You are on page 1of 1

Cumulative Effects Assessment August 8, 2007

PERU LNG Project

impact at a 2 day workshop involving members of the team that conducted the Third Party
Project research (Walsh Peru S.A.), the CEA assessment team (IDP) and PERU LNG
personnel. The test of relevance was broadly based but essentially involved an assessment
of the type of project and the potential for interaction with the PERU LNG Projects6. Twenty
two projects were rejected at this stage, leaving 7 for more detailed assessment. Site Visit

Following the workshop the CEA team conducted a 2 day field reconnaissance of the study
area for the purposes of viewing the sites of the projects identified above, to the extent that
these were accessible in the time available, as well as the location of proposed projects,
where these were known and accessible. In addition, six additional projects not identified
during the desk-top research exercise were added, resulting in a final Third Party Project list
of 13 (Figure 4.15).
The site visit also presented an opportunity to assess potential cumulative effects of the TgP
pipeline and the PERU LNG Projects, recognizing that this aspect was addressed in the
original ESIAs. Analytical Assessment

The detailed assessment of the final 13 projects involved a sequence of steps. These steps
can be summarized in the form of a series of questions each involving key themes:
• Timing: What is the timing and duration of the project with respect to the various
construction and operation phases of the PERU LNG Projects?
• Location: Where is the project located, particularly with respect to the PERU LNG
Projects, ecosystem type and watershed?
• Interaction: Is there any form of interaction with the PERU LNG Projects, and if so,
how can this interaction be characterized (direct, indirect, delayed, temporary, long
term, etc)?
• Pathways: What pathways characterize the identified interactions?
• VECs: What VECs are potentially affected by the identified interactions, or, in the
absence of an interaction, the physical presence of the project within the sphere of
influence (e.g., as a result of ‘nibbling’ effects)?
• Mitigation: What mitigation options are available to minimize adverse effects? Setting for PERU LNG Projects

The PERU LNG Projects are set in an area characterized by subsistence agriculture,
conditions of extreme poverty and a limited presence of the Peruvian Government in many
forms, but particularly in terms of investment7. Private sector investment is likewise reported
to be very limited (Walsh, 2005). What little investment that does occur in the region is
directed towards energy development, water and irrigation projects, roads, health education,
projects designed to redress malnutrition (for example, through improved livestock
production), and so-called ‘quality of life’ projects.
Other notable features of the region where the pipeline will be constructed, as described in the
Pipeline ESIA (Walsh, 2005), are as follows:

Examples of programmes deemed to be not relevant in the context of the CEA included those relating to
education, many health and poverty alleviation initiatives, consolidating pacification in the area following the
political unrest, promoting the return of displaced people, strengthening agricultural productivity, for example the
productive chain for alpaca wool and meat in a subsistence economy.
Technical Secretary of the National Agreement (2006): National Agreement: Report on the policies of the State. Note
also that the Departments of Ayacucho and Huancavelica, through which the PERU LNG pipeline crosses, have low
development rates and are considered to be amongst the poorest Departments in Peru (Walsh, 2005)

Page 40 of 134