Advertisement

A Bird’s Eye View of the Greek Water Situation: The Potential for the Implementation of the EU WFD

  • P. Koundouri
  • N. Papandreou
  • K. Remoundou
  • Y. Kountouris
Chapter
Part of the Global Issues in Water Policy book series (GLOB, volume 7)

Abstract

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was formulated for addressing the weaknesses of the previous water-related directives. The main steps that WFD involves could be summarized in the setting of ecological standards, the identification of anthropogenic pressures and the adoption of corrective measures. This introductory chapter describes the water situation in Greece and assesses the potential of the timely implementation of the European Union’s (EU) WFD. In this context, the significance of Asopos River Basin (RB) is put into perspective. More analytically, the chapter presents: (a) the employed methodology that enables rapid assessment of the status quo of the water situation in each Greek catchment, as compared to the requirements and targets of the EU WFD, (b) the implementation of this methodology on each of the 14 Greek River Basin Districts (RBDs) and (c) relevant empirical results. The main objective of the chapter is to present the rapid-appraisal methodology that was developed for the estimation of the cost-recovery level for water services in the 14 Greek RBDs. Results from this ‘quick appraisal’ clearly highlight the need for reforms in the current pricing policy and preparation of a package of measures, as proposed in Chaps.  9 and  10, in order for the water bodies to reach good ecological status and the water management to ensure full recovery of the cost of water services as required under article 11 of the WFD.

