SHARE handbook by Mathieu Grapeloup

han dbook

A p ro b lem s o l v in g a p p r o a c h for su s taina b l e ma n a g e me n t of h y d r o p o we r a n d r iv e r e co sy s tem s in th e A l p s

h andbook

Fo reword ● Fa c e à la gest ion de l’eau suivez d’abord v otre ex p é ri ence puis votre raison. ● To c o p e with wat er follow your ex p e ri e n c e f irst, then your reason. ● Za o b v la d ovanje vode zaupajte i z k u š n j a m, š ele nato razlog. ● Um Wa sse r zu bewältigen, vertraue Sie i h re n e rst en Erfahrungen, dann den G ese tze n .

●

« Se t’ avvien d i trattar d elle acq u e co n s u lta p rim a l’ es p erien z a, e p o i la ragio n e » Leonardo da Vinci

I s h y d r op o we r r e ally “ green” ?

L’ en ergi a i droelettri ca è “pul it a” oppure dan neg gi a l’ ambient e?

●

Ho w m uch h y d r op o we r p o t en t i a l stil l r e ma in s in t h e A lp s?

● Do es h y d r o p o w er r ec ei v e en o u g h ec o n o mic in c en t i v e s fr o m n at io n al g o ver n m en t s?

Re s te- t- il encore un p oten ti el d e déve loppemen t p our l’ hydr oélect ri ci té d an s les A lpes ?

L’hydr oél ect r icit é es t -el l e s uffis am m ent s out enue par l es pol it iques gouv er nem ent al es ?

●

Does hydropow er affect agricult ure in the E U?

●

Rem ov ing wat er from a riv er could really cause serious dam age?

Glauben Si e, Wasserk raft beinfl uss t die EU L an dwi rtschaft?

A l i odvzem i vode iz r eke pov zr očajo r eal no/ r es no š ko d o?

●

M an y s ma l l h y d r o po we r pl a nts a r e b ette r tha n f e w lar g e p l a nts?

A li j e bolje več manjši h hidr oe lek trarn ko t n ek aj ve č jih?

●

Clim at e change could affect hydropower exploit ation?

Kann Kl im aänder ung die St r om pr oduk t io n a u s Wass ek raft beinfl uss en?

●

How much do local communities e ar n f r o m hy d r op o we r pr oduction?

Quanto “guadag nan o” le co mu nit à l ocal i da ll’idr oe lettri co ?

●

To what exten t i s it u seful to h ave a stream i n natural co nd iti on s?

A cos a “s er v e” un t or r ent e in buono s t at o?

●

W ho ma na g e s hy d ropower issues in the Alps and w h i ch cr ite r ia s up p o rt t he decision m aking?

Kdo je odločevalec s p odr očj a hidr oener gij e v A l pah in s k ak šnim i m er il i so p odprte nji hove odl očit v e? 3

h andbook

Ta b Ta lebo lef Contents of Contents P06

●

CONTRIBUTORS

P08

●

SECTION 1: THE PROBLEM TO BE ADDRESSED

P35

●

LINKS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

P40

●

SECTION 2: SHARE SOLUTION, HOW TO ...

P0 8

P1 3

P1 9

P2 6

P3 0

P4 0

P4 2 P4 3

P4 4

I NT RO DUC T ION - T H E A L P S, T H E “ WATE R TOW E R ” OF C ON TIN E N TA L E U R OP E A g re a t s o u rc e o f h y d ro p o w e r Riv e rs n a tu ra l c a p i ta l Con fl i c t o f u s e Hot q u e s ti o n s b o x CHAP TER 1 - D IF F E R E N T V IEW S OF A S IN GLE A S S E TS ’S FU TU R E HY DRO P OWE R A S A R EN EWA B LE R E S OU R C E I nc r e a s i n g d e m a n d fo r w a te r abstracti on Hy d ro p o w e r s ta te a n d tre n d s i n the A l pi ne area Hy d ro p o w e r p ro d u c ti o n & D i re cti ve 2009/28/E C Chapter 2 - D ifferent views of a single asset ’s future Alpine rivers - an environm ent to be protected Hy d ro p o w e r e x p l o i ta ti o n a n d the effect on ri veri ne ecosystems W FD i mp l e m e n ta ti o n , s tra te g ies and pol i ci es A bi o ti c & b i o ti c i n d i c a to rs to eval uate the status of the ri ver ecosystem I nd i c a to rs a n d i n d i c e s fo r b i o l ogi cal ri ver assessment I nd i c a to rs a n d i n d i c e s fo r p h y si co-chemi cal assessment Chapter 3 - D ifferent views of a single asset ’s future Alpine rivers - different stakeholders & ecosystem services to be considered A d i v e rs i ty o f e c o s y s te ms Comp l e x a n d i n te rre l a te d me chani sms A w i d e d i v e rs i ty o f h u ma n c o m muni ti es and stakehol ders. CHAP TER 4 - GR OW IN G C ON F L I C T OF U S E Diff e re n t v i e w s o f a s i n g l e re source’s future E U d i re c ti v e s , c o n tra d i c to ry o bj ecti ves? Hot q u e s ti o n s b o x

I NT RO D U C T ION - a ) S H A R E SOLU TION : B A LA N C IN G R IV E R E C OS Y S TE MS A N D H YDRO P OWE R R EQU IR E M EN T S, S U P P OR TIN G TH E D E C IS ION A N D MA KIN G TR A N S PARE NT A N D SH A R ED OB J E C T IV ES . M ak e th e b a l a n c e W h a t a re th e s e s te p s th a t y o u need to i denti fy? I NT RO D U C T ION - b ) M U LT I-C R ITE R IA A N A LY S IS : W H AT IS TH IS ? CHAP TER 1 - ST E P 1 : WH AT TO E VA LU ATE ? S TA KE H OLD E R S MA P P IN G, P R OB LE M AND T H E A LT ER N AT IVE S W h o a re th e s ta k e h o l d e rs i n v o l ved? W h a t i s a n a l te rn a ti v e ? I n c a s e s w h e re th e re i s a p ri o r pl ant operati ng I n c a s e s w h e re th e re i s a p ro j ect of hydropow er but w i thout a pre-exi sti ng pl ant CHAP TER 2 - ST E P 2 : H OW TO EVA LU ATE ? S Y S TE M D E S C R IP TION : C R ITE R IA , IN DI CATO R S , T H E D E C IS ION T R EE T he SH AR E d e c i s i o n tre e

h andbook

Ta b le of Contents CHAP TER 3 - ST E P 3 : H OW TO EVA LU ATE ? D E S C R IP TION OF H OW E A C H ALT E R N AT IVE C A U S ES EF F E C TS ON E A C H IN D IC ATOR . Des c ri p ti o n o f e a c h a l te rn a ti v e’s effect on the i ndi cators P r o c e s s o f n o rma l i z a ti o n : T h e U ti l i ty Functi on E x a mp l e w i th th e i n d i c a to r « IB E » (Index B i oti co E steso – Ital y) E x a mp l e w i th th e i n d i c a to r « A nnual hydroel ectri c producti on » We i g h ts Al l o c a ti o n S en s i ti v i ty a n a l y s i s

P4 8

P55

●

LINKS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

P56

●

SECTION 3: APPLYING SHARE

P87

●

Get involved in SHARE Network

P88

●

PRODUCTS LIST

P89

●

GLOSSARY

P89

●

ACRO NYMS

P90

●

FINANCIAL PARTNERS

P5 6 P6 2

P7 4

P8 4

CHAP TER 1 - WR A P U P: W H AT S H A R E D OE S & W H AT S H A R E D OE S N ’T D O T he SH AR E to o l b o x W h a t SH AR E d o e s n ’ t d o Chapter 2 - Pilot C ase S tudies : a concrete application of MC A to A lpine rivers P r o j e c t Pa rtn e rs Pi l o t C a s e S t udi es and management al ternati ves M C A i n d i c a to rs u s e d i n P C S Chapter 3 - SH A R E quality standards and guidelines to integrate MC A in law Dea l i n g w i th c o mp l e x i ty i s c e r tai nl y the mai n chal l enge for pol i cy makers. T he Al p i n e c h a l l e n g e Riv e r e c o s y s te ms v e rs u s h y d r opow er? E nvi ronment versus adaptati on to cl i mate c ha n g e ? P erti n e n t s c a l e s o f a c ti o n s : w here and w hen to i ntegrate the S H A R E MC A proc ed u re ? Leg a l a n d Ad mi n i s tra ti o n c o m petenci es I nt e g ra ti o n o f Mu l ti C ri te ri a Anal ysi s i n P l ans and P rograms M C A fo r p ro j e c t e v a l u a ti o n Con tra c t a n d a g re e me n ts a m o ng stakehol ders and betw een publ i c authori ti es and s t ak e h o l d e rs Chapter 4 - A new k ind of water governance Reg i o n a l e n v i ro n m e n ta l g o v e r nance

h andbook

C o n t ri b utor s Th is handbook i s th e re s u l t o f th e c o n tributi on of al l S H A R E ’s partners under the coordi nation of GE RE S ( G r oup fo r th e En v i ro n me n t, R e n ew abl e E nergy and S ol i dari ty) from the regi on P rovenceAlpes - Côt e d’Az u r i n F ra n c e a n d AR PA (R egi onal E nvi ronmental P rotecti on A gency) from the Aost a Valley in I t aly.

L ead Par t ner

ARPA Valle d’Aosta

PP 1

Regione Piemonte

PP 2

ARPA Veneto

PP 3

Research on Energy Systems S.p.A.

PP 4

E-zavod

PP 5

Univerza v Ljubljani

PP 6

Technische Universität Graz

M AMMOL IT I MOC H E T A ndrea L o c . Gra n d C harri ère, 44 - 11020 - S ai nt C hri stophe - Italy a .m a m m o l i ti mochet@ arpa.vda.i t

C L E M EN T E Fl ori ana Vi a P ri n c i p e A medeo, 17 - 10100 - Tori no - Italy fl o ri a n a .c l e m ente@ regi one.pi emonte.i t

SA C C AR D O Ital o Vi a . d e l C a n del , 65 - 32100 - B el l uno - Italy i s a c c a rd o @ arpa.veneto.i t

M AR AN Ste fano v i a R u b a tti n o 54 - 20134 - Mi l ano - Italy s te fa n o .ma ran@ rse-w eb.i t

ER L IH S a s a Č u č k o v a u l i c a, 5 - 2250 - P tuj - S lovenia s a s h @ e z a v od.si

SA N T L Sa s o Ko n g re s n i trg 12 - 1000 - Lj ubl j ana - S lovenia s a s o .s a n tl @ fgg.uni -l j .si

Institute for Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management, SC H N EID ER Josef Stre ma y rg a s se 10/II A - 8010 - Graz - A ustr ia s c h n e i d e r@ t ugraz.at

h andbook

PP 7

Universität Innsbruck

PP 8

Government of Styria

PP 9

Université Joseph Fourier Grenoble

PP 10

GERES

PP 11

Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Wasserbau

PP 12

AEM - Association Européenne des Elus de Montagne

R i v e r E c o l o g y and Invertebrate B i ol ogy Insti tute of E col ogy, F Ü R ED ER L e opol d, B A LD E S Marti n Te c h n i k e rs tr. 25 A - 6020 - Innsbruck - A ustr ia L e o p o l d .fu e reder@ ui bk.ac.at

D e p a rtme n t for Water R esources Management, L ES KY U rs Ste mp fe rg a sse, 7 - 8010 - Graz - A ustr ia u rs .l e s k y @ s tmk.gv.at

L a b o ra to i re d’ étude des Transferts en H ydrol ogi e et E nvi ronneme nt O SUG , BE L L EU D Y P hi l i ppe LT H E BP 5 3 - 38041 - Grenobl e - Fr ance p h i l i p p e .b e l l eudy@ uj f-grenobl e.fr

Gro u p e En e rgi es R enouvel abl es, E nvi ronnement et S ol i dari tés, R U IL L ET M a thi eu 2 c o u rs F o c h, 13400 A ubagne – Fr ance m .ru i l l e t@ g e res.eu

D e p t. o f H y d raul i c E ngi neeri ng and Water R esources Managemen t , KOP EC KI Ia ni na Ke p l e rs tra ß e 7 - 70174 - S tuttgart - Ger m any i a n i n a .k o p e cki @ i w s.uni -stuttgart.de

EV R A R D N i c ol as M a i s o n d e s P arcs et de l a Montagne, 2 5 6 , R u e d e l a R épubl i que - 73000 - C hambéry - Fr ance n i c o l a s .e v ra rd@ promonte-aem.net

Proofreading made by Dr. Daniel Edward CHAMBERLAIN Graphic design by www.izaberudesign.com

h andbook section 1

Sect i o n 1: The pr oble m t o b e ad d r ess ed ●

The Alps, the “water tower” of continental Europe

Riv er s and hy dro p o w e r a re a m o n g s t th e g reatest as s et s of t he A l p s . Hy dr opower is th e mo s t i mp o rta n t re n ew abl e re s our c e f or e l e c tri c i ty p ro d u c ti o n i n A l pi ne ar eas : it s hows c l e a r a d v a n ta g e s fo r th e gl obal CO 2 balanc e, b u t c re a te s s e ri o u s e c o l ogi cal i m pac t s at a l o c a l s c a l e . On th e o n e hand, hy dr oelec t r ic p ro d u c ti o n h a s to b e ma i n tai ned and inc r eas ed fo l l o w i n g th e d e m a n d tre n d and EU dir ec t iv es ’ ta rg e ts fo r 2 0 2 0 l e a d i n g to at l e as t 20% of e n e rg y c o n s u mp ti o n c o mi n g from re newable ener g y s o u rc e s . On t he ot her h a n d , h y d ro p o w e r c a n resul t in severe environmental impacts on river ec os y s t em s : t h e 2 0 0 0 /6 0 /E C Wa te r F ra m ew ork Dir ec t iv e t her e fo re o b l i g e s m e m b e r S ta tes to re ac h by 2015 ( o r m a i n ta i n ) a « g o o d » e c o l ogi cal sta t us in t heir w a te r b o d i e s .

A dmi ni strators dai l y face an i ncreasi ng de m and for w ater abstracti on, but l ack rel i abl e too ls t o ri gorousl y eval uate the effects of w ater w i thd r awal on mountai n ri vers and on energeti c, econ om ic and soci al factors over l onger ti me sc ales: i n the w hol e A l pi ne area, there i s an evident need for a rel i abl e and i ntegrated approac h f or deci si on maki ng rel ated to hydropow er and r iver management. The A l ps provi de the most i mportant freshwat er suppl y of conti nental E urope: the R hi ne, the Po, the R hone and several tri butari es of the D a nube ori gi nate here. Vari ous ecosystems and millions of E uropean ci ti zens depend on A l pi ne ri ver s f or thei r dri nkabl e w ater and thei r food supply, as w el l as economi c acti vi ti es (i ndustry, tour ism , forestry, navi gati on…).

● A g r e a t source of hydropower Eu r ope is hungry fo r e n e rg y : o v e r th e l a s t decade, el ectri ci ty producti on has been steadi l y i ncre asing i n line wit h ene rg y d e m a n d .

E l ec tr i c E ner gy [ 100 0 G Wh ]

3.400 3.300 3.200 3.100 3.000 2.900 2.800 1996

1997

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Time [y]

Electric energy production in the EU 27, 1996 – 2006 Sour c e : E u r o s t a t y e a r b o o k 2 0 0 9

2005

2006

h andbook

section 1

H yd ro p o w er i s th e m o s t im p o r ta n t r e newable r esour ce for electr icity pr oduction in E urope: a lm os t 84% of t h e e l e c tri c i ty g e n e ra te d fro m renew abl e energy sources i n the E U 15, and 19% of t ot al e lec t r ic it y pr odu c ti o n i n th e w h o l e E U , i s generated by hydropow er (source: IE A , 2004). 4000

57.573

3500 49.908

4.193

4.102

35.518

GWh

3000 2500 2000

35.468 64.903 66.857

1500

Italy

1000 500

57.840 27.874 38.966

0 Hydroelectric

1.847 6 573 25.509 924

Windpower

5.437 2

29 17 10 557 11

Geothermic

Photovoltaic

Switzerland

352 91 27 1.371 3.900 1.745

Biomass

Slovenia France

41.648

Germany Austria

TOTAL (GWh)

Energy produced by renewable sources in EU 15 Source: IEA, 2004

On t he whole, h y d ro p o w e r p ro v i d e s a s i g ni fi cant p r opor t ion of e n e rg y re q u i re m e n ts i n th e A l pi ne count r ies , es pe c i a l l y fro m b i g p l a n ts w i th dams a nd r es er v oir s , p ro d u c i n g p e a k c u r r e n t when e lect ri ci t y co n s u m p tio n p e a k s . H y dr opower is a fl e x i b l e a n d ma tu re te c h nol ogy a nd c r eat es jo b s i n m o u n ta i n a re a s : A l pi ne te r r it or ies hav e a h i g h l y s tra te g i c i n te r est i n d ev eloping and m a i n ta i n i n g a h i g h h y d ro pow er g ener at ion c apa c i ty. Th e s ear c h f or l o w c a rb o n p o w e r g e n e ra t i on, i n com binat ion wit h fl u c tu a ti n g p ri c e s a n d s uppl i es o f f os s il f uels , a re s tro n g i n c e n ti v e s for the d ev elopm ent an d ma i n te n a n c e o f h y d ro p o wer. H P is a f u t u re- p roo f e n e r g y s u p p ly , s i g n i f i cantl y i m pr ov ing ener g y re s i l i e n c e a n d p ro v i d i n g soci oe c onom ic bene fi ts .

R enew abl e E nergy S ources (2009/28/ EC) : obl i gatory targets have been set for 2020, f or the E U as a w hol e and for each Member St at e, l eadi ng to at l east 20% of energy consumpt ion comi ng from renew abl e energy sources.

Gi v en t he adv a n ta g e s o f h y d ro p o w e r, th e re i s a n eed f or E U co u n tri e s to i n c re a s e th e i r share o f r enewable e l e c tri c i ty p ro d u c ti o n a c c ordi ng to t he Dir ec t iv e o n E l e c tri c i ty Pro d u c ti o n from â&#x2013;˛ R osel end dam and reservoi r, France

ÂŠPhilippe Belleudy - University Joseph Fourier Grenoble

h andbook section 1

●

The Alps, the “water tower” of continental Europe

In addit ion t o la rg e h y d ro p o w e r s ta ti o n s , there are thousands of smal l er hydropow er stati ons wit h ca pac it ies of le s s th a n 1 0 M e g a w a tts , c ontri buti ng about 2% of the total el ectri ci ty i n the E U new small hy dr opow e r fa c i l i ti e s : g e n e ra l l y, th e A l ps have seen a gr owth in the num ber of new smal l plan t s an d a su b s e q u e n t r e d u c tio n o f a ver age power installed.

Sour c e: Aos t a Valley Region a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , e l a b o r a t i o n A R PAV D A , 2 0 11

The t r end in hy d ro p o w e r fa c i l i ti e s a n d p ow er generated i n the A osta Val l ey regi on (N W Ital y ) . An i n c r eas e in t he n u m b e r o f p l a n ts a n d a d ecrease i n average pow er generated i s evi dent from t he 1980s onwar ds .

● R i v e r s ’ natural capi tal The c har ac t er is ti c s o f m o u n ta i n te rri to ri e s w hi ch provi de an excel l ent basi s for hydropow er gener at ion al s o c ons t it ut e a n e x c e p ti o n a l e n v i ro n m e n tal asset. Hyd ro p o w er ca n n o t r e a lly e v e r b e a « g r een» po w er: it of t en re s u l ts i n s e v e re h y d ro l ogi cal ch anges , dam a g e to th e c o n n e c ti v i ty o f w ater bodies , des t r uc ti o n o f ri v e r e c o s y s te ms and i m pair m ent of e c o l o g i c a l fu n c ti o n a l i ty. Al pine r iv er s , a n d th e i r a s s o c i a te d b i o d i v ersi ty, ar e of t en m or e v u l n e ra b l e th a n th o s e d o w n stream or in lowlands . T h e y h a v e b e e n s u b j e c t to a l o ng his t or y of h u m a n e x p l o i ta ti o n , re s u l t i ng i n co ns ider able im p a c ts o n b i o d i v e rs i ty i n ri ver and r ipar ian ec o s y s te ms . It i s e s ti m a te d that about 90% of A l p i n e ri v e rs a re n o l o n g e r i n thei r nat ur al s t at e: th e re m a i n i n g n a tu ra l c a p i tal i s under v er y high p re s s u re ! A hy br id of M ar b l e d tro u t a n d B ro w n tro u t i n the Chalam y Riv er, Ita l y. Ma n y Al p i n e fi s h s p eci es ar e f ac ing t hr ea ts , s u c h a s fra g m e n ta ti o n (due to HP or ot her fa c i l i ti e s ) o r h y b ri d i z a ti o n . ► 10

©Erik HENCHOZ–Aosta Valley Autonomous region, Direction de la faune, de la flore, de la chasse et de la pêche

h andbook

●

section 1

The Alps, the “water tower” of continental Europe

C lim at e c hange s tre s s e s th e s e e c o s y s te ms, and threatens human communi ti es that rel y on t hem . Signif ic ant r iv e r mo d i fi c a ti o n c a u s e d b y l ong-establ i shed H P devel opments are often consider ed “c om m on & norma l ” a n d a s s u c h a re o fte n accepted as envi ronmental l y fri endl y. Furthermore , t he 2 000/ 60/ E C Wa te r F ra m e w o rk D i re c ti v e obl i ges member S tates to reach by 2015 (or mai ntain) a « good» ec ologi c a l s ta tu s i n th e i r w a te r b o di es. Th er e ar e a lot o f e c o lo g ic a l s e r v ic e s provi ded by a heal thy ri ver ecosystem to l ocal comm unit y stak eholder s in v o l v e d i n to u ri s m a n d l e i s u re acti vi ti es, l andscape conservati on, mountai n agri cult ur e a nd angling.

Wat er s por t s on th e D o ra Ba l te a ri v e r b a s i n

Modified from the Aosta Valley River Basin Management Plan, 2006

Riv er Lands c ap e s i n Ao s ta Va l l e y ©Andrea Mammoliti Mochet , ARPAVDA

Ao s t a Valley ( N W Ita l y ) Irrigat ion is v ery i mp o rta n t fo r mo u n ta i n agr ic ult ur e es pe c i a l l y i n d ry a re a s o f th e Al ps.

Modified from the Aosta Valley River Basin Management Plan, 2006

h andbook section 1

●

The Alps, the “water tower” of continental Europe

Fi shi ng and angl i ng i n A l pi ne ri vers are cu lt ur al and touri sti c assets ©Antonio Crea, Aosta Valley Fichermen Association

Finally, r iv er c o n s e rv a ti o n a n d re s to ra ti o n are key i ssues for both bi odi versi ty and l ocal communit ies.

● Co n fl i c t of use Str et c hes of r iv e r th a t h a v e a h i g h e n v i ro nmental status are percei ved as i ncreasi ngl y val uabl e since they hav e bec o m e m o re a n d m o re ra r e i n the A l pi ne regi on. Thus, many acti vi ti es rel y on t he mo unt ain r iv er s s u c h a s i rri g a ti o n , d ri n k a bl e w ater, touri sm and sport, fi shi ng, di l uti on w astew a t er. . . At t he s am e ti me , th e s e ri v e r s tre tc h e s consti tute an i mportant share of the remai ni ng pot ent ial for f ut ur e hy dr o p o w e r g e n e ra ti o n .

● H o t q u e s ti ons box Is hy dr opower r e a l l y “g re e n ”? How m uc h hy dro p o w e r p o te n ti a l s ti l l re mai ns i n the A l ps? Does hy dr opow e r a ffe c t a g ri c u l tu re i n th e E U ? Reduc ing hy dr o p o w e r p ro d u c ti o n me a n s not onl y an economi c l oss, but al so a deni al of t he co ns ider at ion o f th e w h o l e e n e rg y s y s te m and the conti nuous trend of energy demand. Ma ny s m all hy d ro p o w e r p l a n ts a re b e tte r than few l arge pl ants? How m uc h do lo c a l c o m m u n i ti e s e a rn fro m hydropow er producti on? Does hy dr opow e r re c e i v e e n o u g h e c o n o m i c i ncenti ves from nati onal governments? Rem ov ing wat er fro m a ri v e r c o u l d re a l l y cause seri ous damage? Clim at e c hange c o u l d a ffe c t h y d ro p o w e r expl oi tati on? To what ex t ent i s i t u s e fu l to h a v e a s tre a m i n natural condi ti ons? Who m anages h y d ro p o w e r i s s u e s i n th e A l ps and w hi ch cri teri a support the deci si on maki ng? How t o balanc e e n v i ro n me n ta l p ro te c ti o n targets for cl i mate (through renew abl e energy product ion) wit h ac hiev ing a g o o d s ta tu s fo r a l l w a te rs at the same ti me? Hy dr opower pote n ti a l h a s a l re a d y b e e n d e vel oped to a consi derabl e extent i n our A l pi ne regi on s? Mo unt ain adm in i s tra to rs d a i l y fa c e a n i n creasi ng demand for w ater abstracti on, but lack r eli abl e too l s t o r igor ou s l y e v a l u a te i ts e ffe c ts o n mountai n ri vers and on energeti c, economi c and s ocial fac t or s ov er a lo n g e r ti me s c a l e . 12

h andbook

section 1

S ect i o n 1: The proble m t o b e ad d r ess ed ●

Chapter 1 - Different views of a single assets’s future Hydropower as a renewable resource

H y dr opower ac c o u n ts fo r a s u b s ta n ti a l p ro porti on o f t he A lpine a re a `s to ta l re n e w a b l e e l e ctri ci ty g ener at ion. B a l a n c i n g th e e c o n o m i c i n terests o f elec t r ic it y ge n e ra ti o n w i th th e e n v i ro n mental n eeds of t he r iv e r e c o s y s te m i s e s s e n ti a l for the Alpine r egion. Wa te r p l a y s a n i mp o rta n t ro l e both

as a key economi c factor and as a l i fe-susta ining force, si nce hydropow er i n the A l ps rel i es on runoff from the mountai ns. S ustai nabl e and appropri ate use of w ater i n support of i ntegr at ed ri ver management i s one of the topi c area s t hat the S H A R E proj ect seeks to devel op.

● I n c r e a s i ng dem and for w ate r abs traction Wat er abs t r ac t i o n c o n s ti tu te s a s i g n i fi c a nt human i nfl uence on ri ver ecosystems. Water reso ur ces a r e lim it ed in q u a n ti ty a n d c h a n g e s i n w a ter avai l abi l i ty are l i kel y to l ead to confl i cts, si nce wat er a v ailabilit y and d e ma n d v a ry re g i o n a l l y. The appropri ate steps have to be taken to meet demands w hils t pr es er v in g th e v i ta l re s o u rc e , w a t er. E conomi c benefi ts must be bal anced agai nst wat er supplies t o s er v i c e v u l n e ra b l e e c o s y s te m s . Th e A lps play q ues t ions ar e th e f ut ur e: ● How ● How

a n i mp o rta n t ro l e i n a c c u m ul ati ng w ater to E urope’s ri ver basi ns. The fol l ow i ng t wo u rg e n t fo r th e A l p i n e re g i o n and can be expected to become even more i mport ant in c a n th e g ro w i n g d e ma n d for w ater be met? w i l l w a te r re s o u rc e d e ma n d i n the A l ps evol ve i n the future?

Unc er t aint y ov e r th e i m p a c t o f a b s tra c ti o n on the envi ronment can cause i rreversi bl e damage to r iver ec os y s t em s , be c a u s e ri v e r e c o s y s te m s a re compl ex and subj ect to a vari ety of pressures.

Conceptual links between water uses and pressures related to physical modifications, resulting in changes to hydrological regimes, disruption of the river continuum and sediment transport © European Environment Agency (EEA): The European e n v i r o n m e n t - s t a te a n d outlook 2010

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 1 - Different views of a single assets’s future Hydropower as a renewable resource

▲ E ff ec t s of h y d ro p e a k i n g a t th e S ö l k b ach at S t ein an der E n n s

A certai n amount of w ater needs to be ret ained i n ri vers to mai ntai n thei r ecol ogi cal i nte gr it y. R i ver di scharge has been changed i n se ver al A l pi ne streams by abstracti on for hydrop ower (S ource: Mai ol i ni , B runo 2007). The rel ea se of turbi nated w aters l eads to sudden chang es in w ater di scharge, termed hydropeaki ng, which has negati ve effects on the ri ver ecosystem .

● H y d r o p ow er state and tren ds in the Al pine ar ea Be c aus e of t hei r p h y s i c a l fe a tu re s (s te e p sl opes, hi gh l evel s of preci pi tati on, gl aci ers as stor es of wat er in t he f orm o f i c e ), th e A l p s a re a k ey source of renew abl e energy. H ydr opower alr eady has a lon g t rad i t i o n in th is r e g io n th r o u g h th e use of water m ills over m any gener ations. Th e Al p i n e reg io n is a n a r e a o f c o n flic t between ecological and econom ical dem ands. O n t he one hand, a v ery h i g h h y d ro p o w e r p o te n ti al i s l ocated there, but on the other, the uni queness of t he re m aining unex p l o i te d ri v e rs i s e n d a n g e re d by i ncreasi ng hydropow er devel opment. The t r end of g l a c i a l re tre a t a n d h i g h e r temperature as a resul t of gl obal cl i mate change will def init ely aff ec t Al p i n e h y d ro p o w e r g e n e rati on i n the future. C l i mate change w i l l l ead to changes i n t he hy dr olog i c a l c y c l e , a n d th u s p o s e s numerous potenti al ri sks to ri ver ecosystems i n the Alps (d ec r eas ed r uno ff, s h i ft o f ti m i n g a n d d i s tri buti on of runoff), al though i t i s di ffi cul t to predi ct the det ail of t he im pac t . Th e s p a ti a l a n d te mp o ra l vari abi l i ty of runoff w i l l i ncrease, w i th the resul ti ng d anger of pot ent ially h i g h e r fl o o d p ro b a b i l i ti e s . As a consequence, hydropow er reservoi rs mi ght be used i n c r eas ingly f or fl o o d re te n ti o n p u rp o s e s . The fi gure bel ow show s an exampl e of how cl i mate ch ange i s pr ojec t ed t o l e a d to s i g n i fi c a n t c h a n g e s i n yearl y and seasonal ri ver fl ow and w ater avai l abi lit y.

Relative change in annual river flow and change in seasonal river flow for the river Rhone between a future scenario of climate change (2071–2100) and reference period (1961–1990) © E u r o p e a n E n v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y ( E EA) : The European environment - state and outlook 2010

h andbook

●

section 1

Chapter 1 - Different views of a single assets’s future Hydropower as a renewable resource

Mo st p o t en t i al s ite s fo r h y d r o p o we r p lants in th e Al p s h ave e ith e r a lr e a d y b e e n d e v e loped, or are w i t h i n n a tu r e c o n s e r v a tio n ar eas. Equipping ex is ti n g p o w e r p l a n ts w i th more e ff ic ient t ur bine s c a n b e a c o s t-e ffe c ti v e w ay to realiz e eff ic ienc y g a i n s .

The fol l ow i ng tw o Tabl es show the pow er o ut put of both smal l and l arge hydropow er pl ants ( HPP) i n the A l pi ne regi on. The threshol d betw een sm all and l arge hydropow er pl ants i s often def ined w i th a bottl eneck capaci ty of 10 MW.

CO U N T RY

2008

2009

It aly

2 542.0

2 588.0

Fr anc e

2 079.0

2 082.0

Ge r m any

1 552.0

1 590.0

A us t r ia

820.0

842.0

Slov enia

155.0

159.0

Total small net hydraulic capacity (< 10 MW) operating in the Alpine region of the European Union countries (in MW) Source: EurObserv’ER 2010

CO U N T RY

N U MB E R OF H P P (P OWE R OU TP U T > 10 MW )

TOTAL POWER OUTPUT IN MW (POWER OUTPUT > 10 MW)

It aly

169

14.403

Fr anc e

128

12.552

A us t r ia

11 2

8.235

Ge r m any

523

Slo v enia

516

Hydropower stations with a power output greater than 10 MW in the Alps Source: Alpine Convention, State of the Alps III

In t he t wo m ap s p a g e 1 6 , th e g e o g ra p h i c al di stri buti on of l arge dams and hydropow er pl ants in t he Alpine r egion is s h o w n . T h e d a ta c o l l e c ted for the 2 nd A l p R eport amount to an i nstal l ed capacit y of the power plants o f o v e r 2 8 Gi g a w a tt [GW ], produci ng over 46 Teraw att-hours of el ectri ci ty each year [T W h/ y r ] ( S our c e : A l p i n e C o n v e n ti o n 2 0 0 9). In addi ti on to thi s, there are al so hundreds of smaller hy dr oelec t r ic pl a n ts s i tu a te d i n th e A l p i n e regi on.

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 1 - Different views of a single assets’s future Hydropower as a renewable resource

▼ Lar ge dam s i n th e A l p i n e re g i o n (2 0 0 8 )

©Alpine Convention, 2 n d Report on the State of the Alps

L a rg e h y d ro p o w e r s ta ti o ns w i th capaci ti es of more than 10MW i n the A l ps (2008) ▼

©Alpine Convention, 2nd Report on the State of the Alps

h andbook

●

section 1

Chapter 1 - Different views of a single assets’s future Hydropower as a renewable resource

C ons ider ing t he l a rg e n u mb e r o f p u mp e d-storage pow er pl ants l ocated i n the A l ps, the i mport ance o f t he A lpine r e g i o n w i th i n th e Eu ro p e a n energy system becomes obvi ous. Thi s storage capacit y will mos t lik ely be fu rth e r e x p a n d e d i n th e n e ar future and w i l l support the stabi l i ty of the gri d throughout Eur ope. An int er es t ing id e a fo r th e fu tu re o f h y d ro p ow er, proposed by the E U proj ect C H 2OIC E (w w w.ch2 oice. e u) , is t he c er ti fi c a ti o n o f h y d ro p o w e r. T h i s w oul d mean a feasi bl e certi fi cati on procedure («green la b el l i n g ») f or h y d ro p o w e r p l a n ts to re ach the goal of more sustai nabl e hydroel ectri ci ty, being renewable as w e l l a s e n v i ro n m e n ta l l y fri e ndl y for ri ver ecosystems.

● H y d r o p o w er producti on & Dir ective 2009/28 /EC The Di rect i ve 2 0 0 9 /2 8 /EC fo r th e p r o m o tion of e n erg y f ro m re n e wa b le s o u r c e s s e ts a tar get of a 20% sh are o f e n e r g y fr o m r e n e wa b les for th e w h o l e E u r o p e a n U n io n b y th e y e a r 2020. Th e inc r eas e o f th e p ro d u c ti o n o f re n e w abl e e ner gy is an ab s o l u te n e c e s s i ty to me e t the goal o f a r educ t ion i n C O 2 e mi s s i o n s . As a c ons eque n c e , th i s w i l l p ro b a b l y a l s o l ead to enhanc ed e c o n o m i c g ro w th , s i n c e many Eu r opean c om p a n i e s a re c u rre n tl y a mo ng the wor ld leader s i n re s e a rc h a n d d e v e l o p ment of re newable ene rg y te c h n o l o g i e s . T h e annual Eu r O bs er v ’E R re p o rt “T h e Sta te o f R e n e w abl e En er gies in Eu ro p e ” p ro v i d e s b a c k g round i n f or m at ion on th e re n e w a b l e e n e rg y re a l i sati on and t he r enew a b l e e n e rg y s h a re i n the E U Me m ber S t at es .

The key data for the year 2010 of the E uro pean U ni on countri es (E U -27) are the fol lowing (E urObserv’ E R 2011):

● R enew abl e energy share of gross fi nal ener gy consumpti on: 12.4% i n 2010 (11.5% i n 2009) ● R enew abl e energy share i n total el ec t r icit y consumpti on: 19.8% i n 2010 (18.2% i n 2009)

● R enew abl e energy share of gross i nl and ener gy consumpti on: 9.9% i n 2010 (9.1% i n 2009) In the tabl e bel ow, the progress of the A l pi n e EU member countri es and the nati onal target s f or the year 2020 i s show n.

CO UNT RY

2009

2010

2020

Austria

30. 2%

30.7%

34.0%

Sloven ia

19. 7%

21.7%

25.0%

Fra nce

11. 7%

12.4%

23.0%

Germa ny

9. 3%

10.7%

18.0%

Italy

7. 7%

8.5%

17.0%

Share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy in 2010 and national overall targets for 2020 Source: EurObserv’ER 2011

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 1 - Different views of a single assets’s future Hydropower as a renewable resource

A f ir s t m ap of t h e re s i d u a l p o te n ti a l c o mi ng from a census of exi sti ng H P pow er pl ant demands at Al pine S pac e s c a l e i s a v a i l a b l e a s a n e l e c troni c annex.

Maps of residual HP potential in Alpine Space

● H y d r o p ow er has m any advantages compar ed to other r enewable s:

● The high efficiency of up to 90%, which makes hydropower much more efficient than solar

● Hy dr o p o w e r i s i n d e p e n d e n t o f s u nshi ne or w i nd speed, w hi ch enabl es uni nterrupted power

ener gy o r w i n d p o w e r;

gener at i o n ; ● I nv es tme n ts i n h y d ro p o w e r a re characteri zed by rel ati vel y hi gh i ni ti al costs, but fol l owed by long r un n i n g p e ri o d s a n d v e ry l o w operati ng costs; ● Hy dr o p o w e r e n a b l e s a q u i c k re s ponse to gri d demand fl uctuati ons caused by other rene wable s our c es; ● S inc e o th e r re n e w a b l e e n e rg i e s such as sol ar and w i nd are not competi ti ve, thei r devel opm ent has t o b e s u p p o rte d th ro u g h p u b l i c fundi ng.

In t he c har t bel o w, th e re l e v a n c e o f h y d ro pow er for el ectri ci ty producti on i n the A l pi ne countr ies is sh own. W hile t h e i m p o rta n c e i n Au s tri a a nd S w i tzerl and i s very hi gh, i n Germany hydropow e r has only a m ar ginal s h a re o f o v e ra l l e l e c tri c i ty producti on.

h andbook

section 1

S ect i o n 1: The proble m t o b e ad d r ess ed ●

Chapter 2 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - an environment to be protected

Th e A lps c ons t i tu te o n e o f th e mo s t i mp o rtant bi odi versi ty hotspots at a gl obal l evel , but as i n ever y com plex s y s t em , i t i s a l s o fra g i l e a n d v u l n erabl e to human i mpacts. R unning wat er s h a v e b e e n mo d i fi e d b y man across the centuri es for several purposes su ch as fi s her ies , nav ig a ti o n , i rri g a ti o n , d ra i n a g e , dri nki ng w ater or w aste di sposal . Wi th the begi nni ng of t he 2 0 t h c ent ur y, hy d ro p o w e r b e c a me th e m o s t i mportant source of el ectri ci ty generati on. The great est pr opor t ion of e l e c tri c p o w e r i s g e n e ra te d by onl y a few l arge pl ants, but most of the A l pi ne r iver s ar e af f ec t ed by ma n y th o u s a n d s o f s ma l l hydropow er pl ants. The D i recti ve 2000/60/E C , w i t h t he env ir onm ent al o b j e c ti v e o f a c h i e v i n g a n d /o r mai ntai ni ng a “good” ecol ogi cal status of w ater bodies by 2015, has c r eate d a c o m p l e x a n d c o mp re hensi ve framew ork for the conservati on of surface w a t er s. Fr om t he s m al l e s t w a te rc o u rs e to th e bi ggest ri v er, all A lpin e ri v e rs a n d s tre a m s host an ext rao rd i n ary d iv e r s ity o f h a b ita ts a n d species of f l o ra an d f a u n a , ma k i n g th e A l p s o n e of the mo s t im por t ant b io d iv e r s ity h o ts p o ts a t a gl obal l e v el. Al pine f r es hwa te rs a re h i g h l y d y n a m i c systems: thank s t o a high a m o u n t o f s o l i d tra n s p o rt, natural ri v er s and s t r e a m s p e ri o d i c a l l y d e s tro y ol d, and creat e new, ha b i ta ts . T h e s e d y n a mi c p r ocesses creat e and s up p o rt o p ti m a l e c o l o g i c a l c ondi ti ons for t he gr owt h a n d c o n s e rv a ti o n o f a l l b iol ogi cal co m m unit ies of A l p i n e w a te rc o u rs e s . But today, only ab o u t 10% o f th e r iv e r s a n d s tr eam s of the Al p s can be c o n s id e r e d e c o lo g ic a lly intact: the r em aining 9 0 % i s fre q u e n tl y p o l l u te d , overengineer ed and c o mp ro mi s e d i n te rm s o f i ts fl ow re gim e.

▲ D ora di Ferret ri ver - A osta Val l ey R egi on - I t aly

● H y d r o p o w er ex ploi tati on an d the effect on r iver ine ecos ys tems U nim pair ed r iv e rs h a v e th e a b i l i ty to s e l f-s upport and mai ntai n al l of thei r ani mal and pl ant communit ies i n t er m s of div e rs i ty a n d c o m p o s i ti o n . In e col ogi cal terms, w e can defi ne al l of these compl ex func t ions a s t h e ri ver´ s f u n c tio n a lity o r in te g r ity. H yd ro p o w er ex p lo ita tio n p ro d u c e s c o m plex effects on ri ver ecosystems. The fol l ow i ng poi nts give a gener al ov er v i e w o f th e s e e ffe c ts o n ri veri ne systems.

Dams and weirs (impoundments)

● General effect: T h e d a mmi ng of a ri v er aff ec t s all d i m e n s i o n s o f a ri v e r e c o system: the r iv er c ont in u u m i s d i s ru p te d a n d th e natural zo nat ion of ha b i ta ts i s a l te re d ; c o n n e c ti on to the gr oundwat e r c a n b e l o s t; n a tu ra l fl oods are mi t igat ed and t h e ri v e r s e l d o m b re a k s th e banks (l at er al and t e mp o ra l d i m e n s i o n s ). M a ny fi sh populat ions ar e e n d a n g e re d a n d a re u nabl e to ma int ain s t able d e n s i ti e s b e c a u s e th e y h ave been se par at ed f r om th e i r p re fe rre d s p a w n i n g grounds (P oulet 2007, Fre e m a n & Ma rc i n e k 2 0 0 6 ).

▲ Leuctri d stonefl y

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 2 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - an environment to be protected

● Impoundment and temperature change: Impounded ri ver stretches are pri mar ily ch ar ac t er iz ed b y d e c re a s e d fl o w v e l o c i ty a nd i ncreased upstream w ater vol ume. Water tempera t ur es of r es er v oir s an d i mp o u n d me n t s tre tc h e s are cool er i n summer and w armer i n w i nter compared t o the nat ur al s it u a ti o n , b u t fo r re s i d u a l fl o w stretches, the opposi te pattern i s evi dent. In summ ar y, the t em per at ur e d i ffe re n ti a l o f s e v e ra l d e g rees (°C ) l eads to si gni fi cant consequences for bi ol ogical re lat ions hips in ri v e ri n e s y s te ms (H ü tte 2 000). ● Decreasing flow velocity: T h e reduced current speed, w i th onl y mi nor surface turbulence, i n im poundm en ts a n d re s e rv o i rs d i m i n i s hes the concentrati on of atmospheri c oxygen i n the wat er. The s edim ent at i o n o f s u s p e n d e d l o a d i s i ncreased and nutri ents can accumul ate. R educed wat er ve loc it y, c lear w a te r, i n c re a s e d ra d i a ti o n a nd nutri ent suppl y favour the grow th of aquati c pl ant s and al g ae, whic h m a y e v e n l e a d to o v e rs a tu ra ti on of oxygen. ● River bed colmation: C h a n ges i n ri ver bed condi ti ons and substrate composi ti on ar e oft en t he r es ult o f d i s c h a rg e a l te rn a ti o n s due to dammi ng (S chäl chl i 1992). Thi s affects the bent hic and t he int er s t iti a l i n v e rte b ra te c o m m u n i ty. The col mati on of the substratum i s al so a maj or pro blem for lit hophilic f is h : c o l m a te d g ra v e l b a n k s are unsui tabl e spaw ni ng substrate and therefore end anger the r epr oduc t io n o f fi s h p o p u l a ti o n s (Smi t h 2009).

▲ Ec d y o n u ru s s p . l a rva; macrozoobenthos i s a good i ndi cator of ri ver he alt h

● River Continuum: T h e d i s ru p ti on of the ri ver conti nuum by dams or w ei rs i s a pre ssur e ma inly aff ec t ing th e fi s h fa u n a b y p re v e n ti ng up- and dow nstream mi grati on. D ams fragment ha bit at s and s epar at e f is h p o p u l a ti o n s , h e n c e re d u ci ng geneti c vari abi l i ty. ▼ C renobi a al pi na

Hydrological alternation

The nat ur al h y d ro l o g i c a l re g i m e i s al tered depending on th e h y d ro p o w e r o p e rati on: re s er v oir hy dr o p o w e r p l a n ts s h i ft th e hi gher di s c har ges f r o m th e s u mme r to th e w i nter mo nt hs , while ru n -o f-ri v e r p l a n ts e q u a l i ze the nat ur al dis c har g e fl u c tu a ti o n s o f a ty p i c a l A l pi ne stream . O nly bi g g e r fl o o d e v e n ts b ri n g i n some dy nam ic pr oc e s s e s . T h e d i s tu rb e d tra nsport of bedload an d s e d i m e n ts i n to d o w n stream se c t ions r educ e s th e c a p a c i ty o f m o rp h o l ogi cal tra ns f or m at ion p ro c e s s e s . Di sch arg e al t e r a tio n is th e m a jo r p h ysical factor in r iver ine system s affecting the bi ot i c co mp o n en t s an d p r o c e s s e s ( F o rs te n l e c h ner et al . 1997, B unn & A rthi ngton 2002) 20

h andbook

●

Chapter 2 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - an environment to be protected

Residual water stretches and wa ter diversion Th e im pac t s ar e ma i n l y c o n c e n tra te d i n th e water s t ret ch es d o wn s tr e a m o f th e with d r a wal. The i nt ens it y of t he p re s s u re d e p e n d s o n h o w much w at er is abs t r a c te d , a n d i s m e a s u re d b y the rem aining ins t re a m fl o w a n d th e l e n g th of the sec t ion unt il t h e p o i n t o f w a te r re s ti tu ti o n. The d is c har ge is s i g n i fi c a n tl y d e c re a s e d a n d more o r les s s im ilar o n d i u rn a l a n d a n n u a l scal es. N at ur al f loods , b e d l o a d tra n s p o rt a n d ri verbed trans f or m at ions a re mi s s i n g c o mp l e te l y or are mit igat ed. Resi d u a l fl o w s tre tc h e s a re further e x pos ed t o high e r ri s k s o f d e te ri o ra ti o n o f w ater q ualit y by nutri e n ts , p o l l u ta n ts a n d to x i cants b ec aus e of t he d e c re a s e d b u ffe r c a p a c i ty of th eir s m aller wa te r v o l u m e .

Hydro peaking / Thermo peaking Hydro peaking:

Su r ge wav es an d ra p i d d ro p s i n w a te r l e v el s are ty pic al eff ec t s o f th e p o w e r p e a k i n g m a n a g ement of r es er v oir h y d ro p o w e r p l a n ts . R u n -of-ri ver plant s c an als o b e ma n a g e d i n th i s w a y, a l though wit h m inor am o u n ts o f s to re d w a te r. T h us, the phas es of s t or a g e c a n ta k e fro m o n l y some hour s ov er a f e w d a y s u p to w e e k s d e p endi ng on t he s iz e of th e re s e rv o i r. H y d ro p e a k i ng i n gener al leads to h i g h d i s tu rb a n c e a n d a l oss of habit at quali ty. Su rg e w a v e s o fte n a p proach ve r y quic k ly c o m p a re d to n a tu ra l fl o o d e vents, and aquat ic s p e c i e s a re u n a b l e to a d a pt, for ex am ple by s ee k i n g s h e l te r a s th e y w o u l d under nat ur al c ondit i o n s . C a ta s tro p h i c d i s p l a c ement of f is h, eggs a n d m a c ro i n v e rte b ra te s i s often the c ons equenc e (M o o g 1 9 9 3 , C e re g h i n o 2004). When wat er le v e l s a re re tu rn i n g to normal , so m e aquat ic o rg a n i s ms a re n ´t a b l e to re ach the ma in f low c han n e l o r to fi n d s h e l te r i n deeper so il lay er s and h e n c e m a y g e t tra p p e d i n pool s or s t r anded on g ra v e l b a n k s . D ry fa l li ng of sp awning gr oun d s , j u v e n i l e s a n d n e s ts a r e al so ma jor pr oblem s fo r fi s h p o p u l a ti o n s (M o o g 1993, Sa lt v eit et al. 2 0 0 1 , H a l l e ra k e r 2 0 0 3 ) .

section 1

Hypolimnic water release:

Increased turbi di ty of w ater from hi gh alt it ude reservoi rs or from the hypol i mni on affects t he temperature regi me at the si te of return. Rapid fl uctuati ons i n temperature may cause stre ss t o fi sh and must be compensated by di spersal or physi ol ogi cal adaptati on.

Turbines Turbi nes represent the heart of a hydrop ower faci l i ty, transferri ng the energy of the ru nning w ater to the generator. The mai n i mpact s of turbi nes rel ate to the fi sh fauna. Fi sh passing the turbi nes are exposed to sudden changes of hydrostati c pressure that can cause sw i m bladder rupture and bubbl e formati on i nsi de ti ssues ( gas bubbl e di sease). The rotor i s a mechani cal t hr eat that can cause physi cal i nj ury or mortal i t y, t he l evel of threat dependi ng on turbi ne type, and the speci es, age or si ze of the fi sh.

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 2 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - an environment to be protected

● WF D i m plem entati on, strate gies and pol icies In 2000, t he E u ro p e a n U n i o n e s ta b l i s h e d a framew ork w i th the obj ecti ves of protecti ng al l inland wat er bodies , g ro u n d w a te r a n d th e a c c o mpanyi ng envi ronment, to prevent and reduce pol l uti o n, t o pr om ot e s us t ain a b l e w a te r u s a g e , to i mp rove aquati c ecosystems and to mi ti gate the effects of floods and dr ought s . B y 2 0 1 5 , a g o o d e c o l o g i c a l and chemi cal status has to be achi eved for al l C omm unit y wat er s . T he who l e p ro c e s s o f i mp l e m e n ta t i on fol l ow s several steps (see tabl e bel ow ). For suppor t ing the im plem ent a ti o n o f th e Wa te r F ra me w ork D i recti ve (W FD ), several gui dance papers have been pr oduc ed wit hin th e ‘ C o m m o n Im p l e me n tati on S trategy’ . D EAD L IN ES

2000

OB JEC T IVE S

ARTICLE S WFD

E n fo r c e m e nt

Ar t. 25

2003

Tr a n s p o s ition i nto nati onal l aw

Ar t. 23

2004

Id e n tific a tio n of r i ver basi n di str i cts and com petent a u th o r itie s

Ar t. 3

A n a ly s is o f r i ver basi n di str i ct char acter i sti cs E x a m in a tio n of pr essur es and i m pacts of hum an acti vi ti es E c o n o m ic a nal ysi s of w ater usage

Ar t. 5

I mpl e m e n ta tio n

Surveys

2004 Mon ito r in g

2006

Re g is te r o f si tes for the i nter cal i br ati on

2006

M o n ito r in g p r ogr am s for the status of w ater bodi es e s ta b lis h e d M o n ito r in g o f the status of sur face w ater s, gr oundw ater a n d p r o te c ted ar eas

Ar t.8

2006

P u b lic a tio n s of ti m e schedul e, w or ki ng pr ogr am and of th e m o s t impor tant i ssues of w ater m anagem ent

Ar t. 14

2008

P u b lic a tio n of r i ver basi n m anagem ent pl an dr afts

Ar t. 13

Annex V

I nv ol v emen t o f th e p u b lic

Management pla n a n d p r o g r a m m e s

of measures

2009

F in a liz a tio n of m anagem ent pl an and pr ogr am s of measures F ir s t m a n a gem ent cycl e star ts

2010

In tr o d u c tio n of pr i ci ng pol i ci es

Ar t. 9

2012

Im p le m e n ta ti on of m easur es

Ar t. 11

A c hi ev emen ts o f o b je c tiv e s a n d

Ar t. 13 & 11

n e x t m a n a g em ent cycl es

2015

A c c o m p lis h i ng envi r onm ental obj ecti ves F ir s t m a n a gem ent cycl e ends S e c o n d r iv er basi n m anagem ent pl an & fi r st fl ood r i sk m a n a g e m e n t pl an

Ar t. 4 & 13

2021

S e c o n d m a nagem ent cycl e ends

Ar t. 4 & 13

2027

T h ir d m a n a g em ent cycl e ends, extensi on of ti m e for m e e tin g th e obj ecti ves

Ar t. 4 & 13

Time schedule / deadlines of the main steps of the WFD

h andbook

●

section 1

Chapter 2 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - an environment to be protected

WFD objectives and assessment Fo r all E ur opea n s u rfa c e w a te r b o d i e s , a s di rected by A rti cl e 4 W FD , the envi ronmental obj ective is to r eac h a good e c o l o g i c a l a n d c h e m i c a l s tatus by 2015 and to prevent deteri orati on i n status class. Preci se an d u nb ia s e d m o n ito r in g i s th e key for determi ni ng the status of w aters and for dec iding w hat m eas ur es a re n e e d e d i n th e ri v e r b asi n management pl ans to reach the obj ecti ve. Th e new appr oa c h o f th e WF D i s to a s s e s s, asi de of w ater qual i ty and chemi cal status, the ecol ogical i nt egr it y of s ur fa c e w a te rs , re fe rri n g to b i o l ogi cal , hydro-morphol ogi cal and general physi co-chem ical q ualit y elem ent s . T h i s m e a n s th a t d iffe r ent and type-specific ecological char acter istics have t o be co n si d ered . A r epor t on s t a tu s o b j e c ti v e s fo r Al p i n e S pace ecoregi ons and ri ver typol ogi es i s avai l abl e as an e lec t r onic anne x .

Water Framework Directive status objectives for Alpine Space ecoregions and river typologies River status monitoring according to the Water Framework Directive In ac c or danc e w i th th e i m p l e me n ta ti o n o f t he E uropean Water Framew ork D i recti ve (2000/60/E C) , t he monit or ing of a q u a ti c e c o s y s te ms a n d th e assessment of thei r ecol ogi cal i ntegri ty usi ng bi otic and a biot ic indic at o rs h a s b e c o me a c o m m o n tool . The i ndi cators are used to check the status of wat er b odies in a c omp re h e n s i v e w a y a t a ri v e r basi n scal e, and to survey the success of measures ap plied to r eac h a good e c o l o g i c a l s ta tu s .

T Y POL OGY

QU ALITY E LE ME N TS

Bio log ica l qualit y elem ent s

● ● ● ●

Ph y t o p l a n k t o n Macrophytes and phytobenthos Be n t h i c i n v e r t e b r a t e f a u n a Fis h f a u n a

Hyd ro mo rph olo gic al qualit y elem ent s

● ● ●

Hy d r o l o g i c a l r e g i m e Rive r c o n t i n u i t y Morphological conditions

Physico-che m ic al qualit y elem ent s

●

G e n e r a l c o n d i t i o n s ( n u t r i e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n , s a l i n i t y, p H , o x y g e n balan c e , a c i d i t y a n d t e m p e r a t u r e c o n d i t i o n s ) ● Sp e c i f i c s y n t h e t i c a n d n o n - s y n t h e t i c p o l l u t a n t s

Mandatory quality elements for assessment and classification of running waters © Directive 2000/60/EC

A t ec hnic al r ev i e w d e s c ri b i n g WF D , F l o o ds and other E U di recti ve i mpl ementati on i s avai l abl e as an e lec t r onic anne x

Technical review describing WFD, Floods and other EU directives implementation in Alpine Space 23

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 2 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - an environment to be protected

● A b i o t i c & bi oti c i ndi cators to

ev a l u a t e t h e status of the ri v er ec o s y s t e m

To as s es s t he im p a c ts o f h y d ro p o w e r ma n a gement on A lpine r iv e r e c o s y s te m s , SH AR E has dev eloped a t o o lb o x c o n ta in in g a c o llection of ab i o t i c an d b io tic in d ic a to r s o f m o n itor ing st an d ard s us ed i n th e Al p i n e c o u n tri e s fo ll ow i ng co m pr ehens iv e s c i e n ti fi c b i b l i o g ra p h i c re search. Us ef ul indic at ors mu s t re s p o n d to th e d i fferent i m pac t s of HP p l a n ts s u c h a s b a n k s a n d soi l sh eet ing or f ix a ti o n , re s i d u a l fl o w, h y d ro p eaki ng or dis r upt ion o f th e ri v e r c o n ti n u u m. S ome i n dic at or s wer e fu rth e r re fi n e d a n d te s ted i n the S HA RE P ilo t C a s e S tu d i e s , a n d a d j u sted as appr opr iat e.

A biotic & biotic indicators of aquatic ecosystems for the SHARE Pilot Case Studies In gener al, an i n d i c a to r p ro v i d e s i n fo rm a t i on on a dis t inc t s et o f c i rc u m s ta n c e s . In n a tu re and env ir onm ent al s c i e n c e s , i n d i c a to rs a re used to m eas ur e t h e h e a l th a n d e c o l o g i c a l status of, and t he c ha n g e s to , a n e c o s y s te m (mostl y ant hr opogenic ) , fo r e x a mp l e i n te rms o f nature co ns er v at ion.

● Abiotic indicators

Ab iot ic indic at o rs , s u c h a s c h e mi c a l c o m p ounds and phy s ic al c o n d i ti o n s , s h o w th e s el ected i n dic at or c om po n e n ts w i th a p re c i s e u n i t v al ue at the m eas ur em en t p o i n t. In d i c a to rs m a y re present a pr es ent c on d i ti o n , o r th e y ma y c o mpri se l o ng- t er m m ea s u re s d e mo n s tra ti n g v a ri ati on i n indic at or v al u e s o v e r ti me . It i s p o s s i bl e to det ec t v er y pr e c i s e l y p o te n ti a l i n d i c a to rs such as s pec if ic poll u ta n ts , to x i c a n ts o r a c i d i fi cati on fro m point and n o n -p o i n t s o u rc e s , a s wel l as the pr of ile of w a te r te m p e ra tu re o r o xygen co nc ent r at ion.

● Biotic indicators

Bi ot ic indic at or s a re b i o l o g i c a l g ro u p s o r s peci es re ac t ing t o c ha n g e s i n th e i r e n v i ro n m e n t w hi ch hav e c ons eque n c e s fo r th e i r v i ta l fu n c ti ons, sp at ial abundan c e o r p ro b a b i l i ty o f o c c u rrence. Sp ec ies ’ r eac t i o n s to p re s s u re s a n d c h anges i n env ir onm ent a l c o n d i ti o n s a re u s e d i n the mo nit or ing of e c o s y s te ms . Bi o ti c i n d i cators re s pond t o c h e m i c a l /p h y s i c a l a l te ra ti o ns as 24

w el l as to more comprehensi ve al tera t ions such as changes i n habi tat structure or habit at destructi on. The sensi ti vi ty of an i nd icat or i s of parti cul ar i mportance. B i oti c i ndi cat or s are typi cal l y l ess preci sel y quanti fi ed t han chemi cal /physi cal measures, but they can give more comprehensi ve i nformati on on synergist ic effects of envi ronmental i mpacts (e.g. fish f auna ar e highly sensitive to alter ations in hydrom or phology due to a loss of habitat or t o a disr uption of the r iver continuum ).

Indicators and indices for biological river assessment Thi s assessment approach uses f ish, benthi c macro i nvertebrate communit ies, and phytobenthos communi ti es to eva luat e the ecol ogi cal status of ri vers and stre am s. Furthermore, ri pari an vegetati on and arth r opod communi ti es can al so be used for ri ver st r et ch assessment.

● Fish assessment methods

The fi sh fauna stands out as a pot ent ial i ndi cator due to the adaptati ons of fi sh sp ecies to parti cul ar condi ti ons, thei r conse quent sensi ti vi ty to envi ronmental change, t heir speci fi c habi tat requi rements at di fferent st ages of thei r l i fe cycl e, and thei r l ongevi ty, which makes i t possi bl e to determi ne pressures and i mpacts over peri ods of ti me. Most i ndi c at or s usi ng fi sh fauna assess the speci es compo sit ion (ecol ogi cal gui l ds, character speci es, typical compani on speci es, fi sh regi on i ndex) and t he popul ati on structure (age cl asses, young of the year, bi omass) (H aunschmi d et al . 2006). S everal habi tat model s have been developed on the requi rements of typi cal speci es to wat er depth, current vel oci ty, and substrate (S chn eider et al . 2010, P rogram C A S i Mi R -Fi sh).

SHARE CASiMiR software to assess habitat conditions along the river channel and bank areas

h andbook

●

section 1

Chapter 2 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - an environment to be protected

● Benthic macroinvertebrate assessment methods

Bent hic m ac r oi n v e rte b ra te s a re th e m o s t used i ndic at or gr oup fo r a s s e s s i n g th e b i o l o g i c a l status o f r iv er s . T hey a re e s p e c i a l l y s u i ta b l e b ecause o f t heir eas y av a i l a b i l i ty, th e i r d i v e rs i ty, a nd thei r a dapt at ions t o s p e c i fi c c o n d i ti o n s . In g e n eral , a h igh c or r elat ion b e tw e e n i n d i c a to r v a l u es and o r ganic pollut io n o r g e n e ra l d e g ra d a ti on can b e ac hiev ed. H o w e v e r, th e u s e o f a m u l ti metri c sy s t em f or gen e ra l d e g ra d a ti o n ma k e s i t very d iff ic ult t o m ak e a l i n k to a s p e c i fi c p ressure. Pos s ible indiv id u a l m e tri c s a re , fo r e x a m p l e: ● S pec ies ri c h n e s s o r d i v e rs i ty ; ● P er c ent a g e o f E p h e m e ro p te ra , P lec opt er a a n d Tri c h o p te ra ta x a ( E P T %) ; ● P er c ent a g e o f Ol i g o c h a e ta a n d D i ptera t ax a; ● S pec ies c o mp o s i ti o n (fe e d i n g g ro ups, lit t or al or l o w e r ri v e r b e d c o l o n i z e rs ) .

● Phytobenthos assessment methods

A quati c pl ants are i mportant pri mary prod ucer s and grow on organi c nutri ents. Thus they r eact mai nl y to changes i n trophi c l evel s unrel at ed t o hydropow er producti on. Other physi cal fact or s such as current, l i ght and substratum m ay, how ever, favour bi omass or a speci fi c species composi ti on. The i rregul ar response to H P pressure f r om bi ol ogi cal ri ver communi ti es has been descr ibed i n the P i l ot C ase S tudi es chapter.

MCA indicators used in PCS Section 3 - Chapter 2

● I n d i c a t o r s and i ndi ces for p hys ico-chemical ass ess ment ● Hydromorphology

Th is c om ponen t o f ri v e r a s s e s s me n t p rovi des a comprehensi ve approach w hi ch i ncl udes m any i ndic at or s , s uc h a s ri v e r b e d d y n a mi c s , ri v er bank dynami cs, ri ver bed structure, hydrol ogi cal re gim e a nd wet ar ea v a ri a ti o n . T h e i m p o rta n c e a nd fi tness of such deri ved i ndi cators have been consider ed i n t he P ilot Cas e Stu d i e s c h a p te r.

MCA indicators used in PCS Section 3 - Chapter 2 ● Water quality

Th e wat er qua l i ty c ri te ri o n i n c l u d e s g e neral physi co-chemi cal parameters such as temperat ur e, o x y gen ( O 2, B S B5 , D OC ), p H , c o n d u c ti v ity, ni trate, ammoni acal ni trogen, phosphorous, and or t hop hos phat e- phos p h o ro u s . T h i s a p p ro a c h s how s the general w ater qual i ty and i ntactness of a f luvial sy s t em . A ls o wi d e l y u s e d a re s a p ro b e s (fu ngi , bacteri a and protozoa) and aquati c pl ants as i ndi c at or s o f t he lev el of o rg a n i c w a te r p o l l u ti o n a n d nutri ent l oad. A det ailed d at a b a s e o f u s e a b le in d ic a to rs (S H A R E indicator toolbox) for ri ver and H P i ssue s has b een dev eloped w i th i n th e S H A R E p ro j e c t and i s avai l abl e as an el ectroni c annex.

SHARE indicator toolbox Map of most vulnerable river typologies to HP Criteria and indicators to identify vulnerability of Alpine areas and river ecosystems

h andbook section 1

Sect i o n 1: The pr oble m t o b e ad d r ess ed ●

Chapter 3 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - different stakeholders & ecosystem services to be considered

Ther e is a lar g e v a ri e ty o f ri v e rs , fro m mountai n creeks to l arge P i edmont ri vers w hi ch may be fur nis hed wit h o r i n fl u e n c e d b y h y d ro -p o wer equi pment. Those ri vers support a broad range of ecosy s t em s and are th e re s u l t o f c o mp l e x a n d i nterrel ated mechani sms. The w hol e system i s w orking in dy nam ic equilib ri u m b e c a u s e o f th e n a tu ral vari abi l i ty of the dri vi ng cl i mati c condi ti ons. HP pr oduc t ion i s o n l y o n e o f th e E c o s y s t em servi ces supported by ri vers. The resources fro m t he ri v er and f r om i ts fl o o d p l a i n h a v e a l l o w e d the devel opment of compl ex and di verse human acti vit ies. The ex pec t at ion s o f a b ro a d d i v e rs i ty o f human communi ti es and of stakehol ders have evol ved as a co ns equenc e of th e s e re s o u rc e s . The step pool river type - Brunnibach, Uri, CH ► ©Philippe Belleudy – University Joseph Fourier

● A d i v e r si ty of ecosystem s The s lope is th e d ri v i n g c h a ra c te r o f w ater co ur s es in t he m o u n ta i n s , p ro v i d i n g th e p o tenti al for HP s y s t em s . T h e s l o p e i s th e m a i n factor pr oduc ing t he la rg e d i v e rs i ty o f Al p i n e ri v ers. In the ups t r eam pa rt o f th e w a te rs h e d , th e s tep pool i s c har ac t er is t i c o f a p o o r s e d i m e n t tra nsport (fi g. B r unnibac h ), a s d e b ri s fl o w i n i ti a te d i n erodi bl e sl opes may dramati cal l y shape the ri ver bed. This m at er ial is d e p o s i te d i n th e c o n fl u e nce zone and more regul arl y di stri buted. B ecause of t he l a r ge am ount o f s e d i me n t c o m i n g fro m upstream, the P i edmont ri ver devel ops the character ist ic br aided bed ( f ig .D ra c ), b u t th e p o s s i b i l i ty for l ateral mobi l i ty of the ri ver i s often l i mi ted i n Alpine ri v er s bec aus e o f h u ma n a c ti v i ti e s , e s p e c i al l y the constructi on of l evees and canal s. Ther e is a dir e c t re l a ti o n s h i p b e tw e e n water and sedi ment fl uxes from upstream to dow nst r eam , and t he gener a l p ro fi l e o f th e ri v e r s h o w s a decreasi ng sl ope (and fi ner bed sedi ment) dow nstr eam . Howev er, r oc k o u tc ro p s ma y s e c to ri z e a ri ver w i th reaches of rel ati vel y gentl e sl ope even in t he hi g hes t por t ions o f th e w a te rs h e d (fi g .So ul cem) i n steep un-erodi bl e gorges. This div er s it y o f ri v e r ty p e s d e fi n e s a v ari ety of eco-systems. The same structure, e.g. for HP pr oduc t ion, will h a v e d i ffe re n t i mp a c ts d e pendi ng on the ri ver type.

● Co m p l ex and i nterrelated mechanis ms Under s t anding ri v e r s y s te ms i s c h a l l e n g i n g for sci enti sts because they i nvol ve a compl ex series of i n t er c onnec t ed p ro c e s s e s i n d i ffe re n t d o mai ns, e.g. hydrol ogy, bi ol ogy (fauna & fl ora), hydra ulics, geom or phology, a n d g e o c h e m i s try. T h e ri ver w orks natural l y from upstream to dow nstream, and t he pr oper t ies of t h e d o w n s tre a m re a c h e s a re the resul t of dri vi ng parameters w hi ch w ere determined i n t he upper r e a c h e s . An y p e rtu rb a ti o n at a gi ven poi nt of the w atershed w i l l have consequences downs t r eam of th i s p o i n t, e v e n i f th e y a re someti mes strongl y damped and del ayed. The f low per t urb a ti o n s p ro p a g a te d o w n s tr eam w i th a characteri sti c speed w hi ch makes them highly per c ept ible. I n a d i ffe re n t w a y, th e tra n s p o rt of bed materi al by fl oods i s by three orders of magnit ude l e s s t han t he w a te r fl u x e s th e m s e l v e s , a n d morphol ogi cal perturbati ons need years to devel op and to be pr opagat e d d o w n s tre a m. T h e m o rp h ol ogi cal changes and thei r consequences for the ri par ian env ir onm ent , es p e c i a l l y th e v e g e ta ti o n , fo l l ow thi s rhythm w hi ch i s far l ess percepti bl e than the f lood 26

h andbook

section 1

Wat er s hed in t h e P y re n e e s m o u n ta i n s - Soul cem, France ▲ ©Philippe Belleudy - University Joseph Fourier Grenoble

◄ A brai ded ri ver – D rac, Fr

©Philippe Belleudy - University Joseph Fourier Grenoble

i tsel f. The vari abi l i ty of the dri vi ng factors ( f low and sediment upload) and many related effects will bui l d systems i n dynami c equi l i bri um and som e i nteracti ons may have sl ow but severe i mp act s. S ome dri vi ng processes are evol vi ng very s lowly, or i n di recti ons that are not yet cl ear, rend er ing a prognosi s of ri ver evol uti on even m or e hazardous. Land use i s a case i n poi nt, because the potenti al i mpact of transformati on of h um an communi ti es and/or cl i mate change on l and use i s di ffi cul t to predi ct, therefore consequences for the runoff, and for the sedi ment supply t o the ri ver netw ork by erosi on, are very di ffi cult t o predi ct w i th any degree of preci si on. “N atural ri vers” and “heal thy ri vers” are dist inct i deas. A natural ri ver i s a ri ver w hose n at ur al vari abi l i ty i s not condi ti oned or constr ained by hum an ac t io n s . A h e a l th y ri v e r i s a r i ver w hi ch has devel oped a ri ch vari ety of speci es, and whos e c har ac t e ri s ti c s a re s ta b l e . F o r th e peopl e w ho l i ve al ong the ri ver, the qual i ty of the ri ver s is per c eiv ed in t erms o f l a n d s c a p e , re c re a ti onal potenti al , economi c val ue, and safety rel ati ng to f lood thr eat s , et c . T h e s e a re d i v e rs e a n d s o m e ti mes contradi ctory aspects that w i l l be further developed i n t he f ollowing s e c ti o n .

● A w i d e d i v ersi ty of hum an communities and s takehol der s . Th er e ar e m any w a y s to d e s c ri b e th e d i v e r si ty of the demands of the ri ver system and of the needs of stak eholder s ( r e f. R i Z e R i L i , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e fo l l ow i ng gi ves some exampl es of these compl ex i nterrel at ions o f t he s t ak ehold e rs ’ i n te re s ts : Ge ner ally, t he a c ti v i ty i n th e u p s tre a m b asi ns sti l l has some rural and tradi ti onal characterist ics, com par ed t o t he Pi e d m o n t re g i o n i n g e n eral w hi ch i s often more urbani zed and has more i ndu st r ial a c t iv it ies . K ey i s s u e s , p a rti c u l a rl y th e d e mand for resources (e.g. l and / ri ver protecti on) and t he a c c ept abilit y of p e rtu rb i n g s tru c tu re s w i l l be dependent on those characteri sti cs. Th e s har ing of a l l k i n d s o f re s o u rc e s i s affected by confl i cts of i nterest and opposi ti on of t he d iff er ent gr oups o f s ta k e h o l d e rs . T h e ri v e r system and i ts servi ces are one of these resources . Wit h a higher ur ban c o n c e n tra ti o n a n d m o re c ompl ex structures, the pressure i s especi al l y i mportant in th e P iedm ont r e g i o n w h e re th e ri v e r (w a ter and terri tory) i s coveted at the same ti me by i ndust r y f or w as t e and c ooli n g o r H P p ro d u c ti o n , a g ri c ul ture for w ater and l and recl amati on, communi cati o ns f or l and r ec lam at io n , p u b l i c s e rv i c e s fo r w a ter, recreati onal areas and attracti ve ri ver banks for ur ban ri v er s , and NG O’s o n b e h a l f o f n o n -s p e a k i ng speci es (fauna and fl ora). Issues rel ated to ri sk, such as th e dem and f or e x p a n s i o n a re a s fo r fl o o d protecti on, are confl i cti ng w i th i ndustri al demand fo r land a nd wit h c om m u n i c a ti o n s tru c tu re s (fi g . Is ère p.29). 27

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 3 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - different stakeholders & ecosystem services to be considered

As t he f unc t ioni n g o f a ri v e r i s a t a b a s i n s c al e, the ecosystem servi ces, and the demand of stakeho lder s and ac t or s alon g th e ri v e r c o u rs e , m u s t b e consi dered at the same scal e, but cari ng for resources and me diat ion m us t b e p e rfo rme d a t d i ffe re n t scal es: l ocal (the val l ey), basi n and gl obal . So m e c onf lic t s ma y a ri s e w i th d e ma n d s concerni ng di fferi ng requi rements of di fferent stakeholder s wit hin t heir par ti c u l a r te rri to ry. F o r e x a mp l e, the urban ri veri ne popul ati on may requi re a recrea t ional ri v er env ir onm e n t, o r th e p re s e rv a ti o n o f l andscapes upstream to mai ntai n protecti on for the local far m er s ’ f ields . En v ir onm ent al p ro te c ti o n o f th e m o u n ta i n ri ver may be requi red by urban popul ati ons, some t im es agains t ec onom i c c o n s i d e ra ti o n s o f th e e n ergy producer, but al so w i th the fear of a certai n depri vat ion of t he loc al r ur a l s ta k e h o l d e rs ’ te rri to ry. I s the recreati onal and sceni c attracti veness of a res er voir creat ed f or ener g y p ro d u c ti o n w o rth th e d e structi on of pastures and mountai n vi l l ages? (fi g. R oselend, p.9) . W ho will e v a l u a te s u c h a p ro j e c t a n d w i th w hat sort of scal e of val ues? Im m ediat e im pa c ts a re m o re e a s i l y c o n si dered than long- t er m c o n s e q u e n c e s . Wh e n a s s essi ng the im pac t of a h y d ro -p o w e r p l a n t o n fi s h h abi tat, the per t ur bat ion c a u s e d b y h y d ro p e a k i n g or by the v ar iabilit y in w a te r d e p th w i l l b e c o n s i dered, as well as t he e v e n tu a l s c o u ri n g o f th e ri ver bed af t er a d e c a d e o f fu n c ti o n i n g , a nd the ar m our ing of th e ri v e r b e d w i l l b e n e g lected. In a c er t ain wa y, th e l e g i s l a ti o n s u p p o rts such

an underesti mati on. In the W FD , the hydr o morphol ogi cal condi ti ons are assessed only w hen bi ol ogi cal and chemi cal condi ti ons m eet hi gh status; the morphol ogi cal good status which speci fi es substrate condi ti ons and connec t ivit y to secondary fl ow areas does not exp licit ly menti on the necessi ty for an assessment of t he change of such condi ti ons after several year s of di sturbances to the hydrol ogi cal regi me.

Role of hydro morphological elements in determining Ecological Status in the WFD Sour c e: UK t ec hnic al adv is o r y g r o u p , c i t e d b y H o u s t o n a n d G l a s g o w, 2 0 0 8

h andbook

●

section 1

Chapter 3 - Different views of a single asset’s future Alpine rivers - different stakeholders & ecosystem services to be considered

R eal im pac t s a re a l s o b e tte r c o n s i d e re d than p ot ent ial im pac ts , i n p a rti c u l a r, ri s k i s s u e s, i .e. th e pot ent ial f o r d a m a g e w i th a l o w p ro b abi l i ty o f oc c ur r enc e – “W i l l i t re a l l y h a p p e n ? W i l l I s uff er f r om i t? ” - g i v e s th e p ri o ri ty i n the d ec is ion f r am ew o rk to a n i m m e d i a te a c ti on for th e at t ent ion o f th e ri v e ri n e p o p u l a ti o n s. Thi s a c t ion m ay ev e n i n c re a s e th e p o te n ti a l for fl ood ri s k in t he f ut ur e . T h i s i s th e c a s e , fo r e x ampl e, w it h dr edging i n th e ri v e r b e d th a t te m p orari l y

i ncreases the cross-secti on of the ri ver a nd it s capaci ty to convey fl oods, but w i l l contr ibut e to a l ack of bed materi al dow nstream a nd a transformati on of the ri ver ’s morphol ogy when repeated after each fl ood event. In the f inal pol i ti cal deci si on, i mmedi ate consequenc es on the el ectors’ l i fe means a deci si on may be m ade w i th l i ttl e or no consi derati on of the pro blem s w hi ch coul d be faced by fol l ow i ng generations.

◄ Fl oodpl ai n i n a P i edmont Val l ey Isere R i ver - France ©Philippe Belleudy - University Joseph Fourier Grenoble

C om m unit ies t h e m s e l v e s a re e v o l v i n g . Examp l e 1: m o u n ta i n p o p u l a ti o n s a re s h i fti ng thei r i nterest from an attachment to thei r tradit ional a c t iv it ies t o a p ra g m a ti c a d h e s i o n to th e industri al or touri sti c transformati ons that w i l l accrue som e i m m ediat e bene fi ts , s o m e ti me s w i th a re a l l ong-term i mprovement to thei r economy (ref. R ose lend, p . 9) . Examp l e 2: f ar me rs o f th e P i e d mo n t Is e re v al l ey (fi g. Isère, p. 29, ref. R i ZeR i Li , 2007) are preoccupied w it h t he ex t ensi o n o f Gre n o b l e ’s s u b u rb a n area, and w el come the fl ood protecti on pl an that fi xe s t he a gr ic ult ur al lan d a re a b e c a u s e i t p ro v i d e s an expansi on zone for the fl oods; at the same ti me they do n ot ac c ept t his “s a n c tu a ri z a ti o n ” p o l i c y b ecause i t restri cts the possi bi l i ti es for devel opment of ot her a c t iv it ies on t ho s e a re a s i n th e fu tu re . L as t but not le a s t, a te rri to ry a n d i ts ri v e rs are someti mes organi zed i n a compl ex admi ni st r at ive sc hem e ( e. g. in F ra n c e C o mmu n e s /c a n to ns/départments/E P C I/comi tés de bassi n…). The subsi diar it y i s diff ic ult t o ap p l y b e c a u s e o f th e m u l ti p l e i nterconnected i nterests.

● B a s i c a t ti tudes D o not ac t as a s i n g l e s p e c i a l i s t: T h e ri v er system i s a compl ex one. Ev aluat e t he f lu x e s a n d a s s e s s th e s e a s o n al vari abi l i ty. A l l ow enough room for the natural di vag at ion o f t he r iv er. C ons ider f loods a n d d ro u g h ts a s n o rm a l events. Allow t he pos s i b i l i ty fo r s u s ta i n a b l e b e h a vi our of the ri ver system w i thi n the natural cycl e of c r isis/ relax at ion. Ac k nowledge t h e u n c e rta i n ty i n o u r k n o w ledge of the processes and thei r evol uti on. Ta k e ac c ount of p ro c e s s e s , e v e n w o rk i n g over a l onger ti me scal e. Ta k e ac c ount of h u ma n s y s te m s . A g o o d d eci si on needs cooperati on of everyone al ong the ri ve r. 29

h andbook section 1

Sect i o n 1: The pr oble m t o b e ad d r ess ed ●

Chapter 4 - Growing conflict of use

The A lps c r os s th e c e n tre o f Eu ro p e , p l a y i ng a cruci al rol e i n suppl yi ng and accumul ati ng w at er f or the c ont inent . The A lps ar e wi d e l y re c o g n i z e d a s th e “w ater tow ers” or “w ater castl e” of E urope, ori gi nati ng so m e of the m os t im por ta n t E u ro p e a n ri v e rs s u c h a s the D anube, the R hi ne, the P o and the R hone, carryi n g out vi t al ec os y s t em s e rv i c e s a n d s u p p o rti n g soci al and economi c w el l bei ng across a w i de l ow l and ar ea. Int egr at ed wat e r m a n a g e m e n t i s fo c a l fo r the sustai nabl e devel opment of the A l pi ne R egi on: ther e is a high pr es s ur e o n m o u n ta i n ri v e rs , g e n e r ati ng confl i cts of use. Clim at e c hange w i l l i n c re a s e E U w a te r d emand for mul ti pl e uses, exacerbati ng confl i cts between di ff er ent s t ak eh o l d e rs . ◄ N atural stretch of Lech ri ver i n Germany ©Ianina Kopecki, University of Stuttgart

The A l pi ne regi on and surroundi ng areas de pend on mountai n ri ver w ater for thei r devel op m ent : confl i cts of i nterests often ari se between di fferent stakehol ders i n rel ati on to the use of w ater i n the A l ps. The compl ex system of w ater manage m ent devel oped over the l ast centuri es now face s new chal l enges due to the i ncreasi ng w ater use f or soci al and economi c needs, and cl i mate ch ange pressures. Therefore, the current sy st em of w ater management must be sui tabl y and conti nuousl y adj usted i n order to sati sfy di ff er ent needs i n accord w i th l ocal and E U sets of laws.

● Di ffe r e n t v i ew s of a si ngle re s o u r c e ’ s future

The A lpine c lima te h a s c h a n g e d s i g n i fi cantl y dur ing t he las t c e n tu ry. Cl i mat e ch an g e in th e A lp s i n v o l v e s c o mpl ex co m binat ions o f s h o rt a n d l o n g -te rm forces re lat ed t o wea th e r p a tte rn s a n d a mp l i fi ed by dr iv er s link ed to a n th ro p o g e n i c g re e n house gas es . I m por t a n t e ffe c ts o n w a te r s ystems ar e alr eady ev i d e n t: d e c re a s e s i n s n o w cover, gl a c ier and p e rma fro s t c o v e r, te m p e rature i n c r eas e, s ev ere h y d ro l o g i c a l a l te ra ti o n s and i m pac t s on biol o g i c a l s y s te m s . Es t im at ed c han g e s i n p re c i p i ta ti o n w i l l further al ter r un‑ off re g i me s , w i th m o re d ro ughts i n s um m er, f lo o d s a n d l a n d s l i d e s i n wi nter and higher int e r-a n n u a l v a ri a b i l i ty a n d “more si gnif ic ant c ha n g e s a re e x p e c te d i n the i n c r eas ing f r eq u e n c y o f p re c i p i ta ti o n e x tr emes than in t he m ag n i tu d e o f e x tre me s ” (S our c e: B enis to n e t a l ., 2 0 0 7 ). P r é de B a rd Tri o l e t g l a c i e r i n Ao s ta Val l ey ( NW I t aly ) . Ev i d e n t g l a c i a l c o v e r re d ucti on f r om 1992 ( a b o v e ) a n d 2 0 11 (b e l o w ) i n vol vi ng diff er e n t w a te r a v a i l a b i l i ty p a tte rns ► 30

h andbook

section 1

D ue to cl i mate modi fi cati ons, the regi m e of catchments mi ght change to a constantl y reduced w ater l evel i n summer: thi s w oul d mea n an i mpact on general w ater avai l abi l i ty, especially i n the S outhern A l ps. A s a consequence, wat er shortage w oul d bri ng an i ncreased compet it ion for resource use, i n parti cul ar for agri cult ur e and el ectri ci ty producti on. C onsi deri ng t hese scenari os, di fferent vi ew s of the future of Alpine ri vers can be envi saged.

▲ T he A s t ic o r i v e r u p s tre a m o f L e d a ’s d a m ©Sara Pavan, ARPA Veneto

▲ Autumn scene of Chalamy river in North West of Italy HENCHOZ – Aosta Valley Autonomous region, Direction de la faune, de la flore, de la chasse et de la pêche

On the one hand, many economi c sectors such as agri cul ture, energy producti on, for est r y, touri sm and ri ver navi gati on, as w el l as millions of E uropean ci ti zens, rel y on A l pi ne ri ve r s t o sati sfy thei r needs; but on the other hand, m any ecosystems total l y depend on A l pi ne ri ver s and w ater avai l abi l i ty to mai ntai n freshw ater and w etl and habi tats and bi odi versi ty stock.

▲ Riv er A s t ic o a t P ri a , d o w n s tre a m P e d e s cal a ©Sara Pavan, ARPA Veneto

▲ F lus hing of H y d ro p o w e r p l a n t a t Bo d e ndorf ©Florian Asinger, Graz University of Technology

D ue to the val uabl e hydr oelectr ic asset in t he A lps, energy l egi sl ati on (D i recti ve 2009/ 28/ E C of the E uropean P arl i ament and o f t he C ounci l of 23 A pri l 2009 on the use of ener gy from renew abl e sources and amendi ng and subsequentl y repeal i ng D i recti ves 2001/7 7/ EC and 2003/30/E C ) consi ders the contri bution of hydropow er producti on for the A l pi ne area t o be very i mportant for el ectri ci ty generation by renew abl e energy resources i n order to re duce emi ssi ons of greenhouse gases. For these reasons, A l pi ne countri es r ef er to speci fi c nati onal goal s for hydrop ower producti on, and consequentl y, i ncre asing attenti on i s gi ven to expl oi tati on of available ri ver stretches, l eadi ng to potenti al confl i ct s wit h the conservati on of ecosystems and l andscapes.

h andbook section 1

●

Chapter 4 - Growing conflict of use

A t the present ti me, the expl oi tati on l ev el of hydropow er producti on i n the A l pi ne ar ea is si gni fi cant: the A lpine C onvention Wat er P l atform recentl y stated that, “hydropower generati on can be consi dered to be the m ain reason for w ater abstracti on (…).These res ult in the fact that a si gni fi cant share of ri ver stret ches fai l s to meet the good ecol ogi cal status” (Wat er and w ater management i ssues: R eport on t he S tate of the A l ps, 2009). ◄ S i l l on the ri ver Var, France ©Philippe Belleudy - University Joseph Fourier Grenoble

4000 3500 3000

T Wh

2500 27.4%

2000 28.8%

1500

S e r v i c e s , a gri c ul t ure a n d o th e r s e c t ors

1000

In d u s tr y Tr a n s p o r t

2030

2020

2010

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

2.7%

1990

Households

41.1%

500

Final electricity consumption by sector So urce: Eu r os t at ( his t or ic dat a) , Pr im es E n e r g y M o d e l ( E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n , 2 0 0 6 ) f o r p r o j e c t i o n s .

The E U 25 F ina l e l e c tri c i ty c o n s u mp ti o n i s the el ectri ci ty consumpti on of the fi nal energy dem and se c t or s : t he gr a p h d o e s n o t i n c l u d e th e e l ectri ci ty producers’ ow n use or transmi ssi on and di stri but ion l o s s es ( Las t upl o a d : 0 5 J u l 2 0 1 0 ). Thank s t o it s v a ri e ty o f h a b i ta ts , th e A l p s host the r ichest biodiver sity ar eas i n conti nental Eur ope and inc lude s om e o f th e fe w i s o l a te d a n d w i l d areas sti l l exi sti ng i n E urope. The A l ps are one of the m os t im por ta n t e c o -re g i o n s o f th e w o rl d i n terms of conservi ng gl obal bi odi versi ty (W W F 2004): al m os t 30, 000 a n i m a l s p e c i e s a n d 1 3 ,0 0 0 pl ant speci es can be found i n the A l pi ne space, and m any of t hes e ar e en d e mi c a n d i n c l u d e d i n H a b i tat and B i rd di recti ves (N atura 2000). Al pine r iv er s an d l a k e s re p re s e n t a u n i q u e envi ronment i n the A l ps, hosti ng bi ol ogi cal commu nit ies that ar e highly s p e c i a l i z e d a n d fra g i l e : e .g . about 80 di fferent fi sh speci es l i ve i n A l pi ne w ater bo dies. 32

h andbook

●

section 1

Chapter 4 - Growing conflict of use

H ow ever, due to a l ong hi story of anthropo genic modi fi cati on and expl oi tati on, many Alpine ri vers and streams have been ser iously damaged, and about 90% of them have lost thei r natural state (W W F, «The A l ps: a unique natural heri tage» - A common vi si on fo r t he conservati on of thei r bi odi versi ty - Frankf ur t Germany, 2004). C onsequentl y, the set of laws for ri ver management i s openl y ori ented to war ds the conservati on of the l ast remai ni ng n at ur al stretches, and tow ards the restorati on of t he ri ver sectors i mpacted by human acti vi ti es . ◄ W i l d autochthonous B row n trout i n Le Bor ne torrent, H aute-S avoi e, France ©Erik HENCHOZ – Aosta Valley Autonomous region, Direction de la faune, de la flore, de la chasse et de la pêche

● E U d i r e c ti v es, contradi ctory objectives? On t he one hand , th e D ir e c tiv e o n E le c tr ic ity P r oduction fr om R enewable E ner gy S our ces 1 ob liges EU m em ber s t a te s to i n c re a s e th e i r s h a r e of renew abl e el ectri ci ty producti on, i n order to re duce gr eenhous e gas e mi s s i o n s . T h e a i m i s to reach a “23% i ndi cati ve share of el ectri ci ty produced f r om re newable energ y s o u rc e s i n to ta l C o mmuni ty el ectri ci ty consumpti on by 2020”. On t he ot her ha n d , th e Wa te r F r a m e wo r k D ir ective 2 (W FD ) obl i ges E U member states to reach and ma int ain a “ goo d ” e c o l o g i c a l s ta tu s o f w a t er bodi es by 2015. The W FD refers to ri ver conti nui ty as a “q ualit y elem en t” to a s s e s s th e e c o l o g i c a l status, and underl i nes the need for “control on abstra ct ion and im poundm e n t i n o rd e r to e n s u re th e e nvi ronmental sustai nabi l i ty of the affected w ater system s” . For s om e, t he p ri o ri ty i s to p r o te c t a n d restor e rivers’ eco l o g i c a l s ta tu s , w h i c h me a n s re duci ng hum an ac t iv it ie s i mp a c ti n g w a te r b o d i es. For other s , ri vers a r e a v ita l s o u r c e o f e ner gy, in co me an d l oc a l d e v e lo p m e n t, th a n k s to the so c ial and ec on o mi c a c ti v i ti e s th e y s u p p ort. Al pine t er r it ori e s h a v e a h i g h l y s tr ategi c i n t er es t in de v e l o p i n g a n d m a i n ta i n i ng an i mpor t ant hy dr o p o w e r g e n e ra ti o n c a p a c i ty, but ri v er c ons er v ati o n a n d re s to ra ti o n a l l o w ri vers to per f or m not o n l y mo re e v i d e n t e c o logical servi ces s uc h a s to u ri s ti c a c ti v i ti e s , l a n d scape co ns er v at ion, mo u n ta i n a g ri c u l tu re a n d a n gl i ng, but als o t he r e d u c ti o n o f n a tu ra l h a z a rd s such as f loods or lan d s l i d e s : th e s e a re k e y i s s ues for l o c al c om m uniti e s a n d s ta k e h o l d e rs i n v o l ved. Dec is ion m ak er s a re c o m m i tte d to fi n d a b a l ance bet ween hy dr op o w e r a n d ri v e r e c o s y s te m needs.

▲ H ybri d of Marbl ed trout and B row n trout in C hal amy ri ver, Ital y ©Erik HENCHOZ – Aosta Valley

Autonomous region, Direction de la faune, de la flore, de la chasse et de la pêche

1 Dire ctive 20 09 /28/ EC of t he Eur opean Par liam e n t a n d o f t h e C o u n c i l o f 2 3 A p r i l 2 0 0 9 o n t h e u s e o f e n e r g y fr o m rene wab le sou rce s and am ending and s ubs equ e n t l y r e p e a l i n g D i r e c t i v e s 2 0 0 1 / 7 7 / E C a n d 2 0 0 3 / 3 0 / E C 2

Dire ctive 2 00 0/6 0/ EC of t he Eur opean Par liam e n t a n d o f t h e C o u n c i l o f 2 3 O c t o b e r 2 0 0 0 e s t a b l i s h i n g a f r a m e w o r k for Commu nity act ion in t he f ield of wat er polic y - WF D

h andbook section 1

â&#x2014;?

Chapter 4 - Growing conflict of use

â&#x2014;? H o t q u e s ti ons box Is it bet t er t o p ro te c t o r to p ro d u c e ? Who w i l l be the benefi ci ari es of thi s choi ce? H ow w ill t he out c om es be ev a l u a te d ? In t he c as e of wa te r s h o rta g e , w h a t a m o u n t of w ater w oul d be al l ocated to hydroel ectri ci ty produc t ion? Who c ar es abou t ri v e rs ? D o h e a l th y ri v e rs have rel ated stakehol ders i n A l pi ne communi ti es or not ? Whic h m ec hani s m w i l l b e a p p l i e d i n th e case of decreasi ng w ater avai l abi l i ty (w ater scarci ty and dr ought s ) t o s olv e e m e rg i n g c o n fl i c ts a m o n g di fferent w ater users (agri cul ture, i ndustry, hydroel ec t r icit y pr oduc t ion, dr in k i n g w a te r s u p p l y e tc .)?

h andbook

section 1

Li n ks and Bibliography Introduction

● A lpine Conv e n ti o n Pl a tfo rm “Wa te r M anagement i n the A l ps”, S i tuati on R eport on H ydropower Ge ner at ion in th e Al p s fo c u s i n g o n Sma l l H ydropow er: w w w.a l pc o n v. o r g / d o c u m e n ts / Pe r m an en t _Secret ariat /w eb /AC X I /AC 11_B 8 _1_Sit u at io n_ Repor t _ FI N _ a n n ex . p d f ● A lpine Conv e n ti o n Pl a tfo rm “Wa te r Management i n the A l ps”, C ommon gui del i nes for the use of small hy dr opow e r i n th e Al p i n e re g i o n w w w.a l pc o n v. o r g / d o c u me n ts / Pe r man en t _Secret ariat /w eb /AC X I /AC 11_B 8 _2_Gu id el ine s_ S H P_ en+a n n exe s . p d f ● A lp- Wat er - Sc a rc e c o n s o rti u m , “Wa te r M anagement i n a C hangi ng E nvi ronment”, S trategi es against Wat er S c ar c it y i n th e Al p s P ro j e c t Ou tc o mes and R ecommendati ons: ww w.s bg . a c . a t/ z gi s / a l p w a te r s c a r ce/0 3_Wo rk/WP 0 3_I n f o rmat io n An d P u b l icit y /3.2_AW S_ Webs it e _ Do c u me n ts / Re c o mme n d at io n s/Wat erMan ag emen t H an d b o o k.p d f ● Com m unic a ti o n & In fo rma ti o n R e s o u r ce C entre A dmi ni strator (C IR C A ), H ydropow er Gene r at ion i n t he c ont ex t o f th e EU WF D : http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l= /framework_directive/implementation_ conv ent io / h y d r o p o w e r _s e p te m b e r/114 18 _110 516 p d f /_EN_1.0 _& a= d ● E ur opean En v i ro n me n t A g e n c y ’s (E EA ), Techni cal R eport on the w ater resources of the A l ps and cl i m at e c hange : ww w.e ea . e u r o p a . e u / p u b l i c a ti o n s /al p s- cl imat e- ch an g e- an d - ad ap t at io n - 20 0 9 ?& u t m_ c am pa ign = a l p s - c l i ma te - c h a n g e - a nd - ad ap t at io n - 20 0 9 & u t m_med iu m= email & u t m_ s our c e=EE A S u b s c r i p ti o n s ●

E ur opean E n v i ro n m e n t Ag e n c y ’s (EE A), Techni cal R eport on vul nerabi l i ty to cl i mate change and adapt at ion t o w a te r s c a rc i ty i n th e Eu ro p ean A l ps. R egi onal C ase S tudi es: ht t p://eea . e i o n e t. e u r o p a . e u / P u b l i c/irc/eio n et - circl e/aircl imat e/l ib rary?l = /p u b l ic/20 0 9_ al ps _ s t ud y / r e vi s e d _0 9 0 4 07 _ f i n a l p d f /_EN_1.0 _& a= d

●

E ur opean S m a l l H y d ro p o w e r As s o c i a ti o n (E S H A ), S tate of the art of S H P i n E U -25: w w w.e s h a . b e / p u b l i c a ti o n s / p u b l i c at io n s.h t ml

●

I nt er nat iona l E n e rg y Ag e n c y (IEA ), i n p u t to the C l ean E nergy Mi ni steri al . U pdate June 2011, Clean e ner gy P r ogr es s R e p o rt: ht t p://ie a . o r g / p a p e r s / 2 0 11/ C E M _Pro g ress_Rep o rt .p d f

●

S wis s F edera l Offi c e fo r th e En v i ro n me nt (FOE N ), S w i ss Federal Offi ce of E nergy (S FOE ), Fe der al Off ic e f or S pat i a l D e v e l o p m e n t (AR E), R e commendati ons for devel opi ng cantonal conservati o n and ex ploit at ion s t r a te g i e s fo r s m a l l h y d ro p o w er pl ants: w w w.ba fu. a d mi n . c h / p u b l i k a ti o n e n/p u b l ikat io n /0 159 3/in d ex .h t ml ?l an g = en

Chapter 1

● A lpine Conv e n ti o n 2 nd Repor t on th e S ta te o f th e A l p s w w w.a l pc o n v. o r g / d o c u me n ts / Pe r man en t _Secret ariat /w eb /RSAI I /20 0 9 0 6 25_RSA_I I _ l ong.pdf ● ● 35

Ch2oic e P r o j e c t: C e rti fi c a ti o n fo r H y d ro: Improvi ng C l ean E nergy w w w.c h2 o i c e. e u / d o w n l o a d / p u b l i c /C H 2OI C E- sl id es.p d f E ur O bs er v ’E R w w w.e ur o b s e r ve r. o r g / p d f / p r e ss / year_20 11/Ren ew ab l e_en erg y _sh are/Press_Rel ease _ D ece m be r _2 0 11. p d f

h andbook section 1

L i n ks a nd Bibliography ●

F Lö RK E M., Alcamo J . (2 0 0 4 ): E u r opean Outl ook on Water U se. C enter for E nvi ronment al Sy s t em s Res ea rc h , U n i v e rs i ty o f Ka s s e l .

