Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum

Consultation Session

World Water Forum Side Event19 March 2009

Istanbul

1

Chair – Brian Richter, The Nature ConservancyIntroductions of Forum members Overview presentation – Helen Locher, Forum

CoordinatorDiscussion of Issues

Forum processForum objectivesProtocol applicationProtocol content

Forum member commentsClosing

2

Session Outline

Initiatives Lifting Performance in the Hydropower Sector

3

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2012

IEA Implementing Agreement for Hydropower

World Commission on Dams

UNEP Dams and Development Project Phase 2

IHA Sustainability Guidelines

IHA Sustainability Assessment Protocol

Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum

Sustainable Hydropower Website

IHA Blue Planet Prize

Eugene Green Energy Standard (Europe-based)

Low Impact Hydropower Institute (North America)

CHOICE Project for green hydropower (Europe)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2012

Phase 1 Phase 2

Phase 1

2011

2011

2008

2008

2010

2010

Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum

The HSAF is a collaboration of representatives from different sectors who aim to develop a broadly endorsed sustainability assessment tool to measure and guide performance in the hydropower sector.

The Forum members are jointly reviewing and recommending enhancements to the IHA Sustainability Assessment Protocol (2006), developed to assess social, environmental and economic performance of hydropower projects and operating facilities against criteria described in the IHA Sustainability Guidelines (2004).

4

Advantages (e.g….)Builds on WCD, DDP and other principles

and policiesBalance across economic, social,

environmental issuesPractical approach to measure sustainabilityContinuous improvement (6 versions since

2003)Strong endorsement by the hydropower

sectorOpportunities (e.g….)Broader ownership and wider applicationBetter meet the needs of other sectorsHarmonisation with other standards Improve on emerging concepts Increase objectivity Improve support info e.g. technical guidance

notes

Why the IHA Sustainability Assessment Protocol?

5

Developing Countries Dr Yu Xuezhong, Institute of Water

Resources and Hydropower Research, PR China

Mr Zhou Shichun, China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group Co., PR China

Mr Israel Phiri, Manager PPI, Ministry of Energy and Water Development, Zambia

Developed Countries Mr Geir Hermansen, Senior Advisor,

Department of Energy, Norad, Norway Prof Gudni A Johannesson, Director

General, National Energy Authority, Iceland

Ms Kirsten Nyman, Policy Advisor for Sustainable Hydropower, GTZ, Germany (observer)

Hydropower Sector Dr Refaat Abdel-Malek, President,

International Hydropower Association Mr Andrew Scanlon, Coordinating

Author, IHA Sustainability Assessment Protocol

NGOs - Environmental Aspects Mr David Harrison, Senior Advisor,

Global Freshwater Team, The Nature Conservancy

Dr Joerg Hartmann, Lead, Dams Initiative, World Wildlife Fund

NGOs - Social Aspects Mr Michael Simon, Lead,

Development Banks/NRM, Oxfam Dr Donal O’Leary, Water Sector

Specialist, Transparency International

Finance Sector - Economic Aspects Ms Courtney Lowrance,

Environmental Specialist, Equator Principles Financial Institutions Group

Ms Daryl Fields, Senior Water Resources Specialist, World Bank (observer)

Forum Chair Mr André Abadie, Sustainable

Finance Ltd.

The members of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum comprise representatives of developed and developing countries, environmental and social NGOs, commercial and development banks and the hydropower sector, with membership guided by the common efforts of IHA, WWF and TNC.

Forum Membership

6

Forum Funding

Initial contributions pledged at the Forum commencement comprise:

German government - £84k Icelandic government - £100k International Hydropower Association - £25kNorwegian government - £250kThe Nature Conservancy - £25k

In kind contributions estimated to total more than £720k

The Forum is seeking additional funds to complete its work programme and enable fuller consultation and trialling on Draft Protocol.

7

Overview of Forum Work Plan – 2008-09 (PHASE 1)

8

Forum Meetings – 2008-09

9

Milestone Reports – 2008-09

10

Proposals Arising from the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum

11

Proposed Protocol Structure

Underpinning Principles

Section I Section II Section III Section IV

Set of Aspects Aspect NameDescriptionPolicy Objective

Objective Evidence

Attributes, Guidance Notes, Scoring Instructions

Principles - a set of core sustainability values that underpin the Protocol

Sections – stand-alone assessment tools relevant to a particular project life cycle stage

Aspects – a set of key sustainability issues to be assessed for each section

Attributes – criteria for each aspect which form the basis for determining sustainability performance on that aspect

Policy objective – identifies what is trying to be achieved

Objective evidence – evidence provided by an auditee and used by an assessor to verify whether and to what degree an attribute has been met

12

Strategic Assessments

Project Operation

Project Preparation

Project Implementation

Commence hydropower project preparation

Award of construction contracts

Project commissioning

Sec I Sec II Sec IVProtocol Sections:

Project Stages:

Decision Points at the end of each project Stage:

Sec III

Proposed Protocol Sections

13

Section II Economic / Technical / Governance Aspects

Section II Social Aspects Section II Environmental Aspects

Demonstrated Need Social Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment

Public Sector Governance Social Management Plan Environmental Management Plan

Transboundary Issues Cultural Heritage Catchment Management

Regulatory Approval Indigenous Peoples & Ethnic Minorities

Reservoir Management

Site Selection and Design Optimisation

Public Health Environmental Flows & Downstream Sustainability

Integrated Project Management Resettlement Biodiversity, Habitats & Protected Areas

Corporate Governance Affected Communities Pest & Invasive Species

Economic Viability Community Acceptance Sedimentation and Erosion

Financial Viability Asset & Community Safety Management of the Hydrological Resource

Labour and Working Conditions

Construction Management Plan Communications

Procurement Project Benefits

Section II – Project Preparation – Proposed Aspects

14

15

ASPECT NAME: SECTION II CULTURAL HERITAGE

DESCRIPTION: This aspect addresses the level of impact and planning for protection and

conservation of tangible and intangible forms cultural heritage. This aspect is important because cultural heritage artefacts can be damaged or lost through the physical landscape changes brought about by hydropower project construction and operation, as well as through associated infrastructure impacts (e.g. new roads, transmission lines). Furthermore, non-physical cultural heritage such as traditions, festivals and rituals can also be impacted through hydropower project impacts to local communities.

INTENT: Cultural heritage is identified, recognised and addressed.

SAMPLE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS: xxx xxx xxx xxx

NOTES ON STANDARD ATTRIBUTES:

xxx

xxx ASPECT SPECIFIC SCORING INSTRUCTIONS: Aspect Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Level of protection of cultural heritage

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

EXAMPLES OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: Heritage impact statements Conservation plans Heritage plans and agreements

CRITERIA TO BE MET FOR ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED NOT APPLICABLE: xxx ASPECT RELEVANCE TO CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES: xxx (xxx means to be filled in)

ASPECT NAME: SECTION II CULTURAL HERITAGE

AUDITORS COMMENTS ON RELEVANCE OF THE ASPECT TO THE PROJECT BEING ASSESSED: SCORE:

Process Attribute Level (1-5)

Auditor’s Comments

Quality of the Assessment Processi

Quality of the Management Planningi

Appropriateness of the Resource Capacityi

Quality of the Consultative Processi

Performance Attribute Level (1-5)

Auditor’s Comments

Level of Stakeholder Supporti

Level of Protection of Cultural Heritageii

i Refer to Standard Attribute Scoring Instructions (pages x-x) plus notes opposite page ii Refer to aspect-specific scoring instructions opposite page OVERALL SCORE:

HIGH AVERAGE LOW NOT APPLICABLE

Uses, Users and Maximising Impact

16

The IHA Sustainability Assessment Protocol (2006) is a voluntary assessment framework of sustainability in the hydropower sector.

Potential applications for the Hydropower

Sustainability Assessment Protocol are broad in terms of who uses it and for what purpose.

How can the hydropower sustainability assessment protocol be used?

