April 2007

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient
Reduction Implemented by Concerted / Joint
Action in the Danube River Basin

Provision of Technical Support to Develop a Preliminary
Concept for Tradable Water Pollution Rights for Nutrient
Reduction from Agricultural Sources

---

AUTHORS

PREPARED BY:

Stefan Speck1

















1 Stefan Speck, Vierthalergasse 6, 1120 Vienna, Austria, email: stefan.speck@chello.at

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 3

TABLE OF CONTENT



1.
The Issue at Stake ....................................................................................................5
2.
Political Aspect of the Study .......................................................................................6
3.
Environmental Consideration ......................................................................................9
4.
Economic Approach ................................................................................................. 10
5.
Anticipated result / outcome ­ issues to be addressed in the research project and
implemented during the different project stages .......................................................... 14
6.
A final remark ­ a caveat ­ and the next steps............................................................ 16
References:.................................................................................................................... 17



UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 5

1. THE ISSUE AT STAKE
There is still increasing interest in the sustainability of nutrient management in the Danube Basin
although recent reports and publications indicate `an improvement of the Black Sea environment
due to the economic breakdown in the eastern countries and the consequent decrease of nutrient
emissions (Lampert et al., 2004)'. However, there is a widespread agreement that the current
situation will reverse during the coming years, meaning that an increase of nutrient emissions is
anticipated in the foreseeable future as a consequence of the process of economic growth the
majority of the countries of the Danube River Basin (DRB) are currently undergoing. Based on past
experience nobody will probably be questioning that changes in agricultural production, in
particular in the lower Danube countries, must be expected considering the current relatively low
level in per capita livestock and use of mineral N-fertilisers as compared to the upper Danube
countries, Austria and Germany (see data presented in the Annex of van Gils et al., (no date
given)).
In this context it is helpful to state that the Danube Regional Project (DRP) has been established to
contribute to the sustainable human development in the Danube River Basin (DRB) through
reinforcing the capacities in the basin to develop effective co-operation to ensure the protection of
the Danube River. The objective of the DRP is to complement the activities of the International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) to provide a regional approach to the
development of national policies and legislation and the definition of actions for nutrient reduction
and pollution control in the DRB. Considering this overall objective of the DRP it is of great
relevance to mention that a specific aim of the DRP is the `Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation
and information systems to control transboundary pollution, and to reduce nutrients and harmful
substances'.
This document sets up the background / framework and the rationale of a future project studying
possible reactions of national governments in the DRB on dealing with the increase in nutrient
emissions from agricultural sources and what policy measures can be implemented. The focus is
solely directed on nutrient emissions caused by the agriculture sector (i.e. nutrient emission from
diffuse ­ non-point ­ sources). The novelty and originality of the proposed project idea is to
analyse policy measures to be implemented in collective action. The underlying principle and
rationale of the study is to show that collective action may be cost effective in the sense that the
total costs are lower if measures are introduced under the `burden sharing' principle ­ a principle
nowadays well known in the field of European climate policy (see for a more detailed discussion on
this principle: EEA, 2005)- as compared to the situation in which each country reduces its nitrogen
load from agriculture. Such an approach follows the overwhelming interest in addressing water
quality issues through the use of economic instruments and the role of using some form of trading
mechanisms to achieve a political objective in a cost-effective manner2.


2 In 2003 the DRP commissioned a study under the title `Danube Study on Pollution Trading and Corresponding
Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction' carried out by a consortia led by NIRAS. The aim of this study
was to review international experience in relation to pollution trading. The findings of this study may be of
interest as they provide an analysis of the underlying economic, legal and regulatory frameworks as well as the
study discusses the nutrient framework in more detail (see for the more information: http://www.undp-
drp.org/drp/activities_4-4_economic_instruments_pollution_trading.html).
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

page 6

2. POLITICAL ASPECT OF THE STUDY
`The Danube River System is the main controller of the eutrophication of the North-western Black
Sea (NWBS) as the main load of N and P comes via the Danube (NIRAS, 2005, p. 12)'. Although
studies indicate that the present ecological status of the NWBS is close to be assessed "good", the
future does not look so bright as it would require that the current nutrient load has to be `frozen' as
the sustainable nutrient loading for the NWBS (NIRAS, 2005, p.12).
Economical reality looks different as it must be expected that agriculture nutrient emissions will not
remain constant at the current, rather low level ­ in particular compared to the levels observed
before the collapse of the economic systems of the former Central and Eastern European countries.
Water quality management in the Danube River Basin is regulated by two conventions: The
Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Water Courses and International Lakes
and the Danube River Protection Convention.
As mentioned above the nutrient load of the Danube River System is highly significant for the
ecological status of the Black Sea culminating in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
between the ICPDR and the International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS)
of 2001 establishing a framework for implementing common strategic goals. Specifically, the two
parties agree to the following common goals aiming `to safeguard the Black Sea from a further
deterioration of the status of its ecosystem' (ICPDR, 2001):
·
The long-term goal in the wider Black Sea Basin is to take measures to reduce the loads of
nutrients and hazardous substances discharged to such levels necessary to permit Black Sea
ecosystems to recover to conditions similar to those observed in the 1960s.
·
As an intermediate goal, urgent measures should be taken in the wider Black Sea Basin in
order to avoid that the loads of nutrients and hazardous substances discharged into the Seas
exceed those that existed in the mid 1990s. (These discharges are only incompletely known.)
An increase of the application of nitrogen fertilisers in agriculture resulting in an increase in N-
emissions is a real challenge Danube River countries are facing in the future. The usage of
fertilisers dropped significantly after the collapse of the economic systems in almost all Danube
countries in the early 1990s. However, fertiliser use in the two upper Danube countries, Germany
and Austria, remained more or less constant over the last two decades meaning that all measures
implemented under the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - and transposed into national
legislation - have not influenced fertiliser use in these countries significantly (see Figure 1).
Therefore it can be assumed ­ with a rather high probability ­ that the current rather low use of
mineral N-fertilisers in lower Danube countries will increase as their use is currently below the
average (see for example van Gils et al., no date given, Annex 1 and danubs, 2005 ­ see Table A1
in the Annex)3. A similar result is reported in the context of the numbers of livestock which is also
a major source of nutrient emissions from agriculture. The indicator of surface specific livestock
shows that the numbers in lower Danube countries are also below the Danube average (see van
Gils et al., no date given, Annex 1) and again it can be expected that the number of livestock will
increase in due course leading to an increase in nutrient emissions.

3 A recent study assessing cost efficient nutrient reduction measures for the Baltic Sea estimated the `optimum'
use of fertiliser to be in the range of 111 kg N per hectare (Schou et al., 2006, p.31). This figure should only be
seen as an indication but when compared to the data presented by Gils et al. concerning the use of mineral N-
fertilisers in Danube countries it is rather obvious that an increased use can be expected as the average use
was calculated to be 31 kg N per hectare in 2000 in the Danube countries. This rather low figure may also be
set in the context of the EU limit of 170 kg nitrogen per hectare as laid down in the EU nitrates directive.
STEFAN SPECK

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 7

Based on this appraisal it can be said that the future situation looks slightly grim with regard to
keeping the nutrient emissions at the 1997 level considering that agricultural N-emissions are
around 45 percent of all N-emissions at the DRB level. The share of agricultural emissions differs
between countries significantly (see danubs, 2005, Figure 17). Although the focus of this project
idea is solely on agricultural N-emissions the future development of other sources of N-emissions
must be considered as further reduction of these emissions (resulting from an increase in
wastewater treatment plants - including N and P removal - along the Danube) may offset any
increase in agricultural emissions. This possibility clearly exists but the project and approach
respectively should be seen as indicative as it examines only the potential policy measures aiming
to reduce agricultural N-emissions. It should rather be seen and assessed as a test case for
analysing this concept of undertaking joint efforts, i.e. implementing policy, economic, technical
measures jointly as opposed to unilateral actions, with the aim of achieving a common policy
objective in a cost-effective way. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that the concept of
undertaking efforts jointly is definitely not limited to water quality problems in the Danube alone
but could also find wider, i.e. worldwide, application when assessing transboundary water policy
issues.
The discussion of the political aspect of this study must undoubtedly take into account the politics
established at the European Union level as the policies and regulations / directives developed are
affecting national legislation in the majority of the Danube River Basin countries to a large degree.
The most significant directives in the context of nutrient emissions in water resources are the
Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EC concerning the protection of waters against
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources) and the sister Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban
Waste Water Treatment). In the context of this project the Nitrates Directive is of importance as it
establishes some threshold levels, i.e. concentration levels, with regard to the use of fertilisers per
agricultural production area. It is probably not wrong to assume that the concentration values of
the Nitrates Directive will not have the desired effect in the sense that they will limit the use of N-
fertilisers in the Danube countries so that the policy objectives established in the two conventions
and the MoU between the ICPDR and the ICPBS (see above) will be achieved, in particular when
assessing the rather large range of the 2000 data concerning the use of mineral N-fertilisers
between the Danube countries as presented in Table A1 in the Annex. It can be expected that the
lower Danube countries are clearly able to extend the use of mineral N-fertilisers in the coming
years and still be under the threshold level as laid down in the Nitrates Directive. This is a clear
sign that the Nitrates Directive alone will not suffice to achieve the `desired' result. Therefore it
would be rather surprising if the Danube countries would not be interested and willing to undertake
further collaboration and thereby sharing the common burden as they all ­ as signatory states of
the Danube conventions - are obliged to achieve the self-determined policy target at the Danube
River Basin level

UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

page 8

Figure 1: N Market fertilisers application in Danube Basin

Source: NIRAS, 2005

The political dimension of the study centres around the question whether policy measures
implemented in concerted / joint action are cost-effective (i.e. reducing the overall costs necessary
to achieve the common ­ Danube River Basin-wide ­ goal of reducing nutrient emissions) as
compared to measures implemented unilaterally. As pointed out by NIRAS the concept of trading in
water quality policies would be possible in the DRB. However, the necessary condition that such a
system may be executed would be that (NIRAS, 2005):
·
all involved parties (all riparian countries) agree on a clearly defined water quality level /
goal in NWBS; and
·
all involved parties (all riparian countries) agree on the principle for sharing the burden of
meeting the political goal.

STEFAN SPECK

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 9

3. ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION
The environmental problems associated with the nutrient emissions have been discussed in many
publications and reports of the ICPDR and research institutes (see for example, ICPDR, 2005, WFD
Report and danubs, 2005, van Gils et al., no date given) stating that these emissions have led to
severe ecological problems including the deterioration of groundwater resources and the
eutrophication of rivers and lakes. As these environmental problems are studied in detail the
project is not required to analyse these effects in detail. Specific aspects may be relevant as some
of N-emissions are part of the whole water circle, i.e. the retention/removal of nitrogen in the
soil/groundwater passage and in the river system of the Danube Basin, i.e. around 40 percent of all
N-emissions are not reaching the Black Sea (personal communication with Zessner, 2006).
However, the focus of the project is clearly not directed to assess the exact effects of agricultural
nutrient emission including retention and removal of N but to develop a framework of the cost
implications of nutrient trading between riparian Danube countries. This implies that issues, such
as agreeing to the overall system and data to be used as the starting point for the analysis
(quantification of nutrient fluxes) and agreeing with regard to indicators as benchmark for nutrient
management (e.g. surpluses on soil, cattle density, emissions to surface waters, loads to the Black
Sea), must be clarified in advance and agreed by all involved parties (riparian countries). Probably
one of the main problems in defining a common understanding and methodology of the burden
sharing approach is how to assess / evaluate the environmental effects of N-emissions caused by
upstream countries vs. those caused by downstream countries with regard to the nutrient load
reaching the NWBS (i.e. a problem of `normalising' the effects of a ton of N-fertiliser used in an
upstream country as compared to the use of the same fertiliser in a downstream country).
This most likely requires quite detailed and lengthy political negotiation between all involved
parties as it can be seen in the context of the political discussion associated with the establishing of
the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). As this project must be seen as an indicative example, all
these ­ clearly important ­ discussions and decisions are not required. However, all assumptions
(policy measures, data, etc.) must either be based on scientific knowledge or made in a
transparent manner so that they can easily be understood and reproduced respectively.

UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

page 10

4. ECONOMIC
APPROACH
One of the motivations of this project is to assess the correct level of water quality management to
achieve water quality goals in a cost-effective manner. Thereby the correct level can be defined at
the basin level (between riparian countries) or at the national level4. The main task of this project
is to shed some light on the question whether collective action between riparian countries is cost-
effective in achieving a predetermined reduction goal as compared to national actions.
The mitigation of diffuse pollution from agricultural practices remains a challenge for policymakers
as well as economists. A whole range of agri-environmental policy measures have been
implemented in recent years including some form of environmental taxes (for example, fertiliser
taxes in Denmark and Sweden, see Nordic Council of Ministers, 2006 and EEA, 2005), the manure
production trading quota system in the Netherlands (OECD, 2006) or water quality trading systems
/ system of tradable discharge permits (NIRAS, 2005 and Kraemer et al., 2004). Currently there is
a tendency in environmental policy in general to use more and more tradable systems as they are
seen to offer a great deal of flexibility to polluters and thus are often construed to be cost effective.
However, such tradable water quality systems have - to our knowledge - not been introduced at
such a large river basin like the Danube and also the underlying principle between trading schemes
which have been introduced mainly in Australia and the US differ (see for a more detailed analysis:
NIRAS, 2005).
As mentioned above the rationale behind this study is to assess agri-environmental nutrient
reduction policy measures in terms of their cost-effectiveness at the river basin, i.e. Danube, level.
It is worthwhile to mention that studies analysing exactly this problem have been undertaken, in
particular related to the Baltic Sea. The institutional set-up shows some clear similarities to the
ICPDR and in particular to the ICPBS manifested in the Helsinki Convention of 1974 and the
establishment of HELCOM, the administrative body of the convention, who is also responsible for
co-ordinating activities.

4 The further subordinated level would be on the farm level (agricultural emissions) or between industries. This
level is not considered in the study as the methodological difficulties are even bigger and detailed information
and data at the farm level are not available for the majority of the Danube countries.
STEFAN SPECK

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 11

Box 1: The Baltic Sea experience
The countries surrounding the Baltic Sea have made a ministerial agreement on reducing nitrogen
loads to the Baltic Sea by 50 per cent (Helcom, 1988). The agreement did not specify any
reduction requirements for each of the nine countries. As demonstrated in Gren et al. (1997), total
costs increase by four times if each country reduces its load by 50 per cent, as compared to an
overall reduction. The main reason is the differences in abatement costs among countries.

The table above indicates the `optimal' solution in terms of costs and reduction measures by the
individual country (i.e. joint actions among the countries) as compared to a situation where each
country is responsible for a proportional nutrient reduction by 50 percent (unilateral actions). It is
not surprising that there are `net winners' in terms of lower costs, such as Germany, and `net
losers', such as Poland when comparing the outcomes of the two scenarios.
Source: Gren et al., 1997 and 2003.

It is expected that the project will draw up a list of agri-environmental policy measures all aiming
to address agricultural nutrient emissions which may be based on existing research studies and
information compiled by riparian countries in the context of implementation of the requirements
laid down in the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)5.
For example, as part of the danubs project such a list of potential measures has been developed
and the comparison of measures is presented in Figure 2.

5 Directive 2003/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

page 12

Figure 2: Comparison of agri-environmental policy measures in terms of reduction potential and
associated costs



Source: danubs, 2005, p.56
The figure demonstrate that collective action would reduce the overall reduction costs as there are
differences in the abatement costs between countries, i.e. the criterion `cost-effectiveness' could
only be achieved if countries would co-operate and acting jointly.
However, the possible implementation of collective actions may be hampered because of different
obstacles. The proposed project must address these obstacles and should illustrate ways how to
solve / overcome them. One of the most obvious obstacles is linked to the question of how to
combine the costs of implementing policy measures with the principle of burden sharing, i.e.
country A implements a whole range of policy measures thereby exceeding the national reduction
target (compared to the reference case of proportional reduction efforts) and from this it follows
how country B where the abatement costs are higher than in country A may fund / reimburse the
extra reduction effort in country A (i.e. there are some clear similarities to the CDM and JI
measures under the EU ETS)6.
The project must furthermore assess potential funding mechanism for reduction measures between
countries. For example, the potential of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its
forthcoming reform may be an instrument worthwhile to analyse in detail. Agri-environmental
measures (AEMs) of the CAP are incentives encouraging farmers to protect and enhance the
environment on their farmland and farmers are paid in return for a service. It is reported that
`AEMs go beyond usual good farming practice. The mid-term review of the 2000­2006 Rural
Development Plans showed that AEMs improved soil and water quality, although it was difficult to
quantify all benefits. In addition to AEMs, afforestation, including planting of trees on agricultural
land, was encouraged. According to the review, the average agri-environmental payment was EUR
89 per hectare and year (ranging from 30 to 240) and 186 per hectare and year for organic

6 As discussed above (see Box 1) Germany would be a `net winner' in terms of saved costs under the joint
action approach as compared to the proportional approach and Latvia would be a `net loser' ­ the question
would be what political, economical, technical mechanism would be required to compensate the higher costs
incurred by the `net loser' countries, such as Latvia, by the `net winner' countries, such as Germany.
STEFAN SPECK

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 13

farming (ranging from 40 to 440). Annual grants to compensate for the loss of income due to
change of land use were made available, for example, in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy and
Spain (UNECE, 2006)'. The question arises ­ and must be examined in the proposed project -
whether funds available under this EU policy programme could be used by individual EU member
states for offsetting the costs of nutrient reduction measures in foreign countries (i.e. other EU
member states).
Another example could be the widespread implementation of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) in all
riparian countries. A recent study analysing farm practices in Serbia - commissioned by the Danube
Regional Project (DRB)- undoubtedly show BAP is an effective tool to reduce nutrient emissions but
it requires transfer of skills and knowledge (Danish Agricultural Advisory Service, 2006). This
transfer is again connected to costs and it would be interesting to analyse whether and how the
payment of these advisory services could be a potential reduction measure and funded by foreign
governments.

UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

page 14

5. ANTICIPATED RESULT / OUTCOME ­ ISSUES TO BE
ADDRESSED IN THE RESEARCH PROJECT AND
IMPLEMENTED DURING THE DIFFERENT PROJECT STAGES
The overall purpose of the proposed project is an attempt to acquire experiences and thereby to fill
the gap of knowledge by calculating the costs associated with achieving predetermined nutrient
reduction target in the Danube River Basin. The novelty of this project is to determine the cost-
effective reduction measures for nutrient emission from agricultural production, i.e. a comparison
of the costs entailing under the assumption that the target value has to be achieved proportionally
(each Danube country will reduce nutrient emission by XX percent) and the reduction target will be
achieved by joint actions among the riparian countries as compared to unilateral actions (i.e.
reference scenario).
To our knowledge such a study has not been carried in the Danube River Basin level. However,
similar studies have been undertaken for the Baltic Sea (see for example: Gren et al., 1997, Gren,
2001, Schou et al., 2006 ­ see also the Ad hoc Task Force for HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
(BSAP) at www.helcom.fi). These modelling approaches are broader as they include nutrient
emission from transport and also include measures, such as the construction of sewage plants, as
means to reduce the nutrient load. However, the modelling framework applied in the Baltic Sea
studies is static which is in contrast to this project of cost effective measures for nutrient reduction
from agricultural sources in the Danube Basin. It is anticipated that the project has to begin with
developing scenarios indicating the evolution of nutrient emissions in view of the changing
economic conditions, in particular with regard to the agricultural sector. This means that a dynamic
cost minimizing modelling framework is required when the project is being implemented.

The following aspects are assumed to be critical for successful project implementation:
·
Develop scenarios with regard to nutrient emissions: what is a realistic increase in N-
emissions from agriculture in the Danube countries in the medium- to long-run by taking
into account future economic development (distinction between countries; relevant
indicators may be the consumption of fertilisers (but considering the requirements laid
down in the EC Nitrates Directive) and development of livestock (surface specific livestock).
·
Develop a list of agri-environmental policy measures addressing reduction of nutrient
emissions7. The following nutrient reduction measures may be considered (these measures
can be found in similar exercises (see for example Gren et al., 1997 and Schou et al.,
2006) or are discussed in the UNDP/GEF project ­ however this list of potential measures is
not closed / exhaustive and other measures may also be considered):
o Reduced fertiliser use
o Livestock reduction in agriculture
o Wetland restoration

7 Although phosphorous seems to be the limiting nutrient meaning that phosphorous reduction measures should
be on the forefront the project will deal with nitrogen (Niras, 2005, p.12)! Some of the nutrient (nitrogen)
reduction measures to be analysed are simultaneously leading to a reduction in the other nutrient (i.e.
phosphorous).
STEFAN SPECK

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 15

o Introduction of catch crops in agriculture
o Implementation of best agricultural practices (BAPs8)
·
Reduction target ­ what is a realistic reduction target for the Danube River Basin ­ based
on the findings of the scenarios of future economic development (in particular related to
agriculture) as a whole and how can the target be `translated' into national reduction
targets (country-specific targets) based on the burden sharing principle (either countries
are getting different percentage reduction target based on clearly defined assumptions or
the same percentage reduction target will be applied to all riparian countries). Thereby it is
necessary to decide about the base year (important for national allocation). The concept of
trading is not new in EU policy as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive includes
such a provision (see for example: Kraemer et al., 2004, p.11).
·
Determine the costs of unilateral actions of riparian countries vs. the total costs under the
assumptions collective action to achieve the predetermined reduction target. Cost effective
nutrient reduction are determined by the costs of nutrient reduction measures and their
impacts on the nutrient loads ­ what is in particular of interest in the context of the
Danube region is the fact that we can expect that the costs of nutrient reduction measures
are quite country-specific (see for example danubs 2005)9.
·
The allocation of national reduction target must include a discussion of the effects of
environmental pollution in upstream countries as compared to downstream countries (i.e.
some form of `normalisation'). The allocation of nutrient reductions and the associated
costs between Danube countries are depending by the total load of nutrients, the
availability of different reduction measures and the associated costs.
·
Discuss of how such trades in N-emission reduction between riparian could be financed; it
could be helpful to look into CDM and JI measures and how they are funded at the national
level (the study excludes trades between farms at this stage of the project because of the
associated complexity of such trading arrangements).
·
European Union Common Agricultural Policy (EU CAP) ­ what may be the consequences of
the CAP reform in terms of increase of nutrient loads but also the possibility of funding
mechanisms to support such a coordinated cost-effective nutrient reduction policy in the
Danube River Basin (see for example: Mohaupt et al., 2006).
·
Which regulatory, institutional and legal framework is required and the report should study
the political willingness and requirements (which should / has to be in place) to fund
nutrient emission reduction in foreign countries.


8 See for example the study `Reduction of pollution releases through agricultural policy change and
demonstrations by pilot projects' undertaken as part of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project.
9 Only direct costs are of interest at this stage of the project ­ also secondary environmental effects as a
consequence of the implementation of reduction measures are of no interest!
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

page 16

6. A FINAL REMARK ­ A CAVEAT ­ AND THE NEXT STEPS
Empirical studies have impressively shown that joint actions among riparian countries can lead to
the implementation of cost-effective nutrient reduction measures. However, the real problem is
whether countries will agree to take part as it is unquestionable that some countries will be losing
and other winning in terms of the cost burden under concerted / joint action as compared to
unilateral action as it is often the case when policies are addressing international environmental
problem. This project will definitely not solve this issue and it is also not the aim of the project.
However, the project findings will provide some detailed and comprehensible information on the
costs of potential nutrient reduction programmes in the agricultural sector based on a transparent
modelling framework. These findings may hopefully be used in the political decision making process
but as Schou et al. are mentioning (Schou et al., 2006, p. 42):
When presenting the results to policy makers it should be stressed that although the result is
presented as an aggregate cost estimate for the countries in the Baltic Sea region this should not
be interpreted as an indication of which countries that eventually should bear the costs. This is
important to note when passing the results to policy makers, as the model prescribes how the
effort should be mixed in order to reach the least cost solution but not how this solution is reached
in a financial and political economic context.
This paper is only a sketch of a potential project analysing joint efforts to reduce agricultural
nutrient emissions in a cost-effective way in the Danube River Basin. To bring such a project alive
would require the interest of a donor to fund a project along the lines drafted above. It has to be
stated that the idea of undertaking such a project is currently rather academic. However, as seen
in the context of the climate policy, the concept of burden sharing what is the key principle of this
project idea has been implemented in the context of `transboundary' pollution. Furthermore, the
concept of trading in water rights and water pollution is also nothing new and is implemented in
the Chile, US and Australia ­ only to name some countries ­ and as mentioned above the idea of
implementing jointly emission reduction measures in an international water is also to the fore in
the Baltic Sea. This project idea is therefore not something complete academic rather it could serve
as some form of raising the awareness of policy makers in Danube countries leading to further
collaboration between the countries.
Implementation of the project following the tasks as listed above would require a quite large team
of experts with different academic background (water science, agriculture, economics and to a
lower significance politics and law). In addition, it would require a very international team as the
compilation of country specific data is a necessary requirement for establishing the baseline
scenarios as well as developing a list of potential agri-environmental measures (i.e. costs and
reduction level). The most time-consuming tasks would be the collection of all data which should
be undertaken in a coordinated and consistent manner. It is anticipated that the project could be
completed within two years after signature.

STEFAN SPECK

---

Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction
Implemented by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin
page 17

REFERENCES:
danubs, 2005, Nutrient Management in the Danube Basin and its Impact on the Black Sea, Final
Report ­ Section 5: Executive Summary and Section 6: Detailed Report.
Danish Agricultural Advisory Service, 2006, Memorandum - Estimated environmental impact of the
implementation in the lower Danube countries of the 15 BAP's that were defined in the UNDP/GEF
DRP project `Reduction of pollution releases through agricultural policy change and demonstrations
by pilot projects implemented in Vojvodina, Serbia, 2006' ­ revised and updated 27 October 2006.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2005, Market based Instruments in Environmental Policy in
Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark
(http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2005_8/en/tab_content_RLR).
ICPDR, 2005, The Danube River Basin District ­ Part A: Basin-wide Overview, Vienna, Austria.
Gren I.-M., 2001, International Versus National Actions Against Nitrogen Pollution of the Baltic Sea,
Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.20, pp. 41-59.
Gren I.-M., K. Elofsson and P. Jannke, 1997, Cost-Effective Nutrient Reductions to the Baltic Sea,
Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.10, pp. 341-362.
Gren I.-M., T. Soederqvist and H. Scharin, 2003, Alternative Decision Schemes for Coastal Water
Management, http://www.beijer.kva.se/publications/pdf-archive/Disc179.pdf
ICPDR, 2001, Memorandum of Understanding between the ICPBS and ICPDR, Final IC/27, 26.
November 2001, Vienna, Austria.
Kraemer A., E. Kampa and E. Interwies, 2004, The Role of Tradable Water Permits in Water
Pollution Control, a report for the Inter-American Development Bank.
Lampert C., M. Zessner and H. Kroiss, 2004, Danube Study on Pollution Trading and Corresponding
Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction ­ Component A: Nutrient Framework, report
prepared for the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, Vienna.
Mohaupt V., G. Crosnier, R. Todd, P. Petersen and T. Dworak, 2006, The "WFD and Agricultural
Activity" of the EU: First Linkages between the CAP and the WFD on EU Level, paper presented at
the 10th International Conference on Diffuse Pollution and Sustainable Basin Management, Sept 18-
22, 2006, Istanbul, Turkey.
NIRAS, 2005, Danube Study on Pollution Trading and Corresponding Economic Instruments for
Nutrient Reduction ­ Completion Report April 2005, Vienna.
Nordic Council of Ministers, 2006, The Use of Economic Instruments in Nordic and Baltic Countries
2001-2005, TemaNord 2006:525, Copenhagen, Denmark.
(http://www.norden.org/pub/miljo/ekonomi/sk/TN2006525.pdf)
OECD, 2006, The Political Economy of Environmentally Related Taxes, Paris, France.
Schou J.S., S.T. Neye, T. Lundhede, L. Martinsen and B. Hasler, 2006, Modelling Cost-Efficient
Reductions of Nutrient Loads to the Baltic Sea. Model specification, Data and Cost Functions.
National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark. 69 pp. ­ NERI Technical Report no 592.
http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR592.pdf.
UNECE, 2006, Nature for Water Innovative financing for the environment, Geneva, Switzerland.
Van Gils J., H. Behrendt, A. Constantinescu, K. and R. Isermann and M. Zessner (no date), Future
Development of Nutrient Emissions and River Loads in the Danube Basin.
Zessner M., 2006, personal communication ­ email September 25, 2006.
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT

---

page 18

ANNEX

Table A1: Overview of per capita livestock (second column) and use of mineral N-fertilisers in the
Danube Basin countries

2000
2000
AU/cap
kgN/haAA/y
Germany 0.28
117.06
Austria 0.35
35.00
Czech Republic
0.22
51.12
Slovak Republic
0.18
29.79
Hungary 0.18
44.04
Slovenia 0.28
69.00
Croatia 0.16
37.89
Bosnia&Herzegovina 0.14
14.20
Serbia and Montenegro
0.26
23.65
Romania 0.27
16.90
Bulgaria 0.18
19.82
Moldova 0.18
23.47
Ukraine 0.29
8.81
Average 0.24
31.33

Source: van Gils et al., (no date given), Annex 1

STEFAN SPECK

---