Disproportionate costs in practice: case study of the Alsace aquifer Thierry Davy Representative of the French water agencies to the EU Inspired from

The context of the case study This is a french case study This study was used by the Commission in 2003 in the frame of the WEST project (training tools of the wateco guidance) developed for a free use by MS and stakeholders The methodology used is the one prone by the Wateco guidance The Wateco guidance has been endorsed by the Commission and the water directors in June 2002 These products were on CIRCA, now on www.oieau.fr

DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS IN PRACTICE AT RIVER BASIN SCALE RBD: phliuliv Source: Ministry of the environment, Québec, Canada 3/10

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITUATION polluted zone salt tips limit of the aquifer Description of the site aquifer intensely polluted by mining activity: huge waste deposits of salt measures already implemented: geo-membrane on some dumps, artificial dissolution of waste with high concentration of salt ... Aquifer Source: BRGM & Agence de l'eau Rhin-Meuse 10-15% of the salt withdrawn every year Prospective model shows that the impact of the measures is not sufficient to reach the goal by 2015 (after 2027) supplementary measures are needed salt <250mg/l in all the aquifer 4/10

SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS in 2015 Ineffective Maybe further investigated if necessary 5/10

CBA IDENTIFICATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS Types of costs Types of benefits TD OD 6/10

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS A7/10 Estimated potential benefits equal costs

CROSSING CBA AND ABILITY TO PAY AT LOCAL LEVEL 34 000 households directly concerned by the aquifer To compare with estimates of the ability to pay on the basis of an increase of the water bill : 36€/year/household 817 interviews - Contingent valuation Not disproportionate Goal reached in 2015 but with some uncertainity A8/10

TARGET: reach the goal in 2015 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS TARGET: reach the goal in 2015 B9/12

ARE THE COSTS DISPROPORTIONATE in 2015? 34 000 households concerned by the aquifer (virtual example) To compare with of the ability to pay (social impact): 36€/year/household DISPROPORTIONATE  goal can't be reached in 2015  consider time derogation… B10/12

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Simulation for 2021 B11/12

ARE THE COSTS DISPROPORTIONATE IN 2021? 34 000 households directly concerned by the aquifer (virtual example) To compare with the ability to pay (social impact): 36€/year/household NOT DISPROPORTIONATE ANYMORE  measure 2 with time derogation allows to reach the goal in 2021 but the benefits are lower because they are postponed B12/12

TARGET  reach the goal in 2027 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS TARGET  reach the goal in 2027 C9/12

ARE THE COSTS DISPROPORTIONATE in 2027 ? 34 000 households directly concerned by the aquifer (virtual example) To compare with the ability to pay (social impact): 36€/year/household DISPROPORTIONATE  goal can't be reached in 2015  In 2027 the costs are not far from being acceptable C10/12

Some lessons from this example on measures 1 Simulations 2021-2027 And after Type 1 measures are not costly They are not efficient to reach the good ecological status The benefits are quite zero for the current users (household and farmers) The benefits will not increase in the future: no improvement of the row water quality These measures 1 could have been eliminated on the basis of the cost efficiency analysis: no need of CBA to see that they are not appropriate C11/12

CBA some lessons from this example on measures 2 Simulations 2021-2027 And after The CBA of measures 2 is balanced in 2015 The ability to pay shows that users can afford to pay for them even in 2015 If we postpone measures 2, CBA becomes negative in 2021 due to the decrease of benefits (costs of non action) The ability to pay shows that it is still possible to pay for them in 2021 There is still some uncertainity to evaluate if measures 2 allow to reach GES at whatever date

CBA some lessons from this example on measures 3 Measures 3 have a negative CBA at each date The efficiency of the measures 3 is proved to achieve the good status The ability to pay shows that even in 2027 the affordabilty is low Crossing CBA with ability to pay allows to see that around 2030 we will be able to reach good status with an acceptable « social impact » for local actors

Some overall conclusions Measures 1 are inefficient Measures 2 are just balanced from a CBA point of view, they are affordable even in 2015, their efficiency to reach good status is uncertain Measures 3 have a negative CBA, nevertheless they are efficient to solve the problem of pollution, they are very expensive and still « unaffordable » in 2027. Nevertheless ability to pay analysis shows that in 2030 we will be able to reach GES and to pay for it.

Thanks for your attention