Water Directors Meeting Update on the implementation of the Nitrates Directives

1. Water Directors MeetingUpdate on the implementation of the Nitrates Directives Michael Hamell Head of unit DG ENV Agriculture, Forests and Soil Copenhagen 04/06/2012

2. The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EC) • Objective: reducing water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and preventing further such pollution • Key elements: • Water monitoring • Identification of polluted waters or waters at risk • Designation of nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZ) • All land that drains into designated waters and contributes to pollution • MS may also opt to apply an action programme on the whole territory • Elaboration of codes of good agricultural practices • Voluntary outside NVZ • Obligatory in NVZ • Elaboration of action programmes • Set of measures, obligatory to be applied in NVZ • Nitrates Directive is the key cross-compliance and agri-env baseline directive • Not so much a daughter – more a PARENT together with UWWD

3. Designation of Nitrates Vulnerable Zones • Possible approaches • Designation of specific zones (all MS except those below with improvements in Spain, Italy, Belgium and Portugal in 2004-2008) • No designation of specific zones but implementation of the action programme on the whole territory (Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Austria, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia) • Several MS have yet to complete designation – notably some do not respect the requirement to designate all known areas of land which drain into waters affected by or which could be affected by pollution and which contribute to pollution.

5. Nitrates Directive What are monitoring results saying? • Ground waters (EU 27 -- 2004-2007) • 15% of stations – more than 50 ppm nitrate concentration • 6% of stations – 40-50 ppm nitrate concentration • 13% of stations – 25-40 ppm nitrate concentration • Very serious problems in BE, DE, DK, EL, ES, FR, LU, MT, NL, PT, UK – all more than 20% stations with more than 40ppm. • Concerns also for Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, Malta and Cyprus

6. Nitrates Directive What are monitoring results saying? • Surface waters (EU 27 -- 2004-2007) • 3% of stations – more than 50 ppm nitrate concentration • 3% of stations – 40-50 ppm nitrate concentration • 36% of stations – 10-40 ppm nitrate concentration • 37% of stations – 2-10 ppm nitrate concentration • 21% of stations – below 2 ppm nitrate concentration • Very serious problems in Malta, Belgium (Flanders), UK (England), France (Brittany), Czech Republic and Hungary

7. Nitrates Directive Trends 2004-2007 compared to 2000-2003 • Ground water - EU15 • Stable and decreasing – 66% • Upward – 34% • Trends increasing notably in BE, FR, ES, PT, IE, IT, UK • Surface water - EU15 • Stable and decreasing – 70% • Upward – 30% • Trends increasing in Luxemburg as well as west of England and part of PO delta • 33% of reported stations had eutrophic or hypertrophic status • For EU 12 MS providing trends – 9% increase

8. Designation and programmes worth to be done Designation still an issue for at least the following: Estonia, Latvia, Belgium (Wallonia), Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal (minor), Romania (minor), Slovakia, Sweden (minor) All action programmes in need of continuous review to ensure achievement of directives goals.

9. Manure Issues (1) • Need for adequate storage for closed periods and a very wide safety margin • Several MS now moving beyond 6 months storage • Skimping on storage requirements will lead to future problems of achieving goals and getting construction support under EU funding • DG ENV recognises need for gradual installation approach for funding reasons for EU12 but we need to complete task

10. Manure Issues (2) • Manure processing particularly for biogas is presenting new challenges as well as potential benefits • Leading to some increased manure concentration as farm produced feed is replaced by bought in feed. Thus more manure at regional level in areas with problems today! • Leading to efforts to improve market opportunities for processed N and drier solid manure with a high P content. • Stretching polluter pays boundaries as farmers seek EU/National support for processing. Biogas may not be long term economic! • Most processing does not change the N and P content. It makes no contribution to reducing pollution pressure except when processed manure replaces inorganic fertilizer or is exported from the region.

11. Manure Issues (3) • Manure production per animal • Variation in production inevitable based on yields, feed regime and livestock management but wide gaps between adjacent regions with similar yield, feed and management difficult to justify.E.g. for dairy cows in NW Europe, the upper figure is approximately 130 kg N/dairy cow/year yield 7500 lts. • Several MS need to revise upwards their assessment of manure production particularly per dairy cow. • Without correct production coefficients the limits in the directive are undermined and the achievements of its subjectives much more difficult.

12. Manure Issues • Efficiency and spreading techniques • DK/NL lead way with up to 70% N efficiency for pig and poultry slurries and 50-60% for cattle manure • Spreading techniques need to move to low ammonia emissions to respect future reductions in limits. RD programmes should support only tracking shoe/injection systems • If MS don't insist on high N efficiency – farmers will continue to misuse manure • Controls on manure movement off farm • Essential to avoid malpractice • GPS or administrative plus spot checks • Real need for effective control notably in highly intensive livestock regions for sustainable farming. • Realistic in future to require GPS systems for all farms with a significant manure export.

13. Other issues • Overall fertilisation: most MS now have upper limits on both inorganic and organic fertilize use. It provides more certaintyfor producers and controllers. • Fertilization – distances from water coursesdifficult issue but most MS have established basic distances of 1,5 to 2 m for inorganic fertilizer spread and some of up to 20 m for organic manures • Green covergradual recognition of importance and inclusion in several APs • Slopes/outdoor manure storage – need for more vigilance • Phosphorusseveral MS have incorporated P use limitations in their APse.g. NL, IE, DK

14. Derogations • Not APANACEA nor a weakening of the objectives of the directive • Extra obligations on farmers • Fertilization plans/record • Annual authorization/stricter controls • Extra land mgt requirements • MS reports annually on implementation of derogations • Currently UK, IE, DK, NL, BE (Flanders), DE have derogations • Information on water quality and improvement of Action Programmes a pre-requisite for successful derogation requests. • THERE ARE NO GARANTEES THAT DEROGATIONS WILL BE ROLLED OVER.

15. Nitrates Directive • Future approaches (1) • No reason (political or otherwise) to delay complete designation • The monitoring results for 2008-2011 and their comparison to previous periods must determine amendments/improvements to AP's • Article 5.5 of directive requires additional measures of the AP if specified measures are not sufficient to achieve the directive's objectives • Twenty one years (5 AP in EU15, 3 in EU10 and 2 in EU2) should be sufficient to begin to deliver improved water quality. Therefore MS need to use art. 5.5 in regions where there is little or non-improvement.

16. Nitrates Directive • Future approaches (2) • For certain regions of various MS such as sandy, karstic, peat - implementation of the directive will need reinforced measures - derogations will be more difficult in these regions • Derogations will continue to depend on fully conforming APs • The upcoming Commission green paper on Phosphorus will provide a new opportunity to look at its use on the farm and how it can be improved. Essential that water directors respond to it. Thankyou!