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
Date: 2002-07-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, chemical salt, environmental monitoring, pollution control, pollution control measures, pollution from agricultural sources, quality of the environment, report, sensitive area, water

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

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

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.

B.

B.1.

B.2.

General Context ........................................................................................................... 3

State of implementation of the Directive ..................................................................... 7

Overview of exhaustivity of reports............................................................................. 8

Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 10

B.2.1 Water monitoring networks........................................................................................ 10

B.2.2

Results of water quality survey .................................................................................. 11

B.2.3

Forecast of water quality evolution............................................................................ 14

B.3.

B.4.

B.5.

C.

D.

Vulnerable zones designation and revision................................................................ 14

Action Programmes Assessment................................................................................ 16

A preliminary assessment of the economics of Action Programmes......................... 22

THE ACTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION .......................................... 28

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 31

2

INTRODUCTION

Council Directive 91/676/EEC (hereafter 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  nitrate  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,  of
present  NVZs  and  by  a  comparative  table  on  the  main  content  and  deficiencies  of  the  first
action programmes (1996-1999).

This report was prepared in order to provide an overview of the current situation with regard
to the directive together with possible pathways  for the  future.  It illustrates, with  some  case
studies,  the  positive  effects  of  some  farm  practices  on  the  quality  of  water.  However,  it  is
emphasised that there is a considerable time lag between improvements at farm and soil level
and a response in waterbody quality.

A.

GENERAL CONTEXT

Increasing public concerns about steadily  increasing nitrate concentrations in drinking water
resources,  and  disturbance  of  aquatic  ecosystems  by  eutrophication1,  (  the  best  known
examples being the south-eastern North Sea, Brittany “Abers” or the Adriatic Sea and Venice
lagoons, where algae blooms have been occurring 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  phytoplancton  development,  one  of  the  most  visible
symptoms  of  eutrophication,  with  potential  adverse  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 intensification, 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.

1

Excessive growth of algae and plants, with potential 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  undesirable
disturbance to the balance of organisms present in the water and to the quality of the water concerned”.

3

                                                
)
r
a
e
y
/
t

M

(

n
o
i
t
p
m
u
s
n
o
c
N

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

FIG.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  production  also  increased.  Changes  in  agricultural  policy
leading to milk quotas in 1984, and suckler cow and ewe premium quotas in 1992, have since
stabilised  or  contributed  to  a  reduction  in  cattle  and  sheep  numbers,  but  both  the  pig  and
poultry sectors have continued to expand. In addition, animal numbers 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 pig 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  approximately  8  millions  tons  annually  spread  on
agricultural soils (MAP III), so the total diffuse nitrogen "pressure" from agriculture reaches
almost 18 millions tons (MAP IV).

During this 50 years period, a reduction of permanent grassland and of “buffer” areas (ditches
and hedges, wetlands, etc.) which favours erosion, run-off and quicker drainage of nutrients to
the aquatic ecosystems and to groundwaters has 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  for
urban 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, therefore, is detrimental to water quality.

Agricultural policy has responded to some of these trends principally 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 spreading, has resulted
in  strong  ammonia  volatilisation,  and  atmospheric  deposition  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.

4

 
 
As  a  marine  example,  on  the  North  Sea  a  direct  deposition  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:

Soil/Air/Water

The pathways of agricultural N

Deposition

Greenhouse
gas effect

Acidification

Ammonia &
Nitrous oxide

Drainage

Ammonia

Run off

Nutrient overload

Eutrophication

NPK

Groundwaters
pollution

Ammonia & Nitrate leaching

Ammonia & Nitrate leaching

FIG. 2 The agricultural nitrogen air/soil/water exchanges and possible impacts.

5

POSSIBLE IMPACTS:

A  part  of  this  nitrogen  loss  (50-80%)  is  recycled  to  water  and  soils,  causing
-
groundwaters enrichment, eutrophication of surface 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  chemical  reduction  in  certain  types  of  soils  and
groundwaters.

Mineral  fertilisers  directly  introduce  ammonium  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  (volatilisation)  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.
fixation.

Total  nitrogen  pressure  from  agriculture,  air  deposition  and  biological

In order to limit the losses linked to agricultural activities, the main types of actions that the
Nitrates directive promotes (in annexes 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  fertilisation  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  restrictions  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  potential  losses  to  environment,  at  farm,  local  or

6

regional level. A big heterogeneity 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 reached in areas with an excessive density of
livestock  breeding.  But  high  N  surplus,  and  associated  risks  of  losses  to  water,  can  also  be
found  in  regions  of  intensive  fruit  and  vegetable  cropping,  or  cereals  and  maïze  with
unbalanced fertilisation and practices favouring N losses (such as bare soils in winter).

MAP IV bis. NITROGEN SURPLUS FROM AGRICULTURE IN EU REGIONS

B.

