SHERPA_Printable_Report

SHERPA: Small Hydro Efficient

Promotion Campaign Action

Small Hydro Energy Efficient Promotion Campaign Action Project

This Report has been edited by the European Smal l Hydropower Associat ion, ESHA with the contributions of the SHERPA consortium.

The Authors and the whole project consortium gratefully acknowledge the financial and intellectual support of this work provided by the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme. In particular thanks to the project officers at the EACI, Giuanlucca Tondi and Cristina Ruiz for their support .

LEGAL NOTICE/DISCLAMER

Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission or Agency is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in this publication. The views expressed in this publication have not been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission or the Agency and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission’s views.

SHERPA CONSORTIUM


CONTENTS

1- Introduction…….pg4

2- What is the current SHP

situation in the European

Union?...................pg8

3- National Policy

Workshops…………..pg12

4- Working towards

improving SHP Public

Image………………...pg19

5- Local approach: a

keystone in the SHP

development………pg24

Conclusions……..pg32

List of events…….pg36

Bibliography………pg40


1- INTRODUCTION

The overall objective of SHERPA is to develop a Promotion Campaign on Small Hydropower addressing the challenges and coping with the main barriers this sector is confronted with in Europe. This is considered to be important in view of the SHP contribution on reaching the target of doubling the percentage of renewable energy sources within the European Union from 6 to 12 % until 2010 which the European Commission's communication "Energy for the future: Renewable Sources of Energy - a White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan" (COM (97) 599 final) sets. This project developed by a consortium of National SHP Assoc ia t ions (assoc ia t ions representing SHP producers and equipment manufacturers), Energy M a n a g e m e n t A g e n c i e s , consultancies and universities, a i m s a t d e v e l o p i n g a n d implementing a concise, well-targeted and thematic approach to ensure the dissemination and market uptake of SHP in Europe. In order to enhance the further

market penetration of SHP within the EU-27 an evaluation of the current

situation as well as a set of high-level promotion measures is necessary. Indeed, the wrong impression that small hydro plants genera l l y and necessar i l y significantly affects adversely natural local environment exists, t o g e t h e r w i t h n u m e r o u s administrative barriers, and c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n t h e implementation of two European Directives (Water Framework Directive- WFD vs. Renewables Electricity Directive RES-e) might result in a reduction of renewable electricity production from SHP plants. Therefore, SHERPA aims at developing a well-targeted SHP promotion campaign addressing the challenges and promoting its benefits, through a mix of information measures (brochures, conference, workshops), through a review on the status of SHP d e v e l o p m e n t a n d p o l i c y frameworks in New Member States, through the revision of existing policies in EU-27, through addressing public image issues and through spreading best practices, and environmental performance of SHP plants, as well as through a comprehensive territorial planning approach at the level of water bodies.


To achieve the project overall as well as and specific objectives the following actions are carried out: 1- Revision of the status of SHP development as well as review of ex is t i ng po l icy f ramework conditions for SHP in EU-27. 2- National Policy Fora in ―old‖ European Member S ta tes (Sweden, Italy, France) and in ―new‖ Member States (Poland, Lithuania) on main Policy issues (WFD vs RES-e, targets licensing process, support schemes in EU-27, spatial planning). 3- Public image campaign that includes the development of criteria for a SHP sustainable award, development of public image folders, report on technical operations and procedures on how to bet te r i n teg ra te smal l hydropower plants in their environment, developing the concept of social engineering, promotion of environmental certification of SHP plants. 4- SHP and local development (tools for the economic analysis of the impact of mitigation activities at the r i ver bas in leve l , assessments of productivity in relation with WFD and RES-e

targets, implementation of t e r r i t o r i a l p l a n n i n g approaches with strong participatory approach and

clear involvement of local authorities and development of a "good practice brochure" of participatory approach for SHP development).

5- Organisation of an International SHP policy workshop in the Hydro 2007 conference and a SHP policy session in a main International conference in a New Member S ta te , H id roenerg ia 2008 (Slovenia).

6- Disseminate to the target groups the results of the project through the project website, organisation of workshop and conferences.

Participant name Participant short name

Country

European Small Hydro-

power Association ESHA (1)

European

Zvaza društev MHE Slovenije

SSHA (2) Slovenia

Lietuvos hidroenergeti-

ku asociacija LHA (3) Lithuania

A.P.E.R - Associazione Produttori di Energia da Fonti Rinnovabili

APER(4)

Italy

Sveriges Energiföre-ningars Riksorgani-sation

SERO (5)

Sweden

Innovation Energie et Developpement

IED (6) France

Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und Konstruktiven

IWHW (7)

Austria

Centralne Laborato-rium Naftowe

EC BREC/CLN (8)

Poland

Agence de l’Enviro-nement et de la mai-trise de l’Energie

ADEME (9)

France


Expected Results and Potential Impacts

SHERPA aim is to make a significant

contribution for reducing the barriers

that are currently hindering the

development of SHP, addressing the

challenges and contributing to the

uptake of SHP in the new enlarged

European Union.

SHERPA wants not only to increase the awareness of politicians and decision makers on SHP as a key renewable energy source but also create a favourable framework conditions for the further uptake of SHP within the European Union by:

S t r e n g t h e n i n g m a r k e t development of SHP in New Member States.

Strengthening implementation and

cons is tency o f EU directives (RES-e directive and SHP targets of White

Paper, Water Framework Directive).

Disseminating information on the benefits and success stories of SHP through effective public image campaign, addressing spec i f i ca l l y t he i ssue o f environmental integration, through t he i n vo l ve m e n t o f S HP stakeholders and NGOs: Exploring and developing the concept of social engineering for Small Hydropower.

Overcoming major environmental constrains to fur ther SHP development, and the promotion of spatial planning and territorial approaches and key strategic methodologies for succeeding SHP development.


In the longer run, the envisaged results are:

Encouraging developers and investors to show confidence in investing in the SHP electricity production, and developing a deeper European market for small hydro power station along with legislation.

Promoting new investments opportunities and developing the SHP market at European level.

Increase capacity building of national and local authorities by giving efficient ways of evaluating (on the legislator side) the impact of administrative and legal frameworks. It will thus help adapt the legal framework to remove barriers for the SHP enhancement in the New Member States.

SHP contribution on reaching the target of doubling the percentage of renewable energy sources within the European Union from 6 to 12 % until 2010, (COM(97)599 final) .

Target groups and involved key

actors.

Politicians on EU, national, regional

as well as local level (target group

and key actors)

Small Hydropower as part of the renewable energy mix is just one of the many issues not only on the energy agenda of politicians but also in the environmental one. Therefore, it is necessary to present information on Small Hydropower as clearly and attractively as possible, highlighting the many benef its of Small Hydropower in the field of job creation, economic development, environmental protection and many more. Experts and decision makers (target group) By preparing high profile information on the state of the art of Small Hydropower, the main target group of experts and decision makers will be informed on the benefits this type of renewable energy source offers.


