close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
Building the Programme of
measures :
Role of the Cost-effectiveness
method
3 main goals
for Economic evaluation in WFD
1) « make judgement about the most effective combination
of
measures
»
(article
5,
an.
III)
 Avoid waste of money and avoid inconsistency
2) Ask for derogations when good status requires
«
disproportionate
costs
»
(article
4)
 Avoid committing to unaffordable efforts
3) Take into account the cost recovery principle and
demonstrate that the programme of measures does not
deteriorate present situation in that respect (art. 9)
 Share knowledge about who pays for what, and do
not finance the programme of measures through
massive money transfers between users categories
Main objectives for economic assets during
the PdM process
1- Assess economic feasibility of measures, cost-efficiency, and
design potential alternative combinations
2- Provide arguments for derogations and heavily modified water
bodies status conservation or restoration
 Assist regional designing of programme of measures
 Assist technical and policy-making debates
How was CEA used for the French
PoM?
The construction of the 6 French PoM was based on several
CEA made at different scales and steps of the process
 Preliminary studies. the measures chosen to build the PoM
were known to be the most efficient one (efficiency of river
banks, catchment crops, treatment plants had already been
tested
by
research
or
water
agencies)
 Tests on pilot basins. It compared combinations of
measures reaching the same goal, on the basis of their cost
considering financing questions
 Different levels of ambition. For SN sub-basins, CBA and
CEA were used at the same time to discuss different
scenarios of different efficiencies and costs
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POTENTIAL MEASURES
E.g. goal:
improve the quality of water
Assess the cost-effectiveness of
individual measures
 direct / indirect costs and
benefits
 economic and non-economic
impacts…
M1- Restoration of wetlands
 1ha treats 21,7kg BOD5/day
 restoration/maintenance costs?
M2- Wastewater treatment plant
 depollution cost of 1kg BOD5~0,45€
M3-...
Set 1- Improve water flow by reducing water
Compare (sets of) measures
targeting the same goal
Combine the selected best
measures to construct the
programme of measures
demand, importing water...
Set 2- Restore wetlands, promote individual
treatment systems…
 benefits generated by wetlands vs.
wastewater treatment plant: 9700€/ha
Set 3- ...
supplement.
measure
supplement. supplement. supplement.
measure
measure
measure
basic
basic
basic
basic
measure
measure
measure
measure
Avoid waste of money and inconsistency
Assess most effective combination of measures
Means putting all possible measures for the basin into discussion:
 What should be added to ongoing (baseline) works and efforts
in order to reach good status?
Appraisal of environmental effects based on risk assessment
parameters and ranking
 Are there various alternatives for reaching good status?
Selection of measures and dimensioning
 What is the least costly alternative?
Cost-efficiency Analysis
Conclusion
Key issues
• Constructing scenarios
– combine technical and economic measures
– select appropriate socio-economic & geographical targets
• Assessing effectiveness :
– risk reduction
– models
• Evaluating costs
– financial & economic
• Uncertainties & scenario ranking
– internal uncertainties (cost & effectiveness evaluation)
– external uncertainties : changes in CAP policy, etc.
• Scale issue
– link water body & river basin analyses
Scénario tendanciel
Directives
existantes
Travaux
prévus
Liste des
mesures en
cours
Pressions
responsables du
risque
Données sur les
coûts actuels
Évolutions
Écarts à réduire
Mesures
nécessaires
Priorités et
questions
importantes
Évaluation
du risque
Mesures
nécessaires
Variante 1
Ex. épuration
décentralisée et
autonome
Coût total
Coût total
Estimation de
l’efficacité :
capacité à
atteindre le
bon état
A.C.E
Variante 2
Ex. épuration centralisée
/STEP
Variante 3
Ex. option restauration
du milieu et
autoépuration
Coût total
Estimation de
l’efficacité :
capacité à
atteindre le
bon état
A.C.E
Estimation de
l’efficacité :
capacité à
atteindre le
bon état
A.C.E
Sélection de la variante atteignant le Bon état au moindre coût
Pesticides and groundwater
Ranking scenarios at the sub basin scale
0 Pesticides
Efficiency
Goal
Role in
Realism /
meeting
Enforcement
objective
Everywhere
++++
Good status
sufficient low
Water
catchments and
vulnerable areas
+++
Good status +
securized drinking
water
decisive
Risky water
catchments
++
securized drinking
useful
water + less treatments
Vulnerable areas
of risky
watercatchments
+
Securized drinking
water
useful
high
The different combinations don’t have the same side effects.
CEA and efficiency
Different levels of ambition
(uncertainty => high level of guarantee)
300
A nim atio nAwaresness
(b io , inté g ré ) e t
m is e à d is
p o s itio n d&e m até rie l
campaign
alte rnatif material
250
A g ric ulture« inté
g ré e
integrated
agriculture »
M o n tan t (M €/an )
200
Z o ne s ans
Nointrants
input areas
150
C o uve rtureCatch
d e s scrops
o ls e n hive r
100
50
A c q uis itioLand
n f o nc
iè re
acquistion
0
efficiency low
R E S TR E IN T
P R IO R IS E
RE NFO RCE
RE FE RE NCE
Good status
Example : a comparison of différent
costs
M €/an
2500
2000
solde à payer
1500
autres aides
publiques
1000
aides agence
500
0
Coût du Coût du aides
total
PdM bon état PAC 1er aides
agricole agricole pilier
2ème
pilier
The difficulties met to use CEA
good status criteria are’nt easily linked with measures
 risk assessment
a huge uncertainty on the efficiency
certain measures (above all for agriculture &
hydromorphology) can't be easily modeled
what about benefits ?
 qualitative ranking
measures have several effects on different pressions at
the same time  multi-criteria analyses
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа