1. National Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment/RIZA The role of economical analysis in the designation of waters Dutch examples Marjolein van Wijngaarden RIZA-WST

2. Rhine Dutch cases Haringvliet: closed off estuary Small brook ‘Hagmolenbeek’ Shallow peat lake ‘Loosdrecht’ Shallow lakes ‘Veluwerandmeren’

3. Overview characteristics

4. HMW designation in short yes Measures to reach GES: significant adverse effect on uses? (der. 4.3a) nono Morphologically changed? Aim is GES nono nono Artifical? No yes Identification as HMW (2004) Definition MEP and GEP nono Alternative for beneficial objectives? No disproportionate costs/ technically feasible/ better env. option? (der. 4.3b) yes

5. Test 1: Significant effect on uses? 1: The Haringvliet Measure: Destruction of present Dam Uses: Safety, fresh water supply, navigation

6. Test 2: Alternative options for beneficial objectives? Are total costs 1000 million € disproportionate and/or (socially) feasible?

7. Test 1: Significant effect on uses? 2: Hagmolenbeek Measure: Reclamation agricultural land for nature Uses: Agriculture, safety

8. Test 2: Alternative options for beneficial objectives? Are total costs 1.5 million € + 2.5 million € /y disproportionate and/or (socially) feasible?

9. Test 1: Significant effect on uses? 3: Shallow lakes Measure: Restore former hydrology and morphology

10. Test 2: Alternative options for beneficial objectives? Costs are uncertain; no costs studies are available

11. Summary derogation 4.3

12. Economics in HMW designation 1.HMW derogation tests 4.3.a and b: –Issues of significant & disproportionate –Technical feasibility versus social acceptability 2.Costs assessment measures MEP/GEP –In HMW procedure Measures MEP: no significant effects and no disproportionate costs? –Or in RBMP? Timing! 3.Alternative using derogations instead op HMW 4.5: time delay 4.6: lower aims