N-surpluses and handling of the Water Framework Directive

in Sweden

Hans Nilsson

Swedish Board of Agriculture

Average N-surplus from nutrient balances in Greppa Näringen,

2000-2004

50

130

89

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Plant production 1200 farms

Milk production1300 farms0,94 a.e./ha

Pig production300 farms0,7 a.e./ha

N-s

urp

lus (

kg

N/h

a)

N-surplus in plant production- Correlation to area

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Area (ha)

N-s

urp

lus

(kg

pe

r h

a)

N-surplus in plant production- Correlation to soil texture (% sand)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<30 % sand >30 % sand

N-s

urp

lus

, kg

N p

er

ha

N-surplus on farms milk production

900 farms without manure import/export

y = 89,842x + 45,702

R2 = 0,426

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Animal equivalents per ha (a.e/ha)

N-s

urp

lus,

kg

N p

er h

a

N-surplus on farms milk production - slurry vs farmyard manure (FYM)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

slurry FYM

N-s

urp

lus

, kg

N/t

on

ne

milk

N-surplus on farms with pig production

y = 32,268x + 68,902

R2 = 0,1632

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5

Animal equivalents (a.e.)/ha

N-s

urp

lus

(kg

N/h

a)

Calculations at SLU have shown that

• N-leaching from arable land decreased by 7000 tonnes or 12% in the period 1995-2003

• Average N-leaching decreased from 21.8 to 20.0 kg N/ha arable land

• The goal is 7500 tonnes by 2010

• The goal is 93% fulfilled already

Source: Beräkning av förändringar av kväveutlakning från åkermark mellan 1995 och 2003PM from SJV, Magnus Bång, 2005

Reasons for decreased N-leaching

a Decreased arable land areab Increased nitrogen use efficiencyc Use of catch crops and decreased autumn tillage d Increased proportion of manure spread in springe Changes in crop rotation

Decreased N-leaching in different regions

West East North

Investigation by SCB(Statistiska Centralbyrån)

• Nitrogen balance for arable land– N-surplus 2003 = 46 kg N/ha

(decrease of 4% from 2001)• Input 123 kg N/ha• Output 77 kg N/ha

• Nitrogen balance including animal production– Total N-surplus 2003 = 168 ktonnes or 54 kg

N/ha(decrease of 8% from 2001)

Source: Kväve- och fosforbalanser för jordbruksmark och jordbrukssektor 2003, Rapport MI40SM0501 , SCB 2005, Link

The Water Framework Directive (WFD)

• Legislation for protection of all water bodies in Europe– Lakes, Rivers, Coastal Waters, Groundwater (drinking water)– Sweden has over 85,000 lakes >1 ha and over 60,000 rivers.

Lakes >50 ha and rivers >1000 ha are going to characterize water protection areas

• Good water status before 2015, but exceptions can be accepted for Heavily Modified Bodies.

• Based on the state of reference, intercalibrated between the countries in EU

• The water shall have a price and the polluter has to pay? PPP (Polluter Pays Principle).

Timetable

• 2003 Constuction of water administration boards in Sweden. 5 regions

• 2004 The first basis analysis, preliminary goals for the environment

• 2006 Publish and consult on timetable and work programmes for the

production of river management plans

• 2006 Intercalibration

• 2007 Publish and consult on significant water management issues for each

river basin district

• 2008 Publish and consult on drafts of the river basin management plans

• 2009 First water plan to be fulfilled

• 2012 Water plan operational

• 2015 Main environmental objectives to be fulfilled

• 2027 Last chance to meet the objectives after 2x6 year postponements

THE SWEDISH WATERADMINISTRATIONUTREDNINGEN SVENSK VATTENADMINISTRATION

Bothnien Bay

Bothnien Sea

Northern Baltic Sea

Southern Baltic Sea

Kattegatt/Skagerrak”West sea”

THE SWEDISH WATER ADMINISTRATION

5 river basin districts

Questions

• What is good water status?• What does Heavily Modified Bodies

mean in different countries ?• How is PPP going to work?

Good water status

Intercalibration

• All member states have identified water bodies with high and good ecological status

• In 2006 the EU Commission will inter- calibrate the sites, which means the same objectives will apply for the same types of water bodies in all member states

Present and future (WFD) environmental objectives

No or very little deviation from unaffected conditions

Little deviation from unaffected conditions

Moderate deviation from unaffected conditions

Unsatisfactory status

High status

Good status

Moderate status

Bad status

EQR=0

EQR=1

Intercalibration 2006

EQR =Observed value

Reference value

Quality factors for classification of ecological status

Biology• Aquatic flora

(macrophytes)• Bottom fauna• Fish

Phys/chem• Water temp

• Oxygenation

• Salinity

• pH, alk, ANC

• Nitrogen, Phosphorus

• Toxic substances

Hydromorp• Hydrological

condition

• Continuity

• Morphological condition

One out, all out principle

Use of quality factors for classifying ecological status

High

Biology

Phys-chem

Hydro-morph

Moderate

Biology

Unsatis- factory

Bad

Phys-chem

Phys-chem

Phys-chem

Hydro-morph

Hydro-morph

Hydro-morph

Biology Biology

Hydro-morph

Good

Biology

Phys-chem

Not available in WFD

Identified sensitive areas in EU:s Nitrate Directive

Sensitive areas in Swedenaccording to the Nitrate Directive

Problem in theBaltic sea?Phosphorus

+Nitrogen

Problem on theWest coast?

Nitrogen +

Phosphorus

Exceptions according toHeavy Modified Water Bodies

Proportion of the flowing water that is characterized as Heavy Modified Water Bodies

Unpublished material

• Belgian, average: 41%• Denmark, ? • Finland: 25% (km)• France: 26%• Ireland: 39%• Netherlands, average: 57%• Norway: 14%• Great Britain, average: 36%• Sweden: 8%• Germany: 37%

Source: Anna Mcarthur, Federation of Swedish Farmers, unpublished

approx.

Criteria in Sweden

• Lakes with more than 3 m regulation depth

• Lakes that were significantly lowered 1960 or later

• Large dams for electricity production

• Largest harbours

PPP in WFD

Who has to pay and how is the price going to be established?

Some thoughts from LRF* in Sweden on how to divide PPP between the producer and the consumer

-

Residual leakage

1. Catch crop

2. Irrigation

3. Optimized fertilization

4. Minimized tillage

0

10

20

30

40

50

Kg

N /

ha

Example : Potatoes

* Federation of Swedish Farmers

Some thoughts from LRF* in Sweden how to divide PPP between

the producer and the consumer

0

10

20

30

40

50

Kg

N /

ha

This leakage depends on HOW the farmer grows his potatoes

This leakage is due to THAT potatoes is grown and is only affected by consumption.

Example : Potatoes

* Federation of Swedish Farmers

Some thoughts from LRF* in Sweden how to divide PPP between

the producer and the consumer

0

10

20

30

40

50

Kg

N /

ha

Who is going to pay for the HOW-part?

Who is going to pay for the THAT-part?

Example : Potatoes

* Federation of Swedish Farmers

Thank you for your attention