STATE 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):

1

2

3

4

5

Detection of polluted or threatened waters (N)

Human Health Protection
Living resources and aquatic ecosystems protection

Eutrophication prevention

(1 year monitoring)

Designation of “vulnerable 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 agricultural 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

(cid:1)  NO3 concentrations

(cid:1)  Eutrophication (algae)

(cid:1) Assessment of Action Programs impact

(cid:1) Revision of NVZs and Action Programs

7

Fig. 3 Associated calendar for implementation:

Adoption of
Directive 
25/12/91

Transposition

12.93 Designation
of vulnerable
zones (NVZs)

Code of good
practices

Elaboration
Action
Programme

12.1997 Revision NVZs

12.2001 Revision NVZs

1st Action Programme

2nd Action Programme

12

98

12

02

Art. 10
Member States
Reports

1993

210 kg N

1997

170 kg N

2001

Water
Monitoring

2005

Years: 1992

1996

2000

2004

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).

8

Conclusive assessment of quality of the information (= compliance) in the
Table I.
Member States reports for the 2nd reporting period on water monitoring, designation of
Nitrate  Vulnerable  Zones  (NVZ),  water  quality  forecast,  agricultural  pressure,  and
Action Programmes.

Member

Report

Water monitoring data

State

Submitted

Reporting
on  NVZ
designatio
n

Forecast

On water
quality

Agricultur
al data

Action
Programmes
4

Ground and
surface fresh

Coastal
and marine

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

(cid:1)

(cid:2) / (cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1) 2

(cid:1)

(cid:2) / (cid:1)

(cid:3) 3

(cid:1)

(cid:1) 2

(cid:1)

Italy

(cid:2) / (cid:1)

(cid:3) 2,3

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

UK

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:2) / (cid:3) 3

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3) 3

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

--

(cid:1)

--

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) 1

(cid:1) 1

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

In

Process

(cid:2)

(cid:1) 1

(cid:1) 1

(cid:1) 1

(cid:1)

(cid:1) 1

(cid:1)

In

Process

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)/ (cid:1)

(cid:2)/(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:2) / (cid:1)

-

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:2) / (cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:2) / (cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:2) / (cid:3)

(cid:2) / (cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2) / (cid:1)

(cid:2) / (cid:1)

(cid:3) / (cid:2)

[(cid:1): good
[(cid:2): moderate
[(cid:3): insufficient

1. MS applying an action programme on their whole territory ( Article 3.5 of the Directive)

2. Monitoring of deep wells

3.Data provided only in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
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.

9

B.2. Water Quality

B.2.1 Water monitoring networks

Networks of sampling stations have to cover both all main groundwaters (even if not used for
drinking water), rivers; lakes and dams, coastal and marine waters, as required by art. 6 of the
Directive.  Criteria  to  monitor  are  nitrogen  (ammonia,  total  N,  nitrates)  and  eutrophication
(chlorophyll,  algae  blooms,  macrophytes  development  and  species  shift…).  Generally
Member States have established networks of hundreds or thousands of sampling stations (~1
for  100-200  km2  seems  reasonable),  which  give  a  good  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), dealing 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 before July 2001 (one year after the  legal
deadline). Only some results for vulnerable areas were available.

In  Germany  the  network  is  unbalanced  and  incomplete,  focusing  only  on  areas  of
polluted groundwaters, and limited to only 10 stations for surface waters.

In Greece and Portugal the groundwater network is limited to designated vulnerable
zones, hampering a periodical evaluation of designation.

These  networks are  also  geographically unbalanced in  Italy, where they  don't  cover
the South and in Luxembourg.

For  groundwaters,  drinking  water  catchments  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.

Information  System 

12 countries succeeded in reporting georeferenced data in a format compatible with
EC  Geographic 
(GIS),  using  harmonised  codes  and
classifications  as  developed  by  the  "reporting  guidelines".  So  aggregated  maps  of
water quality at EU level can be drawn. Nevertheless the numerous gaps concerning
eutrophication  criteria  (except  DK,  EL,  FIN,  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 hampered  drafting  any  meaningful  EU  map
from reports on these items.

The synthetic water quality maps presented concern:

(cid:1)  Average nitrates content of groundwaters (1996-98) - MAP V

(cid:1)  Average nitrates content of surface waters (1996-98) - MAP VI

(cid:1)  Trends  on  these  2  parameters  between  the  first  (1992-94)  and  second  (1996-98)

monitoring periods - MAPS VII (groundwaters) and VIII (surface waters)

10

N.B.:

– 

– 

– 

It should be noted that France  and  Italy  included  in  their  reports  aggregated  results
but without precise location, so a different representation system had to be used (pie
charts, at "department" level  for France)  for  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 rivers,  watersheds  and  land  use,  location
and  type  of  monitoring  stations,  nitrates  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  evaluation  of  their  designation  of  vulnerable
zones and of the content of their action programmes.

B.2.2

Results of water quality survey

Groundwaters

(cid:1)  Synthetic MAP V shows that globally about 20% of EU monitoring stations suffer nitrates
concentrations  over  50  mg  NO3/l,  and  40%  over  25  mg  NO3/l  in  1996-98.  It  should  be
noted  that,  for  complete  accuracy  in  these  figures,  a  better  balance  of  the  density  of
monitoring stations between polluted and unpolluted areas would be necessary.

(cid:1)  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

(cid:1)  Globally  more  than  60%  of  monitoring  stations  (MAP  VII)  show  average  nitrates
concentration far under 10 mg/l of nitrates, and 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 seas, and important potential eutrophication effects.
This  is  also  the  situation  for  Germany  (but  with  only  10  sampling  points)  and  Italy  (all
monitored points in the north).

11

Very high values, over 25 and even 40 mg/l are often met in agricultural plains of Denmark,
Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), west of France, Spain and Greece.

(cid:1)  The comparison with the 1992-94 surveys shows (MAP VIII):

– 

– 

– 

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 improved 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.

12

general  trends  in  nitrate  concentrations  in  ground  water,  surface  water
Table II
and  coastal/marine  waters  per  Member  State,  between  the  first  (1992-94)  and  second
(1996-98) monitoring exercises.

Member State

Trends

Ground water

Surface waters

Coastal/marine waters

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

UK

Total

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

n.d.

(cid:1)

n.d.

(cid:3)

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

to (cid:2)

(cid:1)

n.d.

n.d.

(cid:3)to(cid:3) (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

n.d.

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:1) to (cid:2)

(cid:3)

n.d.

(cid:1) to (cid:3)

(cid:1)

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.a.

(cid:2)

n.a.

n.d.

(cid:1)

n.d.

n.d.

(cid:1) to (cid:2)

(cid:1) to(cid:2)

(cid:1)= stable;

(cid:3) = increase; (cid:4) = decrease; (cid:3) (cid:4)= contrasted.

n.a. = not applicable; n.d. = no data 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  of
vulnerable 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 a
high and stagnant level of nitrate concentrations in groundwaters, and about 40% of EU area
is of concern on this aspect. Globally, positive (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  climatic
conditions and urban waste water treatment improvement in this evolution.

13

B.2.3

Forecast of water quality evolution:

Only Denmark, Germany, France, Austria, Portugal and Belgium (Wallonia) provided a
forecast  of  the  water  quality.  France  and  Austria  made  some  remarks,  but  no  scientific  or
mathematical basis  was given. Sweden  reported preliminary  results  of  a  specific  monitoring
programme 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 general figures of inflow times in the various
river  basins,  depending  on  rainfall,  soil  structure  etc.  Germany  uses  the  “WEKA”
model  to  predict  such  inflow  times.  This  model  was  not  presented  in  the  Member
State 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 from
soil  to  waters.  The  resulting  optimisation  would  allow  a  reduction  of  the  nitrogen
input by 50% for various crops.

It can be concluded that the Member State reports clearly show that they  face difficulties in
preparing a forecast of the impact of their 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  the  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 these
items  such  as  "binoculars",  "streams',  "Eloise"  and  "Euroharp"  (comparative  testing  of  10
models for assessing diffuse losses of nitrogen, in 18 pilot watersheds of Europe). Exchange
on existing models and harmonisation need a strong 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  potential  complementary  areas  (brown),  following  a  review  of
available  information  on  waters  with  excessive  nitrate  concentrations,  or  threatened  with
eutrophication. It is stressed that the EC assessment is not exhaustive, due to lack of data on
water quality available for some countries (e.g. UK, Irl, It, Pt) in this period.

6  Member  States  (Austria,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands)
apply article 3.5 of the Directive, as their whole territory is covered by an Action Programme.

14

Table III presents an overview of the area (x 1000  km2)  of designated vulnerable zones per
Member  State  (2001),  the  drafted  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.

Area NVZ

Additional area NVZ

%

Drafted by
Member States

2.9

2.7

43

9

100*

356

100*

%

9

EC assessment
potential

%

Areas**

15.9

51

Member State

Total
area

(x 1000
km2)

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

UK

31

43

356

132

504

539

69

301

3

37

84

91

334

448

244

13.9

32

240.9

0

5.8

3

37

84

11

6

48

0

2

100*

100*

100*

0.9

1

334

100*

41

7.8

9

3

9.0

70.6

37.1

6.5

88.7

12.2

43.7

19.2

303

7

14

7

9

29

13

10

8

9

TOTAL EU-15

3,216

1,202

38

2.9

0.1

*

**

countries beneficiating of an Action Programme 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, Portugal) 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  (1.2
million km2 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.

15

The 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  available
monitoring  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  roughly  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 short term (2002).

MAP IX:
drafted one (pink), and the potential one detected by the EC (brown).

Overview  of  the  area  of  designated  vulnerable  zones  in  the  EU  (blue)  the

B.4.

Action Programmes Assessment

Nearly 200 various Action Programmes have now been published in Europe. It is not possible
to  assess  precisely  each  of  them  in  this  synthetic  report.  A  selection  representative  of  each
Member State has been used for comparison in diverse climatic conditions.

16

Table IV gives an overview of the level of compliance of existing Action Programmes (in 1999-2000) concerning the 12 main topics mentioned
in annex II and III of the Directive.

Measure

B-Flan.

B-Wal.

DK

D

Period of prohibition of fertiliser
application

Restrictions  for  application  on
steeply slopping ground

Restrictions  for  application  on
soaked,  frozen  or  snow-covered
soils

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

Restrictions for application near
water courses (buffer strips)

Effluent storage works (safety)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

Capacity of manure storage

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:2)

Rational fertilisation (e.g.
splitting fertilisation, limitations)

Crop rotation, permanent crop
maintenance

Vegetation cover in rainy
periods, winter

Fertilisation plans, spreading
records

Other measures

Date for application limits:

210/170 kg N/ha.year

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:2)

EL

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

ES

F

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

I

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

LUX

(cid:1)

NL

(cid:1)

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

A

P

FIN

S

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:3) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

UK

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2) (cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:1) / (cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:1)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:2)

(cid:3)

(cid:1) / (cid:2)

(cid:2)=good

(cid:1)=moderate (cid:3)=insufficient

17

This overview shows that most countries fail to comply with measures  on restricted periods
for  fertiliser  application.  More  particularly  the  measures  are  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  3
meters,  or  with  authorised  chemical  N  inputs,  while  studies  (CIPEL,  2001;  Gilliam  et  al,
1996) show that, even under certain conditions of appropriate fertiliser management, at least 5
m  of  unfertilised  grass  strips  may  be  necessary  for  significant  N  retention);  restrictions  for
application  relative  to  steeply  sloping  ground  are  also  poorly  developed,  although  it  is
essential to prevent N losses from erosion, 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 prohibited, or  impossible  due  to  climatic  conditions:  it
can vary from 2 to 7 months storage in neighbouring regions with similar climatic conditions.
Studies (ERM, 2001) suggest that minima ranging 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 crops 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 information provided by certain Member States, there appears to
be  a  growing  awareness  amongst  farmers  of  the  relevance  of  measures  to  prevent  water
pollution. The new action programmes in  preparation  appear  to  develop  stronger  preventive
measures  and  more  frequent  controls  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  been
finalised and put into operation.

Some examples of positive actions

A  close  interaction  between  research,  government  and  farmers  is  a  promising  way  of
successful implementation of measures that lead to a significant reduction of the input of N in
agriculture  and  in  the  losses  of  nitrogen  through  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)

b)

Denmark : Nitrogen Management Programme

France: the Ferti-Mieux initiative;

c) Wallonia: Prop’eau-Sable;

d)

Germany: Baden-Wurtemberg (“Schalvo”);

18

e)

Greece: Thessaly.

a) Denmark : National Nitrogen Management Programme.

Initiated  15  years  ago  (1987),  this  programme  simultaneously  provided  precise  advice  to
farmers  for  accurate  and  moderate  fertilisation  (from  almost  1000  monitored  pilot  plots),
mandatory  soil  winter  cover,  balancing  of  livestock  with  available  manure  storage  and
spreadable land, a strict State control system including annual N budget and surplus for each
farm, and regular controls of practices at field level (several 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 agricultural watersheds, a
20  %  reduction  of  N  load  has  been  achieved  (delayed  effect,  due  to  retention  in  soils  and
groundwaters), and eutrophication of coastal waters is beginning to decrease.

b) France : Ferti-Mieux

The  French  initiative  Ferti-Mieux  (improved  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 willingness
of  farmers  to  take  care  of  the  (aquatic)  environment  and  is  therefore  based  on  voluntary
measures. At present, it covers 1.3 million ha (22,000 farmers), spread over the country.

Specific elements are:

(cid:1)  commitment to modify existing farming practices;

(cid:1)  a  collective  approach  on  the  preservation  of  the  water  quality  in  the  catchment

area;

(cid:1)  scientific support (including advisory services);

(cid:1)  continuous monitoring and evaluation of new practices;

(cid:1)  active communication between farmers and the advisors.

The current results (June 2000) of the monitoring programme in different watersheds indicate:

(cid:1)  a significant reduction of the net use of mineral fertilisers on maize;

(cid:1)  advanced splitting of N inputs on cereals;

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

improved use of livestock manure;

reduction of uncovered soils during winter time;

joint improvement of fertilisation and irrigation practices.

