Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Introduction to break-out groups

&

draft questionnaire for case study

inter-comparison

Eleftheria Kampa, Ecologic Institute

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

2 breakout groups for discussion

2

Group

Case studies

Moderator

Rapporteur Room

A

CS1. Low head run-of-river HPP with water abstraction and ponding effect

CS4. High head HPP with storage in (artificial) lake reservoir in high altitude mountains

Veronika Koller Kreimel,

AT

E. Kampa, Ecologic Small room

B

CS2. Low head run-of-river in-stream HPP with ponding (impoundment)

CS3. Large scale HPP with storage in lake reservoir with discharge into river

Jo Halleraker, NO

Sebastian Döbbelt-Grüne,

DE

J. Rouillard, Ecologic Plenary room

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Aim of breakout groups

Share knowledge and experience on measures

which are considered relevant to mitigate impacts in

storage-affected stretches

Exchange views on relevant criteria and issues being

considered for selecting & ruling out mitigation

measures (e.g. due to significant effects on use)

Identify gaps in the information provided so far on the

case studies and items which should be added to the

draft country questionnaire on mitigation measures

for defining GEP

3

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Workplan of breakout groups

Different CS addressed but similar impacts discussed

in both groups

Discussions with active contribution from all

participants (approach & material explained in groups)

Day 1 (1,5h): Focus on CS1 & CS2

Day 2 (2 x1,5h): Focus on CS4 & CS3 and

summarise key conclusions from group discussion

Day 2 (13:30): Rapporteur from each group will

present briefly key conclusions in plenary

4

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Some questions for discussion on each case

1. Which MM would you take into account to significantly

improve a situation similar to the case study?

2. Would the MM be relevant in all cases or be dependent

on scale and other physical factors?

3. Which MM would you rule out (e.g. due to significant

adverse effects on use or wider environment) and why?

4. What information do you need from the case study to

explain your reasons for ruling out specific measures?

5. How do you consider cost- effectiveness, environmental

benefits and sustainability of measures?

6. What questions / criteria to add to draft questionnaire to

cover all possible reasons for selecting & ruling out MM?

5

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Draft county questionnaire on GEP measures

To collect information from countries on:

How their methods for general definition of GEP are used to

select & ruling out MM for situations similar to the case

studies on storage

Which ecological improvements are expected from MM

selected

Which reasons are used for ruling out MM for different

impacts

First draft questionnaire circulated to you on 7 Feb 2017

Draft questionnaire to be further developed after the

workshop taking into account discussions in Vienna

Next discussion of questionnaire at ECOSTAT, 4-6 April

2017

6

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Linkage of draft questionnaire to case studies

A separate questionnaire to be filled for each case study

relevant to storage impacts & situations in your country

7

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Questions for each stretch of case study

Q1. Which mitigation measures would you select and which

mitigation measures would you rule out in the stretches

impacted by water storage in this specific case study?

Impact on use - scenario 1, 2, 3

Q2. Which improvement to ecological functions is

expected from the measures selected for GES or GEP

achievement (even if measure is not implemented due

to disproportionate costs)?

Q3, 4 …tbd

Fore example: would the selected measure not be

implemented due to disproportionate costs?

Costs- scenario 1, 2, 3

8

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

9

Go to spreadsheet

columns for stretch 1

Example

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

One response possible (drop-down list):

1. Selected to achieve GES

2. Selected for GEP

3. Not selected because another measure is preferred to

deliver the same ecological function

4. Ruled out due to technical infeasibility

5. Ruled out due to significant adverse effect on use or wider

environment (fill in also Qx - tbd)

6. Ruled out due to another reason (please explain in next

column)

7. Excluded due to disproportionate costs (fill in also Qy -tbd)

8. Measure not relevant (impact not present or no fish zone)

10

Q1. Which mitigation measures would you select and which mitigation

measures would you rule out in the stretches impacted by water storage

in this specific case study?

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Question should be answered also for measures which

are not implemented due to disproportionate costs

Open-ended response (qualitative or quantitative

description of ecological improvement)

Expected improvement to ecological functions should be

indicated for each affected BQE

11

Q2. Which improvement to ecological functions is expected from the

measures selected for GES or GEP achievement?

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

12

Example

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Further development of questionnaire…

Pending to develop sheets with questions and response

options on:

Ruling out of measures due to significant adverse

effects on use or wider environment

Exclusion of measures due to disproportionate

costs

Information exchange on relevant criteria and aspects

to be considered in this workshop

Existing questions and response options in draft

questionnaire may also be revised after workshop

13

Ecologic Institute

ecologic.eu

Ecologic Institute

Pfalzburger Str. 43/44

10717 Berlin

Germany

Tel. +49 (30) 86880-0

ecologic.eu

Thank you for your attention

Dr. Eleftheria Kampa

Eleftheria.kampa@ecologic.eu

14