4.1. A framework for the design of technological and policy options
4.2. Technological options
4.3. Policy options
As shown in the preceding chapters of this report, most negative environmental effects caused by LLM systems are related to manure. Major negative effects may be summarized as follows:
- emissions of nitrate and phosphorus to soils and water, resulting in increased levels of nitrate and phosphorus in ground water and surface waters, both important natural resources for drinking water all over the world;- emission of ammonia and odours to the atmosphere;
- accumulation of heavy metals in soils.
Meat and egg production in LLM systems at animal level is relatively efficient in the sense that production within LLM systems requires less inputs per unit of output and results in lower nutrient excretion per unit of product, compared to animals in more extensive monogastric livestock systems. Efficiency within LLM systems can further be enhanced by taking measures that result in more productive animals in terms of e.g. higher growth per day or higher muscle/fat ratio. The increase of efficiency at animal level is then based on the lowering of unproductive maintenance requirements and increasing useful production. It results in using the same amount of inputs, while producing more useful outputs. High efficiency of production within LLM systems at animal level might be an argument in favour of this system. However, high efficiency at animal level coincides with various trade-offs that become visible at higher aggregation levels. If we compare for instance backyard pig production systems (less efficient at animal level) and pig production in LLM systems, the following trade-offs in LLM systems are obvious:
1) fossil energy consumption per unit of product in LLM systems is much higher than in backyard pig production systems: high efficiency at animal level in LLM systems is shifted on to fossil energy consumption at system level;2) feedstuffs used in LLM systems are more often of high quality, and therefore also more suitable for human consumption, than in backyard pig production systems: high efficiency at animal level in LLM systems leads to an increased competition between food and feed at system level;
3) management practices in LLM systems contribute to high efficiency at animal level, but induce animal welfare problems and abundant use of veterinary products, both of which are not prominent in backyard pig production systems.
The importance of trade-offs like these should not to be underestimated, which may be illustrated by following example. In a study in the Netherlands was determined the number of pigs that could be produced in a sustainable manner, using the concept of the “environmental space” (van Zeijts et al., 1993). Surprisingly, despite high current animal densities in the Netherlands, neither manure production nor ammonia emission were the first limiting factors for sustainable production1, instead, fossil energy consumption and related CO2 emission.
1 In the study it was assumed that all practical measures were implemented in pig production to minimize problems related to manure and ammonia.
One of the essential characteristics of the LLM systems is the highly concentrated production. This concentrated production not only contributes to high efficiency at animal level, but also to the major environmental problems related to LLM systems. These include:
- surplus quantities of manure, no matter whether on farm, regional or country level. Because of these large quantities, manure in LLM systems is no longer considered a valuable source of nutrients, but more or less as a waste. This prevailing attitude toward manure leads to poor manure management as described in Chapter 3. Inadequate manure management not only causes environmental problems, but also leads to uncertainty about the nutrient effect of the manure. This strongly contributes to the prevailing lack of interest in manure as a source of nutrients (Siman et al., 1987).- problems associated with ammonia emission. Ammonia emission is only harmful to natural ecosystems above certain levels of deposition.
- extensive fossil energy consumption. Concentrated production by definition induces a need for transport, both the input and the output.
- food safety problems. Concentrated production induces high disease pressure, while the immune status of the animal is reduced, resulting in a higher dependence on veterinary products for (sub)-therapeutic use. The complexity of feed chains in LLM systems also induces higher risks of contamination like heavy metals or new serotypes of pathogens. Monitoring systems are generally well developed in intensive systems, but deemed to be inadequate to prevent incidents, since screening for every possible contamination is highly labourious and costly.
Manure production itself is not a problem but the problem is a high manure production in a small area. Therefore, next to the criterion manure production per unit of product, another important criterion is: manure production per unit area (e.g. ha, km2). Only for worldwide problems (like methane or carbon dioxide emission) the emission per unit of product is justifiable as a criterion. For problems resulting from concentrated production (like ammonia emission, accumulation of heavy metals, P saturated soils) emission per unit of area is the most important criterion. Reducing the emission per unit of product may then be one of the options to reduce emission per unit of area (only, of course, when production per unit of area is maintained at the same level), but not necessarily the best option: increased efficiency per unit of product often leads to trade-offs.
When designing technological and/or policy options to mitigate environmental problems, one should always be aware of possible trade-offs. It is argued above that conflicts already exist between various environmental issues. But designing technological and policy options is even more complicated, because these trade-offs also exist with regard to e.g. socio-economic or nature conservation issues. A useful tool when designing technological and policy options is interactive multiple goal programming. It is a tool to explore different possibilities and options for e.g. land use and to weigh a wide variety of socio-economic, environmental and other objectives (see de Wit et al., 1988).
Many technological options can, in principle, contribute to the mitigation of negative livestock - environment interactions. Part of these options include general measures aiming at improvement of economic efficiency at farm level, which at the same time lead to a more efficient use of inputs per unit of product (for instance the use of high-productive breeds). Other options explicitly aim at livestock - environment interactions. Mainly the latter are considered here, and only the ones that hardly affect essential characteristics of LLM systems. However, it is not possible to discuss all existing technological options, simply because there are too many.
Technological options for the mitigation of negative livestock - environment interactions should generate:
- a reduction in N, P, Cu, Zn and Cd excretion by animals per unit of product;- a reduction in N and P losses from manure in stables and during storage;
- methods that efficiently re-use energy or minerals in manure, when manure is not directly used in agriculture; and
- a reduction in N and P losses from manure during and after application to soils.
For technological options to reduce N and P emissions during and after application on soils, we refer to Brandjes et al. (1995). They discuss various options to reduce emissions, for instance, with respect to dosage, timing and method of manure application. The other points are briefly discussed below.
Reduction in excretions
Utilization efficiency of N and P by pigs and poultry is low (although high compared to traditional production systems): of total N and P intake, some 65 respectively 70% is excreted in manure. Reductions in nutrient excretion per unit of product can be achieved through a reduction in the nutrient content in feed and/or increased feed conversion. As can be deduced from the nutrient excretion calculations in Annex 4, feed conversion ratios in pig production vary considerably, with a major impact on nutrient excretion per kg product. Thus, in many situations substantial reductions can be achieved via improved technical results. We will not analyse the factors limiting these technical results, as they vary considerably and most are conventional wisdom in animal production.
Although higher production levels per animal will generally result in lower excretion levels per unit output, this is not imperative. Feed conversion ratios, or even better nutrient conversion ratios, should be the focal point. Breeding for high-productive animals in particular may have negative effects as well. These breeding programmes generally result in larger animals with higher maintenance requirements, feed conversion ratios are not necessarily improved, while simultaneously the feed requirements of the parent stock are increased, thus offsetting part of the possible reductions in nutrient excretion in the “productive” stock (see e.g. Dickerson, 1978). Moreover, a negative trade-off exists if genetic erosion is accelerated due to e.g. the replacement of crossbred animals by higher productive purebred animals.
For the reduction of nutrient content in feed, we refer to the overview given by Brandjes et al. (1995), where options are given such as: using feedstuffs with high N and P digestibilities, using enzymes that increase N and P digestibilities (e.g. phytase), elimination of anti-nutritional factors (ANFs)1, and fine-tuning of animals’ requirements to contents in feed rations (phase feeding, addition of synthetic amino acids).
1 ANFs are naturally present substances in animal feedstuffs that reduce protein digestibility.
The possibilities for reducing the P content are limited in maize or rice based feed rations as P digestibilities of these feedstuffs are very low (10-20%; Jongbloed & Kemme, 1990). Hence, reductions in the P content can only be achieved via addition of phytase, as otherwise the animal requirements will not be met. Utilization of phytase might also increase the availability of Zn, thus reducing the need for feed additions (Beukeboom et al., 1991).
The Cu content in the feed can be reduced to a large extent, as EU experience has shown, though it may require improved levels of general management to avoid declining growth performance. The Cd content of the feed is strongly related to the addition of inorganic P, though improvements can also be achieved via the utilization of phosphate with less Cd.
Reduction in N and P-losses from manure in stables and during storage
In Chapter 3, it was shown that manure management systems significantly differ with respect to N and P losses. Losses are highest in systems in which urine is not collected. Proper manure management therefore starts with collection of both urine and faeces. The most favourable system is the liquid system which has the lowest emission factor1. Still, considerable NH3 emission occurs from liquid systems. Several technological options to reduce NH3 emission are described in Brandjes et al. (1995) and Monteny (1991; 1994). The approaches used for pigs and poultry manure are a reduction in the NH3 concentration and a reduction in the contact area with air. Most promising techniques for pig manure appear to be the installation of flushing2 and scraping systems in stables and covering of manure storage. Prevention of emission from poultry manure is based on quick drying of the manure.
1 Also the litter system shows relatively low emissions, particularly for pigs. However, temperature and biological activity of the litter are easily disturbed in such a way that high ammonia emission and emission of other gases, including N2O, may occur. Monteny (1994) concludes that there is insufficient basic knowledge to control the litter system.2 Flushing has the disadvantage of increasing manure volume, thereby increasing transportation and application costs.
Methods that efficiently re-use energy or minerals in manure, when manure is not directly used in agriculture
Manure can be processed to reduce environmental problems, the accepted goals of processing techniques being (Ten Have & Chiappini, 1993):
- production of biogas;
- processing in such a manner that discharge of purified manure to surface water is allowed;
- production of dried manure as fertilizer;
- production of feedstuff; and
- maximum improvement for agricultural use.
There is a huge amount of literature on processing of manure, both at farm level and at regional level. For methods and techniques used we refer to Ten Have & Chiappini (1993), Feenstra et al. (1992), Taiganides (1992) and Krause & Sangiorgi (1993).
Production of biogas is practised in many countries, mostly at farm level. Its production is based on anaerobic digestion. The biogas can be used for fuel, and the effluent for fertilizing purposes. The fertilizing value is only based on nutrients, because the organic matter is digested. Since biogas cannot easily be stored, it is best used close to where it is produced (Koh et al., 1988). Biogas production is only profitable in countries where fuel prices are relatively high (e.g. higher than 0.14 ECU*m-3 biogas; Ten Have & Chiappini, 1993).
Processing of manure to enable discharge of the effluent is faced with high costs if organic matter, N and P content in the effluent, have to meet environmental standards (Ten Have & Chiappini, 1993; Ong, 1991).
So far there is little evidence that it is possible to produce from manure on a commercial basis feedstuffs with protein of good quality and purity (Ten Have & Chiappini, 1993; Feenstra et al., 1992).
In some countries, i.e. the Netherlands and Italy, large-scale manure processing is promoted, the end product will be used as fertilizer. Large-scale manure processing installations have to be continuously provided with large amounts of manure. Therefore it is only feasible in areas with high animal densities and a well developed infrastructure. One of the goals of the Dutch manure policy was to be able to process 25 million kg P2O5 in large-scale manure processing installations by the year 1994. However, this goal was not achieved. By the end of 1993 only 9.7 million kg P2O5 was actually processed. According to Feenstra et al. (1992) large-scale manure processing in the Netherlands faces the following problems:
- It is an expensive option (with regard to required investments and exploitation) to solve the Dutch manure problem. Large scale manure processing has to “compete” with cheaper options like e.g. local application of the manure or distribution over larger distances.- It is highly uncertain whether the end product of large scale manure processing can be sold at a price that covers processing costs.
Underlying problems include long-term, guaranteed supply of large amounts of manure, financial problems and uncertainty about the market price of the end product, particularly if its supply increases. Costs of investment and exploitation of processing installations in the Netherlands are higher than returns from sale of the end product. When calculated optimistically, the cost price of processing pig manure varies from US$ 13-20 per ton (Feenstra et al., 1992).
Large-scale manure processing requires additional fossil energy consumption for the techniques used during processing, and for transport of manure to the processing installation. On the other hand, fossil energy can be saved when the end product substitutes artificial fertilizer. It would be interesting to analyse the fossil energy balance of large-scale manure processing. However, data on overall fossil energy consumption when processing manure at a large scale were not available.
4.3.1. Overview of current environmental policies
4.3.2. Policy options to mitigate negative environmental impact
Before dealing with current environmental policies, it should be noted that until recently, countries tended to have separate sets of policies and usually separate departments to deal with environmental and other sector objectives. Today, it is apparent that even though these objectives are sometimes conflicting, by recognising the impacts that each set of policies can have on other sector objectives, negative cross-effects can be limited and synergy enhanced. A thorough discussion on the formulation, implementation and evaluation of different policy areas in the field of agriculture and environment is beyond the scope of this study. For a discussion on these issues, we refer to OECD (1989).
