Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 115–134 | Cite as

Risk-Cost Analysis for the Regulation of Airborne Toxic Substances in a Developing Context: The Case of Arsenic in Chile

  • R. O'Ryan
  • M. Díaz
Article

Abstract

Most developing countries are just beginning to takeenvironmental protection seriously. In some cases it is common tocopy regulations from developed countries; however, determininghow much protection is required is difficult, ideally requiringthat the costs and risks be considered to propose a realistic andeffective policy. Chile has serious problems with arsenicpollution associated to emissions from its copper smelters. Toregulate these emissions, a strict ambient concentrationstandard, applicable to the whole country, is being proposed thatreduces risks to an acceptable level. However, little is knownabout the exposure and health effects associated to currentemission levels, and the corresponding costs of reducingemissions. The results of a three-year project that combinesengineering, economics and health information sheds light onthese costs and risks for different values of ambient standards.These show that there are ``win--win'' options that obtainsignificant health improvements at low, even negative, costs.However, costs quickly increase as the concentration standardbecomes more stringent, with few additional health benefits. Inmany locations naturally high background levels of arsenic makeit very costly or even impossible to reach the desired goal.These results make it necessary to examine the use of a case-by-caseregulation for each source, rather than a general one basedon a unique ambient quality goal. They also suggest that copyingstandards or risk criteria used in developed contexts can beextremely expensive.

developing countries environmental management pollution prevention risk analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Díaz, C., H. Schwarze and J. Taylor (1995), ‘The Changing Landscape of Copper Smelting in the Americas’, Proceedings of Copper 95 International Conference, Vol. IV — Pirometallurgy of Copper, Santiago, Chile, November 26–29.Google Scholar
  2. Ditz et al. (1995), Green Ledgers: Case Studies in Corporate Environmental Accounting. World Resources Institute, May.Google Scholar
  3. Ferreccio, C., C. González, V. Milosavljevic and A. M. Sancha (1997), ‘Impacto en salud atribuible a exposición a arsénico: Un estudio de casos y controles’, ‘Protección de la Competitividad de los Productos Mineros de Chile: Antecedentes y Criterios para la Regulación del Arsénico’. Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
  4. Fondef (1997), Protección de la Competitividad de los Productos Mineros de Chile: Antecedentes y Criterios para la Regulación del Arsénico, Final Report. Santiago, Chile: Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
  5. ‘The Gallon Environmental Letter’ (1997), Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment, Vol. 1,No. 20, November 18.Google Scholar
  6. George, Gottling and Newman (1995), ‘Modernization of Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter’, Proceedings of Copper 95 International Conference, Vol. IV — Pirometallurgy of Copper. Santiago, Chile, November 26–29.Google Scholar
  7. Halsnaes, K. (1997), ‘Assessment of International Mitigation Costing Studies in Developing Countries’, UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment. Denmark: Riso National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  8. Hanniala, P. (1996), ‘The Environmental and Economic Benefits of the Outokumpu Flash Smelting Technology for Different Kinds of Concentrates’, Proceedings of Clean Technology for the Mining Industry. Concepción, Chile: Universidad de Concepción.Google Scholar
  9. Moore, C. and A. Míller (1994), Green Gold. Boston, Estados Unidos: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  10. O'Ryan, R. (1996), ‘Cost-Effective Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality in Santiago, Chile’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management(November) 31, 302-313.Google Scholar
  11. Smith, A. et al. (1992), ‘Arsenic in the Environment and Its Incidence on Health’, International Seminar Proceedings, Vol. 97. Santiago, Chile, May, pp. 135-145.Google Scholar
  12. UNEP/WHO Global Environment Monitoring Programme (1986), ‘Guidelines for Integrated Air, Water, Food and Biological Exposure Monitoring’, Heal Project, Human Exposure Assessment Location. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  13. US EPA (1984), ‘Health Assessment Document for Inorganic Arsenic’, Final Report. EPA 600/8-83-021 F, March. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington DC 20460.Google Scholar
  14. Van Houtver, G. and M. Cropper (1996), ‘When is a Life to Costly to Save? The Evidence from U.S. Environmental Regulations’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 348-368.Google Scholar
  15. WHO (1987), Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. Denmark: WHO Regional Publications, European Series No. 23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. O'Ryan
    • 1
  • M. Díaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Applied Economics and Environmental Economics and Management Program, Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of ChileChile

Personalised recommendations