Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

ASSESSING THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF
INTEGRATED MEASURES TO DECREASE LOSS OF
NITRATE, PHOSPHORUS AND FAECAL INDICATOR
ORGANISMS
M Shepherd 1 , S Anthony 1 , P Haygarth 2 , D Harris 1 , P Newell-Price 1 , S Cuttle 2 , B
Chambers 1 and D Chadwick 2
1
ADAS, Gleadthorpe, Meden Vale, Mansfield, Notts, NG20 9PF, UK, E-mail: mark.
shepherd@adas.co.uk; 2 IGER, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon, EX20 SB, UK
SUMMARY
The timetable for implementation of the Water Framework Directive requires best
available information to be synthesised now. Cost-effectiveness is an important
consideration when deciding what actions should be taken to control diffuse pollution
losses from agriculture. This paper presents preliminary results from a toolkit for
assessing the cost-effectiveness of combinations of mitigation methods invoked
by a range of policy options. It is a mix of simplified diffuse pollution models (to
determine baseline losses of nitrate, phosphorus and faecal indicator organisms),
best available information on cost-effectiveness drawn from other projects and,
using these building blocks, a cost-curve approach. The approach relies on expert
judgement.
INTRODUCTION
Implementation of the Water Framework Directive and addressing diffuse water
pollution from agriculture means identifying and implementing practical on-farm
methods for mitigating losses of pollutants from land to water. Agricultural sources
of diffuse pollution include nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), agrochemicals (plant
protection products, veterinary medicines and biocides), sediment and pathogens
(faecal indicator organisms and FIOs). Generally, we have a good understanding
of the mitigation methods available to farmers (e.g. Vinten et al., 2005); recent UK
projects have listed these methods, which can number over 50 (RPA, 2005). They
range in complexity from something as simple as using a fertiliser recommendation
system through to more complex (and expensive) approaches, such as installing a
constructed wetland.
Research shows that combinations of mitigation methods will be needed to reduce
losses to acceptable limits (Shepherd and Chambers, 2006). The challenge is now
to ‘encourage’ land managers to implement these mitigation methods. Measures (or
‘policy options’) to encourage uptake range from voluntary to regulatory (Table 1).
To inform the debate, an understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these policy
options is also important. This paper puts forward a methodology for determining the
cost-effectiveness of combinations of mitigation methods (which could be brought
about by different policy options). This novel approach allows an assessment of
combinations of measures and their effectiveness for controlling losses of nitrate,
phosphorus and FIOs. Here, we present some preliminary results.
77