This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Exploring the meaning of disproportionate costs for the practical implementation of the Water Framework Directive

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Lago, Manuel
Moran, Dominic
MacLeod, Michael J
Abstract

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is perhaps the most ambitious piece of environmental legislation in the history of the European Union. The Directive consolidates existing water-related legislation and has the stated objective of delivering good status (GS) for Europe’s surface waters and groundwaters. But meeting GS is cost dependent, and in some water bodies pollution abatements costs may be high or judged as disproportionate. The exact definition and assessment of disproportionate costs is central for the justification of time-frame derogations and/or lowering the environmental objectives (standards) for compliance at a water body. Official guidance is somewhat discretionary about the interpretation of disproportionate costs. Building on basic cost-benefit theory, this paper attempts to clarify the meaning of disproportionate cost to non-economists, and to convey a consistent interpretation that should underlie the development of a practical derogation decision making across all member states

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/46005
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Scottish Agricultural College, Land Economy Research Group in its series Working Papers with number 46005.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:saclwp:46005

Contact details of provider:
Postal: King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Web page: http://www.sac.ac.uk/research/lee/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords: Derogations; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA); Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA); Marginal Abatement Costs (MAC); Marginal Social Costs (MSC);

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. David Pearce, 2004. "Does European Union Environmental Policy Pass a Cost–Benefit Test?," World Economics, World Economics, Economic & Financial Publishing, PO Box 69, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, RG9 1GB, vol. 5(3), pages 115-137, July. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You too can volunteer with RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-26.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.