12.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS

AECOM Final Report Environment

Final ESIA 2 August 2013

12-1

12.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS

12.1 Introduction

This section of the report identifies the social impact of The Third Bosphorus Bridge and Connected Motorways Project on surrounding communities. The main objective of the study is to identify the potential social impacts associated with the construction and the operation of the proposed Project.

This social impact assessment (SIA) intends to determine whether the proposed project has positive and adverse effects on individuals, households and institutions. It also explores the unintended consequences, whether positive or negative on the local people.

The key objectives of the study on The Third Bosphorus Bridge and Connected Motorways Project are to:

Identify existing social and economic condition of the households around the project area;

Identify and assess potential project-related social impacts across the whole operational life cycle, from exploration through to decommissioning phases;

Describe, where appropriate, the general mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the Project.

12.2 Assessment Scope

The Third Bosphorus Bridge and Connected Motorway Project includes a bridge that will cross the Bosphorus (or Istanbul Strait) and a motorway on both sides of Europe and Asia, with associated connection and connection roads. The project is referred to as the Northern Marmara Motorway including the 3rd Bosphorus Bridge. The overall requirements for the bridge and motorway design are given in the Technical Requirements issued for ―The Northern Marmara Motorway (incl. the 3rd Bosphorus Bridge) Design and Construction Requirements‖ prepared by the KGM.

The proposed bridge will cross the Bosphorus near to the Black Sea between Garipçe on the European side and Poyraz on the Asian side. The purpose of the bridge is to carry a 2 x 4 lane motorway and two high speed railway tracks. The proposed Northern Marmara Motorway includes approximately 60 km long motorway from Odayeri to Paşaköy and approximately 54 km of connection roads, including the third Bosphorus bridge. The total length of the road construction will be approximately 114 km.

When the affected communities are examined, the range of possible affected groups or categories is very wide. Settlements affected by the Project include those who live nearby; those who will be affected by the Project activities and those who have interest in a new project or policy change but may not live in proximity. Others affected include those who might use the land on which the project is located.

The following residential areas will be directly affected by the Project: Göllü Village, Bozhane Village, Ishaklı Village, Paşamandıra Village, Poyraz Village, Bozhane Village, Hüseyinli Village, Reşadiye Village,Işıklar Village, Odayeri Village, Paşaköy Village, Demirci Villge, Garipçe Village Uskumruköy Village, Alibahadır Village, Kısırkaya Village, Çiftalan village, Rumelifeneri Village, Gümüşdere Village, Anadolufeneri, Nişantepe Village, and Çatalmeşe Village.



12-2

The map in Figure 12.1 shows the settlements likely to be affected by the Project, including their population.

Figure 12.1 Affected Settlements

12.3 Methods

12.3.1 Baseline Methods

Baseline data collection is not a single method but a collection of tools and approaches. A wide range of social science methods can be used in carrying out social baseline and a variety of data-gathering techniques is employed, depending on purpose and context.

Data for the social impact assessment were obtained from the following sources:

Secondary data, Quantifiable sample survey (settlement questionnaire and household questionnaire) Participant observation



12-3

12.3.2 Secondary Data

Secondary data sources used in this study include census data, geographical data (including maps), and

national and local government statistics, documentation from non-governmental organizations and

community-based organizations. Many of the data included in this report are from the Turkish Statistical

Institute (TÜİK). The population data in Turkey are updated periodically as new data become available. Although the data provided from TÜİK are the latest, they have some limitations. The information obtained from TUİK is mostly based on the data of İstanbul Province.

12.3.3 Quantifiable Sample Surveys

Settlement Questionnaire

Village background information was gathered through questionnaire and discussion with headmen. These surveys mainly served for gathering information on the settlement as a whole.

Household Questionnaire

A household survey interview with households in the project area was conducted. The survey used the face-to-face interview method. The survey involved a formal visit to families and individual interviews with the adult member of the family using a standard questionnaire. The survey focused on a number of specific issues, including the main sources of livelihood, problems in the project area and attitudes towards the proposed project. The size of the sample in each community depended on the number of residents of the neighbourhood. Several types of considerations and criteria were taken into account in the choice of villages in which to implement the survey. The study was composed of four phases: pre-field studies, field implementation, coding and data entry, and data analysis.

12.3.4 Phase One: Pre-Field Studies

Collection of Secondary Data

Secondary data sources were mainly based on the government records including population census and other relevant records of governmental institutions. Other, secondary, sources used included geographical data (including maps), local government statistics, documentation from non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations and newspaper reports.

Selection of settlements

The total population of the settlements in the Project area is 37,343. It is estimated that there are 9,336 households in the area. The sample size was determined with 0.95 confidence level and plus or minus 0.01 margin of error.

On the basis of this, 652 households' members were interviewed. At least 10 interviews with members of households in each settlement were undertaken. The sample size was determined using the following formula:



12-4

)**()*)1((

***22

2

qptdN

qptNn

n= sample size

N= population

d= margin of error

p= estimated prevalence in the project area

t= confidence level at 95%

q= 1-p

Surveys were carried out in all identified settlements.

The population of settlements and the number of interviews are presented in the Table 12-1.

Table 12-1 Survey Sample Size

District Settlements Population 2012 Household Number of interviews

BEYKOZ Alibahadir 783 196 13

BEYKOZ Anadolu Feneri 1,157 289 19

BEYKOZ Bozhane 452 113 10

BEYKOZ Göllü 229 57 10

BEYKOZ İshakli 1,235 309 22

BEYKOZ Paşamandira 925 231 15

BEYKOZ Poyraz 888 222 15

ÇEKMEKÖY Çatalmeşe 7,446 1,862 124

ÇEKMEKÖY Hüseyinli 747 187 12

ÇEKMEKÖY Nişantepe 5,413 1,353 90

ÇEKMEKÖY Reşadiye 2,004 501 33

EYÜP Çiftalan 150 38 10

EYÜP Işiklar 550 138 10

EYÜP Odayeri 252 63 10

SANCAKTEPE Paşaköy 1,686 422 30

SARIYER Demirciköy 1,162 291 19

SARIYER Garipçe 448 112 10

SARIYER Gümüşdere 2,751 688 46

SARIYER Kisirkaya 417 104 10

SARIYER Rumeli Feneri 3,571 893 59

SARIYER Uskumru 5,077 1,269 85

Total 37,343 9,336 652



12-5

12.3.5 Phase Two: Field Implementation

Training of the Survey Team

The training of the surveying team took one day. Training was more the form of orientation rather than intensive training. The training consisted of the following:

Introduction to the research and its objectives; Distribution of the materials; Discussion of the questionnaire; Review of the questionnaire; Review of note taking; and Familiarization with the reading materials provided.

Interviews

The social field survey team consisted of 7 surveyors. One surveyor was expected to interview 7 household members in a day (total 49 household interviews). Supervisor checked each survey during evenings and informed the surveyors about any errors. Thus, repetition of errors was prevented.

12.3.6 Phase Three: Coding and Data Entry

Data entry activities were carried out in İstanbul. Coding was undertaken together with interviewing. After each questionnaire was coded, it was sent to a data entry team. In this survey, SPSS for statistical analyses and Power Point for graphics were used.

12.3.7 Phase Four: Data Analysis

The analysis of the data as accomplished through interpretation of statistical results and comparative analysis of data collected from surveys, observations and documents. Briefly, the collected data for this study was analysed by simple descriptive statistical techniques.

A ―Social Baseline Report‖ was based on the evaluation of the primary data collected from the project-affected area.

12.3.8 Participant Observation

Participant Observation is a field technique to develop in-depth understanding of peoples' motivations and attitudes. It is based on looking, listening, asking questions and keeping detailed field notes.

12.3.9 Assessment Methods

Social impacts can be characterized and defined in many ways. Social impact assessment can play an important role in understanding the impacts of any project and the distribution of these impacts among different groups in the project areas. Inter-organisational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (2003) defines social impacts as follows:



12-6

“By social impacts we mean the consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet

their needs and generally cope as members of society. The term also includes cultural impacts

involving changes to the norms, values, and beliefs that guide and rationalize their cognition of

themselves and their society.”

