Session1.2 LP andrea mammoliti mochet_arpa valle d’aosta

5/30/2012

SHARE - Sustainable Hydropower in Alpine Rivers Ecosystems

Project final meeting Hostellerie du Cheval Blanc. Aosta (IT) – 24th May 2012 Andrea MAMMOLITI MOCHET – ARPA Valle d’Aosta - Regional Environmental Protection Agency of Aosta Valley (Italy) a.mammolitimochet@arpa,.vda.it

mailto:a.mammoltimochet@arpa,.vda.it

Sourc

e: E

uro

sta

t yearb

ook 2

009

Electric energy production – UE 27

► The energy production in EU is constantly in growth (18.67% in 11 years)

SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

Electric energy demand– UE 27

► The trend of energy demand will hardly change also because energy need is nearly perceived as “for granted”


► A large majority of EU citizens believe that “Europe should assist people … in their efforts to gain access to energy”

Electric energy demand– UE 27

► River benefits are also generally considered “for granted” …


Italy

Slovenia

Switzerland

France

Germany

Austria

Hydroelectric Aeolian Geothermic TOTAL (GWh)

Biomass Photovoltaic

► Hydropower (HP) is the most important renewable resource for electricity production in alpine areas

► Almost 84 % of the electricity generated from renewable energy sources in the EU-15 and 19 % of total electricity production in UE is generated by HP; Small Hydropower Plants (up to 10 MW) contributing about 2 % of the total electricity generated (ESHA, 2005)

Sourc

e: IE

A 2

004

HP strong points


HP strong points ► HP has strongly contributed to the economy & industry and related

development in both mountain regions and in big alpine towns


► HP is a flexible and mature technology and creates occupation in mountain areas

► On a wider scale HP is a highly reliable and largely CO2-free renewable source for electricity production

► HP brings the added value of helping to stabilize the European energy grid (mainly with storage plants)

► Modification of rivers affected from old HP exploitations are often considered “common & normal” by the population and by local administrators, so generally accepted as environmental friendly

►HP benefits are clear!

HP strong points


► River benefits are not always obvious …

Mountain rivers ecosystems services

► Ecosystems services are generally more evident in other environmental circumstances


!

?


► Even more evident ecological services supported by a healthy river are often difficult to measure and, in general, to compare with HP production even if they have related stakeholders



Mountain rivers ecosystems services ► Alpine rivers embody a big asset in terms of natural capital and biodiversity

stock

Major direct impacts of HP on mountain rivers

► Abiotic alteration (temperature regime, Oxygen regime, trophic state)

► Physical alteration (hydrology, morphology, ground water, sediment balance)

► Biota changes (fish fauna, macro invertebrates, phytobenthos, macrophytes, aquatic birds, riparian vegetation, ecological connectivity)

Ecosystems services loss

► loss of habitats for species & genetic diversity (minor nutrient cycling)

► fresh water provisioning (for HP competing uses i.e. agriculture, cattle, drinking water supply, industry, etc.)

► extreme hydrological events regulation

► waste water treatment support

► cultural services

► local climate regulation (big dams) …

► The impact size and occurrence obviously depend on the specific characters of each HP plant (micro HP plant ≠ big dam) and each mountain river (HMWB ≠ pristine river) , all have to be measured & cross-compared

Mountain rivers & HP generation


WFD indicators biological communities & HP


► No evident HP upstream - downstream gradient, official metrics seems to respond more to trophic status & substrate modification than to river HP effects

► Fish populations fit but can be often affected by uncontrolled restocking

WFD indicators – why this lack of response to HP pressure? ► Is it for the official metric choice more related to other drivers (trophic &

nutrient conditions, riverbed modifications, pollutants presence, …)?

► Is it for low taxonomic level of classification of biota (rivet popping approach)?

► Is it for too small average size & homerange of organisms considered (benthos, diatoms)?

► Is it for too short period of investigations?

► Is it for the adaptation of communities to HP chronicle effects?

► Is it for the combination of HP effects and mountain natural constraints?

► …

Very interesting research topic BUT in the meanwhile the amount of new demands and concession renovations is constantly growing !


► The natural discharge and hydromorphological elements are reactive to HP pressure BUT considered in the assessment of water bodies only for “high ecological status” (WFD, All. V, tab 1.2.1)

Riparian vegetation River continuity

Hydrology alteration

WFD indicators - hydromorphology

Riverbed modification


Hydromorphological methods can be used at single HP plant level

Wet Area (Volume) variation weighted on meso - habitat

Depth variation weighted on meso-habitat

Weighted usable area (WUA) for biota accommodation

CASiMiR Computer Aided Simulation Model for Instream Flow Requirement (Noack et al.2010) • MESOHABSIM (Parasiewicz et al. 2007) • IFIM Instream Flow Incremental Methodolgy (Bovee et al. 1998)



► Hydromorphological methods are available for wider (basin) scales

► Linked both to riparian vegetation status and anthropogenic pressures in the riverbank buffer.

► Their value is generally positive related to other WFD communities value (“umbrella indicators”)



► Rivers are the best natural water purification systems …



► Landscape is a unique asset represented by healthy rivers



► Agriculture is a strategic river stakeholder



► River tourism holds evident stakeholders too



► Fishing & angling have stakeholders very well represented in alpine regions



► RES-e Directives (20/20/20) require a renewable electricity enhance but, at the same time, the Water Framework Directive obliges member States to reach or maintain a water bodies "good" ecological status, intrinsically limiting the hydropower exploitation

► Mountain rivers are not the “egg-laying wool-milk-pig” …

► HP energy production and river protection are two faces of the same system

► Mountain local administrators daily face an increasing demand of water abstraction and concessions renovations but normally lack reliable tools to evaluate interaction of their effects on mountain rivers and energetic, economical and social outputs on longer time scale

► They need to be better equipped to pass from data to strategic information

Alpine rivers & laws


SHARE - Sustainable Hydropower in Alpine Rivers Ecosystems

► SHARE is a running bottom-up project approved and co funded by the European regional development fund in the context of the European Territorial Cooperation Alpine Space programme 2007 – 2013.

► The project is formally on going from August 2009 and it will end July 2012.


SHARE objective

► The project has developed, tested and promoted a decision support system to merge river ecosystems services and hydropower requirements

► This approach is led using existing scientific tools (Multi Criteria Analysis - MCA), adjustable to transnational, national and local normative and carried on by permanent panel of administrators and stakeholders


SHARE project participants

► 13 Partners (public administrations, environmental agencies, research centers, NGOs) in 5 countries

► 16 Official observers


LP: ARPA Valle d'Aosta (I) PP1: Regione Piemonte (I) PP2: ARPA Veneto (I) PP3: RSE (I) PP4: E-zavod (Sl) PP5: University of Ljubljana (Sl) PP6: Graz University of Technology (AT) PP7: University of Innsbruck (AT) PP8: Government of Styria (AT) PP9: University of Grenoble, (F) PP10: GERES (F) PP11: University of Stuttgart (D) PP12: AEM (F)


SHARE project participants

SHARE official observers

ALPINE CONVENTION secretariat (UE) – Water platform –Common guidelines for SHP

Land of Tyrol (AT)

CETE (F)

Landesfischereiverband Bayern (D)

Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenja (SI)

Syndicat mixte d'Aménagement de l'Arve et des ses Abords (F)

ESHA European Small Hydropower Association (UE)

CVA Compagnia Valdostana delle Acque (I)

ALP WATER SCARCE Lead Partner

SEDIRISK Lead Partner (F)

CH2OICE coordinator (I – UE)

Provincia di Vicenza (I)

Civiltà dell’acqua (I)

Università di Bolzano (I)

ISPRA - Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (I)


SHARE pilot case studies

► SHARE approach has been tested in 11 Pilot case studies : different mountain rivers, same needs for sustainable HP management


Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach

► The methodological “core” of the project is the application of the MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS (MCA)

► The MCA is applied as “balance” for evaluating different river management alternatives defined by different criteria detailed by indicators


Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach

1. Identification of different management alternatives to be considered and stakeholders involved by river management

2. Identification of criteria and indicators (coming also from set of laws) to describe the whole river management context

3. Indicators implementation using all available datasets

4. Utility functions definition: making indicators comparable assigning to each value of the indicators a relative value of stakeholder preference/utility between 0 and 1 (“consider both hard & soft information”)

5. Indicators and criteria importance weight assignment (with different stakeholders contribution)

6. Performance evaluation of each alternative

7. Sensitivity check, similar to back analysis evaluation to define the uncertainty influence on alternative performance


The Pilot Case Study of Chalamy river in Aosta Valley

► The Chalamy is a pluvial-snow regime torrent partially included in Mont Avic Natural Park (Aosta Valley)


Co

mp

agn

ie V

ald

ota

ine

des

Eau

x, lo

c. B

lan

chet

te, C

ham

pd

epra

z (A

O -

Ita

lie)

CHALAMY RIVER

CHANNEL

PENSTOCK WATER INTAKE POINT

WATER RELEASE POINT

► The management alternatives for the Chalamy river case study are related to different quantitative experimental releases:

► Alternative 1: NO WATER RELEASE (2008 status)

► Alternative 2: WATER RELEASE 20% of theoretical M.I.F.





è

HP PLANT SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION

SPORT FISHING

LANDSCAPE

RIVER ENVIRONMENT

FISHERMEN INVOLVED ASSESSMENT

CHEMICALMICROB. QUALITY

FISHES

LANDSCAPE QUALITY DAP - “WIIL TO PAY FOR”

PARTICULAR LANDSCAPE UNITIES INVOLVED

BENTHOS

MACROPHYTA

20% of MIF RELEASED

60% of MIF RELEASED

100% of MIF RELEASED

1.0

0,1

0,3

1.0

0.4

0,3

0,3

0,2

ADULT FISHES LOSS

0.16

0.16

0.16

Identify the SPECIFIC CASE

Fully describe the specific case

through CRITERIA

Fully describe each CRITERION

through INDICATORS

Assign a WEIGHT to each indicator / criterion indicates its importance in relation with the

other

ASSESS/ CALCULATE the EFFECTS of each alternative on the

specific case

Alternatives are detailed by

one or more CAUSAL FACTORS

INDICATORS

Identify different possible

management ALTERNATIVES

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE ASSESSMENT

EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM DESCRIPTION PROBLEM

RESIDUAL FLOW

RESIDUAL FLOW

RESIDUAL FLOW

RESIDUAL FLOW

TOURISM

ECONOMY

ENERGY GWh PRODUCTION

€ PROFIT

HYDROMORPHOLOGY

TOURISM FRUITION / YEAR

0,7

0,3

0,7

1.0

0.16

0.16

0.16

NO WATER RELEASE

Policy step Technical - scientific step


page 43

page 44

page 46

page 47

page 48

page 49

page 50

page 51

page 52

page 53

page 54

page 55

page 56

page 57

page 58

page 59

page 60

page 61

page 62

Multi Criteria Analysis & SHARE

• Very different alternatives can be defined and assessed with MCA in different management situations

• at single plant scale

► New water withdrawal (or empowerment of existing plant)

► No new water withdrawal

► New water withdrawal (or empowerment of existing plant) BUT:

with another location of the plant

with different % of requested water amount

with fixed MIF / with modulated MIF

with underground pipes, …

with sediment release control plan and monitoring

including river restoration & mitigation activities (even located in other contexts), compensation measures targeted on mountain communities,

• at basin / regional scale

► Different scenarios of HP production / river conservation


“THE MCA IS A TOOL THAT HELPS IN DECISION MAKING BUT IT DOESN’T TAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS BY ITSELF”

► For each alternative it is calculated a TOTAL PERFORMANCE SCORE starting from the assessment of effects of each management alternative on the specific river system

► Decision makers are helped to IDENTIFY THE MORE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE using a a interrelated set of weighted indicators tailored on each specific case requirements

Multi Criteria Analysis & SHARE


Why use SHARE MCA?

