INVESTMENT PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK REPORTSCENARIOS

PERFORMED ANALYSES INCLUDING HPPs & ENVIRONMETAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES

Dr Ing . Cane Čekerevac (STUCKY)

Dr Ing. Nenad Jaćimović (STUCKY)

Sarajevo, 05.07.2017

Hydropower

2

Existing HPPs

BiH 1 + 2 (transb.)Montenegro 1Serbia 5 + 2 (transb.)

Total 91,964 MW/ 333* MW (17%)

Planned HPPs (2014)

BiH 9 + 7Montenegro 6Serbia 3 + 7

Total 251,494 MW

+76% power

*Only “Višegrad” HPP is managed by ERS

Scenarios - overview

3

Selected scenario – generation/costs

4

REDUCED – OPTIMIZED SCENARIO – Var #1

HPP / SHPP Ni (MW) Ean (GWh) Costs (mil. EUR)

“Buk Bijela” (“low”) 93.50 375.33 195.50**

“Foča” (“low”) 44.15 199.24 119.09**

“Ustikolina” 60.48 235.29 109.00*

“Mrsovo” 36.80 141.00 94.00*

TOTAL 234.93 950.86 517.59

*Estimated based on methodology from IWRM Report** Taken from existing technical documentation upon request of ERS

Selected Scenarios – Env. and social main impacts

5

Impact assessment matrix for each HPPs forconstruction and operation phase without mitigationmeasures Scoring of the overall impacts

Scoring for the 3 HPPS scenarios weight application in the Multicriteria analysis

Population

Agriculture

Forestry

Fishing/Hunting

Water Resources/Use

Infrastructure

Energy Sources/Use

Health

Education

Ethnicity/Culture

Visual Aspects

Cultural Heritage/Tourism

Topography

Geology and Soils

Climate

Air Quality

Hydrology

Hydraulic regime of the River

Ground water level

Surface Water Quality

Ground water Quality

Terrestrial Vegetation and related habitats

Migration corridors

Terrestrial Fauna

Alluvial ecosystems

Aquatic Ecosystems

Conservation Areas

Landscape

LEGEND

Very high positive 4

High positive 3

Medium positive 2

Small positive 1

Insignificant 0

Small negative -1

Medium negative -2

High negative -3

Very high negative -4

Selected Scenarios – Water quality

6

• Change from lotic towards the lentic conditions;

• Significant eutrophication potential in the lower part of the Drina river and Cehotina river;

• In this cases, realization of eutrophication potential will depend on retention time and conditions for thermal stratification of reservoirs (from negligible for Rogacica, Tegare and Dubravica HPPs to 81.6 days

for Vikoc or 41.6 days for Sutjeska HPPs);

Parameters

LocationHPP

Dubravica

HPPTegar

e

HPPRogaci

ca

HPPKozluk

HPPDrina I

HPPDrina

II

HPPDrina

III

HPP Mrsov

oVolume mil. m3 - - - 49.8 85.0 120 160 7.7

Qsr (m3/s) 340.4 333.5 332.0 369.0 372.5 384.6 385.1 112.5Ret. time

(days)negl. negl. negl. 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.8 0.8

NO3-N (mg/L) 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.500NH4-N (mg/L) 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.080PO4-P (mg/L) 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.032

DIN/SRP 17.8 17.8 17.8 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 18.4TN/TP 8.6 8.6 8.6 20 20 20 20 10.1

Selected Scenarios – Water quality main impacts

7

Parameters

LocationHPPBuk

Bijela

HPPFoca

HPPPaunci

HPPUstikoli

na

HPPGorazde

HPPRogacic

a

HPPTegare

HPPDubravi

ca

Volume(mil. m3)

15.7 6.7 5.0 8.2 3.16 - - -

Qsr

(m3/s)

162.4

178.0 201.43 204.7 212.0 332.0 333.5 340.4

Ret. time

(days)1.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2

negligible

negligible

negligible

LocationHPPKozluk

HPPDrina I

HPPDrina II

HPPDrina

III

HPPSutjesk

a

HPPMrsov

o

HPPVikoc

HPPFalovic

iVolumemil. m3

49.8 85.0 120 160 52.1 7.7 146 24.0

Qsr

(m3/s)

369.0

372.5 384.6 385.1 14.5 112.5 20.7 18.2

Ret. time

(days)1.6 2.6 3.6 4.8 41.6 0.8 81.6 15.3

LocationReceptor

vulnerabilityMagnitude of Impact Overall significance

HPP Low-MediumInsignificant to

medium negativeNegligible to medium

negative

Selected Scenarios – Social main impacts

8

Construction and operation phases – Negative impacts

• Population (inundation and resettlement)

- Municipality of Foča with total of 19811 inhabitants of Foca-Ustikolina , next to Drina River with 2213

inhabitants affected by the six planned dams and reservoirs on their territory.

- Municipality of Gorazde

- Villages Kozluk, Trsic and Tabanci

• Loss of agricultural land (mainly in lower Drina)

• Touristic manifestations (e.g. Drina Regatta) could be affected.

Selected Scenarios – Env. and social main impacts

9

Parameter/Indicator

RefNo MaxHPP#1 MaxHPP#2 MaxHPP#3 MaxHPP#4 MaxHPP#5 MaxHPP#6 MaxHPP#7 MaxHPP#8 MaxHPP#9 MaxHPP#10MaxHPP#11MaxHPP#12MaxHPP#13MaxHPP#14MaxHPP#15MaxHPP#16

NameofHPP HPP"BukBijela"("low")HPP,"Foca"("niska")HPP,"Paunci"HPP,"Ustikolina"HPP,"Gorazde"HPP,"Rogacica"HPP,"Tegare"HPP,"Dubravica"HPP,"Kozluk"HPP,"DrinaI"HPP,"DrinaII"HPP,"DrinaIII"HPP,"Sutjeska"HPP,"Mrsovo"HPP,"Falovici"HPP"Vikoc(Luke)"

GeologyandSoils 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1

Climate -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AirQuality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hydrology 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

HydraulicregimeoftheRiver -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -2 -2

SurfacewaterQuality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2

GroundWaterQuality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TerrestrialVegetationandrelatedhabitats -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -1 -1 -1

Migrationcorridors -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -4 -4 -4 -4

TerristrialFauna -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3

Alluvialecosystems -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3 -1 -1 -1 -1

AquaticEcosystems -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -4 -4 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -4 -4 -4 -4

ConservationAreas -3 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 -3 0 0 0

Landscape -2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Population 1 -2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agriculture 0 -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Forestry 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1

Fishing/Hunting -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

Infrastructure -1 -1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

EnergySources/Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Health 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Education 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ethnicity/Culture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VisualAspects 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1

CulturalHeritage/Tourism 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OVERALLIMPACTASSESSMENTDURINGOPERATIONSTAGE

ENVIRONMENTIMPACT

SOCIALANDECONOMICIMPACT

Selected Scenarios – Mitigation measures

10

The most of considered impacts can be partially offset or completely mitigated by adopting the measures implemented in the mitigation plan during the construction and operational phases of the planned development.

Examples of mitigation measures:o Guarantee of a minimal environmental flowo Construction of adapted fishladderso Management of fish stocking programso Monitoring of aquatic ecosystems o Monitoring of flora and destruction of all invasive specieso Control hydropeaking and management of flushingo All liquids , material and wastes in the plants are

suitable stored and treated sytemso Employment of local populationo Improving of local infrastructureo Education programso Improving of supply of local electricity

Indicator Main expected impact Recommendation/mitigation measures Responsibility

Water quality Eutrophication processes,

accidental pollution (during

maintenance work)

• Broader water management activities, including waste and wastewater management, erosion control, etc. All hazardous material manipulation activities have to conducted at designed and equipped locations;

• A dispatch plan of the water release with the relative constant water level as the main criteria. Relative stability of the water surface level is very important for the preservation of the integrity and stability of the lake ecosystem, especially in small water basins.

• Macrophyte bio-manipulation where required.

• Liquid wastes/oil/chemicals to be stored in tanks or drums located in bounded areas which can hold 110% of the total storage volume.

• Spill kits to be available at all times.

Contractor and

relevant

Stakeholders