close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
Cost recovery study for the
Seine Normandie RBMP
What is "recovery of costs"?
The extent to which the costs associated to water uses are
borne by those who generate them
Why do we care about recovery of costs?
Asked by WFD 9th art.
To ensure that the « PPP » (Polluter Pays Principle) is - more or
less – applied.
To ensure that water services are managed in a sustainable way
(renewal…)
Helps thinking about how to finance the PoM
Link with water pricing (the hypothesis is that when costs are fully
recovered, the price is incitative and incitative tarification is
supposed to be an efficient tool to help reaching the WFD
objectives
It brings transparency on financial flows associated to water uses
and services.
2 questions to be answered
 To what point the users pay for the services they get ?
 Do the bill they pay cover the real costs ?
→ each water district must:
- assess costs for each service
- assess how much is paid by the users
- show the costs which are not paid by the users
The French approach to cost recovery
Asset for 4 kind of user : household, industry,
agriculture… and small economic activities
What do users pay for ?
 which water services
 water bills
 Services costs



Operation
Maintenance
CFC
Transfers
Environmental costs
Water activities, uses and services
 Costs recovery for services only
Which water services have we studied ?
Business
Households
Drinking water
abstraction ,
treatment and
distribution
Sewage collection
and wastewater
treatment
Not studied
Public services for
drinking water
Small economic
activities
(e.g. households)
Public services for
drinking water
Agriculture
Industry
Public services for
drinking water
Self-supply
Public services for
collective sewerage
Non-collective
sewerage
Public services for
collective sewerage
Public services for
collective sewerage
Self- sewerage
devices
Irrigation
Livestock watering
Sewerage for
livestosk (manure)
flood protection
navigation
Which costs have we estimated ?
• Financial costs : operating, maintenance, capital costs 
Yes
• Environmental costs  Partially
• Opportunity costs  No
Case study : CR for households on the SN basin
1) The water bill
Today in France, water bill=1% of income
household water bill : 2.912 billions €
drinking water
(production and distribution)
1034 millions €
Collective sanitation
(collection and treatment)
967 millions €
non-collective sewerage
247 millions €
Water Agency fees
519 millions €
Other taxes
(VNF, VAT)
145 millions €
Case study : CR for households on the SN basin
2) Services costs
A national study to complete the analysis for households
• Operating costs : 54% of the services spending
 1,16 billions € per year
• Consumption of fixed capital  1,27 billions € per year
Value
(millions €)
CFC
(millions
€/year)
Plants
780
2869 to 3656
96 to 183
Networks
138 400 km
21920
274 to 439
Reservoirs
2,436 billions m3
536 to 731
5 to 9
28051 to 30851
466 to 858
TOTAL
Drinking water depreciation: ~ 17% to 30% of total water bill
Case study : CR for households on the SN river
catchment
3) Transfers
• From tax payers towards users via public grants :
~ 5% of the water bill
• From users towards tax payers via V.A.T.
~ 5% of the water bill
• Between users via Water Agencies
Households are contributors (fees > subsidies) for
2% of the water bill
• Between users via land application of sewage
sludges ~ 0,2% of the water bill
Case study : CR for households on the SN river
catchment
3) Reporting
spreading of
sludge : 6.9 M€
Costs of providing water-related services
Households
Operating costs for water and
sanitation services : 1160
millions €
Renewal costs for water
infrastructure and sanitation :
1270 millions €
Fees :
519 M€
7.7
Water
Agency
Subsidies :
459 M€
Agriculture
Industry
10.9
32.5
Environment
Transfers between households and other users via agency system
VNF fee : 3.7 M€
Grants from general and
+ VAT: 141Mb€
regional councils to water and
+ Transfers between municipal
sanitation services : 130 M€
budgets (not estimated here )
State and
tax payers
Transferts entre ménages et contribuables
 Households pay 93% of the costs
Case study : CR for households on the SN river
catchment
4) Environmental costs
• Additional costs paid by household due to low
quality of groundwater
~ 7% of the water bill
• Additional costs due to households (and paid by
others)
~ 670 M€/y (actions to reduce point source
pollution in the PoM)
Cost-recovery in Seine-Normandy river
catchment in 2013
H.holds

Sm. ec. Act.
CR 93%
Contribute: 60 M€, 2 % of their invoice
Environmental costs paid : 197 M€, 2 % of their invoice
Environmental costs generated : 670 M€ / year
CR 93%
Contribute: 1,6 M€, 0,2 % of their invoice
Environmental costs generated : 160 M €/year, 25% of their
spending
Industry
Agriculture
CR 102%
Receive : 11,2 M€, 1 % of their invoice
Environmental costs generated : 95 (classical pollution only)
CR 102%
Receive : 8 M€, 20 % of their spendings (diffuse pollutions
not included !)
Environmental costs generated : 1,6 billions € / year
The WFD does not demand a full CR
WFD request: transparency on financial transfers (including
taxes), sustainability, incitativity (price as a tool)
Even if investments are nowaday highly subsidised, include
their depreciation in the price for future renewal & to incite
water economies if there are quantitative problems
Aiming a perfect cost recovery can lead to a price explosion
and to a fall in consumption that may unbalance water
services financially (fixed costs)
Social tarification may limit the effects on water price
Incitativity can also be found through subsidies systems,
specific taxes, other economic systems (funds…), through
regulation…
It can be necessary to degrade the level of cost recovery to
implement the WFD
Link between CR and affordability
• The good status non reaching risk was first assessed
• On this basis an « idealistic » programme of measures was built
(without taking into account ability to pay & social
acceptability)
• Its cost was assessed
• The costs concerning households (sanitation…) was used to
roughly assess a possible impact on water price
• Over a threshold definied locally the measures were considered
not affordable
• Then other economic analysis (cost benefit analysis…) were
done to justify the exemptions
Good status for 100% of water bodies?
Link between CR and affordability
Good status everywhere
~20 billion € 2010-2015
Too expensive, and
difficult to apply
Programme of measures
2/3 surface WB good status
1/3 groundwater good status
~10 billion € 2010-2015
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа