PRO EEDINGS OF THE JOINT NETWORKING...

PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT NETWORKING WORKSHOP

WITH PARTICIPANTS OF ALL TARGET COUNTRIES

Belgrade, Serbia

January 30-31, 2018

Project Title: Bioenergy Villages (BioVill) - Increasing the Market Uptake of Sustainable Bioenergy Grant Agreement N° 691661

Deliverable N° 3.5 Proceedings of the joint networking workshop

Lead Partner: Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities - SKGO

Submission date: February 28, 2018

BioVill – D3.5 Proceedings of the joint networking workshop

3

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme

under Grant Agreement N° 691661

Imprint

This document is issued by the consortium formed for the implementation of the BioVill project under Grant Agreement N° 691661 by the following partners: GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (Germany) WIP – Wirtschaft und Infrastruktur GmbH & Co Planungs- KG (Germany) KEA - Klimaschutz- und Energieagentur Baden-Württemberg (Germany) AEA – Österreichische Energieagentur Austrian Energy Agency (Austria) REGEA – Regionalna Energetska Agencija Sjeverozapadne Hrvatske (Croatia) SDEWES-Skopje – International Centre for Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems - Macedonian Section (Macedonia) GEA – Asociatia Green Energy (Romania) GIS – Gozdarski Institut Slovenije (Slovenia) SKGO – Stalna Konferencija Gradova i Opstina (Serbia) Lead Partner for the compilation of this document: Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities

Contact: Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities Makedonska 22 11000 Belgrade Serbia Tel: +381 11 3223446 Fax: +381 11 3221215 E-mail: [email protected] Authors of this report: Ljubinka Kaludjerovic, Jana Pavlovic, Miodrag Gluscevic (SKGO); Jens Adler (GIZ); Martin Höher, Herbert Tretter (AEA); Martina Krizmanić, Valerija Vrček (REGEA); Vasil Bozhikaliev, Natasha Markovska (SDEWES); Tihamér Sebestyen (GEA); Darja Kocjan, Nike Krajnc (GIS); Konstanze Stein (KEA). Copyrights: © 2016 by authors. No part of this work may be reproduced by print, photocopy or any other means without the permission in written from the main authors. Disclaimer: Neither GIZ nor any other consortium member nor the authors will accept any liability at any time for any kind of damage or loss that might occur to anybody from referring to this document. In addition, neither the European Commission nor the Agencies (or any person acting on their behalf) can be held responsible for the use made of the information provided in this document. Further information about the BioVill project on: www.biovill.eu

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.biovill.eu/


3

Content

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Abbreviations and acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.1 The BioVill project ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Scope of the task/deliverable ................................................................................................................... 7

2. List of participants ....................................................................................................................................... 8

3. Joint networking workshop agenda ........................................................................................................... 10

4. Presentation of the target bioenergy villages ............................................................................................ 11

4.1 Kostojevići, Serbia .................................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Perušić, Croatia ........................................................................................................................................ 11

4.3 Lekenik, Croatia ....................................................................................................................................... 12

4.4 Kichevo, Macedonia ................................................................................................................................ 12

4.5 Estelnic, Romania ..................................................................................................................................... 12

4.6 Ghelinţa, Romania ................................................................................................................................... 12

4.7 Dole pri Litiji, Slovenija ............................................................................................................................ 13

5. Findings from the group work ................................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Group 1 - Technology issues ................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Group 2 - Organizational issues & business models .............................................................................. 15

5.3 Group 3 - Economic and financial issues ................................................................................................ 16

5.4 Group 4 - Social and environmental aspects, political support ............................................................ 18

6. Summary of guest presentations............................................................................................................... 19

6.1 GIZ DKTI Bioenergy programme ............................................................................................................. 19

6.2 GGE ESCO Company ................................................................................................................................ 19

7. Pictures ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

8. Evaluation of the joint workshop............................................................................................................... 22

9. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 23


4

List of Figures

Figure 1. Opening session ...................................................................................................................................................21

Figure 2. Plenary session .....................................................................................................................................................21

Figure 3. Working group 2 ..................................................................................................................................................21



Figure 6. Group photo .........................................................................................................................................................21


5

List of Tables

Table 1. List of participants ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Findings of the Group 1 - Technology issues .......................................................................................................15

Table 3. Findings of the Group 2 - Organizational issues & business models ..................................................................15

Table 4. Findings of the Group 3 - Economic and financial issues ....................................................................................17

Table 5. Findings of the Group 4 - Social and environmental aspects, political support ................................................18