1. SYNTHESIS: it allows to summarize complex information 2. RATIONALITY: it organizing data in a structured way 3. PARTICIPATION: it help the dialogue on concrete parameters 4. MULTIOBJECTIVE: it allows to considers several alternatives (single HP plant

sustainability >>< restoration actions location) 5. TRANSPARENCY: the weights ad the values are explicit 6. FLEXIBILITY: it can be tailored from local scale to strategic planning 7. REPEATABILITY: the MCA process can be totally done backwards and

forwards enhancing decisions quality 8. FREE: the tools for the MCA application are free 9. NORMATIVE COMPLIANT 10. EX-ANTE & EX-POST: it’s a tool useable to planning and to managing


Key messages

Criteria correspond to stakeholders, SHARE MCA can help conflict solving Weight assignment to criteria is the more strategic (political) phase Different weights can be attributed to same criteria & indicators in different

conditions Hard & soft information respect: some indicators are coming from set of laws,

some are valuable in euro, some are expert-based qualitative assessment, ALL are dependent from data availability

WFD community based indicators have to be supported / integrated by hydromorphological indicators to be reactive

SHARE MCA can consider also additional impacts related to HP plant construction (pipes effect on landscape, access roads, slope rearrangement, grid presence, other existing withdrawals,…)

SHARE MCA can support both local HP assessment and strategic planning SHARE MCA can use & capitalize outputs of existing methods and models

related to different criteria (Cost-Benefit Analysis CBA ; Simple Additive Weighting SAW; Multi-Attribute Utility Theory MAUT (Keeney and Raiffa, 1976); Simple Multi-Attribute Rated Technique SMART (von Winterfeld et Edwards, 1986); Analytic Hierarchy Process – AHP (Saaty, 1980)


Criteria for a sustainable HydroPower development in Tyrol - on going Empfehlung zur Erarbeitung kantonaler Schutz und Nutzungsstrategien im Bereich Kleinwasserkraftwerke - on going Canton de Fribourg (Evaluation and management of the hydroelectric potential - MCA based on Exclusion criteria & Evaluation criteria) – on going Provincia Verbano Cusio Ossola (analisi MCA applicata alla valutazione idroelettrica ex - ante) – on going Etats généraux de l’Eau en Montagne – 3° International Congress of integrated water management in high watersheds - Mégève 22–24/09/2010 several French stakeholders involved - on going Progetto TWOLE (Sistema per la Pianificazione e la Gestione delle Risorse Idriche basato su MCA per la gestione dei conflitti di utilizzo – Regione Lombardia) – 2008

Other river research & management initiatives based on MCA


We can do it!

► a user friendly MCA methodology supported by a dedicated software (SESAMO) focused on HP & river issue

SHARE toolkit for stakeholders


► a customized software (CASiMiR ) to assess habitat conditions along the river channel and bank areas with a specific module for evaluation of economic effects for hydropower production.



► a set of customized software to assess HP residual potential and financial feasibility of HP plants (VAPIDRO Aste and SMART Mini Hydro)



► 11 Pilot Case Studies on which SHARE approach has been tested



► 2 short videos "MCA in plain English“

► a MCA tutorial kit with online seminars and training activities to translate & simplify MCA approach to stakeholders

► an indicators database to evaluate HP and HP effects on mountain water bodies

► Technical reports to:

► assess natural capital exposed to HP pressure

► define & map river typologies more vulnerable to HP pressure

► MIF & discharge estimations methods

► HP potential mapping

► Guidelines to integrate MCA procedures in local normative

► SHARE handbook



5/30/2012

We really want to “SHARE” …

… to make a joint use of water resource!


Thank you for your attention and enjoy the

meeting!