Cost benefit analysis of the cafe programme
1 / 27

Cost-benefit analysis of the CAFE Programme - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Cost-benefit analysis of the CAFE Programme. Mike Holland, EMRC Gothenburg, October 2004. Project team. Paul Watkiss, Steve Pye, AEA Technology, UK Mike Holland, Sheri Kinghorn, EMRC, UK Fintan Hurley, Institute of Occupational Medicine, UK

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Cost-benefit analysis of the CAFE Programme' - jariah

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Cost benefit analysis of the cafe programme

Cost-benefit analysis of the CAFE Programme

Mike Holland, EMRC

Gothenburg, October 2004

Project team
Project team

  • Paul Watkiss, Steve Pye, AEA Technology, UK

  • Mike Holland, Sheri Kinghorn, EMRC, UK

  • Fintan Hurley, Institute of Occupational Medicine, UK

  • Alistair Hunt, Anil Markandya, University of Bath, UK

  • Stale Navrud, ECON, Norway

  • Peter Bickel, IER, Germany

  • Elisabeth Ruijgrok, Witteveen en Bos, Netherlands

Overview of the cafe analysis

Activities specific to CAFE

Scenario development

and target setting


RAINS model


Quantification of impacts

Processing of

Modelling of pollutant

Health, crops,

pollutant data

concentration across

materials, social and

Europe on 50 x 50 km




vs. targets, e.g.

effects, etc.

critical loads


Monetisation of impacts

where possible

Other models

Cost analysis

Comparison of quantified


costs and benefits



Extended CBA


Related activities

EC DG Research Programmes

Working Groups under Convention on Long



Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)

WHO Europe commentary on air pollution impacts

Overview of the CAFE analysis

Rains and cba


    • Cost-effectiveness: What is the most efficient way of meeting pre-defined targets based on the measures included in the RAINS database?

  • Cost-benefit analysis

    • Can it be demonstrated explicitly that it is worth meeting the targets?

Similar cba work
Similar CBA work

  • Gothenburg Protocol (AEA Technology, 1999)

  • NEC Directive (AEA Technology, 1999)

  • Appraisals of the US Clean Air Act and similar legislation

  • Various CBAs of the air quality daughter directives, some emission standards, etc.

Conclusions of the cbas of the nec directive and gothenburg
Conclusions of the CBAs of the NEC Directive and Gothenburg

  • Estimated health damages were substantial, outweighing estimated costs of various scenarios across Europe

  • Similarly, at the national level

  • Chronic effects of secondary particles on mortality were the single largest quantified impact

Main limitations of the cbas of the nec directive and gothenburg
Main limitations of the CBAs of the NEC Directive and Gothenburg

  • Effects of air pollution on ecosystems quantified only in terms of critical loads exceedance

  • No assessment of damage to cultural heritage

  • Very basic structure for dealing with unquantified effects

  • No account taken of effects of primary particle emissions

  • Very coarse resolution for modelling

  • Non-marginal basis for modelling

Improvement vs the cbas of the nec directive and gothenburg
Improvement vs. the CBAs of the NEC Directive and Gothenburg Gothenburg

  • Functions, valuations updated

  • More effects considered (though only partial assessment of ecosystems, etc.)

  • ‘Extended CBA’ for dealing with unquantified effects, describing effects in more detail

  • Primary particles considered

  • Finer resolution modelling

  • Scenario and marginal basis for modelling

  • Methods have been peer reviewed

Review of the cafe cba
Review of the CAFE CBA Gothenburg

  • Series of three draft reports

    • October 2003, February and June 2004

    • Workshops held in Brussels to discuss

  • Discussion of methods at ICP meetings

  • Formal peer review (summer 2004)

    • Alan Krupnick (Resources for the Future, Washington)

    • Bart Ostro (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment )

    • Keith Bull (UNECE CLRTAP Secretariat)

Current status
Current status Gothenburg

  • Methodology report currently being finalised

  • Overall method finalised, but some revisions possible as work goes on

    • Definitions of impacts

    • Functions

    • Valuations

Monetised effects in the cba
Monetised effects in the CBA Gothenburg

  • Health – mortality and morbidity

  • Crops – direct effects of ozone on yield

  • Materials – erosion/corrosion of buildings in ‘utilitarian’ applications

  • Macroeconomic impacts on the wider economy (from GEM-E3 model)

  • Most are quantified using impact pathway approach

Quantifying pollutant effects
Quantifying Gothenburgpollutant effects

What is left that is or may be important
What is left that is or may be important? Gothenburg

  • Crop losses through visible injury

  • Crop losses through stimulation of pests

  • Impacts on natural ecosystems

  • Damage to cultural heritage

  • Effects on water quality

  • Indoor exposure to pollution

  • Impacts via social inequity

  • Restriction of visible range

  • Treat using ‘Extended CBA’

Outcomes of cba

Key Gothenburg



Outcomes of CBA

Cost or


Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Etc.

Extended cba
‘Extended CBA’ Gothenburg

  • Highlight effects that have not been monetised

  • Describe them, quantitatively and qualitatively to the extent possible (now extending to all effects)

  • Invite stakeholders to use their judgement on how inclusion of unquantified effects would affect the cost-benefit ratio

Example cultural heritage
Example: Cultural heritage Gothenburg

Qualitative assessment

  • Define impacts.

  • Summarise strength of knowledge on link between pollution and effect.

  • Identify economic components of impacts (existence values, amenity value, repair costs, etc.).

Example cultural heritage1
Example: Cultural heritage Gothenburg

Semi-quantitative assessment

  • Use maps to show exceedence of critical load and possible improvement under scenarios being considered.

  • Refer to a selection of case studies that provide more detail.

  • Identify most sensitive components of European cultural heritage.

Example cultural heritage2
Example: Cultural heritage Gothenburg

Semi-quantitative assessment

  • Provide review of existing economic research (does it point to values being significant?).

  • Comment on development of past trans-boundary air pollution legislation and importance of impacts on cultural heritage.

Example cultural heritage3
Example: Cultural heritage Gothenburg

Semi-quantitative assessment

  • Likely to conclude that impacts could be economically important, though rates of deterioration are much reduced.

What this would give us
What this would give us… Gothenburg

  • A nice description of impacts

    • Mix of quantitative and qualitative data

  • Buried at the back of a long report

  • How do we draw attention to the things that we cannot monetise?

Presenting results
Presenting results Gothenburg

Cost benefit analysis of the cafe programme
Key Gothenburg

Presenting results1
Presenting results Gothenburg

Conclusions on the role of the extended cba
Conclusions on the role of the Extended CBA Gothenburg

  • Can integrate some impacts with CBA much better than previously

  • Improves understanding

  • Provides decision makers with a structure from which to factor their own weightings on damage to cultural heritage, ecosystems and other impacts into the CBA

Dealing with uncertainty
Dealing with uncertainty Gothenburg

  • Variety of techniques

    • Statistical analysis

    • Sensitivity analysis

    • Extended CBA

  • Need to consider uncertainty in results for both costs and benefits

  • These techniques to be tested once first results become available

Summary Gothenburg

  • Much work has gone into refinement of methods for air pollution CBA

  • Methodology has been extensively peer reviewed

  • More extensive framework than previously used

  • First results will shortly be available

Questions Gothenburg

  • Do we go far enough in quantification?

  • Is the ‘Extended CBA’ approach useful?

  • Are there good examples of similar work that transparently account for uncertainty in CBA?

  • Are there new sources of information that we should take into account?