6

Abbreviations and acronyms

DHC District Heating Company DKTI German Climate Technology Initiative EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIB European Investment Bank ESCO Energy Service Company GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH GIZ DKTI GIZ managed project of the German Climate Technology Initiative IPA Instrument of pre-accession assistance IPARD Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development kW Kilowatt LSG Local Self-government PPP Public Private Partnership PUC Public Utility Company WB World Bank WebGEFF Western Balkans Green Energy Financing facilities WebSEFF Western Balkan Sustainable Energy Financing Facility

https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/30600.html


7

1. Introduction

1.1 The BioVill project

BioVill is a three years project supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme with a budget of around 1.99 Mio EUR. The project started in March 2016 and is implemented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH in collaboration with 8 partners from the BioVill target partner countries Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia, as well as from Germany and Austria. Many South East European countries have high biomass potentials, but they are often not or only inefficiently used for local energy supply and regional economic development. Thus, the overall objective of the BioVill project is to support the development of regional bioenergy concepts and the establishment of bioenergy villages in Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia. This will be achieved by identifying suitable biomass value chains according to local and regional needs and transferring existing experiences in Austria, Germany and other European countries to the South-Eastern European partners. Thereby the market uptake of domestic bioenergy supply chains will be increased and the role of locally produced biomass as a main source of energy supply and added value for the local and regional economy will be strengthened. Core activities of the BioVill project include national and local framework analyses, technological and economic assessments of local bioenergy value chains, development of the institutional set-up and energy management concepts for the potential Bioenergy villages as well as capacity building on financing schemes and business models. As a key factor of success, the BioVill project uses a multi stakeholder approach fostering the involvement and active participation of the citizens and all relevant stakeholders in the planning and implementation process. Major results of the BioVill project will be the initiation of at least five bioenergy villages in the target partner countries up to the investment stage for physical infrastructure, the raise of public acceptance and awareness of a sustainable bioenergy production and its commercial opportunities as well as increased capacities of users and key actors in business and legislation to sustainably manage bioenergy villages and to enact national and EU legislation. Altogether the BioVill project will contribute to the expansion and sustainability of the bioenergy markets in Europe and the European Union.

1.2 Scope of the task/deliverable

In order to share the experiences on the implementation of the BioVill project and the bioenergy village concept between the bioenergy working groups and other related stakeholders from the target villages a joint networking workshop with participants of all target countries and all project partners was organized by SKGO in January 2018 in Belgrade. The objectives of the joint networking workshop agreed between the project partners were:

to establish a functioning network among the stakeholders of the partner villages and thus, strengthen the ownership for the bioenergy projects,

to foster exchange of experiences & best practice examples among the involved partner villages and to identify similar challenges and lessons learnt for potential solutions.

This report summarizes the proceedings of the joint networking workshop, e.g. the number and list of participants and speakers, the agenda of the workshop and key topics addressed, a summary of the presentations given and a conclusion from the discussions performed.


8

2. List of participants

All together 40 participants attended the joint networking workshop on 30th and 31st January. The participants included representatives of the 7 target villages (e.g. members of the bioenergy working groups, political decision makers, staff of local public administration and public utility companies, entrepreneurs etc.), the BioVill project partners and experts from the Serbian Environmental Protection Ministry, the GIZ DKTI Biomass Project and GGE ESCO Serbia. All participants provided their written consent, that their contact data might be used and processed within the BioVill project and shall be circulated to the other participants of the workshop. The list of participants is presented below.

No.# Country Title First Name Last name Organisation

1 Austria Mr. Martin Höher AEA

2 Austria Mr. Herbert Tretter AEA

3 Croatia Ms. Martina Krizmanić REGEA

4 Croatia Ms. Valerija Vrček Habazin REGEA

5 Croatia Ms. Viktorija Majcen The Municipality of Lekenik

6 Croatia Ms. Branka Jurišić The Municipality of Lekenik

7 Croatia Ms. Nada Marijanović The Municipality of Perušić

8 Croatia Mr. Mihael Kurteš The Municipality of Perušić

9 Germany Ms. Konstanze Stein KEA

10 Germany Mr. Jens Adler GIZ

11 Macedonia Mr. Vasil Bozhikaliev SDEWES-Skopje

12 Macedonia Mr. Tino Aleksov Municipality of Kichevo

13 Macedonia Mr. Nikola Tanevski Regional Forest Service Lopushnik

14 Macedonia Mr. Zoran Kaceski Grande Tini

15 Romania Mr. Botond Ilyes Vicemayor of Ghelinta Village

16 Romania Mr. Arnold Cseh Village of Ghelinta

17 Romania Mr. Csaba Cseh Entrepreneur, Ghelinta

18 Romania Mr. Attila Varga Village manager, Estelnic

19 Romania Mr. Sandor Tamas Counselor, Ghelinta

20 Romania Mr. Ferenc Domokos Mayor, Estelnic

21 Romania Ms. Imola Bodo Village clerk, Estelnic

22 Romania Mr. Tihamer Sebestyen GEA

23 Serbia Ms. Dragana Ivanovic Municipality of Bajina Basta

24 Serbia Ms. Zorica Dekic Eko Frutini doo

25 Serbia Mr. Nenad Lecic Municipality of Bajina Basta

26 Serbia Mr. Slobodan Mitrovic MZ Kostojevici

27 Serbia Mr. Velimir Radovanović BB Term

28 Serbia Ms. Ankica Barbulov GGE ESCO Serbia

29 Serbia Ms. Milica Vukadinovic GIZ DKTI

30 Serbia Ms. Marijana Nikolic GIZ DKTI

31 Serbia Dr Slobodan Cvetkovic Serbian Ministry of Environmental Protection

32 Serbia Ms. Ljubinka Kaludjerovic SKGO

33 Serbia Ms. Jana Pavlovic SKGO

34 Serbia Mr. Dejan Ivezic SKGO, consultant

35 Serbia Mr. Slobodan Jerotoc SKGO, consultant


9

36 Serbia Mr. Miodrag Gluscevic SKGO

37 Slovenia Ms. Darja Kocjan Slovenian Forestry Institute

38 Slovenia Mr. Jože Prah Slovenia Forest Service

39 Slovenia Ms. Irena Bostič Village Dole pri Litiji

40 Slovenia Mr. Mak Dušan Village Dole pri Litiji

Table 1. List of participants


10

3. Joint networking workshop agenda

In the following, the realized workshop agenda is presented. Day 1 - Tuesday, January 30, Moderator: Miodrag Gluščević, SKGO

Day 2 - Wednesday, January 31, Moderator: Miodrag Gluščević, SKGO

12.30 Lunch

Session 1: Opening and introductions

13.30 Welcome speech

Dr Slobodan Cvetkovic, Ministry of Environment of Serbia

13.45 Introduction to the Workshop (project team, objectives, working methods, expected results)

Jens Adler, GIZ

Session 2: Presentation of the Bioenergy Target Villages

14.00 Presentation of seven selected Bioenergy Target Villages

10 minutes per village

Structure of the presentation (max. 3-4 slides):

- Basic facts about the village - Goals of the Bioenergy Target Village - Technological & business model concept (technology, institutional setup, economics and financing)

15.30 Coffee break

Session 3: Discussion in working groups on challenges, success factors and future steps

16.00 Introductory remarks, Miodrag Gluščević, SKGO

16.15 Group work on four tables:

- Table 1: Technology issues, moderator: Martin Höher, AEA - Table 2: Business and organizational models, moderator: Konstanze Stein, KEA - Table 3: Economic and financial issues, moderator: Herbert Tretter, AEA - Table 4: Social and environmental aspects, political support and other issues, Jana Pavlović, SKGO

17.45 Closing of the day 1

19.30 Joint dinner

Session 4: Plenary session - findings from group work

8.30 Reflections on the day 1 and introduction to the Day 2

9.00 Presentation of group work

10 min presentation per table by reports from each table

9.40 Discussion

10.00 Coffee break

Session 5: Presentation of complementary bioenergy projects

10.30 Presentation of related bioenergy project in Serbia:

- GIZ DKTI, Milica Vukadinović, project development component manager - GGE ESCO, Ankica Barbulov, Director

11:00 Questions and answers

11.30 Most important findings and closing of the Workshop

12.15 Lunch and departure of the participants


11

4. Presentation of the target bioenergy villages

After opening and introductions first working session was dedicated to short presentation of each of seven target bioenergy villages from five target countries. The goal of this session was to familiarize all participants of the Joint Workshop with current stage of the projects and situation, potentials, strategic objectives, barriers and future steps in seven participating villages.

4.1 Kostojevići, Serbia

Target bioenergy village Kostojevici was presented by Ms. Dragana Ivanovic, environmental inspector from the municipality of Bajina Basta and local support to SKGO project team. Kostojevici village located in Municipality of Bajina Basta in Western Serbia has 413 inhabitants and 142 households. It is a village situated in area rich in forest but also agriculture biomass that has a district heating system using crude oil as fuel. It is the only village in Serbia that already has in place district heating system which consists of two 750 kW crude oil boilers located in the boiler-house in the school yard and 2.9 km long network to which two public objects are connected (school and health care center) as well as 26 residential units. Techno-economic analysis have shown that fuel switch is possible if additional customers would connect or re-connect to the grid. Political support at the municipal level for the fuel switch and transition to bioenergy village exist, still none of the local actors have taken over full ownership of this process. Possible organizational and business model for Kostojevici are: Energy cooperative that would be founded by interested citizens of Kostojevići and which would take over

management of the DH system; Public Utility Company “BB TERM” continues to operate the DH system and invest in replacement of the boiler

and switch to wood biomass and further development of system PPP between local or regional ESCO and Municipality of Bajina Basta In next steps business model needs to be agreed upon and financial options should be investigated, in that respect meetings with local, regional, national and international partners will be organized.

4.2 Perušić, Croatia

Perusic is located in the central part of the County of Lika-Senj with around 2,638 inhabitants with 19 settlements. It has high biomass potential and wood-based industries are present in the municipality. Perusic is asmall municipality with huge desire to set up district heating system on renewables. A locally based company is already engaged in the production of pellets and has ambitions to build a cogeneration biomass heating plant. Goal of Perusic is to supply all public buildings with heat from renewable energy sources. Replacement of energy sources in public sector would strengthen the local and regional economic development and reduce energy costs. It would add to keeping money spent for energy within the local economy and increase the local employment opportunities. Perusic goals also include reduction of the carbon footprint, improvement of the protection of citizens’ health, environment preservation and improvement of local conditions for higher quality of life. There are to possible business scenarios in Perusic. One includes stand- alone biomass-based DH system with only heat production and the other industrial biomass-based CHP plant with production of heat and electrical power. Due to current unclear situation on available subsidies neither the municipality nor the locally based private entrepreneurs and businesses can with certainty make decision on the actual possible investment. The design of the project documentation is currently in progress. Financing options that are at the moment most favorable for Perusic are public private partnership in heat production between private partner, national funds (regional, local), EU funds and programmes, and loans from the development banks (Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development) for the investment in the renovation of district heating network and heat


12

production facilities. Since HEP Toplinarstvo, national utility company owns the network and facilities, the part of the financing can come from their own funds but also from private company Viševica Energo.

4.3 Lekenik, Croatia

Lekenik is located in the northern part of the Sisak-Moslavina County, in the central part of Croatia and has population of 6.043 inhabitants. It has high biomass potential (9,062 ha of forests) and wood-based industries located in the municipality. Main goal of Lekenik is to shift energy production in public buildings from fossil energy sources to the renewable energy sources and introduce DH system to supply public buildings with heat. Other goals include increase of energy self-sufficiency of the village and strengthening of local and regional economic development. Next steps for Lekenik include design of the project documentation, cooperation with the SOS Children Village, exploration of the most favorable options for financing of the DH project, continuous communication and engagement of the Working Group and continuous awareness raising among the citizens by involving them in the project activities.

4.4 Kichevo, Macedonia

Kichevo is situated in the western part of the Republic of Macedonia and has around 57.000 citizens. Challenges that the municipality is facing are high energy consumption, outdated energy infrastructure, high environmental pollution and economic stagnation. Energy sources used in Kichevo are firewood, electricity from coal and heating oil. Thus, the main goal of Kichevo is to introduce a bioenergy village approach and transform the energy system in a densely populated settlement with a high heat demand called “Lozhionica”. This settlement has area of approximately 0.5 km2 and a population of around 3.000 residents and as many students. Kichevo’s technical concept envisages implementation of a three-phase biomass district heating system: Phase 1 – connection of four public buildings (schools and kindergarten); Phase 2 – connection of seven old residential buildings (240 households); and Phase 3 – connection of two new residential buildings (40 households). Currently, the most viable option for Kichevo is Phase 1, for which adequate business model could be Public Enterprise or Public-Private Partnership. Financing for the Phase 1 could be provided by credit lines, national funds and programs. The Phase 2 and 3 (residential buildings) are sensitive and key factors for their successful implementation are the communication and dissemination of the Phase 1 positive results.

4.5 Estelnic, Romania

Estelnic is situated in the North-East of Covasna County, Romania, at the foot of the Eastern Carpathians with 1.190 inhabitants in 403 households. The village is mostly surrounded by forests (6.058 ha) and has an active wood processing industry with developed wood value chains and high potential of wood residues. Wood is still the most important energy source. The current heat supply is ensured by traditional mostly inefficient wood stoves and a few biomass boilers. In a first step the municipality installed already a biomass based micro-grid for serving several local council buildings with heat and hot water. Future activities will primarily focus on expanding the heating grid in the center of the village and using the available wood residues more effectively. The most important heat consumer in this concept can be the textile producer with about 800 employees. Another focus area is replacing inefficient small-scale heating systems in remote areas to improve the living conditions.

4.6 Ghelinţa, Romania

Ghelinţa is located in Covasna County in a distance of 30 km from Estelnic. The villages are similar in their energy supply structure and regional conditions. Ghelinţa consists of 1,895 buildings and a population of 4,722 inhabitants in 1,710 households. The heating infrastructure of most households is based on small central heating systems, hearths and stoves fired by local wood sources. The institutional buildings are generally heated by classical fire


13

wood boilers. The modernization of the heating infrastructure aims towards more comfort and higher efficiency. Electricity is currently not produced on local base. Remaining residues and forest residues may be sufficient to meet the demand. The forest area within the municipality is about 6.430 ha and a considerable local wood processing industry produce wood products for the domestic market and for export. From this perspective, the intelligent management of unused local wood resources are the key issue for developing the local energy infrastructure. Beside efficient use of side products, Ghelința is planning create new value chains based on sustainable forest management and mobilize wood residues.

