Strategic Environmental Review Report– Draft€¦ · Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Financing...

The world's leading sustainability consultancy

Consultancy Contract C26157REV/JPNS-2013-02-01 Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Financing Facility (KazREFF) - Strategic Environmental Review Strategic Environmental Review Report– Draft August 2014 ERM Japan Ltd. The Landmark Tower Yokohama 19th Floor, 2-2-1 Minatomirai, Nishi-ku YOKOHAMA 220-8119 Japan www.erm.com

Prepared For:


CONSULTANT’S DISCLAIMER

ERM has prepared this report for the sole use of EBRD and for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement between EBRD and ERM under which this work was completed. This report may not be relied upon by any other party with the express written agreement of ERM.

ERM has exercised due and customary care in conducting this SER but has not, save as specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express of implied is made to the conduct of this SER or the contents of this report. Therefore, ERM assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omissions, or misrepresentations made by others. This report has been prepared at the request of EBRD. The use of this report by unauthorized third parties without written authorization from ERM shall be at their own risk, and ERM accepts no duty of care to any such third party.

Any recommendation, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time ERM performed the work, between April 2013 and February 2014. Any changes in such circumstances and facts upon which this report is based may adversely affect any recommendations, opinions or findings contained in this report.

Every effort has been made to ensure the quality of translation is technically correct. However, where discrepancies between the various translated texts occur, the English-language version is to be relied upon as the original and formal version.

Detailed guidance for regulatory compliance and for project assessment is provided in accompanying Renewable Project Environmental Review (RPER) Reports for each renewable energy scenario and will be further elaborated by EBRD’s Programme Implementation Unit for the KazREFF.


Contents CONSULTANT’S DISCLAIMER 2

NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY 13

1.0 INTRODUCTION 14

1.1 BACKGROUND TO KAZREFF 14

1.2 PURPOSE AND COMPONENTS OF THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 15

1.3 PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS SER REPORT 17

1.4 AUTHORS OF THE REPORT 18

2.0 SER APPROACH 20

2.1 SCOPE AND APPROACH FOR THE SER 20

2.1.1 Introduction 20

2.1.2 SER stage A – scoping 20

2.1.3 SER stage B – assessing environmental effects 21

2.1.4 SER stage C – preparing the draft environmental report 22

2.1.5 SER stage D – consulting on the draft environmental report 23

2.1.6 SER stage E – monitoring the effects and data gaps 23

2.2 ALIGNMENT OF THE EU SEA DIRECTIVE AND THE SER PROCESS 23

2.3 KAZREFF SER OBJECTIVES 27

2.4 DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN COMPILING INFORMATION OR CARRYING OUT THE ASSESSMENT 27

3.0 ENERGY PRODUCTION IN KAZAKHSTAN 28

3.1 INFORMATION SOURCES USED 28

3.2 CURRENT ENERGY PRODUCTION IN KAZAKHSTAN 28

3.3 MEWRRENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION IN KAZAKHSTAN 29

3.4 ENERGY TRANSMISSION IN KAZAKHSTAN 31


3.5 POTENTIAL OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTING RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES 33

4.0 ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS 35

4.1 IDENTIFYING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS 35

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS 38

5.0 SER CONSULTATION 41

5.1 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 41

5.1.1 Stage 1 – project introduction and stakeholder identification (April through July 2013) 42

5.1.2 Stage 2 – scoping and capacity building (July 2013 through February 2014) 44

5.1.3 Stage 3 - public consultation and implementation 46

6.0 ADMINITRATIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS 47

6.1.1 Kazakhstan renewable energy strategies and plans 47

6.1.2 The Programme for the development of electric power industry in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014 48

6.1.3 The State Programme of accelerated industrial and innovative development of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014 48

6.1.4 The Strategic Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan till 2020 48

6.1.5 Kazakhstan-2050 Strategy 49

6.1.6 CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to "Green economy" 49

6.1.7 The Action Plan for development of alternative and renewable energy in Kazakhstan for 2013-2020 49

6.2 KAZAKHSTAN ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 50

6.2.1 Ministry of Environment and Water Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan 50

6.2.2 Ministry of Industry and New Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MINT) 51

6.2.3 Joint Stock Company “Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company KEGOC” 52


6.2.4 JSC Samruk-Energy 52

6.3 KAZAKHSTAN RENEWABLE ENERGY LEGISLATION 53

6.3.1 Law “On Support to Use of RES” No. 165-IV RK dated 4 July 2009 (with last amendments and additions made 10 July 2012) 53

6.3.2 Law “On Electric Power” No. 588-II dated 9 July 2004 (with last amendments dated 22 July 2011) 54

6.3.3 Other regulations 54

6.3.4 Kazakhstan land use legislation relevant to RES projects 55

6.3.5 Kazakhstan environmental protection legislation relevant to RES projects 58

6.3.6 Environmental impact assessment requirements 59

6.3.7 Environmental quality standards 62

6.3.8 Kazakhstan social and public legislation relevant to RES projects 66

6.3.9 International environmental and social requirements applied to the project 68

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 71

7.1 INFORMATION SOURCES USED 71

7.1.1 General environmental and social baseline 75

7.1.2 Climate and air quality 75

7.1.3 Surface water and groundwater 84

7.1.4 Baseline conditions 92

7.1.5 Landscape and biodiversity 100

7.1.6 Community and socio-economics 116

7.1.7 Cultural heritage 128

7.1.8 Summary of existing baseline 135

8.0 LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 144

8.1 APPROACH TO THE SER ASSESSMENT 144

8.2 LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 150

8.2.1 Introduction 150




8.2.4 Geology and soils 162




8.2.8 Material assets 224

8.3 MITIGATION AND OFFSETTING MEASURES 234

8.3.1 Methodology for developing mitigation measures 234



8.3.4 Geology and soils 242




8.3.8 Material assets 265

8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 267

8.4.1 Regulatory Framework 267

8.4.2 Methodology and Guidance 267

8.4.3 Renewable energy scenarios 268

8.4.4 Potential significant cumulative effects 271

8.4.5 Further Guidance on Cumulative Impact Analysis for RES 274

9.0 SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS 277

9.1 WIND 277

9.1.1 Technical spatial constraints 278

9.1.2 Environmental and social constraints 279


9.1.3 Cumulative constraints 280

9.1.4 Wind constraint mapping 280

9.2 SOLAR 284




9.2.4 Solar constraint mapping 287

9.3 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER 292




9.3.4 SSH constraint mapping 294

9.4 BIOGAS 298




9.4.4 Biogas constraint mapping 300

10.0 SER OBJECTIVES COMPLIANCE 302

10.1 PERFORMANCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS IN RELATION TO THE SER OBJECTIVES 302

11.0 IMPLEMENTATION 307

11.1 SITING CONSIDERATIONS 307

11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 317

11.2.1 EBRD requirements 318

11.2.2 Kazakhstan requirements 320

11.2.3 Relevant European Union Directives and requirements 322


11.2.4 International best practices (including cumulative assessment – please provide relevant references) 324

ERM 9 KazREFF SER Report

August 2014

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A RECEPTOR ‘VALUE’, ‘VULNERABILITY’ AND ‘SENSITIVITY’

APPENDIX B KAZAKHSTAN SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MAPS

APPENDIX C LIST OF CULTURAL HERITAGE OF KAZAKHSTAN UNDER NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

APPENDIX D COMPLIANCE OF THE KAZREFF RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS AGAINST THE SER OBJECTIVES

APPENDIX E GAPS BETWEEN EBRD PR FOR ESIA AND KAZAKHSTAN EIA REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX F STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMME TIMEFRAME


August 2014

Abbreviations

ACBK The Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan

ADCI Altyn Dala Conservation Initiative

AREM Agency for Regulation of Natural Monopolies

BAU Business as Usual

Bbl Barrel

CD Compact Disc

CFH Committee of Forestry and Hunting

CHP Combined Heat and Power

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States

CNG Clean Natural Gas

CONCEPT CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to Green Economy

CSP Concentrating Solar Power

CTF Clean Technology Fund

DNI Direct Normal Insolation

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

EC European Community

EEC The European Economic Community

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMMS Environmental Management and Monitoring System

ERM Environmental Resources Management

ESAP Environmental and Social Action Plan

ESDD Environmental and Social Due Diligence

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FI Financial Intermediaries

FIT Feed-in Tariff

FS Feasibility Study

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GHG Greenhouse gas

GHI Global Horizontal Irradiance

GIS Geographic Information System

GRP Gross Regional Product

GW Gigawatt


August 2014

H2S Hydrogen Sulphide

HPP Hydro Power Plants

IBA Important Bird Areas

ICE Internal Combustion Engines

IFC International Finance Corporation

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPS Integrated Power System

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

JSC Joint Stock Company

KazREFF Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Financing Facility

KEGOC Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company

KPO Karachaganak Petroleum Operating

KREMS Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Market Study

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt hour

LFG Landfill Gas

MCI Monthly Calculation Index

MEWR Ministry of Environment and Water of the Republic of Kazakhstan

MINT Ministry of Industry and New Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan

MOH Ministry of Healthcare

MPC Maximum permissible concentrations

Mtoe Million ton of Oil Equivalent

MW Megawatt

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NTS Non-Technical Summary

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OHS Occupations Health and Safety

OVOS Assessment of environmental impacts

PM Particulate Matter

PR Performance Requirements

PR10 EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy Performance Requirement 10

PV Photo Voltaic

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

REN21 Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century


August 2014

RES Renewable Energy Source

RoK Republic of Kazakhstan

RPER Renewable Project Environmental Review

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SEE State Environmental Expertize

SEI Sustainable Energy Initiative

SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan

SER Strategic Environmental Review

SES Sanitary and Epidemiological Services

SSH Small Scale Hydro

T Temperature

Toe Ton of Oil Equivalent

TPP Thermal Power Plant

TWh Terawatt hour

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

UNFCCC United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD US Dollar

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

WPP Wind Power Plant


August 2014

NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY

The non-technical summary for this environmental report is supplied as a separate document, available from www.kazreff-ser.com.


August 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO KAZREFF

In the 20 years following its independence, Kazakhstan has achieved significant economic and social success and positioned itself as an active supporter in tackling national, regional and global environmental problems. Kazakhstan has been supporting international cooperation and participates in environmental and sustainable development processes at the global, regional, and sub-regional levels. The country participated in the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992) and accepted its main documents: the Rio Declaration, the Agenda for 21 century and global environment conventions. In 2009 Kazakhstan ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as an Annex I party. Kazakhstan has committed to building a green economy and taken the initiative to create the “Green Bridge Partnership” at the Rio+20 conferences on sustainable development last year. This brings together governments, international organizations, and private businesses to find transnational solutions to sustainable growth.

Behind the economic success of the country, and commitment to international communities, serious environmental problems have not been solved. As shared during a presentation by Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, growing desertification, ‘historical’ pollution, and increased volumes of waste and emissions seem to be a serious threat for economic development, the environment and health of the nation. Total energy consumption together with emission of greenhouse gases is still increasing. If considering energy consumption per unit GDP, Kazakhstan is among those top ten countries that use their energy inefficiently.

In an effort to build a more sustainable and efficient economic model, the country has committed to making a transition to a Green Economy by 2050. A key component of this Concept is to achieve a 50 per cent share of alternative and renewable energy sources (including wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear) in the total volume of electricity generation by 2050.

To encourage businesses to pursue sustainable energy projects, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has launched the Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Financing Facility (KazREFF). KazREFF aims to ‘provide development support and debt finance to renewable energy projects which meet required commercial, technical and environmental standards’. KazREFF not only provides tailor-made financing, but also provides technical assistance for businesses and local authorities based on


August 2014

information gathered and analysed by consultants to promote projects that are often challenging to finance and implement.

KazREFF is part of the EBRD’s Sustainable Energy Initiative (SEI) which addresses the challenges of climate change and energy efficiency. Since the launch of the SEI in 2006, the EBRD has remained at the forefront in helping countries from Central Europe to Central Asia secure sustainable energy supplies and finance the efficient use of energy that will cut demand and imports, reduce pollution, and mitigate the effects of climate change.

EBRD has made renewable energy sources (RES) a key priority for investment in its countries of operation and has reviewed a number of early stage RES projects in Kazakhstan. The facility comprises an amount of up to €70 million available for loans to finance eligible renewable energy projects. In this scheme, EBRD can provide up to 50 per cent of total project costs or max €10 million; Clean Technology Fund (CTF) provides up to 20 per cent; with the balance to be provided by developers’ equity (minimum 30 per cent).

1.2 PURPOSE AND COMPONENTS OF THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

In co-operation with the national authorities in Kazakhstan, KazREFF has commissioned a Strategic Environmental Review (SER) Report focusing on renewable energy development in Kazakhstan.

In identifying the types of renewable energy resources and technologies to be assessed through the SER, projects that may apply or be eligible for the KazREFF programme will be given special consideration. Since the lending facility seeks renewable energy projects that are technically and economically viable, similar parameters were taken into account in developing RES evaluated in the SER. Factors considered include:

Smaller projects are likely to apply to KazREFF due to its focus on smaller schemes;

Primary energy production must be electricity, rather than as thermal energy (space heating, hot water, etc.);

Projects should be qualified for the feed-in tariff FIT) under discussion that guarantees revenue stream to support the project;

To be technically and economically viable in the near-term, projects are more likely to use available technologies with proven performance records in commercial application; and


August 2014

Projects are owned or primarily owned by private companies. Government entities and state-owned companies are not eligible, except as partial owner only.

Based on these factors, the representative renewable energy technologies specifically reviewed in this SER include small scale hydropower, wind, solar, and biogas projects.

The purpose of the SER process is to review the key environmental issues associated with the implementation of specific renewable energy development on a national basis. When individual projects are considered for financing under KazREFF, a project-level environmental review will be required. The outcomes of the SER will help to focus the scope and provide relevant guidance for subsequent environmental reviews of renewable energy projects within Kazakhstan. A subsequent project-level environmental review conducted by the KazREFF team for each specific project proposal will use the information in the SER report to identify mitigation strategies and adapt them for implementation at the project level.

The SER has three main components:

1. An SER Report that evaluates the general effects of developing renewable energy projects on environmental resources, communities, and the economy and identifies strategies to avoid, minimise, and mitigate those effects while moving projects forward. The SER Report will be valuable to developers and their consultants, as well as evaluators of environmental and social effects because it identifies key receptors that could be vulnerable in specific areas, in part through identifying constraints and opportunities, but also by compiling information and identifying information sources.

2. Four “Renewable Project Environmental Review (RPER) Reports” covering representative wind, small scale hydropower, solar photovoltaic, and biogas projects in Kazakhstan. These four reports are the technical basis and project scenarios upon which the SER is based. These reports are available on www.kazreff-ser.com. These documents provide guidance to developers and their consultants, as well as technical evaluators of proposed renewable projects by identifying areas of good potential and the nature and scale of technologies that can be applied in different parts of the country.

3. A Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) that guides how KazREFF and individual projects will provide information to and receiving information from stakeholders, including public review and comment on the SER report. The SEP is available on www.kazreff-ser.com. Throughout the


August 2014

SER process, the project team has conducted, and will continue to conduct, public consultation to seek existing information and stakeholder input on environmental effects and mitigation measures. The SEP is summarised along with consultation feedback to date in Section 5.

1.3 PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS SER REPORT

This SER report documents the assessment of environmental effects that may result from projects implemented under the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios, and identifies strategies to avoid, minimise, and mitigate negative effects. The SER report has largely used existing information to describe the environmental setting in Kazakhstan and to identify areas and natural resources that could be impacted by renewable energy development. This is summarised in Section 7. The KazREFF renewable energy scenarios are discussed in detail in each of the four RPER reports.

Table 1-1 details the structure of the SER Report:

Table 1-1 Structure of the SER report

Section Topic

NTS Non-Technical Summary Provides an overview of the SER Report in a concise manner (less than 10 pages) at a level of detail for a non-technical reader.

1 Introduction Explains the background of KazREFF and the purpose of the KazREFF SER.

2

SER approach Describes the approach used to develop the SER, alignment with the EU SER Directive, SEA Protocol to? the Espoo Convention, the SER Objectives, and technical difficulties encountered in developing the SER

3

Energy production in Kazakhstan Discusses current energy production and demand in Kazakhstan, energy transmission, renewable energy development, and the challenges and benefits of developing renewable energy in Kazakhstan

4

Renewable energy assessment scenarios Summarizes the renewable energy technologies for each RES (e.g. wind, solar, etc.), presents optimal development areas, and summarizes key obstacles in developing each RES.

5

SER consultation Provides an overview of consultation on the SER to date, a summary of the proposed scope, and the schedule for continued stakeholder engagement activities.

6 Policy and regulatory context


August 2014

Section Topic Identifies key plans, programmes, and legislation applicable to renewable energy and the SER.

7

Baseline data and receptors Presents a summary of the environmental baseline for air quality and climate, surface and ground water, geology and soils, landscape and biodiversity, community and socio-economics, material assets, and cultural heritage. Also identifies receptors and evaluates the sensitivity of those receptors.

8

Likely significant effects and mitigation measures Describes the direct and cumulative effects associated with each RES development scenario relative to the SER Objectives. Based on compliance with the RES Scenarios, specific mitigation measures will be recommended.

9

Spatial constraints analysis Evaluates the spatial constrains on each of the four RES strategies based on following factors: • Technical Constraints; • Environmental and Social constraints; and • Cumulative constraints.

10

SER objectives compliance Summarizes the SER Objectives, how they were developed, and how the RES scenarios comply with these objectives after mitigations measures are considered.

11

Implementation Describes methods and procedures to consider the following site-specific issues in the development of specific RES projects: • Siting considerations; • National and international environmental requirements; • Availability of baseline data; • Additional monitoring required; and, • Required mitigation.

Where appropriate, a listing of the specific references used to develop the narrative is provided at the beginning of each chapter.

1.4 AUTHORS OF THE REPORT

This SER report, and the supporting assessments of renewable energy opportunities in Kazakhstan, has been prepared on behalf of EBRD by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) - Japan. ERM has been supported by Ecoline EA Centre, which has supported the stakeholder engagement exercises, and ERM - Kazakhstan, which led the assessment of socio-economic effects. The SER is funded by EBRD together with support


August 2014

from the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) of the Climate Investment Funds and the Government of Japan through the Japan-EBRD Cooperation Fund (JECF).


August 2014

2.0 SER APPROACH

2.1 SCOPE AND APPROACH FOR THE SER

2.1.1 Introduction

Kazakhstan does not presently have legislation or regulations that require the development of an SER for programmes such as KazREFF. However, EBRD’s environmental and social policy requires compliance with both European Union directives and national law for projects and programmes funded through EBRD. Therefore, the SER has been guided by the European Union (EU) Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (usually known as the SEA Directive) and the UK’s Practical Guide to the SEA Directive (ODPM, 2005).

The KazREFF SER in itself will not constitute a statutory Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as Kazakhstan does not fall within the EU and the EBRD is not a competent authority responsible for approving projects but rather decides whether to finance projects.

The SER will provide a high level overview of potential environmental effects along with recommendations and guidance for renewable energy development in Kazakhstan.

Building on standard SEA practice, the stages adopted for this SER are described in more detail below and in Table 2.1. Section 2.2 identifies how the SER aligns with the EU SEA Directive.

Stage A (Scoping): Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline, and defining the scope;

Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects;

Stage C: Preparing the SER Environmental Report;

Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan or programme and the SER Environmental Report; and,

Stage E: Monitoring the effects and data gaps.

2.1.2 SER stage A – scoping

Stage A involved a scoping study to determine the scope of the KazREFF SER. A Scoping Report was published in July 2013 (www.kazreff-ser.com). The


August 2014

SER Scoping Report provided a framework for undertaking the KazREFF SER, and summarised the following:

1. The proposed SER process;

2. The renewable energy scenarios;

3. The SER stakeholder engagement process;

4. Other relevant plans, programmes, and environmental protection and enhancement objectives;

5. Key environmental conditions and issues; and,

6. The next stages in the SER process.

The Scoping Report was made publicly available for comment to ensure that the proposed scope of the SER is acceptable to stakeholders and to incorporate stakeholder concerns into the SER process where applicable.

2.1.3 SER stage B – assessing environmental effects

Stage B of the SER involves developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects. As noted in Section 4, renewable energy scenarios have been developed and refined as part of the SER. The other main aspect of Stage B is to identify the likely significant effects on the environment of the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios and their implementation. Further details on the steps that will be undertaken to complete the significance assessment process for the SER are provided in Section 8.

A first action in Stage B was to establish a greater knowledge of relevant policy information and baseline environmental conditions in Kazakhstan, to ensure a robust assessment of likely significant effects. The environmental topics considered in this SER report include:

Climate and air quality;

Surface water and groundwater;

Geology and soils;

Landscape and biodiversity;

Community and socio-economics;

Cultural heritage; and


August 2014

Material assets.

Section 6 of this SER report provides details on the relevant policies and section 7 provides details for the baseline conditions in Kazakhstan that need to be fully considered in undertaking the assessment of effects resulting from the renewable energy scenarios, including the sensitivity of each environmental receptor to the various renewable energy scenarios.

The criteria for determining the likely significant effects upon the environment principally relate to the nature of the effects from the renewable energy scenario. In determining the nature of effects, consideration has been given to the:

probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of effects;

potential for cumulative effects in relation to the future environmental baseline conditions and other policies, plans, programmes, and projects;

potential for trans-boundary effects; and

predicted spatial extent and magnitude of a given effect.

Receptors are the key environmental features within each SER environmental topic, for example receptors for the water topic include: surface waters resources and quality.

An assessment of significance was made by reviewing the potential effects on each receptor against the above criteria. These assessments were based upon both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as expert judgement. The assessment considered location-specific and oblast-scale effects of each renewable energy scenario for the environmental topics where possible or applicable.

Mitigation measures to prevent, reduce, and/or offset significant effects were developed through the assessment process. The mitigation measures will be used to develop appropriate requirements at project level.

Each of the renewable energy resource scenarios was then assessed for compliance against the SER Objectives as presented in Section 10.

2.1.4 SER stage C – preparing the draft environmental report

The main result of the SER process is this SER report. The structure of the SER report is laid out in Table 1-1.


August 2014

2.1.5 SER stage D – consulting on the draft environmental report

A Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) maps out the strategies for engaging the various stakeholder groups and the public, by identifying key SER stakeholders, establishing communication methods, disclosing SER project information and, collecting comments and feedback. The SEP sets out how the Environmental Report will be consulted upon, including a series of written and face-to-face communication methods. Section 5 provides a summary of the processes and outcomes of stakeholder engagement as part of the SER process. The SEP prepared for this SER is available at www.kazreff-ser.com.

2.1.6 SER stage E – monitoring the effects and data gaps

This stage involves monitoring the effects of the plan or programme, and identifying any data gaps. Section 11 identifies the key recommendations for environmental assessment and mitigation at a project level and recommendations for further audit or follow-up. These recommendations comprise the monitoring programme for this SER, appropriate for this level of assessment.

2.2 ALIGNMENT OF THE EU SEA DIRECTIVE AND THE SER PROCESS

Kazakhstan does not presently have legislation or regulations that require the development of an SER for programmes such as KazREFF. However, EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy (2008) requires compliance with both European Union directives and with national law for projects and programmes funded through EBRD. Therefore, the SER has been guided by the EU SEA Directive and the UK’s Practical Guide to the SEA Directive (ODPM, 2005), as well as Kazakhstan Laws governing OVOS (EIA) where appropriate.

It is important to note that it is not possible to define the locations and specific characteristics of the projects that will apply for funding to KazREFF. Consequently, the SER provides a high level overview of potential environmental effects, along with guidance for renewable energy development in Kazakhstan.

Annex I of the EU SEA Directive identifies a broad range of environmental and social topics that should be considered within an SEA. Therefore, it provides a benchmark for the scope of this SER. Table 2-1 shows how the topics in Annex I of the EU SEA Directive align with the seven topics addressed within the KazREFF SER.

Table 2-1 EU SEA Directive environmental and social topics in the SER


August 2014

SEA Directive Topic Comparative KazREFF SER Scoping Report Section

Biodiversity Landscape and biodiversity Population Community and socio-economics Human health Community and socio-economics Flora and Fauna Landscape and biodiversity Soil Geology and soils Water Surface water and groundwater Air Climate and air quality Climatic Factors Climate and air quality Material assets Material assets Cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological heritage

Cultural Heritage

Landscape Landscape and biodiversity

As noted in Section 2.1.1, the SER comprises four stages, A, B, C and D. These stages are derived from the UK’s Practical Guide to the SEA Directive, which breaks down the stages into sub-stages that mirror the requirements of the SEA Directive. Table 2-2 identifies in detail how this SER has complied with the various stages of the Practical Guide, and thereby align with the SEA Directive.

Table 2-2 KazREFF SER process framework

SER Stages and Tasks Purpose KazREFF SER Outputs

Stage A (Scoping)?: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding the scope

A1. Identifying other relevant plans, programmes, and environmental protection objectives.

To establish how the plan or programme is affected by outside factors, to suggest ideas for how any constraints can be addressed, and to help to identify SER objectives.

Stage A tasks have been captured within the Scoping Report. During the Stages B-D, feedback received during the scoping consultation process was used to refine the information gathered during Scoping stages A1-A4.

A2. Collecting baseline information

To provide an evidence base for environmental problems, prediction of effects, and monitoring; to help in the development of SER objectives.

A3. Identifying environmental problems.

To help focus the SER and streamline the subsequent stages, including baseline information analysis, setting of the SER objectives, prediction of effects and monitoring.


August 2014


A4. Developing SER objectives

To provide a means by which the environmental performance of the plan or programme and alternatives can be assessed.

A5. Consulting on the scope of SER

To ensure that the SER covers the likely significant environmental effects of the plan or programme.

Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects (SER)

B1. Testing the plan or programme objectives against the SER objectives

To identify potential synergies or inconsistencies between the objectives of the plan or programme and the SER objectives and help in developing alternatives.

Stage B tasks will input to the SER and be reported under Stage C. The objectives of KazREFF will be assessed at a high-level for consistency with the SER Objectives. This will allow for the early elimination of alternatives (also known as scenarios) that clearly conflict with the SER objectives.

B2. Developing strategic alternatives

To develop and refine strategic alternatives.

This process commenced as part of Stage A, with an evaluation of potential locations, feasible technologies, and operating conditions for the implementation of renewable energy scenarios (discussed in Section 4).

B3. Predicting the effects of the plan or programme, including alternatives

To predict the significant environmental effects of the plan or programme and alternatives.

The significance of environmental effects of the scenarios was assessed fully in relation to each environmental topic. Where the risk of significant environmental effects was identified, the implications for the SER objectives were considered. Further details of the SER assessment methodology are in Section 8.

B4. Evaluating the effects of the plan or programme, including alternatives

To evaluate the predicted effects of the plan or programme and its alternatives and assist in the refinement of the plan or programme.


August 2014


B5. Considering ways of mitigating adverse effects

To ensure that adverse effects are identified and potential measures to prevent, reduce, or as fully as possible, offset those effects are considered.

The SER identified potential generic measures to prevent, reduce and offset likely adverse effects. Location or technology-specific measures will be identified where possible.

B6. Proposing measures to monitor the environmental effects of plan or programme implementation

To detail the means by which the environmental performance of the plan or programme can be assessed.

The SER provides a high-level framework for envisaged monitoring measures, which can be applied to the renewable energy scenarios under consideration.

Stage C: Preparing the Strategic Environmental Review Report

C1. Preparing the SER report

To present the predicted environmental effects of the plan or programme, including alternatives, in a form suitable for public consultation and use by decision-makers.

The Draft SER report contents are summarised in Table 1-1.

Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan or programme and the Strategic Environmental Report

D1. Consulting the public and Consultation Bodies on the draft plan or programme and the Environmental Report.

To give stakeholders an opportunity to express their opinions on the findings of the Environmental Report and to use it as a reference point in commenting on the plan or programme. To gather more information through the opinions and concerns of the public.

The Draft SER report will be issued for public consultation and feedback in accordance with the Stakeholder Engagement Plan, for example on the scope of the SER, the SER Objectives, key environmental issues, and cumulative effects etc.

D2. Assessing significant changes

To ensure that the environmental implications of any significant changes to the draft plan or programme at this stage are assessed and taken into account.

Any significant changes that are made to the renewable energy scenarios arising from consultation will be taken into account within the Final SER report.

D3. Making decisions and providing information

To provide information on how the SER and consultees’ opinions were taken into account in deciding the final form of the plan or programme to be adopted.

Following the public consultation period, the final SER report will be issued detailing this information.

Stage E: Monitoring the effects and data gaps


August 2014


E1. Monitoring the effects of the plan or programme and identifying any data gaps

To identify the key recommendations for environmental assessment and mitigation at a project level and recommendations for further audit or follow-up

Development of a monitoring programme suitable for the SER

2.3 KAZREFF SER OBJECTIVES

Objectives are a recognised tool for describing, analysing, and comparing the environmental effects of options (e.g. ODPM et al., 2005). Objectives usually reflect the desired direction of change. The objectives may not necessarily be met in full by a given scenario, but the degree to which they do will provide a way of identifying preferences when comparing scenarios.

In this case, the SER objectives will need to satisfy the overall aim of KazREFF; “to provide development support and debt finance to renewable energy projects which meet required commercial, technical and environmental criteria”. Initial SER objectives, to address the environmental criteria of KazREFF, were presented in the SER Scoping report. SER objectives were developed for each SER environmental topic and have subsequently been refined through scoping consultation and review of baseline characteristics. The final SER Objectives are presented in Section 10 of this report.

2.4 DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN COMPILING INFORMATION OR CARRYING OUT THE ASSESSMENT

Data quality and data gaps that could affect characterization of the baseline environment or potential impacts are also set out in the specific subsections of Section 7. The assumptions, limitations and uncertainty associated with determining the potentially significant environmental effects are set out in Section 8.

Section 11 indicates the type of specific project-oriented environmental studies that should be conducted for review of a renewable energy project to be in compliance with the IFI requirements.


August 2014

3.0 ENERGY PRODUCTION IN KAZAKHSTAN

3.1 INFORMATION SOURCES USED

Various statistical, official, and internet sources were consulted when preparing the sections on energy production below. Information was gathered through a combination of publically-available websites, documents, and publications. On line resources consulted include:

Kazenergy, Power Kazakhstan.

The following document was cited in preparing this section:

ÅF-MERCADOS EMI, Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Market Study (KREMS).

3.2 CURRENT ENERGY PRODUCTION IN KAZAKHSTAN

In Kazakhstan, power generation depends mainly on fossil fuel resources. Approximately 86 per cent of electricity is produced from coal, 9 per cent from hydro resources, and 5 per cent from gas and oil, with alternative sources accounting for less than 0.2 per cent of the total supply. The total capacity of installed power plants in Kazakhstan is approximately 19 GW, of which only 15 GW is available. The total power generation in 2012 was 87 TWh1, which was an increase of 1TWh over 2011 power generation of 1 TWh.

On the demand side, the main electricity consumer is the industrial sector which accounts for 68.7 per cent of consumption, followed by households (9.3 per cent), services (8 per cent), transport (5.6 per cent) and agriculture (1.2 per cent). The vast majority of the population is grid connected. There are some small villages without electricity, but this represents less than 5 per cent of the population.

Kazakhstan has large energy resources (oil, gas, coal, uranium) and up until 2010, was a net exporter of electricity. As shown in the Table 3-1, since 2010, power consumption has exceeded energy production. This imbalance of supply and demand indicates a shortage of installed capacity, which will need to be supplemented by new generation capacity, strict demand side measures or electricity imports. The shortage occurs in the South region, which is being compensated by electricity purchased from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Following its independence in 1991, power demand decreased

1 Based on Kazenergy HP, http://bourabai.kz/toe/kazenergy.htm


August 2014

by half, from 100 TWh in 1990 to 50 TWh in 1999. Since 2000, demand has experienced rapid growth, except for 2009 due to the global recession.

Table 3-1 Power generation and consumption in recent years (TWh)

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Generation 67.9 71.7 76.6 80.3 78.7 82.7 85.9 Consumption 67.7 71.9 76.7 80.6 77.9 83.8 87.9

Source: KAZENERGY HP.

In order to achieve long-term economic development, investment in power generation capacity is required. 40 per cent of thermal power plants and 68 per cent of hydropower facilities are more than thirty years old. Kazakhstan is working to modernize existing facilities and construct new power plants to meet demand and increase its export potential.

3.3 RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION IN KAZAKHSTAN

Although Kazakhstan is rich in RES potential, RES is not presently well developed. The most significant RES contribution is from hydropower, namely 2.5 GW from large hydro power plants (HPP) and 0.1 GW from small scale hydro (SSH). In total 7.3 TWh of electricity was produced by large hydro resources in 2011, which corresponds to 9 per cent of total electricity production. A further 0.43 TWh was generated from other RES, mainly SSH in 2011.

The hydro energy resources are mainly found in three areas: the Irtysh river basin with its main tributaries (Bukhtarma, Uba, Ulba, Kurchum, Kardzhil), the South-Eastern zone within the Ili River Basin and the Southern zone basins of the Syrdarya, Talas and Shu (Chu) Rivers. About 75 per cent of the installed capacity is now covered by the three large dams at Irtysh River in the East Kazakhstan region.


August 2014

Figure 3-1 Bukhtarma (750MW) Irtysh River

Source: Aksu City HP (http://abc-aksu.narod.ru/articles_ges.htm)

There were only three other RESs in operation by the end of 2012. The first wind power plant (WPP), with a capacity of 1.5 MW (two turbines of 750 kW), was commissioned in the Zhambyl region and has reached a generation of 3.4 GWh. One biogas plant (375-450 kW) located in Karasu/Qostanay Region has been operating since August 2011, generating about 2 GWh per year. Finally, a 504 kW solar PV power plant has been constructed in Otar (Zhambyl). Together these RES serve about 0.5 per cent of total consumption.

According to the KREMS study, the potential of RES in Kazakhstan is estimated at 6,866 TWh per year (technical) or 75 TWh/year (economically feasible existing plus additional generation). However, the report concludes that in order to reach the target of 2,000 MW WPP by 2030 in Kazakhstan, there is a need to financially support wind power development. In this sense, the scenario depends largely on the introduction of a feed-in tariff (FIT). Table 3-2 illustrates the installed capacity and RES potential in Kazakhstan.


August 2014

Table 3-2 Current installed capacity and economic RES potential

Type of RES

Existing installed capacity

(MW)

MINT Candidates

(MW)

Additional capacity

(MW)

Additional generation

(TWh)

Technical potential

(TWh)

large HPP (P>35 MW30MW)

2,522.20 2,029 9.4 62

SSH (P<=35 MW) 108.4 54.9 1,643 9.2

Wind 1.5 356 17,240 45.3 1,820

Solar PV 0.5 670 1 600

Solar CSP 500

2,000 Landfill gas/Biomass

0.4 150 1 2,330

Geothermal 150

54

Total 2,633 410.9 20,911 65.9 6,866

Source: KREMS

The following five institutions are main players in the regulation and operations of RES projects in Kazakhstan.

1. The Ministry of Industry and New Technologies (MINT) (through the Department for Electric Power and Coal Industry) which is the responsible government agency for energy policy;

2. Ministry of Environment Protection and Water Resources (MEWR) which has recently come in charge of forming state policy in the field of RES (previously, this function was the responsibility of MINT);

3. The market regulator, the Agency for Regulation of Natural Monopolies (AREM);

4. KEGOC for national electricity transmission; and

5. Individual akimats (through energy departments) are responsible for energy sector in municipalities, at the same time according to existing RES law, responsible for RES project’s tariffs approval (lower than 25 MW).

3.4 ENERGY TRANSMISSION IN KAZAKHSTAN

Since Kazakhstan is a large country, its network consists of long distance transmission lines. As shown in Figure 3-2, transmission lines and distribution networks of Kazakhstan can be divided into three main regions: north, west and south, each of which is connected with foreign power systems (power supply system of the Russian Federation in the north and west and the Unified Energy System of Central Asia to the South). In September 2009, a new 500 kV transmission line for the North-South Transit was completed. Despite this improvement, Kazakhstan's transmission grid


August 2014

does not have sufficient connections between different zones and no connection at all between the northern and western zones. The length of each type of transmission line is shown in Table 3-3.

Figure 3-2 Current network transfer capacity (MW)

Source: KREMS Study Report

Table 3-3 Transmission lines of KEGOC in Kazakhstan (km)

Voltage 35 kV 110 kV 220 kV 330 kV 500 kV 1150 kV Total Kilometres (KEGOC)

44 352 14,105 1,759 6,420 1,421 24,101

Source: KREMS Study Report

Although additional investment is needed, the transmission network is well developed and generally not overloaded. No voltage problems have been observed, though there have been some bottlenecks, such as in the North-South transit. There have been some situations of load shedding in the past, mostly on the North-South 500 kV transmission line and in the winter peak-demand period.


August 2014

According to “Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Market Study (KREMS)”, dated April 2013, power-transmitting companies are required to ensure the smooth and non-discriminatory development of electrical or thermal grids and connection of RES facilities. The procedure for determining the nearest point of connection to the grid is governed by the “Grid Connection Rules”. Under the existing rules, the RES facility owner must build the infrastructure up to the connection point at its own cost. Any expansion or reinforcement of the existing grid required to support any project (includuing an RES project) is carried out by the network owner. .

3.5 POTENTIAL OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTING RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES

The following Table 3-4 was originally prepared by the KREMS Study team and has been modified to incorporate some of the policy changes made during the development of this SER. In May 2013 the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan at the plenary session approved the second and final draft law "On amendments and additions to some legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the issues of support for renewable energy". These amendments stipulate the establishment of fixed tariffs for the purchase of electricity from all facilities that use renewable energy sources for each type of renewable energy.

According to the amendments, a single financial centre will be created by the system operator KEGOC. The centre will distribute purchased electricity to consumers through the power grid of Kazakhstan. The changes are made to enable the centre to buy electricity from developers that use renewable energy sources, and to recover the cost from consumers in proportion to their electricity consumption from the power grid.

As of February 2014, the Cabinet of Ministries endorsed the proposed support system for RES tariffs and is planning to adopt fixed rates for 2014 with a term of 15 years as follows: wind farms - 19 tenge per kWh (9,5 eurocents); solar plants - 29 tenge per kWh (14,5 eurocents); small hydropower - 14 tenge per kWh (7 eurocents); biogas plants - 27 tenge per kWh (13,5 eurocents). The Government has also discussed measures including annual indexation for inflation and establishment of a financial centre to coordinate the purchase of electricity generated by RES.

In addition, individual customers located in remote off-grid areas of the country will be provided targeted assistance in the form of compensation from the state for a portion of the RES installation cost.

The Government also has defined the limits of renewable energy projects until 2020 by type and location in order to streamline development, land allocation and connectivity.


August 2014

The proposed limit is 1,850 MW of installed capacity in total, of which 1300 MW will be allocated for wind farms, 500 MW for solar farms, and 50 MW for biogas plants. Up to 1,050 MW of wind can be placed in the central zone and up to 250 MW in the western zone; for solar plants - 400 MW for the central area and 100 megawatts in the western zone; biogas plant - 40 MW for the central zone and 10 megawatts for the western zone.

Table 3-4 RES barriers in Kazakhstan

Barriers Comments Ways to overcome RES Law not fully developed

The RES Law has been approved, but associated bylaws that describe the mechanisms for implementation have not been issued.

MEWR and other authorities to finalise the RES Laws

Lengthy administrative procedures

Depending on the specific location, some lands may require a change in the local land-use designation which requires a long procedure where a parliamentary decision is needed

MEWR and AREM to improve the land designation procedure so that RES applications can be approved faster


August 2014

4.0 ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS

4.1 IDENTIFYING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS

Scenarios for renewable energy were identified to provide a basis for developing the baseline and assessing likely effects of implementing the KazREFF. . The SER Scoping Report identified areas with good potential for renewable energy development in Kazakhstan, using historical background, renewable energy potential, and policy and plans available at that time. In general, the technologies evaluated and recommended in the April 2013 KREMS study were used to guide the Scoping Report evaluation. Subsequently, two new plans related to energy policy and RES facilities were issued by the Government of Kazakhstan. These two plans have been used to provide a revised assessment of the renewable energy scenarios.

The first plan used, “The Action Plan for development of alternative and renewable energy in Kazakhstan for 2013-2020 (herein after called “Action Plan”)” was issued this year. The Action Plan calls for the implementation of 31 RES facilities with 1,040 MW in total capacity by 2020 as follows:

13 wind farms – 793 MW in total;

14 hydropower stations – 170 MW in total; and

4 solar plants – 77 MW in total.

The Action Plan contains the list of renewable energy sources together with organizations responsible for project implementation, due dates, estimated costs and funding sources. The suggested measures will provide for an increase in power generating capacities and bring the share of renewable energy to 3 percent by 2020.

The second plan “CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to Green Economy (herein after called “CONCEPT”)” was approved by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan in May 2013 and integrated scenarios for power sector development from 2030 and 2050. This CONCEPT includes the following three scenarios:

Base-case scenario: “Business As Usual (BAU)” electricity demand, gasification of Astana and Qaraghanda regions, current low gas prices, 30 per cent alternative share in generation in 2050, representing approximately 31 GW installed capacity.

Green scenario - expensive gas: “Green” electricity demand, gasification of Astana and Qaraghanda regions, high gas prices, 50 per


August 2014

cent alternative share in generation in 2050, representing approximately 36 GW installed capacity.

Green scenario –cheap gas: “Green” electricity demand, gasification of Astana, Qaraghanda, Pavlodar and Eastern regions, low gas prices, 50 per cent alternative share in generation in 2050, representing approximately 35 GW installed capacity.

These three scenarios are analysed to obtain the following outcome as shown in Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

Figure 4-1 Power sector development scenarios


August 2014

Figure 4-2 Total installed capacity in each scenario

Figure 4-3 Share of electricity generation in each scenario

As shown in the figures above, the Energy Generation for the “Green” scenarios is less than the “BAU” scenario despite an increase in total capacity. Table 4-1 summarizes the RES scenarios for the KazREFF Programme, noting that there is no existing national target or plan for biogas:


August 2014

Table 4-1 Installed renewable energy capacity for KazREFF

Type By 2020 By 2030 By 2050

Solar 77 MW 0.5 GW BAU: 7 GW Green:15 GW Green + Cheap Gas:15 GW

Wind 793 MW 4.6 GW BAU: 6 GW Green:15 GW Green + Cheap Gas:15 GW

Hydro 170 MW 1.5 GW BAU: 4 GW Green:4 GW Green + Cheap Gas:4 GW

Biogas - - - BAU = Business as usual

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS

When considering environmental and social impacts and proposing possible mitigation measures, appropriate scenarios should be established for meaningful discussions. At this stage, though FIT in Kazakhstan is still under discussion, there are four likely renewable energy resources that have been reviewed based upon current renewable energy opportunities in Kazakhstan and the KazREFF Programme considerations. These have been termed ‘scenarios’ for the SER to distinguish them from specific projects. The four resource scenarios are categorised as:

Wind (on-shore);

Solar photovoltaic (PV);

Small scale hydropower; and

Biogas (using landfill gas).

