RuralE.Evolution

Deliverable D 4.1. “Implementation of the

provisional methodology in each target area ”

RuralE.Evolution

Public-Private Partnerships for RES Agro-energy districts

Issued by: HANGYA

DATE: July 2010

CONTRACT N°:IEE/07/579/SI2.499063

1

Content

1. Introduction 3

2. General remarks arising during implementation 4

3. Common and specific features of implementation 7

4. Reports on the implementation in each target area 10

Greek case study 11

Hungarian case study 21

Italian case study 29

Portuguese case study 35

Spanish case study 40

5. Annex (Questionnaire to the implementation of provisional

methodology in each target area) 45

Summary of answers to questionnaire 49

2

Introduction

The main objective of the Work Package (WP) 4 is to test the soundness of the provisional

methodology, giving concrete applications in each target area. For this purpose all partners

between months 12-20 will implement, step by step, their specific provisional methodology

described in the guidelines for the application of PPP schemes to agro-energy districts

resulting from WP2, applying options emerging from WP3 (pre-feasibility).

The pre-feasibility studies elaborated evaluate the proper combination of elements, able to

comply with target area characteristics and needs. This process has to finalize the main frame

of potential partnership amongst local public authorities, agricultural SMEs, associations of

entrepreneurs and financial institutions as well. This frame helps to draw up the potential PPP

contract scheme as a precondition for the signature of the Memoranda of Understanding by all

interested partners.

According to the Annex 1 of the project contract at the beginning of WP4 each partner has

already collected necessary information and elements to put into practice the provisional

methodology. The focus will be switched on the concept of “Bio-energy chain” or “Agro-

energy chain”.

The first step each national component will implement, is the definition of the actual Bio-

energy chain in the selected target areas. According to local characteristics, a proper chain

will be developed and identified actors belonging to this chain will be addressed.

The meetings and round-table discussion will result in high level of awareness related to the

advantages arising from the realization of agro-energy PPP projects. This process of

involvement, consultation and discussion with stakeholders will end with the identification of

commonly agreed schemes of PPP and Agro-energy districts between all future PPP partners.

3

General remarks arising during implementation

The project partners have very different positions, circumstances and experiences related to

PPP. As an excellent guidebook1 of good governance of PPP mentioned, countries tend to go

through a number of distinct phases before a PPP programme becomes fully operational. Most

countries are at a first stage where the development of actual projects is still numerically small.

Only at the third phase, where relatively few countries are currently situated, the programme

becomes significant. At this stage countries will have developed the required institutions, e.g. the

PPP unit, the capital markets as well as the know-how and expertise and can therefore turn their

attention to more sophisticated projects and financial arrangements. The maturity of the PPP

market in the different countries is characterized in the figure2 below.

Figure 1: Maturity of the PPP market

The figure clearly expresses that in the four “old “Member States, the general frame of PPP is

more developed, in comparison to Hungary as a “new” Member State. “Stage two” represents

that these countries:

- introduce legislative reforms

- publish policy and practice guidelines

- establish dedicated PPP units

1 edited by United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in 20082 source Deloitte and Touche USA LLP

4

- refine PPP delivery models

- continue to foster marketplace

- expand project pipeline and extend to new sectors

- leverage new sources of funds

The differences amongst administration of countries also cause different conditions mainly to

the public partners, based on the principle of subsidiarity giving more spaces to them in the

less centralized countries (Spain, Italy). The administrative differences also influence the legal

systems and because of compulsory legal act, related PPPs exists on EU level only to public

procurement and service concession, there are significant distinctions concerning the legal

conditions amongst the countries.

There are also significant differences amongst countries, concerning the attitude of financing

institutes related to PPP projects. (Sometimes this difference exits within one country as well,

like the relatively expensive credit causes low level of PPP in the south part of Italy.).

Therefore the clear risk-sharing one of the most important elements of planning and

implementation.

Although the present project focuses to the preparation activity of PPP, the final output

(contract amongst partners) requires considering and applying the principles of good

governance in PPPs. It means that during the adaptation of prefeasibility analysis and

preparing the contract it has to be found:

- a good balance amongst potential stakeholders,

- optimal technical solutions;

- such financial solution which provides sources both to the construction and to the

sustainable operation of investment.

Therefore the project partner during the implementation of project has to provide such

information and create such conditions to the local actors in which the general principles of

the good governance in PPP will show up, e.g.

- participation

- decency

- transparency

- accountability

- fairness

5

- efficiency

The prefeasibility analysis, as output of WP3 provides mainly technical and financial

proposals to the partners; therefore the complexity of PPPs requires creative contribution both

from the project partners and the local stakeholders during the implementation process.

6

Common and specific features of implementation

The characterization and the positioning of the implementation process has been drawn up

by the countries’ report and by a questionnaire. The reports providing the project partners

are in the next chapter, while the questionnaire is summarized in the Annex.

All partners reported a successful process of preparation, which makes probable the

contractual liaisons amongst the determinable local partners. At the same time, there are

significant differences related to readiness of the cases are significant differences.

The identification of the needs, commitment and motivations clearly underlined that the

main driving forces of this process are the local authorities and the farmers’ communities.

In Spain, the regional government represents the public need, in this project. At the same

time the ranking of partners’ interest dredged up that the individual farmers, except in

Greece and in Italy, have only slight motivation to participate in this improvement. The

problem also came up from the analysis of potential risks where in two countries

(Hungary and Portugal) the lack of safe supply is also mentioned. These facts underline

the further need to reach better conditions and higher awareness of the farmers, related to

biomass utilisation.

At the same time the environmental benefits were identified as main motivation in each

questionnaire. Similarly, high ranking motivations are the better utilisation of biomass and

the alternative income for farmers as well. The general economic advantages and job

creation are an important but less determinable motivation, according to the answers. The

decrease in external energy dependency, which can be a main object of “agro-energy

districts”, was checked on the list only in two questionnaires (Greece and Italy), although

in the Portuguese case the connection to the electric grid, with its difficulties, is an

important element.

The planned project is highly related to the political situation, according to the answers.

This risk is marked in all questionnaires: that is basically due to the determinable role of

local authorities as public partners; therefore, the feasibility of the planned activity tightly

coheres with the political stability of the regional, local authorities.

7

In the majority of the PPP schemes exist a fear of the unbalanced risks amongst partner.

Beyond this, the unbalanced financial power is presumable, because local authorities, due

to their attributes, have less financial and more political forces and the private partners are

in the opposite position. The changes in the economic situation and/or in the legal frame

(including the governmental incentitives as well), represent similarly high level of risk to

the actors.

