Why do international NGOs criticize the BTC consultation process? Does the project meet IFC consultation standards?
BTC has put in place a comprehensive public consultation and disclosure process to address interested and affected parties in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. This commenced in mid-2001 with a process of stakeholder identification and preliminary consultation during project scoping. This was followed by the distribution of information briefs, introductory and follow-up meetings with national, provincial and local authorities, national and local NGOs, communities and interest groups along the pipeline route. These included meetings and surveys in early 2002 to assess possible environmental and social impacts and to develop possible mitigation measures.
The draft ESIA was released in May 2002 in Azerbaijan and Georgia and in June 2002 in Turkey. An intensive consultation process in all three countries (‘disclosure road show’) was put in place during the 60 day period following release of the draft ESIAs during which public comments were sought (and received, 800+ in Azerbaijan, 3,000+ in Georgia and 1500+ in Turkey) and communities were visited all along the pipeline route.
BTC has established well-resourced community liaison teams in each country (assisted by national and international consultants) to undertake this consultation. The disclosure and consultation process included ongoing sponsor dialogue with a variety of NGOs and members of civil society. Land Acquisition and Compensation Guides (40,000 copies) were released in October 2002 and comprehensive Resettlement Action Plans were also disclosed locally in December 2002.
Detailed discussions commenced in November 2002 with individual directly affected households (total of 17,700 in all three countries) concerning land acquisition and compensation, and this process was validated by IFC’s social specialists. This direct communication with owners of each affected land right has contributed significantly to the ongoing consultation process and has resulted in a much improved understanding of the pipeline project at the local level. Landowner users and all the 500 or so communities within two kilometers of the route have now been contacted several times during the preparation of the ESIAs and RAPs. However, there are a number of absentee family members, with shares in household land rights, who have not been contacted (particularly in Turkey) because they have moved to urban centers or other countries. Considerable efforts are being made to contact them.
There are over 750,000 people living in communities along the entire 1,760 kilometers of the route and BTC does not claim to have consulted all those who have not been directly affected by the pipeline. BTC has however ensured that local communities have all had an opportunity to attend public meetings and voice their concerns. The involvement of local NGOs by BTC in each country to provide advice and monitor the land acquisition process has also contributed to overall communication and consultation. The project’s country-specific Public Consultation and Disclosure Plans (PCDPs) provide for comprehensive on-going interaction with interested and affected parties at national and local levels throughout the construction and operational phases of the project. The PCDP includes a listing of consultation carried out-to-date. Implementation of the PCDP will be subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation by IFC.
Was adequate attention paid to concerns of the Kurdish people, including use of the Kurdish language?
IFC is concerned that all affected households along the pipeline route be informed about the project’s impacts, its land acquisition procedures, and its compensation measures, in a language with which they are fully conversant.
We discussed with BTC various practical measures that could be taken to ensure that every project-affected person had meaningful information available. This resulted in a number of actions, such as the inclusion of Kurdish-speaking members in teams involved with community liaison, land acquisition and negotiation, particularly when visiting communities with households of Kurdish origin. The BTC teams noted a very high level of literacy in the Turkish language in these communities, and IFC concurs with this assessment after a detailed verification in the field.
IFC’s social development specialists have made various visits to a cross section of affected villages to observe the land acquisition process and to validate BTC consultations. During recent visits to Turkey, IFC staff observed the land acquisition process in a number of communities, that are either entirely or partially of Kurdish origin. Discussions were held with a range of affected households, village leaders and elders, local schoolteachers, and other members of these Kurdish communities.
In our conversations with these members of the Kurdish communities, we were informed that there was no one in these communities who was not fluent in Turkish. While Kurdish is also commonly spoken at home it was emphasized by respondents that very few individuals had ever seen local Kurdish dialects in written form and almost no one had ever learned to read Kurdish.
Those few individuals that cannot read Turkish are also illiterate in Kurdish. In addition, all affected households and communities consulted indicated their strong preference for use of the Turkish language for negotiations and documentation of land acquisition agreements. Discussions with a local NGO (Rural and Urban Development Foundation - RUDF) involved with third party monitoring of the community liaison and land acquisition processes, gave no reason to believe that this situation is any different in other Kurdish communities along the pipeline route. It is noted however that this is not necessarily the case with other Kurdish communities elsewhere in Turkey (such as the southeast) distant from and not directly affected by the pipeline.
The Kurdish-speaking members of the teams that IFC staff met are from the districts traversed by the pipeline and are familiar with local circumstances. They are clearly competent and professional team members. It was apparent from IFC staff observations that the land acquisition teams have been able to establish a good rapport and a relationship of trust with affected communities. This sets a sound foundation for ongoing interaction when construction commences. BTC has clearly demonstrated a commitment to continue with active consultation and community liaison activities.
