Esia Report: Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm, Lebanon

Intended for
SUSTAINABLE AKKAR SAL

Document type
FINAL REPORT
Date
August 2019
VOLUME I.
ESIA REPORT
[Text - If no optional text is needed then remember to delete the fields.]
SUSTAINABLE AKKAR
[Optional 2 - If no optional text is needed then remember to delete the fields.]
[Text - If no optional text is needed then remember to delete the fields.]
WIND FARM, LEBANON

CONTENTS
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Project Location and Setting .................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report ............................................. 1-5
1.4 Document Structure ............................................................................................... 1-5
1.5 Project Proponent and Key Contributors ..................................................................... 1-7
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Project Components ............................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 Wind Turbines ........................................................................................................ 2-2
2.3.2 Transmission Lines and Power Substation.................................................................... 2-8
2.3.3 Operation Buildings ................................................................................................. 2-8
2.3.4 Community Relations Office .................................................................................... 2-10
2.3.5 Meteorological Masts ............................................................................................. 2-10
2.3.6 Road Development ................................................................................................ 2-10
2.4 Land Ownership and Lease Information .................................................................... 2-14
2.5 Footprint of the Project Components ...................................................................... 2-28
2.6 Overview of the Project Phases................................................................................ 2-28
2.6.1 Pre-Construction Phase .......................................................................................... 2-28
2.6.2 Preparatory Works ................................................................................................ 2-34
2.6.3 Construction Phase................................................................................................ 2-34
2.6.4 Operation and Maintenance Phase............................................................................ 2-35
2.6.5 Decommissioning Phase ......................................................................................... 2-38
2.7 Direct Areas of Influence ........................................................................................ 2-40
2.8 Indirect Area of Influence ....................................................................................... 2-43
2.9 Assessment of Individual Environmental and Social Parameters .................................... 2-52
2.10 Nearby Investments of Similar Nature ...................................................................... 2-52
3. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Site Selection Alternatives ....................................................................................... 3-1
i
3.1.1 Overall Project Site ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2 Turbine Locations .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.3 Project/EDL Substation Locations ............................................................................... 3-5
3.2 Design Alternatives ................................................................................................ 3-7
3.2.1 Turbine Types/Specifications ..................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.1.1 Vertical Axis Wind Turbines ................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.1.2 Bladeless Wind Turbines .................................................................................... 3-8
3.2.2 Alternative Substation Designs ................................................................................ 3-10
3.2.3 Alternative Transmission Designs ............................................................................. 3-10
3.3 Transportation Alternatives ..................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.1 WTG Component Transport Vehicle Types/Modalities ................................................... 3-10
3.3.2 Alternative Road Transport Modalities ....................................................................... 3-11
3.3.3 Alternative Road Alignments ................................................................................... 3-12
3.4 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 3-15
3.5 Technology Alternatives ......................................................................................... 3-17
3.5.1 Solar Power ......................................................................................................... 3-17
3.5.2 Power Plants ........................................................................................................ 3-19
3.6 The Project vs No Project Alternative ........................................................................ 3-19
4. POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................... 4-1
4.1 National Framework and Requirements ...................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Existing Legislation.................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1.1 Environmental Quality Standards and Criteria for Air and Noise ................................ 4-4
4.1.1.2 Zoning of Lands in Lebanon ................................................................................ 4-5
4.1.2 International Conventions, Treaties and Protocols ......................................................... 4-6
4.2 International Guidelines .......................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.1 IFC Performance Standards .................................................................................... 4-10
4.2.2 IFC EHS Guidelines................................................................................................ 4-10
4.2.3 EIB Environmental and Social Standards ................................................................... 4-13
4.3 Additional Relevant Guidance .................................................................................. 4-16
4.4 Institutional Framework ......................................................................................... 4-16
4.4.1 Ministry of Environment ......................................................................................... 4-16
4.4.2 Ministry of Energy & Water ..................................................................................... 4-16
ii
4.4.3 Electricité du Liban ................................................................................................ 4-17
4.4.4 Ministry of Interior and Municipalities ....................................................................... 4-17
4.4.5 Ministry of Public Works and Transport ..................................................................... 4-17
4.4.6 Directorate General of Urban Planning ...................................................................... 4-18
4.4.7 The Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation ........................................................... 4-18
4.4.8 Community Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration Project ................... 4-18
4.5 International Organizations..................................................................................... 4-19
4.5.1 The International Renewable Energy Agency.............................................................. 4-19
4.5.2 The Global Wind Energy Council .............................................................................. 4-19
4.5.3 BirdLife International ............................................................................................. 4-19
4.5.4 UNDP/CEDRO EIA for Wind Farm Developments Guideline Report .................................. 4-19
4.6 Policy Setting ....................................................................................................... 4-20
4.6.1 The Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector .................................................................. 4-20
4.6.2 The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan................................................................. 4-20
4.6.3 National Renewable Energy Action Plan ..................................................................... 4-21
4.7 Licenses and Permits ............................................................................................. 4-21
5. ESIA APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Scoping and Assessment ......................................................................................... 5-2
5.2 Analysis of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement ................................................................. 5-5
5.4 Delineation of Study Boundaries and Scope of Assessment ............................................ 5-6
5.4.1 Definition of Spatial Study Area ................................................................................. 5-6
5.4.2 Temporal Scope of the Assessment ............................................................................ 5-7
5.5 Environment & Social Baseline Conditions .................................................................. 5-7
5.6 Impact Assessment Methodology .............................................................................. 5-8
5.6.1 Sensitivity of Receptors............................................................................................ 5-9
5.6.2 Impact Severity ...................................................................................................... 5-9
5.7 Mitigation and Management Measures ...................................................................... 5-10
5.7.1 Determining Impact Significance ............................................................................. 5-11
5.8 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 5-12
5.9 Development of an ESMP Framework........................................................................ 5-12
5.10 Gaps in Contemporary Knowledge............................................................................ 5-13
iii
6. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ..................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 6-1
6.3 Requirements and Policy Requirements for Stakeholder Engagement .............................. 6-2
6.3.1 Lebanon Legal and Policy Standards ........................................................................... 6-2
6.3.2 Requirements in IFC Performance Standards on Environmental & Social Sustainability

(2012) .................................................................................................................. 6-2
6.3.3 Requirements in EIB Environmental and Social Standards (2009) .................................... 6-3
6.4 Stakeholder Engagement Plan .................................................................................. 6-3
6.5 Stakeholder Identification and Analysis ...................................................................... 6-4
6.5.1 Affected Communities .............................................................................................. 6-6
6.5.1.1 Direct Area of Influence (DAOI)........................................................................... 6-6

6.5.1.2 Indirect Area of Influence (IAOI) ......................................................................... 6-7
6.6 Public Participation Activities Undertaken to Date ........................................................ 6-8
6.6.1 2017 Activities........................................................................................................ 6-8
6.6.1.1 Engagement with Family Leadership in Affected Communities .................................. 6-8

6.6.2 2018 Activities........................................................................................................ 6-9
6.6.2.1 Meetings with Key Informants............................................................................. 6-9

6.6.2.2 Initial Public Disclosure Meeting .......................................................................... 6-9
6.6.2.3 Site Visit by LCEC/Family Leader Meeting ............................................................ 6-14
6.6.2.4 Iftar for Affected Communities ........................................................................... 6-14
6.6.2.5 Land Rental/Ownership Impact Meetings with Officials ........................................... 6-14
6.6.2.6 2-Day Visit by Bank Audi/SLR ............................................................................ 6-15
6.6.2.7 2-Day Visit by International Lenders ................................................................... 6-15
6.6.2.8 Site Visit by Potential OEMs ............................................................................... 6-18
6.6.2.9 2-Day Visit to Lebanon by VESTAS ..................................................................... 6-18
6.6.2.10 Focus Group Meetings ...................................................................................... 6-18
6.6.2.11 Visit to Turkish Wind Farms by Locals and EDL ..................................................... 6-21
6.6.2.12 November 2018 Hawa Akkar Public Meeting ......................................................... 6-21
6.6.2.13 Final Public Disclosure Meeting ........................................................................... 6-22
6.6.2.14 Meetings with the Fnaidek Municipality ................................................................ 6-25
6.6.3 2019 Activities...................................................................................................... 6-25
6.6.3.1 Ramboll Meetings with Family Leaders and Officials ............................................... 6-25
6.6.3.2 February 2019 Public Meeting for Hawa Akkar ...................................................... 6-26
6.6.3.3 Meeting with Lebanese Army Representatives....................................................... 6-27
iv
6.6.3.4 Consultation with Villages Along the Wind Turbine Component Transport Corridor....... 6-28
6.6.3.5 Project Presentation at Beirut Arab University ....................................................... 6-41
6.6.3.6 Public Participation Outcomes ............................................................................ 6-42
6.6.3.7 May 2019 Consultation ..................................................................................... 6-46
6.6.3.8 June 2019 Consultation with Rweimeh Village Members ......................................... 6-68
6.6.3.9 July 2019 Consultation with Livestock Owners ...................................................... 6-69
7. OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS .......................... 7-1
7.1 Lebanon’s Energy Sector ......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Energy Strategy for Lebanon.................................................................................... 7-4
7.3 Project Rationale.................................................................................................... 7-6
7.4 Environmental Benefits .......................................................................................... 7-10
8. CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE .............................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Baseline Methodology ............................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Baseline Findings ................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 8-11
8.3.1.1 GHG Emissions ................................................................................................ 8-11

8.3.2 Operations Phase .................................................................................................. 8-12
8.3.2.1 Flood Risk ...................................................................................................... 8-12

8.3.2.2 Wildfire Risk ................................................................................................... 8-13
8.4 Carbon Payback Period .......................................................................................... 8-14
9. GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY .................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Baseline Methodology ............................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Baseline Findings ................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2.1 Geology ................................................................................................................ 9-1
9.2.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 9-6
9.2.2.1 Hydrostratigraphy............................................................................................. 9-6

9.2.2.2 Groundwater Extraction .................................................................................... 9-12
9.2.3 Water Sources ...................................................................................................... 9-14
9.2.3.1 Surface Water ................................................................................................. 9-14

9.2.3.2 Springs .......................................................................................................... 9-16
9.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 9-20
9.3.1 Potential Impacts to Groundwater Quality during the Construction and

Decommissioning Phases........................................................................................ 9-20
v
9.3.2 Potential Impacts to Groundwater Quality during the Operations Phase .......................... 9-22
9.3.3 Potential Impacts from Improper Management of Waste Streams during Construction
and Operation ...................................................................................................... 9-23
9.3.3.1 Solid Waste Generation .................................................................................... 9-23

9.3.3.2 Wastewater Generation .................................................................................... 9-24
9.3.3.3 Hazardous Waste Generation ............................................................................. 9-24
9.3.3.4 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 9-25
9.3.4 Potential Impacts to Related Infrastructure and Utilities ............................................... 9-25
9.3.4.1 Potential Impacts on Water Resources during the Construction and Operations Phases 9-25
9.3.4.2 Potential Impacts on Wastewater Disposal Utilities during the Construction and Operation
Phases ........................................................................................................... 9-26
9.3.4.3 Potential Impacts on Solid Waste Disposal Utilities during the Construction and Operation
Phases ........................................................................................................... 9-27
9.3.4.4 Potential Impacts on Hazardous Waste Disposal Utilities during the Construction and
Operation Phases............................................................................................. 9-27
9.3.5 Impact Assessment Summary ................................................................................. 9-28
10. GEOPHYSICAL GROUND AND SEISMICITY ................................................................. 10-1
10.1 Baseline Methodology ............................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Baseline Findings .................................................................................................. 10-2
10.3 Seismicity ............................................................................................................ 10-8
10.4 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 10-8
11. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 11-1
11.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 11-3
11.3.1 Air Quality Standards............................................................................................. 11-3
11.3.2 Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................... 11-4
11.3.3 Emissions Estimation ............................................................................................. 11-6
11.3.4 During Construction .............................................................................................. 11-6
11.3.5 During Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................... 11-9
11.3.6 During Decommissioning ........................................................................................ 11-9
12. TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC ...................................................................................... 12-1
12.1.1 Route Survey (Madgelni, April 2018) ........................................................................ 12-1
12.1.2 Route Survey (GIFCO, June 2018) ........................................................................... 12-1
vi
12.1.3 Transport Impact Study (October 2018).................................................................... 12-5
12.1.3.1 Selected Roads and Junctions ............................................................................ 12-5

12.1.3.2 Traffic Counts ................................................................................................. 12-6
12.2.1 Route Survey (Madgelni, April 2018) ........................................................................ 12-7
12.2.2 Route Survey (GIFCO, June 2018) ......................................................................... 12-10
12.2.3 Transport Impact Study (October 2018).................................................................. 12-17
12.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 12-22
12.3.1 During Construction ............................................................................................ 12-26
12.3.1.1 Road Obstacle Removal .................................................................................. 12-26

12.3.1.2 New Road Development .................................................................................. 12-30
12.3.1.3 Transport of WTG Components, Construction Materials and Workers....................... 12-32
12.4 During Operation ................................................................................................ 12-40
12.5 During Decommissioning ...................................................................................... 12-40
13. BIODIVERSITY ..................................................................................................... 13-1
13.1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 13-2
13.1.1 Method of Baseline Characterization ......................................................................... 13-2
13.1.1.1 Habitats and Flora ........................................................................................... 13-2

13.1.1.2 Terrestrial Fauna ............................................................................................. 13-3
13.1.1.3 Bats .............................................................................................................. 13-3
13.1.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts ............................................................................. 13-5
13.1.2.1 Feature Evaluation ........................................................................................... 13-5

13.1.2.2 Criteria for Characterizing Impacts ..................................................................... 13-6
13.1.2.3 Significance Criteria ......................................................................................... 13-7
13.1.3 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 13-7
13.2 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................... 13-8
13.2.1 Habitats and Flora ................................................................................................. 13-8
13.2.1.1 Desk Study..................................................................................................... 13-8

13.2.1.2 Field Surveys ................................................................................................ 13-13
13.2.1.3 Habitats and Flora Summary ........................................................................... 13-21
13.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna................................................................................................. 13-22
13.2.2.1 Mammals ..................................................................................................... 13-22

13.2.2.2 Reptiles ....................................................................................................... 13-23
13.2.2.3 Invertebrates ................................................................................................ 13-24
vii
13.2.3 Bats ................................................................................................................. 13-24
13.2.3.1 Desk Study and Literature Review .................................................................... 13-24

13.2.3.2 Bat Activity Surveys ....................................................................................... 13-25
13.2.3.3 Passive Survey Results ................................................................................... 13-26
13.2.3.4 Active (Transect) Survey Results ...................................................................... 13-31
13.2.3.5 Hibernation/Roost Surveys .............................................................................. 13-32
13.2.3.6 Summary of Bat Survey Results ....................................................................... 13-32
13.2.4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 13-33
13.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts ........................................................................... 13-34
13.3.1.1 Habitats and Flora ......................................................................................... 13-34

13.3.1.2 Terrestrial Fauna ........................................................................................... 13-37
13.3.1.3 Bats ............................................................................................................ 13-38
13.3.2 During Operation ................................................................................................ 13-40

13.3.2.3 Bats ............................................................................................................ 13-40
13.3.3 During Decommissioning ...................................................................................... 13-42
13.3.4 Critical and Natural Habitats Assessment ................................................................ 13-42
13.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 13-42
13.4.1 Habitats and Flora ............................................................................................... 13-43
13.4.1.1 During Pre-Construction.................................................................................. 13-43

13.4.1.2 During Construction ....................................................................................... 13-43
13.4.1.3 During Operations and Maintenance .................................................................. 13-44
13.4.1.4 During Decommissioning................................................................................. 13-44

13.4.3 Bats ................................................................................................................. 13-45

13.4.3.4 Additional Good Practice ................................................................................. 13-45
13.5 Residual Effects .................................................................................................. 13-46
viii
13.5.1 Habitats and Flora ............................................................................................... 13-46
13.5.3 Bats ................................................................................................................. 13-46
13.6 Section 13 Figures .............................................................................................. 13-46
14. ORNITHOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1.1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria ...................................................... 14-1
14.1.2 Method of Baseline Characterization ......................................................................... 14-1
14.1.2.1 Desk Study..................................................................................................... 14-1

14.1.2.2 Field Survey ................................................................................................... 14-1
14.1.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts ............................................................................. 14-4
14.1.3.1 Feature Evaluation ........................................................................................... 14-4

14.1.3.2 Criteria for Characterizing Impacts ..................................................................... 14-5
14.1.3.3 Significance Criteria ......................................................................................... 14-6
14.1.3.4 Collision Risk Assessment ................................................................................. 14-7
14.1.3.5 Limitations and Assumptions ............................................................................. 14-8
14.2 Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................... 14-9
14.2.1 Protected Sites ..................................................................................................... 14-9
14.2.2 Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 14-9
14.2.3 Site Conditions ................................................................................................... 14-10
14.2.4 Field Survey Results ............................................................................................ 14-10
14.2.4.1 Non-Collision Risk Species ............................................................................... 14-10

14.2.4.2 Collision Risk Species ..................................................................................... 14-11
14.2.4.3 General Flight Patterns ................................................................................... 14-21
14.2.5 Hawa Akkar Survey Results .................................................................................. 14-21
14.2.6 Summary .......................................................................................................... 14-22
14.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts ........................................................................... 14-24
14.3.1.1 Impacts on Designated Sites ........................................................................... 14-24

14.3.1.2 Habitat Loss ................................................................................................. 14-24
14.3.1.3 Nest Destruction............................................................................................ 14-25
14.3.1.4 Disturbance and Displacement ......................................................................... 14-25
14.3.2.1 Collision Risk ................................................................................................ 14-25
ix
14.3.2.2 Disturbance and Displacement ......................................................................... 14-32
14.3.2.3 Barrier Effects ............................................................................................... 14-33
14.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 14-33
14.3.5 Critical and Natural Habitats Assessment ................................................................ 14-33
14.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 14-33
14.4.1 Construction and Decommissioning ........................................................................ 14-33
14.4.2 Operation .......................................................................................................... 14-34
14.5 Monitoring/Additional Good Practice Measures.......................................................... 14-34
14.5.1 Construction/Decommissioning.............................................................................. 14-34
14.5.2 Operation .......................................................................................................... 14-36
14.6 Residual Effects .................................................................................................. 14-37
14.7 Section 14 Figures .............................................................................................. 14-38
15. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 15-1
15.2 Findings .............................................................................................................. 15-1
15.2.1 Lebanon .............................................................................................................. 15-1
15.2.2 Akkar Region........................................................................................................ 15-5
15.2.3 Literature Review - Socioeconomic Data for Villages in the DAOI ................................... 15-9
15.2.3.1 Fnaidek........................................................................................................ 15-10

15.2.3.2 Rweimeh Village ............................................................................................ 15-11
15.2.3.3 Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun ................................................................................... 15-11
15.2.3.4 Karm Chbat Cadastral Area ............................................................................. 15-13
15.2.3.5 Aandqet ....................................................................................................... 15-13
15.2.3.6 Chadra ........................................................................................................ 15-14
15.2.3.7 Machta Hammoud .......................................................................................... 15-15
15.2.3.8 Mqaible ........................................................................................................ 15-16
15.2.4 Quantitative Research - Socioeconomic Data for Villages in the DAOI ........................... 15-17
15.2.4.1 Household Survey in Fnaidek ........................................................................... 15-17

15.2.4.2 Household Survey in Chadra, Machta Hammoud and Mqaible ................................ 15-19
15.2.4.3 Survey of Sample Landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and Random Residents in Machta
Hammoud, Mqaible, Chadra, Akroum and Sahle .................................................. 15-27
15.2.5 Other Groups Potentially Impacted in the DAOI ........................................................ 15-28
15.2.5.1 Landowners for Land Lease and Acquisition ........................................................ 15-28
x
15.2.5.2 Vulnerable Groups ......................................................................................... 15-29
15.2.5.3 Shepherds Using the Project Area for Grazing ..................................................... 15-29
15.2.5.4 Hunters Using Tracks Within or Near the Project ................................................. 15-33
15.2.5.5 Businesses Near the Project/Influx of Workers .................................................... 15-33
15.2.6 Literature Review - Villages in the IAOI................................................................... 15-35
15.2.6.1 Villages Along the Transport Corridor ................................................................ 15-36

15.2.6.2 Informal Settlements in IAOI ........................................................................... 15-36
15.3 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................. 15-37
16. COMMUNITY HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY ........................................................... 16-1
16.1 Noise .................................................................................................................. 16-1
16.1.1 Baseline Methodology ............................................................................................ 16-1
16.1.2 Background Noise Measurements............................................................................. 16-1
16.1.2.1 15-Minute Background Measurements ................................................................. 16-1

16.1.2.2 48-Hour Background Noise Measurement............................................................. 16-5
16.1.3 Assessment of Potential Noise Impacts ................................................................... 16-10
16.1.3.1 Noise Impacts During the Construction .............................................................. 16-10

16.1.3.2 Noise Impacts During Operations ..................................................................... 16-15
16.1.3.3 Noise Impacts During Decommissioning ............................................................ 16-30
16.2 Shadow Flicker ................................................................................................... 16-31
16.2.1 Baseline Methodology .......................................................................................... 16-31
16.2.2 Shadow Flicker Impact Assessment ........................................................................ 16-36
16.2.2.1 Shadow Flicker Impacts During Construction ...................................................... 16-36

16.2.2.2 Shadow Flicker Impact During Operation ........................................................... 16-36
16.2.2.3 Shadow Flicker Impacts During Decommissioning ............................................... 16-42
16.3 Visual Amenity ................................................................................................... 16-42
16.3.1 Visual Amenity Baseline Methodology ..................................................................... 16-42
16.3.1.1 Receptors ..................................................................................................... 16-43

16.3.2 Visual Impact Assessment .................................................................................... 16-51
16.3.2.1 Visual Impacts During Construction .................................................................. 16-51

16.3.2.2 Visual Impacts During Operations ..................................................................... 16-52
16.3.2.3 Visual Impacts During Decommissioning ............................................................ 16-61
xi
16.4 Transport and Traffic Impacts to Communities ......................................................... 16-61
16.4.1 Baseline Methodology .......................................................................................... 16-61
16.4.2 Baseline Findings ................................................................................................ 16-62
16.4.2.1 Obstacle Removal .......................................................................................... 16-62

16.4.2.2 Construction of New Road Segments ................................................................. 16-62
16.4.2.3 Addition to Traffic Volume ............................................................................... 16-62
16.4.3 Transport and Traffic Impact Assessment ................................................................ 16-63
16.4.3.1 Transport and Traffic Impacts During Construction .............................................. 16-63

16.4.3.2 Transport and Traffic Impacts During Operation .................................................. 16-76
16.4.3.3 Transport and Traffic Impacts During Decommissioning........................................ 16-76
17. LANDSCAPE ......................................................................................................... 17-1
17.1.1 Landscape Units ................................................................................................... 17-2
17.2 Assessment of Potential Landscape Impacts .............................................................. 17-7
17.2.1 Landscape Impacts During Construction.................................................................... 17-7
17.2.2 Landscape Impacts During Operation ....................................................................... 17-7
17.2.2.1 Methodology ................................................................................................... 17-7

17.2.2.2 Landscape Assessment ................................................................................... 17-13
17.2.3 Landscape Impacts During Decommissioning ........................................................... 17-19
18. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ................................................................ 18-1
18.2.1 Archaeological Sites .............................................................................................. 18-1
18.2.2 Cultural Resources and Attractions ......................................................................... 18-10
18.3 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................. 18-12
18.3.1.1 Archaeology.................................................................................................. 18-12

18.3.1.2 Eco Tourism Sites .......................................................................................... 18-13
18.3.2.1 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................... 18-13

18.3.2.2 Eco Tourism.................................................................................................. 18-13
18.3.3.1 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................... 18-15

18.3.3.2 Eco Tourism.................................................................................................. 18-15
xii
19. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ...................................................................... 19-1
19.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Phase .......................................................................... 19-4
19.2.4 Decommissioning Phase ......................................................................................... 19-4
19.3 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 19-4
19.3.2 Construction and Operations and Maintenance Phases ................................................. 19-4
20. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 20-1
20.1 Wind Farm Descriptions ......................................................................................... 20-1
20.1.1 Sustainable Akkar ................................................................................................. 20-1
20.1.2 Hawa Akkar ......................................................................................................... 20-1
20.1.3 Lebanon Wind Power ............................................................................................. 20-1
20.2 Cumulative Impact Assessment Methodology ............................................................. 20-4
20.3 Cumulative Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 20-7
20.3.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 20-7
20.3.2 Transport and Traffic ............................................................................................. 20-8
20.3.3 Biodiversity ........................................................................................................ 20-13

20.3.3.3 Bats ............................................................................................................ 20-23
20.3.3.4 Ornithology .................................................................................................. 20-29
20.3.4 Socio-Economic Environment ................................................................................ 20-41
20.3.5 Noise ................................................................................................................ 20-48
20.3.6 Shadow Flicker ................................................................................................... 20-55
20.3.7 Visual and Landscape .......................................................................................... 20-58
20.4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 20-68
21. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS....................................................................... 21-1
22. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 22-1
xiii
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Project Location .......................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 1-2 Project Layout ............................................................................................ 1-4
Figure 2-1 Elevation Profile of the Project ....................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Site Location Relative to Nearest Villages .............................................. 2-4
Figure 2-3 Project Components..................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-4 Alignment of Buried Transmission Line ............................................................ 2-9
Figure 2-5 Existing Meteorological Mast Locations ........................................................... 2-11
Figure 2-6 Transport Route from the Tripoli Seaport to the Project .................................... 2-12
Figure 2-7 Outside Chadra to Hawa Akkar Wind Farm ...................................................... 2-13
Figure 2-8 Photographs of Hawa Akkar Track ................................................................. 2-15
Figure 2-9 Internal Tracks through the Project ............................................................... 2-16
Figure 2-10 Quobaiyat-Qasr Road to the Lebanon Wind Power Wind Farm ............................ 2-17
Figure 2-11a Land Lease Parcels – Acquisition of LWP Substation.......................................... 2-25
Figure 2-11b Leased Land Parcels ................................................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-11c ............................................................................................................... 2-27
Figure 2-12 Project Schedule ........................................................................................ 2-30
Figure 2-13 Direct Area of Influence ............................................................................... 2-41
Figure 2-14 Individual Houses Near the Project ................................................................ 2-42
Figure 2-15 Indirect Area of Influence ............................................................................ 2-44
Figure 2-16a Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor ..................................................... 2-45
Figure 2-16b Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor ..................................................... 2-46
Figure 2-16c Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor ..................................................... 2-47
Figure 2-16d Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor ..................................................... 2-48
Figure 2-16e Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor and Villages Near the Project ............. 2-49
Figure 2-16f Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor ..................................................... 2-50
Figure 2-16g Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor ..................................................... 2-51
Figure 2-17 Location of Nearby Investments of Similar Nature ............................................ 2-53
Figure 3-1 Wind Speeds at 80m Above Ground Level ........................................................ 3-3
Figure 3-2 Project Turbine Layout ................................................................................. 3-4
Figure 3-3 Alternative EDL Substation Locations .............................................................. 3-6
Figure 3-4 Alternative Wind Energy Technologies ............................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-5 Alternative Road Scenarios After Abdeh Village ................................................ 3-12
Figure 3-6 Alternative Access Roads Khirbet Er Roummane to North Railway Junction ........... 3-13
Figure 3-7 Alternative Access Roads - Mqaible Road Junction to HA Site ............................. 3-14
Figure 3-8 Alternative Access Roads through Military Base ............................................... 3-14
xiv
Figure 3-9 Alternative Connection Roads Between HA and SA Wind Farms .......................... 3-15
Figure 3-10 Solar PV Capacity and Annual Additions ......................................................... 3-17
Figure 3-11 Solar PV Capacity by Governate (MWp | %) .................................................... 3-18
Figure 4-1 Construction Permit Process ......................................................................... 4-22
Figure 5-1a – 5-1h Akkar Mountain Region Fog and Mist ....................................................... 5-4
Figure 6-1 Placement of Public Announcements .............................................................. 6-10
Figure 6-2 Photographs of the Initial Public Disclosure Meeting ......................................... 6-11
Figure 6-3 Site Meeting with LCEC ............................................................................... 6-14
Figure 6-4 Iftar for Affected Communities...................................................................... 6-15
Figure 6-5 Day 1: 2-Day Visit by Bank Audi/SLR............................................................. 6-16
Figure 6-6 Day 2: 2-Day Visit by Bank Audi/SLR............................................................. 6-16
Figure 6-7 Site Visit by International Lenders ................................................................. 6-17
Figure 6-8 Meeting with General Daher and Representatives of the Families of Kfartoun ........ 6-17
Figure 6-9 Site Visit by Potential OEMs.......................................................................... 6-18
Figure 6-10 Photographs of Focus Group Meetings ............................................................ 6-19
Figure 6-11 Existing Track through Karm Chbat Nature Reserve for Underground Transmission Line
............................................................................................................... 6-20
Figure 6-12 Visit to Turkish Wind Farms.......................................................................... 6-21
Figure 6-13 Review of WTG Performance Monitoring System and SCADA Data Analysis ........... 6-22
Figure 6-14 Photographs Taken During the Final Public Disclosure Meeting ........................... 6-24
Figure 6-15 Ramboll Meeting with Omar Massoud ............................................................. 6-26
Figure 6-16 Meeting with the Lebanese Army .................................................................. 6-28
Figure 6-17 Al Fayhaa Meeting with Mayors of Tripoli, Al Beddaoui, Al Minie and Qalamoun ..... 6-30
Figure 6-18 Deir Amar Meeting with Mayor Dhaybi ........................................................... 6-31
Figure 6-19 Al Minie and Al Nabi Kzaiber Village Meeting ................................................... 6-32
Figure 6-20 Meeting with Zoug Bhannine Municipality ....................................................... 6-32
Figure 6-21 Meeting with Municipality of Al Mhamra .......................................................... 6-33
Figure 6-22 Meeting with the Talmaaiyan Union of Municipalities ......................................... 6-34
Figure 6-23 Location of the Akkar Vegetable Market ......................................................... 6-36
Figure 6-24 Meeting with the Quobber Chamra Municipality ............................................... 6-37
Figure 6-25 Meeting with the Governor of the Akkar Region ............................................... 6-38
Figure 6-26 Meeting with North Akkar Union of Municipalities ............................................. 6-38
Figure 6-27 Meeting with Governor of North Lebanon ........................................................ 6-40
Figure 6-28 Project Presentation at Beirut Arab University ................................................. 6-41
Figure 6-29 Consultation with Rweimeh Village Members ................................................... 6-68
Figure 7-1 Quobaiyat Substation ................................................................................... 7-2
Figure 7-2 2015 Renewable Energy Share of Global Final Energy Consumption (REN21, 2017) 7-4
xv
Figure 7-3 Proportional Variation of Monthly Means of Wind Speed at the Project Site ............ 7-6
Figure 7-4 Measured Wind Direction and Wind Speed Distribution at the Sustainable Akkar Site –
Mast 4 ....................................................................................................... 7-7
Mast 5 ....................................................................................................... 7-7
Mast 6 ....................................................................................................... 7-7
Figure 7-7 Calculated Average Wind Speed for Hub Height of 110m .................................... 7-9
Figure 8-1 Foehn Effect in Jabal Akroum (as seen from Aandqet) ....................................... 8-1
Figure 8-2 Annual Rainfall Map of the Region – 2011-2012 ................................................ 8-2
Figure 8-3 Average Rainfall Amounts and Rainy Days in Akkar .......................................... 8-3
Figure 8-4 Maximum, Minimum and Average Temperature in Akkar ................................... 8-3
Figure 8-5 Snowfall and Snow Days in Akkar.................................................................. 8-4
Figure 8-6 Maximum and Average Wind Speed and Wind Gust in Akkar .............................. 8-4
Figure 8-7 Average Cloud and Humidity in Akkar ............................................................. 8-5
Figure 8-8 Average Temperature, Humidity and Pressure Measured at the Sustainable Akkar Wind
Farm for the Year 2014 ................................................................................ 8-6
Figure 8-9 CORDEX Temperature Projections for the 21st Century for GHG .......................... 8-8
Figure 8-10 Projected Trends in Annual Cooling Degree Days for Lebanon ............................. 8-9
Figure 8-11 Projected Trends in Annual Days without Noticeable Wind for Lebanon ................ 8-10
Figure 9-1 Geological Map of Lebanon............................................................................ 9-2
Figure 9-2 Cross-Section of Northern Lebanon ................................................................ 9-3
Figure 9-3 Limestone Outcroppings in the Project Area ..................................................... 9-3
Figure 9-4 Faults of Lebanon ........................................................................................ 9-4
Figure 9-5 Topography of Northern Lebanon ................................................................... 9-5
Figure 9-6 Stratigraphy and Hydrostratigraphy................................................................ 9-7
Figure 9-7 Karstic Map of Lebanon ................................................................................ 9-8
Figure 9-8 Hydrogeology Map ....................................................................................... 9-9
Figure 9-9 Shallow and Deep Groundwater Flow Direction in the Basin ............................... 9-10
Figure 9-10 Groundwater Basins Under Stress ................................................................. 9-11
Figure 9-11 Public Well Locations................................................................................... 9-13
Figure 9-12 Private and Public Well Locations .................................................................. 9-15
Figure 9-13 Lebanon River Locations .............................................................................. 9-17
Figure 9-14 Water Resources Map of the Project Area ....................................................... 9-18
Figure 9-15 Water Resource Vulnerability Map of Lebanon ................................................. 9-19
Figure 9-16 Minor Spring Locations ................................................................................ 9-21
Figure 9-17 UNDP Conceptual Groundwater Model of Lebanon ............................................ 9-22
Figure 10-1 Seismic Device .......................................................................................... 10-1
xvi
Figure 10-2 Ground Study Areas ................................................................................... 10-2
Figure 10-10 MASW Measurements.................................................................................. 10-6
Figure 10-11 Fault Zones ............................................................................................... 10-9
Figure 11-1 MOE 2011 Air Monitoring Locations ............................................................... 11-2
Figure 11-2 Location of Sensitive Receptors near the Project .............................................. 11-5
Figure 11-3 NOx Emissions During Construction Phase ...................................................... 11-8
Figure 12-1 Routes Surveyed by Madgelni ....................................................................... 12-2
Figure 12-2 Start of Alternative Route Surveyed by Madgelni ............................................. 12-3
Figure 12-3 Routes Surveyed by GIFCO .......................................................................... 12-4
Figure 12-4 Selected Roads Surveyed ............................................................................ 12-6
Figure 12-5 Images of Automatic Traffic Counts ............................................................... 12-7
Figure 12-6 Obstacles OBS01 through OBS21 ................................................................ 12-11
Figure 12-9 GIFCO Alternative between at Begdadhi and Nour El Tahta .............................. 12-18
Figure 12-10 GIFCO Alternative between the Aabboudiye/Chadra Route with the Aabde to Chadra
Route ..................................................................................................... 12-19
Figure 12-11 Classified Average Hourly Volume from Abu Ali Roundabout – Beddaoui............. 12-20
Figure 12-12 Location of Key Junctions........................................................................... 12-23
Figure 12-13 New Road Segments ................................................................................. 12-31
Figure 12-14 Quarries and Existing Tracks (Green) Joining Existing Road (Yellow) ................. 12-36
Figure 12-15 Location of Chekkah and Cement Plants ....................................................... 12-37
Figure 13-1 Approximate Delineation of the Flora Survey Area.......................................... 13-47
Figure 13-2 Location of Passive Bat Detectors Across SA Site ........................................... 13-48
Figure 13-3 Designated Sites ...................................................................................... 13-49
Figure 13-4 Grassland and Juniper Forest Edge in Roueimeh ............................................ 13-50
Figure 13-5 Mixed Forest Edge in Rweimeh ................................................................... 13-50
Figure 13-6 Plot in Grassland with Trees in Rweimeh ...................................................... 13-51
Figure 13-7 Barren Land and Grassland in Khokh Bziza (Kfartoun) .................................... 13-51
Figure 13-8 Overview Land Use Map of Project Site ........................................................ 13-52
xvii
Figure 13-9 Overview Habitat Map of Project Site ........................................................... 13-53
Figure 13-10a Habitat Types in Project Site ...................................................................... 13-54
Figure 13-10b Habitat Types in Project Site ...................................................................... 13-55
Figure 13-10c Habitat Types in Project Site ...................................................................... 13-56
Figure 14-1 Location of Point Counts ............................................................................ 14-38
Figure 14-2 Location of Vantage Points ......................................................................... 14-39
Figure 14-3 Designated Sites ...................................................................................... 14-40
Figure 14-4 Hunting Ban Area ..................................................................................... 14-41
Figure 15-1 Population Densities of Lebanon.................................................................... 15-2
Figure 15-2 Druze Communities .................................................................................... 15-4
Figure 15-3 Location of Akkar Governorate...................................................................... 15-5
Figure 15-4 Population in the Akkar Governorate.............................................................. 15-5
Figure 15-5 Akkar Governorate Unemployment Rate in 2009 .............................................. 15-6
Figure 15-6 Akkar Governorate Unemployment Rate in 2009 .............................................. 15-7
Figure 15-7 Distribution of Labor Force by Activity in Akkar in 2008..................................... 15-7
Figure 15-8 Agricultural Domains in Lebanon ................................................................... 15-8
Figure 15-9 Energy Cost Comparison ........................................................................... 15-19
Figure 15-10 Informal Settlements in Lebanon ................................................................ 15-30
Figure 15-11 UNHCR Map of Vulnerable Population Groups in Lebanon................................. 15-31
Figure 15-12 Grazing Areas Used by Shepherds Within or Near the Project ........................... 15-32
Figure 15-13 Hunting Tracks Near and Within the Project Area ........................................... 15-34
Figure 16-1 Sustainable Akkar Noise Receptor Locations.................................................... 16-2
Figure 16-2 Sustainable Akkar Noise Monitoring Locations ................................................. 16-4
Figure 16-3 Lebanon Wind Power Noise Monitoring Locations (Google Earth®, 2018) ............. 16-7
Figure 16-4 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario A: Vestas V150 night time ....................... 16-25
Figure 16-5 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario B: Nordex N149 ..................................... 16-27
Figure 16-6 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario C: GE 5.3-158 ....................................... 16-29
Figure 16-7 Sustainable Akkar Shadow Flicker Receptors ................................................. 16-34
Figure 16-8 Astronomically Maximum Shadowing (h/year), Vestas V150 Scenario ................ 16-35
Figure 16-9 Visual Receptors ...................................................................................... 16-43
Figure 16-10 New 0.65km Asphalt Road Segment to Avoid Chadra, Machta Hassan and Machta
Hammoud ............................................................................................... 16-65
Figure 16-11 New 0.15km Segment of Asphalt Road......................................................... 16-66
Figure 16-12 New 3.1km Gravel Road within Railroad ROW ............................................... 16-67
Figure 16-13 Existing Railroad ROW Used by Vehicles ....................................................... 16-67
Figure 16-14 Land Acquisition for 0.11km Asphalt Road Segment ....................................... 16-68
Figure 16-15 Akkar Vegetable Market ............................................................................ 16-72
xviii
Figure 16-16 Quarries and Existing Tracks (Green) Joining Existing Road (Yellow) ................. 16-74
Figure 16-17 Houses Near Transport Routes for Construction Materials ................................ 16-75
Figure 17-1 Agriculture Area (here Olive Plantations) ........................................................ 17-2
Figure 17-2 Example of a Dense Pinus Forest .................................................................. 17-3
Figure 17-3 Example of a Mixed Forest Area Consisting of Conifer and Broadleaf Trees ........... 17-4
Figure 17-4 Rocky Areas on the High Ridges of the Project Site .......................................... 17-4
Figure 17-5 Example of Shrublands................................................................................ 17-5
Figure 17-6 Example of Sparse Coniferous Area ............................................................... 17-5
Figure 17-7 Example for Urban Area (Quobaiyat) ............................................................. 17-6
Figure 17-8 Karm Chbat Nature Reserve ......................................................................... 17-6
Figure 18-1 Archaeological Sites Near the Project ............................................................. 18-2
Figure 18-2 Khorab Beit Daher Site ................................................................................ 18-3
Figure 18-3 Obour el Bid .............................................................................................. 18-3
Figure 18-4 Khirbet Hbanjar ......................................................................................... 18-4
Figure 18-5 Khirbet Arhsar ........................................................................................... 18-4
Figure 18-6 El Mansoura .............................................................................................. 18-6
Figure 18-7 Tahoun Ksar .............................................................................................. 18-6
Figure 18-8 Khorab el Haïyat ........................................................................................ 18-7
Figure 18-9 Qalaat Deïr Chir ......................................................................................... 18-7
Figure 18-10 Qalaat Akkar ............................................................................................. 18-8
Figure 18-11 Qalaat Akkar Fortress ................................................................................. 18-8
Figure 18-12 En Nabi Ayoûb ........................................................................................... 18-9
Figure 18-13 En Nabi Ayoûb ........................................................................................... 18-9
Figure 18-14 Cultural Resources and Attractions .............................................................. 18-11
Figure 18-15 Karm Chbat Nature Reserve ....................................................................... 18-14
Figure 20-1 Proximity of the 3 Wind Farms...................................................................... 20-2
Figure 20-2 Hawa Akkar Turbine Layout ......................................................................... 20-3
Figure 20-3 Lebanon Wind Power Turbine Layout ............................................................. 20-5
Figure 20-4 Cumulative Impact Assessment Approach....................................................... 20-6
Figure 20-5 Cumulative Noise Isolines for the 3 Wind Farm Projects .................................. 20-54
Figure 20-6 Shadow Flicker Area (HA+SA+LWP) ............................................................ 20-56
Figure 20-7 Shadow Flicker Areas between the SA and the HA Projects .............................. 20-57
xix
TABLES
Table 1-1 Summary of Volume I ESIA Report Contents .................................................... 1-5
Table 2-1 Potential OEMs, Turbine Power Ratings and Turbine Locations ............................. 2-1
Table 2-2 Project Components..................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-3 Face-To-Face Meetings with Family Leadership in Affected Communities .............. 2-18
Table 2-4 Land Lease/Purchase Agreements ................................................................. 2-23
Table 2-5 Footprint of the Project Components ........................................................... 2-29
Table 2-6 Maintenance Activities ................................................................................. 2-37
Table 2-7 Preventive Routine Maintenance Works .......................................................... 2-37
Table 2-8 Delineation of Decommissioning Activities per Element ..................................... 2-39
Table 2-9 Villages/Locations in the Direct Area of Influence ............................................. 2-40
Table 2-10 Villages in the Indirect Area of Influence ........................................................ 2-43
Table 3-1 Range of Prices of Candidate Turbines ............................................................ 3-9
Table 3-2 Comparison of GIS and AIS Substation Insulation Design .................................. 3-10
Table 3-3 Comparison of Transmission Designs ............................................................. 3-10
Table 3-4 Comparison of Air vs Road Transport of Turbine Parts....................................... 3-11
Table 3-5 Comparison of Different Road Transport Means ............................................... 3-11
Table 3-6 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................... 3-16
Table 4-1 Relevant National Legislation ......................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) .............................................. 4-4
Table 4-3 Limits for Noise Levels per Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996.................................. 4-5
Table 4-4 Zone N2 Description .................................................................................... 4-6
Table 4-5 Treaties and Conventions Ratified by Lebanon .................................................. 4-7
Table 4-6 Relevant IFC Performance Standards ............................................................. 4-11
Table 4-7 Noise Level Guidelines per IFC General EHS Guidelines ..................................... 4-13
Table 4-8 Noise Limits for Various Working Environments per IFC EHS Guidelines ............... 4-13
Table 4-9 Relevant EIB Environmental and Social Standards............................................ 4-14
Table 4-10 GOL Roles and Responsibilities in Relation to the Project ................................... 4-23
Table 5-1 Magnitude Criteria ...................................................................................... 5-10
Table 5-2 Matrix for Determining Impact Significance ..................................................... 5-11
Table 5-3 Definition of Impacts and Significance............................................................ 5-12
Table 6-1 Face-To-Face Meetings with Family Leadership in Affected Communities ............... 6-8
Table 6-2 Meetings with Key Informants ....................................................................... 6-9
Table 6-3 Summary of Discussions During/Following the Public Consultation Meeting.......... 6-13
Table 6-4 Summary of Discussions During/Following the Final Public Disclosure Meeting ..... 6-23
Table 6-5 NGOs Invited to Hawa Akkar Public Meeting .................................................... 6-27
xx
Table 6-6 Consultations with Municipalities & Governors ................................................. 6-29
Table 6-7 High Level Meeting Minutes .......................................................................... 6-43
Table 6-8 Consultation Survey Results – Landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun .................. 6-46
Table 6-9 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Machta Hassan................................ 6-49
Table 6-10 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Machta Hammoud ........................... 6-52
Table 6-11 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Mqaible.......................................... 6-55
Table 6-12 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Chadra .......................................... 6-58
Table 6-13 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Akroum ......................................... 6-61
Table 6-14 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Sahle ............................................ 6-64
Table 7-1 EDL Generating Capacity in 2018 (EDL (2018) and Fardoun et al. (2012)) ............ 7-1
Table 7-2 Resulting Mean Wind Speeds and Scaling Factors for Long-Term Correction .......... 7-8
Table 7-3 Gross Energy Yield Calculations .................................................................... 7-10
Table 8-1 GHG Emission Factors ................................................................................. 8-11
Table 8-2 GHG Emissions During Project Phases ............................................................ 8-11
Table 8-3 GHG Assessment for Construction Phase (Worst-Case Scenario)......................... 8-12
Table 8-4 Flood Risk Assessment ................................................................................ 8-13
Table 8-5 Wildfire Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 8-14
Table 8-6 Assumptions for Calculation of GHG for the Project LCA .................................... 8-15
Table 8-7 CO2eq Emissions from the Project Wind Turbine Life Cycle ................................. 8-16
Table 9-1 Formations Encountered in Project Area .......................................................... 9-1
Table 9-2 North Lebanon Cretaceous Basin Recharge Potential.......................................... 9-6
Table 9-3 North Lebanon Cretaceous Basin Hydrochemical Composition ............................ 9-12
Table 9-4 NLWE Water Establishment Wells and Extraction Rates ..................................... 9-12
Table 9-5 Parameters for Selected Main Rivers in North Lebanon in the Dry Season............. 9-16
Table 9-6 Impact Assessment for Sources of Pollution to Groundwater and Improper
Management of Waste Streams .................................................................... 9-28
Table 10-1 Vs30 Values and Corresponding Ground Groups .............................................. 10-1
Table 10-2 Geophysical Ground and Seismicity Assessment ............................................ 10-10
Table 11-1 Background Concentrations of Priority Pollutants in the Project Area (ug/m3)........ 11-1
Table 11-2 WHO Air Quality Guidelines .......................................................................... 11-3
Table 11-3 Air Quality Guidelines According to Lebanese Decision 52/1 ............................... 11-4
Table 11-4 Maximum Allowed Concentration Increments from the Project ........................... 11-4
Table 11-5 Emission Sources Considered ....................................................................... 11-6
Table 11-6 Emissions from the Construction Phase .......................................................... 11-7
Table 11-7 Air Quality Assessment for the Construction Phase (Worst-Case Scenario) ........... 11-9
Table 11-8 Total Emissions from the Operations and Maintenance Phase ............................. 11-9
Table 11-9 Emissions from the Decommissioning Phase.................................................... 11-9
xxi
Table 11-10 Air Quality Assessment for the Decommissioning Phase .................................. 11-11
Table 12-1 Selected Road Characteristics ....................................................................... 12-5
Table 12-2 Potential Obstacles Identified by Madgelni ...................................................... 12-7
Table 12-3 Potential Obstacles Identified by GIFCO ....................................................... 12-14
Table 12-4 Existing Average Daily Traffic Along Selected Roads ....................................... 12-17
Table 12-5 Level of Service Definitions ........................................................................ 12-20
Table 12-6 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................ 12-21
Table 12-7 Key Selected Junctions .............................................................................. 12-22
Table 12-8 Obstacles and Associated Civil Works........................................................... 12-24
Table 12-9 Potential Obstacles Between the Tripoli Port and Chadra ................................. 12-27
Table 12-10 Assessment of Minor Civil Works Required for Obstacle Removal ...................... 12-30
Table 12-11 Assessment of New Road Development ........................................................ 12-32
Table 12-12 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of WTG Components129F13F ............................. 12-33
Table 12-13 Weekly Traffic Along WTG Transport Route ................................................... 12-34
Table 12-14 Projected Level of Service Change for Transport of WTG Components................ 12-35
Table 12-15 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of Construction Materials.......................... 12-38
Table 12-16 Assessment of WTG Component, Construction Materials and Worker Transport during
Construction............................................................................................ 12-40
Table 13-1 Geographic Importance ............................................................................... 13-5
Table 13-2 Impact Characterization .............................................................................. 13-6
Table 13-3 Flora Species Present in Each Land Use Habitat Type in Project Site .................. 13-11
Table 13-4 Habitat Types and Area in Project Site ......................................................... 13-14
Table 13-5 List of Habitat Types and Floral Species Encountered at Proposed Project Infrastructure
Locations ................................................................................................ 13-15
Table 13-6 List of Floral Species in Mixed Oak Woodland Habitat Type .............................. 13-20
Table 13-7 List of Floral Species Expected in Project Site ................................................ 13-21
Table 13-8 Mammal Survey Results ............................................................................ 13-23
Table 13-9 Endangered Reptile Species Potentially found on Project Site ........................... 13-23
Table 13-10 Invertebrate Species Typically Encountered in Habitats Present on Project Site ... 13-24
Table 13-11 Bat Species in Lebanon from Available Literature ........................................... 13-25
Table 13-12 Summary of Bat Species Recorded within the Study Area (Ascending order from most
commonly recorded to least recorded species across the site) .......................... 13-27
Table 13-13 Species Recorded at Each Detector Location ................................................. 13-30
Table 13-14 Averages Bat Passes per Detector per Night Across the Project Site (Ranked) ..... 13-31
Table 13-15 Hibernation Roost Survey Results................................................................ 13-31
Table 13-16 Summary of Importance of Biodiversity Features ........................................... 13-33
Table 13-17 Potential Habitat Loss and Modification ........................................................ 13-35
xxii
Table 13-18 Collision Risk Level for Each Species Likely to Occur Within the Study Site Based on
Species Ecology ....................................................................................... 13-40
Table 14-1 Point Count Survey Visits and Previous Surveys............................................... 14-3
Table 14-2 Vantage Point Survey Schedule .................................................................... 14-3
Table 14-3 Geographic Importance ............................................................................... 14-5
Table 14-4 Impact Characterization .............................................................................. 14-6
Table 14-5 Summary of Point Count Results ................................................................. 14-10
Table 14-6 Species Accounts of Collision Risk Species .................................................... 14-11
Table 14-7 Results of Hawa Akkar Bird Surveys ............................................................ 14-22
Table 14-8 Summary of Importance of Biodiversity Features ........................................... 14-23
Table 14-9 Collision Risk Assessment Results per Species ............................................... 14-27
Table 15-1 Social Infrastructure of the North Lebanon Region ........................................... 15-9
Table 15-2 Living Conditions of Syrian Refugees ............................................................. 15-9
Table 15-3 Age Breakdown in Fnaidek ......................................................................... 15-10
Table 15-4 Use of Natural Resources by Fnaidek ........................................................... 15-10
Table 15-5 Age Breakdown in Rweimeh Village ............................................................. 15-11
Table 15-6 Use of Natural Resources by Rweimeh Village................................................ 15-11
Table 15-7 Age Breakdown in Akroum ......................................................................... 15-12
Table 15-8 Use of Natural Resources by Akroum ........................................................... 15-12
Table 15-9 Age Breakdown in Kfartoun ........................................................................ 15-12
Table 15-10 Natural Resource Uses by Kfartoun.............................................................. 15-13
Table 15-11 Age Breakdown of Aandqet ........................................................................ 15-13
Table 15-12 Use of Natural Resources by Aandqet........................................................... 15-14
Table 15-13 Aandqet Land Use Divisions ....................................................................... 15-14
Table 15-14 Age Breakdown in Chadra .......................................................................... 15-14
Table 15-15 Chadra Land Use Divisions ......................................................................... 15-15
Table 15-16 Age Breakdown in Machta Hammoud ........................................................... 15-15
Table 15-17 Machta Hammoud Land Use Divisions .......................................................... 15-16
Table 15-18 Age Breakdown in Mqaible ......................................................................... 15-16
Table 15-19 Mqaible Land Use Divisions ........................................................................ 15-17
Table 15-20 Sample Distribution According to Region ...................................................... 15-20
Table 15-21 Sample Distribution, According to Gender ..................................................... 15-20
Table 15-22 Sample Distribution, According to Age Group ................................................ 15-20
Table 15-23 Sample Distribution, According to Marital Status ............................................ 15-21
Table 15-24 Sample Distribution, According to Household Size Category ............................. 15-21
Table 15-25 Level of Education, According to Region ....................................................... 15-21
Table 15-26 Work Status According to Region ................................................................ 15-22
xxiii
Table 15-27 Distribution of Workforce, According to Economic Activity Sector and Region ...... 15-23
Table 15-28 Type of Work Permanence ......................................................................... 15-23
Table 15-29 Average Monthly Household Income ............................................................ 15-23
Table 15-30 All Sources of Household Income ................................................................ 15-24
Table 15-31 Level of Project Awareness ........................................................................ 15-24
Table 15-32 Sources of Information Concerning the Project .............................................. 15-25
Table 15-33 Level of Knowledge about Wind Farms ......................................................... 15-25
Table 15-34 Sources of Knowledge about Wind Farms ..................................................... 15-26
Table 15-35 Assessment of Expected Success Level in Achieving Project Objectives .............. 15-26
Table 15-36 Villages in the IAOI................................................................................... 15-35
Table 15-37 Informal Settlements Immediately Adjacent to the WTG Transport Corridor ....... 15-36
Table 15-38 Assessment of Impacts During Construction.................................................. 15-39
Table 15-39 Assessment of Impacts During Operation ..................................................... 15-40
Table 16-1 Description of Sustainable Akkar Noise Monitoring Locations .............................. 16-3
Table 16-2 Noise Monitoring Locations........................................................................... 16-6
Table 16-3 Noise Measurements at Sustainable Akkar During Day and Night ........................ 16-8
Table 16-4 Noise Measurements for 48 Hours During Day and Night ................................... 16-9
Table 16-5 Balance-of-Plant Machines ......................................................................... 16-11
Table 16-6 Noise Assessment - Construction Phase ....................................................... 16-12
Table 16-7 Noise Assessment for Construction Phase (Worst-Case Scenario)...................... 16-15
Table 16-8 Limits for Noise Levels per Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996 [dB(A)] ................... 16-16
Table 16-9 Noise Level Guidelines per IFC General EHS Guidelines (2007) ......................... 16-17
Table 16-10 Technical WTG Data for Three Scenarios ...................................................... 16-19
Table 16-11 Technical WTG Data for Vestas Scenario....................................................... 16-20
Table 16-12 Technical WTG Data for Nordex Scenario ...................................................... 16-21
Table 16-13 Technical WTG Data for GE Scenario ............................................................ 16-22
Table 16-14 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario A: Vestas V150 ...................................... 16-24
Table 16-15 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario B: Nordex N149 ..................................... 16-26
Table 16-16 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario C: GE 5.3-158 ....................................... 16-28
Table 16-17 Noise Assessment for Operations and Maintenance Phase (Worst-Case Scenario), with
Mitigation................................................................................................ 16-30
Table 16-18 WTG Input Data ....................................................................................... 16-32
Table 16-19 Duration of Shadow Flicker at Emission Points, Scenario A Vestas V150 ............. 16-36
Table 16-20 Duration of Shadow Flicker at Emission Points, Scenario B Nordex N149 ............ 16-38
Table 16-21 Duration of Shadow Flicker at Emission Points, Scenario C GE Wind 5.3-158 ...... 16-39
Table 16-22 Shadow Flicker Assessment for Operation Phase (Worst-Case Scenario), With
Mitigation................................................................................................ 16-41
xxiv
Table 16-23 Scoping of Settlements within the 15km Study Area....................................... 16-45
Table 16-24 Visual Receptor Sensitivity Assessment – Settlements- ................................... 16-50
Table 16-25 Visual Receptor Sensitivity Assessment ........................................................ 16-51
Table 16-26 Receptor Sensitivity Criteria ....................................................................... 16-54
Table 16-27 Criteria for Magnitude of Visual Amenity Change ............................................ 16-54
Table 16-28 Significance Matrix ................................................................................... 16-56
Table 16-29 WTG Scenarios ........................................................................................ 16-56
Table 16-30 Assessment of Visual Effects on Key Receptors .............................................. 16-58
Table 16-31 Assessment of Visual Effects on Settlements ................................................. 16-59
Table 16-32 Visual Impact Assessment for Operation Phase .............................................. 16-61
Table 16-33 Assessment of Impacts from Obstacle Removal ............................................. 16-63
Table 16-34 Assessment of Impacts from New Road Segments ......................................... 16-69
Table 16-35 Assessment of Internal Track Development................................................... 16-70
Table 16-36 Assessment of WTG Component Transport during Construction ........................ 16-71
Table 16-37 Assessment of Construction Material Transport during Construction .................. 16-76
Table 17-1 Aesthetic Value .......................................................................................... 17-8
Table 17-2 Aesthetic Intensity of the Intervention ........................................................... 17-9
Table 17-3 Aesthetic Visual Vulnerability........................................................................ 17-9
Table 17-4 Aesthetic Sensitivity of the Landscape.......................................................... 17-10
Table 17-5 Aesthetic Relevance of the Intervention ....................................................... 17-11
Table 17-6 Identification and Aesthetic Value of the Landscape Units ................................ 17-11
Table 17-7 Sum of Visibility of the Turbines in 15km Radius ............................................ 17-13
Table 17-8 Evaluation of the Relevance of the Intervention for the Individual Landscape Units ......
............................................................................................................. 17-15
Table 17-9 Landscape Assessment for Operation Phase .................................................. 17-19
Table 18-1 Assessment of Potential Impact to Archaeology During Construction ................. 18-13
Table 18-2 Assessment of Access to Karm Chbat Nature Reserve During Operation ............. 18-15
Table 19-1 Occupational Health and Safety Risk Register – Construction and Operations Phase 19-
6
Table 19-2 Construction Phase Assessment .................................................................. 19-17
Table 19-3 Operations and Maintenance Phase Assessment............................................. 19-20
Table 20-1 Potential OEMs, Turbine Power Ratings and Turbine Locations ............................ 20-4
Table 20-2 Cumulative Emissions from the Three Wind Farms During Phases ....................... 20-7
Table 20-3 Cumulative Impact of PM During Construction ................................................. 20-8
Table 20-4 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of WTG Components, Construction Materials and
Workers.................................................................................................. 20-10
Table 20-5 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of Construction Materials.......................... 20-11
xxv
Table 20-6 Cumulative Impact of Traffic and Transport During Construction....................... 20-13
Table 20-7 Cumulative Collision Risk ........................................................................... 20-30
Table 20-8 Technical WTG Data LWP Site (Worst Case Assumption) ................................. 20-48
Table 20-9 Technical WTG Data SA Site (Worst Case Assumption).................................... 20-49
Table 20-10 Technical WTG Data HA Site....................................................................... 20-50
Table 20-11 Cumulative Noise Calculation based on Nordex N-149 (Worst-Case).................. 20-51
Table 20-12 Cumulative Noise Impact ........................................................................... 20-55
Table 20-13 Cumulative Impact Shadow Flicker .............................................................. 20-57
Table 20--14 Cumulative Visibility for Wind Farm Projects in 15km Radius of the SA Project .... 20-58
Table 20-15 Cumulative Assessment of Visual Effects on Key Receptors and Settlements ....... 20-59
Table 20-16 Cumulative Assessment of Visual Effects on Scoped Out Settlements ............... 20-63
Table 20-17 Cumulative Visual Impact Assessment for Operation Phase .............................. 20-66
Table 20-18 Cumulative Landscape Impact .................................................................... 20-67
Table 21-1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................................................................. 21-2
xxvi
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Project Background
Sustainable Akkar SAL (the Developer) is proposing to develop a 90.75 megawatt (MW) onshore wind
farm in the Akkar region of Lebanon (the Project). The location of the Project site is shown in Figure
NTS-1.
In accordance with legislation and standards of Lebanon governed by the Ministry of Environment
(MOE), the Project has been subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). In addition, The
Developer is seeking financing for the Project from International Finance Institutions (IFIs); therefore,
an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Report has been prepared in accordance with
good international industry practice and international standards.
1.2. Structure of the ESIA Report
The ESIA document package consists of three documents:
• ESIA Report:
− Volume I: the main ESIA Report which provides a detailed description of the Project, presents
assessment methodologies, findings and conclusions of the ESIA process.
− Volume II: the Technical Appendices which provides supporting information for the
assessment undertaken and reported in Volume I.
• Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP).

• Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP).
1.3. The ESIA Process
The ESIA has been completed in accordance with Lebanon’s legislation, International Finance
Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards (2012) and European Investment Bank (EIB) Environmental
and Social Standards. The key objectives of the ESIA process are to assess the potential
environmental and social impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project, and to
identify measures that can be adopted to avoid, minimize or offset adverse impacts. The process also
identifies ways to enhance any beneficial impacts of the Project. The ESIA process included the
following activities:
Scoping
A scoping exercise was undertaken to identify and focus the impact assessment on potentially
significant environmental and social issues associated with the development of the Project (through
the construction and operation phases). Scoping has an important role to play in achieving
proportionate and effective assessment. Key stakeholders, including interested and affected parties,
were identified during this exercise and provided with an opportunity to raise any comments, concerns
and/or queries that they may have on the proposed Project. A Scoping Report was submitted solely to
the MOE in December 2017 and reviewed by an internal committee.
NTS-1
Figure NTS-1 Project Location
NTS-2
The aim of the scoping process is to identify Project effects that have the potential to be significant
and to exclude (scope out) from the assessment those effects that are unlikely to be significant.
During the scoping phase a summary of available high-level baseline information was collected, key
potential environmental and social impacts and sensitive receptors and resources were identified, and
the impact assessment methodology was defined.
Collection of Baseline Data
The “baseline” describes the existing environmental and social conditions of the Project. It is this
baseline against which the potential effects of the Project can be assessed. Primary and secondary
environmental and social data were collected in order to enhance understanding of the receiving
environments. The full baselines for each assessment topic are presented in Volume I, Sections 8
through 19, and supporting specialist annexes in Volume II.
Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement
Stakeholders have been engaged throughout the ESIA process. Activities included high level
consultation with municipalities, detailed engagement with family leadership of affected communities,
meetings with key informants, household survey, public disclosure meetings, meetings with
landowners, focus group meetings, meetings with the Lebanese Army and meeting with mayors and
officials representing towns along the transport route. The key findings of the consultation and
engagement are reflected in the ESIA Report and have been incorporated into the project design and
planning, where relevant.
Assessment of Alternatives
The key environmental and social constraints identified during scoping influenced the Project design
early in the ESIA process. This allowed the majority of significant impacts to be avoided. Additionally,
alternative turbine makes, models, numbers, layouts and construction logistics were considered to
further reduce potential impacts.
Impact Assessment
The impact assessment provides a detailed analysis of the potential environmental and social issues
that may result from the Project. The assessment is supported by specialist scientific studies. It also
provides details of the measures and management actions that will be implemented to avoid, reduce,
remedy or compensate for any significant adverse impacts predicted. Where practicable, details of
how the Developer will maximize potential positive benefits and opportunities from the Project are also
given. The assessment was completed in May 2019.
Spatial Scope: The spatial scope or study area for the ESIA takes into account the physical extent of
the Project components/activities and the nature of the affected resource, the source of impact and
the manner in which the resultant impact is likely to spread beyond the physical extent of the Project
activities. This is also known as the Area of Influence or AOI. For the Project, the Direct Area of
Influence (DAOI) is defined by the spatial extent of the footprint created by the core Project
components and associated facilities, and their associated effects on the physical, biological and
socioeconomic environments, including:
• A 3km radius around the Project footprint of land to be leased or purchased from landowners for
the installation of the turbine platforms, internal roads, which encompasses the noise, shadow
flicker and visual receptors.
NTS-3
• The footprint of land needed to construct the internal roads for Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa
Akkar (as new segments of track to access the Project).
• The office space to be leased for the Community Relations Office in Kfartoun.
• The new segments of road.
• Settlements within the sightline of the wind farm were also assessed, including Rweimeh, Sahle,
Qenia, Quobaiyat, Aandqet and Kfartoun.
• Extends up to 15km from the Project footprint (limited to sites and monuments of national
importance located within the 15km and potentially affected by the Project’s visual impact).
The Indirect Area of Influence (IAOI) for the ESIA comprises the existing transport corridor between
the Tripoli Seaport and the Project and includes informal settlements within 1km of the existing road.
It further includes visual impacts to key landscape units.
Temporal Scope: The Project will be developed in a three-phase sequence, as follows: 1) Construction
Phase; 2) Operations and Maintenance Phase; and 3) Decommissioning Phase:
Subject Treaty, Convention or Protocol
Construction This includes construction activities which will be undertaken by the OEM/EPC
Phase Contractor.
This mainly includes preparing the detailed design and layout of the Project,
transportation of Project components to the Project site, as well as site
preparation and construction activities for installation of wind turbines,
foundations, internal access roads, buildings, etc.
Operations and This includes activities to be undertaken by the Project Operator. Activities
Maintenance expected to take place mainly include the normal daily operation of the wind
Phase turbines and the routine maintenance activities.
Decommissioning At the conclusion of the PPA term, the Project will be completely
Phase decommissioned by the Developer.
The anticipated impacts throughout the decommissioning phase are similar in
nature to impacts assessed during the construction phase – and specifically in
impacts related to soil, air quality, and occupational health and safety.
Therefore, the assessment of impacts for those receptors and mitigation
identified during the construction phase is assumed to apply to this phase in
particular without the need to reiterate or emphasize this throughout this
section.
Assessment of Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative effects result from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably
foreseeable development (i.e. the planned Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar wind farms) together
with the cumulative effect and those from the Project. In most instances past and present
development will have been captured in the baseline for the Project (e.g. through noise
measurements) and the normal practice of ‘adding’ impacts from the Project to the baseline will
assess the cumulative impacts.
NTS-4
Management Plans
Following the assessment of impacts, an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)
framework is developed. This sets out how the impact mitigation and management measures will be
put into practice through a suite of specific plans. Refer to Section 6.
Disclosure
The ESIA report will be disclosed to interested stakeholders.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. Overview
The Project will involve the construction and operation of up to 21 wind turbines within the site
boundary. Depending on the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contractor selected,
the wind farm will comprise wind turbine generators (WTGs) with different power ratings:
Potential Contractors, Turbine Power Ratings and Turbine Numbers
OEM/EPC Contractor Turbine Power No. of Power Generated Total Power

Rating Turbines by Turbines Generated
Vestas Wind Systems 4.2MW 21 88.6MW 88.2MW
4.8MW 3 30.0MW
General Electric 88.6MW
5.3MW 14 74.2MW
The entire investment will include the following components:
• A maximum of 21 WTGs.
• Underground cable networks (electric and fiber-optic control and communication cables).
• External and internal access roads.
• Power substation and temporary and permanent maintenance buildings.
• Parking/laydown/assembly areas.
• Concrete batching plant in Rweimeh Village.
• A CRO building to be located in Kfartoun.
Generally, a wind turbine consists of a foundation, tower, nacelle, rotor blades, a rotor hub, and a
transformer. The foundation is used to bolt the tower in place. The tower contains the electrical
conduits, supports the nacelle, and provides access to the nacelle for maintenance. Typically, three (3)
blades are connected to the hub which then connects with the nacelle; the box-like component that
sits atop the tower and which most importantly contains the gear box (which steps up the revolutions
per minute to a speed suitable for the electrical generator) and the generator (which converts the
kinetic energy into electricity). Each turbine and associated platform will occupy a maximum surface
area of +3,500m2. Foundation platforms will be constructed to bolt the tower of the turbine in place.
Construction is expected to commence in Q4 of 2019, employing up to 125 staff on site for a duration
of approximately 18 months. This will mainly include skilled opportunities (to include engineers,
technicians, consultants, surveyors.) and unskilled job opportunities (mainly labor force but will also
include a number of security personnel). Approximately 3 job opportunities will be available during the
NTS-5
operations phase for a duration of 20 years. This will include skilled job opportunities (such as
technicians) and unskilled job opportunities (such as drivers). This number does not consider the
security personnel that will be required onsite.
2.2. Need for the Project
The country has yearlong power deficit that can reach up to 1,400MW during the summer. As of 2016,
the peak power demand reached 3,594MW while the effective power production by EDL only reached
2,108MW, generating to 21 hours of electricity supply in Beirut and 14 hours outside of the capital.1 In
response to the frequent power rationing by the government, local residents rely on private back-up
generators.
As of 2010, private generators are satisfying 77% of the blackouts. Private generators operate using
gas oil at notoriously low efficiencies rates, by comparison, the average generation efficiency of EDL
from cradle to consumer gate is about 30% higher; thus, any given private generator is a wasteful
and a major contributor to air pollution and costing the consumer 4.74 times more per kilowatt hour
(KWH) than government generated electricity.2
In a bid to decrease the environmental footprint of its energy sector and align itself with the
international efforts to reduce global Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, the Government of Lebanon
(GOL) officially pledged to meet 12% of its energy consumption from RE sources by 2020 at the 2009
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. The Ministry of Energy and Water (MOEW) published the
2010 Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector that was approved by the Council of Ministers (COM) on 21
June 2010. In addition to proposing a strategic solution to the electricity sector in Lebanon, the Policy
Paper built on the 12% commitment of RE by 2020 to propose some future milestones.
The MOEW published the Wind Atlas of Lebanon and a 2013 Request for Proposal (RFP) for developing
the first utility-scale wind farm in Lebanon sparked private sector interest. At the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in December
2015, the GOL also pledged to reach a 15% reduction in GHG and 3% reduction in power demand by
2030 relative to a business-as-usual scenario.
The current electrical energy demand is estimated at 16,400 gigawatt hours (GWH), and is projected
to reach around 20,000GWH in 2020 assuming a 3% yearly increase. Thus, renewable energy (RE)
must provide 2,400GWH of electrical energy in order to meet the RE target set by the GOL. In
February 2018, the Minister of Energy and Power Cezar Abi Khalil signed the first Power Purchase
Agreement3 (PPA) with companies of the private sector to build three wind farms of an individual
capacity 200MW. The energy ministry’s signing of the agreements represents Lebanon’s first PPA with
the private sector in electricity generation as part of efforts to close an estimated 1GW gap between
current electrical supply and demand in the country.
1
Ashari, T (2018) Lights Out as Demand Surges for Electricity. The Daily Star Published on 10 July 2018. Retrieved
from www.dailystar.com.lb.
2
Bouri, E., El Assad, J. 2016. The Lebanese Electricity Woes: An Estimation of the Economical Costs of Power
Interruptions. Energies, 9, 583; doi:10.3390/en9080583.
3
LBCI. (2018). Lebanon signs wind Power Purchase Agreement. News Bulletin Reports. Retrieved from
www.lbcgroup.tv.
NTS-6
2.3. Project Location and Site
The area to be developed is located in Jabal Akroum, Akkar on Lebanon’s northeastern border with
Syria, approximately 182 kilometers (km) northeast of the capital city of Beirut. The Project location is
as shown in Figure NTS-1 and photographs presented in Figure NTS-2.
Figure NTS-2 Photographs of the Project Site
Météo Liban (ML) provided wind data from 17 meteorological stations located throughout the country
for the MOEW to develop the Wind Atlas for Lebanon, which was supplemented by hourly wind data
from 5 meteorological stations situated within Syria near to the Lebanese border. These data were
used to derive information about long term annual and seasonal mean wind speeds and to establish a
basic understanding of the dominant wind regimes in the country. The site was favored as the wind
speeds present in the mountain ridge in Akkar represent the best wind conditions for siting a wind
farm.
2.4. Land Ownership
Land parcels needed for the Project for wind turbines, platforms, parking areas, permanent buildings,
internal tracks, access roads and buried transmission lines, as well as the installation of the
substation, are owned by the Municipality of Aandqet to the west and multiple families across the
Project site. Following the cadastral survey undertaken in 2018, land lease and purchase were
obtained as follows:
NTS-7
• For the construction of Project wind turbines and platforms for WTGs 2, 5, 8, 10, 14, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25 and 27, parking area, access road/transmission line and construction of the
substation, land lease and purchase was finalized in accordance with ‘Ilm w Khabar’
(Acknowledgement Certificates) as follows:
− WTGs 2 and 5 - Kanaan Family.

− WTGs 8 and 10 – Salah Family.
− WTG 14 – Houda Family.
− WTGs 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 – Adraa Family
− WTG 23 – Aamche, Hassan and Khoder Families.
− WTGs 25 and 27 – Melhem Family.
− Substation – Jaafar Family.
Ilm w Khabar attests to the ownership of a real estate property which is un-surveyed and un-
registered in the official real estate records.
• For the construction of Project wind turbines and platforms 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18,
26 and 28, parking area and access road, land lease paperwork was issued by the Ministry of
Finance General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre and signed by a judge in Tripoli.
The plots subject of the abovementioned lease agreements are free from any occupant, liabilities,
rights, liens, or encumbrances. The Project land take will not result in resettlement/economic
displacement (loss of livelihoods). The agreed financial compensation for land plots has been agreed
between the Developer and private land plot owners and the Municipality of Aandqet. The lease term
is for a period of 28 years, with leasing value determined equally across land plots for 3 phases: Phase
I Technical Studies and Installation (Design and Construction); Phase II Implementation (Operation &
Maintenance); and Phase III Decommissioning (Project Closure and Site Rehabilitation).
The total land to be leased is 1,481,868m2.The size of the land plots leased range in size between
5,507m2 and 45,115m2, with a total land lease of 111,624m2. Land purchased from the Jaafar Family
for the installation of the Project substation is 13,255m2. The size of land plots leased from the
Municipality of Aandqet range from 45,260m2 to 367,500m2, with a total land lease of 1,370,244m2.
The Developer is in the process of finalizing the Project land tenure. The transfer of ownership and use
the Developer will be a transparent process that will be fully documented, as required by IFC
standards.
2.5. Project Alternatives
The ‘No Project’ alternative considered that the 90.75MW Project will not be developed, and that the
Project site area would remain unchanged. While the No Project Alternative offers the advantage of
absence of disturbance to the natural environment at the Project site, the Project remains more
attractive as it gives several advantages over the No Project Alternative including:
• Decreased power outage.

• Contribute to increasing energy security through development of local energy resources and
reducing dependency on external energy sources.
• Increased use of renewable green energy and less reliance on conventional polluting energy
production.
NTS-8
• Increased security (access road, lighting, cameras) in the region and thus improved protection of
the nearby reserve from fires and illegal logging.
• Demonstrating the commitment by Lebanon in realizing clean energy production and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Positive socio-economic impact due to benefit from land rental and creation of job opportunities.
Options were evaluated to identify the preferred approach in consideration of the following:
• Site selection alternatives:
− Overall Project site.

− Turbine locations.
− Substation location.
• Design alternatives:
− Turbine types/specifications.
− Alternative substation designs.
− Alternative transmission designs.
• Transportation alternatives:
− WTG component vehicle types/modalities.

− Alternative road transport vehicle types/modalities.
− Alternative road alignments.
• Technology alternatives.
− Solar power.
− Power plants.
2.6. Project Sensitivities and Constraints
Throughout the undertaking of the ESIA, key sensitivities and constraints of the Project site were
identified for consideration during the wind farm design process, as follows:
Climate and Climate Change
Climate change is expected to have the following effects in Lebanon:4
• Increased mean temperatures of 1-2°C by 2050 and 3.5-5°C by the end of the 21st century.
• Decrease in annual average precipitation of 10-20% by 2040 and 45% by 2090.
• Reduced snow cover of 40–70% and decreased snow residence time from 110 days to 45 days by
the end of the 21st century.
• Increased incidence of drought conditions by 9-18 days relative to present day by 2090.
• Increased wildfire risk.
• Continued sea level rise, rising by a total of 30-60 cm in the next 30 years.
4
MOE website http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/vulnerability-and-adaptation.
NTS-9
• Increased frequency of heat waves and decreased number of frost days.
• Less precipitation falling as snow, with snow line shifting from 1,500m to 1,700m by 2050, and to
1,900m by 2090.
Geology and Hydrology
The Project area is characterized by thinly bedded to widely exposed and highly karstified limestone
overlying pale gray fractured fine and thick bedded limestone shaped by major tectonic events in
Lebanon. The Project is situated east of the Yammouneh Fault which controls the direction of
groundwater flow. The Al Kabir is the main river in the area. There are no major springs in the study
area, with the closest being the Ras El Ain Spring in Hermel. Two public wells were identified near the
Project.
Geophysical and Ground Seismicity
A geophysical ground investigation was implemented in April-June 2018 to determine the engineering
parameters for the wind turbine and plant foundations, platforms and roads to be constructed. The
Project will be located at the highest altitude points of the Akkar region and is not be expected to be
exposed to flood or flooding due to its geological structure and elevation, and the Akkar region is not
within a landslide area and/or considered to slope stability issues.
Air Quality
The Project is located in a rural area of Jabal Akroum. No industrial point sources of air pollution have
been identified within the Project boundary, and review of baseline information indicates that
concentrations of criteria pollutants are low in the Project area. There are no sensitive receptors (i.e.,
residents, hospitals, schools) near the Project area.
Transport and Traffic
The Project site can be accessed by a number of existing asphalt roads. Internal tracks currently
traverse the site. Two route surveys and a Traffic Impact Study were undertaken between April and
October 2018 to assess existing road conditions, identify road obstacles and assess potential impacts
to road access to support selection of the preferred route for WTG transport.
Biodiversity
Habitat
The landscape is dominated by dense mixed forest, shrub and sparse herbaceous vegetation,
grassland and barren land. The Project site lies entirely within the Qammouaa-Dinnyeh-Jurd Hermel
Important Plant Area (IPA) and the Western Akroum Key Biodiversity Area (KBA). An overview of
habitat types present in the Project area was provided through literature review. A more detailed
habitat mapping and species records will be provided following further flora surveys.
Mammals
Mammals observed at the Project site and/or the planned Hawa Akkar wind farm (to the north) include
the Golden (common) jackal, Red fox, Beech (stone) marten, Striped (Barbary) hyaena, Wild boar,
Caucasian (common, Perisan or red) squirrel, Indian crested porcupine and Eastern broad toothed
field mouse. A mammal survey will be completed on the Project site in early Summer 2019 and
involve a walkover to search for signs and installation of camera traps.
NTS-10
Bats
The distribution of bat species in Lebanon is strongly associated with varied altitudinal gradient.
Species most frequently recorded at lower altitudes include: Egyptian fruit bat, Mediterranean
horseshoe bat, Blasius’s horseshoe bat, Botta’s serotine and greater mouse-tailed bats.
At medium altitudes, records of greater mouse-eared, long-fingered and bent-winged bats are most
frequent, while records of serotine and Savi’s pipistrelle were recorded at higher altitudes. Common
pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle, noctule, free-tailed bat, lesser mouse-eared bat, Natterer’s bat,
Geoffroy’s bat, greater horseshoe bat and lesser horseshoe bat appear across the majority of the
gradient, suggesting a wider altitudinal range.
Birds
The Upper Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh Important Bird Area (IBA) is located approximately 5km to the
southwest of the Project site. Up to 50,000 soaring birds pass through the area each year, with the
IBA being more important in the autumn when large flocks of levant sparrowhawk, great white
pelican, common crane and white stork pass over it. 102 species were observed on the Project site
during surveys.
The rare species recorded include: 
• Alpine accentor Prunella collaris. 

• Blue rock thrush Monticola solitarius. 
• Common reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus. 
• Greater spotted eagle Clanga clanga.
• Stock dove Columba oenas. 
• Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes. 
The very rare species recorded include: 
• Cinereous vulture Gyps monachus.

• Egyptian vulture Neophron percnopterus. 
• Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus. 
• Imperial eagle Aquila heliaca. 
Reptiles
Lebanese viper, Fraas’ lizard, and an unnamed lizard are three species of reptile considered likely to
be present within the Project site, as their known ranges occur close by to the south.
Community
There are no communities located within the Project site. Rweimeh Village is on the southern end of
the Project, where the Project substation will be installed. The village has no electricity supply, as it is
short-stay destination for visitors rather than a residential village. It is mostly inhabited by the Jaafar
Family Clan. A total of 200 families, part of Jaafar Clan, are registered in Fnaidek, half of which visit
Rweimeh Village in the summer. Numerous residences are located outside the Project area. There are
no informal settlements or Syrian or Palestinian refugee camps within or near the Project site.
Shepherds from nearby Kfartoun and Aandqet use the area for grazing animals. Recreational bird
hunters use a network of existing tracks inside and outside the Project site, although they advised
they do not use hunting as subsistence of a source of income.
NTS-11
Noise
The loudest sources of noise in the area are the movement of vehicles using unsealed and sealed
roads. The movement of trucks are largely between existing quarry operations east of the Project
area, through Rweimeh Village along Quobaiyat-Qasr Road and customers in the northern Akkar
region.
Landscape and Visual Setting
The study area (i.e. project plots and surrounding area) encompasses the following habitats: Calabrian
pine forests, evergreen oak woods, juniper woodland, mixed forests, grassland, cliffs and rocky
habitats. The Aandqet Forest is dominated by Calabrian pine Pinus brutia and is the largest Pinus
brutia forest in Lebanon. The western edge of parts of the Project site contains similar forest.
Houses near the Project area were assessed for potential noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts. In
addition, viewpoints from settlements in the vicinity of the wind farm were also assessed, including
Jour el Hachich, Rweimeh Village, Quobaiyat, Akkar El-Atiqa’a, Es Sayeh and Fnaidek, as shown in
Figure NTS-3.
Landscape and Visual Setting
The landscape units near the Project site is characterized by agricultural areas mainly comprised of
terraces planted with apple and cherry trees, native dense pinus and quercus forests, dense cedrus
forests, abies forests, mixed forests, rocky land, shrublands, sparse coniferous and sparse leafy
forests, swamps and urban areas. The primary landscape unit of the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve is
sparse coniferous forest. Although the proposed wind turbines will introduce new technical elements in
the landscape and affect the perception of the landscape, the typological appearance of the ridge will
remain largely recognizable.
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
No archaeological or cultural heritage sites are located within the Project area. The closest site is the
Qalaat Akkar (Citadel of Hosn Akkar), a 13th century fortified building/earthwork site located nearly
3km southwest of the Project site.
NTS-12
Figure NTS-3 Project Landscape and Visual Setting
Project Site
Asphalt Roads
Turbine Platform
Individual House
Empty House
NTS-13
2.7. Project Design and Layout
In response to the findings of the technical studies, the ESIA process and stakeholder engagement
completed to date, the following revisions have been made to the Project design in consideration of
environmental, social, health and safety sensitivities:
• Eliminating wind turbines to minimize potential noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts.
• Locating turbines outside vegetated areas and/or would require the removal of trees.
• Siting the Project substation at a location that satisfies the minimum distance away from turbine,
while requiring the least amount of vegetative clearance and low leveling requirements.
• Selection of the gas insulation substation design as it provides the most efficient insulation for
altitudes >1,100m and requires less land occupancy.
• Designing the transmission line as a buried utility rather than an overhead power line.
• Using existing 2-, 4- and 6-land asphalt roads for the transport of the WTG components from the
Tripoli Seaport to outside Chadra.
• New segments of road to be constructed as follows:
− A new 0.65km section of asphalt road to avoid impacts to Chadra, Machta Hassan
and Machta Hammoud to be constructed through currently vacant land.
− A new 0.15km section of asphalt road to be constructed between two existing sections of
asphalt road in order to avoid hairpin turns near homes.
− A new 3.0km section of gravel road to be constructed within the existing railroad ROW
managed by Machta Hammoud Village.
• Transport of the WTG components will be scheduled to take place between 12am and 4am
inclusive in order to minimize impacts to road users.
• Limiting the transport of WTG components to a police-escorted convoy of 11 trucks per convoy,
two times per week for a period of 13 weeks.
• Maintaining access to grazing areas and hunting tracks to ensure shepherds and livestock can pass
through the Project during operation and hunters can access land.
• Construction of asphalt roads scheduled for time periods when traffic levels are lowest.
• Limiting the movement of construction materials to the existing quarry tracks and Quobaiyat-Qasr
Road during the construction phase.
Figure NTS-4 shows two different turbine design layouts; Design 1 shows one of the initial layouts,
while Design 2 shows the currently proposed turbine layout. It is noted that the Project design
assessed through the ESIA process is subject to change according to the EPC Contractor selection.
NTS-14
Figure NTS-4 Project Turbine Layout
Scoping Report Design - December 2018
Current Design - June 2019
NTS-1-15
3. ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
A summary of each of the legislative requirements governing the ESIA process is provided in Volume
I, Section 4 Regulatory and Policy Framework.
The ESIA has been undertaken to meet local requirements to gain permission for the construction and
operation of the Project. In addition, to ensure the Project lender’s financing policies, standards and
requirements are adhered to and met, the ESIA has been completed to meet the following:
• Existing national legislations and policies related to environmental protection, land classification,
and environmental control requirements.
• Relevant international treaties, conventions and protocols.
• Relevant International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards (PSs).
• European Investment Bank (EIB) Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs).
• IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) General Guidelines.
• IFC EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy.
• Application Decree 2366/2009 related to the National Physical Master Plan for the Lebanese
Territory (NPMPLT) covering land use and zoning of lands.
• MOE Decision No. 52/12 of 29 July 1996 setting air quality standards, including thresholds for air
pollutants and safe noise exposure limits.
• Law No. 78 dated 19/4/2018, and Decree 3320 dated 29/6/2018 which is related to the adherence
to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals signed in Bonn in
1979.
• Law for the Protection of Forests of 1949 and Law No. 85/1991 for the protection of shrublands
and associated floral biodiversity.
Law No. 444 emphasizes the principle of EIA as a tool for planning and management, and stipulates
that proponents undertake assessment for all projects likely to affect the environment due to their
sizes, nature, impacts or activities for review and approval by the MOE. In addition, this legislation is
implemented by Decree No. 8633/2012: Fundamentals of Environmental Impact Assessment and the
MOE’s Decision 261/1 of 2015: Review Process for EIA Scoping and EIA Reports.
The law and the decree assign full authority to the MOE to arrange the screening, review, control, and
follow-up of the EIA process and its implementation. The approval of an EIA is a pre-requisite for any
subsequent license or permit by any or all other relevant authorities that may be required prior to
construction. The efforts of the MOE aim at improving the Lebanese environmental performance on
the international level, alike all developed countries, and the coordination, cooperation and follow up
between the MOE and concerned parties, as the private and public sectors or the civil society
organizations that may have a real positive impact on achieving a global unified vision related to all
what concerns the protection of the environment.
3.1. Relevant International Treaties, Conventions and Protocols
International conventions, treaties and protocols which are triggered by the Project are as shown in
the following table.
NTS-16
3.2. Lender Requirements
As previously mentioned, this ESIA has been developed in accordance with international finance
institution (IFI) requirements, namely the IFC Performance Standards, the EIB Environmental and
Social Standards, the IFC EHS General Guidelines, including IFC EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy.
A listing of the IFC PSs and EIB ESSs, and their relevance to the Project, are provided in Table 4-6
and Table 4-9 in Section 4 Regulatory and Policy Framework.
Subject Treaty, Convention or Protocol
Environment • Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS); Bonn Convention.

• Convention on Biological Diversity; Rio De Janeiro.
• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl
Habitat – Ramsar.
• Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD.
• Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Water Birds.
Cultural and • UNESCO Convention on the protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Natural Heritage
Air and Climate • Vienna Convention for the Protection of the ozone layer.
Change
• Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the ozone layer.
• Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the ozone
layer; London.
• Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the ozone
layer; Copenhagen.
• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change aiming to fight global
warming.
• United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; Paris.
• Beijing Amendment of the Montreal Protocol.
• Kyoto Protocol.
• Euro-Mediterranean Energy Partnership HY-PA.
• International Renewable Agency (IRENA).
NTS-17
4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder consultation and engagement is an integral part of ESIA good practice and is a statutory
requirement of the national EIA legal framework in Lebanon, within the IFC Performance Standards
and EIB Environmental and Social Standards. The principles of the engagement process are illustrated
below:
The process should be able to integrate the contributions of very
Integrated different groups of stakeholders from government, to international

organizations, to local communities. This principle reflects inclusivity
(all stakeholders considered equally) and representability (all
elements, perspectives and interests are represented).
The process should be flexible in engaging a range of stakeholders

Adaptive
through different methods.
The process should have clear requirements. It should ensure public

Transparent access to information, identify factors taken into account in decision
making, and acknowledge limitations and difficulties.
The stakeholder engagement process is the only way in which affected

stakeholders may influence the decision-making process. It is
Credible
important that the process be conducted by professionals to ensure
faith in the process.
The process should apply “best practice”, using methodologies

Rigorous appropriate to the scale and phase of the project for stakeholder
engagement, stakeholder consultation and record-keeping.
The process should result in outputs which assist with problem solving
Practical
and are practical for implementation by proponents.
The process should help decision-making by considering all

Purposive
stakeholder concerns.
The process should be efficient, making use of well-developed

Efficient
methodologies.
The process should result in full consideration of all relevant

Systematic
information.
NTS-18
4.1. Stakeholder Identification
The Project has a wide range of stakeholders ranging from national and regional government
institutions, in addition to communities within the area of influence of the Project. As such
stakeholders have been identified at all geographic levels, including national, regional and
local levels. The three principal categories of stakeholders are as follows:
• National governmental institutions, including the MOE, MOEW, Ministry of Public Works and
Transport (MOPWT), Ministry of Interior and Municipalities (MOIM) and other bodies involved in
the permitting and ESIA process, and governmental authorities at the regional level, including the
Governorate level (Governors) and District level (Kaemmakam).
• Affected Communities, defined as the local community as well as other people directly affected by
the Project, land owners and/or those who have been identified as most vulnerable to change and
who need to be engaged in identifying impacts and their significance, as well as in decision-
making on mitigation and management measure. Affected communities are considered to include:
- 3 villages where land was or will be leased/acquired for the Project:
▪ Aandqet.
▪ Jabal Akroum area, including Kfartoun and Sahle Municipality (where the CRO Office is to
be leased).
▪ Rweimeh Village (where the Project substation will be constructed).
- 4 villages where land was or will be leased/acquired for new segments of track through Hawa
Akkar:
▪ Chadra.
▪ Machta Hammoud.
▪ Machta Hassan.
▪ Mqaible.
- 4 Villages where land was or will be leased/acquired for new segments of track through
Lebanon Wind Power:
- Fnaidek.
- Karm Chbat.
- Rweimeh Village (same village as listed for the Project; so not counted twice).
- Kfartoun (same village as listed for the Project; so not counted twice).
− Settlements where potential visual impacts were assessed (may be otherwise indicated
above):
▪ Sahle.
▪ Qenia.
▪ Quobaiyat.
▪ Aandqet.
▪ Kfartoun.
▪ Rweimeh Village.
• Other Interested Parties, defined as people and organizations that are interested in the Project
and/or could affect the Project in some way. Those generally include universities and non-
governmental organizations.
NTS-19
4.2. Stakeholder Engagement Activities
Full details of consultation with regulatory authorities, local communities and other key stakeholders
are presented in Section 6 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement. Photographs of the
consultation and engagement are presented in Figure NTS-5.
Figure NTS-5 Consultation and Engagement
a – Initial Disclosure Meeting; 15 May 2018 b – Iftar; 7 June 2018
c – Meeting with Daher Family; 3 October d – Final Disclosure Meeting; 6 December

2018 2018
e – Meeting with the Al Fayhaa Union of f - Meeting with the Kobet Al Choumra
Municipalities (Mayors of Tripoli, Al Municipality; 19 February 2019
Beddaoui, Al Minie and Qalamoun)
NTS-20
g - Meeting with Zoug Bhannine h - Meeting with the Talmaaiyan Union of
Municipality; 19 February 2019 Municipalities; 20 February 2019
i – Meeting with the Governor of the Akkar j – Meeting with Al Mahmra Municipality;
Region; 20 February 2019 20 February 2019
k - Meeting with North Akkar Union of l – Meeting with North Lebanon Governor;
Municipalities; 26 February 2019 26 February 2019
NTS-21
Engagement with family leadership of the affected communities began in 2017, in advance of the ESIA
activities. In early 2018, meetings were organized with key informants to discuss their opinions
regarding the Project. The Initial Public Disclosure Meeting took place on 15 May 2018. The seminar
was followed by a discussion whereby SES responded to the concerns raised by meeting attendants
and committed to addressing them in the ESIA study.
A public participation dinner was prepared on Ramadan (7 June 2018) for several communities,
including Akroum, Kfartoun and Rweimeh Village. The dinner was held to provide a better
understanding of the Project design execution and the implications on the surrounding environment.
In July 2018, discussions were undertaken with officials regarding land rentals and potential ownership
impacts from turbines such as noise, shadow flicker and visual amenity in Fnaidek and Quobaiyat.
Two focus group meetings were organized on 2 and 4 November 2018, with a group of hunters who
usually hunt in or in close proximity to the area where the Project turbines will be installed and a
locally active non-governmental organization (NGO), the Environment Council in Quobaiyat (‫ مجلس البيئة‬-
‫)القبيات‬. After introducing the Project to both groups, feedback was collected regarding their knowledge
of the wind energy technology and the proposed Project. Their perceptions regarding the Project and
its effects, along with the management mitigation measures that the Developer will be adopting to
eliminate or reduce impacts were discussed, especially potential impacts to the Karm Chbat Nature
Reserve.
A site visit to a wind farm in Turkey was undertaken on 21 November 2018, so that land owner
representatives, the Mayor of Kfartoun, Ahmad el Zein, Kanaan Family representatives, Adraa Family
representatives, and Daher Family representatives, could observe the operation of the wind farm and
its potential negative and positive environmental effects.
A final public disclosure meeting took place on 1 December 2018 at the Qammouaah Plain in Fnaidek
Village. Similar to the Initial Public Disclosure Meeting, a seminar presentation was given and included
a description of the Project and a summary of the findings of the ESIA studies, including analysis of
impacts and the proposed Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), the general findings of
the ESIA study being conducted, and actions that were taken by the developer in order to mitigate
any potential negative impact of the wind farm on the environment. The seminar was followed by a
discussion where the Developer replied to the concerns of the meeting attendants and committed to
addressing them during project implementation and operation.
Consultation activities were undertaken on 19-20 February 2019 with officials representing the villages
along the WTG component transportation route, from Tripoli to Sahle, including:
• Tripoli • Kfar Moki • Chir Hmairine • Kouachra • Barcha

• Beddaoui Akkar • Hokr Jouret • Dibbabiyé • Khamoubet
• Al Minie • Rmoul Srar • Amayaret Akkar
• Deir Amar • Qaabrine • Qoubber Akkar • Chikhlar
• Borj El- • Sammouniyé Chamra • Fraidis • Mqaible
Yahoudiyé • Hissa • Mahmra • Qsair Akkar • Quobaiyat
• Nabi Youcheaa • Tall Aabas El- • Janine • Menjez • Chadra
• Zoug Bhannine Gharbi • Qachlaq • Aaoaainat • Machta Hassan
• Al Mahmra • Tall Aabbas El- • Aamaret El- Akkar • Machta
• Mqaiteaa Charqi Baykat • Rmah Hammoud
• Tall Hmaire • Noura El Tahta • Iltigo
NTS-22
4.3. Outcomes of Engagement
The response to the Project has, on the whole, been positive with support expressed in all the
meetings held. Key concerns raised by the residents of the local communities regarding the Project
and how the Project has addressed these and other concerns are outlined below:
Subject Issue Response
Land use, land lease Status of the ownership of the Access to certain grazing areas and
and land acquisition parcels located at the top of the hunter’s tracks will be restricted during
mountain ridge, i.e. whether they the construction phase. Following
are public/municipal or private construction, access to these areas will
properties and lack of official be reinstated.
survey.
Following cadastral survey, land leases
and land purchase for the construction
of the substation were finalized with the
Kanaan, Salah, Houda, Adraa, Aamche,
Hassan, Khoder, Melhem and Jaafar
Families in accordance with ‘Ilm w
Khabar’.
Paperwork was issued by the Ministry of
Finance General Directorate of Land
Registry and Cadastre to lease land
parcels in Fnaidek Municipality and
Karm Chbat and was signed by a judge
in Tripoli.
Land Impact of the wind farm on the The potential locations for the turbines
value/depreciation. existing facilities without will be compared to select locations
considering the depreciated value which will have the least adverse
of surrounding land. impact, all while considering electricity
production potential in the assessment.
Once selected, the lands to be leased or
purchased increase the compensation
potential for land owners. However,
most of the lands are publicly owned
which decreases the significance of the
depreciation impact.
Impacts to migrating Potential for bird casualties in Bird monitoring and collision modeling
birds. comparison to international has been undertaken to identify the
guidelines. potential impacts to birds and
requirements for turbine shutdown
periods, if required.
De-icing mechanisms. Accumulation of ice on turbines Turbines will either be equipped with a
and ice throw. de-icing mechanism which will ensure
sound operation under snowy
conditions, or the turbine operations
will be stopped under specific snow
conditions. The final security measures
to be adopted will be specified in the
final ESMP.
NTS-23
Biodiversity. Assessment of impacts to bats Bat monitoring and collision modeling

and flora with high ecological are being undertaken to identify the
value. potential impacts to bats and
requirements for turbine shutdown
periods, if required. Habitat survey is
being undertaken to map habitats and
develop avoidance, mitigation or offset
measures.
Cumulative impacts. Assessment of potential The potential cumulative impacts of

cumulative impacts of the three construction, operation and
proposed wind farms in the decommissioning of the three wind
Akkar region, Lebanon Wind farms were assessed as part of the
Power, Sustainable Akkar and ESIA Report.
Hawa Akkar.
Job creation and Job opportunities that will be Employment of up to 125 people will be
employment. created by the Project. required for the construction phase.
Potential employees will be sourced
with a preference for the local area,
then regional, throughout Lebanon,
then internationally, if suitable for the
available position. There will be online
and onsite training courses made
available such that the chances of
recruitment of locals can be increased.
Project schedule. Since 2014, the GOL has Work could not begin before November
discussed wind farms, promised 2017, when the PPA was signed. They
RE in 2018, and now the have a 36-month term for the final
deadline is 2020. delivery of the project.
Electricity supply. Infringements made on the The PPA includes producing electrical
public power grid and solution power and supplying it to the public
provided to be provided. grid. The solution for the infringements
is not within the scope of the
Developer.
12% RE commitment Can the Project provide enough Operation of the 3 planned wind farms
by the GOL. electrical power to satisfy the are able to satisfy a significant portion
commitment by the GOL to of the commitment, and they are
supply 12% energy demand anticipated to supply 25% of the
through renewable energy shortage.
sources and will the
implementation of the wind
farms would cover the electrical
power shortage.
Noise. Noise impacts to residences. Noise generated by the turbines is

below the IFC noise limit of 45 dB(A).
Habitat loss. Number of trees to be cut. The number of trees present in the
immediate construction zone were
quantified and will be avoided,
mitigated or offset. Mature trees are
NTS-24
not present on the exposed ridges due

to high winds.
Monitoring. Who will monitoring Project The Developer is responsible for

implementation. recruiting an HSE specialist who would
need to properly implement all ESMP
requirements. The MOE will conduct
inspections in the future to ascertain
that the ESMP is implemented and that
the latter inspections may involve
actual measurements. The international
lenders will also have third party
auditing processes who will check for
ESMP implementation and compliance
with environmental standards before
giving clearances to release payments
to the Developer. The GOL will also
participate in supervising Project
implementation.
Project benefits. Who will benefit from the Project. There will be recruitment of up to 125
persons during construction. Local
municipalities and communities will
benefit from road widening activities
and the development of new roads.
Secondary benefits for local businesses,
i.e. restaurants and hotels are
anticipated.
Groundwater. Impacts to groundwater quality. Wind farms are typically not associated
with negative impacts to groundwater.
Groundwater is very deep in the Project
area; measures will be put in place to
prevent potential spills and the
appropriate disposal of wastewater
generated.
Transport of the WTG Road routes to be taken during Coordination has been undertaken with
components, timing, the construction phase. officials from all villages along the
schedule and traffic transport route. Obstacles have been
impacts. identified and will be removed in
advance of the transport, i.e.,
pedestrian bridges, concrete blocks,
etc., and improvement of road
conditions will be coordinated with the
municipalities. Modification to the Al
Abdeh Roundabout may be necessary,
but any modification will be discussed
with the municipality as it is under their
authority. New road segment
construction will be scheduled for low
traffic periods.
NTS-25
A maximum of 2 roundtrip convoys of

12 trucks will be escorted by police
twice per week between 11pm and 4am
during weekdays to avoid potential
impacts to travelers, for a total of 8
weeks. replacing the asphalted speed
bumps with rubber ones, which we can
easily be removed during the
transportation of the WTG components
and reinstalled immediately after the
trucks pass.
Multiple methods of communication will
be used to provide advance notification
of the scheduled transport, and in
particular, informal settlements present
along the transport route. A
communications protocol is being
developed between the Project
companies and the MOIM for the
transport of the turbines from Tripoli to
the Project site. Once this protocol is
ready, it will be distributed to the
Mayors two to three months prior to the
start of the transport.
All community Mayors have emphasized
their willingness to provide further
coordination across the municipalities
and Project companies and assisting in
accomplishing the Project as quickly as
possible.
Potential turbine What parts of the turbine are Bad weather conditions, e.g. ice, very
malfunction. susceptible to malfunction. high wind speed may harm the turbine
parts. Turbines will either be equipped
with a de-icing mechanism which will
ensure sound operation under snowy
conditions, or the turbine operations
will be stopped under specific snow
conditions. The final security measures
to be adopted will be specified in the
final ESMP. The monitoring and control
of the turbines will be implemented by
the turbine manufacturer in
collaboration with a local control and
support office.
NTS-26
4.4. Stakeholder Engagement Plan
The Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) outlines the approach and plans to be adopted and
implemented for engagement across all Project stages. The overall objectives of the SEP are shown
below:
Promotes the informed participation of all stakeholders (i.e.,

Informs national and local government institutions, local communities and
other interested parties).
Decision- Incorporates dialogue and agreements on decision-making on

Making issues related to Project implementation.
Contribute to the social development of local communities, through

Development
actions and programs in the Project’s area of influence.
Builds Builds strong, constructive, and responsive relationships with all

Relationships stakeholders.
Manages Successfully manages the Project's environmental and social

Impacts impacts.
Promotes Promotes socioeconomic benefits, i.e. job creation and social

Benefits development.
Builds consensus, credibility, trust and support for Project activities

Builds Trust
and future endeavors.
Discloses relevant, clear and accessible Project information to

Promotes enable stakeholders to express their views on the Project and
Understanding
understand risks and opportunities.
Analyzes Serves as a way to analyze information gathered throughout the

Information Project phases.
NTS-27
4.5. Grievance Mechanism and Feedback
The following feedback channels have been available to stakeholders throughout the ESIA process:
• In writing (Project contact details provided in Scoping Report).

• Focus group discussions and key informant interviews during baseline data collection and ESIA
engagement.
• Public meetings during ESIA engagement.
A grievance mechanism will be established to respond to and resolve stakeholder concerns during
future Project activities. Grievances may take the form of specific complaints or concerns or perceived
incidents and impacts. Grievances can be raised confidentially and without repercussion. The
grievance mechanism seeks to resolve concerns promptly, using an understandable and transparent
consultative process that is culturally appropriate and readily accessible, as shown in Figure NTS-7.
The key steps of the Community Grievance Mechanism Process are as follows:
1. Identification of grievances. This could be by:
a. Meeting, Phone call, WhatsApp, or depositing a grievance in a suggestion box addressed to the
CRO or the External Relations Manager (ERM). Women who feel uncomfortable talking to a
man can also contact directly the Environmental and Social Manager (E&S), who is a woman.
b. The company website or Facebook page managed by the Media Officer (MO).
2. Grievance is then transferred to the E&S and recorded in an electronic ‘grievance log’ within 2
days of receipt. The grievance log will be held at Sustainable Akkar sal & Lebanon Wind Power, 1st
floor, An-Nahar, Martyr’s Square, Beirut Central District – Lebanon.
3. The significance of the grievance will then be assessed by the E&S within five working days using
the criteria outlined below:
• Level 1 Complaint: An inquiry, suggestion or request.
• Level 2 Complaint: A complaint of a minor nature.
• Level 3 Complaint: A complaint of a significant nature, i.e. a risk to community health and
safety.
If the grievance is not well understood or if additional information is required, clarification
should be sought from the complainant during this step.
4. E&S investigates and assesses the grievance in concertation with the E&S, CRO and ERM and will
report the case to the Project Manager (PM).
5. The PM will decide how to deal with the grievance and determine adequate measures in
concertation with the E&S.
6. A notification letter/message is prepared by the ERM and submitted to the complainant (directly,
through the CRO or the MO), providing clarifications and proposing actions.
7. A follow up is provided by ERM, ERM or MO to make sure the complainant is satisfied with
clarifications/ proposed actions.
8. If the complainant is satisfied and if applicable, actions are undertaken by the team as required;
actions are then documented by the E&S.
9. Then3, follow up is provided by ERM to make sure the complainant is satisfied with proposed
action if applicable.
10. If the complainant is satisfied, the E&S updates and closes out the database.
11. If the complainant is not satisfied, the E&S should return to Step 2 to re-assess the grievance.
NTS-28
Figure NTS-7 Grievance Mechanism Process
29
5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1. Summary of Impacts, Benefits and Key Mitigation
Impact Mitigation
GHG Emissions • The GHG emissions are considered offset by the beneficial impact of generating clean energy through the operation of the wind farm.
Flood Risk • Avoid locating any of the Project components within the buffer distances developed under the flood risk assessment to eliminate any risks for flood.
• Hydrological study to be undertaken to identify and determine the required engineering structures to be considered as part of the detailed design for new
asphalt and gravel road segment and internal tracks (e.g. drainage structures, culverts).
Wildfire • Avoid locating any of the Project components within the buffer distances (if any) developed for the Aandqet Forest.
• Identify and determine the required fire detection and protection equipment to be considered as part of the detailed design.
Impacts from Improper Management of Waste Streams • Coordinate with the appropriate Municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the collection of water, wastewater, solid waste and hazardous
waste from the site to the municipal approved disposal area.
• Prohibit disposal of waste to the land.
• Implement proper housekeeping practices at all times.
• Maintain records and manifests that indicate volume of waste generated onsite, collected by contractor, and disposed of at the landfill.
• Ensure appropriate management of septic tanks.
• Regular maintenance of all equipment and machinery used onsite.
• Implement spill management procedures.
• Additional protection shall be afforded by scheduling major activities with high potential for the generation of water pollution away from the snow melt
season when the large majority of recharge is believed to occur.
Impacts on Soil and Groundwater • Implementation of general best practice housekeeping measures
• Following the Construction Health and Safety Plan.
• Staging of work areas.
• Provision of washout/washdown facilities with filter/neutralization prior to discharge.
• Installation of silt fencing.
• Erosion and sediment control.
• Excavation and grading containment.
• Provision of spill response equipment.
Impacts on Disposal Utilities • There are no mitigation measures to be applied. Coordinate with the appropriate Directorates to:
- Obtain list of authorized contractors for disposal of wastewater.
- Undertake discussions with the appropriate municipal landfills to determine where there is sufficient capacity to easily handle construction debris
generated from the Project.
- Coordinate with the appropriate municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the collection of construction waste from the site to the
approved landfill.
- Coordinate with the appropriate municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the collection of solid waste from the site to the approved
landfill.
Landslide, Slope Stability, Earthquake • Incorporate recommendations of the seismic study for excavation at the platform foundation locations to a depth where stable soils are encountered.
Air Quality • Use of wind screens or enclosures around dusty activities or the site boundary.
NTS-30
Impact Mitigation
• Water spray to reduce fugitive dust.

• For unpaved roads, water flushing is the essential with 0.48 gallons per square yard twice per day.
• For paved roads, water flushing with 0.48 gallons per square yard followed by sweeping is very effective and can reach 96%. If conducted directly before
the passage of the turbines convoy or the morning and evening passages of the project vehicles to and from the site, a consequent decrease will
occur.
• A combination of the different above-mentioned measures will give a higher control efficiency that when applied individually.
Traffic and Transport • An additional transport route survey will be undertaken.

• The temporary removal of concrete bund, curb, electric pole and overhead cable, and demolition will be coordinated with the Port Authority.
• Raising of pedestrian bridges, prohibition of car parking, removal of curbs, electric poles, trees, lamp posts, and fencing at ramps and roundabouts and
ground leveling and compaction of significant curves will be coordinated with the Ministry of Transport.
• Asphalt speed bumps will be replaced with rubber ones, which we can easily be removed during the transportation of the WTG components and reinstalled
immediately after the trucks pass.
• Any modification required for the Al Abdeh Roundabout will be discussed with the municipality as it is under their authority.
• Works will be coordinated and permitted by the Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels and/or pedestrian use are lowest.
• The construction of asphalt roads will occur for a period of 6 months and will be coordinated and permitted by Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time
periods when traffic levels are lowest.
• Construction of internal track will occur for a period of 3 months and will be coordinated with the Ministry of Transport and the Lebanese Army.
• A communications protocol being developed for the transport of WTG components will be distributed to all Mayors two to three months prior to the start of
transport. A final transport route map will be provided to all municipalities.
• Announcements will be made to all villages along the WTG transport route from the Tripoli Port to the entrance of the Project site.
• WTG components will be transported 2 days per week, a total of 24 trucks roundtrip per week for a period of 13 weeks.
• Municipal police will provide an escort for the WTG transport convoy.
• Transport will be timed before and after farmers take their crops to the Akkar Vegetable Market.
• The road that passes through El Rweimeh Village is the main access of the trucks transporting rocks and gravel, and maintenance activities will be
undertaken by the Project Proponent.
• For Road Segments A, B, C and D, which are 4 lanes with a median, a conservative approach to traffic management will dedicate the northbound direction
for transport and divert all other background traffic to the other direction making a two-lane road.
• For Road Segment E, which is a two-lane road, the transport vehicles will have to utilize the road along with the background traffic.
• Once the EPC Contractor has been selected, and the number and location of construction numbers are known, measures will be put in place to maximize
mitigation of traffic impacts through carpooling and group transport by van.
Total Habitat Loss: During Pre-Construction:

• Approximately 75.47 ha out of 948.72 ha (8%). • Completion of a pre-construction flora survey to identify habitats and key flora species as identified in the baseline section.
Sensitive Features Loss: • Micrositing of infrastructure to avoid or reduce oak woodland and mixed woodland removal.
• Juniperus excelsa dominance: 2,69ha (19.55%) lost or modified • Preparation of a final BAMP outlining the measures required to deliver no net loss for areas of natural habitat, such as oak woodland and mixed
(moderate adverse impact) woodland. A framework BAMP has been provided with the ESIA, as an appendix of the stand-alone ESMP.
• Mixed oak woodland: 49.89ha (6.59%) lost or modified (moderate
adverse impact)
NTS-31
Impact Mitigation
• Oak woodland: 165ha (12.39%) lost or modified (moderate adverse During Construction:
impact)
• Offsetting for the loss of natural habitats will be required to deliver no net loss of biodiversity in these areas. Full details of the measures to achieve no
• Oak/pine woodland: 13.97ha (12.05%) lost of modified (moderate net loss will be provided in the final BAMP. Measures would include additional tree planting to produce new areas or improve degraded areas of oak-
adverse impact) dominated woodland and mixed woodland. The translocation of tree species would also be considered.
Habitats Including Vulnerable Plant Species: • Preparation and provision of workforce toolbox talks and monitoring to ensure all staff understand the importance of the biodiversity controls in place,
what they entail and how these controls should be followed. Particular key early tasks in workforce education will include implementation of a hunting
• Pine forest dominance 2: 7.16ha (16.93%) lost or modified (moderate
ban on the Project site and prohibition of burning of vegetation for warmth or cooking.
adverse impact)
• Minimization of the project footprint within Karm Chbat Nature Reserve. Footprint minimization will include measures such as adherence to strict working
• Oak/pine habitat: 13.97ha (12.05%) lost or modified (moderate adverse
boundaries for all infrastructure construction.
impact)
• If any key flora species are identified during the pre-construction survey, areas of habitat inhabited by the plants would be avoided. If it is not possible to
• Mixed oak woodland: 49.98ha (6.59%) lost or modified (moderate
avoid examples or areas of the species detailed in the baseline, every effort would be made to reduce the impact and further offsetting would be
adverse impact)
required.
• Oak woodland: 1.65ha (12.39%) lost or modified (moderate adverse
• Implementation of rehabilitation measures to mitigate the loss of habitat, such as vegetation remediation, translocation or creation of new habitat areas.
impact)
Full details of these measures will be provided in the final BAMP to be developed by others.
• Proper management of excavation materials. Rubble from site excavations should not be allowed to spread down slopes. Clear working procedures should
be defined, implemented and supervised.
• Separation and storage of top soil for use in restoration of all temporary project infrastructure and areas of temporary disturbance, e.g. track margins.
Segregation of the topsoil of different habitat types will be required.
• Soil management would also include observance of appropriate biosecurity controls to prevent the spread of invasive plants or floral diseases. This would
involve washing vehicles and equipment to remove particles of vegetation and loose soil, with this done in specific “wash down” areas. Any invasive
plants that are removed during vegetation clearance would need to be disposed of appropriately, in a safe way that does not allow it to spread.
• Good construction environmental management on site based on good practice guidance to avoid spillage of fuels, other pollutants or excavated materials
and provision of sufficient spill kits and similar to deal with any incidents.
During Operation and Maintenance:
• Monitoring of all habitat reinstatement, translocation, recreation, offsetting or enhancement as identified and implemented as required following pre-
construction surveys.
• Remove invasive plant species during routine vegetation maintenance.
• Monitor power-line right-of-way vegetation to avoid fire risk. Remove blowdown and other high-hazard fuel accumulations.
During Decommissioning:
Typically, the same controls set out for construction will apply.
• Minimization of activities within Karm Chbat Nature Reserve. Footprint minimization will include measures such as adherence to strict working boundaries
for all infrastructure decommissioning.
• Good construction environmental management on site based on good practice guidance to avoid spillage of fuels, other pollutants or excavated materials
and provision of sufficient spill kits and similar to deal with any incidents.
• Preparation and provision of workforce toolbox talks to ensure all staff understand the importance of the biodiversity controls in place and exactly what
they entail.
Terrestrial Fauna During Pre-Construction:

• Completion of pre-construction fauna walkover survey to identify potential habitat for key mammal and reptile species, followed by camera trapping to
confirm species considered to be present/status of any dens found.
• Preparation of a final BAMP setting out the measures required based upon the findings of the further surveys. A framework BAMP will be included with the
ESIA.
NTS-32
Impact Mitigation
During Construction:
• If any mammal or reptile species are encountered during works, they would be allowed to disperse or would be translocated outwith the construction
area.
During Operation and Maintenance
• If found to be present during pre-construction surveys, monitoring of populations of endangered reptiles as appropriate, including monitoring of any
offsets or enhancements for those species.
Bats: During Pre-Construction:

Loss or Disturbance of Roosts and Foraging Habitat • A full year of activity surveys will be competed pre-construction, adding to the information gathered from the spring activity surveys used to inform this
assessment. As per best guidance, a full year of survey data will allow for a more accurate understanding of bat activity across the site, temporally and
Collision Risk
spatially, which will enable a more accurate and informed impact assessment which in turn will determine the most effective mitigation required.
• A presumption for avoidance of all artificial light as far as possible. All lights should be cowled and downward facing and avoid light spill onto surrounding
non-construction areas.
• Once the pre-construction survey results have been analyzed, it will be possible to develop an appropriately focused scope of operational period bat
surveys. Surveys would cover up to three years’ activity periods.
• Given the high levels of activity recorded at SA2, SA6, SA9 and SA20 and predominately from species identified as high or medium risk in terms of
collision (common pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle and serotine) it is recommended that turbines situated at these locations are subject to operational
adjustments. Raising the cut-in speed at which the turbine begins to generate electricity, thus preventing movement in low winds, notably decreases bat
mortality rates5 along with feathering of blades i.e. adjusting the angle f the blade parallel to the wind or turning the unit away from the wind6. In
addition, operational times could be altered – stopping turbines at these locations between the most active periods i.e. 20:00-05:00.
• Monitoring of bat collision fatalities under and around each turbine following a standardized methodology potentially using trained dogs. Monitoring to be
completed monthly and concurrently with bird collision monitoring.
• Preparation and subsequent implementation of plan to identify and protect key bat roost caves in the area on and around the Project site from human
persecution, such as identified elsewhere in the area.
• Additional Good Practice: To prevent further persecution and destruction of bat roost caves protective metal grates should be installed across the
entrances of all bat roost caves identified during the December 2017-March 2018 surveys. These would prevent members of the public from accessing
the caves and disturbing or damaging the roosts, as observed previously.
Ornithology: Due to the large number of ecological and ornithological mitigation proposed for the Project, it is recommended that a suitable qualified Ecological Clerk of
Works (ECOW) be employed for the Project to ensure the appropriate implementation of the Biodiversity Action and Management Plan (BAMP) to be
Designated Sites
developed by others. All of the mitigation listed below is detailed in the framework BAMP.
Habitat Loss
During Construction and Decommissioning:
Barrier Effects
Nest Destruction
Collision Risk
• Where required, vegetation would be removed outside of the bird breeding season (March-August). The following vegetation removal deterrence methods
would also be used to ensure ground nesting birds do not nest on the site following vegetation clearance:
- Iridescent tape across the construction areas prior to construction activities.
- Bird deterring machines which produce intermittent loud noises.
5
Horn J.W., Arnett E.B. & Kunz T.H. (2008) Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 123–132.
6
Hein, C, D and Schirnacher, M, R. (2016). Impact of Wind Energy on bats: A Summary of our Current Knowledge. Human-Wildlife Interactions 10 (1), Pp 19-27.
NTS-33
Impact Mitigation
- Walking of the cleared area by individuals on a regular basis to prevent birds settling and to monitor if any birds are settling to nests on areas close to
the planned construction activity.
• Where vegetation has not been removed outside of the breeding bird season and must be removed during the breeding bird season, then pre-clearance
surveys must be undertaken by a suitably experienced ornithologist. These surveys would identify any potential nests in the vegetation to be removed and
then establish suitable “no go” buffers around these nests, to prevent the nest being destroyed or disturbed. Buffers would be species specific and
determined by the ECOW.
• In addition to the above, prior to commencement of decommissioning activities, walkover surveys would be completed in habitats suitable for and known
to be used by breeding bird species as to identify any previously unknown nest sites.
Monitoring/Additional Good Practice Measures
• It is recommended that the program of VP surveys is continued, but with a greater survey effort. Surveys should be undertaken between August 2019 and
November 2020, with six hours of survey undertaken at each VP location during the months of January, February, June, July and December. During the
other months, when birds are migrating, this survey effort should be doubled to 12 hours of survey effort per VP location. It is recommended that more VP
locations are used, with at least five locations recommended to cover the site. These should be chosen with the help of a viewshed analysis to ensure that
all turbine locations can be observed from a survey location. All surveys must be undertaken by surveyors who are experienced in the identification and
recording of Lebanese birds. Where required, these surveyors should also be trained in how to survey as per the SNH guidance. Data should be recorded
as per SNH Guidance (2017) , with flight paths mapped into GIS and these reproduced on figures. This data can then be analyzed in GIS. Instead of
undertaking a full CRA on the results, the analysis should consider the total number of birds per hour that are passing within the footprint of the wind farm
at collision risk height. This should be calculated for each species and, if it is significantly greater than the numbers previously recorded (see Table 14-9:
Collision Risk Assessment by Species), further assessment of collision risk impacts may be required.
• Hunting Ban: A significant impact on birds migrating through Lebanon is the culture of hunting that exists. In spite of laws that make the killing of
migrating birds illegal, thousands are still killed each year7 impacting populations in their breeding grounds in Europe and Asia. It is proposed that all
hunting within the wind farm area is banned, this area is shown in Figure 14-4. This would not only protect the birds using the wind farm area but would
also prevent damage to the turbines themselves. The site would be secured during construction, preventing public access to the area. It is proposed to
maintain this during the operation phase, with security staff responsible for preventing members of the public accessing the wind farm site. Efforts should
be made to invest in public awareness and support for the hunting ban among local residents. This would take the form of increased nature education and
training of local bird recorders. Surveyors from the project surveys would be a good resource to educate locals of the species of birds and why Lebanon is
an Internationally important bird flyway.
• Artificial Light: The use of artificial light should be avoided where possible as steady white lights on the nacelle can attract prey, such as moths, and the
prey can attract predators, such as moth eating birds like hobbies and red-footed falcons. Instead, it is proposed that red lights or pulsing/blinking lights
are used on the nacelle instead.
• Waste Disposal: To prevent attracting scavenging bird species to the site, any waste produce by the workers on the site would need to be disposed of
following a detailed plan. Waste should not be stored or deposited where it is open to the air, as this would attract birds to the site. This could,
inadvertently, lead to the creation of a de-facto feeding station for scavenging birds such as corvids, kites and vultures.
• Disturbance and Displacement: Identified nests of birds of prey, such as common kestrel and short-toed snake eagle, are considered far enough away
from any construction area and disturbance impacts are unlikely. However, the ECoW would be responsible for monitoring both nest sites and ensuring
that they remain productive through the construction/decommissioning works.
During Operations and Maintenance:
Migration VP Surveys
• It is recommended to continue the migratory season VPs during the start of the operational phase of the proposed development. These would commence
as soon as the Project is operational and would be undertaken following the methods described in this section, although with an increased survey effort to
meet the 36 hours per migration season as suggested by SNH Guidance. During each VP watch, flight activity by target species 8 will be recorded using the
same details collected before:
7
Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) (2013) Report on the hunting of migrant birds in the Lebanon - affected species and their conservation status in the EU.
8
Target species include all species of raptor, cranes, storks and pelicans.
NTS-34
Impact Mitigation
- Flight Number.
- Time.
- Date.
- Species.
- Number of Birds.
- Flight height.
- Total time of flight including time spent at each height.
• In addition to this information, surveyors will record if any birds display any flight behavior apparently associated with the presence of the turbines
(avoidance) or if any were seen to collide with a turbine (collision). Observations would use the following terminology after Meredith (2002)9:
- Weave - Weaving flight line up to maximum height of turbine.
- Direct - A direct flight line, within the turbine envelope but clearly in a line up to maximum turbine blade height, avoiding turbines.
- Horizontal - A bird flying towards a wind farm site, which takes avoiding action by a horizontal movement (i.e. no change in height) so as to take it
around the edge of the turbines.
- Vertical - As for horizontal, but this time, the bird gains altitude to take it over the top of the wind farm site.
- Bullet - Flight behavior with no avoiding action with regards to turbines (or other infrastructure).
- Hit - A recorded collision between a bird and a turbine (or other infrastructure).
- Avoid - Avoidance behavior near a turbine, generally taken at short notice and likely to appear as a sudden change in direction and/or height.
- Other – Any other behavior not easily classifiable into any of the above categories.
Carcass Searches
• As well as the VP surveys, searches for collision victims will be completed under the turbines. Visual searches within an area at least five meters greater
than the length of each turbine blade will be undertaken. The surveys would be stratified, with a third of the turbines survey during each visit. It would
also be randomized, with a different set of turbines chosen to be surveyed on each visit. These surveys would be undertaken ten times per month during
the migration period (mid-February to mid-May and mid-August to mid-November) and three times per month during the rest of the year. The amount of
time spent searching will be standardized to allow comparability between turbines and visits.
• Prior to starting the surveys, both scavenger and surveyor bias will be calibrated. This will be completed by leaving proxy carcasses10 under turbines in
locations where they can be seen by static trail cameras to record how much time passes before a carcass is removed by scavenging animals.
• A similar process will be used to calibrate how successful surveyors are at locating carcasses. One surveyor will place a number of carcasses, ideally of
differing sizes randomly under turbines and a different surveyor would search as described above. This process will be repeated across a number of
turbine locations and for all surveyors involved in the searching. How many of the placed carcasses which are found can then be used to identify how
effective the surveyors are at finding carcasses.
• A project specific monitoring protocol would be developed. This will need to be adapted following the publication of the Bird Monitoring Protocol by the
MOE.
Radar Bird Monitoring Equipment
• Radar equipment to monitor volumes of migrating birds approaching the proposed development would be considered. The requirement for this would be
based on the expectations of the Bird Monitoring Protocol currently being prepared by the MOE. It is anticipated that this would involve guidance on the
specifications of system appropriate and how it should be utilized.
9
Meredith, C., Venosta, M., & Ressom, R. (2002) Cordington Wind Farm Avian Avoidance Behaviour Report, 2002. Biosis Research Report.
10
Proxies required as its unlikely that access to any hooded vulture carcasses will be possible. A bird of similar size and colouration should be used. It will be acceptable to use man-made dummies in the surveyor bias trials as that is a test of the surveyors’ visual
abilities. However, for the scavenger bias trials, real carcasses should ideally be used.
NTS-35
Impact Mitigation
• The radar system would have a more direct feedback into the shutdown mitigation of the proposed development, as it would detect large volumes of birds
approaching so large collision risk events can be avoided. The other monitoring methods would have an indirect feedback into the shutdown mitigation.
Positive Impacts: Construction, Operations and Maintenance and Decommissioning:

• The potential for the consistent provision of electricity to meet • Landowners have agreed that the compensation provided is appropriate and fair, though the Project represents a loss of access to 747,589m 2 will be
demand. leased for the Project for 28 years, and +3,500m2 will be acquired permanently.
• Economic benefits from the expected sourcing of construction • A temporary loss of access of land for grazing of 45% of the total available in the Project area. Given the loss of access to nearly half of the total, the
materials from the Akkar region. impact severity is anticipated to be high. Additional consultation will be undertaken with livestock owners and shepherds to explain the areas they cannot
access for the duration of the construction. Shepherds will be consulted to find out whether goat grazing is a subsistence activity and whether there are
• Economic benefits from the sourcing of Project personnel from the
adequate alternative grounds that can be used during the construction period. If there’s impact or loss of livelihoods, a Livelihood Restoration and
northeastern part of Akkar.
Compensation Plan will be developed. Shepherds grazing near the Project will be advised of exclusion zones in advance, noting that other grazing areas
• Economic benefit from income that may be generated by nearby are available. Alternative areas for grazing will be researched and secured by the Developer for alternative use during construction. If the Developer
businesses including hotels and restaurants. cannot arrange an alternative area because of landowners’ objection, financial compensation will take place. All grazing areas will again be accessible at
the end of construction.
• Land lease / acquisition for 23 years with a possible extension to 28
years. • Access to tracks within the Project area would be temporarily prohibited during the construction phase for a period of 18 months. Recreational hunters
near the Project will be advised of exclusion zones in advance, noting that other tracks are available, and hunting is for recreational purposes, i.e. not
Negative Impacts:
subsistence. There are other tracks available for hunters, who only hunt recreationally. A significant impact on birds migrating through Lebanon is the
• Land lease / acquisition for 23 years with a possible extension to 28 culture of hunting that exists. In spite of laws that make the killing of migrating birds illegal, thousands are still killed each year impacting populations in
years. their breeding grounds in Europe and Asia. It is proposed that all hunting within the wind farm area is banned, this area is shown in Figure 14-4 in
Section 14 Ornithology. This would not only protect the birds using the wind farm area but would also prevent damage to the turbines themselves. The
• Temporary loss of access by shepherds to 0.43km2 of grazing areas.
site would be secured during construction, preventing public access to the area. It is proposed to maintain this during the operation phase, with security
• Temporary loss of access to tracks by recreational bird hunters. staff responsible for preventing members of the public accessing the wind farm site. Efforts should be made to invest in public awareness and support for
the hunting ban among local residents. This would take the form of increased nature education and training of local bird recorders. Surveyors from the
• Potential impacts to vulnerable groups, including women, the elderly
project surveys would be a good resource to educate locals of the species of birds and why Lebanon is an Internationally important bird flyway.
and informal settlements.
• Impacts to vulnerable groups, including women, the elderly and Palestinian and Syrian refugees, are not expected to be disproportionately different than
• The potential to overwhelm businesses in the Project area by the influx
other community members. The impact severity is anticipated to be Low (to be confirmed). The Developer will collect additional data, identify all Project
of workers.
stakeholders and engage with them, as necessary, including directly-affected people and vulnerable groups. These exercises will help clarify and confirm
• Reduced cost of provision of power to residents. the DAOI and focus the assessment of project impacts and inform mitigation, as well as inform management plans. The Developer will identify and map all
of the Project stakeholders and engage with them as necessary. This will help ensure that all Project stakeholders are consulted and there are no hidden
• Boosting of the local economy.
pockets of opposition. Other potential use of natural resources on the Project site will be investigated. Additional measures to communicate the Project
• Enhancing infrastructure such as roads and transportation. information, including provision of schedules, health, safety and security measures are necessary (refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and
Security and the stand-alone SEP).
• Cleaner environment.
• Up to 125 workers will be employed by the Project. Workers will be sourced from the Project area first, regionally second, nationally third and
• Improved quality of life.
internationally last. Employment will supply income for a period of up to 18 months. Pre-recruitment skills training will be provided. A job skills assessment
• Economic growth. will be undertaken to provide transparency in hiring practices. The impact to workers is expected to be positive.
• General impacts to communities are expected to be Positive based on establishment of the CRO Office in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and community
development projects as agreed between Municipalities and the Developer.
Noise Construction:
• Limit the working hours from Monday to Friday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., if possible. Some flexibility in working hours may be required during the delivery and
erection of turbines and depending on weather conditions.
• The final time schedule of the transport movements should be clarified with the authorities and communities. Only well-maintained equipment should be
operated on-site.
Operations and Maintenance:
• The distance of the WTGs to nearby receptors was increased by eliminating the originally planned WTGs 26, 27 and 28. In addition, WTG 25 was shifted to
increase the distance to nearby receptors.
NTS-36
Impact Mitigation
• In order to comply with the IFC noise limit of 45 dB(A) some turbines need to be operated in noise reduced modes. Using the noise reduced modes which
are available for all considered turbine types, the IFC noise limit of 45 dB(A) can be complied with. Due to the fact, that the calculation was based on a
worst-case assumption of 23 turbine locations, the noise assessment should be redone when the final and reduced turbine layout is available. At the time
the final number of turbines is available, the noise reduction modes for the corresponding turbine type can be stipulated.
• The WTGs will be maintained regularly to ensure that the turbines do not become louder over time.
Shadow Flicker • Shutdown modules will eliminate the possibility for exceedances of annual and day limits. An automatic shadow-flicker shutdown system shuts down the
WTG when the sun is shining (direct sunshine on a horizontal area > 120 W/m²). These systems shut down a turbine when one of two conditions are
reached:
- More than 30 minutes of shadow-flicker occur on one day at a receptor.
- The maximum annual quota of shadow-flicker at a receptor is exceeded.
- When shutdown systems feature a radiation sensor, the turbines only shut down when the sun is shining. If the shadow-flicker shutdown system does
not include a radiation detector, the WTG will shut down at all times when the shadow-flicker assessment indicates shadow-flicker at a receptor (i.e.
also in cases of overcast sky or fog when there is actually no shadow flicker).
• The use of shadow flicker shutdown modules will have a (small) negative effect on the energy yield of the wind farm.
Visual Amenity in Settlements or Key Viewpoints • The distance to the planned Lebanon Wind Power wind farm was also increased so that cumulative impacts were reduced.
• The wind fam design layout follows the existing morphology of the mountain.
• Tracks will be designed to follow the existing tracks and fit with contours as far as possible.
• The turbines and all the other aboveground structures will be removed at the end of the operational lifetime.
• The internal cabling will be underground cabling.
Transport and Traffic • The temporary removal of concrete bund, curb, electric pole and overhead cable, and demolition of the 45m of concrete wall be coordinated with the Port
Authority.
• Raising of pedestrian bridges, prohibition of car parking, removal of curbs, electric poles, trees, lamp posts, and fencing at ramps and roundabouts and
ground leveling and compaction of significant curves will be coordinated with the Ministry of Transport.
• Asphalt speed bumps will be replaced with rubber ones, which we can easily be removed during the transportation of the WTG components and reinstalled
immediately after the trucks pass.
• Any modification required for the Al Abdeh roundabout will be discussed with the municipality as it is under their authority.
• Such works will be coordinated and permitted by the Developer and the Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels and/or
pedestrian use are lowest.
• The construction of asphalt and gravel roads will occur for a period of 6 months and will be coordinated and permitted by Ministry of Transport and
scheduled for time periods when traffic levels are lowest. The construction would be performed under the supervision and conditions of the relevant
municipality.
• The improved road network will have a positive impact on the health and safety in the area by providing safer roads, minimizing impacts to city centers,
providing greater buffer distances between houses and the road and eliminating dangerous curves/turns.
• Construction of internal track will occur for a period of 3 months and will be coordinated with the Ministry of Transport and the Lebanese Army.
• Occupational health and safety rules, codes and regulations will be followed during works.
• The OEM/EPC Contractor will be supervised by and accountable to the Developer.
• The transport of WTG components will occur between 11pm and 4am to avoid impacts to communities traveling to work and school.
• Municipal police will provide end-to-end escort for the transport convoy.
• Advance notification of the scheduled transport will be provided to all communities along the route.
NTS-37
Impact Mitigation
• The trucks will travel at a low speed to lessen the generation of noise, vibration and dust.
• A communications protocol being developed for the transport of WTG components will be distributed to all Mayors two to three months prior to the start of
transport. A final transport route map will be provided to all municipalities.
• For Road Segments A, B, C and D, which are 4 lanes with a median, a conservative approach to traffic management will dedicate the northbound direction
for transport and divert all other background traffic to the other direction making a two-lane road.
• For Road Segment E, which is a two-lane road, the transport vehicles will have to utilize the road along with the background traffic.
• The Developer will meet with Rweimeh Village residents of the houses located along the quarry tracks and existing asphalt roads to discuss the Project and
nature and timing of the transport of construction materials.
• Advance notification of the start of construction will be provided.
• Negotiation of entry to quarry roads by resident vehicles will follow standard traffic safety/traffic control protocols, i.e. Stop/Go signage, flagman, etc.
Landscape Impacts • Large, multi-MW turbines with large rotor diameters are considered. By using large, multi-MW turbines with large rotor diameters the number of turbines
per generation capacity and the footprint of the Project will be reduced. In addition, large rotors have a reduced rotor speed compared to smaller turbines
which will also reduce the visual impact of the Project.
• The distance of the WTGs to nearby receptors was increased by eliminating the originally planned WTGs 26, 27 and 28. In addition, WTG 25 was shifted to
increase the distance to nearby receptors.The wind farm layout was designed so that the array follows the existing landform of the mountain ridges. By
considering the landform of the mountain ridges at the wind fam design, the wind farm layout follows the existing morphology of the mountain.
Consequently, the typological appearance of the ridge remains largely recognizable. In addition, the overlapping of rotors of views from the east and the
west are unlikely which can be perceived as visually restless.
• Tracks will be designed to follow the existing tracks and fit with contours as far as possible. By following the existing tracks and fitting the location of the
tracks with the contours lines the landscape impact of the tracks can be reduced.
• The turbines and all the other aboveground structures will be removed at the end of the operational lifetime. By removing the turbines and all the other
aboveground structures at the end of the operational lifetime, the landscape impact of the project will be entirely revisable and limited to the operation
phase of the project.
• The internal cabling should be underground cabling. By designing the internal cabling as underground cabling the landscape impact in the immediate
surrounding was reduced.
Buried Artifacts • Though the potential for impact is considered low, a Chance Finds Procedure has been developed (in accordance with guidance provided by the Ministry of
Culture and the General Directorate of Antiquities) to appropriately respond to cultural resources encountered during construction.
Eco-Tourism at Karm Chbat Nature Reserve • During the construction phase, access to certain portions of the 5.13M m 2 Karm Chbat Nature Reserve will be limited to ensure the health and safety of
visitors.
Impacts to Workers • Provide appropriate worker training.

• Implement H&S measures (masks, work gloves, proper clothing, H&S rules) and safe work practices.
• Control and supervise personnel.
• Development and implementation of an Emergency Response Plan and training personnel on the actions to be taken in risk situations.
• Appropriately maintain and operate equipment.
• Collect and address worker complaints and suggestions through grievance mechanism.
NTS-38
NTS-39
5.2. Residual Impact Summary
The assessment of residual impacts following implementation of the planned mitigation was in
accordance with the following:
Sensitivity of Receptor
129B
Low
130B Low-Medium
13B Medium
132B Medium-High
13B High
134B
No Change
136B Negligible
137B Negligible
138B Negligible
139B Negligible
140B Negligible
14B
Slight Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor

Impact Severity
142B 143B 14B 145B 146B 147B
Low
148B Negligible
149B Negligible
150B Minor
15B Minor
152B Moderate
153B
Medium
154B Negligible
15B Minor
156B Moderate
157B Moderate
158B Major
159B
High
160B Minor
16B Moderate
162B Moderate
163B Major
164B Major
165B
135B
Very High
16B Moderate
167B Moderate
168B Moderate
169B Major
170B Critical
17B
Most residual impacts are minor for the construction and operations and maintenance phases, with
only seven impacts being assessed as moderate or moderate to substantial.
The following summarizes residual impacts for the construction phase:

Residual Impacts - Construction Phase
129B
Low
130B Low-Medium
13B Medium
132B Medium-High
13B High
134B
No Change
136B
Impact Severity
Slight
142B
3, 5, 7 15, 20 20
Low
148B
1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18 2, 22
Medium
154B
13, 14, 19, 21
11, 17
High
160B
135B
Very High
16B
Key: Construction Phase

1 GHG Emissions 12 Designated Sites
13 Birds: Habitat Loss, Nest Destruction, Disturbance and
2 Management of Waste Streams
Displacement
3 Landslide, Slope Stability, Earthquake 14 Socioeconomic Impacts
4 Air Quality 15 Noise
5 Obstacle Removal 16 Visual Amenity in Settlements
6 New Road Development 17 Visual Amenity from Key Viewpoints
7 Internal Track Development 18 Impacts to Communities Along the Transport Corridor
8 Transport of WTG Components, Construction 19 Impacts to Informal Settlements Along the Transport
Materials and Workers Corridor
9 Habitat Loss 20 Buried Artifacts
10 Terrestrial Fauna: Loss or Disturbance of
21 Eco-Tourism at Karm Chbat Nature Reserve
Resting Places
11 Bats: Loss or Disturbance of Roosts and
22 Impacts to Workers
Foraging Habitat
NTS-40
Residual Impacts – Operations and Management Phase
129B
Low
130B Low-Medium
13B Medium
132B Medium-High
13B High
134B
No Change
136B
Impact Severity
Slight
142B
1, 4, 10
Low
148B
5, 6, 7 9, 11, 13 2, 3
Medium
154B
12
High
160B
135B
Very High
16B
Key: Operations and Maintenance Phase
1 Flood Risk 12 Visual Amenity from Key Viewpoints
2 Wildfire 13 Impacts to Workers

3 Management of Waste Streams
4 Landslide, Slope Stability, Earthquake
5 Habitat Loss
6 Bats: Collision Risk
7 Birds: Collision Risk, Disturbance and Displacement
and Barrier Effects.
8 Socioeconomic Impacts - Positive
9 Noise
10 Shadow Flicker
11 Visual Amenity in Settlements
6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT AND

MONITORING
6.1. Introduction
To effectively manage social and environmental impact identified through the ESIA process, an
Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) framework has been developed. The framework
identifies and outlines appropriate measures and mitigation that will be needed to achieve acceptable
levels of environmental and social performance, through all phases of the Project. The Developer will
use the ESMP framework as the basis for developing an Environmental and Social Management
System (ESMS) and series of detailed management plans, initially for construction and then for the
operations phase.
The management plans developed for the Project will be practical and fully integrated into the
Developer’s ESMS. This will ensure alignment with corporate policies and procedures. The system will
need to be fully integrated to enable the plans to be effective (i.e. covering environment, health,
safety and security in an integrated manner). These are expected to include the following, as a
minimum (noting that some elements may be combined into a plan):
NTS-41
Detailed Management Plans:
Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Biodiversity Management Plan
Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention Plan
Water, Solid Waste, Wastewater and Hazardous Waste Management Plan(s)
Air Quality Management Plan
Noise Management Plan
Shadow Flicker Management Plan
Landscape and Visual Impact Management Plan
Traffic Management Plan
Chance Finds Procedure
Safety Management Plan (natural disasters, accidents and emergencies)
Security Management Plan
Employee Training Plan
Occupational Health and Safety Plan
Community Health and Safety Plan
Contractor Management Plan
Community Benefit-Sharing Plan (Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Plan)
Labor Accommodation Plan
Local Hiring and Labor Conditions Plan
Human Resources Policy
NTS-42
The main objectives of the ESMS and ESMPs are to:
• Ensure conformance with IFC PSs, IFC Industry Sector EHS Guidelines, international lender’s
environmental and social (E&S) policies, local regulations and good international practice.
• Help the Developer to select and manage local consultants and engage with Project stakeholders.
• Have a concrete action plan to avoid and mitigate the negative impact of the project on the
environment and local population and to compensate/remedy the negative impacts that cannot be
avoided or reduced.
• Provide references for actions, plans and procedures.
• Have an efficient monitoring tool for the contractors of the project company.
• Improve the communication on the environmental and social topics within the project
stakeholders.
• Improve the positive impacts of the Project.
• Advise the Developer and assist them in undertaking Informed Consultation and Participation with
Affected Communities and other interested parties as per IFC PS1.
• Advise the Developer on E&S capacity requirements for each Project phase and to enhance
existing capacity with training and on-the-job learnings.
• Provide advisory support to the Developer to mobilize, execute and staff/resource the ESMPs
effectively.
• Engage with potential civil society partners and/or international agencies who could potentially
assist in Project preparation and delivery.
6.2. Approach to Management and Monitoring Plans
The detailed management plans for the Project will be developed to align with national regulatory
requirements and Good International Industry Practice (GIIP) including that set out by IFC, EIB and
FMO. The plans will incorporate the following components:
NTS-43
6.3. Roles and Responsibilities
The Developer will have ultimate responsibility for implementing the provisions of the ESMP.
This role will include the on-going management of environmental and social impacts, control of health,
safety and security (HSS) risks, monitoring of contractor performance as well as development of
mechanisms for dealing with environmental and social problems, and HSS concerns.
The Developer will also ensure that the activities of its EPC Contractor and other contractors (and
subcontractors) are conducted in accordance with good practice measures, implementation of which
will be required through contractual documentation. The Developer will oversee the Project
performance pertaining to environment, health, safety and social issues.
The selected EPC Contractor will provide a dedicated Health, Safety and Environment (HSE)
Department to support the Project. The EPC Contractor’s HSE Department will have overall
responsibility for the coordination of the actions required for environment and social management and
mitigation, control of HSS risks, and for monitoring the progress of the proposed ESMP for the Project.
However, ultimate responsibility for implementing the provisions of the ESMP will lie with the
Developer.
In general, the EPC Contractor’s HSE Department shall perform the following activities:
• Ensuring availability of resources and appropriate institutional arrangements for implementation

of the ESMP.
• Preparation of required documents on environmental, social and health and safety management.
• Effective implementation of the health, safety and security management system.
• Confirming the competence of contractors/sub-contractors engaged on the Project and monitoring
their performance in complying with the HSS management system.
• Collection of the statistics of health of workers.
• Collection and monitoring of data on personnel. Contractor, health and safety.
• Providing support during routine medical check-ups of workers.
• Awareness-raising and implementing safety programs.
• Providing job specific induction training.
• Compliance with regulatory requirements.
• Carrying out environmental, health and safety and security audits.
• Identify unsafe acts & conditions and suggest remedies.
• Develop safety culture and comply with the company’s HSE policy and standards requirements.
• Encourage and enforce the use of PPE.
• Educate all employees in the use of PPE and safe practices.
• Direct, coordinate and orient the HSS activities.
• Promulgate the spread of policy, objectives, rules and/or regulations.
• Perform a thorough investigation of all accidents and review the recommendations to avoid
any repetition.
• Monitoring the progress of implementation of the ESMP.
• Reviewing and updating the ESMP as and when required for its effective implementation.
NTS-44
1. INTRODUCTION
Sustainable Akkar SAL (hereafter referred to as ‘the Developer’), a Lebanese investment company,
together with Tefirom İnşaat Enerji Sanayive Ticaret A.Ş (Tefirom), a Turkish construction,
engineering and contracting firm with experience in the field of wind energy, is seeking an
environmental license for the construction and operation of the Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm
(hereafter referred to as the Project). The area to be developed is located in Jabal Akroum, Akkar on
Lebanon’s northeastern border with Syria.
The Project comprises the construction and operation of wind turbines to provide a maximum licensed
capacity of 90.75 megawatts (MW). A potential for a 10% expansion as stipulated in the Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) arranged between SA and the Government of Lebanon (GOL), which will be
delivered to the public grid, i.e. 82.5MW + 10% = 90.75MW.
The purpose of this Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is to assess environmental
and social impacts generated by the Project in line with the good international practice, as per
International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards (PSs) (2012) and European
Investment Bank (EIB) Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs) (2010).
This report is accompanied with two stand-alone documents: a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP)
and an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), which together constitute a full set of
documents necessary for the international lenders to take a decision on Project financing.
1.1 Project Background
In Lebanon, the average available production capacity in 2009 was 1,500MW while the average
demand was around 2,000MW-2,100MW. The total energy demand was 15,000 gigawatt hours (GWH)
although the total produced energy was 11,522GWh; thus, the electric energy deficit in Lebanon in
2009 was estimated at 3,478GWh. At the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, the GOL pledged to
meet 12% of its energy consumption from renewable energy (RE) sources by 2020. Several strategies
and Action Plans were put forth by different ministries to achieve this target, most importantly the
Ministry of Energy and Water (MOEW) 2010 Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector (PPES),11
committing to “launching, supporting and reinforcing all public, private and individual initiatives to
adopt the utilization of renewable energies to reach 12% of electric and thermal supply”.
Based on the contents of the PPES, the Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation (LCEC) developed
the first National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP) for Lebanon for the period 2011-2015. It
included fourteen initiatives to address energy efficiency and renewable energy, including Initiative 6:
Electricity Generation from Wind Power. The subsequent Wind Atlas of Lebanon (UNDP-CEDRO, 2011)
provided a mesoscale and microscale modelling for the entire country to produce a wind map at
heights of 50 meters (m) and 80m above ground level and at a resolution of 100m (GL Garrad
Hassan, 2011). The Wind Atlas demonstrated a potential of 1,500MW of wind energy in the country,
with the possibility to install 400MW to 500MW by 2020.
Developers responded to a 2013 Request for Proposal (RFP) for developing the first utility-scale wind
farm in Lebanon. Shortly thereafter, a higher electricity deficit of 5,524GWH was indicated in 2014,
11
http://www.databank.com.lb/docs/Policy%20paper%20for%20the%20electricity%20sector%202010.pdf
1-1
despite the start of power generation through rental floating power plants. 12 This situation resulted in
1F13F
end users being forced to rely on diesel generators to overcome the electricity shortages. As of 2016,
the peak power demand reached 3,594MW while the effective power production by Electricité du Liban
(EDL) only reached 2,108MW,13 leading to 21 hours of electricity supply in Beirut, and 14 hours
outside of the capital.
In response, Lebanon signed its first-ever Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to purchase wind
energy from three separate consortiums that will build and operate wind farms in Akkar, in the north
of the country. The MOEW’s signing of the agreements represent Lebanon’s first PPA with the private
sector in electricity generation as part of efforts to close an estimated 1GW gap between current
electrical supply and demand in the country.
To this extent, the Developer was qualified and signed a PPA in February 2018 to construct and
operate the Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm (the Project) to provide a maximum licensed capacity of
90.75MW which will be delivered to the public grid.
1.2 Project Location and Setting
The Project is located on an uninhabited mountain ridge of Jroud Akkar in the Akkar District and Akkar
Governates as outlined in blue in Figure 1-1, where the mean wind speed is 6-8 meters per second
(m/s).
The Akkar Governate (shown as “1” in the inset of Figure 1-1) is the northernmost governate of
Lebanon and covers an area of 788 square kilometers (km2). It is bounded by the Mediterranean Sea
to the west, North Governate to the south and Baalbek-Hermel Governate to the southeast (shown as
“2a” and “3a”, respectively, in Figure 1-1), and the Syrian governates of Tartus and Homs to the
north and northeast.
Akkar can be divided into 7 parts: Qaitea, Jouma, Dreib, Jabal Akroum, Wadi Khaled, Cheft and As-
Sahel. The largest cities in Akkar are Halba, Bire Akkar and Quobaiyat. The Project site is located
within Jabal Akroum. The Project area is approximately 8.7km2 with an actual installation area of
112,005m2. The Project site is located on lands that shall be leased and/or purchased from the
Municipality of Aandqet, Rweimeh Village and Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun.
The layout of the Project is shown in Figure 1-2. The Project will comprise the construction of up to
21 wind turbines which range in power from 4.2MW to 5.3MW. Regardless of the Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM)/Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) Contractor selected, the wind
turbine generators (WTGs) will be installed among the 23 locations (WTG 02 through WTG 25) shown
in Figure 1-2. Note: potential turbine locations WTG 01, WTG12, WTG21, WTG28, WTG29, WTG30
and WTG31 were removed as part of the ESIA process to mitigate Project impacts (refer to Section 3
Analysis of Alternatives).
12
Bouri, E., El Assad, J. 2016. The Lebanese Electricity Woes: An Estimation of the Economical Costs of Power
Interruptions. Energies, 9, 583; doi:10.3390/en9080583.
13
Ashari, T (2018) Lights Out as Demand Surges for Electricity. The Daily Star Published on 10 July 2018.
Retrieved from: http://www.dailystar.com.lb.
1-2
Figure 1-1 Project Location
1-3
Figure 1-2 Project Layout
1-4
1.3 The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report
The environmental clearance for this Project is governed by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) as
stipulated in Law 444 of 2002 for the Protection of the Environment14 and the MOE Decree No. 8633 of
2012, Fundamentals for Environmental Impact Assessment15; the Project falls under Annex 1 requiring
a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The Developer will be seeking financing for the Project from prospective lenders, including
International Finance Institutions (IFIs). Therefore, the Developer wishes to design and manage the
Project in accordance with this ESIA Report which will be submitted to the MOE and the relevant IFIs
and has therefore been prepared in accordance with good international industry practice and
standards. For the purpose of the ESIA, this has therefore been developed in accordance with the
following:
1. A Scoping Report prepared by ECODIT and submitted to the MOE on 12 January 2018 (Appendix
A). The scoping phase included a public participation meeting with local stakeholders in the
presence of MOE’s representatives to inform the them about the Project and solicit their feedback
as requested by the EIA decree. The MOE provided a Scoping Report response, also included in
Appendix A.
2. IFC PSs.16
3. Relevant IFC Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.17
4. EIB ESSs.18
1.4 Document Structure
Table 1-1 provides an overview of the sections within this ESIA document.
Table 1-1 Summary of Volume I ESIA Report Contents
Section Contents
Section 2 – Project Provides a detailed description of the Project in relation to its

Description location, the key project components and an overview of the
proposed activities that are to take place during the various Project
phases.
Section 3 – Analysis of Provides an analysis of certain alternatives to the Project

Alternatives development in relation to: (i) the Project site selection
alternatives, (ii) the Project design, (iii) the chosen technology;
and investigates (iv) the ‘No Action’ Alternative.
14
Lebanese Official Gazette: Law 444, dated 08/08/2002.
15
Environmental Impact Assessment Decree - MOE Decree 8633 of 2012.
16
World Bank. 2017. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. IFC E&S. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank Group.
17
IFC, 2007. Environmental, Health and Safety General Guidelines, World Bank Group; IFC, 2007. Environmental,
Health and Safety Guidelines, for Toll Roads, World Bank Group; IFC, 2007. Environmental, Health and Safety
Guidelines, for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution, World Bank Group; IFC, 2015. Environmental,
Health and Safety Guidelines, Wind Energy, World Bank Group.
18
Environment, Climate and Social Office Projects Directorate, Version 10.0 of 08/10/2018.
1-5
Section Contents
Section 4 – Regulatory and Provides an overview of the environmental clearance process for
Policy Framework the Project as governed by the MOE.
Section 5 – ESIA Approach Presents the methodology and approach that was adopted for the
and Methodology ESIA study. This is followed by presentation of gaps in baseline
data and/or nature and extent of current knowledge, and
environmental commitments for future data collection.
Section 6 – Stakeholder Discusses the stakeholder consultation and engagement which were
Consultation and undertaken as part of the ESIA process and provides an overview of
Engagement the findings. In addition, this section also discusses the future
stakeholder engagement and consultation plans and references the
stand-alone SEP.
Section 7 – Overview of Provides an overview of the significant positive environmental and

Strategic Environmental and economic impacts that will result from the Project development on
Economic Impacts the strategic and national level. Also highlights the site specific
negative environmental and social impacts anticipated from the
Project throughout its various phases – each of which is discussed
in detail in the subsequent sections.
Section 8 – Section 19 Presents the environmental and social attributes studied

throughout the ESIA. This includes: Climate and Climate Change
(Section 8), Geology and Hydrology (Section 9), Geophysical
Ground and Seismicity (Section 10), Air Quality (Section 11),
Transport and Traffic (Section 12), Biodiversity (Section 13),
Ornithology (Section 14), Socioeconomic Conditions --- to include
Land Use --- (Section 15), Community Health, Safety and Security
--- to include Noise, Shadow Flicker, Visual Amenity and Traffic ---
(Section 16), Landscape (Section 17) Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage (Section 18) and Occupational Health and Safety (Section
19). For each attribute, the baseline conditions within the Project
site and its surroundings is assessed. Each section then moves on
to identify and assess the potential impacts from the Project on
each attribute.
Section 20 – Cumulative Investigates the cumulative impacts which could result from other
Impact Assessment known existing and/or planned developments in the area and
currently available information on such planned developments.
Section 21 – Summary of Summarizes all identified impacts discussed throughout the

Anticipated Impacts and previous sections which are anticipated throughout the various
Mitigation phases of the Project to include planning and construction phase,
operation phase, and decommissioning phase.
Section 22 – References Summarizes the references within the Volume I ESIA Report.
Volume II - Appendices Appended documents referenced in the Volume I ESIA Report.
1-6
1.5 Project Proponent and Key Contributors
Different entities are involved in the planning and implementation of the Project. The responsibilities
of each key entity which is of relevance to the ESIA are listed in the text below along with a general
description of their roles.
• Sustainable Akkar SAL (the Developer): serving as owner and lead developer of the Project.
• ECODIT SAL (ECODIT): was commissioned by the Developer to prepare the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for the Project in order to apply for the necessary environmental permit in
accordance with the requirements of the MOE and in Law 444 of 2002 for the Protection of the
Environment and the MOE Decree No. 8633 of 2012, Fundamentals for Environmental Impact
Assessment. This report is the EIA report submitted to the MOE.
• Ramboll US Corporation (Ramboll US): was commissioned by the Developer to prepare this
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Project in accordance with IFC
Performance Standards, IFC’s Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines and EIB
Environmental and Social Standards.
• OEM/EPC Contractor: will be responsible for preparing the detailed design and layout of the
Project; supply of the material, wind turbines, and equipment; and construction of the internal
access roads, crane pads, foundations, operation building and the medium voltage and data
interconnection between the individual wind turbines and the wind farm substation. The OEM/EPC
Contractor has not yet been selected for this Project; however, Vestas Wind Systems A/S and GE
have been shortlisted and are in negotiations with the Developer.
• Ministry of Environment: The MOE is the lead government agency responsible for environmental
permitting based on the submission of the EIA report by LWP. The MOE was established by Law
216/1993, amended by Law 690/2005, and then restructured by Decree 2275/2009. This decree
defined the functions and responsibilities of each administrative unit including staff size and
qualifications. According to Article 20 of Decree 2275/2009, the Service of Natural Resources at
MOE is responsible for the protection of natural resources in the country including fauna and flora
species, habitats, mountains, etc.
According to Article 25 of Decree 2275/2009, the Service of Environmental Technology -

Department of Integrated Environmental Systems at MOE is responsible for adopting clean and
renewable energy sources as well as reducing the use of polluting energy sources in the country.
Moreover, the Service of Environmental Technology, in line with several other services and
departments at the MOE, is in charge for reviewing EIA studies. MOE is also responsible for
meeting Lebanon’s reporting obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, particularly the National Communication on Climate Change (which includes
emission data for the energy sector) prepared under its aegis. The Third National Communication,
inventorying emissions for base-year 2005 and time-series covering the period from 1994 to 2010
was published and presented to the Government and national stakeholders in 2014. The Third
National Communication gives an updated analysis of potential Green House Gas (GHG) mitigation
measures as well as an updated assessment of potential impacts of climate change in Lebanon
and adaptation measures.
• Ministry of Energy & Water: The MOEW is the lead government agency responsible for producing
energy and for licensing renewable energy projects and programs, including the Project. The
1-7
MOEW was first established by Law 20/66 (dated 29/03/1966) amended several times and lastly
(13 years ago) by Law 247 (dated 07/08/2000). Decree 5469 (dated 07/09/1966), that defined
the functions and responsibilities of every Directorate (2 Directorates) at the Ministry and each
administrative unit including staff size and qualifications was not amended and remains valid since
1966. Under the Directorate of Water and Electrical Resources (1st Directorate at MOEW), the
Directorate of Electrical Resources studies and implements Electricity Projects in the Country.
Supervising all activities related to water and electricity at the MOEW are performed by the
Directorate of Investment (2nd Directorate at MOEW). The MOEW is the most active public body
attempting to promote Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs in Lebanon. To date,
the most noteworthy achievement is the sponsoring of the Lebanese Center for Energy
Conservation Program further discussed below as well as the development of the Policy Paper for
the Electricity Sector.
• Electricité du Liban: EDL was established in 1964 (Decree 16878 dated 10/07/1964). With the
exception of four private concessions (Zahle, Jbeil, Alay and Bhamdoun representing about 82,000
subscribers) and private/semi-private hydroelectric power plants (Nahr Ibrahim and Kadisha) as
well as a public hydropower plant owned by the Litani River Authority, EDL has quasi total
monopoly over electricity production, transmission and distribution in the country; it controls
around 90% of the Lebanese electricity sector.
• Ministry of Interior and Municipalities: The Ministry of Interior and Municipalities (MOIM) has
jurisdiction over Lebanon’s estimated 994 municipalities organized according to Decree-Law 118
(dated 30/06/1977). The Akkar Caza counts 175 municipalities. Municipalities are local
administrations charged with the day-to-day management of all public works located inside their
jurisdiction (municipal boundaries). Specific responsibilities are wide and diverse including
landscaping and beautification works, water and wastewater networks, street lighting, waste
disposal, internal roads, recreational facilities, as well as urban planning in coordination with the
Directorate General of Urban Planning (Article 49). Municipal Councils have also to approve all
projects related to re-designing major roads in their municipal boundaries as well as any activity
regulating the traffic in the municipal area (Article 51 of Decree-Law 118-1977 and Article 389 of
Law 243-2012).
• Ministry of Public Works and Transport: In 2000, the Ministry of Transport was cancelled, and the
two Directorates were affiliated to the Ministry of Public Works by Law 247 (dated 07/08/2000).
The Ministry of Public Works became, then, the MOPWT which studies (technically and financially),
evaluates and monitors the implementation and maintenance of public construction projects
(buildings, road networks, etc.) and regulates land, sea and air transport. The MOPWT comprises
three directorates including the General Directorate of Urban Planning (DGUP), which is
responsible for permitting all construction projects including the Project. The Ministry of Public
Works was first established in 1959 by Decree 2872 (dated 16/12/1959) and included four
Directorates; two of them were later affiliated to the Ministry of Energy and Water (Law 20/66 –
1966). The Ministry of Transport was first established by Law 214 in 1993 and included two
Directorates: 1) the Directorate General of Civil Aviation; and 2) the Directorate General of Land
and Maritime Transport.
• Directorate General of Urban Planning: The DGUP falls under the authority of the MOPWT. Its
mandate is to develop urban regulations and coordinate urban planning activities. Lebanon is
divided into governorate (“mohafazah”), district (“caza”) and municipalities. The DGUP also plays
1-8
a key role in the construction permitting process through the regional Departments of Urban
Planning in each caza.
• The Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation: Established in 2002, the Global Environment
Facility funded the Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation Program (LCECP) which is currently
hosted at the MOEW and managed by the UNDP. Registered under the name of the Lebanese
Center for Energy Conservation (Attestation No. 172 dated 27/1/2011), the organization
addresses end-use energy conservation and renewable energy at the national level by supporting
the Government of Lebanon in developing and implementing national strategies that promote
energy efficiency and renewable energy at the consumer level. The LCEC has implemented
Renewable Energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) projects in Lebanon including the installation of
domestic solar water heaters (DSWH) in south Lebanon, management of the DSWH project “One
DSWH for every house” aiming at installing no less than 1M m² of collectors by 2020,
management of the 3M compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) lamps project, etc. LCEC is financially and
administratively independent and operates under the direct supervision of the MOEW.
• Community Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration Project: CEDRO is a

partnership created in 2007 between the MOEW/Ministry of Finance (MOF)/Ministry of Economy &
Trade (MOET)/Lebanon Recovery Fund (LRF)/Council for Development and Reconstruction
(CDR)/UNDP, with a five-year mandate and a budget of $9.73 million funded by the LRF by means
of a donation from Spain. Its aim is to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy in
Lebanon through awareness, capacity building, market incentives for EE and RE installations, as
well as country-wide research and development activities.
CEDRO also initiated and financed several national milestone research documents related to RE
including (1) the national bio-energy strategy that shed the light on available bioenergy resources
in the country, and (2) the national Wind Atlas that establishes an understanding of the dominant
wind regimes (onshore & offshore) in the country, essential to determine best areas to build wind
farms in the country. CEDRO’s January 2019 publication, Renewable Energy Sector in Lebanon,
National Studies, concluded that:
− Wind energy can potentially employ up to 2,753 people under the optimistic scenario in 2021,
roughly half of them in direct jobs.
− The largest number of jobs will be in the service sector and during the construction phase.
− The transport of wind energy equipment will also create employment wherever infrastructure
is needed, be it at the port or along the roads. Roads have to be widened and the area around
the roads has to be cleared.
1-9
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides a detailed description of the Project in relation to its location, the key Project
components and an overview of the proposed activities that are to take place during the planning and
construction, operation, and decommissioning phase.
2.1 Overview
The considered development consists of construction of a wind farm along with the auxiliary technical
infrastructure in the Akkar Governorate in the northeast of Lebanon, approximately 172km northeast
of the capital city of Beirut. The Developer holds a signed PPA to construct and operate the Project to
provide a maximum licensed capacity of 90.75MW to be delivered to the public grid.
One of two OEM/EPC Contractors are currently under consideration by the Developer for construction
and operation of the wind farm, Vestas Wind Systems A/S and GE. Depending on the OEM/EPC
Contractor selected, the wind farm will comprise up to 21 WTGs with rated outputs ranging between
4.2MW and 5.3MW, as presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Potential OEMs, Turbine Power Ratings and Turbine Locations
Turbine WTG Locations Power

OEM/EPC No. of Total Power
Power Selected Generated
Contractor Turbines Generated
Rating by Turbines
WTG 02-WTG 11,

Vestas 4.2MW 21 WTG 13–WTG 15 88.2MW 88.2MW
and WTG 17-WTG 24
4.8MW 2 WTG 02-WTG 03 9.6MW
GE WG 04-WTG 11, 89.1MW

5.3MW 15 WTG 13-WTG 15 and 79.5MW
WTG 17-WTG 20
The entire investment will include the following components:
• A maximum of 21 WTGs.
• Underground cable networks (electric and fiber-optic control and communication cables) between
the WTGs.
• External and internal access roads.
• Power substation and temporary and permanent maintenance buildings.
• Parking/laydown/assembly areas.
• Concrete batching plant in Rweimeh Village.
• Community Relations Office (CRO) building to be located in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun (note: the
budget for this office is included in the Project).
• Underground electric transmission line connecting the Project to the Electricité du Liban (EDL)
substation, which transmits the energy to the EDL power grid, to the substation at the planned
Lebanon Wind Power wind farm to the south.
2-1
2.2 Project Location
The area to be developed is located in Jabal Akroum, Akkar on Lebanon’s northeastern border with
Syria, approximately 182 kilometers (km) northeast of the capital city of Beirut. The Project is located
on a mountain ridge of Jroud Akkar at an altitude ranging between 2,190m (7,008 feet) above sea
level (asl) in the south and 791m (2,596 feet) asl in the north and, as shown in Figure 2-1. The
Project site can currently be accessed by Quobaiyat-Qasr Road which connects to Rweimeh Village and
Kfartoun to the northeast, and beyond to Mqaible. The largest cities in the Akkar Governate are Halba,
Bire Akkar and Quobaiyat. The Project is located in Aandqet, Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and Rweimeh
Village. Figure 2-2 presents the location of the Project in proximity to the nearest villages.
2.3 Project Components
The Project comprises the construction and operation of up to 21 horizontal axis wind turbines to
provide a maximum licensed power capacity of 90.75MW to be delivered to the public grid. Table 2-2
provides a summary of the Project components by OEM/EPC Contractor (it is noted that Nordex
dropped out from consideration and Siemens-Gamesa was removed from consideration during the
Developer’s OEM/EPC tender process). The locations of all Project components are shown in Figure 2-
3. Conceptual diagrams of the substation and operations buildings (with elevations) have not been
prepared as they are an element of the detailed design.
2.3.1 Wind Turbines
Generally, a wind turbine consists of a foundation, tower, nacelle, rotor blades, a rotor hub, and a
transformer. The foundation is used to bolt the tower in place. The tower contains the electrical
conduits, supports the nacelle, and provides access to the nacelle for maintenance. Typically, three (3)
blades are connected to the hub which then connects with the nacelle; the box-like component that
sits atop the tower and which most importantly contains the gear box (which steps up the revolutions
per minute to a speed suitable for the electrical generator) and the generator (which converts the
kinetic energy into electricity).
Each turbine and associated platform will occupy a maximum surface area of +3,500m 2. The OEM/EPC
Contractor will be constructing platforms (one for each turbine). Foundation platforms will be
constructed to bolt the tower of the turbine in place. A crane pad next to each wind turbine to
accommodate cranes for the installation of the wind turbines and for maintenance activities during
operation. The crane pads will be suitable to support loads required for the erection, assembly an
operation and maintenance of the turbines.
The layouts of the land plots occupied by the turbine platforms and substation are as provided in
Figure 2-1 and the diagrams presented in Appendix B. Each turbine will be equipped with a
transformer that converts/steps up the output from the turbine to a higher voltage to meet a specific
utility voltage distribution level that is appropriate for connection with a substation. Regardless of the
OEM/EPC Contractor selected, the turbines will be installed among the locations shown. It is noted
that potential turbine locations WTG 01, WTG 12, WTG 16 and WTG 26-WTG 28 were removed as part
of the ESIA process to mitigate Project impacts (refer to Section 3 Analysis of Alternatives).
2-2
Figure 2-1 Elevation Profile of the Project
S N
2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Site Location Relative to Nearest Villages
2-4
Table 2-2 Project Components
Design Vestas Wind Systems A/S GE
Project Generation Capacity (MW) 88.2MW 88.6MW
Technology Type Wind Power Wind Power
Number of Wind Turbines 21 2 and 15
Nominal power 4.2MW 4.8MW and 5.3MW, respectively
Type 3-blade rotor and a hub 3 blade rotor and hub
Hub height 105m 101m (steel) and 121m, respectively
Number of tower sections 4 4 or 5
Rotor diameter 150m 158.0m
Swept area 17,671m2 19,607m2
Rotor shaft inclination angle (Tilt angle) 6o 4o
Blade cone angle (Hub coning) 5.5o 5o
Rotor blade material Fiberglass reinforced epoxy, carbon fibers and solid metal tip (SMT) Glass fiber reinforced polyester + Carbon fiber spar
Total blade length 73.7m 77.4m
Tip height 180m 180m (200m)
Maximum height above MSL 2,000m; above 2,000msl is specifically available with some project-specific Maximum 1,000m with the maximum standard operational temperature of
customized solutions +40 °C. Above 1,000m, the maximum operational temperature is reduced
per DIN IEC 60034 1
Certificate In accordance with IEC 61400-22 and DIBt 2012 IEC 61400-22 in combination with IEC 61400-1.
Nominal power starting at wind speeds of (at air density of 1.225 kg/m3) 12m/s (at air density of 1.225 kg/m3) 12.5m/s
Nominal speed 4.9-12.0 min-1 9.7rpm
Cut-in wind speed 3m/s 3m/s
Cut-out wind speed 24.5m/s 25m/s
Cut-back-in wind speed 22.5m/s 22m/s
Calculated service life (Design Life) At least 20 years 20 years standard
Design temperature; (Extreme Design Parameters ) Standard -20oC to +45oC; (-40oC to +50oC) -20°C - +50°C
Maximal noise power level 104,9 dB(A) (0067-7067 V08) 106,0 dB(A) (NO_5.3-158-50Hz_IEC_EN_r03)
Infrastructure and Utilities This includes: (i) two new asphalt road segments; (ii) internal road network; (iii) substation; (iv) underground transmission line; (v) offices; and (vi)
associated facilities.
2-5
Figure 2-3 Project Components
2-6
The wind farm design considered wind resources in the specific Project site, spacing between the
turbines to minimize wake effects which could lead to a decreased wind energy production,
accessibility to the turbines, etc., as well as environmental considerations as presented throughout
this ESIA. In line with the recommendations of the Convention on Civil Aviation (ICAO, 2016) and local
Lebanese regulations, the wind turbines will be installed as follows:
Turbine Distances:
• Peripheral wind turbines: wind turbines on the periphery of the cluster or the line formation. In
case of a cluster or a grid: on corners and additional turbines on the perimeter in order to keep a
maximum distance of 900m.
• Other wind turbines: no separations or gap to an equipped turbine of more than 900m exist for
the integrity of the group appearance to be maintained.
Paint Markings:
• The blades of the selected wind turbines will be equipped with a painted blade marking in form of
two red/orange stripes and one white stripe starting from the blade tip: 6m red or orange, 6m
white and 6m red or orange.
• If the height of the wind turbine exceeds 150m, a red/orange strip of 3m shall be placed on the
tower at a height between 35m and 45m above ground in a way to avoid covering the stripe with
the blades of the wind turbine. The wind turbines shall be painted white.
• If a turbine within the wind farm (non-peripheral) projects at a height of more than 30m from the
next equipped turbine (due to topography), it must be equipped with aviation warnings.
• Measurement masts within the wind farm area should be considered as obstacles (like the wind
turbines) and be equipped as required above.
• As a result, not all the wind turbines in the wind farm will be equipped with aviation warnings.
Obstruction Lights:
• All obstruction lights in the wind farm should be synchronized to flash simultaneously.
• Obstruction lights must be equipped with an uninterruptable power supply system with at least 12
hours of autonomy.
• Lights shall be placed on the nacelle and be visible from all directions in the horizontal plane.
• If the wind turbines height exceeds 150m, an intermediate level at half the nacelle height of at
least three low-intensity Type E lights, should be installed.
• If the wind turbines height exceeds 150m, in addition to the medium-intensity light installed on
the nacelle, a second light serving as an alternate should be provided in case of failure of the
operating light. The lights should be installed to assure that the output of either light is not
blocked by the other.
Obstruction Light Types and Intensity:
• Daytime: Medium intensity, Type A aviation white flashing light, minimum intensity 20,000
candela.
• Nighttime: Medium intensity, Type B aviation red flashing lights, minimum intensity 2000 candela.
Once the OEM/EPC Contractor has been selected, and the final number, layout and height of the wind
turbines is fixed, the Developer will submit the final plan to the Civil Aviation Authority for approval.
2-7
2.3.2 Transmission Lines and Power Substation
The wind turbines will be connected at the switchgear panels through a 36kV medium voltage (MV)
cross linked polyethylene (XLPE) cabling system to a substation located within the Project site. The
connection between the turbines and the substation will be made using underground transmission
cables buried in ground by trenches. The Sustainable Akkar/EDL substation will be installed outside of
the Project site, in Rweimeh Village. The Project substation will be connected by an underground 30cm
diameter transmission line to the neighboring Lebanon Wind Power Wind Farm Project substation to be
located within its boundary.
The transmission line will be buried within the existing, asphalt 2-lane Quobaiyat-Qasr Road right-of-
way (ROW) for 7km until reaching an existing ~3.25m wide track through the Karm Chbat Cadastral
Area, previously created by recreational hunters and navigating around vegetation and under tree
canopies, until reaching the Lebanon Wind Power wind farm and connecting to its substation (as
shown in Figure 2-4), before the generated electricity being injected into the EDL transmission line.
Two possible design options are possible, consisting of either a 33 to 66KV or a 33 to 220KV
substation. The electrical diagrams of the wind farm are shown in Appendix C, and include the
following components:
• A 36kV MV XLPE cabling system connecting the MV switchgear panels at the wind turbines with
the 36kV switchgear in the Control Buildings.
• An MV 36kV indoor switchgear in Control Building of wind farm.
• MV/High Voltage (HV) transformer: A 36/220kV step-up power transformer.
• Earthing: One complete earthing system comprising all earthing conductors, earthing rods,
equipment connectors, welding fittings, etc. for the complete Facility.
• Fiber optic cables: between the wind turbines and the wind farm SCADA system and the closed-
circuit television (CCTV) system to be installed in the Operation Building.
• Operation buildings and auxiliary facilities including among others one 36/0.4kV auxiliary service
transformer and one 0.4kV emergency diesel generator, a complete CCTV system, and complete
fire detection and alarm systems
2.3.3 Operation Buildings
Two separate operation buildings shall be constructed, one building to be used by the OEM/EPC
Contractor and their contractors, and the other to be used by the grid operator, EDL. The layout of the
control buildings is included along with the layouts of the substation also provided in Appendix C. The
operation buildings will include the following:
• A storage space for spare parts, lifting equipment, placement of batteries, tools and spare oil.
• A control room for communication equipment, medium voltage switchgear room, working station
for the monitoring of the Project.
• A meeting room and facilities for maintenance personnel as deemed necessary, but as a minimum
will include a kitchen, changing room, lounge or living room, toilets and showers.
2-8
Figure 2-4 Alignment of Buried Transmission Line
2-9
2.3.4 Community Relations Office
As part of the Project development, a member of the local community has been hired as the first of
three Community Relations Officers (CRO)s. During the pre-construction phase, a Community
Relations Office will be established in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun using leased office space (to be shared
with the Sustainable Akkar wind farm project; specific location to be determined).
The Community Relations Office will remain open through the construction, operation and
decommissioning phases of the Project. The purpose of the Community Relations Office will be as
follows:
• Establish a skills training program for members of the local communities.

• Maximize the hiring of local workers.
• Maximize the local procurement of construction materials and other goods and services.
• Establish a location for the receipt of community grievances and to provide Project information.
2.3.5 Meteorological Masts
Three meteorological masts, MM4, MM5 and MM6 (Enisolar 80m and 60m models), are currently
installed at the locations shown in Figure 2-5. Each mast includes first class advanced top and low
anemometers, wind vanes, a humidity and temperature sensor, an air pressure transducer, a data
logger box, an aviation light and a top lighting rod. The data recorded by the mast is automatically
sent twice daily to the Developer via internet. The currently installed meteorological masts will be
removed at the start of wind turbine erection activities and will be replaced with new masts to be
installed by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor.
2.3.6 Road Development
The overall route planned for the transport of the WTG components to the Project is shown in Figure
2-6. The wind turbine components will be transported from the Tripoli seaport to the Project site using
a combination of existing asphalt roads (shown in blue), new asphalt road segments (shown in red),
and existing and new tracks internal to the proposed Hawa Akkar, Sustainable Akkar and Lebanon
Wind Power wind farm sites (also shown in red). The transport route can be described as follows:
1. Tripoli Seaport to outside Chadra: The existing 2-, 4- and 6-lane asphalt road between the Tripoli
Seaport to outside Chadra will be used.
2. Outside Chadra to the entrance of the Hawa Akkar Wind Farm: New sections of road will be
constructed as follows:
• In order to avoid impacts to Chadra, Machta Hassan and Machta Hammoud, a new 0.65km section
of asphalt road will be constructed through currently vacant land purchased from private land
owners (shown as #1 in Figure 2-7).
• A new 0.15km section of asphalt road will be constructed (shown as #2 in Figure 2-7) between
two existing sections of asphalt road in order to avoid hairpin turns near homes.
• A new 3.0km section of gravel road will be constructed within the existing railroad right of way
(ROW) managed by Machta Hammoud Village (shown as #3 in Figure 2-7), traveling east before
connecting to an existing asphalt road to enter the Hawa Akkar Wind Farm.
2-10
Figure 2-5 Existing Meteorological Mast Locations
2-11
Figure 2-6 Transport Route from the Tripoli Seaport to the Project
2-12
Figure 2-7 Outside Chadra to Hawa Akkar Wind Farm
#3 New 3.0km section of gravel road

within existing railroad ROW
#2 New 0.15km
section of
asphalt road
#1 New 0.65km
section of
asphalt road
2-13
3. The route traverses a network of internal tracks to be constructed within the Hawa Akkar Wind
Farm, exiting at the Sahle Checkpoint before entering the Project, also shown in Figure 2-7. The
road that will connect the turbines within the Hawa Akkar site has already been established by the
Lebanese Army as a dirt road, as shown in Figure 2-8. Leveling and widening the road to 6m
when straight, and 10m at curves, will be undertaken to accommodate large vehicles carrying the
turbine parts, creating openings within the piled soil, rocks, stone and gravel along the road sides.
4. The route traverses a network of internal tracks to be constructed within the Project, exiting at
Quobaiyat-Qasr Road, as shown in Figure 2-9.
5. After exiting the Project, the route travels south along Quobaiyat-Qasr Road for approximately
3.5km. Upon reaching an existing asphalt road, the route turns south for 4.8km, where a new
1.5km section of track will be constructed to enter the planned Lebanon Wind Power wind farm
site near WTG 14, as shown in red in Figure 2-10.
The transport of WTG components to the Project will not begin until all civil works to construct road
segments has been completed, including internal tracks through Hawa Akkar, Sustainable Akkar and
Lebanon Wind Power. All communities along the transport route have been engaged with to address
potential concerns related to the frequency, timing and duration of the transport activities and access
to roads, school, employment and livelihoods as discussed in Section 6 Stakeholder Engagement
and Consultation.
Ahead of transport of the WTG components, removal of identified obstacles (i.e. concrete debris,
roundabout curbs, poles, etc.) and raising of pedestrian bridges and placards to accommodate the
necessary vertical clearance will be undertaken as discussed in Section 12 Transport and Traffic.
In February 2019, the Developer applied to the Ministry of the Interior and Municipalities (MOIM) in
Lebanon to facilitate the passage and use of public roads between the Tripoli Seaport and the Project
via the described transport route (Registration No. 4147, 25 February 2019). The request was made
to: 1) permit the use of public roads for the transport of the WTG components; and 2) for the
municipalities to provide escort during the transport of the WTG components. This request was
granted on 7 March 2019, as presented in Appendix D.
2.4 Land Ownership and Lease Information
Land issues are one of the most important considerations during Project development and
implementation. Land parcels needed for the Project are owned by the Municipality of Aandqet to the
west and the Jaafar Family to the south (Rweimeh Village) and multiple families to the east (Jabal-
Akroum Kfartoun). Engagement with family leadership began in to support the planned development
of the Project, as summarized in Table 2-3.
Following installation of the meteorological masts in December 2013, the Developer met with the
Akkar Community to kick-off the environmental impact assessment campaign began. A lunch was held
at RT General Daher's house where more than 90 community members were present to take part of
the on-going discussions. The question raised included the following:
2-14
Figure 2-8 Photographs of Hawa Akkar Track
Unpaved road established by Lebanese Army Army equipment at side of unpaved road
Unpaved road established by Lebanese Army Soil and rock pile adjacent to unpaved road
2-15
Figure 2-9 Internal Tracks through the Project
2-16
Figure 2-10 Quobaiyat-Qasr Road to the Lebanon Wind Power Wind Farm
2-17
Table 2-3 Face-To-Face Meetings with Family Leadership in Affected Communities
Date Family/Area Representative Description
25-Feb-11 Obeid Family Arha was the first area visited on (owned by the Obeid Family), but due to its proximity to the Syrian border, and the political situation they were facing, they
indicated that other areas needed to be explored.
22-Mar-11 Mr. Ziad El Aryan After referencing the Wind Atlas, Jabal Al Cheikh in the Beqaa region and Mazraat Deir Al Achayer in Rachya were visited on and were taken into consideration as
potential areas for development.
12-Apr-11 Mr. Yaseen Jaafar A meeting was held with Mr. Yaseen Jaafar (a prominent figure in the Akkar region) to introduce the wind farm concept in the neighboring countries and discussed the
importance of the wind resource of the Akkar region. Mr. Jaafar expressed his full support for the project and gave insights regarding the political and social output in
the area, stating "The success of this project lays in the equal opportunities that will be provided to all political and religious parties in the area." Following this
meeting, Mr. Jaafar introduced SA to retired Army General Khaled Al Daher (another prominent figure in the Akkar region) along with Mr. Abdo Jaafar (the focal point
who will be handling all communications with the Jaafar Family).
22-May-11 Retired Army General Khaled Al Daher The purpose of the meeting was to elaborate about the strategies and steps that needs to be taken in order to move forward with the Project. The one-year wind
measuring campaign, 2 meteorological masts should be installed in the area to have a clear vision of the wind regime.
22-May-11 Mr. Abdo Jaafar The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the different aspects of the project and discuss the strategies behind securing the necessary lands.
20-Jun-12 Retired Army General Khaled Al Daher These visits were conducted to communicate with the land owners about the rental agreements and contracts. Due to the importance of the lands and their current
situation the rental agreement stated that 7,000 USD will be given per megawatt knowing the average rental cost internationally is 3,500 USD. SA has decided to pay
2-Jul-12
double the average MW price because of the importance of lands in Lebanon along with the fact of being the first wind farm Project in Lebanon (need to attract the
10-Jul-12 land owners with the price):
20-Aug-12 - Mohamad Ahmad Salah
- Al Khatib Family
- Farhat Family
- Kanaan Family
20-Aug-12 Mr. Abdo Jaafar These visits were conducted to communicate with the land owners about the rental agreements and contracts and given the nature of the lands and the lack of
affidavits promises of rental were given.
2-Sep-12
10-Sep-12
6-Feb-13 Kfartoun A Public Participation Meeting was conducted on in Kfartoun, Akroum to inform community members about the Project, discuss the environmental aspects, and
answer any raised question or concerns that the community had.
13-Feb-13 Retired Army General Khaled Al Daher This meeting was held to finalize the rental agreement in Akroum where the first met mast will be installed. General Khaled was pleased with the results of the lands
but explained that some families are not pleased for they are not benefiting from the land rentals and wanting a piece of the pie.
13-Feb-13 Mr. Abdo Jaafar This meeting was held to finalize the rental agreement in Rweimeh where the second met mast will be installed. Mr. Abdo Jaafar showed his full support to
Sustainable Akkar.
13-Feb-13 Ahmed Noman Mayor of Mouanseh To facilitate public acceptance of the Project, ECODIT conducted a Public Meeting during the Scoping stage with local stakeholders including residents and local
(Moukhtar) authorities, in the presence of representatives from the MOE and MOEW. The purpose of the meeting was to inform communities about the Project and solicit
Ghazi Hassan Khaled
feedback. The meeting was organized at Al-Intilaqua Private School in Kfartoun Village. The most significant concerns raised during the public meeting are
Mayor of Qenia
Mohamed Hassan Salah summarized below:
(Moukhtar)
Mohammed Khalil • Does the wind farm impact public health in anyway?
Land Owner
• How will the wind turbines be transported to the site? The roads leading to the Project site are in poor condition and meander through difficult terrain.
Mustafa Abbara
Land Owner • How will the wind farm and individual wind turbines limit access and use of private lands? Can the land owner build a house nearby? Grow crops?
Nasser Adra • Lebanon is not the first country to implement a wind farm. Therefore, SA and this ESIA study should review past experiences and documentation from other
Land Owner
countries and adapt those findings to Lebanon.
Khaled Al-Adara
Mayor of Mrah El • SA must provide local jobs and income to people living in the area, during both the construction and operation phases of the Project. Will the local population have
Mouti’e Alkhatib Khaoukh (Moukhtar) preferential access to electricity generated by the wind farm?
2-18
Faris Land Owner The ESIA aimed to address the above concerns raised by the local community, in addition to any other concerns received during Project development including
informal feedback received during the team’s presence onsite. Additional public meetings will also be conducted as part of the ESIA process to present the ESIA
Maarouf Dahir Mayor of Sahleh
findings and solicit further feedback during the final stages of the study.
(Moukhtar)
Khader Dahir
Land Owner
Hussein Al-Adara
Land Owner
Hajj Hussein Ali Yusuf
Land Owner
Ahmed Daher
Land Owner
Amer al-Khatib
Mayor of Kfartoun
Mohammed Al - Adara
(Moukhtar)
Ahmed Hassan Salah
Land Owner
Bilal Salah
Citizen of Sahleh
Faisal Khader Dahir
Land Owner
Halla Mounjid
Land Owner
Khaled Daher
Land Owner
Land Owner
Ministry of Environment
Land Owner
16-Mar-13 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher After the installation of the meteorological masts, a social presence was necessary to indulge any raised question or concerns the locals had. Several separate
meetings were conducted with RT. General Khaled and Mr. Abdo Jaafar to further discuss the social aspect of the Project. Multiple visits were done to different families
16-Mar-13 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
in the area. Introducing the Project and showing its benefits as well as raising their hopes of something better to come, knowing that the Akkar people have lost their
11-Apr-13 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher trust in the government and are craving for change, nevertheless some of the locals became adapted to their surrounding and would be resilient to any change.
11-Apr-13 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
28-May-13 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
28-May-13 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
19-Jul-13 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
19-Jul-13 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
20-Aug-13 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
20-Aug-13 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
25-Sep-13 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
25-Sep-13 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
5-Feb-14 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
5-Feb-14 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
8-Mar-14 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
27-Mar-14 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
4-Apr-14 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
2-19
6-Jun-14 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
6-Oct-14 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
16-Nov-14 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
12-Jan-15 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher The meeting took place in RT. General Khaled's house where discussion were made regarding dismantling the met mast in Akroum for several reasons:
• More than one year of data was collected.
• The political status of the country was not clear.
• The project was put on hold, but the social presence is necessary to sustain the work that was done in the area.
12-Jan-15 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar The meeting regarded dismantling the met mast in Rweimeh took place.
11-Mar-15 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher After the met masts were dismantled, multiple meetings were undertaken to sustain the social presence in the area, continuously targeting the land owners but in a
subtle way. In addition, SA kept on paying land rental (700 USD/MW) for the land owners who showed interest in the project although no clear visibility on the future
of the Project was foreseen.
6-Jun-15 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
16-Nov-15 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
12-Jan-16 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
12-Jan-16 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
11-Mar-16 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
8-Jun-16 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
16-Jul-16 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
14-Aug-16 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
1-Sep-16 Meeting with Abdo Jaafar
6-Oct-16 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher
2-20
16-Nov-16 Meeting with Retired General Khaled Al Daher Following the presidential election, Sustainable Akkar recommenced its social and environmental presence in the area.
2-Mar-17 Abbas Jaafar, Kamel Jaafar, Mohamad Jaafar and Several face-to-face meetings with the landowners of Karm Chbat, Kfartoun and Rweimeh were undertaken in order to relaunch the development steps of the Project.
Abdo Jaafar Meetings were held during the process of exploring the layout for the wind farms. During these meetings, SA/LWP were answering the questions that the land owners
had, such as the negative impacts of wind turbines on their lands especially if they will be able to use them after the turbines will be installed. In addition, the general
8-Mar-17 Hussein Jaafar, Youssef Jaafar
terms of the contract were discussed, and comments were taken into account and transferred to the lawyers of SA to integrate these changes to the contract if the
13-Mar-17 Meeting with Maher Chawki Al Adraa, Ahmad Project was approved by the international lenders.
Hasan Al Adraa and Ahmad Mustafa Al Adraa
27-Mar-17 Meeting with Hussein Ahmad Salah, Mohamad Ali

Salah and Hussein Ali Salah
4-Apr-17 Meeting with Mohamad Khaled Abed Al Rahman

and Ahmad Abed Al Rahman
18-Apr-17 Meeting with Mohamad Hussein Hussein and

Khaled Mohamad Hussein
9-May-17 Meeting with Ahmad Ali Youssef Salah, Hasan

Hasan Salah and Adnan Ali Salah
9-May-17 Meeting with Mustafa Hada
24-May-17 Meeting with Richdi Khaled Al Adraa, Hani Khaled

Al Adraa and Mohamad Khaled Al Adraa
6-Jun-17 Meeting with Ahamad Ahmad Al Adraa and Hani Al

Adraa
12-Jul-17 Meeting with Hani Al Adraa
12-Jul-17 Meeting with Ahmad Ali Daher
14-Aug-17 Meeting with Ahmad Abou Amcha, Hasan Khoder

Abou Amcha and Mouhamad Hasan Abou Amcha
11-Sep-17 Meeting with Khaled Hasan Khoder
7-Oct-17 Meeting with Khoder Hussein Melhem, urki

Hussein Melhem and Jamil Hussein Melhem
2-21
1. What will the effect of these turbines have on our personnel health? There may be noise, shadow
flicker and visual impacts.
2. What will happen to the lands when rented? Will we have access to them? A portion of the parcels
leased will be used for the installation of the wind turbine platform, parking Area and access road.
The community will only be prohibited from accessing the wind farm components.
3. Will we be able to raise our herds? or will these turbines blow them away? Some areas of grazing
will be prohibited during the construction phase; however, there will be other areas available for
grazing during construction and free grazing will be allowed during the operations phase.
4. What are the job opportunities that this project will create? There may be up to 150 jobs created
for the construction phase.
5. Will this project provide electricity 24/7 to the Akkar region taking its location of implementation?
The energy will be provided to the public grid. It is up to EDL to supply electricity.
Following the cadastral survey undertaken in 2018, land lease with the Kanaan, Daher, Salah, Houda,
Adraa, Aamche, Khoder, Melhem, Hussein and Jaafar Families for the construction of the Project wind
turbines and platforms for WTGs 2, 5, 8, 10, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, parking areas and
access road, and land purchase for the construction of the substation were finalized in accordance with
and ‘Ilm w Khabar’ (Acknowledgement Certificates) attesting the ownership of a real estate property
which is un-surveyed and un-registered in the official real estate records.
Land lease paperwork was issued by the Ministry of Finance General Directorate of Land Registry and
Cadastre and signed by a judge in Tripoli for lease of the three largest land parcels from Aandqet
Municipality.
The plots subject of the abovementioned lease agreements are free from any occupant,
liabilities, rights, liens, or encumbrances. The Project land take will not result in
resettlement/economic displacement (loss of livelihoods).
Land tenure has been secured for a period of 28 years at an agreed value of US$34,000/year during
Phase 1 Technical Studies and Installation, US$7,000/MW/year during Phase 2 Operations and
Maintenance (“Implementation”), and US$583.33/MW/month during Phase 3 Decommissioning.
Executed Acknowledgement Certificates, along with Lease Agreements with the Municipality of Fnaidek
for land for other wind turbines, platforms and internal access roads, are as summarized in Table 2-4
and Figure 2-11a through Figure 2-11c. Appendix E presents the Executed Acknowledgement
Certificates.
In addition to the land leases needed for installation of the wind turbine components, land is needed
to construct the new 0.65km and 0.15km sections of asphalt road (shown as #1 and #2 on Figure 2-
7). Again, it is noted that these new road segments are being constructed to mitigate impacts during
the transportation of wind turbine components.
Further, a new 3.0km section of gravel road will be constructed within the existing railroad right of
way (ROW) managed by Machta Hammoud Village (shown as #3 in Figure 2-7), traveling east before
2-22
Table 2-4 Land Lease/Purchase Agreements
# on Map Cadastral Legal Rights Underlying

Intended Use Owner Lease Term Leasing Value Contractual Status
Area (m2) Zone (Ownership/Lease/ Sublease) Documentation
1. Phase 1 'Technical Studies and
Installation': US$34,000/year;
WTG 2* Turbine + Platform + Final form of Lease
Jabal Akroum- 2. Phase 2 'Implementation': Land to be leased by Owner to Acknowledgment
Parking Area + Access Kanaan family 28 years Agreement under
Kfartoun US$7,000/MW/year; and Sustainable Akkar Certificate to be issued
6,329m2 Road discussion - In process
3. Phase 3 'Decommissioning':
US$583.33/MW/month
Hassan Assaad Kanaan,
Ali Mostafa Kanaan,
WTG 5 Turbine + Platform + Ahmad Khaled Kanaan, Land owned by Owner as Final form of Lease
Jabal Akroum- 2. Phase 2 'Implementation': Land to be leased by Owner to
Parking Area + Access Mohamad Assaad 28 years per the Acknowledgment Agreement under
Kfartoun US$7,000/MW/year; and Sustainable Akkar
6,285m2 Road Kanaan, Ahmad Mostafa Certificate of 31/01/2019 discussion - In process
Kanaan and Khaled
US$583.33/MW/month
Mostafa Kanaan
WTG 8 Turbine + Platform + Land to be leased by Owner to Land owned by Owner as Final form of Lease
Jabal Akroum- Mohammad Ali Salah 2. Phase 2 'Implementation':
Parking Area + Access 28 years Daher RE - Land to be subleased per the Acknowledgment Agreement under
Kfartoun and Hussein Ali Salah US$7,000/MW/year; and
5,508m2 Road by Daher RE to Sustainable Akkar Certificate of 28/12/2018 discussion - In process
US$583.33/MW/month
Ahmad Ali Youssef Installation': US$34,000/year;
Jabal Akroum- Salah, Hassan Hassan 2. Phase 2 'Implementation':
Kfartoun Salah and Adnan Ali US$7,000/MW/year; and
Salah 3. Phase 3 'Decommissioning':
US$583.33/MW/month
Jabal Akroum- Mostafa Mohamad 2. Phase 2 'Implementation':
Kfartoun Houda US$7,000/MW/year; and
US$583.33/MW/month
WTG 19 Turbine + Platform + Land owned by Owner as Final form of Lease
Parking Area + Access Mohamad Shaouki Adraa 28 years per the Acknowledgment Agreement under
3,483m2 Road Certificate of 18/12/2018 discussion - In process
US$583.33/MW/month
Parking Area + Access Ahmad Moustafa Adraa 28 years per the Acknowledgment Agreement under
US$583.33/MW/month
Parking Area + Access Reshdi Khaled Adraa 28 years per the Acknowledgment Agreement under
US$583.33/MW/month
Parking Area + Access Issa Malek Adraa 28 years per the Acknowledgment Agreement under
US$583.33/MW/month
2-23
# on Map Cadastral Legal Rights Underlying
Intended Use Owner Lease Term Leasing Value Contractual Status
Area (m2) Zone (Ownership/Lease/ Sublease) Documentation
Ahmad Abou Aamche, 1. Phase 1 'Technical Studies and
Mohammad Hassan Installation': US$34,000/year;
Jabal Akroum- Hussein Khoder Abou 2. Phase 2 'Implementation':
Kfartoun Aamche, Hassan Khoder US$7,000/MW/year; and
Abou Aamche and 3. Phase 3 'Decommissioning':
Khaled Hassan Khoder US$583.33/MW/month
Jabal Akroum- Adraa Ahmad Adraa and 2. Phase 2 'Implementation':
Kfartoun Hussein Ahmad Adraa US$7,000/MW/year; and
US$583.33/MW/month
WTG 25 Turbine + Platform + Jamil Hussein Melhem Land to be leased by Owner to Land owned by Owner as Final form of Lease
Jabal Akroum- 2. Phase 2 'Implementation':
Parking Area + Access and Khoder Hussein 28 years Daher RE - Land to be subleased per the Acknowledgment Agreement under
Kfartoun US$7,000/MW/year; and
6,915m2 Road Melhem by Daher RE to Sustainable Akkar Certificate of 05/11/2018 discussion - In process
US$583.33/MW/month
Launch of surveying and Forms of Lease and
WTG03 and Installation': US$34,000/year;
Turbine + Platform + delimitation works in 2007 (In Land owned by Owner as Sub-Lease Agreements
WTG04 2. Phase 2 'Implementation':
Aandqet Parking Area + Access Municipality of Aandqet 28 years process) - Land owned by Owner per the Acknowledgment being reviewed by
US$7,000/MW/year; and
Road as per the Temporary Real Estate Certificate of 06/12/2018 Lenders' counsels - In
222,484m 2
Certificate of 27/11/2018 process
US$583.33/MW/month

Launch of surveying and
WTG06 and Installation': US$34,000/year; Form of Lease
Turbine + Platform + delimitation works in 2007 (In Land owned by Owner as
WTG07 2. Phase 2 'Implementation': Agreement being
Aandqet Parking Area + Access Municipality of Aandqet 28 years process) - Land owned by Owner per the Acknowledgment
US$7,000/MW/year; and reviewed by Lenders'
Road as per the Temporary Real Estate Certificate of 15/11/2018
367,500m 2
3. Phase 3 'Decommissioning': counsels - In process
Certificate of 27/11/2018
US$583.33/MW/month

Installation': US$34,000/year; Form of Lease
WTG09 Turbine + Platform + delimitation works in 2007 (In Land owned by Owner as
2. Phase 2 'Implementation': Agreement being
367,500m2 Road as per the Temporary Real Estate Certificate of 15/11/2018
US$583.33/MW/month

WTG11 and Installation': US$34,000/year; Form of Lease
Turbine + Platform + delimitation works in 2007 (In Land owned by Owner as
WTG13 2. Phase 2 'Implementation': Agreement being
367,500m2 3. Phase 3 'Decommissioning': counsels - In process
US$583.33/MW/month

WTG15, Launch of surveying and
Installation': US$34,000/year; Form of Lease
WTG17 and Turbine + Platform + delimitation works in 2007 (In Land owned by Owner as
2. Phase 2 'Implementation': Agreement being
WTG18 Aandqet Parking Area + Access Municipality of Aandqet 28 years process) - Land owned by Owner per the Acknowledgment
45,260m2 Certificate of 27/11/2018
US$583.33/MW/month
Forms of Land Sale and

SA Will be
Installation of Land owned by Owner as per the Land owned by Owner as Purchase Agreements
Substation Rweimeh- purchased by Not determined yet / down payment
Sustainable Abdo Mohammad Jaafar Acknowledgment Certificate of 30- per the Acknowledgment being reviewed by
Kfartoun Sustainable paid
Akkar/EDL Substation 07-2018 Certificate of 05/11/2018 Lenders' counsels - In
13,255m2 Akkar
process
2-24
Figure 2-11a Land Lease Parcels – Acquisition of LWP Substation
2-25
Figure 2-11b Leased Land Parcels
2-26
Figure 2-11c
2-27
2.5 Footprint of the Project Components
This section provides an estimate on the footprint of the Project components discussed in the previous
section. It is noted that the land lease or acquisition previously detailed in Table 2-4 is significantly
less than the area that will be occupied by the component. For example, while the parcels being
leased for the installation of the turbine, platform, parking area and access road ranges between
3,483m2 (WTG19) and 367,500m2 (WTG24). As presented in Table 2-5, the total area of disturbance
for the project is small and is significantly less than the Project area (which is 8.7km2). This number is
based on installation of a maximum of 21 turbines; it is noted that the number of turbines can be as
low as 17 should GE be the selected OEM/EPC Contractor.
2.6 Overview of the Project Phases
This section presents the likely activities to take place during the Project development and which will
include three distinct phases: (i) planning and construction, (ii) operation and (iii) decommissioning,
each of which is summarized below. Construction is expected to begin in July 2019 and will require
approximately 18 months for construction and commissioning. Operation of the Project is, therefore,
expected to begin in February 2021. A Project schedule is presented in Figure 2-12 (note: the Project
schedule also shows the installation of the turbine components for Lebanon Wind Power).
2.6.1 Pre-Construction Phase
The pre-construction phase will include the following:
• Land Rentals: As previously summarized in Section 2.4, Project land will be secured through long
term lease agreements with the land owners.
• Land Acquisition: The Project will be acquiring one area of land for the construction of the
substation, control building and EDL building, while the remaining will be rented for 28 years.
• Selection of OEM/EPC Contractor: Vestas Wind Systems A/S and GE have been shortlisted and are
currently under negotiations with the Developer.
• Surveys and Studies:
− A final transport route review once the specific model of wind turbine has been selected and
dimensions of the components are understood. This will ensure that any changes to the likely
impacts along the route are identified.
− Additional topographical surveys as required to serve as a solid basis for the specification of
the works.
− Geotechnical investigations on all proposed sites for wind turbines, substations, transformers
and related structures and buildings, for structures of transmission lines, along all site road
routes for the purpose of construction and further public use and at other sites.
− The analysis of the local site conditions.
− Planned survey / monitoring (i.e. surveying of major karstic features, groundwater mapping,
water quality monitoring of groundwater, local springs, etc.) to inform detailed design and
address adverse impacts during construction.
2-28
Table 2-5 Footprint of the Project Components
Component Footprint Description

Turbine platforms 38,220m2 This includes the footprint for the foundation and the crane pad area for each of the 21 turbines. Each crane
pad is likely to be around 1,520m2 in area (38m in width and 40m in length), whereas each foundation is
likely to be around 300m 2 in area.
Substation and Warehouse and Storage facilities 3,640m2 Includes footprint of the substation area and warehouse facilities (3,500m 2 + 140m 2 = 3,640m 2).
Construction Camp NA Construction workers shall be housed in Quobaiyat.
Temporary Buildings TBD following design

Includes the design and construction of:
• Buildings and containers.

• Parking lots for heavy duty and long load transporters and other vehicles.
• Cleaning point for concrete bucket trucks.
• Unloading area for material on pallets (approximately 14 X 2.5m = 35m 2).
• Sanitary facilities.
• A mobile wastewater treatment plant should be included with a capacity of 2m³/day and a 10,000L water
tank.
• HSE facility.
• Disposal and separate waste stations, 3 containers (approximately 6m X 2.4m X 2.6m + 6.24 X 3 =
18.72m 2)
• Outdoor and indoor lightning.
• Fencing of sensitive areas.
• Installation of a manned and unmanned site security scheme.
• Meeting facilities for site meetings (up to 15 persons).
• Offices fully furnished with office-chairs, desks, file boards, side desks.
• Toilets.
• Changing rooms.
• Common room including: kitchen, Refrigerator and drinking water coolers, dining area with a capacity of
12 people, electrical appliances and other necessary equipment.
• Workshops.
• Air conditioners.
• Fully equipped with all means for communication and information transfer.
• One additional sanitary container with toilets (male/female).
• Storage.
Trenches for MV cables and communication cables 10,208m2 Trenches are likely to be around 12.76km in length and a width of around 80cm.
Laydown Areas 3,500m2 3 blades of 78m in length and a 4.0m X 1.35m crane laydown area.
Transmission Line (buried) 9,600m2 Approximately 8km in length and an excavation width of 120cm to accommodate a 30cm transmission line.
New asphalt road segments 33,600m2 Road network is likely to be around 4.2km in length and a width of around 8m.
New gravel road segment This calculation is not yet available.

Total Project Footprint 0.79km2 Project footprint is approximately 1,481,868m2 (leased lands), plus 12,764m2 (internal roads),
Total Project site Boundary Area 8.7km2 plus 33,600m2 (new asphalt road segments). Project footprint is around 17.6% of the total
boundary of the Project area.
2-29
Figure 2-12 Project Schedule
2-30
2-31
2-32
• Detailed Design: The complete detailed design shall be provided by the selected OEM/EPC
Contractor according to the scheduled milestones. To this end, the OEM/EPC Contractor shall
prepare and submit the parts of the detailed design documentation, which relate to supplies and
services in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.
During detailed design, the wind farm layout and yield calculations prepared by the Developer will
be examined by the OEM/EPC Contractor to assess the best possible site configuration for
installation of turbines among the 21 locations previously shown in Figure 2-1.
Once the topographical survey has been completed, micro-siting will be undertaken to the degree
necessary to locate the wind turbines to optimize production. However, it is noted that the site is
located on a mountain ridge, and it is therefore anticipated that it will be optimal to place the
turbines on rows perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction and within the confines of the
leased land parcel. For this reason, it is not envisioned that the turbines will be significantly
relocated during the detailed design and/or construction phase.
The OEM/EPC Contractor’s detailed design will be used by the Developer to obtain the construction
permit in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. The OEM/EPC Contractor shall
provide all support and documents to the Developer for application for construction permit.
• Employment and Workforce Training: For the performance of the services during construction and
operation, the OEM/EPC Contractor is encouraged to hire local personnel. After contract award,
the successful bidder will be asked to present a hiring plan, including both local and international
workforce. When local workforce is proposed, then the following information needs to be disclosed
concerning the region from where they were hired, inter alia:
a. The surrounding villages.

b. The North Lebanon area.
c. Lebanon.
d. Lastly, international expertise.
Construction activities will employ around 125 workers (approximately 250 workers across both
Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar) during the construction phase for a duration of
approximately 18 months. This will mainly include skilled opportunities (to include engineers,
technicians, consultants, surveyors.) and unskilled job opportunities (mainly labor force but will
also include a number of security personnel). Approximately 3 job opportunities will be available
during the operations phase for a duration of 20 years. This will include skilled job opportunities
(such as technicians) and unskilled job opportunities (such as drivers.). This number does not
consider the security personnel that will be required onsite.
Taking the above into account, the Developer is aiming to hire local community members to the
greatest extent possible throughout the construction and operation phase for skilled and unskilled
jobs. The OEM/EPC Contractor shall provide comprehensive training to Employer’s designated
personnel covering all aspects of the Facility and the technical operation of the wind farm, safety
at work, equipment and system for operations and maintenance. The training shall at least include
the following:
2-33
- On the job training.
- Factory training.
- Wind turbine maintenance and associated planning.
- Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) software and hardware training.
- Operations and maintenance staff training.
2.6.2 Preparatory Works
The preparatory works include the provision of all goods and services of a temporary nature and
required in order for the OEM/EPC Contractor to fulfill its obligations with regard to construction,
installation and commissioning activities:
• Site preparation including compaction of soil, filling of low areas with imported fill and grading of
the entire area of the site to the required lines levels and slopes, as required.
• Provision of temporary laydown areas, warehouses, workshops, vehicles, equipment etc., all as
necessary for the construction phase.
• Provision of temporary firefighting and alarm system.
• Provision of temporary site drainage, storm water and sanitary drainage as necessary for the site,
site facilities, temporary laydown areas, warehouses, workshops, as required.
• Disposal of sewage, as necessary.
• Provision of temporary site fencing including gates, as necessary.
• Provision of first aid, site safety and security system for the construction phase.
• Provision of temporary offices for the Employer and their representative.
• Provision of temporary offices for the Contractor.
2.6.3 Construction Phase
The scope of works in relation to civil works includes transportation, construction, erection, testing,
commissioning and guaranteeing with respect to the items listed below will be undertaken in
accordance with the EPC Technical Requirements, as follows:
• Removal of obstacles along the WTG component transport route.

• New asphalt road connections and internal road network and foundation construction.
• Internal road network and foundation construction within the Hawa Akkar wind farm, Sustainable
Akkar wind farm and the Project.
• Other construction works (which could include excavations, land clearing activities, etc.) for the
potential access road construction or upgrade and for the building infrastructure.
• Transportation of wind turbine components to the Project site. The components are expected to
arrive by ship at the Tripoli Seaport and then be transported by road to the Project site.
• Site preparation of the turbine foundations. Such activities are limited to relatively small individual
footprints of the foundations and will include excavations and land clearing activities. Note:
movement of turbine locations during final design will be limited to the boundary of the land lease.
• Installation of turbine components to include tower assembly, hub, rotor, and nacelle lift and rotor
assembly which most likely will occur through onsite mobile cranes.
• In addition to the erection of each turbine, there is additional construction work (which could
include excavations, land clearing activities, electrical work, etc.) that must be conducted to
2-34
connect each turbine to the power grid, this could include the installation and laying of
transmission and communication cables, and the installation of the substation.
• Excavation for installation of the buried transmission line along Quobaiyat-Qasr Road and the
existing track to the Project to connect the Project substation with the substation at the Lebanon
Wind Power wind farm.
• Other construction works (which could include excavations, land clearing activities, etc.) for
construction for the building infrastructure (warehouse and offices).
• The scope of works of Contractor includes connection of the Plants to the existing electrical grid
and energizing the interconnection facilities and the wind farm. The scope includes communicating
and cooperating with EDL in order to ensure the timely connection and energization of the Project.
• Commissioning comprises the transfer of the plant from the state of mechanical completion into
the state of continuous operation. Three months prior to the proposed start of commissioning, the
OEM/EPC Contractor shall submit to the Developer the commissioning plan (including test
program, commissioning procedures, organization chart). Before commencement of
commissioning, the OEM/EPC Contractor shall ensure that the following preconditions are fulfilled:
− Mechanical completion certificate are submitted.

− Approved commissioning procedures are available.
− Any required permit has been issued by the relevant authorities.
− Commissioning spare parts, consumables and tools.
− All temporary installation facilities/consumables required for the commissioning are made
available by the OEM/EPC Contractor on site.
− All safety equipment is in place on site.
− The commissioning tests shall confirm the proper, safe and functional operation of all devices,
controls and apparatus.
2.6.4 Operation and Maintenance Phase
The OEM/EPC Contractor shall manage and operate the Project, including:
• Management and administration of the facility.

• Environmental, health and safety management.
• Spare parts management including delivery, shipping and logistics for all required components and
parts.
• Remote monitoring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
• Planning and supervision of the maintenance and repair activities.
• Communication with grid operator as well as operating the wind farm to satisfy EDL requirements.
• OEM/EPC Contractor’s home office technical support.
The OEM/EPC Contractor shall maintain and repair the Project, including:
• Full service including scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of the Facility including but not
limited to wind turbines, access roads and crane platforms, MV and FOC networks, operation and
storage buildings, MV switchgear, MV/HV transformer up to and including the interface to EDL
Assets, in line with the requirements of the operation and maintenance manuals provided by the
manufacturer for the equipment installed in the facility.
• All other services necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the facility.
2-35
• Perform regular (latest yearly) testing of safety equipment as required for safe operation, by the
equipment manufacturer instructions or by applicable laws and regulations
• Scheduled maintenance shall be performed to examine the condition and the proper function of
the wind turbines, its subsystems and components.
• Check on the tolerances foreseen in the specification of the component / system and indicate the
status and remaining lifetime respectively for the required maintenance works and if required for a
safe operation in accordance with the specification, replace components or systems that do not
comply in this regard.
• All spare parts and consumables needed for the scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of the
facility. In addition, all required services, manufacturing, delivery to site, custom clearance and
installation of spare parts as required. Regular substitution of all consumables such as lubricants,
brake pads etc. as required for a safe and steady operation and in accordance with the wind
turbine components and system's specification.
• Maintaining all O&M facilities including Operation Building, warehouse, sanitary sewers, lighting,
HVAC, plumbing and IT.
• SCADA and connectivity maintenance including required software updates, virus protections, and
firewalls.
• Supply of all crane and lifting support, as required.
• Perform all necessary environmental protection activities including spill prevention, spill cleanup
and disposal of all contaminated waste at an approved facility.
• Maintain all aviation lights.
• Dispose of all site generated waste at an approved facility in line with local requirements and
international best practice.
• Recycle all used oils, lubricants, and scrap materials at an approved facility.
• Reporting to the Developer.
The design lifetime of the wind farm is more than 20 years, noting that the turbines may last even
longer with correct and consistent maintenance. Table 2-6 summarizes the anticipated maintenance
activity types at the wind farm.
Project operation will involve planned, scheduled and prepared‐for maintenance activities. These will
be conducted either (i) periodically, which is applicable for preventive maintenance, and monitoring,
check‐ups and system diagnostics, or (ii) as required, which is applicable to corrective maintenance
and emergency maintenance procedures.
2-36
Table 2-6 Maintenance Activities
Type Description
Preventive Routine checks, testing and maintenance to determine whether any major
Maintenance maintenance work is required.
Ensures minimization of corrective maintenance.
Planned and scheduled.
Expenditure is budgeted.
Corrective Tasks can either be identified through or triggered by:
maintenance
a. Routine preventive maintenance.
b. System shutdown triggered by the protective system.
c. Failure of a system component.
Tasks include response to or correction of:
a. Issues due to degradation of component integrity or excessive wear and tear.
b. Human errors.
c. Design faults and operational factors (such as turbine over‐speeding, loss of
grid connection, excessive vibration, other).
Tasks are unplanned, unscheduled.
Expenditure is condition‐based.
Monitoring and Tasks include:
System
a. Metering.
Diagnostics
b. Alarms.
c. System diagnostics and checks.
d. Condition monitoring.
Expenditure is budgeted.
The types of routine maintenance activities as part of the preventive maintenance works of the Project
are listed in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7 Preventive Routine Maintenance Works
Preventive Routine Maintenance Works
Maintenance of turbine components Brake adjustment
Brake pad maintenance Lubrication
Inspection of security of fixings Inspection of security of cable terminations
Generator overhaul Access roads’ maintenance
Maintenance of electrical components Maintenance of areas around turbines (bases and

platforms)
Control equipment maintenance Other
Thus, while abiding by the mitigation measures as per the ESMP, the Developer will implement a well‐
defined maintenance program that aims to:
• Increase efficiency and energy delivery.

• Decrease downtime (hours/annum) (while respecting and abiding by the limitations set within the
ESMP).
• Ensure EHS and reducing risks.
• Extend wind farm system lifetime.
• Comply with manufacturer’s warranty(ies).
2-37
Project operation will involve planned, scheduled and prepared‐for maintenance activities. These will
be conducted either (i) periodically, which is applicable for preventive maintenance, and monitoring,
check‐ups and system diagnostics, or (ii) as required, which is applicable to corrective maintenance
and emergency maintenance procedures.
Concerning liquid waste materials that may possibly be used during maintenance and operation
activities of the wind farm, these include oils, lubricants, paints, solvents and pesticides. Such
hazardous materials that would potentially be used during operation and maintenance of the wind
farm components, including transformers, may pose a risk to staff members involved in handling,
storage and use.
2.6.5 Decommissioning Phase
The PPA between the Developer and the GOL will be for 20 years. The landowner’s leasing contract is
for 28 years. The lease agreements state that a daily rental fee will be paid during the
decommissioning phase, on the basis of the number of turbines that are still producing electricity.
Decommissioning activities will adhere to the requirements of the MOE, MOEW, local authorities and
international bodies (OPIC, EIB, FMO) and will be in accordance with local permits and international
guidelines and requirements. Decommissioning activities will be undertaken in accordance with the
Decommissioning Plan, to be approved by the Developer as part of the detailed design.
The decommissioning and restoration process comprises removal of aboveground structures, below
ground structures to a depth of 1m or greater, removal of access roads if required by the land owners
(or local authorities), restoration of topsoil, re-planting and re-vegetation, seeding and
implementation of a two-year monitoring and remediation period, in a manner aimed at reducing the
damage that may affect the land.
Any damage to the land caused by decommissioning activities will be repaired to restore the land to its
original state. Aboveground structures include the turbines, transformers, substation, maintenance
buildings and office in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun.
Below ground structures include turbine foundations, transmission lines, drainage structures (if any)
and internal road sub-base material. The removal of wind farm structures will involve the evaluation
and categorization of components and materials for disposition according to the following sequence:
1) recondition and reuse; 2) salvage; 3) recycle; and 4) dispose.
The decommissioning of the wind farm can be divided into three different phases:
• Phase I ‐ Project management and planning: operations are scheduled taking into account the
time and costs involved, aiming to achieve the most efficient and sustainable solution.
• Phase II ‐ Removal of wind farm structures.
• Phase III ‐ Post decommissioning processes: monitoring the destination of the removed elements
and site recovery.
Table 2-8 presents the planned decommissioning activities per element, and in their order of
occurrence. In the interest of increased efficiency and minimization of transportation impacts,
components and materials may be stored on site at a pre-approved location until the bulk of similar
components or materials are ready for transport. The components and material will be transported to
facilities for reconditioning, reuse, salvage, recycling or disposal, as appropriate.
2-38
Table 2-8 Delineation of Decommissioning Activities per Element
Element Removal during Commissioning
Turbines • Access roads to turbines will be widened, if needed, to sufficient width to

accommodate movement of appropriate-sized cranes or other machinery required
for the disassembly and removal of the turbines.
• Control cabinets, electronic components and internal cables will be removed.
• Blades, hubs and nacelles will be lowered for disassembly.
• Tower sections will be lowered to the ground and further disassembled into
transportable sections.
• Blades, hubs, nacelles, and tower sections will either be transported whole for
reconditioning and reuse, or dissembled into salvageable, recyclable, of disposable
components.
Turbine • Topsoil will be removed from an area surrounding the foundation and stored for
foundation later replacement.
and base • Turbine foundations will be excavated to a depth sufficient to remove all anchor
bolts, rebar, conduits, underground cable, and concrete to a depth of 1 meter below
grade.
• The remaining excavation will be filled with clean sub‐grade material of quality
comparable to the immediate surrounding area.
• The sub‐grade material will be compacted to a density similar to surrounding sub‐
grade material.
• Unexcavated areas compacted by equipment used in decommissioning shall be de‐
compacted to adequately restore the topsoil and sub‐grade material to the proper
density consistent and compatible with the surrounding area and suitable for
vegetation growth – noting that de‐compaction activities are not recommended to
take place starting October 1st, in order to ensure sufficient vegetation growth to
prevent erosion over the winter months; otherwise this activity would be postponed
to Spring, specifically the month of May.
Project • Disassembly of the substation will include only the areas leased to Lebanon Wind
substation Power.
• Steel, conductors, switches, transformers, etc. will be reconditioned and reused,
sold as scrap, recycled, or disposed of appropriately depending upon market value.
• Foundations and underground components will be removed to a depth of 36 inches
and the excavation filled, contoured, and re‐vegetated.
Access • Last step after other decommissioning activities are completed.

roads, • Gravel will be removed from access roads and platforms and transported to a pre‐
construction approved location.
and • Drainage structures integrated with the access road or construction pad will be
maintenance removed and backfilled with sub‐grade material, the topsoil replaced, and the
platforms surface contoured and re‐vegetated
• Access gates, if any, will remain operational until completion of decommissioning
after which they will be removed unless requested by the Municipalities of Rweimeh,
Karm Chbat and Fnaidek that they remain.
• Ditch crossings connecting access roads to public roads will be removed unless
requested that they remain by the Municipalities of Rweimeh, Karm Chbat and
Fnaidek.
• Improvements to village roads that were not removed after construction and
installation of the wind farm will probably remain in place at the request of the
Municipalities of Rweimeh, Karm Chbat and Fnaidek.
2-39
2.7 Direct Areas of Influence
The Direct Area of Influence (DAOI) for the ESIA is shown (in red) in Figure 2-13. The DAOI
comprises the following:
• Villages where land to be leased or purchased from landowners for the installation of Project
turbines, internal roads, substation and transmission line, i.e. Aandqet and Rweimeh Village.
• Villages where land will be leased and purchased for the installation of wind turbines, internal
roads, substation and transmission line at the planned Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar wind
farms, i.e. Fnaidek, Rweimeh Village, Karm Chbat Cadastral Area, Chadra, Machta Hammoud and
Mqaible.
• Areas of the new segments of road:
− The new 0.65km section of asphalt road to avoid impacts to Chadra, Machta Hassan and
Machta Hammoud to be constructed through currently vacant land purchased from private
land owners (shown as #1 in Figure 2-7).
− The new 0.15km section of asphalt road to be constructed between two existing sections of
asphalt road in order to avoid hairpin turns near homes (shown as #2 in Figure 2-7).
− The new 3.0km section of gravel road to be constructed within the existing railroad ROW
managed by Machta Hammoud Village (shown as #3 in Figure 2-7).
• Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun, where land is to be leased for the CRO Office.
• A 3km radius around the Project boundary to encompasses the noise, shadow flicker and visual
receptors (as shown in Figure 2-14; note: red dots are the modeled houses).
• Villages within sightline of the wind turbines and potentially affected by the Project’s visual impact
(refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security).
• Extends up to 15km from the Project footprint, limited to sites and monuments of national
importance located within the 15km and potentially affected by the Project’s visual impact (refer
to Section 17 Landscape).
These locations are summarized in Table 2-9.
Table 2-9 Villages/Locations in the Direct Area of Influence
Villages to the Villages to the Villages to the Villages within Sites and
East/Northeast West/Northwest South/Southwest Sightline of Monuments
Turbines within 15km
Jabal-Akroum Aandqet Rweimeh Village Sahle* Sahle (Hill)*

Kfartoun
Mqaible Chadra Karm Chbat Qenia* Al-Saifa Fortress

Cadastral Area Akkar el-Atiqa'a*
Machta Hammoud Fnaidek Quobaiyat* Qammouaah
Plain*
Aandqet
Kfartoun
Rweimeh Village
* Not shown on Figure 2-13; refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security and
Section 17 Landscape).
2-40
Figure 2-13 Direct Area of Influence
2-41
Figure 2-14 Individual Houses Near the Project
2-42
It is noted that there are other villages are within the sightline of the turbines, and therefore the
DAOI; however, these villages were not included in the detailed assessment of visual impacts because
of low visibility and/or because they were located at a greater distance than those villages modeled for
visual impacts (refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security). Note: The IFC 2015 Wind
Energy Guidelines recommend preparing wire-frame images and photomontages from key viewpoints.
It goes on to recommend including viewpoints from nearby settlements. It does not require
assessment of every settlement in the sightline of the turbines.
2.8 Indirect Area of Influence
The Indirect Area of Influence (IAOI) for the ESIA is shown (in blue) in Figure 2-15. The IAOI
comprises:
• The existing transport corridor between the Tripoli Seaport and the Project, as shown in Figure 2-
16a through Figure 2-16g.
• Informal settlements located within 1km of the existing road (refer to Table 15-38 and series of
maps in Appendix F).
These locations are summarized in Table 2-10.
Table 2-10 Villages in the Indirect Area of Influence
Element Village
Along the Transport • Tripoli. • Rmoul. • Janine.
Corridor • Beddaoui. • Qaabrine. • Qachlaq.
• Deir Amar. • Sammouniyé. • Aamaret El-Baykat.
• Borj El-Yahoudiyé. • Tall Aabbas El- • Noura Et-Tahta.
• Nabi Youcheaa. Gharbi. • Kouachra.
• Minie. • Hissa. • Dibbabiye.
• Zouq Bhannine. • Tall Aabbas Ech- • Fraidis.
• Al Mhamra. Charqi.Tall Hmaire. • Qsair Akkar.
• Bebnine. • Chir Hmairine. • Menjez.
• Quobber Chamra. • Hokr Jouret Srar. • Rmah.
• Mqaiteaa. • Iitige. • Chikhlar
• Borj El-Yahoudiyé. • Barcha. • Aaouaainat Aakkar.
• Kfar Melki Akkar. • Kharmoubet Akkar. • Machta Hassan.
Further, the visual impacts from areas of influence were considered within the IAOI (refer to Section
17 Landscape) as follows:
− Agricultural Areas. − Shrublands.

− Dense Abies Forests. − Sparse Coniferous.
− Dense Pinus Forests. − Sparse Leafy Forests.
− Dense Quercus Forests. − Swamps.
− Mixed Forests. − Urban Artificial.
− Other Dense Leafy Forests. − Urban Expansion
− Rocky Land.
2-43
Figure 2-15 Indirect Area of Influence
2-44
Figure 2-16a Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor
2-45
Figure 2-16b Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor
2-46
Figure 2-16c Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor
2-47
Figure 2-16d Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor
2-48
Figure 2-16e Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor and Villages Near the Project
2-49
Figure 2-16f Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor
2-50
Figure 2-16g Villages Along the WTG Transport Corridor
2-51
2.9 Assessment of Individual Environmental and Social Parameters
For the assessment of individual environmental and social parameters, an appropriate thematic study
area is determined for each theme on a case by case basis (i.e. ornithology). Such a thematic study
area is clearly identified within the relevant section it relates to throughout this ESIA. In identifying
these thematic study areas, the type and degree of the potential direct and indirect effects were taken
into consideration. The core area where direct effects are likely to occur was determined, as well as
the wider area of influence where indirect, combined and cumulative effects are likely to occur on the
surrounding areas and communities.
2.10 Nearby Investments of Similar Nature
indicated in Section 1 Introduction, the GOL signed PPAs to purchase wind energy from three wind
farms in Akkar. In addition to the Project, two other wind farms are planned:
• Lebanon Wind Power SAL is planning to establish and operate a wind farm project in Jabal
Akroum, immediately south of the Project. The Project comprises the construction and operation
of up to 16 wind turbines which would generate a maximum licensed capacity of 68.3MW to be
delivered to the public grid.
• Hawa Akkar SAL is planning to establish and operate a wind farm project in the Wadi Khaled area
in Akkar. The Hawa Akkar wind farm is expected to encompass 16 turbines which would generate
a maximum licensed capacity of 68.3MW.
The proximity of the Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar wind farms to the Project are shown in
Figure 2-17. All three wind farms will use the same route for transport of WTG components, also
shown in Figure 2-17. As described above, the Project’s Direct Area of Influence includes the
footprint of land needed for the Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar internal tracks, many of which will
be built atop existing tracks.
Relevant ESIA studies are currently underway.
2-52
Figure 2-17 Location of Nearby Investments of Similar Nature
2-53
3. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The examination of alternatives is considered to be a key element of the ESIA process under good
international practice, including IFC PS 1 and the associated IFC Guidance Note 1 (IFC, 2012). This
section provides an analysis of certain alternatives to the Project development in relation to: 1) the
Project site selection; 2) the Project design; 3) the Project route for transport of the WTG
components; 4) the Project technology alternatives; and 5) the Project vs. the ‘No Action Alternative’,
which assumes that the Project development does not take place. Based on such alternatives
considered, the preferred choice for the Project was chosen as presented in Section 2 Project
Description.
The application of the environmental and social mitigation hierarchy has been presented (i.e. to avoid,
reduce, mitigate and manage, and compensate and offset), given that environmental and social
considerations have been part of the planning of the Project since its inception and a core element of
the decision-making process. Designing out the potential significant effects of a Project is the central
tenet of the approach, encouraging adaptive management and continuous improvement to develop a
more sustainable project. Specifically, the Developer endeavored to evaluate options to identify the
preferred approach in consideration of the following:
• Site selection alternatives:
− Overall Project site.

− Turbine locations.
− Project/EDL Substation locations.
• Design alternatives:
− Turbine types/specifications.
− Alternative substation designs.
− Alternative transmission designs.
• Transportation alternatives:
− WTG component vehicle types/modalities.

− Alternative road transport vehicle types/modalities.
− Alternative road alignments.
• Technology alternatives.
• The Project vs No-Project Alternative.
3.1 Site Selection Alternatives
3.1.1 Overall Project Site
Lebanon has a nationwide network of meteorological stations operated by Météo Liban (ML). In
developing the Wind Atlas for Lebanon19, ML supplied basic information and monthly wind data from
17 meteorological stations located throughout the country for the wind map analysis. In addition,
19
The National Wind Atlas of Lebanon, Country Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration Project for
the Recovery of Lebanon, 2011.
3-1
hourly, wind data from a subset of 5 meteorological stations were supplied. Further, wind data
measured at 5 meteorological stations situated within Syria near to the Lebanese border were
provided. These data were used to derive information about long term annual and seasonal mean wind
speeds at the meteorological stations and to establish a basic understanding of the dominant wind
regimes in the country. A wind map for Lebanon at 80m heights was derived in coordination with the
following constraints, which presents the priority development areas for wind farms as shown in
Figure 3-1:
• Areas of high population density.

• Areas of high political instability.
• Military sites.
• Commercial interests (e.g. mining, fisheries, etc.).
• Civilian aviation sites.
• Areas in close proximity to radar or telecommunication sites.
• National parks.
• Conservation areas e.g. cedar forests.
• Historic sites.
• Sites of religious significance.
As shown in Figure 3-1, the wind speeds present in the mountain ridge in Akkar represent the best
wind conditions for siting a wind farm.
3.1.2 Turbine Locations
Though the energy output of turbines at each location is a high priority when assessing the micro-
siting of a wind farm, it is certainly not the only measure to be taken into consideration for the final
layout. The Developer assessed the various layouts according to a combination of the following
criteria:
• Capacity factor of the proposed design.

• Lands available for leasing (minimum rental for up to 28 years).
• Distance from residential dwelling (minimum of 500m).
• Accessibility of the Project site.
• Requirements for civil and infrastructure work.
• Impact on the existing flora and fauna.
• Minimum distance requirement between turbines (>2.5 times the rotor diameter).
Based on the above, the number of turbine layouts were developed across the undertaking of the
ESIA. Figure 3-2 shows the changes from the original turbine layout in December 2018 and
comparison to the current layout. Major changes were adopted in the different versions; these
considered, among others, land availability and energy output, noting that the energy yield per
turbine decreases the further south one moves in the Project, with the difference in the capacity factor
between the northern and southern cluster of turbines reaching up to 15% per turbine. Accordingly,
the current layout is proposing 23 potential locations for turbines out of the original 31 locations.
3-2
Figure 3-1 Wind Speeds at 80m Above Ground Level
3-3
Figure 3-2 Project Turbine Layout
Scoping Report Design - December 2018
Current Design - June 2019
3-4
Turbine locations were eliminated for the following reasons:
• WTG 01 was located near the Sahle Checkpoint and near a high number of residential dwellings.
• WTG 12 and WTG 14 for their proximity to a summer house that was newly built.
• WTG 21 due to its low capacity factor.
• WTG 28 due to its proximity to the 66KV OHTL transmission line.
• WTG 30 was removed for low capacity factor of the turbine and high cost of land rental.
• WTG 31 was removed because this turbine will cover five different land parcels and despite
various attempts, the turbine could not be moved into one parcel.
The main advantage to the current layout is that the main access to the Sustainable Akkar site is from
the Sahle Checkpoint directly to WTG 02.
3.1.3 Project/EDL Substation Locations
Four (4) potential locations for locating the EDL substation to power the grid were assessed, as shown
in Figure 3-3:
• Option 0 – Oudine Valley location (not shown on Figure 3-3).

• Option 1 - Very close to the Overhead Transmission Line (OHTL).
• Option 2 – Close to the main road.
• Option 3 - Close to EDL OHTL 66 and 220kV.
Option 0 was directly removed from consideration because it was inside the Oudine Valley, an area
that is planned as a new nature reserve.
Option 1 was viewed as positive as it was close to the OHTL (under the line) and the landowner was
willing to enter into negotiation with the Developer (the most expensive option). The location was
situated at the southern end of the Project, at the southern end of the planned internal tracks. In
addition, Rweimeh Village preferred this location above Option 2, and it provides great visibility of the
Project. The noted negatives were that: 1) it was located furthest from Quobaiyat-Qasr Road (the
main road that traverses Rweimeh Village); and 2) the slopes were higher than Option 2.
Option 2 was viewed as positive as it was close to the main road (Quobaiyat-Qasr Road), with
acceptable slopes, and a big enough parcel to accommodate the substation (~13,000m2). The noted
negatives were that: 1) it was located furthest from the OHTL; 2) the landowner and Rweimeh Village
community members were not keen on having the substation at this location; 3) the location is behind
a hill, which hides the planned Project from the control room; and 4) the site is situated on agricultural
lands (cherry orchard).
Option 3 was viewed as positive as it was close to the OHTL (under the line) and the landowner was
willing to enter into negotiation with the Developer. The noted negatives were that: 1) it was located
furthest from Quobaiyat-Qasr Road (the main road that traverses Rweimeh Village); 2) very steep
slopes which would require a retaining wall for construction; 3) high density of trees; and 4) the
location is behind a hill, which hides the Project from the control room.
Based on the above, Option 2 was selected.
3-5
Figure 3-3 Alternative EDL Substation Locations
3-6
3.2 Design Alternatives
3.2.1 Turbine Types/Specifications
As part of the consideration of alternative wind energy technologies, the following section will compare
vertical and bladeless wind turbines with horizontal turbines which were adopted by the Project, as
shown in Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4 Alternative Wind Energy Technologies
Technology adopted by the Project. Horizontal Alternative to the Project. Bladeless Wind Turbines
Axis Wind Turbines
Alternatives to the Project. Different options available for vertical wind turbines.
3.2.1.1 Vertical Axis Wind Turbines
Multiple configurations of wind turbines are available on the market, the most popular of which is the
vertical-axis wind turbines (VAWT). VAWTs have a number of attributes that offer some advantages
over Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines (HAWT), though mostly for offshore operations. The following
comparison between the two technologies confirmed that VAWT is not an option for the Project.20
a. Wind Direction. For optimal energy output, a HAWT needs the wind to flow at a perpendicular
angle to the blades. To accommodate changes in wind direction, turbines are usually equipped
with a yaw drive that rotates the unit’s direction. However, the drive adapts slowly to changing
20
Papiewski, J. (2013) Horizontal Vs. Vertical Wind Turbines. Retrieved from: www.education.seattlepi.com
3-7
directions because it must turn the entire turbine and propeller assembly. By contrast, VAWT runs
in all possible wind directions, making it better-suited to urban areas with tall buildings.
Additionally, the VAWT design allows it to operate on lower wind speeds than is possible with the
horizontal turbine.
b. Efficiency. Overall, HAWT have a higher energy output than VAWT. HAWT convert more of the
wind’s kinetic energy into useful mechanical motion because (i) their blades are positioned
perpendicularly to wind direction, (ii) the larger blades with massive spans allow for a higher
surface area that can capture wind, and (iii) the three-blade standard allows air to spin through as
the wind carries blade currents downwind before the next blade passes through, whereas VAWT
systems capture energy from the wind only on the front side; while winds can drag the system at
the rear part of their rotation.
c. Location. HAWT’s tall tower and long blades work extremely well in wide-open spaces, whereas
VAWTs are generally better suited in compact locations, chiefly urban areas and rooftops.
d. Design complexity. VAWTs are generally more complex to operate and maintain than HAWTs,
prompting large commercial operations to favor the HAWT technology more often than not.
e. Safety. HAWT rarely collapse due to lateral stress while the VAWT asymmetrical front and rear
design can create stress on their bearings.
f. Noise generation. The larger a HAWT gets, the quieter it becomes in proportion to its energy
output (a 4.5MW wind turbine is only a dB or two noisier than a 1.5MW wind turbine). Limited
research is available on the noise generation of large scale VAWT wind farms.
3.2.1.2 Bladeless Wind Turbines
In response to the ever-growing popularity of wind energy and growing environmental and social
concerns associated with it, a new wind turbine technology has emerged from Spain: a bladeless
cylinder that oscillates or vibrates (McKenna, 2015).21
According to its inventor, Vortex’s lightweight cylinder design has no gears or bearings. The
mechanism generates electricity for 40% less than the cost of power from conventional wind turbines.
However, compared to a common propeller-type wind turbine, the lack of a big surface area to be
swept by the blades, the new design captures less energy, converting less kinetic energy into
electricity. In addition, some industry experts are skeptical at the claims made by the manufacturer
regarding the noise generation of the design, claiming that oscillating frequencies that shake the
cylinder will make noise creating a sound like a freight train coming through the wind farm.
Despite the promise that this turbine is showing, this technology is still at its infancy, with numerous
uncertainties that a project with the magnitude and importance to the national agenda such as
Sustainable Akkar cannot afford.
Horizontal axis wind turbines dominate most of the wind industry. In large scale grid connected
applications, horizontal axis wind turbine concept is the only choice, although in small wind and
residential wind applications (roof top), vertical axis turbines can be deployed. The advantage of
21
McKenna, P. (2015) Bladeless Wind Turbines May Offer More Form Than Function. Published by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from: www.technologyreview.com.
3-8
horizontal wind is that it can produce more electricity from a given amount of wind using lesser foot
print at very competitive price. Therefore, in large-scale grid connected applications, as it is the case
of this Project, horizontal axis three bladed wind turbine technology is the only option.
Based on an initial request for an Expression of Interest (EOI), wind turbines from the following
manufacturers were originally considered by the Developer:
• Vestas Wind Systems A/S.

• Nordex Energy GmbH.
• Siemens-Gamesa.
• GE.
Following review, Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Siemens-Gamesa, Nordex Energy GmbH and GE were
shortlisted for further consideration. In addition to comparing the types of turbines provided by
various turbine manufacturers, the Developer compared several turbines within the range provided by
the same manufacturer. For this reason, the Vestas 3.3MW and GE 3.8MW turbines were excluded in
view of their low output capacity necessitating a larger number of locations.
In addition, customization of the Vestas 4.2MW turbine to include a blade diameter of 150m, instead
of 138m, was requested by the Developer in order to reach the energy yield requirement. The energy
yield from the other manufacturers satisfied the required blade diameter --- 149m for the Siemens-
Gamesa 4.5MW, 149m for the Nordex Energy GmbH 4.5MW and 158m for the GE 5.3MW, as was
previously summarized in Section 2 Project Description.
Only models with hub height lower than 125m were retained in view of the level of turbulence caused
at larger heights in high wind conditions.
The turbine selection process is ongoing and includes an energy yield assessment currently being
implemented by an independent energy consultant (UL DEWI), as well as a financial feasibility
assessment to consider the range of prices of the 4.2MW – 5.3MW turbines based on their dimensions,
capacity and presence/absence of a gearbox, as summarized Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Range of Prices of Candidate Turbines
Turbine Manufacturer Range of Price in Thousand Dollars per MW
Vestas Wind Systems A/S $700-800
Siemens-Gamesa $750-800
Nordex Energy GmbH $550-650
GE $700-900
Following receipt of proposals in response to the Developer’s Request for Proposal, Nordex Energy
GmbH dropped out of the competition and Siemens-Gamesa was not shortlisted; therefore, only
Vestas Wind Systems A/S and GE remain under consideration. These are the potential turbine
OEM/EPC Contractors detailed in Section 2 Project Description.
3-9
3.2.2 Alternative Substation Designs
Two different options were compared for the substation insulation design, the gas insulated substation
(GIS) versus air insulated substation (AIS) systems. A comparative analysis of the two insulation
methods is provided in Table 3-2, showing the advantages of the GIS system.
Table 3-2 Comparison of GIS and AIS Substation Insulation Design
Criterion GIS AIS
Land requirements Lower Higher
Insulation efficiency at altitude >1,100m Yes No
Cost Higher Lower
3.2.3 Alternative Transmission Designs
Two different transmission designs were compared including the underground 33 to 66KV and the
aboveground 33 to 220KV designs. The final choice is inclined towards the underground 33 to 66KV
design in view of the multi-criteria comparison provided in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Comparison of Transmission Designs
Criterion 33 to 66kV 33 to 220kV
Location of lines / cables Underground Above ground
Need to buy lands No (installed under roadsides) Yes
Cost Higher (insulation required) Lower
Maintenance Lower Higher
Losses Higher (up to 2%) Lower (~0.1%)
3.3 Transportation Alternatives
3.3.1 WTG Component Transport Vehicle Types/Modalities
Two main transport modalities were assessed during the early project planning phase and included air
(helicopter) and road transport from Tripoli Seaport to the Project site. A multi-criteria analysis was
implemented, as shown in Table 3-4, clearly showing that road transport is more favorable than air
transport in the context of the current project.
3-10
Table 3-4 Comparison of Air vs Road Transport of Turbine Parts
Criterion Road Transport Air Transport
Cost 5 million USD for road 25 million USD

modifications and 6.8 million
USD for transport (100,000
USD / MW)
Time Limitation No limit on overall duration for Transport should be completed

transport within a 3-month periods
Suitability in High Winds Always suitable Not suitable when wind speed
is higher than 7.5m/s
Impact on CSR Positive Neutral
Sustainability Yes (improved road can No

continue be used during
maintenance including any part
replacement)
3.3.2 Alternative Road Transport Modalities
Three different modalities are being assessed for the transport of wind turbine parts from the Tripoli
Port to the Project site is provided in Table 3-5, namely 1- regular trailer until reaching an
intermediate storage location then blade lifter, 2- regular trailer and 3- low trailer.
Table 3-5 Comparison of Different Road Transport Means
Criterion Regular Trailer + Regular Trailer Low Trailer

Blade Lifter
Cost $120,000-$150,000 $100,000 USD/MW $100,000 USD/MW

USD/MW
Speed < 20km/hour > 20km/hour > 20km/hour
Requirement of modification Higher Moderate Lower

in pedestrian bridges to
ensure clearance
Need for road bump removal Lower Moderate Higher
Tree pruning requirement Higher Moderate Lower
Double handling Yes No No
A multi-criteria analysis showing that the low trailer seems to be the most favorable means of road
transport as it gives among others the advantage of minimization of double handling which is key to
minimize damage to turbine parts. The final choice will however be made by the EPC Contractor who
will be also responsible for the transport of the turbines to the Project site.
3-11
3.3.3 Alternative Road Alignments
Several alternative access roads were compared before reaching the proposed road scenario described
in Section 2 Project Description. The following presents a comparison of the various compared road
scenarios at different locations along the access road from Tripoli Port to the Project site.
Road from Abdeh to the Project Site
Two different access scenarios were compared during the early project planning phases, the first
passing through Halba village until reaching Quobaiyat then to Chadra and the second being the
proposed road alignment taking the seaside road instead of Halba village from Abdeh to Chadra and
then to the Project site, as shown in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5 Alternative Road Scenarios After Abdeh Village
The second alternative was chosen to avoid passing through the dense residential / commercial village
of Halba which may pose large disturbance to the local population. Also, the village of Halba is subject
to continuous development activities that may disrupt future turbine part transport activities during
project maintenance.
Road Between Khirbet Er Roummane and North Railway Junction
Three different alternative routes were assessed during the early project planning phases between the
village of Khirbet Er Roummane and the North Railway Junction (see Route Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in yellow,
orange and white, respectively, as shown in Figure 3-6).
Route #1 was eliminated as it involved the acquisition of a land which could not be secured. Later,
despite giving the advantage of absence of residential areas in need to be crossed, Route #2 was
eliminated at the expense of Route #3 since the latter gave the advantages of shorter distance,
absence of land to be purchased, and lower financial burden as the cost of road works would be co-
shared with the developers of the neighboring Hawa Akkar wind farm who will use the same route.
3-12
Figure 3-6 Alternative Access Roads Khirbet Er Roummane to North Railway Junction
Road Between Mqaible Road Junction and the Middle of the Hawa Akkar Site
Three different access roads were assessed during the project planning phases to connect the Mqaible
Road Junction to the Hawa Akkar site, namely Roads 1, 2 and 3 indicated in yellow, orange and white,
respectively in Figure 3-7. From the latter roads, Road #3 is selected so far as it clearly involves the
lowest road development requirement.
A shift to Road #1 may take place later depending on the negotiations with the Hawa Akkar wind farm
proponent. The decision will be based on financial analysis, i.e. the comparison of the cost of co-
sharing the expenses for land purchase and road development within the Hawa Akkar site to that of
road development solely along the trajectory of proposed Road #3. Road #2 has however been
eliminated due to the high cost for road development.
Road Through Military Base to Sahle Checkpoint
Two alternatives for proposed new access roads were assessed during the planning phase to pass
through the existing military base, as indicated in red on Figure 3-8. The first alternative involves the
construction of a small stretch of road connecting to an existing road within the military base. Despite
being small, the proposed stretch of road turned out to be unfeasible as the land encounters a very
steep slope which is >17%, thus unsuitable for turbine part transport.
The other proposed alternative was selected, i.e. a longer road to be developed running parallel to
military site (and not within the site, which is another advantage of the road), with the hosting land
requiring much less leveling activities to satisfy the required slope.
3-13
Figure 3-7 Alternative Access Roads - Mqaible Road Junction to HA Site
Figure 3-8 Alternative Access Roads through Military Base
3-14
Road Connecting the Hawa Akkar and the Sustainable Akkar Sites
Two alternative roads were studied and compared during the project planning phases to connect the
Hawa Akkar and Sustainable Akkar wind farms. The first alternative is the proposed Project alternative
shown as a red line in Figure 3-9 involving the development of a new road to connect the two sites.
The second alternative uses existing roads to connect the Sahle Checkpoint to the middle of the
Sustainable Akkar wind farm; however, involves the crossing of residential villages the densest of
which is the Kfartoun village bordering the Sahle Checkpoint from the east.
Given the fact that even if the existing road can connect to the Sustainable Akkar wind farm site,
internal roads reaching the northernmost turbine will need to be established, the Developer found it
more appropriate to develop the new road connecting the two sites, thus avoiding the use of a long
and potentially disturbance causing track passing through residential villages
Figure 3-9 Alternative Connection Roads Between HA and SA Wind Farms
Road passing
through Kfartoun
and other villages
before branching to
the middle of SA
farm site
3.4 Comparison of Alternatives
A comparison of the alternatives considered during the planning stage is provided in Table 3-6. The
comparison is made based on the comparative scoring of the various alternatives with respect to their
feasibility from technical, environmental, social and cost points of views.
A score of 1 to 3 was assigned depending on whether the feasibility of the alternative is low, moderate
or high. A score of 0 indicates that the alternative is neutral for a certain consideration. The final score
is a sum of all scores. As such, the higher the score the more feasible the alternative is based on
considerations during the planning phase.
3-15
Table 3-6 Comparison of Alternatives
Alternatives Alternatives Individual Scores* Final

Technical Environmental Social Cost Score
Turbine locations WTG 01 3 1 0 0 4
WTG 12 3 1 0 0 4
WTG 14 3 1 0 0 4
WTG 21 0 3 3 0 6
WTG 28 0 3 3 0 6
WTG 30 3 0 0 3 6
WTG 31 0 0 3 0 3
Turbine parts transport Road transport 3 2 3 3 11
Air transport 3 3 0 1 7
Road transport modalities Regular trailer + blade lifter 1 2 0 1 4
Regular trailer 2 2 0 3 7
Low trailer 2 3 0 3 8
Road from Abdeh to Site Seaside road 3 3 3 3 12
Road through Halba village 2 1 1 3 7
Road from Khirbet Er Road #1 1 2 2 2 7
Roummane to North Railway Road #2 2 2 2 2 8
Road #3 3 1 1 3 8
Road from Mqaible to HA Road #1 1 1 0 2 4
Road #2 2 1 0 1 4
Road #3 3 2 0 2 7
Road through military base to Road within military base 1 2 0 1 4
Sahle checkpoint Parallel to military base 2 2 0 2 6
Road connecting HA and SA New road 2 2 3 1 8
Existing through Kfartoun 3 1 1 2 7
Road for transport of Road #1 2 3 3 2 10
construction material Road #2 3 2 2 2 9
Substation sites Site #1 3 1 0 2 6
Site #2 3 2 0 2 7
Site #3 2 1 0 1 4
Site #4 1 2 0 3 6
Substation designs GIS 3 2 0 1 6
AIS 1 1 0 2 4
Transmission designs 33 to 220kV underground 3 2 3 1 9
33 to 66kV underground 1 2 3 2 8
33 to 220kV above ground 2 1 2 2 7
3-16
3.5 Technology Alternatives
This section discusses several alternatives besides the development of a wind farm project. This
mainly includes other RE alternatives suitable for Lebanon, i.e. solar power projects and conventional
thermal power plants.
3.5.1 Solar Power
According to the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP), Lebanon’s decentralized solar target
set at 100MW by 2020. According to the 2017 Solar PV Status Report for Lebanon, solar capacity in
Lebanon continues to grow annually. By the end of 2017, Lebanon had installed 35.45MW of solar PV
capacity, as shown in Figure 3-10.
Figure 3-10 Solar PV Capacity and Annual Additions
The top 3 Governorates leading the solar PV Market in Lebanon are Mount Lebanon with 13.72MWp,
Beqaa with 6.77MWp, and South Lebanon with 4.90MWp. Of the 8 Districts in Lebanon, Akkar
represents the lowest solar PV capacity:39% Mount Lebanon.
• 19% Beqaa.
• 14% South Lebanon.
• 11% Beirut.
• 6% Baalback/Hermel.
• 6% North Lebanon.
• 4% Nabatiyeh.
• 1% Akkar.
The solar PV capacity by Governate is shown in Figure 3-11.
3-17
Figure 3-11 Solar PV Capacity by Governate (MWp | %)
For the market to reach the 2020 targets of 100MWp and 160GWH per year for decentralized solar PV,
solar projects need to be further encouraged and expedited. The industrial sector continues to
dominate the solar PV market with 10.78MWp of installed capacity. Investing in solar PV continues to
be more affordable year after year with the average turnkey price dropping from $1,872 per kWp in
2016 to $1,545 in 2017.
In February 2018, Lebanon’s Center for Energy Conservation (LCEC) issued an EOI for the
construction of three 100MW solar PV plants combined with large-scale battery systems across four
different regions: Bekaa and Hermel, South and Nabatieh, North and Akkar, and Mount Lebanon. In
each project, the minimum power capacity of one given Solar PV farm is 70MW and the maximum
power capacity is 100MW with Battery Energy Storage of minimum of 70MW power with a minimum of
70MWh of storage capacity, regardless of the Solar PV sizing. In March 2018, the Lebanese Customs
exempted imported solar PV panels from customs duty.
Selected bidders will be responsible for the design, development, financing, construction and operation
of the facilities, which will sell power to local power utility, EDL under a long-term PPA. A detailed call
3-18
for project proposals was circulated to the 75 responding consortiums in December 2018. The solar PV
sector’s positive effect on job creation is clear with at least 670 jobs created since 2008. Significantly
more jobs will be created when Lebanon starts building its first utility-scale PV farms.
3.5.2 Power Plants
In 2009, EDL produced more than 15,000GWh through 7 major thermal power plants located in
different areas of Lebanon. The thermal generation units are operating using heavy fuel oil-fired steam
turbines at Zouk, Jieh and Hreysheh; diesel-fired combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) commissioned in
1994 at Beddawi and Zahrani; and diesel-fired open cycle gas turbines (OCGT) at Tyre and Baalbeck.
In addition to the thermal units, the sector includes hydroelectric power plants with a total installed
capacity of 274MW, but due to their old age and the drop in water resources, the nominal generation
capacity is around 190MW, constituting around 11% of the total generation capacity of the country.
GHG emissions from the power sector constituted 49% in 1994 and up to 54% of total emissions in
2004, and the sector came second behind the waste sector in having the biggest increase in GHG
emissions. This is due to the significant growth in demand for electricity, due in part to the changing
socio-economic conditions and to the expansion of the national grid. According to the SNC
(MOE/UNDP/GEF, 2011), the sharp increase between the 1994 and 2000 emissions is due to the
increase in gas/diesel oil consumption that resulted the installation and operation of the Baalbeck,
Tyre, Beddawi and Zahrani diesel power plants during this period. In response, the Government of
Lebanon has set a number of priorities for the development of the energy sector in general, and for
the modernization and expansion of the power sector in particular. The government committed itself in
Copenhagen in 2009 to a voluntary target of reaching 12% RE in the current energy mix and
presented this commitment in a Policy Paper in 2010.
3.6 The Project vs No Project Alternative
The ‘No Project’ Alternative assumes that the 90.75MW Project will not be developed. Should this be
the case, then the Project site area would remain the same. While the No Project Alternative offers the
advantage of absence of disturbance to the natural environment at the Project site, the Project
remains more attractive as it gives several advantages over the No Project Alternative including:
• Decreased power outage.

• Contribute to increasing energy security through development of local energy resources and
reducing dependency on external energy sources.
• Increased use of RE and less reliance on conventional polluting energy production.
• Increased security (access road, lighting, cameras) in the region and thus improved protection of
the nearby reserve from fires and illegal logging.
• Demonstrating the commitment by the GOL in realizing clean energy production and reducing GHG
emissions.
• Positive socioeconomic impacts due to benefit from land rental and creation of job opportunities.
Should the Project not move forward, then the Project-related negative environmental impacts
discussed throughout this ESIA would be averted. However, such impacts can be adequately
controlled through the mitigation and management measures presented in Section 21 Summary of
Impacts and Mitigation.
3-19
4. POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
This section provides an overview of the environmental clearance process for the Project as governed
by the MOE. Existing national legislations and policies related to environmental protection, land
classification, and environmental control requirements are presented. As the Project is seeking
financing from prospective lenders, the section highlights the environmental and social policies and
requirements of the IFC and EIB, which must be adhered to by the Developer.
4.1 National Framework and Requirements
4.1.1 Existing Legislation
The ESIA process follows the stipulations of key national laws and regulations which are summarized
in Table 4-1. The major legal texts are further described in the subsections below.
The ESIA is also based on the requirements and conditions set by the MOE in their response to the
Scoping Report (see Appendix A). The main national legal framework which is considered in this ESIA
are as follows:
• Law 444/2002 22 related to Environment Protection, and its related Application Decree No.
20F2F
8633/2012 on the Fundamentals for Environmental Impact Assessment.

• Law 462/2002 23 related to the Electricity Sector which sets up the rules and principles governing
21F23F
the Electricity sector, with the aim to bringing in the private sector as a partner in power
generation in Lebanon. This law was further updated in 2014 by Law 288.
• Law 48/2017 24 related to Public Private Partnership (PPP) that encourages private sector
2F24F
investments in the public sector.

• Application Decree 2366/2009 25 related to the National Physical Master Plan for the Lebanese
23F25F
Territory (NPMPLT) covering land use and zoning of lands.

• MOE Decision No. 52/1 26 of 29 July 1996 setting air quality standards, including thresholds for air
24F26F
pollutants and safe noise exposure limits.

• Law No. 78 dated 19/4/2018, and Decree 3320 dated 29/6/2018 which is related to the adherence
to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals signed in Bonn in
1979.
• Law for the Protection of Forests of 1949 and Law No. 85/1991 for the protection of shrublands
and associated floral biodiversity.
22
Chapter 4, Article 21-23 [Annex 1] of Law 444/2002.
23
Law 462-2002 product of electricity EN, EDL, Lebanon, 2002.
24
Article IV, Law 48 dated 7/9/2017 Regulating Public Private Partnerships.
25
Decree No 2366 of 2009 defining the Comprehensive Plan for Lebanese Territory Arrangement.
26
MOE Decision 52/1 of 1996: National environmental quality standards.
4-1
Table 4-1 Relevant National Legislation
Legislation Organization Date of Issue Description Relevance
LAWS
Law for the Protection of The proposed Project must protect forests.
GOL 1949 Protection of forests.
Forests
Law 20 MOEW 1966 Establishment of MOEW resources. Government institution directly responsible of the proposed Project.
Law 69 DGUP 1983 Urban planning law established by the Directorate General of Urban Planning (DGUP). Governs any proposed development involving construction activities.
Law 85 MOE 1991 Protection of forests and shrublands. The proposed Project must protect forests and shrublands.
Government institution responsible of the Environmental Impact
Law 216 MOE 1993 Creation of the MOE and its responsibility to develop a management strategy for solid waste.
Assessment process.
Proposed project contributes towards the protection of the ozone layer
Law 253 MOE 1993 Ratification of two treaties related to the ozone layer.
through reducing the need for thermal energy.
Stresses the need for the protection of biodiversity throughout Lebanon
Law 360 MOE 1994 Ratification of the United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity signed at Rio de Janeiro.
including project area.
Any Asian / African migratory water birds observed in project area need to
Law 412 MOE 2002 Authorization for the Government to join the convention on Asian/African Migratory water birds.
be protected.
Law 444 MOE 2002 Environment protection indicating the necessity to conduct EIA and IEE for development projects. Proposed project requires the development of EIA study.
Electricity generated by the proposed project will be sold to the
Law 462 MOEW 2002 Organization of Electricity sector.
Government and will be governed by this law.
Electricity generated by the proposed project will be sold to the
Law 775 MOEW 2006 Amendment of Law 462 of 2002; No longer relevant.
Government and will be governed by this law.
The ‘Energy Conservation Draft Law’ for the promotion of EE and RE in Lebanon. This draft law has The proposed Project contributes towards the promotion of EE and RE.
Energy Conservation not yet been approved by the Lebanese Parliament. The draft law offers a legal framework for
LCEC 2010
Draft Law energy audits, energy efficiency standards and labels, financial incentives for energy efficient
appliances and net-metering and the institutionalization of the LCEC.
Replaced Law 775 of 2006 and is a temporary measure for “one year” and “two years” respectively Electricity generated by the proposed project will be sold to the
during which the COM shall be in charge of granting the production permits and licenses upon the Government and will be governed by this law.
Law 288 MOEW 2014
proposal of the MOEW and the MOE, this until the members of the regulatory commission,
described under Law No. 462, are appointed and start carrying out with their tasks.
The Public Private Partnership (PPP) that encourages private sector investments in the public A PPP agreement was signed to allow the purchase of the electricity
Law 48 2017
sector. generated by the proposed project by the Government.
The law comprises 34 articles related to ambient air pollution, monitoring air pollutants, The proposed Project must comply with the provisions of this law.
Law 78 MOE 2018 assessment of their levels in the Lebanese atmosphere, prevention, control and surveillance of the
ambient air pollution from human activities.
DECREES
Tender regulation that applies to all State tenders over 25000L.L. except for those to the Ministry Governs any State tender which may arise from the proposed project.
Decree 2866 GOL 1959 of Defense, Security Force and Public Security (amended by Decree 8703 of 1962 and Decree
13221 of 1963).
Decree 13472 DGUP 1963 Law on Urban Planning. Governs any proposed development involving construction activities.
Establishment of the EDL as an autonomous state-owned entity under the authority of the MOEW. Electricity generated by the proposed Project will be sold to the
This legislative text entrusts the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity across Government and will be governed by this decree.
Decree 16878 GOL 1964
Lebanon to EDL. Article 4 of the Decree provides that no license, concession or permit generation,
transmission or distribution of electricity may be granted to another entity.
4-2
Legislation Organization Date of Issue Description Relevance
Electricity generated by the proposed Project will be sold to the

Decree 7580 GOL 1974 Projects financing is mainly governed by EDL Investment System Regulation.
Government and will be governed by this decree.
The proposed Project contributes towards the protection of the ozone layer
Decree 2604 MOE 2009 Control of ozone depleting substances.
through reducing the need for thermal energy.
Relevant for any development project throughout Lebanon; it is usually
Presidency of The NPMPLT which was issued by the CDR in 2005 and approved as a strategic development plan
Decree 2366 2009 referred to when the proposed project falls in a zone which is not classified
the COM for the territory of Lebanon to which all public authorities are bound.
by a regional / local land zoning decree.
Serves the same purpose as the proposed Project, namely the promotion of
Decree 5305 COM 2010 Outlines mandatory standards for the Compact Fluorescent Lamp and the Solar Water Heating.
RE.
Decree 8075 MOE 2012 Draft Law on the Protection of Air Quality/Lebanon’s National Strategy for Air Quality Management. Air quality in the project area needs to be protected.
The EIA Decree. EIA decree 8633 provides in its Annex 1 a list of project types requiring an EIA; The proposed Project requires the development of an EIA study.
included in this list are the various projects the establishment of which requires an EIA and in
Decree 8633 MOE 2012 particular “the establishing of power generation projects” (Article 8 of Annex I). The decree also
outlines the elements to be examined in an EIA Report, which are consistent with the scope of
work presented herein.
Decree 620 MOEW 2017 Convention of the Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The proposed Project contributes towards the promotion of RE.
Decree 3320 MOE 2018 Related to the convention for the protection of migratory species (CMS) signed in Bonn in 1979. Migratory species need to be protected.
Ratification of the modified Decree 1543 dated 25/11/1978 of the draft establishment of Electricity generated by the proposed project will be sold to the
Decree 2251 MOEW 2018 hypertension line 66KV between the Al Bared plant and Halba Plant for the acquired columns basis Government and may require similar decrees.
(Akkar Governorate – Akkar Caza).
DECISIONS
Decision by the Ministry of Environment for determining the standards and specific levels for The proposed Project needs to control its emissions and discharges to
Decision 52/1 MOE 1996
limiting air, water and soil pollution. ensure decision limits are not breached.
Specifications and Standards Relative to Air Pollutants, and Liquid Discharges from Classified The proposed Project needs to comply with discharge limits.
Decision 8/1 MOE 2001
Industries and Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Decision 176/1 MOE 2010 Mechanism for the review of projects under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. The proposed Project contributes towards the promotion of RE.
Consists of ten integrated and correlated strategic initiatives which are focused on remedying the Proposed project contributes towards reducing the need for thermal energy
Decision 1 COM 2010 problems of the energy sector in respect to infrastructure, supply and demand, and the legal thus helping with Kyoto protocol objectives.
framework.
National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for Lebanon 2011-2015 and 2010-2020 (NEEAP) includes 14 The proposed Project contributes towards the promotion of EE and RE.
Decision 26 COM 2011 independent but interrelated national initiatives of EE and RE proposals for enhancing the legal and
regulatory framework.
CIRCULARS, LETTERS
Governs an informal structure for electricity subscription (private generators) which is provided by Proposed project contributes towards eliminating this informal structure of
Circular 10/1 MOE 2011
the private sector in the status of electricity supply shortage. electricity production.
Stresses the requirement of ESIA study preparation for the three wind farms and describes the Proposed project is directly governed by this Letter.
Minister Letter 14175 MOE 2017
required scope for the three studies.
4-3
The legal basis for EIA and its 9 annexes is established in the Environmental Law No. 444/2002 and
Law No. 690/2005. 27 Law No. 444 emphasizes the principle of EIA as a tool for planning and
25F27F
management, and stipulates that proponents undertake assessment for all projects likely to affect the
environment due to their sizes, nature, impacts or activities for review and approval by the MOE.
This legislation is further implemented by Decree No. 8633/2012: Fundamentals of Environmental

Impact Assessment and the MOE’s Decision 261/1 of 2015: Review Process for EIA scoping and EIA
reports.28 Further, all development projects must adhere to the environment quality standards for air,
water and soil (MOE Decision 52/1 of 1996) as well as to air emission standards and wastewater
discharge (MOE Decision No 8/1 of 2001). 29 27F29F
The law and the decree assign full authority to the MOE to arrange the screening, review, control, and
follow-up of the EIA process and its implementation. The approval of an EIA is a prerequisite for any
subsequent license or permit by any or all other relevant authorities that may be required prior to
construction. The efforts of the MOE aim at improving the Lebanese environmental performance on
the international level, alike all developed countries, and the coordination, cooperation and follow up
between the MOE and concerned parties, as the private and public sectors or the civil society
organizations that may have a real positive impact on achieving a global unified vision related to all
what concerns the protection of the environment.
4.1.1.1 Environmental Quality Standards and Criteria for Air and Noise
Air quality standards, including thresholds for air toxics and criteria pollutants are specified in
Ministerial Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996. While the operation of wind turbines is expected to
generate negligible emissions, construction activity will result in emissions from fuel combustion and
material movement. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are listed in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Parameter NAAQS (µg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 350 (1 hr.)

120 (24 hrs.)
80 (annual)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 200 (1 hr.)

150 (24 hrs.)
100 (annual)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 30,000 (1 hr.)

10,000 (8 hrs.)
Ground-level Ozone (O3) 150 (1 hr.)

100 (8 hrs.)
27
Law No. 690 of 2005 regulating the Ministry of Environment and defining its tasks and competences.
28
Decision 261/1, 12/6/2015, MOE, EIA Review Procedures.
29
The Minister of Environment’s decision No. 8/1-2001, Setting national standards and criteria regarding air
pollutants and liquid wastes generated by classified establishments and wastewater treatment plants.
4-4
Parameter NAAQS (µg/m3)
Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) 120 (24 hrs.)
PM10 80 (24 hrs.)
PM2.5 N/A
Lead 1 (annual)
Benzene 16.2 (annual)
Safe noise exposure limits are specified in Ministerial Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996 and provided in
Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 Limits for Noise Levels per Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996
Region Type Limit for Noise Level dB(A)
Day Time Evening Time Night Time

(7 am-6 pm) (6 pm–10pm) (10pm -7am)
Downtown/ Administrative and commercial 55-65 50-60 45-55

area.
Residential areas having some 50-60 45-55 40-50

construction sites or commercial activities
or that are located near a road.
Urban residential areas. 45-55 40-50 35-45
Suburban residential areas with low 40-50 35-45 30-40

activity.
Industrial areas. 60-70 55-65 50-60
Rural residential areas/Hospitals/Gardens. 35 – 45 30 – 40 25 – 35
Nonetheless, in July 2019, the MOE confirmed the noise limit of 55 dB(A) during the day and 45 dB(A)
during night time for residential houses set by the IFC’s EHS Guideline. Therefore, the noise
assessment will consider the 45 dB(A) [LAeq] nighttime noise limit.
4.1.1.2 Zoning of Lands in Lebanon
The Project area is located in an area classified as natural zone N2. Development allowances and
restrictions per MOE Decree No. 2366 (June 2009) are as outlined in Table 4-4. It is noted that the
Project is considered a vital cooperative facility and is, therefore, allowable following the submission of
the EIA and landscape study to the MOE.
4-5
Table 4-4 Zone N2 Description
Parameter Description
General exploitation factor Very low except for ski resorts.
Building heights Low in residential areas; Very low outside

residential areas.
Building setbacks 20 meters from forest borders according to

Village Master Plan recommendations.
Urban expansion and its location in respect to Preferably near the urbanized village, unsuitable
the current urbanized area far from it.
Land sorting for construction Preferably near the urbanized village, unsuitable
far from it.
Large scale projects Possible for ski resorts after the submission of
EIA and landscape study.
Quarrying Not possible.
Industries and industrial buildings Possible for mineral water facilities, for vital
cooperative facilities such as petrol stations after
the submission of EIA and landscape study.
4.1.2 International Conventions, Treaties and Protocols
International conventions, treaties and protocols which are triggered by the current project are
provided in Table 4-5.
4.2 International Guidelines
LWP is seeking Project Financing from Bank Audi, and as such, the following international guidelines
apply (together with the Lebanese legislative requirements, referred to as ‘the Applicable Standards’):
• IFC PSs.
• ESSs of the EIB.
• International best practice, policies and guidelines including:
− IFC’s Environmental, Health, and Safety General (EHS) Guidelines (2007).

− IFC’s EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015).
− IFC’s EHS Guidelines for Toll Roads (2007).
4-6
Table 4-5 Treaties and Conventions Ratified by Lebanon
Convention Title Year Signature/ Adhesion/ Ratification/

Description Relevance
Accession
ENVIRONMENT
Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS); 1979 Signed in 1979: Entered to force in 1983. Aims at conserving terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species Biodiversity impacts of proposed
Bonn Convention” throughout their range. project should be properly managed.
Convention on Biological Diversity; Rio De Janeiro. 1992 Ratification: Law No. 360 dated 11/08/1994. This convention aims to ensure conservation of biological diversity, Biodiversity impacts of proposed
the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable project should be properly managed.
sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1999 Adhesion: Law No. 23 dated 01/03/1999. The Ramsar convention is an international treaty for the conservation Biodiversity impacts of proposed
especially as Waterfowl Habitat – Ramsar. and sustainable use on wetlands. Every three years, representatives project should be properly managed.
of the contracting parties meet to administer the work of the
convention and improve the way in which the Parties are able to
implement its objectives.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD. 2000 Ratification: Law No. 31 dated 16/10/2008. This international treaty concluded and adopted in the framework of Biodiversity impacts of proposed
the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD has much project should be properly managed.
broader aims regarding the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity and the sharing of benefits arising from the use of
genetic resources.
Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian 2002 Adhesion: Law No. 412 dated 13/06/2002. The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Biodiversity impacts of proposed
Migratory Water Birds (AEWA). Water-birds (AEWA) is an intergovernmental treaty dedicated to the project should be properly managed.
conservation of migratory water-birds and their habitats across
Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Greenland and the
Canadian Archipelago.
Developed under the framework of the Convention on Migratory
Species (CMS) and administered by the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP), AEWA brings together countries and the wider
international conservation community to establish coordinated
conservation and management of migratory water-birds throughout
their entire migratory range.
CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
UNESCO Convention on the protection of Cultural and 1972 Adhesion: Law No. 19 dated 30/10/1990. This convention links together in a single document the concepts of Any cultural heritage potentially
Natural Heritage. nature conservation and the preservation of cultural properties. It present in project area would need
recognizes the way in which people interact with nature, and the to be protected.
fundamental need to preserve the balance between the two.
AIR and CLIMATE CHANGE
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the ozone layer. 1985 Adhesion: Law No. 253 dated 30/03/1993. The Vienna Convention, concluded in 1985, is a framework Proposed project contributes towards
agreement in which States agree to cooperate in relevant research reducing the need for thermal
and scientific assessments of the ozone problem, to exchange energy thus helping with the
information, and to adopt “appropriate measures” to prevent protection of the ozone layer.
activities that harm the ozone layer. The obligations are general and
contain no specific limits on chemicals that deplete the ozone layer.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the ozone 1987 Adhesion: Law No. 253 dated 31/03/1993. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer Proposed project contributes towards
layer. was designed to reduce the production and consumption of ozone reducing the need for thermal
depleting substances in order to reduce their abundance in the
atmosphere, and thereby protect the earth’s fragile ozone Layer. The
4-7
Accession
original Montreal Protocol was agreed on 16 September 1987 and energy thus helping with the
entered into force on 1 January 1989. protection of the ozone layer.
The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have amended the Protocol to
enable, among other things, the control of new chemicals and the
creation of a financial mechanism to enable developing countries to
comply. Amendments must be ratified by countries before their
requirements are applicable to those countries.
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 1990 Adhesion: Law No. 253 dated 31/03/1993. This was to reinforce the measures laid down in the 1987 Montreal Proposed project contributes towards
deplete the ozone layer; London. Protocol by extending its scope to new substances and establishing reducing the need for thermal
financial mechanisms. The Montreal Protocol aims to protect the energy thus helping with the
ozone layer through enhanced international cooperation by taking protection of the ozone layer.
precautionary measures to control equitably total global emissions of
substances that deplete it.
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 1992 Adhesion: Law No. 120 dated 03/11/1999. Indicates that for the adequate protection of the ozone layer a higher Proposed project contributes towards
deplete the ozone layer; Copenhagen. degree of control of chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride reducing the need for thermal
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) is required than that provided by the energy thus helping with the
Montreal Protocol as amended in 1990 (London Amendment). protection of the ozone layer.
Additional controls should also be placed on methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs). The first Amendment to the Protocol was adopted on 29
June 1990 and subsequently approved on behalf of the Community.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 Ratification: Law No. 359 dated 11/08/1994. The UNFCCC entered into force on 21 March 1994. It is a “Rio Proposed project contributes towards
aiming to fight global warming. Convention”, one of three adopted at the “Rio Earth Summit” in reducing the need for thermal
1992. Its sister Rio Conventions are the UN Convention on Biological energy thus helping with the fight
Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification. The three against global warming.
are intrinsically linked. It is in this context that the Joint Liaison
Group was set up to boost cooperation among the three
Conventions, with the ultimate aim of developing synergies in their
activities on issues of mutual concern. It now also incorporates the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
Preventing “dangerous” human interference with the climate system
is the ultimate aim of the UNFCCC. The Convention:
- Recognized that there was a problem.
- Sets a lofty but specific goal.
- Puts the onus on developed countries to lead the way.
- Directs new funds to climate change activities in developing
countries.
- Keeps tabs on the problem and what's being done about it.
- Charts the beginnings of a path to strike a delicate balance.
- Kicks off formal consideration of adaptation to climate change.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification; Paris. 1994 Ratification: Law No. 469 dated 21/12/1994. This convention aims to combat desertification and mitigate the Proposed project involves limited
effects of drought through national action programs that incorporate land clearing activities which may
long-term strategies by international cooperation and partnership contribute to desertification if
arrangements. It is based on the principles of participation, improperly managed.
partnership and decentralization- the backbone of Good Governance
and Sustainable Development.
4-8
Accession
Beijing Amendment of the Montreal Protocol. 1999 Adhesion: Law No. 758 dated 11/11/2006. Under the amendment, countries have agreed to monitor the Proposed project contributes towards
consumption and production of bromochloromethane which is an reducing the need for thermal
industrial solvent and a fire extinguisher under the name Halon- energy thus helping with the
1011. protection of the ozone layer.
Kyoto Protocol. 2005 Ratification: Law No. 738 dated 15/05/2006. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Proposed project contributes towards
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits reducing the need for thermal
its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction energy thus helping with the fight
targets. against global warming.
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December
1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules
for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in
Marrakesh, Morocco, in 2001, and are referred to as the "Marrakesh
Accords." Its first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in
2012.
Euro-Mediterranean Energy Partnership HY-PA 2005 Partnership signed in 2009. The main objective of the HY-PA is to promote and stimulate the Proposed project involves the
application of Renewable Energy and Hybrid Systems in promotion of the use of wind energy.
Mediterranean Partner Countries (MPC) for the provision of
sustainable energy services based on locally available resources and
to support policy making activities in the field of Renewable Energies.
The HY-PA comprises three competent actors from Europe: Germany,
Greece and France, as well as four Mediterranean Partner Countries
Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia.
International Renewable Agency (IRENA) 2009 Ratification: Decree No. 620 dated 4/5/2017. Promotes the widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of Proposed project involve the
RE, including bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, solar and promotion of RE.
wind energy in the pursuit of sustainable development, energy
access, energy security and low-carbon economic growth and
prosperity.
4-9
4.2.1 IFC Performance Standards
The IFC is a sister organization of the World Bank and member of the World Bank Group (WBG). It is
the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing
countries. The WBG has set two goals for the world to achieve by 2030: end extreme poverty and
promote shared prosperity in every country.
The IFC aims at leveraging products and services to create markets that address the biggest
development challenges. It applies financial resources, technical expertise, global experience, and
innovative thinking to help clients and partners overcome financial, operational, and other challenges.
IFC is also a leading mobilizer of third-party resources for projects.
IFC’s PSs on Social and Environmental Sustainability, previously published in April 2006 and updated
in January 2012, including IFC’s General EHS Guidelines (2007), IFC’s EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy
(2015) and IFC’s EHS Guidelines for Toll Roads (2007), will be applied. The relevant Performance
Standards, and where they are addressed in the ESIA, are shown in Table 4-6.
The IFC and regional development banks have well established ESIA procedures which apply to their
lending activities and projects undertaken by borrowing countries. Although their operational policies
and requirements vary in certain aspects, they follow standardized procedures for the preparation and
approval of ESIA reports.
The IFC’s PSs are considered the most comprehensive standards available to international finance
institutions working with the private sector. The PSs define a project’s role and responsibilities for
managing health, safety, environmental, and community issues to receive and retain IFC and/or
Equator Principle Financial Institution (EPFI) lender support.
4.2.2 IFC EHS Guidelines
IFC’s EHS Guidelines will also be considered for the Project. The EHS Guidelines contain the
performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in new facilities at
reasonable costs by existing technology. The applicability of the EHS Guidelines may need to be
established for each project based on the results of an environmental, health, safety and social
assessment where site-specific variables, such as host country context, assimilative capacity of the
environment, and consideration of other project factors. The applicability of specific technical
recommendations should be based on the professional opinion of qualified and experienced persons.
The EHS Guidelines are technical reference documents and provide relevant industry background and
technical information. This information supports actions aimed at avoiding, minimizing, and controlling
environmental, health, and safety impacts during the construction, operation, and decommissioning
phases of a project or facility. The General EHS Guidelines are organized to capture common themes
which are applicable to any industry sector and project. The General EHS Guidelines and the Industry
Sector EHS Guidelines are designed to be used jointly and include:
• Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015).

• Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines for Toll Roads (2007).
• Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution
(2007).
4-10
Table 4-6 Relevant IFC Performance Standards
Performance Standard Comment ESIA Section
PS 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Performance Standard 1 applies to all projects that have environmental and social risks and impacts and Section 6 – Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement
Socials Risks and Impacts underscores the importance of managing environmental and social performance throughout the life of a project.
Section 8-19 - Baseline Environment and Impact
The objectives are:
Assessment
• To identify and evaluate environmental and social risks and impacts of the project.
Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
• To adopt a mitigation hierarchy to anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize, and,
where residual impacts remain, compensate/offset for risks and impacts to workers, Affected Communities,
and the environment.
• To promote improved environmental and social performance of clients through the effective use of
management systems.
• To ensure that grievances from Affected Communities and external communications from other stakeholders
are responded to and managed appropriately.
• To promote and provide means for adequate engagement with Affected Communities throughout the project
cycle on issues that could potentially affect them and to ensure that relevant environmental and social
information is disclosed and disseminated.
PS 2: Labor and Working Conditions Performance Standard 2 recognizes that the pursuit of economic growth through employment creation and Section 2 – Project Description
income generation should be balanced with protection for basic rights of workers. The objectives are:
• To establish, maintain and improve the worker-management relationship. Assessment
• To promote the fair treatment, non-discrimination and equal opportunity of workers, and compliance with Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
national labor and employment laws.
• To protect the workforce by addressing child labor and forced labor.
• To promote safe and healthy working conditions, and to protect and promote the health of workers.
PS 3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Performance Standard 3 recognizes that increased industrial activity and urbanization often generate increased Section 3 – Analysis of Alternatives
levels of pollution to air, water, and land that may threaten people and the environment at the local, regional,
and global level. The objectives are:
Assessment
• To avoid or minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment by avoiding or minimizing
pollution from project activities.
• To promote the reduction of emissions that contribute to climate change.
PS 4: Community Health, Safety, and Security Performance Standard 4 recognizes that project activities, equipment, and infrastructure often bring benefits to Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
communities including employment, services, and opportunities for economic development. The objectives are:
• To avoid or minimize risks to and impacts on the health and safety of the local community during the project
life cycle from both routine and non-routine circumstances.
• To ensure that the safeguarding of personnel and property is carried out in a legitimate manner that avoids or
minimizes risks to the community’s safety and security.
PS 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement Performance Standard 5 recognizes that project-related land acquisition and restrictions on land use can have Section 6 – Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement
adverse impacts on people who own or use that land. The objectives are:
• To avoid or at least minimize involuntary resettlement wherever feasible by exploring alternative project Assessment
designs.
• To mitigate adverse social and economic impacts from land acquisition or restrictions on affected persons’ use
of land by: (i) providing compensation for loss of assets at replacement cost; and (ii) ensuring that
4-11
resettlement activities are implemented with appropriate disclosure of information, consultation, and the
informed participation of those affected.
• To improve or at least restore the livelihoods and standards of living of displaced persons.
• To improve living conditions among displaced persons through provision of adequate housing with security of
tenure at resettlement sites.
PS 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Performance Standard 6 recognizes that protecting and conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem Section 3 – Analysis of Alternatives
Management of Living Natural Resources services, and sustainably managing living natural resources are fundamental to sustainable development. The
Section 6 – Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation
objectives are:
• To protect and conserve biodiversity.
Assessment
• To maintain the benefits from ecosystem services.
• To promote the sustainable management of living natural resources through the adoption of practices that
integrate conservation needs and development priorities.
PS 7: Indigenous Peoples Performance Standard 7 recognizes that Indigenous Peoples, as social groups with identities that are distinct Section 3 – Analysis of Alternatives
from dominant groups in national societies, are often among the most marginalized and vulnerable segments of
Section 6 – Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation
the population. The objectives are:
• To ensure that the development process fosters full respect for the dignity, human rights, aspirations,
Assessment
cultures and natural resource-based livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.
• To avoid adverse impacts of projects on communities of Indigenous Peoples, or when avoidance is not
feasible, to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such impacts, and to provide opportunities for
development benefits, in a culturally appropriate manner.
• To ensure the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Affected Communities of Indigenous
Peoples when they will be impacted by a project.
• To establish and maintain an ongoing relationship with the Indigenous Peoples affected by a project
throughout the life of the project.
To foster good faith negotiation with and informed participation of Indigenous Peoples when projects are to be
located on traditional or customary lands under use by the Indigenous Peoples. To respect and preserve the
culture, knowledge and practices of Indigenous Peoples. Performance Standard 7 does not apply because there
are no Indigenous Peoples in Lebanon. However, vulnerable segments of the population, including Syrian and
Palestinian refugees, have been considered in the avoidance and minimization of and compensation for impacts.
PS 8: Cultural Heritage Performance Standard 8 recognizes the importance of cultural heritage for current and future generations. The Section 8-19 - Baseline Environment and Impact
objectives are: Assessment
• To protect cultural heritage from the adverse impacts of project activities and support its preservation. Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
• To promote the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of cultural heritage in business activities.
Performance Standard 8 does not apply because a review of secondary information does not support the
presence of cultural heritage assets or resources in the Direct AOI of the Project. A Chance Find Procedure has
been developed and incorporated in the ESMP for the Project.
4-12
It is important to note in this context the IFC General EHS Guidelines for noise exposure which are
summarized in Tables 4-7 and 4-8.
In addition, the WBG/IFC sector Guidelines for Wind Energy recommend that the predicted duration of
shadow flicker effects experienced at a sensitive receptor not exceed 30 hours per year and 30
minutes per day on the worst affected day, based on a worst-case scenario.
Table 4-7 Noise Level Guidelines per IFC General EHS Guidelines
One Hour LAeq

Receptor Daytime Nighttime
(07:00-22:00) (22:00-07:00)
Residential, institutional, educational 55 45
Industrial, commercial 70 70
Table 4-8 Noise Limits for Various Working Environments per IFC EHS Guidelines
Equivalent Level Maximum

Location / Activity
LAeq, 8h LAmax, Fast
Heavy industry (no demand for oral 85 dBA 110 dBA

communication)
Light industry (decreasing demand for 50-65 dBA 110 dBA

oral communication)
Open offices, control rooms, service 45-50 dBA -

counters or similar
Individual offices (no disturbing noise) 40-45 dBA -
Classrooms, lecture halls 35-40 dBA -
Hospitals 30-35 dBA 40 dBA
4.2.3 EIB Environmental and Social Standards
As the long-term financing body of the European Union (EU), the EIB promotes EU policies through its
financial and other support to sustainable investment projects. The increasing prominence given to
environmental and social considerations within the EU and throughout the other regions of operation
of the Bank is reflected in its priority lending objectives as well as in the regular review and revision of
its environmental and social requirements and operational practices. The relevant ESSs, and where
they are addressed in the ESIA, are shown in Table 4-9.
4-13
Table 4-9 Relevant EIB Environmental and Social Standards
ESS 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and ESS 1 underscores the importance of managing environmental and social impacts and risks throughout the life Section 6 – Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement
Socials Risks and Impacts of an EIB project through the application of the precautionary principle. The objectives are:
• The development of an effective environmental and social management and reporting system that is Assessment
objective and encourages continual improvements and developments.
• Requirements for stakeholder engagement and disclosure throughout the life of the project.
ESS 2: Pollution Prevention and Abatement ESS 2 recognizes the importance of avoiding and minimizing pollution from EIB-supported operations. The Section 8-19 – Baseline Environment and Impact
objective is: Assessment
• A Project-level approach to resource efficiency and pollution prevention and control in line with best available Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
techniques and internationally disseminated practices.
ESS 3: Biodiversity and Ecosystems ESS 3 recognizes the intrinsic value of biodiversity and that its operations may have a potential impact on Section 6 – Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement
biodiversity and ecosystems. The objectives are:
• The promoter has to take an approach and measures to protect and conserve all levels of biodiversity. Assessment
• The standard applies to all habitats (marine and terrestrial) whether or not previously disturbed or legally Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
protected.
• Focus on major threats and supports the sustainable use of renewable natural resources and the equitable
sharing of benefits from the project’s use of natural resources.
ESS 4: Climate-Related Standards ESS 4 is aligned with EU climate policies, which should be taken into account at all stages of the project cycle, in Section 8-19 – Baseline Environment and Impact
particular regarding the assessment of the economic cost of GHG emissions and the climate vulnerability Assessment
context. The objective is:
• The promoter specifically must ensure that all projects comply with appropriate national and, where
applicable, EU legal requirements, including multilateral agreements, related to climate change policy.
ESS 5: Cultural Heritage ESS 5 recognizes the central role of cultural heritage within individual and collective identity, in supporting Section 8-19 – Baseline Environment and Impact
sustainable development and in promoting cultural diversity. The objectives are: Assessment
• Identification, management and protection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage that may be affected Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
by project activities consistent with the applicable international conventions and declarations.
• Emphasize the need for the implementation of a “chance-find procedure”, which outlines the actions to be
taken if previously unknown cultural heritage is encountered.
ESS 6: Involuntary Resettlement ESS 6 recognizes that projects sometimes necessitate land acquisition, expropriation and/or restrictions on land Section 6 – Stakeholder Consultation and Mitigation
use, resulting in the temporary or permanent resettlement of people from their original places of residence or
their economic activities or subsistence practices. The objectives are:
Assessment
• Respect and protection of the rights to property and to adequate housing, and of the standard of living of all
affected people and communities.
4-14
• Mitigation of any adverse impacts arising from their loss of assets or restrictions on land use.
• Assisting all affected persons to improve or at least restore their former livelihoods and living standards and
adequately compensate for incurred losses.
ESS 7: Rights and Interests of Vulnerable Groups ESS 8 seeks to protect all vulnerable project-affected individuals and groups, whilst seeking that these Section 8-19 – Baseline Environment and Impact
populations duly benefit from EIB operations. The objectives are: Assessment
• Full respect for the dignity, human rights, aspiration, cultures and customary livelihoods of vulnerable groups Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
including indigenous peoples.
• The free, prior and informed consent of affected Indigenous groups.
ESS 8: Labor Standards ESS 8 recognizes the importance of good labor practices and the use of appropriate codes of conduct to ensure Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
the fair treatment, non-discrimination and equality of opportunity of workers. The objectives are:
• Ensuring that promoters of EIB projects comply with the core labor standards of the International Labour
Organisation and with national labor and employment laws.
• The establishment, maintenance and improvement of worker-management relationships.
ESS 9: Occupational and Public Health, Safety and Security ESS 9 recognizes the importance of protecting and securing public and occupational health, safety and security Section 21 – Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
and promote the dignity of the affected community in relation to project-related activities. The objectives are:
• Particular attention to vulnerable groups.
• Promoters to adhere to the international norms and relevant human rights principles when using security
services.
ESS 10: Stakeholder Engagement ESS 10 promotes the right to access to information, as well as public consultation and participation. The Section 6 – Stakeholder Consultation and Mitigation
objectives are:
• Promoters to uphold an open, transparent and accountable dialogue with all project affected communities and
relevant stakeholders in an effective and appropriate manner.
• The value of public participation in the decision-making process is stressed throughout the preparation,
implementation and monitoring phases of a project.
• The right to access to remedy, including through grievance resolution, is actively required.
4-15
4.3 Additional Relevant Guidance
In addition to the prediction and evaluation tools and methodology recommended in IFC
Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015), policy or guidance that is
relevant to landscape and visual effects included Environmental Impact Assessment, CEDRO, Guideline
Report, 2012 and Beeinträchtigungen des Landschaftsbildes durch mastartige Eingriffe, Nohl,
Kirchheim bei München 1993/2001 (Limitations of Landscape Image by Mast Like Operations).
4.4 Institutional Framework
The main stakeholder in the energy sector is the Ministry of Energy and Water (MOEW). Other
stakeholders of importance to the project include the Ministry of Environment (MOE), the Ministry of
Public Works and Transport (MOPWT), the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities (MOIM), as well as
several local and international agencies and programs.
4.4.1 Ministry of Environment
The MOE is the lead government agency responsible for environmental permitting based on the
submission of the EIA report by the Developer. The MOE was established by Law 216/1993, amended
by Law 690/2005, and then restructured by Decree 2275/2009. This decree defined the functions and
responsibilities of each administrative unit including staff size and qualifications. According to Article
20 of Decree 2275/2009, the Service of Natural Resources at MOE is responsible for the protection of
natural resources in the country including fauna and flora species, habitats, mountains, etc.
According to Article 25 of Decree 2275/2009, the Service of Environmental Technology - Department

of Integrated Environmental Systems at MOE is responsible for adopting clean and RE sources as well
as reducing the use of polluting energy sources in the country. Moreover, the MOE is also responsible
for meeting Lebanon’s reporting obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, particularly the Third National Communication on Climate Change (which includes
emission data for the energy sector).
The Third National Communication, inventorying emissions for base-year 2005 and time-series
covering the period from 1994 to 2010 was published and presented to the Government and national
stakeholders in 2014. The third national communication gives an updated analysis of potential GHG
mitigation measures as well as an updated assessment of potential impacts of climate change in
Lebanon and adaptation measures.
4.4.2 Ministry of Energy & Water
The MOEW is the lead government agency responsible for producing energy and for licensing RE
projects and programs, including SA. The MOEW was first established by Law 20/66 (dated
29/03/1966) amended several times and lastly (13 years ago) by Law 247 (dated 07/08/2000).
Decree 5469 (dated 07/09/1966), that defined the functions and responsibilities of every Directorate
(2 Directorates) at the Ministry and each administrative unit including staff size and qualifications was
not amended and remains valid since 1966.
4-16
Under the Directorate of Water and Electrical Resources (1st Directorate at MOEW), the Directorate of
Electrical Resources studies and implements Electricity Projects in the Country. Supervising all
activities related to water and electricity at the MOEW are performed by the Directorate of Investment
(2nd Directorate at MOEW).
The MOEW is the most active public body attempting to promote Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy programs in Lebanon. To date, the most noteworthy achievement is the sponsoring of the
Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation Program (LCECP) further discussed below as well as the
development of the Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector.
4.4.3 Electricité du Liban
EDL was established in 1964 (Decree 16878 dated 10/07/1964). With the exception of four private
concessions (Zahle, Jbeil, Alay and Bhamdoun representing about 82,000 subscribers) and
private/semi-private hydroelectric power plants (Nahr Ibrahim and Kadisha) as well as a public
hydropower plant owned by the Litani River Authority, EDL has quasi total monopoly over electricity
production, transmission and distribution in the country; it controls around 90% of the Lebanese
electricity sector.
4.4.4 Ministry of Interior and Municipalities
The MOIM has jurisdiction over Lebanon’s estimated 994 municipalities organized according to Decree-
Law 118 (dated 30/06/1977). The Akkar Caza counts 175 municipalities of which 6 are immediately
affected by the proposed wind farm. Municipal councils are elected by their constituency and consist of
9, 12, 15, 18, 20 or 24 (Beirut and Tripoli only) members depending on the size of the constituency.
Municipalities are local administrations charged with the day-to-day management of all public works
located inside their jurisdiction (municipal boundaries). Specific responsibilities are wide and diverse
including landscaping and beautification works, water and wastewater networks, street lighting, waste
disposal, internal roads, recreational facilities, as well as urban planning in coordination with the
Directorate General of Urban Planning (Article 49).
Municipal Councils have also to approve all projects related to re-designing major roads in their
municipal boundaries as well as any activity regulating the traffic in the municipal area (Article 51 of
Decree-Law 118-1977 and Article 389 of Law 243-2012).
4.4.5 Ministry of Public Works and Transport
In 2000, the Ministry of Transport was cancelled, and the two Directorates were affiliated to the
Ministry of Public Works by Law 247 (dated 07/08/2000). The Ministry of Public Works became, then,
the MOPWT which studies (technically and financially), evaluates and monitors the implementation
and maintenance of public construction projects (buildings, road networks, etc.) and regulates land,
sea and air transport.
The MOPWT comprises three directorates including the General Directorate of Urban Planning (DGUP),
which is responsible for permitting all construction projects including the Project. The Ministry of Public
Works was first established in 1959 by Decree 2872 (dated 16/12/1959) and included four
4-17
Directorates; two of them were later affiliated to the MOEW (Law 20/66 – 1966). The MOT was first
established by Law 214 in 1993 and included two Directorates: 1) the Directorate General of Civil
Aviation; and 2) the Directorate General of Land and Maritime Transport.
4.4.6 Directorate General of Urban Planning
The DGUP falls under the authority of the MOPWT. Its mandate is to develop urban regulations and
coordinate urban planning activities. Lebanon is divided into governorate (mohafazah), district (caza)
and municipalities. The DGUP also plays a key role in the construction permitting process through the
regional Departments of Urban Planning in each caza.
4.4.7 The Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation
Established in 2002, the Global Environment Facility funded the LCECP which is currently hosted at the
MOEW and managed by UNDP. Registered under the name of the LCEC (Attestation No. 172 dated
27/1/2011), the organization addresses end-use energy conservation and RE at the national level by
supporting the Government of Lebanon in developing and implementing national strategies that
promote EE and RE at the consumer level.
The LCEC has implemented RE and EE projects in Lebanon including the installation of domestic solar
water heaters (DSWH) in south Lebanon, management of the DSWH project “One DSWH for every
house” aiming at installing no less than 1 million m² of collectors by 2020, management of the 3
million compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) lamps project, etc. LCEC is financially and administratively
independent and operates under the direct supervision of the Minister of Energy and Water.
4.4.8 Community Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration Project
The Community Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration Project (CEDRO) is a
partnership created in 2007 between the MOEW/Ministry of Finance (MOF)/Ministry of Economy &
Trade (MOET)/Lebanon Recovery Fund (LRF)/Council for Development and Reconstruction
(CDR)/United Nations Development Program (UNDP), with a five-year mandate and a budget of $9.73
million funded by the LRF by means of a donation from Spain. Its aim is to promote EE and RE in
Lebanon through awareness, capacity building, market incentives for EE and RE installations, as well
as country-wide research and development activities.
CEDRO also initiated and financed several national milestone research documents related to RE
including (1) the national bio-energy strategy that shed the light on available bioenergy resources in
the country, and (2) the national Wind Atlas that establishes an understanding of the dominant wind
regimes (onshore & offshore) in the country, essential to determine best areas to build wind farms in
the country. CEDRO’s January 2019 publication, Renewable Energy Sector in Lebanon, National
Studies, concluded that:
4-18
• Wind energy can potentially employ up to 2,753 people under the optimistic scenario in 2021,
roughly half of them in direct jobs.
• The largest number of jobs will be in the service sector and during the construction phase.
• The transport of wind energy equipment will also create employment wherever infrastructure is
needed, be it at the port or along the roads. Roads have to be widened and the area around the
roads has to be cleared.
4.5 International Organizations
4.5.1 The International Renewable Energy Agency
The IRENA was first established in January 2009. IRENA acts in accordance with the purposes and
principles of the United Nations to promote peace and international cooperation, in conformity with UN
policies and sustainable development. IRENA promotes the widespread and increased adoption and
sustainable use of all forms of RE and provides advice and support to governments worldwide on RE
policy, capacity building, financing and technology transfer. The GOL is an applicant for IRENA
membership.
4.5.2 The Global Wind Energy Council
The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) was established in 2005 to provide a credible and
representative forum for the entire wind energy sector at an international level. It is a member-based
organization that represents the entire wind energy sector including manufacturers, developers,
component suppliers, research institutes, national wind and renewables associations, electricity
providers, finance and insurance companies. GWEC’s mission is to (1) communicate the benefits of
wind power to national governments, policy makers and international institutions, (2) provide
authoritative research and analysis on the wind power industry around the world, (3) work with
governments to give them transparent information about the benefits and potential of wind power,
enabling them to make informed decisions about national energy policies and (4) support collaboration
between policy makers in different countries to help them share best practices and experiences in
adding clean power to their energy mix. The GWEC has no Lebanese members yet.
4.5.3 BirdLife International
Founded first in 1922 as the International Council for Bird Preservation, BirdLife International, named
as such in 1993, is a global Partnership of conservation organizations that strives to protect birds by
conserving their habitats and biodiversity worldwide, working with people towards sustainability in the
use of natural resources. It is the World's largest partnership of conservation organizations, with over
100 partner organizations including the Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon (SPNL –
founded in 1983).
4.5.4 UNDP/CEDRO EIA for Wind Farm Developments Guideline Report
In addition to best international practices applicable to ESIA studies for wind farms, the UNDP/CEDRO
Environmental Impact Assessment for Wind Farm Developments Guideline Report (2011) was
4-19
considered in the current ESIA study, including guidance for monitoring and mitigation of impacts to
resources, particularly avifauna and bats.
4.6 Policy Setting
4.6.1 The Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector
In 2010, the MOEW developed the Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector which seeks to redress the
country’s ailing electricity sector by 2015. It was unanimously approved by the COM in June 2010
(COM decision No.1 dated 21/06/2010). The Policy Paper is articulated along three strategic areas and
formulates actions over three-time horizons (short 2010-2012, medium 2012-2014, and long term
2015 and beyond):
1. Infrastructure: electricity generation, transmission and distribution.