Amongst the risk factors, fear from the unsafe supply has also to be mentioned, typically

in such cases when the farmers’ motivation and awareness is low.

The access to capital is also mentioned amongst the risky factors, namely in Portugal. At

the same time this risk generally exists in all countries where the financial institutes are

not well prepared to the PPP, or the general economic conditions are unfavourable to PPP.

It was mentioned by Portuguese partners also as risky factor the bureaucratic and limited

access to electric grid. This problem exists in each country and this is a serious limitation

to achieve the real agro-energy district.

According to the questionnaire during the adaptation of the prefeasibility study some

countries had some difficulties.

- In Greece, the feasibility study carried out in WP3, was expanded in order to have a

broader supply of biomasses, e.g. biomass from adjacent areas, that will be used in

addition to the pomegranate residues, and the energy produced will not be used only

for refrigeration purposes, but also to cover the energy needs of the Municipality and

to sell the excess to the national grid.

- In Hungary, the public partners (local authorities), due to the lack of database and

experiences both in alternative energy and PPP as well, overestimated their potential

abilities to utilize the biomasses locally during the WP3, and at the same time, the

regional power plant became more open to collaborate with them. These changes

provided a totally different system in comparison to the prefeasibility analysis of WP3.

- In Italy, the whole situation framework is regular; only a consideration related to the

new agronomical method to manage the pruning was mentioned, but it will take a few

resource to fit the concept with the project research.

8

- In Spain the expansion of the feasibility study carried out in WP3, was performed in

order to have an additional issue, involving new stakeholders (Province Government –

DIPCAS and a private investor).

Due to the above mentioned significant changes during this implementation phase, the

majority of the partners (except Greece and Italy, where within the project team are

strong scientific knowledge) needs additional information to help the decision of local

actors. This need includes different items, like technical, financial, legal and

environmental analysis and therefore this will be tasks of the local partners.

9

Country reports on the implementation in each target

area

- Greece

- Hungary

- Italy

- Portugal

- Spain

10

GREEK CASE STUDY

1. Identification of area’s needs (motivations, reasons)

Figure 2: Location of Prefecture of Kilkis in Greece

Kilkis Prefecture is located in Central Macedonia Region, in the northernmost part of Greece.

Its capital is the city of Kilkis. It includes 11 Municipalities & 1 independent community and

covers an area of 2,519 km2, with 86.086 inhabitants. The mountains near Kilkis are Paiko to

the west, parts of the western part of Kerkini to the northeast and Krousia to the east. Lake

Doirani is situated to the north and shares its eastern portion of the lake. Kilkis is bounded by

the prefectures of Serres to the east, Thessaloniki to the south, Pella to the west and the

international border of Greece with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Gevgelija

municipality) to the north.

The Prefecture of Kilkis has an agriculture-based economy with 45% of the active population

involved in the primary sector of the economy. Our main area of concern is the Municipality

of Evropos, where the “Tobacco Cooperative of Toumpa Kilkis” (TCTK) is based. TCTK was

founded in 1983 in order to organize and trade its members' production of eastern type

tobacco. Today it is the longest lived tobacco co-operative in Greece, which was established

as one of the leading co-operatives in production, processing and supply of Virginia variety of

tobacco.

However, following the adoption of total decoupling for the tobacco sector in Greece,

production fell by 80%. Only four processing plants remained operative in 2009 in the whole

11

country. Concerning employment, existing estimates suggest that the number of permanent

employees was reduced by 50%, whilst the number of seasonal workers has been reduced

from pre-reform levels of 7,000 to about 2,000.

Therefore, in 2006, almost all the members of TCTK abandoned the Virginia tobacco growing

and turned to the search and experimentation of other alternative cultivations. In this context

and evaluating the trends of the European and global market, they have initiated the plantation

of pomegranate trees. The production of pomegranate fruits in 2008 reached 4000-8000

tonnes and there are plans to increase the cultivated hectares within the next years and plant

even more different kind of trees.

This choice was seen as an opportunity to maintain farmers’ jobs and create a competitive

rural economy that will be independent from subsidies and will eventually lead to sustainable

agriculture and sustainable development of the Prefecture that currently possesses the last

place in the development indicators (GDP etc.), and has been also included in the list of Greek

areas with high risk of desertification due to intensive agriculture & soil degradation (Greek

National Committee for Combating Desertification).

Enhancing the effort for the development of the area, the Greek partners of the

RuralE.Evolution project decided to study the scenario of using the agricultural residues of

the area for the production of energy, that could potentially be used for the needs of the

Cooperative (refrigeration of the fruits and the extracted juices) and the local energy needs of

the Municipality of Evropos, selling the excessive energy produced to the national grid.

There seems to be a great potential for the use of the field crop residues. The general

treatment in Greece is either to incorporate them into the soil or burn them in the field. A part

is already exploited and used in several energy and non-energy markets, for example:

Cereal straw is used for various purposes such as animal feeding and animal bedding; in

some cases also used for heat production in greenhouses;_

There are no alternative markets for cotton, corn stalks and corncobs but difficulties in

harvesting and handling;

Olive pruning (especially the large stems) are used in stoves and chimneys for residential

heating.

12

2. Partners

2.1 Tobacco Cooperative of Toumpa Kilkis

Figure 3: Aerial photo of TCTK offices and storage rooms

As already mentioned, the Tobacco Co-operative of Toumpa Kilkis is the longest lived

tobacco co-operative in the country. In 1987, they moved on to full reconversion of the

tobacco growing by replacing the Kaba Kulak (classic) variety with the Virginia variety. At

the same time, they created and operated a unit of 180 dryers under the supervision of the Co-

operative's technical personnel. In 2005, the co-operative consisted of 180 members, with

4.500 quarter acres tobacco growing and a production of 1.348.000 kilos of Virginia variety

tobacco. In 2006, with the application of the new Common Rural Policy, almost all its

members abandoned the Virginia tobacco growing and turned to the search of alternative

growing. Today the Co-operative consists of 80 members.

Aiming to expand its members' plantations with high quality saplings at reasonable prices, the

Co-operative was immediately engaged in producing multiplicative pomegranate matter. At

the same time, and targeting the product's powerful and flexible access to the market,

members of the co-operative created the company "Rodonas" Ltd, which now activates in

every section of the production, processing, promotion and trading of pomegranate products

in the local and international market.

13

In cooperation with the company "Rodonas" Ltd, it supplies pomegranate plants to the co-

operative as well as to anyone interested, under the regime of Agriculture by Contract. Today,

over 150 producers, with over 2000 quarter acres of pomegranate trees around the country,

are contracted.

2.2 Municipality of Evropos

Figure 4: Characteristic ancient findings from the area

Evropos is the public authority in the target area that is motivated to participate in the agro-

energy PPP. Evropos is a municipality in the Paionia Province of Kilkis Prefecture in Central

Macedonia, with a population of 6,042 based on the 2001 census. The income of the majority

of the population is based on agricultural activities. The greatest advantage of the area is the

high percentage of irrigated land and the possibility to extend it with further land reclamation

works.

2.3 Company “Rodonas” (www.rodonas.gr)

Figure 5: The logo of the company and a pomegranate photo

One Private investor, an SME interested to share the entrepreneurial risk together with the

Municipality of Evropos is the company “Rodonas” Ltd that was created in 2006 by members

14

of the Tobacco Co-operative of Toumba of the Prefecture of Kilkis to reinforce the producers’

personal responsibility in all collective activities that have to do with production, processing

and trading of their products.

The company’s main guideline is a turn to products that are safe and beneficial (in addition to

their alimentary value) for the consumer’s health (functional food). Its goal is powerful and

flexible access of these products to the local and international market.

Today, in cooperation with the Tobacco Co-operative of Toumba Kilkis it activates in

pomegranate growing under the regime of Agriculture by Contract.

2.4 Other actors

The Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the Tobacco Cooperative of Toumpa Kilkis

(Greek partners of the RuralEvolution project) still communicate with potential partners to

close the partnership, including actors of the supply chain, providers of technology etc. The

results of these negotiations will be announced in autumn 2010. For example, there are

ongoing negotiations with private companies that could provide the technical expertise for the

construction of the plant, like the company “PHILIPPOPOULOS ENERGY TECHNICAL

S.A.” that designs and constructs industrial units for the energy utilization of Biomass and

Solid Waste. The company has 35 years of specialist experience and already more than 100

installed projects.

The communication is ongoing to define the role of each partner in the partnership and it will

be finalized in autumn 2010.

However, the basic roles are distributed as follows:

The Tobacco Cooperative of Toumpa Kilkis will provide the land and invest in the

construction of the plant. It will motivate its members for the provision of biomass to the

plant.

The Municipality of Evropos will use the energy produced from the plant to cover the

electricity needs of its buildings.

The company “Rodonas” Ltd will provide raw material to the plant.

15

Round table meetings with all potential partners are continuous in order to define the exact

role of each partner and include more potential actors in the PPP scheme. The partners are all

located in the Municipality of Evropos, so their meetings are easily scheduled and carried out.

3. Description of potential PPP

The Tobacco Cooperative of Toumpa Kilkis (TCTK) plans to construct a plant in the

Municipality of Evropos in order to produce pomegranate juice. The PPP concept considers

the use of biomass residues from this plant (such as seeds and peels) as well as the use of

biomass residues from the adjacent areas cultivations for the production of energy. The

produced energy can be used for the following purposes:

(a) cool and preserve the fruit and fruit juice produced from pomegranates;

(b) heat/cool public buildings in the Municipality;

(c) sell the surplus energy to the National Public Power Corporation as energy from RES.

The energy plant that will be built within the framework of the PPP agro-energy district aims

to collect biomass residues from a maximum radius of 30km. Outside this distance is usually

not efficient to transfer the biomass.

Figure 6: Google earth map with Toumpa Kilkis in the middle and the potential areas (3

radius: 10km, 20km, 30km) that agricultural biomass could originate

16

Table 1: Public and private provision infrastructure

Public project Private project

Public-Private Partnership

Contract Type Public-sector

procurement

Franchise

(Affermage)

Design-Build

Finance-

Operate

(DBFO)3

Build-Transfer-

Operate (BTO)4

Build-Operate-

Transfer

(BOT)5

Build-Own-

Operate (BOO)

Construction Public Sector6 Public Sector (2) Private Sector Private Sector Private Sector Private Sector

Operation Public Sector7 Public Sector Private Sector Private Sector Private Sector Private Sector

Ownership8 Public Sector9 Public Sector Private Sector

Private Sector

during

construction,

then public

sector

Private Sector

during

construction,

then public

sector

Private Sector

Who pays? Public Sector Users

Public Sector

or users

Public Sector

or users

Public Sector

or users

Private Sector

offtaker10

Who is paid? n/a Private Sector Private Sector Private Sector Private Sector Private Sector

The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), developed in the United States in the 1980s, provided

the template for modern PPP Contracts. PPAs began after the 1978 Private Utility Regulatory

Policy Act (PURPA), which encouraged the construction of cogeneration plants, whose

electricity could be sold to the regulated power utilities. PPAs arrived in Europe in the early

1990s, with the privatization of the British electricity industry; this encouraged the separation

between private-sector companies, involved in power generation and those involved in

distribution, and the development of independent power projects to increase competition in

power generation.

The PPA as first developed was a 'Build-Own-Operate' (BOO) contract between private-

sector parties, whereby the ownership of the power station remains with its investors. This

3 Also known as Design-Construct-Manage-Finance (DCMF) or Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM)4 Also known as Build-Transfer-Lease (BTL), Build-Lease-Operate-Transfer (BLOT) or Build-Lease-Transfer (BLT)5 Also known as Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT).6 Public sector normally designs the Facility and engages private sector contractors to carry out construction on its behalf (design-bid-built).7 Public sector may enter into service (outsourcing) contracts (for operation and maintenance) with private-sector contractors.8 In all cases, ownership may be in the form of a joint venture between the public and private sectors.9 Ownership may be through an independent publicly-owned Project Company, i.e. a 'Public-Public Partnership'.10 The BOO Contract form applies to PPPs in the minority of cases where ownership of the Facility does not revert to the Public Authority at the end of the PPP Contract.

17

PPP scheme will be used in the case of the agro-energy district in the Municipality of

Evropos. Table 1 provides a summary of the different ways of providing public infrastructure,

and shows how PPPs lie on the spectrum from wholly public-sector projects (and risk) to

wholly private sector projects. The selected PPP scheme has been highlighted.

Opportunities

1. The great advantage of the area is the availability of agro-forestry residues, due to the

extensive agricultural land. Zootechnical and food industry residues also exist for future

use;

2. Farmers want to get rid of the residues from their fields so it’s easy to collect them;

3. The Introduction of Law Ν.3389/2005 on PPP that concentrates all relevant aspects in one

coherent framework, has created a much more transparent frame that lowers the

hesitations of partners to enter partnerships;

4. The deregulation of the energy market of Greece facilitates the selling of electricity

produced by an agro-energy plant to the Public Power Corporation. The connection to the

PPC network is relatively easy.

Threats

1. The land is divided in small parts to many different "land owners-farmers“ and therefore

(a) a common initiative is absolutely necessary;

(b) there are many land owners & increased harvesting and transportation costs.

