COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 17.07.2002
COM(2002) 407 final
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
Synthesis from year 2000 Member States reports
2REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
Synthesis from year 2000 Member States reports
The information contained in this report is without prejudice to any further
Commission assessment in the framework of infringement proceedings
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A. General C ontext ........................................................................................................... 3
B. State of implementati on of the Directive ..................................................................... 7
B.1. Overview of exhaus tivity of reports............................................................................. 8
B.2. Water Quality............................................................................................................. 1 0
B.2.1 Water monitoring networks........................................................................................ 10B.2.2 Results of water quality survey .................................................................................. 11B.2.3 Forecast of water quality evolution............................................................................ 14B.3. Vulnerable zones desi gnation and revision................................................................ 14
B.4. Action Programmes Assessment................................................................................ 16B.5. A preliminary assessment of the economics of Acti on Programmes......................... 22
C. THE ACTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION .......................................... 28D. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 31
3INTRODUCTION
Council Directive 91/676/EEC (hereafte r referred to as the Nitrates  Directive) concerning the
protection of waters against pollution caused by  nitrates from agricultural sources was adopted
on 12 December 1991. A sister Directive 91/271/ EEC (Urban Waste Water Treatment) was
adopted on 21 May 1991.
Article 10 of the Nitrates Directive requires that Member States submit a report to the
Commission every four years following its  notification. This report should include
information pertaining to codes of good farm practice, designated n itrate vulnerable zones
(NVZs), results of water monitoring and a summary of relevant aspects of actions
programmes for vulnerable zones.
This Commission report (required by article 11) is a synthesis of the information transmitted
during 2000-2001 by Member States (2nd reporting exercise). It is completed by aggregated
maps and analysis of pressure from nitrogen from agricultural sources in the EU maps, ofpresent NVZs and by a comparative table on the main content and deficiencies of the firstaction programmes (1996-1999).
This report was prepared in orde r to provide an overview of th e current situation with regard
to the directive together with possible pathways for the future. It illustrates, with some casestudies, the positive effects of some farm practices on the quality of water. However, it isemphasised that there is a considerable time lag between improvements at farm and soil leveland a response in waterbody quality.
A. G
ENERAL CONTEXT
Increasing public concerns about steadily increasin g nitrate concentrations in drinking water
resources, and disturbance of a quatic ecosystems by eutrophication1, ( the best known
examples being the south-eastern North Sea, Brittany “Abers” or the Adriatic Sea and Venicelagoons, where algae blooms have been occurri ng more and more frequently from the 70’s ),
were the trigger for action to improve water quality.
MAP I. Satellite picture of EU seas chlorophyll- a concentrations. Average summer 2000. The
red and yellow areas show strong phytoplanct on development, one of the most visible
symptoms of eutrophication, with potential adve rse effects (toxic dinoflagellates, oxygen
depletion, changes in bottom flora and fauna, etc).
N.B.: Interferences of humid and suspended matters near estuaries have to be taken into account
In agriculture, the trend towards greater inte nsification, and higher  productivity during much
of the past fifty years, was accompanied by a significant increase in fertiliser use and, as
shown by fig. I, particularly inorganic nitrogen use.
                                                
1Excessive growth of algae and plants, with potentia l adverse effects on biodiversity or human uses of
water. The precise definition in the Directive (art. 2.i ) is “Enrichment of water by nitrogen compounds,causing an accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life to produce an undesirabledisturbance to the balance of organisms present in the water and to the quality of the water concerned”.
4FIG.1 Mineral N fertilisers consumption – E.U .15 Member States, from 1930 to 1999 Source
EFMA (Millions of tons of nitrogen per year).
Inorganic N use reached a peak of 11 millions tons annually in the mid 1980s before falling
somewhat to approximately 9- 10 Millions tons more recently.
Animal numbers increased during most of this  period , contributing to a greater overall N
burden through manure. Crop pr oduction also increased. Changes in agricultural policy
leading to milk quotas in 1984, and suckler co w and ewe premium quotas in 1992, have since
stabilised or contributed to a reduction in cattle and sheep numbers, but both the pig andpoultry sectors have continued to expand. In addition, animal num bers on individual farms are
expanding and over 40% of the E.U.’s dairy herd  is held on farms of more than 50 cows while
the vast majority of the breeding pi g herd contain more than 100 sows.
Globally the nitrogen "pressure" on EU agricultural soils from animal husbandry (mainly
cows, pigs, poultry and sheep), also is appr oximately 8 millions tons annually spread on
agricultural soils (MAP III), so the total diffuse nitrogen "pressure" from agriculture r eaches
almost 18 millions tons (MAP IV).
During this 50 years period, a reduction of perman ent grassland and of “ buffer” areas (ditches
and hedges, wetlands, etc.) which favours erosion, run-off and quick er drainage of nutrients to
the aquatic ecosystems and to groundwaters ha s been a feature of changing farming.
In France, 67% of wetlands have disappeared within the last century. The same phenomena
occurred since the 1950s for 84% of peat soils  in the United Kingdom, and 57% of German
and 60% of Spanish wetlands, due to agricultural drainage, tree planting and landfilling forurban purposes. Such wetlands are able, through natural denitrification and plant assimilation,to remove from water up to 2 kgs Nitrogen /hectare x day (almost 0.8 Ton N/hectare each
year)(Fleischer et al, 1997). Their loss, th erefore, is detriment al to water quality.
Agricultural policy has responded to  some of these trends prin cipally through the introduction
of agri-environment measures in 1992 and their expansion in the Agenda 2000 CAP-
REFORM.
Finally, greater density of livestock buildings, and manure storage and sp reading, has resulted
in strong ammonia volatilis ation, and atmospheric depos ition on neighbouring soils and
waters with values up to 50-60 kgs of nitrogen per hectare per year being recorded in regions
with intensive livestock activities (EMEP, 1999; RIVM, 2000). Map II. shows average N inland deposition.024681012
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995N consumption (Mt/year )
5As a marine example, on th e North Sea a direct depositi on up to 0.3 millions Tons N/year
(20% of the aquatic inputs from riverine countries) has been estimated (EMEP, 1999).
The following drawing summarises all the “pathways” of loss of nitrogen to the aquatic
environment, including the "soil / air / soil & water" cycle:
Greenhouse
gas effect
Ammonia & Nitrate leaching
Deposition
DrainageAmmonia &
Nitrous oxideAcidification
Ammonia
Ammonia & Nitrate leachingRun off
Nutrient overload
NPKSoil/Air/Water
The pathways of agricultural N
Groundwaters
pollutionEutrophication
FIG. 2 The agricultural nitrogen air/soil/w ater exchanges and possible impacts.
6POSSIBLE IMPACTS:
- A part of this nitrogen loss (50-80%) is recycled to water and soils, causing
groundwaters enrichment, eutrophication of surf ace waters, in synergy with phosphorus, and
contributing to “acid rain” damages on terrestrial flora and soils; another part, up to 20-
50%, is “denitrified” into inert nitrogen gas ( and some N2O with a greenhouse gas effect), by
soil and sediment bacteria, or by natural chem ical reduction in cert ain types of soils and
groundwaters.
- Mineral fertilisers directly introduce a mmonium and nitrates into groundwaters by
leaching, and into surface waters by run-off and subsoil “drainage”. The extent of this
depends on ground conditions at time of spreading.
- Organic N (in manure) uses the same “ pathways”, plus additional losses to the
atmosphere in the form of ammonia (vola tilisation) and N2O (incomplete denitrification).
These range from 10 % to 30% of the initial N excreted by animals, and are re-deposited on
the soil and waterbodies in rain (wet deposition)  or directly (dry atmospheric deposition).
MAP II. Average nitrogen atmospheric deposition - (kg N/ha/year).
MAP III. Livestock manure nitrogen pressure (per type of animals).
The total nitrogen “pressure” on agricultural soils of Europe is summarised in MAP IV, which
also indicates the origin of the different nitrogen inputs to soil:
MAP IV. Total nitrogen pressure from agric ulture, air deposition and biological
fixation.
In order to limit the losses linked to agricultural activities, the main types of actions that the
Nitrates directive promotes (in a nnexes II-codes of good practice, and III-actions programmes)
simultaneously concern:
– Crop rotations, soil winter cover, catch crops, in order to limit leaching during the wet
seasons.
– Use of fertilisers and manure,  with a balance between crop needs, N inputs and soil
supply, frequent manure and soil analysis, mandatory fertilisati on plans and general
limitations per crop for both mineral and organic N fertilisation.
– Appropriate N spreading calendars and sufficient manure storage, for availability only
when the crop needs nutrients, and good spreading practices.
– “Buffer”effect of non-fertilised grass strips and hedges along watercourses and ditches.
– Good management and restri ctions of cultivation on steeply sloping soils, and of
irrigation.
The nitrogen surplus (difference between  inputs and outputs by crops, meat or milk
production), can be a good indicator of potentia l losses to environment, at farm, local or
7regional level. A big heterogene ity can be noticed between EU regions, as shown by MAP IV
bis (Eurostat, focus N° 8, y. 2000, from 1997 Member  States statistics) with surplus ranging
from 0 up to 300 kg N/ha, the maximum being reach ed in areas with an excessive density of
livestock breeding. But high N surplus, and associated risks of losses to water, can also befound in regions of intensive fruit and vege table cropping, or ce reals and maïze with
unbalanced fertilisation and prac tices favouring N losses (such as bare soils in winter).
MAP IV bis. NITROGEN SURPLUS FROM AGRICULTURE IN EU REGIONS
B. S
TATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE
The “Nitrates” Directive “process”  consists of 5 steps, following its transposition in each
Member State (the latecomers for complete  transposition were IT, EL and BE in 1998-99,
instead of 1993):
Detection of polluted or threatened waters (N)
Human Health Protection
Living resources and aqua tic ecosystems protection
Eutrophication prevention(1 year monitoring)Designation of “vulne rable zones” (NVZs)
– Areas of agricultural land
– with significant contribution to  N pollution at watershed level
Code(s) of good agricultural practice
(on all M. S. Territory – Voluntary)
Action Programs within NVZs
– Code(s) of good agricultura l practice becomes mandatory
– Other measures (nutrient balance, manure storage,
spreading < 170 kg N organic/hectare/year)
National monitoring (200-2000 points/M.S.) and reporting
Every 4 years on /g183 NO 3 concentrations
/g183 Eutrophication (algae)
/g58 Assessment of Action Programs impact
/g58 Revision  of NVZs and Action Programs1
2
3
4
5
8Fig. 3 A ssociated calendar for implementation:
1997 1993 2001 2005
Years: 1992 2004 1996 2000Water
Monitoring12.2001 Revision NVZs
2nd Action Programme12.1997 Revision NVZs
1st Action Programme
12 12 98 02
210 kg N 170 kg NArt. 10
Member States
Reports
Elaboration
ActionProgrammeTransposition
12.93 Designation
of vulnerablezones (NVZs)
Code of good
practicesAdoption ofDirective 25/12/91
This calendar shows the cyclic (4 years) process of the Directive, with a first Action
Programme between 1996 and 1999, and a second reinforced one for 2000-2003 if the impact
of the first one is not sufficient for significant improvement of water quality.
B.1. Overview of exhaustivity of reports.
The synthesis of year 2000 Member States reports (2nd monitoring and end of First Action
Programme) shows the following results:
All Member-states, except UK, have transmitted a formal report to the European Commission,
between summer 2000 (the legal deadline) and spring 2001. UK had not sent its report 1 year
after the deadline.
The following table summarises the compliance of information received with the requirements
of annex V of the directive, and the reporting guidelines elaborated in the frame of the“Nitrates” Committee (article  9 of Directive 676/91).
9Table I . Conclusive assessment of quality of the information (= compliance) in the
Member States reports for the 2nd reporting period on wat er monitoring, designation of
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ), water quality forecast, agricultural pressure, andAction Programmes.
Member
StateReport
SubmittedWater monitoring data Reporting
on NVZdesignationForecast
On water
qualityAgricultur
al dataAction
Programmes
4
Ground and
surface freshCoastal
and marine
Belgium /g74/g74  2/g75/g75 /g75/ /g74/g75 //g74 /g74
Denmark /g75 / /g74 /g74/g74 /g74  1/g74/g74 /g74
Germany /g74 /g75 / /g74 /g75/g74  1/g74/g74 /g74
Greece /g74/g76  3/g76 /g74/g76/g75 /g74
Spain /g74/g74/g76 /g74 /g76 /g75 / /g76 /g74
France /g74/g74  2/g75 /g74/g74/g74 /g75 / /g74
Ireland /g74/g74/g74In
Process/g76/g74-
Italy /g75 / /g74 /g76 2,3/g76 /g75/g76/g76 /g74
Luxembourg /g74/g74-- /g74 1/g76/g75 / /g74 /g74
Netherlands /g74/g74/g74 /g74  1/g76/g74 /g74
Austria /g74/g74-- /g74 1/g74/g76 /g74
Portugal /g74 /g75 / /g76 3/g76/g74 /g74 /g75 / /g76 /g74
Finland /g74/g74/g74 /g74  1/g76/g75 / /g76 /g74
Sweden /g74 /g74 /g74 /g74/g76/g76 /g75 / /g74
UK /g76/g76  3/g76In
Process/g76/g75 / /g74/g76  / /g75
1. MS applying an action programme on their whole territory ( Article 3.5 of the Directive) [ /g74: good
2. Monitoring of deep wells [ /g75: moderate
3.Data provided only in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones [ /g76: insufficient
4. The AP Quality assessment is presented in Table IV
The reports provided by a majority of Member States are generally complete, although
some gaps are to be found on water quality results (e.g. eutrophication of coastal waters)or forecast, and on precise agricultural data, such as nitrogen use in vulnerable zones.
10B.2. Water Quality
B.2.1 Water monitoring networks
Networks of sampling stations have to cover both all main gr oundwaters (even if not used for
drinking water), rivers; lakes a nd dams, coastal and mari ne waters, as required by art. 6 of the
Directive. Criteria to monitor are nitrogen (ammonia, total N, nitrates) and eutrophication
(chlorophyll, algae blooms, macrophytes deve lopment and species shift…). Generally
Member States have establishe d networks of hundreds or thousa nds of sampling stations (~1
for 100-200 km2 seems reasonable), which give a g ood overview of water status (1996-98)
and trends, by comparison with 1992-94, when the first survey was effectively made.
The network has generally to  be completed by an " operational " network allowing assessment
of action programmes (cf. Art. 5.6 of the Directive), dea ling with monitoring of N in soil or
at rootzone level, in pilot fields, farms or  small watersheds, and inside vulnerable zones.
It can be pointed out that:– No formal report was transmitted by UK befo re July 2001 (one year after the legal
deadline). Only some results for vulnerable areas were available.
– In Germany the network is unbalanced a nd incomplete, focusing only on areas of
polluted groundwaters, and limited to onl y 10 stations for surface waters.
– In Greece and Portugal the groundwater netw ork is limited to designated vulnerable
zones, hampering a periodical  evaluation of designation.
– These networks are also geographically unba lanced in Italy, where they don't cover
the South and in Luxembourg.
– For groundwaters, drinking water catchment s were often over represented (F, EL,
IRL, B,…). Deep sampling with natural chemical denitrification (NL, B/Flanders…),or in captive waters (south-west F, B…) sometimes biased results.
– 12 countries succeeded in reporting georeferen ced data in a format compatible with
EC Geographic Information System (GIS), using harmonised codes and
classifications as developed by the "repor ting guidelines". So aggregated maps of
water quality at EU level can be drawn. Nevertheless the numerous gaps concerningeutrophication criteria (except DK, EL, FI N, IRL, L, PT, SW), and maximum
nitrogen levels in surface waters, and all types of data on coastal (except IRL, DK,NL, FIN, SW) and marine waters have ha mpered drafting any meaningful EU map
from reports on these items.
