Report WS 1 - CEA Joerg Rechenberg.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Coopération Européenne France - Bulgarie pour la Directive Cadre sur l’Eau Arnaud Courtecuisse Resident Twinning Adviser Twinning Project BG 07 IB EN 01.
Advertisements

Twinning Project BG O7 IB EN 01 Strengthening the administrative capacity of Water Management authorities in Bulgaria for the implementation of Economic.
Water.europa.eu Indepth assessment economic analysis progress report SCG meeting May 2008 Maria Brättemark, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
Water scarcity drafting group Salzburg, June Dicembre 2004Brussels, 11 April 2006 Water Scarcity Drafting Group WD meeting Salzburg June 1st and.
Water.europa.eu 8-c) Expert Group & River Basin Network AGRICULTURE Strategic Co-ordination Group Brussels, 11 November 2010 Nicolas Rouyer & Ville Keskisarja.
Component 5.2 Harald Marent, Veronika Koller-Kreimel, Austrian Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management Edith Hödl-Kreuzbauer,
Date/event: EEA EIONET Freshwater Workshop 27-28th Sept 2010, Copenhagen Author: Dr Manuel Lago (Ecologic Institute, Berlin) ETC/Water 2010 Overview of.
WFD revision – First contribution from the wastewater sector (EU2) EU2 – Milan meeting.
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF ECONOMICS IN THE WFD PROCESS? A selection of key economic inputs.
CIS SSG Climate Change and Water – 5 September Activities for first RBMP Information exchange on a climate check of the first Programme of Measures.
THE MANAGEMENT PLAN IN PRACTICE Case study. RBMP Detailed publication process in the directive...  art. 13: general rules  annex VII: detailed contents.
WFD Schemas Article 3 – RBDs and Competent Authorities Article 5 – Water Bodies, Protected Areas and Summary RBD information Article 8 – Monitoring Programmes.
Workshop on Disproportionate Costs, 10./ Copenhagen Summary and draft conclusions 11 April 2008.
Cost recovery study for the Seine Normandie RBMP.
Water.europa.eu Compliance Checking of River Basin Management Plans Strategic Coordination Group Meeting, 4-5 November 2009 DG Environment, European Commission.
Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes Developing a guidance on water and climate adaptation for the.
Technical Assistance for Conversion of River Basin Action Plans into River Basin Management Plans Economics in the contract INCEPTION WORKSHOP ISTANBUL.
Environmental policies in Europe
Michael Jacobsen, Project Director - Water 18 MaY 2017
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Environmental Objectives- Article 4.7
Indepth assessment economic analysis progress report SCG meeting May 2008 Maria Brättemark, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
Diffuse Sources of Water Pollution
New Work Programme and mandates 2005/2006
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
State of Implementation of CEA in Germany
MSFD PoMs workshop on CEA/CBA input to WG ESA
Questions for break-out sessions GROUP 2 messages Participants : state administrations in charge of MSFD and/or WFD, ESA and GES experts, shipping industry,
Environmental Objectives and Exemptions under the Water Framework Directive SCG meeting May 2008 Marieke van Nood, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European.
Workshop with the 8 PAF related Proposals & the Habitats Committee
WFD and Hydromorphology - 4/5 June 2007, Berlin, Germany -
Proposed CIS Workshop on WFD Economic Issues
CIS-Workshop on River Basin Management Plans
CIS work programme Ad-hoc activity on Economics
MSFD and cost-effectiveness: options for the WG ESA-work programme
SSG on WFD and agriculture
Antton Keto, Finland Working session December 21 of 2005
Breakout groups: reporting back
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
CIS-Workshop on River Basin Management Plans 8 and 9 May 2006 Bonn
The Water Directors recognised in 2004 that……..
Activity on environmental objectives and exemptions
River Basin Management Plans
Preparing a River Basin Management Plan WFD Characterisation Manager
Activity on WFD and agriculture
Management of Natura 2000 Sites
Natural water Retention Measures
Diffuse Sources of Water Pollution
Results of a Research Project by Ecologic and the University of Kassel
Agenda Item 10: Feedback on dangerous substances workshop and Implementation Guidance WG-E(1)-07/04/INERIS - Implementation guidance.
Ongoing work on CIS Guidance Article 4.7
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Session 2: Implementation experience - Art. 9
ECONOMICS IN THE WFD PROCESS
Towards a Work Programme for the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Water Directors Meeting 28 November.
Environmental objective document –
EP Pilot project Comparative study of pressures and measures
Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive and Inland Waterway Transport Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European Commission.
Preparation of the second RBMP in Romania
THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD)
European Commission activities
Agenda item 2.1 – Overall Progress Report
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
CIS – Workshop on WFD Economics: taking stock and looking ahead
Natural Water Retention Measures
Water Scarcity Drafting Group WD meeting Salzburg June 1st and 2nd of 2006 Leaders: Italy & France Pascal Berteaud France 1 Dicembre 2004 Brussels,
River Basin Management Plans
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Water Director's Meeting December 2013, Vilnius DG Environment
Assessment of Member States‘ 2nd River Basin Management Plans
Presentation transcript:

