Gaps between Stakeholders` Concerns and Mitigation Measures in ESIA Reports of Geothermal Energy Projects: A Case Study of Geothermal Energy Projects in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya
Abdek M. Abdi,Takehiko Murayama,Shigeo Nishikizawa,Kultip Suwanteep
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37284/eajenr.6.1.1619
2023-12-24
East African Journal of Environment and Natural Resources
Abstract:Geothermal energy serves as a viable alternative to fossil fuels in developing countries, catering to electricity needs, supporting socio-economic development, and striving towards sustainable development goals. It also poses potential negative impacts on the environment and society. This study conducted a comparative analysis of mitigation measures and stakeholders' concerns across eight environmental and social impact assessment reports (ESIA) for geothermal energy development projects in Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Mitchell's mitigation hierarchy guideline (1997) was used to examine the purpose of 708 proposed mitigation measures for eight environmental and nine social criteria extracted from the literature and then a deductive qualitative content analysis were used to categorize these measures according to 18 criteria collected from the literature. Additionally, using an inductive qualitative content analysis, the study analysed 680 stakeholders' concerns sourced from public participation materials in the ESIA reports, identifying four main thematic categories and twenty-two subcategories. Stakeholders expressed concerns predominantly about socio-economic (52%) and development matters (20%), while ESIA reports offered fewer social mitigation measures (28.7%) compared to environmental ones (71.3%). Nonetheless, a strong correlation between the environmental and social mitigation measures proposed for our 17 criteria demonstrates a higher proportion of measures in power plant construction projects. Despite this, communities voiced apprehensions about new involuntary resettlement plans, economic opportunities, and unrealized corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects. Furthermore, the study revealed that local communities complained about the adverse effects of previous geothermal development projects, including air, water, and soil pollution, impacting their health, crop production, and livestock. This research highlights the discrepancy between stakeholders' concerns and mitigation measures in ESIA reports, attributed to possible inadequacies in the conduct of social impact assessment and public participation, leading to misunderstandings regarding project impacts and benefits among local communities. To address these issues, this paper recommends a more comprehensive understanding of social aspects, the consideration of cumulative impacts from other geothermal projects in the same area, and transparent communication to avoid unrealistic or costly promises during the realization of ESIA reports for geothermal energy projects