2. Supply and demand: choice of fuel and outsourcing, RE, EE, and tariffs.
3. Legislation: norms and standards, corporatization of EDL, and legal status.
On the generation side, the goal is to achieve 4,000MW of generating capacity by 2014 through new
thermal power plants (2,200MW), rehabilitation of Zouk and Jieh (100MW) and upgrade of Beddawi,
Zahrani, Baalbeck & Tyr (145MW). The Policy Paper also aims to increase hydropower by 40MW,
harvest 60-100MW of wind power and 15-25MW through waste-to-energy plants. Consequently, at
least 2,600MW of added capacity will be implemented in partnership with the private sector
(Independent Power Producers).
The Lebanese COM agreed in March 2012 to lease power-generating ships to produce 270MW for a
period of three years, and to build 1,500MW power plants. Effectively, in February 2013 the first
Turkish power barge “Fatimaghoul Sultan” entered and moored in Lebanese shores; it will generate
electricity to fill the gap caused when the Zouk Power Plant goes offline for rehabilitation for a period
of three years.
4.6.2 The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan
The NEEAP developed by the LCEC was adopted by the COM in November 2011. 30 The Action Plan
28F30F
included 14 initiatives related to EE and RE with proposed milestones and targets. The spectrum of
available technologies envisaged is quite wide including wind turbines, photo-voltaics, domestic solar
water heaters and waste to energy and geothermal heat pumps. Already many initiatives are being
implemented to favor the penetration of these technologies in the Lebanese market. Of importance to
our project is initiative 6 of the NEEAP related to electricity generation from wind power [2]:
“introduce wind power via the private sector by building wind farms (60-100MW)” which has prompted
the CEDRO project to prepare the Wind Atlas for Lebanon mentioned earlier. Consequently, several
firms (e.g. the Developer, Lebanon Wind Power SAL, Hawa Akkar SAL) have stepped forward and
showed great interest in investing in wind energy. RE in Lebanon will be a tremendous advantage as it
will contribute to solving two of the thorniest issues facing the energy sector in the country namely
energy security and energy acceptability.
30
Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation, The Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for the Republic of
Lebanon, NEEAP 2011-2015.
4-20
The Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for the Republic of Lebanon (NEEAP 2016-2020)
was published in March 2016 and builds on the first NEEAP 2011-2015. 31 NEEAP 2016–2020 is divided
29F31F
into two main sections: the power sector measures and the end-use measures. The power sector
measures tackle EE in electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. The end-use section
includes five chapters: 1) horizontal end-use measures; 2) end-use measures in the building sector;
3) end-use measures in industry and agriculture; 4) measures in mobility and transport; and 5) end-
use measures in the public sector. Moreover, NEEAP 2016–2020 includes different types of measures
regarding policies, regulations, action plans, and implementation. The sum of the overall estimated
savings of the proposed measures over the five years of the second NEEAP’s implementation are
686.1GWH for the power sector and 828.1GWH for end-use energy which implies a total saving of
1,514.2GWH over the five years and leading to average yearly savings of 302.9GWH. By implementing
the second NEEAP’s 26 initiatives, the actual electric power growth rate of 7% could be reduced to
5.81% in 2020.
4.6.3 National Renewable Energy Action Plan
The MOEW/LCEC prepared Lebanon’s National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP 2016 – 2020). 32 30F32F
The NREAP is the main national document that will lead the way for Lebanon to develop the different
RE technologies needed to reach the 12% target by the year 2020. By adopting this document, the
MOEW is creating the path that all national efforts and international support need to follow to develop
RE in Lebanon. Being the main authority to develop the energy sector, MOEW, through the work of
LCEC, is striving to align all efforts towards sustainable energy.
4.7 Licenses and Permits
The permitting process of the Project is required at the level of several national institutions which
mainly include the following:
• Municipalities or the Kaemakam (i.e. the title used for the governor of a provincial district) of the
district clears the construction and operation permits as presented in Figure 4-1; municipalities,
federation of municipalities, Governors, and Kaemakam fall under the MOIM.
• DGUP approval of the Project is required given that the surface area allocated to the Project
exceeds 10km2 in light of allocation of Aandqet municipality of an area of 6km2 to the Project due
to lack of a land survey, thus increasing the total area of the Project.
• MOE’s approval of the ESIA is required, MOE has also a role in inspecting the different phases of
the Project.
• Ministry of Public Works and Transport issues permits for obstruction of aviation airspace as well
as radar interference clearances.
31
Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation, The Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for the Republic of
Lebanon, NEEAP 2016-2020.
32
Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation, The National Renewable Energy Action Plan for the Republic of
Lebanon, NREAP 2016-2020.
4-21
Figure 4-1 Construction Permit Process
1 2 Order of 3 Directorate
Architect/Civil Urban Planning
Owner Engineers and General of
Engineer Regional Office
Architects Tripoli Urban Planning
4
Preparation of
Construction 5
Plans Municipalities
Kaemakam
Construction
Permit
It should be noted that the Developer has already obtained the following permits:
• PPA between MOEW and the Developer signed in February 2018 allowing the government to
purchase power from the private sector and Sustainable Akkar will be able to seek a connection to
the grid from EDL.
• Rental contract agreements with land owners have been established by the Developer (as
provided in Appendix E).
Table 4-10 summarizes the implications of each ministry for the project phases.
4-22
Table 4-10 GOL Roles and Responsibilities in Relation to the Project
Ministry Project Phase Implications for the Project
Environment Planning • Review and approve EIA Report.
Construction • Inspect the construction of the Project to verify

compliance with the Developer’s ESMP and
mitigation measures by the OEM/EPC Contractor
(wind turbine supplier) as per the ESIA Report.
Operation • Inspect the operation of the Project to verify

compliance with the Developer’s ESMP by the
OEM/EPC Contractor (wind turbine supplier) as per
the ESIA Report.
Decommissioning • Inspect the decommissioning of the Project to

verify compliance with the Developer’s ESMP by
the OEM/EPC Contractor (wind turbine supplier) as
per the ESIA Report.
Energy and Water Planning • Review and approve Developer’s Proposal (along
with the ESIA Report).
• Issue a permit for Sustainable Akkar to
produce/distribute electricity though a PPA.
Interior and Construction • Traffic Management Agency (TMA) issues a permit

Municipalities for transporting materials (with specifications not
included in Law 243/2012).
• Municipalities and TMA monitor the transport
operation.
Public Works and Design • Delivers aviation airspace clearance permit.

Transport, including
• Delivers construction permit.
DGUP
Construction • Monitor the transport operation.
Municipalities Construction • Municipality or the Kaemakam clears construction

permit.
Operation • Municipality or the Kaemakam clears operation

permit.
4-23
5. ESIA APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
This section describes the approach and methodology that was adopted for the ESIA study including
the following:
• Approach to the scoping and assessment phase.

• Approach for the analysis of alternatives.
• Approach to stakeholder consultation and engagement.
• Approach to determining the spatial and temporal study area.
• Methodology for assessment of the baseline environmental and social conditions.
• Methodology used to assess the potential environmental and social impacts of the Project –
including the approach to determining significance, development of mitigation measures and the
assessment of residual effects.
• Approach used for the assessment of cumulative and trans-boundary effects.
• Approach for development of an ESMP.
• Gaps in contemporary knowledge.
It is noted that this ESIA was prepared based on the scope developed and data collected by SES and
other specialists at the direction of the Developer. Following gap analysis by Ramboll and review by
the international lenders, additional data collection was requested by Ramboll. In some instances, the
scope and level of detail of this additional data collection was not provided; as such, it is
acknowledged that this ESIA contains some gaps in contemporary knowledge.
Nonetheless, it is emphasized that the information provided herein is adequate for meeting the
environmental and social performance requirements of international lenders, including public
disclosure and consultation requirements, and was of a sufficient nature and extent to have both
focused the impact assessment and inform management measures and mitigation.
Given some limitations on data, the approach that was taken to satisfy and/or principally satisfy
lender requirements are presented in each relevant section, with material gaps highlighted and reason
the gap exists elaborated upon. These gaps are carried over to Section 21 Summary of Impacts
and Mitigation, and the Developer will undertake additional work to address these gaps, supplement
the identification of stakeholders, continue ongoing consultation and engagement and confirm
management measures and mitigation ahead of construction, as agreed with the lenders during the
May 2019 Workshop in Paris, France.
It is further noted that the stand-alone SEP and ESMP accompanying this ESIA are currently
framework documents that will need to be further developed once the additional works and data
collection and selection of the OEM/EPC Contractor have been completed. The Developer has engaged
a consultant to prepare the following ESMPs in coordination with the selected OEM/EPC Contractor
and the Developer’s operational partner, (Name removed) and their existing management
procedures:
• An integrated Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS) that generally meets the
objectives of ISO14001 and OHSAS 18001 (but need not be certified). The ESMS will establish and
maintain an emergency preparedness and response system so that the Developer, in collaboration
with appropriate and relevant third parties, will be prepared to respond to accidental and
emergency situations associated with the Project in a manner appropriate to prevent and mitigate
any harm to people and/or the environment.
• Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP).
5-1
• Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) that include detailed monitoring procedures
and cost estimation for implementation of the following:
− Design Change Management Plan.

− Biodiversity Management Plan, to include bird management and monitoring
− Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention Plan.
− Waste/Hazardous Substances Management Plan.
− Traffic Management Plan.
− Human Resources Policy.
− Air Quality Management Plan.
− Noise Management Plan.
− Shadow Flicker, Visual and Landscape Management.
− Chance Finds Procedure.
− Emergency Preparedness and Response/Safety Management Plan (natural disasters, accidents
and emergencies).
− Influx Management Plan (if required, based on number of workers hired from outside the local
Project area).
− Security Management Plan.
− Erosion Control, Soil and Spoil Plan.
− Employee Training Plan.
− Occupational Health and Safety Plan.
− Community Health and Safety Plan.
− Contractor Management Plan.
− Community Benefit-Sharing Plan (Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Plan).
− Livelihood Restoration and Compensation Plan.
− Labor Accommodation Plan.
− Local Hiring and Procurement/Labor Conditions/Workforce Management Plan.
− Sustainability Policy.
5.1 Scoping and Assessment
A Scoping Report (Appendix A) was submitted solely to the MOE by the Developer (as prepared by
Ecodit) and reviewed by an internal committee. In their letter of response to the Scoping Report (also
in Appendix A), the MOE indicated the following:
• The scoping report is approved with a note on the necessity of addressing the comments of the
reviewing committee and ensuring compliance with the following:
− Lebanon’s Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) study for the RE sector.33 The SEA
requires that the design of wind turbines should consider a number of criteria (as applicable):
▪ Avoid the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve and a 500m buffer –-- it is noted that this is not
applicable as the individual wind turbines are located on privately owned land within the
Karm Chbat Cadastral Area. It is noted that no Project turbines will be installed within the
boundaries of the Karbm Chbat Cadastral Area (refer to Section 2 Project Description).
33
MOE/UNDP, 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Lebanon’s Renewable Energy Sector. Beirut, Lebanon.
5-2
▪ Avoid the Upper Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh Important Bird Area (IBA) --- it is noted that
the Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh IBA is located 5k from the Project (refer to Section 2
Project Description).
▪ Not be located in areas with low incidence of fog and mist --- it is noted that fog and mist
are present across the Akkar Mountain region, as evidenced by the images in the Figure
5-1a – 5-1h series.
▪ Be designed to have the least impact on avifauna --- it is noted that, even accounting for
likely population decreases over the lifespan of the project, significant impacts are not
considered to exist (refer to Section 14 Ornithology).
▪ Be at least 700m from nearest housing and 200m from nearest road --- it is noted that
this requirement is not met for WTG 24, WTG 25 and WTG 29; however, these houses are
located in Rweimeh Village, are only seasonally occupied, and are associated with land
owners providing the land rental for the location of the turbines under land lease
agreements (refer to Section 2 Project Description).
− MOE letter to Minister of Energy and Water No. 14175/B 2017 dated 19/12/2017.
− EIA Guidelines developed by the Country Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Demonstration Project for the Recovery of Lebanon (CEDRO).34
− Include in the ESIA relevant documents required in Decision 9/1 of 201435 and the rental
agreements for the Project area.
− Include in the ESIA emergency plans for the management of earthquakes, fires, storms and
lightning --- it is noted that the Project is not located in an earthquake zone (refer to Section
10 Geophysical Ground and Seismicity) and that the risk of ignition is assessed in Section
8 Climate and Climate Change.
• A preliminary assessment of expected environmental impacts was performed by Ecodit as part of

the Scoping Report development, and the following impacts were scoped out with the
understanding that they are expected to have negligible significance:
− Noise and vibration impacts during the construction and decommissioning phases.
− Impact of solid waste and loss of vegetative cover during the construction phase.
− Visual impact from the storage of aggregate materials, construction equipment and excavation
waste during the construction phase.
− Visual impact from the onsite temporary storage of solid waste during the decommissioning
phase.
− Pressure on the existing solid waste management infrastructure in the study area during the
construction and operation phases.
No scoping responses were received by any other consultees.
34
UNDP, Country Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration Project for the Recovery of Lebanon,
Environmental Impact Assessment for Wind Farm Developments, A Guideline Report 2012.
35
Circular No. 9/1 dated 26/06/2014 (Relevant documents to be annexed to IEE and EIA reports as per Decree No.
8633 dated 07/08/2012 - published in the Official Gazette No. 35 on 16/08/2012).
5-3
Figure 5-1a – 5-1h Akkar Mountain Region Fog and Mist
a b
c d
e f
g h
5-4
The assessment was carried out to:
• Describe the components and activities of the Project.

• Characterize baseline conditions within the Project’s DAOI and IAOI, leveraging the scientific body
of knowledge that has previously been undertaken as well as additional studies that are specific to
the Project.
• Identify and assess the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental and social impacts
that could credibly result from the Project, ancillary activities or facilities during the construction,
operation and decommissioning stages.
5.2 Analysis of Alternatives
The examination of alternatives is also considered to be a key element of the ESIA process under good
international practice, including IFC PS 1 (IFC, 2012) and the associated IFC Guidance Note 1 (IFC,
2012). Environmental and social considerations have been part of the planning of the Project and a
core element of the decision-making process.
The analysis of alternatives was previously presented in Section 3 Analysis of Alternatives. This
section discussed and compared alternatives for the Project development in relation to: 1) site
selection alternatives; 2) design alternatives; 3) transportation alternatives for the provision of WTG
components; 4) technology alternatives; and 5) the Project vs. No Project Alternative, which assumes
that the Project does not take place.
5.3 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement
Stakeholder consultation and engagement is an essential part of the ESIA process and has been
carried out in accordance with the requirements in Lebanon and international best practice – to include
requirements identified within the Law 444/2002 related to Environment Protection, and its related
Application Decree No. 8633/2012 on the Fundamentals for Environmental Impact Assessment, as
well as IFC Performance Standard 1 (IFC, 2012), EIB Environmental and Social Standard 1 and EIB
Environmental and Social Standard 10.
Stakeholder consultation and engagement activities undertaken for the Project are discussed in detail
in Section 6 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement. Activities included high level
consultation with municipalities, detailed engagement with family leadership of affected communities,
meetings with key informants, public disclosure meetings, meetings with landowners, focus group
meetings, meetings with the Lebanese Army and meeting with mayors and officials representing
towns along the transport route. The results of the consultation and engagement are reflected in the
ESIA Report and have been incorporated into the project design and planning, where relevant.
5-5
5.4 Delineation of Study Boundaries and Scope of Assessment
5.4.1 Definition of Spatial Study Area
As previously presented in Section 2.7, the DAOI and IAOI for the ESIA comprises the following:
DAOI:
turbines, internal roads, substation and transmission line, i.e. Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun, Aandqet
and Rweimeh Village.
farms, i.e. Fnaidek, Karm Chbat Cadastral Area, Rweimeh Village, Chadra, Machta Hammoud and
Mqaible.
• Areas of the new segments of road.

receptors (as shown in Figure 2-14; note: red dots are uninhabited houses --- also refer to
Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security).
(refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security).
to Section 17 Landscape).
IAOI:
• The existing transport corridor between the Tripoli Seaport and the Project, as shown in Figure 2-
16a through Figure 2-16g.
• Informal settlements located within 1km of the existing road (refer to Table 15-38 and series of
maps in Appendix F).
• It further includes visual impacts to key landscape units.
In identifying these thematic study areas, the type and degree of the potential direct and indirect
effects were taken into consideration. The core area where direct effects are likely to occur was
determined, as well as the wider area of influence where indirect, combined and cumulative effects are
likely to occur on the surrounding areas and communities.
5-6
5.4.2 Temporal Scope of the Assessment
The Project will be developed in a three-phase sequence, as follows: 1) Construction Phase; 2)

Operations and Maintenance Phase; and 3) Decommissioning Phase.
Construction Phase
This includes construction activities which will be undertaken by the OEM/EPC Contractor. This mainly
includes preparing the detailed design and layout of the Project, transportation of Project components
to the Project site, as well as site preparation and construction activities for installation of wind
turbines, foundations, internal access roads, buildings, etc.
Operations and Maintenance Phase
This includes activities to be undertaken by the Project Operator. Activities expected to take place
mainly include the normal daily operation of the wind turbines and the routine maintenance activities.
Decommissioning Phase
At the conclusion of the PPA term, the Project will be completely decommissioned by the Developer.
The anticipated impacts throughout the decommissioning phase are similar in nature to impacts
assessed during the construction phase – and specifically in impacts related to soil, air quality, and
occupational health and safety. Therefore, the assessment of impacts for those receptors and
mitigation identified during the construction phase is assumed to apply to this phase in particular
without the need to reiterate or emphasize this throughout this section.
5.5 Environment & Social Baseline Conditions
As part of the ESIA process, the baseline environmental and social conditions of the study area were
established. Describing the baseline includes identifying and defining the importance and sensitivity of
the various environmental and social resources and receptors likely to be impacted, i.e. within the
study area. Understanding the value or sensitivity of the resources and receptors to impacts and
changes is an important consideration when determining the significance of effects and allows for
better identification of the most appropriate measures that could be employed to avoid impacts, and
to mitigate any adverse impacts.
The description of environmental and social baseline conditions has considered a wide range of data
and information gathered from various sources, including:
• Desk-based studies and literature reviews.

• Data from stakeholders.
• Field surveys and site investigations.
Studies have covered all the environmental and social aspects related to the Project and represent
those conditions which would prevail in the absence of the Project. Studies of the environment and
social baseline are described under each section respectively and include the following:
• Section 8 - Climate and Climate Change.

• Section 9 - Geology and Hydrology.
• Section 10 - Geophysical Ground and Seismicity.
• Section 11 - Air Quality.
5-7
• Section 12 – Transport and Traffic.
• Section 13 - Biodiversity.
• Section 14 - Ornithology.
• Section 15 - Socioeconomic Conditions (to include Land Use).
• Section 16 - Community Health, Safety and Security (to include Noise, Shadow Flicker, Visual
Amenity and Traffic).
• Section 17 – Landscape.
• Section 18 - Archaeology and Cultural Landscape.
• Section 19 - Occupational Health and Safety.
Within each section, the methodology which was undertaken for assessment of each of those baseline
conditions is described in detail.
5.6 Impact Assessment Methodology
The ESIA commences with an assessment of the positive environmental and economic impacts on the
strategic and national level given the current challenges the energy sector in Lebanon currently faces
(refer to Section 3 Analysis of Alternatives). It then moves forward and within each section (in
Sections 8 – 19 Baseline Environment and Impact Assessment) the assessment of impacts on
environmental and social parameters is undertaken as required. The following section provides a
description of the approach, methodology and process adopted for the impact assessment presented
within this ESIA.
The adverse and beneficial environmental and social impacts of the Project have been identified and
assessed against the established baseline. A consistent approach to the assessment of impacts was
followed to enable environmental and social impacts to be broadly compared across the ESIA. A set of
generic criteria were used to determine significance which were applied across the various social and
environmental parameters. As far as possible, environmental and social impacts were quantified.
Where it was not possible to quantify impacts, a qualitative assessment was conducted using
professional experience, judgment and available knowledge, and including the consideration of
stakeholder views. Where there were limitations to the data, and/or uncertainties, these have been
recorded in the relevant chapters, along with any assumptions that were taken during the assessment.
In order to determine the significance of each impact, two overall factors are considered:
• The importance and/or sensitivity of the environmental and social receiving parameter, as
determined during the assessment of baseline conditions.
• The magnitude and nature of the impact.
Potential impacts are assessed using quantitative tools such as noise modeling, and qualitative
techniques based on professional judgment such as biodiversity. However, uncertainty is inevitable
when dealing with a live resource that varies and evolves with time and is affected by several natural
and anthropogenic factors in addition to the Project. Where qualitative assessments were necessary,
these have been based on professional judgement. The significance of impacts has been based on a
conservative ‘worst case’ basis in accordance with the precautionary principle.
The quality of baseline data also affects the accurateness of the assessments made. Therefore, it was
necessary to list the key assumptions made and any limitations identified, in producing this ESIA as
can be seen in the appropriate technical sections. In general, the ESIA assumes that:
5-8
• The principal land use in the surrounding area will remain unchanged throughout the Project
lifetime.
• The Project will be developed as outlined in Section 2 Project Description.
• The mitigation and monitoring measures stipulated in the ESMP will be implemented as
appropriate.
5.6.1 Sensitivity of Receptors
Receiving parameter sensitivity was determined using information taken from the baseline description
on the importance, significance or value of the social or environmental component under examination.
It is important to understand the sensitivity of the receiving parameter, as this is a measure of the
adaptability and resilience of an environmental parameter to an identified impact. The following
categories of sensitivity were applied to the assessment:
• High: The environmental parameter/receptor is fragile, and an impact is likely to leave it in an

altered state from which recovery would be difficult or impossible.
• Medium: The parameter/receptor has a degree of adaptability and resilience and is likely to cope
with the changes caused by an impact, although there may be some residual modification as a
result.
• Low: The parameter/receptor is adaptable and is resilient to change.
The sensitivity of the receiving environment to changes caused by the Project was determined within
each of the technical chapters using professional judgement, and existing information, where possible.
5.6.2 Impact Severity
The following factors are taken into consideration when evaluating impact severity:
• Likelihood or Probability of Occurrence: How likely the event is to occur during the Project
lifecycle.
• Magnitude and Duration: The magnitude of the induced change such as size of area damaged,
proportion of a species that is affected or a resource that is lost. The magnitude of the impact is
the scale of change which the impact may cause compared to the baseline and how this change
relates to accepted thresholds and standards, as presented in Table 5-1.
• Extent: The geographical area that could be affected by the impact.
• Reversibility: Whether the impact will or will not be reduced and disappear over time once the
Project ceases.
Evaluation of impact severity also considers the following factors:
• Regulations and Guidelines: The degree of compliance with regulations and standards (e.g.
environmental limit values). Relationship and alignment with national policies.
• Outcomes of public consultation: Carried out as part of the study.
5-9
Table 5-1 Magnitude Criteria
Impact Severity Definition
No Change Where the Project would not cause any changes to the receiving environment, or
the changes are unlikely to be noticeable.
Slight/Minor Where the Project would cause very little change to the receiving environment. It
is typically reversible, temporary (<1 year), and limited to the site only
(immediate zone). The probability of occurrence is less than 20%.
Low Where the Project would cause noticeable deterioration of the existing
environment. It is typically reversible, short-term (1-5 years), and limited to the
local area (Middle zone). Likelihood is 20-40%.
Medium Where the Project would cause moderate deterioration of the existing
environment. It is typically recoverable (with a degree of intervention). Medium-
term (5-10 years) and expected to affect the Furthest zone. Likelihood is 40-60%.
High Where the Project would cause significant and long-term deterioration of the
existing environment, expected to last on the long-term (10-20 years) or the
Project lifetime. It affects an area that is nationally important/ or has macro-
economic consequences. Its probability of occurrence is 60-80%.
Very High Where the Project would cause irreversible and permanent damage to the existing
environment, typically enduring substantially beyond the Project lifetime, or
permanently. It affects globally important resources. Its likelihood is 80-100%
(i.e. the impact will occur).
5.7 Mitigation and Management Measures
Based on the impact assessment undertaken a set of mitigation and management measures are
identified for each impact which aims to address it. Mitigation and management measures include the
following:
• Additional Requirements: those are generally regulatory requirements which have been identified
and which must be considered at a later stage.
• Additional Studies: for certain environmental/social receptors additional studies must be
undertaken at a later stage. Such studies and their scope, timing, etc. have been highlighted
where relevant.
• Mitigation Measures: a vital step in the ESIA process is the identification of measures that can be
taken to ensure that impacts are mitigated or reduced to acceptable levels. The ESIA will firstly
consider the significance of any impacts caused by the Project and then assign mitigation options
through applying the following hierarchy:
− Avoiding or ‘designing out’ impacts wherever possible.

− Considering alternatives or modifications to the design to reduce the impacts wherever
possible.
− Applying measures to minimize and manage impacts on the receptor.
− As a last resort, identifying fair compensation, remediation and offsetting measures to address
any potentially significant residual effects.
5-10
• Some negative impacts can be easily mitigated, whilst others cannot or are too difficult and costly
to mitigate. The various potential impacts are described in this ESIA, along with the provision of
‘feasible mitigation measures’ that can be implemented.
• Recommendations: for positive impacts, it is not possible to identify mitigation measures, but
rather recommendations have been identified which aim to enhance the positive impact.
If there are mitigation measures, it is then necessary to assess the ‘residual significance’ after
mitigation has been taken account. A re-assessment of Project impacts is then made, considering the
effect of the proposed mitigation measures in order to determine the significance of the residual
effects. Residual effects are discussed for each environmental and social theme in the ESIA sections.
5.7.1 Determining Impact Significance
Impacts are defined as the changes in baseline conditions due to the Project construction and/or
operation. Impacts can be Direct (i.e. resulting from the Project), Indirect (i.e. resulting from activities
caused by the Project), Secondary (i.e. impact occurrence causing a subsequent interaction within the
environment) and Cumulative (i.e. impacts caused by the combination and/or interaction of Project-
related activities with those from other activities including third-party projects and plans.
The significance of each impact is determined by associating the impact severity with the sensitivity of
the receptor in the matrix, following implementation of mitigation and management measures, as
provided in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Matrix for Determining Impact Significance
129B
Low
130B Low-Medium
13B Medium
132B Medium-High
13B High
134B
No Change
136B Negligible
137B Negligible
138B Negligible
139B Negligible
140B Negligible
14B
Impact Severity
Slight
142B Negligible
143B Negligible
14B Negligible
145B Minor
146B Minor
147B
Low
148B Negligible
149B Negligible
150B Minor
15B Minor
152B Moderate
153B
Medium
154B Negligible
15B Minor
156B Moderate
157B Moderate
158B Major
159B
High
160B Minor
16B Moderate
162B Moderate
163B Major
164B Major
165B
135B
Very High
16B Moderate
167B Moderate
168B Moderate
169B Major
170B Critical
17B
The definitions of impacts and their severity are shown in Table 5-3.
5-11
Table 5-3 Definition of Impacts and Significance
Significance
172B Definition
173B
An Impact that is considered to represent an improvement on the baseline or

Positive Impact
175B
introduces a new desirable factor.

174B
No or imperceptible impact / Magnitude of change is comparable to natural

Negligible Impact
17B
variation (without the Project).

176B
Barely perceptible deterioration of the existing environment; impact is well within

Minor Impact
179B
applicable standards, and/or receptor sensitivity is low.

178B
Impact is within applicable standards and limits and leads to noticeable

18B
deterioration of the existing environment; normal functioning is altered but the

Moderate Impact baseline condition prevails, although in a modified state; should be mitigated to
180B
demonstrate that the impact has been reduced to a level that is As Low As
Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
Impact exceeds accepted limits and standards, or receptor sensitivity/value is
183B
Major Impact
182B high. Causes significant or complete modification of the baseline situation; must be
mitigated to eliminate any high adverse residual impacts.
Intolerable impact; not amenable to mitigation; alternatives or compensation
Critical Impact
185B
measures must be identified.

184B
5.8 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts
For each of the impacts assessed, the ESIA investigates the cumulative impacts which could result
from incremental impacts from other known existing and/or planned developments in the area and
based on currently available information on such existing/planned developments. Assessment of
cumulative impacts is presented in Section 20 Cumulative Impact Assessment.
5.9 Development of an ESMP Framework
Based on the results of the impact assessment, a framework ESMP for the development of mitigation
measures and development of a monitoring plan was prepared as a separate, stand-alone document.
The ESMP will be a key document and will list the environmental/social requirements and detail the
procedures necessary for managing the significant environmental/social issues connected to proposed
Project activities.
The ESMP will be developed specifically to provide flexibility in the nature and exact location of
operations, while ensuring all potential impacts are identified and properly mitigated and monitored
throughout the later stages of the Project. The framework ESMP will be further developed by the
Developer in collaboration with the selected OEM/EPC Contractor and their operational partner,
(Name removed).
5-12
5.10 Gaps in Contemporary Knowledge
Gaps in contemporary knowledge are summarized below:
• Data regarding the plans for the collection, storage and disposal of solid waste and hazardous
waste, generated volumes and the disposal facilities will be developed in future by the selected
OEM/EPC Contractor.
• The Project will reduce GHG emissions since it will be displacing a largely fossil fuel-based
electricity generating system and save water in comparison to oil-burning power plants which
utilize water for cooling. Calculations for metric tons of CO2 displaced and millions of m3 in water
savings annually will be undertaken in future by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor.
• Additional habitat surveys were undertaken in Summer 2019 with the aim of updating the
mapping of boundaries between habitat types and the locations of existing features (such as
tracks and borrow pits) to refine the habitat loss calculations. It is noted that the reporting
received as an outcome of the additional surveys contained less detailed mapping than requested
by Ramboll. Therefore, the habitat loss calculation could not be completed in the expected way by
Ramboll. It may be that in the next phase, post ESIA submission, that more detailed mapping is
required to be developed; however, at this stage, the assessment has been based on the
information supplied, and the findings used to inform mitigation.
• Additional consultation was undertaken by the Developer in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun, Machta

Hammoud, Mqaible, Rweimeh Village and Machta Hassan. It is noted that the information received
as an outcome of the additional consultation did not include survey of all landowners or noise,
shadow flicker and visual receptors of the Project, or shepherds (identified by the Developer in
July 2019 as Palestinian and Syrian refugees) using grazing areas within or near the Project
boundaries, as requested by Ramboll. It may be that in the next phase, post ESIA submission,
that additional consultation is required; however, at this stage, the assessment has been based on
the information supplied, and the findings used to inform mitigation.
• Additional socioeconomic data was provided by Statistics Lebanon for villages within the DAOI and
villages along the transport corridor in May 2019. This data was used to replace and/or
supplement the data previously presented (refer to Section 15 Socioeconomic Conditions),
and the findings used to inform mitigation.
• The presence of Palestinian and Syrian refugees and members of the Dom People (gypsies) in
Fnaidek, and a few Syrian refugees in Rweimeh Village, was identified by the Developer in July
2019. The Developer did not specifically identify these vulnerable stakeholders and/or consult or
engage with them separately regarding the Project; however, it is noted that all Rweimeh Village
and Fnaidek community members were invited to the Initial and Final Disclosure Meetings (refer to
Section 6 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement). It may be that in the next phase, post
ESIA submission, that additional consultation is required; however, at this stage, the assessment
has been based on the information supplied, and the findings used to inform mitigation.
Again, it is asserted that the information provided herein is adequate for meeting the
environmental and social performance requirements of international lenders, and have satisfied
public disclosure and consultation requirements, focused the impact assessment and informed
management measures and mitigation. The Developer has committed to undertake the additional
works to close out the acknowledged data gaps ahead of construction to ensure the following:
5-13
− That all stakeholders in the DAOI have been identified and engaged with (particularly
vulnerable groups). The Developer will take special effort to identify and analyze all vulnerable
groups or individuals (i.e. women, elderly people, resource-based or women-headed
households, gypsies, shepherds, etc.) that might be adversely or disproportionately impacted
by the Project activities. Vulnerable groups will be engaged either directly by the Developer or
through NGOs working in the Akkar Region. Information on project activities will be disclosed
to Syrian refugees and gypsies in the project area of influence (both direct and indirect),
through local municipalities/NGOs. The ESMPs to be developed by others as outlined earlier in
this section will be prepared to include the appropriate mitigation as necessary. Leaflets with
Project information will be prepared by the Developer. The SEP references that specific
measures will be developed to address these community members.
− Identification of key flora species during the pre-construction survey to provide detailed
habitat mapping; if it is not possible to avoid examples or areas of the species listed in the
baseline, every effort shall be made to reduce the impact and further offsetting would be
required. Offsetting plans will form part of the Biodiversity Management Plan to be developed
by others, to include possible reforestation and management prescriptions and evidence that
no net loss of biodiversity can be achieved.
− Further ornithology data collection is essential during the migratory period of mid-August 2019
to mid-November 2020 to provide a minimum baseline and inform the pre-construction
monitoring.
− Re-calculation of the cumulative collision risk mortality when suitable data has been collected
and analyzed from the Project and the planned Hawa Akkar wind farm. It is essential that
survey data from the Project and Hawa Akkar are urgently analyzed for suitability for inclusion
in this assessment and where data gaps are identified then further data should also be
urgently collected.
5-14
6. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT
This section discusses in detail the stakeholder consultation and engagement undertaken as part of
the ESIA process for the Project and provides an overview of the findings. In addition, this section
refers to the separate and stand-alone Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) which summarizes the
previous and ongoing activities that are to take place as part of the Project development.
6.1 Introduction
Stakeholder consultation and engagement is an integral part of ESIA good practice and is a statutory
requirement of the national EIA legal framework in Lebanon, within the IFC Performance Standards
and EIB Environmental and Social Standards. The Developer is committed to a technically and
culturally-appropriate approach to consultation and engagement with all stakeholders affected either
directly or indirectly by the Project.
A stakeholder is defined as any individual or group who is potentially affected by the proposed Project
or can themselves affect the proposed Project directly or indirectly. Stakeholder consultation is an
inclusive process for sharing information that enables stakeholders to understand the risks, impacts,
and opportunities of a development or Project, allowing them to express their views and articulate
their perceptions towards it.
The consultation and engagement program for the Project is based on informed consultation and
participation in line with national, IFC and EIB requirements with affected people and is designed to be
both fair and inclusive. Consultation activities have been an ongoing process since March 2017.
6.2 Objectives
The objective of stakeholder consultation and engagement is to ensure that a participatory approach
takes place, which in turn, documents concerns of all stakeholder groups and makes sure that such
concerns are considered, responded to, and incorporated into the decision-making process of the
development. Stakeholder consultation needs to be a two-way communication process that imparts
information to stakeholders, but also obtains additional and on-the-ground information from them.
Stakeholder consultation and engagement must take place at the inception phase of the ESIA process
and be implemented all through the study period.
The specific objectives of this section are to:
• Summarize national and international legal & policy requirements for stakeholder engagement.
• Describe and identify the stakeholders affected and/or with an interest in the Project.
• Summarize stakeholder engagement and consultation conducted to date. In addition, describe
how the views and issues raised have informed and influenced the development of the Project.
• Outline the future approach to stakeholder engagement.
6-1
6.3 Requirements and Policy Requirements for Stakeholder Engagement
6.3.1 Lebanon Legal and Policy Standards
Based on the Application Decree No. 8633/2012 related to the “Fundamentals for Environmental
Impact Assessment”, if an EIA is required, the project proponent should ensure local participation at
several stages of the EIA process. At the scoping stage, Article 7 of the decree stipulates the following
requirement concerning public participation:
• The Ministry of Environment will require that the Project owner informs all concerned stakeholders
including ministries, municipalities and NGOs of the preparation of an EIA Report.
• Once advised, the municipality (or the governor or commissioner in case there is no
municipalities) where the Project will be located, should immediately advertise the Project to
inform the public. The advertisement should be placed on a public bulletin board and at the
location of the Project for a period of 15 days requesting comments from the public. The Ministry
of Environment will also give the public a chance to provide feedback to the Ministry or the official
department concerned within one month from the date of the advertisement publication.
• The Project owner shall submit to the MOE report pertaining to the EIA scoping of the project
including attachments of the remarks communicated to him, all incoming comments, the original
minutes of public dialogue meetings or the minutes of bilateral meetings with the parties involved.
For the EIA report, Article 12 of the decree related to “Information Publication” confirms the right of
the public and the parties involved in the project to have access to the final EIA Report. Moreover, Law
28 of 2017 on the Right to Access to Information has confirmed the right of any person, to access to
information and documents available within the administration.
Based on the above, the national regulations require an initiation of the consultation process
supporting public participation at the outset of the EIA/ESIA process and allow continuous access to
information related to the Project.
6.3.2 Requirements in IFC Performance Standards on Environmental & Social

Sustainability (2012)
The IFC PSs form part of their Sustainability Framework, where IFC PS 1 (IFC, 2012) sets out the
following recommendations for stakeholder engagement:
• Stakeholder Engagement as an on-going process that may involve: stakeholder analysis &
planning, disclosure and dissemination of information, consultation & participation, grievance
mechanism, and on-going reporting to local communities directly affected by the project (the
Affected Communities).
• A SEP must be developed and implemented that is scaled to the Project risks and impacts and
development stage, and to be tailored to the characteristics and interests of the Affected
Communities.
• Affected Communities will be provided with access to relevant information on: 1) the purpose, nature
and scale of the project; 2) the duration of proposed Project activities; 3) any risks to and potential
impacts on such communities and relevant mitigation measures; 4) the envisaged stakeholder
engagement process; and 5) the grievance mechanism.
• When Affected Communities are subject to identified risks and adverse impacts from a Project, a
process of consultation will be undertaken in a manner that provides the Affected Communities with
6-2
opportunities to express their views on Project risks, impacts and mitigation measures, and allows
the client to consider and respond to them.
• The extent and degree of engagement should be commensurate with the Project’s risks and adverse
impacts and concerns raised by Affected Communities.
• The consultation process will be tailored to language preferences of Affected Communities, their
decision-making process, and the needs of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups.
• For projects with potentially significant adverse impacts, the client will conduct an informed
consultation and participation.
• A grievance mechanism will be established to receive and facilitate resolution of Affected
Communities’ concerns and grievances about the client’s environmental and social performance.
6.3.3 Requirements in EIB Environmental and Social Standards (2009)
The ESSs of the EIB, as well as the operational practices of the EIB, recognizing the importance of
open and transparent engagement with Project stakeholders as an essential element of good
international practice:
• Establish a systematic approach to stakeholder engagement that will help Borrowers identify
stakeholders and build and maintain a constructive relationship with them, in particular project-
affected parties.
• Assess the level of stakeholder interest and support for the project and to enable stakeholders’
views to be considered in Project design and environmental and social performance.
• Promote and provide means for effective and inclusive engagement with Project-affected parties
throughout the Project life cycle on issues that could potentially affect them.
• Ensure that appropriate Project information on environmental and social risks and impacts is
disclosed to stakeholders in a timely, understandable, accessible and appropriate manner and
format.
• Provide project-affected parties with accessible and inclusive means to raise issues and grievances
and allow Borrowers to respond to and manage such grievances.
6.4 Stakeholder Engagement Plan
The SEP has been included in the ESIA package. The SEP includes stakeholder identification and
analysis, the roles and responsibilities for the External Relations Manager, hired in 2018, and the first
of three Community Relations Officers (CRO) to be hired in 2019, and describes the stakeholder
engagement and information disclosure activities that have been conducted to date and those that are
planned throughout the life of the Project. As stated in the description of the Project Communication
Plan included in the SEP, the Community Relations team will meet monthly with each Affected
Community throughout the Construction Phase, in accordance with a schedule mutually agreed upon
among the parties (day and time), the Project CRO assigned to each village will deliver and install the
Monthly Project Poster in the Bulletin Box in each village and will deliver a few copies of the Monthly
Project Poster to the village mayor and conduct a meeting with the village mayor, key-people and
anyone from the community who would like to participate
The Community Grievance Mechanism is also included in the SEP. Suggestion boxes will be installed at
the Community Relations Office in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and in each of the Affected Communities, so
6-3
all Affected Communities will have access to the Community Grievance Mechanism, and Grievance
forms will be made available at each location to allow for the submission of confidential grievances.
The SEP also mentions that a copy of the Non-Technical Summary of the ESIA (in both Arabic and
English) will be made available at the Community Relations Office in Kfartoun and in each municipal
office within the DAOI.
6.5 Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
The Project has been identifying potential stakeholders since March 2017. Project stakeholders and
key informants were identified by the Developer and team based on the following: 1) categories of
population usually affected by similar projects; 2) specific knowledge of the governance and social
structure in the Project area; and 3) preliminary discussions with the MOE and their recommendations.
The Project has a wide range of stakeholders ranging from national and regional government
institutions, in addition to communities within the area of influence of the Project. As such
stakeholders have been identified at all geographic levels, including national, regional and local levels.
The three principal categories of stakeholders are as follows:
• National governmental institutions, including the MOE, MOEW, MOPWT, MOIM and other bodies
involved in the permitting and ESIA process; and governmental authorities at the regional level,
including the Governorate level (Governors) and District level (Kaemmakam).
• Affected Communities, defined as the local community as well as other people directly affected by
the Project and/or those who have been identified as most vulnerable to change and who need to
be engaged in identifying impacts and their significance, as well as in decision-making on
mitigation and management measures.
Specifically, within the affected communities, vulnerable groups must be identified. Vulnerable
groups include those expected to be disproportionally affected by the Project, and therefore
require special consideration throughout the consultation process. Vulnerable groups are project
specific and depend on a range of issues which must be understood such as project location,
socio-economic and demographic context, as well as the nature of the development and type of
impacts anticipated. The vulnerable groups within this context were identified and included the
following:
- Women: due to cultural norms in Lebanon (and specifically within the context and setting of the
Project area), the participation of women in the decision-making process is limited which could
result in overlooking any specific concerns they might have.
- Elderly: due to civil status and potential decline, this could limit their participation in the
decision-making process which could result in overlooking any specific concerns they might
have.
- Informal settlements and Syrian and Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in general, and in Akkar in
particular: people that have fled from their home to seek safety in Lebanon, many of whom are
excluded from key facets of social, political and economic life. As they face restrictions on legal
status and human rights, this could limit their participation in the decision-making process
which could result in overlooking any specific concerns they might have.
6-4
• Other Interested Parties, defined as people and organizations that are interested in the Project
and/or could affect the Project in some way. Those generally include universities and non-
governmental organizations as follows:
− Universities and research centers, such as the Lebanese Agriculture Research Center (LARI),
the Lebanese University and the University of Balamand.
− A national NGO (MADA) is also active in the region, including the Project area. Mada is a non-
partisan, non-sectarian Lebanese NGO which aims to reinforce the relationship between local
communities and their natural environment for the satisfaction of their substantial needs.
A Stakeholder Analysis Matrix is presented in Appendix G. Specific measures to address each of the
above stakeholder categories are described in the SEP.
Additional consultation was undertaken by the Developer in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun, Machta

Hammoud, Mqaible, Rweimeh Village and Machta Hassan in May 2019. It is noted that the information
received as an outcome of the additional consultation did not include survey of all landowners or
noise, shadow flicker and visual receptors of the Project, or shepherds (identified by the Developer in
July 2019 as Palestinian and Syrian refugees) using grazing areas within or near the Project
boundaries, as requested by Ramboll. In addition, it is noted that the presence of Palestinian and
Syrian refugees and members of the Dom People (gypsies) in Fnaidek, and a few Syrian refugees in
Rweimeh Village, was identified by the Developer in July 2019. The Developer did not specifically
identify these vulnerable stakeholders and/or consult or engage with them separately regarding the
Project; however, it is noted that all Rweimeh Village and Fnaidek community members were invited
to the Initial and Final Disclosure Meetings (refer to Section 6 Stakeholder Consultation and
Engagement).
Ahead of construction, the Developer will take special effort to identify and engage all stakeholders in
the DAOI, including vulnerable groups or individuals (i.e. women, elderly people, resource-based or
women-headed households, gypsies, shepherds, etc.) that might be adversely or disproportionately
impacted by the Project activities. Vulnerable groups will be engaged either directly by the Developer
or through NGOs working in the Akkar Region. Information on project activities will be disclosed to
Syrian refugees and gypsies in the project area of influence (both direct and indirect), through local
municipalities/NGOs. The ESMPs to be developed by others as outlined earlier (refer to Section 5
ESIA Approach and Methodology) will be prepared to include the appropriate mitigation as
necessary. Leaflets with Project information will be prepared by the Developer. The SEP references
that specific measures will be developed to address these community members.
It is acknowledged that this additional stakeholder identification, consultation and engagement is

required; however, at this stage, the assessment has been based on the information supplied, and the
findings used to inform mitigation. This approach largely satisfies lender requirements, including public
disclosure and consultation requirements, as it is reported that Palestinian and Syrian refugees have
largely assimilated within the communities (i.e. do not live in informal settlements or tents), and the
scope of the engagement undertaken was of a sufficient nature and extent to have both focused the
impact assessment and inform management measures and mitigation. As consultation and
engagement is part of an ongoing process to be implemented over the life of the Project as outlined in
the SEP, the Developer is committed to implementing relevant and appropriate measures to address
the potential needs of these community members.
6-5
6.5.1 Affected Communities
The affected communities have been identified based on: 1) detailed understanding of the Project site
location, its nature, administrative setup and the nearby surrounding receptors; and 2) the nature of
the anticipated impacts from the Project throughout its various phases. Based on the above, the
affected communities include the local communities of the Project area (including women and the
elderly) and informal settlements. As discussed earlier, the Project site is located within Akkar
Governorate and specifically within Akkar District. The communities that are likely to be affected by
the Project development logically include those located within the vicinity of the Project site, and
which are therefore anticipated to be impacted the most from the Project’s activities (during
construction, operation and decommissioning). This in turn was determined based on the detailed
understanding of the nature and extent of the Project’s impacts. The main anticipated impacts which
could affect the nearby communities (as discussed in further detail in each of the relevant sections)
are described in the following sections.
6.5.1.1 Direct Area of Influence (DAOI)
The villages in the DAOI were so designated to encompass anticipated impacts from the following:
1. Land lease/acquisition for location of WTGs and components for the Project and the planned
Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar wind farms.
2. Impacts to socioeconomic conditions (including land use access for shepherds and hunters) from
the Project (refer to Section 15 Socioeconomic Conditions).
3. Impacts to community health, safety and security impacts (refer Section 16 Community Health,
Safety and Security) from the Project within a 3km radius of the Project comprising individual
receptors of:
− Noise impacts generated by the operating turbines.

− Shadow flicker generated from the operating turbines.
− Visual impacts from the presence of turbines. In case a receptor has an unrestricted view and
is located less than 3km from the wind farm, visual impacts could be significant; therefore,
views from less than 3km were considered a direct impact. Impacts on receptors in a distance
greater than 3km from the wind farm were also considered but were classified as indirect
impacts (refer to Section 6.5.1.2).
− Localized traffic impacts for movement of construction materials during the construction phase
(limited to Rweimeh Village).
4. Villages within sightline of the turbines:
- Sahle.
- Qenia.
- Quobaiyat.
- Aandqet.
- Kfartoun.
- Rweimeh Village.
5. Sites/monuments of national importance located within the 15km and potentially affected by the
Project’s visual impact:
6-6
- Sahle (Hill).
- Al-Saifa Fortress Akkar el-Atiqa'a.
- Qammouaah Plain.
Note: villages within the 15km radius within sightline of the turbines were scoped out based on low
visibility or because they were of greater distance than those settlements evaluated in detail (refer to
Section 2 Project Description).
6.5.1.2 Indirect Area of Influence (IAOI)
There are 44 villages in the IAOI, as described in Section 2.7:
• Villages along the transport corridor (it is noted that some of these villages also have visual
impacts, but are outside the 3km radius assessed):
- Tripoli. - Rmoul. - Qachlaq.
- Beddaoui. - Qaabrine. - Aamaret El-Baykat.
- Deir Amar. - Sammouniyé. - Noura Et-Tahta.
- Borj El-Yahoudiyé. - Tall Aabbas El-Gharbi. - Kouachra.
- Nabi Youcheaa. - Hissa. - Dibbabiye.
- Minie. - Tall Aabbas Ech-Charqi. - Fraidis.
- Zouq Bhannine. - Tall Hmaire. - Qsair Akkar.
- Al Mhamra. - Chir Hmairine. - Menjez.
- Bebnine. - Hokr Jouret Srar. - Rmah.
- Quobber Chamra - Iitige. - Chikhlar
- Mqaiteaa - Barcha. - Aaouaainat Aakkar.
- Borj El-Yahoudiyé - Kharmoubet Akkar. - Machta Hassa
- Kfar Melki Aakkar. - Janine
In addition, informal settlements located within 1km of the existing road (refer to Table 15-38 and
series of maps in Appendix F).
Further, the visual impacts from key landscape units were considered within the IAOI (refer to
Section 17 Landscape) as follows:
• Agricultural Areas. • Shrublands.

• Dense Abies Forests. • Sparse Coniferous.
• Dense Pinus Forests. • Sparse Leafy Forests.
• Dense Quercus Forests. • Swamps.
• Mixed Forests. • Urban Artificial.
• Other Dense Leafy Forests. • Urban Expansion.
• Rocky Land.
6-7
6.6 Public Participation Activities Undertaken to Date
The following sections describe the public participation activities undertaken to date. It is recognized
that public participation is an on-going and continuous process, undertaken throughout all Project
phases, inclusive of construction, operation and decommissioning.
6.6.1 2017 Activities
6.6.1.1 Engagement with Family Leadership in Affected Communities
The Project developer began early engagement with family leadership of the Affected Communities in
advance of the ESIA activities, as shown in Table 6-1. It is noted that, as the Project and planned
Lebanon Wind Power wind farms are adjacent, engagement was undertaken to support the planned
development of both wind farms.
Table 6-1 Face-To-Face Meetings with Family Leadership in Affected Communities
Village
Name Date
Represented
Abbas Jaafar, Kamel Jaafar, Mohamad Jaafar and Abdo Jaafar Karm Chbat 2-Mar-17
Hussein Jaafar, Youssef Jaafar Rweimeh Village 8-Mar-17
Hussein Ahmad Salah, Mohamad Ali Salah and Hussein Ali Salah Kfartoun 27-Mar-17
Mohamad Khaled Abed Al Rahman and Ahmad Abed Al Rahman Kfartoun 4-Apr-17
Mohamad Hussein and Khaled Mohamad Hussein Kfartoun 18-Apr-17
Ahmad Ali Youssef Salah, Hasan Hasan Salah and Adnan Ali Salah Kfartoun 9-May-17
Moustafa Hada Kfartoun 9-May-17
Richdi Khaled Al Adraa, Hani Khaled Al Adraa and Mohamad
Kfartoun 24-May-17
Khaled Al Adraa
Ahamad Ahmad Al Adraa and Hani Al Adraa Kfartoun 6-Jun-17
Hani Al Adraa Kfartoun 12-Jul-17
Ahmad Ali Daher Kfartoun 12-Jul-17
Ahmad Abou Amcha, Hasan Khoder Abou Amcha and Mouhamad
Kfartoun 14-Aug-17
Hasan Abou Amcha
Khaled Hasan Khoder Kfartoun 1-Sep-17
Ali Jaafar, Toaan Jaafar and Noura Jaafar Karm Chbat 11-Sep-17
Khoder Hussein Melhem, Urki Hussein Melhem and Jamil Hussein
Kfartoun 7-Oct-17
Melhem
Hassan Jaafar, Ahmad Jaafar and Medhit Jaafar Rweimeh Village 9-Oct-17
Riyad Jaafar, Imad Jaafar and Mohamad Jaafar, Ali Jaafar and Ajaj
Rweimeh Village 16-Nov-17
Jaafar and Rached Jaafar
Maher Chawki Al Adraa, Ahmad Hasan Al Adraa and Ahmad
Kfartoun 13-Mar-18
Moustafa Al Adraa
6-8
6.6.2.1 Meetings with Key Informants
Meetings were organized with key informants to discuss their opinions regarding the Project and to
describe the household survey campaign to be implemented, as shown in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Meetings with Key Informants
Name Role Date Meeting Type
Mr. Ahmad Baarini Mayor of Fnaidek 20-7-2018 Face-To-Face

Phone Call
Mr. Omar Zahraman Electrical Engineer at EDL 20-7-2018 Face-To-Face
Mr. Mohamad Salaheldin Municipal Official Fnaidek 20-7-2018 Face-To-Face
Mr. Samira Tannous Mayor Secretary Quobaiyat 25-7-2018 Face-To-Face

Phone Call
Mr. Abdo Abdo Mayor Quobaiyat 25-7-2018 Face-To-Face

Phone Call
Mr. Ahmad Omar Association for Development of Akkar 6-8-2018 Face–To-Face
Mr. Farah Sankary Akkar Network for Development 6-8-2018 Face–To-Face
Dr. Antoine Daher Environmental Council 11-8-2018 Phone Call

20-10-2018 Face-To-Face
Mr. Abdo Jaafar Focal Point of Rweimeh Village 28-9-2018 Phone Call
District level data regarding demographics, sources of income and cultural aspects was obtained
during the meetings. The findings from the Key Informant Meetings are provided in Section 15
Socioeconomic Conditions.
6.6.2.2 Initial Public Disclosure Meeting
The Initial Public Disclosure Meeting took place on 15 May 2018. Announcements related to the Project
were prepared and filed at the municipalities of the villages which own land in the Project area,
namely Quobaiyat, Fnaidek and Rweimeh Village (includes the Karm Chbat Cadastral Area) and were
posted on the municipal building entrance doors or information boards.
Rweimeh Village has no municipality; therefore, the meeting announcement was placed at Jouar El
Hachich, a nearby village as per the recommendation of a representative of the local people, as shown
in Figure 6-1. A copy of the announcement, formally registered invitation letters to the MOE, MOIM
and MOEW, and list of attendants are also provided in Appendix H.
6-9
Figure 6-1 Placement of Public Announcements
a - Quobaiyat b - Fnaidek c – Rweimeh Village/Jouar El

Hachich
Project-related discussions were undertaken with the Head of the Municipality of Fnaidek and the
other meeting attendants. A seminar presentation was given by SES and included a description of the
proposed project, the ESIA objective and scope and a summary of the major anticipated impacts and
associated mitigation measures, also presented in Appendix H. The Figure 6-2a – Figure 6-2j
series shows photographs taken during the meeting.
Overall, a positive atmosphere prevailed and was encouraged by communicating:
1. The inclusion of environmental and social management measures during all Project phases.
2. The commitment of the Project Proponent to implement the latter measures.
The seminar was followed by a discussion whereby SES responded to the concerns raised by meeting
attendants and committed to addressing them in the ESIA study. The discussions which took place
during and after the meeting are summarized in Table 6-3.
Overall, a positive atmosphere prevailed and was encouraged by communicating:
1. The inclusion of environmental and social management measures during all Project phases.
2. The commitment of the Project Proponent to implement the latter measures.
The seminar was followed by a discussion whereby SES responded to the concerns raised by meeting
attendants and committed to addressing them in the ESIA study. The discussions which took place
during and after the meeting are summarized in Table 6-3.
6-10
Figure 6-2 Photographs of the Initial Public Disclosure Meeting
a b
c d
e f
6-11
g h
i j
k l
6-12
Table 6-3 Summary of Discussions During/Following the Public Consultation Meeting
Remark / Concern Response
Mr. Majid Hachem, MOIM representative, was concerned about the status of the ownership of the Mr. Ahmad Abdo Albaarini, Head of Municipality of Fnaidek, replied that these are municipal properties. He explained that Fnaidek
parcels located at the top of the mountain i.e. whether they are public / municipal or private municipality on the west side of the mountain ridge and Al Jaafar families from the east side have agreed on the border between
properties. their respective properties. It is the line separating the water catchments on the eastern and western slopes of the ridge. Mr. Jules
Assi noted that the lands for the Project are not surveyed and have no title deeds. He added with the head of municipality of
He also advised that an official survey be implemented.
Fnaidek that they are going to proceed with‫ علم وخبر‬with the help of the local head of municipalities and mayors (‫ )مخاتير‬as well as a
surveyor and the police, then the documents would be filed for certifying at the governorate of Akkar.
Mr. Majid Hachem noted that SES will be looking at the impact of the wind farm on the existing Dr. Abi Esber replied that there are 24 potential locations for the turbines and the latter will be compared to select the ones which
facilities without considering the depreciated value of surrounding land. will have the least adverse impact on the surroundings all while considering electricity production potential in the assessment; once
selected the land(s) which will be leased for the turbines span up to 3,500m2 around the turbine which increase the compensation
potential for land owners. She finally added that the fact that most of the lands are publicly owned decreases the significance of the
depreciation impact and make this area particularly attractive for the proposed development.
Mr. Jeff Gerges recommended that SES take into consideration the obligations of Lebanon under the Dr. Abi Esber ascertained that all relevant signed / ratified conventions will be considered. With respect to bird casualties, Dr. Abi-
international conventions (CBD and AEWA). He also added that the significance of the impact in Esber explained that Dr. Jaradi, who is the Project’s avifauna expert, is training the ESIA project team on the identification of birds
terms of bird casualties needs to be evaluated in comparison to international guidelines which are in the study area, which is instrumental for the implementation of monitoring activities during operation; the latter would identify
available in this respect. He also enquired about the radar’s mechanism and whether it can any important bird casualties evidently considering the relevant international guidelines. Mr. Jules Assi replied that the radar will
automatically shut down the relevant turbine detect the birds’ presence and flyways and based on the latter info, it will be determined when to shut off the turbines. Fast
internet communication will be established between radar, the management team and the operation team (including
representatives of the international turbine supplier) so that the command to shut off the turbine is quickly executed. A decision
was made by the Lebanese Government to favor the shut-down of the turbines during migration periods. The decision stipulates
that the Lebanese government will cover the financial losses from the shut off of turbines during migration periods in order to
protect important migrating birds. Mr. Ahmad Abdo Al Baarini added that birds in the area commonly fly on the sides of the
mountains, not on the top which is very high, and this should minimize any adverse impacts to birds.
Mr. Majid Hachem enquired about the number of turbines and the total production capacity. Dr. Abi Esber replied that based on the final layout of favorable locations, the number and size of turbines will be decided; only
large turbines will be used (3.8MW-5MW) to minimize the environmental footprint.
Mr. Majid Hachem asked whether it is possible to disclose free of charge the meteorological data Dr. Abi Esber replied that the data are the property of the Project proponent and that access to data needs to be negotiated with
collected by the met masts. them. Mr. Jules Assi added that not all types of meteorological data are collected, only those relevant for turbine operation, i.e.
wind speed and direction, pressure temperature and humidity. Other essential meteorological data like rainfall and cloud cover are
not being collected.
Mr. Jeff Gerges asked for more information regarding the de-icing mechanism of turbines. Mr. Jules Assi mentioned that turbines which are located in snowy areas will be equipped with a de-icing mechanism which is more
expensive but can ensure sound operation during snowy periods. Mr. Bachir El Marj said that the technology resembles that used in
airplanes.
Ms. Nathalie Karam stressed that the ESIA study under preparation needs to consider the following: Dr. Abi Esber replied that the preliminary studies done by Dr. Jaradi, the Project bird expert, has shown that there are no bats. She
added that a complete site survey will be conducted where all kinds of fauna and flora will be recorded; the survey will be done
• SEA for the RE sector.
when the layout of proposed sites is finalized. Mr. Jules Assi assured that any defect or broken items will be the responsibility of the
• The letter sent from MOE to MOEW concerning the scope of the ESIA of the three wind farms.
operating company.
• An assessment of bats in addition to birds.
• An assessment of floral species in the area indicating those with high ecological value.
• The decommissioning phase.
• The extended producer responsibility concept to be included in contracts with turbine suppliers
in case of broken parts.
Mr. Jules Assi asked Ms. Nathalie Karam whether the Ministry would mind if the three ESIA Ms. Nathalie Karam ascertained that this is not a problem as long as findings from the cumulative study are reported within the
consultants involved in the ESIA studies of the three proposed wind farms undertake a single three ESIA studies.
cumulative impact study to avoid redundant efforts.
6-13
6.6.2.3 Site Visit by LCEC/Family Leader Meeting
A Site Visit was undertaken on 4 June 2018, to provide LCEC with an overview of the Project site,
potential turbine locations and the substation location, as shown in Figure 6-3. The site visit was
followed by a meeting with the focal point of Rweimeh Village (Abdo Jaafar), General Daher and the
Aandqet Municipality Mayor.
Figure 6-3 Site Meeting with LCEC
6.6.2.4 Iftar for Affected Communities
A public participation dinner was prepared on Ramadan (7 June 2018) for several of the Affected
Communities, including Akroum, Kfartoun and Rweimeh Village, as shown in Figure 6-4. The dinner
was held to provide a better understanding of the Project design execution and the implications on the
surrounding environment. Iftar is one of the religious observances of Ramadan and is often done as a
community, with people gathering to break their fast together.
6.6.2.5 Land Rental/Ownership Impact Meetings with Officials
Discussions were undertaken with officials regarding land rentals and potential ownership impacts
from turbines such as noise, shadow flicker and visual amenity as follows:
• 20 July 2018 - Meeting with Mayor of Fnaidek, Mr. Ahmad Baarini.

• 20 July 2018 - Meeting with Municipal Official from Fnaidek, Mr. Mohamad Aalah El Din.
• 25 July 2018 - Meeting with Mayor Secretary of Quobaiyat, Mr. Samira Tannous.
Discussions included what job opportunities would be created by the Project, along with the general
terms of the rental contract.
6-14
Figure 6-4 Iftar for Affected Communities
6.6.2.6 2-Day Visit by Bank Audi/SLR
A 2-day site visit was undertaken by the Project Proponent with representatives of Bank Audi and their
ESIA Reviewer, SLR, on 2 October 2018. The purpose of this visit was to provide an overview of the
Project area, including the general physical environment, road development, power substation,
transmission lines and operation buildings, and to discuss land ownership. In addition, meetings were
held in Tripoli with the Mayor of Fnaidek, Mr. Ahmad Baarini and with Mr. Abdo Jaafar, focal point of
the Jaafar Family to discuss the potential negative and positive impacts of the wind farms projects.
The site visit was followed by a meal as shown in Figure 6-5.
On the second day (3 October 2018), several meetings were undertaken to discuss the potential
negative and positive impacts of the wind farms projects as shown in Figure 6-6:
• A meeting with the Vice-Mayor of Aandqet, Mr. Marwan Greig.

• A meeting with a local NGO, the Environment Council in Quobaiyat.
• A meeting with General Khaled El Daher and representatives of the families of Kfartoun.
6.6.2.7 2-Day Visit by International Lenders
The purpose of this 2-day visit 8-9 October 2018 was to have an overview of the Project, the physical
environment, road development, land ownership, the substation location, the underground
transmission line and the location of the operation buildings, as shown in Figure 6-7. International
lenders Bank Audi, EIB, Proparco and Finance in Motion attended the site visit. In addition, the lenders
met the mayor of Aandqet, Daher Family (General Khaled El Daher), and with the family of Jaafar,
where representatives from all the communities of the project were invited, as shown in Figure 6-8.
6-15
Figure 6-5 Day 1: 2-Day Visit by Bank Audi/SLR
Figure 6-6 Day 2: 2-Day Visit by Bank Audi/SLR
6-16
Figure 6-7 Site Visit by International Lenders
Figure 6-8 Meeting with General Daher and Representatives of the Families of Kfartoun
6-17
6.6.2.8 Site Visit by Potential OEMs
A site visit was undertaken by the Project Proponent with representatives of three of the four potential
OEMs, Siemens, GE and Nordex, on 12 October 2018, as shown in Figure 6-9. The purpose of this
visit was to provide an overview of the Project area, including the general physical environment, road
development, power substation, transmission lines and operation buildings, and to discuss land
ownership.
Figure 6-9 Site Visit by Potential OEMs
6.6.2.9 2-Day Visit to Lebanon by VESTAS
A site visit was undertaken by the Project Proponent with representatives of Vestas on 24 October
2018. The purpose of this visit was to provide an overview of the Project area, including the general
physical environment, road development, power substation, transmission lines and operation
buildings, and to discuss land ownership. This was followed on the same day with a meeting between
the Vestas Head of Security and Amid Daher to discuss security conditions in the Project area, the
Vestas approach to security, and Vestas’ intent to employ locals. During the second day of the visit,
the Vestas Head of Security met in Beirut with Mr. Abdo Jaafar (focal point of the Jaafar Family) and
Mr. Omar Massoud (the Mayor of Aandqet) to discuss security conditions in the Project area, the
Vestas approach to security, and Vestas’ intent to employ locals.
6.6.2.10 Focus Group Meetings
Two focus group meetings were organized on 2 and 4 November 2018, with a group of hunters who
usually hunt in or in close proximity to the area where the Project turbines will be installed and a
locally active NGO, the Environment Council in Quobaiyat (‫القبيات‬ - ‫)مجلس البيئة‬. After introducing the
Project to both groups, feedback was collected regarding their knowledge of the wind energy
6-18
technology and the proposed Project. Their perceptions regarding the Project and its effects, along
with the management mitigation measures that the Project Proponent will be adopting to eliminate or
reduce impacts were discussed, especially potential impacts to the natural reserve adjacent to the
Project site. Photographs of the Focus Group Meetings are presented in Figure 6-10 (Note: the
hunters have requested anonymity).
Figure 6-10 Photographs of Focus Group Meetings
The hunters in attendance were specifically engaged regarding the use of one of the existing tracks
used by hunters for construction of the underground transmission line between the Project and
Lebanon Wind Power wind farm, shown in blue in Figure 6-11 (Note: the hunters have requested
anonymity).
During the meetings, the hunters were advised they would be prohibited from using this track during
installation of the transmission line. The hunters advised that the track is only one of many used by
hunters, and that hunting only occurs as a hobby --- not for subsistence or to support livelihoods. The
findings from the focus group meetings are provided in Section 15 Socioeconomic Conditions.
6-19
Figure 6-11 Existing Track through Karm Chbat Nature Reserve for Underground Transmission Line
37F39F
6-20
6.6.2.11 Visit to Turkish Wind Farms by Locals and EDL
A site visit to a wind farm in Turkey was undertaken on 21 November 2018, along with
representatives of Lebanon Wind Power, so that land owner representatives, the Mayor of Kfartoun,
Ahmad el Zein, Kanaan Family representatives, Adraa Family representatives, and Daher Family
representatives, could observe the operation of the wind farm and its potential negative and positive
environmental effects, as shown in Figure 6-12.
Figure 6-12 Visit to Turkish Wind Farms
Neighbors of the Turkish wind farm were visited and consulted regarding their opinion about wind
farms. On the same day, a team of seven EDL Heads of Units visited three wind farms in Turkey,
along with representatives of the Sustainable Akkar and Lebanon Wind Power teams, to discuss the
challenges they may face with the operators. The Turkish wind farm operators showed them the WTG
performance monitoring system and SCADA data analysis, as shown in Figure 6-13.
6.6.2.12 November 2018 Hawa Akkar Public Meeting
Invitations to the villages were sent out 2 weeks prior to the public meeting undertaken by Hawa
Akkar on 8 November 2018, in both written and oral form (i.e. with an official registered letter, or
phone or personal communication/visit). The interest was low, as no one from the villages along the
road corridor were noted in the attendees.
6-21
Figure 6-13 Review of WTG Performance Monitoring System and SCADA Data Analysis
6.6.2.13 Final Public Disclosure Meeting
A final public disclosure meeting took place on 1 December 2018 at the Qammouaah Plain in Fnaidek
Village. Similar to the Initial Public Disclosure Meeting, announcements related to the meeting
schedule and location were prepared and filed at the municipalities of the villages which own lands in
the study area (refer to Appendix H) and were posted on the municipal building entrance door or on
information boards. Two newspaper announcements were published twice on the most read
newspapers in Lebanon (An-Nahar and L'Orient Le Jour) in addition to announcements of the social
media and inside the villages of Fnaidek, Rweimeh Village, Quobaiyat, and Jouar El Hachih.
Announcements regarding the meeting were also published in two popular local newspapers, Annahar
and L’Orient Le Jour. The MOE, MOIM and MOEW were invited to the meeting through formally
registered invitation letters.
A seminar presentation was given by SES and included a description of the proposed Project and a
summary of the findings of the ESIA studies, including analysis of impacts and the proposed
Environmental and Social Management Plan, the general findings of the ESIA study being conducted,
and actions that were taken by the developer in order to mitigate any potential negative impact of the
wind farm on the environment. The seminar was followed by a discussion whereby SES and the
project developer replied to the concerns of the meeting attendants and committed to addressing
them during project implementation and operation.
Overall, a positive atmosphere prevailed including lively discussions and exchange of ideas. The
project developer committed to addressing all concerns and invited the attendants from the local
public to apply for job opportunities offered by the project. Table 6-5 summarizes the discussions
which took place during and after the Final Public Disclosure Meeting.
Figure 6-14 shows photographs taken during the meeting.
6-22
Table 6-4 Summary of Discussions During/Following the Final Public Disclosure Meeting
Remark / Concern Response

Mr. Mohammad Al Sayed, electrical engineer, was concerned about the accuracy Mr. Jules Assi, LWP Project Coordinator, advised that work on the wind farms could not be mobilized before November 2017, when LWP, Sustainable
of the deadlines. He said: since 2014 the Lebanese government was talking Akkar and Hawa Akkar signed the PPP agreement and they were allowed to start working. They have a 36-month term for the final delivery of the
about the wind farms and promised RE in 2018, now we are in December 2018 project.
and the current deadline is 2020. He suspects that 4 months are not enough for
project implementation, knowing that in Europe, the implementation of such
wind farm needs up to 18 months.
Mr. Mohammad Al Sayed asked about the infringements made on the public Mr. Jules Assi replied that the LWP agreement with MOEW includes producing electrical power and supplying it to the public grid. The solution for the
power grid and what is the solution provided by LWP. infringements is not within the scope of the project developer.
Mr. Ahmad Zakaria, teacher holding a degree in the RE domain, asked if the Mr. Jules Assi replied that the planned 3 wind farms are able to satisfy a significant portion of the commitment, and that they will supply 25% of the
wind farms can provide enough electrical power to satisfy the commitment by shortage.
the government to supply 12% energy demand through RE sources. He also
asked whether the implementation of the wind farms would cover the electrical
power shortage.
Mr. Mohammad Al Sayed asked where the remaining 75% of the shortage will Mr. Jules Assi advised that this is a concern which needs to be taken care of by the Lebanese government.
be supplied from.
Mr. Georges Ghattas, representative of the TBWA Agency, was concerned about Mr. Jules Assi advised that the wind turbines will stop working at wind speeds exceeding 25m/s which is a self-protection mechanism to maintain the
the noise, knowing that at an air speed of 20m/s makes a remarkable noise integrity of the turbine. Dr. Layale added that noise next to the turbine may be more than 100dBA but will decrease substantially at a distance of 200m
even without the existence of a wind turbine. He also asked whether a study from the turbine and people should not consider building houses at a distance lower than this. She also added that a vast majority of the lands
was made on the impact on any future buildings that are to be constructed surrounding the turbines are public lands with no title deeds, and therefore with limited potential for investment in projects other than those supplying
around the turbines. He asked who is going to recruit the HSE expert. He finally governmental services, a fact which decreases the significance of the latter noise impact. Mr. Jules mentioned that noise from any electrical appliance
enquired about the wind speed at which there will be electrical energy inside a house could be more than 60dBA. He also replied that LWP will recruit its own HSE expert who will be responsible for the follow up on
production. environmental management at the Lebanon Wind Power wind farm. He advised that electrical energy production starts at a minimum wind speed of
5m/s.
Dr. Mohammad Nour EL Din Ali, lecturer at the Arab University, asked if the Dr. Layale advised that the number of trees present in the immediate construction zone were quantified and referred to the relevant tables about the
number of trees that will be cut was quantified. He also asked if the Ministry of matter in the presentation. Dr Layale also added that LWP is responsible for recruiting an HSE specialist who would need to properly implement all
Environment will monitor the project implementation and functioning. He also ESMP requirements. She also added that the Ministry of Environment would conduct inspections in the future to ascertain that the ESMP is
enquired about the party who will monitor noise levels during the operation of implemented and that the latter inspections may involve actual measurements. Mr. Jules added that the lending banks also have third party auditing
the wind farm. He finally asked about the fate of the 3 met masts present onsite processes who would check for ESMP implementation and compliance with environmental standards before giving clearances to release payments to
whether other masts will be installed. the project developer. Mr. Jules also added that the 3 meteorological masts will stay until February 2019, and afterwards another 3 will likely be added
by the turbine manufacturer all while keeping one of the old 3 met masts for calibration purposes. Mr. Jules advised that the Lebanese government will
also be supervising their work.
Mr. Ahmad Khaled Zakaria, mechanical engineer, was concerned about the Mr. Jules advised that once a turbine manufacturer is selected and the final places of the turbines are chosen, the municipality will directly be notified
coordination between LWP and the municipality in the selection of turbine about the latter. In terms of benefits, Mr. Jules explained that there will be recruitment of up to 200 persons during construction from the local
locations. He also asked who is going to benefit from the project? What is the community in addition to several jobs during operation. He also added that the local municipalities and communities will benefit from road widening
approximate turbine size? And what is the turbine height? activities and the development of new roads. With respect to turbine size, Mr. Jules answered that it is not yet decided, but that the hub height will be
approximately 105m.
Mr. Georges Ghattas was concerned if there is an impact on the groundwater Dr. Layale explained that wind farms are not associated with a negative impact on the groundwater. She also added that the groundwater is very deep
in the project area, and that WWTPs will be installed at wastewater generation points to ensure the safe treatment and disposal of wastewater.
Mr. Abed EL Ileh Zakaria, head of the union of the municipalities in Mqaiteaa, Mr. Jules answered that the road to be taken starts from Tripoli port and continues to Al Minie, Al Asbdeh, seaside road, Chadra, train railway, Wadi
was concerned about the road to be taken when the construction starts. Is it Khaled, Hawa Akkar site, Sustainable Akkar site, Rweimeh Village, then the Project site. He also added that the project developer does not mind
going to be through Quobaiyat? He suggested a road from El Deniyyeh to discussing further the feasibility of the new proposed road with the municipality.
Fnaidek.
Mr. Ahmad Naaman, principal of Fnaidek public high school, was concerned Mr. Jules answered that bad weather conditions, e.g. ice, very high wind speed may harm the turbine parts. He also added that the turbines have a de-
about what parts of the turbine may present malfunctioning. icing mechanism when located at high altitude and will be stopped in extremely windy conditions. The monitoring and control of the turbines will be
He also asked about what can be done to help the locals, so they can have implemented by the turbine manufacturer in collaboration with a local control and support office.
better chances to be recruited? Mr. Jules also answered that there will be online and onsite training courses so that the chances of recruitment of the locals would be increased.
6-23
Figure 6-14 Photographs Taken During the Final Public Disclosure Meeting
a b
c d
e f
6-24
6.6.2.14 Meetings with the Fnaidek Municipality
On 6 December 2018, several meetings were held between Lebanon Wind Power Project Management
Team and representatives of the Municipality of Fnaidek to discuss the terms of the rental contract
between the two institutions. Fnaidek municipality was represented by the Mayor Mr. Ahmad Baarini
and Dr. Mohamad Ali while SA/LWP was represented by Me. Adele Halabi (lawyer of SA/LWP), Mr.
Jules Assi and Eng. Sarkis Farah.
The main topics discussed during the meeting included the following:
1. Duration of this contract?
28 years. The rental contract is divided into three phases:
• Phase 1: Study and construction: 2 years.

• Phase 2: Operation of the wind farm: 25 years.
• Phase 3: Decommissioning: 1 year.
2. Number of parcels to be rented for the Project?
The municipality suggested renting out all the ridge, instead of renting parcels where turbines will be
placed, at the same price of 7,000$/ MW installed capacity.
3. Price clarification as suggested by the companies?
The municipality asked if the 7,000 USD/MW was per installed capacity or per produced. The
companies replied that the suggestion is per installed capacity. Therefore, if the selected EPC
ultimately chooses to install 20MW on their lands, the total rental value will be as follow:
• Phase 1: During Construction: 700$ x 20MW = 14,000 USD / year; installation phase.
• Phase 2: Following Erection of Turbines: 7,000$ x 20MW = 140,000 USD/year, plus a 2%
escalation per year; operations phase.
• Phase 3: During Decommissioning of Turbines: the final escalated yearly rate, paid on a monthly
basis until decommissioning is completed.
4. Will a copy of the Lebanon Wind Power ESIA be provided?
Once the study is completed, it will be published on all of the lenders’ websites for comment, and
therefore, Lebanon Wind Power will share it with the municipality.
6.6.3.1 Ramboll Meetings with Family Leaders and Officials
Between 19 and 21 January 2019, Ramboll conducted discussions with Mr. Abdo Jaafar (of the Jaafar
Family), General Amid Daher (of the Daher Family), Mr. Ahmad Baarini (the Mayor of Fnaidek), and
Omar Massoud, as shown in Figure 6-15. Ramboll provided an overview of the ESIA and sought
feedback regarding the baseline environment, analysis of impacts and the preparation of
Environmental and Social Management Plans. All three leaders communicated the full support by the
communities they represent.
6-25
Figure 6-15 Ramboll Meeting with Omar Massoud
6.6.3.2 February 2019 Public Meeting for Hawa Akkar
Hawa Akkar held a Public Meeting on 15 February 2019. Attendance at the Hawa Akkar Public Meeting
is relevant to the Project, and presented herein, as both projects will share the same WTG transport
route. Invitations were sent out 2 weeks prior to the public meeting in written form (official registered
letters) and by phone calls. Again, interest was noted as low, with one representative of a Union of
Municipalities noted in attendance. In addition, representatives from the following NGOs were invited
to this meeting, along with leadership from the villages noted above, as shown in Table 6-5.
Two of the NGOs were interested in attending and requested information via email since they could
not attend:
• Committee of Employee Women Union – CEWU
Address: Halba, Main Road, center Fakhoury, Facing Auxilia – First Floor
Tripoli, Al Maarad Street, Badi Najjar Building near Crystal Marhaba - Third Floor
Tel/Fax: +961 6 382 280
Facebook Page: Committee of Employee Women Union
• Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon (SPNL) who are associated with BirdLife
International and represent BirdLife Lebanon
An Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between Hawa Akkar and SPNL earlier in
2012 for involvement and cooperation regarding bird watching and presence on-site , office for
BirdLife within Hawa Akkar offices once project is operational, etc. Hawa Akkar met with SPNL in
2011, 2012 and 2019 for additional discussions, however they could not attend the February 2019
meeting.
6-26
Table 6-5 NGOs Invited to Hawa Akkar Public Meeting
NGOs
Conseil De L'Environment - Quobaiyat* Organization for Human and Social Services in

North Lebanon
SPNL (Society for the Protection of Nature in Committee for Conserving the Environment in
Lebanon) North Lebanon
ALMEE (Lebanese Association for Energy Saving Safadi Foundation

& for Environment)
Wild Animals and Birds Research & Information Committee of Employee Women Union in North
Center Lebanon (CEWU)
Committee of Bentael National Park North Lebanon Economic Development Agency

(North LEDA)
Communal Council for the Development of Live Akkar

Tannourine
Conservation of Environment Committee- Inmaa Koura Akkar

Besharry
Association For Development In Akkar Akkar Network For Development
Horizon of Cultural Development Machta Hammoud Youth Group

* Present in previous public sessions in 2018 (9 June 2018 and 8 November 2018), but not on 15
February 2019.
6.6.3.3 Meeting with Lebanese Army Representatives
On February 7, 2019, Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar team met with the Lebanese Army
at the Chadra Military Base, as shown in Figure 6-16.
Mr. Jules Assi, Engineer Bachir El Marj and Engineer Sarkis Farah engaged in a general discussion
about Project details with General Youssef Haddad, Army Regional Director in Chadra.
The main topics discussed during the meeting were:
• How Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar will benefit from the Lebanese Army presence.
• Facilitating the procedure of acquiring necessary permits from the Lebanese Army to visit the site,
especially for international personnel.
• Discussing the main concerns of the Lebanese Army, which included the following:
− The noise impact of turbines on their barracks and the distance that should be maintained
between the barracks and the turbines.
− Shadow flicker and the length of the effect that will be visible for receptors.
− The transport of the turbines, when and how it will be conducted, during which hours and the
duration.
At the end of the meeting, General Youssef Haddad appointed Captain Abdallah Al Zohbi as the
contact person between the Lebanese Army and the Project, in order to help with day to day tasks
that may arise and requests, i.e. short notice permits for international personnel visiting the site.
6-27
Figure 6-16 Meeting with the Lebanese Army
6.6.3.4 Consultation with Villages Along the Wind Turbine Component Transport Corridor
Consultation activities were undertaken on 19-20 February 2019 with mayors representing the villages
along the WTG component transportation route, from Tripoli to Sahle, and included the following, as
summarized in Table 6-6.
Al Fayhaa Union of Municipalities
• On February 19, 2019, the Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar team met with the mayors
of the coastal line municipalities within the Northern Governorate, starting at the Al Fayhaa Union
of Municipalities (representing Tripoli, Al Beddaoui, Al Minie and Qalamoun) to the Akkar
Governorate limit, i.e. the Al Mhamra Municipality.
6-28
Table 6-6 Consultations with Municipalities & Governors
Name Villages Represented Date
Al Fayhaa Union of Municipalities Tripoli, Al Beddaoui, Minie and Qalamoun 19-Feb-19
Deir Ammar Municipality Deir Amar, Borj El-Yahoudiyé 19-Feb-19
Al Minie Municipality
Al Minie and Al Nabi Kzaiber Village 19-Feb-19
Zoug Bhannine Municipality Zoug Bhannine 19-Feb-19
Al Mhamra Municipality Al Mhamra 19-Feb-19
Mqaiteaa, Kfar Melki Akkar, Rmoul,

Talmaaiyan Union of Municipalities on Qaabrine, Sammouniyé, Hissa, Tall
behalf of the Akkar Countryside Aabbas El-Gharbi, Tall Aabbas El-Charqi, 20-Feb-19
Municipalities Tall Hmaire, Chir Hmairine, Hokr Jouret
Srar,
Quobber Chamra Municipality Quobber Chamra 20-Feb-19
Mqaible Municipality Mqaible 20-Feb-19
Governor of the Akkar Region Akkar Region 20-Feb-19
Iltigo, Barcha, Khamoubet Akkar, Janine,

Qachlaq, Aamaret El-Baykat, Noura El
Quobaiyat Union of Municipalities on behalf Tahta, Kouachra, Dibbabiyé, Amayaret
of the North Akkar Municipalities Akkar, Fraidis, Qsair Akkar, Menjez, 26-Feb-19
Rmah, Chikhlar Quobaiyat, Chadra,
Machta Hassan, Aaoaainat Akkar and
Machta Hammoud,
Governor of North Lebanon North Lebanon 26-Feb-19
Eng. Bachir El Marj and Eng. Sarkis Farah met each of the 4 mayors of the Al Fayhaa Union during
their weekly meeting, as shown in Figure 6-17. The meeting was constructive, many questions were
asked about the timeline of the transport of WTG components, the schedule of each transport,
potential obstacles on the road and potential traffic blockage. The main concern of the Mayors was the
timing of the transport. The Mayors advised to undertake transport after 12am, when the traffic is at
its lowest, and to avoid transport on weekends as much as possible as many people travel north
(including Akkar) to/from Beirut where they work during the week. The Project team answered the
Mayor’s questions as follows:
• Timetable: Between 11pm to 4am.

• Timeline of transport: 2 times roundtrip per week during weekdays.
• Number of trucks per transport: Total of 12 trucks roundtrip per transport day / 2 days per week
during weekdays = total of 24 trucks roundtrip per week.
• Number of trips: Maximum of 21 turbines at Sustainable Akkar = 24 trucks roundtrip per week for
total of 13 weeks.
6-29
Figure 6-17 Al Fayhaa Meeting with Mayors of Tripoli, Al Beddaoui, Al Minie and Qalamoun
The Project team also informed mayors that a communications protocol is being developed between
the Project companies and the MOIM for the transport of the turbines from Tripoli to the Project site.
Once this protocol is ready, it will be distributed to the Mayors two to three months prior to the start
of the transport. At the end of the meeting, Mayors emphasized their willingness to provide further
coordination across the municipalities and Project companies and assisting in accomplishing the
Project as the fastest possible.
Deir Ammar Municipality
On February 19, 2019, the Project team met with Eng. Khaled Dhaybi, Mayor of Deir Amar, as shown
in Figure 6-18. Deir Amar is located at the first Lebanese Army Checkpoint along the WTG transport
corridor.
Mayor Dhaybi was welcoming and offered to assist the Project companies by providing a Municipal
Police escort to facilitate the transport of the WTG components. The Mayor’s main concerns regarded
the provision of electricity in the northern region and if Deir Amar will benefit from the Project, as Deir
Amar has an Electric Power Plant and is a link between the north and other Lebanese regions. The
Project team explained the Project details, including the output of the Project in megawatts (68.3MW
for Lebanon Wind Power and 82.5MW for Sustainable Akkar), and explained that the Project boundary
ends when the companies connect to EDL’s National Grid.
Mayor Dhaybi also asked about the presence of pedestrian bridges in Deir Amar. The Project team
assured the Mayor that no pedestrian bridges will be completely removed to accommodate transport
of the WTG components; however, they will be elevated to achieve the needed height clearance of
5m. In addition, the Project team confirmed that costs associated with any road improvements will be
borne by the Company.
6-30
Figure 6-18 Deir Amar Meeting with Mayor Dhaybi
Al Minie Municipality and Al Nabi Kzaiber Village
On February 19, 2019, the Project team met with the Mayor of the Municipality of Al Minie, Mr. Zafer
Zrayka, as shown in Figure 6-19. The Mayor informed the Project team that Al Nabi Kzaiber Village
does not have a municipality and is under Al Minieh’s municipal authority.
The Mayor welcomes the Project and gladly expressed that finally some investment will be coming to
the north area of Lebanon --- after being left by the central government of Lebanon. Mayor Zrayka
was friendly and willing to cooperate with the Project companies. During the WTG component
transport phase, the Al Minie municipal police will provide an escort for the convoy.
The Mayor’s only question regarded the speed bumps in the area. He expressed his opposition to
removing them because there are many exits, and speed bumps are the only way to ensure the safety
of the road. The Project team suggested replacing the asphalted speed bumps with rubber ones, which
we can easily be removed during the transportation of the WTG components and reinstalled
immediately after the trucks pass. Mr. Zrayka welcomed the idea, especially since the Project
companies will be responsible for the expense of removing and reinstalling the speed bumps.
Zoug Bhannine Municipality
On February 19, 2019, the Project team met with the Mayor of Bhannine, Mr. Abou Tala Webheh , as
shown in Figure 6-20. The proposed plan for the transport of WTG components was explained, and
the Mayor advised that he was fine with all aspects. However, he noted that the Bhannine Municipality
does not have an available police force to assist with the escort.
6-31
Figure 6-19 Al Minie and Al Nabi Kzaiber Village Meeting
Figure 6-20 Meeting with Zoug Bhannine Municipality
6-32
Mr. Webheh was also concerned about the speed bumps in the area, and the Project team proposed
the same solution of replacing the asphalted speed bumps with rubber ones, which we can easily be
removed during the transportation of the WTG components and reinstalled immediately after the
trucks pass. The Mayor raised another concern regarding people going to and from Akkar during the
WTG transport. The Project team informed the Mayor of the planned steps that the Project companies
will be adopting to mitigate this potential negative impact, as itemized below:
• Transport Timetable: Between 11pm to 4am.

• Announcements will be made along the WTG transport route (i.e. from Tripoli to the entrance of
the Project site).
• A communications protocol is being developed between the Project companies and the Ministry of
Interior for the transport of the turbines from Tripoli to the Project site. Once this protocol is
ready, it will be distributed to the Mayors two to three months prior to the start of the transport.
Al Mhamra Municipality
On February 19, 2019, the Project team met with the Mayor of the Municipality of Al Mhamra, Mr.
Abed Elkader Osman, as shown in Figure 6-21. The Mayor was aware of the Project as he had
attended the Hawa Akkar Public Meeting on 15 February held in Machta Hassan. The concerns raised
by the Mayor were very aligned with the other municipalities, with the addition of concerns regarding
the Abdeh Roundabout.
Figure 6-21 Meeting with Municipality of Al Mhamra
6-33
The Project team informed the Mayor that some modification might be needed on this roundabout, but
any modification will be discussed with the municipality as it is under their authority. The Project team
concluded the meetings by confirming that the cost of any modification to the roundabout that might
be needed will be borne by the Project companies.
Meetings with Akkar Countryside Municipalities
On February 20, 2019, the Project team met with all 8 mayors of Akkar countryside municipalities
within the Akkar Governorate at the Talmaaiyan Union of Municipalities, based on a request to gather
all municipal leadership in the area, as shown in Figure 6-22.
Figure 6-22 Meeting with the Talmaaiyan Union of Municipalities
The Talmaaiyan Union of Municipalities is located next to Qlaiyaat Military Airport on the coastal
countryside of Akkar, and includes the following:
• Talmaaiyan (Mayor Mohamad Masri).

• Aarida (Mayor Ali Assaad Khaled).
• Knaisse (Mayor Khodor Idris).
• Massoudiyeh (Mayor Mohamad Ayash).
• Tal Bireh (Mayor Abd alhamid Saker).
• Tal Abbas East (Mayor Mohsen Saleh).
• Hissa (Mayor Mohamad Ali Hsein).
• Abboudiyeh (Mayor Mohamad Al Masoumaaii).
6-34
The Project team introduced the Project and the purpose of the meeting. During the meeting, many
questions were asked about the Project regarding electricity generation, road conditions, the timeline
of the transport, the schedule of each transport, obstacles on the road and traffic blockage as follows:
• Road conditions: The road segment with the Talmaaiyan Union of Municipalities is only one lane
in each direction, despite that it is the main road linking Akkar to the rest of Lebanon (as well as
the main link between Lebanon and Syria). The following suggestions were made:
− From Al Aabde to Sheikh Ayash, widen the road by at least 1m on each side.
− Improve the road quality by fixing potholes and maintaining the asphalt.
− Put pressure on the government fund the Project with $800 million to widen the road.
• Access to the Akkar Vegetable Market: Farmers take their crops every day to the Akkar
Vegetable Market, located ~0.35km east of the transport corridor between Al Aabde and Khane as
shown in Figure 6-23, leaving at 2am and returning at 3am. It was suggested that the transport
of Project trucks requires coordination with the Ministry of Interior as the Akkar countryside is the
main supplier of vegetables to the northern territories and all of Lebanon. It is noted that access
to the Akkar Vegetable Market is provided by other roads.
• Transit: The road is the main access for trucks going to and from the Lebanese-Syrian border;
therefore, close coordination between the Ministry of Interior and Project companies in order not
to affect the international trade between Lebanon and rest of countries.
• Speed bumps: Speed bumps should be replaced by rubber ones which can be removed and
reinstalled after each transport.
• Potholes: Maintain the road and fix the potholes on the road from Abde to Sheikh Ayash.
• Cars parked on the road: This has to be coordinated with the Municipal Police prior to the
beginning of each transport.
• Electrical cables: Cables lower than the clearance height should be replaced and increased to
higher than 5.5m.
• Electricity: They urged to increase the electricity supply in Akkar countryside region, where many
farmers need electricity to power water pumps to grow their crops.
• Employment: The Talmaaiyan Union asked the Project team to employ people from the Akkar
countryside, noting the unemployment rate in this region as one of the highest in Lebanon.
• Closing the Al Minieh-Al Abde exits: Closing these exits will ensure that people won’t crush the
transport convoy by going against the traffic. This will ensure the safety of the transport.
• Timetable and schedule of transport: the transport will be two times per week from 11pm to
4am. The convoy will consist of 12 trucks roundtrip per transport.
6-35
Figure 6-23 Location of the Akkar Vegetable Market
Quobber Chamra Municipality
On February 20, 2019, the Project team met with the Mayor of Quobber Chamra Municipality, Mr.
Hussein Ali Ibrahim, as shown in Figure 6-24.
In the meeting, the Mayor expressed his wish to cooperate with the Project’s team to ensure the
smooth transport within Quobber Chamra. The Mayor’s main concern was the time of the transport;
the Mayor advised to undertake transport between 12am and 3am to ensure that the Akkar Vegetable
Market won’t be affected by the convoy. The Mayor insisted on keeping the speed bumps on the 3km
segment of road in Quobber Chamra, which is located at the exit of the vegetable market.
6-36
Figure 6-24 Meeting with the Quobber Chamra Municipality
Mqaible Municipality
On February 20, 2019, the Project team met with the Mayor of Mqaible Municipality, Mr. Ali Hassan
Alsaiid. The Mayor expressed his readiness to cooperate; however, he requested an accurate map of
the access road from Mqaible to ensure that the road won’t create any conflict between the
communities. The Project team promised to give him the map(s) once it is finalized.
The Project team discussed the road condition in Mqaible, and the Mayor advised them to improve the
quality of the road, i.e. use asphalt when opening the access to ensure better transport conditions
from Mqaible to Akroum.
Akkar Governorate
On February 20, 2019, the Project team met with the Governor of the Akkar Region in Halba, Mr.
Imad Labaki, as shown in Figure 6-25.
The Project team provided an overview of the Project and technical information about the transport
plan, timetable, schedule and number of trucks going from the Tripoli Seaport to the site. The
Governor appreciated the visit and offered help in any legal and technical issues which can facilitate
the transport of the trucks.
6-37
Figure 6-25 Meeting with the Governor of the Akkar Region
North Akkar Municipalities
On February 26, 2019, the SA/LWP team met all seven mayors of North Akkar area based on a
request to gather all municipalities in the area. The meeting took place in Quobaiyat Union of
Municipalities. The Quobaiyat Union of Municipalities includes the following municipalities: Quobaiyat
(Al Aabdeh), Chadra (Simon Hannah), Machta Hassan (Mhamad Ahmad), Machta Hammoud (Mhamad
Khaled), Aaoaainat Akkar (Georges Wehbi), Rmah (Georges Elias), Aaydamoun (CL. Youssef Abboud),
as shown in Figure 6-26.
Figure 6-26 Meeting with North Akkar Union of Municipalities
6-38
Many questions were asked about the project, electricity, road condition, timeline of the transport,
schedule of each transport, obstacles on the road and traffic blockage. Below is a summary of the
concerns and ideas that have been discussed during the meeting:
• Road condition: The road was slightly better than the rest of the Akkar area, but it needs some
improvement in order to successfully transport the turbines from the Tripoli Port to the Project
site. The road needs some quality improvement by fixing potholes and maintaining asphalt in
some section in Machta Hassan and Machta Hammoud area. Note: the internal roads of Machta
Hassan and Machta Hammoud will not be used for transport.
• Solar lighting poles: When the team introduced the project, Quobaiyat and Machta Hamoud
Mayors explained the issue of some RE solution that been implemented in the area, such as solar
lighting poles. The mayors explained the high maintenance cost of these poles, from the expensive
batteries to transformers which have a life cycle of a maximum 2 years. The team explained the
difference between solar and wind which does not require any storage system.
• Quarry: the road is main access of the trucks transporting rocks and gravel from Boustan area
east-southeast of the Project site. The quarries are constantly maintaining the roads in the area in
order to get support from the communities. The same maintenance activities have to be done by
the Project Proponent.
• Speed bumps: Surprisingly, all mayors were against using speed bumps especially on Abboudiye-
Rmah highway. They have no problem at all with removing the speed bumps in this section of the
road; however, they urged the Project team to keep the speed bumps in Machta Hassan and
Machta Hammoud because it is a highly populated area and the roads are pretty narrow. Mayors
told the team that the speed bumps should be built based on international standards: 3.75m long
and 8cm in height. Note: the internal roads of Machta Hassan and Machta Hammoud will not be
used for transport.
• Potholes: Maintain the road and fix the potholes on the road from Chadra to Machta Hammoud.
Note: the internal roads of Chadra, Machta Hassan and Machta Hammoud will not be used for
transport.
• Electricity supply: they urged to increase the electricity supply in North Akkar region because
this area is the closest to the Project site and Quobaiyat has the main power plant which distribute
the electricity to the whole region. The Mayors asked the Project team to put pressure on EDL to
provide 24/7 electricity supply to the area, providing an example of the Shouff Area where a new
landfill has been constructed there and the community put a pressure on EDL to provide 24/7
electricity supply to the area. The team explained that the municipalities in the area have to apply
the pressure on the government and that the Project company has no right to change the
electricity supply.
• Employment: the Union asked us to employ people from North Akkar area to work on the
Project. The employment has to be divided equally on each municipality region. The Project team
explained that the top priority is to employ people from the area surrounding the Project.
• Chadra Roundabout: Mayor Simon Hannah said that Chadra municipality paid around $50,000 to
fix the Chadra entrance and created a roundabout in order to facilitate the traffic flow from Machta
Hassan and Machta Hammoud. If this roundabout is going to be removed during the transport
6-39
phase, the Project team has to reconstruct it on its own expense. The team explained that based
on the road survey study, the roundabout will not be removed.
• Development: the Project will contribute positively on the area, where people working on site will
need accommodation, restaurants, and general services in the area.
• Helicopter Option for Transport of WTG Components: The Mayor of Machta Hammoud asked
about using the helicopter option to transport the turbines to the site. The Project team explained
that the road will be used for the transport of WTG components, noting that the Project company
will maintain the road all the way from Tripoli Port to the Project site which will benefit the people
using these roads.
• Karm Chbat Nature Reserve: The Mayor of Quobaiyat asked the Project team to put pressure
on the government to declare the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve. Declaring the forest as a natural
preserve will stop farmers from grazing goats there. Grazing is the main threat to the forest,
where the goats constantly graze small trees; this is why there is only big trees in the forest, and
it is really rare to see newly trees growing. In addition to stopping the grazing, making the forest
a natural reserve will stop people from the area from cutting tree just to use it as a heat source
during winter.
• Timetable and schedule of transport: The transport of WTG components will be undertaken a
maximum of two times per week from 12am to 4am. The convoy will consist of 11 trucks.
North Lebanon Governor
On February 25, 2019, Eng. Bachir El Marj and Eng. Sarkis Farah met with the North Lebanon
Governor (Ramzi Nohra) in Tripoli, as shown in Figure 6-27. The meeting was constructive, the team
explained the transport plan, timeline of the transport, schedule of each transport, obstacles on the
road and traffic blockage. The Governor was supportive and promised to facilitate any issue we will be
facing before and during the transport.
Figure 6-27 Meeting with Governor of North Lebanon
6-40
6.6.3.5 Project Presentation at Beirut Arab University
On March 9, 2019, Eng. Jules Assi and Eng. Bachir El Marj presented the Project at the Beirut Arab
University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, focusing on RE and EE, as shown in Figure 6-28.
The team introduced the Project to University staff and students. Students expressed happiness about
the Project and asked about requirements needed to apply for a job during the construction phase.
The team offered an internship program for students wiling to learn and get experience about wind
farms.
Figure 6-28 Project Presentation at Beirut Arab University
6-41
6.6.3.6 Public Participation Outcomes
As indicated in the previous sections, extensive public participation activities have been undertaken
since early 2017. Activities have included participatory planning, disclosure and dissemination of
information, consultation & participation, an informal grievance mechanism (formalized herein as an
outcome of the ESIA in the ESMP), and on-going reporting to local communities.
All affected communities have been engaged to: 1) support the collection of social demographic data;
2) gain an understanding of community access to energy, consumption, and how the lack of a reliable
energy supply may affect livelihoods; 3) understand attitudes of the local population toward the
Project and expectations around better energy supply. The prevalent response of those engaged has
been extremely positive, with community leaders and members anxiously awaiting the construction
and operation of the Project.
It is noted that Sunni and Shiite landowners in the Project area have historically disputed the division
of land. After becoming knowledgeable about the Project details, the need for acquisition and leasing
of land, and the Project’s commitment to fairly distribute compensation through the location of wind
turbines and substation, agreement concerning the division of land was reached over a short, 2-day
period.
Project-related benefits have been expressed by community members as follows:
• Potential employment during construction and operations phases.

• Income generated by sale of land and land lease.
• Economic stimulus through provision of worker accommodation and meals at local hotels,
apartments and restaurants.
• Provision of electricity to the grid to reduce or eliminate blackout periods.
There have been no objections raised by NGOs. The concerns expressed by stakeholders have been
clearly documented and addressed as part of the decision-making process of the Project. Specifically,
concerns have been incorporated into decisions regarding the following:
• Land rental agreements and compensation.

• Siting of wind turbines to avoid noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts to receptors.
• Road development, route selection and timing for the WTG components and construction
materials.
• Employment opportunities.
• Maintaining access to hunting tracks and grazing areas.
• Minimizing impacts to the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve.
• Maintaining a buffer around the Lebanese Army Military Base.
• Common traffic management plan for Lebanon Wind Power, Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar
wind farms.
• Quantifying potential impacts to migratory birds.
High level meeting minutes from engagement with Akkar leaders is summarized in Table 6-7. Though
not present in the DAOI, particular attention was paid to vulnerable groups, i.e. Syrian and Palestinian
refugees and the location of informal settlements, was considered. Based on the findings of the ESIA,
vulnerable groups are not disproportionately affected by Project impacts (refer to Section 15
Socioeconomic Conditions).
6-42
Table 6-7 High Level Meeting Minutes
Mayor of Fnaidek , July 20, 2018 at 11:00 am:

The meeting was to • How many people are living in the village now? It varies but
enquire about the approximately between 2,000 and 3,800 residents.
Project, understand • Can you be specific? I can’t since we don’t have any exact data of
the position of the that but this from my knowledge
municipality and get • Is the area still considered an agricultural village? Yes, but not
some related much since most work now outside the agriculture but some still care
information. for their lands and some have leased it to others to care for it. We
have about 4,000 farmers and 2,000 farmer residents working in
farming on and off season.
• How many subscription generators are there? I think 7 now and
they are all managed by the owners of these generators.
• Are there companies and businesses that rely on the
generators? Yes, all of them, we don’t get enough power, so we
need to use generators.
• How about farmers? Also, they rely on generators but depending on
what they are doing since it is seasonal practice.
• Do you and the municipality welcome the idea of green
energy? Yes of course.
• Do you think that the supply of power from the windmill will
help the area and its people? Absolutely, it will enrich our
struggling economy and support SMEs and households and it will bring
contentment to people once they know they have power more.
• Do you think that SMEs and businesses here are affected by
the cost of energy? Yes of course, shops and companies that have
high consumption from 50 to 100 and 150Kw pay high.
• Do you think this will have a better economic impact once the
project is operational? Yes ,100% we are in a small village and
central, if we have more electricity, shops will open longer and more
often, and we will benefit from more trade and exchange of goods and
sales.
• What do you know about green energy? It is clean and effective
way for getting electricity.
• What do you know about the windmill project and its energy? I
know what we have been told about it and how effective it is for
remote areas.
• Do you think your village is ready for such project? Yes, we are
ready.
• Do you think it will supply the village well? Yes, if it is done well
and if it is effective and cheaper than generators.
• What impact do you see it can bring on the residents,
households and companies? It will save them money.
• Do you prefer that the windmill be managed by the company?
Yes, and we are ready to assist in anyway.
• What are your expectations from this project, and do you
support and promote the idea? The expectation is for sure positive
and I do support and promote it. We are expecting that this supply of
energy will increase commercial and touristic activities and have
positive economic impact on the region, and this is why I want this
project strongly and I am willing to provide all support from the
municipality since it is a project long been waited for and its benefits
6-43
are plenty and inshallah it will have great economic and livelihood
impact.
Meeting with Omar Zahraman, Member of Municipal Council of Fnaidek, Electrical
Engineer at the Electricité de Liban Akkar, 20/07/2018, at 12:30 pm
The meeting was to Are you aware of the Lebanon Windmill Project? Yes, of course.
enquire about the Do you think it will happen? Yes, and they are working on it.
Project, understand What is in your technical opinion the level of consumption of
the position of the electricity per household? I pay, for example, around 100,000 lira per
municipality and get month for generators and around 50,000 for government electricity. It
some related varies based on consumption, but the important part is that here the fees
information. are 0.5 $ per KW and you have the monthly subscription of 25,000 lira.
Generator owners do give less sometimes depending on the family but in
general this is the charge.
What is the power outage in the area? It also varies, but from 10
hours to 20 hours at times.
What are your thoughts on this project? It is a great project for the
region, and we have long waited for it and wished for it to happen. It will
definitely have positive impact on all sectors especially livelihoods since it
will bring clean effective and affordable energy supply to the village and
the region.
Meeting with Mohamed Salaheldine, Municipality Council Member, Fnaidek, 20/07/2018
The meeting was to Do you know about the project? Yes of course, I believe the rumors
enquire about the have already spread about it and many know by now.
Project, understand Are you personally supportive of this project? Yes, for sure and
the position of the especially the municipality.
municipality and get What do you think about the project? It is a good and if implemented
some related and does not get any obstacles like other projects benefiting Akkar.
information. Any anticipated impact? Saving money, increased supply of electricity,
the whole region will be feeling better and of course better livelihood.
Meeting with Dr. Antoine Daher, Environmental Counsel on 11 August 2018
The meeting was to Dr. Daher is fully aware of the project and all its details since he is part of
enquire about the the environmental counsel of Akkar. The phone meeting focused on his
Project, understand perspective and views on the project and the impact that it might carry on
the position of the the region.
municipality and get Dr Daher stated his support for this Project as he is a believer in clean
some related effective alternative energy, but within this scope of green energy lies
information. many environmental aspects that can be harmful to nature and is looking
to see the Company’s feedback on the environmental assessment. For
example, would the sound of the mills create noise and distortion on the
households, what is the impact of the migrating birds flying at certain
elevation?
Also, no technical awareness or publication has been posted to enlighten
us about it, so we can support more especially that there are groups
fighting this project in several villages and they are creating a negative
lobby against it. Here it is the role of the company to engage us and allow
us to better support them and present the facts concerning our
environmental fears.
These lobbyists are the ones who will or did not get to benefit from the
project financially and are spreading negative rumors and wrong facts
about its impact.
More, we still need to know from the company what will be their plan of
electricity supply and will effectively the Akkar villages will benefit or it will
6-44
be as the rumors are saying that most of the electricity generated will go
to support other regions outside the north and we will only get a fraction.
So overall, there are plenty of clarifications that are needed, and the
company should be more proactive with us to make this project
transparent and clear in terms of its objectives and goals.
Ahmad Omar, Head of Akkar Development Association, 06/08/2018
The meeting was to He is in support of the project and aims that it will bring positive impact
enquire about the on the region since neighboring villages will also benefit. He also said that
Project, understand it will make the electricity burden less on households and improve overall
the position of the livelihoods expressed in less spending and more saving.
municipality and get Also, he wished that the Project will have also positive environmental
some related impact and it will be far from houses. He is aware of the green energy
information. solutions and knows about the project. His information regarding
consumption and costs are similar to all answers obtained and his wishes
was expressed that the project will eventually reduce the cost of energy
and allow businesses to operate and work more since it will affect the
positive chain or reaction effecting livelihoods.
He also indicated that women and kids are the primary target benefiting
from the clean energy and the supply of electricity since they are the ones
who spend most of their time at home. He also wished that the project as
planned will provide consistent supply and not rationed supply and not
benefit the region.
Mr. Abdo Abdo, Quobaiyat Municipality Mayor and Samira Tannous, Mayor Secretary of
Quobaiyat -25 July 2018
The meeting was to Mayor Abdo expressed that this project is a good project since it finally
enquire about the brings a viable solution that is not harmful to nature and it will bring
Project, understand effective and affordable energy to the region, however, he expressed
the position of the concerns about the environmental pollution such as noise, birds, land use,
municipality and get and so on.
some related He is supportive of the project and will do all it takes but he would like to
information. see the engagement of the company also towards the citizens and
enlighten them about the full scope and benefits of the project on
Quobaiyat and other villages that shall benefit from the project. They are
not interested in just being a land donor without enjoying the benefits of
the project being installed on their land.
As for Mrs. Samira Tannous, she also anticipates the financial and
livelihood benefits the windmill shall bring and looking forward to seeing
the impact as expected from this project especially when power outage
has been a major livelihood problem across Lebanon and especially in
rural areas.
Mr. Abdo Jaafar, Focal Point of Rweimeh Village Area, 27 July 2018
The meeting was to Mr. Abdo expressed his full support from his side, and he wishes that the
enquire about the project brings good and prosperity to the region and villages around
Project, understand especially in term of improving livelihood through more supply of
the position of the electricity.
municipality and get
some related
information.
6-45
6.6.3.7 May 2019 Consultation
In May 2019, the Developer undertook consultation with various stakeholder groups as part of the
ongoing engagement activities described in the SEP. The purpose of the engagement was to assess
the level of general knowledge about wind farms and the planned Lebanon Wind Power, Sustainable
Akkar and Hawa Akkar wind farms, to gain a sense of whether stakeholders thought the projects’
objectives were going to be achieved, to understand stakeholder views regarding the projects’ impacts
(both positive and negative), and to assess stakeholder support for the projects. In addition, some
basic socioeconomic information was collected and has been included in Section 15 Socioeconomic
Conditions.
A standardized questionnaire was developed and used by the CRO to survey stakeholders. The English
translation and compilation of results are presented in Appendix G.
Landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun
Twenty-two (22) landowners who will be leasing parcels for the development of the planned
Sustainable Akkar wind farm were engaged, specifically landowners for the parcels associated with
WTG 02 (6 landowners), WTG 08 (1 landowners), WTG 10 (2 landowners), WTG 14 (1 landowner),
WTG 19 (1 landowner), WTG 20 (1 landowner), WTG 21 (1 landowner), WTG 22 (1 landowner), WTG
23 (4 landowners), WTG 25 (1 landowner) and WTG 27 (2 landowners). The results of the survey are
Table 6-8 Consultation Survey Results – Landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun
Knowledge and Source of Knowledge of Wind Farms

Very Good Slight None
19 1 1
Source of Wind Farm Knowledge (more than 1 response allowed)
Word of Mouth Municipal Gathering Internet Education Media
19 0 2 1 1
Assessment of Success Level in Reaching Project Objectives
Yes/Good Affected/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
Improve Environmental Conditions/Reduce Emissions
16 3 2
Reduce Electricity Cuts in Villages
19 3 0
Ensure Reliance on RE
20 2 0
Strengthen Local Economic Activity and Job Creation in Village
22 0 0
Decrease Cost of Electricity Consumption
19 2 0
Enhance Living Conditions in Village
19 2 0
Boost State through Reduction in Fuel Oil Imports
19 2 0
Easing of Electricity Crisis
15 7 0
Decrease State Expenditure through Private Sector Participation in Electricity Production
19 2 0
6-46
Project Impacts During Construction
Financial Resources of Municipality
Yes Affected/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
1 1 19
Job Opportunities for Locals
19 2 0
Income Sources for Residents
13 8 1
Economic Activity in Village
14 7 1
Attractiveness of Region to Visitors
7 13 1
Traffic Conditions on the Main Road to the Village
No Affect Affected/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
4 16 2
State and Quality of Village Roads
Good Affected/Maybe/Normal Bad/NA
0 20 1
Pollution at the Project Site and Vicinity
No Affect Affected/Maybe/Normal Bad/NA
16 4 2
Environmental Diversity at Project Site and Vicinity
Yes No No Response/NA
0 0 22
Noise Pollution
13 7 2
Project Impact Assessment during Operations Phase
16 1 5
19 3 0
13 8 1
17 5 0
15 7 0
15 4 3
12 6 4
Image of Region
Good Affected/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
13 7 2
6-47
Potential Project Impacts on Resources
Wild Animals
17 4 1
Edible/Wild Herbs
13 7 2
Livestock/Grazing Areas
12 9 1
Resident Breeding Birds
16 4 2
Bats
7 0 15
Migratory Birds
16 3 3
Potential Negative Impacts on Resources
Ice Shards to Passers By
13 8 1
Light Gleam from Rotor
9 12 0
Shadow Flicker
11 11 0
Transmissions Lines Near Dwellings
4 18 0
Soil and Groundwater Contamination from Oil Spill
5 5 12
Aesthetic/Natural Views on Mountain Tops
7 14 1
Safety of Migratory and Resident Birds
9 12 1
Noise During Daytime
12 10 4
Noise During Nighttime
11 6 5
Real Estate Prices
5 12 5
6-48
Stakeholders Support for the Wind Farm Project
Respondent
21 1 0
Municipality
1 3 18
Private Businesses
12 1 9
Opinion Leaders
21 1 0
Residents
16 6 0
Local NGOs
1 0 21
Landowners
21 0 0
Owners of Generators
0 3 19
Bird Hunting Prohibition
Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Totally Dissatisfied
18 4 0 0
Residents of Machta Hassan
Fourteen (14) residents of Machta Hassan were engaged. Machta Hassan is located due west of the
planned Hawa Akkar wind farm, however no land lease/acquisition is from this village and a new
asphalt road segment will be constructed to avoid impacts to the village centers of Chadra, Machta
Hassan and Machta Hammoud. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Machta Hassan

1 6 7
11 3 2 0 0
Yes/Good Average/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
6 0 8
14 0 0
7 0 7
12 2 0
12 0 2
14 0 0
13 0 1
14 0 0
14 0 0
6-49
0 0 14
3 3 8
1 0 13
3 4 7
0 7 7
0 13 1
Good Affected/Maybe/Normal Bad
0 8 6
1 13 0
0 14 0
Noise Pollution
0 14 0
14 0 0
0 7 7
0 0 14
2 2 10
0 12 2
0 0 14
1 0 13
Image of Region
Good/Improving Affected/Maybe/Normal Bad/NA
2 10 1
6-50
Wild Animals
0 14 0
Edible/Wild Herbs
0 14 0
0 14 0
0 14 0
Bats
0 12 2
Migratory Birds
0 12 2
5 0 6
5 1 8
Shadow Flicker
6 4 4
7 3 4
2 5 7
No Affect Affected/Maybe/Normal Affected/NA
0 10 4
No Affect Affected/Maybe/Normal Affected/NA/No Response
0 0 14
0 0 14
0 0 14
Real Estate Prices
7 0 7
6-51
Respondent
3 11 0
Municipality
0 0 14
Private Businesses
0 0 14
Opinion Leaders
0 0 14
Residents
0 0 14
Local NGOs
0 0 14
Landowners
0 0 14
0 0 14
4 9 1 0
Residents of Machta Hammoud
Twenty (20) residents of Machta Hammoud were engaged. Machta Hammoud is located due west of
the planned Hawa Akkar wind farm, and land lease/acquisition is needed for construction of the
planned Hawa Akkar wind farm. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6-10.
Table 6-10 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Machta Hammoud

0 4 16
19 1 0 0 0
Yes/Good Average/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
19 1 0
20 0 0
18 1 1
19 0 1
19 0 1
19 0 1
19 0 1
19 0 1
19 0 1
6-52
Yes No Affect No Response/NA
18 2
20 0 0
Yes Affected/Maybe//Normal No Response/NA
19 0 1
17 3 0
Yes Affected/Normal/Maybe No Affect/NA
10 9 1
0 20 0
0 18 2
No Affect Affected/ Maybe/Normal Bad/NA
18 2 0
Yes No No Response
0 0 20
Noise Pollution
No Affect Affected/Normal Yes/Affected
18 0 2
Yes Affected/Maybe/Normal NA
20 0 0
20 0 0
19 0 1
Yes/Improving Affected/Maybe/Normal NA
19 1 0
16 4 0
18 0 2
No Affect Affected/Maybe/Normal NA/No Response
18 0 2
Image of Region
Good/Improving Affected/Maybe/Normal Bad/NA
20 0 0
6-53
Wild Animals
15 5 0
Edible/Wild Herbs
11 9 0
15 5 0
12 8 0
Bats
14 5 1
Migratory Birds
15 5 0
19 0 1
19 0 1
Shadow Flicker
19 0 1
13 1 6
9 0 11
12 8 0
No Affect Affected/Maybe/Normal Affected
18 0 2
10 0 10
10 0 10
Real Estate Prices
12 6 2
6-54
Respondent
16 4 0
Municipality
2 0 18
Private Businesses
0 0 20
Opinion Leaders
0 0 20
Residents
0 0 20
Local NGOs
0 0 20
Landowners
0 0 20
0 0 20
14 5 1 0
Residents of Mqaible
Thirty-six (36) residents of Mqaible were engaged. Mqaible is located due east of the planned Hawa
Akkar wind farm, and land lease/acquisition is needed for construction of the planned Hawa Akkar
wind farm. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6-11.
Table 6-11 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Mqaible

0 29 7
36 2 0 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
6-55
Yes No Affect/Normal/Maybe No Response/NA
0 3 33
36 0 0
34 1 1
35 1 0
Yes No Affect/ Normal/Maybe No Response/NA
10 26 0
1 34 1
0 30 6
33 2 1
0 0 36
Noise Pollution
32 2 1
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
Yes/Improving Affected/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
36 0 0
25 11 0
32 1 3
32 1 3
Image of Region
Good/Improving Affected/Maybe/Normal No Response/NA
36 0 0
6-56
Wild Animals
26 8 2
Edible/Wild Herbs
18 16 2
23 10 3
20 12 4
Bats
23 2 11
Migratory Birds
28 2 6
35 1 0
35 1 0
Shadow Flicker
No Affect Affected/Maybe/Normal NA
35 1 0
24 6 6
17 1 18
20 16 0
25 1 10
19 1 16
19 1 16
Real Estate Prices
30 5 1
6-57
Respondent
36 0 0
Municipality
21 0 15
Private Businesses
0 0 36
Opinion Leaders
9 0 27
Residents
10 0 26
Local NGOs
0 0 36
Landowners
26 0 10
0 0 36
25 9 1 1
Residents of Chadra
Twenty-two (22) residents of Chadra were engaged. Chadra is located due west of the planned Hawa
Akkar wind farm. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6-12.
Table 6-12 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Chadra

13 7 1
19 18 12 1 2
16 4 1
18 3 1
17 2 3
17 1 4
15 2 5
15 2 5
15 2 5
19 0 2
17 2 21
6-58
15 0 7
18 3 1
7 7 8
14 4 4
6 11 5
2 14 6
0 20 1
10 5 7
0 0 22
Noise Pollution
6 11 5
21 1 0
18 3 1
10 8 4
16 5 1
13 5 4
11 4 7
2 13 7
Image of Region
12 7 3
6-59
Wild Animals
15 5 2
Edible/Wild Herbs
13 7 2
10 9 3
12 6 4
Bats
4 6 12
Migratory Birds
2 19 1
13 7 2
8 13 1
Shadow Flicker
10 11 1
2 19 1
5 8 9
15 6 1
7 15 1
10 11 1
10 8 4
Real Estate Prices
6 11 5
6-60
Respondent
2 0 20
Municipality
21 0 1
Private Businesses
13 0 9
Opinion Leaders
16 0 6
Residents
17 2 3
Local NGOs
1 2 19
Landowners
19 0 3
2 1 19
15 5 1 1
Residents of Akroum
Sixteen (16) residents of Akroum were engaged. Akroum is located due east of the planned Hawa
Akkar wind farm. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6-13.
Table 6-13 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Akroum

0 12 1
16 0 0 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
16 0 0
6-61
0 1 15
15 0 1
9 1 6
15 0 1
4 8 4
2 12 2
0 9 7
10 6 0
1 2 13
Noise Pollution
12 3 1
0 1 15
15 0 1
9 1 6
15 0 1
10 5 1
10 4 2
13 1 2
Image of Region
16 0 0
6-62
Wild Animals
10 6 0
Edible/Wild Herbs
10 6 0
10 6 0
8 7 1
Bats
6 6 4
Migratory Birds
8 7 1
14 1 1
15 0 1
Shadow Flicker
14 1 1
9 0 7
5 1 10
14 2 0
15 1 0
11 0 5
11 0 5
Real Estate Prices
10 6 0
6-63
Respondent
16 0 0
Municipality
4 0 12
Private Businesses
0 0 16
Opinion Leaders
8 1 7
Residents
7 1 8
Local NGOs
0 0 16
Landowners
9 0 7
0 0 16
12 4 0 0
Residents of Sahle
Thirty-six (36) residents of Sahle were engaged. Sahle is located on the south end of the planned
Hawa Akkar wind farm. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6-14.
Table 6-14 Consultation Survey Results – Residents of Sahle

0 29 7
34 2 0 0 0
35 0 1
16 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
6-64
0 2 34
36 0 0
34 1 1
35 1 0
11 20 5
0 36 0
0 36 0
33 2 1
0 0 36
Noise Pollution
32 2 2
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
36 0 0
25 11 0
32 2 2
32 1 3
Image of Region
35 1 0
6-65
Wild Animals
25 9 2
Edible/Wild Herbs
18 16 2
23 11 2
20 12 4
Bats
23 4 9
Migratory Birds
28 3 5
35 1 0
35 1 0
Shadow Flicker
35 1 0
23 9 4
17 1 18
22 14 0
29 2 5
18 16 2
18 1 17
Real Estate Prices
30 5 1
6-66
Respondent
36 0 0
Municipality
21 0 15
Private Businesses
0 0 36
Opinion Leaders
9 0 27
Residents
10 0 26
Local NGOs
0 0 36
Landowners
25 3 8
0 0 36
25 9 1 1
Based on the above engagement, the following activities should be carried forward in the SEP:
1. Additional information regarding wind farms should be shared with the communities of Machta
Hassan, Machta Hammoud and Mqaible. Given their proximity to the wind farms, it is anticipated
that other nearby villages could benefit from increased knowledge about wind farm operations and
potential impacts.
2. The primary source of knowledge regarding wind farms is word of mouth, suggesting the potential
for transmittal of incorrect information. Distribution of newsletters, fact sheets, and other
educational materials could help to ensure that the correct technical information is being shared.
3. It would appear that most of those engaged believe the projects will be successful in meeting their
intended objectives.
4. While responses varied, it would appear that stakeholders view the impacts of project construction
and operation as largely positive.
5. Potential negative impacts were acknowledged by stakeholders, identifying the opportunity to

elaborate on the management and mitigation measures that will be implemented to minimize
potential impacts.
6. Very few respondents expressed a lack of support for the projects. However, it is noted that this
must be tempered by the lack of responses regarding the level of support by the municipality,
private businesses, opinion leaders, residents, local NGOs, landowners and owners of generators.
Again, this suggests the opportunity for wider information sharing such that the level of support
by affected communities is better understood.
6-67
6.6.3.8 June 2019 Consultation with Rweimeh Village Members
Consultation was conducted on June 26, 2019 with approximately 20 Rweimeh Village members
Rweimeh, including men, women and youth as shown if Figure 6-29.
Figure 6-29 Consultation with Rweimeh Village Members
The meeting was held in the Al Tayyara Restaurant in Rweimeh Village, in the presence of the
following:
• 2 Representatives from the MOE.

• A team of experts from the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment engaged
by the MOE for independent review of the ESIA for the Project.
• 1 representative from (name removed).
• Representatives of the Project and planned Lebanon Wind Power wind farm teams.
• Representatives of the Ramboll team.
Among others, the meeting addressed the locations of the batching plant and the substation within
Rweimeh Village, as well as the associated increased traffic/vehicles and transport of construction
materials between the batching plant and the wind farm sites during the construction phase.
The community advised:
• They have been consulted on a regular basis since 2011.

• They are informed about the Project impacts but are conscious that the Project advantages
outweigh the potential disadvantages.
Concerning their expectations, they said: “We know that the Project might not improve our direct
energy supply as a community. However, we know that this Project will improve energy supply at a
national level. This is a gift, from Akkar to all of Lebanon.”
6-68
6.6.3.9 July 2019 Consultation with Livestock Owners
In July 2019, the CRO engaged the livestock owners who use the Project area for grazing. It was
found that the shepherds using the Project area for grazing (refer to Section 15 Socioeconomic
Conditions) are Syrians employed by local livestock owners. Therefore, discussed the loss of access
to grazing areas for a period of 18 months during the construction phase with the livestock owners.
Based on the discussions, the livestock owners expressed the following concerns:
1. Livestock owners rely on livestock for livelihood.

2. Access to alternative grazing areas will not be allowed by:
a. Owners of the alternative grazing lands.

b. Owners of the lands they need to cross to be able to access alternative grazing areas.
The loss of livelihood is passed on from the livestock owners to the Syrian shepherds. The impact of
loss of access to grazing and mitigation is explored further in Section 15 Socioeconomic
Conditions.
6-69
7. OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is understood that the Project will results in several site specific environmental and social impacts
on various receptors throughout the Project phases to include planning and construction phase and
operation phase. Such impacts are discussed in the subsequent sections for each environmental
receptor. Nevertheless, the Project will result in significant and crucial positive environmental and
economic impacts on the strategic and national level given the current challenges the energy sector in
Lebanon is facing which have serious implications on energy security as well as major economic
burdens to the Lebanese economy. Such positive impacts are important to highlight, consider, and
consider before investigating the potential negative environmental impacts anticipated from the
Project, as discussed in the following sections. The anticipated positive environmental and economic
impacts on the strategic level are discussed and highlighted below.
7.1 Lebanon’s Energy Sector
Lebanon still relies on fossil fuel, a non-renewable resource, for its energy consumption. EDL is the
main public establishment responsible for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical
energy in the country. Founded by Decree No. 16878 dated July 10, 1964, it currently controls over
90% of the Lebanese electricity sector. Unfortunately, due to decades of civil unrest and lack of
political will, EDL has underserved the power demand of the country.
Overall, Lebanon relies on six principal sources of primary energy: 1) imported hydrocarbon fuels in
liquid; 2) gaseous form; 3) imported electricity; 4) locally produced hydroelectricity; 5) biomass; and
6) alternative energy. EDL is responsible for seven thermal power plants and three hydro-power plants
generate electricity in the country with an installed capacity of 3,022MW, as shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 EDL Generating Capacity in 2018 (EDL (2018) and Fardoun et al. (2012))
Thermal Power Plants Capacity MW Hydraulic Power Plants Capacity MW Total

Onshore plant 805 Awali 108
Zouk
Power barge 198 Litani Joun 48
Onshore plant 408 Abdl Aal 34
Jieh
Power barge 198 Bared (1) 13.5
Bared
Sour 70 Bared (2) 3.7
Baalbek 70 Safa 13.4
Zahrani 465 Nahr Ibrahim (1) 15
Nahr
Der Ammar 465 Nahr Ibrahim (2) 12.5
Ibrahim
Al Hreesha 70 Nahr Ibrahim (3) 4.5
Balouza 8.4
Abu Ali 7.4
Kadisha
Mar Lichaa 3.1
Bsharre 1.6
Total Thermal Capacity 2,749 Total Hydraulic Capacity 273.1 3,022
7-1
According to the 2016 NREAP, 68% the primary energy sources of Lebanon are generated through the
power plants of EDL. The distribution network consists of 68 substations converting power from
medium to low voltage and using more than 15,000 transformers to deliver electricity to every
subscriber (EDL, 2018). The Quobaiyat Substation located 5km north of the Project (see Figure 7-1)
and Halba Substation located 23km northwest of the Project transmit and distribute electricity to
Akkar Caza.
EDL’s transmission network consists of many types of high voltage power lines including 66, 150, 220
and 400kV lines converting power from high voltage to medium voltage. In addition, the network
includes more than 1,540km (1,336km of overhead lines and 178km of underground cables) of
various voltages used for transmission and distribution.
Almost half the generation capacity of EDL (Zouk & Jiyeh Steam Plants) is nearing retirement while
the operation of the other half (gas turbines) is sub-optimal since the plants run on gasoil instead of
natural gas. Making the matters worse is the raising costs of electricity generation by the government,
which has reached 0.17USD/KWH, while EDL insist on adopting a freezing tariff policy since 1994
(0.095USD/KWH for residential units, and 0.076USD/KWH for industries).
Approximately 7.5% of the total electricity production in 2009 was purchased from Syria (589GWH)
and Egypt (527GWH) through regional interconnections. In addition to the deficit in electricity supply,
the Lebanese electricity sector was facing several problems such as load shedding, technical losses,
and the aging of power plants. This situation resulted in technical and financial impacts on customers,
the Government, and the entire economy, and Lebanese end users were forced to rely on diesel
generators to overcome the electricity shortages (MOEW/LCEC, 2016).
Figure 7-1 Quobaiyat Substation
7-2
As part of their effort to close the demand gap, the GOL has carried various actions including:
• For over two decades, the GOL has been purchasing electric power from Egypt and Syria through
regional interconnections. In 2017, the GOL requested an increased electrical supply from Syria
from 240MW to 300MW. This supply is usually accounted in the EDL official power generation
records.
• The MOEW signed a contract in 2012 with the Turkish company Karadeniz Holding to provide
power barges to serve as a stop-gap solution and supply 270MW into the national power grid. By
June 2018, the contract was renewed for another three years under new terms; the company will
provide Lebanon with more than 370MW by employing another power barge.36
• In 2017, the Lebanese government increased the power capacity of the Zouk and Jieh Power
Plants through the addition of an installed capacity of 198MW in each plant, (EDL, 2017).37 EDL is
currently looking into the rehabilitation of the both power plants, in term of increased capacity,
removal of obsolete material (asbestos), rehabilitation of soil, and even an overhaul of the Jieh
Power Plant complete with dismantling of current units and construction of a new power plant
(CDR, 2017).38
The country has yearlong power deficit that can reach up to 1,400MW during the summer. As of 2016,
the peak power demand reached 3,594MW while the effective power production by EDL only reached
2,108MW39, generating to 21 hours of electricity supply in Beirut and 14 hours outside of the capital.
In response to the frequent power rationing by the government, local residents rely on private back-
up generators.
As of 2010, private generators are satisfying 77% of the blackouts (LCEC, 2016).40 Private generators
operate using gas oil at notoriously low efficiencies rates, by comparison, the average generation
efficiency of EDL from cradle to consumer gate is about 30% higher (MOE/UNDP/ECODIT, 2011);41
thus, any given private generator is a wasteful and a major contributor to air pollution and costing the
consumer 4.74 times more (per KWH) than government generated electricity.
In brief, Lebanon is plagued by chronic power rationing affecting economic growth and national
satisfaction. This power production/generation deficit, the highest in the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region (World Bank (WB), 2013)42, is the result of three decades of technical and non-
technical shortcomings including inadequate tariffs, misappropriation, war-related physical damages,
ineffective regulatory framework, decrepit infrastructure caused by a dearth in investments, and the
historic absence of a broad-based political commitment to resolve the energy crisis.
36
Azhari, T. (2018, June 17). EDL Extends Lease of Two Power Barges. Daily star. Retrieved from Dailystar.com.lb.
37
EDL (2017) Enterprise Facilities. Retrieved from: http://www.edl.gov.lb/page.php?pid=37.
38
Council of Development and Reconstruction (2017). Electricity. Progress Reports October 2017. Retrieved from
www.cdr.gov.lb.
39
Ashari, T (2018) Lights out as Demand surges for electricity. The Daily Star Published on 10 July 2018. Retrieved
from: http://www.dailystar.com.lb
40
LCEC (2016) The Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for the Republic of Lebanon [NEEAP]. Retrieved
from http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/viewfile.aspx?id=229.
41
MOE/UNDP/ECODIT (2011) State of the Environment Report (SoER). [Chapter 9 – Energy Crisis].
42
Enterprises Surveys. (2018). Infrastructure. World Bank Group. Retrieved from www.enterprisesurveys.org.
7-3
7.2 Energy Strategy for Lebanon
Clean RE that comes from continually replenished resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves
and geothermal heat is becoming increasingly important as the world is facing the threats of climate
change and depletion of fossil fuel reserves. Governments and world leaders started adopting laws and
regulations to stimulate and commercialize RE sources.
Modern renewables have continued to grow strongly in all end-use sectors: power, heating, cooling
and transport. In the power sector, renewable accounted for almost half of the estimated 921GW of
electric capacity added globally during 2016. Wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) accounted for almost
47.8% and 33.65% respectively followed by the energy form biomass (~20%). Policymakers are
increasingly aware of the wide range of benefits from renewables including energy security, reduced
import dependency, reduction of GHG emissions, rural development and energy access.
By 2015, RE supplied an estimated 19.3% of global energy consumption (a 2.6% total increase from
2010); of which 10.2% derive from modern renewables such as hydropower (3.6%) and wind / solar /
biomass / geothermal power (1.6%), as shown in Figure 7-2.
Figure 7-2 2015 Renewable Energy Share of Global Final Energy Consumption (REN21,
2017)
In a bid to decrease the environmental footprint of its energy sector and align itself with the
international efforts to reduce global GHG emissions, the GOL officially pledged to meet 12% of its
energy consumption from RE sources by 2020 at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.
The MOEW published the 2010 Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector that was approved by the Council
of Ministers (COM) on 21 June 2010. In addition to proposing a strategic solution to the electricity
sector in Lebanon, the Policy Paper built on the 12% commitment of RE by 2020 to propose some
future milestones.
On the wind front, the MOEW published the Wind Atlas of Lebanon43 and a 2013 Request for Proposal
(RFP) for developing the first utility-scale wind farm in Lebanon sparked private sector interest. At the
43
Atlas was produced in 2011 by CEDRO and funded by the UNDP.
7-4
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris
in December 2015, the GOL also pledged to reach a 15% reduction in GHG and 3% reduction in power
demand by 2030 relative to a business-as-usual scenario:
• A 15% GHG emissions reduction as unconditional, or 30% as conditional.

