CASE STUDY: A SPECIFIC CASE OF NON-ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE The designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) Inspired from the Haringvliet case (NL) Elements picked from "Heavily modified waters in Europe - Case study on Haringvliet estuary", RIZA 2002

Need for an economic analysis WHAT ARE HMWB? A formal definition in the directive art. 2 #9 art. 4.3 Three conditions to be filled simultaneously physical alterations by human activity make it impossible to achieve the good ecological status and changes needed to achieve the goal would have significant adverse effects on the uses / the wider environment and other environmental options to serve the same objectives are technically unfeasible and/or disproportionately costly Need for an economic analysis

FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1 Significant adverse effect Natural water body yes no Heavily Modified Water Body Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Step 2 Comparison with alternatives Natural water body no yes

HMWB IN PRACTICE RBD: phliuliv Source: Ministry of the environment, Québec, Canada

DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIAL SITUATION MAIN PRESSURES AND USES dam designed for flood protection - sluices ensure a minimum flow (1500m3/s) fresh water stored and used for the production of drinking water and for irrigation navigation Source: RIZA Poor ecological status MAIN PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS disruption of river continuum and of sediments transport sediments mean suspended concentration: 10-20mg/l (vs. 50-100 before dam) settlement of contaminated sediments from fluvial origins damage to fauna & flora channelisation maintenance dredging bank reinforcement

FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1 Significant adverse effect Natural water body yes no Heavily Modified Water Body Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Step 2 Comparison with alternatives Natural water body no yes

WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO ACHIEVE GES? 4 simultaneous conditions to achieve GES the restoration of the estuarine salinity gradient the restoration of the tidal fluctuation the restoration of the characteristic estuarine morphological processes the remediation of contaminated sediments Set of measures A remove the dam dikes at the same level remove bank reinforcement dredging of sediments How may this be done? Set of measures B adjust the design of the dam

WHAT WOULD BE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE NECESSARY MEASURES ? Agricultural water supply Fisheries Recreation Fishery industry - 10 companies - 0,7M€ annual turnover Would the adverse effets be significant ?

WHAT WOULD BE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE NECESSARY MEASURES ? WATECO Guidance provides a useful template to assess the significance of adverse effects

WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT UPON THE WIDER ENVIRONMENT? Change in the sediments behaviour Major impact "spreading" of sediments when dredging different hydromorphological pattern once sediments are removed disposal of the sediments Nature of the impacts

CONCLUSION OF STEP 1 Sets of measures A and B  might ensure GES  BUT would have too significant impact on existing uses and on the wider environment Switch to step 2 in order to consider alternatives to existing modifications  that would ensure GES  AND that would properly serve the same beneficial objectives as the existing dam does: flood protection, agricultural and public water supply, etc.

FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1 Significant adverse effect Natural water body yes no Heavily Modified Water Body Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Step 2 Comparison with alternatives Natural water body no yes

WHAT ARE THE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES SERVING THE SAME BENEFICIAL OBJECTIVES?

WHAT ARE THE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS SERVING THE SAME BENEFICIAL OBJECTIVES? WATECO Guidance provides a useful template to compare existing modifications with alternatives

ARE ALTERNATIVES TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE? Direct designation as HMWB may be considered Alternative n°1 Technical feasibility by 2015 seems questionable: removal of the dam, major changes on the dikes Carry on the designation process Alternative n°2 Technical feasibility seems realistic by 2015: adjustment of the dam

FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1 Significant adverse effect Natural water body yes no Heavily Modified Water Body Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Step 2 Comparison with alternatives Natural water body no yes

IS ALTERNATIVE N°2 A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL OPTION? What are the main environmental benefits? partial restoration of the characteristic estuarine morphological processes remediation of contaminated sediments Open to discussion with stakeholders Significantly better option?

FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1 Significant adverse effect Natural water body yes no Heavily Modified Water Body Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Step 2 Comparison with alternatives Natural water body no yes

IDENTIFICATION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED TO ALTERNATIVE N°2 Economic costs Environmental benefits

ESTIMATION OF THE COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE N°2 Can it be judged disproportionate? Only one aspect of overall benefits

DISCUSSION Disproportion of costs is to be considered with regards to: scale for funding: local, regional, national...? ability to pay and income at funding scale funding sources: price of water, taxes, subsidies, combination of several sources...? etc. duration of the planned period of payment, etc. Disproportion is a case by case issue: depends from time to time depends from place to place... Integration between economists and other experts is necessary Open participation process is needed, involving all stakeholders