RP762 v18




         KESME HEPP


KIVANC ENERJI ELEKTRIK URETIM
             A.S.




  REPORTING FORM FOR LAND
        ACQUISITION
         IN ENGLISH
                    REPORTING FORM FOR LAND ACQUISITION
                       KIVANÇ ENERJİ ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A.Ş.
1. Information About Project
Name &Location of Sub-           KESME HEPP located in Pazarcık district, committed to
project                          Kahramanmaraş province.
Project Sponsor               KIVANÇ ENERJİ ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A.Ş.
Project Cost                  8,728,755 EURO
Installed Generation Capacity 2unit*2.43 MW/unit=4.86 MW
Key Dates of Implementation Permissions were taken from Ministry of Environment and Forest
                              with the decision number 002 in 2010. Permissions will be taken
                              from General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works for power
                              transmission line construction.
General Information           Kesme HEPP is located in the downstream of Kartalkaya dam.
                              There is no location and agricultural land on the project area. The
                              nearest location is 1 km away from the HEPP. 20,250 m2 pasture
                              area was obtained by volunteer purchasing and 60,000 TL was
                              paid for it. There were no fixed or productive assets on this land.
                              457,988 m2 was rented from Ministry of Environment and Forest.
                              There is no structure or other fixed assets on the land. 60 villagers
                              around the investment area were employed during the construction
                              of HEPP.



2.Inventory of Land & Assets Acquired from Private Owners (completely volunteer
purchased)
Name of Owners/land user                             Given on Annex 1

Project Component: Area(s) / plots(s) acquired (ha)           20,250 m2

Owner’s/user’s total land holding (ha); % taken for           20,250 m2, 100 % was taken for
project.                                                      project.
Land use: pasture, agriculture, residence, etc.               Pasture

Inventory of any structures or other fixed or productive      No fixed or productive assets.
assets (wells, fences, trees, field crops, etc) affected.

Indicate if land was rented or informally used by another     No
party.

Indicate if non-owner users had assets, trees, crops, etc     No
affected

Indicate if land-based activity is primary source of income   No
for owner or land user.
Compensation paid.                                              60,000 TL

Dates delivered.                                                2011

Impact on income of owner.                                      No negative impact.




3.Inventory of Public, Community, or State Land Acquired

Land parcels / plots acquired (ha).                             457,988 m2

Land type / land use: Forest, commons for grazing, other.       Forest land.
Ownership: State, community, other.                             Ministry of Environment and
                                                                Forest.
Structures or other fixed assets.                               No structure or other fixed assets.

Compensation, land transfer, or other measures to mitigate There are no land users. But
impacts on land users. Specify measures and dates of       compensations for trees, value of
delivery.                                                  leasing the land and deposits were
                                                           paid     to    Pazarcık     Forest
                                                           Management Directorate. Details
                                                           are given in Annex 2.
4.Public Awareness, Consultations, and Communication

In order to exchange views and give information on the possible effects of the project a public
meeting was arrenged on 15 June 2010 at the site. During the consultataion also the land users
were informed about areas that would be taken both from the private owners and government.
There were no concerns raised at the meeting. Because the land users have no economical and
social loss.



5.Status of Land Acquisition
     Completed                  Pending Court        On-going                     Follow-up
                                     decision

                                                            X



6.Other Measures or Assistance provided (beyond cash compensation)

Beneficiary(s)                                                  No beneficiary
Relocation assistance                                           No relocation assistance
Alternative Land                                                No
Livelihood restoration measures                                 -
Summary of impact addressed                                -


7.Identification of Vulnerable People

Beneficiary                                                No vulnerable people.
Method of identification                                   No

Assistance or other measures provided.                     No




8.Grievance Redress

Mechanism(s) made available for project-affected persons   There was a flume under the
to register grievances or complaints.                      power plant located on 2,800 m 2
                                                           area used by Ali Koçdağ. The
                                                           whole area is 31,000 m2. The
                                                           flume was by-passed and no
                                                           money paid. There is no problem
                                                           to irrigate the fields of the farmer.
Were affected people made aware of grievance redress       The affected people can announce
mechanism? If so, when and where?                          their complaints to the
                                                           construction supervisor.
Was the grievance redress mechanism easy to access and     Yes.
free of cost to affected parties?
Was an independent third party engaged in facilitating     The village headman.
grievance redress. E.g.: community leaders, NGOs, or
other mutually-respected independent parties.