2. The road infrastructure requires improvement and expansion;

3. Opportunity cost of the residue (e.g. cereals straw has already a market price as it is sold

for animal feeding purposes);

4. Lack of commercial harvesting machinery for certain residue types (e.g. cotton residues).

4. List of information and communication activities during the

implementation. The Tobacco Cooperative of Toumpa Kilkis with the assistance of the Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki organized the 1st Local Initiative in Toumpa Kilkis (target area in Greece) in the

evening of 8th of May 2009. The event was hosted at the premises of the Municipality of

Evropos and managed to attract the interest of local stakeholders, entrepreneurs and farmers

on the implementation of agro-energy districts and the risks and opportunities related to their

potential involvement in a local Public-Private Partnership (PPP).

18

5. PPP scheme description

Table 2: PPP characteristics in Greece

PPP Key factors DescriptionPLANT PRIVATE

BIOMASS PRIVATEINCOME

SOURCESSELLING ELECTRICITY AND HEAT

In Figure 7, a PPP is shown: the Public Body is represented by the Municipality of Evropos,

that will be the user of the energy (heat/electricity) produced, the biomass will be furnished by

a private society, that is the cooperative of Toumpa Kilkis. The energy conversion plant will

be owned by the private investors and by the agricultural cooperative.

Figure 7: PPP scheme description for Greece

HUNGARIAN CASE STUDY

19

1. Identification of area’s needs (motivations, reasons)

The target area of this project is composed by 7 villages (see the map in Figure 8), about 85

km from Budapest in Northern Hungary, covering about 150 km2 with about 18.000

inhabitants. The main economic activity of this population is agri- and silviculture.

Figure 8: Hungary target area

The residues from the agri- and silvicultural activity (stalk, straw, cutting) represent

significant amount of energy (283765 GJ/year), which is utilised at this time locally without

any system. The increasing demands towards cheaper energy supply motivate the new and

more efficient utilisation of these materials.

According the initiative of Abasár local authority, the other 6 local communities are ready

to participate in a project by which agricultural residues (maybe later municipality wastes as

well) will be transformed into electric energy at the local power plant, partly supplying their

needs. Within the target area is located one of the significant actors in the national energy

20

supply, the Mátrai Hőerőmű (Mátra Power Plant) which is working with earth coal. The

power plant is ready to improve its activity, changing technology in one of its burning block,

to utilise also biomass from the target area. The electric energy will be sold to the national

grid and the biomass suppliers, the local authorities and the power plant will benefit of the

profit of this activity. There is also a potential alternative to built small (5-10-MW) power

plant(s) together to the Mátra Power Plant, improving the local energy supply.

2. PartnersThe potential public partners in this project are the 7 local authorities forming a

consortium. The leader of this consortium is the local authority of Abasár. The determinable

motivations of the local authorities related to the project are:

- creating job preparing raw materials for energy utilisation;

- helping local farmers and generally local people to improve their environment;

- a cleaner environment can help other activities (e.g. tourism, health care) in these villages;

- finding some solution supplying the public areas with cheaper energy (schools, institutes

of cultural and health services etc.).

At the same time the local authorities identified their limitations to create a local power plant

for own energy supply. The main limitations are:

- the financial resources (including the local authorities and private persons as well)

required to convert the system of energy supply.

- the legal frames, till 2010, save the monopoly situation of the regional energy (electric

energy, heat) suppliers and these barriers indirectly still exist.

With regard to the above mentioned circumstances, the local authorities changed their original

conception looking at such partners, which have interest in utilizing the locally produced

biomass to generate energy. The Mátra Power Plant, located in the target area, currently is

not a direct energy supplier of the region, because the electric energy it produces is sold via

the national network, and the waste heat energy is utilized to cover energy demands

respectively to the other companies located within the own industrial area of Power Plant. At

the same time, the environmental prescriptions (CO2 quota) push the Power Plant to change

its technology and turn to use more biomasses. This is the main reason why the public

authorities find a real partner in the Power Plant as private one. The Power Plant at this

moment also uses biomass (wood and communal waste), but the transportation costs reduce

the thrift.

21

The common interest of local authorities and Power Plant provides suitable circumstances to

convince farmers and other biomass producers to sell the residues from the agri- and

silvicultural activity (stalk, straw, cutting, slashes). At this moment the farmers’ motivation

is very limited due to technical limitations (lack of equipments, lack of logistic system) of the

collection and required preparation system and the Power Plant as well. Therefore the farmers

now have and apply two options, burning the residues in place or transport to own house and

burning in alternative heating system.

The majority of the forestry in the area is owned and cultivated by the state owned Egererdő

(Eger Forestry) Company. The company has a real motivation to participate in the supply

of Power Plant as alternative market of wood and slashes. The Power Plant also has interest,

because of a short logistic distance and the out-of-season buffering of the supply of other

sources of biomass.

The complexity of the project demands further partners in the region, including the scientific

base. The Károly Róbert High School, Gyöngyös can be such partner, which has high

scientific background including an experimental local Power Plant, based on biomass with

1MW capacity. To find other partners there is also important liaison with an informal and

cluster-forming civil association (Ökoland Association), which includes different companies,

institutes and authorities of the region.

The communication amongst the partners includes different activities. The local authorities

were invited twice by the leader village to round table discussions to identify their needs and

benefits related to this activity. The partnership with the Power Plant started with the second

meeting when the representatives of the company were invited to present their expectations.

As a result, these meetings outlined the main principles and tasks of the collaboration amongst

the local authorities and Power Plant.

The idea was introduced at the third meeting where the representatives of producers and

Forestry Co. participated as well. The meeting pointed out the present difficulties which have

to be solved to fulfil the demands of Power Plant related to the continuous supply with

prepared biomass. In the next communication phase will be introduced the whole system,

including the technical and financial items as well.

22

3. Description of potential PPP

The common interest of the main actors (local authorities, Power Plant and producers) is to

set up and optimize the logistic system which supplies the Power Plant with biomass.

Therefore, the main object of this project is to establish this frame which guarantees their

benefits to the partners in this logistic chain.

The biomass producers are in different situation, the farmers need services to transform their

biomass outputs to make them suitable for Power Plant use, the Forestry Co. has all the

equipment and conditions to supply the partner. Farmers provided materials are available in a

narrow period of vegetation, therefore the forestry can and has to cover the continuous

demands of energy producer.

Based on these the main actors and potential founder of the PPP scheme are the local

authorities providing services to the farmers and the Power Plant which has a strong

commitment to utilize the by-product biomass from its surroundings. The Power Plant

expects the following phases for preparation of biomass:

- collection from the production site;

- temporary storage;

- standardization /size, water content etc./ (according to the character of the matter);

- preparation to the transport;

- transportation to Power Plant.

