DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS IN PRACTICE

1. DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS IN PRACTICE Case study considering a potential derogation Inspired froma real case study in the Rhin-Meuse district (F) Some elements were picked from "Economic assessment of groundwater protection. Groundwater restoration in the potash mining fields of Alsace, France",BRGM 2003 http://agire.brgm.fr/eco_EU.htm

2. Need to assess the disproportion of costs of required measures WHAT DEROGATIONS UNDER WFD? • Formal definitions in the directive • art. 4.4: deadline extension for two 6 years periods • art. 4.5: less stringent objective to be reviewed every 6 years • Derogation may apply only in limited cases • when it is impossible to achieve GES by 2015 for justified technical, environmental or economic reasons • and provided that no further deterioration occurs • and when the derogation is justified on a transparent basis 2/10

3. Identification of key pressures causing the potential gap in 2015 and design of potential supplementary measures Main steps Economic analysis Goal no no The goal can be reached in 2021 or 2027 Cost-benefit analysis of potential supplementary measures Is the cost of the supplementary measures disproportionate? Does it remain disproportionate if the implementation of measures is phased out? yes yes Reach the goal in 2015 The goal can't be reached by 2027 A lower objective may be defined according to art. 4.5 Redefine the programme of measures FLOW CHART OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THE JUSTIFICATION OF DEROGATION 3/10

4. DEROGATION IN PRACTICE Source: Ministry of the environment,Québec, Canada 4/10

5. Aquifer • Description of the site • aquifer intensely polluted by mining activity: huge waste deposits of salt • efficient measures already implemented: geo-membrane on some dumps, artificial dissolution of waste with high concentration of salt ... limit of the aquifer • Prospective • model shows that the impact of the measures is not sufficient to reach the goal by 2015 (after 2027) • supplementary measures are needed polluted zone salt <250mg/l in all the aquifer salt tips Source: BRGM & Agence de l'eau Rhin-Meuse DESCRIPTION OF THE SITUATION 10-15% of the salt withdrawn every year 5/10

6. in 2015 Ineffective Maybe further investigated if necessary SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness? 6/10

7. Who will be affected? To what extent? Directly or not?... Define scale of assessment Quantitative, qualitative or monetary? Present and/or future? Which appear significant?... Identify types of costs and benefits Is it necessary to apply different methods? What resources are available for original research?... Choose methodology Do we need first hand data? Can we rely on other resources?... Collect data Are impacts important and properly weighted? How can different types of impacts can be presented in a way that facilitates decision-making?... Assess costs and benefits COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 7/10

8. Types of benefits COST-BENEFIT ANALYSISIDENTIFICATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS • Types of costs TD OD 8/10

9. Estimated potential benefits equal costs COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS A9/10

10. TARGET:reach the goal in 2015 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS B9/12

11. Simulation for2021 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS B11/12

12. TARGET reach the goal in 2015 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS C9/12

13. Simulations 2021-2027 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS C11/12

14. Derogation GO FURTHER • Article 4.4 - Time derogation • Article 4.5 - Less stringent objective • Effectiveness of the potential alternative measures aimed at reducing aquifer pollution

15. Derogation DEROGATIONS IN WFDEXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Art. 4.4 The deadlines (…) may be extended for the purposes of phased achievement of the objectives for bodies of water, provided that no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water when all of the following conditions are met: (a)Member States determine that all necessary improvements in the status of bodies of water cannot reasonably be achieved within the timescales (…) for at least one of the following reasons: (i) the scale of improvements required can only be achieved in phases exceeding the timescale, for reasons of technical feasibility; (ii) completing the improvements within the timescale would be disproportionately expensive; (iii) natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of the body of water. (b)Extension of the deadline, and the reasons for it, are specifically set out and explained in the river basin management plan (…). (c)Extensions shall be limited to a maximum of two further updates of the river basin management plan except in cases where the natural conditions are such that the objectives cannot be achieved within this period. (d)A summary of the measures (…) which are envisaged as necessary to bring the bodies of water progressively to the required status by the extended deadline, the reasons for any significant delay in making these measures operational, and the expected timetable for their implementation are set out in the river basin management plan. A review of the implementation of these measures and a summary of any additional measures shall be included in updates of the river basin management plan.

16. Derogation DEROGATIONS IN WFDLESS STRINGENT OBJECTIVE - Art. 4.5 Member States may aim to achieve less stringent environmental objectives than those required (…) for specific bodies of water when they are so affected by human activity, as determined in accordance with Article 5(1), or their natural condition is such that the achievement of these objectives would be infeasible or disproportionately expensive, and all the following conditions are met: (a)the environmental and socio-economic needs served by such human activity cannot be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option not entailing disproportionate costs; (b)Member States ensure, - for surface water, the highest ecological and chemical status possible is achieved, given impacts that could not reasonably have been avoided due to the nature of the human activity or pollution, - for groundwater, the least possible changes to good groundwater status, given impacts that could not reasonably have been avoided due to the nature of the human activity or pollution; (c)no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water; (d)the establishment of less stringent environmental objectives, and the reasons for it, are specifically mentioned in the river basin management plan (…) and those objectives are reviewed every six years.

17. Quantity of salt remainingvs. initial stock (%) Surface with more than 250mg/l salt (km²) Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3 Derogation EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MEASURES Source: BRGM & Agence de l'eau Rhin-Meuse 17/10