The Water Framework Directive and the Nitrates Directive

• types of data that are needed • possible implications for the agricultural monitoring • possible approaches and adaptations.

HELCOM and OSPAR reporting • what type of data are needed • and how can this reporting be supported by monitoring

activities

Session 4. Future requirementsSession 4. Future requirements

WFD objectivesWFD objectives

• protection of ALL water resources (ground water, reservoirs, rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters)

• prevention of further deterioration of surface waters

• rational use of water based on precautionary & “polluter pays” principle

• water management based on river basins

• getting the citizen involved more closely

• streamlining legislation (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive, and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive)

• "combined approach" of emission limit values and quality standards

• achieving good surface water status all over EU (15 yr)

Determined by chemical and ecological status

Chemical status: • concentrations of specific pollutants not

exceeding specified levelsEcological status: • expression of the quality of the structure and

functioning of aquatic ecosystems

Achieving ‘good surface water status’ all over EU before 2015

Achieving ‘good surface water status’ all over EU before 2015

Quality elements for ecological statusQuality elements for ecological status

Biological Quality Elements(e.g. macrobenthos, zooplankton, fish)

HydromorphologicalQuality Elements

Chemical and Physico-ChemicalQuality Elements

Identifying river basin districts

Characterization of surface water types

Time table for WFD 2003-2006 Time table for WFD 2003-2006

2003

Reference condition

Ecological quality classification

Identifying pressures

and impacts

Monitoring strategies, (Intercalibration, EQR)

and public consultation

2004

2005-6

Transposition in national legislation

High

Good

Moderate

Poor

Bad

1

0

=Reference value

Parameter value

Setting the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) for Classification of surface waters

Setting the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) for Classification of surface waters

EQREQR

Biologicalquality

elements

Biologicalquality

elements

Assessment of goal achievement

Per StålnackeJordforsk - Norwegian Centre for Soil and Environmental Research

per.stalnacke@jordforsk.no

Helcom Recommendations and EU Directives

Helcom Recommendations and EU Directives

• All the Baltic Sea countries except Russia have obligations to implement the EU Directives and Regulations as well as HELCOM recommendations concerning agricultural, municipal and industrial nutrient load reductions

• Revision of the HELCOM targets/goals after PLC-4 in 2003

Agricultural nutrient emissions and losses to waters will be crucial parameters for the determination of the chemical/ecological status in river basins and in the RBMP

Agricultural nutrient emissions and losses to waters will be crucial parameters for the determination of the chemical/ecological status in river basins and in the RBMP

River basin district

Emissions of nitrogen to surface waters in the Baltic Sea basin in the 1980s

Source: Stålnacke, 1996

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

800 000

900 000

Forest Agriculturalland

Non-productiveopen land

Unclassifiedland

Inlandwaters

Pointsources

Tonn

es /y

r

Have the nutrient emissions from agriculture decreased in the Baltic Sea

basin?

Have the nutrient emissions from agriculture decreased in the Baltic Sea

basin?

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000

160 000

Denm

ark

Finla

nd

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

Poland

Estonia

Latvi

a

Lithuan

ia

Russia

ton

nes

/ y

r N

late 1980s1995

’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture

(SYKEI, 2002)

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000

160 000

Denm

ark

Finla

nd

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

Poland

Estonia

Latvi

a

Lithuan

ia

Russia

ton

nes

/ y

r N

late 1980s1995

’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture

(SYKE, 2002)

Monitored decrease in agricultural catchments

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000

160 000

Denm

ark

Finla

nd

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

Poland

Estonia

Latvi

a

Lithuan

ia

Russia

ton

nes

/ y

r N

late 1980s1995

’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture

(SYKE, 2002)

Modelled decrease

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000

160 000

Denm

ark

Finla

nd

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

Poland

Estonia

Latvi

a

Lithuan

ia

Russia

ton

nes

/ y

r N

late 1980s1995

’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture

(SYKE, 2002)

River catchment monitoring

Monitoring agricultural catchments

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000

160 000

Denm

ark

Finla

nd

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

Poland

Estonia

Latvi

a

Lithuan

ia

Russia

ton

nes

/ y

r N

late 1980s1995

’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised nitrogen load from agriculture

(SYKE, 2002) Extrapolation from other countries

Agricultural statistics

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Denm

ark

Finla

nd

Sweden

Germ

any

Poland

Estonia

Latvi

a

Lithuan

ia

Russia

ton

nes

/ yr

P

late 1980s1995

’Anthropogenic’ flow-normalised phosphorus load from agriculture

(SYKE, 2002)

Have the rivers responded to the decreased nutrient emissions from

agriculture ?

Have the rivers responded to the decreased nutrient emissions from

agriculture ?

The large-scale experiment in EasternEurope

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996

Nit

rog

en f

erti

liser

ap

plic

atio

n (

kg/h

a)Large drop in commercial

fertiliser use (60-90%)

Latvia

Dramatic decline in livestock (50-75%)

0

500 000

1 000 000

1 500 000

2 000 000

2 500 000

19

61

19

66

19

71

19

76

19

81

19

86

19

91

19

96

Pig

s (

No

. of

he

ad

s)

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Daugava and Lielupe River (Latvia)

Tisza (Hungary)

Emajogi (Estonia)

In addition: literature review

Strong evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Hungary

(Stålnacke et al)

Nitrate-N in Tisza River at Tiszaziget

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0Ja

n.8

7

Jan

.88

Jan

. 89

Jan

. 90

Jan

.91

Jan

.92

Jan

.93

Jan

.94

Jan

.95

Jan

.96

Jan

.97

Jan

.98

(mg

/l)

Some evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Estonia Loigu et al (in prep)

Total-N and nitrate-N in Emajogi River at Tartu

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

Jan

.87

Jan

.88

Jan

. 89

Jan

. 90

Jan

.91

Jan

.92

Jan

.93

Jan

.94

Jan

.95

Jan

.96

Jan

.97

Jan

.98

(mg

/l)

Weak evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Latvia Stålnacke et al (manuscript)

Nitrate-N in Daugava River at mouth

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Ja

n.8

7

Ja

n.8

8

Ja

n.

89

Ja

n. 9

0

Ja

n.9

1

Ja

n.9

2

Ja

n.9

3

Ja

n.9

4

Ja

n.9

5

Ja

n.9

6

Ja

n.9

7

Ja

n.9

8

(mg

/l)

Weak evidence of riverine response of nitrogen in Latvia Stålnacke et al (manuscript)

Nitrate-N in Lielupe River at Berze

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan

.87

Jan

.88

Jan

. 89

Jan

. 90

Jan

.91

Jan

.92

Jan

.93

Jan

.94

Jan

.95

Jan

.96

Jan

.97

Jan

.98

mg

/ L

No/weak evidence of riverine response of phosphorus in Estonia Stålnacke et al (in prep)

Phosphate-P in Emajogi River at Tartu

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Ja

n.8

7

Ja

n.8

8

Ja

n.

89

Ja

n. 9

0

Ja

n.9

1

Ja

n.9

2

Ja

n.9

3

Ja

n.9

4

Ja

n.9

5

Ja

n.9

6

Ja

n.9

7

Ja

n.9

8

(µg

/l)

Evidence of riverine response of phosphorus in Latvia Stålnacke et al (manuscript)

Phosphorus in Daugava River at mouth

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Ja

n.8

7

Ja

n.8

8

Ja

n.

89

Ja

n. 9

0

Ja

n.9

1

Ja

n.9

2

Ja

n.9

3

Ja

n.9

4

Ja

n.9

5

Ja

n.9

6

Ja

n.9

7

Ja

n.9

8

(µg

/l)

Reported trends in nutrient concentrations in Eastern Europe Stålnacke et al (submitted)

River and drainage area Parame-ter

Trend Reference

Kurna 23 km2

N & P Loigu & Vassiljev, 1997

Kasari 3640 km2

N & P Loigu et al., 1995

Porijõgi River 258 km2

N & P Mander et al. 2000

5 Latvian Rivers 87,900 km2

N & P (N) (P)

Stålnacke et al., 2002 (submitted)

Vltava River, 12,900 km2

N Prochàzkovà, et al., 1996

Morava River, N&P Berankova and Ungerman (1996)

Tisza River, 157,000 km2

N Õlah & Õlah, 1996

Vistula and Oder Rivers 194,00 km2 and 108,000 km2

N Tonderski, 1997

Various rivers 1130 km2

N & P Tumas , 2000

Ondava river 1089 km2

N Pekárová & Pekár, 1996

Groundwater table

Loss bysoil erosion

Loss bysurface

run-off

Atmospheric deposition

Direct input

Losses bytile drainage flow

Losses viagroundwater

Losses viainterflow

Rootzone leaching

Surfacewater

The most important ‘hydrological’ processes/pathways as regards nitrogen and phosphorus losses from diffuse sources to surface waters (e.g. first-order streams).

Source: Borgvang and Selvik (2000).

Pathways of nitrogen in Denmark (Grant et al., 1997)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Sandy soils Clay soils

kg/h

a

Nitrogen input

N in yield

N losses from root-zone

N losses in streams

Grant et al (1997)

Hydrological response to various tile drainage

spacings (Deelstra et al., 1998)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

time(hrs)

Dis

ch

arg

e(m

m)

5 m 10m 20m

Norway

The Baltic states

Huge retention in first-order streamsVagtad et al., 1999)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Kahametsa Berze

mg

/ L

nit

rate

-N

Tile drain outletsMouth of catchment

The Rothamsted experiment (UK)

(Addiscott, 1988)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1870 1915

Year

Nit

rate

leac

hin

g (

kg/h

a yr

)

No crops, No fertilisers

Factors that contribute to the delay in riverine responses

• Wet soil conditions (e.g. poorly drained soils, groundwater table)

• Long residence times for water in soil and or/catchment (e.g hydrological pathways, tile drain spacing)

• High carbon content in soils (organic matter)

• High soil pH (ammonia volatilisation)

• Natural variability (e.g., hydrometeorological variation)

Observed and flow-normalised nitrate-N+nitrite-N loads in

the Rönneå River (S Sweden) Source: Anders Grimvall

Natural variation in nutrient losses may impede the detection of existing trends

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

NO

3-N

+ N

O2-

N lo

ad (

kg/y

ear)

Observed Normalised

Observed and flow-normalised nitrate-N load on the Elbe

River at Schnackenburg. After Hussain et al (in prep.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

Lo

ad

(k

to

nn

es

/ y

r)

FlownormalisedObserved

Natural variation in nutrient losses may impede the detection of existing trends

Nutrient levels have in some cases responded and in others not responded to the decrease in agricultural emissions

Extensive cuts in nutrient inputs do not necessarily cause an immediate response, particularly in medium-sized and large catchment areas

Hydrological conditions and hydrological pathways are important for the understanding of the retention of nutrient and thus for riverine response to changes in agricultural emissions

Separation of ‘natural’ and ‘human impact’ nutrient-loss variability is important

Assessment of goal achievementsCONCLUSIONS

Assessment of goal achievementsCONCLUSIONS

CONCLUDING REMARKCONCLUDING REMARK

’There is a need to further develop methodologies by which to measure diffuse agricultural loading, as well as generally accepted methodologies for determining discharges/losses from diffuse sources into surface waters’Laane et al., 2002