RP762 v28 CANAKCI I HEPP SENGUN ENERJI ELEKTRIK URETIM SAN. TIC. A.S. REPORTING FORM FOR LAND ACQUISITION IN ENGLISH REPORTING FORM FOR LAND ACQUISITION ŞENGÜN ENERJİ ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM SAN. TİC. A.Ş. 1. Information About Project Name &Location of Sub- Çanakçı I HEPP located in Çanakçı district, committed to Giresun project province. Project Sponsor ŞENGÜN ENERJİ ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM SAN. TİC. A.Ş. Project Cost 16,307,303 USD Installed Generation Capacity 3unit*1.76 MW/unit=5.3 MW Key Dates of Implementation The land used for the investment hasn’t been registered in a cadaster. The area has completely volunteer purchased. When the cadaster work completes, the investor will take the title deeds. There are three villages (Kuşköy, Karabörk and Deregözü) where General Information Çanakçı HEPP is located. There isn’t any resettlement. 16,151 m2 was voluntary purchased and 174,350 TL was paid to the land users. 13,026 m2 of total area was used for construction of the facilities (like power house, regulator etc.) and 125,750 TL was paid to the land users. 2,469 m2 was used for construction of temporary roads and 48,600 TL was paid to the land users. There are hazelnut gardens on the purchased land. But the land owners were not subjected to adverse economic effects because they have other hazelnut gardens as well. As explained above, the land used for the investment hadn’t been registered in a cadaster before. The area has entirely been acquired by voluntary purchase. 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) 15,534 m2 Owner’s/user’s total land holding (ha); % taken for There is no information about the project. total land that the villagers owns because the land hasn’t been registered. So we can’t calculate the (%) amount taken for the project. Land use: pasture, agriculture, residence, etc. Agriculture Inventory of any structures or other fixed or productive Only hazelnut gardens 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 Yes, however the remaining part of for owner or land user. the land still belongs to the owners. Compensation paid. 174,350 TL Dates delivered. 2009,2010 Impact on income of owner. No negative impact. 3.Inventory of Public, Community, or State Land Acquired Land parcels / plots acquired (ha). Land type / land use: Forest, commons for grazing, other. Ownership: State, community, other. Structures or other fixed assets. Compensation, land transfer, or other measures to mitigate impacts on land users. Specify measures and dates of delivery. 4.Public Awareness, Consultations, and Communication The investor has met face to face by each land users and gave information about the project. He made contracts to the land users. But the land users declared that the investor didn’t paid the all amount written on the contracts. He is still having negotiations with the land users in order to solve the problem. It is expected that these kind of problem will continue during the investment. 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 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 The project affected persons to register grievances or complaints. could make the complaints to the investor directly. Were affected people made aware of grievance redress The affected people can apply to mechanism? If so, when and where? the local authority. 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.