CASE STUDY: A SPECIFIC CASE OF NON-ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE

1. CASE STUDY:A SPECIFIC CASE OF NON-ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE The designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) Inspired fromthe Haringvliet case (NL) Elements picked from "Heavily modified waters in Europe - Case study on Haringvliet estuary",RIZA 2002

2. Need for an economic analysis WHAT ARE HMWB? • A formal definition in the directive • art. 2 #9 • art. 4.3 • Three conditions to be filled simultaneously • physical alterations by human activity make it impossible to achieve the good ecological status • andchanges needed to achieve the goal would have significant adverse effects on the uses / the wider environment • andother environmental options to serve the same objectives are technically unfeasible and/or disproportionately costly

3. Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1Significantadverse effect Natural water body Step 2Comparison with alternatives Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? yes no no no no yes yes yes Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Natural water body Heavily Modified Water Body FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE

4. HMWB IN PRACTICE Source: Ministry of the environment,Québec, Canada

5. MAIN PRESSURES AND USES • dam designed for flood protection - sluices ensure a minimum flow (1500m3/s) • fresh water stored and used for the production of drinking water and for irrigation • navigation • MAIN PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS • disruption of river continuum and of sediments transport • sediments mean suspended concentration: 10-20mg/l (vs. 50-100 before dam) • settlement of contaminated sediments from fluvial origins • damage to fauna & flora • channelisation • maintenance dredging • bank reinforcement Poor ecological status DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIAL SITUATION Source: RIZA

6. Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1Significantadverse effect Natural water body Step 2Comparison with alternatives Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? yes no no no no yes yes yes Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Natural water body Heavily Modified Water Body FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE

7. 4 simultaneous conditions to achieve GES the restoration of the estuarine salinity gradient the restoration of the tidal fluctuation the restoration of the characteristic estuarine morphological processes the remediation of contaminated sediments How may this be done? • Set of measures B • adjust the design of the dam • remove bank reinforcement • dredging of sediments • Set of measures A • remove the dam • dikes at the same level • remove bank reinforcement • dredging of sediments WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO ACHIEVE GES?

8. Fishery industry - 10 companies - 0,7M€ annual turnover Would the adverse effets be significant ? FisheriesRecreation Agricultural water supply WHAT WOULD BE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE NECESSARY MEASURES ?

9. WATECO Guidance provides a useful templateto assess the significance of adverse effects WHAT WOULD BE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE NECESSARY MEASURES ?

10. Major impact Nature of the impacts WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT UPON THE WIDER ENVIRONMENT? Change in the sediments behaviour • "spreading" of sediments when dredging • different hydromorphological pattern once sediments are removed • disposal of the sediments

11. Switch to step 2 in order to consideralternativesto existing modifications  that would ensure GES  ANDthat would properly serve the same beneficial objectives as the existing dam does: flood protection, agricultural and public water supply, etc. CONCLUSION OF STEP 1 Sets of measures A and B  might ensure GES  BUT would have too significant impact on existing uses and on the wider environment

12. Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1Significantadverse effect Natural water body Step 2Comparison with alternatives Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? yes no no no no yes yes yes Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Natural water body Heavily Modified Water Body FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE

13. WHAT ARE THE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES SERVING THE SAME BENEFICIAL OBJECTIVES?

14. WATECO Guidance provides a useful templateto compare existing modifications with alternatives WHAT ARE THE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS SERVING THE SAME BENEFICIAL OBJECTIVES?

15. Alternative n°1 Technical feasibility by 2015 seems questionable: removal of the dam, major changes on the dikes Alternative n°2 Technical feasibility seems realistic by 2015: adjustment of the dam Direct designation as HMWB may be considered Carry on the designation process ARE ALTERNATIVES TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE?

16. Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1Significantadverse effect Natural water body Step 2Comparison with alternatives Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? yes no no no no yes yes yes Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Natural water body Heavily Modified Water Body FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE

17. What are the main environmental benefits? partial restoration of the characteristic estuarine morphological processes remediation of contaminated sediments Significantly better option? Open to discussion with stakeholders IS ALTERNATIVE N°2 A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL OPTION?

18. Do the measures required for achieving good status have significant impact on the specific use(s) / the wider environment? Step 1Significantadverse effect Natural water body Step 2Comparison with alternatives Can we identify technically feasible alternatives? yes no no no no yes yes yes Are alternatives significantly better environmental options? Are costs of alternatives disproportionate? Natural water body Heavily Modified Water Body FLOW CHART OF THE HMWB DESIGNATION PROCEDURE

19. Economic costs Environmental benefits IDENTIFICATION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED TO ALTERNATIVE N°2

20. Only one aspect of overall benefits Can it be judged disproportionate? ESTIMATION OF THE COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE N°2

21. Open participation process is needed,involving all stakeholders DISCUSSION • Disproportion of costs is to be considered with regards to: • scale for funding: local, regional, national...? • ability to pay and income at funding scale • funding sources: price of water, taxes, subsidies, combination of several sources...? etc. • duration of the planned period of payment, etc. • Disproportion is a case by case issue: • depends from time to time • depends from place to place... • Integration between economists and other experts is necessary