Programme of measures & cost-effectiveness

1. Programme of measures & cost-effectiveness • Objective : identify the best combination of measures allowing to meet the environmental objective at the least cost • Approach : • assess the costs (direct, indirect) of each type of measure at the pertinent level and associate these costs to the efficiency of the measures • development of indicators allowing to assess the impact of the measures on the economic sectors

2. Programme of measure & cost-benefit analysis • Objectif : justify the cost of the programme of measures regarding the benefits linked with the achievement of the environmental objective • Approach : • quick assessment of the programme of measures with potential disproportionate costs • assessment of benefits and avoided costs

3. Which measures to integrate in the cost-effectiveness analysis ? • mainly supplementary measures but the cost of the basic measures need to be assessed as well as its indirect effects Cost-effectiveness Indirect effects 2 Good status 3 1 Supplementary measures Basic measures Current status Basic measures Costs Basic measures 2015

4. Until 2006  work with the State sector only Step 1 : identify the potential measures for the French district Work made by the « Water Agency » this summer and organised by 6 themes: Households, industry, costal waters, habitat,diffuse pollutions, groundwater Step 2 : finish this first list , describe the measure in order to build a « catalogue of measures » for the district To have a reference book To have reference of prices To link measures and legislation Programme of measures - Progress

5. Basic or supplementary measure Measure involved in baseline scenario : Yes/No 6 kinds of measure : existing or new legislative instrument, financial instruments, « management » measure, awareness actions, research and development project, agreement actions, « economic » measure Legislation references Environmental oobjective among the 4 of the Directive Scale of application : water body or the whole district Costs : investment and running costs Direct expected impact Indirect expected impact Effectiveness : evaluate from 1 to 3 Difficulty : evaluate from 0 to 3 Catalogue items for each measure

6. Step 3 : the « territorial approach » scale of the work : one or more watershed scale of a measure : water body 1. Identify pressures on the territory and the links between pressures and the status of the water bodies 2. Identify the basic measures : add the supposed responsible and the supposed financial support 3. Evaluate their effects and the gap between the actual and the target situation 4. Identify necessary complementary measures : add the supposed responsible, the supposed financial support and the indirect avantages Programme of measures - Progress

7. the « territorial approach » : example of result

8. the « territorial approach » : example of result

9. A measure can have direct and/or indirect effects • qualitivative assessment • monetary valuation when it’s possible/pertinent • How to measure the efficiency of the measures ? • deal with uncertainty (studies, workshops) • set priorities for the implementation of the measures • How to identify the most cost-effective set of measures ? • a 3-steps approach

10. Etape 1 : identification of potential measures Etape 2 : set 2 or 3 strategies Etape 3 : set priorities and the implementation programme

13. A last illustration : building an indicator with water price and households’s available income

14. Water price survey • tariffs for water and sewerage set at municipality level (2 448 for the Artois-Picardie basin) • an annual survey is undertaken by the Artois-Picardie Water agency (i.e. collecting the price for water and sewerage for all municipalities for a mean consumption of 120m3 per year and per household) • this survey covers (in 2004) 95% of the basin’s population

15. Water price survey • one page questionnaire sent to municipalities, groups of municipalities, private operators every year • a feedback to all 2 448 municipalities through 4 pages results (mean water price for the basin, for sub-basin,…) • since 2004 survey, the data at municipality level can be found on the Artois-Picardie agency website

16. Mean Price for one m3

17. The breakdown of the 3,28 euros Water Distribution Sewerage Environmental Taxes Other taxes VAT

18. Assessment of household’s available income table 1 : Mean available income per household in all the sub-region of the Artois-Picardie Basin. Source : INSEE (National Statistics) + CEGMA TOPO

19. Comparison Water bill vis à vis available income Mean Water bill (all services) (price paid for 120m3 in a year) Mean available income per household Table 2 : comparison of the mean water invoice with mean available income per household

20. Water bill / mean available Income

21. Comparison at municipality level Water Bill / Mean Available Income Less than 1% More than 3%

22. Results, limits and discussion • several groups of municipalities with ratio>3% (2-3% is a guidance value – see OCDE, EU, Académie de l’eau) • these groups of municipalities combine high water price and low mean available income (and sometimes household’s expenses to buy bottled water equivalent to annual water bill)

23. Results, limits and discussion • the commonly used value of annual consumption of 120 m3 per household hides important differences of mean consumption per region • mean available income per municipality hides also various situations (and the real part of the population facing major difficulties to pay water bills)

24. Results, limits and discussion • what to do ? Continue ! Refine this ratio and continue to track it in the coming years • pay a specific attention to the groups of municipalities where efforts to meet WFD objectives should lead to major increase in water price (extent solidarity principle, delay or less stringent objectives ?) • it raises this issue of specific social tariffs (e.g. Flanders’ experience, blocks tariffs, development of water savings, renew confidence in tap water)

25. Environmental Objective Cost-benefit analysis Don’t worry, be happy ! …..and thanks for your attention ! Cost-effectivness analysis Cost