1 / 31

Water Pollution from Agriculture

Water Pollution from Agriculture. John Braden University of Illinois, USA Visiting, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Lecture 3 Leuven, Belgium March 2004. Outline. 1. Overview 2. Agriculture and Water Values Production input Landscape attribute Environmental Impacts Pesticides N & P

amascarenas
Télécharger la présentation

Water Pollution from Agriculture

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. Water Pollution from Agriculture John Braden University of Illinois, USA Visiting, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Lecture 3 Leuven, Belgium March 2004

  2. Outline 1. Overview 2. Agriculture and Water Values • Production input • Landscape attribute • Environmental Impacts • Pesticides • N & P • Flooding 3. Policy Issues

  3. Helpful Resources • National Research Council. 1997. Valuing Ground Water. National Academy Press. • Bergstrom, et. al. 2001. TheEconomic Value of Water Quality. Edward Elgar.

  4. Agriculture and Water a) Water as input • Natural • Irrigation b) Landscape agriculture c) Environmental byproducts • Pesticides – human health and pest resistance • N and P loads to water – health, aesthetics, ecology • Drainage – flooding, erosion, ecology

  5. Surface vs. Groundwater • In-situ value • Amenities, recreation, navigation • Storage value • Pressure • Future use • Time lags • Extractive values • Pumping costs • Treatment costs

  6. a) Water as an Input • Valuation methods • Production function analysis • Crop budget analysis • Value varies with: • Application efficiency (technology) • Amount applied • Crop response to water • Value of crop

  7. Water As an Input Value derived from crop production Crop/ha Production function Water/ha

  8. Water As an Input Value derived from crop production Crop/ha Production function TVMPw = ∫w Pc·MPw Marginal Product Water/ha

  9. Sample Input Values (1980, Gibbons) • Citrus $0.08 - 0.88 /m3 • Potatoes $0.23 – 0.57 /m3 • Cotton $0.05 – 0.10 /m3 • Corn $0.04 - 0.06 /m3 • Wheat/Alfalfa $0.01 - 0.05 /m3

  10. b) Landscape Agriculture • Water bundled into rural panorama • Growing justification for EU agricultural/rural subsidies

  11. Value of Water Amenities • Complements • Property values • Travel costs • Stated Preferences • Existence & bequest motives • Passive interests

  12. c) Environmental Byproducts: 1. Pesticides • Benefits: increased crop yields • External costs • Pest resistance • Health effects of ingestion/inhalation • Risk-based screening and cancellation • Health/ecological risks • Value of life? – 10-6 mortality threshold • Availability of substitutes reduces costs

  13. Risk Reduction Benefits of Pesticides in Water • Averting Costs (substitutes) (Nielsen & Lee 1987) • $333/hh/yr - $67/hh/yr in cost to remove pesticide residues in potable water (cost differential reflect economies of scale) • Contingent valuation (Caudill, 1992) • Michigan residents willing to pay $43 - $46 /hh/yr (rural) $34 -$49 /hh/yr to protect groundwater from pesticide & nitrate contamination

  14. Risk Reduction Benefits of Pesticides in Water (cont) • Dose-Response (production function) • Regulatory approvals • Frequency of additional cancer deaths • Damages not monetized • Consideration given to cost of substitutes

  15. Environmental Byproducts2) N & P • N & P together in most fertilizers, manure • Aerosols • Municipal wastewater

  16. N & P Balances in Belgium Flemish Environment Agency (VMM), MIRA-T 2003.

  17. Environmental Impacts – N & P • Nitrogen (N) • N cycle is complex • Moves with water • Seasonal • Limiting in salt water systems (estuaries) - hypoxia • Methemoglobinemia in babies, pregnant women • Phosphorus (P) • limiting nutrient in freshwater • Limiting nutrient in agronomic manure use

  18. N Damages • Contingent valuation • 25% reduction of N-contamination risk of the only aquifer on Cape Cod, Mass. $815/hh/yr ~ $1.50/m3/yr consumption (Edwards 1988) • Protect “safe” groundwater from future agricultural chemical contamination in Georgia (option value). $641 /hh/yr ~ $1.25/ m3/yr consump. (Sun et al. 1992) • Wisconsin private well owners WTP for groundwater protection program ensuring N< 10mg/L. $306 - $516 /hh/yr ($0.6 – $1.0 /m3/yrconsumption), depending on level of assurance.

  19. N Damages (cont.) • Cost of substitutes: Health treatment (?) • Cost of substitutes: Averting expenditures • All water meets standard, 23% requires treatment: Marg. average operating costs $12.60 /m3 (John et al. 1998. Decatur, IL) • Bottled water for vulnerable populations: If bottled water is $10 /m3 & 2% of water is replaced ~ $0.20 /m3 for total supply. BUT, more risk.

  20. Economic Costs of Reducing N from Manure: Swine in the Netherlands* Policy goal: > 90% reduction * Polman and Theijssen, 2002. Agricultural Economics

  21. Welfare Costs of Averting Nitrogen from Mississippi R.: Agricultural Fertilizer Reduction [103 m.t.] (10%) (Ribaudo, M. et al., 2001. Ecological Economics.)

  22. Environmental Byproducts3) Drainage & Flooding • Agriculture speeds drainage • Benefits crops • Downstream areas subject to more intense, more frequent floods • Amplified by channelization, flood protection

  23. Illinois River, 19th vs. 20th Centuries

  24. Flood Valuation • Complements: • Property values: 3 – 5% • Ephemeral -- consumers are myopic • Substitutes: • Insurance premiums: 5 – 6 % of property value • Expenditures on flood protection (subsidies) • Costs of on-site storm water management

  25. Agr & Water: Policy Issues • Private vs. public rights • Monitoring and transactions costs – Targeting • Regulation vs. incentives • Management practices • Taxes/subsidies • Transferable allowances (marketable permits)

  26. Supplying Water Quality Cost (€) Farm A Farm B Total Abatement

  27. Technical Regulation Cost (€) Farm A Farm B Total CA CB Abatement Required Abatement Total Abatement

  28. Incentive-based policies Cost (€) Farm A Farm B Total CA t*=s*=Copt CB Abatement AA AB Req. Abatement Total Abatement

  29. Regulation vs. Incentives • Incentives lower costs • Savings increase with goals & heterogeniety • Subsidies • Greater profitability & size of industry • Uncertain effect • Fees or taxes • Reduce profitability & size • Uncertain effect

  30. Transferable Allowances • Permits – predictable outcomes • Hot-spots? • Trading allows incentives to work • Profit effects depend on allocation • Auction • Free allocation – windfall to recipients

  31. Conclusions • Agriculture has significant quality & quantity affects on water • Monitoring, enforcement issues • Technical/regulatory approaches vs. incentives

More Related