Abstract
Mussel farming has been suggested as a low-cost option for reducing nutrient content in eutrophied waters. This study examines whether mussel farming contributes to reductions in total nutrient abatement cost and increases in equity for achieving nutrient load reduction targets to the Baltic Sea under different international policy regimes (cost-effective, country targets set by the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), and nutrient-trading markets). A cost-minimizing model is used to calculate the cost savings, and the analytical results show that mussel farming is a cost-effective option only when the marginal abatement cost is lower than for other abatement measures. The numerical cost-minimizing model of the Baltic Sea indicates that the largest abatement cost reductions from introduction mussel farming, approximately 3.5 billion SEK (9.36 SEK = 1 Euro), are obtained under the cost-effective and nutrient-trading systems. Equity, as measured by abatement cost in relation to affordability in terms of gross domestic product, is improved by mussel farming under the cost-effective regime but reduced under the BSAP country targets and nutrient-trading regimes.
Highlights
Excess anthropogenic nutrient loads to aquatic ecosystems have caused damage from eutrophication worldwide [1,2]
With respect to the question raised in this study on the cost-effectiveness, a main empirical finding was that mussel farming reduces total abatement costs by 6% or 11%, depending on the international policy regime
These cost savings are in the same order of magnitude as the relative cost reduction obtained by Gren et al [7]
Summary
Excess anthropogenic nutrient loads to aquatic ecosystems have caused damage from eutrophication worldwide [1,2]. With respect to environmental policies, studies have shown that people put equal weights to cost-effectiveness and equity outcomes [20] This might be of particular concern for the eutrophication management of the Baltic Sea where several studies have shown that suggested BSAP targets are regressive where relatively low-income countries, such as Poland and Russia pay disproportionally much for nutrient abatement [14,21]. The main question raised in this study is if and how a new abatement technology, mussel farming, reduces cost and promotes equity for the achievement of the nutrient load targets set by BSAP in HELCOM [13] Both costs and equity in allocation of cost burden among the Baltic Sea countries depend on which international policy regime is in place.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
