Renewable energy and its impact on agric

econstor www.econstor.eu Der Open-Access-Publikationsserver der ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft The Open Access Publication Server of the ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics Wolz, Axel; Buchenrieder, Gertrud; Markus, Richard Working Paper Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development: Findings of a comparative study in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe Discussion paper // Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, No 130 Provided in Cooperation with: Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO) Suggested Citation: Wolz, Axel; Buchenrieder, Gertrud; Markus, Richard (2010) : Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development: Findings of a comparative study in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, Discussion paper // Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe, No 130, urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:2-10852 , http:// hdl.handle.net/10419/45694 Nutzungsbedingungen: Die ZBW räumt Ihnen als Nutzerin/Nutzer das unentgeltliche, räumlich unbeschränkte und zeitlich auf die Dauer des Schutzrechts beschränkte einfache Recht ein, das ausgewählte Werk im Rahmen der unter → http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen nachzulesenden vollständigen Nutzungsbedingungen zu vervielfältigen, mit denen die Nutzerin/der Nutzer sich durch die erste Nutzung einverstanden erklärt zbw Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre for Economics Terms of use: The ZBW grants you, the user, the non-exclusive right to use the selected work free of charge, territorially unrestricted and within the time limit of the term of the property rights according to the terms specified at → http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen By the first use of the selected work the user agrees and declares to comply with these terms of use DISCUSSION PAPER Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: FINDINGS OF A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN CENTRAL, EASTERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPE AXEL WOLZ, GERTUD BUCHENRIEDER, RICHARD MARKUS DISCUSSION PAPER NO 130 2010 Theodor-Lieser-Straße 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany Phone: +49-345-2928 110 Fax: +49-345-2928 199 E-mail: iamo@iamo.de Internet: http://www.iamo.de Dr Axel Wolz is senior research fellow at the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), Division: External Environment for Agriculture and Policy Analysis, in Halle (Saale), Germany His current work focuses on organisational and institutional change, the concept of social capital, cooperatives and renewable energy From January 2006 until March 2010, Dr Gertrud Buchenrieder was the Head of the Department "External Environment for Agriculture and Policy Analysis" at the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO) She has moved on to the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Institute for Agriculture and Food Science Her research focus is international development theory and policy Richard Márkus is a PhD.-student at the University of West Hungary Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Institute of Business Economics and Management Sciences besides close collaboration with Feeding Department of the University, Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary The current research topic is the utilization of renewable energy as by-products (rapeseed cake, DDGS) for the sake of enhancing competitiveness in swine production Address: Leibniz-Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO) Theodor-Lieser-Straße 06120 Halle (Saale) Germany Phone: Fax: E-mail: Internet: ++49-345-2928-114 ++48-12-6624-199 wolz@iamo.de http://www.iamo.de Discussion