No. 625: Cost-effectiveness in relation to the Water Framework Directive

Schou J.S., Kronvang, B., Birr-Pedersen, K., Jensen, P.L., Rubæk, G.H. Jørgensen, U. & Jacobsen, B. 2007. NERI Technical Report no. 625, pp. 132.

Summary

Cost-effectiveness in relation to the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

The analysis of measures will contribute as an input to how the goals in the WFD can be cost-effectively implemented in terms of river basin management plans. Cost-effectiveness means that the beforehand specified goals are realized at the lowest possible costs. It is essential to note that the assessment of cost-effectiveness thus is related to the specified goal. In cases with a general national goal, as known from, for example, the water environment and pesticide action plans, the result of the cost-effectiveness analysis will be in relatively general terms. On the other hand a specific goal associated with a recipient or a water district will lead to an analysis (and a result) which is specific for that goal. As the latter is the case for the WFD it is not meaningful to assess the general cost-effectiveness of the measures. This is due to the fact the cost-effective combination of measures will depend on the locality in question.

Complexity of the analysis

The complexity of assessing the most cost-effective combination of measures is related to a number of conditions. Hence the costs and emission effects of an action will vary between localities. In addition the proportion of the emission effect, which in actual fact feed through in the recipient, will depend on the retention that happens during transport. This goes for especially nitrogen. In general the retention will increase with the distance to the recipient although this depends on the hydrological conditions.

In relation to cost-effectiveness analysis it is also important that there can be several goals outlined for the same water district. An example could be a catchment where a lake is connected to a stream which runs out into a fiord. There will be environmental quality goals for all three recipients (lake, stream and fiord) and the question is therefore how can the goals for all three recipients be realized and the costs at the same time minimized? In order to manage this issue quantitatively it is therefore necessary to model how the environmental quality is interconnected between the different recipients.

Recommendations for concrete assessments

When evaluating which measures are the most appropriate to choose in the river basin management plans it is therefore recommended that the following assessment is carried out. It is here assumed that the starting point is a combined reduction of the N and P load to the considered recipients:

· What is the potential of the specific measure in the catchment (how widely can it be used)?

· Is it assessed that the costs or effects will vary considerably within this potential?

· How are the costs and emission effects of the specific measures distributed in relation to the maximum and minimum indications?

· Does retention of N and P vary within the catchment?

· Consider cross-effects between measures – e.g. can some measures exclude each other?

On the basis of the above considerations a table can be prepared where the relevant measures in the catchments are described qualitatively and quantitatively. On this background the cost-effective combination of measures in the river basin management plans can be drafted.

Overview of the analysed measures

Table 0 summarizes the results of the analysis of the measures that are included in the present report. When using the results in concrete analyses it is recommended that the specific description for each measure is include thus reflecting the provision for their use in the analysis.

Table 0

Effects and costs per year measured at the source

	Primary effect	N-emission	P-emission	Financial economic cost	Welfare economic cost	Welfare economic cost per unit of primary effect	Derived environmental effects
	Primary effect	N-emission	P-emission	Financial economic cost	Welfare economic cost	Welfare economic cost per unit of primary effect	Climate gasses	Ammonia	Pesticides	Biodiversity and landscape
Changed farming methods
Conversion of extensive cattle production to organic production methods	N	6-41 kg/ha	-	0	0	0	+	+	+	+
Ammonia fertilisers in stead of NO3	N	6-8 kg/ha	-	0	0	0	+	-
Catch crops – current practice	N	12-55 kg/ha	-	330-660 DKK/ha	386-772 DKK/ha	7-64 DKK/kg N	+		(-)
Optimised use of catch crops	N	20-95 kg/ha	-	315-700 DKK/ha	368-820 DKK/ha	4-41 DKK/kg N	+		(-)
Demand for “injection of manure” from harvest to April 1. b. No tilt or plowing from harvest to April 1	P	a. -6-0 kg N/ha b. 10-25 kg N/ha	a. 0,01-0,125 kg/ha b. 0,025-0,250 kg/ha	a. 50-150 DKK/ha b. 250-750 DKK/ha	a. 60-175 DKK/ha b. 300-880 DKK/ha	a. 480-17.500 DKK/ kg P b. 1.200-35.200 DKK/ kg P	a. – b.	b. + b. +	b. +	b. +
Reduced N-application by 80%	N	3,4-5,0 kg/ha	-	87-151 DKK /ha	101-176 DKK /ha	20-52 DKK/kg N	+	+
Harvest of hey in stead of permanent cattle grassing	N	26-109 kg/ha (pure mowing) 13-54 kg/ha (2 x mowing)	-	0 0	0 0	0 0	+	-
Reduced N-application to pastures	N	18-77 kg N/ha (clower grass) 20-85 kg N/ha (pure grass)	-	295-1.375 DKK/ha	345-1.610 DKK/ha	4-76 DKK/kg N	+	+
Catch crops in two years after plowing of permanent pastures	N	55 – 110 kg/ha		415 DKK/ha	485 DKK/ha	2-4 DKK/kg N	+
Early sowing of winter crops	N	5-7 kg/ha	-	0	0	0	+		-
Only winter crops and under sowing of catch crops on fields with high risk of soil erosion	P	12-55 kg/ha	0,06-0,250 kg/ha	250-750 DKK/ha	300-880 DKK/ha	1.200-14.600 DKK/kg P
Reduced P-application	P	-	0,003-0,10 kg P/ha	25-50 DKK/ha	30-60 DKK/ha	300-20.000 DKK/kg P
Fertilisers in stead of manure	N	24-28 kg N/ha	0,01-0,1 kg P/ha	200-250 DKK/ha	235-290 DKK/ha	8-12 DKK/kg N		-		-
Table 0… continued	Primary effect	N-emission	P-emission	Financial economic cost	Welfare economic cost	Welfare economic cost per unit of primary effect	Derived environmental effects
Table 0… continued	Primary effect	N-emission	P-emission	Financial economic cost	Welfare economic cost	Welfare economic cost per unit of primary effect	Climate gasses	Ammonia	Pesticides	Biodiversity and landscape
Change in land use
Permanent energy crops on land in rotation	N/P	30-55 kg/ha	0,003-0,100 kg/ha	0	0	0	+	+	+	+/-
Permanent grassland on with high risk of soil erosion	P	26-66 kg/ha	0,06-0,250 kg/ha	1.200-2.600 DKK/ha	3.600-6.800 DKK/ha	14.400-113.000 DKK/kg P	+	+	+	+
Buffer zones with permanent grassland adjacent to lakes and streams	P	26-66 kg/ha	1-3 kg/ha	1.900-2.600 DKK/ha	3.600-6.800 DKK/ha	120-6.800 DKK/kg P	+	+	+	+
Permanent grassland on high lying fields	N	26-66 kg/ha	0,06-0,250 kg/ha	1.200-2600 DKK/ha	3.600-6.800 DKK/ha	54-262 DKK/kg N	+	+	+	+
Afforestation of agricultural land	N	30-70 kg/ha	?	2.140-3.880 DKK/ha	2.560-6.040 DKK/ha	36-129 DKK/kg N	+	+	+	+/-
Permanent pastures or grassland in river valleys	N/P	100-150 kg/ha	10-30 kg/ha*	500-1.100 DKK/ha	900-1.700 DKK/ha	6-17 DKK/kg N; 60-340 DKK/kg P**	(+)	+	+	+
Technical measures
Incineration of livestock manure	P	0,7-6,5 kg N/ha	Case dependent	Case dependent	Case dependent	Case dependent	+	(-)		+/-
Stop dredging of streams	Changes physical conditions	10-45 kg N/ha	10-30 kg/ha*	500-1.100 DKK/ha	900-1.700 DKK/ha	Excl. saved costs dredging		(+)	(+)	+
Restoration of streams	Changes physical conditions	10-45 kg N/ha	10-30 kg/ha*	?	?			(+)	(+)	+

NB. Derived environmental effects are indicated with an ”+” (positive effect) and ”-” (negative effect).

*The effect on P relates to the number of hectares occasionally flooded.

**The per unit abatement costs for P are calculated assuming that 50 percent of the extensivated area are occasionally flooded.

The figures are all results from technical/economic analysis of measures designated for changing loads from agricultural areas. Issues related to the practical implementation, e.g. the process leading to preparation of the river basin management plans, are not reflected. For some measures negative cost are identified. This should not be seen as an expectation for the measures being widely implemented. This is because of uncertainties related to the demand for the products produced, political uncertainties and uncertainties about the practical application of the measure. Therefore, the potential of the “free lunch” measures should be estimated conservatively in practical analysis.

Full report (in danish only) in pdf-format (2.225 kB)

Revideret 12.09.2023