Wim Chardon (NL), Oscar Schoumans (NL), Louise Heathwaite (UK),
description
Transcript of Wim Chardon (NL), Oscar Schoumans (NL), Louise Heathwaite (UK),
Mitigation Options for Nutrient Reduction in Surface Water and Groundwaters
at River Basin Scale in order to Reach Targets of the
Water Framework Directive
COST action 869
Wim Chardon (NL), Oscar Schoumans (NL),
Louise Heathwaite (UK),Brian Kronvang (Dk), Seppo Rekolainen (Fi)
1. 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
Content
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)
Objectives of the WFD
To establish a framework for the protection of inland surfacewaters, 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 droughts5. Provision of sufficient supply of good quality of water
In general: Protection and improvement of the quality of water
Introduction
WFD: River Basin Planning Requirements
2006 Set up National Monitoring Programmes
2009 Finalise and publish first RBMP’s with measures
2011 Measures fully operational
2015 Achieve environmental objecives in first RBMP’s
Introduction
Period 2006 – 2011 is a crucial period for implementing mitigation options.
So, the time is right (2006-2010)
IntroductionEutrophication status of surface watersSectorial contribution to N and P loads in the Baltic Sea and North
Sea
Source: European Environment Agency, 2003
IntroductionEutrophication status of surface watersPercentage of rivers classified as less than good in different European countries
Source: European Environment Agency, 2003
Introduction
Introduction
Needs of end users
– 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
Introduction
DG Environment, unit agriculture:
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
Introduction
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
1. 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
Content
√
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…
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
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
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)
Transport controls on P loss
Erosion reduced 95%
1980 1985 1990 1995
Conventionaltill wheat
Convertedto no-till
Total P
mg/ L
6
4
2
0
-
-
Transport controls on P and N loss
Conventionaltill wheat
1980 1985 19951990Conventional
till wheat
1980 1985 19951990
Nitrate, mg/ L Algal-available P, mg/L
30
20
10
0
0.5
1.0
0
I nfi ltration increased 33%
Convertedto no-till
Convertedto no-till
The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix
www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/cswm
Groundwater examples
medium – high risk groundwater scenario
The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix
Groundwater examples
low - medium risk groundwater scenario
The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix
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 Lake phytoplankton response to nutrient
additions
0
25
50
75
100
Paddition
Naddition
N+Paddition
%
resp
ondi
ng t
o nu
trie
nt
addi
tion
Elser et al
Response of laboratory 'weed' alga (Selenastrum )
to nutrient additions
0
25
50
75
100
P addition N addition
%
resp
ondi
ng t
o nu
trie
nt
addi
tion
OECD report
Miller et al
Source: Foy et al., 2004
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
Potential for P reduction- inland waters only
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention
tonn
es P
yr -1
agriculture agriculture
urban sewered
urban sewered
rural septic tanks
rural septic tanksUrban run off
Overall reduction of
31%
Agriculture by 25%
Human derived P by 46%
Cost effectiveness/delivery times
€/kg
High
Low
Years1 10
fenced riparian buffer zones
Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets
Non P laundry detergent
Source: Annett et al., 2004
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
• P surplus 14.8 kg P ha-1
• P surplus increasing
• gross annual P surplus 13,074 tonnes
• 276 waste water treatment works –13 with P removal
• 63% of lakes eutrophic or hypertrophic
0 - 0.01 mg SRP /L> 0.01 - 0.02 mg SRP /L>0.02 - 0.035 mg SRP /L>0.035 - 0.065 mg SRP /L>0.065 - 0.1 mg SRP /L> 0.1 mg SRP /L
0.311.513.927.020.826.6
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION % RIVER LENGTH
AVERAGE PHOSPHORUS 2000
10 0 10 20 Kilometres
N
EW
S
3%4%2%
5% 1%
44%41%
agricultureurban sewered
rainfall to watersrural septic tanks
industrial point sourcediffuse urban
other diffuse
Proposed Cost Action
No country No country No country1 AT 10 GR 19 NO2 CH 11 HU 20 PO3 CZ 12 IE 21 PL4 DE 13 IL 22 PT5 DK 14 IT 23 RO6 EE 15 LT 24 SE7 ES 16 LU 25 SK8 FI 17 LV 26 UK9 FR 18 NL
Participating countries (n=26; status July 2005)
Proposed Cost Action(tentative timetable)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011StartInaugural MC Meeting (elections)
1st annual workshopPlanning and Start of WGs
MCProgress Report
Evaluation Workshop (Dk)
MC WG outcome reports
Progress ReportPlanning of WGs activities
MC Meeting Progress
ReportMC
Progress Report
Final report
wg2: phase 2: evaluation of the impact of reduction in loads
wg4 phase 2: applicability of mitigation options at catchments scalewg3 phase 2: cost-effectiveness of mitigation options
Overview available information, filling in website
Analyses of desk studies, modeling and monitoring existing activities within WG's
Overview available information, filling in website
wg1: phase 1; comparison of methodologies CSA
wg3 phase 1; overview potential mitigigation optionswg4 phase 1: state of the art of experiences with mitigation options
Set up phase 2
Applications and testing
wg2: phase 1: processes in surface waters, indicators, critical values
wg1: phase 2: application of CSA methodologies under different conditions
Management organisation
Steering CommitteeChair & Vice-chair +
WG’s coordinators & end-user representative
MC CommitteeChair & Vice-chair +
Country representatives
WG1Critical Source
Area
WG3Mitigation
Options
WG2EcologicalAspects
WG4Effectiveness River Basins
Proposed Cost Action
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
1. 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
Content
√
√
Thank you for your attention
Questions?
Questions?
Questions?
Questions?
Proposed Cost Action
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
Promote sustainable water
use
Promote sustainable water
use
Protect and enhance status
of the water environment
Protect and enhance status
of the water environment
River Basin Planning
Ecological objectives
Integrating surface & ground
waters
Phosphorus Fluxes in UK Agriculture
Phosphorus Fluxes in UK Agriculture
Fertilizer74% Meat
56%
Milk
25%
Grain19%
Sewage sludge
3%
Feed
20%Atmosphere
3%
Inputs
234 000 tonnes
Outputs57 000 tonnes
P surplus: 177 000 tonnes (c. 10 kg ha-1 a-1)
Nutrient export
surface models
subsurface models
farm track
watertable
variable source area
permanently saturated
area
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
Potential for P reduction- inland waters only
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention
tonn
es P
yr -1
agriculture agriculture
urban sewered
urban sewered
rural septic tanks
rural septic tanksUrban run off
Overall reduction of
31%
Agriculture by 25%
Human derived P by 46%
Source: Annett et al., 2004
Cost effectiveness/delivery times
€/kg
High
Low
Years1 10
fenced riparian buffer zones
Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets
Non P laundry detergent
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
Potential for P reduction- inland waters only
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention
tonn
es P
yr -1
agriculture agriculture
urban sewered
urban sewered
rural septic tanks
rural septic tanksUrban run off
Overall reduction of
31%
Agriculture by 25%
Human derived P by 46%
Source: Annett et al., 2004
Cost effectiveness/delivery times
€/kg
High
Low
Years1 10
fenced riparian buffer zones
Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets
Non P laundry detergent
Watertable
Variable Source Area
Critical Source Area (CSA)
Drained Watertable
CSAsHydrologically Disconnected
HydrologicallyConnected
Delineation of Critical Landscape Zones
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
Potential for P reduction- inland waters only
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention
tonn
es P
yr -1
agriculture agriculture
urban sewered
urban sewered
rural septic tanks
rural septic tanksUrban run off
Overall reduction of
31%
Agriculture by 25%
Human derived P by 46%
Source: Annett et al., 2004
Cost effectiveness/delivery times
€/kg
High
Low
Years1 10
fenced riparian buffer zones
Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets
Non P laundry detergent