FINAL REPORT

The impact of the Nitrates Directive on gaseous N emissions Effects of measures in nitrates action programme on gaseous N emissions Contract ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0009 Velthof G.L., J.P. Lesschen, J. Webb, S. Pietrzak, Z. Miatkowski, J. Kros, M. Pinto, and O. Oenema Consortium Alterra, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands AEA Technology, United Kingdom ITP, Poland NEIKER, Spain

Alterra, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands www.alterra.wur.nl

2

Contents

Extended summary 5

Résumé étendu 11

Introduction 17

Nitrogen emissions from agriculture 19

Task 1: "Current Practice Baseline" 23 MITERRA-EUROPE 23 Subtask 1.1. Available agricultural data 26 Subtask 1.2. Emission factors 31 Subtask 1.3-1.4. Gaseous N emissions in 2000-2008 35 Subtask 1.5. Comparison with national inventories 43

Task 2: "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario 45

Task 3: Effect of derogation 61

References 71

Annex 1. Estimating regional variations in nitrogen excretion by livestock in EU-27 75

Annex 2. Share of implementation of ammonia abatement techniques in 2000, 2005 and 2010 in GAINS. 95

Annex 3. Determining emission factors for national estimates of ammonia emissions 109

Annex 4. Comparison of ammonia emission calculated with MITERRA and those reported for the NEC directive 127

Annex 5. Comparison of nitrous oxide emissions calculated with MITERRA-EUROPE and those reported to the UNFCCC 131

Annex 6. Information on derogations granted 135

Annex 7. Reference to the report with of subtask 1.3 147

Annex 8. N emissions in the period 2000- 2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive. 149

Annex 9. Nitrate Vulnerable zones in EU 157

4

5

Extended summary

The European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, awarded a contract to Alterra to deliver the work outlined in the tender ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0009 The impact of the Nitrates Directive on gaseous N emissions, effects of measures in nitrates action programme on gaseous N emissions. The general objective of this project was to assess the effects of measures in the Nitrates Directive on gaseous nitrogen (N) emissions to the atmosphere. A consortium of four institutes has carried out this project: Alterra (the Netherlands; lead), AEA (UK), ITP (Poland) and NEIKER (Spain).

Methodology, input data, and emission factors The model MITERRA-EUROPE was used in this project for calculation of the gaseous N emissions as ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in different scenarios. Activity data and emission factors were gathered using literature and statistical databases, such as Eurostat and FAO-stat. A method was developed to estimate the N excretion from the milk yields and grassland yields on a regional level. This methodology to calculate N excretion by dairy cattle will also improve the quantification of gaseous N emissions in EU-27 and results in a better insight in regional differences of N emissions. For the other livestock categories, the N excretion obtained for the model GAINS have been used, because i) the range in N excretion for these categories is much smaller than for dairy cows, and ii) detailed data on feed rations for intensive livestock systems across EU-27 are lacking. A review on NH3 emission factors was carried out. It was concluded that the data currently provided by GAINS remain the best current statement of regional differences among NH3 emissions in the EU 27. A recently developed approach to derive N2O emission factors for application of fertilizers and manures in dependency of environmental, crop and management factors (including application techniques) has been implemented in MITERRA-EUROPE to calculate N2O emission. A statistical regression analysis was carried out using published NOx emission factors. The statistical analyses showed that the main factors affecting NOx emissions were rainfall and temperature. Although the NOX emission factors differed between the temperature classes, there was no sound (consistent) temperature effect on NOx emission factors. Therefore, the NOX emission factor based on rainfall are used in MITERRA-EUROPE Results of the Current Practice Baseline scenario In the "Current Practice Baseline" scenario, the NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions were calculated for each member state on a yearly basis for the period 2000-2008. The calculation unit was the regional (NUTS II) level. This scenario includes a fully

6

implemented Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC Directive) in 2008. The calculated total N losses from agricultural soils in the EU-27 in 2008 were ~13 Mton N. The largest loss occurs as N2 emission due to denitrification (6.7 Mton N or 53%). The losses by N leaching and NH3 emission are more or less equal, 2.8 Mton N (22%) and 2.7 Mton N (21%) respectively. The losses by N2O are 315 kton N (3%) and NOx 120 kton N (1%). All N losses show a slight decrease over the period 2000-2008, which is probably related to the slight decrease in N fertilizer and manure use in this period. By far the majority of NH3 emission in the EU-27 was derived from housing and manure storage systems (~1.2 Mton N or 44% in 2008), followed by manure application (29%) and fertilizer application (19%). The calculated total amount of N2O emission for the year 2008 in the EU-27 amounts 315 kton. More than half of the N2O emission in the EU-27 is derived from grazing (~90 kton N or 28%) and fertilizer application (~72 kton N or 23%). A relatively large part is caused by indirect emission (~49 kton N or 16%). Crop residues contribute 11%, manure application 8%, peat soils 8% and housing systems only 6%. The highest calculated NH3 emissions are found in areas with intensive animal husbandry such as Belgium, Netherlands and North Western Germany, Brittany in France and the Po valley in Italy. Emissions are low in Central and Southern Spain, Southern Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Northern Europe and the Baltic states. Emissions of N2O emissions are relatively high in regions in Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland. As for NH3 emissions, most of the increase in N2O emissions between 2000 and 2008 is found in areas with relatively low emissions in 2000, whereas the opposite is true for areas with high emissions, where emissions decreased in the same period. The geographical distribution of changes in NOx emissions between 2000 and 2008 is quite comparable to N2O.

Comparison of calculated emissions with reported emissions The results of MITERRA-EUROPE have been compared with NH3 emissions reported for the NEC-Directive and the N2O emission reported for UNFCCC. There is no systematic difference between MITERRA output and the national NH3 emissions reported under the NEC-Directive. On average, the NH3 emission calculated with MITERRA is 20% smaller than the NH3 emission reported for NEC. There are large differences between member states and for some member states, the MITERRA emissions are higher than the NEC emissions. Probably, the differences between MITERRA and the NEC reports are due to (a combination of) differences in sources and differences in used emission factors and N excretion. The NEC reports also show large differences among member states. The results suggest that the methodologies to calculate NH3 emissions and the sources included for the NEC reports differ between member states.

7

The total N2O emission from agricultural soils in EU-27 in 2008 was similar for UNFCCC reports and MITERRA-EUROPE (493 kton N2O per year). However, for some member states emissions according to UNFCCC report were higher than MITERRA-EUROPE (e.g. Bulgaria, Czech republic, Denmark, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden) and for other member states the opposite was shown (e.g. Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, UK). Differences between UNFCCC reports and MITERRA-EUROPE were expected, because MITERRA-EUROPE i) uses region specific N2O emissions instead of default N2O emission factors of IPCC, ii) calculates nitrate leaching (a source of indirect N2O emission) in a different way than IPCC, iii) calculates ammonia emission (also a source of indirect N2O emission) using GAINS methodology (countries may use other methodologies), and iv) calculates N excretion by livestock based on GAINS and for dairy cattle based on a method developed in the current project. Moreover, it may not be excluded that there is a difference in activity data used by the countries and by MITERRA-EUROPE. A study in which differences in N emissions among countries and regions in EU-27 is assessed, needs a uniform approach to calculate N emissions. This makes a comparison possible and avoids misinterpretation, because of differences in methodologies used among member states. Results “Without Nitrates Directive" scenario The NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions and total N leaching to ground and surface waters in EU-27 decreased in the period 2000-2008 in both scenarios with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive. However, the emissions of the scenario with implementation of the Nitrates Directive are smaller than without the Nitrates Directive. In 2000, the calculated total NH3 emission in the EU is on average 1.1% higher without the Nitrates Directive than with the Nitrates Directive (ranging from -1.2% for Luxembourg to 5% for the Netherlands). In 2008, the effect of implementation of the Nitrates Directive on N emissions was much larger: the emission is 3.4% higher in the scenario without the Nitrates Directive in the EU-27 (this is equal to 90 kton NH3-N). The largest effect was shown for the Netherlands (15.8%) and Ireland (11.7%). The total N2O emission in EU-27 was 3.1% higher without the Nitrates Directive than with the Nitrates Directive in 2000. In 2008, the effect increased to 6.3%. The implementation of the Nitrates Directive has decreased the N fertilizer (both chemical and organic) input and the N excretion of dairy cattle, and because of that the N2O emission decreased. The largest effects were shown for the Netherlands (19.9%), UK (12.0%), and Denmark (12.3%). The effects on NOx emission were comparable to those on N2O emission. In 2008, the NOx emission without the Nitrates Directive was 8.8% higher than with the Nitrates Directive. The implementation of the Nitrates Directive strongly (with 16.4%) decreased N leaching in EU-27 in 2008. In 2000, the effect was 7.4%. The largest effects were shown for the Netherlands (59.5%), Denmark (48%), and the UK (36.3%).

8

The measures considered in the “Without Nitrates Directive” scenario can be categorized as four types of measures i) measures affecting fertilizer inputs, ii) measures affecting animal numbers, iii) measures affecting the area of land that can be used for agriculture (because of buffer strips and regulations for sloping soils), and iv) measures affecting NH3 emissions because of change in manure application time due to closed periods. The results of the calculations clearly showed that the reduction of N fertilizer use because of implementation of the Nitrates Directive caused the greatest reduction of N emissions. A decrease in N fertilizer input has a direct effect on the N emissions, but also results in a lower N excretion by cattle (without compensation with concentrates), and by that a lower N input by manure and grazing. The requirement of the Nitrates Directive of balanced N fertilization has a large effect on N emissions in regions in which total N application rates would exceed the demand of crops for N. Effect of derogation on gaseous N emissions The effect of derogation on N management has been assessed using MITERRA-EUROPE. Several management options have been assessed in case there is no derogation of application of more manure than 170 kg N per ha in regions with a derogation:

Manure is treated and exported to another region in which manure can be applied.

The manure is treated and N is removed from agriculture.

The protein content of the feed for livestock is reduced, by which the N excretion and manure production decrease.

The number of livestock decreases. The comparison of N emissions in the scenario without derogation and the scenario with derogation shows small differences on EU-27 level (i.e. the emissions decreases with less than 2%). This is due to the fact that the total area under derogation is small. Moreover, in most of the regions with a derogation, the manure can be distributed in neighboring regions, so that no other measures have to be taken. The scenario with no derogation, only affected the N emissions in regions with a high density of livestock in Belgium (Flanders) and the Netherlands. Results of a case study with a fictitious region show that the different management options in the case of no derogation result in a relatively small change in gaseous N emissions within the region compared to the situation with a derogation for cattle manure on grassland. Only a decrease in the number of cattle so that all manure produced could be applied within the application standard of 170 kg N per ha significantly affected NH3 emissions. This is caused by the fact that changes in management because of derogation only affect part the N produced in a region. Gaseous N emissions from housing and manure storage and those related to pig and poultry manure mostly do not change by derogation for higher application of cattle manure on grassland. Moreover, the amount of applied fertilizer may increase when the amount of manure applied decreases in case of no derogation, in order to keep the total amount of applied effective N constant (within the N application standards

9

required to satisfy crop needs). In several of the no derogation options, manure N has to be exported to other regions. The exported manure may affect the gaseous N emissions in these regions. Conclusion The results of comparison of the scenarios with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive clearly show that the implementation of the measures in the Action Programmes of the Nitrates Directive decreased the gaseous N emission and N leaching in the period 2000-2008. It must be noted that the quantitative parameterization of the Without Nitrates Directive scenario has uncertainties, but the reduction of gaseous emissions and N leaching because of the Nitrates Directive is expected, mainly due to the requirement of balanced N fertilization. In the Commission study "Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions" of 2007, future scenarios were calculated with MITERRA-EUROPE. In these scenarios, the effects of implementation of measures taken to decrease N leaching from agricultural sources, such as balanced N fertilization, showed a strong reduction of emissions of NH3 and N2O emissions. The measure balanced fertilization was based on a theoretical approach in which the crop demand for N was calculated and the plant-available N inputs were adjusted to the crop demand. This strict implementation of balanced fertilization resulted in a strong reduction in N inputs to agricultural soils. A package of measures to reduce N leaching, resulted in a decrease in emissions of 9% for NH3 emission, 15% for N2O emission, and 42% for nitrate leaching at full implementation in EU-27, compared to the situation without implementation of these measures (Velthof et al., 2009). This future scenario was considered as a potential effect, because there was a strict implementation of the balanced N fertilization measure. The effects in 2008 calculated in the current study, show that significant part of the potential reduction in N emissions by the Nitrates Directive was achieved by 2008 (3.4% for NH3 in 2008, 6.3% for N2O, and 16.4% for N leaching). A further decrease in N emissions in the near future is expected, as the implementation of the measures of the Nitrates Directive increase because i) the area designated as NVZs in EU-27 increases and ii) the measures in the Action Programmes become stricter in time (e.g. the fertilizer application standards).

10

11

Résumé étendu

La Commission Européenne, Direction Générale de l'Environnement, a attribué un contrat à Alterra pour compléter les travaux décrits dans l'appel d'offres ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0009 - Incidence de la directive «Nitrates» sur les émissions gazeuses d'azote, effets des mesures contenues dans le programme d'action «Nitrates» sur les émissions gazeuses d'azote.

L'objectif général de ce projet est d'évaluer les effets de certaines mesures spécifiques établies dans les programmes d’action «Nitrates» sur les émissions atmosphériques.

Un consortium de quatre instituts a réalisé ce projet: Alterra (Pays-Bas; plomb), AEA (Royaume-Uni), ITP (Pologne) et NEIKER (Espagne).

Méthodologie, les données d'entrée, et les facteurs d'émissions

Le modèle MITERRA-Europe a été utilisé dans ce projet pour le calcul des émissions gazeuses d'azote, à savoir l'ammoniac (NH3), l'oxyde nitreux (N2O) et les oxydes d'azote (NOx) dans différents scénarios. Les données d'activité et les facteurs d'émissions ont été recueillis à travers la littérature et des bases de données statistiques, comme Eurostat et FAO-STAT. Une méthode a été développée pour estimer les valeurs de rejet d'azote à partir de la production de lait et des rendements des pâturages à l'échelle régionale.

Cette méthode de calcul : les valeurs de rejet d'azote pour les vaches laitières permettra également d'améliorer la quantification des émissions gazeuses d'azote dans l'UE-27 et fournira un meilleur aperçu des différences régionales des émissions azotées.

Pour les autres catégories d'animaux, les valeurs de rejet d'azote obtenues par le modèle GAINS ont été utilisés, car i) l’éventail de valeurs de rejet d'azote pour ces catégories sont moins importantes que pour les vaches laitières, et ii) des données détaillées sur les rations alimentaires pour les systèmes d'élevage intensif dans l'UE-27 sont absentes.

Une analyse des facteurs d'émission pour NH3 a été réalisée. Il a été conclu que les données actuellement fournies par GAINS restent actuellement les meilleures en termes de représentation des différences régionales des émissions de NH3 dans l'UE 27. Pour le calcul des émissions de N2O, une approche récemment développée afin de calculer les facteurs d'émission pour N2O dérivants de l'application des engrais et des effluents d'élevage, en fonction de facteurs environnementaux, des cultures et de gestion (y compris les différents techniques d'application) a été mis en œuvre dans MITERRA-EUROPE. Une régression statistique a été effectuée sur la base des facteurs d'émission publiés pour NOx. Les analyses statistiques ont montré que les principaux facteurs affectant les émissions de NOx étaient les précipitations et la température. Bien que les facteurs d'émission pour NOX diffèrent entre les classes de

12

température, il n'y avait aucun effet (uniforme) de la température sur lesdits facteurs d'émission. Par conséquent, les facteurs d'émission pour NOx en fonction de la pluviométrie ont été utilisés dans MITERRA-EUROPE.

Résultats du scénario de base des pratiques actuelles

Dans le scénario de base des pratiques actuelles ("Current Practice Baseline"), les émissions de NH3, N2O et de NOx ont été calculées pour chaque Etat Membre sur une base annuelle pour la période 2000-2008. L'unité de calcul était le niveau régional (NUTS II). Ce scénario inclut une mise en œuvre complète de la Directive relative à la prévention et à la réduction intégrée de la pollution (Directive IPPC) en 2008.

Les pertes d'azote totales par les sols agricoles dans l'UE-27 calculées pour l'année 2008 étaient ~ 13 Mtonnes N. La perte d'azote plus importante se produit sous la forme d’émissions N2 en raison de la dénitrification (6,7 N Mtonnes ou 53% ). Les pertes par lessivage et par volatilisation d'NH3 sont plus ou moins égales, à savoir 2,8 Mtonnes N (22%) et 2,7 Mtonnes N (21%) respectivement. Les pertes sous forme de N2O sont estimées à 315 ktonnes N (3%) et celles de NOx à 120 ktonnes N (1%). Toutes les pertes d'azote montrent une légère diminution au cours de la période 2000-2008, ce qui est probablement lié à la légère diminution de l'utilisation des engrais azotés et des effluents d'élevage dans cette période.

La majorité des émissions de NH3 dans l'UE-27 est causée dans les bâtiments et au cours du stockage des effluents d'élevage (~ 1,2 Mtonnes N ou 44% en 2008), suivie par l'épandage d'effluents d'élevage fumier (29%) et d'engrais (19%). Les émissions totales de N2O pour l'année 2008 dans l'UE27 s'élèvent à 315 ktonnes. Plus de la moitié des émissions de N2O dans l'UE-27 est produite au cours du pâturage (~ 90 ktonnes N ou 28%) et l'épandage de fumier (29%) et pendant l'épandage d'engrais (~ 72 ktonnes N ou 23%). Une partie relativement importante est causée par les émissions indirectes provenant du lessivage des nitrates et des émissions d'ammoniac (~ 72 ktonnes N ou 23%). Les résidus des cultures contribuent pour 11%, l'épandage des effluents d'élevage pour 8%, les sols de turbe pour 8% et les systèmes de logement pour 6%.

Les émissions les plus élevées de NH3 sont trouvées dans les régions ou l'élevage intensif est pratiqué comme la Belgique, les Pays-Bas, le Nord-ouest de l'Allemagne, la Bretagne en France et la vallée du Pô en Italie. Les émissions sont faibles au centre et sud de l'Espagne, l'Italie du Sud, la Grèce, la Bulgarie, la Roumanie, l'Europe du Nord et les pays baltes. Les émissions de N2O sont relativement élevées en Belgique, aux Pays-Bas et en Irlande. Comme pour les émissions de NH3, la plupart de l'augmentation des émissions de N2O entre 2000 et 2008 se trouve dans les zones à émissions relativement faibles en 2000, alors que l'inverse est vrai pour les zones à fortes émissions (ou les émissions se réduisent dans la même période). La répartition géographique des changements des émissions de NOx entre 2000 et 2008 est assez comparable à celle de N2O.

13

Comparaison des émissions calculées et celles des émissions déclarées

Les résultats du model MITERRA-Europe ont été comparés avec les émissions de NH3 transmises par les États Membres au titre de la Directive-NEC et les émissions d'oxyde d’azote N2O transmises dans le contexte UNFCCC.

Il n'y a pas de différence systématique entre les données générées par MITERRA et les émissions nationales de NH3 transmises par les États Membres au titre de la Directive-NEC. En moyenne, l'émission de NH3 calculée avec MITERRA est inférieure de 20% par rapport aux émissions calculées par les État Membres. Il y a des grandes différences entre Etats Membres et pour certains, les émissions MITERRA sont même supérieures aux émissions transmises par les Etats Membres au titre de la Directive NEC. Probablement, les différences entre MITERRA et les rapports NEC sont dus à une combinaison de différences dans les sources et des différences dans les facteurs d'émission utilisés, ainsi que dans les normes de rejets d'azote. Les rapports NEC montrent également des grandes différences entre les États Membres. Les résultats montrent que les méthodes et les sources pour calculer les émissions d'NH3 dans les rapports NEC diffèrent entre les États Membres.

Les émissions totales de N2O provenant des sols agricoles dans l'UE-27 en 2008 étaient similaires dans les rapports de la UNFCCC et MITERRA-Europe (493 ktonnes N2O par an), mais pour certains États Membres il y avait de grandes différences. Ce résultat était attendu, car MITERRA-EUROPE i) utilise des coefficients d'émission spécifiques à échelle régionale , alors que des facteurs d'émission standards sont utilisés dans la méthodologie IPCC, ii) calcule le lessivage des nitrates (une source indirecte des émissions de N2O) d'une manière différente de la méthodologie IPCC, iii) calcule les émissions d'ammoniac (également une source indirecte des émissions de N2O) en utilisant la méthodologie GAINS (les pays peuvent utiliser d'autres méthodes), et iv) calcule le valeurs de rejet d'azote des animaux sur la base de la méthodologie GAINS (sauf pour les vaches laitières pour lesquelles les valeurs de rejet d'azote sont basées sur une méthode développée dans le contexte du projet actuel). Par ailleurs, il ne peut pas être exclu qu'il y ait une différence dans les données concernant les activités utilisées par les pays et par MITERRA-EUROPE.

Une étude où les différences des émissions azotées entre les pays et les régions dans l'UE-27 sont évaluées, a besoin d'une approche uniforme. Cela rend la comparaison possible et évite une interprétation erronée, en raison de différences dans les méthodologies utilisées entre les différents Etats Membres.

Résultats «Sans Directive Nitrates" scénario

Les émissions de NH3, N2O et de NOx et l'azote total lessivé dans les eaux souterraines et de surface dans l'UE-27 a diminué dans la période 2000-2008 dans les deux scénarios, avec et sans la mise en œuvre de la Directive « Nitrates ». Cependant, les émissions du scénario de mise en œuvre de la Directive « Nitrates » sont moindres que sans la Directive Nitrates.

14

En 2000, les émissions totales de NH3 dans l'UE sont en moyenne de 1,1% plus élevées dans le scenario sans la Directive Nitrates par rapport au scenario avec la mise en œuvre de la même Directive (allant de -1,2% pour le Luxembourg à 5% pour les Pays-Bas). En 2008, l'effet de la mise en œuvre de la Directive Nitrates sur les émissions de N était beaucoup plus important: l'émission est de 3,4% plus élevée dans le scénario sans la Directive au niveau européen (ce qui est égal à 90 ktonnes NH3-N). L'effet le plus important a été montré dans les Pays-Bas (15,8%) et l’Irlande (11,7%). Pour ce qui concerne le N2O, dans l'UE-27 les émissions étaient de 3,1% plus élevées sans la directive qu'avec la directive en 2000. En 2008, la différence des émissions entre les deux scenarios augmente à 6,3%. La mise en œuvre de la Directive Nitrates a diminué l'apport d'engrais et d'effluents d'élevage d'un coté et les rejets d'azote des vaches laitières d'un autre coté, ce qui a entrainé une diminution des émissions de N2O. Les effets les plus importants ont été visibles aux Pays-Bas (19,9%), Royaume-Uni (12,0%), et au Danemark (12,3%). Les effets sur les émissions de NOx étaient comparables à celles sur les émissions de N2O. En 2008, les émissions de NOx, dans le scenario sans la Directive Nitrates étaient 8,8% supérieures que dans le scenario avec la Directive « Nitrates ». La mise en œuvre de la Directive Nitrates a fortement (16,4%) diminué le lessivage de l'azote dans l'UE-27 en 2008. En 2000, l'effet était de 7,4%. Les plus grands effets ont été visibles aux Pays-Bas (59,5%), Danemark (48%), et au Royaume-Uni (36,3%).

Les mesures envisagées dans le scénario Sans Directive Nitrates peuvent être classifiées en quatre types de mesures i) les mesures influençant les apports d'engrais, ii) les mesures influençant les effectifs d'animaux, iii) les mesures influençant la superficie des terres qui peuvent être utilisés pour l'agriculture (en raison des bandes tampons et les règlements pour les sols en pente), et iv) les mesures influençant les émissions NH3 d'ammoniac en raison du changement des périodes d'épandage des effluents d'élevage, à cause des périodes d’interdiction d'épandage. Les résultats des calculs montrent clairement que la réduction de l'utilisation d'engrais en raison de la mise en œuvre de la Directive Nitrates entraine la plus forte réduction des émissions d'azote. Une diminution de l'apport d'engrais azotés a une incidence directe sur les émissions de N, mais est la cause également d'une plus faible excrétion d'azote par le bétail, et, en conséquence, des apports réduits d'azote suivant l'épandage des effluents d'élevage et le pâturage. La mesure de la Directive Nitrates sur la limitation de la fertilisation azotée a un effet important sur les émissions d'azote dans les régions où les taux d'application d'azote total dépasseraient la demande de cultures.

Effet de la dérogation sur les émissions gazeuses azotées

L'effet de la dérogation sur la gestion de l'azote a été évalué en utilisant le modèle MITERRA-EUROPE. Plusieurs options de gestion ont été évaluées pour simuler le scenario dans lequel il n'y avait pas de dérogation à la limite d'application d'effluents d'élevage de 170 kg d'azote par ha dans les régions bénéficiant actuellement d'une dérogation:

• Les effluents d'élevage sont traités et exportés vers une autre région

dans laquelle ils peuvent être épandus.

15

• Les effluents d'élevage sont traités et l'azote est retiré de l'agriculture.

• La teneur en protéines dans la ration pour le bétail est réduite, ce qui

diminue les excrétions d'azote ainsi que la production d'effluents.

• Les effectifs d'animaux diminuent.

Le scénario sans dérogation en comparaison au scénario avec dérogation présente de faibles différences sur les émissions d'azote et le lessivage de l'azote au niveau de l'UE-27 (les émissions diminuent de moins de 2%). Cela est dû au fait que la superficie totale actuellement couverte par une dérogation est négligeable. Par ailleurs, dans la plupart des régions bénéficiant d'une dérogation, les effluents d'élevage peuvent être distribués dans des régions voisines, de sorte qu'aucune autre mesure n'est nécessaire. Dans le scénario sans dérogation les émissions d'azote changent le plus principalement dans les régions à forte densité de bétail, en Belgique (Flandre) et aux Pays-Bas.

Les résultats d’un cas d’étude avec une région fictive montrent que les différentes options de gestion, dans le cas où il n’y avait pas dérogation en place, impliqueraient plus ou moins les mêmes émissions gazeuses d'azote dans la région en question, par rapport à la situation avec une dérogation pour le fumier de bovins sur les pâturages. Seulement une diminution du nombre de vaches, de telle sorte que tout le fumier produit pourrait être épandu en respectant la limite de 170 kg N par ha, influence de manière significative les émissions de NH3. Ceci est du au fait que les changements de gestion imposés par la dérogation n’affectent qu’une partie de l'azote produit dans une région. Les émissions gazeuses azotées produites au cours du stockage des effluents d'élevage et dans les bâtiments, ainsi que celles liées aux porcins et à la volaille ne changent pas lorsqu'une dérogation à l'application de fumier de bovins sur les pâturages est en place.

Par ailleurs, la quantité d'engrais minéraux épandue peut augmenter lorsque aucune dérogation n'est en place, afin de maintenir le montant d'azote total épandu constant (dans les normes d'application N, nécessaires aux besoins des plantes). Dans plusieurs options dans le scenario de non dérogation, les effluents d'élevage doivent être exportés vers d'autres régions, ce qui influence les émissions gazeuses d'azote dans ces régions.

Conclusions

La comparaison des scénarios avec et sans la mise en œuvre de la Directive Nitrates montre clairement que la mise en œuvre des mesures prévues dans les Programmes d'Action de la Directive a diminué soit les émissions gazeuses d'azote soit le lessivage d'azote dans la période 2000-2008. Il faut noter que si la paramétrisation quantitative du scénario Sans Directive Nitrates est incertaine, on s'attend à la baisse des émissions gazeuses et du lessivage de l'azote en raison de la Directive Nitrates , principalement due à la mesure de limitation de la fertilisation azotée .

Dans l'étude de la Commission «Mesures intégrées dans l'agriculture afin de réduire les émissions d'ammoniac» de l'année 2007, certains scénarios futurs furent calculés

16

avec MITERRA-EUROPE. Dans ces scénarios, les effets d'une mise en œuvre complète des mesures prises pour réduire le lessivage d'azote à partir de sources agricoles, telles que la fertilisation azotée équilibrée, ont montré une réduction substantielle des émissions de NH3 et de N2O, à savoir de 9% pour les émissions de NH3, de 15% pour les émissions de N2O et 42% pour le lessivage des nitrates (dans UE-27, comparé à la situation sans la mise en œuvre de la Directive Nitrates) (Velthof et al., 2009). Ce scénario futur a été considéré comme un effet potentiel, car il y avait une application stricte de la mesure de la fertilisation azotée équilibrée. L'étude actuelle montre que des progrès considérables ont été faits en 2008 (3,4% pour les émissions de NH3, 6,3% pour le N2O, et 16,4% pour lessivage de l'azote), ce qui constitue une partie importante de la réduction potentielle des émissions d'azote causées par la directive nitrates et calculée dans l'étude précédente.

Des diminutions ultérieures des émissions d'azote dans le futur proche sont attendues, suite à l'amélioration de la mise en œuvre de la Directive Nitrates, car i) la désignation des zones vulnérables aux nitrates dans l'UE-27 augmentera et ii) les mesures dans les Programmes d'Action deviennent de plus en plus strictes (par exemple, les normes d'application d'azote totale).

17

Introduction

The objectives of the Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 (the Nitrates Directive) concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources are to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and to prevent further such pollution through a number of measures, including establishment of action programmes (a set of measures to reduce nitrate pollution). In 2007, a Commission study "Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions", aimed at developing "a methodology allowing the assessment and quantification of the effects of various policies and measures aiming at reducing the impact of N losses from agriculture on water and air pollution and climate change". This study was carried out by a consortium lead by Alterra. Among other findings, the study concluded that the measures of the Nitrates Directive action programmes are also effective in reducing gaseous N emissions. The study showed that several measures taken to decrease N leaching from agricultural sources are environmental "win wins" as they also decrease NH3 and N2O emissions to air. In particular the requirement established under the Nitrates Directive of balanced N fertilization reduces nitrate (NO3

-), ammonia (NH3) and N2O emissions from agriculture, since it has a substantial effect on the N input and management (Velthof et al., 2009). The European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, awarded a contract to Alterra to deliver the work outlined in the tender ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0009 The impact of the Nitrates Directive on gaseous N emissions, effects of measures in nitrates action programme on gaseous N emissions. The general objective of this study is to assess the effects of measures in the Nitrates Directive on gaseous N emissions to the atmosphere. The project consists of three tasks: Task 1: "Current Practice Baseline". The aim of this task is to assess the size of current emissions of ammonia (NH3), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and nitrous oxide (N2O) deriving from agriculture in each of the 27 Member States – "Current Practice Baseline. Task 1 consists of five subtasks

• Subtask 1.1. Available agricultural data. The aim of this subtask is to collect and critically review the available agricultural data as well as data regarding farm structure and animal management in each of the 27 Member States.

• Subtask 1.2. Emission factors. The aim of this subtask is to identify emission factors associated with each of the relevant activities (e.g. housing type, storage for liquid/solid manure, manure and chemical fertilizers application - with different application techniques, etc.). Emissions factors should be differentiated according to different climatic regions in Europe.

18

• Subtask 1.3-1.4. Gaseous N emissions in 2000-2008. The aim of this subtask is to assess the gaseous N emissions from agriculture for each Member State based on Task 1.1 and 1.2 and using validated models in order to provide a "Current Practice Baseline" on a yearly basis for the period 2000-2008. This scenario includes a fully implemented Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive in 2008 (the IPPC Directive)1.

• Subtask 1.5. Comparison with national inventories. The aim of this subtask is to compare calculated N emissions from agriculture for each Member State with the national inventories provided by Member States under the National Emission Ceilings Directive and to the Convention of Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. This comparison aims at performance evaluation of the model and refining of the emission factors used.

Task 2: "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario. The aim of this task is to assess quantitatively the impact of the measures listed in Annexes II and III of the Nitrates Directive on air emissions for each of the 27 Member States ("Without Nitrates Directive" scenario). Task 3: Effect of derogation. The aim of this task is to assess the effects of the derogation as compared to a Standard Scenario (no derogation - with a limit of 170 kg N/ha), for each of the Member States to whom a derogation has been granted. In this final report, first an overview of nitrogen emissions from agriculture is presented. Thereafter, the methods and results of the work in each Task en subtask are presented. Part of the results is presented in the Annex of this report. Moreover, the detailed results of Current Baseline Scenario 2000 – 2008 are presented in a separate report, that is added as an Annex to this report (See Annex 7 for the reference).

1 The Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (the IPPC Directive) aims at decreasing gaseous emissions from certain categories of intensive farming installations. The objective of the IPPC Directive is minimising pollution from various industrial sources throughout the European Union. Operators of industrial installations covered by Annex I of the IPPC Directive, including intensive pig and poultry installations, are required to obtain an authorisation (environmental permit) from the authorities in the EU countries. Permits must be based on Best Available Techniques (BAT's), as defined in this directive and take account of an integrated approach considering the whole environmental performance of the plant, which includes for intensive livestock installations the management and eventual processing of manure.