• A 15% of the power and heat demand in 2030 generated by RE sources as unconditional, or 20%
conditional.
• A 3% reduction in power demand through energy-efficiency measures in 2030 compared to the
demand under the BAU as unconditional, or 10% conditional.
On the national level, several strategies and Action Plans have been put forth by different ministries to
achieve these targets, most importantly the MOEW’s 2010 Policy Paper for the Electricity Sector
(PPES), the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2016-2020 (NEEAP), and the National Renewable
Energy Action Plan 2016-2020 (NREAP). In detail, the PPES presents a detailed plan to revamp the
electricity sector in Lebanon and aims to achieve 12% RE contribution to “electrical and thermal
supply” (PPES Section 5). However, the 12% RE coverage is an extremely ambitious goal especially
for a country that has still to make important outlays to rehabilitate a deficient electricity sector. In
energy terms, the current electrical energy demand is estimated at 16,400GWH; it is projected to
reach around 20,000GWH in 2020 assuming a 3% yearly increase. Thus, by then, RE (hydro and non-
hydro combined) should provide 2,400GWH of electrical energy to meet the RE target.
The NEEAP states 14 initiatives put together in compliance with the PPES to help Lebanon become an
energy efficient country with a particular focus on RE. The electricity generation from the wind power
initiative aims to reach up to 200GWH per year by implementing small wind farms of capacity ranging
between 60MW and 100MW.44
The NREAP considers four main technologies including eight energy sources in Lebanon to reach the
projected 767 Kilotons of oil equivalent by 2020. The wind, solar, hydroelectric and biomass energy
sources will account respectively for 2.05%, 4.05%, 3.24% and 2.5% of the total Lebanese energy
produced. As of September, the GOL has launched bids for wind, solar, and is expected to launch bids
for geothermal.
The current electrical energy demand is estimated at 16,400GWH, and is projected to reach around
20,000GWH in 2020 assuming a 3% yearly increase. Thus, RE (hydro and non-hydro combined) must
provide 2,400GWH of electrical energy in order to meet the RE target. In February 2018, the minister
of energy and power Cezar Abi Khalil signed the first power purchase agreement with companies of
the private sector to build three wind farms of an individual capacity 200MW.45 The energy ministry’s
signing of the agreements represents Lebanon’s first PPA with the private sector in electricity
generation as part of efforts to close an estimated 1GW gap between current electrical supply and
demand in the country.
44
LCEC. (2011). The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for Lebanon. Ministry of Energy and Water. Retrieved
from www.rcreee.org
45
www.lbcgroup.tv.
7-5
7.3 Project Rationale
In assessing the feasibility, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Project, wind resource potential,
considering direction, speed and were considered. Wind resource potential was assessed using broad
indicators sourced from existing information regarding wind activity, such as publicly available studies,
the National Wind Atlas of Lebanon, historical measurements of wind speed and direction at various
weather stations, etc. Wind potential data was also extrapolated from meteorological figures and wind
data in nearby areas. Considering that energy generated by wind is proportional to wind speed, a
localized ‘wind atlas’ of the planned wind farm was developed based on local wind speed data.
For more accurate and extensive assessment, three meteorological masts, MM4, MM5 and MM6
(Enisolar 80m and 60m models) were installed on site. The mast installations have been performed by
ENISOLAR and were supervised by the Developer’s third-party wind expert, UL DEWI. In addition to
an aviation light and a top lighting rod, each mast includes first class advanced top and low
anemometers, wind vanes, a humidity and temperature sensor, an air pressure transducer, a data
logger box. The data recorded by the mast is automatically sent twice daily to the Project team via
internet. As is the case across the Lebanese coastal zone, most winds blow from a westerly origin.
Utility-scale wind power plants require minimum average wind speeds of 6m/s (13mph). Figure 7-3
shows the comparison of the monthly mean wind speed of Akkar masts (correlated data for the period
09-01-2017 through 08-31-2018) and the considered long-term data sets.
Figure 7-3 Proportional Variation of Monthly Means of Wind Speed at the Project Site
The plots of the wind speed distribution show the parameters of the overall Weibull distribution (scale
factor A, shape factor k) as well. The prevailing wind direction is west. The average wind speeds
during the measurement periods are 8.88m/s at MM4, 6.65m/s at MM5 and 6.86m/s at MM6. The
measured wind direction and wind speed distributions for the masts for the highest measuring height
are shown in Figure 7-4 through Figure 7-6.
7-6
Figure 7-4 Measured Wind Direction and Wind Speed Distribution at the Sustainable
Akkar Site – Mast 4
7-7
An advanced time series correlation (MCP) was performed in order to extend the measured time series
to a period of 1 year. The MCP-method applied has the added benefit of accurately predicting the wind
distribution if sufficiently high-quality data is available in both a high temporal and physical resolution.
The entire correlation procedure is carried out depending on the wind direction, meaning that a
relationship of the wind directions is calculated and that wind speed relationships are calculated for
different direction sectors. These relationships are calculated for sectors, which are variable in size and
depend on the amount of data in the sector.
To correct the short-term measurement to a long-term period, the monthly mean values measured at
the Project site were correlated with the data from 10m SE (Damascus). Table 7-2 presents the wind
speed mean value for the short-term period and the resulting wind speed mean value for the long-
term period. Wind turbine data from Vestas, Nordex, Siemens-Gamesa, GE and Senvion was then
considered to calculate the resulting power curves in line with site-specific air density and the thrust
coefficient.
Table 7-2 Resulting Mean Wind Speeds and Scaling Factors for Long-Term Correction
Mast MM4 MM5 MM6
Wind speed mean value for the 1-year period 09-01-2017 through 8.47m/s 6.37m/s 6.47m/s
08-31-2018
Wind speed mean value for long-term period 09-01-2006 through 8.46m/s 6.36m/s 6.46m/s
08-31-2018
Scaling factor for the site data to period 09-01-2006 through 08- 99.9 %
31-2018
Modeled Results
The following results are based on modeling the Project site meteorological mast wind data (corrected
to the long-term average of 12-year (period 09-01-2006 through 08-31-2018). The spatial variation of
the mean wind speed for Lebanon Wind Power at the hub height of 110 m is depicted as different
colors, as shown in Figure 7-7. The topography of the terrain is depicted as height contour lines. The
positions of the reference points and of the wind turbines are marked in the map.
The gross energy yields were calculated by applying the power curves and thrust curves referenced
above. The results are based on the site-specific time series using meteorological input data,
calculated for each of the wind turbine positions. The results presented consider the potential farm
losses caused by the adjacent Lebanon Wind Power wind farm.
Table 7-3 summarizes the gross energy yield calculations for the entire Sustainable Akkar wind farm,
noting that all modeled capacities exceed 30%. It is noted that wind farm capacities above 30% are
considered an economically viable project.
7-8
Figure 7-7 Calculated Average Wind Speed for Hub Height of 110m46
46
Note: WTG 01, WTG 16, WTG 26 and WTG 28 were removed as part of the ESIA process to mitigate Project
impacts
7-9
Table 7-3 Gross Energy Yield Calculations
Free Gross
Gross
Gross Farm
Farm Avg Farm
Hub Energy Energy Farm
WTG # of Energy Wind Capacity
Height Yield Yield Eff.
Type WTGs Yield (per Speed Factor
[m] (entire (entire [%]
WTG) [m/s] [%]
farm) farm)
[MWh/a]
[MWh/a] [MWh/a]
GE 5.3-
101
158 and
and 17 388,197 377,320 22,195 97.2 8.4 48.6
GE 4.8-
121
158
VESTAS
V150/4 105 21 391,853 382,005 18,191 97.5 8.2 49.4
200
Considering the above, the proposed Project is highly important for the region and is considered
nationally significant as it will be one of the first grid connected wind power plants in Lebanon.
Depending on the manufacturer selected, the Lebanon Wind Power Wind Farm will contribute the
following electrical energy toward reaching Lebanon’s RE target.
The Project will:
• Assist in solving the problem of electricity shortage on the local and national scales.
• Assist in achieving the commitment to 12% supply of energy through RE.
• Reduce GHG emissions since it will be displacing a largely fossil fuel-based electricity generating
system.
7.4 Environmental Benefits
The negative environmental impacts from generating electricity through conventional fossil fuel
burning at thermal power plants are very well known. This most importantly includes air pollutant
emissions such as ozone, Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), particulate matter, and other
gases which are the cause of some serious environmental concerns such as smog, acid rain, health
effects, and many others.
In addition, the burning of fossil fuels results in carbon dioxide emissions; a primary GHG emitted
through human activities which contributes to global warming. The main human activity that emits
CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation. Concurrently, global
climate change has become an issue of concern and so reducing GHG emissions have also emerged as
primary issues to be addressed as the world searches for a sustainable energy future.
According the Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC, published in 2017, Lebanon emitted 26,285 Gg
CO2eq. in 2013 with the most significant GHG being carbon dioxide, primarily produced from the
burning of fossil fuels. The main contributor to GHG emissions is the energy sector (including
transport) with 79% of GHG emissions, followed by industrial processes (10%) and waste sector
(7%).
The emissions from Energy Industries, i.e. Electricité du Liban, is 7,392.08 Gg CO 2eq. representing
28% of the total for the production of 11,725GWh in 2013, resulting in 630 t CO2eq/GWh. CO2
7-10
removals from the land use, land use change and forestry category amounted to 3,518.80 Gg CO2,
bringing Lebanon’s net emissions down to 22,766 Gg CO2eq.
Compared with the current conventional way of producing electricity in Lebanon through thermal
power plants using heavy fuel oil and/or natural gas, generating electricity through wind power is
expected to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, and will thus help in reducing GHG emissions, as well
as air pollutant emissions. The Project will:
system, displacing metric tons of CO2 annually.
• Saving millions of cubic meters of water per year in comparison to an oil-burning power plant
which utilizes water for cooling.
7-11
8. CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
8.1 Baseline Methodology
No rain gauges were installed at the Project site. Climate and climate change conditions were obtained
through literature review and assessment of data collected from three meteorological masts installed
on site.
8.2 Baseline Findings
The climate in the study area is mediterranean and is characterized by hot summers and relatively
cold winters. The dry period extends from May to September whereas most rainfall occurs between
December and January. Jabal Akroum is also characterized by the predominance of the Foehn effect.
Incoming air masses moving in from the West and WSW pass through Wadi Oudine and meet the
mountains perpendicularly; they follow the terrain heated by sunlight and rise. If the humidity is quite
high initially in the air masses, the water vapor condenses to form clouds, as shown in Figure 8-1.
Figure 8-1 Foehn Effect in Jabal Akroum (as seen from Aandqet)
Condensation is usually followed by precipitation on the top and windward sides of the mountain (Wadi
Oudine side). If the air is stable over the mountain, air masses cannot continue to rise once passing
the top and descend on the leeward side. Because the air has lost much of its original water vapor
content, the descending air creates an arid region on the leeward side of the mountain.
A rainfall map of the region is provided in Figure 8-2.
8-1
Figure 8-2 Annual Rainfall Map of the Region – 2011-2012
(MOE/UNDP, 2014)
8-2
Annual rainfall measured in the Akkar region is shown in Figure 8-3.
Figure 8-3 Average Rainfall Amounts and Rainy Days in Akkar
The average temperature measured in the Akkar region is shown in Figure 8-4.
Figure 8-4 Maximum, Minimum and Average Temperature in Akkar
8-3
Snowfall and snow days measured in the Akkar region are shown in Figure 8-5.
Figure 8-5 Snowfall and Snow Days in Akkar
Maximum and average wind speed and wind gust in Akkar is shown in Figure 8-6.
Figure 8-6 Maximum and Average Wind Speed and Wind Gust in Akkar
8-4
Average cloud and humidity measured for the Akkar region is shown in Figure 8-7.
Figure 8-7 Average Cloud and Humidity in Akkar
Wind conditions at the site, as recorded by the site’s three meteorological masts MM4, MM5 and MM6.
Data obtained from the meteorological tower installed onsite is shown in Figure 8-8.
• Increases in mean annual temperatures between 1-2°C by mid-century and 3.5°C-5°C by the end
of the 21st century.
• Reduced snow cover of 40–70 percent and decreased snow residence time from 110 days to 45
days by the end of the 21st century.
• Increase in wildfire risk.
• Less precipitation falling as snow, with snow line currently at 1,500m shifting to 1,700m by 2050,
and to 1,900m by 2090.
47
MOE website on climate change vulnerability and adaptation http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/vulnerability-and-
adaptation http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/vulnerability-and-adaptation
8-5
Figure 8-8 Average Temperature, Humidity and Pressure Measured at the Sustainable
Akkar Wind Farm for the Year 2014
a - Average Temperature (C)
b- Average Humidity (%)
8-6
c - Average Pressure (hPa)
• Increases in mean annual temperatures between 1-2°C by mid-century and 3.5°C-5°C by the end
of the 21st century.
• Reduced snow cover of 40–70 percent and decreased snow residence time from 110 days to 45
days by the end of the 21st century.
• Increase in wildfire risk.
• Less precipitation falling as snow, with snow line currently at 1,500m shifting to 1,700m by 2050,
and to 1,900m by 2090.
A more recent ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model projections was developed under
CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment; Gutowski, 2016) indicate an increase of
1.2°C-1.7°C in annual average temperatures in Lebanon by mid-century and an increase of up to
3.2°C by 2100 compared to the 1986-2005 baseline period, as shown in Figure 8-9. The range
accounts for uncertainty in future increases in GHGs.
48
MOE website on climate change vulnerability and adaptation http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/vulnerability-and-
adaptation http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/vulnerability-and-adaptation
8-7
Figure 8-9 CORDEX Temperature Projections for the 21st Century for GHG49
Lebanon’s 3rd National Communication to the UNFCCC (MOE, 2016) projects an increased demand for
cooling due to rising temperatures. Increased demand for cooling is predicted to drive higher
electricity consumption (1.8% for a 1°C increase in temperature, and 5.8% for a 3°C increase in
temperature). The annual number of cooling degree days is an indicator of how much energy is
required to cool buildings. This increased demand enhances the importance of the additional
generating capacity of the Project.
Global climate model projections for changes in annual cooling degree days in Lebanon are shown in
Figure 8-10 and indicate a steady increase in cooling degree days during the 21 st century. Projections
are from 35 global climate models (GCMs) run for the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (Taylor et al.,
2012). The blue line shows the median result among the 35 models and the blue shading shows the
model range. Calculation uses reference indoor temperatures of 65°F. On a day when the average
outdoor temperature is 85°F, reducing the indoor temperature by 20 degrees over 1 day requires 20
degrees of cooling multiplied by 1 day, or 20 cooling degree days. Utility companies use cooling
degree days to estimate the annual amount of energy people will use to cool buildings.
49
Projected changes in temperatures in Lebanon, adapted from ESCWA, 2015, scenarios for Business as Usual
(RCP 8.5) and GHG mitigation by mid-century (RCP 4.5).
8-8
Figure 8-10 Projected Trends in Annual Cooling Degree Days for Lebanon50
In addition to changes in temperature and rainfall, climate change may also affect winds. In order to
run a WTG, a minimum wind speed is required to rotate the blade. This threshold wind speed allows
us to estimate how many days in a year the mean wind in a location is likely below the level necessary
to produce energy from wind. Climate model vertical grid cell sizes are too coarse to resolve the
different wind speeds at the surface and the WTG hub, so the models near surface wind speed is used
as a proxy for the hub wind speed.
The World Bank Climate Change Portal’s 1m/s threshold is likely lower than the wind speed required
for WTG operation but serves as an indicator for changes in wind speeds during the 21 st century. This
indicates that the number of days available for generation of electricity from wind by the Project is
expected to remain relatively stable.
Figure 8-11 indicates that climate projections show little change in the number of days per year
without noticeable wind in Lebanon.
50
http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_future_climate&ThisRegion=Middle%20East
&ThisCcode=LBN#
8-9
Figure 8-11 Projected Trends in Annual Days without Noticeable Wind for Lebanon51
Uncertainty in Climate Model Projections
The preceding discussion is based on projections of the future from climate models. While climate
models are our best available tool for understanding future impacts from climate change, they have
important limitations.
Several challenges introduce uncertainty into climate model projections of the future: 1) predictions
regarding the future change in atmospheric GHG concentrations remain highly uncertain; 2) climate
models are subject to limitations in resolution and skill in simulating processes that affect climate; 3)
different global climate models may result in similarly valid projections for a given site yet with
different outcomes (e.g. one model shows an increase in annual average wind speed while another
model shows a decrease); 4) different downscaling methods may give different results when starting
from the same global climate model simulation; and 5) the climate system has intrinsic natural
variability that can be more influential than the climate change signal depending on the variable and
time scale of interest.
The results described above are based on ensembles of climate model simulations and encompass a
range of future GHG scenarios and downscaling methods. However, the results should be viewed with
caution, and estimates of changes in winds have been shown to be highly model dependent (e.g.
51
&ThisCcode=LBN#
8-10
Pryor and Barthelmie, 2013), with the climate change signal often smaller than the natural variability
of the winds.
In summary, WTGs are designed to be accommodate extremes in wind speed and temperatures and
are expected to be relatively resilient to the changing climate (Pryor and Barthelmie, 2013).
Increasing temperatures may increase demand for the energy the Project will generate and reduce the
potential for ice formation on the WTGs. However, The Project is located well inland and is not
exposed to rising sea levels.
8.3 Impact Analysis
8.3.1.1 GHG Emissions
GHG emissions are estimated using the IPCC Tier 1 methodology (IPCC, 1997, 2000) using the
quantity of fuel burnt by source for CO2, CH4, N2O. Fuel consumption was estimated based on activity
data presented in Appendix I for the three phases of the Project. The emission factors for each
category are presented in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1 GHG Emission Factors
Source Unit CO2 CH4 N2O
Transport – Diesel g/L 2,652.42 0.1498 0.06656
Transport – Gasoline g/L 2,287.15 0.6675 0.01997
Energy - Diesel g/L 2,645.60 0.1082 0.02155
To calculate the CO2eq. emissions, a Global Warning Potential (GWP) of 1 was used for CO 2, 21 for
CH4 and 310 for N2O.
Table 8-2 shows the quantities of GHG emissions during the construction, operations and
decommissioning phases of the Project.
Table 8-2 GHG Emissions During Project Phases
Phase CO2 em. (kg) CH4 em. (kg) N2O em. (kg) CO2eq. em. (kg)
Construction 2,632,223.2 161.1 54.9 2,652,619.6
Operation (1yr) 199,744.9 34.8 1.8 201043.5
Decommissioning 193,826.4 16.5 4.5 195561.0
Note: the operation of the batching plant was not considered in the GHG emissions calculations for the
construction phase, as the batching plant is already existing, operational, and operated independently
by an external company.
The GHG emissions showed that the main GHG from the Project is CO2 with the construction phase
being again the highest emitter. The assessment of impacts was therefore based on the construction
phase, representing the worst-case scenario. The impact severity was considered Low, and the
sensitivity of the receptor considered Medium, resulting in a Minor impact as shown in Table 8-3.
8-11
Table 8-3 GHG Assessment for Construction Phase (Worst-Case Scenario)
Low Low-Medium Medium √ Medium-High High
No Change Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Impact Severity
Low √ Negligible Negligible Minor √ Minor Moderate
Medium Negligible Minor Moderate Moderate Major
High Minor Moderate Moderate Major Major
Very High Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Critical
8.3.2 Operations Phase
8.3.2.1 Flood Risk
While global climate model projections for precipitation extremes indicate that the Project area is not
expected to experience increase flood risk,52 heavy rainfall could create a potential risk of local flood
hazard within the Project site during rainy season, including flash flood events. Such risks must be
taken into consideration throughout the detailed design of the Project, as they could inflict damage to
the Project and its various components.
Mitigation Measures
The following identifies the mitigation measures that must be considered by the selected OEM/EPC
Contractor at a later stage:
• The selected OEM/EPC Consultant will undertake a flood risk assessment to investigate such risks.
The assessment should be on study of the catchment area’s rainfall, runoff and flood flow.
• It is recommended that the selected OEM/EPC Contractor, as part of the detailed design prepared
for the Project, avoid locating any of the Project components within the buffer distances developed
under the flood risk assessment to eliminate any risks for flood.
• A detailed hydrological study must be undertaken to identify and determine the required
engineering structures to be considered as part of the detailed design for new asphalt and gravel
road segment and internal tracks (e.g. drainage structures, culverts).
Following the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact severity is considered Slight,
and the sensitivity of the receptor as Medium, resulting in a residual impact categorized as Negligible
as shown in Table 8-4.
52
&ThisCcode=LBN
8-12
Table 8-4 Flood Risk Assessment
Slight √ Negligible Negligible Negligible √ Minor Minor

Impact Severity
Low Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Moderate
8.3.2.2 Wildfire Risk
Increasing temperatures and decreasing precipitation may also increase the potential for wildfires,
which could affect the Project infrastructure and/or interrupt access to the site. Such risks must be
taken into consideration throughout the detailed design of the Project, as they could inflict damage to
the Project and its various components.
Mitigation Measures
The following identifies the mitigation measures that must be considered by the selected OEM/EPC
Contractor at a later stage:
• It is recommended that the selected OEM/EPC Contractor, as part of the detailed design prepared
for the Project, avoid locating any of the Project components within the buffer distances (if any)
developed for the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve.
• The selected OEM/EPC Contractor must identify and determine the required fire detection and
protection equipment to be considered as part of the detailed design.
Following the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact severity is considered Low,
and the sensitivity of the receptor as High, resulting in a residual impact categorized as Moderate as
shown in Table 8-5.
8-13
Table 8-5 Wildfire Risk Assessment
Low Low-Medium Medium Medium-High High √

Impact Severity
Low √ Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Moderate √
8.4 Carbon Payback Period
It is noted that the assessment did not consider the offsetting beneficial impact of generating clean
energy through the operation of the wind farm. The Carbon Payback Period (P), measured in days, is
defined as the time needed to generate the emissions from the turbine’s life cycle when using the
fossil fuel electricity mix of the national electricity company EDL.
Therefore, a life cycle assessment was undertaken to calculate the GHG equivalent to CO 2. It
comprises all phases of the Project, i.e. the manufacturing, shipping, construction, operation,
decommissioning, shipping for disposal, recycling and landfilling.
Since the OEM/EPC Contractor is not yet determined, several assumptions were made to calculate the
approximate Carbon Payback Period. These assumptions are presented in Table 8-6.
The expected energy output from SA is 315.75GWh/year resulting in 6,315GWh over 20 years. The
total emissions from the LCA (lifespan 20 years) results in 61179.31 tons of CO2eq, as shown in
Table 8-7.
Since EDL emission rate is 630 t CO2eq/GWh, the carbon payback period is 113 days, which is
expected when compared to the literature.
8-14
Table 8-6 Assumptions for Calculation of GHG for the Project LCA
Manufacturing
Item Material Share of Total Emission Factor

Weight (t CO2eq/t of
Material)
Nacelle (share normalized to 1) Steel 0.806 2.49
Copper 0.082 6.60
Aluminum 0.031 3.47
Glass 0.010 0.57
Iron 0.071 1.35
Generator Steel 0.800 2.49
Copper 0.200 6.60
Blade Fiberglass 0.600 1.39
Epoxy resin 0.400 3.98
Tower Steel 1.000 2.49
Other assumptions:
• Above assumptions from: Smoucha EA, Fitzpatrick K, Buckingham S, Knox OGG (2016) Life
Cycle Analysis of the Embodied Carbon Emissions from 14 Wind Turbines with Rated Powers
between 50Kw and 3.4Mw. J Fundam Renewable Energy Appl 6: 211.
doi:10.4172/20904541.1000211
• Number of Wind Turbines: 21
• Weight of Nacelle considered: 80 tons
• Weight of Generator considered: 68 tons
• Weight of Blade considered: 22 tons for one blade, 66 tons in total (33 blades)
• Weight of Tower considered: 315 tons
Shipping to Lebanon
Assumptions:
• From EMEP/EEA 2016: General cargo, fuel consumption 204g/kWh (50% Medium speed diesel,
50% Slow Speed Diesel), Main engine 2,555kW, Auxiliary engine 588kW, Cruising only
considered, speed 23km/h, Fuel type: Bunker Fuel Oil
• Travel distance: 10,000km
• Number of ships: 5
• Emission factors: IPCC (1996, 2000)
Construction - Calculated in Climate Change paragraph
Operation - Calculated in Climate change paragraph for 1 year, lifespan 20 years
Decommissioning -Calculated in Climate change paragraph
Shipping - from Lebanon same as Shipping to Lebanon
Assumptions:
• From EMEP/EEA 2016: General cargo, fuel consumption 204g/kWh (50% Medium speed diesel,
50% Slow Speed Diesel), Main engine 2,555kW, Auxiliary engine 588kW, Cruising only
considered, speed 23km/h, Fuel type: Bunker Fuel Oil
• Travel distance: 10,000km
• Number of ships: 5
• Emission factors: IPCC (1996, 2000)
8-15
Recycling
Material Share Recycled Share Landfilled Emission Factor for

recycling (t CO2eq / t
of material recycled)
Steel 0.90 0.1 1.819
Aluminum 0.95 0.05 0.738
Copper 0.95 0.05 3.431
Iron (considered 0.90 0.1 1.819

same as iron)
Other 0 1 0
Above recycling data from: Kabir MR, Rooke B, Dassanayake M, Fleck BA (2012) Comparative life
cycle energy, emission, and economic analysis of 100kW nameplate wind power generation. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 37: 133-141.
Landfilling
All material, Emission factor regardless of material type: 0.0009 t CO2eq / t of landfilled material
Above landfilling data from: Kabir MR, Rooke B, Dassanayake M, Fleck BA (2012) Comparative life
cycle energy, emission, and economic analysis of 100kW nameplate wind power generation. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 37: 133-141.
Table 8-7 CO2eq Emissions from the Project Wind Turbine Life Cycle
Stage Emissions CO2eq (t)
Manufacturing 29,190.86
Shipping to Lebanon 4,295.06
Construction 2,652.62
Operation 4,020.87
Decommissioning 195.56
Shipping from Lebanon 4,295.06
Recycling 16,527.16
Landfilling 2.12
Total 61,179.31
8-16
9. GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Information regarding the Project site geology was obtained through literature review. It is noted that
there are no water-related ecologically important habitat locally (refer to Section 13 Biodiversity).
9.2.1 Geology
The study area falls on a Middle Cretaceous formation (Sannine Maameltein, C4-C5), characterized as
thinly bedded to widely exposed and highly karstified limestone overlying pale gray fractured fine and
thick bedded limestone, as presented in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1 Formations Encountered in Project Area
Formation Name Code Description
Maameltein C5 Massive to thinly bedded white gray limestone and

marly limestone.
Sannine-Maameltein C4-C5 Combining the above limestone formations to create

one of the major water towers in Lebanon, widely
exposed and highly karstified, with major recharge
coming from snow.
Sannine C4a, C4b, C4c Pale gray fractured fine and thick bedded limestone
and marled limestone with geodes and chert.
The structural features were shaped by the major tectonic events recorded in the geological history of
Lebanon and have an impact on controlling the groundwater flow directions --- serving as a
preferential pathway or as a flow-restricting boundary.
The primary structures are divided into: 1) primary faults Yammouneh, Rashaya, Hasbaya, Roum and
Serghaya; 2) primary folds North Mount Lebanon Anticline, Barouk-Niha Anticline, Bekaa
Syncline/garben, North Anti-Lebanon Anticline and Mount Hermon Anticline; and 3) platforms (Akkar,
Tyr and Saida-Damour.
The secondary structures are divided in to secondary faults, which are trending in a NW-SE, NE-SW,
ENE-WSW and E-W and secondary folds, mainly trending in a NNE-SSW direction parallel to the
primary faults.
The geological map of Lebanon is shown in Figure 9-1. A cross-section of northern Lebanon is shown
in Figure 9-2.
9-1
Figure 9-1 Geological Map of Lebanon53
53
Geological map of Lebanon, Dubertret, 1955.
9-2
Figure 9-2 Cross-Section of Northern Lebanon54
Onsite observations confirmed the prevalence of limestone rocks in the Project area, as shown in
Figure 9-3.
Figure 9-3 Limestone Outcroppings in the Project Area
The Project site is situated east of the Yammouneh Fault, as shown in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-4.
Topography is presented in Figure 9-5.
54
Ground Study Report, Lebanon Wind Power Project, Akkar Region – Southern Ridge, Lebanon, 2018.
9-3
Figure 9-4 Faults of Lebanon
9-4
Figure 9-5 Topography of Northern Lebanon55
55
Vidiani, 2019.
9-5
9.2.2 Groundwater
9.2.2.1 Hydrostratigraphy
The relationship between stratigraphy and hydrostratigraphy is shown in Figure 9-6. The main
aquifer underlying the Project site is the Sannine-Maameltain Aquifer, which is lithologically composed
of karstic limestone, i.e. soluble rock where voids, caverns, open fractures, and caves have formed
due to weathering by aggressive water. Combining these two formations creates one of the major
water towers in Lebanon. The Project site is situated west of the Mediterranean-Interior Province
Divide in the Qammoua Groundwater Basin, which covers an area of 43.3km2 (UNDP Assessment of
Groundwater Resources, 2014).
According to the UNDP Groundwater Resources Report56, the Sannine Maameltein, C4-C5 formation
lies within a karst area classified as Area 2 – Moderate Karst Exposure (MKE) as shown in Figure 9-7,
where relatively high infiltration rates, groundwater flow is present, and normal surface runoff with
diffused losses reflect the effects between surface water and the groundwater basin. Major recharge of
this aquifer is from snow and groundwater is stored and transmitted in fractures and conduits and is
not an area that is recharged by natural and/or wastewater sites, as shown in Figure 9-8. Water
infiltrated from within the study area will feed regional groundwater and feed public wells and springs.
As indicated in Section 15 Socioeconomic Conditions, minor springs present locally are an
important source of water for residents of the local villages (also refer to Section 9.2.2.2).
Shallow and deep groundwater flow in the basin is shown in Figure 9-9 (as indicated by small and
large blue lines). According to the UNDP Groundwater Resources Report, the aquifer is not under
stress, as shown in Figure 9-10.
The recharge potential of the groundwater basin underlying the Project site is shown in Table 9-2.
Table 9-2 North Lebanon Cretaceous Basin Recharge Potential57
56
UNDP, Ministry of Energy and Water, Assessment of Groundwater Resources of Lebanon, 2014.
57
9-6
Figure 9-6 Stratigraphy and Hydrostratigraphy
9-7
Figure 9-7 Karstic Map of Lebanon
9-8
Figure 9-8 Hydrogeology Map
9-9
Figure 9-9 Shallow and Deep Groundwater Flow Direction in the Basin
9-10
Figure 9-10 Groundwater Basins Under Stress
9-11
Data on groundwater recharge are limited, however the UNDP Assessment of Groundwater Resources
in Lebanon (2014) states that recharge to groundwater is calculated as the excess of precipitation
over real evapotranspiration and surface runoff, and the estimated volumes, which includes both deep
percolation and retention in the vadose zone for the four hydrological cycles vary from 4,116 to 6,651
MCM, with an average of about 55% of the total precipitation.58 Therefore, without additional data, it
is assumed that 55% of the total rainfall enters the aquifer (note: this assumption likely overstates
the actual recharge volume). The hydrochemical composition is Ca-Mg-HCO3, with a shift toward salt
water intrusion, as shown in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3 North Lebanon Cretaceous Basin Hydrochemical Composition59
9.2.2.2 Groundwater Extraction
The 2014 UNDP Study summarized the public well survey conducted between November 14, 2011 and
February 13, 2012. The survey revealed the presence of 841 public wells in the country, as shown in
Figure 9-11, out of which 44 wells are abandoned and 68 are non-operational. Flow meters were
installed in 287 public wells. The survey showed that the operational public wells are exploiting the
various aquifers at an estimated rate of about 248.7 million m 3/year.
The Project site is located within Lebanese Water Establishment NLWE, of which 27% is abstracted
from the C4-C5 Aquifer. The number of public wells, piezometers and total extraction rates by Water
Establishment is summarized in Table 9-4.
Table 9-4 NLWE Water Establishment Wells and Extraction Rates60
58
UNDP, Ministry of Energy and Water, Assessment of Groundwater Resources of Lebanon, 2014.
59
60
9-12
It is noted that the Project is located east of the Yamounneh Fault; therefore, the groundwater
underlying the Project site would flow to the east, toward the group of wells circled in Figure 9-10.
Figure 9-11 Public Well Locations
9-13
There are no private water supply wells within the Project area; however, it was reported that 80% of
Rweimeh Village use springs and 0% use water wells, while 40% of Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun use
springs and 20% use water wells (refer to Section 15 Socioeconomic Conditions).
It is noted that the Project is located east of the Yamounneh Fault; therefore, the groundwater
underlying the Project site would flow to the east, toward the group of wells circled in Figure 9-11.
The wells located east/southeast are approximately 3.2km from the Project and are separated from
the Project by a vertical change of approximately 220m.
Additional survey work was undertaken by the Developer to identify the number and location of public
and private wells near the Project. One (1) private well and 2 public wells were identified as follows:
Private Well #1: 34°35'38.4"N 36°19'53.8"E and 34.593985, 36.331600;

https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B035'38.4%22N+36%C2%B019'53.8%22E/@34.5944
975,36.3290125,17.5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d34.5939853!4d36.3316003?hl=en
Public Well #2: 34°36'11.8"N 36°20'29.0"E and 34.603288, 36.341389;
https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B036'11.8%22N+36%C2%B020'29.0%22E/@34.6032
875,36.3391999,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d34.6032875!4d36.3413886?hl=en
Public Well#3: 34°35'20.1"N 36°20'34.9"E and 34.588916, 36.343014;
https://www.google.com/maps?q=34.5889157,36.3430142&z=17&hl=en
As can be seen in Figure 9-12, the locations of these wells are immediately north, northeast of the
Project.
Although highly unlikely, a potential spill from the Project site could therefore result in pollution of
groundwater. It is noted, however, that given the low likelihood of this scenario (i.e. that: 1) a spill
that occurs at a volume that is not observed and cannot quickly be contained per implementation of
good housekeeping practices; 2) construction will occur outside of winter months; and 3) flow through
karsts and fractures in the Project area are moderate), this potential impact was not considered as
part of the cumulative impact assessment included in Section 20 Cumulative Impact Assessment
of the ESIA. However unlikely, it is acknowledged that there may remain a residual risk to
groundwater resources.
9.2.3 Water Sources
9.2.3.1 Surface Water
Lebanon has 28 rivers, 22 of which originate on the western face of the Lebanon range and run
through the steep gorges and into the Mediterranean Sea, the other 6 arise in the Beqaa Valley.
Although the country is well watered and there are many rivers and streams, there are no navigable
rivers, nor is any one river the sole source of irrigation water. Drainage patterns are determined by
geological features and climate. Although rainfall is seasonal, most streams are perennial.
9-14
Figure 9-12 Private and Public Well Locations
9-15
The five rivers that flow within the North Lebanon Governorate (Mohafaza) are: Al Kabir River (Nahr Al
Kabir), Oustuene River, Al Bared River (Nahr Al Bared), El Jaouz River (Nahr El Jaouz) and Abou
Ali/Kadisha River (Nahr Abou Ali), as shown in Figure 9-13.61
The Al Kabir is the main river in the area that extends along 58km, noting that the villages of
Aandqet, Quobaiyat, Chadra, Machta Hammoud and Machta Hassan form part of its drainage basin or
watershed. Figure 9-1462 shows the villages in the Project area and Al Kabir River passing through
Chadra and Machta Hassan
The El Kabir River has an average flow rate of about 9.13m3/s, with a minimum and a maximum of
1.42m3/s and 190.8m3/s, respectively. The river, as many others in the country, suffers from
pollution. Table 9-563 shows some indicative pollutant values in the Al Kabir, Al Bared and Abou
Ali/Kadisha Rivers in North Lebanon. These values were taken during the dry season, namely during
the months of July, August and September of 2004.
Table 9-5 Parameters for Selected Main Rivers in North Lebanon in the Dry Season
Al Kabir River / Al Bared River / Abou Ali River / Limit

Parameter
Nahr Al Kabir Nahr Al Bared Nahr Abou Ali Value
BOD5 (mg/l) 14.4 28.2 39.3 Nil*
NO3 (mg/l) 3 2.8 3.4 50*
TDS (mg/l) 270 225 280 600*
SO3 (mg/l) 20 28 22 250*
Total Coliforms 300 610 26,500 500**

(TC) (c/100ml)
E. coli (c/100ml) 20 17 300 100**
* WHO (2006) standards for drinking water

** MOE Decision 52/1-1996: requirement for bathing water quality including sea, rivers and lakes.
According to Figure 9-15,64 the Project lies in a water vulnerable zone.
9.2.3.2 Springs
Approximately 5,050 springs are depicted in the 1:20,000 topographic maps of Lebanon. 409 springs
distributed throughout the 51 GW basins have some reliable discharge flow data. Only 9 springs are
currently being monitored on a regular basis. A 2014 spring assessment by the UNDP categorized and
classified springs into types (based on emergence mechanism) and classes (based on discharge flow
rates), in addition to analyzing hydrographs of springs with continuous data.
61
Shared Water Resources of Lebanon, Amin Raban, 2017.
62
LocaLiban, 2012.
63
MOE, 2010.
64
DAR-IAURIF, 2005.
9-16
Figure 9-13 Lebanon River Locations
9-17
Figure 9-14 Water Resources Map of the Project Area
9-18
Figure 9-15 Water Resource Vulnerability Map of Lebanon
SA
LWP
9-19
About 81 major springs, with sufficient reliable information, were categorized into 9 types. Each type
is characterized by its specific emergence mechanism which includes a combination of spring
hydrodynamic characteristics (i.e. draining flow, overflow, artesian, or a combination of two of these
flow types) and geological controlling features (i.e. structural and stratigraphic control/barriers).Only 5
springs were found to belong to Class 2, which is characterized by a discharge rate ranging between 1
to 10 m3/s.
There are no major springs in the study area, with the closest being the Ras El Ain Spring in Hermel,
as previously shown in Figures 9-7 through Figure 9-10. There are, however, several small water
springs as depicted in Figure 9-16.
With regard to how springs are supported, there is a paucity of data. Spring discharges are not well
measured, might be underestimated or overestimated, and retention and storage is not well defined.
However, the UNDP provides the conceptual model as shown in Figure 9-17.
9.3 Impact Analysis
This section identifies the anticipated impacts to soil and groundwater from the Project activities
during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases. It is noted that the selected OEM/EPC
Contractor will undertake planned survey / monitoring (i.e. surveying of major karstic features,
groundwater mapping, water quality monitoring of groundwater, local springs, etc.) to inform detailed
design and address adverse impacts during construction. In addition, monitoring of key receptors shall
be extended through the construction phase to ensure that any adverse impacts on groundwater are
identified.
9.3.1 Potential Impacts to Groundwater Quality during the Construction and

Decommissioning Phases
Elevated risk to groundwater is possible, primarily during the construction and decommissioning
phases. Potential sources of pollution include but are not limited to the following:
• Spills of fuels and oils in plant stored at the site.

• Use of cementitious material in foundations, as well as disposal of water used as washdown of
equipment/vehicles used to transport batched cement.
• Generation of turbid runoff from disturbed land, spoil heaps and new tracks.
While typically not a groundwater issue, control of these pollution sources in a karstic environment is
necessary to preclude impacts to groundwater.
Mitigation
Such impacts are controlled through the implementation of general best practice housekeeping
measured expected to be implemented by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor. These practices include
following the Construction Health and Safety Plan, staging of work areas, provision of
washout/washdown facilities with filter/neutralization prior to discharge, installation of silt fencing,
erosion and sediment control, excavation and grading containment, provision of spill response
equipment, etc.
9-20
Figure 9-16 Minor Spring Locations
9-21
Figure 9-17 UNDP Conceptual Groundwater Model of Lebanon
Further, additional protection shall be afforded by scheduling major earthworks, pouring of cement
and other major activities with high potential for the generation of water pollution away from the snow
melt season when the large majority of recharge is believed to occur.
9.3.2 Potential Impacts to Groundwater Quality during the Operations Phase
Elevated risk to groundwater is possible during the operations phase. Potential sources of pollution
include spills of fuels and oils, particularly oils spilled at the substation locations.
Mitigation
Such impacts are controlled through the implementation of general best practice housekeeping
measured expected to be implemented by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor. These practices include
following the Construction Health and Safety Plan, daily inspections, provision of spill response
equipment, etc. Additional protection shall be afforded by scheduling major activities with high
potential for the generation of water pollution away from the snow melt season when the large
majority of recharge is believed to occur.
9-22
9.3.3 Potential Impacts from Improper Management of Waste Streams during
Construction and Operation
The generic nature of the impacts for the construction and operation phases of the Project include
potential impacts from improper housekeeping practices (e.g. improper management of waste
streams, improper storage of construction material and of hazardous material, etc.). Improper
housekeeping practices during construction and operation (such as illegal disposal of waste to land)
could contaminate and pollute soil which in turn could pollute groundwater resources. This could also
indirectly affect flora/fauna and the general health and safety of workers (from being exposed to such
waste streams).
The potential impacts from improper management of waste streams could be of a long-term duration
throughout the construction and operations phases. Such impacts are considered of low magnitude as
they are generally controlled through the implementation of general best practice housekeeping
measures. The receiving environment is considered of medium sensitivity. Following the
implementation of the mitigation measures highlighted throughout this section, the residual
significance can be reduced to not significant.
Mitigation
Generally, such impacts can be adequately controlled through the implementation of general best
practice housekeeping measures as highlighted throughout this section, and which are expected to be
implemented by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor throughout the construction and operations phases.
9.3.3.1 Solid Waste Generation
Solid waste is expected to be generated from construction and operational activities. Solid waste
generated will likely include construction waste (such as debris) and municipal solid waste (during
construction and operation such as cardboard, plastic, food waste, etc.). Municipal and construction
waste generated will likely be collected and stored onsite and then disposed to the closest municipal
approved area for disposal.
Mitigation
The mitigation measures to be applied by the OEM/EPC Contractor during the construction and
operations phases include the following:
• Coordinate with the appropriate Municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the
collection of solid waste from the site to the municipal approved disposal area.
• Prohibit fly-dumping of any solid waste to the land.
• Distribute appropriate number of properly contained litter bins and containers properly marked as
"Municipal Waste".
• During construction, distribute a sufficient number of properly contained containers clearly marked
as "Construction Waste" for the dumping and disposal of construction waste. Where possible, the
OEM/EPC Contractor must seek ways to reduce construction waste by reusing materials (for
example through recycling of concrete for road base course).
• Implement proper housekeeping practices on the construction site at all times.
9-23
• Maintain records and manifests that indicate volume of waste generated onsite, collected by
contractor, and disposed of at the landfill. The numbers within the records are to be consistent to
ensure no illegal dumping at the site or other areas.
9.3.3.2 Wastewater Generation
Wastewater is mainly expected to include black water (sewage water from toilets and sanitation
facilities), as well as grey water (from sinks, showers, etc.) generated from workers during the
construction and operation phase. Wastewater quantities are expected to be minimal. It is expected
that wastewater will be collected and stored in fully contained septic tanks and then collected and
transported by transportation tankers to be disposed at an appropriate wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP).
Mitigation
The following mitigation measures are to be implemented by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor during
the construction and operations phases:
• Coordinate with Akkar Water Directorate to hire a private contractor for the collection of
wastewater from the site to the appropriate WWTP.
• Prohibit illegal disposal of wastewater to the land.
• Maintain records and manifests that indicate volume of wastewater generated onsite, collected by
contractor, and disposed of at the WWTP. The numbers within the records are to be consistent to
ensure no illegal discharge at the site or other areas.
• Ensure that constructed septic tanks during construction and those to be used during operation
are well contained and impermeable to prevent leakage of wastewater into soil.
• Ensure that septic tanks are emptied and collected by wastewater contractor at appropriate
intervals to avoid overflowing.
9.3.3.3 Hazardous Waste Generation
Hazardous waste is expected to be generated throughout both the construction and operation phase
to include consumed oil, chemicals, paint cans, etc. Given the nature of the Project, hazardous waste
quantities are expected to be relatively low. Nevertheless, hazardous waste generated will be collected
and stored onsite and then disposed at an appropriate hazardous waste treatment facility.
Mitigation
• Coordinate with the MOE and hire a private contractor for the collection of hazardous waste from
the site to the hazardous waste treatment facility.
• Follow the requirements for management and storage as per hazardous waste management and
handling of the MOE.
• Prohibit illegal disposal of hazardous waste to the land.
• Ensure that containers are emptied and collected by the contractor at appropriate intervals to
prevent overflowing.
9-24
• Maintain records and manifests that indicate volume of hazardous waste generated onsite,
collected by contractor, and disposed of at the hazardous waste treatment facility. The numbers
within the records are to be consistent to ensure no illegal discharge at the site or other areas.
9.3.3.4 Hazardous Materials
The nature of construction and operational activities entail the use of various hazardous materials
such as oil, chemicals, and fuel for the various equipment and machinery. Improper management of
hazardous material entails a risk of leakage into the surrounding environment either from storage
areas or throughout the use of equipment and machinery.
Mitigation
• Ensure that hazardous materials are stored in proper areas and in a location where they cannot
reach the land in case of accidental spillage. This includes storage facilities that are of hard
impermeable surface, flame-proof, accessible to authorized personnel only, locked when not in
use, and prevents incompatible materials from coming in contact with one another.
• Maintain a register of all hazardous materials used and accompanying Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) must present at all times. Spilled material should be tracked and accounted for.
• Incorporate dripping pans at machinery, equipment, and areas that are prone to contamination by
leakage of hazardous materials (such as oil, fuel, etc.).
• Regular maintenance of all equipment and machinery used onsite. Maintenance activities and
other activities that pose a risk for hazardous material spillage (such as refueling) must take place
at a suitable location (hard surface) with appropriate measures for trapping spilled material.
• Ensure that a minimum of 1,000 liters of general-purpose spill absorbent is available at hazardous
material storage facility. Appropriate absorbents include elite, clay, peat and other products
manufactured for this purpose.
• If spillage on soil occurs, spill must be immediately contained, cleaned-up, and contaminated soil
disposed as hazardous waste.
• A guarantee will be obtained that the substation equipment will have no or minimal leakage of
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and/or leak detectors will be included and action taken if any leakage
occurs.
9.3.4 Potential Impacts to Related Infrastructure and Utilities
9.3.4.1 Potential Impacts on Water Resources during the Construction and Operations
Phases
It is expected that the Project throughout the construction and operation phase will require water for
potable usage (drinking, personal cleaning, etc.) and non-potable usage (e.g. cleaning of turbines and
spray to suppress dust (refer to Section 11 Air Quality)). The water requirements throughout the
construction phase will be required temporary (for construction period only) and are considered
minimal and not significant. The additional water demand would ideally have been factored into the
assessment; however, this will be considered by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor. While an impact to
9-25
Project cost, it is envisaged that additional water will be tinkered in and does not jeopardize overall
Project viability.
Water will be required during the operation phase and mainly for drinking and other personal use of
onsite staff (around 3 personnel). During operation, water will also be required for the cleaning of the
blades. It is expected that the cleaning will take place once every 3–5 years, thus amounting to 5–9
times during the lifetime of the Project. The amount of water required per wash is around 48m 3
(equivalent to around 1m3 per turbine, i.e. for a maximum of 16 turbines X 3 blades per turbine);
thus, the maximum amount of water required during the lifetime of the Project is around 336m 3
(assuming 7 washes are undertaken).
The anticipated impacts on the local water resources and utilities are considered of short‐term
duration during the Project construction phase and of long-term duration during the operation phase.
Such impacts are expected to be of low magnitude and of low sensitivity given the minimal water
requirements of the Project. To this extent, the impact is considered not significant. As such, there are
no mitigation measures to be applied. However, the selected OEM/EPC Contractor should coordinate
with the Akkar Water Directorate to secure the water requirements of the Project.
9.3.4.2 Potential Impacts on Wastewater Disposal Utilities during the Construction and
Operation Phases
The Project is expected to generate wastewater during both the construction and operation phases to
include black water (sewage water from toilets and sanitation facilities) and grey water (from sinks,
showers, etc.). Wastewater quantities generated are expected to be minimal and not significant at all
during both phases of the Project and are likely to be easily handled.
Generally, the approximate estimated wastewater to be generated from the Project can be accounted
as follows. Throughout the construction phase, 150 construction workers are anticipated, whereas
during the operation phase 3 workers are anticipated. The water requirements per capita during the
construction and operation are currently being calculated by the Developer. The wastewater generated
will most likely be collected by tankers from the Project and disposed offsite at a wastewater
treatment facility. Such wastewater generated from the Project during the construction and operation
phase reveals that such quantities are negligible.
Taking all of the above into account, the anticipated impacts on wastewater utilities are considered of
short‐term duration during the Project construction phase and of long-term duration during the
operations and maintenance phase. Such impacts are expected to be of low magnitude given the
minimal wastewater quantities generated, and of low sensitivity as they will be easily handled. Given
the above impact is considered not significant. As such, there are no mitigation measures to be
applied. However, the selected OEM/EPC Contractor must coordinate with the Akkar Water Directorate
to obtain list of authorized contractors for disposal of wastewater.
9-26
9.3.4.3 Potential Impacts on Solid Waste Disposal Utilities during the Construction and
Operation Phases
The Project is expected to generate solid waste during both the construction and operation phases to
include construction waste (i.e. dirt, rocks, debris, etc.) as well as general municipal waste (such as
food, paper, glass, bottles, plastic, etc.). Solid waste quantities generated are expected to be minimal
and not significant at all during both phases of the Project and are likely to be easily handled as either
municipal waste and/or construction debris. Such quantities are negligible when compared to the total
volume of solid waste received by such facilities daily.
The anticipated impacts on solid waste utilities are considered of short‐term duration during the
Project construction phase and of long-term duration during the operations phase. Such impacts are
expected to be of low magnitude given the minimal solid waste quantities generated, and of low
sensitivity as they will be easily handled by the landfill. Given the above impact is considered not
significant. As such, there are no mitigation measures to be applied. However, the selected OEM/EPC
Contractor must:
• Undertake discussions with the appropriate municipal landfills to determine where there is
sufficient capacity to easily handle construction debris generated from the Project.
• Coordinate with the appropriate municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the
collection of construction waste from the site to the approved landfill.
• Coordinate with the appropriate municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the
collection of solid waste from the site to the approved landfill.
9.3.4.4 Potential Impacts on Hazardous Waste Disposal Utilities during the Construction
and Operation Phases
The exact quantities of hazardous waste that will be generated from the Project are not determined;
however, given the nature of construction and operation they are expected to be minimal. Such
hazardous waste streams include simple types of waste such as oil, chemicals, and fuel for the various
equipment and machinery. Hazardous waste quantities are likely to be easily handled by the
hazardous waste treatment facility.
Taking all of the above into account, the anticipated impacts on hazardous waste utilities are
considered of short‐term duration during the Project construction phase and of long-term duration
during the operations and maintenance phase. Such impacts are expected to be of low magnitude
given the minimal hazardous waste quantities generated, and of low sensitivity as they will be easily
handled appropriately by the hazardous waste treatment facility.
Given the above, the impact is considered not significant. As such, there are no mitigation measures
to be applied. However, the selected OEM/EPC Contractor must coordinate with the MOE to hire a
competent private contractor for the collection of hazardous waste from the site and disposal at the
hazardous waste treatment facility.
9-27
9.3.5 Impact Assessment Summary
Table 9-6 Impact Assessment for Sources of Pollution to Groundwater and Improper
Management of Waste Streams

Impact Severity
9-28
10. GEOPHYSICAL GROUND AND SEISMICITY
A geophysical ground investigation was implemented in April-June 2018 to determine the engineering
parameters for the wind turbine and plant foundations, platforms and roads to be constructed, as
presented in the Terifrom Ground Study presented in Appendix J.
A 12-channel DOREMI engineering seismograph recorder was used for the MASW studies. It consists
of a tablet PC for system records, a sensor for detecting seismic tracks, a trigger, a sledgehammer, 12
vertical geophones (4.5 Hz geophone) and special connection units, as shown in Figure 10-1.
Figure 10-1 Seismic Device
Multichannel Analysis Surface Waves (MASW) measurements were taken in the field and 2D-3D
models and evaluations were used in the analysis of S-type seismic velocity (Vs) among other
parameters. The resulting Vs30 measurements characterize the Ground Groups encountered at the
data point, as shown in Table 10-1, indicative of the stability of soils.
Table 10-1 Vs30 Values and Corresponding Ground Groups
Vs30 Value (m/sec) Ground Group Definition
Vs30 > 800 A Rock or other similar formations
Vs30 > 360, but < 800 B High hard sand pebbles very hard clay
Vs30 > 180 but < 360 C Tight to medium tight sand, gravel or hard clay
Vs30 < 180 D Cohesionless ground from loose to medium tight
Measurements were collected at each of the wind turbine locations under consideration at the time of
the survey. Depending on the ground conditions observed at each turbine location, differing numbers
of measurements were collected to provide recommendations for excavation prior to construction in
suitable soils with appropriate bearing capacity.
10-1
Measurement points and findings in terms of Vs30 dispersion map are provided in Figure 10-2.
Figure 10-2 Ground Study Areas
Measurement points and findings in terms of Vs30 dispersion map are provided in Figure 10-3
through Figure 10-9. Overall, Ground Groups of A through C were encountered at most locations; it
is noted that no Vs30 values lower than 200 recorded and very few locations recorded Vs30 values
lower than 300, indicating relatively hard formations. The profile measured at each potential turbine
location, the soil conditions encountered at each turbine location, and the recommendations provided
for excavation ahead of construction are provided in Appendix J.
Depending on the ground conditions observed at each turbine location, differing numbers of
measurements were collected to provide recommendations for excavation prior to construction in
suitable soils with appropriate bearing capacity.
Area 1 sampling locations are shown in Figure 10-3.
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
Overall, Ground Groups of A through C were encountered at most locations; it is noted that no Vs30
values lower than 200 recorded and very few locations recorded Vs30 values lower than 300,
indicating relatively hard formations. The profile measured at each potential turbine location are
shown in Figure 10-10 and presented in Appendix J.
Figure 10-10 MASW Measurements
a - Measurements Points
10-6
b - Vs30 Dispersion Map
Area 1
Layer 1 thickness varies between 1.49m and 6.85m. The beginning of Layer 2 is between 1.49m and
6.85m, and the ending is between 6.68m and 18.29m. The beginning of Layer 3 is between 6.68m
and 18.29m. All profiles in Area 1 reached Ground Group A by Layer 2, with the exception of Profile-
59 which reached Ground Group A by Layer 3.
Area 2
217, Profile-221, Profile-222, Profile-238, Profile-241, Profile-242 and Profile-244. All reached Group A
by Layer 3, with the exception of Profile-242 and Profile-243.
Area 3
and 33.78m. All profiles in Area 3 reached Ground Group A by Layer 2.
Area 4
263 which reached Ground Group A by Layer 3.
10-7
Area 5
and 28.33m. All profiles in Area 1 reached Ground Group A by Layer 2.
Area 6
131, Profile-132, Profile-141, Profile-153, Profile-158, Profile-161 and Profile-164 which reached
Ground Group A by Layer 3, with the exception of Profile-132.
Area 7
and 21.92m. The results indicate that Area 7 would be difficult to excavate without explosives.
10.3 Seismicity
The report of Terifrom Ground Report (2018) states that the epicenters of the strongest three seismic
events in this century (1907, 1956, and 1997) are located in the Roum Fault Zone, including the
Chouf Region and its offshore area (highlighted in green) as shown in Figure 10-11.
This implies that the epicenter of this event could be relocated northward to become closer to the
epicenters of its own aftershock and of the 1907 and 1956 events. Hence, the Chouf Area with its
complicated structural setting, probably, constitutes a locked (northern) segment of the Roum Fault
Zone, which probably terminates near Damour River. Moreover, information issued by the Lebanese
Geophysical Center through its seismological station at Bhannes (the only recording station in
Lebanon) indicated that the distance from the epicenter of the main 1997 event to the station is only
33km.
The earthquakes of 1907, 1956, and 1997 had a recurrence interval of 40 to 50 years. However, no
major seismic events are known in Lebanon after the destructive 1837 earthquake, which has affected
northern Palestine and southern Lebanon. The epicenter of this earthquake has been located by many
investigators near Salad in the Huleh Depression, where the Dead Sea Transform Fault (DSTF)
bifurcates into its Lebanese fault branches.
10.4 Impact Analysis
The Project will be located at the highest altitude points of the Akkar region and is not be expected to
be exposed to flood or flooding due to its geological structure and elevation. Further, since the Akkar
region is not within a landslide area, it is considered that there will not be any slope stability issues.
10-8
Figure 10-11 Fault Zones
10-9
Further, since the Akkar region is not within a landslide area, it is considered that there will not be any
slope stability issues. The Project site is situated within the rising block of the formation. The areas
where active fault movements are observed are generally within the falling block. For this reason,
earthquake impact and related problems are not predicted in the Akkar region.
A new seismicity catalogue for the area of Lebanon (32ø-35øN, 34ø-37øE) was compiled in 1997 (with
1,725 events including both historical earthquakes and instrumentally recorded tremors (Butler et al.,
1997). They concluded that changing (decreasing northward) seismicity characteristics along the
Roum Fault Zone suggest a change in faulting mechanism, resulting in a slightly higher earthquake
hazard for southwest Lebanon.
As such, the potential for earthquake at the Project site is minimal.
Mitigation
During the construction and operations phases, steps will be taken by the OEM/EPC Contractor to
ensure that temporary infrastructure does not exacerbate flood risk, for example, through the transfer
of significant flow between different surface water catchments.
Ground stability problems are not expected due to high resistance values and safe carrying power
values evidenced by the seismic measurements. During detailed design, the OEM/EPC Contractor will
incorporate the recommendations of the seismic study for excavation at the platform foundation
locations to a depth where stable soils are encountered.
shown in Table 10-2.
Table 10-2 Geophysical Ground and Seismicity Assessment

Impact Severity
10-10
11. AIR QUALITY
Air quality information was obtained through literature review. The Project is located in a rural area of
Jabal Akroum. No industrial point sources of air pollution have been identified within the Project
boundary. There are sensitive receptors (i.e., residents, hospitals, schools) near the Project area.
Background concentrations for criteria pollutants ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), at the locations shown in Figure 11-1. This
data was collected in 2011 and published by the MOE in 2015.
It should be noted that in North Lebanon, the Tripoli Environment and Development Observatory
(TEDO) operates several urban and background monitoring stations in Tripoli. Additionally, the MOE
launched its first two phases of the Air Quality Monitoring Network (AQMN), with the support of the
UNEP and UNDP, and the EU, which allowed to install 15 background air quality monitoring stations
and 10 meteorological stations to provide real time air quality monitoring data in Lebanon. While the
AQMN has been fully operational since 2017, data management and analysis are still underway and
has not been published yet.
The emission sources for activities by phase and emission factors and fuel consumption are as
presented in Appendix I
The 2011 background concentrations for priority pollutants are summarized in Table 11-1.
Table 11-1 Background Concentrations of Priority Pollutants in the Project Area (ug/m3)
Cell ID NO2 O3 PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO
1 9.169 83.319 17.740 15.420 10.070 201.113
2 11.879 81.668 17.613 15.469 10.554 206.054
3 10.483 81.116 17.116 15.061 9.950 199.545
4 11.097 82.540 16.436 14.555 9.555 201.673
5 9.995 82.868 15.382 13.658 8.592 195.067
6 12.006 81.465 16.219 14.296 9.761 203.033
7 6.460 85.945 14.304 12.484 6.356 185.880
8 7.000 85.618 14.078 12.452 6.512 184.593
9 4.694 87.115 13.383 11.665 4.988 175.124
10 7.071 85.847 14.283 12.369 6.463 183.716
11-1
Figure 11-1 MOE 2011 Air Monitoring Locations
11-2
Review of the baseline information indicates that concentrations of criteria pollutants are low in the
Project area. Moreover, the latest national air quality assessment has been conducted as part of the
environmental impacts of the Syrian crisis and it indicated that the impacts of the Syrian crisis in
terms of air quality is negligible in the Project area. As such, it is expected that any negative
deterioration on the air quality since 2011 would also be insignificant 65.
56F58F
Background sources of air pollution include quarrying activities to the east of the Project which
generate dust. Another source of air pollution is the transport sector emitting exhaust related
pollutants such as PM, CO, NOx, SOx and hydrocarbons. However, the significance of the latter
emissions on the Project area is low and the site can be considered located in a relatively pristine area
with clean air and low air pollution levels.
11.3.1 Air Quality Standards
The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a set of guidelines for air quality that serve as an
international benchmark and offers guidance in reducing the health impacts of air pollution (WHO,
2006). They are set based on a review of the accumulated scientific evidence. Table 11-2 presents
the WHO Air Quality Guidelines for some pollutants (WHO, 2006). The IFC/World Bank Group (WB)
adopts the WHO Air Quality Guidelines in the absence of national air quality regulations.
Table 11-2 WHO Air Quality Guidelines
Pollutant Maximum Concentration Averaging Period

500 µg.m-3 10 minutes
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
20 µg.m-3 24 hours
200 µg.m -3
1 hour
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
40 µg.m-3 1 year
Ozone (O3) 100 µg.m-3 8 hours
100,000 µg.m-3 15 minutes
60,000 µg.m-3 30 minutes
Carbon monoxide (CO)
30000 µg.m-3 1 hour
10,000 µg.m-3 8 hours
Total suspended particles (TSP) Not available
Particulate matter smaller than 50 µg.m -3
24 hours
10 µm (PM10) 20 µg.m-3 1 year
Particulate matter smaller than 25 µg.m-3 24 hours
2.5 µm (PM2.5) 10 µg.m-3 1 year
Lead 0.5 µg.m-3 1 year
Benzene No safe level of exposure can Excess lifetime risk of leukemia
be recommended at a concentration of 1 μg.m-3
is 6 × 10–6
65
MOE/EU/UNDP, 2014. Environmental Impact of the Syrian Crisis. Available at
http://www.moe.gov.lb/‫الوزارة‬/Agreements-Plans-and-Reports/‫تقارير‬/Lebanon-Environmental-Assessment-of-the-
Syrian-Con.aspx.
11-3
In 1996, the MOE issued in 1996 Decision 52/1 proposing national air quality guidelines. Annex 14 of
the Decision provides ambient air standards (averaging periods and values) as shown in Table 11-3,
presenting standards for SO2, NO2, O3, CO, TSP, PM10, Lead, and Benzene. Based on the IFC/WB EHS
guidelines, since Lebanese regulations exist, they shall apply to this project.
Table 11-3 Air Quality Guidelines According to Lebanese Decision 52/1
Pollutant Maximum Concentration Averaging Period

350 µg.m-3 1 hour
SO2 120 µg.m-3 24 hours
80 µg.m-3 1 year
200 µg.m-3 1 hour
NO2 150 µg.m-3 24 hours
100 µg.m-3 1 year
150 µg.m-3 1 hour
O3
100 µg.m-3 8 hours
30,000 µg.m-3 1 hour
CO
10,000 µg.m-3 8 hours
TSP 120 µg.m-3 24 hours
PM10 80 µg.m-3 24 hours
Lead 1 µg.m-3 1 year
Benzene 5 ppb 1 year
Moreover, the IFC/WB indicates that emissions resulting from a project shall not contribute to more than
25% of the applicable air quality standards to allow additional, future sustainable development in the
same airshed. Consequently, based on the IFC guidelines which indicates the use of the national air
quality standards, the Project shall not result in more than the values presented in Table 11-4.
Table 11-4 Maximum Allowed Concentration Increments from the Project
Pollutant Maximum Allowed Averaging Period

Concentration
87.5 µg.m-3 1 hour
SO2 30 µg.m-3 24 hours
20 µg.m-3 1 year
50 µg.m-3 1 hour
NO2 37.5 µg.m-3 24 hours
25 µg.m-3 1 year
7500 µg.m-3 1 hour
CO
2500 µg.m-3 8 hours
TSP 30 µg.m-3 24 hours
PM10 20 µg.m-3 24 hours
11.3.2 Sensitive Receptors
Many villages and houses exist near the Project site but are all more than 350m from the wind
turbines locations at Lebanon Wind Power as shown in Figure 11-2 and per the 'Institute of Air
Quality Management' guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction.
11-4
Figure 11-2 Location of Sensitive Receptors near the Project
The main residential clusters and villages are more than 350m from the construction sites. Few
houses, sometimes occupied for a small period in summer, are more than 50m from the internal roads
where the construction vehicles pass (note: the 50m reference relates to the 'Institute of Air Quality
Management' guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction, and specifically
the 'track out' phase. The track out phase only relates to 500m distance from the point of entry to the
construction compound. However, given the likely dusty/loose surface of the road over which
construction vehicles will access the site, it is considered precautionary and appropriate to apply this
assessment approach.
11-5
11.3.3 Emissions Estimation
Emissions were estimated for the construction phase, the operation phase (including maintenance),
and the decommissioning phase of the Project. The sources considered for the three phases are
combustion of fuel and fugitive emissions. The combustion sources encompass vehicle tailpipe and
stacks, while the fugitive emissions consider mainly the dust entrainment generated by vehicles while
running, and emissions from loading/unloading of material, bulldozing, etc.
Emission factors were acquired from the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (2016) for on-road and off-road
vehicles, while the fuel consumption was provided by actual contractors (MAN and DAKO). The sulphur
content used is the upper limit of the Lebanese regulations: 10ppm maximum for automotive fuel
while it is of 350ppm for diesel used for boilers and reciprocating engines.
11.3.4 During Construction
Air emissions during the construction phase can come from multiple sources including dust emissions/
particulate matter (PM) from site preparation (land clearing, excavation schemes, cut and fill
operations), material sourcing, movement of trucks and heavy-duty equipment, and stockpiling
activities.
Dust and PM emissions at the wind farm are particularly concerning given the high-wind velocity
location of the Project site. Fugitive dust and other emissions from vehicular traffic and construction
machinery can also contribute to degraded air quality. The use of construction equipment on-site is
also expected to release vehicular induced pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
oxides, particulate matter (PM) and hydrocarbons (HC).
Emission sources are shown in Table 11-5.
Note: as previously indicated in Section 8 Climate and Climate Change, the operation of the
batching plant was not considered in the GHG emissions calculations for the construction phase, as the
batching plant already exists and is operational, and operated independently by an external company.
Table 11-5 Emission Sources Considered
Emission Source Emission Type Fuel Type
Main crane Exhaust Diesel
Auxiliary crane Exhaust Diesel
LDV for personnel movement on site and out of site Exhaust Gasoline
Tractor FH440 Exhaust Diesel
Bus Exhaust Gasoline
Trucks 20m3 Exhaust Diesel
Jackhammer Exhaust Diesel
Caterpillar D9 Exhaust Diesel
Excavator Exhaust Diesel
Concrete Mixer Truck Exhaust Diesel
11-6
Emission Source Emission Type Fuel Type
Concrete Pump Exhaust Diesel
Skidoo Exhaust Gasoline
Bulldozing Moisture 1%, silt 5% Fugitive -
Loading/Unloading Fugitive -
Dust entrainment from paved roads - Truck 40t on average, silt Fugitive
-
5g/m2
Dust entrainment from paved roads - LDV 1.8 t, silt 5g/m2 Fugitive -
Dust entrainment from paved roads - Bus 5t, silt 5g/m2 Fugitive -
Dust entrainment from unpaved roads - Trucks 40t on average Fugitive -
Dust entrainment from unpaved roads - LDV 1.8t Fugitive -
Dust entrainment from unpaved roads - Bus 5t Fugitive -
Results of the emissions estimation are presented in Table 11-6. The construction phase exhibits
generally the highest emissions of the pollutants. The highest emissions are those of the PM and
originate mainly from fugitive emissions (>99%).
Table 11-6 Emissions from the Construction Phase
Emissions in kg NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO
Construction 18,669.7 833,429.9 167,621.2 137.1 4,845.2
Impact of NOx Emissions
Figure 11-3 shows the monthly variation of the NOx emissions from the construction phase. NOx
comes from the combustion of fuel (transport but also reciprocating engines and boilers). The increase
in mid-2020 relate to the turbine platform construction and erection.
Impact of Particulate Matter
The fugitive emissions constitute one of the main concerns in construction and demolition activities
(IAQM, 2016). The earthworks will pose greater impacts on human receptor since large quantities of
material will be excavated and moved. Vehicle speeds for heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) are generally
low, approximately 15-16km/hr. In addition, less than 50 HDV will be passing along the Project roads
per day.
According to IAQM “Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction” (2016),
particles originating from a construction site have low impact if a “human receptor” is located beyond
350m. This is the case for most of the receptors of the Project, with the exception of a single sensitive
receptor located 40m from the road that will be used by construction vehicles. Therefore, the above-
mentioned impact applies before the implementation of any mitigation measures even though it is of
short duration and reversible.
11-7
Figure 11-3 NOx Emissions During Construction Phase
Mitigation
IAQM (2016), the Mojave Desert (2013) and Good International Industry Practice (GIIP).suggest the
following mitigation measures:
• Use of wind screens or enclosures around dusty activities or the site boundary. Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District assumes that complete coverage by wind screens (on the windward
side) will provide a control efficiency of 75 percent.
• Water spray is also used to reduce fugitive dust as it increases the moisture content of the
material. Therefore, and according to Mojave Desert too, Water spray (Application point) will
ensure a control efficiency of 75%. This is very useful for exaction for example.
• For unpaved roads, water flushing is the essential with 0.48 gallons per square yard twice per day
to maintain a control efficiency above 50%.
• For paved roads, water flushing with 0.48 gallons per square yard followed by sweeping is very
effective and can reach 96%. If conducted directly before the passage of the turbines convoy or
the morning and evening passages of the project vehicles to and from the site, a consequent
decrease will occur.
• A combination of the different above-mentioned measures will give a higher control efficiency that
when applied individually.
It is acknowledged that the total emissions calculated are presented in kilograms, and therefore
cannot be directly compared to the Maximum Allowed Concentration Increments for the Project
presented in Table 11-4. However, after the mitigation actions as described above, the overall
mitigation efficiency is around 50% for PM; emissions of gaseous pollutants are not impacted. Since
villages and the residential clusters are relatively far from the site, the PM impact after mitigation is
considered negligible. One additional point to be considered is that the site is very large, and activities
will occur mainly in localized areas and for a limited period of time.
Given the temporary and short-term nature of the construction activities, air emissions impacts are
expected to be of low to moderate significance. The sensitivity of the area is Low; however, since
11-8
construction workers are mainly impacted the sensitivity of the receptor is considered Medium,
resulting in a Minor impact as shown in Table 11-7.
Table 11-7 Air Quality Assessment for the Construction Phase (Worst-Case Scenario)
29B
Low
230B Low-Medium
231B Medium √
23B Medium-High
23B High
234B
No Change
236B Negligible
237B Negligible
238B Negligible
239B Negligible
240B Negligible
241B

Impact Severity
24B 243B 24B 245B 246B 247B
Low √
248B Negligible
249B Negligible
250B Minor √
251B Minor
25B Moderate
253B
Medium
254B Negligible
25B Minor
256B Moderate
257B Moderate
258B Major
259B

235B
260B 261B 26B 263B 264B 265B
Very High
26B Moderate
267B Moderate
268B Moderate
269B Major
270B Critical
271B
11.3.5 During Operations and Maintenance
During the operations phase, vehicular traffic on unpaved access tracks can produce dust and PM
emissions that can have negative impacts on air quality. Emissions from the operations phase are
shown in Table 11-8. With proper management, air emission impacts during project operation are not
expected to be significant.
Table 11-8 Total Emissions from the Operations and Maintenance Phase
Operations and 223.4 45,182.4 6,702.0 19.4 256.5

Maintenance Phase
(1yr)
11.3.6 During Decommissioning
Dust and PM emissions are expected from equipment and turbine removal, from the movement of
trucks and heavy-duty equipment, and from the transport and stockpiling of deconstruction materials.
Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, PM and HC are also expected to be released from
vehicles and equipment onsite. Emissions from the Decommissioning phase are shown in Table 11-9.
Table 11-9 Emissions from the Decommissioning Phase
Decommissioning 1,745.6 27,705.1 5,415.3 1.2 615.6
11-9
Air emissions during the construction phase are temporary in nature, thus the impact outside the
Project site is only expected to be minor, especially given the implementation of an appropriate and
endorsed ESMP. Mitigation measures are recommended to address PM emissions and specifically,
fugitive PM. IAQM (2016), the Mojave Desert (2013) and Good International Industry Practice
(GIIP).suggest the following mitigation measures:
side) will provide a control efficiency of 75%.
material. Therefore, and according to Mojave Desert too, Water spray (Application point) will
ensure a control efficiency of 75%. This is very useful for exaction for example.
As with the Construction Phase, it is acknowledged that the total emissions calculated for the
Decommissioning Phase are presented in kilograms, and therefore cannot be directly compared to the
Maximum Allowed Concentration Increments for the Project presented in Table 11-4. However, after
the mitigation actions as described above, the overall mitigation efficiency is around 50% for PM while
emissions of gaseous pollutants are not impacted. Since villages and the residential clusters are
relatively far from the site, the PM impact after mitigation is considered negligible. One additional
point to be considered is that the site is very large, and activities will occur mainly in localized areas
and for a limited period of time. Given the temporary and short-term nature of the decommissioning
activities, air emissions impacts are expected to be of low to moderate significance. The sensitivity of
the area is Low; however, since construction workers are mainly impacted the sensitivity of the
receptor is considered Medium, resulting in a Minor impact as shown in Table 11-10.
11-10
Table 11-10 Air Quality Assessment for the Decommissioning Phase
29B
Low
230B Low-Medium
231B Medium √
23B Medium-High
23B High
234B
No Change
236B Negligible
237B Negligible
238B Negligible
239B Negligible
240B Negligible
241B
Slight
24B Negligible
243B Negligible
24B Negligible
245B Minor
246B Minor
247B
Impact Severity
Low √
248B Negligible
249B Negligible
250B Minor √
251B Minor
25B Moderate
253B
Medium
254B Negligible
25B Minor
256B Moderate
257B Moderate
258B Major
259B

235B
260B 261B 26B 263B 264B 265B
Very High
26B Moderate
267B Moderate
268B Moderate
269B Major
270B Critical
271B
11-11
12. TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC
The traffic and transport baseline investigations were designed to assess existing road conditions to
support the preferred route for WTG transport. Two route surveys and a Traffic Impact Study were
undertaken as follows:
• In April 2018, Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar commissioned a route survey
undertaken by Madgelni to assess the conditions for the practical and safe transport of WTG
components to the Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar projects, as presented in
Appendix K. The April 2018 survey identified existing clearances and did not assume a turbine
blade length
• In June 2018, the Ghorayeb International Freight Forwarding Co. (GIFCO) S.A.L. was engaged to
assess potential routes for transporting the WTG components from the Tripoli Seaport to the
Sustainable Akkar wind farm site, also presented in Appendix K. The June 2018 survey assumed
a blade length of 63.45m.
• In October 2018, a Traffic Impact Study was undertaken by Dr. Dima Jawad to review 8 key road
segments, survey of existing peak hour traffic volumes at key junctions and conducting 3-day
automatic traffic counts at key road links and manual counts at peak hours at critical junctions,
also presented in Appendix K. The October 2018 survey assumed transport of the Vestas 150
turbine, having the largest blade size of 75m. It is noted that the GE blades are 78m, but come in
two parts; therefore, the Vestas turbine represents the largest single blade that was assumed.
The methodologies for the separate studies are presented in the following sections.
12.1.1 Route Survey (Madgelni, April 2018)
Madgelni’s route survey considered the two routes shown in Figure 12-1. The survey was undertaken
to observe conditions, determine the necessity of civil works and precautions to be taken, starting
from Tripoli Port to the Project Site entrance. A survey also considered the use of existing or newly
constructed route segments as alternatives for reaching the site(s).
The route shown in red is referenced as the Aabde to Chadra Route, while the route shown in yellow
and orange are referenced as the OBS33 Alternative Route. The OBS33 Alternative Route would use
an existing road, as shown in Figure 12-2, until reaching OBS34, where a new segment of road
would be constructed (shown in orange) to reach the existing asphalt road west of Machta Hammoud.
12.1.2 Route Survey (GIFCO, June 2018)
GIFCO’s route survey considered the two routes shown in Figure 12-3. The survey can be viewed as
a journey management exercise from the perspective of a freight shipment provider seeking to
identify pinch points that may cause restrictions and/or obstacles between the Tripoli Port and the
destination(s).
12-1
Figure 12-1 Routes Surveyed by Madgelni
12-2
Figure 12-2 Start of Alternative Route Surveyed by Madgelni
a – Aerial view of Obstacle 33 b – Pedestrian view of Obstacle 33 and start of Alternative Route north
12-3
Figure 12-3 Routes Surveyed by GIFCO
12-4
The route shown in green is referenced as the Aabde to Chadra Route. The study assessed the Aabde
to Chadra route for the WTGs transport according to critical turning points, bridges, motorway bridges
and pedestrian overpasses, the existing geometric clearances with swept path analysis of potential
routes and identified the needed modifications and upgrades along the route so it can be suitable for
transporting the WTGs. Note: the route shown in yellow is referenced as the Halba to Quobaiyat Route
(and starts approximately 1km north of Aabde). The Halba to Quobaiyat Route was identified by
GIFCO as a potential alternative route.
12.1.3 Transport Impact Study (October 2018)
The TIS was conducted as per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published guidelines, and its
main objective was to determine the impact of the generated traffic by the proposed Project on the
surrounding road network and identify the extent of required improvements, if any, to adequately and
safely accommodate the additional generated traffic. Therefore, the assessment of traffic and
transport comprised the following:
• Review of historical traffic growth patterns to inform estimation of the likely traffic volume growth
across the road network, excluding traffic generated by the Project.
• Inspection of the road network from the Tripoli Seaport to Chadra, as well as rural distributors
west-southwest of the Project site.
• Survey of existing peak hour traffic volumes at key junctions.
• Conducting 3-day automatic traffic counts at key road links and manual counts at peak hours at
critical junctions.
12.1.3.1 Selected Roads and Junctions
Based on the potential WTG transport routes, 8 key existing road segments were identified for the
baseline traffic study, as summarized in Table 12-1 and shown in Figure 12-4.
Table 12-1 Selected Road Characteristics
Road Description Lanes Median Type Width
A Tripoli Port – Abu Ali Roundabout Urban major 4 Concrete 15m

distributor, bidirectional and divided asphalt road that Jersey Blocks
travels north along the coast of Lebanon. This road is in
the vicinity of the construction site of the new Tripoli
Freeway.
B Abu Ali Roundabout to Al Beddaoui Urban arterial, 6 Raised 30m

bidirectional, divided 6-lane asphalt road with a parallel Median varied
parking on each side. The majority of the junctions along width
this road are grade-separated, however uncontrolled
junctions are also present.
C Al Beddaoui to Al Aabdeh urban minor arterial, 4 Concrete 18m

bidirectional and divided asphalt road with a raised Jersey blocks
median with concrete blocks. A few junctions along this
road segment are grade-separated, while others are
uncontrolled junctions or roundabouts (i.e. the junction at
12-5
Road Description Lanes Median Type Width
Halba Road).
D Al Aabdeh to Mqaitea Urban minor arterial, bidirectional, 4 Concrete 16m

divided asphalt road with concrete blocks. Jersey blocks
E Mqaitea – Aabboudiye Rural arterial connecting Lebanon 2 Painted 10m

to the Syrian border. It is a bidirectional and undivided 2-
lane asphalt road.
F Menjez – Chadra Rural distributor, bidirectional and 2 Painted 10m

undivided asphalt road that travels east to Chadra. This
road is rolling/mountainous road with a grade that varies
up to 9%.
G Aandqet – Quobaiyat Rural distributor, bidirectional, 2 Painted 9-10m

undivided asphalt road connecting Aandqet to Quobaiyat.
H Quobaiyat - Qatlabe Rural distributor, bidirectional, 2 Painted 8m

undivided asphalt road.
Figure 12-4 Selected Roads Surveyed
12.1.3.2 Traffic Counts
24-hr automatic traffic counts were conducted at different locations along the selected road segments
for a period of three days between 15 and 30 September 2018 inclusive. This period was chosen to
ensure normal traffic operation in the absence of special events that may affect traffic. In addition,
manual traffic counts were conducted at key junctions during the peak hours to determine turning
movement counts. Figure 12-5 shows pneumatic tubes installed for automatic traffic counts.
12-6
Figure 12-5 Images of Automatic Traffic Counts
12.2.1 Route Survey (Madgelni, April 2018)
The Madgelni Route Survey identified 32 obstacles along the Aabde to Chadra route and 11 obstacles
along the OBS33 Alternative Route, as summarized in Table 12-2.
Table 12-2 Potential Obstacles Identified by Madgelni
Obstacle Type Coordinates Description/Suggestion

OBS01 Storage Yard N 34°27’29’’ It was confirmed that the required storage
area 10,000m² can be provided.
E 35°49’45’’
OBS02 Concrete N 34°27’08’’ Debris should be removed.
debris
E 35°50’09’’ Km: 0+000
OBS03 Parallel N 34°27’11’’ Second-row car park should not be
parking on allowed during the transportation.
E 35°50’26’’ Km: 1+200
road
OBS04 Bridge N 34°27’06’’ Bridge height is over 6m. It is suitable for
passing.
E 35°50’33’’ Km: 1+450
OBS05 Roundabout N 34°26’44’’ Car parking should not be allowed during
transportation.
E 35°50’47’’ Km: 2+400
OBS06 30m on-site N 34°26’44’’ Suitable for passing.
cast bridge in
E 35°50’51’’ Km: 2+500
Tripoli
12-7
OBS07 Pedestrian N 34°26’48’’ Height is over 5.77m. It is suitable for
overpass in passing.
E 35°51’04’’ Km: 2+900
Tripoli
OBS08a Highway N 34°26’54’’ Vertical curve should be checked during
overpass in test drive.
E 35°51’24’’ Km: 3+200
Tripoli
OBS08b N 34°26’54’’ Distance of Span: 24m. It is suitable for
passing.
E 35°51’24’’ Km: 3+200
overpass in passing.
E 35°51’46’’ Km: 4+100
Tripoli
OBS10 Pedestrian N 34°27’13’’ Height is over 5.00m. It should be checked
overpass in after WTG selection.
E 35°51’60’’ Km: 4+500
Tripoli
OBS11 Overhead N 34°27’30’’ Height is over 5.50m. It is suitable for
placard in passing.
E 35°52’58’’ Km: 6+300
Tripoli
OBS12 Deir Amar N 34°27’47’’ Concrete and steel barriers should be
Army Control removed during the transportation
E 35°53’31’’ Km: 7+200
Point
overpass passing.
E 35°54’12’’ Km: 8+100
overpass after WTG selection.
E 35°55’24’’ Km: 10+300
E 35°56’11’’ Km: 11+800
E 35°57’28’’ Km: 14+300
OBS17 Overhead N 34°30’13’’ Height is over 5.60m. It is suitable for
placard passing.
E 35°57’49’’ Km: 15+300
overpass passing.
E 35°58’01’’ Km: 16+100
OBS19 Roundabout N 34°31’03’’ Fencing should be removed during the
fencing transportation period.
E 35°58’40’’ Km: 17+500
OBS20 Roundabout N 34°31’03’’ Concrete curbs should be removed during
curbs the transportation period.
E 35°58’40’’ Km: 17+500
OBS21 Roundabout N 34°31’03’’ Poles and signboard should be removed
poles during the transportation period.
E 35°58’40’’ Km: 17+500
12-8
OBS22 3 span on-site N 34°32’58’’ It is suitable for passing.
cast bridge
E 35°59’31’’ Km: 21+400
cast bridge
E 36°03’46’’ Km: 30+400
OBS24 Trees N 34°36’09’’ Trees should be pruned prior to
transportation.
E 36°04’02’’ Km: 31+000
OBS25 Car/truck N 34°37’43’’ Car/truck parking should not be allowed
park during the transportation.
E 36°06’11’’ Km: 35+800
OBS26a Old Customs N 34°37’44’’ Section of the building should be removed.
Building
E 36°06’16’’ Km: 35+900
OBS26b Old Customs N 34°37’44’’ Building wall should be removed and pole
Building moved.
E 36°06’16’’ Km: 35+900
OBS27 Sharp right N 34°37’53’’ Ground should be compacted, and pole
turn removed.
E 36°06’47’’ Km: 36+800
OBS28 2 span on-site N 34°36’39’’ It is suitable for passing. Side slopes to be
cast bridge checked during test drive.
E 36°13’32’’ Km: 48+400
cast bridge
E 36°14’27’’ Km: 50+300
OBS30 Army Control N 34°36’50’’ Barrels and hut should be removed during
Point the transportation.
E 36°14’41’’ Km: 50+800
OBS31 Chadra N 34°37’17’’ All concrete blocks and huts should be
Control Point removed during the transportation.
E 36°18’45’’ Km: 57+800
OBS32 End point N 34°37’22’’ The defined route is not convenient for
transport after this point.
E 36°19’00’’ Km: 58+200
OBS33 Obstacle 33 N 34°36’58’’ 30m X 10m area should be filled and
Alternative compacted. Pole and trees should be
E 36°17’16’’ Km: 55+500
Route removed.
OBS34 Unpaved road N 34°37’08’’ Road surface should be improved. The
minimum road width should be 5m.
E 36°17’22’’ Km: 56+000
OBS35 New road N 34°37’27’’ New road should be constructed from
between OBS35 and OBS36. The minimum road
E 36°17’17’’ Km: 56+500
OB35 and width should be 5m and dimensioned
OBS36 OB36 N 34°38’30’’ according to turbine transport guidelines.
E 36°19’02’’ Km: 61+500

OBS37 Unpaved road N 34°39’02’’ The road surface should be improved. The
minimum road width should be 5m.
E 36°18’44’’ Km: 62+750
Temporary or permanent relocation of
electric poles and other obstacles must be
studied separately.
12-9
OBS38 Right turn N 34°39’19’’ Vegetated area on inside of turn should be
removed.
E 36°18’33’’ Km: 63+500
OBS39 Sharp right N 34°39’24’’ One of two alternative bypass roads
turn should be constructed.
E 36°18’35’’ Km: 63+700
OBS40 Unpaved road N 34°39’25’’ The road should be improved from this
point to OBS41, about 3 km. There are
E 36°18’39’’ Km: 63+750
unused railway tracks under the surface.
This needs to be checked with railway
authority for any revision.
OBS41 2 alternative N 34°39’24’’ Alternative 1 : OBS41 – OBS 42 –OBS44
roads
E 36°20’39’’ Km: 67+000 Alternative 2 : OBS41 – OBS 43 –OBS44
OBS42 Alternative 1: N 34°39’16’’ New by-pass road of about 300 m.,
OBS41 – OBS passing through the fields at each turn,
E 36°20’47’’ Km: 67+300
42 –OBS44 should be constructed from OBS41 to
OBS42.
OBS43 Alternative 2: N 34°39’22’’ Right turn through field (20m X 40m area)
OBS41 – OBS should be filled / compacted until road
E 36°21’02’’ Km: 67+600
43 –OBS44 level.
OBS44 Same N 34°39’14’’ Alternative 1 has three sharp turns to
endpoint of 2 reach PSEP (OBS45) Alternative 2 seems
E 36°21’04’’ Km: 68+000
alternative to be a better option, as it has a single
roads right turn and reaches straight towards
the Project site entrance point.
OBS45 Project site N 34°39’10’’ Connection to Project site entrance.
entrance
E 36°21’08’’ Km: 68+200
The most significant concern noted by the route survey was the need for the construction of a new
connection road between OBS35 and OBS36. This segment is to be studied and designed separately.
In addition:
• All electric and phone cables over the road must have a clearance of 6m above ground.
• The access and site road longitudinal gradient must be a maximum of 8° (14%).
• Additional pulling units are required during transportation for gradient above 14%.
• Minimum transverse inclination of road is to be 2% to one or both sides in within the Project site.
• The load bearing capacity of all site roads must have a compaction of min. 95%.
The location of the obstacles identified are shown in Figures 12-6 through 12-8.
12.2.2 Route Survey (GIFCO, June 2018)
The GIFCO Route Survey identified 33 obstacles along the Aabde to Chadra route, as summarized in
Table 12-3.
12-10
Figure 12-6 Obstacles OBS01 through OBS21
12-11
12-12
12-13
Table 12-3 Potential Obstacles Identified by GIFCO
Pinch Point Type Coordinates (where provided)/Description/Suggestion

PP01 Tripoli Port Within the port and on the exist route, there is a Customs Hall that all vehicles transit.
Customs Hall Measurement of the facility was not possible at the time of the survey. Currently, there is no
bypass road around this facility. However, there is suitable vacant land to the immediate side of
the hall.
PP02 Port internal The port internal access road by the exit gate is approximately 19m wide, reducing to
access road approximately 15m nearer the exit gate. Each side is bordered by concrete bund walls
surmounted by steel poles and wire mesh infills. They appear to be movable, should it be
necessary to increase the clear over-sail and overhang sweep area to allow the WTG blades to
exit the port unhindered.
PP03 Port exit gate The exit from the Port is by a commercial gate which is approximately 13m wide. There are
concrete bund walls approximately 3m X 6m. In addition, a small security/personnel/car access
gated building is located to the left.
PP04 Port exit Various concrete block items require removal, and the ground/roadway improved such that the
vehicles can utilize all of the available area.
PP05 Overhead cables Subject to a topographic survey; overhead cables and supporting pylons may need to be
temporarily repositioned, removed or permanently relocated.
PP06 New road N 34.451849o A new road is being constructed with a concrete beamed bridge passing
construction E 35.842352o over the main port road. The measured minimum heights are 6.7m X
6.7m.
PP07 Over bridge N 34.453341o Between the port gate and the over bridge, there is a sweeping curve to
E 35.840381o the right. This area is lined on the left with commercial properties and
young trees on the central reserve. The surveyor recommends that this
area be cleared of all parked vehicles and traffic flow before and while
transport passes.
PP08 About Ali 2.2km The Abou Ali Roundabout is approximately 140m X 84m and fluctuates
Roundabout between 13 and 18m wide. Entry into the roundabout is from a 15m wide
road. This is split by a divider reducing the road to 10m.
PP09 Lamp post N 34.446588o On the left side of the road, set back approximately 22m from the diameter
3 35.846541o apex, there is a lamp post which may need to be removed to allow entry
into the roundabout.
PP10 Blank in report
PP11 Roundabout 2.4km This roundabout is intersected by a river, through its short axis, and
passed over by a single span concrete bridge of 30m which if full width of
the surrounding road. It was not possible to ascertain the condition and
type of construction. Further investigation into load support and
12-14
permissible axle loads should be provided. It is estimated that the bridge is
structurally sound and a minimum of a 50B rating. All parked vehicles and
traffic should be removed during transit.
PP12 Footbridge 2.78km Minimum clearance of 5.7m is required.
PP13 Ramp 3.1km A fly over ramp with an angle of 3.5o over a longitudinal length of 95., with
an apex of approximately 5.45, gradually descending back to ground level
after 600m. More information from the Ministry of Roads is required to
clarify structural integrity and suitability for proposed load configurations.
PP14 Concrete N 34.451930o The bridge measures from 5.1m in height to the left and lowering to 4.49m
footbridge E 35.863013o to the right. The calculated maximum height of the cylindrical load center
is 4.88m. The is the lowest structural height restriction encountered along
the route, and the limiting factor on traveling height of all loads out of
Tripoli.
PP15 Footbridge with N 34.27123o The sign over the road measured 5.7m on the left 12m wide roadway.
sign E 35.1515830
PP16 Military N 34.463103o Military checkpoint with concrete blocks.
checkpoint E 35.8924310
PP17 Sign N 34.464440o Height of sign is 5.7m on the left and 5.75m on the right.
E 35.903116o
PP18 Underpass tunnel N 34.463815o To the right there is a slip road off and back onto the main highway. The
E 35.906872o bypass road has no overhead restrictions and is suitable for transport.
PP19 Footbridge N 34.473213o Footbridge measures 5.52 on the left and 5.63 on the right. The road width
E 35.923225o is 11m.
PP20 Footbridge N 34.480712o Footbridge measures 5.1m on the left and 5.13m on the right.
E 35.936339o
PP21 Footbridge N 34.494877o Footbridge measured 5.1m on the left and 5.33m on the right.
E 35.957846o
PP22 Underpass tunnel N 34.49882o To the right there is a slip road off and back onto the highway. This bypass
E 35.960169o road has no overhead restrictions and is suitable for transport.
PP23 Overhead sign 14.7km Measured 5.6m on the right side. Traffic too heavy for left side
measurement.
PP24 7 span concrete N 34.503154o Measured overall span of 36m bearing to bearing. Each span is 5m resting
bridge E 35.963379o on supports of 30cm for the full width of the roadway. Details of the bridge
capacity and structural status should be obtained from MoR. However, the
bridge is expected to be suitable for transport.
PP25 Footbridge N 34.508707o This bridge measured 5.5m on the right side. Traffic was too substantial to
E 35.966972o measure the left side.
12-15
PP26 Roundabout 17.4km Major intersection of the highway to Halba. One exit to the right to Halba,
second exit to Aarida toward Syria. Due to the numerous street furniture,
lamps, fencing etc., as well as substantial traffic volume, a topographic
survey is recommended to assess transport at this location.
PP27 3 span concrete N 34.54968o Overall span of the bridge is 17m bearing to bearing. Support columns are
bridge E 35.99218o approximately 40cm thick. Details of the bridge capacity should be
obtained from MoR.
PP28 Roundabout N 34.553346 o
At this roundabout, the highway splits. The left fork continues along the
E 35.993084o coast toward Aarida and the Syrian border crossing. The right fork leads
toward Aabboudiye.
PP29 Customs Hall This facility is made up of three halls, two narrow halls joined in the center
with office and inspection kiosks/tables. With a separate wider and higher
hall to the right that is clear of obstacles. Removal of a portion of the
Customs Hall is recommended.
PP30 Right turn N 34.631685o The right turn leads toward Kouchara and is a 14m wide road flanked on
E 36.113019o each side by commercial properties and an area with small trees onto a
25m dual carriageway with a low concrete divider. The trees and the power
pylon should be removed.
PP31 U bend in the N 34.610594o Between Dibbabiye and Fraidis there is a U bend in a valley with two
valley E 36.225503o separated single span cast in place concrete bridges. The single span
bridges are 13m each. The road’s inner radius is 50m with an outer radius
of 60m. Due to gradient changes between the approach road and the
egress road, the angles and gradient will require plotting to ensure they
are within the wing trailer’s maneuvering capability. In addition, the rock
face near the apex of the bend requires review for wing trailer’s
maneuverability.
PP32 Curve between N 34.612789o The radii of curbs to be surveyed to ensure blade over-sail and overhang
Fraidis and E 36.240019o are not encroached.
Menjez
PP33 Security N 34.610594o Remove any checkpoint obstacles.
checkpoint E 36.225503o
12-16
It is noted that GIFCO’s survey ended once it was observed that Chadra through Machta Hammoud
was impassable. In response, GIFCO identified the following alternative routes:
• Halba to Quobaiyat route (refer to the yellow route in Figure 12-9).

• A potential road upgrade linking the Halba to Quobaiyat route to the Aabde to Chadra route,
starting at Begdadhi, linking Begdadhi to Noura El Tahta, as shown in Figure 12-10. This route is
currently serving villages, farms and residential properties.
• A potential new road link connecting the Aabboudiye/Chadra route with the Aabde to Chadra
route. This option would involve improving a steep gradient with a sharp turn, as shown in Figure
12-8.
12.2.3 Transport Impact Study (October 2018)
Table 12-4 summarizes the average daily traffic volumes recorded along the selected road segments.
Table 12-4 Existing Average Daily Traffic Along Selected Roads
ID Road Designation ADT (PC) ADT (HV) ADT (Total)

A Tripoli Port - Abu Ali Roundabout 12,740 1,771 14,511
B Abu Ali Roundabout – Al Beddaoui 33,173 3,219 36,392
C Al Beddaoui – Al Abdeh 19,230 1350 20,580
D Abdeh - Mqaitea 14,927 1080 16,007
E Mqaitea - Aabboudiye 11,350 720 12,070
F Menjez - Chadra 2,265 28 2,293
G Aandqet - Quobaiyat 2,279 1,291 4,470
H Quobaiyat – Qatlbe (beyond Quobaiyat) 670 110 780
Figure 12-11 is provided to represent the collected hourly traffic volumes at Abu Ali Roundabout –
Beddaoui to illustrate the peak traffic hours occurring on the main coastal road.
12-17
Figure 12-9 GIFCO Alternative between at Begdadhi and Nour El Tahta
12-18
Figure 12-10 GIFCO Alternative between the Aabboudiye/Chadra Route with the Aabde to Chadra Route
12-19
Figure 12-11 Classified Average Hourly Volume from Abu Ali Roundabout – Beddaoui
Peak between 3-4pm
The North American Highway Level of Service (LOS) standards use letters A through F, with A being
the best and F being the worst as described in Table 12-5.
Table 12-5 Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Description
Service
A Free flow. Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and motorists have
complete mobility between lanes. The average spacing between vehicles is about
167m or 27 car lengths. Motorists have a high level of physical and psychological
comfort. The effects of incidents or point breakdowns are easily absorbed. LOS A
generally occurs late at night in urban areas and frequently in rural areas.
B Reasonably free flow. LOS A speeds are maintained, maneuverability within the
traffic stream is slightly restricted. The lowest average vehicle spacing is about
100m or 16 car lengths. Motorists still have a high level of physical and
psychological comfort.
C Stable flow, at or near free flow. Ability to maneuver through lanes is noticeably
restricted and lane changes require more driver awareness. Minimum vehicle
spacing is about 67m or 11 car lengths. Most experienced drivers are comfortable,
roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity, and posted speed is
maintained. Minor incidents may still have no effect, but localized service will have
noticeable effects and traffic delays will form behind the incident. This is the target
LOS for some urban and most rural highways.
D Approaching unstable flow. Speeds slightly decrease as traffic volume slightly

increase. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is much more limited and
driver comfort levels decrease. Vehicles are spaced about 160 ft(50m) or 8 car
lengths. Minor incidents are expected to create delays. Examples are a busy
shopping corridor in the middle of a weekday, or a functional urban highway during
12-20
Level of
Description
Service
commuting hours. It is a common goal for urban streets during peak hours, as
attaining LOS C would require prohibitive cost and societal impact in bypass roads
and lane additions.
E Unstable flow, operating at capacity. Flow becomes irregular and speed varies
rapidly because there are virtually no usable gaps to maneuver in the traffic stream
and speeds rarely reach the posted limit. Vehicle spacing is about 6 car lengths, but
speeds are still at or above 80km/hr. Any disruption to traffic flow, such as merging
ramp traffic or lane changes, will create a shock wave affecting traffic upstream.
Any incident will create serious delays. Drivers' level of comfort become poor. This is
a common standard in larger urban areas, where some roadway congestion is
inevitable.
F Forced or breakdown flow. Every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front
of it, with frequent slowing required. Travel time cannot be predicted, with generally
more demand than capacity. A road in a constant traffic jam is at this LOS because
LOS is an average or typical service rather than a constant state. For example, a
highway might be at LOS D for the AM peak hour, but have traffic consistent with
LOS C some days, LOS E or F others, and come to a halt once every few weeks.
The LOS calculated for the selected road segments are presented in Table 12-6.
Table 12-6 Existing Level of Service
Segment Description Volume Flow Rate Speed LOS

Veh./hr Veh./hr/lane Km/hr
A Tripoli Seaport - Abu Ali 245 138 94.8 A

Roundabout
B Abu Ali Roundabout – Al Abdeh 563 215 92.4 A
C Al Abdeh – Mqaitea 313 169 91.4 A
D Mqaitea – Aabboudiye 250 144 91.2 A
E Aabboudiye – Chadra 434 284 59.4 A
F Chadra to Aandqet 110 109 63.4 A
G Aandqet – Quobaiyat 431 327 60.3 B
H Quobaiyat – Qatlbe 78 106 63.6 A
Across the 8 road segments, 3 key junctions were identified where the transport of WTG components
could potentially create bottlenecks, as summarized in Table 12-7.
12-21
Table 12-7 Key Selected Junctions
No Segment Junction Description Number of

Directions
1 E Chadra Entrance Mini roundabout 3
2 F Aandqet T junctions 3
3 F/H Quobaiyat Roundabout Mini roundabout 4
Figure 12-12 shows the location of these junctions within the study area. The three junctions were
not included for traffic count analysis as WTG transport along this corridor would result in a travel
delay in a range between 100–300 seconds, reducing the junction LOS to F. Note: Junctions 1, 2 and
3 are not included in the preferred WTG transport corridor (refer to Section 3 Analysis of
Alternatives).
During the Traffic Impact Study, the following obstacles and associated civil works were identified
between Tripoli and Chadra, as presented in Table 12-8. These recommendations will be combined
with those provided by Madgelni and GIFCO, as applicable, to the preferred route selected. Obstacle
removal activities which will be undertaken by the Developer in close coordination with the concerned
local authorities. Obstacles will be removed either temporarily (concrete blocks, selected poles) or
permanently before being moved to another location (selected poles) or reinstated with an improved
design (roundabout islands).
The transport route for the WTG components will begin at the Tripoli Port and proceed to the Project
site using existing roads and new road or links, as described in Section 2 Project Description.
During the baseline survey, the average daily traffic (ADT) and associated LOS for 8 road segments
between the Tripoli Port and Chadra were determined, with peak traffic volumes occurring between
3pm and 4pm.
The assessment of traffic and transport impacts was based on the following:
• The nature, duration and receptor sensitivity of the obstacle removal and road development
activities during construction and decommissioning.
• The addition of traffic and related changes to the LOS during construction, operation and
decommissioning.
• The addition of traffic related to transport of construction materials from existing quarries to the
Project site during construction.
• The outcomes of consultation with communities along the planned transport corridor, on existing
and new road segments.
It is noted that community health, safety and security impacts from transport and traffic are
presented in Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security.
12-22
Figure 12-12 Location of Key Junctions
12-23
Table 12-8 Obstacles and Associated Civil Works
KM Civil Works / Measures to be Taken

0.0 • Outer wall of port premises needs to be demolished at a length of 45m.
• The curbs between the light poles need to be removed/levelled.
• Light poles and electricity poles need to be removed.
• The concrete blocks opposite the port exit gate need to be removed.
• The curbs between the 2 traffic lanes opposite the port exit gate need to be removed/levelled.
0.3 • Roads must be free of any advertising board and sales booth.
• All trees along the midway need to be removed.
3.4 • Pedestrian bridge (concrete) needs to be lifted up to a clearance of +560cm.
13.0 • 2 light poles at the right need to be removed or shifted to the right for 2m.
15.8 • Steel fence needs to be removed.
• The curbs, steel fence and small trees in the roundabout-center need to be removed.
• Curbs. steel fence at roundabout-exit need to be removed at a length of 20m.
26.2 • Electricity pole and traffic sign at the left need to be shifted leftwards 1.5m.
• Electricity pole at the right needs to be shifted rightwards 1.5m.
30.3 • Electricity pole at the right needs to be shifted rightwards 3.5m.
34.0 • Boundary wall on the right (before the check point) needs to be removed.
• Electricity pole on the right (before the check point) needs to be removed.
• 50m after passing the check point an area of 15m on the right needs to be levelled.
34.2 • 4 electricity poles on the right (after passing the check point) need to be shifted rightwards.
• Trees. bushes. electricity pole on the left need to be removed at a width of 4m.
34.8 • Before the right-turn the road needs to be extended to the left side on 75m length and 10m width (levelling/paving).
• An electricity pole needs to be removed.
46.1 • 4-9m of the terrain and rock face right along the curve need to be cleared, levelled and drainage needs to be filled up.
• At the curve vertex approx. 8m of the rock face need to be removed in order to widen the road clearance to the right.
48.2 • On the outer curve the rock face needs to be removed at a length of 85m/width 5.5m.
• 3 light poles on the left (inner) side of the curve to be removed.
• Light poles & crash barrier on the left (inner) side of the curve need to be removed.
• Incline left beside the inner curve needs to be filled up and levelled at a length of 50m.
49.1 • All wooden poles on the right need to be removed.
• Road need to be cleared of bushes and branches on both sides for a minimum of 45m.
• Earth mounds on both sides need to be levelled at a width of 4m.
12-24
KM Civil Works / Measures to be Taken
• Bushes. poles and trees need to be removed.
54.9 • 5 poles on the inner (left) side of the curve need to be removed or shifted to the left for a minimum of 2.5m.
• 2 poles on the outer (right) side of the curve need to be shifted to the right for 4m.
55.1 • Curve entry: 2 poles on the left need to be shifted leftwards for approximately 3.5m.
• 4 further poles on the left need to be shifted leftwards for approximately 3.5m.
• A tree on the left needs to be removed.
• A pole on the right needs to be shifted rightwards for 3.5m.
55.4 • 3 marked poles on the left need to be shifted to the left for approximately 3.5m.
55.8 • Inner (right) curve needs to be widened to the right.
55.9 • All poles on the left need to be removed throughout the whole curve.
• On the right all poles. trees and bushes need to be removed at a length of 90m.
56.0 • Center of roundabout needs to be levelled/curbs to be removed.
56.1 – 56.8 • A bypass road of 700m needs to be constructed.
57.0 • A bypass road of 150m length needs to be constructed.
57.9 • At the end of the bypass road an electricity pole needs to be removed or shifted.
57.9 • S-curve: a fence mounted on a low wall. smaller trees and bushes on the left side need to be removed.
• The boundary wall needs to be removed at a length of 20m.
• A foundation on the right needs to be removed for a minimum 3-4m; the electricity pole needs to be shifted to the right for
3-4m.
58.0 • Left of the road all poles. trees and other obstacles need to be removed at a length of 68m and a width of 1-9m.
• Right before the junction all obstacles (poles, trees, walls, fences) need to be removed at a length of 25m and a width of
4m.
58.3 • 90o left-turn: an area of approx. 1.200m2 on the left needs to be cleared. reinforced and levelled down to road-level,
• The wall on the left needs to be removed.
58.9 • Poles on the left need to be shifted leftwards for 4m – bushes/trees need to be removed.
• All trees and bushes on the right need to be cut off at a width of 3m.
• Sunshades/canopies on the right need to be closed or removed.
59.6 • Bushes and trees on the right need to be removed at a width of 3m.
• 4 solar light poles on the right need to be removed.
• Further electricity pole needs to be shifted rightwards for 3.0m.
60.0 • Wall on the right side (outer curve) needs to be removed; the electricity pole needs to be shifted to the right for 3m.
• 2 electricity poles and total 6 solar light poles on the left of the road need to be removed or shifted to the left for
approximately 4m.
• The curbs on the left need to be removed at a length of approximately 75m and the area left behind needs to be filled
up/levelled.
60.1 • On the outer curve all poles, trees and bushes need to be removed at a length of 74m and a width of 3m.
12-25
12.3.1.1 Road Obstacle Removal
During the traffic and transport studies undertaken by Madgelni (April 2018), GIFCO (June 2018) and
Dr. Dima (October 2018), potential obstacles were identified as summarized in Tables 12-2, 12-3
and 12-8. It is noted that some of the potential obstacles overlap, and as such have been
summarized in Table 12-9. The following minor civil works will be necessary for trucks carrying the
WTG components to navigate from the Tripoli Port to the Project site:
• The Port: Temporary concrete bund, curb, electric pole and overhead removal, will be necessary
for trucks to navigate the Port. At the Port exit, 45m of concrete wall will need to be demolished to
facilitate exit by trucks carrying the WTG components.
• Ramps, roundabouts and curves: Car parking will be prohibited during transport and removal of
curbs, electric poles, trees, lamp posts, and fencing will be necessary.
• Pedestrian bridges: Raising of the bridges to provide a vertical clearance of 570cm will be
required.
• At significant curves: Ground leveling and compaction to facilitate maneuverability.
Identification of potential obstacles between Chadra and Sahle Checkpoint was undertaken as part of
developing the preferred WTG component transport route.
Mitigation
• An additional route survey will be undertaken once the OEM/EPC Contractor is selected:
− The completion of a route review for the specific WTG components, to include additional swept
path analysis, will identify any potential issues related to the transport of these larger
components, specifically the longer turbine blades.
• Should the GE turbine model be chosen for the LWP wind farm, the blades will be over 7m longer
than what has been assessed. While the extra length may simply require more engineering works
to accommodate the transport of the blade through constrained locations, the extent and cost of
these works is not currently understood. It may also be necessary to obtain additional land, land
that has not been included in any acquisition discussions and negotiations and may not be easy to
acquire.
• The temporary removal of concrete bund, curb, electric pole and overhead cable, and demolition
of the 45m of concrete wall be coordinated with the Port Authority.
• Raising of pedestrian bridges, prohibition of car parking, removal of curbs, electric poles, trees,
lamp posts, and fencing at ramps and roundabouts and ground leveling and compaction of
significant curves will be coordinated with the Ministry of Transport.
• Asphalt speed bumps will be replaced with rubber ones, which we can easily be removed during
the transportation of the WTG components and reinstalled immediately after the trucks pass.
• Any modification required for the Al Abdeh roundabout will be discussed with the municipality as it
is under their authority.
• Such works will be coordinated and permitted by the Project Proponent and the Ministry of
Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels and/or pedestrian use are lowest
12-26
Table 12-9 Potential Obstacles Between the Tripoli Port and Chadra
Location KM/ Civil Works / Measures to be Taken

Coordinates
Tripoli Seaport 0.0 • Internal Roads: Temporarily move concrete bund walls with steel poles and wire mesh.
• Outer wall of Port premises: Demolish a length of 45m, remove curbs and light poles;
improve road such that the vehicles can utilize all of the available area.
• Overhead: Overhead cables and supporting pylons may need to be temporarily moved.
Outside Port Exit 0.3 • The concrete blocks opposite the port exit gate need to be removed.
• The curbs between the 2 traffic lanes opposite the port exit gate need to be
removed/levelled.
• Roads must be free of any advertising board and sales booth.
• All trees along the midway need to be removed.
• Between the Port exit and the bridge, car parking prohibited during transport.
• Lamp post removal on the left side of the road at N 34.446588o and 3 35.846541o, to
allow entry into the roundabout.
Roundabout 2.4 • Parking around roundabout prohibited during transport.
Concrete Pedestrian Bridge 2.7 • Pedestrian bridge needs to be lifted up to a clearance of +570cm.
Ramp 3.1 • A fly over ramp with an angle of 3.5o over a longitudinal length of 95m, with an apex
of approximately 5.45m, gradually descending back to ground level after 600m. More
information from the Ministry of Roads is required to clarify structural integrity and
suitability for proposed load configurations.
Deir Amar Army Checkpoint 7.2 • Concrete blocks should be temporarily removed during transport.
Light Poles 13.0 • 2 light poles at the right need to be removed or shifted to the right for 2m.
Overhead Sign 14.7 • Sign needs to be lifted up to a clearance of +570cm.
Roundabout 15.8 • Steel fence needs to be removed.
• The curbs, steel fence and small trees in the roundabout-center need to be removed.
• Curbs and steel fence at roundaboutexit need to be removed at a length of 20m.
Concrete Pedestrian Bridge 16 • Pedestrian bridge needs to be lifted up to a clearance of +570cm.
Roundabout 17.5 • Fencing, curbs, poles and signboard should be temporarily removed during transport.
12-27
Coordinates
Concrete Pedestrian Bridge N 34.508707o • Pedestrian bridge needs to be lifted up to a clearance of +570cm.
E 35.966972o
Electric Poles/Traffic Sign 26.2 • Electric pole and traffic sign at the left need to be shifted leftwards 1.5m.
• Electric pole at the right needs to be shifted rightwards 1.5m.
Electric Pole 30.3 • Electricity pole at the right needs to be shifted rightwards 3.5m.
Trees 31.0 • Trees to be pruned prior to transportation.
Customs House 34.0 • Boundary wall on the right (before the check point) needs to be removed.
• Electricity pole on the right (before the check point) needs to be removed.
• 50m after passing the check point an area of 15m on the right needs to be levelled.
Electric Poles/Trees 34.2 • 4 electricity poles on the right (after passing the check point) need to be shifted to the
right.
• Trees, bushes, electricity pole on the left need to be removed at a width of 4m.
Right Turn 34.8 • Before the right-turn the road needs to be extended to the left side on 75m length and
10m width (levelling/paving).
• An electric pole needs to be removed.
• Due to gradient changes between the approach road and the egress road, the angles
and gradient will require plotting to ensure they are within the wing trailer’s
maneuvering capability. In addition, the rock face near the apex of the bend requires
review for wing trailer’s maneuverability.
Car Park 35.8 • Car parking probibited during transport.
Ground Surface 36.8 • Ground should be compacted.
Curve between Fraidis and N 34.612789o • The radii of curbs to be surveyed to ensure blade oversail and overhang are not
Menjez E 36.240019o encroached.
Curve 46.1 • 4-9m of the terrain and rock face right along the curve need to be cleared, levelled and
drainage needs to be filled up.
• At the curve vertex approx. 8m of the rock face need to be removed in order to widen
the road clearance to the right.
Curve 48.2 • On the outer curve the rock face needs to be removed at a length of 85m/width 5.5m.
• 3 light poles on the left (inner) side of the curve to be removed.
• Light poles & crash barrier on the left (inner) side of the curve need to be removed.
• Incline left beside the inner curve needs to be filled up and levelled at a length of 50m.
Road Clearance 49.1 • All wooden poles on the right need to be removed.
• Road need to be cleared of bushes and branches on both sides for a minimum of 45m.
• Earth mounds on both sides need to be levelled at a width of 4m.
• Bushes. poles and trees need to be removed.
Chadra Army Checkpoint 50.8 • Temporarily remove checkpoint obstacles.
12-28
Coordinates
Electric Poles 54.9 • 5 poles on the inner (left) side of the curve need to be removed or shifted to the left
for a minimum of 2.5m.
• 2 poles on the outer (right) side of the curve need to be shifted to the right for 4m.
Curve 55.1 • Curve entry: 2 poles on the left need to be shifted leftwards for approximately 3.5m.
• 4 further poles on the left need to be shifted leftwards for approximately 3.5m.
• A tree on the left needs to be removed.
• A pole on the right needs to be shifted rightwards for 3.5m.
• 3 marked poles on the left need to be shifted to the left for approximately 3.5m.
• Inner (right) curve needs to be widened to the right.
• All poles on the left need to be removed throughout the whole curve.
• On the right all poles, trees and bushes need to be removed at a length of 90m.
12-29
As such, the impact severity is considered Slight and the receptor sensitivity considered Medium,
resulting in a Minor Impact as shown in Table 12-10.
Table 12-10 Assessment of Minor Civil Works Required for Obstacle Removal
27B
Low
273B Low-Medium
274B Medium √
275B Medium-High
276B High
27B
No Change
279B Negligible
280B Negligible
281B Negligible
28B Negligible
283B Negligible
284B

Impact Severity
285B 286B 287B 28B 289B 290B
Low
291B Negligible
29B Negligible
293B Minor
294B Minor
295B Moderate
296B
Medium
297B Negligible
298B Minor
29B Moderate
30B Moderate
301B Major
302B

278B
30B 304B 305B 306B 307B 308B
Very High
309B Moderate
310B Moderate
31B Moderate
312B Major
31B Critical
314B
12.3.1.2 New Road Development
New road segments will be developed as follows:
owners (shown as #1 in Figure 12-13). The new road section will connect with the existing
asphalt road outside of Machta Hammoud.
• A new 0.15km section of asphalt road will be constructed (shown as #2 in Figure 12-13)
between two existing sections of asphalt road in order to avoid hairpin turns near homes.
(ROW) managed by Machta Hammoud Village (shown as #3 in Figure 12-13), traveling east
before connecting to an existing asphalt road to enter the Hawa Akkar Wind Farm.
Identification of potential obstacles between Chadra and the Sahle Checkpoint was undertaken at a
high level as part of developing the preferred WTG component transport route as follows:
• No obstacles were identified along the 0.9km segment of asphalt road to be constructed through
the ~12.5ha parcel of land.
• No obstacles were identified along the 1.7km segment of track to be constructed between the
existing Hawa Akkar internal track and the Sahle Checkpoint. The track alignment was selected to
match the existing contours of the land and provide adequate buffer between the track and the
Lebanese Army Military Base.
12-30
Figure 12-13 New Road Segments
#3 New 3.0km section of gravel road

within existing railroad ROW
#2 New
0.15km
section of
asphalt road
#1 New
0.65km
section of
asphalt road
12-31
Mitigation
The construction of asphalt roads will occur for a period of 6 months and will be coordinated and
permitted by Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels are lowest.
Construction of internal track will occur for a period of 3 months and will be coordinated with the
Ministry of Transport and the Lebanese Army. It is considered that construction of the internal tracks
will have no impact on access to and operations at the Lebanese Army Military base and/or residents
of Mqaible. Therefore, the impact severity is considered Low and the receptor sensitivity considered
Medium, resulting in a Minor Impact as shown in Table 12-11.
Table 12-11 Assessment of New Road Development
315B
Low
316B Low-Medium
317B Medium √
318B Medium-High
319B High
320B
No Change
32B Negligible
32B Negligible
324B Negligible
325B Negligible
326B Negligible
327B

Impact Severity
328B 329B 30B 31B 32B 3B
Low √
34B Negligible
35B Negligible
36B Minor √
37B Minor
38B Moderate
39B
Medium
340B Negligible
341B Minor
342B Moderate
34B Moderate
34B Major
345B

321B
346B 347B 348B 349B 350B 351B
Very High
352B Moderate
35B Moderate
354B Moderate
35B Major
356B Critical
357B
12.3.1.3 Transport of WTG Components, Construction Materials and Workers
The construction phase will include the transport of WTG components, transport of construction
materials and transport of construction workers to the Project site.
Transport of WTG Components
Several assumptions were considered in the assessment to calculate vehicle trips, as shown in Table
12-12.
12-32
Table 12-12 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of WTG Components 66 129F13F
Estimated Roundtrips
From Tripoli Port to Project Site
Vehicle Duration
Component
Units Max. Max.
Maximum
Type = 16
Turbines
Quantity
Trips Truck
turbines,
per Trips per
Twice per
Week Week
Week
5 sections 5 oversize
per tower trucks per
Tower 21 105 10
per tower per
turbine turbine
2 sections
2 oversize
per
trucks per
Nacelles nacelle 21 42 4
nacelle per
per
turbine
turbine 2
1 oversize
1 hub per truck per
Hub 21 21 2
turbine hub per
turbine 13 weeks
3 blades 3 oversize
Blades per 21 63 trucks per 6
turbine turbine
12 oversize
Totals 231 trucks per 2 24
turbine
1 oversize
1
Substation NA 1 truck per 1 NA
substation
substation
1 1 semi-trailer
Switchgear switchgea NA 1 (20-ton) per 1 NA
r switchgear
66
Each turbine transport consists of 11 overweight / oversized components, each to be transported on a separate
truck. A full set of WTG components are to be transported in one night. Two sets of WTG components are to be
transported per week.
12-33
To assess impacts from the transport of WTG components, the vehicle trips were added to the existing
ADT and LOS (as summarized in Table 12-4 and Table 12-6) along the 5 road segments. The truck
traffic for transport of the WTG components was then added to the 5 road segments to assess the
increase in traffic volume, an increase of 0.015% as shown in Table 12-13. Note: the ADTs for
personal cars (PC) and heavy vehicles (HV) presented in Tables 12-4 were multiplied by 7 to
estimate the weekly ADTs.
Table 12-13 Weekly Traffic Along WTG Transport Route
Total
Total Weekly
ADT (PC)/ ADT (HV)/
ID Road Designation Weekly ADT with
Week Week
ADT WTG
Trucks
A Tripoli Port - Abu Ali Roundabout 89,180 12,397 101,577 101,599
B Abu Ali Roundabout – Al Aabdeh 232,211 22,533 254,744 254,766
C Al Aabdeh- Mqaitea 134,610 9,450 144,060 144,082
D Mqaitea - Aabboudiye 104,489 7,560 112,049 112,071
E Aabboudiye - Chadra 79,450 5,040 84,490 84,512
Totals 639,940 56,980 696,920 697,030
∆ = 0.015%
The increase in weekly ADT was used to undertake capacity analysis of the 5 road segments to be
used, Road Segments A, B, C, D, and E, under three scenarios:
1. The existing traffic conditions (year 2018); This scenario uses the existing traffic volumes collected
through automatic and manual counts.
2. Future background traffic conditions (year 2020) without the Project; this projection applied a
conservative traffic growth rate of 3%.
3. Future traffic conditions (year 2020) with the Project; the projection was derived after assigning
the generated trips for the transport of the WTG components in combination with the projection
generated under Item 2.
The resulting LOS was then calculated for the selected road segments under the three scenarios to
illustrate the impact of the additional traffic, as shown in Table 12-14. As an extra measure of
conservatism, the LOS was calculated between 10pm and 11pm (a period of higher traffic volume),
whilst the WTG component transport will be undertaken between 11pm and 4am.
As a result of WTGs transport, the LOS of Road Segment A will be reduced from A to B, Road Segment
B will be reduced from A to C, Road Segment C will be reduced from A to B, and Road Segment D will
be reduced from A to B. For Road Segments A, B, C and D, which are 4 lanes with a median, a
conservative approach to traffic management will dedicate the northbound direction for transport and
divert all other background traffic to the other direction making a two-lane road. For Road Segment E,
which is a two-lane road, the transport vehicles will have to utilize the road along with the background
traffic.
12-34
Table 12-14 Projected Level of Service Change for Transport of WTG Components
Year 2018 Year 2020 Year 2020

Road Existing Traffic without Traffic WITH
Traffic Project Project
No. Description LOS LOS LOS
A Tripoli Port - Abu Ali Roundabout A A B

B Abu Ali Roundabout – Al Aabdeh A A C
C Al Aabdeh- Mqaitea A A B
D Mqaitea - Aabboudiye A A A
E Aabboudiye - Chadra A A C
Different performance indicators were used as types of these roads vary, volume to capacity ratio,
density and percent time spent on the road. All roads have a configuration that is more than adequate
to carry current and future background traffic during the time of WTG component transport. It is noted
that the calculated decrease in LOS will only occur temporarily, two times per week over a total period
of 13 weeks. Further, the LOS will not decrease below LOS C, which:
• Is the target LOS for some urban and most rural highways.
• Represents stable flow, at or near free flow.
• Noticeably restricts lane maneuverability and land changes require more driver awareness.
• Provides comfort to most experienced drivers, with roads remaining safely below but efficiently
close to capacity and posted speed is maintained.
• May result in no effect from minor incidents, but localized service will have noticeable effects and
traffic delays will form behind the incident.
Transport of Construction Materials
The transport of construction materials will be undertaken as follows as shown in Figure 12-14:
• All rock excavation will be generated within the Project site, will remain within the Project site, and
will not result in the addition of traffic to external roads.
• All backfilling from excavation will remain on the Project site and will not result in the addition of
traffic to external roads.
• The destination of all surplus excavated earth material will be the 6 quarries, using tracks internal
to the Project site, the existing asphalt road (in red) and the existing quarry tracks (in green).
• The highest traffic volumes are anticipated between the quarry and the Project site (yellow route
near the Project entrance).
• All ready-mix concrete will be sourced from the Batch Plant to be constructed in Rweimeh Village
and will be transported to the Project site using the existing asphalt road (in yellow.
• Sand and gravel will be sourced from the 6 quarries using the existing quarry tracks (in yellow),
the existing asphalt road (in red), and tracks internal to the Project site.
• All cement will be sourced from Chekkah, south of Tripoli and the location of two large cement
plants. The location of Chekkah is shown in Figure 12-15.
• Reinforced steel will be sourced from Tripoli, approximately 1 truck per day for a period of 80
days. The addition of 2 additional trucks per day along the WTG transport route for the transport
of cement and reinforced steel will not affect the LOS C determined by the Traffic Impact Study.
12-35
Figure 12-14 Quarries and Existing Tracks (Green) Joining Existing Road (Yellow)
12-36
Figure 12-15 Location of Chekkah and Cement Plants
The vehicle trips for transport of construction materials are calculated as shown in Table 12-15.
Transport of Construction Workers
The construction phase may require a worst-case scenario of up to 150 staff working in a single day,
across a total construction period of 344 days.
Approximately 25% of the workers (up to 40) will be hired from the local communities in the
northeastern part of Akkar, including Wadi Khaled. The EPC Contractor will be required to transport
local workers from local villages through carpooling and/or van transport to minimize traffic impacts to
rural roads.
The balance of the workforce will be accommodated in nearby villages in hotels and/or apartments.
Again, the EPC Contractor will be required to provide carpooling and/or van transport of workers to
reduce traffic impacts to rural roads. The exact details are to be determined following selection of the
EPC Contractor and the location of hired construction workers.
12-37
Table 12-15 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of Construction Materials
Total Number of
Quantities Transport No. of Total Number of Trips/Day
Sustainable Trips
Working
Akkar Low High Low High Low High
Description Capacity Days Average
Range Range Range Range Range Range
Rock excavation Semi-Trailer

456,432 570,539 20 22,822 28,527 NA
in m³ (m3)
Backfilling
(from Semi-Trailer
273,859 342,324 20 13,693 17,116 70 195.61 244.52 220.07
excavation) in (m3)
m³
Surplus from
excavation to Semi-Trailer
182,573 228,216 20 9,129 11,411 90 101.43 126.79 114.11
be managed in (m3)
m³
Concrete
Ready-mixed
14,263 17,116 Mixer Truck 10 1,426 1,712 90 15.85 19.02 17.43
concrete in m³
(m3)
Powder
Cement in Cement Tank
5,705 6,846 45 127 152 80 1.58 1.90 1.74
tonnes Trailer
(tonnes)
Semi-Trailer
Sand in m3 5,705 6,846 20 285 80 3.57 4.28 3.92
(m3) 342
Semi-Trailer
Gravel in m3 11,411 13,693 20 571 80 7.13 8.56 7.84
(m3) 685
Construction Semi-Trailer
1,426 1,997 20 80 0.89 1.25 1.07
steel in tonnes (m3) 71 100
12-38
Mitigation
As presented in Section 6 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement, engagement was

undertaken with village leadership along the WTG component transport corridor in February 2019.
The main concerns of the mayors was the timing of the transport and agreed with the plant to
undertake transport of the WTG components between 11pm and 4am when the traffic is at its lowest.
Most of the municipalities offered to provide a police escort of the WTG components and emphasized a
willingness to provide further coordination across the municipalities and Project companies in
accomplishing the Project as quickly as possible. In particular, the North Lebanon Governor was
supportive and promised to facilitate any issue Lebanon Wind Power will be facing before and during
the transport.
In addition, the members of Rweimeh Village are supportive of the location of both the Substation and
the Batching Plant within the village, as:
1. They will be fairly compensated for the acquisition of land for the Substation.
2. They will be fairly compensated for the lease of land for the temporary location of the Batching
Plant.
3. They are accustomed to transport of quarry materials along the existing asphalt roads to supply
the north Akkar region with sand and gravel.
4. Over 90% of Rweimeh Village members are only present 3 months of the year.
• A communications protocol being developed for the transport of WTG components will be
distributed to all Mayors two to three months prior to the start of transport. A final transport route
map will be provided to all municipalities.
• All three wind farms will use the same traffic access plan.
• Announcements will be made to all villages along the WTG transport route from the Tripoli Port to
the entrance of the Project site).
• WTG components will be transported 2 days per week, a total of 24 trucks roundtrip per week.
• The road that passes through Rweimeh Village is the main access of the trucks transporting rocks
and gravel, and maintenance activities will be undertaken by the Project Proponent.
• For Road Segments A, B, C and D, which are 4 lanes with a median, a conservative approach to
traffic management will dedicate the northbound direction for transport and divert all other
background traffic to the other direction making a two-lane road.
• For Road Segment E, which is a two-lane road, the transport vehicles will have to utilize the road
along with the background traffic.
• Once the EPC Contractor has been selected, and the number and location of construction numbers
are known, measures will be put in place to maximize mitigation of traffic impacts through
carpooling and group transport by van.
Given the above, the impact severity of traffic and transport from transport of WTG components,
construction materials and workers during the construction phase is considered Low and the receptor
sensitivity considered Medium, resulting in a Minor Impact as shown in Table 12-16.
12-39
Table 12-16 Assessment of WTG Component, Construction Materials and Worker Transport
during Construction
358B
Low
359B Low-Medium
360B Medium √
361B Medium-High
362B High
36B
No Change
365B Negligible
36B Negligible
367B Negligible
368B Negligible
369B Negligible
370B

Impact Severity
371B 372B 37B 374B 375B 376B
Low √
37B Negligible
378B Negligible
379B Minor √
380B Minor
381B Moderate
382B
Medium
38B Negligible
384B Minor
385B Moderate
386B Moderate
387B Major
38B

364B
389B 390B 391B 392B 39B 394B
Very High
395B Moderate
396B Moderate
397B Moderate
398B Major
39B Critical
40B
12.4 During Operation
Traffic impacts during the operational phase are expected to be low to negligible and relate only to
travel to the Project site by the EPC Contractor for periodic maintenance activities at the Project site.
12.5 During Decommissioning
During the decommissioning phase, the wind turbines will need to be dismantled and removed from
the Project site. Traffic impacts are expected to be similar to that of the construction phase but will
require assessment at the time to capture the most up-to-date traffic conditions along the expected
disposal route.
12-40
13. BIODIVERSITY
This section details of the biodiversity assessment of the Project site and surrounding area. It does not
include assessments related to ornithology as this is covered by in Section 14 Ornithology. This
section is further subdivided as follows:
• Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria.

• Baseline Conditions.
• Assessment of Potential Impacts.
Details of all survey methodologies are provided along with all survey results. Where surveys are
ongoing or proposed or survey results not yet been provided, desk study data has been used to
develop the likely baseline conditions.
The biodiversity assessment follows the approach previously described in this ESIA, considering both
DAOI and IAOI. In keeping with the surveys previously completed, it considers an immediate zone (or
Project site), a middle zone up to 3km from the Project site boundary and a furthest zone extending to
15km out. The three zones make up the study area. Where the assessment has considered features
outwith those study areas, this is made clear in the text.
It is noted that the reporting received as an outcome of the additional habitat surveys undertaken in
June 2019 surveys contained less detailed mapping than requested by Ramboll. It contained mapping
to a higher level, which did not delineate individual habitat types or features such as bare ground or
tracks as had been requested by Ramboll. Therefore, whilst it provided more accurate information
than desk based habitat delineation, the habitat loss calculation could not be completed in the
expected way by Ramboll. In addition, a full year of bat surveys would have ideally been completed
prior to the ESIA completion. However, it is noted that the initial survey data was gathered during the
time of highest bat activity, and in consultation with Dr. Abi-Said is considered sufficient to develop
the initial scope of appropriate mitigation measures which can be updated as required following
collection of the data from ongoing surveys.
Therefore, the assessment has been based on the information that was supplied and the findings used
to inform mitigation. The mitigation measures have been developed to represent the most likely
scenario, erring on the precautionary side where necessary, as evidenced by the data and results
available at the time of ESIA preparation. Whilst the absence of full survey season results for e.g. flora
or bats remains a limitation, Ramboll is confident that the measures proposed and outlined in the
BAMP (provided as an appendix to the stand-alone ESMP) are proportionate and appropriate for the
predicted impacts. Further data will allow refinement of the measures, potentially reducing or
refocusing them, but it is not considered likely that the type or magnitude of mitigation required would
be significantly altered.
Similarly, the Critical and Natural Habitats Assessment (CHA) presented in Appendix L has also been
developed based on the most likely scenario, erring on the precautionary side where necessary, as
evidenced by the data and results available at the time of ESIA preparation. Whilst the absence of full
survey season results for e.g. flora or bats remains a limitation, Ramboll is confident that the
measures proposed and outlined in the BAMP to deliver no net loss or net gain are proportionate and
appropriate for the predicted impacts. Further data will allow refinement of the measures, potentially
reducing or refocusing them, but it is not considered likely that the type or magnitude of mitigation
required would be significantly altered. Even in those cases where there is uncertainty over the
13-1
presence of floral species potentially triggering critical habitat, the overall approach to mitigation and
enhancement for floral species on site remains a valid approach to delivering net gain.
Identification of key flora species during the ongoing further pre-construction survey will be
undertaken to provide the necessary detailed habitat mapping. If it is not possible to avoid examples
or areas of the species listed in the baseline, every effort shall be made to reduce the impact and
further offsetting would be required. Offsetting plans will form part of the Biodiversity Management
Plan to be developed by others, to include possible reforestation and management prescriptions and
evidence that no net loss of biodiversity can be achieved.
Further data collection for bats is ongoing and will carry on for one year (building on the spring data
collected May-June 2019). A revised assessment can then be completed to confirm recommendations
and inform mitigation measures more effectively.
13.1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
13.1.1 Method of Baseline Characterization
13.1.1.1 Habitats and Flora
Information regarding habitats was obtained through a combination of literature review, field surveys
and data analysis. Three field visits were conducted, one in summer (September 2017), another in
spring (March 2018) and the final in early summer (June 2019), to identify the type of habitats
present within the study area along with the associated flora species. To complement the findings of
the field visits, a literature review was undertaken focussing on developing a general description of the
study area, identifying the sampled flora and identifying critically endangered or endangered floral
species 67 which might occur within the study area. The literature review also supported the
65F
assessment of the ecological value of the habitats/species based on their extent of occurrence on both
national and global levels, the degree of endemism and their respective plant life form.
An approximate delineation of the area that was covered by the field surveys in September 2017 and
March 2018 is shown in Figure 13-1. After an initial visit to the Project site using a general floristic
description of the different habitats, a sampling size of seven plots was set. Each plot location was
determined to be in a natural undisturbed environment (i.e. with minimal anthropogenic activity), and
close to sites where the turbines are planned to be installed. The plots were selected based on
accessibility to cover the different types of habitats that were identified in the area.
The detailed methodology for the September 2017 and March 2018 flora surveys is provided in
Appendix M. The methodology was established based on several criteria including plot size,
identification, classification and abundance. A score for the degree of endemism was attributed for
each species and another score was attributed for its extent of occurrence in Lebanon. Species were
also classified according to their life forms and attributed a score and the ecological value of the
species was calculated. The taxa with a high ecological value score (above 10) are considered to be
sensitive features. Conservation measures for each species and their actual status were checked from
the IUCN red list and from Lebanese law, whenever available. Conservation status was consequently
scored.
67
Focussing on information available on the IUCN red list website: www.redlist.org
13-2
Additional habitat surveys were undertaken by an experienced botanist (Dr. Myrna Semaan) in June
2019, appointed directly by Sustainable Akkar SAL to implement a scope of work prepared by
Ramboll. The surveys are ongoing in Summer 2019, with the aim of updating the mapping of
boundaries between habitat types and the locations of existing features (such as tracks and borrow
pits) and focusing on the areas of proposed infrastructure to refine the habitat loss calculations. In
addition, the survey aimed to verify the potential presence of threatened and/or endemic floral
species. A full description of the survey methodology is provided in Appendix N.
13.1.1.2 Terrestrial Fauna
A combination of literature review and field surveys were used to obtain information on terrestrial
fauna in the proposed development site. The literature review used information from surveys that
were carried out within a 10km buffer zone of the proposed site as these results were considered
relevant for this Project.
The following approaches were used to survey for non-flying mammals at nine locations in the field:
nocturnal surveys, camera trapping and rodent trapping. A nocturnal survey was carried out by
searching the site from a vehicle with a spotlight in order to detect any animals present. These
surveys were conducted at two intervals and the same path was taken each time; dusk until midnight
and midnight until dawn. All identifiable animals and their corresponding GPS locations were recorded.
Camera trapping surveys were carried out by choosing random locations within each site to distribute
five camera traps. These traps consisted of pre-baited active and passive remote cameras which are
triggered by heat and motion.
Preliminary rodent trapping was also conducted with 9 trapping stations at the proposed development
site. Full methods and results of the mammal survey are included as Appendix O, combined with the
results of the spring bat activity surveys.
13.1.1.3 Bats
Knowledge of bat diversity and distribution in Lebanon is limited, with baseline information for this
assessment based partly on reviews of records, field studies and museum specimens68. Information
regarding bat species likely to occur within the region was obtained through extensive review of
available literature detailed below.
In addition to desk studies, baseline bat surveys for the Project site took place between May-June
2019, encompassing the spring activity period for bats. Surveys were completed by Dr. Mounir Abi-
Said, a Lebanese bat expert who was appointed directly by Sustainable Akkar SAL to implement the
scope of surveys developed by Ramboll. The first progress report, detailing all findings from the
surveys completed in those months is included as Appendix O. Bat surveys consist of both active and
passive surveys and are ongoing, due to last for one year as to encompass late spring, summer,
autumn and winter bat activity across the site.
68
Benda, P., Abi-Said, m., Bou Jaoude, I., Karanouh, R., Lucan, R K., Sadek, R., Sevcik, M., Uhrin, M. and
Horacek, I. (2016) Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Part 13. Review of
distribution and ectoparasites of bats in Lebanon. Acta Soc. Zool. Bohem. 80: 207-316.
13-3
Preliminary findings from the spring activity surveys, have been used to inform mitigation, which will
be updated by the Developer following a full years’ worth of survey and analysis. All surveys were
undertaken based on good practice guidance recommended by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)69 and
EUROBATS70.
Passive Surveys
Anabat Swift passive bat detectors were placed at nine locations across the Project Site recording bat
activity for 10 consecutive nights. Locations were selected based on proposed turbine locations and
habitats present on site, based on good practice guidance. Passive detector locations are shown on
Figure 13-2. Three detectors were deployed at the southern end of the site at potential turbine
locations SA21, SA23, and SA24 between 5-15 May 2019. An additional detector was then installed at
the SA2 Met mast between 25 May-3 June 2019 to ensure effective coverage of the southern extent of
the site. Five detectors were then installed towards the northern site extent at proposed turbine sites
SA2, SA6, SA9, SA20 and SA Met1 between 15-25 May. Note that SA1 MET and SA2 MET are
meteorological monitoring masts, the detector was thus placed at height of ~30m.
Active Surveys
Transect surveys were undertaken across the site across two nights to record bat activity during
crepuscular and nocturnal hours (one hour before sunset to sunrise). The transect followed the
existing track, passing proposed wind turbine locations. Surveyors stopped at each proposed turbine
location for 3 minutes to record bat activity. Transect surveys were undertaken three times (two
nights each) on the evenings of 16-18 May, 24-28 May and 1-3 June 2019 using Anabat Walkabout
Active Detectors. Note that transects were conducted in conjunction with surveys for the planned
Lebanon Wind Farm site situated to the south of the Project. As a continuous transect was followed
across both sites, it has not been possible to separate recordings between sites therefore results are
reported for both to give an overall indication of activity across the combined area.
Analysis
Data from passive and active surveys were analyzed using Analook and Anabat Insight software.
Analysis enabled the identification of species occurring across the site and the number of calls (i.e.
passes; one or two calls in quick succession) per location, per night. Note that recorded passes are
representative of bat activity and are not indicative of bat numbers or population sizes.
Hibernation and Roost Surveys
A preliminary field study was carried within the Project site and surrounding area to identify
hibernation or cave roosts. These surveys involved a daytime walkover assessment of the regions
between December 2017 and March 2018.
69
https://www.nature.scot/bats-and-onshore-wind-turbines-survey-assessment-and-mitigation, Accessed on 5th
July 2019
70
http://www.eurobats.org/publications/eurobats_publication_series, accessed on 5th July 2019.
13-4
13.1.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts
In order to follow good practice guidance on ecological impact assessment 71, the biodiversity impact
140F142F
assessment follows a similar approach to the other assessments within this ESIA. Features are
evaluated, and impacts are characterized in a similar fashion. However, rather than a matricized
approach that provides a scale of impact significance from negligible to critical, it follows an approach
of identifying whether an impact would lead to an “ecologically significant effect” for the feature, e.g.
species or habitat type. An ecologically significant effect is an effect that either undermines or, in the
case of a positive impact, supports biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological
features’ or for biodiversity in general.
13.1.2.1 Feature Evaluation
Habitats and species (i.e. biodiversity features) identified within the study area have been assigned
values using the standard CIEEM scale that classifies biodiversity features within a defined geographic
context 72. The classification uses recognized and published criteria 73, 74 where the biodiversity features
14F143F 142F14F 143F145F
are assessed in relation to their size, diversity, naturalness, rarity, fragility, typicalness, connectivity
with surroundings, intrinsic value, recorded history and potential value. Table 13-1 describes the
frame of reference that has been used for the impact assessment.
Table 13-1 Geographic Importance
Geographic Examples
Importance
International Internationally designated sites including Important Bird Areas (IBA) other Key
Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Ramsar Site, Biogenetic Reserve, World Heritage Site,
Biosphere Reserve, and potential Ramsar Sites; discrete areas which meet the
published selection criteria for international designation, but which are not
themselves designated as such.
Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at
an international level, the loss of which would adversely affect the conservation
status or distribution of the species at an international level; or where the population
forms a critical part of a wider population; or the species is at a critical phase of its
life cycle.
National Nationally designated sites, Nature Reserves Marine Nature Reserve; discrete areas
which meet the published selection criteria for national designation, but which are
not designated as such.
Resident or regularly occurring populations of species, the loss of which would
adversely affect the conservation status or distribution of the species across
Lebanon or where the population forms a critical part of a wider population; or the
species is at a critical phase of its life cycle.
71
CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater,
Coastal and Marine. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
72
73
Ratcliffe, D. (1977), A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74
Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. and Mitchell-Jones, T. (2010), Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment. In
Practice. December 2010 pp23-25. Winchester: CIEEM.
13-5
Geographic Examples
Importance
Regional Viable areas of key habitat identified as being of Regional value or smaller areas of
such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.
adversely affect the conservation status or distribution of the species across the
region; or where the population forms a critical part of a wider population; or the
Local Features of local value include areas of habitat or populations/communities of

species considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the immediate
surrounding area, for example, species-rich hedgerows.
immediate surrounding area; or where the population forms a critical part of a wider
population; or the species is at a critical phase of its life cycle.
13.1.2.2 Criteria for Characterizing Impacts
The potential impacts upon biodiversity features have been considered in relation to the Project. The
impacts have been assessed without consideration of any specific mitigation measures that might be
employed. The assessment of likely impacts has been made in relation to the baseline conditions of
the study area. The likely impacts of development activities upon biodiversity features have been
characterized as detailed in Table 13-2.
It is noted that the assessment only describes those characteristics relevant to understanding the
impact and determining the significance of the effect.
Table 13-2 Impact Characterization
Direction Impacts are either adverse (negative) or positive.
Magnitude This is defined as high, moderate, low or negligible, with these being classified
using the following criteria:
High: Total/near total loss of a population due to mortality or displacement or
major reduction in the status or productivity of a population due to mortality or
displacement or disturbance. Total/near total loss of a habitat.
Medium: Partial reduction in the status or productivity of a population due to
mortality or displacement or disturbance. Partial loss of a habitat.
Low: Small but discernible reduction in the status or productivity of a population
due to mortality or displacement or disturbance. Small proportion of habitat lost.
Negligible: Very slight reduction in the status or productivity of a population due
to mortality or displacement or disturbance. Reduction barely discernible,
approximating to the ‘no change’ situation. Slight loss of habitat that is barely
discernible from the habitat resource as a whole.
Extent The area over which an impact occurs, i.e. the impact’s area of influence.
13-6
Duration The time for which the impact is expected to last prior to recovery of the
biodiversity feature or replacement of the feature by similar resource (in terms
of quality and/or quantity). This is expressed as a short term, medium term, or
long-term effect relative to the biodiversity feature that is impacted.
Reversibility Irreversible impacts: permanent changes from which recovery is not possible
within a reasonable time scale or for which there is no reasonable chance of
action being taken to reverse it.
Reversible impact: temporary changes in which spontaneous recovery is possible
or for which effective mitigation (avoidance/cancellation/reduction of impact) or
compensation (offset/recompense/offer benefit) is possible.
Frequency The number of times an activity occurs will influence the resulting effect (if
and timing appropriate, described as low to high and quantified, where possible).
The timing of an activity or change may result in an impact if it coincides with
critical life-stages or seasons e.g. the badger breeding season.
13.1.2.3 Significance Criteria
Impact significance was evaluated using the approach specified in Annex 9 of Decision 261/1 (June
2015) for the review of EIA studies at the MOE, whereby various sources of impacts are addressed for
the Project’s different implementation phases.
Significant effects are assessed with reference to the geographical importance of the biodiversity
feature. However, the scale of significance of an effect may not be the same as the geographic context
in which the feature is considered important. For example, an effect on a species which is on a
national list of species of principal importance for biodiversity may not have a significant effect on its
national population.
The potential for significant effects, in the absence of mitigation, has been determined with reference
to the geographic conservation importance and the criteria in Table 13-1. By referring to the criteria
in Table 13-2, the assessment seeks to characterize the magnitude of the effects in space and time.
Mitigation and/or compensation is proposed for all effects considered to be significant. Where
appropriate, as a good practice measure, additional controls and/or compensation may be proposed.
Residual effects are characterized as either positive or adverse and either significant or not significant,
taking account of mitigation and/or compensation proposals.
13.1.3 Limitations
The habitat and faunal surveys provide a snapshot of ecological conditions and do not record plants or
animals that may be present in the Project site at different times of the year. The absence of a
particular species cannot definitely be confirmed by a lack of field signs and only concludes that an
indication of its presence was not located during the survey effort.
Some flora species are not identifiable from the surveys completed to date as the surveys were not
completed during their growth or flowering period. The project’s botanical specialist, Dr. Myrna
13-7
Semaan, has identified that the Project site has the potential to support certain species that were not
observed during the surveys. Their presence will be confirmed by further survey and this data will be
used to update the Critical Habitat Assessment and/or the Biodiversity Action and Management Plan
(BAMP).
The bat data collected as part of this assessment only represents spring bat activity. Ideally, based on
good practice, a minimum of a years’ worth of data should be used. Data collection is ongoing and will
carry on for one year (building on spring data collected May-June 2019). A revised assessment can
then be completed to inform recommendations and mitigation measures more effectively.
13.2 Baseline Conditions
13.2.1 Habitats and Flora
13.2.1.1 Desk Study
Lebanon, which is considered a hotspot for biodiversity in the Mediterranean Basin 75, is characterized
58F6F
by the coexistence of plants with diverse biogeographical origins and a large number of narrow
endemic taxa. The combination of geological variation and altitude, along with strong climatic variation
among different slopes, created a marked heterogeneity in the ecological forces acting on the
evolution of plant differentiation. Its floristic richness is estimated at 2,612 vascular plant taxa, of
which 108 are endemic to Lebanon 76. 59F67F
Forests in north Lebanon cover approximately 21% of the northern governorate and encompass most
of the forest species present in the country (El-Hajj, Al-Jawhary, Moukaddem, & Khater, 2014). The
study area is situated between 800m and 1,400m, covering two vegetation levels (Meso-
Mediterranean and Supra-Mediterranean) and encompassing different ecosystems and habitats,
including: Calabrian pine forests, evergreen oak woods, juniper woodland, mixed forests, grassland,
cliffs and rocky habitats. This zone is part of Qammouaa-Dinnyeh-Jurd Hermel Important Plant Area
(IUCN Important Plant Areas of the south and east Mediterranean region, 2011) as shown on Figure
13-3.
Based on a 2018 study 77, species richness values for the Qammouaa-Dinnyeh Jurd Hemel IPA range
63F68F
between 200-337 species per 3m2. The Qammouaa-Dinnyeh Jurd Hermel IPA contains the largest
continuous stands of natural forests in Lebanon. A huge diversity of forest types occur in the IPA,
including Calabrian pines, mixed cedar, fir and juniper, mixed fir and cedar, pure fir, evergreen oak
and relic turkey oak stands. The area covers four vegetation series: the Eu-, Supra, Mountainous and
Oro-Mediterranean and it is characterized by a wide variety of landscapes, including valleys, forests,
rivers, gorges, rocky cliffs and mountains 78. 69F
Three hundred and twenty plant species have been recorded, with 82 species restricted to the eastern
Mediterranean, six endemic to Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, 17 to Lebanon and Syria, nine to
Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, 10 to Lebanon and 2 threatened species according to experts’ opinion
75
Médail & Quézel, 1997; Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Fonseca, & Kent, 2000.
76
Tohmé and Tohmé, 2004, Tohmé and Tohmé, 2011, Tohmé and Tohmé, 2014.
77
Setting conservation priorities for Lebanese flora—Identification of important plant areas, Magda Bou Dagher-
Kharrat, Hicham El Zein, Germinal Rouhan, Journal for Nature Conservation Volume 43, June 2018.
78
13-8
(IUCN Important Plant Areas of the south and east Mediterranean region, 2011). The Qammouaa-
Dinnyeh Jurd Hermel IPA is classified for nine threatened species.
Qammouaa-Dinnyeh Jurd Hermel IPA Species:
• Alkanna prasinophylla.
• Astragalus angulosus.
• Cousinia libanotica.
• Erophila gilgiana.
• Helichrysum virgineum.
• Melissa inodora.
• Ranunculus schweinfurthii.
• Silene grisea.
• Stachys hydrophilia.
The Project site also lies within the Western Akroum Key Biodiversity Area (KBA)79 designated for
64F7
Cilician fir Abies cilicica, an endemic species with a restricted range. The Karm Chbat Nature Reserve,
shown previously on Figure 13-3, lies approximately 2.5km southwest of the Project site. It was
created in October 1995 (Ministerial Decision No. 14) and covers an area of approximately 520ha at
an elevation of 1,400m-1,900m. The Karm Chbat Nature Reserve is a protected area identified by the
MOE but is not an international designation.
The Aandqet Forest Proposed Reserve, which is currently unconfirmed and undesignated, and
therefore not shown on Figure 13-3, and for which a variety of studies have been completed, lies
immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the Project site. The forest extends for most of the
Oudine Valley and would be managed as an ongoing resource but with nature conservation a core
component of that management.
Juniperus forest, comprising many different juniper species is located at higher altitudes than the pine
forests. It occurs on the western slopes of Qalaat Arouba, in Qamouaa, and on the north eastern
slopes of Karm Chbat, down to Rweimeh Village and on the eastern slopes towards Hermel. Juniper
forest is rarely pure (as shown on Figure 13-4) and integrates in addition to Juniperus excelsa, other
junipers such as J. foetidissima, J. oxycedrus and the rare presence of J. drupacea.
At altitudes between approximately 1,300m and 1,400m, between Jabal-Akroum and the Karm Chbat
Cadastral Area, climatic conditions are favorable for the development of species requiring significant
moisture and cool temperatures. A mixed forest composed of the abovementioned evergreen
broadleaved species is mixed with junipers and Quercus infectoria, Prunus ursina, and to a lesser
extent relic species such as Ostrya carpinifolia, Fraxinus ornus, Quercus cerris, as shown on Figure
13-5.
These forests and woodlands extend from Chambouq, towards Karm Chbat, Rweimeh Village and
Hmaire, and are located at the southern tip of the study area. Herbaceous and shrubby species
include: Bellevalia flexuosa, Galium sp., Geranium sp., Hyacinthus orientalis, Smyrnium sp.,
79
BirdLife International (2019) The World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. Developed by the Key Biodiversity
Areas Partnership: BirdLife International, IUCN, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation International, Critica l
Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment Facility, Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation Society. Downloaded from
http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org on 28/02/2019.
13-9
Ranunculus sp., Thalspi sp., Valeriana dioscoridis, etc. Threats in mixed forests are similar to those in
evergreen broadleaved forests. This type of ecosystem has the highest biodiversity richness of those
found within the study area.
Grassland and barren lands are located close to the summit line of Jabal-Akroum, and constitute a
large portion of the study area, (see Figure 13-6 and Figure 13-7, respectively), especially the
northern and central parts. Due to wind recurrence and consistency, trees are found only in leeward
direction or hundred meters below the summit line, leaving large areas barren. The main species of
the grassland are from the Poaceae family and include Avena sterilis, Bromus fasciculatus, Poa sp.,
and Capsella sp., Lagoecia cuminoides, Hypecoum imberbe, Sedum sp., and Teucrium sp. Grazing
activities are intense. To the south, altitude increases grasslands are accompanied with few shrubby
trees. The grazing is less intense, allowing better soil conditions and the presence of many other
herbaceous species such as Pisum fulvum, Medicago orbicularis, Lathyrus blephycarpus, Taraxacum
sp., Ranunculus sp., etc. This ecosystem has the lowest richness of those found within the study area.
The Aandqet Forest is dominated by Calabrian pine Pinus brutia and is the largest Pinus brutia forest
in Lebanon. It is approximately 10,000ha and extends from Aandqet, through Quobaiyat towards
Aakkar El Atiqa’a, on the western slopes of Jabal-Akroum, Karm Chbat and Qamouaa. Some Calabrian
pine stands can be found on the north eastern slopes between Rweimeh Village and Boustane, and
between Rweimeh Village and Kfartoun (on the limit of the mid-zone study area). The western edge of
parts of the Project site contains similar forest. The pines are accompanied by other species including:
Quercus calliprinos, Q. infectoria, Phillyrea media, Arbutus andrachne, Acer obtusifolium, Crataegus
monogyna, Cercis siliquastrum, Cupressus sempervirens, and herbaceous species such as Cistus sp.,
Erica manipuliflora, Hypericum thymifolius, Oreganum libanoticum, Salvia fruticosa, Cyclamen
persicum, Osyris alba, etc. The main serious threat for this ecosystem is forest fire.
These are mixed on the lower altitude with broadleaved species and above 1,400m, with Abies cilcica
in Qamouaa, and Cedrus libani, mostly in Karm Chbat (all within the furthest zone study area). The
latter species and forests are of high ecological value and are located 3km to the south of Jabal-
Akroum. The accompanying shrubby and herbaceous species include Rhamnus cathartica, Rubia
tenuifolia, Phlomis chrysophylla, Arabis caucasica, Euphorbia kotschyana, Geranium sp., Ranunculus
sp., etc. These forests are subject to various threats including overgrazing and uncontrolled cutting.
This ecosystem has high biodiversity richness.
Evergreen broadleaved forest and woodlands cover large areas above the pine forest on the western
slopes of Jabal-Akroum and all the eastern slopes towards Kfartoun, up to 1,200 m. They are mostly
dominated by Quercus calliprinos, and accompanied by Phillyrea media, Pyrus syriaca, Styrax
officinalis, Crataegus monogyna, and Arbutus andrachne. The lower strata are covered by many
Poaceae species along with species such as Origanum syriacum, Ruscus aculeatus, Asphodelus
microcarpus and Dianthus tripuncatus.
This type of vegetation is common in the northern, central and eastern parts of the study area.
Cutting of trees for wood to be used as fuel and overgrazing are the major threats and vary in
intensity from one location to another. This ecosystem has a variable richness and is highly affected
by grazing intensity. Evergreen broadleaved forests and woodland are also present in the Project site
as dense and sparse Quercus sp. forests.
Figure 13-8 shows an overview of land use habitat types identified during the desk study as an
indication of habitat types that may be present on the Project site.
13-10
The floral species considered to be present in each of the land use habitat types (based on literature
review complemented by casual field observations) and their IUCN status are provided in Table 13-3.
Table 13-3 Flora Species Present in Each Land Use Habitat Type in Project Site
Habitat Species IUCN Status* IUCN Trend*
Dense Pinus sp. Pinus brutia Least concern Increasing

forest
Quercus calliprinos Least concern Stable
Quercus infectoria Least concern Unknown
Cistus creticus NA NA
Phillyrea media Least concern Stable
Arbutus andrachne Least concern Stable
Acer obtusifolium Least concern Stable
Crataegus monogyna Least concern Unknown
Cercis siliquastrum Least concern Unknown
Cupressus sempervirens Least concern Unknown
Erica manipuliflora NA NA
Hypericum thymifolius NA NA
Origanum libanoticum NA NA
Salvia fruticosa Least concern Unknown
Cyclamen persicum NA NA
Osyris alba NA NA
Dense Quercus Quercus calliprinos Least concern Stable

sp. forest
Phillyrea media Least concern Stable
Pyrus syriaca Least concern Stable
Styrax officinalis Least concern Stable
Crataegus monogyna Least concern Unknown
Arbutus andrachne Least concern Stable
Origanum syriacum NA NA
Ruscus aculeatus NA NA
Asphodelus microcarpus Least concern Stable
Dianthus tripuncatus Least concern Stable
Abies cilicica Near threatened Decreasing
13-11
Juniperus drupacea Least concern Stable
Juniperus excelsa Least concern Stable
Juniperus foetidissima Least concern Stable
Juniperus oxycedrus Least concern Stable
Rhamnus cathartica Least concern Stable
Rubia tenuifolia NA NA
Phlomis chrysophylla NA NA
Arabis caucasica NA NA
Euphorbia kotschyana NA NA
Sparse
Juniperus sp. Alkanna prasinophylla NA NA
forest
Astragalus angulosus NA NA
Cousinia libanotica NA NA
Erophila gilgiana NA NA
Helichrysum virgineum NA NA
Clinopodium libanoticum Endangered Unknown
Ranunculus schweinfurthii Vulnerable Stable
Silene grisea NA NA
Stachys hydrophila NA NA
Alyssum libanoticum nyaradi NA NA
Dense mixed Quercus infectoria Least concern Unknown

forest (including
Quercus cerris Least concern Unknown
mixed Quercus
sp. and Prunus ursina Least concern Unknown
Calabrian pine)
Ostrya carpinifolia Least concern Unknown
Fraxinus ornus Least concern Unknown
Bellevalia flexuosa NA NA
Hyacinthus orientalis NA NA
Valeriana dioscoridis NA NA
Shrublands Juniperus drupacea Least concern Stable
Quercus calliprinos bushes Least concern Stable
Viola libanotica Endangered Unknown
13-12
Milk-vetch Astragalus sp. NA NA
Condalia warnockii kearneyana NA NA
Inula crithmoides NA NA
Acantholimon libanoticum NA NA
Alyssum libanoticum nyaradi NA NA
Grassland and Avena sterilis Least concern Stable

barren land
Bromus fasciculatus Least concern Stable
(including
sparse and Lagoecia cuminoides NA NA
moderately
Hypecoum imberbe NA NA
dense
herbaceous Pisum fulvum NA NA
vegetation) Medicago orbicularis NA NA
Lathyrus blephycarpus NA NA
Ranunculus cuneatus NA NA
Milk-vetch Astragalus sp. NA NA
Acantholimon libanoticum NA NA
Arabis caucasica NA NA
*Note: IUCN status and trend from www.iucnredlist.org
13.2.1.2 Field Surveys
No aquatic habitats are present in the Project site. As a result, aquatic flora and fauna are not
assessed further.
Flora biodiversity richness, as depicted from the plots visited in September 2017 and March 2018,
varied from 11 species (in a single visit on the northern plot, which is also the lowest in altitude, and
the windiest, and in a grassland), to 28 species (in two visits, in the southernmost plot, which is the
least windy, and in a mixed forest). The detailed list of species that were encountered within the plots
during the two visits are included in Appendix M. Some species that were not found but listed in the
literature were also added but labelled “0” in the first column. Out of 103 species, four were identified
only by their family.
Based on these findings, the taxa that have high ecological value and are considered to be sensitive
features are the following: Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus drupacea, Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus
oxycedrus, Origanum libanoticum, Ostrya carpinifolia, Phillyrea media, Ranunculus cuneatus, and
Rhamnus cathartica.
13-13
Figure 13-9 shows an overview of habitat types recorded across the entire survey area in the June
2019 survey. Figure 13-10a through Figure 13-10c present this information in more detail. The
Project site contains three main habitat types:
• Mixed oak woodland of the middle mountain bioclimatic zone. This habitat is the dominant type in
the areas of proposed infrastructure.
• Juniperus excelsa coniferous forest of the high mountain system.
• Pinus brutia coniferous forest of the north-western slopes in the area to become the Oudine
reserve.
Table 13-4 provides the area of the habitats recorded in the Project site.
Table 13-4 Habitat Types and Area in Project Site
Habitat Type Area (ha)
Juniperus excelsa dominance 13.76
Mixed oak woodland 1 471.63
Mixed oak woodland 2 238.07
Oak/J. exclesa mix 1 20.11
Oak/J. exclesa mix 2 28.59
Oak woodland 5 13.33
Oak/pine mix 115.93
Pine forest dominance 1 0.12
Total Area 944.01
Full details of the results of the June 2019 survey are provided in Appendix P. Table 13-5 provides a
summary of the dominant habitat types and flora species encountered at each proposed infrastructure
location.
Table 13-6 contains an overview of the mixed oak woodland habitat type, which constitutes the
dominant habitat type in the Project site. Table 13-5 details variations to the mixed oak woodland
habitat type where it occurs around the proposed infrastructure or refers to Table 13-6 where there
are no variations. Other habitat types are also described in Table 13-5.
Table 13-7 details the key floral species expected to be present in the Project site.
13-14
Table 13-5 List of Habitat Types and Floral Species Encountered at Proposed Project Infrastructure Locations
Endemic
IUCN
Infrastructure Location Dominant Habitat Type Species IUCN Trend* to
Status*
Lebanon
Degraded rocky terrain with

few bushes. Turbine 3
WTG 2, 3 and 4 Pinus brutia Least concern Increasing No
occurs next to agricultural
land
Ground-level bushes with

WTG 5 woodland on north-eastern None recorded NA NA NA
slopes
Degradation of oak
woodland to ground-level
Road to WTG 5 Pistacia terebinthus Least concern Stable No
bushes. Slopes are more
wooded
Degraded mixed oak

WTG 6 woodland with ground-level See Table 13-7 NA NA NA
bushes
Exposed rock and grazed

grassland with minor bushes Phlomis chrysophylla No data No data Possibly
of mixed oak woodland
WTG 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14
habitat. Coned valleys
important for water Quercus coccifera Least concern Stable No
collection
Same forested habitat as

WTG 15 and 17. Turbine on
WTG 13 and connecting road See WTG 15 and 17 below NA NA NA
periphery of forest in more
degraded area
13-15
Endemic
IUCN
Status*
Lebanon
Pinus brutia Least concern Increasing No
Pine-oak habitats with

WTG 15 and 17 and connecting narrow integration zone. C. longifolia
road Thick woodland has been Cephalanthera longifolia or unknown
Least concern No
previously felled C. rubra C. rubra
decreasing
Epipactis sp. NA NA NA
Bush land and dense,

Road to WTG 17 disturbed mixed oak See Table 13-7 NA NA NA
woodland
WTG 18 Mixed oak woodland See Table 13-7 NA NA NA
Mixed oak woodland with

Road to WTG 18 pine forest on north-western See Table 13-7 NA NA NA
slopes beyond a felled area
Grassland and ground-level

bushes remnants of mixed
WTG 19 None recorded NA NA NA
oak woodland. Close to
upper limit of the pine forest
Bushes of mixed oak

Road to WTG 19 woodland habitat plus Juniperus excelsa Least concern Stable No
Juniperus excelsa
WTG 20 Quercus coccifera Least concern Stable No
13-16
Endemic
IUCN
Status*
Lebanon

Mixed oak woodland with
unpaved roads already Juniperus oxycedrus Least concern Stable No
felled into forest
Juniperus excelsa Least concern Stable No
Quercus coccifera Least concern Stable No
Quercus infectoria Least concern Unknown No
Juniperus oxycedrus Least concern Stable No
Salvia hierosolymitana No data No data Possibly

WTG 21 and connecting road Mixed oak woodland
Styrax officinalis Least concern Stable No
Cistus creticus No data No data No
Phlomis chrysophylla No data No data Possibly
Origanum syriacum No data No data No
Calicotome villosa No data No data No
Mixed oak woodland by Juniperus oxycedrus Least concern Stable No

WTG 22
unpaved road Juniperus excelsa Least concern Stable No
Phillyrea media Least concern Stable No
Rhamnus punctata No data No data No
WTG 24 and connecting road Juniperus excelsa Least concern Stable No
13-17
Endemic
IUCN
Status*
Lebanon
Oak woodland/mixed oak Quercus coccifera Least concern Stable No

woodland Phillyrea media Least concern Stable No
Quercus infectoria Least concern Unknown No
Juniperus oxycedrus Least concern Stable No
Ostrya carpinifolia Least concern Unknown No
Sorbus torminalis Least concern Unknown No
Pine-oak transition from Styrax officinalis Least concern Stable No

Juniperus excelsa to Pistacia terebinthus Least concern Stable No
WTG 25 and connecting road Quercus coccifera from the
high mountain to the middle Phillyrea media Least concern Stable No
mountain bioclimatic zone Avena sp. NA NA NA
Triticum sp. NA NA NA
Rubus canescence No data No data No data
Teucrium polium No data No data No
Phlomis chrysophylla No data No data Possibly
Phlomis syriaca No data No data No
Sideritis sp. NA NA NA
Inula viscosa No data No data No
13-18
Endemic
IUCN
Status*
Lebanon
Osyris alba No data No data No
Origanum libanoticum No data No data Yes
Asphodelus ramosus Least concern Unknown No
Echinops viscosus No data No data No
Prunus ursina Least concern Unknown No
Pyrus syriaca Least concern Stable Yes
Cercis siliquastrum Least concern Unknown No
Arbutus andrachne Least concern Stable No
13-19
Table 13-6 List of Floral Species in Mixed Oak Woodland Habitat Type
Endemic to
Species Frequency IUCN Status* IUCN Trend*
Lebanon
Quercus coccifera High abundance characterizes the habitat type Least concern Stable No
Pistacia terebinthus Almost two-thirds the frequency of Q. coccifera Least concern Stable No
Phillyrea media Same frequency or half as frequent as Pistacia Least concern Stable No
Juniperus oxycedrus Varies Least concern Stable No
Styrax officinalis Low Least concern Stable No
Rubus canescence Not provided No data No data No data
Teucrium polium Not provided No data No data No
Phlomis chrysophylla Not provided No data No data Possibly
Phlomis syriaca Not provided No data No data No
Sideritis sp Not provided NA NA NA
Rhamnus punctata Not provided No data No data No
Origanum libanoticum Not provided No data No data Yes
Origanum syriacum Not provided No data No data No
Teucrium divaricatum Not provided No data No data No
Teline monspessulana Not provided No data No data No
Ballota antilibanotica Not provided No data No data Possibly
Micromeria graeca Not provided No data No data Possibly
Stachys cretica vacillans Not provided No data No data No
Quercus cerris Found at limited sites with higher humidity Least concern Unknown No
Quercus infectoria Low (single trees) Least concern Unknown No
Cercis siliquastrum Only in areas with 100% tree cover Least concern Unknown No
Prunus ursina Low Least concern Unknown No
Fraxinus ornus Single record Least concern Unknown No
13-20
Table 13-7 List of Floral Species Expected in Project Site
Endemic
Species IUCN Status* IUCN Trend* to
Lebanon
Eleocharis macrantha Least concern Stable Yes
Origanum ehrenbergii Vulnerable Decreasing Yes
Romulea phoenicia Vulnerable Decreasing Yes
Romulea nivalis Vulnerable Decreasing Yes
Silene reuteriana No data No data Yes
Salvia peyronii No data No data Yes
13.2.1.3 Habitats and Flora Summary
No critical habitat is considered to be present in the Project site. The areas of oak woodland and mixed
woodland habitat in good condition around Turbines 22-18 and Turbines 13, 15, and 17 are considered
to be natural habitats. Further details can be found in the Critical and Natural Habitats Assessment
(CHA) in Appendix L.
None of the species that led to the classification of the area as an IPA were recorded during surveys.
Species considered to have high ecological value from the September 2017 and March 2018 surveys
are as follows:
• Fraxinus ornus.
• Juniperus drupacea.
• Juniperus excelsa.
• Juniperus oxycedrus.
• Origanum libanoticum.
• Ostrya carpinifolia.
• Phillyrea media.
• Ranunculus cuneatus.
• Rhamnus cathartica.
During the June 2019 surveys, a single record of Fraxinus ornus is present in the mixed oak woodland
habitat type in 2019. Juniperus excelsa and Phillyrea media are present in the mixed oak woodland,
oak woodland and oak/pine habitat types. Juniperus oxycedrus and Origanum libanoticum are present
in the mixed oak woodland and oak/pine habitat types. Ostrya carpinifolia is present in the oak/pine
habitat type. Juniperus drupacea, Ranunculus cuneatus and Rhamnus cathartica were not recorded in
the 2019 survey.
No threatened species were recorded during surveys, but the following vulnerable species are
expected to be present:
13-21
• Origanum ehrenbergii.
• Romulea nivalis.
• R. phoenicia.
The following endemic species were also recorded during surveys:
• Phlomis chrysophylla in the mixed oak woodland habitat type at Turbines 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and
21 (WTGs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 21) and the oak/pine habitat type at Turbine 25 (WTG 25) and
its connecting road.
• Salvia hierosolymitana in the mixed oak woodland habitat type at Turbine 21 (WTG 21) and its
connecting road.
• Origanum libanoticum in the mixed oak woodland habitat type, and the oak/pine habitat type at
Turbine 25 (WTG 25) and its connecting road.
• Pyrus syriaca in the oak/pine habitat type at Turbine 25 (WTG 25) and its connecting road;
• Ballota antilibanotica in the mixed oak woodland habitat type.
• Micromeria graeca in the mixed oak woodland habitat type.
Two further endemic species, Silene reuteriana and Salvia peyronii, were not recorded during surveys
but are expected to be present.
13.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna
13.2.2.1 Mammals
A total of twelve mammal species (excluding bats) were recorded at the Project site, as shown in
Table 13-8.
• Hedgehog Erinaceus concolor.

