From Kosova C to Kosova e Re Power Plant Project (KRPP): tracing trajectories and mapping interests

Anselmo Matusse (ansma348@liu.se) a

a. Masters Student at Linkoping University, Science for Sustainable Development, Environmental and Resources Use Challenge Course, 1st year, 2013

1. Introduction According to Bielecki (2002), for decades, energy security has been the main goal of the public policy, coexisting and often competing with such other fundamental goals as economic development and

interact and shape policies is to focus on processes of policy making and

implementation, a project undertaken by Belows (2013). Most studies focus on evaluation or results of energy security policies and take energy security as a static concept. My focus on this text is on the process of conception and implementation of energy security policies and strategies; I take energy security as a concept being continuously defined and redefined by stakeholders in the course of the social activities. I take the context of Kosova as a case study, and analyse the process of the Kosova e Re Power Plant (KRPP) project, to identify different stakeholders and map their interests World Bank, US, Kosovar Government, Civil society, local communities in order to understand how these shaped the KRPP project.

environmental protection. This situation explains the barriers or obstacles encountered when securing energy these can be technological, economic, political and socio-cultural (Below 2013). Although there is a common understanding on the fact that energy is fundamental to normal functioning of a modern society, there is no consensual meaning attributed to energy security as this concept is elusive and highly context-dependent. Different

stakeholders with different interests (may) have different interpretation of energy security, which in turn can lead to conflicts. One of the ways to identify stakeholders and map these interests and analyse how these

2. Conceptualizing energy security According to Bielecki (2002) energy is the source of power, heat and mobility that are indispensable for normal functioning of any modern society, thus its uninterrupted supply is required; these features makes energy security one of the most crucial aspects to be taken into account by policy makers when attempting to protect societies from the wolf- energy crisis. However, there are no consensual definitions of energy security, as this concept is highly contextdependent (Bielecki, 2002; Kruyt et al, 2009; Below, 2013). The commonest

economic vulnerability and price shocks. Environmentalists saw the road to energy security paved with reduced oil

consumption. Energy producers looked to increase domestic production to attain energy security. These different meanings and interpretations are caused by differing interests stakeholders have. This situation not only poses challenges to communication between stakeholders at local and global levels but also poses challenges in the policy making, implementation and evaluation processes. Some scholars, in order to reduce ambiguity, attempt to identify key indicators to define energy security. However, agreements on these indicators is also not common and as they vary according to the context and interests of the defining actors. For example, Below (2013) identifies five dimensions of energy security, namely: affordability, technological

definition among scholars is that energy security is reliable and adequate supply of energy at reasonable prices (Bielecki, 2002); this definition is ambiguous; what is reliable supply? What is adequate supply? And, what is a reasonable price? (Below, 2013). According to Barton (2004) cited by Below (2013), energy security is not a static concept nor a one-size-fits-all concept. Energy security has different meanings depending on the context and stakeholders involved. Stagliano (2001) cited by Below (2013) argues that different policy actors utilize very different definitions. For

availability,

efficiency

development, sustainability and regulation; while Kruyt et al (2009) identify

availability, accessibility, affordability and acceptability as indicators to draw models to analyse future energy security scenarios. Most scholars and policy actors constructed the concept of energy security so intimately related to oil security (Below 2013) and this

example, in US, free market advocates defined energy security in terms of reducing

can be historically explained. Economists look at energy security as macroeconomic impacts of high energy prices and danger of economic losses resulting from potential shortfalls in energy supply; they equal energy security to Security of Supply (SOS); this perspective overlooks production and is highly market based. In most western literature about energy security,