● M aiolini B ., B runo C . (2 0 0 7 ): T h e Ri ver C onti nuum C oncept revi si ted: Lessons from the Alps. Mu s eum of Nat u ra l Sc i e n c e s o f Tre n to , Secti on of H ydrobi ol ogy and Invertebrate Zool ogy, Innsbr uck univ er s it y pr es s . Chapter 2

●

B A CK M A N, T.W.H ., EVAN S, A .F., R OBE RTS ON , M.S ., H AW B E C K E R , M.A . (2002): Gas b ubble traum a inc iden c e i n j u v e n i l e s a l m o n i d s i n the l ow er C ol umbi a and S nake ri vers. N orth A mer ican Jour nal of F is he ri e s Ma n a g e me n t, 2 2 , 3 , 965-972.

● B A X T E R, R .M. (1 9 7 7 ): E n v i ro n m e n ta l effects of dams and i mpoundments. A nnual R eview of Ec ology and S y s te m a ti c s . 8 , 2 5 5 -2 8 3 . ●

B O , T. , F E N OGL IO, S ., M AL A C A R N E, G., P E S S IN O, M., S GA R IB OLD I, F. (2007): E ffec t s of cl o gging on s tre a m m a c ro i n v e rte b ra te s : A n experi mental approach. Li mnol ogi ca - E col ogy and Managem ent of In l a n d Wa te rs . 3 7 , 2 , 1 8 6 –192

●

B RUNO , M .C ., MA IOL IN I, B ., C A R OLLI, M., S ILV E R I, L. (2009): Impact of hydropeaki n g on h y por heic inv erte b ra te s i n a n Al p i n e s tre am (Trenti no, Ital y). A nnal es D e Li mnol ogi e-Interna t ional Jour nal of Lim n o l o g y, 4 5 , 3 , 1 5 7 -1 7 0 .

●

B RE T S CHK O , G. (1 9 8 5 ): R u n n i n g w a ters (conti nued). Quanti tati ve sampl i ng of the fauna of gr avel stream s ( P r ojec t R i tro d a t-L u n z ). Ve rh .In te rnat.Verei n.Li mnol . 22, 2049-2052.

●

B RUNO M . C ., M AIOL IN I B ., C AR OL LI M., S ILV E R I L. (2009): S hort ti me-scal e i mpact s of hy dr opeak ing o n b e n th i c i n v e rte b ra te s i n an A l pi ne stream (Trenti no, Ital y). Int. J. Li m. 45, 157 - 170.

● B UNN & A RT H IN GTON , (2 0 0 2 ): Ba s i c pri nci pl es and ecol ogi cal consequences of al tered f low re gim es f or aqu a ti c b i o d i v e rs i ty . E n v i ro n m ental Management. 30, 4, 492-507. ●

CÉ RÉ G HI NO, R ., L AVAN D IE R , P. (1 9 9 8 ) : Infl uence of hypol i mneti c hydropeaki ng on the di stri but ion and populat ion d y n a m i c s o f E p h e m e ro p te r a i n a mountai n stream. Freshw ater B i ol .40, 385–399.

●

CE RE G HI NO , R . L EGA L L E, M . L AVA ND IE R , P. (2004): D ri ft and benthi c popul ati on structur e of the m ay f ly Rhit h ro g e n a s e mi c o l o ra ta (H e ptageni i dae) under natural and hydropeaki ng condit ions. Hy dr obiologia, 5 1 9 , 1 -3 , 1 2 7 -1 3 3 .

●

CRO S A G . , C AS T EL L I E ., GE N T IL I G., E S PA P. (2009): E ffects of suspended sedi ments f r om re s er v oir f lus hin g o n fi s h a n d ma c ro i n v e rt ebrates i n an A l pi ne stream. A quat. S ci . 72, 85-95.

● F ÜRE DE R, L . (2 0 0 7 ): N a ti o n a l p a rk H ohe Tauern Gew ässer. Wi ssenschaftl i che S chr if t en. Nat ionalpar k Ho h e Ta u e rn . Ty ro l i a -Ve rl a g , Innsbruck-W i en, S 248. ●

F RE E M A N, M . C ., MA R C IN E K, P. A . (2 0 06): Fi sh assembl age responses to w ater w i thdraw als and wat er s upply r e s e rv o i rs i n Pi e d m o n t s tre a ms. E nvi ronmental Management. 38, 3. 435-450

●

F O RS T E NLEC H N ER , E., H Ü T T E, M ., B U N D I, U ., E IC H E N B E R GE R , E ., P E TE R , A ., Zobrist , J. (1997) : Ö k ologi s c h e As p e k te d e r Wa s s e rk raftnutzung i m A l pi nen R aum. vdf H ochschul verl ag AG an d er E T H Z ür ic h. ISB N 3 -7 2 8 1 -2 4 6 8 -0 , 1 0 0 S .

● F RUT I G E R A . (2 0 0 4 ): E c o l o g i c a l i m p a cts of hydroel ectri c pow er producti on on the R i ver Ticino. Pa r t 1: T her m al e ffe c ts . Arc h . H y d ro b i o l . 1 59, 43-56. ● G A RB RE CH T, G. (1 9 9 5 ) : M e i s te rw e rk e anti ker H ydrotechni k - S tuttgart: B .G. Teubner vdf Hoc hs c hulve rl a g A G a n d e r ET H Z ü ri ch, IS B N 3-8154-2505-0, 154 S . 36

h andbook

section 1

Li n ks and Bibliography ●

HA LLE RA K E R J H , S ALT V EIT S J , H A R B Y A , A R N E K LE IV JV, FJE LD S TA D H P, K OH LE R B (2003) : Fac t or s inf luen c i n g s tra n d i n g o f w i l d j u v eni l e brow n trout (S al mo trutta) duri ng rapi d and fre quent fl o w dec r eas es i n a n a rti fi c i a l s tre a m . R i v er R es A ppl 19:589–603.

● HA UNS CHM ID R ., W OL F R AM G., S PIN D LE R T., H ON S IG-E R LE N B U R G W., W IMME R R ., JA GSCH A. , K A I NZ E . , H EH EN WART E R K ., WAGN E R B ., K ON E C N Y R ., R IE D MÜ LLE R R ., IB E L G., S A SANO B. , S CHO T Z K O N . (2 0 0 6 ): E rs te l l u n g e i n er fi schbasi erten Typol ogi e österrei chi scher Fl i eßgewäser sowie einer B ew e rtu n g s me th o d e d e s fi s c h ökol ogi schen Zustandes gemäß E U -Wasserrahmenri ch t linie. Sc hr if t enr eihe d e s BAW B a n d 2 3 , Wi e n . ● HÜT T E ( 200 0 ): Ök o l o g i e u n d Wa s s e rb au: ökol ogi sche Grundl agen von Gew ässerverbauun g und Was s er k r af t nut z u n g / M i c h a e l H ü tte . M i t e inem Gel ei tw. Von Jürgen S chw oerbel .- B erl i n; W i en: Par ey, 2000, B lac k wel l Wi s s e n s c h a fts -Ve rl a g . ● ●

K A RR, J . R. (1 9 8 1 ): As s e s s me n t o f b i o ti c i ntegri ty usi ng fi sh communi ti es. Fi sheri es, 6, 21-27

M O O G , O . ( 1 9 9 3 ): Qu a n ti fi c a ti o n o f d a i l y peak hydropow er effects on aquati c fauna and manage m ent to m inim iz e env i ro n me n ta l i mp a c ts . R e g u lated R i vers: R esearch & Management, 8, 1-2, 5-14.

●

O F E NB Ö CK T., M OOG O., GER R IT S EN J., B A R B OU R M. (2004): A stressor speci fi c mul ti met r ic appr oac h f or m o n i to ri n g ru n n i n g w a te rs i n A ustri a usi ng benthi c macro-i nvertebrates. H ydrobi o logia 516, 251- 268.

●

P O ULE T, N. (2 0 0 7 ): Imp a c t o f w e i rs on fi sh communi ti es i n a P i edmont stream. R i ver R esear ch and A pplic at ion s . 2 3 , 9 , 1 0 3 8 -1 0 4 7

●

RE HN A . C . (2 0 0 9 ): B e n th i c m a c ro i n vertebrates as i ndi cators of bi ol ogi cal condi ti on below h y dr opower dam s o n w e t s l o p e s i e rra N e v ada streams, C al i forni a, U S A . R i ver. R es. A ppl i c. 25, 2082 28.

●

S A LT V E I T, S .J ., H AL L E R A KE R , J .H ., AR N E K LE IV, J.V., H A R B Y, A . (2001): Fi el d experi men t s on str anding in juv e n i l e A tl a n ti c s a l m o n (S a l mo sal ar) and brow n trout (S al mo trutta) duri ng rapi d f low dec r eas es c aus e d b y h y d ro p e a k i n g . R e g u lated R i vers-R esearch & Management, 17, 4-5, 609-6 22.

●

S CHA LCHLI , U . (1 9 9 5 ): Ba s i c e q u a ti o n s for si l tati on of ri verbeds. Journal of H ydraul i c E ngi ne er ingAs c e. 121, 3, 2 7 4 -2 8 7 .

● S CHNE I DER , M., N OA C K , M., GEB L E R , T., K OP E C K I, I. (2010): H andbook for the Habit at Si m ulat ion M od e s C A Si M i R . M o d u l e : C AS iMi R -Fi sh B ase Versi on. sj e - S chnei der & Jorde E col ogical En gineer ing G mb H ; In s ti tu t fü r Wa s e rb a u , U ni versi tät S tuttgart. ●

S M I T H, J . ( 20 0 9 ): T h e H y p o rh e i c H a n d b ook. A handbook on the groundw ater–surface w ater i nte r f ace and hy por heic z o n e fo r e n v i ro n m e n t m a n agers. C hapter 1 Introducti on, C hapter 2 E nvi ronm ent al Managem ent C o n te x t. En v i ro n me n t A g e n c y, R i o H ouse, Watersi de D ri ve, A ztec West, A l mondsbur y, Br is t ol, B S 32 4U D .

●

VA NNO T E , R .L ., M IN S H A L L ,G.W., C U MMIN S ,K .W., S E D E LL,J.R ., C U S H IN G,C .E . (1980): The Riv er Cont inuum C o n c e p t. C a n . J . F i s h . A quat. S ci . 37, 130-137.

● VA NNO T E , R .L .& S WE EN EY, B .W.(1 9 80): Geographi c anal ysi s of thermal equi l i bri a: a concept ual mo del f or ev alua ti n g th e e ffe c t o f n a tu ra l a nd modi fi ed thermal regi mes on aquati cs i nsect communit ies. The A m er ic an N a tu ra l i s t. 11 5 , 5 , 6 6 7 -6 9 5 . ● V E LI ČK O V I Ć , B . (2 0 0 5 ). C o l m a ti o n a s o ne of the processes i n i nteracti on betw een the ground wat er a nd s ur f ac e wa te r. F a c ta u n i v e rs i ta ti s - s e ri es: A rchi tecture and C i vi l E ngi neeri ng, 3, 2, 165-17 2.

h andbook section 1

L i n ks a nd Bibliography ● WA RI NG E R , J . A. (2 0 0 3 ): L i g h t-tra p p i ng of caddi sfl i es at the Thaya (Low er A ustri a), a r iver i n f luenc ed by pu l s a ti n g h y p o l i mn e ti c w a te r rel ease. Internati onal R evi ew of H ydrobi ol ogy. 88, 2, 139153. ● W I LLI A M S , D .D . & H YN ES , H .B .N . (1 974): The occurrence of benthos deep i n the substrat um of a s t r eam . F r es h w a te r Bi o l . 4 , 3 , 2 3 3 -2 5 6 Chapter 3

● RiZ eRiLi - L’ Is è re e n d i g u é e d a n s l e Gr ési vaudan - D u ri sque zéro à l a ri vi ère l i bérée : entr e ces deux ut opies , q u e l l e a tte n te s o c i a l e ? – (Feasabi l i ty of a room-for-the-ri ver pol i cy : Lessons f r om a pr ojec t of t he d y k e d u p Is e re ri v e r i n Gresi vaudan Val l ey). P rogramme R i sque-déci si on-territ oir e. Ju ly 2007. w w w.r dt r i s q u e s . o r g / p r o j e ts / r i ze r i l i/b ib /rap p o rt f in al /MEDD- RDT- RI ZERI LI - Rap p o rt %20 fina l _ 20 0 8 - 0 2 . p d f / f i l e _vi e w ● V ivier D. - 1 9 9 2 . L e s mi c ro -ma rc h é s des produi ts de qual i té : un atout pour l e dével oppement des mont agnes d’E u ro p e ( l ’ e x e mp l e d u fro m a g e de B eaufort. A l pes françai ses). In: R evue de géographie Al pine. 1992, To me 8 0 N ° 4 . p p . 1 6 7 -1 8 3 . d oi : 10.3406/rga.1992.3657 ww w.pe r s e e. f r / w e b / r e vu e s / h o m e / p rescrip t /art icl e/rg a_0 0 35- 1121_19 9 2_n u m_8 0 _4 _3 657 Chapter 4

● S HA RE – W P 5 .1 A - Te c h n i c a l re v i e w d e scri bi ng W FD , Fl oods and other E U di recti ves i mpl ementat ion:

Te chnic al r e vi e w d e s c r i b i n g W F D, Fl o o d s an d o t h er EU d irect iv es imp l emen t at io n in A lpine S pace

● S HA RE – W P 5 .4 A - Te c h n i c a l re p o r t on cri teri a and i ndi cators to i denti fy vul nerabi l i ty of Alp ar eas and r iv er e c o s y s te ms : M ap of m o s t vu l n e ra b l e r i ve r ty p o l ogies t o H P ● S HA RE – W P 5 .4 C - M a p p i n g o f most vul nerabl e ri ver typol ogi es - GIS mappi ng (softwar e & me dia) : Cr it er ia an d i n d i c a to r s to i d e n ti f y vu l n erab il it y o f Al p in e areas an d riv er eco sy st ems ● S HA RE – W P 6 .2 B - Ma p s o f re s i d u a l H P potenti al i n A S (from H P demand census), (Googl e Ear t h & s hape f iles r e p re s e n ta ti o n – s o ftw a re ) M a ps of r e s i d u a l H P p o te n ti a l i n A lp in e Sp ace ●

A lpine Conv e n ti o n Pl a tfo rm “R e p o rt on the S tate of the A l ps”, Water and w ater manage m ent i ss ues , 2009: w w w.a l pc o n v. o r g / d o c u me n ts / Pe r man en t _Secret ariat /w eb /RSAI I /20 0 9 0 6 25_RSA_I I _long. pdf

h andbook

section 1

Li n ks and Bibliography ●

CI P RA F ut ure i n th e Al p s , B i o d i v e rs i ty H otspot A l ps: ht t p://al p s k n o w h o w. c i p ra . o r g / b a ckg ro u n d _t o p ics/b io d iv ersit y _h o t sp o t /b io d iv ersit y_ hot s pot _ c h a p te r _ 1. h tm l

● Dir ec t iv e 20 0 9 /2 8 /E C o f th e E u ro p e a n P arl i ament and of the C ounci l of 23 A pri l 2009 on the use of ener gy f r om re n e w a b l e s o u rc e s a n d a mendi ng and subsequentl y repeal i ng D i recti ves 2001/7 7/ EC and 2003/ 30/ E C : ht t p://e ur- l ex . e u r o p a . e u / L ex U r i S erv /Lex UriServ .d o?u ri= OJ :L:20 0 9 :14 0 :0 0 16 :0 0 6 2:en:PDF ● Dir ec t iv e 200 0 /6 0 /E C o f th e E u ro p e a n Parl i ament and of the C ounci l of 23 October 2000 establ ishing a f r am ewor k f or C o m m u n i ty a c ti o n i n th e fi el d of w ater pol i cy: ht t p://e ur- l ex . e u r o p a . e u / L ex U r i S e rv /Lex UriServ .d o?u ri= OJ :L:20 0 0 :327:0 0 0 1:0 072:EN:PDF ●

E c ologic al N e tw o rk s i n th e E u ro p e a n Al ps: w w w.Al pi n e - e c o l o gi c a l - n e tw o r k . o rg /t h e- Al p in e- eco l o gical - n et w o rk/Al p in e- b io d iv ersity

● E ur opean En v i ro n me n t A g e n c y ’s (E EA ), Techni cal R eport on the w ater resources of the A l ps and cl i m at e c hange : ww w.e ea . e u r o p a . e u / p u b l i c a ti o n s /al p s- cl imat e- ch an g e- an d - ad ap t at io n - 20 0 9 ?& u t m_ c am pa ign = a l p s - c l i ma te - c h a n g e - a nd - ad ap t at io n - 20 0 9 & u t m_med iu m= email & u t m_ s our c e=EE A S u b s c r i p ti o n s ● W W F, «T he Al p s : a u n i q u e n a tu ra l heri tage» - A common vi si on for the conservati on of t heir biodiv er s it y - Fra n k fu rt Ge rm a n y, 2 0 0 4 : ht t p://al p s k n o w h o w. c i p ra . o r g / b a ckg ro u n d _t o p ics/b io d iv ersit y _h o t sp o t /p d f s/w w f _2 004. pdf

h andbook section 2

Sect i o n 2: S HA RE sol u t io n , h o w t o ... ●

a) SHARE solution: balancing river ecosystems and hydropower requirements, supporting the decision, and making transparent and shared objectives.

● Ma ke t h e balance SH A RE put s f o rw a rd c o n c re te me a n s to stri ke a balanc e bet w e e n th e n e e d s o f h y d ro p o w er, of public adm inis tra to rs i n te rm s o f w a te r bodi es’ healt h, and t o a l l s ta k e h o l d e rs i n v o l v e d i n ri ver and hy dr opowe r-re l a te d i s s u e s . To r eac h t his b a l a n c e , S H A R E h a s c re a ted a mat h emat i cal de c is io n s s u p p o r t s y s te m (MC A ) to c ons ider all a c to rs i n v o l v e d , th e i r i n t erests and point s of v i e w, b u t a l s o th e l e g i sl ati ve re quir em ent s us i n g a c l e a r p ro c e d u re .

S H A R E ai ms to appl y the Mul ti C ri teri a A nalysis (MC A ) methodol ogy to the H P pl ants’ decision processes. Thi s approach i s l ed usi ng an exi sti ng i nformat ics tool customi zed duri ng the proj ect to fac ilit at e the comprehensi on of the procedure b y all stakehol ders; i t’s cal l ed S E S A MO softw are. It w orks w i th proj ects contai ni ng data and structures that feed the deci si on process. The structure of the proj ect refl ects the l ogi cal st eps of the methodol ogy.

Landscape Farming and Breeding

Financial outcomes

HP Production

Hydrogeologic risk Tourist fruition

River conservation

Illustration of stakeholders conflicting interests © G r oupe Ener gies Renouv e l a b l e s , E n v i r o n n e m e n t e t S o l i d a r i t é s - 2 0 1 2

h andbook

section 2

● W h a t a r e these steps that you need to identify?

● WHAT to evaluate

● WHERE – Perimeter

● HOW to evaluate

● WHO is involved or takes part?

● WHEN can you evaluate?

Fi r s t , y ou will n e e d to i d e n ti fy p o s s i b l e management al ternati ves. Eac h s pec if ic c a s e i s u n i q u e , re g a rd i n g th e “W hat, H ow, W ho, W hen”, but al so regardi ng the “W h er e” . In deed, a c as e c a n re fe r to a s i n g l e H P p l a nt, to a group of pl ants i n a ri ver system or to managem ent o f an ent ir e bas i n . Sec ond, c as e- s p e c i fi c i s s u e s w i l l b e c l a ri fi ed i n order to sel ect cri teri a and i ndi cators w hi c h ar e n ec es s ar y t o bu i l d th e d e c i s i o n tre e . Th e aim of t his M C A m e th o d o l o g y i s to h el p al l stakehol ders to take a common deci si on rega r ding th eir c as e, and th e re fo re to re a c h a n a g reement taki ng i nto account as much as possi bl e each point o f v iew and inte re s t. T h a t i s w h y th e i d e nti fi cati on of al l the peopl e w ho may be l i nked di rec t ly or i ndir ec t ly t o t he c a s e i s i mp o rta n t. A k ey as pec t of th e MC A me th o d o l o g y i s that thi s tool can be i mpl emented ex-ante or ex-post. In ot her wor ds i t c a n re fe r to a n e w p ro j e ct, e.g. a new H P i mpl ementati on, but i t can al so be used fo r a dec is ion ta k e n i n th e p a s t. 41

h andbook section 2

Sect i o n 2: S HA RE sol u t io n , h o w t o ... ●

b) Multi-Criteria Analysis: what is this?

Mu lt i- Cr it er ia A n a l y s i s (MC A) a p p e a re d i n the 1960s as a deci si on-maki ng tool . It i s used to m ake a co m par at iv e ass e s s me n t o f a l te rn a ti v e s , on the basi s of some eval uati on cri teri a. The v alidit y of th e re s u l ts i s s tro n g l y l i n ked to the choi ce of the cri teri a, w hi ch need to be de f ined ca r ef ully, t ak ing i n to a c c o u n t a l l th e fa c to r s that coul d affect the probl em that i s goi ng to be analyzed. The m et hod is d e s i g n e d to h e l p d e c i s i o n -makers i ntegrate the di fferent opti ons, refl ecti ng the opinions of t he ac t or s c o n c e rn e d . P a rti c i p a ti o n o f t he deci si on-makers i n the process i s a central part of t he appr oac h. T he re s u l ts a re u s u a l l y d i re c te d at provi di ng operati onal advi ce or recommendati ons f or fut ur e ac t iv it ies . Clas s ic al M CA i s a ri g o ro u s ma th e ma ti c al methodol ogy that al l ow s stakehol ders to assi gn a scor e to eac h alt er nati v e . T h i s s c o re i s a q u a n tifi cati on of the performance of the al ternati ve i n rel ation t o eac h c r it er ion a n d i t re p re s e n ts a me a s u r e of the gl obal val i di ty of the al ternati ve w i th referen ce t o the c r it er ia s ele c te d to e v a l u a te i t. At t he end of th e a n a l y s i s , a v e c to r o f t he performances i s produced that presents the ord er of pr ef er enc es of th e a l te rn a ti v e s . The s c or es allow ra n k i n g o f a l te rn a ti v e s . The al ternati ve that i s characteri zed by the hi ghest sc or e is the bes t alt er na ti v e fo r th e p ro b l e m i n q u e sti on. The dec is ion pr o c e s s c o n s i s ts o f fi v e m a i n steps: ● S elec ti o n o f a l te rn a ti v e s ● Cr it er i a a n d i n d i c a to rs s e l e c ti o n ● Ut ilit y fu n c ti o n c h o i c e ● Weigh t a l l o c a ti o n ● F inal ra n k i n g

h andbook

section 2

S ect i o n 2: S HA RE sol u t io n , h o w t o ... ●

Chapter 1 - STEP 1: What to evaluate? Stakeholder identification, problems and alternatives

● Wh o a r e the stakeholders i nvol ved? Aq uat ic env ir on m e n ts a re s u b j e c t to d i ffe rent i nterests. Thus, the devel opment and managem ent of wat er r es our c es w i th o u t a d o u b t w i l l ra i s e confl i cts betw een di fferent actors. In t he c as e of S H A R E , th e s ta k e h o l d e rs o f interests are general l y as fol l ow s: operators of hydroelect r ic plant s , ins t it ut io n a l s e rv i c e s o f w a te r a n d aquati c systems, fi shermen, associ ati ons for the defence of nat ur e, t er r it or i e s i n c h a rg e o f m a n a g e m e nt of w ater resources etc. It is nec es s ar y to a u d i t a l l o p i n i o n s re l a ti ng to the di fferent i ssues rel evant to each of these a ct or s and t hen t o c o n s i d e r s e v e ra l s c e n a ri o s of i mpl ementati on, refl ecti ng the ambi ti ons of each. The pr oc es s m us t be a s th o ro u g h a s p o s s i b l e i n order to achi eve a bal anced and transparent mul ti -crit er ia analy s is .

● W h a t i s a n alternati v e? Alt er nat iv es ar e p o s s i b l e s c e n a ri o s o f H P pl ant i m plem ent at ion th a t c a n b e c o n s i d e red by th e s t ak eholde rs . In g e n e ra l te rms , a p roj ect a lt er nat iv e m u s t re p re s e n t a l l th e p ossi bl e a c t ions t hat a d e s i g n e r i s a b l e to u n d e rt ake to i nf luenc e f ut ur e e v e n ts . All t he v ar iable s th a t th e d e s i g n e r i s n ot abl e to c ont r ol ( ex og e n o u s v a ri a b l e s ) a re p a rt of the sc enar io wit hin w h i c h th e p ro j e c t i s p l a c ed. For th is r eas on, t he s c e n a ri o re p re s e n ts a p o ssi bl e e v olut ion of t he c o n te x t. It i s n o t d e p e n dent on th e s pec if ic alt e rn a ti v e a n d s o i t d o e s n o t d epend o n t he s t ak ehol d e r ’s c h o i c e s . An alt er nat iv e i s a b l e to h a v e a n i n fl uence o n t he indic ato rs th a t re p re s e n t th e system. In ot her wor ds , e a c h a l te rn a ti v e w i l l p roduce som e m odif ic ati o n o f c e rta i n i n d i c a to rs , but not n ec es s ar ily all o f th e m. In or der t o c om p a re a l l th e d i ffe re n t a l te rn ati ves, i t is nec es s ar y to i n tro d u c e th e s o c a l l e d “zero a lt er nat iv e” , t h a t w i l l a l l o w th e s ta k ehol der to c om par e alte rn a ti v e s th a t a re n o t p erfectl y h om ogeneous w i th o n e a n o th e r. T h e “zero a lt er nat iv e” r e p re s e n ts th e v a l u e th at the i ndic at or s of t h e p ro c e s s w o u l d a s s u m e i n the cas e t hat no pr o j e c t, n o r m a n a g e m e n t d ifferent to t he pr es ent , w i l l b e re a l i z e d a n d , b y d e fi ni ti on, i t s et s t he r ef er e n c e fo r a l l i n d i c a to rs .

These al ternati ves vary accordi ng to each local i ssue, and they shoul d therefore be adapt ed to each si tuati on encountered. E ach hol d er of i nterest may present a scenari o of i mpl ement at ion of w hi ch they are sati sfi ed, al l ow i ng i t t o be anal ysed, compared and bal anced w i th t he scenari os proposed by the other hol de r s of i nterests w i thi n the roundtabl e di scussi on.

Interestbearing Hydropower Interestbearing Aquatic systems

Interestbearing λ

A LT E R N AT I V E S

Interestbearing Landscape

Interestbearing Other use Interestbearing Natural risks

Various interests for different alternatives ©Group for the Environment, Renewable Energy and Solidarity - 2012

h andbook section 2

Sect i o n 2: S HA RE sol u t io n , h o w t o ... ●

Chapter 2 - STEP 2: How to evaluate? System description: criteria, indicators, the decision tree

Ev er y r iv er m an a g e m e n t s i tu a ti o n c a n b e descri bed usi ng general cri teri a (such as energy product ion, ec onom y, r iv er e c o s y s te m, l a n d s c a p e , e tc .). Ev er y c r it er ion h a s to b e d e ta i l e d b y o n e or more i ndi cators entai l i ng quanti tati ve or qual it at ive i n f or m at ion abo u t th e e ffe c ts o f d i ffe re n t management al ternati ves. Indic at or s ar e a v i a b l e w a y to p a s s fro m a n amount of “rough data” to “useful i nformati on”. Cr it er ia and ind i c a to rs a re b ra n c h e s a n d l eaves of the “deci si on tree”, the framew ork used by S HARE MC A t o f ully de s c ri b e e v e ry ri v e r s i tu a ti o n . SH A RE M CA ne e d s g o o d i n d i c a to rs to g i v e good resul ts.

● T h e S H A RE deci si on tree The S HA RE M C A p ro v i d e s a d e c is io n tr ee co m pos ed of a n i n te rre l a te d s e t o f w e i ghted cri t eri a and in d ic a to r s ta i l o re d to the re quir em ent s of e a c h s p e c i fi c c a s e a n d a d a ptabl e to ev er y r iv er s i tu a ti o n . SH A RE M CA de c i s i o n tre e g e n e ra l l y i m p l i es: ● a co mmo n d e c is io n tr e e fr a m e wo r k , s tri ctl y “s t ak eholder f oc u s e d ”; ● a s pec if ic f oc u s o n in d ic a to r fe a tu r e s & mean i n g s.

EC ON OM Y

PR OF I T-PAYBAC K R AT I O

EN ER GY PR OD U C T I ON

GW h PR OD U CTI O N HYDROPMORPHOLOGY C H EM I C ALM I CR O B. QU ALI T Y

R I VER EC OSYST EM

F I SH ES BEN T H OS M AC R OPH Y TA

HP S US TAI N ABI LI T Y E VA LU AT I ON

F I SH ER M E N I N VOLVED ASSESSM E N T F I SH I N G AD U LT F I SH ES L O SS

A generic frame of SHARE MCA decision tree

LAN D SC AP E QU ALI T Y D AP- «W I LL TO PAY F OR » LAN D SC APE PART I C U LA R LAN D SC AP E U N I T I ES I N VO LVED

TOU R I SM

TOU R I SM F R UI TI O N / YEAR

h andbook

section 2

Criteria C ri t eri a ar e s t a n d a rd s u s e d fo r j u d g i n g somethi ng or for maki ng a deci si on about somethi ng t o be cons ider ed: S H A R E c ri te ri a a re s tri c tl y “s takeholder focused” meani ng that each cri teri on h as at l eas t one s t ak e h o l d e r i n v o l v e d i n th e d e c i si on maki ng process. Th e c om pr ehen s i v e s e t o f SH A R E M C A c riter ia i s speci fi ed bel ow : ● E NE R GY P R OD U C T ION ● E CO N OM Y (re l a te d to H P e x p l o i tati on) ● RI V E R E C OS YS T EM ● TO UR IS M (a n d o th e r ri v e r a s s e t s) ● F I S HI N G ● L AND S C A PE ● O T HE R C R IT E R IA (d ri n k a b l e w a ter, factori es, agri cul ture, etc.)

Indicators Ev er y c r it er ion mu s t h a v e a t l e a s t o n e in dicator meaning “ a m e a s u re , g e n e ra l l y q u a n ti tati ve, th at c an be us e d to i l l u s tra te a n d c o mmuni cate com plex pheno m e n a s i m p l y, i n c l u d i n g trends a nd pr ogr es s o v e r ti me ” (EE A, Eu ropean Env ir onm ent A g e n c y, 2 0 0 5 ). Som e indic at ors c o u l d b e m o re “o ffi c i a l ” bei ng d er iv ed f r om a s e t o f l a w s , s o me c o u l d be e c onom ic ( i. e. v a l u e i n e u ro s ), a n d s o me others could be der iv e d fro m e x p e rt-b a s e d q u a l i tati ve a s s es s m ent : all o f th e m a re s tri c tl y d e p e n d ent on da t a avai l ab i l i ty a n d tra n s p a re n c y o f m e a ni ng. SHA RE M CA a l l o w s c o n s i d e ra ti o n o f i n d i cators repr es ent ing “h a r d in fo r m a tio n ” (s u ch as MegaWat t s per h o u r p ro d u c e d o r e u ro s gai ned b y s elling en e rg y ) a n d “s o ft in fo r mation” (s uc h as r iv er s ta tu s e c o l o g i c a l q u a l i ty c lasses, fi s her m en s at is fa c ti o n l e v e l s , e tc .) to g e t her i n th e s am e dec isi o n tre e . Ge ner ally, eac h s ta k e h o l d e r c h o o s e s h i s ow n cr it er ia indic at o r s e t, to b e tte r re p re s ent hi s o wn int er es t s , a c c o rd i n g to s p e c i fi c s i tuati on requir em ent s .

► H o w to s e l e c t g o o d i n d icators fo r S H A R E MC A ?

