|
1. Gaining Public Acceptance
|
|
|
|
|
1.1. Stakeholder consultation
|
|
|
|
|
1. Describe how the relevant stakeholders were identified.
|
|
|
|
|
2. Are any of these people minority groups, especially indigenous people and if so,
what special efforts were taken to identify and meet their needs?
|
|
|
|
|
3. How many people have to be resettled due to the project?
|
|
|
|
|
4. Resettled people/annual energy production (number/GWh)
|
|
|
|
|
5. How many people were otherwise affected by the project (e.g. through loss of land,
reduced productivity of fishing or hunting, etc.)?
|
|
|
|
|
6. Describe how the affected local people and other relevant stakeholders have been
informed and involved in the decision-making process of building the power plant.
|
|
|
|
|
7. Describe how the affected local people and relevant stakeholders have been informed
about the impacts of the project on their quality of life
|
|
|
|
|
8. How have the affected local and indigenous communities participated in the decision-making
process?
|
|
|
|
|
9. How will the economic and social impacts of the project on the affected local communities,
indigenous people and/or other relevant stakeholders be addressed?
|
|
|
|
|
10. How do compensation and benefit agreements correspond with the identified needs
and rights of the stakeholders negatively affected upstream and downstream due to
the project?
|
|
|
|
|
11. Was a Stakeholders Forum held with a broad local community participation (based
on a customary and national law)? Describe the process and its outcome, and the response
of project developer, local and national authorities?
|
|
|
|
|
1.2. Transparency
|
|
|
|
|
1. Was key project documentation (e.g., social and environmental impact assessments)
made publicly available before a decision to start construction was made?
|
|
|
|
|
2. In what form was project documentation made available to stakeholders? Was it the
original EIA etc. or was it in another form e.g., a summary of positive and negative
effects of the hydrological construction
|
|
|
|
|
3. How many of the total number of stakeholders have had access to the key documentation
and have been actively involved?
|
|
|
|
|
4. Is there a negotiated agreement between the stakeholders and project owner(s)?
If so, is it publicly available?
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s Conclusions concerning Priority 1:
|
|
|
|
|
2. Comprehensive Options Assessment
|
|
|
|
|
2.1. Needs
|
|
|
|
|
1. What priority is given to hydropower in national development or energy planning
(e.g. relevant government decisions)?
|
|
|
|
|
2. What are the needs for hydropower at regional and local level?
|
|
|
|
|
3. What are the regional/national supply needs of the electric system (renewable base
load, peak load or load balancing of the grid, support of intermittent renewables)?
|
|
|
|
|
4. Describe safeguards for equitable access to water resources. How do hydropower
projects contribute to efficient water resources management?
|
|
|
|
|
5. Does this hydropower project provide financial incentives to develop a multi-purpose
project?
|
|
|
|
|
2.2. Alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
1. Describe the examination of alternatives to the project that have been considered
(include details of feasibility studies and do-nothing options analysis that have
been conducted).
|
|
|
|
|
2. Have stakeholders been involved in the identification of the options? Describe
process and outcome of that involvement
|
|
|
|
|
3. What are the main reasons behind the project choice and site selection (social,
environmental, economic, and technical)?
|
|
|
|
|
4. What are the consequences of non-action for the local and global environment?
|
|
|
|
|
5. On the project assessment level, describe project variants and types of technology
considered in comparison with the selected option.
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s Conclusions concerning Priority 2:
|
|
|
|
|
3. Addressing Existing Dams/hydroelectric projects
|
|
|
|
|
1. For hydroelectric projects with dams, please describe the national requirements
and routines for monitoring and reporting regarding:
– emergency warning,
– sediment management,
– safety system,
– maintenance system,
– environmental impact,
– social impact,
– implementation of compensation agreements.
|
|
|
|
|
2. For non-dam projects, describe details of the continuous monitoring of the project
(environmental and quality assurance)
|
|
|
|
|
3. How have relevant outstanding social and environmental issues from existing dams/hydroelectric
projects in the river basin been addressed?
|
|
|
|
|
4. Have national regulations been enforced for existing dams and what can be concluded
with regard to compliance?
|
|
|
|
|
5. Will the implementation of safety measures and evacuation plans be independently
audited?
|
|
|
|
|
6. Provisions for maintenance and decommissioning:
– What provisions have been made for maintenance and refurbishment (eg. a maintenance
and refurbishment fund)?
– What arrangements are made for decommissioning at the end of the plant lifetime,
if any (e.g. decommissioning set aside fund)?
– Describe provisions for emergency drawdown and decommissioning.
– Are they sufficiently flexible to accommodate changing future needs and values,
including ecosystem needs and ecosystem restoration (Guideline 12)?
– Does the licence for project development define the responsibility and mechanisms
for financing decommissioning costs?
