Results of the Sustainability Assessment of the Kaunertal Expansion Project, TIWAG, Austria

Transcription

1 Results of the Sustainability Assessment of the Kaunertal Expansion Project, TIWAG, Austria 22 February 2017 Lead Assessor: Dr Helen Locher Assessors: Dr Joerg Hartmann, Aida Khalil, Doug Smith Assessor-in-training: Margaret Trias

2 Hydropower Sustainability Challenges POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS: POTENTIAL POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS: Electricity supply security Regional development Poverty alleviation Greenhouse gas reduction Flexibility & reliability Ancillary services Multi-purpose projects Water supply security Population displacement Impacts to livelihoods and traditions Environmental changes and losses biodiversity, fisheries, heritage High up front costs Cost and time blow-outs

3 What is the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol? An internationally relevant tool that promotes and guides more sustainable hydropower projects. Enables assessment of the performance of a hydropower project across important sustainability topics. Provides an objective assessment methodology and presents results in a standardised manner. Provides a common language to talk about and evaluate sustainability issues. Does NOT replace regulatory requirements The Protocol is the only existing comprehensive tool that exclusively deals with hydropower Designed as an assessment tool but provides a very good documentation of key factors essential for building sustainable hydro

4 Protocol evolution World Commission on Dams Final Report Initial Sustainability Assessment Protocol Official Protocol launch IHA Sustainability Guidelines Multi-stakeholder Forum refines the Protocol Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum Protocol Training and Assessments 2012-present

5 Protocol structure ~20 topics, individually scored from 1-5 INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE Demonstrated need & strategic fit Communications & consultation Governance Integrated project management Environmental & social issues management Downstream flows ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE Environmental impact assessment Erosion & sedimentation Water quality Biodiversity & invasive species Waste, noise & air quality SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE Social impact assessment Project affected communities & livelihoods Resettlement Indigenous peoples Cultural heritage Public health Labour & working conditions TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE Siting & design Hydrological resource Reservoir planning, filling and management Infrastructure safety Asset reliability & efficiency ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE Economic viability Financial viability Project benefits Procurement 2-6 scoring criteria/topic Cross-cutting issues COMMON Assessment Management Stakeholder engagement CRITERIA Stakeholder support Conformance and compliance Outcomes CROSS-CUTTING Human rights Climate change Transboundary issues CONSIDERATIONS, Transparency Gender Integrated water resource management

6 Approach to scoring Each Protocol topic has scoring statements that address, as relevant, the following criteria groups: Assessment Management Stakeholder engagement Stakeholder support Conformance / Compliance Outcomes Accredited Assessors evaluate if the scoring statements are met and identify any significant gaps Assessors must reference visual, documentary and verbal evidence to support their findings Gaps are not double-counted Basic Good Practice criteria Two or more gaps Proven Best Practice criteria Score - 1 One gap - 2 All met Two or more gaps 3 All met One gap 4 All met All met 5

7 Protocol use = Training = Assessments 7

8 Date Project Name Developer Example Country assessments Size Stage to-date Oct-10 Shardara Shardara HPP JSC Kazakhstan 100 Operation Oct-11 Trevallyn Hydro Tasmania Australia 97 Operation Mar-12 Walchensee EON Germany 124 Operation May-12 Hvammur Landsvirkjun Iceland 84 Preparation Aug-12 Jostedal Statkraft Norway 290 Operation Sep-12 Murum Sarawak Energy Malaysia 944 Implementation Sep-12 Jirau ESBR (GDF Suez) Brasil 3750 Implementation Dec-12 Keeyask Manitoba Hydro Canada 695 Preparation Jun-13 Gavet EDF France 92 Implementation Sep-13 Blanda Landsvirkjun Iceland 150 Operation Oct-13 Sogamoso Isagen Colombia 820 Implementation Jan-14 Trung Son EVN/TSHPCo Vietnam 260 Implementation Mar-14 Canafisto Isagen Colombia 936 Preparation Apr-14 Santo Antonio SAE Brazil 3150 Implementation Jun-14 Sava river HEP Croatia 160 Early Stage Jun-14 Miel I Isagen Colombia 260 Operation Sep-14 Kabeli A Kabeli Hydro Nepal 38 Preparation Nov-14 Semla EON Sweden 3 Preparation Nov-14 San Francisco EPM Colombia 52 Preparation Apr-15 Multiple Ministry of Power, Ghana Ghana Early Stage Apr-15 Nam Lik China Three Gorges Laos 100 Operation Jun-15 Chaglla Odebrecht Peru 456 Implementation Aug-15 Itaipu Itaipu Binacional Brazil/Paraguay Operation Jan-16 Mangdechhu MHPA Bhutan 720 Implementation Aug-16 Kaunertal TIWAG Austria 933 Preparation

9 TIWAG s KXP Assessment Objectives To identify potential gaps in project sustainability To identify areas for improvement To communicate with NGOs and other stakeholders To get an independent, external perspective of the project To optimise TIWAG planning processes and ensure they are comprehensive

10 Assessment Process Jan Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Protocol training by IHA Planning support visit 6/6-10/6 Final scoping document 11/7 On-site assessment 29/8-5/9 Follow-up info rec d 31/10 Draft report 5/12 TIWAG feedback 22/12 Final report 13/1 Publication 22/2 23 Preparation stage topics divided amongst 5 assessors 83 interviews in person and by phone or Emphasis on wide coverage, diversity of views, triangulating evidence >345 documents and websites 176 follow-up information and document requests

11 Some Notes on Scoring The Protocol scoring criteria outline expectations at the end of the relevant project development stage Protocol assessments earlier than this are strongly encouraged, to identify opportunities for additional efforts with time to act Given the long lead time until the end of the KXP Preparation stage, it can be difficult to confidently score the Outcomes criterion for some topics Findings on gaps may be relevant not only to TIWAG but also to other parties

12 P-1 Communications and Consultation Many communication challenges including the number and variety of stakeholders and interests, and an evolving and complex project spread out over many years Stakeholders are well mapped and a variety of engagement mechanisms have been used over time There is a good TIWAG presence in the affected communities, and personal stakeholder relations Score: 3 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 2 gaps TIWAG has not tailored its approach to communications and consultation to meet the needs of all stakeholders (Management) There is a perception by some stakeholders of a lack of thorough and timely feedback (Stakeholder Engagement) Assessor concerns: Some stakeholder concerns with transparency, responsiveness etc

13 I-2 Governance Good assessment and management processes for governance requirements and issues Processes in place for risk, compliance, ethics, and social and environmental responsibility. Management processes well established and internally communicated with an emphasis on continuous improvement. Independent review mechanisms are used. Score: 4 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 1 gap There is an absence of corporate policy addressing stakeholder engagement, transparency and disclosure, including processes to ascertain if stakeholder information needs and interests are being met (Assessment) Assessor concerns: Corporate policies and procedures regarding stakeholder engagement, transparency and disclosure.

14 P-3 Demonstrated Need & Strategic Fit The KXP responds to a range of needs and can be shown to fit with strategic objectives Energy: EU interests in increased renewables and balancing power National and provincial interests in climate change mitigation and energy autonomy Water: Water Framework Directive objectives for aquatic ecosystems Local flood control objectives Score: 3 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 2 gaps There is a perception of inadequate opportunities for informed dialogue on the need for and strategic fit of the KXP (Assessment) There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the KXP is a priority option to achieve all relevant demonstrated needs (Outcomes) Assessor concerns: Public disclosure Fit with river conservation plans Priority option for all needs

15 P-4 Siting and Design Since 2004 the KXP has seen numerous changes concerning siting and design For example, Platzertal location for upper stage reservoir chosen after 4 other options evaluated Many examples for smart design: Builds on existing infrastructure High production from small footprint Underground infrastructure Addresses some legacy impacts Incorporating added benefits No resettlement or relocation Protected area impacts are minimal Score: 4 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 1 gap There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the KXP represents an optimal siting and design (Outcomes) Assessor concerns: Stakeholder engagement in siting and design Is design optimal?

16 P-5 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Management EIA process is being followed EIS is prepared and reviewed by appropriate expertise (internal and external) Comprehensive array of environmental and social impacts are addressed Cumulative impacts associated with water use and residual flows are assessed Score: 4 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 1 gap There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the project will avoid, minimise, mitigate and compensate all negative permanent environmental and social impacts (Outcomes) Assessor concerns: Can we say that environmental and social plans avoid, minimise, mitigate and compensate all negative project impacts with no identified gaps?

17 P-6 Integrated Project Management Integrated project mgmt and construction mgmt plans and processes are developed to an appropriate stage. Precedents from other projects show competent mgmt processes including for risk, interfaces, closure and hand -over. Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met A continuous review and improvement culture is demonstrated. The business is able to scale up its experience and capacity to meet the larger scale demands of the KXP. In -house design capacities and HPP experience are an organisational strength. Assessor concerns: None

18 P-7 Hydrological Resource Thorough modelling based on extensive hydro-meteorological data sets Climate change and glacial ablation well studied and factored in Multiple use of the hydrological resource is inherent in the design: power generation, flood control and ecological restoration There is flexibility to adapt operations given market needs Score: 4 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 1 gap It cannot be concluded yet that the KXP represents an optimal use of the hydrological resource (Management) The design competes with alternative proposals for water use in the Ötztal Assessor concerns: Can we say water use is fully optimised given need for further dialogue and negotiations?

