Hydropower and the WFD: constraint or opportunity? Dr Ute Collier Global Freshwater Programme WWF International

WWF position on hydropower Need for comprehensive energy option assessments Planning at national (energy policy) but also river basin level Priority to energy efficiency Designate ‘No – go’ rivers Small isn’t necessarily best Comprehensive mitigation measures in line with WFD requirements

Hydropower potential in the EU Currently exploited – almost 80% Few large hydro sites left but renewed push for small hydro 24 TWh - remaining small hydro potential Need to preserve ecological integrity of last remaining natural rivers & river stretches

hydropower production changes hydrological regime strong impact on river connectivity influences nutrient and sediment budget can destroy whole ecosystems irreversibly renewable: 17% global electricity low greenhouse emission instant availability & flexibility dilemma: hydropower production

Europe’s rivers are the most heavily dammed in the world VMAD = Virgin Mean Annual Discharge (from Nilsson et al, 2005)

Loss of ‘multi-purpose’ ecosystem functions natural flood control ground water recharge water purification erosion control salinity control biodiversity (fish, birds, trees, etc.) river fish and coastal fisheries (shellfish) employment (e.g. fishery, tourism)

Status of Wild Atlantic Salmon (19 countries incl. 9 EU countries) WWF, 2001 Hydropower dams and other man-made river obstructions form severe obstacles to upstream and downstream migration of salmon, so reducing population viability.

WFD demands improvement! Existing mitigation options such as: Fishladders Environmental flows Habitat restoration need to be refined to meet WFD, not business-as-usual

WFD and new hydro Art. 4.7 exemption: “New physical modification”, needs strict sustainability tests and mitigation Art. 4.8: No other water bodies in the river basin district are affected and other EU laws, including Habitats, Birds and EIA Directives, are respected Art. 4.9: Same level of environmental protection as other EU laws is guaranteed Art. 14 public participation, etc.

WFD and existing hydro Water bodies affected by existing hydro plants can be exempted from “good ecological status” if they are designated as HMWBs: Articles 4.3 (HMWB designation criteria), 4.8 and 4.9 “Good ecological potential” and “good chemical status”  mitigation required

WFD and hydro (cont’d) Open issues: definition of “impacted zone” definition of ‘infeasible’ or ‘disproportionately expensive’ hydro-morphology mitigation still needed maximum ecological potential – what are the reference conditions? cost-recovery – polluter pays rather than consumer pays

The way forward? ‘Greening’ electricity from hydropower

53 power plants 97 MW total capacity 483 GWh/year Rapid growth Some cost recovery through electricity tariffs

Conclusions Hydro has environmental benefits & costs Still much room for improvement & cost internalisation WFD as an opportunity for ecological improvements in hydropower ‘Green’ hydro standards as a possible model for WFD compliance?

Thank you ucollier@wwf.org.uk www.wwf.org/dams