Consortia of local authorities are generally able and ready to carry out these activities,

providing service to the farmers, except for the first step (collection of matters from the

fields), therefore this step has to be dealt with by the farmers. There is need also of some

investments for the equipments for standardization, preparation and transport. These

investments and the actuation of the whole service will be carried out by the joint venture of

the consortia and Power Plant (see the green arrow below) forming the PPP scheme. The

Forestry Co. will contract directly with the Power Plant, but its supplying period will

harmonize with the supply from the joint venture (see the red arrow below, representing the

way of biomass).

23

Farmers Forestry Company

Local authoritiesPower Plant

Joint venture

Figure 9: Joint venture scheme

This PPP scheme can optimize the physical and financial resources to utilize the waste

biomass of the producers, providing opportunities:

- to create more job and more income to the local peoples;

- to improve the environment of the villages, giving chance to the tourism and health care.

The threats related to the sustainability of the project can arise due to:

- low level of farmers’ interest to sell the waste materials via joint venture;

- unbalanced internal forces within joint venture (potential power superiority of Power

Plant);

- changing of priorities due to political change on the level of local authorities.

24

4. List of information and communication activities during the

implementation.

Table 3: List of information and communication activities during the implementation

Activities When Stakeholders Objective(s)

Round table

discussion

2009

August

Majors of villages,

Representative of Power Plant

First initiative of the Power

Plant to collaborate

Bilateral

meeting

2009

October

Major of Abasár,

Representative of Power Plant

Identification of the

common interest and

strategy to involve the

partners

Round table

discussion

2010

February

Majors of villages,

Representative of Power Plant,

Representative of Egererdő Co.,

Representative of Róbert

Károly High School

Brainstorming and

preparation of the frame of

collaboration

Round table

discussion

2010

March

Majors and farmers Identification of the

farmers’ interest

External

communication

2010

June Major of Abasár

Introduction of the project at

the general assembly of

Ökoland Association,

invitation to further

collaboration

5. PPP scheme description

Table 4: PPP characteristics in Hungary

PPP Key factors DescriptionPLANT/SERVICE PUBLIC PRIVATE SHAREDBIOMASS PRIVATESTORAGE LOCAL AUTHORITIESINCOME SOURCE SELLING POWER

25

Figure 10: PPP scheme for Hungary

The project aims to produce power from the co-combustion of biomass and coal in the Matra

Power plant that is public-private shared. The biomass will be produced by private farmers

and other private enterprises. The public body will be involved in the storage of biomass.

26

ITALIAN CASE STUDY

1. Identification of area’s needs (motivations, reasons)

Montefalco

Figure 11: Montefalco Municipality

The Montefalco Municipality has a large availability of vineyard pruning residuals.

The entrepreneurial context is characterized by a high demand of electric energy, due to the

presence of the local craft district. The entrepreneurial network can allow the organization an

efficient raw material supply chain, considering the land characteristics.

The vineyards in the target area have a surface of about 600 ha and they produce about 2

ton/ha. These could be used to produce heat in a biomass boiler. The agro-energy chain deals

with the realization of a plant for energy recovering of vineyards pruning residues and it is

divided into different phases, that is: harvesting and storage by round baler, chipping

27

cylindrical bales to obtain bio-chips, whose size is consistent with the biomass boiler,

chemical-physical characterization of biochips and energy conversion phase.

The vineyard pruning production has been estimated to be around 1000 ton/year.

This could provide a heating power of about 2 MWth. Assuming that it couldn’t be possible to

harvest completely all the biomass, the estimated feasible capacity of the plant would be 1

MWth. This could be used to provide heat to big energy sinks as hospital or schools or sport

centres etc.

The round baler is simple to charge and manage as material. Many of the agricultural

entrepreneurs can store and manage the raw material dry process easily.

The technology used will be a 1 MWth moving grate biomass chips boiler, designed for

woodchips.

The payback for the investment has been estimated in 4,8 years.

2. On-site collaboration with Local Key Actors and Stakeholders

A careful Partner search was started. The aim was to find and involve the most motivated

stakeholders within the region border, interested to invest in agro-energy production.

The project team, as a first step, has outlined a precise partner identikit. The foreseen

partnership has to be composed by municipality, local agricultural SMEs and a cluster of craft

SMEs. At the moment, a direct involvement of credit institutes or banks is excluded. This

choice is due to the need to simplify the actual process, but we are including banks as suitable

partners in the methodology. The participations of credit sector can give strength to this kind

of projects and can facilitate the rating evaluation processes to obtain cash funds .

A particular analysis was carried out on the agricultural SMEs role. These SMEs can play a

double role:

as simple supplier in the production chain;

as investors, sharing incomes.

These two alternatives can lead the single SMEs to different perspectives. Our aim is to

address the SMEs to run the second way as the only possibility to give balance to the raw

material price and origin guarantees.

A different role is drowning for the craft SMEs as energy buyer, but also as owner of capital

share. In the methodology, particular care has to be taken into account in order to select the

28

right management level drained from the craft SMEs, to complete the management lacks

coming from agriculture entrepreneurship.

The communication strategy was led at three levels:

by direct contacts;

by the Municipality support;

exploiting the Enterprise Europe Network communication tools (Is necessary to underline

that Coldiretti is the Umbrian representative of EEN)

direct contacts with other SMEs and Associations (as Industries, craft, etc.)

The direct contact is our natural way to proceed as SMEs association in particular towards the

agricultural sector.

The Municipality structure actions were another important way to evaluate potential partners.

Finally, focused alerts were sent to the entrepreneurial local tissue in order to inform and

involve at the best level. However, the best communication tool was the local meeting held in

the territory to directly explain the project aims.

3. Opportunities/ threats identified

The opportunities are due to the strong interest in alternative energies and government

incentives, the link with other regulation, as the nitrogen rationalisation need in agriculture

and, finally, the good trend in investments in the agricultural sector.

Current technologies are evolving quickly, so they could satisfy the new territorial needs,

related to the new pruning management, giving tools to face this problem, finding economical

and sustainable solutions.

4. Information and communication activities during the implementation.

A communication event was held on May 2009, to spread the project aims in our region.

4 meetings have been held with the administration of Municipality of Montefalco, on March,

April and June.

A technical and institutional task force has been provided by the Municipality of Montefalco.

This task force is composed by:

29

the Councillor for Productive Activities, for overall local coordination, Representation of

Municipality, relationship with UTFP (Italian Technical Unit of Project Financing) and

communication with local SMEs, stakeholders and key actors;

the technical responsible for urban planning and development;

the responsible for administrative and accountancy activities;

the Municipal secretary office.

In the framework of the activities located in Montefalco, two particular and unexpected

constraints were found:

the administrative elections held in Italy on 6/7 June 2009 caused the decadence of the

previous Municipality administration and the necessity to completely restart the process

aiming at involving the new administration as an active stakeholder. This caused a delay

in implementing the planned activities;

In this framework, we knew that the new administration was carrying on an autonomous

initiative in matter of production of energy by RES, with some possible conflict points

with RuralE.Evolution project, in terms of “political” commitment of the new

administration itself. The project in which the new Montefalco administration has been

involved aims to build an agro-energy plant exploiting local biomasses.

Within the meetings a work group has been appointed, with the participation of technical and

political representative figures representing the Municipality itself.

An initial group of local stakeholders (mainly represented by agricultural SMEs belonging to

Coldiretti Umbria) and some local service providers has been appointed. These local

providers are GESENU (body responsible for waste management http://www.gesenu.it/),

VUS (body responsible for water, methane, and waste treatment

http://www.valleumbraservizi.it/); the Action Local Group Valle Umbra e Sibillini belonging

to Leader+ programme (http://www.valleumbraesibillini.com/). On the basis of what

described on RuralE.Evolution project, a specific information and awareness activity has been

carried out, mainly focused on the economic advantage in diversifying the sources of incomes

(not only agricultural products, but also supply of raw material for RES production).

Partner CRB supported these activities from the scientific point of view, providing

information on the better exploitation of local resources in the framework of the production of

energy by RES and providing studies and information, both carried out specifically for the

project and based on its own literature.

30

A deepest collaboration with UTFP (Unità Tecnica Finanza di Progetto – Italian PPP Task

Force http://www.utfp.it/default_eng.htm) has been processed and the initiative carried on in

Montefalco has been enclosed in the UTFP agenda. Furthermore a working Group has been

appointed c/o UTFP to support the Municipality of Montefalco in processing the PPP

activities.

5. Next Steps

We foresee other meetings:

a) At least one technical tailored meeting in order to steady a local PPP;

b) At least one with all the regional municipalities, in order to spread the methodology;

c) Other technical tailored meetings with the stakeholders in order to improve the partnership

and the project efficiency;

d) Finally a meeting with the Umbria region representative authorities to add our project

final and fine tuned methodology in the official energy regional plan.

6. PPP scheme description

31

Table 5: PPP characteristics in Italy

PPP Key factors DescriptionPLANT PUBLICBIOMASS PRIVATEINCOME SOURCE SELLING HEAT

Figure 12: PPP scheme for Italy

The Public Body (Municipality of Montefalco) will make a public call for a concession to

realize a biomass heating plant. The plant will be built by a private partner. The biomass will

be produced by private partners. The heat obtained from biomass conversion will be sold to a

public school.

32

PORTUGUESE CASE STUDY

7. Introduction

When RuralE.Evolution was started, together with EDV Energia, the target area was a

municipality in the north of the country, Oliveira de Azemeis where the Mayor was

committed with the project. After the withdraw of EDV, the situation changed. Oliveira de

Azemeis is far from Lisbon, and it would be difficult to implement the project. After EDV’s

withdraw, there was only a meeting with the Mayor of Oliveira de Azemeis and all the

contacts got not reply. It was then decided to change the target area to Alvito, in the region of

Alentejo, in the south, closer to Lisbon and with a committed Mayor and a committed farmer

organization (UCASUL).

This change of target area delayed the project, namely because the Local Initiatives had been

delayed and contacts with new stakeholders had to restart, chosing new potential partners, but

the delay was totally recovered.

8. Identification of Area Needs/Motivation

The region of Alentejo, in the southern Portugal, is the main region of olive oil production in

the country, having, according to official figures, (DRAP Alentejo), in late 2009, 159914,6 ha

of olive trees planted and planting intentions for over 11 000 ha. According to experts, about

40000 ha were planted or replanted over the past 10 years. These numbers show the strength

of the industry and reflect the potential growth.

The transformation of the olive oil is carried out in various mills, of variable size, distributed

throughout the region. The pomace resulting from the transformation process is directed to

units of oil extraction from this by-product. The largest of these, that handles the largest

amount of pomace and with the most actual technology in the region, is located in the

municipality of Alvito and property of the Union of Olive Oil Cooperatives, UCASUL.

The dynamics of the olive oil sector with the growth of the planted areas and production of

olives has led to an increase of the production of olive oil and pomace, which is expected to

continue. UCASUL is the organization that processes the largest amount of pomace in the

33

region. Being UCASUL located in the municipality of Alvito, a solution that creates

conditions to process this by-product would be strategic for the industry and the region,

creating value and giving a solution to what could become an environmental problem – using

the pomace to produce energy.

Ucasul, receives the pomace from the units that produce the olive oil and extract the pomace

oil. After this extraction, the pomace processed is a biomass that can be used to produce

energy. The actual capacity of UCASUL is 75000000 kg of processed pomace (in an

increasing trend). This biomass is the most relevant existing in the Municipality of Alvito.

Other sources don´t have relevance compared to this.

9. Potential Partners that have shown interest to participate in the project

The Municipality of Alvito

Alvito is located in Alentejo, a Portuguese area with problems of economic development. The

project can be an opportunity to create jobs and develop the local economy. Moreover, it is

very important to create a solution for the pomace after the extraction of the oil, because it

may become an environmental problem.

Figure 13: Alvito Municipality

Ucasul is an Union of Olive Oil Cooperatives, located in the Municipality of Alvito in

Alentejo (south of Portugal). Ucasul is a cooperative that owns the biomass and is the cluster

of suppliers. The aim of this union of cooperatives is to use the pomace of olives (the by-

products of the olive oil production), from the associated cooperatives and other suppliers

from Alentejo, and extract the oil of pomace.

34

To increase the value of the pomace, transforming it in energy, after the extraction of the oil

will increase the competitiveness of all the lines of production. Besides that, it can contribute

to local development, especially by giving jobs in the region.

Financial Partners At the moment, the project doesn’t have a financial partner clearly

motivated to invest in it. Some contacts were made with the Regional Cooperatives Credit

Banks (Crédito Agrícola), that have shown interest to follow the Project and eventually

participate in it, but without a clear commitment. They were present in both the Local

Initiatives held in Alvito.

10. Proposed PPP

In Portugal, the legal significance of PPP is strict and applies only to contracts between the

central state and private in specific areas laid down by law, including roads, health, transports.

Energy is not included at the moment. The meaning of public-private partnership for the

purpose of the project will be broadly based and it has to be defined the exact role of each

partner in the project. So far, UCASUL and Alvito’s municipality are the partners that have

shown more interest on the project. UCASUL has identified its main needs that the

municipality might contribute: administrative and legal issues. The model of PPP should be

closer to the Build-Own-Operate (BOO), as it is defined in deliverable 3.2. The main

constraint identified is the lack of an answer for a “PIP” – request for previous information,

which, if positive, is a license to link the private production of electricity to the public

electricity line.

11. Communication strategy adopted to reach potential partnersCONFAGRI gave preference to personal contacts to the potential partners identified, as well

as meetings with those. Depending on the interest shown, it held private meetings, round

tables and public local initiatives. It also disseminated the information on the project

RuralE.Evolution in its website www.confagri.pt, in its magazine Espaço Rural and made

available to Foundation Valenciana a list of e-mail contacts to send the RuralE.Evolution

Newsletter.

35

12.Information and communication activities during the implementationTable 6: Information and communication activities during the implementation

Activities When Stakeholders Objective(s)

Telephone

contacts

UCASUL, Alvito’s municipality,

Farmer’s Cooperatives,

Agriculture Cooperative Banks

(Crédito Agrícola Mútuo)

Introduction to the RuralE.Evolution project

Scheduling presencial meetings

Meeting July, 2009 UCASUL RuralE.Evolution project presentation

Round table September,

2009

UCASUL and Alvito’s

municipality

RuralE.Evolution project presentation11

Meeting April, 2010 UCASUL Discussion of the main advantages and constraints of the

project’s implementation

Local

initiative

April, 2010 UCASUL, organizations of

farmers and Agricultural

Cooperative Banks in the region

RuralE.evolution presentation, including its background,

objectives, what has been done, advantages and

constraints and the next steps of the project.

Open ground to discuss the interest of the local

stakeholders on the project, as well as their view and role

on the project

Round table June, 2010 Alvito’s mayor and UCASUL RuralE.Evolution project presentation, including the role

that the municipality can have – its duties and benefits as

a partner in the project

Local

initiative

June, 2010 Alvito’s municipality, UCASUL,

Minister of Agriculture, Farmer’s

organizations,

Local member’s of political

parties,

Agriculture Cooperative Banks

(Crédito Agrícola Mútuo),

Private Companies interested in

energy.

RuralE.Evolution project presentation, identifying the

main advantages and constraints.

Publicly, the mayor gave the support of the municipality

on the project. The minister of Agriculture also identified

the main constraints and stated that is promoting a

conversation with the Ministry of Economy, to solve

them.

11 After this meeting, in October 2009, the mayor sent the letter of intention, manifesting the municipality’s interest, after the unanimous approval of the Executive Body of the Municipality. However, with the elections taken afterwards, a new mayor was elected, so in April 2010 the RuralE.evolution project was presented to the recently elected mayor.

36

13.PPP scheme description

Table 7: PPP characteristics in Portugal

PP Key factors DescriptionPLANT PRIVATEBIOMASS PRIVATESUPPORT LOCAL AUTHORITIESINCOME SOURCE SELLING POWER

Figure 14: PPP scheme for Portugal

The private plant will be realized by UCASUL (the Union of Olive Cooperatives) that will

produce the biomass, transform it into power, that will be sold on the grid. The public body

will furnish its support to the initiative.

37

SPANISH CASE STUDY AREA

1. Introduction

When RuralE.Evolution was started, the scope of the project was Benasal's municipality, and

the aim the constitution of a PPP for the utilization of the animal wastes closely to 2.100

swine breeding farm, to obtain of biogas, its thermoelectric recovery and utilization, to

improve the environmental conditions and the economic diversification of the target area.

Since then, a series of event have modified the aim of the project, extending its potential

applicability to other four (4) municipalities, following the model initially chosen as PPP, all

this reflected the report dated on May the 15th , 2010, entitled " Intercoop.Rural Evolution

Target Group ".

This change of target area delayed the project, namely because the Local Initiatives had been

delayed and contacts had to be restarted stakeholders, chosing new potential partners, but for

sure at the end the delay will be totally recovered.

2. Identification of Area Needs/Motivation

The area (Benassal and North East of Castellón Province) inland is a rural area with scarce

economic value, based on some crops cultivation, incipient rural tourism and a big

concentration of animal livestock, basically swine farms (in intensive growing) and cattle in

extensive (half-pastureland) production. Around 1,2 millions permanent head of swine alive

in this area of Castellon Northern, the environmental impact is relevant, and the nuisance for

the population and potential rural tourism too. The possibilities for a potential manure and

other animal by-products treatment and recovery is high.

In 1999, a project initiative promoted from the Castellón Province Government threw an

ambitious project for the construction, storage and managing of these residues in the province

by means of 4 lagoons of storage and ulterior treatment of the lines of liquid and solid.

38

The project, due to different reasons, did not reach the aims that it had planned, but part of

the facilities they are usable and are located in good places for the logistics and the later

treatment, effecting the necessary technological Up-Grades to the current plants.

3. Potential Partners that have shown interest to participate in the project

The Municipality of Benassal is at 15 km from Albocasser Municipality, place when exist one

of four oldest provincial facilities for swine manure treatment plant and center of an area with

problems of rural and economic development, including the others three manure treatment

facilities (Salsadella, Sant Mateu and Todolella). The project can be an opportunity to create

jobs and develop the local economy. Moreover, it is very important to create a solution for the

swine and other animal by-products treatment, recovery and valuation because it may become

a big environmental, animal welfare and human health problem due to bad agricultural

practices applied in the past.

Figure 15: Spain target area

Financial Partners: Intercoop Group, with another private investor (Biotecnología Agrícola

and a Dutch Company) created a new company named “Biogás Castellón”, and negotiated

with the Province Government a new administrative permit and contract for manage the 4

39

facilities during the next 20 years. The Province Government (DIPCAS) contributes with a fix

price for m3 of treated manure.

4. Proposed PPP

In Spain, the legal significance of PPP is strict and applies only to contracts between the

central state and private in specific areas laid down by law, including roads, health, transports.

Energy is not included at the moment. The meaning of public-private partnership for the

purpose of the project will be broadly based and we must define the exact role of each partner

in the project.

Biogás Castellón has identified its main needs that the Province Government (DIPCAS) might

contribute: administrative and legal issues for a 20 years management contract. The model of

PPP should be closer to the Build-Own-Operate (BOO), as it is defined in the 3.2. deliverable.

The main constraint identified is for a “PIP” – request for previous information, which, if

positive, is a license to link the private production of electricity to the public electricity line,

and consequent the long time needed for achieving the final electrical network permits.