Keywords

EU WFD Asopos River Basin Water quality Cost recovery Water pricing 

References

  1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad, J., Goldar, B., & Misra, S. (2005). Value of arsenic-free drinking water to rural households in Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management, 74, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basili, M., Di Matteo, M., & Ferrini, S. (2006). Analysing demand for environmental quality: A willingness to pay/accept study in the Province of Siena (Italy). Waste Management, 26(3), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman, I. J., Cole, M., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D., & Poe, G. L. (2004). On Visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birol, E., & Koundouri, P. (2008a). Choice experiments in Europe: Economic theory and applications. Edward-Elgar Publishing, Wally Oates and Henk Folmer’s ‘New Horizons in Environmental Economics’ Series. ISBN: 9781845427252.Google Scholar
  6. Birol, E., & Koundouri, P. (2008b). Choice experiments informing environmental policy: A European perspective. Edward-Elgar Publishing, Wally Oates and Henk Folmer’s ‘New Horizons in Environmental Economics’ Series. ISBN: 9781845427252 (337pages).Google Scholar
  7. Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006). Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of the Total Environment, 365, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braden, J. B., & Kolstad, C. D. (Eds.). (1991). Measuring the demand for environmental quality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. Brouwer, R. (2008). The role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(5), 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brouwer, R., & Bateman, I. J. (2005). Temporal stability and transferability of models of willingness to pay for flood control and wetland conservation. Water Resources Research, 41(3), W03017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brouwer, R., & Pearce, D. W. (2005). Introduction. In R. Brouwer & D. W. Pearce (Eds.), Cost benefit analysis and water resources management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Brouwer, R., Barton, D. N., Bateman, I. J., Brander, L., Georgiou, S., Martín-Ortega, J., Pulido-Velazquez, M., Schaafsma, M., & Wagtendonk, A. (2009). Economic valuation of environmental and resource costs and benefits in the Water Framework Directive: Technical guidelines for practitioners. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University.Google Scholar
  13. Carter, J., & Howe, J. (2006). The Water Framework Directive and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union. First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM (2007) 128 final.Google Scholar
  15. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2000). Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 1997/0067 (COD), C5-0347/00.Google Scholar
  16. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (CIS). (2000/60/EC). Moving to the next stage in the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive Progress and work programme for 2005 and 2006 AS AGREED BY THE WATER DIRECTORS 2/3 December 2004.Google Scholar
  17. Crandall, K. B. (1991). Measuring the economic benefits of riparian areas. Masters thesis, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  18. Crutchfield, S. R., Cooper, J. C., & Hellerstein, D. (1997). Benefits of safer drinking water: The value of nitrate reduction. Washington, DC: Food and Consumer Economics Division, Economics Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  19. Day, B., & Mourato, S. (2002). Valuing river water quality in China. In D. Pearce, C. Pearce, & C. Palmer (Eds.), Valuing the environment in developing countries: Case studies. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham/Northampton.Google Scholar
  20. Desvousges, W. H., Naughton, M. C., & Parsons, G. R. (1992). Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resources Research, 28(3), 675–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. European Communities. (2002). Guidance document No. 1, Economics and the environment – the implementation challenge of the Water Framework Directive. A guidance document. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Brussels: European Commission. Available at http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library
  22. Farber, S., & Griner, B. (2000). Valuing Watershed Quality Improvements Using Conjoint Analysis. Ecological Economics, 34, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forster, B. A. (1985). Economic impact of acid deposition in the Canadian Aquatic Sector. In D. F. Adams & W. W. Page (Eds.), Acid Deposition. New York: Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Georgiou, S., Bateman I., Cole M., & Hanley, N. (2000). Contingent ranking and valuation of river water quality improvements: Testing for scope, sensitivity, ordering and distance decay effects. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000–18, UK Economic and Social Research Centre.Google Scholar
  25. Green, C. H., & Tunstall, S. M. (1991). The evaluation of river quality improvements by the contingent valuation method. Applied Economics, 23, 1135–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, C., Tunstall, S., Herring M., & Sawyer, J. (1993). Customer preference and willingness to pay for selected water and sewerage services. Report to the Office for Water Services.Google Scholar
  27. Hanley, N. (1991). The economics of nitrate pollution in the UK. In N. D. Hanley (Ed.), Farming and the countryside: An economic analysis of external costs and benefits. Oxford: CAB.Google Scholar
  28. Hanley, N., & Black, A. R. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the Water Framework Directive in Scotland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(2), 156–165.Google Scholar
  29. Hellenic Republic. Ministry of Environment Physical Planning and Public Works (MoEPPW). (2003). The law for the management of water resources of Greece, Law N.3199/03. Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  30. Hellenic Republic. Ministry of Environment Physical Planning and Public Works (MoEPPW). (2006). Report on the pressures and qualitative characteristics of water bodies in the water districts of Greece and a methodological approach for further analysis. Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  31. Hellenic Republic. Ministry of Environment Physical Planning and Public Works (MoEPPW). (2007). National programme for the management and protection of water resources, in Greek. Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  32. Jordan, J. L., & Elnagheeb, A. H. (1993). Willingness to pay for improvements in drinking water quality. Water Resources Research, 29(2), 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kallis, G., & Butler, D. (2001). The EU water framework directive: measures and implications. Water Policy, 3, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirchhoff, S., Colby, B. G., & LaFrance, J. T. (1997). Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: An empirical inquiry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koundouri, P. (2004). Current issues in the economics of groundwater resource management. Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(5), 703–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koundouri, P. (2007). Coping with water deficiency: From research to policy making (Environment and policy series, Vol. 48). Springer: Berlin. ISBN 978-1-4020-6614–6.Google Scholar
  37. Koundouri, P. (2010). Water resources allocation: Policy and socioeconomic issues in Cyprus (Environment and policy series). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Koundouri, P., & Remoundou, K. (2009). Introduction to the book. In P. Koundouri (Ed.), The use of economic valuation in environmental policy: Providing research support for the implementation of the EU water policy under AquaStress (Routledge explorations in environmental economics). London/New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  39. Lindhjem, H. (1998). Willingness to pay for improved water quality of Steinsfjorden – Betalingsvillighet for en bedret vannkvalitet i Steinsfjorden. Oslo: The University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  40. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1984). Willingness to pay for national freshwater quality improvements. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  41. Morris, J. (2004). Economics of the water framework directive: purpose, principles and practice. Environmental Economics Conference, 26 March, The Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
  42. Oglethorpe, D. R., & Miliadou, D. (2000). Economic valuation of the non-use attributes of a wetland: A case-study for Lake Kerkini. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 755–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ozdemiroglu, E., Newcombe, J., Mourato, S., Atkinson, G., & deGaris, Y. (2004). The value of a Tidier Thames: WTP to reduce sewage overflows, applied environmental economics conference, The Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
  44. Poe, G. L., & Bishop R. C. (1992). Measuring the benefits of groundwater protection from agricultural contamination: Results from a two-stage contingent valuation study (Agricultural Economics Staff Paper No. 341). Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  45. Ramsar Convention. (1996). Strategic plan 1997–2002. Gland: Ramsar Convention Bureau.Google Scholar
  46. Report on the implementation of Article 5 of the WFD, Hellenic Ministry of the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works, Athens March 2008, Prepared by RESEES – REsearch on Socio-Economic and Environmental Sustainability – team available at: http://www.aueb.gr/users/koundouri/resees/en/aswposprojen.html (In Greek).
  47. UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). (2005). Vital water statistics. (http://www.unep.org/vitalwater/).
  48. Water Development Department, Republic of Cyprus. (2005). Eu summary report articles 5&6. Available at: http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moa/wdd/Wdd.nsf/All/B8D7262CBFCC9AF8C225711E00303F5A/$file/Page1-20.pdf. Accessed Dec 2008.
  49. Whitehead, J. C., & Groothuis, P. A. (1992). Economic benefits of improved water quality: A case of North Carolina’s Tar-Pamlico River. Rivers, 3(3), 170–178.Google Scholar
  50. WWF. (2006) EU Water Policy: Making economics work for the environment: Survey of the economic elements of the Article 5 report of the EU Water Framework Directive, available at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/eu_water_policy___may_2006.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Koundouri
    • 1
  • N. Papandreou
    • 2
  • K. Remoundou
    • 3
  • Y. Kountouris
    • 4
  1. 1.Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  2. 2.Andreas G. Papandreou FoundationAthensGreece
  3. 3.Aberystwyth UniversityAberystwythUK
  4. 4.Imperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations