Evaluating the Efficiency of a Uniform N-Input Tax under Different Policy Scenarios at Different Scales
Nitrate pollution from agriculture is an important environmental externality, caused by the excessive use of fertilizers. The internalization of this problem, via a tax on mineral nitrogen, could lead to a second best solution, reducing nitrate emissions. Several authors suggest that a reduction in agricultural support could produce similar results. In this paper, we examine the effects of different levels of a uniformly implemented nitrogen tax in France under two policy scenarios, corresponding to post Agenda 2000 and 2003 Luxembourg reforms of European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, in order to reveal the synergies and conflicts between the tax and the policy scenarios in terms of nitrate emissions abatement. The analysis is performed at different geographical scales, from the national to the regional and is based on a bioeconomic approach that involves the coupling of the economic model AROPAj with the crop model STICS. Results show that the efficiency of the N-tax varies according to the geographical scale of the analysis and the type of farming. Furthermore, we prove that a uniform implementation may lead to perverse effects that should always be taken into account when introducing second-best instruments.
KeywordsBioeconomic model Mathematical programming Nitrogen response curves Nitrate emissions Nitrogen tax
This paper is based on research activities funded by the PIREN-Seine, an interdisciplinary research program dedicated to the study of the environment in the Seine river basin in France.
- 15.Gallego-Ayala, J., & Gómez-Limón, J. A. (2009). Analysis of policy instruments for control of nitrate pollution in irrigated agriculture in Castilla y León, Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 27(1), 24–40.Google Scholar
- 17.Taylor, M. L., Adams, R. M., & Miller, S. F. (1992). Farm-level response to agricultural effluent control strategies: the case of the Willamette Valley. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 17(1), 173–185.Google Scholar
- 31.Chakir, R., Debove, E., De Cara, S., & Jayet, P. A. (2006). The AROPAj model. Work Package 2, Deliverable 2, GENEDEC Project. http://www.grignon.inra.fr/economiepublique/genedec/publi/deliv/WP2_D2_TR.doc. Accessed 9 August 2010.
- 38.Schott, C., Mignolet, C., & Benoît, M. (2009). Agriculture du bassin de la Seine. Programme PIREN-SEINE No.5, Agence de l' eau Seine-Normandie. http://www.sisyphe.upmc.fr/piren/fascicules. Accessed 28 July 2010.
- 39.Viennot, P., Ledoux, E., Monget, J. M., Schott, C., Gernier, C., & Beaudoin, N. (2009). La pollution du bassin de la Seine par les nitrates. Programme PIREN-SEINE No.3, Agence de l' eau Seine-Normandie. http://www.sisyphe.upmc.fr/piren/fascicules. Accessed 28 July 2010.