YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF STATE HYDRAULIC WORKS
REAL ESTATE AND EXPROPRIATION DEPARTMENT
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP
RESETTLEMENT ACTION
PLAN
DRAFT FINAL
CHAPTER 3
MINIMIZING RESETTLEMENT
Environmental Consultancy Co.
July 2006 (Rev B), Ankara
3. MINIMIZING RESETTLEMENT
Yusufeli Project is a significant energy production project for Turkey. As such, it is of
public interest, but will result in an involuntary resettlement of the people living in the
project area. Any project planning should aim at minimization of displacement of the
people to the extent possible. Minimization of displacement is given high priority
throughout the resettlement action planning and will be of prior importance during
implementation as well.
At this stage of Yusufeli Project development, involuntary resettlement is
acknowledged as unavoidable by all stakeholders. Basic aim for further action is full
and fair compensation of the affected people. In this chapter, the efforts towards
minimization of resettlement during project planning and the issues to be considered
for this purpose during project implementation are presented.
3.1. Minimization of Resettlement during Project Planning and Design
3.1.1. Coruh Basin Hydropower Development Context
Yusufeli Dam and HEPP were decided to be built as a part of the Development of
Coruh River Basin, in accordance with the energy policies of Turkey. The master
plan for the project was completed in 1982. In these and continuing studies various
options were considered for the Coruh River Development Plan and as a result 10
hydro projects were planned on the main course of Coruh River to be developed in
series in a cascade style. These projects are considered in three groups as; lower
Coruh (Muratli, Borcka and Deriner), middle Coruh (Yusufeli and Artvin) and upper
Coruh (Laleli, Ispir, Gullubag, Aksu and Arkun) projects. Muratli Project was taken
into operation in June 2005 and Borcka and Deriner projects are under construction
with more than 90% and 75% physical completion, respectively. The constructions of
Muratli and Borcka Projects started in September 1999 and have been undertaken
by Turkish and Austrian companies on a full-financing basis (with international
finance). Construction of Deriner Project was started in April 1998, which is being
undertaken by a consortium of Turkish, Swiss, and Russian companies with fullfinancing as well.
Three large reservoirs were planned to be constructed at Laleli, Yusufeli and Deriner
sites, located at the uppermost, middle and lower parts, respectively, to regulate the
Coruh River flow. The drainage area of the Coruh River increases by 1.9 times after
the Oltu River joins the main stream. Therefore Yusufeli Dam, the second largest of
the Coruh development plan after Deriner Dam, was planned to be constructed about
800 m downstream from the confluence with Oltu River. Artvin Dam, located 19 km
downstream of Yusufeli dam site, was planned to make use of the residual head
between Yusufeli and Deriner projects. In the feasibility studies of all these projects,
each project was not only evaluated to be feasible in itself, but also their feasibility
was assessed in integration with all the projects proposed in the Coruh Basin. These
projects are not only interrelated with respect to their operation to produce energy,
but also with regard to the infrastructure that they need and which they would affect.
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 1 / 14
Based on the feasibility report of Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA,
1986) the proposed Yusufeli Project site was determined to be the best economically
and technically feasible option. Then, Japan Electric Power Development Company
(EPDC), Su-Is Project Engineering Company, and Terzibasoglu Consultancy and
Engineering Company completed the design documents in October 1990, which
were approved by the Electrical Power Resources Survey and Development
Administration (EIE). The project was first put into 1997 Investment Program by the
Turkish Government.
Studies on two types of alternatives, project site and project size, which was
presented in the Feasibility Report on Coruh River Hydroelectric Power Development
Project prepared by JICA (1986), would have an effect on the extent of expropriation
and resettlement.
3.1.2. Alternative Dam Site Locations
Alternative dam site locations for the Yusufeli Project were considered during the
feasibility studies done by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in 1986,
before selecting the proposed site. An alternative set-up for the middle Coruh was
investigated in order to avoid the inundation of the Yusufeli Town. This set-up is
referred to as the “3-dam plan.” As a result of the evaluations at that time, it was
concluded that the set-up of the 2-dam plan is more favorable.
Evaluation of these alternatives with respect to the issues such as energy production,
inundation area and characteristics, impact on land use and resettlement needs,
required secondary structures (transmission lines and relocation roads) are
presented in detail in the EIA report (ENCON, 2005). Here a summary of the results
of this evaluation and the rationale of the decision is provided.
