REPORT OF THE PILOT RIVER BASIN GROUP ON AGRICULTURE Phase II period September 2005 – December 2006
Edited by M. Cherlet
Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Common Implementation Strategy For the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
2007 EUR 22808 EN The mission of the Institute for Environment and Sustainability is to provide scientific-technical support to the European Union’s Policies for the protection and sustainable development of the European and global environment.
European Commission Directorate-General Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Contact information Address: Via E. Fermi 1, TP460, 21020 Ispra (VA), Italy E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +39 0332 789982 Fax: +39 0332 785601 http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Legal Notice Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu.int
EUR 22808 EN ISBN 978-92-79-06228-5 ISSN 1018-5593 Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
© European Communities, 2007
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Printed in Italy
Experiences in Analysis of Pressures and Impacts from Agriculture on Water Resources and Developing a related Programme of Measures
REPORT OF THE PILOT RIVER BASIN GROUP ON AGRICULTURE Phase II period September 2005 – December 2006
In support to the Strategic Steering Committee on ‘WFD and Agriculture’ under the Common Implementation Strategy of the EU Water Framework Directive
This report is based on the work carried out and contributions provided by all participating PRB-Agriculture and has been compiled and edited by the PRB-Agriculture Coordinator M. Cherlet, RWER Unit, EC DG-Joint Research Centre.
PRB-AG main contributing authors:
Gascogne Rivers: Martine Gaeckler, Philippe Vervier Guadalquivir: Victor Cifuentes, Jeronimo Carranza Carranza Odense: Stig Eggert Pedersen, Ole Tyrsted Jørgensen, Harley Bundgaard Madsen, Nanna Rask, Annita Svendsen, (Hans Estrup Andersen, Brian Kronvang, Jørgen Windolf: Danish National Environmental Research Institute) Pandivere: Mariina Hiiob, Milvi Aun, Tiiu Valdmaa Ribble: Chris Kaighin Weser: Anja Stanneveld, Ute Kuhn, Simon Henneberg Zagyva-Tarna: Éva Deseõ, József Gayer
Thanks are acknowledged to Ms. Bruna Grizetti, Gunter Wriedt, Gunther Umlauf, Jose M. Zaldivar Comenges (JRC) for technical help and support and proof reading and Philippe Costrop (ECPA) for his valuable comments on the pesticide chapter. (page intentionally left blank) Table of content
I. Introduction 3 I.1. Background 3 I.2. PRB Scope 5
II. Presentation of the PRB Agriculture 7
III. Main Pressures Related to Agriculture 15 III.a. Introduction 15 III.b. Indicators 22 III.c. Case studies 24
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution 27 III.1.1. Introduction 27 III.1.2. Main Outcomes 29 III.1.3. Case studies 32 III.1.3.1. Gascogne Rivers 32 III.1.3.2. Guadalquivir 37 III.1.3.3. Odense 46 III.1.3.4. Pandivere 58 III.1.3.5. Ribble 66 III.1.3.6. Weser 73
III.2. Pressure 2: Pesticide Pollution 81 III.2.1. Introduction 81 III.2.2. Main Outcomes 85 III.2.3. Case studies 88 III.2.3.1. Gascogne Rivers 88 III.2.3.2. Guadalquivir 92 III.2.3.3. Ribble 101
III.3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity 107 III.3.1. Introduction 107 III.3.2. Main Outcomes 109 III.3.3. Case studies 111 III.3.3.1. Guadalquivir 111 III.3.3.2. Zagyva-Tarna 128
III.4. Pressure 4: Sediments (erosion and P pollution) 131 III.4.1. Introduction 131 III.4.2. Main Outcomes 133 III.4.3. Case studies 135 III.4.3.1. Guadalquivir 135 III.4.3.2. Odense 141 III.4.3.3. Ribble 147
III.5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and physical Modifications 153 III.5.1. Introduction 153 III.5.2. Main Outcomes 155 III.5.3. Case studies 158 III.5.3.1. Guadalquivir 158 III.5.3.2. Odense 167 III.5.3.3. Ribble 176
IV. General Conclusions and recommendations 181
ANNEX 1 Indicators and Datalayers ANNEX 2 Catalogue of Measures
(page intentionally left blank)
2 PRB-Agriculture Report
I Introduction
I.1 Background
After the entry into force of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), during the year 2000, the Member States and the Commission agreed on a Common Implementation
Strategy (CIS) to address the challenges in a co-operative and coordinated way. Specific I. Introduction guidance documents were prepared offering a common reference across Europe. Compilation was carried out under four Working Groups: Ecological Status, Integrated River Basin Management, Groundwater and Reporting. A key element of the implementation strategy has been to include an approach for testing and validating those guidance documents. This was done through involvement of river basin as pilots to test the guidance proposals under real conditions to contribute to the implementation and to lead to development of River Basin Management Plans in the long-term. Specific work plans were set up and considerable results and experience have been elaborated during the 2000-2004 period. At the end of Phase I of the PRB exercise, the selected Pilot River Basins (PRB) across Europe successfully formulated their experiences, as related to Article 5, and recommendations on delivering the ambitious requirements of the WFD in practice. The reporting on this phase is available at JRC (1).
During December 2004, at their meeting, the Water Directors decided on a new phase for 2005-2006 to move the joint activities ahead to the next stage of the implementation of the WFD. The four Working Groups (Ecological Status, Integrated River Basin Management, Groundwater and Reporting) would continue to address the key issues for implementation. During Phase I, as the PRB exercise anticipated delivery of Article 5 reports for some key basins, it had become clear, however, that, despite geographical distribution, there are recurrent topics to be addressed in the WFD implementation. The messages are that the two most important pressures against achievement of the WFD objectives come from agriculture (e.g. diffuse emissions) and impacts due to hydro- morphological changes, i.e. past alterations due to major water uses such as navigation, hydropower and flood control. Therefore, the Water Directors created two new groups on “WFD and Agriculture” and “GIS”. 2
It was decided that the ‘Strategic Steering Group on Agriculture and WFD’ had to be established as a stand alone group on the same level as the Strategic Co-ordination Group which directly reports to the Water Directors and, if requested, to the Rural Directors. WFD CIS Working Structure shown in figure 1. Moreover, the pilot river basin exercise had to continue to be an inspiring exercise and “symbol” of the Common Implementation Strategy. The integration of pilot basins in all working groups and all activities under the CIS was to continue to create a closer link to the practical implementation work.
The link of agriculture and WFD was identified as one of the highest priorities in this work programme. It was considered important to discuss on how the Common Agricultural Policy can contribute to the achievements of the WFD objectives and provide
1 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report: Testing of the WFD Guidance Documents; Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC); EC DG JRC, EUR Report 21518EN, 2005 2 Moving to the next stage in the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive Progress and work programme for 2005 and 2006 AS AGREED BY THE WATER DIRECTORS 2/3 December 2004), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water- framework/objectives/pdf/strategy3.pdf 3 PRB-Agriculture Report
guidance on how the authorities working on the WFD and the CAP can cooperate more closely. In addition, recommendations should be made on how work with the farming community can achieve these results in a co-operative manner.
I. Introduction
Figure I.1: Working Structure under the WFD Common Implementation Strategy in 2005/2006; The Pilot River Basin group on Agriculture functions under the Strategic Steering Group “WFD and Agriculture” (chart reference in footnote 2)
In support to the Strategic Steering Group on Agriculture, led during the 2005-2006 phase by UK and DG ENV, a network of 9 PRBs was coordinated by the Unit on Rural, Water and Ecosystem Resources (RWER) of the Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) of the JRC. PRBs participating in the Phase II and related to the SSG Agriculture are:
o Gascogne Rivers, France o Guadalquivir, Spain o Odense, Denmark o Pandivere, Estonia o Pinios, Greece 3 o Ribble, UK o Weser, Germany o Zagya-Tarna, Hungary
3 The Pinios participated to the meetings but could not contribute to the report 4 PRB-Agriculture Report
I. Introduction
Figure I.2. Map showing an overview of the Pilot River Basins Participating to the PRB-AG Group in Support of the WFD CIS Strategic Steering Group on Agriculture.
I.2 PRB scope
The scope of this network of PRBs – Agriculture is to provide practical information to the SSG on the following key issues of its mandate:
- Gathering evidence and information in relation to agricultural pressures and impacts on the environment, including the identification of information gaps. - Identifying the opportunities to use the existing (and potential future) CAP measures for delivering WFD objectives, including further improvements of the implementation of CAP and WFD. - Identifying what other mechanisms (apart from CAP) are available to MS to meet WFD objectives. - Information sharing on best approaches for engaging and educating farmers and the public about agricultural pressures.
5 PRB-Agriculture Report
- Providing links between EU water, agriculture and rural agendas and authorities.
It was suggested for the PRBs to be pilot windows on the following specific areas of work:
+ Assessment of the importance of pressures and impacts from agriculture I. Introduction on water resources + Propose and report on planned, adopted or to be developed Programme of Measures
The PRBs started their work with a Kick-off meeting at the JRC in Ispra, Italy, on 9 September 2005. The main fil-rouge for the work is to provide insight and practical examples in how to design and implement pressures and impact analysis studies in view of compiling adapted mitigation measures based on that knowledge; and to provide experience on a first catalogue of measures.
6 PRB-Agriculture Report
II Presentation of PRBs Agriculture
PRBs Agriculture II.1 Gascogne Rivers II.2 Guadalquivir II.3 Odense II.4 Pandivere
II.5 Ribble of II. Presentation II.6 Weser II.7 Zagyva-Tarna
7 PRB-Agriculture Report
Gascogne Rivers II. Presentation of Location
The PRB is situated in the Adour - Garonne District, in the South-West of France. The Gascogne Rivers (mainly the Baïse, the Gers, PRBs Agriculture PRBs the Gimone and the Save rivers) are an hydrographic unity of reference with several water bodies (37 rivers sections).
Data Table
Total Catchment Area (Km2) 6800 km² ( 6 % of the District) Utilized Agriculture Area (UAA in % of above) 60 to 80% Population total 263 000 (4% of District Population 1999) Main land uses Arable land and vineyards Water bodies that could be at risk of not meeting WFD 36 % requirements (in %) Main agriculture pressures related to the above Agricultural diffuse pollution
Basin Description
According to the local basins, 60 to 80% of the total acreage is used for agriculture with crops such as maize, wheat, sunflower, soy bean and breeding (ducks, cattle…).
Programmes
This PRB is focused on the agricultural diffuse pollutions (nitrogen and pesticides). According to the article 5 analysis, they are a very important stake for the District and especially for certain areas like Gascogne Rivers. Its main objective is to support the identification and the implementation of adapted measures in order to reduce the impact of agriculture on water pollution. It’s co-led by three organisations: + the Adour-Garonne water agency (AEAG), + Ecobag which gathers several research organisations from the Adour-Garonne basin, + the regional and basin representation of the ministry of ecology (DIREN de basin). Its actions have been supported by : + the involvement of stakeholders, decision makers, associations and scientists, + the transfer of research results, knowledge and tools. + Contact and Information
Martine GAECKLER Adour -Garonne Water Agency, 90 rue du Férétra, 31 078 Toulouse cedex 4 (France) e-mail : [email protected] Philippe VERVIER ECOBAG, 15 rue Michel Labrousse BP, 31 023 Toulouse cedex 1 (France) e-mail : [email protected]
Link: http://www.eau-adour-garonne.fr
8 PRB-Agriculture Report
Guadalquivir
Location
The Guadalquivir is located
in the south of the Iberian PRBs Agriculture Peninsula and is distributed over four Autonomous Regions of which Andalusia, with 90% of the basin area, is the most representative; others are Castilla-La Mancha (7.1%), Extremadura (2.5%) and Murcia (0.2%). The climate of II. Presentation is Mediterranean with an average of 630mm/year precipitation. (Population density: brown = 0, yellow=150, blue shades=300-5000) Data Table
Total Catchment Area (Km2) 57 527 Km2 Utilized Agriculture Area (UAA in % of above) 61.28 % Population total 3.8 million (56.1 inh/ Km2) Main land uses Irrigated agriculture, arable, vineyard and citrus, grassland, forest Water bodies that could be at risk of not meeting WFD 88 % requirements (in %) Main agriculture pressures related to the above water abstraction for agriculture diffuse pollution from agriculture
Basin Description
The basin is situated within three big lithological entities: the Sierra Morena in the Nord, the Cordillera Bética and the Guadalquivir valley with a SW-NE orientation. The drainage network, hydrological regime as well as water quality and erosion susceptibility are very varied in between these zones. The latter is also related to the maximum precipitation capacity in 24 hours, which for the Guadalquivir valley is around 170-240mm. The basin has 168 identified reservoirs mainly for agricultural water use and flow regulation. Agriculture consumption reaches around 86% of the total consumption in the basin and cover around 61.28% of the basin area. Main crops are irrigated rice, cereals, olive and citrus yards. Agro-pastoral Dehesa systems are common in the northern area of the basin.
Programmes
The separate chapter describe the main programmes in place and planned. An important programme is the Regional Andalusia Irrigation Plan that includes solid stakeholder involvement, grants for improving existing irrigation areas, better water use planning, wastewater re-use and and aims at improving the general water management through a monitoring programme.
Contact and Information
Victor Cifuentes, Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir, Plaza de España, 41071 Sevilla, Spain, tel. 34 95 4939490, [email protected] Link: www.chguadalquivir.es, 9 PRB-Agriculture Report
Odense Odense Pilot River Basin II. Presentation of Location
The Odense Fjord river basin is a Odense relatively small basin and located on the Fyn island in the middle of Denmark. The fjord is situated in the southern part of Kattegat, in the transition zone between
PRBs Agriculture PRBs the high saline Skagerak and the low saline Baltic sea. The catchment area constitutes 2.5 % of the total area of Denmark.
Data Table
Total Catchment Area (Km2) 1050 Km2 Utilized Agriculture Area (UAA in % of above) 68 % Population total 240 000 (226 inh/ Km2 ) Main land uses Livestock farming, Agriculture, woodland, natural countryside Water bodies that could be at risk of not meeting Rivers: 96 %; Lakes: 86%; WFD requirements (in %) Coastal Areas: 100%; Groundwater: 50%; Wetlands (Fens, bogs): 30-70% Main agriculture pressures related to the above Agriculture diffuse pollution and pressures on hydro-morphological structures caused by land reclamation, drainage, regulation and maintenance of rivers
Basin Description
The Odense Fjord River Basin is about 1050 km2 and encompasses approx. 1 100 km of open watercourse and 2 600 lakes and ponds (>100m2). Land use in Odense River Basin is dominated by agricultural exploitation. Farmland thus accounts for 68% of the basin. Of the remainder, approx. 16% is accounted for by urban areas and roads, 10% by woodland, and 6% by natural/semi natural areas (meadows, bogs/fens/swamp forests, dry grasslands, lakes and wetlands). In 2000, there were approx. 1 870 registered farms in Odense River Basin, of which approx. 960 were livestock farms. Livestock production in the basin amounts to approx. 60 000 livestock units (LU) (1999–2002), consisting of 59% pigs, 37% cattle and 4% other livestock.
Programmes
The activities in Odense Pilot River Basin has included the making of an example of a Water Management Plan according to WFD article 13, including programmes of measures reducing the main pressures of all types of waters. Main pressures include pollution as well as physical pressures from activities related agriculture, industry, households etc. Measures related agriculture include measures to reduce pollution as well as physical pressures
Contact and Information
Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environment Centre Odense, Oerbaekvej 100, DK 5220 Odense SØ, +45 72 54 45 00,,e-mail: [email protected] Link: http://odenseprb.ode.mim.dk/english/ 10 PRB-Agriculture Report
Pandivere
Location
The Pandivere groundwater river basin sub-district (2382 km2) is situated in PRBs Agriculture amid of the Pandivere Upland, in the more Northern area of Estonia. The Pandivere Upland is the largest infiltration area in Estonia – permanent rivers and lakes are missing in the karst area of 1375 km2 on of II. Presentation the central part of the upland.
Data Table
Total Catchment Area (Km2) 2382 km2 Utilized Agriculture Area (UAA in % of above) Arable land 37% & Grassland 14% Population total 70 000 Main land uses Arable land – 890 km2; Forest – 961 km2 ; Wetland – 59 km2; Natural grassland – 341 km2 Water bodies that could be at risk of not meeting WFD 4 water bodies are considered under requirements (in %) pressure by agriculture: Vodja, Ilmandu, Sõmeru and Neeva Main agriculture pressures related to the above Agricultural & live stock diffuse pollution
Basin Description
The Pandivere Upland is a gently undulating area higher than surroundings. A belt of swamps and wellsprings environ the slopes of the Upland. The snowmelt water and rainwater are drained off by sinkholes or seeps through the soil into cracked bedrock, thus replenishing groundwater resources. On the contrary, the bottom of the upland (80…90m) is marked with a tight circle of spring belt, where many rivers and streams emanate. The Pandivere Upland is a watershed to the four surface water sub-basin river – Peipsi, Viru, Harju and Pärnu. Overall watersheds of rivers, originated from Pandivere area, cover 32% of territory of Estonia. The situation of limestone close to the surface and higher position compared with surroundings causes the draining of surface water and rock karst. Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin district has over 700 registered karst and over 130 springs. Pandivere has the best agricultural soils of Estonia, with the largest fields suitable for cereal production. In conditions as described before, groundwater is very sensitive in reference to pollution that spreads quickly in karst areas and reaches to springs, at the same time polluting the water of springs and rivers. In that kind of circulating system, the self-purifying capacity of the groundwater is minimal.
Programmes
Action Plan 2004-2008 for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
Contact and Information
Milvi Aun: Estonian Ministry of the Environment Järva Country Environmental Department Wiedemanni 13, Türi 72213 Järvamaa Estonia, Tel 38 48 688, Fax 38 57 118; [email protected] Link: http://jarva.envir.ee/pandiv/pandivere_pv_alamvesikond1.html 11 PRB-Agriculture Report
Ribble II. Presentation of Location
The Ribble catchment lies within the North West River Basin District, and covers an area of approximately 2,115 km2. There are five principal rivers within the PRBs Agriculture PRBs catchment: the Ribble itself, the Hodder, the Calder, the Darwen and the Douglas.
Data Table
Total Catchment Area (Km2) 2115 km² Utilized Agriculture Area (UAA in % of above) and grassland +- 68 % Population total 1.25 mill inh Main land uses Grassland, woodland, arable, horticulture Water bodies that could be at risk of not meeting WFD requirements (in %) Main agriculture pressures related to the above Agricultural diffuse pollution
Basin Description
The Ribble rises in the north of the catchment, in the Yorkshire Dales to the north of Settle and flows south and then south west, past Clitheroe and Preston, reaching the coast at Lytham St Anne’s. The area has a population of 1.25 million and has diverse land uses. Although the basin is predominantly rural (90%), there are a number of urban areas, including Preston, Blackburn, Wigan and Blackpool. There are numerous areas protected for their conservation value and many of the rivers provide good habitat for salmon. The upper catchment is dominated by agriculture. Here diffuse pollution is regarded as one of the main environmental issues. Elsewhere industrial areas centered around east Lancashire reflect altogether different pressures on the water environment.
Programmes
Stakeholder workshops, etc. Pls see website.
Contact and Information
Sarah Pemberton; NW River Basin Programme Manager, Richard Fairclough House, Warrington.721 2192; DD: 01925 542192 Link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/regions/northwest/501317/944991/771924/
12 PRB-Agriculture Report
Weser
Location
The Weser river basin district extends from central to northern Germany, encompasses parts of the country’s central highlands in the PRBs Agriculture south and the central plain in the north, and comprises the Werra, Fulda, Weser and Jade catchment areas. The Werra (298 km) and the Fulda (220 km) originate in the mountainous regions in the south of the river basin and join to become the Weser (427 km) which flows in a northerly direction into the North Sea. Other main tributaries are the Leine (274 km) and the of II. Presentation Aller (244 km) coming from the central eastern part of the river basin. The river Jade has its own catchment and stretches over a length of 17.5 km into the North Sea.
Data Table
Total Catchment Area (Km2) 49.000 km² Utilized Agriculture Area (UAA in % of above) 60 % Population total 9.34 mill (190 inh/km²) Main land uses Arable, grassland Water bodies that could be at risk of not meeting WFD Surface Water Bodies: 33% requirements (in %) Groundwater bodies: 70%
… due to nutrient polllution Groundwater bodies in 62% of the area of the river basin Main agriculture pressures related to the above Agricultural diffuse pollution
Basin Description
At administrative level, the Weser covers seven regional states, with Lower Saxony accounting for the largest share of the district’s surface area (29,440 km²). Nearly 75 % of the inhabitants live in cities with populations exceeding 100,000. In accordance with the stipulations of the Water Framework Directive, the current characterization only includes flowing water whose catchment area exceeds 10 km² and whose aggregated length in the Weser river basin is 16,600 km. In addition, approximately 500 km of shipping canals are used as waterways. The Weser river basin district also contains 15 large lakes with a total surface area of 53 km², as well as 12 dams that encompass an aggregated total of 26 km². Long term average discharges (1941-2002) at the gauging station Intschede (approx. 80% of river basin catchment) are: average flow: 327 m³/s; minimum average flow: 118 m³/s and maximum average flow 1230 m³/s.
Programmes
OSPAR Combat to Eutrophication and cooperation in drinking water protection areas.
Contact and Information
River Basin Commission Weser, An der Scharlake 39, D-31135 Hildesheim, tel +49 (0) 5121 509712, fax +49 (0) 5121 509711, [email protected] Link: www.fgg-weser.de/en/index_en.html ; http://www.fgg-Weser.de/en/2005_characterization_report.html 13 PRB-Agriculture Report
Zagyva-Tarna
II. Presentation of Location
In N-Central Hungary, the Zagyva River is a right side tributary of the Tisza River with a catchment area of approximately 5,700 km2. The Zagyva and its major tributary Tarna are originating from the northern valleys of the
PRBs Agriculture PRBs Mátra mountain and take their course southward along the foot of the mountain range. After their confluence the Zagyva reaches the Hungarian Plain and discharges into the Tisza at Szolnok. The Zagyva discharges into the Tisza river which in turn is a tributary of the Danube basin that dewaters into the Black Sea. The Zagyva-Tarna river basin is thus a sub-river basin of the international Danube river basin district.
Data Table
Total Catchment Area (Km2) 5700 Km2 Utilized Agriculture Area (UAA in % of above) 69 % Population total 663 000 (118 inh/ Km2 ) Main land uses Arable, pasture, forest, vineyards, rice Water bodies that could be at risk of not meeting WFD N/A requirements (in %) Main agriculture pressures related to the above Agriculture diffuse pollution and water use
Basin Description
In general, the catchment area can be sub-divided from the viewpoint of topography into three main sections. The upper section is the mountainous Matra mountain range with a number of water reservoirs located in the upper reaches. The lower section of the river basin is a flatland area with extensive agriculture and flood protection systems. There are 14 distinct flood plain areas in the water system, of which 12 are fully located in the river basin. There are 36 settlements located in these floodplains including major towns like Szolnok, Jászberény and Hatvan. There are no natural lakes in the catchment but 35 reservoirs have been constructed for flood control, drinking or irrigation water supply, and fish farming purposes. The total storage capacity is 31,9 million m3. The largest reservoirs are the Köszörűvölgy, Csórrét and Hasznos drinking water reservoirs in the Mátra mountain.
Programmes
National Wastewater Management Programme; National Implementation Programme for individual Sewage treatments; Drinking water quality improvement programme; Protection Programme for Drinking Water resources; National Environmental Remediation Programme; Regional Flood Protection Plan.
Contact and Information
Gayer Jozsef, Ministry of Environment and Water, 1011 Budapest, Fo u, Hungary, tel. 36 1 457 3300, fax: 36 1 201 4008, [email protected] Link: http://www.zt-euvki.hu/work/en/index.html ; Article 5 report (National Report – in Hungarian): http://www.zt-euvki.hu/Reports/External/VKI_JELENTES_HU_2005.pdf 14 PRB-Agriculture Report
III 3. Main Pressures Related to Agriculture
III.1 Introduction
Agriculture During the first phase of the PRB exercise and the finishing of the WFD Article 5 reports by the other river basins, it became clear that (intensive) agriculture constitutes one of the major pressures on water against the achievement of the environmental objectives
in the WFD. This further reinforced the WFD call for adopting integrated approaches for to Pressures related III. Main managing water issues, not only across administrations but also across the various administrative and other implementation levels and scales. Hence, a strong linkage between WFD and CAP was reported to be required. This would mean that management options to mitigate pressures should be formulated as measures which on the one hand can be part of an integrated river basin management, but on the other can be integrated fully within the CAP implementation plans, through e.g. the Rural Development agri- environmental schemes. The latter offering a legal funded system for implementation of environmental sound practices within agriculture.
Understanding of the variations in area used for agriculture, its agricultural destination, and changes in farming practices together with the consequences to different environmental aspects, including water resources, throughout Europe is therefore of prime importance for the further management of the natural resources. During the last century, Maize Field, Odense increasing population, along with changing dietary demands, and the growing world economic environment have turned the agriculture commodity into a non-sustainable activity.
Although economically agriculture is not the levering industry in Europe, its gross added value falling from 2.8 to 1.9 % of total economy, it still is the paramount land cover in Europe. In the EU25, Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) totals to about 40.7% of the total surface. In 2005, this represented 24.4 % of arable land (or 60 % of UAA), 13 % of permanent grassland (31.9% of UAA) and 3.1% permanent crops (7.6% of UAA).
15 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. Main Pressures related to Agriculture
Figure 3.1. Categories of UAA; (Source: Agricultural Statistics; Data 1995-2005, Eurostat 2007 Edition, EC 2007)
Changes during the 1990-2000 period as estimated through the Corine Land Cover mapping, show that agricultural surface as such remains more or less stable during that period. However, some 1.17% (or 42140 km2 or about the size of the Netherlands) of the total EU land surface changes utilization to and from agricultural use. Some 0.76%, or 27314 km2, nearly Belgium, of the utilized agriculture area (UAA) ‘internally’ changes agricultural use. This is e.g. conversion into permanent grassland, changing irrigation perimeters, expansion of olive groves into pastures and/or arable areas, etc. Growing livestock densities required adapted husbandry practices that lead to e.g. indoor wintering or other feeding practices relying on silage. This resulted in expansion of forage crop production leading to changes from pasture to arable land as shown in figure 3.2.. Such land use conversion can increase pressures from agriculture on the environment and water resources combined from higher livestock densities and related nutrient surpluses and from needing higher agricultural input for the fodder production (4).
While these area variations might seem relatively small and happened during the recent years, the century before has known a steady increase in agricultural area. During that period, not only area expansion led to increased production, but later on especially intensification of farming practices led to increased yields. Higher agricultural input was needed and used and this led to increased pressures related to use of e.g. fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and drainage.
Furthermore, livestock production is of great importance for the magnitude of the agricultural environmental pressures. High livestock density means high nutrient pressures on water bodies and nature. Pressures being either as nutrients leaked towards the aquatic environment or as airborne emissions of ammonia deposited on nature and waters. The livestock production (milk, meat, eggs..) in EU has steadily been increasing during decades. The international analysis agencies expect continued growth in livestock production in EU, especially in the new EU countries. Increased production potentially is causing increasing pressures on nature and waters. Also shift between types of husbandry play a role. Import of fodder from outside Europe to feed European
4 Land Accounts for Europe 1990-2000, EEA Report, No 11/2006; EEA, Copenhagen 2006 16 PRB-Agriculture Report
livestock production must also be considered when calculating the total environmental effects and costs of livestock production.
Driven by subsistence needs and global market opportunities, for several decades the European CAP has contributed to reaching the current increasing levels of food production. This increasing
efficiency and productivity has Agriculture resulted indeed in the above mentioned structural changes, including decrease in number of farms, less diversity of local to Pressures related III. Main agricultural habitats, reliance on non-renewable inputs as fertilizer and pesticides, cultivation of marginal land, mechanisation, and increasing field size and higher stocking densities. This all had severe repercussions on the water resources in terms of quality and quantity.
During 2000, the Water Framework Directive became operational. Simultaneously, however, a process within the CAP was initiated, involving a shift from production focus to a broader rural development approach, including emphasis on the restoration and maintenance of environmental Odense Livestock grazing, quality. The 2003 CAP reform included therefore the Cross Compliance issue, i.e. the farmers have to perform agricultural activities in compliance to the major EC environmental Directives. Although the Water Framework Directive was not included within the Cross Compliance, the two policies are ever more on a converging trajectory.
The result of agricultural intensification, such as the shift from hay to silage systems for grassland management, change in type and timing of tillage and e.g. the increased use of chemical inputs, have altogether led to increased pressure from agriculture to water resources. Fertilizer use e.g. has known peek consumption during the 80ies with a decline from then onwards. Consumption in Western Europe is still far above the early 60ies levels and in Eastern Europe rates are slightly increasing during the last decade. Hence, excess nutrients are still the number one problem in the river basins.
Notwithstanding the technology improvements to irrigation systems and application, the continued increase in irrigation area and the introduction of less adapted crop species are both responsible for the unsustainable pressure coming from agricultural water use. This can reach as much as 80% of total water use in Mediterranean river basins. The National Irrigation Plan (5) in Spain documents a 3.5 fold increase in irrigated area since 1900 and foresees for the year 2008 a further increase of nearly 230 000 ha ensuring a more stable agricultural production.
5 http://www.mapa.es/desarrollo/pags/pnr/documentos/apartado4-2.pdf 17 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. Main Pressures related to Agriculture
Figure 3.2.: Map illustrating the land use changes from pasture land to agriculture land during the period 1990-2000
Figure 3.3.: graph indicating the dynamics of the major land cover types in Europe for the same period.
Source and copyright: Land Accounts for Europe 1990-2000, EEA Report, No 11/2006) (NUTS (Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques) boundaries are sub-national boundaries at various administrative details (NUTS Levels) used in standard way by the EC)
18 PRB-Agriculture Report
Total Fertilizer Nutrient Consumption - Million tons nutrients, N+P2O5+K2O
25
20
15 Western Europe Agriculture Agriculture 10 Central Europe Million tonnes 5 III. Main Pressures related to Pressures related III. Main 0 1960/61 1971/72 1973/74 1975/76 1977/78 1979/80 1981/82 1983/84 1985/86 1987/88 1989/90 1991/92 1993/94 1995/96 1997/98 1999/00 2001/02 2003/04 2005/06
Figure 3.4.: Total Fertilizer Consumption in Europe (source and copyright permission: International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) 1996-2007; http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/link_alp.asp )
As a consequence of the intense crop and livestock production high quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus enter in the environment from agriculture, causing a threat for water bodies.
In the context of the FATE project (Fate of Pollutants in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems), the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has developed a comprehensive approach for studying the fate and impacts of nutrients in the European environment. The FATE project addresses both the spatial assessment of nutrient pressure at European scale and the modelling of principal processes and pathways of nutrient pollution from agriculture to water bodies.
Concerning the assessment of nutrient pressure, European maps of nitrogen and phosphorus applications of mineral and organic fertilisers were estimated (Figure 3.5.), together with a spatialised gross nutrient balance at the soil surface. These maps provide an indication on the pressures originating from agriculture, allowing outlining of regions with higher potential risk of nutrient pollution for rivers and lakes (6). Large pressures can be identified in most intensive agricultural areas in Europe including Belgium, The Netherlands, Brittany (France), Po valley (Italy), UK, and Ireland. Large pressures often originate from the presence of a high density of livestock producing an excessive amount of manure (Figure 3.5.). A collection of maps for Europe on major sources of nitrogen and phosphorous from agriculture and agglomerations is provided by the FATE Atlas (7).
6 Grizzetti B., Bouraoui F., Aloe A., 2007. Spatialised European Nutrient Balance. EUR 22692 EN 98pp. ISBN.92-79-05057. 7 Mulligan D., Bouraoui F., Grizzetti B., Aloe A., Dusart J., 2006. An Atlas of pan-European data for investigating the fate of agrochemicals in terrestrial ecosystems. EUR 22334 EN 52pp, ISBN 92- 79-02756-5. 19 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. Main Pressures related to Agriculture
Figure 3.5. Total nitrogen application (mineral+ manure) per total area.
Concerning modelling, the FATE project has developed a tiered approach for addressing the fate of nutrients at various scales including screening tools at continental scale for the identification of potential hot spots and detailed state-of-the-art bio-physical models to support the choice of environmentally friendly farming practices (8). Combining the information on spatial nutrient inputs from agriculture and nutrient discharges originating from wastewater treatment plants, the contributions of diffuse (mainly agriculture) and point sources to the river nutrient load was estimated for Europe based on a modelling approach (9).
In addition, the potential variations of pressures on European water bodies due to future climate changes were investigated (10). In general, crop water requirement will increase
8 Bouraoui F., Grizzetti B., Mulligan D., 2006. Fate of Agrochemicals in Terrestrial Ecosystems;an Integrated Modelling Framework: Application to the Loire (FR). EUR 22518 EN 30pp. ISBN 92-79- 03732. 9 Grizzetti B., Bouraoui F., 2006. Assessment of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Environmental Pressure at European Scale. EUR 22526 EN 66pp. ISBN.92-79-03739. 10 Bouraoui F., Aloe A., 2007. European Agrochemicals Geospatial Loss Estimator: Model Development and Applications. EUR 22690 EN 118pp. ISBN.92-79-05053. 20 PRB-Agriculture Report
throughout Europe if the actual agriculture production system is to be maintained. It is further predicted that fertiliser application patterns will change due to more favourable crop growing conditions in some areas in Europe.
The Background paper produced by the Secretariat of the Strategic Steering Group on Agriculture of the WFD, clearly lists these main problem areas arising from agricultural pressures (11). The report, based on Article 5 reviews, indicated as main pressures on
water bodies the diffuse pollution from nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, which is Agriculture further induced by soil erosion, and hydro-morphological changes in general. For the latter the report states that due to the limited information available it is difficult to derive the part of contribution from agriculture. Furthermore, the danger of pesticide pollution in both surface and groundwater is listed. Drainage and irrigation are reported to cause to Pressures related III. Main impact on the water balance and irrigation as part of intensive agriculture might cause over exploitation of available water resources.
Analysis work in the PRBs, presented in this report, confirmed this and allowed a ranking in relation to their general or common importance. The main pressure areas will consequently constitute the main chapter topics in the following sections, ordered accordingly. For easy reading a colour coding is assigned to each of the pressure chapters.
The above mentioned background paper (10) further indicates that there is a lack of data for some key driving forces and pressures. To address the assessment for each of the confirmed pressure areas, a number of data layers and/or more complex indictors are required in a systematic and harmonized way. Through the case study work of the PRBs, a list of needed data layers/indicators could be compiled. This project result is given in Annex 1.
11 WFD and Agriculture – Analysis of the Pressures and Impacts Broaden the Problem’s Scope, Report of the WFD and Agriculture SSG, EC DG ENV prepared by Ecologic and Warsaw Agriculture University; 2006 21 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.2 Indicators III. Main Pressures related to
At the start of the PRB-AG phase II work the idea was put forward to base the analysis
Agriculture of pressures and impact from agriculture on water resources on existing data and/or modelled output that would be represented as a common list of variables based on harmonized information. These variables, being an operational representation of an attribute of a system (12) were to form a framework of indicators that could be used in general for such studies and offer a common denominator for comparison in between PRBs and river basins. A standard template for reporting on these indicators was designed. After intensive input from all PRBs, using the templates, an original proposed short list of indicators had become a list of more then 60 variables, many of which were in fact data layers, i.e. actual measurements (see complete list in Annex 1).
Much of the information presented through the indicator templates, was suggested by the PRBs to be listed on the indicator table. The reason for this was that most of the information would be anyhow available everywhere as such information had been needed to fulfil the Article 5 reporting. As result, a catalogue of crucial indicators and data layers has been compiled.
After an ad hoc analysis on the application of the main indicators and/or datalayers, it became clear that due to the geo-climatic, the bio-physical, specific hydrologic and socio-economic variations throughout the PRBs an approach on common indicators as a basis for the studies was rather difficult. In total about 43 different indicators were reported to be frequently used by the various PRBs. Out of these only 4 indicators were common to 3 PRBs and only 2 indicators appeared to be common in 4 PRBs.
Table 3.1. lists the indicators that were mentioned in more than one PRB and were accepted to be somehow key indicators for which a common description and measurement units should be kept. These indicators would offer the minimal basis for comparison of certain aspects between PRBs related to agricultural links to water. It has to be noted that not for all of these indicators the data is readily available.
Considering the analysis work performed during this current PRB exercise, it is felt however that the proposed catalogue of indicators/data layers represents a rather exhaustive collection of information needed when working on assessment of pressures and impacts from agriculture on water resources.
Figure 3.6. illustrates the logical framework for the indicator structure. The PRB proposal is for other river basins to consider this framework for setting up the information bases in view of assessment exercises. According to the specific basin characteristics and information available, an adequate selection of indicators needs to be done. The framework shows the Indicator Catalogue structure and the obvious links. These links are assumed very specific for any situation and have to be analysed ‘in-situ’. Some of the following case studies done in the PRB-AG illustrate and clarify such cause-effect linkages. Investigating and understanding these relations is the basis for assessing the pressures and the related impacts from (changing) agricultural land use and changing agricultural practices on water resources. Once knowing the problems and the main causes then best practices can be deduced and translated into mitigation measures that can be either introduced in the RBMP (WFD) or incorporated under the CAP Rural Development RDP agri-environmental measures. Implementation of these measures of course is expected to change the pressures and impact creating the feedback loop to the according indicator threshold levels.
12 Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 58, Moldan et al., published by Wiley and Sons, 1997, 22 PRB-Agriculture Report
The presented Indicator templates (see Annex 1) can be used as reference for data collection and description, introducing at the same time an approach for initiating information harmonisation along river basins.
Number Indicator description Indicator Group
(for reference see complete list in Annex 1)
1. PRB characterization Agriculture 101 Total catchment area (RB context) 102 Population
103 Land use to Pressures related III. Main
104 Land use (% of arable/grassland)
110 Sewage outlets 2. Agriculture characterization 201 Total UAA (general) Area under Crop as % of UAA 202 Area under Grassland as % of UAA 206 Farmed land under Natura 2000 Area under agri-environmental 208 support Total number of animal/livestock 3. Agriculture characterization 301 units (LU) (pressure) 303 Total application of Total-N 305 N and P surplus, field level 308 Pesticides (consumption) Source apportionment, % from 4. Agriculture characterization 401 agriculture and other sources of N (impact) loads Source apportionment, % from 402 agriculture and other sources of P loads
Water Use (total) & 5. Water characterization: 504 Groundwater and Surface Water Water Quantity
Concentration of pesticides in ground 6. Water characterization: 610 water Water Quality
Part of farmed land designated as 611 Nitrate vulnerable zone
Potable water resources affected by 612 agriculture
Table 3.1.: Most Common indicators related to assessing pressure and impact from agriculture
23 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. Main Pressures related to Agriculture
Figure 3.6.: Indicator framework for analysis of pressures and impact from agriculture (numbers in brackets indicate the Indicator Group Numbers as they appear in table 3.1. above and in the catalogue in Annex 1)
III.3 . Case Studies
Within the timeframe at disposal during this phase II and the efforts needed to conceive the main concepts for the work, it is clear that the PRBs could not study or apply every single aspect of this framework. Nevertheless, the analyses of the key pressures in the following chapters, along with the accompanying case studies, offer a first step in the consolidation of understanding the complexity of the relations agriculture-water and how to approach the assessment. Key messages could be formulated from this experience and also form the basis for further study and implementation work planned during the proposed phase III of the PRB-AG. Table 3.2. gives an overview of the key case study topics, per pressure area.
24
Habitat Loss and Water Use and Sediments Case study topics Nutrient Pollution Pesticide Pollution Physical Quantity (erosion and P) Modifications Gascogne Rivers Mapping sub-basin N Classification and pressures and N mapping of pesticide surplus based on pressure indicator as modelling (Nopolu) and target for observed N implementation of concentrations; indicated potential indication of potential measures measures
Guadalquivir Analysis of N and P Linking observation of Elaboration on human Identifying risk areas Elaboration of linking pressure linked to various active pesticide induced changes to through linking the status of riparian agriculture practice substances to main hydrological regime of suspended solids to zones to land use and (crop) and calculation land uses and mapping river resulting from land use; linking agricultural and mapping of N of pressure agriculture water use erosion potential to management, intensity surplus at sub-basin demands; assessing agricultural and different level impact from irrigation management; cultivations; measures and definition of experience with Reservoir pressure adapted measures index; experience with measures
Odense Risk analysis of Evaluation of Mapping loss of pressures and adaptation of P-Index wetland linked to proposing significant in sub catchments to agricultural land use; key indicators; Analysis identify risk areas for identifying source of for quantification of spatially targeting modifications to Water targets for measures; measures with Bodies and the effect Proposed PoM cost and identified objectives on water tables and cost effectiveness habitats assessment
Pandivere Linking observations of groundwater N concentration to land use and elaboration of PoM with cost indication Table 3.2.: Overview Table of the main case study topic of the various PRB related to the ranked pressures from agriculture on water resources (p.1) 25
Habitat Loss and Case study topics Water Use and Sediments Nutrient Pollution Pesticide Pollution Physical Quantity (erosion and P) Modifications
Ribble Using Diatoms to Description of a main Introducing modelling Monitoring of riparian assess the nutrient campaign for collecting for scenario building on status with specific status in the data on pesticide pressures analysis and sampling technique to agricultural catchment pollution in ground and impact of measures link the status quality in relation to intensity surface waters to intensity of of agricultural land use agricultural land use and proposal of PoM and proposal of PoM
Weser Risk assessment for diffuse pollution of ground and surface water and linking concentration observations at the river mouth basin pressure; examining pathways for linking observations to agricultural land use; establishing of model network (AGRUM network) for pressure analysis and scenario building on effects of measures; compilation of measures Zagyva-Tarna Estimating pressure from irrigation water abstraction on the surface and groundwater quantities and proposing solution options
Table 3.2. (cont’d): Overview Table of the main case study topic of the various PRB related to the ranked pressures from agriculture on water resources 26 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1 Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Case studies provided by: Gascogne Rivers, Guadalquivir, Odense, Pandivere, Ribble, Weser1
3.1.1 Introduction
For several decades, the common agricultural policy (CAP) in Europe had the objective of Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. increasing the food production. This increasing efficiency and productivity has resulted in intensification of farming and has led to significant impact on the environment. Growing reliance on non-renewable inputs as fertilizer and pesticides and higher stocking densities marked this evolution.
But agriculture remains essential to Europe and recognizing its multifunctional potential that includes an environmental responsibility is indispensable. The current CAP Pillar II Rural Development agri-environmental schemes aim therefore at sustaining the overall viability of rural areas by reinforcing the environmental friendly practices. Achieving Water Framework objectives, such as reducing nutrient pollution of water bodies, potentially depend on the similar and joint strategies.
The effect of extended use of external resources as inorganic fertilizers is very conspicuous, but also the use of organic fertilizer such as slurry causes nutrient losses. Nutrient pollution of surface water and groundwater and consequent eutrophication has been an increasing problem throughout EU since the mid-20th century. Although nitrogen fertilizer consumption dropped after its peak in the mid 1980ies, general consumption (figure 3.1.1.) is still higher than some decades ago.
EU legislation, e.g the Nitrates Directive, seeks to limit nutrient losses from farmland to water bodies in nitrate vulnerable zones. The recent stagnation of fertilizer use due to these initiatives, however, is not sufficient to prevent diffuse losses from agriculture to be the main source of nitrate pollution in European waters. The increased degree of treatment of sewage and industrial effluents during the last decades has
reduced the outlet of phosphorus from Manure distributor, Odense point sources so much, that in many areas agriculture is now also the main source of phosphorus pollution. (2)
Today, CAP acknowledges that agriculture plays a multi-functional role in rural areas, and a role in caretaking the nature inheritance of Europe. However, to which extend CAP may help achieve the objectives of the WFD is not yet clear, and is still a matter of
1 In alphabetical order 2 European Environment Agency, 2005. The European Environment – State and Outlook 2005. 27 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution discussion. With the 2003 CAP reform, respect of statutory requirements related to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive is included within the framework of Cross Compliance. Further nutrient reducing voluntary measures are implemented with the CAP pillar II, Rural Development schemes. Effect of the changes in CAP with regard to environment might be reflected in reduced consumption of chemical input. However, the opposite trend is now visible in new Central European Member States where CAP is implemented in a less restrictive transition mode.
Nitrogen Fertilizer Nutrient Consumption - Million tonnes N
14
12
10
8 Western Europe
Mill. t 6 Central Europe
4
2
0
960/61970/71973/74976/77979/80982/83985/86988/89991/92994/95997/98000/01003/04 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Figure 3.1.1: Total Nitrogen Fertilizer Nutrient Consumption in Europe (source and copyright permission: International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) 1996- 2007)
The main objective of the Water Framework Directive is to prevent further deterioration of water bodies and to reach at least good ecological quality by 2015. As one of the main pressures on water quality is loss of nutrients and pesticides from agriculture (3), a further focus on measures aimed at reducing these pressures will be a crucial part of the future programmes of measures and Water Management Plans in the WFD implementation. As many of such measures address farm level based mitigation, they will need to become further integrated within the CAP Rural Development Schemes in order to ensure a full legal framework for implementation at such level.
3 Based on WFD submitted Article 5 reports 28 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.1.2. Main Outcomes
The PRB experience shows that in all basins, agriculture is the main nutrients pressure (N and P). Use of organic and mineral fertilizers represents a major pressure on surface waters and ground waters. Easily around 70% of water bodies in the basins are at risk of not meeting WFD objectives due to this. Groundwater bodies show high concentrations, as do the surface waters that are threatened by eutrophication. The Weser states in 62 % of the basin area groundwater bodies at risk due to diffuse source pollution. Also lakes and especially coastal waters are affected by nutrient pressures although a declining trend in surface waters is prevalent. The Odense states that all coastal waters and 75% of the lakes are at risk due to nutrient pressures, and 96% of the rivers are at risk Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. mainly due to physical pressures related to agricultural activities in river valleys. The Gascogne Rivers calculated N surpluses at 30-80 kg N/ha·yr. The Odense calculates farmland N-surplus at 85 kg N/ha at field level and 110 kg N/ha at farm level including the ammonia evaporation from stables etc. Some basins, such as the Pandivere and the Guadalquivir are at rather low thresholds of nitrate concentrations in surface or groundwater bodies, but the increasing trends in intense agriculture areas is at a high rate. Irrigated agriculture applies fertilizers at rates as high as 200 kg/ha. In Odense where irrigation of fields is less frequent, the application rate of N fertilizers is 165 kg N/ha. In the Guadalquivir, application rates have been increasing from non irrigated to irrigated areas up to 400 % for some crops.
High livestock densities were reported to influence heavily the nutrient loadings in water bodies in practically all basins. The Odense reported (a) the total amount of fertilizers used in catchment, (b) the animal density and (c) the lost retention capacity within the catchment due to drainage and land reclamation of wetlands as the three main indicators to consider when designing a PoM.
In most basins measures have been adequately formulated. These included reduced fertilizer norms, use of catch crop, re-establishment of wetlands and more efficient
use of manure. As historical Pasture on riverbanks, Weser monitoring data was available, the Odense e.g. could set clear quantitative targets for designing these mitigation measures to be most cost effective. However, not readily availability of monitoring data is a bottleneck in most cases.
The exercise made clear that technical measures can be designed but if only of voluntary character the success is depending on voluntary involvement of farmers and measures might therefore not be sufficiently implemented. All PRBs stressed that information, training and advice of farmers is an important prerequisite for implementing the Programme of Measures. It is also recommended to combine economic analysis of measures with sociological studies. 29 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Identifying the sources of nutrient losses, and the objectives and measures for their reduction is thus a main task for all the PRBs, and for the future programmes of measures in each river basin district. Cost effectiveness analyses of the measures planned or suggested, will be of utmost importance, to give the instruments to formulate an optimal integrated programme of measures, and to avoid disproportional costs. Development, testing, and discussion of potential measures has thus been, and still is, an important task in the pilot areas.
(1) PRB main experience/success in analysing the Nutrient pressure:
• Where nutrients are causing impact on water bodies, agriculture is the main nitrogen pressure and often also the main phosphorus pressure.
• Important indicators of the magnitude of the nutrient pressures are the number of Livestock Units per hectare, total application of fertilizers per hectare and Nitrogen and Phosphorous surplus at field level.
• High levels of fertilizer application are often related to poor utilization rates of manure and high animal density within catchment.
• Reduced retention capacity in catchment due to land reclamation and drainage of agricultural land also play a role causing increased nutrient losses from farmland to surface waters.
• In some areas high irrigation rates lead to an intensified agricultural production causing higher nutrient losses.
• Pathway retention causes delays in effects, so that today’s observations might be effects of not adequate practices in the past. Retention times of nitrogen in soil and groundwater have to be considered when assessing the effects of already implemented and planned measures. Models could further help analysing the pressure situation as due to retention times the future state of water bodies, related to policy changes, is difficult to predict.
(2) PRB main experience/success in setting targets and developing measures:
• Measures of only voluntary character might not be sufficiently effective in implementing good agricultural practices over a large enough critical area to obtain planned targets for reducing agricultural pressures on water bodies.
Further measures will thus be needed, although some reductions have been obtained during the last decades through other EU legislation as e.g the Nitrates Directive, Urban Waste Water Directive etc, having resulted in stagnation of fertilizer consumption in agriculture and a marked reduction of point source outlets in general.
• Compulsory demands on fertilization levels, limits on animal density, demands on high utilization of manure, demands on intensive usage of
30 PRB-Agriculture Report
catch crops, and recreation of wetlands are effective reducing the losses of nutrients to water bodies.
• The setting of targets is to be planned as an iterative process in order to consider and incorporate also policy changes.
• Information, advice and training of farmers is an important aspect to ensure implementation of the designed measures.
• To understand what farmers’ motivation is in implementing measures leading to reduction of agricultural pressures, it is recommended to combine economic analysis (measures) with sociological studies.
(3) PRB identification of some major points for consideration in the process of III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. elaborating an appropriate programme of measures:
• The legislative possibilities to regulate pressures from individual farms need to be present at an early stage in the planning process. Present national legislation provides already possibilities to individually regulate pressure on local water bodies from agriculture. Further optimizing these possibilities and creating further options is needed for the preparation and implementation of river basin management plans aimed at ensuring attainment of the environmental objectives for individual water bodies.
• Lack of quantitative definitions of “good (ecological) quality” and quantitatively established linkages between pressures and impact pose a major problem in proportioning the extent of relevant and appropriate measures. Knowledge is still needed to ‘extrapolate’ measures developed and successful at sub basin scale to large scale basin levels.
• The financial principles governing implementation of the programmes of measures must be defined and the necessary resources allocated at an early stage of the process so as to realistically set the framework for the planning and implementation process.
• Better coordination between water management and agricultural policies is mentioned as important. At local level this may seem difficult as agricultural policies normally are formed at EU and national level. However with the reform of the second pillar in the CAP, the Rural Development Programme (2007-2013), formation of local action groups to help define and implement a local development strategy for the Rural Development Programme is a possible choice and could be one way to increase cooperation between agriculture and water management at local level.
The analyses performed in some of the PRBs point to a catalogue of most cost- efficient measures, such as reduced fertilizer quota, use of catch crops, more efficient use of manure, and wetland recreation. The chapter IV on General Conclusions introduces such Catalogue and Annex 2 list main measures.
31 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
3.1.3. Case Studies on nutrient pollution
3.1.3.1 Gascogne.Rivers 3.1.3.2 Guadalquivir 3.1.3.3 Odense 3.1.3.4 Pandivere 3.1.3.5 Ribble 3.1.3.6 Weser
(In alphabetical order)
3.1.3.1. Case Study: Gascogne Rivers
Analysis of nitrogen pressures in the Gascogne Rivers basin and measures for their reduction
1. Analysis of pressures and impacts
In the Adour - Garonne District (in the South-West of France), the Gascogne Rivers (see chapter 2) are a hydrographic unity of reference with several water bodies (37 rivers sections). This PRB has a size of 6800 km² (6 % of the District) and according to the local basins, 60 to 80% of the total acreage is used for agriculture. In the Gascogne Rivers, the nitrogen pollution is an important stake:
- Most of the monitoring points present a mediocre or a bad water quality due to the N concentrations (figure 3.1.2.).
- 87 % of the nitrogen pollution comes from agriculture. According to the local basins, the nitrogen agricultural surplus is between 30 to 80 kg N/ha per year (fig 2). The other sources are urban sewage outlets (6%), rural sewage outlets (4%) and industries (3%) (Source: article 5 report, Adour- Garonne District, 2004) (figure 3.1.3.).
- According to the Nitrate Directive, most of the PRB “communes “have been classified as vulnerable zones since 2002. Moreover, in the Adour -Garonne District, this area is one of the most concerned by nitrogen risk for potable water (figure 3.1.3.).
- In 2015, for the Garonne basin (including the Gascogne Rivers), 36% of the water bodies could be at risk not to achieve the good status (4, 39% could be highly modified and 20% could be in good status (fig 4). Agricultural diffuse pollution (especially nitrogen and pesticides) is one of the main causes of these forecasts (figure 3.1.5.).
4 As defined in the WFD (200/60/EC) 32 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Figure 3.1.2.: Water quality classes based on Nitrogen concentrations: (circle indicates the PRB area) (source = water quality assessment in the Adour -Garonne District, Adour -Garonne water agency (AEAG), IGN- BD CARTHAGE, 2004)
Figure 3.1.3. : Nitrogen pressures (kg N/ha per year ) in the PRB area (source : NOPULU method, IFEN, IGN- BD CARTHAGE , AEAG, 2003)
33 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Figure 3.1.4. : Vulnerable zones (in green) and potable water resources (red points) not in conformity with regulation, because of nitrogen pollution. (circle indicates the PRB area) (Source : DRASS de bassin, SISE-Eaux, AEAG, IGN- BD CARTHAGE, 2002.)
Evaluation of the risk ofEvaluation not meeting du WFDrisque Obje NABEctives pour for les the cours watercourses d'eau du indistrict the District
MEA MEFM Bon état probable RNABE
60% 55% 54% 46% 50% 42% 37% 38% 39%36% 40% 34% 33% 34% 27% 28% 28%26% 25% 30% 28% 20% 18% 17%14% 20% 10% 5% 4% 10% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% Adour Charente Dordogne Garonne Littoral Lot Tarn Aveyron
Figure 3.1.5.: water bodies status forecasts for 2015 (source : updated article 5, Adour -Garonne “planification” committee, June 2006) Legend: Blue: artificial water bodies (MEA), grey: highly modified water bodies (MEFM), green: good status (Bon état probable), red: water bodies in risk not to achieve good status
2. Related measures
Several kinds of measures have been applied in the district since 1992 at least, in order to reduce nitrogen inputs and pollution into ground and surface waters:
− Regulations such as the Nitrate Directive, IPPC Directive and national policy for reducing livestock point pollution, potable water regulation (protection areas),
34 PRB-Agriculture Report
− Incentive actions: agri-environmental measures linked with Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with contracts for 5 years for reducing nitrogen inputs and balances, funding for investments,
− Advice, training and information mainly implemented by farmers organizations.
Incentive and advice or training actions are based on farmers’ voluntary involvement.
All of these measures are located on local river basins. Their assessment has been partially done: first results can be observed on small local basins with a stabilization of nitrogen concentrations, but this trend could not be confirmed, for example after stopping grants and contracts. And whatever the first results on reducing agricultural risks, these measures have not been developed on large-scale basins yet.
As far as the elaboration of the Programme of measures (PoM)’ is concerned, III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. potential types of measures have been identified for the District at the end of 2005.
For pesticides and nitrates, 28 potential measures have been identified on the District scale, of which 14 of them can be used on the local scale (hydrographic unities of reference; Gascogne Rivers are one of them).
These 14 potential measures are the following ones:
1. To increase the efficiency of water quality data networks, 2. To know pesticides consumption by agriculture and other uses, 3. To know N agricultural ways of application, 4. To know % contribution from N sources, 5. To define local adapted objectives in order to reduce pressures and impacts, 6. To reduce priority dangerous substances’ application (see WFD list), 7. To have efficient equipment for pesticides application, 8. To decrease point pollutions, 9. To reduce diffuse pollutions by improving agricultural practices, 10. To reduce diffuse pollutions by improving other uses’ practices, 11. To combine measures in local programs, 12. To coordinate all local projects with each other, 13. To organize the assessment of the measures, 14. To anticipate local crises by good data analysis and a good communication.
The above can be different kinds of measures:
- Regulation, grant, contract, training, advice, communication, knowledge, governance.
- Basic (Nitrates Directive, IPPC Directive and national policy, Pesticides national policy…) or supplementary measures .
35 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Local partners are involved in the PoM elaboration by:
o Sharing diagnostic, stakes and results,
o Leading the choice and the combination of measures based on the above preliminary catalogue,
o Submitting the proposal to a territorial committee, with the following planning :
- Elaboration of PoM drafts for all the hydrographic unities of reference by January 2007,
- Submitting them to the Adour - Garonne District Committee in July and December 2007 and to public consultation from April 2008 to October 2008.
Panorama, Gascogne Rivers
3. Conclusions and recommendations
The nitrogen pollution is one of the main stakes for this PRB. As far as agricultural issues are concerned, the PoM will have to deal with changing of scale in order to implement efficient, applicable and suitable measures on large river basins.
Another challenge is to combine economic analysis with sociological studies. By using this link between both analyses, the objective is to understand what the local partners’ and farmers’ motivations is in implementing actions that lead to the reduction of agricultural diffuses pollutions.
It is also necessary to increase the coordination between water management and agriculture policies.
36 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.1.3.2. Case Study: Guadalquivir
1. Analysis for Pressure and Impact
Water pollution by nitrates has been traditionally one of the most important problems concerning water quality in the Guadalquivir basin. Although there have been water treatment improvements and new fertilising techniques and devices, nitrogen levels in river flows are still important.
Nitrogen compounds are 50% of the fertilisers used in the basin, followed by phosphates (25%) and potassium (25%). The application dose varies by sub-basin depending on the agricultural surface and the kind of crop. Non-irrigated agriculture uses around 20 kg N/ha, while irrigated agriculture increases this dose up to 200 kg N/ha (Figure 3.1.6.a). By crop, the average increment goes from 38 kg N/ha for non-irrigated to 92 kg N/ha for irrigated, that is a 168% (Figure 3.1.6.b). Thus, for industrial crops and vegetable these Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. increments have values from 200% to 400%, while for olive groves it is only a 42% passing from 60 kg N/ha to 85 kg N/ha.
Figure 3.1.6. Application dose for Nitrogen by regime (a) and crop (b).
At the basin scale, these differences in nitrogen doses are enhanced at the irrigation plots near the main Guadalquivir axis and at the big irrigation zones of the Genil and Low Guadalquivir (figure 3.1.7.).
37 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Figure 3.1.7.: Surface nitrogen application at field level by sub basin. Livestock are also an important source of nitrogen, although with significant variations by animal kind. In the Guadalquivir basin, livestock is concentrated within the lower part of the basin, around Seville and Huelva, North of Córdoba and Jaén. There are also other well-defined areas in Granada, and the South-East of Córdoba and Jaén. The equivalent nitrogen load by livestock unit follows this general pattern with maximums between 180 - 467 kg/ha (figure 3.1.8.).
Figure 3.1.8.: Equivalent nitrogen loads from livestock by sub basin. 38 PRB-Agriculture Report
Nitrogen surplus was calculated from an input – output fertilization and crop model, at plot level, including livestock loads. Resulting surplus values show a significant spatial correlation with zones of higher nitrogen application and/or denser livestock (figure 3.1.9.). III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Figure 3.1.9.: Nitrogen surplus by sub-basin.
Figure 3.1.10: Percentage of Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) associated to the catchments of selected nitrogen monitoring stations. 39 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Figure 3.1.11. Average nitrate concentration (mg NO3/L) in surface waters for the period 1994- 2004. Values refer to sub-basins, UAA per sub basin is shown in figure 3.1.10.
The average nitrate concentration in surface waters for a whole temporal series is not very high. Only a small number of monitoring stations have values above 25 mg NO3/L (figure 3.1.11.). Most of the main river segments in the upstream area of the basin are constantly below this threshold. However, nitrate values above this average are observed in the sub-basins with intense agriculture. These patterns are also maintained if we consider only the four last years of the series.
During both periods (1994/04 and 2000/04), the few stations above 50 mg NO3/l seem to be associated to catchments with high livestock loads. Similarly to most of the stations, they do not show a significant increment over time in the nitrate concentration. Monitoring stations between 25 and 50 mg NO3/Ll do not show a significant increment as well (figure 3.1.12.).
Due to the low nitrate concentration values, there are normally no serious problems of surpassing the 50 mg NO3/L threshold within the Guadalquivir basin. The stations with higher frequencies of failing (60-80%) are also the ones with the higher maximum average values. Most of the stations where a significant increment has been detected, even if low, also present significant frequencies of surpassing.
When looking at the groundwater bodies, the nitrogen application of fertilisers is highest in the lower-medium part of the basin (figure 3.1.13.). This was also the case for surface waters. This is particularly true in the low farmlands of Seville and in the valley of Granada. These areas present also the higher percentages of utilised agricultural area (figure 3.1.14.). The distribution pattern of the nitrogen balances is accordingly (figure 3.1.15.).
40 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Figure 3.1.12.: Nitrogen concentration trend for surface waters.
Figure 3.1.13.: Nitrogen application dose (kg/ha) in medium and high permeability zones by groundwater body.
41 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Figure 3.1.14: Percentage of Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) in medium and high permeability zones by groundwater body.
Figure 3.1.15: Nitrogen surplus (kg/ha) in medium and high permeability zones by groundwater body.
42 PRB-Agriculture Report
Although the variation in nitrate concentration for groundwater bodies shows clear seasonal differences, with two annual peaks for April and October, there is a growing annual trend that is even more pronounced in the last two years (figure 3.1.16.) This fact is proven by the increase of the number of groundwater bodies with average concentration values above 50 mg NO3/L (figure 3.1.17.). This is the case in the upstream area of the Guadaira basin and the mid and upstream part of the Guadalquivir river. The groundwater bodies with higher concentration values also overpass the 50 mg NO3/L threshold more frequently, even up to 50% of the times.
70 80
60 70
50 60 Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
40 50
30 40 N03 mg/l NO3 mg/l
20 30
10 20 0 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1995 1998 2001 2005
Figure 3.1.16.: Monthly and annual average nitrate concentration values (mg NO3/L) in groundwater bodies.
Figure 3.1.17.: Average nitrate concentration (mg NO3/L) in groundwater bodies for the period1994-2004.
43 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution 2. Related Measures
Despite the efforts from the public administrations, the status of nitrogen in the Guadalquivir basin is still far away from the goals specified in the WFD. Nitrogen concentration in Nitrogen Vulnerable Zones is high, especially in those sub-basins where agriculture represents more than 60% of the area (figure. 3.1.18.).
40
30
20
10 Nitrate Vulnerable
0 No
-10 Yes 95% CI NO3 av. 1994-04 N = 10 34833 13 31 0-20 20-60 60-100
% UAA
Figure 3.1.18.: Average nitrogen concentration (mg NO3/L) in Nitrogen Vulnerable Zones for the period 1994-2004.
A proper management of the green cover is without any doubt one of the best choices to tackle nitrogen losses. Field experiments highlight the efficiency of the green cover for decreasing the nitrogen pollution in surface waters and reducing the water losses by runoff. Runoff can be reduced by as much as 16% in comparison to similar zones without a proper management. Reduction of surface runoff decreased nitrogen concentrations also significantly, with values between 26% and 61% being a function of the initial application rates.
Unlike the other agro-environmental measures, green farming reduces significantly the nitrate concentrations in surface waters, both in sub-basins with medium (20 – 60%) or high (>60%) utilised agricultural area (figure 3.1.19.).
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
Water pollution by nitrogen compounds has always been one of the most serious problems related to water quality in the Guadalquivir basin. Although fertiliser consumption has stabilised in the last years, the application dose at plot level is still very high in many sub-basins. This over fertilisation generates a nitrogen surplus that in zones without proper vegetative cover reaches the river waters through leaching and runoff. Moreover, livestock increases the nitrogen surplus nearly as a point source and is responsible for observed maximum levels of nitrates and the surpassing of the water quality standards.
44 Maize cultivation, Gaudalquivir cultivation, Maize PRB-Agriculture Report
The nitrogen related legislation and agro-environmental measures in Spain aim to minimize the pollution. However, the monitored nitrogen pollution, mainly generated by agricultural related activities, presents a clear increasing trend that has not varied in the last years (Perfil Ambiental de Españ 2004, Ministry of the Environment).
30
20
10 III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. Green Farming
0 No
-10 Yes 95% CI NO3 av. 1994-04 N = 10 37334 12 6 0-20 20-60 60-100
% UAA
Figure 3.1.19.: Average nitrogen concentration (mg NO3/l) in catchments with green farming (>5%) and without for the period 1994-2004.
The creation of measures in order to correct this trend must be oriented to the current programs. In this way, some recommendations are proposed that relate to the general actions included in the Nitrogen Directive and to be integrated with the agro- environmental measures.
The right application of the Agricultural Good Practice Codes can reduce nitrogen concentration in runoff waters up to a 35%. Unfortunately, the Code is too general, has a voluntary character and numerous farmers are not aware of its real importance. In a general manner, we propose here the most relevant measures:
− Inform, broadcast and make farmers aware on the necessity of using the Agricultural Good Practice Codes in order to achieve a sustainable agriculture and livestock. − Create technical guides about fertilisers in order to implement the Code at a regional scale − Extend the compulsory nature of the Code outside the Nitrogen Vulnerable zones.
With respect to the agro-environmental program, it should:
− Promote informative and formative activities related to green farming techniques, so that farmers can cope with the same problems (weeds, diseases or plagues) in an ecologic way.
− Review the grants in order to increase the interest for adopting the measures.
− Make the farmers aware of the environmental benefits and the economic profitability of the measures.
45 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution 3.1.3.3. Case Study: Odense
Characteristics of the Odense Pilot River Basin related to Nutrients
The Odense river basin is located in Fyn County, Denmark, and has a size of 1,058 km2. It is a densely populated area (226 inh/km2, in total 240,000 inhabitants in the catchment), with an intensive agricultural sector, covering 64% of the catchment area (figure 3.1.20.). The main watercourse is Odense Å, connecting the largest lake Arreskov Sø in the catchment with the final surface water recipient, Odense Fjord.
Figure 3.1.20.. Land use in Odense Pilot River Basin.
90% of the sewage produced by the inhabitants is discharged to municipal sewage treatment plants, with advanced biological and chemical treatment, the remaining part (10%) being produced outside the town areas. As an overall mean for the catchment around 244 tonnes of nitrogen and 22 tonnes of total phosphorus is discharged with sewage water.
Live stock density (LU/ha) is around 0,9 LU/ha for agricultural areas and 0,6 LU/ha for the total catchment with pigs accounting for around 60% of the total LU’s. Application of nitrogen and phosphorus to the grown field in the catchment amounts to 11.400 tonnes of nitrogen and 1.900 tonnes of phosphorus pr year. Thus, the mean annual area specific application rates for the farmed land only (69.000 ha) have been around 165 kg N/ha and 28 kg P/ha. Manure accounts
for around 73% of the applied phosphorus and around Odense Cultivation, Pig 40% of the applied nitrogen. The live stock production (meat, milk and eggs) has increased by around 40% in the period 1985-2003.
46 PRB-Agriculture Report
As a typical example the eutrophication is illustrated for the Odense fjord, (figure 3.1.21). As a mean for the period 1999/2000-2003/2004 around 44 % of the total phosphorus loading to the fjord was due to sewage outlets, 25 % was due to loss from farmed land, thus leaving 31% to the natural reference (“background”) loading. Reference loading is estimated assuming a ‘reference’ concentration of 0.05 mg P/l in the total discharge to the fjord. The corresponding figures for the total Nitrogen loading to the Odense Fjord are: Sewage (13 %), agriculture (69 %) and reference loading (18%).
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Figure 3.1.21.. Source apportionment of the land based nitrogen and phosphorus loading to Odense Fjord. Mean for 1999/2000-2003/04. Mean annual discharge for the same period: 312 mm/yr.
1. Analysis of pressure and impact
1.a. Risk analysis
The manmade impact of the Danish surface waters is widespread and severe. It has been frequently reported, at the latest in the risk analysis performed by the Danish counties in spring 2006. In there, almost all of the coastal waters, 75% of the lakes, and 69% of the rivers are considered to be at risk of not fulfilling ‘good ecological quality’ in 2015, on a national level.
In Odense Pilot River Basin, the results of the risk assessment were parallel to the national results, except for rivers, where only 4% were assessed as not being at risk (figure 3.1.22.). Regarding groundwater, 50% of the water bodies are at risk, and 30-70% of terrestrial nature, (fens, bogs and dry grasslands) is assessed not to fulfill objectives of
“good status”. Bog Lahemaa, Estonia
47 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Figure 3.1.22.. Risk assessment according to the criteria developed in the Odense Pilot River Basin. Present and expected future situation in 2015 for rivers, lakes and coastal waters are shown.
1.b. Identification of main pressures
Looking at the rivers, almost all water bodies are at risk of failing to meet the objectives, mainly because of physical pressures from river regulation and river maintenance for the purpose of intensive agricultural production in the river valleys. Wastewater outlets from storm water and scattered settlements also play a role.
Figure 3.1.23.. Loss of meadows and bogs, including land reclamation of former fjord areas in the catchment from 1890-1992.
48 PRB-Agriculture Report
Looking at the lakes and the coastal waters, excessive loads of nutrients from agriculture is the main reason for not fulfilling the objectives in these water bodies. In Odense Fjord hazardous substances also play a role. Finally, around 70% of the groundwater bodies are at risk due to loads of hazardous substances and nitrates.
Due to the intensive agricultural land use, nutrient input (N and P) from fertilizer and manure to surface water and to some extent also to ground water poses a main problem in the river basin (table 3.1.1.). Furthermore, the retention of lost nutrients from agricultural land is very low due to drainage and intensive cultivation of river valleys and wetlands (land reclamation). Wetlands in river valleys act as a nutrient sink and thus function as a buffer between the agricultural land and surface waters. Drainage, cultivation of river valleys and land reclamation of shallow lakes and coastal waters have lowered the retention capacity of nutrients in the catchment considerably during the last century (figure 3.1.29.), and have thus increased the nutrient impact of the aquatic environment. III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Odense Fjord Water Main Pressures catchment bodies Reasons for not fulfilling objectives at risk Rivers 96% • Physical Regulation of river and river valley due to land reclamation for agricultural purpose. The regulation includes straightened rivers, drainage of the river valley (including drainage of wetlands in river valley) and regularly river maintenance (weed cutting and sand/mud removal). Besides increased physical pressures on rivers, this regulation also increase nutrient loss to surface waters, because drainage and cultivation of river valleys reduce the retention of lost nutrients from agricultural land. In general drainage and land reclamation of wetlands reduces the nutrient retention capacity in the catchments, increasing the nutrient loss to downstream lakes and coastal waters. Nutrients are normally not a pressure factor in the rivers, contrary lakes and coastal waters. • Waste Water outlets storm water, scattered settlements Lakes 86% • Nutrient loads from agriculture Coastal waters 100% • Nutrient Loads from agriculture • Hazardous substances Groundwater 50% • Pesticides, other hazardous substances and nitrate tables load • High abstraction Terrestrial 30-70% • Nutrient Loads from agriculture (air- and Nature waterborne) • Fens • Land reclamation, drainage, • Bogs • Water abstraction • Dry • Pesticide deposits Grasslands
Table 3.1.1. Odense PRB. Main pressures and reasons for not fulfilling the WFD objectives.
49 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Reduction of nutrient input into ground and surface water has been addressed in Denmark by several national and regional plans since 1987, when the first National Aquatic Action Plan was launched. Improvements have been obtained especially with regard to phosphorus, due to improved sewage treatment and increased use of phosphate-free detergents, while the reduction of nitrogen has been less pronounced.
The impact of the land based loading on the nutrient concentrations in the fjord and the development over time is clearly seen in figure 3.1.24, showing the co-variation in the nutrient loading and the nitrogen and phosphorus content of the surface waters in the fjord (1985-2004). Phosphorus loading has been hugely reduced by around 75% during the last 20 years, while a reduction of only 35% is seen in the nitrogen loading. This latter reduction is caused by a combined effect of improved sewage treatment (around 10-15%-points) and a reduction in diffuse pollution from farmed land, (around 20-25%-points).
Figure 3.1.24. Trend in source apportioned annual nitrogen and phosphorus loading from land based sources together with the annual mean concentration in the surface waters of the inner part of Odense Fjord.
Through analyses of land use and the resulting nitrogen pressure from agriculture, 3 key-indicators were identified, which should always be analyzed, when constructing a programme of measures related to agriculture (see box).
Agriculture Pressure: Nitrogen
Significant key-indicators:
1. Fertilizer use • High fertilizer use in catchments imply risk of
high leaching 2. Animal density • High animal density implies risk of low nutrient utilization and therefore high leaching and high
ammonia evaporation
3. Retention capacity • A high retention capacity in catchments can help to remove nitrogen when it is leached from the soil to the water bodies 50 PRB-Agriculture Report
There is a clear relationship between application of nitrogen and the resulting nitrogen concentrations in rivers. At the same time it can be demonstrated that high levels of fertilizer input on agricultural land normally is close correlated to high animal density. These relations are documented for local catchments in Fyn County (figure 3.1.25.), but are also evident when comparing catchments from several regions around the Baltic Sea (figure 3.1.26.) (BERNET-catch 2006).
Relationship between agricultural practice and riverine nitrogen runoff Relationships between agricultural practices and riverine Nitrogen runoff
20 100 R2=0.8619 R2=0.8035 Y=0.04x+2.9535 Y=0.204x+3.4478 80 15
60 III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. 10 40
5 20
0 0 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Applied nitrogen (kgN/ha) Applied nitrogen (kgN/ha)
20 20 R2=0.563 R2=0.759 Y=8.057x+4.272 Y=100.0074x+0.341
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 0 20406080100
Livestock density (AU/ha) Cultivated land (%)
Figure 3.1.25.
Upper: Nitrogen concentrations (Dec-March 1993/94) and total runoff of nitrogen (1994) in 10 water cources as a function of the total amount of nitrogen fertilizers (kg N/ha) applied in the respective catchments.
Lower: Nitrogen concentrations (Dec-March 1993/94) in 31 different watercourses in Fyn County as a function of the density of livestock and the degree of cultivation in the respective catchments.
51 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Figure 3.1.26.: Diffuse nitrogen run off as a function of total nitrogen applied in the catchment (6 different regions within the Baltic Sea Catchment).
1.c. Setting operational objectives (pressure, impact) - Development of reference conditions, classification, and quantitative linkages between pressures and impacts
Example Odense Fjord:
In order to be able to give quantitative advice on nutrient reduction requirements to obtain “good ecological quality”, empirical and dynamic modelling tools and integration of historical monitoring data were used to establish links between nutrient loads, nutrient concentration levels in the coastal waters, growth of phytoplankton and ephemeral algae, and reduction of depth limit of eel-grass. The focus was laid on Nitrogen as the main agent in nutrient pollution.
Class boundaries between good and moderate ecological status were generally defined by an allowed 25% deviation from reference conditions. According to this modelling, the nitrogen input to the fjord must not exceed 700-1000 tN/yr, if ”good ecological status” shall be obtained (figure 3.1.27). The reduction in nutrient loading of the fjord required
to ensure the fjord’s ecological and EutrophicationFjord Odense chemical status will thus entail at least a halving of the present nitrogen load and a considerable reduction in the phosphorus load. The measures already implemented through National Action Plans for the Aquatic Environment II and III will not be sufficient to reach the environmental objectives for the fjord before 2015 (figure 3.1.28.).
52 PRB-Agriculture Report
Figure 3.1.27.: Defining relations between operational objectives and nitrogen loading to the Odense Fjord, based on depth limit of eelgrass. Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Figure 3.1.28.: Land based Nitrogen loading 1980-2003 of Odense Fjord and forecasts for the development in this loading for the coming years based on an estimation of the effect of already implemented measures., Preliminary target load ensuring good ecological quality of the fjord by 2016 has been estimated to around 700-1000 tonnes N/year (climate 2000).
2. Related Measures to fulfill objectives
2.a. Measures
Having defined the target loads of the fjord and the major lakes, based on a quantitative relation between nitrogen load and ecological status, the next step was to define a catalogue of potential measures to obtain the required reduction of nutrient load to surface and ground water.
A catalogue of potential measures related to all types of waters has been developed, and relevant types of measures fulfilling WFD aims of each type of water bodies are identified (table 3.1.2.). An integrated cost effective programme of measures, at the same time fulfilling the WFD aims of all water bodies, is made. To be able to prioritize among the measures, CEA analyses were performed, and the most cost-effective measures to reduce to lead to the fjord were chosen (table 3.1.3.).
53 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
Potential measures to fulfil the WFD objectives in Odense Fjord river basin Pressures and measures Target pressure Affected water bodies/habitats to reduce them or aim of measure Coastal Lakes Rivers Ground Terrestrial waters -water natural habitats Diffuse pressures – agriculture Improved utilization of nutrients in manure • Improved utilization of animal fodder • Storage requirements (min. 12 months capacity) N and P loads + + + (+) • Requirements as to manure application systems and max. amount of manure applied. Improved utilization of nutrients in manure • Reduced ammonia volatilization (livestock housing, manure N load (airborne) (+) + (+) + storage and application) Enclosed storage facilities for manure and silage, including facilities to N, P and BOD loads + + + + + eliminate ammonia volatilization and odour pollution Reduced livestock production/density N and P loads + + + +
Catch crops: Optimized and increased use N load + + +
Spring ploughing instead of autumn ploughing N load + + + Set-aside for: N and P loads + + + • Wetlands, natural habitats and permanent grassland in river Sediment load + + + valleys Improved/natural hydromorph. structure + + • New natural habitats, forests and permanent grassland Restore natural habitats + Fertilization requirements (N, P): N and P loads + + + • Reduced N and P fertilization quotas Fertilization demands (P): • Phosphorus balance at field level P load + + • Reduced P fertilization quota in soils with high P content Cultivation restrictions on potentially erosive areas P and sediment loads + + +
Buffer zones (uncultivated) alongside surface waters (rivers, lakes, etc.) P and sediment loads + + +
Reduced or regulated drainage Hydrology, N and P loads + + +
Diffuse pressures – forestry • Leaving vegetation in the felling area • Planting as soon as possible • Leaving buffer strips alongside rivers Sediment, N and P loads, + + + + • Increasing the amount of deciduous trees
Point-source pressures Wastewater treatment facilities • Sparsely built-up areas – improved wastewater treatment N, P and BOD loads + + + • Municipal treatment plants – improved wastewater treatment Hazardous substance load + + + • Stormwater outfalls – basins Pathogenic bacteria and virus load + + + + • Renewal/renovation of sewerage systems N, P and BOD loads + + ++ ++ • Former waste disposal sites – measures to reduce leaching Hazardous substance load + + ++ ++ Reducing physical pressures Reintroducing and protecting migratory fish Improved/natural hydromorphological • Removal of obstructions for fish migration structure + + + • Restrictions on angling and fishery and at potential spawning Reintroduction of migratory fish grounds, etc. Re-establishment of natural rivers and river valleys 1. Re-meandering of regulated rivers and reopening of culverted Improved/natural hydromorphological streams structure + + ++ ++ 2. Restoration of gravel and stones in river beds N and P loads 3. Cessation or minimization of river maintenance Sediment load 4. Extensification of cultivation Improved/natural hydromorphological Cessation/reduction of groundwater and surface water abstraction + + + structure Others Increased water transparency and Biomanipulation of lakes + greater plant and animal diversity Removal of contaminated sediments and soils P load, hazardous substance load + + (+) +
Reducing emissions to the atmosphere from traffic, industries and livestock N load, + + +
Table 3.1.2.: Potential measures to reduce pressures on water bodies and nature habitats.
54 PRB-Agriculture Report
2.b. Cost-Effective measures to fulfil objectives
Scenarios are made on different program of measures fulfilling the WFD objective of all water bodies within the Pilot River Basin, including rivers, lakes, groundwater and the fjord. The most cost effective programme of measures is identified (table 3.1.3.) showing the supplementary measures needed as well as basic measures already under implementation.
By example this programme of measures reduce the annual nitrogen input to the fjord by 1,000–1,200 tonnes per year, corresponding to a load reduction of the order of magnitude needed to fulfil the objective of good status. The analyses show that it is possible to implement environmental measures in agriculture that will reduce nitrogen loading of Odense Fjord by 1,000–1,200 tonnes per year, approximately halving the present nitrogen load to the fjord. This is done without reducing livestock production in the catchment. Crop production will have to be reduced, because the cultivated area is III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. reduced by 19%.
