South Stream€¦ · URS-EIA-REP-202375 i Table of Contents 15 Socio-Economics ...................................................................................... 15-1 15.1

URS-EIA-REP-202375

Chapter 15: Socio-Economics

URS-EIA-REP-202375 i

Table of Contents 15 Socio-Economics ...................................................................................... 15-1

15.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 15-1 15.1.1 Structure of Socio-Economic Chapter ..................................................... 15-1 15.1.2 Human Rights Due Diligence ................................................................. 15-2 15.1.3 Relationship to the Health Impact Assessment ....................................... 15-2 15.1.4 Relationship to Other Chapters .............................................................. 15-2

15.2 Scoping ............................................................................................................ 15-2 15.2.1 Impacts Identified During Scoping ......................................................... 15-2 15.2.2 Post-Scoping Stage Revisions ................................................................ 15-3

15.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries ........................................................................ 15-4 15.3.1 The Project and Project Sections ........................................................... 15-4 15.3.2 Project Location ................................................................................... 15-4 15.3.3 Study Area and Zone of Influence ......................................................... 15-5

15.4 Methodology and Data....................................................................................... 15-6 15.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 15-6 15.4.2 Data Sources ....................................................................................... 15-6 15.4.3 Data Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................... 15-12

15.4.3.1 Limitations ................................................................................. 15-12 15.4.3.2 Assumptions ............................................................................... 15-12

15.5 Socio-Economic Baseline .................................................................................. 15-13 15.5.1 Geographic and Political Context ......................................................... 15-14

15.5.1.1 Geographic Context .................................................................... 15-14 15.5.1.2 Political Context .......................................................................... 15-14

15.5.2 Local and Regional Government Framework ......................................... 15-14 15.5.3 Overview of Local Communities and Other Areas .................................. 15-16 15.5.4 Population and Demography ............................................................... 15-21

15.5.4.1 Population .................................................................................. 15-21 15.5.4.2 Demographics ............................................................................ 15-21

15.5.5 Economy ........................................................................................... 15-23 15.5.5.1 Gross Domestic and Regional Product Indicators .......................... 15-23 15.5.5.2 Composition of the Economy and Key Sectors .............................. 15-23

15.5.6 Employment and Livelihoods ............................................................... 15-25 15.5.6.1 Employment Trends .................................................................... 15-25 15.5.6.2 Unemployment ........................................................................... 15-26 15.5.6.3 Skills and Qualifications ............................................................... 15-27 15.5.6.4 Poverty ...................................................................................... 15-28

15.5.7 Land Ownership ................................................................................. 15-28 15.5.8 Land Use and Marine Area Use ............................................................ 15-32

15.5.8.1 Existing Land Use ....................................................................... 15-33 15.5.8.2 Future Land Use ......................................................................... 15-36 15.5.8.3 Existing Marine Area Use ............................................................. 15-41 15.5.8.4 Future Marine Area Use............................................................... 15-43

Chapter 15 Socio-Economics

ii URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.5.9 Social Infrastructure and Services ........................................................ 15-43 15.5.9.1 Housing ..................................................................................... 15-43 15.5.9.2 Utilities ...................................................................................... 15-44 15.5.9.3 Education ................................................................................... 15-44 15.5.9.4 Health and Emergency Services ................................................... 15-45 15.5.9.5 Social Services ............................................................................ 15-45

15.5.10 Tourism, Recreation and Leisure ........................................................ 15-46 15.5.10.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 15-46 15.5.10.2 Overview of Tourism Industry .................................................... 15-47 15.5.10.3 Tourist Accommodation in Varna Region ..................................... 15-47 15.5.10.4 Tourism and Recreational Facilities and Activities ........................ 15-48

15.5.11 Fishing and Fisheries Industries ......................................................... 15-51 15.5.12 Disadvantaged or Vulnerable Individuals and Groups .......................... 15-56

15.5.12.1 Identification of Potentially Vulnerable Groups ............................ 15-56 15.5.12.2 Stakeholder Engagement with Vulnerable Groups ....................... 15-61

15.5.13 Baseline Summary and Key Findings .................................................. 15-61 15.5.13.1 Varna Region ............................................................................ 15-62 15.5.13.2 Varna Municipality and Avren Municipality .................................. 15-62 15.5.13.3 The Local Communities ............................................................. 15-63

15.6 Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 15-64 15.6.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ........................................................ 15-64

15.6.1.1 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Criteria ................................. 15-64 15.6.1.2 Impact Assessment Methods ....................................................... 15-71

15.6.2 Impact Assessment: Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase .......... 15-73 15.6.2.1 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation).......................... 15-76 15.6.2.2 Mitigation and Enhancement ....................................................... 15-91 15.6.2.3 Residual Impacts: Construction and Pre-Commissioning ................ 15-98

15.6.3 Impact Assessment: Operational Phase ............................................. 15-105 15.6.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................. 15-105 15.6.3.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation)........................ 15-107 15.6.3.3 Mitigation and Monitoring: Operational Phase ............................. 15-109 15.6.3.4 Residual Impacts: Operational Phase ......................................... 15-110

15.6.4 Impact Assessment: Decommissioning Phase ..................................... 15-112

15.7 Unplanned Events ......................................................................................... 15-112 15.7.1 Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase ....................................... 15-112 15.7.2 Operational Phase ............................................................................ 15-112 15.7.3 Decommissioning Phase .................................................................... 15-112

15.8 Cumulative Impact Assessment ...................................................................... 15-113 15.8.1 Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase ....................................... 15-113 15.8.2 Commissioning and Operational Phase ............................................... 15-113

15.9 Human Rights ............................................................................................... 15-113 15.9.1 Due Diligence Process ...................................................................... 15-114 15.9.2 General Policies and Procedures ........................................................ 15-115 15.9.3 Labour and Working Conditions ......................................................... 15-115 15.9.4 Local Communities ........................................................................... 15-117

URS-EIA-REP-202375 iii

15.9.5 Supplier Engagement ....................................................................... 15-117 15.9.6 Security Provision ............................................................................. 15-117

15.10 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 15-118 15.10.1 Summary of Impact Assessment...................................................... 15-118 15.10.2 Overview of Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 15-119 15.10.3 Stakeholder Concerns and Community Investment Programme ......... 15-119 15.10.4 Conclusions .................................................................................... 15-120


iv URS-EIA-REP-202375

Tables

Table 15.1 Socio-Economic Baseline Data Collection Meetings .......................................... 15-10

Table 15.2 Local Communities within the Project’s Area of Influence ................................. 15-15

Table 15.3 Bulgaria Annual GDP Real Growth Rates, 2005 to 2012 (Percent Change) ......... 15-23

Table 15.4 Land Ownership within the Landfall Section .................................................... 15-31

Table 15.5 Population aged 7+ by Educational Level Achieved (%) ................................... 15-45

Table 15.6 Project Activities Relevant to Socio-Economic Impact Assessment..................... 15-66

Table 15.7 Receptors by Impact Type .............................................................................. 15-68

Table 15.8 Socio-Economic Impact Sensitivity .................................................................. 15-70

Table 15.9 Socio-Economic Impact Magnitude ................................................................. 15-70

Table 15.10 Significance Matrix ....................................................................................... 15-72

Table 15.11 Significance of Predicted Impacts ................................................................. 15-72

Table 15.12 Estimated Labour Levels during Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase ... 15-77

Table 15.13 Summary Table - Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase Residual Socio-Economic Impacts ....................................................................................................... 15-100

Table 15.14 Summary Table - Operational Phase Residual Socio-Economic Impacts ......... 15-111

Figures

Figure 15.1 National, Regional, Municipal and Local Community Context of the Project ........ 15-7

Figure 15.2 National, Regional and Local Unemployment Rates (percent) .......................... 15-27

Figure 15.3 Land Ownership within the Project Landfall Section ........................................ 15-29

Figure 15.4 Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project Landfall Section ................................. 15-37

Figure 15.5 Tourism, Recreational and Social Infrastructure .............................................. 15-39

Figure 15.6 Beach Survey Results: 18 to 22 August and 20 to 24 September, 2012 ............ 15-50

Figure 15.7 Galata Gas Pipeline and Proposed South Stream Offshore Pipeline .................. 15-53

Figure 15.8 Fishing Community of Ada Bacha .................................................................. 15-55

Figure 15.9 Anticipated Profile of Direct Employment for the Project during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase .............................................................................................. 15-78

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-1

15 Socio-Economics

15.1 Introduction

This chapter contains an assessment of the potential socio-economic impacts associated with the Project. In addition, measures that aim to avoid, reduce, remedy, or offset / compensate for potential adverse impacts are proposed, and the significance of potential residual impacts (i.e. impacts remaining after the implementation of mitigation measures) are assessed. Where relevant, measures to enhance certain beneficial impacts are also presented.

15.1.1 Structure of Socio-Economic Chapter

This chapter applies the impact assessment methodology as detailed in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology. Section 15.2 relates to scoping and sets out those potential impacts and risks that have been able to be screened out of this impact assessment, along with the rationale for these decisions. The following section, Section 15.3, sets out the spatial boundaries used to guide the baseline data gathering exercise and the impact assessment and identifies the ‘Local Communities’ referred to throughout this chapter 1 , while Section 15.4 contains an account of the work undertaken to obtain data to inform the impact assessment (including desktop and field surveys, and the key data sources used).

A description of the existing (baseline) socio-economic characteristics, as understood through desktop and field surveys, is provided in Section 15.5. This baseline focuses on a description of the current situation, as well as key trends. The baseline section includes national and regional level data for comparison with local socio-economic characteristics.

Section 15.6 presents the impact assessments for the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase and Operational Phase, respectively. The section commences with a presentation of the criteria used to assess receptor sensitivity (based on the baseline description) and impact magnitude. Following this, for both the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase and for the Operational Phase, this section sets out the pre-mitigation impact assessment, the relevant mitigation measures in respect of adverse impacts, as well as enhancement and monitoring measures to be applied, followed by the residual impact assessment.

Section 15.7 and Section 15.8 examine the potential for unplanned events and cumulative impacts respectively, with respect to their potential to impact on socio-economic receptors. Section 15.10, the final section, provides a summary of the key findings of this assessment.

1 For the purposes of this socio-economic assessment, certain communities (the city of Varna, Asparuhovo, Galata and Zelenika, Priboj and Fichoza, Borovets (including Kantara), Rakitnika, Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ) are referred to as ‘Local Communities’. They are described further in Section 15.5.3.


15-2 URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.1.2 Human Rights Due Diligence

Section 15.9 covers the Human Rights Due Diligence process that has been undertaken to complement the socio-economic impact assessment. It explains the due diligence process that has been followed before examining human rights issues in respect of general policies and procedures; labour and working conditions; Local Communities; supplier engagement; and security provision.

15.1.3 Relationship to the Health Impact Assessment

A health impact assessment has been undertaken in compliance with International Finance Cooperation (IFC) Performance Standards (PS) 2 and 4 covering both community health and wellbeing and occupational health and safety. The results of this process have been documented in Chapter 16 Community Health, Safety and Security. The socio-economic and health impact assessment teams have worked together closely in undertaking these assessments. Appendix 9.4: Traffic and Transport Study has informed the findings of the community health and safety assessment. Where the socio-economic assessment relies on information from either Chapter 16 or Appendix 9.4, readers are directed to these chapters, to obtain a detailed account of the relevant impacts.

15.1.4 Relationship to Other Chapters

This socio-economic impact assessment chapter has taken into account the findings of other chapters to inform and evidence the assessment of impacts on socio-economic receptors; including but not limited to Chapter 9 Air Quality, Chapter 10 Noise and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual. Where the socio-economic assessment relies on information from Chapter 9, Chapter 10, Chapter 14, Appendix 15.1, Appendix 15.2 or Appendix 12.1, readers are directed to these chapters, to obtain a detailed account of the relevant impacts.

The findings of this chapter are also supported by Appendix 15.1: South Stream Offshore Pipeline Fisheries Study and Appendix 15.2: Pasha Dere Beach Usage Survey. Additionally, this chapter has also referred to Appendix 12.1: Sediment Dispersion Modelling Report.

15.2 Scoping

15.2.1 Impacts Identified During Scoping

A scoping exercise was undertaken in 2012 and resulted in the disclosure of a Scoping Report (Ref. 15.1) in January 2013, followed by associated stakeholder consultation. The aims of the scoping process were to identify the potential Project-related impacts, so as to inform the baseline studies, to seek feedback from stakeholders on the Scoping Report and identify any additional issues to be considered in the ESIA process.

The Scoping Report identified receptors and communities with the potential to be affected by the Project’s activities. It also identified potential impacts in relation to land use and ownership, potential Project Affected Communities (PAC), the local economy and traffic.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-3

15.2.2 Post-Scoping Stage Revisions

Following the Scoping process, refinement of the Project design and further investigation of the baseline conditions within the study area have enabled this assessment to conclude that there are a number of potential impacts and risks that are not expected to be significant. The rationale for the screening out of these potential impacts and risks are discussed below.

15.2.2.1 Indigenous Peoples

Baseline studies have not identified any indigenous peoples as defined by IFC PS7 in the vicinity of the Project or the Local Communities. As such, no potential impacts on indigenous peoples were identified or assessed.

15.2.2.2 Utilities

The Project, during all phases, will make provision for meeting its electricity, water, sewage and telecommunications needs by means that will be independent of existing systems serving domestic or commercial users within the Local Communities (e.g. by using diesel generators, bringing water in from off-site, using chemical toilets, and/or connecting to the facilities of South Stream Bulgaria AD (SSB)). Specific considerations regarding utilities are provided in Chapter 5 Project Description and summarised below.

With specific regard to the Project’s industrial water needs during construction, for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that industrial water will be sourced from an existing well at Varna West Port (via an industrial water supplier) and transferred by a tanker vessel / barge to Varna East Port, before transporting it by road tankers from Varna East Port to the Project landfall section via the route shown in Figure 5.10.

The Project will ensure that existing third party services will be located, marked, and either safeguarded or diverted in accordance with owners’ agreements. In the case of the telecommunications and other cables, activities will be based on the worldwide industry standard prepared by the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC).

The water and sewerage utility in Varna (ViK Varna OOD) has reported that future upgrades of the existing water main in the Project Area are planned. It is anticipated that this work will be undertaken during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project. Methods have been identified within Chapter 5 Project Description to ensure that future work on these water pipes and the Project are not in conflict with one another. The detailed design and timing of these works will be agreed in consultation with ViK Varna OOD.

Accordingly, unless in case of accidental disruption, no potential impact to these services or to the domestic or commercial users of these services were identified or assessed (see Chapter 20 Unplanned Events for consideration of the issues associated with accidental damage to third party property and utilities).

15.2.2.3 Marine Recreational Activities

There will be no adverse impact on scuba diving (both businesses and recreational) due to sediment dispersion and marine exclusion zones. Increased sediment dispersion will be limited,


15-4 URS-EIA-REP-202375

localised and very short-term during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, while the marine safety exclusion zones during construction will only be in place for a limited period and do not extend over or restrict any important dive sites. Information on restricted areas will be provided to the relevant authorities to inform navigation charts for marine stakeholders identifying marine exclusion zones through the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

There will also be no adverse impact on recreational sailing or boating activities due to the marine safety exclusion zones. It is considered that recreational sailors (and other non-commercial vessels) will not be impacted by the Project given their ability to easily navigate around the vessel spread during construction of the nearshore and offshore sections. Information on restricted areas will be provided to the relevant authorities to inform navigation charts for marine stakeholders identifying marine exclusion zones through the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

Both diving and boating clubs and businesses have been included in stakeholder engagement, including disclosure and consultation activities to date. These stakeholders have not raised any particular concerns or issue related to these activities, and will continue to be included in the ongoing stakeholder engagement programme.

15.3 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

15.3.1 The Project and Project Sections

The Project is described in detail in Chapter 5 Project Description of this Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Report. A brief description of the elements of the Project relevant to the socio-economic impact assessment is provided in this section.

The Project Area comprises three sections – landfall, nearshore and offshore – within which the Project’s activities will occur. The landfall section including South Stream Transport’s landfall facilities (a fenced area containing metering and other equipment) will be approximately 3.5 km in length. Within this section, the pipelines will be housed in microtunnels that terminate approximately 450 m inland from the coast. From here to the landfall facilities, the pipelines will be buried using open-cut construction techniques. For safety reasons, the buried onshore Pipeline will have a minimum soil cover of 1.5 m. The nearshore section starts at the exit of the microtunnels, approximately 420 m from the shore, and continues approximately another 23 km to where the water depth is approximately 36 m. From here, the offshore section begins and involves pipe-laying in deeper waters. The Project also includes three marshalling yards that will be used for storage of pipe and equipment. Further detail on each section and the marshalling yards is given in Chapter 1 Introduction.

15.3.2 Project Location

The landfall section of the Project is located in the Varna Region, and predominantly within the south of Varna Municipality, with the exception of a proposed temporary construction area and access route located across the municipal boundary in Avren Municipality. The Varna East and Varna West port marshalling yards are also within the Varna Region, and fall within the Varna

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-5

Municipality and Devnya Municipality, respectively. The third marshalling yard will be located in the city of Burgas, in the Burgas Region to the south of Varna Region.

Varna Municipality is on the Black Sea coast surrounded by Avren Municipality to the south (located approximately 1 km from the landfall section), Beloslav Municipality to the west, Aksakovo Municipality to the north and to Bay of Varna (Black Sea) to the east. Varna Municipality includes within its boundaries the city of Varna, which is the largest urban settlement (2011 estimated population 344,000) in the region, as well as a number of smaller outlying settlements (Ref. 15.2). In population terms, Varna Municipality is approximately ten times the size of the next largest city in the region (Provadiya Municipality), and it is also the largest city on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. The city of Varna (i.e. the central urban area of the municipality, north of Varna Bay) is located approximately 11 km to the north of the landfall section of the Project. The city of Burgas is located approximately 75 km to the south of the Project landfall section, with an estimated population of approximately 215,000 people in 2011 (Ref. 15.2).

Within Varna Municipality, there are a number of smaller towns outside of the urban city of Varna, many of which provide more rural residences for people working in the city, or secondary homes for weekend or holiday use. South of the city and geographically closer to the Project are the communities of Asparuhovo; Galata and Zelenika; Priboj and Fichoza; Borovets and Kantara; and Rakitnika. The closest community to the landfall section of the Project is Rakitnika, which is located approximately 1.9 km north. Additionally, in Avren Municipality, the closest communities to the Project are Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ, both of which are in the mayoralty of Priseltsi. These settlements are shown in Figure 15.1.

For the purposes of this socio-economic assessment, the communities listed above are referred to as the ‘Local Communities’, meaning that these are the communities most likely to be affected (beneficially or adversely) by the Project. These communities were identified as potential PACs in the Scoping Report primarily because they are the closest communities to the Project Area. In the case of the city of Varna (i.e. the central urban area of the municipality) it is also considered to be a Local Community due to its role as the main supply and service centre in the region, and due to the potential for possible impacts associated with workforce accommodation and the marshalling yards. However, the community of Avren is not considered to be a Local Community due to its distance, 35 km due west, from the Project. The city of Burgas is not considered to be a Local Community due to the assumption that activities in Burgas will be limited to the use of the existing port facilities.

15.3.3 Study Area and Zone of Influence

The Scoping Report for the Project (Ref. 15.1) established both terrestrial (onshore) and marine (offshore) socio-economic study area definitions. Onshore, the Study Area was shown to include the area within 2 km of the landfall section of the Project and also within a 300 m zone either side of existing transport access routes, overlapping with the communities of Kantara and Rakitnika. The Study Area definition provided a frame of reference to consider the potential impacts arising as a result of the Project on its immediate surroundings. References in this chapter to the Study Area refer to the Onshore Study Area unless otherwise stated.


15-6 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The Project may also give rise to socio-economic impacts beyond the initially identified Study Area at a range of geographic scales from the national scale (Bulgaria), to the regional scale (Varna Region), to the municipal scale (e.g. Varna Municipality and Avren Municipality). Any impacts within the Study Area will usually be at the local scale (e.g. the Local Communities).

Accordingly, impacts on social and economic receptors are assessed in relation to various Zones of Influence, according to the type of impact. For the socio-economic impacts described in this chapter, the anticipated zones of influence are also identified. Economic impacts for example may be experienced at all levels, whereas community impacts are typically local. Exceptions to this pattern are clearly stated under each respective impact assessment.

15.4 Methodology and Data

15.4.1 Introduction

To assess potential socio-economic impacts, relevant existing baseline data has been identified and then supplemented by field research surveys and interviews. Data have been collected and presented at different spatial levels (national, regional, municipal district and local levels, as appropriate) according to the nature of the potential impact being assessed.

Socio-economic data and information included in this assessment have been obtained from a wide range of sources, including secondary sources (i.e. existing data including census statistics, government or academic reports, etc., collected through desk-based research) and primary sources (i.e. new data collected through interviews, field surveys and stakeholder engagement activities, as described in Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement).

15.4.2 Data Sources

In Bulgaria, there are good quality statistics at the national and regional levels; however, at the local and municipality levels, data may be available but is limited or difficult to obtain. The extent of the data available was determined by contacting local government authorities. Where required current data was not available, primary data collection including field surveys and studies was undertaken to obtain this data.

Data for local level administrative areas, such as Asparuhovo and Priseltsi mayoralties (within which the Local Communities fall), is limited and in several cases was not available. The extent of available data was determined by contacting and visiting these local level government authorities. Some current data were not available or not obtainable, as they are not recorded at the local level.

The following sections set out the secondary data that has been obtained, the data gaps identified, and the primary data research and baseline surveys undertaken to supplement available existing data.

Pasha Dere Beach

V a r n a B a y

Varna Bay

Priseltsi Mayoralty

Asparuhovo Mayoralty

L a k e V a r n aVarna Beach

Port of Varna (Varna East Port)

Chernomorets Beach

A5 Motorway

Route 9

Route 9

Krushkite Road

VARNA MUNICIPALITY

AVREN MUNICIPALITY

GalataZelenika

Priboj andFichoza

Rakitnika

Borovets

Kantara

Zvezditsa

Priseltsi

Asparuhovo

Varna

Ada Bachafishingcommunity

Priseltsi VZ

Fishingbusinesses

Beloslav

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked

NATIONAL, REGIONAL,MUNICIPAL AND

LOCAL COMMUNITY CONTEXTOF THE PROJECT

SOUTH STREAMOFFSHORE PIPELINE

Scott HouseAlencon Link, BasingstokeHampshire, RG21 7PPTelephone (01256) 310200Fax (01256) 310201www.ursglobal.com

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

DateApproved

RevDrawing Number

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of URS' appointment withits client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. URS accepts no liability for any

use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for whichit was prepared and provided. Only written dimensions shall be used.

© URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3AH VS VS 08/05/2014

CheckDate SuffixCheck

By

For InformationClient

LEGEND

Revision Details

Plot D

ate: 02

Sep 2

013File

Name

:I:\5004

- Info

rmatio

n Syst

ems\4

636908

2_Sout

h_Stre

am\MX

Ds\Re

port M

aps - B

ulgari

a\Bulg

arian E

IA\Ch

apter

15\Fig

ure 15

.1 Natio

nal Re

gional

Munic

ipal di

strict a

nd loc

al com

munity

conte

xt of th

e proje

ct.mxd

1:65,000

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

46369082

0 1 2 3km Figure 15.1

Local CommunitiesOther communitiesAda Bacha fishing communityFishing businessesA5 MotorwayRoute 9Krushkite RoadMunicipality boundaryMayoralty boundary

Bulgarian Sector of SouthStream Offshore Pipeline

Proposed offshore pipelinesProposed microtunnelsProposed landfall sectionpipelinesLandfall facilitiesRight-of-WayMicrotunnel entry pointMicrotunnel exit pointPermanent access road tobe constructed by SSTTBV

Galata Pipeline InfrastructureExisting Galata gas pipelineExisting Galata gasprocessing plant

South Stream Pipeline System on theTerritory of the Republic of Bulgaria

Varna compressor station.Pasha Dere receiving terminalSSBAD pipelinesPermanent access road to beconstructed by SSBAD

Varna Region

B l a c k S e a

AVREN MUNICIPALITY

VARNA MUNICIPALITY

Burgas

Varna Region

Bulgaria

B l a c k S e a

0 25 50 km

0 100 200 km

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-9

15.4.2.1 Secondary Data

Secondary data was obtained for the national and regional levels, as well as for Avren and Varna Municipalities, local infrastructure (such as the Port of Varna), and for the local mayoralties (Asparuhovo and Priseltsi) and Local Communities. The secondary data was obtained from publicly available databases and by contacting local government authorities and explaining data needs with requests for access to data, and then accessing and recording the data held in local government offices.

The main sources of secondary information were:

• The administrative bodies of the Varna and Avren municipalities, in response to formal requests;

• The official web-site of the Bulgarian National Statistical Institute (www.nsi.bg), including results of the 2011 National Census (http://www.nsi.bg/census2011);

• The Territorial Planning Institute of Varna Municipality (http://www.tpovarna.com); and

• The Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat).

15.4.2.2 Data Gaps

A review of secondary (existing) data research revealed a number of data gaps, particularly related to the following themes:

• Demographics;

• Economy;

• Housing; and

• Recreation statistics, specifically related to use of the beach and coastal marine areas.

There was also limited demographic and economic data available for Varna and Avren Municipalities. These data gaps have been addressed through primary data research, the details of which are set out below.

15.4.2.3 Primary Data Collection

In light of the data gaps that emerged from the review of secondary data, a data collection exercise was undertaken with the aim of obtaining primary data. It sought to supplement the secondary data gaps as well as to verify and ground-truth the existing secondary data. Primary and mostly qualitative data on socio-economic characteristics were collected during field visits in 2012, 2013 and 2014, primarily through stakeholder engagement. These visits also included observations of conditions in the Local Communities, meetings and interviews with local government authorities, local businesses including fisheries enterprises representatives, and a survey of existing traffic volumes near the landfall. The visits sought to:

• Observe and ascertain the socio-economic characteristics prevailing in the area;

• Conduct socio-economic baseline studies and collect data;

http://www.nsi.bg/

http://www.nsi.bg/census2011

http://www.tpovarna.com/


15-10 URS-EIA-REP-202375

• Conduct qualitative interviews with local officials in order to build up a more detailed picture of the socio-economic environment in the Study Area and Zones of Influence, particularly within the identified Local Communities; and

• Observe and ascertain the condition of roads and other infrastructure that may be used by the Project.

15.4.2.4 Beach Usage Survey

To understand the use of Pasha Dere Beach during and outside the tourist season, two repeat surveys were conducted in 2012: one in mid-August (at the height of the tourist season) and one in mid to late-September (outside the peak tourist season). Each survey included three weekdays and two weekend days.

The beach usage surveys were observational surveys based on a survey protocol and checklist of items to be recorded. The number of people in the beach area was recorded over the day, along with their activities; however, no interviews were undertaken. Survey results are presented as part of the baseline summary in Section 15.5. Full details of the survey are provided in Appendix 15.2.

15.4.2.5 Stakeholder Engagement

Specific stakeholder engagement in Bulgaria began in June 2012, when South Stream Transport formally initiated the national EIA procedure for the Project by notifying the Bulgarian authorities, via the MoEW, of its investment proposal. A number of introductory meetings with local authorities and other stakeholders followed, and scoping meetings related to the disclosure of the Scoping Report (which also acted as the Terms of Reference for the EIA Report) were held in January and February 2013. The EIA Report was disclosed in November 2013, and the EIA public hearings were held in Varna and Priseltsi on 19 and 20 December 2013.

Stakeholder engagement has also informed the content of the ESIA, including baseline information, the scoping of potential impacts, and suggestions for mitigation and management measures. In some cases, this information has come through specific data collection meetings (Table 15.1) with local agencies and organisations. Many of these data collection meetings also functioned as engagement with stakeholders regarding Project Activities and impacts as stakeholders were often provided with information and updates about the Project, and were encouraged to provide feedback about the Project and the ESIA.

Table 15.1 Socio-Economic Baseline Data Collection Meetings

Stakeholder Name Date(s)

Asparuhovo Mayoralty January 2013

Continued…

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-11

Stakeholder Name Date(s)

Priseltsi Mayoralty January 2013

November 2013

February 2014

Ada Bacha Fishing Community September 2012

June 2013

August 2013

Varna Chamber of Tourism June 2013

November 2013

Varna Police (Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Interior) June 2013

Varna Chamber of Commerce and Industry June 2013

February 2014

National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings November 2013

State Forest Office Varna February 2014

March 2014

SOS Families at Risk (NGO) November 2013

February 2014

Sauchastie (NGO) March 2014

Varna Local Employment Office March 2014

Varna Regional Employment Agency March 2014

Municipality of Varna, Social Welfare Department March 2014

Hunting and Fishing Association, Varna and Galata Hunting Club March 2014

Complete.

15.4.2.6 Information from other Chapters

The socio-economic baseline has also considered information from other chapters, in order to inform and evidence the subsequent assessment of impacts on socio-economic receptors; including but not limited to Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual, Chapter 16 Community Health, Safety and Security, Chapter 17 Cultural Heritage and Chapter 18 Ecosystem


15-12 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Services, as well as Appendix 9.4 and Appendix 15.1. Other chapters of the ESIA Report are cross referenced where appropriate.

15.4.3 Data Assumptions and Limitations

15.4.3.1 Limitations

The following limitations apply to the data contained within this baseline:

• Due in part to variations between data sources, it has not been possible to obtain data for consistent or comparable time frames for all indicators across all geographic levels at which data has been collected. However, wherever possible, efforts have been made to collect the most recent data available. Given that most data is collected over a five-year time period, it is considered that the trends are clearly evident and that the data has not compromised the assessment;

• Where possible, data has been provided for a minimum of five years. However, in some cases, it has not been possible to obtain a full five years of data. To supplement the lack of data, qualitative data, such as existing studies and papers, have been consulted where possible to take any relevant prevailing trends into account in establishing the baseline; and

• Local-level data (i.e. specific to the Local Communities) was often limited or unavailable, as socio-economic data are not often collected at this level. Where possible, qualitative information has been collected to supplement areas where statistics are lacking.

It is not considered that the above limitations compromise the integrity of the assessments made in this chapter.

15.4.3.2 Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made:

• The Project workforce in the nearshore and offshore sections of the Project will be specialised and non-local. This workforce will be accommodated on the vessels on which they work. The workers will come ashore only for brief periods in transit when rotating on and off the vessels. They are likely to come ashore at a port and proceed with onward travel. This port may or may not be in Bulgaria;

• There will be no accommodation camp for any in-coming workers;

• It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that non-local construction workers will lodge in the city of Varna (and city of Burgas for any non-local workers at the Burgas Port marshalling yard). This is based on the consideration that it is the city of Varna, rather than the smaller Local Communities, that is most likely to have a sufficient supply of suitable accommodation options available given the anticipated number of non-local workers;

• Chapter 16 Community Health, Safety and Security states that South Stream Transport (or the Contractor) will undertake a Rapid Health Appraisal of the potential socio-economic and health impacts related to the preferred option(s) for workforce accommodation during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. The purpose of this appraisal is to avoid significant adverse impacts on Local Communities by identifying

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-13

potential impacts and appropriate mitigation / management measures before the start of construction. The appraisal will include consultation with applicable local and regional authorities, including health and social service providers; and

• As discussed in Chapter 5 Project Description, all three marshalling yard locations (Varna East Port, Varna West Port and Burgas Port) will be required and used by the Project, although only one will have a quad-jointing facility. Burgas Port will be used to supply the marine sections of the Project, rather than transport by road to the landfall construction site.

15.5 Socio-Economic Baseline

This section provides a summary of the baseline methodology (including data sources and limitations), and describes the baseline socio-economic characteristics of the Project Area and Study Area. The section is structured as follows:

• Section 15.5.1: Geographic and Political Context;

• Section 15.5.2: Local and Regional Government Framework;

• Section 15.5.3: Overview of Local Communities and Other Areas;

• Section 15.5.4: Population and Demography;

• Section 15.5.5: Economy;

• Section 15.5.6: Employment and Livelihoods;

• Section 15.5.7: Land Ownership;

• Section 0: Land Use and Marine Area Use;

• Section 15.5.9: Social Infrastructure and Services;

• Section 15.5.10: Tourism, Recreation and Leisure;

• Section 15.5.11: Fishing and Fisheries Industries;

• Section 15.5.12: Disadvantaged or Vulnerable Individuals and Groups; and

• Section 15.5.13: Baseline Summary and Key Findings.

Information presented in Section 15.5.3 to Section 15.5.6 includes national, regional and municipal level data, as well as data at the Local Community level, where available, in order to demonstrate the how local demographic and socio-economic characteristics compare with the national and regional levels.

In contrast, information presented in Section 15.5.7 to Section 15.5.12 tends to focus on the municipal and/or local (Local Community) level, with occasional reference to regional and/or national level data where relevant. This reflects both the availability of information (Section 15.4.2) and the nature of the anticipated Project impacts.


15-14 URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.5.1 Geographic and Political Context

15.5.1.1 Geographic Context

The South Stream Offshore Pipeline will extend across the Black Sea from the Russian coast near Anapa, through the Turkish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), to the coast of Bulgaria near Varna. The Black Sea is bordered by several countries including, running clockwise from the Project location in Russia; the Russian Federation, Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine.

15.5.1.2 Political Context

The Republic of Bulgaria is governed by a multi-parliamentary system, with separate legislative, executive and judicial powers. Presidential elections are held every five years, with the elected president serving as head of state for a five year term, for a maximum of two terms (Ref. 15.3). The 240-seat National Assembly, or Parliament, is vested with the legislative power. The Members of Parliament are directly elected for a 4-year term on the basis of proportional representation. Parties and political coalitions need 4% of the popular vote to qualify. The Council of Ministers (the Government), chaired by the Prime Minister, currently consists of 18 ministers. The Prime Minister is primarily nominated by the largest parliamentary group and is given a mandate by the President to form a cabinet.

Parliamentary elections were held in Bulgaria in 2009 with the Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) winning the majority vote. Following widespread political turmoil regarding Bulgaria’s socio-economic conditions, increase in electricity process and poverty, the GERB resigned from government in February 2013. An interim government was appointed in March by former President Rosen Plevneliev and parliamentary elections took place in May 2013, with the GERB coming first in the election with 31% of the votes and the Socialist party accounting for 27% of the votes. However, following dispute of electoral results, GERB was unsuccessful in its attempt to win the majority of the seats in parliament and form a government (Ref. 15.4). On May 29, 2013, a technocratic government was formed, led by the Bulgarian Socialist Party and backed by the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF). This coalition was one vote short of majority, and as such has relied upon the support of the nationalist Ataka party to form a government. Plamen Oresharski (Ref. 15.5) was named Prime Minister of Bulgaria following the appointment of the new government with 120-97 votes (Ref. 15.6).

15.5.2 Local and Regional Government Framework

The nation of Bulgaria is divided up into 28 regions and 264 municipalities. Each region has a Regional Governor appointed by the national level Council of Ministers (Ref. 15.7). Regions in Bulgaria act as executive / administrative bodies between national and municipal governments. They have responsibility to coordinate the implementation of plans, programs and policies but do not have legislative authority.

As Bulgarian regions do not have any legislative authority, the municipality is the principal administrative and territorial unit of local government (Art. 5, Ref. 15.7). The municipality is led by a municipal council and a mayor, both of which are directly elected by residents in the

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-15

municipalities under the terms and conditions provided for by national law (Art 17 and 18, Ref. 15.8). The mayor, supported by the municipal authority administration, is the executive arm of the municipality. Each municipality has its own budget and its main functions include the provision of public services (e.g. healthcare, education, culture, etc.), environmental protection and rural and urban development. At the municipal level, citizens participate in local self-government by resolving issues directly (e.g. through general meetings, referendums) or through their elected bodies (Art. 17, Ref. 15.7).

Municipalities may be further sub-divided into units termed ‘mayoralties’ (with the municipal council creating these sub-divisions as appropriate). Mayoralties can be created at the discretion of the Municipal Council where there are one or more neighbouring communities with a combined population above 500 people. Each Mayoralty has a directly elected mayor (who in turn selects and appoints his or her own deputy mayor) but no directly elected councils. Mayors perform functions established by the procedural rules of the municipal council to which they are accountable (Ref. 15.7).

Within the Varna Municipality, the landfall section is primarily located within the Asparuhovo mayoralty, and is adjacent to the Priseltsi mayoralty in Avren Municipality (see Figure 15.1). Zvezditsa, located east of the A5 Motorway, along which construction traffic will run between the marshalling yards and the landfall section of the Project, is located within its own mayoralty. The communities within these mayoralties are discussed in further detail in Section 15.5.3.

The Local Communities and other large communities near to the Project Area are shown in Figure 15.1 and set out in Table 15.2.

Table 15.2 Local Communities within the Project’s Area of Influence

Local Community

Municipality Estimated Approximate Population

Approximate Distance from the Project

From Landfall Facilities

From Pipeline Alignment

Varna Municipality*

City of Varna Varna 344,000 11 km† 10 km†

Asparuhovo Varna 20,000 7.5 km 6.5 km

Galata and Zelenika

Varna 2,500 6.2 km 5.2 km

Priboj and Fichoza

Varna 1,000 3.9 km 2.6 km

Rakitnika Varna 500 3.0 km 1.9 km

Continued…


15-16 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Local Community

Municipality Estimated Approximate Population

Approximate Distance from the Project

From Landfall Facilities

From Pipeline Alignment

Borovets (incl. Kantara agricultural area)

Varna 13,000 3.2 km

(1.5 km from Kantara)

2.4 km (from Borovets)

(670 m from Kantara)

Avren Municipality**

Priseltsi Avren 1,175 4.4 km 4.4 km

Priseltsi VZ Avren (included in Priseltsi but permanent population estimated at less than 250)

3.3 km 3.3 km

Notes: †Distance may vary depending on the precise point of measurement used in the city of Varna. * Source: Estimated based on NSI Census 2011 (Ref. 15.2) and Varna Territorial Master Plan (Ref. 15.8); ** Source: Ref. 15.2.

Complete.

15.5.3 Overview of Local Communities and Other Areas

As set out in Section 15.3.2, the landfall section of the Project is located in the Varna Region, predominantly within Varna Municipality2, but also including a temporary construction site area within Avren Municipality. The population of Varna Region in 2011, as recorded by the national census, was approximately 475,000, while the population of the two municipalities was 344,000 and 8,500 respectively (Ref. 15.2).

The city of Varna, located within the Varna Municipality, is the primary city within the Varna Region, accounting for almost three quarters of the Region’s population. In addition to the city of Varna, there are a number of smaller, rural communities located within the Varna Municipality; some of these communities are located south of the city, closer to the Project Area. These communities may be affected by the Project through impacts such as traffic and noise, as well as change to landscapes and recreation in the area.

The largest of these communities are Asparuhovo (population approximately 20,000) and Borovets (approximately 13,000), which are generally considered to be residential suburbs of

2 Varna Municipality and Avren Municipality are two of the 12 municipalities within Varna Region (one of the 28 Bulgarian regions (also known as provinces).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-17

Varna. Other smaller semi-rural communities in the area include Galata and Zelenika3, Priboj and Fichoza 4, and Rakitnika. All of these are located within the Asparuhovo Mayoralty (an administrative subdivision of the Varna Municipality) and include weekend and holiday homes as well as some permanent residents. Also in the vicinity of the Project Area are the communities of Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ, located within the Avren Municipality. All these communities are located within 10 km of the south of the city of Varna, and have populations ranging from approximately 500 to 3,500 people. Zvezditsa (within Varna Municipality, but independent of Asparuhovo Mayoralty) is another small community (population of 1,200; Ref. 15.2), located some 200 m east of the main road (A5 Motorway); however, as there will be no impacts on this community, it is not considered further within this chapter.

The communities which have been identified as Local Communities for the purpose of this assessment are the city of Varna, Asparuhovo, Galata and Zelenika, Priboj and Fichoza, Borovets (including Kantara), Rakitnika, Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ. Each city and community is discussed in the following section; for each community it has been identified as to whether or not it has been considered as a Local Community.

15.5.3.1 City of Varna

The city of Varna is located approximately 11 km north of the landfall section. It is the administrative and population centre of the Varna Municipality, with an estimated population in 2011 of approximately 344,000 (including communities not part of the contiguous urban area of the city but within the city’s municipal boundaries) and is the third largest city in Bulgaria (Ref. 15.2).

The city includes the eastern part of the Port of Varna5 (Varna East Port), a busy industrial and commercial port and the location of one of the three marshalling yards for the Project. Residential areas of the city are located to the north of the Port. Social facilities in the industrial area of the port include yacht clubs and marinas, a hospital, a maritime administration centre and a post office. The main beach, Varna Beach, is located immediately north of the eastern limit of the port. Lake Varna and Varna Bay are popular recreational areas and also serve as the base for several small-scale fishing enterprises.

The city of Varna is considered a Local Community for the purposes of this assessment.

15.5.3.2 City of Burgas

Burgas is a large city in southeast Bulgaria, located approximately 75 km south of the Project landfall section. Its population at the time of the 2011 census was approximately 213,000 (Ref. 15.2). The city has the largest cargo harbour in the country. In addition to its industrial

3 These places are physically adjoining and referred to together for the purposes of this assessment. 4 These places are physically adjoining and referred to together for the purposes of this assessment. 5 The part of the port known as Varna Port West is located approximately 18 km west of the city of Varna adjacent to Lake Beloslav in Devnya, part of Devnya Municipality, and neighbouring Beloslav Municipality.


15-18 URS-EIA-REP-202375

importance, Burgas is also a tourist centre with its own facilities, including a mineral spa, and is a transportation hub for tourists travelling to resorts in the south of the country.

A site within the existing Port of Burgas will be used as a marshalling yard to import and store pipe segments. As the port is already established and all activities within the marshalling yard will take place within existing port facilities, Burgas is not considered to be a Local Community for the purposes of this socio-economic assessment. As such it is not considered further within this assessment, except with regard to the potential for beneficial employment impacts as a result of the demand for labour in association with the marshalling yard.

15.5.3.3 Asparuhovo

The community of Asparuhovo lies on the southern shore of the inlet to Lake Varna and is located immediately south and east of the Asparuhovo Bridge. The main road (Highway A5) from Varna to Burgas, which is part of an access route for the landfall section of the Project, runs to the northwest of Asparuhovo. It is a medium-density urban area (see Table 15.2; estimated population of 20,000 people) and largely functions as a suburb of the city of Varna. This area contains some high-rise apartments and office blocks. Social facilities include a kindergarten, a primary school, a school for the blind, a technical school (shipbuilding), a shopping mall, a polyclinic, a hospice and a public park.

Administratively, the community of Asparuhovo is the seat of Asparuhovo Mayoralty; which encompasses Asparuhovo itself as well as the communities of Galata, Zelenika, Priboj, Fichoza, Rakitnika, and Borovets. All of these communities (discussed below) are considered as Local Communities for the purposes of this assessment.

15.5.3.4 Galata and Zelenika

Galata and Zelenika is a suburban area (see Table 15.2; combined estimated population of approximately 2,500 people) east of Asparuhovo, and the two settlements are located either side of a road that may be used by some construction traffic (e.g. light vehicles used to transport the Project workforce to the construction site) for the landfall section. Galata has moderate density housing, while Zelenika is of lower density. Social facilities include a primary school and an aged care residence. Main roads are typically sealed.

15.5.3.5 Rakitnika

Rakitnika is the closest residential community (see Table 15.2; population approximately 500 people) to the landfall section of the Project, and is located approximately 1.9 km north of the landfall section Pipeline alignment and 3.0 km from the landfall facilities. There are vineyards and agricultural areas in the immediate area, and many residences have horticultural areas nearby or independent allotments. Rakitnika’s proximity to a beach and elevated aspect make it an attractive area for holiday homes, although tourist-related development (e.g. hotels, restaurants) and infrastructure is limited compared to the facilities along the coast north of Varna.

Roads within the community are typically unsealed. The main sealed road that serves the Local Community runs along its eastern boundary and may be used by some Project-related traffic

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-19

(e.g. light vehicles used to transport the Project workforce to the construction site). Some residences on the southern fringe of Rakitnika have views over the area where the existing Galata Gas Processing Plant is located and the proposed location of the Project’s landfall facilities, as well as views towards the nearshore section of the Project Area.

15.5.3.6 Priboj and Fichoza

These two small adjacent communities (see Table 15.2; combined estimated population of approximately 1,000) are located to the north (Priboj) and northeast (Fichoza) of Rakitnika. The main road connecting them to Varna (passing along the western boundary of the communities) may be used by some Project-related traffic (e.g. light vehicles used to transport the Project workforce to the construction site). There are summer houses in both communities, as well as some small hotels in Fichoza, which is located directly on the coast. Priboj has a small number of amenities, including a grocery store. The surrounding land is dominated by agriculture and vineyards.

15.5.3.7 Borovets (including Kantara agricultural area)

Borovets, approximately 3 km south of Asparuhovo, comprises a suburban area plus the Kantara agricultural area to the south. The main suburban area of Borovets is approximately 2.4 km north of the Pipeline alignment and 3.2 km of the landfall facilities. Borovets has an estimated population of around 13,000 people (see Table 15.2). Some Project-related traffic (e.g. light vehicles used to transport the Project workforce to the construction site) may pass through Borovets and Kantara.

Some residences on the southern fringe of Borovets have open views over the Pasha Dere valley where the existing Galata Gas Processing Plant is located and the Project’s landfall facilities will be sited. Vineyards within Kantara extend to within 1.5 km of the landfall facilities. However, the majority of these vineyards currently do not appear to be actively cultivated.

15.5.3.8 Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ

Priseltsi is a small community with a population of approximately 1,175 (Ref. 15.2 and Ref. 15.9) located in Avren Municipality, approximately 4.5 km west of the proposed landfall facilities. A major road between Burgas and Varna passes through the community and may be utilised as an access route between the Burgas marshalling yard and the landfall section, although it is assumed that the majority of traffic between the marshalling yards and the landfall section will originate from the marshalling yard in Varna and therefore will not need to travel through Priseltsi (see Section 15.4.3.2).

Priseltsi VZ (‘Villa Zone’) is located approximately 2 km north of the main residential area of Priseltsi and approximately 3.5 km northwest of the landfall facilities for the Project. Priseltsi VZ includes both a permanent residential and summer homes. Within Priseltsi VZ, the western part of the community is sometimes referred to as Krushkite, while the southern part is known locally as Pazarliyata. The community is understood to be primarily made up of ‘villas’ (weekend or holiday homes), although often of basic standards. As a ‘Villa Zone’, infrastructure and services are in the community are limited, as these zones do not have the same requirements for road repair, rubbish collection and other community services. There is one small shop in the


15-20 URS-EIA-REP-202375

community, and regular (though not frequent) bus service. There is no evidence that the town is a focus for short term let activity.

The community is accessed via a road known as the Krushkite Road for the purpose of this assessment. This road does not connect directly to the main town of Priseltsi; instead, it runs east to Route 9, from where Priseltsi can be accessed by Highway A5. The turn off is located approximately 2 km east of the highway on Road 9. A portion of the Krushkite Road, plus an existing farm track (east of Priseltsi VZ), will be used to access the landfall section of the Project.

Discrete population data for the community is not available, as it is included within Priseltsi; however, the Mayor of Priseltsi estimated that the town had a population of 700 (Ref. 15.10). Based on satellite imagery and several observations made at different times of the year, it is estimated that the town has a permanent population of less than 250 but which is likely to double or triple in summer months.

Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ are both considered as Local Communities for the purposes of this assessment.

15.5.3.9 Other Places of Interest

In addition to the permanent communities described above there are other areas of interest from a socio-economic perspective. These are listed below:

Ada Bacha

Ada Bacha is a small fishing community, which is occupied year-round by approximately seven households with a combined population of just under 20 people, plus additional guests in the summer (Ref. 15.11 and Ref. 15.12). The community is located at the northern end of Chernomorets Beach approximately 2.3 km north of the Project landfall section shore crossing at Pasha Dere Beach.

Pasha Dere Beach

Pasha Dere Beach is the location of the shore crossing. The beach is approximately 1.3 km in length from north to south and its northernmost point is approximately 1.5 km south of the southern extent of Rakitnika. The beach is used for recreation, including swimming, sailing, fishing and camping. Parts of the beach are also popular with naturist groups. There are no developed amenities (e.g. shops, toilets) at the beach, and access is via unsealed roads.

Chernomorets Beach and Tourist Resort (Rest Area Summer Camp)

Chernomorets Beach is located north of Pasha Dere Beach on the other side of a rocky headland. The beach is adjacent to the Chernomorets Tourist Resort, and south of Rakitnika. Facilities include a number of bungalows and a boat ramp. There is no direct access between Chernomorets and Pasha Dere beaches.

The Chernomorets Tourist Resort is located approximately 700 m north of the proposed shore crossing, southeast of Rakitnika. The buildings, comprised primarily of timber bungalows,

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-21

appear to be in reasonable condition and used as tourist accommodation. It includes bungalows, a restaurant and a snack shop. The camp is bounded to the southeast by the Rakitnika Protected Area.

Scattered Residences

There are a small number of scattered residences (approximately 10 to 12) overlooking Chernomorets Beach to the north of the Chernomorets Tourist Resort, several of which are likely to have views out to sea. There are also a number of outlying residences in the agricultural area of Kantara and to the south of Priseltsi VZ.

15.5.4 Population and Demography

15.5.4.1 Population

Data from 2011 National Census estimated that in 2011, the population of Bulgaria was approximately 7.4 million with a third of the population living in three cities: Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna. A gradual population decline occurred nationally between 2004 and 2010 (approximately -0.5% annually), followed by a sharper decline recently, between 2010 and 2011 (-2.6%). This is part of a long-term trend, with a population decrease of more than 1.7 million recorded between 1986 and 2011 (Ref. 15.13). This population decline is one of the steepest in Europe. The causes of these declines are considered to be high levels of emigration and a negative natural growth rate 6 which, over the period 2001 to 2008, varied between -5% and -4% (Ref. 15.13 and Ref. 15.14). Against a national trend of population decline; the regions of Sofia (city region) and Varna Region are the only two regions in Bulgaria where populations increased between the 2001 census and 2011 census, growing by 10.3% and 2.8% respectively (Ref. 15.16). Most Bulgarian regions are declining in population, but Sofia and Varna are notable exceptions to this trend, followed by Burgas Region which experienced the smaller population decline, -1.8%, for the same period (Ref. 15.15).

As noted above, Varna Region and Varna Municipality recorded modest growth between 2001 and 2011 (Ref. 15.15), including a 4.1% increase in the population of Varna Municipality between 2010 and 2011 (Ref. 15.16). Population increase in Varna was supported prior to the 2008 global economic crisis by way of the municipality attracting net inflows of economically active people with relatively high levels of education and skills.

In contrast to Varna Municipality, the long-term downward population trend has continued in Avren Municipality with a slight decline between 2004 and 2010 and then a sharp decline between 2010 and 2011, from 9,040 to 8,630 (-4.5%) (Ref. 15.16).

15.5.4.2 Demographics

Nationally, due to the low birth rate and high emigration levels among young people of child bearing age, the population is ageing. This is reflected by Bulgaria having the second lowest

6 Natural Growth Rate is the number of births minus the number of deaths per unit of time.


15-22 URS-EIA-REP-202375

proportion of people aged 0 to 14 in the European Union (EU) (13.4% compared to an EU-27 average of 15.6%, and 25.3% in neighbouring Turkey) (Ref. 15.17). Consequently, the nation’s total age dependency ratio7 at the end of 2012 was 48.7%, having risen steadily from 44.6 at the end of 2008 (Ref. 15.18). However, the Bulgarian dependency ratio is still below the European average (50.2% at the start of 2012) although it is substantially above that of other eastern European countries such as Romania (43.0%) and Poland (40.7%). It is on par with neighbouring Turkey (48.4%), although in Turkey this reflects the greater proportion of 0 to 14 year olds in the population in contrast to the situation in Bulgaria (Ref. 15.19).

This situation is mirrored in Varna Region (45.6%) and Burgas Region (46.4%) (Ref. 15.18). Within Varna Region, Avren Municipality, where a large proportion of the population is aged 65 or over, displays an even higher total age dependency ratio of 48.4% in 2009. In contrast, for both Varna Municipality and the city of Varna, the age-dependency ratios are substantially lower; in 2009, they were 28.5% and 27.7% respectively, indicating a higher number of working-age persons and fewer children and older people attracted to the Municipality (Ref. 15.18).

In common with most of Europe, Bulgaria has slightly more females than males, though the gap may be reducing; males constituted 48.7% of the population in 2011, a slight increase from 48.5% in 2004 (Ref. 15.18). Over the period 2004 to 2011 (Ref. 15.20), there were consistently more females than males in Varna Region. This was also the case within the municipalities of both Varna and Avren. However, comparing urban and rural residents, the gender ratio is more balanced in rural areas.

Ethnic Bulgarians represent 84.8% of the national population, while Turks comprise 8.8% (588,320 people) and Roma 4.9% (325,340 people); small populations of Armenians, Macedonians, Russians and Greeks make up the remainder of the population (Ref. 15.21). Despite government-led attempts to promote assimilation, most Bulgarian minorities have retained their identity and culture, and live in identifiable, discrete communities rather than being dispersed throughout the population (Ref. 15.22).

Whilst Varna Region mirrors the national ethnic composition, Varna Municipality has a relatively lower proportion of members of the Turks (3.6%) and Roma ethnic groups (1.1%). However, neighbouring Avren Municipality has higher numbers of these main ethnic groups (18.4% and 11%, respectively) (Ref. 15.23). There is an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 Roma living in Asparuhovo (Ref. 15.24).

7 The ratio is the number of persons under 15 years of age plus persons over 65 years of age compared to the number of persons aged 15 to 64 years. The ratio is expressed here as a percentage, and the data reported is aligned with the Eurostat definition. The higher the number, the greater the number of younger and older people in the population, compared to those of working age (i.e. the potential labour force, aged 15 to 64 years).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-23

15.5.5 Economy

15.5.5.1 Gross Domestic and Regional Product Indicators

After the end of the communist regime in 1989, and until the middle of the 1990s, Bulgaria was characterised by weak economic performance with consistently high levels of inflation and unemployment. Reforms in the 1990s have improved the economic situation since 2000, and annual economic growth in GDP averaged over 5.5% in real terms between 2000 and 2008 (Ref. 15.25). Table 15.3 shows that, reflecting the recent global economic crisis, Bulgaria went into recession in 2009 as GDP fell by 5.5% (compared to the previous year) and that growth resumed slowly in 2010, picked up pace in 2011 but remained largely static in 2012. According to forecasts in late 2013, GDP was projected to rise by 0.5% in 2013 and 1.5% in 2014 (Ref. 15.26).

Table 15.3 Bulgaria Annual GDP Real Growth Rates, 2005 to 2012 (Percent Change)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

6.4 6.5 6.4 6.2 -5.5 0.4 1.8 1.8

Source: Ref. 15.26

Varna Region accounts for over 6% of national GDP and is an important and diversified economic centre that outperforms the national average for a number of economic indicators. Varna Municipality’s economy, dominated by the city of Varna, contributes significantly to the GDP contribution of the region (Ref. 15.27).

In trend terms, Varna Region’s economy grew more strongly than the national economy leading up to the recession; but since the recession it has lagged the national economy (Ref. 15.28, Ref. 15.29, Ref. 15.30 and Ref. 15.31) A likely cause of this relative slow-down has been the cooling of the residential and tourism-related construction industry in Varna Region since the recession. Nevertheless, in every year since 2000, the GDP per capita in Varna Region exceeded the national figure. This is reflected in average wages / salaries in Varna Region being consistently higher than the national average (Ref. 15.32).

15.5.5.2 Composition of the Economy and Key Sectors

Nationally in 2009, the two leading sectors of the Bulgarian economy (as measured by Gross Value Added (GVA8)) were ‘industry’ (including manufacturing but excluding construction) and ‘retail trade, transport and accommodation’ accounting for 22.1% and 20.0% of GDP, respectively. However, their relative share of economic output has declined over the period 2006 to 2009 at the expense of other sectors including construction (9.2% in 2009), real estate

8 GVA is a measure of the value of goods and services produced by an area, sector or producer minus the cost of the raw materials and other inputs used to produce them. Unlike GDP, GVA does not include taxes or subsidies on the goods and services. GVA is useful for comparing performance across different areas as it is often difficult to allocate taxes and subsidies sub-nationally.


15-24 URS-EIA-REP-202375

(9.4%), information and communication (5.7%), financial and insurance activities (7.1%), and entertainment and recreation (2.9%); which all experienced consistent rises in their share of output. Administrative and support services at 5.5% of GDP and public administration at 13.2% remained relatively consistent over the same period (Ref. 15.28). Between 2004 and 2008, the contribution of the residential construction sector to national GDP increased from approximately 2% to 6%; it then fell to around 4% of GDP by 2010, which is slightly below the EU average (Ref. 15.33) (Appendix 15.3: Socio-Economic Data gives a breakdown of GDP by economic activity at the national level).

Tourism in Bulgaria experienced high levels of growth during the early part of last decade before declining in the second part of the decade. The most recent data available indicates that since 2012 the contribution to GDP and employment has started to rise again, although somewhat slowly, after more than five years of small but ongoing decline. In 2013, tourism directly contributed approximately 3.7% of national GDP (reflecting growth of 1.2% on the preceding year) and approximately 3.4% of employment (approximately 100,100 jobs up 0.5% on the preceding year). Indirectly, tourism accounts for approximately 13.3% of GDP and 12.2% of employment through retail and other sectors such as construction, transport, entertainment and private and public sector services (Ref. 15.34).

Regionally, the structure of the Varna Region economy differs compared to the national economy as the region’s economy is more dependent on construction, retail trade, transport, the hotel sector, entertainment and recreation and less dependent on manufacturing, industry, agriculture, forestry and fishing. The biggest difference is in retail trade, transport, and accommodation (28.4%) in 2009, reflecting the importance of tourism to the Varna Region (Ref. 15.28) (Appendix 15.3 presents a breakdown of GDP by economic activity for Varna Region).

The municipalities of Varna and Avren are very different economically. The economy of Varna Municipality is characterised by an economically diverse, metropolitan economy and supported by a wide range of infrastructure, reflecting the characteristics of Varna Region (as Varna Municipality accounts for three quarters of the regional population). In contrast, Avren Municipality is a typical rural area featuring small communities, with an economy dominated by agriculture, forestry and tourism.

There are no large scale industries in Avren Municipality, only small to medium-sized industrial enterprises involved in manufacturing or craft production. The number of registered private enterprises has reduced from ten in 2006 to two in 2011. The two sectors experiencing economic growth are agriculture9 and tourism. There has been an increase in the number of registered agricultural organisations, from 14 in 2006 to 35 in 2011 (Ref. 15.10). However, at least part of this increase is considered likely to be due to reclassification of certain enterprises following Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union in order to qualify for assistance under the Common Agricultural Policy.

9 Defined, as it is nationally and regionally, to include agriculture, forestry and fishing.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-25

Tourism is a major industry in Varna Region, with most tourist development and infrastructure in Varna Region concentrated along the coast to the north of the central area of the city of Varna (predominantly within the limits of Varna Municipality). Avren Municipality has also developed tourism but on a considerably less intense scale; two tourist complexes (both are located in the Kamchiya area, approximately 10 km to the south of the Project) have been built relatively recently.

Detailed economic data on the Local Communities is not available. However, both the Varna Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Varna Chamber of Tourism confirmed that there is only limited economic activity and industry located within those communities. This includes some small companies engaged in meat processing and furniture manufacturing in the Local Communities. They also identified that local agriculture was also small in scale and that the main agricultural activity, viticulture (the cultivation of vineyards), consisted mainly of small vineyards with one slightly larger company located in Priseltsi (Ref. 15.35).

The Chamber estimated that between 60% and 70% of those residents with jobs in the area are likely to hold jobs in Varna city, evidencing the relative lack of economic activity in the Local Communities and the dependence of residents therein on the city of Varna for employment opportunities. In terms of fishing, there is a small subsistence fishing community at Ada Bacha and another smaller group that operates at Galata (although, according to the Ada Bacha community, the group at Galata does not comprise a residential settlement in the way that Ada Bacha does) (Ref. 15.11). Other than this, fishing companies are based within the Port of Varna (Ref. 15.35).

The Varna Chamber of Tourism identified that there was limited tourism development in the Local Communities in contrast to the large scale tourism industry predominating to the north of Varna. The Chamber further reported that, apart from those staying at a small number of small scale hotels, the majority of visitors to the Local Communities were either owners of summer houses, or relatives and private guests of those owners (Ref. 15.36; see Section 15.5.9.4 for further information).

15.5.6 Employment and Livelihoods

15.5.6.1 Employment Trends

Prior to the global economic crisis in 2008, the Bulgarian labour force10 had been growing but this reversed in 2009. The crisis had a significant impact on employment. Labour market trends during the ensuing recession in Bulgaria (2009 to 2010) were among the worst in the EU, with weak labour demand and few new jobs being created. Employment fell 2.6% in 2009, mainly through cuts in manufacturing; in 2010 employment fell 5.9%, mainly through cuts in the services sector; and in 2011 employment fell by a further 1.1% (Ref. 15.37).

10 Whereas the ‘potential labour force’ is defined as the total population of working age (i.e. 15 to 64 years), the ‘labour force’ is defined as the number of people either working or unemployed (and looking for work). People who cannot work or choose not to work (including disabled, students, stay-at-home parents, etc.) are not considered unemployed and are thus not included in the ‘labour force’.


15-26 URS-EIA-REP-202375

From 2004 to 2007, the Bulgarian construction sector expanded rapidly in a boom period, along with rising property prices, creating a property ‘bubble’. This resulted in a disproportionate expansion of employment in these sectors, with construction jobs growing by 20% over the period. Since the onset of the global economic crisis in 2008, the construction sector has suffered heavy job cuts and has low capacity utilisation (Ref. 15.36).

The proportion of jobs in Varna Region is high in the ‘hotels and restaurants’ sector (12.1%) and the ‘construction’ sector (13.0%), in comparison to the national rate of 5.8% for ‘hotels and restaurants’ and 8.2% for ‘construction’ (Ref. 15.38). Despite the recession of 2009 to 2010, tourism has remained relatively buoyant and has only experienced a mild downturn in activity and associated demand for labour, in comparison to other sectors (Ref. 15.35).

Conversely, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has suggested that unemployment in the construction sector could exceed 30%. Many construction workers were attracted to the Varna Region during the construction boom prior to 2008, and have stayed on in the Varna Region despite the downturn in construction activity because of a lack of economic prospects in their home regions, towns and villages. As a result, there are reported to be many unemployed construction sector workers residing in and around the city of Varna, including nearby towns and villages where accommodation is cheaper (Ref. 15.35).

There is evidence of seasonal employment in the local area, with the greatest demand for seasonal labourers between April and October in industries such as agriculture, tourism and processing / manufacturing industries (e.g. food and drink). There is a corresponding annual drop in the incidence of unemployment during the summer period, which then rises again in the autumn and winter months.

15.5.6.2 Unemployment

Unemployment rates declined nationally, regionally and within Varna and Avren municipalities during the period from 2003 until 2008. As shown in Figure 15.2, the national unemployment rate fell to 5.6% in 2008 but increased to 11.2% in 2011, following the 2009 recession. Unemployment also increased in the Varna Region from 4.3% in 2008 to 10.3% in 2011. At the municipal level, unemployment rose steeply in Avren Municipality from 8.8% in 2008 to 15.8% in 2011; while in Varna Municipality it rose from 2.2% in 2008 to 4.5% in 2011. Despite the steep rise in unemployment in Avren Municipality, it remains considerably lower than in 2003 when unemployment was 26.2%. It is noteworthy that unemployment in Varna Municipality has been consistently lower in all years than at the regional and national levels.

Unemployment levels in Bulgaria reflect the various economic shocks experienced and how those have disproportionately affected rural areas dependent on agriculture. Avren Municipality exhibits many of these characteristics. Also it is noted that persistent unemployment in rural areas is often not recorded by official statistics and is therefore ‘hidden’.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-27

Although there is no official data 11 , there is reported to be a high level of unemployment amongst Roma minority group that is resident within the Local Communities. Anecdotal evidence indicates that a very low percentage of Roma adults have a permanent job, and that many households rely on social welfare payments from the government. The drivers of unemployment are known to be complex. Education and literacy levels are generally very low, and are often pre-requisites for work. Additionally, there is not a strong culture of waged employment and financial planning, so many people are content with odd jobs and social payments to get by, rather than seeking more permanent and regular employment (Ref. 15.39 and Ref. 15.40). Odd jobs often include labour intensive activities such as gardening, cleaning, rubbish disposal, agriculture, and wood cutting, amongst others.

Figure 15.2 National, Regional and Local Unemployment Rates (percent)

Sources: Ref. 15.41 and Ref. 15.42)

During public consultation events in Varna and Priseltsi, stakeholders were interested in the possibility of employment related to the Project. The creation of local employment was perceived as being a potential benefit for the Local Communities and also for local businesses in Varna.

