Feedback

EEA
Eionet

Freshwater

You are here: Eionet Forum Freshwater Library EIONET workshops 2012 Freshwater Eionet Workshop and 2012 State of Water Report Consultation of draft hydromorphology report 10.Hydropower and WFD

Navigation

Places

Notifications

Subscribe to notifications

Table of contents

prev index next

10.Hydropower and WFD

Show comments inline

10.Hydropower and WFD

10.1. Introduction

In this report hydropower has been identified as one of the main drivers to hydro-morphological alterations, loss of connectivity and to alter water and reduced sediment flow (Fig. 10.1). Pressures related to hydropower may be one of the reasons for many water bodies not to achieve good ecological status by 2015 or the subsequent RBMP cycles.

Figure 10.1: Conceptual overview of different impacts hydropower installations on biology, flow conditions and sediment transport

In the context of the EU Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources 2009/28/EC (EC, 2009), hydropower is an important measure for increasing the share of renewable electricity but, depending on its management, hydropower can impact water bodies and adjacent wetlands.

It is important to ensure that existing and forthcoming EU policies to promote hydropower ensure coherence with the Water Framework Directive/other EU environmental legislation and clearly consider the ecological impacts on the affected water bodies and the adjacent wetlands.

10.2. Overview of hydropower in Europe

During the last years several reports providing overviews of European hydropower production have been published: DG ENV hydropower report (ARCADIS & Ingenieurbüro Floecksmühle 2011); DG ENV/Ecologic (Kampa et al. 2011): Issue Paper Final) and State of the Art of Small Hydropower in EU-25. In addition, Eurostat and ENTSO-E Statistical Yearbook have statistics on hydropower production. Below is given a summary of information on hydropower production, more details can be found in the above mentioned publications.

In 2008 hydropower provided 16 % of electricity in Europe and hydropower currently provides more than 70 % of all renewable electricity (Eurelectric 2009), more than 85 % of which is produced by large hydropower plants. The share of hydropower in electricity production is generally high in the northern and Alpine countries.

The total number of hydropower stations in the EU-27 amounts to about 23000. There are about 10 times more small (P < 10 MW) than large hydropower plants (P > 10 MW). However, the electricity generation of small hydropower only amounts to 13% of the total generation of all hydropower stations. Today large hydropower plants account for 87% of the hydropower generation with only 9% of the stations (DG ENV/ARCADIS & Ingenieurbüro Floecksmühle 2011).

In absolute numbers, Germany has most hydropower plants more than 7700 of which 7300 are small plants. Austria, France, Italy and Sweden all have more than 2000 hydropower plants. The highest numbers of large hydropower plants (> 10 MW) are found in Norway (333): Italy (304); France (281) and Sweden (206) (Kampa et al. 2011).

Source: Kampa et al. 2011

Three types of power stations can be found (DG ENV/ARCADIS & Ingenieurbüro Floecksmühle 2011):

Hydropower stations with storage reservoir. A storage reservoir offers the opportunity to store energy and to meet e.g. the peak electricity demands. Such reservoirs can comprise daily, seasonal or yearly storage. Many of the large HP stations operate with a reservoir.
Run-of-the-river stations. This type of installation uses the natural flow of a water course in order to generate electricity. There is no intention to store water and to use it later on. This type is most common for small hydropower stations but can also be found with large stations.
Pumped storage hydropower plants. Pumped hydropower stations utilize two reservoirs located at different altitudes. Water can be pumped from the lower into the upper reservoir and can be released, if needed, to the lower reservoir producing energy on ts way through the turbines. In times of high demand e.g. during peak hours electricity is produced to satisfy the demand. When there is a surplus of electricity in the system, water can be pumped to the upper reservoir.

The different types of hydropower plants have different effects on the ecosystems and hydromorphology. Generally the hydropower plants with storage reservoirs generate more severe impacts on the river system including loss of connectivity, change in water flow regime and reduced sediment flow. There are unfortunately no European overview of the number of hydropower plants by types and their location. Generally the reservoir type hydropower plants are found in the mountainous areas with steep relief, while the larger run-of-the-river stations are found on the main course of larger rivers and their tributaries. Smaller hydropower plants are often found on relative smaller rivers and with limited storage, but often acting as migrating barriers. However, compared to the impacts generated per electricity production the impacts by many small hydropower plants may be comparable to or larger than one large hydropower plant.

Text box: Location of different types of hydropower plants

In the mountainous Upper Danube watershed (77 000 km²) covering parts of Germany and Austria there are in the alpine headwaters 20 big reservoir hydropower plants (annual hydropower generation of more than 250 GWh) and there are 120 relative smaller run-of-the-river stations hydropower plants (annual hydropower generation of 20 to 500 GWh) mainly situated on the river Danube and its larger tributaries Iller, Lech, Isar, Inn and Salzach.