SIA is the process of analyzing, monitoring and managing the social consequences of policies, programmes and projects. As Vanclay (2003) has pointed out, ―Social impact assessment is the process of analyzing (predicting, evaluating and reflecting) and managing the intended and unintended consequences on the human environment of interventions (policies, plans, programs, projects and other social activities) and social change processes so as to create a more sustainable biophysical and human environment‖.

In general, SIA can be understood as a framework for evaluation of all impacts on humans and on all the ways in which people and communities interact with their socio-cultural, economic and environmental surroundings. The term also embodies all human impacts including cultural impacts, community impacts, infrastructural impacts, gender impacts, resource issues, political impacts etc.

As Adams (2000) pointed out, social impacts include both positive and negative impacts and have to be assessed over a time frame that includes all the various stages in planning, construction and after construction. Social impacts depend on many factors like ethnicity, gender, caste or class groupings and so on. Social impacts can be experienced as direct or indirect impacts, which have several direct and indirect consequences. All these factors lend complexity to an assessment of social impacts at any given time period.

It is known that the positive and negative social and economic impacts/costs of projects are rarely distributed evenly and impacted communities are themselves heterogeneous: there can be significant disparities in impacts, particularly among different groups/categories. It is reasonable to assume that projects affect men and women in very different ways. All potential impacts; negative/positive, long term/short term, planned/unplanned, expected/unexpected, cumulative and perceived should be taken into consideration together. Interdependency and mutual interaction among all sorts of impact complicates impacts to be separately assessed.

When we deal with social impacts, it is not always easy to measure them or explain them in numerical terms. For example, an increase in local population, an increase in employment opportunities or the numbers of resettled people are conceived in numerical terms. However, some losses and their consequences such as social and cultural impoverishment because of resettlement, loss of habitat and archaeological sites, and damage to health, cannot be easily represented in numerical terms. In defining and assessing the social impacts, numerical expression of these impacts is significant but other consequences of the project, which are not expressed in quantitative terms, should be considered.

It should be noted that each criterion will be ranked with using Significance Criteria (See Table 12-2).



12-7

Table 12-2 Significance Criteria

Impact Assessment Criteria

Major

Adverse

Irreversible and significant negative change to current amenity, lifestyle and community activities and functioning.

High Adverse Considerable adverse change to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community activities with limited scope for mitigation.

Moderate

Adverse Noticeable adverse change to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community activities, but with scope for some mitigation.

Minor

Adverse

Localized or limited noticeable change to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community activities, which can be largely mitigated. Some residual effects will still arise.

Negligible Very little change in the current situation. No appreciable impact on local amenity, resident lifestyle and everyday community activities. Imperceptible changes to the amenity of nearby residences.

Moderate

Beneficial Minor improvements to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community activities.

High

Beneficial The creation of strong communities which are socially inclusive, with high level of social capital, access to employment and appropriate services and facilities.

12.4 Baseline Conditions

12.4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristic of the Settlements

This section provides social and demographic characteristics of the households in the nearest villages located around the proposed Project. Of the people interviewed in the households, 52% are males, while 48% are females.

Figure 12-2 Figure Gender

Source: SIA Household Questionnaire, 2013

48% 52% Female

Male



12-8

As to the age groups of the people in the households interviewed, it can be seen that the highest proportion (16, 1%) is in the age group of 20-29. The proportion of age groups of 10-19 and 50-59 is 15.1%. The proportion of the population aged 60 and over is 16%. That is, 59, 8% of the people living in these households are in the age group of 20-59. It is therefore possible to say that the population is young and economically active.

Figure 12-3 Age Group


There was a total of 2053 people in surveyed households and the average household size is 4.32 persons per household and is higher than the national average of 3.7 (TÜİK, 2012). In this survey, the smallest household had only 1 member whereas the largest one had 9 persons. The proportion of the households with 4 people is 27.47 % and the proportion of the households with 5 people is 18.75%. The nuclear family is generally common in the settlements covered by the project. With the increase of urbanization, there is proportionate decrease in the extended families and a rise in the nuclear families in Turkey. Household size distribution is given in Table 12-3.

Table 12-3 Household Size

NUMBER OF PERSONS İN THE HOUSEHOLD N %

1 Person 87 4.24

2 Persons 362 17.63

3 Persons 360 17.54

4 Persons 564 27.47

5 Persons 385 18.75

6 Persons 186 9.06

7 Persons 91 4.43

9 Persons 18 0.88

TOTAL 2,053 100.00


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 - 9

İnter 10 - 19

İnter 20 - 29

İnter 30 - 39

İnter 40 - 49

İnter 50 - 59

İnter 60 - 69

İnter 70 and

above



12-9

Most of the members of households were primary school graduates (53.65%); secondary school graduates consisted of 16% percent but there were still some illiterate people in these villages (5.31%). While the percentage of graduates of high/vocational schools is 12.01%, this rate drops to 3.61% considering university graduates (Figure 12-4).

Most of the people living in the rural areas of Turkey are graduates of elementary schools. Women are at a disadvantage compared with men. Girls, particularly in rural areas, are not sent to schools due to various reasons. Although the number of the girls that attend schools has been on the increase in recent years, it cannot be considered as a major success. Even though the literacy rate of females has increased more than that of the males, the gap between genders still exists. Traditional values are still strong and families still do not want to send their daughters to the school, especially in rural areas. School age children living in peripheral villages have started to be transported to the schools of central towns and cities and this has resulted in disadvantage for the girls.

Figure 12-4 Educational Level


Most of the people interviewed have been living in the area for a long time. Of the people interviewed, around 49% stated that they have been living in this area since they were born, while 23.31% of the respondents stated that they have been living for more than 16 years. It is assumed that these people had information about the problems of villages/towns where they live.

Table 12-4 Number of Years in the Village/Town

N COLUMN %

Since he/she was born 317 48.62

1 - 5 years 38 5.83 6 - 10 years 80 12.27 11 - 15 years 65 9.97

More than 16 years 152 23.31

TOTAL 652 100.00


Illiterate

5% Literate but

did not

graduated

from any

schooll

11% Primary School

Graduate

52%

Secondary

School/Equival

ent Vocational

School

Graduate

16%

High

School/Equival

ent Vocational

School

Graduate

12%

University

Graduate

4%

Higher Level

0%



12-10

12.4.2 Migration

There is an outward population movement within the last 5 years. According to the information provided by headmen, a total of approximately 872 households left their original settlements in the last five years. The motives for this settlement include retirement and economic difficulties. There are 1811 households who have newly settled in within the last 5 years.

Table 12-5 In and Out Migration

Migrated household? In migration Out

migration TOTAL

GÜMÜŞDERE

ÇİFTALAN

KISIRKAYA

DEMİRCİ + 430 430

ALİBAHADIR + 100 100

IŞIKLI + 2 25 27

ODAYERİ

USKUMRU + 1,100 1,100

ANADOLU FENERİ + 30 50 80

GÖLLÜ + 2 2

BOZHANE

PAŞAMANDIRA + 20 20

HÜSEYİNLİ + 18 18

İSHAKLI + 6 6

NİŞANTEPE + 15 40 55

PAŞAKÖY + 20 75 95

ÇATALMEŞE + 500 250 750

GARİPÇE

RUMELİ FENERİ

TOPLAM 1,811 872 2,683

Source: SIA Settlement Questionnaire, 2013

12.4.3 Employment and Income

The survey also studied the number of people in each family who earn some income and contribute to household subsistence. In the study area, the person who makes a living, which is 53.1% of households, consists of only one person. 12% of the households have two such members (see Table 12-6). The survey results revealed that there was a significantly smaller share of households that had three or four employed individuals.