Since the seventies, many countries have developed environmental policies, partly aimed at the abatement of environmental pollution caused by agriculture. The environmental policies vary enormously among countries, from the complete banning of certain livestock animal species (like pigs in Singapore) to no policy at all. In general, the procedures followed can be divided in two categories: legislation and guidelines. Most countries adopted guidelines to control livestock pollution (e.g. Canada), whereas only a minority of the countries (Singapore, Malaysia, most EU-countries) implemented strict legislation (Hacker & Du, 1993).
Environmental policy is most sophisticated in the OECD countries. In Box 2, a short description of the environmental policy of two countries is given, showing the extremes. A general overview of policy measures in some European countries with respect to animal manure (and other organic fertilizers) is given by Esselink et al. (1991). It shows that policies and concomitant measures in this area are aimed at reduced leaching of nutrients, reduced emissions of ammonia and reduced accumulation of heavy metals. In this context, the following measures have been taken:
- regulation of maximum numbers of animals per hectare, based on the amount of manure that can safely be applied (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Italy);- fixation of maximum quantities of manure to be applied to soils, based on the nitrogen or phosphate content of the manure (e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands);
- implementation of a licence system for holdings, wishing to keep more than a given number of animals (e.g. Austria, Finland);
- limitation of the periods during which manure may be applied to soils and obligation to apply low emission application techniques (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands);
- establishment of rules for the minimum capacity of manure storage facilities (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany);
- introduction of fertilization plans;
- introduction of levies on surplus manure at farm level;
- optimization of the composition of animal feeds, leading to lower nutrient and heavy metal content;
- subsidies for the construction of manure storage facilities (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands).
- restrictions on the location of animal housing in relation to urban centres (the Netherlands, Canada).
|
United States of America Animal production in the USA is governed by a myriad of laws, regulations and rules, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave administrative authority to the states. Thus Minnesota producers need a permit for all new, expanded or modified units with more than a 25 sow equivalents, whereas in Michigan permits are not required unless there is a discharge. Effluent guidelines under the federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibit the discharge of wastes into the water of the nation. The EPA has also delegated responsibility for non-point source pollution control. States published Best Management Practices (BMPs) for land application of manure, but most states do not have regulations on this practice. Most states simply offer guidelines usually based on the nitrogen content and uptake of various crops. Some even permit application on frozen soil. Also the federal Clean Air Impact has little impact on the swine industry in the USA. The criteria and procedures for assessing air quality have not been used to regulate ammonia, carbon dioxide or methane emissions. Only odours are of concern. (Source: Schulte, 1993 and Hacker & Du, 1993.) Malaysia An example of a country with strict legislation is Malaysia.
In 1984, the National Agricultural Policy promulgated that pig farming should be
carried out in suitably sited areas, combined with waste treatment. This implied
that existing pig farms that were located in unsuitable areas or were unable to
meet the required discharge standard, would have to move to so called pig
farming areas (PFAs). The objectives of developing these PFAs were to raise pigs
without polluting the environment, to regulate the development of the industry
in order to avoid sensitive social and religious problems and to provide the
impetus for advanced pig farming, integrated with pollution control. A debate on
the pros and cons of centralized pig farming in PFAs and the accompanying
legislation is still going on. (Source: Ong, 1991.) |
In section 4.1. it was argued that the major environmental problems caused by LLM systems are related to the highly concentrated production method. Therefore most environmental problems can be mitigated by reducing the regional concentration of LLM systems, i.e. by improving the integration with arable production. In principle it does not matter at which level (i.e. whether farm, village, regional or even country) this integration is accomplished. However, full advantages of integration will be particularly apparent if livestock and arable farming are integrated at a low hierarchial level, as decisions on feed use are better integrated with those on feed production and manure utilization, resulting in better opportunities for optimal manure management. Depending on local circumstances there may be limitations to the level of integration, for instance, increasing costs of manure handling equipment or transport, or infrastructural constraints. For example, in many developing countries, transport of large quantities of manure to areas where it could be efficiently utilized, seems impossible, mainly due to poor infrastructure and limited possibilities for mechanical application of relatively large quantities of animal manure. Better integration of animal production and arable farming is aimed at better utilization of animal manure and a reduction of the use of artificial fertilizer. It includes at all times the prevention of discharging manure to surface waters and dumping manure on small areas.
The integration of LLM systems with overall agriculture can further be stimulated by the following options. The first option is to stimulate a more even geographical distribution of LLM production units within a country. This could be an effective policy for countries that are faced with regional environmental problems caused by LLM systems, but would only be feasible for the larger countries with a well developed infrastructure. However, it will in any case partly harm the comparative advantages of concentrated production. To (partly) overcome this problem, governments could stimulate or even make obligatory, for example, that feedmills are spread over the country, assuming that primary producers will follow soon. The second option is to set a limit on the number of animals per production unit, which might stimulate farmers to integrate their animal production unit with other agricultural activities. A similar type of measure is introduction of a licensing system, linked to e.g. a maximum number of animals per ha (farm -, village - or region-wise). The third option is to encourage the incorporation of locally produced feedstuffs in concentrates in place of imported feedstuffs. Thus, nutrient imports and exports will become more balanced (at country or sub-continental level).
In order to be successful, the proposed policy options will have to be accompanied by a well developed system of education and extension, concentrating on proper manure management systems. The importance of this is underlined by experiences in many large state farms in (former) communist countries, where until recently manure was wasted on a large scale, being considered a nuisance to livestock farm units, whereas arable farm units had almost free access to artificial fertilizer.
The proposed policy options influence primary production directly. They have significant socio-economic consequences and may therefore not be in line with current GATT-regulations, which stimulate a world oriented agriculture with open markets, leading to domination by the most efficient systems, both technically and economically (among which the LLM systems)1. Thus, countries are not stimulated to implement stricter environmental standards, because they will then find themselves under increasing competitive disadvantage. Multilateral initiatives will therefore be essential.
1 For instance, policies aiming at a reduction of the importation of feedstuffs will in general be in conflict with GATT-regulations, as the local market will have to be protected from often cheaper feedstuffs, available at the world market. Moreover, countries dependent on exports of animal feedstuffs would be confronted with large socio-economic problems if their traditional export markets were to disappear. An example of such a country is Thailand.
Direct policy options are not only confronted with major technical and economic constraints, but also with limitations regarding controllability of concomitant command-and-control regulations. Major limitations with regard to controllability of environmental regulations do exist in developed countries, are particularly prominent in developing countries. Among other things, Panayotou (1991) mentions five limitations relevant to LLM systems in developing countries:
1) Environmental regulations stipulate fines and/or terms of imprisonment for non-compliance or violation. However, in many developing societies, most notably in Asia, courts are used as a last resort, which means they are rarely used. Since this is common knowledge, regulations rarely become anything more than “paper tigers”.2) There is a mismatch between high regulation, monitoring and enforcement costs of regulations and the budgetary, manpower and administrative constraints of developing countries.
3) Fines for non-compliance are set at levels that are too low to deter violators, particularly because the probability of catching violators is very low.
4) The government’s ability to influence attitudes, develop public awareness through education and to elicit voluntary actions that would reinforce regulations and attach a moral stigma to violations, is much weaker in developing countries. This is partly because of the limited development of the environmental movement and institutions.
5) Command-and-control regulations induce rent-seeking behaviour. Violators find it to their interest to pay a fraction of the stipulated fine as a bribe to the enforcement official who, being grossly underpaid, is often all too willing to accept it.
In cases when direct policies and concomitant legislation enforcement are not feasible, indirect policies have to be adopted. Economic instruments seem especially convenient as LLM systems have the characteristic of being sensitive to changes of prices of inputs and outputs.
In economic terms, livestock - environment interactions are considered externalities. These externalities are not accounted for in market prices. Therefore, the goal of indirect policies is to incorporate environmental costs, associated with animal production in LLM systems, in market prices of inputs and/or outputs. Price policies should be designed in such a way, that the “polluter pays” principle is justified, which is far from easy. The “polluter pays” principle would require public authorities to impose a charge on polluting farmers (and of course other polluting actors), proportionate to their contribution to pollution. This charge should compensate society for the associated resource degradation and costs of anti-pollution measures. Price policies, however, will also affect other regions within a country that may not have similar environmental problems or even have e.g. a negative nutrient balance instead of a manure surplus. Likewise, they may affect other agricultural or economic sectors that feel not responsible for problems caused by the LLM system. Therefore, levies will only be an option in a limited number of situations: mainly if problems occur country-wide and/or if the levy can be imposed on inputs or outputs that are directly related to a particular problem (e.g. nutrient surplus).
Levies on fossil energy, concentrate and/or inorganic fertilizer could be effective to stimulate integration of livestock and arable farming, as they lead to higher costs of specialization and/or enhance demand for organic manure. A levy on concentrates, might result in, for example:
- more efficient feeding of animals, thus less feed needed per kg of animal product; or/and- generation of money that could be spent on mitigation of environmental problems (by e.g. subsidizing environmental friendly technologies and investments in LLM systems).
A general levy on concentrates has been introduced in the Netherlands to generate contributions from farmers towards the costs of research and advisory services associated with pollution from intensive animal husbandry. In addition, a levy on surplus manure for farms that produce more than 125 kg P2O5*ha-1*yr-1 has also been introduced to finance the establishment of a national manure bank and the construction of central manure storage and processing facilities. Another possible levy would be on the output side, i.e. on each animal delivered at slaughterhouses, though this option may lead to illegal slaughtering. The money raised could, as in the previous example, be used to mitigate environmental problems. Farmers’ acceptance of levies on inputs or outputs might be enhanced if they were to be rewarded for publicly desirable “environmental products” of their farming.
It may thus be easier to promote e.g. good water quality as part of a wider programme on improvement of environmental quality, containing not only levies, but also a remuneration system for environmental-friendly farming (CEC, 1989).
Despite the many problems with the implementation of both direct policies (with regard to legislation enforcement) and indirect policies (with regard to application of the “polluter pays” principle and the introduction of comparative disadvantages among various countries), it must be stated that if these problems can be overcome in any agricultural sector, it would be in an industry-like agricultural sector, such as the LLM systems. Compared to other agricultural sectors, the LLM systems and surrounding industries are easily identified, less numerous and often fairly concentrated.
Costs of internalization of externalities vary greatly among countries. They are dependent on inter-regional, sub-regional, country and even local diversity of agricultural and environmental characteristics and issues. Beyond this diversity, countries also differ in the degree of environmental awareness and policy stances towards externalities. This is illustrated in Annex 5, where a comparative analysis of the impact of future environmental policies on the competitiveness of pig production in several European countries is given. For the Netherlands, also an indication of effects of internalization on income levels, number of farms, number of animals and employment opportunities in the agro-industry is given. From Annex 5 it can be derived that important differences exist between European countries with regard to environmental policies:
- standards to apply manure are strict in Denmark, the Netherlands and Niedersachsen and rather mild in Bretagne and, particularly, Flanders;- policies to reduce ammonia emission have only been implemented in Flanders and the Netherlands;
- manure surpluses can be applied at short distances in Denmark, Bretagne and Niedersachsen, but not in Flanders and The Netherlands;
- the need for environmental investments is highest in Flanders and the Netherlands and less in Denmark.
Though a comparison of livestock systems is not made in Annex 5, it at least indicates that costs of internalization of externalities may assumed to be lower for land-based systems, as the need for environmental investments is lowest in countries with a livestock sector that is better integrated with arable production (and, thus, to some extent approaching land-based systems; see also section 2.4): Denmark, Bretagne and Niedersachsen. Thus, despite the fact that also land-based livestock systems cause environmental pollution, it seems safe to assume that environmental problems are higher in LLM systems than in land-based systems. In that case, a major consequence of internalization of externalities will be a reduction of the economic advantages of landless livestock systems.
Depending on the degree of internalization of externalities, average farm income of Dutch livestock farms will decline substantially. The main exception are poultry farms, as these are well able to transport their highly valued manure over larger distances.
In conclusion, a framework for policy options relating to animal manure problems may be given on the basis of experiences described in OECD (1989). After a discussion on manure policies in France and the Netherlands, combined with information from other countries, it can be concluded that seven major points are relevant to the integration of agricultural and environmental policies:
- Several opportunities exist for more efficient use of animal manure as an agricultural fertilizer, in a way that increases farm income.- The relative prices of feed and other inputs can be used to manipulate practices that cause agricultural pollution, in an environmentally favourable manner.
- In developing integrated policies, it is important to give full consideration to regional differences in physical, ecological and social conditions.
- The adverse effects of agricultural pollution from inappropriate disposal and storage of animal manure can be efficiently reduced by applying the “polluter pays” principle to agriculture.
- The effectiveness of regulations to reduce agricultural pollution is heavily dependent on the degree to which they are enforced.
- Levies and taxes are likely to be more effective if the money collected is used to finance agricultural pollution control and prevention activities.
- International trade and tariff arrangements have an important influence on the location and intensity of agricultural production and, through this, the severity of agricultural pollution problems.
