ew2_wk1_d1-1
Post on 30-Mar-2016
216 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Applying the European Water Framework Directive (2000) and addressing water allocation issues with economic tools in the Guadalquivir (South Spain)
Miguel Llamazares
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan – Ministry of Water and Irrigation
Agence Française de
Développement –
French Agency
for Development
Marseille Center
for Mediterranean IntegrationEnvironment and
Development of the
Mediterranean
RECENT EVOLUTION AND
BACKGROUND
1
Background
• Guadalquivir river:
– South Spain
– Mediterranean climate
– 25% Spanish irrigated area
– Competitive agriculture (olive,
citrus, field crops)
– Average rain 580 mm
– Average irrigation dose: 3800 m3/ha
• Historically irrigated since roman
colonization, strong Al-Andalus
influence
• 1985 Water Law
• 1998 Hydrological Plan
• 2000 WFD
• 2005 No new irrigated area
allowed
• 2005-2008 Moderate draught,
water markets
• 2011 Draft Hydrological Plan
presented
• 2015 PoM implemented
Irrigation area increase
4
Reduction in average dose (m3/ha)
Gross water use Abril/Oct. (2011, own estimation).
6.091
-31%
Date Area (ha) Increase (ha) m3/ha Increase m3/ha Use (hm3) Increase hm3
1992 (PHC) 443.024 -- 6.485 -- 2.874 --
2004 (ETI) 801.157 81% 4.350 -33% 3.485 21%
2008 (P.H) 845.000 92% 3.720 -43% 3.162 10%
Summary: hetereogeneity
6
Closed basins
Water saving as
an endogenous
response to
scarcity
Endogenous
Cost increase
IMPACT OF INCREASED WATER
COST AND SCARCITY
2
Evolution of demand in Guadalquivir
8
Technical change (water
saving)
Cost increase
Demand is
more ‘rigid’
Increase productivity
Reduced dose
No more irrigated area
allowed since 2005
Evidence I: Water savings Guadalquivir mixed cropping
Irrigation units with coloured bars save water by three combined
measures:
- Volumetric pricing (“binomic” tariff = fixed cost + variable cost)
- Increase water cost from zero (flat rate before reform) to (3-6 cent/m3)
- Pressurized networks, improved irrigation on farm.Result: average ‘wet’ water savings around 25%
Effect of combined
measures in modern
irrigation (colored bars:
volumetric tariff, cost
increase, network
improvement)
is difficult to
individualize role.
Effect of
measures:
water savings
25%
9
Evidence II: Olive irrigated in Upper Guadalquivir (2008)
10
Higher cost reduces water
consumption.
Surface water (low elevation)
Water is
expensive
Groundwater
WFD AND PROGRAM OF
MEASURES
3
Anual cost of PoM (2015)
Investment 5.502.273.498Administration 4.775.442.269Users 726.831.229
AEC(*)O & M Cost 350.068.061
649.447.216
Public services and RDP 89.748.211Users 260.319.850
Depretiation+interest 299.379.155Public services and RDP 126.239.908Users 173.139.247
Total cost PoM 649.447.216Users tariffs and cost 433.459.097Public services and subsidies 215.988.119
Detalle de la anterior
AEC= Annualized Equivalent Cost, i= 4%, N= 25 years to 50 years
Criteria for users cost recovery of PdM
Measure & policy Criteria
Sanitation O&M Municipal water tariff 100% recovery
Infraestructure for
sanitation
Annual equivalent cost of invesment
recovery through muniipal or regional
tariffs
Urban distribution
improvementMunicipal tariffs 100%
Cost recovery high supply Increase in recovery from 81% to 89%
Water guarantee
improvementRecovery 100% of services through ‘canon’
Irrigation improvementFarmers pay 100% O& M cost and 40% of
investment costOther measures does not imply payment (e.g. Good Agricultural practices)
Cost of measures
54%- Improve quality
40%
- Water saving
- Guarantee (drought)
6%
- Flow prevention
- Transitional waters
Program of Measures (106 euros)
Inversión Total (€)
O & M cost
AEC %
Cualitative 350,8Point pollution 1.087,2 166,6 233,1 36%Difusse Popllution 310,8 43,2 85,7 13%Environmental restauration 958,1 1,5 32,0 5%
Cuantitative 260,1Supply increase (conventtional)
469,2 5,7 29,5 5%
Agriculture water saving 1.798,3 90,1 182,2 28%Urban water saving 302,6 3,6 25,3 4%Governance 85,5 16,9 23,2 4%
Others 38,6Flow control 441,8 1,0 15,5 2%Cost recovery 0,0 21,0 21,0 3%Transitional waters 48,8 0,6 2,1 0%Total 5.502,3 350,1 649,4 100%
Financial source 106 euros %
Urban tariffs (high) 9 1%
Urban tariffs (low) 262 40%
Irrigation tariffs (high) 14 2%
Irrigators water cost (low) 127 20%
Total users’ cost PdM 412 64%
Cost recovery increase 21 3%
Public administration 216 33%
Sum PoM 649 100%
Annual equivalent cost
Cost efficacy analysis
Measure
Pressurereduction
(1) C/E (euro/m3)
Impactreduction
(gap 2) C/E
(euro/m3)
Most probable'
impact reduction (GL/year)
Increase in policy and control of abstraction 0,017 0,068 80,38
Increase in cost of irrigation water 0,107 1,097 2,20
Volumetric tariff in irrigation 0,162 1,050 5,90
Extension services for irrigators 0,390 2,416 1,58
Improvement of urban networks 0,480 9,868 2,19
Irrigation systems and network improvement
0,663 4,883 35,26
Urban water cost increase 1,055 1,936 9,58
(1) Wet-Savings; (2) ‘Dry savings’= 137, 09
Evolution of cost and tariffs
196%
Tariffs and cost
Annual equivalent cost
Summary (1)
• Globally 67% of Cost (EMC) of PdM is supported directly by users with increase in tariffs and internal cost, rest is supported by Public administration (public services)
• Cost recovery in high-level water services
– Cost recovery 100% of new investment (Breña,…)
– Improvement in cost recovery (high) from 79% al 87%
• High level of global cost increase
– Urban users cost increase (circa 8% yearly)
– Farmer cost of water increase 160%
Summary (2)
Guadalquivir
Program of
Measures UnitsInvestment 5.502,3 million euros
Equivalent Annual cost 618,8 million euros/year
Increase urban services 281,2 million euros/year
Increase irrigation services 147,7 million euros/yearper
capitaInvestment 1.310,1 euro/inhabitantEquivalent Annual cost 147,3 euro/inhabitantIncrease urban services cost (1) 66,9 euro/inhab.yearIncrease irrigation services (2) 173,7 euro/ha/year
(1) 2005 average cost 118 euro per capita-year; (2) increase of irrigation cost around 160% per m3
top related