Source: Koch et al. 2011

10.2 RBMPs and hydropower

<This section will be updated with the Commissions DG Environment evaluation of measures in relation to hydropower>

The effects of hydropower production are taken up in most of the RBMPs. The plans generally provide an overview of the plants and their location. River basins with hydropower schemes generally have several water bodies designated as heavily modified such as lakes and reservoirs that have their water levels regulated due to operation of the hydropower scheme e.g. storage of water during summer and hydropower production during winter; or river section that are affected by dams and/or changed flow regime.

In 2011 a questionnaire to Member States on WFD and hydropower resulted in answers from 24 countries (EU27 Member States except (Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland and Malta) and Norway and Norway). The results from the questionnaire were presented in an issue paper (Kampa et al. 2011) and discussed at a CIS WFD hydromorphology workshop in September 2011. The main results are summarized below. Figure 10 shows the percentage of HMWB designated as such due to hydropower use in relation to total HMWB.

- Sweden, Norway, Finland, Czech Republic and Austria have the highest percentage of HMWB due to hydropower (above 50% of total HWMB).

- The Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Latvia and Italy have the lowest percentage of HMWB due to hydropower (below 10% of total HMWB)

Figure 6.2: Percentage of HMWB designated as such due to hydropower use in relation to total HMWB.

Note: As the designation of HMWB vary between the countries; (e.g. some countries may only designate few WBs as HMWBs while others designate many) the percentage designated may not give a correct picture.

10.2.1 Measures related to hydropower

The majority of countries (19 of the 23 surveyed) plan to make improvements to water bodies affected by hydropower by 2015. Mainly in the context of the WFD programme of measures, there are new ecological flow regimes being implemented (e.g. Portugal and Bulgaria) and other measures to make hydropower plants more ecological friendly (e.g. via fish ladders in The Netherlands).

In the context of making improvements to water bodies via specific measures, 10 Member States have agreed national or local criteria for determining what impact on hydropower generation is acceptable (i.e. not a significant adverse effect). However, in an equal number of countries, no criteria on impact determination could be determined so far (see table below).

	Yes	No
Are improvements to any water bodies affected by hydropower schemes planned by 2015?	BG, FI, FR, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, NO, PT, RO, SW, UK, CZ, IS, ES, SI, SK, (AT, DE)²⁾	CH
Have national or local criteria for determining what impact on hydropower generation is acceptable (i.e. not a significant adverse effect) been agreed?	AT, FR, IT, LV, LT, NL, RO, CH, IS, ES	BG, DE, FI, LU, NO, PT, SE, UK, CZ, SI

Note: 1) No answer by BE, HU and PL; and 2) AT and DE have replied “No” to the making of improvements to water bodies affected by hydropower by 2015. However, for both countries, it is explained in their questionnaires that improvements will be made by 2015 in a selected number of water bodies.

Legal requirements for environmental improvement

Most countries have relevant legislation on national level (in a few, also on regional level) to ensure minimum ecological flow and upstream continuity via fish passes at hydropower plants (see table below summarising legal requirements on key domains for environmental improvement).

For downstream continuity and hydropeaking mitigation, fewer countries have legislative requirements to ensure environmental improvement in this respect. Requirements for measures are rather defined in individual cases (e.g. as a condition of authorisation) and, in some countries, there is generally no relevant legislative means.

For mitigating the disruption of sediment/bedload transport, several countries have no relevant legislative means. Only a few countries have national legislation and, in several countries, mitigation measures are defined in individual cases.

One or two regional/RBD examples may be included

- E.g. a text box from the Alpine Convention on hydropower and WFD in the Alps

- Nordic issues on hydropower

10.3. Balancing WFD and Renewable Energy Directive (RES) requirements

Member States should avoid taking action that could further jeopardize the achievement of the objectives of the WFD, notably the general objective of good ecological status of water bodies. The further use and development of hydropower should consider the environmental objectives of the WFD in line with the requirements of Article 4 (in particular, the requirements of Article 4.7 when new hydropower plants are considered). The requirements of Art. 4.7 for new hydropower include amongst others that there are no significantly better environmental options, that the benefits of the new infrastructure outweigh the benefits of achieving the WFD environmental objectives and that all practicable mitigation measures are taken to address the adverse impact of the status of the water body.

In the same time, the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) sets legally binding national targets for electricity and transport from renewable sources (not specifically for hydropower), adding up to a share of 20 % of gross final consumption of energy in the EU as a whole. By June 2010, each EU Member State had to adopt a national renewable energy action plan (NREAP) setting out its national targets for the share of energy from renewable sources consumed in transport, electricity, heating and cooling in 2020 and describing the way and the extent to which different renewable sources (wind, hydropower, etc.) will contribute to the achievement of targets. In several European Member States, an increase in hydropower generation is needed for the achievement of these targets by increasing efficiency in hydropower generation at existing sites but also by building new hydropower plants.

Most European rivers are already heavily affected by dams and reservoirs and most of the suitable stretches have already been used. However, there are still many plans and studies for new dams, reservoirs and small hydropower projects:

- in the Danube basin there are plans to built dams on the Bavarian Danube, the Sava, and the Drava (ICPDR, 2010)

- in December 2007 the Portuguese government approved the National Programme for Dams with High Hydroelectric Potential (PNBEPH) leading to the construction of ten new dams (PNBEPH, 2008);

- in Turkey, 86 large dams – above 15 m – and 124 small dams are currently under construction or planned. The aim is to increase the area under irrigation by 58 %, hydropower generation by 36 %, and domestic and industrial water supply by 27 % (DSI, 2009 );

- in February 2010, the Council of State, Greece’s highest administrative court, ordered the suspension of a controversial project to divert the country’s second-longest river, the Acheloos, from western Greece to the heavily-farmed Plain of Thessaly, approving an appeal by environmentalists against the plans (Katemerini 2010; WWF 2010)

- a recently-published Scottish government study estimates a potential for more than 7 000 new small hydropower projects (Scottish Government, 2010) and a study by the Environment Agency (EA 2010) identified between 4 000 and 12 000 potential new small hydropower projects in England and Wales;

- In June 2008, the French environment minister announced a plan to boost hydropower by 2020. The government wants to increase production capacity by 30 % by installing more efficient turbines. It does not propose to build more dams (ENDS, 2008 and Gouvernement,2008).

This list is just a snapshot; it is neither an exhaustive nor a complete overview of planned water infrastructure projects in Europe. Many of the projects are being discussed between governments, local administrations, different user groups, and industrial and environmental organisations. The new projects may conflict with the WFD objectives of achieving good ecological status/potential. Article 4.7 of the WFD requires that all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impacts of new infrastructures on the status of water bodies and that the projects should have overriding public/societal interest and/or benefits to the environment and society (EC, 2006).

Text Box: State of small hydropower in the Alps

Source: Alpine Convention 2011 (reduced text of draft provided by Alpine Convention Nov. 2011)

In 2010 several hundred applications for new small hydropower stations have been reported across the whole Alpine area (with considerable difference of numbers between countries), thus potentially adding to the high number of facilities already in place. This boom has been triggered in particular by the financial incentives and support schemes in place in all countries of the Alps. It presents a particular challenge for competent authorities in handling the huge amount of applications and deciding on authorisations for new facilities, due to variety of aspects to be taken into account (energy generation, CO₂ emission reduction, ecological impact etc.).

Despite its clear benefits, hydropower generation can also have substantial negative impacts on the aquatic ecology, natural scenery and ecosystems which are not always perceived by the wider public. This is not only the case for large dams, reservoirs and related hydropower facilities but also for small and very small hydropower stations, indeed the high number of such facilities already in place in the Alps, have a cumulative effect which is already impacting on a considerable number of river stretches

From the collected data on hydropower plants it is evident that the larger plants contribute by far the major share of total electricity production from HP , i.e. over 95% of the total production comes from facilities with greater than 1MW power output. 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.

The decision on new facilities is still mostly determined for sites individually (with exception that in some countries projects within National Parks, Nature2000-Sites, etc. are subjected to specific rules). Environmental legislation has developed significantly in recent decades. Residual water (or environmental minimum flows) as well as fish passes are now seen as basic provisions of new hydropower plants. However, many old facilities do not meet modern environmental standards. For instance, older hydropower facilities may not provide sufficient residual water or be equipped with fish-passes, hence causing a fragmentation of river stretches and habitats. In such cases, adaptations to the facilities may be required in order to meet environmental objectives.

When licences or authorisations have to be renewed, or when a new one is granted, the conditions for the water use are based on the current environmental legislation. Thus, if existing hydropower facilities request and need a renewal, extension or a new licence or authorisation then they have to comply and adjust to the new requirements of the actual environmental legislation, such as the residual water flow conditions.

However in some countries, once a water licence or authorisation has been granted, this legal right can only be varied during the set period of the licence or authorisation (between 30 to 90 years) if it is economically bearable for the owner or for reasons of higher public interests and against compensation. Furthermore, some water rights from the past do not have a license or authorisation period at all, i.e. the right is for an unlimited time period.

Due to the length of time for which a licence or authorisation is granted, the effectiveness of new regulations on upgrading existing facilities in order to enhance the ecological situation can be limited. In order to allow for progress, some countries have set up promotion schemes and incentives to support operators or licensees in upgrading existing facilities with the aim of fulfilling environmental objectives.

The table below indicates how European States intend to achieve the objectives set for the contribution of hydropower to the 2020 renewable energy targets via construction of new hydropower plants, refurbishment or modernization and maintenance. The table is based on qualitative statements of countries on the level of importance of the contribution of each option to the targets.

The following trends can be detected for specific countries:

In Austria, Slovenia and the UK, mainly the construction of new plants will contribute to the 2020 renewable energy targets. In the UK, new hydropower development is expected to be dominated (in terms of numbers of schemes) by small (< 1.5 MW) run-of-river schemes. In Austria, modernisation will play a considerable role for small hydropower while in the UK, refurbishment and modernisation are considered negligible contributions.
On the other hand, in Germany, Spain and Italy, the construction of new hydropower plants is considered a minor contribution, whereas the refurbishment, modernization and maintenance of plants will be the main source of contribution to renewable energy targets. In Latvia, the situation is similar. In Spain, any new constructions will focus on increasing pumping storage capacity.
France considers all options to be a main source of contribution for achieving the 2020 renewable energy targets. The refurbishment and modernisation targets are to balance the loss of production due to minimum flow rising in 2014 for all existing plants. On the contrary, Luxembourg considers all options to be minor contributions to the 2020 renewable energy targets.
For Finland, The Netherlands and Romania, the construction of new plants and modernisation and maintenance will be the main contributors to the 2020 renewable energy targets from hydropower.
For Norway and Portugal, the main source of contribution to the 2020 renewable energy targets from hydropower will come from the construction of new plants and refurbishment.
Sweden mainly plans to refurbish hydropower plants in order to contribute to the 2020 renewable energy targets.

Source: DG ENV/Ecologic (Kampa et al.) September 2011: Issue Paper Draft 2

References

Alpine Convention 2011: Situation Report on Hydropower Generation in the Alps focusing on Small Hydropower, platform “Water management in the Alps”, 2011

http://www.alpconv.org/documents/Permanent_Secretariat/web/WG/2011_Situation_Report.pdf

ARCADIS & Ingenieurbüro Floecksmühle 2011 http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/hydropower_september&vm=detailed&sb=Title

DSI, 2009

EA 2010. Opportunity and environmental sensitivity mapping for hydropower in England and Wales. Environment Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/shell/hydropowerswf.html [accessed 13 September 2010].

EC 2009: Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/renewable_energy/en0009_en.htm [accessed 13 September 2010].

ENDS 2008: France unveils plan to boost hydropower. News article from ENDS Europe

24 July 2008 http://www.endseurope.com/15357?referrer=search [accessed 13 September 2010].

ENTSO-E Statistical Yearbook https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/publications/general-reports/statistical-yearbooks/

Eurelectric 2009: Key Statistics 2008. Report from Eurelectric.

http://www2.eurelectric.org/content/Default.asp?PageID=618 [accessed 13 September 2010].

ESHA http://www.esha.be/fileadmin/esha_files/documents/publications/publications/tnshp/pub_tnshp_soa_en.pdf

Gouvernement, 2008. Un plan de relance de la production hydraulique française. News article 23 July 2008. http://www.gouvernement.fr/gouvernement/un-plan-de-relance-de-la-production-hydraulique-francaise [accessed 13 September 2010].

ICPDR. 2010. Dams and Structures. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. Vienna http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/dams_structures.htm [accessed 13 September 2010].

Kampa et al./Ecologic 2011: Water management, Water Framework Directive & Hydropower. Issue Paper Final. Available at http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_conventio/hydropower_september/issue_paper/issuepaper_draft2pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d

Katemerini 2010: Court suspends Acheloos works. News article 11 February 2010. http://ekathimerini.com/4Dcgi/4Dcgi/_w_articles_politics_1100011_11/02/2010_114822 [accessed 13 September 2010].

Koch et al. 2011: Climate Change effects on hydropower plants in the Upper

Danube watershed. Available at http://iahs.info/conferences/CR2010/2010_Praha/full/128.pdf

PNBEPH 2008 Programa Nacional de Barragens com Elevado Potencial Hidroeléctrico Web-site http://pnbeph.inag.pt/np4/home.html [accessed 15 September 2010].

Scottish Government 2010: The Employment Potential of Scotland's Hydro Resource. Study report from the Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/19141527/0 [accessed 15 September 2010].

WWF 2010: Justice for Acheloos. News item at the WWF Greeece web-site http://www.wwf.gr/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=659:justice-for-acheloos&catid=70:2008-09-16-12-10-46&Itemid=90 . [accessed 15 September 2010].