Previous Article in event
Next Article in event
Economic analysis for exemptions to achieve the environmental objectives in groundwater bodies.
Published:
16 November 2016
by MDPI
in The 1st International Electronic Conference on Water Sciences
session Water Policies and Planning
Abstract:
This paper analyses and compares the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for exemptions and disproportionate cost decision according to the implementation of Water Framework Directive Article 4 in groundwater bodies in the Spanish River Basins. Data has been obtained from both, the hydrological plans for the first planning cycle (2009-2015) and for the second one (2015-2021). Results show the evolution in the scope of good chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies in both planning cycles, and the different methodologies used to justify economically exemptions to achieve the environmental objectives in such bodies.
Keywords: groundwater management, water economics, Water Framework Directive.
Comments on this paper
Maria Muñoz
19 November 2016
Comment
I can see two cycles: 2009-2015 (table 2) and 2015-2021 (table3). How is it possible to have data about the quantitative status, chemical status and global status in the second period ?
María M. Borrego-Marín
20 November 2016
Dear Maria,
The data in Tables 2 and 3, as you say, correspond to those collected in two planning cycles (2009-2015) and (2015-2021). The aim of the hydrological plans is to implement the necessary measures in these water bodies to reach the environmental objectives. So that, for the determination of the status of groundwater bodies, the data are taken in the years prior to the planning cycles. In other words, for the first cycle (2009-2015) were taken the available data until the year 2008 and for the second cycle (2015-2021), the available data until 2014.
Kind regards,
María M.
The data in Tables 2 and 3, as you say, correspond to those collected in two planning cycles (2009-2015) and (2015-2021). The aim of the hydrological plans is to implement the necessary measures in these water bodies to reach the environmental objectives. So that, for the determination of the status of groundwater bodies, the data are taken in the years prior to the planning cycles. In other words, for the first cycle (2009-2015) were taken the available data until the year 2008 and for the second cycle (2015-2021), the available data until 2014.
Kind regards,
María M.
Julio Berbel
20 November 2016
Cost benefit or 'affordability'
The paper concludes (page 6)
..=== "The common economic analysis realized in the Spanish IBWAs according to justify the exemptions ......... use the cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
===
But ithis is in contradiction with the sentence. (same page)
...=== "the judgement on the disproportionality of costs will be a political decision and it will depend on how far the ability-to-pay of affected parties can serve to justify an exemption.
===
What is then the most frequent method applied for exemption.
..=== "The common economic analysis realized in the Spanish IBWAs according to justify the exemptions ......... use the cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
===
But ithis is in contradiction with the sentence. (same page)
...=== "the judgement on the disproportionality of costs will be a political decision and it will depend on how far the ability-to-pay of affected parties can serve to justify an exemption.
===
What is then the most frequent method applied for exemption.
María M. Borrego-Marín
20 November 2016
Dear Julio,
I don´t think those two sentences contradict each other. As we say in the conclusions, "The common economic analysis realized in the Spanish IBWAs according to justify the exemptions in the implementation of Water Framework Directive Article 4 in groundwater bodies, use the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for exemptions and disproportionate cost decisión". So that, the CBA has been the instrument used to assess the disproportionality of costs. What we mean by the second sentence is that once the results of the CBA have been obtained, it will be a political decision to determine whether such disproportionality is justifiable based on the ability to pay of affected parties.
Kind regards,
María M.
I don´t think those two sentences contradict each other. As we say in the conclusions, "The common economic analysis realized in the Spanish IBWAs according to justify the exemptions in the implementation of Water Framework Directive Article 4 in groundwater bodies, use the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for exemptions and disproportionate cost decisión". So that, the CBA has been the instrument used to assess the disproportionality of costs. What we mean by the second sentence is that once the results of the CBA have been obtained, it will be a political decision to determine whether such disproportionality is justifiable based on the ability to pay of affected parties.
Kind regards,
María M.
Giacomo Giannoccaro
22 November 2016
the consequences of non-action (i.e. foregone benefits)
Hi, it's a very interesting topic and in the Mediterranean region very relevant.
When comparing the groundwater bodies between first and second period, I realize, there has been an increase in the total bodies. How can you explain this?
Moreover, you mention that Spanish IBWAs carried out the cost-benefit analysis by each groundwater body.
As a whole, 145 out of 189 groundwater bodies called for the extension of the deadline (Article 4.4). In that case, I am wondering if the consequences of non-action (i.e. foregone benefits) were actually weighed against the specific costs of the measures. Could you give us more details?
When comparing the groundwater bodies between first and second period, I realize, there has been an increase in the total bodies. How can you explain this?
Moreover, you mention that Spanish IBWAs carried out the cost-benefit analysis by each groundwater body.
As a whole, 145 out of 189 groundwater bodies called for the extension of the deadline (Article 4.4). In that case, I am wondering if the consequences of non-action (i.e. foregone benefits) were actually weighed against the specific costs of the measures. Could you give us more details?
María M. Borrego-Marín
22 November 2016
Dear Giacomo,
Thank you for your comments.
As you say, there has been an increase in the number of groundwater bodies between the two planning cycles. This is explained because in each planning cycle an analysis of identification and characterization of all water bodies in the basins is carried out, and as consequence of the continuous improvement of the knowledge, sometimes leading to water bodies divisions, surface expansion of already existing ones, etc.
On the other hand, I think that your question about the consequences of non-action (i.e. foregone benefits) is really interesting. So far, the CBA carried out in the Spanish IBWAs has consisted essentially in quantifying the (direct) costs of the measures that would be necessary to achieve the good status of these water bodies and to compare them with the environmental benefits of obtaining it. With reference to the consequences of non-action that you propose, in my view, it would include in the CBA the indirect costs (measured as opportunity costs) that are obtained during the period in which the water bodies are in poor status. As I have mentioned before, I think it is a very interesting proposal to include in the cost-benefit analysis of the third planning cycle (2021-2027), but which so far has not been included in the CBA to justify exemptions in groundwater bodies in the Spanish IBWAs.
Kind regards,
María M.
Thank you for your comments.
As you say, there has been an increase in the number of groundwater bodies between the two planning cycles. This is explained because in each planning cycle an analysis of identification and characterization of all water bodies in the basins is carried out, and as consequence of the continuous improvement of the knowledge, sometimes leading to water bodies divisions, surface expansion of already existing ones, etc.
On the other hand, I think that your question about the consequences of non-action (i.e. foregone benefits) is really interesting. So far, the CBA carried out in the Spanish IBWAs has consisted essentially in quantifying the (direct) costs of the measures that would be necessary to achieve the good status of these water bodies and to compare them with the environmental benefits of obtaining it. With reference to the consequences of non-action that you propose, in my view, it would include in the CBA the indirect costs (measured as opportunity costs) that are obtained during the period in which the water bodies are in poor status. As I have mentioned before, I think it is a very interesting proposal to include in the cost-benefit analysis of the third planning cycle (2021-2027), but which so far has not been included in the CBA to justify exemptions in groundwater bodies in the Spanish IBWAs.
Kind regards,
María M.