12-11

Table 12-6 Number of Employed People

N %

No person have regular income 205 31.4

1 person 346 53.1

2 person 78 12.0

3 person 16 2.5

4 people and more than 4 people 7 1.1

TOTAL 652 100.0


As widely-known, unemployment is one of the important issues throughout the country. In this study unemployed people are defined as follows: unemployed persons were not employed and had actively sought work during the last six months. 4.4% of the households interviewed stated that there was a person or there were people that looking for a job in their households.

Table 12-7 Unemployment Rate in the Project Area

N COLUMN %

Yes 29 4.4

No 623 95.6

TOTAL 652 100.0


A total of 44,2 % of the respondent stated that there was a retired person in their households.

Figure 12-5 Retired Persons in the households


Yes

44%

No

56%



12-12

The most important source of income in the area covered by the project is salaries of permanent jobs (77.7%), commerce (%9,66) and salaries/wages of temporary work (%6.2). Some of the households within the scope of the project make a living through agricultural production (%1.6).

Table12-7 Sources of Income

N %

Agricultural production 11 1.69

Wage / salary work continuously 507 77.76

Trade 63 9.66

Livestock 7 1.07

Rent 4 0.61

Wage / salary temporary jobs 41 6.29

Tourism 0 0.00

Help relatives 11 1.69

State aids (foundations, municipalities, etc.) 4 0.61

Other 4 0.61

TOTAL 652 100.00


The average monthly income of the study area is 1,888 TL. Income disparities among households are quite significant in the study area. For example, the highest average monthly income is 100.000 TL; while the lowest income is 300 TL in Sarıyer District.

Table 12-8 Average Monthly Income by District

DISTRICT Mean Maximum

Minimum

BEYKOZ 1,378 3,500 300

ÇEKMEKÖY 1,547 10,000 300

EYÜP 1,551 5,000 500

SANCAKTEPE 1,530 5,000 300

SARIYER 2,593 100,000 300

Total 1,888 100,000 300


There are not any households with income level below 250 TL. The proportion of the households with a level of income between 251-500 TL is 4.9%, and the proportion of the households with a level of income between 501-750 TL is 6.3%. The incomes of 30.1% of the households are between 1001-1500 TL.



12-13

Table 12-9 Monthly Income

N %

1 - 250 0 0.00

251 - 500 32 4.95

501 - 750 39 6.03

751 - 1000 167 25.81

1000 - 1500 195 30.14

1501 - 2000 97 14.99

2001 - 2500 41 6.34

2501 - 3000 34 5.26

3001 and above 42 6,49

TOTAL 647 100.00


66.41% of the households stated that their incomes met their expenses. The solutions provided by the respondents stating that their incomes did not meet their expenses can be summarized as follows: Finding a second job, reducing the expenses, getting help from the municipalities, getting help from the relatives or acquaintances.

Table 12-10 Income and Expenses

N %

Yes 433 66.41

No 219 33.59

TOTAL 652 100.00


42,02% of the households have debts. The reasons for these debts are:

low income (39.86%) purchasing household goods (18.2%) purchasing a house (14.13%)



12-14

Figure 12-6 Households’ Debt


While the amount of income of the households is important, local people's self-assessments should also be taken into consideration. When they compare themselves with others in the neighborhood, understanding how they evaluate their own households is important in terms of stratification. The proportion of those claiming that their status is better is 10%, while the proportion of those saying that it is worse is 16%.

74% of the households do not believe that they are in a different position in terms of income and think that they are similar to others.

Figure 12-7 Comparison of Income Level


Yes

42%

No

58%

Better than

them

10%

at the same

level with

them

74%

Worse than

them

16%



12-15

12.1.1 Agriculture and Animal Husbandry

2.9% of the households interviewed have land used for agricultural production. The average land size is 9.74 acres. 68.4% of the land used for agricultural production is owned by the state. In other words, they do not have the ownership of this land used for agricultural production.

Peppers, tomatoes, and eggplants are the major crops. These basic crops are sold at the market and also consumed by households.

Table 12-11 Agricultural Land

N %

Yes 19 2.9

No 633 97.1

TOTAL 652 100.0


Table 12-12 Status of Land Used for Agriculture

N %

State owned 13 68.4

Rented land 0 0.0

Public property 0 0.0

Used free of charge (belongs to a relative/friend etc.) 6 31.6

Other 0 0.0

TOTAL 19 100.0


The common character of all produce is their contribution for the subsistence needs of the households. When the crops are cultivated, part of it is kept for subsistence and the rest are sold at the market. None of the respondents stated that they sell their entire agricultural product at market.

Table 12-13 Agricultural Production

N %

Sell at market 0 0.0

Consume at home 9 47.4

Both sell and consume 10 52.6

TOTAL 19 100.0


Approximately 6.6 % of the households have animal stock. Animal stock of the households in the project area is composed of cattle, sheep, goat, and poultry. 34 households have 466 cattle and 17 households have a total of 207 sheep.



12-16

Table 12-14 Livestock Property

N %

Yes 43 6.6

No 609 93.4

TOTAL 652 100.0


Table12-15 Number of Animals

Households Total Number of

Animals

Cattle 34 466

Small Cattle 17 207

Poultry 17 669

Beehive 5 316

Load-carrying animals 1 2


All of the households with animals stated that they grazed their animals in the meadows or the grasslands near the place where they lived.

28.6% of the respondents stated that they consume their entire production in their households and 9.5 % of them sell the entire production. Most of the products obtain through the animal husbandry are both consumed in the households and sold at market (%61.9). Animal products contribute significantly to the subsistence food needs for these households.

Table 12-16 Animal Products

N %

Sell at market 4 9.5

Consume at home 12 28.6

Both sell and consume 26 61.9

TOTAL 42 100.0




12-17

12.4.5 Houses

86.4% of the households have live in houses made of concrete; 32% of the stone, and 9.9% in wooden houses (See Table 12-17). It can be said that reinforced concrete buildings dominate in these places 40.0% of the households have 3 rooms in their houses; 37% have 4 rooms. The dominant pattern is houses with 3 or 4 rooms.

Table 12-17 Types of Houses

N COLUMN %

Sun dried brick 27 4.1

Stone 17 2.6

Wood 26 4.0

Reinforced concrete 576 88.3

Other 6 0.9

TOTAL 652 100.0


53.5% of the households interviewed own the houses, and 17.5% live in rented houses. 11.7% of the respondents stated that the houses belong to a relative, and 12.7% stated that they own the houses; however, they also added that they did not the certificate of ownership.

Table12-18 Residential Property

N %

Own house 349 53.5

Deedless property 83 12.7

Rent 114 17.5

Belongs someone outside of the family

10 1.5

Belong to a relative 76 11.7

Other 20 3.1

TOTAL 652 100.0


Availability of some modern household equipment and appliances is an indicator of standard of living as well as tendency and openness to new attitudes and practices. Again, the majority of houses in the survey area had major electrical appliances.

In the great majority of the households, there is a refrigerator (99.1%), washing machine (97.7%), a vacuum cleaner (94.3%), and a satellite system (88.2%). The proportion of households with a dishwasher is relatively low (69.1%). It can be said that items such as refrigerators, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners are considered as the basic need and the majority of the households have these tools. 47.2% of households have a computer; the proportion of the households using the Internet is 39.3%.



12-18

Figure 12-8 Home Appliances and Goods


12.4.6 The Most Important Problems

Unemployment (45.4%) and low income (22.1%) are regarded as the most important problems in this area by the interviewees. It is reasonable that unemployment is considered the most important problem due to the high unemployment rate in Turkey.

Other important problems are the insufficient health services, poor transport and road conditions, and lack of sewage system.

Table 12-19 The Most Important Problem

Problem N %

Unemployment 296 45.4

Low income 144 22.1

Marketing problem 0 0.0

Low income from agricultural products 3 0.5

Poor roads, inadequate access 91 14.0

Inadequate health care 48 7.4

Inadequate drinking water 4 0.6

Insufficient irrigation water 0 0.0

Inadequate energy supply 3 0.5

Lack of sewage 21 3.2

Unhealthy housing 8 1.2

Tourism-related issues 1 0.2

Lack of educational opportunities 2 0.3

Inadequate waste disposal 16 2.5

Other 15 2.3 TOTAL 652 100.0


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Refrigerator

Washing machine

Dishwasher

Telephone

Computer

Vacuum cleaner

Satellite

Internet access

Yes

No



12-19

12.4.7 Health

56% of the respondents answered positive to the question of whether anyone in their household had seen a doctor in the last 6 months.

There is a person that needs constant treatment in 57.5% of the household. Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children, while diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease are suffered by adults. 73.8% of the respondents stated that they could not solve their health problems in the area where they lived and therefore had to go to a larger town.

87.6% of the households have health insurance. The majority of households depend on Social Security Institution (SSI). 8 households have a green card – a green card is a document that allows people who are in need of help and without health insurance to benefit from free health services in Turkey in accordance with the Law No. 3816.

Figure 12-9 Health Insurance


12.4.8 Infrastructure and Community Services

In the last few decades there has been a strong push to improve infrastructure in Turkey. The electricity network has been expanded, roads have been upgraded for all-season access and there has been widespread investment in telecommunication networks.

The findings of the household and settlement surveys suggest that energy and water facilities are comparatively more available and of a better quality than sanitary facilities (sewerage, toilet) in the surveyed settlements. All settlements have electricity and drinking water. Six surveyed settlements do not have access to a public sewerage system. These headmen stated that the sewerage system is poor and required upgrading at both the community and household levels. Settlements in Paşamandıra has a lower provision of infrastructure (particularly in terms of insufficient and water sewerage system) (see Table below). All settlements have telephone connection and are located inside the GSM operating areas.

88%

12%

Yes No



12-20

Table 12-20 Infrastructure in the Settlements

Drinking water Sewage system

GÜMÜŞDERE + +

ÇİFTALAN + -

KISIRKAYA + +

DEMİRCİ + -

ALİBAHADIR + +

IŞIKLI + +

ODAYERİ + -

USKUMRU + but insufficient +

ANADOLU FENERİ + +

GÖLLÜ + +

BOZHANE + -

PAŞAMANDIRA + but insufficient -

HÜSEYİNLİ + but insufficient +

İSHAKLI + +

NİŞANTEPE + +

PAŞAKÖY + but insufficient +

ÇATALMEŞE + but insufficient +

GARİPÇE + -

RUMELİ FENERİ + + Source: SIA Household Questionnaire, 2013

Eight of the surveyed villages have a medical centre (See Table 12-21). Although there is a health centre in these villages, these centres do not provide enough health care for patients. Insufficiency of health centres and personnel are the main problems.

Table12-22 Health Center in the Settlements

Health Center

Personnel 1

Personnel 2

Personnel 3

Personnel 4

Personnel 5

GÜMÜŞDERE Health house Doctor Nurse Midwife Health officer Specialist

ÇİFTALAN

KISIRKAYA

DEMİRCİ

ALİBAHADIR Health center Doctor Nurse

IŞIKLI

ODAYERİ

USKUMRU Health center Doctor Nurse Midwife Health officer

ANADOLU FENERİ Health center Doctor Other

GÖLLÜ

BOZHANE



12-21

Health Center

Personnel 1

Personnel 2

Personnel 3

Personnel 4

Personnel 5

PAŞAMANDIRA

HÜSEYİNLİ

İSHAKLI Health center Doctor Nurse

NİŞANTEPE Health center Doctor Nurse

PAŞAKÖY

ÇATALMEŞE

GARİPÇE Health cabinet Doctor

RUMELİ FENERİ Health center Doctor Nurse


There are 15 primary schools in the project area. ―Condition of the schools‖ and ―inadequate number of classrooms and teacher‖ are the main problems of schools in the project area. It is important to note that primary education is compulsory in Turkey and most villages have had one primary school for a long period of time. However, very few primary school graduates could continue their education in secondary schools, mainly due to the lack of these schools in the villages and their long distance from such villages.

17 settlements have a grocery store and only one settlement has a post office. All of the settlements have at least one mosque.

Table 12-23 School and Other Services

School Grocery store Bank Post Office

ALİBAHADIR + +

ANADOLU FENERİ + +

BOZHANE + +

ÇATALMEŞE + +

+

ÇİFTALAN

DEMİRCİ + +

GARİPÇE

+

GÖLLÜ

GÜMÜŞDERE + +

HÜSEYİNLİ + +

IŞIKLI + +

İSHAKLI + +

KISIRKAYA + +

NİŞANTEPE + +

ODAYERİ

+

PAŞAKÖY + +

PAŞAMANDIRA + +

RUMELİ FENERİ + +

USKUMRU + +

TOTAL 15 17 0 1




12-22

12.4.9 Opinions About the Project

97% of the people respondents had heard about the project. Of the households that had heard about the project, 39% stated that they were informed of the project by their friends or relatives, while 56.7% were informed by the media.

Table 12-24 Heard About the Project

N %

Yes 632 96.9

No 20 3.1

TOTAL 652 100.0


Table 12-25 Source of Information about the Project

N %

Friends / immediate surroundings 250 39.6

Newspapers / media 371 58.7

Government officials 6 0.9

Headman 3 0.5

Company officer 0 0.0

Other 2 0.3

TOTAL 632 100.0


The proportion of those responding yes to the question of ―Do you know that this project is close to the area where you live?‖ was that 91.3%. 94.5% of them stated that they were not provided with any information related to the project. During the field research, respondents state that their information sources are very limited and irregular. Providing information for the villagers have major role.



12-23

Figure 12-10 Project is Close to the Your Area


Table12-26 Provided Information about the Issue

N %

Did not inform anyone 616 94.5

Informed by village headmen 23 3.5

Government officials 7 1.1

Project workers 3 0.5

Other 3 0.5

TOTAL 652 100.0


84.7% of the respondents support the Project to be started in the area where they live. Many agree that the Project is important and will bring important economic benefits to their area.

Yes

91%

No

9%



12-24

Table 12-11 Support the Project


The people interviewed believe that the project will help resolve the transportation problem in İstanbul (33.1%). 33.1% respondents believe that the project would provide no direct benefit for them but would be useful for our country (see Table 12-27).

Table 12-27 Positive Effects of the Project

N %

It helps country’s development 503 33.1

Job opportunities 354 23.3

Solve the transportation problem in Istanbul 510 33.5

I have no idea 60 3.9

Our land are valued 91 6.0

Other 3 0.2

TOTAL 1,521 100.0


According to the households, pollution (21.3%), the degradation of the natural environment (14.85) and dust (10.1%) are the most important adverse effects of the Project (see Table 12-28). It is necessary to inform the local people of what positive and negative effects of the project will be and how to cope with or minimize these effects.

Yes

85%

No

15%



12-25

Table12-28 Negative Effects of the Project

N %

Pollution can be 226 21.3

Deteriorated Roads 100 9.4

Dust 107 10.1

Increased traffic jam 77 7.3

Security 49 4.6

Degradation of natural environment 157 14.8

Negative effect on agricultural products and land 24 2.3

No Idea 75 7.1

I don’t think that there will be a problem 246 23.2

Other 1 0.1

TOTAL 1,062 100.0


The Third Bosphorus Bridge and Connected Motorways Project has brought about various arguments. The related parties—local people, government institutions which have decided on the construction of the Project and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have different viewpoints and demands. It is obvious that this will bring about new discussions and conflicts about the Project.

The Project is designed to relieve serious congestion in Istanbul, home to more than 15 million people. The Government Authority claims that the third Bosphorus Bridge will be constructed for solving the problems of in-city traffic and public mass transportation. Planned since the 1990’s, the bridge is expected to usher in new urban development north of İstanbul, and relieve traffic congestion from the Bosphorus and Fatih Sultan Mehmet bridges.

However, the Project has been questioned by national environmental and social NGOs for its potentially serious long-term impacts on the forest and natural environment. Turkish concerned NGOs have expressed their opposition to the Project. 52 NGOs come together under ―Platform for Life Instead of 3. Bosphorus Bridge‖ and expressed their opposition to the Project. The platform gave a letter to the members of UNESCO-ICOMOS WHC on May 10th, 2008 at Sarıyer and 52 member civil societies and organizations of the "Platform For Life Instead of 3. Bosphorus Bridge" signed the letter (See Annex 2).

The common characteristics of those against the Project can be listed as the protection of nature history, and culture and taking responsibility for the future. For instance, the following ideas were presented in the "press release issued to the Turkish and International Media on May 10th, 2008 at Sariyer - Bosphorus, Istanbul".

―To protect our forests, our water resources, our atmosphere, Our lands, our districts, our past, our Bosphorus. We call all the people of Istanbul, of Turkey and of the World to join our campaign Against the third bridge across the Bosphorus which is endangering our lives. Not the Bridge but human life!‖



12-26

Although the third bridge is expected to relieve traffic congestion, some NGOs claim that the third bridge will likely increase traffic. They believe that the third bridge would, as it is with the previous two bridges, not solve the traffic problems of Istanbul, but instead that it would just produce new unsolvable problems. For example, Yıldız Uysal, head of the urbanization and planning committee of the Chamber of Architects of Turkey, dismissed claims that a third Bosporus bridge will solve İstanbul’s traffic congestion problems, which makes life very difficult for the 13 million residents of the city (Today’s Zaman, 2011).

It is claimed that the Project will pose a tremendous threat to the city’s forests and natural resources. Environmental activists argue that several animal and plant species native to the region would be wiped out, and water reservoirs supplying the city would be at risk of drying out or become too contaminated to use. Additionally, the highway and the third bridge would lead to the rapid acceleration of urban sprawl, and migration to Istanbul would increase substantially, negatively impacting on the social fabric of the city (Guardian, 2012).

The Turkish Environmental and Woodlands Protection Society (TÜRÇEK) chairman, Associate Professor Barbaros Gönençgil from İstanbul University’s geography department, fears that a third bridge over the Bosporus will greatly damage the city’s ecosystem and rich flora that have resulted from the dual climates (Mediterranean and Black Sea) afforded by its location (Today’s Zaman, 2011).

As discussed above, Environmental organizations, urban planners and many İstanbul residents have voiced serious concerns about the construction of a third bridge over the Bosporus. They claim that project will damage the city's remaining green areas, make the city's traffic even worse and lead to a boom in the city's already dense population.

According to Doğa Derneği (Nature Association) General Manager Engin Yılmaz state authorities need to ask themselves how much more they want Istanbul and its population to expand. He said that ―we believe that even a single nail should not be hammered in İstanbul from now on and every nail hammered is treason to this city.‖ He told that Istanbul’s traffic problem cannot be resolved through construction of new bridges.

The Turkish Foundation for Reforestation, Protection of Natural Habitats and Combating Soil Erosion (TEMA) also voiced its criticisms about the construction of the third bridge. The representative of TEMA expressed their ideas as follows: ―As TEMA, we see the issue of the third bridge not as an issue to do with Istanbul’s traffic problem but about how we dream of Turkey in the future. With rapid transformation projects, Istanbul is fighting against very serious urban problems. Unplanned development leads to the destruction of water basins, which are the life-support systems of the city, agricultural fields, forests and meadows. It should not be forgotten that the third bridge, whose foundation has been laid, will mean more carbon emission, deforestation and less carbon sequestration.‖

Çare Olgun Çalışkan, from the İstanbul office of the Chamber of Urban Planners -- part of the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB) -- told that the route of the third bridge, which is on the northern side of Istanbul, is a major problem in itself and runs contrary to the 1/100,000 scale Istanbul Provincial Environmental Plan and the 1/25.000 scale İstanbul Master Development Plan.

Source: Fatma Dişli Zıbak, 2013, “Third Bridge A Threat To Istanbul’s Future, Say Environmental Bodies”, Today’s Zaman, 29 May

2013.



12-27

12.4.10 Vulnerable People

The various groups are considered vulnerable due to their ability to cope with and participate in decision making with regards to the Project. In this SIA study, the elderly, single mothers, female heads of households, and the poor are considered the most vulnerable in the project area. These groups also include the disabled, widows, the unemployed people, and the terminally ill. The information was obtained through the implementation of household questionnaires. The ratio of vulnerable households is given Table 12-29.

Table12-29 Vulnerable Households

Vulnerability Number of Households Percentage

Female Headed Household 71 10.9

Elderly Household

(65 years old and +) 44 6.7

Poor Household (monthly income is less than 500 TL)

11 1.7


12.4.11 ICA’s Labour and Working Conditions

Recruitment Policy

ICA’s Recruitment policy in set out in the ―Recruitment Procedure‖. Project based recruitment is created according to the employee requests in the beginning of the projects to be reviewed on an annual and three-monthly basis. In addition, short term (unforeseen & temporal) requirements are inserted into the plan As necessary. Possible candidates for a vacant position are determined in accordance with the resources below respectively:

1. Internal Resources (Completed projects’ teams, ICA & İçtaş & Astaldi personnel) 2. Former Interns, Employees and Scholarship Holders 3. CV Database (Job applications made, recommended candidates, position based shortlists) 4. Outsources (relevant portals, social media, headhunters, print media)

The assessment process of the candidates focuses on the interviews’ outputs. Depending on the position requirements and title level, a variety of assessment tests can be used for the candidates.

Worker Grievance Mechanisms

ICA’s Grievance Mechanism is defined and clarified in the relevant corporate documents (Employee Handbook, HS & Environment Handbook) and workers are encouraged to express themselves through the responsible departments’ (Health & Safety, Environment & Sustainability, Human Resources, Quality Assurance, Corporate Communications). Meetings and trainings continually and are supported by an open door policy. Most grievance consultation decisions are responded to promptly.

Training is planned yearly based regarding to the demands, results of the training needs analysis and standards to be observed. Corporate and departmental (Environment, Health & Safety, Quality



12-28

Assurance, Quality Control, Project Control, Human Resources) trainings are scheduled and budgeted for 2013 & 2014 as shown in Table 12-29 below:

Table 12-29 ICA Employee Training 2012-2014

Dept. # of Training # of Session Person x Hour

HS 43 270 309,780

Environment 10 36 7,200

QA 16 53 10,080

QC 2 4 480

HR 25 25 1,976

Project Control 90 180 6,020

Child Labour, Forced Labour and Non-Employee Workers

Based on the requirements of IFC PS2, ICA is subject to the relevant Turkish Laws (Law of Social Insurance, Labor Law) and carries these requirements into practice.

12.5 Potential Impacts of the Project

The potential social impacts of the Project are diverse. The positive impacts of the project contribute to the national economy, and extend in time for many years. However, there are some negative social impacts as well. Therefore, it is important to understand the meaning of social impact and what kind of impact will be experienced by local communities in the project area.

This section of the report provides social impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project. Although the project area is not homogenous in terms of social and economic conditions, majority of impacts might be applied the whole Project area. However, there are some site specific impacts that need to be analyzed differently. In this report site-specific potential impacts cannot be analyzed deeply because necessary data are not available for the research team.

12.5.1 Construction Phase

Demographic Impacts

It is considered that construction or operation of the project may affect the demographic structure of local communities. Indirectly results of the development activities might affect population growth. It is predicted that the following demographic processes will take place:

In-migration: People from other areas will move to the area in search of new opportunities.

Presence of temporary workers: There will be a short-term influx of construction workers during the construction phase of the project. Another important factor to consider is that in Turkey, with its high levels of unemployment, any new project will lead to an influx of people to the area. It is therefore most likely that the area will experience an influx of people looking for jobs and new opportunities.



12-29

Young population: Especially population at working age, can become much easily part of any potential population movement. In brief, the need for unskilled or semi-skilled labor force increases the possibility of employment, and thus, leads to in-migration.

Increase in population: Due to the arrival of workers from outside near to the settlements close to major and minor camp sites, total population in these settlements will increase, even temporarily.

Change in population structure in favor of male ratio: This is the potential increase in male population as a result of in-migration for seeking a job. It is assumed that male immigration will be temporary.

Positive Impacts

Employment opportunities: The work will be a source of manual labour employment for the nearby area. This should be particularly helpful to unskilled persons as at least some of them should be able to find work.

Diversification of economic activities: The construction phase also will stimulate the economic activity of the adjacent communities near the highway and the services that these communities provide.

Negative Impacts

Change in population structure in favor of male ratio: This impact is evaluated as negative on the local community because it may bring about an adverse cultural impact on rural women’s daily life. That is to say, social integration of new male comers who are young and single with local communities might lead to increase in oppression of the family or community over women.

Economic Impacts

Impacts on Employment: It is currently estimated that approximately 7200-7500 people will be employed during peak construction periods (approximately 3 years from 2013 to 2016) for the construction of the Project and in management of the construction camps and sites. The Project is likely to require around 300 support staff and engineers and 1500 unskilled workers. This includes a combination of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

Approximately 1000 or 500 workers will be employed at the potential construction camps at peak periods in the bridge and motorway construction process. Estimated employment opportunities in the construction camps are given in Table 12-30: Likely start and end dates for each section are currently not known.

Table 12-30. Estimated Employment Numbers Construction camps Workers

Odayeri 1,000

Garipçe 1,000

Poyraz 500

Hüseyinli 500

TOTAL 3,000

Unskilled workers will probably be hired for shorter periods as construction passes through their area. It is currently estimated that local people should be able to fill a proportion of these jobs. This will be dependent upon whether a suitable number of local people are found to possess the necessary skills for certain jobs.



12-30

Positive impacts

Provide job opportunities for many people

Negative impacts

There are a number of potential negative impacts related with the employment of local people during the construction period. These potential impacts can be summarized as follows;

Other family members such as children and women may take over work (especially agricultural work) during the construction period. Another important negative impact is related with wage levels that could potentially be pushed up where there is a shortage of labor, making for example the contracting of seasonal cultivators too expensive for local landowners.

Impacts on Business Opportunities, Trade and Accommodation: The project will provide direct service opportunities for companies at the national and regional level, and also to some extent for communities along the route.

The types of local contracts that are anticipated during construction and operation phase are shown in Table 12-31 below. A large proportion of these services are most appropriate for the construction camps. In addition there will be secondary employment and local development of small supporting businesses.

Table 12-31 Goods and Services with Potential to be Procured Locally

Business Opportunities Goods and Services

Communication Telephone, satellite, internet, cable TV. Accommodation and related services

Apartments, hotels, motels, restaurants, dry-cleaning, taxi, laundry.

Construction Building trades, building materials and services, crane services, heating, ventilation, on-site safety services.

Fuel and fuel storage Diesel, gasoline, grease, lubricate oil, anti-freeze and chemicals. Logistic Safety equipment, materials management, freight transport,

vehicle sales, rentals, repairs and service. Office Janitorial service, Office supplies, furniture, computers and other

equipments, accounting, bookkeeping, banking services. Remote site services Camps, camp catering, camp supplies, retail and wholesale

grocery supply, water delivery, sewage treatment, snow removal and garbage disposal, security services.

Safety and medical Emergency, medical facilities, ambulance, dentistry, optometry and prescription of drugs, occupational health services. Source: Adapted from Imperial Oil (2004)

The proposed construction period would result in significant short-term construction employment. This would result in a significant increase in the demand for workforce accommodation. Various forms will be possible including rental of existing vacant housing in provinces, districts or villages. Hotel/motel accommodation would be highly desirable; with occupancy levels likely to significantly increase, particularly in off season/winter months.



12-31

It is expected that with such short-term employment there would be investment in additional restaurant/bar/entertainment facilities.

Moreover, during construction, the impact of construction salaries on the local area economy is expected to be significant. Expenditures on food, entertainment, clothes, health services, motor vehicles, air travel would generate significant additional retailing and services income, employment and investment stimulus.

Positive impacts

Diversification of economic activities.

Negative impacts

The major negative impacts would be associated with accommodating the construction workforce, particularly, the impact of the increased demand on housing availability and rentals in the region, which would be expected to rise. This would affect low-income households most significantly.

Impact on House and Land Values: While a review of the likely impacts of the highway project on house land prices in the area indicated that there may be a change in sale prices or ―salability‖ of land, this factor represents a capital item, which it was not possible to quantify. Thus, this possible impact was not incorporated into the impact analysis. However, it is possible to say that impact on local house prices and land prices in the area of influence of the project are expected to be positive (increase).

Land Expropriation: It is known that the project requires temporary and permanent acquisition of lands. Permanent loss includes the transfer of legal title from the original owners to the Project. The landowners cannot use the lands, that is, a lifetime of permanent restriction in land use. Based on the existing information, permanent acquisition of lands and houses will be required for the project. The Table 12-32 show the amount expropriated land and type required for the Project.

Table 12-32 Type and Amount of Land

Type of land Amount of expropriated area (m2) %

Private real estate 2,422,268.96 7.18%

Corporate real estate 145,922.58 0.43%

Disputed land 79,391.17 0.24%

2B land 174,557.43 0.52%

Forest area 26,725,744.25 79.21%

Treasury 3,015,727.20 8.94%

Parking areas 1,176,668.85 3.49%

Total 33,740,280.45 100.00%



12-32

When the existing social and economic conditions of the people living in the project area are taken into consideration, the land use is very important for the households. The Social Baseline Assessment Report shows that approximately 73% of respondents use state owned lands for agricultural production. It is important to note that often these respondents do not have an official title deed.

It is possible to say that there will be unavoidable disruption due to the use of agricultural land. Since some of the residents rely on the land for subsistence, their educational level is low and there is generally high level of unemployment rate in Turkey, temporary or permanent loss of the agricultural land may cause major potential impacts on the villagers.

Some plots in all settlements/villages will be affected but certain areas are impacted significantly more than others. The number of affected people and the number of affected plots vary from settlement to settlement. Detail data are needed about the distribution in number of affected plots across all involved settlements. Some settlements may have high number of affected plots while there are some settlements with relatively fewer plots affected. The number of owners who will have to be compensated per plot should be taken into consideration.

In some situations more than one person may use the same plots. In other words, the number of owners is not identical with the number of households. Particularly in rural areas several person may have title deeds for the same plot. Based on the existing data it is not possible to give exact numbers of the affected plots. The Project’s impacts on plots owned by single persons will be greater in terms of lost income per owner. In addition, the impacts of the Project on multiple owners may be less in income lost but will also be less in individual compensation received.

Detail analyze is necessary about the following points:

Project Affected Plots and Owners Project Impacts on Types of Land: Publicly Owned Lands and Private Ownership Number of Privately Owned Plots by settlements

The status of women should be taken into consideration. Although women and men have equal rights to land under civil law, women cannot use their right because of traditional values and norms. In this reason the percentage of women land owner will be smaller.

Other land related impacts can be summarized as follows:

Land Affected by Construction Camps Lands for construction camps will not be expropriated; rather, they will be rented from landowners. Agreement on compensation will be reached with landowners through negotiations

Impacts on Grazing Land and Pasture: There may be some impacts on State or community owned pastures and privately owned grazing lands. There will be disruption to livestock activity during construction and potentially causes loss of income.

Impacts on Irrigation Systems: Some irrigation canals or system can be affected by the construction of the Project.

Loss of Trees / Perennial Crops: The project may have some impacts on trees/perennial crop. Loss of Annual / Seasonal Crops: Most of the private land subject to expropriation for the Project

is under cultivation. Crop production will be interrupted. Injury to Livestock: The construction of the Project may potentially cause injury to livestock due to

livestock falling into trenches, being injured by vehicles or eating dangerous wastes. Impacts on Forestland: The project has some impacts on forestland (see Environmental Impacts

Assessment).



12-33

Negative impacts

The main impacts of the Project related to land use can be categorized as follows:

Loss of land for agricultural cultivation; Loss of grazing and pasture land; Reduced livelihoods or productivity loses; Loss of forest and, Reduced access to pastures and forests.

Disruption of Local Infrastructure and Private Property: Based on the existing information, private houses and commercial infrastructure will be impacted by the construction of the bridge and highway. However, there is not data about this issue. The type and number of building will be affected by the Project are given in Table 12-33. It should be important to note that the number of buildings is based on a preliminary GIS assessment of a 500 m corridor. These numbers and places will need to be confirmed.

Table 12-33 Affected Buildings

Building Number

Barn 7

Mosque 1

Factory 2

Ramshackle building 7

Building/houses in construction phase 288

Houses 3,749

Green house 1

Commercial buildings 18

Porch 23



12-34

The Figure 12-12 Locations of Affected Buildings

Detail analysis is necessary about the following points:

Project affected houses and buildings Types of building: publicly owned lands and private ownership Number of privately owned houses

Positive impacts

The project will require the construction of new infrastructure and may require the enhancement of some existing infrastructure. Improvement to infrastructure, either temporary or permanent, will be beneficial for local communities.

Negative impacts

Disruption of Local Infrastructure and private property

Community Relations: Socio-cultural processes are those that affect the culture of a society, that is, all aspects of the way that people live together. Some factors influence the daily life of the individuals and families, including attitudes, perceptions, family characteristics and friendship networks. These changes range from attitudes toward the policy to an alteration in family and friendship networks to perceptions of risk, health, and safety.

Legend

Barn

Mosque

Factory Vegetable Glasshouse Commercial

Sphere Influence (500 m.) Bridge & C. Motorways



12-35

There may be tensions/disputes between local resident and workers. The main reasons for tension are impacts of project activities, damage land/property, different cultural values, use of alcohol, gambling, communicable diseases, etc. It is obvious that good relations with local residents are essential to the success of the project during both construction and operational phases. Therefore, the construction company will try to establish good relations with local residents and avoid any disputes between project Contractors and local residents. The residents in settlement close to these camps expect additional project benefits.

In the project area, main and temporary camps will be used to meet the requirements of the Project. Some of these camps will be operational throughout the construction period and will be used to house for non-local workers.

Positive impacts

The construction camp will stimulate the economic activities.

Negative impacts

There may be tension/dispute between local resident and workers. Difference in socio-cultural values may be source of conflict.

Community Safety: During the construction phase, the project could affect amenity and lifestyle including air quality (i.e. dust, plant and vehicle pollutants), noise (on-site from plant and vehicles and off-site from vehicles), aesthetics or increases in traffic levels. Particularly children and livestock will be under risk and special consideration should be given to children and animals. At the same time open trenches and other excavations, structures or activities may causes accidents.

Existing management and safety practices will be implemented during the construction and operation of the project. Community or passenger safety would not be affected by the construction phase of the project.

During the construction phase, the project could affect amenity and lifestyle including air quality (i.e. dust, plant and vehicle pollutants), noise (on-site from plant and vehicles and off-site from vehicles), aesthetics or increases in traffic levels.

Existing management and safety practices will be implemented during the construction and operation of the project. Community or passenger safety would not be affected by the construction phase of the project.

Negative impacts

Noise and dust: Emissions of dust and polluting particles are generally characterized as environmental impacts, but they have a social component too. Generation of excessive noise also has both an environmental and a social aspect. Environmental impact assessment may provide detail information about these impacts.

Safety risk to people and livestock An increase in traffic.

Resettlement: There is no data about this issue.



12-36

12.5.2 Permanent and Operational Impact

Impacts on North of Istanbul: It is expected that this impact will be revealed as a result of uncontrolled in-migration movement to the project region. This is a significant but, negative impact for the region in case of a potential lack of controlling mechanism and a settlement plan for the new comers. Therefore, impact of any unplanned settlement will last a long time and may be permanent. The master plan has not to let the city grow into the northern areas. However, it may be impossible to apply the master plan following the construction of the Project.

With the construction of the third Bosphorus Bridge between Garipçe and Poyrazköy, the metropolis may find itself at risk of spilling over its borders and sprawling northbound into forest lands. The UCTEA Chamber of Urban Planners’ Report on the 3rd Bridge Project (2010) claims that the project could push the metropolis over the edge and send it sprawling into forested areas. The Report indicates that ―The third bridge, which is planned to be erected on the North boundaries of Istanbul, threatens the only natural areas left in the city. These ecological areas at the north of the city will be deeply influenced by the urban sprawl and eventually the city residential areas will shift to the northern [Black] Sea shoreline.‖ The construction of the 3rd Bridge may cause unplanned urbanization and the development of the city will sprawl northbound into the forest areas.

In general, transportation systems have two important effects: they can improve the public’s access to many forms of opportunity, but they can also result in problems related to greater traffic levels within or near a corridor area.

Positive Impacts

Improved traffic flow and improved local economy. Fuel savings for users of the improved road due to less congestion and travel times.

Negative Impacts

Unplanned urbanization; An increase in the speed of the vehicles on the highway; The increase of exhaust emissions as traffic increases, with adverse consequences on the

respiratory health of the population; Increased noise levels as a result of the increase in speed of the vehicles.

Demographic Impact: It is considered that construction or operation of the project may affect the demographic structure of local communities. Based on the previous experience of the first and second bridges, it is estimated that such growth will not involve the continuation of pre-existing trends. It is predicted that the following demographic processes may take place:

The population of settlements in the Project area or in the vicinity of the new roads and/or the bridge may expand substantially.

The spread towards the north of Istanbul may cause environmental degradation (forests, water basins and agriculture areas) in north of Istanbul.

Economic Impacts: The number of workers during operation will be very limited. Operational activities of the Project will be limited to activities related to inspection and maintenance of the road and bridge.

The project may generate some local business opportunities. There will be important spin-offs as demand rises for support industries and services. The major long-term impact will be felt through what is known as



12-37

the multiplier effect. As more jobs are created, as more money is invested, new businesses and services open up.

12.6 Residual Impacts

The Project may have a negative influence on the north part of the city and project may have a significant negative impact on the protected natural environment and landscape. The potential negative impacts of the Project on the natural environment and urbanization process were evaluated. At the SIA level it would not be possible to eliminate these potential negative effects completely.

12.7 Mitigation

The assessment tries to understand and minimize the negative impacts of the project and necessary mitigation measures will be taken into consideration. The purpose of adopting and/or employing mitigation measures is to remove, minimize and/or compensate for adverse effects to a reasonably feasible extent. Table 12-34 shows the suggested mitigation measures:

Table 12-34 Mitigation Measures

SOCIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES

Employment

Construction Phase

Job opportunities

Recruitment / hiring of workers from the Project area by applying local and national recruitment policy with the contractor:

How contractor will implement the job advertising and recruitment which is including;

o Plan to advertise jobs in local newspapers o Consultation local employment authorities / agencies

Methods by which information on local jobs needed, skills, application timing and locations are made available to communities and dissemination of information to local communities.

Transparency of recruitment / hiring procedure: Interactions with local employment authorities to develop / create

transparent lists of suitable qualified individuals from communities most affected by the project.

Management of job expectations at both local and national levels: Process to be used to ensure that clear and specific details of the

estimated number and duration of employment opportunities to Government, media, and other interested parties prior to and during the construction process.

Labour issues All contractors will comply with relevant requirements of the

International Labour Organization. The Contractor shall develop and implement a grievance mechanism for workers.



12-38


Construction phase

Business opportunities The contractor is required to identify and pursue opportunities to procure of goods and services from the region

Methods by which information on local goods/services needed, timing and locations be made available to communities for dissemination.

Expropriation of Land and Houses

Construction Phase

Expropriation of private property (land, trees, houses, etc.)

Preparation of detail Land Acquisition and Resettlement Plan.

Where acquisition cannot be avoided, carry out land acquisition and resettlement in accordance with the laws and regulations of Turkey and World Bank/International Finance Corporation.

Compensate in accordance with the compensation norms set out in the legislation and regulations of Turkey.

Pay special attention to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups including those without formal title to land

Monitor the full and effective implementation of the Resettlement Action Plan.

Compensation will be paid for temporary acquisition of land.

Owners/users will be compensated based on the discounted net income of temporarily acquired land.

Loss of Trees / Perennial Crops

For the duration of construction, payments will be made for these lands based on their discounted net income.

Loss of Annual / Seasonal Crops

Affected farmers will be compensated for the duration of construction (approximately 1 year) plus an additional year to allow for the proper reinstatement of land.

Injury to Livestock Compensation for loss

Operation Phase

Land Use

Inspection and maintenance activities

Awareness of safety issues for settlements



12-39


Impact on Community Relations

Construction Phase

Tension/dispute between local resident and workers

Provide regular information on the progress of the project and works,

Manage any disputes between the Contractors and local residents

Respect for local people and customs

An alcohol and drug policy

Zero tolerance of illegal activities by construction personnel

Cultural awareness training

Problems with community relations

Developing a Community Relation Program

Safety and Risk

Construction Phase

Temporary increases in traffic flows

The Contractor shall develop a Road Safety Management Plan. This plan shall include provision for education and awareness training for the workforce in relation to traffic/road safety

The road must meet appropriate safety standards required by Turkish legislation, where appropriate the standards given in the IFC Guidelines for Toll Roads, particularly in relation to:

o Installation and maintenance of signs, signals, markings and other devices used to regulate traffic.

o The setting of speed limits appropriate to the road and traffic conditions.

o Maintenance of the road to prevent mechanical failure of vehicles due to road conditions.

o The use of real time warning systems with signage to warn drivers of congestion, accidents, adverse weather or road conditions.

Open trench No access to open trench area for non-authorized personnel.

Impact on Safety Risk for Local Community

Operation Phase

Temporary increases in traffic flows

Provide information about the traffic flow for local residents



12-40

12.8 Summary

Table 12-35 Social Impacts Summary

Impact

Assessment

Definition

Construction phase

Minor

adverse

In-migration and presence of temporary workers in the project area: There may be tension/dispute between local resident and workers. Difference in socio-cultural values may be source of conflict.

Negligible

Change in population structure in favour of male ratio: This impact is evaluated as negative on the local community because it may bring about an adverse cultural impact on rural women’s daily life.

Moderate

beneficial

Employment opportunities: The work will be a source of manual labour employment for the nearby area. This should be particularly helpful to unskilled persons as at least some of them should be able to find work.

Diversification of economic activities: The construction phase also will stimulate the economic activity of the adjacent communities near the highway and the services that these communities provide.

High adverse

Land expropriation: the project requires temporary and permanent acquisition of lands including forest areas, private forests, 2B areas and agricultural areas. Some plots in all settlements/villages will be affected but certain areas are impacted significantly more than others. Total 33.740.280,45 m2 land will be required for the Project.

High adverse

Disruption of local infrastructure and private property: Private houses and commercial infrastructure will be impacted by the construction of the bridge and highway. However, the exact numbers of these houses and commercial building is not known by public.

Minor

adverse

Community safety: heavy traffic and dust, noise in the Project area.

Operation phase

Major

adverse

Impacts on North of Istanbul: The metropolis may find itself at risk of spilling over its borders and sprawling northbound into forest lands. These ecological areas at the north of the city may be influenced by the urban sprawl.

High adverse

Uncontrolled in-migration: It is expected this impact to be revealed as a result of uncontrolled in-migration movement to the project region. This is significant but, negative impact for the region in case of a potential lack of controlling mechanism and a settlement plan for the new comers.

High

beneficial

Improved traffic flow and improved local economy.

Moderate

adverse

An increase in the speed of the vehicles on the highway and the increase of exhaust emissions as traffic increases, with adverse consequences on the respiratory health of the population in the project area.



12-41

The ESIA identified the potential social impacts associated with the construction and the operation of the proposed Project. The social impact assessment (SIA) determined whether the proposed project has positive or adverse effects on individuals, households and institutions. It also explored the unintended consequences, whether positive or negative on the local people. The key objectives of the SIA were to:

Identify existing social and economic condition of the households around the project area; Identify and assess potential project-related social impacts across the whole operational life

cycle, from exploration through to decommissioning phases; Describe, where appropriate, the general mitigation measures that have been incorporated into

the Project.

A settlement questionnaire was issued villages to gather background information was gathered through discussion with headmen. These surveys mainly served for gathering information on the settlement as a whole.

In addition, a household survey interview with households in the project area was conducted. The survey used the face-to-face interview method. The survey involved a formal visit to families and individual interviews with the adult member of the family using a standard questionnaire. The survey focused on a number of specific issues, including the main sources of livelihood, problems in the project area and attitudes towards the proposed project. The study was comprised four phases: pre-field studies, field implementation, coding and data entry, and data analysis.

Secondary data sources were mainly based on government records including the population census and other relevant records of governmental institutions. Other, secondary, sources that were used included: geographical data (including maps), local government statistics, documentation from non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations and newspaper reports.

The study found that the Project may have a negative influence on the north part of the city. and project may have a significant negative impact on the protected natural environment and landscape. The potential negative impacts of the Project on the natural environment and urbanization process were evaluated. At the SIA level, it was considered that it would not be possible to eliminate these potential negative effects completely.

Significant adverse impacts during construction will relate to land expropriation issues and disruption of local resources and infrastructure. Beneficial impacts included employment opportunities and diversification of economic activities in the region.

Significant adverse impacts during operation included: the potential for uncontrolled in-migration (linked to the increased urbanization of formerly forest and rural areas); and an increase in traffic with associated severance and pollution issues.

Beneficial impacts including the overall improved traffic flow and enhancements to the local economy that this and other developments enabled by the Project would bring to the area.



12-42

References

Adams, W. 2000, The Social Impacts of Large Dams: Equity and Distribution Issues. Thematic Review I.1 prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town.

Fatma Dişli Zıbak, 2013, ―Third Bridge A Threat To Istanbul’s Future, Say Environmental Bodies‖, Today’s Zaman, 29 May 2013.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. 1992, Research Methods in the Social Sciences. St. Martin Press, New York.

Guardina, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/08/bosphorus-bridge-row-istanbul-turkey

Imperial Oil (2004 ) http://www.limperiale.ca

Reflections Turkey, The Ecological Threats Concerning the Third Bridge http://www.reflectionsturkey.com/?p=518 May 2012.

Rappaport, R. A. 1994, ―Human Environment and the Notion of Impact‖ in Who Pays the Price? Socio-cultural Context of Environmental Crisis, Barbara Rose Johnston (ed.), Washington, D.C. & Covelo, California: Island Press.

TÜİK, Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi 2012, www.tuik.gov.tr

Today’s Zaman, 2011, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail _getNewsById. action?newsId= 236104 20 February 2011

UCTEA Chamber of Urban Planners, 2010, The 3rd Bridge Project Evaluation Report.

U.S. Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (2003) Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (IOCPG).

Vanclay F., 2003, "Social Impact Assessment", Environmental and Social Assessment of Large Dams, Working Paper of the World Commission on Dams.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/08/bosphorus-bridge-row-istanbul-turkey

http://www.limperiale.ca/

http://www.reflectionsturkey.com/?p=518

http://www.tuik.gov.tr/

http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail%20_getNewsById.%20action?newsId=%20236104

Documents

12.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS