1. Building the Programme of measures : Role of the Cost-effectiveness method

2. 3 main goals for Economic evaluation in WFD 1)« make judgement about the most effective combination of measures » (article 5, an. III)  Avoid waste of money and avoid inconsistency 2)Ask for derogations when good status requires « disproportionate costs » (article 4)  Avoid committing to unaffordable efforts 3)Take into account the cost recovery principle and demonstrate that the programme of measures does not deteriorate present situation in that respect (art. 9)  Share knowledge about who pays for what, and do not finance the programme of measures through massive money transfers between users categories

3. Main objectives for economic assets during the PdM process 1- Assess economic feasibility of measures, cost-efficiency, and design potential alternative combinations 2- Provide arguments for derogations and heavily modified water bodies status conservation or restoration  Assist regional designing of programme of measures  Assist technical and policy-making debates

4. How was CEA used for the French PoM? The construction of the 6 French PoM was based on several CEA made at different scales and steps of the process Preliminary studies. the measures chosen to build the PoM were known to be the most efficient one (efficiency of river banks, catchment crops, treatment plants had already been tested by research or water agencies) Tests on pilot basins. It compared combinations of measures reaching the same goal, on the basis of their cost considering financing questions Different levels of ambition. For SN sub-basins, CBA and CEA were used at the same time to discuss different scenarios of different efficiencies and costs

5. Assess the cost-effectiveness of individual measures  direct / indirect costs and benefits  economic and non-economic impacts… Compare (sets of) measures targeting the same goal Combine the selected best measures to construct the programme of measures COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POTENTIAL MEASURES E.g. goal: improve the quality of water  M1- Restoration of wetlands  1ha treats 21,7kg BOD5/day  restoration/maintenance costs?  M2- Wastewater treatment plant  depollution cost of 1kg BOD5~0,45€  M3-...  Set 1- Improve water flow by reducing water demand, importing water...  Set 2- Restore wetlands, promote individual treatment systems…  benefits generated by wetlands vs. wastewater treatment plant: 9700€/ha  Set 3-... basic measure supplement. measure

6. Avoid waste of money and inconsistency Assess most effective combination of measures Means putting all possible measures for the basin into discussion:  What should be added to ongoing (baseline) works and efforts in order to reach good status? Appraisal of environmental effects based on risk assessment parameters and ranking  Are there various alternatives for reaching good status? Selection of measures and dimensioning  What is the least costly alternative? Cost-efficiency Analysis

7. Conclusion Key issues Constructing scenarios –combine technical and economic measures –select appropriate socio-economic & geographical targets Assessing effectiveness : –risk reduction –models Evaluating costs –financial & economic Uncertainties & scenario ranking –internal uncertainties (cost & effectiveness evaluation) –external uncertainties : changes in CAP policy, etc. Scale issue –link water body & river basin analyses

8. Directives existantes Travaux prévus Évolutions Évaluation du risque Scénario tendanciel Liste des mesures en cours Pressions responsables du risque Données sur les coûts actuels Écarts à réduire Priorités et questions importantes Mesures nécessaires

9. Variante 1 Ex. épuration décentralisée et autonome Variante 2 Ex. épuration centralisée /STEP Variante 3 Ex. option restauration du milieu et autoépuration Coût total Estimation de l’efficacité : capacité à atteindre le bon état Sélection de la variante atteignant le Bon état au moindre coût A.C.E

10. Pesticides and groundwater Ranking scenarios at the sub basin scale 0 PesticidesEfficiencyGoal Role in meeting objective Realism / Enforcement Everywhere++++Good statussufficientlow Water catchments and vulnerable areas +++Good status + securized drinking water decisive Risky water catchments ++securized drinking water + less treatments useful Vulnerable areas of risky watercatchments +Securized drinking water usefulhigh The different combinations don’t have the same side effects.

11. CEA and efficiency Different levels of ambition (uncertainty => high level of guarantee) No input areas Catch crops Land acquistion « integrated agriculture » Awaresness campaign & material efficiency lowGood status

12. Example : a comparison of différent costs M €/an

13. The difficulties met to use CEA good status criteria are’nt easily linked with measures  risk assessment a huge uncertainty on the efficiency certain measures (above all for agriculture & hydromorphology) can't be easily modeled what about benefits ?  qualitative ranking measures have several effects on different pressions at the same time  multi-criteria analyses