LATVIJAS VIDES, ĢEOLOĢIJAS UN METEOROLOĢIJAS AĢENTŪRA © LVĢMA 2005 Kristina Fedorovica River...

LATVIJASVIDES, ĢEOLOĢIJAS UNMETEOROLOĢIJAS AĢENTŪRA

© LVĢMA 2005

Kristina FedorovicaRiver Basin Management Department

LEGMA, Latvia

Case study on Benefit Analysisand Exemption Methodology

(done by the SALACA project)

TwinBasin Summit Rochehaut, 16-20.04.2007.


© LVĢMA 2005

General approach

• Based on results of the CEA and the stakeholder consultation process it should be considered which measures are disproportionate costly

• In order to facilitate decision making cost benefit analysis has to be presented

– compare costs of measures vs benefits(Cost-benefit analysis)

– compare costs vs available financing

– compare costs vs WTP (willingness to pay)


© LVĢMA 2005

CBA and derogations

• CBA can be used to justify exemption decisions– justifying time exemption when reaching

GES within the time scale would be disproportionate costly

– justifying less stringent environmental objectives exemptions because the costs of measures are considered to be disproportionately expensive

– justifying quality exemptions due to new modifications

• CBA can be used also to justify HMWB designation (not considered as exemption)


© LVĢMA 2005

CBA Methodology

• Characterisation of scenarios– description of measures and their effects

• Identification of impacts of each (alternative) scenario– who will be affected by the measures– if the impact is direct or indirect– types of costs and benefits

• Qualitative/quantitative assessment of impacts– environmental, financial and economic costs and

benefits


© LVĢMA 2005

Assessment of the costs

• Direct financial costs of measures– investment and operational costs

• Indirect costs– e.g. costs related to losses in economic

production• Induced costs (i.e. costs borne by other

sectors of the economy) and wider socio-economic impact of measures– e.g. impact on employment

• Water and non-water related environmental and resource costs


© LVĢMA 2005

Assessment of the benefits

• Financial and economical benefits– e.g. cost savings to operators or productivity

gains• Water-related benefits from measures

– benefits related to direct use of water goods and services (marketed and non-marketed)

• e.g. benefits to anglers or to commercial fishing• benefits gained from improved navigation

– benefits related to indirect use of water goods and services

• informal recreational benefits– benefits related to non-use value of water

services


© LVĢMA 2005

Case StudyLake Burtnieks


© LVĢMA 2005

Problem definition

• The initial PoM indicated that GES is unlikely to be achieved by 2015 in the lake Burtnieks.– Initial PoM reduces external load of nutrients.

• The reason for this failure is eutrophication due to nutrient pollution, including internal prosphorous loading within the lake. Because of the shallow nature of the lake historically stored nutrients in the sediment are continually being released into the water column.

• These nutrients can and have caused algal blooms, which in turn have been known to cause juvenile fish kills in the lake.


© LVĢMA 2005

Alternative scenarios

PoM (or policy options) that were considered forthe lake, within the framework of a CBA andpossible exemption application assessment

• Basic option: Initial PoM, which might lead to the “time” or “quality objective” exemption.

• First alternative: Initial PoM and the dredging of the lake sediments.

• Second alternative: Initial PoM and raising the water level in the lake (either temporarily or permanently).

• Third alternative: Initial PoM and introduction of bio-manipulation techniques to redress the balance in the lake ecosystem.


© LVĢMA 2005

• Economic impacts of the eutrophication and benefits of reducing eutrophication for Lake Burtnieks

1 11


© LVĢMA 2005

Environmental goods provided by the lake

ValueDamage to the lake caused by eutrophication

Benefits of reducing eutrophication in the lake

Healthy functioning of the lake ecosystem, preserving biodiversity (for its own benefit)

Non-use

Reduced biodiversityDamaged natural “functions” in the lake

More diverse biotaIncreased non-use value of the lake (public satisfaction, preserving to the future)

Supporting functioning of the connected ecosystems (small rivers, meadows)

Indirect use

No significant negative impacts have been identified

Reduced impacts on connected ecosystems

Impact assessment

1 12


© LVĢMA 2005

Impact on direct usesEnvironmental goods provided by the lake

ValueDamage to the lake caused by eutrophication


Fishing Use

Damage to fish resources, increased possibility of toxins in water

Avoided costs for fish re-stocking measures.Increased commercial and recreational fishing in terms of increased fish catches, which would not have taken place before (optional benefits)**

Angling

Use

Tourism Use Limitations for recreation and tourism activities: reduced visual and tactile qualities of water, algal bloom, loss of surface area due overgrowing by reeds)*

Avoided costs for mitigation measures (e.g. reed cutting).Increased numbers of visitors and thus income from these activities for the local economy, which would not have taken place before **

Recreation

Use

*Only illustrative and is not the case for the Lake Burtnieks**Potential behefits that might arise in the future, not assosiated to the current damage

1 13


© LVĢMA 2005

Environmental goods provided by the lake

ValueDamage to the lake

caused by eutrophication


Value of the shoreline properties (located around the lake)

Indirect use

Reduced value of the shoreline properties*

Avoided losses in property values*

Increased value of properties (due to increase

in water quality)**

Regional development

Indirect use

Limitations for development in the

area around the lake*

Increased socio-economic activity in the area around the lake (originating from

improvements in all components of TEV of the

lake)*

Impact on indirect uses

*Only illustrative and is not the case for the Lake Burtnieks**Potential behefits that might arise in the future, not assosiated to the current damage


© LVĢMA 2005

Impact assessment

• In the case of Lake Burtnieks the current damage to direct uses has been assessed as not being very high and the most significant part of the potential benefits to reducing eutrophication is expected to be related to the non-use value of the lake.

1 16


© LVĢMA 2005

AlternativesCriteriafor analysis

Option 1Dredging thesediment

Option 2Raising the waterlevel

Option 3Bio-manipulation

Could thisoption ensurereaching GES

Yes Yes

Yes, but there isa risk that itwould not bereached by 2015

Are there anynegative adverseenvironmentalimpacts

Considered to besignificant, but moreresearch would benecessary toconfirm the ignificance

Unacceptable dueto impacts onNATURA 2000sites

No negativeimpacts

Assessment of scenarios

1 17


© LVĢMA 2005

Costs*

Option 1Dredging of sediments

Option 2Raising the water level


Direct/ financial costs

Very high (could run to $125 - $145 Million)

Estimated to be very high considering the need for embankments and other engineering works.

Considered to be of moderate

Indirect/ economic costs

Include temporary cessation of fishing in the lake, or parts of the lake during dredging

Indirect costs on fishing activities downstream could be incurred as a result of the reduced flows downstream

No costs

Induced costs

Induced costs arising from mitigation measures also might be involved

The induced costs might be very significant due to damage to the economic value of the nature reserve and properties around the lake


*Only preliminary qualitative assessment has been carried out

1 18


© LVĢMA 2005

Option 1Dredging the sediment

Option 2Raising of water level


Benefits*(only preliminary qualitative assessment)

The benefits arising from the reducing eutrophication might be offset by the negative adverse effect of the dredging on the lake ecosystem

Avoided damage to water quality thus increased value of the environmental goods provided by the lake.However the economic cost of the current eutrophic conditions in the lake is not considered to be particularly high and relates mainly to the non-use value of the lake. Therefore there is significant uncertainty whether the benefit of this option would outweigh the total economic cost of it.

Maximum possible benefits (as avoided damage to the total economic value of the lake) – the level of benefits might be similar to the benefits of Option 2


1 19


© LVĢMA 2005

Alternatives

Criteriafor analysis

Option 1Dredging the sediment

Option 2Raising of water level


Acceptability to stakeholders

Not investigated Not acceptable to the most stakeholders

Not investigated

Can this option be considered further

No - due to obvious disproportion of costs

No - due to unacceptable negative environmental (Natura 2000) and economic impact

Yes - however a ‘time’ exemption would be required



© LVĢMA 2005

• The current assessment suggests that with the help of bio-manipulation the lake could be converted back into a mesotrophic lake (Option3)

• However uncertainty remains about how long this process might take– Due to the fact that the quantity of phosphorus in the

sediment is largely unknown– Due to the fact that it has not been possible to model

how changes in the food chain would impact on the lake as a whole

• Time exemption (until 2021) is recommended. This would allow sufficient time to investigate the possible use of bio-manipulation further and to implement the measure in time to reach GES within the required period.

Conclusions

LATVIJAS VIDES, ĢEOLOĢIJAS UN METEOROLOĢIJAS AĢENTŪRA © LVĢMA 2005 Kristina Fedorovica River...

Documents

Transcript of LATVIJAS VIDES, ĢEOLOĢIJAS UN METEOROLOĢIJAS AĢENTŪRA © LVĢMA 2005 Kristina Fedorovica River...