19

Nitrogen emissions from agriculture

Nitrogen is one of the most widely distributed elements on earth. It is a key element in protein, and the growth of plants heavily depends on the availability of N. The productivity of many ecosystems and especially agro-ecosystems is limited by a shortage of plant-available N. The availability of relatively cheap N fertilizers from the 1950s onwards has contributed to a boost in crop production. Indeed, fertilizer N has made a substantial contribution to the tripling of global food production over the past 50 years. The availability of the N fertilizers has indirectly also contributed to increases in the number of farm animals and the production of N in animal manure. The use of N in amounts that exceed plant needs can lead to numerous problems directly related to human health and ecosystem vulnerability. Observed environmental effects include (Galloway et al., 2002):

decreased species diversity and acidification of non-agricultural soils because of deposition of NH3 (e.g. De Vries et al., 1995);

pollution of ground water and drinking water due to NO3- leaching;

eutrophication of surface waters, including excess algal growth and a decrease in natural diversity due to N leaching and run-off;

global warming because of emission of N2O, and

impacts on human health and plants due to ozone for which NOx is a precursor;

impacts of human health from particulate matter including particulate matter (PM) produced by NH3 (Brunekreef and Holgate, 2002)

Agriculture is an important source of NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions to the atmosphere and NO3 to the groundwater and surface waters. Four major compartments are distinguished in whole livestock farming systems, i.e. livestock, manure, land and crop (animal feed). Nutrients cycle through these compartments. Soil N inputs as mineral fertilizers and organic manures is larger in European agriculture than in other continents (e.g., Kuczynski et al., 2005; Van Egmond et al., 2002; Mosier et al., 2004; Velthof et al., 2009). However, there is also a large difference in N use among the 27 member states of the European Union. The total N input to the soil via fertilizers, manure, atmospheric deposition, and biological N fixation range from less than 50 kg N per ha per year in regions in Central Europe (e.g. regions in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Romania) to more than 300 kg N per ha per year in regions with intensive livestock systems, such as regions in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands (Velthof et al., 2009). Besides losses through leaching and run off, significant N losses may occur via volatilization of NH3, and emissions of N2O, NOx, and N2 from nitrification and denitrification processes. Emissions of gaseous N compounds occur from faeces and

20

urine during housing, and storage. Moreover, emissions occur after deposition on pastures and paddocks by free ranging animals and after application of manure and mineral N fertilizers to agricultural land (e.g. Freibauer et al., 2003; Webb et al., 2005; Oenema et al., 2007a).

The volatilization of NH3 from the urine and faeces in slurry inside the animal housing system and during manure storage is related to the NH4

+ concentration, pH and surface area of the slurry and to the temperature and ventilation in the housing system (Monteny, 2000). Covering slurry stores significantly decreases NH3 loss (Sommer et al., 1993). The cover may be a natural surface crust formed by solids floating on the surface, a cover of straw, peat or floating expanded clay particles, or a roof. Application of animal slurry to soil induces a sequence of reactions. High rates of NH3 volatilization have been measured following surface application of animal slurry (e.g Pain et al. 1989), but generally, the rate of NH3 volatilization is very low after a few days (Oenema et al., 1993). The rate of NH3 volatilization from slurry applied to soil is related to temperature; the higher the temperature the larger the NH3 loss, increasing solar radiation (Braschkat et al., 1997) and increasing wind speed (Sommer and Olesen, 1991) also cause increasing of NH3 emissions. Hence, incorporating slurry into the soil is a most effective way of decreasing NH3 volatilization. Different techniques are available, such as deep injection, shallow injection, incorporation of slurry by ploughing or by rotary harrow, and application of slurry with trailing hoses. Generally, the greatest reduction in NH3 emission is obtained when slurry is immediately deeply incorporated (Webb et al., 2005). Ammonia emissions from mineral fertilizers are much smaller than from animal manures, except for urea. Ammonia emission is greater from urea than from ammonium-nitrate fertilizer (Velthof et al., 1990). The risk of manure-N being lost by leaching as NO3 is mainly determined by when manures are applied in relation to the winter period and the time of crop N uptake. Of course, the applied quantity is another important factor determining the risk of N loss. Traditionally manures have often been applied to tillage land before crops are sown, and as the proportion of autumn-sown crops has increased so a large proportion of manure (which is also a source of P and K) has tended to be applied in autumn before seedbed preparation. However, sowing at this time, before the over-winter period, means that much, or even all, the crop-available N may be lost by leaching over winter (Chambers et al., 2000). The extent to which this occurs will vary across Europe, being greater in regions with large rainfall, such as Ireland and NW Spain, but much less in dry regions, such as SE Spain and Cyprus. Also soil type largely affects leaching. Leaching to groundwater is highest in well drained sandy soils, but surface runoff to surface waters is highest in heavy clay soils. Application in spring, shortly before the period of greatest crop uptake of N, will lead to a greater proportion of manure-N being recovered by crops and smaller N residues remaining in soil before drainage occurs in the following winter. The extent to which the available N in manures may be denitrified will also influence the potential for NO3 leaching. Denitrification is the microbial reduction of NO3 to gaseous N (N2O, NOx and N2). Factors controlling denitrification include the

21

presence of i) an energy source for the denitrifying bacteria, mostly metabolizable organic carbon, ii) anoxic conditions, and iii) presence of nitrate (Tiedje, 1988). If any of these conditions is not fulfilled, denitrification is unlikely. Soil type strongly affects oxygen concentration. In general, denitrification losses will increase in the order: sandy soil < loamy soils < clay soils < peat soil (Barton et al., 1999; Jordan, 1989; Koops et al., 1996; Simmelsgaard, 1998; Van Beek et al., 2004a; Van der Salm et al., 2007). Land use has a strong effect on available organic C contents in the soil and thereby on the denitrification capacity (Bijay-Singh et al., 1988; Munch and Velthof, 2007). The application of manure to soil increases the contents of NH4

+, and of easily mineralizable N and C in the topsoil. This in turn may increase nitrification and subsequently denitrification locally by which NOx, N2O and N2 are produced. Organic compounds from slurry and manure provide readily available substrate for denitrifiers (Dendooven et al., 1998). Application of animal slurries to soils increases the emission of N2O, but there are large differences between types of manures due to differences in composition (Velthof et al., 2003). So far, most studies suggest that the N2O emission from animal slurries applied to grassland is less than the N2O emission from an equivalent amount of nitrate-based chemical fertilizer (e.g. Egginton and Smith, 1986; Velthof et al., 1997). NOx, like N2O, is also produced by nitrification and denitrification, although the enzymes involved differ (Tiedje, 1988). In general, the factors controlling N2O emission also affect NOx emission, but their effect may be different (e.g. Maljanen et al., 2007; Sanchez-Martin et al., 2008). Thus, some factors may enhance NOx emission more strongly than N2O emission, but for other factors the opposite is shown. However, the number of studies in literature in which the effects of controlling factors on both NOx and N2O emissions are scarce. Leaching and run off of N to ground and surface waters may occur from uncovered and unsealed manure storage systems (Eghball et al.; 1997; DeSutter, 1999; Sommer, 2001) and from agricultural fields when rainfall exceeds evapotranspiration or during heavy rains (e.g. Hack ten Broeke et al., 1996; Grizzetti and Bouraoui, 2006; Mantovi et al., 2006; Van Beek et al., 2004b). Surface runoff occurs when rainfall exceeds a maximum infiltration level of the soil. Factors controlling surface-runoff are the slope, weather conditions (precipitation, frost), the type, period and amount of N application, and properties of the soil (Heathwaite et al.; 1998; Korsaeth and Wright 2000; Scholefield and Stone, 1995; Smith et al., 2001; Wu and Babcock, 1997). Leaching of nitrate is also a source of N2O (“indirect N2O emission”). Indirect N2O emissions from leached nitrate are quite a large component of the N2O inventory. Reducing NO3 leaching is quite an effective means of reducing N2O emissions (Webb et al., 2004).

23

Task 1: "Current Practice Baseline"

Task 1: Assess the size of current emissions of ammonia (NH3), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and nitrous oxide (N2O) deriving from agriculture in each of the 27 Member States – "Current Practice Baseline" This task assesses the size of yearly nitrogen air emissions from agriculture in each Member State for the period 2000 – 2008. The model MITERRA-Europe has been used to calculate the emissions in the different scenarios. The results have been compared with national inventories on gaseous N emissions from agriculture (emission inventories provided by Member States under the National Emission Ceilings Directive and to the Convention of Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution) for validation. This task consists of the following five subtasks. 1.1 Recollection of available agricultural data; 1.2 Identification of emission factors differentiated for different climatic regions in EU; 1.3/1.4 Calculation of gaseous N emissions in 2000-2008 for each Member State; and 1.5 Comparison of calculated N emissions with national inventories.

MITERRA-EUROPE

MITERRA-EUROPE was developed in the project “Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions” for the Directorate-General Environment of European Commission (Contract number 070501/2005/422822/MAR/C1) (http://www.scammonia.wur.nl/UK/). It is a model that can be used to assess the effects of the implementation of NH3 and NO3 abatement measures and policies on the emissions of NH3, N2O, NOx, and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere, leaching of N (including nitrate) to ground water and surface waters, and on the N and phosphorus (P) balance on both EU-27 level, country level, and regional (NUTS 2) level. MITERRA-EUROPE consists of an input module with activity data and emission factors, a set of (packages of) measures to mitigate NH3 emission and NO3 leaching, a calculation module, and an output module. The starting point for MITERRA-EUROPE were the existing models CAPRI and GAINS, supplemented with existing databases (e.g. FAO and Eurostat), soil data and expertise about emission processes. The database of MITERRA-EUROPE is on NUTS 2 level and includes data of N inputs, N outputs, N surplus, land use, crop types, soil type, topography, and livestock numbers and emission factors for NH3, N2O, NOX and CH4, and leaching factors for NO3. The leaching module comprises methods to calculate N leaching to ground water, and surface waters, and leaching from open manure storage. The

24

calculation of N leaching is based on the N surplus and leaching fractions. Below a description of the calculation of leaching is presented N surplus 1. N surplus is the sum of all N inputs to soils, consisting of applied manure,

manure excreted during grazing, applied mineral fertilizer, nitrogen deposition and nitrogen fixation, minus the N removal by crops.

2. N input by applied manure equals N excretion minus gaseous N losses during housing and storage and minus N leaching from housing and storage.

Total N excretion is calculated as the number of animals times the excretion per animal, for the different types of animals, based on GAINS animal categories and excretion factors. The manure is distributed over different crop groups, i.e. fodder crops (with high application of manure) and three arable crop groups (with different application rates of manure).

N losses from animal manure during housing and storage are calculated by multiplying country specific emission factors for NH3, and constant emission factors for N2O and NOx with the N amount excreted in the housing/storage system.

N leaching from housing and storage is calculated by multiplying the N stored in housing and manure storage systems with a leaching fractions that depends on the type of manure system and the type of floor (concrete or not).

3. N excreted during grazing is calculated using information about the number of grazing days

4. N input by mineral fertilizer is derived from national fertilizer consumption rates, obtained from FAO, and is distributed over crops using weighing factors, based on the calculated crop N demand.

5. N deposition is derived from EMEP2. N fixation is estimated as a function of land use and crop type (pulses/legumes).

6. N removal is calculated as the product of national average crop yield data obtained from FAO with crop and country specific N contents.

N leaching to ground water 1. Leaching of nitrogen (N) to ground water is calculated by multiplying the sum of

N leaching from housing/storage systems and from soils with a leaching partition fraction to groundwater, which is derived from the Turc model (Turc, 1956).

2. N leaching from housing/storage systems is calculated by multiplying the N excreted in housing and manure storage systems with a leaching fraction that depends on the type of manure system and the type of floor (concrete or not). The calculation of N excretion is described in the N balance indicator sheet.

3. N leaching from soils is calculated as a fraction (kg leached N per kg N surplus) of the N surplus. The leaching fraction depends on soil type, land use, soil

2 http://www.emep.int/

25

organic content, precipitation surplus, temperature and rooting depth. The calculation of the total N input to soils is described in the N balance indicator sheet.

N surface runoff 1. Surface runoff is calculated as a fraction of the N input by applied manure,

manure excreted during grazing and applied mineral fertilizer at the soil surface, which depends on slope, land use, precipitation, soil type and depth to rock.

2. The calculation of the N input to soils is described in the N balance indicator sheet.

Nitrogen sub-surface runoff 1. N sub-surface runoff is calculated by multiplying the sum of N leaching from

housing/storage systems and from soils with a subsurface runoff fraction (LFsw), which is derived from the Turc model (Turc, 1956).

2. N leaching from housing/storage systems is calculated by multiplying the N excreted in housing and stored in manure storage systems with a leaching fraction that depends on the type of manure storage system and the type of floor (concrete or not). The calculation of N excretion is described in the N balance indicator sheet.

3. N leaching from soils is calculated as a fraction (kg leached N per kg N surplus) of the N surplus. The leaching fraction depends on soil type, land use, soil organic content, precipitation surplus, temperature and rooting depth. The calculation of the total N input to soils is described in the N balance indicator sheet.

The following measures to decrease N leaching in NVZ are included in MITERRA-EUROPE; • balanced N fertilizer application; • maximum manure application standard of 170 kg N/ ha (except where a

derogation applies) • no fertilizer and manure application in winter and wet periods • limitation to fertilizer application on steeply sloping grounds • manure storage with minimum risk on runoff and seepage • appropriate fertilizer and manure application techniques, including split

application of N • prevention of leaching to water courses through buffer zones • growing winter crops Moreover, NH3 abatement categories for agriculture are included, including dietary N changes, stable adaptations, covered manure storage, air purification, and low ammonia emissions manure application techniques.

26

Subtask 1.1. Available agricultural data

Aim To collect and critically review the available agricultural data as well as data regarding farm structure and animal management in each of the 27 Member States. Approach Several sources of information are explored in this task to obtain the input for MITERRA-EUROPE for the period 2000-2008 on crops, livestock, fertilizers, ammonia abatement techniques, and nitrate measures (described above). Output This subtask will deliver a database with relevant data for the years 2000-2008 for all member states. Results Crops The crop areas for the period 2000 – 2008 were derived from Eurostat. For some crops, areas on NUTS II level were available and for other crops areas on country (NUTS 0 level) were available. Some years were missing for some countries. The areas of the years in which data were lacking were estimated by interpolation between years from which data were available. The crop yields were also derived from the same Eurostat data base. The grassland yields are not available from Eurostat. The methodology to estimate the yields and N contents of grassland which has been developed in project "Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions", has been used in the current project (see Table 1).

27

Table 1. Dry matter and N contents of grassland and proportion of grassland types (Source: MITERRA-EUROPE; Velthof et al., 2007 & 2009).

Country

intensively

managed

extensively

managed

int ext and rough

grazings

intensive extensive rough grazing

Austria 6000 3000 3 2 13 40 47 3750 2.25 84

Belgium 9000 4500 3 2 75 25 0 7875 2.75 217

Bulgaria 4000 3000 3 2 17 52 31 3250 2.25 73

Cyprus 4000 3000 3 2 17 51 32 3250 2.25 73

Czech rep. 5000 3500 3 2 25 74 1 3875 2.25 87

Denmark 9000 4500 3 2 73 24 2 7875 2.75 217

Espagne 5000 3000 3 2 12 35 53 3500 2.25 79

Estonia 5000 3000 3 2 25 75 0 3500 2.25 79

Finland 6000 3000 3 2 21 63 16 3750 2.25 84

France 7000 3500 3 2 8 24 68 4375 2.25 98

Germany 8000 4000 3 2 24 73 3 5000 2.25 113

Greece 4000 3000 3 2 8 24 68 3250 2.25 73

Hungary 5000 3500 3 2 14 42 44 3875 2.25 87

Ireland 8000 4500 3 2 43 43 15 6250 2.50 156

Italy 5000 3000 3 2 20 59 21 3500 2.25 79

Latvia 5000 2500 3 2 4 13 83 3125 2.25 70

Lithuania 5000 2500 3 2 25 75 0 3125 2.25 70

Luxembourg 9000 4000 3 2 25 75 0 5250 2.25 118

Malta 4000 3000 3 2 25 75 0 3250 2.25 73

Netherlands 10000 5000 3 2 72 24 4 8750 2.75 241

Poland 5000 3500 3 2 18 54 28 3875 2.25 87

Portugal 5000 3000 3 2 7 22 71 3500 2.25 79

Romania 5000 3000 3 2 23 70 7 3500 2.25 79

Slovakia 5000 3000 3 2 23 69 9 3500 2.25 79

Slovenia 5000 3500 3 2 21 63 16 3875 2.25 87

Sweden 7000 3500 3 2 23 68 9 4375 2.25 98

United Kingdom 8000 4500 3 2 14 43 43 5375 2.25 121

average N

content, %

DM

average N

yield, kg N

per ha

N content, % DM proportion, % of total grassland areanett dry matter yield, average

dry matter

yield

Livestock The number of livestock in each member state of the EU-27 has been collected from Eurostat. For each member state, the trends in the number of the major livestock categories are included in the report of the baseline scenario (added as separate report to this final project report; see Annex 7). The trend in livestock number in EU 27 is presented in Figure 1.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

An

imal

nu

mb

ers

(10

00

hea

ds)

Dairy cattle

Other cattle

Pigs

Poultry/10

Other

Figure 1 Trends in the total animal numbers (10000 heads for poultry, 1000 heads for others) for the period 2000-2008 in EU27. The N excretion per animal type is based on the N excretion in GAINS (Klimont and Brink, 2004). This N excretion is based on consultations with experts. The N

28

excretion of dairy cows is dependent of milk production and feeding rations. A method is developed to estimate the N excretion from the milk yields and grassland yields on a regional (NUTS II) level. In Annex 1, a description is given of the methodology and results. This method takes regional differences into consideration. The methodology to calculate N excretion by dairy cattle will also improve the quantification of gaseous N emissions in EU-27 and results in a better insight in regional differences. For the other livestock categories, the N excretion obtained for GAINS will be used, because i) the range in N excretion for these categories are much smaller than for dairy cows, and ii) detailed data on feed rations for intensive livestock systems across EU-27 are lacking. MITERRA needs the gross N excretion as input (i.e. the N excretion without correction for gaseous N emissions in housing and storage). Only a few Action Programmes of the Nitrates Directive include N excretion. Most Action Programmes include net N excretion (i.e. corrected for gaseous N losses) or manure production rates and N contents in manure in order to calculate the manure N produced. Some Action Programmes do not present information about N excretion. In the so called Diredate project for Eurostat3, it was recommended to install a Task Force to develop an uniform approach to calculate N and P excretion from livestock in the EU-27 countries. Such a methodology can be used for calculating nutrient balances (OECD4), emissions of ammonia (GAINS, MITERRA, country reports for NEC Directive) and greenhouse gases (GAINS, MITERRA, country reports for UNFCCC) and leaching of nitrate (MITERRA). In Table 2 a comparison is made between the gross N excretion figures for some livestock categories and some EU member states, based on information from Action Programmes and the EAGER expert group5. In Table 3 the results are compared with the N excretion according to GAINS. Notice that in GAINS the N excretion is based on aggregated livestock categories, by which a comparison cannot be made for all livestock categories (e.g. GAINS contains one average category of pigs, which is based on all types of pigs). In general, there is a reasonable agreement between excretion according to GAINS and those derived from the Action Programme or EAGER. For Denmark, United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands the GAINS excretion for dairy cows is about 10 kg N per cow per year smaller than that in the other source (Table 3). In Annex 1 the excretion of dairy cattle according GAINS and the developed method are compared. For layers, the high N excretion in Hungary according GAINS is striking. It is not clear why the N excretion is so high. The N excretion of sheep in Portugal and UK according to GAINS are relatively low

3 Diredate: Service Contract 40701.2009.001-2009.354 “DIRECT AND INDIRECT DATA NEEDS LINKED TO THE FARMS FOR AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS” DireDate is a project that Eurostat, the statistical service of European Commission, has launched to get recommendations for setting-up a sustainable data collection system, based on best practices, for developing the agrienvironmental indicators of the EU. 4 OECD and Eurostat gross nitrogen balances handbook. (October 2007) and OECD and Eurostat gross phosphorus balances handbook. (October 2007). www.oecd.org/tad/env/indicators 5 EAGER: European Agricultural Gaseous Emissions Inventory Researchers network; co-ordination: H. Menzi and J. Webb

29

compared to the figures from the Action programmes or EAGER. The N excretion of GAINS was used in the calculation using MITERRA, because this is in a uniform approach for whole EU-27 (which is needed to compare member states). For dairy cows, figures derived from the methodology developed in Annex 1 were used. Table 2. Annual gross N excretion (kg per animal per year) in selected countries and livestock categories, based on information in the Action programme or the expert group EAGER.

Dairy

cow

Heifer 12-24

months

Beef 12-24

monthsSows Finishers

Layers

(1000) Broilers Ewe Source

Hun 125 42 45 26.5 12 740 383 15 Action programme

Portugal 105 42 35 15 710 340 16 Action programme

Sweden 117 47 47 36 11 600 280 14 Action programme

Denmark 133 45 13.7 500 EAGER, 2006

UK 117 37 21.2 13.8 720 400 10 EAGER, 2006

Ger 126 45 14.8 740 500 10 EAGER, 2006

Neth 135 37 36 30.8 12.9 750 530 14 Statistics NL Note: Most member states do not present gross N excretion rates in the Action Programmes. Most Action Programmes include net N excretion (i.e. corrected for gaseous N losses) or manure production rates and N contents in manure in order to calculate the manure N produced.

Table 3. Comparison of annual gross N excretion kg per animal per year according to the Action Programme (AP) or EAGER and the one according to GAINS.

Dairy cowLayers

(1000)Ewe

AP/EAGER GAINS AP/EAGER GAINS AP/EAGER GAINS

Hun 125 121 740 1500 14.8 12

Portugal 105 108 710 800 16 7

Sweden 117 117 600 440 14 14

Denmark 133 125 710 17

UK 117 106 720 850 10.2 6

Ger 126 116 740 730 10 13

Neth 135 126 750 670 14.4 13 Figure 2 shows the results of the calculation of N excretion in EU-27 using MITERRA. The total N excretion by livestock in EU-27 decreased from ~9.2 Mton in 2000 to ~8.8 in 2008 Mton in 2008. Results of the changes in N excretion in the period 2000 – 20008 for each member state are presented in a separate report, which is an Annex of the Final report (Annex 7).

30

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Excr

etio

n (k

ton

N y

r-1)

Dairy cattle

Other cattle

Pigs

Poultry

Other

Figure 2. Trends in the N excretion by livestock in EU-27 for the period 2000-2008 (Results of calculations with MITERRA-EUROPE). Fertilizer consumption The data on N fertilizer consumption have been collected from FAO (Eurostat uses the same data). The European Fertilizer Manufacturer Association (EFMA) also has a fertilizer statistics in place (http://www.fertilizerseurope.com. In the Diredate project (see footnote 3) was recommended to improve the quality of the FAO and Eurostat statistics using the data of EFMA. This is not yet done, so in the current study the fertilizer consumption data according to FAO/Eurostat was used in the model calculations. These statistics are also used in other EU-studies (e.g. calculations with CAPRI (Heckelei and Britz) and GAINS (Klimont and Brink, 2004)). In the report of the baseline scenario (attached as separate report; Annex 7), the trend of fertilizer N consumption for each member state is included. Figure 3 presents the trends in N inputs to agricultural soils in EU-27.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Inpu

ts (

kton

N y

r-1)

N excretion

N fertilizer

N deposition

N fixation

Figure 3. Trends in the total N inputs by excretion, fertilizer, deposition and fixation in EU-27 for the period 2000-2008.

31

Ammonia abatement techniques The degree of implementation of NH3 abatement techniques is derived from the latest version of the GAINS model. Estimates are given for the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. In Annex 2, the share of implementation of measures is presented. The estimates for 2010 will be used in the calculation of the year 2008 and include the implementation of ammonia abatement techniques at fully implementation of the IPPC Directive. Subtask 1.2. Emission factors

Aim To identify emission factors associated with each of the relevant activities (e.g. housing type, storage for liquid/solid manure, manure and chemical fertilizers application - with different application techniques, etc.). Emissions factors should be differentiated according to different climatic regions in Europe. Approach MITERRA-EUROPE uses currently the emission factors of N2O from IPCC, NH3 from GAINS, and NOx from Skiba et al. (1997), as GAINS did not included NOX emissions factors for agriculture. In this subtask, the emission factors in MITERRA-EUROPE will be reviewed and, if needed, improved. Also, an assessment is made on whether emission factors can and should be differentiated taking regional differences into account . Output This subtask delivers a set of emission factors of NH3, N2O, and NOx for housing systems, manure storage and application which are differentiated according to different climatic conditions in Europe. These emission factors will be implemented in MITERRA-EUROPE and used in the calculations of the different scenarios. Results N2O emission factor A large variation in N2O emission factors deriving from fertilizer application exists due to differences in environment (e.g. weather and soil conditions), crops (grassland, arable land, crop residues) and management (e.g. type of manure and fertilizer, application rates and techniques, and time of application). Lesschen et al. (2011) developed a simple approach as part of the NitroEurope IP project to derive N2O emission factors associated to application of fertilizers that depend on environmental, crop and management factors. These N2O emission factors are implemented in MITERRA-EUROPE to calculate N2O emission in the different scenarios. The emission factors are presented in Table 4. Besides the influence of local environmental conditions, e.g. soil type and precipitation, is taken

32

into account. IPCC6 also encourages countries to use a Tier 2 approach, in which N2O emission factors are disaggregated based on environmental and management related factors. Table 4. The developed N2O emission factor inference scheme for N-input sources (in %). emission is derived by multiplying the value from the table with the precipitation adjustment factor1, and the N input of the specific source (Lesschen et al., 2011).

1A linear regression analysis between the average N2O emission factor and the average annual precipitation resulted in a significant relation (n =45; P = 0.006) with a R2 of 0.16). The equation was rescaled to the reference situation with an average annual precipitation of 750 mm, which lead to the following equation: fp = 0:00253 x P - 0:894 where fp is the precipitation adjustment factor and P the annual precipitation in mm. To avoid extreme factors a minimum and maximum precipitation of respectively 400 mm and 1500 mm were used, which correspond with a factor of respectively 0.12 and 2.89. Most agricultural lands in Europe are located within these precipitation classes. In MITERRA-EUROPE, the N2O emission are calculated using emission factors in Table 4 and the correction for precipitation according to equation 1, and the N input for the different fertilizers and manures.

For the estimation of N2O emission from housing and manure storage, emission factors of IPCC and EEA/CORINAIR7 will be used. The emission factors for N2O from housing/storage are 0.2% for slurry N, 2% for solid manure N, 10% for deep litter manure and 0.1% for poultry manure (Table 5). Table 5. Emission factors for N2O emission from housing/storage systems that are used in MITERRA-EUROPE, in % of N.

Slurry (all livestock) 0.2

Solid manure (except deep litter and poultry) 2

Deep litter manure 10

Poultry manure 0.1

6 http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html 7 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2009

33

NH3 emission factor MITERRA-EUROPE estimates NH3 emissions for EU-27 using the GAINS approach, which already takes regional differences in NH3 emissions into account. A review was carried out of the approaches to estimate emissions of NH3 across the EU and report the potential for updating the NH3 routines within MITERRA-EUROPE to provide a more accurate estimate of NH3 emission in the EU-27. This review is attached as Annex 3. The review shows differences among models used for the estimation of national NH3 emissions. The reasons for these differences can be divided into four main types: (1) errors; (2) differences in agricultural practice; (3) differences in the model structure and; (4) differences in model parameterization. The differences in agricultural practice may include different N excretion rates resulting from different feeding practices and production intensities, variations in the types of animal housing, storage and application technology. Differences in parameterization of emission factors for what are essentially similar husbandry systems arise due to the access to different sources of information, different interpretations of the same information or different assumption for special situation (e.g. emissions in houses and manure storage when cattle are mainly outside during the grazing season). In this comparison of the emission factors used in national inventories no evidence was found of systematic differences due to differences in climate, albeit since the inventories compared were for a small group of countries in NW and west-central Europe differences in climate would not have been large. Some assessment of the possible role of climate in influencing the magnitude of national NH3 emissions may be made using GAINS output. This output shows a considerable range of NH3 emissions among the EU-27 for each livestock type. However, these results do not show a consistent relationship between climatic region and size of NH3 emissions. It may be expected that climatic condition affects NH3 emissions (i.e. the emission is highest under warm, dry, and windy conditions), but probably other factors that affect NH3 emission (i.e. soil and crop conditions, livestock management, nutrient management) interfere. The GAINS model makes allowance for different farming and manure management systems and for differences in N inputs among the EU-27. The data used to populate the GAINS model have been drawn from a number of different sources. Whenever possible in-country experts have been consulted on the derivation of the emission factors used in GAINS. IIASA (Laxenburg, Austria) have used the information retrieved from the NEC6 or NEC4 report where the CAFÉ process was nearing an end to calibrate the GAINS model to produce output comparable to the national factors (Amman et al., 2005 & 2007). This was the biggest consultation exercise. Data from the UNECE Expert Group on Ammonia Abatement Questionnaire from

34

2003 and other data have also been used, together with default emission factors from the EMEP/CORINAIR Guidebook. It is concluded that the data currently provided by GAINS remain the best current statement of regional differences among NH3 emissions in the EU 27. Therefore, the GAINS NH3 emission factors will be used in MITERRA-EUROPE. Dairy cattle are an important source of NH3 emission in EU-27 and the emission is related to N management of the fodders crops (mostly grassland). A methodology was developed within this project to estimate the N excretion of dairy cattle on a regional level in EU-27, using information of milk yields (subtasks 1.1 and Annex 1). These regionalized estimates of N excretion of dairy cattle will also affect the calculated NH3 emission, and will show more clearly the regional difference in NH3 emission. NOX emission factor For estimation of NOx emission from housing and manure storage, the current emission factors of MITERRA-EUROPE will be used. They were derived from the GAINS model. In MITERRA-EUROPE, the NOX emission factor for N applied to soils is based on the study of Skiba et al. (1997), i.e. 0.3% of the N input. However, Stehfest and Bouwman (2006) analyzed the results of 189 NOx emission measurements from agricultural fields. They calculated an average fertilized induced emission of 0.55% of the N applied for NOx. In order to establish differences on NOx emissions, the data-set of Bouwman and Stehfest (2006) has been divided into different climate categories, soil textures, N fertilizer types etc.. However, the database does not include the Mediterranean area. Thirteen NOx emission factors for semi-arid area, (cold winter, hot summer, with rainfall of about 400 mm/year) were obtained from literature (Meijide et al., 2009, Sanchez-Martın et al., 2008 and 2010) and included in the data-base of Bouwman and Stehfest (2006). A statistical regression analyses was carried out as part of the current project. The statistical analysis shows that the main factors affecting NOx emissions are rainfall (Table 6) and temperature (Table 7). The analysis did not show other factors affecting NOx emission factors. Although the NOX emission factors differed between the temperature classes, there was no sound (consistent) temperature effect on NOx emission factors (Table 7). Therefore, the NOX emission factor based on rainfall are used in MITERRA-EUROPE (Table 6).

35

Table 6. NOx emission factor deriving from fertilizer application (% of N applied year) related to rainfall. Rainfall, mm/year Number of

measurements

Mean Std

400 14 0.19 0.41

600 42 0.59 0.99

800 19 0.71 1.30

1000 28 0.48 0.50

1500 22 0.18 0.32

>2000 6 0.24 0.05

Table 7. NOx emission factor deriving from fertilizer application (% of N applied year) related to temperature. Temperature1

oC

Number of

measurements

Mean Std

10 19 0.87 0.90

15 15 0.43 0.58

20 42 0.19 0.29

25 25 0.57 1.16

30 27 0.43 0.95

>35 4 0.67 0.58 1average of diurnal temperature, classified as 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 oC (average of 30 years) for each location. Subtask 1.3-1.4. Gaseous N emissions in 2000-2008

Aim To assess the gaseous N emissions from agriculture for each Member State based on Task 1.1 and 1.2 and using validated models in order to provide a "Current Practice Baseline" on a yearly basis for the period 2000-2008. Approach The input data obtained in task 1.1 and the emission factors obtained in task 1.2 will be used to calculate the emissions of NH3, N2O and NOX with MITERRA-EUROPE for each of 27 member states for the years 2000 – 2008. The calculation unit is the regional (NUTS II) level. This includes a fully implemented Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive in 2008 (the IPPC Directive). Output This subtask delivers tables and figures (maps) with emissions of NH3, N2O, and NOx in EU-27 in the years 2000-2008 for the “current baseline”. The results will be discussed and assessments made of the trends in the different regions in EU-27.

36

Results The detailed results of the calculations of "Current Practice Baseline" on a yearly basis for the period 2000-2008 are presented in a separate report, which is attached as annex to this second interim report (see Annex 7 for reference of this report). Here, the major results on EU-27 level are presented. The calculated total N losses from agricultural soils for the year 2008 in the EU-27 amounts ~13 Mton N (Figure 4). Most of the N losses in the EU-27 are caused by N2 emission due to denitrification (6.7 Mton N or 53%). The losses by N leaching and NH3 emission are more or less equal, 2.8 Mton N (22%) and 2.7 Mton N (21%) respectively. The losses by N2 emission, NH3 emission and N leaching determines 96% of the N losses from agriculture. The losses by N2O are 315 kton N (3%) and NOx 120 kton N (1%). All N losses also show a slight decrease over the period 2000-2008 (Figure 5), which is probably related to the slight decrease in fertilizer and manure use in this period. In 2003 and 2007 a temporarily increase occurred, which is most likely induced by the increase in fertilizer in these years.

Figure 4. Total N losses (kton N yr-1) in the EU-27 due to NH3 emission, N2O emission, NOx emission, N2 emission and N leaching to ground and surface water.

21%

3%

1%

53%

22%

N losses for the EU 27 in 2008 (kton N yr-1)

NH3: 2692 kton N

N2O: 315 kton N

NOx: 120 kton N

N2: 6707 kton N

N leaching: 2841 kton N

37

Figure 5. Trends in N losses by NH3 emission, N2O emission, NOx emission, N2 emission and N leaching to ground and surface waters (kton N yr-1) for the period 2000-2008 in EU27.

The emission for the different sources are presented in Figures 6 – 7. The calculated total amount of NH3 emission in EU-27 for the year 2008 amounts 2.8 Mton N (Figure 6). By far most of the NH3 emission in the EU-27 in 2008 was derived from the housing and manure storage systems (~1.2 Mton N or 44%), followed by manure application (29%) and fertilizer application (19%). The smallest part is derived from grazing (8%). Per member state the distribution of NH3 emission over the different sources in time is rather constant. The calculated total amount of N2O emission for the year 2008 in the EU-27 amounts 315 kton (Figure 7). More than half of the N2O emission in the EU-27 is derived from grazing (~90 kton N or 28%) and fertilizer application (~72 kton N or 23%). A relatively large part is caused by indirect emission (~49 kton N or 16%). Crop residues contribute 11%, manure application 8%, peat soils 8% and housing systems only 6%. The distribution of N2O emission per member states over the distinguished categories is highly variable, which is due to the local circumstances. For example, in Finland and Estonia, peat soils are a rather large N2O source, whereas Greece and Ireland grazing is the dominant N2O source (see report added as Annex). The total NOx emission from soils and housing (Figure 8), decreased from ~0.127 Mton in 2000 to ~0.120 Mton in 2008.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Loss

es (

kton

N y

r-1)

NH3

N2O

NOx

N2

N leaching

38

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

NH

3e

mis

sio

n (

kto

n N

yr-1

)

Fertilizer

Grazing

Manure

Housing

Figure 6. Trends in the total NH3 emission from housing, manure application, grazing manure and fertilizer application (kton N yr-1).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

N2O

em

issi

on

(kt

on

N y

r-1)

Indirect

Crop residues

Fertilizer

Grazing

Manure

Housing

Figure 7. Trends in the total N2O emission from housing, fertilizer application, manure application, grazing manure, fertilizer application and indirect emissions (kton N yr-1).

39

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

NO

xem

issi

on (

kton

N y

r-1)

Soil

Housing

Figure 8. Trends in the total NOx emission from housing and soil for the period 2000-2008 (kton N yr-1). The average NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions expressed in kg N per ha per year on a regional level (NUTS II) are presented in Figures 9-11. The highest NH3 emissions corresponds with areas with intensive animal husbandry such as Belgium, Netherlands and North Western Germany, Brittany in France and the Po valley in Italy. Areas with low emissions are located at the periphery of the EU-27, such as Central and Southern Spain, Southern Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Northern Europe and the Baltic states. It must be noted that the emissions are expressed for the area of agricultural land. This may result in apparently high emission in Northern Sweden en Finland (both in the category 10-20 kg NH3-N ha-1yr-1), but these emissions only occur at agricultural land which is a relatively small part within these NUTS2 regions. In general most of the increase in emissions between 2000 and 2008 was found in areas with relative low emissions in 2000, whereas the opposite is true for areas with high emissions. The areas with high N2O emissions (> 6 kg N2O-N ha-1 yr-1) are the Belgium, Netherlands and Ireland. Remarkably the Po valley, being an animal husbandry hot spot, does not pop up with high N2O emissions. This is probably related to differences in rainfall, as the N2O emission factors are corrected on rainfall (table 4). Moreover, in the Netherlands, peat soils contribute significantly to N2O emissions. As for NH3 emissions, most of the increase in N2O emissions between 2000 and 2008 was taken place in areas with relative low emissions in 2000, whereas the opposite is true for areas with high emissions The geographical distribution of changes in NOx emissions between 2000 and 2008 is a quite comparable to N2O. The areas with high NOx emissions are less pronounced as they are for N2O, although it is obvious that parts of Belgium and Netherlands show the highest NOx emissions (> 3 kg NOx-N ha-1 yr-1).

40

Figure 9 The total NH3 emission from agriculture in 2000 (top left), 2008 (top right) and the difference between 2008-2000 (bottom) per NUTS2 region (kg N ha-1of agricultural land yr-1).

41

Figure 10. The total N2O emission from agriculture in 2000 (top left), 2008 (top right) and the difference between 2008-2000 (bottom) per NUTS2 region (kg N ha-1 agricultural land yr-1).

42

Figure 11. The total NOx emission from agriculture in 2000 (top left), 2008 (top right) and the difference between 2008-2000 (bottom) per NUTS2 region (kg N ha-1 agricultural land yr-1).

43

Subtask 1.5. Comparison with national inventories

Aim To compare calculated N emissions from agriculture for each Member State with the national inventories provided by Member States under the National Emission Ceilings Directive and to the Convention of Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. This comparison aims at performance evaluation of the model and refining of the emission factors used. Approach The results of the calculated emissions in the "Current Practice Baseline" are compared with national inventories under the National Emission Ceilings Directive and to the Convention of Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Output The comparisons of the calculated N2O and NH3 emissions and emission according to the inventories will be presented in tables and figures. For NOX emissions it is not possible to compare the results with reported emissions, as countries do not report NOx emissions from agriculture. Results In Annex 4 results of comparison of MITERRA with ammonia emission reported for NEC Directive are presented. In Annex 5 nitrous oxide emissions obtained with MITERRA are compared with those reported to UNFCCC. Ammonia There is no systematic difference between MITERRA and the national ammonia emissions reported to NEC (Annex 4). On average the ammonia emission calculated with MITERRA are 20% smaller than the ammonia emission reported for NEC. However, there are large differences between member states and for some member states the MITERRA emissions are higher than the NEC emissions. Probably, the differences between MITERRA and the NEC reports are due to (a combination of) differences in sources and differences in used emission factors and N excretions. There is not a systematic difference between MITERRA and NEC, and the results of the NEC reports also shows large differences between member states. The category “other sources” is for some member states not included, for some member states is small (for some member states is probably the emission from fur animals), but for some member states it represents 10-15% of total ammonia (for some members states non-agricultural sources of NH3 are included in the category “other sources”). Moreover, the contribution of N fertilizer varies from “not included” to 62% of the total emissions). The results suggest that the methodologies to calculate ammonia emissions and the sources included for the NEC reports largely differ between member states. MITERRA is used for calculations on the EU-27 scale and needs a uniform approach taking regional differences related to nutrient management, livestock systems, cropping patterns and climate into account. Member states may use their

44

own method for reporting to the NEC directive, so that differences in ammonia emission between member states may be (partly related) due to differences in methods for calculation of ammonia emissions. For a study on the scale EU-27, a uniform approach taking regional differences in needed. GAINS is used for scenario analysis for the European Commission, including NEC scenarios. Therefore, it is an advantage that MITERRA uses the same approach as GAINS (allows comparison between studies). However, the large differences between the NEC reports and MITERRA for some member states suggest that there may also be a large difference between the NEC reports and GAINS. Nitrous oxide The total N2O emission from agricultural soils in EU-27 in 2008 was similar for UNFCCC reports and MITERRA-EUROPE (493 kton N2O per year), but differences between the methods were much larger for the member states (Annex 5). For some member states emissions emissions according to UNFCCC report were higher than MITERRA-EUROPE (e.g. Bulgaria, Czech republic, Denmark, Greece, Romania, Slowakia, Spain, and Sweden) and for other member states the opposite was shown (e.g. Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, UK). Differences between UNFCCC reports and MITERRA-EUROPE were expected, because MITERRA-EUROPE i) use region specific N2O emission factors (see task 1.2) instead of default N2O

emission factors of IPCC. ii) calculates nitrate leaching (a source of indirect N2O emission) in a different

way than IPCC (IPCC uses a fixed leaching fraction of 30% of the N input and some countries uses country specific leaching fractions).

iii) calculates ammonia emission using GAINS methodology (countries use other methodologies as indicated in the previous paragraph).

iv) calculates N excretion by livestock based on GAINS and for dairy cattle based on a method developed in the current project (Annex 1).

Moreover, it may not be excluded that there is a difference in activity data (e.g. number of livestock and fertilizer use) used by countries and MITERRA-EUROPE (which is based on Eurostat and FAO). The differences between MITERRA and the country reports are probably due to a combination of the four factors shown above, and differences in activity data. A study in which differences in emissions between countries and regions in EU-27 is assessed, needs a uniform approach to calculate N emissions. This makes a comparison possible and avoids misinterpretation because of differences in used methodologies between member states. Models like MITERRA-EUROPE, GAINS and CAPRI use a uniform approach on EU-27 level, by which these models can be used to compare member states and regions in EU.

45

Task 2: "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario

Task 2: Assess quantitatively the impact of the measures listed in Annexes II and III of the Nitrates Directive on air emissions for each of the 27 Member States ("Without Nitrates Directive" scenario) Aim Based on the results of the Commission study “Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”, the present study will develop more in detail the assessment of the impact of the measures included in the Action Programmes, as foreseen in Annex II and III of the Nitrates Directive. A "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario was calculated using MITERRA-EUROPE, assessing emissions resulting from the use of the most common agricultural practices in each Member State (without obligations deriving from the Nitrates Directive). The concept and methodology for obtaining such a scenario has been discussed with the European Commission. Output The results of this scenario give insight in the effects of implementation of the measures from the combined effect of implementation of the Nitrates Directive and IPPC Directive on gaseous N emissions in EU-27 in 2000-2008. Approach The Nitrates Directive was adopted in 1991 and in most member states in the EU 15 the Codes of Good Agricultural Practices and measures in the Action programmes (within nitrates vulnerable zones) started to significantly affect the nutrient management of farmers in the end of the nineties and early 2000. Changes in fertilizer use in the nineties are generally related to economic situation and agri-economic policies. It is assumed that the nutrient management of farmers in 1995 can be considered as not affected by the Nitrates Directive in EU-15, and that the years thereafter the Nitrates Directive affected the nutrient management of farmers.

The 10 member states entering into EU in 2004 officially implemented the Nitrates Directive as from that date. It is assumed that for these member states nutrient management is affected by the Nitrates Directive in 2007 and 2008. It is assumed that the nutrient management of Romania and Bulgaria is not affected by the Nitrates Directive in the period 2000-2008.

It is assumed that the Nitrates Directive only significantly affected nutrient management in nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZ). In the calculations, the areas of NVZ given in Annex 8 will be used. The Codes of Good Agricultural Practices may also affect nutrient management outside NVZ’s (because of Good Agricultural Practice), but it is expected that the changes are relatively small. In the calculations it is assumed that the mineral N fertilizer application has decreased slightly in regions

46

outside NVZ in comparison to the mineral fertilizer application in the Current Practice Baseline scenario for all member states (it is assumed that on average the fertilizer use outside NVZ decreased with 2%, which is a low value indicating that there is some effect on fertilizer use, but very small). Several measures that member states have to take in Action programmes for NVZs affect the amount of use N fertilizer (i.e. balanced N fertilization, limit of 170 kg N/ha/year from animal manure, closed periods, prohibition of application of N fertilizer during winter/wet periods and on sloping soils, buffer strips). Therefore, in the "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario, the fertilizer use that has been derived from statistics has to be corrected. The following procedure is followed:

For each crop on a regional (NUTS II) the fertilizer use in 1995 was calculated (i.e. the average of 1994-1996. It is assumed that this is the agronomic optimum N fertilizer use per unit of crop yield for EU-15. For EU-10 the average fertilizer use in 2006 (average of 2005-2007) was calculated. The relative change in fertilizer use between 1995 and 2008 for EU-15, and 2006-2008 for EU-10 was assumed to be caused by the Nitrates Directive. The average change in % per year is calculated on country level, and on NVZ level, assuming that outside NVZ the N fertilizer use has been reduced with 2%. If the N fertilizer application rate has increased in the considered period, it is assumed that it is caused by other effects, such as economic situation. In that case it is assumed that the Nitrates Directive did not affect fertilizer use. The maximum change in N fertilizer use is set at 15% per year, because larger changes are probably due to uncertainties in the N fertilizer statistics (which results in overestimation of the effect of the Nitrates Directive). In Table 8 the results of this approach is presented.

The reduction of N fertilizer use on grassland because of the Nitrates Directive has decreased the N content of grass, and by that lowered the N excretion by dairy cattle. In Annex 1 a method is described to calculate N excretion for dairy cattle. This method will be used to calculate the excretion at the N fertilizer use in the "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario (see Annex 1). It is expected that in several countries the N excretion by dairy cattle in the "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario is higher than in the "Current Practice baseline" scenario.

It is assumed that the implementation of the Nitrates Directive did not affect the N excretion of beef cattle, pigs and poultry in EU, because the feed of these categories are not/less depended on fodder crops and, by that, there is no/much smaller relation between N fertilizer input and N content of the feed. Notice that it is expected that in the near future Nitrates Directive may result in lower N and P contents in animal feed in intensive livestock systems, as the application standards become stricter (decreasing the N content in the diet is an option to meet the N application standards of animal manure).

47

Table 8. Fertilizer use in 1995 (average 1994-1996), 2006 (average 2005-2007), and 2008 (average 2007-2008) in the different EU member states, and the % change between 1995 and 2008 for EU-15, and 2006-2008 for EU-10. The average change in % per year is calculated on country level, and on NVZ level, assuming that outside NVZ the N fertilizer use has been reduced with 2%. The value in last column is used for the change in N fertilizer use in the Without Nitrates Directive scenario. The maximum change is set at 15% per year, because larger changes are probably due to uncertainties in the N fertilizer statistics. Country Fertilizer use, kg N/ha UAA Change 95-08 Change 06-08 Change in country Change in NVZ

Average 94-96 Average 05-07 Average 07-09 % % % per year % per year

Austria 37 29 26 -43 -12 -3.1 -3.1

Belgium 124 117 118 -5 1 -0.2 -0.4

Bulgaria 26 38 51 50 25 0.0 0.0

Cyprus 93 56 46 -103 -22 -11.1 -15.0

Czech Republic 57 78 63 9 -25 -12.3 -15.0

Denmark 110 65 75 -47 14 -3.4 -3.4

Estonia 20 28 32 37 12 0.0 0.0

Finland 78 78 84 7 8 0.0 0.0

France 80 77 73 -10 -6 -0.6 -1.0

Germany 102 102 97 -5 -5 -0.2 -0.2

Greece 36 38 21 -72 -80 -5.3 -15.0

Hungary 44 60 51 15 -17 -8.3 -15.0

Ireland 95 77 77 -24 0 -1.6 -1.6

Italy 57 56 50 -13 -13 -0.9 -4.2

Latvia 11 24 28 62 12 0.0 0.0

Lithuania 16 45 47 65 5 0.0 0.0

Luxembourg 124 107 110 -12 3 -0.8 -0.8

Malta 86 75 52 -63 -44 -21.9 -15.0

Netherlands 199 134 121 -64 -11 -4.7 -4.7

Poland 47 67 76 38 12 0.0 0.0

Portugal 33 26 27 -22 3 -1.5 -15.0

Romania 16 20 21 21 6 0.0 0.0

Slovakia 30 46 50 40 7 0.0 0.0

Slovenia 64 59 56 -14 -4 -2.0 -2.0

Spain 34 34 30 -13 -14 -0.8 -4.3

Sweden 62 56 53 -17 -5 -1.1 -1.8

United Kingdom 79 59 56 -41 -6 -3.0 -5.5

The measure “maximum amount of livestock manure application” only affects gaseous N emission if the manure production on a farm exceeds 170 kg N per ha (or the amount according to a granted derogation; see Task 3). There are several options for farmers to manage manure, when the production exceeds 170 kg N per ha:

o Manure is transported to another farm in the region (NUTS II), where it is applied to land. This is the option in which there is no effect on total and regional NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions.

o Manure is treated and exported to another region or country. This is the option in which there is no effect on total NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions, but the regional emissions change because of manure export. This will only occur in regions with high livestock densities (i.e. in which there is room to apply manure within the established limits).

o The manure is treated and N is removed from the agriculture. In this option, the NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions from housing and manure storage increase, but the emissions related to manure

48

application decrease. There is no (or only small) net effect on emissions.

o The number of livestock is decreased in regions with intensive livestock, resulting in less manure production. This is the option with the largest effect on NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions.

Mostly, the manure will be transported to a farm in the region, where it is applied (first option). This does not affect gaseous N emissions. In Task 3, a detailed analysis is made of the effects of derogation on N emissions.

Another implication deriving from the established limit of 170 kg N/ha/year is that the protein content of the feed for livestock is reduced, by which the N excretion and manure production decrease (see Annex 1).

Although there is now a strong interest in manure treatment in the regions with high livestock densities and manure treatment is applied in practice, such as Denmark, Brittany, Po Delta, the Netherlands and Belgium, the amount of manure treated in the period 2000 – 2008 is relatively small. In the (near) future it is expected that manure treatment will strongly increase in other more intensive livestock areas in EU-27, partly because of the Nitrates Directive and partly because of generation of energy (biogas). Manure treatment does not affect gaseous emission from housing and manure storage (the manure is still produced) and it depends on the treatment system if gaseous N emission will be affected. During treatment gaseous emission may occur and also after application of treated manure to soils gaseous N losses will occur. Because of the relatively low share of manure treatment in the period 2000 – 2008 (from which only part is due to the Nitrates Directive) and because of the uncertain (but probably small) effect of manure treatment on gaseous N losses, effects of manure treatment are not accounted for in the "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario.

The Nitrates Directive has introduced closed periods, i.e. periods when the land application of manure and chemical fertilizers is prohibited (autumn and winter period). Different closed periods have been established in member states, depending on different climatic conditions. The N use efficiency improves by using manure and fertilizers in the growing season instead of the off-season and, by that, the fertilizer-N requirement is reduced. This effect is already included in the calculation of the N fertilizer use in the “Without Nitrates Directive” scenario (see above). The effect of closed periods can be summarized in the following points:

o Application of manure and fertilizer in spring may also lead to greater NH3 emissions than in autumn/winter, because the generally warmer and drier conditions in spring may result in greater NH3 emission than in autumn/winter. It must be noted that NH3 emission during cold windy periods in winter may also be high. Therefore, it is assumed that the NH3 emission factor for applied slurry (liquid manure) is slightly (10% relative to the current emission factor) smaller in the "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario.

49

o Wet conditions promote denitrification and thereby increase N2O and NOx emissions. Temperature may also affect N2O emissions. Higher temperatures increase denitrification rates and thereby N2O production. However, this affect is counterbalanced by a decrease in the N2O/N2 ratios of the end products of denitrification at increasing temperature. Because of the opposite effects, it is assumed that there is no change in emission factors of N2O and NOx, because of closed periods in the Nitrates Directive.

o Postponing manure application to spring requires a longer manure storage time, which may enhance NH3, NOx and N2O emission during manure storage. However, the emitting surface of manure in the storage does not change (only the volume) and as the emitting surface is the factor controlling gaseous N emission, it is assumed that emissions do not change.

o The N leaching and surface-runoff decreases when manure and fertilizer are not applied in autumn and winter, and by that the indirect N2O emission, i.e. the N2O emission caused by denitrification of leached N. MITERRA-EUROPE calculates nitrate leaching and the indirect N2O emission. If the N fertilizer use in the non Nitrates Directive scenario increases, the N leaching will increase (because crop uptake does not change or changes less than proportionally) and by that the indirect N2O emissions.

Regarding the other measures (rules for application near water courses - buffer strips, on sloping grounds, etc.) it is assumed that in the "Without Nitrates Directive" scenario the agricultural area available for spreading would increase. The following method assumptions are made:

o The agricultural area on sloping soils in NVZ’s is calculated. It is assumed

that the N fertilizer application rate in the Without Nitrates Directive

scenario in areas in NVZ with slopes decrease as follows:

o Steep slope (dominant slope over 25 %): 100% reduction in N fertilizer and manure use;

o Intermediate (dominant slope ranging from 15 to 25 %): 50% reduction of N fertilizer and manure;

o No reduction in N fertilizer and manure use for dominant slope < 15%.

In MITERRA-EUROPE only buffer zones in riparian zones near large surface waters in agricultural regions are considered, because there are no data of the presence of small surface waters. Large surface water is here defined as the surface water which is present on the CCM River and Catchment Database, version 1.0 (Vogt et al., 2003). This data base has a resolution of 250x250 meter. Small surface water such as ditches and creeks are not accounted for in the CCM Database and not included in MITERRA-EUROPE. It is assumed that the average width of buffer strips (which are not fertilized) near large surface waters in NVZ is 20 m.

50

o Implementation of the Nitrates Directive probably has affected the number of livestock in NVZ with high livestock density. Thus, it is assumed that the number of livestock is higher in the “Without Nitrates Directive” scenario. In a NUTS II region, not all agricultural area are fertilized with manure and most NUTS II regions have less than 170 kg N per ha manure (except very intensive regions). The following procedure is followed:

o Regions with intensive livestock systems are defined as the regions with more than average 1.3 LU per ha (= on average 130 kg N per ha, if 1 LU = 100 kg manure, as assumed in Denmark). It assumed that the Nitrates Directed has limited the number of livestock in these regions (shown in Figure 12), because of the relatively high manure production in these regions.

o In general, the productivity of livestock system increase with 0.5 – 1% per year. We assume that the Nitrates Directive has limited the general increase in productivity in regions with intensive livestock and the effect on livestock number is equal to this increase in productivity. In the “Without Nitrates Directive” scenario it is assumed that the Nitrates Directive decreased the number of livestock in regions with more than 1.3 LU with 1% per year, starting from 1995. Thus, in these regions the number of all livestock categories and the manure production is 13% (13 years x 1% per year) higher in 2008 than in 1995 in the “Without Nitrates Directive” scenario.

Figure 12. NUTS II regions with a manure production of more than 130 kg N per ha utilized agricultural area (UAA) in 2008. The degree of implementation of NH3 abatement techniques is derived from the latest version of the GAINS model. Estimates are given for the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. In Annex 2, the share of implementation of these measures is presented. The

51

estimates for 2010 will be used in the calculation of the year 2008 and include the implementation of Best Available (BAT) Techniques at fully implementation of the IPPC Directive.

Results In this paragraph the results of effects of the implementation of the Nitrates Directive on gaseous N emissions and N leaching are presented, by comparison the results of the scenarios with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive. The assumptions for the scenario without implementation of the Nitrates Directive are described in the paragraph above. Figure 13 shows the trends in total NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions and total N leaching to ground and surface waters in EU-27 in the period 2000-2008 in scenarios with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive. The trends show that all N emissions decrease for both scenarios, but that the emissions of the scenario with implementation of the Nitrates Directive are smaller than without the Nitrates Directive. The effects of implementation of the Nitrates Directive on the N emissions on country level are discussed below for the years 2000 and 2008. In Table 9, the NH3 emission in 2000 and 2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive is shown for all EU member states and EU-27. In 2000, the total NH3 emission is 1.1% higher without Nitrates Directive than with Nitrates Directive (ranging from -1.2% for Luxembourg to 5% for the Netherlands). For one country, the NH3 emissions slightly increase because of implementation of the Nitrates Directive (only Germany). In this country, the increase of NH3 emission because of closed periods (see the description of the scenarios) was larger than the decrease because of the other measures. In 2008, the effect of implementation of the Nitrates Directive was much larger: 3.4% for EU-27 (90 kton NH3-N). The largest effect was shown for the Netherlands (15.8%) and Ireland 11.7%). The total N2O emission in EU-27 was 3.1% higher without Nitrates Directive than with Nitrates Directive in 2000 (Table 10). In 2008, the effect increased to 6.3%. Implementation of the Nitrates Directive has decreased the N fertilizer input and the N excretion of dairy cattle, and because of that the N2O emission decreased. The largest effects were shown for the Netherlands (19.9% in 2008), UK (12.0% in 2008), and Denmark (12.3% in 2008). The effects on NOx emissions were comparable to those on N2O emission (Table 11). In 2008, the NOx emission without Nitrates Directive was 8.8% higher than with Nitrates Directive for EU 27. Table 128 shows that the implementation of the Nitrates Directive strongly (with 16.4%) decreased N leaching in EU-27 in 2008. In 2000, the effect was 7.4%. Largest effects were shown for the Netherlands (59.5%), Denmark (48%), and the UK (36.3%).

8 The calculation of N leaching has been included in this report, even though outside the scope of the study

52

2.50

2.55

2.60

2.65

2.70

2.75

2.80

2.85

2.90

2.95

3.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

NH

3e

mis

sio

n (

Mto

n N

H3-

N)

With ND

Without ND

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

N le

ach

ing

(Mto

n N

)

With ND

Without ND

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

N2O

em

issi

on

(kt

on

N2O

-N)

With ND

Without ND

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

NO

x e

mis

sio

n k

Mto

n N

Ox-

N)

With ND

Without ND

Figure 13. Trends in NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions and total N leaching to ground and surface waters in EU-27 in the period 2000-2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive. Notice that the Y-axes do not start at 0 and that there are differences in scales between the Y-axes.

53

Figure 14 shows the changes in emissions between the scenarios with and without Nitrates Directive in 2008 on NUTS II level. Clearly, there are large regional differences in effects due to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive on N emissions. As expected, largest effects are found in the regions with high livestock density and fertilizer consumptions, such as regions in the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and UK.

Figure 14. Difference in N emissions from agricultural land in NUTS II regions in EU-27 between the scenarios without and with implementation of the Nitrates Directive in 2008, expressed in percentage of the N emission in the scenario with Nitrates Directive (positive values indicate that the emissions without Nitrates Directive are higher than with Nitrates Directive).

54

The measures considered in the “Without Nitrates Directive” scenario can be categorized in four types of measures:

Measures affecting fertilizer inputs;

Measures affecting animal numbers;

Measures affecting the area of land that can be used for agriculture, because of buffer strips and regulations for sloping soils;

Measures affecting ammonia emissions because of change in manure application due to closed periods.

The total agricultural area of buffer zones (20 meter width for large rivers only, see explanation above) in NVZ areas is estimated at 188000 ha. The ban on fertilizer use in these areas reduced the N fertilizer use by 14.8 million kg N, which is about 0.14% of the current N fertilizer consumption in the EU-27. The total estimated agricultural area on slopes steeper than 25% in NVZ areas is 615000 ha, and the agricultural area on intermediate slopes between 15% and 25% is 1.78 million ha. The complete ban of fertilizers on steep slopes and the reduction by 50% on intermediate slopes reduced the total fertilizer use by 64 million kg N, which is about 0.61% of the current N fertilizer consumption in the EU-27. In Figure 15, the effects of these four groups of measures on the N emissions in 2008 are shown. Clearly, the reduction of N fertilizer use because of implementation of the Nitrates Directive caused the largest reduction of N emissions, and especially N leaching. A decrease in N fertilizer input has a direct effect on the N emissions, but also results in a lower N excretion by cattle (because of lower N contents of grass, without compensation with concentrates; see Annex 1), and by that a lower N input by manure and grazing. The Nitrates Directive measure of balanced N fertilization has a large effect on N emissions (Oenema et al., 2009). The results of comparison of the scenarios with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive clearly show that the implementation of the measures in the Action Programmes of the Nitrates Directive decreased the gaseous N emission and N leaching in the period 2000-2008. It must be noted that the quantitative parameterization of the Without Nitrates Directive scenario has uncertainties, but the trend of decreasing gaseous emissions and N leaching because of the Nitrates Directive is expected, because of its requirement of balanced N fertilization . In the Commission study "Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions" of 2007, future scenarios were calculated with MITERRA-EUROPE. In these scenarios, the effects of implementation of measures taken to decrease N leaching from agricultural sources, such as balanced N fertilization, showed a strong reduction of emissions of NH3 and N2O emissions. The measure balanced fertilization was based on a theoretical approach in which the crop demand for N was calculated and the plant-available N inputs were adjusted to the crop demand. This strict implementation of balanced fertilization resulted in a strong reduction in N inputs to agricultural soils. A package of measures to reduce N leaching, resulted in a decrease in emissions of 9% for NH3 emission, 15% for N2O emission, and 42% for nitrate leaching at full implementation in EU-27, compared to the situation without

55

implementation of these measures (Velthof et al., 2009). This future scenario was considered as potential effect, because there was a strict implementation of the balanced N fertilization measure. The effects in 2008 calculated in the current study, show that considerable significant part of the potential reduction in N emissions by the Nitrates Directive was achieved in 2008 (3.4% for NH3 in 2008, 6.3% for N2O, and 16.4% for N leaching). A further decrease in N emissions in the near future is expected, as the implementation of the measures of the Nitrates Directive increase because i) the area designated as NVZs in EU-27 increases and ii) the measures in the Action Programmes become stricter in time (e.g. the fertilizer application standards).

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Area Number aninals Fertilizer Closed period Combined

NH3

N2O

NOx

N leaching

Change in emission compared to scenario with inplementation of ND, %

Figure 15. Effects of four groups of measures (see text for description) on the change of N emissions in 2008 without Nitrates Directive compared to with Nitrates Directive in EU-27. Positive values indicate that emission are higher in the Without Nitrates Directive scenario.

56

Table 9. Total ammonia emission (in kton N) in 2000 and 2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive (see Annex 8 for the results of all years in the period 2000-2008).

Member state 2000 2008

With ND Without ND Change With ND Without ND Change

kton N kton N % kton N kton N %

Austria 45.7 45.9 0.5 43.1 43.6 1.1

Bulgaria 32.1 32.1 0.0 28.5 28.5 0.0

Belgium 67.5 68.0 0.8 56.0 58.1 3.7

Cyprus 4.5 4.5 0.0 4.2 4.2 0.1

Czech Republic 59.7 59.7 0.0 54.8 57.3 4.7

Germany 454.8 450.8 -0.9 419.1 421.6 0.6

Denmark 67.3 66.7 -1.0 47.5 48.8 2.8

Estonia 7.3 7.3 0.0 7.6 7.6 0.1

Greece 41.1 42.9 4.4 36.0 38.6 7.2

Spain 267.4 272.3 1.8 233.0 239.7 2.8

Finland 24.1 23.8 -1.1 21.9 21.6 -1.4

France 534.6 543.0 1.6 476.3 495.9 4.1

Hungary 58.7 58.7 0.0 50.4 52.5 4.2

Ireland 101.1 103.8 2.7 95.2 106.3 11.7

Italy 295.0 299.4 1.5 261.9 271.4 3.6

Lithuania 25.5 25.5 0.0 26.3 26.1 -0.8

Luxembourg 3.4 3.3 -1.2 3.5 3.5 -0.3

Latvia 10.8 10.8 0.0 13.6 13.7 0.6

Malta 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.2

Netherlands 100.6 105.6 5.0 87.3 101.1 15.8

Poland 237.0 237.0 0.0 280.7 282.7 0.7

Portugal 47.0 47.2 0.5 44.6 45.0 0.8

Romania 121.0 121.0 0.0 126.5 126.5 0.0

Sweden 32.4 32.1 -0.7 28.1 28.3 0.7

Slovenia 14.3 14.3 0.0 14.0 13.9 -0.4

Slovakia 21.1 21.1 0.0 17.8 17.8 -0.1

United Kingdom 228.1 236.1 3.5 194.0 207.3 6.9

EU-27 2903.5 2934.5 1.1 2673.1 2762.9 3.4

57

Table 10. Total nitrous oxide emission (in kton N) in 2000 and 2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive (see Annex 8 for the results of all years in the period 2000-2008).