Hydropower. According to Kabash et al (2011) Kosova is one if the richest countries with lignite in Europe. Hakaj (2007) states that the integrated electricity system in Kosova is composed of two lignite mines at Bardh and two Thermal Power Plants (TPPs), Kosovo A and B, with an overall effective capacity of from 645 to 710 MW (from an installed capacity of 1478MW), network transmission and dispatching,

privatization or private institutions are the main dogma; this is caused by the high value market forces are given in this context. 3. Energy production, impacts demand in and

distribution network and supply, located in Obiliq, a Municipality near Pristine, the capital city of Kosova. 3.1. Lignite mining and burning for energy generation: footprints on the environment and human health According to the World Bank (2008) large scale open cost mining operations and power generation have been in place for about 40 years, for most of that time with little concern for environmental impacts. Kosovo represents one of the regions with the greatest CO2 output per GDP per unit of economic activity, as well as one of the countries with the most polluted atmosphere in Europe (Kabashi et al 2011: 473). This scenario not just has implications on environment Green House Gas emissions but also on health. Coal contains many trace elements in it which are potentially

environmental

Kosova:

identifying the Achilles heel Kosova is a nation of the Balkans that attained its independence from Serbia in 2008. The population in Kosova is estimated at about 2 million inhabitants with an area of 10 887 km2. Kosova is considered one of the poorest countries in Europe and more than a third of its citizens live below the poverty line. Almost half of its population is unemployed (three out of four people under the age of 25 are unemployed (World Bank 2012). In terms of energy mix, Kabashi et al (2011) state that 95 -97% of the electric power production in Kosovo comes from lignite and the remaining 2% comes from

toxic, such as As, Be, Cd, Hg and Pb as well as the fact that better part of coal excavated in Kosova (85%) is burnt to produce electricity...during the burning process of the fossil fuel and coal, fly ash and bottom ash are released and these are the main components of the environment pollution. (Zeneli et al 2011). This release of fly and bottom ash can be refrained by using effective technologies which is not the case in Kosova. According to Zeneli et al (2011) analysis of the emissions of the fly and from thermo power plants of Kosova during 2005 showed that the contamination level exceeded the EU standards by 400-500%. This situation made these authors conclude in their study that released fly and bottom ash has direct effects on human health. Other implications with lignite mining are land degradation; the pollution of surface and underground which water is

4. From Kosova C to Kosova e Re Power Plant project tracing trajectories and mapping interests In ...the Kosovar Government submitted a project called Kosovo C to the World Bank; this project intended to produce 2000 MW of power for both domestic use and export. The World social Bank and after an

environmental,

financial

concerns, decided to reduce the size of the proposed power plant to 600MW to meet only domestic demand this new project was then called Kosova e Re Power Project (KRPP). The project foresaw 1the

rehabilitation of the existing Kosova B plant; 2 construction of a new 600MW power generation plant KRPP using modern technology that is compliant with European Union Emissions Directive; and 3 development of the lignite mine, Sibovc South, that will supply fuel to the new KRPP and Kosovo A (expected to be decommissioned in 2017) and B for their remaining time. This project was planned to be implemented in Obiliq. One of the main demands of the World Bank was that the energy sector and the KRPP should be privatized or run by private investors1. The
1

characterised by high mineralisation with sulphate due to gypsum solution Buruti (2011:434). The questions worth posing here are how can Kosova secure energy and reduce the negative impacts of lignite mining and burning for energy generation in a context of limited technological and financial resources? And, how different stakeholders interpret energy security and influence or shape policy options?

This process is also highly criticizes by KOSID (2012), according to which through decommissioning of the Kosovo A power plant, the company owning

project also had a huge support from the US government. This project met some criticisms and protests from local communities affected by the project and civil society, namely the representatives of Dardhisthte,

prices and create possible political and social instability); the air pollution damages health, Kosova needs to increase renewable and energy efficiency and decrease Co2 emissions, water shortage and resettlement and agricultural land shortages3. These arguments are in agreement with the governments statement according to which although 24 to 46 years old, the installed power generation capacities of the two thermo power plants, would fulfill basic electricity consumption demands. But, due to the degradation and underinvestment in the lignite and thermo power plant sector in Kosova during 1990-1999, lack of

