The economic value of smart resource management and implications for policy - Agricoltura Emilia-Romagna
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
“The economic value of smart resource
management and implications for policy
design: the case of water”
Davide Viaggi, University of Bologna, Department of Agricultural Sciences
davide.viaggi@unibo.it
Convegno «Uso efficiente delle risorse naturali:
priorità dello sviluppo rurale, sfida per i PSR»
Bologna,
3 Maggio 2017Outline • Public good production & soil and water – PROVIDE (H2020 • Economic issues in water management – Wadi (FP5) – FIGARO (FP7) – MOSES (H2020) – Local valuation of benefits from irrigation • Some policy implications
PROVIding smart DElivery of public
goods by EU agriculture and forestry
Program: Horizon 2020, SC2 Call: H2020-ISIB-2014-2
Topic: ISIB-01-2014
PROVIding smart DElivery of public goods by EU agriculture and
Budget: 3 Million Euro
14 partners
Duration: 1/9/2015 - 31/8/2018
Contact (project coordinator): Davide Viaggi
(davide.viaggi@unibo.it)
forestryPROVIDE: figures and activities
• 13 case study regions
• Network of about 200 stakeholders
• 28 stakeholder workshops
• EU and regional mapping of PGs
• Monetary valuation of public goods
– 8 demand-side and 7 supply-side studies
– 3300 total questionnaires to farmers and households
• Evaluation of alternative governance mechanism
• Framework and toolboxPreliminary results: Public
goods
• Complex notion
• Soil and water (resources) high in
priority
• Typologies of issues:
– a) intensive agricultural areas (resources
vs. intensification)
– b) areas at risk of abandonment
– c) areas with strong connection with
urban areas
– d) low intensity-low income areas
– e) forestry areas (public goods, timber,
ES)Preliminary results: valuation
• General WTP for higher production of public
goods by agriculture & forestry
– E.g. ER: 40 euro/year/household for reducing soil
erosion
• Current CAP expediture on PG acceptable by a
majority of people (60-80%)
• But….
• …very differentiated values across areas and
groups
• …little tecnical understanding (legitimate)Preliminary results: governance
mechanism
• Mix of instruments needed
• Highest priority instruments
– Improved AEP and PES
– Fostered regulation
– Information & awareness
– Public-private collaborationWATER….
Benefits and costs of water
use
• Benefits
– Private utility
– Profits->income->growth
• Costs
– Financial
– Resource
– EnvironmentalDemand and value of water
Funzioni domanda – CB Romagna occidentale
2000
cl1
cl2
1800
cl3
cl4
1600 cl5
media
1400
1200
uso (m /ha)
3
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40
3
prezzo acqua (€/m )
Funzioni domanda – CB Reno Palata
Fonte: Berbel et al., 2009Relative performances of the FIGARO approach compared with
Economic Impacts - Results
other practices to schedule irrigation during the period 2013-2015 –
Gross margin variation (%)
FIGARO VS DIRECT MEASUREMENT FIGARO VS TRADITIONAL PRACTICE (SPRINKLER
IRRIGATION)
FIGARO VS TRADITIONAL PRACTICE (DRIP
IRRIGATION)
50%
Gross margin variation (%)
30%
10%
-10%
-30%
-50%Monetary valuation of
environmental benefits of actions
• Study in the Consorzio della Bonifica
Renana
– CVM+hedonic price
– 0,3-1,2 milion euro/year of benefits to
residents due to irrigation water in canals
• ReQpro
– Purely private analysis: NPV=-7,9 Meuro
– ACB: NPV=from 2 to 7 MeuroTrends and scenarios • Climate change • Agricultural prices: increase (?) and volatility • New technologies: ICT, data • Global+regional economic relationships • Increasing consumers awareness
Some policy implications
• Role of innovation to solve trade-offs
– Technical
– Institutional
• Need of a (consistent) integration of different policy areas (CAP-WFD)
(beyond cross compliance)
• Acknowledge limitations in mesurement
• Accounting for heterogeneity of farms/areas and variability over time
(e.g. auction types, flexibility in time, results-based…)
• Collective measures
• «Chain+territory» instruments
• Role of beneficaries of public goods (residents, consumers, citizens)
• With «transaction costs nightmare» in mind!!!FIGARO - Flexible and PrecIse IrriGation PlAtform to
Improve FaRm Scale Water PrOductivity, 7th
Framework Programme (contract n. 311903), 2012-
2016.
MOSES - Managing crOp water Saving with
Enterprise Services, H2020, 2015-2018WADI – “Sustainability of European Irrigated Agriculture under Water
Directive and Agenda 2000", V framework programme, Unione Europea
(STREP) (2001-2003), (EVKa-2000-00057)
AQUAMONEY - "Development and Testing of
Practical Guidelines for the Assessment of
Environmental and Resource Costs and
Benefits in the WFD ", Proposal No. 022723,
European Union 6fp (STREP)
http://www.aquamoney.org/
EPI-WATER - Evaluating Economic
Policy Instruments for Sustainable Water
Management in Europe, 7th Framework
Programme, Grant agreement n. 265213
http://www.epi-water.eu
Water Cap trade - Water markets scenarios
for Southern Europe: new solutions for coping with
water scarcity and drought risk, 2nd IWRM-NET
Funding Initiative, ISPRA
http://www.capandtrade.acteon-environment.eu/
DQA – Analisi Economica sull’Utilizzo Idrico:
verifica dell’esistenza di Costi di adeguamento Sproporzionati a giustificazione di
eventuali deroghe alla normativa
http://ambiente.regione.emilia-romagna.it/acque/notizie/notizia-2014/raggiungimento-del-
buono-stato-delle-acque-analisi-dei-costi-economico-sociali.Thank you!
Davide Viaggi
Department of Agricultural Sciences
davide.viaggi@unibo.itLIFE11
ENV/IT/000156
A Model to REclaim and reuse wastewater for Quality crop production –
Modello di recupero e riutilizzo delle acque reflue per produzioni vegetali di qualità.
Azione C.2 – “Monitoraggio dell'impatto socio-economicoEmiliaObiettivo dello studio • Valutazione della fattibilità economica e della sostenibilità ambientale, del recupero e del riuso ai fini irrigui delle acque reflue, mediante un impianto di depurazione che prevede il trattamento terziario
Analisi economica preliminare
Descrizione
Variabili: Ipotesi VAN
Unità di misura n.
Attuale 0 -2718453
Aumenta costo acqua 2 797380
Aumenta costo
energia elettrica
(moderato) 3 -356766
Aumenta costo
energia (alto) 4 430463Costi finanziari • Estrema variabilità – 10-400 euro/ha • Già sostanzialmente pagati dagli utilizzatori • Problema dei costi di investimento!
Costi come risorsa
• Considerati indirettamente
• Ma tante difficoltà:
– Quando effettivamente l’acqua è sottratta ad
usi alternativi?
– Quanto vale l’acqua negli usi ai quali l’acqua
è stata sottratta?Costi ambientali
• Effetti negativi sull’ambiente dovuti ai prelievi
– Es. riduzione dei flussi nei corpi idrici
• Effetti ambientali delle attività che usano l’acqua
– Es. inquinamento da fertilizzanti
• Ma anche effetti positivi
– Es. Renana: 0,3-1,2 milioni di euro all’anno dalla
presenza di acqua nei canali irrigui
• Ancora difficili da valutareCosti dell’irrigazione (pomodoro)
• Costo irrigazione escl. Acqua
– Goccia: 13-21% PLV (600-1400 euro/ha)
– Pioggia: 6-7% PLV (350-450 euro/ha)
• Costo acqua irrigua
– A 0,1 euro/mc: 3-5% della PLV
– A 0,5 euro/mc: 12-25% della PLV
Fonti: Ghinassi e Sammarchi, 2009; Nostre elaborazioni si dati RICA, 2014FIGARO FLEXIBLE AND PRECISE IRRIGATION PLATFORM TO
IMPROVE FARM-SCALE WATER PRODUCTIVITY
Coord. NETAFIM
Other Italian partners: CER, FAOObjective
OBJECTIVE
Assess to what extent the improvement of the quality of information brought with the
FIGARO approach affects farmer’s strategic decisions and consequently farm’s
income.
Steps
• (1) Validation of the Platform (Economic Impacts)
• (2) Investigation of PI implementation in EU
• (3) Policy implication & guidelinesEconomic Impacts – Areas of
investigaton
Commercial Sites
Experimental Sites
Potato
Potato
Maize
Maize
Tomato Maize
Table Grapes
Maize
Cotton
Citrus
Table Grapes
Table Grapes
CottonYou can also read