Member state 2000 2008

With ND Without ND Change

With ND Without ND Change

kton N kton N % kton N kton N %

Austria 4.63 4.99 7.8 4.18 4.55 8.9

Bulgaria 2.28 2.28 0.0 2.22 2.22 0.0

Belgium 9.23 9.39 1.8 7.78 8.10 4.1

Cyprus 0.23 0.23 0.0 0.25 0.26 0.3

Czech Republic 3.81 3.81 0.0 3.76 4.14 10.1

Germany 44.88 45.83 2.1 41.06 42.40 3.3

Denmark 5.71 6.03 5.7 4.92 5.52 12.3

Estonia 1.42 1.42 0.0 1.36 1.37 0.5

Greece 5.15 5.32 3.4 4.54 4.79 5.4

Spain 17.33 17.60 1.6 16.04 16.38 2.1

Finland 3.30 3.31 0.3 3.28 3.29 0.3

France 69.22 70.69 2.1 64.63 67.38 4.3

Hungary 5.25 5.25 0.0 4.85 5.16 6.4

Ireland 28.28 29.96 5.9 26.41 29.04 10.0

Italy 22.94 23.52 2.5 19.95 21.06 5.6

Lithuania 3.12 3.12 0.0 3.11 3.14 0.8

Luxembourg 0.52 0.54 3.6 0.51 0.55 6.0

Latvia 1.25 1.25 0.0 1.75 1.76 0.7

Malta 0.05 0.05 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.8

Netherlands 17.06 18.61 9.1 16.11 19.32 19.9

Poland 17.77 17.77 0.0 19.14 19.29 0.8

Portugal 4.13 4.16 0.8 4.02 4.07 1.2

Romania 6.71 6.71 0.0 7.20 7.20 0.0

Sweden 3.63 3.72 2.4 3.75 3.97 5.8

Slovenia 1.13 1.13 0.0 1.21 1.29 5.9

Slovakia 1.34 1.34 0.0 1.44 1.46 1.2

United Kingdom 49.33 51.92 5.2 43.60 48.83 12.0

EU-27 329.69 339.96 3.1 307.15 326.57 6.3

58

Table 11. Total NOx emission (in kton N) in 2000 and 2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive (see Annex 8 for the results of all years in the period 2000-2008).

Member state 2000 2008

With ND

Without ND Change

With ND

Without ND Change

kton N kton N % kton N kton N %

Austria 1.64 1.85 12.3 1.42 1.68 18.1

Bulgaria 1.56 1.56 0.0 1.62 1.62 0.0

Belgium 2.90 2.97 2.3 2.52 2.65 4.9

Cyprus 0.15 0.15 0.0 0.14 0.14 0.5

Czech Republic 2.69 2.69 0.0 2.88 3.23 12.1

Germany 21.23 21.91 3.2 19.17 20.10 4.9

Denmark 3.68 4.01 9.0 3.12 3.71 19.0

Estonia 0.33 0.33 0.0 0.43 0.43 1.2

Greece 2.81 3.09 9.6 2.13 2.51 17.8

Spain 9.32 9.61 3.1 7.62 7.99 4.8

Finland 1.63 1.66 1.6 1.63 1.65 1.7

France 25.47 26.45 3.8 22.80 24.56 7.7

Hungary 2.96 2.96 0.0 2.70 3.02 11.6

Ireland 4.51 4.86 7.8 4.23 4.99 18.0

Italy 9.70 10.07 3.9 8.59 9.26 7.9

Lithuania 1.20 1.20 0.0 1.34 1.36 1.5

Luxembourg 0.14 0.15 5.2 0.14 0.15 8.4

Latvia 0.44 0.44 0.0 0.76 0.77 1.4

Malta 0.03 0.03 0.0 0.03 0.03 2.0

Netherlands 4.74 5.37 13.3 4.15 5.38 29.4

Poland 9.30 9.30 0.0 12.82 13.00 1.4

Portugal 1.33 1.35 1.6 1.28 1.31 3.0

Romania 4.07 4.07 0.0 4.46 4.46 0.0

Sweden 2.09 2.20 5.1 2.21 2.47 11.9

Slovenia 0.40 0.40 0.0 0.35 0.38 9.4

Slovakia 0.90 0.90 0.0 1.09 1.11 1.7

United Kingdom 11.56 12.74 10.3 9.80 11.97 22.2

EU-27 126.77 132.31 4.4 119.42 129.93 8.8

59

Table 12. Total N leaching to ground and surface waters (in kton N) in 2000 and 2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive (see Annex 8 for the results of all years in the period 2000-2008).

Member state 2000 2008

With ND

Without ND Change

With ND

Without ND Change

kton N kton N % kton N kton N %

Austria 27.7 32.2 16.1 21.0 26.6 26.6

Bulgaria 41.1 41.1 0.0 32.2 32.2 0.0

Belgium 108.1 112.0 3.7 90.1 97.0 7.8

Cyprus 4.2 4.2 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.6

Czech Republic 62.9 62.9 0.0 82.2 104.1 26.7

Germany 391.8 418.2 6.7 289.2 324.5 12.2

Denmark 76.3 91.4 19.9 55.4 81.9 48.0

Estonia 4.3 4.3 0.0 8.9 9.1 2.4

Greece 47.3 51.9 9.7 35.6 42.1 18.1

Spain 250.1 262.0 4.7 195.0 210.5 7.9

Finland 15.3 15.6 2.0 14.6 14.9 2.2

France 469.2 499.4 6.4 383.1 436.6 14.0

Hungary 83.3 83.3 0.0 62.6 75.9 21.3

Ireland 99.9 114.1 14.3 93.2 123.7 32.6

Italy 207.7 222.2 7.0 177.3 203.9 15.0

Lithuania 37.5 37.5 0.0 44.1 45.3 2.8

Luxembourg 5.2 5.7 9.9 5.5 6.3 15.3

Latvia 11.6 11.6 0.0 22.3 22.8 2.1

Malta 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 2.3

Netherlands 156.8 194.4 24.0 119.9 191.2 59.5

Poland 261.1 261.1 0.0 395.7 402.9 1.8

Portugal 34.1 34.7 1.8 31.4 32.4 3.0

Romania 118.8 118.8 0.0 116.7 116.7 0.0

Sweden 10.7 11.8 11.0 10.6 13.5 27.2

Slovenia 8.3 8.3 0.0 9.6 10.8 12.3

Slovakia 14.4 14.4 0.0 22.8 23.7 3.8

United Kingdom 354.4 404.4 14.1 257.4 350.9 36.3

EU-27 2902.4 3118.0 7.4 2580.8 3003.8 16.4

60

61

Task 3: Effect of derogation

Task 3: For each of the Member States to whom a derogation has been granted, assess the effects of the derogation as compared to a Standard Scenario (no derogation - with a limit of 170 kg N/ha) Aim The effect of the derogation on gaseous N emissions will be quantified, taking into account results of tasks 1 and 2 and emission factors identified under task 1. This will be done by comparing the current emissions in Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom9, Ireland, Denmark and Belgium (derogation in place) with the potential emissions deriving from a maximum application of 170 kg N/ha. Approach The actual number of farms and the area concerned, has been provided by the European Commission (Annex 6 and Figure 16). For all member states with a derogation valid in 2008 it can be calculated how much manure is applied above 170 kg N per ha (based on the manure application rates and the area under derogation; Annex 6). The effect of derogation on N management will be assessed using MITERRA-EUROPE for each country according to the following options for the management of manure in excess (above 170 kg N/ha/year):

Manure is treated and exported to another NUTS II region in which manure can be applied. This is the option in which there is no effect on total NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions, but the regional emissions change because of manure export. This will only occur in NUTS II regions with high livestock densities (i.e. in which there is no room to apply manure within the established limits).

The manure is treated and N is removed from the agriculture. In this option, the NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions from housing and manure storage increase, but the emissions related to manure application decrease. The net change is approximately zero.

The protein content of the feed for livestock is reduced, by which the N excretion and manure production decrease. It is assumed that the N excretion for dairy cattle decreases with 10% and that the manure is as much as possible applied within the region and otherwise it is transported to other regions.

The number of livestock is decreased, resulting in less manure production. This is the option with the largest effect on NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions.

These options are compared with the situation with derogation in the areas indicated in Annex 6 and Figure 6.

9 The analysis only includes the derogation granted to Northern Ireland, since the derogation to England, Scotland and Wales has been granted in 2009

62

The change in NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions for each option are calculated using the manure N application rates and the emission factors for the three gases. The emissions in each year with and without derogation are calculated. In addition to the calculation with MITERRA-EUROPE, a simple calculation is made as an example of the possible effects of a derogation on manure use and gaseous N emissions. This case study is described in the Results section. Output This task will deliver results of the effects of derogation on emissions of NH3, N2O, and NOx for the different options. The emissions in each year with and without derogation are calculated for each option. The results of the case study are also presented.

Figure 16. Area with derogation in 2008, % of total utilized agricultural area.

63

Results Effect of derogation The effect of derogation on N management and emissions in the regions presented in Annex 6 and Figure 16 have been assessed using MITERRA-EUROPE. Figure 17 shows the effects of the different options for no derogation in comparison to the scenario with derogation on EU-27 level. It was assumed that the decrease in use of animal manure was not compensated by more use in N fertilizer to obtain the same level of input of effective N. This may have lead to an overestimation of the effect of derogation (see the Case study for an example in which the fertilizer use is compensated for changes in use of animal manure). Clearly, the effects of no derogation in comparison to derogation on the N emissions is small on EU-27 level (i.e. the emissions decreases with less than 2%), which is due to the fact that the total area under derogation is small. Moreover, in most of the regions with a derogation, the manure can be distributed within the regions, so that no other measures have to be taken. In these regions, there is no effect of derogation on the gaseous N emissions, based on the assumptions made for the calculation. The effects are even smaller than 2%, if the reduction in use of animal manure is compensated by a higher use of chemical fertilizer. The no derogation scenario, only affected the N emissions in regions with a high density of livestock in Belgium (Flanders) and the Netherlands. In these regions the produced manures cannot be placed in the NUTS II regions in the scenarios without derogation. In the Netherlands, the total emissions in the without derogation scenarios are 5 -15% smaller than in the derogation scenario. In Belgium, the changes in emissions are a few percent. As indicated above, the effects in these scenarios are probably an overestimation of the real effects, as part of the removed manure will be replaced by N fertilizer (within the application standards for total N).

64

Figure 17. Effects of the different options for no derogation in comparison to the situation with derogation on EU-27 level. The change is expressed as increased in emission with derogation in comparison with a scenario without derogation. The following options are considered:

Export to other regions. The excess cattle manure (manure that cannot be placed within the limit of 170 kg N per ha) in the areas with derogation is treated and exported to another region in which manure can be applied.

Removal from agriculture. The excess cattle manure (manure that cannot be placed within the limit of 170 kg N per ha) in the areas with derogation is treated and N is removed from the agriculture.

Lower N feeding. The protein content of the feed for cattle is reduced, by which the N excretion and manure production of dairy cattle in areas with derogation decreased with 10%.

Less dairy cows: The number of dairy cattle decreases, so that the manure application rate can stay below the limit 170 kg N per ha.

Case study The possible effects of derogation on gaseous N emissions is illustrated with a case study in which the effects of derogation on N emissions in a fictitious region are calculated. This region consists of 250 dairy cattle, 5000 pigs, and 10000 layers. The total manure production in this region is 81405 kg N, calculated from the assumed gross N excretions and gaseous N emissions (Table 13).

65

Table 13. Number of livestock and manure production in the region of the case study.

NH3 N2O NOx N2

Dairy cattle 250 120 15 0.2 0.2 0.3 101 25290

Pigs 5000 12 15 0.2 0.2 0.3 10 50580

Layers 10000 0.75 20 0.1 0.1 6 0.55 5535

Total 81405

N emissions housing and storage, % N excretedLivestock

category

Total manure

production,

kg N

Net N excretion,

kg/animal/yr

Number Gross N

excretion,

kg/animal/yr

The region has 110 ha grassland and 350 ha arable land, the N application standards (expressed in effective N) are 300 kg N per ha for grassland and 250 kg N per ha for arable land (Table 14). The region has a derogation of 250 kg N per for dairy cattle slurry and the manure application standard for the other manures and arable land is 170 kg N per ha. All the dairy cattle slurry can be applied on grassland (average application 230 kg N per ha; Table 14) and all other manures on arable land (average application 160 kg N per ha). If it is assumed that the N in the manure has an efficiency of 50% and that farmers apply the total amount of effective N that maximal can be used according the N application standard, the mineral N fertilizer application is 185 kg N per ha on grassland and 170 kg N per ha on arable land (see Table 14). Table 14. Land use, application standards and application of manures and fertilizers in the region of the case study. Land use ha Manure

application

standard

N application

standard

Total amount

dairy cattle

manure

Total

amount pig

and poultry

manure

Manure

application

rate

Manure

efficiency

Fertilizer

application

Total effective N

(manure +

fertilizer)

kg N/ha kg effective N/ha kg N kg N kg N/ha kg N/ha kg N/ha

Grassland 110 250 300 25290 230 50% 185 300

Arable land 350 170 250 56115 160 50% 170 250 Based on the assumed emission factors for housing and manure storage (Table 13) and soils (Table 15), the total gaseous N emissions in the region can be calculated in the situation with a derogation (Table 16). Table 15. Emission factors for NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions for application of manures and fertilizers.

Land use Emission factors, %

NH3 N2O NOx

manure fertilizer manure fertilizer manure fertilizer

Grassland 25 2 1 1 0.43 0.43

Arable land 25 2 2 1 0.43 0.43

66

Table 16. Total gaseous N emissions in the case study in the standard situation with a derogation. Total emissions, kg N

NH3 N2O Nox

Housing/storage 15000 188 188

Soil 21947 2173 693

Total 36947 2361 881

The effect of no derogation (thus application slurry of dairy cattle is 170 kg N per ha on grassland instead of 250 kg N per ha) is assessed for the following five options: 1. The slurry of dairy cattle that not can be applied on grassland, is applied to arable

land (up to a maximum manure application of all types of manures of 170 kg N per ha).

2. The slurry of dairy cattle that not can be applied to grassland, because of the manure application standard of 170 kg N per ha, is exported to another regions.

3. The slurry of dairy cattle that not can be applied to grassland, because of the manure application standard of 170 kg N per ha, is treated and removed from agriculture.

4. The N content of dairy cattle manure is decreased with 10% (because of feed modifications) and the slurry that still not can be applied to grassland (exceeding 170 kg N per ha) is applied to arable land.

5. The number of dairy cattle is decreased, so that all produced manure can be applied to grassland.

In all options, it is assumed that the rate of mineral N fertilizer application is adjusted on basis of changes in the manure application rate, so that the total amount of applied effective N is the same in all options. The calculated gaseous N emissions are presented in Table 17. The production, export, treatment and application of manure are also presented. In general, the differences between the current situation and the scenarios are relatively small (< 5% change compared to situation with a derogation). This can be explained as follows for the five options: 1. In option 1, the manure application rate of grassland decreases compared to the

derogation situation (lower manure application standard for grassland) and that of arable increases (the amount of manure increases to 170 kg N per ha), and by that the amount used N fertilizer increases on grassland and decreases on arable land. Some of the dairy cattle slurry cannot be placed and is exported. Therefore, the total amount of used fertilizer increases in the region. The number of livestock and the N excretion remains the same, by which the emissions from housing and manure storage do not change. The net effect is that the emissions of NH3, N2O, and NOx slightly change. Notice that the manure is exported to other regions and may affect the emissions in the regions to which it is exported.

2. In option 2 the manure application rate on grassland decreases compared to the derogation situation and that of N fertilizer application on grassland increases.

67

The N application to arable land does not change. The number of livestock and the N excretion remains the same, by which the emissions from housing and manure storage do not change. The net effect is that the emissions of NH3, N2O, and NOx slightly decrease (the decrease is somewhat higher than in option 1). Notice that the manure is exported to other regions and may affect the emissions in the region to which it is exported.

3. The effects of option 3 are the same as for option 2, except that manure is treated and removed from agriculture. The emissions in the region are the same as in option 2, but this option does not affect the emissions outside the region.

4. Decreasing the N excretion of dairy cattle in option 4, decreases the gaseous N emissions from housing and storage and decreases the manure N production. The manure application rate on grassland decreases and that of arable increases (up to 170 kg N per ha) compared to the derogation situation. The export of dairy cattle slurry to other regions is small. The net effect is that the emissions of NH3, N2O, and NOx slightly change.

5. A decrease in the number of dairy cattle from 250 to 185 is needed to apply all produced manure in the region. This results in a lower manure production and by that a lower NH3 emission from housing, manure storage and applied manure (about 7% compared to the situation with derogation). Also the N2O and NOx emissions decrease compared to the situation with derogation, but the decrease is small (2-3%), because more fertilizer is used in the without derogation options.

Concluding, the results of this case study show that the different options of no derogation results in a decrease in gaseous N emissions within the region, but the effects are relatively small (< 5%, except the effect of a smaller number dairy cattle on NH3 emission: 7%). This is caused by the fact that in most options the gaseous N emissions from housing and manure storage and those related to pig and poultry manure do not change. Moreover, it is assumed that in all options the same amount of effective N is applied (thus a decrease in manure application results in an increase in fertilizer application at the same rate of effective N). In several of these options, manure N has to be exported to other regions. The exported manure may affect the gaseous N emissions in these regions.

68

Table 17. Manure production, export, treatment, and application and NH3, N2O, and NOx emissions in the region of the case study, for the current situation with derogation and the five options in the situation without derogation.

Derogation

option 1 option 2 option 3 option 4 option 5

Manure production, kg N 81405 81405 81405 81405 78876 74815

Manure export, kg N 0 3205 6590 0 676 0

Manure treatment, kg N 0 0 0 6590 0 0

Manure applied to the soil, kg N 81405 78200 74815 74815 78200 74815

Manure application rate, kg N/ha Grassland 230 170 170 170 170 170

Arable land 160 170 160 160 170 160

Fertilizer application rate, kg N/ha Grassland 185 215 215 215 215 215

Arable land 170 165 170 170 165 170

NH3 emissions, kg N Housing/storage 15000 15000 15000 15000 14550 13827

Soil 21947 21178 20366 20366 21178 20366

Total 36947 36178 35366 35366 35728 34193

N2O emissions, kg N Housing/storage 188 188 188 188 182 172

Soil 2173 2191 2140 2140 2191 2140

Total 2361 2379 2328 2328 2373 2312

NOx emissions, kg N Housing/storage 188 188 188 188 182 172

Soil 693 686 679 679 686 679

Total 881 874 867 867 868 851

No derogation

Conclusion The Nitrates Directive set limits to the application of manure to agricultural soils and, by that, the gaseous N emissions may be affected. The results indicate that a derogation slightly increased gaseous N emissions (on average in EU-27 < 5% compared to a scenario without derogation). The relatively small effect is due to the following reasons: 1) The total agricultural area under derogation is small (Figure 16); 2) The derogations in the different member states benefitting from it are mostly

based on cattle manure and; therefore the derogation only affects the gaseous N emissions related to the use of cattle manure and not those related to pigs and poultry manures;

3) In most of the considered NUTS II regions with derogation, the manure can be distributed within the region (neighboring farms), so that no other manure management measures have to be taken (in case there is no derogation);

4) Changes in the use of manure are compensated by changes in the fertilizer use in order to keep the same rate of effective N (i.e. the crop-available N). Thus the total effective N applied is the same in scenarios with and without derogation, assuming balanced N fertilization.

Only in some regions with high livestock densities in Belgium and the Netherlands, derogation may have resulted in higher gaseous N emissions, assuming that the

69

absence of derogation would have changed the N excretion, the number of cattle, and/or the amount of manure exported. The small average effects in EU-27 of derogation on gaseous N emissions indicate that also the long term effects of potential renewal of derogation on gaseous N emissions are limited. Moreover, it must be noted that not only the standard for manure, but also the application standards for total N and total P control the use of fertilizer and manure and, by that, the gaseous N emissions in case of a derogation.

71

References

Amann, M., I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, F. Gyarfas, Z. Klimont, W. Schöpp, and F. Wagner. 2005. A further emissions control scenario for the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) CAFE Rep. no. 7. Int. Inst. for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.

Amann, M., W.A.H. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, W. Schöpp, and F. Wagner. 2007. Cost-optimized reductions of air pollutant emissions in the EU Member States to meet the environmental targets of the Th ematic Strategy on Air Pollution. NEC Scenario Analysis Rep. no. 3. Int. Inst. for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.

Barton, L., C.D.A. McLay, L.A. Schipper, and C.T. Smith (1999) Annual denitrification rates in agricultural and forest soils: a review. Aust. J. Soil Res. 37:1073-1093.

Bijay-Singh, J.C. Ryden, and D.C. Whitehead (1988) Some relationships between denitrification potential and fractions of organic carbon in air-dried and field-moist soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 20: 737-741.

Braschkat, J., Mannheim T, and Marschner H. (1997) Estimation of ammonia losses after application of liquid cattle manure on grassland. Zeitschrift Fur Pflanzenernahrung Und Bodenkunde 160:117-123.

Brunekreef, B. and Holgate, S. T. (2002) Air pollution and health. The Lancet 360: 1233–1242.

Chambers BJ, Smith KA, Pain BF, 2000. Strategies to encourage better use of nitrogen in animal manures. Soil Use and Management 16, 157-161.

De Sutter, T.M., G.M. Pierzynski, and J.M. Ham. 2005. Movement of lagoon-liquor constituents below four animal-waste lagoons. J. Environ. Qual. 34: 1234-1242.

De Vries W, JJM van Grinsven JJM, N van Breemen, EEJM Leeters & PC Jansen (1995) Impacts of acid deposition on concentrations and fluxes of solutes in acid sandy forest soils in the Netherlands. Geoderma 67: 17-43.

Egginton, G.M. & K.A. Smith (1986) Nitrous oxide emission from a grassland soil fertilized with slurry and calcium nitrate. Journal of Soil Science 37, 59-67.

Eghball, B., J.F. Power, J.E. Gilley, and J.W. Doran. 1997. Nutrient, carbon, and mass loss during composting of beef cattle feedlot manure. J. Environ Qual. 26: 189-193.

Freibauer, A. 2003. Regionalised inventory of biogenic greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 19: 135-160.

Galloway, J.N., J.D. Aber, J.W. Erisman, S.P. Seitzinger, R.W. Howarth, E.B. Cowling, and B.J. Cosby. 2003. The N Cascade. BioScience 53: 341-356.

Grizzetti, B., and F. Bouraoui. 2006. Assessment of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Environmental Pressure at European Scale. EUR Report 22526. European Commission, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Luxembourg.

Groenigen, J.W. van R.L.M. Schils, G.L. Velthof, P.J. Kuikman, D.A. Oudendag, and O. Oenema (2008) Mitigation strategies for greenhouse gas emissions from animal production systems: synergy between measuring and modeling at different scales. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48, 46–53.

72

Hack ten Broeke, M.J.D., W.J.M. de Groot, and J.P. Dijkstra. 1996. Impact of excreted nitrogen by grazing cattle on nitrate leaching. Soil Use Manage. 12: 190-198.

Heathwaite, A.L.., P. Griffiths, and R.J. Parkinson. 1998. Nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff from grassland with buffer strips following application of fertilizers and manures. Soil Use Manage. 14, 142–148.

Heckelei, T., and W. Britz. 2001. Concept and explorative application of an EU-wide, regional agricultural sector model (CAPRI-Project). p. 281–290. In Th . Heckelei et al. (ed.) Agricultural Sector Modeling and Policy Information Systems, Proc. of the 65th European Seminar of the European Assoc. of Agricultural Economists. March 2000. Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk Kiel KG, Kiel.

Jordan, C. 1989. The effect of fertilizer type and application rate on denitrification losses from cut grass land in Northern Ireland. Fert. Res. 19: 45–55.

Klimont, Z., Brink, C., 2004, Modelling of Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases from Agricultural Sources in Europe. IIASA IR 04-048.

Koops, J.G., O. Oenema, and M.L. van Beusichem. 1996. Denitrification in the top and sub soil of grassland on peat soils. Plant Soil 184: 1–10.

Korsaeth, A., and R. Eltun. 2000. Nitrogen mass balances in conventional, integrated and ecological cropping systems and the relationship between balance calculations and nitrogen runoff in an 8-year field experiment in Norway. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 79: 199-214

Kuczynski, T., U. Dammgen, J. Webb, and A. Myczko. 2005. Emissions from European agriculture. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.

Lesschen, J.P., G.L. Velthof, W. de Vries and J. Kros. (2011) Differentiation of nitrous oxide emission factors for agricultural soils, Environmental Pollution, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.04.001.

Maljanen, M., M. Martikkala, H.-T. Koponen, P. Virkajarvi & P.J. Martikainen, 2007. Fluxes of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide from experimental excreta patches in boreal agricultural soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 914-920.

Mantovi, P, L. Fumagalli, G.P. Beretta, and M. Guermandi. 2006. Nitrate leaching through the unsaturated zone following pig slurry applications. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 316: 195-212.

Meijide, A., Garcıa-Torres, L., Arce, A., Vallejo, A. 2009 Nitrogen oxide emissions affected by organic fertilization in a non-irrigated Mediterranean barley field, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 132 (2009) 106–115

Monteny, G.J., 2000. Ammonia emissions from dairy cow houses. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University.

Mosier, A.R., J.K. Syers, and J.R. Freney. 2004. Agriculture and the Nitrogen Cycle. SCOPE 65. Island Press, Washington, USA.

Munch J.C., and G.L. Velthof. 2007. Chapter 22. Denitrification and agriculture. p. 331- 343. In: Bothe, H., Ferguson, S., Newton, V. (eds.). Biology of the nitrogen cycle, Elsevier.

Oenema, O., G.L. Velthof, and D.W. Bussink. 1993. Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane from cattle slurry. p. 419-433. In R.S. Oremland (ed.) Biogeochemistry of Global Change: Radiatively Active Trace Gases. Chapman & Hall, New York

73

Oenema, O., D. Oudendag, and G.L.Velthof. 2007. Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. Livestock Sci. 112: 261–272.

Oenema, O., H.P. Witzke, Z. Klimont, J.P. Lesschen, and G.L. Velthof (2009) Integrated assessment of promising measures to decrease nitrogen losses from agriculture in EU-27. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 133: 280–288.

Pain, B.F., V.R. Phillips, C.R. Clarkson, and J.V. Klarenbeek. 1989. Loss of nitrogen through NH3 volatilisation during and following application of pig or cattle slurry to grassland. J. Sci. Food Agric. 47:1-12.

Sanchez-Martın L *, Meijide, A., Garcia-Torres, L., Vallejo, A. 2010 Combination of drip irrigation and organic fertilizer for mitigating emissions of nitrogen oxides in semiarid climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 137: 99–107

Sanchez-Martın L., Vallejo, A., Dickb, J., Skiba, U. 2008. The influence of soluble carbon and fertilizer nitrogen on nitric oxideand nitrous oxide emissions from two contrasting agricultural soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 40:142–151

Sanchez-Martin, L., A. Vallejo, J. Dick & U.M. Skiba, 2008. The influence of soluble carbon and fertilizer nitrogen on nitric oxide and nitrous oxide emissions from two contrasting agricultural soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 142-151.

Scholefield D., and A. C. Stone. 1995. Nutrient losses in runoff water following application of different fertilisers to grassland cut for silage. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 55: 181-191.

Simmelsgaard, S.E. 1998. The effect of crop, N-level, soil type and drainage on nitrate leaching from Danish soil. Soil Use Manage. 14: 30–36.

Skiba, U., D. Fowler, and K.A. Smith. 1997. Nitric oxide emissions from agricultural soils in temperate and tropical climates: Sources, controls, and mitigation options. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 48: 75–90.

Smith, K.A., D.R. Jackson, and T. J. Pepper. 2001. Nutrient losses by surface run-off following the application of organic manures to arable land. 1. Nitrogen. Environ. Pol. 112: 41-51.

Sommer S.G. (2001) Effect of composting on nutrient loss and nitrogen availability of cattle deep litter. Europ. J. Agron. 14, 123-133.

Sommer, S.G. and J.E. Olesen. 1991. Effects of Dry Matter Content and Temperature on Ammonia Loss from Surface-Applied Cattle Slurry. J Environ Qual 20:679-683.

Sommer, S.G., Christensen, B.T., Nielson, N.E., Schjørring, J.K., 1993. Ammonia volatilization during storage of cattle and pig slurry: effect of surface cover. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 121, 63–71.

Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L 2006 N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modelling of global annual emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems (2006) 74: 207 –228

Tiedje, J.M. 1988. Ecology of denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium. , pp. 179–243. In: Zehnder, A.J.B. (Ed.), Biology of Anaerobic Microorganisms. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Turc, L., 1956. The water balance of soils. relation between precipitation, evaporation and flow. Ann. Agron., 5:491–569.

74

Van Beek C.L., G.A.P.H. van den Eertwegh, F.H. van Schaik, G.L. Velthof, and O. Oenema. 2004b. The contribution of dairy farming on peat soil to N and P loading of surface water. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 70: 85-95.

Van Beek, C.L., E.W.J. Hummelink, G.L. Velthof, and O. Oenema. 2004a. Denitrification rates in relation to groundwater level in a peat soil under grassland. Biol. Fertil. Soils 39: 329–336.

Van der Salm, C., J. Dolfing, M. Heinen, and G.L. Velthof. 2007. Estimation of nitrogen losses via denitrification from a heavy clay soil under grass. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 119: 311–319.

Van Egmond, K., T. Bresser, and A.F. Bouwman. 2002. The European Nitrogen case. Ambio 31: 72-78.

Velthof G.L., O. Oenema, R. Postma and M.L. van Beusichem (1997) Effects of type and amount of applied nitrogen fertilizer on nitrous oxide fluxes from intensively managed grassland.Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 46: 257-267.

Velthof GL, D Oudendag, HP Witzke, WAH Asman, Z Klimont and O Oenema (2009) Integrated Assessment of Nitrogen Losses from Agriculture in EU-27 using MITERRA-EUROPE. Journal of Environmental Quality 38: 402-417.

Velthof GL, O Oenema, J Postmus & WH Prins (1990) In situ field measurements of ammonia volatilization from urea and calcium ammonium nitrate. Meststoffen 1990 no. 1-2, 41-45.

Velthof, G.L. D.A. Oudendag & O. Oenema (2007) Development and application of the integrated nitrogen model MITERRA-EUROPE. Task 1 Service contract “Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”. Alterra report 1663.1, Alterra, Wageningen.

Velthof, G.L., P.J. Kuikman & O. Oenema (2003) Nitrous oxide emission from animal manures applied to soil under controlled conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soil 37, 221-230.

Webb J, Ellis S, Harrison R, Thorman R. (2004) Nitrogen fluxes and changes in soil N measured in an arable rotation on two contrasting soil types in the UK. Plant and Soil 260, 253-270.

Webb, J, H. Menzi, B.F. Pain, T.H. Misselbrook, U. Dammgen, H. Hendriks, and H. Dohler. 2005. Managing ammonia emissions from livestock production in Europe. Environ. Pollut. 135: 399-406.

Wu, J., and B.A. Babcock. 1997. Evaluation of nitrogen runoff and leaching potential in the high plains (An), J. Soil Water Conserv. 52: 77-84.

75

Annex 1. Estimating regional variations in nitrogen excretion by livestock in

EU-27

1. Introduction Livestock production contributes about 18% to the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the world (Steinfeld et al.. 2006), in various ways. Ruminants produce CH4 during the digestion of feed (enteric fermentation). Methane and N2O are released from stored manure. Following their application to agricultural land, manure and N fertilizers increase the emissions of N2O from soils. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and N2O are released during the production of synthetic (nitrogen) fertilizer. Additionally, deforestation and the conversion of grassland into agricultural land release considerable quantities of CO2 and N2O (FAO, 2010). The total calculated GHG emissions from livestock farming in the EU-27 have been estimated at 493 Mton CO2-eq yr-1 (Lesschen et al., 2011). This corresponds to about 10% of the total EU-27 GHG emissions, as reported to the UNFCCC, which amounted to 5148 Mton CO2-eq (excluding net CO2 removals from land use, land use change and forestry) for 2004 (EEA, 2009). The dairy sector had the highest GHG emission in the EU-27 with an annual emission of 195 Mton CO2-eq, followed by the beef sector with 192 Mton CO2-eq. Enteric fermentation was the main source of GHG emissions in the European livestock sector (36% of the total emissions from livestock) followed by N2O emissions from soil associated to fertilizer application (28%) (Lesschen et al., 2011). The emissions of GHG by the livestock sectors are related to the intake of animal feed by the animal and also to the total nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) excretion by the livestock, and also to the form in which N and C are excreted. The N and C excretion determine to a large extend the CH4 and N2O emissions from stored manure. The total N excretion per animal category is usually determined as mean for a whole country or region. These values are usually defined as follows: N-excretion = N-intake – N-yield in marketable animal products All N excreted via urine, faeces, skin, sweat, etc., is considered as N-excretion, but most of the N excretion is via urine and dung. Hence, N excretion is the difference between total N intake via animal feed and the amount of N in ‘marketable’ products, i.e., milk, meat, egg, wool. The term ‘marketable’ simply emphasizes the economic value of these products and thereby distinguishes these animal products from the excretions (which are also animal products). With increasing animal productivity, the N-intake and N-excretion per animal tend to increase. However, the N-excretion per (marketable) animal product (e.g. milk or meat) usually decreases, because of increasing efficiency. Depending on animal species, the (animal feed) management of the animal and its performance, roughly

76

between 60 and 90 % of consumed N is excreted via urine and faeces (e.g., Flochowsky and Lebzien, 2005; Jondreville and Dourmad, 2005; Mateos et al., 2005). So far, the model MITERRA-EUROPE (Velthof et al., 2009) is using default N excretion values per animal category per Member State. These default values have been harmonized with the model GAINS/GAINS (Amann et al., 2006) so as to arrive at a similar basis for emission inventories (e.g., NH3 and GHG emissions). These default values have been estimated on the basis of expert consultation and expert judgements, and are not necessarily related to (accurate estimations of) the animal feed intake. Moreover, the N excretions are not regularly updated for changes (increases) in animal productivity and or changes in cropping patterns. 2. N excretion of dairy cows as function of milk yield and feed management. Dairy cows have the largest amounts of N in the excrements (dung and urine), while there are also relative large differences in the estimated mean N excretion per Member State. The N excretion of the dairy cows depends on the amount of N in the diet and the amount of N retained in (marketable) milk and liveweight gain (meat), in formula Nexcretion = Ndiet - Nretained [1] The required amount of protein-N in the diet depends on the energy and nutrients requirements of the dairy cows. Most countries have their own criteria and formula for estimating the mean amount of protein-N in the diet. In practice feeding above N requirements may occur, either because producers apply a safety margin or because relatively cheap dietary ingredients have a surplus of N. This is for instance in the case in young leafy grass. Hence, there is often a discrepancy between the default values for N excretion (derived from ideal or model situations) and the actual N excretion. Here, we propose to estimate the N excretion on the basis of:

(i) the following simple formulae (e.g., ERM/AB-DLO (1999): Nexcretion = [(a * metabolic weight + b * milk yield) * N content diet] - Nretained [2] Nretained = (milk yield * N content milk) + (liveweight gain* N content liveweight) [3]

(ii) statistical information about feed protein-N use and the amount of N in

marketed animal products per animal category. The information on feed protein-N use per animal category is derived from the Model CAPRI (Britz and Witzke, 2008) and Feed use statistics of FEFAC. The amount of N in animal products (milk and meat) per animal category is derived from EUROSTAT;

The term “a * metabolic weight” in equation [1] represents the feed need for maintenance (metabolic weight is weight0.75), while the term “b* milk yield” represents

77

the feed need for milk production. As the maintenance need is related to the weight of the animal and that for production to the milk production, the total feed need expressed per liter of milk produced will decrease as the milk production per cow increase. This is a general observation, and underpinned by theoretical and practical evidence, although it must be stated that the feed need for maintenance slightly increases with an increase in milk production (this latter is however not yet included in the formula, given the uncertainty in the estimates). Estimates for milk and meat production are derived from EUROSTAT; estimates for the metabolic weight and the coefficients "a" and "b" are derived from literature (e.g. Table 1). Table 1 provides some estimates for the various coefficients and parameters, on the basis of experimental studies and modeling studies. Table 1. Coefficients for estimating the N excretion of dairy cows as function of energy requirement for maintenance and production, protein content of the diet and the amount of N retained by the dairy cows in milk and liveweight gain. Coefficients Average Lower estimate Upper estimate

Weight dairy cow, kg 550 400 650

Metabolic weight, kg 114 89 129

Maintenance coefficient ‘a’, g/day 52 45 60

Milk yield, kg/yr 5.500 3.000 10.000

Production coefficient ‘b’, kg/kg 0.5 0.44 0.6

Protein content of diet, % 16 13 20

Protein content of milk, % 3.4 3 4

N content of protein in diet, % 6.25 6.25 6.25

N content of protein in milk, % 6.39 6.39 6.39

N retained in liveweight gain, kg 1.5 0.5 3

Using Equation [2] and the coefficients presented in Table 1, possible relationships between milk yield per dairy cow and N excretion have been explored. The results are presented in Figure 1 for a milk production of 3000 to 8000 kg per cow and year, a weight of dairy cows of 450 (for Jerseys) and 650 kg (for Holstein Frisians), a maintenance coefficient of 45 to 60 g feed dry matter per kg MBW per day, a production coefficient of 45 to 60 g dry matter per kg milk, a protein content of the animal feed of 14 to 18%, and a protein content in the milk of 3.5 % and a N retained in liveweight gain (young born calf) of 1.5 kg (Lapierre et al., 2005) The intercept ranges from 37 kg N per cow per year for low-weight cow and a low maintenance coefficient of 45 g per day per kg metabolic weight (representative for year-round housing) and a low protein content in the diet (14%), to a high value of 75 kg N per cow per year for high-weight cow and a high maintenance coefficient of 60 g per day per kg metabolic weight (grazing, much walking) and a relatively high protein content in the diet (18%).

78

y = 0.0054x + 43

y = 0.0097x + 71

y = 0.0054x + 37

y = 0.0067x + 45

y = 0.0097x + 61

y = 0.0107x + 75

y = 0.0081x + 61

y = 0.0081x + 53

y = 0.0067x + 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Milk yield, kg per cow

N e

xc

reti

on

, k

g p

er

co

w

Figure 1. Nitrogen excretion by dairy cows as function of milk yield per cow, maintenance and production coefficients, and N retention. Result of sensitivity analyses using Equation [2] and coefficients from Table 1 (see text). The regression coefficient ranges from 0.0054 kg N per kg milk for a low-weight cow and a low production coefficient of 0.45 kg per kg milk (representative for high-quality feed) and a low protein content in the diet (14%), to a high value of 0.0107 kg N per kg milk for high-weight cow and a high production coefficient of 0.60 kg per kg milk (representative for low quality feed) and a relatively high protein content in the diet (18%). Evidently, there is a wide range of possibilities but some combinations are more plausible than others. For example, a low-weight dairy cow with a high milk production seems attractive from the point of view of low N excretion, but is not realistic. The combination of low maintenance and production coefficients, a high milk yield per cow and a low protein content in the diet is also attractive from the point of view of low N excretion, but low maintenance and production coefficients can only be realized with high quality feed, a productive herd and good management, and with not too-low protein contents in the diets. On the other hand feed requirements are primarily determined by energy rather than protein requirements. A surplus of protein as compared to energy is ‘a waste’, because surplus protein is then used as a source of energy and the N included in such energy is wasted. Deleting the less practical combinations results in a set of four lines, indicating the most likely ranges of N excretion as function of milk production (Figure 2). These regression equations include the default values of ERM/AB-DLO (1999) for the linear relationship between milk yield per cow and N excretion per cow, with an intercept of about 50-60 kg N/yr and a regression coefficient of 0.007-0.009 kg N per kg milk.

79

y = 0.0101x + 57

y = 0.0081x + 66

y = 0.0074x + 42

y = 0.0067x + 55

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500

Milk yield, kg per cow

N e

xc

reti

on

, k

g p

er

co

w

Figure 2. Most likely ranges of N excretion (kg N/yr) by dairy cows producing an average of 5000 kg per cow per year (mean 95; range 75-105) and an estimated average of 6500 kg per cow per year (mean 110; range 95-125). 3. Nitrogen excretion by other cattle as function of feed management The category ‘other cattle’ in Europe includes replacement cattle and fattening cattle. It is a broad variety of cattle and includes:

- replacement cattle, < 1 year;

- replacement cattle, > 1 year;

- fattening calves <0.5 year;

- fattening bulls 0.5-1.5 year

- suckling cows > 2 years

- other fattening cattle <1 year

- other fattening cattle >1 year The number of other cattle has increased in EU-15 following the implementation of milk quota in the 1980s, and the subsequent decrease in dairy cattle, because some farmers switched to fattening cattle and suckling cows. Currently the number of other cattle is larger than the number of dairy cattle, but N excretion per animal is much smaller. According to the GAINS database, the average N excretion is 44.3 kg per year per animal in EU, with a surprisingly small variation between countries (range 37-53; standard deviation is 4.7 kg per animal per year). The N excretion of other cattle depends on the amount of N in the diet and the amount of N retained in liveweight gain (meat), in formula Nexcretion = Ndiet - Nretained [1]

80

Again, we propose to estimate the N excretion on the basis of: (i) the following simple formula (ERM/AB-DLO (1999):

Nexcretion = [(d * liveweight gain) * N content diet] - Nretained [2]

(ii) statistical information about feed protein-N use and the amount of N in marketed animal products per animal category. The information on feed protein-N use per animal category is derived from the Model CAPRI (Britz and Witzke, 2008) and Feed use statistics of FEFAC. The amount of N in animal products (meat) per animal category is derived from EUROSTAT;

The coefficient “d” represents the feed conversion ratio, i.e. the amount of feed needed to increase liveweight gain by 1 kg. The feed conversion ratio increases with the age of the cattle. Young veal calf have a low feed conversion coefficient (~<5), while fattening cattle > 2 years have a high feed conversion coefficient (~15). The reverse is true for the N retention, i.e. the protein retention and requirements per kg of gain decrease with the age of growing cattle. However, in order to maintain a proper microbial fermentation in the rumen, the N requirements for the microbial population in the rumen have to be met and dietary crude protein (Nx6.25) content should not be lowered to less than ~12 %. The accuracy of the estimations highly depends on the accuracy of the statistics on feed protein use per animal category and on the estimated feed conversion rate. Therefore, results have been compared with literature data, to check for plausibility and also consistency. Table 2. Nitrogen excretion by other cattle. For each category upper and lower estimates are provided. Cattle category Average

estimate

Lower

estimate

Upper

estimate

Replacement cattle, category < 1 yr; 30 25 45

Replacement cattle, category > 1 yr; 60 40 80

Fattening calves <0.5 year; 15 10 30

Fattening bulls 0.5-1.5 year 35 30 50

Suckling cows > 2 years 70 50 90

Other fattening cattle <1 year 35 30 50

Other fattening cattle >1 year 60 40 80

Table 2 provides estimates of the N excretion of other cattle, estimated on the basis of feed conversion rates and common protein values in animal feed according to literature. The N excretion greatly depends on the age of the cattle (energy requirement) and on the protein content of the animal feed. Lowest N excretion is for veal calves and the largest N excretion by suckling cows and cattle at the age of 1-2 yr. Apart from suckling cows, most other cattle is less than 2 years old. On dairy farms, the replacement rate is usually between 30 and 40%, indicating that 60 to 70%

81

of the calves of dairy cows are fattened, especially the males. The number of suckling cows in EU-25+ tends to increase (extensive grazing). The protein content of the animal diet is in the range of 12 to 20% (N content in the range of 21 to 33 g/kg) and greatly depends on the (zero) grazing system and on the feeding with silage maize. On some farms, fattening cattle including bulls and oxen are grazing for the greater part of the year on pastures (relatively high protein content), while fattening bulls on other farms are kept in cubicle houses all year round and fed with a large proportion of silage maize in the diet (relatively low protein content). 4. Feed and protein-N uses per animal category at regional level in EU-27 per year The total amount of animal feed and fodder consumed in the EU-27 are outlined in Table 3. The feed inputs per animal category are derived from CAPRI data. The following feed and fodder categories were included in CAPRI: feed cereals, protein rich feeds (e.g., soybean meal), energy rich feeds (e.g., cassava meal or sugar beet molasses), maize and grass fodder from arable land, straw, feed arising from dairy products (e.g., whey powder, milk) and other feed (e.g., citrus pulp). Feed allocation considered the nutrient and energy requirements of the animal, as well as the regional availability of feeds and feed demand based on national statistics derived from trade balances. Finally, the input coefficients together with feed prices had to result in feed costs for livestock production that were realistic within the specific geographical region. Composition (N contents) of feeds was assumed to be similar among EU-27 countries with the exception of N content of grass which varied among countries, based on the data from Velthof et al. (2009). However, combination of feed categories (i.e. grazed grassland, cut grassland, silage maize, concentrates) differed between the EU-27 countries. Data for EU-27 primary animal production were derived from FAO statistics at a national level. Table 4 presents the total animal primary production for the EU-27, alongside some assigned properties. For the conversion of carcass weight to meat we used a fixed fraction of 0.9 for all animal types. As livestock are not always slaughtered in the same country as they are produced, corrections for the export and import of live animals were made. Based on FAO statistics we calculated the net-export of live animals per country. This value was converted to meat products using country specific carcass weights, and the total amount of animal meat production was adjusted accordingly. Table 3. Feed consumption in the EU 27, assigned feed properties and yield (average and range) per animal feed type (after Lesschen et al., 2011). Animal feed type Feed use DM N content P content Average Range in

82

content yield yield

Mton (DM) yr-1 g g-1 g kg DM-1 g kg DM-1 ton ha-1 ton ha-1

Feed cereals 140.1 0.85 20 3.8 4.4 1.1 - 8.0

Protein rich feed 61.0 0.85 50 7.0 2.5

Energy rich feed 9.6 0.85 12 3.4 5.0

Grass 153.6 0.20 23 - 28 4.0 21.9 15.6 - 43.7

Fodder maize 54.3 0.30 13 2.0 34.1 7.2 - 52.9

Other fodder on arable land 59.5 0.30 25 3.0 24.1 4.7 - 42.8

Fodder root crops 2.4 0.20 20 5.0 26.3 13.4 - 44.6

Milk for feeding 0.7 0.10 55 10.0 -

Feed from dairy products 1.6 0.95 55 8.0 -

Other feed 10.8 0.85 20 3.5 5.0

Straw 16.1 0.85 5 1.0 -

Source: Based on FAOSTAT crop yield data and Velthof et al. (2009) Table 4. Total animal production in the EU-27 and assigned properties of the animal products (after Lesschen et al., 2011).

Product Total production1 Carcass fraction N content P content

Gg g kg-1 g kg-1

Beef 8186 0.58 33 5.5

Cow milk 149310 5.5 1

Eggs 6665 19 1.8

Pork 21914 0.75 25 5.5

Poultry 10780 0.71 33 5.5 1 For meat products expressed in carcass weight 5. Estimating N excretion by dairy and beef cattle at regional level in EU-27 The mass balance equations presented in chapter 2 of this Annex have been used to estimate the N excretion for dairy cattle per region in the EU, using the statistical information presented in chapter 4. As a first step, we made a comparison between the mean calculated feed requirement per dairy cow per NUTS-2 region and the calculated feed intake per dairy cow per NUTS-2 regions. For maintenance and (re)production, cattle require water, digestible energy, protein, mineral elements, and vitamins (e.g. Elgersma et al., 2006; Suttle, 2010). Water and digestible energy are the most bulky requirements. Here, the emphasis is on digestible energy and protein, assuming that drinking water is available, while the essential minerals and vitamins are not limiting, i.e. are available in sufficient amounts in the feed needed to cover the energy requirements. Energy requirements by animals are usually expressed in Mega Joules (MJ). Here, we estimate the energy requirements in terms of feed units (equivalent to KVEM, where 1 KVEM =6.9 MJ). We assume

83

that 1 kg dry matter (DM) of high quality animal feed contains 1 KVEM or 6.9 MJ. However, not all available feed is high quality feed; we assumed that the mean feed quality of 1 kg DM in EU-27 ranged from ~ 0.75 to 1.0 KVEM (i.e., from 5.3 – 6.9 MJ / kg DM). Based on these assumptions, we defined the feed requirement of dairy cattle in terms of dry matter (DM) requirments, on the basis of the following equation DM intake = q * [MW * a + LWG * b + MY * c] [4] where DM intake = total dry matter intake, in kg per cow per year MW = metabolic weight = (weigth)0.75 , in kg LWG = liveweight gain, in kg per year MY = milk yield per ruminant, kg per year a, b, c and q are empirical constants The constants a, b and c are a function of type and weight of dairy cow and management level/farming style. Coefficient a was set at 55 g per kg MW per day; coefficient b was set at 5 kg per kg ; coefficient c was related to milk fat and protein, as follows: c = 0.4 + 0.0013 * [MP + 2 * MF], where MP = milk protein content, in g per kg milk, and MF = milk fat in g per kg milk. Finally, coefficient q is a parameter for the quality of the feed. For concentrate feed and high-quality herbage, q was set at 1; for poor quality roughages, parameter q was set at 1.3. Total required dry matter intake according to equation [4] was estimated on regional level on the basis of statistical information related to mean milk yield per cow, mean weight per cow, mean calf weight, mean milk fat and protein. The calculated feed intake per dairy cow for the year 2005 was based on the CAPRI database. For each NUTS-2, CAPRI estimates the feed intake per animal category on the basis of available feed statistics (e.g., European Feed Manufacturers' Federation FEFAC; www.fefac.org), crop yield statistics, and an economic equilibrium model which partitions the available feed resources to the various livestock categories per region. Figure 3 shows a comparison of the calculated mean feed requirement and the calculated mean feed intake per dairy cow per NUTS-2 region. The former was based on Equation 4, the latter on the CAPRI data-base. Given the many uncertainties involved, there is a reasonable agreement. The calculated mean feed requirement ranges from 4000 to 7000 kg dry matter per dairy cow per NUTS-2 region; the calculated feed intake ranges from 4000 to 12000 kg dry matter per dairy cow per NUTS-2 region. Estimates based on the CAPRI database are on average higher than on the basis of feed requirements. This sounds reasonable, also because there will be various feed losses in practice. However, estimated intakes of more than 8000 kg DM per dairy cow per year seem too high given the modest milk yields in most EU-27 countries. We conclude that the calculated mean feed requirement is the better proxy for the actual feed intake of dairy cows in practice.

84

Figure 3. Relationship between calculated mean feed requirement (Y-axis) and the calculated mean feed intake (X-axis) per dairy cow per NUTS-2 region. See text. As a second step, feed N intake was calculated on the basis of the calculated mean feed requirement multiplied by the mean N content of the feed. The mean N content of the feed per NUTS-2 region was derived from the CAPRI database. The mean N content of all feed for dairy cattle in EU-27 was estimated at 23.2 g per kg (means per Member States ranged from 18 to 26 g per kg). Again, there is uncertainty in the actual N contents of the feed, as statistical information per feed source per Member State is lacking. Mean feed intake per dairy cow per Member States was 142 kg per dairy cow per year (range 101-177 kg per dairy cow per year). As a third step, mean N excretion per dairy cow was calculated per NUTS-2 and Member State. Figure 4 shows the relationships between mean milk yield and mean N excretion per dairy cow per Member State in 2005. The mean N excretion ranges from 80 to 140 kg per dairy per year. Mean N excretion increases with milk yield, but there is a considerable scatter, which is mainly related to the variation in estimated mean N content of the feed and the estimated mean feed quality. It had been assumed that the feed quality is higher when milk yield is higher. Figure 4 also show the relationships between mean milk yield and mean N excretion per dairy cow per Member State in 2005 according to the GAINS database from IIASA. The mean N excretion ranges from 55 to 130 kg per dairy per year. Mean N excretion increases with milk yield more strongly than on the basis of the estimates of the current study. The regression coefficient derived in the current is 5 g N per kg milk and according to the GAINS database 12 g per kg milk.

85

Figure 4. Relationship between mean N excretion (Y-axis) and mean milk yield (X-axis) per dairy cow per Member State (all in kg per dairy cow per year). Upper panel shows the results as derived in the current study; the lower panel shows the mean N excretion as function of milk yield according to the GAINS model, for the year 2005.

Figures 5-7 show the regional distribution of the calculated mean feed requirement, the mean milk yield and the calculated mean N excretion, in kg per dairy cow per year per NUTS-2 region, for the year 2005. Highest milk yields are in North and Northwest Europe. Calculated feed requirements and N excretion rates are also highest in these regions. The described method is implemented in MITERRA-EUROPE. The annual milk yield (based on FADN) is used to calculate region and year specific N excretion of dairy cattle.

86

Figure 5. Regional distribution of the calculated mean feed requirement (need), in kg per dairy cow per year per NUTS-2 region, for the year 2005. Feed requirement was estimated on the basis of equation [4] and statistical data.

Figure 6. Regional distribution of the mean milk yield, in kg per dairy cow per year per NUTS-2 region, for the year 2005 (source: Eurostat, 2010).

87

Figure 7. Regional distribution of the calculated mean N excretion, in kg per dairy cow per year per NUTS-2 region, for the year 2005. Total N excretion was estimated on the basis of equation [4] and statistical data. 6. Estimating the decrease in N excretion in response to a decrease in fertilization The nitrogen (N) content of herbage is commonly in the range of 25 to 35 g per kg dry matter, but may range from a low value of 10 g per kg in mature hay to a high value of 50 g per kg in heavily fertilized regrowth. The N content is mainly determined by (i) grass species composition, (ii) N fertilization, and (iii) growing stage. Most grassland in EU-27 are managed grassland, with a relatively low species diversity (<10 species), especially when fertilized. In contrast, natural, unfertilized grassland commonly have a high species diversity (>20 species). Dominant grass species in managed grassland are Lolium perenne and Festuca species, which have a relatively high yield potential and also a relatively high N content. Some managed grassland and especially unfertilized natural grasslands contain clover species, which are able to fix atmospheric N2 and commonly have a N content in the range of 35-45 g per kg.

88

Most dominant effects on the N content of grass are fertilization and growth stage. Most grasslands are responsive to N fertilization. An increase of the N input increases the herbage yield and also the N content of the herbage. Commonly, herbage yield increases less than proportionally, while the N content of the grass increases more than proportionally with N application (Fig 8). The latter is in part also a result of the replacement of clover by grass species in the sward, when N fertilizer is applied to grasslands that were previously not fertilized. Growth stage of the grass is also very important for the N content of the herbage. Conveniently, three grass harvest stages can be distinguished, namely (i) grazing stage, with dry matter yields on offer ranging from 1200 to 2500 kg per ha, (ii) silage stage, with dry matter yields ranging from 2500 to 4000 kg per ha, and (iii) hay stage, with dry matter yields ranging from 3500 to 5000 kg per ha. On intensively managed grassland with an N input of 200 to 400 kg per ha, the N content of herbage in the grazing stage ranges between 30 to 40 g per kg, in the silage between 25 to 35 g per kg and in the hay stage between 15 to 25 g per kg. Most grasslands in EU-27 are harvest by a mixture of grazing and mowing for silage or hay, and hence, the annual mean N content of the harvested herbage reflects both, species composition, N fertilization and harvesting stage.

Figure 8. Typical responses of managed grasslands to nitrogen input via N fertilizer, animal manure, atmospheric deposition and biological N2 fixation. Left graph shows the response of herbage yield, in kg dry matter per ha, and the right graph shows the response of the mean annual N content, in g per kg dry matter, for grass that is harvested via a combination of grazing and mowing for silage and hay. The economical optimum N input is about 350 kg N per ha (marginal response that this rate is about 7 kg dry matter per kg of N.

89

For estimating the effect of N input to grassland on the N content of the grass, we used the relationships in figure 8. Evidently, the increase in N content of the grass in response to an increase in N input is small initially, but increases more that proportionally with an increase in N input. The absolute change in response to a change in N input is shown in Figure 9; it increases from ~0.01 g N in herbage per kg N input to 0.05 g N in herbage per kg N input at a level of 500 kg N per ha.

Figure 9. The absolute change in the N content of harvested herbage, in response to a change in N input of grassland. For estimating the mean effect of N input to grassland on the mean N excretion of dairy cows, we used the relationship underlying figure 8: Equation: [N]= Gf *[ a + b*Ninput +c *Ninput

2], where, [N] = N content of the harvested herbage, in g/kg Gf = mean grazing fraction, here set at 0.75, dimensionless a = coefficient, here set at 25 g/kg b = coefficient, here set at 0.001, g ha/kg2 c = coefficient, here set at 0.0008 g ha2/kg3 Ninput= total N input, in kg/ha. The N excretion follows from: Nexcretion = Nintake - Nretention, where Nexcretion = total N excretion, in kg N per animal per year Nintake = total N intake, in kg N per animal per year Nretention = total N retention in harvested animal products, in kg N per animal per year Using these equations, it is simple to estimate the effect of a change in N input to grassland on the mean N excretion of dairy cows. We assume that a change in total N input to grassland does not decrease the feeding value of the herbage, and hence the N retention. We also assume that dairy cows receive some supplements (maize silage and concentrates), which varies depending on management style and livestock density. To illustrate the case, we show in Figure10 the N excretion of dairy cows, as a function of total N input to grassland and supplementation feeding. We assume a dairy cow with a milk yield of 7500 kg of milk per year, a total feed requirement of 7000 kg dry matter per cow, a N retention of 42 kg N in milk and calf per year.

90

Three rations are considered; ration A consisting of grass only (combination of grazed grass and grass silage), ration B consisting of 4000 kg grass (combination of grazed grass and grass silage) and 3000 kg of maize silage, and ration C consisting of 4000 kg grass (combination of grazed grass and grass silage), 2000 kg maize silage, and 1000 kg concentrates. The N content of the maize silage is 12 g/kg (7.5 % protein), and the N content of the concentrates is 28 g/kg (17.5 % protein). Figure 10 shows that the N excretion per cow decreases by 0.17 to 0.30 kg per kg N input in grassland. The latter high number is obtained for a grass only diet, derived from grassland with an N input of 200 to 500 kg N per ha. The lower number is obtained for a situation with supplemental feeding with silage maize and concentrates. Please note the slope of the regression line decreases with decreasing N input. For simplification, a linear regression line has been used, but it is clear that decreasing the N input further below a level of about 200 kg N per ha has very little influence on N excretion. In general, herbage (both fresh and silage) has a relatively high protein content, especially when the grassland is fertilized with N fertilizer and animal manure, and/or contains a significant fraction of clover (>10% of the species). Lowering the N input via N fertilizer and/or animal manure decreases the protein content of the herbage. Yet the protein content of the herbage remains relatively high, especially when harvested in a relatively juvenile growth stage. In practice, some dairy farmers may compensate the lowering of the protein content of the herbage in response to the lowering of the N input, by supplemental feeding of protein rich concentrates. However, experience so far indicates that the supplementary feeding of protein-rich concentrates only marginally compensates the decrease of the N content in herbage. For example, the protein content of (examined) silage in The Netherlands decreased on average by about 2 g per kg per year during the period 1997-2009 because of the lowering of the N input and changes in management. The median protein content decreased from an average of 180-210 g per kg in 1997 to an average of about 160-180 g per kg in 2009 (Reineveld et al., in prep). At the same time, the protein content of the concentrates did not increase significantly. In summary, N excretion of dairy cows is strongly related to the N input of grassland. A decrease of the N input of grassland within the range of 200 to 400 kg N per ha per year decreases the N excretion of dairy cows by on average 0.17 kg per kg N input, when supplemental feeding is considered.

91

Figure 10. The relationship between N input to grassland and N excretion by dairy cows for three ratio. Assumption are a mean milk yield of 7500 kg of milk per year, a total feed requirement of 7000 kg dry matter per cow, a N retention of 42 kg N in milk and calf per year. Ration A consists of grass only (combination of grazed grass and grass silage), ration B of 4000 kg grass (combination of grazed grass and grass silage) and 3000 kg of maize silage, and ration C of 4000 kg grass (combination of grazed grass and grass silage), 2000 kg maize silage, and 1000 kg concentrates. The N content of the maize silage was set at 12 g/kg (7.5 % protein), and that of the concentrates at 28 g/kg (17.5 % protein).

92

References: Amann, M., I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, M. Posch, W. Schöpp, F. Wagner. 2006a. Baseline scenarios for the revision of the NEC Emission Ceilings Directive. Part 1: Emission projections. Background document for the Conference on Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections for 2020, Brussels, NEC Scenario Analysis Report Nr. 1. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria, 64 pp. Amann, M., W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, M. Posch, W. Schöpp, F. Wagner. 2006b. Emission control scenarios that meet the environmental objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. NEC Scenario Analysis Report Nr. 2. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria, 115 pp. Britz, W., Witzke, P., 2008. CAPRI model documentation 2008: Version 2. Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn Bonn, Germany. EEA, 2009. Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2007 and inventory report 2009 Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat. Technical report No 04/2009. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Elgersma, A., J. Dijkstra and S. Tamminga (Eds.) 2006. Fresh Herbage for Dairy Cattle. Wageningen UR Frontis Series 18. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. ERM/AB-DLO (1999). Establishment of Criteria for the Assessment of the Nitrogen Content in Animal Manures. European Commission. FAO, 2009. The State of Food and Agriculture 2009. Towards a responsible livestock future, FAO, Rome. Flachowsky, G. & P. Lebzien, 2005. Methodologies to reduce Nitrogen in manure of ruminant livestock (cattle, sheep and goats). European Commission (DG Environment) Workshop – Nitrogen and phosphorus in livestock manure, Brussels February 14, 2005 Jondreville, C. & J. –Y. Dourmad, 2005. Methodologies to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in pig manure. European Commission (DG Environment) Workshop – Nitrogen and phosphorus in livestock manure, Brussels February 14, 2005 Lapierre H, Berthiaume R, Raggio G, Thivierge MC, Doepel L, Pacheco D, Dubreuil P, Lobley GE, 2005, The route of absorbed nitrogen into milk protein, Animal Science 80: 10-22. Lesschen, J.P., H.P. Witzke, M. van den Berg, H. Westhoek and O. Oenema (2011). Greenhouse gas emission profiles of the European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166– 167: 16– 28

93

Mateos, G.G., M. P. Serrano & R. Lázaro García, 2005. Methodologies to reduce N and P in poultry manure through nutrition. European Commission (DG Environment) Workshop – Nitrogen and phosphorus in livestock manure, Brussels February 14, 2005 Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel V., Roslaes, M., De Haan, C., 2006. Livestock’s long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. FAO report, Rome, Italy, 390 pp. Steinfeld, H., H. Mooney, F. Schneider and L.E. Neville (Eds.), 2010. Livestock in a changing landscape: Drivers, Consequences and Responses. Washington, DC: Island Press. 396 pp. Suttle, N. 2010. Mineral Nutrietion of Livestock. 4th Edition. Cabi, International Wallingford, UK, 587 pp. Sutton, M.A., Howard, C., Erisman, J.W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., Grennfelt, P., van Grinsven, H. and Grizzetti B. (2011) The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives (Eds.) Cambridge University Press. 612 pp. Velthof, G.L., Oudendag, D., Witzke, H.P., Asman, W.A.H., Klimont, Z., Oenema, O., 2009. Integrated assessment of nitrogen emissions from agriculture in EU-27 using MITERRA-EUROPE. J. Environ. Qual. 38, 402-417

95

Annex 2. Share of implementation of ammonia abatement techniques in 2000,

2005 and 2010 in GAINS.

The major categories of NH3 abatement techniques considered in GAINS are:

Covered outdoor storage of manure (CS): high efficiency options using tension caps, concrete, corrugated iron or

Covered outdoor storage of manure (CS): low to medium efficiency options using floating foils or polystyrene, and

Low ammonia application of manure (LNA-high): high efficiency options, including immediate incorporation by ploughing (within four hours after application), deep and shallow injection of liquid manure and immediate incorporation by ploughing (within 12 hours after application) of solid manure.

Low ammonia application of manure (LNA-low): medium to low efficiency techniques, including slit injection, trailing shoe, slurry dilution, and band spreading for liquid slurry and incorporation of solid manure by ploughing into the soil the day after application

Low nitrogen feed (LNF), which can be achieved by:

Reductions in the amount of N applied to grassland or substitution of grass by silage (dairy cows).

Better tuning of compound feed to the nutrient needs of the animals (multi-phase feeding for pigs and poultry).

Changes in the composition of the raw materials (pigs and poultry).

Supplementing diets with synthetic amino acids (pigs and poultry).

Replacement of grass and grass silage by maize (dairy cows).

Treatment of air ventilated from animal buildings (BF);

Livestock buildings adaptation (SA);

low emission application techniques for urea Treatment of air ventilated from livestock buildings occurs by applying various techniques such as bio-filtration, bio-scrubbing and chemical scrubbers. These techniques can only be applied in buildings equipped with mechanical ventilation, which is often the case for poultry and pigs. In bio-filters and air scrubbers, NH3 in the air is absorbed in the process water, converted into nitrite and then into nitrate. These measures can reduce NH3 emissions from housing by 80-90%. Design modifications of animal houses are possible to prevent or reduce emissions of NH3. This is achieved if either the surface area of the slurry or manure exposed to the air is reduced or the waste is frequently removed (e.g., flushed with water or diluted with formaldehyde) and placed in covered storages. The GAINS model includes different control options for various livestock categories. Ammonia emissions from cattle housing can be reduced through regular washing or scraping

96

the floor, frequent removal of manure to a closed storage system and modification of floor design. This may reduce NH3 emissions from animal housing typically by 20-50%. There are control options that can potentially reduce emissions from housing by up to 80%. For pig housing, a 30-40% reduction of NH3 emissions can be obtained by combining good floor design (partly slatted floor, metal or plastic coated slats, inclined or convex solid part of the floor) with flushing systems. Even greater reduction efficiencies can be achieved when flushing systems with clarified aerated slurry or manure cooling systems are used. Ammonia emissions from housing systems for laying hens can be reduced by drying of manure, either through the application of a manure belt with forced drying or by drying the manure in a tunnel. For other poultry, NH3 emissions from housing systems can be reduced by regularly removing the manure using a scraper or continuously blowing heated air under a floating slatted and littered floor to dry the litter. For both categories, NH3 emissions from housing systems can be reduced by 60-80%. It is important to note that for all measures listed above it is assumed that the manure will be moved to a closed storage that is constructed along with the modifications or construction of new livestock buildings. This will bring also reductions of NH3 emissions during storage. Preventing loss of NH3 from housing and storage will result in a greater N concentration in the remaining manure than without these measures applied. Hence, the emissions of NH3 during application of manure will increase if no preventive measures are taken. Reduced- NH3 emission measures for livestock buildings are referred to in GAINS as 'stable adaptation' [SA].

