IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0341.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Muddy Waters: Soil Erosion and Downstream Externalities

Author

Listed:
  • Ekbom, Anders

    () (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Brown, Gardner M.

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Sterner, Thomas

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

Abstract

Soil erosion and fertilizer run-off cause serious flow externalities in downstream environments through-out the world. Social costs include e.g. loss of health, life and production due to pollution and eutrophication of freshwater resources, reduced life of hydro-power plants, increased turbidity, and degradation of coral reefs and marine resources. The key optimal control models on soil capital management omit downstream externalities and assume that the individual farmer and society share the same objective function. In the presence of externalities, there is a discrepancy. In this paper the social planner aims at maximizing the profits from agriculture subject to a soil dynamics-constraint and external damage costs caused by downstream contamination from soil and fertilizer leakage. These effects are not considered by the farmer. Comparative statics analysis shows that factors which promote a low discount rate (tenure security, access to credits, crop insurance etc.) will reduce soil erosion and nutrient leakage and promote accumulation of soil capital. Socially optimal subsidies for soil conservation not only will build-up soil capital and increase on-site crop production, but will also reduce nutrient leakage and soil loss. A charge on fertilizer would reduce fertilizer use and thus reduce the water pollution caused by leakage of inorganic nutrients. Based on our model results, combined with an extended discussion on policy instruments, we conclude that the government should try to provide incentives, not necessarily to stop soil loss per se (since the farmers will look after their own capital) but to avoid contamination of downstream environments, where the resource users have few opportunities to negotiate with the upstream farmers, who may even be unaware of the problems they cause.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekbom, Anders & Brown, Gardner M. & Sterner, Thomas, 2009. "Muddy Waters: Soil Erosion and Downstream Externalities," Working Papers in Economics 341, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/19234
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein T., 2000. "Policy instruments for sustainable land management: the case of highland smallholders in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 22(3), April.
    2. Harry R. Clarke, 1992. "The Supply Of Non‐Degraded Agricultural Land," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 31-56, April.
    3. Barrett, Scott, 1991. "Optimal soil conservation and the reform of agricultural pricing policies," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 167-187, October.
    4. Renan U. Goetz, 1997. "Diversification in Agricultural Production: A Dynamic Model of Optimal Cropping to Manage Soil Erosion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 341-356.
    5. Kerr, John, 2002. "Watershed Development, Environmental Services, and Poverty Alleviation in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1387-1400, August.
    6. Gershon Feder & Tongroj Onchan, 1987. "Land Ownership Security and Farm Investment in Thailand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(2), pages 311-320.
    7. Grepperud, Sverre, 1996. "Population Pressure and Land Degradation: The Case of Ethiopia," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 18-33, January.
    8. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    9. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    10. V. Kerry Smith, 1992. "Environmental Costing for Agriculture: Will It Be Standard Fare in the Farm Bill of 2000?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1076-1088.
    11. Smith, Elwin G. & Lerohl, Mel L. & Messele, Teklay & Janzen, H. Henry, 2000. "Soil Quality Attribute Time Paths: Optimal Levels And Values," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(01), July.
    12. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein T., 2001. "Farm-level benefits to investments for mitigating land degradation: empirical evidence from Ethiopia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(03), pages 335-358, July.
    13. Francisco, Herminia A. & Cruz, Wilfrido & Conway, Zenaida T., 1988. "The On-Site and Downstream Costs of Soil Erosion in the Magat and Pantabangan Watersheds," Philippine Journal of Development JPD 1988 Vol. XV No. 1-d, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    14. Katherine R. Smith, 2006. "Public Payments for Environmental Services from Agriculture: Precedents and Possibilities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1167-1173.
    15. LaFrance, Jeffrey T., 1992. "Do Increased Commodity Prices Lead To More Or Less Soil Degradation?," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 36(01), April.
    16. Elwin G. Smith & Carl F. Shaykewich, 1990. "The Economics of Soil Erosion and Conservation on Six Soil Groupings in Manitoba," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 38(2), pages 215-231, July.
    17. Sierra, Rodrigo & Russman, Eric, 2006. "On the efficiency of environmental service payments: A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 131-141, August.
    18. Douglas Southgate & Robert Macke, 1989. "The Downstream Benefits of Soil Conservation in Third World Hydroelectric Watersheds," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 38-48.
    19. Kenneth E. McConnell, 1983. "An Economic Model of Soil Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(1), pages 83-89.
    20. Marc O. Ribaudo, 1986. "Consideration of Offsite Impacts in Targeting Soil Conservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(4), pages 402-411.
    21. Feder, Gershon & Feeny, David, 1991. "Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 5(1), pages 135-153, January.
    22. Dorfman, Robert, 1969. "An Economic Interpretation of Optimal Control Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(5), pages 817-831, December.
    23. Francisco, Herminia A. & Cruz, Wilfrido & Conway, Zenaida T., 1988. "The On-Site and Downstream Costs of Soil Erosion," Working Papers WP 1988-11, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    24. Kosoy, Nicolas & Martinez-Tuna, Miguel & Muradian, Roldan & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2007. "Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 446-455, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    optimal control theory; micro analysis of farm firms; resource management; soil erosion;

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marie Andersson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.