Implementation of Control Strategies: Lessons of Experience
The foregoing examples demonstrate that interventions to protect health that use chemical pollution control can have an attractive cost-benefit ratio. The Japan Environment Agency (1991) estimates the national economic impact of pollution control legislation and associated interventions. During the 1960s and early 1970s, when the government made many of the major decisions about intensified pollution control interventions, Japan's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was growing at an annual rate of about 10 percent, similar to that of the rapidly industrializing countries in the early 21st century. At that time, Japan's economic policies aimed at eliminating bottlenecks to high economic growth, and in the mid 1960s, industry was spending less than ¥50 billion per year on pollution control equipment. By 1976, this spending had increased to almost ¥1 trillion per year. The ¥5 trillion invested in pollution control between 1965 and 1975 accounted for about 0.9 percent of the increase in GDP per capita during this period. The Japan Environment Agency concluded that the stricter environmental protection legislation and associated major investment in pollution control had little effect on the overall economy, but that the resulting health benefits are likely cumulative.
Air
The broadest analysis of the implementation of control strategies for air pollution was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the late 1990s (Krupnick and Morgenstern 2002). The analysis developed a hypothetical scenario for 1970 to 1990, assuming that the real costs for pollution control during this period could be compared with the benefits of reduced mortality and morbidity and avoided damage to agricultural crops brought about by the reduction of major air pollutant levels across the country during this period. The study estimated reduced mortality from dose-response relationships for the major air pollutants, assigning the cost of each death at the value of statistical life and the cost of morbidity in relation to estimated health service utilization. The study used a variety of costing methods to reach the range of likely present values presented in table 43.4. It assumed that the reduction of air pollution resulted from the implementation of the federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and associated state-level regulations and air pollution limits.
[Table .]
The analysis showed a dramatically high cost-benefit ratio and inspired debate about the methodologies used and the results. One major criticism was of the use of the value of statistical life for each death potentially avoided by the reduced air pollution. A recalculation using the life-years-lost method reduced the benefits for deaths caused by PM from US$16,632 billion to US$9,100 billion (Krupnick and Morgenstern 2002). The recalculated figure is still well above the fifth percentile estimate of benefits and does not undermine the positive cost-benefit ratio reported. Thus, if a developing country were to implement an appropriate control strategy for urban air pollution, it might derive significant economic benefits over the subsequent decades. The country's level of economic development, local costs, and local benefit valuations will be important for any cost-benefit assessment. WHO's (2000) air quality guidelines are among the documents that provide advice on analytical approaches.
Water
We were unable to find an analysis for water similar to the broad analysis presented for air, but the examples of water pollution with mercury, cadmium, and arsenic described earlier indicate the economic benefits that can be reaped from effective interventions against chemical water pollution. Since the pollution disease outbreaks of mercury and cadmium poisoning in Japan, serious mercury pollution situations have been identified in Brazil, China, and the Philippines, and serious cadmium pollution has occurred in Cambodia, China, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and Thailand. Arsenic in groundwater is an ongoing, serious problem in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal and a less serious problem in a number of other countries.
WHO has analyzed control strategies for biological water pollution and water and sanitation improvements in relation to the Millennium Development Goals (Hutton and Haller 2004). The analysis demonstrated the considerable benefits of water and sanitation improvements: for every US$1 invested, the economic return was in the range of US$5 to US$28 for a number of intervention options. Careful analysis of the same type is required for populations particularly vulnerable to chemical water pollution to assess whether control of chemical pollution can also yield significant benefits.
