Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

cost (£'000/farm) or reduction in loss (%)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Dairy
Arable + manure
cost NO3 P FIO cost NO3 P FIO
Nutrient management plan
F arm assurance scheme
Figure 1: The estimated efficiency (% reduction against baseline) and
cost (£’000/farm) of two example policy options applied to two
representative farm types
The results from the cost-effectiveness assessment (Figure 1) show several points,
with more scope for decreasing nitrate loss on the dairy farm than on the arable farm.
The Nutrient Management Plan had no effect on FIOs; neither policy option affected
FIOs on the arable farm. This is because control is influenced by storage practices and
it was assumed that there was no storage on the arable farm: manure was imported
and spread. Effectiveness in decreasing P loss was similar between farm types.
The Farm Assurance Scheme was more effective than the Nutrient Management
Plan, particularly on the dairy farm. This is because the Farm Assurance Scheme
included measures that controlled timing of manure applications and storage, in
our example. The costs to the farm business of implementing the two example
options differ between farm types, with a net saving (negative cost) on the arable
farm, but a cost of c. £7,000 to the dairy farm. This comes down to interpretation of
which measures are invoked. We have assumed that both example policy options
result in farms having to source alternative protein sources (‘dietary manipulation’)
for the dairy herd, which bears a substantial cost. Without this, both policy options
would be close to cost neutral on the dairy farms. Suggested mitigation methods
would clearly benefit diffuse pollution losses, but have implications for the economic
sustainability of individual farm businesses. A major benefit of the cost-effectiveness
tool under development is that it allows a wide range of scenarios to be tested and
compared.
82