NGOs, environmentalists (target group and key actors) The project aims at involving NGOs and environmentalists through different policy fora, SHP and public image workshops, and through the development of a SHP award. This cooperation will be required via interviews, workshops, and the reviewing of the draft project results. This involvement is fundamental in order to achieve one of the main objectives of the proposed activities: to spread and widely disseminated success stories on SHP and tackling the wrong general impression that hydro plants adversely affect fishing, boating, and other river-leisure interests. This is of special interest in the context of Climate Change challenges where SHP has a key role to play. Indeed, ESHA being the European association representing the SHP sector has in Brussels c o n t i n u o u s l y c o n t a c t s w i t h Environmental NGOS working in the field of Renewable Energy and climate change (Greenpeace, WWF), in issues such as energy and nature and environmental policies. From these contacts its has been clearly pointed out that small hydropower is needed in the

renewable energy mix for climate change mitigation and necessary to ensure a balance energy mix but

that environmental mitigation of small hydropower plants should be further promoted. Indeed, the issue of environmental integration of small hydro plans is a key priority for environmental NGOs.


European SHP industry Small Hydropower does not only offer benefits for the environment, but also for local development and employment. By improving the framework conditions for Small Hydropower, the position of the European SHP industry will be strengthened. The fact that major European SHP associations participate in this project as project partners shows the relevance of the action to the European SHP sector. Indeed, the National SHP associations of the consortium regroup the main market actors of SHP in their respective countries, mainly project developers, turbine manufacturers, utilities that will be involved in the project via their national association. Hence, the participation of ESHA and some of its members will ensure that all market actors in the different countries are involved, and that the proposal will be driven by the necessity of further market development of SHP in Europe. Consultancies and scientific community

Renewable Energy Consultancies and Universities are involved in the project as partners so that they contribute their knowledge for

developing sc ient i f ic assessment on how to evaluate economically and

socially small hydropower impacts and mitigation measures.

2- WHAT IS THE

CURRENT SHP

SITUATION IN THE

EUROPEAN UNION?

The SHERPA project has carried out enquiries in the different Member States through a questionnaire covering only structural data like production or capacities but also other relevant information as policies, market and potentials are concerned.

The enlargement of Europe gives a great opportunity for transferring experiences on SHP development to the New European Members States. Indeed, Small hydropower has a huge potential in these countries, where it is the dominant renewable energy source, however there is still a lack of market and policy information of the situation of SHP in the new EU. The WP2 consists on collecting market and policy information about SHP in the EU, building upon already existing s t u d i e s a n d t h r o u g h a questionnaire to be sent to main


SHPA actors in different EU countries on the following issues:

A- Status and prospects of SHP technology today in EU-25, of recent t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d m a r k e t development of small hydropower. B- Review of Policy Initiatives framework conditions for SHP within the EU-25 and Candidate Countries; an overview of current policy initiatives within the European Union will be prepared, taking all levels of decision making (EU, national, regional and local) into account. In order to complete the report the following six main tasks- concerning the possible exploitation of SHP energy in Europe are to be performed: 1- Gathering data on the actual state-of-the–art of the SHP development in the European continent. 2- Assessing the potential for future SHP development, both in terms of upgrading the old existing plants and building new sites. 3- Analysing the economics of SHP sources in order to understand how competitive SHP is today with respect to the other principal power generation technologies.

4- Analysing the policy framework in each country, putting emphasis on the constraints that are hindering the development of SHP plants.

5-Analysing the situation and

competitiveness of the EU manufacturing industry in the SHP sector.

6-Give concrete recommendations in promoting SHP development in the short and medium term, suggesting some good policies and ―best practices‖ to achieve this goal.

The report has shown that many SHP

plants were shut down in the past

because of age and competition from

newer, larger plants. When some EU

countries decided to reduce their

dependence on imported energy,

SHP was given economic support

and the number of SHP plants

gradually started to increase again.

In 2006 there were nearly 21,000

SHP plants (SHPPs) in the EU-27

and if CCs as well as Norway,

Switzerland and other countries are

included, the number of SHPPs

increases to a total of nearly 23,000.


According to the present study, the

2010 estimations for SHP stated in

the White Paper will not be reached

for EU-15, but are likely to be

achieved if EU-12 is included. In

order to reach the White Paper target

better conditions such as less

administrative barriers for SHP are

required.

The survey reveals that the most

widely adopted support mechanism

within the analysed countries is feed-

in tariffs, sometimes accompanied by

a variety of incentives. Some MS

prefer the Quota obligation system,

which is usually based on Tradable

Green Certificates (TGC).

Exploitation of SHP resources is

subject to governmental regulations

and administrative procedures, which

at present, vary from one country to

another despite the fact that MS must

comply with the directive on RES-E in

force. In order to develop a SHP site,

a potential hydropower producer

must fulfil these administrative

procedures, which constitute a kind of

barrier or burden.

The barriers that SHP

developers and producers

reported to encounter when installing

new SHP capacities can be of an

administrative, grid, f inancial,

environmental and social nature.

A survey co-ordinated by ESHA and

sent to SHP associations in Europe

revealed that the average length of

administrative procedures varies from

12 months in the best-case scenario

in Austria (where few new projects

are being developed) to 12 years in

Portugal. In most new EU MS the

average time required to obtain all

licences is considerably shorter than

in the old MS. However, more

significant is the fact that in most MS

only a few dozen licenses have been

granted in recent years. Different

types of licences are normally

required.

Non-consistent implementation of the

WFD can lead to a significant

reduction of SHP production

combined with higher costs. In some

MS (Germany, Austria, Eastern Baltic

States), the implementation of the

WFD is considered the main barrier

to further SHP development.

Report at www.esha.be


3– NATIONAL POLICY

WORKSHOPS

In order to assist decision makers and politicians in the EU in the definition of future strategies for the uptake of SHP in these countries, a series of National Policy workshops were organised. The workshops addressed politicians, decision makers and representatives from national as well as regional administration. Representatives of NGOs were also invited in order to open the dialogue in key policy issues (Water framework Directive and potential conflicts with the RES-e Directive, other environmental policies, environmental integration of SHP plants, administrative barriers and spatial planning, support schemes etc.) The workshops are considered to be key-fora for spreading the results from the other project work packages.

Policy National Workshops were organised for France, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden and Italy. The partners of the project were responsible for organising the workshop in their respective country . These Policy Fora allowed SHP stakeholders to discuss key policy areas to enhance further penetration of SHP in EU-27 in order to achieve

the SHP White Paper targets. To finally use the results of the discussions

to input the main project deliverables, increasing the added value of the project results.

