The Kinguélé Aval Hydropower Project involves the construction of a power plant on the Mbé River in northwestern Gabon, approximately 90 kilometers east of Libreville. The project is partially financed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) through a USD 40.2 million loan. The investment was approved in July 2022, and all construction is expected to be completed by June 2026. The Borrower is Asonha Energie, a Gabonese-French public-private partnership, and the contracting company is Sinohydro, a Chinese firm specializing in hydropower construction.
According to IFC documents, the Kinguélé Aval Project is classified as Category A, indicating the highest level of environmental and social risk. Identified risks include gender-based violence (GBV) in project-affected communities linked to livelihood disruption, an anticipated influx of approximately 400-700 workers, increased truck traffic, and the presence of security personnel in remote communities with limited access to basic services. Andock Foula is identified as the community most affected by labor influx, followed by Alen Komo and Kango.
To address these risks, the project includes the following measures:
Samba Mwanas, a child rights organization in Gabon, and the Bank Information Center (BIC) partnered to monitor how the Kinguélé Aval Hydropower Project addresses child sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (SEA/H) risks; assess existing prevention and response measures; and develop recommendations to strengthen these efforts.
In 2025, Samba Mwanas conducted field visits to Andock Foula, Alen Komo, and Kango. They conducted interviews with project workers, community members, local authorities, social workers, school authorities, health professionals, and representatives of the borrowing company, Asonha Energie. Samba Mwanas identified several positive practices and significant gaps requiring further attention.
1. Gaps and areas for improvement in GBV and child SEA/H training.
The project has prioritized hiring from local communities in the project area. However, because it requires around 800 workers, much of the workforce comes from outside the area, including Libreville, neighboring African countries, and China. While some workers are hired directly by Asonha Energie and Sinohydro, many are subcontracted through service providers. This results in a workforce with high turnover, including both long-term and short-term workers. High turnover underscores the need for consistent and repeated training on community rules and prohibitions related to GBV and child SEA/H.
Asonha Energie has implemented a code of conduct in French and Chinese that explicitly prohibits gender-based violence, sexual harassment, and any relationship with children. Interviews confirmed that, in previous years of project implementation, project staff, subcontractors, the gendarmerie, and social workers received GBV training. A good practice highlighted during project monitoring was the approach taken by the NGO Agir sur le Genre, which convened staff from the different companies in Andock Foula and delivered on-site training. This model should be replicated.
However, in 2025, no worker training sessions were reportedly held in Andock Foula, and only one session took place in Kango, involving social workers and the gendarmerie. Given the high attrition among approximately 800 project staff — including contractors, subcontractors, and the gendarmerie — community actors emphasized the need for mandatory induction training for all new staff since many new workers are unfamiliar with community norms. Community members also recommended more frequent training refresher sessions to reinforce key messages from their initial training session. Asonha Energie recognized the training challenges arising from staff turnover and committed to addressing them.
In addition, the content in existing training does not address child-specific SEA/H risks, despite confirmed cases involving children. This gap highlights the need to expand the scope of training content to integrate child SEA/H prevention and response into GBV training, and to extend it to actors working directly with children in the community, such as school teachers, health services, social services, and members of the Community Vigilance Committee.
Social workers in Kango expressed appreciation for the GBV training delivered by the project’s service provider, which focused on strengthening their capacity to intervene in GBV cases. However, in 2025, the training was limited to a single session and did not address project-specific risks linked to labor influx or the mitigation measures in place. As a result, social workers reported uncertainty about reporting pathways, expected worker conduct, and points of contact in cases involving project staff. Additional training is needed to strengthen coordination among the project, social services, and the gendarmerie to better support victims; this includes implementing joint training sessions to improve information sharing and case management.
2. Taboos and prejudice require stronger community sensitization.
The project conducted community awareness sessions on GBV. During monitoring, Samba Mwanas confirmed the presence of GBV posters at the community restaurant and the local school. However, no sustained or follow-up community activities were identified. Despite at least one documented case of child SEA/H involving a student, neither school authorities nor students have participated in additional targeted GBV or SEA/H awareness activities.