• Red fox Vulpes.
• Common jackal Canis aureaus syria.
• Pine marten Martes foina syriaca.
• Wild boar Sus scrofa lybicus.
• Indian crested porcupine Hysterix indica indica.
• Lesser mole rat Spalax leucodon ehrenbergi.
• Broad-toothed field mouse Apodemus mystacinus.
• Common field mouse Apodemous flavicollis.
• Mount Harmon field mouse Apodemous harmonensis.
• Field vole Microtus guentheri.
• Snow vole Microtus nivalis.
The mammal survey results are presented in the Mammal and Bat Survey Report provided in
Appendix O. The location of mammal records was not provided for the purposed of this assessment.
However, it is acceptable to assume that species recorded are present across the site, given the
ecology of terrestrial mammals, for instance red fox and pine marten are likely to roam sizable
distances whilst foraging across suitable habitat.
13-22
Table 13-8 Mammal Survey Results
Species IUCN Status and Trend
Order Eulipotyphla
Hedgehog Erinaceus concolor Least concern, unknown
Order Carnivora
Red fox Vulpes vulpes Least concern, stable
Common jackal Canis aureaus syria Least concern, increasing
Pine marten Martes foina Least concern, stable
Order Artiodactyla
Wild boar Sus scrofa lybicus Least concern, unknown
Order Rodentia
Indian crested porcupine Hysterix indica indica Least concern, stable
Lesser mole rat Spalax leucodon ehrenbergi Data deficient, decreasing
Broad-toothed field-mouse Apodemus mystacinus Least concern, stable
Common field mouse Apodemus flavicollis NA
Mount Harmon field mouse Apodemus harmonensis NA
Field vole Microtus guentheri Least concern, stable
Snow vole Microtus nivalis Least concern, unknown
13.2.2.2 Reptiles
No incidental sightings of reptiles were recorded during other surveys on the Project site. It is possible
that along with other, common species, three endangered species of reptile are present within the
Project site as their known ranges occur close to the south. These species and their IUCN status are
provided in Table 13-9. These reptile species occur in alpine areas with sparse vegetation. Their
closest known ranges lie 10-12km to the south of the Project site.
Table 13-9 Endangered Reptile Species Potentially found on Project Site
Name IUCN Status* IUCN Trend*
Lebanese viper Montivipera bornmuelleri Endangered Decreasing
Fraas’ lizard Parvilacerta fraasii Endangered Decreasing
Unnamed lizard Phoenicolacerta kulzeri Endangered Decreasing
*Note: from www.iucnredlist.org
It is not intended to complete any reptile surveys on the Project site as there is abundant suitable
habitat and it has been assumed that the species are likely to be present and efforts should focus on
avoidance of damage to habitats or incidental or intentional killing of any reptiles.
13-23
13.2.2.3 Invertebrates
The invertebrates typically encountered in the habitats present on the Project site and their IUCN
status are provided in Table 13-10.
Table 13-10 Invertebrate Species Typically Encountered in Habitats Present on Project

Site
Name IUCN Status* IUCN Trend*
False Apollo Archon apollinus Near threatened Unspecified
Unnamed butterfly Polyommatus ellisoni Data deficient Unknown
Unnamed butterfly Polyommatus larseni Data deficient Unknown
Unnamed butterfly Polyommatus isauricoides Data deficient Unknown
*Note: from www.iucnredlist.org
13.2.3 Bats
13.2.3.1 Desk Study and Literature Review
According to known records80, the distribution of bat species in Lebanon is strongly associated with the
countries’ varied altitudinal gradient; varying from low coastal regions to the west, the mountainous
areas of Mount Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges to the north and east and the Beqaa plains to the
south. Species most frequently recorded at lower altitudes include; Egyptian fruit bat, Mediterranean
horseshoe bat, Blasius’s horseshoe bat, Botta’s serotine and greater mouse-tailed bats. At medium
altitudes, where habitat is dominated by coniferous and mixed woodlands, records of greater mouse-
eared, long-fingered and bent-winged bats are most frequent. Records of serotine and Savi’s
pipistrelle were recorded at higher altitudes where habitats consist of mixed woodland and alpine
scrub. Records of common pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle, noctule, free-tailed bat, lesser mouse-eared
bat, Natterer’s bat, Geoffroy’s bat, greater horseshoe bat and lesser horseshoe bat appear across the
majority of the gradient, suggesting a wider altitudinal range.
According to comprehensive reviews of records and field studies81, 21 species of bat are known to
occur within Lebanon. These species and their commonality and conservation status are detailed in
Table 13-11.
80
81
Ibid
13-24
Table 13-11 Bat Species in Lebanon from Available Literature
Species Commonality Conservation

in Lebanon* Status**
Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian fruit bat Frequent Lc/ Stable
Rhinopoma microphyllum Greater mouse-tailed bat Rare Lc/ Stable
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Greater horseshoe bat Common Lc/ Decreasing
R. hipposideros Lesser horseshoe bat Common Lc/ Decreasing
R. Euryale Mediterranean horseshoe bat Common Nt/ Decreasing
R. blasii Blasius' horseshoe bat Rare -
Myotis myotis Greater mouse-eared bat Rare Lc/ Stable
M. blythii Lesser mouse-eared bat Rare Lc/Decreasing
M. nattereri Natterer’s bat Frequent Lc/ Stable
M. emarginatus Geoffroy’s bat Rare Lc/ Stable
M. mystacinus Whiskered bat Rare Lc/ Unknown
M. capaccinii Long-fingered bat Rare Vu/ decreasing
Eptesicus serotinus Serotine Common Lc/Unknown
E. anatolicus, Botta’s serotine Rare Lc/Unknown
Hypsugo savii Savi’s pipistrelle Common Lc/ Stable
Pipistrellus pipistrellus Common pipistrelle Common Lc/ Stable
P. kuhlii Kuhl's pipistrelle Common Lc/ Unknown
Nyctalus noctula Noctule Rare Lc/ Unknown
Plecotus macrobullaris Alpine long-eared bat Rare Lc/ Decreasing
Miniopterus schreibersii Bent-winged bat N/A Nt/ Decreasing
Tadarida teniotis European free-tailed bat Rare Lc/ Unknown
*Based on distributions noted in Dietz, et al (2007) and comprehensive review of survey records in
Benda, et al (2016).
**ICUN status: Vu= Vulnerable, Nt= Near threatened Lc= Least concern, r = rare, c= common,
endemic or endangered on the National level.
13.2.3.2 Bat Activity Surveys
As part of the baseline assessment for bats across the SA site, active and passive surveys were
undertaken during the spring activity season (May-June) based on good practice guidelines8283. The
main objectives of these surveys were to determine which species of bat are present and to
82
https://www.nature.scot/bats-and-onshore-wind-turbines-survey-assessment-and-mitigation, Accessed on 5th
July 2019
83
http://www.eurobats.org/publications/eurobats_publication_series, Accessed on 5th July 2019.
13-25
understand bat activity, temporally and spatially, across the site. Bat activity was assessed based on
bat calls recorded by bat detectors, a series of two or more calls counting as a pass by one bat.
Eleven species were recorded within the study area for SA by both passive and active surveys
methods, as summarized in Table 13-12. Of the eleven species detected during the course of these
surveys, long fingered bat is classed as Vulnerable whereas greater horseshoe and bent winged bat
are Near Threatened in the Mediterranean according to the ICUN Red List84. The other seven species
are classed as Least Concern.
The species recorded passing each turbine location has been summarized in Table 13-13 to
demonstrate commonality and variation of species present across the site as a whole.
13.2.3.3 Passive Survey Results
In total, the passive bat detectors recorded 10,972 bat calls across the 10 days with an average of
1,214.1 passes per night per detector. Across the site activity ranged from 1 to 2003 passes per night.
Common and Kuhl’s pipistrelle were the most frequently recorded species at each location during
passive surveys. The most commonly recorded species was common and Kuhl’s pipistrelle, recorded at
each survey location and accounting for 67.63% of the overall activity recorded. Serotine were also
recorded at each survey location, accounting for 24.87% of total activity recorded. Whiskered bat was
the least commonly recorded, calls of which accounting for 0.01% of overall activity at only three
survey locations as detailed in Table 13-13.
Mean bat activity recorded by passive detectors varied the site. Over the 10 days the detectors placed
at SA MET2 and SA 21 recorded the least activity with an average of 10 passes per night. The detector
placed at SA2 recorded the most activity per night, with an average of 736 passes per night. SA2 in
close proximity to an urban area, which may explain the high levels of activity. Detectors at SA 6, SA
9 and SA 20 also recorded high levels of activity, as detailed in Table 13-14.
Overall, peaks in bat activity occurred between 22:00-23:00 hours after sunset and then between
01:00-02:00 hours before sunrise. Furthermore, Pipistrelle species had the highest mean activity
between 22:00-23:00 hours whereas serotine was the most active species between 01:00-02:00
hours. European free-tailed bat was the most consistently active species between 22:00-03:00 hours.
84
https://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed on 5thJuly 2019.
13-26
Table 13-12 Summary of Bat Species Recorded within the Study Area (Ascending order
from most commonly recorded to least recorded species across the site)
Species Species Ecology in Lebanon Baseline Survey Results
Kuhl’s pipistrelle Common in Lebanon. Records are The most common species recorded as
widespread but most frequently part of the spring activity assessment
observed in the west of the country. accounting for 38.27% of all activity
Roosts occur mainly in buildings and across the SA site. Detected by both
cracks in rock faces. Records suggest a passive and active detectors.
more limited altitudinal range than
other pipistrelle species in Lebanon,
with most records occurring below
1,000m, suggesting a preference for
lower altitudes.
Approximate altitudinal range* of
species recorded in Lebanon (min-max)
= 15m-1,446m.
Common Largely sedentary species. Summer The second most common species
pipistrelle and winter roosts are not normally over recorded as part of the spring activity
20km apart. Roosts in crevices within assessment accounting for 29.36% of
trees/buildings/rocks. Commonly found all activity across the SA site. Detected
across a wide altitudinal gradient in by both passive and active detectors.
Lebanon. Records occur throughout
Lebanon but are concentrated to the
west, namely the western slopes of
Mount Lebanon.
species recorded in Lebanon (min-
max)* = 13m-2,170m.
Serotine Records show this species to be Recorded as part of the spring activity
common throughout Lebanon and assessment accounting for 24.87% of
generally focused along the Mt Lebanon all activity across the SA site. Detected
range. This species tends to forage by both passive and active detectors.
over open habitats in mid-range
altitudes. Roosts are generally found in
caves and buildings.
= 15m-1,494m.
European free- Records from central and northern Recorded as part of the spring activity
tailed bat Lebanon. Species is believed to be assessment accounting for 2.34% of
widespread. Recorded across a wide all activity across the SA site. Detected
altitudinal range across Lebanon. by both passive and active detectors.
Typically forages over woodland,
roosting in rock crevices.
= 92m-2,005m.
13-27
Savi’s pipistrelle Believed to be common and widespread Third most commonly recorded species
throughout Lebanon, with most records as part of the spring activity
observed in the west and along the assessment accounting for 1.79% of
main ridge of the Lebanon mountains. all activity across the SA site. Detected
Records occur across a wide altitudinal by both passive and active detectors.
range but suggest a clear preference
for higher altitudes. This species roosts
in small crevices (i.e. buildings, rock
faces) and tends to forage across a
mosaic of habitat types, including
meadows, waterbodies and human
settlements.
= 42m-2,170m.
Greater mouse- Records of this species in Lebanon are Recorded as part of the spring activity
eared bat scarce, however they are believed to be assessment accounting for 0.96% of
widespread85. Recorded across coastal all activity across the SA site. Detected
regions and on the western slopes of by both passive and active detectors.
the Mt Lebanon range. Records are
A large colony was recorded within
distributed across a very narrow range,
Sustainable Akkar wind farm study site
tending to be at lower altitudes. This
during hibernation surveys (Dec-Mar
species tends to forage at low heights,
2018). The colony was believed to be
roosting in buildings/structures in
the largest discovered in Lebanon to
summer and moving to caves/mines in
date. However, prior to the second
winter.
survey visit, the colony had been
Approximate altitudinal range* of destroyed. Nevertheless, this species
species recorded in Lebanon (min-max) was also recorded using active
= 140m-1,175m. detectors during bat activity surveys
within the study area.
Bent winged bat A rare species across Lebanon. Mostly Recorded as part of the spring activity
recorded in Northern Lebanon, across assessment accounting for 0.38% of
the ridges of the Lebanon and Anti- all activity across the SA site. Detected
Lebanon Mountains. The species has by both passive and active detectors.
been recorded in the areas across a This species is classed as Near
medium-wide range of altitudes. This Threatened in the Mediterranean
species is strictly cave-dwelling year- according to the ICUN Red List.
round. The highest hibernaculum cave
recorded at 1,440m in the Lebanon
Mountains.
= 45m-1,440m.
85
13-28
Common Records for Lebanon are sparse and Recorded as part of the spring activity
noctule mostly recorded on the western slopes assessment accounting for 0.18% of
of the Mt Lebanon range, across a all activity across the SA site. Detected
broad altitudinal range. Typically found by both passive and active detectors.
roosting in trees within hardwood
forests and rock crevices.
= 56m-163m.
Long-fingered Records suggest this species is Recorded as part of the spring activity
bat widespread across Lebanon, with a assessment accounting for 0.14% of
narrow altitudinal range, preferring all activity across the SA site. Detected
mid-range altitudes in summer before by both passive and active detectors
moving to higher altitudes to roost in and observed during hibernation
winter. surveys (2018). This species is classed
as Vulnerable in the Mediterranean
according to the ICUN Red List.
= 42m-1,285m.
Greater Large number of records observed Recorded as part of the spring activity
horseshoe bat throughout Lebanon, scattered across assessment accounting for 0.07% of
the altitudinal gradient but tending to all activity across the SA site. Detected
more montane areas. Typically roosting by both passive and active detectors.
in caves and mines, foraging at low Roosts were located in caves during
heights in highly variable landscapes, the hibernation surveys (2018). None
including woodland and dense scrub of these roosts were present when
habitat. caves were visited for a second time.
This species is classed as Near
Threatened in the Mediterranean
according to the ICUN Red List.
= 5m-1,720m.
Whiskered bat Records suggest that this species is Recorded as part of the spring activity
rare across Lebanon. Only two records assessment accounting for 0.01% of
can be determined from literature, both all activity across the SA site. Detected
recorded in south Lebanon. Thus, little by both passive and active detectors.
is known regarding the altitudinal
ranges of the species in Lebanon. In
Europe this species is known to roost in
houses or trees during summer and
winter in caves or mines.
= 1,034m-N/A.
**Based on comprehensive review of survey records in Lebanon (Benda, et al., 2016)
13-29
Table 13-13 Species Recorded at Each Detector Location
Species SA 2 SA 6 SA 9 SA MET 10 SA 20 SA MET 2 SA 21 SA 24 SA 25
Common pipistrelle x x x x x x x x x
Kuhl's pipistrelle x x x x x x x x x
x
Savi's pipistrelle x x x x x x x
Bent winged bat x x x x x x x x
Long fingered bat x x x x
Greater mouse-eared bat x x x x x x x x x
Whiskered bat x x x
Noctule x x x x x x
Serotine x x x x x x x x x
European free-tailed bat x x x x x x x x x
Greater horseshoe bat x x x x
13-30
Table 13-14 Averages Bat Passes per Detector per Night Across the Project Site (Ranked)
Detector Location Average Passes/Night
SA2 736
SA6 222
SA9 178
SA20 134
SA24 103
SA25 27
SA MET10 30
SA MET2 10
SA21 10
Table 13-15 Hibernation Roost Survey Results
Species Scientific Name Hibernating/Active National & International

Status
Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus Hibernating Leb: common; Int: Least

ferrumequinum concern
Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus Hibernating Leb: common; Int: Least

hipposideros concern
Mediterranean horseshoe Rhinolophus Hibernating Leb: near threatened; Int:

bat euryale near threatened.
Greater mouse-eared bat Myotis myotis Active Leb: rare; Int: least concern
Myotis cappaccinii Hibernating Leb: rare; Int: vulnerable

Long-fingered bat
13.2.3.4 Active (Transect) Survey Results
As described in Section 13.1.2, it was not possible to determine activity data recorded solely with the
SA section of the transect, as the transect consisted of a continuous route along existing tracks
through and between both the SA and Lebanon Wind Power project sites. Nevertheless, the combined
results are still useful in giving an indication of bat activity across the greater landscape with both site
areas combined.
Over the course of the three active transect surveys 892 bat calls were recorded. Kuhl’s pipistrelle was
the most common (45.85% of total passes) followed by common pipistrelle (41.93% of total passes).
Serotine was the least common species recorded by this survey type constituting 2.24% of total
passes. It was possible to determine foraging activities occurring at many locations across the SA site
with the highest recorded within oak forestry, between the gate of Adra Farm up to SA9 and SA
MET10. More specific details are not available at the time of writing however will be picked up upon
during future survey efforts.
13-31
13.2.3.5 Hibernation/Roost Surveys
Seventeen (17) caves were identified during the hibernation and roost search surveys. Nine (9) were
found to contain hibernating bats, two caves contained bat guano but no bats, and six caves did not
contain any bats or signs of bats. Although the location of these caves was provided to us as part of
this assessment, the location of the active roost caves was not, therefore it is not possible to pin point
which caves contain roosts, and which do not. Nevertheless, survey results indicated that five species
were recorded hibernating at the nine confirmed roost locations as presented in Table 13-15. Within
one cave a large colony, thought to be the biggest recorded in Lebanon to date, of greater mouse-
eared bats was recorded. Unfortunately, this colony was found to have been destroyed upon a
subsequent survey visit. Consequently, in the interest of conservation, the location of all caves
identified as part of this study have not been included in this report to prevent location information
from entering the public domain.
Nevertheless, it is possible to state that two of the identified caves occur within the Project site
boundary along the a third occurring within 100m of the site. Again, it was not possible to confirm
whether or not these caves were active roosts. The next closest cave identified is within 500 m, with
the remainder all occurring out with 500m.
13.2.3.6 Summary of Bat Survey Results
Overall, 11 species were recorded within the study area for SA, as detailed in Table 13-12. SA2 was
the most active site in terms of bat activity, followed by SA6, SA9 and SA20. The least active sites
were SA MET2 and SA21. Common pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle and serotine were the most frequently
recorded species across the SA study area, recorded using active and passive bat detectors at all
detector locations. Whiskered bat was the least commonly recorded species, recorded at only SA6,
SA20 and SA24. Listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red list, long fingered bat was recorded at four
locations (SA6 SA20, SA24 and SA25) with an overall low activity level (0.14% of total calls). Activity
by greater horseshoe bat and bent-winged bat, listed as Near Threatened on the ICUN Red list, was
also low overall comprising 0.07% and 0.38% of total bat calls recorded across the whole site. Bent
winged-bat was however recorded at all but one (SA MET10) locations across the site, whereas
greater horseshoe was only recorded at SA2, SA6, SA9 and SA25. In addition, most bat activity was
recorded 2-3 hours after sunset and 3 hours before sunrise, peak hours of which are consistent with
similar studies86. Feeding activity was recorded across the SA site, mostly focused around the oak
forestry between farmland, SA9 and SA MET10.
Furthermore, cave roosts of five species (Table 13-12) were identified within the region of the SA
project site. Only two caves occur within the survey site, the next closest of which is within 100m of
the site boundary, the status of these three caves as roosts has not been made available to us as part
of this assessment.
86
Arnett, E., Huso, M., Reynolds, S. and Schirmacher, M. (2007). Patterns of pre-construction Bat Activity at a
Proposed Wind Facility in Northwest Massachisetts. Annual Report prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy
Cooperature. Sept 2007. Pp. 1-34.
13-32
13.2.4 Summary
The baseline assessment has identified a number of key biodiversity features that require further
consideration within the assessment. These are summarized in Table 13-16. Potential impacts on the
features are detailed in Section 13.3.
Table 13-16 Summary of Importance of Biodiversity Features
Feature Importance Justification
Western Akroum International This KBA, along with the Eastern Akroum KBA in Syria,
Key Biodiversity contains the range of the endemic tree species Cilician fir
Area Abies cilicica and is considered to be of international
importance.
Designated sites International The IPA contains the largest continuous stands of natural
(Qammouaa- forests in Lebanon and is classified for the presence of several
Dinnyeh-Jurd threatened species. As such, this site is considered to be of
Hermel IPA) international importance.
Aandqet Forest National Aandqet Forest Proposed Reserve is currently unconfirmed and
Proposed Reserve undesignated. However, large stands of natural forest are
uncommon in Lebanon and, as such, this site is considered to
be of national importance.
Juniperus excelsa Regional Forestry provides habitat for a broad range of species, such as
dominance birds and bats. Large stands of natural forest are uncommon
in Lebanon and the areas within the site boundary contain a
sensitive species, Juniperus excelsa. As a result, this habitat is
considered to be of regional importance
Mixed oak National Forestry provides habitat for a broad range of species, such as
woodland birds and bats. Large stands of natural forest are uncommon
(including oak/J. in Lebanon and the areas within the site boundary contain
excelsa mix) sensitive and endemic species, such as Origanum libanoticum.
As a result, this habitat is considered to be of national
importance.
Oak woodland Regional Forestry provides habitat for a broad range of species, such as
birds and bats. Large stands of natural forest are uncommon
in Lebanon and the areas within the site boundary contain
sensitive species, such as Phillyrea media. As a result, this
habitat is considered to be of regional importance.
Pine forest Regional Forestry provides habitat for a broad range of species, such as
dominance birds and bats. Large stands of natural forest are uncommon
in Lebanon. As a result, this habitat is considered to be of
regional importance.
Oak/pine mix National Forestry provides habitat for a broad range of species, such as
birds and bats. Large stands of natural forest are uncommon
in Lebanon and the areas within the site boundary contain
sensitive species, such as Ostrya carpinifolia, and endemic
species, such as Pyrus syriaca. As a result, this habitat is
considered to be of national importance.
Terrestrial Local The species present are least concern species with increasing
Mammals or stable populations and are, therefore, less vulnerable to
13-33
change. As a result, terrestrial mammals are considered to be

of local importance.
Reptiles International Three endangered species of reptile Lebanese viper

Montivipera bornmuelleri, Fraas’ lizard Parvilacerta fraasii and
the unnamed lizard Phoenicolacerta kulzeri might be found on
site. All have decreasing populations and, as such, are
vulnerable to change. As a result, reptiles are considered to be
of international importance.
Bats National Although, no specific legislation protects bat species in

Lebanon, there are two near threatened and one vulnerable
species present in the Project site. All have decreasing
populations and, as such, are vulnerable to further change. As
a result, bats are considered to be of national importance.
13.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts
This section assesses the potential impacts of the Project on the terrestrial ecology (flora) at the
Project site and in the surrounding area during construction.
As described in Section 13.2.1, taxa with high ecological value are considered to be sensitive
features for the Project. These are: Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus drupacea, Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus
Rhamnus cathartica. No IPA or other threatened species were recorded on the Project site, although
three vulnerable species are expected to be present (Ehernberg’s marjoram Origanum ehrenbergii,
snow romulea Romulea nivalis and R. phoenicia). Including Origanum libanoticum, six endemic species
also occur on the Project site.
Construction activities have the potential to degrade or destroy terrestrial habitat either directly
through excavation, compaction, or modification (e.g. vegetation removal) or indirectly as a result of
dewatering or from the accidental release of fuels, lubricants or other chemicals. The construction of
turbine foundations, new access tracks and the substation would cause permanent habitat loss.
Habitat loss and modification includes all areas replaced and potentially modified by project
infrastructure, e.g. turbine foundations and permanent hardstanding, access tracks and the substation
site.
Table 13-17 sets out the area potentially lost or modified for each habitat type as a result of
construction of the proposed development.
13-34
Table 13-17 Potential Habitat Loss and Modification
Habitat Type Total Within Direct Loss Indirect Total

Project Site (ha) Modification Loss/Modificat
(ha) (ha) ion (%)
Juniperus excelsa 13.76 1.77 0.92 19.55
dominance
Mixed oak woodland 1 709.70 16.83 25.56 5.97
and 2
Oak/J. excelsa mix 1 48.70 2.89 4.70 15.59
and 2
Oak woodland 5 13.33 0.70 0.95 12.39
Oak/pine mix 115.93 5.82 8.15 12.05
Pine forest dominance 2 42.30 3.20 3.96 16.93
Total 943.72 31.22 44.25 8.00
Direct loss and indirect modification from the proposed development could total up to 75.47ha out of
943.72ha (8%) in the Project site, i.e. the overall habitat loss as a result of the proposed development
would be low and in itself is not considered to constitute an ecologically significant effect. However,
the following sections consider the importance of certain habitat types and sensitive features and the
potential significance of any effects resulting from habitat loss impacts. A minor adverse impact is
considered to occur if the habitat loss involves less than 10% of the habitat present in the Project site
and a moderate adverse impact if the habitat loss involves 10-20% of the habitat present in the
Project site. A major adverse impact is considered to occur if the habitat loss involves greater than
20% of the habitat present in the Project site. The significance of the effect is considered in relation to
the magnitude of the impact, the habitat present in the wider region (where information is available)
and the ecological importance of the habitat. A significant effect is considered to occur where the
impact would lead to an adverse effect on the function or status of a habitat (including the extent,
abundance and distribution of flora species).
Sensitive Features
Nine (9) sensitive features were recorded on the Project site. The sensitive features were recorded in
the Juniperus excelsa dominance (Juniperus excelsa), mixed oak woodland, including the oak/J.
excelsa mix (Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus oxycedrus, Juniperus drupacea, Origanum
libanoticum, Phillyrea media, Ranunculus cuneatus and Rhamnus cathartica), oak woodland (Juniperus
excelsa and Phillyrea media) and oak/pine habitat types (Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus oxycedrus,
Juniperus drupacea, Origanum libanoticum, Ostrya carpinifolia, Phillyrea media and Rhamnus
cathartica).
The total area of Juniperus excelsa dominance likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed
development is 2.69ha (19.55%). This is considered to be a Moderate adverse impact on Juniperus
excelsa in a habitat of regional importance. The total area of mixed oak woodland and oak/J. excelsa
mix habitat types likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 49.98 ha
(6.59%). This is considered to be a Minor adverse impact on Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus excelsa,
Juniperus oxycedrus, Juniperus drupacea, Origanum libanoticum, Phillyrea media, Ranunculus
cuneatus and Rhamnus cathartica in a habitat of national importance. The total area of oak woodland
likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 1.65ha (12.39%). This is
considered to be a Moderate adverse impact on Juniperus excelsa and Phillyrea media in a habitat of
13-35
regional importance. The total area of oak/pine habitat type likely to be lost or modified as a result of
the proposed development is 13.97ha (12.05%). This is considered to be a Moderate adverse impact
on Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus oxycedrus, Juniperus drupacea, Origanum libanoticum, Ostrya
carpinifolia, Phillyrea media and Rhamnus catharticain a habitat of national importance. However, as
only a very small part of these habitat types is likely to contain these species, the loss or modification
is not considered to lead to an ecologically significant effect. The impacts are minor in habitats of
national importance apart from the oak/pine habitat type, which has a moderate impact in a habitat of
national importance. However, the oak/pine habitat type is well-distributed in the region, with better
quality habitat than is represented on the Project site, particularly in the Aandqet Forest, therefore
this effect is also considered to be not significant.
However, as the species are sensitive features, as detailed in Section 13.2.1, measures will be taken
to offset any losses of the species as a result of the proposed development.
Vulnerable Species
Three (3) vulnerable species are expected to be present (Ehernberg’s marjoram, snow romulea and
Romulea phoenicia). Ehernberg’s marjoram is likely to occur in coniferous woodland. Snow romulea
and Romulea phornicia are likely to occur in coniferous woodland, mixed oak woodland and oak
woodland.
The total area of pine forest dominance 2 habitat types likely to be lost or modified as a result of the
proposed development is 7.16ha (16.93%). The total area of oak/pine habitat type likely to be lost or
modified as a result of the proposed development is 13.97ha (12.05%). The total area of mixed oak
woodland and oak/J. excelsa mix habitat types likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed
development is 49.98ha (6.59%). The total area of oak woodland likely to be lost or modified as a
result of the proposed development is 1.65ha (12.39%). These are considered to be Moderate
adverse impacts that would not result in ecologically significant effects.
However, as the species are vulnerable, as detailed in Section 13.2.1,measures will be taken to
offset any losses of the species as a result of the proposed development.
Endemic Species
Six (6) endemic species were recorded on the Project site, with two further endemic species not
recorded on the site but expected to be present (Silene reuteriana and Salvia peyronii). The endemic
species were recorded in the mixed oak woodland (Phlomis chrysophylla, Salvia hierosolymitana,
Origanum libanoticum, Ballota antilibanotica and Micromeria graeca) and oak/pine habitat types
(Phlomis chrysophylla, Origanum libanoticum and Pyrus syriaca).
The total area of mixed oak woodland and oak/J. excelsa mix habitat types likely to be lost or modified
as a result of the proposed development is 49.98ha (6.59%). This is considered to be a Minor
adverse impact on Phlomis chrysophylla, Salvia hierosolymitana, Origanum libanoticum, Ballota
antilibanotica and Micromeria graeca in a habitat of national importance. The total area of oak/pine
habitat type likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 13.97ha
(12.05%). This is considered to be a Moderate adverse impact on Phlomis chrysophylla, Origanum
libanoticum and Pyrus syriaca in a habitat of national importance. However, as only a very small part
of the habitat types are likely to contain these species, the loss or modification is not considered to
lead to an ecologically significant effect. Although a moderate impact is considered to occur in a
habitat of national importance, the oak/pine habitat type is well-distributed in the region, with better
13-36
However, as the species are endemic, as detailed in Section 13.2.1, measures will be taken to offset
any losses of the species as a result of the proposed development.
Natural Habitats
The areas of oak woodland and mixed woodland habitat (oak-pine mix) in good condition around
Turbines 22-18 and Turbines 13, 15, and 17 are considered to be natural habitats in the CHA, as
detailed in Appendix L. The total area of oak woodland likely to be lost or modified as a result of the
proposed development is 1.65ha (12.39%). The total area of oak-pine mix habitat types likely to be
lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 13.97ha (12.05%). These are considered
to be Moderate adverse impacts that would not result in ecologically significant effects but as these
habitats are considered to be natural habitats, mitigation would need to provide a no net loss of
biodiversity for these areas.
Loss or Disturbance of Resting Places
Faunal species typically inhabit locations for sleeping, breeding and/or hibernating (hereafter “resting
places”) either underground or within vegetation, e.g. in a tree. The construction of the proposed
development has the potential to damage or destroy resting places within vegetation and
underground.
The loss (destruction) of a resting place would be an adverse one-time, high magnitude, permanent,
direct impact upon the individual or population of a species inhabiting the resting place and cause
them to seek shelter elsewhere, in possibly less favorable locations where it would be necessary to
find or construct a new resting place. The impact would be limited to the extent of the individual or
population using the resting place.
Assuming a worst-case scenario based on the species identified in the mammal desk study and field
survey, that the species impacted is of regional importance and the resting place forms a key part of
the species’ life cycle, the impact would result in a significant ecological effect.
For reptiles, were any of the three endangered reptile species to be impacted by the loss of a resting
place, those species are of international importance and as any resting place likely forms a key part of
the species’ life cycle, given how mobile reptiles are but how dependent they are on breeding (egg
laying) locations or hibernation locations, the impact would result in a residual significant ecological
effect.
Impacts associated with disturbance of a resting place rather than loss of the resting place would be
similar but likely to be of moderate or low magnitude depending on the type of impact. A disturbance
impact would occur as a result of construction noise, construction light or habitat alteration in the
vicinity of the roost and could result in a residual ecologically significant effect. However, it is
considered that both types of impact are reversible, i.e. mitigation measures are possible which would
avoid or reduce the impacts and ensure that even if any residual effects occur, they would not be
significant. Full details of all mitigation measures for terrestrial fauna are provided in Section 13.4.
13-37
13.3.1.3 Bats
Mammals can be affected by wind power projects in various ways: habitat fragmentation and
destruction, noise effects, visual impacts, vibration and shadow flicker effects, increase of direct
mortality on wind farm roads, among others (de Lucas et al. 2005; Santos et al. 2010; Lovich and
Ennen 2013). Impacts vary according to the nature of the site, and lifecycle stage of the installation.
Bats are the most affected by wind farms among other mammals. Many international studies have
demonstrated the effect of wind turbines and the prevailing environmental conditions on some bat
species. For example, Rydell et al. (2014) reported the negative effect of wind turbines in
Northwestern Europe on certain bat species, and Arnett et al. (2008) described bat fatalities from 21
post-construction sites in the USA and Canada. Kunz et al. (2007) estimated that bats are killed at the
rate of 30-40 bats per turbine per year in the Appalachian Mountains in eastern United States.
Bats are highly sensitive by nature. Even though they live the longest relative to their size (typically
up to 30 years), they are characterized by very special niche requirements and slow reproduction
rates. Bats give birth to a single “baby” (or pup) per year, which makes them among the slowest
reproducers with respect to their size.
These characteristics put bats among the most threatened species of mammals in the world. In
Lebanon all bat species are at risk from habitat destruction, putting fire in caves, hunting, drying of
wetlands, elimination of their feeding sites, and excessive use of pesticide (Horáček et al. 2008, 2009,
Benda et al. 2016).
Wind turbines can induce bat mortality either through 1) collision; or 2) barotrauma (Arnett et al.
2008, Baerwald et al. 2008, Grodsky et al. 2011). Several hypotheses propose that bats are killed by
barotrauma caused by rapid air pressure reduction near the moving blades (Arnett et al 2008, Kunz et
al. 2007). However recent research into the likelihood of barotrauma impacts has concluded that for
an impact to occur, bats would have to be so close to a turbine blade as to be more at risk from
collision (Rollins et al, 2012, Lawson et al 2018).
In recent years, many studies were conducted on bat fatalities in connection to wind projects. Bats
have different behaviors and flight styles, which is why they are affected in varying degrees by wind
turbines (Rydell et al. 2010, Camina 2012, Amorim et al. 2012). Bat species that fly and forage in
open space like the Pipistrellus spp. and those that migrate long distances at high altitude like the
Nyctalus spp. are more at risk of collision with the wind turbines. On the other hand, gleaning bats
that fly close to vegetation like the Rhinolophus spp. face less risk of collision with wind turbines.
Some animals might adjust their behavior, but habitat fragmentation and destruction, human activity,
sound pollution and opening of roads will expose these species to more threats. In addition, lack of
resources including feeding, roosting and hibernating sites will affect their population size.
Loss or Disturbance of Roosts
Bat species typically roost in one of three main roost types, trees, natural features such as caves or
features constructed by humans, such as houses, bridges or mines. The construction of the proposed
development has the potential to damage or destroy two of those potential roost features, namely
trees and caves. The loss (destruction) of an active roost feature would be an adverse one-time, high
magnitude, permanent, direct, impact upon the population(s) of bats using the roost feature and
13-38
cause them to forage elsewhere, in possibly less favorable habitats87. The impact would be limited in
extent to the roost feature being lost.
Seventeen caves were identified as containing bats or within signs of previous bat usage, including the
largest greater mouse-eared bat colony known to be in Lebanon. Nine of these caves were found to
have hibernating bats. All caves containing bats are considered to be features of at least regional
importance, with the larger caves being of national importance. Impacts on these have the potential
to result in a significant ecological effect.
Impacts associated with disturbance of a roost rather than loss of the roost would be similar but likely
to be of moderate or low magnitude depending on the type of impact. A disturbance impact would
occur as a result of construction noise, construction light or habitat alteration in the vicinity of the
roost and could result in an ecologically significant effect.
However, it is considered that both types of impact are reversible, i.e. mitigation measures are
possible which would avoid or reduce the impacts and ensure that even if any residual effects occur,
they would not be significant.
Full details of all mitigation measures for bats are provided in Section 13.4 and include pre-
construction surveys to identify roost locations and the protection of roosts by installing metal grates
across their entrances. The latter measure would provide a significant ecological benefit to the bat
species using the roost by removing the potential for human interference, whether deliberate or
accidental. This has the potential to be a lasting ecological benefit from the proposed development.
Loss of Foraging Habitat
Both permanent and temporary loss of bat foraging habitat during construction is possible. It is likely
to be limited to the northern part of the Project site where construction activities could result in
changes in vegetation cover and any associated flying invertebrate resource. The permanent loss of
foraging areas, e.g. felling of areas of forest or clearance of shrubland, would be an adverse one-time,
high magnitude, permanent, direct impact upon the population(s) of bats feeding in the area of lost
habitat and would cause them to seek alternative foraging locations.
Without more detailed survey data, it is difficult to establish the sensitivity of the bat population as
that would depend on factors such as the species present, the numbers of bats using the foraging area
and for how much of the year and whether that is during particularly sensitive periods, e.g. the
breeding season when female bats need to gather sufficient prey to be of sufficient health to feed
dependent young. The impact would extend to all populations of bats which use the foraging resource.
Assuming a likely worst-case scenario that the population(s) of bats using the foraging habitat is (are)
of national importance, the impact would result in a significant ecological effect.
Impacts associated with temporary loss of a foraging area, e.g. temporary construction infrastructure
upon areas of sparse herbaceous vegetation, rather than the permanent loss of the foraging area
would be similar but likely to be of moderate or low magnitude. It is considered possible that it could
result in an ecologically significant effect. However, it is considered that both types of impact are
reversible, i.e. mitigation measures are possible which would avoid or reduce the impacts and ensure
87
Bach, L. and Rahmel, U., 2004. Summary of wind turbine impacts on bats—assessment of a conflict. Bremer
Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz, 7, pp.245-252.
13-39
that even if any residual effects occur, they would not be significant. Full details of all mitigation
measures for bats are provided in Section 13.4.
13.3.2 During Operation
Improved access to forested areas via the newly constructed wind farm tracks could lead to an
increase in tree felling activities undertaken by local people, leading to a further loss of oak, Juniperus
excelsa and pine habitat types. However, as unpaved tracks already occur in the Project site and some
areas show signs of being previously felled, this is considered to be a Minor adverse impact and is not
considered to lead to an ecologically significant effect.
Improved access could also lead to an increase in the burning of vegetation for warmth or cooking.
Due to the dry nature of the landscape, if fires were allowed to get out of control, this could have a
Major adverse impact on the habitats and potentially lead to an ecologically significant effect.
No impacts leading to significant ecological effects are considered to exist. Hunting bans will be
enforced within the area highlighted in Figure 14-4. No impact from traffic movements during
operation are predicted.
13.3.2.3 Bats
Collision Risk
The operation of a wind farm can have direct impacts on bats, the severity of which can be
determined by the ecology of each species. Bat species that occupy higher altitudes and species that
tend to fly at greater heights whilst foraging or migrating, such as Pipistrellus or Nyctalus species, are
at greater risk of turbine collision during operation than low flying species that tend to remain at lower
altitudes, such as horseshoe and Myotis species. Table 13-18 summarizes the level of collision risk
with turbines of the bat species considered likely to occur within the Project site.
Table 13-18 Collision Risk Level for Each Species Likely to Occur Within the Study Site
Based on Species Ecology
High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Common pipistrelle* Serotine* Greater horseshoe*
Kuhl’s pipistrelle* Bent winged Whiskered
Savi’s pipistrelle Greater mouse-eared*
Common noctule* Long-fingered*
European free-tailed*
* Species recorded during active and passive surveys.
13-40
Commonly recorded throughout Lebanon, greater horseshoe bats tend to forage close to the ground,
therefore collision risk is considered to be low for these species. However, as this species tends to
move to higher altitudes to roost during winter months, the risk of collision could be greater as
colonies undertake this migration. Data on bat migrations in Lebanon are limited therefore this cannot
be confirmed. Greater horseshoe bat activity was recorded at low level during the passive surveys
(0.07% of total activity recorded) mostly towards the northern end of the Project site.
The typical activity of all Myotis species (long fingered, whiskered and greater mouse-eared bats),
makes these species low risk for collision. All species have narrow altitudinal ranges and these species
typically forage below typical collision heights. A low levels of activity of greater mouse-eared bats
was recorded during passive surveys (0.96%) also accounting for a small proportion of activity
recorded during transect surveys (2.58%). Activity from long fingered bats recorded during passive
surveys was low (0.14%) and was not recorded during transect surveys. Similarly, low levels of
whiskered bat activity was recorded during passive surveys (0.01%).
Both serotine and bent-winged bat are considered to be of a medium collision risk as these species are
known to reach collision height when foraging. These species prefer to forage over woodland and open
habitats at mid-range altitudes. During passive surveys, serotine were recorded at all detector
locations in with high levels of activity overall (24.36%). Low levels of activity were recorded for this
species during transect surveys (2.24%). Bent winged bats were recorded infrequently but occurred
widely across the site during passive surveys (0.38%) with no records made during transect surveys.
Common, Kuhl’s and Savi’s pipistrelle species are considered to be at high risk of collision, with wide
altitudinal ranges, typically reaching collision height whilst foraging. European free-tailed bat has a
high collision risk and this species typically forages at height (10-300m) and can reach altitudes of
3,000m 88 when migrating between summer and winter roosts. High activity from Kuhl’s and common
1 03 F
pipistrelle was recorded during passive surveys (38.27% and 29.36% respectively) and were recorded
across all survey locations. Savi’s pipistrelle was less commonly recorded (1.79%) but present across
all sites apart from SA21. Common and Kuhl’s pipistrelle were also the most commonly recorded
species during active transect surveys, constituting 41.93% and 45.85% of all activity recorded,
respectively where as Savi’s pipistrelle was less commonly recorded during transects (2.80%).
European free-tailed bat was recorded across the entire site, at all survey locations during passive
surveys with relatively low levels of activity (2.34%). Low levels of activity from this species was also
recorded as part of the active transect surveys (2.80%).
Common noctules are also at a high risk of collision as their typical activity patterns coincides with
typical collision zones for turbines. This species covers large distances whilst foraging (up to 26km)
above 100m and are commonly reported to be the most frequently recorded fatality at wind farm
sites 89. As such, collision risk for bats has the potential to be an adverse, high-magnitude long term
F
impact for many of the bat species likely to be present at the Project site, populations of which are
considered to be potentially up to national importance. Noctule was recorded at six locations spread
88
Williams, T. C., Ireland, L. C. & Janet M. Williams, J. M. 1973. High Altitude Flights of the Free-Tailed Bat,
Tadarida brasiliensis, Observed with Radar. Journal of Mammalogy, 54:807-821.
89
Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M.J. Dubourg-Savage, B. Karapandza, D. Kovac, T. Kervyn, J.Dekker, A. Kepel, P. Bach,
J. Collins, C. Harbusch, K. Park, B. Micevski, J. Minderman.2015. Guidelines for consideration of bats wind farm
projects – Revision 2014.
13-41
out across the length of the project site (SA2, SA6, SA9, SA20, SA42 and SA25). The level of recorded
noctule activity on site, as per spring activity surveys, is low (0.18%) according to passive detectors.
Activity data used in this assessment is based on spring activity of bats across the SA project site.
Good practice guidance90,91 requires that a full year of assessment is completed in effectively inform
impact assessment. As only spring activity has been collected and analyses thus far, it is no possible
to determine an accurate collision rate prediction per species. Once a full year of survey is completed
a revised assessment can be undertaken, thus able to consider significant variables such as summer
and winter migration/hibernation movements. As such, it is only possible to estimate if, based on a
temporally limited dataset, a predicted collision risk for each species would result in an ecologically
significant effect or whether any fatalities might not result in significant effects on those populations.
Overall, significant impacts are predicted on common pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle and serotine based
on the species vulnerability to collision risk and their recorded usage of the site. Ecologically significant
effects are still possible for the other species recorded during the bat surveys. However, it is
considered that the impact of collision risk is reversible, i.e. mitigation measures are possible which
would avoid or reduce the impacts and ensure that even if any residual effects occur, they would not
be significant. Full details of all mitigation measures for bats are provided in Section 13.4.4.
Decommissioning impacts are considered to be similar to, but less than, those described for the
construction phase. No ecologically significant effects are predicted.
13.3.4 Critical and Natural Habitats Assessment
A CHA for the Project has been undertaken. The assessment is provided in Appendix L, and referred
to in the text, where relevant.
13.4 Mitigation
Full details of mitigation will be set out in a Biodiversity Action and Management Plan (BAMP) to be
developed by others, including the measures proposed, when they will be implemented, who will be
responsible for implementation and how much they will cost. A framework BAMP has been provided
with the ESIA, as an appendix to the stand-alone ESMP.
A suitably qualified and experienced Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) would be employed to input
into the BAMP and oversee the implementation of ecological mitigation measures during construction.
90
. https://www.nature.scot/bats-and-onshore-wind-turbines-survey-assessment-and-mitigation, Accessed on 5th
July 2019
91
EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6 (English version). UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat,Bonn, Germany, 133pp
13-42
13.4.1.1 During Pre-Construction
• Completion of a pre-construction flora survey to identify habitats and key flora species as
identified in the baseline section.
• Micrositing of infrastructure to avoid or reduce oak woodland and mixed woodland removal.
• Preparation of a final BAMP outlining the measures required to deliver no net loss for areas of
natural habitat, such as oak woodland and mixed woodland. A framework BAMP has been provided
with the ESIA, as an appendix of the stand-alone ESMP.
13.4.1.2 During Construction
• Offsetting for the loss of natural habitats will be required to deliver no net loss of biodiversity in
these areas. Full details of the measures to achieve no net loss will be provided in the final BAMP.
Measures would include additional tree planting to produce new areas or improve degraded areas
of oak-dominated woodland and mixed woodland. The translocation of tree species would also be
considered.
• Preparation and provision of workforce toolbox talks and monitoring to ensure all staff understand
the importance of the biodiversity controls in place, what they entail and how these controls
should be followed. Particular key early tasks in workforce education will include implementation of
a hunting ban on the Project site and prohibition of burning of vegetation for warmth or cooking.
• Minimization of the project footprint within Karm Chbat Nature Reserve. Footprint minimization will
include measures such as adherence to strict working boundaries for all infrastructure
construction.
• If any key flora species are identified during the pre-construction survey, areas of habitat
inhabited by the plants would be avoided. If it is not possible to avoid examples or areas of the
species detailed in the baseline, every effort would be made to reduce the impact and further
offsetting would be required.
• Implementation of rehabilitation measures to mitigate the loss of habitat, such as vegetation
remediation, translocation or creation of new habitat areas. Full details of these measures will be
provided in the final BAMP to be developed by others.
• Proper management of excavation materials. Rubble from site excavations should not be allowed
to spread down slopes. Clear working procedures should be defined, implemented and supervised.
• Separation and storage of top soil for use in restoration of all temporary project infrastructure and
areas of temporary disturbance, e.g. track margins. Segregation of the topsoil of different habitat
types will be required.
• Soil management would also include observance of appropriate biosecurity controls to prevent the
spread of invasive plants or floral diseases. This would involve washing vehicles and equipment to
remove particles of vegetation and loose soil, with this done in specific “wash down” areas. Any
invasive plants that are removed during vegetation clearance would need to be disposed of
appropriately, in a safe way that does not allow it to spread.
• Good construction environmental management on site based on good practice guidance to avoid
spillage of fuels, other pollutants or excavated materials and provision of sufficient spill kits and
similar to deal with any incidents.
13-43
13.4.1.3 During Operations and Maintenance
• Monitoring of all habitat reinstatement, translocation, recreation, offsetting or enhancement as

identified and implemented as required following pre-construction surveys.
• Monitor power-line right-of-way vegetation to avoid fire risk. Remove blowdown and other high-
hazard fuel accumulations.
13.4.1.4 During Decommissioning
Typically, the same controls set out for construction will apply.
• Minimization of activities within Karm Chbat Nature Reserve. Footprint minimization will include
measures such as adherence to strict working boundaries for all infrastructure decommissioning.
• Preparation and provision of workforce toolbox talks to ensure all staff understand the importance
of the biodiversity controls in place and exactly what they entail.
• Completion of pre-construction fauna walkover survey to identify potential habitat for key
mammal and reptile species, followed by camera trapping to confirm species considered to be
present/status of any dens found.
• Preparation of a final BAMP (to be developed by others) setting out the measures required based
upon the findings of the further surveys. A framework BAMP has been will be included with the
ESIA, as an appendix of the stand-alone ESMP.
• If any mammal or reptile species are encountered during works, they would be allowed to disperse
or would be translocated outwith the construction area.
• If found to be present during pre-construction surveys, monitoring of populations of endangered

reptiles as appropriate, including monitoring of any offsets or enhancements for those species.
13-44
13.4.3 Bats
• A full year of activity surveys will be competed pre-construction, adding to the information
gathered from the spring activity surveys used to inform this assessment. As per best guidance, a
full year of survey data will allow for a more accurate understanding of bat activity across the site,
temporally and spatially, which will enable a more accurate and informed impact assessment
which in turn will determine the most effective mitigation required.
• A presumption for avoidance of all artificial light as far as possible. All lights should be cowled and
downward facing and avoid light spill onto surrounding non-construction areas.
• Once the pre-construction survey results have been analyzed, it will be possible to develop an
appropriately focused scope of operational period bat surveys. Surveys would cover up to three
years’ activity periods.
• Given the high levels of activity recorded at SA2, SA6, SA9 and SA20 and predominately from
species identified as high or medium risk in terms of collision (common pipistrelle, Kuhl’s
pipistrelle and serotine) it is recommended that turbines situated at these locations are subject to
operational adjustments. Raising the cut-in speed at which the turbine begins to generate
electricity, thus preventing movement in low winds, notably decreases bat mortality rates92 along
with feathering of blades i.e. adjusting the angle f the blade parallel to the wind or turning the unit
away from the wind93. In addition, operational times could be altered – stopping turbines at these
locations between the most active periods i.e. 20:00-05:00.
• Monitoring of bat collision fatalities under and around each turbine following a standardized
methodology potentially using trained dogs. Monitoring to be completed monthly and concurrently
with bird collision monitoring.
• Preparation and subsequent implementation of plan to identify and protect key bat roost caves in
the area on and around the Project site from human persecution, such as identified elsewhere in
the area.
13.4.3.4 Additional Good Practice
• To prevent further persecution and destruction of bat roost caves protective metal grates should
be installed across the entrances of all bat roost caves identified during the December 2017-March
2018 surveys. These would prevent members of the public from accessing the caves and
disturbing or damaging the roosts, as observed previously.
92
Horn J.W., Arnett E.B. & Kunz T.H. (2008) Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. The Journal
of Wildlife Management, 72, 123–132.
93
Hein, C, D and Schirnacher, M, R. (2016). Impact of Wind Energy on bats: A Summary of our Current
Knowledge. Human-Wildlife Interactions 10 (1), Pp 19-27.
13-45
13.5 Residual Effects
Following the implementation of mitigation, no residual effects on habitats or flora are predicted.
Following the implementation of mitigation, no residual effects on terrestrial fauna are predicted.
13.5.3 Bats
Following the implementation of mitigation, no residual effects on bats are predicted.
13.6 Section 13 Figures
All figures referenced in the text are provided below.
13-46
Figure 13-1 Approximate Delineation of the Flora Survey Area
13-47
Figure 13-2 Location of Passive Bat Detectors Across SA Site
13-48
Figure 13-3 Designated Sites
13-49
Figure 13-4 Grassland and Juniper Forest Edge in Roueimeh
Figure 13-5 Mixed Forest Edge in Rweimeh
13-50
Figure 13-6 Plot in Grassland with Trees in Rweimeh
Figure 13-7 Barren Land and Grassland in Khokh Bziza (Kfartoun)
13-51
Figure 13-8 Overview Land Use Map of Project Site
13-52
Figure 13-9 Overview Habitat Map of Project Site
13-53
Figure 13-10a Habitat Types in Project Site
13-54
Figure 13-10b Habitat Types in Project Site
13-55
Figure 13-10c Habitat Types in Project Site
13-56
14. ORNITHOLOGY
14.1 Introduction
The assessment of ornithological impacts of the Project has been undertaken on a dataset collected by
local specialists at the direction of the Developer prior to the involvement of Ramboll in the Project.
While it is acknowledged that this data was not collected following prescribed best practice guidance, it
is emphasized that the data collected does, however, contain enough information to use as the basis
for understanding the bird species, number of birds, flight length (time), flight height and whether the
birds flew across the footprint of the proposed development and to undertake a Collision Risk
Assessment (CRA), of which has subsequently been undertaken as described herein.
Survey data for the planned Hawa Akkar Wind Farm, located directly north of the Project, has also
been used to undertake a separate CRA to provide alternative results.
Figures referenced are provided at the end of this section of the report.
14.1.1 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria
14.1.2 Method of Baseline Characterization
14.1.2.1 Desk Study
An ornithological desk study was undertaken reviewing reports on previous monitoring carried out for
the area between 1997 and 2017. Baseline population data was sourced from online journals and
scientific literature, these are reference in the text.
14.1.2.2 Field Survey
The ornithological field survey comprised three surveys:
• 20-minute point count (PC) survey.

• Vantage point (VP) surveys.
• Raptor nest survey incorporating an aerial survey to locate raptor nests on/within 5km of the site.
The primary impacts on bird species identified are collision risk, disturbance (including nest
destruction) and displacement. The surveys undertaken, and the data collected allow assessment of
these impacts to be undertaken. The ornithology assessment used the same definitions of Immediate,
Middle and Far Zone as defined earlier.
Survey periods were scheduled to cover the full range of daylight hours. Observation days were
divided into two periods, morning (6am-12pm) and afternoon (12pm-6pm). The surveys were
conducted by Dr. Ghassan Ramadan-Jaradi (Senior Ornithologist). Additional well-regarded Lebanese
birdwatchers (Fouad Itani, Bassel Jumaa, Antoine Faissal, Michel Sawwan) contributed to the bird
surveys.
Additionally, two trained people from the local community were used in the survey work. At the
beginning of the campaign, the senior ornithologist delivered training to the trainees on the
identification of species, filling in the field sheet and the application of the different methods described
in this report. At the end of each survey day, each observer was responsible for inspecting his data
14-1
forms for completeness, accuracy, and legibility. The senior ornithologist periodically reviewed data
forms to ensure completeness and legibility and asked for the correction of any problems. The senior
ornithologist reviewed species records and rejected records of species unlikely to be recorded on the
site or at the wrong time of year. Any changes made to the data forms were signed and dated by the
person making the change. Details of the training methodology is provided in Appendix Q.
It should be noted that the field surveys undertaken were initially done so for academic research and
this continues to be a use of the data collected. The surveys were not designed to collected data to be
used to assess potential impacts from a wind farm. However, the data collected did include sufficient
information to undertake a CRA; including species recorded, number of birds, height flown at, time
recorded for and sufficient location information to define if the records cross the Project site at
collision risk height. Following discussion with the senior ornithologist and a review of the many
ornithological publications he has produced in Lebanon it is considered that the dataset provided is
comprehensive and robust.
Point Count Survey
The Point Count (PC) survey was undertaken over multiple years (199794-2019). This survey was
designed to record passerine and songbird species that would not be recorded during the other flight
surveys, however larger species of bird were recorded with sufficient information to supplement flight
survey data. Surveys were spread throughout the year, as shown in Table 14-1. The semi-
quantitative ‘20-minute point-count method’ was used whereby all species noted during this time
period are recorded (Ramadan-Jaradi, 1975; Ramadan-Jaradi, 1984). The bird expert completing the
surveys was familiar with the identification of birds not only through sightings but also through their
calls and songs from a distance. The 25 survey visits with 20 minutes of survey each time resulted in
8 1/3 hours of survey coverage. Eight survey points were used with each point count covering a circle
of 500 m diameter. These PC locations are shown on Figure 14-1. It is noted that the PC survey was
not designed and/or intended to provide territory maps for the species recorded and cannot be used to
inform potential spatial mitigation.
94
Surveys undertaken between 1997-2010 were carried out sporadically, not following a strict survey schedule as
such.
14-2
Table 14-1 Point Count Survey Visits and Previous Surveys
Survey Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Period
Sporadic X X X X X X X X X X X X
Surveys
1997-2010
2013 1,2        
2014  3  4  5  6  
2016 7 8            
2017         9 10 11 12,13 14 15  
2018 16 17 18 19,20 21
2019 22 23,24 25
Vantage Point Surveys
A program of (VP) surveys was also undertaken at the site. Three (3) VP locations were used to cover
the site with each covering a 2km viewshed. The VP locations are shown on Figure 14-2. Full 360°
viewsheds are provided as the surveys undertaken would record species approaching from any
direction. These surveys were designed to capture detailed flight information of birds crossing the
proposed development and characterize their flight activity, particularly migrating and soaring birds
that are vulnerable to collision with the proposed development. The data collected was similar to the
PC survey; species, number of birds, flight length (time), flight height and whether the birds flew
across the footprint of the proposed development. This data was then used to undertake the CRA.
Surveys were undertaken as shown in Table 14-2, with each survey lasting eight hours.
Table 14-2 Vantage Point Survey Schedule
VP Visit Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Visit 4 Visit 5 Visit 6 Visit 7 Visit 8
VP 08/03/13 06/05/14 14/04/16 03/11/16 07/08/17 27/03/18 13/09/18 05/11/18

Location 1
VP 16/03/14 07/03/16 08/05/17 04/09/17 03/10/17 26/04/18 09/10/18 05/11/18

Location 2
VP 25/03/13 05/04/14 02/06/14 17/09/17 16/10/17 11/05/18 21/10/18 05/11/18

Location 3
This resulted in a total of 58 hours of survey effort per VP completed across multiple years. Even when
supplemented by the PC survey effort, an additional 8 1/3 hours, this is recognized as being short of
the recommended survey effort; 36 hours per survey season (breeding and non-breeding) totaling 72
hours over the course of a single year95. A total of 96 hours (32 hours per VP) of Spring Migration
95
SNH (2017) Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore wind farms, version 2.
SNH Guidance.
14-3
survey was completed, with 78 hours (26 hours per VP) of Autumn migration survey. Further surveys
are proposed to further inform the CRA. These are described in Section 14.8.1.
The survey results for the Project have been supplemented by the results of similar surveys at the
planned Hawa Akkar, a proposed wind farm that lies directly north of the Project on the same
topographical feature. This survey was completed over a shorter period (over one year) with a level of
survey effort that meets the SNH Guidance, with 96 hours of VP data and 59 hours of PC data
collected. Data from these surveys is considered suitable to be used to supplement the Sustainable
Akkar data as both projects exist on the same geographical feature. Birds flying south on migration
would pass both Hawa Akkar and Sustainable Akkar wind farms and the same is true for when birds
are returning north.
Raptor Nest Surveys
Raptor Nest Surveys were undertaken to identify any raptor territories within the zone of influence of
the wind farm. The focal species for the nesting surveys were common kestrel Falco tinnunculus
(resident) and short-toed snake eagle Circaetus gallicus (summer breeding). All are known to breed in
the vicinity of the study area. Surveyors were familiar with their identification and their reproduction
behavior and calls when they bring food to the nest.
14.1.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts
In order to follow best practice guidance on ecological impact assessment96, the biodiversity impact
assessment follows a similar approach to the other assessments within this ESIA. Features are
evaluated, and impacts are characterized in a similar fashion. However, rather than a matricized
approach that provides a scale of impact significance from negligible to critical, it follows an approach
of identifying whether an impact would lead to an “ecologically significant effect” for the feature, e.g.
species or habitat type. An ecologically significant effect is an effect that either undermines or, in the
case of a positive impact, supports biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological
features’ or for biodiversity in general.
14.1.3.1 Feature Evaluation
Habitats and species (i.e. biodiversity features) identified within the study area have been assigned
values using the standard CIEEM scale that classifies biodiversity features within a defined geographic
context97. The classification uses recognized and published criteria.98,99 where the biodiversity features
are assessed in relation to their size, diversity, naturalness, rarity, fragility, typicalness, connectivity
with surroundings, intrinsic value, recorded history and potential value. Table 14-3 describes the
frame of reference that has been used for the impact assessment.
96
97
98
99
Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. and Mitchell-Jones, T. (2010), Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment. In
Practice. December 2010 pp23-25. Winchester: CIEEM.
14-4
Table 14-3 Geographic Importance
Geographic Examples
Importance
International Internationally designated sites including Important Bird Areas (IBA) other Key
Biodiversity Areas (KBA) Ramsar Site, Biogenetic Reserve, World Heritage Site,
Biosphere Reserve, and potential Ramsar Sites; discrete areas which meet the
published selection criteria for international designation, but which are not
themselves designated as such.
Resident or regularly occurring populations of species which may be considered at
an international level, the loss of which would adversely affect the conservation
status or distribution of the species at an international level; or where the population
forms a critical part of a wider population; or the species is at a critical phase of its
life cycle.
National Nationally designated sites, Nature Reserves Marine Nature Reserve; discrete areas
which meet the published selection criteria for national designation, but which are
not designated as such.
adversely affect the conservation status or distribution of the species across
Lebanon or where the population forms a critical part of a wider population; or the
Regional Viable areas of key habitat identified as being of regional value or smaller areas of
such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.
region; or where the population forms a critical part of a wider population; or the
Local Features of local value include areas of habitat or populations/communities of

species considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the immediate
surrounding area, for example, species-rich hedgerows.
immediate surrounding area; or where the population forms a critical part of a wider
population; or the species is at a critical phase of its life cycle.
14.1.3.2 Criteria for Characterizing Impacts
The potential impacts upon biodiversity features have been considered in relation to the Project. The
impacts have been assessed without consideration of any specific mitigation measures that might be
employed. The assessment of likely impacts has been made in relation to the baseline conditions of
the study area. The likely impacts of development activities upon biodiversity features have been
characterized as detailed in Table 14-4.
It is noted that the assessment only describes those characteristics relevant to understanding the
impact and determining the significance of the effect.
14-5
Table 14-4 Impact Characterization
Direction Impacts are either adverse (negative) or positive.
Magnitude This is defined as high, moderate, low or negligible, with these being classified
using the following criteria:
High: Total/near total loss of a population due to mortality or displacement or
major reduction in the status or productivity of a population due to mortality or
displacement or disturbance. Total/near total loss of a habitat.
Medium: Partial reduction in the status or productivity of a population due to
mortality or displacement or disturbance. Partial loss of a habitat.
Low: Small but discernible reduction in the status or productivity of a population
due to mortality or displacement or disturbance. Small proportion of habitat lost.
Negligible: Very slight reduction in the status or productivity of a population due
to mortality or displacement or disturbance. Reduction barely discernible,
approximating to the ‘no change’ situation. Slight loss of habitat that is barely
discernible from the habitat resource as a whole.
Extent The area over which an impact occurs, i.e. the impact’s area of influence.
Duration The time for which the impact is expected to last prior to recovery of the
biodiversity feature or replacement of the feature by similar resource (in terms
of quality and/or quantity). This is expressed as a short term, medium term, or
long-term effect relative to the biodiversity feature that is impacted.
Reversibility Irreversible impacts: permanent changes from which recovery is not possible
within a reasonable time scale or for which there is no reasonable chance of
action being taken to reverse it.
Reversible impact: temporary changes in which spontaneous recovery is possible
or for which effective mitigation (avoidance/cancellation/reduction of impact) or
compensation (offset/recompense/offer benefit) is possible.
Frequency The number of times an activity occurs will influence the resulting effect (if
and timing appropriate, described as low to high and quantified, where possible).
The timing of an activity or change may result in an impact if it coincides with
critical life-stages or seasons e.g. the badger breeding season.
14.1.3.3 Significance Criteria
Impact significance was evaluated using the approach specified in Annex 9 of Decision 261/1 (June
2015) for the review of EIA studies at the MOE, whereby various sources of impacts are addressed for
the Project’s different implementation phases.
Significant effects are assessed with reference to the geographical importance of the biodiversity
feature. However, the scale of significance of an effect may not be the same as the geographic context
in which the feature is considered important. For example, an effect on a species which is on a
14-6
national list of species of principal importance for biodiversity may not have a significant effect on its
national population.
The potential for significant effects, in the absence of mitigation, has been determined with reference
to the geographic conservation importance and the criteria in Table 14-3. By referring to the criteria
in Table 14-4, the assessment seeks to characterize the magnitude of the effects in space and time.
Mitigation and/or compensation is proposed for all effects considered to be significant. Where
appropriate, as a good practice measure, additional controls and/or compensation may be proposed.
Residual effects are characterized as either positive or adverse and either significant or not significant,
taking account of mitigation and/or compensation proposals.
14.1.3.4 Collision Risk Assessment
Collision risk models are used to predict the potential collision risk that a development presents to
flying birds. There are many different models that have been proposed, each with their own strengths
and weaknesses. This assessment has been undertaken following the “Band” Model”100 developed by
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). This model is the accepted method of collision risk assessment used
on wind farm developments in the United Kingdom. It is a simple model with the only inputs relating
to the bird species recorded and the design of the wind farm/individual turbines. For this reason, the
model can be applied to the Project. The Band Model can be used to assess two scenarios:
1. Where birds are recorded making regular flights across a proposed wind farm location.
2. Where birds are recorded regularly using the airspace of a proposed wind farm location.
Scenario 1: Birds Making Regular Flights Across the Project Site
In this scenario, birds are transiting the Project site twice each year: Once migrating north in the
spring, and again migrating south in the autumn. This method is relevant for all but two of the species
for which collision risk is considered to present a potential risk. All species, apart from common kestrel
and short-toed snake eagle, pass the Project site only during the spring and autumn migration
seasons.
The data gathered during the two field survey programs, the VP and the point count surveys, were
used to estimate the hourly activity rate for each species. The number of active daylight hours was
calculated using the latitude of the Project site for March, April and May (the spring season) and for
August, September and October (the autumn season). These were the months when the migration
season VP surveys were undertaken.
The estimate of hourly activity was then multiplied by the hourly activity rate to provide an estimate
of the number of birds passing through the Project site each year. The number was then decreased by
calculating the probability of a bird being hit by a turbine blade. This is a complicated calculation that
is based on a spreadsheet provided by SNH 101. Traits like longer wingspans, longer body length or
145F147F
slower flights result in an increased likelihood of collision.
100
SNH (2000) Windfarms and Birds: Calculating a Theoretical Collision Risk Assuming No Avoiding Action. SNH
Guidance.
101
https://www.nature.scot/wind-farm-impacts-birds-calculating-probability-collision, accessed 14 February 2019.
14-7
All of the above calculations assume no avoiding action on the behalf of the bird. Different species
have different capabilities to avoid turbines based off their flight style and wing loading (i.e. the
weight of the bird compared with the surface area of its wings). SNH provide guidance 102 for the use
146F148F
of avoidance rates, which is based on post-construction monitoring data from wind farms across the
world. Where a specific avoidance rate is not provided, and a proxy species cannot be defined, a
default avoidance rate of 98% is defined.
The estimate of collision mortality for a year is then calculated as follows:
Estimate of Flights Probability of Avoidance Estimate of

Crossing the Wind x Collision With a x Rate = Collision
Farm per Year Turbine Blade Mortality
Scenario 2: Birds Using the Airspace of the Project Site
Common kestrels are resident within the Project site and short-toed snake eagles are summer visitors
to the Project site, with both species assessed by the model that considers birds using the airspace of
the Project site. In this scenario, the total time that a species spends flying at collision risk height
within the Project site is calculated. This is scaled up, as in the previous method, to provide an
estimate of total flight time across a year. This is multiplied by the total volume of the Project site that
is swept by the turbine blades to calculate the bird occupancy of the rotor swept volume. This is then
multiplied by the time it takes for a bird to pass through this rotor swept area to calculate the total
number of birds passing through the rotor swept area per year.
Similar to Scenario 1, this number is reduced by multiplying by the probability of collision with a
turbine blade and the avoidance rate as below:
Number of Birds Probability of Avoidance Estimate of

Passing Through x Collision With a x Rate = Collision
Rotors per Year Turbine Blade Mortality
14.1.3.5 Limitations and Assumptions
Limitations of the point count method occurred during breeding seasons due to the fact that on days
of heavy bird movement, it was not possible to individually count the number of passing birds, and an
estimate had to be made as a result. In addition, some birds were only identified through capture with
a camera from a distance. Surveys were frequently undertaken by more than one surveyor to assist
with recording large numbers of birds.
The 58 hours of migration season VP data collected at each location is less than the minimum survey
effort required in guidance from SNH103, which sets out 72 hours collected across a full year, 36 hours
in the breeding season and 36 hours in the non-breeding season. The data collected has already been
supplemented by PC data collected over 25 visits, which includes visits in winter and summer months
102
SNH (2018) Avoidance Rates for the onshore SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model. SNH Guidance.
103
SNH (2017) Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore wind farms. SNH
Guidance Series.
14-8
when VP surveys were not undertaken. The data has also been supplemented with similar data
collected at the planned Hawa Akkar wind farm, located directly north of the proposed development.
The level of survey effort (96 hours of VP survey and 60 hours of PC survey) undertaken at the
planned Hawa Akkar between February 2018 and January 2019 is more than the level recommended
by SNH Guidance.
The study area boundaries are being refined as part of the process to update the ESIA. However, the
use of the existing study area is not considered to be a material gap in this assessment.
14.2 Baseline Conditions
14.2.1 Protected Sites
The Upper Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh Important Bird Area (IBA) is located approximately 5km to the
south-west of the Project site, as shown in Figure 14-3, at the end of this report. It contains habitats
very similar to those found within the Project site, namely pine, oak and juniper dominated woodland
types with high altitude sparsely vegetated alpine areas. The IBA trigger species are mostly small
resident or breeding song birds, namely:
• Poecile lugubris (sombre tit).

• Hippolais languida (Upcher's warbler).
• Sitta neumayer (western rock nuthatch).
• Irania gutturalis (white-throated robin).
• Oenanthe finschii (Finsch's wheatear).
• Carpospiza brachydactyla (pale sparrow).
• Serinus syriacus (Syrian serin).
It is also noted that up to 50,000 soaring birds pass through the area each year, with the IBA being
more important in the autumn when large flocks of Accipiter brevipes (Levant Sparrowhawk),
Pelecanus onocrotalus (Great White Pelican) Grus grus (Common Crane) and Ciconia ciconia (White
Stork) pass over it 104 . Reports of the migration activity around the Project site are provided in
78F ...
Appendix Q.
The citation also lists the following species, although they are not classed as IBA trigger species:
• Tawny owl Strix aluco.

• Masked shrike Lanius nubicus.
• Sardinian warbler Sylvia melanocephala.
• Black-eared wheater Oenanthe hispanica.
• Crimson-winged finch Rhodopechys sanguineus.
• Black-headed bunting Emberiza melanocephala.
14.2.2 Endangered Species
Three endangered and one critically endangered bird species are found in Lebanon:
104
BirdLife International (2018) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Upper Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh. Downloaded
from http://www.birdlife.org on 25/10/2018.
14-9
• Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Endangered (passage).
• Saker Falcon Falco cherrug Endangered (passage and wintering).
• Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus Endangered (passage breeding).
• Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius Critically endangered (passage).
14.2.3 Site Conditions
Further details on the site conditions and observations from the field surveys are provided in
Appendix Q.
14.2.4 Field Survey Results
14.2.4.1 Non-Collision Risk Species
Based on the Point Counts, a species list was generated that includes all resident breeding species,
summer breeding species, wintering, and migratory birds. A total of 102 species of bird were recorded
during the PC surveys for Sustainable Akkar. A summary of this is presented in Table 14-5, showing
the degree of occurrence during the surveys.
Table 14-5 Summary of Point Count Results
Degree of Occurrence Number of Species % of Species
Common 31 36
Uncommon 31 36
Scarce 14 16
Rare 6 7
Very Rare 4 5
The rare species recorded were:
• Alpine accentor Prunella collaris.

• Blue rock thrush Monticola solitarius.
• Common reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus.
• Greater spotted eagle Clanga clanga.
• Stock dove Columba oenas.
• Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes.
The very rare species recorded include:
• Cinereous vulture Gyps monachus.

• Egyptian vulture Neophron percnopterus.
• Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus.
• Imperial eagle Aquila heliaca.
Of the species for which the Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh IBA is classified, western rock nuthatch and
pale rockfinch Carpospiza brachydactyla were both recorded during the PC surveys. However, given
the distance of the IBA from the Project site (approximately 5km) it is extremely unlikely that birds
14-10
from the IBA would be also recorded on the project site, due to the small territories that passerines
typically use.
Of the endangered species recorded in Lebanon, steppe eagle and Egyptian vulture were both
recorded at a very low level and no records were made of saker falcon or sociable lapwing.
14.2.4.2 Collision Risk Species
Survey results for the species considered to be vulnerable to turbine collision risk, collected during the
PC and VP surveys, are summarized in Table 14-6. Further survey results are presented in Appendix
Q. The baseline population for each species, used to assess the predicted collision mortality against in
the CRA, is highlighted in bold.
Table 14-6 Species Accounts of Collision Risk Species
Species Species Account
Common Name: White White stork flights were recorded during the migration season VP
stork surveys in March 2013, May 2014, March 2016, May 2017, May
2018 and October 2018. The seven flights recorded involved 93
Scientific Name: Ciconia
birds, with groups of one, four, seven, 12 and 17 birds and two
ciconia
flocks of 26 birds recorded. Of the 93 birds recorded, one was
IUCN Status: Least recorded crossing the site at collision risk height.
Concern
White stork was recorded during the year-round PC surveys in
Seasonality on Site: March 2013, March and June 2014, March 2016, June 2017,
Passage Migrant February, March and June 2018 and February and March 2019.
The 14 records involved 127 birds. Of these 127 birds, three were
Assessment Importance:
recorded crossing the site at collision risk height.
International
White storks are a common summer migrant species in Lebanon
and recorded in large numbers. The population migrating over
Lebanon is approximately 14,300 birds105. These birds are a
significant part of the estimated European population of 447,000–
495,000106. The white storks using the Project site are considered
to be of international importance.
White stork are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
European threatened species.
Common Name: Black Black stork flights were recorded during the migration season VP
Stork surveys in April, October and November 2018. The three flights
recorded involved eight and nine (two records) birds. None of
Scientific Name: Ciconia
these birds were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height.
nigra
Black stork flights were not recorded during the year-round PC
IUCN Status: Least Concern
surveys.
Seasonality on Site:
Black storks migrate through Lebanon in much lower numbers
Passage Migrant
than white storks. The population migrating over Lebanon is
approximately 1,300 birds107. This is a significant proportion of
105
Serhal, A.A. & Khatib, B.C. (2014) The State of Lebanon’s Birds and IBAs. Ministry of Environment.
106
BirdLife International (2019) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 10/07/2019.
107
14-11
Assessment Importance: the estimated European population of 19,500 to 27,800 birds108.

International The population of black storks using the Project site are
considered to be of international importance.
Black stork are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
Common Name: Great White pelican flights were recorded during the migration season
white pelican VP surveys in April 2014, June and November 2016, October 2017
and November 2018 (two flights). The six flights recorded
Scientific Name: Pelecanus
involved 94 birds, with groups of four, six, seven, 11, 21 and 45
onocrotalus
birds. Of the 94 birds recorded, none were recorded crossing the
IUCN Status: Least site at collision risk height.
Concern
White pelican was recorded during the year-round PC surveys in
Seasonality on Site: April 2014, May and November 2017, February, April and
Passage Migrant September 2018 and March and April 2019. The ten records
involved 109 birds, with groups of between four and 21 birds. Of
the 109 birds recorded, 11 were recorded crossing the site at
International
collision risk height.
Great white pelicans are a common summer migrant species in
Lebanon and recorded in large numbers. The population migrating
over Lebanon is approximately 2,366 birds109. This is a
significant proportion of the estimated European population of
between 9,700–11,100 birds (Birdlife International, 2015)110. The
great white pelicans using the Project site are considered to be of
international importance.
White pelican are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
Common Name: European Honey buzzard flights were recorded during the migration season
honey buzzard VP surveys in May and June 2014, April 2016 and May, August
and September 2017, April, May and September and October
Scientific Name: Pernis
2018. The 18 flights recorded involved 177 birds, with groups of
apivorus
between one and 33 birds. Of the 177 birds recorded, one was
Concern
Honey buzzard was recorded during the year-round PC surveys in
Seasonality on Site: June 2014, April 2016 and May, June, August and September
Passage Migrant 2017 and August 2018. The 12 records involved 89 birds. Of
these 89 birds, four were crossing the site at collision risk height.
International Honey buzzards are a common summer migrant species in
over Lebanon is approximately 4,685 birds111. These birds are a
significant part of the estimated world population of 280,000–
420,000112. The honey buzzards using the Project site are
108
109
110
111
112
14-12
Honey buzzard are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a

Common Name: Black kite Black kite flights were recorded in March, September, October
and November 2018. The four flights recorded involved 22 birds.
Scientific Name: Milvus
None of the birds recorded crossed the site at collision risk height.
migrans
Black kite was recorded during the year-round PC surveys in April
IUCN Status: Least
2014, September 2017, April and September 2018 and April
Concern
2019. The five records involved 26 birds. Of these 26 birds, none
Seasonality on Site: were recorded at collision risk height or crossing the site.
Passage Migrant, Winter
Black kites are a summer migrant species in Lebanon and
Visitor
recorded in medium numbers. The population migrating over
Assessment Importance: Lebanon is approximately 222 birds113. These birds are not a
Regional significant part of the estimated European population of 162,000–
218,000114. The black kites using the Project site are considered
to be of regional importance.
Black kite are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
Common Name: Egyptian An Egyptian vulture flight was recorded during the migration
vulture season VP surveys in September 2017. The flight recorded
involved a single bird which was not recorded at collision risk
Scientific Name: Neophron
height or crossing the site.
percnopterus
Egyptian vultures were not recorded during the year-round PC
IUCN Status: Endangered
surveys.
Egyptian vultures are a rare summer migrant species in Lebanon
Passage Migrant
and recorded in small numbers. No population given for
Assessment Importance: Lebanon115. Over a five-year period in the mid-nineties an
Regional average of 143 birds were recorded migrating over Palestine116.
These birds are not a significant part of the estimated European
population of 6,000–9,400117. The Egyptian vultures using the
Project site are considered to be of regional importance.
Egyptian vulture are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
113
114
115
116
Shirihai, Hadoram & Yosef, Reuven & Alon, Dan & Kirwan, Guy & Spaar, Reto. (2000). Raptor Migration in Israel
and the Middle East: A Summary of 30 Years of Field Research.
117
14-13
Common Name: Cinereous A cinereous vulture flight was recorded during the migration
vulture season VP surveys in April 2014. The flight recorded involved a
single bird which was not recorded at collision risk height or
Scientific Name: Aegypius
crossing the site.
monachus
Cinereous vultures were not recorded during the year-round PC
IUCN Status: Near
surveys.
Threaten
Cinereous vultures are a rare summer migrant species in Lebanon
and recorded in small numbers. Prior to surveys for Sustainable
Passage Migrant
Akkar, no cinereous vulture flights had been recorded during the
Assessment Importance: previous decade118,119. The baseline population has been set at one
Regional bird. These birds are not a significant part of the estimated
European population of 4,600–5,000120. The cinereous vultures
using the Project site are considered to be of regional importance.
Common Name: Levant Levant sparrowhawk flights were recorded during the migration
sparrowhawk season VP surveys in March 2013, April 2014, April 2016,
September and October 2017, April, September and October 2018
Scientific Name: Accipiter
and April 2019. The 15 flights recorded involved 327 birds, with
brevipes
groups of between two and 150 birds. Of the 327 birds recorded,
IUCN Status: Least none were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height.
Concern
Levant sparrowhawk was recorded during the year-round PC
Seasonality on Site: surveys in March and May 2014, March and April 2016,
Passage Migrant September and October 2017, April and September 2018 and
April 2019. The 11 records involved 111 birds. Of these 111 birds,
none were recorded at collision risk height and crossing the site.
International
Levant sparrowhawk are a common summer migrant species in
19,999122. While it is noted that the global population has
decreased between these population estimates, the clear pattern
is that a significant proportion of the global population migrates
over Lebanon. The levant sparrowhawk using the Project site are
Levant sparrowhawk are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as
a European threatened species.
118
119
As an indication of the level of hunting in Lebanon, the bird recorded during these surveys, potentially the first
bird to fly over the country in a decade, was shot and killed after passing the site.
120
121
122
14-14
Common Name: Eurasian Eurasian sparrowhawk flights were recorded during the migration
sparrowhawk season VP surveys in September and October 2017, May and
October 2018 and April 2019. The five flights recorded involved
Scientific Name: Accipiter
seven birds. Of the seven birds recorded, one was recorded
nisus
crossing the site at collision risk height.
IUCN Status: Least
Eurasian sparrowhawk was recorded during the year-round PC
Concern
surveys in April 2016, September 2017 and February 2018. These
Seasonality on Site: three records involved six birds, with one bird recorded crossing
Passage Migrant, Winter the site at collision height.
Visitor
Eurasian sparrow hawks are a summer migrant species in Lebanon
Assessment Importance: and recorded in small numbers. The population migrating over
Regional Lebanon is approximately 124 birds123. These birds are not a
significant part of the estimated European population of 805,000–
1,160,000124. The Eurasian sparrowhawks using the Project site are
considered to be of regional importance.
Common Name: Steppe Steppe buzzard flights were recorded during the migration season
buzzard VP surveys in March 2014, March, April and November 2016,
August and October 2017 and March, April, September, October
Scientific Name: Buteo
and November 2018. The 14 flights recorded involved 52 birds,
buteo vulpinus
with groups of between one and 11 birds. Of the 52 birds
IUCN Status: Least recorded, none were recorded crossing the site at collision risk
Concern height.
Seasonality on Site: Steppe buzzard was recorded during the year-round PC surveys in
Passage Migrant, Winter March 2013, March, April and May 2014, April 2016, May, August,
Visitor September, October and November 2017, February, March and
August 2018 and March and April 2019. The 20 records involved
50 birds. Of these 50 birds, one was recorded crossing the site at
Regional
collision risk height.
Steppe buzzards are a summer migrant species in Lebanon and
recorded in medium numbers. The population migrating over
Lebanon is approximately 1,591 birds125. The population estimate
is 540,000–920,000126. The steppe buzzards migrating through
Lebanon are not a significant part of this estimated population. The
steppe buzzards using the project set are considered to be of
123
124
125
126
14-15
Common Name: Long- Long-legged buzzard flights were recorded during the migration
legged buzzard season VP surveys in March 2013, March and June 2014, April
2016, August and September 2017 and March and September
Scientific Name: Buteo
2018. The nine flights recorded involved 12 birds, with no groups
rufinus
of more than three birds. Of the 12 birds recorded, one was
Concern
Long-legged buzzard was recorded during the year-round PC
Seasonality on Site: surveys in March 2013, April and May 2014, March 2016, June,
Resident, Passage Migrant, August and September 2017, February, March and August 2018
Winter Visitor and March and April 2019. The eighteen records each involved 21
birds, with one bird recorded crossing the site at collision risk
height.
Regional
A long-legged buzzard nest was recorded approximately 2.5km to
the west of the site.
Long-legged buzzards are a rare summer migrant species in
Lebanon and recorded in very small numbers. The population
migrating over Lebanon is approximately 117 birds127. These
birds are not a significant part of the estimated world population
of 139,000–226,000128. The long-legged buzzards using the
Project site are considered to be of regional importance.
Long-legged buzzard are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive
as a European threatened species.
Common Name: Lesser Lesser spotted eagle flights were recorded during the migration
spotted Eagle season VP surveys in March 2013, March, April and May 2014,
March 2016, September and October 2017 and March, April, May,
Scientific Name: Clanga
September and October 2018. The 24 flights recorded involved
pomarina
182 birds, with no groups of between one and 34 birds. Of the
IUCN Status: Least 182 birds recorded, 19 were recorded crossing the site at collision
Concern risk height.
Seasonality on Site: Non- Lesser spotted eagle was recorded during the year-round PC
breeding Summer Visitor, surveys in March 2013, March, April and May 2014, April 2016
Passage Migrant, Winter and May, September and October 2017 and March 2019. The 14
Visitor records involved 58 birds. Of these 58 birds, four were recorded
International Lesser spotted eagles are a common summer migrant species in
60,500130. The lesser spotted eagles using the Project site are
Lesser-spotted eagle are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive
127
128
129
130
14-16
Common Name: Greater A greater spotted eagle flight was recorded during the migration
spotted eagle season VP surveys in April 2016. This flight of a single bird was
not at collision risk height and did not cross the site.
Scientific Name: Clanga
clanga Greater spotted eagle was not recorded during the year-round PC
surveys.
IUCN Status: Vulnerable
Greater spotted eagles are a rare summer migrant species in
Lebanon and recorded in very small numbers. The population
migrating over Lebanon is approximately ten birds131. These
Visitor
birds are not a significant part of the estimated world population
Assessment Importance: of 5,000–13,200132. The greater spotted eagles using the Project
Regional site are considered to be of regional importance.
Greater spotted eagle are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive
Common Name: Eastern An imperial eagle flight was recorded during the migration season
imperial eagle VP surveys in October 2017. The record involved a single bird but
not at collision risk height and did not cross the site.
Scientific Name: Aquila
heliaca No imperial eagle flights were recorded during the year-round PC
surveys.
IUCN Status: Vulnerable
Imperial eagles are a rare summer migrant species in Lebanon
and were recorded in very small numbers. The population
Passage Migrant
migrating over Lebanon is approximately 14 birds133. These birds
Assessment Importance: are not a significant part of the estimated world population of
Regional 3,750–14,999134. The imperial eagles using the Project site are
Imperial eagle are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
131
132
133
134
14-17
Common Name: Steppe Steppe eagle flights were recorded during the migration season
eagle VP surveys in October 2017 and April and October 2018. The
records each involved a single bird, with none of these records
Scientific Name: Aquila
nipalensis
A steppe eagle flight was recorded during the year-round PC
IUCN Status: Endangered
surveys in April 2014. The record involved three birds but not at
Seasonality on Site: collision risk height and did not cross the site.
Passage Migrant
Steppe eagles are a rare summer migrant species in Lebanon and
Assessment Importance: were recorded in small numbers. The population migrating over
Regional Lebanon is approximately 16 birds135. These birds are not a
significant part of the estimated world population of 62,744136.
The steppe eagles using the Project site are considered to be of
Common Name: Booted Booted eagle flights were recorded during the migration season
eagle VP surveys in April 2016, May and September 2017 and March,
September and October 2018. The six flights recorded involved
Scientific Name: Hieraaetus
six birds. Of the six birds recorded, none were recorded crossing
pennatus
the site at collision risk height.
IUCN Status: Least
Booted eagle was recorded during the year-round PC surveys in
Concern
March and April 2014, September 2017 and April and September
Seasonality on Site: 2018. The six records each involved a single bird, with none
Breeding Summer Visitor, crossing the site at collision risk height.
Booted eagles are a rare summer migrant species in Lebanon and
Visitor
recorded in small numbers. The population migrating over
Assessment Importance: Lebanon is approximately 56 birds137. These birds are not a
Regional significant part of the estimated world population of 149,000–
188,000138. The booted eagles using the Project site are
Booted eagle are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
135
136
BirdLife International (2019) Species factsheet: Aquila nipalensis. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on
10/07/2019.
137
138
14-18
Common Name: Short-toed Short-toed snake eagle flights were recorded during the migration
snake eagle season VP surveys in March 2013, April 2014, September and
October 2017 and April and October 2018. The seven flights
Scientific Name: Circaetus
recorded involved 17 birds, with no groups of more than six birds.
gallicus
Of the 17 birds recorded, nine were recorded crossing the site at
IUCN Status: Least collision risk height.
Concern
Short-toed snake eagle were recorded during the year-round PC
Seasonality on Site: surveys in March 2013, March, April and June 2014, September
Breeding Summer Visitor, and October 2017, April and September 2018 and April 2019. The
Passage Migrant twelve records involved 27 birds. Of these 27 birds, four were
recorded crossing the site at collision risk height.
Regional A short-toed snake eagle nest was recorded approximately 2.5km
to the south-east of the proposed development.
Short-toed snake eagles are a common summer visitor to
Lebanon and are frequent on passage. The population migrating
over Lebanon is approximately 488 birds139. These birds are not
a significant part of the estimated European population of
35,100–41,800140. The short-toed snake eagle using the Project
site are considered to be of regional importance.
Short-toed snake eagle are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’
Directive as a European threatened species.
Common Name: Common Kestrel flights were recorded during the migration season VP
kestrel surveys in March 2013, March, April and June 2014, March, April
and November 2016, May and October 2017 and March,
Scientific Name: Falco
September and October 2018. The 13 flights recorded involved 22
tinnunculus
birds, with no groups of more than five birds. Of the 22 birds
IUCN Status: Least recorded, four were recorded crossing the site at collision risk
Concern height.
Seasonality on Site: Kestrels were recorded during the year-round PC surveys in March
Resident, Passage Migrant, 2013, March and June 2014, March 2016, October 2017,
Winter Visitor February, April, August and September 2018 and March and April
2019. The seventeen records involved 25 birds. Of these 25 birds,
nine were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height.
Local
Common kestrels are common and widespread in Lebanon. The
population of common kestrels using the site are considered to be
of local importance, and comprise four birds (the two couples,
based on a similar population estimate made for Lebanon Wind
Power, a development of similar size).
139
140
14-19
Common Name: Eurasian No hobby flights were recorded during the migration season VP
hobby surveys.
Scientific Name: Falco Hobby flights were recorded during the year-round PC surveys in
subbuteo May 2017 and April and September 2018. These flights involved
nine birds, with none of these birds crossing the site at collision
IUCN Status: Least
risk height.
Concern
Hobby are an uncommon passage migrant. The population
migrating over Lebanon is approximately 137 birds141. These
Passage Migrant
birds are not a significant part of the estimated European
Assessment Importance: population of 184,000-295,000142. The hobbies using the Project
Regional site are considered to be of regional importance.
Common Name: Red-footed Red-footed falcon flights were recorded during the migration
falcon season VP surveys in April 2014 and September and October
2017. These three flights involved six birds, a flight of four birds
Scientific Name: Falco
and two flights of one bird. Of these six birds, one bird was
vespertinus
recorded flying at collision risk height and not crossing the site.
IUCN Status: Near
A red-footed falcon flight was recorded in June 2014 and April
Threatened
2019. The two flights involved three birds with neither crossing
Seasonality on Site: the site at collision risk height.
Passage Migrant
Red-footed falcons are a common passage migrant in Lebanon.
Assessment Importance: The population migrating over Lebanon is approximately 1,470
National birds143. This is not a significant part of the estimated world
population of 300,000-800,000144. The red-footed falcons using
the Project site are considered to be of national importance.
Red-footed falcon are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as
a European threatened species.
141
142
143
144
14-20
Common Name: Common Common crane flights were recorded during the migration season
crane VP surveys in May 2014, November 2016, October 2017 and
March, September and November 2018. The six flights recorded
Scientific Name: Grus grus
involved 55 birds, with no group of more than 13 birds. Of the 55
IUCN Status: Least birds recorded, 15 were recorded crossing the site at collision risk
Concern height.
Seasonality on Site: Common crane flights were recorded during the year-round PC
Passage Migrant, Winter surveys in November 2017, February, March and August 2018
Visitor and February and March 2019. These six records involved 44
birds, with seven of these birds crossing the site at collision risk
height.
National
Common cranes are a common summer migrant species in
over Lebanon is approximately 3,600 birds145. These birds are
not a significant part of the estimated world population of
490,000–504,999146. The common cranes using the Project site
are considered to be of national importance.
Common crane are listed on Annex 1 of the Birds’ Directive as a
14.2.4.3 General Flight Patterns
The flight patterns recorded from vantage points indicates that during the spring migration, the
migrating birds fly from south to north. During the autumn migration, the migrating birds fly from
north to south. The highest level of flight activity was recorded from the PC locations to the west of
the site, closest to the Oudine Valley. This confirms the assertion of the importance of the Oudine
Valley to migrating birds.
Within the envelop of the wind turbines, the observer noted that 93% of the raptor species fly at
altitudes above 200m over the Project area. The kestrel, short-toed snake eagle and long-legged
buzzard fly at various levels but mainly at the level of the Rotor Swept Area. This is due to the fact
that these species are foraging within the project site and commuting to their nest sites outside the
study area.
14.2.5 Hawa Akkar Survey Results
The results of the Hawa Akkar VP and PC surveys are summarized in Table 14-7.
145
146
14-21
Table 14-7 Results of Hawa Akkar Bird Surveys
Species Total VP VP Records at CRH Total PC PC Records at CRH

Records and Crossing Site Records and Crossing Site
Black Kite 4 0 9 2
Booted Eagle 8 1 23 1
Common Buzzard 8 1 17 9
Common Crane 0 0 37 37
Eurasian Sparrowhawk 1 0 4 0
Greater Spotted Eagle 1 0 1 0
Hen Harrier 0 0 1 1
Honey Buzzard 41 6 108 56
Kestrel 19 12 48 29
Lesser Spotted Eagle 12 3 15 5
Levant Sparrowhawk 23 0 50 0
Long-legged Buzzard 13 1 27 12
Northern Goshawk 0 0 1 0
Peregrine Falcon 0 0 1 0
Short-toed Eagle 10 4 24 9
Steppe Buzzard 3 0 8 3
White Pelican 0 0 10 0
White Stork 21 0 58 15
14.2.6 Summary
The baseline assessment has identified a number of key biodiversity features which require further
consideration within the assessment. These are summarized in Table 14-8. Potential impacts on the
features are detailed in Section 14.3.
14-22
Table 14-8 Summary of Importance of Biodiversity Features
Upper Mountains of International The IBA contains an assemblage of upland woodland birds as
Akkar Donnieh IBA well as listing upwards of 50,000 migratory soaring birds
passing through the area each year.
Breeding Regional The suite of passerine species breeding within the site are
Passerines considered to be of regional value. They include species which
are locally rare and species for which the Upper Mountains of
Akkar Donnieh IBA is designated.
White Stork International Baseline population of 14,300 is a significant proportion of

European population of 447,000–495,000.
Black Stork International Baseline population of 1,300 is not a significant proportion of

White Pelican International Baseline population of 2,366 is a significant proportion of the

Honey Buzzard International Baseline population of 4,685 is a significant proportion of

world population of 280,000–420,000.
Black Kite Regional Baseline population of 222 is a significant proportion of

Egyptian Vulture Regional Baseline population of 143 is not a significant proportion of

Cinereous Vulture Regional Baseline population of one is not a significant part of European
population of 4,600–5,000.
Levant International Baseline population of 3,210 is a significant proportion of

Sparrowhawk world population of 10,000–19,999.
Eurasian Regional Baseline population of 124 is not a significant part of European

sparrowhawk population of 805,000–1,160,000.
Steppe Buzzard Regional Baseline population of 1,591 is not a significant proportion of

Long-legged Regional Baseline population of 117 is not a significant part of world

Buzzard population of 139,000–226,000.
Lesser Spotted International Baseline population of 5,234 is a significant part of the

Eagle estimated world population of 44,900–60,500.
Greater Spotted Regional Baseline population of ten is not a significant part of the world
Eagle population of 5,000–13,200.
Eastern Imperial Regional Baseline population of 14 is not a significant part of the world
Steppe Eagle Regional Baseline population of 16 is not a significant part of the world
population of 62,744.
Booted Eagle Regional Baseline population of 56 is not a significant part of the world
population of 149,000–188,000.
14-23
Short-toed Snake Regional Baseline population of 488 is not a significant part of the world
Common kestrel Local Common kestrels are common and widespread in Lebanon.
The population of common kestrels using the site (4 birds) are
considered to be of local importance.
Hobby Regional Baseline population of 137 is not a significant part of the

Red-footed Falcon National Baseline population of 1,470 is not a significant part of the
world population of 300,000-800,000.
Common Crane National Baseline population of 3,600 is not a significant part of the
14.3 Assessment of Potential Impacts
14.3.1.1 Impacts on Designated Sites
Two species listed as qualifying species for Mountain of Akkar-Donnieh IBA were recorded during field
surveys for the proposed development. Pale rockfinch was recorded in the middle zone and western
rock nuthatch was recorded in the far zone. As neither species was recorded in the immediate zone,
within the footprint of the proposed development, then no impacts are predicted on either species.
The IBA lists soaring birds and cranes (namely white stork, white pelican, Levant sparrowhawk and
common crane) as another key feature. These species have not been recorded on the ground within
the Project site during field surveys, they pass through the area on migration. As such, potential
construction impacts would be limited to disturbance such as noise and light, from construction
activities. Disturbance such as that would be a temporary, low magnitude indirect impact and would
attenuate to levels unlikely to disturb species migrating through and over the area. The species listed
were typically recorded flying high through the area. As such no ecologically significant effect is
predicted.
14.3.1.2 Habitat Loss
Both temporary and permanent habitat loss are predicted as a result of the construction of the
proposed development. Permanent loss would occur in the footprint of the infrastructure of the
proposed development and from the construction of new permanent access tracks. Temporary, short-
term habitat loss would occur at turbine bases, outside of the permanent hardstanding, and from the
construction of new temporary access tracks that would be reinstated after construction. Direct habitat
loss is assessed in Section 13 Biodiversity. Habitat loss is considered to result in an adverse,
indirect, low magnitude, short-term, reversible impact on the community of birds breeding on the
Project site which is considered to be of local importance. It would be a temporary impact in all
locations other than the footprint of the infrastructure and new permanent access tracks. No
ecologically significant effect is predicted.
14-24
14.3.1.3 Nest Destruction
During the construction of the proposed development, nests could be destroyed directly by
construction activities and some may be abandoned due to disturbance from construction vehicles.
Nest destruction is an adverse, low magnitude, short-term, reversible impact on the locally important
community of breeding birds. The extent of the impact would be wherever construction activities are
required, such as at turbine bases, construction compound and laydown areas. Bird nest conservation
importance varies dependent on the species and all nests are highly sensitive. No impacts are
predicted on the short-toed snake eagle or the long-legged buzzard nests identified as neither are in
the footprint of the proposed development. This impact has the potential to result in a significant
ecological effect.
14.3.1.4 Disturbance and Displacement
As well as the noise and visual disturbance associated with construction, birds could also be disturbed
by the activities of personnel and vehicles. Disturbance of small breeding birds found on site as a
result of construction activities would be an adverse, low magnitude, short-term impact on a
community of birds considered to have local importance. Given the relatively small footprint of the
proposed development and the number of small breeding birds found on the site, this is not
considered to be an ecologically significant effect.
The only species of raptors that were regularly recorded within the immediate zone around the project
site are short-toed snake eagle and common kestrel. Both of these species could be displaced from
the immediate zone during the construction of the proposed development. Based on their respective
population sizes and distribution, short-toed snake eagle is considered to be a species of regional
importance and common kestrel a species of local importance. Disturbance from construction activities
could cause both species to forage in alternative locations, either less favorable foraging areas on the
margins of the Project site or locations further afield rather than the site itself. Displacement of these
species would be an adverse, low magnitude, temporary, impact on both species, however this is not
14.3.2.1 Collision Risk
Bird species using the airspace around the proposed development are vulnerable to colliding with the
proposed development. Raptors and waterfowl are known to be particularly vulnerable to this collision
risk 147. A quantitative CRA has been undertaken for all vulnerable species. This has been undertaken
1
using data collected from the migration season VP surveys and the year-round PC surveys. It has also
been undertaken using flight data collected for Hawa Akkar, which were collected from a more
appropriate level of survey effort.
Any predicted collision events would be adverse impacts, reversible at population scale. The likelihood
of collision event, magnitude and duration of impact would vary by species.
147
Desholm, M. (2009). Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritising migratory bird species for assessment at
proposed wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management. 90: 2672-2679.
14-25
Species-Specific Collision Risk
The results of the CRA undertaken on the data collected for Sustainable Akkar is provided in Table
14-9. The same table also provides a summary of the results of a CRA run on the data collected for
Hawa Akkar and using the turbine specifications for Sustainable Akkar. These are presented as
alternative values based on a different flight dataset and should not be considered as an additional
collision risk. The mortality estimates for Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar were compared with each
other using a Welch Two Sample T-Test. This produced a p-value of >0.05148, meaning that wind farm
site is not a significant differentiating factor for mortality estimate. While this does not mean that the
datasets are statistically similar between each site, it also does not point to significant differences
between the two datasets.
Typically, population decreases of >1% would be considered a significant impact. However, based on
feedback from the Lebanese Ministry of Environment149, population decreases of >0.5% could be
considered significant for long-lived species with lower population recruitment rates. The baseline
populations used are for Lebanon as a whole but, as shown in the migration season research papers,
the principal migration routes during spring and autumn both pass close to the proposed development.
Thus, the population estimates for birds migrating over Lebanon are considered appropriate for use in
this assessment.
As collision risk estimates for common kestrel and short-toed snake eagle were calculated following a
different method which accounts for those species’ breeding presence in the wind farm area,
calculations of “Bird Records per Hour” were not made and are not shown in Table 14-9. Of the 22
species of bird recorded during the Sustainable Akkar field surveys and considered vulnerable to
collision with a wind turbine, ten species were recorded flying at collision risk height within or across
the site:
• Common crane.
• Eurasian sparrowhawk.
• Honey buzzard.
• Kestrel.
• Lesser spotted eagle.
• Long-legged buzzard.
• Short-toed snake eagle.
• Steppe buzzard.
• White Pelican.
• White stork.
Another further species, hen harrier, was recorded flying at collision risk height within or across the
Hawa Akkar site.
148
R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0
149
Feedback provided by The Netherlands Commission of Environmental Assessment, on behalf of the Ministry of
Environment.
14-26
Table 14-9 Collision Risk Assessment Results per Species
Species Sustainable Akkar Sustainable Akkar Sustainable Akkar Avoidance Factor Population Sustainable Akkar Sustainable Akkar Hawa Akkar Hawa
Bird Records per Bird Through Chance of Collision Estimate Mortality Estimate % Loss Mortality Akkar %
Hour Rotors in a Year with Blade Estimate Loss
Black Kite 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0.05 0.0210
Black Stork 0 0 0 0 1,300 0 0 0 0
Booted Eagle 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0.09 0.1545
Cinereous Vulture 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Common Buzzard 0 0 0 0 922 0 0 0.46 0.0500
Common Crane 0.33 366.07 15.6 98 3,600 1.14 0.0317 1.80 0.0499
Egyptian Vulture 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 0
Eurasian Sparrowhawk 0.03 33.28 13.3 98 124 0.09 0.0714 0 0
Greater Spotted Eagle 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
Hen Harrier 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0.03 0.1225
Hobby 0 0 0 0 137 0 0 0 0
Honey Buzzard 0.08 83.20 13.9 98 4,685 0.23 0.0049 2.68 0.0573
Imperial Eagle 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
Kestrel N/A 200.85 14.9 95 4 1.50 37.4078 7.99 200
Lesser Spotted Eagle 0.39 432.63 12.3 98 5,234 1.06 0.0203 0.31 0.0059
Levant Sparrowhawk 0 0 0 0 3,210 0 0 0 0
Long-legged Buzzard 0.03 33.28 12.8 98 117 0.09 0.0728 0.52 0.4427
Northern Goshawk 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0
Peregrine 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0
Red-footed Falcon 0 0 0 0 1,470 0 0 0 0
Short-toed Eagle N/A 290.14 13.7 98 488 0.79 0.1629 1.19 0.2443
Steppe Buzzard 0.02 16.64 12.0 98 1,591 0.04 0.0025 0.11 0.0070
Steppe Eagle 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0
White Pelican 0.17 183.03 19 98 2,366 0.70 0.0297 0 0
White Stork 0.06 66.56 14.2 98 14,300 0.19 0.0013 0.66 0.0046
14-27
Black Kite
Black kites were not recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during the Sustainable Akkar
bird surveys. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced a mortality estimate for black kite of 0.05
birds per year, a decrease of 0.02% to the baseline population.
The mortality estimate over the 25 year lifespan of the Project, based on the Hawa Akkar data, is 1.25
birds. This is considered to be a conservative estimate as it does not account for birds habituating to
the presence of the wind farm and also does not account for any proposed mitigation. Even accounting
for likely population decreases over the lifespan of the Project, significant impacts are not considered
to exist.
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with black kite collision risk.
Booted Eagle
Booted eagles were not recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during the Sustainable Akkar
bird surveys. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced a mortality estimate for booted eagle of 0.09
birds per year, a decrease of 0.15% on the baseline population.
to exist.
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with booted eagle collision risk.
Common Buzzard
Common buzzards were not recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during the Sustainable
Akkar bird surveys. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced a mortality estimate for common
buzzard of 0.46 birds per year, a decrease of 0.05% to the baseline population.
to exist.
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with common buzzard collision risk.
Common Crane
During the ornithological field surveys for the proposed development, 15 common crane flights were
recorded crossing the proposed development at collision risk height during the migration season VP
surveys and 7 were recorded during the year-round PC surveys. This is considered to represent a
moderate level of flight activity. The mortality estimate of 1.14 birds per year is moderate and
represents a 0.03% decrease to the common crane baseline population of 3,600. The CRA using Hawa
Akkar data produced a mortality estimate for common crane of 1.8 birds per year, a decrease of
0.05% to the baseline population.
14-28
The mortality estimate over the 25 year lifespan of the Project is 28.5 birds per year, based on
Sustainable Akkar data and is 45 birds per year, based on Hawa Akkar data. This is considered to be a
conservative estimate as it does not account for birds habituating to the presence of the wind farm
and also does not account for any proposed mitigation. Even accounting for likely population
decreases over the lifespan of the Project, significant impacts are not considered to exist.
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with common crane collision risk.
Eurasian Sparrowhawk
Two Eurasian sparrowhawks were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height, one during the
migration season VP surveys and one during the year-round PC surveys. This is considered to
represent a low level of flight activity. The mortality estimate of 0.09 birds per year is low and
represents a 0.07% decrease to the baseline migratory population of 124 birds. Eurasian
sparrowhawks were not recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during the Hawa Akkar
surveys.
The mortality estimate over the 25 year lifespan of the Project, based on the Sustainable Akkar data,
is 2.25 birds. This is considered to be a conservative estimate as it does not account for birds
habituating to the presence of the wind farm and also does not account for any proposed mitigation.
Even accounting for likely population decreases over the lifespan of the Project, significant impacts are
not considered to exist.
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with Eurasian sparrowhawk collision risk.
Hen Harrier
Hen Harriers were not recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during the Sustainable Akkar
bird surveys. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced a mortality estimate for hen harrier of 0.03
birds per year, a decrease of 0.12% to the baseline population.
to exist.
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with hen harrier collision risk.
Honey Buzzard
Honey buzzard were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during both surveys, with one
bird recorded during the VP surveys and four birds recorded during the PC surveys. This is considered
a low level of flight activity. The mortality estimate of 0.23 birds per year is low and represents a
decrease of 0.005% to the baseline migratory population of 4,685 birds. The CRA using Hawa Akkar
data produced a mortality estimate for honey buzzard of 2.68 birds per year, a decrease of 0.057% to
the baseline population.
14-29
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with honey buzzard collision risk.
Common Kestrel
Common kestrel were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during the VP surveys and
during the PC surveys, with four birds recorded during the migration season VP surveys and nine birds
recorded during the year-round PC surveys. This is considered a moderate level of flight activity. The
mortality estimate of 1.5 birds per year is moderate and would represent a 37.41% reduction in the
baseline population of four birds. This would represent a major impact on a feature of local
importance. It is likely that collision risk would be reduced by the effect of displacement on common
kestrel. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced a mortality estimate for common kestrel of 7.99
birds per year, a decrease of almost 200% to the baseline population.
Sustainable Akkar data, and 199.75 birds per year, based on Hawa Akkar data. This is considered to
be a conservative estimate as it does not account for birds habituating to the presence of the wind
farm and also does not account for any proposed mitigation.
It is considered unlikely that this collision risk would occur, and more likely that the birds would be
displaced by the wind farm (refer to Section 14.3.3.2). As common kestrel are only considered to be
a feature of local importance, this impact is not considered to represent an ecologically significant
effect.
Lesser Spotted Eagle
Twenty-two lesser spotted eagle flights were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during
the migration season VP surveys and four lesser spotted eagle flights were recorded crossing the site
at collision risk height during the year-round PC surveys. This is considered a moderate level of flight
activity. The mortality estimate of 1.06 birds per year is considered moderate and represents a
decrease of 0.02% to the baseline population of 5,234 birds. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data
produced a mortality estimate for lesser-spotted eagle of 0.31 birds per year, a decrease of 0.006% to
the baseline population.
Sustainable Akkar data and is 7.75 birds per year, based on Hawa Akkar data. This is considered to be
a conservative estimate as it does not account for birds habituating to the presence of the wind farm
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with lesser spotted eagle collision risk.
Long-legged Buzzard
Long-legged buzzards were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height twice, once during the
migration season VP surveys and once during the year-round PC surveys. This is considered a low
level of flight activity. The mortality estimate of 0.09 birds per year is considered low and represents a
decrease of 0.07% on the baseline population of 117 birds. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced
14-30
a mortality estimate for long-legged buzzard of 0.52 birds per year, a decrease of 0.44% to the
baseline population.
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with long-legged buzzard collision risk.
Short-toed Snake Eagle
Short-toed snake eagle were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height nine times during the
VP surveys and four times during the PC surveys. This is considered a moderate level of flight activity.
The mortality estimate of 0.79 birds per year is considered low and represents a 0.16% decrease to
the baseline population of 488 birds. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced a mortality estimate
for short-toed snake eagle of 1.19 birds per year, a decrease of 0.24% to the baseline population.
Sustainable Akkar data and is 29.75 birds per year, based on Hawa Akkar data. This is considered to
be a conservative estimate as it does not account for birds habituating to the presence of the wind
farm and also does not account for any proposed mitigation. Even accounting for likely population
No ecologically significant effect is predicted associated with short-toed snake eagle collision risk.
Steppe Buzzard
Steppe buzzards150 were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height once during the year-round
PC surveys. This is considered a low level of flight activity. The mortality estimate of 0.04 birds per
year is considered low and represents a 0.003% decrease to the baseline population of common and
steppe buzzard of 1,591 birds. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data produced a mortality estimate for
steppe buzzard of 0.11 birds per year, a decrease of 0.007% to the baseline population.
The mortality estimate over the 25 year lifespan of the Project is 1 bird per year, based on Sustainable
Akkar data and is 2.75 birds per year, based on Hawa Akkar data. This is considered to be a
No ecologically significant effect has been predicted associated with Steppe buzzard collision risk.
White Pelican
White pelicans were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height 11 times during the year-round
PC surveys. This is considered a moderate level of flight activity. The mortality estimate of 0.7 birds
150
Steppe buzzard is a race of Common buzzard with extremely similar morphology. It is possible that birds
recorded as Steppe buzzards could be common buzzards and vice versa. Regardless, it is clear that buzzard
activity was low on the Project site and considerably lower than on the LWP site.
14-31
per year is low and represents a 0.03% decrease to the baseline population of 2,366 birds. White
pelican were not recorded crossing the site at collision risk height during the Hawa Akkar surveys.
The mortality estimate over the 25 year lifespan of the Project, based on the Sustainable Akkar data,
is 17.5 birds. This is considered to be a conservative estimate as it does not account for birds
habituating to the presence of the wind farm and also does not account for any proposed mitigation.
Even accounting for likely population decreases over the lifespan of the Project, significant impacts are
not considered to exist.
No ecologically significant effect has been predicted associated with white pelican collision risk.
White Stork
White storks were recorded crossing the site at collision risk height once during the migration season
VP surveys and three times during the year-round PC surveys. This is considered to be a low level of
flight activity. The mortality estimate of 0.19 birds per year is considered low and represents a
0.001% decrease to the baseline population of 14,300 birds. The CRA using Hawa Akkar data
produced a mortality estimate for white stork of 0.66 birds per year, a decrease of 0.005% to the
baseline population.
Sustainable Akkar data and is 16.5 birds per year, based on Hawa Akkar data. This is considered to be
a conservative estimate as it does not account for birds habituating to the presence of the wind farm
No ecologically significant effect has been predicted associated with white stork collision risk.
14.3.2.2 Disturbance and Displacement
Disturbance associated with the operation of the proposed development has the potential to cause an
adverse, low magnitude, long-term, impact on the locally important community of bird species
occupying the proposed development and the surrounding area. Birds can be disturbed by the
activities of personnel and vehicles during the operation of the proposed development and also by
visual and noise disturbance from the turbines themselves. However, those disturbance sources are
likely to be limited and resident birds are likely to habituate to them. No ecologically significant effect
is predicted.
The only species of raptor that were regularly recorded within the Project site/immediate zone were
common kestrel and short-toed snake eagle. Both of these species could be displaced from the
immediate zone during the operation of the proposed development. Disturbance from the presence of
construction workers and vehicles and from visual and noise disturbance from the turbines could cause
both species to forage away from the site. This would result in an adverse, low magnitude, long-term,
impact on both species. Short-toed snake eagle is a species of Regional importance and common
kestrel are of site importance. However, based on the location of the territories which lie
approximately 2.5km from the Project site, operational disturbance impacts on these features are not
considered to result in ecologically significant effects.
14-32
14.3.2.3 Barrier Effects
The proposed development may result in a barrier effect on the movement of bird species with the
vertical configuration of turbines creating an actual or perceived barrier which bird species may not
cross or would need to habituate to crossing. Such adverse impacts would be of low magnitude to the
species inhabiting the immediate zone but potentially of moderate magnitude to any species that
might use the area around the Project site for migration.
Field surveys have not recorded high levels of migratory bird activity within the wind farm footprint at
collision risk height. Importantly, the migratory corridors run in a largely north-south alignment
similar to that along which the proposed development would be constructed. As such, the proposed
development would not create a barrier perpendicular to the direction of most flights. The impact
would be of limited extent but permanent for the life of the proposed development.
No ecologically significant effects are predicted.
14.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts have been assessed in Section 20 Cumulative Impact Assessment, using an
additive approach to assess collision risk from the Project alongside the planned Lebanon Wind Power
and Hawa Akkar wind farms.
14.3.5 Critical and Natural Habitats Assessment
A Critical and Natural Habitats Assessment for the Project is currently being undertaken for the
Project. The findings will be used to inform the mitigation. The CHA can be found in Appendix L.
14.4 Mitigation
Due to the large number of ecological and ornithological mitigation proposed for the Project, it is
recommended that a suitable qualified Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW) be employed for the Project
to ensure the appropriate implementation of the Biodiversity Action and Management Plan (BAMP) to
be developed by others. All of the mitigation listed below is detailed in the framework BAMP.
14.4.1 Construction and Decommissioning
Nest Destruction
Where required, vegetation would be removed outside of the bird breeding season (March-August).
The following vegetation removal deterrence methods would also be used to ensure ground nesting
birds do not nest on the site following vegetation clearance:
14-33
• Iridescent tape across the construction areas prior to construction activities;
• Bird deterring machines which produce intermittent loud noises; and
• Walking of the cleared area by individuals on a regular basis to prevent birds settling and to
monitor if any birds are settling to nests on areas close to the planned construction activity.
Where vegetation has not been removed outside of the breeding bird season and must be removed
during the breeding bird season, then pre-clearance surveys must be undertaken by a suitably
experienced ornithologist. These surveys would identify any potential nests in the vegetation to be
removed and then establish suitable “no go” buffers around these nests, to prevent the nest being
destroyed or disturbed. Buffers would be species specific and determined by the ECOW.
In addition to the above, prior to commencement of decommissioning activities, walkover surveys

would be completed in habitats suitable for and known to be used by breeding bird species as to
identify any previously unknown nest sites.
14.4.2 Operation
Collision Risk
The results of the CRA suggest that significant collision risk impacts not predicted. However, it is
acknowledged that the CRA is based on assumptions and incomplete datasets and a significant
collision risk impact for species could still occur. The bird migration route through the north-east of
Lebanon is an internationally important route for many species and so it is recommended that
additional safeguards are implemented to prevent significant collision risk events.
This mitigation would rely heavily on the further monitoring work proposed (refer to Section 14.4),
including continuing the migration season VP surveys, undertaking carcass searches beneath the
constructed turbines and the installation of a bird detecting radar system.
It is proposed that mitigation would involve the shutdown of the turbines during periods of peak
collision risk potential, such as periods of peak bird migration movement or poor weather. Shutdown
would be achieved by adjusting the blade angle to be perpendicular to the wind and applying the
brake to prevent any blade rotation. Further information on this process, and potential compensation,
will be provided in the Bird Monitoring Protocol being produced by the MOE.
It should be noted that, based on the results of the surveys previously undertaken on the site,
mitigation for collision risk impacts is not currently considered to be required.
14.5 Monitoring/Additional Good Practice Measures
14.5.1 Construction/Decommissioning
Vantage Point Surveys
It is recommended that the program of VP surveys is continued, but with a greater survey effort.
Surveys should be undertaken between August 2019 and November 2020, with six hours of survey
undertaken at each VP location during the months of January, February, June, July and December.
During the other months, when birds are migrating, this survey effort should be doubled to 12 hours
of survey effort per VP location. It is recommended that more VP locations are used, with at least five
14-34
locations recommended to cover the site. These should be chosen with the help of a viewshed analysis
to ensure that all turbine locations can be observed from a survey location. All surveys must be
undertaken by surveyors who are experienced in the identification and recording of Lebanese birds.
Where required, these surveyors should also be trained in how to survey as per the SNH guidance151.
Data should be recorded as per SNH Guidance (2017)152, with flight paths mapped into GIS and these
reproduced on figures. This data can then be analyzed in GIS. Instead of undertaking a full CRA on the
results, the analysis should consider the total number of birds per hour that are passing within the
footprint of the wind farm at collision risk height. This should be calculated for each species and, if it is
significantly greater than the numbers previously recorded (see Table 14-9: Collision Risk
Assessment by Species), further assessment of collision risk impacts may be required.
Hunting Ban
A significant impact on birds migrating through Lebanon is the culture of hunting that exists. In spite
of laws that make the killing of migrating birds illegal, thousands are still killed each year153 impacting
populations in their breeding grounds in Europe and Asia. It is proposed that all hunting within the
wind farm area is banned, this area is shown in Figure 14-4, at the end of this report. This would not
only protect the birds using the wind farm area but would also prevent damage to the turbines
themselves.
The site would be secured during construction, preventing public access to the area. It is proposed to
maintain this during the operation phase, with security staff responsible for preventing members of
the public accessing the wind farm site.
Efforts should be made to invest in public awareness and support for the hunting ban among local
residents. This would take the form of increased nature education and training of local bird recorders.
Surveyors from the project surveys would be a good resource to educate locals of the species of birds
and why Lebanon is an Internationally important bird flyway.
Artificial Light
The use of artificial light should be avoided where possible as steady white lights can attract prey,
such as moths, and the prey can attract predators, such as moth eating birds like hobbies and red-
footed falcons. Instead, it is proposed that red lights or pulsing/blinking lights are used instead.
Waste Disposal
To prevent attracting scavenging bird species to the site, any waste produce by the workers on the
site would need to be disposed of following a detailed plan. Waste should not be stored or deposited
where it is open to the air, as this would attract birds to the site. This could, inadvertently, lead to the
creation of a de-facto feeding station for scavenging birds such as corvids, kites and vultures.
151
SNH (2017) Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of onshore wind farms, version 2.
SNH Guidance.
152
Ibid
153
Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) (2013) Report on the hunting of migrant birds in the Lebanon -
affected species and their conservation status in the EU.
14-35
Disturbance and Displacement
Identified nests of birds of prey, such as common kestrel and short-toed snake eagle, are considered
far enough away from any construction area and disturbance impacts are unlikely. However, the
ECOW would be responsible for monitoring both nest sites and ensuring that they remain productive
through the construction/decommissioning works.
14.5.2 Operation
It is recommended to continue the migratory season VPs during the start of the operational phase of
the proposed development. These would commence as soon as the project is operational and would be
undertaken following the methods described in this chapter, although with an increased survey effort
to meet the 36 hours per migration season as suggested by SNH Guidance.
During each VP watch, flight activity by target species154 will be recorded using the same details
collected before:
• Flight Number.
• Time.
• Date.
• Species.
• Number of Birds.
• Flight height.
• Total time of flight including time spent at each height.
In addition to this information, surveyors will record if any birds display any flight behavior apparently
associated with the presence of the turbines (avoidance) or if any were seen to collide with a turbine
(collision). Observations would use the following terminology after Meredith (2002)155:
• Weave - Weaving flight line up to maximum height of turbine.