The synthetic water quality maps presented concern:
/g183 Average nitrates content of  groundwaters (1996-98) - MAP V
/g183 Average nitrates content of surface waters (1996-98) - MAP VI
/g183 Trends on these 2 parameters between  the first (1992-94)  and second (1996-98)
monitoring periods - MAPS VII (groundwaters) and V III (surf ace waters)
11N.B.:
– It should be noted that France and Italy in cluded in their reports aggregated results
but without precise location, so  a different representation sy stem had to be used (pie
charts, at "department" level for France) fo r these Member States. This is a serious
drawback to proper comparisons within these Member States.
– 7 Member States (I, IRL, E, B, L, UK,  and PT outside vulnerable zones) did not
provide data on trends for groundwaters . For surface waters 7 Member States (I, E,
EL, FIN, SW, UK and PT) did not provide data. Therefore these "trend" aggregated
maps are restricted to just 8 Member States.
– Detailed maps for each Member State have  been grouped in a digitised atlas (CD-
ROM) of about 100 maps (background of rive rs, watersheds and land use, location
and type of monitoring stations, nitr ates in water-eutrophication, extension of
vulnerable zones), at the scale of 1/ 1.000.000, both with agricultural data including
Nitrogen surpluses, and a synthetic eval uation of their design ation of vulnerable
zones and of the content of their action programmes.
B.2.2 Results of water quality survey
Groundwaters
/g183 Synthetic MAP V shows that gl obally about 20% of EU monito ring stations suffer nitrates
concentrations over 50 mg NO 3/l, and 40% over 25 mg NO 3/l in 1996-98. It should be
noted that, for complete accuracy in these figures, a better balance of the density ofmonitoring stations between polluted and unpolluted areas would be necessary.
/g183 The comparison with 1992-94 (MAP VI) shows, as predominant trends:
– a decrease in Finland, and in the south and east of France
– stability in Denmark, and western Austria
– contrasted results ( both decreases and increases) in the Netherlands, Greece
(vulnerable zones) and Germany
– an increase for the north and west of France, north-eastern Austria and south
Sweden.
Surface Waters
/g183 Globally more than 60% of monitoring st ations (MAP VII) show average nitrates
concentration far under 10 mg/l of nitrates, a nd this rate reaches 90% in mountainous areas
(alpine regions, boreal forests, French "Massif Central, Corsica, etc.).
Luxembourg, Belgium (Wallonia), Ireland (south- west), and specific areas of Spain (north-
east) and Austria (north-east) show mainly values between 10 and 25 mg NO3/l, indicating
already considerable N fluxes to lakes and s eas, and important potentia l eutrophication effects.
This is also the situation for Germany (but with only 10 sampling points) and Italy (allmonitored points in the north).
12Very high values, over 25 and even 40 mg/l are often met in agricultura l plains of Denmark,
Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), west of France, Spain and Greece.
/g183 The comparison with the 1992-94 surveys shows (MAP V III):
– a slight decrease in eastern Denmark, south-west France, and Belgium
(Wallonia). But the part of  climatic conditions in this decrease is difficult to
appreciate, and the influence of improve d wastewater treatment (e.g. for large
rivers) has rarely been evaluated.
– A stability in western Austria and Denmark, and in Germany.
– Contrasted results in the Netherlands, in Ireland, and in western and north-
eastern parts of France.
– An increase for centre-west part of France and north-eastern Austria.
13Table II general trends in nitrate concentrations in ground water, surface water
and coastal/marine waters per Member Stat e, between the first (1992-94) and second
(1996-98) monitoring exercises.
Member State Trends
Ground water Surface waters Coastal/marine waters
Belgium n.d. /g245 n.d.
Denmark /g245 /g245 to /g247 /g247
Germany /g246/g247 /g245 /g247
Greece /g246/g247 n.d. n.d.
Spain n.d. n.d. n.d.
France /g246 /g246to/g246/g247 n.d.
Ireland n.d. /g246/g247 n.d.
Italy n.d. n.d. n.d.
Luxembourg n.d. /g246 n.a.
Netherlands /g246/g247 /g246/g247 /g247
Austria /g245 /g245 n.a.
Portugal /g245 n.d. n.d.
Finland /g245 to /g247 n.d. /g245
Sweden /g246 n.d. n.d.
UK n.d. n.d. n.d.
Total /g245 to /g246/g245  to /g247/g245  to/g247
/g245= stable; /g246 = increase; /g247 = decrease; /g246 /g247= contrasted.
n.a. = not applicable; n.d. = no da ta provided in year 2000 report.
Conclusions on water quality
The delays both in nitrates transfer from soil to groundwaters (2-3 years for shallow waters in
sandy soils, 10-40 years for deep waters in chalk limestone), inadequate designation ofvulnerable zones by the majority of Member States in areas exposed to high nitrogen pressure,
and insufficient measures generally applied in the first action programme, have resulted in ahigh and stagnant level of n itrate concentrations in groundwat ers, and about 40% of EU area
is of concern on this aspect. Globally, positiv e (encouraging) signals on shallow groundwaters
can be found in Denmark, Portugal (Algarve), Germany (Bade-Württemberg), France (north-
east). For surface waters a decreasing trend has been noted in several countries (see synthetic
table below), but complementary data would be needed to assess the influence of climaticconditions and urban waste water treatment improvement in this evolution.
14B.2.3 Forecast of water quality evolution:
Only Denmark, Germany, France, Aust ria, Portugal and Belgium (Wallonia)  provided a
forecast of the water quality. France and Austri a made some remarks,  but no scientific or
mathematical basis was given. Sweden reported preliminary results of a specific monitoringprogramme aiming at assessing the run off of fertiliser-nitrogen into drains and watercourses.
- Belgium (Wallonia) investigated the nutrient transport to and in the aquifer for the
Vulnerable Zone of Crétacé de Hesbaye. On the basis of mathematical modelling it
will take more then 15 years before the nitrates in the Hesbaye aquifer will stabilise.
- Denmark presented a forecast on the basis of  the reduction of N-loads and the general
observation that 30-40% of fertiliser-nitrogen runs off to the surface water. A
reduction of 90 to 100.000 Tons of N losses to  water, compared with 1987 levels is
expected around 2003.
- The German forecast is based on very gene ral figures of inflow times in the various
river basins, depending on ra infall, soil structure etc. Germany uses the “WEKA”
model to predict such inflow times. This model was not presented in the MemberState report.
- Portugal applied a “Root Zone Water Quality Model” to simulate the effects of a
reduction of the nitrogen dose and the irrigation rate on the leaching of nitrates fromsoil to waters. The resulting optimisation would allow a reduction of the nitrogeninput by 50% for various crops.
It can be concluded that the Member State re ports clearly show that they face difficulties in
preparing a forecast of the impact of th eir Action Programmes on the water quality.
In order to better comply with this "forecast" requirement (annex V of the Directive) and with
the need for tools for the prediction of th e impact of economic or preventive measures,
reliable and practical models will be required to correlate the main steps and factors.
Besides the national attempts mentioned above, the Commission is  promoting in its research
key actions on "sustainable water" and "sustainable agriculture", large scale projects on theseitems such as "binoculars", "streams', "Elois e" and "Euroharp" (com parative testing of 10
models for assessing diffuse lo sses of nitrogen, in 18 pilot wa tersheds of Europe). Exchange
on existing models and harmonisation need a st rong acceleration, which will be also promoted
by the Water Framework Directive (20/2000/EC).
B.3. Vulnerable zones designation and revision
The map n° IX shows the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones which were formally designated (blue)
and drafted (pink) by the Member States by Spring 2001, compared with the EC self-
assessment (1999-2000) of potentia l complementary areas (brown), following a review of
available information on waters with excessive nitrate concentrations, or threatened witheutrophication. It is stressed that the EC assessmen t is not exhaustive, due to lack of data on
water quality available for so me countries (e.g. UK, Irl, It, Pt) in this period.
6 Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finla nd, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands)
apply article 3.5 of the Directive, as their whol e territory is covered by an Action Programme.
15Table III presents an overview of the area (x 1000 km2) of designated vulnerable zones per
Member State (2001), the drafte d one, and the potential one detected by the EC ( from a
review of available information up to end 2000 on N pressure and water quality) , compared
with the total Member State area.
Member State Total
areaArea NVZ Additional  area NVZ
(x 1000
km2)% Drafted by
Member States% EC assessment
potential
Areas**%
Belgium 31 2.7 9 2.9 9 15.9 51
Denmark 43 43 100*
Germany 356 356 100*
Greece132 13.9 11 9.0 7
Spain 504 32 6 70.6 14
France 539 240.9 48 37.1 7
Ireland 69 0 0 6.5 9
Italy 301 5.8 2 88.7 29
Luxembourg 3 3 100*
Netherlands 37 37 100*
Austria 84 84 100*
Portugal 91 0.9 1 12.2 13
Finland 334 334 100*
Sweden 448 41 9 43.7 10
UK 244 7.8 3 19.2 8
TOTAL EU-15 3,216 1,202 38 2.9 0.1 303 9
* countries beneficiating of an Action Prog ramme on their whole territory (art. 3.5 of
the Directives)
** not exhaustive, due to severe lack of water quality data available from several
countries (e.g.UK, Ireland, Italy, Portug al) at the time of EC assessment (1999-2000)
The total area of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (and countries which apply an action
programme on their whole territory) covers currently 38% of the EU-15 area (1.2million km
2 of the total of 3.2 million km2). However, based on the EC assessment, this
area could increase to at least 46% (1.5 million km2) of the total EU-15 area, as
illustrated by the following map.
16The total area of the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Belgium  (18%) as proposed by the Member
State is far less than the total area of concern (60%) deducted by the EC. from availablemonitoring data on water quality, mainly in Flanders. Wallonia is currently formalising an
important extension (2001). France  already designated 45% of its area as Nitrate Vulnerable
Zone, but this would have to be nearly 50% according to the EC assessment. Also for Spain,
Italy, Portugal and Sweden,  significant potential areas have been detected by the EC,
whereas these Member states did not  propose any extension at all. For Greece  the newly
designated (2001) vulnerable zones roughl y correspond to 70% of the EC assessment.
Ireland, UK and Belgium (Flanders) recently declared (2001) that a very substantial
extension of designation would occur in the sh ort term (2002).
MAP IX : Overview of the area of  designated vulnerable zones in the EU (blue) the
drafted one (pink), and the potential one detected by the EC (brown).
B.4. Action Programmes Assessment
Nearly 200 various Action Progra mmes have now been published in  Europe. It is not possible
to assess precisely each of them in this synt hetic report. A selection representative of each
Member State has been used for comp arison in diverse climatic conditions.
17Table IV gives an overview of the level of compliance of exis ting Action Programmes (in 1999-2000) concerning the 12 main topic s mentioned
in annex II and III of the Directive.
Measure B-Flan. B-Wal. DK D EL ES F I LUX NL A P FIN S UK
Period of prohibition of fertiliser
application/g75 / /g74/g75  / /g76/g75  / /g74/g75  / /g76/g75/g76 /g75 / /g76/g76/g75/g75 /g75 / /g76/g75  / /g76/g74/g75 / /g74/g75
Restrictions for application on
steeply slopping ground/g75 / /g74/g75  / /g76/g75  / /g76/g75  / /g76/g76/g76 /g75 / /g74/g75/g75 / /g76/g76/g76/g74 /g75/g76/g76
Restrictions for application on
soaked, frozen or snow-coveredsoils/g74/g75 / /g76/g75  / /g76/g74/g75 / /g74/g76/g75 / /g74/g74/g75 /g75 /g75 / /g76/g75  / /g74/g74/g75 / /g74/g75  / /g74
Restrictions for application near
water courses (buffer strips)/g75 / /g74/g74/g75 / /g76/g75  / /g76/g76/g75 / /g76/g75  / /g74/g75/g75 / /g76/g75  / /g76/g75  / /g76/g75  / /g74/g75  / /g74/g76/g75
Effluent storage works (safety) /g76/g74/g76/g76/g76/g76/g76/g76/g76 /g76/g76/g76/g74/g76/g76
Capacity of manure storage /g75 / /g76/g75  / /g74/g74/g75 / /g76/g74/g75 / /g74/g75  / /g76/g75  / /g74/g75  / /g74/g75  / /g76/g76/g74/g74 /g75 / /g74/g75  / /g76
Rational fertilisation (e.g.
splitting fertilisation, limitations)/g74/g75 / /g74/g74/g74/g75 /g75 / /g74/g74/g76/g75/g75/g74/g75/g74/g75 /g75 / /g74
Crop rotation, permanent crop
maintenance/g76/g74/g76 /g75 / /g76/g76/g76/g76/g76/g76 /g76/g76/g76/g76/g76/g74
Vegetation cover in rainy
periods, winter/g75/g76/g74/g76/g76/g76 /g75 / /g74/g76/g75 / /g76/g75  / /g76/g76/g74/g75/g75/g74
Fertilisation plans, spreading
records/g75/g76/g74 /g75 / /g74/g76/g74 /g75 / /g74/g76/g75 / /g74/g74/g74/g74 /g74/g76/g76
Other measures /g74/g74 /g75 / /g74/g75  / /g74/g75  / /g74/g74/g74/g75 /g75 / /g74/g74/g75/g74 /g74/g74/g75
Date for application limits:
210/170 kg N/ha.year
/g74/g74/g74 /g75 / /g76/g74/g74/g74/g75/g74 /g76/g74/g74/g74/g76 /g75 / /g74
/g74=good /g75=moderate /g76=insufficient
18This overview shows that most countries fail to  comply with measures on restricted periods
for fertiliser application. More particularly the measures ar e often well in compliance for
organic nitrogen (manure), but not for mineral fertilisers.
Another general point of attention is the lack of well defined measures for fertiliser
application near water courses and ditches (e.g. buffer strips, sometimes limited to 2 or 3meters, or with authorised chemical N input s, while studies (CIPEL, 2001; Gilliam et al,
1996) show that, even under certain conditions of appropriate fer tiliser management, at least 5
m of unfertilised grass strips ma y be necessary for significant N retention); restrictions for
application relative to steeply sloping gr ound are also poorly developed, although it is
essential to prevent N losses from er osion, run-off and subsoil drainage.
In some countries the capacity for storage of organic manure is not mandatory or insufficient
to cover periods when application is prohib ited, or impossible due to  climatic conditions: it
can vary from 2 to 7 months storage in neig hbouring regions with s imilar climatic conditions.
Studies (ERM, 2001) suggest that minima rangin g from 4 months (Mediterranean areas) to 9-
11 months (boreal areas) should be established.
The essential item (even if optional in annex II of the Dir.) of soil winter green cover is also
poorly treated, although winter cr ops or grass can catch 50 to 80 kgs of N leaching in winter
or early spring, so cultivated soils in vulnerable areas could benefit of this protection.
Finally, some Member States have failed so far to establish in the action programmes the
limits for organic nitrogen application ( normally before 20.12.98 for < 210 kg N/ha, and
20.12.2002 for < 170 kg N/ha).
Nevertheless, based on the info rmation provided by certain Me mber States, there appears to
be a growing awareness amongst farmers of the relevance of measures to prevent waterpollution.  The new action programmes in preparation appear to develop stronger preventive
measures and more frequent contro ls at farm and field level (N surplus, soil analysis, etc.).
Verification of this will only be seen in coming years as these programmes have just beenfinalised and put into operation.
Some examples of positive actions
A close interaction between research, gove rnment and farmers is a promising way of
successful implementation of measur es that lead to a significan t reduction of the input of N in
agriculture and in the losses of nitrogen th rough nitrate leaching, ammonia volatilisation or
soil erosion, as shown by the following positive examples.
Based on the information provided by member states, five initiatives are presented below,
with evaluations carried out (year 2000):
a) Denmark : Nitrogen Management Programme
b) France: the Ferti-Mieux initiative;c) Wallonia: Prop’eau-Sable;d) Germany: Baden-Wurtemberg (“Schalvo”);
19e) Greece: Thessaly.
a) Denmark : National Nitrogen Ma nagement Programme.
Initiated 15 years ago (1987), th is programme simultaneously provided precise advice to
farmers for accurate and mode rate fertilisation (fro m almost 1000 monitored pilot plots),
mandatory soil winter cover, balancing of livestock with available manure storage andspreadable land, a strict Stat e control system including a nnual N budget and surplus for each
farm, and regular controls of practices at field level (sev eral thousands/year).
This programme has resulted in  a reduction of 28 % of nitrogen losses from agriculture to
Danish waters, and of 50% in the N surplus at farm level. In purely ag ricultural watersheds, a
20 % reduction of N load has been achieved (del ayed effect, due to retention in soils and
groundwaters), and eutrophication of coasta l waters is beginning to decrease.
b) France : Ferti-MieuxThe French initiative Ferti-Mieux (improve d fertilisation) was launched in 1991 as a
programme of advice to farmers for a rational fertilisation. It had its basis in the Nitrates
Directive. Complementary to legal measures, Ferti-Mieux aims at encouraging the willingnessof farmers to take care of the (aquatic) e nvironment and is ther efore based on voluntary
measures. At present, it covers 1.3 million ha  (22,000 farmers), spread over the country.
Specific elements are:
/g183 commitment to modify existing farming practices;
/g183 a collective approach on the preservation of the water quality in the catchment
area;
/g183 scientific support (includi ng advisory services);
/g183 continuous monitoring and ev aluation of new practices;
/g183 active communication between farmers and the advisors.
The current results (June 2000) of the monitoring  programme in different  watersheds indicate:
/g183 a significant reduction of the net use of mineral fertilisers on maize;
/g183 advanced splitting of N inputs on cereals;
/g183 improved use of livestock manure;
/g183 reduction of uncovered soils during winter time;
/g183 joint improvement of fertilisation and irrigation practices.
20Table V summarises important results of three “Ferti-mieux” experiments taken as
examples.
Location
Source de Gorze Haut Saintois Seine-et-Marne
/g183 agricultural area
 concerned by the project (x 1000 ha)
  
 4,0
  
 0,8  
120
 Number of farmers  56  30  1,200
 Catch crops  Yes  Yes  No
 Splitting fertilisation  Yes  No  Yes
 Soil analysis  No  No  Yes
/g183 Achieved reductions Total N input
- 23 %Surplus at field level:
-86 %
( from 113 kg to 16
kg/ha.y)Input at field level:
-77%
(from 130 kg to 30
kg/ha.y)
Impact on water quality (nitrateconcentration)Decrease from 60 to 45 mg/l
between 1992 and 1999Still under survey (2000) Still under survey
(2000)
Extremely low values for the N surplus (Haut Saintois) and N input (Seine-et-Marne) were
found. This may be related to hi gh levels of soil N from previ ous years allowing exceptionally
low inputs. Longer term monitoring is require d to assess the sustaina bility (economic, yield)
of such low inputs/surplus. In the “Haut Bl avet” watershed in Brittany, N pressure from
organic and mineral fertiliser s was reduced from 232 to 162 kg N/ha.year between 1997 and
1999 as a result of local activ ities supporting Ac tion Programmes.
c) Belgium-Wallonia Prop’eau-Sable“Prop’eau-Sable” is an acronym for a pilot pr oject on the protection of waters on the sandy
soils in Wallonia (B). The project started in 1997 with an inquiry on farmers concerning their
N fertilisation practices. It appear ed that around 50% of the farmer s used soil analysis for their
fertilisation plans. In the following years, the training and advisory input was intensified to
obtain a further improvement of N fertilisation with respect of prevention of N losses to thewaters.
On 10 pilot farms, specifi c measures taken were:
– reasonable fertilisation levels, including soil analysis;
– enhancement of catch crops;
– grassland maintenance;
21– manure export from farms with surpluses;
– valorisation of organic manure;
– soil tillage at the end of the summer;
– adapted crop rotation schemes.
An intermediate evaluation report shows that between 1997 and 1998, an average reduction of
41 % of the nitrate-N content (autumn) in the soil profile (0-150 cm), from 68 to 40 kg
mineralised N/ha, was achieved. Because this value was still c onsidered an ‘alarm level’,
further measures were taken in the years thereafter. The aim is now to realise a 95% soilwinter cover and a further reduction of the N surplus in cattle farms (130 kg N/ha. year in
1998/1999).
d) Germany Baden-Wu rtemberg (“Schalvo”)
This German “Bundesland” covers an area of 36,000 km
2, with a population density of 293
habitants per km2. The agricultural area amounts 1,5 million hectare (around 45% of the total
area), with around 1 million hectare of arable land (incl. maize) and 0.6 million hectare of
grassland. The stocking density decreased  between 1990 and 1999 from 1.04 to 0.92 LU per
hectare.
Around 80% of the drinking water in Baden-Wu rtemberg originates from ground water. The
government aims at an increase of the water protection areas from 21% of the land area to27% in the next years.
The first initiatives date back to 1976 (Inves tment programme for slurry storage) and 1988
(Decree to protect catchment areas). Furthermore, improved manure application was enforcedby 1995. Recent initiatives aim at an increase in the level of on-farm a dvice, and soil analysis
with up to 100.000 controls per year of N residue in soils in autumn in order to check farmer
performance for fertilisation balance. Other mandatory measures are:
– increase of the area with permanent grassland;
– no N fertilisation outside the growing season;
– reduction by 20% of the advised N dosage on crops;
– reduced soil tillage activities in autumn.
To support the activities, 75 advisors are pr esent to guide the farmers, and 55,000 – 80,000
autumn soil samples are taken on various depths (0-30, 30-60 and 60-90 cm) to control the
fertilisation practices. The acceptable limit for the amount of nitrate-N (residual N in autumn)
in the soil is 45 kg N/ha (with an upper tole rance of 25 kg N/ha for penalty purposes). A
farmer is fined when higher values are f ound; premiums are given for lower residual N.
The entire programme is paid for by a tax system (‘Wasserpfennig’) on water consumption.
Results provided by the authorities show that the nitrate-N content in the soil of the catchmentarea was reduced by 40-60% between 1988 and 1999, depending on the crop type (e.g. from
60 to 30 kg N/ha under wheat and from 120 to 40 kg N/ha under maize), and that the nitrates
concentration in groundwaters is now decreas ing or stable in most of the areas.
22e) Greece-Thessaly
Thessaly occupies an area of about 14,000 km2, or 11% of the Greek territory. Of this,
cultivated land covers 36%. Irrigated land in Thessaly has increased considerably over the lastthree decades in parallel with mechanisati on, introduction of new pr oductive varieties and
increased application of fertilisers.
Intensification of agriculture however, in c onjunction with the lack of a rational water
resources management scheme , led to pronounced over-exploita tion of groundwater resulting
in alarming water levels. In pa rallel, nitrogen fer tilisers have caused groundw ater deterioration
and eutrophication in the River Pinios delta. An Action Plan has been adopted, including a
reduction of nitrogen fertiliser application.
This reduction can be achieved thr ough a set of measures including:
– better effectiveness of N use;
– the introduction of new irrigation techniques;
– the cultivation of suitable crop varieties.
Results of the pilot nitrogen pollution project in Thessaly, operated within the framework of
the National Action Plan, indicate that farmers have started altering their attitude on cropfertilisation towards a rational and more scientific approach. So far, they have experiencedthat a reduced amount of nitrogen does not n ecessarily correspond with an equivalent yield
loss, especially for cotton. Nitrogen uptake is low during the initial growing stages and nitrate
losses can be considerably reduced by lowe r pre-sowing N fertilisation. Farmers are now
convinced that the N fertilisati on efficiency is increased and can be achieved by splitting the
recommended amount.
In the project, more than 3.200 farmers pa rticipated for the period 1996-2000. It was
estimated that a reduction of th e applied N fertilisers of about  10 kton for the pilot area of
Thessaly  (e.g. – 30% for cotton, from 140 to 100 kg N/ha, or –25 % for tomatoes, from 270 to
200 kg N/ha) has occurred.
B.5. A preliminary assessment of th e economics of Action Programmes
It is frequently argued that the implementation of Action Programmes is likely to have an
impact on a wide range of farm-level and re gional economic indicator s. Improved practices
are likely to have different direct costs, ma y induce changes in the overall farm management
and farm constraints or may lead to changes in crop yields or farm gross output. At the
aggregate regional levels, such changes, if taking place simultaneously for a large number offarms, could lead to indirect  impacts on economic sectors linked to agriculture (e.g. providers
of specific machinery or of input).
Unfortunately, the literature on the economics of practices for complying with Action
Programme Measures is very scarce. Also, the information provided in many reports or
analyses is rarely complete for a robust ec onomic analysis and sufficiently varying from one
report to the other to render any comparison ha zardous. Thus, this chapter presents only a
series of simple examples illustrating the econo mic dimensions related to the implementation
of Action Programmes.
23Assessing the direct costs of measures
A review of existing EU cost-studies showed that the costs of measures in action programmes
can vary widely among Member States and type  of measures. However, the review shows that
the range 50 to 150 € per hectare per year can  be used only as a first rough though very
incomplete estimate.
Examples of costs cited in the literature include:
/g183 Crop and land management
Specific cost information is provided fo r the French projects presented above.
Increasing the area of catch crops in winter is an effective measure for reducingnitrate losses as the crop takes up residual soil nitrogen. Total costs of such practices(soil tillage, seeding, seeds) have been  estimated at € 125 per hectare per year.
The presence of buffer strips is also a land management measure that will reduce
nitrogen losses through runoff and that will prevent direct fertiliser applications intowatercourses. Associated costs for a 5 meter wide buffer strip are slightly higher thanimplementing winter crops (€200 per hectare per year).
/g183 Manure storage
The costs of additional outdoor storage capac ity for manure can be significant. Exact
investment and operation & ma intenance costs vary according to the type of manure,
the type of storage and the storage capacity. Clearly, the need for extra storagecapacity will depend on the farm type a nd cropped area. For example, MAFF (1998)
reported average additional manure storage of only 200 m
3 for beef farms in
vulnerable zones compared with more than 2,000 m3 for intensive pig farms.
Costs will range from €5 per m3 for simple storage facilitie s (e.g. lagoons) to €50 per
m3 for advanced storage (e.g. concrete tanks  with cover to prevent precipitation input
and odour emission, see MAFF (1998)). However,  it is clear that the costs of manure
storage rapidly decrease with increasing storage volume and capacity.
/g183 Shifting N-input from mineral to organic fertilisers
In cases where measures a im at replacing the N input from mineral fertilisers by an
equivalent amount of N from organic fertiliser s, differences in costs reported in the
literature result mainly from differences in the manure transportation costs. A studyundertaken in the United Kingdom (MAFF,  1988), for example, showed that the
annual cost for manure transport ranged from €25 to €200 per hectare per year for
dairy and a pig/poultry farms, respectively. The main reason for the low costs fordairy farms was that these fa rms have more land available.
24/g183 Undertaking soil analysis for op timising N-input to crop needs
Soil analyses are a promising way of reducing N losses. Fertilisation based on soil
analyses is gaining interest in a growing number of Member States
Table VI illustrates the cost2 of soil analysis for 3 Member States, France, the
Netherlands and Germany. Soil is sampled at three depths (0-30, 30-60, 60-90cm) in France and Germany and at one depth in the Netherlands (0-10 cm).
CountryArea
considered (inhectare)Number
of soilanalysisper yearFrequency
of soilanalysisCosts per
hectare andper year (in €)Break even point
(in kg per hectareper year)
2
France 70 18 Every 5
years10-22120-45
The
Netherlands31 E v e r y  3
years8-15 10-20
Germany 5-7 15 Every year 20 40
1: Assuming a saving of €0.5 per kg N-input reduced
2: With and without fertilisati on advice costs, respectively
The table also contains in formation about the economic break-even point, i.e. the
level of saved N-input where the costs of the soil analyses are fully compensated by a
reduction in fertilisation cost s (providing no yield loss takes place). The table shows
that savings of 10 to 45 kgs of N-input per year would fully compensate for the costs
of the soil analyses. Experience suggests th at an N-input reduction of this magnitude
is often feasible.
Impact on crop yields
Situations with N-applications significan tly higher (double) than crop requirements
are still found in many areas and regions  of the European Union. Under such
situations, a reduction in the total N-applications is unlikely to lead to any significantyield loss. Indeed, significant yield decreases that would result from N-applicationreduction are not reported in the literature and reports. In fact, many reports mentionreductions in inputs without any yield reduction because of the positive impact of
improved practices (e.g. increasing the num ber of fertiliser a pplications).The above
underlines the need for development of ri gorous and coherent recommendations for a
balanced fertilisation , which take into account the sp ecific conditions of the zone
                                                
2The data for France have been obtained from the previously mentioned “RDP project”. The
informaztion for the Netherlands has been provided by the Dutch Nutrient Management Institute (NMI).Data for Germany are taken from the Baden-Wurtenberg Bundesland report.
25concerned (soil conditions, so il type and slope, climatic conditions), the land use and
agricultural practices (including cr op rotation systems and irrigation).
This fertilisation should be  based on a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen
requirements of the crops and the nitrogen supply to the crops from:
– the soil itself (i.e., the amount of nitrogen  present in the soil at the moment when
the crop starts to use it, and the suppl y through the net mineralisation of the
reserves of organic nitrogen in the soil);
– both organic and chemical fertilisati on, plus N atmospheric deposition and
biologic fixation.
Moreover, development of training and ex tension services appears essential for a
wide adoption of these recommendations, as  well as of codes of good fertilisation
practice, by farmers.
It is striking to note that the large range of effective fertiliser applications recorded
within the European Union is accompanied by a large range of formalrecommendations that can not always be unde rstood by differences in crop variety or
yield and climatic, soil, and hydrological conditions. Table VII presents
recommended N-input per kg of biomass harvested for Member States from the
northern part of the European Union. Th e sometimes large diffe rences illustrated in
this table (e.g. from 1 to 2 at the extrem e for sugar beet) underline the need for more
rigorous, agronomically and environmentally justified recommendations in eachMember-State.
Table VII Recommended N input levels for major crops relative to the biomass
harvested (in kg per ton of product – compiled by EFMA, 2001 from M.S.formal advices)
Country Crop type
Winter
wheatRye Sugar beet Potatoes
Sweden
DenmarkGermanyThe
Netherlands
United-
Kingdom22
2223
25
2816
1820
18
-1.7
2.13.6
2.2
1.73.1
4.14.5
5.2
3.8
26Cost-effectiveness analysis
It is important to ensure public funds are allocated to measures and regions according
to their potential in solving nitrate losse s and eutrophication problems. It is thus
important to compare the costs of different measures or programmes to their impactor effectiveness, in reducing drinking water or eutrophication problems.
Studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of  different measures and programmes are
extremely rare although their usefulness fo r policy making and allocation of scarce
financial resources is clear.
An example of such analysis is reported (B el et al - 1999) for the Bièvre-Liers region
in France. As illustrated in the table V III, this report compared two programmes in
terms of their impact on N-emissions, N-con centration in groundwater and costs. The
table shows that the FARM programme is more cost-effective than theFARM+CIPEN programme, with unitary costs of N-reduction of €1.07 and €1,38 per
kg of N, respectively
3. However, the combined FARM+CIPEN measures are still
necessary for achieving reductions in n itrate concentration of groundwater down to
the guide value of 25 mg/l. And the overall cost of such combined programmeremains reasonable.
Table VIII Comparison of impacts and cost of two preventive programmes
(Belgium/Germany, 1999)
Variable, Indicator FARM1FARM + CIPEN2
Reduction in N-emission  (in kg per hectare)
Expected N-concentration in groundwater (in
mg/l)
Total cost of the programmes (in € per hectare)21
44
2238
27
53
Cost-effectiveness in € per unit of N-emission
reduced1,07 1,38
1: Programme FARM – Expected yields equal to the average of the last 5 years; N-
application (including fa rm manure) optimised according to this average yield
(minimum scenario for limiting over-fertilisation).
2: Programme FARM + CIPEN – in addition to FARM, systematic integration of
catch crops before spring crops and better management of crop residues (which leads
to reduction in nitrate lo sses during inter-cropping).
Such cost-effectiveness analysis made at the local level (i.e. by comparing different
practices or programmes) could also be  performed at a more global level by
                                                
3In the present case study, the reduction in N-losses resulting from catch-crops is limited to
approximately 20 kg N/ha. In many situations, however, this reduction could be significantly higher (i.e.between 50 and 80 kg N/ha) thus improving the cost-effectiveness ratio.
27assessing, for example, the relative poten tial and costs of different regions for
reducing nitrate losses to a given river or aquifer4. Such analysis is key to prioritising
investments.
Investigating global benefits
Most economic arguments on Action Prog rammes concentrate on the costs (often
imperfectly estimated) of these measures. The studies and reports investigatingenvironmental benefits arising from the re duction in nitrates leaching and assessing
these benefits in monetary terms are rare.
Examples of these benefits can be found in literature dealing with the comparison
between different strategies  for ensuring an adequate drinking water supply to
households. Whenever water is used for human consumption, benefits are high.
As an illustration, Heinz and al (INFU/WRC,  Cooperative agreements in agriculture,
2002) investigated for the E.C. cost effi ciency of preventive and curative measures
for removing the excess of nitrates into groundwater used for drinking purpose. In a
German case costs of changing farming practices
5 for reducing the nitrate level in the
groundwater to acceptable levels were es timated at 0.06 €/m3 versus 0.28 €/m3, i.e.
nearly 5 times more, for the alternative of installing biological denitrificationtreatment. A Dutch case in the same study showed even a bigger difference, with acost of preventive measures at field level of 40 € per hectare, instead of 400 € per
hectare for estimated water denitrification costs.
Under such situations, farmers, water s uppliers and water cons umers (who eventually
pay the water bill) all have an interest in developing improved farm practices. Thenumber of voluntary agreements that have  developed between water suppliers and
farmers in many areas of Germany or Austria shows that such win-win  situations are
rather common
6. Thus, and although improved measur es may have significant costs,
they remain largely beneficial  from a society point of view.
Conclusion and issues for follow-up
Direct costs and yield reductions are often mentioned as key constraints to the uptake
of improved N-management practices. However, the available cost information
shows that yield reduction may in various cases be marginal and costs reasonable.
Furthermore, some farming systems analysis  suggest the availability of labour is the
key constraint in explaining farmers’ reluctance to change practices, (e.g. for splittingN applications or maintaining buffer strips).  In such cases, solutions to favour take up
need to investigate farm management more globally.
Clearly, significant efforts are required to ensure that:
                                                
4The same analysis can be performed for different  countries. See for example the article by Markku
Ollikainen. 2001. Towards efficient pollution cont rol in the Baltic Sea – An ecological-economic
modelling approach, on a cost-effectiveness analysis for reducing nitrate emissions to the Baltic Sea.
5By assessing N-balance, shifting from mineral fer tilisers to organic manure, installing intercultures,
developing organic farming; investing in manure storage, implementing winter soil cover, etc.
6In some cases, when high economic interests are at stake such as in areas where water is extracted forbottled mineral water, the financial retribution paid to farmers can sometimes be very high andsignificantly increase farm income…
28/g183 Indirect costs  of eutrophication  impacts  on environmental he ritage and on other
water related economic activities such as fishing, tourism or recreational use ofwater, are assessed thanks to case-st udies in representative watersheds.
/g183 Research and studies are proposed for investigating the socio-economic
dimensions of Action Programmes and providing  robust socio-economic
assessment required for any po licy decision and planning.
/g183 Such analyses need to integrate so cio-economic and technical issues. For
example, a cost-effectiveness analysis needs to combine expertise for assessingthe impact of selected measures (in terms of reduction in nitrate use, in theleaching fraction or in the eutrophica tion level of a given water body) with
expertise for assessing the costs of these measures.
/g183 Both a farm-level perspective and a global or society perspective are required in
the economic analysis. Indeed, some costs or benefits may ar ise outside of the
farm boundaries and thus need to be c onsidered in promoting and evaluating
Action Programmes. As the Water Framework Directive is progressivelyimplemented, cost-effectiveness analysis will be more systematically performedfor assessing programmes of measures, including measures for reducing diffuse
pollution from agriculture.
/g183 In parallel to analyses and studies, Memb er States should co llect systematically
socio-economic information on their Acti on Programmes. The information should
be coherent (e.g. collected via farm surveys such as t hose developed in France) to
ensure comparability and that common lessons of relevance to all Member Statescan be drawn.
C. THE ACTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
These actions have been deve loped in four directions:
– Knowledge on the pressures and environmental status of EU waters, through
regular monitoring and reporting exerci ses, with improve d connections with
other Directives (Urban wastewater Dir., Water Framework Dir.),Eurostat/OECD joint questionnaires, and the “Eurowaternet” of the European
Environment Agency.
– Exchange of technical information between Member States about good
practices in agriculture and their efficiency regarding nutrient losses, and toolsfor measuring, modelling or forecasting their impact on water qualityevolution.
– Legal pressure on Member States which do not implement correctly the
different steps of the directive’s process.
– Development of economic tools (eco-c ompliance, taxation of surpluses,
incentives for precautional practi ces) encouraging a good nutrients
management at farm level. This incl udes linkage of Rura l Development Plans
funding with progress in implementing the Directive.
29As an example of tec hnical information, severa l studies concerning:
– "Long term reduction of nitrate leaching by cover crops7"
– “nitrogen content of animal manure”8
– “fertilisation of grassland"8
– “good practice in fruit and vegetable cropping”8
have been recently finalised by contract ors on behalf of th e Commission. Reviews on
criteria of fresh and mari ne waters eutrophication ha ve also been published.
The Commission (DG Research) is also pr omoting and financ ing international
projects concerning:
– inputs and transfers of  nutriments in the air (“Anice”), soils and
water (“Streames”, “Danubs”, “E uroharp”, “Eloise”, “Subgate”),
– their impact on aquatic ecosystems (“Chabade” for Mediterranea,
“Comweb” for coastal plankton),
– sampling and modelling me thods (“Baseline” and
“Fractflow/Famest” for groundwaters, “BMW”,“Harmonit/Harmoniqua”, these two last studies including socio-economic approach and cost-efficiency scenarios).
Two examples illustrate the direct applicability of this research:
/g183 The recently finalised RANR project, about retention and fluxes of nitrogen from
land to sea, has demonstrated the g ood adequation of a sp ecific model (Soil
N/WEKU) for predicting transfers of N from groundwaters to surface waters in
Northern Europe, and gives useful elements for calculating time lags and toforecast delayed effects of N transfers in the water cycle.
/g183 The FAEWE (Parts 1&2) and NICOLAS pr ojects showed that for the purpose of
the reduction of nitrogen inputs into rive rs the regular creation of buffer zones
confined along the course of rivers may not be the most efficient solution, but that
it is often more efficient to maintain and use existing ditches or wetlands,distributed in the landscape between agricultural fields and rivers, which are ableto remove up to 80% of diffuse nitrogen loads.
The Joint Research Centre (ISPRA) of the Commission is involved in several of
these projects (e.g. “Euroharp”, with a cen tral database on th e 17 pilot watersheds
and the 9 modelling methods tested). Di ffuse N pressure a ssessment and marine
eutrophication survey by remote sensing ar e also developed in its Institute for
Environment and Sustainability (IES).
Concerning legal procedures, table IX summarises the present situation (end 2001)
for each Member State, regarding each step of the implementation process:
                                                
7Concerted action AIR3-CT94-2108.
8ERM, 2000-2001.
30Member
StateB DK D EL ES F IRE I L NL Ö P SF S UK
Water
monitoring+++ + + ++ ++++ +++ +
Designationof nitratesvulnerablezones +
/g109+
/g108+
/g108+
/g109+ +
/g109++
/g108+
/g108+
/g108++/g108 + +
/g109
Codes of
good practice+++ +++ + + ++ +++ + +
Actionprogrammes ++ ++ + + +++ +++ + +
Report ++ + + ++ + +++ +++ + +
+ = Exercise performed but not nece ssarily approved by the Commission
/g108 = Whole territory
designated/g109 = important designations expected end
2001 but not achieved
Shaded: Infringement procedure ongoing (For legal reasons, some proceedings at anearly stage cannot be mentioned in this table)
From this table it appears that most Member States are concerned by at least one infringement.Since 1994, the Commission has opened 56 legal cases  in which the nitrates directive was
involved, alone or with other di rectives. Half of these cases  were closed, due to a quick
improvement of implement ation by the concerned countries, 7 have resulted in condemnation
by the European Court, against Sp ain (01.10.98 and 13.04.00), Italy (25.02.99 and 08.11.01),
United Kingdom (07.12.00) France (08.03. 01) a nd Luxembourg (08.03.01). Seven cases are
still pending in front of the Court, among the 23 cases open today.
Fig 3 shows the repartition of legal actions opened by the Commission in the 1994 –2001
period.
3114
012
468
7
5
051015
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Moreover, in order to assure the coherence of Community policy, considering the linkage
between « usual good farming practice », as  defined in art .28 of  Regulation (EC) No
1750/19999 laying down the detailed rules for th e application of Council Regulation No
1257/99 on support for rural development10, and the Nitrates Directive, Member-states were
requested to include in their rural development programming documents, where relevant :
– a commitment to make substantial progress in completing the designation of
vulnerable zones as soon as possible.
– a commitment to make sufficient progress in defining and implementing the
binding measures of the Nitrates code of good farming practice (GFP) and/or the
action programme and adapting and/or co mpleting the general GFP as defined in
1750/99 accordingly.
The dates for the fulfilment of these commitments varied but expired by end 2001 at the latest.
D. CONCLUSION
Although incomplete and lackin g of coherence, the water m onitoring networks set up by
Member States show that more than 20% of  EU groundwaters are facing excessive nitrates
concentrations, with a continuous increasing tr end in the most intensive areas of livestock
breeding and fertiliser consumption.
At least 30-40% of rivers and lakes show eu trophication symptoms or bring high nitrogen
fluxes to coastal waters and seas. The agricultural origin of these N fluxes accounts for 50
                                                
9OJ L214, 13.8.1999, p. 31. This regulation has been recently repealed and replaced by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (OJ L74, 15.3.2002, p. 1).
10OJ L160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.
32to 80% of total N inputs to EU waters , depending on Member Stat es, watersheds and annual
variations (Be, Dk, D, Fr, Irl reports to the EC, and EEA report n° 4 "nutrients in European
ecosystems" - 1999).
Following a delay of 5 years or more by Member States to fulfil their commitments for
implementation of the Directive and an effective reduction of N losses from agriculture to
water, a real improvement can be pointed out in the sensibilisation of Member States
during recent years . All M. S. have now transposed th e directive, set up a comprehensive
monitoring network, established a code of good practice, and design ated at least partially their
vulnerable zones (except Ireland). Indeed the effects of action prog rammes, often published
only in 1997-1999, will be significant only after some years (“tanker” effect of soil and
groundwaters), but success stories can already be noticed in regions where intense field
controls, including soil analysis, have a ccompanied dissemination of good practice
advice  (e.g. in Denmark, some German Lä nder, East of France, Algarve).
The gradual orientation of the Common Agri cultural Policy to take greater account of
environmental issues (environmen tal protection requirements fore seen in Article 3 of Council
Regulation No 1259/1999, establishing common ru les for direct suppor t schemes under the
CAP; expansion of agri-environm ental measures; definition of codes of good farming practice
foreseen within rural development plans) contri butes to the purposes of the Nitrates directive.
A CAP more oriented towards quality rather than quantity, encouraging extensive
cropping or breeding, “buffer” natural areas and accurate balanced fertilisation, can
further contribute to these purposes.
However, the failure of a proper application of the “Nitrate” directive in some Member States
cannot be rectified only throug h CAP measures. Controlling nitr ate emission is still primarily
the task of transposition and implementation of the “Nitrate” Directive. Cost-efficiency
studies on preventive measures should also be encouraged, in order to focus action
programmes and practice changes towards the most efficient one.
Besides financial support for a more environmental-friendly ag riculture and dissemination of
knowledge, it is necessary that all Member States  arrive at a full impleme ntation of the Nitrate
Directive, reinforce surveys and controls  at field level (including checking of fertilisation
plans and records, manure storage and handling,  soil analysis, natural buffer strips, etc.), and
introduce dissuasive penalties  for the producers who do not ensure eco-compliance .
The Nitrates Directive is now 10 years old, and Member States have in the last 2 years shown
a real willingness to improve implementation. They realise th at costs induced by drinking
water treatment for nitrates excess, or by eu trophication damages in da ms or coastal waters
will still increase, and that the investments dedicated to urban wastewater treatment will
be inefficient regarding nutrients if a parallel effort is not devoted to an effective
reduction of agricultu ral nutrients losses.  For this reason; the “nitrates” Directive maintains
its full topicality without any need of short term revision, as pointed  out by the European
Parliament in its re solution (A5-0386/2000), and recognised by the new Water Framework
Directive (WFD), which does not introduce an y change to its process or deadlines.
Nevertheless a synergy has to be  developed in the future wo rk for common implementation of
these water directives, on items such as:
– Harmonisation  of water sampling points, networks, parameters and frequencies  for
water quality monitoring in order to meet, with minimum work at field level, the needslinked with EU Directives, OECD-Eurostat Questionnaires, EEA “Eurowaternet”, Marine
33and River Conventions, and local/regional needs. This  question is crucial for
eutrophication effects, which need agreem ent on harmonised criteria and monitoring
methodologies. Common tools and compatible  equipment (G.I.S.), for georeferenced
information exchange between Member Stat es and the Commission, in electronic format,
are under rapid development.
– assessment of point and diffuse losses of nutrients to waters, and of the breakdown of
their origin  (agriculture, urban waters, i ndustry, air deposition…), (analytical
differentiation, e.g. isotopic methods, models  for calculating pressures, transfers and
retentions) in order to compare the efficiency of various measures and set priorities both innitrates Action Programmes and in management plans of WFD for any polluting parameterat watershed level.
– models correlating environmental impacts  (e.g. algae blooms) and causative factors
(nutrients, natural conditions, etc.), whic h will allow forecast of impact of various
scenarios in the reduction or increase of these factors.
– cost-efficiency approach  for preventive measures. Nitrogen and Phosphorus  will
certainly appear as priority polluters in many E.U. waters heds, as promoting cyanophytes
(blue algae) problems in lakes and dams , macrophytes and dinof lagellates impairing
tourism or aquaculture in coastal waters, etc. Efficiency of investment in preventivemeasures, on agricultural pressu res and practices, or on domestic  and industrial discharges,
will have to be evaluated and compared. Here also pilot applications and research areurgently needed, as shown by the poor feed back on these “forecast”  and “cost-efficiency”
items of the Nitrates year 2000 reporting exercise.