Liajhiste/Sibovic, Cern Vidoca and Hade of Obiliq Municipality and the Town of Obiliq in Kosova, the Kosova Energy Corporations Independent Kosova Energy Trade Union, the Institute for Development Policies (INDEP), Institute of Advanced Studies, and Forum for Civic Initiative. These organizations made a request to the bank to inspect the project or even stop it (ie. Kosovo Civil Society Consortium for Sustainable Development)2. Their main arguments were that this project was unnecessary reducing electricity losses and investing in efficiency and alternatives are cheaper and create more jobs; it had high costs (which might rise

maintenance, and lack of timely necessary rehabilitations, the technical availability and performance of power generation units () are still under installed parameters. (Government of Kosovo 2012 Pg 19-20). The World Bank responded to these claims by stating that much of the harms alleged by the requesters is unlikely to arise from the proposed project but rather is a

both the new Kosovo power plant and Kosovo B power plant will control roughly 98% of the energy production resources in Kosovo, eliminating the potential for competition (http://www.kosid.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/Policy-Report-04-2012english1.pdf)
2

description of the adverse impacts that currently prevail on the ground. Many of the impacts raised (...) are indeed severe and have persisted since Kosovo A and Kosovo
3

http://www.france24.com/en/20130809-kosovoactivists-urge-us-help-stop-coal-fired-plant-project,

http://bankwatch.org/our-work/projects/kosova-ere-lignite-power-plant-kosovo

B began operation. However, without the development of alternative power generation capacity that would of enable A the and

voices are mostly included or excluded, making of sustainability a complex battle field between conflicting interests. 5. Conclusion The choice of Kosova of as case study showed main challenges humanity possesses in order to secure energy, water and food and economic growth. Different actors may have different and conflicting interests; which interests and perspectives are mostly voiced and why? How these interests and perspectives comply with the sustainable development? technology and Does availability of

decommissioning

Kosovo

rehabilitation of Kosovo B, Kosovo would remain dependent on the operation of these two power plants, which are responsible for the associated adverse impacts (2012:3). The World Bank recognized that there might be environmental and social impacts but they can be easily addressed; the question that arises from this is how Kosovar government, with weak regulatory power, can guarantee that private investors or owners of KRPP respect the environmental standards and address the expected

scientific

knowledge

presuppose the victory of human kind over climate change? How does the Kosovar situation enlighten us about the main

environmental and social impacts? In the World Banks intervention it is possible to note that although the necessary technology to produce clean energy, reduce CO2 emissions and guarantee energy

challenges in energy security in other countries? I conclude my study with these questions and argue that interests and values should be taken into account when studying or implementing certain technology in a certain context and that rather than just focusing on results of policies or action plans it is very important to focus on processes; power plants dont come out of nowhere; they have a history, processes that might help us understand the main

efficiency is avalilable, its application poses many challenges that (could) undermine Pacala and Soclows (2004) optimism. From the exposition above we can conclude that different interests shape how energy security, water security, sustainability and economic growth are prioritized; which conflicts arise among them; which

challenges in sustainability.

6. References Below, Amy. Obstacles in Energy security: an analysis of congressional and

emissions on its climate change and sustainable development. Applied Energy 88 (2011) 473478 Kruyt, Bert el al. Indicators for Energy security. Energy Policy 37 (2009) 21662181 Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004).

presidencional framing in the United States. Energy Policy. 62 (2013) 860-868 Bielecki, Janusz. Energy Security: is the wolf at the door? The Quaterly Review of Economics and Finance. 42 (2002) 235-250 Buruti, B et al. Environment Impact during coal exploration in Kosovo. Jornal of Environemntal Protection and Ecology 12 (2011) 2: 434-436 Hakaj, Narazete. Kosovo-Energy and

Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305(5686), 968-972 World Bank. 2012. Management Response To Request For Inspection Panel Review Of The Kosovo Power Project (Proposed) available at

Environmental Challenges to Security in Stec, Tephen and Baraj, Besnik (editors). 2007. Energy and Environmental Challenges to security. Springer. Dordretcht the Netherlands

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPEC TIONPANEL/Resources/KosovoPower_Manag ement_Response_05.21.2012.pdf

accessed on

October 23, 2013 Zenely, Lulzim et al. Impact of

IPCC 2012. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. New York Kabashi, Skender. Effects of Kosovos energy use scenarios and associated gas

Environmental Pollution on Human Health of the Population Which leaves nearby Kosovo Thermo Power Plants. Indoor Built. Environ. 4 (2011) 479-482