Long Term Nutrient Loads Entering European Seas

In 2008, DG ENV invited the JRC to conduct a three year study on the impact of EU environmental legislation on nutrient loads to European Seas. The objective of the study was to perform a long term retrospective analysis (20 years) of land based nutrient loads in European Seas to assess the effectiveness of the EU environmental policies and other management plans adopted by countries with rivers discharging in European Seas, and assess future scenarios linked to alternative management plans different policies to control nutrient loading. The focus is both on the nutrient loading to the sea and the inland response to various policies. The first phase of the study focused on setting up the methodology for year 2000. The work concentrated on data collection and model development. The present report focused on the retrospective analysis including trend analysis (1985-2005). The report describes the change in time of the nutrient loads and their origin, entering European Seas.JRC.DDG.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resource

Spatialised European Nutrient Balance

This report describes the estimation of the spatialised nutrient inputs from agriculture and nutrient surplus at the soil surface. Statistical agricultural data from the Farm Structure Survey (FSS) were linked to the spatial information of the CORINE Land Cover 2000 map, producing a European map (EU15) of land use including the crop spatial distribution, consistent with the official crops areas reported by FSS. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs on soils originating from agriculture were estimated for EU15, and then spatialised based on the land use map, providing European maps of nitrogen and phosphorus mineral fertiliser input, manure application and gross balance at 10 km2 resolution. These maps allow the assessment of nutrient pressures originating from agriculture and constitute a reliable data layer for risk analysis and for process-based models, addressing water and soil qualityJRC.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resource

50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: the relationship between yield and nitrogen input to cropland

International audienceNitrogen (N) is crucial for crop productivity. However, nowadays more than half of the N added to cropland is lost to the environment, wasting the resource, producing threats to air, water, soil and biodiversity, and generating greenhouse gas emissions. Based on FAO data, we have reconstructed the trajectory followed, in the past 50 years, by 124 countries in terms of crop yield and total nitrogen inputs to cropland (manure, synthetic fertilizer, symbiotic fixation and atmospheric deposition). During the last five decades, the response of agricultural systems to increased nitrogen fertilization has evolved differently in the different world countries. While some countries have improved their agro-environmental performances, in others the increased fertilization has produced low agronomical benefits and higher environmental losses. Our data also suggest that, in general, those countries using a higher proportion of N inputs from symbiotic N fixation rather than from synthetic fertilizer have a better N use efficiency

Report on the biogeochemical model of the North-Western European Shelf

The report presents the background of the newly developed marine model covering the North and Celtic Sea. The 3d-model includes all relevant hydrodynamical drivers (tides, currents, water temperature and salinity) and a biogeochemical model of the lower trophic foodweb including essential dissolved nutrients (nitrate, ammonium, phosphate, silicate, carbon and oxygen) and several phytoplankton groups. The moel results are mainly assessed for the indicators, used for the assessment of descriptor 5 ("eutrophication") within the EU Marine Strategy Framwork Directive (MSFD). The coupled model was used to simulate the present state (covering the period 2005 - 2012) and its results are compared and validated, using a variety of different datasets of observations.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

Modelling nutrient pollution in the Danube River Basin: a comparative study of SWAT, MONERIS and GREEN models

The Water Framework Directive requires the development and implementation of river basin management plans for improving the ecological status of freshwater bodies throughout Europe. The scientific community supports this process by developing decision-support tools for identifying the principal sources of water pollution. Models, however, are imperfect representations of the real world, and are conditioned by structural uncertainty, implicit in the description of biophysical processes, and data uncertainty, as well as in the various restrictions of the environmental data the models were developed. Hence, decision makers must plan management actions on the basis of the best available, however still incomplete, knowledge. The comparison of independent assessments may offer insights that are useful for decision-making, e.g. for identifying knowledge gaps, identifying data uncertainties, consolidating investigation results, and increasing stakeholders’ acceptance. The Danube River is the second largest and most international river of Europe. Its basin covers approximately 803,000 km2 of Central and South-Eastern Europe and is shared by 19 countries. Within the context of fostering scientific collaboration in the Danube region and under the auspices of the International Commission for the Danube River Protection (ICPDR), three independent model (SWAT, MONERIS and GREEN) were compared with the objective of reaching a shared appraisal of nutrient pressures and drivers in the Danube Basin. Annual water discharge (Flow, m3/s) as well as annual loads of total nitrogen (TN, ton/y) and total phosphorus (TP, ton/y) were compared at the outlet of 18 ICPDR regions for the decade 2000-2009. For each region, mean annual values, correlation, standard deviation, and root mean square error of model simulations were analysed. Good water discharge simulations across the basin confirmed that hydrology was correctly represented in all models. The nutrients comparison revealed for some assessment regions the need for a spatially and temporarily intensified monitoring especially for TN. Concerning TP, SWAT and MONERIS had comparable long mean annual TP loads, but differed for amplitude and phases; while GREEN generally overestimated TP loads. Despite differences in model approaches and considered input data, the three assessments were coherent, and all three models may be confidently used for river basin management of the region.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Annual green water resources and vegetation resilience indicators: Definitions, mutual relationships, and future climate projections

