Reducing external costs of nitrogen pollution by relocation of pig production between regions in the European Union

Abstract

This paper tests the hypothesis that relocation of pig production within the EU27 can reduce the external costs of nitrogen (N) pollution. The external cost of pollution by ammonia and nitrate from agriculture in the European Union (EU27) in 2008 was estimated at 61–215 billion € (0.5 to 1.8% of the GDP). Per capita it ranged from more than 1000 € in north-west EU27 to 50 € in Romania. The average contribution of pig production was 15%. Using provincial data (224 NUTS2 regions in EU27), the potential reduction of external N cost by relocation of pig production was estimated at 14 billion € (10% of the total). Regions most eligible for decreasing the pig stock were in western Germany, Flemish region, Denmark, the Netherlands and Bretagne, while Romania is most eligible for increasing pig production. Relocating 20 million pigs (13% of the total EU stock) decreased average external costs per capita from 900 to 785 € in the 13 NUTS2 regions where pigs were removed and increased from 69 to 107 € in 11 regions receiving pigs. A second alternative configuration of pig production was targeted at reducing exceedance of critical N deposition and closing regional nutrient cycles. This configuration relocates pigs within Germany and France, for example from Bretagne to Northern France and from Weser-Ems to Oberbayern. However, total external cost increases due to an increase of health impacts, unless when combined with implementation of best N management practices. Relocation of the pig industry in the EU27 will meet many socio-economic barriers and realisation requires new policy incentives.

Safeguarding Natura 2000 habitats from nitrogen deposition by tackling ammonia emissions from livestock facilities

“…Similar marginal cost curves for NH3 mitigation were revealed earlier for the whole of Europe (Brink et al, 2011). From a classic environmental-economical point of view, the optimal level of emission abatement is the point at which the marginal abatement cost equates the marginal damage cost, which is also applicable to nitrogen pollution (van Grinsven et al, 2018). Van Grinsven et al (2013) estimated the cost of ammonia emissions to human health in the EU (through the formation of secondary particulate matter) to be 12€/kg NH3 emitted, and the cost to ecosystems to be 2€/kg NH3 emitted, indicating that health costs outweigh costs due to ecosystem damage.…”

Benchmarking Eco-Efficiency and Footprints of Dutch Agriculture in European Context and Implications for Policies for Climate and Environment

“…Important aspects to take into account for optimal allocation of agricultural production in Europe are, among others, natural differences in environmental efficiencies of regional land based agriculture and differences in sensitivities of ecosystems and emission-exposure relation for humans and ecosystems. For example, critical loads of terrestrial ecosystems in Eastern EU tend to be higher than in northwestern EU (van Grinsven et al, 2018). Concerns are legitimate that an increase of livestock production in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe on shortterm will be accompanied by expansion and intensification of feed production and which would increase the total environmental impact of EU agriculture.…”

“…Reduction of livestock in the Netherlands could be an alternative for current choices in the draft climate agreement to reduce national GHG emissions by reduced peat drainage and improved manure managements, because of more certain national GHG reduction and more side-benefits for air and water quality. The most important barrier for such an approach, including optimal allocation of production targets and resources to European regions are loss of vested economic interests and returns from current infrastructure of the agro-food supply chain and investments in a new production infrastructure elsewhere (van Grinsven et al, 2018). Also optimization targets can be problematic in view of existing and changing national values regarding climate or biodiversity, and food and sustainability in general (Candel and Pereira, 2017;de Krom and Muilwijk, 2018).…”

“…By this, either land use for Dutch agriculture could be decreased or agricultural production on current land use could be extensified. Such a development is a possible future direction to increase achievement of national and international policy targets for biodiversity, environment and climate change (van Grinsven et al, 2018).…”

Societal benefits of halving agricultural ammonia emissions in China far exceed the abatement costs

“…For livestock production systems NH 3 abatement measures include manipulation of feed rations, improved housing facilities 3 . c Derived from Goodkind et al 5 .…”