3. Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA):

Even under the new Ukrainian EIA Law provisions, MHP`s EIAs still remain to be of sub-standard quality, they lack proper scoping, adequate baseline data, cumulative impacts assessment, proper zero alternatives, well assessed alternatives for siting, identifying affected communities and the vulnerable groups – women, elderly, children – of the proposed development.

Even the E(S)IA for Brigade 55 in Mankivka village of Vinnytsia oblast that was consulted in March 2018, which is the longest and most detailed environmental assessment document that has been disclosed for any MHP brigade, does not include an assessment of cumulative impacts, and its baseline air quality assessments are not detailed enough to provide meaningful information on health impacts from project-related dust.

MHP has yet to produce a comprehensive ESIA that provides a holistic assessment of the Vinnytsia complex activities and the impacts in the regions where it plans expansion and has current facilities. For instance, community members and local CSO representatives have been requesting a comprehensive environmental assessment for the Vinnytsia Poultry farm since it was first constructed, without success. As of today in Chyhyryn rayon of Cherkasy oblast – 3 poultry brigades out of 9 planned are being consulted as separate piece-meal objects.

Even when we believe that we understand a facility’s size and impacts, these have at times been changed following public hearings. For example, the newly approved EBRD project based on a Preliminary EIA and the EBRD`s project that described it as a 10 MW plant. However, the recent announcement of scoping included both 1 and 2 phases of biogas plant, to produce as much as 24 MW of power and it is not clear if the E(S)IA will be developed including all stages while MHP reports electricity is already produced by the biogas plant. Therefore we are skeptical that a new public hearing would provide a genuine opportunity to raise concerns and provide input into the facility’s design and development.

We understand that MHP has not developed any comprehensive environmental impact assessment of its operations, be it Cherkasy, Dnipro, Kyiv or Vinnytsia regions.

4. Accountability

The grievance mechanism described in the MHP`s 2017 SEP does not have an appropriate, local mechanism to resolve community concerns. International financiers require clients to actively engage with stakeholders, including setting up a grievance mechanism to receive and resolve concerns from affected communities about the client’s environmental and social performance. The grievance mechanism should be scaled to the risks and adverse impacts of the project and should seek to resolve concerns promptly, using an understandable and transparent consultative process that is culturally appropriate and readily accessible, without retribution to the party that originated the issue or concern. Such a process must protect the confidentiality of anyone raising a complaint.

The mechanism that was proposed by the company till now was not known to project-affected people , which is a major barrier to accessing it. Additionally, people may be skeptical about the impartiality of dealing with their grievances, especially in cases of serious conflicts between the company and the community, or in cases where intimidation has been used to silence critical voices.

Beyond listing various ways to submit a complaint and providing timeframes for responding, the current SEP does not provide any further explanation of processes or procedures for responding to a complaint. The lack of a clear process is an additional deterrent, leaving local people uncertain as to the value of raising complaints through the company’s formal process.