5. Communication strategy adopted to reach potential partnersINTERCOOP Group like Confagri in Portugal gave preference to personal contacts to the

potential partners identified, as well as meetings with those. Depending on the interest shown,

it held private meetings, round tables and public local initiatives. It also disseminated the

information on the project RuralE.Evolution in its website www.intercoop.es in its different

Intercoop’s magazine and brochures and made available to Foundation Valenciana-FCVRE a

list of e-mail contacts to send the RuralE.Evolution Newsletter.

40

6. Information and communication activities during the implementation

Table 8: Information and communication activities during the implementation

Activities When Stakeholders Objective(s)

Personal

contacts

2009 Regional and

Provincial

Governments,

Private Partners

Introduction to the RuralE.Evolution project

Scheduling on-person meetings

Meeting November,

2009

FCVRE-Feria

EGETICA Valencia

RuralE.Evolution project presentation

Round

table

September,

2009

EGETICA RuralE.Evolution project presentation.

Meetings

November

2009-July

2010

Province Gov,

private investors,

Intercoop

Discussion of the main advantages and constraints of the

project’s implementation. New permits long term

exploitation and managing.

Local

initiative

February,

2010

Intercoop

organizations and

stakeholders

RuralE.Evolution presentation, including its background,

objectives, what has been done, advantages and

constraints and the next steps of the project.

Open ground to discuss the interest of the local

stakeholders on the project, as well as their view and role

on the project

Round

table

February,

2010

Intercoop and

stakeholders

RuralE.Evolution project presentation, including the role

that the Province Gov can have – its duties and benefits as

a partner in the project for the authorization.

Local

initiative

(1)

July, 2010 Intercoop and new

PPP created (Biogás

Castellón)

RuralE.Evolution project presentation, identifying the

main advantages and constraints. Due Diligence makes

trough Province Gov, electrical connection permits

presented, technical projects design and presented for

construction authorization.

7. PPP scheme description

Table 9: PPP characteristics in Spain

PPP Key factors DescriptionPLANT PRIVATEBIOMASS PRIVATESUPPORT LOCAL AUTHORITIESINCOME SOURCE SELLING POWER AND HEAT

41

Figure 16: PPP scheme for Spain

A private society formed by Intercoop Group and private investors (Biotecnologia Agricola

and a Dutch Company), named Biogas Castellon will manage 4 biogas facilities situated in

Albocasser, Salsadella, Sant Mateu and Todolella). The biomass (mainly manure) will be

furnished by private farmers. The Municipalities will be involved supporting the project.

Annex

42

Questionnaire

On implementation of the provisional methodology in each

target area

43

Questionnaire12

1. The feasibility analysis from WP 3 is fully fit to the local situation?

Yes No

If no:

Which are the main reasons?

- lack of adequate database preparing of pre-feasibility

study

- changing of the partners during the preparation

- changing of the technical circumstances

- changing of the legal frame

- changing of the economic situation

- other (specify!)

2. The feasibility analysis provides sufficient information to the decision of

actors related to implementation of their PPP scheme?

Yes No

If no:

Which type of additional information need to the local implementation?

- technical alternatives

- financial alternatives

- value for money (VFM) analysis

12 Please indicate by underline, if there isn’t any other instruction

44

3. How strong is the commitment of the key actors to implement the PPP

scheme? Please ranking them (the highest value is 1).

Actors Value

- Farmers

- Farmers’ organization

- Other SMEs

- Local authorities

- Other public partner (please specify below)

- Investors

- Private company

- Banks

- Other private partner (please specify below)

4. Which are the main motivations of the implementation? (multiple choice,

indicating in bracket the adequate partner/s/)

- better utilisation of biomass

- alternative income of farmers

- sufficient profit to the investors

- decreasing of the external energy dependency

- environmental benefits

- long- term benefits from the investment

- profitable banking placement

- others (specify!)

5. Which type of risks arising till this time related to the implementation?

(multiple choice)

45

- lack of safe biomass supply in long term

- unbalanced risk amongst partners

- changing of the motivation of potential partners

- changing of the economic circumstances

- changing in the legal frame

- changing of local/national political situation

- personal risks associated with representatives of partners

- others (specify!)

6. Is a clear common vision of partners to establish a management structure

to the implementation of PPP scheme?

Yes No

If no:

Which partner will manage the implementation process providing

transparency to all potential partners? (please specify the guarantee of

transparency!)

46

Table 5: Summary of answers to Questionnaire

Summary of answers to questionnaireQuestion Greece Hungary Italy Portugal Spain

The feasibility

analysis from WP

3 is fully fit to the

local situation?

no no yes yes no

The feasibility

analysis provides

sufficient

information to the

decision of actors

related to

implementation of

their PPP scheme?

yes no yes no no

Ranking the

commitment of the

key actors to

implement the PPP

scheme

1.Farmers' organisation,

2.Farmers, private

companies 3.Local

authorities, 4.Other

SME-s

1. Local

authority 2.

Private company

3. State owned

company

4.Farmers

1.Farmers, Farmers'

organisation,local

authorities 2.Banks

3.Other SME-s,

investors, private

companies

1.Farmers'

organisation

2.Local authorities

3. Banks, other

private partner

1. Regional

government,

investor, private

company

2.Farmers'

organisation,

local authority

3.Farmers, other

SME-s 5. Banks

Main motivations

of the

implementation

better utilisation of

biomass, alternative

income of farmers,

sufficient profit to

investor, decreasing of

the external energy

dependency,

environmental benefit,

long- term benefits from

investment

better utilisation

of biomass,

alternative

income of

farmers,

environmental

benefit, creating

jobs

better utilisation of

biomass, alternative

income of farmers,

sufficient profit to

investor, decreasing of

the external energy

dependency,

environmental benefit,

long- term benefits from

investment, profitable

banking placement

better utilisation of

biomass,

alternative income

of farmers,

sufficient profit to

investor,

environmental

benefit, creating

jobs and increasing

local economy

sufficient profit to

investor,

environmental

benefit

Which type of

risks arising till

this time related to

the implementation

?

unbalanced risks

amongst

partners,economic

circumstances, legal

frame, political

situation, administrative

governmental

incentitives

lack of safe

biomass,

unbalanced risks

amongst

partners,

political

situation

Unbalanced risks

amongst partners,

changing the motivation

of partners, economic

circumstances,

governmental

incentitives

Economic

circumstances,

legal frame,

political situation,

access to capital,

difficulties to link

to electric grid

lack of safe

biomass,legal

frame, political

situation

Is a clear common

vision of partners

to establish a

management

structure to the

implementation of

yes yes yes no yes

47

PPP scheme?

48