The Water Framework Directive and the Nitrates Directive types of data that are needed
description
Transcript of The Water Framework Directive and the Nitrates Directive types of data that are needed
The Water Framework Directive and the Nitrates Directive
• types of data that are needed • possible implications for the agricultural monitoring • possible approaches and adaptations.
HELCOM and OSPAR reporting • what type of data are needed • and how can this reporting be supported by monitoring
activities
Session 4. Future requirementsSession 4. Future requirements
WFD objectivesWFD objectives
• protection of ALL water resources (ground water, reservoirs, rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters)
• prevention of further deterioration of surface waters
• rational use of water based on precautionary & “polluter pays” principle
• water management based on river basins
• getting the citizen involved more closely
• streamlining legislation (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive, and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive)
• "combined approach" of emission limit values and quality standards
• achieving good surface water status all over EU (15 yr)
Determined by chemical and ecological status
Chemical status: • concentrations of specific pollutants not
exceeding specified levelsEcological status: • expression of the quality of the structure and
functioning of aquatic ecosystems
Achieving ‘good surface water status’ all over EU before 2015
Achieving ‘good surface water status’ all over EU before 2015
Quality elements for ecological statusQuality elements for ecological status
Biological Quality Elements(e.g. macrobenthos, zooplankton, fish)
HydromorphologicalQuality Elements
Chemical and Physico-ChemicalQuality Elements
Identifying river basin districts
Characterization of surface water types
Time table for WFD 2003-2006 Time table for WFD 2003-2006
2003
Reference condition
Ecological quality classification
Identifying pressures
and impacts
Monitoring strategies, (Intercalibration, EQR)
and public consultation
2004
2005-6
Transposition in national legislation
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad
1
0
=Reference value
Parameter value
Setting the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) for Classification of surface waters
Setting the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) for Classification of surface waters
EQREQR
Biologicalquality
elements
Biologicalquality
elements
Assessment of goal achievement
Per StålnackeJordforsk - Norwegian Centre for Soil and Environmental Research
Helcom Recommendations and EU Directives
Helcom Recommendations and EU Directives
• All the Baltic Sea countries except Russia have obligations to implement the EU Directives and Regulations as well as HELCOM recommendations concerning agricultural, municipal and industrial nutrient load reductions
• Revision of the HELCOM targets/goals after PLC-4 in 2003
Agricultural nutrient emissions and losses to waters will be crucial parameters for the determination of the chemical/ecological status in river basins and in the RBMP
Agricultural nutrient emissions and losses to waters will be crucial parameters for the determination of the chemical/ecological status in river basins and in the RBMP
River basin district
Emissions of nitrogen to surface waters in the Baltic Sea basin in the 1980s
Source: Stålnacke, 1996
0
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
800 000
900 000
Forest Agriculturalland
Non-productiveopen land
Unclassifiedland
Inlandwaters
Pointsources
Tonn
es /y
r
Have the nutrient emissions from agriculture decreased in the Baltic Sea
basin?
Have the nutrient emissions from agriculture decreased in the Baltic Sea
basin?
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Denm
ark
Finla
nd
Swed
en
Ger
man
y
Poland
Estonia
Latvi
a
Lithuan
ia
Russia
ton
nes
/ y
r N
late 1980s1995
’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture
(SYKEI, 2002)
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Denm
ark
Finla
nd
Swed
en
Ger
man
y
Poland
Estonia
Latvi
a
Lithuan
ia
Russia
ton
nes
/ y
r N
late 1980s1995
’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture
(SYKE, 2002)
Monitored decrease in agricultural catchments
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Denm
ark
Finla
nd
Swed
en
Ger
man
y
Poland
Estonia
Latvi
a
Lithuan
ia
Russia
ton
nes
/ y
r N
late 1980s1995
’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture
(SYKE, 2002)
Modelled decrease
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Denm
ark
Finla
nd
Swed
en
Ger
man
y
Poland
Estonia
Latvi
a
Lithuan
ia
Russia
ton
nes
/ y
r N
late 1980s1995
’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture
(SYKE, 2002)
River catchment monitoring
Monitoring agricultural catchments
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
Denm
ark
Finla
nd
Swed
en
Ger
man
y
Poland
Estonia
Latvi
a
Lithuan
ia
Russia
ton
nes
/ y
r N
late 1980s1995
’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture
(SYKE, 2002) Extrapolation from other countries
Agricultural statistics
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Denm
ark
Finla
nd
Sweden
Germ
any
Poland
Estonia
Latvi
a
Lithuan
ia
Russia
ton
nes
/ yr
P
late 1980s1995
’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised phosphorus load from agriculture
(SYKE, 2002)
Have the rivers responded to the decreased nutrient emissions from
agriculture ?
Have the rivers responded to the decreased nutrient emissions from
agriculture ?
The large-scale experiment in EasternEurope
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996
Nit
rog
en f
erti
liser
ap
plic
atio
n (
kg/h
a)Large drop in commercial
fertiliser use (60-90%)
Latvia
Dramatic decline in livestock (50-75%)
0
500 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
2 000 000
2 500 000
19
61
19
66
19
71
19
76
19
81
19
86
19
91
19
96
Pig
s (
No
. of
he
ad
s)
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Daugava and Lielupe River (Latvia)
Tisza (Hungary)
Emajogi (Estonia)
In addition: literature review
Strong evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Hungary
(Stålnacke et al)
Nitrate-N in Tisza River at Tiszaziget
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0Ja
n.8
7
Jan
.88
Jan
. 89
Jan
. 90
Jan
.91
Jan
.92
Jan
.93
Jan
.94
Jan
.95
Jan
.96
Jan
.97
Jan
.98
(mg
/l)
Some evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Estonia Loigu et al (in prep)
Total-N and nitrate-N in Emajogi River at Tartu
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
Jan
.87
Jan
.88
Jan
. 89
Jan
. 90
Jan
.91
Jan
.92
Jan
.93
Jan
.94
Jan
.95
Jan
.96
Jan
.97
Jan
.98
(mg
/l)
Weak evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Latvia Stålnacke et al (manuscript)
Nitrate-N in Daugava River at mouth
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
Ja
n.8
7
Ja
n.8
8
Ja
n.
89
Ja
n. 9
0
Ja
n.9
1
Ja
n.9
2
Ja
n.9
3
Ja
n.9
4
Ja
n.9
5
Ja
n.9
6
Ja
n.9
7
Ja
n.9
8
(mg
/l)
Weak evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Latvia Stålnacke et al (manuscript)
Nitrate-N in Lielupe River at Berze
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jan
.87
Jan
.88
Jan
. 89
Jan
. 90
Jan
.91
Jan
.92
Jan
.93
Jan
.94
Jan
.95
Jan
.96
Jan
.97
Jan
.98
mg
/ L
No/weak evidence of riverine response of phosphorus in Estonia Stålnacke et al (in prep)
Phosphate-P in Emajogi River at Tartu
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Ja
n.8
7
Ja
n.8
8
Ja
n.
89
Ja
n. 9
0
Ja
n.9
1
Ja
n.9
2
Ja
n.9
3
Ja
n.9
4
Ja
n.9
5
Ja
n.9
6
Ja
n.9
7
Ja
n.9
8
(µg
/l)
Evidence of riverine response of phosphorus in Latvia Stålnacke et al (manuscript)
Phosphorus in Daugava River at mouth
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Ja
n.8
7
Ja
n.8
8
Ja
n.
89
Ja
n. 9
0
Ja
n.9
1
Ja
n.9
2
Ja
n.9
3
Ja
n.9
4
Ja
n.9
5
Ja
n.9
6
Ja
n.9
7
Ja
n.9
8
(µg
/l)
Reported trends in nutrient concentrations in Eastern Europe Stålnacke et al (submitted)
River and drainage area Parame-ter
Trend Reference
Kurna 23 km2
N & P Loigu & Vassiljev, 1997
Kasari 3640 km2
N & P Loigu et al., 1995
Porijõgi River 258 km2
N & P Mander et al. 2000
5 Latvian Rivers 87,900 km2
N & P (N) (P)
Stålnacke et al., 2002 (submitted)
Vltava River, 12,900 km2
N Prochàzkovà, et al., 1996
Morava River, N&P Berankova and Ungerman (1996)
Tisza River, 157,000 km2
N Õlah & Õlah, 1996
Vistula and Oder Rivers 194,00 km2 and 108,000 km2
N Tonderski, 1997
Various rivers 1130 km2
N & P Tumas , 2000
Ondava river 1089 km2
N Pekárová & Pekár, 1996
Groundwater table
Loss bysoil erosion
Loss bysurface
run-off
Atmospheric deposition
Direct input
Losses bytile drainage flow
Losses viagroundwater
Losses viainterflow
Rootzone leaching
Surfacewater
The most important ‘hydrological’ processes/pathways as regards nitrogen and phosphorus losses from diffuse sources to surface waters (e.g. first-order streams).
Source: Borgvang and Selvik (2000).
Pathways of nitrogen in Denmark (Grant et al., 1997)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sandy soils Clay soils
kg/h
a
Nitrogen input
N in yield
N losses from root-zone
N losses in streams
Grant et al (1997)
Hydrological response to various tile drainage
spacings (Deelstra et al., 1998)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
time(hrs)
Dis
ch
arg
e(m
m)
5 m 10m 20m
Norway
The Baltic states
Huge retention in first-order streamsVagtad et al., 1999)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Kahametsa Berze
mg
/ L
nit
rate
-N
Tile drain outletsMouth of catchment
The Rothamsted experiment (UK)
(Addiscott, 1988)
0
10
20
30
40
50
1870 1915
Year
Nit
rate
leac
hin
g (
kg/h
a yr
)
No crops, No fertilisers
Factors that contribute to the delay in riverine responses
• Wet soil conditions (e.g. poorly drained soils, groundwater table)
• Long residence times for water in soil and or/catchment (e.g hydrological pathways, tile drain spacing)
• High carbon content in soils (organic matter)
• High soil pH (ammonia volatilisation)
• Natural variability (e.g., hydrometeorological variation)
Observed and flow-normalised nitrate-N+nitrite-N loads in
the Rönneå River (S Sweden) Source: Anders Grimvall
Natural variation in nutrient losses may impede the detection of existing trends
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
NO
3-N
+ N
O2-
N lo
ad (
kg/y
ear)
Observed Normalised
Observed and flow-normalised nitrate-N load on the Elbe
River at Schnackenburg. After Hussain et al (in prep.)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
Lo
ad
(k
to
nn
es
/ y
r)
FlownormalisedObserved
Natural variation in nutrient losses may impede the detection of existing trends
Nutrient levels have in some cases responded and in others not responded to the decrease in agricultural emissions
Extensive cuts in nutrient inputs do not necessarily cause an immediate response, particularly in medium-sized and large catchment areas
Hydrological conditions and hydrological pathways are important for the understanding of the retention of nutrient and thus for riverine response to changes in agricultural emissions
Separation of ‘natural’ and ‘human impact’ nutrient-loss variability is important
Assessment of goal achievementsCONCLUSIONS
Assessment of goal achievementsCONCLUSIONS
CONCLUDING REMARKCONCLUDING REMARK
’There is a need to further develop methodologies by which to measure diffuse agricultural loading, as well as generally accepted methodologies for determining discharges/losses from diffuse sources into surface waters’Laane et al., 2002