Search results

In this study, quantitative models of the agricultural sector and nutrient transport and cycling are used to analyse the impacts in the Baltic Sea of replacing the current Greening measures of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy with a package of investments in manure handling. The investments aim at improving nutrient utilization and reducing nitrogen leaching, based on the assumption that lagging farms and regions can catch up with observed good practice. Our results indicate that such investments could reduce nitrogen surpluses in agriculture by 18% and nitrogen concentrations in the Baltic Sea by 1 to 9% depending on the basin. The Greening measures, in contrast, are found to actually increase nitrogen leaching. ; Peer reviewed

In this study, quantitative models of the agricultural sector and nutrient transport and cycling are used to analyse the impacts in the Baltic Sea of replacing the current Greening measures of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy with a package of investments in manure handling. The investments aim at improving nutrient utilization and reducing nitrogen leaching, based on the assumption that lagging farms and regions can catch up with observed good practice. Our results indicate that such investments could reduce nitrogen surpluses in agriculture by 18% and nitrogen concentrations in the Baltic Sea by 1 to 9% depending on the basin. The Greening measures, in contrast, are found to actually increase nitrogen leaching.

AbstractMarkets in pollution permits for managing environmental quality have been advocated by economists since early 1970s as a mechanism that can deliver pollution reduction targets at lower cost to regulated entities than traditional uniform command-and control approaches. This study explores whether a 'smart market' cap-and-trade scheme between non-point sources can offer meaningful, robust and policy amenable, advantages over alternative approaches for nitrogen management in a realistic setting: 6504 individual farms in Limfjorden catchment, Denmark. The scheme involves multilateral trading of nitrogen emission rights among farms via changes in agricultural land management practices under a catchment-level cap on total nitrogen load. In this, the first exploration of non-point to non-point smart market nitrogen trading in a real setting, we estimate efficiency gains compared to uniform command-and-control regulation, explore the robustness of these gains in the face of non-participation, and reflect on farmers' potential acceptance of the trading market in comparison with its command-and-control analog: spatially-targeted regulation, implemented via location-specific limits on nitrogen leaching. Results indicate that the smart market has the potential to substantially reduce the cost of meeting the catchment's nitrogen reduction target. For a 21.5% reduction from baseline nitrogen load, the market delivers cost savings of 56% (DKK273 million, €36.6 million) compared to uniform regulation, with participating farms realising a mean net benefit of DKK 723/ha (€ 97/ha). Market performance is relatively robust against transaction cost; when delivering a 21.5% reduction in nitrogen load to Limfjorden, approximately 70% of the overall efficiency gain could be retained if only 24% of farms engaged with the market.

Combatting eutrophication is currently a major challenge for policy makers in the Baltic Sea region, and it is likely to remain so in the decades to come. Although total nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea have recently declined, the gap between current loadings and those required to ensure the desired status is still substantial (Reusch et al. 2018). This Special Issue is dedicated to research that helps inform how the eutrophication challenge might best be addressed by improving our understanding of technological constraints, societal drivers of change, land uses, environmental policies, and innovative governance with stakeholder involvement. These issues are important for the current generation and those to come and are issues we must address in order to succeed in reducing nutrient loads to the desired levels to gradually achieve the desired good environmental status of the Baltic Sea. Currently, we witness a new era of water policies across the entire Baltic Sea region. Our changing climate is impacting on precipitation and runoff, and is also the reason why new EU climate policies seek to tie carbon sinks more visibly to carbon sources. Both these aspects have repercussions for water policies. Thus, solving eutrophication challenges requires sharpening of existing policies and instruments, as well as creating new insights and governance approaches with broad stakeholder involvement in a changing environment. In order to design coherent water and climate policies, and target and implement those policies more efficiently, policy makers need to combine new insights regarding the inhabitants in the region, the catchments, and the Baltic Sea itself. Such insights can be expected from soil scientists, agronomists, hydrogeologists, marine ecologists, economists, and social and policy scientists. What is needed is on the one hand effectively targeted governance at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, adapted to differing interests and motivations of citizens living around the Baltic Sea, and on the other hand fine tuning and co-designing of policies at local, national, Baltic Sea regional and EU level. This Special Issue brings together recent research from four BONUS-funded projects—BONUS BALTICAPP, BONUS GO4BALTIC, BONUS MIRACLE and BONUS SOILS2SEA—that comprised part of the 'Viable Ecosystem' and 'Sustainable Ecosystem Services' BONUS research programmes. The projects addressed these common concerns through somewhat different, but inter-related, themes. Key messages emphasized and discussed in the research papers of this Special Issue are summarized under four interlinked themes: Scenarios for the future, Policies and ecosystem services in water governance, Novel approaches for managing nutrients, and Advanced modelling from field level to the entire Baltic Sea region. ; Funding agencies: BONUS (Art 185) - EUEuropean Union (EU); BONUS (Art 185) - Denmark (Innovation Fund Denmark); BONUS (Art 185) - Estonia (Estonian Research Council ETAG); BONUS (Art 185) - Germany (Forschungszentrum Julich GmbH); BONUS (Art 185) - Latvia (Latvian Ministry