• Direct - A direct flight line, within the turbine envelope but clearly in a line up to maximum turbine
blade height, avoiding turbines.
• Horizontal - A bird flying towards a wind farm site, which takes avoiding action by a horizontal
movement (i.e. no change in height) so as to take it around the edge of the turbines.
• Vertical - As for horizontal, but this time, the bird gains altitude to take it over the top of the wind
farm site.
• Bullet - Flight behavior with no avoiding action with regards to turbines (or other infrastructure).
• Hit - A recorded collision between a bird and a turbine (or other infrastructure).
• Avoid - Avoidance behavior near a turbine, generally taken at short notice and likely to appear as
a sudden change in direction and/or height.
• Other – Any other behavior not easily classifiable into any of the above categories.
154
155
Meredith, C., Venosta, M., & Ressom, R. (2002) Cordington Wind Farm Avian Avoidance Behaviour Report,
2002. Biosis Research Report.
14-36
Carcass Searches
As well as the VP surveys, searches for collision victims will be completed under the turbines. Visual
searches within an area at least five meters greater than the length of each turbine blade will be
undertaken. The surveys would be stratified, with a third of the turbines survey during each visit. It
would also be randomized, with a different set of turbines chosen to be surveyed on each visit. These
surveys would be undertaken ten times per month during the migration period (mid-February to mid-
May and mid-August to mid-November) and three times per month during the rest of the year. The
amount of time spent searching will be standardized to allow comparability between turbines and
visits.
Prior to starting the surveys, both scavenger and surveyor bias will be calibrated. This will be
completed by leaving proxy carcasses156 under turbines in locations where they can be seen by static
trail cameras to record how much time passes before a carcass is removed by scavenging animals.
A similar process will be used to calibrate how successful surveyors are at locating carcasses. One
surveyor will place a number of carcasses, ideally of differing sizes randomly under turbines and a
different surveyor would search as described above. This process will be repeated across a number of
turbine locations and for all surveyors involved in the searching. How many of the placed carcasses
which are found can then be used to identify how effective the surveyors are at finding carcasses.
A project specific monitoring protocol would be developed. This will need to be adapted following the
publication of the Bird Monitoring Protocol by the MOE.
Radar equipment to monitor volumes of migrating birds approaching the proposed development would
be considered. The requirement for this would be based on the expectations of the Bird Monitoring
Protocol currently being prepared by the MOE. It is anticipated that this would involve guidance on the
The radar system would have a more direct feedback into the shutdown mitigation of the proposed
development, as it would detect large volumes of birds approaching so large collision risk events can
be avoided. The other monitoring methods would have an indirect feedback into the shutdown
mitigation.
14.6 Residual Effects
Following the successful implementation of the proposed mitigation, no further, residual effects are
predicted from the construction, operation or decommissioning of the proposed development.
156
Proxies required as its unlikely that access to any hooded vulture carcasses will be possible. A bird of similar
size and coloration should be used. It will be acceptable to use man-made dummies in the surveyor bias trials as
that is a test of the surveyors’ visual abilities. However, for the scavenger bias trials, real carcasses should ideally
be used.
14-37
14.7 Section 14 Figures
Figure 14-1 Location of Point Counts
14-38
Figure 14-2 Location of Vantage Points
14-39
Figure 14-3 Designated Sites
14-40
Figure 14-4 Hunting Ban Area
14-41
15. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Literature review was undertaken to provide country level information and regional data for northern
Lebanon and the Akkar Governorate. Socioeconomic baseline data for villages in the DAOI and IAOI
was obtained from the following sources:
• Information as provided by Statistics Lebanon for villages in the DAOI and IAOI, as provided in
Appendix R. Note: this information was supplemented by interview with the focal point for
Rweimeh Village.
• Interviews and meetings with leaders and local authorities (Heads of Municipalities) in Aandqet,
Chadra, Machta Hassan, Machta Hammoud and Mqaible, using a tailor-made Local Community
Checklist, in order to obtain information on current socioeconomic conditions of the towns/villages.
• Survey of sample households in Fnaidek. A sample household survey is provided in Appendix S.
• Interviews with heads of households in Chadra, Machta Hammoud and Mqaible.
• Socioeconomic data collected through survey of sample landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and
random residents in Machta Hassan, Machta Hammoud, Mqaible, Chadra, Akroum and Sahle.
• Land use by hunters and shepherds.
• Mapping of informal settlements within 1km of the existing transport corridor.
It is noted that the socioeconomic data collection effort was undertaken by separate field teams to
support the ESIAs for the Project and the planned Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar wind farms.
As such, the data collection methods were not coordinated in advance or applied uniformly. In
addition, in some instances, data requested from Statistics Lebanon was not available (as noted in the
text). Nonetheless, the independent interviews and surveys serve to provide a profile of the area to be
developed when viewed collectively and have therefore been provided herein. Further it is recognized
that previous versions of this document contained information for villages that are not within the DAOI
and/or IAOI, as well as information regarding SMEs; this information was deemed not relevant by
reviewers and has been removed from this version of the document.
15.2 Findings
15.2.1 Lebanon
The population of Lebanon is estimated at 6.86 million in 2019, up from the 4.43 million estimated in
2013, which makes it the 108th most populated country in the world. No official census has taken
place in Lebanon since 1932 due to the sensitive balance between the country's religious groups. The
population density of Lebanon is shown in Figure 15-1.
Lebanon occupies approximately 10,452km2 of area, ranked 168th in the world for area. With an
estimated population at over 6 million as of the year 2018, the population density is approaching 583
people residing per km2 overall, ranked the 19th most densely populated country in the world.
15-1
Figure 15-1 Population Densities of Lebanon
15-2
Evidence of civilization in the area predates recorded history, and Lebanon was once home to the
maritime Phoenicians, a culture that existed for over 1,000 years. The region came under Roman
Empire rule and eventually turned into the Empire's largest center of Christianity before it was
conquered by the Arab Muslims and then the Ottoman Empire. While nearly all Lebanese are identified
as ethnically Arab, this is an example of pan ethnicity, or grouping self-identified ethnicities into a
single group, as the Lebanese people are descended from many groups and it's today a blend of a
dozen closely related groups. In terms of religion among the population, we can see a breakdown of
54% Muslim following, 40.5% Christian following, and small percentages of a variety of other religions
- including Buddhists, Mormons, and more.
The median age of the Lebanese population is at 30.5 years in 2018, with a total life expectancy of
approximately 77.8 years of age.
There have been many migration waves in the country, as more than 1.5 million people emigrated
from Lebanon between 1975 and 2011. Lebanon also hosts close to 1 million refugees and asylum
seekers, most notably those from Palestine, Iraq and Syria. It's estimated that there are over 600,000
Syrian refugees (with recent sources now estimating 1 million refugees) in Lebanon escaping violence
in their own country.
Before the establishment of a democracy in Lebanon under the French mandate, feudal and tribal
systems were prevailing in Lebanon. For example, under the ottoman empire, and in the frame of
“mellah” system, each confessional community used to nominate a representative to negotiate with
prevailing power structures. Remains of these 2 dep-rooted systems persist in Lebanon, as underlying
social organization, more particularly in remote regions, that have been long overlooked by the
government, such as Akkar. One of the forms of this residuals systems are the big families’ structures
(such as the Gemayel, the Frangieh, that have important political positions, but also the Jaafar). In
this organization, one representative of the community is designated as a referent by the community
members, based on different criteria (oldest or wisest of the group, etc.) to resolve matters related to
the community such as money, weddings, territories, conflicts, and others.157
Most relationships in Lebanon are monogamous, meaning there is one husband and one wife, and are
centered around nuclear households (PDS Lebanon, Ferrante 307). Though polygamy is "permitted
under Muslim law... [it is] generally regarded as both impractical and undesirable" due to the extra
financial burden it places on the household (Ghazi, Ferrante 307). Authority is patriarchal, meaning
the male is dominant in the household. Descent is patrilineal and is "traced through the father's
lineage" (Ghazi, Ferrnate 307). It can be assumed that family residence is patrilocal, since all other
aspects of the family are male-dominated.
The only group that could potentially be viewed as indigenous are the Druze, a small Middle Eastern
religious sect characterized by an eclectic system of doctrines and by a cohesion and loyalty among its
members that have enabled them to maintain for centuries their close-knit identity and distinctive
faith. The Druze numbered more than 1,000,000 in the early 21st century and live mostly in Lebanon,
Syria, and Israel, with smaller communities in other countries.
157
Dr. Roula Talhouk, PhD in Anthropology - Cultures and societies of the Arab and Islamic world, from Université
Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3, Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Documentation and Research
(CEDRIC), Saint Joseph University of Beirut.
15-3
The largest concentration of Druze in the present day is in Lebanon. The communities are located
along the western edges of the Lebanon Mountains as well as in the southeastern portion of the
country as shown in Figure 15-2, and the total Druze population numbers well over 300,000.158
There are no Druze communities within or near the Project, the DAOI or IAOI (or along the transport
corridor).
Figure 15-2 Druze Communities
158
https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/11620/LE
15-4
15.2.2 Akkar Region
The Akkar Governorate is located in the far north of Lebanon, covering an area of 788km 2 or 7.5% of
the total Lebanese territory, as shown in Figure 15-3.
Figure 15-3 Location of Akkar Governorate159
It has a population of around 400,000 inhabitants with a population density of around 500
people/km2, one of the lowest among all the Governorates in Lebanon, as shown in Figure 15-4.
Figure 15-4 Population in the Akkar Governorate160
159
UNHCR, 2018.
160
UNHCR, 2018.
15-5
It is recognized as one of the most deprived regions in the country with a high unemployment rate,
poor infrastructure, and limited access to basic public services such as electricity. In fact, a majority of
Lebanese in the region are facing deterioration in livelihoods, and the business climate and job market
are negatively affected by the crisis where local skills have been substituted by Syrian labor. In 2009,
the estimated unemployment rate is 8.2% compared to a national average of 6.4%, as shown in
Figure 15-5.
Figure 15-5 Akkar Governorate Unemployment Rate in 2009161
The labor participation rate in the labor force in Akkar is low mainly due to the weak female
participation rate as well as the high age-dependency rate, as shown in Figure 15-6.
It is estimated that 18% of the total Lebanese labor force come from North Lebanon and Akkar, the
second highest share in the country after Mount Lebanon. The Akkar labor force has been dominated
by males due to gender disparity.
Males from the Akkar region account for an estimated 26.2% of the national labor force. Females
account for just 5.2%, which is well below the national average of 14.8%.
Agriculture and fishing are the main sources of employment, employing 29.6% of the labor force on a
full time or part time basis, in addition to public administration and armed forces (17.6%), trade,
industry and construction, as shown in Figure 15-7.
161
The Labour Market in Lebanon, Najwa Yacoub, Lara Bdre, 2011.
15-6
Figure 15-6 Akkar Governorate Unemployment Rate in 2009162
Figure 15-7 Distribution of Labor Force by Activity in Akkar in 2008
162
Mada Association The Forgotten Akkar, 2008.
15-7
The agricultural sector in the Akkar Governorate is underdeveloped, with the main crops planted being
wheat, barley, soya, corn, apples and olives. Rain fed cultivation is often practiced due to lack of
irrigation networks, government supply network and water harvesting or collection systems.
However, as can be seen in Figure 15-8, the Project area is not used for crops, intensive cultivation
or orchards and is dominated by forest bordering the Jroud Akkar ridgeline.
Figure 15-8 Agricultural Domains in Lebanon
15-8
In terms of education, there are numerous schools in the Akkar region as well as 18 universities
offering degrees of business, law and engineering programs. Schools and other support infrastructure
are summarized in Table 15-1.
Table 15-1 Social Infrastructure of the North Lebanon Region
Infrastructure North Region Akkar Region
Public Schools 265 163
Public Hospitals 32 21
Social Development Centers 23 19
Municipalities 140 121
Unions of Municipalities 7 6
Informal Settlements 145 hosting 10,888 of 439 hosting 28,162 of

registered Syrian refugees registered Syrian refugees
The presence of refugees places a burden on Akkar governorate particularly on the sectors of
education, healthcare, housing, household assets, energy, water supply, sanitation, roads and
transport. Living conditions of Syrian refugees are summarized in Table 15-2.
Table 15-2 Living Conditions of Syrian Refugees
Substandard Shelters Informal Settlements Collective Shelters
Syrian Refugees 54.5% 39.8% 2.5%
15.2.3 Literature Review - Socioeconomic Data for Villages in the DAOI
As previously presented in Section 2 Project Description, , the DAOI comprises the following (refer
to Table 2-9):
turbines, internal roads, substation and transmission line, i.e. Rweimeh Village and Aandqet.
farms, i.e. Fnaidek, Rweimeh Village, Karm Chbat Cadastral Area, Chadra, Machta Hammoud and
Mqaible.
• Areas of the new segments of road:
15-9
receptors (as shown in Figure 2-14; note: red dots are uninhabited houses).
(refer to Section 17 Landscape), i.e. Jour El Hachich, Rweimeh Village, Quobaiyat, Akkar El-
Atiqa’a, Es Sayeh and Fnaidek. As noted in Section 2 Project Description, there are other villages
within the sightline of the turbines, and therefore in the DAOI; however, these villages were not
included in the detailed assessment of visual impacts because of low visibility and/or because they
were located at a greater distance than those villages modeled for visual impacts.
to Section 17 Landscape), i.e. Sahle (Hill), Al-Saifa Fortress in Akkar El-Atiqa’a and the
Qammouaah Plain.
15.2.3.1 Fnaidek
The population of Fnaidek is approximately 20,000 (3,000 families in Summer) and 18,561 (1,100
families) in Winter. There are a total of 4,961 households with an average of 7 family members per
household.
The ethnic composition of Fnaidek is 100% Sunna.
There is a 48.9% female and 51.1% male gender split, represented by the age breakdown shown in
Table 15-3.
Table 15-3 Age Breakdown in Fnaidek
<22 22-39 40-59 ≥60 Total
23.69% 41.67% 23.84% 10.80% 100%
39.0% of the community have a secondary education level or higher, with 6.6% with no education.
68.1% of the community is employed or freelances, 8.3% are unemployed, with the balance
identifying as a student, housewife or retired. Nearly 57.0% of the community has a monthly income
between 500 and 1,000 LBP, with 24% generating less than 500 LBP per month. Agriculture and
Armed Forces are the most frequent occupation listed.
The percentages of the community that use natural resources are shown in Table 15-4.
Table 15-4 Use of Natural Resources by Fnaidek
River Spring Water Well Pond Forest Agricultural Land
10% 70% 15% 0% 50% 80%
15-10
15.2.3.2 Rweimeh Village
Statistics Lebanon reports the population of Rweimeh Village is approximately 550 (50 families in
Summer) and 120 (30 families) in Winter. There are a total of 55 households with an average of 5
family members per household. However, the focal point for Rweimeh Village (Mr. Abdo Jaafar)
indicates a total of 120 households (120 in Summer and 12 households in Winter).
The ethnic composition of Rweimeh Village is 100.0% Chiaa. However, the focal point for Rweimeh
Village indicates that the ethnic composition is 98.0% Chiaa and 2.0% Sunna.
No gender of age breakdown information was provided by Statistics Lebanon. However, the focal point
for Rweimeh Village indicates the age breakdown shown in Table 15-5.
Table 15-5 Age Breakdown in Rweimeh Village
0-18 18-40 40-59 ≥60 Total
240 (50%) 144 (30%) 23.84% 10.80% 100%
The number of education facilities or current students was not reported. 31.0% of the community
have a secondary education level or higher, with 8.0% with no education.
identifying as a student, housewife or retired. 57.0% of the community has a monthly income
between 500 and 1,000 LBP, with 27.0% generating less than 500 LBP per month. Agriculture and
Commerce are the most frequent occupation listed.
Table 15-6 Use of Natural Resources by Rweimeh Village
0% 80% 0% 0% 20% 0%
Land use divisions, agricultural crops, livestock, building numbers, water supply, wastewater and
paved road, or power outage information was not reported.
15.2.3.3 Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun
Akroum
The population of Akroum is approximately 4,500 (750 families in Summer) and 3,500 (500 families)
in Winter. There are a total of 700 households with an average of 5 family members per household.
The ethnic composition of Akroum is 99.14% Sunna and 0.86% Chiaa.
Table 15-7.
15-11
Table 15-7 Age Breakdown in Akroum
<22 22-39 40-59 ≥60 Total
24.10% 38.52% 25.70% 11.68% 100%
Table 15-8 Use of Natural Resources by Akroum
20% 40% 20% 0% 20% 80%
Kfartoun
The population of Kfartoun is approximately 5,500 (800 families in Summer) and 4,500 (650 families)
in Winter. There are a total of 750 households with an average of 6 family members per household.
The ethnic composition of Kfartoun is 100.0% Sunna.
Table 15-9.
Table 15-9 Age Breakdown in Kfartoun
<22 22-39 40-59 ≥60 Total
24.36% 37.47% 26.21% 11.97 100%
The percentages of the community that use natural resources is shown in Table 15-10.
15-12
Table 15-10 Natural Resource Uses by Kfartoun
5% 40% 20% 0% 30% 65%
15.2.3.4 Karm Chbat Cadastral Area
The majority of the Karm Chbat Cadastral Area is designated as a Forest Reserve. However, it is noted
that leased lands within the borders of the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve, directly leased from the
locality of Fnaidek (2 real estate parcels) and from individual owners (4 real estate) are outside the
mentioned borders of Karm Chbat as designated by Decision 14. The socioeconomic conditions for the
total of six real estate parcels are as provided under Fnaidek and Rweimeh Village.
15.2.3.5 Aandqet
Aandqet has a surface area of 27.16km2. Statistics Lebanon reports that the population of Aandqet is
approximately 3,000 (300 families in Summer) and 1,200 (200 families) in Winter. There are a total of
1,253 households with an average of 3.5 family members per household. However, interviews with
Aandqet municipal officials indicates a registered population of 6,500 (4,000 residents in Summer and
2,000 residents in Winter), with 4,000 constituents and 500 Syrian refugees.
The ethnic composition of Aandqet is 100.0% Christian.
Table 15-11.
Table 15-11 Age Breakdown of Aandqet
<22 22-39 40-59 ≥60 Total
25.10% 21.02% 32.07% 21.81% 100%
The average household size is 5.
There are 2 education facilities in Aandqet with 750 current students. 46.1% of the community have a
secondary education level or higher, with 5.9% with no education.
The percentages of the community that use natural resources is shown in Table 15-12.
15-13
Table 15-12 Use of Natural Resources by Aandqet
0% 50% 0% 0% 60% 50%
Land use divisions are shown in Table 15-13.
Table 15-13 Aandqet Land Use Divisions
Urban Area Agricultural Land Forest Grazing Area Other
10% 20% 60% 10% 0%
Agricultural crops include vegetables in Summer, wheat in Winter, and permanent crops of almonds,
olives and walnuts.
Livestock include 100 cattle, 250 sheep and 500 goats. Aandqet also has poultry farms with a
significant stake of 400,000 chickens. In addition, it maintains 200 beehives.
Aandqet has approximately 900 buildings, with 1,200 residential units and 300 commercial units. It is
100% covered by a public water supply network. Public wastewater networks cover 75% of the
village. Solid waste collection is provided.
Paved road networks connect all of the buildings in Aandqet, a total of 53km of paved roads.
Aandqet reports power outages at a minimum of 12 hours/day and maximum of 18 hours/day.
15.2.3.6 Chadra
Chadra has a surface area of 6.01km2. Statistics Lebanon reports that the population of Chadra is
approximately 600, with a total of 850 households. However, interviews with Chadra municipal
officials indicates a registered population of 8,000 (4,500 residents in Summer and 300 residents in
Winter), with 3,548 constituents and 30 Syrian refugees.
The ethnic composition of Chadra is 97.89% Christian, 0.59% Sunna and 1.52% Chiaa.
Table 15-14.
Table 15-14 Age Breakdown in Chadra
<22 22-39 40-59 ≥60 Total
21.32% 24.73% 31.69% 22.25% 100%
There is one educational institution in Chadra with 280 current students. 41.6% of the community
15-14
Community use of natural resources was not reported.
Table 15-15 Chadra Land Use Divisions
37% 8% 29% 25% 0%
Agricultural crops include peanuts and vegetables in Summer, cabbage, cauliflower, shard and lettuce
in Winter, and permanent crops of almonds, olives and grapes.
Livestock include 120 cattle, 700 sheep and 300 goats. Chadra also has poultry farms with 3,000
chickens. In addition, it maintains 350 beehives.
Chadra has approximately 575 buildings, with 675 residential units and 42 commercial units. It is
Paved road networks connect 95% of Chadra, a total of 7km of paved roads.
Chadra reports power outages at a minimum of 10 hours/day and maximum of 15 hours/day.
15.2.3.7 Machta Hammoud
Machta Hammoud has a surface area of 12.41km2. Statistics Lebanon reported that the population of
is approximately 700, with a total of 1,244 households. However, interviews with Machta Hammoud
municipal officials indicates a registered population of 7,000 (500 residents in Summer and 5,000
residents in Winter), with 3,272 constituents and 900 Syrian refugees.
The ethnic composition of Machta Hammoud is 100.0% Sunna.
Table 15-16.
Table 15-16 Age Breakdown in Machta Hammoud
<22 22-39 40-59 ≥60 Total
24.56% 38.83% 25.42% 11.19% 100%
There are 4 educational institutions in Machta Hammoud with 2,000 current students. 41.6% of the
community have a secondary education level or higher, with 4.2% with no education.
15-15
Table 15-17 Machta Hammoud Land Use Divisions
40% 50% 5% 5% 0%
Agricultural crops include peanuts and vegetables in Summer, wheat and chickpea in Winter,
permanent crops of leafy vegetables, and greenhouse crops of strawberries, tomatoes and cucumbers.
Livestock include 60 cattle, 500 sheep and 200 goats. Machta Hammoud also has poultry farms with
200 chickens and 10 ducks. In addition, it maintains 200 beehives.
Chadra has approximately 1,100 buildings, with 1,100 residential units and 175 commercial units. It is
Paved road networks connect 80% of Machta Hammoud, a total of 6km of paved roads.
Machta Hammoud reports power outages at a minimum of 12 hours/day and maximum of 15

hours/day.
15.2.3.8 Mqaible
Mqaible has a surface area of 16.0km2. Statistics Lebanon reports the population of Mqaible as 2,000.
However, interviews with Mqaible municipal officials indicates a registered population of 5,800 (4,800
residents in Summer and 4,800 residents in Winter), with 2,600 constituents and 3,000 Syrian
refugees.
The ethnic composition of Mqaible is 89.92% Sunna, 9.20% Christian and 0.88 Chiaa.
Table 15-18.
Table 15-18 Age Breakdown in Mqaible
<22 22-39 40-59 ≥60 Total
25.32% 43.11% 21.90% 9.67% 100%
There are 3 educational institutions in Mqaible with 1,300 current students. 41.6% of the community
6.0% of the community is employed in public administration or defense, with 48.0% engaged in the
agricultural sector. Monthly income was not reported.
15-16
Table 15-19 Mqaible Land Use Divisions
7% 5% 15% 68% 5%
Agricultural crops include corn, potatoes and vegetables in Summer, wheat, barley and chickpea in
Winter, and permanent crops of olives, walnuts, almonds and grapes.
Livestock include 300 cattle, 600 sheep and 1,200 goats. Mqaible also has poultry farms with 1,500
chickens.
Mqaible has approximately 600 buildings, with 1,000 residential units and 50 commercial units. None
of Mqaible is covered by a public water supply network. Public wastewater networks cover 90% of the
Paved road networks connect 70% of Mqaible, a total of 15.2km of paved roads.
Mqaible reports power outages at a minimum and maximum of 17 hours/day.
15.2.4 Quantitative Research - Socioeconomic Data for Villages in the DAOI
15.2.4.1 Household Survey in Fnaidek
A household survey campaign was implemented in Fnaidek to: 1) support the collection of social
demographic data; 2) understand access to energy, consumption, and how the lack of a reliable
energy supply may affect livelihoods; 3) attitudes of the local households toward the Project and
expectations around better energy supply. Quantitative and qualitative information was collated
through primary data collection and analysis and reflection on the perceptions conveyed by the
various residents pertaining to the Project and the current energy situation. Specifically, the survey
focused on the following three information categories:
1. Social: The collection of social demographic data, including population, age, size of household,
number of children, social composition, unemployment, employment by sector, distribution of
labor force, income levels, house ownership, seasonal residency, population health profile and
access to basic services.
2. Economics: The collection of data to assess household and SME energy consumption and
expenditure, the background of each active business operating in each village, the nature of the
supply of energy and current challenges associated with purchase and distribution of energy by
subscribing to generators, the costs and burdens of energy and how it impacts the region and
livelihoods, and how the economic situation in the villages will be affected by better energy
supply, i.e. stimulation of the micro economy.
The survey was designed to reflect the actual energy supply situation through a series of
qualitative and quantitative questions covering many areas of the village and its socioeconomic
situation. Due to lack of knowledge, certain technical questions were left unanswered by the
respondents.
3. Technical and Energy Indicators: The collection of data to assess sources of energy and electricity,
duration of electrification, the willingness of residents to connect and pay for electricity, household
knowledge and the expectations from the Project and wind turbine technology, acceptance of this
15-17
new source of energy or their indifferent feeling towards it, and lastly, what they anticipate as
Project challenges.
The research team conducted a total of 176 surveys in Fnaidek (88 households out of a total of around
1,100 households in the village and 88 active SMEs).
It is noted that Rweimeh Village was not surveyed as planned, as the Project Team was advised by the
local mayors and the focal point of Rweimeh Village (Mr. Abdo Jaafar) that they must be accompanied
by village leaders who were not available at the time of the visit. In addition, Rweimeh Village does
not have a permanent resident population and its houses are occupied on a seasonal basis by
members of the Jaafar Family, with winter occupancy reduced to just approximately 10% of the
households.
Mr. Jaafar has advised the Project Proponent that there are no objections to the Project by Rweimeh
Village members, the construction of the substation in Rweimeh Village, and/or the construction of the
buried transmission line along the existing asphalt road and the existing track through Karm Chbat
Nature Reserve.
Income Level
The baseline assessment of both villages revealed that Fnaidek enjoys a more permanent residency.
Many of the Fnaidek residents have government jobs and earn 800USD to 1,500USD per month (23
out of 88 surveyed households in Fnaidek, or 26%), an income that can allow a decent livelihood in
their village.
Income level and the number of household members play a major socioeconomic factor in the burden
of living expenses, which reflects on the cost of electricity and how it consumes a significant
percentage of their income. The survey revealed that a family earning between 800USD and
1,200USD per month spends around 200USD on electricity, which is considered a high expense as it
represents a 25% at the lower end and 17% at the higher end of income level.
Age distribution for working people varies significantly indicating the difference between household
age and active working individuals in businesses in the villages. Of those surveyed in Fnaidek, the
minimum active age was 22 years old and the maximum was 90 years old. The most frequent age
reported was 45 years old.
Of the 88 households interviewed, 32 only stay in Fnaidek seasonally (i.e., from the end of June, July,
August and/or to the beginning of September). 100% of those surveyed owned their home. Despite
the support some households get from working females, mainly married, the main income
responsibility towards the household remains on the male. This reflects the culture of the region and
the lack of opportunities for women to be actively engaged in employment.
Of the 88 households surveyed, 68% of the females were unemployed, compared to a national
average of 14.8%.
Over one third of the Akkar population is engaged in agricultural activities, either as a primary or
secondary job or to support their livelihoods. However, the survey revealed that less than 50%
surveyed own agricultural land, investing in land to provide a secondary income but not working as
farmers.
15-18
Electricity Cost as a Percentage of Income
Securing enough income to pay for the cost of electricity is a struggle for many households in the
Akkar region. Power cuts are relatively common in the Akkar region. Surveyed households revealed
power cuts in Fnaidek up to 14 hours. Such long power outage hours indicate that the cost of
subscription to alternative energy supply sources is impacting the livelihood of individuals and the
economy of the region especially since the average cost of such alternative sources is 750 LBP/KW. In
addition, the margin of cost variation depends on the level of consumption.
A comparison of energy consumption costs from EDL versus privately-owned generators shows the
latter is much higher due to the long hours of power cuts and the high cost per unit of electricity
supplied, as shown in Figure 15-9.
In Fnaidek, only 7% of persons surveyed are satisfied with the current energy supply. 93% of Fnaidek
residents think that they do not have enough energy supplied to them, but they are unable to
consume more due to the cost burden. The common use of energy is lighting and powering
appliances. Of the 88 households surveyed in Fnaidek, 0% use energy in households for heating and
cooling across all four seasons.
Figure 15-9 Energy Cost Comparison
15.2.4.2 Household Survey in Chadra, Machta Hammoud and Mqaible
Sample Size and Distribution
The quantitative research covered a sample of 203 head of households, evenly distributed among the
villages of Chadra, Machta Hammoud and Mqaible, as shown in Table 15-20.
15-19
Table 15-20 Sample Distribution According to Region
Sample Distribution # %
Chadra 70 34.5%
Machta Hammoud 69 34.0%
Mqaible 64 31.5%
Total 203 100%
Sample Distribution by Gender
Assessing the environmental and social impact of the wind farm project on local communities, the
quantitative interviews focused on questioning the decision makers within the households. Therefore,
it is normal – within rural and traditional communities – that the grand majority of the sample
constituted of male respondents (88%), in comparison to almost 12% share only of female
participants in the face-to-face interviews.
It should be noted, that Machta Hammoud interviewees were all male respondents, whereas, the
highest share of female respondents was found in Chadra (27%), as shown in Table 15-21.
Table 15-21 Sample Distribution, According to Gender
Sample Distribution by Age
The respondents, being head of households, were found to be mostly middle-aged people, as more
than two-thirds of the sample fall within the age group that ranges between 35 and 64 years (68%).
This age group constituted the majority of respondents in all three villages: almost three-quarters of
Chadra respondents (74%), and two-third of Machta Hammoud and Mqaible (65% and 64%
respectively). Again, Machta Hammoud revealed an exceptional case with the other one-third of the
respondents being young and those who represent the age group between 18 and 34 years (35%), as
Table 15-22 Sample Distribution, According to Age Group
15-20
Sample Distribution by Marital Status and HH Size
It was found that 88% of the sample was married (or previously married), while almost a 12% was
still single. Only 6% of Mqaible and Chadra respondents were single, in comparison to 23% of Machta
Hammoud (due to the higher share of young respondents), as shown in Table 15-23.
Table 15-23 Sample Distribution, According to Marital Status
The survey revealed that the targeted communities consist of big household sizes (5.9 members per
HH), which is significantly higher than the national average. This is especially the case of Mqaible with
an average household (HH) size of 7.5 members, in addition to Machta Hammoud (5.7 members) and
Chadra (4.7 members).
In fact, some 60% of the total sample consisted of households that comprise 5 to 8 members. On the
other hand, it is noteworthy that one-third of Mqaible respondents belong to HH that consist of more
than 8 members (almost 33%), as shown in Table 15-24.
Table 15-24 Sample Distribution, According to Household Size Category
Education Level
Even though the sample constitutes respondents that are 18 years of age and above, it was found that
only 11% of the total sample have accomplished their university studies (out of which there are 2%
with higher education degrees), as shown in Table 15-25.
Table 15-25 Level of Education, According to Region
15-21
Further, those who did not have the chance to enroll in schools constitute 29% of the total sample.
The situation is highly aggravated in Mqaible, as the share of illiterate respondents reached some
44%. This might be due to the fact that the region was deprived from educational institutions for a
long period, and until recent times. The low levels of education persisting in this region affect the
capabilities of finding job opportunities and advancement in future careers and impede employment of
locals in high added-value economic activity sectors.
Work Status
Work status by region is shown in Table 15-26.
Around 34% of total sample are self-employed, which is equivalent to 49% share of total workforce
within this sample. This is extremely higher than the national average (31%). The share of self-
employed reaches its highest levels among the respondents from Mqaible (69%). The latter figure
might be contributed to the nature of economic activities, whereby, the trade and transportation
activities are predominant; in addition to the fact that Mqaible respondents registered the highest
shares – by far – of engagement in agricultural sector activities (21%). Such economic activities in
rural communities usually comprises of small and family businesses and small land appropriation.
On the other hand, employees recorded a very modest share concerning the work status (21% of total
sample), which is equivalent to 31% of total workforce in the three villages (this is much lower than
the national average at 60%). The highest share of employees was found in Machta Hammoud (28%),
mostly because of higher shares of recruitment in the army and other official security forces.
Table 15-26 Work Status According to Region
The unemployment rate (5%) seems to be extremely lower in such rural communities that still spare
its agricultural activities. Whereas, high shares of retired respondents is mainly due to the early age of
retirement in the defense sector (after 20 years of service in the military). Moreover, a high share of
workforce is engaged in secondary economic activities (70%).
The highest shares of workforce distribution among all economic activities were registered by those who
work in the trade sector (27%), followed by those working in the transport, storage and communication
sector (18%), as shown in Table 15-27.
15-22
Table 15-27 Distribution of Workforce, According to Economic Activity Sector and Region
The great majority of those who are working do work on permanent basis (80%), as shown in Table
15-28. Around 11% share of total workforce is working on circumstantial basis, the condition that
28% share of Machta Hammoud workforce suffers from. Finally, some 9% share of total workforce - in
the sample – is engaged in on seasonal work (this is mainly observed in Chadra and Machta
Hammoud).
Table 15-28 Type of Work Permanence
Income
While 8% of the total sample belongs to the social segment whose household monthly income is less
than 675,000 LBP (less than the minimum wage threshold in Lebanon); another 9% share of total
households obtains more than 2.5 million LBP per month, as shown in Table 15-29.
Table 15-29 Average Monthly Household Income
15-23
Actually, almost two-third of the total sample does not exceed 1.5 million LBP in HH income/month
(less than one thousand USD). Chadra is the better-off village, which recorded a 1.4% share only
within the lowest segment of monthly HH income. Of course, many households receive different types
of income from several sources. The most common sources of household income are obtained from
private business returns (54% of HH) and salaries (53%), as shown in Table 15-30.
Table 15-30 All Sources of Household Income
Retirement pensions constitute an important source of income (in some 7% of total HH). It should be
noted that remittances are minimal in this region (1%), due to negligible engagement in migration.
Public Awareness of the Project
The results of the quantitative research revealed that the majority of the sample is totally aware of
planned Hawa Akkar Wind Farm project (60% of total respondents). The degree of project awareness
differs from one village to another, as it recorded extremely high share of knowledgeable residents in
Machta Hammoud (91%); whereas, the shares dropped significantly in Chadra (47%) and Mqaible
(39%), as shown in Table 15-31.
Table 15-31 Level of Project Awareness
In fact, public awareness of the project is higher and widely spread among the residents of those
villages that are directly involved in the project, and within those villages that acquire a significant
amount of private land property owners inside the project site.
It should be taken into consideration that the available studies show that the directly impacted areas
are those within a 500m distance from the project site. This involves issues such as noise pollution,
flickering effect, shards scattering, electromagnetic fields, etc.; therefore, the farther the urban
structures are from the project, the more indifferent and neutral are the local inhabitants.
When those respondents who are aware of planned Hawa Akkar wind farm were asked about the
source of their information, it was found that almost half of them have heard of through word of
mouth, which means that it is subject to conversations and discussions among wide array of local
communities, such as the case of Mqaible and Machta Hammoud, as shown in Table 15-32.
15-24
Table 15-32 Sources of Information Concerning the Project
A quarter of those who are aware of the project have been exposed to it through social media and
other internet sources (26%). This is especially the case in Machta Hammoud (70%). The
municipalities were the source of information in 22% of the cases of those who are aware of the
project. However, in Chadra some 85% of the aware respondents know about the project from the
municipality; and half of those from Mqaible (50%).
General Awareness of Wind Farms
The planned Hawa Akkar wind farm, being one of the first wind farm projects to be established in
Lebanon, people seem unacquainted yet with the idea of producing electricity from wind energy. The
results showed that almost half of the respondents are not generally knowledgeable of wind farms in
general (48%). Only one-quarter of respondents clearly comprehend the process (26%), and another
quarter slightly understand wind farms’ work (27%), as shown in Table 15-33. Mqaible recorded the
highest share of respondents who are totally not aware of generating electricity through wind farms
(92%); and half of Chadra respondents are also not aware of this process.
Table 15-33 Level of Knowledge about Wind Farms
Those who are either very well or even slightly aware of wind farms were asked about their source of
information on wind farms; and the results revealed that this was to a large extent through word of
mouth (68%); only 15% of total respondents mentioned that participation in municipal gatherings is
their source of information about wind farms; while 11% had searched for such information through
internet, as shown in Table 15-34.
15-25
Table 15-34 Sources of Knowledge about Wind Farms
Assessment of the Project Objectives
Based on a set of questions concerning the planned Hawa Akkar wind farm objectives, the
respondents were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 4, their projection of the success level of Hawa
Akkar in reaching these aims. The quantitative research revealed the following:
• The total sample appeared very optimistic and registered very high rates of expectations with
regards to achieving all the project’s goals (a range of medium to large levels of success).
• The assessment varied according to different villages: the respondents of Machta Hammoud were
found the most enthusiastic and recorded the highest rates of positive expectations (large
possibility of success); the respondents of Mqaible seemed the least assured of the project’s
success to reach its objectives (a range of small to medium levels of success). Chadra respondents
stood in between, rating slightly below the total sample means.
• The total sample averages scored the highest results (on a scale of 1 to 4) for the following
outcomes:
− The wind farm would improve the environment and reduce emissions (a score of 3.33).
− It would reduce electricity cuts in their region (3.31).
− And on the national level, the project would enhance the reliance on RE (3.27).
It should be taken into consideration that the results, shown in Table 15-35, are of subjective nature,
and only indicate the public opinion and expectations concerning the success of reaching the project
aims.
Table 15-35 Assessment of Expected Success Level in Achieving Project Objectives
15-26
15.2.4.3 Survey of Sample Landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and Random Residents
in Machta Hammoud, Mqaible, Chadra, Akroum and Sahle
As described in Section 6.6.3.6, survey of sample landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and random
stakeholders in Machta Hammoud and Mqaible was undertaken as part of ongoing stakeholder
consultation and engagement. Socioeconomic data collected during the surveys is summarized below.
Sample Landowners in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun
Twenty-two (22) landowners who will be leasing parcels for the development of the planned
Sustainable Akkar wind farm were engaged, specifically landowners for the parcels associated with
WTG 02 (6 landowners), WTG 08 (1 landowners), WTG 10 (2 landowners), WTG 14 (1 landowner),
WTG 19 (1 landowner), WTG 20 (1 landowner), WTG 21 (1 landowner), WTG 22 (1 landowner), WTG
23 (4 landowners), WTG 25 (1 landowner) and WTG 27 (2 landowners). The landowners surveyed are
all male ranging in age from 21-74, with the youngest being the only unmarried individual. Household
size ranged from 2 to 9. Thirteen (13) of the 22 have a secondary level of education. All are Sunna.
Only 1 of the landowners is unemployed, with income ranging between 0 LBP and 2,26M LBP annually.
None of the landowners surveyed rely on land/natural resources for subsistence or livelihood activities.
Residents of Machta Hammoud
Twenty (20) residents of Machta Hammoud were engaged. Machta Hammoud is located due west of
the planned Hawa Akkar wind farm, and land lease/acquisition is needed for construction of the
planned Hawa Akkar wind farm. The residents surveyed are male, except two, ranging in age from 32-
70. All are married. Household size ranged from 2 to 10. Nine (9) of the 20 have a secondary level of
education. All are Sunna. The two females list their occupation as housewife, with the balance
employed or retired. Income ranges between 0 LBP and 750,000 LBP annually. None of the residents
surveyed rely on land/natural resources for subsistence or livelihood activities. Two (2) of the
residents surveyed rely on land/natural resources for subsistence and 1 of the residents rely on land
for livelihood activities.
Residents of Mqaible
Thirty-six (36) residents of Mqaible were engaged. Mqaible is located due east of the planned Hawa
Akkar wind farm, and land lease/acquisition is needed for construction of the planned Hawa Akkar
wind farm. The residents surveyed are male ranging in age from 22-64. Seven (7) of the residents are
single. Household size ranged from 0 (assumed to be an unoccupied residence) to 13. Twenty-nine
(29) of the 36 have a secondary level of education. All are Sunna. All are employed, with one
individual listing his occupation as farmer. Income ranges between 0 LBP and 1M LBP annually. None
of the residents surveyed rely on land/natural resources for subsistence or livelihood activities. Three
(3) of the residents surveyed rely on land/natural resources for subsistence and 1 of the residents (the
farmer) rely on land for livelihood activities.
Residents of Chadra
Twenty-two (22) residents of Chadra were engaged. Chadra is located due west of the planned Hawa
Akkar wind farm. Twelve (12) of the residents surveyed are male ranging in age from 28-60, with 4 of
them single. Ten (10) female residents were surveyed ranging in age from 21-70, with 3 of them
married. Household size ranged from NA (assumed to be an unoccupied residence) to 12. Eleven (11)
of the 22 have a University level of education. All but one are Christian. Thirteen (13) are employed,
with one individual listing his occupation as farmer. Four (4) are unemployed and 3 are retired.
15-27
Income ranges between NA (assumed to be 0 LBP) and 3.8M LBP annually. None of the respondents
surveyed rely on land/natural resources and/or livelihood activities.
Residents of Akroum
Sixteen (16) residents of Akroum were engaged. Akroum is located due east of the planned Hawa
Akkar wind farm. Six (6) of the residents surveyed are male ranging in age from 33-55, with all of
them married. Ten (10) female residents were surveyed ranging in age from 35-65, with all of them
married. Household size ranged from 2 to 8. Twelve (12) of the 16 have a secondary level of
education or higher. All are Muslim-Sunni. All of the males are employed or retired. All but one of the
women list their occupation as a housewife, with one listed as a teacher. Income ranges between NA
(assumed to be 0 LBP) and 900K LBP annually. None of the respondents surveyed rely on land/natural
resources and 1 of the residents rely on land for livelihood activities (farming).
Residents of Sahle
Thirty-six (36) residents of Sahle were engaged. Sahle is located on the south end of the planned
Hawa Akkar wind farm. All but one of the residents surveyed are male ranging in age from 22-64, with
28 of them married. One (1) female resident was surveyed and was 35 years old and married.
Household size ranged from NA (assumed to be an unoccupied residence) to 13 (two households).
Thirty (30) of the 36 have a secondary level of education. All are Muslim-Sunni. All of the males are
employed or work as a farmer (2 respondents). The female respondent list their occupation as a
housewife. Income ranges between NA (assumed to be 0 LBP) and 1M LBP annually. Three of the
respondents surveyed rely on land/natural resources and 1 of the residents rely on land for livelihood
activities (farming).
15.2.5 Other Groups Potentially Impacted in the DAOI
15.2.5.1 Landowners for Land Lease and Acquisition
As presented in Section 2 Project Description, land issues are one of the most important
considerations during Project development and implementation. Land parcels needed for the Project
are owned by the Municipality of Aandqet to the west, to the Jaafar Family to the south (i.e. Rweimeh
Village), and the Kanaan, Daher, Salah, Houda, Adraa, Aamche, Khoder, Melhem and Hussein
Families. Following cadastral survey in 2018, land agreements have been executed as follows:
• Land tenure has been secured for a period of 28 years at an agreed price of US$34,000 /
year during Phase 1 Technical Studies and Installation, US$7,000 /MW / year during Phase 2
Operations and Maintenance, and US$583.33 / MW / month during Phase 3 Decommissioning.
Land owned by the Owner as per the Acknowledgment Certificate to be issued - Land to be leased
by Owner to Sustainable Akkar.
• Paperwork was issued by the Ministry of Finance General Directorate of Land Registry and
Cadastre to lease land parcels in Aandqet Municipality and signed by a judge in Tripoli.
• The plots subject of the abovementioned lease agreements are free from any occupant, liabilities,
rights, liens, or encumbrances. The Project land take will not result in resettlement/economic
displacement (loss of livelihoods).
• Nonetheless, 1,481,868m2 will be leased for the Project for 28 years, and +3,500m 2 will be
acquired permanently. This represents a loss of access to land by the Municipality of Aandqet,
Rweimeh Village and Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun.
15-28
15.2.5.2 Vulnerable Groups
Vulnerable groups considered during the development of the ESIA include the following:
• Women: due to cultural norms in Lebanon (and specifically within the context and setting of the
Project area), the participation of women in the decision-making process is limited which could
result in overlooking any specific concerns they might have.
• Elderly: due to civil status and potential decline, this could limit their participation in the decision-
making process which could result in overlooking any specific concerns they might have.
• Informal Settlements: There are numerous informal settlements and Syrian and Palestinian
refugees in Lebanon in general, and in Akkar in particular. This includes people that have fled from
their home to seek safety in Lebanon, many of whom are excluded from key facets of social,
political and economic life. As they face restrictions on legal status and human rights, this could
limit their participation in the decision-making process which could result in overlooking any
specific concerns they might have.
In addition, it is noted that the presence of Palestinian and Syrian refugees and members of the Dom
People (gypsies) in Fnaidek, and a few Syrian refugees in Rweimeh Village, was identified by the
Developer in July 2019. The Developer did not specifically identify these vulnerable stakeholders
and/or consult or engage with them separately regarding the Project; however, it is noted that all
Rweimeh Village and Fnaidek community members were invited to the Initial and Final Disclosure
Meetings (refer to Section 6 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement).
The gender and age breakdowns in villages in the DAOI and previously presented in Section 15.2.3.
Specific measures to address these members of the community will be included in the SEP. The
location of informal settlements are presented in Figure 15-10. As noted previously, and as can be
seen in Figure 15-10, there are no informal settlements within or near the Project.
In addition to informal settlements, UNHCR has developed a map of vulnerable population groups
throughout Lebanon, as shown in Figure 15-11.
15.2.5.3 Shepherds Using the Project Area for Grazing
Information regarding shepherds grazing animals in areas near the Project was acquired from the
Department of Grazing at the Ministry of Agriculture (Ms. Zeina Tamim). Mr. George Roustom (Head
of Department of Aandqet Forests visited the Project site on 22 February 2019, and Mr. Mohammad
Mostapha (Head of Department of the Qammouaa Forest) visited on 25 February 2019, who stated
that they maintain grazing information covering the Project area.
Nine (9) of the 26 shepherds are from Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun, the closest village to the Project, and
represent 35% of the shepherds. The grazing areas near the Project are shown in green in Figure 15-
12. Five (5) of the smaller grazing areas are located within the immediate study zone, and as such,
grazing at this location will be prohibited during the construction phase, i.e. 18 months.
Restriction to Grazing Areas 1 through 5 result in a temporary loss of access to 0.43km2. The grazing
areas that will remain accessible are Grazing Areas 6 and 7, and represent 0.96km2, and are nearer to
Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun. Therefore, there is temporary loss of access of land for grazing of 45% of the
total available in the Project area.
15-29
Figure 15-10 Informal Settlements in Lebanon
15-30
Figure 15-11 UNHCR Map of Vulnerable Population Groups in Lebanon
15-31
Figure 15-12 Grazing Areas Used by Shepherds Within or Near the Project
Grazing Area 5 – 0.08km2

15-32
In July 2019, the CRO discussed the loss of access to grazing areas for a period of 18 months during
the construction phase with the livestock owners the shepherds using the Project area. From this
engagement, it was determined that the shepherd grazing in the above areas are Syrians employed by
local livestock owners. Based on the discussions, the livestock owners expressed the following
concerns:
1. Livestock owners rely on livestock for livelihood.
2. Access to alternative grazing areas will not be allowed by:
a. Owners of the alternative grazing lands.

b. Owners of the lands they need to cross to be able to access alternative grazing areas.
The loss of livelihood is passed on from the livestock owners to the Syrian shepherds.
15.2.5.4 Hunters Using Tracks Within or Near the Project
As discussed in Section 6 Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation, Key Informant Meetings

were held with bird hunters using tracks within and near the Project, as shown in Figure 15-13.
During these meetings, the hunters were advised that access to tracks within the Project area would
be temporarily prohibited during the construction phase for a period of 90 days, indicating:
• Birds seems to avoid the installed masts and are not flying around them.
• No one in the area makes a living from hunting, it is a hobby only.
• The hunters confirmed that they can find another place to hunt.
• Hunting as a hobby usually comprises hunting at a diversity of sites.
• There were different opinions about the Project; while some of the hunters believe that the Project
is beneficial for the area and therefore it is ok if they change the place of their hobby; others think
that the Project is not beneficial for them as their hobby will be affected.
• Some hunters were concerned about nature more than hunting, mentioning that migratory birds
are part of the equilibrium of the ecosystem and should neither be hunted/harmed by turbine
blades as they are responsible of reducing the number of snakes, rats and animal corpses.
• The hunters mentioned that shops selling equipment/bullets may be affected by the Project.
• A lot of local businesses benefit from hunting season especially bungalows, cafés and restaurants.
Their income may be affected if hunting activities are decreased.
15.2.5.5 Businesses Near the Project/Influx of Workers
While the hunters mentioned that the income of local businesses including accommodation and
restaurants may be affected by the Project, the Project is expected to contribute positively as
construction workers may need accommodation, dine at restaurants, and make purchases in the area.
The availability of accommodation sufficient for the ~250 construction workers (for both the Project
and the planned Lebanon Wind Power wind farm), if necessary, is currently being investigated.
Depending on the OEM/EPC Contractor selected, a worker camp may be constructed; alternatively,
workers may drive or be transported by bus to and from nearby villages, depending upon where
workers reside. The findings will be incorporated into the mitigation.
15-33
Figure 15-13 Hunting Tracks Near and Within the Project Area
15-34
The potential for influx by workers during the construction phase is possible, though the commitment
to employ workers in the immediate area, from the northern region, from Lebanon, and lastly
internationally, limit the potential impact. The potential for influx is currently being explored by the
Developer. Findings will be incorporated into mitigation.
15.2.6 Literature Review - Villages in the IAOI
As previously presented in Section 2 Project Description, the IAOI comprises the village along the
existing transport corridor between the Tripoli Seaport and the Project, including informal settlements
within 1km of the existing transport corridor, and extends up to 15km from the Project footprint
(limited to sites and monuments of national importance potentially affected by the Project’s visual
impact), as presented here again in Table 15-36.
Table 15-36 Villages in the IAOI
Element Village
Along the Transport Corridor • Tripoli. • Tall Hmaire.

• Beddaoui. • Chir Hmairine.
• Deir Amar. • Hokr Jouret Srar.
• Borj El-Yahoudiyé. • Iitige.
• Nabi Youcheaa. • Barcha.
• Minie. • Kharmoubet Akkar.
• Zouq Bhannine. • Janine
• Al Mhamra. • Qachlaq.
• Bebnine. • Aamaret El-Baykat.
• Qoubber Chamra • Noura Et-Tahta.
• Mqaiteaa • Kouachra.
• Borj El-Yahoudiyé • Dibbabiye.
• Kfar Melki Aakkar. • Fraidis.
• Rmoul. • Qsair Akkar.
• Qaabrine. • Menjez.
• Sammouniyé. • Rmah.
• Tall Aabbas El-Gharbi. • Chikhlar
• Hissa. • Aaouaainat Aakkar.
• Tall Aabbas Ech-Charqi. • Machta Hassan.
Sites and Monuments • Sahle (Hill).

• Al Saifa Fortress - Akkar el-Atiqa‘a.
• Qammouaah Plain.
Further, the visual impacts from areas of influence were considered within the IAOI (refer to Section
17 Landscape) as follows:
− Agricultural Areas. − Shrublands.

− Dense Abies Forests. − Sparse Coniferous.
− Dense Pinus Forests. − Sparse Leafy Forests.
− Dense Quercus Forests. − Swamps.
− Mixed Forests. − Urban Artificial.
− Other Dense Leafy Forests. − Urban Expansion.
− Rocky Land.
15-35
15.2.6.1 Villages Along the Transport Corridor
High level information regarding villages along the existing transport corridor was provided by
Statistics Lebanon. Where available, total population, number of households, ethnic composition and
age breakdown was provided as presented in Appendix R.
15.2.6.2 Informal Settlements in IAOI
Informal settlements located immediately adjacent to the WTG transport corridor are summarized in
Table 15-37 and shown in the series of maps provided in Appendix F.
Table 15-37 Informal Settlements Immediately Adjacent to the WTG Transport Corridor 130F
Settlement Code
19B Code Name
20B Number of Tents
21B Number of Individuals
2B
37271-01-010
23B Minie 010
24B 2
25B 13
26B
37271-01-063
27B Minie 063
28B 3
29B 14
30B
37271-01-032
31B Minie 032
32B 1
3B 5
34B
37271-01-065
35B Minie 065
36B 3
37B 18
38B
37271-01-019
39B Minie 019
40B 4
41B 13
42B
37271-01-058
43B Minie 058
4B 2
45B 20
46B
37271-01-021
47B Minie 021
48B 3
49B 11
50B
37291-01-009
51B Zoug Bhannine 009
52B 83
53B 392
54B
37291-01-003
5B Zoug Bhannine 003
56B 36
57B 438
58B
35277-01-018
59B Mhammaret 018
60B 13
61B 45
62B
35269-01-037
63B Qoubber Chamra 037
64B 2
65B 9
6B
35269-01-016
67B Qoubber Chamra 016
68B 1
69B 10
70B
35261-01-066
71B Mqaiteaa 066
72B 1
73B 3
74B
35234-01-046
75B Kfar Melki Aakkar 046
76B 2
7B 20
78B
35233-01-049
79B Qaabrine 049
80B 4
81B 15
82B
35227-01-107
83B Sammouniye 107
84B 5
85B 22
86B
35277-01-108
87B Sammouniye 108
8B 4
89B 31
90B
35224-01-004
91B Chir Hmairine 004
92B 1
93B 11
94B
35224-01-007
96B 4
97B 18
98B
35224-01-028
10B 11
10B 82
102B
35224-01-021
104B 2
105B 9
106B
35498-01-002
107B Aandqet 002
108B 8
109B 36
10B
Totals
1B 22 Settlements
12B 195
13B 1,235
14B
15-36
15.3 Impact Assessment
During the construction phase, the impact of the Project on socioeconomic conditions is expected to be
primarily positive given:
• The potential for the consistent provision of electricity to meet demand.

• The expected sourcing of construction materials (concrete, steel, aggregates, etc.) from the Akkar
region.
• The sourcing of Project personnel (construction workers) from the northeastern part of Akkar.
• The potential income that may be generated by nearby businesses including hotels and
restaurants.
The negative impacts experienced by villages and informal settlements along the transport route are
temporary and expected to result in a Moderate impact. The negative impacts experienced by
Rweimeh Village during the transport of construction materials are temporary and expected to result
in a Minor impact (refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security for the assessment
of transport and traffic impacts to communities).
Land Lease/Acquisition
Impacts to landowners is anticipated to be Low:
• The Project represents a loss of access to 1,481,868m2 will be leased for the Project for 23 years
(with a possible extension to 28 years), and +3,500m2 will be acquired permanently.
• However, landowners have agreed that the compensation provided is appropriate and fair.
Access to Grazing Areas by Shepherds
Given the loss of access to nearly half of the total, the impact severity is anticipated to be High:
• A total of 45% of the area currently used for grazing will be unavailable for a period of 18 months.
• Additional consultation will be undertaken with livestock owners and shepherds to explain the
areas they cannot access for the duration of the construction.
• Shepherds will be consulted to find out whether goat grazing is a subsistence activity and whether
there are adequate alternative grounds that can be used during the construction period. If there’s
impact or loss of livelihoods, a Livelihood Restoration and Compensation Plan will be developed.
• Shepherds grazing near the Project will be advised of exclusion zones in advance, noting that
other grazing areas are available. Alternative areas for grazing will be researched and secured by
the Developer for alternative use during construction. If the Developer cannot arrange an
alternative area because of landowners’ objection, financial compensation will take place.
• All grazing areas will again be accessible at the end of construction.
Access to Tracks by Hunters
The impact severity to hunters is anticipated to be Slight:
• Access to tracks within the Project area would be temporarily prohibited during the construction
phase for a period of 18 months.
• Recreational hunters near the Project will be advised of exclusion zones in advance, noting that
other tracks are available, and hunting is for recreational purposes, i.e. not subsistence.
• There are other tracks available for hunters, who only hunt recreationally.
15-37
• A significant impact on birds migrating through Lebanon is the culture of hunting that exists. In
spite of laws that make the killing of migrating birds illegal, thousands are still killed each year
impacting populations in their breeding grounds in Europe and Asia.
• It is proposed that all hunting within the wind farm area is banned, this area is shown in Figure
14-4 in Section 14 Ornithology. This would not only protect the birds using the wind farm area
but would also prevent damage to the turbines themselves.
• The site would be secured during construction, preventing public access to the area. It is proposed
to maintain this during the operation phase, with security staff responsible for preventing
members of the public accessing the wind farm site.
• Efforts should be made to invest in public awareness and support for the hunting ban among local
residents. This would take the form of increased nature education and training of local bird
recorders.
• Surveyors from the project surveys would be a good resource to educate locals of the species of
birds and why Lebanon is an Internationally important bird flyway.
Businesses Near the Project/Influx of Workers
The impact severity is anticipated to be Low and largely Positive:
• The Project is expected to contribute positively as some construction workers may need
accommodation, dine at restaurants, and make purchases in the area.
• The influx of workers has the potential to overwhelm businesses in the Project area, particularly
housing. However, workers are expected to drive or be transported to and from nearby villages,
depending on their village of residence. Therefore, it is not anticipated that accommodation
providers will be impacted negatively.
Vulnerable Groups
Impacts to vulnerable groups, including women, the elderly and Palestinian and Syrian refugees, are
not expected to be disproportionately different than other community members. The impact severity is
anticipated to be Low (to be confirmed):
• The Developer will collect additional data, identify all Project stakeholders and engage with them,
as necessary, including directly-affected people and vulnerable groups.
• These exercises will help clarify and confirm the DAOI and focus the assessment of project impacts
and inform mitigation, as well as inform management plans.
• The Developer will identify and map all of the Project stakeholders and engage with them as
necessary. This will help ensure that all Project stakeholders are consulted and there are no
hidden pockets of opposition.
• Other potential use of natural resources on the Project site will be investigated.
• Additional measures to communicate the Project information, including provision of schedules,
health, safety and security measures are necessary (refer to Section 16 Community Health,
Safety and Security and the stand-alone SEP).
Workers to be Employed by the Project
• Up to 125 workers will be employed by the Project.

• Workers will be sourced from the Project area first, regionally second, nationally third and
internationally last.
• Employment will supply income for a period of up to 18 months.
15-38
• Pre-recruitment skills training will be provided.
• A job skills assessment will be undertaken to provide transparency in hiring practices.
• The impact to workers is expected to be positive.
General Impacts to Communities
General impacts to communities are expected to be Positive:
• Establishment of the CRO Office in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun.

• Community development projects as agreed between Municipalities and the Developer.
As such, the overall impact severity is expected to be Medium, with a sensitivity of Medium-High,
resulting in a Moderate impact, as shown in Table 15-38.
Table 15-38 Assessment of Impacts During Construction
61B
Low
617B Low-Medium
618B Medium
619B Medium-High √ High
620B 621B
No Change
623B Negligible
624B Negligible
625B Negligible
62B Negligible
627B Negligible
628B

Impact Severity
629B 630B 631B 632B 63B 634B
Low
635B Negligible
63B Negligible
637B Minor
638B Minor
639B Moderate
640B
Medium √
641B Negligible
642B Minor
643B Moderate
64B Moderate √
645B Major
64B

62B
647B 648B 649B 650B 651B 652B
Very High
653B Moderate
654B Moderate
65B Moderate
65B Major
657B Critical
658B
The overall impact severity is expected to be Slight, with a sensitivity of Medium-High, resulting in a
Minor impact, as shown in Table 15-39.
15-39
Table 15-39 Assessment of Impacts During Operation
61B
Low
617B Low-Medium
618B Medium
619B Medium-High √ High
620B 621B
No Change
623B Negligible
624B Negligible
625B Negligible
62B Negligible
627B Negligible
628B
Slight √ Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor √ Minor

Impact Severity
629B 630B 631B 632B 63B 634B
Low
635B Negligible
63B Negligible
637B Minor
638B Minor
639B Moderate
640B
Medium
641B Negligible
642B Minor
643B Moderate
64B Moderate
645B Major
64B

62B
647B 648B 649B 650B 651B 652B
Very High
653B Moderate
654B Moderate
65B Moderate
65B Major
657B Critical
658B
The major socioeconomic impact of the operational phase of the Project is expected to be Positive,
with the provision of affordable electricity to the local community and to the broader Lebanese
electrical consumers:
• The Project is expected to provide 22KV of supply bulk power to be distributed to the residents of
neighboring villages.
• Electrification is expected to boost the local economy by stimulating productivity and enterprise
efficiency, while enhancing complementary infrastructure such as roads and transportation (Plan
Blue, 2010).
• Additionally, energy, at the industry level is directly linked to development, and is a catalyst for
production and economic growth.
• With cheaper electricity provided by the Project, economic growth is expected in all sectors that
benefit from sufficient energy supply, from basic lighting needs for backyard laying hens, to the
powering of large-scale industrial activities.
• The current additional expenses paid to acquire electricity would then be allocated to improving
livelihoods and business growth.
• Other local socioeconomic factors expected to significantly improve with the provision of low-cost
energy are health and education. Economic benefits include those from the expected:
− Sourcing of construction materials from the Akkar region.

− Sourcing of Project personnel from the northeastern part of Akkar.
− Income that may be generated by nearby businesses including hotels and restaurants.
• In terms of economic growth and livelihoods’ development, electricity positively impacts quality of
life both directly and indirectly. Better energy supply means more hours of lower cost/efficient
energy, longer operating business hours generating more income from work, and economic
savings in comparison to the high cost of generator use. This is especially relevant given that
power cuts as long as 17 hours were noted in the socioeconomic surveys.
• Land lease / acquisition for 23 years with a possible extension to 28 years.
• In general, surveyed individuals support the Project and anticipate that it will reduce their energy
costs, reducing their financial burdens and increasing their production and savings. All individuals
15-40
surveyed anticipated that the new network would improve power distribution and reach more
houses and businesses across their villages.
• An additional perceived benefit of the Project is the provision of green energy and its impact on
health and the environment.
• 75% of surveyed businesses were completely aware of the environmental benefits of the project
and indicated that they are looking forward to the Project’s completion and the increased energy
supply to their villages.
The Developer and Bank Audi will offer financial management training/classes to encourage
appropriate savings and expenditure practices within the communities.
Decommissioning impacts on socio-economics is expected to be similar to those noted for project

construction, particularly with regards to sourcing of local labor and equipment. These impacts are
expected to be moderate and positive.
15-41
16. COMMUNITY HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY
This section presents the baseline and impact assessment for community health, safety and security
including noise, shadow flicker, visual and traffic.
16.1 Noise
16.1.1 Baseline Methodology
There are no existing wind turbines in the area at present. However, there are two other planned wind
energy projects (Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar) which will be considered in the cumulative
calculation.
Two background measurement campaign were conducted for the Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm. The
first one was conducted in September 2018. At this measurement ten locations on the site were
considered and the noise measurements were taken for time period of 15 minutes. The second
measurement was performed in February 2019. At this measurement two locations were considered,
and the measurement was conducted for 48hours with a concurrent wind measurement.
A site visit in which the relevant receptors where identified and documented was conducted on 12 th
September 2018 by SES. In advance of the site visit potential noise receptors were identified in a
desktop study using topographical maps and aerial photographs. The EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy
(2015) recommends focusing on receptors within 2,000m of any of the turbines. As a worst-case
approach the closest occupied dwellings in the surrounding of the wind farm were considered as
receptors.
Due to the fact that the noise levels of the turbines will decrease with an increased distance to the
wind farm potential receptors which are located in a greater distance will also have lower noise
emissions. Therefore, this study focuses on the closest receptors to the wind farm site. However, the
noise isolines will also provide information about the calculated noise levels in areas with a greater
distance to the site.
The noise receptors are displayed in Figure 16-1.
16.1.2 Background Noise Measurements
16.1.2.1 15-Minute Background Measurements
Background noise measurements were undertaken at the Project site by the noise consultant Dr.
Charbel Afif between 23rd September and 1st October 2018. In compliance with the latest IEC
standards and American National Standards Institute (ANSI), all noise measurements were made
using a Class 1 Sound Level Meter, calibrated before and after each measurement according to the
manufacturer’s guidelines. As per WHO guidelines, measurements of environmental noise are best
made close to the point of reception therefore the ten locations chosen are found near a mosque,
restaurant, residential units and clinic. Each measurement period was 15 minutes at each location.
16-1
Figure 16-1 Sustainable Akkar Noise Receptor Locations
16-2
The IFC Guideline for wind energy recommends 10min measurement intervals rather then 15-minute
periods. Therefore, a second measurement at Receptor 34 was conducted taking 10-minute intervals
for 48 hours as recommended in IFC Guideline 1.7 Noise. Nevertheless, the 15-minute measurement
provides a good overview about the background noise situation in the area as measurements were
taken at 10 different locations.
Noise level measurements were carried out over 3 days at each of the overall ten locations (SAN1 to
SAN10). Each measurement lasted for 15 minutes. Sound levels were recorded during the day and
again during the night in order to provide a representative baseline noise level for each period. Each
measurement period lasted 15 minutes [i.e. 3 days x 2 measurements (day + night) x 15
minutes/each]. Noise measurements were conducted during the day and night. The locations chosen
are presented in Table 16-1 and shown in Figure 16-2.
Table 16-1 Description of Sustainable Akkar Noise Monitoring Locations
Monitoring Location Coordinates Description
N 34.592912° Near a few residential units and a clinic.

SAN1
E 736.332869°
N 34.534884° Near a residential unit and road leading to the

SAN2 WFPP.
E 36.329091°
N 34.522998° Residential unit located around 5m from a road.

SAN3
E 36.316504°
N 34.537162° Near a road leading to the WFPP/picnic area.

SAN4
E 36.333136°
N 34.531622° Near a warehouse/storage area selling gravel.

SAN5
E 36.325671°
34.593886°N, Near few residential units and Army checkpoint.

SAN6
36.331583°E
N 34.553742° Near few residential units and small farm.

SAN7
E 36.326421°
N 34.527236° Near residential units with an internal road leading

SAN8 to them.
E 36.318940°
N 34.519296° Near a restaurant and a residential unit.

SAN9
E 36.309467° Internal road leading to the restaurant.
N 34.519597° Near a mosque and few residential units.

SAN10
E 36.316714° 20 m away from the road.
16-3
Figure 16-2 Sustainable Akkar Noise Monitoring Locations
16-4
The noise metric LA90 was used to characterize the baseline noise as it is thought to be more
representative of existing conditions than the equivalent sound level or LAeq because of the nature of
the noise (WHO, 1999).163 The LA90 is the measured sound pressure level (in A-weighted decibels or
dB(A)) that is exceeded 90% of the time during a monitoring event. High noise events (such as a
large transport truck passing nearby) tend to be excluded in the L90 metric. The noise metric L90 is
generally considered representative of the ambient level of a noise environment (WHO, 1999).
16.1.2.2 48-Hour Background Noise Measurement
The baseline noise measurements were conducted by the noise consultant Dr. Charbel Afif between
12th and 25th February 2019. Two (2) locations were chosen for the measurement campaign: one at
the Project site (Receptor 34) and the other at the planned Lebanon Wind Power (Receptor 73). The
coordinates, photographs and details of the monitoring locations/campaign are presented in Table
16-2 and shown in Figure 16-3. Noise was measured for an interrupted period of 48 hours at each
location as per the IFC guidelines.
The noise measurements were made by a Class 1 Sound Level Meter. The Type 1 sound level meter
used complies with the latest IEC standards and American National Standards Institute (ANSI). It was
factory-calibrated in 2018. It was also calibrated before and after each measurement according to the
manufacturer’s guidelines.
Meteorological data was acquired from the nearest meteorological station operated by SA. Wind speed
was measured at 40.4m height. The following formula was used to calculate the wind speed to 10m
height (Institute of Acoustics. 2014) with 0.05 being the standard ground roughness length.
ln(10/0.05)
𝑊𝑆10𝑚 = 𝑊𝑆40.4𝑚 ×
ln(40.4/0.05)
Baseline noise levels measured at the Project at 15-minute intervals are presented in Table 16-3.
Baseline noise levels measured at the Project for 48 hours at 10-minute intervals are provided in
Table 16-4.
Higher noise levels were noted only once during day time at SAN9 at a residential unit near to a
restaurant which was busy on Sunday 23rd September 2018.
The available noise data indicate that the noise levels during the night time range between 25-37
dB(A). This low background noise level is typical for such a remote and mountainous area. The
measurements during the day indicates a noise level of 29-40 dB(A), while one 15-minute interval was
measured at 48 dB(A) where the noise meter was located close to a busy restaurant. There is no
relevant technical noise preload that need to be considered in the calculation in addition to the
planned wind turbines.
163
WHO (1999) Guidelines for Community Noise, page 23 World Health Organization, Geneva (1999).
16-5
Table 16-2 Noise Monitoring Locations
Details of The
Monitoring
Coordinates Monitoring Photographs
Location
Campaign
Start date:
2/12/2019 8h40
End date:
Zone 37S/ 2/14/2019 8h50
NM SA -
34.527319°N,
IP34 Period 48.16
36.321035°E
hours
Height: 1.5 m
above ground
Start date:
2/23/2019 16h50
Zone 37S/ End date:

NM LWP - 2/25/2019 17h50
34.473917°N,
IP73
36.268675°E Period 49 hours
Height: 1.5 m
above ground
16-6
Figure 16-3 Lebanon Wind Power Noise Monitoring Locations (Google Earth®, 2018)
16-7
Table 16-3 Noise Measurements at Sustainable Akkar During Day and Night
Day 1 Day time: Sunday 23/9/2018 Night time: Sunday 23/9/2018

Noise Levels in dB(A) Noise Levels in dB(A)
Location Time Time
L90 L90
SAN1 11:40 am 35.2 1:55 am 28.8
SAN6 12:10 pm 34.6 1:36 am 26.4
SAN7 1:17 pm 29.1 12:39 am 24.9
SAN4 2:10 pm 38.2 11:57 pm 29.8
SAN2 2:45 pm 31.0 11:38 pm 27.6
SAN5 3:12 pm 31.8 11:20 pm 26.7
SAN8 3:46 pm 37.7 10:59 pm 26.5
SAN3 4:06 pm 34.4 10:37 pm 24.6
SAN9 4:48 pm 47.6 10:18 pm 26.3
SAN10 5:17 pm 34.5 10:00 pm 28.8
Day 2 Day time: Friday 28/9/2018 Night time: Wednesday 26/9/2018
Location Time/Period Time/Period
L90 L90
SAN1 1:40 pm 38.7 2:00 am 25.8
SAN6 2:00 pm 39.8 2:22 am 28.4
SAN7 2:47 pm 32.2 3:12 am 25.9
SAN4 3:22 pm 34.9 4:12 am 35.8
SAN2 3:45 pm 32.6 4:36 am 27.8
SAN5 4:04 pm 36.1 4:57 am 25.8
SAN8 4:26 pm 35.0 5:21 am 26.9
SAN3 4:51 pm 30.3 5:43 am 25.6
SAN9 5:10 pm 33.0 6:02 am 24.3
SAN10 5:27 pm 38.0 6:24 am 31.8
Day 3 Day time: Monday 1/10/2018 Night time: Monday 1/10/2018
Location Time/Period Time/Period
L90 L90
SAN1 10:40 am 33.2 2:00 am 26.9
SAN6 10:22 am 35.6 2:26 am 27.2
SAN7 9:47 am 31.5 3:13 am 25.6
SAN4 9:03 am 35.8 4:17 am 36.9
SAN2 8:38 am 31.6 4:39 am 26.8
SAN5 8:17 am 31.8 5:02 am 26.8
SAN8 7:55 am 34.6 5:22 am 33.9
SAN3 7:36 am 31.2 5:46 am 25.6
SAN9 7:18 am 30.6 6:03 am 24.2
SAN10 7:00 am 31.5 6:24 am 33.8
16-8
Table 16-4 Noise Measurements for 48 Hours During Day and Night
IP 34 (SA) – Wind Speed Corrected to 10m
0<WS<1 1<WS<2 2<WS<3 3<WS<4 4<WS<5 5<WS<6 6<WS<7 7<WS<8 8<WS<9
Count 6 34 56 77 43 34 27 10 2
Wind speed (m/s) 0.85 1.58 2.49 3.46 4.45 5.49 6.42 7.19 8.43
Temperature (°C) 5.41 5.51 5.72 5.96 6.78 7.64 7.50 8.18 7.88
Wind direction (°) 150.80 122.20 107.04 132.27 130.58 133.17 147.00 151.40 140.25
Humidity (%) 59.32 64.78 68.62 79.18 73.27 63.79 60.25 52.39 56.32
Air pressure (mbar) 628.64 629.62 631.34 634.84 633.29 634.30 631.80 632.23 631.83
Leq - 10 min daytime 36.78 36.67 35.83 36.94 36.97 39.02 43.22 47.07 -
LA90 - 10 min daytime 34.68 34.03 33.28 34.31 34.12 36.32 39.85 43.52 -
Leq - 10 min nighttime 31.46 30.97 31.72 32.61 35.37 43.81 46.75 47.94 48.94
LA90 - 10 min nighttime 29.22 29.05 29.70 30.16 32.92 40.57 42.88 43.83 45.21
IP 73 (LWP) – Wind Speed Corrected to 10m
0<WS<1 1<WS<2 2<WS<3 3<WS<4 4<WS<5 5<WS<6 6<WS<7 7<WS<8 8<WS<9
Count 77 98 42 17 10 12 21 12 5
Wind speed (m/s) 0.63 1.47 2.39 3.33 4.47 5.63 6.47 7.31 8.26
Temperature (°C) 5.24 4.52 5.01 4.81 4.09 4.17 3.86 3.03 2.16
Wind direction (°) 314.93 310.88 270.45 193.35 158.10 162.29 152.91 144.61 144.13
Humidity (%) 59.29 75.03 69.86 63.04 76.46 73.42 87.36 96.03 99.99
Air pressure (mbar) 848.40 848.09 848.71 848.69 849.06 848.81 848.97 848.88 848.59
Leq - 10 min daytime 33.07 33.21 33.22 37 32.62 45.33 40.71 44.6 49.75
LA90 - 10 min daytime 31.23 31.01 31.16 34.22 30.95 42.27 37.65 42.25 46.68
Leq - 10 min nighttime 31.16 33.23 32.99 34.45 34.4 35.7 39.64 41.8 40
LA90 - 10 min nighttime 29.55 31.33 31.26 32.59 32.15 32.90 36.59 38.96 37.8
16-9
The available noise background data at the Sustainable Akkar site (Receptor 34) shows that the noise
levels during the night time range between 29-45 dB(A) while there is an increase of the noise levels
at higher wind speeds. LA90 noise levels over 36 dB(A) were only measured at wind speeds over
5m/s. This quiet background noise level is typical for such a remote and mountainous area. The
measurements during the day indicates a noise level of 33-44 dB(A). While noise levels over 40 dB(A)
were only observed at wind speeds over 7 m/s. These measurements underline the quiet and rural
background of the area.
These measurements underline the quiet and rural background of the area. The background noise
monitoring also confirms that there is no significant technical preload by other commercial or
industrial activities which need to be considered in the calculation in addition to the planned wind
turbines. While noise levels increase with higher wind speeds, the effect of masking the wind turbine
noise by the wind itself is not considered in this assessment.
16.1.3 Assessment of Potential Noise Impacts
16.1.3.1 Noise Impacts During the Construction
A full construction noise assessment was not undertaken as the exact construction methodology is not
known so far. The EPC Contractor has not been selected and the machinery composition and working
methods/areas are yet to be defined. Therefore, a construction noise assessment was conducted that
comprised a qualitative assessment with a supporting example based on quantitative calculations. The
prediction of construction noise levels was undertaken using the calculation methodology presented in
ISO 9613-2:1996. Noise generated by the transport of the WTG components was not considered in
the assessment as a total of 22 trucks roundtrip will be added to the existing traffic per week. Further,
the existing road segments already carry a significant amount of traffic. The Noise Assessment Report
is provided in Appendix T.
During the construction phase potential noise emissions are expected from the activities associated
with the installation of turbines, transmission lines and substation as well as the development of
access roads and road widening activities. The main sources of noise are associated with
transportation activities and the delivery of raw materials and turbines and furthermore with the
operation of excavation, leveling and construction equipment. The following major activities will be
conducted during the construction phase:
• Construction noise (breaker, excavator, dump truck etc.).

• Construction of access roads.
• Construction of electrical substation and associated structures.
• Erection of turbines.
Each of the construction activities includes working with heavy “balance-of-plant” machines with noise
levels (LWA) up to 120 dB(A), as shown in Table 16-5.
The construction work is usually carried out one after the other at each turbine location, up to a
maximum of two turbines per week. However, for the noise assessment, it was assumed that the work
will occur concurrently at two turbine locations (i.e. at turbines WTG 24 and WTG 25). This scenario
represents a worst case which might not be expected, or even if so, might occur for only a period of a
few weeks, Turbines 24 and 25 were selected since the nearby noise receptors in Rweimeh Village are
considered to be the receptors with the highest noise impact.
16-10
Table 16-5 Balance-of-Plant Machines
Activity Balance-of-Plant Machines
Laying of access roads 1 x excavator (107 dB(A)), 1 x roller (107 dB(A)),

1 x bulldozer (109 dB(A)), 2 x dump truck (115 dB(A))
Excavation of foundations 1 x breaker (mounted on wheeled backhoe – 120 dB(A)),

1 x excavator (107 dB(A)), 2 x dump truck (115 dB(A))
Concreting of foundations 2 x concrete mixer (108 dB(A)), pumping (106 dB(A), or

idling (99 dB(A))
Erection or dismantling of turbines 2 x mobile crane (106 dB(A)), 3 x flatbed truck (108 dB(A))
The construction noise was calculated for 28 locations around the wind farm, at the same noise
sensitive areas that were used for the operational noise prediction. The equivalent continuous noise
levels LAeq were calculated, as presented in Table 16-6.
If the construction works were to occur simultaneously at two nearby turbine locations (worst case
scenario), the noise levels will be will exceed at six receptors the long-term noise limit according to
the EHS Guideline Noise 1.7 (2007) during day time of 55 dB(A). The noise levels will be also below
the local noise limit of 60 dB(A) for residential areas near construction sites derived from the
governmental Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996.
In summary, the potential construction noise impacts on nearby residents are limited to a short time
of the construction phase. The impacts will be of a negative nature and medium likelihood since it is
rather unlikely that all the considered machinery will operate on full capacity at two turbine locations
at the same time. Due to the distance to the closest dwellings the impact will be of medium
magnitude.
Mitigation
• In order to organize the construction works with as little nuisance as possible, it is recommended
to limit the working hours from Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm. if possible. Some flexibility in
working hours may be required during the delivery and erection of turbines and depending on
weather conditions.
• The final time schedule of the transport movements should be clarified with the authorities and
communities.
• Only well-maintained equipment should be operated on-site.
• Generators to be housed in acoustic enclosures. Stationary noise generating equipment should be
sited away from sensitive receptors.
• Minimize drop height during loading and unloading of excavated materials from haulage vehicles
to minimize noise generation.
• Avoid vehicle and machinery idling and shut down machines in intermittent use.
16-11
Table 16-6 Noise Assessment - Construction Phase
Laying
Erection
of Excavation Concreting
of EHS Noise Local Noise
Access of of
IP IP Name Longitude Latitude Turbine Level/Daytime Level/Daytime
Roads Foundations Foundations
[dB(A) [dB(A) LAeq] [dB(A) LAeq]
LAeq]
LAeq]
06 SA 06: house 36.332278° 34.592306° 19 22 12 14 55 60
09 SA 09: house 36.335836° 34.591482° 19 22 13 14 55 60
11 SA 11: house 36.316885° 34.585207° 22 25 15 17 55 60
12 SA 12: house 36.312379° 34.576544° 25 28 18 20 55 60
13 SA 13: house 36.345692° 34.576697° 24 27 17 19 55 60
14 SA 14: house 36.308375° 34.566215° 29 32 22 24 55 60
15 SA 15: house 36.305997° 34.560880° 31 34 24 26 55 60
16 SA 16: house 36.349478° 34.561788° 28 32 22 24 55 60
17 SA 17: house 36.348794° 34.556554° 30 33 23 25 55 60
18 SA 18: house 36.305468° 34.554667° 34 37 27 29 55 60
19 SA 19: house 36.325610° 34.554785° 35 38 28 30 55 60
20 SA 20: house 36.325412° 34.553826° 36 39 29 31 55 60
21 SA 21: house 36.325264° 34.553336° 36 39 29 31 55 60
16-12
Laying
Erection
Access of of
LAeq]
LAeq]
22 SA 22: house 36.309792° 34.549615° 37 40 30 32 55 60
23 SA 23: house 36.338111° 34.541330° 40 43 33 35 55 60
SA 28: 36.329101° 34.534886°

28 summer 49 52 42 44 55 60
house
29 SA 29: house 36.326909° 34.534279° 51 54 44 46 55 60
SA 31: 36.319257° 34.527638°

31 summer 56 59 49 51 55 60
house
SA 32: 36.317191° 34.527530°

summer
32 55 58 48 50 55 60
house
(beekeeper)
34 SA 34: house 36.321032° 34.527326° 55 58 48 50 55 60
36 SA 36: house 36.316861° 34.526472° 53 56 46 48 55 60
37 SA 37: house 36.321536° 34.526544° 53 57 47 49 55 60
16-13
Laying
Erection
Access of of
LAeq]
LAeq]
SA 38: 36.314741° 34.526375°

38 restaurant in 52 55 45 47 55 60
construction
39 SA 39: house 36.316340° 34.525495° 51 54 44 46 55 60
SA 42: 36.317378° 34.523063°

42 summer 48 51 42 44 55 60
house
44 SA 44: house 36.317980° 34.520157° 45 49 39 41 55 60
45 SA 45: house 36.316535° 34.519998° 45 48 38 40 55 60
SA 51: 36.329166° 34.562378°

51 summer 32 35 25 27 55 60
house
16-14
Following the implementation of this mitigation measure, the significance of the residual impact can be
reduced to low and therefore to minor significant. The dwellings affected by the construction noise are
houses located in a rural environment, most of the houses are only occupied a few months during the
year and are considered of medium sensitivity. Given all of the above, the impact is considered to be
of moderate significance, as shown in Table 16-7.
Table 16-7 Noise Assessment for Construction Phase (Worst-Case Scenario)

Impact Severity
Medium √ Negligible Minor Moderate √ Moderate Major
16.1.3.2 Noise Impacts During Operations
Wind turbines produce noise caused by several different mechanisms which can be roughly grouped
into mechanical and aerodynamic sources. The major mechanical components include gearbox,
generator and yaw motors in addition to fans and hydraulic motors. Mechanical noise is radiated by
the surface of the turbine and by openings in the nacelle housing. The interaction of air flow and the
turbine blades produces aerodynamic noise caused by a variety of processes as air passes over and
past the blades (IFC, 2015).
The noise generated by the wind turbines at nearby residences was calculated using WindPRO 3.2
(DECIBEL module), produced by Energi- og Miljødata (DK). WindPRO is a commercial software
program that enables noise modeling of wind farms using sound propagation factors as adopted by
ISO 9613-2. The modeling process included the following steps: (1) characterizing the noise sources,
(2) creating a digital terrain model (DTM) of the site and vicinity to enable the model to evaluate
effects of distance and topography on noise attenuation, and (3) assigning the equipment sound levels
to appropriate locations on the site. WindPRO then calculates sound levels in the vicinity of the project
site. For the modeling, numerous modeling receptor locations representing the residences nearest the
proposed wind turbine locations were used.
National Noise Limits
The noise limits in Lebanon depend on the land use and the period of the day and are derived from
the governmental the Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996. The limits are listed in Table 16-8.
16-15
Table 16-8 Limits for Noise Levels per Decision No. 52/1 of July 1996 [dB(A)]
Region Type Limit for Noise Level
Daytime Evening time NightTime

7 am-6 pm 6 pm-10 pm 10 pm–7 am
Downtown/ Administrative and comercial areas 55-65 50-60 45-55
Residential areas having some construction sites

50-60 45-55 40-50
or commercial activities/are located near a road
Urban resiential areas 45-55 40-50 35-45
Suburban residential areas with low activity 40-50 35-45 30-40
Industrial areas 60-70 55-65 50-60
Rural residential areas 35-45 30-40 25-35
In July 2019, the MOE confirmed the noise limit of 55 dB(A) during the day and 45 dB(A) during night
time for residential houses set by the EHS Guideline. Therefore, the noise assessment will consider the
45 dB(A) [LAeq] nighttime noise limit. Since IFC (2007) and the MOE state absolute noise limits rather
than relative noise limits, a background noise measurement is not necessary for the noise
assessment.
International Noise Limits
The EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015) sets the following screening criteria for wind farms:
“Preliminary modeling should be carried out to determine whether more detailed

investigation is warranted. The preliminary modeling can be as simple as assuming
hemispherical propagation (i.e., the radiation of sound, in all directions, from a source
point). Preliminary modeling should focus on sensitive receptors within 2,000 meters
(m) of any of the turbines in a wind energy facility.”
“If the preliminary model suggests that turbine noise at all sensitive receptors is likely
to be below an LA90 of 35 decibels (dB) (A) at a wind speed of 10 meters/second
(m/s) at 10 m height during day and night times, then this preliminary modeling is
likely to be sufficient to assess noise impact; otherwise it is recommended that more
detailed modeling be carried out, which may include background ambient noise
measurements.”
A preliminary modelling exercise (conducted with the candidate turbine with the lowest noise level,
V150) has indicated that turbine noise at some sensitive receptors is likely to be above an L A90 of
35 dB at a wind speed of 10m/s at a 10m height during the day and night times (refer to Appendix
T). Since the screening noise limit of 35 dB is exceeded, more detailed modelling was conducted and
included:
16-16
• A background ambient noise measurement to establish that there is no significant technical noise
preload.
• A concurrent measurement of the prevailing wind speeds using the meteorological mast located on
the mountain ridge close to the future turbine locations.
• Consideration of the cumulative noise effects of the three planned wind farms, Lebanon Wind
Power, Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar.
• Conducting a noise modelling based on worst case assumptions (see propagation model and
assumptions), including calculation of the noise impact using the maximum sound power level of
the turbines as LAeq value rather than the LA90 value. The LA90 value is a less stringent measure
since it is 1.5 to 2 dB below the LAeq value. Consequently, considering using the LAeq value for the
assessment follows the worst-case approach.
• The noise output of a turbine varies with the wind speed. Therefore, as part of our worst-case
approach the wind speed with a maximum noise output of the turbines is considered. Since the
calculation considers the loudest noise output of the turbines, it is not necessary assessing wind
speeds, which are associated with lower noise outputs.
The EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015) do not provide a noise limit other than the screening limit.
EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015) is designed to be used together with the General EHS
Guidelines document, which provides guidance to users on common EHS issues potentially applicable
to all industry sectors. Therefore, the IFC / World Bank Environmental, Health, and Safety General
Guideline 1.7 Noise (2007) was consulted for the noise limits, as shown in Table 16-9.
Table 16-9 Noise Level Guidelines per IFC General EHS Guidelines (2007)
Daytime (07:00-22:00) Nighttime (22:00-07:00)

Receptor
[dB(A) LAeq] [dB(A) LAeq]
Residential, institutional, educational 55 45
Industrial, commercial 70 70
For the evaluation of the noise level at the receptors the lower noise limit for the night time of
45 dB(A) will be applied in this analysis. The guidelines value of 45 dB(A) applies for a noise level
measured out of doors.
Propagation Model and Assumptions
The calculation model of the International Standard ISO 9613-2 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound
during propagation outdoors – Part 2 General method of calculation’ is used to predict the levels of
noise generated by the wind farm. This model predicts the sound pressure level by taking the source
sound power level for each WTG and subtracting a number of attenuation factors:
Predicted Noise Level = Law + D – Ageo – Aatm – Agr – Abar – Amisc, with:
Law = sound power level of each turbine.

D = directivity correction factor (not used for worst case downwind propagation).
Ageo = losses due to geometrical divergence.
Aatm = losses due to atmospheric absorption.
Agr = losses due to the ground effect.
Abar = barrier losses where the turbine hub is unsighted.
Amisc = miscellaneous effects (vegetation, buildings).
16-17
When calculating predicted noise levels with ISO 9613-2, it is assumed that the noise sensitive area
(receptor) is located downwind of the noise source (turbine). For upwind situations, lower noise levels
can be expected. When noise propagation for multiple sources in different directions is calculated, the
results are always worst-case assumptions. In addition, it should be noted that one receptor cannot be
downwind of all noise sources at the same time. The meteorological coefficient C0 was set to 0 dB.
The applied method does not use Abar and the Amisc attenuation factors, and therefore deliver more
conservative results. There is sufficient buffer to the noise limits since the modelling was carried out
under the following worst-case assumptions:
• Downwind noise propagation conditions for each turbine location and for each receptor.
• 70% humidity and 10°C air temperature.
• The maximum sound power level [in dB(A)] (covering all wind speeds) of the turbine was used (to
be expected only under high wind conditions).
• Masking of the turbine noise by the noise of the wind itself was not considered.
• Meteorological coefficient C0 was set to 0dB.
• Abar and the Amisc attenuation factors were not considered in the calculation.
• A security surcharge of 1 dB(A) is applied on the maximum sound power level of the turbines.
(Note: since noise guarantees are stipulated in confidential turbine supply agreements, a noise
guarantee was not available to Ramboll. Therefore, the value of 1 dB(A) is based on experience
and provides an additional security for the calculation.)
Therefore, the detailed modelling provides a sufficient degree of conservatism in the modelling
assumptions to make any under-prediction unlikely. The model predictions are based on a widely
validated prediction algorithm and manufacturer’s technical data.
Noise Sources
The primary noise sources associated with the Project would be a maximum of 21 wind turbines.
However, the noise impact was undertaken assuming full operation of 23 wind turbines as a worst-
case scenario, with all wind turbines operating simultaneously and continuously. Generally, the
operational noise of a wind turbine has two sources: 1) the aerodynamic noise produced by the
rotating blades; and 2) the mechanical noise produced by the turbine’s gearbox and generator. The
intensity of the WTG noise depends on the wind speed. At very low wind speeds, no relevant noise
emission is produced, WTGs become louder with increasing wind speed and power production.
The wind farm will be equipped with one turbine type from the following OEM: Nordex, GE, Vestas or
Siemens. Since the OEM has not yet been selected, the calculation was based on the highest possible
number of turbine locations as a worst-case approach.
The final wind turbine model has not yet been selected. Therefore, in this noise assessment three
different turbine models listed in Table 16-10 are considered. The specifications of the noise power
levels of the OEMs (Vestas and GE) are provided in Appendix T.
16-18
Table 16-10 Technical WTG Data for Three Scenarios
Planned WTG Planned WTG Planned WTG

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Name(s) on Print Out 7-23 7-23 7-23
Number of Turbines (Worst-

Case) 23 23 23
Manufacturer Nordex Vestas GE
WTG-Type N149 V150 5.3-158
Rotor Diameter [m] 149 150 158
Hub Height [m] 105 105 121
Rated Power [MW] 4.5 4.2 5.3
Operating Mode, Nighttime Mode 0 P01 Normal Operation
Serrations No Yes Yes
Source of Sound Power Level -NO_5.3-158-

F008_271_A12_DE 0067-7067 V08
50Hz_IEC_EN_r03
LWA [dB(A)], Nighttime 108.1 104.9 106.0
LWA [dB(A)], Daytime 108.1 104.9 106.0
Surcharge*) [dB(A)] 1.0 1.0 1.0
LWA Total [dB(A)], Nighttime 109.1 105.9 107.0
Some of the turbines need to be operated in a noise reduced mode, the different selected modes are
presented in Table 16-11 through Table 16-13.
16-19
Table 16-11 Technical WTG Data for Vestas Scenario
Planned WTG Planned WTG Planned WTG Planned WTG
Name(s) on Print Out 02-08, 13, 15, 09-11, 29 24, 25 14

17-23
Number 16 4 2 1
Manufacturer Vestas Vestas Vestas Vestas
WTG-Type V150 V150 V150 V150
Rotor Diameter [m] 150 150 150 150
Hub Height [m] 105 105 105 105
Rated Power [MW] 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Operating Mode, Nighttime P01 S02 S03 S13
Rated Power [MW], Nighttime 4.2 3.5 1.5 1.5
Serrations Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source of Sound Power Level 0067-7067 V08 0067-7067 V08 0067-7067 V08 0067-7067 V08
LWA [dB(A)], Nighttime 104.9 102.0 99.5 97.0
LWA [dB(A)], Daytime 104.9 104.9 104.9 104.9
Surcharge*) [dB(A)] 1 1 1 1
LWA Total [dB(A)], 105.9 103.0 100.5 98.0

Nighttime
16-20
Table 16-12 Technical WTG Data for Nordex Scenario
Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned

WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG WTG
Name(s) on Print Out 02-08, 13, 15, 09-11, 29 24 25 14

18-22 17, 23
Number 12 4 4 1 1 1
Manufacturer Nordex Nordex Nordex Nordex Nordex Nordex
WTG-Type N149 N149 N149 N149 N149 N149
Rotor Diameter [m] 149 149 149 149 149 149
Hub Height [m] 105 105 105 105 105 105
Rated Power [MW] 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Operating Mode,
Mode 0 Mode 4 Mode 8 Mode 10 Mode 11 Mode 16
Nighttime
Rated Power [MW],

4.500 4.100 3.720 3.370 3.300 2.940
Nighttime
Serrations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source of Sound Power F008_27 F008_27 F008_27 F008_27 F008_27 F008_27

Level 1_A12_D 1_A12_D 1_A12_D 1_A12_D 1_A12_D 1_A12_D
E E E E E E
LWA [dB(A)], Nighttime 106.1 104.1 102.0 100.0 99.5 97.0
LWA [dB(A)], Daytime 106.1 106.1 106.1 106.1 106.1 106.1
Surcharge*) [dB(A)] 1 1 1 1 1 1
LWA Total [dB(A)], 107.1 105.1 103.0 101.0 100.5 98.0

Nighttime
16-21
Table 16-13 Technical WTG Data for GE Scenario
Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned

Name(s) on Print Out 02-08, 17 9, 10, 15, 11, 13 25 14

18-22 23, 24,
29
Number 12 1 6 2 1 1
Manufacturer GE GE GE GE GE GE
WTG-Type 5.3-158 5.3-158 5.3-158 5.3-158 5.3-158 5.3-158
Rotor Diameter [m] 158 158 158 158 158 158
Hub Height [m] 121 121 121 121 121 121
Rated Power [MW] 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Operating Mode, Normal

NRO104 NRO 102 NRO 101 NRO 99 NRO 98
Nighttime Operation
Rated Power [MW],

5.300 4.800 4.470 4.498 3.948 3.517
Nighttime
Source of Sound Power -NO_5.3- -NO_5.3- -NO_5.3- -NO_5.3- -NO_5.3- -NO_5.3-

Level 158- 158- 158- 158- 158- 158-
50Hz_IEC 50Hz_IEC 50Hz_IEC 50Hz_IEC 50Hz_IEC 50Hz_IEC
_EN_r03 _EN_r03 _EN_r03 _EN_r03 _EN_r03 _EN_r03
LWA [dB(A)], Daytime 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0
Surcharge*) [dB(A)] 1 1 1 1 1 1
LWA Total [dB(A)], 107.0 105.0 103.0 102.0 100.0 99.0

Nighttime
The sound power level of proposed Siemens turbine and its reduced noise modes are in the range of
the three considered scenarios, therefore no additional calculation was conducted for the Siemens
turbine type.
The 48 hour background noise monitoring at Receptor 34 shows that the noise levels are between 29-
45 dB(A) during the nighttime, and below 34 dB(A) at wind speeds below 5m/s. Consequently, the
measured noise levels are typical for such remote and mountainous area. While background noise
levels increase with higher wind speeds, the effect of masking the wind turbine noise by the wind itself
was not considered in this assessment. The background noise monitoring also confirms that there is
no significant technical preload by any other commercial or industrial activities which needs to be
added to the noise levels at the receptors.
16-22
The sound power level information refers to the maximum sound power level of the wind turbine
types. The individual sound sources of all wind turbines overlap to a resulting sound pressure level,
which is to be evaluated for the relevant receptor.
The sound power levels of the turbines were taken from the manufacturer specifications. In addition, a
security surcharge of 1 dB(A) was applied.
Noise Modelling Results
The additional and cumulative load of the planned wind turbines at the surveyed receptors were
calculated according to the ISO 9613-2:1996. Noise levels were calculated for the following at a
maximum of 23 locations:
• Vestas 4.2MW turbine.

• Nordex 4.5MW turbine.
• GE 5.3MW turbine.
The modeled results for the Vestas V150, Nordex N-149 and GE 5.3-158 are summarized in Table 16-
14 to Table 16-16. The isophones are shown in Figure 16-4 to Figure 16-6.
For all three scenarios, the modeled sound levels are within IFC's nighttime noise limit guideline of
45 dB(A). The potential noise impacts on nearby residents affect a few dwellings in the vicinity of the
project site. The potential noise impacts are negative in nature and of high likelihood since the
turbines will be operating constantly apart from times with low wind speeds.
The operational noise can cause annoyance and sleep disturbance for nearby residents in case
(unmitigated) all turbines are operated on full capacity during the night time.
In case reduced noise modes are applied the noise IFC limit of 45dB (A) is met and consequently the
magnitude of the impact is assessed to be low. The dwellings affected by noise impacts are houses
located in a rural environment and are considered of medium to high sensitivity. Given the distance of
the Hawa Akkar wind farm, and the even greater distance to the Lebanon Wind Power project, there
are negligible cumulative noise impacts. Given all of the above, the noise impact during the operation
is considered to be of minor significance, as shown in Table 16-17.
16-23
Table 16-14 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario A: Vestas V150
Receptor Longitude Latitude Daytime Noise Levels Nighttime Noise Levels IFC Noise Level Guideline
Noise Levels SA Wind Farm Cumulative Noise Level Noise Levels SA Wind Farm Cumulative Noise Daytime/Nighttime
[dB(A)] LWP + HA + SA Wind Farm [dB(A)] Level LWP + HA + SA [dB(A)]
[dB(A)] Wind Farm
[dB(A)]
SA 06: house 36.332278° 34.592306° 41.0 41.8 41.0 41.7 55/45
SA 09: house 36.335836° 34.591482° 39.9 40.7 39.8 40.7 55/45
SA 11: house 36.316885° 34.585207° 37.3 37.6 37.1 37.4 55/45
SA 12: house 36.312379° 34.576544° 36.7 36.9 36.2 36.3 55/45
SA 13: house 36.345692° 34.576697° 36.9 37.1 36.4 36.6 55/45
SA 14: house 36.308375° 34.566215° 38.4 38.5 37.5 37.6 55/45
SA 15: house 36.305997° 34.560880° 38.3 38.3 37.7 37.7 55/45
SA 16: house 36.349478° 34.561788° 35.2 35.3 33.9 34.0 55/45
SA 17: house 36.348794° 34.556554° 34.4 34.4 33.0 33.1 55/45
SA 18: house 36.305468° 34.554667° 38.5 38.5 38.1 38.1 55/45
SA 19: house 36.325610° 34.554785° 45.0 45.0 44.0 44.0 55/45
SA 20: house 36.325412° 34.553826° 45.3 45.3 44.7 44.7 55/45
SA 21: house 36.325264° 34.553336° 45.2 45.2 44.7 44.7 55/45
SA 22: house 36.309792° 34.549615° 39.1 39.1 38.8 38.8 55/45
SA 23: house 36.338111° 34.541330° 37.3 37.4 36.7 36.8 55/45
SA 28: summer house 36.329101° 34.534886° 43.4 43.4 42.2 42.2 55/45
SA 29: house 36.326909° 34.534279° 45.8 45.8 44.6 44.6 55/45
SA 31: summer house 36.319257° 34.527638° 46.7 46.7 43.1 43.2 55/45
SA 32: summer house 36.317191° 34.527530° 46.3 46.3 42.3 42.4 55/45
SA 34: house 36.321032° 34.527326° 47.5 47.5 44.0 44.0 55/45
SA 36: house 36.316861° 34.526472° 44.5 44.5 40.9 40.9 55/45
SA 37: house 36.321536° 34.526544° 48.0 48.0 44.7 44.7 55/45
SA 38: restaurant in 36.314741° 34.526375° 43.1 43.1 39.6 39.6 55/45
construction
SA 39: house 36.316340° 34.525495° 43.2 43.2 39.9 39.9 55/45
SA 42: summer house 36.317378° 34.523063° 43.1 43.1 40.2 40.2 55/45
SA 44: house 36.317980° 34.520157° 41.7 41.7 38.8 38.9 55/45
SA 45: house 36.316535° 34.519998° 39.6 39.6 36.8 36.8 55/45
SA 51: summer house 36.329166° 34.562378° 48.8 48.8 44.7 44.7 55/45
16-24
Figure 16-4 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario A: Vestas V150 night time
16-25
Table 16-15 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario B: Nordex N149
Cumulative Noise Cumulative Noise Daytime/Nighttime [dB(A)]
Noise Levels SA Noise Levels SA
Level LWP + HA + SA Level LWP + HA + SA
Wind Farm [dB(A)] Wind Farm [dB(A)]
SA 06: house 36.332278° 34.592306° 42.2 42.8 42.2 42.7 55/45
SA 09: house 36.335836° 34.591482° 41.1 41.7 41.0 41.7 55/45
SA 11: house 36.316885° 34.585207° 38.5 38.7 38.2 38.4 55/45
SA 12: house 36.312379° 34.576544° 37.9 38.0 37.0 37.1 55/45
SA 13: house 36.345692° 34.576697° 38.1 38.2 37.4 37.6 55/45
SA 14: house 36.308375° 34.566215° 39.6 39.7 37.7 37.7 55/45
SA 15: house 36.305997° 34.560880° 39.5 39.5 37.6 37.7 55/45
SA 16: house 36.349478° 34.561788° 36.4 36.4 34.7 34.7 55/45
SA 17: house 36.348794° 34.556554° 35.6 35.6 33.7 33.7 55/45
SA 18: house 36.305468° 34.554667° 39.7 39.7 38.2 38.2 55/45
SA 19: house 36.325610° 34.554785° 46.2 46.2 44.1 44.1 55/45
SA 20: house 36.325412° 34.553826° 46.5 46.5 44.8 44.8 55/45
SA 21: house 36.325264° 34.553336° 46.4 46.4 44.8 44.9 55/45
SA 22: house 36.309792° 34.549615° 40.3 40.3 39.3 39.3 55/45
SA 23: house 36.338111° 34.541330° 38.5 38.5 37.6 37.6 55/45
SA 28: summer house 36.329101° 34.534886° 44.6 44.6 42.8 42.8 55/45
SA 29: house 36.326909° 34.534279° 47.0 47.0 44.9 44.9 55/45
SA 31: summer house 36.319257° 34.527638° 47.9 47.9 43.3 43.3 55/45
SA 32: summer house 36.317191° 34.527530° 47.5 47.5 42.6 42.6 55/45
SA 34: house 36.321032° 34.527326° 48.7 48.7 44.1 44.1 55/45
SA 36: house 36.316861° 34.526472° 45.7 45.7 41.2 41.2 55/45
SA 37: house 36.321536° 34.526544° 49.2 49.2 44.7 44.7 55/45
SA 38: restaurant in 36.314741° 34.526375° 44.3 44.3 39.9 39.9
55/45
construction
SA 39: house 36.316340° 34.525495° 44.4 44.4 40.1 40.1 55/45
SA 42: summer house 36.317378° 34.523063° 44.3 44.3 40.3 40.3 55/45
SA 44: house 36.317980° 34.520157° 42.9 42.9 38.9 39.0 55/45
SA 45: house 36.316535° 34.519998° 40.8 40.8 36.9 37.0 55/45
SA 51: summer house 36.329166° 34.562378° 50.0 50.0 44.9 44.9 55/45
16-26
Figure 16-5 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario B: Nordex N149
16-27
Table 16-16 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario C: GE 5.3-158
Cumulative Noise Cumulative Noise Daytime/Nighttime [dB(A)]
Noise Levels SA Noise Levels SA
Level LWP + HA + SA Level LWP + HA + SA
SA 06: house 36.332278° 34.592306° 42.4 43.0 42.3 42.9 55/45
SA 09: house 36.335836° 34.591482° 41.2 41.8 41.2 41.8 55/45
SA 11: house 36.316885° 34.585207° 38.5 38.7 38.2 38.4 55/45
SA 12: house 36.312379° 34.576544° 38.0 38.0 36.9 37.0 55/45
SA 13: house 36.345692° 34.576697° 38.2 38.3 37.6 37.7 55/45
SA 14: house 36.308375° 34.566215° 39.7 39.7 37.0 37.0 55/45
SA 15: house 36.305997° 34.560880° 39.5 39.5 36.8 36.9 55/45
SA 16: house 36.349478° 34.561788° 36.4 36.5 34.7 34.7 55/45
SA 17: house 36.348794° 34.556554° 35.6 35.7 33.6 33.7 55/45
SA 18: house 36.305468° 34.554667° 39.7 39.7 37.5 37.6 55/45
SA 19: house 36.325610° 34.554785° 46.6 46.6 43.9 43.9 55/45
SA 20: house 36.325412° 34.553826° 46.7 46.7 44.5 44.5 55/45
SA 21: house 36.325264° 34.553336° 46.9 46.9 44.8 44.8 55/45
SA 22: house 36.309792° 34.549615° 40.8 40.8 39.3 39.3 55/45
SA 23: house 36.338111° 34.541330° 40.0 40.0 39.3 39.3 55/45
SA 28: summer house 36.329101° 34.534886° 44.9 44.9 42.9 42.9 55/45
SA 29: house 36.326909° 34.534279° 47.2 47.2 44.5 44.5 55/45
SA 31: summer house 36.319257° 34.527638° 48.0 48.0 44.0 44.0 55/45
SA 32: summer house 36.317191° 34.527530° 47.4 47.4 43.6 43.6 55/45
SA 34: house 36.321032° 34.527326° 48.9 48.9 44.5 44.5 55/45
SA 36: house 36.316861° 34.526472° 46.0 46.0 42.1 42.2 55/45
SA 37: house 36.321536° 34.526544° 49.4 49.4 44.9 45.0 55/45
SA 38: restaurant in 36.314741° 34.526375° 44.5 44.5 40.8 40.9
55/45
construction
SA 39: house 36.316340° 34.525495° 44.6 44.6 40.8 40.8 55/45
SA 42: summer house 36.317378° 34.523063° 44.4 44.4 40.5 40.5 55/45
SA 44: house 36.317980° 34.520157° 42.8 42.9 38.9 39.0 55/45
SA 45: house 36.316535° 34.519998° 41.0 41.0 37.2 37.2 55/45
SA 51: summer house 36.329166° 34.562378° 50.0 50.0 45.0 45.0 55/45
16-28
Figure 16-6 Calculated Noise Levels for Scenario C: GE 5.3-158
16-29
Table 16-17 Noise Assessment for Operations and Maintenance Phase (Worst-Case
Scenario), with Mitigation
Low Low-Medium Medium Medium-High √ High

Impact Severity
Low √ Negligible Negligible Minor Minor √ Moderate
Mitigation Measures
The turbine locations were optimized to minimize the impact of noise by keeping a sufficient distance
to the surrounding properties. This has been one of the key factors during the design process. The
distance of the WTGs to nearby receptors was increased by eliminating the originally planned WTGs
12, 27 and 28. In addition, WTG 25 was shifted to increase the distance to nearby receptors.
In order to comply with the IFC noise limit of 45 dB(A) some turbines need to be operated in noise
reduced modes. Using the noise reduced modes which are available for all considered turbine types,
the IFC noise limit of 45 dB(A) can be complied with. Due to the fact, that the calculation was based
on a worst-case assumption of 23 turbine locations, the noise assessment should be redone when the
final and reduced turbine layout is available. At the time the final number of turbines is available, the
noise reduction modes for the corresponding turbine type can be stipulated.
The WTGs will be maintained regularly to ensure that the turbines do not become louder over time.
16.1.3.3 Noise Impacts During Decommissioning
During decommissioning, the main sources of noise are associated with the dismantling and removal
of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure. Given the temporary nature of these activities and
the remote location of the project site, these impacts were considered to be of minor significance, like
during the construction phase.
16-30
16.2 Shadow Flicker
The project area is mountainous and rocky, with sparse vegetation. The 23 potential WTGs locations
are on a ridge, oriented north to south. The elevation of the project area varies from 914m to 1,257m.
Site visits in which the relevant receptors where identified and documented were conducted in
December 2018 and January 2019 by SES. Before the site visit, potential shadow receptors were
identified using topographical maps and aerial photographs.
There are no existing wind turbines in the area. However, there are two other wind energy projects
(“Lebanon Wind Power” and “Hawa Akkar”) planned nearby. In advance of the site visit potential
shadow flicker receptors were identified in a desktop study using topographical maps and aerial
photographs. Since residential houses were identified as shadow flicker receptors their sensitivity is
assessed to be “high”.
The shadow flicker impact of a wind energy project is limited to the moving blade of the turbines.
Since there are no existing wind turbines in the planning area, a detailed study about the shadow
flicker baseline is not necessary. However, there are two other wind farms in the area (the planned
Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar wind farms) which need to be considered in the assessment.
Shadow flicker occurs when the sun passes behind the wind turbine and the turbine casts a shadow.
At times when the blades are turning areas of moving shadow occur and a flickering affect is caused
when these shadows fall on the ground, structures or other objects. Shadow flicker may become a
problem if potentially sensitive receptors (e.g. residential properties, health care facilities, schools,
etc.) are located nearby and have a specific orientation to the wind energy facility (IFC, 2015). The
objectives of the shadow flicker assessment, as presented in Appendix U, are as follows:
• To identify the areas that are affected by the shadow flicker of the WTGs.
• To assess impacts of the Project on residential and/or other sensitive receptors like hospitals or
schools.
The methodology of the shadow flicker assessment is based on the Environmental, Health, and Safety
Guidelines Wind Energy (IFC, 2015). The probability of shadow flicker occurrence and the extent of its
effects on the residents depend on a number of factors such as the direction of windows relative to the
turbine, the distance from the turbine, the turbine hub height and the rotor diameter, the width of the
blades, the time of year and the time of day. Exposure to shadow flicker decreases with increasing
distance from the wind farm.
The final wind turbine model has not yet been selected. Therefore, three different turbine models that
may be selected for Sustainable Akkar wind farm were assessed, i.e. the Vestas, Nordex, and GE Wind
turbines, as shown in Table 16-18.
16-31
Table 16-18 WTG Input Data

Scenario B Scenario C
Scenario A
02-11, 13-15, 17-25, 02-11, 13-15, 17-25, 02-11, 13-15, 17-25,

Number in reports
29 29 29
Count 23 23 23
Manufacturer Vestas Nordex GE Wind
WTG type V150 N149 5.3-158
Rotor diameter/m 150 149 158
Hub height/m 105 105 121
Rated power/MW 4.2 4.5 5.3
Mean blade width/m 2.8 2.7 2.7
Shadow length/m 1,905 1,809 1,819
With a mean blade width of 2.8m, the Vestas V150 has the broadest blade, and therefore casts the
largest shadow area (1,905 m). Consequently, the Vestas V150 model was considered as worst-case
scenario for identifying the potential receptors. While the Vestas V150 has the largest area in which
shadow flicker can occur, the shadow flicker times generated by the GE 5.3-158 for individual
receptors within its shadow area can be higher due to the larger rotor. The shadow flicker area of
proposed Siemens turbine is in the range of the three considered scenarios, therefore no additional
calculation was conducted for the Siemens turbine type.
To assess the compliance with the recommended limits, shadow flicker was modeled and predicted
based on an astronomical worst-case scenario, which is defined in the EHS Guideline for Wind Energy
(2015) as follows:
• There is continual sunshine and permanently cloudless sky from sunrise to sunset.
• There is sufficient wind for continually rotating turbine blades.
• Rotor is perpendicular to the incident direction of the sunlight.
• Sun angles less than 3 degrees above the horizon level are disregarded.
• Distances between the rotor plane and the tower axis are negligible.
• Light refraction in the atmosphere is not considered.
The affected houses will not suffer from shadow flicker if:
• The weather is overcast.

• The rotor plane of the turbine is parallel with the imaginary line between the location of the sun
and the respective IP.
• There is an obstacle between the respective building and the sun in the direction of the wind
turbine.
• The wind turbines are not under operation.
• There is poor visibility due to fog.
16-32
The calculations were conducted using WindPRO 3.2 software (SHADOW Module), produced by Energi-
og Miljødata (DK). The model considers the movement of the sun relative to the time of day and time
of year predicting the time and duration of expected shadow flicker at the window of an affected
receptor. The input parameters used in the model are as follows:
• The turbine locations.

• The turbine dimensions.
• The locations of the receptors (IPs) to be assessed.
To support the calculation, a digital terrain model (DTM) was developed using SRTM (Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission) data with a resolution of 30m.
A review of International Legislation and Regulations for Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker (International
Conference May 2017) identified that the majority of countries, that have regulations or guidelines for
the impacts of shadow flicker and their assessment, have based their regulations on the German
Guidelines ‘Hinweise zur Ermittlung und Beurteilung der optischen Immissionen von
Windenergieanlagen’ (2002). The guidance identifies a shadow flicker limit at dwellings of 30 hours a
year and 30 minutes a day for the worst case (astronomical maximum possible shadow). Since the 30
hours a year and 30 minutes a day limit is widely accepted and it is also referenced in the IFC
guideline (2015), this limit was considered for the assessment.
Consequently, the threshold for the predicted shadow flicker duration is:
• Accumulated exposure on residential properties should not exceed a total of 30 hours per year.
• Exposure on residential properties should not be longer than 30 minutes per day.
If one of these thresholds is exceeded, mitigation methods such as turning off turbines during critical
times must be considered, e.g. the turbines which cause the exceedance should be equipped with a
shadow flicker shut down module.
16.2.1.1 Receptors
A site visit in which the relevant receptors where identified and documented was conducted in
September 2018 by SES. In advance of the site visit potential shadow flicker receptors were identified
in a desktop study using topographical maps and aerial photographs. Since residential houses were
identified as shadow flicker receptors their sensitivity is assessed to be medium-high.
The area of potential shadow flicker receptors was selected based on the “20% criteria”. If less than
20% of the sun is being covered by the passing rotor blade, the resulting shadow intensity at a
neighboring property will not be strong enough to account for a nuisance. For the Vestas V150, which
has the largest shadow area of the considered turbines, this corresponds to a theoretical maximum
distance of 1,905m from the wind turbine.
This study focuses on the closest receptors to the wind farm site. However, the shadow flicker maps
will also provide an indication about the shadow flicker times of the potential effected area around the
wind farm site. The shadow flicker receptors are displayed in Figure 16-7. The astronomically
maximum shadowing (hours/year) based on the Vestas turbine is shown in Figure 16-8.
16-33
Figure 16-7 Sustainable Akkar Shadow Flicker Receptors
16-34
Figure 16-8 Astronomically Maximum Shadowing (h/year), Vestas V150 Scenario
16-35
16.2.2 Shadow Flicker Impact Assessment
16.2.2.1 Shadow Flicker Impacts During Construction
The shadow flicker impact of a wind energy project is limited to the moving blade of the turbines
therefore, there will be no impacts in terms of shadow flicker during the construction phase.
16.2.2.2 Shadow Flicker Impact During Operation
Shadow Flicker Modelling Results
The calculations were conducted according to the recommendations of the IFC Environmental, Health,
and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015). The technical data for the calculations was provided by
the turbine manufacturer. Shadow flicker exposure naturally decreases with an increase in distance
from the wind farm. Predicted exposure of a receptor to the shadow flicker effect is measured in
minutes per day and cumulative yearly hours.
The results show the hours of shadow flicker which accumulate at locations near the wind farm during
a year, as presented in Table 16-19 through Table 16-21.
Table 16-19 Duration of Shadow Flicker at Emission Points, Scenario A Vestas V150
Accumulated Astronomical
Astronomical Maximum
Maximum Possible Shadow
Receptor Longitude Latitude
Possible Shadow Flicker*
Flicker [Minutes per
[Hours per Year] Day]
01 house 36.342664° 34.595375° 26:45 0:27
02 house 36.340089° 34.594336° 34:28 0:33
03 house 36.338629° 34.593927° 38:10 0:37
04 house 36.339883° 34.593601° 36:55 0:34
05 house 36.337333° 34.593057° 52:38 0:43
06 house 36.332278° 34.592306° 0:00 0:00
07 house 36.339041° 34.592315° 33:07 0:38
08 house 36.340853° 34.591672° 20:18 0:34
09 house 36.335836° 34.591482° 72:18 0:55
10 house 36.336913° 34.590857° 61:16 0:50
11 house 36.316885° 34.585207° 51:33 0:27
12 house 36.312379° 34.576544° 46:15 0:21
13 house 36.345692° 34.576697° 54:21 0:33
14 house 36.308375° 34.566215° 44:09 0:24
15 house 36.305997° 34.560880° 44:20 0:25
16 house 36.349478° 34.561788° 28:10 0:23
17 house 36.348794° 34.556554° 7:58 0:20
16-36
Accumulated Astronomical
Astronomical Maximum
Maximum Possible Shadow
Receptor Longitude Latitude
Possible Shadow Flicker*
Flicker [Minutes per
[Hours per Year] Day]
18 house 36.305468° 34.554667° 41:49 0:27
19 house 36.325610° 34.554785° 108:00 0:55
20 house 36.325412° 34.553826° 190:53 0:58
21 house 36.325264° 34.553336° 198:10 1:01
22 house 36.309792° 34.549615° 51:27 0:28
23 house 36.338111° 34.541330° 33:57 0:42
28 summer house 36.329101° 34.534886° 64:10 0:43
29 house 36.326909° 34.534279° 86:23 0:58
30 brick factory 36.325632° 34.531636° 201:59 1:57
31 summer house 36.319257° 34.527638° 97:49 0:57
32 summer house 36.317191° 34.527530° 89:31 0:49
34 house 36.321032° 34.527326° 79:12 1:07
36 house 36.316861° 34.526472° 113:35 0:47
37 house 36.321536° 34.526544° 0:00 0:00
38 house 36.314741° 34.526375° 40:19 0:30
39 house 36.316340° 34.525495° 60:10 0:39
42 summer house 36.317378° 34.523063° 42:40 0:46
44 house 36.317980° 34.520157° 0:00 0:00
51 small summer house 36.329170° 34.562376° 67:41 0:41
52 house 36.318558° 34.527166° 120:11 0:52
53 house 36.318311° 34.526671° 139:50 0:59
54 house 36.317796° 34.526388° 132:16 0:55
*(Highest value which can occur astronomically within one year.
16-37
Table 16-20 Duration of Shadow Flicker at Emission Points, Scenario B Nordex N149
Accumulated
Astronomical
Astronomical
Maximum Possible
Receptor Longitude Latitude Maximum Possible
Shadow Flicker*
Shadow Flicker
[Minutes per Day]
[Hours per Year]
01 house 36.342664° 34.595375° 26:35 0:27
02 house 36.340089° 34.594336° 34:18 0:33
03 house 36.338629° 34.593927° 37:41 0:37
04 house 36.339883° 34.593601° 36:11 0:34
05 house 36.337333° 34.593057° 52:11 0:43
06 house 36.332278° 34.592306° 0:00 0:00
07 house 36.339041° 34.592315° 32:31 0:38
08 house 36.340853° 34.591672° 20:02 0:33
09 house 36.335836° 34.591482° 71:07 0:54
10 house 36.336913° 34.590857° 60:19 0:50
11 house 36.316885° 34.585207° 51:00 0:27
12 house 36.312379° 34.576544° 45:36 0:21
13 house 36.345692° 34.576697° 47:54 0:33
14 house 36.308375° 34.566215° 29:56 0:24
15 house 36.305997° 34.560880° 43:39 0:25
16 house 36.349478° 34.561788° 22:06 0:23
17 house 36.348794° 34.556554° 7:54 0:20
18 house 36.305468° 34.554667° 41:23 0:27
19 house 36.325610° 34.554785° 106:48 0:55
20 house 36.325412° 34.553826° 188:45 0:58
21 house 36.325264° 34.553336° 196:12 1:00
22 house 36.309792° 34.549615° 50:50 0:28
23 house 36.338111° 34.541330° 33:26 0:42
28 summer
36.329101° 34.534886° 63:25 0:43
house
29 house 36.326909° 34.534279° 85:20 0:58
30 brick
36.325632° 34.531636° 200:08 1:56
factory
31 summer
36.319257° 34.527638° 96:41 0:57
house
32 summer
36.317191° 34.527530° 88:30 0:48
house
34 house 36.321032° 34.527326° 78:32 1:07
36 house 36.316861° 34.526472° 112:51 0:46
16-38
Accumulated
Astronomical
Astronomical
Maximum Possible
Shadow Flicker*
Shadow Flicker
[Minutes per Day]
[Hours per Year]
37 house 36.321536° 34.526544° 0:00 0:00
38 house 36.314741° 34.526375° 39:49 0:30
39 house 36.316340° 34.525495° 59:42 0:39
42 summer
36.317378° 34.523063° 42:17 0:46
house
44 house 36.317980° 34.520157° 0:00 0:00
51 small
summer 36.329170° 34.562376° 65:42 0:41
house
52 house 36.318558° 34.527166° 119:01 0:52
53 house 36.318311° 34.526671° 138:32 0:59
54 house 36.317796° 34.526388° 131:21 0:54
*(Highest value which can occur astronomically within one year.
Table 16-21 Duration of Shadow Flicker at Emission Points, Scenario C GE Wind 5.3-158
Accumulated
Astronomical
Astronomical
Maximum Possible
Shadow Flicker*
Shadow Flicker
[Minutes per Day]
[Hours per Year]
01 house 36.342664° 34.595375° 29:33 0:28
02 house 36.340089° 34.594336° 38:53 0:34
03 house 36.338629° 34.593927° 43:56 0:39
04 house 36.339883° 34.593601° 34:51 0:35
05 house 36.337333° 34.593057° 58:45 0:45
06 house 36.332278° 34.592306° 6:38 0:25
07 house 36.339041° 34.592315° 41:11 0:40
08 house 36.340853° 34.591672° 21:57 0:35
09 house 36.335836° 34.591482° 70:32 0:56
10 house 36.336913° 34.590857° 72:07 0:52
11 house 36.316885° 34.585207° 57:08 0:28
12 house 36.312379° 34.576544° 48:57 0:22
13 house 36.345692° 34.576697° 54:49 0:35
14 house 36.308375° 34.566215° 33:35 0:25
15 house 36.305997° 34.560880° 48:28 0:26
16-39
Accumulated
Astronomical
Astronomical
Maximum Possible
Shadow Flicker*
Shadow Flicker
[Minutes per Day]
[Hours per Year]
16 house 36.349478° 34.561788° 22:51 0:24
17 house 36.348794° 34.556554° 8:55 0:21
18 house 36.305468° 34.554667° 46:03 0:29
19 house 36.325610° 34.554785° 133:47 0:57
20 house 36.325412° 34.553826° 211:47 1:01
21 house 36.325264° 34.553336° 215:21 1:03
22 house 36.309792° 34.549615° 58:40 0:30
23 house 36.338111° 34.541330° 38:04 0:43
28 summer
36.329101° 34.534886° 65:30 0:45
house
29 house 36.326909° 34.534279° 95:54 1:00
30 brick
36.325632° 34.531636° 237:11 1:58
factory
31 summer
36.319257° 34.527638° 105:10 1:00
house
32 summer
36.317191° 34.527530° 106:03 0:52
house
34 house 36.321032° 34.527326° 84:10 1:15
36 house 36.316861° 34.526472° 128:32 0:52
37 house 36.321536° 34.526544° 0:00 0:00
38 house 36.314741° 34.526375° 52:04 0:35
39 house 36.316340° 34.525495° 71:21 0:46
42 summer
36.317378° 34.523063° 54:56 0:55
house
44 house 36.317980° 34.520157° 0:00 0:00
51 small
summer 36.329170° 34.562376° 136:45 1:20
house
52 house 36.318558° 34.527166° 139:21 0:58
53 house 36.318311° 34.526671° 154:00 1:03
54 house 36.317796° 34.526388° 145:58 0:59
* Highest value which can occur astronomically within one year.
16-40
Mitigation Measures
The installation of shadow flicker shutdown modules in the turbines is a very common and an often-
applied mitigation measure. Shutdown modules will eliminate the possibility for exceedances of annual
and day limits. An automatic shadow flicker shutdown system shuts down the WTG when the sun is
shining (direct sunshine on a horizontal area > 120 W/m²). These systems shut down a turbine when
one of two conditions are reached:
• 30 minutes of shadow-flicker occur on one day at a receptor.

• The maximum annual quota of shadow flicker at a receptor is reached.
When shutdown systems feature a radiation sensor, the turbines only shut down when the sun is
shining. If the shadow-flicker shutdown system does not include a radiation detector, the WTG will
shut down at all times when the shadow-flicker assessment indicates shadow-flicker at a receptor (i.e.
also in cases of overcast sky or fog when there is actually no shadow flicker). The use of shadow
flicker shutdown modules will have a (small) negative effect on the energy yield of the wind farm.
The shadow flicker impacts will be of a negative nature and high likelihood. The calculated shadow
flicker times show that the maximum astronomical possible shadow flicker times will be above the
recommended limits of 30 hours per year and 30 minutes per day. This can cause annoyance for
residents; however, the maximum astronomical possible shadow flicker times will about 1 hour per
day apart from one building, which is not a residential building. The potential shadow flicker impacts
on nearby residents is limited to individual dwellings in the vicinity of the Project site. There are no
villages or bigger settlements located in the shadow area of the turbines.
Following the implementation of this mitigation measure, the significance of the residual impact can be
reduced to Minor as shown in Table 16-22.
Table 16-22 Shadow Flicker Assessment for Operation Phase (Worst-Case Scenario), With
Mitigation
Slight √ Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor √

Impact Severity
16-41
Therefore, if shadow flicker shut down modules are not installed, the magnitude of the impact is
assessed to be Medium. The dwellings affected by shadow flicker are houses located in a rural
environment and are considered of high sensitivity, resulting in a Major impact significance if not
mitigated.
16.2.2.3 Shadow Flicker Impacts During Decommissioning
The shadow flicker impact of a wind energy project is limited to the moving blade of the turbines
therefore, there will be no impacts in terms of shadow flicker during the decommissioning phase.
16.3 Visual Amenity
The aim of the visual amenity assessment is to assess the potential effects of the Project on views
available to people.
16.3.1 Visual Amenity Baseline Methodology
Information regarding the existing visual conditions in the Project Area was obtained through physical
survey of the area. Photographs were taken to support the assessment by SES during a site visits
conducted between September to December 2018 from the perspective of identified receptors, as
shown in Figure 16-9. To ensure that the site visit was conducted to Ramboll standards, SES was
prepared for the site visit by training videos and comprehensive site visit instructions as well as
telephone conferences.
The ridge on which the wind farm is located is divided in two: a wetter and greener western part with
more vegetation; and a drier eastern part of the site which is located in the shadow of the mountain
ridge. The area in the west of the planned wind farm is an important forest and has, therefore,
ecological and recreational importance. The area west of the wind farm is also characterized by more
human activity including scattered settlements, roads, small fields and olive plants plantations. The
study area has one of the lowest population densities in Lebanon (see also Section 15
Socioeconomic Conditions). A high voltage power line runs overhead south of the Project site,
passing the settlement of Rweimeh Village.
The climate is characterized by long cold winters with snow, and a moderate climate during the three
remaining seasons. Jabal Akroum is also characterized by the predominance of the Foehn effect.
Incoming air masses moving in from the West and WSW pass through Wadi Oudine and meet the
mountains perpendicularly; they follow the terrain heated by sunlight and rise. If the humidity is quite
high initially in the air masses, the water vapor condenses to form clouds (see also Section 8
Climate and Climate Change). Condensation is usually followed by precipitation on the top and
windward sides of the mountain (Wadi Oudine side). If the air is stable over the mountain, air masses
cannot continue to rise once passing the top and descend on the leeward side. Consequently, the local
climate condition cause that there is often no visibility of the mountain ridges where the WTGs will be
installed since the area is covered in clouds.
16-42
Figure 16-9 Visual Receptors
16.3.1.1 Receptors
IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015) were used for the
assessment of the visual impacts by the development, since there is no Lebanese guidance on how to
assess visual impacts of wind turbines. The IFC guideline (2015) recommends assessing key
viewpoints (receptors) by using zones of theoretical visibility (ZTVs), wire grids and photomontages.
Viewpoints should include nearby settlements. However, IFC Guideline does not require a detailed
assessment of all settlements in the sightline of the project.
According to the IFC (2015) visual receptors could be residential properties or users of recreational
areas/routes. In the following assessments visual receptors were divided in settlement receptors and
other visual receptors which include recreational receptors.
16-43
Settlements
In the 15km study area 80 settlements were identified and then screened if a more detailed
assessment of these potential receptors is necessary (refer to Table 16-23). During the selection of
the key viewpoints the distance of the receptors to the development is an important criterion.
Turbines viewed at a distance farther than 5km are generally visible but become insignificant in the
vertical field of view (CEDRO, 2012) . The reasons why settlements were scoped out for a more
detailed assessment are also stated in Table 16-23.
Based on the screening of the 80 settlements in the 15km study area, the following settlements were
selected as main receptors for the assessment:
• Sahle.
• Qenia.
• Quobaiyat.
• Aandqet.
• Kfartoun.
• Rweimeh Village.
All settlements are displayed in the ZTV (see Appendix V). The characteristics of the visual receptors
at settlements are presented in Table 16-24. The assessment of the views from settlements was
based on the viewpoints and also on the ZTVs.
Viewpoints (Visual Receptors which include Photomontages)
Viewpoints were selected from those places which are potentially most sensitive to the anticipated
change arising from the development. Initially, five viewpoints were selected in the study area in
cooperation with Ramboll landscape experts and Dr. Layale Abi-Esber, a local environmental expert.
The viewpoints were checked against the ZTV in order to ensure that there is actually visibility of the
turbines from the proposed locations. The viewpoints include important recreational site as well as
local settlements in the surrounding of the wind farm.
In a second step, the selected viewpoints were discussed with and confirmed by the Ministry of
Environment to ensure that there is a representative coverage of the potential effects in the study
area. Due to the very low population density and the reduced visibility caused by the topography there
is no visual receptor in the south of the development. The characteristics of the visual receptors are
presented in Table 16-25.
For the viewpoints, photomontages were made which predict the visual change taking place once the
wind turbines are erected. By using the realistic positions in the landscape and the correct scale of the
wind turbines, visualizations provide a good impression on how the landscape will look like after the
wind farm construction.
16-44
Table 16-23 Scoping of Settlements within the 15km Study Area
Detailed
Settlement Reason for Inclusion/Exclusion
Assessment
Similar direction as receptor Sahle but located in a larger

distance to the closest WTG (11km). If not blocked by local
structures like buildings the WTGs will visible in the foreground
of higher mountains in the south-south-west of the town. Due
Hadidah (Syria) No to the wind park array stretching from north to south the
turbines will also only cover a small percentage of the field of
view from a potential observer located in the north of the
project. In addition, due to the distance the turbines will
appear at a very small scale. (see wire grids in Appendix V).
Similar direction as receptor Aandqet but located in a larger

structures like buildings the WTGs will visible on the ridgeline
in the south-south-east of the town. Due to the wind park
Tell Kalach (Syria) No array stretching from north to south the turbines will also only
cover a small percentage of the field of view from a potential
observer located in the north of the project. In addition, due to
the distance the turbines will appear at a very small scale.
(see wire grids in Appendix V).

structures like buildings the WTGs will visible on the ridgeline
in the south-south-east of the settlement. Due to the wind
Aridah (Syria) No park array stretching from north to south the turbines will also
only cover a small percentage of the field of view from a
potential observer located in the north of the project. In
addition, due to the distance the turbines will appear at a
small scale. (see wire grids in Appendix V).

distance to the closest WTG (9.5km). Due to the wind park
array stretching from north to south the turbines will also only
Naìsiyah (Syria) No
the distance the turbines will appear at a small scale.

array stretching from north to south the turbines will also only
Bqaiaa No

Ash Shayk Ibrahim array stretching from north to south the turbines will also only
No
(Syria) cover a small percentage of the field of view from a potential
16-45
Detailed
Assessment
Halat No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Mqaible No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.

Al Bahluniyah No distance to the closest WTG (9.2km). Due to the distance the
turbines will appear at a small scale.

Al Qurayyat No distance to the closest WTG (8.1km). Due to the distance the
Machta Hammoud No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Similar direction as receptor Sahle/ Qenia but located in a

larger distance to the closest WTG (6.3km). Due to the wind
park array stretching from north to south the turbines will also
Al Farid No only cover a small percentage of the field of view from a
potential observer located in the north of the project. In
addition, due to the distance the turbines will appear at a
small scale.

Debbabiyeh No distance to the closest WTG (12.1km). Due to the distance the
turbines will appear at a very small scale.

Kafr Nun No distance to the closest WTG (8.2km). Due to the distance the
Low visibility of turbines, see ZTV. The village is located on a

Aaouiaanat No
slope facing west, while the turbines are located in the east.

Rimah No distance to the closest WTG (7.2km). Due to the distance the

Chiklar No distance to the closest WTG (6.4km). Due to the distance the
Chadra No Low visibility of turbines, see ZTV
Similar direction as receptor Sahle/Qenia but located in a

Rajem Khalak No larger distance to the closest WTG (6.5km). Due to the
distance the turbines will appear at a small scale.

Menjez No distance to the closest WTG (8.1km). Due to the distance the
Similar direction as receptor Qenia but located in a larger

Hnaider No distance to the closest WTG (9.3km). Due to the distance the
Fraidis No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
16-46
Detailed
Assessment

Dbadeb No distance to the closest WTG (5.6km). Due to the distance the

distance to the closest WTG (11.5km). Due to the distance the
Kouachra No
turbines will appear at a very small scale. (see wiregrids in
Appendix V).

distance to the closest WTG (3.7km). Only a low number of
Arab Jernaya No
turbines will be visible due to its topographical location (see
ZTV).

Rajem Beit
No distance to the closest WTG (5.3km). Due to the distance the
Hussein
Sahle yes Considered as receptor north of the wind farm.

Daoussa w
No distance to the closest WTG (13.0km). Due to the distance the
Baghdadi

Kanisa No distance to the closest WTG (9.9km). Due to the distance the

Al Buwayt No distance to the closest WTG (8.2km). Due to the distance the

distance to the closest WTG (4.0km). The settlement is much
smaller than Aandqet and located on a slope facing south
Aydamun No towards a small valley. Consequently, views from houses of
the settlement will rather be facing south than east, which is
the direction of the SA turbines. Due to the distance the
turbines will appear at a small to medium scale.

Manseh No distance to the closest WTG (5.5km). Due to the distance the

An Naìm (Syria) No distance to the closest WTG (13.7km). Due to the distance the
Ain El Zeit No Low visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Al Birah No Low visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Kherbet Daoud No Low visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Aandqet Yes Considered as receptor northwest of the wind farm.
Mrah El Kouakh No The small settlement comprises only a couple of houses along
a road and is located in a distance of approx. 2km to the
16-47
Detailed
Assessment
closest WTG. The settlement has a similar direction as

receptor Qenia, however Mrah El Kouakh will have reduced
visibility of the turbines due to the local topography (see ZTV).
Considered as receptor northeast of the wind farm. In

Qenia Yes addition, the settlement is located on a ridge and has
therefore an increased visibility for the local area.

distance to the closest WTG (8.3km). If not blocked by local
structures like buildings the WTGs will be visible on the
Al Hit (Syria) No
ridgeline in the west of the small settlement. Due to the
distance the turbines will appear at a small scale. (see wire
grids in Appendix V).
Similar direction as receptor Quobaiyat but located in a larger

Sindianet Zeidane No distance to the closest WTG (7.3km). Due to the distance the

Majdal No distance to the closest WTG (9.6km). Due to the distance the
Kfartoun
Yes Considered as receptor east of the wind farm.
Quobaiyat Yes Considered as receptor west of the wind farm
Qatlabah No Low visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Similar direction as receptor Kfartoun but located in a larger

Huwayk (Syria) No distance to the closest WTG (8.8km). Due to the distance the
Daoura No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Similar direction as receptor Kfartoun but has a lower visibility

Akroum No
of the turbines due to the local topography (see ZTV).
Similar direction as receptor Kfartoun but located in a much

larger distance to the closest WTG (12.2km). If not blocked by
local structures like buildings the WTGs will be visible on the
Aqrabiyah (Syria) No
ridgeline in the west of the settlement. Due to the distance the
turbines will appear at a very small scale. (see wire grids in
Appendix V).
Beino No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.

distance to the closest WTG (8.7km). If not blocked by local
structures like buildings the WTGs will be visible in the west of
Beit El Khalil No the small scattered settlement. Some of the southern WTGs
will be blocked by the topography. Due to the distance the
turbines will appear at a small scale. (see wire grids in
Appendix V).
16-48
Detailed
Assessment
Aaiyat No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Bluzah (Syria) No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Chettaha No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Qboula No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Bayt Àli (Syria) No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Chaqdouf No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Aakkar El Aatiqa‘a No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Rweimeh Village Yes Considered as receptor south of the wind farm.
Aayoun No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Ain Yaaqoub No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Tikrit No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Bezbina No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Es Sayen No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Similar direction as receptor Rweimeh Village but located in a

Boustane No larger distance to the closest WTG (1.5km). Reduced visibility
of the turbines due to the topography and vegetation (trees).
Memneh No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Hmaireh No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Mazraat El Talleh No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Mrah El Zakbeh No No visibility of turbines, see ZTV.
Jouar El Hachich No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Qasr No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Qornet Aakkar No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Fnaidek No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Fissane No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Mrah Ras El Ain No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Kouakh No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Souaiseh No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Charbine No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Brissa No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
Hermel No No visibility of turbines see ZTV.
16-49
Table 16-24 Visual Receptor Sensitivity Assessment – Settlements-
Receptor Key Characteristics Sensitivity

Sahle Located approx. 800m northeast of the wind farm at an altitude of 750m. Medium
The scattered settlement northeast of the wind farm comprises mostly
multi-story buildings. The area is already influenced by technical
structures including telecommunication towers, a quarry and an army
base. The area has a low population density and is not frequently visited
by recreational users or holidaymakers.
Qenia Located approx. 3.3km northeast of the wind farm at an altitude of Medium-
670m. High
Qenia is a small village in which most of the houses are located just by
the main street. The eastern part of the village is located on higher
ground and has therefore also more views over the area. The area has a
low population density and is not frequently visited by recreational users
or holidaymakers.
Aandqet Located approx. 2.1km northwest of the wind farm at an altitude of Medium-
620m. High
The area is already influenced by technical structures including medium
voltage overhead power lines, a quarry and telecommunication towers.
The viewpoint for the visualization located in the north of the village
Aandqet on a main road. Due to its exposed location it represents a
worst-case view of the village. The area has a low population density and
is not frequently visited by recreational users or holidaymakers.
Araysih Located approx. 5.5km west of the wind farm at an altitude of 550m. Medium-
(Quobaiyat) High
The center of the village Quobaiyat is located in a distance of approx.
3.8km to the closest turbine. The area is already influenced by technical
structures like telecommunication towers. The viewpoint for the
visualization is located in the upper parts of the village Quobaiyat. Due to
its elevated and exposed location it represents a worst-case view of the
village. The village has a higher population density than the surrounding
area and has an increased summer population.
Kfartoun Located approx. 2.5km east of the wind farm at an altitude of 880m. Medium-
High
The viewpoint for the visualization is located in the west of the village
Kfartoun and in a distance of 1.8km of the wind farm. Due to its exposed
location and its open view on the wind farm site it represents a worst-
case view of the village. The center of the village is located at a lower
elevation and is therefore less exposed for views on the wind farmThe
area has already some technical structures including medium voltage
overhead power lines and concert buildings. The area has a low
population density and is not frequently visited by recreational users or
holidaymakers.
Rweimeh Located approximately 750m south of the wind farm. Low-
Village medium
The scattered small settlement northeast of the wind farm comprises a
couple of detached houses. The majority of the dwellings are only
occupied a couple of months during the summer season (see Section
15.2.3.2). The area is already influenced by technical structures
including two large overhead power lines and telecommunication masts.
Views in the valley and towards the wind farm area are partly blocked by
the existing trees. The area has a spare population density and is usually
not visited by recreational users or holidaymakers.
16-50
Table 16-25 Visual Receptor Sensitivity Assessment
Receptor Key Characteristics Sensitivity
Sahle (Hill) Located approx. 1.2km northeast of the wind farm. Low
The visual receptor was selected because of its potential to have
cumulative views of the SA and the HA wind farm projects and due to
its exposed location. The viewpoint represents a worst-case view from
an exposed hilltop close to the village Sahle. The village Sahle is
located in the valley and therefore will experience a much lower
visibility of the proposed turbines. There are no dwellings on the
hilltop. There are only very few individual house in vicinity of the hilltop
which will therefore have less open views over the area. The area is
already influenced by technical structures including telecommunication
towers, a quarry and an army base. The area has a low population
density and is not frequently visited by recreational users or
holidaymakers.
Al-Saifa Located approximately 7.3km southwest of the wind farm. High

Fortress
The fortress is in a state of ruin, with only a part of the northern tower
Akkar El-
remaining. The ruin of the fortress can be regarded as national
Atiqa'a
important historic site. The site is mentioned on the website
http://www.discoverlebanon.com. However, the ruin is not a frequently
visited site by recreational users or holidaymakers as there is no
supporting infrastructure such as designated parking lots, picnic tables
or information boards.
Qammouaah Located approximately 9.7km southwest of the wind farm. High

Plain
The plain is the starting point for tourists visiting the ancient woodlands
and the nature reserve in the area. Therefore, it is frequently used by
holidaymakers. The Plain has touristic infrastructure such as
restaurants, accommodations and inflatable castles for children.
16.3.2 Visual Impact Assessment
16.3.2.1 Visual Impacts During Construction
During construction, the main visual impacts come from land clearing and excavation, stockpiling of
equipment and materials, the use of large construction equipment such as cranes, and the
construction of the turbines and transmission towers themselves. While the construction phase is
anticipated to last about one year, the use of large construction equipment like cranes, which has the
largest visual impact is limited to several weeks.
At the individual turbine locations, the cranes will be placed only for a couple of days. Due to the
temporary nature of the construction process and the remote location of the project the visual
construction impacts will be low in significance. Therefore, this section will focus on the operational
16-51
16.3.2.2 Visual Impacts During Operations
During operation, the predominant visual impact will be the 21 wind turbines (worst-case 23 turbines
used for visual assessment), adding man-made elements of considerable scale. The assessment of
visual effects will consider the effects of change on the views available to people outside of the
immediate site boundary of the project.
assessment of the visual impacts by the development, since there is no guidance how to assess visual
impacts of wind turbines in Lebanon. The IFC guideline (2015) recommends assessing key viewpoints
(receptors) by using zones of theoretical visibility (ZTVs), wire grids and photomontages. In addition,
the CEDRO Guideline Report was used.
To judge the visual consequences on people, zones of theoretical visibility (ZTV) of the proposed
development and visualizations were generated. While the ZTVs give an estimation of which areas are
affected by the wind farm, the use of key viewpoints and visualizations give a realistic impression on
how views in the area will look like after the wind farm construction.
Using this methodology visual impact assessment consists of predicting and evaluating the impact of
the project settlement patterns and cultural heritage features. The above-mentioned tools and
methodology are recommended in IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy
(2015).
Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs)
Zones of theoretical visibility (ZTV) are used to describe the area over which a development can
theoretically be seen and is based on a digital terrain model (DTM) created by using SRTM (Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission) data with a resolution of 30m.
Wind turbines can be clearly visible in a distance from 15km at good weather conditions, however
beyond that distance they are not likely to modify the landscape composition164. Therefore, the study
area and the distances of the ZTV was defined as 15km from the outer limit of the wind farm. The
radius is based on the EIA guideline report for Lebanon1165 and frequently applied German guideline166
for landscape assessment.
In the study area, the character of most of the forest is rather open with space and visibility between
the individual trees. Therefore, forest cover was not included in the ZTV to reduce the visibility of the
turbines. The same was observed for the settlements nearby the wind farm. Most of the houses are
individual detached houses where visibility can be found between the dwellings. Therefore,
settlements were also not considered as land cover in the calculations. By taking out the forest and
the settlements as land cover, which usually blocks the visibility of the turbines, a worst-case
approach was applied for calculating the ZTV. The ZTVs are presented in Appendix V.
The ZTV calculation of the area around the wind farm shows how many turbines are visible for the
entire study area.
164
Environmental Impact Assessment, CEDRO, Guideline Report, 2012.
165
Environmental Impact Assessment, CEDRO, Guideline Report, 2012.
166
Nohl; Beeinträchtigungen des Landschaftsbildes durch mastartige Eingriffe, Kirchheim bei München 1993/2001.
16-52
Visualizations (Photomontage)
To prepare visualizations, photographs of the landscape were taken, and 3D models of the proposed
turbines were projected into the photographs. These renderings are produced with the software
WindPRO by the Danish company EMD. For the visualizations the focal length of the photos, the
coordinates of the photo location, a digital terrain model, the coordinates of the planned turbines and
3D models of the wind turbines are considered.
As a worst-case approach, the photographs for the visualizations were taken during clear weather
conditions and the rotors are set to face towards the observer. Rather than providing the most
realistic visualizations, the turbines were displayed dark when the background was bright and white
when the background was rather dark in order to provide a worst-case photograph. The
photomontages are presented in Appendix V. The receptors and their sensitivity are described in the
following section.
A viewing distance is provided under the visualizations based on the focal length of the photograph (in
case of a panoramic picture, it is based on the opening angle). The visualizations give a realistic
picture of the proposed development, when they are looked at with the provided viewing distance.
Methodology for Assessing Visual Receptors
The assessment of the significance of effects is derived from a comparison of the nature of the effects
(magnitude), as well as the nature of the receptors (sensitivity). The visual impact evaluation is based
on the sensitivity degrees presented in Table 16-26.
The sensitivity of visual receptors is defined as very high, high, medium and low based on professional
interpretation, combining judgements of their susceptibility to the type of change or development
proposed and the value attached to the particular views. Visual receptors consist of the particular
person or group of people likely to be affected at a specific viewpoint and are assessed in terms of
both their susceptibility to change in views and visual amenity and also the value attached to
particular views. The susceptibility of different visual receptors mainly depends on:
• The occupation or activity of people experiencing the view at particular locations.

• The extent to which their attention or interest may therefore be focused on the views and the
visual amenity they experience at that particular location.
The magnitude of change can be described as very large, large, medium, small and very small, as
16-53
Table 16-26 Receptor Sensitivity Criteria
Sensitivity Level Characteristics
Receptor is highly sensitive to changes due to the following factors:

• Receptor type is nationally valued, designated and or unique
• Receptor type is of cultural value with strong historical or topical cultural
Very High
associations e.g. important with tourists.
• Views are almost free from existing distracting manmade structures like
power lines, roads, large buildings etc.
• Receptor is frequently visited by recreational users or holidaymakers.
Receptor is highly sensitive to changes due to the following factors:
• Receptor type is of cultural value with historical or topical cultural
associations e.g. important with tourists.
High
• Receptor has a nature-related recreational feature
• Low level of existing distracting manmade structures like power line, roads,
large buildings, etc.
• Receptor is visited by recreational users or holidaymakers.
Receptor is sensitive to changes due to the following factors:
• Receptor type has some cultural value with historical or topical cultural
associations
Medium • Receptor has some extant nature-related recreational feature
• Receptor or views are locally valued but regionally or nationally common
• Medium level of existing distracting manmade structures like power line,
roads, large buildings etc.
• Receptor is occasionally visited by recreational users or holidaymakers.
Receptor is less sensitive to changes due to the following factors:
• Receptor type has low or none cultural value with historical or topical
cultural associations
Low
• Receptor has no or very little nature-related recreational features
• Considerable existing distracting manmade structures like power line,
roads, large buildings etc.
• Receptor is hardly visited by recreational users or holidaymakers.
Table 16-27 Criteria for Magnitude of Visual Amenity Change
Magnitude Characteristics
Very Large Very large changes in visual characteristics, wind turbines controlling the view.
Range from notable changes in visual characteristics, wind turbines can be easily
Large
and unmistakable seen.
Moderate changes in visual characteristics in a local area, wind turbines clearly
Medium
visible.
Small Minor change in visual characteristics, wind turbines are visible.
Very minor change in visual characteristics, wind turbines not clearly visible or not
Very Small
obvious visible.
No Change Wind turbines are not visible.
16-54
The Cedro Guideline Report (2012) was established for Environmental Impact Assessments for Wind
Farm developments in Lebanon. The guideline provided an indication of the visual impact on potential
viewers depending on the distance of the turbines, which is the most important factor for the visual
impact. According to the guideline at distances less than 1,000m, wind turbines excess “human scale”
and can be overpowering and therefore could lead to a large impact. Turbines viewed from 1 to 5km
have a visual impact, but these impacts are considered to be minor. Turbines viewed at a distance of
farther than 5km are generally visible but become insignificant in the vertical field of view.
The magnitude depends on the following:
• The distance of the receptor to the proposed development.

• The extent of adding new elements to views
• The geographic area over which the intervention will be perceived.
• The alteration of the skyline/altering the vertical scale in relation to the existing landscape
features.
• The duration of the change.
• The reversibility of the change.
To assess the project’s impact on visual receptors, the magnitude of change and visual sensitivity must
be considered. By combining these two aspects the matrix presented in Table 16-28 is derived.
Assessment of Effects on Visual Receptors
Roads and Craned Pads
New roads connecting the proposed turbine locations to the existing road network will be required.
The material used for the tracks and crane pads will be similar to the existing bedrock. Therefore, the
new tracks and crane pads will not stand out visually from the surrounding. New road sections will be
on the rocky ridge of the site, consequently the new roads made of gravel will not visual attract
attention due to the similar visual appearance. Since the project area is mountainous, the visibility of
the new tracks will be limited and partly blocked by the topography.
The magnitude of change is considered to be low given that the tracks fit themselves into the
surrounding and that most tracks are hidden in the landscape. The new tracks will not be adding a
new element to this landscape. Therefore, the effect of new tracks on the landscape and visual
resource is considered to be minor and not significant.
Cabling
Due to visual concerns it was decided that the power lines which collects the energy from the wind
farm site will be executed by underground cables, routed along the line of new tracks. Therefore,
there will be no additional overhead powerlines necessary for the Project. Consequently, this study will
rather focus on the new wind turbines.
Wind Turbines
The 23 turbines of the Sustainable Akkar wind farm will add man-made elements of considerable scale
to views establishing a new landmark feature and a point of reference in views from the wider area.
16-55
Table 16-28 Significance Matrix
Receptor
Sensitivity
Low Medium High Very High
Impact Magnitude
Very Small Negligible Slight to negligible Slight Slight
Slight to Moderate to
Small Slight to negligible Slight to moderate
moderate substantial
Moderate to
Medium Slight to moderate Moderate Substantial
substantial
Moderate to
Large Moderate Substantial Substantial
substantial
Very Large Moderate Substantial Substantial Critical
Large, multimegawatt turbines with rotor diameters of up to 158m are considered for the project.
Using such large turbines reduces the number of turbines necessary per generation capacity and
therefore the footprint of the project. In addition, turbines with large rotor diameters have reduced
rotor speeds in comparison with smaller turbines, which also reduces the visual impact.
At the time Ramboll was contracted to undertake the landscape and visual assessment, the final wind
turbine model had not yet been selected. Therefore, four different turbine models that may be
selected for Sustainable Akkar wind farm were assessed, as listed in Table 16-29 (it is noted that
Scenario A representing Nordex has been removed).
Table 16-29 WTG Scenarios

Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
02-11, 13-15, 17- 02-11, 13-15, 17- 02-11, 13-15, 17-

Number in Reports
25, 29 25, 29 25, 29
Count 23 23 23
Manufacturer Vestas GE Wind Siemens
WTG type V150 5.3-158 SG145-4.5
Rotor Diameter/m 150 158 145
Tip Height/m 180 200 180
Hub Height/m 105 121 107.5
Rated Power/kW 4.2 5.3 4.5
Rotor Speed/rpm 4.9 -12.0 5.2 - 9.7 up to 10.8
16-56
For the assessment including the ZTVs, as well as the visualizations, the turbine type GE Wind 5.3-158
with a tip height of 200m was considered as a worst-case approach due to its large rotor and its larger
total height compared to the Nordex, Siemens and Vestas models.
The key visual receptors were assessed based on criteria provided in the methodology, as shown in
Table 16-27 and 16-28 and its sensitivity classified accordingly. In a second step the significance of
the impact was established by considering the magnitude of impact as well the sensitivity of receptor.
The visual effects on key receptors are summarized in Table 16-30 and on settlement receptors in
Table 16-31.
Due to the remote location of the wind farm there are only a limited number of villages, individual
houses and cultural features visually effected by the planned wind turbines. From the most frequently
tourist spot in the area, the Qammouaah Plain, no turbines will be visible.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures have been addressed within the design to mitigate elements of
potential visual impacts:
• A remote area with one of the lowest population densities in Lebanon was chosen to reduce visual
impact on residential areas.
• Large, multi-MW turbines with large rotor diameters are being considered.
• Turbines with large rotor diameters have a reduced rotor speed in comparison with smaller
turbines, which also reduces the visual impact.
• The turbines SA 01, SA 26, SA 27 and SA 28 were eliminated.
• The wind farm layout was designed so that the array follows the existing landform of the mountain
ridges.
• Tracks will be designed to follow and fit with contours in the land as far as possible.
• The turbines and all the other aboveground structures will be removed at the end of the
operational lifetime.
Effects of the Mitigation Measures
• By choosing a remote area with a low population density for the project site the number of
effected residential areas and sensitive receptors was reduced at a very early project stage.
• By Large, multi-MW turbines with large rotor diameters the number of turbines per generation
capacity and the footprint of the project was reduced. In addition, large rotors have a reduced
rotor speed compared to smaller turbines which will also reduce the visual impact of the project.
• The turbines SA 26, SA 27 and SA 28 were eliminated to reduce visual impacts to the receptors in
Rweimeh Village. The turbine SA 01 in the very north of the site was also erased. In altering the
wind farm array this way, the distance to potential visual receptors was increased. In addition, the
distance of the turbines to the wind energy projects Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar was
also increased so that cumulative impacts could be reduced.
• By considering the landform of the mountain ridges at the wind fam design, the wind farm layout
follows the existing morphology of the mountain. Consequently, the typological appearance of the
ridge remains largely recognizable. In addition, the overlapping of rotors of views from the east
and the west are unlikely which can be perceived as visually restless.
16-57
Table 16-30 Assessment of Visual Effects on Key Receptors
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of change Significance
Sahle (Hill) Low -Large- (viewpoint) Slight to

Moderate
The turbines are clearly visible due to the distance of
approx. 1.2km to the project site and the exposed
location of the viewpoint. The Village Sahle is located
in the valley and therefore will experience a much
lower visibility of the proposed turbines due to the
topography.
(see also the visualization in Appendix V)
Al-Saifa High -None- Negligible

Fortress
The ZTV demonstrates that the area around the
Akkar el-
Fortress will have no visibility of the wind farm due
Atiqa'a
to the existing orography which blocks the view
towards the wind farm.
Qammouaah High -None- Negligible

Plain
The ZTV demonstrates that the plain will have no
visibility of the development due to the existing
orography which blocks the view towards the wind
farm.
Sahle Medium -Medium to Large- Moderate

Village
The northern turbines of the project will appear at a
large scale due to a distance of less than 1km to the
village. However, due to the local topography only a
limited number of the turbines will be visible (see
ZTV map) and the rotors of the turbines will not be
facing to the village most the time due to the
prevailing wind directions.
The wind turbines of the Project will add further
large-scale man-made structures to the existing
views of the village which is already influenced by
technical structures including telecommunication
towers, a quarry, an army base and many multi-
story bare-concrete buildings in construction.
Although the wind turbines will be added to the view
of the village as new and large technical element the
magnitude of change is limited to the existing visual
preload. The visual intervention by the project will
therefore result in a moderate significance.
(see also the visualization in Appendix V of Sahle
Hill).
16-58
Table 16-31 Assessment of Visual Effects on Settlements
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of change Significance
Qenia Medium- -Medium- Moderate

High
The ZTV indicates that about half the turbines of the
project will be visible. In the lower parts of the village
the number of visible turbines will be reduced due to
the local topography.
Due to the distance of more than 3km the WTGs will
not appear in a large scale. In addition, the houses
itself will reduce the visibility of the turbines.
Consequently, in total the visual intervention by the
project will result in a moderate significance.
Aandqet Medium -Medium to Large- Moderate to

Substantial
The turbines will be clearly visible from the worst-case
viewpoint north of the village due to the distance of
approx. 2.2km to the planned wind farm. In addition,
the turbines are located on an elevated ridge which
runs in parallel to the ridge of the Viewpoint. The
WTGs are located in a height of approx. 300 m above
the viewpoint which increases the visibility of the
turbines.
In the center of the village the houses itself will reduce
the visibility of the turbines.
project will result in a moderate to substantial
significance.
(see also the visualization in the Appendix V)
Araysih Medium- -Medium to Large- Moderate to

(Quobaiyat) High Substantial
The ZTV indicates that from the center of the village a
reduced number of turbines of the project will be
visible, the rest (the southern turbines) will be blocked
by the local topography.
From exposed locations in Quobaiyat (like the
considered viewpoint) the turbines will be clearly
visible.
The turbines will be equally distributed on the ridge of
the wind farm and follow the topography of the
mountain. Although the project will be clearly visible
on the horizon from exposed places in the village, and
the WTGs would occur as new elements, the
magnitude of change is restricted, and the turbines
will not be dominate features in the landscape. This is
due to the distance of about 3.8km, therefore the
WTGs will not rather appear in a large scale. In
addition, the buildings itself will partly block the views
on the turbines, particularly in the more densely
16-59
developed areas of the village (see also the
visualization in the Appendix V)
significance.
Kfartoun Medium- -Medium to Large- Moderate to

Medium- High Substantial
From exposed locations in the village (like the
High
considered viewpoint which is located in the western
part of the village) the turbines will be clearly visible.
However, the ZTV indicates that from the center of the
village a reduced number of turbines of the project will
be visible, the rest will be blocked by the local
topography. In addition, in the center of the village
the houses itself will reduce the visibility of the
turbines.
The visualization in Appendix V from the edge of the
village Kfartoun represents a worst-case view due to
its exposed location and smaller distance to the
project.
significance.
Rweimeh Low-medium -Large- Moderate to

Village Substantial
The turbines will be clearly visible and appear to be
large features in the landscape due to the distance of
less than 1km to the planned WTGs. The WTGs of the
northern part of the wind farm will appear smaller due
to the larger distance to the viewpoint.
The wind turbines of the Project will add further large-
scale man-made structures to the existing views of the
village which is already influenced by technical
structures including telecommunication towers and the
overhead power lines.
Although the wind turbines will be added to views
available to people from the village as new and large
technical elements, the magnitude of change is limited
due to the existing visual preload. In addition, the
sensitivity of the of the village is rather low, due to the
very low permanent population. Therefore, in total the
visual intervention by the project will result in a
moderate to substantial significance.
It needs to be noted that the village Rweimeh Village
is inhabited by Jaafar Family, who is in strong favor of
the project. According to the head of the Jaafar
Family, the Restaurant in the foreground of the
visualization was constructed because of anticipated
business opportunists caused by the Project.
16-60
• By following the existing tracks and fitting the location of the tracks with the contours lines the
visual impact of the tracks can be reduced.
• By removing the turbines and all the other aboveground structures at the end of the operational
lifetime, the visual impact of the project will be entirely revisable and limited to the operation
The assessment of visual impacts of the Project are Moderate, as shown in Table 16-32.
Table 16-32 Visual Impact Assessment for Operation Phase
Low Low-Medium Medium Medium-High High

Impact Severity
Medium √ Negligible Minor Moderate Moderate √ Major
16.3.2.3 Visual Impacts During Decommissioning
Decommissioning impacts are similar to construction impacts: the stockpiling of equipment and
materials, the use of large construction equipment such as cranes, and the decommissioning process
itself. Given the temporary nature of the decommissioning process, visual impacts are expected to be
of negligible significance.
16.4 Transport and Traffic Impacts to Communities
As presented in Section 12 Transport and Traffic, two route surveys and a Traffic Impact Study
were undertaken to assess the conditions for the practical and safe transport of WTG components to
the Project. The methodology was to assess potential routes, identify obstacles along those routes and
to survey peak hour traffic volumes at key road links and junctions. Based on these studies, the
preferred transport route for the Project was selected, as described in Section 2 Project
Description. This section presents the impacts of transport and traffic to community health, safety
and security, elaborating the difference between physical impacts and those to pedestrians, drivers
and communities.
16-61
16.4.2 Baseline Findings
16.4.2.1 Obstacle Removal
The transport and traffic studies identified obstacles along the route that will need to be removed
entirely or modified to provide the vertical and lateral clearance needed to transport the WTG
components, as was summarized in Table 12-9. The obstacle removal works are generally as follows:
• Temporary concrete bund, curb, electric pole and overhead removal.

• Removal of curbs, electric poles, trees, lamp posts, and fencing along ramps, roundabouts and
curves, as well as prohibition of car parking during transport.
• Raising of the pedestrian bridges to provide a vertical clearance of 570cm.
• Ground leveling and compaction at significant curves to facilitate maneuverability.
16.4.2.2 Construction of New Road Segments
New sections of road will be constructed as follows:
owners (shown as #1 in Figure 2-8). The new road section will connect with the existing asphalt
road outside of Machta Hammoud.
16.4.2.3 Addition to Traffic Volume
Capacity analysis was undertaken for the 5 road segments to be used, Road Segments A, B, C, D, and
E, under three scenarios:
1. The existing traffic conditions (year 2018); This scenario uses the existing traffic volumes collected
through automatic and manual counts.
2. Future background traffic conditions (year 2020) without the Project; this projection applied a
conservative traffic growth rate of 3%.
3. Future traffic conditions (year 2020) with the Project; the projection was derived after assigning
the generated trips for the transport of the WTG components in combination with the projection
generated under Item 2.
The resulting LOS was then calculated for the selected road segments under the three scenarios to
illustrate the impact of the additional traffic. As an extra measure of conservatism, the LOS was
calculated between 10pm and 11pm (a period of higher traffic volume), whilst the WTG component
transport will be undertaken between 11pm and 4am.
During the WTG transport, the LOS of Road Segment A will be reduced from A to B, Road Segment B
will be reduced from A to C, Road Segment C will be reduced from A to B, and Road Segment D will be
reduced from A to B. For Road Segments A, B, C and D, which are 4 lanes with a median, a
conservative approach to traffic management will dedicate the northbound direction for transport and
16-62
divert all other background traffic to the other direction making a two-lane road. For Road Segment E,
which is a two-lane road, the transport vehicles will have to utilize the road along with the background
traffic.
16.4.3 Transport and Traffic Impact Assessment
16.4.3.1 Transport and Traffic Impacts During Construction
Obstacle Removal
Obstacle removal activities will be undertaken by the Developer in close coordination with the
concerned local authorities. Obstacles will be removed either temporarily (concrete blocks, selected
poles) or permanently before being moved to another location (selected poles) or reinstated with an
improved design (roundabout islands).
Removal of obstacles will cause a temporary impact to pedestrians, drivers, and communities along
small sections of the roadway, creating delays or detours.
Mitigation
• Such works will be coordinated and permitted by the Developer and the Ministry of Transport and
scheduled for time periods when traffic levels and/or pedestrian use are lowest.
As such, the impact severity is considered Low and the receptor sensitivity considered Medium,
Table 16-33 Assessment of Impacts from Obstacle Removal

Impact Severity
16-63
Construction of New Road Segments
New 0.65km Asphalt Road
Land purchase from private land owners is necessary for the construction of the new 0.65km section
of asphalt road through a ~12.5ha parcel of land outside of Machta Hassan and Machta Hammoud, as
shown in Figure 16-10. This segment of road is being constructed to avoid travel along existing roads
that traverse Chadra, Machta Hassan and Machta Hammoud.
The land is currently vacant, and there will be approximately 120m distance between the existing
houses and the new segment of road. Compensation will be provided at a cost to be agreed with the
landowner(s). As such, the impact to the landowner(s) is considered minor when compared to the
alternative of traffic and transport impacts to the densely developed city centers.
New 0.15km Asphalt Road
Land purchase from private land owners is necessary for the construction of the new 0.15km section
of asphalt road between two existing sections of asphalt road, as shown in Figure 16-11. The
purpose of the road segment is two-fold: 1) to avoid hairpin turns near homes; and 2) to create
greater buffer distances (i.e. 21m to 60m) between the transport route and the homes. Compensation
will be provided at a cost to be agreed with the landowner(s). As such, the impact to the landowner(s)
is considered minor when compared to the alternative of traffic and transport impacts to the densely
developed city centers.
New 3.1km Gravel Road within Existing Railroad ROW
Land purchase from the Municipality of Machta Hammoud is necessary for the construction of the new
3.1km section of gravel road within an existing railroad ROW, as shown in Figure 16-10 and Figure
16-11. It is noted that a 0.11km segment of asphalt road will also be constructed to join the existing
asphalt road to enter the Hawa Akkar wind farm site.
Compensation will be provided for construction within the railroad ROW at a cost to be agreed with the
Municipality of Machta Hammoud. It is noted that the existing railroad ROW is currently used as a road
by vehicles, as shown in Figure 16-13. As such, the new segment of gravel road is considered a
roadway improvement that will enhance driving conditions.
In addition, compensation will be provided at a cost to be agreed with the landowner to join the gravel
road with the existing asphalt road. This land that will be acquired is currently mowed lawn that fronts
the intersection of the railroad ROW and the existing asphalt road, as shown in Figure 16-14.
Therefore, the acquisition does not represent a loss of agricultural land and/or source of subsistence.
Mitigation
The construction of asphalt and gravel roads will occur for a period of 6 months and will be
coordinated and permitted by Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels
are lowest. The construction would be performed under the supervision and conditions of the relevant
municipality. The improved road network will have a positive impact on the health and safety in the
area by providing safer roads, minimizing impacts to city centers, providing greater buffer distances
between houses and the road and eliminating dangerous curves/turns. As such, the impact severity is
considered Low and the receptor sensitivity considered Medium. resulting in a Minor Impact as shown
in Table 16-34.
16-64
Figure 16-10 New 0.65km Asphalt Road Segment to Avoid Chadra, Machta Hassan and
Machta Hammoud
16-65
Figure 16-11 New 0.15km Segment of Asphalt Road
16-66
Figure 16-12 New 3.1km Gravel Road within Railroad ROW
Figure 16-13 Existing Railroad ROW Used by Vehicles
16-67
Figure 16-14 Land Acquisition for 0.11km Asphalt Road Segment
16-68
Table 16-34 Assessment of Impacts from New Road Segments

Impact Severity
BHigh Minor Moderate Moderate Major Major
Construction of Internal Track
Land will be leased from the following villages for the construction of internal track (and other Project
components):
• Project: Fnaidek, Rweimeh Village and Karm Chbat Cadastral Area.

• Hawa Akkar Wind Farm: Chadra, Aandqet and Mqaible.
• Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm: Aandqet, Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and Rweimeh Village.
Track work will also occur near the Lebanese Army Military base in Sahle.
However, it is considered that the construction of the internal tracks will have no impact on access to
homes and businesses by residents of the surrounding villages and/or access to and operations at the
Lebanese Army Military base. While access to certain areas will be prohibited during internal track
construction (and the Construction phase in general), this measure is being taken to ensure the
health, safety and security of community members. No negative impacts on health and safety are
anticipated from internal track construction, particularly if the proper procedures and measures will be
followed to ensure public wellbeing.
Mitigation
• Construction of internal track will occur for a period of 3 months and will be coordinated with the
Ministry of Transport and the Lebanese Army.
Therefore, the impact severity is considered Slight and the receptor sensitivity considered Medium,
resulting in a Negligible Impact as shown in Table 16-35.
16-69
Table 16-35 Assessment of Internal Track Development

Impact Severity
Transport of WTG Components
Villages Along the Transport Route
The transport of WTG components will add a roundtrip convoy of 12 oversized trucks twice per week
(a total of 24 trucks roundtrip per week) to the existing road network for a period of 13 weeks. Based
on the traffic counts carried out during baseline studies, communities along these roads currently
experience the passage of nearly 57,000 heavy vehicles per week. During transport, the LOS will not
decrease below LOS C, and the calculated decrease in LOS will only occur temporarily, two times per
week over a total period of 13 weeks.
Informal Settlements
As shown in Figure 15-10, there are no informal settlements within or near the Project’s immediate
study area. Informal settlements located immediately adjacent to the WTG transport corridor are as
summarized in Table 15-37. Twenty-two (22) informal settlements, comprised of 195 individual tents
and 1,235 people, are currently located adjacent to existing Road Segments B, C, D, and E, and
experience average daily traffic totals of 36,392, 20,580, 16,007 and 12,070, respectively. As above,
transport of WTG components will add a roundtrip convoy of 12 oversized trucks twice per week (a
total of 24 trucks roundtrip per week) to the existing traffic volume experienced by the informal
settlements for a period of 13 weeks. It is noted that informal settlements may not have access to
traditional forms of notification, i.e. radio, television, newsletters or postings at village municipal
buildings. Therefore, this has been incorporated into the planned mitigation planning.
Mitigation
• A communications protocol under development for the transport of WTG components will be
distributed to all Mayors two to three months prior to the start of transport.
• A separate communications protocol under development for the transport of WTG components will
be distributed to all informal settlements within 1km of the transport route two to three months
prior to the start of transport.
• Access to the grievance mechanism will be shared with all villages and informal settlements.
16-70
• A final transport route map will be provided to all villages and informal settlements.
• Advance notification of the scheduled transport will be provided to all communities along the route
through radio, television, newsletters or postings at village municipal buildings.
• Informal settlements within 1km of the transport route will be notified in person in advance by the
CRO and the Developer.
• The transport of WTG components will occur between 11pm and 4am to avoid impacts to
communities traveling to work and school.
• The truck convoy will travel at a low speed to lessen the generation of noise, vibration and dust.
• Transport will be timed before and after farmers take their crops to the Akkar Vegetable Market,
as shown in Figure 16-15.
• The mitigation measures will minimize the potential for transport of WTG components to impact
community health. safety and security. As such, the impact severity of traffic and transport from
transport of WTG components is considered Low, and the receptor sensitivity considered Medium,
Table 16-36 Assessment of WTG Component Transport during Construction

Impact Severity
16-71
Figure 16-15 Akkar Vegetable Market
16-72
Transport of Construction Materials
The transport of construction materials will be limited to the following, as shown in Figure 16-16:
• The destination of all surplus excavated earth material will be the 6 quarries, using tracks internal
to the Project site, the existing asphalt road (in red) and the existing quarry tracks (in green).
• The highest traffic volumes by the project are anticipated between the quarry and the wind farm
site (yellow route near the Project entrance).
• All ready-mix concrete will be sourced from the Batch Plant to be constructed in Rweimeh Village
and will be transported to the Project site using the existing asphalt road (in yellow).
• Sand and gravel will be sourced from the 6 quarries using the existing quarry tracks (in yellow),
the existing asphalt road (in red), and tracks internal to the Project site.
• All cement will be sourced from Chekkah, south of Tripoli and the location of two large cement
plants.
The impact of the transport of cement from Chekkah is considered to be minimal, i.e. the addition of 1
truck per day along a route that carries nearly 57,000 heavy vehicles per week.
Given the presence of existing tracks and asphalt roads, and close proximity of the quarries, the
batching plant and the Project site, the movement of construction materials will be limited to a
12.5km2 area in Rweimeh Village, and therefore will likely not impact the wider community. It is noted
that 50+ houses are located along the quarry tracks and existing asphalt roads, as shown in Figure
16-17 (Note: the houses highlighted in red are vacant).
It is noted that the members of Rweimeh Village are supportive of the location of both the Substation
and the Batching Plant within the village, and they are accustomed to transport of quarry materials
along the existing asphalt roads to supply the north Akkar region with sand and gravel. Further, over
90% of Rweimeh Village members are only present 3 months of the year. Whilst the residents of these
houses are likely accustomed to quarry activities, including the movement of trucks, the construction
will take place in summer and it is anticipated that the Project represents a significant increase in the
volume of heavy vehicles to the quarry roads.
Mitigation
• The Developer will meet with Rweimeh Village residents of the houses located along the quarry
tracks and existing asphalt roads to discuss the Project and nature and timing of the transport of
construction materials.
• Negotiation of entry to quarry roads by resident vehicles will follow standard traffic safety/traffic
control protocols. i.e. Stop/Go signage, flagman, etc.
The mitigation measures will minimize the potential for health, safety and security impacts related to
the transport of construction materials. The impact severity is considered Medium and the receptor
sensitivity considered Medium-High, resulting in a Moderate Impact as shown in Table 16-37.
16-73
Figure 16-16 Quarries and Existing Tracks (Green) Joining Existing Road (Yellow)
Batching
Plant
12.5km2
16-74
Figure 16-17 Houses Near Transport Routes for Construction Materials
16-75
Table 16-37 Assessment of Construction Material Transport during Construction

364B364BImpact Severity
16.4.3.2 Transport and Traffic Impacts During Operation
Traffic impacts during the operational phase are expected to be low to negligible and relate only to
travel to the Project site by the EPC Contractor for periodic maintenance activities at the Project site.
16.4.3.3 Transport and Traffic Impacts During Decommissioning
During the decommissioning phase, the wind turbines will need to be dismantled and removed from
the Project site. Traffic impacts are expected to be similar to that of the construction phase but will
require assessment at the time to capture the most up-to-date traffic conditions along the expected
disposal route.
16-76
17. LANDSCAPE
This section presents an assessment of the landscape effects, i.e. change on the landscape as a
resource resulting from the Project.
Information regarding the existing landscape elements in the Project area was obtained through
physical survey of the area. Photographs were taken to support the assessment by SES during site
visits conducted between September to December 2018.
The study area is located at an altitude between 300m and 2,200m, encompassing different
ecosystems and habitats. The surveyed area extends between the upper middle mountain zone (Eu-
Mediterranean) and the high mountain zone (Supra-Mediterranean) as indicated by the tree species
observed onsite.
The study area (i.e. Project plots and surrounding area) encompasses the following habitats: Calabrian
pine forests, evergreen oak woods, juniper woodland, mixed forests, grassland, cliffs and rocky
habitats. This zone is part of Akkar-Donnieh-Hermel Important Plant Area (IUCN Important Plant
Areas of the south and east Mediterranean region, 2011), and close to the proposed Akkar Heights
National Park (SDATL, 2009).
The study area has been subject to major changes since antiquity167. Former dense forestation was
displaced by human activities through housing, agriculture and forestry. However, still existing forests
are subjected to managed forestry. Natural forests or forests containing the former existing potential
vegetation are only present at small or medium sizes (forests with oak and pine).
The result is a large landscape mosaic, which can be summarized in landscape units as described
below (refer to the landscape mosaic map in Appendix V).
The climate in the area is characterized by long cold winters with snow, and a moderate climate during
the three remaining seasons. Jabal Akroum is also characterized by the predominance of the Foehn
effect. Incoming air masses moving in from the West and WSW pass through Wadi Oudine and meet
the mountains perpendicularly; they follow the terrain heated by sunlight and rise. If the humidity is
quite high initially in the air masses, the water vapor condenses to form clouds (see also Section 8
Climate and Climate Change). Condensation is usually followed by precipitation on the top and
windward sides of the mountain (Wadi Oudine side). If the air is stable over the mountain, air masses
cannot continue to rise once passing the top and descend on the leeward side. Consequently, the local
climate condition cause that there is often no visibility of the mountain ridges where the WTGs will be
installed since the area is covered in clouds.
167
Marvin W. Mikesell: The Deforestation of Mount Lebanon. In: Geographical Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, Januar 1969,
S. 1–28.
17-1
17.1.1 Landscape Units
The classification of the landscape units is based on the latest official Lebanese land use cover survey.
Agricultural Areas
The agricultural units often have a clearly recognizable culture-historical landscape character. For
example, from old stone walls bordered olive groves, terracing as shown in Figure 17-1.
Figure 17-1 Agriculture Area (here Olive Plantations)
However, the tertiary development with modern influences is clearly recognizable, where historical
elements are only recognizable on a small scale as a relic. In particular, high voltage power lines,
quarries, semi-finished buildings, etc., have a strong influence on the historical agricultural shaped
landscape. The Sustainable Akkar and the Hawa Akkar project sites do not have any agricultural
areas, while agricultural areas near the planned Lebanon Wind Power project are mainly constituted of
terraces planted with apple and cherry trees.
Dense Pinus and Quercus Forests
This forestry units consists of native forests, as shown in Figure 17-2; however, they are subjected
to intensive use. These woods are the main source of wood-fuel for heating in winter season. The
wood extracted from these forests is used for cooking and charcoal production. This applies in
particular to the areas in the northern part of the study168. Accordingly, the units are not classified in
the highest value rating grade.
168
Lebanon’s National Blueprint for a Sustainable Forest Biomass: promoting renewable energy and forest
stewardship, Developed by: Biodiversity Program - Institute of the Environment – University of Balamand –
Lebanon, 2016.
17-2
Figure 17-2 Example of a Dense Pinus Forest
Dense Cedrus Forests
This forest type is the original forest-vegetation unit of the Lebanon Mountains. However, the cedar
forests have been subjected to a strong utilization since 5,000 years BC. Consequently, only very
small patches of the old cedar forest are still present. Since the ecological conditions have changed
over time, the natural regeneration and survival of the last relicts of this forest form is endangered.169
In the study area there are no cedar forests. There are only a few individual trees in the area. These
individual stocks do not form a spatial unit in the sense of a landscape image and are accordingly not
subject for the evaluation. The remaining Cedrus trees are part of the mixed woods in the area. These
woods are a mixture of Cedrus, Abies, Juniperus Excelsa and Drupacea.
Abies Forests
The quality for Abies forest is classified as a lower medium grade since it is managed in a
monoculture.
Mixed Forests
These areas are classified as having medium quality because they consist of large contiguous areas
and also due to the variety of species within the unit, as shown in Figure 17-3. The present mixed
Forests are a mixture of Cedrus, Abies cilicica, and Juniperus species, with Abies dominating on
northwest and north slopes, and Cedrus on northeast and east slopes. Goat grazing areas and
summer farms are present in this landscape unit.
169
Der Zustand der Zedernwälder Libanons [The state of the cedar forests in Lebanon]; Ladislav Paule, Archiv für
Naturschutz und Landschaftsforschung, Heft 4, 1975, Band 15.
17-3
Figure 17-3 Example of a Mixed Forest Area Consisting of Conifer and Broadleaf Trees
Other Dense Leafy Forests
This unit is present only with very small proportions in the southwest of the study area. Special
qualitative characteristics cannot be awarded to the unit.
Rocky Land
The vegetation-free areas of the ridges have a certain natural character, as shown in Figure 17-4.
There is hardly any human activity in this area. However, it is to be assumed that in former times
these were covered at least in the middle altitudes with vegetation/forest. Accordingly, the unit is
classified with a medium to high scenic quality.
Figure 17-4 Rocky Areas on the High Ridges of the Project Site
Shrublands
This unit is represented on a large scale in the study area, as shown in Figure 17-5. These are
secondary structures of anthropogenic origin. This unit is comparable to the macchie vegetation of the
Mediterranean region in Europe. The existing shrublands are the result of human interventions such as
cutting trees and grazing. Shrubland areas were formerly dominated by trees before the alteration
made by human activity such as grazing and repetitive burnings. Due to the diverse structures and
peculiarities, the unit is rated medium-high in terms of quality.
17-4
Figure 17-51 Example of Shrublands
Sparse Coniferous and Sparse Leafy Forests
Due to the rather degenerated nature and the partial occurrence of this atypically vegetation in terms
of the local spatial context, the quality of the unit is classified with a rather low importance, as shown
in Figure 17-6.
Figure 17-6 Example of Sparse Coniferous Area
Swamps
This unit is located in the south of the study area. Due to the rarity, the particular biotope type and
naturalness, the unit is qualitatively rated high.
Urban Artificial and Urban Expansion
The urban areas, as part of the landscape, have hardly cultural-historical features that could justify a
special qualitative claim. Most of them are modern buildings and local structures, as shown in Figure
17-7.
17-5
Figure 17-7 Example for Urban Area (Quobaiyat)
Protected Areas and Cultural-Historical Elements
There is a protected forest area in the immediate vicinity of the planned WTG (see landscape unit map
in Appendix V). The Karm Chbat Nature Reserve is shown in Figure 17-8. However, there is no
information available that this area is protected in terms of landscape or scenic value. The majority of
the area is the unit Sparse Coniferous. Accordingly, there is no particular scenic quality. In the study
area, there are no significant cultural-historical elements that could be affected by the planned WTGs.
Figure 17-8 Karm Chbat Nature Reserve
17-6
17.2 Assessment of Potential Landscape Impacts
17.2.1 Landscape Impacts During Construction
During construction, the main visual impacts come from land clearing and excavation, stockpiling of
equipment and materials, the use of large construction equipment such as cranes, and the
construction of the turbines and transmission towers themselves. While the construction phase is
anticipated to last about one year, the use of large construction equipment like cranes, which has the
largest visual impact is limited to several weeks. At the individual turbine locations, the cranes will be
placed only for a couple of days. Due to the temporary nature of the construction process and the
remote location of the Project the visual construction impacts will be low in significance. Therefore,
this section will focus on the operational phase of the Project.
17.2.2 Landscape Impacts During Operation
The aim of the landscape impact assessment is to assess the potential effects of the proposed wind
farm on the landscape in the study area.
17.2.2.1 Methodology
assessment of the visual impacts by the development, since there is no guidance how to landscape
impacts of wind turbines in Lebanon. The IFC guideline (2015) recommends assessing key viewpoints
(receptors) by using zones of theoretical visibility (ZTVs), wire grids and photomontages. In addition,
the CEDRO Guideline Report (2012) and the Nohl Guidance (1993) was used.
To judge the visual consequences for the landscape, zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the
proposed development and visualizations were generated. While the ZTVs give an estimation of which
areas are affected by the wind farm, the use of key viewpoints and visualizations give a realistic
impression on how views in the area will look like after the wind farm construction. Using this
methodology landscape assessment consists of predicting and evaluating the impact of the Project on
landscape units. The above-mentioned tools and methodology are recommended in IFC
Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015).
The CEDRO Guideline sets main objectives for the landscape study.
− Highlight the landscape qualities of the territory in the different study areas;
− Identify and prioritize the cultural heritage and landscape issues at stake regarding the wind
turbines;
− Determine whether the landscape is able to accommodate wind turbines and how;
− Compose a landscaping integration project; and
− Measure the visual effects produced and the effects on perception of the territory by the
population.
Based on the objectives stated in the CEDRO Guideline the German NOHL methodology was used to
assess the impact on the landscape in detail in combination with the use of ZTVs, visualizations and
wire grids (as recommended in the IFC EHS Guideline, 2015).
17-7
The NOHL methodology provides a comprehensive tool for evaluating the quality of the landscape and
in a second step to judge in a very objective way the intervention of the planned turbines in the
landscape. This methodology is very commonly applied in the German planning process.
Ideally the landscape assessment is based on existing Landscape Character Areas defined by local
authorities. However, such studies were not available for the Akkar region. Since there is only limited
information on existing landscape units (for instance by the authorities) the Nohl methodology is
regarded as very suitable to establish the landscape impact of the Project. The landscape assessment
is based on the regional structure of land use and landcover, the impressions gained during the site
inspection and the review of literature. The landscape areas were evaluated in terms of their
landscape aesthetic intrinsic value, their historical continuity and the existing technical overprinting of
the cultural landscape. The landscape assessment considers a study area of 15km which is
recommended by the CEDRO Guideline for wind energy project in Lebanon . For the landscape
assessment different spatial units within the study area are determined. The details of the landscape
units are described in the assessment section of the report. For each of the landscape units the
relevance of the landscape change is examined.
NOHL
The assessment of the potential change of the landscape is based on the guideline by NOHL
(1993/2001)170. The landscape assessment based on NOHL methodology is conducted in seven steps
which will be described below.In the first step, the three aspects nature quality, diversity and
characteristic are rated on a scale from 1 to 10. Ten (1) points represent a very large and 1 point
represents a very low expression of the respective criteria. Afterwards, the sum (characteristic double
weighted) of the three aspects is the basis for the total value of the aesthetic value of the landscape
unit, as shown in Table 17-1.
Table 17-1 Aesthetic Value
Points Total Value Verbal Expression
4-9 1 Very Low
10 - 13 2
14 - 17 3
18 - 20 4
21 - 22 5
23 - 24 6
25 - 27 7
28 - 31 8
32 - 35 9
36 – 40 10 Very High
In the second step, the three aspects (nature quality, diversity and characteristic) after the
intervention on the landscape are assessed and lead to the prospective aesthetic value for each
170
Nohl; Beeinträchtigungen des Landschaftsbildes durch mastartige Eingriffe, Kirchheim bei München 1993/2001.
17-8
landscape unit. This is done on the basis of the visibility analysis and visualizations. Furthermore, the
spatial characteristics (hub height, rotor diameter, rotor speed) of the planned wind turbines are
considered in the assessment.
In the third step, the difference of the sum of the three aspects of the aesthetic value before and after
the intervention is calculated. The result is the aesthetic intensity of the intervention and its
expression is defined in Table 17-2.
Table 17-2 Aesthetic Intensity of the Intervention
0 1 Very Low
1-2 2
3-4 3
5-6 4
7-9 5
10 - 12 6
13 - 16 7
17 - 21 8
22 - 37 9
28 – 36 10 Very High
In the fourth step, the visual vulnerability of the landscape is determined. The three aspects relief,
diversity of elements and vegetation density are consulted. These aspects are assessed on a scale
from 1 to 10 based on the impressions of the terrain survey, the available photographs of the site, the
digital terrain model and map material for each landscape unit. The sum of the three aspects is the
basis for the total value of the visual vulnerability of the landscape unit, as shown in Table 17-3.
Table 17-3 Aesthetic Visual Vulnerability
3-6 1 Very Low
7-9 2
10 - 12 3
13 - 14 4
15 - 16 5
17 - 18 6
19 - 20 7
21 - 23 8
24 - 26 9
27 - 30 10 Very High
17-9
The grade rating ranges from very high (10 points: "flat terrain, monotonous structure, hardly any
trees and shrubs") to very low (1 point: "mountainous terrain; diverse structure; dense woodland").
In the fifth step, the worthiness of protection is considered. According to NOHL (1993), factors such as
uniqueness, irreplaceability, rarity and representativeness are decisive for determining the worthiness
of protection. The evaluation bases on a scale from 1 to 10 and ranges from "Very High" (10 points:
"nature reserves, natural monuments, protected landscape features, monuments [castles, palaces]
and unique geomorphic landscape components") to "Very Low" (1 point: "low-structure, intensively
used arable land, atypical housing estates, commercial areas").
In the sixth step, the aesthetic sensitivity of the landscape is determined for each unit. It results from
the above-mentioned aesthetic value, visual vulnerability and worthiness of protection. The sum
(aesthetic value double weighted) of these three aspects is the basis for the total value of the
aesthetic sensitivity of the landscape, which is rated on a scale from 1 to 10, as shown in Table 17-4.
Table 17-4 Aesthetic Sensitivity of the Landscape
4-9 1 Very Low
10 - 13 2
14 - 17 3
18 - 20 4
21 - 22 5
23 - 24 6
25 - 27 7
28 - 31 8
32 - 35 9
In the final seventh step, the aesthetic relevance of the intervention is determined as a result of the
intensity of the intervention and the sensitivity of the landscape. Both are equal weighted and
according to their sum the total value of the relevance of the intervention is calculated, rated on a
scale from 1 to 10, as shown in Table 17-5.
17-10
Table 17-5 Aesthetic Relevance of the Intervention
2-4 1 Very Low
5-6 2
7-8 3
9 - 10 4
11 5
12 6
13 7
14 - 15 8
16 - 17 9
The results of the respective evaluations for each landscape unit are presented in Table 17-6.
Table 17-6 Identification and Aesthetic Value of the Landscape Units
Unit Natural Quality Diversity Characteristic
Agricultural Areas Low-Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Dense Abies Forests Low Low Low
Dense Pinus Forests Medium-High Medium-High High
Dense Quercus Forests Medium-High Medium-High High
Mixed Forests Medium Medium Medium
Other Dense Leafy Forests Medium-High Medium Low-Medium
Rocky Land Medium Low-Medium Medium-High
Shrublands Medium Medium-High Medium-High
Sparse Coniferous Low Low-Medium Low
Sparse Leafy Forests Low Low-Medium Low
Swamps High High High
Urban Artificial Low Low Low
Urban Expansion Low Low Low
17-11
For a better understanding an example for the derivation of the relevance of the intervention is given.
Example:
1. First step: evaluation of the natural quality, diversity and characteristic before the intervention.
Natural Quality: 4, Diversity: 5, Characteristic (double weighted): 4+4=8 → Sum: 17.
14-17 points match value 3 according to the value table of the aesthetic intrinsic value.
Resulting aesthetic intrinsic value: Low (3).
2. Second step: same evaluation of the natural quality, diversity and characteristic after the
intervention.
Natural Quality: 3, Diversity: 4; Characteristic (double weighted): 3+3=6 → Sum: 13.
10-13 points match value 2 according to the value table of the aesthetic intrinsic value.
Resulting aesthetic intrinsic value: Very Low (2).
3. Third step: evaluation of the intensity of the intervention.
Difference of the aesthetic intrinsic value before (17) and after (13) the intervention → 4.
3-4 points match value 3 according to the value table of the intensity of the intervention.
Resulting aesthetic intensity of the intervention: Low (3).
4. Fourth step: evaluation of the visual vulnerability.
Relief: 6, Diversity of elements: 5, vegetation density: 5 → Sum: 16.
15-16 points match value 5 according to the value table of the visual vulnerability.
Resulting visual vulnerability: Middle (5).
5. Fifth step: determination of the worthiness of protection.
Worthiness of protection: 2.
Resulting worthiness of protection: Very Low (2).
6. Sixth step: evaluation of the sensitivity of the landscape unit.
Visual vulnerability: 5, worthiness of protection: 2, Aesthetic intrinsic value (double

weighted):4+4=8 → Sum: 15.
14-17 points match value 3 according to the value table of the sensitivity of the landscape.
Resulting aesthetic sensitivity of the landscape: Low (3).
7. Seventh step: evaluation of the relevance of the intervention.
Intensity of the intervention: 3, Sensitivity of the landscape: 3 → Sum: 6.
5-6 points match value 2 according to the value table of the relevance of the intervention.
Resulting aesthetic relevance of the intervention: Very Low (2).
17-12
17.2.2.2 Landscape Assessment
Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)
The ZTV calculation of the area around the wind farm shows how many turbines are visible for the
entire study area (see Appendix V). Table 17-7 lists result of the ZTV calculations and shows the
size of area, where turbines are visible. A turbine is considered as visible when parts of the turbine are
visible. This is referred as “tip ZTV”.
Table 17-7 Sum of Visibility of the Turbines in 15km Radius
WTG Area Area

Visibility (ha) (%)
0 42,581 45.6
1-7 7,035 7.5
8-13 6,140 6.6
14-18 4,133 4.4
19-22 7,262 7.8
23 26,317 28.2
The ZTV maps are presented in Appendix V which are used for the magnitude analysis of the
landscape units.
Sensitivity and Magnitude Analysis of the Landscape Units
For evaluation of the landscape units, the overall consideration takes place within the respective units.
Therefore, an averaging is carried out with regard to the impairments. The general rule is, if the
quality of the unit is high, the intensity of the impairment is also high. This depends on whether areas
of the respective units are affected at all or the size and the proportions of the landscape units are
within the 15km radius.
For assessing the sensitivity and magnitude of change for the landscape units the following tools were
used: the landscape units map, the ZTV maps, visualizations from key viewpoints.
Agricultural Areas:
The agricultural area features a low level of biodiversity since the major part of the area is covered by
crops, so that the natural quality is rated as Low to Medium.
Scenic diversity is rated as Low to Medium due to the homogeneous vegetation cover and the lack of
structuring landscape features such as waterbodies or rugged terrain.
Although agricultural areas throughout the area of interest show clear characteristics of organically
grown, cultural landscape (i.e. terraced olive and cherry plantations), the influence of technical
development is obvious. Thus, high-voltage power lines, quarries and (semi-finished) modern
buildings have a strong visual impact on the historic, cultural landscape. Therefore, the characteristic
was rated as Low to Medium.
The agricultural units do not feature major obstacles (i.e. big trees) that could limit the visibility of the
turbines. On the other hand, the major part of agricultural areas is located distant (approximately
10km) to the WTGs in the northwestern and southern part of the area of interest (see landscape
17-13
map). Further, very few or no WTGs are visible in major areas of the landscape unit due to the
mountainous topography which acts as a visual barrier (see ZTV map).
Accordingly, the intensity of intervention and visual vulnerability are rather low, so that the overall
impact of the Project on the aesthetic relevance of the unit can be rated as Low (see details in Table
17-8).
Dense Abies Forests: The natural quality of the Abies forests is rated as Low as they are characterized
by forestry with Abies monoculture and low biodiversity.
Scenic diversity is rated as low because of the uniform vegetation cover consisting of tree plantations.
Since the Abies plantations are strongly influenced by human activities – not only functionally, but also
in their appearance – they do not provide an image of untouched or wild nature. Hence, characteristic
is rated as Low for this landscape unit.
The major part of the Abies forests is located southwest (approx. 5 to 8km) of the planned WTGs.
Smaller areas are scattered in more distant southwestern direction (approx. 10 to 15km) (see
landscape map). Due to their alignment from north to south, up to 23 WTGs are visible from the larger
connected Abies forests, while no WTGs are visible from the smaller scattered forests (see ZTV map in
Appendix V). However, visual vulnerability is rated as medium because Abies plantations with their
dense and high tree vegetation act as a visual barrier for viewpoints within the forests. Accordingly,
the intensity of intervention and visual vulnerability are rather low, so that the overall impact of the
Project on the aesthetic relevance of the unit can be rated as Low.
Dense Pinus Forests and Dense Quercus Forests:
These forests, although managed by forestry and used intensively for fuelwood production, are
characterized by a diverse vegetation cover and a high biodiversity. Thus, natural quality is rated as
Medium to High.
The Pinus and Quercus forests are partially located in the south to southwest in a 10km radius around
the WTGs. Large connected areas are situated adjacent to the WTGs in western direction (see
landscape map in Appendix V). These landscape units feature a rocky, mountainous topography
characterized by steep slopes and deep valleys. Therefore, scenic diversity is rated as Medium to High.
Although Pinus and Quercus forests are intensively used as a source of fuelwood, they still provide the
impression of a near-natural landscape with little visible signs of man-made structures such as roads
or buildings. Since traditional land use and appearance of the forests have not changed within the last
decades, characteristic of these landscape units is rated as Medium to High.
17-14
Table 17-8 Evaluation of the Relevance of the Intervention for the Individual Landscape Units
Before the Intervention After the Intervention Aesthetic

Aesthetic Aesthetic
Aesthetic Intensity of Worthiness
Landscape Natural Diversity of Vegetation Visual Sensitivity Relevance of
Natural Intrinsic Diversity Characteristic the Relief of
Unit Diversity Characteristic Quality Elements Density Vulnerability of the the
Quality Value Interventio Protection
(1x) (2x) (1x) (2x) Landscape Intervention
(1x) (1x) n
Agricultural 4 4 8 3 4 4 6 2 7 4 4 5 4 3 2
Areas
Dense Abies 3 3 6 2 3 3 6 1 7 4 7 6 4 3 1
Forests
Dense Pinus 7 7 16 8 6 6 14 3 9 6 7 8 8 9 6
Forests
Dense 7 7 16 8 7 6 14 3 8 6 7 8 8 9 6
Quercus
Forests
Mixed 6 6 12 6 5 6 10 3 8 7 7 8 7 7 4
Forests
Other Dense 7 5 8 4 7 5 8 0 7 5 7 7 4 3 1
Leafy Forests
Rocky Land 5 4 14 6 3 2 10 5 8 4 1 4 4 4 4
Shrublands 6 7 14 7 6 5 12 3 7 7 3 6 4 6 4
Sparse 3 4 6 2 2 3 4 3 7 4 3 4 4 2 2
Coniferous
Sparse Leafy 3 4 6 2 2 3 4 3 7 4 3 4 4 2 2
Forests
Swamps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Urban - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Artificial
-
Urban - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Expansion
Note: No negative effects are expected for the units Swamps, Urban Artificial and Expansion. Therefore, they are not subject to the numerical rating. The same applies to the individual cedar trees (see above).
17-15
Accordingly, the intensity of intervention and visual vulnerability is higher than the Dense Abies Forest
unit so that the overall impact of the Project on the aesthetic relevance of the unit can be rated as
medium (see details Table 17-8). In addition, large connected areas of the units are located close to
the planned WTGs, these units are perceptible in the context of the wind farm (see ZTV map in
Appendix V). Due to the high quality of the landscape unit, a medium to high impairment is to be
expected.
Mixed Forests: Mixed forests are intensively used as a source of timber and fuelwood. Extensive
silvopasture is a common management system in these forests. Biodiversity is higher than in the
dense Abies forests with a mixture of Cedrus, Abies cilicica and Juniperus species, with Abies
dominating on northwest and north slopes, and Cedrus on northeast and east slopes. Hence, natural
quality is rated as Medium.
With diverse vegetation and numerous glades on wavy topography, scenic diversity of mixed forests is
rated as Medium.
Although characterized by intense human activity, the mixed forests offer an image of intact nature on
mountain sides without man-made structures such as roads or major modern buildings. Further, they
feature a near natural traditional management (silvopasture), that has not changed in the last
decades. Thus, characteristic is rated as Medium.
Adjacent to the Pinus and Quercus forests, the mixed forests are partially located around the WTGs.
The major part of the forests are situated up to 10km south of the planned wind farm and more than
10km in the southwestern part of the area of interest (see landscape map in Appendix V).
Accordingly, the intensity of intervention and visual vulnerability are very equal to Dense Pinus Forest
and Dense Quercus Forest, so that the overall impact of the Project on the aesthetic relevance of the
unit can be rated as medium. In addition, large areas of this unit are not located in the direct vicinity
of the wind farm, therefore the visual impairments will be very limited (see ZTV map Appendix V).
Other Dense Leafy Forests: The natural quality is rated as medium to high, because the leafy forests
represent a near natural intact type of forests
Their scenic diversity was rated as medium, since the forests are situated in the valley bottoms amidst
a mountainous scenery.
Leafy forests’ characteristic is rated as low, due to their small extent.
Small areas of this unit exist at the north-south edge of the study area. Visual impairment can be
ruled out due to the large distances and due to the relief, which will block the visibility of the wind
farm as the dense leafy forests are situated at the valley bottoms (see landscape map and ZTV map)
As WTGs are not visible throughout the leafy forests, a more detailed analysis was not done for this
landscape unit. Consequently, the overall aesthetic relevance of the WTGs is rated as Low (see details
Table 17-8).
Rocky Land: This landscape unit features a sparse scrub vegetation in the middle altitudes, while the
ridges are mostly vegetation-free. Due to the native character of the vegetation, although sparsely
scattered, the natural character is rated as Medium.
Bare rock is predominant in this landscape unit accompanied by a sparse vegetation cover in the
middle altitude. Regarding also the rugged topography, the quality of scenic diversity sums up to a
rating of Low to Medium.
17-16
These rocky lands give an impression of a rocky scenery, unaffected by human activities. But,
however, they provide also the impression of an inanimate nature, especially on the ridges. This leads
to the medium to high characteristic ranking of the rocky land. Due to the special nature there is a
medium impairment after the intervention. The medium rating is due to the fact, that the large areas
can still be perceived from the valley without disturbance and that the arrangement of the wind
turbines results in a reduction of the interference (see ZTV map in Appendix V). Accordingly, the
intervention intensity and visual vulnerability are medium rated, so that the overall impact of the
Project on the aesthetic relevance of the unit is to be assessed as Medium.
Shrublands: Shrublands are the most frequent landscape unit in the area of interest. They are present
throughout the whole region, but the major part is located southeast of the planned WTGs (see
landscape map in Appendix V). These secondary structures are the result of centenaries of human
land management, similar to the macchia vegetation in the western Mediterranean. Typically, this
biome features a high biodiversity, conserving also relics of the plant species from the former woody
biome. Thus, natural quality is rated as Medium.
Scenic diversity is rated as medium to high because they are found on a wide range of land forms.
Thus, shrublands exist on higher and lower slopes, on lowlands as well as on wavy to mountainous
topography.
The special land management (i.e. logging and grazing) that results in this shrubland biome is
practiced for millennia in the Mediterranean. The shrubland preserves therefore a typical
Mediterranean cultural landscape. Hence, characteristic is rated as Medium to High.
Due to the special nature, diversity and, in some cases, immediate proximity to the wind farm, there
is a medium degree of impairment after the intervention. The low vegetation does not act as a visual
barrier. The classification is intermediate due to the fact, that many large areas are located in a large
distance from the planning area (see landscape map). Accordingly, the intensity of intervention is low
to medium and the visual vulnerability is rather medium, so that the overall impact of the Project on
the aesthetic relevance of the unit is to be assessed as Medium.
Sparse Coniferous and Sparse Leafy Forests: Sparse coniferous and sparse leafy forests are the
results of intensive land use. Due to the degraded nature of these landscape unit, natural quality is
rated as Low.
Major parts of these forests are located within a 5 to 15km radius south of the WTGs (see landscape
map in Appendix V). These homogenous woodlands exist mainly on mountainous topography, so that
scenic diversity is rated as Low to Medium.
Due to the degraded nature of these landscape units, characteristic is rated as Low.
Although, planned WTGs are visible from major parts of the landscape units (see ZTV map) visual
vulnerability is low due to the low aesthetical relevance. The overall rating is very similar to the Dense
Abies Forests unit, so that the overall impact of the Project on the aesthetic relevance of the unit can
be rated as Low.
Judging the Overall Significance of the Landscape Impact
In general, the study area is characterized by forest and agricultural use. It does not include any wild
and protected landscape areas. While some natural forest areas with a higher landscape value exists,
in total the Project hardly leads to significant changes within the 15km radius. This can be deduced
17-17
from the results of the evaluation of the individual landscape units and the results of the visualizations
as well as from the ZTV.
In the immediate area of the wind farm views are often blocked due to the mountainous topography.
In particular, the more sensitive forest units with oak and pine are barely visually impaired by the
Project. Experiencing and perceiving the mentioned units will remain largely unobstructed (see
visualizations and ZTV).
As shown in Table 17-8, some landscape units are affected up to the medium range, namely the
dense Pinus and the dense Quercus forest which have the highest aesthetic relevance of the
intervention. In addition, the impact on the landscape was reduced by the careful design of the turbine
array (see Araysih -Quobaiyat Viewpoint). This is due to the fact, that the layout of the turbines
follows the topography of the existing ridge. Moreover, the ridge is emphasized in the sense of a
landscape arrangement in the aesthetic sense.171 An overprint, effect of dominance or blocking effect
(phalanx) does not arise. This is due to the ordered juxtaposition of the WEA and the
geomorphological arrangement on the ridge. Although the proposed wind turbines will introduce new
technical elements in the landscape and certainly affect the perception of the landscape, the
typological appearance of the ridge remains largely recognizable. In addition, the visual effects of
turbines are entirely reversible at the end of the operational life of the wind farm.
The largest impact on a single landscape unit is assessed to be Medium. This is due to the low
sensitivity of the units and the reduced visibility caused by the topography. The likelihood of the
impact is assessed to be High. The overall visual impact of the turbines during the operational phase is
considered of Minor significance.
Other expected landscape impacts of the Project during the operational phase include power
transmission lines, access roads and crane pads. The transmission lines will be buried and therefore
are expected to have a negligible impact on the landscape. New roads and crane pads are expected to
be of materials similar to existing bedrock and will therefore also not stand out from the surrounding
landscape.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures have been addressed within the design to mitigate elements of
potential landscape impacts:
• Large, multi-MW turbines with large rotor diameters are being considered reduce the number of
turbines per generation capacity and the footprint of the Project.
• Turbines with large rotor diameters have reduced rotor speeds in comparison with smaller
turbines, which also reduces the visual impact.
• The turbines SA 01, SA 26, SA 27 and SA 28 were eliminated.
• The wind farm layout was designed so that the array follows the existing landform of the mountain
ridges. Tracks will be designed to follow and fit with contours in the land as far as possible.
• The turbines and all the other aboveground structures will be removed at the end of the
operational lifetime.
171
Schöbel, Windenergie und Ästhetik [wind energy and aesthetic]; Berlin, 2012.
17-18
Effects of the Mitigation Measures
• By Large, multi-MW turbines with large rotor diameters the number of turbines per generation
capacity and the footprint of the Project was reduced. In addition, large rotors have a reduced
rotor speed compared to smaller turbines which will also reduce the landscape impact of the
Project.
• The turbines SA 01, SA 26, SA 27 and SA 28 were eliminated which will reduce landscape impacts.
In addition, the distance of the turbines to the wind energy projects Lebanon Wind Power and
Hawa Akkar were also increased so that cumulative impacts could be reduced.
• By considering the landform of the mountain ridges at the wind farm design, the wind farm layout
follows the existing morphology of the mountain. Consequently, the typological appearance of the
ridge remains largely recognizable. In addition, the overlapping of rotors of views from the east
• By following the existing tracks and fitting the location of the tracks with the contours lines the
visual impact of the tracks can be reduced.
• By removing the turbines and all the other aboveground structures at the end of the operational
lifetime, the landscape impact of the Project will be entirely revisable and limited to the operation
phase of the Project.
Since the Project area is mountainous, the visibility of the new tracks will be limited and partly blocked
by the topography. Therefore, the landscape impact is expected to be of minor significance, as shown
in Table 17-9.
Table 17-9 Landscape Assessment for Operation Phase
Low Low-Medium √ Medium Medium-High High

Impact Severity
Medium √ Negligible Minor √ Moderate Moderate Major
17.2.3 Landscape Impacts During Decommissioning
Decommissioning impacts are similar to construction impacts: the stockpiling of equipment and
materials, the use of large construction equipment such as cranes, and the decommissioning process
itself. Given the temporary nature of the decommissioning process, landscape impacts are expected to
be of negligible significance.
17-19
18. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
Baseline information regarding archaeology and cultural heritage was undertaken through literature
review.
18.2.1 Archaeological Sites
The archaeological history of Lebanon is one of thousands of years ranging from the Lower Paleolithic,
Phoenician, Jewish, Roman, Muslim, Christian, Ottoman, and Crusades history, including 460 World
Heritage (including UNESCO), Archaeological and Historic Site Locations. Lebanon features several
important Paleolithic sites associated with Neanderthals. These include Adloun, Chekka Jdidé, El-
Masloukh, Ksar Akil, Nahr Ibrahim and Naame. Jbail is a well-known archaeological site, also known as
ancient Byblos, a Phoenician seaport, where the tomb of Ahiram and the other Byblian royal
inscriptions were found. Byblos, as well as archaeological sites in Baalbek, Tyre, Sidon, and Tripoli,
contain artifacts indicating the presence of libraries dating back to the period of Classical antiquity.
The archaeological site mapped near the Project are shown as Sites 1 through 11 in Figure 18-1 and
described below. It is noted that detailed information regarding the sites is limited.
Site 1 – Khorab Beit Daher
Khorabe Beit Daher is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.60889 and
longitude 36.27194 at an elevation of 462 asl. It is listed as Site 423 by the ARCHI Worldwide
Database.172 An aerial map of the site is presented in Figure 18-2.
Site 2 – Obour el Bid
Khorabe Beit Daher is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.61528,
and longitude 36.29639. No elevation information is available. It is listed as Site 55 by the ARCHI
Worldwide Database. An aerial map of the site is presented in Figure 18-3.
Site 3 - Khirbet Hbanjar
Khirbet Hbanjar is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.63694 and
Database. An aerial map of the site is presented in Figure 18-4.
Site 4 – Khirbet Arhsar
Khirbet Hbanjar is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.63278 and
172
https://www.archiuk.com/worldwide
18-1
Figure 18-1 Archaeological Sites Near the Project
7
3 6
4 5
HA
8
2
1
SA
10
LWP
11
18-2
Figure 18-2 Khorab Beit Daher Site
Figure 18-3 Obour el Bid
18-3
Figure 18-4 Khirbet Hbanjar
Figure 18-5 Khirbet Arhsar
18-4
Site 5 - El Mansoura
El Mansoura is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.62861 and

longitude 36.315. There is no elevation information. It is listed as Site 421 by the ARCHI Worldwide
Site 6 – Tahoun Ksar
El Mansoura is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.635 and longitude
36.32083. There is no elevation information. It is listed as Site 419 by the ARCHI Worldwide
Site 7 - Khorab el Haïyat
Khorab el Haïyat is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.64667 and
Site 8 – Qalaat Deïr Chir
Qalaat Deïr Chir is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.62417 and
Site 9 – Khribet el Qasr
Khribtet el Qasr is an archaeological remains/ancient site located at decimal latitude 34.53778 and
longitude 36.37667. There is no elevation information. It is listed as Site 413 by the ARCHI Worldwide
Site 10 – Qalaat Aakkar (Citadel of Hosn Akkar)
Qalaat Aakkar is a 13th century fortified building/earthwork site located at decimal latitude 34.52222
and longitude 36.24. It is listed as Site 430 by the ARCHI Worldwide Database. An aerial map of the
site is presented in Figure 18-10, with a photograph presented in Figure 18-11.
Elevated on a rocky mountain between the two valleys of Akkar, the citadel of Hosn Akkar is only
reachable by goat path. It is said that the citadel was built by Mohrez Bin Akkar, who was killed in 864
A.D., and was later seized by the Seljuks, the Crusaders and the Mamluks. This site was included in
the choice of viewpoints for visual impact assessment.
Site 11 – En Nabi Ayoûb
En Nabi Ayoûb is a tomb/shrine located in Mont-Liban at decimal latitude 34.46583 and longitude
36.19167 at an elevation of 1,308m. It is listed as Site 287 by the ARCHI Worldwide Database. An
aerial map of the site is presented in Figure 18-12, with a photograph presented in Figure 18-13.
18-5
Figure 18-6 El Mansoura
Figure 18-7 Tahoun Ksar
18-6
Figure 18-8 Khorab el Haïyat
Figure 18-9 Qalaat Deïr Chir
18-7
Figure 18-10 Qalaat Akkar
Figure 18-11 Qalaat Akkar Fortress
18-8
Figure 18-12 En Nabi Ayoûb
Figure 18-13 En Nabi Ayoûb
18-9
18.2.2 Cultural Resources and Attractions
Based on the literature review, the Akkar region has several cultural resources and attractions, as
follows:
• St. George et Daniel (included in the choice of viewpoints for visual impact assessment, as shown
in Figure 18-14; refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security).
• Qalaa Al Sayfah Fortress (included in the choice of viewpoints for visual impact assessment, as
shown in Figure 18-14; refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security).
• Silk plant and remains of old mills (also found in nearby Aandqet).
• Old olive press with caves and engraved rocks in Akroum.
• Citadels and mosques dating from the 19th century in Al Bireh and Bourj villages.
• Roman temples in Akroum.
• Cemeteries of Al Salha, Akroum.
• Tall Hmaira.
• Naher El Bared Camp.
• Saydet (Our Lady) Al-Ghisseleh Ancient Church.
• Mar Doumit Ancient Monastery for Carmelite Fathers.
• Mar Challita Ancient Monastery (Aandqet).
• Saint Joseph and Mar Saba Ancient Monasteries (Aandqet).
• Mar Gerges (Saint Georges) Ancient Monastery and Church, near an old well.
• Saydet Ghezrata Ancient Church.
• Old Church in Al-Chanbouq Area.
• Saydet Chahlo Church.
• Mar Eliane Monastery within Al-Bat’aneh Valley buried underground (Aandqet).
• Our Lady of the Fort (Saydet el Qalaa) in Menjez.
• Mar Elias in Oudine.
In addition, the Akkar region offers numerous eco-tourism attractions as follows:
• Quobaiyat’s Scientific Permanent Museum for Animals, Birds & Butterflies.

• The Lebanon Mountain Trail.
• Karm Chbat Nature Reserve; refer to Section 13 Biodiversity.
• Qammouaah Forest.
• The Al Atiqa’a Waterfalls.
• The Ouyoun el Samak Cascade in Safinet el Qaytaah.
18-10
Figure 18-14 Cultural Resources and Attractions
18-11
18.3 Impact Assessment
18.3.1.1 Archaeology
No cultural heritage resources were found during the field work campaigns implemented in the
immediate project zone. In addition, the elevation of the Project site lessens the likelihood of cultural
resources and artifacts to be present. However, it is recognized that the Akkar region (and Lebanon in
genera) is rich in archaeological, cultural and religious artifacts and sites.
During the construction phase, excavation and earth moving for the construction of roads, wind
turbines, transmission lines, substations and buildings may uncover heritage resources.
Though the potential for impact is considered low, a Chance Finds Procedure has been developed (in
accordance with guidance provided by the Ministry of Culture and the General Directorate of
Antiquities) to appropriately respond to cultural resources encountered during construction, as follows:
Where historical remains, antiquity or any other object of cultural or archaeological importance are
unexpectedly discovered during construction in an area not previously known for its archaeological
interest, the following procedures should be applied:
1. Stop construction activities.
2. Delineate the discovered site area.
3. Secure the site to prevent any damage or loss of removable objects. In case of removable
antiquities or sensitive remains, a night guard should be present until the Responsible Authorities
takes over.
4. Notify the responsible foreman/archaeologist, who in turn shall notify the Responsible Authorities,
the General Directorate of Antiquities and local authorities (within less than 24 hours).
5. The Responsible Authorities will be in control of protecting and preserving the site before deciding
on the proper procedures to be carried out.
6. An evaluation of the finding will be performed by the General Directorate of Antiquities. The
significance and importance of the findings will be assessed according to various criteria relevant
to cultural heritage including aesthetic, historic, scientific or research, social and economic values.
7. The decision on how to handle the finding will be reached based on the above assessment and
could include changes in the Project layout (in case of finding an irrevocable remain of cultural or
archaeological importance), conservation, preservation, restoration or salvage.
8. The Responsible Authorities’ decision concerning the management of the finding shall be
implemented fully.
9. Construction work could resume only when permission is given from the Responsible Authorities
after the decision concerning the safeguard of the heritage is fully executed.
The Chance Finds Procedure has been included in the stand-alone ESMP.
Based on the low likelihood of a discovery, and the implementation of the Chance Find Procedure, the
impact severity is considered Slight, while the sensitivity is considered High given the value of the
receptor. This results in a Minor impact, as shown in Table 18-1.
18-12
Table 18-1 Assessment of Potential Impact to Archaeology During Construction
745B
Low
746B Low-Medium
74B Medium
748B Medium-High
749B High √
750B
No Change
752B Negligible
753B Negligible
754B Negligible
75B Negligible
756B Negligible
75B
Slight √ Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor √

Impact Severity
758B 759B 760B 761B 762B 763B
Low
764B Negligible
765B Negligible
76B Minor
76B Minor
768B Moderate
769B
Medium
70B Negligible
71B Minor
72B Moderate
73B Moderate
74B Major
75B

751B
76B 7B 78B 79B 780B 781B
Very High
782B Moderate
783B Moderate
784B Moderate
785B Major
786B Critical
78B
18.3.1.2 Eco Tourism Sites
During the construction phase, access to certain portions of the 5.13M m2 Karm Chbat Nature Reserve
will be limited to ensure the health and safety of visitors. As shown in Figure 18-15, approximately
10-20% of the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve will involve construction activities at different times across
the entire construction phase. Given that other eco-tourism attractions in the area will not be affected,
i.e. Quobaiyat’s Scientific Permanent Museum for Animals, Birds & Butterflies, the Lebanon Mountain
Trail, the Qammouaah Forest, the Al Atika Waterfalls and the Ouyoun el Samak Cascade in Safinet el
Qaytaah, the impact severity of the temporary lack of access to the Karm Chbat Forest Reserve is
considered Low. The sensitivity of the receptor (i.e. eco tourists) is considered Medium, resulting in a
Minor impact, as shown in Table 18-2.
18.3.2.1 Cultural Heritage
During the operation phase, impacts to cultural heritage are not considered significant.
18.3.2.2 Eco Tourism
As a green energy project, the Project is expected to become a tourist attraction, drawing citizens
from other regions of Lebanon (particularly students) to visit the Project site and enjoy the remote
setting. This tourism is considered to have a positive impact on the local economy and enhance
opportunities to visit other nearby eco tourisms sites in the area.
18-13
Figure 18-15 Karm Chbat Nature Reserve
18-14
Table 18-2 Assessment of Access to Karm Chbat Nature Reserve During Operation
78B
Low
789B Low-Medium
790B Medium √
791B Medium-High
792B High
793B
No Change
795B Negligible
796B Negligible
79B Negligible
798B Negligible
79B Negligible
80B

Impact Severity
801B 802B 803B 804B 805B 806B
Low √
807B Negligible
80B Negligible
809B Minor √
810B Minor
81B Moderate
812B
Medium
813B Negligible
814B Minor
815B Moderate
816B Moderate
817B Major
81B

794B
819B 820B 821B 82B 823B 824B
Very High
825B Moderate
826B Moderate
827B Moderate
82B Major
829B Critical
830B
18.3.3.1 Cultural Heritage
During the decommissioning phase, impacts to cultural heritage are considered to be similar to the
construction phase. Again, the low likelihood of encountering cultural resources and artifacts is low,
and the implementation of the Chance Find Procedure reduces the potential for impact even further.
18.3.3.2 Eco Tourism
During the decommissioning phase, the impacts to eco-tourism are considered to be similar to the
construction phase. Again, access to certain portions of the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve will be limited
to ensure the health and safety of visitors. Approximately 10-15% of the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve
will involve decommissioning activities at different times across the entire decommissioning phase.
18-15
19. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
This section presents an assessment of health and safety hazards and sources and their potential
impacts to workers. It is noted that the regulation of occupational health and safety in Lebanon is
shared by the Ministry of Public Health and the Ministry of Labor, which includes the conduct of
inspections to ensure adherence to public health and safety, project and site inspection and
documentation of occupational health and safety conditions and a focus on local community health and
safety expectations and needs.
The selected OEM/EPC Contractor will implement a Health, Safety and Security (HSS) Management
System appropriate to control the risks identified for the construction and operations and maintenance
phases of the Project. The system will include development of appropriate policies and objectives,
responsibilities and authorities of personnel, ensuring that appropriate and competent resources are
available, arrangements for reporting, monitoring, review and corrective actions.
Arrangements are expected to include manual handling/ergonomics, control use of hazardous

substances, covering training, application, storage, work at height, excavation safety, confined space
safety, use of pressurized systems, equipment guarding, use of personal protective equipment (PPE),
use of lifting equipment (including requirements for equipment certification and use of lift plans where
appropriate, risk from falling objects), hot work, work with electricity, control of exposure to
noise/radiation (including electric and magnetic fields), use of vehicles, security, adverse weather
conditions, provision of welfare amenities, etc.
Occupational health and safety information was based on the activities to be undertaken by workers
during the pre-construction, construction, operations and decommissioning phases of the Project.
Anticipated work activities are summarized in the following sections, as described in Section 2
Project Description.
Occupational health and safety are considered primarily in terms of potential exposure to pollutants
from various media (air, water, soil, other) and accident occurrence (direct and indirect) in relation to
on‐site workers and/or operators during both the construction and operation phases.
In this respect, site health, safety and environmental regulations will be compiled for adoption by the
OEM/EPC Contractor involved in construction. These guidelines will be part of the contractual
obligations for the selected OEM/EPC Contractor who will be responsible for ensuring the
implementation of such guidelines as well as training employees for the use of correct tools and
procedures.
19-1
Surveys and Studies
A final transport route review once the specific model of wind turbine has been selected and
dimensions of the components are understood. This will ensure that any changes to the likely impacts
along the route are identified. Additional topographical surveys as required to serve as a solid basis for
the specification of the works. Geotechnical investigations on all proposed sites for wind turbines,
substations, transformers and related structures and buildings, for structures of transmission lines,
along all site road routes for the purpose of construction and further public use and at other sites.
planned survey / monitoring (i.e. surveying of major karstic features, groundwater mapping, water
quality monitoring of groundwater, local springs, etc.) to inform detailed design and address adverse
impacts during construction.
Employment and Workforce Training
After contract award, the successful OEM/EPC Contractor will be asked to present a hiring plan,
including both local and international workforce. The OEM/EPC Contractor shall provide comprehensive
training to Employer’s designated personnel covering all aspects of the Facility and the technical
operation of the wind farm, safety at work, equipment and system for operations and maintenance.
The training shall at least include the following:
• On the job training.

• Factory training.
• Wind Turbine maintenance and associated planning.
• Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) software and hardware training.
• Operations and maintenance staff training.
Preparatory Works
Preparator works will include the following:
• Site preparation including compaction of soil, filling of low areas with imported fill and grading of
the entire area of the site to the required lines levels and slopes, as required.
• Provision of temporary laydown areas, warehouses, workshops, vehicles, equipment etc. all as
necessary for the construction phase.
• Provision of temporary firefighting and alarm system.
• Provision of temporary site drainage, storm water and sanitary drainage as necessary for the site,
site facilities, temporary laydown areas, warehouses, workshops, as required.
• Disposal of sewage, as necessary.
• Provision of temporary site fencing including gates, as necessary.
• Provision of first aid, site safety and security system for the construction phase.
• Provision of temporary offices for the Employer and their representative.
• Provision of temporary offices for the Contractor
Procurement
The procurement and delivery of equipment and parts will be undertaken by the selected OEM/EPC
Contractor. Shipping and clearance will be conducted in compliance with customs and other involved
authorities’ regulations.
19-2
Obstacle Removal and Road Development
required.
Excavation, Land Clearing, Internal Road Network and Foundation Construction
• Platforms consisting of leveled areas adjacent to the turbines and their bases.
• Leveling and large rock removal would be undertaken within the surrounding areas within the
Project site boundaries.
• The platforms will be used for installation and maintenance, to accommodate large vehicles and
equipment.
Transportation of Wind Turbine Components to the Project Site
The transport of wind turbine components will include one turbine assembly, comprised of 5 tower
sections, 2 nacelle sections, 1 hub and 3 blades per turbine, 2 times per week. The transport will
require an escorted convoy of 11 oversized trucks traveling roundtrip from the Tripoli Seaport and
Project site between 11pm and 4am. Transport of the substation and associated switchgear will be
undertaken separately, requiring 1 truck each.
Transportation of Construction Materials
• Sand and gravel sourced from the 6 quarries will require 86 trucks per day for a period of 90 days.
• Transport of surplus excavated material will require approximately 86 trucks per day for a period
of 90 days.
• Ready-mix concrete sourced from the Batching Plant to be constructed in Rweimeh Village will
require approximately 13 trucks per day for a period of 90 days.
• Cement sourced from Chekkah will require approximately 1 truck per day for a period of 90 days.
Installation of WTG Components through Onsite Mobile Cranes
On‐site installation, civil and electrical works by the selected OEM/EPC Contractor, as well as the
Developer.
Other Construction Works
Excavation, ground leveling, concrete works, foundation establishment, and structure erection for
building infrastructure.
Excavation, Land Clearing and Electrical Work to connect each turbine to the power grid
These activities will be required to connect each turbine to the power grid. It includes excavation and
the installation and laying of transmission and communication cables, the installation of the substation
and installation of the buried transmission line along Quobaiyat-Qasr Road and the existing hunter’s
19-3
track to the Project to connect the Project substation with the substation at the Sustainable Akkar
wind farm.
Commissioning
Comprises the transfer of the plant from the state of mechanical completion into the state of
continuous operation and includes mechanical tests will be performed to ensure compliance with
manufacturer specifications, and the proper functioning of electrical and communication systems.
19.2.3 Operations and Maintenance Phase
The operations and maintenance phase will involve 3 full-time workers to undertake the following:
• Management and administration of the facility.

• Environmental, health and safety management.
• Spare parts management including delivery, shipping and logistics for components and parts.
• Remote monitoring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
• Planning and supervision of the maintenance and repair activities.
• Communication with grid operator as well as operating the wind farm to satisfy EDL requirements.
• OEM/EPC Contractor’s home office technical support.
19.2.4 Decommissioning Phase
The decommissioning and restoration process comprises removal of aboveground structures, below
ground structures to a depth of 1m or greater, removal of access roads if required by the land owners
(or local authorities), restoration of topsoil, re-planting and re-vegetation, seeding and
implementation of a two-year monitoring and remediation period, in a manner aimed at reducing the
damage that may affect the land.
The pre-construction phase activities are not expected to pose occupational health and safety impacts
that cannot be managed by standard field survey management plans.
19.3.2 Construction and Operations and Maintenance Phases
During both the construction and operations phases, occupational health and safety impacts are
potentially posed by: work on active roads; the handling of hazardous materials; pressurized
equipment hazards; working above and below grade and confine spaces; operation of lifting
equipment (i.e. cranes, gantry and tuggers); transport of equipment and construction materials by
heavy vehicles; electrical hazards; exposure to noise, vibration, air emissions, radiation and
electromagnetic fields; adverse weather, ground stability and visibility; structural collapse and
mechanical failure; manual handing; security; remote working conditions; and other issues including
language differences.
19-4
The risk register is presented in Table 19-1.
Mitigation
Construction
During construction, it is important to plan and coordinate the efforts and on‐site equipment use
amongst the OEM/EPC Contractor, delivery/shipping company, and supervision and support team from
the technology providers. As such, preparatory work for construction would entail the preparation of
infrastructure for construction and maintenance, performance of civil engineering works, installation of
machinery and installation and connection of electrical equipment.
Mitigation measures include, but are not limited to the following:
Air Quality
• Covering loads of dusty or excavated materials on a vehicle entering or leaving the construction
site with impervious sheeting (such as nylon canvas).
• Undertaking proper enclosure and guarding to limit public access to the site.
• Drivers and workers in the vicinity of earth moving equipment would be supplied with ear
mufflers, as well as goggles and nose masks, if necessary, in order to protect them from dust
impacts.
• Water spraying at the excavation sites prior to, during and after excavation to limit airborne
particles.
• Proper unloading of materials on‐site to minimize dust.
• Limiting the use of heavy equipment during periods of high winds.
• Forbidding construction vehicles from keeping engines running (waiting to enter site or on‐site).
• Adopting weight limits for trucks and not exceeding vehicle loading capacity.
• Ensuring adequate maintenance and repair of construction machinery.
• Maintaining good housekeeping practices; and effective operational and waste management
practices.
• Implementing H&S measures (masks, work gloves, proper clothing, H&S rules) as needed.
• Providing suitable rehabilitation and maintenance of road network surfaces to ease traffic flow.
• Using environmentally friendly equipment with higher fuel efficiency or air pollution control.
• Maintaining and operating equipment using appropriate fuel mixtures.
• Enforcing speed limits for vehicles and maintaining normal traffic speed on‐site and recommended
traffic speed and driving time on the roads.
• Applying dust suppression methods such as watering at access and internal roads.
• Adopting good house‐keeping measures to reduce dust build‐up.
• Maintaining stockpiles at minimum heights and forming long‐term stockpiles into the optimum
shape (i.e. stabilization) to reduce wind erosion.
• Avoiding open burning of solid waste.
• Enclosing the construction site with a dust mesh, as applicable.
• Carrying out loading and unloading of material without scattering.
• Covering access roads and internal roads with plant mix.
• Washing construction vehicles leaving site to prevent transmission of soil.
• Keeping drop height of materials that have potential to generate dust at a minimum.
• Using well‐maintained vehicles and ensuring regular maintenance of these vehicles.
• Collecting and addressing complaints and suggestions through grievance mechanism.
19-5
Table 19-1 Occupational Health and Safety Risk Register – Construction and Operations Phase
Hazard Category Hazard Source Project Phase Scenario Consequences Risk (H/M/L) Key Control Arrangements (Prevention/Mitigation)
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Hazardous Materials Hazardous substances X X Exposure to substance Injury/illness M/L • Hazardous substance use, storage, handling arrangements,
(e.g. toxic, flammable, used/stored (e.g. hazardous to health • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
asphyxiant, explosive) paint, solvents, • Pesticide Management Plans
hydraulic fluids, • Use of PPE
diesel, herbicides, • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
etc.) • Health risk assessment and monitoring
• HSE auditing
• Emergency response
Flammable/ explosive X X Loss of containment, Injury/fatality M • Hazardous substance use, storage, handling arrangements
gas (e.g. welding ignition, fire/explosion/ • Control of ignition sources
gases) missiles • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
• Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
• HSE auditing
Bulk storage of X X Loss of containment, Injury/fatality M/L • Design basis of diesel storage (bunding, ignition control, safeguarding systems)
flammable gas/liquid ignition, fire, BLEVE • Hazardous substance use, storage, handling arrangements
(e.g. propane for • Control of ignition sources
cooking, heating, • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
diesel for vehicle fuel) • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
• HSE auditing
Cellulosic material X Fire in construction Injury/fatality M • Induction briefing
(combustibles such as camp accommodation • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
wood, paper, etc.) area (accumulation, • No smoking, housekeeping policies
ignition of flammable • Fire protection: building fire detection/alarm/protection
materials) • HSE auditing
Cellulosic material X X Fire in operational Injury/fatality M/L • Induction briefing
(combustibles) building (accumulation, • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
ignition of flammable • No smoking, housekeeping policies
materials) • Fire protection: building fire detection/alarm/protection
• HSE auditing
Cellulosic material X X Fire in wind turbine Injury/fatality M • Design basis of wind turbine, active, passive fire protection arrangements,
nacelle (e.g. due to escape/evacuation/rescue arrangements
ignition of insulation, • Hazardous substance use, storage, handling arrangements
lubricants construction, • Control of ignition sources
materials) • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
• HSE auditing
19-6
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Transformer X X Loss of containment, Injury L • Hazardous substance use, storage, handling arrangements
Insulating Fluid (SF6) e.g., during • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
commissioning • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
• Alarm warning systems
• HSE auditing
Pressure Hazards High pressure X Loss of integrity/ Injury/fatality L • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
systems used to catastrophic failure, • Use of PPE
support construction sudden, explosive • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
phase (e.g. hydraulic, release of pressure • HSE auditing
compressed air, • Emergency response
bottled gases, HP
water jetting)
Pressure systems in X Loss of integrity/ Injury/fatality L • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
buildings and used for catastrophic failure, • Use of PPE
maintenance (e.g. sudden, explosive • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
compressed air, release of pressure • HSE auditing
bottled gases) • Emergency response
Differences in Height Work at height during X Fall from height Injury/fatality H • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
(e.g. working above the construction • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment, Use of appropriate
grade, below grade) phase (e.g. work procedures/standards)
foundation • Appropriate training of personnel
construction, pylon, • HSE auditing
mast installation, • Use of PPE, safe working platforms
scaffolding) • Emergency response
Work at height during X Fall from height Injury/fatality H • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
the operations (e.g. • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
maintenance in the • Appropriate training of personnel
nacelle, scaffolding) • HSE auditing
• Use of PPE, safe working platforms
Objects at height X X Dropped object Injury/fatality M • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
(tools, equipment) • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
• HSE auditing
• Use of PPE, safe working platforms
Work below grade X Excavation collapse, Injury/fatality H/M • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
(e.g. excavation, trapped personnel, • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment, Use of appropriate
foundation exposure to work procedures/standards)
construction asphyxiating • HSE auditing
environment • Use of PPE
19-7
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Lifting (e.g. cranes, Cranes, mechanical X Mechanical failure of Injury/fatality H • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
gantry and tuggers) lifting arrangements lifting arrangements, • Control of work (e.g. Lift Plans, Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
deployed during loss of control of lift, • Certification, verification of lifting arrangements
construction/ leading to dropped • HSE auditing
commissioning phase object/impact. • Use of PPE
Cranes, mechanical X Mechanical failure of Injury/fatality M • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
lifting arrangements lifting arrangements, • Control of work (e.g. Lift Plans, Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
deployed during loss of control of lift, • Certification, verification of lifting arrangements
operation/ leading to dropped • HSE auditing
maintenance phase object/impact. • Use of PPE
Transport (e.g. land, Vehicle, plant, X Road traffic accident: Injury/fatality H • Design basis of road infrastructure
marine, air) equipment movement loss of control during • Vehicle land logistics/subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
– during construction/ land transport • Road/land logistics HSE management arrangements (e.g. driver training and
commissioning phase operations competence, safety briefings, journey management, auditing)
Vehicle, plant, X Vehicle impact with Injury/fatality H • Design basis of road infrastructure (segregation of roads, paths)
equipment movement personnel • Control of work activities
– during construction/ • Vehicle land logistics/subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
commissioning phase • Road/land logistics HSE management arrangements (e.g. driver training and
competence, safety briefings, journey management, auditing)
Vehicle, plant, X Road traffic accident: Injury/fatality H/M • Design basis of road infrastructure
equipment movement loss of control during • Vehicle land logistics/subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
– during operation/ land transport • Road/land logistics HSE management arrangements (e.g. driver training and
maintenance phase operations competence, safety briefings, journey management, auditing)
Vehicle, plant, X Vehicle impact with Injury/fatality H/M • Design basis of road infrastructure (segregation of roads, paths)
equipment movement personnel • Control of work activities
– during operation/ • Vehicle land logistics/subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
maintenance phase • Road/land logistics HSE management arrangements (e.g. driver training and
competence, safety briefings, journey management, auditing)
Wind turbine X X Fixed/rotary wing Injury/fatality L • Design basis of wind turbines, masts (location away from flight paths, equipped
structures, aircraft impact with with beacons/lights/warning)
meteorological masts elevated structure
19-8
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Electricity High Voltage and Low X Loss of control/ Injury/fatality H • Design basis of all electrical systems, in accordance with relevant
voltage power separation, personnel safety/engineering codes, standards and legislation
generation systems exposure to live • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment). Appropriate
and distribution electrical system procedures for electrical work, Lock-out and Tag-out procedures)
infrastructure • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
• HSE auditing
• Use of PPE
High Voltage and Low X Loss of control/ Injury/fatality M • Design basis of all electrical systems, in accordance with relevant
voltage power separation, personnel safety/engineering codes, standards and legislation
generation systems exposure to live • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
and distribution electrical system • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment). Appropriate
infrastructure procedures for electrical work, Lock-out and Tag-out procedures)
• HSE auditing
• Use of PPE
Electrical distribution X 3rd party, uncontrolled Injury/fatality L • Design basis of pylons and overhead transmission lines, in accordance with
system/ transmission access to pylons, loss of relevant safety/engineering codes, standards and legislation
line - overhead separation with • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment).
transmission lines • Asset security arrangements, access control
• Community engagement
• Warning signs
Electrical distribution X 3rd party, uncontrolled Injury/fatality L • Design basis of buried transmission lines in accordance with relevant
system/ transmission access to underground safety/engineering codes, standards and legislation
line - underground transmission lines • Asset security arrangements, access control
• Community engagement
• Warning signs
Electrical distribution X Excavation of/impact on Injury/fatality L • Design basis of buried transmission lines in accordance with relevant
system/ transmission underground safety/engineering codes, standards and legislation
line - underground transmission line • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
• Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment), Appropriate
procedures for electrical work, Lock-out and Tag-out procedures)
• Use of PPE
19-9
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Energized electrical X X Fire/explosion, from Injury/fatality M • Design basis of electrical systems in accordance with relevant safety/engineering
systems short circuit or fault codes, standards and legislation.
• Protection systems, active passive fire protection
• Asset integrity (maintenance, inspection, verification)
• Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment). Appropriate
procedures for electrical work, Lock-out and Tag-out procedures.
• Use of PPE
Noise Construction, X Exposure to high, Injury M/L • Design basis of plant and equipment to minimize noise
commissioning plant damaging noise levels • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
and equipment (e.g. • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
generators) • Use of PPE
• HSE auditing, noise monitoring, health risk assessment
Noise sources present X Exposure to high, Injury L • Design basis of plant and equipment to minimize noise
during the operational damaging noise levels • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
phase (e.g. turbine • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
machinery, blade/air • Use of PPE
movement) • HSE auditing, noise monitoring, health risk assessment
Emissions Fumes, dusts during X Exposure to fumes, Injury L • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
construction/ dusts , reduced ambient • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
commissioning phase air quality • Use of PPE
• HSE auditing, air quality monitoring, health risk assessment
Radiation Construction integrity X Exposure to radioactive Injury L • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
assurance/ source • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment, appropriate work
verification activities procedures)
(e.g. weld • HSE auditing
radiography) • Use of PPE
Microwaves X X Loss of separation, Injury L • Design basis of communications equipment, location, shielding
associated with Line exposure to microwaves • Access control
of Sight (LOS) comms • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
systems • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
19-10
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Electromagnetic Fields Electrical equipment, X X Exposure to Injury L • Design basis of electrical systems in accordance with relevant safety/engineering
generation and Electromagnetic Fields codes, standards and legislation
distribution • Control of work (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
infrastructure (e.g. • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
transformers,
generators, turbines
etc.)
Vibration (e.g. use of Equipment, plant X Frequent exposure to Injury M/L • Design basis of plant and equipment to minimize vibration
tools, equipment) used during the vibration from • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
construction phase equipment – Whole • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
(e.g. heavy body vibration, hand • Use of PPE
machinery, arm vibration • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
jackhammer, piling)
Equipment, plant X Frequent exposure to Injury L • Design basis of equipment, tools to minimize vibration
used during the vibration from • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
operations/ equipment – hand arm • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
maintenance phase vibration • Use of PPE
(e.g. hand tools) • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
Confined Space Below grade X Exposure to oxygen Injury/fatality H/M • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
excavation, deficient/ asphyxiating • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment,
construction, atmosphere/restricted Appropriate work procedures)
commissioning phase access
Turbine nacelle and X X Exposure to oxygen Injury/fatality M • Design basis of wind turbine, ventilation arrangements
shaft, inspection deficient/ asphyxiating • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
rooms/hatches atmosphere/restricted • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment,
access Appropriate work procedures )
• HSE auditing, health risk assessment
Environment/ Weather Reduced visibility X X Reduced worksite Injury/fatality L • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
(adverse weather, (e.g. Fog) visibility, increased • Adverse weather policy and procedures
ground stability, likelihood of incident
visibility) (e.g. slips, trips, falls,
impacts, collisions)
High ambient X X Working in high heat Injury/fatality M/L • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
temperature environment, heat • Adverse weather policy and procedures
stress, sunstroke, • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
sunburn, dehydration • Use of PPE
19-11
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Low ambient X X Working in low Injury/fatality M/L • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
temperature (ice, temperature • Adverse weather policy and procedures
snow) environment/ increased • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
likelihood of incident • Use of PPE
(e.g. slips, trips, falls, • Asset maintenance (de-icing, gritting roads)
impacts, collisions)
Low ambient X Ice accumulation and Injury/fatality L • Design basis of wind turbines; designed to accommodate expected loads
temperature (ice, shedding, projectiles • Location of wind turbines (nearest significant community 2km away)
snow) (ice throw) • Adverse weather policy and procedures
• Ice detection warning systems
• Wind turbine operational control
High wind X X Working in high wind Injury/fatality M • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
environment, increased • Adverse weather policy and procedures
likelihood of incident • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
(e.g. slips, trips, falls, • Use of PPE
impacts, projectiles)
High Wind X X Turbine overspeed, Injury/fatality L • Design basis of wind turbine, overspeed protection systems
catastrophic blade • Wind turbine operational control
failure, projectiles • Emergency response
High precipitation X X Working in high Injury/fatality M/L • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
precipitation • Adverse weather policy and procedures
environment, increased • HSE auditing, health risk assessment
likelihood of incident • Use of PPE
(e.g. slips, trips, falls,
impacts, collision)
Flooding – X Working in waterlogged Injury/fatality L • Temporary worksite, access roads, camp flood protection, drainage arrangements
construction/ environment, increased • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
commissioning phase likelihood of incident • Adverse weather policy and procedures
impacts, collision)
Flooding – operation/ X Working in waterlogged Injury/fatality L • Site flood protection, drainage arrangements
maintenance phase environment, increased • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
likelihood of incident • Adverse weather policy and procedures
impacts, collision)
Ground stability X Ground instability, Injury/fatality M • Geotechnical design basis for all structures, roads
structural failures, • Siting of equipment
collapse
19-12
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Ground stability X Ground instability, Injury/fatality L • Geotechnical design basis for all structures
structural failures,
collapse
Lightning X X Lightning strike Injury/fatality L • Structure lightning protection arrangements

• Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment)
• Adverse weather policy and procedures
Earthquake X X Earthquake, ground Injury/fatality L • Site selection

instability, structural • Design basis of all facilities and structures
failures, collapse
Biological (e.g. health, Illness, disease, X X Disease spread among Injury/fatality H • Design basis of all facilities
hygiene) bacteria, virus workforce, • Welfare arrangements
contamination, illness • Health risk policies, management and assessment
• Medical screening, treatment and arrangements
Biological (e.g. health, Illness, disease, X X Disease spread among Injury/fatality L • Design basis of all facilities
hygiene) bacteria, virus workforce, • Welfare arrangements
contamination, illness • Health risk policies, management and assessment
• Medical screening, treatment and arrangements
Mechanical (e.g. Turbine pylon X X Catastrophic structural Injury/fatality L • Design basis of wind turbines; designed to accommodate expected static and
structural collapse, failure dynamic loads.
mechanical failure) • Manufacturing, installation, commissioning QA arrangements
Turbine blade X X Catastrophic failure, Injury/fatality L • Design basis of wind turbines; designed to accommodate expected loads
blade throw, projectiles • Location of wind turbines (nearest significant community 2km away)
• Manufacturing, installation, commissioning QA arrangements
• Wind turbine operational control
Impact Moving machinery, X X Impact with machinery, Injury/fatality M/L • Design basis of wind turbine equipment;
equipment equipment (crushing, • Asset integrity (maintenance, inspection, verification)
piercing, trapping etc.) • Control of work activities (e.g. Permit to Work, Job Hazard Assessment, Lock-out
and tag-out)
• HSE auditing, Risk assessment
Manual handling Lifting/moving of X Injury through Injury/fatality H • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
loads unsuitable manual • Appropriate training and work procedures
handling of equipment • Health risk assessment and monitoring
• HSE auditing
19-13
(to People)
Commissioning
Construction/
Maintenance
Operation/
Lifting/moving of X Injury through Injury/fatality M • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
loads unsuitable manual • Health risk assessment and monitoring
handling of equipment • HSE auditing
Security 3rd Parties X X Unauthorized access to Injury/fatality H • Appropriate secure design of facilities/assets
assets, • Security arrangements
security/terrorism
incident, sabotage
Remote Working Various X X Incidents/injuries Injury/fatality M • Remote and lone working management arrangements
(including lone working) during remote or lone • Subcontractor/supplier/equipment selection and management
working • HSE auditing
Other External vegetation X X Ignition of vegetation Injury/fatality L • Vegetation management, clearance

external to assets, bush
fire.
Workforce language X Communication Injury/fatality M • Communication and training arrangements

barrier issues problems, leading to • Multi-lingual safety representatives
the increased likelihood
of accidents/incidents
19-14
Water and Soil Resources Protection
• Implementation of the Construction Health and Safety Plan.

• Awareness on the efficient use of water.
• Minimizing water and soil exposure.
• Minimizing and if possible, eliminating chemical usage (oil, lubricants and fuel) onsite.
• Using as much as possible non‐toxic and biodegradable chemicals to be stored on‐site.
• Reporting in case of spills from generator or disposed waste on‐site in order to seek immediate
remedial measures.
• Routine inspection and maintenance of equipment to ensure that risk of leak/spill is minimized.
• Promotion of general best practice housekeeping during construction.
• Control and supervision of refueling at all times by appropriate personnel.
• Development and implementation of training program for management of hazardous substances.
• Temporarily store hazardous waste on‐site in a designated and enclosed area.
• Forbidding hazardous waste storage outside designated area.
• Ensuring that oil changes, refueling, or lubrication of vehicles will be conducted offsite or in a
dedicated area.
• Equipping fuel storage tanks with drip trays and spill control equipment.
• In case of spills, hazardous materials would be controlled via absorbents, and contaminated soil
would be removed and disposed of in compliance with applicable legislation.
Topsoil Management
• Strip topsoil from project footprint (turbine bases and platform) at suitable depths and store
separately at specialized areas.
• Minimize topsoil losses via use of suitable equipment, procedures and construction work schedule ‐
avoid soil disturbance during heavy windy and rainy periods.
• Identify topsoil storage areas at relatively low slope areas.
• Ensure that top soil stockpiles do not exceed 2m in height.
• Ensure that only soil material will be stored at topsoil storage areas.
• Maintain slope stability and a safe working environment for heavy construction vehicles.
• Ensure that surface grading is done with appropriate vehicles to avoid soil compaction.
• Enclose topsoil storage area(s) with fencing and place explanatory signboards
• Ensure drainage of temporary topsoil site(s).
• Within completed construction areas (turbine bases and platforms), reuse stored top soil for
rehabilitation and landscaping.
• Do not use vegetative soil or topsoil as fill material under any circumstances.
• Ensure unnecessary soil stripping to minimize disturbance to vegetation, ecosystems and soils.
19-15
Noise and Vibration
• Choosing equipment with lower sound power levels when possible.

• Using noise mufflers, and minimizing machinery or equipment idling conditions.
• Optimizing internal‐traffic routing to minimize vehicle reversing needs and maximize distances
from closest sensitive receptors.
• Keeping the main access road in well‐maintained condition.
• Ensuring mobile vehicles use only designated roads to reduce traffic through community areas
• Proper site logistics and planning.
• Performing proper maintenance on construction vehicles and equipment.
• Limiting site working hours if possible.
• Conducting construction activities closest to noise sensitive receptors during day time only.
• Informing local municipalities and residents of the construction schedule and time of planned noisy
activities.
• Informing noise sensitive receptors about construction schedule in their proximity in advance.
• Scheduling potentially noisier activities during daytime and/or less intrusive times.
• Conducting noise monitoring during construction to verify compliance with regulatory limits.
• Keeping equipment speed as low as feasibly possible without compromising performance.
Solid Waste Management
• Proper site clearing.

• General cleanliness and organization of the site.
• Use of excavated material as fill material, e.g. topsoil.
• Segregation and proper disposal waste oils, paint barrels, lubricants, etc. from other wastes.
Traffic and Transport
• Planning, development and implementation of traffic management

• Maintaining minimal traffic speed on‐site and recommended traffic speed and driving time off‐site
• Implementing working hour limits for drivers and inform drivers periodically on working schedule
• Implementing restrictions for night time driving
• Adopting proper weight guidelines for trucks and not exceeding vehicle loading capacity
• Providing alternate routing plans during all phases of construction
• Restricting operation of heavy vehicles to those who are trained, competent and licensed
• Providing traffic trainings to all relevant personnel and specialized trainings to personnel who will
operate industrial, heavier or critical vehicles.
• Including traffic issues in the scope of the trainings and instructions for site visitors.
• Limiting visitor mobility in the construction area.
• Installing and maintaining signage and other traffic visuals.
• Implementing right of way practices.
• Implementing proper vehicle maintenance at all times.
• Conducting or enforcing periodic medical examinations for drivers.
• Conducting awareness raising activities for affected communities through established mechanism.
• Collecting and addressing complaints and suggestions through the grievance mechanism.
19-16
Health and Safety
• Restriction of access to project construction areas by patrolling and guarding.

• Provision of training on the fundamentals of occupational Health and Safety procedures.
• Developing an Emergency Response Plan and training personnel on the actions to be taken in risk
situations.
• Installation of warning signs at the entrance to the site to inform people about the Project and
risks associated with entry.
• Availability of PPE such as protective clothing, goggles, gloves, boots, masks, rubber boots,
brightly colored working overalls equipped with light reflecting stripes, safety helmets, rubber or
plastic type of equipment (broom, shovel, other) for personnel as needed.
• Covering excavated ground (e.g. anchorage pits for turbines before filling) to prevent fall‐in
accidents for people and animals alike.
• Provision of on‐site medical facility/first aid and medical insurance for the workers/construction
site.
• Installing retaining nets to hold falling debris during site clearing and construction.
• Prevention of stagnation of exposed water volumes to hamper insect and vector breeding.
• Implementation of speed limits for trucks entering and exiting the site.
• Installing proper signage to avoid accidental injury.
• Implementing good housekeeping practices.
• Ensuring that the project elements (turbines, bases, offices, substation, etc.) are designed
incompliance with applicable legislations related to natural hazards, especially seismic safety
• Conducting regular maintenance of equipment.
Table 19-2 Construction Phase Assessment

Impact Severity
19-17
Operations and Maintenance Phase
Air Quality
For generators and other equipment:
• Using good quality fuel (from reputable sources).

• Performing regular and preventive routine maintenance according to manufacturer
recommendations.
• Looking out for and fixing potential leakage and spillage of any kind at an early stage.
• Outfitting of the generators with an effluent filter for Particulate Matter (PM).
Water and Soil Management
• Collecting domestic wastewater from toilets and sinks and conveying to public sewer network.
• Ensuring that no sanitary wastewater is discharged onto the land.
• Identify high risk spill areas, e.g. fuel tanks and generator – and have impervious surfaces and
capture facilities in place.
• Limit activities during adverse weather conditions to reduce potential wind and water erosion.
Noise and Vibration
• Adopting proper scheduling for noisy wind turbine/substation maintenance activities.

• Selecting adequate noise muffling equipment and minimizing machinery idling.
• Ensuring good maintenance and repair of equipment.
• Optimizing turbine operation as per wind speed to minimize noise generation.
• Keeping turbines in good working order throughout the operational life of the project via routine
maintenance, inspection and operational diagnostics.
• Limiting the cutting/clearing of vegetation.
• Planting trees near sensitive receptors to act as a noise barrier.
• Ensuring equipment that may be intermittent in use is shut down between work periods or
throttled down to a minimum.
• Implementing a rigorous inspection and maintenance program applicable to equipment on‐site.
• Providing adequate Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) to workers at noisy activities/locations
that exceed permissible occupational noise level limits.
• Conducting noise monitoring (1st year of operation, continuous at local municipalities, and in case
of complaints) to verify compliance with regulatory limits and take corrective action.
• Storage of SW in a pre‐determined area in covered drums for collection and disposal.

• Keeping the site free of litter.
Health and Safety
• Restricting access to project elements (turbines, substation) by patrolling and guarding areas
around the site – noting that local residents, shepherds/herders, herb gatherers, and land users
will not be subject to area access restrictions, rather restrictions to accessing Project elements.
• Installation of warning signs at site entrances to warn people about the Project and associated
risks.
• Provision of appropriate monitoring instruments
19-18
• Enforcing on‐site transportation regulations.
• Prevention of stagnation of exposed water volumes to hamper insects and vector breeding.
• If needed, employees should be provided with PPE such as hand gloves, helmets, safety shoes,
goggles, aprons etc. and ear protecting devices like earplugs/earmuffs and breathing masks.
• Prohibition of dirt accumulation, dampness, water, oil, and other substances which may adversely
affect electrical safety within electrical areas or the substation.
• Training of workers and staff for fire‐fighting, work permit system, first aid, safe handling of
chemicals and integrating safety during operation.
• Provision of safety and warning signs where needed (displayed in Arabic and English).
• An accident / incident reporting and information system for employees for good awareness levels.
• Provision of first aid boxes at key points at the project facilities with prominent marking.
• Regulations prohibiting smoking in potentially fire prone or sensitive areas and all indoor areas.
• Provision of fire‐fighting equipment and/or system if/where needed within site facilities; and
regular testing of fire extinguishers.
• Ensuring electrical switchboards are not accessible to the public and related cautionary signs are in
place.
• Ensuring access to turbine ladders is closed off and related cautionary signs are in place.
• Grounding installed conducting objects, as applicable.
• Ensuring maintenance schedule for turbines is strictly followed.
Specific to hazards due to accidents and/or incidents and lifting objects to heights can be applicable
during construction and operation:
• Ensuring use of applicable PPEs and other protective means.

• Installing guard rails and signs.
• Ensuring sufficient overall illumination during working hours and special illumination on hazard
areas during nighttime.
• Conducting regular visual checks and clean‐up of excavation debris.
• Restricting operation of heavy machinery to those who are trained, competent and licensed.
• Providing regular H&S trainings.
• Conducting labor audits to contractors’ work force by an external third party.
• Limiting manual lifting/handling needs by providing mechanical alternatives.
• Ensuring personnel who conduct lifting operations receive special training.
• Ensuring lifting operations are well planned and risks discussed in advance.
• Ensuring lifting equipment is properly maintained and has sufficient capacity to support the
weight.
• Setting exclusion zones below any activities working at height, to account for falling objects.
• Abiding by weather condition limits set by the lifting equipment manufacturer.
• Implementing the worker internal occupational grievance mechanism.
• Conducting regular labor audits to contractors’ workforce (by independent third-party auditors).
19-19
Mitigation measures specific to blade and ice throw, and lightning applicable during operation:
• Installing, maintaining and updating lightning protection systems for turbines and other elements.
• Installing and maintaining vibration sensors reacting to imbalance and shut down turbines.
• Using de‐icing mechanism, especially during fall and winter seasons.
• Carrying out periodic blade inspections and repairing defects that could affect blade integrity.
• Ensure heat control mechanism is maintained properly.
• Ensure static and illuminated warning signs are used to inform/warn receptors.
and the sensitivity of the receptor as Medium-High, resulting in a residual impact categorized
as Minor as shown in Table 19-3.
Table 19-3 Operations and Maintenance Phase Assessment

Impact Severity
Low √ Negligible Negligible Minor Minor √ Moderate
19-20
20. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This section presents the Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) for the construction and operation of
the Project. Cumulative impacts are contextual and encompass a broad spectrum of impacts at
different spatial and temporal scales. In this instance, cumulative impacts may occur because the
series of three wind farms, Sustainable Akkar, Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar, will be
constructed in close proximity, and will used the same transport route from Tripoli. Therefore, this
ESIA must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of the three wind farms.
20.1 Wind Farm Descriptions
Three wind farms are to be developed in the Akkar region, the Project and the planned Lebanon Wind
Power and Hawa Akkar wind farms, as shown in Figure 20-1.
20.1.1 Sustainable Akkar
The Project is as described in the previous sections of this ESIA Report. As previously detailed, a
buried transmission line will be established underground between the Project’s substation and that of
the planned Lebanon Wind Power wind farm to the south, which will run 7km through Rweimeh Village
along the existing road corridor (Quobaiyat-Qasr Road). Project land will be secured through long term
lease agreements with the land owners.
Project land for the wind turbines and associated components will be secured through long term lease
agreements with the land owners, while land for the substation will be purchased. Land preparation
and road widening works are expected to start in July 2019 and turbine mounting in March 2020. The
start of operation is expected in June 2020.
20.1.2 Hawa Akkar
The Hawa Akkar wind farm comprises the construction and operation of wind turbines to provide a
maximum licensed capacity of 68.3MW (62.1MW + 10% potential for expansion = 68.3MW)as
stipulated in the PPA arranged between Hawa Akkar and the GOL, which will be delivered to the public
grid. Hawa Akkar is considering installation of Vestas 4.2MW wind turbines at up to 16 locations, for a
total power generation of 67.2MW.
The wind turbine layout is shown in Figure 20-2.
20.1.3 Lebanon Wind Power
The Lebanon Wind Power wind farm comprises the construction and operation of wind turbines to
provide a maximum licensed capacity of 68.3MW (62.1MW + 10% potential for expansion = 68.3MW)
as stipulated in the PPA arranged between Lebanon Wind Power and the GOL, which will be delivered
to the public grid. Depending on the OEM/EPC Contractor selected, the following scenarios are
considered.
20-1
Figure 20-1 Proximity of the 3 Wind Farms
20-2
Figure 20-2 Hawa Akkar Turbine Layout
20-3
Table 20-1 Potential OEMs, Turbine Power Ratings and Turbine Locations
Turbine Power
OEM/EPC No. of WTG Locations Total Power
Power Generated
Contractor Turbines Selected Generated
Rating by Turbines
WTG 07-WTG 13 and

VESTAS 4.2MW 16 67.2MW 67.2MW
WTG 15-WTG 23
WTG 11 and WTG 18-

4.8MW 6 28.8MW
WTG 22
GE 65.9MW
WTG 10, WTG 13-WTG
5.3MW 7 37.1MW
17 and WTG 23
The ESIA for Sustainable Akkar addressed the worst case-scenario, i.e. installation of 5.3MW wind
turbines at a maximum of 16 locations, as in Table 20-1.
The Lebanon Wind Power wind turbine layout is shown in Figure 20-3.
20.2 Cumulative Impact Assessment Methodology
CIA is an evidence-based procedure which sets out the likely combined, significant effects of the
proposed developments on social and environmental resources, so they can be considered in the
planning process.
Specifically, IFC PS1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts
recognizes that because of the increasing significance of system-wide risk factors such as climate
change, water availability, decline of species biodiversity, degradation of ecosystem services, and
modification of socioeconomic and population dynamics, among others, cumulative impact assessment
and management is an essential framework for risk management.
In addition, an assessment of the cumulative impacts from all three proposed wind farms was
undertaken per the request of the MOE stipulated in Minister’s Letter #14175 dated 19/12/2017.
The objective of the CIA is to consider factors that contribute to the cumulative impact of wind turbine
developments to avoid, manage or mitigate cumulative impacts to physical features, ecosystems
services, natural processes, social conditions and cultural assets.
In undertaking the CIA, the six-step approach presented in Figure 20-4 was applied.
In a first step, the compiled dataset for Lebanon Wind Power, Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar were
reviewed to identify the potential for additive and/or synergistic impacts to Valued Environmental
Components (VECs) that could be generated over time by the 3 wind farms.
VECs are the environmental and social attributes that are considered important in assessing
cumulative risks and can include:
• Physical features.
• Natural processes, habitats, wildlife populations.
• Social conditions.
• Cultural aspects.
20-4
Figure 20-3 Lebanon Wind Power Turbine Layout
S N
20-5
Figure 20-4 Cumulative Impact Assessment Approach173
Following review of the data set, it was considered that VECs to be considered in the assessment of
cumulative impacts comprise the following:
• Air Quality.
• Transport and Traffic
• Biodiversity:
− Habitats and Flora.

− Terrestrial Fauna.
− Bats.
− Ornithology.
• Socioeconomic Conditions
• Noise.
• Shadow Flicker.
• Visual Amenity.
• Landscape.
In the second step the key potential impacts and risks that could affect the long-term sustainability
and/or viability of the VEC were identified. The potential for additive and/or synergistic impacts to
VECs, including known or predictable cause-effect relationships, was considered.
A third step comprised the assessment of the significance of potential cumulative impacts and the
need for mitigation.
173
International Finance Corporation, Good Practice Handbook, Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management:
Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets, 2013.
20-6
20.3 Cumulative Impact Assessment
20.3.1 Air Quality
Impacts to air quality are presented in Section 11 Air Quality. The total emissions originating from
the three wind farms are presented in Table 20-2.
Table 20-2 Cumulative Emissions from the Three Wind Farms During Phases
Construction 45,105 2,007,619 403,815 349 11,632
Operation (1yr) 671 81,083 12,138 58 4,905
Decommissioning 4361 71,249 13,866 3 1,558
Total 50,137 2,159,951 429,819 410 18,095
The construction phase will emit the most emissions but is also of a short duration when compared to
the projects’ lifetime.
When compared to the emissions of Waked et al. (2012) for the Akkar area (i.e. emissions of Cells 6,
7, and 10 for Lebanon Wind Power, Cells 4 and 5 for Sustainable Akkar, and Cells 1 and 2 for Hawa
Akkar), the incremental contribution of the emissions are as follows:
• NOx is less than 20%.

• CO is less than 2%.
• SO2 is less than 1%.
On the other hand, the PM emissions are more than an order of magnitude higher than those
calculated by Waked et al. (2012). That means that the CO, NOx, and SO2 incremental emissions are
not expected to breach the air quality standards in any of the phases, while PM (which originates
mainly from fugitive emissions) shall be mitigated during construction. It is noted that most public
receptors are located more than 350m from the construction site; therefore, the receptor considered
in this assessment is the construction worker.
Mitigation
The main concern in the mitigation measures to implement is due to PM emissions and specifically
fugitive PM. IAQM (2016) and Mojave Desert (2013) suggest the following mitigation measures, which
will be implemented at the three wind farms individually:
material. Therefore, and according to Mojave Desert, water spray (application point) will ensure a
control efficiency of 75%.
20-7
Practically, it is considered that fugitive PM can easily be decreased by 75%. As such, with the
application of the above mitigation measures, the severity of the impact from PM is considered Low,
with the receptor sensitivity (the construction worker) considered Medium-High, resulting in a Minor
impact as shown in Table 20-3.
Table 20-3 Cumulative Impact of PM During Construction
874B
Low
875B Low-Medium
876B Medium
87B Medium-High √
87B High
879B
No Change
81B Negligible
82B Negligible
83B Negligible
84B Negligible
85B Negligible
86B
Slight
87B Negligible
8B Negligible
89B Negligible
890B Minor
891B Minor
892B
Impact Severity
Low √
893B Negligible
894B Negligible
895B Minor
896B Minor √
897B Moderate
89B
Medium
89B Negligible
90B Minor
901B Moderate
902B Moderate
903B Major
904B
High
905B Minor
906B Moderate
907B Moderate
908B Major
90B Major
910B
80B
Very High
91B Moderate
912B Moderate
913B Moderate
914B Major
915B Critical
916B
20.3.2 Transport and Traffic
The transport route for the WTG components will begin at the Tripoli Seaport and proceed to the
Project site using existing roads and new road or links, as was previously shown in Figure 2-7
through Figure 2-11. All three wind farms will use a common transport route for the WTG
components, involving the following:
• Road Obstacle Removal.

• New Road Development.
• Transport of the WTG Components, Construction Materials and Workers.
Road Obstacle Removal
Minor civil works will be necessary for trucks carrying the WTG components to navigate from the
Tripoli Port to the three wind farms as follows:
20-8
required.
Such works will be coordinated and permitted by the Project Proponent and the Ministry of Transport
and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels and/or pedestrian use are lowest.
Mitigation
Asphalt speed bumps will be replaced with rubber ones, which we can easily be removed during the
transportation of the WTG components and reinstalled immediately after the trucks pass.
New Road Development
Construction of new segments of road will occur at the following locations:
owners (shown as #1 in Figure 2-7). The new road section will connect with the existing asphalt
road outside of Machta Hammoud.
Mitigation
The construction of asphalt roads will occur for a period of 6 months and will be coordinated and
permitted by Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels are lowest.
Construction of internal track will occur for a period of 3 months and will be coordinated with the
Ministry of Transport and the Lebanese Army. It is considered that construction of the internal tracks
will have no impact on access to and operations at the Lebanese Army Military base and/or external
receptors.
Transport of WTG Components, Construction Materials and Workers
The construction of the three wind farms will be staggered such that the quantities of WTG
components and transport of construction materials can be assumed in succession, as shown in Table
20-4 and Table 20-5.
20-9
Table 20-4 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of WTG Components, Construction Materials and Workers
Estimated Roundtrips
Maximum From Tripoli Port to Project Site
Component Quantity Total Units Vehicle Type
Turbines Maximum Turbine Duration =
Maximum Truck Trips/Week
Transport/Week
Lebanon Wind Power
5 sections/ 5 oversize trucks/
Tower 16 80 10
tower/turbine tower/turbine
Nacelles 16 32 4
nacelle/turbine nacelle/turbine
2
1 oversize truck/
Hub 1 hub/turbine 16 16 2
hub/turbine
3 oversize trucks/ 8 weeks
Blades 3 blades/turbine 16 48 6
3 blades/turbine
Totals 176 12 oversize trucks/turbine 2 24
Substation 1 substation/17 turbines NA 1 1 oversize truck/substation 1 NA

1 semi-trailer
Switchgear 1 substation/17 turbines NA 1 1 NA
(20-ton)/ switchgear
Sustainable Akkar
Tower 27 135 10
Nacelles 27 54 4
2
1 oversize truck/
hub/turbine 13 weeks
3 oversize trucks/
3 blades/turbine
Substation 1 substation/27 turbines 27 1 1 oversize truck/substation 1 NA

1 semi-trailer
Switchgear 1 substation/27 turbines 27 1 1 NA
Hawa Akkar
Tower 16 80 10
Nacelles 16 32 4
2
1 oversize truck/
hub/turbine
3 oversize trucks/ 8 weeks
3 blades/turbine
Substation 1 substation/17 turbines 16 1 1 oversize truck/substation 1 NA

1 semi-trailer
Switchgear 1 substation/17 turbines 16 1 1 NA
20-10
Table 20-5 Vehicle Trips Required for Transport of Construction Materials
Lebanon Wind Power Quantities Transport Total Number of Trips No. of Total Number of Trips/Day
Low High Range Description Capacity Low Range High Range Working Low Range High Range Average
Range Days
Surplus from excavation managed in m³ 137,427 171,784 Semi-Trailer (m3) 20 6,871 8,589 90 76.35 95.44 85.89
Ready-mixed concrete in m³ sourced 10,737 12,884 Concrete Mixer Truck (m3) 10 1,074 1,288 90 11.93 14.32 13.12
from Batching Plant in Rweimeh Village
Cement in tonnes sourced from Chekkah 4,295 5,154 Powder Cement Tank Trailer (tonnes) 45 95 115 80 1.19 1.43 1.31
Sand in m3 from 6 Quarries 4,295 5,154 Semi-Trailer (m3) 20 215 258 80 2.68 3.22 2.95
Gravel in m3 from 6 Quarries 8,589 10,307 Semi-Trailer (m3) 20 429 515 80 5.37 6.44 5.91
Construction steel in tonnes 1,074 1,503 Semi-Trailer (m3) 20 54 75 80 0.67 0.94 0.81
Sustainable Akkar Quantities Transport Total number of Trips No. of Total No. of Trips/day
working days
Low High Range Description Capacity Low Range High Range Low Range High Range Average
Range
3
Ready-mixed concrete in m³ sourced 14,263 17,116 Concrete Mixer Truck (m ) 10 1,426 1,712 90 15.85 19.02 17.43
Hawa Akkar Quantities Transport Total Number of Trips No. of Total Number of Trips/Day
Low High Range Description Capacity Low Range High Range Working Low Range High Range Average
Range Days
Ready-mixed concrete in m³ sourced 10,737 12,884 Concrete Mixer Truck (m3) 10 1,074 1,288 90 11.93 14.32 13.12
20-11
The construction phase may require a worst-case scenario of up to 250 staff working in a single day
for both Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar together). The OEM/EPC Contractors for the
three wind farms have not yet been selected; however, approximately 25% of the workers (up to 50)
will be hired from the local communities in the northeastern part of Akkar, including Wadi Khaled. The
OEM/EPC Contractor will be required to transport local workers from local villages through carpooling
and/or van transport to minimize traffic impacts to rural roads.
The balance of the workforce (up to 150) will be accommodated in nearby villages in hotels and/or
apartments. Again, the OEM/EPC Contractor will be required to provide carpooling and/or van
transport of workers to reduce traffic impacts to rural roads. The exact details are to be determined
following selection of the OEM/EPC Contractor and the location of hired construction workers.
• A communications protocol being developed for the transport of WTG components will be
distributed to all Mayors two to three months prior to the start of transport. A final transport route
map will be provided to all municipalities.
• Announcements will be made to all villages along the WTG transport route from the Tripoli Seaport
to the entrance of the Project site).
and gravel, and maintenance activities will be undertaken by the Developer.
• Once the OEM/EPC Contractor has been selected, and the number and location of construction
numbers are known, measures will be put in place to maximize mitigation of traffic impacts
through carpooling and group transport by van.
Given the above, the cumulative impacts of traffic and transport for the three wind farms is not
considered to be much greater than for the individual Project. Collectively, therefore, the impact
severity is considered Low, with the sensitivity of the receptor considered Medium, resulting in a Minor
impact as shown in Table 20-6.
20-12
Table 20-6 Cumulative Impact of Traffic and Transport During Construction
917B
Low
918B Low-Medium
91B Medium √
920B Medium-High
921B High
92B
No Change
924B Negligible
925B Negligible
926B Negligible
927B Negligible
928B Negligible
92B
Slight
930B Negligible
931B Negligible
932B Negligible
93B Minor
934B Minor
935B
Impact Severity
Low √
936B Negligible
937B Negligible
938B Minor √
93B Minor
940B Moderate
941B
Medium
942B Negligible
943B Minor
94B Moderate
945B Moderate
946B Major
947B
High
948B Minor
94B Moderate
950B Moderate
951B Major
952B Major
953B
923B
Very High
954B Moderate
95B Moderate
956B Moderate
957B Major
958B Critical
95B
20.3.3 Biodiversity
Habitat loss impacts from Sustainable Akkar are predicted to be negligible. Impacts associated with
Hawa Akkar and Lebanon Wind Power wind farms are also predicted to be negligible based on the
similar requirement for infrastructure and on the lower importance of the habitats around both Hawa
Akkar and Lebanon Wind Power. The appropriate implementation of the mitigation will result in non-
significant impacts at all wind farm sites. No cumulative impacts are predicted from the three wind
farms in combination on habitats and flora.
Potential Impacts at Sustainable Akkar
During Construction
As described in Section 13.2.1, taxa with high ecological value are considered to be sensitive
features for the Project. These are: Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus drupacea, Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus
Rhamnus cathartica. No IPA or other threatened species were recorded on the Project site, although
three vulnerable species are expected to be present (Ehernberg’s marjoram Origanum ehrenbergii,
snow romulea Romulea nivalis and R. phoenicia). Including Origanum libanoticum, six endemic species
also occur on the Project site.
Construction activities have the potential to degrade or destroy terrestrial habitat either directly
through excavation, compaction, or modification (e.g. vegetation removal) or indirectly as a result of
turbine foundations, new access tracks and the substation would cause permanent habitat loss.
Habitat loss and modification includes all areas replaced and potentially modified by project
infrastructure, e.g. turbine foundations and permanent hardstanding, access tracks and the substation
site.
20-13
Direct loss and indirect modification from the proposed development could total up to 75.47ha out of
943.72ha (8%) in the Project site, i.e. the overall habitat loss as a result of the proposed development
would be low and in itself is not considered to constitute an ecologically significant effect. However,
the following sections consider the importance of certain habitat types and sensitive features and the
potential significance of any effects resulting from habitat loss impacts. A minor adverse impact is
considered to occur if the habitat loss involves less than 10% of the habitat present in the Project site
and a moderate adverse impact if the habitat loss involves 10-20% of the habitat present in the
Project site. A major adverse impact is considered to occur if the habitat loss involves greater than
20% of the habitat present in the Project site. The significance of the effect is considered in relation to
the magnitude of the impact, the habitat present in the wider region (where information is available)
and the ecological importance of the habitat. A significant effect is considered to occur where the
impact would lead to an adverse effect on the function or status of a habitat (including the extent,
abundance and distribution of flora species).
Sensitive Features
Nine (9) sensitive features were recorded on the Project site. The sensitive features were recorded in
the Juniperus excelsa dominance (Juniperus excelsa), mixed oak woodland, including the oak/J.
excelsa mix (Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus oxycedrus, Juniperus drupacea, Origanum
libanoticum, Phillyrea media, Ranunculus cuneatus and Rhamnus cathartica), oak woodland (Juniperus
excelsa and Phillyrea media) and oak/pine habitat types (Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus oxycedrus,
Juniperus drupacea, Origanum libanoticum, Ostrya carpinifolia, Phillyrea media and Rhamnus
cathartica).
The total area of Juniperus excelsa dominance likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed
development is 2.69ha (19.55%). This is considered to be a Moderate adverse impact on Juniperus
excelsa in a habitat of regional importance. The total area of mixed oak woodland and oak/J. excelsa
mix habitat types likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 49.98 ha
(6.59%). This is considered to be a Minor adverse impact on Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus excelsa,
Juniperus oxycedrus, Juniperus drupacea, Origanum libanoticum, Phillyrea media, Ranunculus
cuneatus and Rhamnus cathartica in a habitat of national importance. The total area of oak woodland
likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 1.65ha (12.39%). This is
considered to be a Moderate adverse impact on Juniperus excelsa and Phillyrea media in a habitat of
regional importance. The total area of oak/pine habitat type likely to be lost or modified as a result of
the proposed development is 13.97ha (12.05%). This is considered to be a Moderate adverse impact
on Juniperus excelsa, Juniperus oxycedrus, Juniperus drupacea, Origanum libanoticum, Ostrya
carpinifolia, Phillyrea media and Rhamnus catharticain a habitat of national importance. However, as
only a very small part of these habitat types is likely to contain these species, the loss or modification
is not considered to lead to an ecologically significant effect. The impacts are minor in habitats of
national importance apart from the oak/pine habitat type, which has a moderate impact in a habitat of
national importance. However, the oak/pine habitat type is well-distributed in the region, with better
However, as the species are sensitive features, as detailed in Section 13.2.1, measures will be taken
to offset any losses of the species as a result of the proposed development.
20-14
Vulnerable Species
Three vulnerable species are expected to be present (Ehernberg’s marjoram, snow romulea and
Romulea phoenicia). Ehernberg’s marjoram is likely to occur in coniferous woodland. Snow romulea
and Romulea phornicia are likely to occur in coniferous woodland, mixed oak woodland and oak
woodland.
The total area of pine forest dominance 2 habitat type likely to be lost or modified as a result of the
proposed development is 7.16ha (16.93%). The total area of oak/pine habitat type likely to be lost or
modified as a result of the proposed development is 13.97ha (12.05%). The total area of mixed oak
woodland and oak/J. excelsa mix habitat types likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed
development is 49.98ha (6.59%). The total area of oak woodland likely to be lost or modified as a
result of the proposed development is 1.65ha (12.39%). These are considered to be Moderate
adverse impacts that would not result in ecologically significant effects.
However, as the species are vulnerable, as detailed in Section 13.2.1,measures will be taken to
offset any losses of the species as a result of the proposed development.
Endemic Species
Six endemic species were recorded on the Project site, with two further endemic species not recorded
on the site but expected to be present (Silene reuteriana and Salvia peyronii). The endemic species
were recorded in the mixed oak woodland (Phlomis chrysophylla, Salvia hierosolymitana, Origanum
libanoticum, Ballota antilibanotica and Micromeria graeca) and oak/pine habitat types (Phlomis
chrysophylla, Origanum libanoticum and Pyrus syriaca).
The total area of mixed oak woodland and oak/J. excelsa mix habitat types likely to be lost or modified
as a result of the proposed development is 49.98ha (6.59%). This is considered to be a Minor
adverse impact on Phlomis chrysophylla, Salvia hierosolymitana, Origanum libanoticum, Ballota
antilibanotica and Micromeria graeca in a habitat of national importance. The total area of oak/pine
habitat type likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 13.97ha
(12.05%). This is considered to be a Moderate adverse impact on Phlomis chrysophylla, Origanum
libanoticum and Pyrus syriaca in a habitat of national importance. However, as only a very small part
of the habitat types are likely to contain these species, the loss or modification is not considered to
lead to an ecologically significant effect. Although a moderate impact is considered to occur in a
habitat of national importance, the oak/pine habitat type is well-distributed in the region, with better
However, as the species are endemic, as detailed in Section 13.2.1, measures will be taken to offset
any losses of the species as a result of the proposed development.
Natural Habitats
The areas of oak woodland and mixed woodland habitat (oak-pine mix) in good condition around
Turbines 22-18 and Turbines 13, 15, and 17 are considered to be natural habitats in the CHA, as
detailed in Appendix L. The total area of oak woodland likely to be lost or modified as a result of the
proposed development is 1.65ha (12.39%). The total area of oak-pine mix habitat type likely to be
lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 13.97ha (12.05%). These are considered
to be Moderate adverse impacts that would not result in ecologically significant effects but as these
20-15
habitats are considered to be natural habitats, mitigation would need to provide a no net loss of
biodiversity for these areas.
During Operations and Maintenance
increase in tree felling activities undertaken by local people, leading to a further loss of oak, Juniperus
excelsa and pine habitat types. However, as unpaved tracks already occur in the Project site and some
areas show signs of being previously felled, this is considered to be a Minor adverse impact and is not
considered to lead to an ecologically significant effect.
During Decommissioning
Potential Impacts at Hawa Akkar
The Hawa Akkar ESIA Report by MORES S.A.R.L. indicates the following:
The impacts of wind farms on floral diversity and vegetation cover is not given special attentions
during the construction phase where the road systems are installed. It is acknowledged that road
systems often result in habitat fragmentation which will affect both quality and quantity of the
habitats. These would have a direct impact on the wildlife as well.
In principle, road constructions favor the introduction of exotic species. Thus, it reduces native
biodiversity (Rentch et al. 2005, Hill et al. 2005). It can destroy plant populations and communities as
well. Roads serve as barriers to dispersal for some animals, by disrupting behavior and increased
noise levels can reduce bird densities (Reijnen et al. 1997, Brotons and Herrando 2001, St. Clair 2003,
Bautista et al. 2004). Wind or animal vehicle seed dispersal is affected as well in certain
circumstances.
Potential Impacts at Lebanon Wind Power
During Construction
Cilician fir, a near threatened species occurs in the Project site. Two of the threatened species that led
to the classification of the area as an IPA, Cousinia libanotica and Astragalus angulosus, occur in the
Project site. Three further IPA species were not observed during surveys but are expected to be
present (Schweinfurth’s buttercup Ranunculus schweinfurthii, Erophila gilgiana and Silene grisea).
Lebanon violet, an endangered, endemic species, was observed in the Project site, as was Lebanon
cedar, a vulnerable, although not endemic species. Two other vulnerable, endemic species were not
observed during surveys but are expected to be present (Ehrenberg’s marjoram Origanum ehrenbergii
and snow romulea Romulea nivalis). Twelve (12) endemic species also occur in the Project site, with
two further endemic species expected to be present.
Construction activities have the potential to degrade or destroy terrestrial habitat either directly,
through excavation, compaction or modification (e.g. vegetation removal), or indirectly as a result of
20-16
turbine foundations, access tracks and the substation would cause permanent habitat loss. Habitat
loss and modification includes all areas replaced and potentially modified by project infrastructure,
e.g. turbine foundations and permanent hardstanding, access tracks and the substation site.
Direct loss and indirect modification from the proposed development could total 32.16ha out of
724.02 ha (4.44%) within the site boundary (including the proposed new road between LWP and SA
outwith the site boundary), i.e. the overall loss as a result of the proposed development is likely to be
low and in itself is not likely to constitute an ecologically significant effect. However, the following
sections consider the importance of certain habitat types, zones and sensitive features and the
potential significance of any effects resulting from loss impacts. A minor adverse impact is considered
to occur if the habitat loss involves less than 10% of the habitat present in the Project site and a
moderate adverse impact if the habitat loss involves 10-20% of the habitat present in the Project site.
A major adverse impact is considered to occur if the habitat loss involves greater than 20% of the
habitat present in the Project site. The significance of the effect is considered in relation to the
magnitude of the impact, the habitat present in the wider region (where information is available) and
the ecological importance of the habitat. A significant effect is considered to occur where the impact
would lead to an adverse effect on the function or status of a habitat (including the extent, abundance
and distribution of flora species).
Karm Chbat Nature Reserve
Total losses or modifications from the proposed development potentially total 8.31ha out of 118.77ha
(7.01%) within the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve, i.e. the overall loss or modification as a result of the
proposed development is likely to be negligible and in itself does not constitute an ecologically
significant effect on this feature of national importance. However, important plant species are believed
to occur in the degraded coniferous forest and coniferous forest 3 habitats. At present, it is considered
that 5.87% and 15.58% of these habitat types, respectively, could be affected as a result of the
proposed development. The loss of over 15% of the coniferous forest 3 habitat could lead to an
ecologically significant effect as this habitat type only occurs in Karm Chbat and is not present
elsewhere in the Project site. Furthermore, better quality/less degraded coniferous forest habitat is
present in the region, particularly in the Aandqet Forest. As only a small part of the degraded
coniferous forest habitat would be lost, it is not considered likely to lead to an ecologically significant
effect.
These habitats occur within private or barren land and, typically, no ecologically significant effects
would be considered to occur. However, as Karm Chbat is considered to be a critical habitat as part of
the Lebanon Wind Power CHA, further mitigation is required to ensure there is a net biodiversity gain
for the habitats within Karm Chbat.
Cilician Fir Supporting Habitat
The degraded coniferous forest and coniferous forest 3 habitats support Cilician fir, the endemic tree
species for which the large Western Akroum KBA was established. The total area of habitat likely to be
lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 9.41ha (5.59%). This is considered to be a
Minor adverse impact on Cilician fir. This loss/modification is not likely to lead to an ecologically
significant effect, not least as there are large areas of degraded coniferous forest elsewhere in the
Project site that are not impacted in any way by the development and better quality/less degraded
coniferous forest in the wider region, particularly in the Aandqet Forest and Oudine Valley. However,
20-17
only one area of coniferous forest 3 habitat occurs in the Project site and the loss of this could lead to
an ecologically significant effect.
As the species is the named feature of a KBA, measures will be taken to offset any losses of the
species as a result of the proposed development. The degraded coniferous forest and coniferous forest
habitats are considered to be critical habitat as part of the Lebanon Wind Power CHA and further
mitigation is required to ensure there is a net biodiversity gain for this habitat and the habitats that
fall within the KBA.
IPA Species
Cousinia libanotica occurs in the degraded coniferous forest habitat, subalpine zone 1 and subalpine
zone 2. Astragalus angulosus occurs in the ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone. Three further IPA
species were not observed during surveys but are expected to be present:
• Ranunculus schweinfurthii.
• Erophila gilgiana.
• Silene grisea.
The total area of degraded coniferous forest habitat likely be lost or modified as a result of the
proposed development is 7.9ha (6.07%). This is considered to be a Minor adverse impact on Cousinia
libanotica in a habitat of national importance. The total area of subalpine zone likely to be lost or
modified as a result of the proposed development is 15.28ha (4.34%). This is considered to be a
Minor adverse impact on Cousinia libanotica in a habitat of national importance. The total area of
ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed
development is 5.69ha (7.54%). This is considered to be a Minor adverse impact on Cousinia
libanotica and Astragalus angulosus in a habitat of national importance. Notwithstanding the fact that
only a very small part of these habitat types and zones will contain the IPA species, the potential loss
or modification of 5.18% of the total area within the Project site is not likely to lead to an ecologically
significant effect. The impacts are minor on features of national importance and there are large areas
of degraded coniferous forest, subalpine zone and ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone elsewhere in
the Project site that are not impacted in any way by the development and better quality/less degraded
habitat in the wider region.
Endangered and Vulnerable Species
An endangered species, Lebanon violet, and a vulnerable species, Lebanon cedar, were recorded in
the degraded coniferous forest habitat. Three other vulnerable species, Schweinfurth’s buttercup,
Ehrenberg’s marjoram and snow romulea, were not observed during surveys but are expected to be
present. They occur on sandstone and in areas of melting snow in mountainous regions. The majority
of the site is unlikely to be suitable for such snow areas to persist, however, it is considered possible
that areas within the degraded coniferous forest habitat in the northern part of the Project site might
provide such conditions.
The total area of degraded coniferous forest habitat likely to be lost or modified as a result of the
proposed development is 7.9ha (6.07%). This is considered to be a Minor adverse impact on Lebanon
violet and Lebanon cedar in a habitat of national importance. Notwithstanding the fact that only a very
small part of this habitat type will contain the vulnerable species, the potential loss or modification of
6.07% of the total area within the Project site is not likely to lead to an ecologically significant effect.
This loss/modification is not likely to lead to an ecologically significant effect as there are large areas
20-18
of degraded coniferous forest elsewhere in the Project site that are not impacted in any way by the
development and better quality/less degraded coniferous forest in the wider region, particularly in the
Aanqet Forest and Oudine Valley. However, as the species are endangered and vulnerable, measures
will be taken to offset any potential losses of the species as a result of the proposed development.
Critical habitat for Lebanon violet is not considered to be present on the Project site. Critical habitat is
present for Lebanon cedar and further mitigation is required to ensure there is a net biodiversity gain
for this habitat. The presence of critical habitat could not be confirmed for Scweinfurth’s buttercup,
Ehrenberg’s marjoram and snow romulea. Full details are provided in the Lebanon Wind Power CHA.
Endemic Species
Twelve endemic species were recorded on the site, with two further endemic species not observed
during surveys but expected to be there (Alchemilla diademata and Campanula trichopoda). The
endemic species were recorded in the degraded coniferous forest habitat (Astragalus cruentiflorus,
Acantholimon libanoticum, Centaurea hololeuca and Berberis libanotica), ecotone subalpine/high
mountain zone (Hypericum libanoticum, Asperula glareosa, Berberis libanotica and Campanula stricta),
subalpine zone 1 (Astragalus kurnet-es-saudae and Campanula stricta) and subalpine zone 2
(Astragalus cruentiflorus, Astragalus hermoneus, Acantholimon libanoticum, Asynema rigidum,
Daphne libanotica, Berberis libanotica, Astragalus kurnet-es-saudae and Astragalus dictyocarpus).
The total area of degraded coniferous forest habitat likely to be lost or modified as a result of the
proposed development is 7.9ha (6.07%). This is considered to be a Minor adverse impact on
Astragalus cruentiflorus, Acantholimon libanoticum, Centaurea hololeuca and Berberis libanotica in a
habitat of national importance. The total area of ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone likely to be
lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 5.69ha (7.54%). This is considered to be a
Minor adverse impact on Hypericum libanoticum, Asperula glareosa, Berberis libanotica and
Campanula stricta in a habitat of national importance. The total area of subalpine zone likely to be lost
or modified as a result of the proposed development is 15.28ha (4.34%). This is considered to be a
Minor adverse impact on Astragalus cruentiflorus, Astragalus hermoneus, Acantholimon libanoticum,
Asynema rigidum, Daphne libanotica, Berberis libanotica, Astragalus kurnet-es-saudae, Astragalus
dictyocarpus and Campanula stricta in a habitat of national importance. Notwithstanding the fact that
only a very small part of these habitat types and zones will contain the endemic species, the loss of
5.18% of the total area within the Project site is not likely to lead to an ecologically significant effect.
The impacts are minor on features of national importance and there are large areas of degraded
coniferous forest, subalpine zone and ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone elsewhere in the Project
site that are not impacted in any way by the development and better quality/less degraded habitat in
the wider region.
However, as the species are endemic, measures will be taken to offset any losses of the species as a
result of the proposed development. It cannot be confirmed if critical habitat is present for any
individual endemic species. However, it is possible that the assemblage of endemic species might be
sufficient to trigger critical habitat status, as detailed in the Lebanon Wind Power CHA.
Natural Habitats
The subalpine zone, ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone and coniferous forest habitat type are
considered to be natural habitats in the Lebanon Wind Power CHA. The total area of subalpine zone
likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development is 15.28ha (4.34%). The total
area of ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone likely to be lost or modified as a result of the proposed
20-19
development is 5.69ha (7.54%). The total area of coniferous forest habitat likely to be lost or modified
as a result of the proposed development is 1.51ha (3.94%). These are considered to be Minor
adverse impacts that would not result in ecologically significant effects but as these habitats are
considered to be natural habitats, mitigation would need to provide a no net loss of biodiversity for
these areas.
increase in tree felling activities undertaken by local people, leading to a further loss of degraded
coniferous forest and coniferous forest. However, as unpaved tracks already occur in the Project site
and some areas show signs of being previously felled, this is considered to be a Minor adverse impact
and is not considered to lead to an ecologically significant effect.
Mitigation
While ecologically significant impacts on habitats and flora are possible, they can be effectively
reduced to an insignificant level through the effective implementation of the proposed mitigation at
the Project. The same methods of mitigation would be utilized at both Sustainable Akkar and Hawa
Akkar, as applicable and include:
During Pre-Construction
• Completion of a pre-construction flora survey to identify habitats and key flora species as
identified in the baseline section.
• Completion of pre-construction survey to identify all Cilician firs and Lebanon cedars on site and
subsequent micrositing of infrastructure to avoid or reduce their removal. Where this is not
possible, appropriate offsetting of the loss of Cilician firs and Lebanon cedars within those areas
will be completed.
• Preparation of a final BAMP outlining the measures required to deliver a net gain for areas of
critical habitat, such as the degraded coniferous forest and coniferous forest habitat types where
Lebanon cedar and Cilician fir are known to occur, and no net loss for areas of natural habitat,
such as the subalpine zone and ecotone subalpine/high mountain zone.
During Construction
• A net gain of critical habitat will be achieved through the translocation of Lebanon cedar and
Cilician fir and the creation of new woodland, particularly in Karm Chbat and in the degraded
coniferous forest habitat type. Translocations would follow IUCN guidelines174. The developer
would identify suitable receptor sites to replicate conditions found on the donor site and the
receptor sites would be as close to the Project site as possible in areas not earmarked for future
174
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2013-009.pdf, Accessed on 7th August 2019.
20-20
development. The receptor site must be the same size or bigger to ensure no biodiversity loss.
Monitoring of the success of translocation and the creation of new woodland will be undertaken for
the duration of the development i.e. 25 years. Full details of the measures to achieve a net gain
for critical habitat will be provided in the final BAMP.
• Preparation and provision of workforce toolbox talks and monitoring to ensure all staff understand
the importance of the biodiversity controls in place, what they entail and how these controls
should be followed. Particular key early tasks in workforce education will include implementation of
a hunting ban on the Project site and prohibition of burning of vegetation for warmth or cooking.
include measures such as adherence to strict working boundaries for all infrastructure
construction.
• If any key flora species are identified during the pre-construction survey, areas of habitat
inhabited by the plants would be avoided. If it is not possible to avoid examples or areas of the
species listed in the baseline, every effort would be made to reduce the impact and further
offsetting would be required.
• Avoidance of gullies and snow cones to minimize disturbance with the snow melt water system.
• Implementation of rehabilitation measures to mitigate the loss of habitat, such as vegetation
remediation, translocation or creation of new habitat areas. Full details of these measures will be
provided in the final BAMP to be developed by others.
• Proper management of excavation materials. Rubble from site excavations should not be allowed
to spread down slopes. Clear working procedures should be defined, implemented and supervised.
• Separation and storage of top soil for use in restoration of all temporary project infrastructure and
types will be required.
• Soil management would also include observance of appropriate biosecurity controls to prevent the
spread of invasive plants or floral diseases. This would involve washing vehicles and equipment to
remove particles of vegetation and loose soil, with this done in specific “wash down” areas. Any
invasive plants that are removed during vegetation clearance would need to be disposed of
appropriately, in a safe way that does not allow it to spread.
• Monitoring of all habitat reinstatement, translocation, recreation, offsetting or enhancement as

identified and implemented as required following pre-construction surveys.
• Monitor power-line right-of-way vegetation to avoid fire risk. Remove blowdown and other high-
hazard fuel accumulations.
Typically, the same controls set out for construction would apply:
20-21
measures such adherence to strict working boundaries for all infrastructure decommissioning.
While ecologically significant impacts on terrestrial faunal species and their resting places are possible,
they can be effectively reduced to an insignificant level through the effective implementation of the
proposed mitigation, e.g. pre-construction surveys and subsequent temporal or seasonal avoidance of
impacts. The same methods of mitigation would be utilized at both Sustainable Akkar and Hawa
Akkar, resulting in non-significant impacts at all wind farm sites. It is considered that the cumulative
impact on terrestrial fauna is not significant.
During Construction
Loss or Disturbance of Resting Places
Faunal species typically inhabit locations for sleeping, breeding and/or hibernating (hereafter “resting
places”) either underground or within vegetation, e.g. in a tree. The construction of the proposed
development has the potential to damage or destroy resting places within vegetation and
underground.
The loss (destruction) of a resting place would be an adverse one-time, high magnitude permanent
direct impact upon the individual or population of a species inhabiting the resting place and cause
them to seek shelter elsewhere, in possibly less favourable locations where it would be necessary to
find or construct a new resting place. Without detailed survey data, it is difficult to establish the
sensitivity of the faunal species as that would depend on factors such as the species present, the
numbers of individuals using the resting place and the type of resting place being lost, e.g. breeding
or hibernation. The impact would be limited in extent to the individual or population using the resting
place.
Assuming a likely worst-case scenario based on the species identified in the mammal desk study, that
the species impacted is of regional importance and the resting place forms a key part of the species’
life cycle, the impact would result in a significant ecological effect.
For reptiles, were any of the three endangered reptile species to be impacted by the loss of a resting
place, those species are of international importance and as any resting place likely forms a key part of
the species’ life cycle, given how mobile reptiles are but how dependent they are on breeding (egg
laying) locations or hibernation locations, the impact would result in a significant ecological effect.
For Callidium libani, if its presence is confirmed on the Project site, the coniferous forest containing
Cilician fir and Lebanon cedar will be considered as critical habitat and loss of this would result in an
ecologically significant effect and require mitigation to deliver a net gain.
20-22
No impacts leading to significant ecological effects are considered to exist. No impact from traffic
movements during operation are predicted.
construction phase.
The Hawa Akkar ESIA Report prepared by MORES S.A.R.L. indicates the following:
Eleven mammal species were identified. Even though, some mammals might adjust their behaviour
accordingly, but habitat fragmentation, human activity, and opening of roads will expose these species
to more threats and lack of resources (food and home range); hence, affecting their population size.
The potential impacts to terrestrial fauna at the Lebanon Wind Power project are the same as provided
for the Sustainable Akkar project.
Mitigation
• Completion of pre-construction fauna walkover survey to identify potential habitat for key
mammal, reptile and invertebrate species, followed by camera trapping to confirm mammal
species considered to be present/status of any dens found. Further surveys are required to
determine if Callidium libani is present. If this species is present, the coniferous forest containing
Cilician fir and Lebanon cedar would be considered to be critical habitat for C. libani.
• Preparation of a final BAMP (to be developed by others) setting out the measures required based
upon the findings of the further surveys. A framework BAMP has been included with the ESIA for
Lebanon Wind Power and Sustainable Akkar, as an appendix of the stand-alone ESMP.
During Construction

reptiles and/or endangered invertebrates (Callidium libani) as appropriate, including monitoring of
any offsets or enhancements for those species.
20.3.3.3 Bats
Bats can be vulnerable to collision risk or disturbance from wind turbines when foraging and
migrating. There is potential for ecologically significant impacts on bats resulting from Lebanon Wind
Power, with this also being the case for Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar. Overall, significant
impacts are predicted on common pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle and serotine based on the species
vulnerability to collision risk and their recorded usage of the site. Ecologically significant effects are
20-23
still possible for the other species recorded during the bat surveys. However, it is considered that the
impact of collision risk is reversible, i.e. mitigation measures are possible which would avoid or reduce
the impacts and ensure that even if any residual effects occur, they would not be significant.
During Construction
Mammals can be affected by wind power projects in various ways: habitat fragmentation and
destruction, noise effects, visual impacts, vibration and shadow flicker effects, increase of direct
mortality on wind farm roads, among others (de Lucas et al. 2005; Santos et al. 2010; Lovich and
Ennen 2013). Impacts vary according to the nature of the site, and lifecycle stage of the installation.
Bats are the mammals that are most vulnerable to wind farms. Many international studies have
demonstrated the effect of wind turbines and the prevailing environmental conditions on some bat
species. For example, Rydell et al. (2014) reported the negative effect of wind turbines in
Northwestern Europe on certain bat species, and Arnett et al. (2008) described bat fatalities from 21
post-construction sites in the USA and Canada. Kunz et al. (2007) estimated that bats are killed at the
rate of 30-40 bats per turbine per year in the Appalachian Mountains in eastern United States.
Bats are highly sensitive by nature. Even though they live the longest relative to their size (typically
up to 30 years), but they are characterized by very special niche requirements and slow reproduction
rates. Bats give birth to a single “baby” (or pup) per year, which makes them among the slowest
reproducers with respect to their size.
These characteristics put the bats among the most threatened species of mammals in the world. In
Lebanon all bat species are at risk from habitat destruction, putting fire in caves, hunting, drying of
wetlands, elimination of their feeding sites, and excessive use of pesticide (Horáček et al. 2008, 2009,
Benda et al. 2016).
Wind turbines can induce bat mortality either through 1) collision; or 2) barotrauma (Arnett et al.
2008, Baerwald et al. 2008, Grodsky et al. 2011). Several hypotheses propose that bats are killed by
barotrauma caused by rapid air pressure reduction near the moving blades (Arnett et al 2008, Kunz et
al. 2007). However recent research into the likelihood of barotrauma impacts has concluded that for
an impact to occur, bats would have to be so close to a turbine blade as to be more at risk from
collision (Rollins et al, 2012, Lawson et al 2018).
In recent years, many studies were conducted on bat fatalities in connection to wind projects. Bats
have different behaviors and flight styles, which is why they are affected to varying degrees by wind
turbines (Rydell et al. 2010, Camina 2012, Amorim et al. 2012). Bat species that fly and forage in
open space like the Pipistrellus spp. and those that migrate long distances at high altitude like the
Nyctalus spp. are more at risk of collision with the wind turbines. On the other hand, gleaning bats
that fly close to vegetation like the Rhinolophus spp. face less risk of collision with wind turbines.
Some animals might adjust their behavior, but habitat fragmentation and destruction, human activity,
sound pollution and opening of roads will expose these species to more threats. In addition, lack of
resources including feeding, roosting and hibernating sites will affect their population size.
Loss or Disturbance of Roosts
Bat species typically roost in one of three main roost types, trees, natural features such as caves or
features constructed by humans, such as houses, bridges or mines. The construction of the proposed
20-24
development has potential to damage or destroy just one of those potential roost features on the
Project site, namely caves. The loss (destruction) of an active roost feature would be an adverse one-
time, high magnitude, permanent, direct, impact upon the population(s) of bats using the roost
feature and cause them to forage elsewhere, in possibly less favourable habitats175.
The impact would be limited in extent to the roost feature being lost. Without a full year of survey
data, it is difficult to establish the sensitivity of the bat population(s) as that would depend on factors
such as the species present, the numbers of bats using the roost and the type of roost being lost, e.g.
maternity or hibernation. None of the species present are endangered or endemic, however, other
surveys in the area have identified large roosts of some species, potentially some of the largest in
Lebanon.
Assuming a likely worst-case scenario that the roost present is of national importance, the impact
would be near certain to result in a significant ecological effect. Impacts associated with disturbance of
a roost rather than loss of the roost would be similar but likely to be of moderate or low magnitude
depending on the type of impact. A disturbance impact would occur as a result of construction noise,
construction light or habitat alteration in the vicinity of the roost and could result in an ecologically
significant effect.
Loss of Foraging Habitat
Both permanent and temporary loss of bat foraging habitat during construction is possible. It is likely
to be limited to the extreme northern part of the Project site where construction activities could result
in changes in vegetation cover and any associated flying invertebrate resource. On the majority of the
Project site, as it is situated on higher ground along the mountain ridge, the predominantly westerly
winds can reach up to 35 m/s and typically exceed the 7 m/s speed above which bat activity has been
found to reduce greatly. The permanent loss of foraging areas, e.g. felling of areas of forest or
clearance of shrubland, would be an adverse one-time, high magnitude, permanent, direct impact
upon the population(s) of bats feeding in the area of lost habitat and would cause them to seek
alternative foraging locations. Without detailed survey data, it is difficult to establish the sensitivity of
the bat population as that would depend on factors such as the species present, the numbers of bats
using the foraging area and for how much of the year and whether that is during particularly sensitive
periods, e.g. the breeding season when female bats need to gather sufficient prey to be of sufficient
health to feed dependent young. The impact would extend to all populations of bats which use the
foraging resource.
Assuming a worst-case scenario that the population(s) of bats using the foraging habitat is (are) of
national importance, the impact would result in a significant ecological effect. Impacts associated with
temporary loss of a foraging area, e.g. temporary construction infrastructure upon areas of sparse
herbaceous vegetation, rather than the permanent loss of the foraging area would be similar but likely
to be of moderate or low magnitude. It is considered possible that it could result in an ecologically
significant effect.
Bat species that occupy higher altitudes and species that tend to fly at greater heights whilst foraging
or migrating, such as Pipistrellus or Nyctalus species, are at greater risk of turbine collision during
175
Bach, L. and Rahmel, U., 2004. Summary of wind turbine impacts on bats—assessment of a conflict. Bremer
Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz, 7, pp.245-252.
20-25
operation than low flying species that tend to remain at lower altitudes, such as horseshoe and Myotis
species. Table 13-20 summarises the level of collision risk with turbines of the bat species considered
likely to occur within the Sustainable Akkar site.
Commonly recorded throughout Lebanon, greater and lesser horseshoe bats tend to forage close to
the ground, therefore collision risk is considered to be low for these species. However, as this species
tends to move to higher altitudes to roost during winter months, the risk of collision could be greater
as colonies undertake this migration. Data on bat migrations in Lebanon are limited therefore this
cannot be confirmed. Greater and lesser horseshoe bat activity was recorded at low levels during the
passive surveys (1.69% and 0.17% of total activity recorded).
The typical activity of all Myotis species (long fingered, whiskered and greater mouse-eared bats),
makes these species low risk for collision. All species have narrow altitudinal ranges and these species
typically forage below typical collision heights. Low levels of activity of greater mouse-eared bats was
recorded during passive surveys (4.16%) also accounting for a small proportion of activity recorded
during transect surveys (2.58%). Activity from long fingered bats recorded during passive surveys
was low (0.03%) and was not recorded during transect surveys. Similarly, low levels of whiskered bat
activity was recorded during passive surveys (0.19%).
Both serotine and bent-winged bat are considered to be of a medium collision risk as these species are
known to reach collision height when foraging. These species prefer to forage over woodland and open
habitats at mid-range altitudes. During passive surveys, serotine were recorded at all detector
locations with moderate levels of activity overall (9.22%). Low levels of activity were recorded for this
species during transect surveys (2.24%). Bent winged bats were recorded at all but one detector
location (LWP19) with low levels of activity overall (0.16%) with no records made during transect
surveys.
Common, Kuhl’s and Savi’s pipistrelle species are considered to be at high risk of collision, with wide
altitudinal ranges, typically reaching collision height whilst foraging. European free-tailed bat has a
high collision risk and this species typically forages at height (10-300m) and can reach altitudes of
3,000m 176 when migrating between summer and winter roosts. High activity from Kuhl’s and common
1 03 F
pipistrelle was recorded during passive surveys (34.69% and 28.91% respectively) and were recorded
across all survey locations. Savi’s pipistrelle was less commonly recorded (9.89%) but also present
across all sites. Common and Kuhl’s pipistrelle were also the most commonly recorded species during
active transect surveys, constituting 41.93% and 45.85% of all activity recorded, respectively, where
as Savi’s pipistrelle was less commonly recorded during transects (2.80%). European free-tailed bat
was recorded across the entire site, at all survey locations during passive surveys with relatively low
levels of activity (6.23%). Low levels of activity from this species was also recorded as part of the
active transect surveys (2.80%).
Common noctules are also at a high risk of collision as their typical activity patterns coincides with
typical collision zones for turbines. This species covers large distances whilst foraging (up to 26km)
above 100m and are commonly reported to be the most frequently recorded fatality at wind farm
176
Williams, T. C., Ireland, L. C. & Janet M. Williams, J. M. 1973. High Altitude Flights of the Free-Tailed Bat,
Tadarida brasiliensis, Observed with Radar. Journal of Mammalogy, 54:807-821.
20-26
sites177. As such, collision risk for bats has the potential to be an adverse, high-magnitude long term
impact for many of the bat species likely to be present at the Project site, populations of which are
considered to be potentially up to national importance. Noctule was recorded at all detector sites with
the exception of LWP16. The level of recorded noctule activity on site, as per spring activity surveys, is
low (1.30%) according to passive detector results.
Activity data used in this assessment is based on spring activity of bats across the SA project site.
Good practice guidance178179 requires that a full year of assessment is completed in effectively inform
impact assessment. As only spring activity has been collected and analyses thus far, it is no possible
to determine an accurate collision rate prediction per species. Once a full year of survey is completed
a revised assessment can be undertaken, thus able to consider significant variables such as summer
and winter migration/hibernation movements. As such, it is only possible to estimate if, based on a
temporally limited dataset, a predicted collision risk for each species would result in an ecologically
significant effect or whether any fatalities might not result in significant effects on those populations.
Bat species are endangered due to habitat destruction and excessive use of pesticide. Moreover, the
greater mouse‐eared bat was reported for the first time from that area, it is highly endangered and
not well distributed in Lebanon. Wind turbines can affect bats in several ways:
• Disturbance or destruction of foraging habitats.