Papers are interim reports on work of the Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe and have received only limited reviews Views or opinions expressed in them not necessarily represent those of IAMO Comments are welcome and should be addressed directly to the author(s) The series Discussion Papers is edited by: Prof Dr Alfons Balmann (IAMO) Dr Stefan Brosig (IAMO) Prof Dr Gertrud Buchenrieder (IAMO) Prof Dr Thomas Glauben (IAMO) Dr Daniel Müller (IAMO) Prof Dr Heinrich Hockmann (IAMO) Dr Martin Petrick (IAMO) ISSN 1438-2172 Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development ABSTRACT Rising energy prices for fossil fuels, the unreliable supply of energy imports during the last winters and – concerning the 12 new members states (NMS) – the demand by the European Union (EU) for developing National Renewable Energy Action Plans have stimulated the national discussion and political action on renewable energy (RE) among all European countries Particularly among the 12 NMS the share of RE has increased during the last years Among the candidate and potential candidate countries (CC and PCC) the discussion on RE has just started When looking at the impact of RE on agricultural and rural development the effects are relatively small An expansion of rape seed cultivation and, to a smaller extent, of the production of wood pellets could be observed But overall the impact of RE on agricultural and rural income and employment seems to be marginal up to now Whether it will be so in the future, depends on national policies and support programme as none of the various types of RE is competitive to fossil fuels for the time being JEL: O52, Q10, Q28, Q42, R11 Кeywords: Renewable energy, comparative survey, agricultural and rural development, New members states of the EU, candidate and potential candidate countries ZUSAMMENFASSUNG DIE AUSWIRKUNGEN VON ERNEUERBAREN ENERGIEN AUF DIE LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHE UND LÄNDLICHE ENTWICKLUNG – ERGEBNIS EINER VERGLEICHENDEN STUDIE IN MITTEL-, OSTUND SÜDEUROPA Die öffentliche Diskussion sowie die politischen Maßnahmen im Hinblick auf erneuerbare Energien haben im Laufe der vergangenen Jahre bei allen europäischen Staaten erheblich zugenommen Die Gründe liegen bei den stetig steigenden Preisen für fossile Energieträger, den unzuverlässigen Lieferungen in den vergangenen Wintern sowie – besonders bei den 12 Neuen Mitgliedsstaaten (NMS) der Europäischen Union (EU) – die verbindliche Maßgabe, einen Nationalen Aktionsplan für Erneuerbare Energien zu entwickeln Besonders innerhalb der 12 NMS hat der Anteil der erneuerbaren Energie am Gesamtenergieverbrauch zugenommen Allerdings sind die Auswirkungen der erweiterten Nutzung von erneuerbaren Energien auf die landwirtschaftliche und ländliche Entwicklung bis dato relativ gering Lediglich eine Ausweitung des Rapsanbau sowie in einem geringerem Maße von Holzpellets war zu beobachten Die Auswirkungen auf Einkommen und Beschäftigung sind jedoch (noch) marginal Inwieweit sich dies in der Zukunft ändern wird, hängt von den nationalen Politiken und Unterstützungsprogrammen ab, da bis jetzt keine Art der erneuerbaren Energien gegenüber den fossilen Brennstoffen konkurrenzfähig ist JEL: O52, Q10, Q28, Q42, R11 Schlüsselwörter: Erneuerbare Energien, vergleichende Analyse, landwirtschaftliche und ländliche Entwicklung, Neue Mitgliedsstaaten sowie (potenzielle) Beitrittsländer der EU Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Zusammenfassung List of abbreviations Acknowledgements Introduction Overview of the use and relevance of renewable energy 2.1 Relevance of renewable energy in national energy supply 2.2 Role of renewable energy in specific subsectors 2.2.1 Production and share in national electricity supply 2.2.2 Production and share in national heating 2.2.3 Production and