– Describe economic, environmental, social and political factors that may point against
future decommissioning, if this has been recognised as the best solution
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s Conclusions concerning Priority 3:
|
|
|
|
|
4. Sustaining Rivers and Livelihoods
|
|
|
|
|
4.1. Water use ratio2
|
|
|
|
|
Water use ratio (ratio of natural flow, agricultural water, industrial water, domestic
water...) including
1. population of the river basin area (106 inhabitants);
2. natural mean flow (km3/year);
3. demand (km3/year);
4. water use ratio (%);
5. comparison of water demand with natural mean flow;
6. storage capacity (km3);
7. annual water consumption by type of users (hm3/year): agricultural and farming, domestic use, industrial use
|
|
|
|
|
4.2 Impact Assessment
(Note: both positive and negative impacts should be included here)
What Impact Assessments have been carried out and on which regulations were they based
on? – Describe the major impacts in each of the following categories and the mitigation
measures for negative impacts:
|
|
|
|
|
4.2.1. Environmental Impacts
Describe environmental impacts of the project (including impact on water quality (temperature,
oxygen, etc.), soil, air quality, GHG emissions, biodiversity, habitats, risk of erosion
caused by inundation etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
4.2.2. Environmental Flow Assessment
1. Describe how the environmentally safe minimum flow has been determined.
2. Describe the measures taken to minimise the impact of reduced flow in the affected
river.
3. Describe the measures taken to maintain ecosystems, productive fisheries and other
aqua-cultures downstream and upstream.
4. Describe the activities the project developer will undertake before flooding the
land (e.g. clearing of vegetation or other preparations).
5. Describe any other compensatory measures addressing environmental impacts of the
project.
|
|
|
|
|
4.2.3. Social Impact Assessment
1. Describe social impacts of the project (including resettlement, impacts on other
land or river use e.g. fishing, agriculture, hunting and use of other types of natural
resources and including benefits to individuals and communities)
2. Describe any identified health impacts due to the project.
3. Describe impacts on religious and cultural heritage.
4. Describe the liability provisions safeguarding the implementation of the planned
measures.
5. Is the project planned in a responsible way in order to sustain livelihoods and
the environment?
|
|
|
|
|
4.3 Cumulative Impacts
Describe the cumulative impacts of all hydrological structures existing in the river
basin using variables such as:
1. flow regime,
2. water quantity,
3. productivity,
4. water quality species composition of different rivers in the same river basin.
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s Conclusions concerning Priority 4:
|
|
|
|
|
5. Recognising Entitlements and Sharing Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
Are Mitigation, Resettlement and Development Action Plans (where applicable – including
commensurate compensation packages) in place? Provide details:
1. Demonstrate that the construction of the plant did not lead to worsening of the
living conditions of the local residents and resettled families
2. Were compensation and benefit agreements planned in consultation with affected
groups?
3. What standards were the measures based on? (e. g. national standards or other)
4. Were the affected people satisfied with the compensation packages?
5. Benefits for the affected people (individuals and communities): In what way will
the affected local and indigenous population’s livelihoods be improved due to the
project?
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s Conclusions concerning Priority 5:
|
|
|
|
|
6. Ensuring Compliance
|
|
|
|
|
6.1. Compliance measures:
|
|
|
|
|
1. What will be done to ensure that relevant laws, regulations, agreements (including
resettlement and compensation agreements) and recommendations are followed?
|
|
|
|
|
2. Are the compensation agreements legally binding – through treaties, administrative
acts or other safeguards?
|
|
|
|
|
3. Is the cost of the compensation package included in the financial plan?
|
|
|
|
|
4. Does the project developer already operate other hydroelectric power stations?
If so, have there been any conflicts between the project developer and stakeholders
related to the development, operation and compensatory measures related to these projects?
If so, describe the cause of the conflict and how it was resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
6.2. Monitoring and evaluation during crediting period:
|
|
|
|
|
1. Describe conditions in place for monitoring and evaluation of environmental and
socio-economic impacts of the project.
2. What provisions have been made to ensure that all measures not yet implemented
at the time of validation will be put in place as appropriate, and monitored (for
example through an independent auditing panel or auditor, or through self-auditing
etc.)?
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s Conclusions concerning Priority 6:
|
|
|
|
|
7. Sharing rivers for peace, development and security.
|
|
|
|
|
Does the project have trans-boundary impacts? – If so, give details of agreement(s)
between affected countries, considering international recommendations for trans-boundary
water projects and describe how this affects the project.
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s Conclusions concerning Priority 7:
|
|
|
|
|
Validator’s assessment as to how the project respects the seven strategic priorities
outlined in the World Commission on Dams November 2000 Report ‘Dams and Development
– A New Framework for Decision-Making’
|
|
|
|