19

Table  V  summarises  important  results  of  three  “Ferti-mieux”  experiments  taken  as
examples.

Location

Source de Gorze

Haut Saintois

Seine-et-Marne

(cid:1) 

agricultural area

 concerned by the project (x 1000 ha)

 4,0

 Number of farmers

 Catch crops

 Splitting fertilisation

 Soil analysis

 56

 Yes

 Yes

 No

 0,8

 30

 Yes

 No

 No

 120

 1,200

 No

 Yes

 Yes

(cid:1) 

Achieved reductions

Total N input

Surplus at field level:

Input at field level:

- 23 %

-86 %

-77%

(  from  113  kg  to  16
kg/ha.y)

(from  130  kg  to  30
kg/ha.y)

Impact on water quality (nitrate
concentration)

Decrease  from  60  to  45  mg/l
between 1992 and 1999

Still under survey (2000)

under 

survey

Still 
(2000)

Extremely  low  values  for  the  N  surplus  (Haut  Saintois)  and  N  input  (Seine-et-Marne)  were
found. This may be related to high levels of soil N from previous years allowing exceptionally
low inputs. Longer term monitoring is required to assess the sustainability (economic, yield)
of  such  low  inputs/surplus.  In  the  “Haut  Blavet”  watershed  in  Brittany,  N  pressure  from
organic and mineral fertilisers was reduced from 232 to 162 kg N/ha.year between 1997 and
1999 as a result of local activities supporting Action Programmes.

c) Belgium-Wallonia Prop’eau-Sable

“Prop’eau-Sable” is an  acronym for a pilot  project  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 appeared that around 50% of the farmers 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 the
waters.

On 10 pilot farms, specific measures taken were:

– 

reasonable fertilisation levels, including soil analysis;

–  enhancement of catch crops;

–  grassland maintenance;

20

 
 
 
 
 
–  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  considered  an  ‘alarm  level’,
further  measures  were  taken  in  the  years  thereafter.  The  aim  is  now  to  realise  a  95%  soil
winter  cover  and  a  further  reduction  of  the  N  surplus  in  cattle  farms  (130  kg  N/ha.  year  in
1998/1999).

d) Germany Baden-Wurtemberg (“Schalvo”)

This German “Bundesland” covers an area of 36,000 km2, 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-Wurtemberg originates from ground water. The
government  aims  at  an  increase  of  the  water  protection  areas  from  21%  of  the  land  area  to
27% in the next years.

The  first  initiatives  date  back  to  1976  (Investment  programme  for  slurry  storage)  and  1988
(Decree to protect catchment areas). Furthermore, improved manure application was enforced
by 1995. Recent initiatives aim at an increase in the level of on-farm advice, 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  present 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  tolerance  of  25  kg  N/ha  for  penalty  purposes).  A
farmer is fined when higher values are found; 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 catchment
area 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 decreasing or stable in most of the areas.

21

e) 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 last
three  decades  in  parallel  with  mechanisation,  introduction  of  new  productive  varieties  and
increased application of fertilisers.

Intensification  of  agriculture  however,  in  conjunction  with  the  lack  of  a  rational  water
resources management scheme, led to pronounced over-exploitation of groundwater resulting
in alarming water levels. In parallel, nitrogen fertilisers have caused groundwater 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 through 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  crop
fertilisation  towards  a  rational  and  more  scientific  approach.  So  far,  they  have  experienced
that  a  reduced  amount  of  nitrogen  does  not  necessarily  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  lower  pre-sowing  N  fertilisation.  Farmers  are  now
convinced that the N fertilisation efficiency is increased and can be achieved by splitting the
recommended amount.

In  the  project,  more  than  3.200  farmers  participated  for  the  period  1996-2000.  It  was
estimated  that  a  reduction  of  the  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 the 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  regional  economic  indicators.  Improved  practices
are likely to have different direct costs, may 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 of
farms, 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 economic analysis and sufficiently varying from one
report  to  the  other  to  render  any  comparison  hazardous.  Thus,  this  chapter  presents  only  a
series of simple examples illustrating the economic dimensions related to the implementation
of Action Programmes.

22

Assessing 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:

(cid:1)  Crop and land management

Specific  cost  information  is  provided  for  the  French  projects  presented  above.
Increasing  the  area  of  catch  crops  in  winter  is  an  effective  measure  for  reducing
nitrate 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 into
watercourses. Associated costs for a 5 meter wide buffer strip are slightly higher than
implementing winter crops (€200 per hectare per year).

(cid:1)  Manure storage

The costs of additional outdoor storage capacity for manure can be significant. Exact
investment and operation & maintenance costs vary according to the type of manure,
the  type  of  storage  and  the  storage  capacity.  Clearly,  the  need  for  extra  storage
capacity will depend on the farm type and cropped area. For example, MAFF (1998)
reported  average  additional  manure  storage  of  only  200  m3  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 facilities (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.

(cid:1)  Shifting N-input from mineral to organic fertilisers

In cases where measures aim at replacing the N input from mineral fertilisers by an
equivalent amount of N from organic fertilisers, differences in costs reported in the
literature result mainly from differences in the manure transportation costs. A study
undertaken  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  for
dairy farms was that these farms have more land available.

23

(cid:1)  Undertaking soil analysis for optimising 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,  60-90
cm) in France and Germany and at one depth in the Netherlands (0-10 cm).

Area
considere
d 
(in
hectare)

Number
soil
of 
analysis
per year

70

3

18

1

Country

France

The
Netherlands

Frequency
soil
of 
analysis

per
Costs 
and
hectare 
per year (in €)

Break  even  point
(in  kg  per  hectare
per year)2

Every 5
years

Every 3
years

10-221

8-15

20-45

10-20

40

Germany

5-7

15

Every year

20

1: Assuming a saving of €0.5 per kg N-input reduced

2: With and without fertilisation advice costs, respectively

The  table  also  contains  information  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 costs (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 that an N-input reduction of this magnitude
is often feasible.

Impact on crop yields

Situations  with  N-applications  significantly  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 significant
yield  loss.  Indeed,  significant  yield  decreases  that  would  result  from  N-application
reduction are not reported in the literature and reports. In fact, many reports mention
reductions  in  inputs  without  any  yield  reduction  because  of  the  positive  impact  of
improved practices (e.g. increasing  the  number  of  fertiliser  applications).The  above
underlines the need for development of rigorous and coherent recommendations for a
balanced  fertilisation,  which  take  into  account  the  specific  conditions  of  the  zone

2

The  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.

24

                                                
concerned (soil conditions, soil type and slope, climatic conditions), the land use and
agricultural practices (including crop 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  supply  through  the  net  mineralisation  of  the
reserves of organic nitrogen in the soil);

–  both  organic  and  chemical  fertilisation,  plus  N  atmospheric  deposition  and

biologic fixation.

Moreover,  development  of  training  and  extension  services  appears  essential  for  a
wide  adoption  of  these  recommendations,  as  well  as  of  codes  of  good  fertilisation
practice, by farmers.

the  European  Union 

is  accompanied  by  a 

It is striking  to  note that the  large range  of  effective  fertiliser applications recorded
within 
large  range  of  formal
recommendations that can not always be understood 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. The sometimes large differences illustrated in
this table (e.g. from 1 to 2 at the extreme for sugar beet) underline the need for more
rigorous,  agronomically  and  environmentally  justified  recommendations  in  each
Member-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
wheat

22

22

23

25

28

Sweden

Denmark

Germany

The
Netherlands

United-
Kingdom

Rye

Sugar beet

Potatoes

1.7

2.1

3.6

2.2

1.7

3.1

4.1

4.5

5.2

3.8

16

18

20

18

-

25

Cost-effectiveness analysis

It is important to ensure public funds are allocated to measures and regions according
to  their  potential  in  solving  nitrate  losses  and  eutrophication  problems.  It  is  thus
important to compare the costs of different measures or programmes to their impact
or effectiveness, in reducing drinking water or eutrophication problems.

Studies  assessing  the  cost-effectiveness  of  different  measures  and  programmes  are
extremely rare although  their  usefulness  for  policy  making  and  allocation  of  scarce
financial resources is clear.

that 

An example of such analysis is reported (Bel et al - 1999) for the Bièvre-Liers region
in France.  As  illustrated  in the table VIII, this report  compared two  programmes in
terms of their impact on N-emissions, N-concentration in groundwater and costs. The
table  shows 
the
FARM+CIPEN programme, with unitary costs of N-reduction of €1.07 and €1,38 per
kg  of  N,  respectively3.  However,  the  combined  FARM+CIPEN  measures  are  still
necessary for  achieving  reductions  in  nitrate  concentration  of  groundwater  down  to
the  guide  value  of  25  mg/l.  And  the  overall  cost  of  such  combined  programme
remains reasonable.

the  FARM  programme 

is  more  cost-effective 

than 

Table  VIII  Comparison  of  impacts  and  cost  of  two  preventive  programmes
(Belgium/Germany, 1999)

Variable, Indicator

FARM1

FARM + 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

22

38

27

53

Cost-effectiveness  in  €  per  unit  of  N-emission
reduced

1,07

1,38

1: Programme FARM – Expected yields equal to the average of the last 5 years; N-
application  (including  farm  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 losses 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

3

In  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.

26

                                                
assessing,  for  example,  the  relative  potential  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  Programmes  concentrate  on  the  costs  (often
imperfectly  estimated)  of  these  measures.  The  studies  and  reports  investigating
environmental benefits arising from the reduction 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  efficiency  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 practices5 for reducing the nitrate level in the
groundwater to acceptable levels were estimated at 0.06 €/m3 versus 0.28 €/m3, i.e.
nearly  5  times  more,  for  the  alternative  of  installing  biological  denitrification
treatment. A Dutch case in the same study showed even a bigger difference, with a
cost 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 suppliers and water consumers (who eventually
pay  the  water  bill)  all  have  an  interest  in  developing  improved  farm  practices.  The
number  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 common6. Thus, and although improved measures 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 splitting
N 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:

4

5

6

The  same  analysis  can  be  performed  for  different  countries.  See  for  example  the  article  by  Markku
Ollikainen.  2001.  Towards  efficient  pollution  control  in  the  Baltic  Sea  –  An  ecological-economic
modelling approach, on a cost-effectiveness analysis for reducing nitrate emissions to the Baltic Sea.
By  assessing  N-balance,  shifting  from  mineral  fertilisers  to  organic  manure,  installing  intercultures,
developing organic farming; investing in manure storage, implementing winter soil cover, etc.
In some cases, when high economic interests are at stake such as in areas where water is extracted for
bottled  mineral  water,  the  financial  retribution  paid  to  farmers  can  sometimes  be  very  high  and
significantly increase farm income…

27

                                                
(cid:1)  Indirect costs of eutrophication impacts on environmental heritage and on other
water  related  economic  activities  such  as  fishing,  tourism  or  recreational  use  of
water, are assessed thanks to case-studies in representative watersheds.

(cid:1)  Research  and  studies  are  proposed  for  investigating  the  socio-economic
dimensions  of  Action  Programmes  and  providing  robust  socio-economic
assessment required for any policy decision and planning.

(cid:1)  Such  analyses  need  to  integrate  socio-economic  and  technical  issues.  For
example,  a  cost-effectiveness  analysis  needs  to  combine  expertise  for  assessing
the  impact  of  selected  measures  (in  terms  of  reduction  in  nitrate  use,  in  the
leaching  fraction  or  in  the  eutrophication  level  of  a  given  water  body)  with
expertise for assessing the costs of these measures.

(cid:1)  Both a farm-level perspective and a global  or society  perspective are  required in
the  economic  analysis.  Indeed,  some  costs  or  benefits  may  arise  outside  of  the
farm  boundaries  and  thus  need  to  be  considered  in  promoting  and  evaluating
Action  Programmes.  As  the  Water  Framework  Directive  is  progressively
implemented,  cost-effectiveness  analysis  will  be  more  systematically  performed
for  assessing  programmes  of  measures,  including  measures  for  reducing  diffuse
pollution from agriculture.

(cid:1) 

In parallel to  analyses  and  studies,  Member  States  should  collect  systematically
socio-economic information on their Action Programmes. The information should
be coherent (e.g. collected via farm surveys such as those developed in France) to
ensure comparability and that common lessons of relevance to all Member States
can be drawn.

C.

THE ACTIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

These actions have been developed in four directions:

– 

– 

– 

– 

Knowledge  on  the  pressures  and  environmental  status  of  EU  waters,  through
regular  monitoring  and  reporting  exercises,  with  improved  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 tools
for  measuring,  modelling  or  forecasting  their  impact  on  water  quality
evolution.

Legal  pressure  on  Member  States  which  do  not  implement  correctly  the
different steps of the directive’s process.

Development  of  economic  tools  (eco-compliance,  taxation  of  surpluses,
for  precautional  practices)  encouraging  a  good  nutrients
incentives 
management at farm level. This includes linkage of Rural Development Plans
funding with progress in implementing the Directive.

28

As an example of technical information, several 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 contractors on behalf of the Commission. Reviews on
criteria of fresh and marine waters eutrophication have also been published.

The  Commission  (DG  Research)  is  also  promoting  and  financing  international
projects concerning:

– 

– 

– 

inputs  and  transfers  of  nutriments  in  the  air  (“Anice”),  soils  and
water (“Streames”, “Danubs”, “Euroharp”, “Eloise”, “Subgate”),
their  impact  on  aquatic  ecosystems  (“Chabade”  for  Mediterranea,
“Comweb” for coastal plankton),
and
sampling 
“Fractflow/Famest” 
“BMW”,
“Harmonit/Harmoniqua”,  these  two  last  studies  including  socio-
economic approach and cost-efficiency scenarios).

and  modelling  methods 
for 

groundwaters, 

(“Baseline” 

Two examples illustrate the direct applicability of this research:

(cid:1)  The recently finalised RANR project, about retention and fluxes of nitrogen from
land  to  sea,  has  demonstrated  the  good  adequation  of  a  specific  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  to
forecast delayed effects of N transfers in the water cycle.

(cid:1)  The FAEWE (Parts 1&2) and NICOLAS projects showed that for the purpose of
the  reduction  of  nitrogen  inputs  into  rivers  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 able
to 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  central  database  on  the  17  pilot  watersheds
and  the  9  modelling  methods  tested).  Diffuse  N  pressure  assessment  and  marine
eutrophication  survey  by  remote  sensing  are  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:

7

8

Concerted action AIR3-CT94-2108.
ERM, 2000-2001.

29

                                                
B DK D EL ES

F

IRE

I

L NL Ö P

SF

S

UK

Member
State

Water
monitoring

nitrates

Designation
of 
vulnerable
zones

of
Codes 
good practice

Action
programmes

+

+

+

+

+

(cid:1)

+

(cid:2)

+

(cid:2)

+

(cid:1)

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Report

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

(cid:1)

+

(cid:2)

+

(cid:2)

+

+

(cid:2)

+

(cid:2)

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

(cid:1)

+

+

+

+

=

Exercise performed but not necessarily approved by the Commission

(cid:2)
designated

=

Shaded:

Whole territory

(cid:1)
2001 but not achieved

=

important designations expected end

Infringement procedure ongoing (For legal reasons, some proceedings at an
early 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  directives.  Half  of  these  cases  were  closed,  due  to  a  quick
improvement of implementation by the concerned countries, 7 have resulted in condemnation
by the European Court, against Spain (01.10.98 and 13.04.00), Italy (25.02.99 and 08.11.01),
United Kingdom (07.12.00) France (08.03. 01) and 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.

30

15

10

5

0

14

12

8

7

5

6

4

0

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  the  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 completing 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  lacking  of  coherence,  the  water  monitoring  networks  set  up  by
Member  States  show  that  more  than  20%  of  EU  groundwaters  are  facing  excessive  nitrates
concentrations,  with  a  continuous  increasing  trend  in  the  most  intensive  areas  of  livestock
breeding and fertiliser consumption.

At  least  30-40%  of  rivers  and  lakes  show  eutrophication  symptoms  or  bring  high  nitrogen
fluxes to coastal waters and seas. The agricultural origin of these N fluxes accounts for 50

9

10

OJ  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).
OJ L160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

31

                                                
to 80% of total N inputs to EU waters, depending on Member States, 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  the  directive,  set  up  a  comprehensive
monitoring network, established a code of good practice, and designated at least partially their
vulnerable  zones  (except  Ireland).  Indeed  the  effects  of  action  programmes,  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  accompanied  dissemination  of  good  practice
advice (e.g. in Denmark, some German Länder, East of France, Algarve).

The  gradual  orientation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  to  take  greater  account  of
environmental issues (environmental protection requirements foreseen in Article 3 of Council
Regulation  No  1259/1999,  establishing  common  rules  for  direct  support  schemes  under  the
CAP; expansion of agri-environmental measures; definition of codes of good farming practice
foreseen within rural development plans) contributes 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 through CAP measures. Controlling nitrate 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 agriculture and dissemination of
knowledge, it is necessary that all Member States arrive at a full implementation 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  that  costs  induced  by  drinking
water  treatment  for  nitrates  excess,  or  by  eutrophication  damages  in  dams  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 agricultural 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  resolution  (A5-0386/2000),  and  recognised  by  the  new  Water  Framework
Directive  (WFD),  which  does  not  introduce  any  change  to  its  process  or  deadlines.
Nevertheless a synergy has to be developed in the future work 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  needs
linked with EU Directives, OECD-Eurostat Questionnaires, EEA “Eurowaternet”, Marine

32

local/regional  needs.  This  question 

and  River  Conventions,  and 
is  crucial  for
eutrophication  effects,  which  need  agreement  on  harmonised  criteria  and  monitoring
methodologies.  Common  tools  and  compatible  equipment  (G.I.S.),  for  georeferenced
information exchange between Member States and the Commission, in electronic format,
are under rapid development.

(agriculture,  urban  waters, 

–  assessment of point and diffuse losses of nutrients to waters, and of the breakdown of
their  origin 
(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 in
nitrates Action Programmes and in management plans of WFD for any polluting parameter
at watershed level.

industry,  air  deposition…), 

–  models  correlating  environmental  impacts  (e.g.  algae  blooms)  and  causative  factors
(nutrients,  natural  conditions,  etc.),  which  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. watersheds, as  promoting cyanophytes
(blue  algae)  problems  in  lakes  and  dams,  macrophytes  and  dinoflagellates  impairing
tourism  or  aquaculture  in  coastal  waters,  etc.  Efficiency  of  investment  in  preventive
measures, on agricultural pressures and practices, or on domestic and industrial discharges,
will  have  to  be  evaluated  and  compared.  Here  also  pilot  applications  and  research  are
urgently needed, as shown by the poor feed back on these “forecast” and “cost-efficiency”
items of the Nitrates year 2000 reporting exercise.

33