wfd economy 19-20/10/10 selection of measures based on cost-effectiveness analysis french case study...
DESCRIPTION
Test on a sub-basin comparison of Combinations Households and Industry’s Phosphorus Removal in Washing powders Households Nitrogen Treatment in plantsTreatment in plant Micropollutants : Improve use of productsRainwater management Pesticides Alternative techniques for weed killingNon-agricultural: rainwater management Microbiology Urban pollution: high collection rates and rainwater connection Urban pollution: transfers, collection, management of transfers, collection and connection of rainwater Agricultural pollution: better use of land, limitation of transfers Urban: management of rainwater Susp. Matter Habitats & Morphology No alternative: wetlands protection, river restoration, hydraulic re-connection Buffer zones, winter covering of fields, … Hedges restoration, buffer zones, police enforcement Agricultural pollution Treatment in plant Preventive : actions on causes / sources / upstream Combination 1 : Causes + effects on groundwater Combination 2 : preservation Corrective : Preservation of uses / actions on consequences / downstream Not the same side effects (energy, biodiversity…) Combination 1 : Causes + effects on groundwater Combination 2 : preservation of usesTRANSCRIPT
WFD economy 19-20/10/10
Selection of measures based on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
French case study
Sarah FeuilletteForecast, assessment & Economy Department Seine-Normandie Water Agency
WFD economy 19-20/10/10
How CEA was used for the 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 buffer zones, catch crops, treatment plants had already been tested by research or water agency)but knowledge can evolve!
tests were made on pilot basins. It compared combinations of measures reaching the goal, on the basis of their cost
Different levels of ambition: for SN sub-basins sometimes different scenarios of different efficiencies and costs were discussed for socio-political & uncertainty reasons
Test on a sub-basincomparison of Combinations
Households and Industry’s Phosphorus Removal in Washing powders
Households Nitrogen Treatment in plants Treatment in plant
Micropollutants : Improve use of products Rainwater management
Pesticides Alternative techniques for weed killing Non-agricultural: rainwater management
Microbiology Urban pollution: high collection rates and rainwater connection
Urban pollution: transfers, collection, management of transfers, collection and connection of rainwater
Agricultural pollution: better use of land, limitation of transfers Urban: management of rainwaterSusp. Matter
Habitats & Morphology No alternative: wetlands protection, river restoration, hydraulic re-connection
Buffer zones, winter covering of fields, … Hedges restoration, buffer zones, police enforcementAgricultural pollution
Treatment in plant
Preventive : actions on causes / sources / upstream
Combination 1 : Causes + effects on groundwater Combination 2 : preservation
Corrective : Preservation of uses / actions on consequences / downstream
Not the same side effects (energy, biodiversity…)
Combination 1 : Causes + effects on groundwater Combination 2 : preservation of uses
Efficiency
Good statusCombination 1 Combination 2
Business as Usual Measures
(ex. WWTD)
Additional measures 1
2005 Status0,00
50,00100,00150,00200,00250,00300,00350,00400,00450,00500,00
Orne 2 Orne 10,00
50,00100,00150,00200,00250,00300,00350,00400,00450,00500,00
Orne 2 Orne 1
0,0050,00
100,00150,00200,00250,00300,00350,00400,00450,00500,00
Orne 2 Orne 1
Spécifiques
Mesures Communes
ST
Additional Measures
0,0050,00
100,00150,00200,00250,00300,00350,00400,00450,00500,00
Orne 2 Orne 1
M€ / decade
Additional measures 2
Combinations which would be equivalently efficient: Impossible=>The difficulties of implementation are not the same (scale, stakeholders, change…)
Total costs per user category, in 10 years, sub-basin Orne
BaselineScenario
Combination 1 Combination 2
Consumer (wash. Powder)TownsIndustryAgricultureGovernment
The different combinations don’t imply the same stakeholders nor the same payers
Cost efficiency is an important criteria but may not be the most important from a local point of view (PPP, implementation difficulties…)
Different levels of ambition(uncertainty => high level of guarantee)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
RESTREINT PRIORISE RENFORCE REFERENCE
Mon
tant
(M€/
an)
Animation (bio, intégré) etmise à disposition de matérielalternatif
Agriculture intégrée
Zone sans intrants
Couverture des sols en hiver
Acquisition foncière
No input areas
Catch crops
Land acquistion
« integrated agriculture »
Awaresness campaign & material
Protection of some priority zones
Good status Supposed to guarantee good status but not easy to implement
What about side effects ? (health, biodiversity, OSPAR Convention…)
WFD economy 19-20/10/10
The difficulties met to use CEAa huge uncertainty on the efficiency of certain measures (above all for agriculture & hydromorphology) that can't be easily modeled => guarantee
when using expert knowledge, it seems that the judgment on the efficiency, for certain measures, depends on ideology...
Even when modeled… it evolves!
the lack of alternatives for some kind of pressions (how to solve urban pollution either than with the usual treatment plants? & hydromorphology measures)
the fact that some kind of measures have several effects on different pressions at the same time (how to compare it with a mono-effect measure? e.g: organic agriculture on nitrates & pesticides)
Side effects, implementation complexity, polluter payer principle…
WFD economy 19-20/10/10
how CEA could be more useful & easy to apply
the construction of the PoM does not seem to be the ideal moment nor scale (river basin or sub-basin) to use CEA
before this step, at the national scale, CEA could be useful to compare different political macro-scenario combinating regulation, tarification (which imply changes in law most of the time), institutional, technical & eventually market tools
after this step, at the time of implementation of the PoM, at the water body scale or group of water body, CEA could be useful to compare different technical choices and in particular more or less preventive choices (use of ecologic engineering)
& knowledge about efficiency of some measures should be improved (assessment studies, « witness spots »…)
hydraulicbarriers
line ofadditionalpumpingwells
Limits of polluted area (east plume)
waste dumps
Water flow direction
EffetsObjectif atteint en : > 2021 2015Nombre d’hectares restaurés en 2015 2800 4779Coûts/effetsCoût par ha restauré en 2015 (k€) 120 4.9
Déplacementdes terrils
Dépollutionpar pompage
Eléments de coût (M€)Construction & équipement, des puits -- 9
Fonctionnement des puits jusqu’à atteinte objectif -- 8.9Fonctionnement des puits jusqu’en 2015 8.9Raccordement des puits (11 km) -- 2.5Doublement du saumoduc (10 km) -- 3Déplacement des terrils 237 --Dommages induits par le déplacement des terrilssur les riverains
0.9 --
Dommages induits par le pompage sur les zoneshumides
-- non évalué
Coût total en 2015 337,9 23.4Coût total pour atteindre l’objectif -- 23.4
=> scénario « dépollution » retenu
• Deux scénarios Déplacement des terrils et traitement sur aire étanche
Poursuite du traitement progressif des sources, renforcement des barrages hydrauliques et lignes de puits de dépollution en aval