In general, re-establishment of wetlands and reduced fertilization norms are the most effective measures if large reductions in nutrient loading are to be achieved. Catch crops and measures giving a better utilization of manure are also effective and have a substantial effect. Due to different retention of the leaked nutrients from agricultural fields, measures implemented on fields in river valley are more effective reducing pressures on surface waters compared to measures implemented on fields above the river valley (highland areas). Measures related cessation of agricultural land use in river valleys have a multifunctional effect, at the same time reducing the nutrient loads to lakes and coastal waters, reduce the physical pressures on rivers and recreate nature areas to stop the decrease of biodiversity and secure Habitat directive objectives
The total budgeted costs for this integrated programme of measures is 16.5 million EURO per year for the basic measures and 12.5 million EURO per year for the supplementary measures, of which agricultural measures are 7.2 and point source measures are 5.3 million EURO per year. These costs can be compared to the cost of already implemented measures on sewage treatment within the catchment which is 40 million EURO per year, and the costs of already implemented measures reducing nutrient loads from agriculture which is about 1 million EURO per year.
Recreated Wetland, Odense
55 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Table 3.1.3. BASELINE Supplemen- Measures tary ODENSE PILOT RIVER BASIN under measures PROGRAMME OF MEASURES implementati (WFD) on MEASURES – COSTS Welfare economic annual costs, 1.000 EUR TOTAL COSTS 16.912 12.527 1.Improved nutrient management on agricultural fields to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution (Highland Areas) 532 • Increased use of catch crops, improved utilization of manure, reduced fertilization norms 402 2. Improved nutrient management on agricultural fields to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution (River Valleys) 329 • Increased use of catch crops, improved utilization of manure, reduced fertilization norms 3. Cessation of agricultural land use to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution, creation of new habitats/nature (Highland Areas) 942 • Recreation of forest and permanent grassland 671 4. Cessation of agricultural land use to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution, recreation of habitats/nature (River Valleys) 2.048 • Reestablishment of wetlands to improve nutrient retention 5. Reducing physical pressures on rivers and at the same time reducing the diffuse nutrient pollution to lakes/fjord and recreation of nature (added value). • Cessation of agricultural land use (permanent grassland) 1.378 • River restoration (re-meandering, removal of obstructions for fish migration, implantation of gravel and stones in river bed) • Cessation of river maintenance 6. Groundwater protection measures and recreation of nature (added value) 1.978 • Permanent grassland 7. Point source measures • Improved waste water treatment (sparsely build up areas, 15.838 5.320 municipal treatment plants, storm water outfalls) • Former waste disposal sites – measures to reduce leaching MEASURES – EFFECT Reduction in Nitrogen loading (tons N) to the 11 major lakes and the Fjord Total N-load reduction 342 937 1. Improved nutrient Management, highland areas 132 167 2. Improved nutrient Management, river valleys 166 3. Cessation of agricultural land use, highland areas 21 145 4. Cessation of agricultural land use, river valleys 334 5. Reducing physical pressures on rivers 204 6. Groundwater protection measures 44 7. Point source measures 18 8 Indirect effects (retention in lakes) 12 29 Agricultural land ceased
Hectare ceased 1.279 12.479 Share of total agricultural area 2% 19% Table 3.1.3. The most cost-effective measures to fulfill WFD objectives of all water bodies witin Odense Pilot River Basin. 56 PRB-Agriculture Report
The selection of supplementary measures to fulfill WFD objectives has been optimized also to benefit the requirements of the Habitat directive, to ensure the fulfillment of “good conservational status” for Natura 2000-areas. A large synergy effect exist by combining the implementation of the WFD and Habitat directive (Nature 2000) choosing measures that at the same time benefits both water bodies and terrestrial nature – thus a cost-saving of 2,8 million Euro per year is estimated for Odense PRB. Fulfillment of Habitat directive objectives will among other things further require expenses to reduce ammonia emission from livestock production.
3. Conclusions and recommendations
The main pressure on the water bodies identified in the Odense PRB is loss of nutrients III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. from agriculture, and to a lesser extent, impact from sewage water. Physical pressures on rivers from agricultural activities in the river valley are one of the main reasons why rivers are at risk not fulfilling the objectives. The risk analysis shows that “good ecological status” will not be reached for the main part of the water bodies in the river basin with the already planned measures against nutrient loading and physical pressures. By modeling, quantitative relations between nutrient load and ecological status of the Odense fjord and the major lakes were established, and a target of nutrient load reduction to obtain “good ecological status” was defined.
A catalogue of potential measures and belonging effects and costs was elaborated, and CEA analyses performed to define the most cost effective combination of measures securing the fulfillment of WFD objectives of all water bodies and also reducing pressures on NATURA 2000 areas. It is demonstrated that development of integrated programmes of measures for all types of water bodies (ground water, wetlands and surface waters) and measures related to NATURA 2000 areas will lead to mutual benefits and increase the cost-effectiveness of the measures planned.
Bibliography:
BERNET CATCH (2006): Executive Summary: Regional Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in the Baltic Sea Catchment. BERNET CATCH (2006): Main Report: Water quality Management in the Baltic Sea Region. BERNET CATCH (2006): Regional Report: Odense Fjord, Water Management Plan. Fyns Amt (2003): Provisional Article 5 Report pursuant to the Water Framework Directive. Fyn County, 135 pp. Fyn County (2001): Aquatic Environment of Fyn, Denmark, 1976-2000. Streams and lakes, Coastal Wtares, Groundwater, Environmental Impact of Fyn County, Odense, Denmark. 148 pp. European Environment Agency (2003): Europe’s environment: the third assessment. Environmental Assesment report no 10. 345 pp.
57 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
3.1.3.4. Case Study: Pandivere
1. Analysis for Pressure and Impact
The Pandivere Upland is the largest infiltration area in Estonia – permanent rivers and lakes are missing in the karst area of 1375 km2 on the central part of the upland. The snowmelt water and rainwater are drained off by sinkholes or seeps through the soil into cracked bedrock, thus replenishing groundwater resources. On the contrary, the bottom of the upland (80…90m) is marked with a tight circle of spring belt, where many rivers and streams emanate. The situation of limestone close to the surface and higher position compared with surroundings causes the draining of surface water and rock karst.
Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin district has over 700 registered karst and over 130 springs. 41% of Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin district is covered with forest, 37% is arable land, 14% is natural grassland and 3% are swamps and wetlands. About 50% of UAA is covered by grain cultivation area. Because of the very rich and adapted soils in the Pandivere area, through times, the main economic activity has been agriculture. Unfortunately the groundwater is still unprotected. Figure 3.1.29.: Water bodies in Pandivere sub-river basin district
In conditions as described before, groundwater is very sensitive in reference to pollution. The pollution in groundwater spreads quickly in karst areas and reaches to springs, at the same time polluting the water of springs and rivers. In that kind of circulating system, the self-purifying capacity of the groundwater is minimal.
Related to the intense agriculture and the vulnerability of the ground water bodies in the Karst areas, all the territory of the Pandivere groundwater river basin sub-district is declared Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ). The identification of NVZ has been done mostly based on risk to drinking water of wider region, including Tallinn. The most of population of Pandivere consume drinking groundwater from the near-ground horizon. Total groundwater use: 3,9 106 m3/year.
58 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Figure 3.1.30.: Springs, karst holes and groundwater vulnerability in Pandivere PRB
In the Pandivere area the nitrate content in the groundwater generally does not exceed the 25 mg/l threshold. However, in relation to the current state of agricultural activities, further significant decreases of concentrations levels cannot be expected. The Action Plan for NVZ is oriented to prevent possible pollutions from agriculture, both from point source pollution, such as farms and manure storage, and from diffuse pollution related to the use of fertilizers. Main attention is drawn to manure handling. During extreme weather conditions temporarily exceeding of levels cannot be prevented. So far, the improvement of water quality has been achieved mostly through economy, however, the agricultural sector has passed the worst times and thus the land use and use of fertilizers is again increasing. The expected results are that nitrate contents in groundwater will slightly increase.
One reason for the recently increased economic capacity of the farmers is the accessibility to the EU funds. Therefore, increased farming input can be sustained and the farmers are using more and more fertilizers. This is why the groundwater in the Pandivere area the nitrate ion concentration can easily peak again above 35 mg/l (in the end of 80´s the average concentration in the Pandivere was above 50mg/l). So there Manure storage, Pandivere is a threat that, when the economic capacity of farmers keeps rising, high input farming practices will become more common and groundwater pollution will reach hazardous levels. The immediate result is that lots of people living in countryside cannot any longer
59 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution use well water from the upper layers of groundwater aquifers for drinking. Even if levels are still well below critical now, the problem on how to continue to provide to the people drinking water that meets the requirements according to the Directive, will need to be solve already now.
Nitrate ion average annual content in Pandivere monitoring points’ water in 1991-2005
30
25
20
15 NO3 mg/l NO3
10
5
0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
private wells springs multiuser wells karst
Figure 3.1.31.: Average annual concentration of nitrate ion in Pandivere monitoring points' water (1991-2005)
(1) This has started with the implementation of the NVZ Protection Regulation that stipulates areas with unprotected groundwater and their immediate surroundings and prescribes limitations to agricultural activities in these areas.
Some of obligatory measures from the regulations are:
o The period when land application of fertilizers is prohibited: from the 1-st December to 31-st March
adverse conditions, conditions, adverse o Requirements for manure storages: Manure storages in the NVZ could meet requirements of the water protection at the earliest for the beginning of 2009. The manure storages must
Manure distribution in Pandivere deposit at least 8 months manure.
60 PRB-Agriculture Report
o Maximum amount of using fertilizers: In the NVZ the average amount of the nitrogen per hectare is allowed: 170 kg/ha a year (organic and mineral fertilizers).
o In the Unprotected groundwater areas (vulnerable zone) the amount of nitrogen from mineral fertilizers cannot exceed 120 kg per hectare a year, limitation of animal density to 1,5 livestock unit per hectare of UAA.
o Around the springs and karst holes, in a perimeter of 10 to 50 meter it is prohibited to use fertilizers and pesticides.
(2) Compiling of guidelines Training and consulting in situ of agricultural producers, farmers: III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
The most important measure to prevent pollution is to inform farmers and to organize possibly more training for presenting environmental requirements. An introductory brochure was published during spring 2006. (www.envir.ee/NTA).
The Code of Good Agricultural Practices is expected to be renewed from 2006 in relation with changes in Common Agriculture Policy.
Pandivere Waterhole, well, Natural
The digital maps of unprotected groundwater areas, springs and karst holes were edited in 2004 and made available on the website (www.maaamet.ee). For the biggest agricultural producers, paper maps have been printed in year 2005 .
2. Related Measures in Pandivere
Two basic measures are planned to be included in the first RBMPs (2009-15):
1. “To reduce point pollution from livestock farms and to bring farms into compliance with environmental requirements.”
This measure is directly linked with the WFD and the Nitrates and IPPC Directive, as well as with the Estonian Water Act.
The measure intends to protect surface and groundwater against of pollution with P, N and organic substances. To preserve a good status of the groundwater and 61 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution surface water bodies, special attention is given to ground and surface water intakes, groundwater formation areas, nitrate sensitive areas and sensitive water bodies in agricultural areas.
Bringing farms into compliance with environmental requirements is a technical measure, which includes:
+ Building non leaking manure storages (supported by the Rural Development Programme scheme); + Supplying manure transportation and spreading equipment; + Building silage storages; + Fixing wastewater treatment in livestock farms.
The cost of the measure bringing livestock farms into compliance with environmental requirements is about 640 Euro per animal unit. The total cost of the measure to bring livestock farms into compliance with environmental requirements is estimated to 15-20 million Euro (in Pandivere area only). Calculations of operating cost haven’t been done yet. It is expected that these costs will be paid by farmers (2005 year price).
2. “Action Plan 2004-2008 for Nitrate Vulnerable Zone”.
The Action Plan has been set up in relation to the Nitrates Directive and the Water Act. The aim of action plan is to prevent negative impact of agricultural management to the surface and groundwater bodies in area.
The Nitrate Vulnerable Zone in Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa region has been approved with Estonian Government Regulation no 318-k, 30.04.2004 by years 2004-2008.
The NVZ Measure intends to protect surface and ground water of pollution from P, N and organic substances through the training and consulting of agricultural producers. It supports increased co-operation between the agricultural, environmental, health care and local government institutions and with non governmental institutions.
Drilling new and deeper bore wells (also for private users) in areas with intensive agricultural production reduces nitrate pollution impact affecting the drinking water quality. Improvement to local water supply in these areas is important. It is not entirely possible, though, to avoid some pollution in the upper groundwater layers coming from the immediate overlaying fields because of the natural karstic circumstances.
Estimated cost of The Action Plan of Nitrate Vulnerable Zone for 2004-2008 is planned to 1,3 million and for 2009-2014, is estimated 3 million euro.
The total cost of first and second basic measure is about 330 million euro.
The planning of supplementary measures is an on-going activity and the implementation of these measures is not foreseen before a significant part of the basic measures have been implemented. In the Pandivere sub-river basin district the government approves the water management plans.
A wide range of supplementary measures for water management have been planned and include objectives for further research, training and awareness raising activities some further: 62 PRB-Agriculture Report
• Measures against pollution caused by agricultural diffuse pressures with a preventive and administrative nature. These include mainly research, information options, developing co-operation and training between involved institutions;
• Hydro-technical measures to improve the status of heavily modified and artificial water bodies;
• Surveys on pollution loads in poor status water bodies as related to agricultural pressures;
• More stringent specific measures for the protection of groundwater in Pandivere groundwater sub-basin being an important groundwater recharge area in Estonia;
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. Supplementary measures specified as administrative nature:
− Ensuring horizontal co-operation and integrating various national development plans;
− Delineation and declaration of water protection areas;
− Preparation of management plans for land reclamation systems, in accordance with water management plans;
− Setting up additional restrictions for upper groundwater intake recharge areas and also for the surface water intake watershed for Tallinn city.
Pre-planning activities for the water management plans:
In pre-planning status is the water protection funding measure for the next Rural Development Plan for 2007-2013. This measure could be supported like implementing supplementary water protection activities by the farmers.
Compilation and setting objectives for the Sub-River Basin District Water Management plans is based on monitoring data for surface and groundwater, on groundwater protection and land use maps and agricultural statistics. Data and information sources have been received from the following institutions: Estonian Environment Information Centre, Estonian Agricultural Registers and Information Board, Statistical Office of Estonia and other institutions. Several expert evaluations and researches, which involved with agricultural producing, have been used also.
To calculate the agricultural pressures for the sub-river basin district water in preparation of the management plans, different data and analyzing methods have been used (MESAw, PolFlow, Wennerblom, expert-judgement). In near future Institutions should unify their data and analyzing methods in order to increase comparability.
63 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution 3. Conclusions and Recommendations
The nitrogen pollution is expected to become the main problem in the Pandivere area. An indicator confirming this is the increasing nitrate ion concentration trend in groundwater that is strongly related to the continuously growing concentration of big farms near the settlements.
The main challenge at present is to reduce point pollution from livestock farms and bring farms into compliance with environmental requirements. The amount of investments is remarkable and it takes time for farmers to realize that environmental issues are important and constitute a service similar to the amount of crop yield that they can get from their land.
The most important thing is to consistently continue the awareness raising of farmers to inform them about the possible impact to environment and about the potential they have in supporting and maintaining a sustainable development of rural areas and all related water resources.
Manure distributor Estonia
64 PRB-Agriculture Report
Nr The name of The Estimated Effectivenes Necessity of measure estimated cost of s other measures effect of the methods (numbers), measure without what the effect doesn’t manifest 1 The period of 30% 64 Euro/LU* Basic Functions forbidden measure! independently outspreading of Without it fertilizer (from 1st there is no of November to point of other 31st on march) methods 2 The moderation of <1% 32 Euro Less III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. fertilizing on the /hectare important for steep slopes surface water – surface water measure 3 The moderation of 10% 64 Euro/LU Supplements Functions fertilizing in areas, the 1st basic independently which are soaked measure through, flooded and frozen or covered with snow. 4 Bank protection <1% 64 The measure area, protection Euro/hectar is more areas of springs e important to and karst surface water 5 Manure storage 10% 634 Euro/LU Basic measure Measures 1; 3 and laying The measure technique is more important to surface water 6 Fertilizing 50% 19 Euro Basic measure Functions limitations up to EEK/hectare independently 20% of economical too optimum Table 3.1.4.: The assessment of cultivation measures effectiveness to groundwater condition in Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin district.
*LU- livestock Unit At this point it has to do with experience of the author of this work and with expert-opinion based on the research of other countries. It doesn’t apply to great accuracy, but directs attention to the possible effect of spending.
65 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution 3.1.3.5 Case Study Ribble
Using diatom to assess nutrient status in agricultural catchments.
The WFD requires all water bodies to achieve “good ecological status” by 2015, where good ecological status (GES) is defined as a biota that shows no more than a slight deviation from that expected in the absence of any anthropogenic stress. Various components of the biota have to be assessed, including invertebrates, fish, macrophytes and phytobenthos. Previously, biological water quality assessment in the UK was based primarily on invertebrate community composition and, generally, catchments subject to diffuse run-off from agricultural land did not show major impacts (unless there were specific problems with pesticides or slurry, for example). However, other components of the biota – phytobenthos in particular – are very sensitive to nutrient enrichment and it is possible that diffuse pollution from some types of agriculture may be sufficient to distort the ‘natural’ phytobenthos assemblage beyond what is considered to be a ‘slight change’.
A tool for assessing phytobenthos for ecological status assessments has been developed for the UK (Kelly et al., 2006). This uses ‘diatoms’ – the most diverse and often the most abundant group of freshwater algae as proxies for the phytobenthos assemblage. These have been used for other monitoring purposes in the UK for some time (particularly associated with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, UWWTD: Kelly & Whitton, 1995) and sampling and analytical methods are underpinned by European Standards (CEN, 2003; 2004). The UK tool is known as DARLEQ (Diatoms for Assessing River and Lake Ecological Quality).
DARLEQ methodology was tested on a selection of waterbodies that receive drainage from a number of different types of agriculture to test the effects of agricultural management on ecological status. 1. Analysis for Pressures and Impact
Dairy pasture, Skirden Beck , Ribble
Materials and methods
1.1 sample collection
Altogether, five waterbodies in the Ribble Basin were studied, along with five in North Yorkshire. In each waterbody a sample was taken at one point as far upstream as possible within the sub-catchment and one point immediately prior to the confluence with a higher order watercourse, a point which defines the lower limit of the waterbody.
66 PRB-Agriculture Report
The basic experimental design was to collect samples above and below agricultural land subject to known management regimes on two occasions (summer and autumn 2006). Upstream sites were assumed to be ‘controls’, free from significant impacts, where the land delivering water to the upstream point was under extensive agricultural management such as fell or unimproved pasture. By contrast, in lowland waterbodies the upstream points may well receive water from agricultural land subject to intensive agricultural management. Study waterbodies were chosen carefully to exclude those which receive water treatment works discharges further upstream. No assessment of the density of other domestic sources of nutrients, such as septic tanks, was made.
1.2 Sample analysis
The Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) is based on a weighted-average-based equation and has a scale of 0-100 where low scores represent low levels of nutrients and high scores indicate high levels of nutrients. Sites with little or no anthropogenic input usually have a III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. TDI value < 40.
Ecological quality ratios are derived from the TDI as follows:
EQR = 100 – observed TDI / 100 – expected TDI
The expected TDI is calculated from an algorithm that incorporates total alkalinity measurements from the site and the sample date (see Kelly et al., 2006). The ecological status is derived from the EQR using the scale given in Table 3.1.5. However, the diatom flora shows considerable within-site variation and this means that EQRs from a site are also variable. Therefore, an ecological status assessment has to be considered along with an estimate of the associated uncertainty which is, in turn, a function of the distance of the mean EQR for the site from a class boundary and the number of replicates on which the estimate is based. As there are two replicates per sample, it is not possible to say with confidence that a site is not at good status until the EQR has fallen to 0.62. Where the mean EQR falls between 0.62 and 0.76 it is only possible to say that the site may fail to achieve good ecological status.
Alkalinity values were only available for sites in NW England (with the exception of Wrea Brook). For sites in NE England, conductivity was measured on site and the RIVPACS program was used to convert this to the equivalent alkalinity value. The mean of all sites from a catchment were used for sites in that catchment that lacked alkalinity measurements, and the mean of all sites in the study were used for those catchments that lacked any alkalinity measurements.
In addition, the Indice de Polluosensibilité (IPS, Coste in CEMAGREF, 1982), percent motile valves and Hill’s N2 diversity index were calculated. IPS is a French index of general water quality that is widely used in Europe and provides a complementary view to that given by the TDI whilst Hill’s N2 diversity indicates whether one or a few species dominate the count. The former provides a better indication of the role of Intensive grassland, Ribble organic pollution on streams than the TDI and the latter, though quite difficult to interpret, can highlight situations where toxic pollutants (e.g. pesticides) might be having an effect. Chemical data are available from only a few sites. These are summarised in Table 3.
67 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Table 3.1.5.. Ecological status class boundary values for the DARES tool
Status class boundary EQR
High / good 0.93
Good / moderate 0.76
Moderate / poor 0.51
Poor / bad 0.26
Site Nitrate-N Suspended Ortho-P n solids
CB02 3.41 (15.25) 32.0 (122.5) 0.57 (3.75) 138
RL02 2.01 (6.09) 11.0 (44.0) 0.20 (0.43) 138
SB03 1.15 (5.77) 5.0 (54.8) 0.05 (0.23) 100
WB02 3.58 (4.44) 40 (49.9) 0.41 (0.43) 3 Table 3.1.6. Median values and 95th percentiles (in brackets) of environmental data from study sites, collected between 1995 and 2006.
Cultivated land, Ribble Ribble land, Cultivated Intensive grassland and maize, Ribble
2. Conclusions and Recommendations
2.1 General overview
A total of 48 samples were collected from 25 sites. A de-trended correspondence analysis was performed in order to obtain a general overview of the factors that shaped
68 PRB-Agriculture Report
the diatom community composition. Results suggest that the samples in this dataset are shaped by two strong gradients:
• nutrients (with high values on Axis 1 suggesting low nutrients); and,
• physical disturbance (reflected by high numbers of motile valves, which are able to adapt to this type of disturbance by moving to more favourable microhabitats within the biofilm.
2.2. Ecological status at study sites
Catchment Waterbody Ecological status from DARLEQ III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. Upstream Mid-stream Downstream
Ribble, Rathmell Beck High - Good Lancashire Skirden Beck High Good/Moderate Good/Moderate
River Loud Uncertain - Uncertain
Wrea Brook Moderate - Poor
Carr Brook Moderate/Poor - Moderate/Poor
Derwent, Spital Beck Good/Moderate Poor/Bad Poor/Bad Yorkshire
Swallowpits Beck Poor/Bad
Barlam Beck Poor Poor Poor
Blackfoss Beck Poor Poor Poor/Bad
Nunburnholme Beck Moderate/Poor - Poor
Table 3.1.7.: Ecological status at study sites
Conclusions
Overall, these results indicate that several catchments show signs of enrichment and disturbance, and that the scale of this increases with the intensity of the agriculture. Some of the upstream sites also appear to be enriched although the reasons are not always clear. It is likely that the very small catchments involved in this study are particularly vulnerable partly due to their small size, as there will be few inocula from upstream to buffer any temporary disturbances.
The poor condition of the uppermost sites on both Wrea Book and Carr Brook is noteworthy. In both these lowland catchments, the uppermost sample points will receive water from land in intensive agricultural management and may also be influenced by urban drainage.
69 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution
As there are only two samples per site, and these samples were taken over the course of one year only, conclusions must be treated as tentative, but the indications are that river sites that receive diffuse inputs from intensive agriculture are, under present management regimes, unlikely to achieve good ecological status.
Table 3.18.. Background information on catchments included in this study.
Catchment Agricultural Sites Total alkalinity Management regime
Ribble basin Mean n
Rathmell Beck Grazed pasture (cattle, RB01 (at edge of fell) sheep), some sileage RB02 (close to confluence 42 102 at lower end, possibly with Ribble) a small amount of fodder maize. Some gill woodland adjacent to beck.
Skirden Beck Improved pasture / SB01 (close to fell) dairy (mix of long- and SB02 ( mid-reach, short-term leys, 2-3 permanent pasture cuts of silage, some 128 88 fodder maize at lower SB03 (some maize) end.)
River Loud Pasture (intensive RL01 (one field below fell) dairy). (mix of long- RL02 (just above small 130 111 and short-term leys, sewage works at Leach 2-3 cuts of silage, House) some fodder maize at lower end.)
Wrea Brook Pasture (intensive WB01 (close to housing dairy, three cuts of estate) silage, heavily WB02 manured, some cereals but for silage or feed, not grain.
Carr Brook Arable (intensive CB01 (horse grazing cereal/root crop/field upstream, also possibly vegetable rotations) urban drainage) 177 106 plus improved pasture CB02 (downstream of arable land)
Yorkshire Derwent Basin
70 PRB-Agriculture Report
Catchment Agricultural Sites Total alkalinity Management regime
Spital Beck Woodland and SPB01 permanent pasture SPB02 Mixed pasture and SPB03 arable(rape/cereals) SPB04 (d/s two small Mixed pasture and sewage works) arable(rape/cereals) Mixed pasture and arable(rape/cereals)
Swallowpits Permanent pasture SWB01 322 1 Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. Beck adjacent predominantly arable upstream to wold edge
Barlam Beck Pasture and wooded BB01 136 slopes upstream BB02 Predominantly arable BB03 213 cereals/ rape/roots Predominantly arable cereals/ rape/roots
Blackfoss Arable fields BLB01 Beck immediately adjacent, BLB02 Pasture and wooded slopes upstream 205 BLB03 242 Predominantly arable cereals/ rape/roots Predominantly arable cereals/ rape/roots
Nunburnholm Mainly permanent NB01 e Beck pasture and woodland NB02 Predominantly arable 184 NB03 cereals/ rape/roots Predominantly arable cereals/ rape/roots
References:
CEMAGREF, 1982. Etude de Méthodes Biologiques Quantitatives d'Appreciation de la Qualité des Eaux. Rapport Q.E. Lyon-A.F.B. Rhône-Mediterrannée-Corse. CEN (2003). Water quality - Guidance standard for the routine sampling and pretreatment of benthic diatoms from rivers. EN 13946: 2003. Geneva: Comité European de Normalisation. 71 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution CEN (2004). Water quality - Guidance standard for the identification, enumeration and interpretation of benthic diatom samples from running waters. EN 14407:2004. Geneva: Comité European de Normalisation. Kelly, M.G. & Whitton, B.A. (1995). The Trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology, 7, 433-444. Kelly, M.G., Juggins, S., Bennion, H., Burgess, A., Yallop, M., Hirst, H., King, L., Jamieson, J., Guthrie, R., Rippey, B. (2006). Use of diatoms for evaluating ecological status in UK freshwaters. 160pp. Draft final report to Environment Agency.
R Development Core Team, 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-00-3, URL http://www.R-project.org.
Intensive grassland and dairy cows,,Ribble
Intensive grassland and cultivated land catchment in Carr Brook
72 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.1.3.6. Case Study: Weser
Analysis of nutrient pressures in the Weser River Basin and measures for their reduction
1. Analysis of pressures and impacts
The Weser River Basin has a size of approx. 49.000 km² and 60 % of its area is used for agriculture (Figure 3.1.32.). The fertile black earth soil in the central part of the river basin provides good conditions for farmland whereas in the mountainous regions in the south the land is cultivated to a lesser extent. In the coastal region in the north with its marshland grassland is prevalent. Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Due to the agricultural land use, nutrient inputs (P and N) from fertilizer and animal manure running into the groundwater and surface waters cause a major problem in the river basin.
The analysis of pressures and impacts in the Weser River Basin (Art. 5 report: www.fgg- weser.de/en/2005_characterization _report.html ) has shown that 78 of 141 groundwater bodies in the river basin (62 % of the area) are possibly at risk due to diffuse source pollution (Figure 3.1.33.) (RIVER BASIN COMMISSION WESER 2005B). The “at risk” assessment was carried out in a first step using the nitrate parameter as an indicator and the target value of the groundwater directive as criterion.
The result of the groundwater assessment is partly limited due to insufficient monitoring data. The trend of nutrient concentrations that is declining in surface waters as described below has not yet been analyzed in groundwater bodies.
Figure 3.1.32.: Agriculturally used area in the Weser River Basin
Also the surface waters in the river basin are affected by nutrient inputs; nitrogen is mainly transported via interchange with groundwater into rivers and streams whereas phosphorus is bound to soil particles and gets into waters in areas sensitive to erosion (see chapter III.4). In rivers eutrophication occurs especially in regulated stretches with low current and large backwater areas during the summer. Several lakes in the river 73 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution basin are possibly at risk due to eutrophic conditions, a further assessment is carried out during monitoring. According to the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EWG) the whole river basin has been classified as “vulnerable zone”.
Land use in the Weser
Figure 3.1.33.: Risk assessment groundwater bodies in the Weser River Basin – diffuse sources
The analysis of transitional and coastal waters of the Weser River Basin has shown that nutrient inputs have a particular impact on these water bodies. The entire coastal area has been designated as a Problem Area under the OSPAR – strategy to combat eutrophication. Especially during warm periods eutrophication occurs in the flat coastal areas of the Wadden Sea although a reversed trend with declining nutrient concentrations was noticed in the German Bight as well as in the lower Weser area (Bremen-Hemelingen) (Figure 3.1.34.).
Since 1985 phosphorus concentrations were reduced by 81 % and nitrogen concentrations by 34 % (RIVER BASIN COMMISSION WESER 2005A). The main reasons for these reductions are the technical improvement of sewage treatment but also the replacement of washing detergents containing phosphate. In contrast, the reduction of diffuse sources by various measures applied on agricultural land has hardly been indicated yet due to retention times of nitrogen in groundwater. 74 PRB-Agriculture Report
Total P - concentrations at sample station Hemelingen 1985 to 2005 1,4 total P [mg/l] annual mean trend 1,2
1
0,8
[mg P/ l] 0,6
0,4 Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. 0,2
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Total N - concentrations at sample station Hemelingen 1985 to 2005 10 t otal N [mg/l] annual mean trend 9 8 7 6 5
[mg N/[mg l] 4 3 2 1 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 3.1.34.: Nutrient concentrations (rivers) at the sample station Bremen-Hemelingen for the period 1985-2004 (river Weser, catchment size at sample station: 38.100 km²)
A more detailed area differentiated analysis is presently carried out with the AGRUM model network5 (www.fgg-weser.de/Download-Dateien/profile_agrum_weser.pdf) to examine the link between the agricultural nutrient balance surpluses, monitored water body conditions and agricultural and environmental policy measures. The model network considers all relevant input sources and pathways for nitrogen and phosphorus including
5 Agricultural and Environmental Policy Measure Analyses in the Field of Agricultural Water Protection in the Weser River Basin against the Background of the EU-WFD 75 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution retention times in groundwater covering the entire area of the Weser River Basin. Current changes in agricultural policies and federal state activities are taken into account for a baseline scenario. In the ongoing process possible targets are being discussed (e.g. nitrate concentration in seepage water), measures to achieve these will be identified and a consistent analysis of their impact will be carried out looking also at the social and economic consequences for the agricultural sector.
2. Related measures
Measures to reduce nutrient inputs into groundwater and surface waters have been applied in Germany for some time. Changes in the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU since the beginning of the 1990’s have provided incentives for less intensive farming practices. Furthermore, specific advice and information has resulted in the reduction of fertilizer use on farmland (AMBROS 2006). The amendment of the Fertilizer Law which implements the Nitrates Directive (676/91) in Germany provides the legal grounds for the application of Good Agricultural Practice (FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 2006).
Compiled from several pilot projects (Figure 3.1.35.) and first catalogues of measures in the Weser River Basin, the examples of measures shown in the tables below have been proven to be successful in reducing nutrient inputs in the past or are being tested at present. Results from these projects will give important information for designing a programme of measures and are expected in due course. The regions in the river basin are not equally sensitive towards nutrient emissions due to different characteristics (e.g. geological features, soil type). Hence some measures are only suitable and applicable in certain areas and cannot be transferred in general. The establishment of target values is currently being discussed within the projects with consideration of project findings and in line with objectives given by EU and national authorities (e.g. WAgriCo – LIFE project: www.wagrico.org).
lture, Weser Intensive agricu
Figure 3.1.35.: Regional pilot projects in the Weser River Basin with the issue agriculture
76 PRB-Agriculture Report
The following overview (Table 3.1.9. and 3.1.10.) provides examples of basic and supplementary measures according to Art. 11 WFD which are in place or presently considered for the programme of measures. The listed basic measures (Table 3.1.9.) arise particularly from the implementation of the Nitrates Directive. The presented supplementary measures (Tab. 3.1.10.) include the reduction of fertilizer quantity by certain application techniques and storage, by cultivation techniques and extensive land use. The assignment to either basic or supplementary measure still needs to be clarified. In general, supplementary measures go beyond good agricultural practice and there are means of funding by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development6. Moreover, funding is available from budgets of the Federal Republic of Germany as well as from the Federal States. In prospect of the programme of measures according to the WFD the coordination of measures has to be improved in order to use the limited financial means for effective water protection (NOLTE et. al. 2006). Besides funding, the co-operation model between agriculture and the federal water management established in the Federal III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1. State of Lower Saxony for drinking water protection areas demonstrate a common effort of local participants to reduce high excess nitrogen levels (RIVM 2005).
Measure Legislation Impact Balance between crop needs and nutrient supply (N-balance, N, P P-balance) – principle of Fertilizer Law Surplus limits for N and P (Stepwise reduction of nitrogen surpluses from <= 90 N, P kgN/ha*a to <= 80 kg/N/ha*a to 60 kgN/ha*a, reduction of phosphate to <= 20 kg/ha*a) Limitation on the maximum amount of livestock manure to N, P 170 kg N/ha/a for arable and grassland Nitrates Directive Prohibition periods for the application of nitrogen-containing (91/676/EEC) N fertilizer Extension of livestock manure storage capacity N, P Minimum distance along surface waters for the application of nitrogen-containing fertilizer depending on slope gradient and N, P vegetation and limited application of fertilizer to steeply sloping ground Prohibition of application of livestock manure to water- N, P saturated, frozen or snow-covered ground Prohibition of sewage sludge application in drinking water N, P protection areas and along water courses Sewage Sludge Directive Prohibition of sewage sludge application to fruit and (86/278/EEC) N, P vegetable crops during vegetation period (e.g.) Designation of protection areas Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) N, P Reduction of agricultural activity due to bird and nature and Birds Directive (79/409 N, P conservation EEC) Integrated Pollution and Measures for the prevention of emissions into air, water and Prevention Control Directive N, P soil from agricultural industries acc. to annex I, 6.3 to 6.6 (96/61/EC)
Table 3.1.9.: Basic measures for the reduction of diffuse nutrient pressures (examples)
6 Council of the European Union (2005): Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 77 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.1. Pressure 1: Nutrient Pollution Instruments/actions Measure Impact required (example) Reduction of fertilizer (application techniques, storage) Suitable application techniques: voluntary agreement, slurry spreading with towed umbilical hose, trailing shoe or compensation, N slit injection, calibrated manure and dung spreading monitoring/inspection voluntary agreements, Spreading periods for slurry, liquid manure and poultry dung N compensation, inspection Renunciation of spreading slurry, liquid manure and poultry Fertilizer Law: best practice N dung in protected areas methods N stabilizer / nitrification inhibitors N Land cultivation voluntary agreement, Ploughless grassland renewal/ grassland renewal without soil compensation, N, P inversion monitoring/inspection EU Agenda 2000, voluntary Active fallow plot including greening in autumn N agreements voluntary agreement, Cultivation avoiding nutrient surpluses: catch crop cultivation compensation, N, P and undersowing crops monitoring/inspection No cultivation of “problem crops” (e.g. intensively fertilized voluntary agreement, corn or potatoes) in high-priority areas/surfaces highly compensation, N susceptible to leaching (water protection areas) monitoring/inspection cultivation restrictions: e.g. ploughing across the slope to best practice methods P minimize erosion Reduced cultivation methods: e.g. direct sowing, sowing N, P crops in mulch, no ploughing Extensive land use purchase, compensation, funding (eg. Creation of riparian buffer strips, unused or extensively used P Rural development programmes) Conversion of arable into grassland (in floodplains, wetland, funding (Rural development N, P bog areas) programmes) funding (Rural development Extensive land use : grassland extensification (reduced programmes), voluntary N number of livestock units) agreement, compensation, monitoring/inspection funding (Rural development Conversion into organic farming N, P, programmes)
Table 3.1.10: Supplementary measures for the reduction of diffuse nutrient pressures
examples from BAVARIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UND BAVARIAN STATE RESEARCH CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE (2006), LOWER SAXONY STATE AGENCY FOR ECOLOGY (2001), WATER BOARD OF OLDENBURG AND EAST FRISIA (OOWV) (2005 ), THURINGIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NATURE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT (2006)
78 PRB-Agriculture Report
3. Conclusions and recommendations
With the AGRUM project an area differentiated analysis of nutrient pressures is carried out in the Weser River Basin. It is the main target to identify the sources of nutrient inputs, to set objectives and design adapted measures for their reduction. Furthermore, measures are presently discussed and tested in several regional pilot projects. The results will provide information on their cost effectiveness.
The Fertilizer Law provides an important instrument for the application of good agricultural practice. These basic measures have to be observed and implemented according to the polluter pays principle by the farmers (AMBROS 2006). For the implementation of supplementary measures there are funds available from EU and German budgets. In order to use the limited financial means most efficient, it is necessary to coordinate funding programmes and the programme of measures according to the WFD. Nutrient Pollution Pressure 1: III.1.
Information and advice on measures to reduce nutrient inputs have a strong relevance and have been proven successful. The cooperation of water management and agriculture in drinking water protection areas could serve as a good example for solving problems and developing coordinated programmes of measures (AMBROS 2006).
References:
AMBROS, WERNER (2006): Konsequenzen der neuen Agrarpolitik für die Wasserwirtschaft (Consequences of the new agricultural policies for water management). In: Wasser und Abfall 7-8 – 2006.
BAVARIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (BAYERISCHES LANDESAMT FÜR UMWELT); BAVARIAN STATE RESEARCH CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE (BAYRISCHE LANDESANSTALT FÜR LANDWIRTSCHAFT) (2006): Maßnahmenkatalog Gewässerschonende Landbewirtschaftung (Catalogue of measures for water protecting land use) (unpublished).
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR ERNÄHRUNG, LANDWIRTSCHAFT UND VERBRAUCHERSCHUTZ) (2006): Verordnung über die Anwendung von Düngemitteln, Bodenhilfsstoffen, Kultursubstraten und Pflanzenhilfsmitteln nach den Regeln der guten fachlichen Praxis (Düngeverordnung) (Fertilizer Law).
RIVER BASIN COMMISSION WESER (FLUSSGEBIETSGEMEINSCHAFT WESER) (2005A): Wesergütebericht 2004 (Weser quality report 2004).
RIVER BASIN COMMISSION WESER (FLUSSGEBIETSGEMEINSCHAFT WESER)(2005B): Bewirtschaftungsplan Flussgebietseinheit Weser: Bestandsaufnahme 2005 (Art. 5 Report. Analysis of Pressures and Impacts 2005).
LOWER SAXONY STATE AGENCY FOR ECOLOGY (NIEDERSÄCHSISCHES LANDESAMT FÜR ÖKOLOGIE) (2001): Anwenderhandbuch für die Zusatzberatung Wasserschutz (Users guidance for advice on water protection).
NOLTE, LOTHAR UND OSTERBURG, BERNHARD (2006): Beiträge ländlicher Entwicklungsprogramme zur Reduzierung diffuser Gewässerbelastungen aus der Landwirtschaft am Beispiel Niedersachsens (Contribution of Rural Development Programmes towards the reduction of diffuse source pressures from agriculture using the example Lower Saxony). In: Wasser und Abfall 7-8 2006.
RIVM (2005): RIVM Report 500003007/2005: Monitoring effectiveness of the EU Nitrates Directive Action Programmes. Results of the MonNO3 workshop 11-12 June 2003. B. Fraters, K. Kovar, W.j. Willems. J. Stockmarr, R. Grant.
THURINGIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NATURE CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT (THÜRINGEN MINISTERIUM FÜR LANDWIRTSCHAFT, NATURSCHUTZ UND UMWELT) (2006): Belastungsorientierter Maßnahmenkatalog Thüringen (Pressure orientated catalogue of measures). Stand: Juni 2006. (unpublished).
WATER BOARD OF OLDENBURG AND EAST FRISIA (OOWV) (2006): Water4All-Project: Sustainable Groundwater Management: Handbook of best practice to reduce agricultural impacts on groundwater quality.
79
PRB-Agriculture Report
III.2 Pressure 2: Pesticide Pollution
Case studies provided by: Gascogne Rivers, Guadalquivir, Ribble
Pollution Pollution
Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2. 3.2.1. Introduction
In agriculture, pesticides are used as plant protection products (PPP). They are used to fight crop pests and reduce competition. Hence, they improve yields and the economic benefits for the farmers by providing security of production. As the CAP has been focusing on improving agricultural production, pesticides have become an increasing specific tool in this field. They are employed on a large scale and considered essential in modern cropping. They may have the potential to kill or control harmful organisms such as pests, but can also cause unwanted adverse effects on non-target organisms, human health and the environment.1
Release of pesticides, resulting from agricultural activities, can cause contamination of fresh, ground and coastal waters, through drainage, leaching and/or runoff. In the last few years, several studies have shown the presence of pesticides exceeding threshold concentrations fixed by National and European legislation (e.g.: Della Vedova et al., 1996; Cerejeira et al., 2003; Steen et al., 2002; Strandberg and Scott-Fordsmand, 2002; amongst others). Eco-toxicological effects of pesticides on plants and animals are widely known (De Lorenzo et al., 2000; Forney, 1981; Miyamoto et al., 1990; Funari, 1995; Kamrin, 1997). The impact of these contaminants can be direct and/or indirect, through metabolic degradation products, acute and/or chronic toxicity, and/or long-term effects via bioaccumulation in aquatic food chains. However, the product registration process conform to the Council Directive 91/414/EC concerning the placing of PPP on the market, includes a risk assessment on the impact of the product’s use taking into account the active substance’s properties. Products and their uses only can be registered if it is scientifically demonstrated that there are no unacceptable risks for humans and environment followed by the use of the product.
The contaminants can reach the aquatic environment, through atmospheric wet and dry deposition (airshed), diffuse and/or point sources in the watershed. Furthermore, a contaminant may be delivered constantly during the year, in a pulse due to an accidental release, or periodically driven by human activities and environmental fluctuations. On the other hand, bioavailability, bioaccumulation and environmental pathways of pesticides are still not completely understood (e.g., Graymore et al., 2001).
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/home.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm; and Statement by Carina Weber, Executive Director PAN Germany, Chair PAN Europe Board, in the opening of the Workshop on Pesticide Reduction Programmes in Germany and the UK, July 5 2005, Hamburg 81 PRB-Agriculture Report
Regulations are implemented for a long time in EU but certain pesticides can be detected
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide in the environment. During 2006 the Commission proposed a Strategy to address reducing the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment and more generally of achieving more sustainable use of pesticides and a significant overall reduction in risks, while ensuring necessary crop protection. Protection of the aquatic
Pollution environment would be enhanced, e.g. by the creation of buffer strips along water courses and the use of low spray drift equipment. Member States would designate areas of significantly reduced or zero pesticide use. Safe conditions would be established for storage and handling of pesticides and their packaging and remnants. 2 Currently, further risk reduction measures are encouraged rather than implementing reduction targets on the use of PPP. Furthermore, the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is a worldwide guidance on pesticide management for all public and private entities engaged in, or associated with, the distribution and use of pesticides (3).
According to Eurostat, based on data supplied by ECPA (4) pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and other pesticides) annual sales in the EU15 increased during the period 1992-2001 from 291.895 to 327.280 tonnes, with a peak of 355.537 in 1998. Figure 3.2.1 shows the consumption of some of the main pesticides types (3). Figures 3.2.2. and 3.2.3 show application rates and insecticide consumption at EU level (5). However general data on trends of consumption of pesticides might be available at country level, more detailed information on the use of the many active substances at river basin level for instance is very hard to find.
It is not the quantity consumed however that reflects the risk. The real risk and potential impact depends on the active substances, their toxicity, solubility, application practices, climate, soil conditions and the type of water body, ground or surface water, and their use. Furthermore, persistence of certain substances means that they are still in the environment although their presence may depend on past uses. Routine data collection methods may also not adequately pick up all variations in time and concentration making comparisons difficult.
All the above factors make analysing the PRB basin wide effects of PPP applications very challenging.
2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/strategy.htm 3 http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/PM_Code.htm 4 ‘The use of plant protection products in the European Union, Data 1992-2003, 2007 Edition”. Eurostat European Commission, 2007; and http://www.ecpa.be/website/index.asp 5 Information from the Pesticides Action Network Europe: http://www.pan-europe.info/About%20pesticides/Pesticides%20EU%20market.htm 82 PRB-Agriculture Report
Use and Composition of PPP EU-15 for 1992-2003 (in tons of Active Substance) Pollution Pollution III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2.
Use and composition of PPP Contribution of the 10 New EU-25 for 2000-2003 MS (tons per AS) for 2000-2003 (ton/AS)
Figure 3.2.1.: Use according to composition of the main Plant Protection Products (Source: The use of plant protection products in the European Union, data 1992-2003, Eurostat statistical books, 2007)
4 3,5 3 2,5 2
kg/ha 1,5 1 0,5 0 1989-1991 1994-1996 1998-2000
Pesticide consumption per hectare of agricultural land Pesticide consumption per hectare of arable land
Figure 3.2.2.: Average Pesticide application rates for all Europe (excluding former USSR republics) (Source: FAO, http://www.fao.org/es/ess/os/envi_indi/part_2215.asp )
83 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide Pollution
Figure 3.2.3.: Insecticide consumption in the EU (Source: FAO, figure from Pesticides Action Network Europe)
Quoted references:
Cerejeira M.J., P. Viana, S. Batista, T. Pereira, E. Silva, M.J. Valerio, A. Silva, M. Ferreira and A.M. Silva- Fernades, 2003. Pesticides in Portuguese surface and ground waters. Water Research 37, 1055-1063. Steen R. J. C. A., E.H.G. Evers, B. Van Hattum, W.P. Cofino and U.A.Th. Brinkman, 2002. Net fluxes of pesticides from the Scheldt estuary into the Nord Sea: a model approach. Environmental pollution 116, 75-84. Strandberg M. T. and J.J. Scott-Fordsmand, 2002. Field effects of simazine at lower trophic levels- a review. The Science of The total Environment 296, 117-137. Della Vedova P., G. Sesana, P. Ferrè, M. Bersani, C. Riparbelli and M. Maroni, 1996. Atrazine ground water contamination in intensive agriculture area west of Milan - Italy, period 1986-1994. In The environmental fate of xenobiotics . Proceedings of the 10th Symposium Pesticide Chemistry, September 30 - October 2, 1996, Castelnuovo Fogliani, Piacenza, Italia. A.M. Del Re (eds.).La Goliardica Pavese, Pavia. De Lorenzo M. E., Scott G. I., Ross P. E., 2000. Toxicity of pesticides to aquatic microorganisms: a review. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, vol. 20, n°1, pp. 84-98, 200. Forney D., 1981. Effects of low concentration of herbicides on submenged acquatic plants. Weed Sci. 29, 677-687. Miyamoto J., N. Mikami and Y. Takimoto, 1990. The fate of pesticides in aquatic ecosystems. In: Hutson D.and Roberts T. (eds.), Environmental fate of pesticides. Wiley, Chichester, 123-147. Funari E., 1995. Human health implications associated with the presence of pesticides in drinking water. In: Vighi M., Funari E., editors. Pesticide risk in groundwater. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 121-130. Kamrin, M.A., 1997. Pesticide profiles toxicity, environmental impact and fate, LeWis Publishers, New York
84 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.2.2. Main Outcomes
The objective of the PRB analysis was to identify if problems related to PPP agricultural use occur within the PRB river basin, to assess their nature and importance in order to Pollution suggest measures for mitigation and improvements. It is not the intention of this document to report on progress that has been achieved by industry and farmers related to risk reduction and/or efficient use of PPP.
Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2. Pesticide use is widespread in agriculture areas in all basins. Within the PRBs many water bodies are reported to be at risk of not meeting Water Framework Directive objectives due to pesticide pollution. The Gascogne Rivers report that all communes have priority status for implementing mitigation measures. Ribble indicates 16 water bodies at risk and the Guadalquivir found that water bodies in olive groves areas show high concentrations of many different pesticide substances. Individual thresholds of 0.08 ug/l were sometimes exceeded. Ribble reports that a number of water bodies are polluted, i.e. above drinking water standard of 0.1 ug/l (6), but that exact sources cannot be confirmed as similar active substances are also used in amenities and for home and garden. Analysis problems arose as adequate and/or comparable data was sometimes not available. Although the Gascogne Rivers composed maps indicating risk areas, the Guadalquivir states that consumption data is only available at provincial level and could not be disaggregated. Ribble says that limits of detection are variable and sampling frequency is low and that the majority of pesticides were recorded below the limit of detection while only the substances above the limit of detection were graphed or mapped.
Localized measures were applied in the Gascogne Rivers since 2001 and included measures that were introduced through the CAP Rural Development (RD) schemes. Equally the Guadalquivir indicates that the CAP RD green farming measure was used and showed effects on reduced pesticide use. Ribble indicates industry led voluntary initiatives to improve standards for use and storage reducing risk. So far, Gascogne Rivers has partially assessed the effects over a small area. (7)
A variety of legislation is in place for mitigation, but it is recognized that current effects may result from bad management in the past and from past and present illegal use, making it more difficult to assess success of the recent efforts.
(1) PRB main experience/success in analysing the pressure due to pesticide contamination:
6 the Drinking Water Standard is only applicable to groundwater and drinking water but recently this threshold is also applied in some cases for surface water at the point of abstraction for drinking water production. This clearly does not mean that the DWS applies to all SW bodies. (comment by ECPA) 7 It is worth noting that measures suggested in the PRBs are consistent with ICM and the objectives of the EU Life ‘TOPPS project’ that was initiated by ECPA. This multi-stakeholder project will provide a lot of information on Good Agriculture Practices and stewardship for PPP: http://www.topps-life.org (source: ECPA) 85 PRB-Agriculture Report
+ Pesticide pollution to water resources is a complex pressure originating mainly
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide from agricultural activities, but also from use in grassland amenities and home and garden uses. Surface water and potable water resources are at risk, groundwater bodies are also exposed, for example where there is a rapid cycle due to fast inflow in e.g. karstic areas such as the Pandivere.
Pollution + Concentrations of many active substances are very variable in time. This is especially the case for surface waters and under hydro/geological conditions of either a high permeability of the groundwater body (Karst) or catchments with an extreme low permeability where superficial flow occurs. Under these conditions, pesticide concentrations in surface waters will be extremely variable in time, depending on the application period of the pesticide as well as on the precipitation regime during and after application. This makes it extremely difficult to compare surface water data from different locations, since the contamination peak in a river may be very sharp and sudden and might not even be recorded by the monitoring system in place. Consequently, only data from time-integrating permanent monitoring stations can be considered trustworthy sources for comparing the pesticide load of surface waters. In the case of groundwater or drinking water reservoir data the situation is less critical, since these systems are much better buffered. However (e.g. in the case of Karts groundwater bodies), the exchange rate of the reservoir should be known in order to design adequate sampling intervals for the generation of representative data.
+ Lack of available, spatialized or farm scale data on exact consumption and use make it difficult to relate the agricultural pesticide practices to observed concentrations. In fact it seems sometimes difficult to obtain clear relations between water observation points and surrounding agricultural characteristics.
+ However, some of the observed substances could be clearly related back to land use.
(2) PRB main experience/success in setting targets and developing measures:
+ Initiatives are undertaken by stakeholders, including industry, to reduce PPP risk through improved management and application.
+ Integrated pest management schemes, incorporated under measures as Green Farming and Integrated Rice Production have shown to be successful in reducing chemical treatments by using the products more efficiently but still by guaranteeing sufficient crop protection.
(3) PRB identification of some major points for consideration in the process of elaborating an appropriate programme of measures:
+ Effective schemes are designed around integrated pest and plague management, furthermore green farming and integrated rice production is found to obtain excellent results in reducing chemical treatments by using the products more efficiently but still by guaranteeing sufficient crop protection while reducing pesticides pollutant concentrations in surface waters.
+ The case studies highlighted that designed measures have to deal efficiently with the changing scale in order to reach effectiveness at river basin scale. Measure dealing with the detailed farm scale need also to be applied over sufficiently wide
86 PRB-Agriculture Report
areas in order to be effective. The EU TOPPS project is addressing this problem (see footnote 7).
+ Within the actions to make implementation of measures successful, again farmer awareness raising was high on the list. Measure could be made more appealing by raising grants or setting reduced, yet adequate, requirements. Also designating vulnerable zones for pesticides in view of the surrounding potential hazard to water resources is a valuable option.
Pollution
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2.
Agricultural fields in the Gascogne Rivers PRB
87 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 3.2.3. Case Studies on pesticide pollution
Pollution 3.2.3.1 Gascogne Rivers 3.2.3.2 Guadalquivir 3.2.3.3 Ribble
3.2.3.1. Case Study: Gascogne Rivers
Analysis of pesticides pressures in the Gascogne rivers basin and measures for its reduction
1. Analysis of pressures and impacts
In the Adour - Garonne District (in the South-West of France), the Gascogne Rivers (see chapter 2) are a hydrographic unity of reference with several water bodies (37 rivers sections). This PRB has a size of 6800 km² (6 % of the District) and according to the local basins, 60 to 80% of the total acreage is used for agriculture. In the Gascogne Rivers, the pesticides pollution is an important stake (as nitrates):
− In the District, this area is one of the most concerned by pesticides risk (fig. 3.2.4.)
Figure 3.2.4.: Pesticides pressures indicator per hydrographic zone [ = sum (cultivated acreage per crop x average number of pesticides treatments per ha and per year ) / hydrographic zone total acreage ] ~ 4 classes have been defined (Jenks method) : very slight pressures (0- 1,06), slight pressures (1,07-2,92), average pressures (2,93 - 6,13) and strong pressures (6,14 -14,77); source: CEMAGREF, RA 2000, IGN-BD Carthage, AEAG; updated article 5, Adour -Garonne “planification” committee, June 2006. 88 PRB-Agriculture Report
− According to the Pesticides regional policy, most of the PRB “communes“ have been classified as priority areas for implementing mitigation measures, since 2005. Moreover, in the Adour - Garonne District, this area is one of the most concerned by pesticides risk for potable water (figure 3.2.5.).
Pollution
Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2.
Figure 3.2.5.: Pesticides priority areas (in orange) and potable water resources (red points) not in conformity with regulation, because of pesticides pollution. Source : DRASS de bassin, SISE-Eaux, AEAG, IGN- BD CARTHAGE, 2002.
− In 2015, for the Garonne basin (including the Gascogne Rivers), 36% of the water bodies could be at risk not to achieve the good status, 39% could be highly modified and 20% could be in good status (8) (figure 3.2.6.a). Agricultural diffuse pollution (especially nitrogen and pesticides) is one of the main causes of these forecasts.
Evaluation of the riskEvaluation of not meeting du risque WFD NABE Obje ctivespour les for cours the watercourses d'eau du district in the District
MEA MEFM Bon état probable RNABE
54% 60% 55% 46% 50% 42% 37% 38% 39%36% 40% 34% 33% 34% 27% 28% 28% 28%26% 25% 30% 20% 18% 20% 17%14% 10% 5% 4% 10% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% Adour Charente Dordogne Garonne Littoral Lot Tarn Aveyron
Figure 3.2.6.a: water bodies status forecasts for 2015 (source: updated article 5, Adour -Garonne “planification” committee, June 2006) Legend: Blue: artificial water bodies (MEA), grey: highly modified water bodies (MEFM), green: good status (Bon état probable), red: water bodies in risk not to achieve good status
2. Related measures
Several kinds of measures have been applied in the district since 2001, in order to reduce pesticides inputs and pollution into ground and surface waters:
8 ‘status’ as described and defined in Annex V of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and under the respective National Regulations 89 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide − regulations such as the Pesticides national policy, potable water regulation (protection areas), − incentive actions : agri-environmental measures linked with the Common
Pollution Agricultural Policy (CAP) with contracts for 5 years for reducing pesticides inputs, implementing buffer strips (an obligation with the new CAP since 2005), funding for investments, − Advice, training and information mainly implemented by farmers organizations.
Incentive and advice or training actions are based on farmers’ voluntary involvement.
As far as the national policy is concerned, a pesticides regional group is responsible for its implementation:
− This group gathers all the regional partners in this field since 2001, − It’s co-led by the regional representations of agriculture and ecology ministries. − Several actions have been developed: proposal of measures and methods, local projects in priority areas, assessment methodologies, scientific knowledge transfer, and scientific, economic and sociological studies.
The related measures are located on local river basins. Their assessment has been partially done or has just begun: first results can be observed on small local basins but this trend cannot be confirmed yet. And whatever the first results on reducing agricultural risks, these measures have not been developed on large-scale basins yet.
As far as the Programme of measures (PoM)’ elaboration is concerned, potential types of measures have been identified for the District at the end of 2005.
For pesticides and nitrates: 28 potential measures have been identified on the District scale, 14 of them can be used on the local scale ( hydrographic unities of reference; Gascogne Rivers are one of them).
These 14 potential measures are the following ones:
1. To increase the efficiency of water quality data networks, 2. To know pesticides consumption by agriculture and other uses, 3. To know N agricultural ways of application, 4. To know % contribution from N sources, 5. To define local adapted objectives in order to reduce pressures and impacts, 6. To reduce priority dangerous substances’ application (see WFD list), 7. To have efficient equipment for pesticides application, 8. To decrease point pollutions, 9. To reduce diffuse pollutions by improving agricultural practices, 10. To reduce diffuse pollutions by improving other uses’ practices, 11. To combine measures in local programs, 12. To coordinate all local projects with each other, 13. To organise the assessment of the measures, 14. To anticipate local crises by good data analysis and a good communication. 90 PRB-Agriculture Report
They can be different kinds of measures:
o Regulation, grant, contract, training, advice, communication, knowledge, governance.
o basic (Nitrates Directive, IPPC Directive and national policy, Pesticides national policy…) or supplementary measures
Local partners are involved in the PoM elaboration by: Pollution - Sharing diagnostic, stakes and results, - Leading the choice and the combination of measures based on the above
preliminary catalogue, Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2. - Submitting the proposal to a territorial committee,with the following planning : - Elaboration of PoM drafts for all the hydrographic unities of reference by January 2007, - Submitting them to the Adour - Garonne District committee in July and December 2007 and to public consultation from April 2008 to October 2008.
In order to test mitigation measures, a WFD pilot project called “Gers Amont” (included in the PRB) was launched in 2005 by the Adour -Garonne Water Agency (AEAG). Its main stake concerns potable water resources and its objectives are:
- To reduce potable water pollutions (pesticides and nitrates) - To define adapted modes of governance.
The involved partners are the following: the departmental council, potable water producers, farmers organizations, fishers organizations, NGO and consumption organizations, local representations of agriculture and ecology ministries, AEAG… (9).
3. Conclusions and recommendations
The pesticides pollution is one of the main stakes for this PRB. As far as agricultural issues are concerned, the PoM will have to deal with changing of scale in order to implement efficient, applicable and suitable measures on large river basins. Adapted measures, through e.g. Action Plans, along with results obtained small basins cannot be transferred easily to large-scale basins.
Another challenge is to combine economic analysis with sociological studies. By using this link between both analyses, the objective is to understand what the local partners’ and farmers’ motivation is in implementing actions that lead to the reduction of agricultural diffuse pollutions.
It is also necessary to increase the coordination between water management and agriculture policies.
9 http://www.cg32.fr/ovidentia/index.php?tg=oml&file=dossier/Gers_amont.ovml http://www.eau-adour-garonne.fr/page.asp?page=1154
91 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 3.2.3.2. Case Study: Guadalquivir
1. Analysis for Pressure and Impact Pollution
Agriculture is the sector that uses more pesticides, followed by forest and, with less importance, industry and urban related activities. However, higher consumption of pesticides does not necessarily mean that contamination is equally higher. In total, we have estimated the consumption of pesticides at 20.333 T/year for the Guadalquivir basin, including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, grow regulators, molusquicides and acaricides (Anuario de Estadística Agraria, 2001). The only original data available is gathered at provincial level and the lack of disaggregating information such as dose by crop or by regime has limited the spatial disaggregation to smaller scales.
Monitoring of surface water quality comprises the monitoring of pesticide total concentration in surface waters used for drinking water (10) and the monitoring of hazardous substances (11). In the Guadalquivir basin, pesticide total concentration in surface water for drinking use varies between 0,001 and 8,62 µg/l, with an average value of 0,4 µg/l for the whole analysed series. By type of pesticide, although fewer monitoring stations and samples are available while more substances are investigated, it is worth to note that the simazine, terbuthylazine and atrazine pesticides were found to have higher individual average values and to present maximum values that can reach 7,8 µg/l, 15 µg/l and 28 µg/l for terbuthylazine, atrazine and simazine.
Generally, the catchments with a higher number of different detected pesticides, are located upstream of Andújar, mainly olive grove areas, and upstream of Puente Genil in the Genil catchment, and the Guadalquivir downstream Córdoba and around Seville, that are irrigation areas, see figure 3.2.8. Nevertheless, the catchments with a higher percentage of observations above the quality threshold level for waters are more numerous and cover a wider area. They are located at both sides of the Guadalquivir main axis, with large irrigated areas, and run upstream from Córdoba until Linares and Cazorla lands, that is, important olive grove areas. (figure 3.2.9-11)
The most important pesticides, in terms of sample frequency showing values above a 1 µg/l concentration threshold, are simazine and terbuthylazine, see figure 3.2.7., followed by alachlor, atrazine, chlorpirifos, endrin and metolachlor. While the terbuthylazine concentration is stable around 0,7 µg/l during the last years, the simazine levels have decreased significantly.
10 [Pesticide Total] = [Parathion] + [Hexachlorocyclohexane] + [Dieldrin] 11 WFD Directive 2000/60/EC, Art. 2 & Annex X; Individual pesticides included in List I and List II: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/pri_substances.htm. 92 PRB-Agriculture Report
5 1,2 µg/l Simazine µg/l Terbuthylazine 4 1,0
3 ,8
2 ,6
1 ,4 Pollution Pollution
0 ,2
-1 0,0 III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2. N = 25 90 54 54 Year N = 20 67 69 101 Year 2001,00 2002,00 2003,00 2004,00 2001,00 2002,00 2003,00 2004,00
Figure 3.2.7.: Evolution during 2001–2004 of the simazine and terbuthylazine concentration levels. The average and 95% confidence interval for all observations in each year (N) are shown.
Figure 3.2.8.: Number of detected pesticides at each monitoring station. Source: Hazardous substances monitoring network. Monthly sampling during 2001 - 2004.
93 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide Pollution
Figure 3.2.9.: Percentage of Simazine samples above the 1 µg/l threshold at each monitoring station.
Figure 3.2.10.: Percentage of Terbuthylazine samples above the 1 µg/l threshold at each monitoring station.
94 PRB-Agriculture Report
Pollution Pollution III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2.
Figure 3.2.11.: Percentage of Atrazine samples above the 1 µg/l threshold at each monitoring station.
Figure 3.2.12: Number of detected pesticides at each groundwater body.
In groundwater bodies pesticides have a smaller presence, being simazine and terbuthylazine the most frequent next to the diuron (figure 3.2.12.). From all of them only 3 groundwater bodies are above the 0,1 µg/l threshold for the average values. These bodies are the 05.01 – Sierra de Cazorla, with a simazine sample of 0,106 µg/l, 95 PRB-Agriculture Report
the 05.24 – Bailén-Guarromán-Linares, with a simazine sample of 0.125 µg/l and the
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 05.52 – Lebrija with a diuron sample of 0.145 µg/L (figure 3.2.13.).
There are 56 groundwater bodies sampled. The following table shows the frequency of groundwater bodies by number of available samples during the period 14/07/2002 until
Pollution 27/06/2005.
No of Samples No of GWB 1 21 2 9 3 3 4 1 5 12 6 4 7 2 8 1 11 3 Table 3.2.1. Frequency of Groundwater bodies according to number of available quality samples.
Figure 3.2.13.: Percentage of samples above the 0.1 µg/l threshold at each groundwater body. (“any sample surpasses the drinking thresholds” means that for those groundwater bodies no samples were showing values above the drinking water threshold of 0,1 µg/l)
More detailed pesticide studies carried out at drinking water reservoirs highlight the importance of the terbuthylazine, simazine, glyphosate and diuron in the Guadalquivir basin (figure 3.2.15-16). These four pesticides are related to the land cover. The former two are herbicides utilised in olive groves, the diuron is used in cotton and citrus trees and the glyphosate is utilised mainly in forest areas (figure 3.2.14.). That is the reason why, except for glyphosate, the average concentration at the study drinking reservoirs is significantly higher in the agriculture dominated catchments than in the forest ones.
96 PRB-Agriculture Report
.120 .080
.070
.100 .060
.050 .080
.040
.060 95% CI tbz CI 95% 95% CIsim .030 Pollution Pollution .020 .040
.010
.020 0.000 Forestal UAA Forestal UAA III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2.
(U-M, p=0,000) (U-M, p=0,000)
.070 .080
.060
.050 .060
.040
.030 .040 95% CI gli 95% CI diu .020
.010 .020
0.000
-.010 0.000 Forestal UAA Forestal UAA
(U-M, p=0,000) (U-M, p=0,067)
Figure 3.2.14.: Differences in concentration (µg/l) of pesticides in water reservoirs according to the dominant land use in catchments (‘Forestal’: mainly forest land use; ‘UAA’ (Utilized Agriculture Area): mainly agricultural land use in the catchment) for (from top-left to lower-right diagram): tbz= Terbuthylazine; sim: Simazine; diu: Diuron; gli: Glyphosate. Average and 95% confidence interval for all observations within the two groups of catchments according to their dominant land use. (also the p-value of the non parametric test U of Mann- Withney is given)
Most of the mentioned pesticides have been restricted or banned in the last years. Nevertheless, these are the substances that have been found in the study reservoirs and for the majority of the cases with values above the individual threshold of 0, 08 µg/l and the total pesticide threshold of 0,38 µg established for drinking water quality standards. From the detected pesticides only five substances show concentrations above the 0,08 µg/l at the individual level: terbuthylazine (19,7%), simazine (13,5%), glyphosate (12,7%), diuron (9,4) and oxifluorfen (0,4%).
The Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir studied between 2004 and 2005 the presence and concentration of a wide list of pesticides in 32 drinking reservoirs located in the Guadalquivir basin. Seven sampling campaigns were done with 2-week interval. (figures 3.2.15-16)12
12 http://www.chguadalquivir.es/chg/opencms/chg-web/menu_izquierda/la_cuenca/informacion- medioambiental/red_ica/contenido.html 97 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide Pollution
Figure 3.2.15: Number of detected pesticides in each reservoir. Source: “Pesticide control in Reservoirs with water collections for human consumption in drought period”(13).
Average Value of Detected Pesticides in Reservoirs (µg/l)
Figure 3.2.16.: Average concentration value (µg/l) for detected pesticides for reservoirs.
13 "Control de Plaguicidas en los Embalses con Captaciones de Agua para Consumo Humano en Periodo de Sequía". Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir, 2006. Inédito 98 PRB-Agriculture Report
2. Related Measures
There is no Agricultural Good Practice Code14 for pesticides that farmers can use to reduce the pesticide pollution. However, the Junta de Andalucía published a Good Practice Manual for the different production systems of olive groves. This manual gathers specifications that are voluntarily contributed that will ensure the correct utilisation and Pollution application of pesticides.
From the agro-environmental measures we have to mention here the Green Farming and
Rice Integrated Production. The acquired commitments with any of them show directly Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2. effects reducing the pesticide concentration in soil and water. Published data on Rice Integrated Production indicates a reduction of up to 61% of chemical treatments. Green Farming, after the few experimental studies, has shown to reduce considerably the pesticide levels at surface waters.
Guadalquivir cultivation, Olive Downstream Guadalquivir
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
Agriculture is the main consumer of pesticides in the Guadalquivir basin. However, an inappropriate management in the past or their illegal use in the present is responsible for their actual presence and high concentration in surface waters, as it occurs with the simazine and terbuthylazine.
The lack of data concerning consumption and application rates by crop and agricultural regime from agricultural associations, or even municipalities, is an important limitation
14 The misuse is recognized as a very important factor for the potential contaminations. During last year (2006) the 3 main Terbuthylazine manufacturers have signed an Environmental Stewardship Agreement in order to promote the correct use and the Good Farming Practices for Terbuthylazine at farmer, distributor and authorities level. (comment provided by ECPA)
99 PRB-Agriculture Report
when trying to establish relations between their application and their observed
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide concentrations in the water at appropriate scales. Although there are differences between agricultural and forest areas, there is no significant variation as a function of the agricultural characteristics in the sub-basin, such as related to the percentage of UAA surface or percentage of irrigation area. Pollution The limitations imposed by the agro-environmental measures and the general recommendations of the Good Practices Codes have a direct influence on the use of pesticides by means of a plague integrated control management. Using Green Farming or Rice integrated Production it is possible to obtain excellent results in the reduction of pesticide concentrations at surface water. However, although these measures have helped to disassociate the increase of production from the pesticide use, there is no clear evidence of a significant decreasing trend for the dependency on pesticides in general.
Due to the effectiveness of these measures, it would be necessary to apply them over a wider area. For that reason, and to improve their efficiency, the next actions could be undertaken:
o Training courses and technical assistance for farmers. They should be made aware of the advantages of applying environmental friendly techniques on their farms. They reduce crop costs and are not associated to a decrease of production. o Make the measures more appealing by e.g. increasing the grants or reducing the requirements. o To extend the integrated production measure to other crops. o To establish vulnerable zones for pesticides, such as agricultural areas near drinking reservoirs, on steep slopes with erosion risk or in areas where the irrigation is done by flooding. o Although there is a Good Practice Manual for the different production systems of olive groves, there should be also an Agricultural Good Practice Code in order to guarantee a correct use and application of pesticides as well as to reduce, as much as possible, the amounts of pesticide used. Such code would need to be specified for all the important crops.
100 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.2.3.2. Case Study: Ribble
1. Analysis for Pressures and Impacts
The Environment Agency takes samples in the Ribble basin to collect data on pesticide pollution in ground and surface waters. The aim is to detect and monitor the concentration of
pesticides in groundwater above 0.1ug/l drinking water standard. Pollution
Sampling for this range of pesticides was only introduced in December 2003. Furthermore, analysis methods for pesticides are still developing and changing and Limits of Detection are variable. Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2.
1.1. Results for Groundwater:
Figure 3.2.17. show the sites where the sampling took place and indicates the sites where concentrations found were above the thresholds.
In total 85 different pesticides were monitored and the majority of pesticides were recorded as being below limit of detection. 15 different pesticides were detected between December 2003 and September 2004. Of the 15 pesticides detected (table 3.2.1.), only 4 were detected at concentrations exceeding the drinking water standard (figure 3.2.18.).
These were:
Ethenoic concentrations exceeding 0.1ug/l were detected in 2.3% of samples Mecoprop concentrations exceeding 0.1ug/l were detected in 4% of samples Dichlorprop concentrations exceeding 0.1ug/l were detected in 2% of samples Bentazone concentrations exceeding 0.1ug/l were detected in 2% of samples
1.2. Results for Surface water:
Data originated from routine sampling driven by EC Directives reporting at locations within the Ribble catchment. Most of the pesticides results for most locations were below the analytical Limit of Detection. Only pesticides above the limit of detection were graphed or mapped.
Table 3.2.2 shows data for the five locations at which an exceedance of 0.1ug/l was detected. Only three pesticides were detected at concentrations of above 0.1ug/l in surface waters in the Ribble catchment. These were:
Diuron concentrations exceeding 0.1ug/l were detected in ~35% of samples at 4 locations MCPA concentrations exceeding 0.1ug/l were detected in ~10% of samples at 5 locations Mecoprop concentrations exceeding 0.1ug/l were detected in ~10% of samples at 5 locations
101 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide Pollution
Figure 3.2.17.: Pesticide sampling in Groundwater sites
Table 3.2.2.: Pesticide data at sampling sites in the Ribble Catchment (2002-2005 summary) Blades site RIVER DOUGLAS AT WANES BLADES BRIDGE Mitton site RIVER RIBBLE AT MITTON BRIDGE Calder Site RIVER CALDER AT WHALLEY Samles site RIVER RIBBLE AT SAMLESBURY PGS A6 site RIVER DARWEN AT A6 ROAD BRIDGESAMPLES PRIOR TO SEPT 1977 TAKEN AT SD 550282 - D/S OF HENNEL BROOK
102 PRB-Agriculture Report
Pollution Pollution III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2.
Figure 3.2.18. Sites exceeding drinking water standards in surface waters
103 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 2. Pressure 2: Pesticide Pollution
Figure 3.2.19.: sampling data indicating the very low levels of observable concentrations (MCPA levels)
2. Related Measures
One recent set of measures to address problems of pesticide pollution was the Pesticide Voluntary Initiative. The Voluntary Initiative was accepted by the UK Government in 2001 in place of a proposed tax on pesticides used in agriculture and horticulture. The initiative was put forward by seven signatory organisations led by the Crop Protection Association. It has lasted for five years and the estimated annual cost to the crop protection industry was approximately £2.1 million. In addition, it has been estimated that it will cost farmers in the UK £11 million per year to implement the package of measures on individual farms.
The initiative consists of three key activities o Research o Training o Communication and Stewardship
Farmer and pesticide application contractors were encouraged to do a range of things to support the Voluntary Initiative:
a. Join the National Register of Sprayer Operators (NRoSO http://nroso.nptc.org.uk/ ) b. Have their sprayers tested under the National Sprayer Testing Scheme (NSTS - http://www.aea.uk.com/sprayer/index.htm ) c. Complete a Crop Protection Management Plan (CPMP - http://www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/Content/cpmps.asp ) d. Following Best Practice at all times focussing especially on water protection, correct application, and selection and use of insecticides. (http://www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/Content/Adv_BP.asp ) e. Dispose of unwanted/unapproved products correctly
104 PRB-Agriculture Report
In the UK hard regulation of pesticides on farms is delivered through Groundwater Authorisations administered by the Environment Agency. In addition much pollution prevention work is undertaken to encourage the safe and environmentally sound application and dispoal of pestcides through advice, voluntary iniatives (as outlined above) and best practice.
3. Conclusions and recommendations Pollution - A number of water bodies, both groundwater and surface water are polluted, i.e. above drinking standards. Incidents of exceedance of standards are uncommon.
- Agriculture is a likely source of pesticide pollution (cfr. Substances used) in the Ribble PRB, Pesticide 2: Pressure III. 2. though the substances detected are also used on amenity grasslands and gardens and the exact source cannot be confirmed.
- The observation, monitoring and analysis are very complex as there are many active substances to test for and they occur at very low concentrations.
- Mitigation is technically possible, and the current approach in England is to combine regulation of pesticides at the point of production and disposal, together with an industry led voluntary initiative to improve standards in use and storage.
105 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
106 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.3 Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
Case studies provided by: Guadalquivir, Zagyva-Tarna
quantity
3.3.1. Introduction use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3.
Unfortunately for Mediterranean river basin managers, the Water Framework Directive doesn’t deal with water quantity as sharply as it does with water quality. The preamble of the WFD frequently refers to the need for the protection of the water quantity, be it mainly based on its relation to the quality. Point (19) refers: “This Directive aims at maintaining and improving the aquatic environment in the Community. This purpose is primarily concerned with the quality of the waters concerned. Control of quantity is an ancillary element in securing good water quality and therefore measures on quantity, serving the objective of ensuring good quality, should also be established”; and (41) “For water quantity, overall principles should be laid down for control on abstraction and impoundment in order to ensure the environmental sustainability of the affected water systems.” But in a structural context where demand is bigger than the available resources, water quantity is a problem by itself. A problem whose importance could be expected to increase when forecasted scenarios on global climate change potentially become more pronounced.
The related problematic between water quality being influenced by available quantity of ‘unpolluted’ resource is addressed in the previous chapters on pollution and the following on sediments. Furthermore, one can indeed argue that in view of the above mentioned pollution problems, the available quantity of readably useable water for e.g. drinking consumption is increasingly getting reduced, however no case studies were provided further on this aspect. In this chapter the pressures on the quantitative aspects of the water resources as being exerted from agriculture are addressed.
In the Mediterranean area, roughly around 50% to 87% of water use relates to agricultural demands. Hence in order to reach the WFD objectives, proper and sustainable agricultural land management is needed. Notwithstanding the technology improvements to irrigation systems and application, the continued increase in irrigation area by including extensions to traditionally non irrigated crops such as olive trees and the introduction of crop species less adapted to the Mediterranean climate, are responsible for the unsustainable pressure coming from agricultural water use. Then again, water quantity stress is not exclusive for the Mediterranean only. The Hungarian Zagyva- Tarna provides a case study on this as well. Also from the map of irrigated areas, figure
Irrigation channel Mediterranean area 3.3.1. it is clear that irrigation is maybe 107 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and mainly, but not purely a practice in Mediterranean areas. Greenhouse cultivation also in more northern areas can take up important proportions. Also maize cultivation, even in rather northern areas, may need extra water supplies during the drier ripening periods. The Europe wide estimated share of land under irrigation (figure 3.3.2.) shows a significant increase in recent decennia. quantity
At European level, data on water quantity are collected annually through the Eionet- Water process. This initiative is associated with the EEA's Core Set Indicator compilation. Data on the status and quantity of Europe's water resources can be viewed, analysed and downloaded from the Waterbase at: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/available2.asp?type=findkeyword&theme= waterbase.
Figure 3.3.1.: Areas equipped for irrigation as percentage of total area. The area actually irrigated may be smaller.
Source: Stefan Siebert, Petra Döll, Sebastian Feick, Jippe Hoogeveen and Karen Frenken (2007) Global Map of Irrigation Areas version 4.0.1. Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany / Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy
108 PRB-Agriculture Report
Share of irrigated land in total arable land & land under permanent crops (in %)
13,6 13,4 13,2
13 quantity 12,8 12,6 12,4 12,2 III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3. 12 1989-1991 1994-1996 1998-2000
Figure 3.3.2.: percent share of irrigated land of UAA for all Europe (exclusive former USSR Republics) (source: FAO)
3.3.2. Main Outcomes
Problems related to water quantity depend on use by many sectors, but agriculture is considered the main pressure on the water resources for as much as 86% in Mediterranean areas. Although, the problem is not exclusively related to the Southern areas.
Within the two case study basins, irrigation is the main pressure on water quantity. Irrigation technology is constantly improving and optimizes consumption, but the pressure on the resources persists as the area under irrigation still increases by including big extensions to traditionally non irrigated crops such as olive trees and the introduction of crop species less adapted to the Mediterranean climate.
In the Guadalquivir the water consumption by agriculture (86%) and livestock (1%) are well above the needs of the domestic, industrial and tourism sector which together account for the remaining 13% (tourism less than 1%). Also the Zagyva-Tarna suffers from over-extraction for agricultural purposes and estimated that half the surface bodies are at risk, as are most of the lower sections of the basins. Furthermore in several groundwater bodies abstraction is nearly twice the recharge capacity. Although, groundwater abstraction amounts to 82.7% for agricultural use in the Guadalquivir, more than 50 % of the total regulated surface volume is held in reservoirs whose main objective is agricultural use. Hence a hydrologic regime pressure indicator was developed, being the reservoir capacity versus the average annual natural inflow. This indicator showed a global value of 103,7% and extreme pressure values higher than 420%.
There is a large experience in measures related to irrigation infrastructure and watering techniques, but still uptake and implementation by farmers is behind. However since the implementation of the WFD in the Guadalquivir some milestones have been reached related to improvement of policies, review of hydrological plans, new water agreements
109 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and and infrastructure works. The Zagyva-Tarna envisages possibilities for reduction of the pressure in irrigation areas by considering trans-basins water transfers as an option. Problems remain the uncontrolled increase in water demand that is difficultly satisfied and the lack of involvement of all stakeholders in the processes.
quantity (1) PRB main experience/success in analysing the pressure on water use and quantity:
Due to the requirements for the ‘basic’ hydrological management of the basin, data and information on water quantity is not really an unsolvable problem. Also, information on the water use is mostly significantly available, be it in terms of irrigation infrastructures. Hence, analyzing the cause-effect relations, the magnitude and spatial distribution of the pressure can be well achieved.
(2) PRB main experience/success in setting targets and developing measures:
An indicator was proposed based on reservoir capacity and expresses the magnitude of the potential pressure on the natural hydrological regime. For pressure on the groundwater resources, an extraction index is used and sustainable threshold have been defined. Also the hydrological management of the basin and the understanding of most aspects of the pressure allow to set clear targets and objectives to potentially contain the pressure on the water quantity.
(3) PRB identification of some major points of consideration in the process of elaborating an appropriate programme of measures:
As the source-effect relation for pressure on water quantity in the studied areas is so clear, technical mitigation measures can be designed. There is furthermore a long experience with designing and implementing adapted measures, mainly focusing on infrastructure and application techniques. The Guadalquivir case study is very illustrative to this extent. But due to cultural and economic heritage and background the uptake of measures and mitigation schemes is generally not so good, minimizing the expected positive impacts.
Four basic problems were identified:
1) The continuous increase in the water demands, 2) The difficulty in satisfying the demands with new infrastructures due to their environmental impacts, 3) The overuse of the groundwater bodies, and 4) The public authorities are not always involved at every level as would be needed and also for the public administrations it is difficult to have the required number of professional teams ready to cope with the actual management problems.
Apart from the larger scale water management measures, the implementation of measures at farm scale also copes with actual management problems, related to extension work, training and awareness raising. In many cases economic benefits outweigh the environmental consciousness.
Only increased stakeholder involvement will be the basis to yield success.
110 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.3.3. Case Studies on Water use and quantity
3.3.3.1. Guadalquivir 3.3.3.2. Zagyva-Tarna
3.3.3.1. Case Study: Guadalquivir quantity
1. Analysis for Pressures and Impacts
1.a. Natural Resources
The individual components and the global atmospheric balances for the Guadalquivir use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3. river basin are depicted by the next average values [1].
. Average Average 3 3 Variable (Hm /year) Variable (Hm /year) Precipitation (P) 32,360.10 Potential evapotranspiration (Etp) 55,565.62 Potential balance (P-Etp) -23,205.52 Real evapotranspiration (Er) 25,335.76 Real balance (P-Er) 7,024.34
Table 3.3.1. Atmospheric balance and its components
The spatial distribution of these components presents a remarkable variability, with annual average values ranging from 294 to 1.315 mm for precipitation and from 628 to 1.207 mm for potential evapotranspiration. (Figure 3.3.1. and 3.3.2.)
Figure 3.3.1. Average evapotranspiration (mm) in the Guadalquivir basin.
111 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
Figure 3.3.2. : Average precipitation (mm) in the Guadalquivir basin.
Figure 3.3.3.: Annual Precipitation Series 1942 – 1985 (mm) in selected stations. 112 PRB-Agriculture Report
The high interannual precipitation irregularity is one of the dominant characteristics for the hydric balance at the basin, with variation coefficients between 20% and 57% for the monitoring stations that have temporal series of at least 30 years (figure 3.3.3.).
The annual average natural inflow for the whole of the Guadalquivir basin ascends to about 7.000 Hm3 and its spatial distribution by study subbasin is depicted in the next figure (figure 3.3.4.).
quantity III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3.
Figure 3.3.4:. Annual average natural inflow by subbasin.
The natural inflow also shows a high inter-annual irregularity and, as the next figure depicts, a notable seasonality (figure 3.3.5. and 3.3.6.).
Average Natural Inflow Distribution 1600 8000 1392.7 1400 1323.7 7000
1200 1092.4 6000 1000.0 1000 5000
800 4000 634.3 600 3000 470.7 369.7 400 2000 267.7 179.3 200 133.3 109.1 103.6 1000
0 0 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Nat Inf low Hm3 Nat Inflow Hm3
Figure 3.3.5.: Average natural inflow monthly distribution (absolute values). 113 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and Natural Inflow Distribution 25% 100%
19.7% 20% 18.7% 80% quantity 15.4% 15% 14.1% 60%
10% 9.0% 40%
6.7% 5.2% 5% 3.8% 20% 2.5% 1.9% 1.5% 1.5%
0% 0% OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Nat Inflow % Nat Inf low Cum %
Figure 3.3.6.: Average natural inflow monthly distribution (relative values).
There are 58 delimited groundwater bodies in the Guadalquivir basin [2] with a total area of 34.752 km2. That represents more than the 60% of the basin total area. The groundwater renewable resources are estimated of 2.884 Hm3/year with a wide variation range among bodies, such as the next figure 3.3.7. shows.
Figure 3.3.7.: Groundwater body recharge (Hm3/year)
114 PRB-Agriculture Report
Around 88% of the total aquifer recharge is produced by direct leaching from rain water, 10% by river infiltrations and the rest by lateral inflows. This input distribution is the responsible for the high correlation with the temporal regime described for surface waters, altered only locally by the aquifer capacities.
Water Regulation and Agricultural Water Use
The inflow highlighted seasonality, its interannual variability and its spatial distribution in quantity the Guadalquivir basin are the main reasons for the creation of numerous water regulation infrastructures in order to make water available and deliver it.
The total reservoir capacity in the basin ascends to 7.104 Hm3 with 168 identified
reservoirs with a very high variable capacity (table 3.3.2.). The 63 reservoirs bigger than use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3. 4 Hm3 represent more than 99% of the regulated volume, and the 7 reservoirs bigger than 300 Hm3 represents almost 50% of it.
Currently, there are three important reservoirs under construction. They will increase the total capacity until 8.100 Hm3 for the whole Guadalquivir basin. The reservoir classification by capacity highlights the high importance of agriculture in the total surface water regulated resources. A majority of these reservoirs has the irrigation as main use.
Reservoir Type: Total Objective & Water Capacity Use (Hm3) Main Use: Supply 939 Main Use: Agricultural 6165 Total 7104 Table 3.3.2.: Reservoir capacity and water use in the Guadalquivir basin
Agriculture weight in the available resource delivery is really considerable, reaching around 86% of the total water consumption in the basin.
Hm3/year var % Total Sector / Use 2002 2015 % 2002 2015 Agriculture (*) 3099 3164 2% 86% 84% Livestock (*) 44 48,6 10% 1% 1% Urban- Domestic 345 444 29% 10% 12% Urban- Industrial 86 111,5 30% 2% 3% Turisms 9 20 122% 0% 1% Total 3.583 3.788 6% 100% 100% Table 3.33.: Foreseen evolution of water consumption in the Guadalquivir basin.
(*) Figures for 2001. Source: WFD Article 5 Report for the Guadalquivir Basin Agency
115 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
Figure 3.3.8.: Agricultural irrigated areas (2004) at plot level in the Guadalquivir river basin.
The irrigated area in the Guadalquivir river basin has been recently estimated on 714.015 ha (2003-04 survey) [4]. That means that more than 12% of the basin’s total area is irrigated. The spatial distribution of the irrigated areas in depicted in the figure 3.9. .
Accu Specific Consumpti Accum. Area Area m. Consumpti Consumpti Crop on Consumpti (Ha) (%) Area on on (%) (Hm3)* on (%) (%) (m³/Ha) Olive groves 322,25 45.1 45.1 2,281.0 735.068 25.2% 25.2% Cotton 74,499. 10.4 55.6 6,048.0 450.572 15.5% 40.7% Winter cereals 55,850. 7.8% 63.4 1,500.0 83.776 2.9% 43.6% Vegetables 46,804. 6.6% 69.9 6,104.0 285.694 9.8% 53.4% Maize 44,974. 6.3% 76.2 6,621.0 297.777 10.2% 63.6% Rice 36,078. 5.1% 81.3 14,000.0 505.098 17.3% 81.0% Fruit trees 21,992. 3.1% 84.4 5,386.0 118.454 4.1% 85.0% Citrus trees 20,038. 2.8% 87.2 5,501.0 110.232 3.8% 88.8% Sugar beet 20,036. 2.8% 90.0 3,730.0 74.735 2.6% 91.4% Sunflower 18,033. 2.5% 92.5 1,500.0 27.050 0.9% 92.3% Leguminous 14,172. 2.0% 94.5 1,500.0 21.258 0.7% 93.0% Early potato 11,165. 1.6% 96.1 5,142.0 57.411 2.0% 95.0% Medium potato 6,664.4 0.9% 97.0 6,342.0 42.266 1.5% 96.5% Alfalfa 6,587.5 0.9% 97.9 5,907.0 38.912 1.3% 97.8% Almond trees 5,752.0 0.8% 98.7 4,945.0 28.444 1.0% 98.8% Winter fodder 4,991.4 0.7% 99.4 1,500.0 7.487 0.3% 99.0% Tobacco 4,117.0 0.6% 100.0 6,875.0 28.304 1.0% 100.0% Total 714,01 100.0 4,079.1 2,912.5 100.0% Table 3.3.4.: Irrigated areas and average water consumptions by crop in the Guadalquivir basin. (*) Based on the maximum right by crop of current the Hydrologic Plan. At old irrigation areas water rights can be higher, which justify the 6% difference with table 3.3.3.
116 PRB-Agriculture Report
By crop type, olive groves clearly prevail as irrigated surface, up to 45% of the total. However, olive groves consume only around 25% of the total irrigation water since water needs are relatively low and consequently water rights are limited (table 3.3.4.).
The spatial distribution of water consumption reveals a relatively clear clustering of the higher values in the irrigated zones located int the down and mid-stream Guadalquivir and in the lower Genil (figure 3.3.9.).
The water use, when considering its surface or groundwater origin, shows that surface water is more used for irrigation purposes. This represents 80% of the total irrigation quantity water. Moreover, there is a high spatial correlation between the higher consumption levels and the high proportion of surface water used. The average specific consumption for irrigation with groundwater is a bit more than 50% of the corresponding consumption related to surface water. This is because more 50 % of the irrigation with subterranean
water goes to olive trees, with low consumption (figure 3.3.10.). use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3.
Figure 3.3.9.: Agricultural consumption at plot level (Hm3/year)
Regulation and Management ratios
As mentioned above, a very important part of the total reservoir storage capacity in the basin is held by reservoirs whose main objective is the agricultural use.
The used indicator, the reservoir capacity index (RCI), is defined as the ratio between the reservoir capacity and the average annual natural inflow. It is a simple indicator about the pressure that the reservoir effect can exert on the natural hydrologic regime. This indicator has been used in others Spanish basins when compiling the WFD Art5 and 6 requirements (figure 3.3.11.).
117 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
Figure 3.3.10.: . Groundwater agricultural consumption from the total irrigation water (%).
This indicator has a global value of 103,7% for the whole basin. The spatial distribution reveals that there is a smooth decreasing trend downstream in to sub-basins directly affected by the reservoirs, as the natural inflow increases. Thus, in the high part of the basins where the natural inflow is low the index take values higher than 420%. The average value for sub-basins where the indicator is not null is of 109%.
The water management effects, that are regulation and use, are appreciated when comparing the monthly distribution of the inflows at the reservoirs in terms of natural and real regime (figure 3.3.12.).
The percentage distribution of the monthly inflows for the natural and real regimes shows an important reduction of the proportional contribution to the total inflow of the first nine months of the hydrological year and an increment of the summer one. The reason is that reservoirs trap water in winter (rainy season) and release it during the summer (irrigation season). Besides a reduction of the volumes because of the extraction for consumption water uses, there is a de-synchronization of the hydrologic and climatic regimes that can be easily noticed when the reservoir inflows (that stands for the approximate natural flow) and withdrawals (real flow) are compared.
118 PRB-Agriculture Report
quantity III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3.
Figure 3.3.11: Ratio of regulation for agricultural reservoirs (%).
Figure 3.3.12.: Percentage accumulated and distributed real and natural inflow by month.
The following graphs highlight the spatial variation of the temporal flow patterns for selected monitoring stations through the Guadalquivir basin.
119 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
Figure 3.3.13.: Temporal patterns of the natural and real inflows in selected monitoring stations.
In figure 3.3.13. we can see what is happening in four different reservoirs: there is not any reservoir upstream of Aracena reservoir (RCI = 0), so real and natural monthly regimes are very similar. In the other reservoirs there is a gradual increment of the winter trapping and summer releasing of others reservoirs situates upstream, and a consequent increment of pressure on natural hydrological regime: Giribaile reservoir, RCI = 0,68; Pedro Marín reservoir, RCI = 1,6 and Cordobilla reservoir, RCI = 2,2. This is clearly visible in the changes in the flowing regime. Although the used year periods for making these monthly distribution graphs are not always the same, the regime distortion is clearly shown.
Water extractions in the groundwater bodies arises to 705,92 Hm3. 580,10 Hm3 of them (82,7%) are associated to agricultural uses. Moreover, in 74% of the groundwater bodies agriculture is the dominant land use. The following figures (3.3.14-15) show the total water volume used for irrigation by groundwater body and the percentage that that represents with respect to the total water extraction.
The extraction index highlights the relation between the volumes from groundwater bodies and the available renewable resources (figure 3.3.16.). As mentioned above, the average annual recharge for the all the groundwater bodies in the Guadalquivir basin is 2.884 Hm3, thus, the global extraction index is 24,5% and 20,1 % for agricultural areas (figure 3.3.17.). If the global figures are relatively low, individual values show a wide range of values, many of them above 40%. That is the sustainability threshold adopted by The Basin Agency. Some groundwater bodies are above 100%. (According to other sources GWB 0551 „Almonte-Marismas“ can have a ratio between 0,2 and 0,4).
120 PRB-Agriculture Report
quantity III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3.
Figure 3.3.14.: Agricultural water extraction (Hm3/year) by groundwater body.
Figure 3.3.15.: Agricultural water extraction with respect to the total water extractions.
121 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
Figure 3.3.16. Water extraction vs. recharge (%) by groundwater body.
Figure 3.3.17.: Agricultural water extraction vs. recharge (%) by groundwater body.
122 PRB-Agriculture Report
2. Related Measures
Agriculture is the economic sector that consumes most of the water in the Guadalquivir river basin and is therefore a target sector for designing measures related to water use management. Prior to the WFD, actions for saving water and improving efficiency were already a basic objective of the Basin Agency and the Regional Administrations responsible for agriculture.
Along with the consolidation of low requirement irrigated areas and new transformations, the improvement and modernization of existing irrigated areas is one of the basic pillars quantity of the irrigation policy in the basin (Hydrological Plan). Nowadays, irrigation technology has evolve from consumptions of 7.000–8.000 m3/ha in traditional areas that used flooding irrigation, to consumptions that are lower than 5.000 m3/ha in areas that use sprinkle irrigation. III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3. Intensive olive cultivation in the Guadalquivir basin Guadalquivir basin in the cultivation olive Intensive
After the WFD incorporation in the national legislation, some (4) milestones related to water use by agriculture are worth to be marked:
1) Improvements on the national and regional irrigation policies:
The National Irrigation Plan is a key factor for the development of the National Hydrological Plan. With the need of adjusting its contents to the CAP reform and in relation to the Rural Development Programs of the Autonomous Communities, the Pilot National Irrigation Plan modified its objectives and its temporal prospect to 2008. It includes the following axis: 123 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and - Maintaining rural population and improve rural quality of life - Improve the competitiveness of the rural agricultural sector - Improve water delivery and irrigation infrastructures for better sustainable use of water resources, including promotion of better irrigation techniques and reduction of diffuse pollution
quantity - Include environmental concerns in planning
The specific actions include a complementary program of measures related to environmental issues, evaluating irrigation systems, education and technology transfer.
The regional Andalusia Irrigation Plan (AIP) developed the following action lines:
- Improve the rural socio-economic situation and diversification of the agriculture sector by creating new irrigated areas - Grants for improving the already existing irrigation areas. - Better planning of the water use at the level of individual irrigation areas - Reuse of wastewater for intensive irrigated crops, as foreseen in the Coastal Plan. - Improve the general water management through maintaining a monitoring program for irrigation areas, develop new management models and organize specialised education in water management for targets groups.
Grants are awarded for up to 50% of the investments in irrigation infrastructure works and up to 75% for programmes related to water use planning and management.
2) Reviews of the Current Hydrological Plans:
At the national level, the basin management is reviewed in order to incorporate the WFD requirements, the contents of the Revised Text of the Water Law and the future contents of the new Management Rules.
3) The creation of the Water Agreement in the Guadalquivir:
The Water Agreement in the Guadalquivir is promoted through the Guadalquivir Basin Agency and is signed by public administrations, social agents and other interested parties under the motto participation, transparency and information. It assesses the problem of the water management in the basin and proposes solutions for a short and mid term action programs in the basin. It addresses the basic aspects related to water management, as well as environmental issues, floods, dry seasons, economic aspects and availability of means.
Related to environmental issues, the Agreement considers five proposals:
a) Undertake studies and actions to fulfil the WFD requirements. b) Monitor water-treatment plants and better control the illegal discharges c) Promote the Agricultural Good Farming Code and the coordination among administrations in order to reduce the diffuse pollution and the erosion problems. d) Assign the necessary resources to the basin agencies for the management of the public hydrological domain. e) Improve the irrigation areas, the distribution and waste water networks and the hydro-forest plans.
Related to the water quantitative use, the Agreement considers four basic problems:
a) The continuous increase in the water demands,
124 PRB-Agriculture Report
b) The difficulty in satisfying the demands with new infrastructures due to their environmental impacts, c) The overuse of the groundwater bodies, and d) The fact that public authorities are not always involved at every level as would be needed and also considering that for the public administrations it is difficult to have the required number of professional teams ready to cope with actual management problems
The proposed solutions to these problems focus around the availability of surface and groundwater resources as well as a better control over the demands. quantity
- Surface water resources a) Do not increase the offer by means of new infrastructures. b) Technically, socio-economically or environmentally prove that the
already planned infrastructures commit with the WFD contents. use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3.
- Groundwater resources a) To consider the actual resource levels as the maximum exploitation values and undertake more hydro-geological studies. b) To encourage the creation of user communities as effective units for managing groundwater extractions. c) Creation of new groundwater body exploitation rules with a restrictive character for the new irrigation extractions. d) reation of an Action Plan for groundwater.
- Demand control a) To limit the total requested volume for irrigation. b) To establish compulsory objectives for use and develop an indicator system for monitoring. c) To promote water saving measures. d) To instigate the construction of surface and groundwater monitoring networks. e) To adopt preventive measures. f) To promote water reallocation by means of the creation of Public Water Banks. h) To actualise the Water Registry and Catalogue.
Two of the priority measures that will be implemented during 2007 and that directly affecting the Guadalquivir basin are:
• To establish the maximum irrigation area and to calculate its demand and trend. • To deny future concessions for irrigation purposes in the groundwater bodies that have reached the sustainability threshold, keeping their available resources for environmental and strategic purposes.
The Basin Agency has adopted measures in order to maintain the groundwater exploitation under reasonable limits. The Hydrological Planning Office made a report denying any new concession for groundwater irrigation in those bodies where ratio of exploitation versus recharge is above 40% (figure 3.3.18.). This report is framed within the requirements that Spain assumed in order to receive European foundation for the construction of the new “La Breña II” reservoir, a central piece in the future management of the water resources for its 800 Hm3. The same report proposes to deny new irrigation areas, independent of their water origin, in the whole General Regulation Management System, where the new reservoir will be. This report was committed on the 28th of July of 2005 and it is applied to all new registered requests after this date. 125 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and quantity
Figure 3.3.18.: Areas where new irrigation water request are denied.
Furthermore, new groundwater use measures have been established.
− Measures within the Water Extraction Plan in the Groundwater body 5.19 Mancha Real – Pegalajar:
o The aquifer user list has been closed. o A Water Extraction Plan has been proposed. o There is an active stakeholder process, with scenario workshops and awareness raising for the final users.
− Actions for creating User Communities in other Groundwater Bodies:
The Guadalquivir Basin Agency and the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid have a contract in order to enhance the water quality and environmental impacts by means of controlling the water extractions. The actions are focused on two groundwater bodies with important problems, 5.23 Úbeda and 5.04 Huéscar - Puebla, but without official overexploitation situation due to the definition of the administrative concept. In both bodies there are legal problems because of the concession files in process and it is wanted to give them novel solutions with the right concessions, extraction and area limitations following the actual law but also with a social recognition.
− Action for clarifying the groundwater use rights
They comprise mainly the Alberca Program, promoted by the Water General Director Body and financed by the FEDER program since 2002. Its main objective is to finish inventories (files) on private water use and to actualise the Water Registry Book in order to know, at each moment, the non-available water resources in each basin and improve the water management. The Guadalquivir Basin Agency implemented this program by means of 15 attendees, all but one
126 PRB-Agriculture Report
have already started the works using a total funding of 25.649.391,69 € for 69.848 files.
− Action for water saving
The requirements for receiving European funding assigned to the “La Breña II” reservoir include to create saving water measures concerning improvement of channels and irrigation techniques. The actual situation is 144.375 ha already modernized, 23.927 ha in execution, 15.605 ha in projects being assigned and 64.371 ha in projects already written. quantity
Thus, comparing the actual situation to the planned scenarios, it is worth mentioning that there is a correct development level thanks to the important effort that the public Administrations are making for modernising the irrigation areas. III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3. 4) Urgent works for improving and consolidating irrigation areas
The RD 28/2006 that regulates the urgent works for improving and consolidating irrigation areas with the aim of having water saving rates that compensate the damage done by dry seasons (Plan de Choque 2006-07). The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fish and Food are responsible of the synchronization of the works related to water distribution until the farmland. They propose a number of coordinated actions, each one based within their responsibilities, with the aim of saving water in a large part of the irrigation system, both until the farmland and within the farmland. With these actions they also incorporate non-conventional water resources into the irrigation system, such as desalinisation and waste waters.
All these efforts from the public administrations are complemented with the interest shown by the farmers. They are aware of the importance of having a good efficient irrigation that can satisfying the net plant requirements.
127 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and 3.3.3.2. Case study: Zagyva-Tarna
1. Analysis for Pressures and Impact quantity Surface Water Quantitative Status
The available surface water resources in the The Zagyva-Tarna catchment do not match the region’s communal, industrial and agricultural water demands. As a result of water resources development, a relatively large number of reservoirs have been built in the watershed. Moreover, drinking water demands could only be fulfilled by water export from an adjacent catchments.
Agricultural abstractions have a significant impact on the base flows, especially in the downstream sections of the Zagyva and Tarna, where – according to flow data – about 1,5 m3/s of water is taken out for irrigation purposes. This amount is about 50% of the base flow for August, September and October.
The water quantities abstracted for irrigation purposes, or those covered by valid licenses for abstraction, are significant compared with the natural water resources of the Zagyva-Tarna river basin. In summer, during low flow periods, the unchanged quantity of sewage has to be carried by the smaller natural water amounts remaining in the riverbeds. This might cause deterioration of the water quality and the ecological circumstances. This issue is mainly a problem in the downstream parts of the Zagyva and Tarna. This is even the case if abstracted amounts do not exceed the licensed amounts.
The area of the irrigated agricultural lands is assumed to further increase, as agricultural production contributes substantially to the revenues for half of the families living in the area.
On the basis of the ecological survey carried out in 2005:
+ Over 5/10 of the water bodies inventoried show hydrological constraints mainly due to near stagnant flowing conditions; in the lower courses of the Zagyva and Tarna this can be attributed to water abstraction, in the higher courses this may be related to the presence of reservoirs that withhold discharge.
+ Due to better data on agricultural abstraction also all lower sections of the Zagyva and Tarna are to be considered as at risk. Also in this case these factors are not necessarily irreversible and can be mitigated. Agricultural abstraction is an important management issue in the catchment.
+ Comparing the results of the runoff model in the National Report with monitoring data, except for one upstream measuring point all measured flow was 40-60% less than calculated flow. The reason for this may be water abstraction, which is an important human pressure in the area.
+ Data on water flow in the downstream part of the confluence with the Galga creek show an 0,3 m3/s increase on the annual average. But a further 0,64 m3/s decrease compared to the median values. Also here in the order of 1 m3/s is abstracted in summertime.
128 PRB-Agriculture Report
Groundwater Quantitative Status
In the river basin significant amounts of water are abstracted from subsurface aquifers, primarily for mining dewatering reasons, and to a smaller extent for drinking water supply. If abstraction is exceeding recharge, pressure levels or heads may decrease in the aquifers, springs may dry and natural habitats depending on groundwater resources may dry.
The table 3.3.5. below summarizes the abstractions by water use types from the quantity individual groundwater bodies, and presents the part of the groundwater body’s usable water resource, that can be abstracted without jeopardizing the groundwater dependent ecosystems. In column “Total abstraction” the figures in brackets include the abstractions outside of the river basin as well.
use and 3: Water Pressure III. 3. Abstraction from Water Body (year 2004) Mine Utilisable Code Name of Water Body Commu- Indust Agricul- Irri- dewa- Total* resource nal -rial tural gation tering Cserhát, Karancs, Medves - HU_h.2.1 1507 447 142 2096 29738 Zagyva-catchment (mountinous) Mátra - Zagyva- catchment HU_h.2.2 846 846 2472 (mountinous) Hevesi-hills– Tarna- 582 HU_h.2.3 554 20 9 7779 catchment (mountinous) (1139) Duna-Tisza interfluve- Tisza- 6 HU_p.2.10. catchment northern part 6 (1438 6921 1 (porous) 8) 6846 HU_p.2.10. Duna-Tisza interfluve - Mid- 6351 252 207 35 (1960 10884 2 Tisza-valley (porous) 6) 22097 Északi-középhegység HU_p.2.9.1 10068 1720 9142 1085 82 (2969 12740 peremvidék (porous) 9) 19399 Jászság, Nagykunság HU_p.2.9.2 3447 61 15342 471 78 (2744 14431 (porous) 4) Naszály, Nógrádi-rögök 0 HU_k.1.5 2429 (karstic) (86) 0 Budapest környéki thermal HU_kt.1.3 (1031 15466 karstic 1) 72 HU_kt.2.1 Bükki thermal karstic 72 9570 (6380) Észak-Alföld (porous 2992 HU_pt.2.2 2707 101 185 12224 thermal) (8150) Total 25551 2601 24484 2104 196 54936
Table 3.3.5. Usable resources and abstractions, ‘000 m3/year * In brackets: including abstractions outside of the river basin
Groundwater body p.2.9.1 (Északi-középhegység peremvidék) is classified as being 'at risk'. Abstractions amount to 240 % of calculated utilizable resource. A significant contribution to this at risk status comes from dewatering operations associated with the open pit lignite mines in the vicinity of Detk village. Abstraction for municipal uses is of a similar order to mine dewatering.
129 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 3. Pressure 3: Water use and In groundwater body 2.9.2 (Jászság, Nagykunság), by far the most important pressure comes from mine dewatering and the regional data suggest that this groundwater body should be classified as at risk. It cannot be excluded, that illegal irrigation from groundwater also plays a role in the situation.
quantity Groundwater bodies p.2.10.1 and p.2.10.2 were also identified as being potentially at risk. Data indicate that p.2.10.1 is not at risk from abstraction within the Zagyva Tarna River Basin – this pressure is dominantly from abstraction in other river basins. In the case of groundwater body p.2.10.2, roughly a third of the total abstraction is from within the Zagyva-Tarna river basin.
Geological assessments indicate that the Bükkszék-Recsk thermal system is separated from the other parts of the Bukk thermal body. Treatment of Bükkszék-Recsk as a separate water body could be recommended, which would then be considered to be at risk. The k.1.5 Naszály-Nógrádi rögök cold karst body and kt.1.3. Budapest thermal karst-water body are considered to be potentially at risk.
2. Related Measures
Reduction of the impacts of the agricultural abstractions
In summer periods the amounts abstracted for irrigation are equivalent to the larger part of the summer base flows.
(a) An option for remediation is the reduction of the agricultural abstractions, that would mean constraints to irrigation possibilities, mainly along the lower sections of the Zagyva.
(b) The option of replacement of the irrigation waters abstracted from surface waters with those abstracted from groundwaters can not be considered as this would mean an over-abstraction of the groundwater bodies with considerable negative impacts.
(c) An option to decrease pressures on the available water quantity, would be the water transfer from the Tisza through an extension of the existing Jászsági Main Canal.
Groundwaters
In order to reach good quantitative status for three groundwater bodies, where abstraction exceeds current estimates of utilisable resource, it might be required to reduce the permitted abstractions, especially at the Gyöngyös region coal mines.
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
It is recommended to investigate the potential ecological effects of the extension/transfer of the Jászság Main Canal to the region. Moreover investigation is recommended in order to be able to set operational thresholds for the ecological minimum flow in the catchment.
For the full RBMPs a more comprehensive evaluation of sustainable agricultural yield is recommended, this could consider using a groundwater model developed for the aquifers of the region. 130 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.4 Pressure 4: Sediments as related to Erosion and Phosphorus pollution
Case studies provided by: Guadalquivir, Odense, Ribble
P pollution and Erosion
3.4.1. Introduction 1 Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4.
The current status of environmental degradation is a result from industrialization and urbanization processes, but not only, also the agricultural industrialization contributed to the current status of the environment during the recent decennia. As described in the above chapters, the effects of the agricultural sector are mainly reflected in increased pollution from agro-chemicals. But in some agricultural ecosystems, changes in intensification of agricultural activities can increase the erosion rates and result in higher sediment yields in water bodies that can affect the water quality.
Sediment is derived from the weathering and erosion of minerals, organic material and soils in upstream areas and from the erosion of riverbanks and other in-stream sources. Transported sediment settles along the riverbed and banks by sedimentation. Sediments contribute an important value to river systems, they form important habitats based on their immediate nutrient source and the sedimentation areas are favorable for biodiversity and offer fertile farmlands. However, this natural equilibrium is disturbed by e.g. intensified erosion. Erosion is a natural process, but inadequate land and agricultural management practices can contribute significantly to the vigor and speed of that process. In arable landscapes soil erosion has increased significantly due to changes in arable rotations, increase in autumn cultivations, use of heavy machinery, irrigation, de-stoning of soils, and many factors that have rendered soil entirely unstable and unstructured.
The general effect of erosion is a reduction of natural soil and its fertility. Some farming practices reduce the amount and continuity of green cover and can therefore enhance the risk to soil erosion. This is an EU wide problem although Mediterranean areas are very vulnerable due to the climatic characteristics. But figure 3.4.1. shows that erosion is not only a problem related to semi–arid or arid EutrophicatedOdense Lake, areas. The immediate effect of an agricultural induced erosion process in itself is an
1 Main sources: the European Sediment Network: http://www.sednet.org ; Report on Sediment Management & Dredging in Lakes, based on a workshop held at Arlington Court, Devon March 2002
131 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments increased need for inputs, in terms of nutrients, in order to maintain agricultural production. Sediments act as sink for many hazardous chemicals. They therefore
Erosion and P pollution stimulate the transfer of surpluses of nutrients and pesticides into surface waters. This can increase the concentrations of those substances in water bodies. Many relatively small inputs, even if all complying with emission regulations, can accumulate to reach higher levels by the time sediment reaches the river delta.
Figure 3.4.1.: Pan European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment - Pesera “Pan-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment: The PESERA Map, Version 1 October 2003. Explanation of Special Publication Ispra 2004 No.73 (S.P.I.04.73)." Kirkby, M.J.et al. (2004). European Soil Bureau Research Report No.16, EUR 21176, 18pp. and 1 map in ISO B1 format. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Phosphorus (P) is a main cause of enrichment and eutrophication in water bodies. Phosphorus is naturally sparse in soils and easily sticks to soil particles as water moves through the soil. Increased agricultural inputs of Phosphorus through fertilizer use, can augment Phosphorus concentrations in surface waters mainly through increased run-off and Phosphorus brought in by soil particles through direct erosion or by preferential flow through macro-pores from the Phosphorus rich top soils to the drainage systems. Reduced pollution from point sources by e.g. better wastewater treatment relatively
132 PRB-Agriculture Report
increased the effluence and resulting eutrophication by nutrients brought in through run- off and erosion.
Combined with moderating nutrient inputs, reducing the sediment input from the catchments through adapted agricultural management practices is expected to reduce overall pollution and eutrophication problems. The Case Studies looked into identification of risk areas for increased erosion and consequent diffuse phosphorus losses to better target measures and make them cost-effective.
Erosion and P pollution P pollution and Erosion 3.4.2. Main Outcomes
Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4.
Within the Guadalquivir basin, high levels of soil loss could be related to agricultural land use, especially for olive grove areas. Impacting land and agricultural management practices, such as removal of protective green cover and excessive tillage, were found to be symptomatic for increased erosion risks. For relating suspended solids to erosion potential however, the reservoir effect had to be modeled, but even then correlations were not always indicative enough to indicate target areas for mitigation measures. Within the Odense, diffuse phosphorus losses from the river basin constitute 76% of total phosphorus input in the estuary. Agriculture was found to be responsible for 60% of the diffuse losses. In fact, phosphorus inputs from agriculture to surface waters mainly come from the following sources: soil erosion, in-river erosion of river banks that are enriched in phosphorus due to adjacent cultivation, artificial drainage systems on loamy soils with macro pores, and artificial drainage systems on organogenic soils with a low phosphorus binding capacity. The soil phosphorus content and the fertilizer application rate/surplus in combination with phosphorus loss pathways determine the magnitude of the phosphorus loss.
To make measures cost effective they must be optimally targeted. The Odense examined the P Index as possible method for identifying and ranking risk areas. The index was found to be able to describe the factors that cumulatively determine the P losses to surface waters, but needs further testing. Within the Guadalquivir conservation techniques applied in agricultural areas were found to reduce the sediments and an associated reduction in transported hazardous agro-chemical substances was as much as 69-85% compared to areas with conventional agricultural management.
Agri-environmental measures in the RD plans are thought to be effective but more farmer involvement is needed to increase uptake and implementation. These case studies enhanced again the complexity of the cause-effect relation between the suspected driving force, agriculture, and the status, being water quality.
(1) PRB main experience/success in analysing the pressure on sediments:
• Agricultural activities were found to influence the erosion substantially. In particular modern practices for olive cultivation and the area extent under olives within a sub-basin show high degree of correlation with erosion potential, hence can be considered as major driving force.
• The cause-effect analysis to indicate risk areas is very complex, PRB investigated new or adapted approaches to assign risk levels for erosion and diffuse phosphorus losses.
133 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments o When considering known sources of variation, such as reservoir effects, observations of suspended solids could be significantly positively linked to
Erosion and P pollution erosion potential. As spatial relationships were not always significant, caution is still needed when interpreting analyses of such complex correlations.
o The development of an index indicating phosphorus loss at field level, an adapted P Index, based on connectivity to stream, presence-absence and impact of buffer strips (impacting erosion and so reducing P leaching) is a promising tool to assign risks levels related to diffuse phosphorus losses. More testing in other areas is still required.
(2) PRB main experience/success in setting targets and developing measures:
• Successfully assigning risk areas, such as done on the basis of the P-Index, facilitates the design of cost effective measures because of better targeting in terms of objectives and spatial implementation, however setting precise targets remains difficult.
• As the effects of the specific agricultural farming practices on erosion are well known, mitigation measures can be successfully designed. The use of conservation practices, such as leaving stubble and green cover and maintaining fringing vegetation, were shown to highly reduce erosion and consequently sediment loads and associated transport of nutrients were reduced.
• The soil P content and the fertilizer application rate/surplus in combination with P loss pathways determine the magnitude of the P loss. Therefore measures to reduce the agricultural P-losses must also include requirements on phosphorous fertilization. The excess application of phosphorus to fields should cease in order to prevent future enhanced loss of phosphorus from cultivated land and the amount of phosphorus applied to fields with high phosphorus content in soils should be reduced in order to reduce phosphorus loss from these areas.
• Much of these measures are included in agri-environment schemes, but would still need to be enhanced and optimally targeted to ensure that implementation is successful.
(3) PRB identification of some major points for consideration in the process of elaborating an appropriate programme of measures:
• As mitigation measures can be well designed and implementation schemes are already mostly operational through agri-environmental programmes, it was found that the farmers awareness for applying the measures is still lacking. Mostly the intensive agriculture farming is not very involved. Therefore critical area coverage that can ensure a regional significant impact, considering that cumulative sedimentation concentrates impact effects, is difficulty reached.
• Developed and other possible methods for improved targeting are promising but need to be tested. Assigning risk factors spatially will highly improve the effectiveness of the implementation of the measures.
134 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.4.3. Case Studies
3.4.3.1. Guadalquivir 3.4.3.2. Odense 3.4.3.3. Ribble
3.4.3.1. Case Study: Guadalquivir Erosion and P pollution P pollution and Erosion
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4.
1. Pressures and Impact Analysis
Erosion is the main driving force of soil degradation in the world and it is one of the most important problems in the Guadalquivir basin, with a potential soil erosion of more than 300 millions Tons of soil loss per year. The main driving factors are the Mediterranean climate, implying high risk due to erratic drought periods, a millenary anthropogenic activity and the more recent intensive agricultural practices. Intensive agriculture is associated to more intensive ploughing and the disappearance and/or not maintaining of the original green cover of the soil. These facts enhance the risk factors, reducing the fertility of soil and transferring nutrients, pesticides and sediments into the surface waters.
In the rivers at Sierra Morena the main erosion problems, more than 150 Tm/ha/year, are located along the middle of the Yeguas, Jándula and Rumblar rivers. Places with losses between 57 and 150 Tm/ha/year are on the right bank of the Guadalimar river as well as in the Guadalén basin. The most important losses are in basins located on limestone beds such as the Guadalmena, Guadalimar, Beas, Guadiana Menor and Jandulilla basins. The problems in the main course of the Guadalquivir are important due to the cultivation (figure 3.4.2.) of olive trees in places with dominantly steep slopes (figure 3.4.3.). Moreover, there are important transfers of solids from the tributaries at the Guadalquivir left bank (Guadiana Menor, Jandulilla and Guadalbullón). Reservoirs such as the Puente de la Cerrada, Doña Aldonza and Pedro Marín show important sedimentation levels.
Downstream, at the high parts of the Guadalmellato, Guadiato and Bembézar basins, erosion is important because of the existence of large areas of olive groves on steep slopes. There are also numerous areas with less steep slopes but situated on limestone, where the use of inappropriate agricultural practices enhances erosion.
At the bottom of the basin, the main erosion problems are found on the right river side of the Guadalquivir, that is, the Corbones, Guadaira and Salado de Morón basins, whose main land use is agriculture. Erosion prone areas, Guadalquivir Erosion
135 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Erosion and P pollution
Figure 3.4.2.: Potential erosion (Tm/ha/year) in the Guadalquivir river basin.
Figure 3.4.3: Olive grove distribution (% from the total subbasin area)
Olive cultivation is the crop with a more important role in the erosion dynamics in the Guadalquivir river basin. The spatial patterns of erosion and olive groves show a high degree of correspondence. Moreover, the higher the percentage of olive groves in a study sub-basin, the higher the associated potential erosion is (figure 3.4.3. and 3.4.4).
136 PRB-Agriculture Report
120
100
80
60
40 Erosion and P pollution P pollution and Erosion
20 95% CI Erosion potential (Tons/ha/year) potential Erosion CI 95% III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4. N = 1779 402 365 345 294 0 - 10 25 - 50 75 - 100 10 - 25 50 - 75
% Olive Groove (total subbasin area)
Figure 3.4.4.: Average potential erosion and confidence interval – 95%- for each olive grove group.
When analyzing the whole dataset, no significant relation could be defined between erosion and suspended solid concentrations in the water. Reservoirs work like a trap for material transported from upstream. Although their effect changes as a function of their location in the longitudinal profile of the river, their management and the land use in their basin.
In basins such as those of the Guadajoz, Guadalmena and Negratín with agriculture as main land use, the concentration of suspended solids upstream of the reservoir is significantly higher and is spread over a wider range than downstream. However, in the basins like the Bembézar, Ribera de Cala and Guadalquivir at the Tranco de Beas, with a predominant forest landuse, the suspended solids concentration in the downstream part of the reservoir does not change significantly or is higher than in the upstream area.
Taking into account the land use (agricultural or forest) and its location with respect to the reservoir (upstream-downstream), then the relation between erosion and suspended solids is significant in all the studied sites (figure 3.4.5.). j TIPO: 1 Forestal TIPO: 2 Agrario 2000 800 2000 600 1000 400 1000 500 800 400 200 300 600 200 400 100 80 100 60 200 50 40 40 P 30 20 100 20 80 10 10 60 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 c) Reservoirs in agricultural a) All reservoirs b) Reservoirs in forest areas areas Figure 3.4.5.: Relation between suspended solids concentration (mg/l) and erosion (Tm/ha/year) In upstream (red) and downstream (green) areas from the reservoirs. 137 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments 2. Related Measures
Erosion and P pollution Tackling soil losses in the Guadalquivir river basin is one of the main objectives for the local, regional and national administrations. Actions for protecting the soil are developed along two main lines: (1) hydro-forest restorations and (2) actions on agricultural areas. For the former, the regional and national administrations coordinate actions within forest areas. They use strategies proposed in the Hydro-forest Restoration National Plan, the Forest Andalusian Plan and the more recent Andalusian Plan for the Control of the Desertification. For the agricultural areas, the focus is on afforestation of marginal agricultural areas and specific measures against erosion.
In comparison to areas with a conventional agricultural management, using conservation techniques, soil erosion can be highly reduced (more than 90% in direct sawing or no ploughing, and more than 60% with reduce ploughing). This means a better water quality in the rivers due to the reduction of sediments and associated transported pollutants such as pesticides (70%), nitrogen (85%) and phosphates (65%), as well as less water loss by runoff (69%). Hence, conservation techniques represent an option for reaching important erosion reductions and a consequent improvement of the quality of both surface and groundwater (Source: Asociación Española de Agricultura de Conservación/Suelos Vivos).
Erosion control in olive groves is one the most important agro-environmental measures in the Guadalquivir river basin. However, the area where it is applied can be much wider, as shown in the next two figures (figures 3.4.6. and 3.4.7.).
Figure 3.4.6.: Percentage of the olive grove area for each subbasin with erosion agro- environmental measure.
138 PRB-Agriculture Report
Erosion and P pollution P pollution and Erosion III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4.
Figure 3.4.7.: Percentage of the potential olive grove area for each subbasin where erosion agro- environmental measure could be applied.
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
Erosion in the Guadalquivir basin is at unsustainable levels. The correlation between factors like precipitation and terrain explain an important part of the soil loss variation. However, the land use, especially olive groves, is the major driving force for the high levels of soil losses in the upstream parts of the basin and in the midstream areas of the main tributaries.
Erosion enhances the suspended solids in the rivers, but there is no statistical evidence between the potential erosion and the concentration of suspended solids within the study basins. Only taking into account other sources of variation, in this case the specific effect of the reservoirs, this relation becomes more significant. Once again, the complexity of the cause-effect relations related to the driving force and status indicators between agriculture and water quality is underlined.
Traditional agriculture, which burns the remains of the last harvest removing the protection layer during the rainy season and which uses excessive tillage and ploughing, together with the terrain characteristics (steep slopes) and the Mediterranean climate, deteriorate the soil structure and increase the erosion risk.
The actual measures (agro-environmental, good agricultural practices, conservation techniques from the LIFE projects, etc.) are demonstrating positive effects related to the erosion, but it is still necessary to improve them.
139 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments One of the main problems observed concerning the implementation of the measures is a lack of effective involvement fro the part of the stakeholders, such as farmers. These
Erosion and P pollution stakeholders are not aware of the real magnitude of the driving forces and their effects, and the role and potential they have mitigating them. Therefore, awareness raising activities would nee to be developed. Stimulated through courses and technical assistance, the farmers should adopt agricultural practices that are environmental friendly while being aware that these do not decrease the total income of the farm.
Related to the agro-environmental measures:
o The Intensive farming areas are not very involved in implementing these measures although, from an environmental point of view, it is the more problematic type of agriculture. For this reason, it might be an option to decrease the measure requirements or increase the subventions.
o The area reached under agri-environmental measures should be larger if effects at the regional scale are desired. Thus, a higher number of contracts should be achieved. For example, the potential area where the erosion control measure can be implemented is much more than the area that has really adopted it.
o It is important to define the more sensitive target areas where this kind of measures is expected to be most effective. These areas should be the most susceptible to erosion, e.g. steep slopes with a low olive tree density and with fragile soils (thin agricultural soil layer, limestone beds or low organic content).
A Good Agricultural Practices Code oriented towards erosion and soil protection should be developed. It should contain the main techniques and measures for adapted management of the soil. The manual compiled by the Junta de Andalucia for the management of olive groves is yielding positive results. It is urgently required though, that its techniques become more common among farmers and that similar codes for other kind of crops are developed.
140 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.4.3.2. Case Study: Odense:
Identifying risk areas for diffuse P losses in the Odense Pilot River Basin
Hans Estrup Andersen and Brian Kronvang National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark
Introduction P pollution and Erosion
The Odense River discharges into an estuary, the Odense Fjord. Odense Fjord suffers Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4. from eutrophication due to elevated nutrient concentrations. Diffuse phosphorus (P) losses from the river basin constitute 76% of total P input to the estuary. Agriculture accounts for 60% of the diffuse losses. Mitigation measures against diffuse P losses must be targeted towards risk areas in order to be both cost effective and to have an effect in a foreseeable future. This case study examines the P index as a possible method of identifying risk areas for diffuse P losses.
The modified Danish P index
The P index constitutes a qualitative framework for risk assessment, thus absolute P losses are not calculated. The P index allows the ranking of sites where the potential risk of P leaving the landform site and travelling toward a waterbody may be relatively higher or lower than other landform sites. The P index needs to be modified to local or regional conditions in order to incorporate all potential P loss pathways. For this study a modification developed for Danish conditions by Andersen & Kronvang (2006) was used, Table 3.4.1..
Odense Fjord
141 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Part A – Screening tool Evaluation Category Erosion and P pollution Soil Test P > 200 mg P kg-1 Contributing If yes to either < 45m Distance factor then Contributing > 45m AND field proceed to Part B Distance artificially drained
Part B – Source factors Soil test P Soil Test P (mg P kg-1) (Olsen-P translated to Mehlich-III-P) Soil Test P Rating = 0.20* Soil Test P (mg P kg-1) Fertilizer P Fertilizer P (kg ha-1) rate Manure P rate Manure P (kg ha-1) 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 P source incorporated >1 Incorporated > Surface applied Placed or incorporate application week or not 1 week or not to frozen or injected 5cm or d method incorporated incorporated snow more deep < 1 week April-October Nov.-March covered soil Fertilizer Rating = Rate x Method Manure P 0.5 0.8 1.0 availability Treated manure/Biosolids Dairy Poultry/Pigs Manure Rating = Rate x Method x Availability Source Factor = Soil Test P Rating + Fertilizer Rating + Manure Rating
Part C – Transport factor Erosion Soil Loss (tonnes ha-1) 0 2 4 6 8 Runoff potential Very low Low Medium High Very high 2 4 6 Leaching Potential sandy soil loamy soil organic soil 1 2 Subsurface 0 Few ditches or Field is on a tile Drainage No artifical drains tile drains with drainage system wide spacing Contributing 8 0
Distance < 45 m > 45 m 0.24 0.03 0.65 Riparian buffer = Modified Riparian buffer = 2 m Riparian buffer = 2 m 2 m Erosion Connectivity Erosion Negligible Erosion High Medium 0.20 0.02 0.59 Riparian buffer> Riparian buffer > 2 m Riparian buffer > 2 m 2 m Erosion Negligible Erosion High Erosion Medium Transport Factor = [(Erosion + Runoff Potential + Contributing Distance)*Modified Connectivity + (Sub-surface Drainage + Leaching Potential]/22 Phosphorus Index Value = 2 x Source Factor x Transport Factor
142 Table 3.4.1.1. The modified Danish P Index.(part A, b and C) PRB-Agriculture Report
Setting up the P index
Source factors: The P Index needs P source data at the field level. Data on land management and input of fertilisers and manures was, however, only available at the field block level. A field block consists of one to several fields and is an area mitigated by permanent structures in the landscape (e.g. roads, streams, and hedges). The average size of a field block is 9 ha. The following information was available for each field block: land use (dominant crop), inputs of P in fertilisers and manures, timing of P inputs, method of P application, and soil type. Data on land use and inputs of P were derived from a national database maintained as part of the administration of EU agricultural subsidies. Knowledge on timing of P inputs and methods of application was transferred P pollution and Erosion from a national programme which closely monitors agricultural practices on a representative sample of Danish farms (Grant et al., 2003). Soil types are derived from Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4. a national soil types map (1:25,000). Data on soil test P was not available at the field block level hence a regional estimate based on statistical information (Pedersen, 2004) had to be adopted.
Transport factors: At the landscape level data are needed on potential P loss pathways, i.e. the hydrological connection between land and receiving waters. Soil erosion was calculated by the USLE model (Wischmeyer and Schmidt, 1978). The USLE factors K and R were available as national maps (respectively Kronvang et al., 2004 and Leek and Olsen, 2000). The LS factor was calculated by an algorithm provided by Van Remortel et al., 2001 based on a 10 m digital elevation model. The C factor was parameterised by land use data at the field block level. Soil erosion is modest in the Odense Fjord catchment with a calculated annual average soil loss of 0.56 t ha-1 yr-1 and the maximum soil loss from a single field of 5.28 t ha-1 yr-1. Runoff potential was indexed based on topsoil saturated hydraulic conductivity and slope following Soil Survey Division Staff (1993). Saturated hydraulic conductivity for specific soil types was calculated by the HYPRES pedotransfer function (Wösten et al., 1998). Maps of tile drainage systems were not available for the whole catchment. For the remaining area the extent of tile drainage was, therefore, estimated based on information on the textural composition of topsoil and subsoil. In total 75% of the soils in the Odense Fjord catchment are estimated as being tile drained. The contributing distance is calculated in GIS as the shortest distance from the edge of the field block to the nearest ditch, stream or lake. The connectivity between a field and receiving waters, i.e. the presence or absence of a riparian buffer strip, was determined for field blocks neighbouring surface waters by comparing the combined field block-surface water theme to aerial photos. Due to the uncertainty in the GIS themes, we were restrained to distinguish only between buffer strips = 2 m (mandatory in Denmark) and buffer strips > 2 m.
Results
Figure 3.4.8. shows the P index applied in the 1000 km2 Odense river basin. The majority of the field blocks is assigned an index value > 0 either because of a location in the vicinity of a stream or because of tile drainage of the field block (see Part A, Table 3.4.1.).
143 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Erosion and P pollution
trems hnish22index H H2E2PH PH2E2RH RH2E2TH TH2E2ISH hnish22index H H2E2PH PH2E2RH RH2E2TH TH2E2ISH
Figure 3.4.8.:. Application of the Danish P index on the Odense river catchment.
Figure 3.4.9. shows the calculated index values divided into classes. Calculations were carried out for 7281 field blocks in total. A value of 0 was assigned to 12% of the field blocks while 58% have values between 15 and 30. The distribution of index values is skewed to the right, i.e. with few, very high index values thus illustrating that P risk areas constitute a minor part of the landscape.
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 No. of field blocks No. 400 200 751010203 0 0 0-5 5-10 >100 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 P index intervals Figure 3.4.9. Frequency distribution of P index values calculated for 7281 field blocks in the Odense river catchment.
Linking P index mapping to diffuse P losses
Data for evaluating the P index mapping: For twelve sub-catchments within the Odense river basin data on annual diffuse total P (TP) losses were available for 1998-2002. Annual losses were calculated based on water sampling every second week and continuous measurement of water stage. A stage-discharge relationship was used to construct time series of discharge. The twelve sub-catchments represent a large range in size (0.4 – 535 km2), extent of arable land (0 – 87.8%), and TP export (0.07 – 0.53 kg TP ha-1 yr-1).
144 PRB-Agriculture Report
A sub-catchment P index value was calculated for each of the twelve sub-catchments with measured diffuse TP losses (1): For each sub-catchment the products of P index value and field bloc area were summed and divided by total sub-catchment area. By regression analysis between the calculated sub-catchment P index values and the sub- catchment TP losses the ability of the P index to correctly rank the measured TP losses was evaluated. Sub-catchment vulnerability to P loss in runoff as calculated by the P index was closely related to actual measured diffuse TP losses: R2 = 0.85 for a wet year (2002) and R2 = 0.79 for the period 1998-2002, figure 3.4.10.
(1) P indexsub-catchment = ∑(P indexfield block x field block area)/sub-catchment area
Erosion and P pollution P pollution and Erosion 0,8 0,7 III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4. 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3
TP-tab (kg/ha/år) 0,2 0,1 0 0 5 10 15 20
Oplands-P-indeks Figure 3.4.10:. TP losses (2002) as a function of sub-catchment P index values. Solid line: TP loss = 0.0738*EXP[0.144*sub-catchment P index], p<0.0001, R2 = 0.85.
Conclusions on the identification of risk areas
The evaluation of the P index on twelve sub-catchments indicates that the P index is able to correctly describe the most important factors that cumulatively determine P losses to surface waters in the Odense river catchment. Thus, the P index seems to be well suited for identifying risk areas for diffuse P losses thereby facilitating cost-effective remedial measures. However, the P index is still being developed and should be tested on other catchment types and on individual fields.
Related Measures
Specific measures to limit the agricultural phosphorus losses, including losses linked to erosion and transport of particles are:
1. Requirement for phosphorus balance at all fields in catchment. Phosphorus balance means that input of Phosphorus as manure and artificial must not exceed the phosphorus removed from fields with the crops 2. Requirement for reduced phosphorus fertilization on fields with a high plant available phosphorus content in soil (Olsen-P >4). In such case the P-input to fields should not exceed 75% of the phosphorus that are removed with the crops. 3. Cultivation restrictions on potentially erosive areas • Permanent grass • Reduced soil preparation, etc. • Extended buffer zones along surface waters (>10m) 4. Reestablishment of wetlands in river valleys to retain nutrients
145 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments
Erosion and P pollution References
Andersen, H. E. & Kronvang, B. (2006). Modifying and evaluating a P index for Denmark. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 174, 341-353.
Grant, R., Blicher-Mathiesen, G., Pedersen, M. L., Jensen, P. G., Pedersen, M. and Rasmussen, P. (2003). Landovervågningsoplande 2002. NOVA 2003. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 468 (in Danish).
Kronvang, B., Bøcher, P. K., Olsen, P., Andersen, H. E., Gyldenkærne, S. and Djuurhus, J. (2004). Risk areas for soil erosion and phosphorus losses. Vand & Jord 11(3), 110-114 (in Danish).
Leek, R. and Olsen, P. (2000). Modelling climatic erosivity as a factor for soil erosion in Denmark: changes and temporal trends. Soil Use and Management, 16, 61-65.
Pedersen, C. Å. (2004). Oversigt over landsforsøgene. Forsøg og undersøgelser i de landøkonomiske foreninger 2004. Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning, Landscentret Planteavl, Udkærsvej 15, Århus, Denmark (in Danish).
Soil Survey Division Staff (1993). Soil Survey Manual. Soil Conservation Service. USDA Handbook 18.
Wischmeier, W. H. og Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses – a guide to conservation planning. Agricultural Handbook 537, USDA, Washington D.C.
Wösten, J. H. M., Lilly, A., Nemes, A. and Le Bas, C. (1998). Using existing soil data to derive hydraulic parameters for simulation models in environmental studies and in land use planning. Final report of the European Union Funded Project, Report 156, DLO-staring Centre, Wageningen, NL.
Odense Fjord Odense Fjord
146 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.4.3.3. Case Study: Ribble
1. Pressures and Impact Analysis
Phosphorus and sediment are significant pollutants of inland waters in the context of achieving the good ecological status demanded by the Water Framework Directive. The PSYCHIC (Phosphorus and Sediment Characterisation In Catchments) model was applied to the Ribble catchment in order to predict losses of phosphorus and sediment from agricultural land in the catchment. This will contribute to the identification of those parts of the catchment where elevated risk of phosphorus and sediment transfer to P pollution and Erosion watercourses exist, thus enabling resources to tackle diffuse pollution to be targeted in areas where benefits may be maximised. Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4.
PSYCHIC is a process-based model of phosphorus (P) and sediment mobilisation and delivery to watercourses. Modelled loss pathways include dissolution of soil P, detachment and mobilisation of sediment and associated particulate P, incidental losses from manure and fertiliser applications, losses from hard standings, the transport of all the above to watercourses in under drainage (where present) and via surface pathways, and losses of total P from point sources. PSYCHIC does not explicitly estimate phosphorus uptake by crops, although this is implicitly accounted for in the calculation of incidental losses from fertilisers, in which it is recognised that not all applied phosphorus is susceptible to loss. At catchment scale, the model uses available national scale datasets to infer all necessary input data, whilst at field scale the user is required to supply all necessary data.
In estimating phosphorus (P) loss to watercourses, PSYCHIC considers three dimensions of diffuse pollution (Chadwick et al, 2006): source (for example manure application), mobilisation (for example soil detachment by rainfall) and delivery (transport of mobilised phosphorus to watercourses). The input layers required to drive the PSYCHIC screening tool consist of climatic data, manure input data and information on soil physical and chemical properties. Land use is also an important model input layer since it determines both the magnitude and location of P inputs, and the risk of P mobilisation and delivery.
In the PSYCHIC screening tool, P input from inorganic fertilizers is estimated from crop area and fertilizer use survey statistics (Defra, 2002b). The estimate of the amount of P applied with organic manures is based on agricultural census data (i.e. stock numbers and excreta standards). Manure from livestock is distributed within parish groups around the animals’ location according to census return, in an attempt to represent the true distribution of livestock in the landscape. Manure from housed animals is assumed to be distributed on both arable land and managed grassland in the vicinity. Rainfall is important as the primary driver of mobilization and delivery. Soil particles are detached by rain falling directly onto the soil or via leaf drip, or by the shear force of overland flow. Crop cover influences the amount of detachment occurring during a rainfall event, by protecting the soil surface from rainfall energy. In arable rotations, there are periods when crop cover is minimal or absent and the risk of particulate P and sediment loss is increased. Both dissolved and particulate P losses are therefore greater from arable than grassland (under equivalent conditions) and greater where land is left bare or with minimal crop cover over winter. In addition to losses of soil residual P, applied P (either organic or inorganic) may be lost during runoff events caused by rainfall during the period between application and incorporation of fertilizer. Textural and other data on soil chemical and physical properties are based on information on the top horizon of the dominant soil type in each computational unit (i.e. each 1km2 grid cell) since this is
147 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments where most P mobilization occurs. These data were provided by NSRI under license. However for the purpose of estimating the likelihood of land drainage being installed, the
Erosion and P pollution total soil profile is taken into account. The amount of particulate P transported with detached fines is determined by the total P content of the topsoil. In PSYCHIC, the value of this parameter is inferred from the soil type. Dissolution of P from soil is estimated as a function of soil Olsen’s P, which is inferred from soil texture and land use. The soil’s Hydrology of Soil Type (HOST) class (Boorman et al., 1995) is used by the model to calculate the transport of water through each hydrological pathway.
Table 3.4.2. shows estimated phosphorus application by sub catchment. Application rates are clearly higher in the more arable sub-catchments in the lowlands, but are also elevated in some grassland areas, due to inputs from beef and dairy cattle.
Sub Name Area Average kg Total P applied catchment (km2) [P]/ha (t) 1 Ribble Headwaters 258 9.16 236.41 2 Upper Ribble 429 15.75 675.80 3 Hodder 309 10.21 315.39 4 Calder 367 9.44 346.32 5 Darwen 171 12.29 210.20 6 Douglas 237 10.51 249.14 7 Crossens 322 15.58 501.81 8 Yarrow and Lostock 160 16.36 261.80 9 North of Ribble estuary 244 17.31 422.43
Table 3.4.2.: Estimated applications of available phosphorus by sub catchment.
The single most important source of phosphorus in the catchment is inorganic fertilisers, accounting for 39% of all applied phosphorus. However, organic fertilisers make up the majority of the applied phosphorus, with an estimated 24% of applied phosphorus being in the form of dairy manure and excreta from grazing animals, and a further 15% from beef cattle. Estimated inputs from poultry are also significant in lowland areas.
Inorganic fertiliser use is widespread, but predicted to be greatest on arable land in the lowland parts of the catchment. By contrast, inputs from beef and dairy cattle are predicted to be greatest in the more grassland areas further north east in the catchment. Inputs from poultry manure, although spatially confined to the more lowland parts of the catchment, are predicted to reach locally high values of up to 19 kg [P] ha-1.
Summary of the outcome from the Psychic tool (table 3.4.3.):
• The largest single source of phosphorus applied to agricultural land is inorganic fertiliser. However, most phosphorus is applied in organic fertilisers, particularly beef and dairy manure and grazing returns.
• The areas predicted to present most risk of phosphorus transfer to watercourses are in the upper Ribble and parts of the Hodder and Calder. The more lowland area immediately to the south of the Ribble estuary downstream of Preston is also predicted to present elevated risk.
Table 3.4.4. shows predicted phosphorus losses to watercourses by sub-catchment. Predicted losses (per unit area of land) are highest in the upper Ribble. Predicted losses are also elevated in the Hodder and Calder, but also in some lowland sub-catchments around the Ribble estuary.
148 PRB-Agriculture Report
Subcatchment Name P loss P loss kg/ha managed kg/ha land 1 Ribble Headwaters 0.56 1.21 2 Upper Ribble 1.51 2.12 3 Hodder 0.98 2.24 4 Calder 0.76 1.71 5 Darwen 0.67 1.56 6 Douglas 0.61 1.41 7 Crossens 0.58 0.91 8 Yarrow and Lostock 0.81 1.46
9 North of Ribble estuary 0.78 1.55 P pollution and Erosion Ribble 0.82 1.55
Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4. Table 3.4.3.: Modelled phosphorus loss to watercourses per hectare of land, and per hectare of managed agricultural land (arable and managed grassland), by sub catchment and for the Ribble basin.
• In areas with assisted drainage, drains are the dominant pathway for phosphorus and sediment transfer. However, losses in surface runoff are also significant in much of the catchment.
Sub Name Phosphoru Phosphoru Phosphoru Phosphoru catchme s loss in s loss in s loss in s loss in nt surface drainflow surface drainflow runoff (kg/ha) runoff (%) (%) (kg/ha) 1 Ribble Headwaters 0.23 0.33 42 58 2 Upper Ribble 0.20 1.31 13 87 3 Hodder 0.19 0.79 19 81 4 Calder 0.19 0.56 26 74 5 Darwen 0.17 0.51 25 75 6 Douglas 0.09 0.52 15 85 7 Crossens 0.08 0.50 14 86 8 Yarrow and Lostock 0.13 0.68 16 84 9 North of Ribble estuary 0.15 0.64 19 81 Ribble 0.16 0.65 20 80
Table 3.4.4.: Predicted phosphorus loss to watercourses in surface runoff and field drains, by subcatchment.
• 61% of the phosphorus reaching watercourses is predicted to be in dissolved form. 80% of the phosphorus reaching watercourses is predicted to be transferred in drains.
• Of the mitigation measures identified, the most effective on grassland are likely to be those which target the management of manure and fertiliser. Measures to reduce soil erosion will also reduce phosphorus loss in many areas.
149 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments 2. Related Measures: assessment
Erosion and P pollution Overview of approach
The PSYCHIC model can be used to assess the potential effectiveness of various mitigation methods aimed at reducing phosphorus and sediment transfer from agricultural land to watercourses. Because the model responds to management factors as well as landscape in predicting risk of diffuse phosphorus and sediment loss, changes in management or behaviour can be reflected in changes to model input parameters.
Throughout the assessments described here, it has been assumed that each measure has an uptake of 100%, that is, all land to which the appropriate measure is applicable has that measure in place. Of course, it is unrealistic to assume that any mitigation option will achieve this level of uptake, but the change in phosphorus and sediment loss resulting from uptake of less than 100% may be estimated by scaling the predicted change by the assumed uptake.
Results for the separate measures are as follows:
a. Restriction of fertiliser application to crop requirements
There is survey evidence to suggest that many farmers do not fully account for the nutrient content of manures when calculating crop requirements for inorganic fertiliser, with the result that many crops receive phosphate in excess of their requirement.
As might be expected, the greatest predicted reductions in diffuse phosphorus loss occur on grassland in the northern part of the catchment, where manure production is greatest. Little reduction is predicted on the arable land in the south west of the catchment. Reductions are predicted to be locally significant: up to 0.56 kg [P] ha-1 yr-1 in grassland areas. Over the catchment as a whole, predicted reductions in diffuse phosphorus loss total over 23,700 kg [P] yr-1, or about 12% of the baseline.
b. Implementation of no-fertiliser options through agri-environment schemes
Some agricultural grassland in the Ribble basin has been entered into the Countryside Stewardship scheme. Grassland in this scheme is assumed to receive no inorganic fertiliser.
Because the total area of grassland in CSS is small (approximately 3,800 ha, or about 4% of all managed grassland in the catchment), the effect of fertiliser reductions on catchment-total diffuse phosphorus losses is small. Figure 29 shows the predicted reduction in diffuse phosphorus losses compared with the baseline. Reductions reach values of up to 0.15 kg [P] ha-1 yr-1 locally, but are obviously confined to areas with grassland in CSS and over the catchment as a whole, the predicted reduction in diffuse phosphorus loss is just over 300 kg [P] yr-1, or about 0.16%.
C. Use of a closed period for manure spreading
The current Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) Action Programme measures require that organic manures with high available nitrogen are not applied to sandy or shallow soils between 1-Aug and 1-Nov (arable land with no autumn sown crop), or 1-Sep and 1-Nov (grassland or arable land with an autumn sown crop). The majority of the Ribble basin falls within NVZs.
Results of scenario (1) in which stored manure is spread in November, and figure 32 the change in predicted phosphorus loss compared with the baseline: 150 PRB-Agriculture Report
The predicted effect of delaying the spreading of manure until November is an increase in diffuse phosphorus losses of up to 0.27 kg [P] ha-1 yr-1. Predicted losses increase most in an area to the south of the Ribble estuary near Preston, which is assumed to receive significant quantities of poultry manure. Elsewhere, in the more grassland areas in central parts of the catchment, the predicted increase is more modest: in the range 0.04 – 0.08 kg [P] ha-1 yr-1. Over the catchment as a whole, the predicted increase in diffuse phosphorus loss is approximately 4,700 kg yr-1, or 2.4%. This is due to the correspondence between phosphorus loss and rainfall-runoff; November is wetter than September or October, and any soil moisture deficit is likely to have been replenished by November.
Results of Scenario (2) in which stored manure is spread in February and March: P pollution and Erosion
The change in predicted phosphorus loss compared with the baseline. In this case, the Sediments 4: Pressure III. 4. predicted effect of the closed period is also to increase diffuse phosphorus losses, although the magnitude of the predicted increase is smaller than in scenario (1). The magnitude of the predicted increase in diffuse phosphorus loss is driven by variations in rainfall between the autumn and the spring months, with the spring generally being wetter than the autumn. As might be expected, the spatial pattern of the change in phosphorus loss is very similar to that predicted in the first scenario. Over the catchment as a whole, predicted phosphorus loss increases by approximately 3,000 kg yr-1, or 1.5%. d. Use of cover crops on spring crops harvested in late summer
The potential reduction in phosphorus and sediment loss from two scenarios is investigated. In the first scenario, a cover crop of mustard is sown before all spring barley crops. This establishes in the autumn before being ploughed in during the following spring, before the crop is drilled. The second scenario is similar in that it assesses the effects of a cover crop of mustard, but it is assumed that cover crops are sown before not just spring barley but also field beans and peas and linseed (crops with similar crop calendars to spring barley).
Scenario 1: Cover crops before spring barley:
Predicted reductions are obviously confined to arable land, mainly in the lowlands in the west of the catchment, and reach values of up to 0.29 kg [P] ha-1 yr-1. The majority of the upper catchment, being under grass, is not affected by this measure. The estimated reduction in phosphorus transfer over the whole catchment is approximately 1360 kg yr-1 or about 0.6%. As for phosphorus, reductions in sediment loss are of course confined to arable areas. Predicted reductions reach values of up to 170 kg ha-1 yr-1, and over the catchment as a whole the predicted reduction in fine sediment loss is 687 t yr-1, or about 1.3%.
Scenario 2: Cover crops before all spring crops reductions are obviously confined to arable land, but a greater proportion of arable land is now affected and so predicted reductions in phosphorus loss are slightly greater: up to 0.33 kg [P] ha-1 yr-1. The estimated reduction in phosphorus transfer over the whole catchment is approximately 1650 kg yr-1 or about 0.7%. The predicted reduction in fine sediment loss reaches values of up to 190 kg ha-1 yr-1, and over the catchment as a whole the predicted reduction in fine sediment loss is 830 t yr-1, or about 1.6%. e. Implementation of wildlife strips and grass margins
151 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 4. Pressure 4: Sediments Wildlife strips (ungrazed grass margins to pasture) and grass margins to arable fields can provide sediment traps which can reduce the transport of sediment and associated
Erosion and P pollution particulate phosphorus from agricultural land to watercourses. The vegetation on such strips filters overland flow, and can cause an increase in deposition of sediment, which would otherwise be transported out of the field.
The efficiency of such vegetated strips in removing suspended sediment from overland flow is a function of soil type, field slope angle, the width of the strip, the length of the preceding slope and other factors, such as the length of the vegetation. Filter strips are also likely to be effective at trapping small aggregates. The analysis presented here assumes that all mobilised clay and silt does not coagulate, and particle sizes remain small. Should the particles form aggregates then buffer strips would be expected to reduce delivery of phosphorus and sediment to watercourses.
However, in areas of the catchment in which coarse sediment input to watercourses is thought to be a problem (i.e. areas in which sediment may be considered a pollutant in its own right), vegetated strips may be useful in reducing sediment loss. Using the same example of a 6m strip and a 200m slope, the calculated SDR for primary sand is essentially zero, that is, the filter strip is completely effective at trapping sand (table 3.4.5.).
silt % clay % 20 40 60 80 20 0.958 0.945 0.939 0.935 40 0.971 0.958 0.950 60 0.977 0.966 80 0.981
Table 3.4.5.: Calculated sediment delivery ratios for fine sediment with varying proportions of clay and silt and a vegetated strip of width 6m at the base of a 200m slope.
152 PRB-Agriculture Report
III.5 Pressure 5: Habitat Loss and Physical Modifications
Case studies provided by: Guadalquivir, Odense, Ribble
Physical Modifications
3.5.1. Introduction loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5.
The Water Framework Directive is the prime legislative instrument for protection of the water environment in Europe. The Directive is also directly relevant for the conservation and improvement of those habitats and species that depend on water (1). Within the definitions of ecological status, the WFD list a number of hydro-morphological quality elements, such as river continuity, channel patterns and status of riparian zones. This chapter covers the analysis of pressures from agriculture on these criteria.
Modifications to river and water bodies occur for a series of reasons many of which are responding to needs related to rather macro scale economic options. Dams for hydro- electric power, meander removal and channel straightening facilitating river transport are examples. Other PRB thematic groups (2) address many of the aspects of such hydrologic alterations.
The PRB-Agriculture group did not cover river morphological changes as such, but focused on longitudinal, transversal or other changed river characteristics related to agricultural activities. These include the effects of reclamation for agricultural land in riparian and wetland areas, the alteration and status of the riparian areas. Apart from hydrological consequences, these changes can result in considerable structural impacts and can contribute to pollution of natural ecosystems and hence flora and fauna habitats.
Ever more there is an increasing awareness on the importance of riverine and wetland habitats and their role in buffering dry land against floods as well as habitats valuable to biodiversity. In traditional farming systems, riverine and lakeshore areas were grazed or mowed but allowed to flood. Such practice favoured valuable habitats, many of which were lost during recent decennia. Recreating and restoring these is a great challenge for the nature conservation in the catchments and is expected to contribute positively to water quality. (1)
Wetlands are amongst the biologically most productive areas. They include lagoons, estuaries, riparian forests, grazed wet meadows and farm ponds. Modifications to rivers, combined with intensive agriculture, urban development and changes to agricultural drainage and run-off and water abstraction have caused a massive decline in such ecosystems. In north and western Europe, 60% of wetlands disappeared during the 20th
1 The European Environment - State and Outlook 2005, European Environment Agency, 2005, Copenhagen 2 PRB General Report period 2005-2006, DG ENV (in print) 153 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and century and the decline continues. (1) Figure 3.5.1. illustrates the change in ecological condition of some of the main European wetlands, representing about 19% of the total wetland area. A majority of these sites was estimated to show a negative trend and only Physical Modifications very few are improving.
Many river basins throughout Europe report physical modifications related to agricultural activities and link this to an impact on the aquatic and adjoining terrestrial habitats. A majority of the riparian habitats (natural wetlands, riparian forests, grazed wet meadows etc) have seen negative developments. The main causes have been intensive agriculture and other uses of land but also interventions in rivers and lakes for water use. Experiences of the European Centre for River Restoration, that has been looking at identifying the best practices for implementation river rehabilitation schemes, illustrate that river restoration is often linked only to complex flood protection and that there is still a poor understanding of ecological river restoration (3).
The PRB-AG have been analysing mainly the increased pressures from agriculture while still been conscience of the combined effects related to e.g. water abstraction as this is very often closely related to agricultural use.
Specific measures are needed and as the solutions of the current pressures are most probably best obtained by adapted agricultural land management, the Agri-environment schemes under the Rural Development Programmes can offer ideal means of implementing improvements to current agricultural practices in view of restoring these vulnerable habitats. The agriculture community has a large experience with designing such measures, the PRB-AG have been looking at issues and options that can be common to both the water and agriculture community.
Regulated, straightened water body, Odense
3 http://www.ecrr.org/ 154 PRB-Agriculture Report
Physical Modifications Physical Modifications III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5.
Figure3.5.1. Ecological change status of the Ramsar Sites (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands); background shows the location of the sites and foreground graph illustrates the change status.
Source: changed after The European Environment - State and Outlook 2005, European Environment Agency, 2005, Copenhagenp. 194 and http://www.wetlands.org/RSDB/ There is no objective measure in place for countires to report changes in actual wetland area or ecological status.
3.5.2. Main Outcomes
Agriculture has been found to influence the status of the physical conditions of the riverine areas, affecting floodplains, wetlands and riparian zones.
In the Ribble basin monitoring and analysis of the riparian status was done prior to the WFD, hence was not designed to address the status as required by the WFD. However, as in the Guadalquivir basin, the riparian status shows a direct relation with the extent and degree of intensity of agricultural management along the river. Agriculture is responsible of the occupation of wide stretches of riparian areas and severely impacts on 155 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and their status. It was also noted though that agriculture is maybe not the main source of status decrease when considering the total length of the river. Population pressure and abandonment of traditional (river bank) management were indicated as other sources. In Physical Modifications the Ribble basin from the observed water bodies 34% were in good riparian status while 53% were in bad status. When looking at sub basin level in the Guadalquivir, the areas with indication of low status are in the intense agriculture areas. Again further detailed cause-effect analysis is needed. The effectiveness of mitigation measures was found better in areas where green farming and/or erosion control was introduced; areas under integrated rice production did not show differences. Detailed mitigation measures exist in the Ribble but no effectiveness data was given. Maintaining riparian status is needed as it exerts an important buffer capacity for leaching, erosion and prevents pesticide drift during application.
In the Odense, more than a third of the surface area of the Fjord was reduced by land reclamation since 1780. More than 70% of major wetlands (mires, meadows etc) in the catchment have been lost to agriculture, meaning a loss in habitats. Dyking, drainage, regulation and straightening of rivers and river maintenance are the more destructive modifications causing increased physical pressures of especially rivers. All these interventions imply that the wetland buffer capacity has been lost, hence the pressure from nutrients on surface waters is further enhanced.
(1) PRB main experience/success in analysing the pressure on habitat loss and physical modifications:
+ In general, habitat loss (i.e. loss of riparian buffers) and physical modifications (loss in wetlands, and floodplains) imply negative changes in hydrology, erosion and biodiversity but the PRBs indicate that such analysis still need more cause- effect analysis at all relevant scales.
+ Agriculture land reclamation and management intensity have been indicated responsible for significant pressures by reducing floodplains and wetlands and affecting the undisturbed conditions of the riparian zones in terms of presences, structure and ecological status.
For Floodplains and wetland, mainly dyking and drainage are activities that cause serious effect and these interventions are mostly related to increase or optimize agricultural activities. Large interventions, such as reservoirs, are another main factor of influence. They are however not always constructed for agricultural purposes in central and northern Europe, although in the more arid areas in southern Europe their main purpose is most often to improve the water availability for agricultural use.
The status of the riparian areas (WFD Indicator) can be directly related to the intensity of agricultural land management and in some cases to the kind of crop cultivation adjacent to the rivers. I.e. the riparian conditions get worse with more intense agricultural activities. Cereal cultivation showed more negative impact then olives.
+ It was, however, clarified that not only agriculture is to be blamed for the above- mentioned pressures. Water extraction for drinking water has impacts on the lowering of levels of groundwater tables and that negatively affects the related wetlands. Regulation works for either transport or water flow purposes affect radically riparian structures. In general, urbanisation, infrastructural and industry
156 PRB-Agriculture Report
pressures are to be considered. These additional pressures make the establishing of complementary cause-effect relations very complex.
+ Important indicators of the magnitude of the pressure from agriculture on water bodies are the status of the riparian area (the green cover and diversity: they link directly to intensity of agriculture), drainage and infrastructural changes such as deepening the water courses can be related and give information on changing water tables and wetland condition.
+ However good data has been collected for riparian status, detailed monitoring information on physical disturbances is missing for the smaller watercourses.
Physical Modifications Physical Modifications
(2) PRB main experience/success in setting targets and developing measures:
+ Riparian status is important as it composes a buffer strip decreasing the leaching loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. of nutrients (chap3.1), it prevents drift off during pesticide application (chap 3.2.), it reducing river side soil erosion reducing risk for phosphorus leaching (chap3.4) and it represents very important areas for specific types of biodiversity. Good, or improving, riparian status has been positively correlated with extensification of agricultural activities. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to set critical thresholds as targets. Some pilot restoration projects were carried out but showing low impact at regional level. For the implementation of the WFD requirements related to morphological conditions, the Agri-environment schemes are expected to be more effective as they are focused on the development of agricultural production methods compatible with the maintaining and improving the environment. The plans originating from within the water community are still more focused on specific water issues, such as flood prevention.
+ This stresses the importance of far reaching integration of agricultural and water management planning.
(3) PRB identification of some major points for consideration in the process of elaborating an appropriate programme of measures:
+ Restoration measures must have solid technical, institutional and social bases and the understanding of the effects at larger scales, in terms of selective but additional effects, must be better understood.
+ The more economic viable solutions, at a relevant impacting scale, lay within the potential and opportunities of adapted and environmental friendly agricultural land management; hence collaboration between the sectors is highly required and will be necessary to increase farmers’ awareness on their role as environmental managers.
+ The responsible administration bodies must agree on common objectives and must coordinate and integrate measures and mitigation schemes in all water, environmental, territorial and agricultural policies.
157 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and
3.5.3. Case Studies Physical Modifications on Habitat Loss and Physical Modifications
3.5.3.1. Guadalquivir 3.5.3.2. Odense 3.5.3.3. Ribble
3.5.3.1. Case Study: Guadalquivir
1. Pressure and Impact Analysis
Agriculture land use covers the major part of the Guadalquivir basin (61%) and the natural landscapes have been modified due to anthropogenic activity since Neolithic times. First, the more fertile areas near the rivers and the terraces of the main rivers in the basin were occupied thanks to improvements in management and technological advances. Thereafter came the higher areas, less suitable for agricultural purposes.
13,7% of the total river length in the Guadalquivir basin is affected by morphologic alteration (Art. 5 of the WFD Report). The most important and common alteration is associated to the flood of rivers segments by reservoirs with more than 50 ha of water surface or more than 5 km of flooded track. The second most important alteration is the artificial canalisation of river segments, this represents 1,8% of the total river length.
There are other kinds of longitudinal and transversal infrastructures associated to agricultural activities such as riparian zones. They might have less obvious local impacts, but when considered at the regional level, they have can have an important effect. Therefore, a program of measures for riparian restoration is established.
It is common to find different degrees of alteration to riparian zones within the same sub-basin. These include segments with a good natural status, segments with progressive replacement of the natural vegetation along the river banks and segments with total replacement by agriculture crops, removing the longitudinal and transversal connectivity. For many river segments that cross agricultural areas in the Guadalquivir river basin, a temporal scale can be assigned to this alteration sequence. Moreover, this sequence is enhanced by two factors: 1) reducing the flood area and flood frequency due to the management of peak flows in the upstream reservoirs, and 2) eliminating the riparian vegetation due to blazes produced by the burning of crops remains.
The main source of information for this chapter is the Riparian Director Plan of Andalusia (RDPA, from here on). This plan is an initiative of the Junta de Andalucía and can be downloaded from http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/site/web/ . The RDPA shows the present situation in the riparian areas of Andalusia, taking into account different hydraulic and hydrologic regimes. The RDPA includes a diagnostic of the riparian zones as a basis for the establishment of a group of priorities and types of restorations based in the nature engineering. The quality determination of the riparian areas and its components (river channel, vegetation cover, naturalness and diversity) relies on the QBR index (Qualitat del Bosc de Ribera, from Narcis Prat from la Universidad Central de Barcelona and Antoni Munne from the Agencia Catalana del Agua) that was developed by means of collected data in two sampling networks. In the first,
158 PRB-Agriculture Report
the quality of the riparian zone was evaluated by means of field sampling and synthesis of the three previous components (QBR, 691 points in basin field); in the second, the riparian quality is based on a study of photo-interpretation of the representative stretches in which only the course and vegetation cover were evaluated (QBRf, 6.192 points). In all the points of the network, the RDPA includes a typology of bank uses where riparian quality was evaluated. The typified uses were: agricultural (irrigation, dry land farming), forest and urban.
The river channel itself does not present important alterations, only a 9,3% of the total river length. Irrigated agriculture presents an alteration level slightly lower than the produced by urban use, since a 15,5% of the river length crosses agricultural areas. This tendency is constant on the other conservation levels. The spatial distribution of this kind Physical Modifications Physical Modifications of pressures is disperse, except in the river segments located at the irrigated areas created since the 20 century. Un-irrigated agriculture has a lower level of pressure, with a 13,6% (figure 3.5.2). III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5.
100%
80%
60% Good
Bad 40%
20%
0% Irrigated Unirrigated Forest Urban
Figure 3.5.2.: River channel status by uses in the Guadalquivir basin.
The vegetation cover is the most degraded component of the riparian vegetation in the basin, up to 45,6% from the total river length is in bad status and 35,5% in regular status. Irrigated agriculture impacts severely over this component (49,2% in bad status), being the main cause for degradation produced by the ploughing of river bushes. Non-irrigated agriculture has a more important impact (61,2% in bad status) and it adds the problem caused by the blazes by burning crop remains (figure 3.5.3.).
159 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and
100% Physical Modifications 90%
80%
70%
60% Good 50% Inter Bad 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Irrigated Unirrigated Forest Urban
Figure 3.5.3. Vegetation cover status by uses in the Guadalquivir basin.
The naturalness and diversity component is strongly related with the green cover, thus the areas where vegetation cover is degraded correspond to loss of naturalness and diversity. However, the impact levels of only loss of naturalness and diversity are lower due to the fact that in those riparian areas this loss mostly results from deforestation andfragments of the original vegetation are however still maintained. The existence of river banks dominated by mono-species is as well important. There, the green cover is regular or good but the naturalness and diversity would be low. These segments are found in medium to low dense agriculture areas. Irrigated agriculture provokes impacts in more than half of its area: 31,1% of the length has a bad status and 20,7% has a regular status. Non-irrigated agriculture has higher levels, with only a 30,4% of the length in good status (figure 3.5.4).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Good 50% Inter Bad 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Irrigated Nonirrigated Forest Urban
Figure 3.5.4.: Naturalness and diversity status in the Guadalquivir basin.
160 PRB-Agriculture Report
The total quality of the riparian vegetation presents intermediate levels, with 17,1% of the total length in natural status, 32,6% in good status, 21,2% in bad status and 10,5% in very bad status. The quality is strongly related to the land use on the river banks. Forest land present the better status, with only 12,6% in bad and very bad status, resulting from intensive management in basins with intense deforestation and a negative influence of extensive cattle. Agricultural land use impacts severely, being slightly lower in irrigated areas than in un-irrigated areas.
100%
90% Physical Modifications Physical Modifications 80%
70%
60% Natural loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. Good 50% Intermediate Bad 40% Very bad
30%
20%
10%
0% Irrigated Nonirrigated Forest Urban
Figure 3.5.5.: Total quality of the riparian vegetation by uses in the Guadalquivir basin.
While 40% of the study sub-basins shows vegetation cover in bad status, only 3,6% can be considered to have good status. The sub-basins with lower values are located within the agricultural areas, mainly in the Guadalquivir valley and along some high and intermediate rivers in the Betican region. The sub-basins with moderate status are on the right side of the Guadalquivir river and along some rivers in the Subbetican region, where also the maximum values for cover can be found (figure 3.5.6.).
picture satellite Riparian area, Guadalquivir basin North, Central Google Earth) (source: 161 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and
Physical Modifications
Figure 3.5.6.: Average values for vegetation cover in the subbasins of the Guadalquivir basin.
The relation between agriculture and the status of the riparian vegetation depends on the kind and intensity of crop cultivation (% of the area occupied by it).
The results considering the agricultural area for each sub-basin are similar to those considering only a 100 m buffer around the river courses. This fact is related to the relative sizes of buffer and sub-basins. However, it gives an idea of the level of occupation of riparian areas by agriculture, especially of the most common crops in the Guadalquivir basin, cereals and olive groves. The former has a negative global effect above certain thresholds. The latter does not show such a clear relation (Figure 3.5.7.).
14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3 2 2 QBR Scores QBR Scores N = 185 187 187 187 185 186 187 187 186 186 N = 163 165 164 165 164 164 165 164 165 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NTILES of % Cereals 2004 NTILES of % Olive 2004 a b 162 PRB-Agriculture Report
14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3 Physical Modifications 2 2 QBR Scores QBR Scores N = 185 185 185 186 185 185 186 185 185 185 N = 162 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. NTILES of % Cereals (total area) 2004 NTILES of % Olive (total area) 2004 c d Figure 3.5.7.: Crop effect (2004) in a 100 m buffer (a and b) and in sub basins (c and d) on the green cover. X: Deciles of % crop distribution in sub basin and in the buffer. Y: Riparian Quality Index (vegetation cover component).
2. Related Measures
Agriculture is the main responsible of the occupation of riparian areas and the alteration of river channels and banks. However, for a long time, farmers were also the sole responsible for the restoration of the riparian vegetation and for protecting the river banks. For centuries farmers have strengthened the development of selected species which were useful for cattle feeding (poplar), tillage tools (ash, elm) fibres (wicker), medicine (Equisetum) or for hunting interests. Farmers have also protected irrigation structures from floods and the farm lands from the erosion. Due to new practices and the socioeconomic changes, this traditional management has been lost. Now, administrative bodies are the main responsible for the conservation and restoration of the river banks.
In the Guadalquivir basin there have been three important LIFE initiatives, the Financial Instrument for the Environment, initiatives at the Guadajoz, Guadiato and Corbones basins. These three projects have generated useful results and specific restoration manuals that could be useful for developing a program of measures in three different agricultural thematic areas: (a) high farmlands (olive groves in Guadajoz), (b) low farmlands (cereals in Corbones) and (c) mountainous areas (forest in Guadiato). Due to the pilot character of these projects their impact at a regional level has been low. However, they have been used as a reference to develop more important projects at the regional and national scale.
The Plan de Restauración Hidrológica y Protección de Cauces (2000-2008) project is promoted by the Ministry of the Environment and gathered an important amount of related actions (3.005 millions €) to be implemented. To date, a number of projects have been developed in the Guadalquivir river basin. However, an important number of them were related to flood prevention and landscape improvement in urban areas.
163 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and The Recuperación del Corredor Verde del río Guadiamar project is a good example of subbasin scale actions. Due to the mine accident at Aznalcóllar that provoked an environmental disaster in Doñana, the regional administrations, the Ministry of the Physical Modifications Environment and several Universities have developed a program of measures with a scientific basis and local support.
The recently approved Plan de Ordenación del Territorio Andaluz project includes other regional scale initiatives for the restoration and recuperation of riparian areas. The water-land and the Guadalquivir recuperation and improvement plans are the framework for the protection of hydrological resources and isolated ecosystems in our basin.
In rural-urban transition areas, the urban management plans have the purpose of preserving these areas from the urban sprawl process and, if required, establishing protection measures. One of the main requirements for protecting the riparian area is to enhance their role in the general urban management plans because, to date, river areas are not object to special attention. Normally, rivers are not taken into consideration for their intrinsic values, but for the value of their associated agricultural use.
In the Guadalquivir basin, 50% of riparian areas are in zones designated with some kind of special protection. The main protected zones are the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) from the Natura 2000 network, the Red de Espacios Naturales Protegidos de Andalucía (RENPA), and the Planes Especiales de Protección del Medio Físico (PEPMF) (figure 3.5.8.).
While the 15,6% of the riparian areas out of protected zones presents very bad quality, the riparian areas that belong to the RENPA present only a 3,5%. Safeguarding of environmental values in the protected zones is a measure that guarantees the good conservation of the riparian status. However, taking into account that, in most of the municipalities, riparian vegetation areas are the main non-agricultural areas with high environmental value, the creation of protected areas for zones where the river dominates the landscape structure should be envisaged.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Natural Good 50% Moderate Bad 40% Very Bad
30%
20%
10%
0% SAC RENPA PEPMF NONE
Figure 3.5.8.: Riparian quality by kind of special protection figures.
The Agro-environmental measures aim at development of agricultural production methods compatible with the environment and are focused on five major topics: water, soil, natural hazards, biodiversity and landscape. The following designed measures relate to habitat and morphologic alterations: 1) Green farming agriculture, 2) Erosion 164 PRB-Agriculture Report
control in olive groves, 3) Actions in dehesa systems, and 4) Integrated Rice Production. For the three first measures, there are significant results related to green cover, showing a better status in those areas where a measure has been applied with respect to areas where no measures were implemented (Figure 3.5.9).
15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11
10 10 Physical Modifications 9 9 8 8 7 7
6 6 loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 QBR Scores QBR Scores N = 191 5202 N = 667 1036 Yes No Yes No
Green farming measure (only UAA areas) Erosion in Olive Grooves (only potential areas)
15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 QBR Scores QBR Scores N = 278 887 N = 54 27 Yes No Yes No
Measure in Dehesas (only grasslands areas) Rice Integrated Production (only rice areas)
Figure 3.5.9.: Average of QBR scores (vegetation cover component) in subbasins with or without selected agri-environmental measures.
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
Although the relations between agriculture and the riparian vegetation status have been made clear, the establishment of complementary cause-effect relations is far more complex. The transformation of landscapes associated to rivers, and in particular to river banks along numerous segments of the river in the Guadalquivir valley, is not a new process, neither is it a specific agricultural influence.
At the level of the Guadalquivir basin, the riparian transformation can be mainly attributed to agricultural management changes. But when considering the more detailed
165 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and river segment scale, there are other non-agricultural factors that have determined the actual riparian status. The population patterns, the crop changes, the abandonment of traditional management techniques, the flow regulation and other similar factors need to Physical Modifications be taken into account to explain the actual riparian status.
We have already discussed how land use change affects in a differential way the riparian vegetation and the river channels. The urban occupation exerts pressure on the flood areas with new buildings, industry, illegal low-density residential areas, infrastructures and other constructions.
In order to minimize or avoid the impacts, the restoration projects are not enough because they have a local effect. Only by tackling these problems at their origin, considering all cultural and socio-economic aspects, it will be possible to design projects that can restore the original animal and plant communities and their ecologic processes and functions (organisational ecology).
Similarly as described in the other Guadalquivir case studies in the previous chapters, it could be possible to establish specific agricultural good practice codes in order to recover the riparian status or ensure landscape restoration and diversification. Although they are important and used by farmers, they are not enough. Even if it is possible to recover river segments by restoring the diversity of the green cover, there might be no guarantee that once the works are finished, farmers accept and respect them because the river banks have been always a source of fertile soil or fresh grassland for livestock.
Restoration measures must have solid technical, institutional and social bases. Projects must be build on the understanding of the causes and effects at the bigger basin or sub- basin scales. It is not worth to recover the riparian vegetation if its associated ecological, hydrological and social and cultural dynamic is not respected. Thus, the required water and solid flows must be guaranteed, using a correct flood regime. The responsible administration bodies must agree on common objectives and gather efforts in order to coordinate and integrate such project in the water, environmental, territorial and agricultural policies. Society has also an important role. It is not only a pressure group that claims for a healthy environment but an active agent, e.g. the farmers community, with traditional and practical knowledge, that can maintain the river landscape and its ecology not only by means of the agro-environmental measures, but also beyond legislations if proper awareness is created.
166 PRB-Agriculture Report
3.5.3.2. Case Study: Odense
Loss of habitats as a result of dyking, reclamation, drainage, cultivation, etc.
1. Analysis for pressure and impact
Introduction
Physical Modifications Over the years, reclamation of land for agricultural purposes has dramatically changed the landscape and natural environment in Odense Pilot River Basin (PRB). Thus the area of water surface in the fjord has been reduced by more than a third since 1780 and loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. many of the cultural landscape’s wetlands such as mires, meadows and shallow lakes have been lost to arable land.
This development has resulted in considerable loss of natural ecosystems and hence habitats and dispersal corridors for plants and animals. Land reclamation has had serious environmental consequences for the adjacent wetlands, moreover. Thus drainage of river valley wetlands and reclamation of shallow lakes and coastal waters have enhanced pressure on surface waters from nutrients, etc. This is due to the fact that these natural ecosystems and wetlands serve as a natural buffer between the surface waters (watercourses, lakes and coastal waters) and agricultural activities and other cultural activities in the catchments. These buffer zones have naturally retained and degraded pollutants (including nutrients) that run off from the farmland, etc. Among other things, reclamation of wetlands and drainage have resulted in surplus nutrients from farmland being transported to watercourses, lakes and coastal waters in much greater amounts than previously, with resultant negative ecological effects.
Lost wetlands
The catchment of Odense Fjord covers approx. 1,058 km2. Based on an Ordinance Survey map from 1890, Fyn County has determined that major wetlands (>25 ha) such as lakes, mires, freshwater meadows and coastal meadows occupied approx. 10% of the catchment at that time, corresponding to approx. 104 km2. More detailed analyses in connection with a number of lakes in the catchment indicate, however, that a corresponding area could have been occupied by minor wetlands. It is therefore estimated that wetlands could have accounted for up to 20% of the Odense Fjord catchment.
Over the past approx. 120 years the extent of lakes, mires, freshwater meadows and coastal meadows has decreased markedly. As a result of dyking, reclamation, drainage and subsequent cultivation the areas accounted for by these habitat types has decreased by approx. 75–85% and only approx. 28 km2 of such habitats now remain in the Odense PRB (Figure 3.5.10.). Odense Fjord is relatively shallow and previously consisted of many minor sections of fjord. Due to the nature of the fjord’s topography it has been subjected to major land reclamation projects that have dyked in and reclaimed several sections of the fjord. This has reduced the area of water surface from approx. 90 km2 in 1780 to approx. 65 km2 today.
167 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and
18901890 19921992
Physical Modifications
Odense Fjord Odense Fjord
N N
5KM 5KM
Odense Fjord catchment
Fens and meadows
Figure 3.5.10.: Odense Fjord catchment. Distribution of fens and meadows in 1890 and 1992.
Impoverishment of wetlands due to physical modification
Coastal meadows
The most destructive modifications affecting coastal meadows are dyking and drainage. Of the 44 registered coastal meadows presently existing in the river basin, three are affected by dyking, seven are affected by drainage, and 13 are affected by both dyking and drainage. Drainage entails that floodwater from the sea drains away more rapidly and the coastal meadows therefore dry out again more rapidly. In the case of the dyked- in coastal meadows, drainage entails partial or complete separation between the coastal meadow and the adjacent marine water. As a result the tidal water is totally or largely precluded from flooding these coastal meadows, thus hindering the normal development of characteristic structures such as tidal canal systems. In addition, the water level in dyked-in coastal meadows is often permanently lowered by pumping. 14 coastal meadows corresponding to approx. 30% are believed to be free of these modifying interventions (Table 3.5.1.).
Coastal Unmodified Dyked-in Drained Dyked-in and Not meadows drained evaluated No. 14 3 7 13 7 Area (ha) 123 4 152 197 5 Table 3.5.1.:. Coastal meadows in Odense Pilot River Basin indicating whether they are unmodified or affected by dyking and drainage. The meadows not evaluated were minor coastal meadows.
168 PRB-Agriculture Report
Mires and freshwater meadows
The number of mires in Odense PRB affected by drainage in the form of ditches or tile drains has not specifically been assessed. However, data on mires from 13 municipalities on Fyn show that approx. 50% of the localities have visible signs of drainage such as the presence of ditches, tile drains, etc. It is expected that the figure for Odense PRB will be of the same magnitude.
The magnitude of the drainage effect has also been investigated by correlating regulation work in the watercourses with conditions in the adjacent wetlands as deepening of the watercourse bed results in local lowering of the water table. Along the reaches of public watercourse where the bed has been deepened, lowering of the water Physical Modifications Physical Modifications table is estimated to have affected approx. 2,500 ha of mire and freshwater meadow. The distribution of the wetlands in question is shown in Figure 3.5.11. To this must be added the mires and freshwater meadows located adjacent to the regulated private watercourses, although no estimate of the area of these is available. loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5.
Figure 3.5.11.: Mires and freshwater meadows located adjacent to regulated watercourse reaches.
Groundwater abstraction also affects wetland hydrology. Groundwater modelling shows that groundwater abstraction for the drinking water supply has lowered the groundwater potential over large areas, thereby entailing the risk that the water table has been lowered and groundwater runoff reduced in these areas. The number of springs, freshwater meadows and mires located within areas where the groundwater potential is calculated to have been lowered is shown in Table 3.5.2.
169 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and
No. of habitats in areas with lowered groundwater potential Physical Modifications No lowering Some Marked Total lowering lowering Springs 32 96 20 148 Freshwater meadows 291 501 87 879 Mires 288 589 100 977
Table 3.5.2.. Number of springs, freshwater meadows and mires located in areas where groundwater modelling shows that the groundwater potential has been lowered as a result of groundwater abstraction for the drinking water supply. The analysis distinguishes between lowering of 0 m (no lowering), 1-5 m (Some lowering) and >5 m (Marked lowering).
Other forms of groundwater abstraction are also carried out, for example individual abstraction for agricultural irrigation and industrial enterprises and institutions. In these cases the water is often abstracted from near-surface aquifers and can affect groundwater flow to nearby wetlands. The effects depend on the magnitude of abstraction and the distance to the wetlands. An analysis of the impact of groundwater abstraction as a whole on median minimum discharge in the various catchments within Odense PRB is provided in the WFD Article 5 Preliminary Baseline Analysis for Odense PRB (Fyn County, 2003). No information is available about the impact of groundwater abstraction on the individual wetlands.
Lakes Many water bodies have been physically modified over the years as a result of lowering of the water table, filling in, damming, etc. A large proportion of typically small, shallow lakes have completely disappeared over the past 100 years as a result of drainage and lowering of the water table and possibly due to being filled in. By way of example, the number of lakes in the catchment of lake Arreskov has decreased by 76% from 276 around 1890 to 65 in 1992. In the whole of Odense PRB 12 large lakes encompassing a total of 185 ha have been reclaimed, largely for agricultural purposes. A couple of these have since been re-established as wetlands to some extent.
Watercourses
The extent of selected physical disturbances such as regulation, piped sections and obstructions to fish migration has been assessed on the basis of existing knowledge for those watercourses in Odense PRB that either do not meet the criteria for good status or whose status is presently unknown (see Table 3.5.3.). It should be noted that the figures for Type 1 watercourses are rather uncertain as very little information is available on regulation, piped sections and the occurrence of obstructions in the watercourses that are privately owned (the real figure is therefore likely to be somewhat larger).
As is apparent from Table 5, 63–78% of the reaches of small watercourse (Type 1), 39– 45% of the reaches of medium-sized watercourse (Type 2) and 72–80% of the reaches of large watercourse (Type 3) are affected by piped sections or regulation. Moreover, the occurrence of obstructions disrupts the continuity of the watercourses, thereby hindering the dispersal of migratory fish and certain macroinvertebrates.
170 PRB-Agriculture Report
In addition, the watercourses are subjected to weed clearance and possibly also to excavation work to ensure adequate drainage of adjacent arable land. Finally, the watercourses, especially their upper reaches, are sometimes affected by groundwater abstraction, which reduces water flow and may lead to drying out and hence loss of suitable habitats for a number of plant and animal species. In addition, the riparian areas are also markedly Physical Modifications Physical Modifications affected by drainage. Together with the other physical disturbances this hinders or restricts loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. the natural hydrological interplay between watercourses and their river valleys.
Unregulated Odense
Environmental objective not Compliance with environmental met objective unknown Parameter Type Type Type Type a Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type a 1 2 3 Total length, km 414 198 44 21 238 13 9 63 Piped length, km 108 0 0 4 127 0 0 13 Regulated length, 154 88 35 17 60 5 6 49 km No. of obstructions 127 44 0 1 28* 2 0 2 Mean no. of 0.31 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.12* 0.15 0.00 0.03 obstructions per km Proportion piped 63 45 80 100 78 39 72 100 and regulated (%)
Table 3.5.3.: Summary of the extent of selected physical disturbances in watercourses in Odense PRB. The data are for watercourses where the criteria for good status are not met and for watercourses whose status is presently unknown. The watercourses are subdivided into small (Type 1), medium-sized (Type 2), large (Type 3) and artificial (Type a). * indicates that the figure is considered to be much too low, i.e. does not reflect the real situation as knowledge of many of the small watercourses is very poor.
171 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and
Coastal waters
Physical Modifications The shallow fjords and the many minor coves around Fyn have been the object of many land reclamation projects. Many former arms of fjords or wetlands directly connected to the fjord have been dyked and reclaimed. In Odense PRB, 13 reclaimed former fjords and coves have been identified. The area of water surface in Odense Fjord has been reduced by approx. one third since 1780 and presently encompasses around 65 km2. Dyking and reclamation have eliminated four major shallow sections of the fjord and a number of minor areas.
In addition, water exchange in many minor fjords and coves has been reduced by the construction of causeways or has been further regulated by the establishment of sluice gates, thereby considerably affecting salinity conditions in the areas. All water bodies in which the water level is artificially regulated are designated as heavily physically modified. Areas with harbour infrastructure and shipping fairways are also designated as heavily physically modified. A total of 10 heavily physically modified water bodies have been identified in the fjord. The reclaimed areas and heavily modified water bodies together comprise approx. 71% of all the water bodies in Odense Fjord (table 3.5.4.).
In addition to causing physical changes to the fjord’s morphology, water exchange and salinity, dyking and reclamation have also considerably reduced the capacity of the fjord and the adjoining wetlands to retain and degrade the nutrients that run off into the fjord from the arable land in the catchment.
Heavily physically Heavily physically modified water Water Water modified water bodies excl. bodies bodies bodies incl. drained River drained water Drained excl. incl. water bodies Basin bodies water drained drained District % of total bodies water water % of total no. of bodies No. bodies No. no. of water water bodies bodies Odense 20 10 52 % 13 34 23 71 % PRB
Table 3.5.4.: Water bodies in Odense PRB incl. and excl. drained water bodies (fjords and lagoons). Number and amount in % of heavily physically modified water bodies is shown.
2. Related Measures
Setting up a programme of Measures for Odense PRB two points of entry to fulfil objectives regarding habitat loss and physical modifications are present. One is measures designed to directly improve habitat conditions and to reduce physical modifications, the other is measures designed for nutrient loss reduction which at the same time indirectly affect the amount and size of nature areas and areas with physical modifications.
172 PRB-Agriculture Report
Direct measures.
Direct measures in the Odense Fjord pilot Programme of Measure are measures related to reduce physical modification of watercourses such as: removal of obstructions for fish migration; re-meandering of watercourses with laying down of gravel for spawn and stones; cessation of watercourse maintenance including extensification of adjacent agricultural land in rotation (table 3.5.5.) . Re-meandering of watercourses and cessation of watercourse maintenance will result in new wetland areas which indirectly will influence the loss of nutrients from farmland to the aquatic environment.
Measures related to reduce physical modification of watercourses Physical Modifications Physical Modifications Effects Dose Reduced Nature Nitrogen Phosphorous physical on land. Reduced loss Reduced loss
modify- Recreation to aquatic to aquatic loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. cation and environment environment improved Ton N / year Ton P / year quality Removal of obstructions for fish 220 ++ migration locations Re-meandering of watercourses with 227 km. ++ laying down of gravel for spawn and stones etc. Cessation of watercourse 534 km. ++ ++ 204 2,0 maintenance including extensification 2235 hec. of belonging agricultural land in rotation Table 3.5.5.:: Measures related directly to reduce physical modification of watercourses, their dose and effects.
Re-meandering, Odense
Indirect measures.
In order to fulfil the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and to turn around the decrease in biodiversity (and at the same time fulfil the Habitat Directive for wet nature and protected dry nature) in Odense River Basin, an estimated need to double the existing area of nature in the catchment exists, this includes establishment of new
173 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and nature areas of 450 hectares of coastal meadows, 2400 hectares of fens/meadows and 600 hectares of commons. Besides, to conserve the existing nature in good condition there is a need for improved nature maintenance on more than 2800 hectares of Physical Modifications grassland and commons. Improvement of hydrologic conditions in nature areas by de- activation of ditches and drain pipes is needed for a total stretch of about 300 kilometres. Finally a large effort to reduce ammonia emission locally is needed (table 3.5.6.).
The need for new nature areas is about 3450 hectares in total, which amounts to about 5 % of the agricultural land in rotation. Together with the need for cessation of farming on up to 19 percent of the land in rotation to fulfil the “good status” objective of the Water Framework Directive (see chapter 3.1., case study Odense), a total of one fourth of the agricultural farming land would need to be used fulfilling the Water Framework Directive, the Habitat Directive and halt the decrease in biodiversity.
However, evaluating the potential areas for establishing wetlands for retaining Nitrogen and Phosphorous it is estimated that two thirds of these areas hold the quality and at the same time fulfil the objectives of the Habitat directive and the need to create new areas of fens and wet meadows. Likewise it is estimated that the need for new areas of coastal meadows may be covered if part of the cessation of agricultural land use is placed on near-shore dyked-in areas with the potential to recreate coastal meadows. Finally, the need to create some 600 hectares of commons will be covered in the long term by carefully selecting the 600 hectares among areas where cessation of agricultural high land areas for protection of groundwaters are placed (see chapter 3.1) and according to the soil type and occurrence of existing commons.
Measures related to improve nature Effects Dose Nature Reduced Nitrogen Phosphorous on land. physical Reduced loss Reduced loss Recreation modify- to aquatic to aquatic and cation environment environment improved Ton N / year Ton P / year quality New nature areas Coastal meadows: (coastal meadows, mires, 450 hectares fresh meadows and Mires//fresh meadows: ++ ++ ++ ++ commons) 2400 hectares Commons: 600 hectares Maintenance existing 2450 hectares nature - Grassing, hay ++ production Maintenance existing 360 hectares nature – clearing of ++ scrubs and trees Improved hydrological 300 kilometres conditions (inactivation of ++ + + + ditches and drainpipes)
Table 3.5.6.: Measures related to nature. The measure “new nature” may be found indirectly among both measures to reduce nutrient loss (cessation of agricultural land use in river valleys to create new wetlands) and measures to protect groundwater (cessation og agricultural landuse in nitrogen vulnerably areas). The other measures are all for protecting existing nature.
174 PRB-Agriculture Report
With this approach the measures used for reduction of Nitrogen and Phosphorous reductions at the same time indirectly serve as measures for establishment of new nature areas, fulfilling the objectives of the Habitat Directive.
3. Conclusion and Recommendations
The last 120 years a great loss of habitats as a result of dyking, reclamation, drainage and cultivation is the fact for all types of wetlands in the Odense Fjord catchment (coastal meadows, mires and freshwater meadows and lakes). It is estimated that Physical Modifications approx 75-80 percent of these habitats is lost.
Physically modification of lakes and watercourses is widespread in the whole catchments. loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. Many hundreds of small and shallow lakes have completely disappeared during the last 100 years as well as twelve large lakes have been reclaimed largely for agricultural purposes. About two third (66%) of all watercourse stretches are affected completely or partly by piping or regulation. Besides many are affected by the occurrence of obstructions hindering fish migration as well as weed clearance and extraction work take place in many watercourses to ensure adequate drainage of adjacent arable land.
Since 1780 the area of coastal water surface in Odense Fjord have been reduced by approx. one third. About 71 percent of all the water bodies in Odense Fjord are either reclaimed areas or heavily modified.
In the pilot Programme of Measure established for Odense Fjord Catchment measures directly related to reduce physical modification of watercourses are established and include re-meandering of more than 20 % of the watercourse stretches and cessation of watercourse maintenance of more than 50 percent of the total stretches. Besides an estimated 2235 hectares of reclaimed agricultural land adjacent to the watercourses will function as wetlands reducing nutrient loss and potential new nature.
In order to fulfil the need of re-establishment of new nature to halt the decrease in biodiversity fulfilling both the Habitat Directive and the Water Framework Directive some new 450 hectares of coastal meadows, 2400 hectares of fens and fresh meadows and 600 hectares of commons is needed. With some carefully planning all areas needed and suitable to serve as new nature areas may indirectly be found among the areas where cessation of agricultural land use is required either due to groundwater protection or to creation of wetlands functioning as nutrients sinks.
175 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and
3.5.3.3. Case Study: Ribble Physical Modifications
1. Pressure and Impact Analysis
An analysis has been undertaken in the Ribble basin to assess the quality of the riparian areas, linked to the intensity of agricultural management. Different management regimes can give rise to bank side erosion. By understanding where this happens and the impacts on the river, we can develop mitigation schemes that aim to reduce these effects and the related delivery of pollutants to the river.
This existing data was analyzed to assess the quality of riparian areas and link them to the intensity of adjoining agricultural management regimes. They are also to be used in biodiversity related studies.
River Habitat Survey (RHS) is a field technique that involves recording the physical habitat and features found along a 500m stretch of river during the summer months. The survey is broken down into data collected at ten points 50m apart and general data over the 500m reach. The data is then entered onto a national RHS Database. Since the method was first conceived in 1994, nearly 17,000 surveys have been completed throughout the UK.
A number of characteristics of the river corridor are recorded during RHS that can give an indication of the influence of agriculture on the quality of the river habitat. For this indicator two analyses have been carried out to assess habitat status in the riparian zone. 1 Bankface vegetation is recorded at 10 points in every 500m reach on both banks of the river and is classified as bare, uniform, simple or complex. River banktop vegetation within 1m of the banktop is recorded on a similar scale.
2. Banktop land use is also recorded at 10 points in every 500m reach on both banks of the river and is classified into a number of categories such as “Tilled land”, “Moorland Heath” “Improved/Semi-improved grassland”.
For the purposes of this indicator the following criteria were used to allocate RHS stretches to “good status” and “bad status”:
Good 1. >67% of combined bankface and banktop vegetation spotchecks recorded as Simple ( 2 or 3 vegetation types ) or Complex ( 4 or more vegetation types)
2. >50% of 5m landuse spotchecks recorded as semi-natural vegetation (woodland, scrub, wetland, moorland, tall herbs or rough grassland)
Bad 1. >80% of combined bankface and banktop vegetation spotchecks recorded as Uniform (1 vegetation type) or Bare (bare earth or rock)
2. >67% of 5m landuse spotchecks recorded as Tilled land, Intensive grassland or Suburban.
176 PRB-Agriculture Report
Geographic Coverage.
In the Ribble numerous RHS survey datasets were identified throughout the catchment (Figure 3.5.11.). RHS sites were not randomly or evenly distributed through the catchment. The pattern of distribution reflects the variety of locations at which RHS data has been collected for a diverse range of unconnected projects. For the purposes of this analysis only one figure is accepted as a return for each WFD waterbody.
Analyses are based on 84 surveys within the Ribble catchment, from 15 Waterbodies. As this analysis focuses on the influence of agriculture on riparian status, 18 surveys have been excluded due to having 50 m land-use category marked as extensive (>33%) for Suburban/Urban, Parkland or Gardens, or Artificial open water. Physical Modifications Physical Modifications
Temporal Coverage.
The RHS database contains surveys carried out on may different dates as part of loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5. different survey programmes. The dates of surveys used in this analysis ranges from 1994 to 1999, with the majority towards the end of this period.
Strengths and weaknesses:
RHS is a technique for assessing riparian habitat that was developed prior to WFD and is therefore not specifically designed to assess riparian status for WFD. Note that this analysis is intended to give some indication of the extent of intensive agricultural management giving rise to the risk of bankside erosion and gives no indication of the ecological status of the vegetation itself, nor of the ecological status of vegetation in the river channel.
Arbitrary boundaries have been chosen of the categories “good” and “bad”. These have been chosen with WFD status categories in mind, ie “high” ecological status is reserved for pristine sites and some degree of modification is acceptable for “good “ sites”. In this analysis all “high” status sites would meet the criteria for “good”. There are intermediate stages and the criteria for “bad” have been set to highlight RHS sites where the vegetation structure and land use indicate a high risk of giving rise to DWPA.
The coverage of the data is not uniform, with waterbodies having a wide range of numbers of RHS sites. (Min=1, Max=24, mean=5.6, median=3, n=15). In this dataset we report on 15 out of 99 waterbodies in the
This initial set of data from 15 waterbodies focuses on RHS sites on the main channel of the River Ribble and immediate tributaries. Currently additional RHS sites within the Ribble PRB are being identified.
Summary of Riverbank vegetation status
Waterbody Waterbody ID Based on 5m Based on Land use bankface- banktop
Ribble Mitton-Preston GB112071065500 - - Howcroft Brook GB112071065510 Good - (Pendleton Brook) Unnamed at Stephen GB112071065520 Bad - Bridge 177 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and Swanside Beck GB112071065530 Bad - Stock Beck GB112071065540 Bad - Holden Beck GB112071065550 Bad Good Physical Modifications Skirden Beck GB112071065570 Bad - Wigglesworth Beck GB112071065580 Good - rathmell Beck GB112071065590 Bad - Long Preston Beck GB112071065600 Good - Ribble Settle - GB112071065610 - - Clitheroe Ribble Horton - GB112071065640 - - Stainforth Cowside Beck GB112071065690 n/a Bad Ribble Horton-Selside GB112071071570 - - Ribblehead GB112071071590 Good Bad
% waterbodies 27 7 “good” % waterbodies “bad” 40 13
Table 3.5.7. Summary of Riverbank vegetation status
2. Related Measures
Establishment of buffer strips though are one possible measure that can address the loss of immediate riparian habitat. This has been implemented to a small extent in the Ribble catchment through agri-environment schemes and also through voluntary groups with an interest in improving river habitat for migratory fish (see accompanying pictures below).
(c) Measures affecting pollutant DELIVERY
Pollutantα Target Cost Measure Example Area NO NH NO Se FI BO β - + - TP 3 4 2 d O D Establish riparian strip Other 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 Establish artificial wetlands Other 3 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 Establish buffer zones Establish in field buffers Other 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 Install hedges and make fields Other 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 smaller Reduce Cultivate land Soil 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 2 hydrological connectivity Allow drainage to deteriorate Other 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
α Scores assigned through expert opinion where: β Costs: 0 = Exacerbates pollutant problem or has no effect 1 = Expensive 1 = Small effect 2 = Moderate costs 2 = Intermediate effect 3 = Cheap 3 = Large effect
* Assumes runoff is the controlling factor, not soil erodability
Table 3.5.8.: Related measures, Ribble 178 PRB-Agriculture Report
Physical Modifications Physical Modifications III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and loss and Habitat 5: Pressure III. 5.
Figure 3.5.11: Overview of monitoring sites in the Ribble Catchment
179 PRB-Agriculture Report
III. 5. Pressure 5: Habitat loss and top left: Skirden Beck RHS site in 2005: Fencing of buffer strip leads to development Physical Modifications of complex vegetation structure.
Bottom right: Skirden Beck RHS site in 1999: Uniform bankside vegetation and intensive grassland in foreground.
3. Conclusions and recommendations
Although this data collection and analysis has been done prior to the WFD implementation, it provides a good overview of the cause-effect relations affecting the riparian status. The quality of the status can be related to the degree of intensity of adjacent agriculture. The dataset also represents an excellent base line knowledge on the riparian status and can be used when evaluation impact of current or planned measures.
Measures related to the maintenance and re-installation of riparian buffer strips as biodiversity habitats, are optimally combined with objectives to be reached for the reduction of sediments and phosphorus pollution.
180 PRB-Agriculture Report
IV General Conclusions and Recommendations
During the last century, local subsistence, economic and population pressure, with changing dietary needs, and global markets have been driving important land use and
agricultural management changes in rural Europe. Increase in Utilized Agriculture Area Recommendations (UAA) along with intensification of agriculture in terms of space and inputs, are mainly
responsible for incredible pressures on the nature, the water resources and the water and Conclusions IV. General ecosystems in the European basins, including the coastal waters. The PRB exercise and the finalized article 5 analyses have shown that many water bodies all over Europe are at risk not to fulfil WFD objectives, often because of pressures from agricultural activities.
For the PRB-Agriculture basins, water bodies at risk due to agriculture induced pressures, ranged between 30 and 96 % of total water bodies.
The need for agricultural efficiency and productivity has resulted indeed in structural changes, including decrease in number of farms, less diversity of local agricultural habitats, reliance on non-renewable inputs as fertilizer and pesticides, cultivation of marginal land including land reclamation of wetlands, mechanisation, and increasing field size and higher stocking densities. Agricultural intensification, such as increased livestock production/density, the shift from hay to silage systems for grassland management, change in type and timing of tillage and e.g. the increased use of chemical inputs (fertilizers and pesticides), further led to increased pressures.
PRB-Agriculture case studies show that Agriculture is responsible for main pressures on water resources, related to waterborne and airborne losses of nutrients and pesticides, and physical pressures caused by drainage, land reclamation, regulation of rivers and irrigation of farmland affecting water quantity, erosion and habitat loss.
However the cause-effect patterns remain very complex, these pressures can now be better identified and sometimes this knowledge can be used for better targeting mitigation measures, in many cases to be implemented through farm level schemes. Hence, agriculture also has the enormous potential for helping to improve the general environmental conditions in the basins.
During this phase of the PRB exercise, the PRB Agriculture group invested a lot of effort in preparing and documenting various approaches for analysis of pressures and impact from agriculture leading towards compilation of adapted technical measures to be included in the Programme of Measures. During the short 16 months of activity of this phase, accumulated know-how in this field is being shared and made available through this report. The outcome is considered to be a solid basis to continue the elaboration towards the RBMPs and provides a valuable experience for further increased cross cutting between policies, WFD and RD. The main findings are:
181 PRB-Agriculture Report
IV. General IV. General Conclusions and IV.1 . Indicators and Baseline data:
Recommendations Recommendations The PRBs have been building up experience1 on compiling the WFD Article 5 requirements for the reporting on the characteristics of the river basins and the review of environmental impact of human activity. In view of the planned work on analysis of pressures from agriculture, the head-start experience made it possible to expand this aspect and to propose a structured way of managing and using the required detailed data and information. At basin or sub-basin level, a number of important data layers and indicators have been listed and the applied consistent approach for their description and use is informative to other basins. The SSG Report on Pressures and Impact from Agriculture (Ecologic) stated that there is still need for a harmonized presentation of data (and methods) across EU. The PRB exercise also pointed out that in many cases critical information and data is not systematically collected. Therefore, the planning of data monitoring schemes is thought to be important.
The indicators and the most common data layers used for the analysis work, are listed in Table 3.1.(see introduction of chapter III) and Annex 1 provides a complete list.
When could one start talking about pressure from agriculture? Through the case study work of the PRB, some key indicators are suggested that primarily are linked to effects of agricultural management that could reveal a potential risk to the environment. Information on the status and change of these indicators are estimated to be useful to decision and policy makers. This list is certainly not exhaustive and relates to the specific PRB characteristics but could be considered, and/or adapted, for use by similar basins:
Key-policy indicators:
Table 4.1. Key indicator for agricultural pressures and impact assessment (numbers refer to the numbering of the full list in Annex 1)
1 Most of the PRBs had been participating in the Phase I of the WFD CIS PRB exercise on testing the guidelines for implementation and specifically the drafting of Article 5 reports. 182 PRB-Agriculture Report
IV.2 . Catalogue of Measures:
The PRB-AG Group actively shared their acquired pilot understanding on the necessity and constraints of the data and indicators. Some of the PRB also had acquired advanced practice related to the design of mitigation measures. The continued exchange of such information visibly catalyzed the work within the group on setting and testing alternatives for the analysis of pressures and the compilation of adapted measures for the Programme of Measures.
Recommendations
and Conclusions IV. General
All PRBs Agriculture have accomplished the formulation of measures for all or some of the pressures analyzed in their basin and in some cases a cost effectiveness analysis is presented. This resulted in a first consolidated Catalogue of Measures conforming Article 11 of the WFD. It is the purpose for other basins to be inspired and to profit from this open catalogue. Other basins are invited to contribute with their experience to the catalogue amplifying it into an active operational tool to assist in the drawing up of the River Basin Management Plans. The fostering of this initiative could be taken up during a next phase of this group.
Important considerations:
* An existing hurdle in setting explicit targets for the measures is the lacking of quantitative definitions for WFD ‘good status’ thresholds, but it was recognized that progress is made by e.g. the inter-calibration exercise. Although quantifying targets remains difficult in fields like erosion or habitat loss.
* Financial principles governing the implementation need to be clearly defined in an early stage.
* Even if technical measures can be designed and the framework for implementation exists then targeted scheme outcome is yet unsure as the measure uptake might be well below expectations.
* Farmer awareness is an important issue: farmers need to be informed and shown the positive effect of the measures and have to accept their role as environmental peacekeepers and adapt to this.
* Some PRB(s) expressed the concern that measures of only voluntary character might not be sufficient and for high risk areas compulsory demands might be envisaged.
* The measures address mainly options for adapted agriculture management. Responsible administrative bodies must agree on common objectives. Therefore, the process of implementing these measures is to be used as motivation for increased collaboration between the various sectors involved and is to stimulate the planning of solutions that are truly cross-cutting between the policies and responsible sectors.
183 PRB-Agriculture Report
IV. General IV. General Conclusions and Further details on the structure and current status of the Catalogue of Measures,
Recommendations Recommendations compiled as results from the PRB-AG Case studies, together with a detailed description of the attribute fields is provided in Annex 2.
A listing of the measures related to the PRB-AG case study findings is attached in Annex 2.
Figure 4.1.: Simplified suggested structure for a catalogue of measures (more detail is given in Annex 2)
184 PRB-Agriculture Report
IV.3 . The PRB case study experience and recommendations:
The elaborated case studies are reported in this document only in a concise format. They illustrate the learning process and the experience gathered in exploring new ways:
(1) to identify and approach the pressures from agriculture on the water resources, (2) to analyze the cause-effect relations, in order to (3) define measures that can make optimal use of the potential of the agricultural sector
to mitigate effectively the environmental impacts. Recommendations
and Conclusions IV. General
The case studies are presenting the PRB experiences on the identification and quantification, or at least qualification, of the main environmental pressures arising from agricultural land use. The collection of studies makes it possible to compare some of these aspects across geographical areas and moreover illustrates the important differences that need to be considered for obtaining solutions that can tackle similar pressures. The grouping of these experiences is a first step towards creating a knowledge base on good examples. This knowledge base should then be further shared with the wider river basin community to optimize solutions and make best use of the little time remaining for the definition of the management plans.
Table 4.2. further below lists an overview of the case study specific findings and conclusions.
Specific conclusions for the five pressure areas are summarized and given separately within each of the respective chapters (3.1 to 3.5). Follow the color key to read them:
Further important considerations
• Article 5 risk assessments are a valuable basis to start from and already point to severe problems related to agriculture.
• Case studies show that identification of pressures and in some cases prediction of their extent is possible, e.g. for nutrient pollution and its eutrophication effect. But cause – effect relationships are mostly still very complex, e.g. related to sediment loadings and loss of habitats. 185 PRB-Agriculture Report
IV. General IV. General Conclusions and • Making use of available river basin or more detailed data, the illustrated applied analyses were mainly building around:
Recommendations Recommendations + output from process models e.g. indicating diffuse pollution, + statistical methods to model quantitative relations between application, loads and point observations on status + spatial statistics to establish correlations between various spatial input layers + qualitative frameworks for risk assessments, e.g. P Index, Reservoir Regulation Index. + Model frameworks, combining several process models with statistical correlation methods in view of scenario building, e.g. the Weser AGRUM model Network
• The analyses outcome increased the understanding of the magnitude of the pressures but also indicated that increased knowledge is still needed on all pathway processes, e.g. to account for retention times and e.g. to better know the origin of suspended solids to link that to land use. Another aspect to consider is the scale at with the analysis is done, as results at detailed scales are more difficult to extrapolate and measures based on this knowledge might not be sufficiently effective at basin scale.
• In many cases, based on the acquired knowledge through the analyses, mitigation targets can be set.
+ E.g. required N load reduction in tons, in the Odense, to mitigate the eutrophication in the fjord; + Nutrient concentrations to be maintained in groundwater, e.g. Pandivere, to be reached by measures with specific thresholds of N application and timing of practices + Application management specifications for pesticides and banning of specific substances, e.g in the Garonne and Guadalquivir. + Sustainable thresholds at basin and sub-basin level for water use, E.g. Zagyva-Tarna and Guadalquivir.
The PRB exercise learned that increased networking is a prerequisite to keep on inspiring each other for the crucial task of developing the RBMPs. More sharing of experience is needed and can be better achieved on location. Only such active exchange between the wider river communities can catalyze and facilitate the construction of cost effective solutions by all EU RBs within the required time frame.
186
Water Use and Sediments (erosion Habitat Loss and Conclusions Nutrient Pollution Pesticide Pollution Quantity and P) Physical modification Gascogne - Successfully mapped - Successfully classified Rivers N pollution and mapped P pollution - Need to consider scale and pressures for implementing - Need to consider scale measures for implementing - Combine with socio- measures economic studies - Combine with socio- - Need for sector economic studies cooperation - Need for sector cooperation Guadalquivir - Still ongoing over- - Still effects of past use - Irrigated agriculture main - Un-adapted land use - Successful elaboration fertilization - Lack of data on pressure major driver for erosion, of relations riparian - Increased pressure consumption - Developed Index useful to increasing with olive status and agricultural related to high leaching - Integrated pest control indicate pressures on water grove intensity intensity due to un-adapted and green farming resources within various - Suspended solids show - Agriculture not only farming practices positive parts of the basin relation to land use, culprit - Trend did not change - Need for vulnerable - Other than technical confirming complexity of - Basin wide measure - Measure need link zones for pesticides measures have also been cause-effect needed to ensure critical with actual - Farmers awareness effective (linking of EU - Traditional farming not ecological impact programmes, e.g. Good funding for reservoir to a adapted any more but Agriculture Practices zero increase in irrigated need for farmers - Farmers awareness area) awareness Odense - Main pressures - Adaptation of P-index - Confirmed a loss 75- inventoried successfully describes 80% of wetland related - Successful modelling factors for P losses. P habitats; 66% of of relations N, P load, index useful to map risk- watercourse are affected and their causes, and target areas improving by regulation ecologic status of Fjord the cost-efficiency of the - Pilot PoM include, e.g. and lakes measures. Pilot PoM re-meandering of rivers, - Quantifiable targets include cultivation converting back to for measures restrictions on potentially wetlands where combined - Elaborated PoM with erosive areas, extended with reduction of other cost effective analysis buffer zones along pressures surface waters, fertilization demands and reestablishment of wetlands to retain nutrients
Table 4.2.: Overview of case study specific findings and conclusions: Table 4.2. continued: Overview of case study specific findings and conclusions:
Conclusions Water Use and Sediments (erosion Habitat Loss and Nutrient Pollution Pesticide Pollution Quantity and P) Physical Modifications Pandivere - Identified better economic situation of farmers with increasing pressure from fertilizers - Farmers training is most important - Series of measures successfully designed
Ribble - Successfully identified - Agriculture is main - Process based model Monitoring of riparian that nutrient effects in source of pollution has been successfully status with specific water increase with - Complex due to many used to create scenarios sampling technique to intensity of agriculture substances and low for impact analysis link the status quality to - Cause-effect method concentrations - The model was also intensity of agricultural - Propose adapted PoM - Technical measures - used to assess the land use and proposal of possible but estimated impact of the PoM implementation not designed mitigation straightforward measures Weser -Successful models for differentiated analysis of Nutrient pressure - Fertilizer Law as working instrument - Use example of cooperation of sectors for drinking water to optimize PoM
Zagyva-Tarna - Quantified the pressure from irrigation on the various water bodies - Irrigation main cause - Need regulation minimum flow in catchment - Need evaluation on sustainable levels of yield to target measures
188 ANNEX 1 INDICATORS – DATA LAYERS
Lists datasets required or used by the PRB-AG Group for the analysis of pressures and impact from agriculture on water.
The below table lists the most relevant indicators or single data layers that were indicated by the PRB-AG group as being important to the study and the specific PRB characteristics. It has to be taken into account that the table below is an open and non- exhaustive general list of datasets and indicators. Furthermore PRBs did not necessarily need or could compile all datasets.
Being an on-going activity, for some of the data layers exact definitions are not yet provided.
The following general definitions were implemented:
“Indicators are variables; data are actual measurements (or observations) of the values of the variables at different times, locations, populations, or combinations of these. A collection of quantitative data is usually referred to as statistics. At a given level of aggregation or perception (local or global), indicators can be defined as individual variables or as variables that are a function of other variables. The function may be as simple as a ratio, an index (a single number which is a simple function of two or more variables, usually a weighted summation of individual variables, a multiplication, or a maximum operation), or as complex as the outcome of a large simulation model.
The major functions of indicators are: - to assess conditions and trends - to compare across places and situations - to assess conditions and trends in relation to goals and targets - to provide early warning information - to anticipate future conditions and trends.”
(source: Sustainable Indicators, B. Moldan et al., Wiley and sons 1977, ISBN 0-471- 97352-1; Part One, Gilberto Carlos Gallopín)
A template on data and information was used for metadata reporting of the data and variables used by the various PRBs. They provided an inventory of the most common data sets and information layers that are either readily available or indicated as very important for which data is needed (pls. rRefer to the separate indicator tables in the report (Chapter II.3.b. and Chapter 4) . The below template was used.
a
b
c List of indicators – data layers:
Indicator / data Measurement code Note… layer unit
1. PRB characterization (RB context)
101 Total catchment area Km2 102 Population Inh./km2 103 Land use Km2 or % 1. Artificial Areas (1.) 2. Non-irrigated arable land (2.1.1.) 3. Permanently irrigated arable land (2.1.2) 4. Rice fields (2.1.3) 5. Permanent crops (Vineyards and fruit trees (2.2.1 and 2.2.2.)) 6. Olive groves (2.2.3.) 7. Pastures (2.3) 8. Heterogeneous agricultural areas (2.4) 9. Forest and semi-natural areas (3.) 10. Wetlands (4.) 11. Water bodies (5.) (this is a appropriate selection from Corine Land Cover Classes (http://reports.eea.europa.eu/COR0-landcover/en ) (CLC Class number is brackets), but it is advised to make statistics for all Corine classes and perform aggregations afterwards, according to specific RB characteristics)
104 Land use ratio arable/grassland
105 Land use - forestry % extent deforestation/affor estation
106 Soil composition % Source European soil map- JRC (http://eusoils.jrc.it/data.html ) (5-10 standardized categories to be chosen and specified)
107 Soil erosion tonnes dry estimated: Pesera Erosion map Soil loss matter/ha·year (http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/pe sera/pesera_data.html )
108 Regulated streams % Might be the length (%) of WBs characterized as regulated heavily modified water bodies (in relation to HMWB stream/total river agricultural pressure) length
d 109 Riparian status % more standardized status definition needed river length with riparian vegetation in good status/river length with riparian vegetation inexistent or bad status
110 Sewage outlets t N/year Total from all sources in catchment. Mean per t P/year year. t BOD/year (Maybe supplied by contributions from the different sewage categories (industry, cities etc..)
111 Streams and rivers km According to Strahler order as used in the JRC CCM (http://agrienv.jrc.it/activities/catchments/ccm.ht ml ) 112 Number of WFD water Numbers and % of bodies in streams and total length of rivers streams and rivers
113 % of streams, rivers WB’s in risk of not meeting WFD- objectives due to Agri- Impact (physical..) 114 River Maintenance % % of river length where there are some kind of river maintenance requirements (weed cutting, sediment removal) etc.
115 Lakes and reservoirs Numbers Natural lakes and artificial reservoirs The EEA provided Corine based datasets of lakes can be used: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/met adetails.asp?id=828 Further info: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/wise- help-centre/glossary-definitions/lake-basin )
116 Number of WFD water bodies in lakes and reservoirs 117 Coastal waters, Area km2 According to EEA Definition (http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/EEAGlossary/C/co astal_waters ) 118 Number of WFD water number bodies in coastal waters and total area of these WB’s 119 wetland reduction km2 within the last 100 years, or time period specified
2. Agriculture Measurement Note… characterization unit
201 Total Farmed land Total: km2 and % (UAA) of RB e 202 Farmed land as % of UAA - crops For the main crops in the basin - grasslands 203 Arable land in river km2 and % valleys 204 Green (organic) km2 farming % of UAA 205 Farm types Number EEA defined Standard classes can be used: 1. Specialized Livestock 2. Specialized Cropping 3. Non-Specialized (Within these three classes, RBs can further split into e.g. pig farms, cattle farms, purely arable farms, and others which are specific within the basin)
206 Farmed land under % for info see: Natura 2000 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_c onservation/natura_2000_network/gis_n2k/index _en.htm
207 High Nature value % UAA of HNV For data and information on the definition, see: Farmland (HNV) http://agrienv.jrc.it/activities/hnv/ http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/v iewpub.asp?id=1999
208 Area under Agri-env km2 Area of land under contract (CAP Pillar II) for support implementing agri-environmental measures
3. Agriculture Measurement characterization Note… unit <> pressure
301 Total number of number LSU corresponds to the environmental impact of a animal/livestock units 500 kg dairy cow. (LU) As an indication 1LU=100kg N in manure could be used divide in cattle, pigs and other animals Actual level. Time series if possible 302 Livestock management Intensive or Clear definition needed extensive The decision on extensively could be based on farm input, such as crops dedicated to livestock, amount of concentrate fodder; and output, such as amount and management of waste, manure….
303 Total appl. of Total-N 103 tonnes N Time series if possible with 103 tonnes P in a: manure total and kg total b: chemical fertilizer N and total P/ha of farmed land
304 Average yields of crops Dry matter For the main crops in the basin and N or P kg/ha farmed land
f 305 N and P surplus, field 103 tonnes N Actual level. Time series if possible. Total P level 103 tonnes P applied to farmed land (manure+chemical fertilizer) – harvested P
306 N-balance: farm scale Tonnes N and Kg (total import of fodder and fertilizer + N fixation + as summa for the total N/ha·year N-deposition imported)- catchment (mean for farmed (Sold products (meat, vegetables, milk etc..)) N-Import land) Actual levels. Time series if possible N-Export N-Surplus 307 NH3 export to Kg N/ha year Actual estimates. Farms and fields.. atmosphere due to Farmed land agricultural activities 308 Pesticides tonnes Active Consumption (application) by agriculture, Consumption according to types of pesticides
309 Standardized Index /year application index 310 Irrigation % irrigated area/ total UAA
4. Agriculture Measurement characterization Note… unit <> impact
401 Source apportionment tonnes N % from agriculture, sewage, back ground (non- anthropogenic). Actual level (annual mean for a standardized period PER_load) time series if possible % from agriculture and other sources of N loads (Info and support can be given upon request from http://agrienv.jrc.it/ )
402 Source apportionment tonnes P % from agriculture, sewage, back ground (non- % from agriculture and anthropogenic). Actual level (annual mean for a other sources of P standardized period PER_load) time series if loads possible Supplied by corresponding water discharge
5. Water Measurement characterization: Note… unit Water Quantity
501 Precipitation mm/year Yearly time series 502 Total freshwater mm/year Yearly time series discharge Annual 503 Total freshwater mm/month Monthly time series discharge Month 504 Water Use (WU) 106 m3/year Total for: - groundwater - surface water 505 WU by sector 106 m3/year SECTOR: agriculture, industry, tourism, urban (drinking water) 506 Water need To be defined For irrigation purposes Guadalquivir PRB to provide more information
g 507 Impact of WU on river Mm/month (year!) Guadalquivir PRB to provide more information discharge
508 Agriculture Water use % Guadalquivir PRB to provide more information vs recharge ratio water use from agriculture/rechar ge (for different water bodies or hydrological units in the catchment)
509 Ratio of regulation for % Gives information on the pressure on the reservoirs reservoir storage hydrological regime capacity/current natural inflow
6. Water Measurement characterization: Note… unit Water Quality
601 N loads tonnes N Loads with surface freshwaters leaving the PRB catchment (including sewage). Actual level (annual mean for a standardized period PER_load) time series if possible 602 P loads tonnes P Loads with surface freshwaters leaving the PRB catchment (including sewage). Actual level (annual mean for a standardized period PER_load) time series if possible
603 N in mg Total N/L Range in relation to agricultural activity…? Streams & rivers, Agricultural impact in relation to reference quality. lakes and reservoirs What is estimated reference concentration compared to actual concentrations. Agricultural impact
604 % of streams and % As % of Total numbers of lakes and reservoirs and rivers, lakes, reservoirs as % of total WB’s. in risk of not meeting And WFD-objectives due to As % of Total length of streams and rivers ands as Agri-Impact (N-Load- % of total WB’s. Agri) 605 P in mg Total P/L Range in relation to agricultural activity…? Streams & rivers, Agricultural impact in relation to reference quality. lakes and reservoirs What is estimated reference concentration compared to actual concentrations. Agricultural impact
606 % of streams and % As % of Total numbers of lakes and reservoirs and rivers, lakes, reservoirs as % of total WB’s. in risk of not meeting And WFD-objectives due to As % of Total length of streams and rivers ands as Agri-Impact (P-Load- % of total WB’s. Agri) 607 Annual trends in kg/ha surface freshwaters leaving the catchment. concentration of Total (surplus/agri. Agricultural impact of the concentrations (% or N and Total-P in Area) mg/L). And the development in this impact. Might surface running waters be supplied by analyses of subcatchment h 608 Annual trends in kg/ha concentration of (surplus/agri. nitrates in ground Area) water 609 Concentration of Number of detected pesticides and pesticides in surface % of measurements of specific pesticides running water surpassing drinking water quality (0.1 µg/L)
610 Concentration of Number of detected pesticides and pesticides in ground % of measurements of specific pesticides water surpassing drinking water quality (0.1 µg/L)
611 Part of farmed land % designated as Nitrate vulnerable zone 612 Potable water % Definition needed resources affected by potable water agriculture resources/agricult ural use
7. Water Quality Measurement Coastal/near coastal Note… unit waters
701 Reference nutrient mg total N and mg concentration of total P/L surface coastal and near coastal waters 702 Actual nutrient mg total N and mg concentrations of total P/L surface waters 703 Agricultural mg and % impact contribution to Actual in relation to nutrient concentrations reference of surface waters in concentration coastal and near coastal waters
704 Same for Chlorophyll 705 Specify eutrophication Filamentous green algae, oxygen depletion etc… problems 706 Area and number (%) of WB’s in coastal and near coastal areas in risk of not meeting WFD objectives due to agricultural impact..
i
j ANNEX 2 CATALOGUE OF MEASURES
Based on previous experiences and on the work performed and results obtained on analysis of pressures and impact from agriculture on water resources, as documented in the cases studies, a pilot open-ended Catalogue of Measures has been proposed.
Table A2.1: The identification of the attributes for each measure is as follows:
Each measure is to be considered as a cluster of actions needed to reach the objectives of the measure. These actions can range from specific required changes in farming practices, to aspects dealing with farmers training, etc. i At this stage within the PRB-AG group, the hierarchic distinction between ‘measure’ and ‘action’ was not fully clarified. In fact, sometimes an ‘action’ was also considered as a very specific ‘measure’, with a targeted objective and cost related to it, and it was listed as ‘measure’ in the Catalogue (i.e. not following the definition of ‘cluster of actions’).
Hence, within the current database, under the field ‘measure’ there are ‘measures’ listed with a rather general title and with a number of ‘actions’ stored in the attribute fields; and there are rather well ‘actions’ listed under the same hierarchical level as ‘measures’.
At this stage only a specific attribute field was added to distinguish between the hierarchic levels.
Figure A2.1: The current status of the organization of the measures is as follows:
The description of the schematically illustrated grey/black attribute fields is shown above in table A2.1.
However, as the Catalogue of measure grows, a more harmonized and/or standardized naming would facilitate the inventory and use of the database. Looking at the various actions, considering their naming and content, many are similar and could be grouped using a standardized naming. For this purpose a linked database table could be compiled to group (and limit) very similar action names under a more common title. It is proposed to also make such lookup tables at the ‘measure’ level in order to be able to group the various descriptions and facilitate the final use of the Catalogue.
It is also proposed to relate the measures to specific data layers and/or indicators that are required or used to define the targets of the measure, hence to be used also for effectiveness assessment of the PoM and agri-env schemes. The possibility is foreseen in the database, but is not yet being elaborated by PRBs. ii
Assigning increasingly better identification and precision to the pressure targeted, the expected effects, costs, etc., for the various actions or specific ‘single type’ interventions, the future user of the Catalogue can more easily browse and query the single fields (i.e. measure/action characteristics) to come to a selection of actions that reflect their goals. Like this they can compose a ‘basic’ measure for further site specific adaptation.
Links to database descriptions of basin characteristics and more specific geo-physical and socio-economic situations, conditioning the planned or implemented measures, will guide other basins in their selection.
Therefore, it is proposed to assign the full range of attributes, as current used under ‘measures’ in the Catalogue, to the single ‘actions’. Consequently, a ‘measure’ will then be defined as a ‘cluster of well defined actions’. With the current experience and these reflections in mind a more adapted structure for the Catalogue is proposed:
Figure A2.2: Suggested improved structure of the Catalogue of measures
The current Catalogue is proposed in view of inventorying mitigation measures for environmental problems related to water resources within the agricultural management field. It will be also envisaged that the agricultural community can make use of this Catalogue when, in collaboration with the water management, common schemes are set up in view of integrated river basin management. Furthermore, it is of course possible that this version will be enhanced to contain relevant attribute fields related to mitigating other pressures on water resources. In order to make the Catalogue available to all river basins and for all basins to be able to add the database, a web-based version is planned.
It is suggested that during the next phase of the PRB- Agriculture this Catalogue is further adapted, optimized, improved and populated while being on-line available to the wider community. An example of a more dynamic database structure is given below.
iii Figure A2.3.: preliminary database strucure
To populate the current version of the database, a reporting template was designed and used:
v
The following pages give the lists of PoM data as currently stored in the digital database (temporarily using MSAccess).
The measures listed below are a preliminary compilation and are not necessarily planned for the actual POM of the PRBs. Indicated costs are as well preliminary estimates.
1: Measures: (5 out of 52 fields are listed) as currently inventoried – for these mostly no further actions are specified, although some have separate actions listed straight under the measure title; for all measures more information is available in the database 2: Actions: Some were listed at the same hierarchical level as measures, but all reflect specific ‘actions’ to be taken (either as single ‘measure’ or as part of a number of combined actions. 3. Measures for which a number of actions were listed separately.
The last page of Annex 2 documents the currently used database fields.
Total cost of Measure PRB-AG WFD Type Pressure Targeted Measure (preliminary Name estimates) Improved nutrient management on agricultural fields to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution (Highland Areas and River valleys) • Increased use of catch crops particularly on areas with application of manure • Improved utilization of nutrients in manure • Reduced N and P fertilization quotas • Implementation of CAP • Improved utilization of animal feed • Buffer zones (uncultivated) alongside surface waters (rivers, lakes, etc.) • Reduction of excess phosphorous - objective of 50% reduction basic N,P Load € 402.000 Odense Cessation of agricultural land use to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution, (River Valleys) • Set-aside for wetlands (Action Plan Aquatic Environment II+III) basic N, Load € 671.000 Odense
To Reduce point pollution from livestock farms, bring farms into compliance with environmental requirements. Measure is directly linked with WFD and Nitrates and N, P, organic IPPC Directive and Estonian Water Act. basic substances € 20.000.000 Pandivere
vi Total cost of Measure PRB-AG WFD Type Pressure Targeted Measure (preliminary Name estimates)
Action Plan 2004-2008 for Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. Action Plan proceeds from Nitrates Directive and Water Act. The aim of action plan is to prevent negative impact of agricultural management to the surface and N, P, organic groundwater bodies in area basic substances € 3.000.000 Pandivere Reducing pesticide utilization by Integrated Plant Protection basic pesticides Weser Reduction of fertilizer quantity: requirement orientated and site specific actions, examples: - best practice methods according to the German Fertilizer Law - proof of low nitrogen surplus balances, funding, compensation basic and -farm manure survey , compensation supplementary fertilizer: N, P Weser Potential types of measures have been Gascogne identified for the Adour-Garonne district at Rivers the end of 2005. For pesticides, nitrates (France ; and phosphorus. 28 potential measures Adour- on the district scale; 14 of them can be basic and pesticides, nitrogen, Garonne used on the local scale (hydrographic uni supplementary phosphorus District) Improved nutrient management on agricultural fields to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution (River Valleys) • Increased use of catch crops • Improved utilization of nutrients in manure • Reduced N and P fertilization N ,P Load quotas supplementary N Load -airborne € 329.000 Odense Improved nutrient management on agricultural fields to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution (Highland Areas) • Increased use of catch crops • Improved utilization of nutrients in manure • Reduced N and P fertilization N ,P Load quotas supplementary N Load -airborne € 532.000 Odense Cessation of agricultural land use to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution, creation of new habitats/nature (Highland Areas) • Recreation of forest and N,P Load permanent grassland Recreation of • Permanent grassland on habitats/nature potentially erosive areas supplementary € 942.000 Odense Cessation of agricultural land use to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution, recreation of habitats/nature (River N,P Load Valleys) Recreation of • Reestablishment of wetlands to habitats/nature improve nutrient retention supplementary € 2.048.000 Odense
vii Total cost of Measure PRB-AG WFD Type Pressure Targeted Measure (preliminary Name estimates) Reducing physical pressures on rivers and at the same time reducing the diffuse nutrient pollution to lakes/fjord and recreate nature/habitats (River Valleys) • Improved/natural • Cessation of agricultural land use hydromorphologi (permanent grassland) cal structure • River restoration (Re- • Recreation of meandering, removal of habitats/nature obstructions for fish migration, • N,P- load implantation of gravel and stones in river bed) • Cessation of river maintenance supplementary € 1.378.000 Odense Specific groundwater protection measures combined recreation of new habitats/nature • Nitrate leaching (Highland Areas) • Pesticide leaching • Cessation of agricultural land use (Permanent grassland) • Recreation of habitats/nature • Buffer zones of 300 meters around
groundwater wells without use of pesticides supplementary € 1.978.000 Odense Minimize erosion by land management; (e.g. Buffer strips) supplementary P Weser Cultivation restrictions (e.g. ploughing across the slope to minimize erosion) supplementary P Weser Reduced cultivations method (e.g. direct sowing, sowing crops in mulch, no ploughing) supplementary P Weser Extensive land use: grassland extensification (reduced number of livestock units) supplementary N Weser Extensive land use: arable land extensification (eg fertilizer use restrictions) supplementary N Weser
Conversion into organic farming supplementary N, P, pesticides Weser No cultivation of problem crops (e.g. intensively fertilized corn or potatoes) supplementary N Weser
Dietary manipulation supplementary N Ribble
Arable Reversion supplementary N, P, pesticides Ribble
Storage and treatment of manure supplementary N Ribble
Manure management supplementary N,P Ribble viii Total cost of Measure PRB-AG WFD Type Pressure Targeted Measure (preliminary Name estimates)
Fertilizer application timing supplementary N, P Fertilizers Ribble
Manure application timing supplementary N, P Ribble
Fertilizer application location supplementary N, P Fertilzer Ribble
Soil incorporation supplementary N, P Ribble Change slurry application technique from Broadcast supplementary P Ribble
Siting of manure heaps supplementary N, P Ribble
Change manure management system supplementary N, P Ribble
Limit livestock access to water courses supplementary animal Ribble Manage livestock tracks and congregating areas supplementary animal Ribble
Provide crop cover supplementary N Ribble
Avoid soil compaction/poaching damage supplementary Sediment/soil Ribble
Cultivation Management supplementary Sediment Ribble
Fertilizer Form supplementary N, P Fertilizers Ribble
Establish buffer zones supplementary N, P. Sediment Ribble
N, P Reduce hydrological connectivity supplementary hydromorphology Ribble Reducing pesticide pollution complying with the principles of good agricultural practice in plant protection pesticides Weser
ix
Actions Pressure Targeted PRB Name Grow healthy crops to optimise nutrient uptake N Ribble Reduce total farm livestock N Ribble N stabilizer / nitrification inhibitors N Weser Ploughless grassland renewal N Weser Grassland renewal without soil inversion N Weser Active fallow plot including greening in autumn N Weser Slurry spreading with towed umbilical hose, trailing shoe or slit injection (Fertilizer application techniques according to best practice methods) N Fertilizer Weser Calibrated manure and dung spreading (Fertilizer application techniques according to best practice methods) N Fertilizer Weser Spreading periods for slurry, liquid manure and poultry dung N Fertilizer Weser Additional fertilizer storage for manure (according to best practice methods) N Fertilizer Weser Renunciation of spreading slurry, liquid manure and poultry dung N Fertilizer Weser Catch crops: Optimized and increased use N load Odense Spring ploughing instead of autumn ploughing N load Odense Undersowing crops N, P Weser Conversion of arable into grassland N, P Weser Export manure off the farm N, P Ribble Catch crop cultivation N, P Weser
Evergreen system crop rotation to avoid fallow periods N, P Weser
Reduce fertilizer inputs N, P Fertilizers Ribble
Change fertilizer type N, P Fertilizers Ribble
Creation of riparian buffer strips, unused or extensively used P, hydromorphology Weser Reducing pesticide utilization by using mechanical techniques weed control methods pesticides Weser
Increased use of catch crops N Loads Odense N,P Loads - Improved utilization of nutrients in manure waterborne N Load -airborne Odense N,P loads Reduced livestock production/density N-Loads - airborne Odense Enclosed storage facilities for manure and silage, N,P and BOD loads including facilities to eliminate ammonia volatilization N loads – airborne and odour pollution Odour Odense Fertilization demands/requirements • Reduced N and P fertilization quotas • Phosphorus balance at field level • Reduced P fertilization quota in soils with high P N, P Loads Odense x content
Cultivation restrictions on potentially erosive areas • Permanent grassland P and sediment loads Odense Buffer zones (uncultivated) alongside surface waters (rivers, lakes, etc.) P and sediment loads Odense N, P Loads Cessation of agricultural land use in river valleys Recreation of • recreation of wetlands habitats/nature • permanent grassland Improved/natural • cessation of river maintenance hydromorphologic • river restoration including remeandering of river and al structure implantation of gravel and stones in river beds Odense N, P Loads Recreation of Cessation of agricultural land use – permanent habitats/nature grassland Odense N, P Loads Recreation of habitats/nature Cessation of agricultural land use – forest Odense N, P Loads Reduced or regulated drainage Odense
Spring ploughing instead of autumn ploughing N Load Odense Buffer zones of 300 meters around groundwater wells without use of pesticides Pesticide leaching Odense
xi Pressure PRB-AG Measure Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Targeted Name Fertilizer Form Use slowly N, P Fertilizers Ribble available N and P fertilizers Reduce fertilizer Use fertilizer Integrate fertilizer Introduce clover into Remove artificial N, P Fertilizers Ribble inputs recommendation with manure the grassland system fertilizers from system applications farm system Provide crop cover Undersow cover N Ribble crops Export manure off Take 50% of the Apply manure N, P Ribble the farm manure to farms according to that require extra Codes of Practice nutrients. on receiving farms Siting of manure Site manure heaps Site manure heaps N, P Ribble heaps away from water on concrete and courses and drains collect effluent
Re-establishment of Re-meandering of Restoration of Cessation or Extensification of Recreation of Improved/natural Odense natural rivers and regulated rivers gravel and stones minimization of river cultivation wetlands including hydromorphological river valleys and reopening of in river beds maintenance removal of structure culverted streams drainage in river valley allowing Recreation of flooding at high habitats/nature flows and infiltration of N,P- load drainage water Sediment load from adjacent highland areas Dietary manipulation Reduce/remove Reduce dietary N Manage feed regime N Ribble gut pathogens and P intake to improve utilisation (antibiotics, Cu)
xii Pressure PRB-AG Measure Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Targeted Name Avoid soil Reduce field Loosen compacted Cultivate crop stubbles Sediment/soil Ribble compaction/poaching stocking rates grassland fields to to reduce runoff risk damage when soils are wet reduce risk of runoff
Fertilization demands Phosphorus Reduced P P load Odense (P): balance at field fertilization quota level in soils with high P content Manage livestock Move livestock Woodchip tracks Re-site gateways in animal Ribble tracks and feeders/troughs and standings high risk areas congregating areas regularly Storage and Manure Composting of Batch storage of (i) 'Fill and draw' Anaerobic N Ribble treatment of manure incineration solid manure (>55 solid manure or (ii) storage of slurry digestion and oC for 3 days) slurry pasteurisation of slurry Aeration of slurry Lime additive to slurry Cover slurry store to reduce volume
Improved Utilization Livestock housing Manure storage manure applications N load (airborne) Odense of nutrients on Manure, Reduced ammonia volatilization Soil incorporation Incorporate Incorporate N, P Ribble fertilizer into soil slurry/solid manure into soil
xiii Pressure PRB-AG Measure Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Targeted Name Improved Utilization improved Storage requirements as to N, P loads Odense of nutrients on utilization of animal requirements (min manure application Manure fodder 12 months systems and max. capacity) amount of manure applied
Limit livestock Fence off rivers Provide bridges to animal Ribble access to water from livestock avoid fording courses Establish buffer Establish riparian Establish artificial Establish in field Install hedges and N, P. Sediment Ribble zones strip wetlands buffers make fields smaller Fertilizer application Do not apply N, P Fertilzer Ribble location fertilizer to well connect hydrological areas Reduce hydrological Cultivate land Allow drainage to N, P Ribble connectivity deteriorate hydromorphology
Cultivation Cultivate across Adopt minimal Leave seedbed rough Use soil stabilisers Avoid tramlines Sediment Ribble Management the slope cultivations and Maintain over winter organic matter levels Manure management Collect and store Minimise dirty yard N,P Ribble manure area Change manure Change from slurry N, P Ribble management system to solid manure handling systems
xiv Pressure PRB-AG Measure Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Targeted Name Change fertilizer type Change Use nitrification N, P Fertilizers Ribble ammonium nitrate inhibitor to calcium nitrate to reduce ammonium losses Reducing physical Cessation of River restoration essation of river Recreation of Improved/natural Odense pressures on rivers agricultural land (re-meandering, maintenance wetlands including hydromorphological and at the same time use (permanent removal of removal of structure reducing the diffuse grassland) obstructions for drainage in river nutrient pollution to fish migration, valley allowing Recreation of lakes/fjord and implantation of flooding at high habitats/nature recreation of nature gravel and stones flows (added value). in river bed) N,P- load
Improved nutrient Increased use of Improved Fertilization N,P loads Odense management on catch crops utilization of demands/requirements N load airborne agricultural fields to nutrients in • Reduced N and P reduce diffuse manure fertilization quotas nutrient pollution • Phosphorus balance (River Valleys and at field level Highland areas) • Reduced P fertilization quota in soils with high P content Cessation of Recreation of Permanent N,P- load Odense agricultural land use forest and grassland on to reduce diffuse permanent potentially erosive Recreation of nutrient pollution, grassland areas habitats/nature creation of new habitats/nature (Highland Areas)
xv Pressure PRB-AG Measure Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Targeted Name Cessation of Recreation of N,P- load Odense agricultural land use wetlands to in River Valleys to improve nutrient Recreation of recreate wetlands retention including habitats/nature reducing the diffuse removal of nutrient pollution and drainage in river recreate valley allowing habitats/nature flooding at high (added value) flows and infiltration of drainage water from adjacent highland areas Specific groundwater Cessation of Buffer zones of Nitrate leaching Odense protection measures agricultural land 300 meters around combined recreation use establishing groundwater wells Pesticide leaching of new permanent without use of habitats/nature grassland pesticides Recreation of (Highland Areas) habitats/nature
Change slurry Bandspread Shallow injection Deep injection P Ribble application technique from Broadcast
xvi Pressure PRB-AG Measure Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Targeted Name To Reduce point b) Supplying c) Building silage d) Fixing wastewater N, P, organic Pandivere pollution from manure storages; treatment in livestock substances livestock farms, bring transportation and farms. farms into spreading compliance with equipment; environmental requirements. Measure is directly linked with WFD and Nitrates and IPPC Directive and Estonian Water Act.
Manure application Avoid 'fresh' solid Avoid 'fresh' slurry N, P Ribble timing manure spreading spreading to fields to fields at times of at times of high high risk risk Action Plan 2004- 9) NVZ protection 6) ensuring 1) training of civil 8) coordination, 10) cooperation in N, P, organic Pandivere 2008 for Nitrate obligation notices protection of servants (ministries monitoring and the preparation of substances Vulnerable Zone. and reporting recharge areas of and services) evaluation programming Action Plan proceeds groundwater 2) compiling of document for from Nitrates intakes guidelines 2007-2013 Directive and Water 3) training of Act. The aim of agricultural advisors action plan is to 4) carrying out of pilot prevent negative studies impact of agricultural 5) training and management to the consulting in situ of surface and agricultural producers groundwater bodies in area
xvii Pressure PRB-AG Measure Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Targeted Name Potential types of 1. To increase the 4. To know % 7. To have efficient 10. To reduce 13. To organise pesticides, Gascogne measures have been efficiency of water contribution from equipment for diffuse pollutions the assessment of nitrogen, Rivers identified for the quality data N and P sources, pesticides application, by improving other the measures, phosphorus Adour-Garonne networks, 5. To define local 8. To decrease uses’ practices, 14. To anticipate district at the end of 2. To know adapted objectives ponctual pollutions, 11. To combine local crisis by good 2005. For pesticides, pesticides in order to reduce 9. To reduce diffuse measures in local data analysis and nitrates and consumption by pressures and pollutions by improving programs, a good phosphorus. 28 agriculture and impacts, agricultural practices, 12. To coordinate communication potential measures other uses, 6. To reduce all local projects on the district scale; 3. To know N and priority dangerous with each other, 14 of them can be P agricultural ways substances’ used on the local of application application (see scale (hydrographic WFD list) units)
xviii Currently used simple database fields:
Columns Name Type Size ID Long Integer 4 PRB-AG Name Text 255 Author/Name Text 255 Date Date/Time 8 Measure Text 255 Level hierarchy Text 50 Further short description Text 255 Actions general Text 255 Action 1 Text 255 Action 2 Text 255 Action 3 Text 255 Action 4 Text 255 Action 5 Text 255 WFD Type Basic Long Integer 4 WFD Type Supplementary Long Integer 4 Instrument Type Long Integer 4 Technical Type Long Integer 4 Pressure Targeted Text 255 Comments on pressures Text 255 Level of Management Source Control Long Integer 4 Mobilization Long Integer 4 Reduction of delivery Long Integer 4 Storage Long Integer 4 Technological Long Integer 4 land use/environment Long Integer 4 Comments on management class Text 255 Area Involved Text 255 Size of area Text 255 Temporal coverage Text 255 Comments on area and temp Text 255 Unitary Cost estimate Currency 8 Unitary cost descriptive Text 255 Total cost of Measure Currency 8 Total cast descriptive Text 255 Low Cost Effectiveness Long Integer 4 Medium Cost Effectiveness Long Integer 4 High Cost Effectiveness Long Integer 4 Status = implemented Long Integer 4 Related Directive Text 255 If Planned start Long Integer 4 Date of planned start Text 255 Mandatory/voluntary Long Integer 4 Mandatory Text 255 Voluntary Text 255 If Subsidy based Long Integer 4 Source of funding Text 255 Expected impact Text 255 Comments on impact Text 255 Research gaps Text 255 Related Indicators Text 255 General comments Text 255 tables and maps Text 255
xix (Page intentionally left blank) European Commission
EUR 22808 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability Title: Experiences in Analysis of Pressures and Impacts from Agriculture on Water Resources and Developing a related Programme of Measures - REPORT OF THE PILOT RIVER BASIN GROUP ON AGRICULTURE, Phase II period September 2005 – December 2006
Editor: M. Cherlet Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2007 – 188 pp. – 16.2 x 22.9 cm EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593 ISBN 978-92-79-06228-5
Abstract The network of PRBs on WFD and Agriculture provides practical information to the WFD Strategic Steering Group on Agriculure related to gathering evidence and information in relation to agricultural pressures and impacts on the environment, including the identification of information gaps; identification of opportunities to use the existing (and potential future) CAP measures for delivering WFD objectives, including further improvements of the implementation of CAP and WFD; identification other mechanisms (apart from CAP) for MS to meet WFD objectives; sharing on best approaches for engaging and educating farmers and the public about agricultural pressures; providing links between EU water, agriculture and rural agendas and authorities. The document reports on the PRB experiences on assessment of the importance of pressures and impacts from agriculture on water resources in view of proposing adopted Programmes of Measures. Methods and results as well as an intital Catalogue of Measures are illustrated to provide insight to other river basins and to stimulate political processes.
LB-NA-22808-EN-C The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of special interests, whether private or national.