1. Costs of Reducing Nitrogen leaching from Agriculture when implementing the WFD in Denmark
Senior Researcher Brian H. Jacobsen
Institute of Food and Resource Economics
University of Copenhagen

2. Content Danish background What have we done in DK ?
Detailed regulation- but how ?
Conclusions

3. Analysis prior to WFD implementation
Denmark has implemented 3 actions plan with focus on nitrogen (50% reduction in N-leaching – large effect on point source)
Action Plan II in 1998 was followed by economic analysis (FOI report 169)
Action Plan III in , based on detailed work on scenarios and economics of different measures. Midterm 2008.
- FOI report 167 and

4. Danish – Dutch implementation
Danish focus on N, NL more focus on P
Fertiliser accounts vs MINAS (surplus)
- good idea, but…..
The need for control with animal manure (costs) and self-complience (avoid fraud)
Derogation for the Nitrate Directive (2.5 LU/ha) on 45% of the area in NL whereas it is 2.3 LU/ha on 4% of the area in DK.
N application similar on sandy soils, but higher in NL on clay soils
DK 10-15% below economic optimum

5. N-surplus, N-leaching and N-loss in DK
WFD target

6. Steps in implementation
Target 2015
Baseline 2015
Action Plan III
Scattered housing and sewage
Present condition
Nitrate directive

7. Steps in implementation
Target 2015
N-quota model
No atumn cultivation
Organic farming
Wetlands
Catch crops
Baseline 2015
Action Plan III
Sewage from
scattered housing
Present condition
Nitrate directive

8. 4 water districts and 23 main catchment areas
Fødevareøkonomisk Institut
Denmark
4 water districts and 23 main catchment areas

9. Reduction required to reach target
Share (%)
Streams (km)
Target not meet
Improve physical
conditions
7.300 41 16
Lakes:
Reduction (ton P) 50 30
Fjords :
Reduction (ton N)
80-90

10. Choosing measures in DK
Step 1: Make a list of all possible measures
Step 2: Analyse the effectiveness and costs of selected measures also looking at :
- Side effects (CO2, NH3, pestides, Biodiversity)
- Certainty with respect to estimates
- Budget and socio- economic costs
DMU report no. 625 from 2007
Detailed analysis on the use of cost-effectiveness in FOI report no. 191.

11. Choosing measures in DK
Step 3: Select the most cost-effective measures for detailed analysis (3 regions) in 2008
- likely potential
- administrative costs
- control issues
Step 4: An element in Green Growth (2009)
- Water, CO2, NH3 and Biodiversity plans
- Search for synergies
- Co-operation between ministries takes time 
- Draft analysis of reduction requirements in catchments
- Implementation is difficult
Step 5: RBMP (2011?)
Step 6: Local action plans (2012?)

12. Division of marine area according to knowledge level (): V1-area (10%) V2-area (20%) V3-area (30%) In the 1st plan period focus is mainly on measures in V1 and V2

13. Reduction requirement
Efterafgrøder
FOI og DJF antager få sædskifteændringer og jævn placering i DK
DMU angiver at der er plads til flere efterafgrøder ( ha)
Andel stiger fra 10/14% op til et gennemsnit på ca. 22%. (maks. 37%) (V1+V2 er 70% af det samlede areal)
Arealet med yderligere 24% efterafgrøder er ca. 6% af arealet (Jylland). Areal med yderligere 0-5% er noget større.
Stor geografisk forskellighed

14. Cost efficiency (€ / kg N) – Green Growth
Genereal measures
Efficiency
(kg P/ha)
Costs (€/ha)
(kg N /ha)
€ / kg N
Limit ploughing in the autum
0.2
1.2 7
Limit ploghing of grass
9.0 15
0.6
Catch crops
56.4 14
4.1
10 meter buffer strips 3
277 48
5.8

15. Catch crops in waterplans 2010
Efterafgrøder
Add. Catch crops (%)

16. Cost efficiency (€ / kg N) – Green Growth
Specific measures
Efficiency
(kg P/ha)
Costs (€/ha)
(kg N /ha)
€ / kg N
Targeted catchcrops
56.4 14
4.1
Wetlands (N)
1.043
113
9.2
Tradeable quota (N)
4.8 – 20

17. Cost efficiency (€ / kg N) Green Growth
Other measures
Costs (€/ha)
Efficiency
(kg N /ha)
€ / kg N
Biogas 2
Organic dairy farming 37 9 4
Energy crops (willow)
188 17 11
Reduced N-norm (10%) 26

18. Cost efficiency Lakes (€ / kg P)
P-measures
Costs (€/ha)
Efficiency
(kg P /ha)
€ / kg P
P-wetlands
457 10 46
Grass to reduce erosion
388
0,16
2.550
Non farm measures :
Sewage scattered housing
<800
Waste water treatment
Rain water storage

19. Danish – Dutch WFD implementation
Both has a need for large reductions in nutrient losses
NL focus on physical changes as N is believed to have been solved and P is too costly?
Agricultural measures in NL are relative few
Likely WFD exemptions are required in NL in 2027, DK have aimed more for 2015/2021.

20. NICA research project
N-loss to the aquatic environment has to be reduced by up to 50%
2/3 of the N lost from the root zone disappears on the way, but when and where ?
Uniform regulation is not efficient, but can we point to the robust areas ?
What is the certainty of these predictions (scale) and economic gain ?

22. The Ringkøbing Fjord analysis
Jacobsen et al., 2009

23. - Marginal land rent and livestock intensity

24. Target :
Increased certainty and
fewer costs
related to mapping

25. Model approach : Newer, better and cheaper technologies to asses N-flow

26. Conclusions The low hanging fruits have been picked
Synergy between measures for environmental policies is good, but does delay the process
Implementation of measures has proven to be a challenge
The DK approach to WFD is top-down and so local action plans are less required
Local participation might help to engage farmers more, but it is time consuming
Regulation based on field level knowledge requires good data and control

27. For more info look at www.foi.dk