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

Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC:

Context

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)

Smeets and Weterings, 1999

DPSIR

D : Driving forces P : Pressures S : State I : Impact R : Responses

Eutrophication phenomena

Spring Phaeocystis foam : North Sea Belgian coastal zone Eutrophic river

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

Households scenarios

Nutrient reduction measures

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 Effectiveness valuation:

RIVERSTRAHLER : river model

Nutrient reduction measures Effectiveness valuation:

The STICS model

Nutrient reduction measures Effectiveness valuation:

N reduction of the different measures in the Scheldt basin

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

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

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)

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation

STICS Amount of N fertilizer N fertilizer cost (CF) Yield (Y) * Market price of crop (PM) I : no nitrogen fertilization reduction s : nitrogen fertilization reduction Unit Cost (€/ha) = ( (Yi * PM) – (Ys * PM) ) – (CFi – CFs) ‐Yield loss ‐ Fertilizer savings

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)

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation

Scheldt basin crops distribution

Agricultural scenarios:

1. Nitrogen fertilization reduction and catch crop introduction

(AGRI 1)

Cost difference between i and s Different cost items such as: ‐ Farming cost of sowing, growing, cropping, burying ‐ Seeds and machinery i: soil not covered during winter s: catch crop introduction

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 – Cv P ≠ ct Cf = ct => GM bs – GM AGRI 2 ≤

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation

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

=> Compare eutrophication damage costs with pollution control costs

Conclusion:

Thank you for your attention

Nutrient reduction measures: Effectiveness valuation:

Source : Gaury, 1992

Nitrate leaching with different crops:

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

Agricultural scenarios:

1. Nitrogen fertilization reduction and catch crop introduction

(AGRI 1)

Nutrient reduction measures Cost valuation

‐Yield loss

Different curve for each crop

Oe : Δ yield gain < Δ N fertilizer cost Op : max yield