19 P-8 Infrastructure Safety Appropriate expertise is provided through the dam safety engineers and Staubeckenkommission Broad risks have been assessed in detail for all components Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met Independent review by Staubeckenkommission (dams) and Tyrol permitting (all) Assessor concerns: None

20 P-9 Financial Viability Financial viability involved detailed analyses of cost and revenues using recognised models. Financial risk and sensitivity analyses are thorough and broad. Financial management plans are developed to an appropriate stage. Corporate processes, and other project precedents, show competent financial mgmt. and controls. Market indications not favourable in the short-term for additional pump storage, but become favourable in the mid -2030s. Score: 4 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 1 gap There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the KXP can manage financial issues under the broad range of scenarios that could be relevant in a decade s time (Outcomes) Assessor concerns: Financial business case for KXP approved in 2012, and updated business case expected in ~2028, making it too early to draw a conclusion on financial viability

21 P-10 Project Benefits Benefits are built into project design for multiple water management objectives (flood control, reduction of flow variations) Additional benefits and benefit sharing through infrastructure improvements and annual payments to municipalities Benefits are significant and sustained Score: 4 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 1 gap The lack of public information leads to a lack of inclusive and participatory engagement by citizens on project benefits (Stakeholder Engagement) Assessor concerns: Difficulties in finding easily understandable information about valley contracts

22 P-11 Economic Viability 3 analyses undertaken relating to project benefits: EU Project of Common Interest (PCI) - evaluates benefits of renewable penetration, grid losses, CO 2 reduction Borsdorf analysis: Identification of socioeconomic benefits Bauhofer analysis: Benefits and PCI analysis brought together to show net benefit in Euros Score: 2 Basic Good Practice: 1 gap Economic analyses have not taken all costs and benefits into account, and consequently a net benefit has not been demonstrated (Assessment) Analyses were not designed to be comprehensive analyses that take into account all costs and benefits Assessor concerns: Omission of negative social and environmental impacts and full range of benefits

23 P-12 Procurement Procurement-related assessment and planning processes are competent generally, are at an appropriate stage for the KXP, and are well demonstrated in other projects. Processes are efficient, transparent, accountable, ethical and timely; are guided by a range of policies and guidelines; and are subject to audits and independent review. Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met Opportunities are provided for local suppliers through relatively smaller bidding lots. Assessor concerns: None

24 P-13 Project-Affected Communities and Livelihoods Robust process for acquiring lands and use rights & compensating for damages, commitments publicly disclosed Human uses include forestry, hunting, fishing, agriculture, recreation, rafting and kayaking Minimisation, mitigation and compensation measures for many impacts, as well as project benefits, are likely to improve livelihoods and living standards for most citizens in the region. Score: 2 Basic Good Practice: 1 gap There is widespread and sustained opposition against the KXP in the Ötztal and among the rafting businesses (Stakeholder Support) Assessor concerns: Criteria requirement that Affected communities generally support or have no major ongoing opposition to the plans for the issues that specifically affect their community

25 P-14 Resettlement Not Relevant to the assessment.

26 P-15 Indigenous Peoples Not Relevant to the assessment.

27 P-16 Labour and Working Conditions An assessment of project specific labour needs and OH&S risks and issues has been carried out. Detailed OH&S Plan will be ready prior to tendering process, and then updated regularly during project implementation. Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met A number of OH&S aspects are built into the Environmental Management System, certified to ISO Work Council (Betriebsrat), unions, and Labour Act protect labour rights. Assessor concerns: None

28 P-17 Cultural Heritage Prospections and assessments broadly document cultural heritage resources, e.g. Mesolithic hunter resting areas, white crosses, and the Pontlatz bridge Examples of avoided impacts and risk mitigation are evident through design choices Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met Chance finds procedures are standard practice Evidence on other projects show that stakeholders are engaged Assessor concerns: None

29 P-18 Public Health EIS assesses health effects from noise, dust, vibration, blasting, traffic, and electromagnetic fields, with no anticipated residual significant impacts Other potential health risks also considered such as hazardous waste, water quality, and construction camp rules Score: 4 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 1 gap The assessment does not take into account a number of public health risks (Assessment) There is a mature and strong public health system Assessor concerns: Lack of documented assessment of all potential health risks, e.g.: community-workers interactions (risks of STDs, violence); access to health facilities during busy periods; capacity of health facilities; reduced emergency access to ski resorts; well -being risks