National Policy Workshop in France

“Sustainable development: the response of the hydropower sector‖. The forum was co–organised by ADEME and the UFE (French Union of Electricity), and took place with the presence of Mrs Nelly OLIN, French Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, and of Mr François LOOS, French Minister of Industry, on 16

th January 2007 at the French

Ministry of Economics, Finances and Industry in Paris. The forum was a success with more than 300 part icipants and very fruitful discussions. It was an opportunity to discuss many recent policy elements in the context of hydropower development: 1. The French law of July 13, 2005 on energy policy, 2. The ―Report on the development prospects of hydropower production in France‖ by Fabrice Dambrine, Senior official for Sustainable Development, published in March 2006, which gives a progress report o n t h e i m p o r t a n t r o l e o f hydroelectricity in the fight against climate change and its potential for development,


3- Lastly, the new French water law, which offers a new legislative framework for the protection of the water ecosystems and might affect the development of Hydropower. A broad report that gathers the discussions of this Forum has been produced in French. This report as well as the programme of the forum and the list of Participants can be found in the SHERPA website at www.esha.be/SHERPA.

National Policy Workshop in Lithuania

The national policy workshop took place on the 28th March 2007 at the University of Agriculture of Kaunas, Lithuania. The event was organised by the Lithuanian Hydropower Association (LHA). The Forum was supported by a number of local organisations – Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture, Water Problem Board of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, Lithuanian Association of Water and Land Management Engineers and Water and Land Management Faculty o f L i thuan ian Un ivers i t y o f Agriculture. The one-day Forum gathered over 80 people from all over Lithuania. During this Forum, 3 thematic sessions were held:

1. Hydropower development: political aspects;

2. Hydropower plants environmental integration, and 3. Technical Part. A total of 15 presentations were made during the sessions. The last session featured only 3 presentations. The Forum was a success for all the stakeholders, from hydropower producers to the environmentalists. Despite some vigorous debates a constructive dialogue has been launched. A broad report that gathers the discussions of this Forum has been produced in Lithuanian. A summary of this report has also been produce in English. This report as well as the programme of the forum and the list of participants can be found in the SHERPA website at www.esha.be/SHERPA. PowerPoint Presentations of this Forum can be found at LHA website http://www.hidro.lt/

National Policy Workshop in Italy

the Italian National Policy Forum was organized by APER and took place on the 15th April 2008 in Milan by FAST Congress Centre.


More than 120 people attended the Forum. The statistics of the participants is as follows:

Hydropower producers - 76, Designers – 15, Public institutions – 12, Researchers – 11 Environmental Associations – 3, Associations of category—3, Press – 3, Others – 4.

The news of the event was reported by 4 important trade journals. The participants were provided with a folder containing the following documents:

Set of 4 SHP public image folders in Italian Repor t on techn ica l and operational procedures to better integrate small hydro plants in the environment. APER’s report 2007-2008 on hydropower (http://www.aper.it/n e w s i t e / i m a g e s / s t o r i e s /S C H E D E A P E R /aper_reportidroe08.pdf) CD of Layman’s Guide in Italian.

The title of the Forum ―L’idroelettrico e i target europei al 2020: quali o b i e t t i v i s o n o a l l a n o s t r a portata‖ (Hydropower and the new

European targets for 2020: which targets can be achieved?) was chosen to focus the attention on the

new European policy framework for renewable energies and on its effects for the SHP sector. The Forum was divided into two sessions. During the first sessions were made presentations about APER activities for hydropower sector, SHERPA project, the agreement APER-WWF Italy, the agreement APER-Consorzio Muzza, the protection plan for rivers affected by hydropower diversions of Magra River Basin Authority. Then was organized a round table with representatives of hydropower producers and designer, of regional institutions, of research institutes. Each speaker had the possibility to illustrate his position and feelings with reference to the new European targets for renewable energies. A report that gathers the results of the discussion has been produced in English. This report as well as the programme of the forum and the list of participants can be found in the SHERPA website at www.esha. be/SHERPA. The programme, the report and the Power Point presentations are also available for download at http://www.aper.it/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3226&Itemid=386 The Forum was the occasion to get in touch with many of the institutions and stakeholders involved in SHP.

http://www.aper.it/newsite/images/stories/SCHEDEAPER/aper_reportidroe08.pdf




http://www.aper.it/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3226&Itemid=386




National Policy Workshop in Sweden

The Swedish National Policy Forum on small Hydropower (SHP) took place on the 17:th of September 2008 in Gothenburg by Scandic Crown Hotel. The event was organised by the Swedish Renewable Association Energy Association (SERO – S v e r i g e s E n e r g i f ö r e n i n g a r s Riksorganisation) under Intelligent Energy for Europe program within the framework of the SHERPA project. In total 60 persons attended the Forum. The statistics of the participants was as follows:

Hydropower producers 36, Public institutions 6, SHP Consultants 5, Member of the Regional Authority 2, Member of the Swedish parliament 1, Environmental Associations 2 and others 8.

The participants were provided with the following documents:

Layman’s Guide in Swedish ESHA handbook on SHP in Swedish

Public Image folders prepared for SHERPA

SERO & ESHA information brochures

SHERPA info brochure

Report on Environmental integration prepared for SHERPA by APER The topics discussed during the workshop were:

1- Existing power generation, potentials and plans.

2- The Norwegian model for calculating potentials for SHP.

3- Development of the power generation market.

4- The licensing process, an obstacle for expansion?

5- The Water Framework Directive, the impact on hydropower

6- How the EU:s targets for Renewables will affect the hydropower?

7- Aluminium construction of the waterway – Intake grid and ways of aluminium at Träbena kvarn

8- The environmental issues of hydropower.

9- The development of green certificates

10- Panel: What is needed for an increased electricity generation from SHP?

More information regarding the work shop can be found on: http://www.sero-srf.se/ and www.esha.be

http://www.sero-srf.se/

http://www.sero-srf.se/


National Policy Workshop in Poland

The Forum was organized jointly by

the EC BREC / Institute for Fuels and

Renewable Energy, (Instytut Paliw i

Energii Odnawialnej, IP&EO), the

Polish Hydropower Association

(Towarzystwo Elektrowni Wodnych,

TEW) and the Association for

Development of Small Hydropower

Plants (Towarzystwo Rozwoju Małych

Elektrowni Wodnych, TRMEW). It

was held on September 11th 2008 in

the premises of the Institute of Fuels

and Renewable Energy in Warsaw.

Unlike previous events, the main form

of the debate was an open discussion

on the issues vital for the

development of SHP sector in Poland

rather than on delivering

specialized lectures.

The invitation to the Forum was sent

to a number of institutions and NGOs,

including:

1. Ministry of Agriculture

2. Ministry of Economy

3. Ministry of Environment

4. Ministry of Regional Development

5. National Water Management

Council (KRGW)

6. National Water Management Board

(KZGW)

7. Regional Water Management

Boards (RZGW)

8. Voivodship Boards of Reclamation

and Water Infrastructure (WZMiUW)

9. Institute of Meteorology and Water

Management (IMGW)

10. Renewable Energy Association

(SEO)

11. Polish Renewable Energy

Chamber (PIGEO)

12. Polish Angling Association (PZW)

13. Greenpeace Poland

14. Members of TEW and TRMEW

All the Sessions were chaired by Mr

Stanislaw Lewandowski and Dr

Janusz Steller, President and Deputy

President of the Polish Hydropower

Association, respectively.


