METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION IN ITALY AND SLOVENIA

Hosted by

Black & Veatch Corporation

GEI Consultants, Inc.

Kleinfelder, Inc.

MWH Americas, Inc.

Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.

URS Corporation

21st Century Dam Design

Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference

San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

On the CoverArtist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide

a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions

imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117

feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the

United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for

advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or

from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made

or the opinions expressed in this publication.

Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673

ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5

U.S. Society on Dams

1616 Seventeenth Street, #483

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: 303-628-5430

Fax: 303-628-5431

E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: www.ussdams.org

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision

To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams

for the benefit of society.

Mission USSD is dedicated to:

Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,

performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;

Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water

resources systems;

Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water

resources;

Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and

Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on

Large Dams (ICOLD).

Hydropower Certification 1329

METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION IN ITALY AND SLOVENIA

N. Smolar-Zvanut1

A. Goltara2 G. Conte3

ABSTRACT

The paper describes a technically and economically feasible certification procedure for existing hydro power generation facilities of higher environmental standard, being explicitly coherent with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EU, 2000) to be implemented in "green labelled" electricity products. The purpose of this European Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems. In order to be certified, a given hydro power plant (HPP) has to commit to carry out appropriate measures in order to mitigate its impacts on specified environmental objectives, in such a way to fulfil predefined environmental objectives and prescriptions. These measures have to be described through a specific management programme, based upon a dedicated environmental study, supported mainly by existing data, but complemented by ad-hoc assessment/monitoring when necessary. The realization of both the environmental study and the management programme must be supported by public consultation; both documents must be approved through an auditing process. In the long run, it is expected that the certification will have a positive impact on hydro power generation in Europe helping to focus the conception of new HPPs towards more sustainable solutions and by simplifying the authorization procedure.

INTRODUCTION The construction and operation of hydropower plants (HPPs) is linked to unavoidable impacts on the rivers. Thus, besides the advantage of almost emissions-free energy production through HPPs, there is a need to optimize HPP facilities in order to strike a balance with the ecological needs of the affected river ecosystems, adjacent land ecosystems and wetlands (Ecologic, 2007). In European countries, many opportunities to build more sustainable HPPs are lost due to the lack of targeted assessment criteria that would identify HPPs as a viable alternative. In liberalized energy markets the opportunity arises to economically compensate for environmental sustainability efforts, through the development of energy products

1 Ph.D., Project Manager, Researcher, Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia, Hajdrihova 28c, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, [email protected] 2 Director, CIRF - Italian Centre for River Restoration Viale Garibaldi 44/a, 30173 Mestre, Italy, [email protected] 3 Member of Ambiente Italia Technical Managing Board, Ambiente Italia Srl Via Vicenza 5/a, 00186 Rome, Italy, [email protected]

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations 1330

targeting environmentally conscious customers who are ready to pay a higher price for greener energy. A thorough analysis of hydropower impacts on the environment was discussed in a recently published work carried out for the Hydropower Reform Coalition (Stillwater Sciences, 2006). The study evaluated the impacts on water quality, hydrology and geology, aquatic flora and fauna, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics and cultural resources. Similar criteria are used by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) when certifying a given hydropower facility as "low impact". The low impact certification means that the hydropower facility has been found by the LIHI to meet or exceed the Institute's certification criteria which address eight key areas: river flows, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed protection, threatened and endangered species protection, cultural resource protection, recreation, and facilities recommended for removal. The targets established for each of these areas are aligned with the most stringent national/federal regulations and must be met. The most comprehensive and in-depth set of best practices for hydropower sustainability carried out at the European level is the Greenhydro procedure for hydropower certification (Bratrich and Truffer, 2001; Bratrich et al., 2004), later adopted by the label Naturemade. Determining the basic ecological standards for green electricity involves estimating the direct impact of HPP on river ecosystem and its riverine landscape. In order to determine more easily these relationships, the criteria were structured using environmental management matrix. Five management fields describe operational issues of construction relating to HPP and five environmental fields were selected to cover most important aspects relevant to ensuring the ecological viability of a river ecosystem. Within the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (WFD CIS), a specific activity was set up in 2004 related to hydro-morphological alterations of water bodies and focused on those related to hydropower generation, navigation and flood protection. A technical report published in 2006 aimed to provide guidance and good practice examples of how to prevent, remedy or mitigate the adverse ecological effects of human alterations to the structural and hydrological characteristics of surface water bodies in order to achieve the environmental objectives set by the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy (EU, 2006). The International Hydropower Association (IHA) has published its own Sustainability Guidelines (IHA, 2004) and in order to assist IHA members in assessing performance against criteria described in the IHA Sustainability Guidelines, a dedicated protocol was developed (IHA, 2010). The main aim of HPPs certification in Europe is giving a contribution in reducing conflicts in the implementation of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market: RES Directive (EU, 2001) and WFD (EU, 2000). The purpose of RES Directive (EU, 2001) is to promote an increase in the contribution of renewable energy sources to electricity production in the internal market for electricity and to create a basis for a future Community framework


thereof. The RES Directive (EU, 2001) concerns electricity produced from non-fossil renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal, hydroelectric, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment gas and biogas energies. In fact RES Directive (EU, 2001) required all European Union Member States to set their indicative national targets for electricity produced from renewable energy sources by 2020 to be consistent with the global indicative target in all Community of 22.1%, therefore impelling most countries to increase -among other sources- also hydropower production. On the other side the WFD (EU, 2000) requests European Union Member States to improve the ecological status of their water bodies in order to attain a "good status" by 2015, implying that, among others, hydro-morphological impacts related to hydropower production must be reduced. A certification method taking explicitly into account WFD (EU, 2000) objectives can help to achieve an increase in WFD-compliant hydro power production, therefore giving a contribution in the implementation of both Directives. In 2008, partner organizations from 7 countries in Europe started with the project CH2OICE with the aim to develop a technically and economically feasible certification procedure for HPPs of high environmental standard; the first results of this effort are presented in this paper.

CERTIFICATION OF HYDROPOWER PLANT ON VOLUNTARY BASIS The goal of CH2OICE is that the certification of HPPs will be on a voluntary basis. The certification procedure would be attractive for hydropower producers for the following reasons:

1. Certified energy could be sold at significantly higher price: One example is the growth of the Swiss label Naturmade. The Swiss energy market appears to be quite favourable since the price increase for labelled hydropower is around 30% of the average energy price; this situation is not typical in most European energy markets, where the willingness to pay a higher price for green energy is around a few percentage points of the normal price.

2. Easier access to public incentives: Once the certification procedure is implemented and well known and recognized by EU Members States, access to public incentives would be more open and increased.

3. Possibility to ease and speed up the licensing or re-licensing procedure: This reason is the most interesting and possibly the most attractive since a producer who has to be re-licensed or is looking to be licensed will most likely undergo an analysis of the compatibility of its HPP to the environmental requirements and, consequently, envisage an operations and management practice able to guarantee their fulfilment. The interest of producers will depend on the objectives and prescriptions of certification. The existing old large HPPs may not be particularly interested to get certified because the certification will likely require significant changes in management practice. More interest could be raised among small-medium size run-of -river plants, but considering that recently built small plants in several countries could benefit of a guaranteed feed-in tariff those producers could decide to certify only if the selling price they can get on the market is higher than the fixed supported price. Every country in Europe has different


eligibility criteria and mechanism of pricing for hydropower to get the feed in tariff. Among potential HPPs interested to, companies who are already undergoing an ISO 14001 or EMAS certification are the ones that could more easily get a CH2OICE certification, because they are already familiar with the environmental analysis and a management plan, aimed at improving their performance.

THE CH2OICE PROCEDURE FOR HPP CERTIFICATION

In order to be certified and gets the label, a given HPP has to commit to carry out appropriate measures in order to mitigate its impacts on specified environmental objectives, in such a way to fulfil predefined environmental objectives and prescriptions. These measures have to be described through a specific management programme based upon a dedicated environmental study supported mainly by existing data, but complemented by ad-hoc assessment and monitoring when necessary. The realization of both the environmental study and the management programme must be supported by public consultation; both documents must be approved through an auditing process. The main steps of the CH2OICE procedure are illustrated in Figure 1.

For HPPs operating in totally artificial networks (HPPs in sewage and aqueduct networks) and not without direct or indirect impact on water related ecosystems, a simplified procedure is foreseen, where no environmental analysis, related management programme and stakeholders involvement are requested, but just a description of the system and proof of fulfilment of the selected conditions, are sufficient for certification. All other types of HPPs have to follow the standard procedure. Public Consultation The involvement of local stakeholders (environmental NGOs, anglers, citizens associations, etc.) must be ensured along the whole certification procedure and, when completed, during the lifespan of the label. A first public consultation phase should be carried out when carrying out the preliminary environmental study, in order to look for further information possibly not recorded in the "official" monitoring data and literature and to verify, at the end, that the assessment is agreed. If local stakeholders disagree on the final version of the assessment, this does not hinder the continuation of the certification procedure. Nevertheless a report on the public consultation will have to be provided to the auditing team; it will be up to the auditors to evaluate if integrations/amendments are needed to address any disagreements in the assessments. Management procedures and especially possible environmental compensation/restoration measures (measures compensating directly the stakeholders are not allowed) should be decided taking into account also suggestions from local stakeholders.


Figure 1. Flow chart summarizing the steps of the general CH2OICE certification

procedure.

Y

Y

Y

N

N

HPP

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE 1. Proof must be provided that specific prescriptions are met 2. Audit by the labelling body (timing, periodical check, etc. as in the standard procedure)

STANDARD PROCEDURE

1) ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY (ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE FACTORS)

N

Is it feasible / affordable to proceed with the certification procedure?

PUBLIC CONSULTATION (at local level) on the assessment

2) Drafting of MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME, including mitigation and restoration measures needed to reach targets for labelling + monitoring/reporting protocol

4) LABEL issuing (after the first auditing reports + possible other conditions)

5) Full implementation of management programme and restoration measures, including MONITORING (of management and status of affected water bodies) and REPORTING to labelling body.

6) Label EXPIRY and possibly new certification

Further studies/ data collection/ monitoring needed?

END of the procedure

PUBLIC CONSULTATION (at local level) on the management programme

3) AUDIT by the labelling body (if integrations/changes needed -> back to steps 1 or 2)

Further studies/ data collection/ monitoring


The results of previous participatory activities (e.g.: river contracts) may support and make easier both the described steps (but not replace them).The public must then be granted the possibility to comment on the fulfilment of the measures that the certified plant operator commits to carry out. Certification procedure The CH2OICE hydropower certification procedure includes the following steps. Step 1. Environmental study The goal of this activity is to define, based mainly on available data, the present status of the impacted ecosystems, and to compare it to set environmental objectives. Then, based on modelling and/or expert judgment, the main pressure factors determining these conditions will be determined in order to clarify the responsibilities related to the HPP to be certified and to allow the identification of appropriate mitigation and/or compensation measures to be integrated in the management programme. The assessment must be carried out, in general, at three different scales:

at the water body scale (coherently with the WFD classification scheme: EU Member States shall identify the location and boundaries of bodies of surface water and shall carry out an initial characterisation of all such bodies. The surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be identified as falling within either one of the following surface water categories - rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters - or as artificial surface water bodies or heavily modified surface water bodies.

at local scale, i.e. at a scale smaller than the water body and whose size depends on the specific impact (e.g. sediment deficit may be significant on the river stretch between the dam and the following un-impacted tributary; low flow alterations may concentrate between the dam and the release section only, etc.);

at basin scale (HPP may cause a significant impact at a scale larger than the water body, e.g. significant alteration of sediment transport impacting downstream stretches; hydropeaking or other hydrological alterations with a non negligible effect downstream, etc.).

The impacted area of each HPP is then divided into 4 different sections (Figure 2):

river section from the end of a reservoir upstream (in the direction towards the source of a river) or from the dam upstream if there is no reservoir (u);

river section, either natural or man-made, used for storage, regulation and control of water resources (r);

river section from the dam downstream (in the direction of the current in a river) to the inflow where abstracted water comes back to the river (b);

river section downstream from where the inflow of abstracted water is back to the river or downstream of the dam if there is no abstracted channel (d).


For each river section, the potential impacts and mitigation measures need to be addressed regardless of the type of HPP.

Figure 2. Different river sections of impacted area of HPP The methodology includes a predefined framework where pressure factors due to hydropower production are related to potentially impacted environmental quality elements. The pressure factors and environmental elements were selected according to a literature review of HPP impacts on river and riparian ecosystem. Pressure factors related to the presence of structures and infrastructures include: dam, intake structures, channel, galleries and other derivation structures, power plant, transmission lines, outlet structures and access ways. Pressure factors related to management variables include: released flow regime, hydropeaking, reservoir water level management, bedload management, fine sediment management, emergency measures, management of dams, intake and outlet structures and management of fish passes. Impacts are determined by a potential impacts matrix (Table 1), with pressure factors in the columns and environmental quality elements in the rows presented.


Table 1. The Potential impacts matrix with pressure factors and their impacts on environmental quality elements

PRESSURE FACTORS

RELATED TO THE PRESENCE

OF STRUCTURES/

INFRASTRUCTURES

PRESSURE FACTORS

RELATED TO MANAGEMENT

VARIABLES

Environmental Elements Phytobenthos Aquatic flora Macrophytes

Fish Biological elements

Aquatic fauna Benthic invertebrates

Hydrological regime

Water velocity, water depth, groundwater

Ecomorphological type

Structure and substrate of the

riverbed

Riverbed width

Morphological structures

Longitudinal profile

River continuum

Geomorphological equlibrium

Aquatic habitat

Hydro-morphological

elements

Structure of the riparian zone

General conditions Nutrients and dissolved oxygen

River section

Chemical and physico-chemical elements Specific pollutants

Wetlands Semi-aquatic environment

Biological elements Riparian

vegetation

Terrestrial fauna

Bird fauna Terrestrial environment Biological elements

Zonal vegetation

Habitat types Priority Habitat

Types and Species (sensu Dir 92/43/CE)

Priority species

The impacts of pressure factors on environmental quality elements are evaluated by five-point scale (Table 2) on the basis of achieving environmental goals. A rating of 0-3


implies that environmental objectives are achieved. If there is a significant impact (rating 4), environmental goals will be achieved only with mitigation measures.

Table 2. Five-point scale to assess the impacts of HPP on the environmental quality elements

RATING DESCRIPTIVE RATING

INTERPRETATION OF THE RATING

0 No impact State of the environment will remain unchanged. 1 Identification of the

impact is not possible

There are no data or insufficient data, the impact can not be determined.

2 Negligible impact - main pressure not related to HPP

State of the environment will be changed, but not because of HPP operation.

3 Negligible impact HPP pressure factors will not affect the achievement of environmental goals.

4 Significant impact - impact to be mitigated

State of the environment will be significant changed, but taking into account the proposed mitigation measures environmental goals will be reached.

Often HPPs are included in a cascade system managed in an interconnected fashion (not necessarily by the same operator). Such HPPs can in general be certified independently. Nevertheless it is necessary to describe the whole system, the impact of the single HPP on the system and to justify that the improvement in the certified HPP is not compensated by worsening the impact of the others. In specific cases where the level of interconnection is estimated by the auditors to be too high, it can be decided that the single HPP cannot be certified alone and only the whole system can be certified. The environmental study must provide (quantitative wherever possible) data on present values for the indicators representing all environmental criteria and indicate estimated pressure factors for all criteria not already fulfilling the stated objectives. Cause-effect relationships on which further data/monitoring/specific studies are needed should be highlighted. In general, to proceed in the labelling procedure these have to be carried out at the expense of the proponent, at least at local scale. Also, at this stage a preliminary cost estimate for labelling should be carried out. The outcomes of the preliminary public consultation process have to be explicitly included in the study. Step 2. Drafting of a management programme Based upon the previously described environmental assessment (step 1), a coherent set of management and/or restoration measures have to be defined, estimated appropriate to fulfill the objectives for label compliance. The management programme must also define a monitoring plan, in order to follow the implementation of the measures and their effects. Only measures on the affected water bodies have to be considered (compensation on other water bodies is not allowed). Measures have to be defined as quantitatively as


possible and in such a way that their implementation can be objectively monitored. These measures are selected taking into account:

the results of the preliminary environmental assessment (the programme focuses only on structural/management aspects/variables estimated to have a significant impact on at least one environmental criterion);

possible mitigation measures, guidelines and, in general, sound and scientifically backed good practices, to be critically adapted to the specific situation;

modelling and expert judgement in order to support the assumption that the proposed measures are expected to reach the targets;

public consultation (possibly supported by previous action plans, e.g. defined in the framework of a river/basin/lake contract).

