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

2. 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

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

4. 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10-15% of the salt withdrawn every year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

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

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

7. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
A7/10
Estimated potential benefits equal costs

8. CROSSING CBA AND ABILITY TO PAY AT LOCAL LEVEL
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

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

10. ARE THE COSTS DISPROPORTIONATE in 2015?
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

11. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Simulation for 2021
B11/12

12. ARE THE COSTS DISPROPORTIONATE IN 2021?
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

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

14. ARE THE COSTS DISPROPORTIONATE in 2027 ?
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

15. Some lessons from this example on measures 1
Simulations
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

16. CBA some lessons from this example on measures 2
Simulations
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

17. 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

18. 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 Nevertheless ability to pay analysis shows that in 2030 we will be able to reach GES and to pay for it.

19. Thanks for your attention