17

All sectors providing a common basis for dialogue on sustainability issues. Governments, potential financiers and other decision-makers can use the Protocol to

ensure that new hydropower developments are an appropriate solution for the context in which they are proposed.

Companies, governments, financial institutions and NGOs can all use the Protocol to guide development of new hydropower facilities.

Companies, governments and development agencies to assess the sustainability of existing operations and develop programs for improvement.

NGOs and civil society to evaluate the sustainability of hydropower projects at different life cycle stages and to form a basis for dialogue and for holding operators and financiers to account.

Developers, financial institutions and other investors in assessing the risks of potential investments and as part of due diligence.

The hydropower sector in seeking external qualification for financing from banks, carbon credits (e.g. CDM/JI), renewable energy credits (e.g. RECs), recognition in voluntary markets (e.g. green certificates); and the administrators of these schemes in judging admission

Verification agencies certifying a level of sustainability. Hydropower owners/operators for corporate sustainability management and training

Potential Users and Uses

18

Potential Future Pathways

Sector guidelines

Good Practice Information e.g. the Sustainable Hydro Websitewww.sustainablehydropower.org

Awards & recognition Schemes

Sustainability & performance standards

Capacity building through training

Programs

Hydropower sustainability

certification schemes

Reflected in national and

regional legislation and policies

Reflected in bank safeguards policies

Industry benchmarking

Basis for common stakeholder

dialogue

Admission criteria for specific

markets

19

Obtaining Views of Stakeholders

20

All HSAF members have formal reference groups and/or networks of stakeholders with whom they discuss the HSAF work.

Two open consultation periods are built into the HSAF process:

1. Phase 1: Jan-Feb 2009. Focussed on developing relationships with stakeholders, building understanding of the HSAF process and getting initial feedback on protocol content (Key Components Document).

2. Phase 2: Jul-Aug 2009. Will focus on more detailed protocol content review and the practical application of this assessment tool. This phase will involve regional consultation meetings. A program of trialling the draft revised protocol will be conducted at the same time.

Consultation Strategy

21

>180 people accessed the on-line questionnaire

>80 people submitted partial or full on-line responses

>23 on-line resondents provided detailed comment on individual sections

Majority of on-line respondents were from hydropower sector (companies or consultants) or research organisations, with some banks and inter-governmental organisations also responding. Very few NGOs responded on-line.

The Consultation Consultant put a lot of personal effort into following up with NGOs / civil society to gain an understanding of their issues, through direct emails and phone calls.

Translation of the 5-page HSAF overview document into Spanish to assist the effort to reach non-English speaking NGOs.

Gaps in response largely governments and climate change organisations.

Consultation Phase 1 Outcomes

22

23

THEME ISSUE

Forum Process

•Lack of representation of civil society on HSAF•Forum generally identified as an IHA process not cross-sectoral (seen as positive and negative)

Forum Objectives

•Confusion about whether we’re developing a standard or not•Relation to WCD•Implementation and enforcement

Protocol Application

•4 section structure seen as logical•Many concerns about scoring, how it will work, how complicated it will be, use of weighting•Interest in a minimum requirement to be set•How well it could be scaled to hydropower of various sizes•Adapting/tailoring to individual country circumstances

Protocol Content

•Too many issues and attributes, needs to be simple, don’t mask big issues•Insufficient emphasis or attention on human rights, resettlement, benefit sharing and climate change

Consultation Phase 1 Issues Raised

Chair – Brian Richter, The Nature ConservancyIntroductions of Forum members Overview presentation – Helen Locher, Forum

CoordinatorDiscussion of Issues

Forum processForum objectivesProtocol applicationProtocol content

Forum member commentsClosing

24

Session Outline

Response to Consultation Outcomes Report.

Development of Draft Protocol (June 09)

Consultation and trialling.

Analysis of potential pathways forward, and development of a proposal for a follow up work program.

Development and release of Final Protocol.

Commencement of follow-on phase focussing on implementation pathways.

Next Steps

25

For More Information:www.hydropower.org/sustainable_hydropower/hsaf.html