Meeting of the ESHA Governing Board

Meeting of the ESHA Governing Board Renewable Energy House, Brussels, 14 December 2007

Participants Bernhard Pelikan, ESHA, chairman Hugues Albanel, GPAE Jean-Pierre Corbet, HEA-E Vincent Denis, MHyLab Nino, Frosio, APER Sara Gollessi, APER Marko Gospodjinacki, SSHA Petras Punys, LHA Sreten Skuletric, University of Montenegro Janusz Steller, Institute of Fluid-Flow, Machinery, Poland Fiacc O’Brolchain, Irish Hydro Power Association Hubert Zimmer, Renewables for Development Adrian Abbott, BHA, Wendy Lakin, ESHA Christine Lins, ESHA Gema San Bruno, ESHA

Renewables Framework Directive (RFD) The latest draft of the RFD is expected to appear 23rd January 2008 (it was postponed until after Bali). It is understood that it will proposes a binding 20% target by 2020 and will specify measures. Mr Pelikan observed that the target was very ambitious. Negotiations are underway between the Commission and member states on national targets. In the electricity sector the basis for targets is being changed from production to consumption. The commission had dropped its plans for the harmonisation of national support schemes but was looking for flexibility to enable trade in renewable electricity. No country has produced a surplus of renewable electricity and EREC was proposing that trade should only be made on production that would be over and above that needed to meet the national consumption target and only on the basis of REGOs. EREC proposed that trade should be on a national basis not a company basis (Eurelectric supports this approach). EREC will be organising a workshop at the European Sustainable Energy Week at the end of January where Mr Pelikan will present on hydropower.

Water Framework Directive (WFD) ESHA was looking at the issue of disproportionate cost and asked for members support. BHA will send the contribution made to the published DEFRA report on this issue.

Flood Directive The Flood Directive (FD) (Directive 2007/60/EC of 23rd October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks) was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 6th November 2007. It sets a framework of measures that member states should meet. These include:  Preliminary flood risk assessment based on existing information;  Identification of areas of potential significant flood risk;  Preparation of flood hazard and flood risk maps; and  The completion of flood risk management plans by 22nd December 2015. Member states must take measures to bring the FD into force before 26 th December 2009. Clearly the FD and WFD relate at several points:  Development of river basin management plans under the WFD and flood risk management plans under the FD are both elements of integrated river basin management.  The FD refers to the WFD for definitions of “river”, “river basin”, “sub-basin” and “river basin districts” but adds definitions for flood and flood risk that are not included in the WFD.  The FD follows the WFD on the identification and co-ordination of administrative arrangements but member states can nominate different competent bodies.  Flood risk management plans shall take into account the environmental objectives of article 4 of the WFD.  Chapter V of the FD is solely devoted to co-ordination with WFD, public information and consultation. The preamble of the FD states that in cases of multipurpose use of water bodies for different forms of sustainable human activities and the impacts of such use on the water bodies, the WFD provides clear and transparent process for addressing them including possible exemptions from the objectives of “good status” or “non- deterioration” in Article 4 and for cost recovery in Article 9.

Legislation on eels Most members did no have much experience of problems with eels. It was an issue in Ireland and is an issue in the UK. Mr O’Brolchain said that eels were very predictable and move, together as a mass, at very specific times. Eels were very valuable and poaching was a major problem. Board members were invited to inform the Gema San Bruno, ESHA Secretariat, of their national interests and proposal for EU level action.

SHERPA/RESTMAC/SHAPE ESHA, with APER, produced a study “Hydropower and Environment” under SHERPA. it is available on the ESHA website (www.esha.be see projects). Presentations on SHAPES will be put on the website.

Collaboration with industry Discussion on collaboration between ESHA and HEA-Europe were nearing a conclusion. The Board gave Mr Pelikan authority finalise the agreement which should be reached by the end of the year.

China workshop The workshop would take place in the week after Easter 2008. The ESHA Secretariat was awaiting information from the Chinese side. The Board was of the view that Europe would be very unlikely to sell technology to China, opportunities lay in collaboration on management and efficient operations and in third country collaborations. Several members thought that China would need European support to develop further its investment in Africa. One member noted that the European approach to small hydro was on a bespoke basis designing a turbine and infrastructure to suit the site China’s approach in Africa was to supply a large number of uniform turbines. The turbines may not suit individual sites so this approach could only work across the continent; no individual country could cater for the supply.

Hidroenegia - Bled, Slovenia Mr Gospodjinacki, SSHA, outlined progress and repeated the call for papers - the deadline has been extended to 15th January 2008.

ESHA Budget There was a length discussion around the ESHA budget. ESHA, unlike the other European renewable energy organisations was a grouping of associations only; it did not have individual company members. ESHA was very dependent on funding from EU contracts. The possibility of developing training and e-learning courses as a potential income stream would be explored.

British Hydropower Association December 2007