Pollution control cost valuation for Scheldt watershed contamination - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Pollution control cost valuation for Scheldt watershed contamination Audrey Polard ULB-CEESE-Brussels 8th Word Wide Workshop for Young Environmental Scientists, 2 ‐ 5 June 2009

Plan ‐ DPSIR approach ‐ Estimation of the cost of each control pollution measure ‐ Estimation of the effectiveness of each control pollution measure ‐ Cost ‐ effectiveness ratio ‐ Conclusion

Context Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC: Timothy project

Study Area

DPSIR D : Driving forces P : Pressures S : State I : Impact R : Responses D : Agriculture and Households Diffuse sources (run ‐ off) Point sources (WWTP) P : Nutrients : N and P S : High concentration in nutrients I : Eutrophication phenomena in Scheldt basin Emphasis on eutrophication of Belgian coastal waters (Southern North Sea) Nitrogen contamination of groundwater R : Nutrient reduction measures (scenarios)

DPSIR D : Driving forces P : Pressures S : State I : Impact R : Responses Smeets and Weterings, 1999

Eutrophication phenomena Spring Phaeocystis foam : North Sea Eutrophic river Belgian coastal zone

Nutrient reduction measures Choice: ‐ Economic guidelines (Kranz et al ., 2005; MVW, 2005; Interwies et al., 2004; Jacobsen, 2007; European Communities, 2003) ‐ Ease of “translation” into RIVERSTRAHLER model ‐ Political relevance ‐ Availability of data (cost and efficiency) Households scenarios: Upgrading of existing WWTP from secondary to tertiary treatment (N and P treatment) 1. WWTP > 500 000 IE 2. WWTP > 100 000 IE 3. WWTP > 20 000 IE 4. WWTP > 0 IE

Nutrient reduction measures Households scenarios WWTP

Nutrient reduction measures Agricultural scenarios: Focus on nitrogen reduction 1. Nitrogen fertilization reduction and catch crop introduction (AGRI 1) 2. Conversion of fodder corn crop surfaces into meadow surfaces (AGRI 2)

Nutrient reduction measures Effectiveness valuation: Year of reference : 2000 1 . RIVERSTRAHLER parameter modifications STICS model : AGRI 1 Literature review : AGRI 2 and WWTP scenarios 2. Running the RIVERSTRAHLER model => Impact on N and P concentrations along the Scheldt basin 3. RIVERSTRAHLER results into the MIRO model => Impact on the occurrence of algal blooms in the Belgian coastal zone

Nutrient reduction measures RIVERSTRAHLER : river model Effectiveness valuation:

Nutrient reduction measures Effectiveness valuation: The STICS model

Nutrient reduction measures Effectiveness valuation: N reduction of the different measures in the Scheldt basin

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Households scenarios : Two types of costs: ‐ Investment costs ‐ Additional costs of operating a tertiary treatment ⇒ Total annual cost Investment costs: • Highly variable but no cost data for each WWTP Cost range applied according to : ‐ equipment already present in WWTP ‐ the age of the WWTP Experts information • Annualized with AEC = [NPV * a] / [1 – (1 + a) ‐ D] AEC : Annual Equivalent Cost NPV : Net Investment Value a : discount rate : 5 % D : lifetime of the capital equipment : 20 year

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Households scenarios : Additional costs of operating a tertiary treatment : N: ‐ Biological removal : 5 % P: ‐ Physico ‐ chemical removal: 2.5€/IE ‐ Biological removal : 0.5 €/IE

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Households scenarios : Costs : existing Waste Water Treatment Plants not increase of collecting rate of sewage network Impossible to separate N and P investment costs – same infrastructures used in activated sludge treatment

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Agricultural scenarios: 1. Nitrogen fertilization reduction and catch crop introduction (AGRI 1) ‐ Yield loss ‐ Fertilizer savings Amount of N fertilizer STICS N fertilizer cost ( CF ) I : no nitrogen fertilization Yield * Market price of reduction ( Y ) crop ( PM ) s : nitrogen fertilization reduction Unit Cost (€/ha) = ( ( Y i * PM ) – ( Y s * PM ) ) – ( CF i – CF s)

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Agricultural scenarios: 1. Nitrogen fertilization reduction and catch crop introduction (AGRI 1) Unit cost for 3 crops (Lacroix et al., 2004) => 6 crops : own STICS simulations Total cost = Unit cost (€/ha) * Scheldt Basin crops surfaces (ha) Scheldt basin crops distribution

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Agricultural scenarios: 1. Nitrogen fertilization reduction and catch crop introduction (AGRI 1) i: soil not covered during winter Cost difference between i and s s: catch crop introduction Different cost items such as: ‐ Farming cost of sowing, growing, cropping, burying ‐ Seeds and machinery

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Agricultural scenarios: 2. Conversion of fodder corn crop surfaces into meadow surfaces (AGRI 2) Gross Margin (GM) comparison GM = p – C v c t P ≠ C f = c t => GM bs – GM AGRI 2 ≤ 0

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Agricultural scenarios: 2. Conversion of fodder corn crop surfaces into meadow surfaces (AGRI 2) No annual cost Although one ‐ off costs such as fencing grazed meadows

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation

Nutrient reduction measures Cost ‐ effectiveness ratio Cost ‐ effectiveness ratio for N

Nutrient reduction measures Cost ‐ effectiveness ratio Similar cost ‐ ratio in Atkins and Burdon, 2006, Nolte, 2007 for AGRI 1 measure Agricultural measures more cost ‐ effective

Conclusion : Nitrogen is still too high Slight decrease of coastal eutrophication phenomena => Go further in the effectiveness valuation of agricultural measures : AGRI 1 : New STICS simulations AGRI 2 : Decrease of cattle density and nitrate leaching reduction + decrease of exogenous N input N surplus : => Need to simulate other control pollution measures as such organic farming

Conclusion: => Compare eutrophication damage costs with pollution control costs

Thank you for your attention

Nutrient reduction measures: Effectiveness valuation: Nitrate leaching with different crops: Source : Gaury, 1992

Nutrient reduction measures: Effectiveness valuation: Mean nitrate concentration below the rooting zone for several crop rotations with or without catch crops ( calculated for a deep loamy soil ) Beaudoin et al., 2005

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation Agricultural scenarios: 1. Nitrogen fertilization reduction and catch crop introduction (AGRI 1) ‐ Yield loss Oe : Δ yield gain < Δ N fertilizer cost Op : max yield Different curve for each crop