INTERFACE CONFLICTS AND REGULATORY DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON POWER PROJECTS IN SRI LANKA LAWRENCE LESLY EKANAYAKE [M.Sc. (Building) (NUS), B.Sc. (Eng.) (Moratuwa)] A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SCHOOL OF DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENT NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Professor George Ofori, who was the main inspiration behind my work. I am so grateful to him for his guidance and encouragement throughout my research. His care and concern for my personal well-being and progress during this research will continue to be remembered with gratitude. Furthermore, I wish to thank Associate Professor Willie Tan, a member of my thesis committee, for providing exceptionally important comments, directions, methods, and necessary guidance throughout my research. I am so grateful to him for his advice that helped me to complete my thesis. I would also like to thank both academic and non-academic members of the Department of Building, National University of Singapore (NUS), for their support and help in various forms. My gratitude also goes to NUS for granting me a research scholarship, without which this thesis would not have been a reality. My gratitude goes to all the participants who responded to the questionnaire survey and interviews. I express special thanks to Gamini Silva, B.A Perera, Leonard, Akram, and Lakshan for assisting me during the questionnaire survey in Sri Lanka. Special thanks also go to Afful, Janaka, Koh, Malitha, OG, Sudesh, and Suranga for reading the first draft of my thesis and giving suggestions. Further, it is a pleasure to remember my colleagues in the Department and NUS; I can never forget all my friends who supported me during my stay in NUS and made the time joyful. My warmest thanks go to my wife for all the encouragement, care, and love that made the completion of my research possible. I love my son and wife who made me laugh along the way. I am grateful to my parents, brothers and sisters for their unlimited love. I love you all. i To my parents, wife and son with love ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements i Table of contents iii Summary xiii List of tables xv List of figures xvii List of abbreviations xxi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM 1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 1.4 RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1.7 RESEARCH SCOPE 1.8 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS CHAPTER INTERFACE CONFLICTS IN CONSTRUCTION 10 13 PROJECTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION 13 2.2 INTERFACE CONFLICTS IN LARGE-SCALE 13 PROJECTS 2.3 ECONOMIC VERSUS ENVIRONMENTAL 16 CONSIDERATIONS 2.3.1 Win-lose negotiation 17 2.3.2 Win-win negotiation 17 2.3.3 Mixed-motive negotiation 18 2.4 COGNITIVE BARRIERS 19 2.4.1 The mythical fixed-pie 19 2.4.2 Sacredness effects 20 iii 2.4.3 Endowment effects 20 2.4.4 Overconfidence effects 21 2.4.5 Positive illusions effects 21 2.4.6 Egocentrism effects 22 2.5 SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS 23 2.5.1 Understanding the facts of a conflict 23 2.5.2 Understanding the interests of other parties 24 2.5.3 Understanding the fairness concerns 24 2.6 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE 25 2.7 ROLE OF INFORMATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL 27 VERSUS ECONOMIC CONFLICTS 2.8 RESOLVING ECONOMIC VERSUS 28 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICTS 2.8.1 Procedural fairness 28 2.8.2 Alternative dispute resolution approach 29 2.8.3 Environmental impact assessment approach 30 2.9 SUMMARY CHAPTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 31 32 3.1 INTRODUCTION 32 3.2 MANAGING THE EIA PROCESS 32 3.2.1 Managing EIA screening and scoping 32 3.2.2 Managing impact prediction, evaluation and 35 reporting 3.2.3 Managing public participation and decision making 39 3.2.4 Managing EIA monitoring and auditing 41 3.3 DEFICIENCIES IN EIA PROCESS 42 3.4 KNOWLEDGE GAP 44 3.5 SUMMARY 45 iv CHAPTER THE SRI LANKAN EIA PROCESS 46 4.1 INTRODUCTION 46 4.2 BACKGROUND OF SRI LANKA 46 4.3 INTRODUCING AND IMPLEMENTING 47 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION 4.4 THE EIA MODEL IN SRI LANKA 50 4.5 THE EIA IMPLEMENTATION IN SRI LANKA 53 4.6 DRAWBACKS OF THE EIA MODEL AND PRACTICES 55 4.7 KNOWLEDGE GAP AND HYPOTHESIS 58 4.8 POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE EIA MODEL 60 4.9 INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES REQUIRED TO 62 IMPLEMENT PROPOSED EIA MODEL 4.10 SUMMARY 63 CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 65 5.1 INTRODUCTION 65 5.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 65 5.3 PILOT STUDY 66 5.4 VALIDATION OF CONSENSUS-BUILDING 69 AMENDMENTS ON THE PROPOSED EIA MODEL 5.4.1 The basis of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) 71 5.4.2 Expert Choice (EC-11) software for group decision- 72 making 5.4.3 The identification of the stakeholders for the model 73 validation 5.5 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 76 5.5.1 Model for consensus-building on EIA dispute 78 5.5.2 Questionnaire design 81 5.6 DATA PROCESSING 84 5.7 SUMMARY 85 v CHAPTER DISCUSSION ON THE PILOT STUDY 86 6.1 INTRODUCTION 86 6.2 UPPER KOTMALE HYDROPOWER PROJECT (UKHP) 86 6.2.1 Opposing groups - (UKHP) 89 6.2.2 Supporting groups - (UKHP) 91 6.3 6.4 EIA REPORT ANALYSIS - (UKHP) 93 6.3.1 Economic attributes - (UKHP) 94 6.3.2 Environmental attributes - (UKHP) 94 6.3.3 Political attributes - (UKHP) 96 6.3.4 Socio-economic attributes - (UKHP) 97 6.3.5 Technical attributes - (UKHP) 98 AHP MODEL TO REPRESENT THE INTERFACE 99 CONFLICT AND TO BUILD CONSENSUS ON THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - (UKHP) 6.5 NOROCHCHOLEI COAL-FIRED THERMAL-POWER 100 PROJECT (NCTP) 6.6 6.7 6.5.1 Opposing groups - (NCTP) 102 6.5.2 Supporting groups - (NCTP) 104 EIA REPORT ANALYSIS - (NCTP) 106 6.6.1 Economic attributes - (NCTP) 106 6.6.2 Environmental attributes - (NCTP) 107 6.6.3 Political attributes - (NCTP) 108 6.6.4 Socio-economic attributes - (NCTP) 109 6.6.5 Technical attributes - (NCTP) 110 AHP MODEL TO REPRESENT THE INTERFACE 111 CONFLICT AND TO BUILD CONSENSUS ON THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - (NCTP) 6.8 KUKULE GANGA HYDROPOWER PROJECT (KGHP) 112 6.9 EIA REPORT ANALYSIS - (KGHP) 114 6.9.1 Economic attributes - (KGHP) 114 6.9.2 Environmental attributes - (KGHP) 115 vi 6.9.3 Political attributes - (KGHP) 116 6.9.4 Socio-economic attributes - (KGHP) 116 6.9.5 Technical attributes - (KGHP) 117 6.10 AHP MODEL TO REPRESENT THE INTERFACE 117 CONFLICT AND TO BUILD CONSENSUS ON THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - (KGHP) 6.11 CONSTRUCTION RELATED ISSUES ON KGHP 118 6.12 PILOT STUDY DATA ANALYSIS (SUMMARY) 119 6.12.1 Drawbacks in the EIA provisions 119 6.12.2 Drawbacks in the EIA practices 120 6.12.3 Drawbacks in the EIA enforcement 122 6.13 PROPOSAL FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING AMONG 123 STAKEHOLDERS 6.14 SUMMARY CHAPTER RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN STUDY 124 125 7.1 INTRODUCTION 125 7.2 STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE ‘UKHP’ CASE 125 STUDY SURVEY 7.3 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS’ ATTITUDES ON MAIN 126 CRITERIA - (UKHP) 7.3.1 Clients’ preferred alternatives with respect to the 126 five main criteria - (UKHP) 7.3.2 Consumers’ preferred alternatives with respect to 128 the five main criteria - (UKHP) 7.3.3 Directly affected groups’ preferred alternatives with 130 respect to the five main criteria - (UKHP) 7.3.4 EIA involved experts’ preferred alternatives with 131 respects to the five main criteria - (UKHP) 7.3.5 Intellectuals’ preferred alternatives with respect to 133 the five main criteria - (UKHP) vii 7.3.6 The media’s preferred alternatives with respect to 135 the five main criteria - (UKHP) 7.3.7 NGOs’ preferred alternatives with respect to the five 137 main criteria - (UKHP) 7.3.8 Political groups’ preferred alternatives with respect 140 to the five main criteria - (UKHP) 7.3.9 Regulators’ preferred alternatives with respect to the 142 five main criteria - (UKHP) 7.4 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS’ ATTITUDES ON SUB- 143 CRITERIA - (UKHP) 7.5 7.4.1 Attitudes on economic sub-criteria - (UKHP) 144 7.4.2 Attitudes on environmental sub-criteria - (UKHP) 145 7.4.3 Attitudes on political sub-criteria - (UKHP) 147 7.4.4 Attitudes on socio-economic sub-criteria - (UKHP) 149 7.4.5 Attitudes on technical sub-criteria - (UKHP) 150 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS’ AGREEMENT WITH THE 151 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - (UKHP) 7.6 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS’ PERCEIVED 154 IMPORTANCE OF THE OTHER STAKEHOLDER GROUPS - (UKHP) 7.7 STAKEHOLDERS’ COMBINED WEIGHTED 156 AGREEMENT ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES (UKHP) 7.7.1 Stakeholders’ combined weighted agreement on 156 ‘Acceptance’- (UKHP) 7.7.2 7.8 Stakeholders’ combined weighted agreement on ‘Conditional-acceptance’- (UKHP) 7.7.3 Stakeholders’ combined weighted agreement on ‘Non-acceptance’- (UKHP) SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDERS’ COMBINED 157 157 158 WEIGHTED AGREEMENT ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - (UKHP) viii 7.9 STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE ‘NCTP’ CASE 159 STUDY SURVEY 7.10 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS’ ATTITUDES ON MAIN 160 CRITERIA - (NCTP) 7.10.1 Clients’ preferred alternatives with respect to the 160 five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.2 Consumers’ preferred alternatives with respect to 161 the five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.3 Directly affected groups’ preferred alternatives with 162 respect to the five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.4 EIA involved experts’ preferred alternatives with 163 respect to the five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.5 Intellectuals’ preferred alternatives with respect to 164 the five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.6 The media’s preferred alternatives with respect to 166 the five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.7 NGOs’ preferred alternatives with respect to the five 167 main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.8 Political groups’ preferred alternatives with respect 168 to the five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.10.9 Regulators’ preferred alternatives with respect to the 169 five main criteria - (NCTP) 7.11 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS’ ATTITUDES ON SUB- 170 CRITERIA - (NCTP) 7.11.1 Attitudes on economic sub-criteria - (NCTP) 171 7.11.2 Attitudes on environmental sub-criteria - (NCTP) 172 7.11.3 Attitudes on political sub-criteria - (NCTP) 174 7.11.4 Attitudes on socio-economic sub-criteria - (NCTP) 175 7.11.5 Attitudes on technical sub-criteria - (NCTP) 177 7.12 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS’ AGREEMENT WITH THE 178 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - (NCTP) ix APPENDIX-1: UKHP questionnaire sample COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Technology is proven, safe and familiar to Sri Lanka – Run-of-River system, small size of a pond is needed 2 Technology is proven, safe and familiar to Sri Lanka – Landslide risk for project components 2 Technology is proven, safe and familiar to Sri Lanka – Soil erosion during construction stage 2 Run-of-River system, small size of a pond is needed – Landslide risk for project components 2 Run-of-River system, small size of a pond is needed – Soil erosion during construction stage 2 Landslide risk for project components – Soil erosion during construction stage 2 Section D: Pairwise comparison of main criteria with respect to goal 10 COMPARISON OF MAIN CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL Economic – Environment 2 Economic – Political 2 Economic – Socio-economic 2 Economic – Technical 2 Environment – Political 2 Environment – Socio-economic 2 Environment – Technical 2 Political – Socio-economic 2 Political – Technical 2 Socio-economic – Technical 2 Section E: Pairwise comparison of stakeholders with respect to the goal COMPARISON OF STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL Clients– Consumers 2 Clients – Directly affected (negative) groups 2 Clients – EIA experts 2 Clients – Intellectuals 2 Clients – The media 2 Clients – NGOs 2 Clients – Political groups 2 Clients – Regulators 2 258 APPENDIX-1: UKHP questionnaire sample 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Consumers – Directly affected (negative) groups 2 Consumers – EIA experts 2 Consumers – Intellectuals 2 Consumers – The media 2 Consumers – NGOs 2 Consumers – Political groups 2 Consumers – Regulators 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – EIA experts 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Intellectuals 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – The media 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – NGOs 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Political groups 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Regulators 2 EIA experts – Intellectuals 2 EIA experts – The media 2 EIA experts – NGOs 2 EIA experts – Political groups 2 EIA experts – Regulators 2 Intellectuals – The media 2 Intellectuals – NGOs 2 Intellectuals – Political groups 2 Intellectuals – Regulators 2 The media – NGOs 2 The media – Political groups 2 The media – Regulators 2 NGOs – Political groups 2 NGOs – Regulators 2 Political groups – Regulators 2 Thank you 259 APPENDIX-2: NCTP questionnaire sample Questionnaire survey Norochcholei Coal-fired Thermal-power Project (NCTP) NAME ADDRESS DATE Section A: Respondent details and Introduction of pairwise scale 2. With regard to the NCTP, please select an appropriate group that you are likely to be associated with. (1) Clients (4) EIA experts (7) NGOs (2) Consumers (5) Intellectuals (8) Political groups (3) Directly affected (negative) group (6) The media (9) Regulator group The objective of this questionnaire is to determine the relative importance of the interested parties; main criteria; sub criteria; and alternatives identified in the decision model. Please circle a number based on a 9-point scale, using pairwise comparisons (Table 1) of all the parties, main criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives presented and indicate their relative importance against one another (see example below) Table 1: The AHP response scale (to be use in every paired comparison) Definition Extreme Very strong to extreme Very Strong Strong to very strong Strong Moderate to strong Moderate Equal to moderate Equal Numerical representation Example: In your valued opinion, which factors are considered important over the other regarding to decisionmaking on NOROCHCHOLEI project? Environment - Economic 2 Circling ‘1’ means that both environmental and economic are of ‘equal importance’ concerning the decision-making on the NCTP. If you circle ‘9’ on the extreme right of the scale, it means that the economic related aspects are of extreme importance over the environmental related aspects concerning the decision-making on the NCTP. If you circle ‘9’ on the extreme left of the scale, it means that the environmental related aspects are of extreme importance over the economic related aspects concerning the decision-making on the NCTP. 260 APPENDIX-2: NCTP questionnaire sample Section B: Pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to sub criteria COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA NCTP: Coast-effective long-term solution for energy shortage and fuel mix Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Use Coal-ash as a by-product for cement and other industries Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Need huge capital investment Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Need huge monitoring cost Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENT SUB-CRITERIA NCTP: Negligible level of airborne ash due to pneumatic fly ash handling Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Identified no any significant environmental damage Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Possible air quality problem: So2, No2, dust, and ash Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 261 APPENDIX-2: NCTP questionnaire sample NCTP: Negative impact on warm waste water discharge into the sea Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE POLITICAL SUB-CRITERIA NCTP: New jobs, political propaganda Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Possibility of losing electorate voter support Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Possibility of losing countrywide voter support Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA NCTP: Local welfare, and employment opportunities Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Overall infrastructure development in surrounding area Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 262 APPENDIX-2: NCTP questionnaire sample NCTP: Disturbances to St. Anne’s Church and fishing in the local sea Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Need to resettle families and disturbances during construction Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE TECHNICAL SUB-CRITERIA NCTP: Acceptable sea depth to handle coal delivery by either barging or jetty operation Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Site is suitable to accommodate entire plant of 3*300MW Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: Huge operation and maintenance cost Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 NCTP: No plant operation 30% of the year due to maintenance Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Section C: Pairwise comparison of sub criteria with respect to main criteria COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Coast-effective solution for energy shortage and fuel mix – Use Coal-ash as a by-product for cement 2 Coast-effective long-term solution for energy shortage and fuel mix – Need huge capital investment 2 Coast-effective long-term solution for energy shortage and fuel mix – Need huge monitoring cost 2 263 APPENDIX-2: NCTP questionnaire sample 9 COMPARISON OF POLITICAL SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA New jobs, political propaganda – Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies 2 New jobs, political propaganda – Possibility of losing voter support 2 New jobs, political propaganda – Possibility of losing countrywide voter support 2 9 9 Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies – Possibility of losing voter support Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies – Possibility of losing countrywide voter support COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENT SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Negligible airborne ashes due to pneumatic fly ash handling –No significant environmental damage 2 Negligible airborne ashes due to pneumatic fly ash handling – Air quality problem: So2, No2, dust, ash 2 Negligible airborne ashes due to pneumatic fly ash handling –Warm waste water discharging to the sea 2 Identified no significant environmental damage – Air quality problem due to So2, No2, dust, and ash 2 Identified no significant environmental damage – Impact on Warm waste water discharging to the sea 2 Air quality problem due to So2, No2, dust, and ash – Impact on Warm waste water discharging to the sea 2 Use Coal-ash as a by-product for cement and other industries – Need huge capital investment 2 Use Coal-ash as a by-product for cement and other industries – Need huge monitoring cost 2 Need huge capital investment – Need huge monitoring cost 2 Possibility of losing voter support – Possibility of losing countrywide voter support COMPARISON OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Local welfare and employment opportunities – Overall infrastructure development in the area 2 Local welfare and employment opportunities – Disturbances to St. Anne’s Church and fishing in the Sea 2 Local welfare and employment opportunities –Resettling families and disturbances during construction 2 Infrastructure development in the area – Disturbances to St. Anne’s Church and fishing in the Sea 2 Infrastructures development in the area – Resettling families and disturbances during construction 2 Disturbances to St. Anne’s Church and fishing – Resettling families and disturbances during construction 2 264 APPENDIX-2: NCTP questionnaire sample COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Acceptable sea depth to handle coal delivery – Site is suitable to accommodate plant of 3*300MW 2 Acceptable sea depth to handle coal delivery – Huge operation and maintenance cost 2 Acceptable sea depth to handle coal delivery – No operation 30% of the year due to the maintenance 2 Site is suitable to accommodate plant of 3*300MW – Huge operation and maintenance cost 2 Site is suitable for plant of 3*300MW – No operation 30% of the year due to the maintenance 2 Huge operation and maintenance cost – No operation 30% of the year due to the maintenance 2 9 9 9 Section D: Pairwise comparison of main criteria with respect to goal 10 COMPARISON OF MAIN CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL Economic – Environment 2 Economic – Political 2 Economic – Socio-economic 2 Economic – Technical 2 Environment – Political 2 Environment – Socio-economic 2 Environment – Technical 2 Political – Socio-economic 2 Political – Technical 2 Socio-economic – Technical 2 Section E: Pairwise comparison of stakeholders with respect to the goal COMPARISON OF STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL Clients – Consumers 2 Clients – Directly affected (negative) groups 2 Clients – EIA experts 2 Clients – Intellectuals 2 Clients – The media 2 Clients – NGOs 2 Clients – Political groups 2 Clients – Regulators 2 Consumers – Directly affected (negative) groups 265 APPENDIX-2: NCTP questionnaire sample 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 2 Consumers – EIA experts 2 Consumers – Intellectuals 2 Consumers – The media 2 Consumers – NGOs 2 Consumers – Political groups 2 Consumers – Regulators 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – EIA experts 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Intellectuals 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – The media 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – NGOs 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Political groups 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Regulators 2 EIA experts – Intellectuals 2 EIA experts – The media 2 EIA experts – NGOs 2 EIA experts – Political groups 2 EIA experts – Regulators 2 Intellectuals – The media 2 Intellectuals – NGOs 2 Intellectuals – Political groups 2 Intellectuals – Regulators 2 The media – NGOs 2 The media – Political groups 2 The media – Regulators 2 NGOs – Political groups 