Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)
BRIDGE WP5
Socio-Economic Assessment of
Groundwater Threshold Values
2
WP5 team
• IVM-Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam ( coordinator )
• Acteon Conseil, France
• AETS, France
• BRGM, France
• SYKE, Finland
• University of Aveiro, Portugal
Presentation outline
• Main objective WP5
• Tasks and activities
• Outputs
• Role WP5 in BRIDGE
• WP5 methodology & key issues
4
Main objective WP5
• Support the identification of economically efficient
threshold values for groundwater pollutants based on socio-economic impact assessment procedures
• Assessment of the costs and benefits of feasible measures to achieve groundwater threshold values and their distribution across different interest groups in society
• Consistent with the requirements of the economic analysis in the WFD
Tasks and activities WP5
• WP 5.1 Development of common methodological framework
• WP 5.2 Practical application and testing of integrated assessment procedures in 6 case studies
• WP 5.3 Synthesis and policy recommendations
6
Relationships
Methodological
framework Case studies
Synthesis and policy
recommendations
WP3 WP4 WP6
WP1 WP2
7
Deliverables
1 Framework report & steps case studies 3
2 Five detailed case study reports 18
3 Synthesis report main case study findings & 22 policy recommendations
Deliverable
Deliverable Month Month
D1 Methodology report: IVM
D2 Upper Rhine case study: BRGM D3 Case study Finland: SYKE
D4 Case study Portugal: AETS-UA-IVM D5 Scheldt case study: IVM
D6 Case study Latvia & Slovenia: Acteon
D7 Synthesis report: IVM-Acteon
8
Role WP5 in BRIDGE
• Demonstrate role and relevance of economics in GW Directive
• Economics not in the BRIDGE threshold methodology
• Link threshold values & economic efficiency in cost & benefit terms
• Economic criteria start playing a role after the environmental threshold values have been set:
Design of cost-effective programs of measures
Evaluation of disproportionate costs basis for time or objective derogation/exemption
Extent/size of costs and benefits
Distribution of costs and benefits in time and space Total economic value of groundwater resources
WP5 METHODOLOGY
10
Risk analysis Risk analysis
Cost Cost - - effectiveness effectiveness analysis
analysis Cost Cost - - benefit benefit analysis
analysis
WP5 METHODOLOGY
11
WP 5.2. Pilot case studies
• Upper Rhine, France (BRGM)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) contamination from industry affecting drinking water and human health
• Aveiro aquifer, Portugal (AETS-UA-IVM)
Cl, SO4 and NO3 contamination from industry affecting agriculture, drinking water and wildlife
• Shallow groundwater around Riga, Latvia (Acteon)
Petroleum contamination from urban areas affecting surface waters
• Scheldt basin, Netherlands (IVM)
Nitrate contamination from agriculture affecting surface waters
• Lahti aquifer, Finland (SYKE)
Chloride contamination from road salting affecting drinking water
• Krsko Kotlina aquifer, Slovenia (Acteon)
Nitrate and pesticide contamination from agriculture affecting drinking water
12
Steps in case studies
1) Problem definition (sources, pathway, effects pollution)
2) Definition environmental objective (groundwater threshold values) 3) Identification management actions/options
- prevention
- remediation/restoration
4) Assessment cost and effectiveness of management actions/options (cost-effectiveness analysis)
5) Assessment and economic valuation of market and non-market benefits of management actions/options (incl. public surveys) 6) Cost-Benefit Analysis
7) Assessment economic efficiency threshold values
Key issues
Step 1: Problem definition (source-pathway-effect)
• Often fundamental lack of knowledge surrounding the identification of diffuse and point sources of pollution
• Link source-pathway-effect on receptor difficult to establish and quantify
• Uncertainty!
14
Key issues
Step 2: Identification objective (threshold value)
• Start from existing threshold values (e.g. NO3 or Cl content drinking water quality)
• Compliance regime? Share of monitoring stations
meeting threshold value (e.g. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%)
• Spatial distribution (threshold values) across aquifer
Pressure receptor
Groundwater body
monitoring station
Key issues
Step 3: Identification feasible management actions/options
• Distinctive feature WP5 compared to other WPs in BRIDGE
• Together with local experts, actors and stakeholders
• Which actors/sectors to target given the uncertainties surrounding causal relationships (relative contributions)
& the difficulties quantifying the ‘gap’ to be ‘BRIDGEd’ to reach threshold values?
16
Key issues
Step 4: Cost-effectiveness management actions/options
• Focus on emission reduction at source
• Assessment primarily based on expert judgment
• Link source-pathway-effect on receptor difficult to establish and quantify Uncertainty!
• Comprehensive groundwater models (source-pathway- effect) and link with surface water and terrestrial
ecosystems missing
Key issues
Step 5: Benefits assessment of threshold values
• More than just market benefits (=avoided treatment or purification costs in industry)
• Substantial non-market benefits: public value attached to pristine state/natural conditions
• Groundwater valued for its own sake (existence value)
• Need to translate threshold values to understandable public functions of groundwater resources
18
Key issues
Step 6: Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Characteristic features:
• Market and non-market benefits
• Costs and benefits associated with different groundwater threshold values (=link threshold values and economic efficiency in terms of costs and benefits)
• Spatial distribution of costs and benefits of different threshold values across aquifer/basin
19
Key issues
Step 7: Economic efficiency threshold values
• Disproportionate costs? Reconsider threshold values?
• Subjective notion, lack of definition and/or ‘economic threshold value’
• ESSENTIAL: researcher and policy maker confidence in estimated costs and benefits of threshold values
• Combination of objective and subjective risk assessment
• Value of additional information
WP5: user and taxpayer willingness and ability to pay for different threshold values
20