The following technologies are not included for SER review because the KREMS indicated they were not viable or there was a significant lack of data to assess their viability and/or the new government plans did not include them in their energy mix targets:

Concentrated solar thermal power;

Geothermal power;

Biomass; and

Off-shore wind.


August 2014

Table 4-2 illustrates the summary of Renewable Energy Scenarios established for this review based on various factors including policies, plans, laws and regulations, and technical aspects. In addition, separate Renewable Project Environmental Review (RPER) Reports for each scenario have been prepared describing resource potential, transmission grid connectivity, wind, solar, small scale hydro and the specific technologies available in different parts of Kazakhstan. These RPER reports are available at www.kazreff-ser.com.

Table 4-2 KazREFF renewable energy scenarios

Resource Areas of good Potential

Resource Characteristics associated with development area

Renewable

Energy Capacity

Project Scale

Wind Wind velocity with average

velocities > 6 m/s

(The whole country except mountain ranges, especially North and West regions and select mountain passes in the South)

18 to 48 hectares per MW

By 2020: 793 MW(13 farms)

By 2030: 4.6 GW

By 2050:

-BAU: 6 GW

-Green:15 GW

-Green + Cheap Gas:15 GW

Comprised of wind turbines of 2 – 3 MW each.

- Small farms (<20 MW or <10 Turbines)

-Medium farms (20-100 MW or 10-50turbines)

-Large farms (>100 MW or 50 plus)

Solar Insolation for optimal tilt

(Southern areas of the country, especially the Aral Sea region and Qyzylorda oblast)

2.02 to 3.23 ha/MW

By 2020: 77 MW(4plants)

By 2030: 0.5 GW

By 2050:

-BAU: 7 GW

-Green:15 GW


Utility-scale, mounted on ground projects.

-Small (1-10 MW)

-Medium (10-20 MW)

-Large (>20 MW)

Small scale hydropower

River flow with difference in height (Head) and existing hydro

Mountainous areas with sufficient topographic change over short

By 2020:170 MW(14Stations)


(<=35 MW of


August 2014

Resource Areas of good Potential

Resource Characteristics associated with development area

Renewable

Energy Capacity

Project Scale

(South-Eastern zone within the Ili river basin and the Southern zone basins of the Syrdarya, Talas and Shu (Chu) rivers.)

distances

By 2030:1.5 GW

By 2050:

-BAU: 4 GW

-Green:4 GW


capacity)- Small hydro with or without impoundments that could possibly be low discharge (diversion dam and/or river intake structure)

- Hydro Retrofit/Rehab. at any (small or large) retired/existing sites

Biogas Landfill Gas

(LFG)

(controlled landfill site)

- Approx.100-175 MW

(Potential)

Minimum size will be limited by available LFG at site.

- Microturbines (30 –250 kW)

-Internal combustion engines (ICE) (500 kW– 3 MW)

-Gas turbines (>3 MW)


August 2014

5.0 SER CONSULTATION

5.1 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

The SER is being developed in compliance with the EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy (2008) and its Public Information Policy (2008) as well as being guided by the EU SEA Directive. The Stakeholder and Public Consultation process is specifically governed by EBRD’s Performance Requirement 10 “Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement” (PR10), which stipulates the requirements for information disclosure and stakeholder engagement. The SER is not formally a “project” with a specific client, and thus the Policy and Performance Requirement are not strictly applicable. However, the EBRD considers the SER to be the equivalent to a Category A public project for the purpose of stakeholder engagement .

In line with the requirements of PR10, a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) was developed to set the scope and timescales for further consultation throughout the SER. This SEP is available at the KazREFF SER website at: http://www.kazreff-ser.com. The primary objective of the SEP is to map out the strategy for engaging the various stakeholder groups and public in the activities of the KazREFF SER. The SEP will identify and describe key KazREFF SER stakeholders, public and other interested groups. It will also summarize the process of how consultation will work, how feedback and comments will be taken into account and how any grievances will be handled. The SEP will be modified periodically to capture all activities conducted to date and the remaining activities to be conducted.

In the Republic of Kazakhstan, the requirements for Public consultations within the framework of international legislation are stipulated by the Aarhus convention on the access to environmental information and public participation in environmental decision making. In accordance with the Aarhus convention, the right of public to be informed about the environmental conditions has been established by law. Although this SER is not subject to national regulations, they have been considered in designing the SEP and processes for the KazREFF SER.

KazREFF SER consultations have been organized in three main stages, have already commenced, and will continue throughout the project:

Stage 1 – Project Introduction and Stakeholder Identification (April through July 2013)

Stage 2 – Scoping and Capacity Building (July 2013 through February 2014)


August 2014

Stage 3 – Public Consultation and Implementation (April through October 2014)

Stage 4 – Disclosure and public consultation for individual projects proposed to be financed by the KazREFF.

Feedback received from stakeholders during Stages 1 and 2 is summarized in the following sections.

5.1.1 Stage 1 – project introduction and stakeholder identification (April through July 2013)

During Stage 1 (between April and July 2013), information about the KazREFF SER and SER Scoping Report was shared with 30 representatives of various stakeholder groups; 13 of whom were individually interviewed. Special focus has been placed on the representatives of local authorities, manufacturers, developers and consultants involved in the development and implementation of renewable energy projects in Kazakhstan and efforts have been made to ensure sufficient focus on priority areas for renewable energy development.

During April 2013, the KazREFF SER team conducted in-person meetings with stakeholders in Astana and Almaty. A complete summary of these introductory meetings is provided in the SEP. Subsequent meetings were held with key government ministries in Astana during May 2013. Additionally, a series of emails including the project information sheets were sent to the environmental ministries of the oblasts listed above.

Comments, expectations, concerns and expressed opinions received during the consultation are summarized below. Comments and attitudes towards renewable energy sources by stakeholders are positive in general.

General

All stakeholders are clearly aware of the Presidential mandate to develop clean energy to a goal of 50 per cent of the total energy generation in Kazakhstan by 2050 (see section 6.1.5);

With the exception of hydropower projects, stakeholders were unaware of any renewable projects currently on-line in Kazakhstan;

National energy policy and laws/regulations such as energy mix, carbon trading, and the feed-in tariff are currently under legislative review; and


August 2014

EXPO 2017 on Future Energy will be held and it is intended that all electricity for that event will be powered by new renewable energy generation facilities.

Expectations

The law on the feed-in tariff for renewable energy is likely to be passed sometime in 2013 and supporting regulations will be established thereafter;

Capacity building and targeted information dissemination on EBRD, International Finance Institutions and SER procedures, practices, requirements is needed; and

There are currently 10 or renewable projects in the pipeline which include wind, solar, biogas, and small hydro projects.

The SER will provide a baseline of information for evaluating future projects.

Concerns

Soast renewable energy projects were built but have failed because they did not consider local conditions unique to Kazakhstan (e.g. harsh winter temperatures and icing, strong and vortex winds, etc.). There is concern that European and US technologies will not work in Kazakhstan;

Solar PV is thought to be very expensive and prohibitively so in most cases;

Small hydro is not a major component because most of the rivers in Kazakhstan have flows too low to provide much generation, or high enough to suppor large hydro;

Land for wind can be prohibitively expensive since many of the high wind resources were purchased upon completion of the Kazakhstan Wind Atlas by UNDP, which raised the land prices in speculation;

The process to obtain environmental permission takes a long time though there is a simplified process for small projects; and

A similar EBRD finance facility as KazREFF (the KazSEFF) is viewed to have been unsuccessful and there is pessimism with respect to the potential success of KazREFF.


August 2014

Expressed Opinions

There is a movement towards a Green Economy and Green Technology in Kazakhstan;

Energy efficiency should be improved as well as the introduction of renewable energy;

Each project will be subject to the local EIA process (OVOS) with stakeholder engagement; and

The SEA process in general is potentially a very useful instrument for Kazakhstan.

5.1.2 Stage 2 – scoping and capacity building (July 2013 through March 2014)

The SER Environmental Scoping Report was published on the KazREFF SER website in April 2013, at http://www.kazreff-ser.com. EBRD conducted half-day scoping meetings on 16 and 18 July 2013 in Astana and Almaty, respectively, to encourage broad stakeholder participation in the development of the SER.

The goal of the scoping meetings was as follows;

Present the SER component of KazREFF;

Identify key institutional stakeholders and potential sources of information.

Identify key concerns through discussion and create a list of items for consideration;

Identify data gaps and additional potential data sources; and

Identify capacity building opportunities and create a list of gaps to help create capacity building programs.

Outreach activities, including mailing, emailing and telephoning contacts, were undertaken with 86 organizations representing a variety of stakeholders in the Astana and Almaty areas including government, developers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), consultants, and advisory bodies. 18 organizations representing a variety of stakeholders participated in the meetings.

The following concerns and opinions were expressed by spokespersons from each of the two separate working groups:


August 2014

1. There is a lack of clear information about the nature of national parks or their location and boundaries. This information should be made more accessible to the public.

2. There is a lack of information on risk to the environment and health associated with solar PV projects.

3. There is a lack of integrated authority as well as a lack of coordination between relevant agencies with respect to the implementation of renewable energy sources due to the absence of a coordinating Ministry of Energy.

4. There are not sufficient specialists in renewable technology in Kazakhstan; therefore, providing an education seminar or training is very important.

5. Ethnic conflicts are not a significant concern in Kazakhstan and can be excluded from the scoping.

6. Assessment of the impacts of renewable energy development should include discussions about source materials, the impacts of developing those, and the impacts associated with decommissioning facilities at the end of use.

7. The SER should state the positive economic benefits of introducing renewable energy projects such as:

a. Educational opportunities for students

b. Increased employment opportunities

c. Providing access to electricity and thereby bringing positive impact to remote communities

d. Creating create new business opportunities through the local, regional and national introduction of renewable technology. For example in 2012, a PV manufacturing facility was built in Astana, which created new employment opportunity for students.

8. The introduction of feed-in tariff would increase electricity costs which will, in turn, have an impact on the community.

9. Any renewable energy source will need to have backup using conventional energy sources when wind/sun/water/ is not available.


August 2014

5.1.3 Stage 3 - public consultation and implementation

Stage 3 will begin in September 2014 and include a formal 120-day public consultation period, where all stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comment on the disclosed Draft SER report. An announcement of the SER report availability will be made through an email to all stakeholders consulted with during the prior two stages. One or two workshops (as necessary based on level of interest) will be held during the consultation period.

A range of communication methods will be employed during the KazREFF Draft SER report consultations as follows:

Publication of the KazREFF SER Draft Environmental Report and KazREFF SEP in Russian and English at the KazREFF SER website at www.kazreff-ser.com;

Hard copies of KazREFF SER Draft Environmental Report and KazREFF SEP are available at the following EBRD offices, located in Almaty and Astana;

Hard copies of KazREFF SER Draft Environmental Report and KazREFF SEP are available at regional Aarhus Centres;

CD copies of KazREFF SER Draft Environmental Report and KazREFF SEP will be available upon individual request;

Hard copies and CDs with documents will be available in target regions libraries;

Workshops. Detailed information on location and timing of the proposed meetings and tentative timetable for the workshops is shown in Appendix B of this document. Information will be revised and updated as necessary;

Announcements in national and regional media;

Official correspondence with authorities; and

Email and phone communication.


August 2014

6.0 ADMINITRATIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS

The SER identifies the organizational oversight of RES projects under KazREFF and considered the strategic plans and programmes, the legislative constraints and the policy requirements of these organizations as well as the potential funding entities that would be involved. This includes organizations within Kazakhstan as well as international organizations that could be stakeholders.

6.1.1 Kazakhstan renewable energy strategies and plans

Within Kazakhstan, there are a large number of different strategic documents, mostly, plans, programs, strategies and concepts. They can be administrative, territorial, (inter) sectorial focused, or the nature of such a combination. For example, in compliance with the RK strategic documents all regions of Kazakhstan have developed their own strategies for socioeconomic development, territorial development programs, business road maps, and employment programs.

The timeframe of strategic documents varies between 5 to 20 years, with the most recent being "Strategy: Kazakhstan-2050". Not all of them contain implementation and monitoring mechanisms, and some of them are not supported by a financial evaluation. As a result, implementation varies from case to case. National documents which describe Kazakhstan energy strategy for the period until 2050 are as follows:

The Programme for the development of electric power industry in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014;

The State Programme of accelerated industrial and innovative development of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014 approved by Kazakhstan President decree No 958 dated 19 March 2010;

The Strategic Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan till 2020 approved by the Decree of the President of Kazakhstan No 922 from 1 February 2010;

The Message of Kazakhstan President to the people of Kazakhstan dated 14 December 2012 “Kazakhstan-2050 Strategy”;

Concept on transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to "Green economy", approved by Decree #577 President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 30 May 2013; and


August 2014

The Action Plan for development of alternative and renewable energy in Kazakhstan for 2013-2020 approved by Kazakhstan Government Decree No 43 dated 25 January 2013.

6.1.2 The Programme for the development of electric power industry in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014

“The Programme for the development of electric power industry in Kazakhstan for 2010-2014” is conceptual in nature and is designed as a fundamental part of the strategy, implementing the “The Strategic Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan till 2020”, and the “State Programme of accelerated industrial and innovative development of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014”. Electricity plays an important role in the economic and social sphere of any state and; therefore, has been identified as one of the priority sectors of the economy of Kazakhstan. The Programme considers the industry to be a dynamically balance system with key components that include the energy industry, the economy, nature, and society.

6.1.3 The State Programme of accelerated industrial and innovative development of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014

According to the “State Programme of accelerated industrial and innovative development of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014”, one of the focal areas for development of electric power industry and addressing environmental issues of Kazakhstan is RES development. The potential of renewable energy sources in Kazakhstan is very significant. The main goal of this Programme is to increase the share of renewable energy sources (small hydro, solar installations) in the State energy balance.

6.1.4 The Strategic Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan till 2020

According to “The Strategic Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan till 2020”, the share of renewable source is less than 1 per cent, though this plan aims to reach more than 1.5 per cent by 2015 and to 3 per cent by 2020. The State support of the Program provides for careful consideration of issues related to RES support including:

provision of land availability and priority when land allotment for construction of renewable energy facilities;

commitments of energy transmission organizations to purchase electricity generated by RES facilities;

exemption of renewable energy facilities from fees for energy transmission through networks; and


August 2014

Support for connection of renewable energy facilities to the networks of energy transmission organizations.

6.1.5 Kazakhstan-2050 Strategy

In his message “Kazakhstan-2050 Strategy”, delivered on 14 December 2012, President Nazarbaev highlighted ten global challenges which should be reached so that Kazakhstan can achieve new progress in its development. One such challenge is global energy security. All developed countries increase investments in alternative and green energy technologies. By 2050, at the call of the President, the use of green energy technologies will account for generation of 50 per cent of all energy consumed.

6.1.6 CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to "Green economy"

On 30 May, 2013, the CONCEPT for the transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to a "Green economy" was approved by decree of the President. The strategy aims to successfully transition to a green economy by improving welfare and living standards and minimize the environmental footprint and degradation of natural resources.

As part of the CONCEPT, the total investments including new capacity and infrastructure across renewable and conventional sources will amount to 40-55 billion USD by 2030 and 90-130 billion USD by 2050 depending on the scenario and development of generation technologies. The CONCEPT call for the increase in renewable power to 50% by 2050 (including wind, solar, hydro and nuclear) through an increase of wind and solar as follows:

Achieving 3 per cent of wind and solar plants in total volume of electricity generation by 2020

Achieving 10 per cent of wind and solar plants in total volume of electricity generation by 2030

Full scale RES roll-out after RES becomes acceptably competitive (2020-2030)

6.1.7 The Action Plan for development of alternative and renewable energy in Kazakhstan for 2013-2020

Implementation of the following measures is aimed at support of renewable energy use and is stipulated in accordance with the “Action plan for development of alternative and renewable energy in Kazakhstan for 2013-2020”:


August 2014

Provide the development and implementation of measures aimed at involvement of non-budgetary investments for implementation of projects in the area of renewable energy sources;

Conduct revision (audit) of land plots allocated for RES facilities construction where construction works have not been started

Consider the possibility of the withdrawal of lands which had been allocated for RES facilities construction but were not used;

Determine perspective sites for RES facilities location;

Improve the plan of RES facilities location; and

Develop action plans for development of alternative and renewable energy in oblasts, Astana and Almaty cities for 2013 through 2020.

By 2020, as a part of the implementation of RES projects, 31 RES facilities with a total rated capacity of 1,040 MW are planned including:

13 wind farms – totalling 793 MW;

14 hydropower stations – totalling 170 MW;

4 solar plants – totalling 77 MW.

The action plan contains the list of RES facilities together with organizations responsible for project implementation, due dates, estimated costs and funding sources.

6.2 KAZAKHSTAN ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

There are several administrative organizations within the Kazakh government with some responsibility for the implementation of strategies, legislation, and policy that affect the development of renewable energy resources in Kazakhstan.

6.2.1 Ministry of Environment and Water Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan

In accordance with the Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 466, dated 16 January 2013, "On further improvement of the government management system of the Republic of Kazakhstan" the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources MEWR is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of state policy related to the "green economy" and RES, which was previously performed by MINT. The


August 2014

Committee of Environmental Regulation and Control is responsible for carrying out of the State environmental review of RES projects (preliminary EIA, EIA, Environmental Protection, MPE and MPD issues); in addition, this Committee grants licenses for environmental protection activities and issues permits for emissions to the environment.

6.2.2 Ministry of Industry and New Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MINT)

MINT is the central executive authority that is responsible for the management of industry and innovation, research, and technical development. They are the main body that ensures the implementation of state policy in the electricity, coal and nuclear power sectors. MINT has played a leading role in stimulating RES and was required to implement the RES Law by the end of 2012, which was then taken over by the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), which was formerly known as the Ministry of Environmental Protection.

MINT also manages international co-operation in the field of electric power industry. The Ministry is responsible for representation of the Republic of Kazakhstan at Inter-Governmental Committees on electricity. Based on intergovernmental agreements, the MINT makes decisions concerning coordination and management of import/export of electricity to neighbouring countries; export/import of electricity are performed by JSC KEGOS in compliance with the current legislation requirements.

The division of MINT which provides control and regulatory functions in the electricity sector is the Committee of State Energy Supervision and Control. The Committee’s responsibilities include:

Ensuring the reliable, safe and economical operation of electricity industry facilities during production, transmission, distribution and consumption of energy;

Monitoring the implementation of the regulatory standards and relevant technical requirements;

Developing energy efficiency plans, implementing energy-saving policies and providing energy efficiency assessments of enterprises; and

Approving feasibility studies and technical projects for the construction of facilities that use renewable energy.


August 2014

6.2.3 Joint Stock Company “Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company KEGOC”

KEGOC JSC is a system operator of the Unified Power System of Kazakhstan. Its main activities include services on electricity transmission through the National Power Grid, providing grid maintenance and availability and providing technical dispatching through a centralized operational dispatch control.

KEGOC was established by the Government Decree of Kazakhstan No. 1188 dated 28 September 1996 “On certain measures for restructuring of Kazakhstan power system management”. Pursuant to the Law of Kazakhstan “On Electric Power", the Government Regulation of Kazakhstan No. 190, dated 18 February 2004, "On measures for further development of market relations in electric power of the Republic of Kazakhstan", and Order of Minister of Energy and Natural Resources No. 198, dated 27 August 2004, KEGOC JSC was appointed as the system operator in an effort to maintain steady operations and provide reliable control of the grid.

6.2.4 JSC Samruk-Energy

JSC Samruk-Energy is a multi-sectoral energy holding that was established on 18 April 2007 during the general meeting of its founders in order to develop and implement long-term government policy on existing and new power generation capacities. Samruk-Energy works to provide an efficient power supply for the sustainable development of all sectors of Kazakhstan. Its main priorities are as follows:

production of electricity

production of heat

transmission and distribution of electricity

extraction of coal

reconstruction, expansion and construction of power facilities

An affiliated company has licenses for generation, transmission and distribution of electric and thermal energy, operation of power plants, power lines and substations, mining of solid minerals, design, manufacturing, installation and repair of electrical equipment.

Samruk-Energy operates a subsidiary, Samruk-Energy Ltd., which is responsible for renewable energy generation.


August 2014

6.3 KAZAKHSTAN RENEWABLE ENERGY LEGISLATION

The national energy legislation of Kazakhstan is a relatively complex and well-developed suite of laws and regulations. It is closely intertwined with other sectoral laws and regulations, including environmental legislation which is reviewed in further sections of this document. Presented below is an overview of key regulations that are of relevance to renewable energy activities.

6.3.1 Law “On Support to Use of RES” No. 165-IV RK dated 4 July 2009 (with last amendments and additions made 10 July 2012)

This law defines objectives and general forms of the state regulation in the area of support for renewable energy use, as well as competencies of the Government of Kazakhstan, the authorized body, local executive authorities of oblasts and cities. Under this law, RES is defined as a source of energy that is continuously renewable through natural processes: the energy of solar radiation, wind energy, hydrodynamic energy (for plants with a capacity of up to 35MW), geothermal sources, biomass, biogas and other fuels from organic waste used for the production of electricity and/or heat.

Under this law, local executive authorities shall take into account industry-specific programs on the development and use of renewable energy and provide and allocate land plots for construction of renewable energy facilities in accordance with the Kazakhstan land legislation and their location plans. Furthermore, the law provides for support during design and construction of facilities for renewable energy use, the sales of electric or thermal energy generated by renewable energy facilities, and also addresses connection and transmission issues.

To better support the successful development of renewable energy projects in Kazakhstan, MINT developed amendments to the Renewables Law. The amendments provides for changes to the existing legislation concerning introduction of fixed tariffs, guaranteed purchase of electricity from renewable energy sources and creating conditions for the individual user, which will potentially eliminate many of the common legal constraints associated with the development and implementation of RES.

These amendments were reviewed and approved by the Kazakhstan Mazhilis2 in May 2013. The amendments were intended to support investors and ordinary consumers and stipulate the:

2 Mazhilis is a lower chamber of Parliament which is responsible for consideration and approval of draft regulations


August 2014

setting of fixed tariffs for energy supply that allow the law to be a guarantee for investors in regards to repayment of invested funds, and will help to clarify the rates applicable for RES;

distribution of RES electrical energy to all consumers through specialized centre for RES support ensures purchase of electrical energy generated by RES, and provides for fair distribution of costs for RES support among electricity consumers irrespective of their point of connection to the electric grid;

development of a transparent scheme for state compensation of 50% costs incurred by individual consumers who are not connected to the power grid for purchasing of renewable energy installations, that will encourage RES development; and

Provision of conditions for individuals to sell excess electric power generated by RES to the public network.

Regulations for implementing the amended Renewables Law were initially expected in September 2013, however, as of October 2013, the Law has not been promulgated nor has gone into effect. In particular, the details for the feed in tariff will make a significant influence on renewable energy investment.

6.3.2 Law “On Electric Power” No. 588-II dated 9 July 2004 (with last amendments dated 22 July 2011)

This law covers issues related to production, transmission and consumption of electric and thermal energy. Any related issues which are not governed by the Renewables Law or Regulations above are regulated by this Law. The Law states that the projection and completion of transmission lines and substations may be performed only with preliminary notification and coordination with MINT, KEGOC, and the Agency for the Regulation of Natural Resources.

Under this Law, one of the tasks of state regulation in the area of electric power industry is the use and development of renewable and non-conventional energy sources.

6.3.3 Other regulations

Although the main Law regulating renewable energy is the RES Law, additional regulations addressing on renewable energy include:

The Kazakhstan Government Decree No 857 dated 25 August 2003, “About development of wind power engineering” according to which


August 2014

the UNDP/Global Environmental Facility (GEF) programme for “Acceleration of development of wind power engineering in Kazakhstan” and the construction project of pilot wind farm of 5 MW capacity in the area of Dzungarian Gates;

The Kazakhstan Government Decree No 2190 dated 25 December 2009, “On approval of Rules, terms of coordination and approval of feasibility studies and construction projects for renewable energy facilities (the Rules of Approval for Feasibility Studies);

The Kazakhstan Government Decree No 1529 dated 5 October 2009, “On approval of Rules for monitoring the use of renewable energy sources” (Monitoring Rules);

The Kazakhstan Government Decree No 119 dated 19 January 2012, “Rules for determining the nearest point of connection to the electrical or thermal networks and connecting objects on the use of renewable energy sources”. (Connection Rules);

The Kazakhstan Government Decree No 70 dated 16 January 2012, “On Approval of the Rules of purchasing electricity from qualified energy-producing organizations". (Electricity Purchasing Rules);

The Kazakhstan Government Decree No 1784 dated 29 December 2012 “On the approval of Rules for the implementation of expertise of energy saving and energy efficiency improvement”. (Energy Efficiency Implementation Rules); and

Rules of accreditation in the field of energy conservation and energy efficiency improvements approved by the Government Decree of the Republic of Kazakhstan No 146 dated 18 February 2013. (Accreditation Rules).

6.3.4 Kazakhstan land use legislation relevant to RES projects

Of particular interest in developing RES facilities are the issues related to the acquisition and use of land. In Kazakhstan, land is owned by the State but can be transferred, sold or rented to individuals, generally for 49 years. Once land is in private hands, the State can reclaim it only for specific uses, including road construction, and only after compensating the owner for the asset and other losses.

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Land Code, lands in the Republic of Kazakhstan are state-owned. Land plots can be also handed over to private ownership on terms, conditions and within the limits enacted by the Land Code.


August 2014

In accordance with Article 20 of the Land Code, state and private land ownership is recognized and equally protected in the Republic of Kazakhstan through:

1) Assignment of property rights for land; 2) Transfer of ownership; 3) Transfer of ownership by way of universal succession (inheritance, legal

entity reorganization).

In accordance with Article 23 of the Land Code, state-owned land plots can be privatized by both individuals and non-governmental legal entities, except for land plots which cannot be privately owned according to this Land Code.

6.3.4.1. Current land use framework

According to Clause 1 of the Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan # 442-II dated 20.06.03, land in Kazakhstan is divided into the following categories:

1. lands for agricultural use;

2. lands for residential and public use (cities, villages);

3. lands for industrial, transportation, communications, space activity, defence and other non-agricultural uses;

4. lands for nature reserve and other environmental protection use, health-improving use, recreational use, historical and cultural use;

5. forest fund lands: state forest fund lands comprise lands with natural forests, lands occupied by forests planted at the expense of the state budget resources, and lands free of forests (forested and non-forested areas) which are granted for permanent use to state companies involved in forest management;

6. water fund lands: these are lands occupied by water facilities of regional and district significance (irrigation and drainage systems) as well as by irrigation facilities designated for servicing a land plot of one economic entity. If these facilities are privatized, lands may be privately owned by individuals and non-governmental legal entities of the Republic of Kazakhstan; and

7. reserve lands: these are lands which are not privatized or leased; and they belong to regional executive authorities (Akimats). .


August 2014

These lands are used in accordance with the established designation. The legal status of lands is determined based on their category and permitted use under the zoning designations.

Land plots reserved in accordance with the established procedure for the development of natural territories under special protection, mainline railways, public roads, trunk pipelines, communications, subsoil resources use, energy industry, as well as lands designated for the construction of administrative facilities and structures in accordance with approved architectural and construction design documentation (airports, airfields, railway stations, public roads, state administrative buildings, hospitals, schools, housing, parks, boulevards, and other public structures and facilities) can be allocated for temporary use for other purposes until these land plots are required to be developed for planned needs.

Pursuant to Article 47 of the Land Code, state-owned land plots as a property can be allocated to individuals and non-governmental legal entities who are entitled to purchase land as a property. This procedure is performed on a reimbursable basis. Land use estimations and payments to the budget are effected in accordance with the tax legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

6.3.4.2. Change in land use designation

Although the Law on Support for Renewable Energy #165-IV of 4 July 2009 (Article 7) stipulates that local governance bodies should reserve and provide land for the construction of renewable energy facilities in accordance with the Republic of Kazakhstan land legislation, until the present time a number of RES projects could not be implemented due to difficulties in obtaining approval for the use of land. For instance, it was difficult to build a number of small scale hydropower plants in the flood plains of rivers and small adjoining land plots belonging to the forest fund. In such cases, the construction of small scale hydropower plants required change of forest land to other categories. A similar obstacle was encountered for wind power station construction.

To solve this problem, in July 2013, the Law "On amendments and additions to some legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the support for the use of renewable energy sources" # 128-V dated 04.07.13 was adopted. In accordance with this law, the Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2003) was amended. Clause 90 of the Land Code in new edition provides for the removal of irrigated agricultural lands, forest lands and water reserve lands in exceptional cases such as for the acquisition of land for the construction of various types of renewable energy facilities.


August 2014

According to Article 2 of the Land Code, change in land use designation from one category to another is carried out by the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Based on the Governmental Resolutions, local executive authorities within their competence, provide allocation or withdrawal of land plots, including lands for the state needs (for the construction of main railways, public roads, trunk pipelines, communications, subsoil resources use, and energy facilities).

It should be noted that in 2011 the JSC “KazNIIenergetika” developed a Reference Handbook “On the procedure of preparation, design, approval and implementation of construction projects pertaining to the construction and operation of renewable energy sources in the Republic of Kazakhstan”. The Reference Handbook was developed in the context of the UN Development Programme on rendering information support to potential investors in preparation and approval of RES projects.

6.3.5 Kazakhstan environmental protection legislation relevant to RES projects

MEWR is the central executive body for environmental protection. Its responsibilities include developing and pursuing national environmental policy, enforcing laws, and administering State supervision and State ecological expertise. The MEWR oversees the country’s compliance with ratified international environmental conventions and inter-State environmental agreements. It also controls emissions and discharges of pollutants, issues permits to enterprises, and approve the maximum allowable volumes and composition of pollutants.

The MEWR includes individual committees which oversee the following key areas: environmental protection and natural resources, forestry and hunting, water resources, environmental information, and ecology and climate.

The Environmental Protection System of Kazakhstan is based on the Environmental Code of 9 January 2007 with amendments as well as several other laws which were written with primary goal of stating the requirements of environmental protection for industrial activities, protected zones, new constructions, and other activities. These laws form a foundation for environmental protection legislation, include terms and definitions, and define the main structure for environmental protection.

The Environmental Code is based on over than 20 guidelines of international organisations, 14 International Conventions, 30 EU Directives and laws of other countries, the Model Code of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States), and more than 200 Kazakh legislative acts.

According to the Code, the basic principles of the environmental legislation shall be:


August 2014

Sustainable development;

Ecological safety;

Ecosystem approach;

State regulation in the sphere of environmental protection and state management of natural resources;

Prevention of environmental pollution;

Liability;

Compensation of environmental damages;

Environmental fees application and issuance of environmental permits;

Interaction, coordination and transparency in the functioning of the authorized state environmental institutions;

Incentives for the prevention of environmental pollution and waste;

Availability of environmental information; and

Consideration of environmental risks of the planned activity for environment and population.

The Environmental Code provides individuals and legal entities with the right to free access to governmental environmental information resources, and public participation in the decision-making process in the fields of

All specific RES projects will be required to be in compliance with the Environmental Code. As a result, these RES projects will need to assess impacts to the environmental through an environmental impact assessment (EIA-OVOS [?]) and will also need to be in compliance with all relevant environmental quality standards. These requirements are described in detail below.

6.3.6 Environmental impact assessment requirements

Specific requirements for EIA procedures for all categories of economic activity are established by the document “Instruction on Environmental Impact Assessment at the Development of Prior Planned, Planned, Prior Project, and Project Documentation”. This guide contains:


August 2014

A list of activities which require implementation of the EIA procedure in full;

A list of activities for which the full EIA procedure is proposed to the State Environmental Expertize (SEE) on the basis of preliminary expertise or by applying a set of criteria determined in normative documents; and

A list of activities with insignificant environmental impact, for which only the preparation of an "Environmental impact statement" is sufficient for submission to the SEE.

Projects in Kazakhstan are classified by the Sanitary and Epidemiological Services (SES) of MOH according to five danger levels with one being the highest as defined by norms and standards in relation to human health and safety. The sensitivities of projects are measured by the SES Danger/Sanitary Categories. The categories are:

Danger/Sanitary Categories 1 & 2 projects have levels of severity/danger that trigger a full EIA.

Danger/Sanitary Category 3 projects are considered to have lower levels of severity/danger and as such a lesser assessment is undertaken, although still referred to as an Environmental Assessment.

Danger/Sanitary Category 4 & 5 projects are considered to present considerably lower risks of severity/danger and generally do not warrant an assessment beyond the initial screening.

The SES Danger/Sanitary Categories relate to four categories of RoK EIA (Оценка воздействия на окружающую среду - OVOS). The EIA/OVOS Categories are:

Category I - Sanitary Class/Danger Categories 1 and 2 plus investigations and extractions of minerals, except for common minerals. Risks are high and approval by MEWR is required. A Category I EIA/OVOS is categorically required obligatory for large scale including road construction project with four lanes or more.

Category II - Sanitary Class/Danger Category 3 plus extractions of ubiquitous minerals, forestry activities and special uses of water. Risks are ranked as Medium High and approval is required from TEPO(s).


August 2014

Category III - Sanitary Class/Danger Category 4 Risks are ranked as Low and approval is required from TEPO(s).

Category IV - Sanitary Class/Danger Category 5 plus projects involving animals, except recreational fishing and hunting. Risks are ranked as Low and approval is required from local administrations.

SEE reviews are conducted at end of each stage in the process and before proceeding to the next stage. Reviews are conducted first at the Oblast level and then by MEWR and other agencies as appropriate to the nature of the Project and the level of EIA Categorization. Under Kazakhstan regulations, the EIA process has three stages:

Preliminary EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment - Pre-OVOS)

Preparation of the EIA (OVOS). EIAs are obligatory for large scale projects.

Preparation of an "Environmental Protection Section". The Environmental Protection Section is prepared in the detailed design stage in the event that mitigation measures defined in the EIA (OVOS) are required.

At each stage of the EIA process, the developer is required to prepare an "Environmental Impact Statement", which is a compulsory annex to each EIA document. The "Environmental Impact Statement" must be presented in the package of documents for submission to the SEE for consideration. Reviews are conducted at the end of each stage, first at the Oblast level and the by MEWR and other agencies as appropriate for the project and EIA Category.

Public hearings or public consultations are required at all stages of EIA. The detailed requirements for public participation are reflected in the Environmental Code, Articles 57 and 60-67 and the “Rules of access to environmental information relate dot EIA procedure and decision-making process on intended economic and other activity”. Minutes from these hearings are filed as part of the EIA documentation.

The process provides for a preliminary review period of two weeks and a final review period of up to 90 days after which the EIA authors are required to defend the EIA at a consultation session with all stakeholders in attendance (usually not the general public). Once complete, the EIA is revised; a final document is prepared; and a formal OVOS certificate is issued to the Proponent, but usually only after another 30-day waiting period, allowing for any additional comments. This certificate allows the project to proceed with other approvals that may be required. Based on this information, it may take up to a year to complete the EIA process in Kazakhstan.


August 2014

Based on additional guidance provided in the EIA regulations, it is likely that RES projects would be considered Category II and would require Category II EIA/OVOS documentation. However, the siting of RES facilities within or near sensitive/protected areas may result in these being classified as Category I projects. This determination is made by MEWR at the preliminary EIA stage.

In accordance with Annex # 1 to the EIA Regulations (2007), a full-scale EIA should be developed for the construction of overhead power lines with the voltage of 220 kW or more and more than 15 km long.

Annex # 2 to the EIA Regulations states that overhead power transmission lines (projects not listed in Annex # 1), hydroelectric power plants and wind power facilities refer to the list of facilities which require a full assessment on the basis of preliminary review or with the use of thresholds (set of criteria) specified by regulatory documents.

The OVOS process was evaluated against the EBRD Environmental and Performance Standards to identify gaps areas that may be not be satisfied by the OVOS process. This gap analysis is provided in Appendix E.

6.3.7 Environmental quality standards

6.3.7.1. Air and climatic factors

In Kazakhstan, air quality standards are established by the national Ministry of Health. Those standards define maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs) of pollutants for residential areas and air quality within the workplace. For certain pollutants, Kazakhstani legislation defines more stringent MPCs for residential areas than those established by the European Union.

Industrial emissions in Kazakhstan are regulated by establishing Maximal Permissible Emissions for each industrial facility. This approach is closely related to the concept of a buffer area (a health protection area). It is assumed that pollutant concentrations at the outer limit of such an area, taking into account dispersion processes, should not exceed air quality standards established for residential areas. At present, in accordance with the "Law on Technical Regulation", some specific standards for air emission for different industrial sectors have been developed.

Biogas projects will require to calculate emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere and to obtain from the environmental supervisory authorities a permit for air emissions. Any RES projects under KazREFF (e.g. solar, wind, and small scale hydropower) require obtaining of permits for emissions (air, wastewater, wastes). .


August 2014

6.3.7.2. Soil and geology

The Law on “Subsoil and Subsoil Resources Use”, adopted in 2010, legally establishes the rights and obligations of subsoil use, outlines state control in the protection, study and utilization of mineral resources, the state mineral reserve fund, and oil operations on land and at sea, and provides regulations on environmental protection.

The development of RES facilities is not expected to require the use of subsoil resources and would be expected to have very minor impacts to subsoil resources. With the exception of the construction of foundations and trenching for underground lines during construction, there would be no impacts subsoil resources during operation or decommissioning.

National regulations foresee top fertile soil layer protection during construction. Measures of top soil protection and construction site re-cultivation are an obligatory part of the EIA report.

6.3.7.3. Water

The legal requirements of water resource use are set forth by the “Water Code of Republic of Kazakhstan” (2003, with amendments), which helps to establish the optimal level of water use and protect water resources, water supply and sanitation for the preservation and improvement of the living conditions of the population and the environment.

The Code distinguishes between general-purpose and special water resource use and establishes a procedure for obtaining permits for various types of special water resource use, including wastewater discharge into water bodies. The quality of surface and ground water is regulated by establishing MPCs for pollutants. For the same pollutant, different MPCs apply to water bodies used for service and utility purposes and for fisheries. Similar to the air quality standards (see above), some components of the Kazakhstani water quality standards differ from the respective EU standards.

According to Clause 55 of the Water Code, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and liquidation of facilities affecting the condition of water bodies are strictly subject to obtaining of a positive decision from the part of the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, the Ministry of Public Health, and the Ministry of Emergencies.

Hydro-technical engineering works are subject to compulsory EIA procedures. These requirements will include, where relevant, assessment of the impacts on the watercourses caused by hydropower plant construction, as well as other potential impacts of alternative energy source development.


August 2014

The EIA procedure takes into consideration the presence of coastal areas of seas and rivers which have water protection zones different in size (the width varies depending on the type of a water body). Any economic activities, including construction and operation within a water protection zone, are prohibited.

6.3.7.4. Landscape and biodiversity

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Specially Protected Natural Areas” regulates legal relations in the field of protection, reproduction, and use of fauna. It is targeted toward the preservation of wildlife and biodiversity, sustainable usage of fauna for satisfaction of ecological, economical, aesthetic, and other human needs subject to interests of present and next generations. In accordance with the Law, protected areas are established with the prohibition and / or restriction within these zones which are objects of the state natural reserve fund. Sizes, borders, types of treatment and the order of nature protection zones in the state national natural parks are determined by baseline and feasibility studies for their creation and established by decisions of the regional (city of republican status, capital) executive bodies. 107 objects of protected areas of national importance have been established.

"Rules for inclusion of land to the protected areas and reservation of land for these areas" (Government Decree No 910 dated 8 September 2003) provides for the assignment of specially protected natural areas, as well as the transfer of land to the category of protected territories.

In order to preserve biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources under the “Convention on Biological Diversity”, a program for the conservation and sustainable use of water resources, wildlife and the development of a network of protected areas by 2010 was approved in 2007.

According to the "Concept of development and deployment of specially protected natural territories of the Republic of Kazakhstan up to 2030", there are plans to increase the area of protected areas to 17.49 million hectares, which represents 6.4 per cent of the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan #734 of 2 June, 2012 approved the Rules for Maintaining the Red Data Book of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The rare and endangered species (subspecies, populations) of plants (higher and inferior plants), and animals (vertebrates and invertebrates) living in a state of natural liberty permanently or temporarily on land, water, air and soil in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone of Kazakhstan


August 2014

are recorded in the Red Data Book. All species included in the Red Data Book of Kazakhstan are equally protected.

The siting of RES facilities in or near these protected areas would require permits and approvals from the responsible resource management agencies.

6.3.7.5. Waste management

Waste management is regulated by the Environmental Code which contains clauses on trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste that are in line with the requirements of the Basel Convention, including definition of production waste and groups of controlled waste.

The Code distinguishes three types of waste as follows:

1. Hazardous — wastes which include dangerous components with hazardous conditions (toxicity, explosive, radiation, flammable, high reaction possibility) and can be directly or potential hazardous to the environment or human health independently or during the reaction with other substances;

2. Inert — wastes which are not able to change their conditions under physical, chemical or biological means and do not negatively influence environment and human health;

3. Non-hazardous — wastes which are not considered hazardous or inert wastes.

There is a requirement for developing waste passports only for hazardous wastes, which must be registered with the environmental protection department.

In addition to above waste categorization, wastes are divided into three levels of hazards for transportation, which have different requirements for waste transportation and disposal depending on the category.

Currently, there no integrated waste management system in Kazakhstan. As a result, only 3 per cent of solid municipal waste is controlled and being under control with the remaining (97 %) being disposed adequately. In addition, waste disposal sites in Kazakhstan are not typically well designed, resulting in failing to meet sanitary requirements.

In general, the operation of RES facilities would not be expected to result in the generation of significant waste streams. During construction, there may be construction waste that would be primarily inert and non-hazardous which would require off-site disposal. During decommissioning, some of the


August 2014

components for RES facilities (e.g. turbines, PV panes, and substation equipment) could contain hazardous material and would require disposal in accordance with these regulations.

6.3.8 Kazakhstan social and public legislation relevant to RES projects

6.3.8.1. Occupational health and safety

The Law "On industrial safety of hazardous production facilities"(2002 with amendments) regulates the legal relations in ensuring the safe operation of hazardous production facilities and is aimed at preventing the harmful effects of occupational hazards arising from accidents, accidents at hazardous production facilities.

Hazardous production facilities are obliged to develop and approve a Declaration of Industrial Safety. Harmful effects of hazardous production factors on the population, the environment require the examination and pre-industrial safety solutions.

The Labour Code of Kazakhstan specifies the requirements of labour protection and labour safety during design, construction and operation of production facilities and means of production. The tasks of the labour legislation of Kazakhstan consist of creating the requisite legal conditions for achieving a balance of the interests of the parties with labour relations, economic growth, higher production efficiency and human welfare.

The Law "On mandatory insurance of civil liability of the employer for the damage to life and health of employees in the performance of employment duties" (2005 with amendments) regulates compulsory insurance of civil liability of the employer for damage to life and health of employees in the performance of work responsibilities, and sets out the legal, economic and organizational basis for its holding.

All of the above described regulations are anticipated to be applicable during the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning stages of any renewable energy project.

6.3.8.2. Community health and safety

The basic law for the protection of public health is the Code of Republic of Kazakhstan "People's health and the health system". This Code regulates legal relations in the field of health care in order to implement the constitutional right to health care. According to the Code, the state guarantees the citizens of Kazakhstan:

the right to health care;


August 2014

the provision of guaranteed free medical care;

equal access to health care;

the quality of health care;

the availability, quality, effectiveness and safety of medicines;

implementation of measures to prevent disease, promote healthy lifestyles and healthy eating;

privacy, preservation of information constituting medical confidentiality;

freedom of reproductive choice, reproductive health and reproductive rights; and

sanitary-epidemiological, environmental health and radiation safety

Regulations and standards on water, air, soil, radiation, etc. were developed based on this Code. These regulations will apply to the KazREFF project when defining the acceptable noise levels (wind turbines), electromagnetic radiation (transmission lines) and other potentially harmful physical factors generated by the project.

6.3.8.3. Involuntary resettlement

Forcible alienation of property for public use in extraordinary cases stipulated by law may be exercised on condition of its equivalent compensation. The Land Code of Kazakhstan (Code No. 442-II of 20 June 2003 with amendments) which covers the reservation of land for State needs stipulates that a plot may be reserved for State needs by way of purchase or by granting an equivalent plot with the consent of the owner or land user. Road construction is one of several grounds for purchasing private land or terminating long- term leases. In the case of land under lease, the land user is compensated for the full amount of losses and may be granted an alternative plot.

The Land Code of Kazakhstan does not entitle encroachers to compensation for the right to use the lands they use informally (squatters) or those who have not registered their claims to lands. It should be noted that this is in conflict with the social policies of EBRD, which require compensation for all land occupants including squatters.

Although the legal framework for reserving land and compensating owners is clear, procedures are not fully defined.


August 2014

6.3.8.4. Public consultation and disclosure

The public’s right to access environmental information is regulated by a number of fundamental legal acts, including: the Environmental Code of Kazakhstan; the Law of Kazakhstan “On the order of consideration of claims of physical and legal entities”; Instructions for EIA of planned business and other operations at the development of pre-plan, pre-project and project documentation stages; the Rules of carrying out of public hearings; the Rules of access to environmental information related to the environmental impact assessment and decision-making on proposed economic and other activities; and the Aarhus Convention.

There is no national requirement during public consultations and disclosure for preparing a Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

6.3.8.5. Cultural heritage (including architectural and archaeological heritage)

The Law "On Culture" (2006 with amendments) establishes legal requirements related to the creation, regeneration, conservation, development, dissemination and use of culture in Kazakhstan and defines the legal, economic, social and institutional framework of the state policy in the field of culture.

The Law "On protection and use of historical and cultural heritage" (1992 with amendments) defines the goals, objectives and legal basis for the protection and use of historical and cultural heritage. A mandatory requirement of the Law is to ensure the conservation of sites of historical and cultural heritage in the development of the territories. Development projects and land allocation process require a preliminary research of historical and cultural heritage be conducted. Conducting activities that may pose a threat to the existence of objects of historical and cultural heritage is prohibited.

Moreover, on June 2011, Kazakhstan signed the Law "On ratification of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage" (Paris, 17 October 2003).

6.3.9 International environmental and social requirements applied to the project

6.3.9.1. International finance requirements

In addition to Kazakhstan’s Laws, Strategies and Policies on renewable energy and environment, the SER will conform to requirements and principles contained in policies adopted by the EU and EBRD/IFC performance standards. The following international guidelines, regulations and policies will be followed and applied to the KazREFF SER development:


August 2014

EBRD Environmental and Social Policy, 2008, including Performance Requirements PR1 through PR10;

EBRD Public Information Policy (PIP), 2008;

EU Directive 2001/42/EC – The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA);

Guidance on EU SEA Directive 2001/42/EC implementation: an assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment (2003);

EU Directive 2009/147/EC – Bird Directive on the conservation of wild birds the conservation of wild birds (amended version of Directive 79/409/EEC);

EU Directive 92/42/EEC – Habitats Directive on the protection of sensitive and vulnerable natural habitats;

EU Directive 2000/60/EC – Water Framework Directive;

EU Directive 96/62/EC – Air Quality Framework Directive;

Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC (2007).

6.3.9.2. International conventions and agreements

Kazakhstan is a party to more than 25 International environmental conventions, including the global treaties: the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), etc. In March 2009, Kazakhstan ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of the Russian Federation on Joint Use and Protection of Trans-boundary Water Bodies (1992);

The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) – approved 19.08.1994;

The World Heritage Convention (1972) – ratified 29.07.1994;

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (1993) – ratified 07.07.1997;


August 2014

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973) – signed 06.4.1999;

The Convention on Environment Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context (the “Espoo” Convention, 1991) – signed 21.10.2000;

The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) – ratified 23.10.2000;

The Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Watercourses and International Lakes (1992) – signed 23.10.2000;

Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation in the Use and Protection of Trans-boundary Rivers – signed 2001;

The Convention on Preservation of Planet on Animals (1979) – signed 13.12.2005;

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) – signed 13.12.2005;

The Energy Charter Treaty - signed 18.10.1995;

Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Party (1997) – ratified 2009;

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) – signed 01.06.2011; and

The Green Bridge Partnership Programme at Rio +20.


August 2014

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The SER has identified the current state and characteristics of the environment, known as the ‘baseline’. This baseline will provide the basis for predicting and monitoring environmental effects. The SER also describes the evolution of the baseline environment without the implementation of renewable energy projects.

The baseline environment is described according to a series of topics, these being aspects of the environment that could be affected by renewable energy projects. The nature of the effects will be explored during the SER, once the baseline and types of renewable projects are better understood.

The topic areas comprise:

Climate and air quality

Surface water and groundwater

Geology and soils

Landscape and biodiversity

Community and socio-economics

Cultural Heritage

Material assets

7.1 INFORMATION SOURCES USED

Various statistical, official, and internet sources were consulted when preparing the baseline sections below. Information was gathered through a combination of publically-available websites, documents, and publications. The majority of the data came from national reports on the state of the environment of Kazakhstan, available on-line. On line resources consulted include:

The Kazakhstan Electricity Association, Wind Atlas

CIA, The World Factbook, Kazakhstan

Climatemps.com, Kazakhstan

Sholpan Aitkhozhina, UNDP in Kazakhstan, 2013, Clean public transportation: A greener future for Kazakhstan


August 2014

Kazakh World, 2013, Kazakhstan’s Green Thumb: Renewable Energy in the Steppes

Focusing on the Rudnyi Altay Industrial Area, American Journal of Environmental Sciences 7 (3): 286-294p

eTN Global Travel Industry News, 2012, Kazakhstan becoming top player of Central Asian tourism industry

The Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Japan, Travelling to Kazakhstan

T.D. Djalankuzov et. al, 2004, Kazakhstan

F.E. Kozybaeva et.al, Disturbed and Degraded Soils of Kazakhstan

KAZWOLRD.info, 2012, Hot Springs Bring Health and Investments

Welcome to Almaty, Ile-Alatau National Park

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) at http://www.reegle.info/policy-and-regulatory-overviews/KZ, 2012

Alexandra Babkina, 2012, Kazakhstan implements waste-management pilot projects, Central Asia Online

Countries of the World, Kazakhstan Economy 2013

Ministry of Industry and New Technologies of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Invest in Kazakhstan

Encyclopaedia of the Nations, Kazakhstan Infrastructure, power, and communications

UNESCO, World Heritage List

Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Cultural Heritage

TREND, 2013, Kazakh Economy Ministry announces GDP growth forecast for 2013

Countries - Kazakhstan, U.S. Energy Information Administration

Rain-flood hit parts of Karachi giving devastated look, as water recedes, 2013/8/25, International The News


August 2014

Information on Disaster Risk Reduction of the Member Countries, Asian Disaster Reduction Centre

The following documents and publications were cited in preparing this section of the Scoping Report:

Michael Fergus et.al, 2003, Kazakhstan: coming of age

FAO, 2010, Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Republic Of Kazakhstan: A Review

Ministry of Environment in Japan, 2006, Study Report on Comprehensive Support Strategies for Environment and Development in the early 21st century, Republic of Kazakhstan

UNFCC, 2013, Report of the individual review of the inventory submission of Kazakhstan submitted in 2012

IPCC, 2007, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Japan Scientists’, Opinions to the medium-and long-term climate goal (Summary)

Point Carbon, 2013, The Domestic Emissions Trading Scheme in Kazakhstan

Fariza A. Tolesh, 2012,The Population History of Kazakhstan

Vitaliy G. Salnikov et al., 2011, The Impact of Air Pollution on Human Health:

World Travel and Tourism Council, Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2012 Kazakhstan

Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan et.al, 2006, Access to Drinking Water and Sanitation in the Republic of Kazakhstan

Voyakin Dmitriy et.al, Monument in its Settings Case Study Akyrtas and Otrar Archaeological Projects, Institute of Archaeology Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Kazakhstan

Water Resources of Kazakhstan in the new millennium, 2004, UNDP Kazakhstan


August 2014

Natural Disaster Risks in Central Asia: A Synthesis, 2011, UNDP/BCPREnvironment and Development Nexus in Kazakhstan, 2004, UNDP

Investment Climate and Market Structure Review in the Energy Sector of Kazakhstan, , 2013, Energy Charter Secretariat

Improving municipal and environmental infrastructure in Kazakhstan, 2012, EBRD

Several Geographic Information System (GIS) data sources have also been utilised to compile the mapping information within this report. The relevant sources are:

The following GIS data was provided from MEWR, Information Centre

State zoological parks (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

State natural monuments (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

National Botanic Gardens (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

State conservation areas (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

State nature reserves (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

National Nature Reserves (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

State Nature Reserves (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

State national natural parks (Asia_North_Equidistant_Conic, GCS_WGS_1984)

Arc GIS online, World Countries

Arc GIS online, World Major Rivers

Arc GIS online, Major Cities


August 2014

The Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan (ACBK), 2008, Important Bird Areas in Kazakhstan

Fariza A. Tolesh, 2012,The Population History of Kazakhstan

Scientific Technical Enterprise of Digital Cartography and GIS, The Committee for Management of Land Resources, Ministry of Agriculture STE "Kartinform" - Kazakhstan Land use

IPCC, Koppen-Geiger Observed and Predicted Climate Shifts

U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Surface meteorology and Solar Energy

Yerokhov, Migration Routes of Birds in Kazakhstan, UNDP

protectedplanet.net

7.1.1 General environmental and social baseline

The baseline and future baseline for each environmental topic is provided below. Information used when identifying these baselines was primarily gathered from a combination of publically available websites, documents and publications of official statistics as listed above. Explanation of the data sources used, the quality of these data sources, gaps in data availability, and key constraints and opportunities for renewable energy in relation to each environmental topic are also provided in this report.

For each environmental topic, the environmental receptors under renewable energy scenarios are identified and its sensitivity is produced based on the value and vulnerability of the environmental receptors. Detail description for sensitivity classification is provided in Appendix A.

7.1.2 Climate and air quality

7.1.2.1. Baseline conditions

The majority of Kazakhstan’s climate is continental, though temperatures vary greatly by region. There are no tornadoes or cyclones in Kazakhstan, which is likely due to its distance from the ocean. The country has both arid and semi-arid climates. Precipitation is distributed relatively unevenly during the year. The mean annual precipitation decreases towards the middle of the country (120 mm per year) from the north (276 mm per year) and south (581 mm per year). Kazakhstan has cold winters which can reach as low as -58 °C and hot summers which can reach as high as 53 °C. The mean annual air temperature ranges from 0 °C in the eastern part of the


August 2014

country to 9 °C in the south. Land is covered with snow from November up to March and the depth is about 30 cm. The average amount of sunlight hours per day is 6.5 to 6.8 hours. The Aral Sea region and Qyzylorda Oblast have long sunlight hours which reach to 2500 – 3000 solar hours in a year.

South Kazakhstan experienced a major flood disaster in February 2008, resulting from heavy rains and rapid snow melts due to increased air temperature. 2,383 houses were inundated, 298 houses were destroyed, one person died and more than 13,000 people (approximately 1,800 families) were displaced due to the flood. Karachi also experienced flooding in August 2013, which severely affected the Malir River as well as neighbouring homes and roads.

Air pollution is a common issue in Kazakhstan in major cities and industrial areas. It has been estimated that air pollution may lead up to 6,000 people to premature deaths ever year3. Major pollutants include particulate matter (PM), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). These pollutants generally come from the thermal power, manufacturing, mining, and transportation sectors. Other pollutants include mercury, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide and dioxins.

Air pollution from stationary source differs by region and by industry (Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1). From a regional perspective, emission levels in the Pavlodar oblast had the worst emissions in 2012 (675.9 thousand tons), with the lowest levels occurring in the city of Almaty (12.1 thousand tons).

From an industry perspective, average air emission for non-oil industrial oblasts was 485.8 tons per 1,000 people, and 82.9 tons for oil-extracting oblasts. The emission in agricultural oblasts and municipal district was much lower as 72.6 tons and 38.5 tons per 1,000 people, respectfully.

Table 7-1 Air pollutants from stationary source, 2012 (Unit: thousand ton)

Area Amount Republic of the Kazakhstan 2,384.3 Aqmola region (including Astana city) 170.6 Aqtobe region 123.9 Almaty region (including Almaty city) 76.4 Atyrau region 133.1 West-Kazakhstan region 62.0 Zhambyl region 40.7

3 CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to Green Economy, 2013


August 2014

Qaraghandy region 641.4 Qostanay region 100.6 Qyzylorda region 31.1 Mangghystau region 64.2 South-Kazakhstan region 48.6 Pavlodar region 675.9 North-Kazakhstan region 75.7 East-Kazakhstan region 140.1

Source: The Agency of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan Note: An amount of air pollution from Astana and Almaty city is included in Aqmola region and Almaty region respectively in this map.

Figure 7-1 Air pollution from stationary source in each region.

Thermal power plants, in particular, are the largest contributor to PM, SO2 and NOx emissions. As shown in Figure 7-2, average emissions from existing coal-fired power plants in the country exceed both the Kazakhstan and European standard for PM and NOx. Average SO2 emissions meet Kazakhstan’s standard, however the country limit is 5 to 7.5 times larger than the European limit.


August 2014

Figure 7-2 Coal fire power plant local air emission: current level. Kazakhstan and European standards

Source: Green Economy

Kazakhstan is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) in Central Asia. This is a combined result of high energy intensity, relatively high economic output, and a coal-dominated energy sector, with approximately 86 per cent of Kazakhstan’s electricity generated by coal. Other countries in Europe and Central Asia use coal for about 30 per cent of electricity. In 2011, Kazakhstan’s GHG emissions (without accounting for carbon sinks) were about 274 million tons of CO2 equivalent.

The energy sector accounts for approximately 85 per cent of anthropogenic GHG emissions in Kazakhstan. The country’s GHG emissions peaked in 1992 and steadily declined due to the overall economic contraction brought about by the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the early 1990s and then the Russian financial crisis of 1998. Starting from 2000, GHG emissions started to increase as the Kazakhstan’s economy entered a period of rapid economic growth fuelled by the rising price of oil, the country’s primary export commodity. GHG emissions from energy activities occur mostly in the form of CO2 (90.9 per cent), with CH4 making up most of the rest.

7.1.2.2. Future trends in baseline

According to Kazakhstan’s Second National Communication to the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC, using the average scenario of the increasing GHG concentration in the atmosphere, the mean annual


August 2014

temperature is expected the rise 1.4°С in 2030; 2.7 °С in 2050; and 4.6 °С to 2085 from baseline. The annual amount of rainfall is expected to increase by 2 per cent to 2030, 4 per cent to 2050 and 5 per cent to 2085. The baseline period for the study is 1961‑1990. These figures are shown in Figure 7-3.

Based on several of the scenarios modelled, it is anticipated that the expected weather conditions will become unfavourable for spring wheat production in the northern part of Kazakhstan sometime between 2050 and 2085. Grain production is expected to decrease 25-60 per cent in the central area and 70-90 per cent in the northern part compared to the mean perennial values.

Climate change has both positive and negative impacts on pasturing. Examples of positive effects are an earlier start of vegetation in the spring and optimization of the temperatures of the high mountains pastures and the earlier movement to such pastures. Examples of negative effects include difficult conditions for summer sheep pasturage and reduced pasture productivity.

The permafrost in the eastern part of the country is expected to thaw completely by the year 2100, which will likely lead to ground surface subsidence and ponding.

Figure 7-3 The changing of ground air temperature (°С) and the sum of atmospheric falls (%) in general in Kazakhstan under the different scenarios of the concentration of GHG changes

Scenarios under consideration- A1F1 – extremely high scenario of the greenhouse emissions; - A2 – “middle-high” scenario of the greenhouse emissions; - Р50 – median scenarios of SRES; - В2 –“middle-low” scenario of the greenhouse emissions; ‑ В1 – extremely low scenario of the greenhouse emissions; Source: UNFCCC According to the “CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to Green Economy”, electricity demands will increase up to 343 TWh in 2050 which could be reduced to 172 TWh by implementing energy efficiency measures (see Figure 7-4). To meet the increasing electricity demand, approximately 30 GW of power plant installation and retrofitting of existing plants will occur (see Figure 7-5) A key driver for the targeted energy efficiency improvements is a goal of lowering emissions of CO2 and other pollutants.


August 2014

As stated in the report, Kazakhstan aims to achieve the European emission standard for SO2 and NOx by 2030. CO2 emission in electricity production is aimed to be reduced by 15 per cent in 2030, and 40 per cent in 2050 from the level of 2012. In addition, air quality is expected to improve by retrofitting 8.3 GW of coal-fired power plants by 2020.

Figure 7-4 Electricity demand by 2050

Under consideration

�“Frozen”�Theoretical scenario�No energy efficiency measures�Energy intensity per unit of output in each economy sector

remains at today’s level�GDP energy intensity shifts due to GDP structure change�BAU�Most probable power consumption

scenario�Changes in energy efficiency are achieved through natural replacement of stock, production capacities, transport fleet

�Assumes no new policies�“Green”�Scenario including implementation of additional energy efficiency measures vs.

BAU�Energy efficiency measures are profitable through green CONCEPT implementation (larger number of policies is enforced, additional policies are developed)

Figure 7-5 Demand for new installed capacities

As seen in Figure 7-6, under the “Green scenario” GHG emissions from the electricity sector will be reduced despite the increase of consumption. With improvement of energy efficiency and the introduction of alternative energy, air pollution is also expected to decrease.


August 2014

Figure 7-6 Share of electricity generation in the scenarios

Kazakhstan’s international commitment is to reduce GHG emissions from 1992 levels by 15 per cent by 2020 under Copenhagen Agreement. To reduce emissions, Kazakhstan started an emission trading scheme in 2013. Companies which emit more than 20,000 tons CO2 emissions per year in oil and gas, mining and metallurgy, the chemical industry and the power sector will be covered. Inclusion of the agriculture and transport sectors is under discussion.

Actions to reduce GHG emission is also undertaken at the municipal level. In 2012, Almaty city implemented a sustainable transport project with UNDP, Global Environment Facility and US Department of Energy, which included the use of 200 clean natural gas (CNG) buses to reduce its air pollution. It is believed that country adoption will take time since the infrastructure for gas refilling is required, the cost of CNG buses is high, and there are not enough maintenance professionals to service and increase in CNG buses.

7.1.2.3. Constraints and opportunities for renewable energy

The key constraints and opportunities for renewable energy in relation to climate and air quality are summarised in Table 7-2.


August 2014

Table 7-2 Constraints and opportunities in relation to climate and air quality

Constraints Opportunities

For hydro: possible increases changes in precipitation and glacial melt in the East and South.

Climate-change driven alterations to wind and rainfall patterns could alter the business case for wind, solar and small scale hydropower schemes.

Permafrost that is likely to melt by 2100?

Increased opportunities for hydro in areas forecast for higher precipitation or increased glacial melt with climate change.

All renewable energy types: Renewable energy will support to meet both international and national target of GHG reduction. (Copenhagen Agreement : -15% by 2020 from 1992 level)

All renewable energy types: Renewable energy will support to comply with both EU and national air quality regulation.

The economic growth will cause increase of industrial activities and an improvement of air quality; that may lead the interest of the local authorities in renewable energy projects development.

All renewable energy types: Renewable energy will support the targets of a Green Economy initiated by the Government.

7.1.2.4. Receptors, sensitivity, and environmental issues

The environmental receptors and issues for climate and air quality are shown in the table below. Please refer Table A-1 in Appendix A for a calculation of receptor sensitivity.


August 2014

Table 7-3 Receptors and environmental issues for climate and air quality

Receptor Supporting attributes

Issue by Renewable Energy Type Wind Solar

PV Small Hydro

Biogas

Climate Climatic zones Precipitation Temperature Sunlight hours

(Global Horizontal Irradiance: GHI)

Wind velocity GHG emission

Glacial melt

None Results in increased usage and capture of GHG from landfills and can positively impact climate change.

Sensitivity None None Air quality Emission of air

Pollutants by region

Deposition Fogging and

icing at the ground level

Trend of air quality

Rural and industrial areas

Ambient air quality standards attainment and nonattainment.

Air emissions, including GHG, during the construction stage from fuel combustion from machine operation and transportation of materials.

GHG emission may be reduced by the installation of renewable energy.

Air emissions, including GHG, during the construction and operational stage from fuel combustion for machine operation, and transportation of materials

Hazardous air pollutants may be generated.

GHG emission (CH4) is captured by the project; however; there is a possibility of leakage from pipeline and valves.

Sensitivity Medium Medium Odour Level of Odour Odour source may exist during

construction and operation Biogas can only occur on capped landfill, which reduces odours. Emissions are used to generate electricity and decrease emissions

Sensitivity None None

7.1.2.5. Data quality and gaps

Most climate and air quality data for Kazakhstan was taken from Kazakhstan's Second National Communication to UNFCCC, CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to Green Economy, and the Agency of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, all which can be considered


August 2014

reliable sources. The UNFCCC data was slightly dated as it was published in 2009.

Aside from the power sector, there are data gaps in air quality data and trends, such as compliance will emission standard and GHG emission.

7.1.3 Surface water and groundwater


Hydrography

Water resources are unevenly distributed throughout Kazakhstan due to its geographical position, continental climate, aridity and relief peculiarities. A specific feature of water resources in Kazakhstan is that most of its area forms the internal drainage basins of the Caspian Sea, Lake Balkash, Lake Tengiz, Lake Alakol, none of which have an outflow to an ocean. In addition, almost half of the stored water resources in Kazakhstan originate from outside its boundaries.

Kazakhstan is dominated by vast desert plains and high mountain ranges to the east of the plains, which create particularities in the normal water cycle where glaciers play an important role, being the only freshwater reservoirs. The majority of glaciers are located in the south and east at more than 4,000 m above sea level. There are 2,724 glaciers covering 1,963 km2. The glaciers contain 95 km3 of water, which is almost equal to the annual flow of all rivers in the country. A map of the water resources in Kazakhstan is shown in Figures 7-7.


August 2014

Figure 7-7 Map of water resources in Kazakhstan


August 2014

River and watersheds

Kazakhstan can be divided into eight hydro-economic basins (UNDP, 2004): Aral-Syrdarya, Balkhash-Alakol, Irtysh, Ural-Caspian, Ishim, Nura-Sarysu, Shu-Talas and Tobol-Turgai basins (Figure 7-8). There are more than 39,000 rivers and streams in Kazakhstan, six rivers of which have water discharge of 100 to 1,000 m3/sec, seven rivers from 50 to 100 m3/sec, and forty rivers from 5 to 50 m3/sec. The majority of the rivers belong to the closed basins of the Caspian and Aral seas, Lakes Balkash and Tengiz.

Figure 7-8 Hydro-economic basins in Kazakhstan

It is noted that the distribution of water resources over the Kazakhstan is highly unequal and the quantities vary significantly by years and seasons; most (up to 90 per cent) of the annual flow of the steppe rivers is concentrated during the spring season and 70 per cent of the mountain river’s flow occurs during summer season.

Total average volume of annual water resources in Kazakhstan is estimated to be 100.5 km3, of which 44.0 km3 come from outside of Kazakhstan (China – 18.9 km3, Uzbekistan – 14.6 km3, Kyrgyz Republic – 3.0 km3, Russia– 7.5 km3) and the remaining 56.5 km3 form in the territory of Kazakhstan. In accordance with Table 7-4, hydro-economic balances of each river basin are calculated considering: inflow from adjacent countries, surface flow within the basin, filtration and evaporation on loss, and sanitary and environmental discharge. Irtysh Basin has the highest water resource availability (15.9 km3), while


August 2014

Ishim Basin and Tobol-Turgai Basin have less water resource availability, smaller than 1 km3.

Table 7-4 Water resource balance by basin

Basin name

① Inflow from

adjacent countries

②Surface flow within Basin

③Filtration and

evaporation loss

④Sanitary/

environmental loss

⑤ Available for economic

need ＝ (①＋②)－（③＋

④） Aral-Syrdarya 14.6 2.3 2.8 3.1 12 Balkash-Alakol 11.4 16.4 2.3 19.9 8.6 Irtysh Basin 9.8 26 5.8 13.1 15.9 Ural-Caspian Basin

21.3 4.9 2.5 17.9 5.9

Ishim Basin 0 2 0.5 0.8 0.9 Nura-Sarysu Basin

0.82 1.74 0.37 1.02 1.16

Shu-Talas Basin 3.1 1 0.1 0.3 3.7 Tobol-Turgai Basin

0.056 1.5 0.63 0.26 0.7

(Unit: km3) Lakes and dams

The Caspian Sea is the largest lake in the world and its levels change in synchrony with the varying discharge of the Volga River. During the 1990s, the Caspian Sea level rose by about 2 m, which resulted in waterlogging of towns and villages, and a loss of agricultural land. The Aral Sea, formerly the fourth largest lake in the world, has been shrinking dramatically since the 1960s, mainly because of irrigation development upstream. Lakes are also shown in Figure 7-7.

Excluding the Caspian and Aral seas, there are 48,262 lakes, ponds and reservoirs that cover 45,000 km2 with an estimated volume of water of 190 km3. The number of small lakes, with a surface area of less than 1 km2, accounts for 94 per cent of these lakes but only 10 per cent of the total area. There are 3,014 large lakes that have a surface area of more than 1 km2, with a total surface area of 40,800 km2, including 21 lakes that are over 100 km2 with a total surface area of 26,900 km2, or 59 per cent of the total; 45 per cent of all lakes are in the north, 36 per cent in the centre and south and 19 per cent in other regions. The largest lakes are: Lake Balkhash, 18,000 km2; Lake Zaisan about 5,500 km2; and Lake Tengiz, with an area of 1,590 km2. The main natural depression is the Arnasay depression where Lake Aydarkul, with a


August 2014

capacity of 30 km3, was created artificially with water released from the Chardarya reservoir and with the return flow from the Hunger steppe irrigated land, which is shared with Uzbekistan.

More than 200 water reservoirs have been constructed, for a total capacity of 95.5 km3, not counting ponds, small reservoirs and seasonally regulated reservoirs. There are 19 large reservoirs, with a capacity of over 0.1 km3 each, accounting for 95 per cent of total capacity. Most reservoirs are designed for seasonal flow regulation, only about 20 reservoirs are regulated year-round. The largest reservoirs, with a capacity of over 1 km3 are Bukhtarma on the Irtysh River, with a total capacity of 49.6 km3, Kapshagay on the Ili River in the Balkhash basin with 18.6 km3, Chardarya on the Syr-Darya River at the border with Uzbekistan with 5.2 km3, Shulba on the Irtysh River with 2.4 km3. Most are multipurpose: hydropower production, irrigation and flood control. The reservoirs in the eastern and southeastern regions are mainly used for agriculture and in the central, northern and western regions for drinking water and industry. Bukhtarma, Shulba, Kapshagay and Chardarya reservoirs are all connected to hydroelectric power stations to generate electricity.

Reservoir capacity in the Irtysh river basin is the largest in Kazakhstan. Besides the Bukhtarma and Shulba, an additional reservoir has been constructed on the Irtysh River, the Ust-Kamenogorsk reservoir (total capacity 0.7 km3), which regulates the river’s flow.

Groundwater and water resources

In Kazakhstan, water is mainly consumed by the agricultural sector (78 per cent), followed by industries (16 per cent) and utilities (5 per cent). Most of water (85 per cent) is supplied from surface water and the remaining part is from ground, marine and return waters (sewage and effluents caused by irrigation and industries).

In general, there is abundant ground water resource, particularly in mountain region in Kazakhstan. The distribution of groundwater resources in Kazakhstan is uneven. Approximately half of the groundwater resources are concentrated in South Kazakhstan; West Kazakhstan accommodates up to 20 per cent of groundwater resources; and the remaining 30 per cent is in Central, North and East Kazakhstan. There are a total of 626 groundwater deposits and exploration areas and a total of 15.83 km3 per year (43.38 million m3/day) of groundwater is utilised in Kazakhstan, including: domestic-potable water – 6.14 (16.84), industrial water – 0.95 (2.6), irrigation water – 8.73 (23.91), balneological (mineral) water – 0.01 (0.03).


August 2014

Surface water quality

In 2001, the water quality of almost all water resources was considered to be unsatisfactory due to the polluted waste water discharge from chemical industries, petroleum processing and machine building industries and non-ferrous metallurgy. Mining activities also represent a serious threat, causing discharge of heavy metals and other harmful substances. Pollution in the surface water in the territory of Kazakhstan often originates from outside of Kazakhstan; the pollution in the Ural River and the lli River is polluted in the territories of the Russia and China, respectively. The most seriously polluted river is the Irtysh River, which originates in China and flows into Russia across the eastern part of Kazakhstan.

Flood regime

Floods are the most predominant natural hazards in the Kazakhstan. The floods are caused mainly by heavy and long-lasting rainfalls and snowmelt. The most severe damage is generally caused by flooding on rivers, including the Irtysh, Tobol, Ishim, Nura, Emba, Turgai, and Sary-Su, as well as its tributary. More than 300 floods were recorded from 1994 -2003, of which 70 per cent of floods were caused in spring. In addition, floods accelerated by strong winds a is common phenomena in the delta of the Ural River and along the north-eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, which has caused flooding in up to 2 million ha of land. There has been in increase in the number of floods triggered by anthropogenic forces, mainly due to improper management of water discharge from reservoirs; excessive and forced water discharge.


Analysis of long–term water quality monitoring data indicates that water quality in Kazakhstan has not significantly changed and has remained at an unsatisfactory level despite a decrease in production and volume of wastewater discharge. The water quality will continue to deteriorate unless key pollution sources (the discharge of untreated wastewater) is properly regulated and controlled.

The annual water consumption in 2002 was 20 km3, considerably decreased from 30 to 50 km3 in 1990s, mainly due to the change in the economic situation and reduction of irrigated area. However, it is expected that Kazakhstan will face significant water shortages in the near future due to the increasing water demand of the country’s bordering rivers (almost half of water in Kazakhstan is supplied from the neighbouring countries) and domestic water demand in Kazakhstan as well as the fact that glaciers, which are one of the major water resources for the country, are shrinking


August 2014

significantly on a global level. It is reported in the Green economy CONCEPT that Kazakhstan will run short of sustainable water by 13 to 14 km3 by 2030. Without any action, the demand for water resources may exceed the capacity of the water supply by three times.


The environmental receptors and issues for water are shown in Table 7-5 below. Please refer Table A-2 in Appendix A for a calculation of receptor sensitivity.

Table 7-5 Constraints and opportunities in relation to surface water and groundwater

Constraints Opportunities The distribution of water

resources is highly unequal and the quantities vary significantly by years and seasons.

There might be significant water shortage near future.

The wide net of small rivers with high potential for small scale hydropower development.

Creating impoundments for hydropower may also provide a more stable water source for agriculture, industry, and potable use.


Receptors and its sensitivity associated with each of the renewable energy resource scenarios are presented in Table 7-6 below. Please refer Table A-2 in Appendix A for a calculation of receptor sensitivity.


August 2014

Table 7-6 Receptors and environmental issues for surface water and groundwater


Issue by Renewable Energy Type Wind Solar PV Small Hydro Biogas

Surface water resource

Key water bodies and watercourses

Hydro-economic balance of each river basin

None None Effect of changes to flow patterns (may be some increases at low flows as well as decreases of high flows – both can be detrimental).

Changes to river dynamics and morphology.

None

Sensitivity None None Medium None Surface water quality

Surface water quality data by region

Footprint of development and erosion runoff and sedimentation could impact surface water quality if in close proximity.

Large footprint of development and erosion runoff and sedimentation could impact surface water quality if in close proximity

Footprint of development and erosion runoff and sedimentation could impact surface water quality.

Potential operational impact upon water quality due to disruption of flow, sediment dynamics, etc.

Footprint of development and erosion runoff and sedimentation could impact surface water quality if in close proximity. .

Sensitivity High High High High


Surface and groundwater data quality varies widely, with water resource availability data is based on regional and national resolution. Generalised data developed at national scale is available to renewable energy developers. Local conditions for surface water availability and groundwater quality, and flood risks should always be investigated as part of any site-specific preliminary site assessment.

There is a lack of local data for surface and groundwater. In order to address gaps for surface and groundwater data, site-specific evaluation is necessary at the planning and design stage. Data would be obtained via research and queries to the relevant Kazakhstan ministries (i.e.; Committee on Water


August 2014

Resources of MEWR) and oblast authorities. The establishment of a local data collection programme may be recommended for those types of facilities with potential impact on surface water; primarily solar and hydro power facilities, if data gaps are identified.

7.1.3.2. Geology and soils

7.1.4 Baseline conditions

Geology, Hydrogeology and Hazardous Geomorphologic Processes

Kazakhstan is situated in the centre of the Eurasian continent. The territory is a larger part of the Caspian basin of the East European platform and contains a salt-bearing bed of the Palaeozoic in the middle portion. The Mugodzhar Hills are comprised of folded Pre-Cambrian and Palaeozoic and sedimentary beds, to the east and south of which Palaeozoic basement is common. Mountain structures are part of the Ural-Mongolian geosynclinals belt and include the Tien-Shan mountain range.

There is a large variety of mineral and energy resources in Kazakhstan with 2806 registered deposits identified. The largest resources include uranium, manganese, tungsten, phosphorites, iron, zinc, copper, chromium, and gold. Massive deposits of coal, natural gas and oil are also noted as shown in Figure 7-9.

Figure 7-9 Location of natural deposits


August 2014

Among the exogenous geological processes in the Kazakhstan, erosion, landslides, and floods are the most predominant. In the plains, spring floods fed by rain and snowmelt occur and mountainous regions with loose sediment, gravel and other debris suffer mud flows triggered by rainfall or breaches of glacial lakes. Mudflow hazard areas are shown in Table 7-10 below. Mudflows threaten around 13 per cent of the country's area, namely the southeastern portion. The flooding and mudflows poses geotechnical risks to engineering structures and could impair local and regional economic development. Recent events include floods in the Krasnodar, Saryagash, Denisovsky-Zhitikarinsky and the Shiyeli-Syr Dariya regions.

Figure 7-10 Mudflow hazard areas

Soils and soil quality

Soils in Kazakhstan can be classified by zones and altitudes, with soil distribution corresponding roughly to vegetation zones. Figure 7-11 shows the distribution of soil types in Kazakhstan. A narrow band of chernozems is in the north and consists of bleached chernozem of the forest steppe, common chernozem of the moderately dry steppe and southern chernozem of the moderately arid steppe. The soils in the northern forest steppe are deep, dark, and rich northern or moderately-damp chernozems, while the chernozems south of this are interspersed with saline soils and can often be compacted, low in organic material, and shallow which makes them more suitable for pasture.


August 2014

South of this, less fertile chestnut soils are found with dark-chestnut soils of the arid steppe, typical chestnut soils of the arid steppe, and light-chestnut soils of semi-deserts. Further to the south brown and gray-brown desert soils alternating with large tracts of desert sandy and takyr-like soils. These brown soils are rich in nutrients and low in organic matter while the sandier gray-brown soils can be productive under irrigation.

The steppes, especially those in the south have large areas of saline soils which can be found mainly in shallow depressions, terraces, and flat areas with deep water tables.

In the mountains of the West and North, Tien Shan, sierozems and light chestnut soils can be found in the foothills, which turn into a belt of mountainous brown soils higher in the Western Tien Shan. The sierozems have low organic matter and sparse vegetation.

A belt of mountainous dark-chestnut, chestnut and chernozem is located in the North Tien-Shan, Saur, Tarbagatai and western Altai mountains. Above this belt in the North Tien Shan, there are bleached chernozems, forest grey and dark soils, and above it in the western Altai, there are mountain-meadow chernozem-like and grey forest soils. The uppermost belt of the all mountainous regions is mountainous meadow, sub-alpine and alpine soils.

Figure 7-11 Soil map


August 2014

Soil erosion and degradation

Lands subject to wind and water erosion factors occupy more than 90 million hectares of agricultural land in Kazakhstan. Wind erosion is widespread and occurs in regions of desert, semi desert, dry steppe and steppe zones and was shown to increase by 5 million hectares (22 per cent) between 1990 and 2000.

Degraded lands are estimated to encompass roughly two-thirds of the country with the main zones of stress located in the Aral and Caspian regions as well as grain agricultural areas in the northern region of the country, with erosion playing a major factor. The degradation in all regions has been caused by three main factors including extensive development of agriculture and mining as well as a network of former test sites.

Soil pollution is marked in industrial regions throughout the country. In the regions where oil and gas is present, soil contamination caused by oil products and salts of metals are prevalent. Soil pollution can also be attributed to mining, coal mining, metallurgical, and chemical industries. The development of mining has caused extensive land pollution by substances including radioactive nucleotides and heavy metals. In other industrial regions, soils have been found to be contaminated by copper, zinc, lead, cadmium, arsenic, fluorine, and boron among others.

Additional soil pollution has occurred due rocket launching and testing site as well as nuclear testing grounds. The Baikonur space centre, a 670,000 hectare rocket launching site, is enclosed within the steppes in the Qyzylorda Oblast. The most general effect of rocket launching is the “aerial” dispersion of pollution from the tail of a rocket by which chemical substances contained in the fuel are scattered, causing the pollution of soils. From the soils around the rocket launching site, highly toxic heptyl contained in the rocket fuel has been detected in high concentrations. This area is shown in Figure 7-11.

In addition, radioactive pollution presents a problem at the formal nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk where about 2 million hectares of agricultural lands were subjected to radioactive contamination. The sites at Azgir, where contaminated soil volume equals 24,000 cubic meters, with total radioactivity of 50 curie and Kapustin Yar, where 30,000 tons of highly toxic substances were emitted are also a major source of pollution. This area is shown in Figure 7-11.

Seismic conditions

Kazakhstan lies in a region with low to very high seismic hazard. The Tien-Shan and Altai mountains are in a very high seismic hazard region, affected by the high activity of the Dzungaria zone, with a few very major earthquakes registered at magnitudes of seven to eight (Richter scale).


August 2014

Seismic hazard areas are shown in Figure 7-12. The region is home to 6 million people (more than one third of the total population) and more than 40 per cent of the nation’s industrial capacity. Collection and systemization of macro-seismic data about earthquakes in the area started only from the second half of the 19th century with instrumental observations from 1927. The depth of earthquakes ranged from 15 to 40 km.

There is a band of epicentres along the eastern boundary, which geographically and geologically belong to the west side of the Altai seismic zone. Some of them are located near the Semipalatinsk test site. Two earthquakes have also occurred in the Northwest part of the regional and a part of the seismicity of the Ural Region.

Historic events include major earthquakes in 1887 and 1910, which levelled the city of Almaty. The more recent 2003 Lugovskoy earthquake, which had a magnitude of 5.4, affected 36,626 people and caused major economic loss in the Ryskulov district of Zhambyl oblast.

Figure 7-12 Seismic hazard distribution map


Intensive mineral and oil and gas extraction activities in Kazakhstan, principally concentrated in the industrial regions, has caused essential changes in geology of the regions and has led to environment degradation, such as changes in groundwater hydrology of the territory, deformation of


August 2014

geological bands, soils pollution, and alkalinisation. This long-term trend is likely to continue, since no significant efforts have been undertaken to remedy the situation.

Kazakhstan is one of five countries to participate in a regional, 10-year, multi-donor partnership programme to address land degradation and desertification called the 'Central Asian Countries Initiative on Land Management, though wide scale erosion remains. However, as part of the “CONCEPT on transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to a green economy”, the country will look to address soil erosion prevention and rehabilitate degraded lands, though the timing and details remain unclear.

Regarding flooding, landslides, and mudslides, the Water Code addresses these issues and requires State agencies, individuals and legal entities to prevent such harmful impacts of water, but recent incidents have continued to remain severe. The CONCEPT, includes a provision for the construction of reservoirs and tanks to contain runoff during floods; however, it does not specifically address landslides or mudflows.

In addition, the “Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011 – 2015” includes activities aimed at eliminating "historical" pollution.

In cooperation with non-governmental organizations in Kazakhstan, as well as international partners, Kazakhstan has implemented a comprehensive program for the rehabilitation of the population and ecology of the Semipalatinsk region. A 19,000 km2 area remains restricted indefinitely due to the high cost of clean-up for the radioactive soils.


The key constraints and opportunities for renewable energy in relation to geology and soils are summarised in Table 7-7.


August 2014

Table 7-7 Constraints and opportunities in relation to geology and soils

Constraints Opportunities High value of Chernozem soils

might limit siting options for land-intensive renewable energy projects (e.g.solar PV)

Seismic activity and mudflow zones + Semipalatinsk? could limit siting options for all renewable energy projects

Degraded areas, including contaminated land, are potential areas for a renewable energy development.

Significant mineral resources could support a steady demand in electricity production for all renewable energy projects.

National abundance of silica is an opportunity for the development of solar PV panels manufacturing industry as it is a key component


The environmental receptors and issues for geology are shown in Table 7-8. Please refer Table A-3 in Appendix A for a calculation of receptor sensitivity.

Table 7-8 Receptors and environmental issues for geology and soils

Receptors & Enviro Issues

Supporting attributes

Issue by Renewable Energy Type

Wind Solar PV Small Hydro Biogas

Bedrock Geology

Location of facility relative to underlying bedrock geology

Very localised geological damage though piling of turbines and laying of transmission networks.

Very localised geological damage though laying of transmission networks (PV panel placement unlikely to affect geology).

Very localised geological damage through construction activities. Altered environmental risks due to impoundment of water in seismic zone.

Very localised geological damage though construction of plant and transmission networks.

Sensitivity Low None Low None Mudflow Hazard Areas (only in mudflow prone areas)

Location of facility relative to mountainous regions and steep river banks.

Localised impact from construction development (vibration, blasting, clearing & grading level

Localised impact from construction development (vibration, blasting, clearing & grading level

Localised impact from saturation of soils under reservoirs. Regional impact from

None


August 2014





site). Localised impact from vibrations and downwash during operations

site) failure of dams and reservoirs

Sensitivity None None Medium None High Value Soils (only where geographically present)

Location of facility on or adjacent to productive soils.

Construction activities resulting in soil erosion and compaction. Replacement / removal of lands from agricultural production.

Construction activities resulting in soil erosion and compaction. Replacement / removal of lands from agricultural production

Construction activities resulting in soil erosion and compaction. Inundation / removal of lands from agricultural production for impoundment facilities.

Construction activities resulting in soil erosion, compaction, and/or contamination. Replacement / removal of lands from agricultural production

Sensitivity Medium Medium Medium None General Soil Characteristics

Physical characteristics (i.e. total soluble salts, soil texture, distribution of particle size, per cent of sand, silt and clay, etc.) Chemical properties (i.e. pH, electrical conductivity, nitrates, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, chlorides, organic

Localised erosion, compaction, salinisation, sealing and/or contamination from site alteration and project activities could wash away fines and change the soil’s properties.





August 2014





matter, etc.) Sensitivity Medium Medium Medium Medium


Information on soils and geology is generally dating from the 1990s to early 2000s. Some features such as bedrock geological features have remained largely unchanged, however, so the quality of data to characterise soils and geology is acceptable.

Monitoring and research in Kazakhstan has declined since the fall of the USSR in 1991. Available hazard analysis of landslides, mudflows, and earthquakes is somewhat lacking, as is monitored information on soil pollution. For erosion and degradation, it would be beneficial to obtain more recent figures on how widespread these conditions are today.

7.1.5 Landscape and biodiversity


Topography and vegetation type

The landscape of Kazakhstan is extremely diverse. The eastern part of the country is mainly occupied by extensive lowlands that feature Aral and Caspian depressions, while the centre is occupied by the Kazakh rolling hills, with peaks up to 1,565 m. The southeastern and southwestern parts of the country are bordered by mountain ranges, whose summits reach as high as 4,000 m, including the Tien Shan mountain range in the south and the Altai Mountains in the northeast. Approximately 10 per cent of the country is occupied by mountains. The highest mountain in the country is the Khan-Tengri (6,995 m) which is part of the Sarydzhaz mountain range and is located where the borders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and China meet. The topographic map of the Kazakhstan is shown in Figure 7-13.

Forest zone is located in the northeast, featuring of an abundance of lakes of various sizes and a combination of steppe vegetation and sparse insular aspen and birch forests. Farming activities cover the steppe in this zone. A large steppe zone lies to the south and is characterised by unwooded watersheds, the prevalence of herbaceous, predominantly grass vegetation, saline lands, with desert steppe and meadow-halophyte vegetation. A semi-desert zone bounded by steppe and desert zones is located between latitudes of 47° and 49°. The steppe and semi-desert zones occupy approximately 42.4 per cent of the country. The desert zone, extending as much as 900 km from


August 2014

north to south and almost 3,000 km east to west, is situated south of the semi-desert region. This zone is characterised by xerophilous and halophytic grass plants, sub-shrubs and shrubs.

Figure 7-13 Topographic map of Kazakhstan

The mountain region, extending from the Altai in the west to the Tien Shan in the south, is characterised by its various ecosystems with several altitude belts including sub-mountain semi-deserts, forest/meadow steppe with deciduous, mixed and coniferous forest, high mountain meadow and glaciers. Distribution of forests in the country is uneven and varies from 0.1 per cent to 16 per cent in some regions.

Alatau mountain range in the south. Typical steppe of northern and central

parts of Kazakhstan.


August 2014

Typical desert and semi-desert zone in southern part of Kazakhstan

Typical forest areas with birch in northeast

Agricultural land

The land use pattern in Kazakhstan is characterized by overuse of land resources for agricultural purposes. Agricultural land covers approximately 76 per cent of the total territory of Kazakhstan. Sixty-one per cent of agricultural land is permanent pasture, 32 per cent is classified as arable land, 3 per cent is used for hay production and 4 per cent is long fallow (indicating potentially arable land that has remained uncultivated for at least several consecutive years). The main agricultural land is concentrated in the northern steppe. Roughly two – thirds of the country`s land is regarded as degraded lands. Ecological stress and land degradation area is mainly concentrated in the Aral and Caspian regions in western part and abandoned cereal growing areas is observed in the northern region of the country.

Forests

Although Kazakhstan has the third largest forest area in the East Central region following Russia and Turkey, it is a forest-poor country, with total forests, including saxaul woods, covering only 4.5 per cent of the total territory. Excluding saxaul woods, this figures drops to just 1.2 per cent. Forest land in Kazakhstan is distributed unevenly, and occurs in regions including the Altai Mountains in the east, the rolling northern forest-steppe, the Tian Shan and the Ile-Alatau mountains in the southeast.

Tugai forests are riparian forest ecosystems that provide oases for many animal species in the steppe and desert environments. Willow (Salix), and poplars (especially Populus diversifolia), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) are dominant species. Tugai forests in intact condition are rare and very threatened in Kazakhstan. Due to loss of tugai forest, some species are of restricted distribution including the yellow – eyed stock dove (Colomba eversmanni).


August 2014

Biodiversity

Kazakhstan is rich in biological diversity. There are more than 13,000 species of flora, including 5,754 species of higher vascular plants, about 5,000 species of mushrooms, 485 species of lichens, 2,000 species of algae and 500 species of bryophytes. Vascular plants includes 68 species of trees, 266 species of bushes, 433 species of shrubs, semi-shrubs and semi-grasses, 2,598 species of perennial grasses and 849 species of annual grasses. Fourteen per cent of plant species are endemics. More than 400 species are under threat internationally (the IUCN Red List) and nationally (the Red Data Book of Kazakhstan). There are 856 vertebrate species, including 178 species of mammals, 510 species of birds (including 398 breeding species), 49 species of reptiles, 12 species of amphibians and 107 species of fish and cyclostomes.

Regarding biodiversity, areas that are particularly important include the core areas for endemic flora in the Karatau mountain range of the western Tien Shan; the unique pine forests that grow on sand (Naurzum, Ara – Karagay and Aman – Karagay); the forest and steppe complexes of the low mountains of central Kazakhstan; the typical desert communities of Betpal – Dala, the sourthern Balkhash region and the lli river basin; the forest, bush and steppe communities of the southern Altai, Kalbinskiy and Tarbagatay mountain ranges; the central mountain belts of the Dzhungar Alatau mountain range and Tien Shan with their coniferous spruce forest and fragmentation of apple tree groves; the vast westland ecosystem of the lower reaches of the Ural river; Tengiz and Alakol lakes; and the riparian river gallery forest (tugai) of the Syrdarya, lli and Charyn rivers.

The steppes which cover large parts of the northern half of Kazakhstan is home to important fauna and flora. In the steppes zone, there are 2,000 plant species, 30 of which are endemic and unique in Eurasia. The steppe zone largely disappeared in the 1960s and 1970s due to land conversion to agriculture. One of the steppe`s flagship species, Mongolian Saiga (Saiga tatarica), designated as Critically Endangered under the IUCN Red List, had almost disappeared and its population declined by 90 per cent in the 1990s, from 1 million to less than 50,000, mainly due to unsustainable hunting for their horns and meat.

Saiga tatarica


August 2014

Protected species

There are 67 species designated as Category 1 (Endangered) or 2 (Vulnerable) under the Red List of Kazakhstan or as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List. It should be noted that the IUCN Red List has been developed for classifying species at high risk of global extinction while the Red List of Kazakhstan has taken into account risk at a national, regional and local level. These important species of Mammals (bat species are presented in below section, separately), Reptiles, Amphibians and Fish are shown in Table 7-9. The species distribution map for Red List is shown in Appendix B for Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fish.

Table 7-9 Important species in Kazakhstan

Common name (Scientific name) The Red list of

Kazakhstan Category*

IUCN Red list Category

Mammals Altai argali (Ovis ammon ammon) 1 - Kyzyk kum argali (Ovis ammon severtzovi) 1 - Tian shan argali (Ovis ammon karelini) 2 - Karatau argali (Ovis ammov nigrimontana) 1 - Urial (Ovis orientalis) - Vulnerable Bukhara red deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus)

1 -

Asiatic wild dog (Cuon alpinus) 1 Endangered Cheerah (Acinonyx jubatus) 1 - Caracal (Lynx caracal) 1 - Otter (Lutra lutra seistanica) 2 - Honey badger (Mellivora capensis) 1 - European mink (Mustela lutreola) 1 - Russian desman (Desmana moschata) 2 Vulnerable Central asian wild ass (Equus hemionus) 2 Endangered Menzbier marmot (Marmota menzbieri) 2 Vulnerable Goitered Gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) 3 Vulnerable Siberian Musk Deer (Moschus moschiferus) - Vulnerable Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia) - Endangered Caspian Seal (Pusa caspica) - Endangered

Mongolian Saiga (Saiga tatarica) - Critically

Endangered European Marbled Polecat (Vormela peregusna)

- Vulnerable

Reptiles Desert monitor (Varanus griseus) 2 - Central Asian Tortoise (Testudo horsfieldii)

Vulnerable

Amphibians Asiatic frog (Rana asiatica) 2 - Semirechensk Salamander (Ranodon sibiricus)

Endangered


August 2014


Kazakhstan Category*

IUCN Red list Category

Fish Aral sturgeon (Acipenser nudiventris) 1 - Syr darya shovelnose (Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi)

1 -

Volga shad (Alosa kessleri volgensis) 2 - Pike asp (Aspiolucius esocinus) 1 - Aral barbel (Barbus brachycephalus brachephalus)

2 -

Turkestan barbel (Barbus capito conocephalus)

2 -

Chu ostroluchka (Capoetobrama kuschakewitschi orientalis)

1 -

Ili marinka (Schizothorax argentatus pseudaksaiensis)

1 -

Balkhash perch (Perca schrenki) 2 - Caspian lamprey (Caspiomyzon wagneri) 2 - Inconnu (bukhtarma-zaysan population) (Stenodus leucichtys nelma)

2 -

Taimen trout (Hucho taimen) 2 - Aral trout (Salmo trutta aralensis) 1 - Caspian trout (Salmo trutta caspius) 1 - * Category1- Endangered, Category2- Vulnerable, Category3 - Rare

Birds

Kazakhstan serves as an important area on the global scale for many of important bird species. For example, up to 70 per cent of the global populations of the Asian subspecies of Houbara Bustard (Chamydotis undulate macqueenii), up to 40 per cent Saker Falcon (Falco cherrug) and about 20 per cent Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni) breed in Kazakhstan. The Kazakhstan Red List identifies 56 species of birds as shown in Table 7-10.

Table 7-10 Bird species in the red list of Kazakhstan.


Kazakhstan C * Marbled duck (Anas angustirostris) 1

Feruginous pochard (Aythya nyroca) 3 Swan goose (Cygnopsis cygnoides) 1 Bewick's swan (Cygnus bewickii) 5 Whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) 2 Velvet scoter (Melanitta deglandi) 3 White-winged scoter (Melanitta fusca) 3 White-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala) 1 Red-breasted goose (Rufibrenta ruficollis) 2 Sociable lapwing (Chettusia gregaria) 1 Relict gull (Larus relictus) 1


August 2014


Kazakhstan C * Great black-headed gull (Larus ichthyaetus) 2

Asian dowitcher (Limnodromus setipalmatus) 4 Little curlew (Numenius minutus) 3 Slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris) 1 Squacco pond-heron (Ardeola ralloides) 2 Little egret (Egretta garzetta) 3 White stork (Ciconia ciconia asiatica) 1 Black stork (Ciconia nigra) 3 Eurasian spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) 2 Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) 2 Eastern stock pigeon (Columba eversmanni) 3 Pin-tailed sandgrouse (Pterocles alchata) 3 Black-bellied sandgrouse (Pterocles orientalis) 3 Pallas's sandgrouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus) 4 Steppe eagle (Aquila rapax) 5 Golden eagle (Aquila shrysaetus) 3 Imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) 3 Short-toed snake eagle (Circaetus gallicus) 2 Lammergeier (Gypaetus barbatus) 3 Himalayan griffon (Gyps himalayensis) 4 White-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) 2 Pallas's sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucoryphus) 1 Booted eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus) 3 Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus) 3 Saker falcon (Falco cherrug) 1 Barbary falcon (Falco pelegrinoides) 1 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 1 Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) 3 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 1 Altai snowcock (Tetraogallus altaicus) 2 Demoiselle crane (Anthropoides virgo) 5 Common crane (Grus grus) 3 Siberian white crane (Grus leucogeranus) 1 Houbara bustard (Chlamydotis undulata) 2 Great bustard (Otis tarda) 1 Little bustard (Otis tetrax) 2 Purple swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio) 2 Ibisbill (Ibidorhyncha struthersii) 3 Panders ground-jay (Podoces panderi ilensis) 3 Great rosefinch (Carpodacus rubicilla) 5 Blue whistling-thrush (Myophonus coeruleus) 5 Dalmatian pelican (Pelecanus crisppus) 2 Eastern white pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus) 1 Pink flamingo (Phoenicopterus roseus) 2 Northern eagle owl (Bubo bubo) 2 *Category1- Endangered, Category2- Vulnerable, Category3 – Rare, Catergory4 – intermediate, Category5 – out of danger


August 2014

Two flyways for many migratory birds pass through Kazakhstan; the Western Asia – Africa Flyway and the Central Asia – India Flyway.

On the Western Asia – Africa Flyway, swans, geese, ducks, coots, seagulls, sandpipers fly from the Northeast to the Southwest to wintering places and make their nests in the northern areas of Western and Central Siberia.

The Central Asia – India flyway connects nesting places and summer locations of Podicipediformes, Pelecaniformes, Ciconiiformes Anseriformes, Gruiformes and Charadriiformes, which populate in Western Siberia and neighbouring Mongolia and China. It should be noted that there is no clear border between the two flyways and these flyways represent generalized flight paths. Bird migration routes are shown in Figure 7-14.

The wetlands in the northern half of the country play a key role in the life cycle of water birds. Large numbers of birds use the lakes within the Northern part of Kazakhstan for nesting and moulting. Important regions within the area include the Kamysh-Samar lake system, the Naurzum and Tengiz-Kurgalzhin lakes, the Koibagar-Tyuntyugur lake group, the Sary-Kopa lake system, and the lake group of the downstream of the Irgyz and Turgay rivers. For example, the Tengiz lake region of Central Kazakhstan provides a habitat for 60,000 breeding Pink flamingo (Phoenicopterus roseus). Some 500,000 Greater White-fronted Geese (Anser albifrons) migrate across the area in autumn and more than 1,000,000 Red-necked Phalaropes (Phalaropus lobatus) do in spring. Up to 5,000 individuals of the globally endangered White-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala), which represent almost half of the global population of this species, can gather on Central Kazakhstan wetlands after breeding season. The southern half of Kazakhstan contains many important stopover sites that are located on the Northern and the Northeastern coast of the Caspian, the Northern part of the Aral Sea– the Maliy Aral, the Ily-Balhash basin and the Alakol lake group. It should be noted that Lake Alakol is one of only two nesting places in the world for the Relict gull (Larus relicus).

Pink flamingos in Tengiz lake Greater White-fronted Geese


August 2014

Red-necked Phalaropes Relict gull in Alakol lake

Important areas for bird habitat have been identified by the Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan (ACBK) and there are total 121 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) designated in Kazakhstan. IBAs are of significant importance to birds as breeding, passage migration and wintering areas. Locations of IBAs are also shown in Figure 7-14.

Figure 7-14 IBA and bird migration corridors

Bats

There are five species of bats identified in the Red list of Kazakhstan and these species are shown Table 7-11. There species are categorized as either Rare or Intermediate; there are no endangered or vulnerable bat species in Kazakhstan. These bat species are mainly found in southern part of


August 2014

Kazakhstan, including the Karatau mountains area (Free-tailed bat and Hemprich long-eared bat) and shore of Aral Sea (Bobrinski's bat).

Table 7-11 Bat species in the red list of Kazakhstan


Kazakhstan C * Bat

Bobrinski's bat (Eptesicus bobrinskii) 3 Free-tailed bat (Tadarida teniotis) 3 Asian barbastelle (Barbastella leucomelas) 4 Ikonnikov's bat (Myotis ikonnikovi) 4 Hemprich long-eared bat (Otonycteris hemprichi) 3 *Category1- Endangered, Category2- Vulnerable, Category3 – Rare, Catergory4 – intermediate

Natural protected areas

There are seven categories of protected areas in Kazakhstan, including State Nature Reserves, State National Nature Parks, State Nature Reservats, State Natural Monuments, State Nature Sanctuaries, State Reserved Zone and State Botanical Gardens. These protected areas are maintained by the Committee of Foresty and Hunting (CFH) of the Ministry of Agriculture, except the State Botanical Gardens which are maintained by Ministry of Education and Science. The criteria correspond to IUCN category and characteristics of each protected area are presented in Table 7-12.

Table 7-12 Criteria and characteristics of protected areas

Type of protected area

IUCN category Characteristics

State Nature Reserves

Ia This area functions to research and protect nationally and globally significant biodiversity. A strict protection regime is enforced and all economic activity is prohibited and access is only permitted with special approval.

State National Nature Parks

II This area is designed to conserve biological and landscape diversity. They include zones of strict protection and environmental stabilisation, tourist and recreational activity and limited economic activity.


August 2014

Type of protected area

IUCN category Characteristics

State Natural Monuments

III The area is characterised as being unique natural and irreplaceable sites that are valuable in environmental, scientific, cultural and aesthetic terms as well as natural and man-made objects that are considered objects of state natural heritage.

State Nature Reservats

VI This area is aimed to conserve, protect, rehabilitate and manage biological diversity in territorial and aquatic ecosystems.

State Nature Sanctuaries

VI This area is characterised by a limited or regulated regime of economic activity and aimed to preserve or reproduce one or more items of the state natural heritage. Hunting or other kinds of use of resource (such as gathering medical herbs, fishing) is forbidden or limited.

State Reserved Zone

VI This area is aimed to restore and conserve important wildlife and biological diversity in terrestrial and aquatic areas reserved for the future creation of nature reserves, national parks, nature reservats and state reserved zone. Similar regulated economic activity with state nature sanctuary is applied to this area.

There are 109 protected areas with a total area of 22,045,073 ha which corresponds to 8.1 per cent of the total area of the country as of 2010. The types and number of the protected area are presented in Table 7-13 and the location of the protected areas is shown in Figure 7-15.

Table 7-13 Types and number of protected areas

Type of protected area Number Total area (ha) State Nature Reserves 10 1,223,284 State National Nature Parks 10 1,814,179 State Nature Reservats 3 1,703,677 State Natural Monuments 26 6,708 State Nature Sanctuaries 50 5,946,301 State Reserved Zone 5 11,350,500 State Botanical Gardens 5 424 Total 109 22,045,073


August 2014

Figure 7-15 Natural protected areas

Wetlands

There are ten sites in Kazakhstan designated as Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, with a surface area of 3,281,398 ha as shown in Table 7-14. It should be noted that there is a strong relationship between the Ramsar and Important Bird Area (IBA) criteria because wetlands are important habitats for birds and most Ramsar sites overlap IBA boundaries. The location of Ramsar sites are shown in Figure 7-16 (Note: The land boundaries of all Ramsar sites are not available).

Table 7-14 Types and number of protected areas

Ramsar site ID

Name of Ramsar site Total site area (ha)

Other international conservation designation

107 Tengiz-Korgalzhyn Lake System

353,341 IBA (KZ 051) partially

1856 Ural River Delta and adjacent Caspian Sea coast

111,500 IBA (KZ009) partially

1862 Koibagar-Tyuntyugur Lake System

58,000 IBA (KZ033)

1863 Kulykol-Taldykol Lake System

8,300 IBA (KZ036)

1872 Naurzum Lake System 139,714 World Heritage site, IBA(KZ 040) partially


August 2014

Ramsar site ID

Name of Ramsar site Total site area (ha)

Other international conservation designation

1873 Zharsor-Urkash Lake System

41,250 IBA (KZ 038) partially

1892 Alakol-Sasykkol Lakes System

914,663 IBA (KZ114, 115)

2020 Ili River Delta and South Lake Balkhash

976,630 IBA (KZ 092)

108 Lakes of the lower Turgay and Irgiz

348,000 IBA (KZ 042)

2083 Lesser Aral Sea and Delta of the Syrdarya River

330,000 IBA (KZ 043)

Figure 7-16 Ramsar sites in Kazakhstan


The diversity of natural conditions in Kazakhstan has led to the richness and diversity of its biological resources which are essential to the country’s economic and social development. However, there has been a great threat to the existence of species and ecosystems due to human activities, such as unsustainable use of biological resources, unsustainable agricultural practices (overgrazing, unsustainable grass-cutting), violation of the hydrological regime of rivers and lakes caused by regulation of river flow and unauthorised felling of trees and shrubs.


August 2014

Certain positive tendencies in land use can be observed due to increased funding for large scale conservation projects funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), which was established after the deterioration in standards of nature conservation during the difficult economic period in the 1990s. These projects have a common aim of increasing the amount of protected areas to allow for the conservation of landscape, biological diversity, wetlands of global importance and rare species, such as the white-headed duck, Dalmatian Pelican and Saker falcon.

There are signs of recovery for the Saiga tatarica due to the implementation of several conservation measures. One important measure includes the newly designated protected area- Altyn Dala State Nature Reservat, which plays a crucial role in the conservation of the species since it uses the area as a calving ground and summer pasture. Additionally, there is a large scale conservation programme, "the Altyn Dala Conservation Initiative (ADCI)” established by the Association for the Conservation of Biodiversity of Kazakhstan (ACBK). ADCI aims to conserve steppe and semi-steppe ecosystem in order to protect the habitat of the Saiga tatarica.

There is also increased focus on forest land through various factors such as a national program for forest conservation (Green Land, 2005 – 2007) as well as donor support for the government to implement a forest protection and reforestation project.


The key constraints and opportunities for renewable energy in relation to landscape and biodiversity are summarised in Table 7-15 .

Table 7-15 Constraints and opportunities in relation to landscape and biodiversity

Constraints Opportunities Expansion of protected areas

could reduce the amount of land available for all renewable energy projects in areas of high RES resource capacity

Small hydro: regulation of river flow to impact ecosystem/biodiversity

Proximity of wind and solar to bird migration corridors, important breeding grounds for large birds, or areas favourable for bats (wind, mainly).

Degraded lands could be used for wind or solar renewable energy projects.

Biogas: Improvement of waste management system enhances landscape quality


August 2014


The environmental receptors and issues for climate and air quality are shown in Table 7-16 below. Please refer Table A-4 in Appendix A for a calculation of receptor sensitivity.

Table 7-16 Receptors and environmental issues for landscape and biodiversity




Protected areas

State Nature Reserves,

State National Nature Parks,

State Nature Reservats,

State Natural Monuments,

State Nature Sanctuaries,

State Reserved Zone

State Botanical Gardens.

Important bird area

Impact on ecological value of protected area due to large footprint of wind arrays.

Impact on ecological value of protected area due to large footprint of solar panel.

Impact on ecological value, particularly aquatic ecosystems, of protected area due to installation of hydropower station.

None

Sensitivity High High Medium None Bird and bat species (migratory species)

Bird migratory route

Impact on bird and bat species (particularly, migratory bird species) due to strike associated with wind arrays and associated above ground transmission line.

Impact on bird and bat species (particularly, migratory bird species) due to strike associated with above ground transmission line.



Sensitivity High High High High


August 2014




Important terrestrial species

Habitat area of protected terrestrial animal

IUCN red list

Kazakhstan red list

Disturbance of habitat due to construction, footprint and vibration / noise.

Disturbance of habitat due to construction and footprint. Fragmentation of the habitat from large footprint and access road.

Land-take from footprint of hydropower facility

None

Sensitivity High High High None Important aquatic species

Kazakhstan red list

Impact on important fish species due to runoff from construction if built in close proximity to water.

Impact on important fish species due to runoff from construction if built in close proximity to water.

Impact on the river flow which can change downstream habitat condition. Water quality impacts (erosion and sedimentation) during construction and operation

None

Sensitivity High High High None Forest Areas

Forest fund area

Impact on ecological and economic value of forest area due to large footprint. Impact on scenic value and setting of forest areas due to height of turbines.

Impact on ecological and economic value of forest area due to large footprint. Impact on scenic value and setting of forest areas due to footprint.


None

Sensitivity High High Medium Medium Unprotected natural

ecosystems

Forest area Steppe Desert and

semi-desert Water body

Impact on ecological and economic value due to large footprint.

Impact on ecological and economic value due to large footprint.


None

Sensitivity Low Low Low None


August 2014




High quality landscape

Protected area

Forest area Urban area

Impact on scenic value and setting of protected areas due to height of turbines.

Impact on scenic value and setting of protected areas due to footprint.

Local impact on scenic value and settings of protected areas due to hydropower facility and ancillary development.

Local impact on scenic value and settings of protected areas due to power station and ancillary development.

Sensitivity High High Medium None


Landscape and biodiversity data quality varies widely, with the majority of distributional data is based on a national resolution. In most cases readily available data on ecology and habitat association are general and focussed on internationally and nationally protected areas and species. It is important to note that bird migration routes shown on figures in this SER do not represent narrowly specific limited flight corridors; these are intended to be representative of the general routes flown by migratory birds. In actuality, these flight corridors may be tens or even hundreds of kilometres wide depending on terrain and weather conditions.

Targeted data collection may be ? required to address landscape and biodiversity data gaps associated with:

Species and habitat associated records and distribution at Unitary Authority/local/project level.

Information on migratory fish and aquatic invertebrates;

Information on aquatic habitats in major drainages; and,

Information on existing landscape character.

Why not migratory birds?

7.1.6 Community and socio-economics

7.1.6.1. Summary of existing baseline

Population

The population of Kazakhstan is 16.7 million (2012). The population increased 2.7 times from 6 million in 1920 to 16 million in 1989 mostly due to immigration. After becoming independent from the Soviet Union in 1991,


August 2014

there was massive emigration of non-Kazakh ethnicities, which was estimated to be around 3 million people. Kazakhstan’s population started to recover when the number of immigrants increased with the economic boom in the mid 2000’s, peaking in 2006 with 33,000 legal immigrants, and now stands at approximately 10,000 immigrants per year. Kazakhstan returned to the 1989 population level in 2010 (refer to Figure 7-17.). With a history of immigration, Kazakhstan has more than 100 nationalities and ethnic groups, with 63 per cent of the population being ethnic Kazakhs. The second largest community is Russian at 25 per cent, followed by other smaller communities of Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Uighurs, Tatars, and Germans (see Figure 7-18).

Population in rural areas was over 90 per cent in 1926 and decreased to 50 per cent by 1970 as people moved to urban areas. Currently, approximately 57 per cent of the population lives in urban areas (see Figure 7-17.). The population has a median age of 29.3 years and can be broken down as follows: 0-14 years- 24.7 per cent; 15-24 years- 16.9 per cent; 25-54 years- 42.6 per cent; 55-64 years- 8.9 per cent; 65 years and over- 6.8 per cent. There is relatively high percentage of the population in the 25-54 year and 0-14 year groups in part due to the high number of immigrants and their children falling within these age ranges.

Figure 7-17 Population of Kazakhstan, 1920-2010

Source: The population history of Kazakhstan


August 2014

Figure 7-18 Ethic composition of Kazakhstan, 2011

Kazakhstan is the 9th largest country by area and population density varies across the country. Agricultural areas in the south and far north have a high population density, with a high density of 20.7 persons per km2 in the South Kazakhstan oblast. However, the industrial areas in central, eastern and northern Kazakhstan have a lower density, with a low density of 2.4 persons per km2 in the Aqtobe oblast. Western regions are the least populated area (see Figure 7-19).


August 2014

Figure 7-19 Population map by oblast

Employment / income

The labour force stood at 8.54 million in 2012. Employment of population by sector was services 34.60 per cent, industry 19.00 per cent, and agriculture 26.50 per cent. The unemployment rate in 2011 was 5.4 per cent, with 5.3 per cent of the population falling below the poverty line.

GDP per capita in 2011 was 11,245 USD and the composition by sector was 56.9 per cent services, 37.9 per cent industry, and 5.2 per cent agriculture. The contribution of fisheries to agricultural GDP was less than 1 per cent.

Kazakhstan's total exports in 2012 were USD 92.28 billion while its total imports were USD 44.54 billion.

Regional Economic Structure

Kazakhstan’s oblasts can be divided into four main groups based on production structure, including: oil-extracting oblasts, agricultural oblasts, non-oil industrial oblasts, and municipal districts (see Figure 7-17). Non-oil oblasts have relatively low agricultural production and strong industrial sectors.

Oil-extracting oblasts are generally located in western Kazakhstan, the non-oil industrial oblasts are in the northeast and centre and the agricultural oblasts can be geographically divided into a northern and southern region.


August 2014

Table 7-17 Economic grouping of oblasts

Group Oblast/ Region Oil-extracting oblasts Aqtobe

Atyrau West Kazakhstan Qyzylorda Mangghystau

Agricultural oblasts Aqmola Almaty Zhambyl Qostanay North Kazakhstan South Kazakhstan

Non-oil industrial oblasts East Kazakhstan Qaraghandy Pavlodar

Municipal districts Astana Almaty

On a regional basis, there are significant disparities in the per capita Gross Regional Product (GRP). Oil-extracting oblasts had a GRP nearly double the national average, where that of the agricultural oblasts was less than half. Overall, the oil-extracting group produced 32.3 per cent of national GRP in 2004, while the remainder was divided equally among municipal districts (22.6 per cent), agricultural oblasts (22.6 per cent), and non-oil industrial oblasts (22.5 per cent).

Income per household also varies by region, though not to the extent of capita GRP (See Figure 7-20). Per capita household income of the municipal districts was 96.7 per cent above the national average, and the income of the oil-extracting group was 52.9 per cent above the national average. For the non-oil industrial group, per capita household income exceeded the national average by 3.4 per cent. For the agricultural oblasts, average incomes were 33.0 per cent below the national level. The average nominal monthly wage per employee was 110, 020 tenge (USD 700) as of August 2013.


August 2014

Figure 7-20 GRP per capita, 1999 and 2004 (Unit: USD)

Source: USAID

Tourism

Tourism made up 1.5 per cent of GDP, attracting 4.5 million international visitors, and provided 116,000 jobs in 2011.

The country’s main attractions include its natural resources such as the Ile-Alatau National Park, the Great Silk Road and Alakol Lake. The mountain skating rinks at Medeo, the hot springs in the Uyghur district, and the Chimbulak ski resort are also major tourist destinations and hunting, fishing, and mountain climbing are popular activities for visitors.

The government is trying to enhance tourism in the country and has been developing new programs on an annual basis. For example, they have approved a plan for the creating of an international ski resort along with


August 2014

establishment of the required infrastructure at Kok-Zhaylyao as part of its effort to convert Kazakhstan into the “Land of Tourism Resorts”.

Mountain skating rink at Medeo Source: Kazakhstan Embassy in Japan

Ile-Alatau National Park Source: Welcome to Almaty

Hot spring in Uyghur district Source: KAZWORLD.info

Education

Access to primary and secondary education is high in Kazakhstan. The net enrolment rate in primary school in 2005 was 91 per cent, with about 9,000 children remaining out of school. In secondary school, this figure stood at 92 per cent. Parity across genders, regions and income levels in terms of educational access is generally very high in Kazakhstan through secondary school; however, there are concerns of poor teacher quality and lower standardized test scores in rural areas.

The literacy rate for adults (people ages 15 and above) in 2009 was 99.7 per cent.

The number of higher education institutions in the 2011-2012 academic year was 146 institutes. 610,000 of students went to higher education institutions, equally split between public and private schools.

Health, Availability of Potable Water

Life expectancy in Kazakhstan is 70 years; however, it is much higher for women (72 years) than men (60.6 years), possibly due to differences in lifestyle and work environment. The maternal mortality rate in 2010 was 51 deaths per 100,000 live births and varies greatly by region. There is high rate of death from cardio-vascular disease, respiratory disease, nervous system and sensory organ disturbances, gastrointestinal disease and circulatory disease. Air pollution is considered as a contributing factor to these diseases and the regions in the non-oil industrial group tend to have the highest average death rate and lowest average life expectancy.


August 2014

There is significantly low access to water in rural areas, where water is commonly obtained from local or common wells, delivered water, and the surface water of rivers, lakes, and small water sources.

Wells are frequently located close to wet pits, cesspools, and pastures and users face health risks such as intestinal diseases, hepatitis, headaches and dermal diseases due to the bacteria in the water. In order to provide sustainable water with guaranteed quality, the Government implemented the “Drinking Water” program, constructing water supply systems and installing water treatment plants and pipes. According a survey, 46 per cent of the population treats water prior to drinking.

Rivers, lakes and marshes do not meet the national environmental quality standard for hygiene and medical care, the “Water Quality Standards for Piped Water and Rules on the Inspection Methods.” The most seriously polluted river is Irtysh River which is also used as drinking water source.

Waste management

The accumulated amount of solid waste in the country is 23 billion tons with annual emissions of approximately 700 million ton per year. Almaty, the most populated city in the country, buried 470,000 tons of solid waste in 2011. Kazakhstan does not have an integrated waste management system and 97 per cent of municipal solid waste is buried in uncontrolled landfills (see Figure 7-21. In addition, in rural areas, 25 per cent of the population do not have access to the municipal solid waste collection system.

The average amount of household waste in urban areas is 330 kg/ household/year, with food waste contributing approximately 30 per cent of that total.


August 2014

Figure 7-21 Collection rates of household waste and disposal method.

Source: CONCEPT for Green Economy


With the 1.1 per cent growth rate, the population is expected to grow gradually to 17.7 million people in 2030 and overall GDP is expected to increase 3.8 per cent per year.

With significant oil resources, Kazakhstan is expected to become one of the world's largest oil producers and exporters. The oil and gas industry is expected to continue to be a major contributor to GDP and employment; however, there is great uncertainty regarding the prices of hydrocarbons, leading to potential instability in the market.

In order to move away from the country’s over-reliance on oil and extractive industries oil, gas and mineral sectors, the Kazakhstan government has started a program to develop targeted sectors such transport, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, petrochemicals and food processing. The government is aiming to use these industries to build a modern, diversified, highly-technological, flexible and competitive economy with value-added component.

The agricultural sector faces a number of challenges that are being addressed by the government. While the sector’s contribution to GDP is limited, it remains of national significance due to its importance for employment, especially in rural areas. The Program of Agro-Industrial Complex Development for 2013-2020 calls for five key initiatives to improve the sector


August 2014

including improved access to financing, capacity building for sustainable development, foreign cooperation, a comprehensive water reduction program and a greenhouse development plan.

Air quality is expected to improve by retrofitting 8.3 GW of coal-fired power plants by 2020. Emission control measures such as filters will be installed at the plant. In addition, as part of the 2050 strategic plan, additional measures have been suggested, such as development of air quality standards for industry and transportation, though they have yet to be implemented. “CONCEPT for Green Economy” links poor air quality to an increased incidence in rate of illnesses as well as direct and indirect economic losses, which suggests such air quality measures will be taken to improve health.

Based on the monitoring results from 1997 - 2004, major rivers showed no improvement in water quality, which was likely because the enforcement of penalties and fines for businesses that violate pollutant standards is limited. River water does not meet drinking water health standards and improvement would not be expected without enforced regulations.

The government aims to provide sustainable drinking water by 2020 and for agriculture by 2040. It is projected that Kazakhstan will run short of sustainable water by 13 – 14 km3 by 2030 and the government will fill the gap by improving the water efficiency of irrigation, power generation and mining, and municipalities.

The country has identified a need to build an integrated waste management system to address industrial waste legacy, growing volumes of waste, inadequate services, and improper dumping; however, it currently lacks the institutional and legal framework necessary for such a system.


The key constraints and opportunities for renewable energy in relation to community and socio-economics are summarised in Table 7-18.

Table 7-18 Constraints and opportunities in relation to community and socio-economics

Constraints Opportunities Shortage of technically

qualified workers; High emigration level that has

reduced the available technically qualified workers; and

Inefficient energy use in

Increased employment opportunities;

Increased potential for worker training;

Increased environmental awareness of population and need for sustainable energy;


August 2014

Constraints Opportunities domestic and industrial practices.

Increased development of advanced technology; and

Further integration into neighbouring EU power markets. Such as?


The environmental receptors and issues for are shown in Table 7-19 below. Please refer table A-5 in Appendix A for a detailed calculation of receptor sensitivity.

Table 7-19 Receptors and environmental issues for community and socio-economics



Housing and Livelihood

Population Population

density Age Ethnicity

Resettlement or relocation of economic activities may be required when siting facility or related infrastructure.




Sensitivity High High High Medium Health Longevity

Birth rate Death rate Causes of

death Availability

of potable water

Noise and dust disruption during construction and noise and vibration disruption during operation is expected. Possible injury during construction and installation of transmission lines.

Noise and dust disruption during construction is expected. Possible injury during construction and installation of transmission lines.

Noise and dust disruption during construction is expected. Drinking water availability and air quality may affect during operation. Possible injury during construction and installation of transmission lines.

Noise and dust disruption during construction is expected. Air quality is expected to improve by replacing fossil fuel and installing collection devices during operation. Improvement to general sanitation because biogas landfills must


August 2014



be capped prior to use. Possible injury during construction and installation of transmission lines.

Sensitivity High Medium Medium Medium Local employment/ Income

Income GDP/Capita

by oblast

Increased employment opportunity in rural areas for installation and maintenance.




Sensitivity Medium Medium Medium Medium Economy Industry

Mining Agriculture

Temporary loss of access to agricultural land and grazing land during construction. Permanent loss of productive land (agriculture, grazing and mineral etc.) due to installation of equipment. Possible improvement in energy security.

Permanent loss of use of agricultural land and grazing land during construction through decommissioning. Permanent loss of productive land (agriculture, grazing and mineral etc.) due to installation of equipment. Possible improvement in energy security.

.Water availability and quality for industry, mining and agriculture may be affected during construction and operation. Disruption of fisheries and water navigation depending on location and nature of design. Possible improvement in energy security.

Positive impact of using biogas as onsite power generation. Possible improvement in energy security.

Sensitivity Medium Medium Medium Medium


August 2014



Tourism Hunting Beaches Fishing Skiing Hot Spring Conventiona

l tourism Eco-tourism

Installation of renewable energy may have visual impact on tourism sites. Installation of renewable energy may improve electricity access for remote tourism sites. Transmission lines might detract from the scenery



None

Sensitivity Low Low Low Low


The data quality for community and socioeconomics is good, with consistency across sources and a wide array of information available.

Data on labour force, GDP per capita, unemployment rate, agricultural gross output, emissions and life expectancy was relatively recent, taken from reliable 2012 sources. However detailed information on an oblast level was more dated, with information taken from a 2004 report.

Because of wide-regional disparities, it was necessary to include information at an oblast level. However, because the information was obtained from a 2004 report, there is the possibility that industry in the country has restructured and the grouping may not reflect the current situation in Kazakhstan.

There was limited information available on landfills and waste management capacity per region. In addition, there was no information available on military bases or operations due to national security.

7.1.7 Cultural heritage

7.1.7.1. Summary of existing baseline

The baseline assessment for cultural heritage was based on UNESCO's definition of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Tangible cultural heritage includes objects which are important from an archaeological,


August 2014

architectural, scientific or technologic perception and are considered worthy of preservation for the future. Intangible cultural heritage includes traditions or experiences inherited from ancestors that can be passed to descendants.

Tangible cultural heritage Intangible cultural heritage buildings, historic places, monuments, artifacts, etc.,

oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, arts, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts.

Tangible Heritage

There are three officially designated UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Kazakhstan which include:

Cultural sites o Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi o Petroglyphs within the Archaeological Landscape of Tamgaly

Natural sites o Saryarqa - Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan

Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi

Petroglyphs within the Archaeological Landscape of Tamgaly

Saryarqa - Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan

Source: UNESCO The Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi is in the town of Yasi. It is one the largest and most well-preserved mausoleums of the Timurid period and was registered as World Cultural Heritage Site in 2003.


August 2014

Tamgaly contains 5,000 petroglyphs completed after 14th century B.C. and is located in the Chu-Ili Mountains. It was registered as a World Cultural Heritage Site in 2004.

The Saryarka - Steppe and the Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan was registered as a World Natural Heritage Site in 2008. It compromises two protected areas, which include the Naurzum State Nature Reserve and Korgalzhyn State Nature Reserve. The two reserves have important wetlands for migratory water birds, such as the Siberian white crane, the Dalmatian pelican, Pallas’s fish eagle, and other globally threatened species. The area of Saryarka is 450,344 hectares.

All three of these sites are shown in Figure 7-22.

Figure 7-22 UNESCO World Heritage sites

Kazakhstan also has 13 sites listed on the UNESCO tentative list as shown in Table 7-20


August 2014

Table 7-20 List of UNESCO tentative list sites in Kazakhstan

Name of the Site Date of Submission

Category

1 Aksu-Zhabagly State natural reserve

06/02/2002 Natural

2 Archaeological sites of Otrar oasis 24/09/1998 Cultural 3 Barrows with stone ranges of the

Tasmola culture 24/09/1998 Mixed

4 Cultural landscape of Ulytau 24/09/1998 Mixed 5 Megalithic mausolea of the

Begazy-Dandybai culture 24/09/1998 Cultural

6 Northern Tyan-Shan (Ile-Alatau State National Park)

06/02/2002 Natural

7 Paleolithic sites and geomorphology of Karatau mountain range

24/09/1998 Mixed

8 Petroglyphs of Arpa-Uzen 24/09/1998 Cultural 9 Petroglyphs of Eshkiolmes 24/09/1998 Mixed 10 Silk Road 05/03/2012 Cultural 11 State National Natural Park

"Altyn-Emel" 06/02/2002 Natural

12 Turkic sanctuary of Merke 24/09/1998 Mixed 13 Western Tien-Shan 01/02/2010 Natural

Source: UNESCO

The National Government implemented the programme “Cultural heritage of Kazakhstan,” in 2004 and it was carried out in three stages, lasting seven years in total. Through this program, the restoration of 51 historical and cultural monuments was successfully completed and an official list of 218 historical and cultural monuments was prepared. As an example of the work performed, the historic Palace of Akyrtas was conserved and transformed into a tourist site. For a full list of the 218 sites, see Appendix C.

There are more than twenty-five thousand non-listed, immovable monuments of history, archaeology, architecture and monumental art in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan has rich historical and cultural heritage since it is located in the centre of Eurasia and serves as an intersection of West and East, South and North for social and economic and cultural exchange. In addition, the Great Silk Road, an important cultural and trade route ran through Kazakhstan. Given this long and rich history, there are likely archaeological sites which have not yet been discovered and may be of local, national or international importance.


August 2014

Table 7-21 Number of cultural heritage sites of Kazakhstan under national government program by region

Oblast Number of National Cultural Heritage

Astana city 2

Almaty city 28

Aqmola region 4

Aqtobe region 9

Almaty region 10

Atyrau region 4

East Kazakhstan region 15

Zhambyl region 28

West Kazakhstan region 5

Qaraghanda region 22

Qostanay region 6

Qyzylorda 21

Mangghystau region 21

Pavlodar region 3

North Kazakhstan 7

South Kazakhstan region 33

Intangible heritage

Kazakhstan has a national intangible cultural heritage list (Appendix C), which was prepared in accordance with the Convention on Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage and approved by the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2013. There are 45 items on the list, examples of which include skills to make traditional jewellery, national horse racing games, and traditional songs.


Southern Kazakhstan has chronologically diverse archaeological monuments that vary greatly. Historically, there was concern that the vast expanding cotton fields in the area could impact the monument’s settings and surroundings, so setting a buffer zone has been recommended.


August 2014

The government is aiming to grow tourism in Kazakhstan and the cultural heritage sites will therefore be visited by more tourists in the future, which could negatively impact the sites if visitation and conservation guidelines are not implemented or followed.

The Cultural Heritage Program has raised awareness amongst stakeholders and successfully established an official list of monuments to be preserved. Kazakhstan’s rising GDP and increased economic development helped make it possible to carry out the program. Because the economy is relatively stable, it is anticipated that the preservation of cultural heritage will remain an important concept and that they government will continue to follow the best practices established by the Program.


The key constraints and opportunities for renewable energy in relation to cultural heritage are summarised in Table 7-22.

Table 7-22 Constraints and opportunities in relation to cultural heritage

Constraints Opportunities Possible conflicts with local

communities and authorities over the land use

Probability of extension of cultural heritage sites’ territories or creating new ones, thus limiting potential renewable energy project siting

Opportunity to support cultural heritage development as one of mitigation measures within renewable energy projects; and,

Siting of renewable energy projects on natural heritage sites for demonstration purposes.


The environmental receptors and issues for climate and air quality are shown in Table 7-23 below. Please refer table A-6 in Appendix A for a calculation of receptor sensitivity.


August 2014

Table 7-23 Receptors and environmental issues for cultural heritage



UNESCO World Heritage Sites and sites on the UNESCO Tentative List

• Sites with outstanding cultural value • Sites with outstanding natural value

Cause loss or damage during construction. Installation of renewable energy may have visual impact on heritage site.




Sensitivity High High High High Registered cultural heritage sites.

Structures, natural features and landscapes with following significance; Archaeology History Architecture Religious Aesthetic,

and Culture





Sensitivity High High High High Unregistered or unknown cultural heritage sites

Structures, natural features and landscapes with following significance; Archaeology History Architecture Religious Aesthetic,

and Culture





Sensitivity High - Medium

High - Medium

High – Medium

High – Medium


August 2014



Intangible cultural heritage

Oral traditions

Performing arts

Social practices,

Rituals, festive events,

Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe

Knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts

Cause partial or total loss, a change, or adverse effect.




Sensitivity Medium - Low

Medium - Low

Medium – Low

Medium - Low


Historical information is generally well documented and set out in available lists and registers. There may be additional sites which should be on the list, but have not yet been included for registration.

The only map available for cultural heritage was the UNESCO World Heritage Site map. The national cultural heritage site list identifies the sites at an oblast level, but does not provide the exact location. According to the Archaeology Institute, an archaeological map of Kazakhstan is under development and will be available in January 2014.

Data on the twenty-five thousand non-listed, immovable monuments was unavailable.

A list of intangible cultural heritage was available; however, details on the selection criteria were unavailable.

7.1.7.6. Material assets

7.1.8 Summary of existing baseline

Infrastructure


August 2014

As a vast and predominantly land-locked country, Kazakhstan had developed an expansive transportation network consisting of rail, roads, ports and airfields. Automobile and railways account for the majority of above-ground transportation routes. The country has 103,272 km of paved highways and ranks favourably in terms of kilometres of road per inhabitant, even when compared with many developed countries. Rail is the main form of transport infrastructure for freight, with 14,200 kilometres of track which connects to Russia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and China.

Transportation on domestic waterways is low in comparison with rail, though a number of key seaports exist on the Caspian Sea that are used for transhipment of oil and dry cargos in foreign traffic. River navigation is carried out in the basin of Irtysh, Ural, Ily Rivers and on Balkhash Lake. In addition to its seaports, there are 22 airports in Kazakhstan, which are spread throughout the country to meet regional needs. There are two main international airports in Astana and Almaty and 14 regional airports provide services to international transportation on a short-term basis (See Figure 7-23).

Figure 7-23 Material assets in Kazakhstan

So

Energy

The energy sector in Kazakhstan includes energy resources currently used and exported: mining and transit of coal, recovery and distribution of oil and gas; mining of uranium and electricity generation and transmission.


August 2014

Kazakhstan ranks tenth in the world in coal production, supplying 47.9 per cent of its total energy consumption and 86 per cent of its power generation. The country has 142 closed mines and 55 open-pit mines, most of which are located in central Kazakhstan (the Qaraghanda and Ekibastuz coal basins and the Shubarkol mine) and north Kazakhstan (the Torgay coal basin) and have reserves to last over 100 years.

Kazakhstan is also rich in oil and gas, with most offshore and onshore reserves located in the western part of the country. Tengiz is currently Kazakhstan's largest producing oil field with an output of approximately 520,000 barrels per day (bbl/d), accounting for nearly a third of total production. Karachaganak accounts for about 15 per cent of total production and according to the Karachaganak Petroleum Operating (KPO), the field holds reserves of around 9 billion barrels of oil and gas condensate and 47 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Other major fields include the Uzen oil field, located in southwestern Kazakhstan in the Mangghystau region (100,000 bbl/d) and the Mangghystau oil field, in the same region (117,000 bbl/d).

Kazakhstan has the second largest uranium reserves in the world – 21 per cent of the world's total – and leads in uranium production. The country has 55 uranium deposits, 70 per cent of which are feasible for development using the underground leaching method. The country does not currently use nuclear power but has developed plans for its first domestically built plant since its independence.

Electricity generation

Kazakhstan’s total primary energy supply (excluding electricity trade) was 66 megatoe (Mtoe) in 2009. Coal/peat contributed 47.9 per cent, followed by gas (29.1 per cent), oil (21.8 per cent), hydro (0.9 per cent), and renewables (0.2 per cent).

There are 68 power plants is the Kazakhstan representing a total capacity of approximately 19 GW. 86 per cent of electricity is generated by coal fired plants, which are located in the northern coal-producing regions. 9 per cent of electricity is generated by hydropower plants, the majority of which are located along the Irtysh River (refer to Table 7-24). To meet electricity demand in the relatively energy-resource poor southern region, electricity is imported from Kyrgyzstan. Total electricity consumption in 2011 was 88.11 billion kWh (refer to Table 7-25).


August 2014

Table 7-24 Major electric power generation stations in Kazakhstan

Source: Invest in Kazakhstan

Table 7-25 Electricity dispositions in Kazakhstan (2012, 2011)

Electricity Amount

Generation (2012) 90.53

Consumption (2011) 88.11

Exports (2011) 1.8

Imports (2011) 3.7

Source: CIA, Unit: billion kWh

Transmission Grid

The grid in Kazakhstan is state-owned and operated by the Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (KEGOC). There are also 21 regional energy companies (RECs) that distribute electricity on a regional monopoly basis. Due to the size of Kazakhstan, the network is characterised by long distance transmission. The Kazakhstan transmission network dates back to the Soviet-era and has a history of under-investment, however, at present it has sufficient capacity and no voltage problems. The majority of the population is connected to the grid, less than 5 per cent of the population, located primarily in rural areas, are without electricity. However, in some areas power cuts or discontinuous supply are not uncommon due to grid capacity issues and a lack of local generation facilities. In addition, in some regions the industrial base has expanded and investment in power infrastructure has failed to keep pace.

The electricity grid is separated into three regions west, north and south. It has a general north-south split in generation and demand with approximately 80 per cent of the electricity being produced in the north near coal reserves and 70 per cent being used in the same industrialised region. The transmission system operates at 500 kV and 220 kV and consists of 24,101 km of 35 - 1150 kV overhead transmission lines and 74 power substations with an installed capacity of 34,408 MVA (see Figure 7-24). A 1,100 km 500 kV electricity transmission system has connected the north and south regions since 2009. Due to demand growth in the southern zone the transmission lines connecting north and south are fully loaded, and in the period of peak


August 2014

demand (winter) they are reported to be occasionally overloaded. Detailed information on transmission lines is available in the individual Renewable Project Environmental Reports prepared for each renewable energy scenario available at www.kazreff-ser.com.

Figure 7-24 Transmission system in Kazakhstan

Source: Derived from KEGOC transmission system mapping Oil and Gas Distribution

Kazakhstan's oil pipeline system, with a total length of pipeline approximately 5,300 km, is operated by the state-run company, KazTransOil. The main pipelines include the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, the Kazakhstan-China pipeline, and the Uzen-Atyrau-Samara pipeline. Development of additional capacity, particularly export capacity that would remove Kazakhstan's dependence on Russia, is needed for its future ability to increase production (see Figure 7-25).

Kazakhstan has two separate domestic natural gas distribution networks, which are controlled and managed by KazTransGas. One is in the west, where country's production fields are, and the other is in the south, which mainly delivers imported natural gas. The lack of internal pipeline connections has hindered the development of the country's natural gas resources.

The country’s natural gas pipeline consists of 11,000 km of pipeline with 22 compressor stations and three undergrounds storage facilities. The main


August 2014

pipelines are the Central Asia Center pipeline, the Bukhara-Ural pipeline, Tashkent-Almaty pipeline, and the Turkmenistan-China pipeline.

Southern Kazakhstan receives natural gas from Uzbekistan via the Tashkent-Shymkent-Bishkek-Almaty pipeline even as the country exports gas from its northwest region.

Figure 7-25 Oil and gas pipelines in Kazakhstan

Water and Wastewater

The water supply systems in urban areas are generally in poor condition. Efficiency has been reduced to around 50 per cent due to aged water collecting installations and distribution networks. The mains networks were built in areas of scarce or no fresh groundwater supply and collect water mostly from surface sources. Eighteen such water supply systems distribute more than half of the water transferred to the communal drinking pipelines throughout the country. 97 per cent of the localized pipelines in populated areas, such as major villages, regional centres, and central farms, rely on underground water.

Pipeline coverage varies by region, with an average of approximately 70 to 75 per cent of the population being supplied with water by pipeline. The average provision for towns is 85 per cent (the maximum value is 92 per cent in Almaty Oblast, minimum 62 per cent); for rural areas 71 per cent (from 84 per cent in Almaty Oblast to 42 per cent in Mangghystau Oblast).


August 2014

In rural areas, where access to water is significantly low, water is obtained from local or common wells, delivered water, and the surface water of rivers, lakes, and small water sources.

Public utilities discharge approximately 0.14 km3 of sewage into water bodies per year. Only 0.05 km3 of it is treated to comply with the standards.


Infrastructure in Kazakhstan is expected to improve in the future with its growth of population and economy.

The Kazakhstan government has established a program that includes the rehabilitation of the national road network, one-fourth of which is in poor condition, the provision of selected additional infrastructure, and the development of the country’s potential as a transit country between Europe and Asia; and institutional and legislative changes. Improved transportation conditions should have a positive effect on any renewable projects.

There is also a program targeting upgrades to Almaty’s public transport system by the implementation of a new electronic ticketing system which will make the system more efficient, reliable and customer-oriented.

With an increased demand for water, there may be a water shortage of 13 to 14 km3 by 2030 and of 20 km3 by 2050. This may require new sources of supply through reuse, desalination plants, long distance piping and the transfer of water among basins. To avoid this government is trying to eliminate the water gap in each basin by 2030 by improving water efficiency while providing the entire population access to water by 2020.

In addition, EBRD and the Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the preparation of PPP projects in 2011, for water and wastewater sectors of several cities the country, such as Atyrau, Semei, and Taraz, etc.

Kazakhstan is aiming to reducing landfill numbers by recycling/reuse and energy recovery by establishing integrated waste management.

As stated in the Concept for Transition to Green Economy, Kazakhstan is anticipating significant construction of new power generation facilities due to growing demand and decommissioning of older power plants. The main technical activities including retrofitting existing coal-fired plants, replacing older coal-fired plants with modern facilities, switching coal combined heat and power facilities to gas, constructing new gas-fired plants in larger cities, growing nuclear power generation, and investing in gas infrastructure in the


August 2014

north, east and south regions. In addition, as part of these efforts, renewable energy will be developed as explained in detail in Section 4.

With regard to grid improvements, KEGOC is currently carrying out Phase II of the Kazakhstan Electricity Transmission Rehabilitation project in order to secure more stable operation and improve the safety and quality of the electricity supply, the security of high-voltage equipment and market performance. Project financing includes credit facilities of EBRD in addition to KEGOC’s own funds. The project is targeted for completion by 2016.


The key constraints and opportunities for renewable energy development in relation to material assets are summarised in Table 7-26 below.

Table 7-26 Constraints and opportunities in relation to material assets

Constraints Opportunities Sporadic presence and

condition of electricity grid and connections;

Proximity to, and condition of electricity grid and connections

High availability of lower cost energy sources (fossil fuels)

Potential conflicts with existing material assets (e.g. pipelines, highways)

Proximity to airports (e.g. wind turbine height and solar PV sun glare

High level of employees’ education

Increase energy supply in southern Kazakhstan

Increase electricity generation in Kazakhstan and reduce import

Locate facilities in accessible areas with existing support infrastructure


The environmental receptors and issues for material assets are shown in Table 7-27 below. Please refer table A-7 in Appendix A for a detailed calculation of receptor sensitivity.

Table 7-27 Receptors and environmental issues for material assets



Infrastructure Transportation (Road / Highways, Rail, Airports

Temporary impact to traffic during construction.





August 2014



and approaches, Ports

Energy Existing and planned transmission lines

Gas pipelines

Visual impact of the renewable energy equipment may affect the value of the existing infrastructure Need to construct new transmission lines to connect with grid. Possible improvement in power access and stability. Potential collision risk with tall turbines near airports

Visual impact of the renewable energy equipment may affect the value of the existing infrastructure Need to construct new transmission lines to connect with grid. Possible improvement in power access and stability. Potential suns glare impacts to pilot visibility near airports.

Installation of the renewable energy equipment may affect the existing infrastructure and change the risk to flood. Need to construct new transmission lines to connect with grid. Possible improvement in power access and stability. Potential impacts to navigation/shipping on larger navigable rivers.

Installation of the renewable energy equipment will use the property of existing facility. Need to construct new transmission lines to connect with grid. Possible improvement in power access and stability.

Sensitivity Medium Medium Medium Medium


The date quality for material assets was sufficient, with consistency across sources and a wide array of information available. Information is abundant, up to date, and accessible in electronic form.

The main gap for material assets includes a lack of information related to the condition of roads in Kazakhstan.


August 2014

8.0 LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

8.1 APPROACH TO THE SER ASSESSMENT

Impact Assessment Methodology for the SER

For the purpose of the study, criteria provided in the EU SEA Directive, Appendix II (Table 8-1) were used a s relevant ones that should be taken into account when determining likely significant effects to the environment These criteria have been established in order to determine whether or not an SEA will be required under the Directive. As shown below, these criteria relate to the nature of the effects arising from the plan, and the value and vulnerability of the receptors affected, so they are also applicable to the assessment of significant environmental effects. Therefore, they have been used for this purpose during this SER, which is recognized in the UK SEA Practical Guide.

Table 8-1 Criteria listed in Appendix II of the SEA directive

Characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected, having regard, in particular, to (a) the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects; (b) the cumulative nature of the effects; (c) the trans-boundary nature of the effects; (d) the risks to human health or the environment (for example, due to accidents); (e) the magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size of the population likely to be affected); (f) the value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to -

(i) special natural characteristics or cultural heritage; (ii) exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values; or (iii) intensive land-use; and

(g) the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, Community or international protection status.

The potential effects on each receptor have been assessed against the above criteria. These assessments, which were based upon both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as expert judgment, are reported within this SER Environmental Report.

The flow chart below summarises the steps that have been undertaken to complete the significance assessment:


August 2014

12. Use of all the information listed above to determine whether the effect is significant.

11. Statement of assumptions, limitations and uncertainties associated with assessment

10. Identification of whether the effect is positive or negative

9. Identification of the spatial extent of the effect and whether the effect is trans-boundary

8. Identification of the magnitude of an effect (H/M/L)

7. Identification of whether an effect is irreversible/reversible and/or temporary/permanent

6. Identification of when the effect occurs (construction, operation or decommissioning)

Identification of how long the effect will last (L/M/S/VS) and the frequency of the effect

5. Identification of the probability of an effect occurring (H/M/L/VL)

4. Identification of whether an effect is direct or indirect, far-field, cumulative or a result of consequential development.

3. Identification of effects upon receptors for each alternative option

2. Identification of receptor value, vulnerability, and sensitivity

1. Identification of baseline and future baseline


August 2014

The following paragraphs explain each step in more detail.

1. Identification of the baseline and future baseline

The first step helps to identify the current state and characteristics of the environment, or ‘baseline’, and its likely evolution in the absence of the proposed programme. The baseline is defined by a series of ‘receptors’, which are entities that may be affected by direct or indirect changes to an environmental variable. Relevant receptors were identified during the SER scoping stage; relevant baselined conditions were described in…..

2. Identification of receptor value, vulnerability and sensitivity

It is necessary to evaluate each receptor in terms of ‘value’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘sensitivity’ in order to determine the significance of an effect. For the purposes of this SER, the following definitions were used:

Value: the value of a receptor (either high or low) is based on the scale of geographic reference, rarity, importance for biodiversity, social or economic reasons, and level of legal protection;

Vulnerability: the vulnerability of a receptor (either high, medium, low or none) is based on likelihood of a receptor being exposed to an environmental effect from scenarios developed under the KAZREFF, and the receptor’s tolerance and resilience to a given environmental effect;

Sensitivity: the sensitivity of a receptor is determined as being either high, medium, low or none, based on the combination of the receptor value and vulnerability, as identified in Appendix A:

3. Identification of effects upon receptors for each alternative option

During the Scoping stage, potential constraints and opportunities associated with implementing renewable energy in relation to each topic area were identified. These have been used as the starting point for the assessment of significant effects in this assessment stage of the SER. As the environmental topic assessments have progressed through the assessment stage of the SER, further key issues have been identified through research and feedback from consultation, and included within Section 6.

4. Identification of whether an effect is direct or indirect, far-field, cumulative or a result of consequential development.

The EU SEA Directive specifies that the assessment of effects should include ‘secondary, cumulative, synergistic... effects’ (Annex I (f)). The UK Practical Guide to SEA recognises that some of these terms are not always mutually exclusive and for the avoidance of doubt, within this SER the following assessment approaches were undertaken:


August 2014

Indirect effects are those which are not a direct result of a KazREFF resource scenario, but occur away from the original effect or as a result of a complex pathway. This SER does not use the term ‘secondary effects’ as this is covered by indirect effects.

There is the potential for effects to extend large distances from the KazREFF scenario locations. The assessments of these ‘far-field’ effects have greater uncertainty attached and this should be described alongside the impact assessment.

Cumulative effects arise, for instance, where several developments each have insignificant effects but together have a significant effect. For the SER, cumulative effects are dealt with through the consideration of each resource scenario in relation to the future environmental baseline conditions and other policies, plans, programmes, and projects) that are likely to act in combination with each KazREFF scenario to cause cumulative impacts. Therefore, the assessment of cumulative impacts is embedded within the impact assessment process.

This SER has not used the term ‘combined’ effects, as these are considered to be included within cumulative effects, nor has it used the term ‘synergistic’ effects, as these are contained within direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

A renewable energy scheme, such as a development considered as a component of the KazREFF resource scenarios, may facilitate or attract other developments, which may themselves pose significant environmental effects. These developments are described as ‘consequential developments’. These consequential developments are not well-defined and only a high-level qualitative assessment of the likely effects is possible. It is noted that ‘ancillary’ developments, that are necessary for the functioning of each KazREFF scenario, should be considered as part of the scenario, a good example being transmission lines to connect the schemes into the transmission network.

5. Identification of the probability of an effect occurring (H/M/L/VL)

The probability of whether an effect will happen has been recorded as high, medium, low or very low, which were classified as described in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2 Guidelines for determining probability of effect

Probability of effect Classification High Medium Low Very Low Guideline >90% 50-90% 10-50% <10%


August 2014

6. Identification of when the effect occurs (construction, operation or decommissioning); how long the effect will last for (L/M/S/VS); and frequency of effect.

The EU SEA Directive specifies that the assessment of likely significant effects should include ‘…short, medium and long-term…effects’ (Annex I (f)).

The timing of effects, which relates to the period of the project lifecycle during which an effect will happen, is described as either during the construction, operation or decommissioning phase. The duration, which is the length of time that effect would last, is described as long, medium, short or very short term. Table 8-3 establishes the guidelines for describing the project phase and duration of effects.

Frequency should also be evaluated in terms of whether the effect will be continual or intermittent over the period of time identified.

Table 8-3 Guidelines for determining the period of the project lifecycle

Type Duration of effect Classification Long Term Medium

Term Short Term Very Short

Term

Guideline 10+ years 3-10 years 1-3 years <12 months

Project phase Operation and Decommissioning

Operation Construction (or part thereof)

Part of construction period

7. Identification of whether the effect is irreversible / reversible and temporary / permanent

The EU SEA Directive specifies that the assessment of likely significant effects should include ‘…permanent and temporary…effects’ (Annex I (f)).

Effects are described as reversible or irreversible depending on whether the effect could be removed if deliberate action were taken to do so. If the timescale for a receptor’s return to baseline condition is greater than 50 years then it has been considered irreversible, if it is less it has been considered reversible.

Effects are also described as temporary or permanent, according to whether or not the effect is expected to last for an indefinite period of time.

Note that it is possible for an effect to be reversible-permanent (such as the visual effects of a wind turbine, as it would be a permanent fixture that could be removed; which would thereby reverse the effect).


August 2014

8. Identification of the magnitude of an effect

The assessment of the magnitude of an effect considers the percentage of the receptor affected and is categorised as high, medium, low or very low as shown in Table 8-4. Where no effect was predicted for a resource scenario, this has been recorded as ‘None’.

Table 8-4 Guidelines for determining the magnitude of effects

Type Magnitude of effect

Classification High Medium Low Very low None

Guideline Change to 90%+ of receptor

Change to 50-90% of receptor

Change to 10-50% of receptor

Change to <10% of receptor

No change in receptor

9. Identification of the spatial extent of the effect and whether the effect is trans-boundary

The spatial scale of the effect is defined as whether the effect is local, unitary authority (i.e. oblast level), regional, national or international, defined per Table 8-5 below. The area or location of the effect has been identified where relevant. Where there is a transboundary effect on an adjacent country, this has also been identified.

Table 8-5 Definitions of spatial scale

Spatial extent of effects

Definitions

International Effects extending beyond Kazakhstan National (Kazakhstan)

Effects within Kazakhstan but extending beyond region

Regional Effects based on the three electricity transmission areas Unitary Authority Effects within an Oblast Local Effects confined to a local area, typically <1 km from

source

10. Identification of whether the effect is positive or negative

The EU SEA Directive specifies that the assessment of effects should include ‘…positive and negative effects’ (Annex I(f)).

A positive effect has been defined as one that is favourable or otherwise beneficial to the condition of a receptor while a negative effect is one that is unfavourable or otherwise adverse to the condition of a receptor.

11. Statement of assumptions, limitations and uncertainties associated with assessment


August 2014

The EU SEA Directive also specifies that ‘…a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the information’ is provided in the Environmental Report.

Where assumptions had to be made, limitations observed, and/or uncertainty remained, this has been recorded. Confidence limits, or other suitable approaches, have been applied during environmental topic assessments to ensure that relevant uncertainties are acknowledged.

Environmental topic specialists used all readily available resources to make the most accurate assessments possible of the potential significant effects arising as a result of implementing a KazREFF resource scenario.

12. Use all the information to determine whether the effect is significant (Y/N)

In the final stage, the determination of whether or not an effect on a receptor is significant is made based on all the preceding criteria, expert judgement, and feedback from consultation. It should be noted that in this SER, receptors that were determined to have no sensitivity to impacts associated with the KazREFF (classified as “None” for sensitivity) were not evaluated past the sensitivity determination.

The conclusions are absolute (yes/no) as gradations of significance are not provided for within the EU SEA Directive. It should also be noted that the determination of significance of each KazREFF resource scenario is absolute and not comparative or relative to another KazREFF resource scenario.

The individual and combined compliance of the KazREFF resource scenarios the SER Objectives has been assessed and is detailed further in Section 10.

8.2 LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

8.2.1 Introduction

This Section summarises the likely significant effects of the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios upon the receptors considered under each of the seven environmental topics. A summary of the likely significant effects of each scenario is provided in this section below.

Receptors classified as “None” for sensitivity in Section 7.0 above were not evaluated since effects would not be considered significant if the receptors are insensitive. Therefore, projects developed under KazREFF will not have significant effects on climate or odours.


August 2014


8.2.2.1. Effect on climate and air quality

Approximately 86 per cent of Kazakhstan’s electricity is generated by coal with plants located in the northern part of the country where coal deposits occur. Replacement of coal with renewable energy will improve local air quality. In addition, minor, yet positive impacts on climate change can be expected internationally on a long term basis through the reduction of GHG emissions. Likely Significant effects are explained in detail in the table below.

Wind

During the construction phase, there may be an impact on local air quality from construction vehicle exhaust and dust generation; however, these effects will be localised and temporary and could be mitigated by implementing best practice for construction such as dust control.



Solar photovoltaic


Biogas

Biogas from municipal landfills will have a positive impact on the climate during operation. It is assumed that the landfill already emits methane during operation, so changes in air quality are not anticipated. During the construction phase, there may be an impact on local air quality, from construction vehicle exhaust and dust generation; however, these effects will be localised and temporary and could be mitigated by implementing best practice for construction. The landfill combustion plants being considered by KazREFF are much smaller than large fossil fuel fired plants and emission effects, which will occur during normal operations, are therefore expected to be permanent, but local in nature. (Average emission for existing stationary sources was 6.0 ton / unit in 2012.)


August 2014

8.2.2.2. Assumptions, limitations and uncertainty

The climate and air quality baseline data for Kazakhstan is limited in extent and detail. For example the breakdown of individual air pollutants such as PM, SO2, and NOx was not available.


August 2014

Table 8-6 Climate and air quality. Scenario - Wind

Climate and Air Quality. Scenario –Wind Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))

Description of effect

Direct or Indirect; Far-field effect; Cumulative effect; or effect resulting from Consequential Development

Probability (H/M/L/VL)

Duration (occurs during construction, operation or decommissioning phase and L/M/S/VS term) and frequency

Irreversible/ reversible; Temporary/ Permanent

Magnitude (H/M/L/VL)

Spatial extent & trans-boundary

Positive/ Negative

Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties

Significant (Y/N)

Air Quality Value = H Vulnerability =L Sensitivity =M

Potential of

NOx and dust emission due to material transport and construction.

Direct and Cumulative

H

VS During construction and decommissioning

Reversible Temporary

VL Trans-boundary Negative Cumulative impact if development is concentrated in high resource areas.

Y

Air emission is expected to reduce by replacing usage of fossil fuel with renewable energy

Cumulative M L During operation


VL Trans-boundary Positive - N


August 2014

Table 8-7 Climate and air quality. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic

Climate and Air Quality. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)





Irreversible/ reversible; temporary/ permanent



Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)


Potential of


Direct H


Reversible, Temporary

VL Trans-boundary

Negative - Y




VL Trans-boundary

Positive - N


August 2014

Table 8-8 Climate and air quality. Scenario - Small scale hydropower

Climate and Air Quality. Scenario – Small scale hydropower Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)


Potential of


Direct H



VL Trans-boundary

Negative -

Y




VL Trans-boundary

Positive - N


August 2014

Table 8-9 Climate and air quality. Scenario - Biogas

Climate and Air Quality. Scenario - Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)


Potential of


Direct H



VL Trans-boundary

Negative -

N


Cumulative M L

During operation Reversible Temporary

VL Trans-boundary

Positive - N


August 2014


8.2.3.1. Effect on surface water and groundwater

Two types of effects on this topic can be expected based on the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios: degradation of surface water quality and change in availability of surface water resources.

For each of the scenarios, there are common effects on surface water quality due to the footprint of development, erosion runoff and sedimentation during construction and operation. In addition, small scale hydro may affect flow patterns, river dynamics and river morphology from construction through operation. Likely significant effects are presented in greater detail in the tables below.

Wind

The KazREFF wind scenario has potential for significant environmental effects on surface water quality receptors should they be located in proximity to these. There would be reversible and temporal impact on surface water from run-off of precipitation or excess construction related flows over disturbed soils on roads, construction of lay down areas, turbine foundation areas, transmission lines and ancillary facilities. Such effects are likely to be significant during construction and decommissioning, but temporal and contained locally. During operation, the effect on surface water is much smaller than in construction stage and therefore not significant.

Solar photovoltaic

The effects of the KazREFF solar photovoltaic scenario upon surface water and groundwater are similar to those of the wind scenario. However, due to the larger uptake of land required for solar, this scenario has potentially more significant effects on surface water as it may be harder to avoid surface water when developing larger sites.


The KazREFF small scale hydropower scenario has potential for significant effects on surface water receptors and surface water quality. Effects on surface water resources and surface water quality are likely to occur during the construction, operation and decommissioning period. During construction and decommissioning, there would be reversible and temporal impact on surface water quality from run-off of precipitation or excess construction related flows over disturbed soils on roads, construction of lay down areas, turbine foundation areas, transmission lines and ancillary facilities. During operation, surface water resources and quality both


August 2014

upstream and downstream are potentially impacted by small scale hydropower systems that alter surface water flow, however the extent of the effect is dependent on the type of small scale hydropower facility used: a water storage or run-of-river system.

Biogas

The effect of the KazREFF biogas scenario upon surface water is similar to those of the wind and solar photovoltaic scenarios, although the effect of this scenario would have an impact on groundwater from leachate seepage during the operation stage.


The surface and groundwater resources of Kazakhstan are highly valuable and, in certain locations, affected negatively by agriculture, industry, commerce, and urban development. Knowledge of ambient and long-term health of surface and groundwater resources is necessary (through sampling and regular monitoring) to ensure that lifecycle effects from a renewable energy facility do not materially or significantly affect these resources.

As a result of limitations in available baseline data, it will mean that developers will need to undertake project specific monitoring of baseline flows and water quality to inform the assessment of likely significant effects for each scheme.\


August 2014

Table 8-10 Surface water and groundwater. Scenario - Wind Surface Water and Groundwater. Scenario -Wind Receptor (value (H/L) and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Surface water quality Value (H) Vulnerability (H) Sensitivity (H)

Surface water quality might be degraded from erosion, surface run-off which could potentially include contaminants associated with operation.

Direct effect, in local watershed only. Cumulative

M S Construction and decommissioning

Reversible; Temporary

L Local, Possibly trans-boundary depending on location

Negative Only an issue when facility is upgradient and in close to a surface water feature. Cumulative impact if development is concentrated in high resource areas.

Y

L Operation

Reversible; Permanent

VL Local Negative Only an issue when facility is upgradient and in relatively close to a surface water feature

N


August 2014

Table 8-11 Surface water and groundwater. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Surface Water and Groundwater. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Surface Water Quality Value (H) Vulnerability (H) Sensitivity (H)

Surface water quality might be degraded from erosion, surface run-off which could potentially include contaminants associated with operation.

Direct effect, in local watershed only.




Negative Only an issue when facility is upgradient and in relatively close proximity to a surface water feature

Y

L Operation


VL Local Negative Only an issue when facility is upgradient and in relatively close proximity to a surface water feature

N


August 2014


August 2014

Table 8-12 Surface water and groundwater. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Surface Water and Groundwater. Scenario - Small scale hydropower

Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Surface Water Resources Value (H) Vulnerability (H) Sensitivity (H)

Alterations in watercourse flows between intake and outflow in run-of-river systems.

Direct effect, Potentially Far-field.

H L Construction through operation


M Local Possibly trans-boundary depending on location

Negative

Y

Alterations in watercourse flows through impoundment.

Direct effect, Potentially Far-field. Cumulative

H L Construction through operation

Reversible Permanent


Negative

Cumulative impact if development is concentrated in high resource watersheds.

Y


Surface water quality might be degraded from erosion, surface run-off which could potentially include contaminants associated with

Direct effect, in local watershed only. Cumulative

H L Construction and decommissioning



Negative

Cumulative impact if development is concentrated in high resource watersheds.

Y


August 2014

Surface Water and Groundwater. Scenario - Small scale hydropower









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

operation.

Table 8-13 Surface water and groundwater. Scenario - Biogas Surface Water and Groundwater. Scenario One: Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)


Surface water quality might be degraded from erosion, surface run-off which could potentially

Direct effect, in local watershed only.




Negative Only an issue when facility is upgradient and in relatively close

Y


August 2014

include contaminants associated with operation.

proximity to a surface water feature

L Operation


VL Local Negative Only an issue when facility is upgradient and in relatively close proximity to a surface water feature

N

Groundwater Value (H) Vulnerability (H) Sensitivity (H)

Biogas would have to be built on capped landfills, which would be likely to decrease contaminant infiltration.

Direct effect on local groundwater resource

M L Operation

Permanent Reversible;

M

Local

Positive

-

Y


August 2014

8.2.4 Geology and soils

8.2.4.1. Effects on geology and soils

Three types of effects on geology and soils can be expected based on the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios: loss of high value soils, change in soil characteristics, and increased potential of occurrence of mudflow hazard.

For each of the scenarios, there are common effects on the general soil characteristics due to the change in soil properties caused by project activities such as land alternation, compaction from construction through decommissioning. Where they are present, high value soils may be affected by the construction activities for each of the scenarios except biogas. Small scale hydro may also affect mudflow hazard areas in areas where they may contribute to the failure of dams and reservoirs. Potential significant effects are explained in detail in the tables below.

Wind

High Value Soils - Due to the limited footprint, height and spacing of wind towers, this is the one renewable energy scenario that may allow for concurrent land use with agricultural production or farmland cultivation. As a result, the likely negative effects of the wind scenario upon high value soils are low.

Solar photovoltaic

Bedrock Geology – because solar photovoltaic sites are typically graded as level as possible, this may require additional excavation and removal of bedrock if constructed in areas of shallow or exposed bedrock. Overall, this would not be characterised as significant, as the negative effects will remain very localised to the site and very low in magnitude.

High Value Soils - Due to the levelling of the site, the scale of the projects, and the need to keep vegetation limited in height to avoid interfering with receipt of sunlight by the photovoltaic panels, this presents effects of higher magnitude than for the other renewable scenarios, through the removal of high value soils from agricultural productivity if sited in areas of high value soils.

General Soil Characteristics – The need to continually wash the photovoltaic panels during operations presents the potential for additional effects from wash water and chemicals percolating into the soils and affecting its structure and condition.



August 2014

Bedrock Geology – Construction of diversions and dams for hydropower will more likely involve excavation and blasting to bedrock due to its more favourable location in more mountainous terrain, although this negative effect is unlikely to be significant.

Mudflow Hazard Areas – Inundation of soils from reservoir impoundments may contribute to risks of mudflows, although, because these are usually placed in terrain lower than surrounding areas, the effect is not likely to be significant. Construction of run-of-river types of hydropower facilities would typically occur in more mountainous terrain and activities in or near mudflow prone areas could result in an increased risk of adverse effects related to mudflows.

Biogas

High Value Soils – There is a lower likelihood that high value soils would be immediately adjacent to urban landfills, therefore lessening the probability of effects from this scenario upon high value soils to very low. As a result, there are unlikely to be significant effects upon high value soils from this scenario.

General Soil Characteristics – Due to the limited disturbance of soils required for the construction of biogas facilities at existing landfill sites, there are unlikely to be significant effects upon soil composition resulting from this scenario during construction. Nevertheless, combustion of municipal landfill gas presents an additional risk of potential acidification from deposition of air pollutant emissions (i.e. SO2, NOx and CO2) from these projects during operation, which has potential for significant effects.


For the bedrock geology receptors, it was assumed that some excavation and/or blasting would be involved in constructing pile or pier foundations for wind turbines; constructing dam or diversions for hydro projects; and generally for other major building and structure foundation construction. For mudflow hazard areas, it was assumed that there would be significant removal of existing vegetation in clearing the site for construction, as well as changes in drainage patterns and inundation from hydro impoundments that would contribute to potential mudflow occurrences.

For high value soils receptors, it was assumed that establishment of hydro impoundment will eliminate productive use of underlying soils and that clearing and levelling of solar sites will alter drainage and require limitations of vegetative growth throughout operations. For already contaminated lands, it was assumed that additional spillage or release of contaminants could exacerbate existing level of contamination.


August 2014

Regarding potential effects to general soil characteristics, it was assumed that there may be sufficient downwash from wind turbines sufficient to affect soils and that increased moisture content from unlined impoundments could affect changes to soil composition.


August 2014

Table 8-14 Geology and soils. Scenario – Wind Geology and Soils. Scenario - Wind Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

High Value Soils Value – H Vulnerability – M Sensitivity - M

Loss of agricultural value through loss of area from facility footprint and support structures

Direct and cumulative

M L From construction through decommissioning Low frequency

Irreversible Permanent

VL Local Negative Assume sites will allow dual use of agricultural capacity with wind farm in high value soil areas. Cumulative impact if development is concentrated.

N

Enhanced erosion through removal of vegetation, potential release of chemicals, and compaction under heavy equipment

Direct and indirect

Low S During construction and decommissioning


Low Local Negative - Y

General Soil Characteristics Value – L Vulnerability – M Sensitivity – M

Enhanced erosion through removal of vegetation, potential release of chemicals, and compaction under

Direct and indirect





August 2014

heavy equipment

Table 8-15 Geology and soils. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Geology and Soils. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

High Value Soils Value – H Vulnerability – M Sensitivity - M


Direct and cumulative

M L – From construction through decommissioning


VL Local Negative Although solar PV may impact larger area, as a percentage of available high value soil, the impact, even cumulative impact, would be minimal

N

Enhanced erosion through removal of vegetation, potential release of chemicals, and compaction under construction equipment

Direct and indirect




Soil Composition Value – L Vulnerability – M

Enhanced erosion through removal of vegetation, potential release of chemicals, and

Direct and indirect





August 2014

Sensitivity – M compaction under construction equipment

Table 8-16 Geology and soils. Scenario - Small scale hydropower

Geology and Soils. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Various receptors in Mudflow Hazard Areas (only in mudflow prone areas)Value – H Vulnerability – M Sensitivity – M

Increased potential of occurrence from removal of vegetation, changes in drainage inundation from impoundments, and increased gradients from infrastructure could increase risk. Construction of ‘run-of-river’ typically occurs in mountainous terrain and activities in landslide hazard areas could result in increased risk of

Direct VL L During construction through decommissioning


H Local Negative Only an issue in areas of higher mudflow risk

Y


August 2014

Geology and Soils. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

adverse effects. High Value Soils Value – H Vulnerability – M Sensitivity – M


Direct M L – From construction through decommissioning Low frequency


VL Local Negative Assume impoundment will eliminate productive use of underlying soils, may alter local drainage and erosion.

N


Direct and indirect




General Soil Characteristics Value – Low Vulnerability – Medium Sensitivity – Medium


Direct and indirect





August 2014


August 2014

Table 8-17 Geology and soils. Scenario - Biogas Geology and Soils. Scenario - Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Soil composition Value – Low Vulnerability –Medium Sensitivity –Medium


Direct and indirect





August 2014


8.2.5.1. Effect on landscape and biodiversity

For all of the scenarios there are number of potential common effects on landscape and biodiversity that must be considered prior to selection of sites and projects. These common potential effects are:

Habitat loss, fragmentation and or simplification associated with the development footprint of the renewable power development and consequentially potential adverse effects on protected species that utilise those habitats;

Potential increase in bird and bat mortality, due to an increased risk of collision/electrocution where new wind turbines and ancillary power lines are located within bird migration corridors or bird and bat foraging areas.

The adverse effect of new above ground structures associated with power generation devices, power houses and ancillary developments such a new linear new power lines and access roads on landscape character, setting and visual amenity. Such adverse effects may be exacerbated if viewed from elevated locations or if structures are sited on ridgelines. Such effects may be reduced if obscured by intervening features such as variations in landform, existing buildings or trees/forest;

Wind

Land take from wind farm arrays has the potential to lead to significant environmental effects due to habitat loss. Wind farm development within or adjacent to protected wetland sites has the potential to adversely affect important wetland and associated terrestrial habitats that provide support to nationally and international (Ramsar) important populations of migratory birds, including those along the Western Asia – Africa and the Central Asia – India flyways.

In addition to the effects of habitat loss, the siting of wind turbines within or adjacent to habitats which provide important nesting, roosting or feeding sites for bird and bat populations may increase the risk of direct mortality through bird and bat strike; either through collision with the turbine blades or new connecting transmission lines. Birds of prey, passerines and other endemic species of bird are also vulnerable to similar affects associated with habitat loss and risk of turbine strike within in-country migration routes. The most significant effects are likely in areas of particular importance for bat populations in southern Kazakhstan.

Wind farm development in steppe zones has the potential to reduce available habitat within the range of herding species such as the Saiga antelope.


August 2014

Broader scale habitat loss within the steppe zone in northern Kazakhstan will also potentially affect other wide ranging protected species. However, habitat areas can still be used by terrestrial species because of the spacing of wind turbines within an array and the very limited land take for each turbine. If forested areas essential for important terrestrial species are converted to open terrain, there might be a significant negative effect.

The most likely effects to aquatic communities would result from runoff of precipitation over disturbed soils on roads, construction lay down areas, turbine foundation areas, transmission lines and appurtenant facilities. Sediments entrained in the stormwater flows can ultimately be released to and deposited in local streams, affecting water quality, aquatic habitat, and associated life forms. Such effects are most likely to occur during construction. The effect would be significant only if facilities are placed close to water features.

The introduction of wind farms will have significant negative effects on both landscape character and visual amenity. Individual turbines, 100m in height, will be visible up to a distance of 30 km, with potential effects on bordering countries. While the extent of the effect will depend on the sensitivity of the landscape character, wind farms will generally be out of character for most landscapes. In landscapes where there are intervening features (built, landform or forest) views may be reduced, however in flat, steppe/arable landscapes they will be particularly noticeable. Protected and high quality landscapes and their setting may be particularly vulnerable to these effects.

Solar photovoltaic

Land take from solar photovoltaic arrays has the potential to lead to significant environmental effects due to habitat loss. Developments within or adjacent to protected areas has the potential to adversely affect important habitats in protected areas. Shading may contribute to changes in the micro-climate and may change vegetation patterns. Land take also has the potential to lead to the direct loss of forest, grassland and savannah habitats and associated reduction in ecosystem function, leading to direct loss of habitat for important terrestrial species. Additional above ground transmission infrastructure would lead to a reduction in bird and bat species.

The most likely effects to aquatic communities would result from runoff of precipitation over disturbed soils on roads; construction lay down areas, foundation areas, transmission lines and appurtenant facilities. Sediments entrained in the stormwater flows can ultimately be released to and deposited in local streams, affecting water quality, aquatic habitat, and associated life forms. Such effects are most likely to occur during construction and only if facilities are placed close to water features.


August 2014

The introduction of photovoltaic arrays and ancillary development over a wide area will affect landscape character by replacing existing scenic landscape with areas of dark panels which will register as expansive unnatural features. However, solar developments would most likely be low lying; therefore, the effect on visual amenity will be most apparent when viewed from an elevated positions or close locations. The effects on protected and high quality landscapes and their setting can be expected to be negative and significant. Protected and high quality landscapes and their setting may be particularly vulnerable to these effects.


The damming of water courses may affect water-dependent protected areas due to either reduced availability of water, modification of the flooding regime or permanent flooding and inundation of protected areas upstream of the dam. The clearance of vegetation and construction works for additional access to hydropower development may also lead to direct footprint losses within or adjacent to protected.

Outside of the protected areas the development of new hydropower facilities has the potential to lead to direct footprint losses. These can be within the newly impounded areas or through the development of new access roads that may lead to the loss of forest, steppe and desert and semi-desert.

Key effects on aquatic ecology are associated with changes in erosion and sediment deposition processes, changes in habitat conditions and blockage of upstream/downstream migration pathways.

The introduction of new small scale hydropower developments within sections of watercourse not previously exploited has the potential to adversely affect a number of protected fish species within the main river catchments of including the lli, Ural and Chu Rivers and their tributaries. New dams may introduce new barriers to migration of such fish species and other aquatic organisms making river reaches important for functions such as reproduction, feeding, and seasonal movement inaccessible. In cases where several dams are located within the same basin or range of an affected species, significant cumulative effects can result.

Changes in erosion and sediment deposition can result from two sources: runoff from precipitation (most prevalent during construction), and fluctuations in water levels in the reservoir and in downstream river reaches during operation. Erosion and sediment deposition can degrade water quality by increasing turbidity and impeding the life cycles of affected organisms. Sediment deposition can suffocate fish eggs or immobilise organisms that cannot escape the vicinity.


August 2014

The development of a hydroelectric facility can result in significant changes in local aquatic habitat due to modifications in flow conditions, water quality, and physical habitat. These changes can occur upstream and downstream of the hydroelectric dam, as well as in the bypass reach. Impoundment converts upstream reaches of river from natural lotic (riverine) to lentic (lake) conditions resulting in decreased flow velocities, increased water depths, and overall changes in flow patterns. Water temperatures in the impoundment may increase over natural stream temperatures; concentrations of nutrients and pollutants may increase as the impoundment acts as a “sink” where constituents collect. As a result anoxic conditions may develop in the impoundment’s lower depths, particularly during the summer months. Physical habitat in the reservoir basin can be modified as sediments, gravel, and other debris accumulate in the reservoir.

Landscape effects will arise from the creation of new reservoirs, dams, powerhouses and other associated structures. However, due surrounding landscape, terrain and very small viewshed, the effect would likely to be insignificant.

Biogas

The effects of the landfill biogas resource development scenario on biodiversity are likely to be limited by the small scale nature of the development within an already heavily disturbed area. There may be the potential for limited land take leading to loss of natural or modified habitats, however such effects are unlikely to be significant as habitats on the edge of the landfill site are unlikely to be of high value. There may be the potential for an increased incidence of bird strike associated with the ancillary development of power lines;, particularly if sections of the landfill remain uncovered and attract scavenging bird species directly to the waste deposited.

The construction and operation of power plant facilities may lead to the potential for adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Such effects are likely to be associated with:

Erosion and stormwater runoff. Water supply withdrawals.


It has been assumed that the development of power plants and ancillary infrastructure is unconstrained by the locations of internationally, nationally or regionally protected biodiversity and landscape areas, or remnant natural or modified habitats.


August 2014

Biodiversity data has been taken from the IUCN Red List and the Red list of Kazakhstan. It is also not possible within the scope of this study to identify and geo-reference all protected areas, habitats and protected species.

Consideration of the potential effects on protected species has been made based on general habitat association. At this level of assessment, it is not possible to consider every effect in relation to every protected species.


August 2014

Table 8-18 Landscape and biodiversity. Scenario - Wind Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Wind Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Protected areas Value = H Vulnerability = H Sensitivity = H

Land take from wind farm array(s) leading to direct loss of habitat in protected areas.

Direct; Cumulative;

H L During construction and operation;

Irreversible; Permanent

H Regional Negative Development locations are unconstrained within resource scenario areas. Cumulative impact if development is concentrated in high resource areas

Y

Bird and bat species (migratory species) Value = H, Vulnerability = H, Sensitivity = H

Bird strike from turbine operation and additional above ground transmission infrastructure leading to reductions in migratory bird populations.

Direct; Cumulative; Far field

H L During operation

Permanent; Reversible

H International; Trans-boundary.

Negative Limitations: Data on distribution and populations of bird species within wind resource areas is a limitation. Cumulative impact if development is concentrated in high resource

Y


August 2014

Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Wind Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

areas. Important terrestrial species Value = H, Vulnerability = H, Sensitivity = H

Loss of habitat for important terrestrial species, where present, due to habitat conversion to support construction and footprint of wind farm array and access routes.

Direct; Cumulative


Permanent; Irreversible

VL

Regional Negative Due to spacing of wind turbines within an array and the very limited land take for each turbine, habitat areas can still be used by terrestrial species (unless converted from forested habitat).

Y – if forested areas essential for important species are converted to open terrain); otherwise, N

Installation of wind farm could cause habitat fragmentation.

Direct; Far field

M L During construction and operation; .


VL

Regional

Negative Due to spacing of wind turbines within an array and the very limited land take for each turbine, habitat areas can still be used by terrestrial species (unless converted from forested

Y – if forested areas are converted to open terrain); otherwise, N


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

habitat).

Important aquatic species Value = H, Vulnerability = H, Sensitivity = H

Erosion and stormwater runoff degrades water quality of receiving stream and associated habitat and in turn, impacts aquatic life, including protected species.

Direct and indirect

M S During construction

Reversible; temporary

L Local Negative Only an issue if facilities are placed close to water features.

Y - Only an issue if facilities are placed close to water features; otherwise, N

Forest Areas Value = H, Vulnerability = H, Sensitivity = H

Land take from wind farm arrays leading to direct loss of forest area and associated reduction in ecosystem function.

Direct; Far field; Cumulative

H

L During construction and operation


H

Regional

Negative

Only an issue if facilities are placed in forested areas and the land is cleared to support facility.

Y


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

High quality landscape value Value = H, Vulnerability = H, Sensitivity = H

Installation of Wind farm arrays and above ground power lines will affect scenic value and setting of high quality landscape area such as protected areas and forest area.

Direct; Far field; Cumulative

H



H

Unitary authority - International; Trans-boundary. (if visible from the Kazakhstan border)

Negative

Assumptions: Array area < 4 800ha with turbines 100m high. Visible for up to 30km. Cumulative impact if development is concentrated in high resource areas

Y (if located within viewshed of protected, forested, and high quality landscape areas)


August 2014

Table 8-19 Landscape and biodiversity. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))

Description of effect Direct or Indirect; Far-field effect; Cumulative effect; or effect resulting from Consequential Development


Duration (occurs during construction, operation or de-commissioning phase and L/M/S/VS term) and frequency




Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Protected areas Value = H Vulnerability = H Sensitivity = H

Land take from photovoltaic panels and associated facility leading to direct loss of habitat in protected areas.

Direct; Cumulative;

H L During construction and operation


H Regional Negative Assumptions: Development locations are unconstrained within resource scenario areas

Y

Bird and bat species (migratory species) Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H

Additional above ground transmission infrastructure leading to reductions in migratory bird and bat populations.

Direct; Far field



L Regional Negative Assumptions: Limitations: Data on distribution and populations of bird species within wind resource areas is a limitation.

Y

Important terrestrial species Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H

Loss of habitat for important terrestrial species, where present, due to habitat conversion to support construction and footprint of photovoltaic panels and access routes.

Direct;



M

Regional Negative Assumptions: Development locations unconstrained within resource scenario areas.

Y


August 2014

Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))







Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Installation of photovoltaic panels could cause habitat fragmentation.

Direct; Far field

M L During construction and operation


M

Regional International Trans-boundary

Negative Assumptions: Development locations unconstrained within resource scenario areas.

Y

Important aquatic species Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H


Direct and indirect



L Local Negative Only an issue if facilities are placed close to water features.

Y - Only an issue if facilities are placed close to water features; otherwise, N

Forest Areas Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H

Land take from photovoltaic panels leading to direct loss of forest area and associated reduction in ecosystem function.

Direct; Far field

H



H

Regional

Negative

Only an issue if facilities are placed in forested areas and the land is cleared to support facility.

Y

High quality Installation of Direct; H L Irreversible; M Unitary Negative Assumptions: Y (if


August 2014

Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))







Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

landscape value Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H

photovoltaic panels and above ground power lines will affect scenic value and setting of protected areas.

Far field; During construction and operation; Long Term; Continuous

Permanent

authority - International; Trans-boundary (if visible from the Kazakhstan border)

Effect could be significant up to 10-20km.

located within viewshed of protected, forested, and high quality landscape areas)


August 2014

Table 8-20 Landscape and biodiversity. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Protected areas Value = H Vulnerability = M Sensitivity = M

Additional damming of water courses may lead to changes in the hydrological pattern composting important feature of protected areas (impoundments).

Direct Cumulative

M Operation; Long term; Continuous


L to H (impoundments in protected areas)

Regional

Negative

Assumptions: Development locations unconstrained within resource scenario areas.

Y - Only an issue if facilities are located in protected areas; otherwise, N


Additional above ground transmission infrastructure leading to reductions in migratory bird populations.

Direct; Far field

M L During operation


M ?

Negative Assumptions: Limitations: Distribution and populations of bird species within wind resource areas

Y

Important terrestrial species Value H,

Additional damming of water courses may lead to changes in the

Direct;

M



L to H (impoundments)

Regional

Negative

Assumptions: Development locations unconstrained

Y - Only an issue if facilities require


August 2014

Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H

hydrological regime of water dependent or flooding of terrestrial Protected Sites.

within resource scenario areas.

impoundment; otherwise, N

Important Aquatic species Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H


Direct and indirect



M Local Negative

Y

Change in availability of prey for protected fish and aquatic invertebrates due to impoundment effects on sediment

Indirect M L During operation


M Local Negative Y


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

and erosion processes.

Blockage of upstream and/or downstream migration of protected fish affecting feeding, reproduction, and seasonal movements of target species.

Direct H L During construction and operation

Reversible; Permanent.

H International Trans-boundary.

Negative Assumptions: Migratory species utilise the affected reach of river Multiple developments along a watercourse or catchment. Protected migratory species, such as anadromous fish, the impacts can extend throughout the affected river basin

Y


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

and beyond. Forest Areas Value H, Vulnerability M, Sensitivity M

Loss of forest and associated ecosystem due to vegetation clearance associated with requirements for additional access and clearance of newly flooded areas (impoundments)

Direct

M



L to H (impoundments in forested areas)

Regional

Negative

Assumptions: Development locations unconstrained within resource scenario areas.

Y - Only an issue if facilities require clearing of forested areas; otherwise, N

High quality landscape value Value H, Vulnerability M, Sensitivity M

The presence of new structures and buildings may effect landscape character, visual amenity and the setting of protected landscapes.

Direct

H L During construction and operation


L Local Negative

Due surrounding landscapes, terrain, and very small viewshed, this is not likely to be a significant effect.

N


August 2014


August 2014

Table 8-21 Landscape and biodiversity. Scenario - Biogas Landscape and Biodiversity. Scenario - Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct; Far field



L

Negative Assumptions: Limitations: Data on distribution and populations of bird species within wind resource areas is a limitation.

Y

Important terrestrial species Value H, Vulnerability M, Sensitivity M

Transmission lines could require land take/clearing of habitat areas for important terrestrial species

Direct M L During construction and operation


L

Local Negative Assumptions: Development locations unconstrained within resource scenario areas.

Y

Forest Areas Value H, Vulnerability M, Sensitivity M

Loss of forest and associated ecosystem due to vegetation clearance associated with requirements for additional access

Direct M



H

Regional

Negative

Only an issue if transmission lines need to cross through forested areas and the land is cleared.

Y


August 2014

and transmission lines


August 2014


8.2.6.1. Effects on community and socio-economics

For all renewable energy scenarios, there are common potential effects that must be considered. There is the potential dislocation of communities and households as a result of the facilities, roadways, and power transmission lines, which should be avoided. Forced or involuntary resettlement will have an extremely high effect which would be negative and long-lasting, starting prior to construction and last through operation. Resettlement will not only present a change in living conditions, but also may affect means of livelihood, social identity, and social effects. Efforts to minimize this impact should be made at the design stage. If resettlement is unavoidable, proper consultation and compensation would be required.

Effects on health may include increased noise and dust displacement due to material transport and construction, which may impact workers and communities near the site and along transportation routes. The possibility of workers being injured is significant, especially during the construction of facilities and transmission lines, maintenance, and decommissioning. Although the proximity of communities to transmission lines was considered, the voltage used for connection to the grid would be far too low to generate any field of a magnitude which could have adverse human health effects.

Positive economic, though minor, benefits of increased employment would arise during construction, maintenance and decommissioning. Secondary employment opportunities would also be presented from supporting economic activities such as lodging, food supply and support to infrastructure. Manufacturing of the required construction materials may also present economic benefits. There is the potential loss of land for other economic activities such as agricultural use, especially during construction. However, once construction is complete, land below transmission lines and wind turbines would be suitable for use.

Tourism may be positively affected by providing power to remote areas and through the promotion of eco-tourism; however the landscape may be negatively affected in the process.

Wind

Human health risks beyond those presented above may occur for wind development due to the risk associated with working at extreme heights with large equipment in high wind conditions. Large plots of land may be required during construction which may lead to a temporary loss of access to productive lands; however, once construction is complete, the majority of this land can be returned to its original function as most land uses are compatible


August 2014

beneath wind turbines. Wind has high potential in the northern and southern areas, which is where the agricultural oblasts exist.

In addition, there may be a chance of blade or shadow flicker, though this should not cause a significant risk to human health if proper planning is adhered to.

Solar photovoltaic

Site selection may affect communities with farm lands if the lands are appropriated without voluntary agreement of the land owners or tenants who use the land without clear legal rights, though owners should be protected by law.

In addition, there may be the loss of agriculturally productive lands and the loss of fertile top soil due to construction. Many of the southern areas of the country have high potential for solar energy, including Almaty and South Kazakhstan, which also had the highest and second highest agricultural gross output in 2012. It is therefore possible that there may be minor negative economic effects on nearby communities.


Small scale hydropower may require more civil work than other scenarios and workers and nearby communities may be exposed to dust, noise and vibrations during construction. There will also be more risk that workers and nearby communities will face potential health threats due to the use of heavy construction equipment. Dam type SSH facilities may change the river flow during construction and negatively affect any downstream tourist sites including recreation facilities, mining areas, or agricultural fields. If the project is along an international river, this can be a trans-boundary impact to downstream countries. Construction, would, however, create a positive effect on employment.

During operation, impacts to human health and downstream areas would be much smaller and there would be fewer employment opportunities. Dam type SSH may positively function as flood control. Furthermore, creation of small reservoirs for retention based hydropower may increase opportunities for recreation and fishing.

Biogas

The effects of the biogas scenario on community and socio-economic resources are very low based on the assumption that site selection will be where landfills already exist. Any odours will be reduced and general sanitation will be improved due to the landfill capping required to implement this scenario.


August 2014


The potential for long term and short term employment of local labour was assumed where practical and available. It was assumed that the workers will follow all safety laws of Kazakhstan and that connection to local power lines and the grid would be necessary.


August 2014

Table 8-22 Community and socio-economics. Scenario - Wind Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Wind Receptor (value (H/L) and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Housing and Livelihood Value = H Vulnerability = H Sensitivity =H

If facility or transmission lines are sited in high density areas, could require resettlement or loss of livelihood

Direct L Construction and operation - L

Irreversible/ Permanent

M

Local Negative Assumption- households are not build in are with high wind velocity.

Y

Human Health Value = H Vulnerability = H Sensitivity =H

Potential of noise and dust disruption for material transport and construction.

Direct M Construction - VS

Reversible/ Temporary

VL Local Negative Y

Possibility the workers will be injured during wind turbine and transmission line’s construction, maintenance, and decommission.

Direct L Construction, operation, and decommission - S


H Local Negative Y

Potential of noise and vibration disruption due to the operation of wind turbine.

Direct H Operation - L Reversible/ Temporary

M Local Negative Probability will depend on the distance between the household and the site

Y


August 2014

Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Wind Receptor (value (H/L) and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Employment Value = L Vulnerability = M Sensitivity =M

Increase employment opportunity for local residents due to installation, maintenance and decommissioning. Limited opportunities during operation.

Direct Indirect (secondary employment and manufacturing)

M S to M During construction through decommissioning

Reversible/ Temporary (construction and decommissioning) Permanent (operation and maintenance)

Construction – L Operation – VL

Local Positive N

Economy Value = H Vulnerability = M Sensitivity =M

Improvement of energy security.

Direct M Operation-L Reversible/ Permanent

M Regional

Positive- especially in southern region where electricity is imported from Kyrgyzstan and in West where it is dependent on Russia.

- Y

Loss access to productive land (agriculture, grazing and mineral etc.) due to installation of wind turbine, transmission line

Direct H VS to L From construction to decommission)


VL Local Negative As a percentage of available productive land, the magnitude of the impact is insignificant.

N


August 2014

Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Wind Receptor (value (H/L) and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

and access road. Table 8-23 Community and socio-economics. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Housing and Livelihood Value = H Vulnerability = H Sensitivity = H




L Local Negative Y

Human Health Value = H Vulnerability = M




VL Local Negative - Y


August 2014

Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Sensitivity =M Possibility the workers will be injured during solar photovoltaic and transmission line’s construction, maintenance, and decommission.



H Local Negative Y


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)




M Construction – S to M Operation – L (Period maintenance) Decommissioning– S



Local Positive N




M Regional

Positive- especially in southern region where electricity is imported from Kyrgyzstan and in West where it is dependent

- Y


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

on Russia. Loss access to productive land (agriculture, grazing and mineral etc.) due to installation of solar photovoltaic, transmission line and access road.

Direct H From Construction to decommission- L Maintenance- VS (periodically)


VL Local Negative As a percentage of available productive land, the magnitude of the impact is insignificant.

N


August 2014

Table 8-24 Community and socio-economics. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Housing and Livelihood Value = H Vulnerability = H Sensitivity = H




L

Local Negative Assumption- location of small scale hydro will be close to community hence it will use existing infrastructure.

Y

Human Health Value = H Vulnerability = M Sensitivity =M

Potential of noise, vibration and dust disruption for material transport and construction.



VL Local Negative Y

Possibility the workers will be injured during small scale hydropower and transmission line’s construction, maintenance,



H Local Negative Y


August 2014

Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

and decommission.




H Construction – S to M Operation – L (Period maintenance) Decommissioning– S



Local Positive N




M Regional


- Y


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Water availability and quality for industry, mining and agriculture may affect during construction and operation may be affected.

Direct H Construction – S Operation – L (intermittent)

Reversible/ Temporary Irreversible/ Temporary

L Local, or trans boundary of international river such as Irtysh

Negative- Construction, Operation Positive - Operation

Magnitude will depend on the activity of downstream of the river and scale and type of hydro power. Water quality may be impacted with construction; however, it is assumed to improve with proper measurement such as during construction and operation. Impoundment systems may also

Y


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

function as flood control.

Table 8-25 Community and socio-economics. Scenario - Biogas Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Biogas









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Housing and Livelihood Value = H Vulnerability = L Sensitivity = M

If transmission lines are sited in high density areas, could require resettlement or


Irreversible/Permanent

L Local Negative Landfills will most likely be nearer to areas of denser population and

Y


August 2014

Community and Socio-economics. Scenario - Biogas









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

loss of livelihood

transmission lines could impact communities.

Human Health Value = H Vulnerability = L Sensitivity =M


Direct M Construction - VS Reversible/ Temporary

VL Local Negative Y

Possibility the workers will be injured during biogas facility and transmission line’s construction, maintenance, and decommission.



H Local Negative . Y


August 2014










Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Air quality is expected to improve by replacing fossil fuel and installing collection device during operation

Direct H Operation - L Reversible/ Temporary

L local

Positive Y

Employment Value = L Vulnerability = L Sensitivity =M



M Construction – S to M Operation – L (Period maintenance) Decommissioning– S



Local Positive N


August 2014










Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)




L Regional


- Y

Positive impact of using biogas as onsite power generation.

Direct H Operation-L Reversible/ Temporary

L Local Positive Y


August 2014


8.2.7.1. Effect on cultural heritage

Likely significant effects on cultural heritage are assessed in tables below. Two types of effects can be expected based on the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios:

Damage to cultural heritage which may occur due to the footprint of physical structures and the construction of the main facility or auxiliary facilities such as transmission lines. These effects during construction would result in permanent irreversible loss or damage to the receptor. The magnitude of the effect is difficult to determine at this stage; however, the spatial extent would depend on the importance and extent of the receptor (whether it crosses national boundaries). The effect is typically negative; however, there would be a positive effect if new cultural heritage sites would be discovered as part of the EIA process. This impact is likely significant.

A visual impact may occur due to the physical presence of the facility and associated infrastructure. The effect would occur during operation; however, the impact may be reversible upon decommissioning. The magnitude of the effect is difficult to determine at this stage; however, the greatest effect would occur where the site is set within a historical or cultural landscape. For other cases, it would depend on existing visual intrusion and the scale of the renewable project. The spatial extent would depend on the importance of the heritage resource and location of the site. The effect is negative and likely to be significant, depending on the receptor.

In addition, there could be a loss of intangible cultural heritage, if the heritage characteristic is localized enough to be impacted by construction or operation. This is unlikely to be reversible upon decommissioning. The magnitude would depend on the presence and effect of the intangible cultural heritage. The spatial extent is mostly local and the effect is likely to be negative and significant, if it occurs.

Wind

High potential wind areas occur throughout the country except in the mountain ranges, especially in the North and West regions and select mountain passes in the South.

Sites on the UNESCO World Heritage, UNESCO Tentative Lists and the Kazakhstan national heritage list have international importance and development on these sites should be avoided. Projects implemented under


August 2014

KazREFF could affect these areas if sited on the resource itself or if located within their viewsheds.

Unregistered and unknown sites could adversely impact the resource itself and the viewshed of these sites if present. Potential artefacts could be destroyed or damaged during construction since wind turbine foundations are up to 18 m in diameter and 5 m deep and the overall development can be extensive. Site preparation such as grading or preparing auxiliary infrastructure may also damage or destroy unknown remains.

Changes to the context or setting of cultural heritage sites are hard to assess at this point; however, considering the height of each turbine (100 m) and size of the potential wind farms, there may be a visual impact to the historic landscape.

Intangible cultural heritage may also be affected by large farms which have the potential to impact land use, such as inherited livestock grazing patterns, or intrinsic value, such as mountain peaks.

Solar photovoltaic

Solar PV has high potential in the Southern areas of the country, especially the Aral Sea region and Qyzylorda oblast.

Sites on the UNESCO World Heritage, UNESCO Tentative Lists and the Kazakhstan national heritage list have international importance and development on these sites should be avoided. Projects implemented under KazREFF could affect these areas if sited on the resource itself or if located within their viewsheds.

Unregistered and unknown sites could adversely impact the resource itself and the viewshed of these sites if present. Potential artefacts could be destroyed or damaged during construction since excavation for foundations, power lines, and other structured can be extensive. Site preparation such as grading or preparing auxiliary infrastructure may also damage or destroy unknown remains.

There is a higher possibility that hot spots of unregistered and unknown sites exist in the southern part of the country due to the historic location of the Great Silk Road. However, risk to unknown heritage buried deep underground is low since the foundation of solar PV is relatively shallow and panels can be installed by clearing and levelling surface ground without much ground excavation. There may be some loss or degradation of surface features, though it is expected to be minimal.


August 2014

Solar PV is likely to have negative visual effect on the scenery of any unregistered and unknown sites. The magnitude of the impact will depend on the location of the cultural heritage site, and scale of the renewable project.

Intangible cultural heritage may also be affected through changes in traditional land use and valued views.


The Eastern and Southern regions of the Irtysh, Ili and Syrdarya Rivers are high potential areas for SSH projects.



Rivers and floodplain areas have a higher probability of containing unregistered and unknown cultural heritage due to the fact that these areas were targeted for early settlement, agriculture and transportation. The magnitude of visual influence of a proposed SSH on cultural heritage objects would depend on the scale of the development and its location.

According the national intangible heritage list, there does not appear to be a strong connection to rivers, however, consultation with the community should take place. Traditional fishing is an example of intangible heritage that could be affected even it is not on the list.

Biogas

Biogas project have high potential near high population centres with sufficient sized landfills.



August 2014


Equipment required for the project, such as biogas collectors, gas turbines, and transmission lines are relatively small and any effects would fall within the landfill site or immediately adjacent to the landfill site. Areas suitable for biogas projects are likely to consist of previously disturbed ground; therefore, there is a lower potential for viewshed impacts since the viewshed is already impacted. Impact to the intangible heritage is considered unlikely for the same reason. However, landfills sites may have very long histories as, once established, landfills and waste areas tend to be used repeatedly over time. In many cases, refuse from history can be considered a cultural resource at the present time. Therefore, there is always a potential for biogas projects to be located near unknown cultural resources.


For all scenarios, there was some uncertainty due to data limitations associated with specific locations of energy developments and a general lack of detail on the location of specific heritage sites.

UNSECO World Heritage Site, sites on the UNESCO tentative list and national cultural heritage sites were assumed to be well known and unlikely to be damaged or destroyed with renewable energy projects, though there may be visual effects.

There is uncertainty associated the location of unregistered and unknown heritage sites and these have been assumed to be located in cultural rich areas, for example near the Great Silk Road.

Presence and the impact to intangible heritage is uncertain and should be identified at a project level through consultation with the local community.


August 2014

Table 8-26 Cultural heritage. Scenario - Wind Cultural Heritage. Scenario - Wind

Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

UNESCO World Heritage Sites and sites on the UNESCO Tentative List (Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H)

Possible loss and/or damage to heritage due to installation of wind turbine, transmission line.

Direct

H If sited at resource.

L During construction and demobilization


H If sited at resource

International If sited at resource

Negative.

Only an impact if sited within the boundaries of the UNESCO resource

Y

Possible effects within the viewshed of the resource.

Direct


L During construction, operation and demobilization




Negative.

Only an impact if sited within the viewshed of the UNESCO resource

Y

Registered cultural heritage sites. (Value H, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H)


Direct






Negative.

Only an impact if sited within the boundaries of the resource

Y


August 2014

Cultural Heritage. Scenario - Wind









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)


Direct






Negative.

Only an impact if sited within the viewshed of the resource

Y

Unregistered or unknown cultural heritage sites (Value H-L, Vulnerability H, Sensitivity H-M)


Direct






Negative.


Y


Direct






Negative.


Y

Intangible cultural heritage (Value H-L, Vulnerability L, Sensitivity M-L)

Possibility entire of partly loss, change, adverse effect to the heritage. – For example, surface development dominates the land for grazing.

Direct M – L – If sited in critical areas




Local Negative If sited in critical areas

Y


August 2014


August 2014

Table 8-27 Cultural heritage. Scenario – Solar PV Cultural Heritage. Scenario – Solar PV









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)


Possible loss and/or damage to heritage due to installation of facility, transmission line.

Direct






Negative.


Y


Direct






Negative.


Y

Registered cultural heritage sites. (Value H, Vulnerability

Possible loss and/or damage to heritage due to installation of facility,

Direct






Negative.


Y


August 2014

Cultural Heritage. Scenario – Solar PV









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

H, Sensitivity H)

transmission line.


Direct






Negative.


Y



Direct






Negative.


Y


Direct






Negative.


Y


August 2014

Cultural Heritage. Scenario – Solar PV









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)








Y


August 2014

Table 8-28 Cultural heritage. Scenario - Small scale hydropower Cultural Heritage. Scenario – Small scale hydropower









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct






Negative.


Y


Direct






Negative.


Y


August 2014

Cultural Heritage. Scenario – Small scale hydropower









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct






Negative.


Y


Direct






Negative.


Y


August 2014










Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct






Negative.

Greater potential than other scenarios because more historical development was along floodplains and rivers. Only an impact if sited within the boundaries of the resource

Y


Direct






Negative.


Y


August 2014










Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)








Y


August 2014

Table 8-29 Cultural heritage. Scenario - Biogas Cultural Heritage. Scenario – Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct






Negative.


Y


Direct

VL Areas are already visually impaired by presence of landfill.





Negative.

Areas are already visually impaired by presence of landfill.

N


August 2014

Cultural Heritage. Scenario – Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None)) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None))








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct






Negative.


Y


Direct






Negative.


N


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct






Negative.

Greater potential because landfills may have greater potential for cultural artefacts. Only an impact if sited within the boundaries of the resource

Y


Direct






Negative.


N


August 2014









Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)



Direct






Negative.


N


August 2014

8.2.8 Material assets

8.2.8.1. Effect on material assets

Two major types of effects on material asset can be expected based on the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios: increased pressure on the existing infrastructure and increase demand on transmission lines.

The effect to the existing infrastructure is common for all scenario; however, the pressure on existing infrastructure is expected to be larger for wind because it will incorporate larger and heavier components. The increase demand on transmission lines is also common all scenario; however, the wind scenario is expected to have a larger impact due to the higher expected capacity to be installed. Likely significant effects of material asset are assessed in tables below.

Wind

Wind projects will require the transportation of large wind and construction equipment, which is expected to be carried out via road and possibly rail, though to a lesser extent. Wind turbines are transported in pieces and a typical 5 MW turbine would consist of a 44 m blade and 52 ton weight nacelle. The transportation of this equipment has the potential to negatively impact roads and bridges not designed to withstand heavy loads. In areas that are remote and do not have strong transportation infrastructure, additional reinforcements may be needed. There may also be effects from the strain on local infrastructure through blocked road traffic associated with transporting wide-loads during both construction and decommissioning.

There will also be a need to expand existing power transmission lines to connect the facility to the grid. Portions of the grid in the north and south are already overloaded at times during the winter.

Solar photovoltaic

Solar PV and support materials will need to be delivered to the construction site; however, these are not significantly large components and would not impact infrastructure. There will be a need to expand existing power transmission lines to connect the facility to the grid. Portions of the grid in the north and south are already overloaded at times during the winter. Solar projects have high potential in the South, meaning they could have a positive effect by allowing for improved energy access and stability in remote areas and help reduce current overloads.

The impact on transportation infrastructure is expected to be minimal.


August 2014


Civil work will likely include the need to build or fortify roads and bridges to support the transport of large equipment and materials. During construction, negative effects may occur in downstream river flows due to filling for impoundment facilities.

Biogas

Biogas project using municipal landfill are assumed to be located near urban areas where transportation and transmission systems are well established, so no significant effect is anticipated.


For all scenarios, the assumption was made that infrastructure improvements will be the responsibility of the developer.


August 2014

Table 8-30 Material assets. Scenario - Wind Material Asset. Scenario One - Wind Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Infrastructure Value = H Vulnerability = M Sensitivity = M

Temporary impact on traffic during construction due to material transport

Direct H VS During construction and decommissioning


L

Local Negative

Effect will depend on the route of transport and its distance from the site.

Y

Construction of new transmission lines to connect with grid.

Direct H VS During construction

Irreversible Temporary

L Local Positive Assumption –Additional transmission lines will be required to connect facility to the grid.

Y

Possible improvement in energy access and stability.

Direct H L During operation


L Regional Positive - Y


August 2014

Material Asset. Scenario One - Wind Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)

Damage to infrastructure from transport of heavy equipment on local roads and bridges during construction.

Direct Cumulative

M VS During construction and decommissioning

Irreversible/ permanent

L Regional Negative

- Y

Increase demand on transmission lines



L Regional Negative

- Y


August 2014

Table 8-31 Material assets. Scenario - Solar Photovoltaic Material Asset. Scenario One – Solar PV Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)





L

Local Negative


Y





Y






August 2014

Material Asset. Scenario One – Solar PV Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)




L Regional Negative

- Y


August 2014

Table 8-32 Material assets. Scenario - Small Scale Hydropower Material Asset. Scenario - SSH Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)





L

Local Negative


Y





Y


August 2014

Material Asset. Scenario - SSH Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)





Damage to infrastructure from transport of heavy equipment on local roads and bridges during construction.

Direct Cumulative

M VS During construction and decommissioning

Irreversible/ permanent

L Regional Negative

- Y




L Regional Negative

- Y


August 2014

Table 8-33 Material assets. Scenario - Biogas Material Asset. Scenario One – Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)





L

Local Negative


Y





Y


August 2014

Material Asset. Scenario One – Biogas Receptor (value (H/L)and vulnerability (H/M/L/None) Sensitivity (H/M/L/None)








Positive/ Negative


Significant (Y/N)








L Regional Negative

- Y


August 2014

8.3 MITIGATION AND OFFSETTING MEASURES

8.3.1 Methodology for developing mitigation measures

The EU SEA Directive requires that where significant environmental effects have been identified, measures should be described that prevent or reduce effects (mitigation), and offset effects (offsetting). The EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy stipulates that projects will need to be designed to comply with relevant EU environmental requirements as well as applicable national law. Therefore where likely significant environmental effects from the various renewable energy scenarios have been identified in Section 8.2 mitigation or offsetting measures have been identified to reduce these effects to an acceptable level. In situations where Kazakh regulations differ from EU regulations, the more stringent of the two will need to be met.

The EBRD also stipulated that projects funded by the bank adhere to its Performance Requirements detailed in its Environmental and Social Policy. Therefore, the mitigation table below identifies which of the performance requirements are met through implementation of the various measures. In the absence of EBRD performance requirements or EU and Kazakh regulations on mitigation of certain environmental effects, good international practice standards such as the World Bank Group Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines could be used. Compliance with recognised standards will ensure that best available techniques are used and that the proposed mitigation measures are effective.

In addition to this SER Environmental Report, the SER will result in four Environmental and Social Action Plans (ESAPs) – one for each of the renewable energy technologies – to provide a template for further development at the inception of a given renewable energy project that is seeking funding from KazREFF (discussed further in Section 11). The ESAPs include the topic specific mitigation measures outlined below. The five ESAPs also include a number of more high-level actions – such as environmental, occupational health and safety, and social performance reporting – which companies must implement to plan and manage the environmental and social aspects of individual projects; these higher-level actions are not included below.

Mitigation measures will depend on project scale and potential effects and it is therefore assumed that the measures proposed will be the subject of further development as part of subsequent project implementation stages (discussed further in Section 11). Any assumptions made on the effect and applicability of these measures will need to be verified as part of project level planning and design.


August 2014

A series of criteria have been applied to aid the selection of mitigation measures for each resource scenario (see Table 8-34). These are intended to reflect the risks associated with the measures in terms of their effectiveness, policy and legal compliance, time needed for development and effects on other aspects of the environment. By showing how these factors have been taken into account, it is intended to demonstrate that reasonable measures have been selected.

Table 8-34 Criteria used to identify suitable mitigation measures:

Criterion Definition Effectiveness of measure

Assessment of how effective the measure is in addressing the effect. This is a high-level judgement on the efficacy of the measure and not a judgement on the ability of a measure to prevent the particular effects of a given renewable energy scenario.

Established practice

Extent to which measure has precedent, and established technologies, and is accepted as a prevention or reduction measure. Measures with an established precedent are more likely to meet legal, policy and consent requirements.

Development timeframe

Timescale that would be required to fully implement the measure. Measures should be achievable by the time schemes become operational.

Adverse effect on other environmental receptors

Extent to which a measure has adverse environmental consequences on other environmental receptors. Judgement is in strategic context.

The text on the four criterions listed in Table 8-34 has been colour-coded in the mitigation tables in this Section as follows:

(GREEN) Measure clearly meets criterion

(AMBER) Measure partially meets criterion or is capable of failing or meeting criterion depending on specific situation applied. Risk to successful implementation.

(RED) Measure clearly fails to meet criterion. Risk to successful implementation.

In all cases where a significant adverse effect has been identified the primary objective is to seek measures to mitigate for that effect. However, where a suitable mitigation measure is not feasible, opportunities have been identified below to offset the effect. In addition, where applicable, enhancement measures have been recommended. Enhancement measures should not be viewed as an alternative to mitigation or offsetting, rather they are measures that have been identified for their potential to bring benefits to the project once all mitigation and offsetting is in place.


August 2014

It is assumed that where applicable, mitigation identified in this SER will be carried through to individual KazREFF funded projects, and documented within an Environmental and Social Action Plan in accordance with EBRD requirements.


Recommended mitigation measures

In general, emission control equipment will be used during the construction stage. Best management practices for combustion emissions control will be implemented during operations for biogas. The proposed mitigation measures do not have a negative impact on other environmental receptors.

Recommended offsetting measures

Offsetting measures are not considered for climate and air quality.

Potential enhancement measures

Enhancement measures are not considered for climate and air quality.


August 2014

Table 8-35 Climate and air quality mitigation measures Climate and Air Quality Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment

Receptor(s) affected

Mitigation Measure

KazREFF Resource Scenario that the mitigation measure is applicable to

Effectiveness of measure

Established practice?


Adverse effect on other environmental receptor?

Is the measure identified also required to meet EBRD PRs (PR and paragraphs provided)?

Dust emission from transportation.

Air Quality Drive efficiently by optimizing the route and load and adopt alternative method, such as natural gas vehicle and railroad for transportation.

All scenarios Effective Yes No time needed for development

None PR3(16)

Air pollutant emission from biomass and biogas combustion.

Air Quality Optimize combustion and install emissions control equipment to meet emission standard of Kazakhstan and Europe.

Biomass and biogas scenarios

Effective Yes Optimization of combustion will be conducted during operation. Installation of emissions control equipment will be conducting during construction and be ready to use by the start up.

Maybe. Chemicals usage for emission control may have collateral environmental effects (for example ammonia

for NOx, and hydrated

lime for SOx).

PR3(5-10), PR3(14-18)


August 2014



In order to avoid irreversible significant impact on surface, groundwater and flooding regime, it is important to preliminary assess the hydrogeological condition of the site to be developed for KazREFF projects at project planning stage (e.g. site selection stage) and evaluate if the negative effects can be reasonably managed and mitigated to acceptable levels through mitigation measures. The major mitigation measures including pollution prevention and abatement practices at project level are as follows:

Siting and design considerations: During project siting, measures can be taken to select sites with low erosion potential and which are not proximate to surface water features. When this is not feasible, design considerations should be made to minimise the potential for minimizing impacts to surface water features.

Earthwork management: There should be procedures and practices to effectively control and minimise negative effects from earthwork activities such as erosion and run-off. Specific attention is required on sediment transport.

Hazardous materials storage and handling: There should be procedures and practices on the storage, handling, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials.

Spill prevention plan: There should be procedures and practices to prevent the spill and discharge of hazardous chemicals, liquids, and materials that would affect surface and groundwater resources.

Emergency response plan: There should be procedures and practices to response to emergency situations such as spillage of hazardous waste onto water and groundwater receptors so that the situation is quickly and effectively addressed to minimise the negative effect to receptors.

Sampling and monitoring: It is important to conduct periodic monitoring of water source conditions (surface and groundwater) to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation plans and practices. There should be procedures and practices to monitor quality and/or quantity of surface and groundwater resources in the local vicinity of a KazREFF project.


No offsetting measures are recommended for the surface water and groundwater topic.


August 2014


No enhancement measures are recommended for the surface water and groundwater topic.


August 2014

Table 8-36 Surface water and groundwater mitigation measures Surface Water and Groundwater Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment


Mitigation Measure KazREFF Resource Scenario that the mitigation measure is applicable to






Changes in surface water regime during construction

Surface Water Resources

To design a hydropower facility to minimize an effect on surface water regime through operation plan for small scale hydropower generation and reservoir management that includes water level monitoring plan.

Design run-of-river hydro facility in a way that maintains ecological base flows in surface water and does not impact water resource capacity


Effective : Solar Photovoltaic

Effectiveness dependent on mitigation measure : Small scale hydropower

Yes No development timeframe needed

None PR3 (10, 16)

Change in surface water quality

Surface water Quality

To Prepare EMP to address runoff and sediment control, pollution prevention including hazardous materials storage and handling, spill prevention and emergency response.

To conduct sampling and monitoring of water resource as per EMP

To educate construction contractor to comply with EMP including

All Effective Yes No development timeframe needed

None PR3 (10, 11,12,13, 14, 16)


August 2014

Surface Water and Groundwater Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








pollution prevention practice.


August 2014

8.3.4 Geology and soils


Erosion control plan – Develop a plan to avoid and minimise erosion from land disturbance activities throughout a project. Beginning during the design phase, the plan should identify how to minimise removal of vegetation to the extent that this is feasible on site, as well as within all associated linear facilities (access roads, transmission line and pipeline corridors, etc.). This should include marking of areas to be preserved to prevent unnecessary excess vegetation clearance. Soil and rock removed from excavations and site clearing should be stockpiled in an area where runoff from precipitation events can be controlled. Stockpile rock and less fertile soils should be reused wherever feasible as fill, rip rap, road embankments, and other project civil works. The Plan should provide standards for minimum slopes to be incorporated into site grading, and identify design and location of functional support structures, drainage systems, and slope coverage to be implemented for soil conservation during construction. Scheduling of construction activities should be made to provide for exposing the smallest area of land for the shortest period of time feasible. Barriers, sediment traps and settling ponds should be installed around exposed areas to catch and filter sediment from storm water runoff. Following construction, areas used for temporary construction purposes (material laydown, concrete processing, worker camps, access roads, etc.) should be re-graded with the appropriate slopes, terracing and contouring in accordance with the overall site plan to minimise erosion and promote plant growth during project operations.

Re-vegetation – As construction activities come to a close, land reclamation activities should be carried out. Efforts should be made to restore and green reusable areas, such as quarries, dumping grounds, material stocking grounds, processing areas of aggregate and concrete, temporary worker camps, temporary access roads. Stockpiled soils and spoil material should be replaced on these areas and graded to conform to natural topography and storm water runoff management plans. Areas should be seeded with grasses or shrubs of an appropriate native variety to stabilise the area. Trees may be replanted where they do not interfere with renewable energy operations. During operation, project offices, buildings and residences should be carefully landscaped and greened with small shrubbery or gardens.

Site selection studies – Initial investigations to identify optimal areas for renewable project development should incorporate the presence of existing or potentially productive agricultural lands along with proximity to concentration of essential resources (wind, solar radiation, rivers and streams, landfill, and transmission lines) in evaluating and selecting candidate project sites. Testing of soils at selected sites should include analysis of soil fertility.


August 2014

Consideration should be given to the amount of productive or potentially productive agricultural land that will be displaced by the proposed project. Alternative arrangement of facilities on site can be considered to lessen or avoid displacement of productive lands and soils.

Heavy construction management – Limit the areas where heavy equipment is located and used during construction to minimise soil compaction. Use geotextile mats wherever appropriate to minimise compaction and erosion. Areas not utilised after construction can be tilled to loosen soil and enhance its structure and composition for supporting vegetation.

Spill prevention and management – Develop and implement a spill prevention and control plan to provide procedures for safe storage and handling of petroleum and chemical products used during construction and operation. Plans should establish:

passive design requirements (berms, curbs, walls, etc.) for containment and control of any unintended spills or releases from oil or chemical storage areas;

procedures for operation and monitoring of transfer, handling, and refuelling of substances;

protocols for tracking inventories, inspecting and monitoring the storage, use and consumption of substances to determine if any leakage or releases may be occurring;

provide for appropriate spill response equipment to be readily available on site and for staff training in their proper use;

reference documentation (such as material safety data sheets) to identify constituents, safe handling procedures, and neutralisation options for each petroleum or chemical substance stored or handled on-site; and,

outline procedures and responsibilities for reporting, responding to and remediating spills and releases.

Implementation of spill prevention and control plans should minimise frequency and severity of accidental and unintended spills and releases of substances onto the ground that results in contamination of soils.

Waste management – Waste disposal plans should be developed to provide for appropriate management, conditioning and land application of solid and liquid wastes. All wastes from water treatment, sanitary collection, and effluent treatment sludge should be processed and treated to appropriate extent before being released onto or into the ground.


August 2014

Minimising mudflow risks – Where hydropower schemes have the potential to pose increased risks of mudflows in hazard areas, it will be necessary to prevent and avoid or minimise the exacerbation of effects caused by mudflows, through careful siting, land grading and planting.


High value soils that are disturbed or otherwise to be paved over as part of project construction and operation can be removed, temporarily stock piled, then subsequently transported and relocated to lands lacking productive soils to provide for more successful cultivation and thereby offset the loss of agriculturally productive lands displaced by renewable energy project development.


Locating renewable energy projects on sites where contamination already exists can provide for productive use of what may otherwise be properties that are no longer suitable for other residential or agricultural uses. Additionally, removal and remediation of already contaminated soils by project developers may enhance the existing conditions of the site for future (post-project) use.


August 2014

Table 8-37 Geology and soils mitigation measures Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment


Mitigation Measure






Is the measure identified also required to meet EBRD PRs (PRs and paragraphs provided)?


High value soils Erosion control plan during construction and operational activities.

All Highly effective to extent designed and implemented

Yes 1 month to develop erosion control plan.

- Yes – PR3(10&11), PR4(15 & 16) and PR6(18)

Re-vegetation of cleared areas during operation

All Highly effective to extent implemented and maintained

Yes Re-vegetation may take months to years

- Yes – PR3(10), PR4(16) and PR6(16&18)

Increased risks of mudflows in hazard areas as a result of project construction

Mudflow hazard areas

Siting and design modifications and erosion control measures to minimise risk.


Effectiveness dependent on mitigation measure : Small scale hydropower

Yes Re-vegetation may take months to years

- Yes – PR4 (15)


High value soils Project site selection and facilities arrangement to avoid or minimise displacement of productive agricultural lands

All Highly effective to extent alternatives are objectively assessed

Yes 1 – 3 months to conduct site selection study

- Yes – PR3(10), PR4(16) and PR6(11)


August 2014

Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment


Mitigation Measure








General Soil Characteristics

Minimise areas used by heavy construction equipment.

All Effective Yes Throughout construction period

Yes – PR3(10), PR4(16) and PR6(18)

Implement spill prevention, control and countermeasures plans during project construction and operation

All Highly effective to extent designed and implemented

Yes 1 month to develop spill prevention and response plan.

Yes – PR3(13&14, PR4(16) and PR6(18)

Manage waste collection, treatment and disposal during construction and operation (to include consideration of solid and liquid wastes).

All Highly effective

Yes 1 month to design waste management practices

Yes – PR3(10-12), PR4(16) and PR6(18)


August 2014



For all scenarios, the most effective mitigation measure for protecting biodiversity is avoidance of development within designated areas, including internationally, nationally and regionally protected areas. Second, careful siting and design of the main power plant facilities and ancillary development is crucial to reducing and mitigating adverse effects on important habitats and species.

For wind farm development, one of the most significant adverse effects on biodiversity would be direct loss or injury of birds and bats species due to collision. The most effective measure to prevent bird or bat strikes would be to avoid siting turbine locations within or near Ramsar sites and Important Bird Area as well along as known bird migration corridors. Sufficient buffer zones should be provided for such designated areas to ensure avoidance of significant impacts on birds and bats, though, the size of buffer zone should be evaluated through risk assessment based on local conditions (type and character of species found in the area, etc.).

The development of above ground transmission lines for all scenarios also has the potential to have adverse effects on birds and bats. The same measures as described above should be applied to avoid, minimise and mitigate such effects. If transmission lines crossover sensitive bird and bat areas, additional measures, such as the installation of underground transmission lines or provision of bird protection devices on transmission lines, should be considered depending on the degree of risk to bird and bats species.

New land development including new access routes may lead to direct and indirect adverse effects on a wide range of important species due a direct loss of habitat, increased traffic or habitat fragmentation. The most effective measure to avoid such effects would be to develop the technologies within areas where there is no risk to important species, though, where this is not feasible, practical mitigation measures including installation of specifically designated crossing points. In addition, the provision of training or awareness programs on protection of habitat for drivers and workers would reduce the risk of death or injury caused by traffic accidents.

Small scale hydropower facilities have a potentially adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems due to changing of the water environment by adding new structures to the surface. The most effective measure would be developing the facilities in less sensitive site locations where no critical habitats of protected species are identified upstream or downstream of the development site. Technical solutions to mitigate adverse effects would include the


August 2014

implementation of fish passage facilities and fish protection systems. In addition, for all scenarios, there is the potential to cause adverse effects on surface water due to erosion and stormwater runoff, mainly during the construction stage. These adverse effects could be significantly reduced by various mitigation measures, such as the implementation of erosion prevention and stormwater management, maintaining a minimum flow downstream, installation of fish passage facilities, and environmental monitoring for water flow as well as aquatic species which might be affected by the KazREFF project.

Mitigation for landscape effects could fall into three categories: avoidance, reduction and compensation. Avoidance of negative landscape effects can be achieved through careful siting, planning and design, which is the most effective measure. If negative effects cannot be avoided, the reduction of any remaining conflicts with the landscape should be designed through detailed consideration of site characteristics, so that the development maintains the character of the area and is appropriate to the specific circumstances.


Offsetting measures for landscape and biodiversity effects is one of the recommended mitigation strategies. For example, if a development requires an area of woodland to be cleared, another area of similar woodland can be protected, improved and managed for conservation in perpetuity, effectively `offsetting` the clearing at the development site. In terms of biodiversity, the provision of replacement habitat or restoration/improvements of existing habitat in other woodland areas can be included as offsetting measures. In general, the effect of offsetting would be significant if there are opportunities to restore areas of degraded biodiversity and landscape. In addition, replacement habitat can only be considered to be truly effective if it is functional before the adverse effects have been realised, and, if designed to provide a surrogate for the habitat being lost, it will need to be as close to the area being adversely affected as possible.


It is good practice to consider landscape and biodiversity enhancement as it presents an opportunity for the development to contribute positively to receptors. Landscape enhancement measures for renewable energy development may be accomplished by the introduction of renewable energy facilities as a focal point or landmark that is integrated with the surrounding landscape. This idea would mainly apply to rural sites; however, implementation of renewable energy development in urban or industrial setting may also have potential to open up regeneration opportunities to the wider area. Creation of new linear habitats may be a valuable enhancement measure from a biodiversity aspect in order to connect fragmented habitats


August 2014

and ecosystems, as maintaining the continuity of existing wildlife corridors is more important than establishing new ones.


August 2014

Table 8-38 Landscape and biodiversity mitigation measures Landscape and Biodiversity Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








Land take leading to direct loss of habitat in protected areas.

Protected areas

Avoid development within protected areas

All Effective Yes None required No Yes –PR6 (6 and15).

Loss of habitat for important species due to construction and footprint of new structure.

Important terrestrial species Bird species Forest area

Conduct a survey to identify if a proposed development site is located within habitat zone for important species. Avoid adverse an impact on important species by careful siting and design of development site

wind, solar photovoltaic, Biogas

Effective Yes 6 – 12 month survey period required to evaluate habitat zone for important species.

No Yes, PR6 (12)


August 2014

Landscape and Biodiversity Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








Installation of new structure could cause habitat fragmentation.

Important terrestrial species Unprotected natural ecosystems

Conduct a survey to identify migration route. Avoid adverse an impact on habitat by careful siting and design of development site Minimise and mitigate an impact by practical measures, such as installation of well design crossing point.

wind, solar photovoltaic, Biogas

Effective in case of avoidance. Effectiveness dependent on mitigation measure

Yes None required No Yes, PR6 (12)

Bird strike and bat strike from wind turbine operation leading to reductions in migratory bird populations.

Bird and bat species

Avoid development areas within and surrounding designated sites (IBA or Ramsar sites). Conduct a survey to determine risk to birds.

Wind Effective Yes 6-12 month survey period required to determine risk to birds.

No Yes, PR6 (6 and15).


August 2014










Bird and bat species

Avoid development areas within and surrounding designated sites (IBA or Ramsar sites) as well as routes of migratory flight paths. Conduct a survey to determine risk to birds. Consider mitigation measures such as installation of underground transmission line or provision of bird protection device on transmission line

All Effective in case of avoidance. Effectiveness dependent on mitigation measure

Yes 6-12 month survey period required to determine risk to birds.

No Yes, PR6 (6 and15).


August 2014









Increased risk to protected species due to new roads/increased traffic

Wide range of protected species

Conduct survey and identify key crossing points and design routes to avoid adverse effect on important species. Provide training or awareness program for drivers/workers on protection of important species.

All Effective Yes None No Yes, PR6 (12)


Important aquatic species

Prepare and implement erosion prevention and stormwater management plan. Conduct comprehensive environmental monitoring (water flow, aquatic habitat )

All Effective Yes None required No Yes - PR3(10 and 11)


August 2014









Blockage of upstream and/or downstream migration of important aquatic species affecting feeding, reproduction, and seasonal movements of target species

Important aquatic species

Avoid development within critical habitat of protected species. Implement mitigation measure including fish passage facilities.

Small hydro Effective in case of avoidance. Effectiveness dependent on mitigation measure

Yes None required, No Yes - PR6(12 and 13)

Additional damming of water courses may lead to changes in the hydrological pattern.

Protected area Important terrestrial species

Ensure sufficient flows are maintained for important aquatic species. Conduct comprehensive environmental monitoring (water flow, aquatic habitat)

Small hydro Effective Yes None required No Yes - PR6 (6 and15).

The presence of new structures and buildings may affect landscape character, visual amenity and the setting of protected landscapes.

Protected area Forest area

Avoid development within areas or within the visual envelope of high landscape value (Protected area, forest area)

All scenarios Effective Yes Immediate No Yes - PR8 (15)

High quality landscape value

Evaluate an impact on landscape and design carefully to mitigate the impact on landscape.

All scenarios Effectiveness dependent on mitigation measure

Yes Immediate No Yes - PR8 (15)


August 2014









Recommended to Involve the public in decision making regarding visual site design elements.

All scenarios Effective Yes Public consultation period required.

No Yes – PR10

Above ground transmission line would form new linear element in the landscape.

High quality landscape value

Evaluate an impact on landscape and consider burial of power line as necessary if impact is considered to be significant.

All scenarios Effective Yes Immediate No Yes - PR8 (15)


August 2014



Proposed mitigation measures to reduce effects to community and socio-economics are shown in below.

EBRD Performance Requirements (PR) provides detail criteria required to reduce impact on social-economics.

According to PR1, an Environmental and Social Appraisal and Management, Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP) should be established to avoid, or if not possible, minimize, social and environmental impact to acceptable levels. Social issue includes physical displacement, relocation or loss shelter, and economic displacement, loss of asset or means of livelihood, due to the project. Information disclosure and consultation with effected communities and interested parties are required based on PR 10, Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement from the early stage and throughout the project, which included establishment of an accessible grievance mechanism. Compensation to physical and economic displacement will be conducted following PR 5, Land Acquisition, Involuntary Resettlement and Economic Displacement. It is important to note that, not only the main facility but also ancillary equipment such as the transmission lines will have to follow the EBRD requirement.

Social impact will also be mitigated through the hiring of local labour for project construction, operation and decommissioning in accordance with PR 2: Labour and Working Conditions. All contractors and subcontractors will be required to adhere to the requirements as outlined in EBRD Principles 1 and 2, to the extent possible. Furthermore, training should be provided on local laws and practices, national legal compliance, and EU and IFC labour OHS (Occupation Health and Safety) requirements throughout the lifespan of the project and these efforts should be monitored and evaluated to ensure worker safety.

Any proposed developments of SSH facilities that will impact an international river should include notification of, and consultation with, involved nations in accordance with United Nations Convention on the Non-Navigable Use of International Watercourses.


Compensation can offset the temporary and permanent impact to communities and socioeconomic conditions which occurs due to the land loss during construction and operation. The mitigation should be considered by project phase for example project planning, construction, operation and


August 2014

decommissioning. Further offset measure will be developed during ESAP based on the result of consultation with stakeholders which includes establishment of grievance mechanism, compensation method due to income loss and development of Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), if necessary.


There is an opportunity for Community and socioeconomic to have some minor benefit from the implementation of the renewable energy scenarios.

Increase of employment opportunity for local labour will be a key positive effect, although minor. There will be an opportunity to hire and train local people during the construction and operation phases of the projects. Various indirect employment such as catering, transportation, accommodation and manufacture of the equipment, will also benefit developing renewable energy projects.

On a national scale, general health of the population may also benefit by replacing coal fire power plant with renewable energy and subsequent improvements in GHG and pollutant emissions.

The benefit to the natural resource use comes through the increase use of alternate, sustainable energy sources that could provide a draw for some interested in eco-tourism. This could be enhanced through a targeted marketing campaign to help tourist reconceptualise Kazakhstan as a country taking steps to enhance its green image through using safe and reliable alternative energy sources. This could be done through grants or support to the Ministry of Culture, or whichever local, oblast or national organisations provide active tourism promotion for Kazakhstan.


August 2014

Table 8-39 Community and socio-economic mitigation measures Community and Socio-economics Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








Displacement of communities, homes, and livelihoods due to location of facilities

Households and communities existing at or near the project facility and beneath transmission lines.

Avoid sites and establish buffer from sites within the site selection criteria Avoid resettlement of existing households during site selection. Where impacts are unavoidable, develop and implement a Resettlement Action Plan

Wind Solar SSH

Most effective Yes One year or less to conduct consultation with stakeholders.

Relocation of homes would affect biodiversity, landscape, land-use, and cultural heritage at new locations.

PR1 (9,14) PR 5(1-23, 30 -38) PR7 PR 10

Noise and dust disruption during construction.

Households and communities existing at or near the project facility or transportation routes.

Adopt construction methods with less noise and vibration and operate within agreed hours. Conduct measures to reduce dust such as watering.

All scenarios, duration can be longer for SSH.

Most effective Yes 1-6 month (or more), depends on the degree of impact and agreement process with the community

Watering may affect ground water, land use and cultural heritage.

PR4 (7-10, 16) PR 10

Noise and vibration disruption during to the operation

Nearby residents. Operate only during agreed-upon hours

Wind Most effective Yes 1 -12 months, Mitigation will be determined during public consultation and establishment of ESAP

No PR 4 (1-10, 16) PR 10 (3,7, 15-17, 21 -26)


August 2014

Community and Socio-economics Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








Health and safety risk for labourers working during construction or operation of sites

Local labourers and specialists from other regions

Comply with all EU and IFC labour OHS (Occupations Health and Safety) requirement, including OHS training

All scenarios Most effective Yes Throughout the project

No PR 1 (19) PR 2 (13-16, 19)

Loss of economic use of lands during construction

Land use for agriculture, grazing and mineral etc. which will be restricted by sites, transmission lines and access road construction.

Avoid sites or compensate temporary loss of income for land owner/user.

All scenarios, less effect at biogas project at landfills

Compensation will reduce impact due to income loss however not mitigate the impact from the project entirely.

Yes 1 – 12 months (or more) Compensation will be determined during public consultation and establishment of ESAP

Site relocation may affect biodiversity, landscape, land-use, and cultural heritage.

PR1 (9,14) PR 5(24 -29, 39-40) PR 10

Loss of economic use of lands during operation

Loss of land for agriculture and grazing during operations

Avoid sites or compensate owners/users for the loss of land and income.

Wind, solar and SSH

Most effective Yes 1-6 month Depend on owners/users’ willingness to reach an agreement.

No PR1 (9,14) PR 5(24 -29, 39-40) PR 10

Water availability

Water quality of river may be

Plan construction during times of lessened affect,

SSH Most effective Yes 6 -12 months Duration will

May effect biodiversity and

PR 4 (10, 18-22) PR 10


August 2014

Community and Socio-economics Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








and quality for industry, mining and agriculture may be affected during construction

impacted with diversion and filling of rivers and may negatively impact irrigation. Water diversion and construction will present a higher risk of flooding and land sides.

such as non-agricultural season. Prepare emergency water routes for flooding or landslide.

depend on start of project and construction.

land use May affect biodiversity and land use.

Adverse odour (biogas)?

Access/recreation (SHPP)?


August 2014



Internationally accepted best practice includes, but is not limited to:

The mitigation measures for cultural heritage are same for all renewable scenarios. The most desirable outcome is preserving the heritage sites in their present location; therefore, avoidance is the preferred form of mitigation.

UNESCO world heritage sites, sites on the UNESCO tentative list and the National cultural heritage sites should be avoided. In the case that these sites cannot be avoided, such as with unregistered and unknown sites, internationally accepted best practice should be undertaken. According to EBRD PR 8, best practices include, but are not limited to:

Archaeological or paleontological field survey;

Laboratory examination of found objects; and

Exhibitions featuring new finds, and documentation.

After the field survey, an appropriate mitigation plan should be established as part of the project’s Environmental and Social Action Plan or as a standalone Cultural Heritage Management Plan. Trained and qualified individuals should be required to oversee the implementation of mitigation measures and contractors should have the necessary skills and expertise to carry out the work under supervision. In addition, procedure for cases that cultural heritage is discovered during the project should be established.

Intangible cultural heritage needs to be identified at the project level through consultation with the local community. Site-specific mitigation measures should also be established and determined by consulting with the effected community.


Effects on cultural heritage cannot generally be offset since its structure and geographical location unique. Tangible heritage cannot be constructed or replicated elsewhere without losing its original value. No offset measure has been identified.


Enhancement measures for cultural heritage would involve fostering the knowledge of culture and history of Kazakhstan through exhibitions and publishing documentation that focuses on any new finds during the project.


August 2014

The restoration of historic or architectural structures could also be undertaken.


August 2014

Table 8-40 Cultural heritage mitigation measures Cultural Heritage Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








Loss and/or damage to during construction.

UNESCO sites and site on the tentative list. Registered cultural heritage sites.

Avoid development of site and create a buffer zone.

All scenarios Effective. Yes No time needed for development

Relocate the development site may affect biodiversity, land-use, landscape, and socio-economics.

PR8 (12)

Registered sites which cannot be avoided. Unregistered or unknown sites.

Develop and implement a chance finds protocol. Avoid areas significant high value or conduct study and recover resource value of the heritage with qualified specialists under consultation with EBRD and Kazakh government.

All scenarios Effective method to keep the record and enhance knowledge.

Yes Approximately 1 – 6 months. Possibility of more depending on the site.

Study may affect soils and geology, biodiversity, land-use.

PR8 (13-14)

Visual effects to historical/ cultural sites.

Listed UNESCO sites including the tentative list, registered national cultural

Avoid effect to the viewshed by locating the renewable site enough distance from heritage site.

Wind, Solar PV, and SSH

Effective. Yes No time needed for development

Relocate the development site may affect biodiversity, land-use,

PR8 (12)


August 2014

Cultural Heritage Mitigation Measures Likely significant adverse effect on the environment








heritage sites, and unregistered/ unknown sites.

landscape, and socio-economics.

Minimize the effect by reducing the scale of development, visual screening change location, and consider the material used.


These measures may reduce or eliminate visual impact.

Yes Conduct during the design stage.

Mitigation measures may affect biodiversity, land-use, landscape, and socio-economics

PR8 (15)

Loss, partial loss or disruption to cultural practice or resource.

Intangible cultural heritage

Identify intangible cultural heritage and change the site or design the avoid effects.


Effective. Yes No time needed for development

Relocation of development site may affect biodiversity, land-use, landscape, and socio-economics.

PR8 (12)

Undertake studies to identify effects and develop mitigation with affected community


These measures may reduce or eliminate visual impact.

No – is often specific to situation

Approximately 1 – 6 months. Possibility of more depending on the site.

May affect socio-economics or other environmental receptors depending on mitigation.

PR8 (11, 13)


August 2014

8.3.8 Material assets


Traffic is expected to increase during construction due the transport of materials and construction machinery, especially for wind and SSH projects. To mitigate the impact, transportation should be planned along routes with existing strong infrastructure. Retrofit existing infrastructure or prepare temporary road and bridges will also reduce the impact.

Renewable projects will need to be connected to the grid with transmission lines. The transmission to connect should be selected carefully to accommodate the grid.


Offsetting measures are not considered for material assets.


The benefits to infrastructure include the possible enhancement of the transportation network and more regularisation of electricity on the grid. Improving roads and bridges would allow better movement of goods and people, leading to possible economic development. The improved stability of electricity supply which will reduce the risk of sensitive equipment being damaged due to fluctuations of electricity. New transmission lines can enhance grid connection.


August 2014

Table 8-41 Material assets mitigation measures Material Assets Mitigation Measures

Likely significant adverse effect on the environment


Mitigation Measure







Increase in traffic during construction due to material and construction machinery transport and additional weigh of vehicles straining infrastructure

Existing infrastructure on transportation routes.

Reduce unnecessary traffic during peak hours. Consider transportation routes with strong infrastructure or pay for retrofitting existing infrastructure, preparing temporary bridges etc.

All, larger impact with wind and SSH.

Most effective Yes 1-6 months, Depends on degree of impact

May affect biodiversity, groundwater, land-use, and cultural heritage.

PR4 (10) PR5 (41)

Increased demand on transmission lines

Existing transmission lines used by projects

Select lines to avoid to overloading or pay for new transmission lines

All, larger impact with wind

Most effective Yes 1-6 months, Depends on degree of impact

No PR4 (10) PR5 (41)


August 2014

8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Cumulative effects are the combined impacts of a single activity or multiple activities. The individual impacts from a single development may not be significant on their own but when combined with other impacts, those effects could become significant. Cumulative effects have been defined as “the net result of environmental impact from a number of projects and activities”4. With reference to strategic development plans, cumulative effects can occur from the combined impacts of policies and proposals on specific areas or sensitive receptors.

Cumulative impacts should be considered:

in strategic planning (as part of the preparation of a strategic framework for RES) and

in development management (in the context of a site specific assessment).

This section of the SER highlights, in general, the potentially cumulative effects associated with developing RES projects at the strategic planning stage. As part of each specific development, a cumulative impact assessment (CIA) may be prepared separately in accordance with guidance from the Project Implementation Unit.

8.4.1 Regulatory Framework

Kazakh regulation does not address the assessment of environmental impacts (including cumulative) at the strategic level, nor do Kazakh EIA requirements require or address CIA at the project level.

8.4.2 Methodology and Guidance

The evaluation of cumulative impacts at the strategic level in this SER is partially derived from the methodology and guidance described in Cooper, L. M. (2004), “Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment in SEA of Plans”, EPMG Occasional Paper 04/LMC/CEA, Imperial College London.5

4 Sadler (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating practice to Improve Performance. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Final Report. International Association for Impact Assessment and Canadian Environment Assessment Agency, Canada.

5 http://www.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/21559696.PDF


August 2014

The intent of this SER is not to produce a comprehensive CIA rather; it is to identify those which are significant and relevant to the KazREFF. Therefore, the sections below highlight those cumulative effects which are significant at the strategic level. Detailed guidance for CIA at the project-specific level will be developed by the KazREFF implementation unit.

8.4.3 Renewable energy scenarios

As described in Section 4, in the plan “CONCEPT for transition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to Green Economy” the following three scenarios are shown:

Base-case scenario: “Business as usual” electricity demand, gasification of Astana and Karaganda regions, current low gas prices, 30% alternative share in generation in 2050.

Green scenario - expensive gas: “Green” electricity demand, gasification of Astana and Karaganda regions, high gas prices, 50% alternative share in generation in 2050.

Green scenario –cheap gas: “Green” electricity demand, gasification of Astana, Karaganda, Pavlodar and Eastern regions, low gas prices, 50% alternative share in generation in 2050.

The three scenarios above are used as the basis for analysing the cumulative impact of developing RES projects under the KazREFF and are shown in Figure 8-1.


August 2014

Figure 8-1 Total installed capacity in each scenario

Each of the three scenarios presents a mix of solar PV, wind, and hydropower (not limited to SSH) as contributors to Kazakhstan’s generated energy capacity as follows:

RES BAU Green + Green

2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050 Solar None 7 GW 0.5 GW 15 GW None 15 GW Wind 5 GW 6 GW 5 GW 15 GW 5 GW 15 GW Hydro 4 GW 4 GW 4 GW 4 GW 4 GW 4 GW

It is important to note that biomass is not anticipated to be a significant contributor to the total capacity and is therefore not addressed within the development scenarios or cumulative impact analysis. The unit energy capacity per unit development area (MW/km2) for each energy source was established and is presented in Table 8-42 below. As a rough guide, the installed capacity of a wind farm is likely to be 18 to 48 hectares per MW6. Based on other on-shore wind developments that ERM has observed, 18 ha/MW was used as a reasonable value given the nature of the wind resource and terrain in Kazakhstan. In Kazakhstan, most wind projects under consideration are in the 10 MW to 100 MW (medium) size range. The U.S Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

6 Denholm, P. et al, “Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States.” National Renewable Energy Lab NREL/TP-6A2-45834, August 2009.


August 2014

estimates that at least 2 contiguous hectares are needed per MW for such solar projects. Larger blocks of land are needed for the 50 MW to 200 MW-sized projects that are more cost-efficient.

Table 8-42 Unit energy capacity per unit development area for each energy source

Wind Solar Area /Capacity (ha/MW)

18 2

By using the above figures, the development areas for each scenario are estimated. The predicted impacts for each scenario are shown in the following Table 8-43

Table 8-43 Unit energy capacity per unit development area for each energy source

BAU Green + Green 2030 2050 2030 2050 2030 2050

SOLAR Capacity (solar) 0 GW 7 GW 0.5 GW 15 GW None 15 GW Required Development Area (km2)

0 140 10 300 0 300

Estimated Number of Facilities (assume 125 MW facility size)

0 56 4 120 0 120

WIND Capacity (wind) 5 GW 6 GW 5 GW 15 GW 5 GW 15 GW Required Development Area(km2)

900 1080 900 2700 900 2700

Estimated Number of Facilities (assume 55 MW facility size)

91 109 91 273 91 273

In 2030, there is not much difference among the three scenarios. However, in 2050, the green scenarios will cut down CO2 emission to about half the BAU scenario (see Figure 8-3), although Green Energy scenarios require twice as development area as the BAU scenario. In summary, multiple RES projects as a whole will have positive impacts on Climate and negative impacts on the amount of land (and potential high value soils) needed to support development compared to BAU.

As shown in Figure 8-2, a theoretical scenario of concentrating the required generation for wind and solar by 2050 (3,004 km2; a square of approximately


August 2014

55 km on each side) in a single location represents an insignificant impact on the total area of available high value soils and available land as a whole in Kazakhstan. As a result, there does not appear to be a significant cumulative effect on available land or high quality soils based on the potential build-out scenarios; therefore, mitigation measures for cumulative effects to land area and high quality soils are not required.

Figure 8-2 Magnitude of impacts – development area

8.4.4 Potential significant cumulative effects

In accordance with the guidance, scoping was conducted to identify the significant cumulative effects issues, valued resources, and the geographic and temporary boundaries of these effects. Table 8-44 highlights these issues for each RES.

Development area of app 3,000km2


August 2014

Table 8-44 Cumulative effects issues associated with RES and mitigation measures

Issue Valued Resources

Geographic Boundary

Temporal Boundary

Potential Mitigation Measures

WIND Cumulative effects on bird migration by wind development because of the potential for large wind farms to be concentrated near important migratory bird routes or near an IBA. A tight concentration of wind farms in a tightly constrained flyway or near IBAs, could have a significant mortality effect on migrating birds. This may be compounded during poor weather with low visibility.

Biodiversity – birds

Areas of high wind speed near migratory routes and IBAs

Project operation until demobilisation

Evaluate cumulative effects of specific wind farms near migratory pathways and IBAs and implement siting/spacing limitations. Also, implement technology mitigation measures, outlined in Table 8-38.

Cumulative effects to aesthetics associated with siting multiple wind facilities in a single viewshed

Landscape

Areas of high wind speed near settlements or recreational areas

Project operation until demobilisation

Visual screening, limits on the number of facilities in a defined area, and siting/design modifications to decrease visual impact.

Cumulative impacts to roads and related infrastructure from the development of multiple wind facilities in a concentrated area

Material assets - roads

Areas of high wind speed

Project construction

Regional planning to limit the number of wind facilities in a sensitive area or contributions to a fund used to pay for regional road and infrastructure improvements.

SOLAR

Cumulative loss of agricultural output from facility development

High value soils

Extent of mapped high value soils

Project construction until

Regional land planning measures to limit the siting of locations in high value soil areas.


August 2014

Issue Valued Resources

Geographic Boundary

Temporal Boundary

Potential Mitigation Measures

demobilisation SMALL HYDRO

The cumulative effect realized when multiple SSH facilities (impoundment or RoR) are concentrated in high water energy areas

Water resources Aquatic biodiversity

Extent of river

Project construction until demobilisation

Design requirements for specific facilities to prevent entrainment and allow fish passage, regional planning measures to limit compounding effects on small streams.

The cumulative effect associated with placing multiple impoundments on a single waterway

Water resources Aquatic biodiversity

Extent of river

Project construction until demobilisation

Design requirements for specific facilities to prevent entrainment and allow fish passage, regional planning measures to limit impoundments on existing rivers


August 2014

Not to be overlooked, there are inherent positive cumulative effects associated with implementing projects of all RES scenarios through the KazREFF. In general, electricity generated through RES means less future energy would be produced by GHG-emitting traditional generation sources. Therefore, the cumulative impact of developing renewable energy facilities through the KazREFF will have a positive effect with respect to decreasing CO2 (and other GHG) emissions and air pollutants in general throughout Kazakhstan. This has been quantified in the Green Economy Concept report, where CO2 emissions are related to climate as a consequence of fuel consumption as shown in the Figure 8-3.

Figure 8-3 CO2 emissions in each scenario

8.4.5 Further Guidance on Cumulative Impact Analysis for RES

Guidance for CIA at the development-specific level is available for RES from a number of different sources. These will be used as required by the Project Implementation Unit to establish the methodology for specific financed projects where there are potential cumulative impacts. A list of the most recent and relevant guidance and research is provided below:

Wind:

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). “Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments”, March 2012. Available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A675503.pdf.

Band, W., Madders, M., Whitfield, D.P. (2007). Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In “Birds


August 2014

and Wind farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation” Eds. Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F. E. Janss and Miguel Ferrer. Quercus Books.

Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D., Furness, R.W., Bullman, R & Desholm, M. (2009). Barriers to movement: impacts of wind farms on migrating birds ICES J. Mar. Science. 66: 746-753.

Maclean, I. & Rehfisch, M. (2008). Developing techniques for ornithological cumulative impact assessment. BTO Report 513.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R (2009). The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1323–1331.

Solar:

There was no CIA guidance specific to solar facilities found. UK planning documents available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/renewable-and-low-carbon-energy/particular-planning-considerations-for-hydropower-active-solar-technology-solar-farms-and-wind-turbines/ indicate that the methodology would be the same as that applied to wind farms.

Some limited guidance on cumulative impacts associated with visual and landscape effects is provided in: Land Use Consultants, “ An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to On-shore Wind Energy and Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall, Annex 4: Guidance on the Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Multiple On-shore Wind Energy Developments and Solar PV Developments, prepared for Cornwall Council, April 2011. Available at: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=c993ec47-8c8b-4545-9fba-cd719c7b078d&version=-1

Hydro:

International Fiance Corporation (IFC), Good Practice Handbook: Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets, August 2013.

World Bank. 2012. “Sample Guidelines: Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment for Hydropower Projects in Turkey.” Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. https://www.esmap.org/node/2964.

Bérubé, Michel. 2007. “Cumulative effects assessment at Hydro-Québec: what have we learned?” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25(2): 101–109.


August 2014

Bonnell, S., and K. Storey. 2000. “Addressing cumulative effects through strategic environmental assessment: a case study of small hydro development in Newfoundland, Canada.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2(4): 477–99.

Stull, E.A., K. E. La Gory and W.S. Vinikour. 1987. Methodologies for the Cumulative Environmental Effects of Hydroelectric Development on Fish and Wildlife in the Columbia River Basin: Volume 2: Example and Procedural Guidelines. Energy and Environmental Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne.

Therival, R and P. Morris. Interactions between Impacts. In: Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. Edited by P. Morris and R. Therival. Vancouver, B.C. UBC Press, 297-305.

U.S. GAO (United States General Accounting Office). 1988. Energy Regulation: Opportunities for Strengthening Hydropower Cumulative Impact Assessment. GAO, Washington, D.C.


August 2014

9.0 SPATIAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

This analysis presents a detailed evaluation of the spatial constraints on each of the four RES strategies considered in this SER. In general, there are three main categories of constraints that should influence the siting and design of facilities implemented under KazREFF which include:

Technical constraints – are generally those spatial environmental or social attributes that will have an effect on the facility and can therefore impact its feasibility and performance. Technical constraints typically impact the risks and costs associated with a facility

Environmental and social constraints – are generally those environmental or social attributes that are impacted by the facility. The environmental and social constraints can include management exclusions (e.g. facilities will not be placed in National parks) or management measures (e.g. facilities in National parks will require special mitigation measures if unavoidable).

Cumulative constraints – are generally those environmental or social effects which may not be observed for a single facility but are observed through the construction of multiple facilities over a given area.

For the effects listed above, siting management constraints were developed as part of the avoidance minimization, and mitigation strategy for the KazREFF. Therefore, this spatial constraints section is to be considered as part of the overall mitigation strategy for the KazREFF.

9.1 WIND

As a rough guide, the installed capacity of a wind farm is likely to be 18 to 48 hectares per MW7. Lower capacities relate to areas of forest land while higher capacities relate to areas of farmland. As a general rule, grouped turbines need to be positioned to allow a separation distance of around 3-4 rotor diameters between turbines. This limits energy loss through wind shadowing from upstream machines. Due to this spacing, not all land within a proposed site is impacted by development; only 2 to 8 % of a site is typically impacted by development8. This affected land can be separated into permanent structures of turbines and access roads and temporary impacts of laydown areas and access

7 Denholm, P. et al, “Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States.” National Renewable Energy Lab NREL/TP-6A2-45834, August 2009.

8 Black & Veatch 2011


August 2014

routes. Typically, the existing land use activities can continue during operation (e.g. farming and grazing).

9.1.1 Technical spatial constraints

Several factors should be considered when selecting a site and designing its configuration. The quality of the resource is an obvious primary consideration. While all oblasts have some favourable wind resource areas, North Kazakhstan, Aqmola, Pavlodar, Mangghystau, and South Kazakhstan have the broadest and best resources areas.

Other significant factors that should be considered include those which affect the cost and the ultimate feasibility of developing wind farms, such as ground slope and weather. In addition, siting constraints, including those listed below, should be addressed as they would require some form of avoidance, risk minimization, or mitigation during the design, construction, operation, or decommissioning phase:

Flood prone areas – Construction of wind power facilities in areas prone to flooding could result in the damage of turbine foundations and associated infrastructure. In general, construction in flood prone areas should be avoided. If it is not feasible to avoid flood prone areas, special design modifications to protect equipment should be considered.

Seismicity, mudflows, and landslides - Construction of wind power facilities in areas of high seismicity or in areas prone to mudflows and landslides could result in the damage of turbines and associated infrastructure. In general, construction in high risk areas for these hazards should be avoided.

Contaminated lands – Construction of wind facilities on contaminated lands may be a beneficial use of these degraded areas; however, special consideration must be made to ensure the health of workers that could be exposed to contaminants at the surface (e.g. nuclear testing areas) or below ground during construction.

Land use - Wind power facilities would not be economically feasible on open water, especially given the abundance of available land in Kazakhstan; therefore, it is unlikely any facilities would be water-based.

Proximity to transmission grid and loading – In general, facilities should be located proximate to existing substations with capacity on the transmission grid. Wind power facilities become less economical at increasing distances from substations due to the costs associated with extending distribution or transmission lines to the wind power plant.


August 2014

9.1.2 Environmental and social constraints

Environmental and social effects from implementing wind projects were identified in Section 8. Based on the effects analysis, the following constraints and management strategies were developed:

Important bird areas/migratory birds - There is a significant potential for birds and bat mortality resulting from wind strikes with turbines. Therefore, the siting of wind facilities in Important Bird Areas (IBAs), near known bird migratory routes, or bat roosting habitat should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. In addition, due to the height of wind turbines and the flight paths of migratory birds, an additional protective buffer of 5km should be placed around IBAs. Where siting facilities within an IBA or the buffer area is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Forested areas - Potential wind sites in forested areas, would be discouraged given the relative lack of this habitat and the abundance of un-forested areas throughout the country. When siting facilities within a forested area is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Protected/designated lands - Potential wind sites in or near other areas afforded legal protection, including National Parks, and preserved lands would be discouraged given the relative lack of this habitat and the abundance of un-forested areas throughout the country. When siting facilities within a protected/designated area is unavoidable, additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Surface water quality - Due to clearing, grading, trenching and foundation construction for the wind power plant components, there is a potential for soil erosion during construction. Due to this potential, if wind power facilities are located within 1km of a surface water feature (e.g., intermittent or perennial stream, lakes, or ponds), a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Cultural heritage - Special care should be taken to avoid siting wind facilities at or within the viewshed of known or tentative UNESCO World Heritage sites due to the global uniqueness of these areas. Special care should also be taken to avoid placing wind facilities on or near locally-registered cultural heritage sites. Given the height of potential wind turbines, the lack of obstructive forest cover over most of Kazakhstan, and the generally flat terrain, a viewshed buffer of 20km should be placed


August 2014

around known or tentative UNESCO and national heritage features. When siting facilities within a viewshed buffer is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required. Cultural heritage features themselves would be considered exclusion zones.

Material assets/social - Airplane or helicopter pilots can become disoriented by potential flicker and reflection of light off spinning wind turbine blades. In addition, the height of these wind turbines can create a higher potential for crashes in poor visibility conditions near airports. Therefore, special measures should be taken to avoid siting facilities near airports. Given the height of potential wind turbines, a buffer of 5km should be placed around airports. When siting facilities within a buffer is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required. Airports themselves would be considered exclusion zones.

Settlements/social – When considering potential wind farm sites, the impact on nearby residents and communities should be taken into account. Wind farms can impact upon residents through noise generation, vibration, and visual impacts (including shadow flicker) and construction/ operation traffic. Appropriate distances away from built up areas should be taken into account when analysing a potential site; therefore, a buffer of 1km should be placed around settlements (e.g, villages, towns, cities). When siting facilities within a buffer is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required. Settlements themselves would be considered exclusion zones.

9.1.3 Cumulative constraints

The spatial cumulative environmental and social effects from implementing wind projects were identified in Section 8.

9.1.4 Wind constraint mapping

The following maps illustrate the wind resource map overlain by the various constraint mapping layers. An overview for Kazakhstan as a whole is presented; however, because of the large scale, individual maps have also been created for the most optimal wind resource oblasts. While all oblasts have some favourable wind resource areas, North Kazakhstan, Aqmola, Pavlodar, Mangghystau, and South Kazakhstan have the broadest and best resources areas and are presented on the following maps. A separate GIS tool has been developed and is maintained in the KazREFF program office (location to be determined) to allow site-specific assessment of these constraints. Areas are presented in four categories:


August 2014

Exclusion – Wind facilities cannot be placed in these areas.

Constrained – Wind facilities can be placed in these areas but will require protective design considerations, more detailed assessment of environmental effects, and additional impact mitigation measures.

Unconstrained – Wind facilities in these areas are generally unconstrained (other than the non-spatial mitigation measures required).

Cumulative – Concentrations of wind facilities in these areas may have cumulative effects; therefore, a more detailed assessment of cumulative environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures may be required.

Figure 9-1 Wind constraints map (national scale)

Figure 9-2 Wind constraints map - North Kazakhstan oblast


August 2014

Figure 9-3 Wind constraints map – Aqmola oblast


August 2014

Figure 9-4 Wind constraints map – Pavlodar oblast

Figure 9-5 Wind constraints map – Mangghystau oblast


August 2014

Figure 9-6 Wind constraints map - South Kazakhstan oblast

9.2 SOLAR

Utility scale solar can be sited in 0.5 MW to 2 MW blocks, which are often available relatively near to cities and load centres. Larger blocks of land are needed for the 50 MW to 200 MW-sized projects that are more cost-efficient. The U.S Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that at least 2 contiguous hectares are needed per MW for such solar projects. However, discussions with developers suggest that the NREL land estimates are slightly low and that, in practice, projects usually require as much as 10 percent additional land to accommodate actual conditions.


Several factors should be considered when selecting a site and designing its configuration. The quality of the resource is an obvious primary consideration. While all oblasts have some favourable solar resource areas, the southernmost oblasts, Mangghystau, Qyzylorda, South Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, and Almaty have the best resources areas.

There are some other significant factors that should be considered when siting power facilities. Some of these factors such as ground slope and weather extremes are not siting constraints but are factors which affect the cost and the ultimate feasibility of developing solar arrays. There are also factors listed in the bullets below, which are siting constraints and would require some form of


August 2014

avoidance, risk minimization, or mitigation during the design, construction, operation, or decommissioning phase:

Flood prone areas – Construction of solar power facilities in areas prone to flooding could result in the damage of PV panels and associated infrastructure. In general, construction in flood prone areas should be avoided. If it is not feasible to avoid flood prone areas, special design modifications to protect equipment should be considered.

Seismicity, mudflows, and landslides - Construction of solar power facilities in areas of high seismicity or in areas prone to mudflows and landslides could result in the damage to solar PVs and associated infrastructure. In general, construction in high risk areas for these hazards should be avoided.

Contaminated lands – Construction of solar facilities on contaminated lands may be a beneficial use of these degraded areas; however, special consideration must be made to ensure the health of workers that could be exposed to contaminants at the surface (e.g. nuclear testing areas) or below ground during construction.

Land use - In general, due to the relatively tight spacing of PV panels and the arrays, the existing land use activities such as agriculture and grazing cannot continue during operation. Also, solar facilities would not be economically feasible on open water, especially given the abundance of available land in Kazakhstan; therefore, it is unlikely any facilities would be water-based.

Proximity to transmission grid and loading – In general, facilities should be located proximate to existing substations with capacity on the transmission grid. Solar facilities become less economical at increasing distances from substations due to the costs associated with extending distribution or transmission lines to the solar plant.


Environmental and social effects from implementing solar projects were identified in Section 8. Based on the effects analysis, the following constraints and management strategies were developed:

Important bird areas/migratory birds - There is a potential for birds to become disoriented by reflections from solar PVs, resulting in collisions with ground-based obstacles. Therefore, the siting of solar facilities in Important Bird Areas (IBAs) or near known bird migratory routes should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, an additional protective buffer of 5km should be placed around IBAs. Where siting facilities within an IBA or the buffer area is unavoidable, a more detailed


August 2014

assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Forested areas - Potential solar sites in forested areas would be discouraged given the relative lack of this habitat and the abundance of un-forested areas throughout the country. When siting facilities within a forested area is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Protected/designated lands - Potential solar sites in or near other areas afforded legal protection, including National Parks, and preserved lands would be discouraged given the relative lack of this habitat and the abundance of un-forested areas throughout the country. When siting facilities within a protected/designated area is unavoidable, additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Surface water quality - Due to clearing, grading, trenching and foundation construction for the solar power plant components, there is a potential for soil erosion during construction. Due to this potential, if solar power facilities are located within 1km of a surface water feature (e.g., intermittent or perennial stream, lakes, or ponds), a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Cultural heritage - Special care should be taken to avoid siting solar facilities at or within the viewshed of known or tentative UNESCO World Heritage sites due to the global uniqueness of these areas. Special care should also be taken to avoid placing solar facilities on or near locally-registered cultural heritage sites. Given the low actual elevation of potential solar arrays and the need for generally flat terrain, the viewshed for solar arrays is somewhat limited. Therefore, a viewshed buffer of 5km should be placed around known or tentative UNESCO and national heritage features for solar facility development. When siting facilities within a viewshed buffer is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required. Cultural heritage features themselves would be considered exclusion zones.

Material assets/social - Airplane or helicopter pilots can become disoriented by potential reflection of light off solar PVs near airports. Therefore, special measures should be taken to avoid siting facilities near airports and a buffer of 5km should be placed around airports. When siting facilities within a buffer is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required. Airports themselves would be considered exclusion zones.


August 2014


The spatial cumulative environmental and social effects from implementing solar projects were identified in Section 8.

9.2.4 Solar constraint mapping

The following maps illustrate the solar resource map overlain by the various constraint mapping layers. An overview for Kazakhstan as a whole is presented; however, because of the large scale, individual maps have also been created for the most optimal solar resource oblasts. While all oblasts have some favourable solar resource areas, the southernmost oblasts, Mangghystau, Qyzylorda, South Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, and Almaty have the best resources areas. A separate GIS tool has been developed and is maintained in the KazREFF program office (location to be determined) to allow site-specific assessment of these constraints. Areas are presented in three categories:

Exclusion – Solar facilities cannot be placed in these areas.

Constrained – Solar facilities can be placed in these areas but will require protective design considerations, more detailed assessment of environmental effects, and additional impact mitigation measures.

Unconstrained – Solar facilities in these areas are generally unconstrained (other than the non-spatial mitigation measures required).

Figure 9-7 Solar constraints map (national)


August 2014

Figure 9-8 Solar constraints map – Mangghystau oblast

Figure 9-9 Solar constraints map – Qyzylorda oblast


August 2014


August 2014

Figure 9-10 Solar constraints map - South Kazakhstan oblast

Figure 9-11 Solar constraints map – Zhambyl oblast


August 2014

Figure 9-12 Solar constraints map - Almaty oblast


August 2014

9.3 SMALL SCALE HYDROPOWER

There are many factors which establish the feasibility of a potential site for the development of new small scale hydropower (SSH) projects and contribute to the determination of which facilities are most appropriate for a particular site. Chief among such considerations are the head and flow characteristics of a particular site, which dictate the power capacity and energy production capability of a facility at that site. The availability of such data also plays a role in the selection of an appropriate site. In general, land availability is not a significant factor since SSH facilities can operate within a relatively small footprint.


Several factors should be considered when selecting a site and designing its configuration. The quality of the resource is an obvious primary consideration. Favourable regions for SSH development include the area beginning in the northeast adjacent to the Russian border and following the eastern and south-eastern borders along China and Kyrgyzstan. This area includes the oblasts of Qyzylorda, South Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Almaty, and East Kazakhstan.

There are some other significant factors that should be considered when siting SSH power facilities. Some of these factors (e.g. site access) are not siting constraints but are factors which affect the cost and the ultimate feasibility of developing SSH facilities. There are also factors listed in the bullets below, which are siting constraints and would require some form of avoidance, risk minimization, or mitigation during the design, construction, operation, or decommissioning phase:

Cumulative impact of water availability - Consideration should be given to the impact of other hydropower facilities upstream on the same river reach on the operation of any planned SSH facility. Operation and activities at upstream hydropower facilities can adversely affect the availability of water resource for potential development downstream. In addition, the potential for developing downstream resources is impacted by siting a new facility and should be considered.

Seismicity, mudflows, and landslides - Construction of SSH power facilities in areas of high seismicity or in areas prone to mudflows and landslides could result in the damage of intakes, turbines and associated infrastructure. In general, construction in high risk areas for these hazards should be avoided.

Proximity to transmission grid and loading – In general, facilities should be located proximate to existing substations with capacity on the transmission grid. SSH power facilities become less economical at increasing distances from substations due to the costs associated with extending distribution or transmission lines to the power plant.


August 2014


Environmental and social effects from implementing SSH projects were identified in Section 8. Based on the effects analysis, the following constraints and management strategies were developed:

Essential habitat for protected aquatic species - SSH development along river/stream segments that are essential habitat for protected aquatic species should be avoided. When siting facilities in, or upgradient of, a stream that provides essential aquatic habitat for protected species, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Anadromous fish – The creation of impounded SSH systems along river/stream segments that support anadromous fish migration should be avoided. When creating impounded SSH facilities along rivers that support anadromous fish movement, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Forested areas - Potential SSH sites in forested areas, would be discouraged given the relative lack of this habitat and the abundance of un-forested areas throughout the country. When siting facilities within a forested area is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Protected/designated lands - Potential SSH sites in or near other areas afforded legal protection, including National Parks, and preserved lands would be discouraged given the relative lack of this habitat and the abundance of un-forested areas throughout the country. When siting facilities within a protected/designated area is unavoidable, additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Cultural heritage - Special care should be taken to avoid siting SSH facilities at or within the viewshed of known and tentative UNESCO World Heritage sites due to the global uniqueness of these areas. Special care should also be taken to avoid placing SSH facilities on or near locally-registered cultural heritage sites. Given the low actual elevation of potential SSH facilities, the viewshed for SSH facilities is somewhat limited. Therefore, a viewshed buffer of 5km should be placed around known and tentative UNESCO and national heritage features for SSH facility development. When siting facilities within a viewshed buffer is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required. Cultural heritage features themselves would be considered exclusion zones.


August 2014


The spatial cumulative environmental and social effects from implementing SSH projects were identified in Section 8.

9.3.4 SSH constraint mapping

The following maps illustrate the SSH resource map overlain by the various constraint mapping layers. An overview for Kazakhstan as a whole is presented; however, because of the large scale, individual maps have also been created for the most optimal SSH resource oblasts including Qyzylorda, South Kazakhstan, Zhambyl, Almaty, and East Kazakhstan. A separate GIS tool has been developed and is maintained in the KazREFF program office (location to be determined) to allow site-specific assessment of these constraints. Areas are presented in four categories:

Exclusion – SSH facilities cannot be placed in these areas.

Constrained – SSH facilities can be placed in these areas but will require protective design considerations, more detailed assessment of environmental effects, and additional impact mitigation measures.

Unconstrained – SSH facilities in these areas are generally unconstrained (other than the non-spatial mitigation measures required).

Cumulative – Concentrations of SSH facilities in these areas may have cumulative effects; therefore, a more detailed assessment of cumulative environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures may be required.


August 2014

Figure 9-13 SSH constraints map (national)

Figure 9-14 SSH constraints map - Qyzylorda oblast


August 2014

Figure 9-15 SSH constraints map - South Kazakhstan oblast

Figure 9-16 SSH constraints map – Zhambyl oblast


August 2014

Figure 9-17 SSH constraints map - Almaty oblast

Figure 9-18 SSH constraints map - East Kazakhstan oblast


August 2014

9.4 BIOGAS

Landfill Gas (LFG), also referred to as biogas, is produced by the natural decomposition of the organic matter contained in municipal landfills. LFG is composed of 40 to 60 percent methane on a volumetric basis. Gas production at a landfill is primarily dependent on both the depth and the age of waste in place and the amount of precipitation received by the landfill. In general, LFG recovery may be economically feasible at sites that have more than one million tons of waste in place, more than 10 hectares available for gas recovery, waste depth greater than 12 meters, and at least 60 centimetres of precipitation annually. It is necessary for a landfill to be covered and to have a gas collection system in order to capture and utilize the methane. The life of resource landfill site for LFG production is limited. After waste deliveries to a landfill cease and the landfill is capped, LFG production will decline. This decline typically follows a first order decay.


Several factors should be considered when selecting a site and designing its configuration. Chief site considerations include the size and age of the landfill as it relates to the amount of gas generation. In addition, consideration must also be made for space required to construct facilities for capturing and cleaning the LFG, access to the facilities, proximity to transmission lines, proximity to load centres, and capacity of existing transmission lines. Generators using LFG are usually located at or adjacent to municipal landfills. There is no available information regarding the location and size of existing landfills, but those of sufficient size are typically located near large population areas. It was assumed in this assessment that areas within 50km of cities supporting a population exceeding 50,000 may have associated municipal solid waste landfills capable of supporting a LFG facility.

There are some significant factors which affect the cost and the ultimate feasibility of developing biogas facilities that should be considered when siting these facilities. These are presented in the bullets below, and would require some form of avoidance, risk minimization, or mitigation during the design, construction, operation, or decommissioning phase:

Flood prone areas – Construction of biogas facilities in areas prone to flooding could result in the damage of equipment and associated infrastructure. In general, construction in flood prone areas should be avoided. If it is not feasible to avoid flood prone areas, special design modifications to protect equipment should be considered.

Seismicity, mudflows, and landslides - Construction of biogas facilities in areas of high seismicity or in areas prone to mudflows and landslides could result in the damage to equipment and associated infrastructure. In


August 2014

general, construction in high risk areas for these hazards should be avoided.

Contaminated lands – Construction of biogas facilities on landfills is obviously going to result in exposure to contamination. Use of existing landfills is clearly a beneficial use of degraded areas; however, special consideration must be made to ensure the health of workers that could be exposed to contaminants during construction activities, especially during construction of the LFG collection system.

Land use - Biogas facilities are only feasible on closed and covered landfills. If these covered landfills are being used for other purposes such as recreation or other land uses, placing a biogas facility may not be a compatible use. When siting a biogas facility, the potential for concurrent land uses should be evaluated.

Proximity to transmission grid and loading – In general, facilities should be located proximate to existing substations with capacity on the transmission grid. Biogas facilities become to become less economical at increasing distances from substations due to the costs associated with extending distribution or transmission lines to the biogas plant.


Environmental and social effects from implementing biogas projects were identified in Section 8. Based on the effects analysis, the following constraints and management strategies were developed:

Protected/designated lands - Potential sbiogas sites in or near other areas afforded legal protection, including National Parks, preserved lands would be discouraged given the relative lack of this habitat and the abundance of un-forested areas throughout the country. When siting facilities within a protected/designated area is unavoidable, additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Surface water quality - Due to clearing, grading, trenching and foundation construction for the biogas plant components, there is a potential for soil erosion during construction. Due to this potential, if biogas facilities are located within 1km of a surface water feature (e.g., intermittent or perennial stream, lakes, or ponds), a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required.

Cultural heritage - Special care should be taken to avoid siting biogas facilities at or within the viewshed of known and tentative UNESCO World Heritage sites due to the global uniqueness of these areas. Special care should also be taken to avoid placing SSH facilities on or near locally-


August 2014

registered cultural heritage sites. Given the low actual elevation of potential biogas facilities, the viewshed for these facilities is somewhat limited. Therefore, a viewshed buffer of 5km should be placed around known and tentative UNESCO and national heritage features for biogas facility development. When siting facilities within a viewshed buffer is unavoidable, a more detailed assessment of environmental effects and additional impact mitigation measures will be required. Cultural heritage features themselves would be considered exclusion zones.


There are no recognized spatial adverse cumulative effects associated with biogas facilities; therefore, a spatial cumulative constraint assessment was not conducted. There are positive cumulative impacts to GHG emission, air quality, odours, and local sanitation that are discussed in Section 8.

9.4.4 Biogas constraint mapping

The following maps illustrate the biogas resource map overlain by the various constraint mapping layers. An overview for Kazakhstan as a national scale is presented in the map. A separate GIS tool has been developed and is maintained in the KazREFF program office (location to be determined) to allow site-specific assessment of these constraints. Areas are presented in three categories:

Exclusion – Biogas facilities cannot be placed in these areas.

Constrained – Biogas facilities can be placed in these areas but will require protective design considerations, more detailed assessment of environmental effects, and additional impact mitigation measures.

Unconstrained – Biogas facilities in these areas are generally unconstrained (other than the non-spatial mitigation measures required).


August 2014

Figure 9-19 Biogas constraints map (national)


August 2014

10.0 SER OBJECTIVES COMPLIANCE

10.1 PERFORMANCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS IN RELATION TO THE SER OBJECTIVES

The review of the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios is assessed against the SER Objectives, as set out below, in order to determine what the relative environment performance of the scenarios across all the environmental topics is likely to be.

Although the use of Objectives is not a requirement of the SEA Directive, their use is a recognised good practice method of assessing effects on a strategic level. Consequently, this SER has adopted the approach to assess the compliance of the KAZREFF renewable energy scenarios against the SER Objectives. The SER Objectives were included in the Scoping Report and have been refined following relevant feedback from consultees and through review of more detailed data gathered for inclusion in the SER Report, including: the review of environmental policies, plans and programmes, the baseline review and the identification of environmental issues.

SER Objectives are closely linked to receptors. The relative performance of the scenarios against each Objective has been assessment based on the proportion or number of receptors for which effects from the scenarios have been predicted, whether these effects are positive or negative, and significant or insignificant, as identified in the discussion on likely significant effects in Section 8.2.

In making the assessment of compliance against the SER Objectives, the assessment has taken into account the relative scale of each of the KazREFF scenarios under consideration (see Section 4.2), has assumed the successful implementation of those mitigation measures identified in Section 8.3, and has also assumed the facilities were located in accordance with the spatial constraints analysis provided in Section 8. As part of the assessment of objective compliance, consideration has been given to the four criteria used to identify suitable mitigation measures, namely:

1. effectiveness of the measure,

2. whether it is an established practice,

3. whether it has a short development timeframe, and

4. whether it avoids adverse effects on environmental receptors.

Where mitigation measures clearly meet the four suitability criteria, the text in the mitigation tables in Section 8.3 is coloured green.


August 2014

Environmental effects on receptors can be both positive and negative and this has been reflected in the assessment of SER Objective compliance. There is usually some uncertainty associated with strategic level assessment. Those effects which are highly uncertain, either due to the lack of available environmental data or variability of effects associated with a particular scenario/geographic location, have been identified. A judgement on the environmental performance of each scenario against each SER Objective has been made as either ‘no effect’, ‘major’ or ‘minor’, and negative or positive, depending on the sensitivity of receptors, the numbers of receptors affected (cumulatively) and the significance of the effect predicted.

A summary of the results of the objectives compliance assessment is presented in Table 10-1 below, with more detailed justification of the extent of compliance provided in Table D1 in Appendix D.


August 2014

Table 10-1 Compliance of the KAZREFF renewable energy scenarios against the SER objectives

Env Topic

SER Objective: Does the proposed development of the KAZREFF renewable scenario…

KAZREFF Renewable Energy Scenarios

wind Small hydro

Solar PV Biogas

Clim

ate

&

air

qual

ity Contribute to reduction of GHG emission

Contribute to improved air quality Comply with EU and Kazakh air quality regulations

Surf

ace

&

grou

ndw

ater

Minimise adverse impacts to surface/ground water quality

Minimise adverse impacts to water resources or Maintain ecologically-viable base flows in waterways

or

Geo

logy

&

soils

Minimise loss of use of arable soils and impacts of soil nutrient depletion

or or or

Avoid the weakening of soil resulting in mudflows

or

Lan

dsc

ape

&

biod

iver

sity

Minimise adverse impacts to wildlife, protected species, and their habitat

or or or

Avoid adverse impacts to designated conservation sites

Avoid impacts to scenic/aesthetic areas or or

Com

mun

ity

&

soci

o-ec

onom

ics.

Minimize the physical displacement of people or or Minimise impacts to important areas for hunting, fishing, tourism, and recreation

or or or or

Minimise impacts to human health from noise, vibrations, odour, lighting, or sanitation

or or or Improve employment and standard of living Avoid impacts to water supply for potable use, fisheries and irrigation

or

Mat

eria

l Ass

et Avoid impacts to existing infrastructure or or or or

Avoid impacts resulting from increased vehicular traffic

or or or or

Cu

ltu

ral

heri

tage

Avoid impacts to cultural and archaeologically important areas

or

?

or

?

or

?

?

Key to Table 10-1: Performance is based on the number or proportion of receptors linked to each SER Objective for which significant effects have been predicted, Major negative performance against SER Objective

or

Major positive performance against SER Objective

or

Minor negative performance against SER Objective

or Minor positive performance against SER Objective

or

No Effects Uncertain ?


August 2014

As shown in Table 10-1, the majority of likely negative significant effects of the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios can be mitigated. This mitigation will be conducted by a combination of siting constraints (avoidance and minimization); design, construction, and operational practices designed to minimize effects (minimization); and establishing practices to replace lost function and value (mitigation). Therefore, it can be said that, for the most part, the scenarios have either minor or no effect in terms of compliance against the SER Objectives. For objectives with minor adverse effects, mitigation strategies have been developed to eliminate or minimize the effect.

For the wind, SSH and solar PV renewable energy scenarios, there remain a small number of SER Objectives that could experience major negative performances; specifically for effects upon landscape (wind) and cultural heritage (wind, SSH, and solar PV).

The reason for the anticipated significant negative impact on landscape for the wind scenario is largely due to the fact that the scale is considerably larger in terms of footprint and height. Therefore the viewshed of wind farms is also larger and more far-reaching.

There is uncertain performance of the scenarios in avoiding adverse effects on cultural heritage sites due to the likelihood presence of presently unknown cultural finds, resulting in possible significant negative performance for all scenarios, except biogas. Therefore, effects on cultural heritage sites would need to be determined at the project level.

Positive performance against the SER Objectives is expected for climate receptors due to ability of renewable energy scenarios to avoid adverse effect on this receptor. In addition, scenarios have several positive performances against SER Objectives for community & socio-economics and material assets. The biogas scenario offers high positive performance against the SER Objectives, particularly for climate and human health, largely because this scenario requires capping existing landfills site to capture emitted gas from the landfill; therefore, a significant reduction of GHG gas as well as improvement in the surrounding environment is anticipated. An additional benefit of capping these landfills is a general local improvement in sanitation and odours.

It is important to note that the specific characteristics of projects funded under KazREFF may vary from the overall compliance of scenarios identified here and will require more detailed appraisal through project level environmental assessments. This will be required by KazREFF as well as Kazakhstan regulations concerning EIA. Recommendations on the scope of the project level assessments are included in Section 11.


August 2014


August 2014

11.0 IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this SER is to review key environmental issues associated with the implementation of the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios on a strategic, national basis. When specific projects are proposed under KazREFF, a project level environmental review will be required. It is envisioned that the information in this SER report and developed during the SER process will help to focus the scope and required mitigation at the project level. However, the effects and mitigation measures that are ultimately assigned to a subject project will be dependent on its particular design and the specific development site environmental conditions.

For each project funded under KazREFF, it will be necessary for project proponents to consider the following issues (discussed further in the sections below):

Siting considerations;

Environmental and social requirements;

Availability of baseline data and additional monitoring required; and,

Required mitigation.

An environmental implementation guidance document (Renewable Project Environmental Reports or RPER) was developed separately of this SER for use by the KazREFF as a resource for each renewable energy developers. This guidance incorporates the considerations addressed above and utilise the baseline, impact, and mitigation data developed in this SER to provide a streamlined policy compliance approach for prospective KazREFF borrowers.

Further guidance for overall project preparation will be provided in Developers Handbook that will be produced by the KazREFF Project Implementation Unit.

11.1 SITING CONSIDERATIONS

Siting considerations for each renewable energy scenario are outline in Section 9, Spatial Constraints Analysis. However, in order to provide a high-level overview of some of the key environmental issues and associated mitigation measures that are most likely to be required for the different renewable energy scenarios, Table 11-1 details three primary considerations for each scenario during construction and three primary considerations for each scenario during operation.


August 2014

Table 11-1 Primary environmental constraints and mitigation measures during construction and operation

Renewable Energy Scenario

Construction Operation Decommissioning Construction-stage environmental issue

Mitigation measure Operational-stage environmental Issue

Mitigation measure

Decommissioning stage environmental issue

Mitigation measure

Wind 1. Footprint of construction works (including ancillary infrastructure) resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.

1. Ecological surveys, mitigation measures for species present and careful siting of project and ancillary infrastructure; careful timing of construction activities to avoid sensitive ecological times.

1. Risk of strike from turbines or ancillary infrastructure, such as transmission lines, resulting in the killing or injury of birds (including in particular migratory species and raptors) and bats.

1. Surveys to be undertaken to inform siting and orientation of wind turbines prior to construction; monitoring of anticipated impacts during operation. Where required, alteration of operating regime to minimise risk during sensitive time-periods (such as migration).

1. Proper disposal of turbines, lubricants, and ancillary infrastructure

1. Recycle or re-use as much of the material as possible to reduce landfill space volume requirements. Dispose of lubricants and all chemicals in accordance with Kazakhstan standards (or international standards in the absence of national standards.

2. Soil erosion and degradation as a result of stripping of working area for turbines and ancillary infrastructure.

2. Erosion control plan to be prepared and implemented during construction; siting considerations to include measures to minimise exposure of soils and prevent surface water run-off.

2. Visual impact of turbine towers upon the landscape.

2. Avoid siting of wind turbines in or near visually sensitive landscapes (such as protected areas) and use natural (or artificial) screening where possible – such as tree-lines and natural gullies – for ancillary

2. Soil erosion and degradation as a result of demolition activities when removing turbines and ancillary infrastructure.

2. Erosion control plan to be prepared and implemented during demolition activities to include measures to minimise exposure of soils and prevent surface water run-off.


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

infrastructure where possible. Bury inter-turbine transmission lines.

3. Nuisance (noise, dust, visual impact, traffic, etc.) impacting local community and visitors.

3. Prior assessment; screening and considerate construction techniques (including timing of deliveries); as well as monitoring of impacts during construction and consultation with local community.

3. Complete or partial loss of land or land-use for existing owners / users.

3. Avoid siting of wind turbines on lands that are currently of significant use (such as agricultural lands); plan to improve or, at a minimum, restore the livelihoods and standards of living of any displaced persons to pre-project levels; and/or where required, provide compensation at just replacement value, as determined by court certified valuators.


3. Prior assessment; screening and considerate demolition techniques (including timing of deliveries); as well as monitoring of impacts during demolition with local community.

4. Footprint of demolition works (including ancillary infrastructure)

1. Ecological surveys, mitigation measures for species present and careful siting of


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.

project and ancillary infrastructure; careful timing of demolition activities to avoid sensitive ecological times.

Small hydropower

1. Risk of water pollution, including erosion and mobilisation of sediments, during construction of hydropower infrastructure (including use of concrete, installation of inlets and outlets from river channel, etc.) and inappropriate storage of polluting materials near to water.

1. Water resource and quality protection to be addressed in Environment and Social Action Plan to include provisions for preventative controls over sensitive construction activities, storage of potentially polluting materials and emergency remediation techniques in case of accidents.

1. Prevention of passage to fish.

1. Studies of fish passage on the watercourse and inclusion of appropriate fish passage mechanism in final design.

1. Risk of water pollution, including erosion and mobilisation of sediments, during demolition of hydropower infrastructure and stored chemicals..

1. Water resource and quality protection to be addressed in Environment and Social Action Plan to include provisions for preventative controls over sensitive demolition activities.


2. Prior assessment; screening and considerate construction techniques (including timing of

2. Localised removal of baseline water flow impacting other uses of water resources (such as

2. Impact studies and provision of appropriate environmental flow rate.


3. Prior assessment; screening and considerate demolition techniques (including timing of deliveries);


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

deliveries); as well as monitoring of impacts during construction and consultation with local community.

local communities). as well as monitoring of impacts during demolition with local community.

3. Footprint of construction works (including site compounds, storage areas and ancillary infrastructure) resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.


3. Risk of strike, or barriers to migration / movement, from ancillary infrastructure resulting in the killing, injury, or disruption to migration / movements of birds, bats and other wide-ranging species (e.g. Saiga).

3. Surveys to be undertaken to inform siting and orientation of ancillary infrastructure prior to construction; monitoring of anticipated impacts during operation. Where required, alteration of operating regime to minimise risk during sensitive time-periods (such as migration).

3. Footprint of demolition works (including site compounds, storage areas and ancillary infrastructure) resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.

3. Ecological surveys, mitigation measures for species present and careful siting of project and ancillary infrastructure; careful timing of demolition activities to avoid sensitive ecological times.

4. Proper disposal of turbines, lubricants, and ancillary infrastructure

4. Recycle or re-use as much of the material as possible to reduce landfill space volume requirements. Dispose of lubricants and all chemicals in accordance with


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

Kazakhstan standards (or international standards in the absence of national standards.

Solar photovoltaic

1. Footprint of construction works (including site compounds, storage areas and ancillary infrastructure) resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.


1. Complete and extensive loss of land or land-use for existing owners / users.

1. Avoid siting of solar photovoltaic developments on lands that are currently of significant use (such as agricultural lands); plan to improve or, at a minimum, restore the livelihoods and standards of living of any displaced persons to pre-project levels; and/or where required, provide compensation at just replacement value, as determined by court certified valuators.

1. Proper disposal of PV panels and ancillary infrastructure

1. Recycle or re-use as much of the material as possible to reduce landfill space volume requirements. Dispose of all chemicals in accordance with Kazakhstan standards (or international standards in the absence of national standards.

2. Nuisance (noise, 2. Prior assessment; 2. Visual impact of 2. Avoid siting of 2. Nuisance (noise, 2. Prior assessment;


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

dust, visual impact, traffic, etc.) impacting local community and visitors.

screening and considerate construction techniques (including timing of deliveries); as well as monitoring of impacts during construction and consultation with local community.

solar photovoltaic development upon the landscape.

solar photovoltaic development in visually sensitive landscapes (such as protected areas) and use natural (or artificial) screening where possible – such as tree-lines and natural gullies – for ancillary infrastructure where possible. Bury intra-site transmission lines.

dust, visual impact, traffic, etc.) impacting local community and visitors.

screening and considerate demolition techniques (including timing of deliveries); as well as monitoring of impacts during demolition with local community.

3. Soil erosion and degradation as a result of stripping of working area for solar panels and ancillary infrastructure.

3. Erosion control plan to be prepared and implemented during construction; siting considerations to include measures to minimise exposure of soils and prevent surface water run-off.


3. Surveys to be undertaken to inform siting and orientation of ancillary infrastructure prior to construction; monitoring of anticipated impacts during operation. Where required, alteration of operating regime to minimise risk during sensitive time-periods (such

3. Soil erosion and degradation as a result of demolition activities when removing turbines and ancillary infrastructure.

3. Erosion control plan to be prepared and implemented during demolition activities to include measures to minimise exposure of soils and prevent surface water run-off.


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

as migration). 4. Footprint of

demolition works (including ancillary infrastructure) resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.

1. Ecological surveys, mitigation measures for species present and careful siting of project and ancillary infrastructure; careful timing of demolition activities to avoid sensitive ecological times.

Biogas using municipal landfill gas

1. Footprint of construction works (including ancillary infrastructure) resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.

1. Ecological surveys, mitigation for species present and careful siting of project and ancillary infrastructure; careful timing of construction activities to avoid sensitive ecological times.

1. Release of air pollutants during combustion of biogas.

1. Combustion control and emissions monitoring.

1. Proper disposal of flares, collection system, and ancillary infrastructure

1. Recycle or re-use as much of the material as possible to reduce landfill space volume requirements. Dispose of all chemicals in accordance with Kazakhstan standards (or international standards in the absence of national standards.

2. Nuisance (noise, odour, dust, visual impact, traffic, etc.) impacting local community.

2. Prior assessment; inclusion of suitable buffer from works area to nearest human receptors; screening and

2. Generation of waste by-products.

2. Methods to process and reuse, or safely dispose, waste by-products.


2. Prior assessment; screening and considerate demolition techniques (including timing of deliveries);


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

considerate construction techniques (including timing of deliveries); as well as monitoring of impacts during construction and consultation with local community.

as well as monitoring of impacts during demolition with local community.

3. Risk of mobilising pollutants and/ or odours during installation of biogas production / capture infrastructure.

3. Pollution prevention and abatement methods to be included in Environment and Social Action Plan, including methods to prevent escape of landfill waste and / or odour through wind, surface water run-off or accidental entrainment on machinery and plant.


3. Surveys to be undertaken to inform siting and orientation of ancillary infrastructure prior to construction; monitoring of anticipated impacts during operation. Where required, alteration of operating regime to minimise risk during sensitive time-periods (such as migration).

3. Risk of mobilising pollutants and/ or odours during installation of biogas production / capture infrastructure.

3. Pollution prevention and abatement methods to be included in Environment and Social Action Plan, including methods to prevent escape of landfill waste and / or odour through wind, surface water run-off or accidental entrainment on machinery and plant.

4. Footprint of demolition works (including ancillary infrastructure)

1. Ecological surveys, mitigation measures for species present and careful siting of


August 2014




Mitigation measure


Mitigation measure

resulting in loss of habitat and risk to flora and fauna.

project and ancillary infrastructure; careful timing of demolition activities to avoid sensitive ecological times.


August 2014

As well as broad scale technical exclusions and environmental/social sensitivities, there would also be site specific issues that would need to be considered in siting of projects under the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios. These site specific issues would involve more detailed analysis of localised baseline data than has been possible for this strategic level SER. Siting considerations would include, for example:

Examples of technical considerations:

Proximity to existing transmission network

Local availability of resources (are other interests conflicting for the same resource?)

Condition of existing infrastructure

Alternative allocations for use of land

Examples of environmental sensitivities:

Proximity to residential dwellings, schools, emergency services etc.

Competition for use of water and land resources

Is the local area known for and contamination or especially high quality soils?

Are there records of protected species using the local area?

Proximity to features of cultural importance, such as churches, areas of archaeological or landscape importance, etc.

11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Projects funded under the KazREFF will be subject to the following environmental and social requirements, as stipulated by EBRD:

The EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy (2008, and the upcoming updated version when in force) and its associated Performance Requirements.

Applicable requirements of Kazakhstan, including but not limited to those related with environmental impact assessments, environmental permitting, labour, public consultation, resettlement and compensation, occupational health and safety, community health and safety, and emergency response.


August 2014

Relevant European Union Directives and requirements

International best practices, including those promulgated by other international financial institutions, the International Labour Organisation, and others.

11.2.1 EBRD requirements

Projects would need to adhere to the EBRD Environmental and Social Policy and its associated Performance Requirements (PR), which cover the following areas:

PR 1: Environmental and Social Appraisal and Management

PR 2: Labour and Working Conditions

PR 3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement

PR 4: Community Health & Safety and Security

PR 5: Land Acquisition, Involuntary Resettlement and Economic Displacement

PR 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Resource Management

PR 7: Indigenous Peoples

PR 8: Cultural Heritage

PR 9: Financial Intermediaries (FI)

PR 10: Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement

Depending upon the scale of the KazREFF project, EBRD would require a series of environmental documents to be produced in order to gain EBRD funding. Projects are screened at an early stage and placed into one of the four following categories, depending on the level and type of environmental and social due diligence that is required:

Category A projects are those with potentially significant and diverse environmental and social impacts, requiring detailed impact assessments

Category B projects are those with environmental and social impacts that are site-specific and can be addressed through readily available management and mitigation techniques


August 2014

Category C projects have minimal environmental or social impacts

FI projects are where the EBRD is investing in a Financial Intermediary, such as a bank or equity fund.

This categorization reflects: (i) reflect the level of potential environmental and social effects and issues associated with the proposed project; and (ii) determine the nature and level of environmental and social investigations, information disclosure and stakeholder engagement required for each project, taking into account the nature, location, sensitivity and scale of the project, and the nature and magnitude of its possible environmental and social effect and issues.

Due to the relatively small scale of the potential KazREFF projects, most would likely fall under Category B, as the potential adverse environmental and/or social effects that they may give rise to are typically site-specific, and/or readily identified and addressed through mitigation measures. However, the siting of facilities within or near sensitive/protected areas or in situations where impacts could be more severe may result in these being classified as Category A projects. This determination is made by EBRD and KazREFF in the initial project phases.

11.2.1.1. Category A

If a project is considered to be a Category A project, it is usual to expect that it would require the development and disclosure of an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Package including:

An ESIA;

A Non-Technical Summary (NTS);

An Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP);

A Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP);

A Land Acquisition Plan (if land acquisition is required);

A Resettlement Action Plan (if population displacement is required).

Disclosure of these documents generally allows for a 120 day public consultation period, after which the documents are finalized, published, and financing may be secured. In general, the timeframe for completing the environmental and social review process for a Category A project typically takes 9 to 12 months to complete.


August 2014

11.2.1.2. Category B

If categorized as a Category B project, there are less detailed documentation requirements due to the lesser potential for significant environmental and social impact. EBRD typically requires the development and disclosure of:

A Project Summary Document;

A Project Fact Sheet or Non-Technical Summary (NTS);

For Category B projects, EBRD also typically reviews, but does not require disclosure of:

An Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP);

A Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP);

An Environmental and Social Due Diligence (ESDD) document that demonstrates compliance with PR1

Disclosure of these required documents generally allows for a 30 day public consultation period, after which the documents are finalized, published, and financing may be secured. In general, the timeframe for completing the environmental and social review process for a Category B project typically takes 3 to 6 months to complete.

11.2.2 Kazakhstan requirements

As first explained in Section 6, projects in Kazakhstan are classified by the Sanitary and Epidemiological Services (SES) of MOH according to five danger levels with one being the highest as defined by norms and standards in relation to human health and safety. The sensitivities of projects are measured by the SES Danger/Sanitary Categories. The categories are:

Danger/Sanitary Categories 1 & 2 projects have levels of severity/danger that trigger a full EIA.

Danger/Sanitary Category 3 projects are considered to have lower levels of severity/danger and as such a lesser assessment is undertaken, although still referred to as an Environmental Assessment.

Danger/Sanitary Category 4 & 5 projects are considered to present considerably lower risks of severity/danger and generally do not warrant an assessment beyond the initial screening.


August 2014

The SES Danger/Sanitary Categories relate to four categories of RoK EIA (Оценка воздействия на окружающую среду - OVOS). The EIA/OVOS Categories are:

Category I - Sanitary Class/Danger Categories 1 and 2 plus investigations and extractions of minerals, except for common minerals. Risks are high and approval by MEWR is required. A Category I EIA/OVOS is categorically required obligatory for large scale including road construction project with four lanes or more.

Category II - Sanitary Class/Danger Category 3 plus extractions of ubiquitous minerals, forestry activities and special uses of water. Risks are ranked as Medium High and approval is required from TEPO(s).

Category III - Sanitary Class/Danger Category 4 Risks are ranked as Low and approval is required from TEPO(s).

Category IV - Sanitary Class/Danger Category 5 plus projects involving animals, except recreational fishing and hunting. Risks are ranked as Low and approval is required from local administrations.

Under Kazakhstan regulations, the EIA process has five stages:

Overview of Environmental Condition. This might also be referred to as a Reconnaissance or Scoping Study and in the Concept Stage at the time of a Declaration of Intent to undertake the Project.

Preliminary EIA (Оценка воздействия на окружающую среду - Pre-OVOS)

Preparation of the EIA (OVOS). EIAs are obligatory for large scale projects.

Preparation of an "Environmental Protection Section". The Environmental Protection Section is prepared in the detailed design stage in the event that mitigation measures defined in the EIA (OVOS) are required.

Post-Project Analysis. For projects of Danger/Sanitary Categories 1 or investments greater than $US50 million.

State Environmental Reviews are conducted at end of each stage in the process and before proceeding to the next stage. Reviews are conducted first at the Oblast level and then by MEWR and other agencies as appropriate to the nature of the Project and the level of EIA Categorization. Comments are reviewed, edited and assembled by the MEWR. The 2007 EC provides for a


August 2014

preliminary review period of two weeks and a final review period of up to 90 days after which the EIA authors are required to defend the EIA at a consultation session with all stakeholders in attendance (usually not the general public). Once complete, the EIA is revised; a final document is prepared; and a certificate to proceed to the next stage is given to the Proponent, but usually only after another 30-day waiting period, allowing for any additional comments. Based on this information, it may take up to a year to complete the EIA process in Kazakhstan.

Based on additional guidance provided in the EIA regulations, it is likely that wind projects (and in fact, all RES projects) would be considered Category II and would require Category II EIA/OVOS documentation. However, the siting of wind facilities within or near sensitive/protected areas may result in these being classified as Category I projects. This determination is made by MoE at the preliminary EIA stage.

11.2.3 Relevant European Union Directives and requirements

Although Kazakhstan is not in the EU, EBRD requires that EU Directives are adhered to in addition to compliance with national EIA legislation and EBRD funding requirements.

11.2.3.1. EU EIA Directive (97/11/EC as amended)

EU EIA Directive (97/11/EC as amended) requires projects to be categorised (either under Annex I or Annex II of the Directive) as requiring a statutory EIA. It is recommended that Environmental Statements produced for specific individual projects follow the Requirements of EU EIA Directive Annex III, which are summarised in Table 11-2 below.

Table 11-2 Requirements of EU EIA Directive Annex III Requirement of EU EIA Directive Annex III 1 Description of the project, including in particular:

Description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases, Description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used, An estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed project.

2 Where appropriate, an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

3 A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-


August 2014

Requirement of EU EIA Directive Annex III relationship between the above factors.

4 A description (1) of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from:

• the existence of the project, • the use of natural resources, • the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the

elimination of waste; (1) This description should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. The description by the developer of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

5 A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

6 A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings.

7 An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the developer in compiling the required information.

11.2.3.2. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, commonly known as the ‘Habitats Directive’

To comply with the European Union’s Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, commonly known as the ‘Habitats Directive’ , when a project has the potential to affect a site designated as a Natura 2000 site, it is standard practice to undertake a screening assessment to determine whether a full ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is required in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Although the protected biodiversity areas of Kazakhstan are not currently designated as Natura 2000 sites, it is likely that those sites flagged as nationally or internationally important would have the potential for this designation. These areas are identified in the Spatial Constraints Analysis in Section 8 as requiring avoidance or special mitigation measures. Therefore, developers that are looking to implement schemes in proximity to these highly sensitive biodiversity areas would need to ascertain whether there is a requirement for assessment against the Habitats Directive during the design phase of a KazREFF project.

11.2.3.3. Other relevant EU directives

The following EU Directives will also need to be applied to the KazREFF renewable energy scenarios projects, as practical:


August 2014

EU Directive 2009/147/EC – Bird Directive on the conservation of wild birds the conservation of wild birds (amended version of Directive 79/409/EEC);

EU Directive 96/62/EC – Air Quality Framework Directive;

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, in short, the EU Water Framework Directive.

11.2.4 International best practices (including cumulative assessment – please provide relevant references)

Several international organisations have developed best practice guidance which should be adhered to by developers in designing, constructing and operating renewable energy scenarios projects funded through KazREFF. Adherence to the following international guidance is recommended:

International Finance Corporation Performance Standards

International Labour Organisation,

Equator Principles and others.

Date post:	15-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Strategic Environmental Review Report– Draft€¦ · Kazakhstan Renewable Energy Financing...

Documents