1 / 27

Costs of Reducing Nitrogen leaching from Agriculture when implementing the WFD in Denmark

Costs of Reducing Nitrogen leaching from Agriculture when implementing the WFD in Denmark. Senior Researcher Brian H. Jacobsen Institute of Food and Resource Economics University of Copenhagen E-mail: Brian@foi.dk. Content. Danish background What have we done in DK ?

smarcellus
Download Presentation

Costs of Reducing Nitrogen leaching from Agriculture when implementing the WFD in Denmark

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Costs of Reducing Nitrogen leaching from Agriculture when implementing the WFD in Denmark Senior Researcher Brian H. Jacobsen Institute of Food and Resource Economics University of Copenhagen E-mail: Brian@foi.dk

  2. Content • Danish background • What have we done in DK ? • Detailed regulation- but how ? • Conclusions

  3. Analysis prior to WFD implementation • Denmark has implemented 3 actions plan with focus on nitrogen (50% reduction in N-leaching – large effect on point source) • Action Plan II in 1998 was followed by economic analysis (FOI report 169) • Action Plan III in 2003-4, based on detailed work on scenarios and economics of different measures. Midterm 2008. • - FOI report 167 and www.vmp3.dk

  4. Danish – Dutch implementation • Danish focus on N, NL more focus on P • Fertiliser accounts vs MINAS (surplus) • - good idea, but….. • The need for control with animal manure (costs) and self-complience (avoid fraud) • Derogation for the Nitrate Directive (2.5 LU/ha) on 45% of the area in NL whereas it is 2.3 LU/ha on 4% of the area in DK. • N application similar on sandy soils, but higher in NL on clay soils • DK 10-15% below economic optimum

  5. N-surplus, N-leaching and N-loss in DK WFD target

  6. Steps in implementation Target 2015 Baseline 2015 Action Plan III Scattered housing and sewage Present condition Nitratedirective

  7. Steps in implementation Target 2015 N-quota model Noatumncultivation Organicfarming Wetlands Catchcrops Baseline 2015 Action Plan III Sewage from scattered housing Present condition Nitratedirective

  8. Fødevareøkonomisk Institut Denmark 4 water districts and 23 main catchment areas

  9. Reduction required to reach target

  10. Choosing measures in DK • Step 1: Make a list of all possible measures • Step 2: Analyse the effectiveness and costs of selected measures also looking at : • - Side effects (CO2, NH3, pestides, Biodiversity) • - Certainty with respect to estimates • - Budget and socio- economic costs • DMU report no. 625 from 2007 • Detailed analysis on the use of cost-effectiveness in FOI report no. 191.

  11. Choosing measures in DK • Step 3: Select the most cost-effective measures for detailed analysis (3 regions) in 2008 • - likely potential • - administrative costs • - control issues • Step 4: An element in Green Growth (2009) • - Water, CO2, NH3 and Biodiversity plans • - Search for synergies • - Co-operation between ministries takes time  • - Draft analysis of reduction requirements in catchments • - Implementation is difficult • Step 5: RBMP (2011?) • Step 6: Local action plans (2012?)

  12. Division of marine area according to knowledge level ():V1-area (10%)V2-area (20%)V3-area (30%)In the 1st plan period focus is mainly on measures in V1 and V2

  13. Reduction requirement Efterafgrøder FOI og DJF antager få sædskifteændringer og jævn placering i DK DMU angiver at der er plads til flere efterafgrøder (250-500.000 ha) Andel stiger fra 10/14% op til et gennemsnit på ca. 22%. (maks. 37%) (V1+V2 er 70% af det samlede areal) Arealet med yderligere 24% efterafgrøder er ca. 6% af arealet (Jylland). Areal med yderligere 0-5% er noget større. Stor geografisk forskellighed

  14. Cost efficiency (€ / kg N) – Green Growth

  15. Catchcrops in waterplans 2010 Efterafgrøder Add. Catch crops (%)

  16. Cost efficiency (€ / kg N) – Green Growth

  17. Cost efficiency (€ / kg N) Green Growth

  18. Cost efficiency Lakes (€ / kg P)

  19. Danish – Dutch WFD implementation • Both has a need for large reductions in nutrient losses • NL focus on physical changes as N is believed to have been solved and P is too costly? • Agricultural measures in NL are relative few • Likely WFD exemptions are required in NL in 2027, DK have aimed more for 2015/2021.

  20. NICA research project N-loss to the aquatic environment has to be reduced by up to 50% 2/3 of the N lost from the root zone disappears on the way, but when and where ? Uniform regulation is not efficient, but can we point to the robust areas ? What is the certainty of these predictions (scale) and economic gain ?

  21. The Ringkøbing Fjord analysis Jacobsen et al., 2009

  22. - Marginal land rent and livestock intensity

  23. Target : Increased certainty and fewer costs related to mapping

  24. Model approach : Newer, better and cheaper technologies to asses N-flow

  25. Conclusions • The low hanging fruits have been picked • Synergy between measures for environmental policies is good, but does delay the process • Implementation of measures has proven to be a challenge • The DK approach to WFD is top-down and so local action plans are less required • Local participation might help to engage farmers more, but it is time consuming • Regulation based on field level knowledge requires good data and control

  26. For more info look at www.foi.dk

More Related