Who We Are

The Project is framed within an integrated environmental and social risk management approach aligned with national legislation and international lender requirements. From the earliest design stage, environmental constraints, ecological sensitivities and stakeholder considerations have been embedded into planning decisions.

The Project footprint has been defined through spatial screening that considered:
· Marine ecological sensitivity,
· Critical habitat presence,
· Coastal dynamics and sediment transport,
· Socio-economic receptors (fisheries, coastal users),
· Regulatory setback and protection zones.

Rather than treating impact management as a post-design exercise, environmental considerations were incorporated at the conceptual design stage. Site selection, dredging methodology, vessel routing and operational timing were refined through iterative environmental screening. The Project framing therefore reflects a design-led avoidance approach, prioritizing impact prevention before mitigation and compensation measures are considered.

The impact assessment was conducted in accordance with:
· National EIA requirements,
· IFC Performance Standards,
· World Bank Environmental and Social Framework
· Relevant EU Directives and international marine conventions.

Impacts were assessed across construction, dredging, operation and cumulative scenarios. The assessment considered:
· Physical environment (water quality, sediment dispersion, air emissions, noise),
· Biological environment (benthic communities, fish, marine mammals, fauna, habitats),
· Coastal and marine processes,
· Socio-economic receptors.

A source–pathway–receptor framework was applied to determine:
· Magnitude of change,
· Sensitivity of receptors,
· Duration and reversibility,
· Likelihood of occurrence.

Where relevant, modelling studies (e.g., sediment plume dispersion, air quality dispersion, underwater noise propagation) were integrated to quantify potential impacts.
Cumulative impacts were evaluated considering existing and planned activities within the regional marine environment.

Impact management follows the internationally recognized Mitigation Hierarchy:

Avoidance

Project layout and methodologies are optimized to avoid sensitive habitats and minimize footprint wherever technically feasible.

Minimization

Where avoidance is not possible, impacts are reduced through:

• Controlled dredging techniques,
• Seasonal work restrictions,
• Turbidity monitoring and adaptive management,
• Emission control measures,
• Waste and spill prevention systems.

Restoration

Temporary disturbances to marine and coastal environments will be subject to natural recovery processes supported by monitoring commitments. Where needed, active rehabilitation measures will be implemented.

Offset (if required)

In the unlikely event of residual significant impacts on critical habitats, biodiversity offset mechanisms consistent with IFC PS6 principles would be considered. The objective is to achieve no net loss of natural habitats and maintain ecosystem functionality.

The Project responds to strategic infrastructure and operational needs while integrating environmental responsibility as a core design principle.
The justification is based on:.
· Optimized siting to reduce environmental footprint,.
· Alignment with national development objectives, · Compliance with international environmental standards,.
· Long-term operational efficiency and resilience..
.
Alternatives analysis was undertaken to evaluate:.
· Site alternatives,.
· Technical alternatives,.
· Construction methodologies,.
· No-project scenario..
.
The selected configuration represents the option with the most balanced outcome between technical feasibility, environmental protection and socio-economic considerations..
The Project therefore demonstrates that environmental protection and infrastructure development are not competing objectives, but integrated components of sustainable marine planning.