2 NGOs – Regulators 2 Political groups – Regulators 2 Thank you 266 APPENDIX-3: KGHP questionnaire sample Questionnaire survey Kukule Ganga Hydropower Project (KGHP) NAME ADDRESS DATE Section A: Respondent details and Introduction of pairwise scale 3. With regard to the KGHP, please select an appropriate group that you are likely to be associated with. (1) Clients (4) EIA experts (7) NGOs (2) Consumers (5) Intellectuals (8) Political groups (3) Directly affected (negative) group (6) The media (9) Regulator group The objective of this questionnaire is to determine the relative importance of the interested parties; main criteria; sub criteria; and alternatives identified in the decision model. Please circle a number based on a 9-point scale, using pairwise comparisons (Table 1) of all the parties, main criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives presented and indicate their relative importance against one another (see example below) Table 1: The AHP response scale (to be use in every paired comparison) Definition Extreme Very strong to extreme Very strong Strong to very strong Strong Moderate to strong Moderate Equal to moderate Equal Numerical representation Example: In your valued opinion which factors are considered important over the other regarding decision-making on the KGHP? Environment - Economic 2 Circling ‘1’ means that both environmental and economic are of ‘equal importance’ in regarding the decision-making on KGHP. If you circle ‘9’ on the extreme right of the scale, it means that the economic related aspects are of extreme importance over the environmental related aspects concerning the decision-making on the KGHP. If you circle ‘9’ on the extreme left of the scale, it means that the environmental related aspects are of extreme importance over the economic related aspects concerning the decision-making on the KGHP. 267 APPENDIX-3: KGHP questionnaire sample Section B: Pairwise comparison of alternatives with respect to sub criteria COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA KGHP: Feasible among other available options Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Help to reduce power cut Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Need huge capital investment Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Cost of monitoring Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENT SUB-CRITERIA KGHP: Because of small pond, forest land will not submerge in water Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: No pollution during operation Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Threat to agricultural land Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 268 APPENDIX-3: KGHP questionnaire sample KGHP: Negative impact on aquatic fauna and migratory fish species Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE POLITICAL SUB-CRITERIA KGHP: New jobs, political propaganda Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Possibility of losing electorate voter support Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Possibility of losing countrywide voter support Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA KGHP: Local welfare, and employment opportunities Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Overall infrastructure development in surrounding area Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 269 APPENDIX-3: KGHP questionnaire sample KGHP: Disturbances to day to day life during construction phase Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Need to resettle families Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 COMPARISON OF ‘ALTERNATIVES’ WITH RESPECT TO THE TECHNICAL SUB-CRITERIA KGHP: Technology is proven, safe and familiar to Sri Lanka Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Due to Run-of-River system, only a small pond is needed Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Landslide risk of project component Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 KGHP: Soil erosion specially at construction stage Acceptance of the project – Conditional-acceptance of the project 2 Acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Conditional-acceptance of the project – Non-acceptance of the project 2 Section C: Pairwise comparison of sub criteria with respect to main criteria COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Feasible among other available options – Help to reduce power cuts 2 Feasible among other available options – Need huge capital investment 2 Feasible among other available options – Cost of monitoring 2 9 270 APPENDIX-3: KGHP questionnaire sample Help to reduce power cuts – Need huge capital investment 2 Need huge capital investment – Cost of monitoring 2 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENT SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Forest land will not submerge in water – No pollution during operations 2 Forest land will not submerge in water – Possible threat to agricultural land 2 Forest land will not submerge in water – Negative impact on aquatic fauna and migratory fish 2 No pollution during operations – Possible threat to agricultural land No pollution during operations – Negative impact on aquatic fauna and migratory fish Possible threat to agricultural land – Negative impact on aquatic fauna and migratory fish COMPARISON OF POLITICAL SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA New jobs, political propaganda – Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies 2 New jobs, political propaganda – Possibility of losing voter support 2 New jobs, political propaganda – Possibility of losing countrywide voter support 2 9 Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies – Possibility of losing voter support Political backing by pro groups and funding agencies – Possibility of losing countrywide voter support Help to reduce power cuts – Cost of monitoring Possibility of losing voter support – Possibility of losing countrywide voter support COMPARISON OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Local welfare and employment opportunities – Overall infrastructure development in the area 2 Local welfare and employment opportunities –Disturbances to day to day life during construction 2 Local welfare and employment opportunities – Need to resettle families 2 Overall infrastructure development in the area – Disturbances to day to day life during construction 2 Overall infrastructure development in the area – Need to resettle families Disturbances to day to day life during construction – Need to resettle families 271 APPENDIX-3: KGHP questionnaire sample COMPARISON OF TECHNICAL SUB-CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO MAIN CRITERIA Technology is proven, safe and familiar to Sri Lanka – Run-of-River system, only a small pond is needed 2 Technology is proven, safe and familiar to Sri Lanka – Landslide risk for project components 2 Technology is proven, safe and familiar to Sri Lanka – Soil erosion during construction stage 2 Run-of-River system, only a small pond is needed – Landslide risk for project components 2 Run-of-River system, only a small pond is needed – Soil erosion during construction stage 2 Landslide risk for project components – Soil erosion during construction stage 2 Section D: Pairwise comparison of main criteria with respect to goal 10 COMPARISON OF MAIN CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL Economic – Environment 2 Economic – Political 2 Economic – Socio-economic 2 Economic – Technical 2 Environment – Political 2 Environment – Socio-economic 2 Environment – Technical 2 Political – Socio-economic 2 Political – Technical 2 Socio-economic – Technical 2 Section E: Pairwise comparison of stakeholders with respect to the goal COMPARISON OF STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESPECT TO THE GOAL Clients – Consumers 2 Clients – Directly affected (negative) groups 2 Clients – EIA experts 2 Clients – Intellectuals 2 Clients – The media 2 Clients – NGOs 2 Clients – Political groups 2 Clients – Regulators 272 APPENDIX-3: KGHP questionnaire sample 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 2 Consumers – Directly affected (negative) groups 2 Consumers – EIA experts 2 Consumers – Intellectuals 2 Consumers – The media 2 Consumers – NGOs 2 Consumers – Political groups 2 Consumers – Regulators 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – EIA experts 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Intellectuals 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – The media 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – NGOs 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Political groups 2 Directly affected (negative) groups – Regulators 2 EIA experts – Intellectuals 2 EIA experts – The media 2 EIA experts – NGOs 2 EIA experts – Political groups 2 EIA experts – Regulators 2 Intellectuals – The media 2 Intellectuals – NGOs 2 Intellectuals – Political groups 2 Intellectuals – Regulators 2 The media – NGOs 2 The media – Political groups 2 The media – Regulators 2 NGOs – Political groups 2 NGOs – Regulators 2 Political groups – Regulators 2 Thank you 273 [...]... of conflicts are normally encountered in large construction projects: internal conflicts and interface conflicts Internal conflicts are experienced among the project participants In construction, most studies focus on internal conflicts on contracts, design, and conflict resolution methods (see Fenn and Gameson, 1992; Fenn et al., 1997, 1998; Al-Meshekeh, 2001) As internal conflicts deal with opposing... research intends to conduct in- depth investigation of the subject, it focuses on the drawbacks of the existing EIA model that influence the interface conflicts on infrastructural projects 9 The study is further limited to EIA-related interface conflicts on power projects in Sri Lanka to ensure that the research is within reasonable limits Power generation projects were selected, as they constitute one of... generation projects that involved uncertainty of environmental issues although very little has been reported on it Therefore, this study focuses on interface conflicts The study of interface conflict is complex as it involves a multi-disciplinary approach Due to time and resource limitations, the study focuses on only EIA-related interface conflicts on infrastructural project implementation in Sri Lanka. .. presented in the last section of this chapter 12 CHAPTER 2 INTERFACE CONFLICTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 discussed the research background, research question, objectives, hypothesis, and justification of the study This chapter examines the theoretical underpinnings of links to interface conflicts on large scale construction projects and past attempts to mitigate such conflicts. .. EIA-related interface conflicts in Sri Lanka xiv LIST OF TABLES Table: 5.1 Case studies to examine interface conflicts on power generation 67 projects in Sri Lanka Table: 5.2 Information considered for developing AHP model to select sub- 70 criteria under the five main criteria Table: 5.3 Distribution of questionnaire survey participants for the three case 75 studies Table: 5.4 Distribution of the questionnaire... families living in these areas (Guha and Martinez-Alier, 1997) Awakul and Ogunlana (2002a: 311) defined interface conflicts as conflicts between a construction project and people or groups outside the project In both developed and developing countries, interface conflicts arising over large-scale infrastructural projects have been reported In the USA, the early 1970s saw a series of influential environment... EFL Environment Foundation Limited EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESC Energy Supply Committee -Sri Lanka IEE Initial Environmental Examination IESL Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka KGHP Kukule Ganga Hydropower Project NCTP Norochcholei Coal-fired Thermal -power Project NEA National Environmental Act -Sri Lanka NEAP National Environment Action Plan -Sri Lanka NGO Non Governmental Organization NWPC... explore the Sri Lankan EIA process 1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS The literature survey leads to the hypothesis that interface conflicts on power projects are intensified in Sri Lanka due to the drawbacks in the EIA model provisions, practices, and enforcement of EIA recommendations 1.4 RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION The implementation of large scale power generation projects involves wide-ranging, long-term and often... of Sri Lanka (Author) 221 xx LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CCD Coast Conservation Department -Sri Lanka CEA Central Environmental Authority -Sri Lanka CEB Ceylon Electricity Board -Sri Lanka CEBEU Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers Union CECB Central Engineering and Consultancy Bureau -Sri Lanka CWC Ceylon Workers’ Congress... mitigating interface conflicts on large-scale construction projects 2.2 INTERFACE CONFLICTS IN LARGE-SCALE PROJECTS Large projects not only influence the community significantly but they are also targets for opposition (Popper, 1983; Koehn, 1993) In rural areas, clashes are triggered more by the seizure of natural resources (land, water, or forests) or the preservation of indigenous peoples and protection . INTERFACE CONFLICTS AND REGULATORY DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON POWER PROJECTS IN SRI LANKA LAWRENCE LESLY EKANAYAKE [M.Sc. (Building) (NUS), B.Sc. (Eng.). screening and scoping 32 3.2.2 Managing impact prediction, evaluation and reporting 35 3.2.3 Managing public participation and decision making 39 3.2.4 Managing EIA monitoring and auditing 41 3.3. in Sri Lanka. xv LIST OF TABLES Table: 5.1 Case studies to examine interface conflicts on power generation projects in Sri Lanka 67 Table: 5.2 Information considered for developing