130 likes | 220 Views
The role of economical analysis in the designation of waters Dutch examples. Marjolein van Wijngaarden RIZA-WST. Shallow lakes ‘Veluwerandmeren’. Shallow peat lake ‘Loosdrecht’. Small brook ‘Hagmolenbeek’. Haringvliet: closed off estuary. Dutch cases. Rhine. Overview characteristics.
E N D
The role of economical analysis in the designation of waters Dutch examples Marjolein van Wijngaarden RIZA-WST
Shallow lakes ‘Veluwerandmeren’ Shallow peat lake ‘Loosdrecht’ Small brook ‘Hagmolenbeek’ Haringvliet: closed off estuary Dutch cases Rhine
Artifical? No yes no Morphologically changed? no Identification as HMW (2004) Measures to reach GES: significant adverse effect on uses? (der. 4.3a) no Aim isGES yes Alternative for beneficial objectives? No disproportionate costs/ technically feasible/ better env. option? (der. 4.3b) yes no HMW designation in short Definition MEP and GEP
Test 1: Significant effect on uses?1: The Haringvliet Measure:Destruction of present Dam Uses: Safety, fresh water supply, navigation
Test 2: Alternative options for beneficial objectives? Are total costs 1000 million € disproportionate and/or (socially) feasible?
Test 1: Significant effect on uses?2: Hagmolenbeek Measure:Reclamation agricultural land for nature Uses: Agriculture, safety
Test 2: Alternative options for beneficial objectives? Are total costs 1.5 million € + 2.5 million € /y disproportionate and/or (socially) feasible?
Test 1: Significant effect on uses?3: Shallow lakes Measure:Restore former hydrology and morphology
Test 2: Alternative options for beneficial objectives? Costs are uncertain; no costs studies are available
Economics in HMW designation • HMW derogation tests 4.3.a and b: • Issues of significant & disproportionate • Technical feasibility versus social acceptability • Costs assessment measures MEP/GEP • In HMW procedure • Measures MEP: no significant effects and no disproportionate costs? • Or in RBMP? • Timing! • Alternative using derogations instead op HMW • 4.5: time delay • 4.6: lower aims