From our information base….

Is it really « worth » to protect groundwater resources?

Elements from BRIDGE WP5 case studies

Pierre Strosser

ACTeon

Innovation, policy, environment

From our information base….

9 Six case studies

ƒ Finland, France, Latvia, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia

9 Different activities

ƒ Review of reports and policy documents

ƒ Interaction with experts and stakeholders

ƒ Public perception surveys

ƒ Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses

…. To addressing a series of key questions…

9 How close are people from water (groundwater)?

9 How important is groundwater protection?

9 Are people willing to pay for groundwater protection?

9 How much?

9 What are the most cost-effective ways of reaching set threshold values?

9 Are existing threshold values economically

justified?

…. As basis to some lessons

9 Methodological issues

9 Policy issues

How close people are from water?

9

Water: not necessarily a priority issue

ƒ Latvia: mentioned by 10% of respondents

ƒ Slovenia: mentioned by 25% of respondents

9

Unclear knoweldge about source of drinking water

9

People think water quality is good:

ƒ From South to North (Portugal: 10%; Alsace: 23%; The Netherlands: 40%)

ƒ But deteriorating (Portugal, Slovenia) 9

Different connections to water

ƒ Tap water: 96% drink it in NL (40% buying bottled water) while 40% drink it regularly in Alsace

ƒ Swimming: 60% in Portugal, 40% in Alsace

ƒ Fishing: 15-25%

ƒ Own well: 5% (Latvia) to 50% (Portugal)

9

Overall, a certain level of disconnection from water?

How important groundwater protection is?

9

A wide diversity of knoweldge about groundwater

ƒ Latvia: 75% think they have some knoweldge

ƒ Portugal, Alsace: 40-45% do not know about groundwater (quality)

9

Overall, improving groundwater quality is important!!

ƒ From 66% (Latvia) to 97% (Alsace, The Netherlands)…

9

Proposed scenarios for groundwater improvement appears as feasible

ƒ Less credibility for scenarios and programmes to improve groundwater up to natural background concentration

ƒ Agriculture, how much can we trust you?

Are people willing to pay for groundwater protection?

9 Yes!!

9 But not all of them…

ƒ From 48% (Latvia) to 71% (The Netherlands) 9 Why not?

ƒ Income too low

z Slovenia: 50%

z Latvia: 43%

z Portugal: 40%

z The Netherlands: 34%

z Alsace: 31%

ƒ Water quality is good enough

z The Netherlands: 22%

ƒ Polluters should pay (The Netherlands: 12%, comments sent for the Alsace survey)

9 Why?

ƒ Mix of health, direct use, future use, use by future generation, patromony

ƒ No clear sparation between reasons linked to use and non-use value

How much?

9 Up to drinking water level

ƒ

Slovenia: 66 €/household/year

ƒ

The Netherlands: 46 €/household/year

ƒ

Alsace: 42 €/household/year

ƒ

Portugal: 38 €/household/year 9 Up to natural background level

ƒ

Slovenia: +60 €/household/year

ƒ

Alsace: +34 €/household/year

ƒ

The Netherlands: +26€/household/year

ƒ

Portugal: same level as drinking water level

9 A large range of variables explaining part of the difference between values

ƒ

Income, age, belonging to environmental NGO,

location, well ownership

What are the most cost-effective ways of reaching set threshold values?

9 Different challenges between large scale diffuse pollution (N) and localised high

contamination (VOC, petroleum products)

9 Most cost-effective measures

ƒ Use alternative chemical (potassium format) for road salting in Finland

ƒ Optimised fertiliser use in Portugal, The Netherlands, Slovenia

ƒ Supplementary measures > basic measures

(Slovenia)

Are existing threshold values economically justified?

9

A diversity of situations

ƒ Benefits can be significant (30 to 50 Million € for the Alsace case) – but costs are also significant!!

ƒ Net Present Value negative for Slovenia and Portugal

ƒ Very high Net Present Value for different groundwater quality improvement scenarios in Latvia

ƒ It depends… The Netherlands, France

z Drinking water quality: Yes

z Lower threshold values, close to natural background concentration: No

9

Why such differences?

ƒ Response time lag of the aquifer

ƒ Population density

ƒ Existing direct uses

9

The economics of compliance – illustration from Latvia

ƒ 100% of sites complying with threshold value = 86 Million €

ƒ 90% of sites complying with threshold value = 78 Million €

ƒ 85% of sites complying with threshold value = 73 Million €

Selected methodological issues

9 Large uncertainties

ƒ

Pathway, (potential) effects of measures

ƒ

Aggregation level of benefits

9 Values obtained from contingent valuation

ƒ

What do they really represent? Use versus non- use values, groundwater versus environment….

ƒ

Perceptions and psychology

9 Applying a diversity of methods for estimating benefits/values

ƒ

E.g. avoided (water treatment) cost estimated at

…. For the Slovenian case study

Selected policy issues

9

Is it important for a groundwater body to exist?

ƒ Yes, it is important!

9

Where to put efforts?

ƒ Defining threshold values

ƒ Defining compliance regimes 9

Relevant role for economics

ƒ Scale at which threshold values are set

ƒ Importance of direct use…

9

Mutualisation

ƒ Equity

ƒ Scale at which financial responsibility is set 9

Information and communication!!!

ƒ At all levels

ƒ Balancing complexity and simplicity

ƒ Public, key stakeholders

Thanks to the attention…