Preparation of a guidance document on hydropower development and Natura 2000

Transcription

1 Preparation of a guidance document on hydropower development and Natura 2000 DRAFT Minutes of EC Consultation meeting 8 th July 2015 Purpose of the meeting The Commission explained the purpose of the guide which is to help ensure that hydropower use and development across the EU is done in a way that is conform to the EU nature Directives, and the wider Water Framework Directive. The document is not intended to be a prescriptive instruction manual but rather a good practice guide that offers some useful advice, based on practical examples, of how best to ensure that hydropower is in line with the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. The first draft of the document was sent out in February for stakeholder comments. A significant number of wide ranging comments were received back. In light of these comments, the Commission (DG ENV and DG ENER) decided to organise a consultation meeting to enable the different interest groups to explain their views and comments on the draft in more detail. It was also intended to enable the Commission to give some initial feedback on these comments and explain further the underlying premise of the document in view of the fact that some of the opinions were very contradictory of each other. Finding an acceptable solution to these strongly opposing views will present a particular challenge when preparing the next draft of the document. The aim of the workshop is therefore to help the Commission to further revise the document taking into account the diverging comments received. The Commission also reminded that a number of similar guides had been produced for other (energy) sectors and are available on the Commission s website 1. The main focus of the meeting is on the three chapters dealing with strategic planning, impacts and mitigation measures but first the participants were asked to voice their views on the document as a whole. 1

2 General comments The following general comments were made: According to the environmental NGOs, the document takes a wrong approach which in their view undermines the overall objectives and principles of the wider Water Framework Directive and run counters to the principle of non-deterioration that is enshrined in both the WFD and the two Nature Directives; They considered that instead the document should make clear at the outset that that EU environmental legislation aims to protect rivers and to ensure they do not deteriorate further. Then Natura 2000 should come on top of this basic requirement. This is in line with the Water Directors 2010 Policy paper; They felt it was more written as a guide of how to open up Natura 2000 sites to hydropower developments. The Commission should be recommending that hydropower is not allowed in Natura 2000, except in very exceptional cases. This is what Germany has done by declaring all free flowing stretches of rivers as nogo zones, and the ICPDR guiding principles make clear that hydropower should only be allowed in exceptional cases. The EU draft guide is, in their view taking a backwards step; The AA procedure should not be the starting point, one needs to look at the whole river environment first. Other participants from the hydropower sector however expressed the view that the draft set up too many conditions and hurdles for hydropower installations and would discourage rather than encourage any further developments; The document stresses the need for a case by case approach which is very important. However this can make it more difficult to find general good practices since there are so many possible situations that could arise. The environmental NGOs pointed out that how hydropower is handled in some parts of the EU where the rivers are already heavily used will contrast sharply with other parts, for instance in the Balkan countries, where there is still some potential, and a strong drive, for development. There should be a clear distinction made between new hydropower development and the use of existing installations the possibility of using existing dams and weirs for electricity generation in Natura 2000 should be better emphasised. There should also be more emphasis on the fact that small hydropower facilities have the capacity to be as, if not more, damaging for the river environment than large ones, especially because of their potential cumulative effects: The guide should provide more specific technical advice on the types of hydropower impacts, these need to be better described, for instance with the use of modelling for hydrological regimes etc The section on mitigation also needs to be further expanded, especially as regards monitoring requirements; Participants from the hydropower sector agreed that strategic planning can be a useful tool but not if it is to be used to designate no-go zones; N2K completed the general discussion with an overview of the general comments received during the written consultation and explained how these will be dealt with in the next draft. The Commission also reminded the participants that the specific focus of the present document is the Habitats and Birds Directives, and the Article 6 appropriate assessment procedure in particular. The draft has been worked on jointly between the nature and water units to make sure it is entirely compatible with the WFD. 2

3 It aims to explain clearly what the provisions of article 6 require in the context of hydropower facilities, and like the WFD, is based on the principle of non-deterioration of Natura 2000 sites. The Commission is however not entitled to give further orientations of a general nature beyond what is written in the law for instance it cannot recommend that Natura 2000 sites should be treated as no-go areas for hydropower, this goes beyond what the legislation says. Session 1: Strategic Planning Two presentations were given on: planning instruments to balance hydropower development and protection or restoration of aquatic environments (France) and on the guiding principles on sustainable hydropower development in the Danube basin (ICPDR) (see EC circabc site for ppts 2 ). This was followed by a discussion on the presentations and the wider issue of strategic planning. The following comments were made: Stakeholder dialogue and consultation at the river level, as well as detailed consultations with local authorities, was vital in France to gain general acceptance for the need to remove certain dams completely from existing river stretches and improve others, before considering whether new ones could be eventually introduced outside agreed exclusion zones; The environmental NGOs considered that the ICPDR 2013 hydropower guiding principles did not represent a balanced approach, to them it seemed like a toolbox for hydropower development but at least it allocated Natura 2000 sites as non favourable overall; The hydropower sector strongly disagreed with this view and stressed that the hydropower industry is totally committed to the ICPDR process and has made major commitments to also improve existing hydropower facilities; All agreed there is a need to ensure good data quality for strategic planning should be strongly emphasised throughout the document. A big problem is the lack of robust data on biodiversity; In Wales, zoning systems are used as a means for strategic planning and as a tool for steering developers to less sensitive sites this is not the same as no-go areas. It is simply meant as a kind of forewarning to developers that the procedures are likely to be more stringent in these areas and the level of mitigation required will also be that much greater; Strategic planning should start from the perspective of the WFD and that of nondeterioration of a river and the need to work towards a good water status; Strategic planning should not be just about locational planning and looking for alternative sites, but also about alternative energy sources. The national level is the best level at which this can be decided and alternatives could be considered also in line with the NEAPs. Planning has to start as early as possible in the process to be of any real help; participants from the hydropower sector expressed their negative experiences with public consultation eg SEAs are sometimes not very useful at plan level; They also stressed that the financial incentives have to be there for hydropower development otherwise the demand for new power will be very low. 2?? 3

