Kein Folientitel

1
The Role of Economics in the Designation of
Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB)
Lille III 18 19 March 2002 From Economic
enigma to operational realityImplementing the
economic elements of the WFD
Wenke Hansen, Ecologic, Berlin
2
Contents

• HMWB in the implementation of the WFD
• Definition of HMWB in the Directive
• CIS Working Group on HMWB
• Designation of HMWB Economics
• Preliminary case study results
• Main Problems and Comments

3
HMWB in the implementation of the WFD

• River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) including
  the Programme of Measures to be established
  by 2009 (draft plans for consultation by
  2006)
• Designated HMWB needed for RBMPs
• HMWB need to be identified and designated in
  advance
• Economic assessments play a role in the
  designation process

4
Definition of HMWB in the Directive
Art. 2.9 defines a Heavily Modified Water Body
as A body of surface water which as a result of
physical alteration by human activity is
substantially changed in character, as designated
by the Member State in accordance with the
provisions in Annex 2.
5
CIS Working Group on HMWB

• WG established in spring 2000
• 12 Member States, plus Norway and EC (lead UK
  and D)
• Testing HMWB designation 32 case studies in 11
  countries
• Time table
• 3 WG Meetings in Brussels (April 00, October 00,
  Sept 01)
• Links to WATECO meetings in June 2001 and
  October 2001
• Workshop on 30 and 31 May 2002 in Berlin
• WG Meeting on 18 and 19 June 2002 in Brussels

6
Designation of HMWB Economics

• Very large number of water bodies will have to
  be assessed for possible designation
• Complexity of methods must proportionate to the
  circumstances
• Note Different levels of detail will be
  possible for the case studies How much detail
  is necessary (ranging from descriptive to full
  quantitative economic assessment)?

7
Designation of HMWB Economics

• Identification process (until 2004)
• Identification of water bodies, which are
  substantially changed in character as a result
  of physical alterations by human activity (no
  economics)
• Designation process (includes 2 steps) Article
  4(3)) (economics!)
• Step1 Is there a significant adverse effects
  upon uses or the wider
  environment (Article 4(3)(a))?
• Step2 Are there any better environmental
  options (technically feasible? disproportionate
  costs?) (Article 4(3)(b))?

8
Step1 Significant adverse effects 4(3)(a)

• Would changes to hydromorphological
  characteristics of that water body necessary to
  achieve good ecological status have significant
  adverse effects on the specified uses?
• Simple descriptive methods are appropriate where
  effects on uses are clearly significant /
  clearly not significant.
• Where quantitative assessment is required, 2
  approaches
• assessment of change in use and function
• economic effects (in Euro) of the change in use
• When quantitative methods used, relative values
  are preferred

9
Step1 Significant adverse effects 4(3)(a)

• Would changes to hydromorphological
  characteristics of that water body necessary to
  achieve good ecological status have significant
  adverse effects on the wider environment?
• Including upstream and downstream environmental
  impacts
• Important e.g. where physical alterations have
  resulted in creation of valuable habitat
  (other Directives might apply)
• Difficult to quantify or even monetarise ?
  qualitative assessment

10
Step2 Alternative options 4(3)(b)

• Are there any better environmental options
  (alternative options) for providing the
  specified use?
• Are these alternative options technically
  feasible?
• Are these alternative options disproportionately
  costly?

11

• Step2 Alternative options 4(3)(b)
• Are the better environmental options
  disproportionately costly?
• Involves the comparison of costs of existing
  activity relative to costs of alternative
  options.
• In some situations a descriptive (qualitative)
  approach sufficient.
• Quantitative Assessment Methods
• comparison of costs of alternatives
• comparison of overall costs and benefits of
  alternatives
• costs versus ability to pay

12
Designation of HMWB
13
Preliminary Case Studies Results

• 16 of 33 case studies finished the designation
  process
• 10 case studies economic assessment in step 2
  of designation test alternative options
  (Art. 4.3(b))
• Main reasons found for HMWB designation no
  better environmental option and
  disproportionate costs
• in 2 case studies water bodies were identified
  but not designated as HMWB, since
  alternatives were not disproportionate costly

14
Preliminary Case Studies Results

15
Main problems

• Evaluation of costs of the existing
  modification, especially in cases of mixed uses
• Prediction and evaluation of benefits gained
  from higher ecological status in monetary
  terms
• Consideration of relative or absolute
  values, is a negative net-benefit always
  disproportional?
• Criteria for decision about significant or
  disproportionate still unclear
• Time and resources necessary for economical
  analysis

16
Comments

• Not all case studies considered economics in the
  designation process (6 of 16 did not)
• In many case studies no clear distinction
  between necessary mitigation measures and
  alternative options is made
• Some studies considered the absolute costs of
  the mitigation measures itself as
  disproportionate (Step 1)
• Rare and incomplete use of methods for
  evaluating disproportionate costs

17
The Role of Economics in the Designation of
Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB)
Lille III 18 19 March 2002 From Economic
enigma to operational realityImplementing the
economic elements of the WFD
Wenke Hansen, Ecologic, Berlin