Options
Ethiopia-Sudan Power System Interconnection, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). Final Report.
Date Issued
2006
Status
Open Access
Abstract
The objectives of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) are to:
Identify potential negative and positive environmental impacts of the different alternatives considered.
Provide technical information and recommendations to help select and design the best alternative, and;
Prepare an environmental management plan which includes: a mitigation program, monitoring plan, program of technical assistance; and describes institutional arrangements for the preferred route.
The ESIA considered transmission line route alternatives suggested by previous studies including: i) Gedo-Nekemte-Gimbi-Kurmuk-Roseires (Option A, 614 km); ii) Debre Markos-Injibara-Border-Roseires (Option B1; 448 km); iii) Bahir Dar-Injibara-Border-Roseires (Option B2; 425 km); iv): Bahir Dar-Gonder (Azezo)-Shehedi-Metema-Gallabat-El Gedaref (Option C, 446 km). Although all of these options formed the basis of the ESIA investigation, greater attention was given to preferred route Option C.
It is stated in the report that the ESIA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the governments of Ethiopia and the Sudan and World Bank policies and procedures.
The ESIA report essentially: i) provides description of the project including the proposed work (the transmission line and the new Gedaraef substation), operation and maintenance, area of impact, project implementation and cost; ii) provides baseline data on physical, biological and socio-cultural environments, and economic activities; iii) gives account on environmental impacts (public consultation held, different types of impacts considered, and their mitigation measures); iv) presents the analysis of alternatives conducted; v) presents the environmental management plan for the preferred route: management measures for pre-, during- and post-construction phases; institutional arrangements and strengthening; training; and monitoring.
The Study concludes that based on detailed field work for the preferred route, secondary data sources and consultations with Project affected people, local, regional and national government agencies and other organizations it is unlikely that the Project will have significant adverse social and environmental impacts. Most adverse impacts are considered to be of a temporary nature during the construction phase and can be managed to acceptable levels with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the Environmental Management Plan for the Project such that the overall benefits from the Project will greatly outweigh the adverse impacts.
Identify potential negative and positive environmental impacts of the different alternatives considered.
Provide technical information and recommendations to help select and design the best alternative, and;
Prepare an environmental management plan which includes: a mitigation program, monitoring plan, program of technical assistance; and describes institutional arrangements for the preferred route.
The ESIA considered transmission line route alternatives suggested by previous studies including: i) Gedo-Nekemte-Gimbi-Kurmuk-Roseires (Option A, 614 km); ii) Debre Markos-Injibara-Border-Roseires (Option B1; 448 km); iii) Bahir Dar-Injibara-Border-Roseires (Option B2; 425 km); iv): Bahir Dar-Gonder (Azezo)-Shehedi-Metema-Gallabat-El Gedaref (Option C, 446 km). Although all of these options formed the basis of the ESIA investigation, greater attention was given to preferred route Option C.
It is stated in the report that the ESIA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the governments of Ethiopia and the Sudan and World Bank policies and procedures.
The ESIA report essentially: i) provides description of the project including the proposed work (the transmission line and the new Gedaraef substation), operation and maintenance, area of impact, project implementation and cost; ii) provides baseline data on physical, biological and socio-cultural environments, and economic activities; iii) gives account on environmental impacts (public consultation held, different types of impacts considered, and their mitigation measures); iv) presents the analysis of alternatives conducted; v) presents the environmental management plan for the preferred route: management measures for pre-, during- and post-construction phases; institutional arrangements and strengthening; training; and monitoring.
The Study concludes that based on detailed field work for the preferred route, secondary data sources and consultations with Project affected people, local, regional and national government agencies and other organizations it is unlikely that the Project will have significant adverse social and environmental impacts. Most adverse impacts are considered to be of a temporary nature during the construction phase and can be managed to acceptable levels with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the Environmental Management Plan for the Project such that the overall benefits from the Project will greatly outweigh the adverse impacts.