The Forum was attended by ca 70

persons, representing private and

public hydropower sector, water

manageme n t admin i s t r a t i on ,

governmenta l agenc ies and

institutions as well as some NGOs .

Session I was started by a keynote

lecture prepared by the TEW

Presidium and delivered by Dr

Janusz Steller. The discussion was

the hydropower potential of Poland.

Poland is featured with rather modest

water resources.Rough assessments

of SHP technical potential indicate

the value of 5050 GWh/annum. With

about 900 GWh annual production

(normalized value) we are again

close to 18 % utilisation of national

resources. Session II covered the

i ssues on SHP and wa te r

management, natural and social

environment. Session III dealt with

the Technical, administrative and

economic conditions for SHP

development. A representative of the

Ministry of Regional Development,

Mrs Sylwia Wilk, was asked to join

the Panel Group. Presentations were

divided into :

• Assessment of the current system of

i n ves t men t p ro j ec ts

economic support

• European funds for

r en e wab le e ne rg y s o u rc es .

O p e r a t i o n a l P r o g r a m m e

―Infrastructure and Environment‖,

Actions 9.4 and 10.3

The Small Hydropower National

Policy Forum, shown again a need

for an open discussion between

various parties involved in the

utilisation and protection of water

bodies. The discussion with

representatives of the Polish Angling

Association was especially fruitful, as

it proved willingness to a compromise

on both sides. It also gave a

possibility of common action aimed at

finding the most reasonable solution

to the problem of mitigating some

impacts on the natural environment.

The debate has proved also rather

low interest of the Polish state in

development of hydropower in our

country, despite rising problems with

CO2 pollution, insufficient capability

of regulatory power generation and

unsatisfactory level of green energy

production. This proves the need for

lobbying.

As no proceedings of the National

Forum were published, it is planned

to place the presentations delivered

and this report at the TEW website

and ESHA website.


4– WORKING

TOWARDS IMPROVING

SHP PUBLIC IMAGE

Sherpa project has focussed on

some particular issues directed to

improve the public image of SHP and

the development of a set of targeted

co-ordinated actions, in which

different partners had the opportunity

to act and react.

Public Image folders have been

produced in order to describe in a

concise way the different aspects as

far as technology, sector, policy and

environment are concern. This

information is an easy and effective

way of raising awareness of the

sector. The public image folders can

be downloaded at www.esha.be and

they are available in hard copy as

well.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l I n t e g r a t i o n

Brochure has been prepared by

APER from Italy. This brochure aims

at describing a new concept of

h y d r o p o w e r d e s i g n , m o r e

environmentally-friendly than the

traditional one. Nowadays,

when climate change and

water resource

management have been defined as

the major international problems

faced by the International Community,

this sort of approach seems to be the

only rational way to continue using a

reliable source of renewable energy

while at the same time maintaining a

healthy environment and a

sustainable ecosystem.

First of all, the choice of Small

Hydropower, i.e. plants with a

capacity of less than 10 MW: they are

often run-of-river hydro plants and,

thanks to the absence of a storage

basin, have a minor impact on the

hydrological regime of the river, one

of the most important sources of

environmental impact. Secondly, the

application of a careful and modern

design based on the application of

mi t igat ion and compensat ion

measures that can ameliorate

integration of Small Hydro Plants

(SHP) in the environment.

This report can be downloaded at

www.esha.be and hard copies are

available as well.


Good practice examples of how to

prevent, remedy or mitigate the

adverse ecological effects of human

alterations to the environmental and

hydrological characteristics of surface

water bodies were presented and it is

hoped that the information contained

in the report will help promote

consistency in decision-making, by

showing that there are ways and

means to reconcile social, ecological

and economic concerns.

There is no formula to develop the

perfect project while preserving all

interests, it is of course a challenge to

balance the diversity of approaches,

however we would still like to outline

some relevant elements in the

process of optimizing decisions:

1– Territorial approach: a hydro

project manager has to systematically

identify, analyse and find the locally

appropriate mitigation measures to

address the environmental conditions

of that ecosystem or territory.

2– Stakeholders involvement:

involving water users and other

stakeholders in the identification of

cost-effective measure options can

help identify practical

solutions and improve the

effectiveness of the

selected measures by increasing

stakeholders’ understanding of, and

support for, them.

3– Monitoring: the implementation of

the measures should be followed by

a monitoring phase, in order to check

the effectiveness on biological

function. The result of the monitoring

allows the review of the measures so

as to improve their efficiency.

4– Cost/efficiency: information on

the cost and effectiveness of different

measures options provides a basis

for comparing the relative cost effi

ciency of those options and allows for

making judgements about the

combination of measures that will

produce a given improvement most

cost-effectively;

A wel l - funct ioning regulatory

framework and good practice

guidelines are essential to assure

sustainable hydropower projects and

thereby contribute to sustainable

water management.

In this respect, SHERPA has also

covered the concept of social

engineering as the activity appart

from the technical design necessary


For the implementation on technical

level. Social engineering aims

generally at a higher public

acceptance and can be seen as an

implementaion –support tool. The

methods are manifold and they are

explained in a report available at

ww.esha.be. Several conceptual

approaches like multipurpose plants,

multiresources concepts, production-

consumption concepts, synergies,

etc.

SHERPA has also developed a Small

Hydro Award . ESHA together with

the IWHW partner of the consortium

have defined some sustainable

criteria specifically applicable to small

hydropower plant. These

criteria have been tested

as well in two different

plants in Austria in order to measure

the level of integration in the

environment and the sustainable

approach. This exercise is just a first

trial in order to develop standard

criteria applicable to all SHP. The

result of the first test are important for

analyzing the relevance of the criteria

but this action should be seen as the

beginning of a long-term objectives.

Therefore, ESHA would like to

continue working in this issue even is

SHERPA project has reached its

end.

The sustainable criteria used to

develop an Award on SHP cover

different categories:

Category A: Impacts concerning

health and environment.

Category B: Safeguard and

quality of work.

Category C: Know how

C a t e g o r y D : R e g i o n a l

development.

Ca tego ry E : S t akeho lde r

interactions.

Category F: Profitability

Category G: Technical concerns

IWHW has created a kind of software


Application in order to measure the

different criteria.

The info on sustainable criteria ,

award and results can be found at

www.esha.be

In order to increase the awareness

and the different possibilities to

change behavior on public image,

SHERPA has work on environmental

certification as well. ISO 14001

certification is commonly used in

France for SHP plants. In order to

promote it use among project

developer ADEME has produced a

report explaining the ISO certification

and how it is applicable to SHP and

how it is being used and applied in

France. The publication also look at

other similar systems in other EU

countries.

