Reporting on the implementation of the Nitrate Directive in Hungary

dr. Lszl Balshzy Ministry for Environment and Water balashazy@mail.kvvm.hu

18-19 07 2007 Bucharest

Reporting is needed because

Commission has to supervise the national implementation Commission is obliged to report regularly on the implementation of this Directive in the EU to the Council and EP

Art. 10 (1) MS. shall submit a report to the Commission containing the information outlined in Annex V in each subsequent four-year period (2) The Report shall be submitted within six months of the end of the period Deadline of the last reporting was: June 2004 Commission prepared a summary report on EU 15 (available on CIRCA) Next deadline: June 2008 (for 15), (Oct. 2008 (for 10))

Annex V Information to be contained in reports 1. Statement of the preventive actions 2. Maps of waters and NVZs 3. Monitoring system and results, designation (modifications) of NVZs 4. Summary of the Action Program
Remark: Almost all information is required about the transposition and implementation of all relevant provisions of Directive No information about forms and details

Consequence: EU guidelines about the details to make national reports quasi homogenous

EU Guide 2000 I

Contents of the Guide Additional information required in 1st report Water quality assessment and maps Designation (revision) of NVZs Code of GAP Measures applied in AP Evaluation of implementation of AP Forecast on water (body) quality Annexes (e.g. list of pieces of national legislation)

Remark: Guide contains formats of tables, maps

EU Guide 2000 II The Guide contains the format of required tables, figures and maps (1: 1 000 000 or 1: 250 000) Location of monitoring points: NUTS codes (Country NUTS region Nr. station type code), coordinates Mean and maximum values Analysis of trends (comparison of data of this period with data of the earlier period) and indication of points, which show increasing/decreasing trends Strong increase/decrease: >5 mg/l or <5 mg/l difference in mean values Explanations: e.g. what are the possible reasons of differences Changes within a year: winter/summer values

Development, promotion and implementation of code of GAP, Guide

Figures on agriculture and Nitrogen discharges Information on elements of code of GAP introduced or modified Estimation of the percentage of farmers who voluntarily apply the code

Principal measures applied in the AP and implementation

Figures about number of animals and manure excreated by them Figures on chemical fertilisation (N, P) Figures on other sources of N (P) inputs Figures about N (P) balance Information about elements of GAP Figures about survelliance of different elements of GAP Main points of difficulty in the implementation

Forecast on water body quality and legal memorandum

Estimation on timetable for recovery of polluted waters (numeric or cartographic format is required)

Detailed information about legal transposition - TOC

Messages (what we have learned) I

To start the preparation much earlier then you think it would be enough To start the systematic data collection at least 4 years earlier than the reporting deadline (e.g. in 2008 considering reporting in 2012) Systematic cooperation between environmental, water and agricultural administration is needed from the early start Designation/supervision/amendment of NVZs may also have direct and indirect impacts on agricultural policies (e.g. subsidies, crosscompliance etc.)

Messages (what we have learned) II

Comparison of the results of evaluation of the status of waters by the ND and WFD is not required but may be useful (e.g. area of NVZs and areas of water bodies being at risk because of nutrient pollution) The reasons of the differences can highlight some weakness of monitoring or status assessment

The preparation of RBMP is a good possibility to supervise and harmonize these approaches

Messages (what we have learned) III

Not enough to monitor the large rivers and their relatively large tributaries as well as important lakes, Representative monitoring network is needed for small rivers/lakes too.
Representative monitoring is needed for gw. NO3 concentration of gw. depends at a large extent on depth of well and the type of landuse (see next slides) Gw. monitoring is a combined network: separate monitoring wells, springs, operational wells; Monitoring sites hardly influenced by local pollution sources.

First HU Report (2000-2003)

Overview on legal and institutional frame of transposition and implementation of ND

HU transposed ND by a Gov. Decree. The water monitoring and evaluation of status as well as designation of NVZs belong to MoEW. Monitoring of soil and implementation of GAP belong to MARD

Launched: education, leaflets issued, expert advisory system Remark: Commission required to modify the legislation and some elements of the AP

First HU Report (2000-2003) Water monitoring in HU Monitoring of surface waters at > 3oo points (1/300km2)

Monitoring of ground waters at > 1800 points (1/50 km2)

Frequency of monitoring in every year: surface waters: 1 per month (in general) ground waters: 1-2 measurements per year

After supervision of the monitoring the network has been changed

Mean values of nitrate in surface waters 2000-2002

Maximum nitrate concentration of surface waters 2000-2002

First HU Report (2000-2003): Water quality assessment and maps II Eutrofication (Work is still going on to get a uniform classification system in EU) HU peresented figures on nitrate and a-chlorophyll, phosphorus total, ortho-phosphate The proposed classification system (the quality grade thresholds) seemed to be very strict and not adequate to Central European natural conditions but we used them Not N, but P is the main driving force of eutrophication in HU

Mean values of nitrate concentration in groundwaters 2000-2002

Changes in mean values of nitrate concentration between previous and last reporting period

Frequency of nitrate content of 18 740 groundwater wells and springs aggregated acc. to the proposal of EU Guide Compiled by J. Dek

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

captive <1 mg/l 1-25 mg/l 25-40 mg/l 40-50 mg/l >50 mg/l 71,08822625 27,97417768 0,430371964 0,107592991 0,39963111

phreatic deep 38,81868132 52,66483516 3,076923077 1,291208791 4,148351648

phreatic shallow 20,44449616 51,34977892 6,09727717 2,827554108 19,28089365

Nitrate concentrations in groundwaters depending on depth and land use compiled by J. Dek

100

mean Nitrate content [mg/l]

80

60

40

20

settlement orchard arable pasture

forest

<2 0

50

10 0

to

20

to

50

>1

00

First HU Report (2000-2003): Designation (revision) of NVZs HU designated NVZs Recharge area of large shallow lakes and reservoirs used for public water supply Open karstic areas and areas, where karstic aquifers are near the surface Areas, where porous aquifers are near to the surface Areas of hydrogeologic protection zones of wellfields All areas, where nitrate content is near or over 50mg/l.

Remark: Commission required to supervise and enlarge the designated areas a bit. Meantime Hungary changed the philosophy a bit: NVZs have been designated at parcel level since Spring time of 2007. NVZs in HU: ~ 50% of the country, see next slide

NVZs in Hungary separated by criteria

NVZs as modified in 2007

Nitrate in upper layer of soils (0-30 cm) 2002 by P. Marth

Animal Units

Animals

1000 Animal Units

1989 2004 578,4 99,7 462,7

AU/1 ha of agricultural land 1989 2004

Cattle Sheep Pig

1279,2 147,7 873,1

Poultry
Horse Total

208,3
60 2568,3

131,3
53,6 1325,7 0,396 0,2226

Calculated agronomic NPK balances 1999-2003

1999 N P K 6 -13 -13

2000 14 -8 -8

2001 0 -10 -12

2002 16 -5 -4

2003 18 1 -6

Source: Research Institute for Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry

Prospects 1. scenario

traditional way of reporting

Prospects II New way of reporting

After 2010 the reporting will be merged to WISE system WISE has been developed for reporting on WFD as first step, Next years reporting on other water related Directives will be done by WISE More formulated (templates, shape files) electronic reports are needed than earlier To fulfil these requirements: electronic data banks are needed at local/regional/state and national level

Thank You for Your Attention!