Wim Chardon (NL), Oscar Schoumans (NL), Louise Heathwaite (UK),

1. Mitigation Options for Nutrient Reduction in Surface Water and Groundwaters at River Basin Scale in order to Reach Targets of the Water Framework DirectiveCOST action 869 Wim Chardon (NL), Oscar Schoumans (NL), Louise Heathwaite (UK), Brian Kronvang (Dk), Seppo Rekolainen (Fi)

2. Content • Introduction / background information • EC Directives, Conventions, River Commissions • Objectives of the Water Framework Directive • Eutrophication status of surface waters • Needs of end users • European Research Networks 2. Proposed COST action • Objectives • Work packages • Management organisation • Dissemination

3. Introduction EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES (impact of nutrient emissions) Water: Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) • Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) • Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) • Waste framework: (75/442/EEC amended by 91/156/EEC) • Dangerous substances: (76/464/EEC) Soil: Soil quality / Soil Framework Directive (next year  implementation 2007/2008)? Air: No overall Directive • National Emissions Ceilings directive (2001/81/EC) • IPPC directive (96/61/EC) • Target to reduce ammonia emissions from agriculture (93% EU total) • Air quality (1999/30/EC). Nature: No overall Directive • Conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC). • Conservation of Natural Habitats (92/43/EEC) MARINE CONVENTIONS (OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona) TRANSBOUNDARY RIVER COMMISSIONS (e.g. Rhine and Danube)

4. Introduction Objectives of the WFD To establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater 1. Prevent further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems 2. Promotes sustainable water use based on long-term protection of available water resources 3. Ensures the reduction of pollution of groundwater and surface waters 4. Contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts 5. Provision of sufficient supply of good quality of water In general: Protection and improvement of the quality of water

5. Introduction WFD: River Basin Planning Requirements Period 2006 – 2011 is a crucial period for implementing mitigation options. So, the time is right (2006-2010)

6. Sectorial contribution to N and P loads in the Baltic Sea and North Sea Introduction Eutrophication status of surface waters Source: European Environment Agency, 2003

7. Percentage of rivers classified as less than good in different European countries Introduction Eutrophication status of surface waters Source: European Environment Agency, 2003

8. Introduction

9. Introduction

10. Introduction Needs of end users DG Environment, unit agriculture: • to support load partitioning assessments • to help identify risk areas (e.g. phosphorus vulnerable zones)) • to predict trends in water quality • to develop Action Programmes / RBMP • to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation options (including interaction between P and N) • to evaluate actions needed to achieve Directive objectives Relevant for: Policy makers / RB managers / catchments officers / community groups

11. Introduction European Research Networks COST 623 “Soil Erosion and Global Change” (1998-2003) COST 634 “On- and Off-site Environmental impacts of runoff and erosion” (2003-2008) COST 856 “Denitrification in agriculture, air and water pollution” (2002-2007) COST 832 “Quantifying the Agricultural Contribution to Eutrophication” (1997-2003) International Phosphorus Workgroup (about 20 EC-countries; Australia, New Zealand, USA) • Wexford, 1995 • Antrim, 1997 • Plymouth, 2001 • Wageningen, 2004 • Silkeborg, 2007 Outcome of “IPW4 in Wageningen: Urgent need of a new cost action: Focus on mitigation options in relation to sources and pathways of the eutrophication of surface waters

12. Content √ • Introduction / background information • EC Directives, Conventions, River Commissions • Objectives of the Water Framework Directive√ • Eutrophication status of surface waters • Needs of end users • European Research Networks 2. Proposed COST action • Objectives • Work packages • Management organisation • Dissemination

13. Proposed Cost Action What have we learnt so far? Wide range of situations: • High variability due to differences in climate, landscape, land use, land management, and socio-economic and political factors • Importance of scale with respect to sources, pathways and processes (in and over land) and scale issues in socio-economic drivers… • Contribution of agricultural to the eutrophication of surface waters is, therefore, complex to explain and difficult to manage • Focus was on local scale (field scale) mainly dealing with surface runoff pathways. Need for appropriate and cost-effective mitigation options at different scales (local – regional – river basin) So, we have to bring different disciplines together…

14. Proposed Cost Action Main objectives • To evaluate options for reducing nutrient loss to surface waters at river basin scale • To derive information on the optimal combinations of mitigation options in terms of applicability and cost effectiveness

15. Proposed Cost Action Planned working groups • WG1: Localisation of critical source areas at different scales • WG2: Influence of nutrients on ecological processes in surface waters • WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales • WG4: Evaluation of projects in example areas across the EU

16. Proposed Cost Action WG1: Localisation of critical source areas (CSA) • Space: To develop methodologies for localising critical source areas and hydrological transport routes within a river basin • Time: To study the temporal dynamics of nutrient losses and scope for reducing nutrient losses (including the interactions between nutrients)

17. The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/cswm

18. The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix Groundwater examples medium – high risk groundwater scenario

19. The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix Groundwater examples low - medium risk groundwater scenario

20. Proposed Cost Action WG2: Influence of nutrients in surface water systems • To study the influence of nutrients on ecological processes in surface waters within river basins (at different scales) • To study the influence of ecology on the choice of mitigation options Source: Foy et al., 2004

21. Proposed Cost Action WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales • To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an economical, environmental and social perspective Source: Annett et al., 2004

22. Proposed Cost Action WG4: Evaluation of projects in example areas across the EU • To study example areas within Europe, where mitigation can be tested and the effectiveness may be monitored • To evaluate existing or finished projects on mitigation, what did work, and what did not, what could be improved

23. Proposed Cost Action Participating countries (n=26; status July 2005)

24. Proposed Cost Action(tentative timetable)

25. Proposed Cost Action Management organisation MC Committee Chair & Vice-chair + Country representatives Steering CommitteeChair & Vice-chair +WG’s coordinators & end-user representative WG1Critical SourceArea WG3Mitigation Options WG4Effectiveness River Basins WG2EcologicalAspects

26. Proposed Cost Action Dissemination • Website containing results of the cost-effectiveness of mitigation options at different scales • Set up a cross disciplinary network of researchers dealing with the WFD with respect to nutrients • Contribution to a special issue based on outcome of COST 832 and IPW • Contribution to the next IPW meeting in 2007 (Dk) and 2010 • Small groups of end users will be invited to COST workshops • Set up advisory packages / look up tables / guidance notes for end users • Scientific papers or a special issue of an international journal by the end of the COST action

27. Content √ • Introduction / background information • EC Directives, Conventions, River Commissions • Objectives of the Water Framework Directive√ • Eutrophication status of surface waters • Needs of end users • European Research Networks 2. Proposed COST action • Objectives • Work packages • Management organisation • Dissemination √ Thank you for your attention

28. Questions?

30. Questions?

31. Questions?

32. Questions?

34. Proposed Cost Action

35. Introduction WFD: Why? Source EC: Less than 1% of planet’s water is available for human consumption • 20% of all surface waters is seriously threatened with pollution (EU) • groundwater supplies around 65% of all European’s drinking water • 60% of European cities overexploit their groundwater resources • 50% of wetlands have “endangered status” due to ground water over-exploitation • The area of irrigated land in Southern Europe has increased by 20% since 1985

36. Protect and enhance status of the water environment River Basin Planning Integrating surface & ground waters Ecological objectives Promote sustainable water use

37. Phosphorus Fluxes in UK Agriculture Inputs Outputs 57 000 234 000 tonnes tonnes Milk Fertilizer 25% 74% Meat 56% Grain Feed 19% 20% Sewage Atmosphere sludge 3% 3% P surplus: 177 000 tonnes (c. 10 kg ha-1 a-1)

38. farm track surface models variable source area permanently saturated area watertable Nutrient export subsurface models

39. Proposed Cost Action WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales • To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an cost/economical, environmental and social perspective Source: Annett et al., 2004

40. Proposed Cost Action WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales • To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an cost/economical, environmental and social perspective Source: Annett et al., 2004

41. CSAs Hydrologically Disconnected Hydrologically Connected Delineation of Critical Landscape Zones Critical Source Area (CSA) Watertable Variable Source Area Drained Watertable

42. Proposed Cost Action WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales • To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an economical, environmental and social perspective Source: Annett et al., 2004