RP762 v27 AYANCIK HEPP ILK ELEKTRIK URETIM A.S. REPORTING FORM FOR LAND ACQUISITION IN ENGLISH REPORTING FORM FOR LAND ACQUISITION İLK ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A.Ş. 1. Information About Project Name &Location of Sub- Ayancık HEPP is located in Ayancık, Güzelçay I-II HEPP is project located in Dikmen district, committed to Sinop province. Project Sponsor İLK ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A.Ş. Project Cost AYANCIK: 39,184,736 USD GÜZELÇAY: 23,388,286 USD Installed Generation Capacity AYANCIK: 3unit*5,20 MW/unit=15,60 MW GÜZELÇAY I: 2 unit*1,57 MW/unit=3,14 MW GÜZELÇAY II: 2 unit*2,48 MW/unit=4,96 MW Key Dates of Implementation Expropriations were done by the civil court of first instance in 2009, 2010, 2011. Also permissions were taken from Ministry of Environment and Forestry and Treasury. General Information Ayancık: A 338.370 m2 of land has been expropriated for construction of Ayancık HEPP and 2.679.358 TL has been paid for it. It consists 10 villages (Cevizli, Pazarcık, Çamyayla, Tevfikiye, Otmanlı, Mestan, Akçakese, Babaçay, Hacıoğlu, Sofu) of Ayancık district. The Hepp is located on undulating and sloping land, so the area is not suitable for agricultural production. Furthermore, most of the people live in Ayancik worked for their own living abroad (in Europe) and returned to homeland when retired. So they don’t deal with soil and generate income with agricultural activities. 30 people’s land were 100% expropriated in Ayancik. The investor specified that 70% of these people (21 people) were still abroad. So their land is not a source of income for them. The rest are retired people. There were few gardens also on expropriated areas. But the owners of the gardens have not been subjected to any economic losses because the price of the cut trees has been paid to them. Additionally large part of the gardens still belong to the owners. 17,240 m2 field area was volunteer purchased and 8.000 TL was paid. Permissions were taken from Ministry of Environment and Forest for using 3.059.334 m2 forest area. The price of the trees and guarantee amounts were paid. There is no structure or other fixed assets on the land. Permissions from Treasury were taken in order to use 88.656 m2 treasury area and 28.382 TL was paid. Güzelçay: 56.502 m2 area was expropriated for construction of Güzelçay I-II HEPP and 302.952 TL was paid. It consists 3 villages (Küplüce, Çorak, Karaağaç) of Dikmen district. The type of expropriated area was largely field and undulating land. These areas are not suitable for generating income. There was one hazelnut garden. 6% of the total garden was expropriated. So the owner of the garden has not been subjected to any economic losses. 5 people’s land were 100% expropriated in Güzelçay. The land was used for construction of penstock. It was a sloping terrain, the owners didn’t use the land for agricultural activities, they had not been generating income from the area before expropriation. It can be clearly seen that; the villagers don’t generate incomes from agricultural activities. So they have no economic losses because of the expropriation. 3.500 m2 field area was volunteer purchased and 25.500 TL was paid. Beyond expropriation, 533.708 m2 area was rented from Ministry of Environment and Forest. The price of the trees and guarantee amounts were paid. There is no structure or other fixed assets on the land. There were houses on the primary land plan for expropriation previously sent to EMRA for Küplüce village (Güzelçay) and Cevizli village (Ayancık). However the company made some changes before starting construction and didn’t include the houses into the construction area. The houses are written on the EMRA decisions number 2120-1/3297-16/3255-6. But the decisions given by the civil court of first instance and the expert reports about these two EMRA decisions haven’t been reached to the company yet. After they are received, the revised Annex 1 will be mailed to the Bank. 2.1.Inventory of Land & Assets Acquired from Private Owners Name of Owners/land user Given on Annex 1 Project Component: Area(s) / plots(s) acquired (ha) AYANCIK: 338.370 m2 GÜZELÇAY I-II : 56,502 m2 TOTAL: 394.872 m2 Owner’s/user’s total land holding (ha); % taken for AYANCIK: 1.286.470 m2, 26 % was project. taken for project. GÜZELÇAY: 345,571 m2, 16 % was taken for project. Details are given on Annex I. Land use: pasture, agriculture, residence, etc. Pasture Inventory of any structures or other fixed or productive Some fruit trees and a hazelnut assets (wells, fences, trees, field crops, etc) affected. garden. 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. AYANCIK: 2.679.358 TL GÜZELÇAY: 302,952 TL TOTAL: 2.982.310 TL Dates delivered. 2009,2010,2011 Impact on income of owner. No negative impact. The expropriated land were not the only means of living of the land owners. 2.2.Inventory of Land & Assets Acquired from Private Owners (Volunteer Purchased) Name of Owners/land user Given on Annex 1 Project Component: Area(s) / plots(s) acquired (ha) AYANCIK: 17,240 m2 GÜZELÇAY I-II : 3.500 m2 TOTAL: 20.740 m2 Owner’s/user’s total land holding (ha); % taken for AYANCIK: 100 % was taken for project. project. GÜZELÇAY: 100 % was taken for project. Details are given on Annex I. Land use: pasture, agriculture, residence, etc. Field Inventory of any structures or other fixed or productive No any structure or fixed 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. AYANCIK: 8.000 TL GÜZELÇAY: 25.500 TL TOTAL: 33.500 TL Dates delivered. 2010 Impact on income of owner. No negative impact. 3.Inventory of Public, Community, or State Land Acquired Land parcels / plots acquired (ha). AYANCIK: 716.405 m2 GÜZELÇAY I-II : 404.941 m2 TOTAL:1.121.346 m2 Forest, stream course Land type / land use: Forest, commons for grazing, other. Ownership: State, community, other. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Treasury. 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 land leasing and deposits were paid. delivery. Details are given on Annex 1. 4.Public Awareness, Consultations, and Communication In order to exchange views and give information about project a meeting was arranged before the construction started. After receiving the land owners’ approval, the construction has been started. There were no concerns raised at the meeting. Because the land users had no economic losses. Also some of the land owners live abroad. The investor applied to the Court for expropration after starting the construction and it is still going on. 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 An elementary school was reconditioned in Ayancık. There was a house which was not in a good condition for living next to the (outside) project area in Ayancık. This house was tumbled and another house was constructed for the householder. 12.000 sallees were planted on four different places in consideration of cut trees to construct the Güzelçay HEPP in Dikmen. 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 It was announced that project affected to register grievances or complaints. persons (if any) could register complaints to the construction site manager directly or by the village headman. Up to now no complaints were received. Were affected people made aware of grievance redress The affected people can announce mechanism? If so, when and where? their complaints to the site manager. 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.