More specifically, ISO 14001 is the

international specification for an

environmental management system

(EMS). It specifies requirements for

establishing an environmental policy,

determining environmental aspects

and impacts of products/activities/

services, planning environmental

objectives and measurable targets,

imp le men t a t i on and

operation of programs to

meet objectives and

targets, checking and corrective

action, and management review.

ISO 14001 is interesting as it helps

SHP plant management to:

• Reduce the impacts on the

environment;

• Forge good relations with the

general public, the local authorities,

the authorities, the associations;

• Build confidence by recognising the

importance of environmental issues

for all stakeholders;

• Prepare the administrat ive

documents for obtaining or renewing

permits and authorisations;

• Timely planned investments in SHP

plants will reduce pressure on the

financial performance;

• Reinforce confidence which helps

accessing loans and insurances at

the best prices, and regulatory

incent ives for demons t rated

environmental leadership;

• Reduce the chance of accidents

and minimise environmental liability

and risk;

• Ease of managing legal and

compliance requirements;

• Commitment to social responsibility.

The repor t is avai lab le at

www.esha.be


ENERGAIA 07

SHERPA project and its main

contents were widely disseminated

during the annual conference and

exhibition ―Energaia‖ International

Renewable Energies Exhibition 6 – 7

– 8 december 2007 in Montpellier –

Expositions Centre.

A session on small hydropower was

organised with presentations from

some of the SHERPA partners.

During the 3 days of the event,

ENERGAIA 2007 received 19 000

visitors: 9 560 professionals from 63

countries, including the buyers invited

by the Business Forum (FIA)

ENERGAÏA, as well as 9 000 public

visitors on the days dedicated to

them. Several european regions were

represented.

More info on the program as well as

the presentations on the SHP session

are available at www.esha.be

Environmental Barometer on SHP

ESHA has developed within the

SHERPA project a publication

reflecting the different point of views

from environmental experts on the

SHP impact. This publication is the

result of a questionnaire sent by

ESHA responding to the SHERPA

objective of involving NGOs and

environmentalists in order to spread

and disseminate the project and its

results.

The experts involved in this action

and interviewed have express their

interest not only in SHERPA but also

on the sector and its evolution and

compromises with the environment.

The main findings of this report is that

actually there is a great consensus

that SHP has an impact on the

environment but it is also agreed that

this impact depends very much on

the approach followed during the

p lanning phase and impact

assesment studies carried out.

The report can be downloaded at

www.esha.be


5- LOCAL APPROACH:

A KEYSTONE IN THE

SHP DEVELOPMENT

Developing SHP projects with a

sustainable approach needs to

integrate numerous constrains from a

technical and economic point of view

and from environmental, biological,

socio-economic as well. In this

context, local participation is required

to guarantee a good acceptance of

the project. Indeed, SHP projects

which are mainly decentralised and

very locally involving the community

can’t be developed without an

approach integrating all actors

involved in the project.

It is true that the development of SHP

in Europe is mainly guide by a

complex institutional framework lead

mainly by the RES directive and the

Water Framework Di rec t ive .

Incentives to promote SHP are mainly

described and boosted by the RES

Directive but unfortunately the

implementation of the Water

Framework Directive is one main

barrier reaching the actual potential

of SHP projects at local level and

involving a considerable number of

s takeholders such as water

managers, hydro developers,

fishermen, ecologist and in general

water and river users at the river

basin level.


On the other hand, the long

administrative procedures to get

licences and concessions add risk

and cost in terms of time and money

to the potential investors, making the

sector less attractive than other RES.

Again, the concession process is

taking part mainly at regional level

with the local authorities.

SHERPA trough several actions tried

to better integrate the local constrains

within SHP development.

WFD and RES-E Directives

The promotion of electricty from

renewable energy sources is a high

Community priority because it

contr ibutes to the fo l lowing

object ives: (a) environmental

p r o t e c t i o n , ( b ) s u s t a i n a b l e

development, (c)security of energy

supply by reducing dependence on

energy imports, (d) improvement of

industrial competitiveness, (e)

pos i t ive impact on reg ional

development and employment.

The European Directive on the

promotion of Electricity

from Renewable Energy

Sources (RES-e) sets a

target of 12% of gross inland energy

consumption from renewables and a

share of 22% for green electricity for

the European Union as a whole by

2010. Furthermore, the decision of

the 2007 Spring Council, where

Europe’s Heads of States agreed to a

bind ing target of 20% renewable

energy by 2020, laid the ground for

renewable energy sources to become

a major pillar of the EU’s future

energy supply. The 20% target is an

ambitious but realistic objective! So

the European policy framework for

renewable energies gives Member

States a reason to look at

hydropower, since it shows the best

track record of all renewable energy

technologies, being a clean and very

efficient renewable energy source.

During the twentieth century,

hydropower gave a key contribution

to the development of the electricity

sector in Europe and most of the best

sites have been exploited for big

plants. Nevertheless, an important

role in achieving European renewable

energy goals can still be played by

small hydropower resources, which

are distributed on the continent and

can offer all the benefits of dispersed

renewable generation.


APER has produced a report-

assesment at river basin level of

possible power productivity with

reference to objectives and targerts

set by the WFD and RES-e

directives.

This document looks at European

Directives respectively on the

promotion of renewable energies (Dir.

2001/77/EC) and on the protection of

waters (Dir. 2000/60/EC), taking into

account their effects on national and

regional legislation, with particular

reference to the hydropower sector.

Hydropower deals indeed with both

the issues of energy and water and if

the two Directives are implemented

without taking into account a

comprehensive and integrated

approach, this can lead to an

inconsistent and distorted result.

In May 2001 the EU Water Directors

agreed to define a common strategy

t o a c h i e v e a s u c c e s s f u l

implementation of Directive 2000/60/

EC (Common Implementation

Strategy - CIS) and in November

2005 established an EU Strategic

Steering Group (SSG) to address the

issue of better integration

of policies and to ensure

coherence between the

implementation of the WFD and other

sectoral and structural policies. At the

beginning of 2006 a specific working

g r o u p o n ― W F D a n d

hydromorphology‖ was set up to

identify and share good practice

approaches in order to manage the

adverse impacts of water uses on the

hydromorphological characteristics of

surface water bodies and to elaborate

recommendations on the integration

of energy (hydropower), transport

and flood management policies with

water policy.

The aim of this report is to propose a

methodology to assess the possible

hydropower productivity, at river basin

level, with reference to objectives and

targets set by WFD and RES-e

directives. At a second stage the two

analyses can be compared, in order

to highlight where the targets of the 2

directives could be in conflict.

A case study of an Italian river basin

(Magra) has been analysed in order

to test the applicability of this

methodology.

