Does Divergence of Nutrient Load Measurements Matter for Successful Mitigation of Marine Eutrophication?
- 164 Downloads
Successful implementation of an international nutrient abatement agreement, such as the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), requires consistent understanding of the baseline nutrient loads, and a perception of acceptable costs and fairness in targeted reductions of these base line loads. This article presents a general framework for identifying the implications of divergence between different nutrient load quantification approaches, with regard to both cost and fairness criteria outcomes, for the international agreement to decrease nutrient loads into the Baltic Sea as presented in the BSAP. The results indicate that even relatively small divergence in the nutrient load quantification translates into relatively large differences in abatement cost for different Baltic Sea countries. A robust result, irrespective of differences in nutrient load assessments, is a conflict between abatement cost effectiveness and fairness, with relatively poor countries facing heavy abatement cost burdens for cost-effective international load abatement.
KeywordsNutrient measurement divergences Eutrophication Cost effectiveness Fairness Baltic Sea
Destouni acknowledges support from Stockholm University’s Strategic Marine Environmental Research Funds through the BEAM Program.
- The World Bank. 2011. Data catalogue. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog. Accessed 20 Jan 2011.
- Backer, H., and J.M. Leppänen. 2008. The Helcom system of a vision, strategic goals and ecological objectives: implementing an ecosystem approach to the management of human activities in the Baltic Sea. Marine Freshwater Ecosystem 18: 224–321.Google Scholar
- BalticSea2020. 2011. http://www.balticsea2020.org/english/. Accessed 30 April 2011.
- Baresel, C., and Destouni, G. 2005. Novel quantification of coupled natural and cross-sectoral water and nutrient/pollutant flows for environmental management. Environmental Science & Technology 39(16):6182–6190. doi: 10.1021/es050522k.
- Bérubé, G., and C. Cusson. 2002. The environmental legal and regulatory frameworks. Assessing fairness and efficiency. Energy Policy 30: 291–298.Google Scholar
- Carraro, C. (ed.). 2000. Efficiency and equity in climate change policy. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
- Carraro, C., and B. Buchner. 2002. Equity, development and climate change policy. In Climate change policy regimes, international trade and growth, ed. C. Carraro, C. Kemfert, and B. Buchner. Buxelles: CEPS-ESRI Collaboration studies.Google Scholar
- Destouni G., F. Hannerz, C. Prieto, J. Jarsjö, and Y. Shibuo. 2008. Small unmonitored near-coastal catchment areas yielding large mass loading to the sea. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22: GB4003 (10 pp). doi: 10.1029/2008GB003287.
- Elmgren, R., and U. Larsson. 2001. Europhication in the Baltic Sea area. Integrated coastal management issues. In Science and integrated coastal management, ed. B.V. Bodugen, and R.K. Turner, 15–3527. Berlin: Dahlem University Press.Google Scholar
- Elofsson, K. 2006. Cost uncertainty and unilateral abatement. Environmental & Resource Economics 36(2): 143–162.Google Scholar
- Gren, I.-M. 2008a. Evaluation of cost effectiveness and fairness of the Helcom Baltic Sea Action Plan. Vatten 4: 271–281.Google Scholar
- Gren, I.-M., Y. Jonzon, and M. Lindqvist. 2008. Calculation of costs for nutrient reductions to the Baltic Sea. Technical report. Working paper no. 1. Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala.Google Scholar
- Helcom. 2004. The fourth Baltic Sea pollution load compilation (PLC-4). Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Commission.Google Scholar
- Helcom. 2007. An approach to set country-wise nutrient reduction allocations to reach good marine environment of the Baltic Sea. Helcom BSAP Eutro Expo. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Commission.Google Scholar
- Huisman, J., H.C.P. Matthijs, and P.M. Visser. 2005. Harmful cyanobacteria. Springer Aquatic Ecology Series 3. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- NEFCO. 2008. Framework for a nutrient quota and credit’s trading system for the contracting parties of Helcom in order to reduce eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. http://www.nefco.org/files/Nefco_BS%20NTS_GSN_Final%20Report_20080229.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2011.
- Rosenthal, R. 2008. GAMS—a user’s guide. Washington, DC: GAMS Development Corporation.Google Scholar
- Secondi, G. (ed.). 2008. The development economics reader. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
- Söderquist, T. 1998. Why give up money for the Baltic Sea? Motives for peoples’ willingness to pay. Environmental & Resource Economics 12/2: 141–153.Google Scholar
- Turner, K., S. Georgiou, I.-M. Gren, F. Wulff, S. Barett, T. Söderqvist, I.J. Bateman, C. Folke, S. Langaas, T. Zylicz, K.-G. Mäler, and A. Markowska. 1999. Managing nutrient fluxes and pollution in the Baltic: An interdisciplinary simulation study. Ecological Economics 30: 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar