1. BRIDGE WP5 Socio-Economic Assessment of Groundwater Threshold Values
Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)
BRIDGE WP5 Socio-Economic Assessment of Groundwater Threshold Values €

2. WP5 team IVM-Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (coordinator)
Acteon Conseil, France
AETS, France
BRGM, France
SYKE, Finland
University of Aveiro, Portugal

3. Presentation outline Main objective WP5 Tasks and activities Outputs
Role WP5 in BRIDGE
WP5 methodology & key issues

4. Main objective WP5
Support the identification of economically efficient threshold values for groundwater pollutants based on socio-economic impact assessment procedures
Assessment of the costs and benefits of feasible measures to achieve groundwater threshold values and their distribution across different interest groups in society
Consistent with the requirements of the economic analysis in the WFD

5. Tasks and activities WP5
WP 5.1 Development of common methodological framework
WP 5.2 Practical application and testing of integrated
assessment procedures in 6 case studies
WP 5.3 Synthesis and policy recommendations

6. Relationships Synthesis and policy recommendations
Methodological framework
Case studies
WP3
WP4
WP6
WP1
WP2

7. Deliverables Deliverable Month D1 Methodology report: IVM
1 Framework report & steps case studies
2 Five detailed case study reports
3 Synthesis report main case study findings &
policy recommendations
D1 Methodology report: IVM
D2 Upper Rhine case study: BRGM
D3 Case study Finland: SYKE
D4 Case study Portugal: AETS-UA-IVM
D5 Scheldt case study: IVM
D6 Case study Latvia & Slovenia: Acteon
D7 Synthesis report: IVM-Acteon

8. Role WP5 in BRIDGE
Demonstrate role and relevance of economics in GW Directive
Economics not in the BRIDGE threshold methodology
Link threshold values & economic efficiency in cost & benefit terms
Economic criteria start playing a role after the environmental threshold values have been set:
Design of cost-effective programs of measures
Evaluation of disproportionate costs basis for time or objective
derogation/exemption
Extent/size of costs and benefits
Distribution of costs and benefits in time and space
Total economic value of groundwater resources

9. WP5 METHODOLOGY

10. Cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-benefit analysis
WP5 METHODOLOGY
Risk analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Cost-benefit analysis

11. WP 5.2. Pilot case studies Upper Rhine, France (BRGM)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) contamination from industry affecting drinking water and human health
Aveiro aquifer, Portugal (AETS-UA-IVM)
Cl, SO4 and NO3 contamination from industry affecting agriculture, drinking water and wildlife
Shallow groundwater around Riga, Latvia (Acteon)
Petroleum contamination from urban areas affecting surface waters
Scheldt basin, Netherlands (IVM)
Nitrate contamination from agriculture affecting surface waters
Lahti aquifer, Finland (SYKE)
Chloride contamination from road salting affecting drinking water
Krsko Kotlina aquifer, Slovenia (Acteon)
Nitrate and pesticide contamination from agriculture affecting drinking water

12. Steps in case studies
1) Problem definition (sources, pathway, effects pollution)
2) Definition environmental objective (groundwater threshold values)
3) Identification management actions/options
prevention
remediation/restoration
4) Assessment cost and effectiveness of management actions/options (cost-effectiveness analysis)
5) Assessment and economic valuation of market and non-market benefits of management actions/options (incl. public surveys)
6) Cost-Benefit Analysis
7) Assessment economic efficiency threshold values

13. Key issues Step 1: Problem definition (source-pathway-effect)
Often fundamental lack of knowledge surrounding the identification of diffuse and point sources of pollution
Link source-pathway-effect on receptor difficult to establish and quantify
Uncertainty!

14. Key issues Step 2: Identification objective (threshold value)
Start from existing threshold values (e.g. NO3 or Cl content drinking water quality)
Compliance regime? Share of monitoring stations meeting threshold value (e.g. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%)
Spatial distribution (threshold values) across aquifer
receptor
Pressure
Groundwater body
monitoring station

15. Key issues Step 3: Identification feasible management actions/options
Distinctive feature WP5 compared to other WPs in BRIDGE
Together with local experts, actors and stakeholders
Which actors/sectors to target given the uncertainties surrounding causal relationships (relative contributions)
& the difficulties quantifying the ‘gap’ to be ‘BRIDGEd’ to reach threshold values?

16. Key issues Step 4: Cost-effectiveness management actions/options
Focus on emission reduction at source
Assessment primarily based on expert judgment
Link source-pathway-effect on receptor difficult to establish and quantify Uncertainty!
Comprehensive groundwater models (source-pathway-effect) and link with surface water and terrestrial ecosystems missing

17. Key issues Step 5: Benefits assessment of threshold values
More than just market benefits (=avoided treatment or purification costs in industry)
Substantial non-market benefits: public value attached to pristine state/natural conditions
Groundwater valued for its own sake (existence value)
Need to translate threshold values to understandable public functions of groundwater resources

18. Key issues Step 6: Cost-Benefit Analysis Characteristic features:
Market and non-market benefits
Costs and benefits associated with different groundwater threshold values (=link threshold values and economic efficiency in terms of costs and benefits)
Spatial distribution of costs and benefits of different threshold values across aquifer/basin

19. Key issues Step 7: Economic efficiency threshold values
Disproportionate costs? Reconsider threshold values?
Subjective notion, lack of definition and/or ‘economic threshold value’
ESSENTIAL: researcher and policy maker confidence in estimated costs and benefits of threshold values
Combination of objective and subjective risk assessment
Value of additional information
WP5: user and taxpayer willingness and
ability to pay for different threshold values

20. Thank You For Your Attention!