Report available at www.esha.be


Environmental mitigation:

Economic Analysis

Hydroelectricity provided by small

hydroelectric power plants introduce

positive impacts, which justify its

development, both at large scale

(greenhouse effect avoided…) and at

local scale (air pollution avoided,

balance between offer and supply

and needs for adjustment…)

Nevertheless, it comprises negative

impacts on aquatic environments

operation and in the other river uses,

on the one hand on the set-up scale,

but also on the layout more or less

long, for example when the river

accommodates large migrating

fishes. In practice, these impacts

qualified of ―local‖ in opposition to the

greenhouse effect avoided, are in the

middle of the Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) studies.

In the study of the local impacts, the

question of the aquatic environments

is often developed. Indeed these are

c o m p l e x , d y n a m i c a n d

in terdependent f ie lds whose

components are to be preserved or to

be restored to maintain their main

role in term of water

resources regularisation or

of landscape and bio-

diversity self purification.

If several guides were written (in

France and Europe) to facilitate, on a

s i te, the preparat ion of an

Environmental Impact Assessment

study (Water Direction 1989, SHF/

ADEME guide, CSP guide…) it is

natural to go today beyond the

influence zone of this site, to take into

account most largely the natural

dynamics of a river from its source to

its confluence.

The report called ―Technical and

operational procedures to better

integrate SHP plants in environment‖

published by SHERPA, list, in its

introduction the most outstanding

―local‖ impacts (in the form ―Effects

induced by the hydroelectric

production/awaited impacts/People or

system affected by these impacts‖

I E D has c o nd uc t e d ac os t -

benchmarking of identified and

implemented technologies for

environmental impact mitigations

illustrated with several case studies

and scenarios.

Report available at www.esha.be


Participatory Approach and Local

Planning : A key stone in the SHP

development

Generally, projects of energy and

en v i r on me n t a l f ea t u res a re

irremediably sullied with conflicts and

leave room to an irreducible plurality

of points of view and thus of systems

of value emanating from individuals

or very diverse lobbies.

A manner of considering the

acceptability of ―sacrifices‖ that a

group ―could‖ make would be to

ensure the participation of the actors

concerned in the decision-making

process.

This participation should positively

contribute to make actors aware of

the benefits associated with the

sacrifices made, even if those ones

are differed in time.

This acknowledgement indicates the

need to set up mult i-actors

participative processes for the

management o f hyd ropower

development project.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d l a w f u l

negotiations, mediation, advisory

groups, multi-actors workshops,

experts/decision makers

interfaces, think-tank cells

are participative

approaches being increasingly used

for decision-making regarding

hydopower sector.

Regulatory instruments for small

hydroelectr ic i ty are current ly

advancing, based on ―mult i -

stakeholders‖ dialog processes.

After the emergence of direct

regulatory and economic instruments,

a third generation of regulatory

instruments is now emerging: the

participative instruments.

Participative approaches play a

significant role on quality of decisions

and resu l ts re la ted to the

development of the energy potential

development of rivers.

Indeed, a participative decision-

making approach improves quality of

decisions while facilitating more

advantageous choices regarding

environmental and economic

aspects, with choices , technically

wiser and socially more acceptable

than those that would emerge from

non-participative decision-making

processes, as top-down process.

From the environmental point of view: the participative approach makes it possible to leave the very


expertise circle, and to integrate into

the process a pluralistic expertise,

taking into account some dimensions

sometimes unconsidered by the

traditional expertise. It also facilitates

a transverse approach, integrating

into the reflection all the energy policy

fields concerned (other than hydraulic

ones) in the perspective of

sustainable development.

From the economic point of view:

The participative approach in a

hydropower development project

leads to choices economically

more relevant, through energy

choices result ing in lower

economic costs for those who will

implement them, provided some

external costs have been

internalised and a cost/advantages

(or social cost) analysis was

carried out for each project,

highlighting clear improvement of

all actors well being.

From the technological point of

view: Compared to a traditional

p rocess , the par t i c ipa t i ve

approach allows more flexibility

and innovation in the way where

technology is apprehended.

Through opened processes, within

which the actors, in particular

industrialists, aware of technological

b r e a k t h r o u g h c a n e x p r e s s

themselves, it will be possible to both

avoid too rigid decisions which keep

the technological framework in some

privileged ways and also , to integrate

the technological development in real

time in decision-making process.

Some recommendations achieve a

good participative approach in the

field of small hydraulics include the

integration of the project in a

territorial planning approach.

SHERPA has been working with this

issues and the project has produced

several interesting results.

A) On the one hand, a brochure

prepared by IED (France) on ―Good

practice‖ on participatory approach

for SHP development has been

issued in English and French. This

Brochure compiles some of the

recommendations to achieve a good

participative approach in the field of

SHP including some cases.


B) On the other hand, SHERPA

has developed several territorial plan

approach carried out by APER (Italy)

and IED (France). APER signed an

agreement with a Land Reclamation

Consortium, Consorzio di Bonifi ca

Muzza Bassa Lodigiana (in the

following (―Consorzio Muzza‖), that is

developing some hydropower plants

along its irrigation channels.

In order to promote a multiple and

rational use of water, the Consortium

decided to develop an ―hydropower

plan‖, that sets the construction of

SHP plants along its network of

channels. The hydropower plan is

designed to be developed in 3 steps:

• 1st STEP: setting up of 6

hydropower plants on the main

heads, for a total installed capacity of

about 11 MW and a

productivity of about

60.000.000 kWh/year;

• 2nd STEP: setting up of 6

hydropower plants on the

secondary network and on dips,

where heads are still quite favorable,

for a total installed capacity of about

6 MW and a productivity of about

30.000.000 kWh/year;

• 3rd STEP: a pre l iminary

assessment of other suitable sites,

along subordinate network, is

currently in progress. The aim of this

project was to test different

methodologies and approaches to

promote the involvement of local

authorities and stakeholders in the

hydropower plan developed by

Consorzio Muzza and to use this

activity to get some input for the

future evolution and expansion of the

plan.


APER agreed with Consorzio Muzza

a work programme split into:

Step 1: collection of information

Step 2: first meeting

S t e p 3 : i n t e r v i e w s a n d

questionnaires

Step 4: data collection and data

processing

Step 5: final meeting and field visit

IED together wi th CESAME

environment have developed and

inititiave aiming at putting into work

some small hydropower plants on the

Cèze Valley (Rhône tributary) by

Applying a new turbine concept working at high efficiency on small head scales without damaging the acuatic spicies.

This project has involved the participation of the local communities within the Cèze Valley and the Rhône area including contacts between the Languedoc-Roussillon Region and the Department of Gard, the Community Union of the Point-Saint– Esprit Region. The Ministry of Industry was also involved.

The idea is to refurbish, upgrade or use already existing sites and infrastructures along the river by integrating a coordinated study and approach including a multi criteria ana lys is cover ing techn ica l , env i r onment a l , hyd ro log ic a l , legislative, economic and in general feasible conditions to develop the project.

All information regarding the participative approach and local planning initiatives developed under SHERPA can be found at

www.esha.be/SHERPA


CONCLUSIONS THE work carried out under SHERPA for two years has covered different areas focussing on the main challenges of the project in order to overcome the barriers and promoting information dissemination and campaign in order to raise awareness about a sector that is not well know the public in general. The main conclusions and recommendations drawing from the experience of the consortium working in SHERPA are: 1– Status of the SHP sector in the EU The SHP sector and projects are very site specific and therefore the information remains very disperse and diverse. Trying to collect and compile data on the market, policy and energy items on an EU level is a ve r y c h a l l e n g e d t as k . Nevertheless, SHERPA has managed to accomplish this task in an acceptable accurate way so that a general view of the current status of the SHP sector is available. The information has revealed that the growth of the sector is slower than foreseen some years ago in view of the EU

applicable legislation both the Green paper and the RES-E Directive where projected targets for SHP

were more promising that what the reality is showing by the available data. This situation is due in great part to the growing environmental concern on the SHP impact on the ecosystems but of course it has boosted after the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. If the SHP continues growing at the same path it has in the previous years, the incentives available thank to the new Energy and Environment Package in which a new Directive for RES with binding targets for 2020 is about to be passed, will have any effect on the sector. Part of the lack of enough interest from policy makers on the sector is precisely the lack of information on the sector as a whole. It is clearly difficult to envisage and define any future or roadmap for the SHP sector if the policy and decision makers do not know where the sector stands right now. Therefore, the main recommendation would be to establish a central office, point of database collecting all the information on hydropower in a centralise way following an agreed and common methodology and guarantying the quality and accuracy of the information.


2– Think globally act locally This statement becomes a reality in the case of SHP. SHP is facing many barriers of diverse nature but in order to overcome them a simultaneous two dimensional approach are needed: A) from bottom to up: the different

workshops organised under S H E R PA h a v e c l e a r l y demonstrate that only when you target the national, regional and local audience, the real concerns and problems arise and people that are dealing with barriers on a daily basis can transmit, communicate and exchange their worr iers, experiences and solutions among them. Associations like ESHA, coordinator of SHERPA, are responsible for getting the message, compi l ing the feedbacks and try to pass these real needs to the policy and decision makers at EU level in order to raise their awareness and to coordinate actions for future legislation and measures more focus on the real needs and problems.

B) From up to down: projects like SHERPA funded partially by

the EC are a great tool in order to inform at local and national level on the a d v a n c e m e n t a n d

implementation of legislation, measures and instruments favouring not only the SHP sector but the RES and the energy sector in general. This i n f o r m a t i o n i s h i g h l y appreciated by the local and national stakeholders that look at Brussels as something very far and detached from them. For local developers it is important to know that the EC is still supporting the sector.

Therefore, the success of the future development of the SHP will only come with a close collaboration of this two level approach. The only way to success in the good functioning is to have associations like ESHA that can serve as the link connecting both approaches. After the two years of work, ESHA considers as urgent tasks needed to be worked out: 1– Administrative barriers an in particular the issue of concessions. The current situation about the concessions award process in most of the EU countries is just unacceptable and a EU action from the legislative point of view urges. 2– Water Framework Directive: It is extremely urgent to bring together all the actors invo lved in the implementation of this Directive at all


All level (local, national, EU). The lack of knowledge, the difficulty of the Directive itself, the fear of its implementation and consequences are just reducing in great amount the future potential and development of the SHP in the EU.

If no measures are taking in the following year on the above items, any promotion or support measure develop by EU legislation like the new RES-E Directive with binding targets for 2020 and attractive fee-in tariffs will have zero effect since no project will be developed.

3– Running Towards Sustainability

Being aware of the environmental concerns and problems as regard hydropower in general and SHP in particular, SHERPA has worked in trying to improve the public image of SHP, to involve environmentalist organizations and experts in the work and deliverables, raising awareness and distributing information on the already existing actions and methods developed in order to integrate ecosystems in project development and even in producing some publications on case studies, measures for integrating environment in SHP projects and even on new concepts like social engineering.

But SHERPA has made an additional step and has developed some criteria app l i c ab le t o SHP t ha t i f accomplished will result in awarding a plant as sustainable. SHERPA wanted to first acknowledge that hydro in general and SHP in particular do have an impact on the environment in many forms but also that not all hydro affects the environment and ecosystems in a destructive way. By thinking and developing the sustainability criteria the sector will be in a position to determine which plants have been studied and develop with ―care‖ and which ones haven’t. SHERPA has carried out a testing phase as well in order to see if the criteria are suitable and applicable.

It should be mention that criteria and award are in a testing phase and they should be developed and even modified in the future in order to be improved. Nevertheless, this can be considered as the first step into a medium objective trying to make the sector more sustainable and compatible with the environment.

The main conclusion is that even if SHP will have an impact on the environment the level and quality of this impact has varied enormously from one plant to another and the definition of criteria could serve as a first approach of standardization measures to test the level of sustainability of a plant.


4– My SHP project is your project is our project

One of the major issues that SHERPA has covered is the relevance of the participatory approach and the territorial planning for developing SHP projects to its end.

Due to the characteristics of SHP plant which is on the first place integrated in a nature area and making use of the water, elements that belong to everyone and nobody, any potential project has to integrate and involved all parties and people affected by the project. The inclusion of the local communities and the population in the development of the project from the very beginning is of high importance in order to be accepted and also to be understood.

On the other hand, the value added that an integrated participatory approach help the developers to improve the project in the best way. When many stakeholder are involved from the first phases, compromises and different points of view can be taken into consideration making the project attractive and acceptable for everyone.

The involvement and participation of local authorities during the project proposal phase could ease the difficulty and length of getting all p e r m i s s i o n s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e requirements and in particular concessions.

As a concussion, SHERPA has drown some recommendations for a good participatory approach which are:

1– to integrate the project in a territorial planning approach,.

2– To associate the project to the development of the territory.

3– To implement the project through a steering committee as broad as possible.

4– To inform the local population as soon as possible.

5– To associate the industry and companies to the project objectives during the consultation and project implementation.

6– To set up multicriteria analysis tools covering all the thematic linked to project developemt .

7– To associate independent experts on the different aspects from other countries or domains.


LIST OF EVENTS

Dissemination

Communication

Many events in terms of w o r k s h o p s , s e s s i o n s , conferences, participation in other e v e n t s a s a m e a n f o r disseminating and communicating about the project and its results. It should be noticed that vents organised under WP3 (National Policy Workshops) and WP4 (Public Image Campaign) are not listed here since they have been already mentioned and explained in the previous pages. This section covers mainly WP6 of the project o n c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d dissemination activities. The following paragraph include a list of all the events happening under SHERPA . All material and detailed information from all the events listed here below are avai lab le at www.esha.be/SHERPA and/or under request to ESHA. 1– EREC Policy Conference, Brussels EREC organized a Pol icy

Conference in January 2007 in Brussels where E S H A m a d e a p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s

conference gave the opportunity to distribute SHERPA material and i n f o r m a t i o n a m o n g t h e participants. The conference was attended by 800 participants representing the main stakeholders of RES in the EU.