share in national transport 12 14 14 16 17 Overview of the sources of renewable energy 18 3.1 Organic sources 3.1.1 Wood and wood waste 3.1.2 Biogas 3.1.3 Municipal solid waste 3.1.4 Biofuel 3.2 Inorganic sources 3.2.1 Hydro-energy 3.2.2 Wind energy 3.2.3 Solar energy 3.2.4 Geothermal energy 19 19 21 22 22 24 24 26 27 28 National policies and concepts promoting renewable energy 29 4.1 National policies 4.2 National concepts and programmes 29 32 Impact of the promotion of renewable energy 33 5.1 Impact on the agricultural and forestry sectors 5.2 Impact on rural development 33 37 Conclusions and policy recommendations 38 6.1 Concluding observations 6.2 Policy recommendations 38 40 References 40 Annex 42 Axel Wolz, Gertrud Buchenrieder, Richard Markus LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ALB BIH; B&H BUL CC CRO CYP CZE ECT EST EU GHG HPP HUN IRENA KCAL KOS KWH LTU LVA MAC MLT MON MW NMS PCC POL RE ROM SER SVK SVN T TOE TUR UNFCCC ALBANIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA CANDIDATE COUNTRIES CROATIA CYPRUS CZECH REPUBLIC ENERGY CHARTER TREATY ESTONIA EUROPEAN UNION GREEN HOUSE GAS HYDROPOWER PLANTS HUNGARY INTERNATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY KILO CALORIE KOSOVO KILOWATT HOUR LITHUANIA LATVIA MACEDONIA MALTA MONTENEGRO MEGAWATT NEW MEMBER STATES POTENTIAL CANDIDATE COUNTRIES POLAND RENEWABLE ENERGY ROMANIA SERBIA SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA TON(S) TONS OF OIL EQUIVALENT TURKEY UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based on 20 country reports that form part of the results of a project called "Enlargement Network for Agricultural Policy Analysis" (acronym: AgriPolicy) which receives financial support from the European Commission’s 7th Framework Program Participants are from all NMS, CC and PCC, UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands It lasted from June 2008 to May 2010 See www.agripolicy.net for all 20 country reports, which have been drafted by national experts The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of the national experts: Aheron Homzo and Robert Cela, independent experts (Albania); Aleksandra Nikolic, Sabahudin Bajramović and Draguna Ognjenović, University of Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina); Ivanov Bozhidar, University of Ploviv and Rumen Popow, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sofia (Bulgaria); Marija Cerjak, University of Zagreb (Croatia); Theodoros Ioannou and Doros Theocharides, CTS (Cyprus); Jiri Weichet, VUZE (Czech Republic); Mati Sepp, Estonian University of Life Sciences (Estonia); Dragi Dimitrievski and Ana Kostevska, University St Cyril and Methodius (FYROM); Tibor Firenczi, Csaba Forgacs and Tamas Mizik, Corvinus University of Budapest (Hungary); Menderes Ibra, independent expert (Kosovo); Agnese Krieviņa, Latvian State Institute of Agrarian Economics (Latvia); Ovidija Eicaite and Albertas Gapsys, Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics (Lithuania); Sonya Sammut, independent expert (Malta); Milan Markovic, Bozidarka Markovic, Milosav Andjelic and Jelena Knezevic, University of Montenegro (Montenegro); Zbigniew Florianczyk, Anna Wasilewska, Grzegorz Kunikowski and Piotr Gradziuk, IERIGZ (Poland); Pete Istvan and Tamas Ervin, Babes Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca (Romania); Aleksandar Bogunovic and Natalija Bogdanov, University of Belgrade (Serbia); Ivan Masár, VUEPP (Slovakia); Matej Bederač and Tamaz Cunder, University of Ljubljana, (Slovenia); Dilek Bostan Budak, Cukurova University (Turkey) The country reports’ summaries and interpretations are solely the responsibility of the authors Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development INTRODUCTION This report summarises the findings of 20 country case studies on renewable energy (RE) and its impact on rural development The countries are the 10 new member states (NMS-10)1 that joined the European Union (EU) in May 2004, Bulgaria and Romania, which became member in January 2007, and Candidate2 and Potential Candidate Countries3 (CC and PCC) The CC and PCC aspire to join the EU as and when their political and economic development meets the EU membership criteria This report is a synthesis of the 20 background country reports It emphasizes comparison of national strategies with regard to RE, structures and a summary of main conclusions Yet, the issue of RE in many of these countries only recently has become a political issue Rising energy prices for fossil fuels, the unreliable supply of energy imports during the last two winters4 and – concerning the 12 NMS – the agreement by the EU member states for developing National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP) by 30 June 2010 have stimulated the national discussion on RE Due to historical and economic reasons but also natural conditions, the importance and focus on specific types on RE have been quite different among the countries in the region When required this diversity is indicated in the report Yet, further details of specific country situations shall be found in the background reports The structure of the synthesis report is as follows Section provides an overview of the present situation In the Chapter 3, the major organic and inorganic sources of RE are discussed in more detail In Chapter the national policies and concepts promoting RE will be analysed In Chapter it will be assessed whether RE has an impact on the agricultural sector in particular and rural development in general The analysis concludes in providing the major comparative conclusions, including some key policy recommendations OVERVIEW OF THE USE AND RELEVANCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY Since early mankind people have relied on RE for their living People made use of wood and, later on, of wind and water However, the interest in RE started more seriously when the limits of fossil and nuclear energy became evident In our analysis we follow the definition of EUROSTAT which defines RE as follows: Renewable energies (RE) cover hydropower, wind energy, solar energy, biomass and wastes and geothermal energy RE is the sum of these specific forms of energies Biomass and wastes cover organic, non-fossil material of biological origin, which may be used for heat production or electricity generation They comprise wood and wood waste, biogas, municipal solid waste and biofuels Liquid biofuels mainly cover bioethanol (ethanol produced from biomass) and biodiesel (diesel produced from biomass or used fried oil) Hydropower covers potential and kinetic These are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia The CC are Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey The PCC are Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Kosovo (although the official status of Kosovo is still open) Think for instance the gas disputes between Russia and the Ukraine, which culminated on January 2006 when Russia cut off gas supplies passing through Ukrainian territory Another dispute arose in October 2007 over Ukrainian gas debts and culminated in the gas supplies reduction in March 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes - cite_note-bbc240106-3 Axel Wolz, Gertrud Buchenrieder, Richard Markus 52 Table A12: Romania 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply by RE Biomass and wastes Wood/wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal energy Share % Biomass and wastes Wood/wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal energy 2000 37129 28658 4040 2763 2763 – 0 1271 10.88% 7.44% 7.44% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.42% 0.02% 2001 36899 27612 3419 2130 2130 – 0 