Cost Effectiveness Analysis Questionnaire Results 21-12-2005 Sharing experiences, identifying practical options and gaps in order to implement cost effectiveness analysis Cost Effectiveness Analysis Questionnaire Results 21-12-2005

The questionnaire The aim of the questionnaire was to collect information on a topic of common interest relating to the implementation of the WFD. In consultation with the EC and the lead on WG2B, we decided to focus on CEA. We received 28 responses: 25 MS (2 for Belgium) and 2 EFTA State (Iceland and Norway)

Half of all MS have “developed” a methodology Number of responses =28

Have not yet developed (14) Distribution of MS Have developed (14) Belgium (F), Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, UK Have not yet developed (14) Austria, Belgium (W), Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Slovak Rep, Slovenia, Spain Number of Responses: 28

Testing is at a very early stage across Europe Out of 14 MS, 11 are currently in the process of testing their methodology 1 MS has completed the testing. 1 MS has translated the methodology into guidance No MS has agreed its methodology with stakeholders

75% of MS have not yet decided who will implement the CEA Number of responses: 28

The main problem MS face when developing a CEA methodology is lack of expertise. Number of responses: 28

Work on CEA won’t be completed for the first RBMP Number of responses: 21

87% are expecting to substantially refine their methodology after the 1st RBMP Number of responses: 24

Most MS are concerned that actions taken in the 1st plan may subsequently be found to be ineffective, not CE or DC Number of responses: 21

50% of MS are considering ways of dealing with possible difficulties in the first plan period YES (14) Belgium (F), Belgium (W), Czech, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary,Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Rep, Slovenia, Spain, UK NO (5) Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Netherlands, Latvia No response (9) Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden Number of responses: 28

Further assistance that MS would find useful Number of responses: 16

Topics of common interest “Management of uncertainties; Thesaurus of measures; Research programmes on the impact of measures” Tthe assessment and ranking of cost-effectiveness of the POMs” “Definitions (e.g. measures vs instruments, costs), necessary for CEA at international river basin scale “Dose-response relationship between pressures and ecological effects” “Methodology for treating uncertainty in CEA, for e.g. about environmental status, as well as cost and effectiveness of measures” “Sharing of information about the possible impacts and costs of legislative instruments […]”

Thank you for your attention And for filling in the Questionnaire