MARECOS (Marine Ecosystem Services) er et tværfagligt studie, der har haft til formål at tilvejebringe information vedrørende kortlægning og værdisætning af økosystemtjenester, som kan anvendes i forbindelse med udformning af regulering på det marine område såvel nationalt, som regionalt og internationalt. Denne rapport indeholder forslag til, hvordan opgørelser af økosystemers tilstand baseret på EU's Havstrategidirektiv (EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD), samt opgørelser baseret på anvendelse af HELCOM's indikatorer for Østersøen, kan anvendes i forbindelse med kortlægning og værdisætning af økosystemtjenester. Rapporten indeholder:  Definitioner og beskrivelser af centrale begreber i forhold til opgørelse af økosystemtjenester, Forslag til, hvordan marine økosystemtjenester kan opgøres.  Eksempler på, hvordan MSFD deskriptorerne og indikatorerne relateret til opgørelse af miljøtilstand kan kædes sammen med udvalgte økosystemtjenester, samt hvordan disse data kan anvendes i forbindelse med opgørelser af økosystemtjenester.  Præsentation og diskussion af resultater fra værdisætningsstudier, som kan anvendes i forbindelse med opgørelser af økosystemtjenester i praksis.  En diskussion af, hvor der er behov for yderligere viden i forhold til værdisætning af økosystemtjenester, samt i forhold til deskriptorer og indikatorer for god miljøtilstand.  Et case‐studie, der demonstrerer, hvordan rekreation (som repræsenterer en kulturel økosystemtjeneste) kan værdisættes. Rapporten beskriver de potentialer, der ligger i at sammenkæde data og viden relateret til vandkvalitet og tilstanden af marine økosystemer med værdien af de økosystemtjenester, som de marine økosystemer tilvejebringer. Rapporten indeholder dermed information af relevans for politikere og beslutningstagere involveret i reguleringen af det marine område.

Agriculture is an important source of nitrogen and phosphorous loads to the Baltic Sea. We study how the European Union's (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and in particular how its first pillar, containing most of the budget and the decoupled farm payments, affects eutrophication. To aid our study, we use three simulation models, covering the agricultural sector in the EU, a hydrological nutrient flow model and a model of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. We compute changes in key eutrophication indicators in a business-as-usual baseline and in a hypothetical situation where the first pillar of the CAP, containing the direct payments, greening and accompanying measures, is not present. Comparing the outcomes, we find that in the scenario without the first pillar, production and agricultural land use is lower, while yields and fertiliser use per hectare are higher, causing less nitrogen and phosphorous loads (0.5 to 4% depending on the basin) and less eutrophication in the Baltic Sea as net effect. We therefore conclude that the policies of the first pillar of the CAP contribute to increased eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. ; Peer reviewed

Agriculture is an important source of nitrogen and phosphorous loads to the Baltic Sea. We study how the European Union's (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and in particular how its first pillar, containing most of the budget and the decoupled farm payments, affects eutrophication. To aid our study, we use three simulation models, covering the agricultural sector in the EU, a hydrological nutrient flow model and a model of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. We compute changes in key eutrophication indicators in a business-as-usual baseline and in a hypothetical situation where the first pillar of the CAP, containing the direct payments, greening and accompanying measures, is not present. Comparing the outcomes, we find that in the scenario without the first pillar, production and agricultural land use is lower, while yields and fertiliser use per hectare are higher, causing less nitrogen and phosphorous loads (0.5 to 4% depending on the basin) and less eutrophication in the Baltic Sea as net effect. We therefore conclude that the policies of the first pillar of the CAP contribute to increased eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.

