small portion of plots formed by transported topsoil from elsewhere. The fragmented. The land ownership is scattered and fragmented because of the topography and inheritance law. As a result. The project affected villages have small areas of irrigated land located in the river valleys and most of the horticultural production is undertaken in these areas. reservoir area Construction site Access road to power house Total # of obas 4 6 6 Total # of Affected obas 1 1 1 The villages affected from Hacınıno lu HEPP Project. The area is subject to the continental climate. are located in a mountainous area 85 km from the Kahramanmara city center. indicating low land use capability. and brown forest. As the areas are small the horticultural production is relatively low. Agricultural land is generally composed of alluvial soils deposited by rivers inside the valleys. The soil structure is formed by red-brown forest. However. Table 3-1: The Affected Settlements Villages Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Obas Central obas Tilkiler Türközü Reason of Impact Construction site. red-Mediterranean forest. the magnitude of the Project impact on these settlements varies according to the location and size of the Project component. scattered structure and small size of land inhibit the use of agricultural technology in the region. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 20 . This results in less yield and high costs per unit in agricultural production. terraces constructed by manpower on the hills. These features profoundly affect agricultural production and constrain the production pattern to a great extent. family farming and subsistence cropping is the dominant mode of production in the affected villages.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AFFECTED POPULATIONS SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project principally affect three villages located in the central district of Kahramanmara Province.

livelihoods. 2002). The dominant form of agricultural production is subsistence farming. 2002). not all household representatives could be contacted during the survey period. social. productive assets or access to productive assets (such as land. Therefore landowners and land users coincide. Indicators on demographic. as well as attitudes towards the HEPP Project were included in the questionnaire. The scope of the survey covered the people who are both physically8 and economically9 affected by Hacınıno lu HEPP Project. the number of land owners exceeded that of the households. other forms of cultivation such as tenancy/sharecropping farming are not undertaken. Table 3-2: Total numbers of Households affected and interviewed Villages Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Total Total # of Affected H/H 2 27 23 52 Total # of Interviewed H/H 2 25 17 44 % 100 93 74 85 A majority of interviewed households who undertake agricultural production in the village (47/50 in total) reside and cultivate within their village. a survey was conducted in the affected obas of the three villages. an initial site visit was carried out so as to obtain initial feedback and determine attitudes of the PAPs to the Project and land acquisition. 8 9 Physically-affected persons: IFC defined the concept of physical displacement as the actual physical relocation of people resulting in a loss of shelter. as a result a total of 85 percent of affected households were interviewed as shown in Table 3-2. There is only one household that lost their home attributable to the Project and had to be physically relocated in Kertmen. Since there were some cases where a household included more than one land owner. The first set of interviews with the headmen (muhtars) and some of the affected people enabled the development of the survey questionnaire (Appendix 4).2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY To understand the demographic characteristic and socio-economic profile of the PAPs. economic characteristics of the affected households. However. and household organization. including description of productive systems.3. water. The survey aimed to interview 100 percent of the Project affected households. and forests) (IFC. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 21 . Economically-affected persons: IFC conceptualized it as economic displacement and defined as an action that interrupts or eliminates people’s access to productive assets without physically relocating the people themselves (IFC. Prior to the survey.

The below table gives detailed information regarding the sizes of the households affected by the Hacınıno lu Project in the three villages: Table 3-3: Size of the Affected Households Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Total # of households 2 25 17 44 Household Size Mean Minimum 3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFFECTED PEOPLE 3. There are 62 men from the Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 22 .3. 53 percent (127 out of 240) of the affected population falls under the age group 15-64 and can be considered economically active.45.1 Characteristics of the Respondents Survey respondents were generally the male heads of households.5 2 6.3.2 Characteristics of the Households 3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Households Household Size The average household size is 5.2.56 3 4.3. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 give detailed information regarding the age distribution of the affected people. ranging from 1 to 10 and showing variation from one community to the other. a few of the questionnaires were answered by their sons (5 persons) and wife (1 person).45 Maximum 5 10 9 Age Distribution Concerning the age distribution of the 240 people affected by the Hacınıno lu Project in the three villages.3. 3. Table 3-4: Age Distribution of the Household Members Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Total Age # of the affected people 7 164 69 240 Median age 45 17 25 20 Table 3-5: Distribution of the Population of the Households by Age Groups Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Total 0-14 0 71 19 90 Age Groups 15-64 65-+ 6 1 84 9 37 13 127 23 Total 7 164 69 240 As seen from Table 3-5.06 1 5. the median age is 20.

the total number of PAPs on Table 7 is given as 200 since 40 are aged 0-6. whereas 43 people (22%) are literate with no formal education and 80 people (40%) are primary school graduates. Table 3-6: Education Levels of PAPs Education Secondary/ High school/ University University Literate but Villages Primary Vocational Vocational no formal Illiterate Total (4 years or Education School of school of equal (2 years) education higher) equal rank rank Hacınıno lu 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 7 Kertmen 29 32 55 11 3 1 0 131 Be en 26 9 22 5 0 0 0 62 Total 56 43 80 16 4 1 0 200* Percent 28 21.5 40 8 2 0. Of the 62 male members of the Project affected households in the three villages who can Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 23 . Among the 240 affected people. 52 percent are male and 48 percent are female. Figure 3-1: Sex distribution of the PAPs interviewed by village Educational Profile of Affected Households The education level of the interviewed households is low with 56 illiterate people (28%). Employment Status of the People within the Affected Households Information related to employment in the three project affected settlements is shown in Table 3-7.5 0 100 *Although the total population of the interviewed households number 240. Distribution of Sex by the Affected Households Among the 240 people affected by the Hacınıno lu HEPP Project. 40 are pre-school age children. There are differences between the three communities with respect to sex distribution as presented in Figure 3-1.affected households who can potentially work in Project some of which already do so. The education profile of individual communities is shown in Table 3-6.

who are not employed and seeking to be employed at the reference date. In addition. Most of the people falling under the category of worker had been producers before the construction of the project started. 11 Employment status refers to the status of an economically active person with respect to his or her employment. cafeteria works. Reference: EUROSTAT. Table 3-8: Sex-based Characteristics of the Unemployed People Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Total % # of unemployed 0 8 5 13 100 Male NA 6 4 10 77 # Female NA 2 1 3 23 Of particular importance for the Project is the fact that there are 22 people in the affected households who work in dam construction (and associated jobs). 10 (Ref. including tunnel works.be included in the workforce. construction work experience. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 24 . Table 3-9: Opportunities by Affected Households for Work in Dam Construction Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Total Households having a member working in the dam construction # 1 18 3 22 Households having a member who would like to work in the dam construction # 1 14 11 26 Discussions with the households having indicated that jobs are composed of construction and construction associated works. that is to say that the type of explicit or implicit contract of employment with other persons or organizations that the person has in his/her job. electrical works. computer literacy. Reference: EUROSTAT. office works. Table 3-7: Employment Status of the PAPs11 Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Total Employment Status Producer House wife Student Waged worker Retired Tradesman Unemployed Other Total 1 6 10 17 3 34 19 56 0 3 0 3 1 24 3 28 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 8 5 13 1 7 0 6 7 85 37 127 The distribution of the unemployed people among those affected by the project according to gender is given in Table 3-8 which shows most (77%) are male. Table 3-8) are unemployed10 and 1 is retired. 28 waged workers and 1 tradesman. Of the employed workforce there 17 are producers. and security. The potential workforce has qualifications of driving license. topographic works. and central heating system 10 According to TURKSTAT the term unemployed refers to those household members above the age 15. Table 3-9 shows the number of households that have members working in construction and those who would like to work in construction. 26 households have members who would like to work in dam construction.

is very significant.3 Economic Characteristics of the Households For economic analysis of the affected households. Total Family Income (TFI) was calculated by adding nonagricultural income to the GAI. Land fragmentation is high with each farmer holding an average of 6 different parcels. Affected households have small family farms. Therefore evaluations were made for 39 farms in the income section. Gross Production Value (GPV). Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 25 . 3. Gross Agricultural Income (GAI) and Variable Costs were calculated. The family members are the main source of labor on the farms. 2 producers did not want to answer those questions and the data from 2 questionnaires was not eligible for calculations. When demand for workforce is high collective work through contributions of other households is carried out (this is called “imece”). 3. and as such.6 da and 10 percent of this was irrigated12. GAI was calculated by subtracting variable cost from GPV. 14 percent for vegetable. This was also the case in the Project affected settlements. eleven of these members are producers and contribute to the household in-kind income. Age-based Vulnerable Groups: In Households that were interviewed. In this sense they are not dependent on the household.4 Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups This section provides information about existing vulnerabilities of people living in the region as well as any other groups that may potentially be disadvantaged in their access to compensation or benefits provided by the Project. These are all mixed and are used for both crop and animal production. but are contributors. GPV was obtained by multiplying total production with producer price. the culture is for elderly people to stay within the family contributing in different ways. In the affected households the average non agricultural income was stated to be $2 742 per annum. In the rural areas of Turkey. The gross agricultural income per capita was $966 and is 54% of the average per capita agricultural income for Turkey. The average size of cropland was 21.3. Of the total non-agricultural income 39 percent was from Project construction work. and 11 percent for vineyard. Gross Agricultural Income per household was $5 263 on an average farm for one year and 80 percent of this came from crop production. 11 percent for horticulture land. Although excluded from the employment group. for example through child care. Almost 64 percent of the farm land is used for crop land. household chores and farm work. The holdings are smaller when compared with Central District and Kahramanmara province for which the same figure is 45 decares and 62 decares respectively. 12 The questions related to income were answered by 41 affected farm owners.worker license. The average farm size is 22 decares. 23 household members were above the age of 65.3. The average Gross Total Family Income was $8 005 per annum.

Pasture land. etc. secondly. and a high rate of kin marriage within the villages and quarters. 3. especially in winter times. the families do not send their daughters to those schools. there are productive immovable assets such as land and fruit trees. lastly.4 AFFECTED ASSETS In a HEPP project. women living in Be en village cannot come together since the village is scattered and houses are so far from each other. there is infrastructure such as irrigation. barns. access roads and irrigation canals are examples of the publicly owned assets. In addition. It was however observed that in relation to the Project. It was also observed that. People stated that the reason was the lack of health services in the region. It was discussed during the interviews that woman may have less rights to their land share and income derived from their land. There are 3 women landowners and 3 women usufruct land users within the affected settlements. types of the affected assets have different characteristics.Gender-based Vulnerable Groups: Due to the fact that villages are so far from these centers. Some of these assets are owned by individuals and some of them are communal. since they cannot they get married at the ages of 15 and 16. while boys have the chance to go for further education. it was observed that women have obtained as much information about the Project as men have. They were disadvantaged in the following manner: if the land is not acquired they cultivate the land and keep much of the produce. when the land is sold. These people are either mentally or physically disabled and do not benefit from special care and education. During the household interviews and interviews with women. women stated that they do not have any disadvantage of getting information about the Project. First. women do not have any disadvantage in accessing information about the project. in villages of Hacınıno lu and Kertmen women come together for bread and pastry making and socialize during these activities. young girls stated that although they want to go have higher education and acquire a profession. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 26 . women living in Be en village also stated that they have difficulties in using their right of getting information about family planning and child-care due to lack of health services. Other Disadvantaged Groups: Landowners who shared compensation with others: There are 12 landowners (2 of which are women) who had to share their land acquisition compensation with other people. Handicapped People: Among the 44 households interviewed. Equally important. immovable structures such as homes. During interviews. and. there are 8 handicapped people and approximately 18 percent of interviewed households have a handicapped child. Four of the six households were interviewed during the survey. they have to share the compensation with others and thus have reduced income.

quince. Table 3-10: Project-affected Assets by Villages Villages Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Types of the Project-Affected Assets Immovable Productive Assets Immovable Structures Agricultural land and orchard (plot and Unused mill trees). A wide range of vegetables are grown in the Project affected villages. apple. in all villages. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 27 . In Kertmen three of the households answered this question negatively whereas in Be en this number was two. cucumber. tomato. uncultivated lands As seen from the table. mulberry. In Hacınıno lu. A breakdown of each affected asset by household is provided in Appendix 5. apricot. On the affected orchards. fig. fruit trees grown consist of: walnut. cultivated crops on affected land. particularly in Kertmen and Be en. orchard (plot and House and auxiliary trees). green pepper. trees grown on the affected plots and buildings. In particular. All assets affected by the Hacınıno lu Project are provided in Table 3-10 by village. In Kertmen and to a limited extent in other villages the irrigated lands are affected by the Project. employment opportunity to be provided by the Project was stated as the major benefit of the Project Rehabilitation of village roads is seen as the second main benefit of the Project.Most of the affected assets are privately owned. Crop cultivation is carried out primarily for subsistence. orchard (plot and None trees). in Kertmen and Be en the number of interviewed respondents who think there will no direct benefits of the Project is higher than those who stated that cash compensation for land is a significant benefit of the Project. and bean are among these. There are also respondents in Kertmen and Be en who stated that there will be no direct benefits of the Project for themselves and their communities. immovable assets consist of land. For respondents. Fruit trees and vegetable production are the main income source for these households during the survey. As an interesting point. some orchards are affected as a result of land acquisition process. for the affected households interviewed. Wheat and barley are the main crops. peach. In Hacınıno lu and Kertmen villages the affected households can easily reach the river for irrigation water. 13 The question of the survey relating to the awareness of the affected population about the project was answered affirmatively by 39 of the respondents among 44 affected households. 3. some of which also have an economic value. There are also examples in which irrigation canals both for trees and fields were affected. green plums. These trees are mainly found in Kertmen and Hacınıno lu and some households earn income by selling their fruits. uncultivated lands Agricultural land. uncultivated lands building Agricultural land. the employment opportunity and rehabilitation of village roads were stated to be equally important.5 OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT13 Opinions of the affected people about the Project’s benefits and potential problems were obtained through the RAP survey. and pomegranate. In addition there are also limited amount of vineyards.

9 0.0 Increase in traffic 0.0 25.8 50. and dust were the potential greatest impacts of the Project.0 28.0 Damage to communal area 0. inadequate housing. Most of the affected households stated that damage to land and crops.0 Disruption of land and crops 50.8 5.0 0.0 3.0 Disruption of roads 0. On the other hand.5 0.The survey also addressed perceived impacts of the Project.0 1.0 3. Table 3-11: Perceived Problems attributable to the Projects (% in the village) Villages Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Noise 25. The survey showed that general problems perceived in affected villages consist of unemployment.8 15. a quarter of the responses in Be en village felt that there would be no adverse impacts (Table 3-11). Figure 3-2: Most Important Problem Perceived by Affected Households (%) Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 28 .0 1. and inadequate education services.0 No disruption 0.9 5.0 30.6 PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE Priorities of the project-affected settlements for local assistance. their needs and requests for their households and communities were ascertained.0 13.0 Damage to settlement areas 0. low incomes.9 0.3 0.0 Security 0.0 Dust 25. Noise impacts resulting especially from use of explosives in tunnel construction was also mentioned. The priorities are shown Figure 3-2.0 1.0 17.

unemployment insufficient roads inadequate drinking water inadequate housing low income inadequate health services inadequate irrigation water inadequate education services most important problems second important problems third important problems Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 29 .

A total area of 70 ha was acquired by the Project as shown in Table 4-1. valuation of affected assets.3 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 4.250. The central oba of Hacınıno lu village is affected by the weir and reservoir whereas Tilkiler oba is affected by the construction site and reservoir.1 LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURES GENERAL The land acquisition process for the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP which included land acquisition procedures. private and publically owned land was acquired. Türközü oba is both affected by power plant and road enabling access to construction site. The exact land requirement is not yet known and is not therefore shown in Table 4-1. Hacınıno lu (Central Oba).2 LAND ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS In order to establish the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP. 4. The Project land acquisition affected three villages.27 100 More recently the Project has determined a need to acquire small areas of land related to the construction of a new access road (Kısık) between the end of the Be en road to Hacınıno lu. as EnerjiSA is awaiting the finalization of the road design. Treasury and Forestry land was not purchased but has been rented for use for a period of time in accordance with Turkish law governing these lands.27 35 701.00 53 245.327. clarification of payments of compensation and consultation with PAPs was undertaken in accordance with Turkish Expropriation Law and World Bank/IFC Standards.00 12 370.000.4 4. Table 4-1: Overview of total area of land affected and number of parcels acquired Type of Land Required Treasury Land Forestry Land Privately-owned Land TOTAL Size of the Land Portion of Lands within Acquired the Total Acquired (m2) (%) 86.077. Kertmen (Tilkiler Oba) and Be en (Türközü Oba).1 Public Owned Lands As shown in Table 4-1 the Hacınıno lu HEPP Project impacted on Treasury and Forestry owned land. The legal framework Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 30 .3. However it is expected that the road will mostly impact the Forestry and Treasury lands and a few privately owned parcels. Each oba is affected by a different part of the Project. 4. which links to Sarıgüzel.

Small area of land which will be expropriated (owing to legal inability to purchase through sub-division)for the Kısık road. No expropriation has been required. After the public interest is declared EnerjiSA can make an application to the relevant authority to obtain the rights of use and determine the rental period and price.3. and 4. 4. This was the primary objective of EnerjiSA when purchasing lands. The main steps followed for purchases of these lands are as follows: Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 31 . EnerjiSA paid the Forestry Department the permitting costs to the Forestry Directorate for the rental of the land. Land purchased by EnerjiSA on behalf of the Special Provincial Authority (SPA) for road construction/improvement.1.5). As described in Chapter 2 energy companies in Turkey have been granted rights of use of Treasury owned lands provided that an energy project is declared to be in the public interest by EMRA. These rights of use are granted without payment provided construction is completed by 2012 as per the period of time granted by the law. EnerjiSA achieved this objective for Hacınıno lu and to date all private land parcels have been purchased through willing buyer/seller negotiations. EnerjiSA will apply to the Treasury for rights of use for the affected areas. however when this is completed. negotiated settlements should be implemented by providing fair compensation. The permitting costs were determined by the Forestry Department which included a cost of re-planting the same number of affected trees elsewhere.2. EnerjiSA has not yet made the application to EMRA as they are awaiting the finalization of the Kısık road design which affects the Treasury land. The details of how the forestry land assets were valued are included in Section 4. In summary lands are declared to be required in the public interest by the Energy Market Regulation Authority (EMRA).1 Lands Purchased by EnerjiSA for the Project Land acquisition of the privately owned lands for the Hacınıno lu Project was undertaken with reference to both the Turkish Expropriation Law and the World Bank/IFC Performance Standards.3. For forestry lands the required land area was rented for a period of 49 years. IFC PS 5 states that where resettlement cannot be avoided.4.2 Privately Owned Lands Privately owned lands can be divided into the following categories for the purpose of describing the different methods of acquisition: • • • Land purchased by EnerjiSA for the Project.5.for the public lands is described in Chapter 2. The land acquisition process was managed by the EnerjiSA Land Acquisition Team (refer to Section 4. The procedure for negotiating the prices for the land and its assets are briefly described below.

Agreement on purchase price between buyer and sellers.2. there was one complicating factor in that not all title deeds were registered in the name of the rightful owner of the land. In addition to cash compensation. 8. 4. Revision of the valuation amount of affected assets and determination of a premium over the stated valuation price. EnerjiSA’s predecessor on the Project. Meetings and/or face-to-face interviews with the land owners to negotiate the valuation amount stated by the independent agency. Disclosure meetings to inform PAPs about the project and the valuation method. This was as a result of the previous cadastral survey and registration process which was undertaken in some cases incorrectly. 5. 3. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 32 . refreshments and accommodation when necessary).2 Land purchased by EnerjiSA on behalf of the Special Provincial Authority (SPA) As described in Chapters 1 and 2 there is a requirement to build three new roads referred to as the Be en. In order to resolve the problem both the rightful and registered owners were taken to the title deed office and the negotiated price was paid to the rightful owner with the consent and co-operation of the registered owner. administration and transport/subsistence costs were covered by EnerjiSA. 11. All title deed registration. 6. 7. the Project Proponent14 entered into a Protocol Agreement with SPA to 14 At this time the Project Proponent was ERE. In accordance with the Turkish land expropriation system. Calculation of final offers and disclosure of those offers to the land owners. 9. 10. Identification of owners of each of the affected parcels. SPA would normally acquire lands required to establish provincial roads. As part of step 11. Completion of follow-up site visit to address issues raised by the land owners. 2. income support is provided through preferential employment for permanent and temporary positions as part of the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project. Kısık and Hacınıno lu Right Bank Roads which will become part of the provincial road network.1. 4. There were no disputes regarding this process. Transfer of the purchase price to the account.3. Inventory and valuation of the immovable affected assets by an independent agency. although associated with the Project will be managed and maintained by SPA. This is a common problem in some areas of Turkey. These roads. Finalizing the land deed transfer formalities in the Deed Offices (all transaction costs are covered by EnerjiSA as well as the transportation. In this case of the Be en road however. Establishment of a bank account in the name of each land owner (all costs are covered by EnerjiSA).

4. If the negotiated price is above the valued price EnerjiSA will provide additional funds to SPA. The valuation price will be determined by the independent agency (see also Section 4. In addition Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 33 . To minimize the impacts EnerjiSA will acquire only the lands to be affected.3.4 for valuation methods). There were eight such affected households. The landowner was paid a compensation price for this consent which included the full valuation price plus an additional negotiated compensation price for the land and any affected assets.3 Usufruct Lands ‘Usufruct Lands’ are the land that is owned by state agencies but under illegal use by villagers.2. The required land was not purchased from the landowners. cultivation and fruit production. 4. Title deed rights will be passed to SPA. In accordance with good practice defined by WB and IFC standards users of public lands whether legal or illegal are compensated for permanent and temporary assets on this land. As part of the application EnerjiSA will provide an Expropriation Plan to SPA which includes details of the project. there were some land users who use public lands for grazing. After agreement on the price the money will be deposited by SPA into the affected landowner’s bank accounts and the title deed transfer will take place. and as such the parcels will be sub-divided. EnerjiSA will apply to SPA to acquire these parcels in accordance with the Turkish Expropriation Law. If positive. As described in Chapter 2 it is not legally possible to sub-divide a parcel of land which results in a sub-divided area less than 20 da. Instead a Letter of Consent was signed between the Project Proponent and the landowner to allow the road to pass through their land. This was undertaken to ensure an efficient process and to best ensure that the same price was applied. described in Chapter 2. SPA will then negotiate the purchase prices with the affected land holders. The purchase of the required areas for the Kısık road will in all cases create parcels less than 20 da. EnerjiSA will provide the value price of the affected lands to SPA.undertake the acquisition. registration.3 Land Expropriated for Sub-division The small land area that have recently been identified as being required to construct the Kısık road effect a small number of private land parcels (number to be determined after design finalization). After the submission of the Expropriation Plan the SPA will provide an Expropriation decision. land parcels. Any administration. If SPA cannot reach agreement with the landowners regarding a price the case will be referred to the courts and managed in accordance with the Expropriation Law.3. In Be en village. affected areas and valuation amounts. As a result and in consultation with the affected land owners these lands will be expropriated through SPA. transport/subsistence costs of SPA and the landowners will be paid by EnerjiSA.

Any taxes paid or to be paid on the land or building.. trees and orchards as well as structures were calculated by using different valuation methodology as described below. Net income that could be obtained from the asset and/or the resource. For the house plots. Figure 17: Photo of the Road affecting lands of Be en village 4. The valuation method was based upon in the replacement cost of lost assets. This compensation was over and above Turkish legal and WB/IFC requirements. The price was agreed between the Project Proponent and the land users.12. the independent agency determining the values for assets considered the following criteria: • • • • • • • The nature of the land or building.2. Previous amounts awarded in compensation for land acquisition. the amount for which similar house plots have been sold without any change in the use to which it is put.EnerjiSA paid compensation to the land users for the land that they used. The size of the land or building. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 34 . EnerjiSA determined the compensation amounts with reference to principles described in IFC OP 4.4 VALUATION As discussed under Section 2.1. including the separate value of those elements. Replacement costs for agricultural lands including crops. Characteristics and elements affecting the value of the land or building. During the valuation process.

4. the yearly average net income from the agricultural lands in the area is learned through consultations and market research. The ratio of this annual average net income to the average market-selling price will give the capitalization rate (Yusufeli Dam and HEPP Project RAP. p. Net income is calculated by subtracting total costs from Gross Production Value (GPV). 16 The net income is the income that the land would probably bring in if it continued to be used without any change. depreciation of the asset and the value of salvage materials are not taken into account.1. depreciation for the calculation of assets’ value is not deducted in compatible with definition of Replacement Cost stated in WB OP 4.1.4. p. Then the actual market prices of these lands are determined through market research and investigation of the title deeds. whether any 15 Although depreciation rate for the assets is calculated as a requirement of domestic law.1 Valuation Methodology for Immovable Assets 4. For WB Policy. in determining the replacement cost.7). taking into account the location and conditions of the land and resources at the land acquisition date.3. Valuation Methodology for Trees For valuation of fruit or fruitless trees. Firstly.12 document. The valuation of agricultural land is based on the capitalization of net income from the land to be purchased. 2006.7). 2006.1. Valuation Methodology for Land The value of agricultural lands is calculated by using net income16 approach. Chp4. 17 Since the capitalization rate is calculated based on the actual market prices in the expropriation / land acquisition area. this rate will gave the full replacement cost of the agricultural lands to be purchased (Yusufeli Dam and HEPP Project RAP.2.4. 2008 numbered 2682”. capitalization rate17 was accepted as 5 percent.1. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 35 . nor is the value of benefits to be derived from the project deducted from the valuation of an affected asset. ages of each tree is considered in calculating the present value of income to be generated from it based on market values of produce (including timber) expected from the trees for the rest of their lives if they were not cut as a result of the Project. 4. estimates of the cost of rebuilding and depreciation15 for wear and tear.• For buildings. 4. The formula used for assessing the value of lands is simply K=R/f which mean. K = Value R = Net income (GPV – production cost) f = capitalization rate (a type of risk related to the capital invested in agricultural land) For the land valuation process of Hacınıno lu Project.4. official unit prices at the date of land purchase. Depreciation rates are also considered.4. Valuation of Buildings Valuation of buildings was done according to their type and building cost based on unit values stated in “Notification about 2007 Average Unit Costs of Buildings used for Calculation of Costs for Consulting on Architecture and Engineering Works promulgated March 26. Chp 4.

5. However. Valuation of Forestry Areas Valuation of forestry lands was done by General Directorate of Forestry. cost for permission for land. In addition to compensation the Project provided in-kind compensation by providing technical assistance in the relocation or reconstruction of structures. plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. accessibility case. 4. age of trees etc.00 TL per 18 According to OP 4. Labor cost was calculated as 1615 hour/da for the coniferous forests and 1748 hour/da for broad-leafed forest. flood danger.12 document of WB. "Replacement Cost" is defined as follows: For houses and other structures. Valuation of Auxiliary Facilities As the first step borders of affected parcels were confirmed in the field in accordance with the cadastral survey. EnerjiSA. it is the market cost of the materials to build a replacement structure with an area and quality similar to or better than those of the affected structure.2 Consultation and Negotiation The land acquisition process in Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project started in 2000 (period of ERE). Parcels taken in Hacınıno lu and Kertmen Villages were privately owned and for these parcels EnerjiSA offered on average 43 percent higher compensation values (6. Cost of permission for land was calculated as 5 percent/per year of the total cost of the project. On the basis of Regional Directorates. valuation of forestry lands was done by calculation of cost of reforestation.4. plus the cost of transporting building materials to the construction site. had limited land acquisition activity.4. the value of the market price was not deducted while determining the compensation value because loss of structures/buildings was compensated at full replacement cost18. Values of the structural ruins were calculated as the value of materials that might be used after demolishing of the structure. Cost of reforestation and erosion control was calculated as 2 percent of the project that would be paid once.4. Cost of guarantee was determined by General Directorate in regard to related law every year.1. Cost of development of forest villages was calculated as 3 percent of the total project cost that would be paid once. 4. EnerjiSA had to purchase fewer parcels (90 parcels that belong to 52 households) affected from construction site and the road between power plant (Be en Village) and the construction site. 35 of PAPs had already been compensated during this early period. after taking over the Project from ERE. 4. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 36 . detailed measures were done.1. Auxiliary facilities within the determined borders were listed and valued considering slope of the land. Cost of reforestation is calculated by multiplying gross cost of unskilled labor with the total area (da). or to repair a partially affected structure. Thus. development cost of forest villages. irrigation status. plus the cost of any labor and contractors' fees. depth of the soil. For this determination.maintenance and repair was done or not. reforestation and erosion control cost and cost of guarantee.4.

32 40 754. therefore no disagreement occurred between local people and EnerjiSA during land acquisition process of Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project.863. Table 4-2: Distribution of Replacement Values and Compensation by Settlement19 Replacement Compensation Value (RV) of Value (CV) of Ratio of Increase Assets Assets Btw RV and CV Purchased (TL) Purchased (TL) (%) 59.91 929. although less than that paid to titled land holders. This amount.760. Although users did not have title rights EnerjiSA agreed a price for the land to be paid to the land users.29 41 35.845. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 37 .103.14 TL per sqm) and the independent company recruited for purposes of valuation.55 41 Villages HACININO LU KERTMEN BE EN TOTAL 19 Figures shown in Table 4-2 do not include usufruct land compensation prices.709.70 86. All immovable assets were valued at full replacement cost (Table 4-2) and compensated by using different compensation strategies under different circumstances (Figure 4-1).923.012. EnerjiSA consulted with all affected people.224. For the usufruct parcels in Be en village.40 1.sqm) than the ones calculated by Kahramanmara Chamber of Agricultural Engineers (4. EnerjiSA paid compensation for the trees and/or crops as well as for the land.066.79 50.94 45 658. was in excess of expectations.

Income support is also provided for the user. cultivated by private users and owned by public. STRATEGIES SITUATION 2 The plots privately owned and fully affected by the project. STRATEGIES SITUATION 3 Structure privately owned and affected by the project. STRATEGIES Assets Affected by Agricultural Land or Trees Affected by Construction Site Structures affected by Construction Site Agricultural Land or Trees affected by Road between Con. primarily the home that was affected. Additionally technical assistance for relocation is given. Cash compensation is given and income support is provided. STRATEGIES The plots owned by Forestry and there is no income generating activity done on it. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 38 . ** Technical assistance refers to assistance in relocation or reconstruction of structures. Cash compensation is provided for the owner. Cultivation is allowed to continue until required by the Project. compensation is paid to the public for the land. Site and Power Plant Forest Lands affected by Road between Construction Site and Power Plant *Currently income support refers to preferential employment opportunities for temporary and permanent positions on the Project. Cash compensation for the crops and trees is provided to the user. Affected households use the revenues. SITUATION 5 Cash compensation is paid to the Forest Department and no other payment is needed.Figure 4-1: Illustration of Compensation Strategies for RAP of Hacınıno lu HEPP Project Cash Income Support* Technical Assistance* * SITUATION 1 The plots privately owned and lies partly within the affected area It is allowed to continue cultivation within the partially un-affected lands and cash compensation is given and income support is provided. STRATEGIES SITUATION 4 The plots partially affected. Income support is also provided same as Situation 1 and 2.

4. the land owner stated that he had more trees planted than stated in the valuation report which required a second visit by the team and a recounting of the trees. The roles and responsibilities for the Land Acquisition team are as follows: • Land Acquisition Team conducted disclosure meetings. Value of existing crops and trees were determined. April 2009 39 • • Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP . informing the public first about the project and the project affected areas. an additional valuation trip to the site was conducted. It was assumed that the land will be utilized for a certain number of years in the future and the estimated income is calculated according to the crops expected to be gathered from the land (shift of crops is also taken into consideration in the calculations). The data collected during the valuation process was kept in a standard format and photographs of all affected assets were kept on file. The Survey and Expropriation Team within the Projects Directorate is headed up by an experienced team leader who has worked at the General Directorate of DSI as an expropriation expert for many years. The team consisting of two more surveying engineers received the valuation data from the independent valuation agency (see above) and analyzed it to present to EnerjiSA administration. agricultural soil.) were determined. a financial expert and one person from the construction site (usually the site manager or the administrative officer who also acts as the community liaison). and All transaction costs were paid by EnerjiSA. agricultural characteristics (i. These meetings were usually carried out over several visits to ensure everybody was contacted and informed. The EnerjiSA Land Acquisition Team consists of members from Survey and Expropriation Team. In some cases. Then the valuation methods and the amount each affected person was to receive under this method were explained to project affected people particularly if people had concerns regarding the Project or the valuation method. Values of existing structures (i.e.e. clay soil. The contact numbers of the team and construction site were also provided in case they need to be contacted after these meetings. houses. Depending on the concerns of the land owners. barns etc. dry soil etc). The agency carried out the valuation process described above. Their role of valuation was based on the following principles: Land was classified based on its physical.5 ROLES AND COMPENSATION RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND EnerjiSA assigned the Land Valuation to be conducted by an independent agency comprising a private firm (Ekin Mühendislik) working in coordination with the Kahramanmara Chamber of Agricultural Engineers (an NGO).

the purchase price was transferred to the account. By doing so they not only maintained their livelihoods but made good returns on their investments20. during the past 8 years interest on TL has averaged at least 25-30 percent. a bank account was established in the name of each land owner (all costs were covered by EnerjiSA). All affected farmers are allowed to continue their production until the affected parcels are to be used by the Project. taking account of public safety considerations the present sites were identified. 20 Some of these households let their money in a bank account to fetch interest. In cases where the affected part of the parcel was larger than the remaining part and where agricultural production would no longer sustain the household or allow effective/profitable cultivation. Thus. the entire plot was purchased. Then. those who were paid in full some 4 years ago by the previous owner of the Project (ERE) continue cultivating until their land will be required. realestate prices have substantially increased in the area since then and thus this group enjoys potential capital gains. If a modification / revision in the prices or valuation method becomes necessary. The results of this process and the many considerations that formed the basis of the relevant decisions were shared with affected communities through the EIA disclosure. and Once an agreement was reached. April 2009 40 Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP . Others have purchased additional land elsewhere in the village and thus expanded their agricultural production. EnerjiSA makes sure that it was applied to every land owner. the land owner was taken to “Title Deed Office” to finalize land deed transfer formalities. All official expenses for the land deed transfer were also covered by EnerjiSA as well as the transportation. During the site selection process a suitable location for the weir axis and other auxiliary facilities were evaluated with reference to topographic and geologic characteristics as well as the location of immovable assets which may be affected. It was ensured that all land owners were treated in the same manner and their land valuation was consistent and equitable. Still others bought residential land or flats in the nearby city. refreshments and accommodation when necessary. MINIMIZATION OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS ACQUISITION 4.• • • • • • All the valuation results and outcomes of disclosure meetings were considered in an internal executive meeting and a premium over the valuation price was determined.6 One of the aims when considering Project Alternatives was minimizing immovable assets acquisition. Other sites considered presented environmental hazards and did not necessarily reduce the volume of assets to be affected. The final offers were calculated and disclosed to the land owners in a group meeting. Indeed. Project alternatives were described in the EIA Report of Hacınıno lu HEPP Project.

there is no one settlement which is completely affected by the Project. Kertmen and Be en villages of the Central district of Kahramanmara . With the exception of one parcel.327. The total land acquired is 701. Figure 5-1: Distribution of the Lands Purchased for the Project 35% 53% 12% Forestry Land Treasury Land Priv ately-owned Land The area of the privately owned lands affected by the Project varies by settlement. The land purchased as a result of the Project is gathered under the following categories: forest land. The percentages of types of land acquired are shown in Figure 5-1. The Project requires both public and private lands. Treasury land and privately owned land. Figure 5-2: Distribution of the Privately Owned Lands Purchased by Settlements 6% 41% 53% H ACIN O LU IN G KR E TME N B SE E N Total number of the privately owned parcels affected by Hacınıno lu Project is 90 and differs by village. The number of affected parcels is 5 in Hacınıno lu whereas this number rises to 51 in Kertmen. the majority (53%) of the affected private land belongs to landowners living in Kertmen. As seen from Figure 5-2. Only 3 obas out of 16 which belong to these villages are affected.5 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project affect three rural settlements: Hacınıno lu.27 m2. all parcels purchased are less Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 41 . Since it is a run-of-river type Project (without storage) plant not spreading over a large area.

Loss of some portion of the productive assets . The percent of the household having more than 2 parcels acquired is 20 whereas 56 percent of the affected households have only one parcel acquired by the Project. Table 5-1: Typology of Impacts of the Hacınıno lu Project IMPACTS IMPACT ON ASSETS Loss of shelter (houses and other buildings) Criteria for the Magnitude of Impacts . The majority of the affected parcels (69%) are smaller than the average size whereas only 12 percent of the affected parcels are larger than 5. In accordance with WB OP 4.1. Economically displ. Loss of productive assets and/and access to them. the land acquisition process required for a project can bring about major impacts which can be classified as follows: • • • Loss of shelter resulting in relocation.Loss of some portion of income .Loss of the immovable structure (shelter) and other buildings (inc.than 20 dc.Loss of other buildings (i.Loss less than 10 percent of the productive assets IMPACT ON PAP Loss of income source or means of livelihood - Loss of all sources of income NA 29 H/H 8 H/H .Loss less than 10 percent of income Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 42 .000 m2.1 below). lands) . (minor impact) Loss of productive assets - Loss of all the productive assets . barn) not the shelter Cases in Hacınıno lu Project Category of Displacement 1 H/H in Kertmen 1 H/H lost an unused mill in Hacınıno lu 0 H/H 29 H/H 8 H/H Physical disp. impacts of the Project on the local people who are directly affected by the land acquisition process are grouped as shown in the Table 5-1. Economically displ. The total number of the affected households in the three obas is 52. The average number of affected parcels per household is 2. No displacement (No need for relocation) Both economically and accordingly physically displ. Economically displ. Economically displ. ranging from 1 to 5.12. No residential areas will be inundated by the Project reservoir however one house in Kertmen village is directly affected by the establishment of the construction camp site (see Section 5. Considering these potential losses attributable to the Project.e. and Loss of income sources or means of livelihood. (minor impact) Both economically and accordingly physically displ.

The average size of affected land per household is equal to 4. Table 5-2 shows the distribution of land by settlement. Note that the proportion of the land lost data is only available from interviewed households and. The second affected household22 whose flour mill is affected by the Project did not have to relocate and the mill was not in operating condition.077. total number of affected household losing their lands is stated as 51.474.11 245. standing crops on these lands and fruit trees.1. A total area of 245. of those 44 households 21 22 23 The house and the shed affected by the construction site of Hacınıno lu HEPP are owned by by a landowner in Tilkiler Quarter of Kertmen Village. As the house is affected.1. the owner was required to relocate his residence.1. However.44 m2.790.Loss of Structure/Building).27 Portion of the Land Purchased in total Land Purchased (%) 6 53 41 100 Villages HACININO LU KERTMEN BE EN TOTAL The magnitude of impact attributable to the loss of agricultural lands was classified by three categories of impact which are as follows: those who lost all lands (significant impact).5. EnerjiSA paid money to the owner of the land and the mill.1 IMPACTS ON IMMOVABLE ASSETS 5. The owner consented with EnerjiSA on the compensation amount stated by Kahramanmara Chamber of Agriculture and decided to build a new house to a land situated on upland above the construction site.077. The number of affected household was given as 1 because the other affected household in Hacınıno lu didn’t loss any agricultural land (Ref.84 998. in particular. majority (53%) of the privately-owned land purchased belongs to Kertmen. There are only two households whose structures and buildings were affected by the Project.805.12. Table 5-2.Number of Households and Land size Affected by Settlement Total # of H/H 125 160 200 485 # of Affected H/H23 1 27 23 51 Total Size of Privately-owned Land Purchased (m2) 14. those who lost some part of the lands (moderate impact) and those who lost less than 10 percent of their lands (minor impact). all private land purchased was used for productive purposes).Section5.27 m2 of agricultural land owned and used by 51 households in three affected obas was purchased for the HEPP Project (n. April 2009 43 Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP . Loss of Productive Assets Productive assets affected by the Project comprise agricultural lands. For this reason. The mill is very old and not used by the villagers for many years. One of the households is located in Kertmen and one residential home and an animal shed were affected21.b.32 130.1 Impacts Loss of Structure/Buildings The villages affected from the Project site are widely scattered and the size of the affected residential areas is small.

13 households (56%) among the 23 affected received compensation on average 50 percent higher than the valuation price whereas 7 households (30%) received compensation on average 30 percent higher than the initial valuation price25.2. 24 For the type of land which a less unit price is valuated (1.interviewed. For the project-affected people in Hacınıno lu and Kertmen villages. %30 percent compensation is given over the unit prices. 37 households provided information on their total land holdings. EnerjiSA paid on average a 42 percent higher price for lands. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 44 25 For the details of portion of lands lost for each affected households. the affected land and crops were compensated at prices on average 40 percent higher than the ones initially valued. EnerjiSA supplied machinery and equipment to facilitate the new construction on a piece of land that the affected land owner owned prior to the Project. There is no one among the interviewed households who lost all productive assets (See Table 5-3). For these reasons. impact of the Project on the land can be accepted as moderate. Measures taken for the affected productive assets: Majority of the land owners received their compensation payments at levels well over the valuation conducted by the independent valuation agency as summarized in Table 5-4. Mitigation Measures Measures taken for the affected structures: For the single home affected. Table 5-3: Privately-owned Land by Settlement Criteria of Magnitude of Loss of Land Those who lost all Those who lost some portion of the land Those who lost less than 10% of the land TOTAL # of Affected HH 0 29 8 37 Portion of the H/H Lost their Lands (%) 0 78 22 100 5. In Be en. A full breakdown and comparison of replacement value and compensation payment by household is included in Appendix 6.1. This was in addition to the compensation amount paid for the owners lost land and assets in accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 4. Total amount of this in-kind contribution of EnerjiSA was 4 395 TL (approximately $2 750). .92 TL per sqm. EnerjiSA paid compensation for the house and the shed. This was done to mitigate the magnitude of impact. Findings of the survey24 conducted show that 10 households lost more than 50 percent of their lands whereas 8 households lost less than 10 percent of their lands. EnerjiSA paid a higher level of compensation (%50) over the unit prices. on average a 45 percent higher price for the affected agricultural land and crops was paid and on average a 25 percent higher price for trees and orchards in Kertmen was paid by EnerjiSA. see Appendix 6.00 TL per sqm). standing crops and trees of the affected households in three obas. In Be en village. EnerjiSA also provided resettlement assistance with the affected household during their moving through constructing a road to their new house. whereas for the lands which are valuated as 1.

94 860. for this reason. This value. value of the affected lands (including crops. the affected households may have to modify the structure of their income.29 50. The percentage decrease of gross agricultural income was calculated by considering the ratios of the total size of all land holdings of the 37 sampled households to 26 As stated in Chapter 4. is equal to the agricultural income obtained from the lands acquired for the Project.Table 5-4: Distribution of the Total Values of Replacement and Compensation for Productive Assets by Settlement Replacement Value (RV) of Land Purchased (TL) 59.81 702.224. loss of agricultural income obtained from the land acquired can be regarded as the total valuation amount for the lands purchased.42 Compensation Value (CV) of Land Purchased (TL) 86. However. This loss was minimized due to the fragmented nature of such holdings.2 IMPACTS ON PROJECT AFFECTED PEOPLE 5.103. In line with that.863.1 Impacts Loss of agricultural incomes: The primary impact of a land acquisition process relates to the potential reduction of livelihood as a result of reduced agricultural incomes.70 606.923.32 997.845.314.91 35. The potential need for such an alteration in and adaptation to a new or modified situation depends on the extent of the impact of the Project on the productive assets. which are vital for livelihood. it is possible to estimate the ratio of loss of agricultural income as equal to the ratio of loss of land if it is assumed that type of all land holdings is the same with the type of land acquired for the Project. trees) was calculated by considering their economic life.365.55 % Increase Btw RV and CV 45% 42% 40% 42% Villages HACININO LU KERTMEN BE EN TOTAL 5.012. April 2009 45 Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP . In addition. In other words. Table 5-5: Affected Households by Settlement Villages HACININO LU KERTMEN BE EN TOTAL Total # of H/H 125 160 200 485 # of Affected H/H 2 27 23 52 % Affected H/H 2 17 12 11 On the basis of figures related to total land holdings obtained during the survey the reduction of agricultural incomes of the affected households was estimated26 as shown in Table 5-6.2. the number of affected households is small (See Table 5-5) and many families (73%) among the interviewed ones loss less than half of their total land holdings.

67 851.74 Not Applicable 3.91 % of Increase Btw RV and CV 45 38 Not Applicable 47 Not Applicable 46 Land owner Land owner Land user Land owner Land user . Kertmen and Be en villages.575. The majority of landowners (32%) lost between 11 and 25 percent of their incomes. Vulnerable Groups: The vulnerable groups described in Chapter 3.73 4. Table 5-6: Distribution of Ratios of the Estimated Reduction of Gross Agricultural Incomes Criteria of Magnitude of # of Affected Estimated Loss of Agricultural Income HH Those who lost more than 75% of their incomes 6 Those who lost between 51% 4 and 75% of their incomes Those who lost between 26% and 50% of their incomes 7 Those who lost between 11% and 25% of their incomes 12 Those who lost less than 10% of their incomes 8 TOTAL 37 % of the Affected HH 16 11 19 32 22 100 The share of gross agricultural income within total household income is relatively high (66%) compared to the share of non-agricultural income sources (34%).431. The average percentage decrease in gross agricultural income was thereby estimated to be 25 percent.61 2. Although agriculture is the main sources of income for the residents of Hacınıno lu.957. This figure shows that most of the affected and interviewed households (54%) lost less than 25 percent of their agricultural income.the size of lands purchased. The Project analyzed the payments/compensation made to these groups and the potential reduction in their agricultural incomes. they can also earn money from some non-agricultural income sources such as working in constructions or working as rural guards. Section 3. The number of households in which the reduction of agricultural income is less than the average loss is 20 (54%).704.99 Not Applicable April 2009 Compensation Value (CV) of Land Purchased (TL) 14.85 617.944.49 5. Table 5-7: Distribution of the Total Values of Replacement and Compensation for women households by Settlement Status Hacınıno lu 1 Be en 1 2 3 4 Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP Replacement Value (RV) of Land Purchased (TL) 9.202. Table 5-7 shows the payments made to the women landowners and usufruct land users.3 most likely to be impacted by acquisition activities in the affected settlements are the women and land holders who share compensation with others.3.

5 Land user Not Applicable 6176. There are 12 landowners who share the compensation payment with the others in the affected settlements living in Kertmen and Be en.3). improving well-being and adaptation capabilities of affected people.5 percent above the replacement value of their land. job opportunities that were provided by EnerjiSA was explained in detail under 5. On average these households have a potential reduction in agricultural income of 43 percent while the average reduction was 25 percent.1 Economic Benefit of the Project at Household Level: Work Opportunities for the Local People. enhancing resilience and livelihood adaptation and ensuring natural resource sustainability. The two women landowners in Be en village were paid on average 41. One of the 27 As one of the major benfefits of the Project for the local affected people. For mitigating the impacts on the livelihoods on agricultural producers. This is below the average percentage of increase between replacement value and compensation value (41%) in Kertmen. The landowners in Kertmen who share the payment with others were paid on average 26 percent above the replacement value of their land.30 Not Applicable The one affected woman landowner in Hacınıno lu settlement was paid 45 percent above the replacement value of her land which is in accordance with the average paid to the affected landowners in Hacınıno lu (Table 5-4). When impact to agricultural incomes is considered for the households that shared compensation. 5. The women land users were compensated as described in Chapter 4 for the Usufruct lands. However. these households have a potential reduction in agricultural income of 25 percent which is the average across all the landowners. This is slightly higher than the average percentage of increase between replacement value and compensation value (40%) of Be en. Landowners in Kertmen shared the compensation payments with 3 people on average whereas those in Be en shared with on average of 4 people.2 Mitigation Measures Regardless of the extent and scope of impact certain basic principles should form the basis of any social mitigation strategy including reducing poverty. The values are shown in Table 5-67 When impact to women landowner household agricultural incomes are considered the women households are shown to be more impacted than the average household.4. Where possible the employment opportunities will focus on the few vulnerable households. April 2009 47 Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP . given the extremely small size of the two groups the differences are not statistically significant. In Be en those who share the payment with others were paid on average 47 percent above the replacement value of their land. alternative livelihood opportunities have been created by the construction of the Project27 and these opportunities will increase as construction expands (Section 5.2.

EnerjiSA has taken concrete steps to ensure that job opportunities are provided to affected people by including contractual clauses in its dealings with the Contractor. affected people will generate income or potential capital gains from the cash compensation received.1 Economic Benefit of the Project: Work Opportunities for the Local People In project-affected villages. Investigations clearly revealed positive impacts created by employment opportunities as work associated with the construction of the Hacınıno lu HEPP Project was the primary source of wage income for the PAPs. It is expected that the job opportunities will continue to increase livelihoods of the affected households. Table 5-8: Locally Employed People Employed by EnerjiSA Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP The # of Employed People 6 6 1 April 2009 Jobs Office boy.3 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT 5. Monitoring of livelihood restoration will be undertaken as part of the RAP monitoring (Chapter 7) and the Project will ensure that the vulnerable groups are addressed as part of the monitoring and CIP will be developed as necessary. see Table 5-8. There will also be opportunities for approximately 15 local workers during the operation of the Project.1. In addition. 5. cook. Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor 48 . During the pre-construction phase. This was especially the case for young people who aspired to settle in urban centers. Overall it is expected that the job opportunities during the construction and operations phase of the Project will create benefits not only for PAPs but for the settlements as a whole. Perhaps most importantly. Job opportunities for the project affected population are now provided by the Hacınıno lu construction and other HEPP Projects. Prior to the start of works on the Project survey respondents indicated that it was difficult to find nonagricultural work. It is expected that this number will increase to approximately 150 during the construction phase. seeking temporary or permanent work often in unskilled capacities.3. the unemployment ratio is much lower than the comparable ratio in the provincial center.women landowner households has already benefited from employment to date. Loss of agricultural incomes of the affected people was fully compensated at prices well above market values (Section 5. 88 people were employed by EnerjiSA and its Contractors. improved roads will enhance the ability of villagers to transport their products to central markets thereby potentially enhancing incomes.2) thereby ensuring that financial gains from re-investing the money can materialize.

Sarıgüzel) Total Employed by Gündüz Construction Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Other (Ilıca. 5. Sarıgüzel) Total Employed by Projima Construction Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Other (Ilıca. Sarıgüzel) Total Employed by Vatan Construction Village Hacınıno lu Kertmen Be en Other (Ilıca. Sarıgüzel) Total Total 5 18 The # of Employed People 0 32 7 1 40 The # of Employed People 4 2 0 2 8 The # of Employed People 9 6 2 5 22 88 Unskilled Labor Jobs Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor Jobs Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor Jobs Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor Unskilled Labor An indirect but important benefit of the Project will be a reduction in out-migration from the Project area. they can save the money they would otherwise pay for accommodation at the district and provincial center and thus look forward to a better future based on work experience on a Project associated with a reputable and well-known company in Turkey. The availability of job opportunities for young people living in these villages may result in a decrease in the temporary or permanent migration to district and provincial centers for regular or seasonal work. For easy access to the construction site and other auxiliary facilities.Other (Ilıca. As discussed in Chapter one this will provide Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 49 . By so doing.2 Infrastructural Benefit of the Project at Community Level: Improvement of Access Road and Drinking Water Supply The Project provides some infrastructural benefits for the affected settlements. new roads are under construction in collaboration with SPA. This also means that as the young people continue staying with their family in the same house and working close to their homes.3.

from nearby villages.safer and more direct access to town/district centers. near the construction site. 5. This initiative benefits the affected as well as other resident households. Moreover. which is a small financial support for the local economy. EnerjiSA is improving the drinking water quality of Be en village by building new drainpipes.3. These products are bought daily and regularly from selected villagers. yoghurt etc. In addition to road construction.. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 50 .3 Economic Benefit of the Project at Community Level: Contribution to Local Economy EnerjiSA supplies some of the daily needs of the construction workforce such as bread. This also creates support for the economy of Ilıca. some employees have taken residence and others regularly visit the Project site and stay in hotels in Ilıca.

1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION EnerjiSA used a Stakeholder Consultation Methodology which formed the framework for its Stakeholder Engagement Plan developed in 2009. stakeholder consultation meetings and interviews were held.6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE The Project’s potential stakeholders include the affected population. disclosure meetings with the local authorities. media. and Clear mechanisms to respond to people’s concerns. operation and afterwards. illustrated brochures and newsletters were also distributed. the local residents to be affected from the Project. consultations with the land affected PAPs were undertaken. Providing opportunities for other project affected groups especially NGOs to be interactive / participate in the project during the project cycle. 6. EnerjiSA undertook a stakeholder analysis as a part of the Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 51 . suggestions and grievances. NGOs. academics. and Defining detailed action plans. construction. Use of oral or visual methods to explain information to the public. in particular. government authorities. local authorities. receive feedbacks at the level of local and national during the planning. EnerjiSA shared information about the land valuation and met with the villagers both collectively and individually until a consensus was reached. objective and prior information. EnerjiSA adhered to the following principles of the consultation processes: Written and oral communications in a language understandable to all stakeholders. Consultation and public disclosure in a transparent manner should be an indispensable component of the public involvement process of social assessment studies undertaken for preparation and implementation of a RAP. civil society or other representatives of affected population. In the light of these principles. Providing an interactive system that provides to give free. The methodology aims at: • • Defining the project affected people and other project affected groups such as NGOs. EnerjiSA has launched its public involvement process by providing information and targeting village leaders and other residents. Easy accessibility to both written information and to the consultation process by relevant stakeholders. • • To achieve these goals. monitoring and reporting procedures. During this process. Simultaneously. Since all the land acquisition was based on willing buyer / seller arrangements.

1. and Hacınıno lu. Kahramanmara Special Provincial Administration. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 52 . Be en and Kertmen villages. Regional Directorate. Governmental Stakeholders At national. 6.1. Local Government Authorities include: Kahramanmara Municipality. Regional Directorate of Forestry. Kertmen and Be en Headmen (Muhtars).consultation process of the Project. From the beginning. These groups are discussed in turn in the following sections. Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry. continued with EnerjiSA.2. people whose assets were affected by the components of the Project are the primary stakeholders for all project-related activities (social assessment studies and RAP). MoEF. These authorities can be grouped as governmental authorities and local government authorities for purposes of RAP and comprise: Government Authorities: Ministry of Environment and Forestry. 6.1. and Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Highways. 6. Local Residents and Communities In Hacınıno lu. MoEF. DSI XX. agree with them or obtain feedback from them and they participated to the process in accordance with their interest and influence.1. Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism. all authorities were visited at different consultation stages so as to inform them. Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Agriculture. local non-governmental organizations (local NGOs) and the project affected people. locally affected people were involved in the consultation activities through village meetings and/or individual interviews. provincial.1 Stakeholder Identification Primary Stakeholders of EnerjiSA Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project are grouped as: governmental authorities.1. district and village level. Kahramanmara Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry.1. Steps followed for stakeholder analysis are given below. First disclosure and public participation meetings and interviews were held under the coordination of ERE and then. Kahramanmara Governorship.

This has enabled EnerjiSA to contact easily with the project-affected people when necessary. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 53 . 6. public information disclosure and consultation activities were started in accordance with the requirements of the EIA study and the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation (dated 16 December 2003 and no. NGOs.1.Throughout the Project planning and implementation process. local universities. These stakeholders that were consulted include: Kahramanmara Sütçü mam University. animal husbandry or other land-based livelihood issues in Kahramanmara Province. As the Project do not only affect the owners of the assets but also other members of their families.1.1. 25318).1. The number of affected households in the Project area is 52. the primary stakeholders in the project-affected communities were recognized as those persons whose immovable assets were directly affected by the Project.4.3. They were also involved to the public consultation activities by EnerjiSA. Industrialists and Businessmen Association of Kahramanmara . Most of the PAPs still live in their villages. Chamber of Agricultural Engineers. Others There were also some other institutions relevant to the Project who have been visited at the early stages (during preliminary consultation and the initial mobilization processes) of the Hacınıno lu Project. Media and Other Interest Groups NGOs with an interest in agriculture. These partners are: Provincial Gendarmerie Command. Moreover. 6. and Provincial Directorate of Security. participation of the project-affected households to the consultation process was considered and encouraged. the media. foundations or associations are stakeholders in the Project and were included in the consultation processes. Independent Industrialists and Businessmen Association.2 Stakeholder Engagement (Public Participation) For the Hacınıno lu Weir and HEPP Project. of the 52 households 8 households from Be en village were compensated in full during the ERE period. and National and Local Media.1. 6.

villagers were welcomed to visit the site manager and obtain information of the land acquisition process that EnerjiSA had planned.74). representatives of the following governmental agencies attended the meeting: MoEF. requests of the villagers was obtained. contacting the headmen of the affected villages. EIA studies and the public participation meeting were given and information on the opinions. Provincial Directorate of Health and Regional Directorate of State Hydraulic Works. 2008. The meeting was chaired by the representative of the Provincial Directorate of MoEF and 47 stakeholders participated in the meeting. According to Article 9 of the EIA Regulation. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 54 .2006 a key informant survey was conducted with the headman of Hacınıno lu Village in which both information regarding the project. concerns. Most people living in Kertmen and Be en villages were informed during these visits. and Hacınıno lu Primary School.12. In addition to villagers. In addition. respectively. newspapers and posters. Regional Directorate of Forestry.2006 in Kahramanmara Province. and local people affected by the Project. One of the major findings of the public participation meeting is that the local people were mainly concerned with the expropriation issue rather than other possible impacts of the project on the environment and community (EMP. putting the Project Inception Report on the website of MoEF. environmental and social impacts. The purpose was to ensure a high and relevant participation in the Public Participation Meeting. Hacınıno lu Village. This included announcing the date of the meeting via website. Two meetings were held in December 2006 with local governmental and non-governmental agencies. Preliminary Consultation Activities Preliminary consultation activities had already been completed when EnerjiSA took over the Hacınıno lu Project from “ERE”. There were also many unscheduled meetings people requested in different places with the site manager. before the scoping meeting the Public Participation Meeting was held to inform the public about investment and take their comments and suggestions on 26. p. were visited and informed about Project details and Project affected people. and contacting relevant representatives of the closest municipalities. district governorship and provincial governorship. Special Provincial Administration. Provincial Directorate of Agriculture. Provincial Directorate of Environment.1. Kahramanmara Provincial Directorates etc. Central District. planned procedures of expropriation and negotiation were introduced and communication materials were distributed. When EnerjiSA started to work in the region. Appendix 8 includes a report form for gathering stakeholder feedback during the meeting.11. EnerjiSA arranged a community meeting with project affected people in Hacınıno lu village in September 2007 to inform them about EnerjiSA’s taking over as well as the project’s technical properties. All related authorities such as Governor. But. Prior to the meeting necessary preparatory activities were undertaken.6.1. Appendix 7 includes minutes of meetings held between ERE and Project stakeholders. before these public participation meetings on 04.2.