15.5.6.3 Skills and Qualifications

A detailed breakdown of the skills and qualifications of the local labour force is not available. However, the Varna Chamber of Commerce and Industry has indicated that there are no skill shortages in any sectors within the region and that owing to the Varna’s industrial profile, there

11 Data regarding ethnicity is limited; this is mainly due to the fact that these statistics require voluntary participation, and furthermore are based on self-identification and thus subject to debate.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Une

mpl

oym

ent R

ate

(%)

Year

Bulgaria (%)

Varna Region (%)

Avren Municipality (%)

Varna Municipality (%)


15-28 URS-EIA-REP-202375

is a large pool of skilled workers in several sectors including construction, transport, ship building and other port related services (Ref. 15.35). Given the strength and dominance of the tourism industry within the region’s economy, there is also likely to be a large pool of workers with skills in hospitality and related services.

However, as previously noted, the Roma population are typified by low levels of skills and training, as well as literacy. This is noted to present a barrier to many types of employment. Outreach programs in Varna are reported to address this issue, although success (and motivation of recipients) is said to be low (Ref. 15.39).

15.5.6.4 Poverty

In 2008, Varna Region had a substantially lower ‘at-risk-of-poverty’ rate12 than Bulgaria as a whole (15.9% and 21.4%). However, after the recession, the situation deteriorated sharply in Varna Region, reversing the relative position of the region. As such, the at-risk-of-poverty rate in Varna exceeded the national average in 2009 (23.4% and 21.8% respectively), and again in 2010 (21.6% and 20.7%) despite some improvement on the previous year both nationally and regionally. At both the national and regional levels, women are at greater risk of poverty (Ref. 15.43). The main groups represented among people without work include young people, poorly educated and unqualified people, and ethnic minorities.

Income inequality 13 is lower in Varna Region when compared to the national average (Ref. 15.44). Lower inequality typically arises through development of a larger ‘middle’ class, a better business environment (especially for small and medium enterprises) and better employment opportunities. However, the picture within Varna Region is likely to vary. In particular, it is understood that workers who had moved to Varna Region to take advantage of opportunities in the construction industry, and some of whom are now unemployed, tend to live more on the outskirts of the Varna city area in cheaper areas such as Aksakovo and Beloslav; outlying communities and cities that are outside of the Municipality of Varna but which are part of a linked metropolitan labour shed area (Ref. 15.35). Information such as this, together with statistical data for rural municipalities such as Avren suggests that rural areas in the Varna Region are likely to have a higher proportion of people living in (or at-risk-of) poverty compared to the city of Varna.

15.5.7 Land Ownership

The land parcels affected by the Project development are shown in Figure 15.3 and Table 15.4 in relation to the landfall facilities, Right-of-Way (RoW) and construction corridor, and Operational Phase safety exclusion zones.

12 The ‘at risk of poverty’ rate is the share of people with an equalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60% of the national median equalised disposable income after social transfers. 13 Measured using both the Gini coefficient and 80/20 ‘Pareto’ criteria.

3

30

1515

28

14 16

10

171311

18

12

19

27

26

238

92

29

65

4

1

252422721

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked

LAND OWNERSHIP WITHIN THEPROJECT LANDFALL SECTION




DateApproved

RevDrawing Number






By


LEGEND

Revision Details

Plot D

ate: 06

May 2

014File

Name

:I:\5004

- Info

rmatio

n Syst

ems\4

636908

2_Sout

h_Stre

am\MX

Ds\Re

port M

aps - B

ulgari

a\Bulg

arian E

SIA\Ch

apter

15\Fig

ure 15

.3 Land

Owner

ship w

ithin th

e Proje

ct Land

fall Se

ction.m

xd

1:15,000


46369082

0 200 400 600 800 1,000m Figure 15.3

Mayoralty boundariesBulgarian Sector of SouthStream Offshore Pipeline

Proposed offshore pipelinesProposed microtunnelsProposed landfall sectionpipelinesLandfall facilitiesRight-of-WayTemporary construction sitesTemporary construction site forpermanent access road to beconstructed by SSTTBVMicrotunnel entry pointMicrotunnel exit pointPermanent access road to beconstructed by SSTTBVNo isolated residentialbuildings or agricultural farmsNo residential or otherdevelopments involving morethan 150 persons in an area perkilometre of pipeline (e.g. notmore than 15 isolatedhouses/farms)No residential or otherdevelopments involving morethan 1500 persons in an area perkilometre of pipeline (e.g. notmore than 150 isolatedhouses/apartments)

Galata Pipeline InfrastructureExisting Galata gas pipelineExisting Galata gas processing plant

South Stream Pipeline System on theterritory of the Republic of Bulgaria

Varna compressor stationPasha Dere receiving terminalSSBAD pipelinesPermanent access road to beconstructed by SSBAD

Land parcel numbers correspond with referencenumbers in Table 16.4 in Chapter 16Socio-Economics

Land parcels

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-31

Table 15.4 Land Ownership within the Landfall Section

Ref. No*

Ownership Classification Designation** Area (ha)

1 State Forest State Private 447.26

2 Ministry Of Agriculture Forest State Private 657.19

3 Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Forest Directorate Varna

Forest State Private 297.80

4 State Forest State Private 7.62

5 Private Forest Private 0.60





10 Private (Bank) Forest Private 6.44


12 Varna Municipality Agricultural Road Road 0.21


14 Private Agriculture*** Private 0.09

15 Ministry of Agriculture Forest State Public 4.09

15 Ministry of Agriculture Forest State Private 2.42


17 Ministry of Agriculture Forest State Private 1.36


19 State Beach Exclusive State Public 1.72

20 State Beach Exclusive State Public 1.72

Continued…


15-32 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Ref. No*

Ownership Classification Designation** Area (ha)







27 Ministry of Agriculture Forest Road State Private 0.01

28 Varna Municipality Agricultural Road Road 0.13

29 State Forestry Agency Forest State Private 0.60

30 Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Forests Directorate Varna

Forest State Private n/a

* Reference number relates to the number on the plan in Figure 15.3. ** ‘State Public’ and ‘State Private’ are categories which define the use to which land is put. They are both state owned. State Public covers land for use by the public such as roads, paths etc. State Private covers land owned by the state over which does not automatically have public use. There is another category called Exclusive State Public. The different categories limit what the state can do with the land. State Private land can be sold/ leased without any special procedure. State Public land can only be disposed of following special permission from the council of ministers. Exclusive State Public cannot be disposed of at all. The shore crossing is Exclusive Public State. *** Parcel no. 14, although classified for Agriculture, appears to be forested in common with neighbouring land.

Complete.

In summary, there are three land owners that will be directly affected by temporary and permanent land acquisition associated with the Project. Further details include:

• Most of the land to be acquired or leased for construction of the Project (including land within the proposed landfall facilities, RoW and construction corridor, and temporary construction areas) is forest, the majority of which is owned by the state, including the Ministry of Agriculture and the Municipality of Varna. Some of this land is managed for multiple purposes including wood production. The state also owns the beach land (i.e. Pasha Dere Beach);

• The Landfall Section Pipeline Construction Site and Laydown Area (Site A, as described in Chapter 5 Project Description) is privately owned by a single landowner. This site will be required for temporary use during construction; and

• The remaining land comprises four land parcels (reference numbers 10, 11, 16 and 18 - totalling approximately 16.6 ha) that are privately held under a single landowner. The sites are collectively zoned under the Varna GDP for development as a residential and resort

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-33

development comprising three apartment blocks and approximately 70 villas. The previous landowner was seeking permission to develop a residential and leisure resort scheme in accordance with the zoning. However, all four land parcels were repossessed in 2013; consequently, the site is now owned by a Bulgarian bank. In discussions with South Stream Transport, the bank has confirmed that they do not intend to develop the site and that they are willing to sell the site to South Stream Transport.

Aside from the above, there are six privately owned parcels of land (reference numbers 8, 9, 13, 14, 21, and 23 - owned by five different owners) comprising land that will not be required for construction of the Project, but which will fall within the future safety restriction areas that will limit certain types of development during the Operational Phase. Most of the land within the future safety restriction areas is owned by the state (including the Ministry of Agriculture).

15.5.8 Land Use and Marine Area Use

15.5.8.1 Existing Land Use

Overview

The landfall section of the Project is located predominantly within Varna Municipality. Within Varna Municipality, agricultural land and forests forms approximately 55% of the land resources (Ref. 15.45). As detailed in Section 15.5.3, a number of residential settlements are also present within the municipality. The nearest residential communities to the Project are Priseltsi VZ, approximately 3 km west of the landfall facilities and Rakitnika, approximately 2 km north of the Pipeline alignment. Priseltsi VZ is bordered to the east by an existing track that will be used by construction vehicle traffic accessing the construction site.

Residential Communities

The area surrounding the Project within is largely rural, interspersed with several communities containing a mix of permanently occupied and vacation homes. By far the largest community near the Project is the city of Varna, located approximately 11 km to the north of the Project on the north side of Varna Bay and the two shipping channels that connect the Black Sea and Varna Bay with Varna Lake.

To the south of Varna Bay, the largest communities are located along or close to the coast extending from Asparuhovo (located across Varna Bay from Varna city) down to Rakitnika. The community of Borovets and the adjoining agricultural area of Kantara are located approximately 2 km inland. To the west and northwest of the landfall facilities, are the two small communities of Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ.

Forestry and Agriculture

The majority of construction corridor and the permanent landfall facilities (with the exception of the beach and the Galata Gas Pipeline RoW) lies within existing forest, comprising a mix of natural, semi-natural and plantation forestry. The plantation forestry was experimental planting undertaken by the Bulgarian government to test the suitability of different species. (Ref. 15.46).


15-34 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Much of the land around Galata and Zelenika, Priboj and Fichoza, Rakitnika and Borovets (including Kantara) is agricultural land, while further to the south and west the land is predominantly forested. The main use of the agricultural land is for vineyards, and both actively cultivated and derelict vineyards are found in the Study Area.

Forest Use and Harvesting

The forest area around the landfall section of the Project is used for a number of permitted (and unauthorised) activities, including hunting, plant and food collection, and timber harvesting.

The Project lies within the territory of the Galata Hunting and Fishing Club, which is part of the larger Varna Hunting and Fishing Association. Hunting permits are issued by the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna), and each club receives a number of “tags” for their members to use within the club’s territory. Nearly all of this hunting is for sport purposes and only occurs on weekends for a limited number of months each year. For the rest of the year, the hunting clubs are actively engaged in conservation. In the Galata area, target species include boar, deer and jackal, as well as game birds. Some illegal poaching of deer and wild boar is reported to occur (Ref. 15.47). Further information is provided in Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services.

Harvesting of flowers, mushrooms and wild herbs is also reported to occur within the Project Area, although no data on the volume of the harvest is available (Ref. 15.48). The Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) issues licences to private individuals for collection of plants and wild herbs (for traditional remedies, medicines and food). It is understood that only a small number of licences (between one and five) is issued each year, although it is acknowledged that some unlicensed harvesting for personal and commercial purposes occurs (Ref. 15.49). Further information is provided in Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services.

Timber harvesting in State-owned forests is managed by the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) under the Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s Executive Forestry Agency. The Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) sells harvesting rights to private companies as part of the overall management and maintenance of the forests in the region. These harvesting rights are for specific sites designated for timber harvesting (which change over time according to planting and growth cycles), although none of these fall within the Project Area at the time of writing. Authorities have reported that illegal harvesting also occurs, often by Roma and other minority groups (Ref. 15.48). It is not clear whether such illegal harvesting is sold for income or used as household fuel (Ref. 15.48). Further information is provided in Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services.

Protected Areas: Rakitnik and Liman

Two nationally recognised protected areas are located within 1 km of the proposed shore crossing: Rakitnik (to the north) and Liman (to the south) (Figure 15.4). The ecological values associated with these areas are discussed in Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology. During scoping consultations held in February 2013, local stakeholders (including residents and NGOs; see Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement) voiced their concern over environmental protection in general, but also specifically raised the importance of these protected areas (Ref. 15.50;

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-35

Ref. 15.51 and Ref. 15.52). The Project will not cross either of these protected areas, but passes between them.

Recreational Uses

The main areas of recreational land use within the Project Area and Local Communities are several beaches including Pasha Dere Beach (with an adjacent informal picnic and camp site), Chernomorets Beach, and other beaches stretching up the coast towards Varna Bay located within or adjacent to Fichoza, Galata and Asparuhovo. Other recreation sites include the Lipite camping area (currently abandoned) and the Chernomorets Tourist Resort (also known as the Rest Area Summer Camp). Additionally, there are a number of tracks and paths within the forested areas near to the landfall section which serve recreational users such as walkers and cyclists. More information on the recreational sites and activities within the socio-economic Study Area is provided in Section 15.5.10.4.

Summary of Main Land Uses

In summary, the main land uses in the study area are:

• Residential areas;

• Forests and Forestry (both state-owned and private);

• Agriculture (primarily privately-owned vineyards);

• Environmental conservation (protected areas); and

• Recreational areas and facilities, including beaches, summer camping spots, paths and trails.

The locations of these activities are shown in Figure 15.4.

Other Land Uses, Infrastructure and Memorials

Other Land Uses and Infrastructure

In addition to the main land uses identified above, there is a track and road network, a sanitary water protection area (500 m to the east of the proposed facilities of SSB, including the Pasha Dere receiving terminal (RT) and the Varna compressor station (CS)) and water pumping station located approximately half way along the Galata Gas Pipeline cleared RoW, and the Galata Gas Processing Plant.

There is an existing 328 mm diameter steel pipe water main, owned by Water and Sewerage (ViK) Varna OOD, that runs perpendicular to and crosses the landfall section route of the Project pipelines supplying water to Rakitnika. The water main is buried approximately 1.6 m below surface level, approximately 1 km inland from coast. Following consultation with the relevant water and sewerage authority, it has been determined that future upgrades of the existing water main are planned. It is anticipated that this work will be undertaken during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project. Chapter 5 Project Description confirms that the detailed design and timing of these works will be agreed in consultation with the authority.


15-36 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The Pipeline route also passes below a 20 kV overhead power line suspended on poles which is located approximately 10 m west of the buried water pipe (shown on Figure 15.5).

Memorials

Field surveys have identified two memorials, shown on Figure 15.5, within the Study Area:

• Road Accident Victim Memorial: on the southwest side of the junction of Route 9 and the road that leads past Priseltsi VZ to the proposed landfall facilities, along which construction traffic will run, there is a memorial to a person killed in a road accident. This memorial headstone may need to be relocated nearby as part of works by SSB to upgrade the junction and the access road. As all works on that junction will be carried out by SSB, the memorial is not considered further within this chapter; and

• Dr Nikola Stoyanov Memorial: approximately 5 km southeast of Priseltsi VZ, within the site of the proposed Pasha Dere RT and Varna CS, there is a memorial to Dr Nikola Stoyanov (1949-2006), late of the University of Forestry, Sofia (see Figure 15.5; location 90). The memorial was erected by his colleagues to commemorate his life and his work in creating the forest in which the memorial is located. The memorial is located in an area to be developed by SSB, and it will be displaced by these works. As such, the memorial is unlikely to be in its current position at the time that the Project commences, and the Project will not affect it. For this reason, the memorial is not considered further within this chapter.

15.5.8.2 Future Land Use

Varna GDP

The Varna General Development Plan (GDP) (Ref. 15.45), adopted in May 2009, forecasts that the population of Varna Municipality will increase to approximately 530,000 in 2030. Accordingly, the GDP makes provision for substantial population growth of the city, including areas south of the city, within and nearby to the Local Communities. The GDP forecasts that Asparuhovo will experience an increase in population from 26,824 in 2005 to 30,340 in 2030; that Borovets will experience an increase in population from 1,252 to 12,894 over the same period and that Rakitnika will experience an increase in population from 366 to 3,100 over the same period.

These development proposals are at the conceptual planning stage. Additionally, the forecasts were published in early 2009 before the full effects of the 2009 recession were apparent. Both economic and population growth within the Varna Municipality appear to have slowed since the recession relative to the years leading up to the recession, and as such, the forecasts are likely overestimated. Thus there is uncertainty as to when and whether they will occur, and to what extent future land uses will change as a result.

Bliznatsi

Liman

Rakitnik

Varna Municipality

Avren Municipality

Priseltsi

Priseltsi VZ

Kantara

Rakitnika

Borovets

Priboj and Fichoza

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked

LAND USES IN THEVICINITY OF THE PROJECT

LANDFALL SECTION

SOUTH STREAM OFFSHOREPIPELINE PROJECT



DateApproved

RevDrawing Number






LEGENDPlo

t Date

: 08/11

/2012

File Na

me: I:\

5004 -

Inform

ation S

ystem

s\4636

9082_S

outh_S

tream

\MXDs

\Repor

t Maps

- Bulg

aria\Al

ternativ

es As

sessm

ent\Fig

ure 6.2

Bulga

ria Lan

dfall C

onstra

ints Ma

p Land

fall.mx

d

1:25,000

Land UsesMain roadsMinor roads/trails and pathsRiversOverhead power cableMunicipality boundariesIndicative military areaNationally protected areaAgricultural land (unconfirmed)Coastal vegetationDeciduous forest plantationsDeciduous shrubDisturbed dry grasslandGrey dune grasslandOpen HabitatPlantation Woodland (non-native)Settlements/infrastructureSwampVineyardWoodland (predominantly native)Water bodyBlack Sea Coast Territory Act Zone A Black Sea Coast Territory Act Zone B


Proposed offshore pipelinesProposed microtunnelsProposed landfall sectionpipelinesLandfall facilitiesTemporary construction sitesTemporary construction site for permanentaccess road to be constructed by SSTTBVRight-of-WayMicrotunnel entry pointMicrotunnel exit pointPermanent access road to beconstructed by SSTTBV

Galata Pipeline InfrastructureExisting Galata gas pipelineExisting Galata gas processing plant

South Stream Pipeline System onthe territory of the Republic of Bulgaria



46369082

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000m Figure 15.4

Zvezditsa

Asparuhovo

VARNA MUNICIPALITY

AVREN MUNICIPALITY

Priseltsi

Konstantinovo

Borovets

Pasha Dere Beach

Rakitnik

Liman

Chernomorets beach

Kantara

Rakitnika

Galata

Priboj and Fichoza

Zelenika

Priseltsi VZ

B l a c k S e a

Varna Bay

2 1 46

8109

7

1112

1314

15

19 182016

17

22 2123

5

3

2426

27

28

2930

3132

33

34

35

36

25

37

39

40

38

41

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked

TOURISM, RECREATIONAL AND SOCIAL

INFRASTRUCTURE

SOUTH STREAM OFFSHOREPIPELINE PROJECT



DateApproved

RevDrawing Number






By


LEGEND

Revision Details

Plot D

ate: 08

/11/20

12File

Name

: I:\500

4 - Info

rmatio

n Syst

ems\4

636908

2_Sout

h_Stre

am\MX

Ds\Re

port M

aps - B

ulgaria

\Altern

atives

Asses

sment

\Figure

6.2 Bu

lgaria

Landfa

ll Cons

traints

Map L

andfall

.mxd

1:40,000

Social services and facilitiesMain roadsMinor roads/trails and pathsNationally protected areaPark BorovetsRecreationSettlements/infrastructureVineyardWetlandMunicipality boundary


Proposed offshore pipelinesProposed microtunnelsProposed landfall sectionpipelinesLandfall facilitiesRight-of-WayPermanent access road tobe constructed by SSTTBVConstruction sites

Galata Pipeline InfrastructureExisting Galatagas pipelineExisting Galata gasprocessing plant

South Stream PipelineSystem on the territoryof the Republic of Bulgaria



46369082

0 1 2 3km Figure 15.5

1. JP (medical) offices, Priseltsi2. Prosveta Community Centre), Priseltsi3. Basilica/monastery of Saint Elias4. Lipite camp - Abandoned camping area5. Kechi Guioldzhu settlement6. Chernomorets Tourist Resort (Rest Area Summer Camp)7. Ada Bacha Fishing Community8. Rest Area Summer Camp Cherno more (bungalows)9. Summer Camp Romantika (bungalows)10. Rest Area Summer Camp Raiski kat (bungalows)11. Priboi Sea Pearl and Priboi Sea Star land category for apartments building12. Summer Camp Solvey Sodi - holidays, bungalows, rest areas13. Chaika rest area (bungalows)14. Summers camp (ex-rest area of the Devnya cement plant)-bungalows15. Fisherman kiosks16. Town hall, Galata17. Dormition of theTheotokos church18. Medical centre (hospital)19. Community centre Vasil Levski (community centre/hall)20. Post office

21. Summer Camp Vratsa22. Sports field (stadium)23. Hospis Filaretova24. Entrance to small fishing village25. Pumping station to the first belt of Sanitary Protection Zone26. Polyclinic27. Galata Centre28. Restaurant29. Church30. Entry from Burgas to Varna31. Mayorality32. Pharmacy33. Priboi - from VLF to Varna34. Rakitnika Bus Stop35. Resort36. Ancient wall foundation37. Camp site (unserviced) and picnic area38. Memorial to Dr Nikola Stoyanov (1949-2006)39. Possible foundations of a limestone building40. Chapel (Paraklis)41. Road Accident Victim Memorial

Social services and facilitiesBusinessInfrastructureConstruction (apartment building)Cultural heritageEducationFishery facilitiesMedical servicesRecreationSocial servicesSportsMeteorological station Moon Lake ship wreck

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-41

The Project Area

The Project will not change existing or proposed land use within the Project Area with the exception of four land parcels (totalling approximately 15.6 ha) of privately held land, which sits to the west of the southern half of Pasha Dere Beach; the four parcels are collectively zoned under the Varna GDP for development as a residential and resort complex comprising three apartment blocks and approximately 70 villas. However, as discussed in Section 15.5.6, the collective site was repossessed in 2013 by the developer’s lender and is now owned by a bank. The bank has confirmed that they do not intend to develop the site.

Other than this, there are a limited number of small development proposals within 2 km of the Project Area, most of which consist of small agricultural or residential developments (see Chapter 21 Cumulative Impact Assessment for information in regard to these proposed schemes). None of these fall within the proposed Operational Phase safety restriction zones.

15.5.8.3 Existing Marine Area Use

In the marine section of the Project Area, fishing and commercial shipping are the principal socio-economic activities.

Fishing

Fishing activities generally occur in coastal waters, up to around 30 to 40 m water depth; some offshore (pelagic) fishing occurs out to 100 m water depth. Both artisanal fishing boats and commercial fishing vessels operate in Bulgaria’s Black Sea waters, including in the vicinity of the Project.

Data on the Bulgarian fishing fleet was collected from vessels’ Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS). As of January 2011, 111 vessels operating in Bulgarian waters use this system which is monitored by and reported to the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) (Ref. 15.53). From this data, the main fishing areas were shown to be to the south off Burgas and off Varna, between approximately 10 and 16 nautical miles (NM) from the shore.

Marine aquaculture is not a major industry in Bulgaria and accounts for less than 1% of the total aquaculture (marine and freshwater) production. There are two registered mussel farms, within the Varna Region, the closest of which is located approximately 16 km north of the Pipeline (Ref. 15.54). Data provided by the Fisheries Agency indicates that there is a permanent fish trap located approximately 3 km to the north of the alignment of the Project’s future microtunnels. These traps could be used to catch crustaceans (lobster, crabs), cephalopods (octopus) or small fish; however information on the type of catch from these traps is not available (Ref. 15.55 and Appendix 15.1). The trap is labelled as the ‘Ada Bacha’ trap in the data supplied by the Fisheries Agency; however the Ada Bacha community representative reported that the community did not own or operate any fish traps at the current time (Ref. 15.11 and Ref. 15.12). Accordingly, so the name of the trap is thought to refer to the location rather than the owner.

For more information on fishing grounds within or in the vicinity of the nearshore and offshore sections of the Project is presented in Section 15.5.11 and Appendix 15.1.


15-42 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Recreational Uses and Activities

Recreational use of the sea includes swimming (and sunbathing) at Pasha Dere Beach and Chernomorets Beach. There are signs at Pasha Dere Beach stating that swimming is prohibited; however, a number of people have been observed in the water. Swimming is more common at Chernomorets, where the water is generally shallower than at Pasha Dere. Chernomorets Beach is also more easily accessible by road, and includes restaurant and accommodation facilities. For further detail on beach activities in the Project Area, see Section 15.5.10.4.

Scuba diving is also a popular activity in Varna; however, no dive sites have been identified in the vicinity of the Project.

Shipping Routes

Varna Port is Bulgarian’s largest port and the Pipeline will cross several designated commercial shipping routes as well as routes used by fishing vessels. For further information on shipping routes see Appendix 9.4.

Sub-Sea Cables

Several international and regional fibre-optic subsea cables pass through Bulgarian EEZ, and it has been identified that the offshore pipeline route will cross four cables. Three of these are active, while one is inactive. Chapter 5 Project Description contains further information in relation to the cables, their owners and operators, as well as the crossing agreements that will be put in place and the technique that will be used to safely lay the pipelines where they cross the cables.

Oil and Gas Surveying Licenses

As explained in Chapter 21 Cumulative Impact Assessment, there are two licence blocks (Galata and Khan Asparah) for prospecting and exploration of oil and gas in the Project Area (offshore section) that will be crossed by the Pipeline:

• The Galata block is situated approximately 20 km from the eastern port of Varna and is licensed to Petroceltic. The field lies at a water depth of approximately 35 m and has gross proved and recoverable reserves of 49 billion cubic feet (bcf), and proved and probable reserves of 81 bcf. Further exploration activities have been agreed with the Bulgarian government to extend until 2015, although the defined exploration locations are currently unknown. The block is served by the Galata Gas Pipeline, information on which is provided in the sub-section below; and

• The Khan Asparah block is being operated by OMV, through a joint partnership between OMV, Total and Repsol. The block is located deep offshore in the Bulgarian sector in the western part of the Black Sea and covers an area of 14,220 km² with water depths up to 2,200 m. It is understood that further exploration activities includes the completion of 3D seismic surveys, although details of exploration activities and locations are currently unknown.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-43

South Stream Transport has met with these licence block holders to discuss potential interactions between their activities and the Project. South Stream Transport will continue to engage with them throughout construction.

Galata Gas Pipeline

The Galata Gas Pipeline extends westward off the coast of Pasha Dere Beach, approximately 11 km south of Varna and just to the north of the alignment of the Project’s future microtunnels. The Galata Gas Pipeline transports gas onshore from Galata licence block’s gas fields off the coast of Bulgaria. The Pipeline is buried out to a water depth of 5 m, after which it lies directly on the seabed. Beneath the beach and off the coast it is buried to 2 m depth below the beach / seabed surface. About 20 m from the shore it gradually gets closer to the surface and is generally buried to a minimum depth of 0.8 m (but generally about 1 m) until it emerges to lie on the seabed (Ref. 15.56).

There is an existing exclusion zone (referred to within this chapter as the ‘Galata exclusion zone’, that extends 0.5 NM (i.e. approximately 926 m) either side of the Pipeline) in place to protect the Galata Gas Pipeline, which prevents fishing boats from bottom trawling or anchoring within the exclusion zone. Local nearshore fishermen, including those from Ada Bacha, are accustomed to complying with restrictions imposed by this zone.

Two short offshore extensions to the Galata Gas Pipeline, Kavarna-East and Galata East 3, will be laid during 2013 (Ref. 15.56). As such, these will form part of the baseline before the commencement of construction for the Project.

15.5.8.4 Future Marine Area Use

Other than the ongoing activities associated with the Galata and Khan Asparah licence blocks, there are no other known proposals to develop new uses of the marine area in either the nearshore or offshore sections of the Project Area. In terms of fisheries, a member of the Ada Bacha Community is planning on developing a 50 ha mussel farm approximately 2.5 km to the north of the Pipeline that would become operational in 2014 (Ref. 15.11; Ref. 15.12).

15.5.9 Social Infrastructure and Services

15.5.9.1 Housing

Since 2001, the national population has declined by 7% whilst the number of homes has increased by more than 5%. This is in contrast to the previous decade (1991 to 2001) when the number of homes increased by 20%. The biggest increase in the number of homes in Bulgaria occurred in the Burgas and Varna regions, and is likely due in part to the increasing numbers of nationals and non-nationals seeking property, often as private holiday homes, on the Black Sea coast (Ref. 15.45).


15-44 URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.5.9.2 Utilities

Electricity

The high-voltage electricity network in Varna Region is well developed in terms of its power supply capacity, but unreliable due to the age of some facilities (Ref. 15.45). The electricity supply network covers 100% of the population of both Varna and Avren municipalities. Assessment of future demand indicates that the existing substations will be unable to cope with the growing consumption of electricity through to 2015 (Ref. 15.45). A Master Plan for the Municipality of Varna envisions the construction of new substations (Ref. 15.45).

Gas

Gas supply is available to many users across the country and there is a gas distribution network in parts of Varna Region. Preliminary forecasts to 2015 for gas consumption in Varna Region indicate that the existing transmission system has sufficient capacity to meet projected demand through to 2015 (Ref. 15.45). Local or regional gas supplies are not envisaged as part of the Project (i.e. as the offshore component of the South Stream Pipeline System).

Water and Sewage

Varna Region is located in the north-eastern region of Bulgaria, where nearly 100% of the population is provided with domestic potable water supply (Ref. 15.57 and Ref. 15.58).

Over 90% of Bulgarian households are connected to some kind of wastewater collection and treatment or sewage system. This proportion rose from 81% in 2000 to 90% in 2003 and has remained at this level through to 2008 (Ref. 15.59). Of the households connected to a sewage system, the majority, approximately two-thirds, are connected to urban systems, while almost all remaining households are connected to independent wastewater collection and treatment systems14; a small portion, less than 1%, are connected to ‘other’ sewage systems (Ref. 15.59).

In communities with populations over 10,000, most households (68%) are connected to wastewater collection and treatment systems, rising to more than 90% for the city of Varna. For other (smaller) communities in the Varna Region the coverage by town ranges from 30% to 60% of households (Ref. 15.59). No houses in Avren Municipality, including the communities of Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ, are connected to a wastewater collection and treatment network.

15.5.9.3 Education

In Varna Municipality there is a significantly higher level of educational attainment compared to Avren Municipality and national levels. In Avren Municipality, both school attendance and the level of attainment / qualification achieved are lower than those recorded nationally and in Varna Municipality (Table 15.5).

14 Wastewater systems collect and dispose of household wastewater generated from toilet use, bathing, laundry, and kitchen and cleaning activities.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-45

Table 15.5 Population aged 7+ by Educational Level Achieved (%)

Bachelor / Master

High School

Secondary Primary Primary-Unfinished

Never Attended

Bulgaria 19.6 43.4 23.1 7.8 4.8 1.2

Varna Region 23.7 43.2 20.1 6.9 4.8 1.0

Varna Municipality 30.1 46.3 14.6 4.2 4.1 0.6

Avren Municipality 7.9 31.6 35.5 15.8 6.4 2.6

Priseltsi 19.1 43.6 24.4 7.5 4.9 0.5

Source: Ref.15.60; Note: Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Nationally, the ratio of students to teachers has been relatively stable at approximately 13:1 throughout the period 2000 to 2010 (Ref. 15.61).

15.5.9.4 Health and Emergency Services

Healthcare and emergency response services are described in Chapter 16 Community Health, Safety and Security.

15.5.9.5 Social Services

There are a number of organisations (including municipal agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)) providing social services and support to people living in the Local Communities.

There are national and regional employment offices in Varna, providing support to unemployed individuals and acting as a liaison between companies and industry and jobseekers. In particular, the Varna Labour Office provides counselling and vocational training for people who are seeking work (Ref. 15.62).

The social welfare department within the Varna Municipality addresses the needs of vulnerable persons within the municipality, including elderly residents, disabled persons, children in care, and at-risk youth. The main goal of the municipality’s social programme is to ensure equal rights and access for all social groups. They often partner with NGOs and civil society, as well as other government agencies, to deliver programmes and services.

One of the focal areas for the municipal social welfare department is to reintegrate marginalised and institutionalised (including youth and elderly) people into society, and has a number of programs in this area. They are also expanding psychiatric and dementia support services. The municipality also runs a home for children in care (aged 3 to 18 years) which has recently been relocated to Galata (Ref. 15.64).

Local NGOs also work to address the social welfare needs of Varna and the other Local Communities. Of particular relevance to the Project (and the potentially vulnerable groups


15-46 URS-EIA-REP-202375

identified in Section 15.5.5) are two Varna-based NGOs: SOS Families at Risk, and Sauchastie NGO. These NGOs often collaborate with each other and with other NGOs and agencies in the Varna Region.

