Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 49–58 | Cite as

The Costs of Meeting the Environmental Objectives for the Baltic Sea: A Review of the Literature

  • Katarina Elofsson
Report

Abstract

The environmental targets of the recently agreed Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) targets are likely associated with a considerable cost, which motivates a search for low-cost policies. The following review shows there is a substantial literature on cost-efficient nutrient reduction strategies, including suggestions regarding low-cost abatement, but actual policies at international and national scale tend to be considerably more expensive due to lack of instruments that ensure a cost-efficient allocation of abatement across countries and sectors. Economic research on the costs of reducing hazardous substances and oil spill damages in the Baltic Sea is not available, but lessons from the international literature suggest that resources could be used more efficiently if appropriate analysis is undertaken. Common to these pollution problems is the need to ensure that all countries in the region are provided with positive incentives to implement international agreements.

Keywords

Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) Costs Review Eutrophication Hazardous substances 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is gratefully acknowledged. The author is also indebted to two anonymous referees for helpful comments.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Abbott, A., P.D. Abel, D.W. Arnold, and A. Milne. 2000. Cost–benefit analysis of the use of TBT: The case for a treatment approach. The Science of the Total Environment 258(1–2): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abler, D., J. Shortle, J. Carmichael, and R. Horan. 2002. Climate change, agriculture, and water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Climatic Change 55(3): 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aps, R., J. Kotta, R. Leiger, G. Martin, T. Saat, Ü. Suursaar, et al. 2007. Net environmental benefit analysis—linking ecological values in the decision making process on oil spill response in the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea). ICES CM 2007/C:10, 16 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Arheimer, B., J. Andréasson, S. Fogelberg, H. Johnsson, C.B. Pers, and K. Persson. 2005. Climate change impact on water quality: Model results from Southern Sweden. AMBIO 34(7): 559–566.Google Scholar
  5. Baresel, C., G. Destouni, and I.-M. Gren. 2006. The influence of metal source uncertainty on cost-effective allocation of mine water pollution abatement in catchments. Journal of Environmental Management 78(2): 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigano, A. and Sheehan, P. 2006. Assessing the risk of oil spills in the Mediterranean: The case of the route from the Black Sea to Italy. FEEM Working Paper No. 32. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Trieste.Google Scholar
  7. Börjesson, P. 1999. Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden—I: Identification and quantification. Biomass and Bioenergy 16(2): 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, M. 2003. The relative cost-efficiency of arable nitrogen management in Sweden. Ecological Economics 47(1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byström, O., H. Andersson, and I.-M. Gren. 2000. Economic criteria for using wet-lands as nitrogen sinks under uncertainty. Ecological Economics 35(1): 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Champ, M.A. 2000. A review of organotin regulatory strategies, pending actions, related costs and benefits. The Science of the Total Environment 258: 21–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, M.A. 1986. The costs and benefits of oil spill prevention and enforcement. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13: 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, M.A. 1987. Optimal enforcement strategy to prevent oil spills: An application of a principal-agent model with moral hazard. Journal of Law and Economics 30(1): 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conrad, J.M., and L.J. Olson. 1992. The economics of a stock pollutant: Aldicarb on Long Island. Environmental & Resource Economics 2(3): 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. COWI. 2007. Economic analysis of the BSAP with focus on eutrophication. Final report. April 2007, 112 pp.Google Scholar
  15. De Cerreño, A.L.C., M. Panero, and S. Boehme. 2002. Pollution prevention and management strategies for mercury in the New York/New Jersey harbor. New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 116 pp.Google Scholar
  16. EC. 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). As available 9/5/2008 at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF, 22 pp.
  17. Elofsson, K. 2003. Cost-effective reductions of stochastic agricultural loads to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics 47(1): 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elofsson, K. 2006. Cost-effective control of interdependent water pollutants. Environmental Management 37(1): 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elofsson, K., and I.-M. Gren. 2004. Cost-effectiveness in Swedish environmental policy—an evaluation. Ekonomisk Debatt 3: 57–68 (In Swedish).Google Scholar
  20. Epple, D., and M. Visscher. 1984. Environmental pollution: Modelling occurrence, detection, and deterrence. Journal of Law and Economics 27(1): 29–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Etkin, D.S. 2000. Worldwide analysis of marine oil spill cleanup cost factors. Paper presented at 23rd Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Seminar, Winchester.Google Scholar
  22. Gaiser, T., M. Henseler, K. Zardava, C. Kiourtsidis, J. Ganoulis, A. Printz, et al. 2007. Estimating the effects of the EU Common Agricultural Policy on ground and surface water quality: A case study in the Neckar Basin. Paper presented at the conference on the science and education of land use: A transatlantic, multidisciplinary and comparative approach (TALUC). The Westin Washington DC City Center (USA), 24–26.09.2007.Google Scholar
  23. Gren, I.-M. 2000. Cost-effective nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea. In Managing a Sea, ed. Gren, I.-M., K. Turner and F. Wulff, 152 pp. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  24. Gren, I.-M. 2001. International versus national action against nitrogen pollution of the Baltic Sea. Environmental & Resource Economics 20: 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gren, I-M. 2008a. Costs and benefits from nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea. Report 5877. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  26. Gren, I.-M. 2008b. Cost effectiveness and fairness of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan against eutrophication. Vatten 64: 273–281.Google Scholar
  27. Gren, I.-M., and F. Wulff. 2004. Cost effective nutrient reductions to coupled heterogeneous marine water basins: An application to the Baltic Sea. Regional Environmental Change 4(3): 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gren, I.-M., K. Elofsson, and P. Jannke. 1997. Cost-effective nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea. Environmental & Resource Economics 10: 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hart, R. 2002. Dynamic pollution control—time lags and optimal restoration of marine ecosystems. Ecological Economics 47(1): 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. HELCOM. 2007a. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland, 15 Nov 2007.Google Scholar
  31. HELCOM. 2007b. Towards a Baltic Sea unaffected by hazardous substances. HELCOM Overview 2007. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland, 15 Nov 2007.Google Scholar
  32. HELCOM. 2007c. Towards a Baltic Sea with environmentally friendly maritime activities. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland, 15 Nov 2007.Google Scholar
  33. Hylander, L.D., and M.E. Goodsite. 2006. Environmental costs of mercury pollution. The Science of the Total Environment 368(1): 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krupnick, A., Austin, D., Morton, B., McConnell, V., Stoessell, T. and Cannon, M. 2005. The Chesapeake Bay and the control of NOx emissions: A policy analysis. Discussion paper RFF-DP-98-46. Resources for the future.Google Scholar
  35. Laugesen, J., Møskeland, T., Kelley, A., Jensen, T., 2001. Technical report, analysis of measures for removal of contaminated sediments in Kristiansandsfjorden. Den Norske Veritas (DNV), Høvik (In Norwegian).Google Scholar
  36. Laukkanen, M., and A. Huhtala. 2007. Optimal management of a eutrophied coastal ecosystem: Balancing agricultural and municipal abatement measures. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics 39(2): 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lehtonen, L., I. Bärlund, S. Tattari, and M. Hildén. 2007. Combining dynamic economic analysis and environmental impact modelling: Addressing uncertainty and complexity of agricultural development. Environmental Modelling and Software 22: 710–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neumann, T., and G. Schernewski. 2005. An ecological model evaluation of two nutrient abatement strategies for the Baltic Sea. Journal of Marine Systems 56(1–2): 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nowicki, P., van Meijl, H., Knierim, A. Banse, M., Helming, J., Margraf, O., Matzdorf, B. Mnatsakanian, R. et al. 2007. Scenar 2020—Scenario study on agriculture and the rural world. Contract No. 30-CE-0040087/00-08. European Commission, Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels.Google Scholar
  40. Oglethorpe, D.R. 2005. Livestock production post CAP reform: Implications for the environment. Animal Science 81: 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ollikainen, M., and J. Honkatukia. 2001. Towards efficient pollution control in the Baltic Sea: An anatomy of current failure with suggestions for change. AMBIO 30(4): 245–253.Google Scholar
  42. Östblom, G. 2007. Nitrogen and sulphur outcomes of a carbon emissions target excluding traded allowances—an input—output analysis of the Swedish Case, Working Paper No 101. National Institute of Economic Research, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  43. Peirce, M., Jones, H., Passant, N. and Holland, M. 2002. Cost Curves for the Abatement of Heavy Metal, PAH and Dioxin Emissions. Report produced for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. AEAT/R/ENV/0159 Issue 1. AEA Technology Environment, Abingdon, Oxfordshire.Google Scholar
  44. Samakovlis, E., A. Huhtala, T. Bellander, and M. Svartengren. 2005. Valuing health effects of air pollution—focus on concentration-response functions. Journal of Urban Economics 58(2): 230–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmid, E., and F. Sinabell. 2007. On the choice of farm management practices after the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of Environmental Management 82: 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmid, E., F. Sinabell, and M.F. Hofreither. 2007. Phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies: Consequences of the 2003 CAP reform. Ecological Economics 60: 596–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schou, J.S., Neye, S.T. Lundhede, T. Martinsen, L. and Hasler, B. 2006. Modelling Cost-efficient reductions of nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea. Model specification, Data and Cost functions. NERI Technical Report No. 592. NERI, Copenhagen. 69 p.Google Scholar
  48. Selin, H., and S.D. VanDeveer. 2004. Baltic Sea hazardous substances management: Results and challenges. AMBIO 33(3): 153–160.Google Scholar
  49. Thurow, F. 1997. Estimation of the total fish biomass in the Baltic Sea during the 20th century. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54: 444–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vandeven, J.A., and S.L. McGinnis. 2004. Cost-effectiveness of removing amalgam from dental wastewater. Journal of Californian Dentists Association 32(7): 564–573.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations