session 5.b information needed for water pricing & expenditure on water – vienna – 22 june...
DESCRIPTION
Session 5.B Information needed for water pricing & expenditure on water – Vienna – 22 June 2005 French experience with water prices survey and use - Illustration from the Artois-Picardie river basin Arnaud Courtecuisse Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie – France. Content of the presentation. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
7 novembre 2002
1 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
Session 5.B Information needed for water pricing & expenditure on water – Vienna – 22 June 2005
French experience with water prices survey and use - Illustration from the
Artois-Picardie river basin
Arnaud CourtecuisseAgence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie – France
7 novembre 2002
2 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
Content of the presentation
1. The objectives of the survey
2. The Artois-Picardie basin’s context
3. Water price survey
4. Assessment of household’s available income
5. Comparison Water bill vis à vis available income
6. Results, limits and discussion
7 novembre 2002
3 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
1. The objectives of the survey
• from water price to water bill analysis
• the rising of the awareness about social impact of water bill
• the context of the WFD’s implementation and its reference to disproportionate costs :
• comparison of costs and benefits
• capacity of economic sectors (inc. households) to finance the environmental objectives targeted
7 novembre 2002
4 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
2. The context of the Artois-Picardie Basin
7 novembre 2002
5 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
2. The context of the Artois-Picardie Basin
• 20 000 Km2
• 4,7 Millions inhabitants
• GDP: 98 billions € • GPD/inhabitant: 21 107 €
• GPD/inh France: 25 978 €
Rivers quality assessment
• Unemployment rate: 12,7% • France: 9,9 %
• 96% of drinkable water come from groundwater
7 novembre 2002
6 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
7 novembre 2002
7 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
3. 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
7 novembre 2002
8 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
3. 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
7 novembre 2002
9 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
3. Water price surveyM
ean
Pri
ce f
or
on
e m
3
7 novembre 2002
10 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
3. Water price survey
Water Distribution
Sewerage
Environmental Taxes
Other taxes
VAT
The breakdown of the 3,28 euros
7 novembre 2002
11 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
CountryConsumption
(liter/day/personn
Mean water price m3Water +
sewerage+taxes(euros/m3)
SpainIrelandLuxembourgUKItalySwedenPortugalGreeceFranceFinlandGermanyBelgiumNetherlandsDanmarkAustria
130135150150160180190200113116118120126138150
1,00
0,901,60,8
1,151,01,12,62,53,61,92,74,32,6
IWA
7 novembre 2002
12 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
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
4. Assessment of household’s available income
7 novembre 2002
13 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
5. 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
7 novembre 2002
14 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
Water bill / mean available Income
7 novembre 2002
15 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
5. Comparison at municipality level
More than 3%
Less than 1%
Water Bill / Mean Available Income
7 novembre 2002
16 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
More than 2%
Water Bill / Available Income
Only Water Distribution
5. Comparison at municipality level
7 novembre 2002
17 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
6. 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)
7 novembre 2002
18 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
6. 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)
7 novembre 2002
19 AC - Agence de l’eau Artois-Picardie Vienna, 22 June 2005
6. 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)