MAES_PrezentacjaKrak_w_UK

SPLASH in Malopolska

HOPES, DISAPPOINTMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED

by Agnieszka Cahn

What did we hope for?

• Collecting data: flows, river barriers, possible locations, existing plants

• Cooperation of all the actors of Small Hydro sector

• Setting up a formal body advising regional strategy

• Creating a policy for the region and local plans

Why did we hope?

• Significant unused potential for water based energy -12,2 GW

• Big Hydro Plants – 11 GW• Small Hydro Plants – 1,2 GW

Why did we hope?• About 80% of the country’s small

hydro potential is on the Vistula catchment, of which 25% is on the upper Vistula

• There are many old mills and agricultural sluices and about 400 locations have been identified for potential use

• We were meeting enthusiastic investors

• There was a need for change!!!

What has been done?• Cooperation with local and regional

authorities: a questionaire sent to over 200municipalities, visits paid to the mostpromising locations, workshops on smallhydro and renewables in 22 regional authorities, travelling exhibition

What has been done?• Cooperation with the potential investors:

contact list of investors, consultation pointin the Agency Offices, data base of potential sites on the Agency’s web page, data base of equipment producers

What has been done?

• Cooperation with the private investors: new technologies designed

What has been done?

• Contacts with water authorities: Regional Board of Water Economy

• Administration of Agricultural rivers (Plan for water reservoirs locations in Malopolska) – 4 locations have been advised as suitable for small hydroinvestments

What has been done?

• Strategic actions:Blessing of the Malopolska Authorities (Marshall’s patronage over SPLASH)

• A try to set up the Blue Committee withparticipation of the key persons from theregion

What has been done?

• Awareness raising: A nice leaflet has been produced and widely disseminated, a number of articles have been published in the regional press, a series of workshops have been held, majorconferences have been attended topresent SPLASH project

What has been done?A plan for Prądnik Valley: „Cultural Park of water mills on Prądnik river”Visits paid to all the existing mills in the valley, assessing technical potential of water wheels installations on 15 mills.

Disappointments:

Data collection...• Difficult access to data (accidental knowledge)• Good locations are kept secret as this information

is a saleable commodity, private companies charge 1000 euro for finding any location plus 50 euro foreach kW of installed power

• Managing authorities charge for the smallest information about the river

Competition of the main actors...• Water authorities organise a call for

tenders for the best locations and take amonthly cut from the energy producers (some give away 50% of their income),

• New local spatial plans are not ready –many investments cannot get permission

• Water authorities and energy companies invest themselves and keep the good locations secret.

The Blue Committee...

• The Marshal of Malopolska• Kraków and Tarnów energy companies• Small Hydro Big Owners• River authorities• Ourselves (MAES)

The Blue Committee has met only once!

The regional policy for Malopolska...

THERE HAS BEEN NO DETAILED STUDY CARRIED OUT OF SMALL HYDRO POTENTIAL IN MALOPOLSKATHERE HAS BEEN NO POLICY DECIDED

More reasons why• General planning problems in Poland• Long term investment – long pay back time

(some of the water mills – 60 years)• Environmental constraints – large number of

protected areas (67% of the region is under different sorts of legal protection), flooding problems, fish passes, poor reputation of smallhydro (wrong locations in the past)

• Lack of financial aid – (SHP considered asprofitable business)

• Lack of SPLASH money – long delay in the Commission payment

Lesson 1 - conclusions• Local authorities generally have little interest• Local plans are old and not valid. New ones

not yet prepared• Small hydro is not understood or

misunderstood• Knowledge of the background is worse than

poor! (Some sites have a 2km head, atiny streams with a flow of 100l/sec and1m head can produce 100kW!)

Lesson 2 - conclusions

• No aid from the water authorities should be expected (an official letter received saying there is no locations for SHP in the region)

• No regional policy will be prepared in the nearest future (we have to achieve our goals through the local partnerships and international cooperation)

Doing after learning

• Setting up an association of 15 water mill owners in Prądnik Valley (local partners)

• Establishing an open-air museum and installing information panels (in 5 local authorities)

• Issuing the plan for Prądnik in printed version – including CD in Polish and English

Follow up.................................

• A new project which permits local actions until 2007 (Soustenergy – Interreg IIIC)

• Two project ideas submitted to SMART programme: Prądnik Turns to Tourists & Blue Energy Point

More to do...

• Finishing FS for a big-small hydro on the Dunajec River (three plants operating jointly – 2,5 MW) – significant power at last

Dissemination - Publication

• A series of Blue Energy publications: a) SHP guide (in Polish and English), b) Report on technologies (in Polish), c) Report on planning issues (in Polish), d) Plan for Prądnik (in Polish and English plus a visual presentation on a CD attached)

Web site

• All the SPLASH documents produced• Electronic versions of all the publications• SPLASH data bases (producers, managers,

investors, locations)

www.maes.pl