SOS Families at Risk works primarily with women who are victims of violence and/or trafficking, as well as commercial sex workers (CSWs). They run a crisis centre in Varna providing temporary accommodation to women and children, and also have a shelter designated for women who are (or are at risk of being) trafficked which provides training and skills education, particularly in using the internet, searching and applying for jobs, and presentation and communication skills. They also help women improve their skills, find suitable employment, and get out of high-risk situations; and run a harm-reduction programme aimed at both women and men, addressing issues of sexual health. SOS Families at Risk is supported by a team of experts, including social workers, psychologists, lawyers, and medical professionals (Ref. 15.40). Many of the women at the shelter are of Roma origin who were being trafficked to western Europe. No women at the shelter are known to operate along Route 9 (Ref. 15.40).

SOS Families at Risk reports that funding for many of the programmes benefiting CSWs comes through the Global Fund for HIV / AIDS and Malaria, and will end in December 2014. This will likely result in closure of the sex trafficking crisis centre and a reduction programmes with CSWs in the Municipality of Varna (Ref. 15.40). It has not been confirmed if funding from the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of Varna will continue, although funding for issues related to CSWs are noted to be ‘unattractive’ in terms of public opinion (Ref. 15.64).

Similarly, Sauchastie NGO works with the Roma community in Varna and Asparuhovo. They work with representatives from within the Roma community to provide outreach services and resources, covering topics including high-risk behaviours, child abandonment, foster care, sex trafficking, life skills, and material support for household in need (Ref. 15.24).

15.5.10 Tourism, Recreation and Leisure

15.5.10.1 Introduction

Tourism in the Varna Region is concentrated to the north of city of Varna and along the coast in a number of resort developments. To the south of the city, towards the Project Area, tourism activity is considerably less developed.

There are a number of residential communities and tourist sites in the Study Area along the coast south of the city of Varna. Among them (ordered north to south) are:

• The communities of Rakitnika and Priboj, which are recognised summer holiday locations;

• Chernomorets Tourist Resort, in Rakitnika, is a rest area summer camp that is located approximately 700 m north of the shore crossing and Chernomorets Beach located adjacent to the camp;

• Pasha Dere Beach, approximately 2 km south of Rakitnika, which is frequented in the summer by tourists and local residents; and

• Kamchiya Beach approximately 21 km south of Varna and the adjacent Kamchiya tourist resort.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-47

15.5.10.2 Overview of Tourism Industry

National and Regional

Tourism in Bulgaria experienced high levels of growth during the early part of last decade before declining in the second part of the decade. Recent data indicates that the sector has started to increase its share of the national economy once again. In 2013, the tourism industry directly contributed approximately 3.7% of national GDP and approximately 3.4% of national employment (approximately 100,100 jobs). Indirectly, tourism accounts for approximately 13.3% of national GDP and 12.2% of national employment (Ref. 15.34). As stated, the tourism sector in Bulgaria grew strongly from the start of last decade up until, approximately, the time of the recession. For example nationally, the total number of accommodation establishments in Bulgaria has increased year on year, by a total of approximately 154%, over the ten year period (from 2002) to 2011 to reach 2,321. Within Varna Region, the number of accommodation establishments, at 329 in 2011, is over 90% higher than it was ten years earlier although this marks a decline of approximately 15% since a peak in 2006 at 386 establishments (Ref. 15.65).

Over the same period, the number of bed-places available nationally in the sector grew by approximately 95.8%, to peak at over 281,000 in 2009. It has since declined by 2.3% to approximately 275,000 in 2011, the latest year for which data is currently available. Varna Region experienced somewhat weaker growth (approximately 63.3%) as it rose to a peak of over 63,000 bed-places in 2006. Since that time through to 2011, it has also experienced a decline of approximately 11.0%; and as of 2011 Varna Region had approximately of 56,000 bed places (Ref. 15.65).

The relative weaker growth of Varna compared to national data is likely to stem from the fact that the sector in Varna was more established in comparison to Bulgaria as a whole (Varna was declared a sea resort in 1926) (Ref. 15.66), and the resorts have limited capacity to grow further.

15.5.10.3 Tourist Accommodation in Varna Region

Varna Region is well established as a tourism destination in Bulgaria, with a range of high-end tourism resorts. There are five large resorts located in Varna Region; the majority of which are located to the north of the city of Varna (including Golden Sands, Saint Constantine and Elena, Rivera and Sunny Day). The fifth resort area, Kamchiya, is located approximately 10 km south of the Project.

Varna Municipality

Tourism accommodation, infrastructure and attractions in Varna are overwhelmingly located along the coast to the north of the city of Varna within resorts such as the Golden Sand Resort, Saint Constantine and Elena, Riviera and Sunny Day.

The area to the south of Varna Bay, between Asparuhovo and the Project, is much less developed in comparison to the coast to the north of Varna. The tourists that do visit this area are predominantly those that own their own summer house and who visit during the summer, often along with their relatives and friends. The Chamber of Tourism estimates that there are


15-48 URS-EIA-REP-202375

approximately 2,000 to 3,000 summer houses in the area, but only a limited number of small hotels (Ref. 15.67).

Tourist Resorts and Rest Area Summer Camps

Small scale tourist resorts typically consist of a collection of relatively rustic cabins that are used by families and groups as a summer holiday accommodation and are locally referred to as Rest Area Summer Camps. There are no such camps within the Project Area, although there are a number within 10 km of the Project landfall section (Figure 15.5). The closest such camp is the Chernomorets Tourist Resort (Rest Area Summer Camp), located approximately 700 m north of the Project shore crossing, behind Chernomorets Beach and south of Rakitnika. Chernomorets Tourist Resort provides several dozen cabin or bungalow style buildings. The camp is enveloped by wooded areas, including Rakitnika Protected Area to the south east and the Chernomorets Beach to the east. The camp’s facilities include bungalows, a restaurant with open seating and a snack shop. Apart from the Lipite camp, an abandoned facility close to the Chernomorets Tourist Resort, the other tourist resorts or summer camps are located further away; including in Priboj and Fichoza and Galata and Zelenika.

Avren Municipality

Kamchiya-North Resort, approximately 10 km to the south of the Project, is Avren Municipality’s biggest tourist resort area consisting of Rai, Pirin and Ramantika camps, housing a variety of holidays houses, hotels, motels, villas and camps.

15.5.10.4 Tourism and Recreational Facilities and Activities

Introduction

Field visits and interviews with the Varna Chamber of Tourism have confirmed that the area south of Varna does not contain any major tourism attractions and only limited facilities for visiting tourists (Ref. 15.67). Further to this, the local chamber of commerce has confirmed that there is not a large tourism industry to the south of Varna (i.e. amongst the Local Communities lying to the south of the Port of Varna), and that while there are privately owned villas (summer houses) in the area, these villas are mainly owned by people who use them for their own needs rather than renting them out to other holiday makers (Ref. 15.35). This was further confirmed by the local Chamber of Tourism (Ref. 15.67).

Local beaches, which are likely to predominantly serve local residents and people staying within the summer houses within the nearby Local Communities, are therefore the main feature of interest related to tourism and recreation for the purposes of this assessment.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-49

Beaches

Pasha Dere Beach

Pasha Dere Beach (which the Pipeline route will cross perpendicular to the shoreline) is a sandy beach that is frequented by both local residents, including those living in the city of Varna, and people from outside the local area15. It is used for recreational activities, including sunbathing, swimming, fishing and camping (on the edge of the beach and at a site just inland from the beach within the Pipeline corridor). Both ends of the beach are also known to be popular with naturist groups.

The beach is remote from paved roads and not easily accessible by car (and it is also not served by public transport). Most of the visitors use off-road vehicles to reach the area, or at least cars with high clearance. There are two tracks to the Pasha Dere Beach that are passable by motorized vehicles: (i) a 2 km unpaved track from Galata Gas Processing Plant, along the existing RoW of the Galata pipeline; and (ii) a 1 km unpaved track through the forest from Rakitnika. Considering these minimally developed roads, the effort needed to reach the beach implies that the beach is valued for its undeveloped characteristics and isolation.

Pasha Dere Beach is a popular destination during the summer months. At the height of the season (mid-August), a 2012 beach usage survey indicated that approximately 300 people use the beach on a peak day (i.e. a weekend or public holiday during the summer season) (see Appendix 15.2).

Figure 15.6 shows the number of beach users over five days in mid-August (‘high’ tourist season) and mid / late-September (beginning of ‘low’ tourist season). These figures are the result of the 2012 beach survey, and indicated that weekends are the busiest time of the week (e.g. 18 and 19 August and 23 September). Based on the surveys undertaken, on a daily basis, the peak usage time was observed to be at mid-day in August, and in early afternoon in September (likely due to temperature changes between the two months and in the weeks during which surveys were undertaken).

Access to Pasha Dere Beach has been frequently raised by stakeholders as a concern, especially regarding potential restrictions to use of the beach during the peak summer months and how the restrictions would be communicated, as well as reinstatement post-construction (Ref. 15.50 and Ref. 15.68).

15 Based on observing groups of non-Bulgarian speakers and noting vehicle registrations in the nearby ‘parking’ areas during the beach survey undertaken in 2012.


15-50 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Figure 15.6 Beach Survey Results: 18 to 22 August and 20 to 24 September, 2012

August Number of Visitors September Number of Visitors

Daily distribution of visitors on the beach as % of maximum daily numbers (estimation)

August September

Source: Beach User Survey. See Appendix 15.2.

Immediately behind the beach (directly above the Pipeline alignment and proposed microtunnels) is a small area used for picnics and informal camping, with approximately capacity for between approximately six and ten tents and a similar number of smaller size camper vans. It consists of a wooded area cleared of undergrowth, with some picnic tables and a small rotunda-shaped timber shelter structure. There is also evidence of an abandoned temporary toilet facility which is no longer functioning. There are no other toilet facilities at the site.

Chernomorets Beach

Chernomorets Beach is located to the immediate north of Pasha Dere beach around a small rocky cliff and headland. Chernomorets beach is a sandy beach, similar in length to Pasha Dere and is also characterised by relatively undeveloped hinterland. However, it is located closer to Rakitnika (approximately 700 m away on foot via a trail running from the south of Rakitnika) and it is also overlooked by the Chernomorets Tourist Resort (located to the west of the beach) and by the Ada Bacha fishing community (located on a small cove located at the northern end of the beach).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

18.8.2012 19.8.2012 20.8.2012 21.8.2012 22.8.2012

Tem

pera

ture

C

Num

ber o

f visi

tors

Dates of observations

Morning Afternoon Temperature RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

20.9.2012 21.9.2012 22.9.2012 23.9.2012 24.9.2012

Tem

pera

ture

C

Num

ber o

f visi

tors

Dates of observations

Morning Afternoon Temperature RHS

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

08:30 10:30 12:30 14:30 16:30 18:30

Perc

enta

ge o

f dai

ly m

axim

um

Observation time

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

08:30 10:30 12:30 14:30 16:30 18:30

Perc

enta

ge o

f dai

ly m

axim

um

Observation time

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-51

Chernomorets Beach is a popular destination for sunbathing and swimming, with shallower (and generally calmer) waters compared to Pasha Dere Beach.

Trails and Paths

There are several trails and paths that run through and around the landfall section of the Project, including along the existing cleared RoW of the Galata pipeline (and the overhead transmission lines (perpendicular to the Galata RoW). Some of these trails are signposted as a cycle route.

The number of people using the paths and trails for walking and cross country cycling is not known; however, given their relative remoteness from residential communities, usage is likely to be limited. They are most likely to be used during the summer season, for example between April and September. They are also likely to be used by local hunting groups (see Section 15.5.8.1).

Diving

There is limited information available about diving in the Project Area; however, it is understood from visiting local diving shops and speaking with the Chamber of Tourism and the Ada Bacha fishing community that some diving does take place in the area to the south of Varna (Ref. 15.11 and Ref. 15.67). This includes scuba diving associated with visiting shipwrecks to the north and south of Varna Bay and underwater spear fishing. An annual spear fishing competition is also held in the waters off Chernomorets Beach, whereby competitors see how many fish they can successfully catch within an hour (Ref. 15.11). However, no dive sites have been identified in the vicinity of Pasha Dere Beach or elsewhere within the Project Area.

15.5.11 Fishing and Fisheries Industries

Bulgarian Fishing Industry and Fleet

The Bulgarian fisheries sector contributes approximately €14 million to the Bulgarian economy, providing a relatively small contribution to national employment (0.38% of the national workforce). However, at a regional level it provides vital employment to coastal areas and communities, including the Varna Region (e.g. the town of Byala) and Burgas Region (e.g. the town of Nessebar). The majority of the commercial fishing fleets are based at the ports of Balchik, Varna, Nessebar, Burgas and Sozopol (Ref. 15.69).

The commercial fishing industry has experienced a significant decrease in catch numbers, the result of changes to the fishing zones for Bulgarian fleets (refocusing on the Black Sea coastal zone) and the collapse in pelagic stocks. Throughout the 1980’s, fleets were hauling approximately 100,000 tonnes per year, and in 1994 they only accounted for 250 tonnes. Between 2005 and 2010, the industry has partially recovered from 4,000 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes. Approximately 90% of the marine catch nationally consists of two species: sprat (Sprattus sprattus; about 60% of overall sea-catch) and rapa whelk (commonly known as the sea snail; rapana venosa); about 30% of the overall sea catch) (Ref. 15.70).


15-52 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The fleets are mainly made up of small-scale vessels used by fisherman operating at a short distance from the shore; with many of them fishing for their own consumption and selling locally. On an economic scale, the fleets have been operating at a loss with the total income accounting for only half of the fleets operating costs, with Bulgarian vessels receiving an average first sale landing price of 0.23 €/kg, the lowest of all the EU countries with fishing fleets (Ref. 15.71). The scale of current and potential future fisheries is dependent on a range of ecosystem processes operating in the Black Sea and Bulgarian coastal levels as described in Chapter 13 Marine Ecology. More information in regard to the baseline situation for the Bulgarian fishing industry is provided in Appendix 15.1.

During the Scoping Stage and disclosure of the Scoping Report, fisheries stakeholders (including the Ada Bacha fishing community, as well as a number of commercial fishing and fish processing companies) were invited to review the Scoping Report and provide feedback and directly invited to attend roundtable meetings. Two fisheries businesses attended16 a roundtable meeting, along with other marine users and businesses. Additional consultation was held with representatives of the Ada Bacha fishing community, as the nearest fishing community to the Project, to obtain data and seek feedback on the Project.

Local Fishing Communities

Ada Bacha

In addition to commercial fishing operations in the Black Sea, there are a number of smaller, artisanal fisheries that operate along the Bulgarian coast; the nearest to the Pipeline is the Ada Bacha fishing community (Figure 15.7 and Figure 15.8). Ada Bacha is located approximately 2.7 km to the north of the landfall section on the northern end of Chernomorets Beach. It was formally registered in 1993 and comprises approximately 22 fishers from 7 families; 10 are full time, artisanal fishers17 and 12 fish recreationally. There are approximately seven households and 18 people who live permanently within the community, with additional guests during the summer time. Residents report that it is unusual for children in the community to follow their parents into fishing, and younger people normally come in from outside to work on vessels in high season (Ref. 15.11 and Ref. 15.12).

16 Association Odessos and Association of Fish Product Producers (BG Fish). 17 A small-scale or artisanal fishery is usually understood to mean a fishery involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using relatively small amount of capital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels (if any), making short fishing trips, close to shore, with the catch being sold, bartered to traded mainly for local consumption (including that of the fishing households).

-20

-20

-20

Ada Bacha fishing community

Purpose of Issue

Project Title

Drawing Title

Drawn Checked

GALATA GAS PIPELINE ANDPROPOSED SOUTH STREAM

OFFSHORE PIPELINE




DateApproved

RevDrawing Number




URS Internal Project No. Scale @ A3AH 04/07/2014


By


LEGEND

Revision Details

Plot D

ate: 02

Sep 2

013File

Name

:I:\5004

- Inform

ation S

ystem

s\4636

9082_S

outh_S

tream\M

XDs\R

eport M

aps - B

ulgaria

\Bulga

rian EI

A\Chap

ter 15\

Figure

15.14

Galata

Gas P

ipeline

Exclu

sion Z

one an

d Prop

osed S

outh S

tream P

ipeline

.mxd

1:60,000


46369082

0 1 2 3km Figure 15.7

Ada Bacha fishing communityBulgarian Sector of SouthStream Offshore Pipeline

Proposed offshore pipelinesProposed microtunnelsProposed landfall sectionpipelinesMicrotunnel entry pointMicrotunnel exit pointProposed South Streamoffshore pipelineexclusion zone

Galata Pipeline InfrastructureExisting Galatagas pipelineExisting Galata gaspipeline exclusion zoneIsobaths

-50

-20

-100

-2000 2 4 6 8 10

km

VS VS

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-55

Figure 15.8 Fishing Community of Ada Bacha

Interviews regarding the Ada Bacha community’s fishing activities were conducted in June and August 2013 (Refs. 15.11 and 15.12) in order to gather data for the socio-economic and fisheries studies. The following information summarises the data collected.

It was reported that Ada Bacha fishers own approximately 20 boats varying in size and engines, allowing them to get to their fishing grounds which, depending on the season and species, range from Cape Galata, approximately 2.5 NM to the north, to about 3 NM below the current restricted zone for the Galata pipeline and a maximum of 4 NM from the shore. Fishers in the community own their own boats and equipment; however, they will occasionally share vessels. Fishing is done mostly using monofilament gillnets and driftnets.

Fishing targets a number of different species, most of which are migratory so the time of year they are targeted will depend on when they migrate past. The most commonly caught species by the community are Gobies (Gobiidae) and horse mackerel or Scad (Trachurus mediterraneus). Other species caught are: garfish (Belone belone), mullets (Mullus spp., Mugil spp. and Liza spp.), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Atlantic Bonito (Sarda sarda) and turbot (Scopthalmus maximus) (Ref. 15.11). For some species, such as bluefish, the migratory period may be very short, about four or five days on their north to south migration (Ref. 15.12).

The fishing season is from approximately September to early July and fishing takes place every day during the season. The busiest periods, usually March to April and September to November, correspond to fish migrations through the Black Sea (Ref. 15.12).

A member of the Ada Bacha community stated that he has observed a decrease in certain species such as goby and horse mackerel (Ref. 15.12). He observed that the last season has


15-56 URS-EIA-REP-202375

been particularly difficult which was attributed to the colder than usual water temperatures; the temperature of the water in June 2013 was the coldest he has ever observed (i.e. 9oC in deep water and 14oC in the upper waters (Ref. 15.12)). He also reported a related change in species diversity – namely, an increase in sardines which are now being targeted by the community (Ref. 15.12). Finally, there is also a perception amongst the Ada Bacha fishers that migratory species catches have decreased since the establishment of the Galata pipeline due to fish avoiding the area in response to noise from the Pipeline (i.e., the noise of gas flowing through the Pipeline (Ref. 15.12).

Members of the Ada Bacha community are largely self-sufficient and their income varies seasonally with their catch. Income per capita, as estimated by a representative of the community, ranges between 1,000 lev in a profitable month to around 200 lev in the poorer months. There is little processing done on site and most of the catches were sold onto export companies (e.g. Sever Export, based in Varna), and some fish are also sold privately to individuals (Ref. 15.11; Ref. 15.12). Families in Ada Bacha eat fish approximately two times a week. Income from fishing is the sole source of income for most members of the community with no alternative sources of income; three members of the group collect a government pension. The costs and spending on fuel is approximately 30% of monthly income (Ref. 15.12).

Local nearshore fishers, including those from Ada Bacha fishing community, are accustomed to complying with the existing restrictions imposed by the zone existing Galata Gas Pipeline exclusion zone (0.5 NM either side of the Pipeline) that is in place to protect the Galata Gas Pipeline (see Section 15.5.8.3).

Recreational fishing is also practiced at Ada Bacha, but this does not affect commercial or artisanal fishing because recreational fishers target different fish species. Recreational fishing is carried out throughout the year in the morning and late evenings, and there has not been any change in the numbers engaging in this activity observed in the past few years (Ref. 15.11). There used to be mussel farms in the bay immediately in front of Ada Bacha but these no longer exist; however, there are plans to reinstate a mussel farm, as discussed in Section 15.5.8.4.

Other Fishing Communities

Another fishing group, understood to be part-time, operates from a small group of structures near Galata Beach (adjacent to the community of Galata) about 6 km north of the Project. Like the Ada Bacha fishers they have small boats and fish in the nearshore waters (Ref. 15.11); however it is understood that the Galata fisherman live elsewhere. The nearest fishing community to the south of the landfall section is located at Byala approximately 30 km distant. There are a few instances of fishing boats coming from the Turkish EEZ to fish illegally in the area; however, the authorities are taking action to deter these fishers (Ref. 15.72).

15.5.12 Disadvantaged or Vulnerable Individuals and Groups

15.5.12.1 Identification of Potentially Vulnerable Groups

IFC PS 1 on Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks states that it is necessary to identify individuals and groups that may be differentially or disproportionately

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-57

affected by the Project because of their disadvantaged or vulnerable status. Individual or group vulnerability is a pre-existing characteristic that is independent of the Project and may be reflected by factors such as disability, language, culture, gender, and social status. It may also be exhibited by a low level of access to key socio-economic, social or environmental resources or a limited ability to adapt to change. Therefore, vulnerable individuals and groups may be more susceptible to adverse impacts or have a more limited ability to take advantage of beneficial impacts.

Vulnerability is also an important factor in stakeholder engagement as certain groups of people may have less access to information and decision-making processes. For example, low income households may not have access to computers and internet sources, and may not be able to travel beyond public transportation. Consultation has included meetings with local authorities and Local Communities to understand the representation of these groups.

Using this guidance and in collaboration with local authorities, six potentially disadvantaged or vulnerable groups have been identified in the Local Communities. These are: children; elderly and retired people; disabled and chronically ill people; households with incomes below the subsistence level; CSWs; and the Roma minority group.

These potentially vulnerable groups are described below in relation to their potential vulnerability and their presence in the Local Communities. This analysis considers both the potential for differential or disproportionate impacts of the Project, and potential vulnerabilities in terms of stakeholder engagement (including access to information and participation in decision-making processes). It is important to note that vulnerability is described in the context of the Project, although these groups may also be challenged by other aspects of vulnerability.

The sensitivity or vulnerability of these groups has been considered, where relevant, in the assessment of potential socio-economic impacts in Section 15.6. Other assessments (e.g. Chapter 16 Community Health, Safety and Security) have also considered the vulnerability of these groups. With respect to stakeholder engagement, these groups (and their limitations) have been, and continue to be, considered in the planning of stakeholder engagement activities, including the disclosure of information and the locations of and access to consultation events. Further details are provided in Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement.

Children

Children, especially those below the age of 15, may be specifically vulnerable to impacts related to changes in environmental conditions; children are generally considered to be more sensitive in comparison to adults, particularly with regard to effects on their learning capabilities related to noise from sources such as road traffic (Ref. 15.73) and to effects on health arising from air pollution (Ref. 15.74) (Chapter 9 Air Quality notes that very young children are more likely to be adversely affected by changes in air quality than adults). School age children are also particularly vulnerable as pedestrians to increased levels of traffic and impacts on traffic safety, for example when walking to and from school, especially if unaccompanied by an adult. The interests of children may not always be represented in stakeholder engagement and decision making processes.


15-58 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The proportion of children aged below 15 years old in Bulgaria in 2012 was 13.6% of the total population (Ref. 15.75). Within the Varna Region in 2012, there were 68,946 people under 15, representing 14.6% of the total population, with 82.3% of children residing in urban areas of the region. As a proportion of the urban population, children make up 14.3% of the population compared to rural areas where they make up 15.8% of the population (Ref. 15.75).

Although precise information on the number of children within each Local Community is not available, children (e.g. as pedestrians, cyclists and car passengers) are highly likely to be concentrated in and around kindergartens and schools, as well as community centres and recreational or leisure facilities, such as holiday camps.

Chapter 16 Community Health Safety and Security provides information on the prevalence of diseases by main types of illness, those include respiratory illnesses and illnesses of the nervous system that can also be exacerbated by the increase of traffic in the proximity to schools, residential or recreational areas.

Elderly

Elderly people may be challenged to cope with changes in the surrounding environment as a result of deteriorating physical and/or mental capacity. For example, Chapter 9 Air Quality notes that, in general the elderly are more likely to be adversely affected by changes in air quality than middle aged adults. These challenges may also affect the ability of elderly residents to participate in consultation and decision-making processes, not least in terms of physical accessibility to consultation venues, and a typically lower use of computer-based media. Additionally, elderly or retired people are also likely to be more constrained financially, due to the prevalence of fixed incomes.

The proportion of people aged above 65 years old in Bulgaria in 2012 is 19.2% of the total population (Ref. 15.76). Within the Varna Region in 2012, there were nearly 80,000 people aged 65, representing 16.8% of the total population, and 77.5% residing in urban areas compared to 22.5% in rural areas. Although over three quarters of the Region’s elderly live in urban area, as a proportion of the urban population people over 65 make up 15.5% of the population compared to rural areas where they make up 23.2% of the total population. Accordingly, the more rural Local Communities in the Project Area of Influence are likely to have a higher proportion of elderly people compared with the city of Varna (Ref. 15.75).

Disabled or Chronically Ill

Disabled or chronically ill people, which may include individuals who lack physical mobility or who have mental health issues, may experience difficulties participating in consultation processes and decision making.

Data on the number of disabled or chronically ill people within the Local Communities was not available within the Local Communities. At the regional level however, it is known that the Varna Region mirrors the national average levels of non-communicable diseases, and has lower than average levels of cancer; diseases of the urinary system; diseases of the nervous system; and respiratory diseases (Ref. 15.76). Chapter 16 Community health Safety and Security provides further information of types and proportions of diseases, including mental health, infectious and non-communicable diseases.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-59

Low Income Households

Low income households have fewer financial resources to rely on and are less likely to have savings and/or access to credit, which in turn can make them vulnerable to environmental changes and economic fluctuations. They may also face limitations to accessing information, for example due to limited access to computers and/or the internet, limited transportation options, and financial or time constraints that limit their ability to actively engage in stakeholder consultation. This group is likely to include households with pensioners, unemployed (or underemployed) persons people employed seasonally or in low income occupations. It may also include households with children, seasonal workers and disabled or chronically ill people.

Low income households in the Local Communities are likely to include pensioners and unemployed persons. It may also include households with children; persons employed part time, seasonally or in low income occupations; seasonal migrant workers and disabled/chronically ill people. Minority groups including Turkish and Roma communities also typically experience higher levels of unemployment and lower average incomes relative to the majority Bulgarian population. In particular, many Roma, particularly in the urban city of Varna, do not work in regular waged employment; they may periodically find work as labours, but generally exhibit high levels of unemployment.

Low income households may also be found amongst the Ada Bacha fishing community, especially those residents in the community who rely mainly on fishing for their livelihoods (see Section 15.5.11 for an overview of the socio-economic characteristics of the community and also Appendix 15.1). People working in the fishing industry based in the Port of Varna and Port of Burgas could also have relatively low or variable (and possibly unreliable) incomes, and may have greater vulnerability to environmental changes.

An official from the local Chamber of Commerce has also suggested that unemployed people have tended to move to rural communities outside of the city of Varna, where accommodation is cheaper (Ref. 15.35). Accordingly, it is likely that rural areas have a higher proportion of low income households and unemployed people.

See Section 15.5.6 for more information on employment, poverty, inequality and livelihoods in the Project Area; Section 15.5.9.4 for information on the local tourism sector; and Section 15.5.11 for information in relation to fisheries.

Commercial Sex Workers

In the context of major construction or resource development projects, CSWs are likely to be vulnerable to the transmission of communicable diseases, including sexually transmitted diseases, particularly from migrant workers if they engage in unprotected sex. They are also likely to have low or unreliable incomes, may be homeless or have inadequate housing or unsecure tenure, and may have limited social networks and resilience to cope with change. Additionally, people who are deprived may suffer from drug or alcohol addiction and/or suffer from mental illness are particularly susceptible to sexual exploitation.

There are seasonal movements of CSWs in the area, with CSWs arriving in the Varna Municipality during the summer season, and often travelling abroad during the winter season (Ref. 15.64). Within the Local Communities, the precise numbers of CSWs is unknown.


15-60 URS-EIA-REP-202375

However, field observations during site visits at various times of the year, including summer and winter, have identified a concentration of approximately 5 to 15 CSWs (varying depending on the occasion of the observation) along Route 9 to the west and east of the junction with Krushkite Road, including along the proposed access route to the landfall section of the Project Area. The existence of CSW activity at this location is known to the local law enforcement administration, and is understood to have continued despite regular attempts by the law enforcement authorities to deter it (Ref. 15.77).

In order to obtain more data on the CSWs along Route 9, meetings have been held with the Bulgarian National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings 18 (22 November 2013) (Ref. 15.64) and the non-governmental organisation SOS Families at Risk (26 February 2014) (Ref. 15.40). These organisations have highlighted that the arrival of non-local construction workers could create a new market for CSWs, and could attract CSWs to Varna and the Project Area. It is expected that workers at the landfall section, marshalling yards, and living in Varna or other communities, will be regularly approached by CSWs (Ref. 15.64). In the past, CSWs (and their organisers) have shown persistence, to the extent of using boats to bring CSWs to workers confined to ships in the Port of Varna.

CSWs are reported to be mainly, but not exclusively, of Roma origin from Roma communities in Asparuhovo, Devnya and Ignatiov (west of Varna). CSWs operating along Route 9 to Borovets are primarily from the Roma settlement in Asparuhovo and are reported to be managed by Roma men, often a relative, with the women working for economic reasons to support families of up to six to seven members and the community. The CSWs operate during daylight hours and do not generally work in the evening. In addition to Route 9, another known destination for CSWs is along the road connecting Varna to Devnya. However, the CSWs operating here are from a mixture of different areas and are not primarily of Roma origin (Ref. 15.40).

See Chapter 16 Community Health, Safety, and Security for further baseline data, as well as an analysis of the potential for impacts related to the presence of the CSWs along Route 9.

Minority Groups

Since its democratization, Bulgaria has passed significant legislation on minority rights. However, ethnic minorities (in particular the Roma) continue to face challenges including socio-economic disadvantage (e.g. lower health outcomes, higher unemployment), lack of representation, and marginalisation (Ref. 15.78). Some groups have benefited more than others from Bulgaria’s economic growth, and significant ethnic and regional disparities persist (Ref. 15.79). For example, nearly 50% of the Roma population lived below the poverty line in 2007, although this was down from 75% in 2003. Accordingly, members of the Roma minority group are considered to be potentially vulnerable.

18 The Bulgarian National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, which addresses sex trafficking and prostitution in collaboration with local NGOs has a local commission based in the Municipality of Varna (Ref. 15.85). Nationally, there have been 765 identified victims of trafficking (where the victim has identified themselves as a victim of trafficking) to date. In the first 8 weeks of 2014 there were 23 registered victims (Ref. 15.78).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-61

The Roma minority in Bulgaria were historically employed in mines which have now been fully or partially closed down. The Roma have low levels of integration in the formal employment market and higher rates of unemployment relative to the majority Bulgarian population (Ref. 15.78).

Poverty and a lack of support for schooling amongst parents and families are the main factors preventing Roma children from completing their schooling, and many children do not attend more than three years of school. Children are also often pulled from school to help families with income generation (e.g. rubbish sorting, begging, etc.). As a result many Roma have only basic schooling and qualifications, and low levels of literacy. There is a general lack of incentive for Roma children to complete education (or motivation for parents to keep children in school) and this is also evident at the government level where funding is usually aimed at infrastructure improvements and not improving attendance rates and/or encouraging families to allow children to partake in the education system (Ref. 15.24). Low education and low literacy levels can be a substantial future barrier to employment (Ref. 15.40, Ref. 15.39 and Ref. 15.24). Nationally, unemployment among Roma is estimated at 65 per cent (Ref. 15.78).

Consultation with local officials and NGOs has confirmed that, amongst the Local Communities, Roma are concentrated in particular areas. In the Varna Municipality, the Roma population is largely urban, concentrated the Maksuda and Vlodislavo neighbourhoods of the city of Varna, and the Rozova Dolina neighbourhood of Asparuhovo (Ref. 15.39 and Ref. 15.24). However, in Avren Municipality, and specifically Priseltsi, it is reported that Roma households are generally integrated within the broader community, both physically and economically (Ref. 15.39 and Ref. 15.80).

15.5.12.2 Stakeholder Engagement with Vulnerable Groups

Stakeholder engagement efforts have been adjusted to ensure the participation of vulnerable groups as far as possible, and to ensure access to engagement and consultation methods. Representatives from local education and health care facilities, local pensioners associations and representatives of community and cultural centres were directly invited to public consultation sessions (e.g. by inviting local youth and parents to participate). Efforts have also been made to disclose information in a variety of ways so as to be accessible to all groups. For example, printed copies of reports have been provided in central community locations, as well as electronic copies on the internet; announcements have been made in local newspapers, and through posters in local shops, bus stops, and other community locations; information has been hand-delivered to schools and pensioner groups; and open meetings have been held in potentially affected Local Communities.

For further information on engagement with stakeholders and vulnerable groups see Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement.

15.5.13 Baseline Summary and Key Findings

This section provides a summary of key findings and observations arising from the preceding baseline in respect of the Varna Region, Varna Municipality and Avren Municipality, and the Local Communities.


15-62 URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.5.13.1 Varna Region

The main observations arising from the baseline in relation to Varna Region are as follows:

• The Varna Region is one of 28 Bulgarian Regions;

• The population of Varna Region in 2011 was approximately 475,000;

• Against a national trend of population decline, Varna Region experienced an increase in population between the 2001 and 2011 censuses;

• Varna Region accounts for over 6% of national GDP and is an important and diversified economic centre that outperforms the national average for a number of economic indicators;

• Tourism is a major industry in Varna Region, with most tourist development and activity concentrated along the coastal area to the north of the city of Varna;

• Many construction workers that were attracted to the Varna Region during the construction boom that preceded the global economic crisis and Bulgarian recession have stayed on in the Varna Region despite the subsequent downturn in construction activity. As a result, there are many unemployed construction sector workers residing in the Varna Region; including outside the city of Varna in nearby towns and villages where accommodation is more affordable; and

• Unemployment increased in the Varna Region from 4.3% in 2008 to 10.3% in 2011, in line with national, regional and local trends.

15.5.13.2 Varna Municipality and Avren Municipality

The main observations arising from the baseline in relation to Varna and Avren municipalities are as follows:

• Varna Municipality is the largest municipality by population in the Varna Region, accounting for approximately three quarters of the region’s population;

• Between 2006 and 2011, there was a 4.1% increase in the population of Varna Municipality. Prior to the 2008 global economic crisis, this increase was attributed to the municipality attracting economically active people with relatively high levels of education and skills;

• In contrast to Varna Municipality, a long-term downward population trend has continued in the more rural Avren Municipality with a slight decline between 2004 and 2010 and a sharper decline between 2010 and 2011;

• In Avren Municipality, a large proportion of the population is aged 65 or over; in contrast, for both Varna Municipality and the city of Varna, there are a higher number of working-age persons;

• Varna Municipality has a lower proportion of Roma (1.1%) ethnic groups, where this population is typically concentrated in certain urban neighbourhoods. However, in neighbouring Avren Municipality, Roma account for a higher proportion of the population (11%) and are more integrated into the broader population. Statistics related to ethnicity are known to be unreliable due to variation in how individuals identify themselves;

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-63

• Varna Municipality’s economy, dominated by the city of Varna, contributes significantly to the GDP contribution of the region;

• Unemployment in Varna Municipality has been consistently lower in all years than at the regional and national levels, reflecting the municipality’s (and the city’s) stronger economy; and

• In urban areas of Varna and Asparuhovo municipalities, the minority Roma community generally exhibits higher levels of unemployment and lower socio-economic welfare. Many Roma live within socially isolated areas within these communities.

15.5.13.3 The Local Communities

A summary of key findings and observations is provided for the Local Communities:

• In addition to the city of Varna which is located approximately 11 km from the landfall facilities, a further seven Local Communities have been identified to the south of the Varna Bay (containing the Port of Varna). Of these local communities to the south of Varna Bay; the closest of these seven to the landfall facilities is Rakitnika located approximately 3 km away from the landfall facilities and 1.9 km from the pipeline, while Asparuhovo is furthest away being located approximately 7.5 km from the landfall facilities;

• The population of the city of Varna in 2011 was approximately 344,000;

• The population of the other Local Communities to the south of Varna Bay ranges from approximately 20,000 in Asparuhovo to approximately 500 residents in Rakitnika with the exception of Priseltsi VZ which is estimated to have a permanent resident population of less than 250;

• Relative to the coastal area north of the city of Varna, there is only limited commercial tourism activity located within and amongst the Local Communities south of Varna Bay;

• Tourism activity is primarily comprised of holiday homes that are predominantly stayed in by their owners and their families and friends, plus a small number of smaller hotels and camp sites / bungalow accommodation facilities referred to locally as ‘rest area summer camps’;

• Pasha Dere Beach is mostly used by residents and visitors to the Local Communities south of Varna Bay, particularly during the summer. This is a relatively remote beach, with no developed infrastructure; many beach users appear to value the beach for these reasons;

• There is limited economic activity in the smaller Local Communities to the south of Varna Bay, including a small company engaged in meat processing and furniture manufacturing, and local agriculture and viticulture (the cultivation of vineyards), consisting mainly of small vineyards with one slightly larger company located in the community of Priseltsi;

• It is estimated that between 60% and 70% of residents with jobs in the area south of Varna Bay are likely to hold jobs in Varna city, evidencing the relative lack of economic activity in the Local Communities south of Varna Bay and the dependence of residents therein on Varna city for employment opportunities; and

• There is a small fishing community known as Ada Bacha located on the coast at the northern end of Chernomorets Beach and near Rakitnika comprised of approximately 18 residents that fish off the coast.


15-64 URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.6 Impact Assessment

This section identifies and assesses the potential impacts on the existing socio-economic environment arising from Project-related activities. Information within Chapter 5 Project Description and the baseline socio-economic characteristics in Section 15.5 have been used to assist the evaluation of the potential impacts and their significance.

The impact assessment has taken into account the findings of other chapters to inform and evidence the assessment of impacts on socio-economic receptors; including but not limited to Chapter 9 Air Quality, Chapter 10 Noise and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual. Where the socio-economic assessment relies on information from other chapters or appendices, readers are directed to these chapters.

15.6.1 Impact Assessment Methodology

15.6.1.1 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Criteria

Context and Overview

This section examines the impacts associated with the Project; specifically economic and community-related impacts. The methodology specific to socio-economics presented in this section builds upon the general assessment methodology summarised in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology. The methodology is then developed specifically in relation to effects on socio-economics arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project, as is further outlined below.

Project Activities Relevant to Socio-Economics

The Project Description is presented in Chapter 5 Project Description. The elements of the Project that are relevant to socio-economics are set out below.

Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

Construction of the Project, including the establishment of marshalling yards, will create employment opportunities and also potentially give rise to an increased demand for goods and services from construction, port services, and other sectors. However, it is anticipated that the majority of the employment opportunities created by the Project will require specialised skilled labour that will be filled by the Contractors’ workforce, expected to consist primarily of non-local workers, who will lodge in nearby towns and villages as well as on the offshore vessels involved in construction.

Construction of the landfall section of the Project will result in a temporary and permanent requirement for land within the construction corridor and the landfall facilities, predominantly forested land.

The exclusion zone during the construction activities will be a ‘moving’ circle with a radius of 3 km around an anchored lay barge and 2 km around a dynamically positioned (DP) barge. It is understood that the 3 km radius can be reduced in shallow water, where the spread area of the

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-65

anchors required is significantly reduced by the shallowness of the waters. As a result the construction safety exclusion zone in the nearshore section will be reduced to less than 3 km. The actual radius of the exclusion zone in the nearshore section will be decided in consultation with the relevant authorities (Chapter 5 Project Description). Construction-related activities on land and at sea, including traffic, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and vessel movements to and from the construction sites, could result in amenity-related impacts (e.g. air quality, construction dust, noise, vibration, water quality, and visual impacts) being experienced by sensitive socio-economic receptors, including beach users. These impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter 9 Air Quality; Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration; Chapter 11 Terrestrial Ecology; and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual.

Roads within or near to existing Local Communities, including Priseltsi VZ, will be used as access routes for construction traffic to transport equipment and materials to and from the Project construction site.

Construction works within the landfall section of the Project are expected to last approximately 27 months, works within the nearshore section will overlap with the latter period of the landfall section construction works and are expected to last for approximately 12 months. The majority of the construction works within the offshore section are expected to span an approximate three year period with peaks and troughs in activity of the Project as the pipe-laying barge moves across the Black Sea. The marshalling yards would be required for approximately 39 months. For further information on the construction schedule see Chapter 5 Project Description.

Operational Phase

On land, the construction areas, except for the Pipeline RoW and the landfall facilities site, will be reinstated to their former uses. However, the establishment of safety exclusion zones will result in certain conditions being placed on the use and development of land within 380 m either side of the two outermost pipelines. At sea, a safety exclusion zone of approximately 0.5 km (0.27 NM) either side of the outermost pipelines (the final distance is subject to agreement with the appropriate authorities) will be established out to 100 m depth to ensure that the subsea pipelines are not damaged by third party activities (e.g. dragged anchors, fishing gear, etc.) during the Operational Phase19.

Relevant Activities by Project Phase

For each Project activity, Table 15.6 indicates whether the activity has the potential to give rise to a socio-economic impact within the landfall, offshore or nearshore section of the Project.

19 The exclusion zone is yet to be finalised with the appropriate authorities; however, it is planned to discuss the proposed extent of the exclusion zone and the applicable restrictions with the appropriate authorities.


15-66 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Table 15.6 Project Activities Relevant to Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

Project Activity Landfall Offshore Nearshore

Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

Mobilisation of survey vessels to and from site and vessel movements within survey corridor

Anchoring of pipe-lay vessel during S-Lay pipe-lay (30 mbsl to 600 mbsl)

Vessel operations waste and wastewater generation

Delivery of pipe and other supplies (including crew change) to pipe-lay vessel by supply vessel

Pre-commissioning

Dredging of trench using dredging vessels (dredging technique depends on seabed conditions) and storage of dredged materials adjacent to trench

Night time working (use of flood lights)

Use of power generation sets (for example diesel generator)

Delivery of construction materials (by road)

Fencing off of landfall facilities and construction areas

Land clearance, grading, top soil stripping

Use of temporary pre-fabricated facilities (i.e. portakabins, portaloos, etc.)

Delivery / removal (by road) of temporary pre-fabricated facilities (i.e. portakabins, portaloos, etc.) and pipeline construction materials (pipe sections, welding material, etc.)

Vehicle and plant operations on site

Land Acquisition

Continued…

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-67

Project Activity Landfall Offshore Nearshore

Employment of a Project workforce (including direct hires and contract personnel)

Consumption (procurement) of construction equipment and materials and other supplies and services

Construction of landfall facilities, construction corridor, exclusion area, pipeline installation and access roads

Establishment of marshalling yards (incl. supply base for delivery of ‘other supplies (including crew change) to the pipe-lay vessels

Fencing off of construction area

Fencing off of landfall facilities

Operational Phase

Mobilisation of vessels to and from pipeline locations and vessel movements along pipeline

Physical presence of pipeline on seabed

Clearance of vegetation from permanent RoW over pipeline, and regular maintenance

Employment of workforce

Imposition and maintenance of safety exclusion zones

Complete.

Overview and Identification of Receptors

Two broad categories of potential receptors that have been identified with respect to the potential socio-economic impacts of the Project are:

• Those that would be affected economically or financially (including workers, businesses, residents, landowners, land users, and users of utilities and telecommunications); and

• Individuals and groups within the Local Communities that could be affected either socially or in terms of their physical and mental well-being, or in terms of their recreational amenity.

Receptors and resources may vary by the type of impact or event, and different impacts may affect different receptors. A receptor may be an individual, household, group or organisation, or a community. Receptors may be affected by changes in the environment, or by changes to


15-68 URS-EIA-REP-202375

things such as land use, land ownership, transportation, livelihoods, incomes, community values, or the enjoyment of natural areas.

Accordingly, receptors which could experience a socio-economic impact in one or more of these ways as a result of the Project are identified and described in Table 15.7 which shows the key receptors in respect to economic-related and community-related impacts.

Table 15.7 Receptors by Impact Type

Impact type Receptors Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

Operational Phase

Economic-related impacts

Existing workforce within Varna Region and further afield

Existing businesses within Varna Region and further afield

Fishers, fishing businesses and the Ada Bacha fishing community

Tourism businesses in the Local Communities to the south of Varna Bay

Land owners

Existing users of forestry resources (timber, firewood)

The labour force in the Local Communities

Community-related impacts

Recreational beach users

Recreational camp site users

Recreational path and trail users

Recreational hunters

Receptor Sensitivity Criteria Tables

The concept of sensitivity attempts to reflect the degree of response to a change in baseline conditions by a receptor. This degree of response may range from being very susceptible to change (and having little resilience) to being able to absorb or adapt to change (being very resilient).

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-69

Within the socio-economic context, receptor sensitivity is difficult to define as it varies significantly within and between individual receptors for any given impact. The degree of sensitivity of a socio-economic receptor is based on an individual’s abilities to adapt to changes and maintain their livelihood and health (i.e. resilience), and in situations where an impact may result in a loss or reduction of access to a resource; their ability to access an alternative resource that provides the same service (e.g. a livelihood, employment, recreation, etc.). Sensitivity is not uniform. For example, not all women, farmers or fishing communities are equally vulnerable. Sensitivity can also refer to ‘vulnerability’.

In this assessment, sensitivity is a stakeholder’s resilience or capacity to cope with sudden changes or shocks on the stakeholder or on the resource(s) used by the stakeholder. There are a range of variables that can determine a stakeholder’s sensitivity which should be considered:

• Age, gender, race, religion;

• Land rights and ownership;

• Employment, unemployment / income;

• Livelihood strategies (and livelihood alternatives);

• Location or isolation;

• Public services, e.g. health access and quality;

• Access to, and use of, natural resources including water;

• Food security;

• Education and skills;

• Health or disability;

• Support networks; and

• Marginalisation (e.g. degree of access to services and formalised rights).

When considering impacts on people, sensitivity is typically a complex interaction of some or all such factors. In order to facilitate a comparison of impacts for the purposes of this ESIA Report, a series of criteria attempting to capture these elements have been established based on professional judgement and Good International Industry Practice (GIIP). Table 15.8 outlines the criteria for evaluating sensitivity from negligible to high. The sensitivity of receptors will be considered in the context of each individual impact, although only certain criteria may be applicable depending on the type of receptor being assessed.


15-70 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Table 15.8 Socio-Economic Impact Sensitivity

Sensitivity Criteria

Negligible A receptor with plentiful capacity and means to adapt to a given change and maintain / improve quality of life or that would not be affected in any material or noticeable way by a given change .

Low A receptor with some capacity and means to adapt to a given change and maintain / improve quality of life.

Moderate A receptor with limited capacity and means to adapt to a given change and maintain / improve quality of life.

High An already vulnerable receptor with very little capacity and means to adapt to a given change and maintain / improve quality of life.

Magnitude of Impacts

The magnitude of an impact is a measure of the degree of change in the baseline environment as a result of a development leading to beneficial or adverse impacts on socio-economic receptors. This baseline could refer to a diverse range of dimensions (i.e. financial, physical or emotional).

The dimensions affecting the impact magnitude criteria are described in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology, and include the duration, frequency, reversibility, and extent of an impact. The determination of impact magnitude for adverse impacts is also based on a scale of negligible, low, moderate and high.

The quantification of impact magnitude (e.g. economic appraisals) depends on the availability of adequate data and is not readily applicable across all impact types. The criteria presented in Table 15.9 include a set of qualitative descriptions that characterise different levels of impact magnitude from negligible to high which reflect the dimensions set out in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology and which have been developed based on professional judgement and Good International Industry Practice. For beneficial impacts, the beneficial nature of the impact has been noted but the magnitude of the impact has not been assessed using the same scale; instead, a qualitative description of the benefit is provided.

Table 15.9 Socio-Economic Impact Magnitude

Magnitude Criteria

Negligible An impact that is unlikely to have a measurable effect on the wellbeing of people so that the baseline conditions will be materially unaffected.

Continued…

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-71

Magnitude Criteria

Low An impact that is likely to affect a small number of people (with number depending on the local context) and which is also likely to be temporary (up to two years) and reversible.

Moderate An impact that is likely to affect a moderate number of groups and/or people or businesses (with number depending on the local context) and which may or may not be reversible.

High An impact that is likely to affect large numbers of groups and/or people or businesses (with number depending on the local context) irrespective of both time-scale and reversibility.

Complete.

It is also noted that impacts and outcomes associated with the Project may be either direct or indirect. However, these characteristics, while important to recognise and understand in terms of the application of mitigation measures, do not affect impact magnitude and are not directly considered in the socio-economic impact magnitude criteria.

15.6.1.2 Impact Assessment Methods

Determining Impact Significance

The significance of potential adverse socio-economic impacts has been assessed in Sections 15.6.2 and 15.6.3 by taking into account the characteristics of each impact (including their extent, duration, frequency and reversibility) and applying the receptor sensitivity and impact magnitude criteria outlined in Table 15.8 and Table 15.9 respectively. For beneficial impacts, the beneficial nature of the impact has been noted but the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receptor has not been explicitly identified.

As outlined in Chapter 3 Impact Assessment Methodology, the significance matrix provides basic guidance for the determination of impact significance; however, the resulting significance level is also checked against the descriptive definitions for each significance level (Not Significant, Low, Moderate, or High significance). The significance is interpreted on the basis of professional judgement and expertise, and adjusted if necessary. For ease of reference the significance matrix and description of the significance of predicted impacts is presented in Table 15.10 and Table 15.11.


15-72 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Table 15.10 Significance Matrix

Receptor Sensitivity (vulnerability and value)

Negligible Low Moderate High

Impa

ct M

agni

tude

(ex

tent

, fr

eque

ncy,

rev

ersi

bilit

y, d

urat

ion)

Negligible Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant / Low*

Low Not significant Low Low / Moderate† Moderate

Moderate Not significant Low / Moderate Moderate High

High Low Moderate High High

* Allows technical discipline author to decide if impact significance is Not Significant or Low. † Allows technical discipline author to decide if impact significance is Low or Moderate.

Table 15.11 Significance of Predicted Impacts

High Significant. Impacts with a “high” significance are likely to disrupt the function and value of the resource/receptor, and may have broader systemic consequences (e.g. ecosystem or social well-being). These impacts are a priority for mitigation in order to avoid or reduce the significance of the impact.

Moderate Significant. Impacts with a “moderate” significance are likely to be noticeable and lasting changes to baseline conditions, which may cause hardship or degradation of although the overall function and value of the resource/receptor is not disrupted. These impacts are a priority for mitigation in order to avoid or reduce the significance of the impact.

Low Detectable but not significant. Impacts with a “low” significance are expected to be noticeable changes to baseline conditions, beyond natural variation, but are not expected to cause hardship, or impair the function and value of the resource/receptor. However, these impacts warrant the attention of decision-makers, and should be avoided or mitigated where practicable.

Not Significant

Not significant. Any impacts are expected to be indistinguishable from the baseline or within the natural level of variation. These impacts do not require mitigation and are not a concern of the decision-making process.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-73

Identifying Mitigation and Assessing Residual Impacts

As described in Chapter 4 Analysis of Alternatives and Chapter 5 Project Description the Project design process has incorporated a number of design principles and control to reduce the overall impact. These may be described as ‘inherent’ design measures. As a result, to the extent practicable, the Project design has minimised land acquisition requirements, particularly land acquisition from good quality agricultural land, and in the case of temporary facilities, made maximum use of land likely to cause minimum economic displacement. This chapter has assessed impacts based on a Project design that has already incorporated these design controls.

Within the respective impact assessment sections below for each phase of the Project, following the initial pre-mitigation impact assessment, a set of receptor-specific mitigation measures and other Project enhancement measures have been identified. These are explained in detail below.

Following assessment of the mitigation measures, the overall significance of the impacts, taking into account the mitigation measures, has been reassessed to arrive at the residual impact. The reassessment has applied the same methodology used to undertake the original pre-mitigation assessment.

15.6.2 Impact Assessment: Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

This section identifies the potential socio-economic impacts and risks associated with the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. For those effects where potentially significant pre-mitigation impacts are assessed in Section 15.6.2.4, potential mitigation measures have been identified in Section 15.6.2.5. This is followed by a residual impact assessment, the results of which are set out in Section 15.6.2.6.

The impact assessment focuses on issues that are of concern or interest, and that have a realistic chance of occurring. Accordingly, other impacts have been considered but – for various reasons, described below – are not included in the assessment. During the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, this includes impacts on land owners related to permanent and temporary land acquisition; these impacts have been scoped out of the assessment on the basis of South Stream Transport’s commitment to negotiated settlements with the applicable landowners.

15.6.2.1 Impacts Considered and Scoped Out: Economic Displacement as a result of Land Acquisition

To the extent practicable, the Project design has minimised the area of land that will be temporary or permanently acquired for the Project. Three land owners, including the Bulgarian state, will have land permanently or temporarily acquired for the Project. Landownership is described in Section 15.5.7.

The Project will secure the necessary rights to the land required to construct and operate the Project by way of negotiated agreements with these landowners in accordance with South Stream Transport’s Land Acquisition Plan (covering policy, approach and plan for land


15-74 URS-EIA-REP-202375

acquisition), which has been drafted in accordance with the relevant Bulgarian legislation and the objectives of IFC PS5, applying the higher of the two standards wherever they are not consistent. The Plan provides for compensation based on a valuation mechanism conducted in accordance with the objectives of IFC PF5 or national legal requirements, whichever is the greater. The status of land acquisitions at the time of writing is as follows:

• The majority of the land required for the Project is owned by the Bulgarian state. Negotiations are underway in relation to land access and acquisition of this land. In addition, discussions have been held with the Bulgarian Executive Forestry Agency with regard to the timber which will be cleared from the land to allow for construction. This agency has confirmed that they do not wish to take possession of the timber that will be felled to allow for construction of the Project (Ref. 15.46);

• South Stream Transport is in negotiations to purchase the collection of privately owned land plots near the beach (zoned for resort and residential development) that are owned by a bank. The bank is the effective landowner, and has indicated that it does not itself intend to develop the land and that it is willing to sell the site to South Stream Transport;

• The land proposed for use as a temporary construction area for the Project (Landfall Section Pipeline Construction Site and Laydown Area or ‘Site A’ as described in Chapter 5 Project Description) is owned by a single landowner. A negotiated Temporary Land Use Agreement which will provide for an option to lease that land for the duration of the construction works (i.e. a minimum of four years and a maximum of six years). South Stream Transport has committed to restore the affected area to its original condition at the end of the lease. Restoration of the land required for the temporary facilities during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase is estimated to take approximately 12 months; and

• In addition to the land acquisition within the landfall section, sites at Varna Port West, Varna Port East and Burgas Port will be used as marshalling yards for the temporary storage of pipe in support of the pipe-lay operations. These will be subject to commercial agreements with the port authorities. Discussions to date have focused on identifying available sites within the ports, all of which appear to have spare capacity at the current time. There is no evidence to suggest that any occupiers or leaseholders at the ports would be displaced in order to allow the marshalling yard activities to be accommodated. Accordingly, it is considered that there will not be any displacement of economic activity as a result of the potential establishment of marshalling yards.

There are no residential developments, or any formal or informal residents, on any of the affected land parcels.

Project Land Acquisition Plan

As per the Project Land Acquisition Plan, a negotiated settlement with all affected land owners will be reached, in accordance with Bulgarian law. Impacts on the landowner identified, will be documented within a Land Acquisition Plan, and as part of the land acquisition process will be taken into account as part of the negotiated settlement undertaken according to the Project Land Acquisition Plan.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-75

Further details on the approach to land acquisition for the Project can be found in the Project Land Acquisition Plan, the principles of which are provided below:

• The Project avoids physical displacement and minimises economic displacement by routing and siting its facilities such that no residences are impacted by either direct footprint or buffer areas;

• Use of compulsory acquisition procedures as provided for in local law will only occur where good faith negotiation fails to achieve a reasonable outcome; this may apply, for example, to situations where the landowner’s whereabouts are unknown (absentee landowners), if the landowner decides not to engage in negotiations, or if the landowner compensation claims are unreasonable compared to local land market conditions;

• The Project seeks to enter into negotiated settlements with affected landowners and land users wherever possible;

• Losses are compensated at replacement value;

• Affected people have access to a fair grievance mechanism, including a first tier of internal grievance review by the Project, with the opportunity for aggrieved individuals to resort to independent review of the grievance if a suitable resolution has not been agreed; and

• Vulnerable people, who may be more affected than others by the land acquisition process, will be identified and specifically assisted if and as needed.

Accordingly, economic displacement as a result of the acquisition of land for the Project is not considered further within this assessment.

15.6.2.2 Impacts Considered and Scoped Out: Cultural Heritage Impacts

Chapter 17 Cultural Heritage has not identified any receptors that are also considered to be social or economic receptors. Therefore, the potential for impacts on cultural heritage has not been considered further in this chapter. See Chapter 17 Cultural Heritage for further information on impacts on cultural heritage.

15.6.2.3 Impacts Considered and Scoped Out: Residential Amenity Impacts

The construction of the Project has the potential to affect the amenity (i.e. the overall quality of the surrounding environment as experienced and enjoyed) of residential receptors in the Local Communities. Amenity-related features include issues such as air quality, dust, noise, vibration, and visual impacts. Accordingly, these impacts have been assessed in other chapters of this ESIA Report including Chapter 9 Air Quality, Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration, and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual.

The potential for amenity impacts has been considered for all the Local Communities by having regard to these other chapters. However, a socio-economic residential amenity impact assessment is only considered warranted where there is more than one contributing amenity-related impact (i.e. air quality, dust, noise, vibration and/or visual impact) occurring simultaneously or continuously over a prolonged period. Where this is not the case, there is no


15-76 URS-EIA-REP-202375

potential for such impacts to act together and give rise to a combined impact on residential amenity.

The air quality, noise and vibration and visual impact assessments have identified the potential for adverse pre-mitigation impacts on residential receptors at three Local Communities; Rakitnika (visual impacts), Priseltsi VZ (air quality and dust impacts, and visual impacts) and Varna (noise and vibration impacts, for specific receptors adjacent to the Varna East Port). Following the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to prevent and reduce significant adverse impacts, the residual impact significance on residents of Rakitnika and Priseltsi VZ will be Not Significant for these amenity-related impacts with the exception of noise. Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration has assessed that, following the implementation of mitigation measures, there will be Not Significant to Moderate adverse residual noise impacts for four receptors near the Varna East marshalling yard. The receptors comprise two residential dwellings, Varna Transport Hospital and a restaurant. For further details on the above mentioned assessments and mitigation measures refer to Chapter 9 Air Quality, Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual. Based on these other assessments, none of the residential receptors will experience two impacts simultaneously or continuously over a prolonged period of time. Therefore an assessment of the manner in which amenity-related impacts would occur on residential receptors has not been undertaken.

15.6.2.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation)

The following potential socio-economic impacts are assessed below:

• Economic impacts:

o Employment generation; o Increased demand for goods and services; and o Potential for reduced business revenues:

i. Commercial fishing; ii. Tourism industry; and iii. Forestry.

• Community impacts:

o Reduced recreational amenity of Pasha Dere Beach; o Removal of trees from Pasha Dere camping area; o Loss of recreational amenity of trails and paths; and o Restriction of recreational hunting activity.

Employment Generation

At the peak of construction, the Project will create a maximum of between approximately 2,100 and 2,500 jobs during construction across three sections (offshore, nearshore and landfall) and within the marshalling yards required for the Project depending on whether or not quad-jointing activities are undertaken at one of the marshalling yards. The estimated peak labour numbers during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase for each Project section are presented in Table 15.12.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-77

Table 15.12 Estimated Labour Levels during Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

Project Section Peak Labour Numbers

Offshore 1,109

Nearshore 560

Landfall 330

Marshalling Yards 80 (no quad joint factory) per yard*

408 (with quad jointing at factory or on moored vessel) at one yard only*

Notes: (*) Assumes 8-hour shifts; Full time equivalent (FTE).

The majority of jobs will be short-term and temporary although a portion of the jobs may last for the full duration of the construction period. The Project will require a combination of unskilled, skilled and managerial / professional labour. Figure 15.9 shows the anticipated profile of direct employment for the Project during construction. The figure demonstrates how employment will vary as construction progresses. It should be noted that although offshore and nearshore section pipe-laying activities will take place in the same quarter, they cannot happen simultaneously because of the way in which the pipes need to be laid. Therefore, while the nearshore crew is undertaking construction activities in the Bulgarian sector of the Black Sea, the offshore construction crew will be operating elsewhere (either in the Russian and Turkish sectors of the Black Sea, or visiting the marshalling yards).

Construction works within the landfall section of the Project are expected to last approximately 27 months, works within the nearshore section will overlap with the latter period of the landfall section construction works and are expected to last for approximately 12 months, and the majority of the construction works within the offshore section are expected to span an approximate three year period with peaks and troughs in activity within the Bulgarian sector of the Project as the pipe-laying barge moves across the Black Sea. The marshalling yards would be required for approximately 39 months. For further information on the construction schedule see Chapter 5 Project Description.

Marine-based construction (i.e. the nearshore and offshore sections) will generate a maximum of approximately 1,670 temporary jobs over a short peak period of approximately six months, followed shortly after by a longer period of approximately 15 months during which time a lower secondary peak of approximately 1,100 temporary jobs will be generated associated with the offshore section (the nearshore section works will have been completed). In between these two periods, there will be a lull in employment for the Project while construction activity associated with the pipe-laying process occurs in the Russian and Turkish sectors. The respective offshore and nearshore pipe-laying workforces will be comprised of separate crews; and the nature of the pipe-laying process means that they will not work simultaneously in the Bulgarian sector of the Black Sea; but rather that the offshore crew will return to the Russian and Turkish sectors while the nearshore crew completes the pipe-laying for each pipe in the Bulgarian sector. Due to


15-78 URS-EIA-REP-202375

the specialised and technical nature of sub-sea pipeline construction, it is expected that the successful contracting company working on the marine pipe-laying will entirely provide the workforce for all nearshore and offshore construction and that few, if any, local people will be employed for this work.

Figure 15.9 Anticipated Profile of Direct Employment for the Project during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

Source: URS Analysis. Notes: (1) The number of jobs shown per quarter and per section is an estimate; and does not indicate that employment will last for the entirety of the quarter concerned (i.e. the full three month duration). Related to this, it is not technically possible for offshore and nearshore section pipe-laying activity to occur simultaneously in the Bulgarian sector of the Black Sea, even though crews for both sections will undertake tasks at different times during the same quarter. (2) The number of jobs shown assumes that a quad-joint facility will be established at one of the marshalling yards. If it is not established, the number of marshalling yard jobs generated would reduce accordingly, as indicated in Table 15.10. It also assumes 8-hour shifts, full time equivalent (FTE). (3) The number of peak jobs shown in the marshalling yards (across all three) is based on all three marshalling yards operating simultaneously, including one with a quad jointing facility during those times when such a facility may be required. The landfall section, including the associated landfall facilities, will generate between approximately 230 and 330 temporary jobs in total during the peak of construction, a period lasting approximately 9 to 12 months within a total landfall section construction period of approximately 27 months. (4) The construction of the landfall section will be led by the construction contractor. Therefore, the exact amount or proportion of local hiring is not known, but it is estimated that up to approximately 30% will be unskilled and that the contractor will be likely to decide to source some of that workforce locally.

Three marshalling yards (to be located at the Varna East, Varna West and Burgas ports) will be required for the duration of the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase and will generate employment during this period. Each marshalling yard will need a maximum of approximately 80 workers. However, the third marshalling yard could employ up to 408 full-time equivalent

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Peak Jobs (FTE)

Year and Quarter

Marshalling Yards

Offshore Pipelay

Nearshore Section

Landfall Section

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-79

workers if a quad jointing facility is required20. The marshalling yards will become operational in Q3 2014, and will remain in use until approximately late-2017. Overall, across all marshalling yards, given the nature of the work and skills required, the majority (approximately 70%) of the jobs generated will be skilled involving manual labour, with the potential for a further approximately 20% to be unskilled. The remainder are likely to be professional and managerial positions. Again, it is not known how much labour the contractor will source locally, but some employment opportunities are likely to arise for the local workforce.

In addition to the direct construction employment generated by the Project itself, there will be an increase in local employment arising from indirect and induced effects of construction activity. Indirect employment includes the procurement of goods and services from local companies which could generate jobs with these companies. Employment growth will arise locally by way of indirect or supply linkage employment multiplier effects. The beneficial impacts of an increase in demand for goods and services are covered in the assessment of increased Demand for Goods and Services below. Additionally, part of the income of the construction workers and suppliers will be spent within the Local Communities and the Varna and Burgas regions, generating further employment (by way of induced employment multiplier effects)21.

In summary, it is estimated that up to approximately 30% of the landfall section employment, or approximately 100 jobs at the peak of construction, could be available to local workers, including workers from the Local Communities. However, local hiring will be at the discretion of the construction Contractor (as employment will not be directly with South Stream Transport). Although the number of local hires are likely to be limited (estimated at up to approximately 100 jobs), the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project will be likely to result in a short term and temporary, Beneficial economic impact for Local Communities and the Varna and Burgas Regions as a result of the increase in available job opportunities.

An increase in job opportunities – albeit limited – in the Local Communities is a potential benefit of the Project. However, there is also a potential for negative sentiment to be generated within the community in relation to the employment of non-local labour. Specifically, this may arise in relation to:

• Unfulfilled local employment expectations and resentment, which may arise between local people who are employed by the Project and those whose applications were unsuccessful, and between local and non-local workers if local people perceive that foreign workers are receiving better pay or conditions for the same job;

• Unfulfilled skill development and training expectations as the positions to be filled by workers local to the area are likely to be unskilled (or potentially semi-skilled) and short

20 Due to the cost of establishing a quad-jointing facility; it is assumed that there will only be one. 21 The scale of the multiplier effects will depend on the size of the strength of internal local supply linkages (both within Local Communities and the Varna / Burgas Regions) and also the degree of income leakage that occurs from the area beyond its boundaries. It is considered that the Varna Region is likely to have medium supply linkages based on the size and nature (i.e., sectoral composition) of its economy. Burgas is likely to be similar, although its economy is smaller than Varna Region’s economy. However, it has not been possible to identify a quantitative multiplier by which to estimate the scale of indirect and induced employment that would be generated locally.


15-80 URS-EIA-REP-202375

term, and training of local workers associated with the Project – if it occurs – will be limited to the training required for these unskilled (or potentially semi-skilled) positions; and

• Increased tensions within the Local Communities over access to jobs and due to the presence of non-local workers in the area.

Enhancement and mitigation measures related to the benefit of local employment, potential expectations related to this and the potential for negative sentiment are presented in Section 15.6.2.5.

Increased Demand for Goods and Services

The Project will require the procurement of materials and equipment (as well as labour, see above) from locations in Bulgaria (as well as from within and outside the EU), resulting in a direct increase in the demand for some local goods and services, and associated business opportunities. However, the pipe segments are anticipated to come from pipe mills located internationally.

Additionally, there will be a requirement to accommodate the non-local Project workforce. Chapter 5 Project Description sates that such workers will be lodged in the nearby towns and villages. This socio-economic assessment assumes that they will lodge in the city of Varna (or the city of Burgas, in the event that some non-local workers take up jobs at the marshalling yard at Burgas Port), given the broader and larger availability of accommodation options and community amenities compared to the much smaller Local Communities.

Given that the temporary landfall section construction workforce will be, on average, fewer than 300 people during the peak year of construction and that approximately one third of these could be drawn from the local workforce, the number of non-local workers likely to lodge within Local Communities or the city of Varna will not be high enough to have any significant impact on housing and food markets given the size of those markets (noting that Varna is the third-largest city in Bulgaria), and the scale of tourism within the zone of influence (including the city of Varna). Furthermore, as several million tourists visit the Varna Region annually, any impacts on housing and tourism will be indistinguishable from the baseline or within the natural level of variation.

For the construction of the landfall section it is estimated that between 60% and 70% of the temporary construction jobs will be professional and managerial, or requiring special skills, and likely to require the contractor to bring in non-local workers. On this basis, it is assumed that, at the peak of construction activity in the landfall section, approximately 215 jobs are likely to be taken up by workers from outside the region or outside of Bulgaria. Likewise, it is estimated that a small proportion of the jobs at the marshalling yard, approximately 10% (although it may be greater) may also be taken up by professional and managerial staff from outside the region or outside of Bulgaria. These figures are estimates and the number of jobs taken by non-local workers may be considerably higher or lower.

Accordingly, the types of businesses that are likely to see an increase in demand for goods and services as a result of the Project are:

• Construction contractors (e.g. road construction, land clearance, etc.), construction material and equipment suppliers;

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-81

• Local accommodation suppliers in the cities of Varna and Burgas;

• Support services suppliers such as transport, catering, cleaning and security; and

• Port-related businesses that serve the Ports of Varna and the Port of Burgas, including logistics and shipping businesses.

It is anticipated that contracts for construction materials and shipping services that are fulfilled within Varna Region and Bulgaria are likely to be from larger (national-scale) businesses, with the possibility of some concentration in the Varna Region (and also potentially the Burgas Region in relation to the marshalling yard in Burgas port). The degree to which businesses are able to secure contracts to supply goods and services to the Project will depend on the ability of the companies to meet the technical and other thresholds requirements of the Project.

Additionally, there will be a requirement to accommodate the non-local Project workforce. Chapter 5 Project Description states that such workers will be lodged in nearby communities (i.e. not in a workers camp setting). This assessment assumes that they will lodge in the city of Varna, given the broader and larger availability of accommodation options there compared to the much smaller Local Communities to the south of Varna Bay. There may also be some demand in the city of Burgas associated with the marshalling yard in Burgas Port. It is estimated that, at the peak of construction activity in the landfall section up to 100 jobs will be unskilled / semi-skilled and potentially hired locally. This means that a peak of approximately 100 jobs would be filled by non-local workers needing accommodation in the Varna area; plus a smaller number in relation to the marshalling yards in the cities of Varna and Burgas.

Accordingly, local accommodation suppliers in the cities of Varna and Burgas are likely to benefit from the demand for accommodation of the incoming non-local workforce. This increased demand is expected to persist, at varying levels, for approximately two years, or potentially longer in the case of the marshalling yard workforce if that workforce includes non-local workers. It is not expected that the number of non-local workers likely to lodge within Local Communities will be high enough to have any significant adverse impact on accommodation, food or other markets given the relative size of the municipal and regional markets, and the prominence of tourism in the Black Sea coastal region of Bulgaria. No adverse impacts on housing, tourism, and leisure infrastructure or other markets are anticipated.

Demand for shipping services is likely to be limited, as many of the vessels required for the Project construction will be specialised and likely to be sourced internationally. However, there is likely to be demand for vessels to supply food, waste and crew change services which could be sourced from the Varna and Burgas ports. Additionally, the establishment of marshalling yards in Varna East Port, Varna West Port and Burgas Port will provide an economic stimulus to those ports and the port-related services and supply chain businesses that will benefit in turn.

Considering all of the above, the increased demand for goods and services amongst national, regional and local businesses, will make a temporary but limited and Beneficial contribution to the economy.


15-82 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Potential for Reduced Business Revenues and/or Livelihoods: Fishing

Commercial Fishing Businesses

Potential impacts on fishing were raised as a concern amongst fisheries stakeholders. Accordingly, a fisheries study was undertaken (see Appendix 15.1) to assess potential Project impacts on fisheries. The Fisheries Study included an examination of the potential risks to fisheries industry target species that could arise as a result of construction of the nearshore and offshore sections of the Project. This Study concluded that it is unlikely that there will be any distinguishable impact on the resource (i.e. fish stocks) that the commercial fishing industry general (individual employment or local business impacts) due to construction of the Project in the nearshore and offshore sections. A discussion of the key findings of the study follows below; potential impacts on the Ada Bacha fishing community are discussed separately.

Potential impacts on fish and fishing could arise from construction activities through increased sedimentation, potential disturbance to fish due to noise and light, and the temporary establishment of a marine safety exclusion zone wherein access for vessels and activities unrelated to the Project will be restricted. The Fisheries Study has considered these potential impacts and concluded that there is unlikely to be any distinguishable impact on the resource (i.e. fish stocks) or on catch levels.

Sediment modelling (Appendix 12.1) was undertaken for seabed intervention activities, such as dredging. The modelling showed that the expected levels of sediment will not be at an intensity or duration that would influence either the fish or the fishing. While modelling shows that a sediment plume would appear over some of the fishing areas, the dispersal of the plume is rapid (4 days after the end of dredging) and the higher concentrations of suspended sediment are near the seabed so the effect will be temporary and localised (Appendix 12.1).

Underwater noise modelling (Appendix 13.4) was undertaken specifically for the Project which showed that sound levels generated by Project Activities in Bulgaria have little potential to cause injury or mortality to fish; effects would only occur if the fish were to remain in close proximity (within 100 m) of the pipe-lay vessel, which is considered unlikely since they will be able to freely move away. The modelling results also show that no effects on fish species within Bulgarian waters and little potential for the annual migrations of fish along the Bulgarian coast to be interrupted More information on the noise impacts on fish species is found in Chapter 13 Marine Ecology. Light from night-time works may affect fish, either by direct attraction or through alterations in the distribution of planktonic prey; however, the extent of the impact is limited to the immediate vicinity of the Project vessels.

Accordingly, with regard to noise, and also light, during the construction of the Pipeline in the offshore and nearshore sections, the Fisheries Study concludes that impacts would be temporary and that, given the migratory nature of most of the target species, the resultant impact on fishing catches would be small and likely to be indistinguishable from the baseline or the usual limits of variation of catch.

The safety exclusion zone that will be in place around the pipe-lay vessel will overlap with existing fishing grounds. The safety exclusion zone will be a ‘moving’ circle with a radius of 3 km around an anchored lay barge and 2 km around a dynamically positioned (DP) barge. The

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-83

actual radius of the exclusion zone in the Nearshore will be decided in consultation with the relevant authorities. However, it will only take up a small part of the existing fishing grounds at any one time and will move with the progress of the pipe-lay vessel. Within the areas identified as fishing grounds, the construction safety exclusion zone will only be present for an estimated 9 to 10 days per pipe-lay process between the outer edge of the fishing grounds (approximately 100 m water depth) and the microtunnel exit pit (12 m water depth).

Therefore, any fluctuations in effort and catch should be within the normal year to year variations, within the context of what are very variable fisheries. It is very unlikely that there would be a distinguishable impact, significant or otherwise, on the catch or revenues of commercial fishing businesses. Accordingly, the magnitude of impact on commercial fisheries is considered to be negligible.

Given the reliance of the fishing industry on the availability of fish stocks to support industry revenues and the livelihoods of workers in the fishing industry, the sensitivity of the commercial fishing industry is assessed as moderate.

Given the negligible magnitude of impact and the moderate receptor sensitivity, the impact will be Not Significant. This is consistent with the definition of a Not Significant adverse impact in Table 15.11, which states that ‘any impacts are expected to be indistinguishable from the baseline or within the natural level of variation’. Accordingly, no impacts on business revenues, or on the livelihoods of those working for commercial fishing businesses, are expected.

Ada Bacha Fishing Community

The Ada Bacha community is an artisanal fishing22 settlement at the north end of Chernomorets Beach. As one of the closest communities to the Project, with a noted interest in the marine area and environment, this assessment considers potential impacts on Ada Bacha’s fisheries and livelihoods. Some of the issues expressed by Ada Bacha fishermen have included:

• A perception that fish stocks have been declining and that the decline is linked to underwater noise and vibration from gas flowing through the existing Galata Gas Pipeline; and

• Concern that the current (Galata) exclusion zone could be extended to the north (i.e. torwards Chernomorets Beach and Ada Bacha) as that is an important fishing ground adjacent to the community.

However, feedback from Ada Bacha fishermen has also indicated that they are not concerned about Project Activities and temporary exclusion zones, as they will adjust the location of their fishing activities accordingly.

22 A small-scale or artisanal fishery is usually understood to mean a fishery involving fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies), using relatively small amount of capital and energy, relatively small fishing vessels (if any), making short fishing trips, close to shore, with the catch being sold, bartered or traded mainly for local consumption (including consumption by the fishing households).


15-84 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Potential fisheries impacts were investigated in the Project’s Fisheries Study (Appendix 15.1); a fisheries study, the results of which are described below.

If access to their current fishing areas is restricted during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, there could be a subsequent increase in costs (fuel, engine and boat maintenance) and effort (hours at sea) needed to maintain catches at their current levels. This would add extra cost and time with no compensating increase in income and thus net income could decline. As discussed under the section above, there is a possibility that seabed sediment dispersion as a result of construction activities and/or noise, vibration and light generated by construction vessels could impact fish or other marine resources. However, as mentioned above, no significant impacts from sedimentation, noise, light or vibration are anticipated to fish species or their migration routes from Project Activities. Refer to Chapter 13 Marine Ecology for the assessment of Project impacts to fish species.

Of the species targeted by the Ada Bacha fishing community, gobies and rapa whelk were the most commonly caught (Ref. 15.11). Gobies are not considered to be sensitive to underwater noise generation (Ref. 15.81). There may be some effect of sedimentation on rapa whelk mollusc populations; however, it is unlikely that the dredging sedimentation plume will not significantly impact any of the permitted Rapa fishing areas.

As above, the temporary construction safety exclusion zone will restrict navigation and fishing within the zone while construction activities are underway in the area. However, the as this zone will move with the pipe-lay vessel, restrictions will only be present in the area for a short period: a few days during construction of the exit pits and approximately 9 to 10 days per pipe-lay process from the edge of the fishing grounds (at ca. 100 m water depth) to the exit pit (at approximately 12 m water depth). However, the community will probably concentrate more of their fishing to the north or circumnavigate the safety exclusion zone, which could lead to increased fuel costs. Accordingly, it is concluded that the localised and temporary nature of the safety exclusion zone will reduce the potential for safety restrictions to impact on Ada Bacha’s navigation and fishing activities.

As the majority of the Ada Bacha fishers resident in the community are reported to rely on fishing for their livelihood, their sensitivity is considered to be high. Considering the potential impacts described above, the overall impact is likely to be short-term, temporary and reversible. Thus, the magnitude of impact is considered to be low.

Given the low impact magnitude and the high sensitivity of the artisanal fishing community; the overall pre-mitigation significance of the impact on the Ada Bacha fishing community will be Moderate adverse, temporary and reversible.

Potential for Reduced Business Revenues and/or Livelihoods: Tourism

The tourism industry in the Varna Region is heavily concentrated to the north of Varna, and there are not extensive tourism operations, infrastructure or resorts in the Local Communities (i.e. south of Varna Bay, in the vicinity of the Project). Although there is limited infrastructure to support commercial tourism, Pasha Dere Beach is a popular destination for residents of Varna and elsewhere in Bulgaria, including the use of holiday homes (summer / weekend use) and visits to beaches in the area. Tourism-related businesses in the Local Communities to the south

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-85

of Varna Bay include restaurants, accommodation (including a limited number of guest houses, small hotels, and ‘summer camps’ providing basic cabins), and some small shops / kiosks. Many of these, particularly along the coast, are only open during the summer months.

If tourists were deterred from visiting the Local Communities to the south of Varna Bay by impacts such as noise, dust or unpleasant views, then the local tourism sector could in turn suffer deterioration in trade. For this reason the overall impact on the area’s amenity, as it would be experienced by tourists is relevant and is considered below.

Other chapters of this ESIA Report provide assessments of physical impacts related to amenity. This includes potential impacts related to sediment dispersion (which could affect seawater quality along the coast), air quality, dust, noise, vibration, and visual impacts of the Project arising during construction. For further information refer to the respective impact assessment sections (Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase) within Appendix 12.1, Chapter 9 Air Quality, Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration, and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual.

Following is a summary of the key residual effect findings of those assessments:

Appendix 12.1 has modelled the potential dispersion of sediment during construction activities in the nearshore section23. Based on the results of that study, it is anticipated that the extent of the plume will be limited, and sedimentation rates will be low (5 mg/l). Considering the fact the dredging activity will be 420 m offshore, no impact on the amenity of Pasha Dere Beach (or other beaches along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast) is anticipated.

Chapter 9 Air Quality has not identified any significant residual impacts on any nearby communities, dwellings or businesses in the vicinity of the Project Area.

Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration has identified the potential for a night-time impact of moderate significance, in relation to people camping overnight at Pasha Dere Beach during summer. Campers may notice night-time noise from construction activities (specifically microtunnelling, which will occur through the night) and pre-commissioning of the pipelines (specifically the use of air compressors, lasting approximately 20 days per pipeline), conservatively assuming that these activities would occur during the summer, as the beach is only considered to be a receptor in summer months when there are high visitor levels. Impacts will be short-term and temporary, and there are no related businesses or services at this beach (a public reserve). As such, no impacts on businesses or livelihoods are expected.

The noise assessment has also identified potential adverse impacts of moderate significance at Chernomorets Tourist Resort, also in relation to night-time noise from pre-commissioning activities. As above, this noise is only expected to last for approximately 20 days per pipeline,

23 Nearshore construction activity will occur near the microtunnel exit points; located at a depth of approximately 12 m about 420 m offshore. Sedimentation will also result from dredging activities out to a distance of approximately 2 km offshore and a water depth of approximately 24 m. Sediment modelling (Appendix 12.1) has shown that, for the worst case scenario, the plume will be present for about 40 days in total (10 days per pipe), but disperse 4 to 6 hours after activities cease. The affected distance northward is about 2.5 km and the anticipated sedimentation is low (5 mg/l). The corresponding distance for sediment modelled in a southern direction showed that the plume would extend 8 km with an anticipated sedimentation of 5 mg/l.


15-86 URS-EIA-REP-202375

and would only be an issue if it occurs during the summer months when the resort is occupied. No other significant adverse impacts on tourism-related receptors have been identified. Impacts are short-term and temporary in nature, the impact is unlikely to restrict the ability of any individuals or businesses to derive a livelihood from tourism.

Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual has identified residual visual impacts of low significance on the following tourism-related receptors: recreational visitors to Pasha Dere Beach; people in boats in the sea; visitors to Chernomorets Tourist Resort; visitors to Fichoza; and recreational visitors to the landfall section (including Galata RoW and forest). In each case, the impact will be temporary, short-term and local, with the exception of visual impacts arising as a result of permanent woodland loss over the Pipeline RoW. While these impacts are likely to lead to a noticeable aesthetic change in the area, they are unlikely to be of an extent which could prevent access to or use of any recreational or tourism resources in the area.

Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services has concluded, taking account of a broad range of potential impacts (i.e. loss of access to trails and a section of Pasha Dere Beach; reduced visual and landscape amenity; loss of / reduced quality of diving and spearfishing activities)that there will be a Low adverse residual impact on the tourism and recreation ecosystem service.

Given the short term and localised extent of amenity- and ecosystem service- related impacts, and the small number of affected receptors, it is considered unlikely that the construction activity associated with the Project could restrict the ability of individuals or businesses to derive a livelihood from tourism. As such, it is considered that the magnitude of impact on the tourism sector due to construction of the Project will be low.

The surrounding landscape is likely to be an important factor attracting tourists to stay in the area and the quality of amenity afforded by it is likely to be highly valued by tourism operators and tourists. However, the Project Area is relatively isolated from the majority of the tourism infrastructure and businesses that are located to the south of Varna Bay. Accordingly, the sensitivity of the tourism sector to any adverse effects on that environmental amenity enjoyed by tourists and which might deter tourists from visiting the area is considered to be medium.

According to a strict application of the significance matrix (Table 15.10), given the low magnitude of impact and the medium sensitivity, the overall pre-mitigation impact significance of the Project on the tourism sector would be Low, given that the duration of the impacts will be short term and all construction vessels will be seen in the context of commercial vessels on the existing shipping lanes approaching the Port of Varna. Furthermore, it is considered that impact of construction activity is unlikely to be of an extent which could prevent access to or use of any recreational or tourism resources in the area or which could restrict the ability of any individuals or businesses to derive a livelihood from tourism.

Potential for Reduced Business Revenues and/or Livelihoods: Forestry

To the extent practicable, the Project design has minimised land acquisition, particularly of agricultural land. As a result, the majority of construction corridor and the permanent landfall facilities lie within existing forest, comprising a mix of natural, semi-natural and plantation forest.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-87

Approximately 44 ha of forested land will be cleared to allow for construction. This clearance will be permanent for the landfall facilities site (approximately 12 ha) and the land that will fall within the Project RoW (approximately 25 ha) as it will not be possible to replant trees on this land. The remainder of the land, required only during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, will be replanted with trees, thus marking a temporary change. This includes the construction corridor and temporary construction areas.

The majority of the trees to be felled for the Project are owned and managed by the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) under the Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s Executive Forestry Agency. It is understood that the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) sells harvesting rights to private companies as part of the overall management and maintenance of the forests in the region. These harvesting rights are for specific sites designated for timber harvesting (which change over time according to planting and growth cycles), although none of these sites fall within the Project Area. Trees will also be felled on four parcels of privately owned land. All four parcels are currently owned by a bank with no intention of developing the site (see Section 15.5.6).

Accordingly, economic impacts or displacement associated with either the permanent or temporary change of use of the land to be acquired, are considered to be minimal. On this basis, the magnitude of impact is considered to be negligible.

The receptors are the Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) (who sells harvesting licences) and the businesses that purchase these licences (and subsequently sell the harvested timber). Considering that the businesses are able to obtain licences over a wide area, and that the area is not confined to the land within which the Project will take up land; it is considered that the sensitivity of the receptors is low.

Given the negligible magnitude of impact and low sensitivity, the potential impact of Project land take and construction on forestry revenues is expected to be Not Significant.

Reduced Recreational Amenity of Pasha Dere Beach

The Pipeline will cross under Pasha Dere Beach using microtunnel techniques at a depth of approximately 20 m underground. Therefore, no disturbance of the beach area by the construction activities is expected. The beach will remain accessible to the public throughout the construction of the trenchless shore crossing; however, as a precautionary measure, public access to a section of the beach area (including behind the cliff and the adjacent nearshore) approximately 150 m wide will be temporarily restricted while the tunnel boring equipment passes under the beach area. The restricted area would be indicated via clear signage.

Given the relative size of the area to which access would be restricted, the majority (over 90%) of the beach will still be open to public access during the period of restrictions. However, the location of the restricted area may mean that the general public will be unable to freely move between the northern and southern ends of the beach during the restriction period. In a worst case scenario, it may be more difficult to access the part of the beach to the south of the Pipeline alignment (i.e. approximately half of the existing beach) because access to this portion is most easily (but not exclusively) gained from the northern end of the beach. Additionally, public access to the camping area behind the beach will also be completely restricted at the


15-88 URS-EIA-REP-202375

same time as access to the beach is restricted, as it lies above the alignment of the Pipeline corridor.

Restrictions on access to the beach may inconvenience some beach users; however, the restriction will affect a small portion of the beach and will not prevent enjoyment of other sections of the beach. Given the construction schedule, such restrictions will most likely occur on a limited number of occasions during the construction period, and for a limited number of days. However, people camping at the camping area may be more inconvenienced by the need to change or relocate their camping plans to accommodate the temporary restrictions.

The amenity of Pasha Dere Beach may also be affected by physical impacts such as increased noise from construction and pre-commissioning activities, and increased sedimentation in the seawater near the beach. These impacts are summarised above in relation to potential impacts on tourism businesses. Sedimentation will be limited and is not expected to detrimentally affect recreational enjoyment of the beach. However, while night-time noise impacts may be experienced by people camping at the beach overnight in relation to the construction of the microtunnels, these impacts would be short-term and temporary, with a relatively low exceedance of the applicable night-time noise standards (as measured in decibels). No significant noise impacts were identified in relation to pre-commissioning activities. Therefore, noise or other physical impacts are considered unlikely to materially compromise enjoyment of the beach for recreation.

Given the temporary, relatively infrequent periods during which noise impacts would be experienced and access would be likely to be restricted, as well as the minimal extent of the area of the beach and camping area to which access would be temporarily restricted, the magnitude of impact on recreational beach users and their enjoyment of the beach will be low.

Pasha Dere Beach users make a special effort to reach the beach, as they value the isolated and relatively undeveloped and non-crowded character of the beach and its immediate hinterland. Restriction of access to a short section of the beach would not compromise enjoyment of the remainder of the beach, particularly the northern section where most users find it most convenient to access the beach. In addition, alternative sandy beaches at Asparuhovo-Galata and Rakitnika (Chernomorets Beach, just to the north) also exist, although neither is considered by Pasha Dere Beach users to have the distinctive visual and landscape characteristics of Pasha Dere Beach. Overall, it is conservatively considered that Pasha Dere Beach users have a moderate sensitivity to restrictions on access to part of the beach.

Given the moderate sensitivity of Pasha Dere Beach users and the low impact magnitude, the pre-mitigation significance of the impact is predicted to be Low.

Removal of Trees from Pasha Dere Camping Area

The small camping and picnic area adjacent to Pasha Dere Beach lies directly above the Pipeline alignment and within the construction corridor. As described in Chapter 5 Project

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-89

Description, in accordance with the existing requirements of Bulgarian Ordinance No. 1624, the trees and deep rooted vegetation in the RoW above the microtunnels must be cleared.

However, this legislation was not established with consideration of microtunnelling techniques (whereby the pipelines will be 20 m or more underground). As such, Chapter 5 Project Description also states that South Stream Transport will consult with the appropriate Bulgarian authorities to avoid felling of trees and other deep rooted vegetation and that, if agreement can be reached (and tree felling above the microtunnel is not required), the existing trees in this area, including the camping area adjacent to Pasha Dere Beach, will be left in place. The following assessment is based on a potential ‘worst-case’ scenario outcome where the trees are removed and not replanted, even though this outcome is believed to be unlikely.

In a worst-case scenario, which may or may not eventuate (depending on the outcome of consultation referred to in the previous paragraph), the removal of the trees has the potential to completely alter the character and experience of the site as a camping and picnic area. Many users will consider the change in character from a relatively secluded, treed and sheltered site, to a site that is in an approximately 60 to 120 m wide area that will cleared of trees and deep rooting vegetation, to be an adverse impact. As a result, existing users of the camping and picnic area may feel that the character of the site is so changed that they stop camping there, effectively resulting in the removal of the site as a camping facility for those users. On the other hand, it may increase the area that is available for camping after construction, and the amenity of the area as a camping ground will likely vary with individual opinion. The impact would effectively be permanent as the Project is planned to be in place for 50 years. Accordingly, the magnitude of this impact (as a worst-case scenario) is assessed as moderate.

The camp site and its position adjacent to Pasha Dere Beach, which is known and appreciated by visitors for its undeveloped nature, means that users of the camp site are likely to consider that camp site is unique and that alternatives are not readily available in the nearby area. However, there are other areas at the northern and southern ends of the beach that are also used for camping, and there may be further opportunities for camping at those sites. Therefore, the sensitivity of the camp site users as receptors is considered to be moderate.

Given the moderate impact magnitude and the moderate receptor sensitivity, the significance of the impact is expected to be Moderate adverse with respect to any existing users that would not consider camping at the camp site in future due to the change in character of the site. However, the impact would also be highly localised and it is possible that there may be other sites nearby which could be developed as an alternative camping site. Finally, it is important to remember that this is an assessment of the worst-case scenario, wherein the requirements of Ordinance 16 are not changed to avoid the clearance of trees and vegetation above the microtunnels.

24 Ordinance on the Easement Zones of Energy Facilities published in State Gazette 88.


15-90 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Reduced Recreational Amenity of Trails and Paths

A number of existing trails and footpaths cross the landfall section and the surrounding area. For safety reasons, trails crossing the construction corridor, landfall facilities or any temporary construction areas will be closed while construction is underway, including the trail along the existing Galata RoW leading to the beach. This will result in a disruption to people who use these paths and trails to walk or cycle through the area.

Chapter 5 Project Description confirms that where tracks are crossed by the open-cut method (i.e. most of the landfall section), users will be diverted around the temporarily closures via detours or temporary tracks, and that once the Pipeline has been installed, that the tracks will be reinstated. Chapter 5 Project Description further states that the final method for the pipelines to cross tracks will be determined during the detailed design phase; the respective landowners will be consulted to ensure disruption is kept to a minimum. For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that the paths and trails crossing the construction corridor may be impassable to recreational uses for several months at a time, possibly including during the full duration of a summer.

In addition to restrictions on access to paths and trails, Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual has assessed a low adverse residual impact on recreational visitors to the Galata RoW and forest, which would include trail users, due to the temporary alteration to visual amenity through the loss of vegetation, altered landforms (predominantly at the Landfall Facilities), construction equipment, vehicle movement and material storage.

In general, users will find that access to some of the paths and trails in the Project Area will be restricted during this period, while paths approaching the landfall section may be subject to views of construction areas and activities. These impacts will be temporary and the isolated location of the paths and trails that will be closed means that these impacts are likely to be experienced by a small number of people. The impact magnitude will therefore be low.

The receptor would be the recreational users of these paths and trails. As the paths and trails are relatively remote and primarily used for recreational walking and cycling, it is unlikely that users will experience interruption to essential journeys, and there are alternatives for recreational walking and cycling throughout an extensive network of paths and tracks in the vicinity of the landfall section. However, regular users of the exiting trails are likely to value the existing isolation and visual amenity of the trails and may perceive alternative paths to offer a less enjoyable experience for recreational walking and cycling. Thus, the sensitivity of the users of the paths and trails is assessed as medium.

Taking account of the low impact magnitude and the medium receptor sensitivity, the significance of the impact is assessed to be Low, based on the fact that although there will be noticeable changes to the baseline conditions, these will not result in lasting changes. The impacts for trail users will be direct, short term, and localised.

Restriction of Recreational Hunting Activity

The Project Area lies within the hunting concession of the Galata Hunting Club. As such, construction of the Project may affect recreational hunting activities. Impacts may arise through

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-91

temporary restrictions on access to certain areas (e.g. the construction corridor) while construction is underway, or indirectly through ecological changes.

As detailed in Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services, hunters (i.e. members of the Galata Hunting Club) may be adversely affected if the temporary displacement of animals coincides with the hunting season. The impact on hunters is predicted to be of low magnitude as impacts will be temporary in nature and is not expected to affect enjoyment of this activity over the longer term. For safety reasons, access to construction areas will be temporarily restricted during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, including the construction corridor, landfall facilities and temporary construction areas. However, these areas are small in relation to the total concession area of the Galata Hunting Club, and (with the exception of the 11.65 ha landfall facilities) the construction areas, including the RoW, will be reinstated and re-opened for public access after construction is complete. Thus, the magnitude of the impact on recreational hunting is considered to be low.

Local hunters have expressed concern over the impacts of Project Activities on game and their hunting activities. However, as there are alternative hunting grounds available, the sensitivity of the recreational hunters is considered to be low.

Taking account of the low impact magnitude and the low receptor sensitivity, the significance of the impact of the restriction on recreational hunting activity is assessed to be Low, based on the fact that although there will be noticeable changes to the baseline conditions, these will not result in lasting changes. The impacts for trail users will be direct, short term, and localised. See Chapter 18 Ecosystem Services for further information.

15.6.2.5 Mitigation and Enhancement

Mitigation measures to address adverse impacts and enhancement measures which have the potential to enhance beneficial outcomes of the Project are set out below.

General Measures

Grievance Procedure

South Stream Transport has developed and implemented a grievance procedure for the Project, which will guide the management of grievances25 throughout the Project lifecycle. The grievance procedure is referred to in Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement and further described in the Project’s SEP.

The grievance procedure will be implemented by South Stream Transport in partnership with its contractors and will ensure that grievances are brought to the attention of the appropriate Project staff and addressed in an appropriate and timely way, following a standard procedure of investigation, analysis, and resolution. It will also ensure that resolutions are documented and communicated to the appropriate stakeholders.

25 A grievance is a formal complaint by an individual (or group) who feel they are, or have been, adversely affected by Project-related activities.


15-92 URS-EIA-REP-202375

The grievance procedure will include recourse to a Compensation Management Framework, to ensure that cases requiring some form of compensation are evaluated consistently and equitably.

Livelihood Restoration Framework

It is not anticipated that the Project will result in any livelihood impacts warranting livelihoods restoration measures. However, the Project will develop a Livelihood Restoration Framework to provide for the possibility that livelihood impacts do occur. This Framework will define the process that will be undertaken to identify the need for specific livelihood restoration measures, and the development of these measures in consultation with affected stakeholders and relevant local agencies. The overall goal will be to ensure that affected livelihoods are restored, at minimum, to pre-impact levels.

Compensation Management Framework

In certain circumstances, where it has not been possible to adequately mitigate for a significant adverse impact by avoiding or minimising the impact, it may be appropriate to provide compensation. In other cases, new or different impacts may arise as the Project progresses, as a result of changing baseline characteristics, third-party actions beyond the control of the Project, and/or changes to the assumptions contained within this assessment. While South Stream Transport will monitor environmental and socio-economic conditions (see “Monitoring” below) and adjust or implement mitigation measures as needed, there may be circumstances requiring compensation, or outright claims for compensation, as a result of impacts that have occurred.

