Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:08:57.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic and regulatory instruments to control nitrogen pressure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2014

P. Le Goffe  and
C. Donnars
P. Le Goffe*
Affiliation:
Agrocampus Ouest, Research Unit, 1303, F-35042Rennes, France
C. Donnars
Affiliation:
INRA, DEPE, F-75338 Paris, France
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines how the concerns of economic efficiency and of redistribution can be integrated into the design of the policies that aim to control the nitrogen flows. Generally speaking, the economists recommend to determine the degree of pollution and to arbitrate between the gains and the transaction costs associated to the implementation of the policy. Regarding instruments, the reduction of the diffuse nitrogen pollution needs a quantitative or economic instrument owing to the difficulty of valuing the environmental efforts of the producers on markets. Unlike for pesticides, the quota is here preferred to the tax, in particular in the case of fertilisers. The polluter-payer principle should be applied to the risks of accidental pollution on livestock farms. Results of a long process under the European Commission pressure, the policies of EU members in Northern Europe are more in line with the economic prescriptions than those of France. Recent evolutions go nevertheless forward, even if penalties for enforcing the practices standards are always missing.

Keywords

diffuse pollutionsnitratelivestock farmenvironmentpolicy
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 5 , Issue s1: Nitrogen flows in livestock farming systems: Reduce losses, restore balance , October 2014 , pp. 55 - 58
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baron, P, Barthelemy, F, Bouvier, M, Martin, X and Vogler, JP 2001. Elevages et fonctionnement du Conseil départemental d’hygiène en Ille et Vilaine. IGE-CGGREF, Paris. 73pp.Google Scholar
Bockstaller, C, Vertès, F, Fiorelli, JL and Aarts, F. 2014. Tools for evaluating nitrogen impacts in livestock farming systems. Advances in Animal Biosciences 5, 48–53.Google Scholar
Bel, F, Drouet d’Aubigny, G, Lacroix, A, Mollard, A 2004. Efficacité et limites d’une taxe sur les engrais azotés: éléments d’analyse à partir de seize pays europeens. Economie et Prévision 166, 99–113.Google Scholar
Berntsen, J, Petersen, BM, Jacobsen, BH, Olesen, JE and Hutchings, NJ 2003. Evaluating nitrogen taxation scenarios using the dynamic whole farm simulation model FASSET. Agricultural Systems 76, 817–839.Google Scholar
Christensen, J and Hansen, LG 2005. Abatement costs of alternative tax systems to regulate agricultural nitrogen loss. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 7, 53–74.Google Scholar
Cochard, F, Spaeter, S, Verchère, A and Willinger, M 2009. Pollution diffuse aux nitrates et incitations économiques. Revue Française d’Economie 24, 71–119.Google Scholar
Dillon, P and Delaby, L 2009. Challenges from EU and International Environmental policy and legislation to animal production from temperate grassland. Tearmann 7, 51–68.Google Scholar
Djaout, F, Le Goffe, P and Tauber, M 2009. Comment appliquer la directive nitrates et à quel coût? Une modélisation spatiale du marché de l’épandage. Economie et Prévision 188, 43–61.Google Scholar
Doussan, I 2005. Le droit de la responsabilité civile français à l’épreuve de la ‘responsabilité environnementale’ instaurée par la directive du 21 avril 2004. Les Petites Affiches 169, 3–14.Google Scholar
Hopkins, J, Schnitkey, G and Tweeten, L 1996. Impacts of nitrogen control policies on crop and livestock farms at two Ohio farm sites. Review of Agricultural Economics 18, 311–324.Google Scholar
Horan, RD and Shortle, JS 2001. Environmental instruments for agriculture. In Environmental policies for agricultural pollution control (ed. JS, Shortle and DG, Abler), pp. 19–65. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Kampas, A and White, B 2002. Emission versus input taxes for diffuse nitrate pollution control in the presence of transaction costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45, 129–139.Google Scholar
Kronvang, B, Andersen, HE, Brgesen, C, Dalgaard, T, Bgestrand, J and Blicher-Mathiasen, G 2008. Effects of policy measures implemented in Denmark on nitrogen pollution of the aquatic environment. Environmental Science & Policy 11, 144–152.Google Scholar
Langlais, A, Nicourt, C, Bourblanc, M and Gaigné, C. 2014. Livestock farming and 763 nitrogen within the economic and social context. Advances in Animal Biosciences 5, 20–27.Google Scholar
Lansink, AO and Peerlings, J 1997. Effects of N-surplus taxes: combining technical and historical information. European Review of Agricultural Economics 24, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Goffe, P and Vermersch, D 2004. Le marché de l’épandage peut-il réduire le coût de la résorption des excédents d’azote? (Market definition according to reducing pollution at least cost with transferable rights for manure spreading. With english summary). Economie Rurale 279, 20–32.Google Scholar
Le Goffe, P and Salanie, J 2005. Le droit d’épandage a-t-il un prix? Mesure sur le marché foncier. Cahiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales 77, 35–62.Google Scholar
Lessirard, J and Quevremont, P 2008. La filière porcine française et le développement durable. Ministères de l’écologie et de l’agriculture, Paris. 74pp + annexes.Google Scholar
Mahé, LP and Ortalo-Magné, F 2001. Politique Agricole: Un Modèle Européen, Presses de Sciences Po, Paris.Google Scholar
Mahé, LP and Le Goffe, P 2002. La résorption des excédents d’épandage: principes économiques d’un plan d’action pour la Bretagne, Rapport à la Préfecture de la Région Bretagne, Rennes. 63pp.Google Scholar
Pan, JH and Hodge, I 1994. Land-use permits as an alternative to fertilizer and leaching taxes for the control of nitrate pollution. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 102–112.Google Scholar
Rainelli, P and Vermersch, D 2000. Gestion fonciere des excedents azotes et marche implicite de droits a polluer: Application aux elevages intensifs. (Agricultural management of nitrogen surpluses and implicit in pollution rights market: application to intensive livestock farming. With english summary). Economie et Prevision 143–144, 91–100.Google Scholar
Shortle, JS, Horan, RD and Abler, DG 1998. Research issues in nonpoint pollution control. Environmental & Resource Economics 11, 571–585.Google Scholar
Verchère, A 2010. Normes, taxes et pollution diffuse aux nitrates. Revue Française d’Economie 25, 93–135.Google Scholar