CITYWATER Benchmarking water protection in cities [LIFE11 ENV/FI/ Citywater]

Transcription

1 CITYWATERBenchmarkingwaterprotectionincities [LIFE11 ENV/FI/ Citywater] ReportonActionC.1.Workshop2:Cost-BenefitAnalysisWorkshop Background The CITYWATER project aims to implement and facilitate environmentally relevant and cost-beneficiary voluntary water protection measures in cities and municipalities in the Baltic Sea Region in order to improve the state of coastal waters. The project further aims at changing working procedures by increasing environmental communication and knowledge in cities and municipalities in the Baltic Sea Region in order to ensure continuous work for water quality improvement of local waters. Project action C.1 Environmental impact and cost-benefit analysis of water protection measures consists of a study, that aims to assess the environmental impact and cost-efficiency of different water protection measures, five visits to Baltic Sea Challenge cities to gather knowledge of the measures and two workshops. The first workshop (20 March 2013) gave outline to what kind of measures could be included in the costbenefit analysis. According to the discussion in this workshop, it was suggested that water protection measures to be included in the study should touch upon some of the themes storm water management, waste water treatment in Baltic countries (or in Poland or Russia), agriculture on fields, where the city has the landlord role, or maritime and port activities. In the next phase after the workshop, potential measures to be studied were collected and five measures were chosen for the analysis: Centralizing and improving of waste water treatment by municipal collaboration, Pori Luotsinmäki waste water treatment plant (WWTP), Finland Aerator investment in Liepaja WWTP, Latvia Waste water reception from passenger ships with no special fee in Port of Helsinki, Finland Storm water wetlands in a residential area in Lahti, Finland Buffer zones in river-by rental fields owned by the City of Turku, Finland Data collection begun in autumn 2013 and the city visits were made during the winter The second workshop was planned to be arranged in spring 2014 and its aim was to present analysis results and decisions on how to continue the work. Cost-benefit analysis workshop The second workshop was arranged in 23 April 2014 in Viikki Environment house, Helsinki, and it was titled Cost-benefit analysis workshop. This workshop included lectures on cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and environmental valuation methods, which are key methods in understanding the nature of CBA results, presentation on the preliminary results of the CBA study, and group discussions to get ideas how to continue with the study and how to use the results. The workshop also gathered representatives of case cities as well as experts in CBA and water protection, and case cities and municipal companies was given an opportunity to tell briefly about their water protection issues. WiththecontributionoftheLIFEfinancialinstrumentoftheEuropeanUnion

2 Morning session: Introductions and lectures The workshop was opened by Head of environmental protection department Päivi Kippo-Edlund from the City of Helsinki. She pointed out in her opening words that even if many targets and commitments for protecting the Baltic Sea are made on the state level, local actors play a crucial role in reaching these goals. Local actors need more information about the benefits of water protection work and cost-benefit analysis could be a useful tool for them, but there are still open questions considering how to utilize this tool and its results in the best way. Her speech was followed by brief introductions on the CITYWATER project by Project manager Kajsa Rosqvist and the CITYWATER Cost-benefit analysis by Project expert Eliisa Punttila. The representatives of the case studies from Liepaja WWTP, Port of Helsinki, City of Lahti and City of Turku were given an opportunity to tell briefly about their water protection issues: WWTP chemist Gunta Sneidere from municipal WWTP of Liepaja, Latvia, presented their recent investments in the plant and the development of the treatment efficiency. She also told that erosion of the shoreline caused by the sea is a serious threat to the plant located very close to the shore, and they have been combating against it from year to year. Deputy Environmental Manager Ari Piispanen continued with waste water reception from ships in ports. He explained that the regulation concerning waste water reception leaves room for interpretation, but good management of environmental issues gives advantage in the competition against other transport modes. Planning architect Päivi Airas from the City of Lahti introduced their storm water management and its relationship to protection of local waters and ground water reserves and to climate change adaption. She also reminded that although Lahti is not located by the coast of the Baltic Sea, nutrients from storm water still influence the state of the sea as run-off water entering rivers eventually flow to the sea. Director of Environmental Protection Olli-Pekka Mäki from the City of Turku told about the city as an owner of agricultural land and its possibilities to influence water protection in agriculture when renting or selling land to local farmers. Project expert Eliisa Punttila introduced the municipal water company Pori Water of the City of Pori and its largest plant Luotsinmäki WWTP, since representatives from Pori were not able to attend the workshop. Gunta Sneidere presents Liepaja WWTP The morning session provided also two very interesting lectures. At first, University lecturer Chiara Lombardini from University of Helsinki told about the basic idea of the cost-benefit analysis and explained why it is a useful and valuable tool. Projects may have impacts, e.g. environmental benefits, that don t cause direct financial inflows or outflows, and in financing-focused decision-making these impacts may be WiththecontributionoftheLIFEfinancialinstrumentoftheEuropeanUnion

3 overlooked. In addition, the costs and benefits may be placed to the past, present or to the future. The CBA enables to take into account all relevant costs and benefits despite the lack of monetary values and regardless of the point of the time span of the project when they rise. She also emphasized that CBA doesn t aim to give only one value as a result, but also to discuss uncertainty and reliability related to the result for example, the influence of certain assumptions on the results. Research scientist Heini Ahtiainen from MTT Agrifood Research Finland continued on how the environmental impact can be evaluated in monetary terms and why it is needed. She told in her presentation that the idea is to assess the value of the environment for humans (not intrinsic value of the nature), and it is basically a trade-off: how much are people willing to give up, e.g. pay money, to get a better quality of the environment or ecosystem services. This monetary value can be used in the costbenefit analysis, e.g. to compare the quantity of the benefits in environmental protection to the costs. There are several methods for economic valuation of environmental benefits, but they usually demand a lot of time, money and expertise. However, environmental valuation studies have a potential to provide very useful information for municipalities, and researchers and experts may give help in the interpretation and utilizing of existing information. Chiara Lombardini and Heini Ahtiainen gave interesting lectures Afternoon session: Preliminary results and next steps In the afternoon session Project expert Eliisa Punttila presented the preliminary results of the study. The preliminary results provided an outline of what kind of results the CBA provides, what is the current situation with the work and what could be expected of the final results. She concluded that CBA will provide a lot of information and the results looked promising, but the analyses do require improvements and supplements to get more accurate results. In addition, the sensitivity analysis should be performed to get information of the reliability of the results. WiththecontributionoftheLIFEfinancialinstrumentoftheEuropeanUnion

4 Presentation of the preliminary results The CBA study report draft was sent to two experts from outside of the CITYWATER project and to the representatives of the cases two weeks before the workshop in order for them to read. Professor Kari Hyytiäinen from University of Helsinki gave his predetermined comments at first. He thought that the study gives meaningful insight to water protection measures in general and it provides valuable information. He recommended to discuss the relationship between the Baltic Sea level and local level in more detail and to put focus on the interpretation of the results and how they will be communicated. Environmental planner Petteri Huuska from City of Helsinki continued with comments from the municipal point of view. He thought that the results are crucial in motivating the municipalities, and the CBA could be legally binding requirement in line with the environmental impact assessment. He thought that the assessment methods and formulas may be regarded as complicated and difficult to understand for civil servants, and wished to open and explain them more case by case. He wondered if it would be possible to estimate the challenging but economically important impacts, e.g. benefits of improved image or municipal collaboration, for example by panel of experts. In addition to these comment speeches, the audience further commented and asked questions concerning the preliminary results and the study. One theme in the discussion was how the results of five case measures could be utilized and compared between each other or other projects. As a conclusion, the results will provide valuable information of implemented measures for e.g. planning similar projects, but however, it should be pointed out that water protection measures differ by scale and site in many ways and thus the results should not be generalized to widely. Another theme discussed was the reliability of the preliminary results because some of the benefits were estimated to be very high. It was further pointed out that the results are preliminary, and without improvements of the analysis and sensitivity analysis it is too early to make conclusions of the results. Some of the participants wished also additional indicators of efficiency, e.g. euros per kilogram of reduced nutrients, or euros per hectare for buffer zones. These indicators may enable comparison to the results in previous studies, but researchers pointed out that it is not sensible to compare e.g. agricultural measures to investments in waste water treatment plants, because the benefits are very different in these themes. The discussion was followed by group discussions to get ideas for the utilizing of the study results. Three questions were given as topics. 1. What kind of information do municipalities need for improving water protection? The groups listed out several issues that municipalities need more information about in order to improve water protection. At first, they thought that more information about environmental problems and the current ecological status of the Baltic Sea and local waters would be useful, so that measures could be directed mainly to solve the problems. Also examples of possible solutions would be useful. Secondly, municipalities need more information about water protection measures in order to choose the most cost- WiththecontributionoftheLIFEfinancialinstrumentoftheEuropeanUnion

5 effective alternative: environmental impacts, the definition, size and target of the benefits to be gained, as well as the cost for certain water protection measures. One group also mentioned the importance of public awareness: municipalities are interested in people s thoughts on water protection and what kind of measures they want municipalities to do. 2. Is the cost-benefit analysis a good tool for civil servants working with water protection? Why? The cost-benefit analysis was in particular regarded as a potential tool for municipalities, because it provides information and answers on questions that civil servants and decision makers are facing. Groups thought that CBA has a potential to change minds and function as a foundation for discussion, to take also other aspects into account than just costs. As a tool CBA would help prioritizing the measures. It also would help municipalities to communicate their water protection measures and the impacts from them. The groups pointed out that although the CBA is a good tool there are also some challenges related to it. The CBA is a rather new method for municipalities, and thus participants were worried about that there is not enough knowledge about the CBA in general and the monetized value of an improved state of the Baltic Sea in particular. Furthermore, the groups raised a question regarding the ability of civil servants utilizing the CBA independently. CBA was also regarded as a heavy and resource-consuming method, so it seems to be challenging to use in a greater extent. The groups also highlighted that one value as a result does not tell the whole truth but a scale where the net present value most probably lies would be more trustworthy CBA would thus always require a thorough sensitivity analysis. In addition, the groups thought about how applicable the results of one project are to other projects. 3. In your opinion, what is the most useful information for municipalities in the CITYWATER CBA study? Why? The most useful information in the CITYWATER CBA study was seen to be the information it provides on how such a tool can be used in environmental protection issues and the practical examples of water protection work it presents. Although CBA is a rather new method for cities and municipalities, CITYWATER presents and explains it to municipalities and shows how it can be applied to municipal water protection. The study shows that a lot of information already does exist, and it is gathered and used in CBA, and also that municipalities are not alone with their water protection issues. Even if the results of the study cannot be directly replicated, rough estimates were also seen to be valuable as they can give some direction on benefits and efficiency of different solutions. The study was also considered valuable as it can help change the mindset from being cost focused to take into account other aspects on a long term basis. Group discussions WiththecontributionoftheLIFEfinancialinstrumentoftheEuropeanUnion

6 After the workshop part, the day continued with a guided tour in the Viikki Environment House, and gettogether with free discussion, refreshments and snacks. Workshop participants thought that the day was very interesting, useful and it provided a lot of thinking. Conclusions of the workshop In conclusion of the fruitful workshop day, it is fair to state that the information that municipalities need is in line with the information that the CBA can provide. The CBA was regarded as a potential tool for municipalities to improve water protection work, because it provides varying and extended information and has a long-term perspective. It is, however, very new and probably challenging too, and municipalities should have more knowledge about it before using it in a wider context. The workshop also brought up the challenge of rising awareness of water protection issues through the CBA study results, because the CBA provides diverse information and CBA may be a rather new method for cities and municipalities. If water protection issues are not well-known, the introduction before presenting the results should be very comprehensive. At first there should be awareness on the environmental problems and knowledge on why water protection is needed. Secondly, the CBA and monetizing of environmental impacts should be introduced well so that the interpretation of results is understandable, not only numbers. Text: Eliisa Punttila, Elina Häkkinen (workshop notes) Photos: Tina Nyfors WiththecontributionoftheLIFEfinancialinstrumentoftheEuropeanUnion