Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Disproportionate Costs According to the WFD: Comparison of Applications of two Approaches in the Catchment of the Stanovice Reservoir (Czech Republic)

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EU Water Framework Directive requires all water bodies within EU member states to achieve the “good status” by 2015/2021/2027. As it has proved to be very challenging for many water bodies, demand for cost proportionality analysis has increased dramatically, because disproportionate costs are one of the justifiable reasons for a deadline extension. This has led to development of many approaches across Europe. Among others, the Czech official methodology based on monetary cost-benefit analysis and the German “New Leipzig approach” based on criteria and cost threshold were introduced in 2015. Both approaches estimate costs of achieving the “good status”, but differ significantly in evaluating benefits. The Czech methodology identifies various categories of benefits, monetizes them and later compares them with costs of measure implementation. The German methodology determines how proportionate it is to spend on measures based on past public expenditures, objective distance to the “good status” and generated benefits. Both methodologies were tested on a small Stanovice catchment in the Czech Republic with similar results, which allows for a comparison of the two approaches they represent. Achieving the “good status” is viewed as cost-proportionate. Application of both methodologies is associated with numerous problems (e.g., data availability, estimate accuracy), which are further discussed in the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Macrophytes/Phytobenthos, Macroinvertebrates, Phytoplankton, Fish, Environmental quality standards

  2. Ecology and nature protection (3); Freshwater provision and treatment (0); Flood protection (2); Soil protection (2); Tourism and recreation (3)

  3. Construction and renovation of wastewater treatment plants, sewer systems, dead-end and accumulation cesspits, retention wetlands, biological reservoirs, domestic wastewater treatment plants, intensification of the treatment process at wastewater treatment plants.

  4. Building of broad-base terraces, grassing of sloping areas, changing of crop rotation, leaving crop residue, introduction of no-tillage methods.

  5. Expenditures on sewage disposal and water management, and cultivation are considered.

References

  • Ammermüller B, Fälsch M, Holländer R, Klauer B, Sigel K, Mewes M, Bräuer I, Grünig M, Ehlers MH, Borchardt D (2008) Entwicklung einer Methodik zur nicht-monetären Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägung im Umsetzungsprozess der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. http://www.runder-tisch-werra.de/show_image.php?id=678&download=1. Accessed 28 Sept 2017

  • Aresti ML (2008) An investigation of regulatory efficiency with reference to the EU water framework directive: an application to Scottish agriculture. The University of Edinburgh, Doctoral dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Barton D, Bateman I, Brander L, Georgiou S, Martín-Ortega, J, …, Wagtendonk A (2009) Economic valuation of environmental and resource costs and benefits in the WFD: technical guidelines for practitioners. Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam. 2009, pp 240

  • Corrigan JR, Egan KJ, Downing JA (2009) Aesthetic values of lakes and rivers. In: Likens GE (2009) encyclopedia of inland waters. Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012370626-3.00003-X

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtecuisse A (2005) Water prices and households’ available income: key indicators for the assessment of potential disproportionate costs illustration from the Artois Picardie Basin (France). Vienna: WG-Env, international work session on water statistics, 20.-22. June 2005

  • Czech statistical office (2015) Investice na ochranu životního prostředí v letech 1986–2014. (Investment on environmental protection 1986–2014). https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20543863/2800221501.xls/89e85479-0e28-4f4b-91ee-015254ddc013?version=1.0 Accessed 2 Oct 2015

  • Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l28002b

  • Feuillette S, Levrel H, Boeuf B, Blanquart S, Gorin O, Monaco G, Penisson B, Robichon S (2016). The use of cost-benefit analysis in environmental policies: some issues raised by the water framework directive implementation in France. Environ Sci Policy, Elsevier 57:79–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.002

  • Galioto F, Marconi V, Raggi M, Viaggi D (2013) An assessment of disproportionate costs in WFD: the experience of Emilia-Romagna. Water 5(4):1967–1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/w5041967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Black RA (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the water framework directive in Scotland. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2(2):156–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020208

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen CL, Jacobsen BH, Olsen SB, Dubgaard A, Hasler B (2013) A practical CBA-based screening procedure for identification of river basins where the costs of fulfilling the WFD requirements may be disproportionate – applied to the case of Denmark. J Environ Econ Policy 2(2):164–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2013.785676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer B et al (2007) Verhältnismäßigkeit der Maßnahmenkosten im Sinne der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie – komplementäre Kriterien zur Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse. Helmholtz Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauer et al (2015) Unverhältnismäßige Kosten nach EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie – Ein Verfahren zur Begründung weniger strenger Umweltziele. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ Department Ökonomie, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauer B, Sigel K, Schiller J (2016) Disproportionate costs in the EU water framework directive—how to justify less stringent environmental objectives. Environ Sci Policy 59:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer B, Schiller J, Sigel K (2017) Is the achievement of “good status” for German surface waters disproportionately expensive?—comparing two approaches to assess disproportionately high costs in the context of the European. Water framework directive. Water 9(8):554. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9080554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macháč J, Brabec J, Slavíková L (2015a) Pilot study of cost proportionality analysis according to the “new Leipzig approach” in the catchment of the Stanovice reservoir in the Czech Republic. http://www.ieep.cz/en/research-interests/params/6/71.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2017

  • Macháč J, Slavíková L et al. (2015b). Ekonomické hodnocení nákladové efektivnosti opatření na snížení vnosu fosforu do vodní nádrže Stanovice. (Economic assessment of the cost effectiveness of measures to reduce inputs of phosphorus into the reservoir tank Stanovice) IREAS, Institut pro strukturální politiku, o.p.s., Prague

  • Macháč J, Brabec J, Slavíková L (2016) Případová studie: Hodnocení nákladové přiměřenosti dosahování dobrého stavu v povodí vodní nádrže Stanovice. (Case study: Evaluation of cost-proportionality of achieving the good status at Stanovice water reservoir catchment). Internal document of project TD020352 – Hodnocení nákladové přiměřenosti v rámci dosahování dobrého stavu vodních útvarů. UJEP, Ústí nad Labem

  • Martin-Ortega J (2012) Economic prescriptions and policy applications in the implementation of the European water framework directive. Environ Sci Policy 24:83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Ortega J et al (2013) Cost-effectiveness analysis report for the Thames sub-catchment including analysis of disproportionality Refresh WP6

  • Nocker LD, Broeks S, Liekens I, Görlach B, Jantzen J, Campling P (2007). Costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the water framework directive, with a special focus on agriculture: final report. Study for DG Environment

  • Povodí Ohře (2009). List hodnocení útvaru povrchových vod (Assessment of surface water body) ID 113020300001. http://www.poh.cz/VHP/pop/C/5_LISTY_HODNOCENI/UTVARY_POVRCHOVYCH_VOD/113020300001.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb 2017

  • Povodí Ohře (2014) Vodní dílo Stanovice. www.poh.cz. Accessed 4 Jan 2017

  • Pretty JN, Mason CF, Nedwell DB, Hine RE, Leaf S, Dils R (2003) Environmental costs of freshwater eutrophication in England and wales. Environ Sci Technol 37(2):201–208. https://doi.org/10.1021/es020793k

  • Slavíková L, Vojáček O, Macháč J, Hekrle M, Ansorge L (2015) Metodika k aplikaci výjimek z důvodu nákladové nepřiměřenosti opatření k dosahování dobrého stavu vodních útvarů. (Methodology of Exemption Application in Case of Cost-disporoportionality of achieving the "Good Status" on water bodies). Výzkumný ústav vodohospodářský T. G. Masaryka, v.v.i., Prague

  • Vinten AJA, Martin-Ortega J, Glenk K, Booth P, Balana BB, MacLeod M, Lago M, Moran D, Jones M (2012) Application of the WFD cost proportionality principle to diffuse pollution mitigation: a case study for Scottish lochs. J Environ Manag 97:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vojáček O, Macháč J, Smejkal T (2014) Lake Orlík basin to reduce phosphorus contamination of tributaries. In: Sauer P (ed) Providing information for decision making in environmental management: young schoolar’s perspective, Litomysl seminar Publicing, pp 30–41. ISBN 978-80-86709-21-5

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the project of Technology Agency of the Czech Republic No. TD020352 and the project Specific Academic Research Projects 2017 of Charles University, Faculty of Humanities No. 260 471.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Churchill Sq. 1938/4, 130 67, Prague 3, Czech Republic

    Jan Macháč

  2. Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, U Kříže 8, 158 00, Prague 5, Jinonice, Czech Republic

    Jan Brabec

Authors
  1. Jan Macháč
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Brabec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Macháč.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macháč, J., Brabec, J. Assessment of Disproportionate Costs According to the WFD: Comparison of Applications of two Approaches in the Catchment of the Stanovice Reservoir (Czech Republic). Water Resour Manage 32, 1453–1466 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1879-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1879-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation