Swiss Resource Centre and

Consultancies for Development

Regional Assessment:

Potential for Retrofitting

Small Hydropower Capacity

at Existing Barrages / Dams

in SADC Countries

Hedi Feibel, Oliver Froend

Skat Consulting Ltd., April 28, 2016

Objective of the assignment

2

Part I: Analysis for a prioritization on country level: institutional

and regulatory framework (FiT / net metering / grid code),

political conditions, energy-system including electricity price,

electrification rate and generation deficit pre-selection of

countries

Part II: Desk-level technical assessment to identify potential sites

in selected countries based on data from irrigation database

List of potential sites in the selected countries

Ranked long list and recommendations

Based on specific relevant criteria, elaboration of a proposal for country selection;

final (pre-)selection still to be made

PRIORITIZATION ON COUNTRY

LEVEL

Part I

3

Summary on results of country analysis

4

Country summary

Angola no legal framework and no incentives, so far no IPPs; although

AfDB program is targeting all relevant aspects, project impact

will certainly take a few more years

Botswana Plans for FiT and PPA, but so far legal framework not existing;

generally not yet very favourable environment despite high need

for RE. Low consumer prices & limited grid availability additional

hindrances.

DR Congo Some regulatory framework for electricity production in specific

ranges; but generally, environment not very favourable for IPPs:

lack of investment incentives, of an independent regulator and

of well-defined FiT. State owned utility SNEL operates quite

inefficient.

Countries with unfavourable conditions excluded

Summary on results of country analysis

5

Country summary

Namibia Legal framework partly established (grid code and net metering

in force); standard PPAs exist (but not for hydropower?!), REFiT

not yet in force; currently negotiations with NamPower needed

to fix a FiT (individually).

Seychelles No appropriate legal framework and policy in place

Swaziland So far, no complete legal framework and policy in place; no

specific targets to develop hydropower and no clear regulatory

instruments that guarantee special tariff and compel utility to

give preference to RE in dispatch. So far only grid code

developed but FiT and IPP policy not yet in force. SEC as sole

buyer is also competitor to IPPs

Countries with unfavourable conditions excluded

Summary on results of country analysis

6

Country summary

Mauritius Grid code and REFiT for RE systems up to 2 MW but currently

Medium Scale Distributed Generation MSDG projects cannot be

approved because CEB waiting for Grid Absorption Capacity

Study. For projects > 2 MW negotiation of PPA, production cost

should not exceed CEB’s marginal cost of 12.4 US Cent/kWh

S-Africa Good framework but possibilities depending on tendering round;

e.g. local content of > 40% might become a problem. Maximum

tariff in the range of 10 US Cent/kWh for small hydro.

Zimbabwe Tax incentives & guidelines for electricity licence but concrete

“good examples” lacking; signing PPA seems difficult (among

others hinging on local ownership/content, community investment

and job creation). RE-, FiT-policy and regulations not yet in force.

FiT (not yet approved) for 5-10 MW 11.8 US Cent/kWh

Countries with at least one critical aspect excluded

Summary on results of country analysis

7

Country summary

Tanzania no barriers to private sector in generation; excellent regulatory

framework; especially < 10 MW plants (10-15 US Cent/kWh; 30 off-

grid!), problem: power outages & non-/late FiT payment by

TANESCO; Consider “2nd Generation SPP Framework” (2015)!

Madagascar ~20 private operators active, consumers pay high opportunity cost

(55 US Cent/kWh); for on-grid IPP, FiT negotiated with JIRAMA ~4

US Cent/kWh. No feed-in law (& very small grid) more interesting

option to directly sell electricity to consumers.

Lesotho Lack of clear assignment of responsibilities in sector and of enabling

legal framework (issuing of concession and licence are regulated but

no FiT etc.), but several projects have been and are under

development; Lesotho explicitly interested to exploit hydropower

also in irrigation and water supply schemes

Countries with favourable conditions pre-selected

Summary on results of country analysis

8

Country summary

Malawi Regulatory agency, some incentives, PPA; a few IPPs developing

projects; high need for rural electrification (most electricity to mining

industries). RE targets in force. Frequent power outages make power

offtake risky. FiT of 10 US Cent/kWh for 5-10 MW not yet approved

Mozambique Generally, FiT ratified but pending enforcement, RE targets in force,

Rural Electrification Fund in force, import duty exemptions and tax

incentives in force; proposed FiT for 5-10 MW hydro 7 US Cent/kWh

Zambia REFiT & secondary mechanisms are “on the way forward developed”

(REFiT program 1st quarter 2016?). Then good conditions! Good

investment conditions. Currently, energy generation (and T&D) partly

unbundled; some IPPs produce electricity. Problem: tariffs still not cost

reflective. ZESCO willing to negotiate with PV investors if price below

12 US Cent/kWh. Power outages not as long and frequent (lower risk)

Countries with favourable conditions pre-selected

Pre-selection of the following countries

• Tanzania

• Madagascar

• Lesotho

• Malawi

• Mozambique

• Zambia

9

DESK-LEVEL TECHNICAL

ASSESSMENT

Part II

10

Analysis of FAO AQUASTAT database for pre-

selected countries

• Technology-related boundaries for project locations:

available head 2-10 m (ideally 4-8 m)

available flow > 20 m3/s

• List of existing “dams” according to ICOLD definition with height

of > 15 m or height of 5-15 m if reservoir volume > 3 million m3

and no flow information

very limited usefulness as small barrages not captured

• Focus on information from “irrigated areas” under assumption

that diversion structures / rivers can be identified which provide

the required flow

11

Detailed procedure of analyse: Step 1

Step 1: Compilation and

conversion of

AQUASTAT data:

transfer of data from

GIS to EXCEL

application of assumed

maximum flow

constant of 2 l/(s*ha)

12

Detailed procedure of analyse: Step 2

13

Step 2: Identification of

irrigated areas of

potentially

interesting size

with flow >20 m3/s.

Screening for

sufficiently large

coherent clusters

per country data.

Detailed procedure of analyse: Step 3

Step 3: Review of identified clusters on Google EarthTM:

- identification of large irrigation systems and channels

- identification of traverse structures in rivers

14

Grouping (clustering) of

irrigated areas 1 Identification of potentially suitable diversion

structures and barrages 2

Remarks on the applied screening methodology

It has to be noted that the assumed flow of 2 l/(s*ha) is the

highest value which can be considered reasonable. By

assuming this high value the risk to accidentally omit any

potential locations is minimized. However, very likely the

actual flow in the respective systems is smaller than

assumed now. This can only be verified based on more

accurate local data.

The current screening does not consider the availability of the

required head. Likely many of the pre-identified locations will

have to be waived if reconnaissance reveals the lack of head.

15

!

!

Results: recommended for further assessment

Of the pre-selected countries the following countries are

recommended for further follow up based in initial positive

findings of the desk-study:

| Tanzania |

possible potential | Madagascar |

| Mozambique |

Recommended next steps:

Verification of information collected in this study

Assessment of actual available head and flow

The required information can possibly be collected via the SADC Secretariat or

through the respective institutions in the countries.

Based on more detailed information, or in case no information can be gathered

at ‘central’ level, reconnaissance site visits are recommended.

16

Tanzania

17

Clusters TZ1 and TZ2, in the north of

Tanzania, are not recommended for

follow-up: many non-connected small

areas, intakes at large rivers without

permanent diversion structures.

TZ3: One existing large diversion

structures, possibly suitable

TZ4: Large rivers (Rumakali, Lumbira

and Kiwira) – interesting for further

screening

Madagascar (1/3)

18

Of the pre-selected

countries

Madagascar seems

to possess the

greatest interesting

potential.

Interesting locations

were identified in

clusters MG1, MG4

and MG6.

MG1a: large, apparently

yet incomplete intake

MG1b: intake at Ambilivily Dam

Madagascar (2/3)

19

MG4: large number of

possibly suitable intakes

and reservoirs

Madagascar (3/3)

20

MG6: due to its size the cluster

was broken down into sub-

clusters. several of these appear

to feature interesting potential

Mozambique

21

Clusters MZ1 and MZ2 in central Mozambique and

clusters MZ4 and MZ5 in the south are not

recommended for follow-up:

- pivot irrigation in areas with industrial scale farming

- traditional farming fed from small streams

- intakes at large rivers without permanent diversion

At MZ3 a large barrage and irrigation intake was

identified and should be investigated in more detail.

On the current level of the study no detailed

information on discharge and head are available;

however; the site may possibly provide the envisaged

potential.

Results: countries recommended to be waived

Of the pre-selected countries the following countries are not

recommended for further follow up due to the absence of

suitable hydropower potential :

| Zambia |

no potential | Malawi |

| Lesotho |

No potential within the set technical boundaries. Generally,

potential for small hydropower might well exist

22

Zambia

23

Most irrigation is based on pivot and pumped systems. Intakes, also from larger

rivers, are built witout diversion structures or barrages (frequently pumping stations.

Malawi

24

Clusters MW 1 and MW2

were assessed further in

Google Earth. However,

irrigation is mainly fed from

small streams (<<20 m3/s) or

from larger streams whereby

no diversion structures are

used.

Lesotho

25

Very limited irrigated areas; identified

areas too small in regards to flow.

CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

Part I & II

26

Conclusions and recommended next steps

Positive desk-level results on possible SHPP-potential within the technical

boundaries set for this study were identified in Tanzania, Madagascar and

Mozambique, with most potential locations identified in Madagascar.

It has to be considered that so far the primary search parameters were (a)

available flow and (b) existing traverse structures. Available head and other

factors (e.g. distance to grid, access) were not yet assessed.

It is recommended to try to access further information on the irrigation systems in

the above mentioned countries through the SADC Secretariat or on central

country level (e.g. respective departments in ministries) to verify and

complement the findings of this study. If this proves not to be successful further

information may have to be collected regionally; i.e. through site

reconnaissances.

27