DOCSLIB.ORG

BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES for PREVENTING and CONTROLLING INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION © OECD 2018 About the OECD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES for PREVENTING and CONTROLLING INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION © OECD 2018 About the OECD BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES (BAT) FOR PREVENTING AND CONTROLLING INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION Activity 2: Approaches to Establishing BAT Around the World Best Available Techniques (BAT) for Preventing and Controlling Industrial Pollution Activity 2: Approaches to Establishing Best Available Techniques Around the World 2 │ TABLE OF CONTENTS Please cite this publication as: OECD (2018), Best Available Techniques (BAT) for Preventing and Controlling Industrial Pollution, Activity 2: Approaches to Establishing Best Available Techniques Around the World, Environment, Health and Safety, Environment Directorate, OECD. © Picture on the Cover page: hfzimages/Shutterstock.com © OECD 2018 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, [email protected], OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES FOR PREVENTING AND CONTROLLING INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION © OECD 2018 About the OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental organisation in which representatives of 35 industrialised countries in North and South America, Europe and the Asia and Pacific region, as well as the European Commission, meet to co-ordinate and harmonise policies, discuss issues of mutual concern, and work together to respond to international problems. Most of the OECD’s work is carried out by more than 200 specialised committees and working groups composed of member country delegates. Observers from several countries with special status at the OECD, and from interested international organisations, attend many of the OECD’s workshops and other meetings. Committees and working groups are served by the OECD Secretariat, located in Paris, France, which is organised into directorates and divisions. The Environment, Health and Safety Division publishes free-of-charge documents in twelve different series: Testing and Assessment; Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring; Pesticides; Biocides; Risk Management; Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology; Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds; Chemical Accidents; Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers; Emission Scenario Documents; Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials; and Adverse Outcome Pathways. More information about the Environment, Health and Safety Programme and EHS publications is available on the OECD’s World Wide Web site (www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/). This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organisation Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen co-operation and increase international co- ordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organisations are FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote co-ordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organisations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. FOREWORD │ 3 Foreword The Best Available Techniques (BAT) concept has emerged as a key policy tool to prevent and control industrial emissions, thus ensuring a high level of environmental and human health protection. BAT and similar concepts constitute essential elements for setting emission limit values and other permit conditions for industrial emissions in many countries around the world. The implementation of BAT or similar concepts generally requires a high level of resources. There is thus added value in sharing experience and knowledge amongst OECD Member countries and Partner countries on this issue. The OECD Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology at its 54th meeting in February 2016 therefore approved a new project on BAT for preventing and controlling industrial chemical pollution. The project consisted of three activities: (i) compile information on policies and practices embodying BAT; (ii) exchange information on how governments gather information on techniques and establish BAT; and (iii) assess methodologies for evaluation of the effectiveness of policies and practices embodying BAT or similar concepts by using Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) information or monitoring data. Building on the Activity 1 report, this report constitutes the final deliverable of Activity 2, aiming to provide governments with good practice insights on how to effectively design or review their approach to establishing BAT or similar concepts. Information analysed in this report was collected through: (i) extensive contact with national experts, notably the members of OECD’s designated Expert Group on BAT, through a survey, subsequent information exchange and visits to selected countries; and (ii) desk research, based on the consultation of online websites, publications and other resources. The draft report was reviewed at the Second Meeting of the Expert Group on BAT in November 2017. All the experts that have contributed to the report are acknowledged in Annex C. This report is an output of the OECD Environment Directorate. It was prepared under the supervision of the OECD's designated Expert Group on BAT and published under the responsibility of the Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology of the OECD. The report was prepared by Marit Hjort and Takaaki Ito (OECD Secretariat), and benefitted from excellent consultancy work by An Derden and Liesbet Van den Abeele (VITO) as well as Ram Lal Verma, Guilberto Borongan, Timothy Lam and Mara Regine Mendes (Asian Institute of Technology). Hannah Thabet (OECD Secretariat) provided indispensable editorial guidance. BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES FOR PREVENTING AND CONTROLLING INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION © OECD 2018 4 │ TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................................................ 8 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 12 Key characteristics of procedures to determine BAT ........................................................................ 12 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Terminology....................................................................................................................................... 14 Target countries and sectors............................................................................................................... 14 Data collection ................................................................................................................................... 15 Note .....................................................................................................................................................16 Chapter 1. The Russian Federation: A standardised methodology to establish BAT ................... 17 1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 18 1.2. BAT reference documents .......................................................................................................... 18 1.3. Emission limit values associated with BAT ............................................................................... 25 1.4. Attributes and limitations ............................................................................................................ 26 Notes .................................................................................................................................................. 27 References .......................................................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 2. Korea: A standardised methodology to establish BAT ................................................. 30 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 31 2.2. BAT reference documents .......................................................................................................... 31 2.3. Emission limit values associated with BAT ............................................................................... 35 2.4. Attributes and limitations ............................................................................................................ 36 References .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 3. The United States: Procedures to establish technology-based performance standards .............................................................................................................................................. 38 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program Revised, 2011
    Disclaimer DISCLAIMER The discussion in this document is intended solely as a summary of existing guidance. This document is not a regulation, nor does it substitute for any requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA) or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, municipalities, or the regulated community. The general descriptions provided in this document might not apply to a particular situation based on the circumstances. This document does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations on any member of the public. Among other things, the document describes existing requirements with respect to industrial dischargers and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) under the CWA and its implementing regulations at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122, 123, 124, and 403 and chapter I, subchapter N. Although EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this document, a discharger’s obligations are determined, in the case of directly discharging POTWs, by the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and EPA’s regulations or, in the case of indirect dischargers, by permits or equivalent control mechanisms issued to POTW industrial users or by regulatory requirements. Nothing in this document changes any statutory or regulatory requirement. If a conflict arises between this document’s content and any permit or regulation, the permit or regulation would be controlling. EPA and local decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case- by-case basis that differ from those described in this document where appropriate and authorized by EPA regulations, state law, or local ordinances.
    [Show full text]
  • National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007
    National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable process chlorine-free paper with 100% post-consumer fiber using vegetable-oil-based ink. National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Assessment Division Research Triangle Park, North Carolina EPA-454/R-08-006 November 2008 Table of Contents Highlights ... 1 Air Pollution ... 4 Six Common Pollutants ... 10 Ground-Level Ozone ... 14 Particle Pollution ... 19 Lead ... 26 Nitrogen Dioxide ... 27 Carbon Monoxide ... 27 Sulfur Dioxide ... 27 Toxic Air Pollutants ... 28 Atmospheric Deposition ... 32 Visibility in Scenic Areas ... 34 Climate Change and Air Quality ... 36 International Transport of Air Pollution ... 38 Terminology ... 40 Web Sites ... 41 HIGHLIGHTS This summary report highlights EPA’s most recent ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Ground- evaluation of the status and trends in our nation’s air level ozone and particle pollution still present quality. challenges in many areas of the country. LEVELS OF SIX COMMON POLLUTANTS • Though PM2.5 concentrations were higher in 2007 CONTINUE TO DECLINE than in 2006, partly due to weather conditions, annual PM2.5 concentrations were nine percent • Cleaner cars, industries, and consumer products lower in 2007 than in 2001. have contributed to cleaner air for much of the U.S. • 8-hour ozone concentrations were fi ve percent • Since 1990, nationwide air quality for six air lower in 2007 than in 2001. Ozone levels did not pollutants for which there are national standards improve in much of the East until 2002, after has improved signifi cantly.
    [Show full text]
  • 64650 Federal Register / Vol
    64650 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Although listed in the index, some • Supplemental Environmental AGENCY information is not publicly available, Assessment for Revisions to the Effluent e.g., Confidential Business Information Limitations Guidelines and Standards 40 CFR Part 423 (CBI) or other information whose for the Steam Electric Power Generating [EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819; FRL–10014–41– disclosure is restricted by statute. Point Source Category (Supplemental OW] Certain other material, such as EA), Document No. EPA–821–R–20– copyrighted material, is not placed on 002. The Supplemental EA summarizes RIN 2040–AF77 the internet and will be publicly the potential environmental and human Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule available only in hard copy form. health impacts that are estimated to Publicly available docket materials are result from implementation of this final AGENCY: Environmental Protection available electronically through http:// rule. Agency. www.regulations.gov. • Benefit and Cost Analysis for ACTION: Final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Revisions to the Effluent Limitations technical information, contact Richard Guidelines and Standards for the Steam SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Benware, Engineering and Analysis Electric Power Generating Point Source Agency (EPA or the Agency) is Category (BCA Report), Document No. finalizing a regulation to revise the Division, Telephone: 202–566–1369; Email: [email protected]. For EPA–821–R–20–003. The BCA Report technology-based effluent limitations summarizes estimates of the societal guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the economic information, contact James Covington, Engineering and Analysis benefits and costs resulting from steam electric power generating point implementation of this final rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTW's
    Uncted States September 1987 Ewronmental ProtectIon Agency Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF WATEfl MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Pretreatment Program Guidance FROM: ;,rne/#?k%!& Director Of)&e of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN-335) TO: Users of the Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs This guidance manual was developed by EPA to aid publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) in identifying, tracking, and mitigating interference episodes caused by discharges of nondomestic wastes. Interference is defined in the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403) in terms of a discharge which, alone or in combination with other discharges, inhibits or disrupts the POTW and causes it to violate its NPDES permit or applicable sludge use or disposal regulations. The legal responsibilities of POTWs and their industrial users for avoiding interference are specified in the General Pretreatment Regulations. The basic regulatory requirements are explained in this manual and technical guidance is provided to help POTW operators detect and determine the sources of interference. This document will be useful to all POTWs that may experience interference problems, not just those that.have been required to establish federally-approved pretreatment programs. Therefore, EPA is distributing it widely. Additional copies of this guidance manual or further information about the national pretreatment program can be obtained by writing to the Permits Division, (EN-3361, US EPA, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA is preparing another guidance document thaL deals specifizall:r with t-he development of local limits to prevent interference and pass through.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Citizens Guide
    Understanding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Its Role in Michigan TIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL A Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality Permitting Understanding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Its Role in Michigan by Ellen J. Kohler The purpose of this document is to promote citizen involvement in water quality permitting. If you would like to reproduce this book or portions of it for reasons consistent with this purpose, please contact the publisher: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council 426 Bay Street • Petoskey, MI 49770 PH: 231-347-1181 • FX: 231-347-5928 website: www.watershedcouncil.org E-mail address: [email protected] ©2005 Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Acknowledgements This citizen’s guide is part of a larger, multi-year project funded by the Joyce Foundation and coordinated by the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council to improve citizen involvement in environmental decision-making in Michigan. We are indebted to the Joyce Foundation’s commitment to environmental protection and their financial support for innovative projects coordinated across the Great Lakes basin. The project in general and the guidebook specifically were conceived by Wil Cwikiel of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. He has put in many hours shaping its purpose and reviewing its content. An invaluable part of this publication was the comments provided by individuals who are experts in various aspects of water quality permitting in Michigan. While their comments improved the text of this document, it is important to note that they do not necessarily endorse every aspect of the document.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA’S Response to the Waterkeeper Alliance Court Decision on Regulation of Cafos
    Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA’s Response to the Waterkeeper Alliance Court Decision on Regulation of CAFOs Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy November 8, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33656 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Animal Waste and Water Quality Summary In October 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a regulation to revise a 2003 Clean Water Act rule governing waste discharges from large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). This action was necessitated by a 2005 federal court decision (Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005)), resulting from challenges brought by agriculture industry groups and environmental advocacy groups, that vacated parts of the 2003 rule and remanded other parts to EPA for clarification. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from any “point source” to waters of the United States unless authorized under a permit that is issued by EPA or a qualified state, and the act expressly defines CAFOs as point sources. Permits limiting the type and quantity of pollutants that can be discharged are derived from effluent limitation guidelines promulgated by EPA. The 2003 rule, updating rules that had been in place since the 1970s, revised the way in which discharges of manure, wastewater, and other process wastes from CAFOs are regulated, and it modified both the permitting requirements and applicable effluent limitation guidelines. It contained important first-time requirements: all CAFOs must apply for a discharge permit, and all CAFOs that apply such waste on land must develop and implement a nutrient management plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention
    This guidance is not a regulatory document and should be considered only informational and supplementary to the MPCA permits (such as the construction storm water general permit or MS4 permit) and local regulations. CHAPTER 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 7.00 POLLUTION PREVENTION..............................................................................................7.00-1 7.01 Nonstructural Practices: PLAN DEVELOPMENT.....................................................7.01-1 7.02 Nonstructural Practices: EMPLOYEE TRAINING....................................................7.02-1 7.03 Nonstructural Practices: INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................7.03-1 7.04 Nonstructural Practices: MONITORING AND EVALUATION ...............................7.04-1 7.20 GENERAL PRACTICES.....................................................................................................7.20-1 7.22 General Practices: SPILL PLANS...............................................................................7.22-1 7.23 General Practices: LITTER CONTROL .....................................................................7.23-1 7.24 General Practices: LAWN MANAGEMENT.............................................................7.24-1 7.25 General Practices: DUST CONTROL ........................................................................7.25-1 7.26 General Practices: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL...................................7.26-1 7.27 General Practices: STREET SWEEPING...................................................................7.27-1
    [Show full text]
  • WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality : Selected Pollutants
    WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: This book presents WHO guidelines for the protection of pub- lic health from risks due to a number of chemicals commonly present in indoor air. The substances considered in this review, i.e. benzene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, naphthalene, nitrogen dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (especially benzo[a]pyrene), radon, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethyl- ene, have indoor sources, are known in respect of their hazard- ousness to health and are often found indoors in concentrations of health concern. The guidelines are targeted at public health professionals involved in preventing health risks of environmen- SELECTED CHEMICALS SELECTED tal exposures, as well as specialists and authorities involved in the design and use of buildings, indoor materials and products. POLLUTANTS They provide a scientific basis for legally enforceable standards. World Health Organization Regional Offi ce for Europe Scherfi gsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Tel.: +45 39 17 17 17. Fax: +45 39 17 18 18 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.euro.who.int WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants The WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn Office, WHO Regional Office for Europe coordinated the development of these WHO guidelines. Keywords AIR POLLUTION, INDOOR - prevention and control AIR POLLUTANTS - adverse effects ORGANIC CHEMICALS ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE - adverse effects GUIDELINES ISBN 978 92 890 0213 4 Address requests for publications of the WHO Regional Office for Europe to: Publications WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for per- mission to quote or translate, on the Regional Office web site (http://www.euro.who.int/pubrequest).
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, Or on Track?
    EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track? James E. McCarthy Specialist in Environmental Policy Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy March 21, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41561 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track? Summary In the two years since Barack Obama was sworn in as President, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. Republican leaders have promised vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th Congress, and the House has already voted to overturn specific regulations and to limit the agency’s authority. Particular attention is being paid to the Clean Air Act, under which EPA has moved forward with the first federal controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and addressed conventional pollutants from a number of industries. Environmental groups disagree that the agency has overreached, and EPA itself maintains that its pace of regulation under the Clean Air Act is actually slower than the pace during the first years of the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. The agency states that critics’ focus on the cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs; and it maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ounce of Pollution Prevention Is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure: a Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990
    2418_historyfinal.qxd 2/3/03 4:38 PM Page 1 January 2003 National Pollution Prevention Roundtable An Ounce of Pollution Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure: A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990 - 2000 2418_historyfinal.qxd 2/3/03 4:38 PM Page 2 January 28, 2003 Acknowledgements NPPR would like to thank EPA’s John Cross, Acting Produced by the National Pollution Prevention Division Director for U.S. EPA’s Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) with funding provided by Division, Cindy McComas, Director - Minnesota the United States Environmental Protection Technical Assistance Program (MNTAP) and Ken Agency’s Office of Prevention Pesticides and Zarker, NPPR Board Chair (Texas Commission on Toxics’ Pollution Prevention Division and NPPR. Environmental Quality), for all of their support and input into this seminal document. NPPR hopes that this paper becomes the starting point as well as launching pad for further work measuring pollution prevention successes across the country and globally. This report was researched and prepared by: Steven Spektor, NPPR staff Natalie Roy, NPPR Executive Director P2 Results Advisory Group Co-Advisory Chair Cindy McComas (MNTAP) Co-Advisory Chair Ken Zarker (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) Melinda Dower, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP Terri Goldberg, Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) Tom Natan, National Environmental Trust (NET) On the cover: The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, The number in the report’s title, 167 billion pounds, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is the largest includes the data from the air, water, waste, combined membership organization in the United States and electricity column of Table 1.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollution Prevention
    Unit 4: Pollution Prevention TABLE OF CONTENTS UNIT SUMMARY 1 CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST 2 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 10 LESSON PLAN 10 LESSON 1: HOW TO PREVENT POLLUTION AT SCHOOL 11 LESSON 2: CLEAN AND GREEN 19 LESSON 3: PROMOTE POLLUTION PREVENTION AT SCHOOL! 25 MATERIALS NEEDED 26 Unit 4: Pollution Prevention Unit Summary This unit will show your green@school team how to ensure that your school is doing its best to prevent pollution on your school site. Students will learn ways to protect our shared air, water, and soil resources at school and at home. They will also evaluate your school’s practices around a number of potential sources of pollution. Actions 1. Become campus pollutant and chemical detectives—explore your Here are some actions you will take to classrooms, bathrooms, offices, janitorial closets, cupboards, the staff room, complete the green@school checklist and and even the cafeteria kitchen to find potential pollutants and chemicals. reduce your school’s environmental 2. Interview relevant school and district staff to find out what type of impact. products are purchased and how potential pollutants are disposed of or recycled. 3. Investigate existing indoor and outdoor cleaning practices, field management, and pest control methods at your school and evaluate safe practices and where there is room for improvement. 4. Improve existing or implement new pollution prevention practices at your school and/or recommend actions to your district. 5. Determine how well Boltage is working. Find out what alternative transportation practices are in place and how your school can further reduce vehicle emissions. Campaign Opportunities 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions
    Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions Policy HIGHLIGHTS Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions “OECD countries have struggled to adequately address diffuse water pollution. It is much easier to regulate large, point source industrial and municipal polluters than engage with a large number of farmers and other land-users where variable factors like climate, soil and politics come into play. But the cumulative effects of diffuse water pollution can be devastating for human well-being and ecosystem health. Ultimately, they can undermine sustainable economic growth. Many countries are trying innovative policy responses with some measure of success. However, these approaches need to be replicated, adapted and massively scaled-up if they are to have an effect.” Simon Upton – OECD Environment Director POLICY H I GH LI GHT S After decades of regulation and investment to reduce point source water pollution, OECD countries still face water quality challenges (e.g. eutrophication) from diffuse agricultural and urban sources of pollution, i.e. pollution from surface runoff, soil filtration and atmospheric deposition. The relative lack of progress reflects the complexities of controlling multiple pollutants from multiple sources, their high spatial and temporal variability, the associated transactions costs, and limited political acceptability of regulatory measures. The OECD report Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions (OECD, 2017) outlines the water quality challenges facing OECD countries today. It presents a range of policy instruments and innovative case studies of diffuse pollution control, and concludes with an integrated policy framework to tackle this challenge. An optimal approach will likely entail a mix of policy interventions reflecting the basic OECD principles of water quality management – pollution prevention, treatment at source, the polluter pays and the beneficiary pays principles, equity, and policy coherence.
    [Show full text]