Download HUMAN IMPACTS OF THE NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS CYCLES

GLOC-2, Montego Bay, 3 October 2013
HUMAN IMPACTS OF
THE NITROGEN AND
PHOSPHORUS
CYCLES
A water security perspective
Gérard Bonnis, OECD Environment Directorate
Why does nitrogen matter?
European Nitrogen Assessment (2011)
2
What is water security?
• Water security is about establishing an acceptable level
of water risk for four risks:
– Risk of shortage
– Risk of inadequate quality
– Risk of excess
Improving water security
– Risk to freshwater systems (resilience)
3
NUTRIENTS
4
Get the math right
N cascade
River N exports to coastal waters
agriculture (fertilisers)
63
34
agriculture (surplus)
biological fixation by plants
24
58
N deposition and biological fixation
energy and transport
13
8
urban wastewater
100
100
Total
European Nitrogen Assessment (2011)
OECD Environmental Outlook (2008)
5
Nitrogen effluents from wastewater
OECD
India
China
Africa
Rest of the world
Millions of tonnes of N / year
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2000
2050
12
Get the math right > 2030
N cascade
River N exports to coastal waters
agriculture (fertilisers)
63
34 > 43 agriculture (surplus)
biological fixation by plants
24
58 > 45 N deposition and biological fixation
energy and transport
13
Total
100
European Nitrogen Assessment
8 > 11 urban wastewater
100
53 > 55 million tonnes
OECD Environmental Outlook (2008)
13
WATER SECURITY
14
Example of water insecurity >> eutrophication
• Direct discharges of N and P to inland and
coastal waters
– NO3 from agriculture
– NO3 from urban wastewater
• Air pollution (eutrophying deposition):
– NOx from the burning of fossil fuels at high
temperatures (industry, energy, transport)
– NH3 (ammonia) from agriculture
17
Eutrophication outlook to 2050
18
What matters is to set acceptable levels
of risk..
19
.. based on likelihood, consequences
and cost of amelioration
PROBABILITY
COST OF
AMELIORATION
Risk cannot
be taken on
Most likely
Oftentimes
Occasional
Rare
Highly
unlikely
Tolerable: risk reduction
measures are necessary
Acceptable
level of risk
IMPACT
Negligible
Minor
Serious
Critical
Catastrophic
20
A risk-based approach allows assessing
policy priorities
• The aim is NOT to reduce (reactive) N
emissions everywhere and at any cost
• The aim IS to improve water security
• Contrary to C, N risk is local even though
all countries are affected
• The aim is to identify/delineate areas at
risk of water insecurity (weak spots)
« know the risks »
21
e.g. no need to treat wastewater where there
is dilution capacity (Reykjvavik sea outfall)
sewage treatment facility
main outfalls
pumping station
planned pumping station
planned main outfalls
22
POLICIES
23
Water security: a three-step process
Coherence with other policy
instruments
MANAGE THE RISKS
Cost-efficiency
Coherence with other
policy objectives
TARGET THE RISKS
Acceptable level
KNOW THE RISKS
Assessment
Feedback
from practice
24
Improving water security (managing
risks) requires sound economics
– Emissions permit trading schemes for point
and nonpoint pollution.
• allows pollution to be reduced from the lowest cost
sources.
– Emissions taxes.
• creates ongoing incentives to reduce pollution
OECD (2011), “Economic Instruments in Water Management",ENV/EPOC/WPBWE(2011)13
25
Case studies
• Emissions trading schemes
generated USD 30 million in Long Island, U.S. and
reduced pollution and water treatment costs in
Hunter River, Australia
other trading schemes have been less successful due
to high transaction costs
• Emissions taxes in western Europe have
successfully reduced point source pollution
In the Netherlands emissions taxes led to a decrease
in industrial organic emissions by 75%. Nonpoint
source emission taxes have been less successful
In France, emissions taxes now make up around 1/3
of household water bills
OECD (2011), “Economic Instruments in Water Management",ENV/EPOC/WPBWE(2011)13
26
Improving water security (managing
risks) also requires policy coherence
1. when setting water security targets
2. when designing policies to meet the water
security targets
27
Coherence: targets and policies
Water
security
targets
Water
policies




Other (direct N impact):
climate (N2O)
nature (NOx and NH3 deposition)
agriculture (NO3)
energy & transport (NOx)
Policy coherence
Trade-offs
Trade-offs
between
between
targets
objectives
Other
policy
targets
Other
policies
28
Policies to mitigate climate change affect N
Directly, e.g. through curbing N2O emissions from fertiliser use
1000 t CO2 equivalent
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
CO2
CH4
N2O
HFCs
N2O is a GHG (6% of OECD GHG emissions)
PFCs
SF6
29
Policies to mitigate climate change affect N
Indirectly, e.g. through fostering land use change for carbon
sequestration
e.g. in New Zealand, in places where it has induced farmland
conversion into forests, carbon emission trading has reduced nitrogen
releases into water.
Lake Taupo, New Zealand
30
Lake Taupo, New Zealand
private benefits
Conversion to pasture Forest conservation
S. Kerr (2012), Presentation at the OECD Expert Workshop on Water Security.
Conversion to pasture Forest conservation
costs to others
private benefits
Costs exceed private benefits
S. Kerr (2012), Presentation at the OECD Expert Workshop on Water Security.
Policy Interactions
Conversion to pasture
Forest conservation
private benefits
carbon emission
costs to others
water quality
S. Kerr (2012), Presentation at the OECD Expert Workshop on Water Security.
Policy Interactions
Conversion to pasture
Forest conservation
private benefits
carbon emission
costs to others
water quality
S. Kerr (2012), Presentation at the OECD Expert Workshop on Water Security.
Land use
Policy Interactions
Conversion to pasture
Forest conservation
payment
private benefits
carbon emission
costs to others
water quality
S. Kerr (2012), Presentation at the OECD Expert Workshop on Water Security.
Land use
Policy Interactions
Conversion to pasture
Forest conservation
payment
private benefits
carbon emission
costs to others
water quality
S. Kerr (2012), Presentation at the OECD Expert Workshop on Water Security.
Land use
Policy Interactions
Conversion to pasture
Forest conservation
payment
private benefits
carbon emission
costs to others
water quality
S. Kerr (2012), Presentation at the OECD Expert Workshop on Water Security.
Land use
Policy coherence for managing water risks
• Similar examples of policy coherence can
be drawn from:
1. nature conservation policy,
2. agricultural policy,
3. energy and transport policy..
38
1. Payments for ecosystem services (PES)
• flexible, incentive-based and site-specific >> can improve cost
effectiveness in managing water risks, compared to indirect
payments or other regulatory approaches.
• should only compensate holders of land-use rights (e.g. farmers
or foresters) for the additional costs of ecosystem service
provision, over and above legal requirements.
• should not take the form of uniform payments per hectare, as is
often the case, but take account of differences in ecosystem
benefits and opportunity costs for holders of land-use rights.
39
2. Agricultural policy reform, OECD area
%
90
80
%Producer Support Estimate (PSE)
70
support based on commodity output
60
payments based on input use
50
payments based on current, production
required
40
payments based on non-current,
production required
30
payments based on non-current,
production not required
20
payments based on non-commodity
criteria
miscellaneous payments
10
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
OECD.Stat
40
In a nutshell
• The frame of action to address N and P should be guided by water
security objectives, NOT by across-the-board N reduction
• This entails establishing « acceptable levels of water risks »
(scientific, economic and concern assessments), coherent (trade-off)
with other policy objectives, such as food security, energy security,
climate change mitigation, nature conservation
• .. and learning to live with them :
– through direct actions
• Emissions permit trading schemes for point and nonpoint pollution.
• Emissions taxes.
– coherent with measures to achieve other policy objectives:
•
•
•
•
carbon cap-and-trade (climate mitigation)
Payments for Ecosytem Services (nature conservation)
Environmentally Harmful Subsidies (context of agricultural support),
Taxation of externalities (NOx tax on energy and transport)
42
www.oecd.org/water