Regulating Nitrate Pollution – European Approaches Helle Tegner Anker Faculty of Life Sciences Copenhagen University

Outline  What’s the problem Environmental problem(s) Regulatory problem(s)  EU regulation of nitrate pollution Environmental quality perspective Project or activity perspective  Implementation in the Member States  Appropriate and coherent regulatory approach?

Nitrate – environmental problems  Nitrate in drinking water a health problem  Nitrate in surface water – eutrophication an ecological problem (water quality and biodiversity) NB: phosphorus!

Nitrate – regulatory problems  Regulatory problems Non-point source (diffuse) pollution regulation Point source pollution regulation Combining non-point source and point source pollution regulation!  Agriculture is the main contributor to nitrate pollution of water (50-70 %) Spreading of manure and other fertilizers Leakage from farm installations, storage facilities etc.

Nitrate in EU river basins

Global nitrogen outlook

EU regulation of nitrate pollution  Regulating environmental quality The 2000/60 Water Framework Directive (WFD)  Replacing earlier water quality directives The 1992/43 Habitats Directive  Does not specifically address nitrate pollution The 1991/676 Nitrates Directive  Agricultural nitrate pollution of water (mainly non- point sources)  Regulating livestock installations (project approach) The 1996/61 (2008/1) IPPC Directive  To be repealed by the 2010/75 Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) by 7 July 2014 The 1985/337 EIA Directive (1997/11-amendment)

Environmental quality objectives – Habitats Directive  Favourable conservation status Annex I habitat types Annex II species  How? Designated protection areas – Natura 2000 Article 6:  1. Take active measures to maintain or achieve objectives  2. Curtail existing harmful activities to avoid deterioration  3. Assess any new project or plan and only authorise if no reasonable doubt as to the absence of negative effects  4. Exemption clause – overriding public interests

Environmental quality objectives - WFD  General objectives, e.g. – art. 4 Good ecological status by 2015 (2027)  No or limited deviation from natural state Good chemical status by 2015 (2027)  Max. 50 mg nitrate/l (groundwater – Groundwater Directive) Certain exemptions  How: River basin management plan – art. 13 Programme of measures – art. 11  Address both point and non-point sources Combined approach – art. 10  Links up to the Nitrates Directive and the IPPC Directive  More strict emission control if necessary to achieve the quality objectives

Nitrates Directive  Designation of nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) Exceed/could exceed 50 mg/l nitrates Eutrophic or potentially eutrophic Alternatively a whole territory approach  Codes of good agricultural practice  Action programmes Binding in NVZ’s (or whole territory) Basic measures, e.g.  Max. 170 kg N/ha, balanced fertilization, storage capacity etc. (non-point source pollution) Supplementary measures when necessary  Implementation deficits in some Member States

The project approach – regulating livestock installations  The IPPC Directive – 2008/1 (1996/91)  Permit for industrial installations, e.g. large pig/poultry installations BAT + emission limit values  Point sources only? Does an ”installation” include manure spreading?  Probably not  IE Directive: postponed for later discussion

The project approach …  The EIA Directive – 1985/ /11 Environmental impact assessment of certain projects  Annex I mandatory, e.g. large pig/poultry installations  Annex I screening/threshold, e.g. ”intensive livestock installations” Wide project concept  all integral parts of the project  manure spreading may be an integral part of a project Point and non-point source pollution should be assessed  NB: Habitats Directive article 6(3)

Implementation in selected Member States  Denmark: Integrated livestock permit and EIA (+ habitat assessment) Manure spreading is an integral part of assessment and permit (+ regulated by general rules) Difficult to assess the effects of manure spreading at individual farm level Regulatory deadlock!  The Netherlands: Integrated permit and EIA (+ habitat assessment) Manure spreading is generally not included (regulated by general rules only)

Implementation in selected Member States  Germany Integrated permit and EIA (+ habitat assessment) Manure spreading in compliance with general requirements (+ Natura 2000 requirements) shall be documented  UK Separate permit and EIA (+ habitat assessment) Manure spreading is included in EIA and possibly also in a permit

Project and/or environmental quality approach?  A project approach does not solve the nitrate problem Manure spreading is not necessarily directly linked to the livestock installation A focus on manure spreading is too limited – fertilizer use in general should be addressed  A need to focus on the environmental quality perspective Targeted nitrate regulation Combined with permit control mechanisms  E.g. German approach

Appropriate and coherent regulatory approach?  Clear environmental objectives Linked to the WFD and the Habitats Directive  Differentiated measures Depending upon environmental sensitivity (extended NVZ system) Basic and supplementary measures  Control/documentation requirement in project permits/assessments Clear project definition