Satellites offer a privileged view on terrestrial ecosystems and a unique possibility to evaluate their status, their resilience and the reliability of the services they provide. In this study, we introduce two indicators for estimating the resilience of terrestrial ecosystems from the local to the global levels. We use the Normalized Differential Vegetation Index (NDVI) time series to estimate annual vegetation primary production resilience. We use annual precipitation time series to estimate annual green water resource resilience. Resilience estimation is achieved through the annual production resilience indicator, originally developed in agricultural science, which is formally derived from the original ecological definition of resilience i.e., the largest stress that the system can absorb without losing its function. Interestingly, we find coherent relationships between annual green water resource resilience and vegetation primary production resilience over a wide range of world biomes, suggesting that green water resource resilience contributes to determining vegetation primary production resilience. Finally, we estimate the changes of green water resource resilience due to climate change using results from the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP6) and discuss the potential consequences of global warming for ecosystem service reliability.Fil: Zampieri, Matteo. Joint Research Centre; ItaliaFil: Grizzetti, Bruna. Joint Research Centre; ItaliaFil: Meroni, Michele. Joint Research Centre; ItaliaFil: Scoccimarro, Enrico. No especifíca;Fil: Vrieling, Anton. No especifíca;Fil: Naumann, Gustavo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Toreti, Andrea. Joint Research Centre; Itali

The potential of water reuse for agricultural irrigation in the EU: A Hydro-Economic Analysis

Policy context Water reuse has been identified by the European Commission as a relevant solution to be further promoted in the EU to address water scarcity. This opportunity was highlighted again in the context of the EU action plan for a Circular Economy (COM(2015) 614 final). In, particular the Commission committed to table a legislative proposal setting minimum quality requirements for water reuse. This initiative has been included in the Commission Work Programme 2017. In order to support the decisions to be taken on the matter, the costs and benefits of water reuse need to be clearly identified and quantified to the best possible extent. Key conclusions/Main findings In this study we estimate the distribution of costs of reclaiming and transporting treated wastewater for reuse in agricultural irrigation across Europe. We consider treatment costs as well as the costs associated to the water transport infrastructure and to energy for pumping. The study highlights a high variability of costs depending on the relative position of irrigated agricultural land with respect to the wastewater treatment plants. Treatment costs alone may be minor, about 8 €cents/m3, compared to the other costs, with typical total costs exceeding 50 €cents/m3. However, when treatment requirements become more stringent, treatment costs may surge up to about 0.3 €/m3, causing total costs to shift consistently. The energy requirements for pumping of reclaimed water from wastewater treatment plants to agricultural land follow a distribution with a median of about 0.5 kWh/m3 and an interquartile range of another 0.5 kWh/m3, which seems slightly higher than reported in representative cases of irrigation with conventional water sources. The total volumes of water that can be in principle reused for irrigation are significant, and may contribute to the reduction of water stress by 10% or more in regions where irrigation is an important component of demand. Water reuse may also contribute, in a less apparent and more uncertain way, to nutrient pollution mitigation. While the treatment and energy costs are mostly compatible with the market value of the crops produced thanks to irrigation, the total costs may exceed the capacity of farmers to pay. This indicates that (1) reuse is most suitable where irrigation infrastructure already exists and the necessary additional investments are minor, and (2) the cost of water reuse should be considered in a broader context. This context should be extended to include, on the one side, the whole value chain supplied by agriculture and, on the other side, the process of river basin management where reuse may represent a measure with important co-benefits. Related and future JRC work This work is part of the broader “Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystems Nexus” project of the JRC. Water reuse is regarded as a relevant water resource management option, and this report provides the basis for an assessment of strategic priorities for water reuse in Europe.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

The European Nitrogen Problem in a Global Perspective

Nature of the problem (science/management/policy): Reactive nitrogen has both positive and negative effects on ecosystem and human health. Reactive nitrogen is formed through the use of fossil fuels releasing large amounts of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere and through the production of ammonia by the Haber-Bosch process and using it in agriculture to increase our food, feed and fuel production. While the use of nitrogen as a fertilizer has brought enormous benefits, losses of fertilizer nitrogen and combustion nitrogen to the environment lead to many side effects on human health, ecosystem health, biodiversity and climate. Approaches: The European nitrogen problem is placed in a global perspective, showing the European nitrogen fixation, transport and environmental impacts compared to different regions of the globe. Key findings/state of knowledge: An overview is provided of the nitrogen issues and challenges in Europe and places them in a broader global context. Europe is one of the leading producers of reactive nitrogen, but it is also the first region in the world where the issue was recognized and in some parts of Europe the reactive nitrogen losses to the environment started to decrease. There is a clear policy on reducing nitrogen oxide emissions that led to reductions by implementation of end of pipe technology. Fertilizer production and use decreased in Europe in the early 1990s, in particular, due to the economic recession in the Eastern part of Europe. Currently, the fertilizer use in EU25 is about 12 Mton, which is 4 Mton lower than in the 1980s and gradually increasing. The nitrogen use efficiency of nitrogen in the EU, defined as the net output of N in products divided by the net input is about 36%. This is lower than the world average (50%) as fertilization rates are much higher. Major uncertainties/challenges: The effects related to losses of nitrogen in Europe include the exceedance of critical loads and the resulting biodiversity loss, ground water pollution and eutrophication of ecosystems; eutrophication of open waters and coastal areas resulting in algae blooms and fish kills; increased levels of NOx and aerosols in the atmosphere resulting in human health impacts and climate change; and the increased emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide resulting in climate change. Nitrogen also affects the biogeochemical cycles of other components such as carbon. Recommendations (research/policy): The complexity of multi-pollutant ¿ multiple-effect interactions is a major hurdle to improving public awareness.JRC.H.1-Water Resource