Greenfield inland fuel terminal site
- We got involved after the EIA was conducted and asked to help with implementation of the EIA recommendations.
- Without mitigation biodiversity would be negatively impacted.
- Land set aside for biodiversity mitigation was already used as a communal area whe local people could undertaken farming. So the offset would cause negative community impacts. REcommendation that new land be purchased for these existing communal activities.
- Associated companies wanted to have their facilities near the terminal meaning more land was needed to accommodate this on this sensitive site. Managing these multiple stakeholders was critical.
- Three main parties had already had a dialogue where a negotiating framework had already been developed.
Addressing the challenges:
- Technical team of experts that addressed the impacts and possible solutions to these
- Separate meetings with all the stakeholders where we invited input on expectations
- But did not have multi stakeholder meetings or get stakeholders to develop solutions
- Minimal solution - just meet environmental and social requirements
- Intermediate solution
- Optimal solution - exceeding social and Env requirements
- Used cost benefit analysis
IAs can be a tool to deliver sustainable solutions through epbringing stakeholders together and pool knowledge and resources...
But partnership model has risks if partners renege on commitments, there is a trust building and problem solving element and an agreement and joint delivery/auctioning element.