Cost-effective abatement of non-point source nitrogen emissions – The effects of uncertainty in retention

Hasler, Berit; Hansen, Line Block; Andersen, Hans Estrup; Termansen, Mette

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.140

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Knowing the target N reduction required at the fjord (3627 tonnes), the catchment area (505,600 ha), and average retention (64.9%), an average reduction of approximately 20 kg N/ha is required at the farms' root zones. This average 20 kg N/ha target reduction in at-farm leaching (~ 26% reduction from a calculated baseline of 79 kg N/ha leaching, 2 corresponding to a baseline nitrogen load of ~ 14,000 tonnes at fjord) is considered feasible for the types of farming undertaken in the catchment, given their cost profiles and available abatement measures (Hasler et al 2019). Therefore, in this study, the smart market scheme is simulated for target total reductions of between 2 and 32% in at-farm leaching.…”

Section: Study Area Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of abatement is further increased when there is inter-farm variability in the biophysical processes that link management practices and land uses to at-farm leaching, and in N-retention from farm to the receptor (Claassen et al 2008). Designing policies that recognise and incorporate spatial heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of abatement can further reduce the societal costs of attaining water pollution targets (Hasler et al 2014(Hasler et al , 2019Konrad et al 2014;Smart et al 2016;Refsgaard et al 2019;Czajkowski et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tradeable Nitrogen Abatement Practices for Diffuse Agricultural Emissions: A ‘Smart Market’ Approach

Hasan

Hansen

Smart

et al. 2022

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Markets in pollution permits for managing environmental quality have been advocated by economists since early 1970s as a mechanism that can deliver pollution reduction targets at lower cost to regulated entities than traditional uniform command-and control approaches. This study explores whether a ‘smart market’ cap-and-trade scheme between non-point sources can offer meaningful, robust and policy amenable, advantages over alternative approaches for nitrogen management in a realistic setting: 6504 individual farms in Limfjorden catchment, Denmark. The scheme involves multilateral trading of nitrogen emission rights among farms via changes in agricultural land management practices under a catchment-level cap on total nitrogen load. In this, the first exploration of non-point to non-point smart market nitrogen trading in a real setting, we estimate efficiency gains compared to uniform command-and-control regulation, explore the robustness of these gains in the face of non-participation, and reflect on farmers’ potential acceptance of the trading market in comparison with its command-and-control analog: spatially-targeted regulation, implemented via location-specific limits on nitrogen leaching. Results indicate that the smart market has the potential to substantially reduce the cost of meeting the catchment’s nitrogen reduction target. For a 21.5% reduction from baseline nitrogen load, the market delivers cost savings of 56% (DKK273 million, €36.6 million) compared to uniform regulation, with participating farms realising a mean net benefit of DKK 723/ha (€ 97/ha). Market performance is relatively robust against transaction cost; when delivering a 21.5% reduction in nitrogen load to Limfjorden, approximately 70% of the overall efficiency gain could be retained if only 24% of farms engaged with the market.

show abstract

Section: Study Area Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tradeable Nitrogen Abatement Practices for Diffuse Agricultural Emissions: A ‘Smart Market’ Approach

Hasan

Hansen

Smart

et al. 2022

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nitrogen is particularly labile, whereas P losses tend to occur as erratic runoff. Efforts to reduce emissions in one pathway can therefore increase losses in another, and thereby change the location, type and timing of environmental burdens (Hasler et al 2019a ). These emission risks can be minimized by containing and capturing the nutrients in livestock manure through judicious storage, timing and spreading of manure according to crop needs, thereby ensuring high manure-nutrient utilization by crops and enabling minimal application of mineral fertilizers (Webb et al 2013 ).…”

Section: Fully Implement Agreed-upon Basic Abatement Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the policy framework to resolve lax implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan for agriculture

Brady

Andersen

Andersson

et al. 2021

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this perspective article, we provide recommendations for strengthening the policy framework for protecting the Baltic Sea from agricultural nutrient pollution. The most striking weakness is the lax implementation of prescribed abatement measures, particularly concerning manure management, in most countries. Institutions of the EU should also be leveraged for achieving Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) goals. In contrast to the Helsinki Convention, the European Union has economic, political and legal mandates to further implementation and compliance. Equally important is the need for strengthening of local institutions, particularly Water Boards and independent agricultural advisory services in the eastern Baltic Sea Region countries. There is also an urgent need for implementation of voluntary land-use measures where EU funding available to farmers is more broadly and effectively used by providing it on the basis of estimated abatement performance, which can be realized through modelling. The enormous potential for funding performance-based schemes, manure management infrastructure and advisory services through the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy are currently underutilized.

show abstract

“…It is evident that tools addressing the impacts on welfare (the socio-economic perspective) and linking to management responses are clearly underrepresented compared to those concentrating on the environmental and ecological impacts of human activities and the pressures they cause. A relatively large number of cost-effectiveness models have been developed and used to assess nutrient abatement in the Baltic Sea (e.g., Ahlvik et al 2014;Elofsson 2010;Hasler et al 2014;Hasler et al 2019;Hyytiäinen et al 2014), but the use of these tools to support choices between policy options are relatively rare. Some models are used in cost-benefit analysis frameworks that could qualify as DSTs (Hyytiäinen et al 2014;Scharin et al 2016), but those made for the Baltic Sea have not been developed into DSTs.…”

Section: Compliance With the Ecosystem Approchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision-Support Tools Used in the Baltic Sea Area: Performance and End-User Preferences

Nygård

Beest

Bergqvist

et al. 2020

Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision-support tools (DSTs) synthesize complex information to assist environmental managers in the decision-making process. Here, we review DSTs applied in the Baltic Sea area, to investigate how well the ecosystem approach is reflected in them, how different environmental problems are covered, and how well the tools meet the needs of the end users. The DSTs were evaluated based on (i) a set of performance criteria, (ii) information on end user preferences, (iii) how end users had been involved in tool development, and (iv) what experiences developers/hosts had on the use of the tools. We found that DSTs frequently addressed management needs related to eutrophication, biodiversity loss, or contaminant pollution. The majority of the DSTs addressed human activities, their pressures, or environmental status changes, but they seldom provided solutions for a complete ecosystem approach. In general, the DSTs were scientifically documented and transparent, but confidence in the outputs was poorly communicated. End user preferences were, apart from the shortcomings in communicating uncertainty, well accounted for in the DSTs. Although end users were commonly consulted during the DST development phase, they were not usually part of the development team. Answers from developers/hosts indicate that DSTs are not applied to their full potential. Deeper involvement of end users in the development phase could potentially increase the value and impact of DSTs. As a way forward, we propose streamlining the outputs of specific DSTs, so that they can be combined to a holistic insight of the consequences of management actions and serve the ecosystem approach in a better manner.

show abstract

Cost-effective abatement of non-point source nitrogen emissions – The effects of uncertainty in retention

Cited by 15 publications

References 35 publications

Tradeable Nitrogen Abatement Practices for Diffuse Agricultural Emissions: A ‘Smart Market’ Approach

Tradeable Nitrogen Abatement Practices for Diffuse Agricultural Emissions: A ‘Smart Market’ Approach

Strengthening the policy framework to resolve lax implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan for agriculture

Decision-Support Tools Used in the Baltic Sea Area: Performance and End-User Preferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About