Programme of measures & cost-effectiveness

Objective : identify the best combination of measures allowing to meet the environmental objective at the least cost

Approach :

• assess the costs (direct, indirect) of each type of measure at the pertinent level and associate these costs to the efficiency of the measures

• development of indicators allowing to assess the impact of the measures on the economic sectors

Programme of measure & cost-benefit analysis

Objectif : justify the cost of the programme of measures regarding the benefits linked with the achievement of the environmental objective

Approach :

• quick assessment of the programme of measures with potential disproportionate costs

• assessment of benefits and avoided costs

Which measures to integrate in the cost-effectiveness analysis ?

• mainly supplementary measures but the cost of the basic measures need to be assessed as well as its indirect effects

2015

Good status

Basic measures

Basic measures

Basic measuresCurrent status

Supplementary measures1

23

Costs

Cost-effectiveness

Indirect

effects

Programme of measures - Progress Until 2006 work with the State sector only

Step 1 : identify the potential measures for the French district– Work made by the « Water Agency » this summer and organised

by 6 themes:Households, industry, costal waters, habitat, diffuse pollutions, groundwater

Step 2 : finish this first list , describe the measure in order to build a « catalogue of measures » for the district

To have a reference book To have reference of prices

To link measures and legislation

Catalogue items for each measure

• Basic or supplementary measure • Measure involved in baseline scenario : Yes/No• 6 kinds of measure : existing or new legislative instrument, financial

instruments, « management » measure, awareness actions, research and development project, agreement actions, « economic » measure

• Legislation references• Environmental oobjective among the 4 of the Directive• Scale of application : water body or the whole district• Costs : investment and running costs • Direct expected impact• Indirect expected impact• Effectiveness : evaluate from 1 to 3• Difficulty : evaluate from 0 to 3

Programme of measures - Progress

• Step 3 : the « territorial approach » – scale of the work : one or more watershed– scale of a measure : water body 1. Identify pressures on the territory and the links between

pressures and the status of the water bodies 2. Identify the basic measures : add the supposed responsible

and the supposed financial support 3. Evaluate their effects and the gap between the actual and

the target situation 4. Identify necessary complementary measures : add the

supposed responsible, the supposed financial support and the indirect avantages

the « territorial approach » : example of result1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

basic or complementary measure: C or B

kind of

measure

existing

measure

todya: Y/N

objective cout de la

mesure :

investisse

ment

cout de la

mesure :

fonctionne

ment

resultat attendu sur quel type de masse d'eau

resultat attendu: impact direct

resultat attendu: effet indirect

Mesures littoralestenir compte dans les projets de gestion du trait de cote, des programmes et démarches intégrées en cours (P LAGE,…) et privilégier les partenariats avec les organismes compétents et les équipes universitaires

C "management" No

prevent deteriorationand respect the protected areas

0"new

management"

0animation

CWFS5hydromorphology

biology

conditionner le financement des projets de gestion du trait de cote à leur cohérence avec les programmes et démarches intégrées en cours (P LAGE,…)

C financial No

prevent deteriorationand respect the protected areas

0

?Writing of

the specification / cahier des

charges

CWFS5hydromorphology

biology

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 other indirect benefits

effictiveness : 1 to 3

effictiveness before 2015 :

Yes/Non

difficulty :

0 to 3

deadline: before end of 2006, from 2007 to end of 2009, from 2010 to 2015

supposed

responsible

supposed

fiancial

support

Mesures littoralestenir compte dans les projets de gestion du trait de cote, des programmes et démarches intégrées en cours (P LAGE,…) et privilégier les partenariats avec les organismes compétents et les équipes universitaires

3 2 continuprivate

client, local authority,…

-

conditionner le financement des projets de gestion du trait de cote à leur cohérence avec les programmes et démarches intégrées en cours (P LAGE,…)

3 1 continu

Water Agency, Regional Authority,

State

Water Agency, Regional Authority,

State

the « territorial approach » : example of result

A measure can have direct and/or indirect effects

• qualitivative assessment

• monetary valuation when it’s possible/pertinent

How to measure the efficiency of the measures ?

• deal with uncertainty (studies, workshops)

• set priorities for the implementation of the measures

How to identify the most cost-effective set of measures ?

• a 3-steps approach

Etape 1 : identification of potential measures

Etape 2 : set 2 or 3 strategies

Mesure Maîtrise d’ouvrage

Coût Contribution à l’objectif

Incertitude Autres Domaines impactés

Importance de l’impact collatéral

Classement final

Mesure 1 2 M + paysage +++

Mesure 2 3 M +++ / 0

Etape 3 : set priorities and the implementation programme

mesures Faisabilité technique

Coût

En euro

Contribution à l’objectif

Autres Domaines impactés et importance de l’impact

Classement final

Renforcement de la déphosphatation

Ville centre

++++

2 M 30% / 1

Renforcement de la déphosphatation

Toutes villes de plus de 1000 hab

++++

4 M

20% / 4

Interdiction du P lessive Régl.

national / 15% / 1

Limitation des épandages de lisiers ; redéfinition des

plans d’épandage + 0.5 25% 3

Bandes enherbées ++ 0.5 15% Paysage ++ 2

A last illustration : building an indicator with water price and households’s available income

Water price survey

• tariffs for water and sewerage set at municipality level (2 448 for the Artois-Picardie basin)

• an annual survey is undertaken by the Artois-Picardie Water agency (i.e. collecting the price for water and sewerage for all municipalities for a mean consumption of 120m3 per year and per household)

• this survey covers (in 2004) 95% of the basin’s population

Water price survey

• one page questionnaire sent to municipalities, groups of municipalities, private operators every year

• a feedback to all 2 448 municipalities through 4 pages results (mean water price for the basin, for sub-basin,…)

• since 2004 survey, the data at municipality level can be found on the Artois-Picardie agency website

Mean

Pri

ce f

or

on

e m

3

Water Distribution

Sewerage

Environmental Taxes

Other taxes

VAT

The breakdown of the 3,28 euros

Mean available income per household

Aisne 23 499Nord 24 314Pas de Calais 23 194Somme 23 796

table 1 : Mean available income per household in all the sub-region of the Artois-Picardie Basin.Source : INSEE (National Statistics) + CEGMA TOPO

Assessment of household’s available income

Comparison Water bill vis à vis available income

Mean Water bill (all services) (price paid for 120m3 in a year)

Mean available income per household

 

Mean available income per

household (A)

Mean Water invoice per household

(120m3/year) (B) B/A

Aisne 23 499 455 1,94%

Nord 24 314 366 1,51%

Pas de Calais 23 194 428 1,85%

Somme 23 796 382 1,61%

Table 2 : comparison of the mean water invoice with mean available income per household

Water bill / mean available Income

Comparison at municipality level

More than 3%

Less than 1%

Water Bill / Mean Available Income

Results, limits and discussion

• several groups of municipalities with ratio>3% (2-3% is a guidance value – see OCDE, EU, Académie de l’eau)

• these groups of municipalities combine high water price and low mean available income (and sometimes household’s expenses to buy bottled water equivalent to annual water bill)

Results, limits and discussion

• the commonly used value of annual consumption of 120 m3 per household hides important differences of mean consumption per region

• mean available income per municipality hides also various situations (and the real part of the population facing major difficulties to pay water bills)

Results, limits and discussion

• what to do ? Continue ! Refine this ratio and continue to track it in the coming years

• pay a specific attention to the groups of municipalities where efforts to meet WFD objectives should lead to major increase in water price (extent solidarity principle, delay or less stringent objectives ?)

• it raises this issue of specific social tariffs (e.g. Flanders’ experience, blocks tariffs, development of water savings, renew confidence in tap water)

Environmental Objective

Cost

Cost-effectivness analysis

Cost-benefit analysis Don’t worry,

be happy !

…..and thanks for your attention !