Fact-sheet 5 - Albania - 2550-09/2011
4.1
Ultimate beneficiaries (including gender, ethnic
origin, religion, language, if relevant)
(vi, p. 10) Consumers in the vicinity of the small hydropower stations Stranik & Zall Torre.
(viii) (No connection of the project with Stranik hydropower station could be established).
(vi), (viii)
4.2
Estimated number/ real number
16.000
(Mixing effects of the hydropower project as a whole and the ADA project contribution).
Real beneficiaries: partly inhabitants of the village Zall Torre: (max 250).
(vi) p. 10
4.3
Intermediate beneficiaries / intermediaries
Long‐term and temporary employment.
(vi) p. 10
4.4
Estimated number/ real number
Long‐term: 5‐10 and temporary employment: 40 to 50.
The new station is automated and has 1 engineer and 3 security guards, i.e. 4 persons.
(vi) p. 10
5.
Findings ‐ output level
Explanation
Sources
5.1
What are the planned outputs of this intervention?
1. Capacity development of hydropower experts.
2. Local personnel is trained for operation and maintenance.
3. Required studies and design is done.
4. Local infrastructure (irrigation, emergency water and emergency power supply) is constructed.
(vi) p. 14‐15
6.
Assessment of outcome level
Explanation
Sources
6.1
What are the planned outcomes of the intervention? 1. Awareness raising for small hydropower.
2. Qualification of local personnel.
3. Detailed planning.
4. Community Development.
(vi) p. 9f.
6.2
Did the intervention achieve its planned outcomes? (vii, p. 3‐6) Mostly – some only to 80% as of 31.10.14.
(own) Ad 2+3: normal procedure for every hydropower station.
(viii) Ad 4: financed by Hydroinvest 1, director does not know of ADA contribution.
(vii), own, (viii)
6.3
Were the outcomes formulated in a realistic and
achievable manner?
Yes
6.4
Were there unexpected positive or negative
outcomes of the intervention?
(vii, p. 6) Unexpected: hydropower electricity is not remunerated for a while.
(viii) Now the remuneration has been lowered by government from 0,7€ct/kwh to only 0,45 €ct/kWh, which is not covering the cost any
more.
(vii), (viii)
6.5
On which assumptions were the outcomes based?
Hydropower acceptance will be reached.
Technical start‐up problems do not occur.
Ownership does not create problems for investment.
No unusual drought conditions.
Remuneration is 0,7 €ct/kwh.
(vi) p. 12
6.6
Which risks for the achievement of outcomes were
formulated?
Hydropower acceptance in the population is low.
Technical start‐up problems can create shortage of liquidity.
Unclear ownership can create investment drawbacks.
Long‐lasting drought conditions can create cashflow problems.
(vi) p. 12
6.7
Is the intervention exemplary/ a model for other
interventions, does it form structures and can it be
up‐scaled?
(own) Not really, risks have not been considered sufficiently
There is a very high rate of private investment in hydropower in Albania (without additional monetary support;).
(viii) 70 hydropower plants are in operation (July 15) a further 350 are under construction or planned.
own, (viii)
7.
Assessment of the impact in general
Explanation
Sources
Page 7
Fact-sheet 5 - Albania - 2550-09/2011
7.1
Which is the most important positive impact of the
intervention?
One hydropower plant is well constructed and running as planned, stabilising the electrical grid.
Climate mitigation through electricity generation with renewable energies.
7.2
Which is the most important negative impact of the
intervention?
4,5 km of the river is running with very little water in summer – no regulation, riverflow depends on the “mercy” of hydropower owner.
8.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the key
environmental criteria
Explanation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
8.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention
(positively and negatively) plausibly contribute to
changes in the key criteria ʺenvironmental
protectionʺ, and which external factors contributed
to these changes?
Riverflow in the “dry river arm” (4,5 km long) is not regulated therefore negative environmental impact.
‐2 own
8.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention
(positively and negatively) plausibly contribute to
changes in the key criteria for “sustainable
management of natural resources”, and which
external factors contributed to these changes?
8.3
… ʺreduce conflicts about the use of resourcesʺ
In the contrary: hydropower project has started conflicts regarding the use of the river water.
1 own
8.4
… ʺimprovement of standard of livingʺ
No
8.5
… ʺimproved access to energy and resourcesʺ
Access to energy has improved.
4 own
8.6
… ʺcontribution to climate change adaptation and
mitigationʺ
Hydropower is reducing the CO2 emissions which would have otherwise been produced.
4 own
8.7
… ʺstrengthening of governmental institutions and
civil societyʺ
The founding and management of an Albanian hydropower association has been helpful.
3 own
8.8
… ʺimproved possibility to implement multilateral
environmental agreementsʺ
8.9
… ʺothersʺ
9.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the
thematic operational fields for environment and
development
Explanation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.1
Sustainable natural resource management and
preserving biodiversity
Explanation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.2
Sustainable chemicals and waste management
Explanation
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
Page 8
Dostları ilə paylaş: |