1. The WFD requirement for cost-effectiveness of measures - proceeding and findings from a case study in Lower Saxony -
Dr. Ann Kathrin Buchs
Ministry for the Environment and Climate Protection – Lower Saxony
Liège

2. Theory meets practical water management experiences
Basical theoretical questions:
What is required and how can it be classified within the methodological context?
Which costs are referred to?
How can economics support the achievement of the Directive‘s objectives?
Which methods do exist to fulfil the requirement?
Underlying concept: cost-benefit-analysis
A range of methods for valuation:
Cost-efficiency-analysis, value-benefit-analysis, cost-benefit-analysis, cost comparison method
Water management in practice, focus on surface waters:
By 2008 there were already more than 2000 potential measures identified, a first expert based selection led to a prioritization of about 700 measures that present the programmatic approach up to 2015.
What kind of verification for cost-effectiveness/cost-efficiency do we want to follow?
Case by case approach?
Approach for overall social cost-benefit?
Others?
 And which approach will be the best in terms of practicability and efficiency?
KWA:
NWA
KNA:
KVR: kein Einbezug der Nutzengrößen, reine Kostenbetrachtung

3. Methodological basis for two approaches to ensure cost-effectiveness
Structure of the study:
Identification and analysis of existing institutions (structures and procedures) that lead to selection and prioritization of measures:
In order to seek further mechanisms that ensure the efficient achievement of the Directive‘s objectives
To assure the use of existing institutions and identification of potentials for optimization
Use of organisational efficiency as a meta criterion
Performance of conventional cost-effectiveness-analysis in line with the guidance documents and economic literature
 Selection of two measures (for surface waters)
 Performance of conventional cost-effectiveness-analysis for single measures following national guidelines (LAWA and UBA) and WATECO (WFD CIS Guidance Document No.1)

4. institutionalized expert knowledge and consultation
New approach: Take a look at existing institutions (structures and procedures)
Identification of potential measures via stakeholders
institutionalized expert knowledge and consultation
Discussion within the regional cooperations
Prioritization of measures and coordination of measures within comprehensive RBM by administrative institutions
Feedback
feedback
Iterative process
1st level
2nd level
3rd level

5. The three levels and possibilities of the verification of cost-effectiveness
Identification of measures/
Single measures
Regional cooperations
Administrative instituions
Reference to measures
Problem analysis and compilation of potential measures
Coordination and first selection of measures
Statewide selection and prioritization of measures
Potential mechanisms to ensure and support cost effectiveness
On-site and expert knowledge, feasibility studies, cost estimations
On-site and expert knowledge
Expert knowledge, prioritization schemes and guidance documents
Methodological approach for investigation
Cost-effectiveness-analysis
Descriptive evaluation of institutions and expert interviews

6. Case study Dinkelwehr (measure for passability)
Conventional cost-effectiveness-approach: comparison of 4 alternative measures with the aim of the re-establishment of passability in the river Dinkel
measure
Passability fishfauna
passability benthos
Appealing design
Possibility for canoe passing
Time frame
average (business). cost [€]
Economic costs
I: „Störsteinbauweise“ - + o
Short term
No cost estimation
Marginal
II: „Riegelbauweise“
III: pool type fishway ~
IV: bypass channel ~

7. Conclusions from the case study
In Lower Saxony the identification of measures varies between water body types (ground and surface waters). The study shows:
Measures for ground water bodies have been identified and selected through other institutions and mechanisms than those for surface waters.
Explicit cost-benefit-analysis for single measures shows that the existing institutions provide mechanisms that assure an efficient outcome (cost-effective measures).
 But there is no golden standard: cost-effectiveness of measures can not be identified with standardized criteria within the different categories of waters.
Concerning methodology:
„conventional“ cost-effectiveness-analysis can only be performed for single measures, precondition is the existence of comparable measures that follow the same intention (e.g. passability).
But a case by case analysis of all single measures is not a practical solution!
There is still a lot of development potential for the theoretical basis for the verification of cost-effectiveness for structures and procedures.
Finding:
Cost-effectiveness is neither the only nor the ultimate criterion for the selection or prioritization of a measure.
Methods for the analysis always have to be customized in terms of parameters, so there is no golden standard either.
Solution:
Further Discussion and research on the topic is necessary
 we suggest an intensified exchange of experience with the practical application of methods, no more theoretical guidelines.
Potentials for optimization have been identified in Lower Saxony and we are working on further solutions within existing institutions.

8. Identification of exemplary mechanisms within existing structures and procedures
Set of instruments for categorized situations, expert knowledge on all aspects of water management (from the federal states and LAWA),
case studies including economic assessments
Identification of potential measures via stakeholders
institutionalized expert knowledge and consultation
Cooperation within the regional cooperations
Prioritization of measures and coordination of measures within comprehensive RBM by administrative divisions
Feedback
feedback
Expert and on-site knowledge, feasability studies
Merged on-site expert knowledge, use of cost-benefit-analysis, use of guidelines and regional prioritization schemes
Budget code, impact assessment, prioritization schemes