AbstractDecision-support tools (DSTs) synthesize complex information to assist environmental managers in the decision-making process. Here, we review DSTs applied in the Baltic Sea area, to investigate how well the ecosystem approach is reflected in them, how different environmental problems are covered, and how well the tools meet the needs of the end users. The DSTs were evaluated based on (i) a set of performance criteria, (ii) information on end user preferences, (iii) how end users had been involved in tool development, and (iv) what experiences developers/hosts had on the use of the tools. We found that DSTs frequently addressed management needs related to eutrophication, biodiversity loss, or contaminant pollution. The majority of the DSTs addressed human activities, their pressures, or environmental status changes, but they seldom provided solutions for a complete ecosystem approach. In general, the DSTs were scientifically documented and transparent, but confidence in the outputs was poorly communicated. End user preferences were, apart from the shortcomings in communicating uncertainty, well accounted for in the DSTs. Although end users were commonly consulted during the DST development phase, they were not usually part of the development team. Answers from developers/hosts indicate that DSTs are not applied to their full potential. Deeper involvement of end users in the development phase could potentially increase the value and impact of DSTs. As a way forward, we propose streamlining the outputs of specific DSTs, so that they can be combined to a holistic insight of the consequences of management actions and serve the ecosystem approach in a better manner.

Decision support tools (DSTs), like models, GIS-based planning tools and assessment tools, play an important role in incorporating scientific information into decision-making and facilitating policy implementation. In an interdisciplinary Baltic research group, we compiled 43 DSTs developed to support ecosystem-based management of the Baltic Sea and conducted a thorough review. Analyzed DSTs cover a wide variety of policy issues (e.g., eutrophication, biodiversity, human uses) and address environmental as well as socio-economic aspects. In this study, we aim to identify gaps between existing DSTs and end-user needs for DSTs for supporting coastal and marine policy implementation, and to provide recommendations for future DST development. In two online surveys, we assess the awareness and use of DSTs in general, as well as policy implementation challenges and DST needs of representatives of public authorities from all Baltic countries, in particular. Through a policy review we identify major policy issues, policies, and general implementation steps and requirements and develop the synthesis-matrix, which is used to compare DST demand and supply. Our results show that DSTs are predominantly used by researchers. End-users from public authorities use DSTs mostly as background information. Major obstacles for DST use are lacking awareness and experiences. DST demand is strongest for the policy issue eutrophication. Furthermore, DSTs that support the development of plans or programs of measures and assess their impacts and effectiveness are needed. DST supply is low for recently emerging topics, such as non-indigenous species, marine litter, and underwater noise. To overcome existing obstacles, a common database for DSTs available in the BSR is needed. Furthermore, end-users need guidance and training, and cooperation between DST developers and end-users needs to be enhanced to ensure the practical relevance of DSTs for supporting coastal and marine policy implementation. To fill existing gaps, DSTs that address impacts on human welfare and link environmental and socio-economic aspects should be developed. The Baltic Sea Region serves as a best practice case for studying DSTs and their practical use. Hence, our results can provide insights for DST development in other marine regions. Furthermore, our methodological approach is transferable to other areas.

We develop and test guidance principles for benefits transfers. These argue that when transferring across relatively similar sites, simple mean value transfers are to be preferred but that when sites are relatively dissimilar then value function transfers will yield lower errors. The paper also provides guidance on the appropriate specification of transferable value functions arguing that these should be developed from theoretical rather than ad-hoc statistical principles. These principles are tested via a common format valuation study of water quality improvements across five countries. Results support our various hypotheses providing a set of principles for future transfer studies. The application also considers new ways of incorporating distance decay, substitution and framing effects within transfers and presents a novel water quality ladder.