30 P-19 Biodiversity and Invasive Species Alpine region is a highly sensitive ecosystem Many impacts have been avoided through design options, and ecological improvement is designed for the Inn The most significant issues are: loss of protected wetlands and habitats supporting protected species; and effects on untouched landscapes ( Ötztal and Platzertal) Assessor concerns: An apparent lack of dialogue, coordination and integration with other ecological restoration plans Residual biodiversity effects, and selection and adequacy of compensation of the proposed offset measures Score: 3 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: 2 gaps There is a lack of evidence of collaboration in consideration of either risks or opportunities with all existing or planned biodiversity improvement projects potentially affected by the KXP (Management) There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures for biodiversity fully compensate for permanent negative residual impacts (Outcomes)

31 P-20 Erosion and Sedimentation Fluvial sediment transport has been well assessed through technical studies Erosion risks relating to slope stability, mass movements and avalanches have been systematically evaluated Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met Sediment flushing gates are provided at Gurgler and Venter Ache, with design supported by independent sediment studies and a physical model TIWAG has R&D initiatives and partnerships related to sedimentation with universities and other stakeholders Assessor concerns: None

32 P-21 Water Quality Overall surface and groundwater water quality is good to very good, supported by extensive data Mgmt measures and monitoring are planned during construction to prevent impacts on water quality and control run off, and no significant risks are identified Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met Assessment of potential wastewater discharges has fed into the calculation of residual flows There are contributions to improve water quality at Platzertal (new WWTP, residual flows with better quality) Assessor concerns: None

33 P-22 Reservoir Planning KXP creates a new reservoir ( Platzertal), modifies an existing large reservoir (Gepatsch), and creates or expands six smaller waterbodies (Gurgler and Venter intakes, raising of Runserau, and 3 tailwater basins) Score: 5 Basic Good Practice: Met Proven Best Practice: Met Issues assessed include sedimentation, flood mgmt., avalanches, groundwater impacts, environmental and social impacts, and construction mgmt. Management considerations include land acquisition, maintenance of freeboard, emptying to avoid flood risks, rates of increase and decrease of water levels, sediment flushing, environmental restoration, and public access and safety. Assessor concerns: None

34 P-23 Downstream Flow Regimes KXP flow impacts involve multiple rivers and reaches, and seasonal and diurnal patterns during filling, operations and spilling Flows have been extensively analysed, with implications for environmental and social aspects Plans for residual flows and limits on rate of increase/decrease in flows are defined at each facility Score: 2 Basic Good Practice: 1 gap There is no simple and concise description of downstream flow regimes and their objectives, for use in stakeholder engagement (Stakeholder Engagement) Assessor concerns: Inn River objectives are clear, but objectives for Ötztaler Ache and Platzerbach are less clear Some varied views on the degree to which stakeholder engagement has been two -way, and if information is in the most supportive forms for stakeholder needs

35 TIWAG s KXP Assessment Objectives To identify potential gaps in project sustainability To identify areas for improvement To communicate with NGOs and other stakeholders To get an independent, external perspective of the project To optimise TIWAG planning processes and ensure they are comprehensive

36 Sustainability profile in topic order P-1 Communications and Consultation P-23 Downstream Flow Regimes 5 P-2 Governance P-3 Demonstrated Need and Strategic P-22 Reservoir Planning Fit 4 P-21 Water Quality P-20 Erosion and Sedimentation 3 2 P-4 Siting and Design P-5 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Management P-19 Biodiversity and Invasive Species 1 P-6 Integrated Project Management P-18 Public Health 0 P-7 Hydrological Resource P-17 Cultural Heritage P-8 Infrastructure Safety P-16 Labour and Working Conditions P-9 Financial Viability P-15 Indigenous Peoples P-10 Project Benefits Scoring: 3 = Basic Good Practice 5 = Proven Best Practice P-14 Resettlement P-13 Project-Affected Communities and Livelihoods P-11 Economic Viability P-12 Procurement 3

37 Sustainability profile by scoring groups P-14 Resettlement P-15 Indigenous Peoples P-11 Economic Viability P-23 Downstream Flow Regimes P-12 Procurement P-8 Infrastructure Safety P-6 Integrated Project Management P-22 Reservoir Planning P-21 Water Quality P-13 Project-Affected Communities and Livelihoods P-1 Communications and Consultation 1 0 P-20 Erosion and Sedimentation P-17 Cultural Heritage P-19 Biodiversity and Invasive Species P-3 Demonstrated Need and Strategic Fit P-18 Public Health P-2 Governance P-16 Labour and Working Conditions P-10 Project Benefits P-9 Financial Viability P-7 Hydrological Resource Scoring: P-4 Siting and Design P-5 Environmental and Social Impact 3 = Basic Good Practice Assessment and Management 5 = Proven Best Practice 3

38 Thank you!