The choi ce of i ndi cators can be made consi deri ng di fferent aspects:

● Indicator fitness: every i ndi cator must have a causal rel ati onshi p w i th di fferent al ternati ves of management consi dered ; usi ng non-reacti ve i ndi cators l i mi ts the si gni fi cance of MC A ● C om pliance with the legislative fr am ewor k: w hen possi bl e, and w hen si gni fi cant, i t i s i mportant to use offi ci al i ndi cators requi red from a l ocal set of l aw s to strengthen deci si on maki ng bei ng stri ctl y l egal l y compl i ant ● C om pliance with stakeholder needs: i ndi cators have to represent rel ated stakehol ders i n a cl ear w ay; stakehol de r s must recogni se thei r ow n i nterests i n i ndi cators ● C om pliance with the investigation: i ndi cator sui tabi l i ty i n frami ng the i nvesti gated topi c i s essenti al i n order to grant si gni fi cance to i nformati on; the same cri teri a, eval uated i n di fferent contexts, l ocati ons, ti mi ngs, scal es, etc. coul d requi re di fferent i ndi cators ● Available datasets: i t may be i mpossi bl e to acqui re data (i .e. for cost reasons, for ti me reasons, etc.), so i ndi cators i denti fi ed and i mpl emented wit h avai l abl e data must be preferred

h andbook section 2

●

Chapter 2 - STEP 2: How to evaluate? System description: criteria, indicators, the decision tree

Wat er F r am e w o rk D i re c ti v e (2 0 0 0 /6 0 / E C) as s igns a s tra te g i c i mp o rta n c e to indic at or s r e l a te d to b i o l o g i c a l ri v e r c om m unit y s ta tu s (d i a to ms , m a c ro p h y te s, m ac r oz ooben th o s a n d fi s h e s ). Ve ry o ft en in m ount ain s tre tc h e s , o ffi c i a l WF D r elat ed indic a to rs d o n ’ t s e e m to re s p o nd as ex pec t ed to ri v e r H P e ffe c ts a n d s o , it m ay be pos s i b l e th a t n o H P u p s tre a m downs t r eam g ra d i e n t i s e v i d e n t th ro u g h s am pling. F is h- bas ed i n d i c a to rs c a n re s p o n d v e ry well t o HP pre s s u re , b u t fre q u e n tl y fi s h populat ions a re h e a v i l y a ffe c te d b y unc ont r olled re s to c k i n g b y fi s h e rme n . W h y t h i s l ac k o f r e s p o n s e to H P p ressu re? ● I s it due t o th e o ffi c i a l me tri c c h o i c e being m or e r e l a te d to o th e r d ri v e rs ( t r ophic & nu tri e n t c o n d i ti o n s , ri v e rb e d m odif ic at ions , p o l l u ta n t p re s e n c e … )? ● I s it due t o a l o w ta x o n o m i c l e v e l o f c las s if ic at ion o f b i o ta (i mp o s s i b l e to adopt t he “ r i v e t p o p p i n g ” a p p ro a c h )? ● I s it due t o th e a v e ra g e s i z e & h o m e r ange of or ga n i s m s c o n s i d e re d b e i n g too s m all ( bent h o s , d i a to ms )? ● I s it due t o to o s h o rt a p e ri o d o f inv es t igat ion s ? ● I s it due t o th e a d a p ta ti o n o f c om m unit ies to c h ro n i c H P e ffe c ts ? ● I s it due t o th e c o m b i n a ti o n o f H P ef f ec t s and n a tu ra l mo u n ta i n c o n s tra i n ts? I t is an int er e s ti n g re s e a rc h to p i c BU T in t he m eanw h i l e th e a m o u n t o f n e w dem ands and c o n c e s s i o n re n e w a l s i s c ons t ant ly gro w i n g !

Indi cators must be r eal indicator s, meaning that they have to be provi ded w i th full met a infor m ation (such as name, descri pti on, aim , measurement uni t, methods of el abor at ion, bi bl i ographi c references etc. - see S HARE i ndi cators tool box) and shoul d hav e a correspondi ng dataset w i th w hi ch they ca n be el aborated. Indicator fitness i s a focal topi c: ever y al ternati ve must exert a cl ear effect on i nd icat or val ue, and the methodol ogy or the model to quanti fy i ndi cator val ues corresponding to di fferent al ternati ves has to be c lear ly understood.

◄ W FD bi ol ogi cal communi ty i ndi cators and S H A R E MC A Fi sh popul ati ons are reacti ve to H P pressur e, but they can be affected by uncontrol l ed restocki ng by fi shermen ▼

h andbook

●

section 2

Chapter 2 - STEP 2: How to evaluate? System description: criteria, indicators, the decision tree

Name o f t h e in d ic a to r : H P e ffe c t o n lands c ape ( p ro x y i n d i c a to r) Ai m: A ppr ox i m a te a s s e s s m e n t o f th e inf luenc e of d i ffe re n t H P e x p l o i ta ti o n alt er nat iv es o n th e L a n d s c a p e Cl asses:

1 – n e g l i g i b l e n e g a ti v e i mp act; 2 – s ma l l n e g a ti v e i m p a c t; 3 – s i g n i fi c a n t n e g a ti v e imp a c t; 4 – s tro n g n e g a ti v e i m p a c t; 5 – e x tre me l y s tro n g n e g a ti ve imp a c t;

Ut i l i t y f u n ct io n : S te p w i s e d e c re a s i n g f unc t ion

Indi cators can be i mpl emented ex ante (i nd icat or val ues are predi cted / assessed / cal cul at ed / forecast) or ex post (i ndi cator val ues come f r om a di rect measure from sampl i ng or moni tor ing) : i f i ndi cator i mpl ementati on i s done ex ant e, t he l ogi c gui di ng the attri buti on of i ndi cator v alues has to be ful l y decl ared, especi al l y conce r ning envi ronmental i ndi cators (i .e. tw i n basin compari sons, model i ng supported by softw a r e f or speci fi c model s, expert based assessment, ot her ki nds of stati sti cal i nterpol ati on / deri vat ion, proxy si mul ati on, but not by magi c forecasti ng …) ◄ A n exampl e of proxy i ndi cator for l andscape cri teri on i n S H A R E MC A W hen data to devel op i ndi cators are not available or useabl e for di fferent reasons, or there’s no open i ndi cator to descri be cri teri a (such as touri sm, l andscape, etc), a vi abl e sol ution is the use of a pr oxy indicator . Thi s i nd icat or typol ogy provi des a quanti fi cati on of the eff ect of each al ternati ve on the i ndi cator, consi d er ing a si mpl i fi ed score based on a l i mi ted numb er of cl asses (see the box on the l eft).

Prox y indic at or s c a n b e c o n s i d e re d a s the “l ast resort” to be used w i th a l ot of care and i n a ver y l i m it ed way wit h i n th e d e c i s i o n tre e : a w e ak i ndi cator can gi ve a w eak i nformati ve contri buti on . Be awar e: S HAR E M C A i s n o t a c ry s ta l b al l , but a model to opti mi se i nformati on (and i ndi cators) f or us e in dec is ion m a k i n g . As fo r e v e ry m o d e l “if you load tr ash, you will have tr ash”... Vari o u s mat eri a ls fo r a fir s t s ta r t with S H A R E MC A ar e available on the S H A R E website here.

What is SHARE?

h andbook section 2

Sect i o n 2: S HA RE sol u t io n , h o w t o ... ●

Chapter 3 - STEP 3: How to evaluate? Description of how each alternative causes effects on each indicator.

SH A RE pr ov ide s a s p e c i fi c s o ftw a re c a l l ed S E S A MO to support MC A use for ri ver management and hy dr opower ex p l o i ta ti o n s . SE S A M O is a t o o l th a t h e l p s to c o l l e c t a nd w ei ght i n a neutral w ay al l stakehol ders’ know l edg e and i n f or m at ion, ev e n i f i t c o n c e rn s o p p o s i te vi ew s. In order to do thi s, the user needs to defi n e t he al ter nat iv es and i n d i c a to rs , a n d e v a l u a te the effects of each al ternati ve on each i ndi cator: S E SAM O won’t do t his on i ts o w n . This f ir s t s t ep i s re a l l y i m p o rta n t a n d c a n al so be an “i cebreaker”, a support for al l concerned t o di s c us s eac h in te re s t a n d p o i n t o f v i e w. Indeed, the softw are makes comparabl e and compat ible oppos it e alt er n a ti v e s , a n d d i ffe re n t p ro p osi ti ons. S takehol ders w i l l measure them together an d put them on t he s am e l e v e l . T h e y h a v e to a s s e ss, quanti fy and esti mate the effect of each al ternative on eac h indic at or.

● D e s c r i p t i on of each alterna tive’s effect on the indicator s Ev er y alt er nat iv e i s d e ta i l e d b y o n e o r m o re causal factors / pressure i ndi cators (comi ng al so f r om l e gis lat ion) desc ri b i n g th e a l te rn a ti v e s ’ e ffect on status i ndi cators. In other w ords, each causal f act or i s dir ec t ly link e d to th e s ta tu s i n d i c a to rs m odi fyi ng thei r val ue.

In d ic a to r a

Val ue α for al ternati ve 1 Val ue β for al ternati ve 2 Val ue γ for al ternati ve 3

In d ic a to r b

Val ue α for al ternati ve 1 Val ue β for al ternati ve 2 Val ue γ for al ternati ve 3

In d ic a to r c

Val ue α for al ternati ve 1 Val ue β for al ternati ve 2 Val ue γ for al ternati ve 3

In d ic a to r z

Val ue α for al ternati ve 1 Val ue β for al ternati ve 2 Val ue γ for al ternati ve 3

Indicators and related values in SHARE MCA ©SHARE

h andbook

section 2

● Pr o c e ss of norm ali zati on: th e Util ity Function The appropri ate methodol ogy to compare these va r ious i ndi cators i s the nor m alisation. The normal i sati on m akes the data consi stent and operati onal . It provi des re lat ive val ues of i ndi cators i n order to compare them. The normal i sati on process transforms the i ndi cator s int o adim ensional values, w hereby Indi cators l ose their own di mensi on and become comparabl e to each other. Thi s transformati on i s done by bui l di ng a U ti l i ty Funct ion, a mathemati cal functi on that assi gns to each val ue of t he i ndi cator a correspondi ng i ndi cator w i th an adi mensional val ue rangi ng betw een 0 and 1.

A generic Utility Function © SHARE

D ata normal i zati on i sn’ t j ust a mathemati cal step, but it i s part of the pol i ti cal phase of the appl i cati on soft war e S E S A MO: this is a subjective phase, and different utility cur ves can be applied to the sam e indica t or i n differ ent case studies.

● A n ex a m ple w i th an env i ronmental macr ozoobenthos indicator (I. B. E . - I n d ice Bi oti co Esteso)

Mac r oz oobent h o s l i v i n g i n ri v e rs a n d s tre ams can be used to assess the qual i ty of w ater: i n It aly a spec if ic index c a l l e d I.B.E . – In d ic e B io tico E steso (Ghetti , 1997), deri ved from the E xtended Biot ic In dex ( Woodiwi s s , 1 9 7 8 ), h a s b e e n d e v e l o ped and regul arl y appl i ed for ri ver heal th moni tori ng. I . B. E p r ov ides a good e x a mp l e o f h o w i n d i c a to r s can be used i n S H A R E mul ti cri teri a anal ysi s. The r esult o f t he I B E is a n u m e ri c v a l u e th a t c a n b e converted i nto 5 l evel s of bi ol ogi cal qual i ty:

I.B.E quality classes I NDI CATOR

IN D IC ATOR VALU E

D E S C R IP TION (N OR MA LIS ATION )

N OR MA LIS ATION (U T.FU N C TION )

IBE

< 3. 5

BAD

IBE

3. 5 – 5. 5

S U B S TA N D A R D

0.25

IBE

5. 5 – 7. 5

SUFFICIENT

0.5

IBE

7. 5 – 9. 5

GOOD

0.75

IBE

> 9. 5

HIGH

1 © S HAR E

h andbook section 2

●

Chapter 3 - STEP 3: How to evaluate? Description of how each alternative causes effects on each indicator.

Basic Utility Function for I.B.E indicator ©SHARE

● A n exa mple w i th the i ndi cator « Annual hydr oel ectr ic pr oduction » An ot her ex am p l e c a n b e p ro v i d e d u s i n g a common energy i ndi cator, the annual hydr oele ct ri c pro d u ct i o n ex p re s s e d a s th e p e rc e n ta g e of expected producti on i n MW h that can be produced f r om a new HP plant d e v e l o p m e n t. F o l l o w i n g th e H P desi gner requi rements, di fferent l evel s of sati sfact ion ca n be def ined: h y d ro e l e c tri c p ro d u c ti o n c an theoreti cal l y vary from 0 to 100% of expected product ion, bas ed on ins t al l e d c a p a c i ty, th e g ro s s h e ad and the fl ow equi pment. In the uti l i ty functi on shown below, t he pr od u c ti o n i s c o n s i d e re d “h i g h ” for H P requi rements i f exactl y correspondi ng to 10 0% of ex pec t ed pr odu c ti o n , “g o o d ” i f i n th e ra n g e from 80% to 99% of expected producti on, and “bad” if less than 80% of ex p e c te d p ro d u c ti o n .

Annual hydroelectric production indicator classes I NDI CATOR

IN D IC ATOR VALU E

D E S C R IP TION (N OR MA LIS ATION )

N OR MA LIS ATION (U T.FU N C TION )

An nu al h yd roe lec t r ic p rod uction

0 – 79% of ex pe c t e d Pr oduc t ion

BAD

An nu al h yd roe lec t r ic p rod uction

80- 99% of ex pe c t e d Pr oduc t ion

GOOD

Linear curve from 0.75 to 0.99

An nu al h yd roe lec t r ic p rod uction

100% of ex pec t e d Pr oduc t ion

HIGH

1 © S HAR E

h andbook

●

section 2

Chapter 3 - STEP 3: How to evaluate? Description of how each alternative causes effects on each indicator.

Example of annual hydroelectric Utility Function ©SHARE

● We i g h t a llocati on C r it er ia and i n d i c a to rs a re g e neral l y char ac t er iz ed b y d i ffe re n t l e v e l s o f i mp ortance th at nec es s ar i l y mu s t b e i n c l u d e d i n the e v aluat ion. T h i s i s o b ta i n e d b y a s s i g ni ng a “w ei g h t ” t o ea c h i n d i c a to r a n d c ri te ri o n . The w eight as s ign e d i n d i c a te s i ts i m p o rtance i n r elat ion t o th e o th e r i n d i c a to rs /c ri teri a cons ider ed. We i g h ts re p re s e n t th e me c h ani sm th r ough whic h s ta k e h o l d e rs c a n e x p re s s thei r i dea of t he r ela ti v e i mp o rta n c e a mo n g c ri teri a. A c oeff ic ient w, c a n b e a s s o c i a te d w i th each cr it er ion and t h i s c o e ffi c i e n t, n a me l y a w ei ght, i s us ed t o c alc u l a te th e o v e ra l l p e rfo rm a nce of a n alt er nat iv e.

The vector of w ei ghts shoul d be stated by t he stakehol ders, because i t shoul d be represen t at ive of thei r structure of preferences. Thi s i s n eit her al w ays si mpl e nor i mmedi ate, because t he ri gorous procedure to obtai n the vector of the preferences requi res a certai n degr ee of i nteracti on betw een the MC A techni ci ans and the stakehol der group. This “weighting” phase is a political phase. It should be conducted with all the stakeholders identified and should be a consensus of all involved. The methodol ogy i s as fol l ow ed: ● assign a weight to each indicator describing a criterion; ● assi gn a w ei ght to each cri teri on. The normal i sed w ei ghts must be equal to “ 1” .

h andbook section 2

â&#x2014;?

Chapter 3 - STEP 3: How to evaluate? Description of how each alternative causes effects on each indicator.

The r igor ous t e c h n i q u e fo r w e i g h t a l l o c a ti on (free al l ocati on) consi sts of assi gni ng a w ei ght to each l e af of t he t r ee, w i th o u t ta k i n g i n to a c c o u nt the hi erarchi cal structure of the cri teri a. Thi s proc edur e i s s hown in t he p i c tu re b e l o w.

Free weight allocation technique 0.12

Fish 0.04

Biological Quality

Macrolnv 0.04

Phytobenthos

E n v i ro n m e n t

0.06

BOD Phys.Chem.Quality

0.14

DOC

S us t ai nabi l i t y

0.48

Financial Outcome Economy

ÂŠSHARE 0.12

Financial Loss

Ot her wis e, it is p o s s i b l e to a s s i g n th e c o effi ci ents for every group of nodes that are l eaves o f t he sa m e br anc h, f o r e v e ry l e v e l o f th e tre e . Ins ide eac h gr o u p , th e s u m o f th e c o e ffi c i ents must be equal to 1. Thi s process i s cal l ed hi erarc hical al l oc at ion of t he w e i g h ts , a n d a n e x a m p l e i s show n i n the fol l ow i ng fi gure.

h andbook

●

section 2

Chapter 3 - STEP 3: How to evaluate? Description of how each alternative causes effects on each indicator.

Hierarchical weight allocation technique

0.60

Fish 0.50

0.20

Biological Quality

Macrolnv 0.20

0.40

Phytobenthos

E n v i ro n m e n t

0.30

BOD

0.50

Phys.Chem.Quality

0.70

DOC

S us t ai nabi l i t y

0.80

0.60

Economy

Financial Outcome

0.20

©SHARE

Financial Loss

Th e weight s as s o c i a te d w i th e a c h l e a f o f the hi erarchy are cal cul ated as a product of the coeffi c ient s a s s igned f r om th e l e a f to th e ro o t o f th e tr ee. Th is k ind of allo c a ti o n h a s th e a d v a n ta g e that the coeffi ci ents are assi gned to homogeneous el em ent s a nd s o it is pos s i b l e fo r d i ffe re n t g ro u p s of experts to w ork on the defi ni ti on of coeffi ci ents l i nked t o th eir own ex per ti s e . In gener al t er ms , th e w e i g h t c o e ffi c i e n t a l l ocati on on the l eaf can be done by experts of the se ct or s i nv olv ed, while fu rth e r u p i n th e h i e ra rc h y, i t i s necessary that the pol i ti ci ans suggest the val ues t o a dopt ( e. g. a t e c h n i c i a n a s s i g n s v a l u e s o f the coeffi ci ents for B i ol ogi cal Oxygen D emand - B O D and C hem ic al O x y ge n D e ma n d , b e l o n g i n g to “P hysi cal C hemi cal Qual i ty” cri teri on w hi l e a pol i cy m aker d ef ines t he c oe ffi c i e n ts fo r e c o n o my c ri teri on). A ctual l y, i t i s meani ngful to compare el ement s t hat a r e not leav es o f th e tre e , b e c a u s e th e rel ati ve i mportance of these obj ecti ves must be stated only o n a polit ic al ba s i s . N ev er t heles s , in d e c i s i o n a l p ro b l e m s c h a racteri zed by the presence of a l arge number of i ndi c at or s, i t is not pos s ibl e to a v o i d a s s i g n i n g th e w ei ghts based on the hi erarchy, because thi s method ology a llows s im plif ic a ti o n o f a p ro b l e m th a t w o ul d otherw i se be too compl ex for the stakehol der.

h andbook section 2

●

Chapter 3 - STEP 3: How to evaluate? Description of how each alternative causes effects on each indicator.

Then, f or eac h a l te rn a ti v e , th e s o ftw a re S E S A MO cal cul ates a total , as a functi on of the i ndi c at or s (u t ilit y f unc t ion) , c ri te ri a a n d w e i g h ts . T h e resul ts can be seen bel ow as an exampl e: ▼ S ES AMO re p re s e n t ati on of cri teri a and w ei ght attri buti on

©SHARE

This is t he r ep re s e n ta ti o n o f a d e c i s i o n tree, w i th the fi rst part the di fferent cri teri a and weight att r ibut ion. T he s e c o n d p a rt i s a re p re s e ntati on of the resul ts w i th the three al ternati ves an d t he weight of eac h c ri te ri o n d e p e n d i n g o n th e case. On the ri ght si de, for thi s exampl e, the soft war e i n dic at es t hat t h e a l te rn a ti v e “z e ro ” h a s the hi ghest performance rate.

● S e n s i t i v i ty analysi s A dec is ional pro c e s s i s , b y i ts n a tu re , strongl y i nfl uenced by the concepts of uncertai nty and su bjec t iv it y. Ev er y as pec t of th e a n a l y s i s i s e v a l u a te d i n di fferent w ays by the di fferent stakehol ders, bec ause they f oc us t heir a tte n ti o n o n d i ffe re n t a s p ects. Ev en if M CA is a ri g o ro u s p ro c e d u re fro m a mathemati cal poi nt of vi ew, some steps that are necessar y to es t ablis h t he o v e ra l l p e rfo rma n c e o f a n al ternati ve are strongl y subj ecti ve and, i n spi te of t his, they as s um e a d e te rm i n a n t ro l e . The weight at t ri b u ti o n , fo r e x a m p l e , re p resents a phase of the process i n w hi ch the choi ces o f t he sta k eholder c an s i g n i fi c a n tl y i n fl u e n c e th e fi nal resul t. B ecause of the presence of these ki n ds of ac t ions , it is f u n d a me n ta l to m a n a g e te chni ques that can support the stakehol der i n deal i ng wit h su bjec t iv it y. On t he ot her ha n d , i t i s n e c e s s a ry to p ro v ide methods abl e to deal w i th the uncertai nty of the over all ra nk ing; in par ti c u l a r, it is fu n d a m e n ta l to have the possibility to car r y out a sensitivity anal ysi s o f t he r es ult , v a ry i n g th o s e p a ra m e te rs th at are i ntri nsi cal l y subj ecti ve and uncertai n (especi ally t he w eight s ) and as s e s s i n g h o w th e s e v a ri a ti o ns affect the fi nal resul t. Th e s ens it iv it y a n a l y s i s m u s t b e c a rri e d o ut w i th speci fi c methodol ogi es that vary w i th the type of u nc er t aint y t o b e c o n s i d e re d , a n d w i th t he el ements affected by the uncertai nty (i mpacts, ut ilit y fu nc t ions and w e i g h ts ). 54

h andbook

●

section 2

Chapter 3 - STEP 3: How to evaluate? Description of how each alternative causes effects on each indicator.

Th e s ens it iv it y a n a l y s i s i s v e ry i m p o rta n t i n order to understand how the final r anking of t he a l t ern at i ves ca n v a r y i f i mp a c ts , u ti l i ty fu ncti ons or w ei ghts assume val ues that are not the refer ence values . In par t ic ular, t h e s e n s i ti v i ty a n a l y s i s w i l l f ocus on the i nvesti gati on of possi bl e rank reversal (th at is, th e inv er s ion of th e p re fe re n ti a l o rd e r o f th e al ternati ves). B esi des, i t can be based on the eval uat ion o f t he s t abilit y o f th e ra n k i n g , o r, i n o th e r words, on the eval uati on of the si ze of vari ati ons i n i mpact s, o r in ut ilit y f unc ti o n s , o r i n w e i g h ts , s u c h that the fi nal ranki ng does not change. SE S A M O als o e m b e d s a d a s h b o a r d r e p r e sentation of al ternati ve performance, cri teri a and w eight s to eas e S HA RE M C A u s e a n d a i d c o mp re hensi on. ▼ S HA RE S E S A M O d a s h b o a rd re p re s e n ta ti on

S e l f s t a n d i n g d a s h b o a r d r e p r e s en t at io n o f MC A H ow t he n u m b e r o f i n d i c a to r s a f f ect s Mu l t i C rit eria An al y sis

Li n ks and Bibliography Introduction part b

●

G irardi P., B otta M ., B rambilla C ., Laniado E ., 2003. S i stema di supporto al l e decisioni SE S A M O . S of t w a re p e r l a v a l u ta z i o n e a m ol ti attri buti : manual e utente. R apporto R dS SOS T E / S O S T I E N I A3 /0 2 1 0 3 9 ( www.ricercadisistema.it ) (i n Ital i an).

h andbook section 3

Sect i o n 3: A pplying S HA R E ●

Chapter 1 - Wrap up: what SHARE does & what SHARE does not do

SH A RE pr ov ide s a v i a b l e Mu l ti C ri te ri a A nal ysi s (MC A ) methodol ogy to publ i c admi ni strators and polic y m ak er s in v o l v e d i n ri v e r a n d h y d ro pow er i ssues to support the deci si on maki ng process t o be i m plem ent ed in A l p i n e c o u n tri e s . SH A RE M CA is e x p l a i n e d i n a u s e r-fri e n dl y w ay by a set of onl i ne tutori al s avai l abl e on the pr oject webs it e. SH A RE als o pro v i d e s a to o l b o x to p u t i n to practi ce MC A , i ncl udi ng a speci fi c softw are (S E S AM O ) , a dat abas e of i n d i c a to rs , c ri te ri a to i d e n ti fy more vul nerabl e w ater bodi es, softw are to defi n e HP re s idual pot ent i a l , g u i d e l i n e s to i n te g ra te MC A i n l ocal rul es and a col l ecti on of rel ated manage m ent l a ws . Pa y at t ent ion: S H A R E MC A i s a to o l to h el p deci si on maki ng, but i t doesn’ t take the ri ght decision by it s elf . . .

● T h e S H A RE toolbox SH A RE pr ov ide s to p u b l i c a d m i n i s tra to rs a nd stakehol ders several tool s, descri bed bel ow.

SHARE MCA methodology and software T h e mai n tool i s the S H A R E ’s softw are (cal l ed S E SAM O ) to i mpl ement the Multi C r iter ia A nalysis (MC A ) to assess a n d com par e differ ent alter natives rel ated to hydropower e x p l o i tati on and ri ver management.

SESAMO software and related handbook SH AR E MC A i s appl i ed as a “balance” for eval uati ng conflict ing ri v e r management al ternati ves defi ned by di fferent cr it er ia d e ta i l ed by i ndi cators. For each al ternati ve, a total per for mance s c o r e /vote i s cal cul ated starti ng from the assessment of eff ect s o f e ach management al ternati ve on the speci fi c ri ver sy st em . Dec is ion m ak ers a re h e l p e d to id e n tify the m or e sustainable alter native usi ng an i nterrel ate d set of weight ed indi c a to rs ta i l o re d to th e re q u i rements of each speci fi c case. MC A c an be ap p l i e d a t d i ffe re n t s p a ti a l a nd temporal scal es. ● S p at i al scal e : ● si n g l e H P p la n t a s s e s s m e n t: MC A can be used to eval uate di fferent al ternati ves rega r ding bot h a s ingle n e w h y d r o p o we r p la n t b ui l di ng (see al so bel ow “E x ante anal ysi s”) or exist i ng hyd ro p o w er p l a n t ma n a g e me n t (s e e a l s o bel ow “E x post anal ysi s”); ● S ever a l H P p la n ts jo in t a s s e s s ment: MC A can be used to eval uate ei ther bui l di ng of a new gro u p o f h yd ro p o we r p la n ts i n o n e o r m ore ri ver stretches (see al so bel ow “E x ante anal ysis” ) or di ff er ent m anag e me n t a l te rn a ti v e s fo r a n existing gr oup of hydr opower plants concerni ng one or mo r e r iv er s t r et c h e s (s e e a l s o b e l o w “E x post anal ysi s”); ● Basi n s c a le a s s e s s m e n t: MC A can be used to eval uate di fferent management al ternat ives co ns ider ing al l h y d r o p o we r p la n ts in a whole basin (i .e. focusi ng mi ti gati on measures such as ex per im ent al f lu s h e s fro m e x i s ti n g H P p l ants on speci fi c ri ver stretches to maxi mi ze posi ti ve e ff ect s at a whole bas i n s c a l e );

h andbook

section 3

● Ad mi n is tr a tiv e s c a le a s s e s s m ent (r egional level planning): MC A can be used to plan and as s es s diff e re n t m a n a g e m e n t a l te rn a t i ves concerni ng all hydr opower plants in a whole regi on (i . e. def ining s tre tc h e s o r b a s i n s a s fa v o u r abl e, l ess favourabl e, non favourabl e or to be excl uded f or hy dr opower ex p l o i ta ti o n a t a w h o l e re g i o nal scal e). ◄ MC A appl i cati on for si ngl e H P pl ant assessment on the C hal amy ri ver (A osta Val l ey R egi on – Ital y) ©Aerial image of Chalamy river (Aosta Valley Regional Administration, aut. n. 1156 28.08.2007)

● Temp o ral sc a le : ● E x an te a n a ly s is : SH AR E MC A can be used to eval uate di fferent al ternati ves of hydropower

e x ploit at ion bef o re b u i l d i n g a n e w p l a n t o r a group of new pl ants. For exampl e, w hen the admi ni str at ion h olding wat er r i g h ts i s a s k e d fo r a n e w concessi on, di fferent al ternati ves can be assessed using SHA RE M CA s u c h a s : ● th e re j e c ti o n o f n e w w a ter w i thdraw al ● th e a p p ro v a l o f n e w w a te r w i thdraw al as requested from the proj ect manager ● th e a p p ro v a l o f n e w w a te r w i thdraw al w i th addi ti onal condi ti ons such as: ● a d i ffe re n t to ta l amount of w ater w i thdraw n ● a d i ffe re n t m o n th ly amount of w ater w i thdraw n ● a n o th e r l o c a ti o n of the pl ant ● w i th a d i ff erent monthl y amount of w ater w i thdraw n ● w i th fi x e d MIF / w i th modul ated MIF ● w i th u n d e r ground pi pes ● w i th a s p eci fi c sedi ment rel ease control pl an and moni tori ng ● ri v e r re s to ra ti o n a nd mi ti gati on acti ons (even l ocated outsi de the ri ver basin) , including prerequisite measures targeted at the mountain communities involved ● ... The alt er nat iv es h a v e to b e e x p l i c i tl y d e fi ned as potenti al options to be evaluated. ● E x p o s t a n a ly s is : SH AR E M C A can be used to eval uate di fferent management al terna t ives, eit her f or a s ing l e e x i s ti n g p l a n t o r g ro u p of pl ants (i .e. for pl anni ng experi mental fl ushes spre ad at bas in or r egiona l s c a l e s ). Mo r e gener ally, MC A c a n b e u s e d i n d i fferent phases of H P authori zati on and strategi c pl anning (regional s t r at e g i e s ) a s a re s p o n s e to l o c al and nati onal l egi sl ati ve requi rements.

A set of online tutorials to aid the comprehension of MCA methodology SHA RE M CA is e x p l a i n e d i n a u s e r-fri e n d l y w ay by a set of onl i ne tutori al s avai l abl e on the p r oject w ebs it e: ● 4 o n l i n e sem in a r s ; ● 2 f ake n ew s p a p e rs a b o u t e n v i ro n m e n t al and hydropow er i ssues; ● 2 sh o rt vi d eo s a b o u t th e p ro b l e m to b e addressed and the S H A R E answ er.

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 1 - Wrap up: what SHARE does & what SHARE does not do

◄ The S H A R E Fake new s paper about envi ronmental i ssues

SHARE fake news A review of concrete implementation of MCA methodology: different Pilot Case Studies in 11 Alpine rivers The MC A methodol ogy has been tested o n 11 P ilot C ase S tudies on vari ous mountai n basins (i n the 5 A l pi ne countri es i nvol ved) to test and adj ust the MC A deci si on support system. © SHARE Environment Fake news

► A s elec t ion of i ma g e s o f 11 SH AR E P i l o t C ase S tudi es

SHARE 11 Pilote Case Studies A set of indicators & monitoring standards to feed MCA implementation SH A RE pr ov ide s e l a b o ra ti o n o f a s e t o f i n d i cators and m onit or ing s ta n d a rd s to e n d u s e rs , deri ved fro m pr ojec t P il o t C a s e S tu d i e s , to fa c i l i ta te the MC A appr oac h.

SHARE indicator toolbox

©SHARE Pilot Case Studies

SHARE geo-databases to identify applicable laws and competent authorities dealing with river management and hydropower issues in the Alpine region SH A RE pr ov ide s tw o g e o -d a ta b a s e s to fa c i l i tate i nformati on searches rel ated to l egi sl ati on, i nsti tu t ions and t ar get indiv i d u a l s d e a l i n g w i th ri v e rs a nd hydropow er i n the cooperati on area.

SHARE geodatabase A set of quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in local rules In or der t o f ac il i ta te th e u s e o f M C A me th odol ogy, short guidelines for integr ation of S H A R E MCA int o n at i o n al a n d tr a n s n a tio n a l le g is la ti ve fr am ewor ks have been el aborated.

SHARE guidelines to integrate MCA in local rules

h andbook

●

section 3

Chapter 1 - Wrap up: what SHARE does & what SHARE does not do

A review of eco-investments A r ev iew of m ea s u re s fo r mi ti g a ti o n a n d c ompensati on for negati ve effects of H P pl ants on P i l ot Case St udy r iv er s is c u rre n tl y a v a i l a b l e .

SHARE eco-investments, mitigations & restoration action Criteria to characterize Alpine river vulnerability to hydropower SHA RE pr ov ide s c ri te ri a fo r m a p p i n g Al p i n e ri ver ecosystems’ vul nerabi l i ty to hydropow er expl oi tat ion, i nc luding: ● a ri ver eco s y s te m s v u ln e r a b ility p r ofile definition for each ri ver typol ogy, fol l ow i ng the WFD cl a s s if ic at ion; ● a co mmo n d e fin itio n o f c r ite r ia a n d in dicator s to identify m or e vulner able typologies of Alpine ar eas in r elat io n to H P m a n a g e m e n t; ● a d ef i n i t i o n o f r iv e r ty p e s th a t a r e m or e vulner able to H P , and rel ati ve GIS m apping based on adm inis t r at iv e l a y e rs .

Criteria and indicators to identi fy vulnerability of Alp areas and river ecosystems A review of MIF and natural discharge assessment methods SHA RE pr ov ide s a re v i e w o f b e s t m e th ods to estim ate the Minim um Instr eam Flow (MIF) and nat ur al dis c harg e c o m m o n l y u s e d i n e a c h A l pi ne space country.

MIF definition and discharge estimation methods report Methods and software for HP potential assessment SHA RE pr ov ide s tw o d i ffe re n t to o l s : ● VAP I DRO - AS T E : a s o ftw a re d e s i g n e d to compute and eval uate the resi dual potenti al hydro power ener gy and t o s h o w th e b e s t l o c a ti o n s fo r future proj ects; ● S mart M i n i H y d r o : a u s e r fri e n d l y s o ftw are to assess the economi c feasi bi l i ty of H P pl ants.

SHARE VAPIDRO-ASTE software for evaluation of the residual hydropower potential ► VAP ID R O-AS T E s o ftw a re fo r e v a l u a ti o n o f th e re s i d u a l h y d ro p o w e r p o te n ti a l © VAPIDRO-ASTE software logo

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 1 - Wrap up: what SHARE does & what SHARE does not do

► S m ar t M ini- I d ro s o ftw a re to a s s e s s e c onomi c fe a s i b i l i ty o f s m a l l H P pl ants

SHARE Smart Mini-Idro software to assess economical feasibility of small HP plants A software for river habitats simulation model (CASiMiR) SH A RE pr ov id e s a s o ftw a re fo r a habi tat si m ulat ion m od e l , c a l l e d C A Si M i R s o f tw are, des igned t o as s e s s th e h a b i ta t c o n d i ti o n s al ong the r iv er c hanne l a n d b a n k a re a s . This s of t war e is c o m p o s e d o f tw o d i ffe re n t modul es: C A S i Mi R -H ydropow er and C A S i Mi R -Fi sh. CA S iM iR- Hy dr o p o w e r h e l p s to a s s e s s th e economi c effects for hydropow er producti on as a result of ec ologic ally adj u s te d d i s c h a rg e s i n m i n i m um fl ow studi es. Vari ous pl ant operati on scenari os can be eas ily s im ulat ed a n d c o m p a re d u s i n g ta b l e and chart vi ew s of C A S i Mi R -H ydropow er. CA S iM iR- F is h i s d e s i g n e d to a s s e s s h a b i tat condi ti ons for fi sh w i thi n a ri ver channel and i ts bank ar eas . T he new e s t v e rs i o n o f C A Si M i R -Fi sh can al so be used for assessi ng habi tat quanti ty and qualit y f or m ac r o z o o b e n th o s s p e c i e s .

◄ The C A S i Mi R -H ydropow er modul e for eval uati on of economi c effects for hydropow er producti on.

◄ The C A S i Mi R -Fi sh modul e for eval uat ion of the habi tat condi ti ons al ong the ri ver channel and bank areas.

SHARE CASiMiR software to assess habitat conditions along the river channel and bank areas 60

h andbook

●

section 3

Chapter 1 - Wrap up: what SHARE does & what SHARE does not do

A Permanen t Technical Panel of technicians, administrators and policy-makers SHA RE M CA m e th o d o l o g y a i m s to b e re a l i sti c, unbi ased and effi ci ent: for that reason, proj ect t ools h av e been dev e l o p e d w i th th e fe e d b a c k of a P er m anent Technical P anel (P TP ) created dur ing th e pr ojec t im p l e m e n ta ti o n . PT P i s a n Al pi ne netw ork l i nki ng together peopl e w orki ng for public a dm inis t r at ions , l e g a l a u th o ri ti e s , h y d ro pow er compani es, envi ronmental and fi shi ng associ a t ions, res ear c h ins t it u te s o f ri v e r e c o l o g y a n d h ydraul i c engi neeri ng.

SHARE PTP What SHARE does not do? SHA RE m et hod o l o g y d o e s n ’t p r o v id e its own data & infor m ation by itself, but i t tri es to bette r use th os e alr eady e x i s ti n g (“c a p i ta l i z e o n l o c a l know l edge”). SHA RE m et hod o l o g y d o e s n ’t c r e a te n e w knowledge, but needs good know l edge: the qualit y of a naly s is s t r ic t ly d e p e n d s o n d a ta a v a i l a b il i ty & i nformati on qual i ty (“If you l oad trash, you w i l l have tras h” ) . SHA RE m et hod o l o g y d o e s n ’t m a k e e v e r y one satisfied ever y tim e: the best performi ng managem ent a lt er nat iv e c oul d o b v i o u s l y d i s a p p o i n t s o me stakehol ders (“from a bi l ateral approach to mul ti l at er al a ppr oac h” ) . SHA RE c an ha rd l y e v e r b e m a in s tr e a med: i t needs transparency and real cooperati on a m ong stak eholder s ( “ A b l a c k b o x m e th o d o l o g y c a n be w i ckedl y mani pul ated or si mpl y fai l s as every mo del” ) . SHARE M CA i s a to o l to h e lp d e c is io n making but it doesn’t take the r ight decision by itsel f . . .

h andbook section 3

Sect i o n 3: A pplying S HA R E ●

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers

The S HA RE M C A a p p ro a c h h a s b e e n te s ted i n 11 P i l ot C ase S tudi es (P C S ) concerni ng both ex ist ing or planned HP p l a n ts , a n d s i g n i fi c a n t h i s to ri cal i nformati on rel ati ng to ri ver ecosystems. In gener al, c as e s tu d i e s b ro a d l y re p re s e n t common si tuati ons of H P. Ex per im ent al s e tti n g s c o n c e rn s p e c i fi c s e t s of al ternati ves, management rul es, expl oi tati on sett ings, tem por al s c ales , i n d i c a to rs a n d ri v e r b a s i n di mensi ons. This c hapt er illu s tra te s e x p e ri me n ta l s e tti ngs and faci l i tates the comprehensi on of di fferent decision tre e m odels and p o te n ti a l c o m p a ra ti v e a p p l i cati ons.

● Pr o j e c t Partners Pi lot Case Studies and management al ter natives T he S HA R E a p p ro a c h h a s b e e n te s ted i n 11 P i l ot C ase S tudi es (P C S ).

SHARE Pilot Case Studies

SHARE Pilot Case Studies decisional trees

E ac h P CS h a s b e e n th o ro u g h l y a n a l yzed through the MC A appl i cati on and descri bed i n th e f ollowing l i n k s :

SHARE project monographs

PCS alternatives full description

The t able below p ro v i d e s a s h o rt s u mma ry descri pti on of every P C S w i th MC A al ternati ve defi nit ions. ▼ PCS short description and MCA alternative definitions

P CS RI V E R

PC S GE N E R A L D ES C R IPT ION A LT E R N AT I V E until 2008) A LT E R N AT I V E A LT E R N AT I V E A LT E R N AT I V E released

0: no MIF released (historical management

CHAL AMY

M CA is us ed t o es t im at e t he eff ec t s on diff er ent c onc er ned c r it er ia of inc r ea s i n g r eleas es of an ex is t ing HP plant in a s m all r iv er, wit h h i g h nat ur al c apit al, inc luded in a r egional par k

A LT E R N AT I V E until 2008) A LT E R N AT I V E A LT E R N AT I V E A LT E R N AT I V E released

0: no MIF released (historical management

DORA BALTEA

Dor a Balt ea is a glac ial r iv e r wit h s ev er al ex is t ing r un off HP plant s . M CA is us e d t o under s t and t he eff ec t s o f inc r eas ing wat er r eleas es o n diff er ent c onc er ned c r it er ia b y 4 HP f ac ilit ies

CHISONE

M CA is us ed t o dr iv e diac hr onic and s pat ial analy s i s of t he eff ec t s of diff er ent H P m anagem ent in in f our r ive r r eac hes of t he Chis one Riv e r, int er es t ed by t he pr es enc e o f a hy dr opower plant ( Pour r iè r e s r es er v oir and Fenes t r elle po w e r s t at ion) , c ons ider ing a s et o f s c enar ios c ov er ing diff er e n t hy dr opower ex ploit at ion m anagem ent pr ac t ic es

MC A A LTE R N ATIV E S

1 : 2 0 % o f m a x i m u m p o t e n t i a l M I F r e l e a se d 2 : 6 0 % o f m a x i m u m p o t e n t i a l M I F r e l e a se d 3: 100% of maximum potential MIF

1 : 2 0 % o f m a x i m u m p o t e n t i a l M I F r e l e ase d 2 : 6 0 % o f m a x i m u m p o t e n t i a l M I F r e l e ase d 3: 100% of maximum potential MIF

A LT E R N AT I V E 0 : n o H P e x p l o i t a t i o n . This is a hypothetical scenario not including Pourrières r e s e r v o i r a n d r e f e r r e d t o p o t e n t i a l n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s fr o m a h y d r o l o g i c a l a n d m o r p h o l o g i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w. A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : r e s e r v o i r p r e s e n c e + M I F r e l e a s e d + current hydro-peaking. This alternative corresponds to present management of Pourrières reservoir and Fenestrelle HP plant. A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : r e s e r v o i r – n o M I F r e l e a s e – c u r r e nt hydro-peaking. T h i s c o n d i t i o n c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 m a n a g e me n t p r a c t i c e s o f P o u r r i è r e s r e s e r v o i r a n d F e n e s t r e l l e H P p l a n t. A LT E R N AT I V E 3 : r e s e r v o i r – n o M I F – n o h y d r o - p e a k i n g . T h i s c o n d i t i o n c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1 m a n a g e me n t p r a c t i c e s o f P o u r r i è r e s r e s e r v o i r a n d F e n e s t r e l l e H P p l a n t.

h andbook

section 3

PCS RI V E R

PC S GE N E R A L D ES C R IPT ION

MC A A LTE R N ATIV E S

CORDON

M CA is applied t o as s es s diff er ent hy pot hes es of ener gy pr oduc t ion im pr ov em ent on t he upper r eac h of t he Cor don c r eek whic h is alr eady equipped wit h a s m all HP plant . The under ly ing bas in is v er y s m all ( 6. 9 k m 2 ) . Ther e is als o a m onit or ing s t at ion f or wat er and s olid dis c har ge t hat is pot ent ially ex ploit able f or ener gy pr oduc t ion

A LT E R N AT I V E 0 : p r e s e n t s i n g l e p l a n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : d i s m a n t l i n g o f e x i s t i n g H P p l a n t i n t a k e and construction of a new intake immediately downstream of the monitoring station A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : k e e p i n g t h e e x i s t i n g H P p l a n t a n d building a new power plant with the intake immediately downstream of the monitoring station, and release just upstream of the HP plant ( “two small plants in line”)

ASTICO

M CA applied t o ex is t ing r unof - t he- r iv er HP plant wit h t he aim t o det ec t t he opt im al M I F quant it y t o r eleas e f r om t he c ons ider ed wit hdr awal. The plant has a dam c r eat ing a s m all r es er v oir

A LT E R N AT I V E 0 : h i s t o r i c a l m a n a g e m e n t - n o M I F released. A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : h y d r o l o g i c a l M I F r e l e a s e A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : i n c r e a s e o f t h e r e l e a s e d w a t e r u p t o 150% of the hydrological MIF release A LT E R N AT I V E 3 : i n c r e a s e o f t h e r e l e a s e d w a t e r u p t o 200% of the hydrological MIF release

KOKRA

M CA is us ed t o as s es s eff ec t s o n c r it er ia of diff er ent ex is t ing HP plant s and a new s m all HP plant . Reques t ed t uning Env ir onm ent al Flow will be def ined f r om t he m ain ar ea of c ons ider at ion

A LT E R N AT I V E 0 : C u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n A LT E R N AT I V E S n ( n = 1 0 ) : d i ff e r e n t v a l u e s f o r r e s i d u a l instream flow from the lowest possible minimum low-flow (Qlow) to the mean annual flow (Qmean) A D D I T I O N A L A LT E R N AT I V E S ( M E A S U R E S ) F O R I N D I C ATO R L O N G I T U D I N A L C O N T I N U U M : - Investor can build a weir on location where there is no i m p a s s a b l e s i l l s - M e a s u re 0 - Investor can build a fish pass on one of the impassable s i l l s - n u m b e r o f b u i l t f i s h p a s s e s i s 1 - M e a s u re 1 - Investor can build fish passes on 2 of the impassable s i l l s - n u m b e r o f b u i l t f i s h p a s s e s i s 2 - M e a s u re 2 - Investor can build fish passes on 3 of the impassable s i l l s - n u m b e r o f b u i l t f i s h p a s s e s i s 3 - M e a s u re 3 - Investor can build fish passes on 4 of the impassable s i l l s - n u m b e r o f b u i l t f i s h p a s s e s i s 4 - M e a s u re 4

MUR

M ur PCS t r ac t is int er es t ed in a s et of c onc at enat ed r unoff HP plant s ( 4 plant s ) wit h flus hing m anagem ent pr oblem s. Bodendor f HP plant is t he head of t his Power plant c hain. M CA is us ed t o def ine bet t er f lus hing alt er nat iv es t o opt im iz e eff ec t s on all s t ak eholder s inv olv ed, in par t ic ular in or der t o r educ e the negat iv e ec ologic al im pac t s of f lus hing

A LT E R N AT I V E 0 : c u r r e n t f l u s h i n g c o n d i t i o n s A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : e x t e n d i n g t h e d u r a t i o n o f f l u s h i n g w i t h probably good sediment transport but large ecological impact on downstream ecosystems A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : r e d u c i n g t h e d u r a t i o n o f f l o o d i n g w i t h l o n g e r s e c o n d a r y f l u s h i n g w i t h c l e a r w a t e r, r e d u c i n g e c o l o g i c a l i m p a c t s b u t p r o b a b l y i n s u ff i c i e n t s e d i m e n t transport

INN

W FD im plem ent at ion int ends t o “ pr es er v e” a f am ous m eander im pac t ed by a his t or ic al HP plant : M CA is a s uppor t t o def ine t he bes t way t o m anage diff er ent s t ak eholder r equir em ent s

A LT E R N AT I V E 0 : h i s t o r i c a l m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s b e f o r e the hydro-electric facility installation in the meander A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : c u r r e n t m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e w i t h Q d o t =0 . 4 m ³ / s w a t e r d i s c h a r g e r e l e a s e d i n t h e m e a n d e r A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : i n c r e a s e t i l l Q d o t = 6 . 0 m ³ / s o f w a t e r discharge released in the meander A LT E R N AT I V E 3 : b u i l d i n g a f i s h l a d d e r a t t h e u p p e r s i d e o f t h e m a i n w e i r r e q u i r i n g a Q d o t =1 3 m ³ / s o f w a t e r discharge released in the meander

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers P CS RI V E R

PC S GE N E R A L D ES C R IPT ION

ARC-ISERE

Long t er m eff ec t s of old HP pr oduc t ion s y s t em s ar e r epr es ent ed in a wide basi n : M CA s uppor t s a br oad s pat i a l and t em por al s c ale ex - po s t analy s is

VAR

A s et of s ills or iginally bui l t t o m oder at e t he eff ec t s o f f loods , is equipped wit h m ic r o hy dr opower plant s . Ups t r ea m , due t o t he s m all dam s , s il t s depos it ed t end t o lim it wate r ex c hange bet ween t he aqu i f e r and t he r iv er. Thus s om e old ex is t ing hy dr aulic wor k s would be t hr eat ened in c as e s of f looding and m ay c ollap s e , inc r eas ing t he hy dr ogeolog i c a l r is k . Thes e s ills will be lower ed in t he goal t hat t h e r iv er r et ur ns t o it s nat ur a l f unc t ioning and f lood t r ans p o r t s s edim ent s unhinder ed. Thr e e s t at ions on t he s ill 8t h, 9t h a n d 10t h m us t be r em ov ed

A LT E R N AT I V E 0 : m a i n t e n a n c e o f s i l l s e q u i p p e d w i t h power plants (current case and not maintainable) A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : r e m o v a l o f a l l s i l l s a n d p o w e r p l a n t s (desired solution by the objectives of SAGE) – except n° 16 A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : d e v e l o p m e n t o f n e w p o w e r p l a n t s technology: airbag sill on the total width of the river (solution studied by the operator) A LT E R N AT I V E 3 : d e v e l o p m e n t o f n e w p o w e r p l a n t technology: airbag sill on a partial width of the river (solution studied by the operator)

L ECH

The r iv er r eac h is heav ily aff ec t ed by hy dr opeak ing w i t h s t r ong negat iv e eff ec t s on f l o r a and f auna ( es pec ially f is h a n d m ac r oinv er t ebr at es f auna ) . The ups t r eam HP plant c ont r ols t he daily dis c har g e s whic h r ange bet ween a ba s i s dis c har ge ( Q m in of 10 m ³ / s i n wint er, 20 m ³ / s in s um m er ) a n d a m ax im um power plant t ur b i n e dis c har ge ( Q m ax of 160 m ³ / s ) us ually induc ing f low peak s t w o t im es a day. Alt er nat iv e hy dr opeak ing s c hem es ar e s et , aim ing f o r a r educ t ion of negat iv e eff ec t s b y inc r eas ing t he bas is dis c har g e , r educ ing t he m ax im um dis c har ge and opt im iz ing d a i l y dis c har ge v ar iat ion

A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : s t a t u s q u o : Q m a x = 1 6 0 m 3 / s , Q m i n = 1 0 / 2 0 m 3/ s ( w i n t e r / s u m m e r ) , Q c h a n g e n o t s p e c i f i e d A LT E R N AT I V E 3 : n e w a g r e e m e n t o n h y d r o p e a k i n g : Q m a x = 1 3 5 m 3/ s , Q m i n = 2 5 / 4 0 m 3/ s ( w i n t e r / s u m m e r ) , Q c h a n g e = m a x 5 0 m 3/ s / 3 0 m i n A LT E R N AT I V E 4 : n e w a g r e e m e n t o n h y d r o p e a k i n g a nd renaturation A LT E R N AT I V E 5 : I WS p r o p o s a l o n h y d r o p e a k i n g a n d renaturation A LT E R N AT I V E 6 : I WS p r o p o s a l o n h y d r o p e a k i n g

MC A A LTE R N ATIV E S A LT E R N AT I V E 1 : n o H P i n s t a l l e d i n t h e u p s t r e a m b a si n . A LT E R N AT I V E 2 : p r e s e n c e o f i m p o r t a n t s t o r a g e d a m s i n the upper portion of the basin A LT E R N AT I V E 3 : D o w n s t r e a m d a m s a n d “ S T E P s ” , interbasin transfers A LT E R N AT I V E 4 : p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e r i v e r : a l l hydroelectric equipments

PC S dec is ional tre e s , mo n o g ra p h s a n d e x tended al ternati ve descri pti ons are avai l abl e i n annexes t o the pr es ent r ep o rt.

SHARE Pilot Case Studies alternatives full description As det ailed abo v e , MC A h a s b e e n a p p l i e d to di fferent si zes and typol ogi es of H P pl ant faci l i ties as su m m ar is ed in th e ta b l e b e l o w.

h andbook

●

section 3

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers

▼ Table 3.2.2: Alternatives considered in the different PCS PI L O T CAS E S T UDY

E X A N T E / E X P OST

H P P OW E R (MW )

Do ra Ba ltea

4 ex is t ing plant s

Champagne II 27.0 MW Saint-Clair 31.0 MW Hone I 18.5 MW Bard 3.2 MW

Ch ala my

1 ex is t ing plant

Champdepraz 2.3 MW

Ch iso ne

1 ex is t ing plant

Pourrières 17.0 MW

Co rdo n

1 ex is t ing plant + 1 planned plant

0.19 MW

Astico

1 ex is t ing plant

Bessè 2.88 MW

Sa va (Kokra)

1 planned plant

1.0 MW

Mu r

4 ex is t ing plant s

Bodendorf 7.0 MW St. Georgen 6.0 MW Murau 4.4 MW Untzmarkt 4.6 MW

In n

1 ex is t ing plant

Kirchbichl 24.0 MW

Arc-Isè re

big ex is t ing plant s s y s t em

2520.0 MW

Var

8 ex is t ing plant s

L ech

1 ex is t ing plant

Sill 10: 1.778 MW Charles Abert: 3.366 MW La Mariée: 1.739 MW Selves: 2.515 MW La Manda: 2.030 MW Les Cappans: 2.367 MW La Courbe: 2.377 MW St Sauveur: 2.469 MW Dessau 10.3 MW © S H AR E

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers ▼ HP plants located along the analyzed river reaches of PCS

P P 1 – C H IS ON E

P P 7 – IN N

P P 10 – VA R

P P 11 – LE C H

h andbook

●

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers

● M CA i n d i cators used i n PCS SHA RE M CA i m p l i e s th e c o m p u l s o ry u se of i ndic at or s r ef e rre d to c o m m o n c ri te ri a : P C S d ec is ional t r ees h o l d th e s a m e b a s i c s tru c ture of cr it er ia, but diffe re n t s e ts o f i n d i c a to rs . Ty pol ogy a nd num ber of i n d i c a to rs , w h o s e v a l u e v ari ati on i s at t he bas is o f mu l ti c ri te ri a a n a l y s i s , depend o n t he s ingle P i l o t C a s e Stu d y c h a ra c teri sti cs a nd t he c hos en a l te rn a ti v e s .

HP Energy & Economic indicators Suc h c r it er ia, p ro v i d e d w i th s p e c i fi c i n d i cators relat ed t o HP p ro d u c ti o n (e n e rg y ) a n d e c onomi c a s pec t s ( inv es tme n ts , b e n e fi ts ), e v a l u a t e how e ac h alt er nat ive a ffe c ts th e p e rfo rm a n c e of the h y dr oelec t r ic pl a n ts i n th e g e o g ra p h i c a r eas of e ac h P CS ( Tab. 3 .2 .5 - p .6 9 ). T h o s e e ffe c ts w i l l d epend on t he t y p e o f e a c h p l a n t a n d h y d ro l ogi cal char ac t er is t ic s o f e a c h ri v e r b a s i n .

River conservation indicators Alm os t all P CS h a v e c o n s i d e re d c o m m o n subcr it er ia s uc h as : ● B iologic al c o m p o n e n ts ● P hy s ic o- Chem i c a l c o mp o n e n ts ● Hy dr om or pho l o g i c a l c o m p o n e n ts Bi o l o g i cal i n d i c a to r s h a v e o fte n b e e n e x t racted fro m dat as et s c o l l e c te d fo l l o w i n g l e g i sl ati ve re quir em ent s , e v e n i f q u i te fre q u e n tl y i n mo unt ain s t r et c h e s , th e o ffi c i a l m e tri c s (r el ated to diat om s , m ac ro p h y te s a n d m a c ro z o o b e nthos) se em t o r es po n d mo re to tro p h i c s ta tu s than to r iv er HP effe c ts : i n o th e r w o rd s , i n some PC S no ev ide n t H P u p s tre a m - d o w n s tream gr adient has be e n e v i d e n t d u ri n g s a m p l i n g and dat a elabor at io n . F i s h e s s e e m to b e th e more re ac t iv e biologi c a l c o mp o n e n t i n re l a ti o n to H P pr es s ur e, ev en i f th e y a re o fte n h e a v i l y a ffected by unc ont r olled re s to c k i n g b y fi s h e rm e n , w hose eff ec t s c an be d i ffi c u l t to d i s ti n g u i s h fro m those ar is ing f r om HP p re s s u re .

section 3

D i fferent possi bl e hypotheses can be proposed to expl ai n the i rregul ar response of bi ol ogical ri ver communi ti es, such as: ● the offi ci al metri c chosen i s commonl y m or e rel ated to other dri vers (e.g. trophi c & nut r ient condi ti ons, ri verbed modi fi cati ons, pol l u t ant s presence); ● the taxonomi c l evel of cl assi fi cati on of biot a is too generi c (e.g. usi ng fami l y l evel rather t han speci es l evel ) and doesn’ t al l ow the adopt ion of a ri vet poppi ng approach; ● the average si ze and home range o f t he organi sms consi dered (e.g. benthos, di at om s) are too smal l to be rel ated to the effects of HP presence i n the ri ver; ● the peri od of i nvesti gati on i s too short to allow detecti on of H P effects on ri ver communi ti es; ● the adaptati on of communi ti es to chronic HP effects may hi de the i mpacts of H P ; ● the combi nati on of H P effects and nat ur al mountai n constrai nts can make i t di ffi c ult t o separate H P effects from gl obal condi ti ons of ri ver reach. The above menti oned hypotheses outl i ne ver y i nteresti ng research topi cs, but cannot r eally be ful l y treated i n a cooperati on proj ec t , not l east because i n the meanw hi l e managem ent probl ems due to new demands and concession renovati ons are constantl y grow i ng. H ydr om or phological indicator s (as residual di scharge, w et area vari ati on, l ongi tudinal conti nui ty, morphol ogi cal ri ver bed vari a t ions, etc.) are general l y consi dered onl y i n some PCS, above al l w here new H P pl ants are pl anned along a natural ri ver reach. The natural di scharge and hydr o m or phological elem ents ar e r eacti ve t o H P pr essur e, but consi dered i n the assess m ent of the status of w ater bodi es onl y for those of “hi gh ecol ogi cal status” (W FD , A l l . V, Tab 1. 2. 1p.22). From P C S experi ence, hydro morphol o gical i ndi cators coul d hol d strategi c i nformation t o assess H P effects on hydro systems, dir ect ly rel ated to W FD ri ver status. In parti cul ar, high hydro morphol ogi cal di versi ty seems t o be cl osel y l i nked to a high num ber of ecosyst em servi ces supported (J. H . Thorp et al . “Linking E cosystem S ervi ces R ehabi l i tati on and River H ydro geomorphol ogy”, 2010 ).

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers

At t he s am e t im e , th e i r v a l u e i s g e n e ra l l y posi ti vel y rel ated to the val ue of other mountai n WFD co m m unit ies ( “ u m b r e lla in d ic a to r s ”) a n d thei r spati al scal e cl osel y fi ts the scal e of H P expl oit at ion and planning. F o r i n s ta n c e , th e y h a v e b e en used at a si ngl e H P pl ant l evel (Lech, D ora B al tea , M ur, Chalam y ) r ef er r i n g to m e tri c s s u c h a s :

● ● ● ● ●

Wet A r ea ( Vo l u m e ) v a ri a ti o n w e i g h te d at a meso - habi tat scal e Dept h v ar iat io n w e i g h te d a t a me s o - h a bi tat scal e Weight ed us a b l e a re a (W U A) fo r b i o ta a ccommodati on M E S O HA B S I M (Parasiewicz e t a l . 2 0 07) metri cs CA S iM iR Comp u te r Ai d e d S i mu l a ti o n M odel for Instream Fl ow R equi rement (N oack et al . 2010) me t r ic s ● I F I M I ns t r eam F l o w In c re m e n ta l Me th o dol gy (B ovee et al . 1998) metri cs Hy dr om or pholo g i c a l m e th o d s h a v e a l s o b e en used for w i der (basi n) scal e appl i cati ons, mai nl y linked to r ipar ian v ege ta ti o n s ta tu s a n d e c o l o g i c a l functi onal i ty (IFF - Indi ce di Funzi onal i tà Fl uvi al e (S i ligar di et al. , 2007) in D o ra B a l te a a n d C h a l a my ri vers): at thi s scal e, hydromorphol ogi cal i ndi cator s ar e us eable as r epr e s e n ta ti o n s o f th e n a tu ra l capi tal and annexed ecosystems servi ces exposed t o HP pr es s ur e.

River Functionality Index report

MCA indicators considered in SHARE Pilot Case Studies ►

C OR DON

AS TICO

C H ISON E

D OR A BA LTE A

C HA LAM Y

PCS

Li near A nnu al E ner gy pr oduc ed

Gl oba l (N at io nal E n Im pr ove ment , N at io nal R ES En Imp ro vem ent )

Loc al ( annua l en pro duc ed, l in ear annu al en pro duc ed, i nst al l ed p ow er, di sc har ge en co effi c ie nt)

Gl oba l (N at io nal E n Im pr ove ment , N at io nal R ES En Imp ro vem ent )

Loc al ( annua l en pro duc ed, di sc har ge en coe ffic i ent )

P rodu cer ec onom y (f in anc ia l out com es , sp eci fi c

P rodu cer l eve l (f in anc ia l out com es )

P ro cee ds

Pr od uce r l ev el (fi na nci al outc om es)

L oca l p ro duc tio n

Ad mi ni st rat i on le vel (re gi onal le vel )

An nua l E ne rg y pr oduc ed

C ost s

Pr od uce r l ev el (fi na nci al outc om es)

Li near A nnu al E ner gy pr oduc ed

G lo bal P ro duc tio n

Ad mi ni st rat i on le vel (re gi onal le vel )

ECO NOM Y INDICATO RS

An nua l E ne rg y pr oduc ed

ENERG Y I NDICATORS

G l obal e nv i ronment (C O 2 offset)

R iv er eco system (fi sh, m ac robenth os)

G l obal e nv i ronment (C O 2 offset)

R iv er eco system (fi sh, m ac robenth os, macrophytes)

G lo ba l envi ronment - C O 2 off set

R i ve r e cos ystem - H yd rol ogy (fl ow vari ati on, hy dr ol ogi c al i ntegri ty, hy dr opeaki ng) - Mo rphol ogy (ri verbed substratum, bank s, mo rphol ogi cal i ntegri ty) - A quati c en vi ronment (Fi sh, m ac ro ph yt es, macrobenthos) - R i pari an envi ronment (ri pari an habi t at s, ri pari an communi ti es) - R i v er corr i dor functi onal i ty i ndex – I FF

P hys i co -c he mi cal parameters EPT FIS H H y dr omo rphol ogy

RIVER C ON S E RVATION IN D IC ATOR S

Fi shi ng

Frui ti on - R esi dual fl ow reach (fi shi ng, touri sm) - R each dow nstream of w ater rel ease (fi shi ng, touri sm)

Fi shi ng (Fi sherman score, Wei ghabl e usabl e area – IFIM – for adul t si zes)

Touri sm (and other ri ver frui ti on)

Fi shi ng (Fi sherman score, Wei ghabl e usabl e area – IFIM – for adul t si zes)

Touri sm (and other ri ver frui ti on)

TOU R IS M IN D IC ATOR S

A rti fi c i al bui l di ngs

Landforms

Lands c ape s c enery v al ue (Ty rol )

LA N D S C A P E I N D I C ATO R S OTHER

h andbook section 3

A nnua l en prod uct i on

E ner gy pr oduc ti on (ann ual en pr odu cti on GW h per y ear rou gh es tim ati on )

MU R

IN N

AR C -ISE RE

R SE hy dr o- ener gy ( annu al pr odu cti on)

K OKR A

Gl oba l (en er gy ren ew abl e d ir ec ti ve , nat io nal en i mp rov eme nt)

Loc al ( di sch ar ge e n co effi c ie nt)

ENERG Y I NDICATORS

PCS

Loc al ec ono my

B enef it H P pro duc er

Fl ush in g effi ci enc y (v ol ume ori gi na l, sed im ent outp ut , vol um e b efore flu shi ng )

En ergy prod uct i on l ac k (dur ati on of flu shi ng , e ne rgy pri c e pe r k W h, pow er i nsta ll ed )

ECO NOM Y INDICATO RS

G l obal - CO 2 offset

L oc al - Physi cal &chemi cal L oc al - Bi ol ogi cal (composi ti on a nd abundance of fl ora aquati que, b en thi c fa una, fi sh fauna) L oc al - Hy dromorphol ogi cal p ar ame ter s (fl ow regi me, r i v er tra ns v conti nui ty, ri ver l on g co nt i nui ty, morphol ogi cal c ondi ti on - depth&w i dth vari ati on, s tr uc tur e& substrate of ri ver bed, s tr uc tur e of ri pari an zone)

H y dr omo rphol ogi cal qual i ty & co nn ec ti vi ty for fi sh (di scharge r eq ui rem en ts for fi sh, ri ver co nn ec ti vi ty fi sh l adder/bypass)

B i ol ogi c al qual i ty ( macr oi nv ertebrates hydraul i c habi t at sui tabi l i ty, fi sh hydraul i c habi t at sui tabi l i ty i ndex)

bi oti c in di cators (substrate co nd it i ons , j uveni l e fi sh condi ti ons, adul t fi sh c ondi ti ons)

A bi ot ic i nd icators (bedl oad t rans po rt, change of grai n si ze di st r ib , s uspended sedi ment co nc p ea k, suspended sedi ment co nc entr ati on average)

C hem ic al a nd physi co-chemi cal qual i t y (te mperature)

H yd rom or phol ogi cal qual i ty (ri ver l ong c onti nuum, ri ver transversal c on ti nuum)

B i ol ogi ca l qual i ty (fi sh, phy tobenthos)

RIVER C ON S E RVATION IN D IC ATOR S

Fi shi ng R ow i ng and rafti ng

TOU R IS M IN D IC ATOR S

Landforms fl ora fauna Infras truc tures

Lands c ape aes theti c al v al ue

LA N D S C A P E I N D I C ATO R S

Fl ood ri s k - mai ntenanc e c os t for fl ood c ontrol s truc tures - new fl ood c ontrol s truc tures

Other s tak ehol ders - w ater abs trac ti on (i rri gati on, i ndus try and dri nk i ng) - w as te w ater di s c harge di l uti on (urban and pl uv i al and i ndus tri al )

OTHER

h andbook section 3

LEC H

VAR

Pe ak d ai ly e nerg y pr oduc ti on

A nnual ren atur ati on ex pendi t ures for sp aw ni ng gro und s ren atur ati on

To tal d ai ly pr of i t

Ec ono my re la ted HP ex pl oi tat io n (fi na nci al outc om es prod uce r l ev el , eco nomy r egi onal le vel )

E ner gy pr oduc ti on (an nua l e ner gy pro duc ed, pro duc ti on re gar ds lo cal c ons ump ti on, p ro duc tio n r ega rds lo cal hyd ropo we r pr od ucti on )

Tota l d ai ly e nerg y pr oduc ti on

ECO NOM Y INDICATO RS

ENERG Y I NDICATORS

PCS

B i ol ogi ca l qual i ty (fi sh, ma cr oz ooi nvertebrates)

H yd rom or phol ogy

Te rre st ri al and aquati c bi odi versi ty

Fi sh c on ti nui ty

H y dr omo rphol ogy (sol i d transport co nt i nui t y, ri ver changes)

RIVER C ON S E RVATION IN D IC ATOR S

Local sport fi shery R ecreati on

Touri sm l i nked to H P pl ant vi si ts

TOU R IS M IN D IC ATOR S

LA N D S C A P E I N D I C ATO R S

S ec uri ty of the ri v er bed (ex c epti onal ev ents as a hundred-y ear fl ood, hy draul i c w ork s management c os ts )

D ri nk abl e w ater i ntak e ups tream

OTHER

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers

River assets, Landscape & other stakeholders Criteria and Indicators Ad dit ional indic a to rs re l a te d to R i v e r a s sets, Landscape and other stakehol ders’ w ater uses have been us ed in diffe re n t P C S w i th a l o w fre q uency as show n i n the tabl es bel ow.

▼ Competing uses

P I LO T CA SE S T UDY

IR R IGAT ION

FA C TOR IE S

P OLLU TA N T D ILU TION

D R IN K IN G WATER

Chalam y

Dor a B alt ea

Chis one

A s t ic o

Rio Cor don

K ok r a

M ur

I nn

A r c - I s èr e

Y ES

YES

Var

YES

Lec h

h andbook

●

section 3

Chapter 2 - Pilot Case Studies: a concrete application of MCA to Alpine rivers

▼ Risk and Landscape P I LO T CA S E S T UDY

TOU R ISM

F IS H IN G

C A N OE IN G A N D WATE R S P ORTS

R IS K MA N A GE ME N T

LA N D S C APE

Chalam y

YE S

Y ES

YES

Dor a B alt ea

YE S

Y ES

YES

Chis one

Y ES

YE S

A s t ic o

Y ES

YES

Rio Cor don

YE S

YES

K ok r a

Y ES

YE S

M ur

YE S

YES

I nn

YES

A r c - I s èr e

Y ES

YE S

YES

Var

YE S

YES

Lec h

YE S

A det ailed d at a b a s e o f u s e a b le in d ic a to rs (S H A R E indicator toolbox) for ri ver and H P i ssues has b een dev eloped w i th i n th e S H A R E p ro j e c t and i s avai l abl e as an el ectroni c annex.

SHARE indicator toolbox

h andbook section 3

Sect i o n 3: A pplying S HA R E ●

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

A guidebook f or p o l i c y -m a k e rs h a s b e e n produced to hel p deci si on-makers take transparent and well i n f or m ed dec is i o n s w h e re h y d ro p o w e r i s invol ved, thanks to the S H A R E MC A methodol ogy and t he i m plem ent ing s o ftw a re .

● D e a l i n g wi th com plex i ty i s

ce r t a i n l y t h e m ai n challenge f or p o l i c y ma ke rs

Ta k ing a dec is i o n fo r a l o c a l o r a re gi onal aut hor it y pr es en ts a c h a l l e n g e i n c o n s i d e ri ng the point of v iew of ma n y c i ti z e n s , a n d th e i n t erests of m any us er s o r a c to rs , w h i c h a re s o m eti mes co nt r adic t or y. Th i s i s a s e ri o u s re s p o n si bi l i ty: tak ing a wr ong d e c i s i o n c o u l d c a u s e l asti ng dam age ( i. e. f o r g e n e ra ti o n s ), o r d e s tabi l i ze def init iv ely any c a p a c i ty to s a ti s fy th e general i n t er es t s of t h o s e i n v o l v e d . H o w e v e r, thi ngs hav e m ov ed f o rw a rd o v e r th e l a s t d e c a de: the kn owledge of a c to rs h a s i n c re a s e d , i n ta ndem wit h t he r egulato ry fra me w o rk . We ar e no longe r i n a p e ri o d w h e n d e v e l opment of A lpine r egi o n s i s d ri v e n b y mo n o pol i es; dec is ion m ak ers h a v e to a i m fo r s u s tai nabl e dev elopm ent . T h i s d o mi n a n t c o n c e p t c a n al so be c ons ider ed a s a s c h o o l o f o p e n -m i n d edness and balanc ed d e c i s i o n ma k i n g : h o w c an the sh o rt - t erm n ee d o f d e v e lo p m e n t b e b a l anced wi t h t h e l o ng -te r m n e c e s s ity o f social reg u l at i o n s an d e n v ir o n m e n ta l p r e s e r v a tion? The int egr at ion o f s u s ta i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e nt i nto polic y m ak ing c o u l d th e n b e c o n s i d e re d as a re newable r es o u rc e fo r d e m o c ra c y, a n d hence co uld s uppor t th e c o re d e m o c ra ti c c o n c ept of co ns ens us , “ c ommu n e v a l u e s ” o r g e n e ra l i n terest. In a polit ic al and o p e ra ti o n a l c o n te x t, s u s tai nabl e dev elopm ent , s o me ti m e s c o n s i d e re d a s p o l i ti cal l y co r r ec t , has be c o me a s tra te g i c to p i c b e cause of t he “ t r ans v e rs a l i ty ” i t i m p l i e s ; h o w ever, i t r em ains diffi c u l t to i n te g ra te i n to d e ci si on ma k ing due t o th e s e c to re d a p p ro a c h e s used by adm inis t r at i o n s a n d i n s ti tu ti o n s . It i s al so di ff ic ult t o t r ans l a te d e c i s i o n s i n to a c ti o n s w hi l st ma int aining a ba l a n c e d p o s i ti o n . A n a u th o ri ty has to deal wit h t he p o w e r o f e x p e rts . Tr a n s p ar ency has b eco me ab s o lu te ly n e c e s s a r y fo r p olitical deci si o n s an d p u b lic a c tio n s . In s om e way s , th e l e g a l fra m e w o rk c a n al so gi v e par adox i c a l , or even s c h i z o p h reni c, or ient at ions . T h a t i s th e c a s e b e tw e e n t he E U

Water Framew ork D i recti ve and the E U E ner gyC l i mate package: i s i t possi bl e to respect bot h the “good qual i ty of w ater resources” an d t he obj ecti ves of 23% of renew abl e energy i n 2020 consi deri ng A l pi ne hydropow er potenti al ?

● The Al pine chal l enge The A lpine econom y has been str ongl y influenced by its capacity to m ake an asset out of a per m anent natur al handicap, i. e. sl ope, cl i mate or other natural el ements su ch as w ater i n i ts vari ous forms (i ce, snow and l i quid) . The abundance of w ater (preci pi tati on) in t he A l ps combi ned w i th the sl ope provi des a f act or of ri sk, but i t has been used to reduce manp ower and progressi vel y to suppl y the energy needs of al l of E urope. H ydropow er has certai nl y been one of the mai n structural forms of ener gy producti on for A l pi ne val l eys; the i nstal l ation of many electr o-intensive industr ies (E II such as carbon, al umi ni um, etc.) i n A l pi ne va lleys duri ng the X IX th and X X th centuri es i s the dir ect consequence of the proxi mi ty of hydrop ower pl ants. A t the turn of the X X I th century, E II ar e in such gl obal competi ti on that i t i s hard to ma int ain them i n E urope, but hydr opower r em ai ns a str ategic sector as i t i s the mai n renewable component of energy sources. H ydropow er could then be consi dered as a strategi c sector, as it is i n A ustri a and S w i tzerl and, because, even if it is not l ow -cost energy, i t i s fl exi bl e and perf or m s w el l . It shoul d be noted that the total p ower output of the A l pi ne hydropow er stati ons i s m or e than 45,800 MW. A l pi ne regi ons are gi vi ng the hi ghest attent ion to the natur al capital they have i n herit age. Therefore, the doubl e questi on of the good qual i ty of w ater resources and the good level of renew abl e energy producti on i s of vit al i mportance i n the A l pi ne area. The ecosyst em servi ces are now al so consi dered as part of it s

3 T h e E c o n o m i c s o f Eco syste m s a n d Bio d ive r sity ( T EEB ) study i s a maj or i nternati onal i ni ti ati ve to draw attenti on to the gl obal ec o n o m i c b e n e f i t s o f b io d ive r sity, to h ig h lig h t th e g row i ng costs of bi odi versi ty l oss and ecosystem degradati on, and to draw t og e t h e r e x p e r t i s e fr o m th e fie ld s o f scie n ce , e co n o m ics and pol i cy to enabl e practi cal acti ons to move forw ard. w w w.teebw eb.org

h andbook

e c onom ic v alue 3 , th u s re c o g n i z i n g th a t th e A l ps hav e t he nec es s a ry a s s e ts to b e a l e a d i n g regi on re gar ding gr een g ro w th . An ot her k ey f a c to r i s th e i mp o rta n c e re ached by t he is s ue o f a d a p ta ti o n to c lim ate ch an g e. T he A l p s i s fo re c a s t to b e s u b j ect to tem per at ur e in c re a s e s u p to tw i c e th e r ate of that in t he lowla n d s . T h e i mp a c t o n th e e c onomy, env ir onm ent an d n a tu ra l ri s k s c o u l d th e refore be pr of ound. E v e n th o u g h th e s o l u ti o n i s gl obal , ma ny A lpine a c to rs a n d m u n i c i p a l i ti e s have dev eloped c lim a te p l a n s w h i c h h a v e i n s t i gated so m e c r uc ial e n e rg y p o l i c i e s . T h e A c ti o n pl an for c lim at e of th e A l p i n e C o n v e n ti o n c o ul d be co ns ider ed as a n e m b l e ma ti c i n i ti a ti v e from mi nis t er ial ac to rs . D u ri n g th e p re p a ratory dis c us s ion bef o re th e m i n i s te rs ’ d e c i s i o n at the Al pine c onf er en c e i n E v i a n , c e rta i n e x c h anges bet ween s om e a d m i n i s tra to rs o f th e Eu ropean Com m is s ion D G En v i ro n me n t a n d s o m e ci vi l se r v ant s of t he Al p i n e m i n i s te rs w e re p a rti cul arl y str ong r egar din g th e c o n fl i c t b e tw e e n a stri ct co ns ider at ion o f w h a t i s a “g o o d l e vel of wat er qualit y ” a n d th e n e c e s s i ty o f s u p port for mi c r o and P ic o -h y d ro p o w e r p l a n s to a d apt to cl im at e c hange . At th i s E u ro p e a n l e v e l , such a c ont r ov er s ial d e b a te b e tw e e n a c to rs shari ng co m m on c halle n g e s a n d v a l u e s i s s y m b ol i c of the c om plex c o n te x t w i th i n w h i c h p o l i c y m akers sh ould dec ide w h e th e r a n d h o w to d evel op mi c r o- hy dr oelec tri c i ty i n th e Al p s . The r is k is t h a t th e i m p o rta n t p o te n ti al of re newable ene rg i e s i n th e Al p s w i l l appear i mpos s ible t o re a l i z e , o r to o e x p e n si ve to mo biliz e, bec au s e o f th e p o l i ti c a l c o m p l exi ty i n dec iding what i s g o o d o r b a d , e v e n i f the r eal ch o i ce i s g en e r a lly b e twe e n th e le s s e r of two evi l s.

● R i v e r e c osystem s v ersus

h y d r o p o wer? Env i ronm ent v e r s us ad a p t a t i o n to cli m ate change?

D ur ing t he p e ri o d o f S H A R E , th e A l pi ne C onv ent ion and th e Al p i n e n a ti o n a l s ta te s set up a “ Wat er plat f or m ” p re s i d e d o v e r b y Sw i tz e rl and, fo llowing t he r e p o rt o n th e Sta te o f th e A l ps d edic at ed t o wa te r i s s u e s . T h e “w a te r p l atform” h as r ec ent ly wo rk e d o n C o m m o n g u i d e l i nes for 75

section 3

the use of smal l -scal e hydropow er i n the Alpine regi on - A l pi ne S i gnal s Focus 1 - 2011. The S H A R E proj ect has been a core comp onent of thi s w ork and these common gui de lines provi de an i mportant el ement to consi de r t he i mportance of the i ssue, but al so to study how t o i mpl ement the S H A R E MC A i n l aw. The grow i ng concept of terri tori al cohesi on in EU affai rs coul d hel p us to consi der the chal l e nging el ements that have to be i ntegrated w i th particular attenti on, but at w hi ch l evel s of governanc e ( or government) and at w hat scal e? We ha ve t o consi der that the E U Water Framew ork D i re ct ive i s one of the maj or l egal framew orks to pro pose a R egi onal E nvi ronmental Governance.

www.reg-observatory.org The creati on of management structures organized at the scal e of ri vers and basi ns i s certainly a maj or progressi on for the terri tori al approach in E U pol i ci es outsi de C A P and C ohesi on policies. In thi s context, S H A R E MC A appears as a modern and sci enti fi c w ay to aggregate di ff er ent cri teri a to i nform deci si on maki ng, w hi ch fi ts well w i th the hi story of the A l pi ne cul tural l andscape 4 defi ned by the i nteracti on betw een s ocial, cul tural , envi ronmental and economi c d r iving forces i n the A l pi ne terri tory. C onsi deri ng thi s favorabl e A l pi ne “compost ” , S H A R E MC A appears as a perfect tool t o i ntegrate compl ex data and to manage mult ipar t systems. R ather than i gnori ng a part icular di mensi on or gi vi ng too much w ei ght to a single i ssue, the S H A R E MC A supports a bal a nced i ntegrati on of every i nterest. S H A R E MC A helps to obj ecti fy a deci si on, avoi di ng non-transp ar ent pol i ti cal assessments made w i th overl y technical standpoi nts. In many cases, new hydropow er proj ects f ace a pros-or-cons ex-post eval uati on. There ar e costs for such a process: ecol ogi cal costs if a pl an destroys or degrades some ecosys t em s, economi c costs i f a proposed pl an i s aband oned. In the case of the S H A R E MC A pr ocess bei ng officially integr ated in a shar ed ex- ant e evaluation, only sustainable pr ojects woul d be pr oposed. A pol i ti cal anal ysi s and de cision w oul d sti l l be possi bl e regardi ng the weight 4 See Werner bä tzing, D i e Al pen, Geschi chte und Zuk unft ei ner K ul turl andschaft, Muni ch, 1991

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

gi v en t o t he v a ri o u s i n d i c a to rs l i n k e d to t he pri ori ti es. D uri ng the meeti ng undertaken w i th va r ious ex per t s , s t ak eh o l d e rs a n d d e c i s i o n ma k e r s, the S H A R E MC A process w as recei ved posi ti vel y, g iving re al oppor t uniti e s to o rg a n i z e b e tte r p a rtnershi ps and mul ti l evel governance. Thi s i s abso lut ely nec es s ar y f or m o u n ta i n te rri to ri e s s u c h a s A l pi ne regi ons to adapt pol i ci es to the speci fi c chal l enges of “ r egions wit h n a tu ra l o r g e o g ra p h i c p e r manent handi caps”. R egi onal envi ronmental governance is a k ey c hallenge fo r th e s u s ta i n a b l e d e v e l opment of mountai n regi ons.

● Pe r t i n e n t scales of acti ons: wher e and when to integrate the SHA R E M CA p r o c e dure?

The int egr at ion o f SH AR E MC A i n to l e g i s l ati on, pl ans or programs shoul d be anal ysed w i th re spect to t he need f or i n te g ra ti o n , th e d e g re e o f i ntegrati on, and the i denti fi cati on of i nterfaces for possible i n t egr at ion. Ter ri to ri a l c o h e s i o n a p p e a rs a t thi s stage to be a key el ement i n i denti fyi ng the per t inent sc ale f or def in i n g “ in te r fa c e s ” b e twe e n power s (author ities, civil society, user s, etc.) and po l i t i cs, c ons id e ri n g b o th e ffi c i e n c y a n d e qui ty.

The need of SHARE MCA integration into the legal framework The need f or t h e i n te g ra ti o n o f SH AR E MC A i nto the l egal process i s di rectl y l i nked to the wide ra nge and div e rs i ty o f i mp a c ts a s s o c i a te d w i th H P producti on. C l assi cal l y percei ved as a conf lict bet ween ec onom i c i n te re s ts a n d e c o l o g i cal i mpacts, the range of real or potenti al i nterrel ati o ns is ve r y c om plex , in c l u d i n g c o m p e ti n g e c o n o m i c (fi sheri es, but al so touri sm, i ndustri es and agri cult ur e) and env ir onm en ta l i n te re s ts , s u c h a s re n ew abl e energy producti on and the good ecol ogi cal sta t us of ri v er bodies , ex p re s s e d b y th e re s p e c ti v e E uropean di recti ves R E S e and Water Framew ork D i re ct ive (WF D) . The pot ent ial b e n e fi ts o f a to o l h e l p i n g to support deci si on makers i n understandi ng the comp lexit y of int er ac t ions b e tw e e n H P a n d o th e r a c ti vi ti es l i nked to the use of w ater resources i n a ri ver s t r et ch ar e howev er lin k e d to q u e s ti o n s o f tra n s p a rency, sensi ti vi ty and compl eteness. The is s ue of t ra n s p a r e n c y re fe rs to th e fact that al l steps of the MC A -tool have to be understan dable and r et r ac eable b y th e d e c i s i o n m a k e rs , c o ntrol l i ng bodi es, other stakehol ders, and the general public. Se n si t i vi t y m ea n s th a t th e to o l u s e d c a n not onl y handl e the archi tecture of the ri ver system an d t he di ff er ent im pac t s tri g g e re d b y th e d i ffe re n t al ternati ve sol uti ons of H P producti on, but al so a shif t of pr ior it ies . Co mp l et en ess re fe rs n o t o n l y to th e i n te g rati on of al l aspects rel evant for deci si on maki ng, i ncluding the s c oping ( i. e . a c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e i d e nti fi cati on of the aspects for each case), but al so t o t he i n t egr at ion of t h e i r i n te ra c ti o n s . In t he c ont ex t o f th e SH AR E p ro j e c t, th e usabi l i ty of the proposed S H A R E MC A approach i s being as s es s ed in t he n a ti o n a l P e rm a n e n t Te c hni cal P anel s (nati onal P TP ), i ntegrati ng the stakeholder s wit h int er es t s li n k e d to H P d e c i s i o n s .

The degree of SHARE MCA integration So m e ev aluat io n a n d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g m e thods have been di rectl y i ntegrated i nto the l egal s et of l a ws : t hus t he e v a l u a ti o n o f a l te rn a ti v e s h as been i ntegrated i nto the spati al i mpact assessment of di ff er ent c ount r i e s a s a c o mp u l s o ry s te p 5 .

SHARE guidelines to integrate MCA in local rules

E . g . G e r m a n y § 1 5 ROG; h ttp ://b u n d e sr e ch t.ju r is.d e / rog_2008/__15.html

h andbook

●

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

Tak ing a s im ila r a p p ro a c h , SH AR E MC A coul d b e int egr at ed in to th e d e c i s i o n ma k i n g p rocess fo r HP dec is ion s a s a c o m p u ls o r y to o l. D i rect i nt egr at ion in th e l e g a l p ro c e s s re q u i res a res pec t iv e dec is i o n o f th e re s p o n s i b l e l e g i sl ati ve b ody, t hus t he d i ffe re n t p ro c e d u re s o f l a w maki ng a nd am endm en ts h a v e to b e c o n s i d e re d for each i nv olv ed public a u th o ri ty a n d c o u n try.

The identification of interfaces (intermediary / partnership bodies) Th e int egr at ion o f th e SH AR E M C A p ro cedure i nt o legis lat ion m a y b e mo re e ffi c i e n tl y fo cussed o n int er f ac es at th e p e rti n e n t s c a l e o f g o v e r nance (ri v er or loc al, b a s i n o r re g i o n a l , n a ti onal or Eur opean) . T he s e i n te rfa c e s c o u l d b e d e fi ned as g ov er nanc e bod i e s a t th e c ro s s ro a d s o f s trategi c p lanning and o p e ra ti o n a l a c ti o n s th a t coul d fo s t er a par t ne rs h i p me d i a ti o n (d i a l o g u e ) . Thi s sof t - law dim en s i o n i s a b s o l u te l y c ru c i a l w i thi n th e s t r ic t legal fra me w o rk s e t b y th e EU WFD to i nt egr at e t he t e rri to ri a l d i m e n s i o n o f ri v e r basi ns (i n t er r egional o r i n te r-m u n i c i p a l ), b u t a lso for th e br oader - s c a l e e n e rg y p l a n s th a t a re set up a t r egional or lo c a l l e v e l . Bes ides a c o mp u l s o ry l e g a l i n te g ra ti on of SHA RE M CA i n to th e l e g i s l a ti v e p ro c edures, th e ident if ic at io n o f c o m m o n e x i s ti n g i n terfaces b et ween t hes e p ro c e d u re s a n d MC A w o u l d hel p to c lar if y t he c o n c re te b e n e fi ts o f th e S H A R E MCA appr oac h, o r a t l e a s t s o me o f i ts rel evant e lem ent s on a te c h n i c a l a n d p ra g m a ti c l e vel . Th es e t y pes of i n te rfa c e c a n re fe r to : ● t he s c oping o f th e i mp a c t o n re s o u rc e s and ac t iv it ies ; ● ov er all or s pe c i fi c g o a l s a n d o b j e c ti v e s ; ● t er r it or ial and p o l i ti c a l p ri o ri ti e s ; ● t he ident if ic a ti o n o f s ta k e h o l d e rs a n d thei r l e v el of inv olv e m e n t i n th e d e c i s i o n ma k i ng pr oc es s .

● L e g a l a n d Adm i ni strati on co m p e t e n ci es

Th er e is a varie ty o f le g a l a n d a d m in is tr ative c o mp et en ci es c o n c e r n in g wa te r m a n a gem ent o f t he diff er ent te rri to ri a l p a rtn e rs i n v o l v e d i n the SHA RE pr ojec t , a n d m o re b ro a d l y i n th e w i der Alpine S pac e. O n e o f th e c h a ra c te ri s ti c s o f w ater 77

section 3

management i s that admi ni strati onal territ or ies and w ater basi ns do not al w ays corres pond. A ddi ti onal l y, the di fferent types of i ntegrat ion of w ater management bodi es have to be seen in t he respecti ve admi ni strati onal and l egal conte xt . In contrast to other pol i cy fi el ds (e.g. cohesion or agri cul tural pol i cy), water m anagem ent is not dir ectly der ived fr om E U decisions. Th e EU l evel i s, how ever, i nvol ved i n w ater managem ent by the setti ng of E U -di recti ves, headed by t he Water Framew ork D i recti ve (2000/60/E C WFD) 6 , that have to be i mpl emented i nto nati onal laws of the member states. In Fr ance and S lovenia, the l egi slat ive competenci es are excl usi vel y concentrated at t he nati onal l evel . A l l l aw s, gui del i nes or di rec t ives, as for exampl e the French envi ronmental code 7 , are set up by the nati onal authori ti es. In France, si nce 1992, the l arge ri ver basi n l evel is covered by the S D A GE - “S chéma d’ aménage m ent et de gesti on des eaux”. C urrentl y seven S DAG E cover the French terri tory, al though onl y o ne of them, the S D A GE for R hône and Medi terran ean 8 , covers the terri tory of the A l ps. These types of w ater management plans contri bute di rectl y to the i mpl ementati o n of W FD (2000/60/E C ). S i mi l ar pl ans or progr am s at comparabl e l evel s can be found i n A ust r ia – the nati onal w ater management pl an (N ati onaler Gew ässerbew i rtschaftungspl an) 9 ; i n Germany – the management pl an (B ew i rtschaftungsplan) drafted by the S tate of B avari a for the D anube ri ver 10 and the pl an coveri ng the German Alpine terri tory; or, i n Italy the pl an coveri ng th e Po w ater basi n (P i ano di Gesti one del D i st r et t o i drografi co del P o) 11 .

● I ntegration of M ul ti Cr iter ia

Anal ys is in Pl ans and Pr ograms

P l ans and P rograms are drafted by wat er management bodi es i n order to ensur e a sustai nabl e use of w ater resources.

6 For more i nformati on on the Water Framew ork D i recti v e : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html 7 For an Engl i sh versi on of the French Envi ronmental Code: http://195.83.177.9/code/l i ste.phtml ?l ang=uk&c=40 8 www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/gestion/dce/sdage2009.php 9 http://w i sa.l ebensmi ni steri um.at/arti cl e/archi ve/29368 10 www.lfu.bayern.de/wasser/wrrl/bewirtschaftungsplaene/index.htm 11 w w w.adbpo.i t/on-mul ti /AD B P O/H ome/arti col o1080.html

h andbook section 3

â&#x2014;?

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

In all A lpine s t ate s p a rti c i p a ti n g i n th e S H A R E proj ect, they are usual l y set up at l east on tw o l eve ls - a l a r ger bas in and a s u b -b a s i n l e v e l - a n d i n vol ve, i n addi ti on to the publ i c authori ti es, deci si on maker s and diff er ent s t a k e h o l d e rs . The newes t gen e ra ti o n o f w a te r ma n a g e ment pl ans and programs i s usual l y di rectl y l i nked t o t he WF D. It appear s t hat p la n s a n d p r o g r a m s a r e s tr ategic tools set up for a per iod of 5-15 year s i nteg r at ing al l ac t iv it ies an d i n te re s ts re l e v a n t to w ater management i n the respecti ve area. If rel evan t , HP pr oduc t ion is ei th e r a d d re s s e d e x p l i c i tl y or i n a transversal w ay. Dur ing t he diff e re n t p h a s e s o f th e i r th e mati c rel evance, w ater management tool s and programs off er di ff er ent int er f a c e s fo r d i re c t o r i n d i re c t i n tegrati on of the S H A R E MC A approach: Draf t i n g p h ase : s c o p i n g o f re l e v a n t i n te re sts and acti vi ti es; scopi ng of pol i ti cal pri ori ti es set o ut by dec is ion m ak er s ; i n te g ra ti o n o f s ta k e h o l d ers; Ad o p t i o n : dir e c t i n te g ra ti o n o f d e c i s i o n makers and pol i ti cal responsi bi l i ti es; Imp l emen t at i o n : d e p l o y m e n t o f g o a l s a n d obj ecti ves.

Flow model of the different phases of the process for the drafting, adoption and implementation of plans and programs ÂŠSHARE

h andbook

●

section 3

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law ▼ R hône-Medi terranean 2010 i s coveri ng the terri tory of the French A l ps © www.eaumrc.fr

11 ,0 0 0 w ater cour ses e x c e e ding 2 km s and 1 ,0 0 0 k ms of shor eline There are abundant water resources in the RhoneMediterranean basin:

●

Large number of surface flows (44% of the national total)

● Exceptionally high density of water bodies (Lakes Léman, Annecy and Le Bourget, etc.)

● Large wetland coverage (surface ar ea over 7,000 Km²), ● 400 catalogued aquifer systems, ●

Glaciers (15.5 billion m 3 of stored water), etc.

Examp l e: I d en tify in g in te r fa c e s fo r th e integr ation of S H A R E MC A into a pr ogr am in Fr ance: The “S ch éma d ’ am é n a g e m e n t e t d e g e s tio n des eaux” for the R hône – Mediter r anean water basi n, c o veri n g t h e t e r r ito r y o f th e F r e n c h A lps 12 Th e S DA G E is a p l a n n i n g to o l fo r th e o ri e n tati on of i ntegrated w ater management i n l arge ri ver basins b as ed on t he F re n c h l a w 0 3 /0 1 /1 9 9 2 a n d 30/12/2006 on w ater and hydrographi c envi ronments and th e Wat er F r ame w o rk D i re c ti v e . Th e S DA G E f o r th e R h ô n e – M e d i te rra nean ri ver basi n, coveri ng the w hol e of the French Alps, h as been put i n to p ra c ti c e i n 2 0 1 0 . In contrast to the previ ous versi on from 1996, hydro power i s m ent ioned a s a tra n s v e rs a l a c ti v i ty, l i nked to ori entati ons of physi cal restorati on of the n at ur al e nv ir onm ent ( OF 6 ) a n d w a te r b a l a n c e (OF7). W it h r ef er enc e to th e d i ffe re n t o ri e n ta ti o n s, the S D A GE devel ops more concrete “di sposi ti ons ” and “m eas ur es ” . T h e s e d i s p o s i ti o n s a n d m e a sures i ndi cate acti on fi el ds, goal s and stakehol de r s f or fu t ur e dec is ions w h i c h c o u l d b e re b u i l t i n an S H A R E MC A approach. Fo r examp l e, t h e d i s p o s i ti o n 3 B 0 6 fro m th e current S D A GE refers to the “i mprovement or devel opm ent o f t he c oor dina te d m a n a g e m e n t o f c o n s tr ucti ons at the scal e of a ri ver basi n”, thus i denti fyi ng an a c t ion f ield: Ma n a g e me n t d i s p o s i ti o n s a re supposed to be “i mproved”, not one by one, but in a “c oor dinat ed” w a y. It a l s o o ffe rs a s c a l e : a w atershed basi n. In or der t o f ill th e S H A R E M C A c ri te ri a , i t makes sense to summari ze, i f not al l pl anni ng di spos it ions ref er r ing t o HP, a t l e a s t a s e t o f th e ma ti c al l y connected di sposi ti ons and measures. 12

w w w. r h o n e - m e d i t e r r a n e e .e a u fr a n ce .fr /g e stio n /d ce /s dage2009.php

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

In the French Rhône Mediterranean SDAGE 2010-2015, hydroelectricity is addressed as a transversal question I s s u e d f r o m t h e p d f w w w. s h a r e a l p i n e r i v e r s . e u / t o o l s - a n d - r e s o u r ce s/ o n l i n e - h a n d b o o k - l i n k s / p u b l i %2 0 SDAGE.pdf/view p.50

The S DA G E offe rs a g ri d fo r g o v e rn a n ce by creati ng a “R i verbasi n C ommi ttee”, and respe ct ive ter r it or ial s ub- s tru c tu re s fo r g o v e rn a n c e and parti ci pati on. Furthermore, the S D A GE al so offer s a tool f or par t ic ip a ti o n a n d i n te g ra ti o n o f s ta kehol ders. In an analogous w a y, p l a n n i n g a n d p ro g ra m documents are set up at l ow er l evel s. In France the SAG E (S c hém a d’am é n a g e m e n t e t d e g e s ti o n d e s eaux) i s establ i shed for more l i mi ted w atersheds.

● MCA f o r proj ect ev aluati on Pr o j ect eval u a tio n is a m o r e c la s s ic a l fi eld of the ap p l i cat i o n o f SH A R E M C A c h a ra c teri zed by t he init iat iv e o f a p ro j e c t p ro p o n e n t. The pr oponent addr e s s e s th e re s p o n s i b l e a uthori ty wit h a r equest fo r p e rmi s s i o n o r a l l o w ance. The aut hor it y s c o p e s th e fi e l d o f i n v e s ti g ati on, i n f or m s t he s t a k e h o l d e rs a n d o th e r a u th o ri ti es, and or ganiz es , i f re l e v a n t, p u b l i c h e a ri n g s and fi n ally t ak es t he d e c i s i o n . Us ually, dec is i o n m a k e rs a re n o t di rectl y i n v olv ed. Howe v e r, th e d e c i s i o n s ta k e n by the public aut hor it y h a v e to b e i n l i n e w i th l aw s, di rec t iv es , pr og ra ms a n d p l a n s , a d o p te d by the dec is ion m ak er s . A new pr ojec t h a s to b e v a l i d a te d b y the co m pet ent aut h o ri ti e s a n d th e re fo re i ts i m pacts on t he diff er en t a s p e c ts o f w a te r ma n a gement hav e t o be as s es s e d . D u e to th e p ro j e c t fo c us, the fr amew o rk o f t h e s u b je c t fo r th e a s s e ssm ent is l ess st rat eg ic a n d m o r e fe a s ib le .

A n apparent contradi cti on of proj ect eval uat ion ari ses i n the fi xi ng of the best moment for an overal l mul ti cri teri a anal ysi s: the outl i n es of the proj ect have to be cl ear enough i n order t o determi ne i ts i mpact on the resources and o n t he di fferent users, but sti l l “fuzzy” enough to allow an appropri ate adaptati on to the constrai nt s of each parti cul ar case. A possi bl e answ er to t his contradi cti on coul d be an eval uati on i n t hr ee phases: P hase I: proj ect i deas assessment - by p r oject appl i cant; P hase II: proj ect ori entati on: prel i minar y assessment; fi rst l egal scopi ng; P hase III: ori entati on for the l egal procedures – by publ i c authori ti es, parti ci pati on of stakeholder s. Good l egal i nterfaces for the i ntegrati on of S HARE MC A i nto the proj ect eval uati on shoul d fol l o w t he steps of the respecti ve procedures that cons ider a variety of different aspects and offer the possibility of w i der parti ci pati on, as i n E nvi ronm ent al Impact A ssessment (E IA ) and i n S tra t egic E nvi ronmental Impact A ssessment (S E IA ) 13 . 13 For more i nformati on on the E uropean E IA gui del i ne http://ec.europa.eu/envi ronment/ei a/home.htm

h andbook

●

section 3

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

● Co n t ra c t and agreem ents

am o n g s t a keholders and b e t we e n p ubli c authori ti es an d st a ke h o l d e rs

H P m anagem en t i s c h a ra c te ri z e d b y a g row i ng relev anc e of c o n tr a c ts among public a u t h o ri t i es an d r e le v a n t s ta k e h o ld e r s . U sual l y o n t he init iat i v e o f th e re s p o n s i b l e publ i c a ut hor it ies , s t a k e h o l d e rs re p re s e n ti n g re l evant i nt er es t s of r iv e r re s o u rc e s a g re e o n H P i ssues i n t he f or m of a c o n tra c t. T h e a d v a n ta g e for al l si d es is t hat H P i s s u e s c a n b e a d d re s s e d i n a fo c us ed m anne r, w h i l e s ti l l i n v o l v i n g a ra nge of relev ant int er es ts . As t he pot ent i a l ra n g e o f to p i c s o f s u ch H P fo cu sed w at er m a n a g e m e n t a g r e e m e nts is l ar ge, t he us e o f th e S H A R E M C A a p p ro ach i s rec om m ended. Fi x ing of c r it er ia w h i c h c a n g u i d e th e a u thori ti es i n t heir r elev an t d e c i s i o n s i s o n e i n te rfa c e. It i s b as ed on t he f a c t th a t th e a g re e me n t fo r cri teri a i s t he m os t s en s i ti v e i s s u e fo r th e d i s c u s s i on of H P dec is ions . I f i t i s p o s s i b l e to s h i ft th e s e t-up of relev ant c r it er ia fro m a c a s e -b y -c a s e d i s c ussi on to a m or e s t r uc t u re d s e tti n g , th e tra n s p a rency of H P dec is ions w o u l d b e i n c re a s e d . Anot her pos s ib i l i ty i s th e i n te g ra ti o n o f S H A R E MCA int o p l an s a n d c o n tr a c ts a s a p i l ot tool . Th is is an opt i o n , i f s ta k e h o l d e rs re p re s enti ng

di fferent i nterests have al ready i ni ti ated a di scussi on about a set of scenari os on the f ut ur e of hydropow er i n a defi ni te context. A s di ff er ent as these measures are i n terms of precision, ti mel i ne or feasi bi l i ty, S H A R E MC A for a pilot case or terri tory coul d be one of the al ternatives . Thi s i s parti cul arl y true as these agreem ent s prove on the one hand the potenti al of negotiat ion on H P i ssues, confi rmed by the succe ssf ul agreement si gned by the di fferent stakeho lder s, and on the other hand that thi s type of agree m ent usual l y requi res i mpl ementati on, moni tori ng and renegoti ati on.

Some examples can be quoted: ● E xam ple 1: cr iter ia for hydr opower in Tyrol (Mar ch 2011) Tyrol government report Tyrol has extended i ts l ong experi ence of stakehol der di al ogue to the fi el d of hydropower. The scope of the agreement i s the crit er ia. Fi xed i n a fai rl y detai l ed set, the cri teria ar e very operati onal and can be i mpl emented at all phases of the proj ect pl anni ng process, a s well as for programs and pl ans.

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

Detailed set of criteria from the Tyrolean agreement on criteria for the evaluation of HP projects I ssued from th e p df www.tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/www.tirol.gv.at/presse/downloads/Kriterienkatalog_Version_3.0.pdf p.50

Cr it er ion ar e s e t u p b y a g ro u p o f a d m i n i s trati on experts, and di scussed, amended and val i dat ed by sta k eholder s of th e d i ffe re n t i n te re s t g ro u p s (hydro-energy, fi shi ng, envi ronmental N GOs) and f inally adopt ed by t he d e c i s i o n m a k e rs (re g i o n a l government and parl i ament). The s et of c r it eri a e v e n i n te g ra te s a n o n -compul sory proposal for w ei ghti ng: 1. E ner g y p ro d u c ti o n : 2 5 % 2. Nat ure c o n s e rv a ti o n : 2 3 % 3. Hy dr o e c o l o g y : 2 2 % 4. Wat er ma n a g e me n t: 1 8 % 5. S pat i a l Pl a n n i n g : 1 2 %

● E xamp l e 2: C o n v e n tio n fo r s u s ta in a b le hydr opower in Fr ance

The c onv ent ion w a s s e t u p o n th e i n i ti a tive of the French Mi ni stry of E nvi ronment, E qui pment and Su s t ainable Dev e l o p me n t, i n th e c o n te x t o f the Grenel l e nati onal envi ronment round tabl e agreeme nt s 1 4 .

Le Grenelle de l’environnement report on hydroelectricity This nat ional ag re e m e n t w a s s i g n e d b y the mai n i nvol ved organi sati ons and compani es: A ssociat ion des M air es de Fra n c e , A s s o c i a ti o n N a ti o n a l e des E l us de Montagne, U ni on Françai se de l ’ E l ectr icit é, Fr anc e Hy dr o él e c tri c i té , E AF, E D F, GD F S uez, C ompagni e N ati onal e du R hône, S yndi cat des éner gies re nouv elables , W W F, F o n d a ti o n N i c o l a s H ul ot, A N P E R -TOS , S OS Loi re Vi vante – E R N France, NASF, UI CN F r anc e, C o mi té N a ti o n a l d e l a Pê che P rofessi onnel l e en E au D ouce, C omi té de l i ai son des éner gies r enouv e l a b l e s . The “ c onv ent ion ” c o v e rs d i ffe re n t to p i c s , that range from the general agreement on the i mpor t ance of hy dr opower a s a s o u rc e fo r re n e w a b l e energy, to goal s for H P -energy contri buti ons to na t ional ener gy pr oduc t i o n , a n d v e ry s p e c i fi c to p i c s such as the decommi ssi oni ng of parti cul ar pl ants. For t he m om en t, n o p a rti c u l a r a tte n ti o n i s draw n to the A l pi ne terri tory, so thi s possi bi l i ty has t o be as s es s ed wit h re fe re n c e to th e l a rg e ra n g e of agreements possi bl e under thi s conventi on, and t o a pr obable f ut ur e u p d a te . 14

M o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n th e F r e n ch Gr e n e lle p r o ce d u r e : http://w w w.l egrenel l e-envi ronnement.fr/-Versi on-angl ai se-.html ?rubr i que33

h andbook

●

section 3

Chapter 3 - SHARE quality standards and guidelines to integrate MCA in law

● E xamp l es f o r a g r e e m e n ts o n g o a ls a nd m easur es ar e:

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Ruling o f b i o l o g i c a l mi n i mu m fl o w P r es e rv a ti o n o f c o n ti n u i ty o f a m phi bi an communi ti es A plan fo r th e e e l p o p u l a ti o n A goal o f a n a n n u a l i n c re a s e i n hydroenergy producti on of 3TW h unti l 2020 P r om o ti o n o f me d i a ti o n i n i ti a ti v e s Res ea rc h i n to e n v i ro n me n ta l i n tegrati on of H P pl ants P r om o ti o n o f s m a l l i n s ta l l a ti o n s (bel ow 12 MW ) Dec ommi s s i o n i n g (n o t i n th e A l ps)

Wit h r es pec t t o th e i m p o rta n c e o f th e A l p s w i thi n thi s subj ect, S H A R E MC A coul d here offer some ver y sp ec if ic int er f ac e s i n o rd e r to i mp l e m e n t t he conventi on: ● P r ov is i o n o f a s u p p o rt to o l to i d e n ti fy the potenti al of the contri buti on of the A l pi ne territ or ies t o t he an n u a l 3 Tw h i n c re a s e u n ti l 2020, w hi l e preservi ng the ecol ogi cal conti nui ty ● I dent ifi c a ti o n o f th e p o te n ti a l fo r smal l H P producti on ● A s s es s m e n t o f a n o p ti mi z a ti o n o f the i mpact of new and exi sti ng pl ants on ri ver ecol ogy Th is c onv ent ion a l a n d s o ft l a w a p p ro a c h gi ves the opportuni ty for regi onal l evel deci si ons, as was th e c as e, f or ex a mp l e , i n C o rs i c a w h i c h h el d a regi onal conventi on betw een mountai n muni ci palit ies a nd E DF, and in th e l a rg e p l a n o f Po u tè s (i n H aute-Loi re France).

Report of the state of the Alps Alpine convention EEA technical report vulnerability water scarcity Alp water scarce and other Alpine Space projects on water reports CIPRA reports ESHA reports BUWAL reports EEA Megatrends DG ENV + DG ENERGY reports Directive 2009/28/EC

h andbook section 3

Sect i o n 3: A pplying S HA R E ●

Chapter 4 - A new kind of water governance

The S HA RE M C A c a n s u p p o rt a re a l e c o nomi c va luat ion of e c o s y s te m s e rv i c e s c o n s i deri ng ri v er r es our c es a v a i l a b l e i n mo u n ta i n re g i ons. How t o t ak e d e c i s i o n s a n d a s s e s s d i fferent i n t er es t s of en v i ro n me n t c o n s e rv a ti o n , cl i mate ch ange adapt ati o n a n d e c o n o mi c g ro w th ? H ow to t r ans f or m pe rma n e n t h a n d i c a p s i n to a ssets? How t o c r eat e w e a l th i n a s u s ta i n a b l e e c o nomi c mo del? T her e a re s o m e o f th e m a j o r c h a l l enges that m ount ain r e g i o n s h a v e to fa c e i n b a l anci ng a r ic h but f r agil e e n v i ro n me n t, a s p e c i fi c soci ocu lt ur al m odel a n d s o m e e c o n o mi c c a p a c i ti es to tra ns f or m addit i o n a l c o s ts i n to a d d e d v a l ue and qualit y. Studies and an a l y s e s h a v e d e m o n s tra ted that the h o mo g en ou s te r r ito r ia l d im e n s io n i s an appr opr iat e f r am e w o rk to o rg a n i z e g o v e rn ance. If adm inis t r at iv e b o rd e rs c a n n o t fo l l o w g e o graphi c and c ult ur al de l i m i ta ti o n , i t i s a b s o l u te l y cruci al for m ount ain t e rri to ri e s to d e v e l o p a b a l anced mo del as c los e a s p o s s i b l e to th e l o c a l l e vel . We hav e ident if ied th a t, re g a rd i n g th e i n te g ra ti on of the S HA RE M CA p ro c e d u re i n to l e g i s l a ti o n, i t i s mo r e ef f ic ient to fo c u s o n in te r fa c e s (s oft law go vern an ce b od ie s ) a t th e p e r tin e n t s cale of go vern an ce ( r i v e r o r l o c a l , b a s i n o r re g i onal , nat ional or E ur o p e a n ).

● Re gi o n a l env i ronm ental governance

SH A RE analy s i s i s b a s e d o n th e e ffi c i e n c y of a ter r it or ial – r egi o n a l , h u m a n a n d e n v i ro n m ental appr oac h t o p u b l i c p o l i c i e s . T h i s fra mew ork co uld be link ed to th e E U o b j e c ti v e o f te r ri tori al co hes ion, but a l s o to th e WF D ; i t h a s a pl ace i n m any nat iona l p o l i c i e s th a t a d o p t a te r ri tori al appr oac h, or are c o n s i d e re d a t a m u l ti re gi onal l e v el ( m as s if , b a s i n , e tc .) o r l o c a l l e v e l . The ch allenge is t o c o n s i d e r h o w p e o p l e l i v i n g i n the sa m e k ind of en v i ro n me n t c o u l d d e v e l o p a si mi l ar cu lt ur al and p o l i ti c a l fra m e w o rk to o rg ani ze, pl a n and m anag e s p e c i fi c o rg a n i z a ti o n s , s peci fi c pr oblem s or s pe c i fi c a s s e ts . The wor k of s p e c i a l i s t s c i e n ti s ts i s a l s o a key el e m ent in ma k i n g p ro g re s s re g a rd i n g the su s t ainable eff i c i e n c y o f p u b l i c p o l i c i e s .

Thi s ter r itor ial m odel of gover nance i s m uch more effi ci ent i f i ts ai m i s to avoi d confl i ct s and to reach a consensus. H ow ever, w ater and mountai n managem ent i n E urope i s faci ng great di ffi cul ti es i n t er m s of understandi ng w ho i s doi ng w hat i n t hese pol i ti cs of scal e, and of i nteracti ng l evel s. These l evel s of pol i ti cs refl ect i n turn the i ntere st s of parti cul ar communi ti es, w hi ch can be found bot h i n a regi on and i n an i nterest group. The fact is that the i nternal market and the w i der a ccess to i nformati on have created i nterdependences at E uropean l evel s, i n addi ti on to tradit ional i nterdependenci es at smal l er geographi c s cales i n mountai ns. The questi on of mutual recognit ion i s therefore hi ghl y rel evant i f the E uropean Union and mountai n ranges such as the A l ps w a nt t o fi nd together new w ays to answ er ol d chal l e nges (w ater use i n mountai ns) i n a changi ng co nt ext (cl i mate change, energy suppl y). The grow i ng concept of mul ti l evel govern ance supported by the C ommi ttee of the R egi ons is certai nl y useful for understandi ng i ssues and hel pi ng them to progress. The onl y pro blem i s that the “pyrami dal ” anal ysi s of subsi d iar it y (muni ci pal i ti es-regi ons – states – E U ) neg lect s the l ocal scal e that coul d create per t inent i nterfaces for a new governance. H ow ever, could approaches at the scal e of basi n governance be pol i ti cal l y effi ci ent enough to defi ni ti vel y f ace the chal l enge?

Mountain water governance & river basin governance: how to organize partnership with territorial coherence? Water i s defi ni ti vel y a strategi c i ssue fo r t he A l ps: a great resource (recreati on, dri nk, en er gy, i rri gati on, i ndustri es, etc.), a great creator of natural ri sks and a great producer of con f lict s betw een mountai n actors, but al so bet ween mountai n actors and metropol i sed l ow l and act or s. We have consi dered that S H A R E MC A ap plied to w ater and hydropow er management i s a good tool to bri ng together vari ous actors i n a shar ed anal ysi s. S H A R E MC A i s al so an i nteresti ng t ool to use because i t hel ps to deal w i th complex operati ve questi ons and to make deci si ons! I t i s an i nteresti ng w ay to support pol i ti cal a ct ion rather than to develop another technoc rat i c body wher e the “old” for m of gover nment should be m ar ginalized.

h andbook

section 3

On t he c ont r ar y, SH AR E M C A g iv e s b a c k to the policy m aker s and author ities a capac i t y t o de ci d e w i t h a fr a m e d s u p p o r t o f te c h n ical ser vices. MCA and t he S H AR E p ro j e c t p ro v i d e a n i n teresti ng w ay to gi ve back to the pol i ti cal authori ti es a cor e role in s uc h a s tra te g i c d e c i s i o n p ro c e s s a s the assessment of new (mi cro) hydropow er i nstal l at ions i n t he A lps .

Economic valuation of ecosystem services Th e is s ue of as s e s s me n t o f n e w m ic r o h y dr opower installations i n the A l ps l i nked to adaptat ion t o cl i m at e c hange a n d g re e n g ro w th w o n ’ t b e sustai nabl e i f ecosystem servi ces aren’ t respected. We k now wit h th e T EE B s tu d y th e i mp o rtance of the chal l enge of economi c val uati on of services. H o w t o i d en t i fy th e r e a l p r ic e o f a p u b lic good such as fr esh water ? If w e consi der the va r ious l aws r egar ding c o mp e n s a ti o n , o rg a n i z a ti o n and taxes rel ati ng to energy producti on from hi gh alt it ude h y dr opower pla n ts , e n e rg y a p p e a rs a s o ne of the maj or w ays for mountai n regi ons (i ncl udi ng , but n ot ex c lus iv ely, th e A l p s ) to b e n e fi t e c onomi cal l y from the natural w ater resource. The i nfor m al a nd his t or ic wa y o f c o mp e n s a ti o n c o u l d al so be consi dered as a fi rst step tow ards a more co m plex com pens at ion s y s te m . Th e T E E B s t ud y 1 7 a n d th e w o rk d o n e b y many E uropean and i nternati onal actors –i n parti cul ar DG En v of t he E ur o p e a n C o mmi s s i o n o r U N E P - i s absol utel y rel evant to mountai n regi ons, w hi c h ar e gr eat pr oduc er s o f e c o s y s te m s e rv i c e s . Th e E co n o mi c s o f Ec o s y s te m s a n d B iodiver sity (TE E B ) study i s a maj or i nternati onal i ni t iat ive to dr aw at t ent i o n to th e g l o b a l e c o n o mi c benefi ts of bi odi versi ty, to hi ghl i ght the grow i ng cost s of biodiv er s it y l o s s a n d e c o s y s te m d e g ra dati on, and to draw together experti se from the fi e lds of sc ienc e, ec ono m i c s a n d p o l i c y to e n a b l e p racti cal acti ons to move forw ard. As par t of good g o v e rn a n c e , d e c i s i o n -m a k i ng that affects peopl e and uses publ i c funds needs t o be objec t iv e, balan c e d a n d tra n s p a re n t. Ac c ess to the ri ght i nformati on at the ri ght ti me i s fundament al to c oher ent pol i c y tra d e -o ffs . A b e tte r u n derstandi ng, and quanti tati ve measurement, of bi odi ver sit y and ec os y s t em v a l u e s to s u p p o rt i n te g ra ted pol i cy assessments are core parts of the l ong - t er m so lut ion. A t r eg i o n a l a n d l o c a l l e v e l , e c o s ystem ser vices coul d al so be i ncl uded i n pol i cy.

TEEB for Policy Makers Th e balanc ed m o d e l th a t S H A R E MC A i s proposi ng creates a great opportuni ty to consi der bo t h t he sens it iv it y of bi o d i v e rs i ty b u t a l s o th e i m p ortance of the economi c val ue of products. It provi des t he p os s ibilit y t o r e a l l y i ma g i n e a s u s ta in a b le m odel of developm ent for m ountain r egions, l inking e c os y s t em s er v i c e s a n d p ro d u c ti o n o f h y dropow er w i th a hi gher transparency. SHA RE pr opos a l s c o u l d a l s o b e a n e ffi c i ent w ay to organi ze, w i th the support of MC A , a syst em of com pens at ion m o b i l i z e d b y th e e c o -c e rti fi cati on of el ectri ci ty (gr een cer tificates or labels). The mar k et of hy dr o e l e c tri c i ty w o u l d g i v e a p ri ce for a producti on that coul d be i denti fi ed through t he SHA RE M CA t o a c e rta i n l e v e l o f q u a l i ty o f ri ver ecosystem. In thi s w ay, w e w oul d have equi va lence b et ween an ec o l o g i c a l s e rv i c e a n d e c o n o m i c val ue. R ewar ding bene fi ts th ro u g h p a y m e n ts a n d markets: P ayments for ecosystem servi ces (P E S schem es) can be loc al ( e.g . w a te r p ro v i s i o n i n g ) u p to gl obal (e.g. R E D D -P l us proposal s for R educed E mi ssions from Def or es t ati o n a n d D e g ra d a ti o n , a s wel l as forestati on, reforestati on, and effecti ve conserv at ion – if des igned an d i m p l e me n te d p ro p e rl y ). P roduct certi fi cati on, green publ i c procurement, standar ds, l abelling and v o l u n ta ry a c ti o n s p ro v i d e a d di ti onal opti ons for greeni ng the suppl y chai n and reducing i m pac t s on nat u ra l c a p i ta l . 17

w w w. t e e b w e b . o r g

h andbook section 3

●

Chapter 4 - A new kind of water governance

Reforming environmentally harmful subsidies Global s ubs idie s a m o u n t to a l mo s t U S$ 1 tri l l i on per year for agri cul ture, fi sheri es, energy, transpor t and ot her s ec t o rs c o m b i n e d . U p to a th ird of these are subsi di es supporti ng the producti on and co ns um pt ion of fo s s i l fu e l s . R e fo rmi n g s ubsi di es that are i neffi ci ent, outdated or harmful makes double s ens e d u ri n g a ti me o f e c o n o m i c a nd ecol ogi cal cri si s. Ad dr es s ing los s e s th ro u g h re g u l a ti o n a n d pri ci ng: many threats to bi odi versi ty and ecosyst em se r v ic es c an be ta c k l e d th ro u g h ro b u s t re gul atory framew orks that establ i sh envi ronmental standar ds and liabilit y r eg i m e s . T h e s e a re a l re a d y tri ed and tested and can perform even better w hen l i nked t o pr ic ing and c omp e n s a ti o n me c h a n i s m s b a sed on the ‘ pol l uter pays’ and ‘ ful l cost recovery’ pri nc iples, al ter ing t he s t a tu s q u o w h i c h o fte n l e a v e s soci ety to pay the pri ce.

Just remuneration of hydropower regarding its impact on river ecosystems The r eal c os t o f h y d ro p o w e r s h o u l d a l s o take i nto account the val ue of ecosystems. The va r ious el e m ent s in dis c u s s i o n re g a rd i n g c o n c e s s i on and publ i c procurement of hydropow er i nstal l ati on need to c ons ider t his v a l u e . SH A RE M CA giv e s th e o p p o rtu n i ty fo r s h a r i ng a sustai nabl e model of devel opment, and for organizing new r egional en v i ro n me n ta l g o v e rn a n c e , whi ch can both address the obj ecti ves of E U 2020 regar ding gr een gr owt h.

Evaluation sequence building on scientific information Sour c e: St ephen White , o w n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , T E E B

The link bet we e n re n e w a b l e e n e rg y a n d ecosystem servi ces made w i th S H A R E MC A sti mulat es the bet t er or ga n i z a ti o n o f th e n e w mo d el of the green economy that the A l ps coul d propo se t o Eu r ope. T her ef o re , Wa te r a n d En e rg y s h o u l d be topi cs to be devel oped i n a E uropean m acr or egi onal st rat eg y f o r t he A lp s .

European project SHARE

Merging scientific tools, local specificities and operational requirements

Get involved in SHARE Network registering online!

Mem b e r s a r e i n v o l v e d in a n d b e n e fit fr o m SHARE a t several levels: specific access to SHARE results, feedback on bo t h a p p r o a c h a n d to o ls d e ve lo p e d b y SHARE. w w w.s ha re - a lp i n eri v ers. e u

●

Pr oje ct con ta ct

●

Pr ess co n ta ct

Andr ea MAMM OLITI MOCHET a.m ammolitimo chet@ arp a .vd a . it / P h o n e : 0 0 3 9 0 1 6 5 2 7 8 5 5 1

Audr ey ONILLON a.onillon@ g e res.eu / P h o n e : 0 0 3 3 4 4 2 1 8 5 5 8 8

h andbook

Pro d u cts lis t

A nnexes available on the online version A lps wat er s c a rc e a n d o th e r A l p i n e Sp a c e proj ects on w ater reports B UWA L r epor t s CI P RA r epor t s Cr it er ia and ind i c a to rs to i d e n ti fy v u l n e ra bi l i ty of A l pi ne areas and ri ver ecosystems DG E NV + DG EN ER GY re p o rts Dir ec t iv e 2009/ 2 8 /EC E E A M egat r end s E E A t ec hnic al re p o rt v u l n e ra b i l i ty w a te r s carci ty E S HA r epor t s How t he num be r o f i n d i c a to rs a ffe c ts M u l ti C ri teri a A nal ysi s Le G r enelle de l ’ e n v i ro n n e me n t re p o rt o n hydroel ectri ci ty M ap of m os t v u l n e ra b l e ri v e r ty p o l o g i e s to H P M aps of r es idu a l H P p o te n ti a l i n Al p i n e S pace M CA indic at or s u s e d i n P C S Se c ti o n 3 – C hapter 2 M I F def init ion a n d d i s c h a rg e e s ti m a ti o n methods report Reg O bs er v at o ry Repor t of t he s ta te o f th e Al p s A l p i n e c o nventi on Riv er F unc t ion a l i ty In d e x re p o rt S elf s t anding d a s h b o a rd re p re s e n ta ti o n of MC A S E S A M O s of t w a re a n d re l a te d h a n d b o o k S HA RE 11 P ilo t C a s e Stu d i e s S HA RE CA S iMi R s o ftw a re to a s s e s s h a b i tat condi ti ons al ong the ri ver channel and bank areas S HA RE ec o- inv e s tm e n ts . mi ti g a ti o n s & re storati on acti on S HA RE f ak e ne w s S HA RE geodata b a s e s S HA RE guideli n e s to i n te g ra te MC A i n l o cal rul es S HA RE indic ato r to o l b o x S HA RE P ilot C a s e S tu d i e s S HA RE P ilot C a s e S tu d i e s a l te rn a ti v e s fu l l descri pti on S HA RE P ilot C a s e S tu d i e s d e c i s i o n a l tre es S HA RE P ilot C a s e S tu d i e s m o n o g ra p h s S HA RE P T P S HA RE S m ar t Mi n i H y d ro s o ftw a re to a s s ess economi cal feasi bi l i ty of smal l H P pl ants S HA RE VA P I DR O-A ST E s o ftw a re fo r e v a l uati on of the resi dual hydropow er potenti al Te c hnic al r ev ie w d e s c ri b i n g WF D , F l o o d s and other E U di recti ves’ i mpl ementati on i n A l pi ne S p ace TE E B f or P olic y Ma k e rs Ty r ol gov er nm e n t re p o rt Wat er F r am ewo rk D i re c ti v e s ta tu s o b j e c ti ves for A S ecoregi ons and ri ver typol ogi es W hat is S HA RE ?

h andbook

Glo ssa r y A lpine C onvention (the )

The c onv ent ion s ta te s th a t i n th e A l p s , “ hydropow er generati on can be consi dered to be the m ain re as on f or wat e r a b s tra c ti o n (… ). T h i s resul ts i n the fact that a si gni fi cant share of ri ver stret ches fails t o m eet t he g o o d e c o l o g i c a l s ta tu s ”. - From Water and w ater management i ssues: R eport o n t he Stat e of t he A lp s , 2 0 0 9 -

B iodiver sit y

Al s o c alled biol o g i c a l d i v e rs i ty, b i o d i v e rs i ty i s the vari ety of l i fe found i n a gi ven pl ace on E ar t h or, oft en, t he t ot al v a ri e ty o f l i fe o n E a rth . A common measure of bi odi versi ty, cal l ed speci es ri chne ss, is the c ount of s pe c i e s i n a n a re a . - F ro m th e E ncycl opæ di a B ri tanni ca -

D ir ect ive on E le c tricity P roduc tio n fr o m Re n e w a b l e E n e r g y S o u r c e s

This dir ec t iv e o b l i g e s E U m e m b e r s ta te s t o i ncrease the share of renew abl e el ectri ci ty product ion in or der t o r educ e g re e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s . The ai m i s to reach a “23% i ndi cati ve share of el ec t r icit y pr oduc ed f r om r e n e w a b l e e n e rg y s o u rc e s i n total C ommuni ty el ectri ci ty consumpti on by 2020”.

H ydr opower

In t he A lps , hy d ro p o w e r (o r H P ) i s th e m o s t i mportant renew abl e energy source: thi s tradi ti ona l f or m of ener gy gener a te s mo re th a n 9 0 % o f e l e ctri ci ty producti on.

MC A Met hodology (the )

A m et hod t o as s e s s a n d c o mp a re d i ffe re n t management al ternati ves of hydropow er pl ants and r iver s. It will help dec is i o n ma k e rs to w e i g h t a n d bal ance al l ri ver-rel ated i ssues, i n order to take transpar ent and well inf or m e d d e c i s i o n s w h e re h y d ro p ow er i s i nvol ved.

Wat er Fr am e work Directive

The W F D r ef er s to ri v e r c o n ti n u i ty a s a “q u a l i ty el ement” to assess ecol ogi cal status, and underl i ne s t he need f or “ c ont r o l o n a b s tra c ti o n a n d i m p o u ndment i n order to ensure the envi ronmental sustai nabilit y of t he aff ec t ed w a te r s y s te ms ”. It o b l i g e s E U member states to reach and mai ntai n a “good” ecol ogical sta t us of wat er b o d i e s b y 2 0 1 5 .

Acro n y ms

A R PA A S H P MC A PCS P P PTP SHARE WFD

R e g i o n a l Ag e n c y fo r E n v i ro nment A l p i n e Sp a c e H y d ro P o w e r M u l ti c ri te ri a Ap p ro a c h Pi l o t C a s e S tu d i e s P ro j e c t Pa rtn e rs P e rm a n e n t Te c h n i c a l Pa n e l S u s ta i n a b l e H y d ro p o w e r i n A l pi ne R i ver E cosystems Wa te r F ra m e w o rk D i re c ti v e

h andbook

Fi n an c i al Par tner s SH A RE is a r unn i n g p ro j e c t i n l i n e w i th th e E uropean Terri tori al C ooperati on A l pi ne S pace program m e 2007- 2013. SH A RE has bee n a p p ro v e d a n d c o fu n d e d by the E uropean R egi onal D evel opment fund.

The Alpine S pace P rogra mme

The A lpine S p a c e Pro g ra mme i s th e EU transnati onal cooperati on pro gr am m e f or t h e Al p s . Pa rtn e rs fro m th e seven A l pi ne countri es w ork toget her t o pr omo te re g i o n a l d e v e l o p me n t i n a sustai nabl e w ay. D uri ng the per iod 2007- 2 0 1 3 , th e p ro g ra mme i s i n v esti ng €130 mi l l i on i n i mpactori ent ed pr ojec ts . T h e s e fo c u s o n c o m p e t i ti veness and attracti veness, ac c es s ibilit y an d c o n n e c ti v i ty, e n v i ro n m e n t and ri sk preventi on.

www.alpine-space.eu

The Eur opean Re giona l Developm e n t F u n d

The E RDF aims to s tre n g th e n e c o n o m ic and soci al cohesi on i n the Eu r opean Union b y c o rre c ti n g i m b a l a n c e s betw een i ts regi ons. In short, the E RDF f inanc e s : ● Dir ec t aid t o i n v e s tm e n ts i n c o mp a n i e s (i n parti cul ar S ME s) to create su s t ainable jobs ; ● I nf r as t r uc t ur e s l i n k e d n o ta b l y to re s e a rc h and i nnovati on, telec om m unic at i o n s , e n v i ro n me n t, e n e rg y and transport; ● F inanc ial ins tru m e n ts (c a p i ta l ri s k fu n d s, l ocal devel opment funds, etc . ) t o s uppor t re g i o n a l a n d l o c a l d e v e l o p ment and to foster cooperati on bet ween t owns a n d re g i o n s ; ● Tec hnic al as s i s ta n c e m e a s u re s . The E RDF c an i n te rv e n e i n th e th re e o b j e cti ves of regi onal pol i cy:

● Conv er genc e ● Regional Com p e ti ti v e n e s s a n d E m p l o y m ent ● E ur opean Terri to ri a l C o o p e ra ti o n

The E RDF als o g i v e s p a rti c u l a r a tte n ti o n to speci fi c terri tori al characteri sti cs. E R D F acti on i s des igned to r educ e ec on o m i c , e n v i ro n m e n ta l a n d soci al probl ems i n tow ns. N atural l y di sadvantaged ar eas geogr aphic ally s p e a k i n g (re mo te , m o u n ta i nous or sparsel y popul ated areas) benefi t from sp ecial tre at m ent . Las t l y, i s o l a te d a re a s a l s o b e nefi t from speci fi c assi stance from the E R D F to addr ess pos s ible dis adv a n ta g e s d u e to th e i r re m o t eness.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/regional/index_en.cfm

GE RE S c ont r ibu ti o n to th e SH AR E p ro j e c t i s supported by GD F-S U E Z Foundat ion

www.gdfsuez.com/fr/groupe/fondation-gdf-suez/fondationd-entreprise-gdfsuez

w w w. s h a r e - a l p i n e r i v e r s . e u

Why a S H A RE ha n d b o o k? T h i s r e p ort i s a sl i m hyp e rtext conceived as a tool to suppor t sustainabl e r i v e r a n d hyd rop o w er ma n a g em ent under taken by local adm inistr ator s , p u b l i c a nd p ri va te co n su l tan ts and other r iver stakeholder s. O u r i n t e nti on i s to gu i de the reader in a sim ple way thr ough the SHARE m e t h o d o lo g i cal a p p roa ch , and the differ ent tools and r esour ces dev el o p e d a n d te ste d d u ri n g th e SHARE cooper ation pr oject. Enjoy it!