4.7 Dole pri Litiji, Slovenija

Presentation was given by Ms. Darja Kocjan from Slovenian Forestry Institute. The municipality of Litija is situated in the western part of the Posavje hills in the center of Slovenia. The local community Dole pri Litiji is part of the municipality of Litija. It has a rich cultural and historical heritage. Above all, this local community is maintaining and implementing the traditional way of producing coal from wood, which also gives them the name of Charcoal Land – Oglarska dežela. In the local community Dole pri Litiji facilities are heated individually. Dole pri Litiji has 45 households and 126 inhabitants. The BioVill project in Dole is supported by important local stakeholders (Mayor of the Municipality Litija, local enterpreneurs and citizens). Construction of new firehouse in the settlement is the main driving force behind the bioenergy concept and transition. Reconstruction of infrastructure (sewage, electricity, interne) in Dole is planned for 2018, which should also include construction of district heating system. Biomass district heating will be the initial step towards energy independence and self-sufficiency, which should be followed with ideas about windmills and biogas co-generation plant. In Dole pri Litiji, there are several operating sawmills. Forest owners are well equipped with adapted forest tractors as well as with tractors with semi-trailers for transport of wood and chips. The local community Dole pri Litiji is already working on the development of the area, supported by a locally based initiative. Since the majority of the households are individually heated using fire wood, the inhabitants are keen to implement the BioVill project in order to use local wood biomass in more efficient way.


14

5. Findings from the group work

Group discussions and subsequent presentation of the findings in a plenary session represent a central part of the workshop bearing in mind main objectives of this activity, which were: establishing functioning network among the stakeholders of the partner villages; forester exchange of experiences and best practice examples among the involved partner villages; and identify similar challenges and lessons learnt for potential solutions. The group work was focused on four specific topics, and the agreed guiding principles for the group work were as follows: Working groups shall enable participants to identify similar challenges and potential solutions, the presentation

of the WG results to the plenum will ensure the sharing of information with all participants (objectives of the workshop);

Country/village groups will split up to allow participation at all topic tables and to ensure (almost) similar size of working groups;

Moderators at the topic tables will provide a short introduction to the task and questions, will steer the discussion so that all participants will be able to present their ideas, solutions & questions, will focus the discussion on the topic and the guiding questions, will identify a rapporteur and presenter in the group and ensure presentable results;

Working group participants will introduce themselves shortly, will focus their statements, comments and questions to the topic of the table and to the guiding questions;

Guiding questions for the group discussions were prepared in advance to start and streamline the discussion at the topic tables. An overview of the working group topics, moderators, guiding questions and its findings is given below:

5.1 Group 1 - Technology issues

Moderator: Martin Höher, AEA Guiding questions: 1. What is the current stage of development in your villages concerning technological solutions for the planned

biomass-based district heating network? 2. What are the major bottlenecks/challenges in planning/implementing the selected technical solutions? 3. Which potential solutions do you envisage to overcome the identified challenges? Are they interesting also for

other villages? Major findings:

Major challenges identified through discussion

Potential solutions to identified hurdles

Lack of biomass producers

Incentives for biomass producers Decrease and more competitive price of the biomass

Equipment for biomass production and/or extraction not locally produced

Increase in demand for biomass could induce domestic production of equipment

Increased knowledge and awareness levels with local producers of equipment and machinery

Low availability of funding for biomass projects

Increase awareness and capacity to apply and use EU financing

Make local financing more attractive and local banks aware of this market

Increase discussions with international and national financing institutions about possible credit lines, for example with EBRD or National governments

Lack of coordination between biomass producers Development of bioenergy projects


15

Make financing available for biomass producers Including biomass producers in early stages of the

projects

Low energy efficiency - high costs in distribution and at end users side

Look for the schemes for improving energy efficiency Connecting biomass project with climate change

mitigation issues

High costs of preparation Bio fuels

Sharing the machinery and lowering the costs Incentives for investments in bio fuel production

Lack of capacities at the local level

Trainings and capacity building programs Development of new projects Increased sharing of good examples from Europe and

the region

Insufficient heat load of grids

Ensure sufficient consumers Increase number of consumers Smart planning

Fuel quality vs. boiler size quality Adequate project planning and sizing of technical elements

Table 2. Findings of the Group 1 - Technology issues

5.2 Group 2 - Organizational issues & business models

Moderator: Konstanze Stein, KEA Guiding questions: 1. What is the current stage of business model design and what would be the preferred organizational and

management concept in your village (e.g. cooperative, public utility or PPP)? What are the reasons for the decision?

2. What are the major bottlenecks/challenges in planning/implementing the selected option for the business model and organizational/management concept?

3. Which potential solutions do you envisage to overcome the identified challenges? Are they interesting also for other villages?

Major findings: After the discussion in which participated representatives of four target villages, the following options for business models were discussed:

Target village

Identified business model

Perusic (Croatia)

PPP where private partner is investing in heat production and the municipality in network and distribution

Lekenik (Croatia)

Business model include cooperation between Municipality, SOS children village and the Public Utility Company

Dole pri Litji (Slovenia)

Joint venture between municipality, citizens, and small private companies. The Municipality is supporting but not willing to manage /operates the DH system.

