This is the STEAG nga ilang gibalik balik og bisita nga KUNO maayo. Case study 2: Mindanao Coal-fired Power Plant Project in the Philippines The 210 Megawatt Mindanao Coal-fired Power Plant is an Independent Power Producer (IPP) project aimed at settling the allegedly imminent power shortage in 2006 in Mindanao. It is owned by Steag State Power Inc. (SPI), a joint venture of a Filipino company and the Steag AG of Germany, which supplied the technology and technical expertise in building the plant. The project cost was USD300 million. The plant was constructed in the municipality of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, which is 25 kilometers outside Cagayan de Oro City. It is located inside the 3,000-hectare Phividec Industrial Estate-Misamis Oriental (PIE-MO) where there are many people who make their living through agriculture and fishing. The project proceeded as scheduled and the SPI started its commercial operations in 2006. While the implementor is the SPI led by the Steag AG, the Japanese consortium of Sojitsu and Kawasaki Heavy Industries won the order for boilers, turbines and other equipment. Health hazards and environmental damage Local people are concerned about health hazards caused by the air pollution they encounter throughout the length of their life span due to plant emissions such as total suspended particles (TSP), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Another concern was the high possibility that the power plant would also contribute to hazardous environmental damage due to high levels of mercury and other heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, chromium, lead) in the effluents. Despite questions being raised by the local people, the topic of toxic heavy metals was never addressed in the public consultations. Involuntary resettlement Some 130 households, most of whom were landless farmers in the PIE-MO, were relocated out of the plant site. There is a big question of whether or not the compensation scheme for such resettlement will improve or at least restore their living standards. For example, the compensation standard for demolished structures in the relocation packages of the responsible governmental agency, PHIVIDEC, is 10 percent of the appraisal value of a structure to be demolished. This does not meet international standards, such as the World Bank Operational Policy 4.12, which stipulates that the depreciation of structures and assets should not be taken into account. The people were provided only a disturbance fee amounting to PhP6,000.00. Some of the families were provided a house in the resettlement site that has a mere area of 54 square meters. These resettled people were promised “priority of employment” in the project. Some people, however, were refused due to their age or lack of sufficient education. The people who were not supportive of the current presiding local politician also had difficulty accessing job opportunities. Even though some people were employed, they were fired after a few months and did not receive permanent or regular employment. After the construction phase, a great deal fewer local people have been employed. Viable alternatives Local NGO groups stressed that the coal-fired plant is not the most sustainable energy option for the region. They pointed out alternatives that are more economically and ecologically sound, such as renewable energy sources and the rehabilitation of existing hydroelectric power plants. Their proposal, however, was neither discussed in the EIS nor during consultations, and was not incorporated into the project plan. Consultations and local people’s participation in the decision-making process. The local NGOs and people’s organizations (POs) raised their concerns through various ways, such as petition letters and protest actions. However, the EIS defined the affected people as those who reside in an area within a two-kilometer radius from the stack and a distance of six kilometers along the coastline starting at the mouth of Tagoloan River. Although the local groups pointed out that it is necessary to investigate the effects of the coal-fired plant on the environment, agricultural products, fishery and the people in a wider range than that considered in the EIS, they were defined as outsiders or non-affected people who had no right to participate in the planning process of the project. Local groups were unsuccessful in trying to obtain a copy of the EIS from the relevant Philippine government agencies. It is obvious that the relocated people were not provided with the opportunity to participate in making the resettlement plans. They were presented with the existing relocation package, called the Memorandum of Agreement between Province of Misamis Oriental and PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority, in 1995. No consultation about their options regarding the form of compensation, for example, land or monetary compensation, took place. There were also insufficient opportunities for affected local residents and local NGOs to participate in the planning, implementation and monitoring of the Social Development Plan of the SPI, which was only issued in English, a language that is difficult for most of the local residents to understand. Japanese proponents’ performance SPI initiated its Social Development Plan as stated in its website: “Mindful of its social responsibility towards its host communities as well as the areas nearby, the company has developed a comprehensive community development program that is responsive to the needs of the communities’ constituents and aims toward sustainability and self-sufficiency.” Several income generating livelihood projects have been launched, such as a food catering project, a handcrafted cards project, a chair making project and a demo-farm agricultural project. None of these livelihood projects, however, has succeeded in providing a main source of income for the people. Many residents who think that a livelihood program is not enough to restore their living standard have not participated in these programs. For example, the relocated people in the resettlement sites qualify to be provided with 200 square meters of land per family in the 1.4-hectare demo-farm, which is only enough to serve as a sideline livelihood. As a result, only four out of 32 qualified families are still engaging in the demo-farm program. Some have chosen instead to return to their original residence where they can find more agricultural land for their livelihoods. A series of medical missions have also been conducted in collaboration with agencies of government units. However, many residents failed to enjoy the medical services since they were busy making their living.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 06:38:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015