The evaluation studies for these alternatives showed that the 3-dam alternative
would avoid the inundation and relocation of the Yusufeli district center and would
overall cause considerably less people to resettle (about 414 HH), when compared
with 2-dam alternative (about 1,954 HH). The difference between the total inundated
agricultural lands is 1.11 km2, which means that the loss is 12% less, when
compared with the 2-dam alternative. The areas to be inundated in both schemes are
shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. The cost of compensation and resettlement,
including the establishment of a new district center, in the 2-dam alternative is
151 million USD more expensive when compared with the 3-dam alternative. The
comparison of resettlement costs shows that losses and resettlement requirements of
the 2-dam set-up are more than 100 % higher than the 3-dam alternative. However,
in order to make use of the investment cost saving and long-term energy revenues,
about 11% of the total investment cost in this comparison is calculated for mitigating
and compensating the resettlement consequences of the 2-dam set-up as planned
today.
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 2 / 14
Source: Compiled From Satellite Image and Consortium, 2005
Figure 3.1. Area to be Inundated by 2-Dam Alternative
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 3 / 14
Source: Compiled From Satellite Image and Consortium, 2005
Figure 3.2. Area to be Inundated by 3-Dam Alternative
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 4 / 13
The technical investment costs, when all dams are considered to be concrete as
assumed in JICA feasibility report of 1986 (Scenario 1), including the cost of dam and
appurtenant structures, E&M equipment, relocation roads and transmission lines, but
excluding the above resettlement costs for the 2-dam set-up is about 427 million
USD less than the 3-dam alternative. When all dams are assumed to be rockfill
dams, except Artvin (Scenario 2), the investment costs including the cost of dam and
appurtenant structures, E&M equipment, relocation roads and transmission lines, but
excluding the above resettlement costs for the 2-dam set-up is about 398 million
USD less than the 3-dam alternative.
Overall, the costs of dam construction constitute the main difference between the 2dam and 3-dam alternatives 1:
•
The total investment cost (i.e. inclusive of the resettlement costs) in Scenario 1
(all concrete dams) for the 2-dam alternative is 2,230million USD versus
2,506 million USD for the 3-dam alternative. Thus, the total investment cost of
the 2-dam set-up is by 276 million USD less compared to the 3-dam
alternative.
•
The total investment cost in Scenario 2 (rockfill dams) for the 2-dam
alternative is 1,976 million USD versus 2,223 million USD for the 3-dam
alternative. The total investment cost of the 2-dam alternative is about 247
million USD less than the 3-dam alternative.
The annual energy productions of the two schemes (2 and 3 dam alternatives) show
a difference of 380 GWh/year in favor of the 2-dam alternative before optimization of
the Yusufeli and Artvin Projects, and 511 GWh/yr after optimization. Annual revenue
at the rate of 0.06 USD/kWh 2 for the energy production for 2-dam and 3-dam
alternatives is estimated as 203.28 and 180.48 million USD, respectively. In other
words, the yearly revenue benefit of the 2-dam alternative over the 3-dam alternative
is 22.8 million USD or 1,140 million USD accumulated over 50 years. Calculated at a
discount rate of 4.5% per annum, the net present value (NPV) of the revenue
difference of 1,140 million USD for the un-optimized case is 450.57 million USD. 3
1
Cost figures are relating to comparison un-optimized 2 dam set-up vs. 3-dam set –up.
2
The tariff rate of 6 cents/kWh is used by DSI in their feasibility studies, which is also adopted here. It should also
be noted that the tariff rate which has been used in the JICA Feasibility Report was 27 TL/kWh, which when
converted into USD is 0.058 USD/kWh, with the exchange rate prevailing in April 1985 (462.5 TL/$). DSI also
informed that the present tariff rate would most likely be increased in the following years as per country’s
economic situation, particularly by the end of the decade when Turkey is expected to be faced with energy
shortages. Notionally, the applicable calculation tariff might be 8 or 9 cents, more close to the customer rate.
3
After optimization of the Yusufeli and Artvin projects (Yusufeli HWL at 710 m.a.s.l) the annual energy production
of the 2-dam alternative is 511 GWh/year higher compared to the 3-dam alternative. The energy production
benefit of the optimized 2-dam alternative over the 3-dam alternative is 30.66 million USD/year, or 1,533 million
USD for 50 years. The net present value (NPV) of the revenue difference of 1,533 million USD is 605.90 million
USD.
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 5 / 14
A summary of the cost benefit ratios for all cases considered in the comparison of 2
and 3 dam set-up alternatives is provided in Table 3.1. This table also includes
figures for un-optimized and optimized 2 dam-setup, but no optimization is available
for the 3 dam-alternative.
Table 3.1. Economic Comparison 2 dam vs. 3 dam setup for the Middle Coruh
Development
Cost - Benefit Ratio
2 dam setup
Yusufeli optimized
HWL at 710m
Scenario:
3 dam setup
Yusufeli un-optimized
HWL at 700m
(no optimization
available)
All dams concrete
1 : 1.82
1 : 1.80
1 : 1.42
All dams rockfill,
except Artvin concrete
1 : 2.11
1 : 2.08
1 : 1.60
Based on the above cost benefit comparison it can be concluded that the decision for
the 2-dam alternative taken as a result of the feasibility study of JICA in 1986, which
at that time was based mainly on construction costs and storage parameters, also
from today’s perspective is economically viable. It can be seen from Table 3.1 that
the 2 dam setup as planned today (with Yusufeli as rockfill dam and HWL at
710 meters) significantly creates the highest benefit per cost unit (2.11). It also can
be seen that any 2 dam configuration is economically superior to a 3 dam-setup. This
is due to the difference in investment costs and more important, also the expected
energy benefits in the long run are clearly in favor of implementing the 2-dam set-up,
regardless of the tariff rate used.
Finally, from present day perspective the 3-dam alternative would not be compatible
with the planned development of the upper Coruh Cascade, which has reached
substantial progress in preparation for implementation.
3.1.3. Alternative Project Sizes
In order to adjust the seasonal and yearly fluctuations in inflow and develop the water
resources in the most effective manner, it is necessary to secure a storage capacity
making it possible to effectively utilize the inflow to the reservoir, supplementing
water not only in dry seasons, but also in dry years, aiming for long term stabilization
of generating output. Reservoir high water level and effective storage capacity must
further be optimized with regard to the outcomes in the economics of power
generation.
In contemplating the high water level, comparison studies were made for four cases;
690 m, 700 m, 710 m, 720 m, taking into account such factors as compensation
costs, sedimentation, dam height and effective storage capacity. Regarding the
effective storage capacity of the Yusufeli Reservoir, the cases were selected in a
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 6 / 14
range of 670×106 m3 to 1,620×106 m3, which correspond to the various high water
levels stated above. Details of the evaluations can be found in the EIA report.
Comparisons were made for energy costs per one kilowatt-hour, internal rate of
return (IRR) and benefit-cost ratios (B/C). Results of the economic evaluation of
these alternatives showed that the selection of 710 m for high water level of the
reservoir and effective storage capacity of 1,080×106m3 was the most economic, and,
thus, considered to be the optimal level. Accordingly, the decision was based on
economic grounds (e.g. comparison of benefit-cost ratios) and technical viability, and
high water level of 710 m was proposed for the project.
When some of the affects of the alternative high water levels are compared, the area
to be inundated is 36 km2 at high water level of 720 m, while it decreases to 32.4 km2
at 710 m, 29 km2 at 700 m, and 25.7 km2 at 690 m high water levels (see Table 3.2,
Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3).
Table 3.2. Land Use in the Inundation Area for Alternative High Water Levels
Land Use Type
720 m ASL
Agriculture
Irrigated
Vegetable (ha)
Maize (ha)
Rice (ha)
Clover (ha)
Orchard (ha)
Rain-fed
Wheat (ha)
Fallow (ha)
Pasture lands (rain-fed) (ha)
Settlements
Private Property (ha)
Public Areas (ha)
Roads (ha)
Forest areas (ha)
Riverine Habitat (ha)
River (ha)
Other
Doc. Name:
(Xerophyte shrubs, steppe,
rocky areas, bare rock, etc.)
(ha)
TOTAL
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
High Water Level
710 m ASL
700 m ASL
690 m ASL
116
68
88
63
311
110
65
75
59
285
103
61
61
54
265
95
57
49
52
243
67
85
60
81
54
73
48
67
135
129
122
116
22
12
60
20
12
57
19
12
54
18
12
50
14
80
296
10
76
285
7
68
268
4
59
251
2,174
1,917
1,680
1,452
3,591
3,241
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
2,901
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
2,572
Chapter 3
Pg. 7 / 14
Source : Compiled From Topographic Map, ENCON, 2005
Figure 3.3. Area to be Inundated at Water Levels of 720 m, 710 m, 700 m, and 690 m
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 8 / 14
Table 3.3. Comparison of the High Water Levels Studied in the Feasibility Report
with respect to Some Associated Impacts
720 m ASL
Total area to be
inundated (ha)
Agricultural lands to be
inundated (ha)
Total number of
buildings to be affected
Historical assets to be
inundated
Number of settlements
to be affected
Population to be directly
affected according to
RAP 2005 survey
results
Settlements to be
affected
High Water Level
710 m ASL
700 m ASL
690 m ASL
3,591
3,241
2,901
2,572
798
735
671
610
2,704
2,499
2,342
2,108
Tekkale Citadel
Tekkale Citadel
Tekkale Citadel
Tekkale Citadel
19 villages and
district center
19 villages and
district center
18 villages and
district center
15 villages and
district center
12,124
12,124
11,711
9,702
Alanbasi,
Arpacik, Bahceli,
Bostanci,
Celtikduzu,
Cevreli, Cirali,
Darica, Dereici,
Irmakyani,
Ishan, Kilickaya,
Kinalicam,
Kupluce,
Morkaya,
Pamukcular,
Sebzeciler,
Tekkale,
Yenikoy,
Yusufeli Town
Alanbasi,
Arpacik, Bahceli,
Bostanci,
Celtikduzu,
Cevreli, Cirali,
Darica, Dereici,
Irmakyani,
Ishan, Kilickaya,
Kinalicam,
Kupluce,
Morkaya,
Pamukcular,
Sebzeciler,
Tekkale,
Yenikoy,
Yusufeli Town
Arpacik, Bahceli,
Bostanci
Celtikduzu,
Cevreli, Cirali,
Darica, Dereici,
Irmakyani,
Ishan, Kilickaya,
Kinalicam,
Kupluce,
Morkaya,
Pamukcular,
Sebzeciler,
Tekkale,
Yenikoy,
Yusufeli Town
Arpacik, Bahceli,
Celtikduzu,
Cevreli, Cirali,
Darica, Dereici,
Irmakyani,
Ishan,
Kinalicam,
Morkaya,
Pamukcular,
Sebzeciler,
Tekkale,
Yenikoy,
Yusufeli Town
As shown in Table 3.3, in all of the alternatives inundation of Yusufeli Town is
inevitable. With the high water levels (HWL) of 720 and 710 m the number of
affected villages (19 villages) does not change, while at 700 m only one village can
be avoided. At HWL of 690 m three villages can be saved from inundation. When
HWL are compared with the proposed HWL of 710 m based on the area of private
property to be lost in the settlements (e.g. occupied by structures), it can be seen that
at 720 m HWL this area is 10% more and for 700 m and 690 m HWL 5% and 10%
less, respectively.
The number of buildings to be inundated at 700 m and 690 m HWL is 94% and 84%
of the ones to be lost at 710 m HWL respectively. On the other hand, this loss is
1.08 times higher at 720 m HWL than the case with HWL of 710 m.
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 9 / 14
Tekkale Citadel, Hamzat 1 and Hamzat 2 chapels are the historical assets to be
inundated in all of the studied high water levels. Tekkale Citadel is located between
elevations of 670 m and 697 m ASL (Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5). DSI has already
ensured funding for the relocation of this citadel and the two chapels by allocation of
a budget of about 240,000 US$ in the 2005 Fiscal Year Expenditures Program on
line 5 of the Yusufeli Dam and HEPP Project Allocations Section. It will be relocated
before impoundment.
The total agricultural lands to be inundated also show similar differences. At
720 m HWL agricultural area to be lost is 9% (63 ha) higher, while at 700 m 9%
(64 ha) lower and at 690 m and 17% (125 ha) lower than the loss at 710 m HWL.
Forest areas increases with elevation in the area. Thus, forest areas to be lost are
40% (4 ha) higher than the proposed HWL alternative, when HWL is 720m. On the
other hand this loss is 30% (3 ha) and 60% (6 ha) less in case of 700m and 690 m
high water levels. The loss of riverine habitat, which will be all lost due to the
formation of reservoir, changes with the HWL as well. At 720 m HWL this habitat to
be inundated is 5% (4 ha) higher than the proposed HWL. At 700 m and 690 m
levels this habitat is 11% (8 ha) and 22% (17 ha) lower than the case at 710 m HWL.
The estimated area to be flooded at HWL 720 m is 11% (350 ha) higher than the loss
at 710 m HWL. At 700 m HWL the total area lost is 11% (340 ha) less than the case
at 710 m HWL. Similar comparison shows that the difference between 710 m and
690 m HWL is 21% (669 ha).
During the feasibility studies the high water levels of 700 m and 690 m are found to
be not economically and technically viable as will have less energy benefits than
710 m HWL due to decrease of the effective storage capacities by about 12 % and
22%, respectively. It can be said that the 700 m HWL will cause comparatively less
loss of land and structures than 710 m HWL, but the difference of this loss is not very
big for 700 m HWL and 710 m HWL.
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 10 / 14
Source: Compiled From Satellite Image and Field Studies, ENCON, 2005
Figure 3.4. Status of Tekkale Citadel After Impoundment
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 11 / 14
Source: Compiled From Satellite Image and Field Studies, ENCON, 2005
Figure 3.5. Status of Hamzat I and Hamzat II Chapels After Impoundment
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 12 / 14
3.2. Minimization of Resettlement during Project Implementation
The Yusufeli Project will be constructed by the Consortium and all means shall be
considered to avoid or minimize further needs for resettlement. With this regard the
project facilities (construction camp facilities, material sites, borrow and disposal
areas, etc.), which would not be required for use in the operation phase, are located
such that they would be in the future reservoir area, except some portion of the
material borrow sites. Basically one impervious material borrow site extends to
outside of the inundation area. A significant part of this material site is in the
boundaries of Kinalicam Village, which will be completely relocated (see Chapter 6),
and is basically a rocky area. Thus, this material borrow area will not cause any
increase in resettlement. Any further needs or changes during construction will be
considered with the same approach to avoid further need for expropriation or
resettlement. In addition, resettlement activities for the downstream Artvin Project
will be coordinated with the resettlement implementation for the Yusufeli Project so to
eliminate and minimize any further need for expropriation or resettlement.
During project implementation another mean to avoid or reduce the need for
resettlement will be proper selection and preparation of the resettlement sites. The
resettlement site selection process for Yusufeli District Center is described in
Chapter 6. In this process certain criteria had been used to analyze the alternative
sites. These criteria included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Available land.
Present population.
Distance to main transportation routes and centers.
Distance to villages.
Existence of productive agriculture lands.
Existence of forest areas.
Existence of tourism potential.
Distance to the future reservoir.
Ownership status (treasury lands preferred).
Existence of groundwater.
Flood risk.
Earthquake risk.
Geological structure.
Altitude from sea level.
Existence of social and public facilities.
Status of present infrastructure.
In the identification of the alternative relocation sites ownership status in the area
were given special importance so to minimize (avoid to the extent possible) of any
expropriation or resettlement risk for the host population. However, the urban
relocation site (new Yusufeli district center) was selected at Yansiticalar and Sakut
Creek location (hereafter Yansiticilar) by the Turkish Government in July 2005. At
this site most of the land is owned by the State and no one lives in this area. There
are only 1.2 ha (0.7 % of the total area of 174.5 ha) agricultural land (clover) in the
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 13 / 14
area. (Appendix B.3).
Table 3.4.
The dominant land use types at this site are given in
Table 3.4. The Land Use in Resettlement Site (Yansiticilar)
Land Use
Bareland
Forest
River Bed
Agricultural Area (Clover)
Shrub
Total
Area (ha)
124.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
46.1
174.5
Percentage
71.2%
0.9%
0.8%
0.7%
26.4%
100.0 %
For minimizing the need for resettlement during implementation, the relocation site
for Yusufeli Town, the sites for project facilities and the alignment of relocation roads
(mainly Artvin-Bayburt road, which only has a conceptual design) are determined and
will be designed to avoid any further need for resettlement. In conclusion not to
increase the socio-economic impacts of the project and keeping the project
economics in mind, every effort will be put to avoid any further resettlement during
implementation.
Doc. Name:
YUSUFELI DAM AND HEPP PROJECT
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN
Doc. Code:
Revision:
Date:
ENC - YSF - YYP - 01
B
July 2006
Chapter 3
Pg. 14 / 14