Session3.3 cirf bruno boz

415 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Sports
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
415
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
62
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Session3.3 cirf bruno boz

  1. 1. River restoration and sustainable hydropower:Multi Criteria Analysis as a tool to clarify impacts andreduce water use conflicts Project final meeting Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012 Bruno Boz CIRF – Italian Center for River Restoration Technical SecretariatSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  2. 2. CIRF - Italian Center for River Restoration • OUR GOALS ► Increase knowledge on the status of our rivers and on pressure factors ► Prevent short-sighted policies ► Promote river restoration www.cirf.orgSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  3. 3. River restoration ► River restoration refers to a large variety of ecological, physical, spatial and management measures and practices. These are aimed at restoring the natural state and functioning of the river system in support of biodiversity, recreation, flood safety and landscape development. RF  WFD ? RBMPs River Restoration measuresSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  4. 4. River restoration and hydropower: The use of MCA • The development of RR practices need a participatory approach and need instruments able to demonstrate their effects at different levels >> MCA ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY LANDSCAPE TOURISM FLOOD RISK STATUSSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  5. 5. Hydropower and river ecological status ► “hydropower generation can be considered to be the main reason for water abstraction (…).These results in the fact that a significant share of river stretches fails to meet the good ecological status” Water and water management issues: Report on the State of the Alps, 2009 ► In the 1st implementation report of the WFD, hydropower has been identified as one of the main drivers to hydro-morphological alterations, loss of connectivity and to significant adverse effects on the ability of survival of fish populations COM (2007) 128 final. Commission Staff Working Document accompanying to the Communication from the EC to the European Parliament and the Council. Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union. First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. ► Recent data from all EU Member States on the designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) showed that water storage for hydropower generation is the third most common water use for designating HMWB (following water regulation and flood protection). Kampa, E. & C. Laaser (2009). Updated Discussion Paper. Common Implementation StrategySHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012 Workshop Heavily Modified Water Bodies. Brussels, 12-13 March 2009.
  6. 6. River restoration and hydropower: where to act? ► General rules to manage the existing plants (national, regional or at basin scale) ► Rules and plans to regulate the development of new plants (national, regional or at basin scale) ► Management and mitigation/compensation measures (for single or connected system of HPPs, at local scale)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  7. 7. Rules for the existing plants• Application of the «Minimum ecological flow » ► Different methods to define it, but in general very different from the natural flow ► Not directly related (cause – effect) with the WFD objectives (EQS status) ► Big lacks in term of discharge data availability ► Different ways and times to apply the rules and possibility to derogate ► Lack of controlSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  8. 8. Example: lack of control ?? MINIMUM ECOLOGICAL FLOWSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  9. 9. Rules for the existing plants• Bedload and fine sediments management – Sediment traps management, flushing operations and emergency manoeuvres ► Alteration of bedload transport, which in turn alters the planoaltimetric evolution of the streambed and its major morphological characteristics ► Fine sediments: peaks in turbidity in the stream, discharge peaks associated to the fast opening of the sluice gates, toxicity. ► The theme is actual and the results of some recent research projects are now available. ► Sluicing must be planned and regulated following the Decree 30/06/2004: requires defining a specific protocol and a reservoir management plan ► NOT only avoid impacts, but also IMPROVE the actual situation: in particular restoring the bedload transport downstream
  10. 10. Examples: impact due to fine sedimentsSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  11. 11. Drivers to restoration• Renewal of hydroelectric concessions• New methods to define royalties (IDEA)• Volunteer green labelling (CH2OICE)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  12. 12. Development of new plants• Critical issues: - HIGH number of new plants (and new river stretches exploited) but LOW relative contribute to total production Plants with a capacity of less than 1 MW constitute around 75% of all HP plants within the Alpine area but contribute less than 5% to the total electricity production Data from:SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  13. 13. Development of new plants• Critical issues: Still significant lacks in term of knowledge of the real ecological status of waterbodies >> precautionary approach Data from:SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  14. 14. Development of new plants• Critical issues: - It is estimated that about 90% of alpine rivers aren’t in their natural state anymore: the residual natural capital under pressure is very high! - Risk of failing Water Framework Directive objectives is actually high (in Alpine regions under-estimated?) Data from:SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  15. 15. Development of new plants• Critical issues The impact is not related with the size of the plant; in some context a small plant could create a big impact! The size of the project is not the relevant criteria to trigger Article 4.7. The relevant approach is to assess if a given project will result in deterioration of the status of a water body. Thus, projects of any size may fall under article 4.7. (Key recommendations from 2010 Water Directors Statement ) #SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  16. 16. Development of new plants• We are strongly supporting (green certificates) these solutions• The requirements of Article 4.7 (exceptionally allows the deterioration of water status or failure to achieve good water status provided certain strict conditions are satisfied) of WFD are in general not explicitly considered• With some exceptions, pre-planning mechanisms allocating “no-go” areas for new hydro-power projects have not still been adopted• On the contrary some mechanisms to simplify the procedures to obtain the concessions have been adopted From: Alpine Convention COMMON GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF SMALL HYDROPOWER IN THE ALPINE REGIONSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  17. 17. Mitigation/compensation measures • Pressures factors:SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012 From CH OICE project 2
  18. 18. Mitigation/compensation measures • Environmental criteria: From CH2OICE projectSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  19. 19. Mitigation/compensation measures • Cause-effect relationships PRESSURES FACTORS ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIASHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  20. 20. Mitigation/compensation measures • Mitigation measures to reduce the impact due to structures: fish passes, bypass channels, installation of screens and deterrents, “fish friendly” turbines, correct location of the electric poles and the route of the power lines etc..SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  21. 21. Mitigation/compensation measures • Mitigation measures to reduce the impact due to release flow alterations (included hydropeaking): to recreate a hydrograph as close as possible to the natural one, create refuge habitats through morphological diversification, FOR HYDROPEAKING: reduce the difference between maximum and minimum flows and extend the transition time between these two conditions, releases of discharges into retention reservoirs ..SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  22. 22. Mitigation/compensation measures • Mitigation and compensation measures to reduce the impact due to bedload and fine sediments management: restoring the bedload transport downstream of the dam, increase of sediment input from the slopes or from tributaries through the removal of bank protections, proper timing, if necessary use mechanical digging of sediment instead than fluitation..SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  23. 23. Mitigation/compensation measures • To reduce significantly the impact is possible but in term of costs each HPP and water body is a different story… • The adoption of mitigation and compensation measures is not sufficient to avoid the adoption of pre-planning mechanisms allocating “no-go” areas (cumulative impact, typologies of water bodies disappearing, necessity to preserve some pristine river stretches..)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  24. 24. River restoration and hydropower: The use of MCA Typical problems to solve: Built/maintain or not new HPPs? Which is the best location of new HPPs? How to manage the release flow? How to manage the bedload and fine MCA sediments? To release or not some mitigation actions (fish passes, bypass channel…)?SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  25. 25. MCA: examples National Park of Dolomiti Bellunesi Alternatives: different way to manage the release flowsSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  26. 26. Twole B DEI-POLIMI; DIIAR-POLIMI; DEPAAA-UNIMI; CIRF Adda sub-lacuale Actions considered to built the alternatives: - different way to manage the release flows from the lake and other diversions - water quality improvement (different scenarios) DEFINITION OF CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSIDERED ACTIONS AND RIVER ECOLOGICAL STATUS (WFD)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  27. 27. ConclusionsMCA: - the effects of each alternative and all the processes are transparent - useful to reduce conflicts and to support negotiation - it’s an instrument very effective to communicate - if cause-effect relationships are defined for different criteria, possibility to explore a wider range of solutions - the choice of the indicators and of the analysis scale could be very critic and strongly influences the final results - in the same time strong semplifications are required - also the definitions of the cause-effect relationship between pressure factors and quality elements is critic - to be effective a significant range of alternatives have to be exploredSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  28. 28. River Restoration: Interest on SHARE project - Attention to WFD (approach, choice of indicators…) - How to manage the bedload and fine sediments (effects on hydrological regime, the river continuity and the morphological condition) >> ARC ISÈRE - Built/maintain or not new HPPs, and best location? >> KOKRA,VAR, RIO CORDON) - Alternatives which consider together management and structural actions (KOKRA) - Biological elements: not only indicators based on community status, but also on habitat conditions (CASIMIR, IFIM..) - not indicators limited to the rivers channel but also riparian areas (CHISONE..)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  29. 29. THANK YOU for your attentionSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

×