1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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 before dam)
settlement of contaminated sediments from fluvial origins
damage to fauna & flora
channelisation
maintenance dredging
bank reinforcement

6. 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

7. 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

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

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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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?

18. 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

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

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

21. 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