2– HYDRO 07, Granada , Spain A session on SHP issues covering the different aspects SHERPA was working with, was organised during the Conference Hydro07 in October in Granada, Spain. This conference is organised annually by The International Journal of Hydropower and Dams . Presentations from SHERPA partners during the session included topics such as the investment opportunities in SHP in EEC count r ies , the WFD implementation in Italy or the status and potentials of SHP in the EU.

2– Conference on Modern S t a t i s t i c s , E U R O S TAT, Luxembourg In December 07, ESHA attended a conference organised by Eurostat. This conference is organized annually and it was a good opportunity for input and feedback on the activities developed under W P 2 . M o s t p a r t i c i p a n t s represented national official sources of statistical information from EU member states and in different areas.


3– Hidroenergia 08, Bled, Slovenia

The Slovenian Small Hydropower Association together with ESHA organized and international event on SHP in June 08 in Bled, Slovenia.

Over 250 participants attended the conference which included an exhibition as well and lasted for two complete days. Hidronergia covered all issues in all dimensions attracting the key p layers and most stakeholders not only of the SHP but the hydro sector in general as well.

A special event within Hidroenergia was devoted to SHERPA. The SHERPA policy session was attended by at least half of the Conference participants and it covered the most important aspects on legislation, administration problems, educational basis, barriers, certification and future potentials for SHP.

The audience was actively involved in the session as well by posing questions to the speakers.

4– Copenmind Conference 08, Denmark

SERO participated on behalf of SHERPA during the Copenmind Conference held in Copenhagen in September 08.

The session covered the issue of energy and water footprints, linking water management, sustainable d e v e l o p m e n t a n d e n e r g y consumption mainly looking into the water foot pr ints of energy production.

It was a good opportunity for campaigning on public image for SHP


COPENMIND, the global cleantech event matchmaking among 125 universities and more than 1,500 industry executives. The closing session commenced with a keynote speech by Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister of Climate and Energy. Connie Hedegaard stressed the global need for future energy solutions. She emphasised that universities and research institutions have the knowledge to develop technologies necessary to face these challenges, while industry has the responsibility to make a sustainable future possible through investment.

“COPENMIND creates a platform upon which research and industry from across the world can meet in one place and develop partnerships and solutions, and there is still a need to continue this collaboration – we hope we can further this important work during COPENMIND 2009: Energy.‖


BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following publications and documents have been produced under SHERPA projects and are freely available at ESHA website and/or under request

1- ―SHERPA, Small Hydro Energy Efficient Promotion Campaign Action‖, Project Info, ESHA 07 2– ―Hydropower, the Policy Framework‖, A rigourous policy framework, ESHA 07 3- ―‖Hydropower, the Sector‖ , A dynamic sector, ESHA 07 4- ―Hydropower Technology‖, How it works, ESHA 07 5- ―Hydropower Respects the Environment‖, A clean and indigenous Renewable Energy, ESHA 07 6- ―Idroelettrico Inquadramento Normativo‖, Un quadro normative riguroso, APER 07 7- ―‖Idroelettrico il Settore‖, Un settore dinamico, APER 07 8- ― Idroelettrico la Tecnologia‖, Comme funziona, APER 07

9- ―L’idroelettrico rispeta l’Ambiente‖, Un’energia

rinnovabile pulita e naturale‖, APER 07 9– Report on ―National Policy Workshop in Lithuania‖, LHA 07 10– ―Guia para el Desarrollo de una pequeña central Hidroeléctrica‖, ESHA 07 11– Report on ―Mechanisms of Social Engineering ―, IWHW 08 12– Report on ―National Policy Workshop in Poland‖, EC BREC 08 13– Hydro 07 SHERPA session proceedings, ESHA 07 14- ―Hydropower and Environment‖, Te c h n i c a l a n d o p e r a t i o n a l procedures to better integrate small h yd r o p o we r p l a n t s i n t h e environment, APER 07 15- ―Guida alla Realizzazione di un piccolo impianto Idroelettrico‖, APER 08 16- ― The application of the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System to Small Hydropower Plants‖, ADEME 08 17– Energaia 07, proceedings, ADEME 07


BIBLIOGRAPHY

18– Report ―National Policy Workshop in Italy‖, APER 08 19– Development of a Good Practice Brochure of Participatory Approach for SHP Development‖, IED 2008 20- Développement des petites c en t ra l es hyd roé lec t r i ques . Approche Participative: GUIDE DES BONNES PRATIQUES, IED 08 21– HYDRorPOWER?, Assessment, at river basin level of possible hydropower porductivity with reference to objectives and targets set by WFD and REES-e Directive, APER 08 22– HYDRor POWER? Valutazione, a scala di bacino, della possibile producibilitá idroelettrica, con riferimento agli obiettivi della Direttiva Acque e della Direttiva Rinnovabili, APER 08 2 3 – H I D R O E N E R G I A 0 8 , proceedings, list of participants, etc ESHA 08 24– Sustainability Criteria for SHP, ESHA 08

2 5 – S t r a t e g i c S t u d y f o r Development of Small Hydropower in the European Union, LHA & SERO 08 26– Report ―National Policy Workshop in Sweden‖, SERO 08 27- Small Hydropower Local Planning & Participatory Approach in Italy, APER 08 28– Planificazione Territoriale P a r t e c i p a t a D e l l a R i s o r s a Idroelettrica, APER 08 29– F rance -Rég ion PACA-

Département du Gard: Mise en

O e u v r e d ’ u n p l a n d e

Developpement Local Sur La Ceze.

____________________________

____________________________

SHERPA Project Consortium has

been formed by:

1– ESHA: European Smal l

H y d r o p o w e r A s s o c i a t i o n ,

www.esha.be

2– SSHA: Slovenian Small

H y d r o p o w e r A s s o c i a t i o n ,

www.zdmhe.si


3– LHA: Lithuanian Hydropower

Association, www.hidro.lt

4– APER: Renewable Energy

P r o d u c e r s A s s o c i a t i o n ,

www.aper.it

5– IED: Innovat ion Energie Développement, www.ied-sa.fr

6– IWHW: Institut für Wasser, Hydrologie und Konstruktivenn Wasserbau, iwhw.boku.ac.at 7 – E C B R E C : C e n t r a l n e L a b o r a t o r i u m N a f t o w e , www.ecbrec.pl 8 – A D E M E : A g e n c e d e l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie, www.ademe.fr 9 – S E R O : S v e r i g e s Energiföreningars Riksorganisation, www.sero.se

EUROPEAN SMALL HYDROPOWER

ASSOCIATION

Renewable Energy House

63-67 Rue d’Arlon - B-1040 Brussels •

Belgium

T: +32 2 546 1945 • F: +32 2 546 1947

E: [email protected] • I: www.esha.be

ESHA is founding member of EREC, the

European Renewable Energy Council

SHERPA_Printable_Report

Documents

Transcript of SHERPA_Printable_Report