The revealed preferences of Baltic Sea governments: Goals, policy instruments, and implementation of nutrient abatement measures

• Published in: Marine pollution bulletin Vol. 118; no. 1-2; pp. 188 - 196
• Main Authors: Elofsson, Katarina, von Brömssen, Claudia
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 15.05.2017
• Subjects: Agri-environmental policy; Agriculture; Baltic and East European studies; Baltic Sea; Baltic States; Determinants; Economics; Eutrophication; Goals; Government; Nationalekonomi; Nitrogen; Nitrogen - analysis; Oceans and Seas; Phosphorus; Phosphorus - analysis; Policy evaluation; Water Pollution - legislation & jurisprudence; Water Pollution - prevention & control; Östersjö- och Östeuropaforskning; Policy evaluation; Determinants; Phosphorus; Nitrogen; Baltic Sea; Agri-environmental policy
• ISSN: 0025-326X; 1879-3363; 1879-3363
• DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.014

Nitrogen and phosphorus loads are considered a major reason for the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Until now, most of the abatement has been made at point sources while the implementation of policies for nonpoint sources has not led to equally large reductions in emissions. The purpose of this study is to investigate the determinants of how nutrient abatement measures are implemented by countries in the agricultural sector of the Baltic Sea region. We investigate how goal setting, policy instrument choice, and the level of implementation is determined by characteristics of the abatement measure as well as socio-economic characteristics of the country where it is implemented. Econometric analysis of a cross-sectional data set suggests that income, institutional capacity, and economies of scope in abatement and enforcement are important determinants of policies developed and their implementation. •We evaluate determinants of the implementation of nutrient abatement measures.•We use a data set including 25 agricultural measures in ten Baltic Sea countries.•We distinguish between goal setting, policy instrument choice, and enforcement.•High income and institutional capacity leads to higher implementation.•Economies of scope in abatement and enforcement affect implementation.