1. 1 WFD Article 5 Report Process & Results Beyond characterisation Yann Laurans Seine-Normandy Water Agency, France

2. 2 Three outputs of Art. 5 1. Analysis of uses 3. Baseline scenario 2. Cost-recovery assessment

3. 3 1. Characterisation of uses Aim: Signals on main stakes / potential consequences of decisions E.g.: Financial flows compared to capital; Richness and affordability /territorial distribution

4. 4 Illustration (1) (M€)

5. 5 Illustration (2)

6. 6 1. What use for Prog of Measures ? Better knowledge of water uses  taken in significant issues Geographical (GIS) database on water uses  80 % of needed data for Hmodified argumentation, cost- benefit & cost-effectiveness

7. 7 Cost recovery Questions to answer (discussed with stakeholders) : Public transfers External effects Proportion of environmental costs to services payment

8. 8 Subsidies from taxpayers Drinking water 1000M€ Sewage and Sanitation 890M€ Redevances & taxes 470M€ VAT 120M€ Local or national Taxpayer Water & Sanitation Services Households 105 M€ Navigation 2,5M€ Rural Fund 17,5M€ Water Agency 450M€ 10M€

9. 9 Transferts between Users Contribute: 63M €, 2 % of total invoice Contribute: 13M€, 2 % of total invoice Receive: 59M€, 5 % of total invoice Receive: 20 M€, 29 % total short term invoice; 17 % of long term invoice incl. Cap costs  H.holdsSm. ind.IndustryAgriculture

10. 10 Who pays for who ? Pollution external costs  H.holdsSmall ind.IndustryAgriculture Additional costs due to water treatment : 90M€ Additional treatment costs: 30M€ Additional treatment costs: 35M€ (self expense and connected industry) Additional treatment costs: 0 Approx. share of user in the pollution 28% 7% 25% 40%

11. 11 What beyond initial C-recovery evaluation? Who will bear the cost of the PoM? Will that change the cost-recovery ratio?

12. 12 Total costs per user category, sub-basin Orne, (Baseline scenario) Supplementary measures Consumer (wash. Powder)) Municipalities Industry Agriculture Distribution of costs Here: cost dedicated to implementation sector (different from payer) 40 M€/year 20 Basic Measures

13. 13 5. Baseline scenario Questions to answer: Likely effects of current changes & policies on risks Sensitive and insensitive variables = what is to be watched closely?

14. 14 Pressures evolution in surface “classical” discharge : phosphorus Treatment Charge: 0,2 Depoll.: 0,1 +13 % 1,01,532 -48 % Epuration collective Charge: 36 Depollution: 28 Pre-treat. Ch.: 6,4 Dép.: 1,7 +11 %-65 % 18 Epurat. Industrielle Charge: 12 Depollution: 11 -89 % Rain water Municipalities 15,9 M inhabitants Industries Spreading 0,4 111 Indiv. Sew. Charge 4,3 Depoll. 4,3 -85 % Cattle 4,3 M animals Individual sewerage 2,2 M inhabitants Infiltration env. 0 0,82,20,17,60,700,1 4,3 -100 % Spreading 111 Infiltration 0,1 Separative Unitarycompliant 0,1 NonComp. Rehab. Manure mngmt. Sys. Charge 2 Depoll. 2

15. 15 3. Where are we now?  Starting from an existing “chain” of models

16. 16 Last decade of July Hydrological reference: low rainfall (« dry » year) Situation 2000Situation after works St-Dizier Blaise --Réservoir VitryChalonsEpernay Ourcq St-Thibault Noisy- SIAAP Before Works After Works Upstream Paris Quality simulation (Phosphorus) (2)

17. 17 (Years) Urban water investments considered in Baseline Scenario:time needed to implement Number of needed years for implementing baseline scenario investments, based on present annual investment level, from 2000 on Sewage networks Waste water treatment plants

18. 18 1. What use for Prog of Measures ? Database on current “works”: planned investments, costs ≈ basic measures evaluation, and their effectiveness assessment (this being limited however)

19. 19 Conclusion Article 5 looks like a “technocratic” exercise However it is building tools that are essential for further programming of measures

20. 20 Muchas gracias por su atención laurans.yann@aesn.fr www.eau-seine-normandie.fr