1283 9.27% 5.77% 5.77% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.48% 0.01% Source: EUROSTAT, Country Report Romania 2009 2002 38494 28008 3748 2351 2351 – 0 1380 17 9.74% 6.11% 6.11% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.58% 0.04% 2003 40234 28278 4061 2903 2903 – 0 1140 18 10.09% 7.22% 7.22% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.83% 0.04% 2004 39597 28406 4594 3160 3160 – 0 1420 13 11.60% 7.98% 7.98% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.59% 0.03% 2005 39250 27438 4984 3229 3229 – 0 1737 18 12.70% 8.23% 8.23% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.43% 0.05% 2006 40732 27401 4831 3235 3235 – 0 1578 18 11.86% 7.94% 7.94% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.87% 0.04% 2007 40083 27619 4717 3325 3304 – 19 0 1373 20 11.77% 8.30% 8.24% 0.00% – 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 3.43% 0.05% Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development Table A13: 53 Croatia 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply by RE Biomass and wastes Wood/wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal energy Share % Biomass and wastes Wood/wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal energy 2000 7830 3566 879 374 374 – 0 505 11.23% 4.78% 4.78% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.45% 0.00% 2001 7970 3733 855 292 292 – 0 563 10.73% 3.66% 3.66% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.06% 0.00% Source: EUROSTAT, Country Report Croatia 2009 2002 8260 3693 757 296 296 – 0 461 9.16% 3.58% 3.58% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.58% 0.00% 2003 8845 3732 800 381 381 – 0 419 9.04% 4.31% 4.31% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.74% 0.00% 2004 8861 3856 977 379 379 – 0 598 11.03% 4.28% 4.28% 0.00% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.75% 0.00% 2005 8934 3783 901 355 353 – 545 10.09% 3.97% 3.95% 0.03% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.10% 0.00% 2006 8962 4130 929 412 410 – 516 10.37% 4.60% 4.57% 0.01% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.76% 0.00% 2007 9351 4035 737 366 361 – 364 7.88% 3.91% 3.86% 0.02% – 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 3.89% 0.03% Axel Wolz, Gertrud Buchenrieder, Richard Markus 54 Table A14: Macedonia 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply of RE Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Hydro energy Solar energy Geothermal Share % Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal 2000 2757 – 321 206 206 – – – – 100 – 16 11.66% 7.46% 7.46% – – – – – 3.64% 0.56% Source: Country Report Macedonia 2009 2001 2669 – 222 146 146 – – – – 54 – 23 8.33% 5.45% 5.45% – – – – – 2.01% 0.86% 2002 2883 – 226 148 148 – – – – 65 – 13 7.82% 5.13% 5.13% – – – – – 2.25% 0.45% 2003 2732 – 312 181 181 – – – – 118 – 13 11.42% 6.63% 6.63% – – – – – 4.31% 0.48% 2004 2740 – 303 165 165 – – – – 127 – 12 11.07% 6.01% 6.01% – – – – – 4.64% 0.43% 2005 2765 – 223 96 96 – – – – 128 – – 8.08% 3.46% 3.46% – – – – – 4.62% – 2006 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2007 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development Table A15: 55 Turkey 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply by RE Biomass and wastes Wood/wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal energy Share % Biomass and wastes Wood/wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal energy 2000 77624 26808 10149 6546 6541 – 262 2655 684 13.07% 8.43% 8.43% 0.01% – 0.00% 0.00% 0.34% 3.42% 0.88% 2001 71609 25161 9424 6303 6297 – 287 2064 764 13.16% 8.80% 8.79% 0.01% – 0.00% 0.01% 0.40% 2.88% 1.07% Source: EUROSTAT, Country Report Turkey 2009 2002 75465 24648 10077 6039 6032 – 318 2896 820 13.35% 8.00% 7.99% 0.01% – 0.00% 0.01% 0.42% 3.84% 1.09% 2003 79402 23873 10036 5783 5775 – 350 3038 860 12.64% 7.28% 7.27% 0.01% – 0.00% 0.01% 0.44% 3.83% 1.08% 2004 81999 24212 10783 5550 5542 – 375 3963 891 13.15% 6.77% 6.76% 0.01% – 0.00% 0.01% 0.46% 4.83% 1.09% 2005 85340 23626 10131 5332 5325 – 385 3402 1007 11.87% 6.25% 6.24% 0.01% – 0.00% 0.01% 0.45% 3.99% 1.18% 2006 94663 26540 10541 5162 5133 – 21 11 402 3804 1162 11.14% 5.45% 5.42% 0.01% – 0.02% 0.01% 0.42% 4.02% 1.23% 2007 101510 27279 9604 5023 4994 15 – 14 31 420 3083 1048 9.46% 4.95% 4.92% 0.01% – 0.01% 0.03% 0.41% 3.04% 1.03% Axel Wolz, Gertrud Buchenrieder, Richard Markus 56 Table A16: Serbia 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply of RE Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Hydro energy Solar energy Geothermal Share % Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal 2000 – – – – – – – – – 890 – – – – – – – – – – – – Source: Country Report Serbia 2009 2001 – – – – – – – – – 910 – – – – – – – – – – – – 2002 7179 12681 1139 239 239 – – – – 900 – – 10.56% 3.33% 3.33% – – – – – 7.23% – 2003 7549 13789 1019 239 239 – – – – 780 – – 8.93% 3.17% 3.17% – – – – – 5.76% – 2004 7903 14349 1189 239 239 – – – – 950 – – 9.75% 3.02% 3.02% – – – – – 6.73% – 2005 7606 14730 1269 239 239 – – – – 1030 – – 10.25% 3.14% 3.14% – – – – – 7.11% – 2006 7599 14787 1169 239 239 – – – – 930 – – 9.54% 3.15% 3.15% – – – – 6.39% – 2007 8242 16659 1097 247 239 – – – 850 – – 8.27% 3.00% 2.90% – – 0.10% – – 5.18% – Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development Table A17: 57 Bosnia & Herzegovina 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply of RE Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Hydro energy Solar energy Geothermal Share % Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal 2000 4849 – 1349 933 933 – – – – 416 – – 27.83% 19.24% 19.24% – – – – – 8.59% – 2001 4760 – 1524 1022 1022 – – – – 502 – – 32.01% 21.47% 21.47% – – – – – 10.54% – Source: Country Report Bosnia & Herzegovina 2009 2002 4666 – 1294 923 923 – – – – 371 – – 27.73% 19.78% 19.78% – – – – – 7.95% – 2003 4940 – 1471 1070 1070 – – – – 401 – – 29.78% 21.66% 21.66% – – – – – 8.12% – 2004 5195 – 1553 1024 1024 – – – – 529 – – 29.89% 19.71% 19.71% – – – – – 10.18% – 2005 5487 – 1703 1126 1126 – – – – 577 – – 31.04% 20.52% 20.52% – – – – – 10.52% – 2006 5651 – 1794 1188 1188 – – – – 606 – – 31.75% 21.02% 21.02% – – – – – 10.72% – 2007 5822 – 1889 1253 1253 – – – – 636 – – 32.45% 21.52% 21.52% – – – – – 10.93% – 2008* 5996 – 1990 1322 1322 – – – – 668 – – 33.19% 22.05% 22.05% – – – – – 11.14% – Axel Wolz, Gertrud Buchenrieder, Richard Markus 58 Table A18: Montenegro 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply of RE Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Hydro energy Solar energy Geothermal Share % Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal 2000 995 – 207 31 31 – – – – 176 – – 20.81% 3.11% 3.11% – – – – – 17.70% – Source: Country Report Montenegro 2009 2001 952 – 221 36 36 – – – – 186 – – 23.25% 3.75% 3.75% – – – – – 19.50% – 2002 1045 – 155 36 36 – – – – 119 – – 14.81% 3.42% 3.42% – – – – – 11.39% – 2003 1060 – 214 52 52 – – – – 162 – – 20.22% 4.94% 4.94% – – – – – 15.28% – 2004 1086 – 283 50 50 – – – – 233 – – 26.10% 4.61% 4.61% – – – – – 21.49% – 2005 1007 – 224 50 50 – – – – 174 – – 22.22% 4.96% 4.96% – – – – – 17.26% – 2006 1098 – 274 57 57 – – – – 217 – – 24.95% 5.21% 5.21% – – – – – 19.74% – 2007 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development Table A19: 59 Kosovo 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply of RE Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Hydro energy Solar energy Geothermal Share % Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal 2000 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Source: Country Report Kosovo 2009 2001 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2002 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2003 2055 – 222 216 216 – – – – – 10.80% 10.53% 10.53% – – – – 0.01% 0.27% – 2004 1972 – 229 216 216 – – – – 12 – 11.59% 10.97% 10.97% – – – – 0.01% 0.62% – 2005 2036 – 228 216 216 – – – – 12 – 11.22% 10.62% 10.62% – – – – 0.01% 0.59% – 2006 2048 – 227 216 216 – – – – 11 – 11.11% 10.56% 10.56% – – – – 0.01% 0.53% – 2007 1997 – 227 216 216 – – – – 10 – 11.35% 10.83% 10.83% – – – – 0.01% 0.51% – 2008 2137 – 229 218 218 – – – – 10 – 10.70% 10.21% 10.21% – – – – 0.02% 0.47% – Axel Wolz, Gertrud Buchenrieder, Richard Markus 60 Table A20: Albania 1000TOE/Year Total energy demand Total energy production Supply of RE Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Hydro energy Solar energy Geothermal Share % Biomass and Waste Wood and wood waste Biogas Municipal solid waste Biofuels Wind energy Solar energy Hydro energy Geothermal 2000 1797 987 763 303 303 – – – – 460 – – 42.46% 16.86% 16.86% – – – – – 25.60% – Source: Country Report Albania 2009 2001 1928 933 667 296 296 – – – – 367 – 34.59% 15.35% 15.35% – – – – 0.20% 19.04% – 2002 1828 896 664 296 296 – – – – 364 – 36.32% 16.19% 16.19% – – – – 0.20% 19.91% – 2003 2003 1012 717 228 228 – – – – 485 – 35.80% 11.38% 11.38% – – – – 0.19% 24.23% – 2004 2251 1178 811 268 268 – – – – 539 – 36.02% 11.91% 11.91% – – – – 0.17% 23.94% – 2005 2050 1149 713 230 230 – – – – 469 – 34.78% 11.22% 11.22% – – – – 0.20% 23.36% – 2006 2148 1237 705 229 229 – – – – 474 – 32.82% 10.66% 10.66% – – – – 0.10% 22.06% – 2007 1966 1080 475 214 214 – – – – 255 – 24.17% 10.88% 10.88% – – – – 0.32% 12.97% – Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development 61 ANNEX Annex a: Wood/ w-waste Biogas Municipa l solid w Biofuel Hydropower Wind Solar Geothermal Major types of renewable energy in the 12 New Member States (% of Total RE Production), 2007 LTU LVA EST POL CZE SVK HUN SVN MLT* CYP BUL ROM No of Countries 90.0 85.4 98.1 90.7 81.0 49.2 81.6 59.1 – 16.9 71.3 70.0 11 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.3 3.2 0.7 1.2 1.7 – – – – – – – 0.9 4.0 3.9 7.7 – – – – – 4.0 0.9 – 2.0 3.7 6.0 1.2 0.5 34.5 – 0.2 0.4 10 4.4 13.1 0.3 4.0 7.5 39.0 1.3 38.7 – – 24.8 29.1 10 1.1 – 0.3 – 1.1 – 0.9 – 0.5 0.2 0.1 – 0.6 0.2 – – – 65.5 – 83.1 0.4 – – – 0.2 – – 0.2 – 1.0 6.1 – – – 3.3 0.4 * 2006 Source: EUROSTAT Note: Due to rounding not always 100.0% Axel Wolz, Gertrud Buchenrieder, Richard Markus 62 Annex b: Wood/ w-waste Biogas Municipa l solid w Biofuel Hydropower Wind Solar Geothermal Major types of renewable energy in the candidate and potential candidate countries (% of Total RE Production), 2007 CRO MAC* TUR SER BIH MON** KOS ALB No of Countries 49.0 54.3 52.0 21.8 66.3 20.9 95.4 44.9 0.3 – 0.2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.5 – 0.1 0.7 – – – – 49.4 41.9 32.1 77.5 33.7 79.1 4.5 53.8 0.4 0.1 – – 0.3 4.4 – – – – – – – 0.1 – 1.3 0.4 3.8 10.9 – – – – – * 2004; ** 2006 Source: EUROSTAT and Country Reports 2009 Note: Due to rounding not always 100.0% Renewable Energy and its Impact on Agricultural and Rural Development 63 ANNEX Annex 3: The membership of NMS and CC/PCC in the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) as of October 2009 Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) as of September 2009 Lithuania 26.01.2009 05.04.1995 Latvia 26.01.2009 17.12.1994 Estonia 11.06.2009 17.12.1994 Poland 26.01.2009 17.12.1994 – 08.07.1995 Slovakia 26.06.2009 17.12.1994 Hungary – 27.02.1995 Slovenia 26.01.2009 17.12.1994 Malta 29.06.2009 17.12.1994 Cyprus 26.01.2009 17.12.1994 Bulgaria 26.01.2009 17.12.1994 Romania 26.01.2009 17.12.1994 – 17.12.1994 Macedonia 26.01.2009 26.03.1998 Turkey 26.01.2009 17.12.1994 Serbia 26.01.2009 accession pending Bosnia & Herzegovina 23.06.2009 14.06.1995 Montenegro 26.01.2009 – Kosovo – – Albania 11.06.2009 17.12.1994 NMS Czech Rep CC/PCC Croatia Source: www.irena.org (accessed 28 October 2009) www.encharter.org (accessed 28 October 2009) DISCUSSION PAPERS DES LEIBNIZ-INSTITUTS FÜR AGRARENTWICKLUNG IN MITTEL- UND OSTEUROPA (IAMO) DISCUSSION PAPERS OF THE LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE (IAMO) No 108 BRUISCH, K (2007): Entwicklungstendenzen landwirtschaftlicher Familienbetriebe in Russland seit 1990 No 109 HOCKMANN, H., PIENIADZ, A., GORAJ, L (2007): Modeling heterogeneity in production models: Empirical evidence from individual farming in Poland No 110 BROMLEY, D W (2007): Evolutionary institutional change for sustainable rural livelihoods in Central and Eastern Europe No 111 МАКАРЧУК, O., ХОКМАНН, Х., ЛИССИТСА, A (2007): Экономический анализ биоэнергетики, как источника доходов аграрных предприятий No 112 SCHNICKE, H., HAPPE, K., SAHRBACHER, C (2007): Structural change and farm labour adjustments in a dualistic farm structure: A simulation study for the Region Nitra in southwest Slovakia No 113 BUCHENRIEDER, G., MÖLLERS, J., HAPPE, K., DAVIDOVA, S., FREDRIKSSON, L., BAILEY, A., GORTON, M., KANCS, D'A., SWINNEN, J., VRANKEN, L., HUBBARD, C., WARD, N., JUVANČIČ, L., MILCZAREK, D., MISHEV, P (2007): Conceptual framework for analysing structural change in agriculture and rural livelihoods No 114 ЛЕВКОВИЧ, И., ХОКМАНН, Х (2007): Международная торговля и трансформационный процесс в агропродовольственном секторе Украины No 115 ČECHURA, L (2008): Investment, credit constraints and public policy in a neoclassical adjustment cost framework No 116 FRITZSCH, J (2008): Applying fuzzy theory concepts to the analysis of employment diversification of farm households: Methodological considerations No 117 PETRICK, M (2008): Landwirtschaft in Moldova No 118 SROKA, W., PIENIĄDZ, A (2008): Rolnictwo obszarów górskich Bawarii przykładem dla Karpat polskich? Studium porównawcze No 119 MEYER, W., MÖLLERS, J., BUCHENRIEDER, G: (2008): Does non-farm income diversification in northern Albania offer an escape from rural poverty? No 120 WEITZEL, E.-B., KESKIN, G., BROSIG, S (2008): Der türkische Tomatensektor – Regionale Gesichtspunkte und räumliche Marktintegration No 121 SALASAN, C., FRITZSCH, J (2008): The role of agriculture for overcoming rural poverty in Romania No 122 SROKA, W., HAPPE, K (2009): Vergleich der Berglandwirtschaft in Polen und Deutschland No 123 SROKA, W., HAPPE, K (2009): Förderung der Entwicklung des Ländlichen Raumes in Polen und Bayern No 124 MÖSER, N (2009): Untersuchung der Präferenzen russischer Fachbesucher für ausgewählte Messeleistungen No 125 PAVLIASHVILI, J (2009): Servicekooperativen – Ein Modell für die georgische Landwirtschaft? No 126 WANDEL, J (2009): Agroholdings and clusters in Kazakhstan’s agro-food sector No 127 ШАЙКИН, В В., ВАНДЕЛЬ, Ю (2009): Развитие учения о сельскохозяйственных рынках в России в ХVIII-ХХ веках No 128 WANDEL, J., ВАНДЕЛЬ, Ю (2010): The cluster-based development strategy in Kazakhstan’s agro-food sector: A critical assessment from an "Austrian" perspective No 129 MÖLLER, L., HENTER, S H., KELLERMANN, K., RÖDER, N., SAHRBACHER, C., ZIRNBAUER, M (2010): Impact of the introduction of decoupled payments on functioning of the German land market Country report of the EU tender: "Study on the functioning of land markets in those EU member states influenced by measures applied under the common agricultural policy" No 130 WOLZ, A., BUCHENRIEDER, G., MARKUS, R (2010): Renewable energy and its impact on agricultural and rural development: Findings of a comparative study in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe Die Discussion Papers sind erhältlich beim Leibniz-Institut für Agrarentwicklung in Mittelund Osteuropa (IAMO) oder im Internet unter http://www.iamo.de The Discussion Papers can be ordered from the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO) Use our download facility at http://www.iamo.de