Several techniques are available to reduce the amount of NH3 emissions during and after application of manure to arable land or grassland. The GAINS model distinguishes between techniques with a high NH3 removal efficiency, e.g., immediate incorporation, injection of manure, and techniques with a lesser efficiency, e.g., trailing shoe, band spreading. All techniques involve placement of manure in the soils as opposed to spreading it over the surface (broadcasting). The NH3 reduction efficiency is different for solid and liquid manure. There are six livestock categories in GAINS DAICOW dairy cows OCOW other cows LAYHENS Layers OPOUL other poultry PIGS Pigs OTANI sheep and goat There are two manure types: liquid manure (l) and solid manure (s)

97

Data used in GAINS about implementation of low ammonia emission techniques may appear to indicate a decrease in reduced-emission manure spreading techniques. However, this is because in the GAINS model some measures are grouped and what has happened is that in some countries some farmers have progressed from simply reducing NH3 emissions at the land spreading stage to implementing combined measures such as low nitrogen feeds (LNF), covered storage (CS) with reduced NH3 application (LNA). This will be reported in the sections below on each MS. The tables below attempt to summarise the adoption of LNF and LNA measures for each MS. Table 1. Adoption of the low N feed [LNF] abatement option in GAINS. LA is LNF combined with low N application [LNA]. Tot, is the total implementation of LNF. DL: dairy cows liquid, DS: dairy cows solid, OL: other cattle liquid, OS: other cattle solid, PL: pig liquid, PS: pig solid, OP: other poultry.

MS DL DS OL OS PL PS Layer OP

LA Tot LA Tot LA Tot LA Tot LA Tot LA Tot LA Tot LA Tot

At 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 12 15 28 Be 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bu 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 10 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 25 0 30 Cy 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 40 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 32 0 65 Cz 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 0 0 0 70 0 70 Dk 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 Es 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 50 0 0 Fi 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 15 15 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 6 6 31 31 Fr 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 15

98

2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 59 0 30 Ge 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 20 20 Gr 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 5 10 10 25 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 18 0 0 5 21 10 46 Hu 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 20 0 30 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 45 0 0 0 34 0 45 Ir 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 5 0 5 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 43 0 0 1 15 0 26 It 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 0 0 20 20 10 20 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 43 0 0 50 50 32 50 Lv 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 50 0 0 Lt 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 20 0 30 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 50 0 50 Lu 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ma 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nl 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 85 100 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 75 100 0 0 0 0 Pol 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 20 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 41 41 50 60 Por 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 30 0 15 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 60 0 30 Ro

99

2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 15 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 15 0 40 Slk 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 25 0 20 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 50 0 60 Slv 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sp 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 0 10 17 2 6 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 42 0 0 20 51 5 30 Sw 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 5 20 5 15 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 0 0 20 41 20 60 UK 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 35 0 0 20 20 29 50 *UK 7 2 7 1 7 2 7 1 26 11 20 2 32 6 38 7

Table 2. Reduced ammonia abatement options in GAINS – spreading (L: low and H: high efficiency)

MS DL DS OL OS PL PS Layer OP

L H L H L H L H L H L H L H L H

At 2000 10 0 5 5 10 0 5 5 10 0 10 10 10 1 10 10 2005 10 0 5 5 10 0 5 5 10 0 10 10 10 1 10 10 2010 10 0 5 5 10 0 5 5 10 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 Be 2000 0 0 66 0 0 0 63 0 79 0 71 0 0 9 4 55 2005 0 0 36 40 0 0 38 27 79 0 12 63 0 9 4 63 2010 0 0 36 40 0 0 38 27 69 0 12 63 0 5 4 68 Bu 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cy 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cz 2000 10 3 20 5 10 3 20 5 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 15 5 30 7 15 5 30 7 30 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 15 10 40 10 15 10 40 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dk

100

2000 0 0 18 72 0 0 15 67 0 0 18 72 40 20 40 20 2005 10 0 18 75 15 0 15 75 20 0 18 75 40 20 40 20 2010 10 5 18 80 10 0 20 80 5 5 18 80 55 10 55 10 Es 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fi 2000 47 2 47 0 47 2 47 0 68 2 0 68 47 0 47 0 2005 45 4 50 10 60 5 50 5 68 0 0 68 40 0 25 0 2010 40 5 55 20 70 10 60 10 67 0 0 68 34 0 0 0 Fr 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ge 2000 10 1 20 0 20 1 90 6 25 0 93 0 23 75 45 0 2005 12 2 50 0 15 2 88 8 34 0 96 0 23 75 40 0 2010 30 4 86 10 30 2 86 10 55 10 76 20 23 75 70 10 Gr 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 Hu 2000 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ir 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It 2000 10 15 30 10 10 5 15 0 10 10 0 0 40 30 20 12 2005 10 15 30 10 10 5 15 0 8 2 0 0 25 2 20 7 2010 10 15 30 10 10 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 Lv 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lt 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lu 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ma 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101

Nl 2000 0 0 80 0 0 0 80 0 0 25 100 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 80 0 0 0 80 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 85 0 0 0 85 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pol 2000 0 0 95 5 0 0 95 5 0 0 94 6 76 4 95 5 2005 0 0 95 5 0 0 95 5 20 0 94 6 55 0 80 0 2010 0 0 95 5 0 0 95 5 40 0 94 6 6 0 3 0 Por 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ro 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slk 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slv 2000 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 2005 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 2 0 8 8 0 8 0 2010 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 8 0 Sp 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 30 10 0 0 30 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sw 2000 0 0 15 20 0 0 15 20 20 0 10 30 40 0 40 0 2005 0 0 10 30 0 0 10 30 30 0 10 35 35 0 35 0 2010 0 0 10 35 0 0 10 35 35 0 10 45 0 0 0 0 UK 2000 2 1 18 3 0 0 18 3 3 11 0 20 8 46 5 29 2005 3 1 18 3 0 1 18 3 3 11 0 20 8 46 5 29 2010 3 1 18 3 0 1 18 3 13 1 20 75 48 0 0 0 *UK NA NA 18 3 NA NA 18 3 NA NA 26 3 46 8 46 8 **UK 7 2 7 1 7 2 7 1 22 3 20 2 32 6 38 7

*arable only for solid manures, 2009 **weighted according to proportions applied to arable and grassland, 2009

102

No summary is given here of changes in the adoption of SA or CS unless combined with LNF or LNA. The reason being that unless those measures are combined with LNA much of the total ammoniacal Nitrogen (TAN) conserved by reducing NH3 emissions from buildings and stores may subsequently be lost at spreading and hence the impact of the adoption of such measures on total NH3 emissions cannot be readily estimated. Austria There have been no changes in the proportions of manure spread by LNA, except for an apparent decrease in the proportions of layer and other poultry manure spread by LNA between 2005 and 2010. However, this was because of an uptake of LNF by poultry producers and much of the manure derived from LNF being applied by LNA. The proportions of layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0% in 2005 to 12 and 26% respectively in 2010. The proportions of manure derived from LNF and applied by LNA increased from 0 to 6 and 15% of the totals for layer and other poultry manure respectively over the same period. Belgium No adoption of LNA for cattle slurry is reported. For solid manure the proportion applied by LNA(low) decreased from 66 and 63% respectively for dairy and beef in 2000 to 36 and 38% respectively in 2005. However, the proportions applied by LNA(high) increased from 0 in 2000 to 40 and 27% respectively. A similar trend is reported for solid pig manure. For pig slurry there has been a small decrease, from 79 to 69% in the proportion applied by LNA, but an increase from 14 to 20% in the proportion applied by LNA combined with SA. The apparently small proportion of layer manure applied by LNA is due to 80% being applied by LNA combined with SA. There has been no uptake of LNF. Bulgaria The proportions of pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0% in 2000 to 35, 25 and 30% respectively in 2010. No manures are spread by LNA. Cyprus The proportions of pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0% in 2000 to 54, 32 and 65% respectively in 2010. No manures are spread by LNA. Czech Republic The proportions of dairy manure, both slurry and solid, applied by LNA increased between 2000 to 2010 from 13 and 25 to 25 and 50% respectively. The proportions of other cattle manure, both slurry and solid, applied by LNA increased between 2000 and 2010 from 25 to 50% respectively. For pig slurry there was a decrease in

103

the proportions spread by LNA from 37 to 0%. However, there was an increase in the proportion of slurry derived from LNF (0-30%) which was also applied by LNA. No solid pig manure, layer or other poultry manure are recorded as spread by LNA. The proportions of pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0% in 2000 to 30, 70 and 70% respectively in 2010. Denmark The proportions of dairy and beef slurry applied by LNA alone both increased between 2000 to 2010 from 0 to 15 and 10% respectively. In addition, the proportion of dairy slurry applied by LNA in combination with either LNF or SA increased from 5 to 55%. The proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA alone decreased from 20% in 2005 to 10% in 2010. The proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF and applied by LNA increased from 0 to 70% in 2010, while 15% was applied by LNA combined with SA. For solid dairy, beef and pig manures the proportions applied by LNA increased from 90, 82 and 90% respectively in 2000 to 98, 100 and 98% respectively in 2010. There were no combined measures for these manures. When combined with the proportion of manure applied by LNA combined with SA, the total proportions of layer and other poultry manure applied by LNA increased from 60% in 2000 to 95% in 2010. Estonia No uptake of LNA is reported. The proportions of pig slurry and layer manure derive from LNF increased from 0 to 36 and 50% respectively from 2000 to 2010. Finland The proportion of dairy slurry spread by LNA decreased from 49% in 2000 to 45% in 2010. The proportions of solid dairy manure, beef slurry and solid beef manure applied by LNA increased from 47 to 75%, from 47 to 90% and from 47 to 70% respectively between 2000 and 2010. The proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA decreased by 1%, but the proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF and applied by LNA increased from 0 to 4%. There was no change in the proportion of solid pig manure applied by LNA. The proportions of pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF and applied by LNA increased from 0% in 2000 to 4, 6 and 31% respectively in 2010. France Cattle and poultry manures are not reported as being applied by LNA. The proportion of pig slurry managed by LNA alone decreased form 10 to 0% from 2000 to 2010. However, the proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF increased over

104

that period from 0 to 9% with 5% of all pig slurry derived from LNF and applied by LNA. The proportions of layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 59 and 30% respectively from 2000 to 2010. Germany The proportions of dairy slurry, solid dairy manure and beef slurry spread by LNA increased from 11 to 34%, 20 to 96% and from 21 to 32% respectively between 200 and 2010, while the proportion of beef manure applied by LNA was unchanged at 96%. The proportion of pig slurry managed by LNA increased from 25 to 65% with 5% of all slurry derived from LNF and managed by LNA. The proportion of pig manure managed by LNA increased little, from 93 to 96%, but the proportion managed as LNA(high) increased from 0 to 20%. The proportions of layer manure managed as LNA(low) and LNA(high) were unchanged at 23 and 75% respectively. The proportion of other poultry manure managed as LNA increased from 45 to 80%, with 20% of all other poultry manure derived from LNF and managed by LNA by 2010, increasing from 0% in 2000. Greece No manures are managed by LNA alone. The proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF increased from 5 to 18% from 2000 to 2010, with the proportion derived from LNF and managed by LNA remaining at 5%. The proportions of layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 5 to 21 and 46% respectively from 2000 to 2010, with the proportion derived from LNF and managed by LNA remaining at 5% of layer manure but increasing from 5 to 10% of other poultry manure. Hungary The proportion of dairy slurry managed with LNA(low) has been 100% since 2000. No solid dairy manure or beef manures is managed with LNA. The proportion of pig slurry managed with LNA alone decreased from 100 to 44% from 2000 to 2010. However, the proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF increased from 0% in 2000 to 45% in 2010 with 30% of the total managed with LNA. No poultry manure is reported to be managed with LNA. The proportions of layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 34 and 45% respectively from 2000 to 2010. Ireland Only 1% of cattle slurry is managed with LNA(low), up from 0% in 2000. No solid cattle manure is managed with LNA. The proportion of pig slurry managed with LNA alone decreased from 1 to 0% from 2000 to 2010. However, the proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF increased from 0% in 2000 to 43% in 2010 with 2% of the total managed with LNA.

105

No poultry manure is reported to be managed with LNA alone. The proportions of layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 15 and 45% respectively from 2000 to 2010. Italy The proportions of manure managed with LNA have reduced from 10 to 0% (both low and high) for pig slurry and from 40 and 30% to 18 and 0% respectively, for low and high methods for layer manure. However, over that period the proportions of pig slurry produced by pigs on LNF have increased from 0-43% with 20% of the slurry produced on LNF also applied by LNA. Thus while there has been no increase in the proportion of slurry applied by LNA, reductions in emissions since 2000 will have been achieved by the increasing use of LNF. The proportion of layers given LNF has increased from 0 to 50%, all combined with LNA. So too for other poultry, 32% of manure is still applied by LNA but now combined with LNF, with a further 18% of poultry given LNF. Latvia No manures were estimated to be applied by LNA in 2000 or 2010. However, the proportion of pig slurry derived from pigs on LNF and layer manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 40 and 50% respectively. Lithuania No manures were estimated to be applied by LNA in 2000 or 2010. However, the proportion of pig slurry derived from pigs on LNF, layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 34, 50 and 50% respectively. Luxemburg No NH3 abatement measures are recorded in GAINS for Luxemburg. Malta No NH3 abatement measures are recorded in GAINS for Malta. The Netherlands The Netherlands has an advance programme of NH3 reduction measures. Hence the majority of manures are produced on systems that include more than one NH3 abatement measure.

Dairy slurry - 100% applied by LNA, 80% in combination with reduced-emission buildings and 20% in combination with covered stores.

Dairy solids - increase in application by LNA(low) from 80 to 85% between 2000 and 2010.

Beef slurry - no change 2000-2010

Beef solids - increase in application by LNA(low) from 80 to 85% between 2000 and 2010.

Pig slurry - the proportion applied by LNA increased from 90 to 100%, with the proportion derived from LNF increasing from 0 to 20% between 2000 and 2010.

106

Pig solids - the proportion applied by LNA(low) was 100% in 2000. In 2010 100% of this manure was derived from LNF in 2010, up from 0% in 2000.

Layer manure - the proportion applied by LNA has increased from 82% in 2000 to 90% in 2010.

Other poultry manure - the proportion applied by LNA has increased from 73% in 2000 to 82% in 2010.

Poland The proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA(low) increased from 0 to 40% between 2000 and 2010. A further 11% of the produced of pig slurry was derived from LNF and applied by LNA. The proportion of layer manure applied by LNA has decreased from 76-6% (low) and 4 to 0% (high) between 2000 and 2010. The proportion of manure derived from LNF and applied by LNA has increased from 0 to 41%, but this means there has been a decrease of 35% in the proportion of manure applied by LNA. The proportion of other poultry manure applied by LNA has decreased from 95-3% (low) and 5 to 0% (high) between 2000 and 2010. The proportion of manure derived from LNF and applied by LNA has increased from 0 to 60%, but this means there has been a decrease of 40% in the proportion of manure applied by LNA. Portugal No manure is estimated to be applied by LNA. The proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF has increased from 0 to 21% between 2000 and 2010. Over the same period the proportions of layer and other poultry manure derives from LNF increased from 0 to 60 and 30% respectively. Romania No manure is estimated to be applied by LNA. The proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF has increased from 0 to 11% between 2000 and 2010. Over the same period the proportions of layer and other poultry manure derives from LNF increased from 0 to 30 and 40% respectively. Slovak Republic No manure is estimated to be applied by LNA. The proportion of pig slurry derived from LNF has increased from 0 to 40% between 2000 and 2010. Over the same period the proportions of layer and other poultry manure derives from LNF increased from 0 to 50 and 60% respectively. Slovenia The proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA(high) has decreased from 8 to 0%, but the proportion derived from LNF and applied LNA has increased from 0 to 6% and the total amount derived from LNF from 0 to 21%. Spain The proportions of dairy and beef solid manure applied by LNA(low) have both increased from 0 to 30% between 2000 and 2010, and the proportion applied by LNA(high) both increased from 0 to 10% over that period.

107

Between 2000 and 2010 the proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA increased from 10 to 30%, although in 2000 this was in combination with SA whereas in 2010 LNA was always combined with LNF. A further 12% of pig slurry was derived from LNF, giving a total proportion of 42% derived from LNF. The proportion of layer manure applied by LNA remained at 20% between 2000 and 2010. However, in 2000 this was in combination with SA whereas in 2010 LNA was combined with LNF as well as SA. The total proportion of layer manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 51% between 2000 and 2010. The proportion of other poultry manure applied by LNA remained at 5% between 2000 and 2010. However, in 2000 this was in combination with SA whereas in 2010 LNA was combined with LNF as well as SA. The total proportion of layer manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 30% between 2000 and 2010. Sweden The proportions of dairy and beef slurry applied using LNA (in combination with CS) increased from 15 to 25% between 2000 and 2010. The proportions of dairy and beef solid manure applied by LNA increased from 35 to 45%. The proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA(low) increased from 20 to 35% between 2000 and 2010. Over the same period the proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA in combination increased from 10 to 17% giving a total proportions spread by LNA as 30% in 2000 and 52% in 2010. The proportions of solid pig manure applied by LNA(low) was unchanged at 10% but the proportion applied by LNA(high) increased from 30 to 45% between 2000 and 2010. The proportion of layer manure applied by LNA(low) decreased from 40 to 0%. The proportion derived from LNF combined with LNA (and SA) increased from 0 to 20% over that period, giving an overall decrease in the proportion of layer manure applied by LNA (from 40 to 20%). The total proportion of layer manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 41%. The proportion of other poultry manure applied by LNA(low) decreased from 40 to 0%. The proportion derived from LNF combined with LNA (and SA) increased from 0 to 20% over that period, giving an overall decrease in the proportion of layer manure applied by LNA (from 40 to 20%). The total proportion of layer manure derived from LNF increased from 0 to 60%. UK The proportions of pig slurry derived from LNF and applied by LNA increased from 0% in 2005 to 10% in 2010 with a total of 35% of pig slurry derived from LNF in 2010. The proportions of layer and other poultry manure derived from LNF and applied by LNA increased from 0% in 2005 to 20 and 29% respectively in 2010 with a totals of 20 and 50% respectively derived from LNF in 2010.

108

The proportions of cattle manure applied by LNA were largely unchanged between 2000 and 2010. However, there appears to be a decrease in the proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA(high) with a commensurate increase in the proportion of pig slurry applied by LNA(low), although this change is not consistent with data reported for the UK Inventory. The proportions of layer and other poultry manure applied by LNA were also reported to decrease between 2005 and 2010, changes not reported in the UK Inventory. Summary of changes between 2000 and 2010 in abatement techniques reported in GAINS The following countries have increased the proportions of manure applied by LNA: Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden (cattle and pig slurry and solid manure). The following countries have increased the proportions of manure derived from livestock raised on LNF: Austria (layers and other poultry), Bulgaria (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Cyprus (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Czech Republic (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Denmark (dairy and pig slurry), Estonia (pig slurry and layer manure), Finland (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), France (layer and other poultry manure), Germany (pig slurry and other poultry manure), Greece (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Hungary pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure, Ireland (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Italy (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Latvia (pig slurry and layer manure), Lithuania (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Netherlands (pig slurry and solid manure), Portugal (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Romania (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Slovak Republic (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure), Slovenia (pig slurry), Spain (pig slurry, layer and other poultry manure) and Sweden (layer and other poultry manure). The following countries report no change in the total proportion of manure applied by LNA but an increase in the proportions applied by LNA(high) and a commensurate decrease in the proportion applied by LNA(low): Belgium. The following countries report little or no change in the proportions of manure applied by LNA: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland (some very small changes), France, Greece (one small change), Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Luxemburg, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia. The following countries report no change in the proportions of manure derived from livestock raised on LNF: Belgium, Malta and Luxemburg. Poland reports some decreases in the proportions of manure spread by LNA and these decreases are less than the increases in the proportions of manures derived from LNF. This was also the case for Sweden with respect to layer and other poultry manure.

109

Annex 3. Determining emission factors for national estimates of ammonia

emissions

Introduction In this study the national emissions of ammonia (NH3) and other N gases arising from agriculture in EU-27 have been estimated. A first step was to evaluate the methods used to estimate NH3 and other N gases emissions in the EU-27 and the extent to which those methods take regional differences, including differences in climate, into account. The assessment has been carried out using the MITERRA-EUROPE model. It is a model that can be used to assess the effects of the implementation of NH3 and NO3 abatement measures and policies on the emissions of NH3, N2O, NOx to the atmosphere, leaching of N (including nitrate, NO3) to ground water and surface waters, and on the N and phosphorus (P) balance on both EU-27 level, country level, and regional (NUTS 2) level. MITERRA-EUROPE consists of an input module with activity data and emission factors, a package of measures to mitigate NH3 emission and NO3 leaching, a calculation module, and an output module. MITERRA-EUROPE uses NH3 emission factors from GAINS, which already takes regional differences in NH3 emissions into account. The question is whether there is sufficient information to improve the GAINS methodology in our project. In this report we review approaches to estimating emissions of NH3 across the EU and report the potential for updating the NH3 routines within MITERRA-EUROPE to provide a more accurate estimate of NH3 emission in the EU-27. 1. The underlying process of ammonia emissions Ammonia volatilization occurs when NH3 in solution is exposed to the atmosphere. The amount of NH3 emitted depends on the chemical composition of the solution (including the concentration of NH3), the temperature of the solution, the surface area exposed to the atmosphere and the resistance to NH3 transport in the atmosphere. The source of NH3 emission from livestock production is the N excreted by livestock. Typically, more than half of the N excreted by mammalian livestock is in the urine, and between 65 and 85% of urine-N is in the form of urea and other readily-mineralized compounds (ruminants: Jarvis et al., 1989; pigs: Aarnink et al., 1997). Urea is rapidly hydrolyzed by the enzyme urease to ammonium carbonate ((NH4)2CO3) and ammonium (NH4

+) ions provide the main source of NH3. Ammonium-N and compounds, including uric acid, which are readily broken down

110

to NH4+-N, are referred to as total ammoniacal-N (TAN). In contrast, the majority

of N in mammalian livestock faeces is not readily degradable (Van Faassen and Van Dijk, 1987); only a small percentage of this N is in the form of urea or NH4

+ (Ettalla and Kreula, 1979) so NH3 emission is sufficiently small (Petersen et al., 1998) for estimates of TAN at grazing or in buildings to be based on urine-N, albeit TAN may be mineralized from faecal-N during manure storage. Poultry produce only faeces, a major constituent of which is uric acid and this, together with other labile compounds, may be degraded to NH4

+-N after hydrolysis to urea (Groot Koerkamp, 1994). Ammonia is emitted wherever excreta or manure are exposed to the atmosphere: in buildings housing livestock; manure storage; after manure application to fields and from excreta deposited by livestock to yards and during grazing. Differences in agricultural practices such as housing and manure management, and differences in climate have significant impacts on emissions. The processes underlying NH3 emissions are well understood and there are a number of models which describe these and how emissions respond to environmental variables such as temperature and rainfall. Examples of such models include:

Emissions from buildings housing livestock: Rumburg, et al. (2008) and Sommer et al. (2006).

Emissions during manure storage: Blanes-Vidal et al. (2009), Rumburg et al. (2008).

Following application of manure to land: Génermont and Cellier (1997), Søgaard et al., 2002.

While livestock production is the source of the majority of NH3 emissions from agriculture (which account for c. 80-90% of total NH3 emissions (Anon., 1994)) the other 10-20% of the agriculture total is from N fertilizers (Anon., 1994). While NH3 emissions from N fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate (AN) are considered to be small (c. 1-3% of N applied), those from urea have been estimated to be much greater at c. 10-20% of total N application (Anon, 1994), and to contribute 50% of NH3 emissions from fertilizers in western Europe (Anon., 1994). 2. The major factors influencing ammonia emissions from agriculture Ammonia emissions from livestock production depend on many factors including:

The amount and N content of feed consumed.

The efficiency of conversion of N in feed to N in meat, milk and eggs and hence, the amount of N deposited in excreta.

The proportion of time spent by animals indoors and outside, e.g. at pasture or on yards or in buildings and on animal behaviour.

Whether livestock excreta are handled as slurry, or solid.

111

The housing system of the animal (especially the floor area per animal) and whether manure is stored inside the building.

The storage system of the manure outside the building: open or covered slurry tank; loose or packed heap of solid manure; any treatment applied to the manure such as aeration, separation or composting.

Climatic conditions in the building (e.g. temperature and humidity) and the ventilation system.

A sensitivity analysis of the model used to estimate national NH3 emissions in the UK (NARSES, Webb and Misselbrook, 2004) indicated the ten inputs to which the model was most sensitive:

1. N excretion by dairy cows. 2. The number of days per year beef cattle are housed. 3. The proportion of dairy cow excreta deposited on hard standings (outdoor

yards). 4. The emission factor for buildings housing dairy cattle on straw. 5. The number of days per year dairy cattle are housed. 6. The proportion of cattle manure managed as slurry. 7. The emission factor for buildings housing dairy cattle on slurry. 8. N excretion by fattening beef cattle. 9. The proportion of solid cattle manure spread directly from buildings, i.e.

without outside storage. 10. N excretion by finishing pigs.

Hence of the ten input data to which the model was most sensitive, eight related to N excretion and manure management (referred to as 'activity data') and only two to estimated emission factors (EFs). The aspects of manure management that have the greatest impact on emission estimates may be grouped as:

Estimates of N excretion (1, 8, 10).

Estimates of the proportion of excreta deposited within buildings, on outside yards and directly to fields during grazing (2, 3, 5).

Estimates of the proportions of manure handled as liquid (slurry) or FYM (6, 9).

Hence when estimating NH3 emissions at the national scale the way in which livestock and manure are managed has a much greater impact on NH3 emissions than variations in weather. In consequence the construction of accurate inventories requires the existence of adequate activity data; e.g. housing and manure handling systems, length of grazing period, and often the accurate determination of these can be the limiting factor in inventory compilation (Webb and Misselbrook, 2004). 2.1. Diet and N excretion (The amount and N content of feed consumed and the efficiency of conversion of N in feed to N in meat, milk and eggs and, hence, the amount of N deposited in excreta)

112

For each livestock class, the amount of TAN in the excreta is considered to determine the potential for NH3 loss at all stages of manure management (Reidy et al., 2007a and references cited therein). Published studies have confirmed the relationship between NH3 emissions and TAN. For example, Kellems et al. (1979) demonstrated that the initial rate of NH3 volatilization was positively correlated with the urea and volatile amine content and specific gravity of cattle urine. Together, urea- and volatile amine-N were described as volatile-N. Paul et al. (1998), James et al. (1999) and Smits et al. (1995) found NH3 volatilization decreased in proportion to the decrease in crude protein (cp) in the diet fed to dairy cows, N and TAN excreted. Latimier and Dourmad (1993), Kay and Lee (1997) and Cahn et al. (1998) reported that NH3 emissions from pig production decreased with reductions in TAN excreted, while NH3 emission as a proportion of TAN excreted remained fairly constant. Clearly other factors, such as temperature, pH, wind speed and the surface area of fresh urine or slurry exposed to the air, influence NH3 emissions. Surface area effects are taken into account in estimating emissions from storage facilities. However, the objectives of national NH3 emission inventories are to: first, estimate the potential for NH3 abatement; second, estimate changes in national NH3 emissions due to unrelated developments within livestock farming. The estimate of annual variability due to changes in weather is not part of the usual remit. In consequence, environmental effects are considered to be constant between years in national inventories. 2.2. Proportion of time spent within buildings and grazing (ruminants only) In many northern and western MS of the EU the estimated length of the housing period for cattle is usually around 6 months (mid-October to mid-April) and in consequence c. 50% of total annual excreta is deposited directly to grassland. However, typically only c. 10% of emissions from cattle is from grazed pastures (e.g. Webb and Misselbrook, 2004). The much smaller overall emission of NH3 from TAN deposited directly to pastures is because urine rapidly infiltrates soil, often before urea hydrolysis is complete. In contrast infiltration of TAN in more viscous slurries takes longer, increasing the potential for NH3 emissions. The TAN in solid manure takes even longer to infiltrate soil. Thus livestock management systems that include grazing reduce NH3 emissions compared with those where livestock are predominantly housed. This is independent from the soils type and climatic conditions. 2.3. Manure management system (whether livestock excreta are handled as slurry, or solid, the housing system of the animal (especially the floor area per animal) and whether manure is stored inside the building)) Differences in NH3 emissions arise among housing systems, e.g. tied stall and loose housing and between liquid and solid manure management systems. For example, emissions from tied stalls have been shown to be less than from loose housing of cattle. This is because in tied stalls excreta is deposited over a smaller area and hence the emitting surface per animal is less than in a loose house. For cattle, emissions from buildings in which the excreta are handled as liquid have been shown to be

113

substantially greater than from buildings in which the manure is handled as a litter-based solid (EMEP/CORINAIR, 2006). 2.4. Storage system (open or covered slurry tank; loose or packed heap of solid manure; any treatment applied to the manure such as aeration, separation or composting) Due to the much greater surface area to volume ratio of lagoons emissions of NH3 are generally considered to be greater when slurries are stored on lagoons than when stored in tanks. Emissions of NH3 may be further reduced by covering stores. During storage of solid manure air exchange and temperature increase induced by aerobic decomposition may greatly increase NH3 emission. Increased density of manure during storage significantly decreased temperatures in manure heaps. Storing solid manures at high density also reduces air exchange which with the low temperature limits the formation and transfer of NH3 to the surface layers of the heap, reducing emissions (Webb et al., in press). 3. Impact of abatement options 3.1. Livestock feeding strategies Livestock feeds are prepared in order to provide enough carbohydrate to meet energy needs and protein to meet protein needs. However, because feeds are often based on grass or soya, they often contain more protein than is needed for livestock growth. Matching protein intake in feed to that needed for production reduces N excretion. Moreover, since surplus protein-N is mainly excreted in the form of urea, reducing protein intake will give a disproportionately greater reduction in NH3 emissions than the reduction in total N excretion. 3.2. Nitrogen management The potential to reduce emissions of NH3 from careful matching of N applied to crops to crop requirement is limited as emissions take place at the soil surface, before applied N has entered the pool of soil N. Hence even applications of manure-N carefully balanced to meet crop requirements will be subject to loss if the manure is surface applied. Any benefits are most likely to be greatest on grassland, where the risk of unnecessarily large N concentrations in forage will be reduced, decreasing the potential for NH3 emissions from grazed pastures. 3.3. Reduce emissions from housing systems Techniques for reducing NH3 emissions from naturally-ventilated buildings include grooved flooring, the frequent removal of manure and manure cooling. For loose-housed cattle, increases in the amounts of straw used for bedding may reduce NH3 emissions. This approach has the advantage that, by immobilizing TAN in straw, there will be no subsequent increase in NH3 emissions from manure storage or spreading. Emissions from buildings may also be reduced by reducing the floor area contaminated by excreta. Emissions from poultry buildings may be greatly reduced if the DM of the manure is 60% or more. For housing with forced ventilation, chemical or biological scrubbing of the exhaust air can substantially reduce NH3 and PM emissions.

114

3.4. Reduce emissions during storage Techniques to reduce NH3 emissions during storage are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Ammonia emission abatement measures for cattle and pig slurry storage

(UNECE, 200710) Abatement Measure

NH3 Emission Reduction relative to uncovered slurry (%)a/

Applicability

‘Tight’ Lid, roof or tent structure 80 Concrete or steel tanks and silos. May not be suitable on existing stores.

.Plastic sheeting (floating cover) 60 Small earth-banked lagoons٭

Plastic sheeting (floating cover) 60 Large earth-banked lagoons and concrete or٭steel tanks. Management and other factors may limit use of this technique.

‘Low technology’ floating covers (e.g. chopped straw, peat, bark, LECA balls, etc.) (Cat. 2)

40 Concrete or steel tanks and silos. Probably not practicable on earth-banked lagoons. Not suitable if materials likely to cause slurry management problems.

Natural crust (floating cover)

35 - 50 Higher dry matter slurries only. Not suitable on farms where it is necessary to mix and disturb the crust in order to spread slurry frequently.

Replacement of lagoon, etc. with covered tank or tall open tanks (H> 3 m)

30 - 60 Only new build, and subject to any planning restrictions concerning taller structures.

Storage bag 100 Available bag sizes may limit use on larger livestock farms.

* Sheeting may be a type of plastic, canvas or other suitable material a/ Emission reductions are agreed best estimates of what might be achievable

across UN/ECE. Reductions are expressed relative to emissions from an uncovered slurry tank/silo.

3.5 Reduce emissions during and after land spreading Abatement methods for spreading manures on land have some of the greatest potential to reduce NH3 emissions and are among the most cost-effective. Emissions following the spreading of manures to land are one of the two largest sources and NH3 conserved at earlier stages of manure management may be lost if emissions following spreading are not controlled. Emissions following application of slurry may be reduced if the slurry is applied in narrow bands (trailing hose), if the slurry is placed beneath the crop canopy (trailing shoe) or placed below the soil surface (injection). Those techniques, which entail little or no soil disturbance, can be used on grassland as well as on tillage land. Incorporation of slurry and solid manures into tillage land can reduce NH3 emissions by up to 90%. The reduction in emission varies according to method of incorporation, interval between manure application and incorporation and type of manure. Abatement tends to increase as the interval 10 This is the latest public version of this list

115

between spreading and incorporation decreases, as the amount of soil inversion increases and according to manure type, with abatement effectiveness in the order slurry > poultry manure > FYM. Some abatement efficiencies are given in Table 2. Table 2. Abatement techniques for slurry and solid manure application to land*

(UNECE, 2007) Abatement measure Type of

manure Land use Emission

Reduction relative to broadcast spreading (%)

Limits to applicability

Trailing hose Slurry Grassland, arable land

30 Emission reduction may be less if applied on grass >10 cm. Poor reductions on bare land in some situations

Slope of land (<15% for tankers; <25% for umbilical systems); not for slurry that is viscous or has a large straw content

Trailing shoe Slurry Mainly grassland

60** Slope (<15% for tankers; <25% for umbilical systems); not viscous slurry, size and shape of the field, grass height should be > 8 cm, difficult when crop residues present

Shallow injection (open slot)

Slurry Grassland 70** Slope < 10%, greater limitations for soil type and conditions, not viscous slurry.

Deep injection (closed slot)

Slurry Mainly grassland, arable land

80 Slope < 10%, greater limitations for soil type and conditions, not viscous slurry.

Broadcast application and incorporation by plough in one process

Slurry Arable land 80 Only for land that can be easily cultivated

Broadcast application and immediate incorporation by plough Immediate incorporation by disc

Slurry Arable land 80 – 90 60-80

Only for land that can be easily cultivated

Broadcast application and incorporation by plough within 12 h

Slurry Arable land 30 (according to § 10)

Immediate incorporation by plough

FYM (cattle, pigs)

90

Immediate incorporation by plough

Poultry manure

95

Incorporation by plough within 12 h

Solid manure

Arable land 50 for cattle and pig 70 for poultry

Incorporation by plough within 24 h

Solid manure

Arable land 35 for cattle and pig 55 for poultry

*/ Emissions reductions are agreed as likely to be achievable across the UN/ECE. ** revised to incorporate conclusions of recent review.

116

A detailed description of the measures that can be taken to reduce NH3 emissions from manure management can be found in the "Guidance document on control techniques for preventing and abating emissions of ammonia" (http://unece.org/env/documents/2007/eb/wg5/WGSR40/ece.eb.air.wg.5.2007.13.e.pdf). In consequence, since very large reductions in NH3 emissions can be obtained from effective implementation of the most effective abatement measures, while environmental factors have only a moderate impact on emissions, the development of national NH3 emissions has concentrated on accurately estimating emissions at each stage of manure management and on the potential for abatement rather than on discriminating among climatic regions. 4. Comparison of national inventories of ammonia emissions The first NH3 emission inventories from livestock production were calculated by multiplying livestock numbers by ammonia emission factors (EFs) per animal (e.g. Buijsman et al., 1987). This approach did not allow for significant differences in NH3 emissions due to differences in performance, diet and hence nitrogen (N) excretion, or differences in livestock and manure management practices among countries and regions. More recent inventories have replaced EFs per animal with partial EFs for grazing, livestock housing, manure storage and manure spreading. However, increasing the number of EFs to discriminate among emissions at each stage of manure management and among systems is insufficient, since it cannot account for interactions among the stages of manure management that occur when abatement measures are applied. In particular, such an approach may fail to recognize that introducing abatement at an early stage of manure management (e.g. housing) will, by conserving NH4

+-N, increase the potential for NH3 emissions later (e.g. during storage or after spreading). Thus a mass-flow approach is needed, in which the fate of N is followed throughout the manure management system. This is particularly important when attempting to rank the costs of introducing measures to reduce NH3 emissions or the impacts on other gaseous N species: nitrous oxide (N2O); nitric oxide (NO); dinitrogen (N2). Such a mass-flow approach was used by Van der Hoek in the MESTAMM model (1994), Menzi and Katz (1997) and in the MARACCAS model (Cowell and ApSimon, 1998). Such models tend to be based on the flow of TAN rather than of N. There are four reasons for this. First, TAN, rather than total-N, is the direct source of NH3-N emissions to which NH3-N emissions may be correlated (see section 2.1 above). Second, it makes it possible to estimate the effects of changing livestock diets, e.g. when essential amino acids are added to the feed to reduce total cp intake, there is a disproportionately greater reduction in the TAN content of excreta, since reduction of N in animal feed mainly reduces urine-N. This can be taken into account by reducing the proportion of N excreted as TAN as well as reducing total-N excretion. Third, this approach can automatically take into account the effect of emissions that occur in an ‘upstream’ part of the manure management system (e.g. livestock housing) on emissions in the subsequent ‘downstream’ parts (e.g. storage). This enables the impact of abatement measures to be assessed at the system scale. Finally,

117

by deducting NH3-N emissions from both the masses of N and TAN, and by estimating transformations of N and TAN during manure management (e.g. immobilization of TAN in straw and mineralization of N during manure storage) it is possible to check the ratios of TAN to N at stages of manure management when measurements are available for comparison, e.g. before and after manure storage, and hence to check the reliability of model output. This approach was used to validate the output of the NARSES model (Webb and Misselbrook, 2004). In addition, models do not have the single purpose of producing estimates of emissions etc. They are also a useful tool to summarize our knowledge of systems into a dynamic simulation of that system and to identify where our understanding needs improving.

Such models have been developed to estimate emissions and abatement potential in a number of EU countries: Denmark ('DAN-AM', Hutchings et al., 2001); Netherlands (‘MAM’, Groenwold et al., 2002; Luesink and Kruseman, 2007; ‘FarmMin’, Van Evert et al., 2003); Germany (‘GAS-EM’, Dämmgen et al., 2003); UK (‘NARSES’, Webb and Misselbrook, 2004). Coordination of model development pools knowledge, creates synergies and improves congruency among emission models. To enable such coordination a core group of emission inventory experts (the 'EAGER' group), which included authors of the models mentioned above, was formed in 2003 to develop a network and joint programme. The aim was to achieve a detailed overview of the currently best available inventory techniques, compile and harmonize the available knowledge on EFs for mass flow emission calculation models and initiate a new generation of emission inventories.

A detailed comparison of the models and the underlying EFs permitted common calculation principles to be described and the most important reasons for disagreements to be identified. The first comparison was restricted to slurry-based manure management systems and the results reported by Reidy et al. (2007a). The second comparison was of litter-based manure management systems (Reidy et al., 2009). The tables below report the EFs used for the various stages of manure management in the four EU TAN-flow models.

118

Table 3. Example partial emission factors (expressed as % of TAN) from the EMEP/EAA Guidebook. a) housing Livestock category Denmark Germany Netherlands Switzerland UK

100901 Dairy cows slurry 17.0 19.7 17.7 16.7 31.5 100901 Dairy cows solid 22.9 100902 Other cattle slurry 31.5 100902 Other cattle solid 10.0 19.7 16.9 25.0 22.9 100903 Fattening pigs slurry 25.0 28.4 31.1 20.0 33.2 100903 Fattening pigs solid 28.4 25.0 100904 Sows slurry 23.9 19.0 100904 Sows solid 23.9 25.0 100905 +100911 Sheep & goats

solid 25.0 30.0 11.0 21.6

100906 +100912 Horses, mules and asses)

solid 25.0 19.7

100907 Laying hens solid 35.7 33.8 57.9 37.4 100908 Broilers litter 36.0 20.0 20.0 8.1 57.0 100909 Ducks litter 35.7 11.4 32.1 17.5 100909 Geese litter 35.7 78.9 100909 Turkeys litter 35.7 52.9 32.1 19.2 100910 Fur animals NA 30.0 24.3

b) storage Livestock category Denmark Germany Netherlands Switzerland UK

100901 Dairy cows slurry 18.0 16.7 19.2 27.7 15.7 100901 Dairy cows solid 34.8 100902 Other cattle slurry 31.3 15.7 100902 Other cattle solid 8.6 60.0 2.5 30.0 34.8 100903 Fattening pigs slurry 14.0 15.0 15.9 12.0 13.0 100903 Fattening pigs solid 60.0 29.6 100904 Sows slurry 15.0 13.0 100904 Sows solid 60.0 29.6 100905 +100911 Sheep & goats

solid 10.0 60.0 5.0 34.8

100906 +100912 Horses, mules and asses)

solid 10.0 60.0 11.8

100907 Laying hens solid 16.7 8.1 17.8 100908 Broilers litter 15.0 100909 Ducks litter 25.0 6.5 45.0 17.8 100909 Geese litter 25.0 6.5 100909 Turkeys litter 25.0 6.5 45.0 17.8 100910 Fur animals NA 8.5

119

c) spreading Livestock category Denmark Germany Netherlands Switzerland UK

100901 Dairy cows slurry 61.3 55.0 68.0 48.0 43.0 100901 Dairy cows solid 81.0 100902 Other cattle slurry 43.0 100902 Other cattle solid 64.4 90.0 100.0 60.0 81.0 100903 Fattening pigs slurry 26.0 25.0 68.0 48.0 33.0 100903 Fattening pigs solid 80.0 81.0 100904 Sows slurry 25.0 33.0 100904 Sows solid 80.0 81.1 100905 +100911 Sheep and goats

solid 90.0 100.0 81.0

100906 +100912 Horses, mules and asses)

solid 90.0

100907 Laying hens solid 90.0 55.0 63.0 100908 Broilers litter 64.0 90.0 100.0 14.0 63.0 100909 Ducks litter 45.0 55.0 63.0 100909 Geese litter 45.0 100909 Turkeys litter 45.0 55.0 63.0 100910 Fur animals NA

d) grazing Livestock category Denmark Germany Netherlands Switzerland UK

100901 Dairy cows slurry 12.0 12.5 13.3 6.7 7.7 100901 Dairy cows solid 100902 Other cattle slurry 5.8 100902 Other cattle solid 100903 Fattening pigs slurry 100903 Fattening pigs solid 100904 Sows slurry 100904 Sows solid 100905 +100911 Sheep and goats

solid 7.5 7.5 13.3

100906 +100912 Horses, mules and asses)

solid 35.0

100907 Laying hens solid 100908 Broilers litter 100909 Ducks litter 100909 Geese litter 100909 Turkeys litter 100910 Fur animals NA 100913 Camels solid 100914 Buffaloes solid 12.5

Further information on these EFs can be found in the following publications: 1. Denmark, Hutchings et al., 2001; 2. Germany, Dämmgen et al., 2007; 3. Netherlands, ‘MAM’, Groenwold et al., 2002; ‘FarmMin’, Van Evert et al., 2003; 4. Switzerland, Reidy et al., 2007b 5. UK, Webb and Misselbrook, 2004.

120

However, despite the considerable degree of congruency reported in comparisons of output of these models (Reidy et al., 2007a; 2009), there is considerable variation among EFs. For example, Reidy et al. (2007a; 2009) show that EFs for cattle manure on slurry give the following ranges: housing, 15.3-31.0% of TAN; storage, 16.3-37.7% of TAN; spreading, 30.7-68.0% of TAN. For litter-based manure the differences can be greater. For example broiler production: housing, 8.1-57.0% TAN; 6.5-45.0% of TAN; spreading, 14.0-100.0% of TAN. The congruency exercises concluded that while some of these differences arose because the EFs for some countries were based on few data in many cases the differences reflected differences on livestock and manure management practices. Moreover, national NH3 emission modelling is less advanced in most other EU countries. For example, Finland uses EFs based on a review carried out by Finnish workers in 1998, while most countries use the default methodology prepared by EMEP/CORINAIR for the Guidebook of Emission Inventories. However, the versions used in the 2008 reporting exercise varied considerably, e.g. Spain used CORINAIR 2006, Lithuania used CORINAIR 2004 and Bulgaria CORINAIR 1994. 4.1. Limiting factors to producing national estimates of NH3 emissions - lack of detailed activity data Models of national emissions are not usually based on the detailed process-based models which are available to describe NH3 emissions at discrete stages of manure management. This is because the process-based models need detailed information not only of weather and other environmental factors but also details of manure analysis and the precise times of application and amounts applied. While detailed meteorological information is usually readily available for model development, the information on where and when manures are applied to land is known with far less precision. Often, at the national level, all that may be known are the distribution of manure application among seasons and the proportions applied to tillage and grassland. In consequence, since very large reductions in NH3 emissions can be obtained from effective implementation of the most effective abatement measures, while environmental factors have only a moderate impact on emissions, the development of national NH3 emissions has concentrated on accurately estimating emissions at each stage of manure management and on the potential for abatement rather than on discriminating among climatic regions. 5. Priorities for the development of ammonia emission inventories As indicated in sections 1 and 2 above, the processes leading to emissions of NH3 and the factors that influence the size of emissions are well understood. Emissions of NH3 are a substantial proportion of the total N in livestock manure and excreta typically amounting to 20-35% of N excreted. Emissions tend to be greater for livestock that are housed throughout the year, e.g. finishing pigs (33%), laying hens (37%) and broilers (19%), with small emissions from livestock which spend little time within buildings, e.g. sheep (5%). Emissions for cattle are intermediate (12-22% of N excreted).

121

In addition, methods have been identified that can reliably achieve quite large emissions at some stages of manure management. For example, the use of biofiltration to the exhaust vents of mechanically-ventilated livestock buildings, rigid covers on slurry stores and immediate incorporation of livestock manures into soil after spreading can each reduce NH3 emissions from the source by c. 90%. Hence the priority in modelling national emissions of NH3 has been to accurately quantify the total annual emission and the potential for cost-effective abatement. Less attention has been given to estimating emissions at the local scale because of the difficulty in obtaining the necessary activity data needed to discriminate emissions at the small scale. Detailed meteorological data are usually available, but detailed information on local farm practice is not. 5.1. Uncertainty Uncertainties in NH3 EFs vary considerably. A recent UK study indicated a range from ± 14% for the EF for slurry spreading to ± 136% for beef cattle grazing. In general EFs for the larger sources tended to be based on a greater number of measurements than those for smaller sources and, in consequence, tended to be more certain. The exceptions were the EFs for buildings in which livestock were housed on straw and grazing EFs for beef and sheep. The uncertainties of partial EFs have yet to be discussed. The overall uncertainty for the UK ammonia emissions inventory, as calculated using a Tier 3 approach, was ± 21% (Webb and Misselbrook, 2004), while that for the Netherlands, also using a Tier 3 approach, was ± 17% (Van Gijlswijk et al., 2004). 6. Conclusion that the output from GAINS remains the best approach to estimating variation in national NH3 emissions within the EU 27. The reasons for differences among models used for the estimation of national NH3 emissions can be divided into four main types: (1) errors; (2) differences in agricultural practice; (3) differences in the model structure and; (4) differences in model parameterisation. The differences in agricultural practice may include different excretion rates resulting from different feeding practice and production intensities (e.g. the protein concentration in the diet, milk yield per cow, growth rate per pig), variations in the types of animal housing, storage and application technology and from variations in climate. Differences in parameterization of EFs for what are essentially similar husbandry systems arise due to the access to different sources of information, different interpretations of the same information or different assumption for special situation (e.g. emissions in houses and manure storage when cattle are mainly outside during the grazing season). In this comparison of the EFs used in national inventories no evidence was found of systematic differences due to differences in climate, albeit since the inventories

122

compared were for a small group of countries in NW and west-central Europe differences in climate would not have been large. When TAN flow inventories are available for countries in S Europe, based on measurements made within those countries, a better comparison of EFs may be made with EFs used for inventories in more northerly parts of the EU. Such a comparison will enable a better assessment of the role of climate in emissions of NH3 from different countries. However, in the absence of such inventories we can only conclude that differences among countries arise from differences in farming systems, manure management and inputs of N to crops and livestock feeds. Some assessment of the possible role of climate in influencing the magnitude of national NH3 emissions may be made using GAINS output. This output shows a considerable range of NH3 emissions among the EU-27 for each livestock type. However, these results do not show a consistent relationship between climatic region and size of NH3 emissions. For example, the smallest NH3 emission, expressed as kg NH3 per beef animals raised on slurry-based systems was reported for Denmark and greatest in Italy, but for beef raised on litter-based systems the smallest emissions were reported for Spain (and the largest for Italy). For pigs raised on the litter the smallest and largest emissions were reported for Belgium and the UK, two countries of broadly similar climate. For sheep the smallest emission was reported for the UK while the largest emission was reported for Denmark, a cooler country. These differences arose not because of differences in climate but because in the UK sheep are raised outdoors for 11-12 months of the year on pastures to which little or no N fertilizer is applied whereas in Denmark sheep are mainly raised indoors. The table below reports the EFs used in GAINs in 2005 for Sweden and Spain, two countries of contrasting climate for which substantial differences in EFs might be expected due to those differences in climate. GAINS emission factors for ammonia, 2005 kt/M animals, for Spain and Sweden

Spain Sweden

Dairy, liquid 29.884 40.352 Dairy, solid 31.291 39.011 Other cattle, solid 5.265 9.542 Pigs, liquid 4.393 4.176 Pigs, solid 4.081 4.058 Layers 0.234 0.220 Other poultry 0.140 0.115 Sheep (ewes) 1.301 0.852

Differences in the GAINS EFs for Spain and Sweden are not due to the influence of climate on NH3 emissions but are the consequence of differences in management systems of each livestock class in the two countries. The greater EFs for dairy cattle in Sweden are likely to be a reflection of the greater productivity and N excretion of the Swedish herd. Differences in pigs and poultry are also likely to reflect differences in diet. It is not clear what would account for the difference in sheep. Since this is a minor item in most inventories (apart from the UK) the EFs are often based on few data and not considered very reliable. At present few national inventories of NH3 take much account of climatic factors, the majority of variation arises from

123

differences in feed intake and productivity, and hence N excretion and differences in livestock and manure management, in particular the proportions of the year spent in buildings and outside. The GAINS model makes allowance for different farming and manure management systems and for differences in N inputs among the EU-27. The data used to populate the GAINS model have been drawn from a number of different sources. Whenever possible in-country experts have been consulted on the derivation of the EFs used in GAINS. IIASA have used the information retrieved from the NEC6 or NEC4 report where the CAFÉ process was nearing an end to calibrate the GAINS model to produce output comparable to the national factors. This was the biggest consultation exercise. Data from the UNECE Expert Group on Ammonia Abatement Questionnaire from 2003 and other data have also been used, together with default EFs from the EMEP/CORINAIR Guidebook. The advantage of using the GAINS is that it provides a uniform approach based on consultations with MS. While the EFs within GAINS could usefully be reviewed and updated this would need a new project to do done effectively. We conclude that the data currently provided by GAINS remain the best current statement of regional differences among NH3 emissions in the EU 27. References Aarnink AJA, Cahn TT, Mroz Z, 1997. Reduction of ammonia volatilization by housing and feeding in fattening piggeries. In: Voermans JAM, Monteney GJ, (eds). Ammonia and Odour Emission from Animal Production Facilities. Vinkeloord, the Netherlands pp 283-291. Anon., (1994). Ammonia Emissions to Air in Western Europe, Technical Report, No. 62. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, Brussels, Belgium. Blanes-Vidal V, Sommer SG, Nadimi ES, 2009. Modelling surface pH and emissions of hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, acetic acid and carbon dioxide from a pig waste lagoon. Biosystems Engineering 104, 510-521. Buijsman E, Maas JFM, Asman WAH, 1987. Anthropogenic Ammonia Emissions in Europe. Atmospheric Environment 21, 1009-1022. Cahn TT, Aarnink AJA, Schulte JB, Sutton A, Langhout DJ, Verstegen MWA, 1998. Dietary protein affects nitrogen excretion and ammonia emission from slurry of growing finishing pigs. Livestock Production Science 56, 181-191. Cowell D, ApSimon HM, 1998. Cost-effective strategies for the abatement of ammonia emissions from European Agriculture. Atmospheric Environment 32, 573-580.

124

Dämmgen U, Lüttich M, Döhler H, Eurich-Menden B, Osterburg B, 2003. GAS-EM – a procedure to calculate gaseous emissions from agriculture. Landbauforschung Völkenrode 52, 19-42. EMEP, 2006. EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook — 2006. (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-emission-inventory-guidebook-2006) Ettalla T, Kreula M, 1979. Studies on the nitrogen compounds of the faeces of dairy cows fed urea as the sole or partial source of nitrogen, pp 309-321. In: Kreula N, (ed.), Report on metabolism and milk production of cows on protein-free feed, with urea and ammonium salts as the sole source of nitrogen, and an urea-rich, low protein feed, Biochemical Research Institute, Helsinki. van Evert et al., 2003 Evert F van, Meer H van der, Berge H, Rutgers B, Schut T, Ketelaars J, 2003. FARMMIN: Modeling crop-livestock nutrient flows. Agronomy Abstracts 2003, ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI. Fassen HGF van, Van Dijk H, 1987. Manure as a source of nitrogen and phosphorus in soils. In: Animal Manure on Grassland and Fodder Crops. In: Van Meer HG, Unwin RJ, Van Dijk TA, Eunik GC, (Eds.), Fertilizer or Waste? Developments in Plant and Soil Science, pp 27-45, Volume 30. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague. Génermont S, Cellier P, 1997. A mechanistic method for estimating ammonia volatilization from slurry applied to bare soil. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 88, 145-167. Gijlswijk R van, Coenen P, Pulles T, Sluijs J van der, 2004. Uncertainty assessment of NOx, SO2 and NH3 emissions in the Netherlands. TNO-report R 2004/100, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, 102pp. Groenwold JG, Oudendag D, Luesink HH, Cotteleer G, Vrolijk H, 2002. Het Mest- en Ammoniakmodel. LEI, Den Haag, Rapport 8.02.03. (In Dutch). Groot Koerkamp PWG, 1994. Review on emissions of ammonia from housing systems for laying hens in relation to sources, processes, builing design and manure handling. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 59, 73-87. Hoek KW Van der, 1994. Method for calculation of ammonia emission in The Netherlands for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. RIVM Report 773004003 RIVM, Bilthoven. (in Dutch). Hutchings NJ, Sommer SG, Andersen JM, Asman WAH, 2001. A detailed ammonia emission inventory for Denmark. Atmospheric Environment 35, 1959-1968.

125

James T, Meyer D, Esparza E, Depeters EJ, Perez-Monti H, 1999. Effects of dietary nitrogen manipulation on ammonia volatilization from manure from Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2430-2439. Jarvis SC, Hatch DJ, Roberts DH, 1989. The effects of grassland management on nitrogen losses from grazed swards through ammonia volatilization; the relationship to excretal N returns from cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 112, 205-216. Kay RM, Lee PA, 1997. Ammonia emissions from pig buildings and characteristics of slurry produced by pigs offered low crude protein diets. In: Voermans JAM, Monteny GJ, (eds.), Ammonia and Odour Emission from Animal Production Facilities, pp 253-259. Vinkeloord, The Netherlands. Kellems RO, Miner JR, Church DC, 1979. Effect of ration, waste composition and length of storage on the volatilization of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and odours from cattle waste. Journal of Animal Science 48, 436-445. Latimier P, Dourmad J, 1993. Effect of three protein feeding strategies for growing-finishing pigs on growth performance and nitrogen output in the slurry and in the air. In: Verstegen MWA, Den Harlog LA, van Kempen JGM, Metz JHM, (eds.), Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production and Environmental Consequences, pp 242-24. EAAP Publ. No 69, Pudox, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Luesink HH, Kruseman G, 2007. Emission inventories. In: Starmans, D.A.J. (Ed.), Ammonia, the Case of The Netherlands. Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 45–69. Menzi H, Katz PE, 1997. A differentiated approach to calculate ammonia emissions from animal husbandry, In: Voermans JAM, et al., (eds.), Ammonia and odour emissions from animal production facilities, Proc. International Symposium, Vinkeloord, Netherlands, 6-10 October 1997, pp 35-42. Paul JW, Dinn NE, Kannagara T, Fisher LJ, 1998. Protein content in dairy cattle diets affects ammonia losses and fertilizer nitrogen value. Journal of Environmental Quality 27, 528-534. Petersen SO, Sommer SG, Aaes O, Søergaard K, 1998a. Ammonia losses from urine and dung of grazing cattle: effect of N intake. Atmospheric Environment 32, 295-300. Reidy B, Dämmgen U, Döhler H, Eurich-Menden B, Evert FK van, Hutchings NJ, Luesink HH, Menzi H, Misselbrook TH, Monteny G-J, Webb J, 2007a. Comparison of models used for national agricultural ammonia emission inventories in Europe: liquid manure systems. Atmospheric Environment 42, 3452-3464.

126

Reidy, B., Rhim, B, Menzi, H. 2007b. A new Swiss inventory of ammonia emissions from agriculture based on a survey on farm and manure management and farm-specific model calculations. Atmospheric Environment, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.04.036 Reidy B, Webb J, Monteny G-J, Misselbrook TH, Menzi H, Luesink HH, Hutchings NJ, Eurich-Menden B, Döhler H, Dämmgen U, 2009. Comparison of models used for national agricultural ammonia emission inventories in Europe: litter-based manure systems. Atmospheric Environment 43, 1632-1640. Rumburg B, Mount GH, Filipy J, Lamb B, Westberg H, Yonge D, Kincaid R, Johnson K, 2008. Measurement and modeling of atmospheric flux of ammonia from dairy milking cow housing. Atmospheric Environment 42, 3364-3379. Rumburg B, Mount GH, Yonge D, Lamb B, Westberg H, Neger M, Filipy J, Kincaid R, Johnson K, 2008. Measurements and modeling of atmospheric flux of ammonia from an anaerobic dairy waste lagoon. Atmospheric Environment 42, 3380–3393. Smits MCJ, Valk H, Elzing A, Keen A, 1995. Effect of protein nutrition on ammonia emission from a cubicle house for dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 44, 147-156. Søgaard HT, Sommer SG, Hutchings NJ, Huijsmans JFM, Bussink DW, Nicholson F, 2002. Ammonia volatilization from field-applied animal slurry-the ALFAM model. Atmospheric Environment 36, 3309-3319. Sommer SG, Zhang GQ, Bannink A, Chadwick D, Misselbrook T, Harrison R, Hutchings NJ, Menzi H, Monteney GJ, Ni JQ, Oenema O, Webb J, 2006. Algorithms determining ammonia emission from buildings housing cattle and pigs and from manure stores. Advances in Agronomy 89, 264-336. UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) (2007), Control Techniques for Preventing and Abating Emissions of Ammonia. Executive Body for the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. Working Group on Strategies. http://unece.org/env/documents/2007/eb/wg5/WGSR40/ece.eb.air.wg.5.2007.13.e.pdf Webb J, Misselbrook TH, 2004. A mass-flow model of ammonia emissions from UK livestock production. Atmospheric environment 38, 2163-2176. Webb J, Sommer SG, Kupper T, Groenestein K, Hutchings NJ, Eurich-Menden B, Rodhe L, Misselbrook TH, Amon B. (In press) Gaseous emissions during the management of solid manures. A review. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews.

127

Annex 4. Comparison of ammonia emission calculated with MITERRA and

those reported for the NEC directive

Figure 1 and Table 1 shows a comparison of ammonia emissions calculated with MITERRA compared with the ammonia emissions reported for NEC-directive for 2008 (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/national-emission-ceilings-nec-directive-inventory-5). On average the ammonia emission calculated with MITERRA are 20% smaller than the ammonia emission reported for NEC. However, there are large differences between member states and for some member states the MITERRA emissions are higher than the NEC emissions. There is no systematic difference between MITERRA and the national emissions reported to NEC.

Figure 1. Ammonia emissions calculated with MITERRA (x axis) compared with the ammonia emissions reported for NEC-directive for 2008 (y axis) (in t *103 NH3-N). In Table 1, the difference between NEC reports and MITERRA calculations are presented. A detailed analysis was made for the member states where there was a difference of more than 20% in emission (the % values in the list below denote the extent to which those reported in the NEC are greater than those estimated by MITERRA). Two aspects were analysed in detail, i.e. i): the size of the contribution of N fertilizers to the ammonia emissions report for NEC, as results indicated higher emissions from fertilizer in the NEC reports than in MITERRA, and ii) assessment of how the source “other” is included in NEC reports (the source “other” may include emission from other sources than agriculture; these sources are not included in MITERRA). This analysis is shown in Table 2.

128

The deletion of the two doubtful 'other' only slightly changed the results. Probably, the differences between MITERRA and the NEC reports are due to (a combination of) differences in sources and differences in used emission factors and N excretions. There is not a systematic difference between MITERRA and NEC, and the results of the NEC reports also shows large differences between member states (e.g. “other” is for some member states not included, is for some member states tiny, but for some member states 10-15% of total ammonia). Moreover, the contribution of N fertilizer varies from “not included” to 62%. The results suggest that the methodologies to calculate ammonia emissions and the sources included for the NEC reports largely differ between member states. In MITERRA the emission factors of GAINS are used. Moreover, the N excretion factors of livestock are based on GAINS and those for dairy cattle were based on a region specific method (Annex 1) (which does not result in large difference in average N excretion compared with GAINS). MITERRA is used for calculations on the EU-27 scale and needs a uniform approach taking regional differences related to nutrient management, livestock systems, cropping patterns and climate into account. Member states may use their own method for reporting to the NEC directive, so that differences in ammonia emission between member states may be (partly related) due to differences in methods for calculation of ammonia emissions. For a study on the scale EU-27, a uniform approach taking regional differences in needed. GAINS is used for scenario analysis for the European Commission, including NEC scenarios. Therefore, it is an advantage that MITERRA uses the same approach as GAINS (allows comparison between studies). However, the large differences between the NEC reports and MITERRA for some member states suggest that there may also be a large difference between the NEC reports and GAINS.

129

Table 1. Ammonia emissions calculated with MITERRA compared with the ammonia emissions reported for NEC-directive for 2008 (in t *103 NH3-N). The entries crossed out are those where non-agricultural emissions have been mistakenly included. I

Country Miterra estimate

NEC report % diff

Austria 37.847 47.810 21 Belgium 50.232 52.980 5 Bulgaria 26.261 40.274 35 Cyprus 3.777 4.101 8 Czech Rep. 50.323 42.322 -19 Denmark 41.546 54.298 23 Estonia 6.680 7.088 6 Finland 19.475 24.253 20 France 431.657 602.237 28 Germany 355.635 460.641 23 Greece 33.883 49.766 32 Hungary 46.549 55.106 16 Ireland 91.070 86.112 -6 Italy 211.834 317.928

308.786 33 31

Latvia 12.493 11.923 -5 Lithuania 23.976 23.624 -1 Luxembourg 3.033 3.551 15 Malta 1.165 1.223 5 Netherlands 83.247 101.869 18 Poland 259.385 230.160 -13 Portugal 44.381 40.581 -9 Romania 115.325 168.363 32 Slovakia 16.340 20.112 19 Slovenia 12.032 13.726 12 Spain 219.684 272.251 19 Sweden 25.068 36.062 30 UK 172.980 204.609

189.683 15 9

130

Table 2. Analysis of the size of the contribution of N fertilizers to the ammonia emissions report for NEC and assessment of how the source “other” is included in NEC reports. Member state Comment

Austria 'other' is included but is tiny. N fertilizer is about 8% of total.

Belgium 'other' is included but is tiny. N fertilizer is about 14% of total.

Bulgaria 'other' is not included. Emissions from N chemical fertilizers are about 12% of total emissions.

Cyprus no 'other' and N fertilizer c. 11% of total.

Czech Rep. 'other' is included and is c. 14% of total. However, there is no entry for N fertilizer emissions.

Denmark 'other' is included and is c. 10% of the total, but this may be fur animals, although it seems large.

Estonia no 'other' and N fertilizer c. 6% of total.

Finland 'other' is included and is c. 8% of the total, but this will be fur animals. N fertilizer is about 6% of total.

France the 'other' category was c. 61 kt, however pigs (4B8) were only 0.2 kt. EEA was asked about this. They replied to say it was an error.

Germany other' is included but is just c. 1% of the total, and this may be fur animals. N fertilizer is about 15% of total.

Greece no 'other' entry, N fertilizer emissions are 24% of total.

Hungary but no 'other' and 0 for N fertilizer emissions.

Ireland no 'other' and N fertilizer c. 6% of total.

Italy N fertilizer emissions are 40% of the total. The 'other' category is included (11 t). Without other sources, the difference with MITERRA-EUROPE is only +3%.

Latvia no comments

Lithuania no comments

Luxembourg no comments

Malta no comments

Netherlands 'other' is included, only c. 1% of total.

Poland 'other' is included but very small and could be fur animals.

Portugal 'other' is included, only c. 1% of total.

Romania N fertilizer emissions only 3%.

Slovakia 25% of NEC emissions from N fertilizer.

Slovenia no comments

Spain no entry under 'other', but N fertilizer emissions are 62% of the NEC total. These high emissions from N fertilizers may be related to the high use of urea in Spain (16% of total N).

Sweden the entry under 'other' is small (0.4 t) and likely to be for fur animals. N fertilizers only 13% of total.

UK the 'other' category deleted, because it includes no agricultural sources. N fertilizers are 14% of the total.

131

Annex 5. Comparison of nitrous oxide emissions calculated with

MITERRA-EUROPE and those reported to the UNFCCC

Table 1 and Figure 1 shows a comparison between the N2O emission from agricultural soils according to country reports to UNFCCC and MITERRA-EUROPE for the year 2008. The data of the country reports were derived from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/national-emissions-reported-to-the-unfccc-and-to-the-eu-greenhouse-gas-monitoring-mechanism-4. The total N2O emission from agricultural soils in EU-27 in 2008 was equal for UNFCCC reports and MITERRA-EUROPE, but for some member states there were large differences. This was expected because MITERRA-EUROPE v) uses region specific N2O emission factors (see task 1.2) instead of default

N2O emission factors of IPCC. vi) calculates nitrate leaching (a source of indirect N2O emission) in a different

way than IPCC (IPCC uses a fixed leaching fraction of 30% of the N input and some countries uses country specific leaching fractions).

vii) calculates ammonia emission using GAINS methodology (countries use other methodologies as indicated in Annex 4 about comparison MITERRA-EUROPE and NEC reports).

viii) calculates N excretion by livestock based on GAINS and for dairy cattle based on a method developed in the current project (Annex 1).

Moreover, it may not be excluded that there is a difference in activity data used by countries and MITERRA-EUROPE (which is based on Eurostat and FAO). The differences between MITERRA and the country reports are probably due to a combination of the four factors shown above, and the differences in activity data. A detailed assessment of the differences could not be carried out, because then the methodologies used by each member state to calculate N2O emission has to be assessed in detail. A study in which differences in emissions between countries and regions in EU-27 is assessed, needs a uniform approach to calculate N emissions. This makes a comparison possible and avoids misinterpretation because of differences in used methodologies between member states. Models like MITERRA-EUROPE, GAINS and CAPRI use a uniform approach on EU-27 level, by which these models can be used to compare member states and regions in EU.

132

y = 0.9873x + 0.2425R² = 0.9015

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

N2O emission, kton per year (MITERRA-EUROPE)2008

N2O emission, kton per year (UNFCC reports)

Figure 1. N2O emissions from agricultural soils, calculated with MITERRA EUROPE and reported to UNFCCC for the year 2008. Category D. Agricultural soils include direct soil emissions, emissions from pasture, range and paddock manure, indirect emissions from ammonia emission and nitrate leaching, and other sources such as crop residues and soil cultivation.

133

Table 1. N2O emissions from agricultural soils1, calculated with (MITERRA EUROPE and reported to UNFCCC for the year 2008.

Agricultural soils (direct and indirect emissions), N2O kton N yr-1

UNFCCC report MITERRA-EUROPE Difference, %

Austria 6.5 6.2 5

Belgium 7.7 10.5 -36

Bulgaria 5.9 3.4 42

Cyprus 0.3 0.3 -5

Czech Rep. 10.5 5.9 44

Denmark 11.6 7.5 35

Estonia 1.7 2.9 -72

Finland 7.3 7.5 -3

France 101.2 99.1 2

Germany 79.4 75.1 5

Greece 10.4 5.9 44

Hungary 10.7 8.9 17

Ireland 12.8 36.7 -186

Italy 34.5 30.0 13

Latvia 2.4 3.1 -28

Lithuania 5.7 5.5 3

Luxembourg 0.6 0.8 -23

Malta 0.0 0.1 -117

Netherlands 17.4 27.6 -59

Poland 39.4 37.5 5

Portugal 5.9 5.6 5

Romania 22.5 10.0 56

Slovakia 3.4 2.3 33

Slovenia 1.5 2.3 -56

Spain 35.6 21.5 40

Sweden 9.9 6.4 35

UK 47.9 70.4 -47

Total 492.7 493.0 0 1Category D. Agricultural soils include direct soil emissions, emissions from pasture, range and paddock manure, indirect emissions from ammonia emission and nitrate leaching, and other sources such as crop residues and soil cultivation.

135

Annex 6. Information on derogations granted

1. Germany (all years based on derogation report 2009, received February 2010, table 1)

2006

Number

of farms

Derogated Area (ha) Applied amount

State of Baden-Württemberg 95 2.027

State of Bavaria 356 6.546 191 kg N / ha

State of Lower Saxony 29 836

State of North Rhine-Westphalia 278 8.438

2007

Number

of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount

State of Baden-Württemberg 33 880 ha

State of Bavaria 167 3,537 ha 173 kg N / ha

State of Lower Saxony 33 1,017 ha

State of North Rhine-Westphalia 285 8,897 ha 154-192 kg / ha

Niedersachsen:

o former district of Weser-

Ems (DE 94)

193 kg / ha

2008

Number

of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount

State of Baden-Württemberg 37 1.023

State of Bavaria 262 6.066 209 kg N / ha

State of Lower Saxony 75 1.989

State of North Rhine-Westphalia 310 6.819 154-192 kg / ha

Niedersachsen:

o former district of Weser-

Ems (DE 94)

190 kg / ha

137

2009

Number

of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount

State of Baden-Württemberg 32 1.000 171-215 kg N / ha

State of Bavaria 353 8.160 217 kg N / ha

State of Lower Saxony 140 4.138

State of North Rhine-Westphalia 309 7.313 166-194 kg / ha

Niedersachsen:

o Former district Lüneburg

(DE 93)

192 kg / ha

o former district of Weser-

Ems (DE 94)

191 kg / ha

138

2. United Kingdom

2007

Number

of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount

Northern Ireland -

2008

Number

of farms

Total Derogated Area

(ha)

Applied amount

[average LS manure

use on derogation

farms]

Northern Ireland 212 16861 208 kg N/ha (total LS)

204 (grazing LS)

2009

Number

of farms

Total Derogated Area

(ha)

Applied amount

[average LS manure

use on derogation

farms]

Northern Ireland 136 11466 204 kg N/ha (total LS)

204 (grazing LS)

2009

Number

of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount

[average LS manure

use on derogation

farms]

England 452

Scotland 10

Wales 2

139

3. Ireland

Number of farms approved for derogation

Derogated area (% of total net area in country)

Applied amount1. Average for country (kg N/ha/annum)

2007 4,133 4.5 201

2008 3,855 4.2 208

2009 4,909 5.7 198 1 total N from livestock manure for all derogation holdings divided by total net area of all derogation holdings (includes N in manure deposited by grazing animal). BMW region

Number of farms approved for derogation

Derogated area (% of total net area in region)

Applied amount1. Average for region (kg N/ha/annum)

2007 869 1.9 205

2008 874 1.7 214

2009 1,040 2.5 198 1 total N from livestock manure for all derogation holdings divided by total net area of all derogation holdings in region (includes N in manure deposited by grazing animal). SE region

Number of farms approved for derogation

Derogated area (% of total net area in region)

Applied amount1. Average for region (kg N/ha/annum)

2007 3,264 6.7 199

2008 2,981 6.5 207

2009 3,869 8.3 198 1 total N from livestock manure for all derogation holdings divided by total net area of all derogation holdings in region (includes N in manure deposited by grazing animal). Few tables from the 2008 report: Derogation as percentage of whole country (2008)

% of whole country

Number of holdings with grazing livestock

2.7%

Number of grazing livestock units

10.0%

Total net area

4.2%

140

Ireland: Nitrates Derogation, 2008

County Number approved for derogation

Carlow 55

Cavan 63

Clare 35

Cork 1252

Donegal 121

Dublin 7

Galway 104

Kerry 324

Kildare 36

Kilkenny 163

Laois 120

Leitrim 6

Limerick 225

Longford 17

Louth 52

Mayo 89

Meath 103

Monaghan 131

Offaly 73

Roscommon 30

Sligo 25

Tipperary 389

Waterford 156

Westmeath 43

Wexford 175

Wicklow 61

Total 3855

141

4. Denmark

2003 / 2004

Number of farms

Derogated Area (ha) Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

National level 1955 115.781 ha 78 kg N/ha

Capital Region of Denmark 16 417 ha 75 kg N/ha

Region Zealand 63 1.392 ha 87 kg N/ha

Central Denmark Region 778 42.601 ha 58 kg N/ha

North Denmark Region 507 31.779 ha 80 kg N/ha

Region of Southern Denmark 591 39.593 ha 98 kg N/ha

2004 / 2005

2005 / 2006

2006 /2007

Number of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

National level 1615 102.374 ha 211 kg N/ha

Capital Region of Denmark 27 647 ha 192 kg N/ha

Region Zealand 47 945 ha 196 kg N/ha

Central Denmark Region 554 29.979 ha 212 kg N/ha

North Denmark Region 459 31.303 ha 209 kg N/ha

Region of Southern Denmark 528 39.501 ha 213 kg N/ha

2007 / 2008

Number of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

National level 1298 92.828 ha. 205 kg N/ha

Capital Region of Denmark 24 582 ha 164 kg N/ha

Region Zealand 39 1.456 ha 121 kg N/ha

Central Denmark Region 434 26.889 ha 205 kg N/ha

North Denmark Region 380 28.883 ha 206 kg N/ha

Region of Southern Denmark 421 35.008 ha 208 kg N/ha

Number of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

National level 2366 122.260 ha 138 kg N/ha

Capital Region of Denmark 41 1.150 ha 111 kg N/ha

Region Zealand 71 2.558 ha 70 kg N/ha

Central Denmark Region 877 41.546 ha 124 kg N/ha

North Denmark Region 617 33.706 ha 145 kg N/ha

Region of Southern Denmark 760 43.300 ha 150 kg N/ha

Number of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

National level 1833 105.763 ha 207 kg N/ha

Capital Region of Denmark 32 712 ha 209 kg N/ha

Region Zealand 55 866 ha 194 kg N/ha

Central Denmark Region 662 34.271 ha 206 kg N/ha

North Denmark Region 514 31.035 ha 207 kg N/ha

Region of Southern Denmark 570 38.879 ha 208 kg N/ha

142

5. Belgium

a. Flanders

2007

Derogation levels: grassland/maize: 250 kg N/ha; winter wheat/beets: 200 kg N/ha

Area of parcels on which derogation is applied: 183.950 ha; 65% grassland – 26% maize after grass – winter wheat 4,5% and beets 4,5%

NUTS2 Number of farms

Derogated area (ha)

Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

BE21 Prov. Antwerpen 2.134 45.742 189

BE22 Prov. Limburg 923 19.275 176

BE23 Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen 2.680 47.271 179

BE24 Prov. Vlaams-Brabant 439 9.115 159

BE25 Prov. West-Vlaanderen 4.134 62.547 178

Whole of Flanders 10.310 183.950 179

2008

Area of parcels on which derogation is applied: 86.747 ha; 64% grassland – 31% maize after grass – winter wheat 3% and beets 2%

Derogation levels: grassland/maize: 250 kg N/ha; winter wheat/beets: 200 kg N/ha

NUTS2 Number of farms

Derogated area (ha)

Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

BE21 Prov. Antwerpen 1.035 28.689 208

BE22 Prov. Limburg 446 11.152 198

BE23 Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen 947 21.204 200

BE24 Prov. Vlaams-Brabant 80 2.378 178

BE25 Prov. West-Vlaanderen 1.124 23.324 198

Whole of Flanders 3.632 86.747 201

2009

Area of parcels on which derogation is applied: 81.493 ha; 64% grassland – 32% maize after grass – winter wheat 2% and beets 2%

Derogation levels: grassland/maize: 250 kg N/ha; winter wheat/beets: 200 kg N/ha

NUTS2 Number of farms

Derogated area (ha)

Applied amount of manure (kg N/ha)

BE21 Prov. Antwerpen 904 26.398 213

BE22 Prov. Limburg 389 10.595 200

BE23 Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen 867 20.193 204

BE24 Prov. Vlaams-Brabant 50 1.739 184

BE25 Prov. West-Vlaanderen 1.006 22.567 203

Whole of Flanders 3.216 81.493 206

143

b. Wallonia

Wallonie Number of farms

Derogated Area Applied amount (kg N)

2008 29 1372 288047 (=209.94 kg N/ha)

2009 32 1.499 302202 (=201.60 kg N/ha)

2010

144

6. Netherlands

145

146

2010

147

Annex 7. Reference to the report with of subtask 1.3

The detailed results of the calculations of "Current Practice Baseline" on a yearly basis for the period 2000-2008 are presented in a separate report:

Kros, J., J.P. Lesschen, G.L. Velthof and O. Oenema (2011). The impact of the Nitrates Directive on gaseous N emissions. Gaseous N emissions in 2000-2008 according current practice. Report with results of Subtask 1.3 of the study “The impact of the Nitrates Directive on gaseous N emissions. Effects of measures in nitrates action programme on gaseous N emissions” (Contract ENV.B.1/ETU/2010/0009.). Alterra, Wageningen UR.

149

Annex 8. N emissions in the period 2000- 2008 with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive.

Figure 1. Change in ammonia emission in 2000 and 2008 compared to scenario with implementation of the Nitrates Directive

150

Figure 2. Change in N2O emission in 2000 and 2008 compared to scenario with implementation of the Nitrates Directive

151

Figure 3. Change in NOx emission in 2000 and 2008 compared to scenario with implementation of the Nitrates Directive

152

Figure 4. Change in N leaching in 2000 and 2008 compared to scenario with implementation of the Nitrates Directive

153

Table 1. Total ammonia emission (in kton N) with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive Country With ND Without ND

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Austria 45.7 45.1 46.2 48.2 42.7 42.9 43.1 42.4 43.1 45.9 45.4 47.2 51.1 43.0 43.4 43.6 42.8 43.6

Bulgaria 32.1 30.4 34.0 37.8 35.1 31.0 31.0 30.6 28.5 32.1 30.4 34.0 37.8 35.1 31.0 31.0 30.6 28.5

Belgium 67.5 65.1 62.8 60.6 59.5 58.5 57.2 56.8 56.0 68.0 65.9 63.8 61.7 60.8 60.0 58.9 58.7 58.1

Cyprus 4.5 4.5 4.8 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.8 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2

Czech Republic 59.7 61.9 59.9 57.4 56.9 57.9 57.4 59.1 54.8 59.7 61.9 59.9 57.4 56.9 57.9 57.4 60.5 57.3

Germany 454.8 451.3 448.0 446.6 436.4 437.6 421.0 429.9 419.1 450.8 448.0 445.7 445.3 435.8 438.1 421.8 432.3 421.6

Denmark 67.3 66.2 62.1 60.6 57.3 55.7 52.9 51.4 47.5 66.7 65.8 61.6 60.9 57.7 56.3 53.6 52.4 48.8

Estonia 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.6

Greece 41.1 40.5 40.1 40.9 38.2 37.5 36.2 34.4 36.0 42.9 42.4 42.4 43.6 40.7 39.9 38.4 36.3 38.6

Spain 267.4 268.2 262.5 281.6 272.9 260.3 260.9 260.0 233.0 272.3 273.8 267.9 289.2 280.3 267.1 268.6 268.7 239.7

Finland 24.1 23.5 23.5 23.1 22.7 22.7 22.4 22.1 21.9 23.8 23.2 23.2 22.8 22.4 22.4 22.1 21.8 21.6

France 534.6 535.3 514.6 511.9 502.5 491.2 484.6 490.9 476.3 543.0 545.6 525.9 525.5 517.5 507.3 502.1 511.0 495.9

Hungary 58.7 60.2 64.0 59.3 63.7 57.3 56.5 53.2 50.4 58.7 60.2 64.0 59.3 63.7 57.3 56.5 54.4 52.5

Ireland 101.1 101.2 99.8 100.2 98.9 100.4 97.8 94.7 95.2 103.8 105.1 104.7 106.4 105.8 108.9 106.9 104.4 106.3

Italy 295.0 270.3 287.3 286.9 284.4 276.5 272.0 269.8 261.9 299.4 275.3 293.7 294.1 292.7 285.0 281.2 280.3 271.4

Lithuania 25.5 24.0 25.8 26.5 27.1 27.0 27.5 28.5 26.3 25.5 24.0 25.8 26.5 27.1 27.0 27.5 28.3 26.1

Luxembourg 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.5

Latvia 10.8 11.4 11.4 10.6 11.5 11.6 11.7 12.1 13.6 10.8 11.4 11.4 10.6 11.5 11.6 11.7 12.2 13.7

Malta 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3

Netherlands 100.6 98.0 91.3 85.9 84.8 86.0 84.9 86.0 87.3 105.6 104.5 98.7 94.2 94.2 96.6 96.6 98.9 101.1

Poland 237.0 231.6 234.6 259.2 250.0 260.6 263.9 269.3 280.7 237.0 231.6 234.6 259.2 250.0 260.6 263.9 270.8 282.7

Portugal 47.0 45.8 48.9 45.1 45.9 45.2 43.9 44.3 44.6 47.2 46.0 49.3 45.4 46.2 45.5 44.2 44.7 45.0

Romania 121.0 116.5 112.3 118.7 120.7 130.7 129.3 128.9 126.5 121.0 116.5 112.3 118.7 120.7 130.7 129.3 128.9 126.5

Sweden 32.4 31.8 30.5 30.7 30.0 29.3 28.9 27.9 28.1 32.1 31.6 30.4 30.6 30.0 29.3 29.0 28.0 28.3

Slovenia 14.3 15.1 15.1 15.0 14.4 13.3 13.4 13.7 14.0 14.3 15.1 15.1 15.0 14.4 13.3 13.4 13.6 13.9

Slovakia 21.1 21.0 19.7 21.3 20.8 19.2 18.1 18.5 17.8 21.1 21.0 19.7 21.3 20.8 19.2 18.1 18.5 17.8

United Kingdom 228.1 222.1 217.1 215.1 214.7 212.3 207.6 202.4 194.0 236.1 230.6 226.3 226.0 228.1 225.4 222.8 219.3 207.3

EU-27 2903.5 2853.4 2828.2 2860.6 2807.9 2780.9 2738.6 2743.1 2673.1 2934.5 2892.2 2874.2 2919.8 2872.2 2849.9 2815.1 2833.6 2762.9

154

Table 2. Total N2O emission (in kton N) with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive Country With ND Without ND

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Austria 4.63 4.60 5.04 6.19 4.29 4.34 4.31 4.17 4.18 4.99 4.99 5.67 7.46 4.65 4.77 4.76 4.57 4.55

Bulgaria 2.28 2.31 2.98 3.37 2.79 2.36 2.43 2.40 2.22 2.28 2.31 2.98 3.37 2.79 2.36 2.43 2.40 2.22

Belgium 9.23 9.03 8.82 8.59 8.48 8.34 8.19 8.26 7.78 9.39 9.22 9.02 8.82 8.72 8.60 8.47 8.57 8.10

Cyprus 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26

Czech Republic 3.81 3.93 4.01 3.81 3.73 4.02 3.79 4.12 3.76 3.81 3.93 4.01 3.81 3.73 4.02 3.79 4.36 4.14

Germany 44.88 43.93 44.05 44.30 43.11 42.00 41.30 43.70 41.06 45.83 44.90 45.11 45.48 44.28 43.31 42.53 45.16 42.40

Denmark 5.71 5.56 5.15 5.48 5.14 5.11 4.97 5.05 4.92 6.03 5.90 5.45 5.95 5.58 5.59 5.48 5.60 5.52

Estonia 1.42 1.31 1.10 1.17 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.28 1.36 1.42 1.31 1.10 1.17 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.28 1.37

Greece 5.15 5.05 4.99 5.13 4.86 4.73 4.57 4.39 4.54 5.32 5.24 5.21 5.39 5.09 4.95 4.78 4.57 4.79

Spain 17.33 17.46 17.02 18.26 17.62 16.88 17.04 17.52 16.04 17.60 17.77 17.31 18.66 18.00 17.24 17.44 17.97 16.38

Finland 3.30 3.28 3.35 3.28 3.22 3.35 3.25 3.30 3.28 3.31 3.29 3.36 3.29 3.24 3.36 3.26 3.31 3.29

France 69.22 69.73 67.53 68.59 67.84 66.66 66.58 68.13 64.63 70.69 71.45 69.33 70.71 70.12 69.02 69.14 71.06 67.38

Hungary 5.25 5.38 5.63 4.96 5.43 5.19 5.97 4.98 4.85 5.25 5.38 5.63 4.96 5.43 5.19 5.97 5.17 5.16

Ireland 28.28 28.05 27.57 27.79 27.13 28.01 26.99 26.24 26.41 29.96 29.84 29.58 29.97 28.23 29.28 28.66 29.34 29.04

Italy 22.94 20.48 21.73 21.22 21.33 21.29 20.58 20.60 19.95 23.52 21.12 22.53 22.08 22.32 22.29 21.66 21.83 21.06

Lithuania 3.12 2.97 3.15 3.08 3.13 3.22 3.29 3.32 3.11 3.12 2.97 3.15 3.08 3.13 3.22 3.29 3.34 3.14

Luxembourg 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.48 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.55 0.52 0.53 0.52 0.55

Latvia 1.25 1.33 1.33 1.21 1.36 1.42 1.49 1.54 1.75 1.25 1.33 1.33 1.21 1.36 1.42 1.49 1.55 1.76

Malta 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04

Netherlands 17.06 16.86 16.29 16.11 16.18 16.34 16.07 16.23 16.11 18.61 18.70 18.33 18.35 18.65 19.08 19.02 19.40 19.32

Poland 17.77 17.36 16.37 16.72 16.63 17.08 17.37 17.79 19.14 17.77 17.36 16.37 16.72 16.63 17.08 17.37 17.90 19.29

Portugal 4.13 4.02 4.48 4.03 4.14 4.02 3.87 3.98 4.02 4.16 4.05 4.53 4.07 4.19 4.06 3.90 4.03 4.07

Romania 6.71 6.48 6.39 6.81 6.68 7.11 7.10 7.35 7.20 6.71 6.48 6.39 6.81 6.68 7.11 7.10 7.35 7.20

Sweden 3.63 3.59 3.44 3.65 3.46 3.38 3.71 3.43 3.75 3.72 3.68 3.53 3.79 3.58 3.50 3.89 3.58 3.97

Slovenia 1.13 1.13 1.10 1.16 1.32 1.31 1.28 1.30 1.21 1.13 1.13 1.10 1.16 1.32 1.31 1.28 1.39 1.29

Slovakia 1.34 1.30 1.17 1.24 1.25 1.24 1.20 1.40 1.44 1.34 1.30 1.17 1.24 1.25 1.24 1.20 1.42 1.46

United Kingdom 49.33 49.51 48.59 47.41 48.03 47.01 45.60 45.33 43.60 51.92 52.90 52.31 51.41 52.66 51.75 50.91 51.23 48.83

EU-27 329.7 325.5 322.1 324.4 319.3 316.4 313.0 316.6 307.1 340.0 337.4 335.4 339.8 333.7 331.8 329.9 337.2 326.6

155

Table 3. Total NOx emission (in kton N) with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive Country With ND Without ND

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Austria 1.64 1.64 1.90 2.55 1.47 1.49 1.47 1.39 1.42 1.85 1.87 2.26 3.23 1.70 1.76 1.74 1.63 1.68

Bulgaria 1.56 1.65 2.26 2.50 2.07 1.73 1.79 1.77 1.62 1.56 1.65 2.26 2.50 2.07 1.73 1.79 1.77 1.62

Belgium 2.90 2.85 2.79 2.72 2.69 2.65 2.59 2.64 2.52 2.97 2.93 2.88 2.81 2.79 2.76 2.70 2.76 2.65

Cyprus 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.14

Czech Republic 2.69 2.98 2.99 2.78 2.80 3.05 2.82 3.14 2.88 2.69 2.98 2.99 2.78 2.80 3.05 2.82 3.36 3.23

Germany 21.23 20.85 20.74 20.92 20.42 20.47 19.19 20.65 19.17 21.91 21.56 21.50 21.74 21.27 21.38 20.05 21.64 20.10

Denmark 3.68 3.55 3.14 3.54 3.26 3.25 3.16 3.20 3.12 4.01 3.91 3.44 4.01 3.70 3.72 3.65 3.74 3.71

Estonia 0.33 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.43 0.33 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.43

Greece 2.81 2.68 2.72 2.82 2.45 2.32 2.13 1.89 2.13 3.09 2.97 3.06 3.22 2.80 2.67 2.45 2.16 2.51

Spain 9.32 9.38 8.81 10.00 9.42 8.55 8.80 9.03 7.62 9.61 9.71 9.13 10.44 9.83 8.94 9.24 9.51 7.99

Finland 1.63 1.61 1.69 1.60 1.65 1.76 1.56 1.70 1.63 1.66 1.64 1.72 1.62 1.67 1.79 1.58 1.73 1.65

France 25.47 25.94 24.52 25.36 24.94 24.09 23.94 25.16 22.80 26.45 27.08 25.69 26.73 26.42 25.62 25.57 27.05 24.56

Hungary 2.96 3.07 3.33 2.88 3.28 3.08 3.22 2.88 2.70 2.96 3.07 3.33 2.88 3.28 3.08 3.22 3.08 3.02

Ireland 4.51 4.51 4.41 4.47 4.32 4.49 4.29 4.11 4.23 4.86 4.91 4.86 4.99 4.87 5.13 4.95 4.78 4.99

Italy 9.70 8.82 9.52 9.54 9.57 9.16 9.09 9.15 8.59 10.07 9.22 10.02 10.08 10.18 9.78 9.76 9.88 9.26

Lithuania 1.20 1.18 1.29 1.32 1.34 1.35 1.38 1.44 1.34 1.20 1.18 1.29 1.32 1.34 1.35 1.38 1.46 1.36

Luxembourg 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15

Latvia 0.44 0.52 0.49 0.41 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.58 0.76 0.44 0.52 0.49 0.41 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.59 0.77

Malta 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Netherlands 4.74 4.67 4.47 4.27 4.23 4.30 4.24 4.26 4.15 5.37 5.41 5.29 5.17 5.21 5.38 5.41 5.50 5.38

Poland 9.30 9.02 8.89 9.70 9.51 10.18 10.53 11.07 12.82 9.30 9.02 8.89 9.70 9.51 10.18 10.53 11.21 13.00

Portugal 1.33 1.28 1.56 1.30 1.37 1.28 1.20 1.26 1.28 1.35 1.30 1.60 1.33 1.40 1.31 1.22 1.30 1.31

Romania 4.07 4.09 3.87 4.07 4.21 4.53 4.33 4.40 4.46 4.07 4.09 3.87 4.07 4.21 4.53 4.33 4.40 4.46

Sweden 2.09 2.02 1.87 2.17 1.90 1.77 2.12 1.83 2.21 2.20 2.14 1.99 2.33 2.04 1.91 2.33 2.01 2.47

Slovenia 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.38

Slovakia 0.90 0.89 0.76 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.80 1.01 1.09 0.90 0.89 0.76 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.80 1.03 1.11

United Kingdom 11.56 11.70 11.52 11.13 11.29 10.94 10.54 10.58 9.80 12.74 13.10 13.10 12.84 13.27 12.97 12.68 12.98 11.97

EU-27 126.8 126.0 124.6 127.9 124.6 122.8 120.8 124.2 119.4 132.3 132.2 131.5 136.1 132.8 131.4 129.8 134.7 129.9

156

Table 4. Total N leaching (in kton N) with and without implementation of the Nitrates Directive Country With ND Without ND 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Austria 27.7 27.0 32.7 47.6 22.3 23.7 23.7 21.5 21.0 32.2 31.9 40.5 62.7 27.3 29.4 29.7 26.8 26.6

Bulgaria 41.1 44.7 74.9 89.5 60.4 44.0 47.2 49.6 32.2 41.1 44.7 74.9 89.5 60.4 44.0 47.2 49.6 32.2

Belgium 108.1 108.2 103.9 101.5 98.0 96.4 93.5 94.8 90.1 112.0 112.6 108.7 106.8 103.6 102.4 99.8 101.7 97.0

Cyprus 4.2 4.2 4.8 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.8 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.3 3.9

Czech Republic 62.9 99.9 94.3 88.5 73.4 94.8 83.8 102.5 82.2 62.9 99.9 94.3 88.5 73.4 94.8 83.8 116.1 104.1

Germany 391.8 368.7 385.2 404.8 339.1 366.3 314.8 369.9 289.2 418.2 395.9 414.3 436.2 370.9 400.7 347.4 407.7 324.5

Denmark 76.3 72.4 55.6 74.2 63.5 61.0 58.1 58.3 55.4 91.4 88.4 69.4 95.6 83.5 82.5 80.5 82.9 81.9

Estonia 4.3 3.9 5.5 7.2 6.3 3.8 5.5 5.3 8.9 4.3 3.9 5.5 7.2 6.3 3.8 5.5 5.4 9.1

Greece 47.3 44.9 45.5 47.3 40.8 38.5 35.4 31.4 35.6 51.9 49.8 51.4 54.3 46.9 44.5 40.9 36.1 42.1

Spain 250.1 261.1 236.3 279.6 251.4 241.4 238.2 238.6 195.0 262.0 274.3 249.2 297.4 268.6 257.5 256.0 258.7 210.5

Finland 15.3 15.2 15.9 14.9 15.3 16.1 14.2 15.4 14.6 15.6 15.5 16.2 15.2 15.7 16.5 14.5 15.7 14.9

France 469.2 504.3 433.3 488.3 438.8 425.0 422.3 467.2 383.1 499.4 539.4 469.6 530.5 484.1 471.8 472.5 525.2 436.6

Hungary 83.3 80.4 96.5 89.7 86.5 82.4 86.6 86.9 62.6 83.3 80.4 96.5 89.7 86.5 82.4 86.6 95.1 75.9

Ireland 99.9 101.8 98.7 101.0 96.8 104.2 96.4 86.9 93.2 114.1 118.3 117.0 122.0 118.8 129.7 122.6 113.9 123.7

Italy 207.7 179.4 200.0 206.8 197.4 193.6 195.4 202.5 177.3 222.2 195.1 219.3 227.7 221.1 217.7 221.3 231.6 203.9

Lithuania 37.5 35.5 40.9 45.6 45.8 44.9 51.8 51.8 44.1 37.5 35.5 40.9 45.6 45.8 44.9 51.8 53.1 45.3

Luxembourg 5.2 5.5 5.3 4.7 5.6 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.5 5.7 6.0 5.9 5.2 6.4 5.8 5.9 5.6 6.3

Latvia 11.6 15.7 13.7 10.9 14.8 13.5 14.3 14.6 22.3 11.6 15.7 13.7 10.9 14.8 13.5 14.3 14.9 22.8

Malta 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

Netherlands 156.8 156.4 145.1 135.9 131.2 135.6 133.4 131.6 119.9 194.4 200.4 194.5 189.0 189.5 199.8 202.6 205.0 191.2

Poland 261.1 243.9 249.3 284.0 257.8 289.7 311.3 321.4 395.7 261.1 243.9 249.3 284.0 257.8 289.7 311.3 327.0 402.9

Portugal 34.1 32.5 41.1 32.7 34.9 32.5 29.1 31.4 31.4 34.7 33.1 42.1 33.5 35.8 33.3 29.8 32.3 32.4

Romania 118.8 98.8 89.6 104.5 91.2 113.8 111.4 142.2 116.7 118.8 98.8 89.6 104.5 91.2 113.8 111.4 142.2 116.7

Sweden 10.7 10.1 7.9 10.9 8.1 6.9 10.3 7.2 10.6 11.8 11.4 9.2 12.7 9.7 8.5 12.6 9.1 13.5

Slovenia 8.3 8.6 8.0 8.6 10.3 9.7 10.3 10.0 9.6 8.3 8.6 8.0 8.6 10.3 9.7 10.3 11.3 10.8

Slovakia 14.4 12.5 9.4 11.8 13.6 14.2 12.9 22.9 22.8 14.4 12.5 9.4 11.8 13.6 14.2 12.9 23.7 23.7

United Kingdom 354.4 361.7 350.3 327.7 339.2 319.7 322.3 323.2 257.4 404.4 423.4 419.0 401.2 423.9 406.5 412.1 423.1 350.9

EU-27 2902.4 2898.0 2844.4 3024.2 2747.9 2781.9 2732.5 2896.8 2580.8 3118.0 3144.4 3114.0 3336.1 3071.1 3122.7 3088.5 3318.8 3003.8

157

Annex 9. Nitrate Vulnerable zones in EU

On the following page the area of Nitrate Vulnerable zones in the EU are presented for the period 1999 – 2008. Source: Commission staff working document on implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2004-2007 accompanying document to the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. (SEC(2010) 118 final).

158