• Destruction of commuting corridors.
• Disturbance and destruction of roosts.
• Increased collision risk for bats in flight.
• Disorientation of bats in flight due to the emission of ultrasound noise.
Due to the reasons mentioned above, there was a lack in identifying all the bat species present.
However, of the four species encountered, two bat species the Greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus
ferrumequinum) and Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) they practice low flight and
hunt close to habitat structure. However, Greater Mouse‐eared Bat (Myotis myotis) and pipistrellus
practice high flight above 40m and migrates or moves long distances which implies they are at more
risk due to these turbines.
The potential impacts to bats at the Lebanon Wind Power project are the same as provided for the
Lebanon Wind Power project. Without more detailed survey data, it is difficult to establish the
177
Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M.J. Dubourg-Savage, B. Karapandza, D. Kovac, T. Kervyn, J.Dekker, A. Kepel, P. Bach,
J. Collins, C. Harbusch, K. Park, B. Micevski, J. Minderman.2015. Guidelines for consideration of bats wind farm
projects – Revision 2014.
178
. https://www.nature.scot/bats-and-onshore-wind-turbines-survey-assessment-and-mitigation, Accessed on 5th
July 2019
179
EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6 (English version). UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat,Bonn, Germany, 133pp
20-27
sensitivity of the bat population as that would depend on factors such as the species present, the
numbers of bats using the foraging area and for how much of the year and whether that is during
particularly sensitive periods, e.g. the breeding season when female bats need to gather sufficient
prey to be of sufficient health to feed dependent young. The impact would extend to all populations of
bats which use the foraging resource.
Mitigation
gathered from the spring activity surveys used to inform this assessment. As per best guidance, a
full year of survey data will allow for a more accurate understanding of bat activity across the
Project site, temporally and spatially, which will enable a more accurate and informed impact
assessment which in turn will determine the most effective mitigation required.
During Construction
• A presumption for avoidance of all artificial light as far as possible. All lights should be cowled and
downward facing and avoid light spill onto surrounding non-construction areas.
• Given the high levels of activity recorded at LWP6, LWP19 and LWP21, and at SA2, SA6, SA9 and
SA20, predominately from species identified as high or medium risk in terms of collision (common
pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle and serotine), it is recommended that turbines situated at these
locations are subject to operational adjustments. Raising the cut-in speed at which the turbine
begins to generate electricity, thus preventing movement in low winds, notably decreases bat
mortality rates180 along with feathering of blades i.e. adjusting the angle of the blade parallel to
the wind or turning the unit away from the wind181. In addition, operational times could be altered
– stopping the turbines at these locations between the most active periods i.e. 20:00-05:00.
the area on and around the Project site from human persecution, such as identified elsewhere in
the area.
Additional Good Practice
• To prevent persecution and destruction of bat roost caves, protective metal grates should be
installed across the entrances of all bat roost caves identified during the course of pre-construction
180
Horn J.W., Arnett E.B. & Kunz T.H. (2008) Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. The Journal
of Wildlife Management, 72, 123–132.
181
Hein, C, D and Schirnacher, M, R. (2016). Impact of Wind Energy on bats: A Summary of our Current
Knowledge. Human-Wildlife Interactions 10 (1), Pp 19-27.
20-28
surveys. These would prevent members of the public from accessing the caves and disturbing or
damaging the roosts, as is known to occur in the region.
• A survey protocol during the construction and operation phase of the proposed development has
been recommended as mitigation along with the protection of bat roosts caves that have been
identified. This provides a conservation benefit for bats by providing safe locations for them to
breed and roost.
• The monitoring protocol would be the first of its kind in Lebanon and would lead the way in
monitoring wind farm impacts on bats within the Middle East. It is considered that the
implementation of this mitigation strategy would prevent any cumulative impacts on bats from the
three wind farm developments.
20.3.3.4 Ornithology
All three wind farm developments sit near bottle necks for migrating birds, with these migration
flyways being of international importance. Collision Risk Assessments were undertaken by Ramboll for
each development based on VP and PC survey data. The outputs of these assessments are
summarized in Table 20-7, along with a cumulative estimate of collision mortality for each species
where a collision risk above zero is predicted.
The only species for which a significant risk of collision mortality (greater than 1%) is predicted is
kestrel, although this is due to the population being of site importance and therefore only considering
the resident birds present on each site (approximately 12 birds). As discussed in the main
development chapters this risk is more likely to take the form of displacement away from the
operational wind farm. The next highest predicted collision risk is for long-legged buzzard and then for
short-toed snake eagle, which would also be subject to more displacement impacts. However, the
collision risk for long-legged buzzard is in excess of the 0.5% threshold set out by the Ministry of
Environment and could therefore be considered significant.
Due to the importance of the flyway and level of uncertainty associated with collision risk estimates
mitigation is still proposed. This has been detailed in the mitigation section and would include turbine
shutdown periods to be informed by migration season VP surveys, carcass searches below turbines
and the potential implementation of bird monitoring radar systems.
Following the successful implementation of the mitigation proposals for Sustainable Akkar, which
would be undertaken concurrently at Lebanon Wind Power and Hawa Akkar, no significant cumulative
impacts are predicted.
During Construction
Impacts on Designated Sites
Two species listed as qualifying species for Mountain of Akkar-Donnieh IBA were recorded during field
surveys for the proposed development. Pale rockfinch was recorded in the middle zone and western
rock nuthatch was recorded in the far zone. As neither species was recorded in the immediate zone,
within the footprint of the proposed development, then no impacts are predicted on either species.
20-29
Table 20-7 Cumulative Collision Risk
Species LWP Mortality SA Mortality HA Mortality Cumulative Population % Loss

Estimate Estimate Estimate Mortality Estimate
Estimate
Black Kite 0 0 0.04669 0.04669 222 0.02103
Booted Eagle 0 0 0.08653 0.08653 56 0.15451
Common Buzzard 0.19839 0 0.46065 0.65904 922 0.07148
Common Crane 0 1.14213 1.79654 2.93867 3,600 0.08163
Eurasian Sparrowhawk 0.08914 0.08852 0 0.17766 124 0.14328
Hen Harrier 0 0 0.02817 0.02817 23 0.12247
Honey Buzzard 4.84456 0.23129 2.68235 7.75820 4,685 0.16560
Kestrel 0.70946 1.49631 7.98825 10.19402 12 84.95013
Lesser Spotted Eagle 0.16488 1.06426 0.30627 1.53541 5,234 0.02934
Levant Sparrowhawk 0.86261 0 0 0.86261 3,210 0.02687
Long-legged Buzzard 0 0.08519 0.51792 0.60311 117 0.51548
Short-toed Eagle 0.03730 0.79499 1.19215 2.02444 488 0.41484
Steppe Buzzard 0.48258 0.03993 0.11205 0.63456 1,591 0.03988
White Pelican 0 0.70285 0 0.70285 2,366 0.02971
White Stork 0 0.18902 0.66296 0.85199 14,300 0.00596
20-30
common crane) as another key feature. These species have not been recorded on the ground within
the Project site during field surveys, they pass through the area on migration. As such, potential
construction impacts would be limited to disturbance such as noise and light, from construction
activities. Disturbance such as that would be a temporary, low magnitude indirect impact and would
attenuate to levels unlikely to disturb species migrating through and over the area. The species listed
were typically recorded flying high through the area. As such no ecologically significant effect is
predicted.
Habitat Loss
construction of new temporary access tracks that would be reinstated after construction. Habitat loss
is considered to result in an adverse, indirect, low magnitude, short-term, reversible impact on the
community of birds breeding on the Project site which is considered to be of local importance. It would
be a temporary impact in all locations other than the footprint of the infrastructure and new
permanent access tracks. No ecologically significant effect is predicted.
Nest Destruction
importance varies dependent on the species and all nests are highly sensitive. No impacts are
predicted on the short-toed snake eagle or the long-legged buzzard nests identified as neither are in
the footprint of the proposed development. This impact has the potential to result in a significant
ecological effect.
As well as the noise and visual disturbance associated with construction, birds could also be disturbed
by the activities of personnel and vehicles. Disturbance of small breeding birds found on site as a
result of construction activities would be an adverse, low magnitude, short-term impact on a
community of birds considered to have local importance. Given the relatively small footprint of the
proposed development and the number of small breeding birds found on the site, this is not
importance and common kestrel a species of local importance. Disturbance from construction activities
could cause both species to forage in alternative locations, either less favorable foraging areas on the
margins of the Project site or locations further afield rather than the site itself. Displacement of these
20-31
species would be an adverse, low magnitude, temporary, impact on both species, however this is not
During Operation
Collision Risk
risk 182. A quantitative CRA has been undertaken for all vulnerable species. This has been undertaken
1
using data collected from the migration season VP surveys and the year-round PC surveys. It has also
been undertaken using flight data collected for Hawa Akkar, which were collected from a more
appropriate level of survey effort.
Any predicted collision events would be adverse impacts, reversible at population scale. The likelihood
of collision event, magnitude and duration of impact would vary by species.
The mortality estimates for Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar were compared with each other using a
Welch Two Sample T-Test. This produced a p-value of >0.05183, meaning that wind farm site is not a
significant differentiating factor for mortality estimate. While this does not mean that the datasets are
statistically similar between each site, it also does not point to significant differences between the two
datasets.
Typically, population decreases of >1% would be considered a significant impact. However, based on
feedback from the Lebanese Ministry of Environment184, population decreases of >0.5% could be
considered significant for long-lived species with lower population recruitment rates. The baseline
populations used are for Lebanon as a whole but, as shown in the migration season research papers,
the principal migration routes during spring and autumn both pass close to the proposed development.
Thus, the population estimates for birds migrating over Lebanon are considered appropriate for use in
this assessment.
different method which accounts for those species’ breeding presence in the wind farm area,
calculations of “Bird Records per Hour” were not made. Of the 22 species of bird recorded during the
Sustainable Akkar field surveys and considered vulnerable to collision with a wind turbine, ten species
were recorded flying at collision risk height within or across the site:
• Common crane.
• Honey buzzard.
• Kestrel.
• Lesser spotted eagle.
• Long-legged buzzard.
182
Desholm, M. (2009). Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritizing migratory bird species for assessment at
183
R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0
184
Environment.
20-32
• Steppe buzzard.
• White Pelican.
• White stork.
Another further species, hen harrier, was recorded flying at collision risk height within or across the
Hawa Akkar site.
adverse, low magnitude, long-term, impact on the locally important community of bird species
is predicted.
The only species of raptor that were regularly recorded within the Project site/immediate zone were
common kestrel and short-toed snake eagle. Both of these species could be displaced from the
immediate zone during the operation of the proposed development. Disturbance from the presence of
construction workers and vehicles and from visual and noise disturbance from the turbines could cause
both species to forage away from the site. This would result in an adverse, low magnitude, long-term,
kestrel are of site importance. However, based on the location of the territories which lie
approximately 2.5km from the Project site, operational disturbance impacts on these features are not
considered to result in ecologically significant effects.
Barrier Effects
cross or would need to habituate to crossing. Such adverse impacts would be of low magnitude to the
species inhabiting the immediate zone but potentially of moderate magnitude to any species that
might use the area around the Project site for migration.
20-33
During Construction
Breeding Birds
Following is a review of the impacts of wind farms on the various relevant groups of birds, largely in
relation to the season (status) they occur in the habitat Hawa Akkar Wind Farm is planned to occupy,
namely, breeding; comprised of resident and summer breeding visitors, migrants and winter visitors.
Results from other countries are related back to the Lebanese situation, particularly where relevant to
this country’s species.
It appears from the various studies cited above, that the Hawa Akkar Wind Farm should have a
restricted collision fatalities effect on the breeding avifauna of the Study Area and limited concern
regarding habitat loss and disturbance in view of the large area of the site relative to the number (16)
of turbines planned.
Migrating Birds
Generally, the Hawa Akkar Wind Farm site does not seem to present major hazards to birds migrating
through it, most notably because the wind turbines are aligned in the same direction as the flow of the
migrating birds, namely north‐south direction with minimal barrier effect. Also, there are a number of
other reasons most important of which are the following:
• It is not bounded by any restricting land formations; ridges of significance rise further south of the
Study Area location.
• Observations, since 2007, from different locations over the Aanqet Valley have shown that the
migrants fly over the valley avoiding the crest, mostly at an appreciable altitude allowing them to
pass over the gorge.
• The site, being of a simple ecological nature, mostly a barren landscape, should not be inviting for
most of the migrating birds, since passerines, the majority of the expected bird movement, search
for a perch to alight on, apart from the wheatears. Wheatears are nocturnal migrants who typically
seek higher elevations as a staging area, and consequently, are expected to prefer the upper
slopes further south. Therefore, there should be little probability of birds colliding with the wind
turbines as they take off or decent.
• The fact that the Study Area lies on one of the main migration flyways of the country should be a
cause of serious concern, particularly in autumn for the migrating raptors, when birds are
expected to gain altitude to pass over the higher grounds further south. This is an area requiring
investigation to monitor at what level the birds start to soar. This condition is not as pronounced
for the passerines and spring migrants since they have already gained height or are flying from
high grounds, and therefore have adjusted their flight altitude accordingly, so it is expected that
the flow should be well beyond rotor height.
• This situation is deeply aggravated by the effect of inclement weather on migrants’ flight altitude,
as presented above, and best managed with detection and mitigation.
• It is expected that the disturbance level and degradation of the habitat used by the birds as a
staging post should be minimal in view of the area of the site and the limited planned
developments (16 turbines and an office), in particular if related to the nature of the grounds.
20-34
Wintering Birds
It appears from the available information that it is not anticipated this wind farm will have any adverse
effect on the likely wintering birds populations, since mostly are sulking, ground hugging species or
are present in very low numbers, such as the raptors. However, the Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) does
fly in relatively large flocks and at rotor height levels, but typically it is classified as a farmland
species, so it can be categorized here as an occasional visitor, also, as yet, it has not been recorded as
affected by wind farm structures in any of the literature reviewed; a notable fact worth consideration.
Local Birds
The location of Hawa Akkar Wind Farm, in agreement with the information presented by Hassan
(2011), lays in one of the most favorable locations for wind farms installations in the country. The
most suitable region for wind turbines coincides with the flight path of migrating soaring birds during
both seasons. Indeed, a predicament requiring a very careful and thorough assessment, in particular if
it is compounded by poor metrological conditions. However, this situation although challenging, is not
as problematic as it may seem since we have the instruments and knowledge to address these
threats.
During Construction
Impacts on Designated Sites
The proposed development overlaps slightly with the Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh IBA. The only
potential construction work to be undertaken within the boundary of the IBA is the potential upgrade
of the access track. This would not result in any habitat loss and would be undertaken following best
practice construction methods to ensure that no indirect impacts occur. No ecologically significant
effects are predicted on the IBA.
One of the Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh IBA breeding species was recorded during the field surveys on
the Project site, namely western rock nuthatch. These birds were recorded in all zones around the
proposed development up to 1,500m. The main infrastructure at the site is located at 1,800m at its
lowest point so the only construction that could impact upon western rock nuthatch is the construction
of the access road and underground cable.
Both of these developments would involve a limited footprint and as they avoid the removal of any
trees likely to be used by most of the IBA breeding bird species, the activities would not result in any
impacts on the named IBA species and therefore there would not be an ecologically significant effect.
Western rock nuthatch primarily feed on the ground on rocky habitats and nest in rocky crevices,
caves or on cliff faces. The construction work undertaken within the boundary of the IBA is at a height
greater than 2,150m, significantly higher than where western rock nuthatch were recorded as being
active.
common crane) as another key feature. Those species have not been recorded utilizing the Project site
as they pass through the area on migration. As such, potential construction impacts would be limited
to disturbance such as noise and light, from construction activities.
Disturbance such as that would be a temporary, low magnitude indirect impact. The extent of light
disturbance would be far greater than that of noise as it would attenuate to levels unlikely to disturb
20-35
species migrating through and over the area. The species listed were typically recorded flying high
through the area. As such no ecologically significant effect is predicted.
Habitat Loss
construction of new temporary access tracks that would be reinstated after construction.
Habitat loss is considered to result in an adverse indirect, low magnitude, short-term, reversible
impact on the community of birds breeding on the Project site which is considered to be of local
importance. It would be a temporary impact in all locations other than the footprint of the
infrastructure and new permanent access tracks. No ecologically significant effect is predicted.
Nest Destruction
importance varies dependent on the species and all nests are highly sensitive. This impact has the
potential to result in a significant ecological effect.
However, it is considered that the impact is reversible, i.e. mitigation measures are possible which
would avoid the impact and avoid any residual effects.
As well as the noise and sights associated with construction, birds could also be disturbed by the
activities of personnel and vehicles. Disturbance of small breeding birds found on site as a result of
construction activities would be an adverse, low magnitude, short-term impact on a community of
birds considered to have regional importance.
Given the relatively small footprint of the proposed development and the number of small breeding
birds found on the site, this is not considered to be an ecologically significant effect.
importance and common kestrel a species of local importance.
Disturbance from construction activities could cause both species to forage in alternative locations,
either less favorable foraging areas on the margins of the Project site or locations further afield rather
than the site itself. Displacement of these species would be an adverse, low magnitude, temporary,
impact on both species, however this is not considered to be an ecologically significant effect.
20-36
During Operation
Collision Risk
risk185. A quantitative CRA has been undertaken for all vulnerable species. This has been undertaken
using data collected from the migration season VP surveys and the year-round PC surveys. Any
predicted collision events would be adverse impacts, reversible at population scale. The likelihood of
collision event, magnitude and duration of impact would vary by species.
different method which accounts for those species’ breeding presence in the wind farm area, estimates
of “Bird Records per Hour” were not made. Typically, population decreases of >1% would be
considered a significant impact. However, based on feedback from the MOE186, population decreases
of >0.5% could be considered significant for long-lived species with lower population recruitment
rates. The baseline populations used are for Lebanon as a whole but, as shown in the migration
season research papers, the principal migration routes during spring and autumn both pass close to
the proposed development. Thus, the population estimates for birds migrating over Lebanon are
considered appropriate for use in this assessment. Of the 18 species of bird recorded during the field
surveys and considered vulnerable to collision with a wind turbine, only eight species were recorded
flying at collision risk height within or across the site:
• Common buzzard.
• Honey buzzard.
• Common kestrel.
• Lesser Spotted Eagle.
• Levant Sparrowhawk.
• Steppe buzzard.
adverse, low magnitude, long-term impact on the regionally important community of bird species
is predicted.
The only species of raptor that were regularly recorded within the immediate zone were common
kestrel and short-toed snake eagle. Both of these species could be displaced from the immediate zone
185
Desholm, M. (2009). Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritising migratory bird species for assessment at
186
Environment.
20-37
during the operation of the proposed development. Disturbance from the presence of construction
workers and vehicles and from visual and noise disturbance from the turbines could cause both
species to forage away from the site. This would result in an adverse, low magnitude, long-term,
kestrel are of site importance. However, based on the location of the territories which lie a number of
kilometers from the Project site, operational disturbance impacts on these features are not considered
to result in ecologically significant effects.
Barrier Effects
cross or would need to habituate to crossing.
Such adverse impacts would be of low magnitude to the species inhabiting the immediate zone but
potentially of moderate magnitude to any species that might use the area around the Project site for
migration.
Mitigation
Construction and Decommissioning
Nest Destruction
Where required, vegetation would be removed outside of the bird breeding season (March-August).
The following vegetation removal deterrence methods would also be used to ensure ground nesting
birds do not nest on the site following vegetation clearance:
• Iridescent tape across the construction areas prior to construction activities.

• Bird deterring machines which produce intermittent loud noises.
• Walking of the cleared area by individuals on a regular basis to prevent birds settling and to
monitor if any birds are settling to nests on areas close to the planned construction activity.
20-38
In addition to the above, prior to commencement of decommissioning activities, walkover surveys
would be completed in habitats suitable for and known to be used by breeding bird species as to
identify any previously unknown nest sites.
Operations and Maintenance
Collision Risk
The results of the CRA suggest that significant collision risk impacts are not predicted. However, it is
This mitigation would rely heavily on the further monitoring work proposed (refer to Section 14.5),
including continuing the migration season VP surveys, undertaking carcass searches beneath the
constructed turbines and the installation of a bird detecting radar system.
It is proposed that mitigation would involve the shutdown of the turbines during periods of peak
collision risk potential, such as periods of peak bird migration movement or poor weather. Shutdown
would be achieved by adjusting the blade angle to be perpendicular to the wind and applying the
brake to prevent any blade rotation. Further information on this process, and potential compensation,
will be provided in the Bird Monitoring Protocol being produced by the MOE.
It should be noted that, based on the results of the surveys previously undertaken on the site,
mitigation for collision risk impacts is not currently considered to be required.
It is recommended to continue the migratory season VPs during the start of the operational phase of
the proposed development. These would commence as soon as the Project is operational and would be
undertaken following the methods described in this section, although with an increased survey effort
to meet the 36 hours per migration season as suggested by SNH Guidance. During each VP watch,
flight activity by target species187 will be recorded using the same details collected before:
• Flight Number.
• Time.
• Date.
• Species.
• Number of Birds.
• Flight height.
• Total time of flight including time spent at each height.
In addition to this information, surveyors will record if any birds display any flight behavior apparently
associated with the presence of the turbines (avoidance) or if any were seen to collide with a turbine
(collision). Observations would use the following terminology after Meredith (2002)188:
187
188
Meredith, C., Venosta, M., & Ressom, R. (2002) Cordington Wind Farm Avian Avoidance Behaviour Report,
2002. Biosis Research Report.
20-39
• Weave - Weaving flight line up to maximum height of turbine.
• Direct - A direct flight line, within the turbine envelope but clearly in a line up to maximum turbine
blade height, avoiding turbines.
• Horizontal - A bird flying towards a wind farm site, which takes avoiding action by a horizontal
movement (i.e. no change in height) so as to take it around the edge of the turbines.
• Vertical - As for horizontal, but this time, the bird gains altitude to take it over the top of the wind
farm site.
• Bullet - Flight behavior with no avoiding action with regards to turbines (or other infrastructure).
• Hit - A recorded collision between a bird and a turbine (or other infrastructure).
• Avoid - Avoidance behavior near a turbine, generally taken at short notice and likely to appear as
a sudden change in direction and/or height.
• Other – Any other behavior not easily classifiable into any of the above categories.
Carcass Searches
As well as the VP surveys, searches for collision victims will be completed under the turbines. Visual
searches within an area at least five meters greater than the length of each turbine blade will be
undertaken. The surveys would be stratified, with a third of the turbines survey during each visit. It
would also be randomized, with a different set of turbines chosen to be surveyed on each visit. These
surveys would be undertaken ten times per month during the migration period (mid-February to mid-
May and mid-August to mid-November) and three times per month during the rest of the year. The
amount of time spent searching will be standardized to allow comparability between turbines and
visits.
Prior to starting the surveys, both scavenger and surveyor bias will be calibrated. This will be
completed by leaving proxy carcasses189 under turbines in locations where they can be seen by static
trail cameras to record how much time passes before a carcass is removed by scavenging animals.
A similar process will be used to calibrate how successful surveyors are at locating carcasses. One
surveyor will place a number of carcasses, ideally of differing sizes randomly under turbines and a
different surveyor would search as described above. This process will be repeated across a number of
turbine locations and for all surveyors involved in the searching. How many of the placed carcasses
which are found can then be used to identify how effective the surveyors are at finding carcasses.
A project specific monitoring protocol would be developed. This will need to be adapted following the
publication of the Bird Monitoring Protocol by the MOE.
Radar equipment to monitor volumes of migrating birds approaching the proposed development would
be considered. The requirement for this would be based on the expectations of the Bird Monitoring
Protocol currently being prepared by the MOE. It is anticipated that this would involve guidance on the
The radar system would have a more direct feedback into the shutdown mitigation of the proposed
development, as it would detect large volumes of birds approaching so large collision risk events can
189
Proxies required as its unlikely that access to any hooded vulture carcasses will be possible. A bird of similar
size and coloration should be used. It will be acceptable to use man-made dummies in the surveyor bias trials as
that is a test of the surveyors’ visual abilities. However, for the scavenger bias trials, real carcasses should ideally
be used.
20-40
be avoided. The other monitoring methods would have an indirect feedback into the shutdown
mitigation.
Monitoring/Additional Good Practice Measures
Hunting Ban
A significant impact on birds migrating through Lebanon is the culture of hunting that exists. In spite
of laws that make the killing of migrating birds illegal, thousands are still killed each year190 impacting
wind farm area is banned, this area is shown in Figure 14-4. This would not only protect the birds
using the wind farm area but would also prevent damage to the turbines themselves.
The site would be secured during construction, preventing public access to the area. It is proposed to
maintain this during the operation phase, with security staff responsible for preventing members of
the public accessing the wind farm site.
Efforts should be made to invest in public awareness and support for the hunting ban among local
residents. This would take the form of increased nature education and training of local bird recorders.
Surveyors from the project surveys would be a good resource to educate locals of the species of birds
and why Lebanon is an Internationally important bird flyway.
Artificial Light
The use of artificial light should be avoided where possible as steady white lights on the nacelle can
attract prey, such as moths, and the prey can attract predators, such as moth eating birds like
hobbies and red-footed falcons. Instead, it is proposed that red lights or pulsing/blinking lights are
used on the nacelle instead.
Waste Disposal
To prevent attracting scavenging bird species to the site, any waste produce by the workers on the
site would need to be disposed of following a detailed plan. Waste should not be stored or deposited
where it is open to the air, as this would attract birds to the site. This could, inadvertently, lead to the
creation of a de-facto feeding station for scavenging birds such as corvids, kites and vultures.
Identified nests of birds of prey, such as common kestrel and short-toed snake eagle, are considered
far enough away from any construction area and disturbance impacts are unlikely. However, the ECoW
would be responsible for monitoring both nest sites and ensuring that they remain productive through
the construction/decommissioning works.
20.3.4 Socio-Economic Environment
On a cumulative basis, the Lebanon Wind Power, Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar wind farm
projects will have a positive and very significant impact on the Akkar Region. The three projects
together will:
190
Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) (2013) Report on the hunting of migrant birds in the Lebanon -
affected species and their conservation status in the EU.
20-41
• Generate a significant amount of new renewable energy to the local villages, the Akkar region and
the other regions in Lebanon.
• Require the purchasing locally of a large amount of construction materials and other goods and
services.
• Will provide approximately 250 jobs to local workers (for both the Lebanon Wind Power and
Sustainable Akkar projects).
• Require upgrades to several local roads in order to accommodate the heavy trucks during the
construction phase and local community members will also benefit from improved travel to work
and/or school on these upgraded roads.
• The potential income that may be generated by nearby businesses including hotels and
restaurants.
• Also, once in operation, the three projects together may be considered new tourist attractions.
Tourists, while in the area viewing the wind turbines, will spend money in shops and restaurants,
thereby generating additional revenue for the local SMEs.
Potential Impacts from Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm
During Construction
Villages and Informal Settlements
in a Minor impact.
• The Project represents a loss of access to 747,589m2 will be leased for the Project for 28 years,
and +3,500m2 will be acquired permanently.
Given the loss of access to nearly half of the total, the impact severity is anticipated to be High:
• A total of 45% of the area currently used for grazing will be unavailable for a period of 18
months.
20-42
Vulnerable Groups

General impacts to communities are expected to be positive with the establishment of the CRO Office
in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and community development projects as agreed between Municipalities and
the Developer. As such, the overall impact severity is expected to be Medium, with a sensitivity of
Medium-High, resulting in a Moderate impact.
As with the Lebanon Wind Power project, major socioeconomic impact of the operational phase of the
Project is expected to be Positive, with the provision of affordable electricity to the local community
and to the broader Lebanese electrical consumers:
Decommissioning impacts on socioeconomics is expected to be similar to those noted for project

expected to be moderate and positive.
Potential Impacts from Hawa Akkar
During Construction
The construction phase of the project would employ a total of 300 persons, and thus have a positive
economic impact on the project area, especially considering that priority will be given to local
residents. The Hawa Akkar contract has a pledge to employ local residents and give them priority in
its part‐time and full‐time positions.
The improvement in the state of the road network in the area would increase its appeal and overall
land value. An increase in land prices would generate potential profit for local landowners. This
20-43
improvement will also stimulate the local economy indirectly and encourage further infrastructure
improvements in the project area.
Ready mix cement would be supplied by the Lebanese cement industry, thus generating work
opportunities and helping keep jobs in a key national industry. Trucks and supplies of other material
for construction would also be procured locally and would have positive socioeconomic impacts.
Operations and Maintenance
The operation phase of the project would employ between 20 and 30 persons, creating a positive
economic impact in the project area, noting that (as mentioned) priority will be given to local
residents.
The project will also generate educational and recreational tourism and site seeing activities in the
area. These would bring revenue to local residents, both directly via entry fees and indirectly via
secondary recreational activities and purchasing. Overall, the project will stimulate the growth of the
local economy.
The Hawa Akkar lease agreements will bring direct financial benefits to the community with
remuneration estimated at 7,400 USD per turbine per year, paid directly to the 3 municipalities. This
sum alone would amount to an annual sum of 118,400 USD over 25 years.
The municipalities of Chadra, Machta Hammoud and Mqaibleh would also receive other financial
payments that would greatly improve living conditions in the area. This represents a dramatic
improvement in finances for these poor municipalities, and direct access to funds, since typically such
municipal funding is received indirectly via governmental procedures with bureaucratic complications.
HA management has also openly stated that it will compensate owners of electricity generators in
order to lessen their losses, since HA appreciated their role in society and infrastructure support in the
absence of governmental capacities in that regard.
In addition, HA is considering a donation and investment of up to 3 Million USD to improve the

Quobaiyat substation belonging to the government, in order to upgrade it and support the Akkar area
and residents in terms of electricity supply quality and quantity. This would also allow for less
electrical losses and provision of 24 hours of electricity in the project area and neighboring
villages/areas.
In addition, the use of local resources (renewable wind energy) would decrease dependence on foreign
fossil fuel imports, thus strengthening the local economy and increasing economic independence and
circulation of resources within the country.
Potential Impacts from Lebanon Wind Power
During Construction
Villages and Informal Settlements
in a Minor impact (refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security for the assessment
of transport and traffic impacts to communities).
20-44
• The Project represents a loss of access to 155,611m2 that will be leased for the Project for 23
years (with a possible extension to 28 years), and +3,500m 2 that will be acquired permanently.
Given the loss of access to such a small percentage of the total, the impact severity is anticipated to
be Medium:
• A total of 8.6% of the area currently used for grazing will be unavailable for a period of 18
months.
Vulnerable Groups

General impacts to communities are expected to be positive and include the establishment of the CRO
Office in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and community development projects as agreed between
Municipalities and the Developer. As such, the overall impact severity is expected to be Medium, with
a sensitivity of Medium-High, resulting in a Moderate impact.
20-45
The overall impact severity is expected to be Slight, with a sensitivity of Medium-High, resulting in a
Minor impact. The major socioeconomic impact of the operational phase of the Project is expected to
be Positive, with the provision of affordable electricity to the local community and to the broader
Lebanese electrical consumers:
• The Project is expected to provide 22KV of supply bulk power to be distributed to the residents of
neighboring villages.
• Electrification is expected to boost the local economy by stimulating productivity and enterprise
efficiency, while enhancing complementary infrastructure such as roads and transportation (Plan
Blue, 2010).
• Additionally, energy, at the industry level is directly linked to development, and is a catalyst for
production and economic growth.
• With cheaper electricity provided by the Project, economic growth is expected in all sectors that
benefit from sufficient energy supply, from basic lighting needs for backyard laying hens, to the
powering of large-scale industrial activities.
• The current additional expenses paid to acquire electricity would then be allocated to improving
livelihoods and business growth.
• Other local socioeconomic factors expected to significantly improve with the provision of low-cost
energy are health and education. Economic benefits include those from the expected:
− Sourcing of construction materials from the Akkar region.

− Sourcing of Project personnel from the northeastern part of Akkar.
− Income that may be generated by nearby businesses including hotels and restaurants.
• In terms of economic growth and livelihoods’ development, electricity positively impacts quality of
life both directly and indirectly. Better energy supply means more hours of lower cost/efficient
energy, longer operating business hours generating more income from work, and economic
savings in comparison to the high cost of generator use. This is especially relevant given that
power cuts as long as 17 hours were noted in the socioeconomic surveys.
• Land lease / acquisition for 23 years with a possible extension to 28 years.
• In general, surveyed individuals support the Project and anticipate that it will reduce their energy
costs, reducing their financial burdens and increasing their production and savings. All individuals
surveyed anticipated that the new network would improve power distribution and reach more
houses and businesses across their villages.
• An additional perceived benefit of the Project is the provision of green energy and its impact on
health and the environment.
• 75% of surveyed businesses were completely aware of the environmental benefits of the project
and indicated that they are looking forward to the Project’s completion and the increased energy
supply to their villages.
• The Developer and Bank Audi will offer financial management training/classes to encourage
appropriate savings and expenditure practices within the communities.
Decommissioning impacts on socioeconomics is expected to be similar to those noted for project

expected to be Moderate and Positive.
20-46
Mitigation
• Additional consultation will be undertaken with livestock owners and shepherds to explain the
areas they cannot access for the duration of the construction.
• Shepherds will be consulted to find out whether goat grazing is a subsistence activity and whether
there are adequate alternative grounds that can be used during the construction period. If there’s
impact or loss of livelihoods, a Livelihood Restoration and Compensation Plan will be developed.
• Shepherds grazing near the Project will be advised of exclusion zones in advance, noting that
other grazing areas are available. Alternative areas for grazing will be researched and secured by
the Developer for alternative use during construction. If the Developer cannot arrange an
alternative area because of landowners’ objection, financial compensation will take place.
• A significant impact on birds migrating through Lebanon is the culture of hunting that exists. In
spite of laws that make the killing of migrating birds illegal, thousands are still killed each year
impacting populations in their breeding grounds in Europe and Asia.
• It is proposed that all hunting within the wind farm area is banned, this area is shown in Figure
14-4 in Section 14 Ornithology. This would not only protect the birds using the wind farm area
but would also prevent damage to the turbines themselves.
• The site would be secured during construction, preventing public access to the area. It is proposed
to maintain this during the operation phase, with security staff responsible for preventing
members of the public accessing the wind farm site.
• Efforts should be made to invest in public awareness and support for the hunting ban among local
residents. This would take the form of increased nature education and training of local bird
recorders.
• Surveyors from the project surveys would be a good resource to educate locals of the species of
birds and why Lebanon is an Internationally important bird flyway.
• The Developer will collect additional data, identify all Project stakeholders and engage with them,
as necessary, including directly-affected people and vulnerable groups.
• These exercises will help clarify and confirm the DAOI and focus the assessment of project impacts
and inform mitigation, as well as inform management plans.
• The Developer will identify and map all of the Project stakeholders and engage with them as
necessary. This will help ensure that all Project stakeholders are consulted and there are no
hidden pockets of opposition.
• Other potential use of natural resources on the Project site will be investigated.
• Additional measures to communicate the Project information, including provision of schedules,
health, safety and security measures are necessary (refer to Section 16 Community Health,
Safety and Security and the stand-alone SEP).
• Workers will be sourced from the Project area first, regionally second, nationally third and
internationally last.
• Employment will supply income for a period of up to 18 months.
• Pre-recruitment skills training will be provided.
• A job skills assessment will be undertaken to provide transparency in hiring practices.
• Establishment of the CRO Office in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun.
• Community development projects as agreed between Municipalities and the Developer.
20-47
20.3.5 Noise
The primary noise sources associated with the three proposed projects would be a maximum of 56
wind turbines. The final wind turbine model has not yet been selected for the Lebanon Wind Power and
for the Sustainable Akkar Project. Therefore, for these sites the cumulative noise assessment was
based on the Nordex turbine as a worst-case approach since this turbine has the highest noise levels
of the considered turbines. The considered turbine data is presented in Table 20-8 through Table
20-10. The noise assessment also considers a worst-case number of WTG locations, i.e. 17 for
Lebanon Wind Power, 23 for Sustainable Akkar and 16 for Hawa Akkar.
Table 20-8 Technical WTG Data LWP Site (Worst Case Assumption)
Lebanon Wind Power Planned WTG

Name(s) on Print Out 7-23
Number 17
Manufacturer Nordex
WTG-Type N149
Without serrations
Rotor Diameter [m] 149
Hub Height [m] 105
Rated Power [MW] 4.5
Operating Mode, Nighttime Mode 0
Serrations No
Source of Sound Power Level F008_271_A12_DE
LWA [dB(A)], Nighttime 108.1
LWA [dB(A)], Daytime 108.1
Surcharge*) [dB(A)] 1
LWA Total [dB(A)], Nighttime 109.1
20-48
Table 20-9 Technical WTG Data SA Site (Worst Case Assumption)
Sustainable Akkar Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned Planned

Name(s) on Print Out 02-08, 18-22 13, 15, 17, 23 09-11, 29 24 25 14
Number 12 4 4 1 1 1
Manufacturer Nordex Nordex Nordex Nordex Nordex Nordex
WTG-Type N149 N149 N149 N149 N149 N149

With serrations With serrations With serrations With serrations With serrations With serrations
Rotor Diameter [m] 149 149 149 149 149 149
Hub Height [m] 105 105 105 105 105 105
Rated Power [MW] 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Operating Mode, Nighttime Mode 0 Mode 4 Mode 8 Mode 10 Mode 11 Mode 16
Source of Sound Power Level F008_271_A1 F008_271_A1 F008_271_A1 F008_271_A1 F008_271_A1 F008_271_A1
2_DE 2_DE 2_DE 2_DE 2_DE 2_DE
LWA [dB(A)], Daytime 106.1 106.1 106.1 106.1 106.1 106.1
Surcharge*) [dB(A)] 1 1 1 1 1 1
LWA Total [dB(A)], Nighttime 107.1 105.1 103.0 101.0 100.5 98.0
20-49
Table 20-10 Technical WTG Data HA Site
Hawa Akkar Planned WTG Planned WTG
Name(s) on Print Out 01-13 14-16
Number 13 3
Manufacturer Vestas Vestas
WTG-Type V150 V150
Rotor Diameter [m] 150 150
Hub Height [m] 105 105
Rated Power [MW] 4.2 4.2
Operating Mode, Nighttime P01 SO3
Serrations Yes Yes
Source of Sound Power Level 0067-7067 V08 0067-7067 V08
LWA [dB(A)], Nighttime 104.9 99.5
LWA [dB(A)], Daytime 104.9 104.9
Surcharge*) [dB(A)] 1 1
LWA Total [dB(A)], Nighttime 105.9 100.5
In July 2019, the Ministry of Environment confirmed the noise limit of 55 dB(A) during the day and
45 dB(A) during night time for residential houses set by the EHS Guideline. Therefore, the noise
assessment will consider the 45 dB(A) [LAeq] nighttime noise limit. Since the IFC (2007) and the MOE
state absolute noise limits rather than relative noise limits, a background noise measurement is not
necessary for the noise assessment. The noise output of a turbine varies with the wind speed.
Therefore, as part of the worst-case approach the wind speed with a maximum noise output of the
turbines is considered. Since the calculation considers the loudest noise output of the turbines, it is
not necessary assessing wind speeds which are associated with lower noise outputs.The cumulative
load of the planned wind turbines at the surveyed noise sensitive areas was calculated according to
the ISO 9613-2:1996. Noise levels were calculated at a maximum of 56 WTG locations, as shown in
Table 20-11. However, since the number of turbines will be reduced once the OEM is selected, the
noise levels will be lower as indicated in the calculations.
Due to the array of the three wind farms which stretch from north to south, there are very limited
cumulative noise impacts. The only place which will experience a small amount of cumulative impacts
is the area between the Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar site (see Figure 20-5). However, these
small cumulative impacts will not cause an exceedance of the IFC limit of 45 dB(A).
Therefore, there are negligible cumulative noise impacts, as shown in Table 20-12.
20-50
Table 20-11 Cumulative Noise Calculation based on Nordex N-149 (Worst-Case)
Nighttime Noise Daytime Noise

Levels Levels IFC Noise Level
Cumulative Noise Cumulative Noise Guideline
Receptor
Level LWP + HA + Level LWP + HA + Daytime/Nighttim
SA Wind Farm SA Wind Farm e [dB(A)]
[dB(A)] [dB(A)]
LWP: 30 house under construction 32.4 32.5 55/45
LWP: 33 house 30.5 30.5 55/45
LWP: 46 occupied house in summer 33.9 34.0 55/45
LWP: 53 house 37.3 37.3 55/45
LWP: 55 villa 39.1 39.1 55/45
LWP: 57 house 40.5 40.5 55/45
LWP: 61 house 41.2 41.2 55/45
LWP: 68 house 43.5 43.5 55/45
LWP: 73 house 44.5 44.5 55/45
LWP: 78 house 39.6 39.6 55/45
LWP: 82 house 37.5 37.5 55/45
LWP: 85 house 41.5 41.5 55/45
LWP: 89 house 40.6 40.6 55/45
LWP: 94 house 43.3 43.3 55/45
LWP: 97 house 44.4 44.4 55/45
LWP: 98 house 41.5 41.5 55/45
SA 34: house 44.1 48.7 55/45
SA 42: summer house 40.3 44.3 55/45
SA 31: summer house 43.3 47.9 55/45
SA 06: house 42.7 42.8 55/45
SA 09: house 41.7 41.7 55/45
SA 13: house 37.6 38.2 55/45
SA 17: house 33.7 35.6 55/45
SA 16: house 34.7 36.4 55/45
SA 37: house 44.7 49.2 55/45
20-51
Receptor
[dB(A)] [dB(A)]
SA 20: house 44.8 46.5 55/45
SA 19: house 44.1 46.2 55/45
SA 21: house 44.9 46.4 55/45
SA 29: house 44.9 47.0 55/45
SA 28: summer house 42.8 44.6 55/45
SA 23: house 37.6 38.5 55/45
SA 32: summer house 42.6 47.5 55/45
SA 11: house 38.4 38.7 55/45
SA 12: house 37.1 38.0 55/45
SA 14: house 37.7 39.7 55/45
SA 15: house 37.7 39.5 55/45
SA 18: house 38.2 39.7 55/45
SA 22: house 39.3 40.3 55/45
SA 38: restaurant in construction 39.9 44.3 55/45
SA 36: house 41.2 45.7 55/45
SA 39: house 40.1 44.4 55/45
SA 44: house 39.0 42.9 55/45
SA 45: house 37.0 40.8 55/45
HA: 10 house 43.5 48.1 55/45
HA: 12a house 44.6 49.3 55/45
HA: 15 house 42.5 46.6 55/45
HA: 17 house 41.2 44.7 55/45
HA: 23 house 42.9 44.0 55/45
HA: 29 house 37.1 37.4 55/45
HA: 35 house 34.7 34.8 55/45
HA: 39 house 42.6 42.6 55/45
20-52
Receptor
[dB(A)] [dB(A)]
HA: 40 house 41.5 41.5 55/45
HA: 46 house 40.4 40.4 55/45
HA: 45 army base / quarry 43.8 43.8 55

(no residential receptor)
HA: 44 house 35.6 35.7 55/45
HA: 37 house 37.2 37.3 55/45
HA: 38 house 35.3 35.4 55/45
HA: 34 house 37.3 37.4 55/45
HA: 33 house 37.9 38.0 55/45
HA: 32 house 40.5 40.5 55/45
HA: 26 house 39.5 39.7 55/45
HA: 25 house 39.4 39.7 55/45
HA: 24 house 39.2 39.6 55/45
HA: 19 house 37.0 38.3 55/45
HA: 14 house 38.0 40.3 55/45
HA: 11 house 38.1 40.8 55/45
HA: 09 house 38.1 41.4 55/45
HA: 04 house 37.8 41.9 55/45
HA: 01 house 37.7 42.4 55/45
HA: 02 house 36.7 41.2 55/45
HA: 43 temporary army base 54.4 54.4 55

(no residential receptor)
HA: 12b house 44.0 48.5 55/45
SA 51: summer house 44.9 50.0 55/45
20-53
Figure 20-5 Cumulative Noise Isolines for the 3 Wind Farm Projects
20-54
Table 20-12 Cumulative Noise Impact
917B
Low
918B Low-Medium
91B Medium √
920B Medium-High
921B High
92B
No Change
924B Negligible
925B Negligible
926B Negligible
927B Negligible
928B Negligible
92B
Slight √
930B Negligible
931B Negligible
932B Negligible √
93B Minor
934B Minor
935B
Impact Severity
Low
936B Negligible
937B Negligible
938B Minor
93B Minor
940B Moderate
941B
Medium
942B Negligible
943B Minor
94B Moderate
945B Moderate
946B Major
947B
High
948B Minor
94B Moderate
950B Moderate
951B Major
952B Major
953B
923B
Very High
954B Moderate
95B Moderate
956B Moderate
957B Major
958B Critical
95B
20.3.6 Shadow Flicker
Based on the worst-case assumptions derived from the EHS Guideline (2015) and the turbine locations
of the three projects a shadow flicker map was calculated to show potential overlapping shadow areas
of the three projects which could cause cumulative impacts.
Due to the distance of more than 5,000m between the Lebanon Wind Power project and the
Sustainable Akkar project, there will be no overlapping shadow flicker areas (see Figure 20-6), and
consequently no cumulative impacts arising from these projects in terms of shadow flicker.
In the north of the Sustainable Akkar project there is a very small area which overlaps with the
shadow area of the Hawa Akkar project (see Figure 20-7). Since there are no sensitive receptors like
dwellings for instance in the overlapping area, there is also no cumulative impact from shadow flicker
for the Hawa Akkar and the Sustainable Akkar project.
In summary, there will be no cumulative shadow flicker impacts due to the distance between the
parallelly planned wind farms, as shown in Table 20-13.
20-55
Figure 20-6 Shadow Flicker Area (HA+SA+LWP)
20-56
Figure 20-7 Shadow Flicker Areas between the SA and the HA Projects
Table 20-13 Cumulative Impact Shadow Flicker
917B
Low
918B Low-Medium
91B Medium √
920B Medium-High
921B High
92B
No Change √
924B Negligible
925B Negligible
926B Negligible √
927B Negligible
928B Negligible
92B
Slight
930B Negligible
931B Negligible
932B Negligible
93B Minor
934B Minor
935B
Impact Severity
Low
936B Negligible
937B Negligible
938B Minor
93B Minor
940B Moderate
941B
Medium
942B Negligible
943B Minor
94B Moderate
945B Moderate
946B Major
947B
High
948B Minor
94B Moderate
950B Moderate
951B Major
952B Major
953B
923B
Very High
954B Moderate
95B Moderate
956B Moderate
957B Major
958B Critical
95B
20-57
20.3.7 Visual and Landscape
Inter-visibility between wind farms is normally found to be highest in those areas located between the
developments. However, the actual pattern of cumulative inter-visibility (CIV) dependent on the land-
cover, land-use and landform of the area is subjected to combined visibility. Since there is only little
vegetation, which usually reduces the visibility, the landcover and land use was not considered in the
calculation. Due to the large height differences in the area, the local topography is the most important
factor which determines the visibility of the wind farm.
The cumulative ZTV (provided in Appendix V) demonstrates that the individual visibility of the
Sustainable Akkar wind farm development will mostly occur in the eastern and southern part of the
15km study area, as shown in Table 20-14. The cumulative ZTV also clearly shows that the most
sensitive receptor in the area, the Qammouaah Plain and its surrounding, does not have any visibility
from the Sustainable Akkar and the Hawa Akkar wind farms (see visualization of all three wind farms).
Table 20--14 Cumulative Visibility for Wind Farm Projects in 15km Radius of the SA Project
Area Area
WF Visibility
[ha] [%]
Sustainable Akkar only 3,387 3.6

Hawa Akkar only 3,725 4.0
Lebanon Wind Power only 16,289 17.4
LWP + SA + HA 33,587 35.9
LWP + HA 1,080 1.2
LWP +SA 6,838 7.3
SA + HA 7,075 7.6
Cumulative Effects on Visual Amenity
The cumulative effects on the visual amenity were considered for each receptor in Table 20-15 and
Table 20-16.
By erasing the turbines SA 26, SA 27 and SA 28 of the project the cumulative impact between the two
wind farms Sustainable Akkar and Lebanon Wind Power was reduced. In addition, by eliminating the
most northern turbine (SA 01) of the Project, the distance between the wind farms Hawa Akkar and
Sustainable Akkar was increased, so that the two projects appear more as individual projects rather
than one large wind farm.
In total, the cumulative impacts of the Sustainable Akkar project in combination with the neighboring
Hawa Akkar and Lebanon Wind Power Project on the relevant receptors are considered of slight to
moderate significance.
20-58
Table 20-15 Cumulative Assessment of Visual Effects on Key Receptors and Settlements
Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of Cumulative Change Cumulative

Significance
Sahle (Hill) Low -Very Large- (viewpoint) Moderate

The turbines of the SA and of the Hawa Akkar
project will be clearly visible and appear at a
large scale due to the distance of
approximately 1km to the project site and the
exposed location of the viewpoint. The Village
Sahle is located in the valley and therefore will
experience a much lower visibility of the
proposed turbines due to the topography.
In summary, cumulative magnitude of change
will be very large due to the unimpeded
visibility of both projects from the Hill.
However, the viewpoint located at an
uninhabited hilltop which has a low sensitivity
resulting a moderate significance.
(see also the visualization in Appendix V)
Al-Saifa Fortress High -None- Negligible
Akkar el-Atiqa'a The ZTV demonstrates that the area around
the Fortress will have no cumulative visibility
of the wind farm due to the existing orography
which blocks the view towards the SA wind
farm.
Qammouaah High -None- Negligible
Plain The ZTV demonstrates that the plain will have
no cumulative visibility of the development
due to the existing orography which blocks the
view towards the SA wind farm.
Sahle Village Medium -Medium to Large- Moderate to
The northern turbines of the project SA will Substantial
appear at a large scale due to a distance of
less than 1km to the village. In addition, the
southern turbines of the Hawa Akkar will
appear in the north of the village at a large
scale due to the distance of approximately
1km. However, due to the local topography
only a limited number of the turbines will be
visible (see ZTV map) and the rotors of the
turbines of both projects will not be facing to
the village most the time due to the prevailing
wind directions.
Due to its different locations the Hawa Akkar
20-59
Significance
wind farm (in the north) cannot be seen from

Village in the same field of view together with
the SA wind farm (in the south).
The village is already influenced by technical
structures including telecommunication
towers, a quarry, an army base and many
multi-story bare-concrete buildings in
construction. The wind turbines of both
projects will add further large-scale man-
made structures in the north and the south of
the village to the existing views.
Although the wind turbines will be added to
the view of the village as new and large
technical element the magnitude of change is
limited to the existing visual preload. The
visual intervention by the projects will
therefore result in a moderate to substantial
significance.
(see also the visualization in the Appendix V
of Sahle Hill)
Qenia Medium- -Medium- Moderate
High The ZTV indicates that about half the SA
turbines of the project will be visible in the
southwest of the village. The turbines of the
Hawa Akkar project will appear on the horizon
in the northwest of the project resulting that a
larger area of views towards the west will be
influenced by wind turbines.
In the lower parts of the village the number of
visible turbines will be reduced due to the
local topography. Due to the distance of more
than 3km the WTGs of the SA project will not
appear in a large scale. In addition, the
houses itself will reduce the visibility of the
turbines.
Unimpeded visibility of both projects in the
west of the village is possible. However, only
some exposed areas of the village will have
these unimpeded views of both projects.
Consequently, the cumulative magnitude of
change is medium resulting in a moderate
significance.
Aandqet Medium -Small to Medium - Moderate
The SA turbines will be clearly visible from the
worst-case viewpoint north of the village due
to the distance of approximately 2.2km to the
planned wind farm.
20-60
Significance
The closest planned turbine of the Hawa Akkar

project is located northeast of the village in a
distance of approximately 3km. Due to its
location and its array (stretching from north to
south) the Hawa Akkar project will only take a
small percentage of the horizontal view from
an observer in Aandqet. In addition, the
majority of the turbines will be located in a
distance of more than 5km from the village.
Therefore, the cumulative effects are limited
for views from Aandqet.
In the center of the village the houses itself
will reduce the visibility of the turbines.
change is small to medium resulting in a
(see also the cumulative visualization in
Appendix V)
Araysih Medium- -Low to Medium- Moderate
(Quobaiyat) High The cumulative ZTV indicates that turbines of
all three projects will be visible from views in
Quobaiyat.
While from exposed locations in Quobaiyat
(like the considered viewpoint) the SA
turbines will be clearly visible, the turbines of
the HA project are located in a distance of
6km northeast of Quobaiyat and the turbines
of the LWP project are located south in
distance of 8km.
In addition, the HA and the LWP will only
cover a small presentence of the horizontal
field of view considering views from
Quobaiyat. Consequently, the SA turbines will
have the by far the largest impact on views
from Quobaiyat. The HA and the LWP projects
are contributing very little to the overall
cumulative impact resulting that cumulative
impacts in Quobaiyat have a low to medium
magnitude.
Consequently, the cumulative visual
intervention by the three projects is assessed
to be of moderate significance.
Kfartoun Medium- -Small to Medium - Moderate
Medium-High High The SA turbines will clearly visible from the
worst-case viewpoint on the eastern edge of
the village due to the distance of
approximately 2km to the planned wind farm.
20-61
Significance
The closest planned turbine of the Hawa Akkar

project is located northwest of the village in a
distance of approximately 5.5km. Due to its
location and its array (stretching from north to
south) the Hawa Akkar project will only take a
small percentage of the horizontal view from
an observer in Kfartoun.
The cumulative impact with the LWP project
southwest is even smaller due to the local
topography and a distance of more than 11km
to the closest planned LWP turbine. Therefore,
the cumulative effects are limited for views
from Kfartoun.
In the center of the village the houses itself
will reduce the visibility of the turbines.
change is small to medium resulting in a
(see also the cumulative visualization in
Appendix V)
Rweimeh Village Low-medium -Low to Medium - Slight to
While for views from Rweimeh Village the SA Moderate
turbines will appear to be large features and
be clearly visible, the turbines of the HA
project are located in a distance of 9km in the
north of Rweimeh Village and the closest
turbines of the LWP project is located
southwest in distance of 5.5km.
The viewpoint Rweimeh Village is located on
an imaginary line between the two projects.
Therefore, in the field of view of a potential
observer only one of the two projects or even
only one part of one project is visible at once.
This also limits the cumulative impacts. In
addition, trees and buildings will further
reduce the cumulative visibility in the
Rweimeh Village settlement. Therefore, the SA
turbines will have the by far the largest impact
on views from Rweimeh Village. The HA and
the LWP project are contributing very little to
the overall cumulative impact, resulting that
the cumulative visual impacts in Rweimeh
Village have a low to medium magnitude.
Consequently, the cumulative visual
intervention by the three projects is assessed
to be of moderate significance.
20-62
Table 20-16 Cumulative Assessment of Visual Effects on Scoped Out Settlements

Significance
Halat, Mqaible, Medium-High -Very Low to None - Negligible

Machta Hammoud, No or low visibility of SA turbines see
Aaouiaanat, Shadra, ZTV.
Furaydis, Ain El Zeit,
Al Birah, Kherbet
Daoud, Qatlabah,
Daoura, Beino,
Aaiyat, Bluzah
(Syria), Chettaha,
Qboula, Bayt Àli
(Syria), Chaqdouf,
Aakkar El Aatiqa‘a,
Aayoun, Ain
Yaaqoub, Tikrit,
Bezbina, Es Sayen,
Memneh, Hmaireh,
Mazraat El Talleh,
Mrah El Zakbeh,
Jouar El Hachich,
Qasr, Qornet Aakkar,
Fnaidek, Fissane,
Mrah Ras El Ain,
Kouakh, Souaiseh,
Charbine, Brissa,
Hermel
Hadidah (Syria), Medium-High - Low - Slight to

Tell Kalach (Syria), Due to the wind park array Negligible
Aridah (Syria), stretching from north to south the
Naìsiyah (Syria), SA turbines will only cover a small
Bqaiaa, Ash Shayk percentage of the field of view from
Ibrahim (Syria), a potential observer located in the
Al Farid north of the project. In addition, due
to the distance the turbines will
appear at a small scale.
Consequently, the SA turbines do
not contribute significantly to the
cumulative level of change. In this
area the turbines of the HA project
will be the relevant component of
visual change due to its closer
distance.
Al Bahluniyah, Al Medium-High - Low to Medium – Moderate
Qurayyat, Kafr Nun, All settlements are located west of
Rimah, Chiklar, the project with visibility of the SA
Menjez, Aydamun, and HA project at views towards the
Sindianet Zeidane, east. The LWP turbines are located
Majdal, Beit El south and cannot be perceived in the
Khalil same field of view. In addition, due
20-63
Significance
to the wind park array stretching

from north to south the LWP turbines
will also only cover a small
percentage of the field view.
Since the turbines of the SA and the
HA project are located in the same
viewing direction, the area on the
horizon in which turbines are visible
is increased this leads to a
cumulative impact. However, due to
the distance of the settlements, the
SA turbines will appear at a small
scale and therefore the cumulative
magnitude of change is limited.
Debbabiyeh, Medium-High - Very Low – Slight to
Kouachra, Daoussa All settlements are located west of Negligible
w Baghdadi the project with visibility of the SA
and HA project.
Due to the distance of more than
10km the SA turbines will appear at
a very small scale.
Al Farid, Rajem Medium-High - Low to Medium – Moderate
Khalak, Hnaider, All settlements are located east of
Dbadeb, Arab the project with visibility of the SA
Jernaya, Rajem Beit and HA project at views towards the
Hussein, Kanisa, west. The LWP turbines are located
Al Buwayt, Manseh, in a distance greater than 10km and
Al Hit (Syria), are partly blocked by the
Huwayk (Syria), topography. Therefore, they do not
contribute or only to a very low
extend to the visual change.
horizon in which turbines are visible
is increased this leads to a
SA turbines will appear at a small
scale and therefore the cumulative
magnitude of change is limited.
An Naìm (Syria), Medium-High - Very Low – Slight to
Aqrabiyah (Syria) The two settlements are located east Negligible
of the project with visibility of the SA
and HA project at views towards the
west. The LWP turbines are located
in a distance greater than 19km and
therefore do not contribute or only to
a very low extend to the visual
20-64
Significance
change.
horizon in which turbines are visible,
is increased. This leads to a
SA turbines will appear at a very
small scale and therefore the
cumulative magnitude of change is
very limited.
Akroum Medium-High - Very Low - Slight to
The settlement has low to no Negligible
visibility of the HA and the LWP
turbines, therefore the cumulative
magnitude of change is low to none.
Mrah El Kouakh Medium - Very Low - Slight to
The settlement has low to no Negligible
visibility of the HA and LWP turbines
therefore the cumulative magnitude
of change is very low.
Boustane Medium - Low to Medium - Slight to
The SA turbines will be the dominant Moderate
component of change (if visible due
to the vegetation). The closest LWP
turbines are located in a distance of
approx. 6km to the west, while the
SA turbines are located in the north.
Consequently, the WTGs of both
projects will not appear in the same
field of view. The HA WTGs will not
be visible from the very small
settlement.
The LWP project is contributing little
to the overall cumulative impact,
resulting that the cumulative visual
impacts in Boustane have a low to
medium magnitude.
20-65
Table 20-17 Cumulative Visual Impact Assessment for Operation Phase
Negligible Negligible
Slight Negligible Minor Minor
Impact Severity
Negligible Negligible
Low Minor Minor Moderate
Moderate Moderate Moderate

Very High Major Critical
Cumulative Effects on Landscape Units
Due to the mountainous topography there is hardly cumulative visibility in the southern part of the
study area. Consequently, the northern part of the study area is assessed in detail in terms of
cumulative impact.
The cumulative ZTV shows that the northern and the eastern part of the study area experience most
of the cumulative impact. The contribution of the visual impact by Sustainable Akkar wind farm and
Lebanon Wind Power is relatively low in this area due to the large distance of the turbines.
Consequently, these turbines will only appear at a small scale. From some elevated and exposed areas
in the northern part of the study area, the ZTV shows that turbines of all three projects can be seen.
However, the largest areas of cumulative visibility in which all three projects will be seen together, will
occur mostly in the lower elevated areas in Syria.
Effected by the visibility of the three wind farms are in particular the large landscape units; namely
the forests, the scrublands, the agricultural areas as well as the urban areas. The visibility of the SA
and LWP turbines in the northern part of the study area will be very limited due to the large distance
of the turbines, so that they appear in a small scale. In addition, due to the wind park array, which is
oriented from north to south, the SA and LWP turbines only take a very small percentage of the
horizontal field of view (from the agriculture areas in the north of the study area for instance).
Consequently, at the plain in the northern part of the study area the turbines of the Hawa Akkar
project will have the main visual effect on the landscape. There are no significant cumulative impacts
caused by the SA and the LWP project although the turbines will be only visible at good weather
conditions and on a small scale. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts within the
northern plain of the study area, although the ZTVs indicates that a large number of turbines will be
visible.
Derived from the findings of the visualizations in combination with the ZTV, a verbal, argument-based
valuation of the cumulative impacts is deemed to be appropriate for assessing the cumulative impacts.
This is mainly due to the distance and locations of the three wind farms. Due to the geographical
situation of the three wind farms, orientated from north to south, cumulative impacts are very
20-66
restricted and mainly occur in the small areas between the projects. Therefore, the impact on the
landscape units is mostly caused by individual wind farms.
An exception within the study area are forest areas close to Aandqet with the landscape unit of the
pine and quercus forest. With the in parallel planned wind farm Hawa Akkar in the north, visibility of
wind turbines will be introduced in an additional part of the landscape unit. However, there will be
very limited areas, where the two wind farms will be visible in the same sightline, due to the location
of the HA turbines in the north of the SA turbines, causing a moderate cumulative effect. In addition,
the forest itself will limit views from this landscape units.
The roads for the wind farm will be designed to follow and fit with contours of the topography as far as
possible, so that the landscape impacts can be reduced. Roads, especially single-track roads, generally
do have a relatively small impact on large landscape areas. In addition, roads have restricted visibility
due to existing topography and vegetation. Furthermore, dirt roads already exist on the wind farm
site. In the surrounding of the project various bituminized roads already exists, which are part of the
current landscape. Consequently, there will be no significant impacts on the landscape units by the SA
wind farm roads and also no cumulative impact in combination with the planned wind turbines. Due to
the distance to the LWP and HA project and their internal wind farm roads, there will be no significant
cumulative landscape impacts caused by the wind farm roads.
The internal cabling will be underground cabling, consequently there will be also no significant
cumulative landscape impacts.
The overall magnitude of change attributable to the wind farm SA in addition to the LWP project and
HA project is low to medium, resulting in a minor and not significant effects in landscape terms, as
Table 20-18 Cumulative Landscape Impact
917B
Low
918B Low-Medium√
91B Medium
920B Medium-High
921B High
92B
No Change√
924B Negligible
925B Negligible
926B Negligible
927B Negligible
928B Negligible
92B
Slight
930B Negligible
931B Negligible
932B Negligible
93B Minor
934B Minor
935B
Impact Severity
Low
936B Negligible
937B Negligible
938B Minor
93B Minor
940B Moderate
941B
Medium√
942B Negligible
943B Minor√
94B Moderate
945B Moderate
946B Major
947B

923B
948B 94B 950B 951B 952B 953B
Very High
954B Moderate
95B Moderate
956B Moderate
957B Major
958B Critical
95B
20-67
20.4 Summary
The Cumulative Impact Assessment was undertaken per the request of the MOE stipulated in
Minister’s Letter #14175 dated 19/12/2017 and in accordance with International Finance Corporation,
Good Practice Handbook, Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private
Sector in Emerging Markets, 2013.
The Proponents for Lebanon Wind Power, Sustainable Akkar and Hawa Akkar and their contractors will
be responsible for the implementation of the ESMP across all project phases to mitigate identified
impacts. The purpose of this ESMP is to specify the standards and controls required to manage and
monitor environmental, social and health and safety impacts of the Project during construction and
operation phase in accordance with the applicable national legislation and regulations and lender
standards. The health, safety and security aspects are included as a separate section of the ESMP. The
specific objectives of this ESMP are as follows:
• Provide an institutional mechanism with well-defined roles and responsibilities for ensuring that
measures identified in ESIA are implemented.
• Minimizing any adverse environmental, social and health and safety impacts resulting from the
Project activities by implementing all suggested mitigation measures and control technologies,
safeguards identified through the ESIA process.
• Prevent or compensate for any loss of the affected persons.
• Conducting all project activities in accordance with the relevant Lebanese Laws and the
international guidelines.
• Prevent environmental degradation as a result of either individual subprojects or their cumulative
effects.
• Enhance positive environmental and social outcomes.
• Ensure that the ESMP is feasible and cost-efficient.
• Provide a Project monitoring program for effective implementation of the mitigation measures and
ascertain efficacy of the environmental management and risk control systems in place.
• Ensure that all stakeholders concerns are addressed.
To achieve this, the ESMP identifies potential adverse impacts from the planned activities and outlines
mitigation measures required to reduce the likely negative effects on the physical, natural and social
environment, and manage health and safety risks. It provides an overview of the environmental and
social baseline conditions of the Project’s Area of Influence, summarizes the potential impacts
associated with the proposed development works and sets out the management measures required to
mitigate any potential impacts in a series of discipline specific ESMP sections. In the risk register
completed for the Project, the potential health, safety and security risks for the project have been
assessed and control measures identified.
This ESMP is to be implemented by the OEM/EPC Contractor to be commissioned by Sustainable Akkar

sal for the Project. Implementation and management of certain plans, i.e. the SEP and Grievance
Mechanism, will remain the responsibility of LWP. In addition, a Committee responsible for the follow
up on environmental and social management at wind farms is proposed to be formed at the MOE.
Finally, a grievance record and redress mechanism will be developed and implemented throughout all
project phases.
20-68
21. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The Project will result in significant and positive environmental and economic impacts on the strategic
and national level and are crucial given the current challenges the energy sector in Lebanon is facing.
The Project will offer energy security as well as alleviate a source of major economic burden to the
Lebanese economy.
Compared with the current conventional way of producing electricity in Lebanon through thermal
power plants using heavy fuel oil and/or natural gas, generating electricity through wind power is
expected to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, and will thus help in reducing GHG emissions, as well
as air pollutant emissions. The Project will:
system.
• Save millions of cubic meters of water per year in comparison to an oil-burning power plant which
utilizes water for cooling.
Anticipated environmental and social impacts on various receptors throughout the Project phases are
21-1
Table 21-1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Resource Phase Impact Mitigation Impact Sensitivity of Residual Impact

Significance Receptor Significance
Climate and Construction GHG Emissions • The GHG emissions are considered offset by the beneficial impact of generating clean energy through Low Medium Minor
Climate Change the operation of the wind farm.
• The expected energy output from SA is 315.75GWh/yr resulting in 6,315GWh over 20 years.
• The total emissions from the LCA (lifespan 20 years) results in 61179.31 tons of CO2eq.
• Since the EDL emission rate is 630 t CO2eq/GWh, the carbon payback period is 83 days.
Operations and Flood Risk • The selected OEM/EPC Contractor, as part of the detailed design prepared for the Project, avoid Slight Medium Negligible
Maintenance locating any of the Project components within the buffer distances developed under the flood risk
assessment to eliminate any risks for flood.
• A detailed hydrological study must be undertaken to identify and determine the required engineering
structures to be considered as part of the detailed design for new asphalt and gravel road segment
and internal tracks (e.g. drainage structures, culverts).
Operations and Wildfire • It is recommended that the selected OEM/EPC Contractor, as part of the detailed design prepared for Low High Moderate
Maintenance the Project, avoid locating any of the Project components within the buffer distances (if any)
developed for the Karm Chbat Nature Reserve.
• The selected OEM/EPC Contractor must identify and determine the required fire detection and
protection equipment to be considered as part of the detailed design.
Geology and Construction, Potential Impacts to Low High Moderate

While typically not a groundwater issue, control of these pollution sources in a karstic environment is
Hydrology Operations and Soil and Groundwater
necessary to preclude impacts to groundwater. Control impacts to soil and groundwater through:
Maintenance
• Implementation of general best practice housekeeping measures.
• Following the Construction Health and Safety Plan.
• Provision of spill response equipment.
• Additional protection shall be afforded by scheduling major activities with high potential for the
generation of water pollution away from the snow melt season when the large majority of recharge is
believed to occur.
Construction, Impacts from Solid Waste Generation

Operations and Improper
• Coordinate with the appropriate Municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the collection
Maintenance Management of Waste
of solid waste from the site to the municipal approved disposal area.
Streams
• Prohibit fly-dumping of any solid waste to the land.
• Distribute appropriate number of properly contained litter bins and containers properly marked as
"Municipal Waste".
• During construction, distribute a sufficient number of properly contained containers clearly marked
as "Construction Waste" for the dumping and disposal of construction waste. Where possible, the
OEM/EPC Contractor must seek ways to reduce construction waste by reusing materials (for example
21-2
through recycling of concrete for road base course).

• Implement proper housekeeping practices on the construction site at all times.
• Maintain records and manifests that indicate volume of waste generated onsite, collected by
contractor, and disposed of at the landfill. The numbers within the records are to be consistent to
ensure no illegal dumping at the site or other areas.
Wastewater Generation
• Coordinate with Akkar Water Directorate to hire a private contractor for the collection of wastewater
from the site to the appropriate WWTP.
• Prohibit illegal disposal of wastewater to the land.
• Maintain records and manifests that indicate volume of wastewater generated onsite, collected by
contractor, and disposed of at the WWTP. The numbers within the records are to be consistent to
ensure no illegal discharge at the site or other areas.
• Ensure that constructed septic tanks during construction and those to be used during operation are
well contained and impermeable to prevent leakage of wastewater into soil.
• Ensure that septic tanks are emptied and collected by wastewater contractor at appropriate intervals
to avoid overflowing.
Hazardous Waste Generation
• Coordinate with the MOE and hire a private contractor for the collection of hazardous waste from the
site to an appropriate Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility.
• Follow the requirements for management and storage as per hazardous waste management and
handling of the MOE.
• Prohibit illegal disposal of hazardous waste to the land.
• Ensure that containers are emptied and collected by the contractor at appropriate intervals to
prevent overflowing.
• Maintain records and manifests that indicate volume of hazardous waste generated onsite, collected
by contractor, and disposed of at an appropriate Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility. The numbers
within the records are to be consistent to ensure no illegal discharge at the site or other areas.
Hazardous Materials
• Ensure that hazardous materials are stored in proper areas and in a location where they cannot
reach the land in case of accidental spillage. This includes storage facilities that are of hard
impermeable surface, flame-proof, accessible to authorized personnel only, locked when not in use,
and prevents incompatible materials from coming in contact with one another.
• Maintain a register of all hazardous materials used and accompanying Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) must present at all times. Spilled material should be tracked and accounted for.
• Incorporate dripping pans at machinery, equipment, and areas that are prone to contamination by
leakage of hazardous materials (such as oil, fuel, etc.).
• Regular maintenance of all equipment and machinery used onsite. Maintenance activities and other
activities that pose a risk for hazardous material spillage (such as refuelling) must take place at a
suitable location (hard surface) with appropriate measures for trapping spilled material.
• Ensure that a minimum of 1,000 litres of general-purpose spill absorbent is available at hazardous
material storage facility. Appropriate absorbents include elite, clay, peat and other products
21-3
manufactured for this purpose.

• If spillage on soil occurs, spill must be immediately contained, cleaned-up, and contaminated soil
disposed as hazardous waste.
Impacts on Water • The anticipated impacts on the local water resources and utilities are considered of short‐term
Resources duration during the Project construction phase and of long-term duration during the operation phase.
Such impacts are expected to be of low magnitude and of low sensitivity given the minimal water
requirements of the Project.
• The selected OEM/EPC Contractor should coordinate with the Akkar Water Directorate to secure the
water requirements of the Project.
Impacts on • The anticipated impacts on wastewater utilities are considered of short‐term duration during the
Wastewater Disposal Project construction phase and of long-term duration during the operation phase. Such impacts are
Utilities expected to be of low magnitude given the minimal wastewater quantities generated, and of low
sensitivity as they will be easily handled.
• There are no mitigation measures to be applied. However, the selected OEM/EPC Contractor must
coordinate with the Akkar Water Directorate to obtain list of authorized contractors for disposal of
wastewater.
Impacts on Solid • The anticipated impacts on solid waste utilities are considered of short‐term duration during the
Waste Disposal Project construction phase and of long-term duration during the operations and maintenance phase.
Utilities Such impacts are expected to be of low magnitude given the minimal solid waste quantities
generated, and of low sensitivity as they will be easily handled by the landfill.
• Given the above impact is considered not significant. As such, there are no mitigation measures to
be applied. However, the selected OEM/EPC Contractor must:
- Undertake discussions with the appropriate municipal landfills to determine where there is
sufficient capacity to easily handle construction debris generated from the Project.
- Coordinate with the appropriate municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the
collection of construction waste from the site to the approved landfill.
- Coordinate with the appropriate municipality or hire a competent private contractor for the
collection of solid waste from the site to the approved landfill.
Impacts on Hazardous • The anticipated impacts on hazardous waste utilities are considered of short‐term duration during the
Waste Disposal Project construction phase and of long-term duration during the operations and maintenance phase.
Utilities Such impacts are expected to be of low magnitude given the minimal hazardous waste quantities
generated, and of low sensitivity as they will be easily handled appropriately by an appropriate
Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility.
• The impact is considered not significant. As such, there are no mitigation measures to be applied.
However, the selected OEM/EPC Contractor must coordinate with the MOE to hire a competent
private contractor for the collection of hazardous waste from the site and disposal at an appropriate
Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility.
Geophysical Construction, Landslide, Slope • Ground stability problems are not expected due to high resistance values and safe carrying power Slight Medium Negligible
Ground and Operations and Stability, Earthquake values evidenced by the seismic measurements.
Seismicity Maintenance
• During detailed design, the OEM/EPC Contractor will incorporate the recommendations of the seismic
study for excavation at the platform foundation locations to a depth where stable soils are
encountered.
Air Quality Construction and Impact of Particulate • Use of wind screens or enclosures around dusty activities or the site boundary. Mojave Desert Air Low Medium Minor
21-4
Decommissioning Matter Quality Management District assumes that complete coverage by wind screens (on the windward
• Water spray is also used to reduce fugitive dust as it increases the moisture content of the material.
Therefore, and according to Mojave Desert too, Water spray (Application point) will ensure a control
efficiency of 75%. This is very useful for exaction for example.
• For unpaved roads, water flushing is the essential with 0.48 gallons per square yard twice per day to
maintain a control efficiency above 50%.
effective and can reach 96%. If conducted directly before the passage of the turbines convoy or the
morning and evening passages of the project vehicles to and from the site, a consequent decrease
will occur.
Transport and Construction Obstacle Removal • An additional route survey will be undertaken once the OEM/EPC Contractor is selected. Slight Medium Negligible
Traffic
• The temporary removal of concrete bund, curb, electric pole and overhead cable, and demolition of
the 45m of concrete wall be coordinated with the Port Authority.
• Raising of pedestrian bridges, prohibition of car parking, removal of curbs, electric poles, trees, lamp
posts, and fencing at ramps and roundabouts and ground leveling and compaction of significant
curves will be coordinated with the Ministry of Transport.
• Asphalt speed bumps will be replaced with rubber ones, which we can easily be removed during the
• Any modification required for the Al Abdeh roundabout will be discussed with the municipality as it is
under their authority.
Construction New Road • The construction of asphalt roads will occur for a period of 6 months and will be coordinated and Low Medium Minor
Development permitted by Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic levels are lowest.
• Construction of internal track will occur for a period of 3 months and will be coordinated with the
Ministry of Transport and the Lebanese Army.
Construction Transport of WTG • A communications protocol being developed for the transport of WTG components will be distributed Low Medium Minor
Components, to all Mayors two to three months prior to the start of transport. A final transport route map will be
Construction Materials provided to all municipalities.
and Workers
• Announcements will be made to all villages along the WTG transport route from the Tripoli Port to
the entrance of the Project site).
and gravel, and maintenance activities will be undertaken by the Developer.
21-5
• Once the OEM/EPC Contractor has been selected, and the number and location of construction
numbers are known, measures will be put in place to maximize mitigation of traffic impacts through
carpooling and group transport by van.
Biodiversity Construction, Total Habitat Loss: Pre-Construction: Not Ecologically

Operations and Significant
• Approximately • Completion of a pre-construction flora survey to identify habitats and key flora species as identified
Maintenance,
75.47 ha out of in the baseline section.
Decommissioning
948.72 ha (8%).
(Habitats) • Micrositing of infrastructure to avoid or reduce oak woodland and mixed woodland removal.
Sensitive Features
Loss: • Preparation of a final BAMP outlining the measures required to deliver no net loss for areas of natural
• Juniperus excelsa habitat, such as oak woodland and mixed woodland. A framework BAMP has been provided with the
dominance: ESIA, as an appendix to the stand-alone ESMP.
2,69ha (19.55%) Construction:
lost or modified
(moderate adverse
impact)
Measures would include additional tree planting to produce new areas or improve degraded areas of
• Mixed oak
oak-dominated woodland and mixed woodland. The translocation of tree species would also be
woodland:
considered.
49.89ha (6.59%)
lost or modified • Preparation and provision of workforce toolbox talks and monitoring to ensure all staff understand
(moderate adverse the importance of the biodiversity controls in place, what they entail and how these controls should
impact) be followed. Particular key early tasks in workforce education will include implementation of a
• Oak woodland: hunting ban on the Project site and prohibition of burning of vegetation for warmth or cooking.
165ha (12.39%)
lost or modified include measures such as adherence to strict working boundaries for all infrastructure construction.
(moderate adverse
impact) • If any key flora species are identified during the pre-construction survey, areas of habitat inhabited
• Oak/pine by the plants should be avoided. If it is not possible to avoid examples or areas of the species
woodland: detailed in the baseline, every effort should be made to reduce the impact and further offsetting
13.97ha (12.05%) would be required.
lost or modified • Implementation of rehabilitation measures to mitigate the loss of habitat, such as vegetation
(moderate adverse remediation, translocation or creation of new habitat areas.
impact)
• Proper management of excavation materials. Rubble from site excavations should not be allowed to
Habitats Including spread down slopes. Clear working procedures should be defined, implemented and supervised.
Vulnerable Plant
Species: • Separation and storage of top soil for use in restoration of all temporary project infrastructure and
• Pine forest
dominance 2: types will be required.
7.16ha (16.93%)
21-6
lost or modified • Soil management would also include observance of appropriate biosecurity controls to prevent the
(moderate adverse spread of invasive plants or floral diseases. This would involve washing vehicles and equipment to
impact) remove particles of vegetation and loose soil, with this done in specific “wash down” areas. Any
• Oak/pine habitat: invasive plants that are removed during vegetation clearance would need to be disposed of
13.97ha (12.05%) appropriately, in a safe way that does not allow it to spread.
lost or modified
(moderate adverse • Good construction environmental management on site based on best practice guidance to avoid
impact) spillage of fuels, other pollutants or excavated materials and provision of sufficient spill kits and
• Mixed oak similar to deal with any incidents.
woodland: 49.98ha
During Operations and Maintenance:
(6.59%) lost or
modified (moderate • Monitoring of all habitat reinstatement, translocation, recreation, offsetting or enhancement as
adverse impact) identified and implemented as required following pre-construction surveys.
• Oak woodland: • Remove invasive plant species during routine vegetation maintenance.
1.65ha (12.39%)
lost or modified • Monitor power-line right-of-way vegetation to avoid fire risk. Remove blowdown and other high-
(moderate adverse hazard fuel accumulations.
impact)
During Decommissioning:
• Typically, the same controls set out for construction will apply.
measures such as adherence to strict working boundaries for all infrastructure decommissioning.
• Good construction environmental management on site based on best practice guidance to avoid
Pre-Construction, Terrestrial Fauna: During Pre-Construction: Not Ecologically

Construction, Loss or Disturbance of Significant
• Completion of pre-construction fauna walkover survey to identify potential habitat for key mammal
During Operation Resting Places
and reptile species, followed by camera trapping to confirm species considered to be present/status
and Maintenance
of any dens found.
(Terrestrial Fauna)
• Preparation of a final BAMP setting out the measures required based upon the findings of the further
surveys. A framework BAMP will be included with the ESIA.
reptiles as appropriate, including monitoring of any offsets or enhancements for those species.
Pre-construction, Bats: Loss or Not Ecologically

Assuming a likely worst-case scenario that the roost present is of national importance, the impact
Construction, Disturbance of Roosts Significant
would be near certain to result in a significant ecological effect. Impacts associated with disturbance of
During Operation and Foraging Habitat
a roost rather than loss of the roost would be similar but likely to be of moderate or low magnitude
21-7
and Maintenance, and Collision Risk depending on the type of impact. A disturbance impact would occur as a result of construction noise,
Decommissioning construction light or habitat alteration in the vicinity of the roost and could result in an ecologically
(Bats) significant effect.
During Pre-Construction:
gathered from the spring activity surveys used to inform this assessment. As per best guidance,
a full year of survey data will allow for a more accurate understanding of bat activity across the
site, temporally and spatially, which will enable a more accurate and informed impact
assessment which in turn will determine the most effective mitigation required.
• A presumption for avoidance of all artificial light as far as possible. All lights should be cowled
and downward facing and avoid light spill onto surrounding non-construction areas.
Operation and Maintenance:
• Assuming a worst-case scenario that the population(s) of bats using the foraging habitat is (are) of
national importance, the impact would result in a significant ecological effect. Impacts associated
with temporary loss of a foraging area, e.g. temporary construction infrastructure upon areas of
sparse herbaceous vegetation, rather than the permanent loss of the foraging area would be similar
but likely to be of moderate or low magnitude. It is considered possible that it could result in an
ecologically significant effect.
• Given the high levels of activity recorded at SA2, SA6, SA9 and SA20 and predominately from
species identified as high or medium risk in terms of collision (common pipistrelle, Kuhl’s pipistrelle
and serotine) it is recommended that turbines situated at these locations are subject to operational
adjustments. Raising the cut-in speed at which the turbine begins to generate electricity, thus
preventing movement in low winds, notably decreases bat mortality rates 26 along with feathering of
blades i.e. adjusting the angle of the blade parallel to the wind or turning the unit away from the
wind27. In addition, operational times could be altered – stopping turbines at these locations
between the most active periods i.e. 20:00-05:00.
the area on and around the Project site from human persecution, such as identified elsewhere in the
area.
Ornithology Construction, Designated Sites • The IBA lists soaring birds and cranes (namely white stork, white pelican, Levant sparrowhawk and Not Ecologically
Decommissioning common crane) as another key feature. Those species have not been recorded on the Project site Significant
during field surveys, they pass through the area on migration. As such, potential construction
impacts would be limited to disturbance such as noise and light, from construction activities.
• Repetition of the migratory period VPs ensuring that the 36 hours per season standard is met. To be
completed for three years after the start of operation and commence at the first migratory period
after start of operation, regardless of whether it is the spring or autumn period.
• Monitoring of bird collision fatalities under and around each turbine following a standardized
21-8
methodology potentially using trained dogs. Monitoring to be completed monthly between November
and February and in June and July, i.e. outside of the migration periods. Completed weekly during
spring migration period of March to May and August to October. Project specific monitoring protocol
to be prepared based on best practice guidance.
• This study has not identified a need to shut down turbines on site during the bird migration seasons.
However, if it were identified to be necessary based on the results of collision fatality monitoring or
as a requirement of the as yet unpublished Lebanese Ministry of the Environment guidance on wind
turbine shut down to avoid bird collisions, some or all turbines will be shut down as appropriate and
proportionate to identified confirmed or potential impacts.
• Related to the previous action, the project will consider the installation of bird monitoring radar to
inform all shutdown related activities.
• Strict enforcement of hunting ban on Project site.
• Avoid artificial light where possible. White steady lights attract prey and their predators. Use red or
white blinking or pulsing lights instead.
• Enclosed, segregated waste disposal to avoid attracting birds to predictable food sources.
Habitat Loss • Both temporary and permanent habitat loss are predicted as a result of the construction of the
proposed development and from the construction of new permanent access tracks. Temporary,
short-term habitat loss would occur at turbine bases, outside of the permanent hard-standing and
from the construction of new temporary access tracks that would be reinstated after construction.
• Mitigation for habitat loss is as presented above for Biodiversity.
Nest Destruction Where required, vegetation would be removed outside of the bird breeding season (March-August). The
following vegetation removal deterrence methods would also be used to ensure ground nesting birds do
not nest on the site following vegetation clearance:
• Iridescent tape across the construction areas prior to construction activities.
• Bird deterring machines which produce intermittent loud noises.
• Walking of the cleared area by individuals on a regular basis to prevent birds settling and to monitor
if any birds are settling to nests on areas close to the planned construction activity.
In addition to the above, prior to commencement of decommissioning activities, walkover surveys would
be completed in habitats suitable for and known to be used by breeding bird species as to identify any
previously unknown nest sites.
Disturbance and • Disturbance of small breeding birds found on site as a result of construction activities would be an
Displacement adverse, low magnitude, short-term impact on a community of birds considered to have local
importance.
Operations and Collision Risk to birds • It is recommended that the program of VP surveys is continued, but with a greater survey effort.
Maintenance flying at collision risk Surveys should be undertaken between August 2019 and November 2020, with six hours of survey
height: undertaken at each VP location during the months of January, February, June, July and December.
During the other months, when birds are migrating, this survey effort should be doubled to 12
• Common buzzard.
hours of survey effort per VP location. It is recommended that more VP locations are used, with at
• Eurasian
21-9
sparrowhawk. least five locations recommended to cover the site. These should be chosen with the help of a
• Honey buzzard. viewshed analysis to ensure that all turbine locations can be observed from a survey location. All
• Common kestrel. surveys must be undertaken by surveyors who are experienced in the identification and recording
• Lesser Spotted of Lebanese birds. Where required, these surveyors should also be trained in how to survey as per
Eagle. the SNH guidance .
• Levant
• The results of the CRA suggest that significant collision risk impacts not predicted. However, it is
Sparrowhawk.
• Short-toed snake
eagle.
• Steppe buzzard.
• This mitigation would rely heavily on the further monitoring work proposed, including continuing
the migration season VP surveys, undertaking carcass searches beneath the constructed turbines
and the installation of a bird detecting radar system.
• It is thus proposed that mitigation would involve the shutdown of the turbines during periods of
peak collision risk potential, such as periods of peak bird migration movement or poor weather.
Shutdown would be achieved by adjusting the blade angle to be perpendicular to the wind and
applying the brake to prevent any blade rotation. Further information on this process, and potential
compensation, will be provided in the Bird Monitoring Protocol being produced by the Lebanese
Ministry of Environment
Disturbance and • Both species could be displaced from the immediate zone during the operation of the proposed
Displacement: development.
• Common kestrel • Disturbance from the presence of construction workers and vehicles and from visual and noise
• Short-toed snake disturbance from the turbines could cause both species to forage away from the site.
eagle
• This would result in an adverse, low magnitude, long-term, impact on both species.
Barrier Effects • The proposed development may result in a barrier effect on the movement of bird species with the
cross or would need to habituate to crossing.
• Such adverse impacts would be of low magnitude to the species inhabiting the immediate zone but
potentially of moderate magnitude to any species that might use the area around the Project site for
migration.
Socioeconomic Construction, Positive Impacts: • Landowners have agreed that the compensation provided is appropriate and fair, though the Project Medium Medium-High Moderate
Conditions Decommissioning represents a loss of access to 747,589m2 will be leased for the Project for 28 years, and +3,500m2
• The potential for
will be acquired permanently.
the consistent
provision of • A total of 45% of the area currently used for grazing will be unavailable for a period of 18 months.
electricity to meet Given the loss of access to nearly half of the total, the impact severity is anticipated to be High.
demand. Additional consultation will be undertaken with livestock owners and shepherds to explain the areas
they cannot access for the duration of the construction. Shepherds will be consulted to find out
• Economic benefits
whether goat grazing is a subsistence activity and whether there are adequate alternative grounds
from the expected
that can be used during the construction period. If there’s impact or loss of livelihoods, a Livelihood
sourcing of
Restoration and Compensation Plan will be developed. Shepherds grazing near the Project will be
construction
advised of exclusion zones in advance, noting that other grazing areas are available. Alternative
materials from the
areas for grazing will be researched and secured by the Developer for alternative use during
Akkar region.
construction. If the Developer cannot arrange an alternative area because of landowners’ objection,
• Economic benefits financial compensation will take place. All grazing areas will again be accessible at the end of
from the sourcing construction.
of Project
21-10
personnel from the • Access to tracks within the Project area would be temporarily prohibited during the construction
northeastern part phase for a period of 18 months. Recreational hunters near the Project will be advised of exclusion
of Akkar. zones in advance, noting that other tracks are available, and hunting is for recreational purposes,
i.e. not subsistence. There are other tracks available for hunters, who only hunt recreationally. A
• Economic benefit
significant impact on birds migrating through Lebanon is the culture of hunting that exists. In spite
from income that
of laws that make the killing of migrating birds illegal, thousands are still killed each year impacting
may be generated
by nearby
wind farm area is banned, this area is shown in Figure 14-4 in Section 14 Ornithology. This
businesses
would not only protect the birds using the wind farm area but would also prevent damage to the
including hotels
turbines themselves. The site would be secured during construction, preventing public access to the
and restaurants.
area. It is proposed to maintain this during the operation phase, with security staff responsible for
• Land lease / preventing members of the public accessing the wind farm site. Efforts should be made to invest in
acquisition for 28 public awareness and support for the hunting ban among local residents. This would take the form
years. of increased nature education and training of local bird recorders. Surveyors from the project
surveys would be a good resource to educate locals of the species of birds and why Lebanon is an
Negative Impacts:
Internationally important bird flyway.
• Land lease /
• Impacts to vulnerable groups, including women, the elderly and Palestinian and Syrian refugees, are
acquisition for 28
not expected to be disproportionately different than other community members. The impact severity
years.
is anticipated to be Low (to be confirmed). The Developer will collect additional data, identify all
• Temporary loss of Project stakeholders and engage with them, as necessary, including directly-affected people and
access by vulnerable groups. These exercises will help clarify and confirm the DAOI and focus the assessment
shepherds to of project impacts and inform mitigation, as well as inform management plans. The Developer will
0.43km2of grazing identify and map all of the Project stakeholders and engage with them as necessary. This will help
areas. ensure that all Project stakeholders are consulted and there are no hidden pockets of opposition.
Other potential use of natural resources on the Project site will be investigated. Additional measures
• Temporary loss of
to communicate the Project information, including provision of schedules, health, safety and security
access to tracks by
measures are necessary (refer to Section 16 Community Health, Safety and Security and the
recreational bird
stand-alone SEP).
hunters.
• Up to 125 workers will be employed by the Project. Workers will be sourced from the Project area
• Potential impacts
first, regionally second, nationally third and internationally last. Employment will supply income for
to vulnerable
a period of up to 18 months. Pre-recruitment skills training will be provided. A job skills assessment
groups, including
will be undertaken to provide transparency in hiring practices. The impact to workers is expected to
women, the elderly
be positive.
and informal
settlements. • General impacts to communities are expected to be Positive based on establishment of the CRO
Office in Jabal-Akroum Kfartoun and community development projects as agreed between
• The potential to
Municipalities and the Developer.
overwhelm
businesses in the
Project area by the
influx of workers.
Operations and • Reduced cost of • The Developer and Bank Audi will offer financial management training/classes to encourage Slight Medium-High Minor
Maintenance provision of power appropriate savings and expenditure practices within the communities.
to residents.
• Boosting of the
local economy.
• Enhancing
infrastructure such
as roads and
21-11
transportation.
• Cleaner
environment.
• Improved quality
of life.
• Economic growth.
Community Construction, Noise • Limit the working hours from Monday to Friday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., if possible. Some flexibility in Slight Medium-High Negligible
Health, Safety Decommissioning working hours may be required during the delivery and erection of turbines and depending on
and Security weather conditions.
• The final time schedule of the transport movements should be clarified with the authorities and
communities. Only well-maintained equipment should be operated on-site.
Operations and • The distance of the WTGs to nearby receptors was increased by eliminating the originally planned Low Medium-High Minor
Maintenance WTGs 26, 27 and 28. In addition, WTG 25 was shifted to increase the distance to nearby receptors.
• In order to comply with the IFC noise limit of 45 dB(A) some turbines need to be operated in noise
reduced modes. Using the noise reduced modes which are available for all considered turbine types,
the IFC noise limit of 45 dB(A) can be complied with. Due to the fact, that the calculation was based
on a worst-case assumption of 23 turbine locations, the noise assessment should be redone when
the final and reduced turbine layout is available. At the time the final number of turbines is available,
the noise reduction modes for the corresponding turbine type can be stipulated.
• The WTGs will be maintained regularly to ensure that the turbines do not become louder over time.
Operations and Shadow Flicker • The installation of shadow flicker shutdown modules in the turbines is a very common and an often- Slight High Minor
Maintenance applied mitigation measure. Shutdown modules will eliminate the possibility for exceedances of
annual and day limits. An automatic shadow-flicker shutdown system shuts down the WTG when the
sun is shining (direct sunshine on a horizontal area > 120 W/m²). These systems shut down a
turbine when one of two conditions are reached:
- More than 30 minutes of shadow-flicker occur on one day at a receptor.
- The maximum annual quota of shadow-flicker at a receptor is exceeded.
• When shutdown systems feature a radiation sensor, the turbines only shut down when the sun is
shining. If the shadow-flicker shutdown system does not include a radiation detector, the WTG will
shut down at all times when the shadow-flicker assessment indicates shadow-flicker at a receptor
(i.e. also in cases of overcast sky or fog when there is actually no shadow flicker).
• The use of shadow flicker shutdown modules will have a (small) negative effect on the energy yield
of the wind farm.
Operations and Visual Amenity in • Sahle – no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). Medium to Medium-High Moderate
Maintenance Settlements Large
• Qenia– no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). Medium Medium-High Moderate
• Aandqet Village – no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). Medium to Medium-High Moderate-Substantial
Large
• Quobaiyat– no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). Medium to Medium-High Moderate-Substantial
Large
• Kfartoun – no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). Medium to Medium-High Moderate-Substantial
Large
21-12
Large Low-medium Moderate-Substantial

• Rweimeh – no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase).
Visual Amenity from • Sahle Hill – no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). Large Low Slight-Moderate
Key Viewpoints
• Al-Saifa Fortress Akkar el-Atiqa'a – no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). None High Negligible
• Qammouaah Plain – no mitigation (mitigation was considered in the design phase). None High Negligible
Construction, Transport and Traffic: • The temporary removal of concrete bund, curb, electric pole and overhead cable, and demolition of Low Medium Minor
Decommissioning Obstacle Removal the 45m of concrete wall be coordinated with the Port Authority.
• Raising of pedestrian bridges, prohibition of car parking, removal of curbs, electric poles, trees, lamp
posts, and fencing at ramps and roundabouts and ground leveling and compaction of significant
curves will be coordinated with the Ministry of Transport.
• Asphalt speed bumps will be replaced with rubber ones, which we can easily be removed during the
• Any modification required for the Al Abdeh roundabout will be discussed with the municipality as it is
under their authority.
Transport and Traffic: • The construction of asphalt and gravel roads will occur for a period of 6 months and will be Low Medium Minor
Construction of New coordinated and permitted by Ministry of Transport and scheduled for time periods when traffic
Road Segments levels are lowest. The construction would be performed under the supervision and conditions of the
relevant municipality.
• The improved road network will have a positive impact on the health and safety in the area by
providing safer roads, minimizing impacts to city centers, providing greater buffer distances between
houses and the road and eliminating dangerous curves/turns.
Transport and Traffic: • Construction of internal track will occur for a period of 3 months and will be coordinated with the Slight Medium Negligible
Construction of Ministry of Transport and the Lebanese Army.
Internal Track
Transport and Traffic: • The transport of WTG components will occur between 11pm and 4am to avoid impacts to Low Medium Minor
Transport of WTG communities traveling to work and school.
Components
Transport and Traffic: Low Medium Minor
• Advance notification of the scheduled transport will be provided to all communities along the route.
Impacts to
Communities Along • The trucks will travel at a low speed to lessen the generation of noise, vibration and dust.
the Transport Corridor
• A communications protocol being developed for the transport of WTG components will be distributed
Transport and Traffic: to all Mayors two to three months prior to the start of transport. A final transport route map will be Slight Medium-High Minor
Impacts to Informal provided to all municipalities.
Settlements Along the
Transport Corridor
21-13
Transport and Traffic: • The Developer will meet with Rweimeh Village residents of the houses located along the quarry Medium Medium-High Moderate
Transport of tracks and existing asphalt roads to discuss the Project and nature and timing of the transport of
Construction Materials construction materials.
• Negotiation of entry to quarry roads by resident vehicles will follow standard traffic safety/traffic
control protocols, i.e. Stop/Go signage, flagman, etc.
Operations Transport of Workers • None Slight Medium-High Negligible
Landscape Operations Visual Impacts to • Large, multi-MW turbines with large rotor diameters are considered. By using large, multi-MW Medium Low-Medium Minor
Landscape turbines with large rotor diameters the number of turbines per generation capacity and the footprint
of the Project will be reduced. In addition, large rotors have a reduced rotor speed compared to
smaller turbines which will also reduce the visual impact of the Project.
• The distance of the WTGs to nearby receptors was increased by eliminating the originally planned
WTGs 26, 27 and 28. In addition, WTG 25 was shifted to increase the distance to nearby receptors.
The wind farm layout was designed so that the array follows the existing landform of the mountain
ridges. By considering the landform of the mountain ridges at the wind fam design, the wind farm
layout follows the existing morphology of the mountain. Consequently, the typological appearance of
the ridge remains largely recognizable. In addition, the overlapping of rotors of views from the east
• Tracks will be designed to follow the existing tracks and fit with contours as far as possible. By
following the existing tracks and fitting the location of the tracks with the contours lines the
landscape impact of the tracks can be reduced.
• The turbines and all the other aboveground structures will be removed at the end of the operational
lifetime. By removing the turbines and all the other aboveground structures at the end of the
operational lifetime, the landscape impact of the project will be entirely revisable and limited to the
operation phase of the project.
• The internal cabling should be underground cabling. By designing the internal cabling as
underground cabling the landscape impact in the immediate surrounding was reduced.
Archaeology Construction, Buried Artifacts Though the potential for impact is considered low, a Chance Finds Procedure has been developed (in Slight High Minor
and Cultural Decommissioning accordance with guidance provided by the Ministry of Culture and the General Directorate of
Heritage Antiquities) to appropriately respond to cultural resources encountered during construction, as follows:
Where historical remains, antiquity or any other object of cultural or archaeological importance are
unexpectedly discovered during construction in an area not previously known for its archaeological
interest, the following procedures should be applied:
1. Stop construction activities.
2. Delineate the discovered site area.
3. Secure the site to prevent any damage or loss of removable objects. In case of removable
antiquities or sensitive remains, a night guard should be present until the Responsible Authorities
takes over.
21-14
4. Notify the responsible foreman/archaeologist, who in turn shall notify the Responsible Authorities,
the General Directorate of Antiquities and local authorities (within less than 24 hours).
5. The Responsible Authorities will be in control of protecting and preserving the site before deciding
on the proper procedures to be carried out.
6. An evaluation of the finding will be performed by the General Directorate of Antiquities. The
significance and importance of the findings will be assessed according to various criteria relevant to
cultural heritage including aesthetic, historic, scientific or research, social and economic values.
7. The decision on how to handle the finding will be reached based on the above assessment and
could include changes in the Project layout (in case of finding an irrevocable remain of cultural or
archaeological importance), conservation, preservation, restoration or salvage.
8. The Responsible Authorities’ decision concerning the management of the finding shall be
implemented fully.
9. Construction work could resume only when permission is given from the Responsible Authorities
after the decision concerning the safeguard of the heritage is fully executed.
The Chance Finds Procedure has been included in the stand-alone ESMP.
Eco-Tourism at Karm • During the construction phase, access to certain portions of the 5.13M m2 Karm Chbat Nature Low Medium Minor
Chbat Nature Reserve Reserve will be limited to ensure the health and safety of visitors.
Occupational Construction, Impacts to Workers Air Quality Low High Moderate

Health & Safety Decommissioning
• Covering loads of dusty or excavated materials on a vehicle entering or leaving the construction
site with impervious sheeting (such as nylon canvas).
• Undertaking proper enclosure and guarding to limit public access to the site.
• Drivers and workers in the vicinity of earth moving equipment would be supplied with ear mufflers,
as well as goggles and nose masks, if necessary, in order to protect them from dust impacts.
• Water spraying at the excavation sites prior to, during and after excavation to limit airborne
particles.
• Proper unloading of materials on‐site to minimize dust.
• Limiting the use of heavy equipment during periods of high winds.
• Forbidding construction vehicles from keeping engines running (waiting to enter site or on‐site).
• Adopting weight limits for trucks and not exceeding vehicle loading capacity.
• Ensuring adequate maintenance and repair of construction machinery.
• Maintaining good housekeeping practices; and effective operational and waste management
practices.
• Implementing H&S measures (masks, work gloves, proper clothing, H&S rules) as needed.
• Providing suitable rehabilitation and maintenance of road network surfaces to ease traffic flow.
• Using environmentally friendly equipment with higher fuel efficiency or air pollution control.
• Maintaining and operating equipment using appropriate fuel mixtures.
• Enforcing speed limits for vehicles and maintaining normal traffic speed on‐site and recommended
traffic speed and driving time on the roads.
• Applying dust suppression methods such as watering at access and internal roads.
• Adopting good house‐keeping measures to reduce dust build‐up.
• Maintaining stockpiles at minimum heights and forming long‐term stockpiles into the optimum
shape (i.e. stabilization) to reduce wind erosion.
• Avoiding open burning of solid waste.
• Enclosing the construction site with a dust mesh, as applicable.
21-15
• Carrying out loading and unloading of material without scattering.
• Covering access roads and internal roads with plant mix.
• Washing construction vehicles leaving site to prevent transmission of soil.
• Keeping drop height of materials that have potential to generate dust at a minimum.
• Using well‐maintained vehicles and ensuring regular maintenance of these vehicles.
Water and Soil Resources Protection
• Awareness on the efficient use of water.

• Minimizing water and soil exposure.
• Minimizing and if possible, eliminating chemical usage (oil, lubricants and fuel) onsite.
• Using as much as possible non‐toxic and biodegradable chemicals to be stored on‐site.
• Reporting in case of spills from generator or disposed waste on‐site in order to seek immediate
remedial measures.
• Routine inspection and maintenance of equipment to ensure that risk of leak/spill is minimized.
• Promotion of good housekeeping during operation and maintenance.
• Control and supervision of refueling at all times by appropriate personnel.
• Development and implementation of training program for management of hazardous substances.
• Temporarily store hazardous waste on‐site in a designated and enclosed area.
• Forbidding hazardous waste storage outside designated area.
• Ensuring that oil changes, refueling, or lubrication of vehicles will be conducted offsite or in a
dedicated area.
• Equipping fuel storage tanks with drip trays and spill control equipment.
• In case of spills, hazardous materials would be controlled via absorbents, and contaminated soil
would be removed and disposed of in compliance with applicable legislation.
Topsoil Management
• Strip topsoil from project footprint (turbine bases and platform) at suitable depths and store
separately at specialized areas.
• Minimize topsoil losses via use of suitable equipment, procedures and construction work schedule ‐
avoid soil disturbance during heavy windy and rainy periods.
• Identify topsoil storage areas at relatively low slope areas.
• Ensure that top soil stockpiles do not exceed 2m in height.
• Ensure that only soil material will be stored at topsoil storage areas.
• Maintain slope stability and a safe working environment for heavy construction vehicles.
• Ensure that surface grading is done with appropriate vehicles to avoid soil compaction.
• Enclose topsoil storage area(s) with fencing and place explanatory signboards
• Ensure drainage of temporary topsoil site(s).
• Within completed construction areas (turbine bases and platforms), reuse stored top soil for
rehabilitation and landscaping.
• Do not use vegetative soil or topsoil as fill material under any circumstances.
• Ensure unnecessary soil stripping to minimize disturbance to vegetation, ecosystems and soils.
21-16
Noise and Vibration
• Choosing equipment with lower sound power levels when possible.

• Using noise mufflers, and minimizing machinery or equipment idling conditions.
• Optimizing internal‐traffic routing to minimize vehicle reversing needs and maximize distances from
closest sensitive receptors.
• Keeping the main access road in well‐maintained condition.
• Ensuring mobile vehicles use only designated roads to reduce traffic through community areas
• Proper site logistics and planning.
• Performing proper maintenance on construction vehicles and equipment.
• Limiting site working hours if possible.
• Conducting construction activities closest to noise sensitive receptors during day time only.
• Informing local municipalities and residents of the construction schedule and time of planned noisy
activities.
• Informing noise sensitive receptors about construction schedule in their proximity in advance.
• Scheduling potentially noisier activities during daytime and/or less intrusive times.
• Conducting noise monitoring during construction to verify compliance with regulatory limits.
• Keeping equipment speed as low as feasibly possible without compromising performance.
• Proper site clearing.

• General cleanliness and organization of the site.
• Use of excavated material as fill material, e.g. topsoil.
• Segregation and proper disposal waste oils, paint barrels, lubricants, etc. from other wastes.
Traffic and Transport
• Planning, development and implementation of traffic management.

• Maintaining minimal traffic speed on‐site and recommended traffic speed and driving time off‐site.
• Implementing working hour limits for drivers and inform drivers periodically on working schedule.
• Implementing restrictions for night time driving.
• Adopting proper weight guidelines for trucks and not exceeding vehicle loading capacity.
• Providing alternate routing plans during all phases of construction.
• Restricting operation of heavy vehicles to those who are trained, competent and licensed.
• Providing traffic trainings to all relevant personnel and specialized trainings to personnel who will
operate industrial, heavier or critical vehicles.
• Including traffic issues in the scope of the trainings and instructions for site visitors.
• Limiting visitor mobility in the construction area.
• Installing and maintaining signage and other traffic visuals.
• Implementing right of way practices.
• Implementing proper vehicle maintenance at all times.
• Conducting or enforcing periodic medical examinations for drivers.
21-17
• Conducting awareness raising activities for affected communities through established mechanism.
• Collecting and addressing complaints and suggestions through the grievance mechanism.
Health and Safety
• Restriction of access to project construction areas by patrolling and guarding.

• Provision of training on the fundamentals of occupational Health and Safety procedures.
• Developing an Emergency Response Plan and training personnel on the actions to be taken in risk
situations.
• Installation of warning signs at the entrance to the site to inform people about the Project and
risks associated with entry.
• Availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as protective clothing, goggles, gloves,
boots, masks, rubber boots, brightly colored working overalls equipped with light reflecting stripes,
safety helmets, rubber or plastic type of equipment (broom, shovel, other) for personnel as
needed.
• Provision of on‐site medical facility/first aid and medical insurance for the workers/construction
site.
• Installing retaining nets to hold falling debris during site clearing and construction.
• Prevention of stagnation of exposed water volumes to hamper insect and vector breeding.
• Implementation of speed limits for trucks entering and exiting the site.
• Installing proper signage to avoid accidental injury.
• Implementing good housekeeping practices.
• Ensuring that the project elements (turbines, bases, offices, substation, etc.) are designed
incompliance with applicable legislations related to natural hazards, especially seismic safety
Operations Impacts to Workers Low Medium-High Minor

Air Quality
For generators and other equipment:
• Using good quality fuel (from reputable sources).

• Performing regular and preventive routine maintenance according to manufacturer
recommendations.
• Looking out for and fixing potential leakage and spillage of any kind at an early stage.
• Outfitting of the generators with an effluent filter for Particulate Matter (PM).
Water and Soil Management
• Collecting domestic wastewater from toilets and sinks and conveying to public sewer network.
• Ensuring that no sanitary wastewater is discharged onto the land.
• Identify high risk spill areas, e.g. fuel tanks and generator – and have impervious surfaces and
capture facilities in place.
• Limit activities during adverse weather conditions to reduce potential wind and water erosion.
21-18
Noise and Vibration
• Adopting proper scheduling for noisy wind turbine / sub‐station maintenance activities.
• Selecting adequate noise muffling equipment and minimizing machinery idling.
• Ensuring good maintenance and repair of equipment.
• Optimizing turbine operation as per wind speed to minimize noise generation.
• Keeping turbines in good working order throughout the operational life of the project via routine
maintenance, inspection and operational diagnostics.
• Limiting the cutting/clearing of vegetation.
• Planting trees near sensitive receptors to act as a noise barrier.
• Ensuring equipment that may be intermittent in use is shut down between work periods or
throttled down to a minimum.
• Implementing a rigorous inspection and maintenance program applicable to equipment on‐site.
• Providing adequate Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) to workers at noisy activities/locations
that exceed permissible occupational noise level limits.
• Conducting noise monitoring (1st year of operation, continuous at local municipalities, and in case
of complaints) to verify compliance with regulatory limits and take corrective action.
• Storage of SW in a pre‐determined area in covered drums for collection and disposal.

• Keeping the site free of litter.
Health and Safety
• Restricting access to project elements (turbines, substation) by patrolling and guarding areas
around the site – noting that local residents, shepherds/herders, herb gatherers, and land users,
will not be subject to area access restrictions, but rather restrictions related to accessing Project
elements.
• Installation of warning signs at site entrances to warn people about the Project and associated
risks.
• Provision of appropriate monitoring instruments
• Enforcing on‐site transportation regulations.
• Prevention of stagnation of exposed water volumes to hamper insects and vector breeding.
• If needed, employees should be provided with PPE such as hand gloves, helmets, safety shoes,
goggles, aprons etc. and ear protecting devices like earplugs/earmuffs and breathing masks.
• Prohibition of dirt accumulation, dampness, water, oil, and other substances which may adversely
affect electrical safety within electrical areas or the sub‐station.
• Training of workers and staff for fire‐fighting, work permit system, first aid, safe handling of
chemicals and integrating safety during operation.
• Provision of safety and warning signs where needed (displayed in Arabic and English).
• An accident / incident reporting and information system for employees for good awareness levels.
• Provision of first aid boxes at key points at the project facilities with prominent marking.
• Regulations prohibiting smoking in potentially fire prone or sensitive areas and all indoor areas.
21-19
• Provision of fire‐fighting equipment and/or system if/where needed within site facilities; and
regular testing of fire extinguishers.
• Ensuring electrical switchboards are not accessible to the public and related cautionary signs are in
place.
• Ensuring access to turbine ladders is closed off and related cautionary signs are in place.
• Grounding installed conducting objects, as applicable.
• Ensuring maintenance schedule for turbines is strictly followed.
Specific to hazards due to accidents and/or incidents and lifting objects to heights can be applicable
during construction and operation:
• Ensuring use of applicable PPEs and other protective means.

• Installing guard rails and signs.
• Ensuring sufficient overall illumination during working hours and special illumination on hazard
areas during nighttime.
• Conducting regular visual checks and clean‐up of excavation debris.
• Restricting operation of heavy machinery to those who are trained, competent and licensed.
• Providing regular H&S trainings.
• Conducting labor audits to contractors’ work force by an external third party.
• Limiting manual lifting/handling needs by providing mechanical alternatives.
• Ensuring personnel who conduct lifting operations receive special training.
• Ensuring lifting operations are well planned and risks discussed in advance.
• Ensuring lifting equipment is properly maintained and has sufficient capacity to support weight.
• Setting exclusion zones below any activities working at height, to account for falling objects.
• Abiding by weather condition limits set by the lifting equipment manufacturer.
• Implementing the worker internal occupational grievance mechanism.
• Conducting regular labor audits to contractors’ workforce (by independent third-party auditors).
Mitigation measures specific to blade and ice throw, and lightning applicable during operation:
• Installing, maintaining and updating lightning protection systems for turbines and other elements.
• Installing and maintaining vibration sensors that react to imbalance in rotor blades and shut down
turbines.
• Using de‐icing mechanism, especially during fall and winter seasons.
• Carrying out periodic blade inspections and repairing defects that could affect blade integrity.
• Ensure heat control mechanism is maintained properly.
• Ensure static and illuminated warning signs are used to inform/warn receptors.
21-20
22. REFERENCES
Abi Saleh B., Safi S., Safi N., Hanna R., Nasser N. & Tohme H. (1996). Étude de la diversité biologique
du Liban. In : Ministère de l’Agriculture (Liban). Flore terrestre (9). Project GF/6105-92-72.
Abi-Said, M. R. and D. M. Abi-Said 2007. Distribution of Striped Hyaena (Hyaena hyaena syriaca Matius,
1882) (Carnivora: Hyaenidae) in urban and rural areas of Lebanon. Zool. of the Middle East. 42:
3-14.
Abi-Said, M. R., Z. Amr. 2012. Camera trapping in assessing diversity of mammals in Jabal Moussa
Biosphere Reserve, Lebanon. Vertebrate Zoology. 62(1):145-152.
Amorim, F., H. Rebelo, L. Rodrigues. 2012. Factors influencing bat activity and mortality at a wind farm
in the Mediterranean region. Acta Chiropterologica 14(2): 439-457.
Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, J.K. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson,
J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O’Connel, M.D. Piorkowski, and R. D. Tankersley.
2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of wildlife
Management. 72(1):61-78
Article IV, Law 48 dated 7/9/2017 Regulating Public Private Partnerships.
Ashari, T (2018) Lights out as Demand surges for electricity. The Daily Star Published on 10 July 2018.
Retrieved from: http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Attallah, S. I. 1970. Bats of the genus Myotis (Family Vespertilionidae) from Lebanon. Occasional Paper.
University Connecticut (Biol. Sci. Ser.) 1:205-212.
Attallah, S. I. 1977. Mammals of eastern Mediterranean region; their ecology, systematics and
zoogeographical relationships. Saugetierkundliche Mitt. 25:241-320.
Azhari, T. (2018). EDL Extends Lease of Two Power Barges. Daily star. Retrieved from Dailystar.com.lb
Azhari, T. (2018, June 17). EDL Extends Lease of Two Power Barges. Daily star. Retrieved from
Dailystar.com.lb
Bach, L. and Rahmel, U., 2004. Summary of wind turbine impacts on bats—assessment of a conflict.
Bremer Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz, 7, pp.245-252.
Baerwald, E.F., G.H. D’Amours, B.J. Klug, R.M.R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of
bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18(16):695-696
Bang, P. and Dahlstrom, P. 2001. Animal Tracks and Signs. Oxford Uni. Press. Oxford. UK
Barnett A. and Dutton J. 1995. Small Mammals: Expedition Field Techniques. UK.
Horacek, I. (2016) Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East.
Part 13. Review of distribution and ectoparasites of bats in Lebanon. Acta Soc. Zool. Bohem.
80: 207-316.
Benda Petr, Mounir R. Abi-Said, Issam Bou Jaoude, Rena Karanouh, Radek K. Lučan, Riad Sadek, Martin
Ševčík, Marcel Uhrin, Ivan Horáček. 2016. Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) of the Eastern
Mediterranean and Middle East. Part 13. Review of distribution and ectoparasites of bats in
Lebanon. Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae.80: 207-316.
22-1
BirdLife International (2018) Important Bird Areas factsheet: Upper Mountains of Akkar-Donnieh.
Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 25/10/2018.
BirdLife International (2019) The World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. Developed by the Key
Biodiversity Areas Partnership: BirdLife International, IUCN, Amphibian Survival Alliance,
Conservation International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment Facility,
Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World
Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation Society. Downloaded from
http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org on 28/02/2019.Bouri, E., El Assad, J. 2016. The
Lebanese Electricity Woes: An Estimation of the Economical Costs of Power Interruptions.
Energies, 9, 583; doi:10.3390/en9080583.
Bouri, E., & El Assad, J. (2016). The Lebanese Electricity Woes: An Estimation of the Economical Costs
of Power Interruptions. Energies, 9(8), 583.
Braun-Blanquet J. 1932. Plant Sociology, (Transl. by G. D. Fuller and H. S. Conard). 439 pp. New York.
Reprint 1966.
Camina, A. 2012. Bat fatalities at wind farms in northern Spain – lessons to be learned. Acta
Chiropterologica 14(1): 205-212
CEDRO, 2011. Environmental Impact Assessments for Windfarm developments, a guideline report.
73pp.
Chapter 4, Article 21-23 [Annex 1] of Law 444/2002.
CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial,
Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management,
Winchester.
Circular No. 9/1 dated 26/06/2014 (Relevant documents to be annexed to IEE and EIA reports as per
Decree No. 8633 dated 07/08/2012 - published in the Official Gazette No. 35 on 16/08/2012).
Council of Development and Reconstruction (2017). Electricity. Progress Reports October 2017.
Retrieved from www.cdr.gov.lb
DAR-IAURIF, 2005.
Danish Wind Industry Association (2003). Wind Turbines: How many blades. Retrieved from
www.windpower.org
Danish Wind Industry Association (2003). Wind Turbines: How many blades. Retrieved from
www.windpower.org
Decision 261/1, 12/6/2015, MOE, EIA Review Procedures
Decree No 2366 of 2009 defining the Comprehensive Plan for Lebanese Territory Arrangement.
Der Zustand der Zedernwälder Libanons [The state of the cedar forests in Lebanon]; Ladislav Paule,
Archiv für Naturschutz und Landschaftsforschung, Heft 4, 1975, Band 15.
Dillon Consulting Limited. 2009. Ind turbine environmental assessment. Prepared by Dillon Consulting
Limited for TREC and Toronto Hydro.
22-2
EDL (2017) Enterprise Facilities. Published on 17 June 2018 Retrieved from:
http://www.edl.gov.lb/page.php?pid=37
EDL (2017) Enterprise Facilities. Retrieved from: http://www.edl.gov.lb/page.php?pid=37
EDL (2018) Information retrieved in from http://www.edl.gov.lb
EDL (2018) and Fardoun et al. (2012)
Electricity of Lebanon. (2018). Enterprise Facilities. Retrieved from www.edl.gov.lb
El-Fadel M. & Zeinatia J. & Jamalib D. 2000. Water resources in Lebanon: characterization, water
balance, and constraints. J. of Water Res. Devel., 16: 619-642.
Enterprises Surveys. (2018). Infrastructure. World Bank Group. Retrieved from

www.enterprisesurveys.org.
Environment, Climate and Social Office Projects Directorate, Version 10.0 of 08/10/2018.
Environmental Impact Assessment Decree - MOE Decree 8633 of 2012.
Fardoun et al. (2012) Fardoun, F., Ibrahim, O., Younes, R., & Louahlia-Gualous, H. (2012). Electricity
of Lebanon: problems and recommendations. Energy Procedia, 19, 310-320.
Fardoun, F., Ibrahim, O., Younes, R., & Louahlia-Gualous, H. (2012). Electricity of Lebanon: problems
and recommendations. Energy Procedia, 19, 310-320.
Geological map of Lebanon, Dubertret, 1955.
Glasson, J., R. Therivel, and A. Chadwick. 1999. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. 2 nd
Ed. UCL Press. UK
Green Line association. 2007. Staus and potentials of renewable energy technologies in Lebanon and
the Region (Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Syria). Desk study compiled by Green Line Association.
Grodsky, S.M., M.J. Behr, A. Gendler, D. Drake, B.D. Dieterle, R.J. Rudd, and N.L. Walrath. 2011.
Investigating the causes of death for wind turbine-associated bat fatalities. Journal of
Mammalogy. 92(5):917-925
Guarnaccia, C., Mastorakis, N. E., & Quartieri, J. (2011). Wind turbine noise: theoretical and
experimental study. International Journal of Mechanics, 5(3), 129-137.
Guarnaccia, C., Mastorakis, N. E., & Quartieri, J. (2011). Wind turbine noise: theoretical and
experimental study. International Journal of Mechanics, 5(3), 129-137.
Gutowski Jr, W. J., Giorgi, F., Timbal, B., Frigon, A., Jacob, D., Kang, H. S., ... & O'Rourke, E. (2016).
WCRP coordinated regional downscaling experiment (CORDEX): a diagnostic MIP for CMIP6.
Geoscientific Model Development, 9(11), 4087.
GWEC (2017) Global Wind Report: Annual market update 2017. Retrieved from http://gwec.net/global-
figures/graphs/
HANSEN, M. (2008) Aerodynamics of wind turbines. London: Earthscan Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84407-438-9.
Harrison, C., and P. Bates. 1991. Mammals of Arabia. Harrisson Zoology Museum, Kent, England.
22-3
Hassler. 2017. World Plants: Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World. Leiden, the
Netherlands. (Accessed: 28th November 2017).
Helldin, J.O. and F. Alvares. 2011. Large terrestrial mammals and wind power – is there a problem ?.
Summary of discussion at the CWW, Trondheim
Helldin, J.O., J. Jung, W. Neumann, M. Olsson, A. Skarin, and F. Widemo. 2012. The impact of wind
power on terrestrial mammals. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 6510.
Horáček, I., P. Benda, R. Sadek, S. Karkabi, M. Abi-Said, R. Lučan, M. Uhrin, I. Bou Joudeh, R. Karanouh,
S. Akil. 2009. Bats census in Lebanese caves 2008-2009. Al-Ouat’Ouate. 15: 72-75
Horáček, I., P. Benda, R. Sadek, S. Karkabi, M. Abi-Said, R. Lučan, P. Hulva, R. Karanouh. 2008. Bats
of Lebanon: State of knowledge and perspectives. Al-Ouat’Ouate. 14: 52-69.
Hraoui-Bloquet, S. & Sadek, R. 2006. Parvilacerta fraasii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2006: e.T61522A12502475.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T61522A12502475.en. Downloaded on 25
October 2018.
http://www.databank.com.lb/docs/Policy%20paper%20for%20the%20electricity%20sector%202010.
pdf
http://www.eurobats.org/publications/eurobats_publication_series, Accessed on 15th March 2019
http://www.iucnredlist.org
http://osme.org/sites/default/files/pdf/A_Non-passerine_ORL_V4.1_Final_2017.pdf
http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_future_climate&ThisRegion=Mid
dle%20East&ThisCcode=LBN#
https://www.nature.scot/bats-and-onshore-wind-turbines-survey-assessment-and-mitigation,
Accessed on 15th March 2019
https://www.archiuk.com/worldwide
IFC, 2007. Environmental, Health and Safety General Guidelines, World Bank Group; IFC, 2007.
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, for Toll Roads, World Bank Group; IFC, 2007.
Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution,
World Bank Group; IFC, 2015. Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, Wind Energy, World
Bank Group.
IFC (2012) International Finance Corporation’s Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on

Environmental and Social Sustainability. Retrieved from: https://www.ifc.org/
IFC (2013) IFC jobs study: Assessing private sector contributions to job creation and poverty reduction.
Available on http://siteresources.worldB(A)nk.org
International Finance Corporation, Good Practice Handbook, Cumulative Impact Assessment and
Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets, 2013.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing
Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
22-4
IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Jawad (2018) Traffic Impact Study for Akkar Wind Farms (SA & SA) Construction
Jawad (2018) Traffic Impact Study for Akkar Wind Farms (SA & SA) Construction.
Karnauskas, K. B., Lundquist, J. K., & Zhang, L. (2018). Southward shift of the global wind energy
resource under high carbon dioxide emissions. Nature Geoscience, 11(1), 38.
Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R.

W. Thresher and M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats;
questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315–
324.
Law 462-2002 product of electricity EN, EDL, Lebanon, 2002.
Law No. 690 of 2005 regulating the Ministry of Environment and defining its tasks and competences.
www.lbcgroup.tv.
LCEC (2011). The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for Lebanon. Ministry of Energy and Water.
Retrieved from www.rcreee.org
LCEC (2016) The Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan For The Republic Of Lebanon [NEEAP].
Retrieved from http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/viewfile.aspx?id=229
LCEC. (2011). The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for Lebanon. Ministry of Energy and Water.
LCEC. (2011). The National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for Lebanon. Ministry of Energy and Water.
Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation, The Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for the
Republic of Lebanon, NEEAP 2011-2015.
Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation, The Second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan for the
Republic of Lebanon, NEEAP 2016-2020.
Lebanese Center for Energy Conservation, The National Renewable Energy Action Plan for the Republic
of Lebanon, NREAP 2016-2020.
Lebanese Official Gazette: Law 444, dated 08/08/2002.
Lebanon’s National Blueprint for a Sustainable Forest Biomass: promoting renewable energy and forest
stewardship, Developed by: Biodiversity Program - Institute of the Environment – University of
Balamand – Lebanon, 2016.
LocaLiban, 2012.
Marara, M., N. Okello, Z. Kuhanwa, W. Douven, L. Beevers, J. Leentvaar. 2011. The importance of
context in delivering effective EIA: Case studies from East Africa. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review. 31: 286-296.
Marvin W. Mikesell: The Deforestation of Mount Lebanon. In: Geographical Review, Vol. 59, No. 1,
Januar 1969, S. 1–28.
22-5
McKenna, P. (2015) Bladeless Wind Turbines May Offer More Form Than Function. Published by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from: Médail &
Quézel, 1997; Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Fonseca, & Kent, 2000.
Ministry of the Environment website on climate change vulnerability and adaptation, accessed October
28, 2018. http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/vulnerability-and-adaptation.
Ministry of the Environment. 2011. Second National Communication to the UNFCCC.

http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/viewFileChapters.aspx?id=19. ; Accessed October 28, 2018.
Ministry of the Environment. 2016. Third National Communication to the UNFCCC.

http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/nonannex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/application/pdf
/lbnnc3.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2018.
MOE, 2010.
MoE (2015). Lebanon’s National Strategy for Air Quality Management.
MoE, 2015. Lebanon’s National Strategy for Air Quality Management.
MoE Decision 52/1 of 1996: National environmental quality standards.
MoE, UNDP, ELARD. 2017. Updated Master Plan for the Closure and Rehabilitation of Uncontrolled
Dumpsites in Lebanon.
MoE/UNDP, 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Lebanon’s Renewable Energy Sector. Beirut,
Lebanon.
MoE/EU/UNDP (2014). Environmental Impact of the Syrian Crisis. Available at

http://www.moe.gov.lb/‫الوزارة‬/Agreements-Plans-and-Reports/‫تقارير‬/Lebanon-Environmental-
Assessment-of-the-Syrian-Con.aspx.
MOE/UNDP/ECODIT (2011) State of the Environment Report (SoER). [Chapter 9 – Energy Crisis]
MoE/UNDP/GEF (2016). Lebanon’s third national communication to the UNFCCC. Beirut, Lebanon.
MOE website on climate change vulnerability and adaptation

http://climatechange.moe.gov.lb/vulnerability-and-adaptation
Mouterde P. 1966. Nouvelle Flore du Liban et de la Syrie. Tome Premier. Editions de l’Imprimerie
Catholique, Beyrouth.
Mouterde P. 1986. Nouvelle flore du Liban et de la Syrie. Tome second. Imprimerie Catholique, Beyrouth.
Natural England Commissioned Report NECR 213. 2016. Designing and applying a method to assess the
sensitivities of highly mobile marine species to anthropogenic pressures. Natural England and
other parties. 77ISBN 978-1-78354-316-8. 77Pp
Nohl; Beeinträchtigungen des Landschaftsbildes durch mastartige Eingriffe, Kirchheim bei München
1993/2001.
Papiewski, J. (2013) Horizontal Vs. Vertical Wind Turbines. Retrieved from:

www.education.seattlepi.com
22-6
Popular vote carried out by the Ministry of Tourism in cooperation with L’Orient Le Jour and Fransabank.
Makkhoul (2016) Akkar el-Atika, « Le village préféré des Libanais » pour 2016. Retrieved from:
www.lorientlejour.com
Projected changes in temperatures in Lebanon, adapted from ESCWA, 2015, scenarios for Business as
Usual (RCP 8.5) and GHG mitigation by mid-century (RCP 4.5).
Pryor, S. C., & Barthelmie, R. J. (2013). Assessing the vulnerability of wind energy to climate change
and extreme events. Climatic change, 121(1), 79-91.
Qumsiyeh, M.B. 1996. Mammals of the Holy Land. Texas Tech University Press. Lubbock, Texas. USA.
REN21 (2017) Renewables 2017 Global Status Report (Paris: REN21 Secretariat). ISBN 978-3-9818107-
6-9. Retrieved from: http://www.ren21.net
Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M. Dubourg-Savage, J. Goodwin, C. Harbusch. 2008. Guidelines for consideration
of bats wind farm projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 3 (English version).
UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 51pp.
Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M.J. Dubourg-Savage, B. Karapandza, D. Kovac, T. Kervyn, J. Dekker, A. Kepel,
P. Bach, J. Collins, C. Harbusch, K. Park, B. Micevski, J. Minderman. 2015. Guidelines for
consideration of bats wind farm projects – Revision 2014. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6
(English version). UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 133pp.
Rydell, J., L. Bach, M.J. Dubourg-Savage, M. Green, L. Rodrigues and A. Hedenstrom. 2010. Mortality
of bats at wind turbines in northwestern Europe. Acta Chiropterologica. 12(1):261-274
Der Zustand der Zedernwälder Libanons [The state of the cedar forests in Lebanon]; Ladislav Paule,
Archiv für Naturschutz und Landschaftsforschung, Heft 4, 1975, Band 15.
Setting conservation priorities for Lebanese flora—Identification of important plant areas, Magda Bou
Dagher-Kharrat, Hicham El Zein, Germinal Rouhan, Journal for Nature Conservation Volume 43,
June 2018.
Shared Water Reources of Lebanon, Amin Raban, 2017.
Socioeconomic baseline data was provided by Mr. Abdo Jaafar, the focal point of Rweimeh Village.
Taylor, Karl E., Ronald J. Stouffer, Gerald A. Meehl, (2012). An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment
Design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485–498.
The Daily Star (2017) Oil, gas could be worth billions per year: study. Retrieved from:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
The Daily Star (2017) Oil, gas could be worth billions per year: study. Retrieved from:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
The National Wind Atlas of Lebanon, Country Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration
Project for the Recovery of Lebanon, 2011.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species:

https://sis.iucnsis.org/apps/org.iucn.sis.server/SIS/index.html
22-7
The Minister of Environment’s decision No. 8/1-2001, Setting national standards and criteria regarding
air pollutants and liquid wastes generated by classified establishments and wastewater
treatment plants.
Tohmé and Tohmé, 2004, Tohmé and Tohmé, 2011, Tohmé and Tohmé,
2014.www.technologyreview.com
Tohme G. & Tohme H. 2014. Illustrated Flora of Lebanon. CNRS Editions, Beirut.
Tohmé, G., and H. Tohmé. 1985. Les Mammiferes Sauvages Du Liban. Publications de l'Universite
Libanaise, Beirut - Lebanon.
UNDP (2011) The National Wind Atlas of Lebanon: A Report. UNDP/CEDRO.
UNDP. August 2008. “Poverty, Growth and Income Distribution in Lebanon”.
UNDP, Country Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Demonstration Project for the Recovery of
Lebanon, Environmental Impact Assessment for Wind Farm Developments, A Guideline Report
2012.
US Department of Energy (2018) The Inside of a Wind Turbine. Retrieved from www.energy.gov
US Department of Energy (2018) The Inside of a Wind Turbine. Retrieved from www.energy.gov
VESTAS (2017) Product Documents - General Description of 4MW Platform - Document no.: 0067-7060
V01 2017-12-01
Vidiani, 2019.
WHO (1999) Guidelines for Community Noise, page 23 World Health Organization, Geneva (1999)
Williams, T. C., Ireland, L. C. & Janet M. Williams, J. M. 1973. High Altitude Flights of the Free-Tailed
Bat, Tadarida brasiliensis, Observed with Radar. Journal of Mammalogy, 54:807-821.
World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal. 2016. Climate Risk and Adaptation Profile, Lebanon
Dashboard. Accessed October 28, 2018.
http://sdwebx.worldB(A)nk.org/climateportal/index.cfm?page=country_future_climate&ThisRe
gion=Middle%20East&ThisCcode=LBN.
World Bank Group, 2015. Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for wind energy. 36pp.
World Bank. 2017. IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. IFC E&S.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. and Mitchell-Jones, T. (2010), Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact
Assessment. In Practice. December 2010 pp23-25. Winchester: CIEEM.
22-8

Esia Report: Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm, Lebanon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esia Report: Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm, Lebanon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esia Report: Sustainable Akkar Wind Farm, Lebanon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intended for

SUSTAINABLE AKKAR SAL

[Text - If no optional text is needed then remember to delete the fields.]

WIND FARM, LEBANON

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Project Location and Setting .................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Document Structure ............................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Project Proponent and Key Contributors ..................................................................... 1-7

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Project Components ............................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.1 Wind Turbines ........................................................................................................ 2-2

2.3.2 Transmission Lines and Power Substation.................................................................... 2-8

2.3.3 Operation Buildings ................................................................................................. 2-8

2.3.4 Community Relations Office .................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.5 Meteorological Masts ............................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.6 Road Development ................................................................................................ 2-10

2.4 Land Ownership and Lease Information .................................................................... 2-14

2.5 Footprint of the Project Components ...................................................................... 2-28

2.6 Overview of the Project Phases................................................................................ 2-28

2.6.1 Pre-Construction Phase .......................................................................................... 2-28

2.6.2 Preparatory Works ................................................................................................ 2-34

2.6.3 Construction Phase................................................................................................ 2-34

2.6.4 Operation and Maintenance Phase............................................................................ 2-35

2.6.5 Decommissioning Phase ......................................................................................... 2-38

2.7 Direct Areas of Influence ........................................................................................ 2-40

2.8 Indirect Area of Influence ....................................................................................... 2-43

2.9 Assessment of Individual Environmental and Social Parameters .................................... 2-52

2.10 Nearby Investments of Similar Nature ...................................................................... 2-52

3. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Site Selection Alternatives ....................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Turbine Locations .................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.3 Project/EDL Substation Locations ............................................................................... 3-5

3.2 Design Alternatives ................................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.1 Turbine Types/Specifications ..................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.1.1 Vertical Axis Wind Turbines ................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.3 Alternative Transmission Designs ............................................................................. 3-10

3.3 Transportation Alternatives ..................................................................................... 3-10

3.3.1 WTG Component Transport Vehicle Types/Modalities ................................................... 3-10

3.3.2 Alternative Road Transport Modalities ....................................................................... 3-11

3.3.3 Alternative Road Alignments ................................................................................... 3-12

3.4 Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 3-15

3.5 Technology Alternatives ......................................................................................... 3-17

3.5.1 Solar Power ......................................................................................................... 3-17

3.5.2 Power Plants ........................................................................................................ 3-19

3.6 The Project vs No Project Alternative ........................................................................ 3-19

4. POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................... 4-1

4.1 National Framework and Requirements ...................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Existing Legislation.................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 International Guidelines .......................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.1 IFC Performance Standards .................................................................................... 4-10

4.2.2 IFC EHS Guidelines................................................................................................ 4-10

4.2.3 EIB Environmental and Social Standards ................................................................... 4-13

4.3 Additional Relevant Guidance .................................................................................. 4-16

4.4 Institutional Framework ......................................................................................... 4-16

4.4.1 Ministry of Environment ......................................................................................... 4-16

4.4.2 Ministry of Energy & Water ..................................................................................... 4-16