Report WS 1 - CEA Joerg Rechenberg

Who has already developed measures? Measures developed for sectoral problems,e.g. hydropower/agriculture Which parameters are included? Only P and N ? Extension is difficult, very complex calculations needed Point sources are easier to quantify than diffuse sources Testing is still going on Aim: Integration of different sectors IRB: Catalogues of relevant pressures/measures – Issue papers for measures (Danube)

Effectiveness of measures Regional effects are different, e.g. N-inputs are a problem of scale -> Real effectiveness depends on the concrete water body Some existing Catalogues are showing leaching from the fields on the basis of monitoring and field studies Effects of hydropower are documented in some studies – they quantify the effects of mitigation measures Models for some RB are existing or in preparation Catalogues for the evaluation of effectiveness have to be tailormade to the local problems Modelling the effects of measures is helpful to show the gaps

Costs of the measures (1) There exist some countrywide calculations of costs splitting the costs between point/diffuse sources (Direct) costs for point sources are easier to calculate It is economically reasonable to concentrate on measures on the agricultural sector, because usually measures (for N-and P-reduction) are cheaper Use of rural EU-programmes is necessary – shortenning the programmes is contraproductive How to dedicate these funds to WFD ?

Costs of the measures (2) Starting with rough figures and then get more concrete Costs are a means to prioritise measures Large variations in costs according to the scale (e.g. small/large rivers) Different sectors to be considered: households, industry, agriculture Who shall pay? Premature – political decision Principle polluter pays – but who pays, when many measures needed ?

Disproportionate costs Starting discussion on the local level – but bring at least rough figures on costs Hypothesis to the stakeholder, how much the water price would rise Scale (individuals, groups, national level) is relevant – social affordability (water price) Experiences existing – calculation of monetary benefits of measures is costly – find a simpler system – expert evaluation?

How to present the PoM/how to integrate it in the RBMP Core of the RBMP Details of the programme in the RBMP? Conflict with long existing water rights? Annex VII: What is a summary? Focus on the measures, not on the process which lead to the measures Some informations are useful for public information, but must not be incorporated into the management plan itself – Problem of scale - int. problems should be integrated into the int. plan; the rest can be dealt with on local level

For further CIS-Process Too late for EU input on measures Many gaps identified (e.g. effectiveness, economic effects of CEA and exemptions) – wish of EU-cooperation within the CIS 2009 not the end of the process– need to work together on the gaps - exchange of information, experiences, databases, methodologies,e.g. in workshops PoM: First step should be the establishing of the int. RBMP – look at the approaches of the RBMP later – evaluate the outcomes as an exchange within workshops We should have something on the table before futher discussions about the PoM