Markets of concentration permits: The case of manure policy

Ecological Economics

Volumn 70, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 2098-2104

  Der Straeten, Bart Van ^a   Buysse, Jeroen ^a   Nolte, Stephan ^a   Lauwers, Ludwig ^a,b   Claeys, Dakerlia ^b   Van Huylenbroeck, Guido ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERIES RESEARCH ILVO   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Emission trading; Environmental policy; Flanders; Manure; MP MAS; Nitrate directive; Tradable concentration permits

Indexed keywords

CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EMISSIONS TRADING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION; FERTILIZER APPLICATION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; MANURE; MARKET SYSTEM; NITRATE; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY MAKING; POLLUTION CONTROL; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 80052032940     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.007     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Atkinson S.E., Tietenberg T.H. Economic implications of emissions trading rules for local and regional pollutants. Canadian Journal of Economics-Revue Canadienne D Economique 1987, 20:370-386.
2. Baumol W.J., Oates W.E. Use of standards and prices for protection of environment. The Swedish Journal of Economics 1971, 73:42-51.
3. Bruneau J.F. Inefficient environmental instruments and the gains from trade. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 49:536-546.
4. Buysse J., Van der Straeten B., Claeys D., Lauwers L., Marchand F.L., Van Huylenbroeck G. Flexible quota constraints in positive mathematical programming models. In 107th EAAE Seminar "Modelling of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies" Sevilla 2008.
5. CPB Naar een efficiënter milieubeleid; een maatschappelijk-economische analyse van vier hardnekkige milieuproblemen. Den haag 2000.
6. Ermoliev Y., Michalevich M., Nentjes A. Markets for tradeable emission and ambient permits: a dynamic approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 2000, 15:39-56.
7. Bioresource Technology technologies: on-farm versus centralized strategies. NE Spain as Case Study. Bioresource Technology. 100(22):5519-5526.
8. Harrison D. Ex post evaluation of the RECLAIM Emissions Trading Program for the Los Angeles Air Basin. In OECD Workshop 'Ex Post Evaluation of Tradable Permits: Methodological and Policy Issues' Paris 2003.
9. Helming J., Reinhard S. Modelling the economic consequences of the EU Water Framework Directive for Dutch agriculture. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 91:114-123.
10. Kampas A., White B. Selecting permit allocation rules for agricultural pollution control: a bargaining solution. Ecological Economics 2003, 47:135-147.
11. Lacroix A., Beaudoin N., Makowski D. Agricultural water nonpoint pollution control under uncertainty and climate variability. Ecological Economics 2005, 53:115-127.
12. Lauwers L., Carlier P.J., Lenders S., Mathijs E. Verhandelbare emissierechten: verkennend onderzoek en discussie 2003, 31. Centrum voor Landbouweconomie, Brussel.
13. Lauwers L., Van Huylenbroeck G., Martens L. A system approach to analyse the effects of Flemish manure policy on structural changes and cost abatement in pig farming. Agricultural Systems 1998, 56:167-183.
14. Lejano R.P., Hirose R. Testing the assumptions behind emissions trading in non-market goods: the RECLAIM program in Southern California. Environmental Science & Policy 2005, 8:367-377.
15. Montgomery W.D. Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journal of Economic Theory 1972, 5:395-418.
16. Oenema O., Oudendag D., Velthof G.L. Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. Livestock Science 2007, 112:261-272.
17. Stavins R.N. Transaction costs and the performance of markets for pollution control. In American Economic Association Annual Meeting Boston 1994.
18. Stavins R.N. Transaction costs and tradeable permits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:133-148.
19. Tietenberg T. Tradeable permits for pollution control when emission location matters: what have we learned?. Environmental and Resource Economics 1995, 5:95-113.
20. Tietenberg T. The tradable-permits approach to protecting the commons: lessons for climate change. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2003, 19:400-419.
21. Tietenberg T., Johnstone N. Ex post evaluation of tradable permits: methodological issues and literature review. Chapter 1. Tradeable Permits: Policy Evaluation, Design and Reform 2004, OECD, Paris. T. Tietenberg, N. Johnstone (Eds.).
22. Van der Straeten B., Buysse J. The Flemish manure policy as a case of economic management of ecological problems. In 15th Phd Symposium on Applied Biological Sciences 2009, Vol. 74:75-81. Leuven.
23. Van der Straeten B., Buysse J., Nolte S., Lauwers L., Claeys D., Van Huylenbroeck G. A multi-agent simulation model for spatial optimisation of manure allocation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2010, 53:1011-1030.
24. Vatn A. Input versus emission taxes: environmental taxes in a mass balance and transaction costs perspective. Land Economics 1998, 74:514-525.
25. Wossink A. The Dutch nutrient quota system: past experience and lessons for the future. In OECD Workshop on 'The Ex-Post Evaluation of Tradeable Permit Regimes' Paris 2003.
26. Wossink A., Gardebroeck C. Environmental policy uncertainty and marketable permit systems: the Dutch Phosphate Quota Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 88:16-27.