Another possible option is that the system is operated by a private company.

Kostojevici (Serbia) System is operated by the PUC or private operator and the citizens/customers contribute by delivered their own wood to the plant for what they are compensated in heat (this would motivate new connections and re-connecting to the grid)

Table 3. Findings of the Group 2 - Organizational issues & business models


16

However, the discussions in the villages are still ongoing and the business models are not finally defined yet. Since local stakeholders do not have experience in implementing such complex projects, the most appropriate business model for the target villages seems to be at the moment, to involve an experienced private partner or a public utility company. Furthermore it was stated, that many citizens (potential heat consumers) in the target villages are owners of the surrounding forests (local biomass). Thus, it was suggested, that the payment schemes for the delivered heat should take into consideration the possibility, that the heat consumers can pay part of their heat consumption in-kind, by delivering woody biomass to the DH system.

Moreover, the group discussed the advantages and disadvantages of possible business models on the basis of the specific preconditions in the single villages. The discussion focused on the financing of the investments, on the potential risks for the investors and on the next steps in the preparation and decision making process.

At the end of the discussion, the group draw the following general conclusions and recommendation:

There is a need for greater transparency in the development process of local policies, all stakeholders have to be able to bring in their views at public consultations and policy-making events to make sure those policies are not made “behind closed doors”;

Most of the current implemented activities and projects have shown that experts are rare (e.g. for engineering, cost calculation, construction, operation etc.). Target villages in cooperation with relevant cooperation partners such as National Chambers of mechanical engineers or technical Universities, should require systematic education for designers of technical systems according to their needs/know how design a biomass plant;

The biggest obstacle to launch the project and the construction of a larger number of DH systems based on biomass in smaller communities is the lack of appropriate financial incentive mechanisms. Thus, the target villages together with their counties should carry out political initiatives to request from the government national programs which co-finance EU structural funds and support the implementation of biomass-based DH heating plants and systems and other sustainable and renewable energy technologies to be applied in bioenergy villages.

In countries where a biomass market does not exist yet, the initiators should cooperate with local stakeholders and interest groups to develop a local wood biomass supply-chain. This includes procurement of wood from local forests owners and/or wood processing industries. The local forest owners could supply the DH plant with their own biomass and either receive heat for a lower price or receive income for the delivery of the biomass. This would create new economic activities in the region and thus provide an additional benefit of the new biomass DH plant. Creating new business opportunities and new jobs is also very important for most of the villages as a key issue for reversing the negative population trend.

Besides that, other additional values emerge by setting up bioenergy villages. Regional economic tasks are linked with the preparation activities in the villages such as development of the tourism, improvement of the technical infrastructure or to create an understanding and willingness among the citizens for joint actions and a more intense cooperation.

5.3 Group 3 - Economic and financial issues

Moderator: Herbert Tretter, AEA Guiding questions: 1. What is the current stage of calculations and discussions on the economic and financial aspects in your villages? 2. What are the major economical bottlenecks/challenges in establishing and financing the planned district heating

system in your villages? 3. Which potential solutions do you envisage to overcome the identified challenges? Are they interesting also for

other villages? Overview of the current situation: High investment costs in the analytical phase Further investigation required No/or limited subsidies (ex. Romania) for district heating and in-house distribution system Competition with individual electric heaters and fossil fuels and firewood High energy consumption because of poor energy quality of houses No subsidies for the first task: Energy efficiency measures Low access to loans and high interest rates – result: high district heat prices


17

Major findings:



Financial risks (loan capital)

State guaranty fund

Consumer attitude

Information show-how study tours commitment of politicians

Stable and predictable running costs

Long-term fuel supply contracts High quality of planning and implementation

Stable heat demand

Energy efficiency measures first Long-term contracts for consumers

Limited equity and limited credit worthiness Access to international funds Crowdfunding Combination with other infrastructure

investment

Table 4. Findings of the Group 3 - Economic and financial issues The example of the situation in Croatia illustrates the discussion in the group. In Croatia the key strategic document regarding biomass heating is the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP), which was adopted in 2013 by the Croatian Government and which addresses the utilisation of all renewables for three main sectors (electricity, heat, transport). Therefore, no other specific biomass heating related plans or strategies exists at the national level. One of the key barriers related to the utilisation of biomass for heating in Croatia is the current relatively low price of fossil fuels. According to Eurostat data for 2017, the average price of natural gas for households in Croatia was 0.036 EUR per kWh, which is among the lowest in EU countries1. This low fossil fuel price makes most of the biomass-based heating projects economically non-competitive compared to fossil fuels without some form of subsidies. In the past subsidies for biomass heating projects were available from two main sources: Environment Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (EPEEF), which provided subsidies for renewable energy

projects (including biomass) to local and regional authorities, but also households. The subsidy programs run by

the Fund was stopped in 2016;

IPARD pre-accession programme, which Croatia had access to before its accession to the EU in July 2013, and

which included subsidies for small cities/municipalities for implementing (among others) biomass heating

projects. In the current Operational Programme of Rural Development 2014-2020 (the continuation of the

IPARD programme) no subsidies for biomass heating for cities/municipalities is foreseen.