Step 3. Auditing by national labelling body The documents produced in steps 1 and 2 must be verified by the Technical Committee of the national CH2OICE Label Management Body or by external auditors selected by the same Committee. Representation of Technical Committee, Label Management Body and auditors is defined in each country separately. The final judgment on the fulfillment of environmental criteria by the applicant is upon the Technical Committee. In case deficiencies are highlighted, previous steps must be followed again or integrated. The final decision is up to the National CH2OICE Label Management Body. Step 4. Label issuing The certification can be issued after the first auditing report and possibly when further conditions are fulfilled (e.g. first monitoring campaign, structural measures completed, etc.). Labelling fees must be defined in order to support the labelling body. The general methodology does not envisage a fixed restoration fund; however, a country can specifically require obligatory participation to such a fund. Obligatory participation to a common fund, managed by a public body (directly or through NGOs) could be required also in specific river basins where restoration is required and participatory processes aimed at river restoration are ongoing (a restoration fund could possibly include also contributions from other water users). Therefore, while developing the CH2OICE certification methodology, it is necessary to analyse carefully how existing labels work, trying to predict how CH2OICE certified energy could be put on the market by each label. In other words, when possible, it would be reasonable to check directly with existing bodies issuing green energy labels if they can integrate the CH2OICE certification in their procedures and then put CH2OICE certified energy on the market rather than creating a new label. Step 5. Monitoring of the actual implementation of the management programme and of resulting ecological improvements


Monitoring and periodical reporting to the labelling body must be carried out following the protocols and schedule defined in the management programme. Local stakeholders must have the possibility to comment on the actual implementation of the management programme and on possible new impacts. Step 6. Label expiry and possible new certification The proposed duration of the label is 6 years, after which a new certification procedure has to be followed to keep the label. In case of non-compliance with the agreed management programme (check on annual basis) the label can be withdrawn by CH2OICE Labelling Management Body.

OBJECTIVES AND PRESCRIPTIONS FOR HPPs Objectives for HPPs were defined at the river basin scale, water body scale and at the local scale. HPPs operation should not be reason that downstream water bodies do not achieve good ecological status (GES) defined according to WFD (if downstream is natural water body) or good ecological potential (GEP) defined according to WFD (if downstream is heavily modified or artificial water body) at the river basin scale. At the water body scale the objectives set for biological and hydromorphological elements are as follows: assuming that all pressures not related to the target HPP are removed, the HPP impacts must not impede the achievement of GES. If the target HPP is the main significant pressure factor, the present status or the status foreseen after the implementation of the management programme must correspond at least to GES. The indicators to be used are those determined by national regulations for the classification of ecological status, as required by the WFD implementation (f.e. phytobenthos, fish, invertebrates ...). Objectives for the local scale are prescribed for every environmental element separately. For example, the objective for fish is to maintain the integrity of habitats for fish as much as possible in its natural state and to conserve rare, vulnerable or endangered species. Objectives are separately defined for HPPs located on heavily modified water bodies and for HPPs on small streams without WFD objectives.

Among prescriptions for HPP certification it is necessary to mention the following requirements:

It is obligatory to prepare a specific protocol for the emptying procedure of the reservoir, taking account of impacts and mitigation measures.

It is obligatory to determine a specific protocol for the responses to emergency situations, taking account of impacts and mitigation measures. The protocol must precisely define the implementation measures/operations in emergencies and under what circumstances they are carried out for a particular site/facility on the basis of quantitative thresholds. In addition, the protocol must include specific and, as far as possible, quantitative directions for the operation and measures (turbidity and other parameters) carried out simultaneously. The values and


indications may derive from similar measures under normal conditions, for example in carrying out the emptying procedure, by regular measuring of turbidity, in correlation with the measurement of flow rates and the degree of sluice opening.

Although the quantitative objectives of environmental quality elements for terrestrial environment, habitat types and priority species are not defined, it is necessary to determine appropriate mitigation and/or compensation measures for significant impacts for which the protection level must not be inferior to the ones required by relevant EU Directives. Particularly in the case of facilities that affect protected areas (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora), it is mandatory to determine mitigation measures in accordance with the guidelines of EU Member States.

Specific requirements for reservoirs were also defined:

Structures of HPP and management practices for the regulation of reservoir water levels must ensure the connection with tributaries.

In the event of sudden changes in water level, they must be addressed so that animals can reach suitable refuge habitats in the reservoir.

When it is not possible to ensure natural sediment transport below the dam, the sediment from the reservoir must be removed where possible and transported downstream to maintain habitats suitable for aquatic and terrestrial fauna and flora.

Reservoir management should maintain maximum potential habitats for autochthonous flora and fauna.

CONCLUSION

The CH2OICE certification procedure developed by the project partners took into account national specifics in terms of energy markets, river characteristics, level of implementation of the WFD and of the RES Directive and is primarily applicable to existing HPPs. In order to evaluate the feasibility of the certification methodology developed for Italy and for Slovenia, the entire set of procedures are currently being applied at real-scale in both countries. The pilot applications are carried out for different types of HPPs and contexts, to highlight possible differences that may influence procedure feasibility and changes needed. In the near future a set of guidelines will be produced, to be used by decision makers during planning and authorization procedures and by HPP proposers in their Environmental Impact Assessment studies.

In the long run, it is expected that the certification will have a positive impact on hydro power generation in Europe, will help focusing the conception of new HPPs towards more sustainable solutions, and will simplify the authorization procedure.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project was financed by Intelligent Energy Agency, Europe. The authors are grateful to all members of the project teams from 7 countries in Europe (Italy, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland) that participated in the CH2OICE project.

REFERENCES Bratrich, C., Truffer, B., Jorde, K., Markard, J., Meier, E., Peter, A., Schneider, M., and B. Wehrli B. 2004. Green hydropower: a newassessment procedure for river management. River Research and Applications. 20: 865882. Bratrich, C., and B. Truffer. 2001. Green Electricity Certification for Hydropower Plants. Concept, procedure, criteria. EAWAG Green Power Publications, issue 7, Switzerland. Communication from the Commission (Brussels, 10.1.2007) to the European Council and the European Parliament - An energy policy for Europe {SEC(2007) 12}. Ecologic. 2007. Issues Paper, Water Framework Directive & Hydropower. Common Implementation Strategy Workshop, Berlin, 4-5 June 2007. EU. 2006. Good practice in managing the ecological impacts of hydropower schemes, flood protection works, and works designed to facilitate navigation under the Water Framework Directive. Available at: http://www.sednet.org/library/library.htm. Accessed 29 April 2010. IHA. 2004. Sustainability Guidelines, UK. Available on IHA site: http://www.hydropower.org/sustainable_hydropower/sustainability_guidelines.html. Accessed 29 April 2010. IHA. 2010. Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (SAP), UK. Available on IHA site: http://www.hydropower.org/sustainable_hydropower/sustainability_guidelines.html. Accessed 1 February 2010. Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Scientific approaches for evaluating hydroelectric project effects. Arcata, California for Hydropower Reform Coalition, Washington, D. C. Available on Hydroreform site: http://www.hydroreform.org/hydroguide/science/scientific-approaches-for-evaluating-hydroelectric-project-effects. Accessed 11 October 2010. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2000. Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy, 2000. Official Journal L 327 , 22/12/2000 P. 0001 0073. Available on European Union site at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html


The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001. Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. Official Journal L 283, 27/10/2001 P. 0033 0040. Available on European Union site at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/renewable_energy/l27035_en.htm The council of European Communities, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0007 0050. Available on European Union site at:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

Documents

METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION IN ITALY AND SLOVENIA