M. Grossmann (TUB), H. Behrendt (IGB), H. Gömann (FAL), C. Sartorius (ISI)

GLOWA-Elbe II Statuskonferenz 14. Dez. 2006 Potsdam Malte Grossmann, TU Berlin

M. Grossmann (TUB),

H. Behrendt (IGB), H. Gömann (FAL), C. Sartorius (ISI)

Economic assessment of basin scale strategies to achieve quality goals (good status)

http://www.fal.de/index.htm


Content: Steps in cost-effectivness analysis with MONERIS

1. Data basis 2. Baseline scenarios

- Climate & river flow

- Agricutural sector

- Urban waste water systems

3. Calculate water quality indicators with MONERIS

4. Specification of goal indicators

5. Identification of possible measures

7. Calculate costs and water quality status indicators for measures

8. Identify cost-effective combinations of measures

6. Include model of measures and costs in MONERIS


Industrial discharges

Stormwater

Combined sewage

Waste water

Nitrification

Surface water

Urban areas

sewerage system No sewerage system

Denitrification

P Precipitation

P Filtration

Mech. / Biol.

Sewage Pits

Groundwater

Decentral WWTP

no sewerage system sewerage system

Seperate sewage

WWTP

Step 5: integration of measures in MONERIS pathways – urban sources

Population

Storm water retention and treatment

WWTP technology

Connection to WWTP / decentral WWTP

Drainage of urban areas

Regional population, landuse, water use, specific nutrient load

Stormwater retention

Stormwater treatment

Membrane


Surface flow

Surface water

Agricultural sector market and policy framework

Grassland area Arable area

Drainage area and flow

Regional model farm / RAUMIS

soil loss

nutrient surplus

Sediment delivery area

instruments of agricultural policy:

limitation on max. allowable N surplus, Tax on mineral and/ or

manure N, etc.

wetland reactivation

Groundwater Erosion

regulation of drainage / ponds

soil conservation tillage

riparian buffer

Retention in Wetlands

Drainage

Step 5: integration of measures in MONERIS pathways – agricultural sources


Step 6: Cost model => cost functions and annual costs

Example: P Elimination in WWTP Example: Erosion control

-standardised cost-functions adapted to available data => „cost bands“

- comparison on the basis of discounted annual values

=> scale effects, investment and operation costs effect of discounting on annual costs

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

10 30 50 70 90

Discounting Period

Ann

ual C

osts

[€/h

a]

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0 50000 100000 150000 200000

EW

Mio

. €

5000 € /ha

3000 € /ha

25 € /ha* a

„simultaneous precipitation technology“

„pay annual compensation“

„buy riparian buffer“

Operation costs

investment costs


Example Economic cost function: p elimination wwtp

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80

emission reduction [t/a]

cost

-effe

ctiv

ness

ratio

[€/k

g]

LabeVlatava/MoldauOhre/EgerMulde / Schwarze ElsterSaaleMittelelbeHavel

0

1000

2000

0 20 40 60 80


annu

al c

osts

[100

0 €/

a] LabeVlatava/MoldauOhre/EgerMulde / Schwarze ElsterSaaleMittelelbeHavel

Step 7: Analysing basin specific costs and effects

Example: P Elimination in WWTP All WWTP > 1000 EW with chemical treatment => 1 -0,8 mg/l P konz., 3% discount, 60 year discount period, only german subbasin


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 200 400 600 800


annu

al c

osts

[100

0 €/


0

20

40

60

80

100

0 200 400 600 800


cost

-effe

ctiv

ness

ratio

[€/k

g]


Example: P reduction by erosion control

Soil erosion on all of arable land contributing to sediment delivery is reduced by 80% through soil cultivation practice, costs 50 €/ha, 3% discount, 60 year discount period

Step 7: Analysing basin specific costs and effects


0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000


annu

al c

osts

[100

0 €/

a]

1: WWTP/ P Fällung

2: WWTP/ P Filtration GKL 5

3: Erosion / Tillage / 100 €/ha

4: Erosion / Tillage / 25 €/ha

5: Erosion / riparian buffer / lessoptimistic6: Erosion / riparian buffer /minimum7: Combination riparian bufferand WWTP

Step 8: Comparison of measures / assessment of combinations

Elbe Geesthacht

0

50

100

150

200

250

TP c

onc.

[µg/

l]

Comparison: P reduction measures

ca. 20 - 40 Mio. € annual costs for coming close to „good status“ in P conc., discount period 60 years.

25 Mio Inhabitants: 0,8 – 1 € / EW or 0,03 – 0,05 €/m³

=> WWTP CZ not yet included

(2 + 6


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 1000 2000 3000

imission reduction [t/a]

annu

al c

osts

[100

0 €/


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1000 2000 3000


cost

-effe

ctiv

ness

ratio

[€/k

g]


Example: N surplus in agriculture


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ElbeGeesthacht

DIN conc. [mg/l]

no measuremeasure

reduction of allowable maximum to 50 kg N / ha surplus, costs of surplus reduction assumed 1 €/ kg N / ha*a=> here only effect of groundwater pathway, RAUMIS will calculate regional different costs


Conclusion

Results so far:- Integrated analysis of measures, outcomes and cost-effectiveness with MONERIS

made possible- It seems possible to achieve good status, as far as the nutrient concentrations are

concerend- This will require to activate almost all P reduction potentials, especially a reduction in

sediment transport (Czech WWTP potential not fully included yet). - large differentials in cost effectiveness and potential for measures between basins,

implies that some will need to do more than others to reach a good status of the Elbe.


Thank You !

http://www.fal.de/index.htm


Introduction

Lead Questions:Which strategies to achieve quality goals (good status) are promising => from a basinwide perspective? => and under the conditions of regional change?

Economic assessement method:Cost-effectiveness analysis

But: before we can asses effects of global change on management options, we first have

to operationalise the „cost-effectiveness“ challenge of the WFD for large scale basins like the Elbe.



maximum of 30 kg N / ha surplus allowed, costs of surplus reduction assumed with 1 €/ kg N / ha*a => ca. 250 Mio. € annual costs for coming close to „good status“ in DIN conc., => 25 Mio Inhabitants: ca. 10 € / EW or 0,35 €/m³=> RAUMIS will calculate „true“ cost of measure, other effective measures not included


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Elbe Geesthacht

DIN conc. (µg/l)

MeasureStatus Quo

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000


cost

-effe

ctiv

ness

ratio

[€/k

g]


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000


annu

al c

osts

[100

0 €/


[mg/l]


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Labe

Vlatava/Moldau

Ohre/Eger

Mulde / Schwarze Elster

Saale

Mittelelbe

Havel

Elbe Geesthacht

TP konz (µg/l)

MeasureStatus Quo

Goal: good quality status of Elbe River

Goal: reduction of nutrient load to North Sea

Step 4: Definition of goal indicators

P concentration => quality status

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ElbeGeesthacht

DIN conc. (mg/l)

MeasureStatus Quo


Tasks:- intensive sensitivity analysis- identify „least cost solutions“, cost-effective combinations of measures- improve on Czech Basin- Commence dialog with IKSE, FGG, Länder to reach some level on agreement

concerning specification of measures and cost assumptions- systematic comparison of potential strategies under conditions of different baseline

scenarios

Outlook



maximum of 30 kg N / ha surplus allowed, costs of surplus reduction assumed with 1 €/ kg N / ha*a => ca. 250 Mio. € annual costs for coming close to „good status“ in DIN conc., => 25 Mio Inhabitants: ca. 10 € / EW or 0,35 €/m³=> RAUMIS will calculate „true“ cost of measure, other effective measures not included


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Elbe Geesthacht

DIN conc. (µg/l)

MeasureStatus Quo

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000


cost

-effe

ctiv

ness

ratio

[€/k

g]


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000


annu

al c

osts

[100

0 €/


[mg/l]

Documents

M. Grossmann (TUB), H. Behrendt (IGB), H. Gömann (FAL), C. Sartorius (ISI)