The Croatian NREAP includes two specific measures which foresee providing financial support for heating and cooling from renewables (including biomass), namely: 1) Measure ‘Stimulating the production of heat/cooling energy from RES’, listed as planned from 2015 onward;

2) Measure ‘Stimulating the use of RES among legal entities’, listed as ongoing from 2008

Currently both measures are not implemented and there is no information available regarding their possible implementation in future. At the time of the adoption of the NREAP, the Ministry of Economy was in charge of its preparation and implementation. However, since 2017 this has been changed and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEE) is now responsible. MEE has started the process of revision of the National Energy Strategy, since the current Energy Strategy of the Republic of Croatia has been adopted in 2009, and most information is outdated already. However, almost no information is available regarding the revised law at this time. The general awareness of the benefits of biomass heating projects (including its social and economic benefits at the local level) among decision makers at the local and regional level is relatively high and can be judged as satisfying. Many of the local strategic documents (i.e. SEAPs - Sustainable Energy Action Plans, developed for Croatian cities) and regional strategic documents (developed for counties, as required by the Croatian Energy Efficiency Law)


18

already include specific measures and activities focussing on biomass heating at the local/regional level, and there are a number of examples of implemented bioenergy projects available. As other possible financial sources and possibilities the group identified: EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) WebSEFF (Western Balkan Sustainable Energy Financing Facility) WebSEFF I, II, III credit line WebGEFF (Western Balkans Green Energy Financing facilities) World Bank IPARD – EU candidates IPA – EU candidates KfW EIB (European Investment Bank)

5.4 Group 4 - Social and environmental aspects, political support

Moderator: Jana Pavlović, SKGO Guiding questions: 1. What is the current stage of discussion on political, social and environmental issues in your villages? 2. What are the major bottlenecks/challenges concerning political support and social and environmental aspects? 3. Which potential solutions do you envisage to overcome the identified challenges? Are they interesting also other

villages? Major findings:



Citizens not interested in changing habits, not opened for investments, not trusting new approaches

Raising awareness (trainings, leaflets, campaigns, news, meetings, best practice examples in the country...)

Absence of local political support

Raising awareness (meetings, best practice examples, explanation of possible business and financial models)

Biomass potential on the local level Best practice model (example) of small heating

system

High investments, high heat prices, low individual budget

Local subsidies

Sustainability

Compromising joint interests of different stakeholders (LSG, Public Utility Companies, citizens and foresters)

Long term contracts

Table 5. Findings of the Group 4 - Social and environmental aspects, political support


19

6. Summary of guest presentations

The objective of this session was to present and make participants aware of successful bioenergy project, best practices and approaches in Serbia. Also, the idea was to upscale the knowledge base of all actors in BioVill project, and to broaden networking possibilities for participating target villages.

6.1 GIZ DKTI Bioenergy programme

First guest presenter was Ms. Milica Vukadinovic from GIZ DKTI Bioenergy Programme in Serbia. The programme “Development of a Sustainable Bioenergy Market in Serbia” (DKTI) focuses on the perspectives and challenges in development of the Serbian bioenergy market. The overall objective of the programme is to strengthen capacities and create an enabling environment for the sustainable use of bioenergy in Serbia. The programme's synergetic approach to the development of the sustainable bioenergy market is defined through five fields of action: policy advice, biomass supply, efficient firewood utilization in households, project development and EU BioRes project. Within above mentioned five fields of action the following activities are being implemented: Support to harmonization of laws and regulations to EU standard thought institutional strengthening; Technical assistance and financing district heating companies (DHCs) switching to biomass usage; Promotion of efficient utilization of wood fuels in households in pilot regions; Advisory support to private and public-sector partners in implementation of sustainable, innovative and

replicable bioenergy projects; Support to creation of regional Biomass Trade and Logistic centers in Serbia, Croatia and Bulgaria. Ms. Milica Vukadinovic focused her presentation on two particular projects that could be relevant to BioVill target villages. First, she presented innovative biogas concept - energy cooperative model in village of Verušić in northern part of Vojvodina. This project included support to the establishment of the energy cooperative in village Verušić and idea to construct biogas CHP installation. Feasibility study has shown that investment is feasible for capacity of 500 kW of electricity and upwards if governmentally guaranteed feed-in-tariffs are applied. The members of the Verušić cooperative will have major benefits from implementation of the project. In a long term they will have following benefits: Guaranteed income from producing energy crops; Meeting European requirements for handling manure/slurry for substantially increased number of animals; Financial income from the profit generated by the biogas plan. Second project that was presented is biogas cogeneration in village of Botos near City of Zrenjanin. It is independent initiative where private company invested in cogeneration plant which created preconditions for development of local heating network for surrounding households. Interest to organize and use this waste heat from the plant in their household is rising and hopefully will result in a win-win situation where investor will find use for waste heat and local community will benefit from reliable, affordable and ecologically acceptable heat source.

6.2 GGE ESCO Company

Second guest presentation was given by Ms. Ankica Barbulov, Executive Director of GGE ESCO doo Serbia, a part of GGE Group which is one of the leading providers of energy services in the SEE. GGE Group offers integrated energy services in the field of ESCO models and renewable energy sources. This model allows customers to achieve energy and financial savings through projects in areas of energy management, energy supply, operation and maintenance of a plant or building. Ms. Burbalov presented a good example from GGE Group. In the City of Pirot in Serbia GGE performed a complete overhaul of the existing heating systems in four schools and installed new, eco-friendly and energy efficient biomass boilers to supply renewable, sustainable heat energy. All financing, including the supply of biomass, is provided by GGE through its ESCO business model for a period of seven years. Pirot pays for the service in equal monthly installments while both parties benefit from achieved and guaranteed savings and the schools get efficient and green heating. Other project that was presented is the GGE’s largest energy efficiency project so far. Heat and power plant in Municipality of Slatina (Croatia) that is expected to be completed by summer of 2018. Plant will operate on a steam boiler running on wood chips, with a steam turbine and generator for electrical power, the plant will produce both electric and heat energy. It will have a 5 MW capacity and annually produce 40 GWh of electric


20

energy, which is enough to power 500 households. The Croatian energy market operator (HROTE) has signed a 14-year contract for the purchase of the electricity produced.


21

7. Pictures

Figure 1. Opening session Figure 2. Plenary session

Figure 3. Working group 2 Figure 4. Working group 3

Figure 5. Working group 4 Figure 6. Group photo


22

8. Evaluation of the joint workshop

Evaluation forms were filled out by 30 participants of Joint Networking Workshop in Belgrade, on 30-31 January 2018. Evaluation questionnaire was anonymous. Summary of the participants responses is presented below.

I totally

agree

I totally

disagree

(Please tick as appropriate from your personal point of view) +++ ++ + - -- ---

Content relevance and transfer possibilities

The content of the event is important for my work. 25 4 1

The content of the event met my expectations 23 5 2

I know how to apply what I have learnt in my work 20 7 2 1

I know how to pass on what I learnt to my colleagues 23 3 4

I know how to promote the lessons learnt in my organization 22 6 1

I know how to promote the lessons learnt to relevant decision makers 18 10 2

Working methods

The event and materials are well elaborated 25 4 1

Participants were able to share their own experience and examples 27 1 2

I could relate the content of the event to my own experience and intentions 26 4

Responses to the question “How can we further improve exchange on Bioenergy Villages?” are as follows:

Update the website; All participants should prepare presentation with more technical details and results that are expected; Through webinars/study/e-mail communication/informing on progress and solutions in each target

village/info days Study tour and info days; Exchange of content, provide updates through emails, include local factors from existing projects; National conferences, WG meeting/Info days, international conference, Organize study tours for inhabitants or wood producers that they can see good examples in Austria. In few

years that inhabitants may go in tours of 50 to 100 inhabitants in other bioenergy villages in Europe. Coordinator should understand that partner countries in the projects (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia) need time

for establishing bioenergy village. Conditions in Germany/Austria aren’t the same with above mentioned countries (living standards, laws, regulations, conditions for bioenergy plants on the national level) These kinds of projects last for years, first step is to provide the communal infrastructure for inhabitants, then heating system with heating plant, educated citizens, to show benefits for them. Problem is that lot of citizens are heating on wood (owners) so they think their costs aren’t high.


23

9. Conclusions

There is joint understanding and agreement among all the Workshop participants that it was very successful event and that the prior set objectives were achieved. This claim is backed up by the participants responses to the anonymous evaluation questionnaire which are in high percentage very positive. Regarding the objectives of the Workshop two following groups of conclusions can be presented. Networking: Functioning network among the stakeholders of the partner villages is established; All participants will receive contact details needed for further communication; Project partners will, during remaining project duration, investigate best options to continue the functioning of

the network after the BioVill project is finished; One of the options is to use BioVill project web page for this purpose since it will continue to be visible five

years after the Project is terminated. Exchange of experiences: Participants from the partner villages exchanged many information, experiences and practical examples during

the working groups but also during the breaks and the joint evening Similarities of challenges in all target villages and lessons learnt for potential solutions have been identified; It enables the participants to tackle the issues that they are facing in their own projects with more confident.

PRO EEDINGS OF THE JOINT NETWORKING...

Documents

Transcript of PRO EEDINGS OF THE JOINT NETWORKING...