4 Session 2: Impacts of hydropower on Natura 2000 Two presentations were given on: the environmental impacts of hydropower on fish - Czech Republic, and the impacts of hydropower and core demands for hydropower Germany (see ppts). This was followed by a discussion on impacts. Comments: Some participants questioned why there was a strong focus on diadromous fish only, all fish are mobile and could be affected; also care should be taken in saying that upstream removal of barriers has no ecological benefits simply because diadromous fish don t benefit; Terrestrial species and habitats should be better taken into consideration, for instance golden eagles in Scotland have been known to be affected by hydropower installations because of the need for new roads to the plant which could traverse through woodlands of importance for the species; When considering impacts it is important not to look at hydropower in isolation but rather in connection with all other river uses as well. More description should be given of the impacts on the surrounding riparian zones, eg loss of spawning sites. It is not just about making rivers passable, many other impacts can result in habitat loss or deterioration; There should be more emphasis placed on restoring and reconnecting the river continuum and improving the structure and dynamics of water bodies. More attention should be paid to ecological flows (Ref CIS doc N 31) as well as continuity, lateral connectivity with the surrounding floodplains and sedimentation transport. The environmental NGOs asked that the document also stress better the problems with cumulative effects and the effectiveness rates within hydropower plants that succeed each other. The first may be 90% effective but by the 5 th one this will be reduced to 50% effective. It is important to look at the impacts at a strategic level in the WFD and RBMPs to be able to properly cover cumulative and connectivity issues; In Wales it has been possible to identify impacts through hydrological modelling especially when modelling extraction regimes using natural flow and residual flow predictions. Such modelling techniques are very useful as a tool for planning and designing hydropower but it is still important to emphasise that the analysis of potential impacts has always to be done on a case by case basis; There is a lot of expertise in the use of fish passes in the US which could be explored further for the purposes of the guide; at a recent conference on fish migration there was a general view amongst fish experts that downstream mitigation measures don t work; The environmental NGOs considered that the document gave a misleading impression that hydropower can have no or very limited impacts, it is always damaging to a river and the impacts can only be significant or highly significant when measured against the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site even after mitigation there may still be a residual impact. There should be a better distinction made between pressures and threats (on page 42). 4

5 Session 3: Mitigation measures Two presentations were given on: Measures to mitigate impact of hydropower use on aquatic environment Austria, and impacts and mitigation for micro-hydropower developments Wales (see ppts). This was followed by a discussion on measures. Comments: A mitigation measures library is currently being established as part of the work being done on the WFD Ecostat Working group this should be consulted and referenced in the current document; The document should stress further that it is essential that the search for mitigation is done using a robust scientific approach; The document should also make reference to mitigation measures for terrestrial species eg linked to lateral connectivity issues; Developers should engage with NGOs during site selection and the identification of mitigation measures as the latter may be able to provide valuable ideas and advice; Pre construction surveys are important to address potential time lags caused by introducing mitigation measures during the construction phase. Mitigation should start long before the construction work begins to be sure that the measures will work and it is not just a last minute emergency measure; Details of mitigation measures should be made public so that everyone is aware of all the environmental sensitivities that should be monitored from the beginning. The information can sometimes get lost between the initial developer and the final construction company contracted to carry out the work. A different approach is needed for already Heavily Modified Bodies it is not just about ecological flows in such cases; The precautionary principle should be further emphasised; Pariticipants from the angling sector pointed out that fees paid by the investors for construction and water use in some countries are negligible compared to those of other businesses. In some cases, small hydropower plants pay less than the farmers for irrigation and do not pay for the construction in the river beds and are thus put in advantageous position. These costs should be internalized more. However, participants from the hydropower sector disagreed with this statement and considered that environmental costs at hydropower installations are (as opposed to other energy technologies) almost always internalised. Conclusion and next steps The Commission thanked the participants for their contributions and emphasised that it will take these into consideration when preparing the next draft, alongside the written comments received. The consultation process was very useful as it provided an opportunity to hear the different and sometimes opposing views of stakeholders and to help find areas of common ground wherever possible. 5

6 The Commission has noted in particular the need to change the language of the document to better explain what it is aiming to achieve and where its limits lie. Special attention will also be give to more clearly situating the guidance within the overall framework of the WFD. All relevant documents and powerpoint presentations will be uploaded on the Ec circabc site in the coming days. Those who wish to contribute any further practical experiences, technical materials, case studies or additional views were asked to do so by the end of July. The intention is to finalise the document, if possible, by the end of the year but this might need to be reconsidered if it become clear there may be a need for another stakeholder meeting on the next draft. The Commission will first need to discuss this internally and with the Member States authorities. 6