South Stream Transport will develop a Compensation Management Framework to guide the evaluation and determination of compensation measures. The Compensation Management Framework will capture the process and requirements for assessing compensation claims and implementing compensation measures. Compensation measures may include financial compensation or in-kind contributions.

Compensation may also comprise livelihood restoration measures, which will be specifically defined under a separate but related Livelihoods Restoration Framework (above). The Compensation Management Framework will be closely tied to the Grievance Procedure (above). Additionally, a specific component of the Construction Management Plans will also address the issue of compensation, with reference to the Compensation Management Framework and other plans and frameworks as appropriate.

Compensation for economic loss would include circumstances where compensation would be able to mitigate the financial impacts associated with reduced revenues or increased costs to a business or individual that can be reasonably attributed to the construction of the Project. The Compensation Management Framework will ensure that possibly affected people or businesses are appropriately compensated for lost assets or access to assets.

As part of the process of implementing the Compensation Management Framework, South Stream Transport will work with the affected stakeholders in order to identify appropriate compensation or restoration measures.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-93

The framework will set out certain criteria to ensure that compensation is paid consistently and equitably.

Ongoing Stakeholder Consultation

South Stream Transport will continue a programme of information provision, stakeholder engagement and consultation throughout the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. These engagement activities will be designed to facilitate dialogue with all stakeholders, including those potentially affected by the Project, or who are concerned about or interested in the Project. These activities will allow potential impacts, issues and concerns to be identified early on and addressed in an expedient manner. These activities will also inform stakeholders of upcoming construction activities, as well as Project Activities that have been completed, and provide advance warning of any anticipated changes. Ongoing and future stakeholder engagement activities are described further in the SEP.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement will also serve as a means of monitoring impacts on potentially affected stakeholders, to ensure that the actual level of impact is not greater than predicted. If additional significant impacts are identified and verified, these will be a priority for resolution through supplemental mitigation measures. Resolution, including the development of additional mitigation measures, will be developed in consultation with affected stakeholders.

Community Investment Plan

South Stream Transport will develop a Community Investment Plan to guide community investment initiatives and opportunities for the Project. Although not intended to mitigate or compensate for impacts of the Project26, community investment can offer additional value and benefit to both the Project and Local Communities and stakeholders, in the form of enhancing or creating socio-economic benefits.

As such, South Stream Transport views community investment as a key mechanism to support community development and to establish a mutually beneficial relationship with the Local Communities. Under the Community Investment Plan, South Stream Transport will work with local stakeholders to identify potential community investment opportunities and initiatives. Local stakeholders will also be integrally involved in the design and implementation of such programmes.

Enhancement of Local Economic Benefits

Labour Procurement

Where practicable South Stream Transport will encourage the use of local labour for the Project including by requiring its contractors to advertise suitable available positions in local and 26 The IFC’s Strategic Community Investment Quick Guide (2010) stipulates the following: “Community investment is added-value investment. It should not be confused with a company’s obligations to mitigate or compensate Local Communities for environmental and social impacts caused by the Project. These issues are addressed separately under IFC’s Social and Environmental Performance Standards. Nevertheless, the two are interrelated components of a holistic approach for managing company-community relationships.”


15-94 URS-EIA-REP-202375

regional media, use local recruitment agencies and engage in other similar activities, so as to provide the opportunity for local people to access employment opportunities created by the Project. Local employment will also be supported by local business contracts that may arise through goods and services procurement (below).

The intention of South Stream Transport (discussed above under economic-impact related mitigation and enhancement measures), to require its contractors, where practicable, to provide the opportunity for local people to seek employment opportunities on the Project, will assist in mitigating the potential for tensions related to any unmet expectations for employment opportunities. To mitigate further these risks, South Stream Transport will keep communities informed about Project Activities; in addition, the grievance procedure will provide a means by which the Company will receive communicate and resolve any grievances arising from Project Activities.

Goods and Services Procurement

Where practicable South Stream Transport will encourage the procurement of local goods and services for the Project including by requiring its contractors to advertise suitable available contracts for the provision of goods and services in local and regional media, establish contacts with the local Chamber of Commerce and business associations and engage in other similar activities, so as to provide the opportunity for local suppliers and contractors to seek sub-contractor roles and/or supply materials and equipment to the Project.

Mitigation Specific to Potential Adverse Impacts

Mitigation for Potential for Reduced Businesses Revenues and/or Livelihoods (Commercial Fishing Businesses)

The General Measures at the start of this section, Section 15.6.2.5, will apply as appropriate.

Potential impacts on fishing businesses will be mitigated through ongoing stakeholder engagement, the Grievance Procedure, and the Compensation Management Framework, as well as the following measures:

• The coordinates and timing of temporary exclusion zones will be communicated to vessel operators through the routine channels of the Maritime Administration; and

• Additional meetings with marine space users (including fishers) as required, to further explain the temporary exclusion zones and address questions and concerns.

Mitigation for Potential for Reduced Business Revenues and/or Livelihoods (Ada Bacha fishing community)

Potential impacts on fishing businesses will be mitigated through ongoing stakeholder engagement, the Grievance Procedure, and the Compensation Management Framework. Specific to the Ada Bacha community, South Stream Transport will consult with the community regarding construction activities in the marine area. The primary purpose of this will be to ensure that they are informed about Project related activities well in advance, in order to avoid and, where possible, minimise disturbance to the fishermen, and also to minimise detours and, when detours are unavoidable, to reduce detour times. In addition, information on restricted

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-95

areas will be provided to the relevant authorities for routine dissemination to marine stakeholders identifying marine exclusion zones through the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

Mitigation for Potential for Reduced Businesses Revenues and/or Livelihoods (Tourism Sector)


Chapter 12 Marine Environment sets out measures to prevent sedimentation impacts on recreational water users along the coast line.

Measures to mitigate for noise and visual impacts on neighbouring communities, including receptors at Fichoza, Rakitnika, at Pasha Dere Beach, and in Priseltsi VZ are discussed in Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual, respectively.

Mitigation for Reduced Recreational Amenity of Pasha Dere Beach


Where practicable, construction activities will be scheduled with the intention of minimising both the overall duration of temporary access restrictions at the beach and camping area, as well as the timing of these activities during the peak summer season. If access to a portion of the beach is restricted during tunnelling, a designated crossing point will be provided to facilitate pedestrian access between the northern and southern portions of the Pasha Dere Beach. Notice of restrictions will be provided as far in advance as practicable.

Chapter 12 Marine Environment sets out measures to prevent sedimentation impacts on recreational water users along the coast line, including at Pasha Dere Beach.

Measures to mitigate the noise and visual impacts on recreational users of Pasha Dere Beach, including the camp site, are discussed in Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual respectively.

Preservation of Trees at the Camping Area


In order to prevent the transformative and moderately adverse change in the landscape and character of the camping and picnic area occurring, as a result of exiting legislation requiring trees to be cleared above an underground pipeline, and as mentioned in Chapter 5 Project Description, South Stream Transport is consulting with the appropriate Bulgarian authorities to avoid the felling of trees and deep-rooted vegetation by amending the easement requirements (as defined in Bulgarian Ordinance No. 16, Ordinance on the Easement Zones of Energy Facilities published in State Gazette 88 (Ref. 15.4)) based on the microtunnelling construction technique.

This consultation is already under way, and if the amendment to the Ordinance succeeds (as expected), the impact will have been successfully mitigated by way of an approach which has anticipated and avoided the impact in the first place. Accordingly, the only impacts on camp site


15-96 URS-EIA-REP-202375

users would be as described within the assessment of impacts on Recreational Users of Pasha Dere Beach during construction.

Mitigation for Reduced Recreational Amenity of Paths and Trails


Chapter 5 Project Description confirms that where tracks are crossed by the landfall construction corridor, users will be diverted around the crossing via detours or temporary road and that once the Pipeline has been installed, that the tracks will be reinstated. Nevertheless, it is assessed that there will be a Low adverse impact on recreational users.

Notices of access restrictions will be communicated to the relevant authorities and posted at entrances to the paths at a sufficient distance to avoid users progressing down the tracks only to find them closed. These notices will be undertaken in tandem with notifications to beach users were practicable.

Measures to mitigate the visual impact on users of the Galata RoW and forest are discussed in Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual.

Mitigation for Potential Restriction of Recreational Hunting Grounds


Notices of access restrictions will be communicated to the relevant authorities and the hunting club that uses the area, and will also be posted at entrances to the paths and trails near the Project landfall section construction area.

Monitoring

Monitoring of the socio-economic (and bio-physical) environment will be undertaken in order to ensure that impacts are appropriately managed. An outline of the monitoring that will be undertaken as part of the Project is contained within each of the assessment chapters, including monitoring of:

• Air quality;

• Noise;

• Landscape and visual amenity; and

• Seabed sediment and marine water quality.

Chapter 23 Environmental and Social Management details the approach that will be taken to monitoring and includes an outline of key monitoring activities. Further information on monitoring including key receptors, monitoring locations and monitoring frequency will be contained within the monitoring program developed for the Project.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement will also serve as a means of monitoring impacts on potentially affected stakeholders, to ensure that the actual level of impact is not greater than predicted. If additional significant impacts are identified and verified, these will be a priority for resolution which will be agreed in consultation with affected stakeholders.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-97

Pasha Dere Beach

The physical extent and the duration of any access restrictions applying to Pasha Dere Beach will be monitored in relation to South Stream Transport’s objective to limit restrictions on access to the beach as far as practicable and to provide an early indication in the event that management measures in relation to restrictions on beach access are failing to achieve objectives.

Land Use and Ownership Monitoring

Monitoring will be undertaken via ongoing consultation with the affected landowners and land users to ensure that no unexpected land use issues arise during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

Community and Local Economy Monitoring

In light of the nature of the Project and existing baseline conditions, the impact assessment has not identified any significant impacts on the Local Communities. The impact assessment has also not identified any significant impacts on the economy within the Local Communities that would require a targeted Environmental and Social Monitoring Programme beyond those already discussed.

Nevertheless, regular social and economic monitoring will be undertaken during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. The key purpose of the monitoring will be to monitor social and economic conditions in case the Project gives rise to any unanticipated social or economic changes within the Local Communities, and if so, to allow for the early identification of these changes and for further mitigation measures to be implemented, as required.

Monitoring will consist of general socio-economic monitoring in tandem with ongoing stakeholder engagement and will cover the following matters:

• Hiring of workers from the Local Communities;

• Procurement of goods and services from local businesses;

• The number of non-local workers employed on the Project, their accommodation status (including type and location of accommodation) and any noticeable increase in demand for local services and facilities (e.g. health facilities) by non-local workers on the Project; and

• Any incidents of anti-social behaviour or crime, associated with the presence of non-local workers within the Local Communities.

In addition, fish catches are also monitored through the official statistics maintained by the relevant fishing authority, the Executive Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture; this data will be requested if needed to support discussions with stakeholders and/or the resolution of potential grievances. In addition, the Grievance Procedure and ongoing stakeholder engagement will also serve to monitor impacts and perceptions amongst the Project’s stakeholders.


15-98 URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.6.2.6 Residual Impacts: Construction and Pre-Commissioning

Table 15.13 presents a summary of the potential residual socio-economic impacts arising from the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase of the Project. These residual impacts are assessed following the application of the mitigation measures identified above.

Beneficial Impacts

The Project will result in a number of Beneficial but limited residual impacts, inter alia:

• Local and regional businesses will benefit from spending on goods and services (including contracts related to construction, accommodation and related services). Although limited due to the specialised nature of the Project construction, South Stream Transport will encourage the use of local services and contractors where practicable. The use of local businesses may also generate employment for local residents; and

• Local workers may gain employment with the Project. Although limited due to the specialised nature of Project construction, South Stream Transport will encourage local hiring were practicable, particularly in relation to unskilled / semi-skilled positions for the construction of the landfall section. Local hiring will have added benefits in terms of enhancing household incomes.

High and Moderate Adverse Impacts

No residual High Adverse or Moderate Adverse residual impacts are anticipated.

Low Adverse Impacts

Four adverse residual impact(s) of Low significance are identified during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase:

• The recreational amenity of the Pasha Dere Beach may be affected by noise (from construction of the microtunnels) and temporary restrictions on access to a small portion of the beach (while the microtunnel equipment passes under the beach). The residual impact on recreational users is considered to be Low in accordance with the identified mitigation, management and monitoring measures. The periods of restricted access will be temporary and will only affect a small proportion of the beach and would not compromise the use or enjoyment of the remainder of the beach. Although access to the informal camping and picnic area may be restricted, there are other suitable areas on and around Pasha Dere Beach;

• Access to marine areas immediately surrounding construction activities will be temporarily restricted for safety reasons. The potential impact on the revenues and/or livelihoods of fishermen at Ada Bacha will reduce to Low significance in accordance with the identified mitigation, management and monitoring measures. The assessment of ‘low’ significance rather than ‘not significant’ is considered appropriate as the mitigation will not able to avoid a short-term temporary restriction on the movement of the fisherman within their usual fishing grounds;

• Access to some recreational paths and trails in the forest behind Pasha Dere beach will be temporarily restricted during construction works. This impact is Low and unavoidable but

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-99

the level of inconvenience for people using the trails will be reduced in accordance with the identified mitigation, management and monitoring measures; and

• Access to part of the area used by a hunting club will be temporarily restricted during construction works. This impact is Low and unavoidable but the level of inconvenience for hunters will be reduced in accordance with the identified mitigation, management and monitoring measures.

Not Significant Impacts

The remaining residual impacts have all been assessed as being Not Significant and are not considered to be of concern to the Project in accordance with the proposed design controls, mitigation measures, management plans, and stakeholder engagement that will be carried out throughout the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. This includes adverse impacts on the commercial tourism sector to the south of Varna Bay which it is considered would be successfully mitigated for, if required, through the application of the Compensation Management Framework.

Table 15.13 Summary Table - Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase Residual Socio-Economic Impacts

Activity Impact Receptor Sensitivity of Receptor

Magnitude of Impact

Pre-mitigation Significance

Management, Enhancement and Proposed Mitigation Measures

Residual Impact Significance

Economic Related Impacts

Landfall, Nearshore and Offshore construction activities

Employment generation Economically Active Labour Force in the Varna Region and the Burgas Region

Not identified Not identified

Beneficial Where practicable, SST will require contractors to advertise suitable available positions in local and regional media, use local recruitment agencies and engage in other similar activities.

Beneficial

Landfall, Nearshore and Offshore construction activities

Increased demand for goods and services

Businesses in the Varna Region and the Burgas Region

Not identified Not identified

Beneficial Where practicable, SST will require its contractors to advertise suitable available contracts for goods and services in local and regional media, establish contacts with the local Chamber of Commerce and business associations and engage in other similar activities.

Beneficial

Continued…


Magnitude of Impact




Landfall, Nearshore and Offshore section construction activities

Potential for reduced business revenues and related livelihoods (fishing)

Commercial fishing businesses (operational in the Study Area)

Moderate Negligible Not Significant Ongoing stakeholder consultation.

Grievance Procedure.

Not Significant

Potential for reduced business revenues and related livelihoods (Ada Bacha fishing community)


High Low Moderate Ongoing stakeholder engagement.

Coordination with maritime authorities with regard to (marine) safety exclusion zones.


Compensation Management Framework, if applicable.

Livelihood Restoration Framework Measures to monitor impacts on fish species are set out in Chapter 13 Marine Ecology.

Low

Continued…


Magnitude of Impact




Landfall, Nearshore and Offshore section construction activities

Potential for reduced business revenues and related livelihoods (Tourism sector in the Local Communities to the south of Varna Bay)

Tourism sector operators and workers in the Local Communities to the south of the Port of Varna

Medium Low Low Ongoing stakeholder consultation.


Compensation Management Framework – if necessary.

Sediment prevention mitigation as detailed in Chapter 12 Marine Environment and Chapter 13 Marine Ecology.

Noise impact mitigation as set out in Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration).

Visual impact mitigation as set out in Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual).

Not Significant

Landfall section construction activities

Potential for reduced business revenues and related livelihoods (Forestry)

Regional Forest Directorate (Varna) and licence-holders (commercial forestry businesses)

Low Negligible Not Significant Grievance Procedure. Not Significant

Continued…


Magnitude of Impact




Community Related Impacts

Landfall construction activities

Temporary loss of amenity due to noise and access restrictions affecting recreational use of Pasha Dere Beach

Recreational users of Pasha Dere Beach

Moderate Low Low Minimise duration of restricted beach access (and construction activities at the beach), and attempt to avoid restricting access during periods of peak use (particularly on a weekend or public holiday) as far as practicable.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement.

Provide updates regarding planned construction activities, including in relation to beach access restrictions as far in advance as practicable.


Sediment prevention mitigation as detailed in Chapter 12 Marine Environment and Chapter 13 Marine Ecology.

Noise impact mitigation as set out in Chapter 10 Noise and Vibration).

Visual impact mitigation as set out in Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual).

Low

Continued…


Magnitude of Impact





Removal of trees from camping area adjacent Pasha Dere Beach

Recreational camp site users

Moderate Moderate Moderate Amendment to Bulgarian Ordinance No. 16 to avoid the felling of deep rooted vegetation over the microtunnels.

Not Significant (i.e. impact is avoided)


Restricted access to paths and trails

Recreational users of trails and paths

Moderate Low Low Post notices advising of trail closures.


Visual impact mitigation as set out in Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual.

Low


Potential restriction of recreational hunting activity

Recreational hunting club and members

Low Low Low Communicate notice of access restrictions to hunting club.

Ongoing stakeholder consultation.


Low

Complete.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-105

15.6.3 Impact Assessment: Operational Phase

15.6.3.1 Introduction

The following section identifies the potential impacts and risks to socio-economic receptors during the Operational Phase. For those impacts that are assessed to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are identified in Section 15.6.3.3 in order to reduce the significance of adverse impacts and enhance the degree of potential benefit. Following mitigation, the residual (i.e. remaining) impacts are evaluated, the results of which are set out in Section 15.6.3.4.

Due to the nature of the Project during operations – i.e. a buried / subsea pipeline with minimal aboveground infrastructure – the impacts during this phase are quite different from the previous Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase assessed in Section 15.6.2. As such, some categories of impacts are not assessed during this phase; the impacts that have been scoped out, and the rationale, are described below.

Employment and Procurement

The Project will not create any notable employment or procurement opportunities during the Operational Phase. The majority of operations will be monitored remotely from a central control room in Amsterdam; there may be some activities in Bulgaria related to inspections and maintenance, but these will be infrequent and short-term. Any business opportunities (and related employment) will be limited. Therefore, these have not been included in the following assessment.

Traffic

The nature and number of vehicle movements in the Operational Phase are very low, such that the Project is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts (see Appendix 9.4 and Chapter 16 Community Health, Safety and Security).

Fisheries

The establishment and restrictions on activity associated with a permanent safety exclusion zone (500 m either side of the pipelines) is subject to consultation with appropriate authorities (see Chapter 5 Project Description). However, it is likely that anchoring and bottom trawling within this zone will be prohibited. These restrictions will not result in any significant adverse impacts on fisheries during the Operational Phase (see Appendix 15.1). Accordingly, it is considered that there would be no impact on commercial fisheries businesses or related livelihoods. Furthermore, the following management measures have been committed to:

• Information on the position of the pipelines and the marine area exclusion zones will be provided to the relevant authorities to inform navigation charts for marine stakeholders identifying marine exclusion zones through the Operational Phase; and

• The information on pipeline position and marine area exclusion zones will be communicated to fishing vessel operators, particularly any trawling companies, to minimise the risk of any accidents involving fishing boats and vessels.


15-106 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Due to the higher sensitivity of the Ada Bacha fishing community, potential impacts on Ada Bacha are discussed in Section 15.6.3.2.

Land Ownership

All land that is required permanently by the Project for the establishment of the landfall facilities and the permanent RoW along the Pipeline corridor will be acquired prior to or during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase. Accordingly, no potential impacts related to land acquisition for the Project are identified during the Operational Phase (see section 15.6.2).

There will be no economic displacement of any landowners or land users associated with the enactment of the safety restriction areas during the Operational Phase. Six privately owned land plots (owned by five different owners) fall within or overlap with the safety restriction areas 2 and 3. These areas are forested and the current Varna GDP (which governs the use and development of the land) does not allow for residential or industrial development of the sites. On this basis, although the imposition of the safety restriction areas will be permanent in effect, it will not restrict the development potential of the plots as permitted by existing local land use planning and development regulations. Hence, there will be no change in the type of development allowed on the sites, and consequently, there will not be any impact on land owners.

Nevertheless, South Stream Transport will undertake a valuation process to determine whether, and if so by how much, the enactment of the safety restriction areas could reduce the value of the land, in accordance with South Stream Transport’s Land Acquisition Plan. 27 A negotiated settlement with the land owners of the plots will be reached. Accordingly, any financial impacts on landowners as a result of the establishment of the safety restriction areas associated with the Operational Phase will be taken into account as part of the negotiated settlement.

Land Use

For the protection of public health and infrastructure, three safety restriction areas will be implemented around the landfall section of the Project throughout the Operational Phase. These three concentric areas (zones 1, 2, and 3) will surround the Pipeline and landfall facilities, as described in Chapter 5 Project Description. Each zone places different restrictions on residential and industrial development. However, these areas are not currently zoned for residential or industrial land use, and so current land uses should not be affected. The enjoyment of the trails, paths or beach for recreational activities such as walking, cycling, hiking, sun bathing, swimming, camping or hunting will not be restricted.

27 The Land Acquisition Plan has been drafted in accordance with Bulgarian legislation and the objectives of IFC PS5, applying the higher of the two standards wherever they are not consistent. The Plan provides for compensation, including for any reduction in land values as a result of the Project, based on a valuation mechanism conducted in accordance with the objectives of IFC PS5 or national legal requirements, whichever is the greater.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-107

Visual Impacts

Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual has identified residual impacts of a Low significance (including views from the Galata RoW and surrounding forest, and residence of Rakitnika) in the Operational Phase. These impacts are mainly associated with the establishment of the permanent RoW (cleared of trees and other deep-rooting vegetation), and the aboveground landfall facilities. However, it is not considered that these impacts have the potential to lead to economic, community or amenity impacts.

Recreational Use of Pasha Dere Beach

The beach will have an exclusion zone, 380 m either side of the outermost pipeline centrelines which will not allow erection of public buildings or developed areas for public use of any kind. The zone will not restrict the ways that people currently use and enjoy the beach nor restrict numbers using the beach. Furthermore, as development restrictions on the beach inhibit such development anyway, it is considered this will not significantly affect beach use. No other restrictions upon beach use are anticipated.

Therefore, it is considered that there will not be any impacts on recreational beach users during the Operational Phase.

15.6.3.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts (Pre-Mitigation)

The following potential socio-economic impacts are assessed below:

• Economic impacts:

o Potential for reduced business revenues (Ada Bacha fishing community).

Potential for Reduced Business Revenues and/or Livelihoods: Ada Bacha Fishing

The Ada Bacha fishing community is a small settlement of artisanal and recreational fishers at the north end of Chernomorets Beach, approximately 3 km north of the Project. During the Operational Phase, this assessment considers potential impacts arising from the presence of the operational Pipeline (including generation of underwater noise and vibration) and the establishment of a permanent safety exclusion zone around the nearshore and offshore sections of the Pipeline.

In discussions with fishers from this community, they have expressed a perception that noise and vibration from the existing Galata pipeline deter fish from the immediate vicinity of this pipeline, and that the Project could result in a similar impact during operations if the Pipeline was laid on top of the seabed (i.e. not buried). Appendix 15.1 considers the possible noise and vibration impacts on fish, including other studies of subsea pipelines, and concludes that no impacts on fisheries are expected. This conclusion also considers the fact that the Project’s shore crossing will be constructed via microtunnels. The underwater noise the nearshore section pipeline will be buried beneath the seabed until 2 km from the shore; as such, the potential generation of noise and vibrations will be minimised. Additionally, any behavioural impacts on fish would be further minimised as fish will have already altered their behaviour


15-108 URS-EIA-REP-202375

because of, or become habituated to, the presence of the existing Galata gas pipeline (Ref. 15.82).

The Project will also establish a safety exclusion zone 500 m on either side of the outermost Pipelines. Inside this zone, boats will be able to travel freely, but anchoring and commercial fishing activities (including bottom trawling and other methods) will be prohibited. The Project’s safety exclusion zone lies largely within the existing exclusion zone of the Galata gas pipeline, which prohibits similar activities. As the existing Galata exclusion zone is wider than the Project’s exclusion zone, a significant portion of the zone is within the Galata zone. As such, the South Stream Offshore Pipeline Operational exclusion zone is likely to have minimal additional impact on fisheries and fishing activity during operation.

Ada Bacha fishers typically fish up to 2 to 3 NM to the south of the southern boundary of the existing Galata exclusion zone, in an area that will be partly restricted by the Project exclusion zone.. Most of the species they target (bluefish, horse mackerel, bonito, shad and sardine) are migratory and are caught as they migrate along the coast; as such there is some flexibility in where they can be caught. The less migratory species, such as gobies, are caught closer to the Ada Bacha community (Appendix 15.1) and therefore will not be impacted by the Project’s operation. There may also be a small impact on rapa whelk fishery as the Project’s exclusion zone will remove some of the rapa whelk harvest area; however, the exclusion zone will only overlap with one harvest area, and less than 5% of this area will be affected.

The increased extent of the exclusion zone will have little if any impact on the Ada Bacha fishing community, and it is not likely that fishers will need to identify any new fishing grounds. This was a view shared by a representative of the fishing community, who felt that as they have operated with the Galata Gas Pipeline (and exclusion zone) in place for a number of years, and they do not expect changes or hardship with the South Stream Offshore Pipeline in place (Ref. 15.11 and Ref. 15.12). It is also unlikely that the operational pipeline will change the migratory patterns of fish, although it is important to note the existing perception amongst the local fishing community with respect to the presence of the Galata pipeline.

Considering the exclusion zone and potential noise and vibration from the underwater pipeline, no significant impacts are expected in relation to impacts on fish, on catch volumes, or on the fishing effort expended by Ada Bacha or other artisanal fishers in the Project Area. Therefore, the magnitude of impact on the Ada Bacha fishing community’s incomes or livelihoods is predicted to be negligible.

Given the reliance by the residents living within the Ada Bacha fishing community on fishing livelihoods and the perceptions and activities of local fishers, the sensitivity of the Ada Bacha fishing community is considered to be high.

Based on the application of the significance matrix (Table 15.10), a negligible magnitude of impact and high receptor sensitivity can result in either a Low significance or Not Significant impact. As per the definition of a Not Significant adverse impact in Table 15.11.

, which states that ‘any impacts are expected to be indistinguishable from the baseline or within the natural level of variation’, the impact on the livelihoods of the Ada Bacha fishing community is assessed as being Not Significant.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-109

15.6.3.3 Mitigation and Monitoring: Operational Phase

The socio-economic impact assessment has not identified the potential for any significant adverse impacts. Nevertheless, the following stakeholder engagement measures and mechanisms, which have the potential to enhance beneficial outcomes of the Project, are considered applicable to the Operational Phase and are therefore addressed below.

General Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

The general mitigation and enhancement measures presented in Section 15.6.2.5 in relation to the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase (i.e. the Grievance Procedure; the Compensation Management Framework; and Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement) will all apply in the Operational Phase. Each measure will be tailored as appropriate to the Operational Phase. Further detail in relation to the Grievance Procedure and Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement is provided below.

Grievance Procedure

South Stream Transport will continue to implement the Grievance Procedure throughout the Operational Phase with any necessary revisions to ensure it is appropriate to this phase of the Project. As during construction, the Grievance Procedure will ensure that complaints and grievances are brought to the attention of the appropriate Project staff and addressed in an appropriate and timely way, grievances following a standard procedure of investigation, analysis, and resolution. It will also ensure that resolutions are documented and communicated to the appropriate stakeholders. The Grievance Mechanism is referred to in Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement and further described in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

Communication of the Grievance Mechanism to the Ada Bacha Fishing Community throughout the Operational Phase will be afforded high priority.

Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement

Information on restricted areas under the onshore and marine safety exclusion zones will be provided to the relevant authorities to inform navigation charts for marine stakeholders identifying marine exclusion zones through the Operational Phase.

As for other groups (and the public), South Stream Transport will continue a programme of stakeholder engagement throughout the Operational Phase. These engagement activities will be commensurate with the level of Project Activities and all stakeholders will be informed of any significant upcoming activities and changes, as appropriate. The stakeholder engagement activities are described further in the SEP and in Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement.

Mitigation and Enhancement for Specific Economic and Community Impacts

No significant impacts have been identified. Therefore, it is not necessary to recommend any mitigation measures. However, the General Mitigation and Enhancement measures set out above will apply, including for the Ada Bacha fishers, beach users, and the general public.


15-110 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Monitoring

Monitoring as part of the Social and Employment Plans

As set out in Chapter 23 Environmental and Social Management, an overarching Community and Local Content Plan will be implemented in the Operational Phase. In light of the nature of the Project and existing baseline conditions, the Operational Phase socio-economic impact assessment has not identified any significant impacts. It is not foreseen that any issues would require a targeted Environmental and Social Monitoring Programme. Nevertheless, socio-economic issues and concerns will be monitored through the ongoing stakeholder engagement program and grievance mechanism, and solutions to issues or grievances will be developed in consultation with affected stakeholders. If the Project does give rise to any unanticipated adverse social or economic changes within the Local Communities, it will allow for mitigation measures to be developed and implemented, if needed.

15.6.3.4 Residual Impacts: Operational Phase

Table 15.14 presents a summary of the potential Operational Phase residual socio-economic impacts arising from the Project following application of the identified mitigation measures.

Low, Moderate and High Adverse Impacts

No residual adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the Operational Phase of the Project.

Not Significant Impacts

The potential for reduced revenues / livelihoods of Ada Bacha fishers is assessed to be Not Significant during the Operational Phase and is not considered of concern to the Project.

Table 15.14 Summary Table - Operational Phase Residual Socio-Economic Impacts


Magnitude of Impact


Management, Enhancement and Proposed Mitigation Measures*


Economic Related Impacts

Operation of the Pipeline

Potential impact on livelihoods due to operational of the Pipeline


High Negligible Not Significant Maintain Grievance Procedure and Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement.

Not Significant

Only a summary of the complete set of mitigation measures is provided in the table. The complete set of mitigation measures is provided in Section 15.6


15-112 URS-EIA-REP-202375

15.6.4 Impact Assessment: Decommissioning Phase

The Project will be decommissioned many years into future 28 and impacts during the Decommissioning Phase depend on the alternatives chosen at that time – preservation of the pipelines in place or complete or partial removal. If the latter option is chosen and construction activities (e.g. excavation, removal of pipeline, land rehabilitation) are carried out or construction equipment is used, then impacts are expected to be similar to those assessed in Section 15.6.2 in relation to the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase – i.e., generation of employment (beneficial impacts), increased demand for goods and services (beneficial impacts), and impacts on land users (potentially adverse, depending on whether or not productive land uses such as agriculture were disturbed). However, such impacts are likely to be at lower levels and short-term. Assuming that the restriction on areas governing the type and scale of development that can take place on land within certain circumference of the Pipeline are removed, there may be beneficial impacts for land owners associated with the liberalisation of development rights.

A careful record and archive of construction and operation activities will be maintained in a suitable format for future users of such information. It will include any special mitigation measures that were applied retrospectively, in addition to those identified prospectively in this impact assessment. It will also record all unexpected events that occurred during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning and Operational phases of the Project.

15.7 Unplanned Events

15.7.1 Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

Potential socio-economic impacts from unplanned events during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase have been considered and are detailed in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events.

15.7.2 Operational Phase

Potential socio-economic impacts from unplanned events during the Operational Phase have been considered and are detailed in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events.

15.7.3 Decommissioning Phase

Potential socio-economic impacts from unplanned events during the Decommissioning Phase have been considered and are detailed in Chapter 20 Unplanned Events.

28 The Project Life (i.e. the duration of the Operational Phase) is estimated to be approximately 50 years. As such, decommissioning would take place sometime in the mid to late 2060s.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-113

15.8 Cumulative Impact Assessment

15.8.1 Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase

The potential for cumulative socio-economic impacts during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase has been considered and is detailed in Chapter 21 Cumulative Impact Assessment.

15.8.2 Commissioning and Operational Phase

The potential for cumulative socio-economic impacts during the Operational Phase has been considered and is detailed in Chapter 21 Cumulative Impact Assessment.

15.9 Human Rights

Terms to Know – Human Rights

Actual human rights impact

An “actual human rights impact” is an adverse impact that has already occurred or is occurring.

Potential human rights impact

A “potential human rights impact” is an adverse impact that may occur but has not yet done so. Potential impacts are analogous to human rights risks, i.e. the risks that an activity may lead to one or more adverse human rights impacts.

Adverse human rights impact

An “adverse human rights impact” occurs when an action removes or reduces the ability of an individual to enjoy his or her human rights.

According to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ref. 15.82), companies should respect Human Rights in projects and operations by seeking to prevent or mitigate potential Human Rights issues that may be caused directly by a Company’s projects or operations, or by project partners and suppliers. According to IFC Performance Standard 1, “each of the IFC Performance Standards has elements related to human rights dimensions that a project may face in the course of its operations. Due diligence against these Performance Standards enables companies to address many relevant human rights issues in its project.” The UN Guiding Principles, the IFC Performance Standards and other International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards are the benchmark for guiding companies in ensuring respect for Human Rights.

Bulgaria is a signatory and party to many International Human Rights Conventions and Legislation which are detailed in Chapter 2 Policy, Regulatory and Administrative Framework. However, the international community is still concerned that Bulgaria is restricting freedoms and civil liberties of individuals, and does not provide adequate judicial protection and access. There are also concerns regarding gender inequality and discrimination in the workforce. According to the internationally recognised Human Rights Risk Index for 2013 (Ref. Ref. 15.83) which assesses 24 key human rights areas, including human security, labour rights,


15-114 URS-EIA-REP-202375

civil and political rights and judicial process, Bulgaria is rated of ‘medium’ concern in regards to infringements on human rights.

Due to the fact that Human Rights factors are most usually linked with socio-economic factors, this section of the Chapter discusses the findings of the Human Rights Due Diligence process.

15.9.1 Due Diligence Process

As previously discussed, the Project is not considered high risk from a socio-economic standpoint and there are no significant socio-economic triggers which would necessitate a Human Rights Impact Assessment separate from the ESIA. However, recognising that Bulgaria is country where there are still risks concerning human rights commitments on the national level, South Stream Transport undertook a voluntary Human Rights Due Diligence complementary to the environmental and social risks and impact identification process to ensure that the Project does not infringe upon the human rights of others. The Due Diligence process also allows the Project to ensure there is a system in place to proactively monitor potential issues and concerns throughout the Project’s lifecycle.

The goals of the Project’s Due Diligence process were to:

• Identify, prevent, mitigate and account for actual or potential Human Rights impacts;

• Ensure policies and processes to manage Human Rights issues are in place;

• Express commitment to respect Human Rights through a policy endorsed by senior leadership;

• Ensure communication takes place with stakeholders about how issues will be addressed; and

• Ensure a grievance mechanism is in place to address issues raised by the community.

A Human Rights workshop which involved ESIA specialists, Human Rights specialists and South Stream Transport representatives was undertaken to assist in the identification of potential Project-related Human Rights impacts and methods for mitigating or responding to these potential impacts. The workshop focused on the four key areas most germane to the oil and gas industry: Employee and Labour Relations; Provision of Security; Community Engagement; and Supplier Engagement.

The key Project Activities related to each of these four areas were benchmarked against UN Guiding Principles, the IFC Performance Standards, and ILO practices using standardised and internationally recognised tools. The Due Diligence covered any adverse Human Rights impacts that the Project may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products, or services by its business relationships.

A Human Rights Register was produced which identified the various elements of the Project and their interaction with actual or potential Human Rights impacts. Wherever possible, Human Rights mitigation and monitoring efforts to address these impacts tie into the Project’s existing corporate standards, policies, and procedures as outlined in the Environmental and Social Management Plan (Chapter 23 Environmental and Social Management). A summary of the potential impacts and related Project responses are provided below.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-115

The Due Diligence process recognises that the Human Rights risks may change over time as the Project evolves from the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase through Operations into the Decommissioning Phase. As such, the Project’s Human Rights Due Diligence is an iterative process whereby business operations and operating context will be examined on a regular basis.

15.9.2 General Policies and Procedures

During the Due Diligence process, all Corporate and Project policies, plans and procedures were reviewed to ensure a commitment from the senior level of management to protect and manage Human Rights. In addition, contractual language was reviewed to ensure that business relationships, including subcontracts and supplier relationships, are bound by the same policies and procedures.

South Stream Transport abides by its Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Policy which outlines the Company’s Guiding Principles and commits to applying the principles by: “respecting internationally recognised Human Rights in our own operations, and promoting the respect of the aforementioned rights with regard to activities assigned to or carried out with Business Partners and in our relationships with stakeholders;”

In addition, the Company commits to respecting the UN Global Compact Principles which are “the protection of international human rights; rights to free association, collective bargaining, and employment non-discrimination; protection and preservation of the environment; and elimination of corruption, including bribery and extortion”.

Corporate commitments are contained in the Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Corporate Social Responsibility (HSSE and CSR) requirements outlined for all contractors and suppliers. This ensures that respect for Human Rights is part of contractual relationships and adhered to in direct business activities.

15.9.3 Labour and Working Conditions

Workers are an important group of stakeholders who may be subject to a range of direct impacts, potentially both beneficial and adverse, in terms of access to employment, the terms and conditions of that employment, and their health, safety and welfare whilst working on the Project.

Considering the Project has a robust HSSE-IMS, the Due Diligence process did not identify any potential impacts in relation to Labour and Workforce Health and Safety. Instead, it focused on five primary themes in regards to Project labour and working conditions which if not properly addressed could lead to Human Rights impacts:

• Freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

• Measures to support a diverse workforce and prevent discrimination;

• Processes and measures to ensure safe working conditions;

• Recruitment processes are fair and transparent, and could not cause conflict over vacancies; and


15-116 URS-EIA-REP-202375

• Sufficient processes are in place to ensure no use of forced, compulsory or child labour (either directly or in supply or processing chains).

In order to mitigate for potential risks and impacts on the Project Workforce, it was determined that the Project will adopt the following policies and practices:

1. Human Resources Policy: The formulation and implementation of a Human Resource Policy addressing all the requirements of IFC PS 2 will mitigate these risks (and potential impacts). The Human Resources Policy will be implemented via South Stream Transport’s ESMP (Chapter 23 Environmental and Social Management);

2. Working Relationship: The underlying agreements for all working relationships will be documented by South Stream Transport, and its contractors and subcontractors, and communicated to the Project workforce. All workers will be informed about their working conditions and terms of employment and entitlements to wages and other benefits. All workers will be provided with a written contract containing this information in an appropriate language and/or method;

3. Working Conditions and Terms of Employment: South Stream Transport, and its contractors and subcontractors, will respect the agreed working conditions and terms of employment of the Project workforce (including wages and benefits, hours of work, overtime arrangements and overtime compensation, leave for illness, maternity, public holidays and annual leave);

4. Workers Organisations: South Stream Transport, and its contractors and subcontractors, will allow workers to form and join workers’ organisations of their choosing and to bargain collectively in accordance with Bulgarian national law;

5. Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity: South Stream Transport, and its contractors and subcontractors, will base the employment relationship on the principles of equal opportunity and fair treatment and ensure that no employment decisions (including those related to recruitment and hiring, compensation, working conditions and terms of employment, access to training, job assignment, promotion, termination of employment or retirement and discipline) are made on the basis of personal characteristics unrelated to inherent job requirements;

6. Grievance Procedure: South Stream Transport will ensure that a grievance procedure for the Project workforce and contractors is implemented (available either directly via South Stream Transport or via contractors) to allow workers to raise reasonable concerns related to working conditions. South Stream Transport, and its contractors and subcontractors, will inform workers about the procedure when they are hired and (again) when they commence work on the Project site or vessels and ensure that the mechanism is easily accessible. The grievance mechanism will be supported by an appropriate level of management, and address concerns promptly through an understandable and transparent process providing feedback to those concerned without any retribution. Additionally, the grievance mechanism will not impede access to other juridical remedies or arbitration procedures; and

7. South Stream Transport, and its contractors and subcontractors, will not employ forced labour. The minimum age of employment in Bulgaria is 16, with some exceptions for 15 year olds. In accordance with South Stream Transport’s and its contractors’ and

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-117

subcontractors’ hazard identification and safety risk management procedures, all parties will ensure that no persons under the age of 18 are employed in hazardous work or in a manner that is economically exploitative, or is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education or be harmful to the child’s health and physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. All work of persons under the age of 18 will be subject to an appropriate risk assessment and regular monitoring of health, working conditions and hours or work. South Stream Transport, and its contractors and subcontractors, will not employ forced labour.

15.9.4 Local Communities

During the Due Diligence, several potential Human Rights impacts were identified related to Local Communities, including the potential that the rights, including cultural and religious, of vulnerable groups in communities could be infringed upon by Project Activities. Furthermore, it was determined that Local Communities could generally perceive themselves to be worse off as a result of the Project – due to lack of job opportunities and direct benefits. These potential impacts have been addressed in the impact section of the Socio-Economic Chapter above and after further assessment, have been rated as being of low concern.

However, to mitigate any potential Human Rights impacts on communities, South Stream Transport has instituted a SEP as outlined in Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement which ensures consultation with Local Communities, as well as implementation of a community grievance mechanism to ensure a timely and appropriate response to concerns by communities and that potential impacts are addressed appropriately.

15.9.5 Supplier Engagement

The Due Diligence focused on the fact that Human Rights impacts can be linked to operations as a result of the behaviour of parties with which the Project is associated, not only direct impacts caused by South Stream Transport. This is particularly relevant because construction of the South Stream Offshore Pipeline is likely to be undertaken entirely by contractors and subcontractors. It was therefore determined that there could be a potential risk of harmful child labour taking place within the supply chain if not properly managed.

To avoid potential impacts in the supply chain, all mitigation requirements set out above under Labour and Working Conditions will apply to South Stream Transport’s contractors, subcontractors, and direct supplier requirements. South Stream Transport will also assess its primary supply chain in relation to this issue on an ongoing basis.

15.9.6 Security Provision

The Due Diligence process examined several factors associated with security provision following the guidance as set forth in the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (Ref. 15.84). It was determined that a risk of conflict could affect the security environment in a manner that might infringe upon the rights of Local Communities. This is relevant because the track record of public or private security providers in Bulgaria in terms of Human Rights is believed to be weak in the area of training.


15-118 URS-EIA-REP-202375

In order to reduce the risk of human rights abuses against Local Communities by security forces, whether these be directly employed by the Project, contractors or state security forces, South Stream Transport will ensure training for security forces on escalation of force and protection of Human Rights. Furthermore, South Stream Transport will use its contractual process to ensure that provisions are in place for the conducting of background checks on security staff, as well as monitoring of performance.

Policies, plans and procedures to protect the safety and security of the workforce, community and other Project stakeholders are documented in the HSSE-IMS.

15.10 Conclusions

15.10.1 Summary of Impact Assessment

In terms of economic related impacts, the assessment has identified that the Project will result in temporary and limited local economic benefits as a result of the additional employment and increased demand for goods and services during the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase.

During the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase, the Ada Bacha fishing community may be affected by temporary restrictions on access to areas surrounding the marine construction activities, which could require travel to other areas to fish result in increased costs for some fishers. The implementation of mitigation, including the Grievance Procedure – and, if applicable, the Compensation Management Framework – will manage this impact. The Livelihood Restoration Framework will also apply, if required. However, the inconvenience caused by a short-term temporary restriction on the movement of the fishermen within their usual fishing grounds because of the implementation of the safety exclusion zones, cannot be fully mitigated, and the residual impact is expected to be of Low significance.

Construction of the Project may also result in adverse impacts on recreational use of the Project Area, including Pasha Dere Beach (and the adjacent camping and picnic area) and some of the paths and trails in the forest area behind the beach. These impacts are linked to other biophysical impacts – including noise, views, and water quality – as well as the ability of recreationalists to access areas they currently use. Considered together, these factors have been assessed in terms of potential impacts on the ability of people to use and enjoy these areas. Impacts on recreational use of the beach and forest are all expected to be short term, temporary, and reversible; Low significance residual impacts are anticipated.

Temporary access restrictions during construction of the landfall section of the Project may also affect recreational hunters who use the area, as the construction corridor and other sites will be closed to the public. However, the affected area is small in relation to the overall hunting concession, and there will be alternative places to hunters to use. This impact will be temporary as, with the exception of the landfall facilities, affected areas will be re-vegetated after construction and will be open to the public. As such, the potential impact on hunters is also anticipated to be of Low significance.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-119

Other impacts in the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase are predicted to be Not Significant, including potential impacts on local businesses related to tourism, forestry and commercial fisheries.

During the Operational Phase, the relatively isolated and unobtrusive nature of the Pipeline, including the landfall facilities and access road, means that there are not expected to be any significant economic- or community-related impacts.

With regard to Human Rights, there were no significant adverse potential impacts identified that cannot be mitigated through adherence to policies, plans and procedures, as well as through community engagement. Human rights issues within the supply chain will be monitored on an ongoing basis which is provided for in the Project HSSE-IMS. Furthermore, the Due Diligence process recognises that the Human Rights risks may change over time as the Project evolves from the Construction and Pre-Commissioning Phase into the Decommissioning Phase. As such, the Project’s Human Rights Due Diligence is an iterative process whereby business operations and operating context will be examined on a regular basis.

15.10.2 Overview of Mitigation Measures

This assessment has set out recommendations for mitigation measures. The measures include:

• A range of construction management and environmental and social management processes and procedures to avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimise the potential for adverse impact;

• Ongoing stakeholder engagement, including regular community liaison, during construction and over the life of the Project to inform and update stakeholders about planned construction activities and the construction programme;

• Publication and notices related to land and marine area restrictions;

• A Grievance Procedure to allow for prompt, transparent and satisfactory handling of grievances raised by stakeholders, including from within the Local Communities;

• Appropriate compensation mechanisms, including within the Compensation Management Framework, if required, to compensate businesses, land owners, and other potentially affected stakeholders for any reduction in business revenues or economic losses that arise as a result of the Project; and

• Appropriate livelihood restoration mechanisms, if necessary, included within the Livelihood Restoration Framework, to restore livelihoods to their pre-impact status.

15.10.3 Stakeholder Concerns and Community Investment Programme

Stakeholders have expressed a broad range of concerns related to the construction and operation of the Project, including concerns related to beach access, the environment, and economic opportunities (See Chapter 6 Stakeholder Engagement). The mitigation measures described in this chapter (and in the chapters addressing other types of impacts) are intended to minimise or avoid potential adverse impacts of the Project, and to enhance local


15-120 URS-EIA-REP-202375

benefits. South Stream Transport will implement the measures necessary to reduce adverse impacts as much as practicable, and to enhance benefits, throughout the life of the Project.

It is not possible to address all stakeholder concerns within the scope of the ESIA Report. Some concerns fall outside the scope of the Project’s influence, such as gas supply, community development, and political or regulatory concerns. However, there may be ways in which South Stream Transport can support positive changes and initiatives in Local Communities beyond immediate scope of Project impacts. To this end, South Stream Transport has a Community Investment Programme, and will work with local stakeholders and agencies to identify potential themes and initiatives for investment. Although potential areas for Community Investment are not included in the assessment of this ESIA Report (i.e. they are not considered to be ‘mitigation’ measures), they may complement or build upon Project-specific mitigation measures, as well as existing programmes and initiatives in the Local Communities. Community Investment activities will be developed and implemented in consultation and partnership with the relevant stakeholders.

15.10.4 Conclusions

The mitigation measures identified are intended to systematically avoid and reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with the Project, or where this is not possible to compensate and offset impacts on receptors. Assuming that the mitigation measures suggested in this assessment are successfully implemented, it is expected that the Project will mitigate the adverse effects associated with the Project, to the degree that, after mitigation, adverse impacts would be Low or Not Significant.

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-121

References

Number Reference

Ref. 15.1 South Stream Transport B.V. 2013. South Stream Offshore Pipeline – Bulgarian Sector: Scoping Report. Report prepared by URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited for South Stream Transport B.V. January 2013.

Ref. 15.2 NSI. 2012. Census 2011 Population 01.02.2011 by districts, municipalities, cities, and age (Bulgarian). Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011_Age.xls. Accessed on 11 June 2013.

Ref. 15.3 European Commission. 2007. Bulgaria- Political Profile. Accessed at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/bulgaria/political_profile_en.htm. Accessed on: 11 November 2013.

Ref. 15.4 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Right. 2013. Republic of Bulgaria, Early Parliamentary Election 12 May 2013. Warsaw. Accessed at: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/103878. Accessed on: 11 November 2013.

Ref. 15.5 The Economist. 2013. Bulgarian Politics: A New Government at last. Accessed at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2013/05. Accessed on: 11 November 2013.

Ref. 15.6 The New York Times. 2013. Bulgaria: Naming of Prime Minister Ends Stalemate. Accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/world/europe/bulgaria-naming-of-prime-minister-ends-stalemate.html?_r=1&. Accessed on: 11 November 2013.

Ref. 15.7 Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act 2011. Accessed at: http://www.namrb.org/doc12/en/Local_Selfgovernment_and_Local_Administration_Act.rtf. Accessed on 17 June 2013.

Ref. 15.8 Territorial planning organization, 2009, Territorial Master Plan Varna municipality, 2009 (Bulgarian). Accessed at: http://www.tpovarna.com/assets/files/TOM%20I.pdf. Accessed on 28 May 2013

Ref. 15.9 NSI. 2013. Information for the population of Priseltsi village, Avren municipality, Varna district. National Register of Populated Places (English). Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/nrnm/show9.php?sid=3819&ezik=en. Accessed 17th June 2013.

Ref. 15.10 Personal communication with Mayor of Priseltsi. Interview conducted 26th February 2013 in Priseltsi and Priseltsi VZ.

Ref. 15.11 Personal Communication with a Representative of the Ada Bacha Community. Interview conducted 11 June 2013 in the Ada Bacha Community.

Ref. 15.12 Personal Communication with a Representative of the Ada Bacha Community. Interview conducted 14 August 2013 in the Ada Bacha Community.

http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011_Age.xls

http://www.namrb.org/doc12/en/Local_Selfgovernment_and_Local_Administration_Act.rtf

http://www.tpovarna.com/assets/files/TOM%20I.pdf

http://www.nsi.bg/nrnm/show9.php?sid=3819&ezik=en


15-122 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Number Reference

Ref. 15.13 NSI, 2012. 2011 Population Census in the Republic of Bulgaria. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/pageen2.php?p2=179&sp2=209. Accessed on 28 May 2013.

Ref. 15.14 OECD. 2012. International Migration Outlook 2012. IV Country Notes: Recent Changes in Migration Movements and Policies. Bulgaria Accessed at: http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/IMO%202012_Country%20note%20Bulgaria.pdf Accessed on 30 May 2013.

Ref. 15.15 NSI, 2012. Census 2011. Population-2011 census data. Population by District. Population as of 01.03.2001 and as of 01.02.2011 by Districts; Population Growth between the Censuses and share of population by districts. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/population-2011censusdata.xls. Accessed on 11 June 2013.

Ref. 15.16 Population Statistics for Eastern Europe. 2013. Division of Bulgaria 2011. Accessed at: http://pop-stat.mashke.org/bulgaria-division.htm. Accessed on 19 June 2013.

Ref. 15.17 Eurostat (European Commission). 2013. European social statistics, 2013 edition. Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union. ISSN 1977-7930.

Ref. 15.18 NSI, 2012. Population - Table data. (a) ‘Mechanical movement of the population by place of residence, districts, age and sex’; (b)‘Residence structure, sex ratio and age dependency rates’; (c) ‘Natural increase per 1 000 persons of the population by statistical regions, districts and place of residence’. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53. Accessed on 09 November 2013.

Ref. 15.19 World Bank. 2012. Accessed at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND/countries?display=default. Accessed on 04 June 2013.

Ref. 15.20 Eurostat 2013. National Structures (EU). Accessed at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/correspondence_tables/national_structures_eu. Accessed on 17 June 2013.

Ref. 15.21 NSI 2012. Census 2011. Population-2011 census data. POPULATION BY ETHNIC GROUP AND MOTHER TONGUE AS OF 01.02.2011 1. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/population-2011censusdata.xls. Accessed on 11 June 2013.

Ref. 15.22 OECD. 2004. Reviews of National Policies for Education: Bulgaria 2004. OECD Publishing.

Ref. 15.23 NSI, 2012. Census 2011_ethnos Self ethnic group: By districts, municipalities, cities, and self-determination by ethnicity 1.02.2011 (Bulgarian). Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/pagebg2.php?p2=175&sp2=190. Accessed on 12 June 2013.

http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/pageen2.php?p2=179&sp2=209

http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/population-2011censusdata.xls

http://pop-stat.mashke.org/bulgaria-division.htm

http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND/countries?display=default

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/correspondence_tables/national_structures_eu

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/correspondence_tables/national_structures_eu


URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-123

Number Reference

Ref. 15.24 Personal communication with Sauchastie NGO. Interview conducted 5 March 2014, Varna, Bulgaria.

Ref. 15.25 Eurostat 2013. Real growth rate of regional gross value added (GVA) at basic prices by NUTS 2 regions - percentage change on previous year [nama_r_e3vab95r2]. Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 19 June 2013

Ref. 15.26 Eurostat. 2013. Real GDP growth rate – volume (Percentage change year on year). Accessed at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00115. Accessed: 09 November 2013.

Ref. 15.27 Regional Agency for Entrepreneurship and Innovations (RAPIV). 2013. Accessed at: http://www.rapiv.org/eng/. Accessed on 28 May 2013

Ref. 15.28 Eurostat. 2013. Gross value added at basic prices by NUTS 3 regions (NACE Rev. 2) [nama_r_e3vab95r2]. Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 17 June 2013.

Ref. 15.29 Eurostat 2013. Gross value added (GVA) at basic prices by NUTS 2 regions - percentage change on previous year (nama_r_e2 grgdp). Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 28 May 2013.

Ref. 15.30 Eurostat. 2013. Gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions. UNIT: Millions of euro (from 1.1.1999)/Millions of ECU (up to 31.12.1998). Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 28 May 2013.

Ref. 15.31 IME, 2013. Institute of Market Economics. Regional Profiles: Varna Region. Accessed at: http://www.regionalprofiles.bg/en/regions/varna/. Accessed on 04 June 2013.

Ref. 15.32 Eurostat. 2013. Gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions. UNIT: Euro per inhabitant. Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 28 May 2013.

Ref. 15.33 European Commission. 2012. Macroeconomic imbalances – Bulgaria, 2012. Accessed at: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp100_en.pdf. Accessed on October 2012.

Ref. 15.34 World Travel and Tourism Council, 2014, Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2014 Bulgaria. Accessed at: http://www.wttc.org/research/economic-impact-research/country-reports/. Accessed on 23 May 2014.

Ref. 15.35 Personal communication with the Chairman of the Varna Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Interview conducted 12 June 2013.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00115

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00115

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp100_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp100_en.pdf

http://www.wttc.org/research/economic-impact-research/country-reports/


15-124 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Number Reference

Ref. 15.36 International Trade Union Confederation. 2012. Bulgaria Country Report –ITUC Growing Green and Decent Jobs. Accessed at: http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/bulgaria_country_report__growing_green_and_decent_jobs_annex.pdf. Accessed on: 26 October 2012.

Ref. 15.37 NSI. 2012. Labour Market – Table data. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=51. Accessed on 12 June 2013.

Ref. 15.38 Eurostat 2013. Employment (in 1000 persons) by NUTS 3 regions. Last update: 22-04-2013. [nama_r_e3empl95]. Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 19 June 2013.

Ref. 15.39 Personal communication with Royal Historic Museum. Interview conducted 25 February 2014, Varna, Bulgaria.

Ref. 15.40 Personal communication with NGO SOS Families at Risk (FAR). Interview conducted 26 February 2014.

Ref. 15.41 Eurostat. 2013. Employed persons by full-time/part-time activity. NACE_R2: Accommodation and food service activities WSTATUS: Employed persons WORKTIME: Total. Last update: 2nd May 2013. Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed on 28 May 2013

Ref. 15.42 NSI, 2012. Regions, Districts and Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria 2010. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/publikaciaen.php?n=318&r=|8|&P=179&SP=183&PSP=8. Accessed on 12 June 2013

Ref. 15.43 NSI. 2012. SILC_3_obl_en. Poverty and Social Inclusion Indicators (Open Method of Coordination). Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/ORPDOCS/SILC_3_obl_en.xls. Accessed on 2 June 2013.

Ref. 15.44 NSI. 2012. Households Income and Expenditure – Table data. Monetary expenditure. Annual Data. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=44. Accessed on 28 May 2013.

Ref. 15.45 Varna Territory Design Organisation and National Centre for Territorial Development (Sofia). 2009. General Development Plan / Master Plan / Varna Municipality (Phase: Preliminary Draft Stage II – Volume I. Varna, Bulgaria. May 2009.

Ref. 15.46 Personal communication with Bulgarian (National) Executive Forestry Agency. Communication held 14 August 2013, Sofia.

Ref. 15.47 Personal Communication with representatives of the Varna Hunting and Fishing Association and Galata Hunting Club. Meeting held 6th March 2014, Varna.

Ref. 15.48 Personal communication with Forestry Office in Varna. Interview conducted 12 February 2014.


http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/

http://www.nsi.bg/ORPDOCS/SILC_3_obl_en.xls


URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-125

Number Reference

Ref. 15.49 Personal Communication with Regional Forestry Directorate (Varna). Meeting held 6th March 2014, Varna.

Ref. 15.50 Consultation meeting held with Galata Community on 6 February 2013 at Galata Cultural Centre.

Ref. 15.51 Consultation meeting held with Priseltsi Community on 7 February 2013 at Priseltsi Cultural Centre.

Ref. 15.52 Personal communication with NGO. Meeting held 7 February 2013 at Golden Tulip Hotel, Varna.

Ref. 15.53 National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NAFA). Statistical Information System (SIS).

Ref. 15.54 Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2011. Annual Report on the Situation and Development of Agriculture. Agrarian Report 2011. http://www.mzh.government.bg/mzh/Home.aspx

Ref. 15.55 Communication with Fishery Agency. Email dated 26th March 2013.

Ref. 15.56 Personal communication with Optimus Engineering (Engineering consultants to Petroceltic International plc.; owners and operators of Galata Gas Pipeline). Interview conducted 16 July 2013 in Delft, Netherlands.

Ref. 15.57 Bardarska, G. 2007. Solidarite Eau Europe. Access to drinking water and sanitation in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Equitable access to water, Paris, 5-6 July 2007. Accessed at: http://wash.earthforever.org/lib/bg/access. Accessed on 05 June 2013.

Ref. 15.58 Eurostat. 2012. Population connected to wastewater collection and treatment systems by NUTS 2 regions - %. Last update: 26-03-2013. Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_n2_pww&lang=en. Accessed on 28 May 2013

Ref. 15.59 Varna Region Administration. 2013. Data 2012. Accessed at: http://www.vn.government.bg/en/stranici/2invest/infrastruktura.htm. Accessed on July 2012

Ref. 15.60 NSI, 2012. Population-2011 Census data. POPULATION AGED 7 AND MORE BY DISTRICTS AND EDUCATION AS OF 01.02.2011. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/population-2011censusdata.xls. Accessed on 11 June 2013.

Ref. 15.61 Eurostat, 2012. Pupil/Student - teacher ratio and average class size (ISCED 1-3). Last update: 17-05-2013. Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=educ_iste&lang=en. Accessed on 28 May 2013.

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_n2_pww&lang=en

http://www.vn.government.bg/en/stranici/2invest/infrastruktura.htm


http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=educ_iste&lang=en


15-126 URS-EIA-REP-202375

Number Reference

Ref. 15.62 Personal communication with Varna Regional Employment Agency / Varna Regional Labour Office. Interview conducted 5 March 2014, Varna, Bulgaria.

Ref. 15.63 Personal communication with Social Welfare Department (Municipality of Varna). Interview conducted 05 March 2014, Varna, Bulgaria.

Ref. 15.64 Personal communication with the Bulgarian National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. Interview conducted 22 November 2013.

Ref. 15.65 Eurostat. 2013. Number of establishments, bedrooms and bed-places by NUTS 3 regions (1990-2011). Accessed at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. Accessed on 05 November 2013.

Ref. 15.66 European Commission 2008. EURES. Labour Market Information. Varna. Accessed at: https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?lang=en&acro=lmi&catId=9416&countryId=BG&regionId=BG3&langChanged=true. Accessed 20 March 2014.

Ref. 15.67 Personal communication with the Secretary of the Varna Chamber of Tourism. Interview conducted 12 June 2013.

Ref. 15.68 Minutes of Meeting. 2013. Meeting held with Local Government Authorities on 5 February, 2013 at Golden Tulip Hotel, Varna.

Ref. 15.69 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), 2012, Assessment of Black Sea Stocks (STECF-12-15), European Commission Joint Research Centre, ISBN 978-92-79-27208-0, doi:10.2788/63715.

Ref. 15.70 National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NAFA). Statistical Information System (SIS).

Ref. 15.71 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). 2012. Assessment of Black Sea Stocks (STECF-12-15). European Commission Joint Research Centre. ISBN 978-92-79-27208-0, doi:10.2788/63715.

Ref. 15.72 Fishing Associations (Executive Agency of Fisheries – Regional branch, Association ‘Black Sea Sunrise’, Association of Fish Products Producers – BG FISH, and Association ‘Odessos 2011’). Personal communication on 29 November, 2012

Ref. 15.73 Department for Transport. Transport Analysis Guidance – WebTAG: Expert Guidance Document 3.3.2. Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.3.2.php. Accessed on 14/06/11.

Ref. 15.74 Greater London Authority. The State of London’s Children Report (2007) page 74.

Ref. 15.75 NSI 2012. Population by districts, age, place of residence and sex. http://www.nsi.bg/en/content/6708/population-districts-age-place-residence-and-sex. Accessed on 20 March 2014.

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?lang=en&acro=lmi&catId=9416&countryId=BG&regionId=BG3&langChanged=true

https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?lang=en&acro=lmi&catId=9416&countryId=BG&regionId=BG3&langChanged=true

http://www.nsi.bg/en/content/6708/population-districts-age-place-residence-and-sex

URS-EIA-REP-202375 15-127

Number Reference

Ref. 15.76 National Institute of Statistics, Bulgaria, National Centre for Public Health and Analysis (NCPHA) Healthcare Statistics Handbooks, 2010 and 2011 and Healthcare BulletinS, 2011 and 2012 http://bit.ly/1c77Hci

Ref. 15.77 Personal communication with Regional Directorate of the Ministry of Interior (Varna Police). Interview held on 12 June 2013, Varna City.

Ref. 15.78 Minority Rights Group International website; World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples – Bulgaria Overview. Accessed at: http://www.minorityrights.org/2426/bulgaria/bulgaria-overview.html. Accessed on 20 March 2014.

Ref. 15.79 NSI, 2012. Social Inclusion and Living Conditions - Table data. ‘Annual Data. Poverty and Social Inclusion Indicators by District’. Accessed at: http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=73. Accessed on 28 May 2013.

Ref. 15.80 Personal communication with Mayor of Priseltsi. Interview conducted 26 February 2014, Priseltsi, Bulgaria.

Ref. 15.81 R. Nedwell, B. Edwards, A.W.H. Turnpenny & J. Gordon (2004) “Fish and Marine Mammal Audiograms: A summary of available information” Subacoustech Report ref: 534R0214. Accessed at: http://www.subacoustech.com/wp-content/uploads/534R0214.pdf. Accessed on 20 March 2014.

Ref. 15.82 Knudsen, F.R., Enger, P.S. and Sand, O, 1992, Awareness reactions and avoidance responses to sound in juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Biology. 40: 523-534.

Ref. 15.83 Maplecroft Human Rights Risk Index, 2013, retrieved from http://maplecroft.com/themes/hr/ on 20 August 2013.

Ref. 15.84 Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, 2000, retrieved from http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/voluntary_principles_english.pdf on 20 August 2013.

Ref. 15.85 Bulgarian National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. Accessed at: http://www.antitraffic.government.bg/en/the-commission-en. Accessed on 27 February 2014.

http://bit.ly/1c77Hci

http://www.minorityrights.org/2426/bulgaria/bulgaria-overview.html


http://www.subacoustech.com/wp-content/uploads/534R0214.pdf

http://maplecroft.com/themes/hr/

http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/files/voluntary_principles_english.pdf

http://www.antitraffic.government.bg/en/the-commission-en

Documents

South Stream€¦ · URS-EIA-REP-202375 i Table of Contents 15 Socio-Economics ...................................................................................... 15-1 15.1