ECGS-501 Management of environmental problems in aquatic ecosystems

Transcription

1 ECGS-501 Management of environmental problems in aquatic ecosystems LECTURE 9 Cost-efficient nutrient abatement, cost-benefit analysis, Kari Hyytiäinen

2 Past nutrient loading

3 NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS TYPEN KOKONAISKUORMITUS FOSFORIN KOKONAISKUORMITUS tonnia/vuosi BSAP tonnia/vuosi BSAP

4 Reasons for declining loading

5 INORGANIC PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZATION IN AGRICULTURE Sweden Finland Russia Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Germany Denmark HELCOM ESTABLISHED FIRST REDUCTION TARGETS BSAP

6 Waste water treatment

7 Drivers of current loading

8 Total nutrient loads , 1000 tons/year N P Atmospheric depostion % 2.1 7% Diffuce sources agriculture % % background & forest % % Point sources muncipal waste waters % % scattered dwellings 44 5% % industries 19 2% 1.0 3% fish farms % % Total Sectors Energy production, traffic, animal farms Crop cultivation, animal production Waste treatment Food production Sources: HELCOM PLC5, PLC5.5 1/3 reduction needed to meet the BSAP targets

9 Nutrient abatement measures

10 Investment in waste water treatment P-free detergents Animal nutrition Advanced manure handling technologies and storage CLOSED CYCLES Drivers Responses Improved drainage Catch crops/crop cover No-till and other CAtechnologies Precision agriculture Pressures State Impact wetlands bioengineering

11 Marginal costs /kg Manure handing Wetlands How to choose abatement measures? Wastewater treatm. Reduced fertiliz. Nutrient reduction, kg

12 Wetlands Marginal costs /kg Manure handing Cost-efficient nutrient abatement Reduced fertiliz. Wastewater treatm. Nutrient reduction, kg

13 Wetlands Marginal costs /kg Manure handing Cost-efficient nutrient abatement target Reduced fertiliz. Wastewater treatm. Nutrient reduction, kg

14 Wetlands Marginal costs /kg Manure handing Cost-efficient nutrient abatement target Reduced fertiliz. Wastewater treatm. Total cost Nutrient reduction, kg

15 Wetlands Marginal costs /kg Manure handing Wetlands Marginal costs /kg Manure handing Cost-efficient nutrient abatement Country 1 Country 2 Reduced fertiliz. Wastewater treatm. Reduced fertiliz. Wastewater treatm. Nutrient reduction, kg Nutrient reduction, kg

16 Wetlands Wetlands Marginal costs /kg Manure handing Manure handing Cost-efficient nutrient abatement Collaborative solution for two countries target Reduced fertiliz. Reduced fertiliz. Wastewater treatm. Wastewater treatm. Nutrient reduction, kg

17 Cost-efficient nutrient abatement Task: finding (spatially and temporally) optimal combination of nutrient abatement measures Data needed: Effectivity of measures Costs of measures Cumulative effects Method: numerical optimization Define: Target Baseline (or business-as-usual) scenario

18 Pressure X BASELINE or BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO TARGET t 0 t 1 time

19 Pressure X BASELINE or BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO TARGET POLICY SCENARIO t 0 t 1 time

20 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA) o Evaluating and ranking large scale public projects and governmental policies o Identifying, calculating and comparing pros and cons to: - determine whether the project is feasible - compare alternative projects o Anthropocentric o Long time frame uncertainties o Routine process when evaluating new road projects, ports etc. also environmental projects/programmes/policies 20

21 CHALLENGES WHEN ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS/POLICIES How to identify and value all the benefits/damages and externalities caused by changed ecosystem state / changes in the provision of marine ecosystem services How to predict the future developments without the project (counterfactual, baseline scenario, business-asusual) How to assess the effects and costs of measures 21

22 CBA on nutrient abatement in the Baltic Sea o Shallow, brackish water, small exchange -> eutrophication is a particular problem o Causal relationships N & P load -> state of the Sea -> economic impact o 9 countries -> eutrophication is a shared problem o Time lags -> improving the state of the Baltic takes time 22

23 Project to be evaluated: HELCOM BSAP o Target: Good state of Sea o Agreement on N and P quotas o Ecological perspective Counterfactual (baseline scenario): Present level of water protection 23

24 COSTS OF NUTRIENT ABATEMENT Measures and modelling Models for measures, nutrient load reduction Retention Measures Fertiliser reduction, Livestock reduction Wetland restoration, ponds Catch crops Waste water treatment P free detergents

25 Cattle, pig and poultry Costs: Effectiveness and costs of abatement measures Phosphorus fertilization Nitrogen fertilization Soil phosphorus Crop yield P-ponds Catch crops Leaching to water Human emissions Wastewater treatment Wetlands Nutrient loads to the sea The marine model MTT Agrifood Research Finland 25

26 Cost-effective combination of measures to meet the BSAP targets Detergents 2% WWTP 28% Fertilizers 29% Catch crops 3% Ponds 2% Wetlands 17% Pigs 7% Cattle 10% Poultry 2%

27 Estimating the benefits of BSAP Contingent valuation survey non-market valuation Provide information on the overall benefits of improved water quality Willingness to pay => benefit estimate, using state of the art methods Baltic Sea citizens attach high values to an improved health of the Sea 27

28 The water quality is characterised by: The water quality status is indicated by colours: Water clarity Frequency of algae blooms Status of underwater meadows and bottom conditions Very good Good Moderate Poor Bad Fish species 28

29 State of the Sea in 2050 Baseline BSAP 29

30 Cost-benefit analysis: Quotas for both basin-wise and country-wise loads will be met Objective 1: Country & basin targets Benefits M /yr Costs M /yr Net ben. M /yr B/C Russia EU countries Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia 1) Lithuania 1) Poland Sweden All countries MTT Agrifood Research Finland 30

31 Cost-benefit analysis: Three different formulations to meet the BSAP targets Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Country & basin targets Basin target State target Benefits M /yr Costs M /yr Net ben. M /yr B/C Costs M /yr Net ben. M /yr B/C Costs M /yr Net ben. M /yr B/C Russia EU countries Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia 1) Lithuania 1) Poland Sweden All countries => Cost savings through adjustment of nutrient reduction targets and transboundary collaboration MTT Agrifood Research Finland 31

32 Allocation of costs and benefits in a cost-efficient solution Benefits as shares of GDP 0.50% Costs as shares of GDP 0.40% 0.30% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% MTT Agrifood Research Finland 32

33 So far, we have focused on assessing one given programme of measures (HELCOM BSAP) Next questions: o How large may the costs and benefits be at different levels nutrient abatement? o What might the overall optimal level of water protection be? o Sources of uncertainty? 33

34 Benefits and costs at different levels of water protection, all countries 5000 Costs and benefit, M euros/year Costs level of water protection relative to BSAP (level 1) 34

35 Benefits and costs at different levels of water protection, all countries Benefits Level of water protection Costs MTT Agrifood Research Finland 35

36 Benefits and costs at different levels of water protection, all countries Benefits and costs, M euros/year BENEFITS? Baltic & inland waters BENEFITS Baltic Costs Level of water protection 36

37 CONCLUSIONS (1) Significant welfare gains can be expected from further investments in water protection in the Baltic Sea Reducing eutrophication is the interest of citizens of all riparian countries Significant cost savings when accounting for spatial variation in costs and potential of nutrient abatement 37

38 CONCLUSIONS (2) Costs and benefits unevenly distributed between countries, - but benefits from inland water not accounted for International collaboration, cost & information sharing are important EU Cohesion and Structural funds: financial instruments to facilitate future protection of the Baltic Sea environment 38

39 Uncertain baseline scenario X TARGET???? t 0 t 1 time