Provincial Directors. As this case should include a different valuation process when compared with registered lands.3 Comments and Recommendations of Project Affected People Consultation activities carried out up to date revealed that the public have some expectations and concerns regarding the project. but emphasized that they were expecting benefits of the project to the development of the region and the country. Kertmen and Be en villages so as to negotiate on values of affected assets calculated by the independent agency. At this meeting the compensation process was discussed for the ones who had been cultivating the forest lands without having the land titles. The first meeting was arranged in May 30. To make these efforts more systematic and to build positive and independent relations between the project and the local people a Community Relations Plan was prepared. Another meeting was arranged with people living in Be en Village around this time who were affected by the new road.2. 6. The consultation activities for local people. Additionally. Finally. local NGOs and other institutions were carried out by EnerjiSA with official and unofficial meetings. The focal point is expropriation /land purchase process rather than potential impacts of the Project on the environmental or social issues. a different negotiation method was developed and implemented in Be en Village. EnerjiSA informed villagers about the process of expropriation that EMRA (Energy Market Regulatory Authority) would carry out when title deeds require legal expropriation and/or negotiations fail. 2006.1. Projects on Ceyhan River were introduced to participants. economic. the land acquisition team of EnerjiSA arranged public interviews between July 21 and 25. Kahramanmara Governor.1. additional community meetings were arranged to negotiate with affected populations and inform relevant public institutions on land acquisition procedures. etc. In accordance with this Plan. 2007 with the participants of EnerjiSA. individual interviews. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 55 . Participant agencies generally expressed their opinion based on their legislative framework. Sub-governors and local people. a consultation meeting was conducted by EnerjiSA on December 11.6. 2008 with affected people living in Hacınıno lu. After this meeting. Consultations In order to inform local governmental and non-governmental agencies regarding the technical. it was decided that valuation suggestions should be taken from independent (external) experts. social and environmental aspects of the Kandil Energy Group Projects including Hacınıno lu Regulator and HEPP Project.2.

This data shows that people living in Hacınıno lu. what the criteria to be considered would be during the asset valuation works. As ERE had already informed people about the Project. To ensure the information disclosed was understandable EnerjiSA also considered the form of the disclosed information. In addition to the positive and potential negative aspects of the Project. It was also observed during the survey conducted in January 2009. that PAPs were not only pleased with the amount of money they received as compensation but were also satisfied with the sensible attitude and participatory approach EnerjiSA adopted. ERE and then. 2009 shows that when 44 out of the 52 affected households were asked for when. The success of willing buyer/seller arrangements is the best indicator for the effective management of the public consultation and disclosure activities. its potential adverse impacts and associated mitigation measures as early as possible. These people stated that they had been involved in all decision making processes of EnerjiSA such as determining the responsible agency to undertake the independent valuation. informing them about their case and asking for whether they accept the value they offer or not. Additionally.Interviews conducted in January. EnerjiSA preferred to organize Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 56 . However. 6. Kertmen and Be en had already been informed about the power plant project before EnerjiSA took over the project. Another important issue for effective public disclosure management is to provide information which easily understood by the affected people. EnerjiSA provided the PAPs with clear and explanatory information about the Project. 39 of 44 households interviewed were pleased and satisfied with the process they had been involved and believed that there will not be any problem caused by the hydroelectric power plant. valuation and compensation. its benefits. 27 of them stated that they first heard during surveys of ERE between the years 2000 and 2006. To ensure participation of the public to the Project’s planning and implementation processes.2 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Disclosure of the Project and associated environmental and social information is an integral part of effective and successful public consultation process. and what the roles and responsibilities of EnerjiSA would be during the works associated with asset inventory. EnerjiSA prepared a brief and clear presentation summarizing the Project’s benefits and impacts. Considering the educational profile of these affected settlements. EnerjiSA succeeded in managing the public consultation and disclosure process through the meetings held with the affected groups collectively and individually. at the beginning. some stated that EnerjiSA was the first to visit all affected people one by one. On the other hand. EnerjiSA shared how valuation of the affected assets would be conducted. how and from whom they have already heard about the Project and its impact on their assets: 13 heads of households stated that they heard about the project when first land surveys were completed by the General Directorate of DSI in the region between the years of 1950 and 1960.

concerns and suggestions. NGOs. In addition to disclosure activities directly managed by EnerjiSA. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 57 . On-site staff will be responsible for collating written complaints and communicating them to the Corporate Communication representative in Ankara who is responsible for recording and coordinating responses to all complaints. by providing to the Muhtars and other village representative and by posting in central meeting points. As there are only two households affected in Hacınıno lu village. they will be made accessible to the public via liaison offices. local media.3 GRIEVANCE MECHANISM EnerjiSA will be accessible for its stakeholders and respond to complaints and grievances in the shortest time possible. an additional informative material (a brochure) was distributed to the PAPs interviewed during the social survey (Appendix 9). EnerjiSA aims to establish feedback tools which allow all stakeholders to state their comments. it is planned that roundtable meetings with project affected group will be conducted during the construction period every six months. including representatives of local governments. EnerjiSA recognizes that continued accessibility of Project information for all stakeholders should be ensured even though the number of directly affected households is few. 6.several meetings with small groups of people that enabled PAPs to attend them in Kertmen and Be en villages. Furthermore. face-to-face meetings were preferred to public participation meetings in this community. local public. A grievance mechanism is designed to fit the context and needs of PAPs to ensure all complaints are dealt with appropriately with corrective. This brochure included a general description of the Project and the affected settlements and described EnerjiSA’s approach to the public participation as the first priority for all their investment projects and contact details. These meetings will be open to all project affected groups. Both verbal and written complaints will be recorded in the Grievance Form shown in Appendix 10. All future stakeholder engagement will be undertaken with EnerjiSA’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan. A Project hotline number is also established which links to the Corporate Communication representative in Ankara. In addition to putting the relevant documents on the website. The hotline number will be communicated to PAPs through village meetings.

External monitoring realized by a three-person panel of independent experts. Also the effectiveness of the grievance mechanism provided by EnerjiSA will be followed up. compensation payments made for the loss of assets etc. objectives and goals. results. content of internal and external monitoring and integration of feedback from external monitoring into implementation process. Output indicators include activities and services produced with the inputs. frequency of reporting. Outcome indicators cover delivery of mitigation activities and measures to compensate physical and economic losses created by the project such as Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 58 . outcome and impact indicators. changes in RAP procedures will be put into effect if necessary. The monitoring and evaluation framework consists of three elements: Internal monitoring carried out by EnerjiSA’s Environmental and Social Group . 7. For the Hacınıno lu Project. An example would be the creation of grievance mechanism. Input indicators cover the human and financial resources that are utilized in the RAP activities. The first three. and the establishment of public consultation and disclosure channels. Examples for output indicators in a RAP can be a database of land acquisition. and A RAP Completion Audit. input..7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION This chapter defines the methodology of internal and external monitoring. effective and efficient. The last two. output and process indicators. are mostly used for long term measures for assessing the results. are mostly used for medium term measures to ensure that the RAP is relevant. EnerjiSA’s Environmental and Social Group will undertake the RAP monitoring for the Project. its indicators and responsible groups.1 RAP MONITORING FRAMEWORK The purpose of resettlement monitoring will be to ensure that compensation measures were effective in restoring PAPs living standards and income levels. There are five categories of indicators for performance monitoring. As part of the monitoring and evaluation process. Indicators have been established in order to measure RAP activities. Process indicators represent the changes before and after the RAP in terms of quality and quantity of access and extent of activities and services provided.

g. Data collection tools developed for effective and efficient monitoring will be: Public Consultation and Informative Meetings. Impact indicators aim to assess whether restoration activities of the RAP are effective in maintaining and even improving social and economic conditions of PAPs. and conditions. 7. Differences in socioeconomic. and Grievance records. Field Observations. closed out). changes in PAPs and community attitudes towards the project. EnerjiSA’s Social-Environmental Group will be responsible for this process with support from appointed experts as necessary. and report of the progress the RAP. Data collected by EnerjiSA during the process of land purchase and acquisition. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 59 . auctioned. living standards. The anticipated data collection tools will include semi-annual reports for the first two years.3 EXTERNAL MONITORING External monitoring activities will verify the process defined in the RAP which is realized by EnerjiSA and its implementing partners (e. educational and cultural status before and after land acquisition will be identified and compared via defined indicators which will put forth the details of. and Impact indicators define the change in medium and long-term measurable results in behavior and attitudes. An overview of the RAP monitoring framework is shown in Table 7-2 at the end of this chapter.. yearly reports until Hacınıno lu HEPP construction is completed. the Contractor). 7.restoration and compensation of agricultural production and overall income levels. External monitoring will be carried out by a three-person panel of independent experts. use of compensation payments for income generating activities. EnerjiSA will follow up its activities which are stated below: Continuous monitoring. Ensuring that special needs of vulnerable groups are addressed.2 INTERNAL MONITORING Internal monitoring measure the progress of activities defined in the RAP. and Follow up of grievances (number of grievances lodged. health. records of interviews realized with PAPs to review.

Table 7-1 sets out the reporting responsibilities EnerjiSA related to the RAP process. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 60 . A three-person panel of independent experts will be responsible for reporting for external monitoring.4 RAP COMPLETION AUDIT A RAP completion audit will be undertaken when previous monitoring has indicated that there are no significant outstanding issues regarding livelihood restoration.Changes occurred in the living standards of affected people.internal and external monitoring teams: EnerjiSA’s Social-Environmental Group. and Extent of restoration for quality of life and living standards of PAPs. Figure 7-1: Monitoring Process No 1 2 3 4 5 Item Land Acquisition Construction of Hacınıno lu Weir Internal Monitoring External Monitoring Completion Audit 2007 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2010 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2012 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 7. The RAP completion audit will be undertaken by EnerjiSA with support from external experts as required. Process of grievances and complaints. The RAP completion audit will provide final indication that the livelihood restoration is sustainable and no further interventions are required. will be responsible for regular reporting for internal monitoring and following other actions defined for internal monitoring. Both internal and external monitoring will be ended with RAP Completion Audit. Number of skilled and unskilled project affected people engaged in construction workforce. Additional support measures provided by EnerjiSA. and EnerjiSA staff will be responsible for evaluating monitoring reports prepared by authorized teams and provide information to the concerned stakeholder. 7.5 STAFF AND RESPONSIBILITIES There are two teams responsible for monitoring process-. Detailed process and reporting periods of internal and external monitoring is given in Figure 7-1.

% complete. • Amount of land acquired for construction . number of meetings held.m2 in total. RAP • Payment of compensation to right holders . • Occasions where special needs of vulnerable groups addressed – number and type of aid/support. % complete. • Title deed registrations of contractor – number. Grievances Requests Disclosing information regarding economic. • Public consultation process defined – log of activities. Content Annual Reports to Lenders at the corporate level for the first 2 years Annual Reports to lenders at the corporate level for the following years social social and and An overview of the RAP monitoring framework is set out below in Table 7-2. • Compensation paid in line with agreed rates and time – number of payments. number. • Monitoring process defined – responsible teams appointed. environmental yearly activities. % in total. % in total. % complete. • Following up health and safety regulations for EnerjiSA employees – number of trainings gives.Monthly Reports by Site representative to E&S Group Report Table 7-1: Reports of Internal and External Monitoring • • • • • Community liaison activities carried out. drains etc) of right owners compensated/restored – type and number of other compensations. % in total. • Cash compensation to other users – number. Table 7-2: RAP Monitoring Framework Monitoring Frequency Monthly Duration From Land Acquisition to RAP Completion Monitoring Responsibility EnerjiSA Field Representatives and Social-Environmental Group RAP Monitoring Framework Monitoring Indicators and Measures Area Efficiency and • Progress in signing land acquisition Effectiveness of agreements – % complete. • Households replaced – number complete. • Disclosing information regarding economic. Community liaison activities planned. number of grievance about health and safety • Changes occurred in income and expenditure patterns of before and after the project – amount or % of income increase. • Other losses (roads. Monthly Biannual (for the first 2 years) Yearly (for the following years) From Land Acquisition to Construction Completion EnerjiSA Field Representatives and Social-Environmental Group Panel of Experts Quarterly (for the first 2 years) Six Monthly (for the From Land Acquisition to RAP Completion EnerjiSA Field Representatives and Social-Environmental Group 61 Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 . % complete. • Defined and working grievance system– number of grievances lodged/closed out. irrigation channels. environmental yearly activities. Restoration of Living Standards Restoration of Income and Livelihood • Cash compensation to landowners – amount.

Monitoring Frequency following years) Ongoing Duration Monitoring Responsibility Panel of Experts EnerjiSA Field Representatives and Social-Environmental Group A three-person panel of independent academician experts From Land Acquisition to RAP Completion Public Consultation and Grievance Ongoing From Land Acquisition to RAP Completion EnerjiSA Community Liaisons and SocialEnvironmental Unit Panel of Experts Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 62 .RAP Monitoring Framework Monitoring Indicators and Measures Area Community Satisfaction • Attitudes of PAPs to the land acquisition process – observation and feed back collected through interviews. • Attitudes of PAPs to the activities of livelihood and income restoration observation and feed back collected through interviews. • Attitudes of stakeholders to public consultation – observation and feed back collected through interviews. • PAPs understanding of land acquisition and compensation process observation and feed back collected through interviews. • Attitudes of PAPs to the activities living standards restoration observation and feed back collected through interviews. • Types of grievances – number of lodged and closed grievances and outcomes.

In addition to these direct costs. Unit Cost for RAP was calculated as $ 16. Land acquisition payments including privately owned lands and compensation .1 COSTS FOR RAP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Costs for RAP development and implementation can be listed as: Land acquisition administration costs of EnerjiSA.16 including land acquisition costs per household affected by the Hacınıno lu Project. 8. Accordingly. Consultancy services for social impact studies and RAP implementation. Resettlement and transportation of PAPs (1 from Hacınıno lu).8 BUDGET As IFC states in Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan. Costs planned for development and implementation of RAP include not only the payments done until now but also planned budget for forthcoming expenses that will/may occur during construction and operation processes.444. implementation and monitoring stages. implementation. “the RAP budget must include a justification of all assumptions made in calculating compensation rates and other cost estimates and must take into account both physical and cost contingencies. Contingency for potential extra land acquisition costs over the life time of the Hacınıno lu Project. sources of funds. and arrangements for timely flow of funds are also shown. RAP budget involves management costs. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 63 .” In line with World Bank/IFC’s description in this chapter the detailed budget tables show actual and planned costs for all resettlement activities including development. total cost for RAP (excluding acquisition cost for forestry lands.893. and costs for monitoring and evaluation activities) between September 2007 and 2012 was budgeted as $ 878. monitoring and evaluation of RAP and other contingencies. Timetables for expenditures. and Costs for Grievances Mechanisms & Procedures.25. The table shows the total cost and unit cost per household during the planning. All budgeted costs shown in Table 8-1 are met by EnerjiSA.

67 Jan 2009 to Apr 2009 EnerjiSA 78.4 as detailed in Table 8-2. stamp tax) Land Acquisition of Privately Owned Lands Compensation Fees for Usufruct Users (Be en Road) Transport and settlement of 1 PAP to a new site TOTAL BUDGET Contingency TOTAL RAP BUDGET TOTAL TL 53.61 106.575.000 10.588.00 1.59 50.585.395. implementation.55 36.835.55 USD to TL (Central Bank of Turkey February 2009) 8.361.57 878.78 1. internal monitoring and evaluation activities will be realized by EnerjiSA and external monitoring and evaluation activities will be realized by an independent team of experts. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 64 .45 2. As stated in Chapter 7.Table 8-1: Cost Table of RAP Development and Implementation ITEMS Consultancy Services (Survey studies.904.00 40.000 Year 3 10. monitoring and evaluation will be paid by EnerjiSA in addition to staff and administrative costs.000 Year 1 20.48 798.693.00 TOTAL $* PERIOD OF EXPENDITURE SOURCE OF FUNDING 34.000.94 686.780.809.4814.000 10. The price stated for the valuation of lands owned by private and public landowners and payments of crop compensation to landowners/land users are discussed in Chapter 4.4 3 years (2009-2012) EnerjiSA EnerjiSA TOTAL $ PERIOD OF EXPENDITURE SOURCE OF FUNDING 8. and RAP implementation) Land Acquisition Administration Costs (Valuation.000 25806.858.000 Year 2 10. cadastral fees.68 79.4 25806.237. Payments for permanent land acquisition and assets compensation were paid directly to the owners prior to land entry of EnerjiSA.81 123.3 PROJECT FINANCING All costs for RAP development.2 COSTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION Total cost of monitoring and evaluation issues of RAP was budgeted as $ 25806.13 23.000.118. Table 8-2: Cost Table of RAP Monitoring and Evaluation TOTAL TL RAP MONITORING AND EVALUATION External Monitoring TOTAL Total 40.65 4. title deed registration.807.00 20.444.977. SIA.25 2007-2009 2007-2008 EnerjiSA EnerjiSA EnerjiSA 2007-2008 2007-2012 EnerjiSA EnerjiSA *Exchange used was 1.269.

consultation and disclosure of the RAP. operation and monitoring activities. Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 65 . Payments for land and other assets were paid after negotiation with affected people and legal procedures for title deed registrations and taking over were realized. Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Activities will be followed by EnerjiSA during negotiation. meetings were also arranged during EIA preparation process so as to inform local people about the project between the years 2000 and 2007.9 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Activities mentioned in the Implementation Schedule of Hacınıno lu HEPP Project were grouped as construction. which defines activities of land acquisition. For land acquisition. EnerjiSA consulted with affected people one by one on values stated by Kahramanmara CAE during 2008 and started to resettle the one house affected by the project. land acquisition. developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation activities and implementation of CIP (Community Investment Program). preparation of the RAP. preparation of the RAP started concurrently with the land acquisition process of affected lands. RAP implementation. Consultation and disclosure with affected population and related public institutions started when EnerjiSA took over the project from ERE 2007. valuation of affected assets. resettlement activities. negotiations were scheduled for private and public landowners and additionally for usufruct land users between 2007 and 2008. These activities run throughout the periods of preconstruction. However. For Hacınıno lu HEPP Project. construction and operation. construction and operation processes and it is planned that external monitoring activities will be followed by an independent team of experts every six months along two years.

ifc.ac.com/genericarticle.org/EWEVXGTDP0 Scoones.org/INTFORESTS/Resources/OP412.pdf Hacınıno lu HEPP Project RAP April 2009 66 .do?categoryId=9006630&contentId=7013811 The Equator Principles. available on the website http://www.equator-principles. IDS Working Paper 72.bp. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.com/documents/Equator_Principles.REFERENCES BTC Project Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).pdf IFC (1998) A Good Practice Manual: Doing Better Business through Effective Public Consultation and Disclosure. Stakeholder Analysis.pdf World Bank.ids. available on the website http://www. available on the website http://www. OP 4.ifc.pdf IFC (2007) Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social & Environmental Sustainability. June 1998. Turkey EIA Final Report (2002) http://www. (2001) Operational Policies.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_pubconsult/$FILE/P ublicConsultation.worldbank. available on the website http://siteresources. Ian.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/GuidanceNotes Kahramanmara Tarım l Müdürlü ü (2008) Çalı ma Raporu The World Bank Operational Manual.worldbank.org/ifcext/enviro. Available on the website www.12 Involuntary Resettlement.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp72. available on the website http://go.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->