1. WFD and Hydromorphology
CIS-Workshop
„2nd Workshop on Water Management, Water Framework Directive & Hydropower“
13-14 September 2011, Brussels, Belgium –
DE/UK WGL &
DG Environment, European Commission
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

2. General Information
2nd workshop on “Water Management, WFD and Hydropower” September 2011 in Brussels
Organised by Germany, UK and the EC together with a CIS Organising Committee of interested European States (AT, CH, ES, FI, FR, LU, NO, PT).
More than 110 participants: from 23 Member States, Norway & Switzerland; the European Commission; 11 stakeholder & non-governmental organisations
Workshop presentations available at:
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

3. Process
Draft issue paper - summary of European State questionnaires - sent to participants prior to workshop;
Draft conclusions & recommendations - discussed at last workshop plenary - revised and sent after workshop to participants for comments until 11th October
Active contribution of stakeholders and NGOs to conclusions & recommendations and issue paper
Final text decision: CIS Organising Committee
Final Issue Paper (with Conclusions & Recommendations) – to be distributed to participants after SCG meeting
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

4. Workshop objectives
Forum to exchange information and experiences, identify key knowledge gaps, issues for further discussion and common CIS activities on: 1. Options and tools of European States for measures to improve ecological status (GES) or potential (GEP): legal and technical tools and requirements, incentives. 2. Strategic planning tools on the catchment scale for the designation of “appropriate”, “less appropriate” and “not appropriate” areas for new hydropower plants 3. Approaches for the implementation of WFD Article 4.7.
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

5. Conclusions & Recommendations: Overview
Since 2007 CIS workshop on Hydropower & WFD, most MS finalised and published their 1st RBMPs and have begun the process of implementing programmes of measures
This practical experience underpinned and facilitated a good technical exchange. Countries and stakeholders still have much to learn from each other.
Integrating energy and water policy through the successful implementation of all Directives: (1) Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of renewable energy generation, (2) the WFD and (3) the Habitats and Birds Directives
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

6. Existing hydropower schemes: Conclusions
All countries aim to improve the water environment with minimum impact on renewable electricity generation:
Env. improvement without reduction in power generation (win-win)
Modernisation and upgrading of existing structures in order to minimize the need for new sites.
Potential reductions in existing hydroelectricity generation due to WFD implementation: 1,5%-5%.
Gaps in understanding the ecological effectiveness of mitigation measures for some adverse effects of HyPo But: Sufficient knowledge to start work on measures
More attention to mitigate effects of hydropower schemes on sediment transport continuity
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

7. Existing hydropower schemes: Recommendations
Good practices include:
Where possible, flexibility in the legal framework for timely revision of permit conditions
Engagement with hydropower operators and use of incentives to ensure progress towards achievement of environmental objectives
Ensure that any mitigation measures entailing a reduction in electricity generation or requiring significant investment also deliver significant environmental improvements.
Good practices to help maximise environmental benefits:
Prioritising mitigation action where there is reasonable certainty of significant environmental improvements (esp. multiple benefits)
Using no regrets measures and then fine-tune measures as knowledge about ecological needs improves.
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

8. Existing hydropower schemes: Recommendations
On-going efforts to improve understanding of the most ecologically effective mitigation. Good practices include:
Using monitoring programmes to better assess changes in WFD biol. indicators values and better understand effectiveness of measures
Stimulating and supporting innovation of lower impact techniques by sector. Examples: (a) providing advanced information of improvement requirements; (b) collaboration on and/or co-funding of R&D projects; (c) use of incentives and feed-in-tariffs conditioned on environmental improvement; (d) competitions for concessions (where the process allows it), based on best environmental performance.
Establishment of a mechanism to collate the outcomes of national research efforts on mitigation measures
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

9. Existing hydropower schemes: Recommendations
Good practice recommendations for mitigation measures:
An ecologically optimised river flow, including a relatively constant base flow and more dynamic/variable flows
Effective provision for upstream and downstream migration of fish
Dampening of hydropeaking by, e.g. gentle ramping or discharging tailrace flows into a retention basin
The choice and design of mitigation should take account of relevant site-specific circumstances, in particular the potential for ecological improvement
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

10. Existing hydropower schemes: HMWB designation
Some MS have designated water bodies affected by run-of-river schemes as well as by storage schemes as HMWB. Others have limited designation to water bodies affected by water storage schemes.
Give clear reasons and criteria for designation in accordance with the WFD Article 4(3) criteria when designating HMWB, particularly those not affected by water storage schemes
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

11. Strategic Planning: Conclusions
The RBM planning process provides an opportunity to integrate strategic planning for hydropower development with water environment objectives.
Good strategic planning can help streamline the authorisation process on proposed new hydropower developments and improve transparency and predictability for hydropower developers.
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

12. Strategic Planning: Recommendations
Good practices on strategic planning include:
Use it as key opportunity to integrate water, energy and other objectives
Link strategic planning for water, nature conservation and hydropower with national renewable energy planning
Involve all interested parties in the planning
Use planning process to help set priorities
Good practice uses of strategic plans:
To provide upfront information about where (geographically) gaining authorisation is more or less difficult
As a framework for project level decision-making
To help manage risk of cumulative impacts from schemes in (sub)river basin and to decommission plants on priority river sections
Establishing a mechanism to collate and share the criteria on which countries' strategic planning frameworks are based
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

13. Deciding whether deterioration is acceptable: Conclusions
Not all HyPo developments result in deterioration of status. For those that do, MS still able to authorise them where the WFD Article 4.7 exemption requirements are met.
Small hydropower can have significant adverse impacts on the water environment (inappropriate location or no adequate mitigation).
Requirements for new schemes and mitigation for existing schemes should be based on environ. risk/impact rather than on scheme size
Any financial support system for envir. Improvements should be linked to environmental performance rather than to size.
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

14. Deciding whether deterioration is acceptable: Conclusions
Article 4.7 tests are legal requirement for new modifications & their proper application reflects good practice in environmental decision-making
A HyPo project is not automatically of overriding public interest just because it will generate renewable energy. Each case has to be assessed on its own merits.
Addressing better alternative options in a strategic plan will make the application of the exemption tests more straightforward.
MS have only rarely reported on the application of Article 4.7 in the current RBMPs and the reasons for this are not clear.
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

15. Deciding whether deterioration is acceptable: Recommendations
Good practice examples on the application of WFD Article 4.7:
Embedding exemption tests in the normal authorisation process.
Being clear and transparent upfront and consult interested parties about the decision-making criteria;.
Creating a proportionate and streamlined system for decision-making with the aim of minimising unnecessary delays.
Making clear reasons for a decision to grant/refuse authorisation.
Better alternative options: Key consideration is whether the alternative provides an equivalent benefit to that of the scheme. Consider alternatives at the right geographic scale.
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels

16. Deciding whether deterioration is acceptable: Recommendations
Good practice in applying Article 4.7 involves balancing the benefits for society & the disadvantages/damages to public interest. Important to weigh ecological values, energy values and other benefits (transparent criteria)
Establish a mechanism to share information on the decision-making criteria used by MS on Article 4.7
SCG Meeting, 9-10 November 2011, Brussels