- 8.1 overview of measures and their costs in the hmwb and awb process

There are some issues within the designation process that are not particularly unique to one single step of the identification and designation process. These are summarised below.

Different kinds of measures are to be considered at different stages (steps) of the process. These include restoration measures in the designation test 4(3)(a) and mitigation measures for establishing MEP and GEP. For reaching the environmental quality objectives, a programme of measures needs to be set up for each RBD. This includes not only (mitigation) measures for AWB or HMWB, but also measures for natural water bodies.

When (restoration or mitigation) measures are being identified and their impacts assessed, the scale becomes important. It has to be taken into account that measures upstream might influence the conditions downstream and vice-versa. The identification of suitable measures can be difficult, because information on the cause-effect relationship of measures is often insufficient. Related to the identification (and at some points realisation) of different measures, considerations of costs and benefits as well as technical feasibility are relevant at several stages of the process to different extents, as shown in Table 4 .

The following Table 4 gives an overview of the types of measures (second column) that are to be considered in the different steps (first column) of the designation and objective setting processes for HMWB and AWB. In the third column the related cost (and benefit) considerations are listed, and it is indicated where the consideration of technical feasibility is relevant.

Step	Measures to be considered	Costs (and benefits) related to measures /other means
1-6: Up to provisional identification	None.	Not considered.
7: Designation test 4(3)(a)	Restoration measures necessary to achieve GES.	· When assessing the adverse effects on the specified uses and on the wider environment, costs need to be considered. · The benefits of achieving GES must be considered, other benefits may be considered. · Costs of restoration measures (including disproportionality of costs) are NOT considered.
8: Designation test 4(3)(b)	Not "measures" but 'other means' are considered.	· Comparison of current benefits with benefits of other means. · Disproportionality of costs of other means should be considered. · Technical feasibility of other means should be considered.
9: Designation	None.	Not considered.
10: Establishing MEP	All mitigation measures [24] that: · do not significantly adversely affect the specified uses or the wider environment; and · ensure the best approximation to ecological continuum.	· When assessing the adverse effects on the specified uses and on the wider environment, costs need to be considered. · The benefits to the water body of applying the mitigation measures should be considered. · Costs of mitigation measures (including disproportionality of costs) are NOT considered. · Technical feasibility of mitigation measures NOT to be considered.
11: Establishing GEP	Mitigation measures that: · do not significantly adversely affect the specified uses or the wider environment; and · improve water body to slight deviation of MEP.	· When assessing the adverse effects on the specified uses and on the wider environment, costs need to be considered. · The benefits to the water body of applying the mitigation measures should be considered. · Costs of mitigation measures (including disproportionality of costs) are NOT considered. · Technical feasibility of mitigation measures NOT to be considered.
For all water bodies (natural, artificial and heavily modified):
POM for reaching the environmental quality objectives (EQO)	All measures according to Article 11 WFD (including other means and mitigation measures considered in the designation process)..	· Costs of measures (including disproportionality of costs) should be considered. · Select the most cost-effective combination of measures to achieve the EQO. · Technical feasibility of the measures should be considered.

Within the first steps up to provisional HMWB identification (steps 1-6), no measures or cost and feasibility estimations are considered.

In the first designation test (step 7) all "restoration measures" necessary to achieve the GES are to be considered, regardless of their costs or technical feasibility. In this test it has to be assessed whether these restoration measures have a significant adverse effect on the specified uses or the wider environment. In assessing this, cost considerations are relevant (e.g. loss of revenue). In the second designation test (step 8), no measures are considered but "other means" (including displacement or replacement of current specified use), [25] that serve the same beneficial objective, are considered. These other means have to be assessed with regard to their technical feasibility and their disproportionality of costs.

In defining MEP (step 10) and GEP (step 11) conditions, all mitigation measures that do not have significant adverse effects neither on the specified uses nor on the wider environment are to be considered. The capital costs that would be incurred if the mitigation measures were implemented and disproportionality of costs are not relevant considerations in this context. The mitigation measures only define the reference conditions for the classification of HMWB and AWB. Setting this standard does not require the measures to be implemented. Again only cost in the context of impact on specified uses is relevant. When setting up the RBMP, the feasibility and costs play a major role and might lead to derogations.