How Cost-Effective is a Mixed Policy Targeting the Management of Three Agricultural N-pollutants?
- 386 Downloads
This paper assesses the cost-effectiveness of a mixed policy in attempts to reduce the presence of three nitrogen pollutants: NO 3, N 2O, and NH 3. The policy under study combines a tax on nitrogen input and incentives promoting perennial crops assumed to require low input. We show that the mixed policy improves the cost-effectiveness of regulation with regard to nitrates, whereas no improvement occurs, except for a very low level of subsidy in some cases, for gas pollutants. A quantitative analysis provides an assessment of impacts in terms of land use, farmers’ income, and nitrogen losses throughout France and at river-basin scale.
KeywordsCost-effectiveness Mixed policy N-input tax Land use policy Nitrogen pollutants Bioeconomic model Mathematical linear programming Miscanthus
This paper is based on research activities funded by PIREN-Seine, an interdisciplinary research programme dedicated to the study of the environment in the Seine river basin in France. We also kindly thank Susan Becker for editorial advice on English language use.
- 8.Brisson, N., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Jeuffroy, M., Ruget, F., Nicoullaud, B., Gate, P., Devienne-Barret, F., Antonioletti, R., Durr, C., et al. (1998). Stics: a generic model for the simulation of crops and their water and nitrogen balances. i. theory and parameterization applied to wheat and corn. Agronomie, 18(5–6), 311–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Chakir, R. (2009). Spatial downscaling of agricultural land-use data: an econometric approach using cross entropy. Land Economics, 85(2), 238.Google Scholar
- 15.European Commission (2000). Water framework directive 60/2000/EC. Technical report, the European parliament and the council.Google Scholar
- 16.European Union (2009). Decision on the effort of member states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020. Technical report, council of the European union 406/2009/EC,official journal of the European union, Brussels, Belgium, L140.Google Scholar
- 35.Tayot, X., Chartier, M., Varlet-Grancher, C., Lemaire, G. (1995). Potential above-ground dry matter production of miscanthusin north-central France compared to sweet sorghum. In Biomass for energy, environment, agriculture and industry (pp. 556–564). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- 36.Vleeshouwers, L. (1998). Potential yield of Miscanthus x giganteus in the netherlands. In: H. Kopetz, T. Weber, W. Palz, P. Chartier, G. Ferrero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th European conference and technology exhibition: biomass for energy and industry (pp. 1017–1019). Germany: Wurzburg.Google Scholar