A survey conducted by Samba Mwana found that stigma and cultural taboos discourage victims from reporting SEA/H, particularly in cases involving children. Interviewees noted that families often address cases privately to protect the victim’s reputation and, when the perpetrator is known, may seek financial compensation. In one project-related child SEA/H case, the victim and her family refused to press charges or accept psychological support, despite compensation provided by the company. These dynamics increase the likelihood that cases remain unreported and that victims do not receive appropriate care. These interviews underscored the need for targeted awareness and sensitization activities with the community that focus on the impacts of sexual violence against children and children’s right to access support services.
Interviews also revealed that discussing GBV in schools and with families remains particularly sensitive. Culturally relevant campaigns that adapt language and messaging to local realities could help to address these challenges. Women and youth members of the Community Vigilance Committee, as well as social workers in Kango, are key actors in strengthening community participation and engagement because they have the community’s trust.
3. Delays in the Community Development Plan increase SEA/H risks.
Delays in implementing the Community Development Plan (CDP) have reinforced inequalities between project workers — who benefit from stable income, electricity, and services — and the surrounding communities that lack basic infrastructure and livelihood opportunities. These disparities heighten women’s and girls’ vulnerability to SEA/H in the context of labor influx. As noted in IFC’s Good Practice Note on Addressing Child Safeguarding in the Private Sector, remote and rural settings with limited access to services can exacerbate SEA/H risks.
The CDP was intended to mitigate these risks by improving basic services, including increased access to electricity and supporting livelihood opportunities. However, the continued absence of electricity forces women and girls to travel through unlit areas, where they frequently encounter workers. At the same time, delays in the agricultural livelihood initiative leave women economically dependent on selling food to workers — an income source expected to disappear once construction ends in mid-2026.
Arrangements to provide permanent electricity to Andock Foula are reportedly underway, and Asonha Energie confirmed that electrification will occur once the hydropower plant becomes operational in 2026. When asked, the company stated that temporary electrification would not be implemented because associated costs were not included in the original project budget. IFC agreed to explore possible options for temporary electrification and to closely track progress toward permanent electrification with the client.
Shared transportation between workers and school children increases SEA/H risks
As part of the Community Development Plan commitments, the project rehabilitated the school in Andock Foula, which enrolls approximately 30 children. However, monitoring found that students — particularly those in Alen Komo, which is located farther from the school — must ride the same bus as project workers in the morning. After school, students must wait at the local Chief’s house until workers finish at 5:00-6:00 p.m. to return home.
This prolonged and direct contact with workers increases SEA/H risks for children. For example, two SEA/H incidents involving subcontracted staff were reported in the community. The school director reported that Sinohydro had committed to providing a separate bus for students starting in November 2025, but the borrowing company later clarified that budget constraints prevented the implementation of this commitment.
4. Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM)
The project’s grievance redress mechanism (GRM) is functional and widely known in Andock Foula and Alen Komo. It functions through two channels: Sinohydro’s external mechanism for contractor-related complaints and Asonha Energie’s internal mechanism for issues involving its staff or unresolved contractor cases. Community members can submit grievances through a complaint box or directly to the project social officer.
SEA/H and the GRM
The Community Vigilance Committee was established to protect the community from labor influx impacts and is composed of community members, including women and youth. The Committee has played an important role in identifying child SEA/H cases and maintaining dialogue with the project’s social specialist. However, because the Committee is not formally integrated into the GRM, its involvement in case follow-up has been inconsistent. With proper GBV and child SEA/H training, this Committee could serve as a focal point for reporting and follow-up, connecting survivors to the GRM, social services, and the gendarmerie.
At present, the GRM is not connected to local GBV service providers in the project area. While the Borrower has contracted the NGO Agir sur le Genre to provide GBV training and intervene in SEA/H cases involving project staff, the organization is based in Libreville and does not provide psychosocial support. This limits its effectiveness as a first responder.
The nearest institution with GBV response capacity is the Social Center in Kango, staffed by social workers. These social workers reported being unaware of the project’s GRM, a cap that could be addressed through targeted training and coordination with the project team. They expressed interest in building their capacity to support survivors by strengthening coordination with the project team and the gendarmerie. The Social Center could also support awareness-raising by sharing information about the GRM, the project’s Code of Conduct, and other relevant resources with the community.
GRM management
Although the GRM is operational, interviews raised concerns about perceived bias due to the company’s full control over grievance management and the lack of independent oversight. Community dissatisfaction has focused on decisions such as the refusal to provide temporary electricity, excessive truck speeds, and limited transparency around Community Development Plan funds.
While grievances involving Sinohydro can be escalated to Asonha Energie, no recourse exists when complaints concern decisions made by Asonha Energie itself. For example, during IFC’s most recent supervision visit in October 2025, community members sought to raise concerns directly with IFC, but meetings were held without community representation. Community members reported frustration at being unable to contest this decision through the GRM, given that it is managed by Asonha Energie, the same entity responsible for the decision. Similarly, when temporary electrification was denied, the community resorted to a strike due to the absence of an alternative channel for contesting the decision.
IFC clarified that the limited time during the visit constrained its ability to meet with the community, but committed to engaging with community authorities during its next visit, planned for early 2026.
1. Strengthen and expand training on GBG and child SEA/H.
All project staff should receive training upon hiring, with training frequency increased to account for high workforce turnover. Training content should be expanded to cover child-specific SEA/H risks, referral pathways, and community norms. IFC should follow up with the client on how it plans to increase training frequency so that all contractors’ and subcontractors’ staff participate in mandatory induction training and regular refresher sessions. IFC could support these efforts by sharing good practices from other projects, such as counting training time as paid working hours or introducing participation incentives. The Community Monitoring Committee, which approves and tracks workers entering the camp, could be engaged to co-organize training sessions in Andock Foula and Alen Komo and to verify that all new workers complete training before settling in the community.
IFC should also provide technical guidance to the client and service providers to integrate child SEA/H prevention and response into GBV training and referral pathways, and to clearly define acceptable and unacceptable conduct toward children. The Community Vigilance Committees in Andock Foula and Alen Komo, composed of traditional authorities, women, and youth, have a deep understanding of local dynamics and are best placed to inform culturally-relevant interventions. They should be engaged and supported to co-facilitate training to explain community norms in culturally relevant ways.
2. Strengthen community sensitization on GBV and child SEA/H risks.
IFC should provide technical assistance to the client and service providers to design and implement sustained GBV and child SEA/H awareness campaigns with families, teachers, and health professionals in Andock Foula, Alen Komo, Makabane, Madouka, and Kango. Women and youth from the Community Vigilance Committees and social workers in Kango should be engaged as co-implementers through cascade training. The GBV and child SEA/H awareness activities should, at a minimum, address the following:
3. Accelerate implementation of the Community Development Plan and address school transportation risks.
The Community Development Plan should not be considered complete until all outstanding commitments are fulfilled. IFC should closely track progress on electrification commitments and support the efforts to advance implementation as soon as possible. In the meantime, IFC should explore options for temporary electrification, including systems similar to those used in the workers’ camp. Additionally, the community chief reported that the Gabonese Institute for Development Support (IGAD) has initiated contact to start implementation on the income-generating project. IFC should follow up and support an implementation strategy with the community, given its experience in the past with community agricultural projects.
IFC should also follow up with the client on the contractor’s commitment to provide separate transportation for students, assess the SEA/H risks associated with shared transportation arrangements, and prioritize budget allocations to reduce those risks.
4. Strengthen the GRM and IFC oversight.
IFC should support the client in providing training that enables the Community Vigilance Committee to serve as a formal focal point for SEA/H cases, including coordination with the GRM, the gendarmerie, and social services to support victims. IFC should also support the client in linking the GRM with the Social Center in Kango and the gendarmerie, alongside additional training to strengthen capacity for child-friendly and survivor-centered response.
IFC should monitor GRM decision-making processes and communication with communities, including how unresolved grievances and pending Environmental and Social Action Plan commitments are documented and communicated. In the absence of an independent or third-party GRM, IFC should use field visits to engage directly with community members and identify unresolved or recurring grievances that may signal the need for corrective actions.
