The policy implementation of nutrient management
legislation and effects in some European Countries
Christine Jakobsson1, Ellis B. Sommer2, Patricia De Clercq3, Giuseppe Bonazzi4, Jaap
Schröder5
1
Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, P.O. Box 7033, 750
07 Uppsala, Sweden
2
Danish Plant Directorate, Skovbrynet 20, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark
3
Ghent University, Faculty of Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences, Coupure
Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
4
CRPA, Corso Garibaldi 42, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy
5
Wageningen UR, Plant Research International, Wageningen, The Netherlands
A presentation held on 18th April 2002 in Gent, Belgium at the final Workshop of
the EU concerted action Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries
NUMALEC
One important source of nutrient pollution is agriculture. The loss of nutrients, such as
nitrogen and phosphorus can initiate from point sources such as barns, manure stores and
milk rooms, and can relatively easily be taken care of in a suitable manor. Loss of
nutrients from the management of fields and crops is diffuse pollution and is much more
difficult to curb with effective measures. Loss of nutrients leads to eutrophication of
water-courses and the sea, as well as to acidification of land areas and to reductions in
biological diversity. To reduce the negative effects of agriculture, legislation and policy
have developed in all EU countries. It is not possible to give a full presentation of the
policy implementation of nutrient management and the effects in all the EU Countries
considered in NUMALEC in this paper, therefore we give examples only of some
representative countries with consideration of different circumstances, types and
geographic position of countries to demonstrate major differences.
Different approaches in policy
NUMALEC has demonstrated that there are large differences in the policy construction,
implementation and also in the effects from the policy regarding nutrient management
legislation in European countries. In some cases they can be explained by differences in
farm-structures, natural resources and geography but for many countries this is not the
case. Even countries bordering each other can have completely different types of
legislation and also tolerance of environmental problems.
Several countries in Europe have had relatively high animal densities in relatively large
regions for some time and therefore subsequently have problems with eutrophication and
water quality e.g. the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders), Germany, France, Denmark.
Some countries also have systems that are heavily based on legislation e.g. Denmark, the
Netherlands and Sweden. England, on the other hand has a more voluntary approach for
much of the country, mainly based on guidelines (The Codes of Good Agricultural
Practice) but will be changing to stricter regimes in the future.
Nitrogen or phosphorus based systems
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
2
Most countries have chosen N based systems because the Nitrate Directive focuses on N,
but others use a system based on both N and P such as in the Netherlands and Flanders. In
Flanders, the fertiliser norms are given for both nutrients and in phosphate saturated
areas, more stringent regulations are applicable.
The other alternative is the P based system. In Sweden, as the allowed level of P is
defined as livestock density corresponding to 22 kg P in manure/ha, there are no
problems in meeting the requirements of 170 kg N/ha returned in animal excreta as
defined in the Nitrate Directive. One of the other advantages that is put forward for using
P instead of N, is that information on P content in manure are more reliable, as losses in
animal houses and during storage are almost non-existent and therefore easier for the
farmer to calculate. In Denmark it is the intention also to regulate the use of phosphorus,
when new actions of regulations are taken after the Action Plan II has expired.
Implementation and timing
In 1987 the legislation on the use of manure was introduced in the Netherlands. Initially,
the legislation was input-oriented and focused on P. The effect of the measures was not
that animal numbers were reduced substantially, but that feed with lower phosphate
contents was used and that manure was transported to stockless arable farms (Neeteson et
al., 2001). In Sweden (the Action Programme to reduce losses of plant nutrients) and
Denmark (Water Plan I), legislation regarding nutrient management legislation was
introduced in 1987-88 (Steineck et al, 2001, Ambus et al, 2001). For Great Britain the
pilot Nitrate Sensitive Areas (NSA) scheme was launched in 1990. The measures mainly
entailed controls on the quantities and timing of inputs of mineral fertilisers and manures
(Scholefield, 2001). This was subsequently followed by the identification of a limited
number of NVZs in specific areas where potential effects on aquifers had been identified.
Since the NUMALEC discussions, the demands of the EU to meet requirements with
regard to surface water quality has meant a change in policy. There is currently a
consultation exercise which discusses, for England, the options of 80% or 100% of the
country becoming declared as NVZs. Scotland and Wales are acting independently and
both are also undergoing consultancies exercises. In Flanders, where the first manure
decree was implemented in 1991 and a selective area was indicated as NVZ, the
government is also re-assessing its policy. The new proposal of the Flemish government
is to indicate about 50% of the territory as NVZ within 2002. But not all countries have
this long experience in nutrient management legislation.
During the work within NUMALEC, it was shown that the Mediterranean/Southern
countries only recently have transposed the EU legislation. Therefore, these countries
have no long experience from the development and effects of this policy implementation.
In Spain for example, the Nitrate Directive was transposed into national law in 1996, but
it was left to the regional authorities to implement the Directive. As a consequence
nutrient management legislation is diverse in measures and timing throughout Spain
(Soler-Rovira et al, 2001).
Objectives of the policies – are they reached?
Different countries have different goals for their policies. For Belgium (Flanders) the goal
is to decrease the N and P surplus and improve the water quality. Although improvements
have been registered, still 50% of the surface waters in Flanders contains concentrations
of more than 11.3 mg NO3--N/l and in West-Flanders, an intensive agricultural area, 71%
of the measurements exceed this limit.
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
3
Denmark implemented in 1987 the Action Plan I on the Aquatic Environment with the
goal of reducing annual N-leaching from agriculture from a total contribution of 230000
tonnes of N in 1987 to 130 000 tonnes of N before 2003. As this goal will most likely not
be reached, and because the EU-Nitrate directive had to be implemented, the Danish
legislators decided in 1998 to take further steps to reach the goals in an Action Plan II by
reducing the N-leaching by an additional 40 000 tonnes of N per year. After a midterm
evaluation, further actions were decided in May 2001 to reach an additional reduction of
7 400 kg N.
For Sweden, the goal was to reduce N discharges to the Baltic Sea caused by human
activity via watercourses and direct discharges at the coast by 50% and to substantially
reduce P. This goal was adopted by the Helsinki Commission and is relevant for all
countries adjacent to the Baltic Sea. This goal has not been reached by Denmark or any
other country , but 26% reduction in N losses to the Baltic Sea have been calculated for
Sweden as a whole and 20% reduction for Denmark. In 2001, the Swedish government
declared the national goal for Sweden to be to reduce the anthropogenic N load on the
surrounding seas by 40 % in comparison to the level in 1995. Regarding P, the aim is that
the P losses from agriculture to lakes and watercourses will continue to be reduced.
Implementation of nutrient management legislation
The Nitrate Directive was issued in 1991. The timetable for the implementation states
that most activities must be implemented before 2000. The objectives are to reduce water
pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and to prevent such
pollution. Member states are required to identify Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NZVs) on the
basis of the results of monitoring requirements. Action Programmes with mandatory
measures concerning agricultural practices must be implemented in these areas and
monitoring of water quality according to specific requirements is performed. The action
programmes include the maximum amounts of animal manure that can be applied to land
every year, which is equivalent to 210 kg N per ha until mid-December 2002, when the
amount will be reduced to 170 kg N per ha. Also Codes of Good Agricultural Practice
(CGAP) must be elaborated and are mandatory in the NVZs and voluntary outside the
NVZs (for more information on CGAP see pages 5-6).
Different countries have taken different approaches regarding the designation of nitrate
vulnerable zones (Figure 1). The whole country has been designated as a NVZ in Austria,
Denmark, Finland, Germany and The Netherlands (and Luxenburg).
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
4
Figure 1. Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Europe.
Source: J. Duchemin, personal communication
Only in some cases is the whole territory exceeding the EU-norm of 11,3 mg NO3-N/l in
ground- and surface waters. Some countries have chosen to avoid discrimination between
different groups of farmers and to commit themselves to uniform environmental
standards and to raise environmental awareness among all farmers. In all of these cases
the competence for environmental concern with respect to water quality lies with the
central government. In countries with a federal structure (Austria and Germany), regional
legislative bodies have the freedom/duty to formulate more stringent requirements if
necessary. In other countries regions with significant nutrient surpluses have been
differentiated, e.g. Flanders in Belgium, Brittany in France, the Po-valley in Italy and
therefore designated as NVZs.
One of the factors that leads to problems with manure and pollution is the existence of
livestock farms without arable land. In Flanders, most pig farms are farms without arable
land. Too high livestock density is a problem that persists in many areas in the EU and if
not already, this may lead to problems with pollution. The maximum amount allowed
varies to a large degree, which leads to problems with pollution in many countries
because there is not a balance between the amount of nutrients in the manure produced
from the livestock in the area and the crops’ nutrients requirements that are grown in the
same area.
Farm-gate nutrient balances have been used regularly in the extension service in several
countries such as Sweden and in the Netherlands and many European countries have
some experience of farm-gate nutrient balances. Good effects have been noted from using
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
5
the farm-gate nutrient balance, as farmers have understood the system and been willing to
discuss their fertilising and use of manure in a more open manner and have also changed
practices. Some difficulties do exist though, as there is not a clear correlation between the
surplus from the farm-gate-balance and nutrient leakage in all cases. Also some countries
do not take consideration to N-fixation in the nutrient balances, which of course in reality
do affect the nutrient input to the farm.
Another way of trying to solve the problem of local excesses of nutrients in manure in
comparison to the available arable area for spreading is by processing of manure. The
effects of this measure are not always reliable and usually it is both difficult and at a high
cost to implement this measure, as well as not being as sustainable as recirculation.
Several European countries have implemented processing of manure e.g. both Belgium
and the Netherlands. In the case of Flanders (Belgium) difficulties have been noted, such
as technical problems at the processing plants, and even if full capacity was achieved, this
would still not be enough to process the regulated amount (50% of the manure surplus in
2003). Manure can also be processed on the farm scale. In Brittany, France, many
initiatives are taken to process manure on the farm. In Italy, a number of farms have had
aerobic plants installed to reduce the N-load by aerating the slurry. The technique is
questionable, as due to mismanagement NH3 and N20 are emitted instead of N2 and the
environmental problem is transferred from the water to the air. To reduce the pollution
load, it is necessary to remove the nutrients in manure from the area where they are
produced to another area where they are needed. Another way is of course, to reduce the
amount of livestock in the area until a balance is reached with the crops nutrient
requirements. In Flanders, the government has currently introduced a new regulation that
promotes the reduction of pig farming via subsidies.
In most countries the manure/slurry storage capacity is regulated. Values from 2 to 10
months' storage are common (table 1). As the values can differ even within the countries
dependant on different regions or on different production such as type of animals, both
the lowest minimum storage requirement and the highest minimum requirement has been
included in the table below.
Table 1. Storage Capacity for manure/slurry
Country
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Storage capacity Lowest minimum
requirement
(months)
6
4
6
12
4
6
3
2
3
8
1
2
6
3
5
2
Storage capacity Highest minimum
requirement
(months)
6
4½
9
12
6
6
6
6
6
3
4
10
7
5
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
6
From De Clercq et al, (2001) it is clear that a wide range of measures to control nutrient
pollution is in place in Europe. Many measures can be found in the legislation of several
if not all EU countries.
Usually larger storage capacity is required in northern countries because of the longer
winter housing period. In Finland, there is even a storage capacity of 1 year required for
manure (Bäckman, 2001). In the Netherlands, a slurry storage capacity of at least five
months is needed but the size of the store itself is not regulated. Instead the construction
of the store is regulated in legislation (Neeteson et al, 2001). In the United Kingdom the
construction and size of slurry/manure stores is described in the Codes of Good
Agricultural Practice. The Codes are not legislation, but a recommendation. However,
storage requirements are defined for livestock farms on specific soil types in NVZs, and if
it can be proved that farmers pollute watercourses or do not follow the recommendations,
the Code could be taken into account in any legal action (Scholefield, 2001). In the Povalley (Italy) storage capacity for slurry is also depended on livestock, cattle and dairy
farms require storage capacity for 4 months while farmers with other livestock require a
minimum capacity of 6 months. But the storage capacity can be reduced under specific
conditions such as slurry treatment, small farm size or moderate rates of slurry production
(Bonazzi, 2001).
Spreading bans exist in all countries, although sometimes these measures are only part of
a Code of Good Agricultural Practice and therefore not always binding. Most countries
ban the spreading of any organic fertiliser from November until January-February. In
Flanders it is even forbidden to spread any mineral and organic fertiliser from September
21st to January 31st on grassland and until February 15th to other crops (De Clercq et al,
2001). While in Sweden it is forbidden to spread manure and organic fertilisers in
January until February 15th completely and during December only if the manure can be
incorporated to at least 10-cm depth the same day. There is also a ban on spreading of
mineral fertilisers for November to the 15th of February. Application of organic fertiliser
is still allowed from August to the end of November on growing crops or before autumn
sowing (Steineck et al, 2001). In Germany according to the Fertiliser Decree, application
is generally prohibited between November 15th and January 15th.
In the Netherlands, the application period is defined according to the soil type. In the
Netherlands the spreading of manure and slurry is forbidden from the 15th of September
to the 1st of February on all soils and crop types except arable clay soils. On clay soils the
spreading ban only applies to grassland. Arable clay soils are not included because the
relationship between spreading and nitrate emission to groundwater is not as clear as it is
for sandy soils (Neeteson et al, 2001). In the UK the pilot Nitrate Sensitive Areas (NSA)
scheme was launched in 1990. The measures mainly entailed controls on the quantities
and timing of inputs of mineral fertilisers and manures. Averaged over all crops and
locations nitrate leaching was reduced by 30%, with no discernible reduction in crop
yields. Also the action programme for the defined NVZs in the UK control the amounts
and timing of spreading of mineral fertilisers and organic manures (Scholefield, 2001).
Almost all countries have legislation forbidding spreading of manure on snow-covered or
deeply frozen soils, as well as on flooded soils, as detailed in the Nitrate Directive.
Legislation regarding maximum application rates of manure/slurry or mineral fertilisers
exists in several countries.This type of legislation can be difficult to enforce, especially
when it is farmyard manure (FYM), as field trials have shown that farmers have a poor
comprehension of the weight of the load on the spreader and also of the actual application
rate. The situation is better for slurry, as the volume of the tank on the spreader is known.
Poor performance of the spreaders is also another area where improvement is needed,
especially for FYM spreaders. In Table 1 a comparison is made for fertiliser application
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
7
rates to some crops. In some countries these application rates are only recommendations
(e.g. Austria) while in other countries they are compulsory (e.g. Flanders). Apparently
even in regions with very similar natural conditions, the definition of N requirements of
the crops are considerably different.
Table 2. Total N application rates to some crops in Austria, Finland, Flanders (Belgium),
Portugal and the UK (kg/ha).
Winter wheat
Maize
Potatoes
Grassland
Austria
110-130
120-140
110-130
70-100 (1)
Denmark(2)
158-176(3)
124-160
290-307(4)
Finland
130
250
Flanders
300
300
450
(Max. application rates)
Portugal (5)
110
240-260
200-220
UK (annual topdressings) (6) 175-225
240
300-420
(1)
alpine grassland
left figure is for crops on coarse-sandy loam soils and right figure is for crops on clay soils
(3)
succeeding 1 year of grain crop
(4)
without clover(5) Varying between the vulnerable zones in Portugal
(6)
Recommendations for arable crops take account of soils type, residual fertility and amounts
released from manures. Recommendations for grassland are based on use of crop, its previous
management and the amounts of slurries and manures applied.
(2)
One of the striking differences concerning the implementation of the Nitrate Directive is
that, even in regions with very similar natural conditions, the definition of N requirements
of the crops are considerably different: the application norms in the Walloon region
(Belgium) limits total N application for maize to 300 kg/ha, whereas only 124-160 kg
N/ha may be used in Denmark.
Many countries e.g. the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden have implemented ammoniareducing measures in their legislation, such as covering of slurry and urine stores,
incorporating slurry and urine when spreading, and in some cases also a reduction of
nitrogen in feed. When properly implemented substantial effects have been reached.
Code of Good Agricultural Practices
In all the countries, except Norway, Codes of Good Agricultural Practices have been
introduced. These Codes define the time and circumstances during which manure may be
spread, the storage and spreading technology and application norms for different crops. In
some countries the codes are very detailed and intended as an advisory instrument for
farmers (e.g. UK) including the requirement for mineral accounting, while others e.g.
only contain the bare minimum of requirements.
Economic instruments of control
Financial regulations are another approach to nutrient control. A range of instruments can
be used: pollution charges; taxes on emission; taxes on inputs and subsidies (modified
after Russel and Powel, 1999). The pollution charge that is imposed in The Netherlands,
is a charge on the nutrient surplus at the farm scale. The complexity of the N cycle does
not allow any measurement of the emission in a simple, inexpensive way and therefore no
emission tax has been implemented in any country described in NUMALEC.
To circumvent this problem, it is possible to consider a tax on the inputs to the nutrient
cycle. Taxes on livestock, on P content of animal feed or on residual soil mineral N are
taxes that could be raised, but are not in practice except for in Baden Würtenberg,
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
8
Germany, as a withheld premium. Otherwise, the only input tax that is currently in
operation is a tax on N fertiliser, which exists in both Sweden and Denmark. Several
studies on fertiliser taxes have suggested that high rates of tax would be necessary in
order to achieve significant reductions in fertiliser use (Hodge, 1997).
Subsidies are the financial instruments that are most commonly used to address nutrient
pollution. Different types of subsidies can be distinguished: 1) lump sum payments for
capital costs such as improvement of storage facilities or animal houses, 2) marginal
subsidies for obtaining the desired results and 3) subsidies for achieving the required
outcome. The lump sum payments are clearly most used in the nutrient management
legislation. The third option is used in specific cases in Flanders, i.e. if the residual soil
mineral N is below a certain threshold value during a fixed period, subsidies are granted
to farmers in ‘sensitive zones water’ in Flanders.
The effectiveness of the Nitrate Directive
The Nitrate Directive is one of the EU's environmental laws that is not currently well
complied with, as shown in the table 4 below (Declercq et al, 2001). An overview is
presented on the implementation status of this Directive in each of the EU Member states
in the table.
Main obligations of the Nitrate Directive and their implementation by Member
States as of 01/06/2001
Member state
AT BE DK DE EL ES FI FR IR IT LX NL PT SE UK
Water monitoring
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Designation of NVZ
+ + + + + + + +  + + + + + +
Codes of Good
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Agricultural Practice
Action programmes
+ + + + + + + +
+ + + + + +
Report to the
Commission on
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
implementation status
Notes: + indicates that the task is performed but not necessarily approved by the Commission; 
indicates that important designations are expected by the end of 2001;
shaded cells
indicate that infringement procedures are ongoing (some proceedings at an early stage are
not mentioned in this table for legal reasons)
Source: Jean Duchemin, personal communication
The infringement procedure gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a
Member State that is not respecting its obligations. Infringement procedures are ongoing
against almost all Member States except Denmark and Sweden. This procedure contains
several possible actions.
In general, countries that have a complex decision making process and a number of
autonomous agencies involved (e.g. Belgium and Italy) are having more difficulty in
transferring the Nitrate Directive into national law. Countries with a smaller population
(e.g. Denmark, Sweden) in general, are more successful with implementing nutrient
control policies than others.
So far, the Commission considers MINAS from the Netherlands to be an addition to their
policy rather than an alternative. The Netherlands has asked for a derogation to allow for
250 kg manure-N/ha on grassland in general; this is based on a desk study that indicates
that this amount can be utilised on grassland while maintaining nitrate concentrations at
11.3 mg N/l or lower. The Danish authorities have also requested derogation for their
dairy farmers. As noted above, the UK is having to reconsider its actions as in response to
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
9
EU requests. The option is to designate 80 or 100% of England is NVZ. In Flanders, the
government is also re-assessing its nutrient policy. Further compliance with the Nitrate
Directive will result in an increase of nitrate vulnerable zones from about 9% to 50%. At
the same time, the Flemish government is also preparing a scientifically substantiated
derogation request. For grassland, rye-grass and maize a derogation is requested that
allow 230 kg N/ha from animal manure. For the combination winter wheat/mustard and
for sugar beet, fodder beet and Brussels sprouts a derogation to 200 kg N/ha is requested.
The total admissible amount proposed is 350 kg N/ha for grassland and 275 kg N/ha for
the other crops. The derogation will only be allowed on an individual basis and the fields
will need to meet a list of specific conditions.
Even if the country has succeeded in transferring EU legislation successfully into national
law, this is no guarantee that the policy will be successful and the environment will be
protected from pollution. The ultimate objective is reached only, when levels of pollution
are seen to be declining significantly and reaching the intended level of quality. However,
the necessary information to judge this is available only in a few countries and even then
downward trends have yet to be shown. Large time spans are necessary before noticeable
and stable differences can be demonstrated because of the impact of the N stored in the
soil will remain a significant source of N for coming decades. Only in countries such as
Finland and Sweden or in regions where agriculture is very extensive and where nitrate
policy probably has not made very much difference, are nitrate levels consistently low.
Farmer attitudes
Farmers’ attitudes are of the greatest importance for the end results of all policies, as it
is the farmers who are expected to comply with the measures in the action programmes
and who will achieve the improvements in the environmental situation if the action
programme is successful. One rather general observation that has been made is that the
southern countries, as well as Ireland, have had problems in convincing the farmers that
there is a pollution and nitrate problem and that their nutrient management on the farm
affects the environment and the surrounding water quality. There are also many examples
of the opposite, such as in Denmark and in Sweden where farmers are – as most of the
population – very concerned about the environment and have seen the necessity for
restrictions and control. One example is that even though Sweden has the strictest
legislation within Europe on livestock density, farmers in Sweden have accepted this
legislation, as they understand that it ensures a continuous high quality of their arable
land and farm. Farmers are dependent on clean water, clean air and clean soil to be able to
produce high quality products and services in the long run.
Acceptability by the farmers and practicability of the measures need to be considered as
well, because the efficiency of a policy is determined by the cost of achieving a given
goal. Therefore the cost of educating as well as implementing and policing a given
programme have to be taken into account.
On a European scale, the competitiveness of farmers is also an important issue to
consider. The financial consequences of nutrient related policies are therefore an essential
factor, but it is often difficult to assess the financial impact of different policies. In most
cases the savings from reduced fertiliser use do not cover the costs for investment in new
techniques or manure/slurry stores to reduce the pollution. Not all farmers in the EU
receive compensation for the efforts they make, and even if they receive a subsidy, in
most cases this does not cover the total costs of additional investments. Also on a
national scale the different policies of regions can have effects, such as in Italy. Pig
farmers were forced to drastically reduce the number of pigs in the Region Emilia
Romagna, that has the strictest policy in Italy, even as pig farms were enlarged in other
regions in Italy.
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
10
In several European countries the attitudes of the consumers is becoming more and more
important and high quality and security of food is high on the agenda. This should be
seen against the background of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease, salmonella and other
problems. The Commission has recently decided to create a European Food Safety
Authority.
Education and training of farmers
To be able to change farmers attitudes, education and training of farmers, as well as the
normal extension service is of great importance. Within the action programme for
sustainable agriculture for the Baltic Sea Countries (Baltic 21) the countries agreed that
education and training of farmers was the most important action. In the Netherlands
whole-farm N balances create awareness among farmers and lead to re-examination of
routine practices. Even simplified balances, such as MINAS, have contributed to this
process of awareness creation. MINAS not only helps a farmer to understand the effects
of farm management on nutrient use efficiency, but also allows him to adjust nutrient
management to his specific conditions. A drawback of the system is, however, that data
collection is laborious and involves a lot of paperwork and consequently bears a financial
cost. Also in Denmark and in Sweden much emphasis has been put into education and
training of farmers in the different parts of the action programmes. A well-organised
extension service in Denmark assists the farmers to keep up to date with the
requirements. In Sweden all livestock farmers have been offered farm-gate balances free
of charge with good results. In Southern countries, where environmental regulations have
been implemented more recently, mineral balances, such as MINAS, can be too
complicated for farmers. A simpler manure management plan can be the first step in the
education of the farmers.
Research and development
In most countries action programmes, both research and development has an important
role. In Denmark considerable sums have been used in research programmes both for the
1st and 2nd Water Plan and both the education of the farmers and research and
development in the agricultural fields are important efforts. In Sweden the research
programme was targeted since 1988 to reduce the loss of plant nutrients to the aquatic
environment. The Netherlands has also had a large research and development programme
since 1987. Extensive programmes consisting of research on experimental farms, on-farm
research, briefings and courses are used in the Netherlands to make farmers familiar with
legislation. The UK has also had a major research programme for more 12 years on all
aspects of issues concerned with the nitrate directive.
Heavy administrative load for farmers
Some of the current policy systems in use lead to a heavy administrative load for the
farmers. The policy implemented in Denmark where farmers must adjust their fertiliser
plans year by year depending on plant growth forecasts, requires considerable effort.
Registered farmers can buy mineral fertilisers without tax, but in return they have to make
annual plans of the expected use of manure, mineral fertilisers and other organic matters
used as fertilisers by calculating the maximum permissible amount of nitrogen, the Nquota for the farm. The plan also has to include a calculation of the manure production. In
March every year registered farmers have to send in accounts to the Danish Plant
Directorate with information about the actual amount of N used and the actual amount of
livestock kept on the farm during a 12 months period.
Another country with a system that leads to a heavy administrative load is the
Netherlands with the MINAS system. Farms with more than 2.5 LU/ha (1 LU= 18 kg
P/ha) are obliged to register all N and P passing through the farm gate. All inputs and
outputs have to be measured with the exception of crop produce and ammonia losses, for
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
11
which default values are assumed. Farmers are expected to balance the inputs and outputs
in such a way that the annual surplus does not exceed a permitted value. This value is
dependent on land use and the soil type. When inputs exceed the outputs as defined by
MINAS, the surplus will be charged with a levy. However, surpluses are levy-free up to
certain threshold values for both N and P.
Control of policy implementation
Acceptance by farmers and controllability of the measures are important factors in the
implementation of nutrient management policies. The effectiveness of the measures is
also closely linked with the mechanism of control. Depending on the type of action
programme and the implemented measures the burden of control varies to a great extent.
For example the Danish system necessitates a heavy and expensive control apparatus
even though the Danish farmers are concerned about the environment and to a large
extent understand the need for restrictions and control. Extensive control is performed by
a government agency with a large number of staff. Most often problems are related to the
complexity of the control system, as calculating N-flow – and in fact all nutrient-flows –
is a difficult matter, one of the reasons being that manure and livestock circulate between
farmers.
In the Netherlands, checks on compliance with legislation are carried out by different
authorities. Legislation concerning the application period and technique is controlled by
the General Inspection Service (AID) of the Ministry. The mineral accounts from
individual farmers are collected annually and examined for their completeness by a
central institute of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries. In
addition to this, the AID carries out random controls on the correctness of the accounts.
The NVZs in the United Kingdom are subject to a mandatory ‘action programme’
enforced by the Environment Agency, who have the power to order compliance with the
rules of the action programme and to take legal action in the case of non-compliance.
Examples exist regarding legislation that will force farmers to take measures to reduce the
nutrient load, but it is not clear if the reductions will be large enough. In Flanders,
recommended fertilisation has the goal to attain a maximum 90 kg NO3-N residue at 0-90
cm from 1/10 to 15/11 on every field. To attain this goal, farmers can choose between a
fixed system with fertiliser norms (max. amounts that can not be exceeded) or a nutrient
balance system.
Control in Sweden takes place in most instances by the Environmental Office at the
Municipal level. Permits and control for large livestock farms (> 200 LU) are authorised
by the County Board of Administration. For the control of implemented measures at the
farm level, there are no difficulties with the control of livestock density, storage of
manure/urine/slurry, green land and spreading technology. Some difficulties do exist with
the control of incorporation of manure/urine/slurry within a specified time frame (4 hours
in southern Sweden). Documentation of spreading on the farm has been considered to be
helpful in these situations. The manageability of and feasibility of control of livestock
density is considered to be good.
Although control is an adequate tool to implement the policies, extensive control is costly
and time consuming. If, according to the EU ‘the polluter pays’ principle, the costs are to
be passed on to farmers, this will be an extra burden on farm incomes.
Final conclusions
When drawing final conclusions about the effectiveness of environmental policies and
agriculture, one can note that considerable progress has been achieved when controlling
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
12
point pollution, but that the efforts to control non-point pollution of nutrients has been
less successful. More efforts have been spent and also more knowledge has been
developed regarding the possibilities of controlling N than P. For P pollution still many
questions remain concerning effective measures.
Regulations that work effectively in one situation may not work under other
circumstances e.g. the tax on mineral fertilisers. Therefore it is not always possible to
transfer a working set of regulations from one country to another even if natural
conditions are similar. Path dependence is another issue that has to be considered. Once
an agency like the Plant Directorate (in Denmark) or MINAS Levying Agency in the
Netherlands is installed, the dynamics of bureaucracy have to be taken into account as
well. Not only may the regulators have vested interests, farmers almost certainly would
resist the abolishment of a nutrient accounting system with which they therefore could
live quite comfortably by accepting only minor substantial changes. In addition, not all
problem areas can be treated in the same way, since some areas such as Flanders and the
Netherlands clearly have more structural problems related to agriculture than others.
Legislation in these areas has resulted in a stabilisation of the problems, as indicated in
the nutrient balances, but clearly more structural solutions are needed. Stopping any
further increase in manure production will stabilise nutrient surpluses, but will not solve
the problem. Although governments are not inclined to introduce regulations that will
force farmers to reduce their livestock drastically, in some areas this might be a last
option if no other good alternatives are found (De Clercq et al., 2001). Manure processing
might be an option to consider as part of a set of regulations but may also result in
emissions of other materials or as an expensive transfer of nutrients to other areas.
Although ample research has been done in this area, there are no major manure
processing plants that are operational in highly productive livestock areas such as
Flanders, for example. Thus an end-of-pipe technology approach that has worked well
with point-source pollution has not been successful in the case of non-point-source
(diffuse) pollution. It is also probable that the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive based on water drainage basins will improve the situation to some extent. One
clear conclusion is that a single policy instrument will not be sufficient to solve the
problem of loss of nutrients from agriculture.
References:
Ambus, P., Sørensen, F.L., Lillelund, D. & Nielsen, G.G. (2001) Denmark (DK). From
De Clercq, P., Gertsis, A.C., Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F.
(eds.) (2001). Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of
Soil Management and Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p. 78-98.
Bonazzi, G. (2001). Italy (IT). From De Clercq, P., Gertsis, A.C., Hofman, G., Jarvis,
S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F. (eds.) (2001). Nutrient Management Legislation in
European Countries. Department of Soil Management and Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p.
206-218.
Bäckman, S. & Vermeulen,. S. (2001). Finland (FI). From De Clercq, P., Gertsis, A.C.,
Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F. (eds.) (2001). Nutrient
Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of Soil Management and
Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p. 138-150.
De Clercq, P., Salomez, J. & Hofman, G. (2001). Belgium (BE). From De Clercq, P.,
Gertsis, A.C., Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F. (eds.) (2001).
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik
13
Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of Soil
Management and Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p. 56-77.
De Clercq, P., Gertsis, A.C., Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F.
(eds.) (2001). Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of
Soil Management and Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, 347 pp.
Hodge, I. (1997). Applying land-use permits. In: Romstad, E., Simonsen, J. & Vatn, A.
(eds.). Controlling mineral emissions in European agriculture. Economics, Policies and
the environment. CAB International, UK, pp. 11-26.
Neeteson, J.J., Schröder, J. J. & Hassink, J. (2001) The Netherlands (NL). From De
Clercq, P., Gertsis, A.C., Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F. (eds.)
(2001). Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of Soil
Management and Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p. 283-293
Steineck, S., Jakobsson, C., Åkerhielm, H. & Carlson, G. (2001). Sweden (SE). From De
Clercq, P., Gertsis, A.C., Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F. (eds.)
(2001). Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of Soil
Management and Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p. 249-265.
Soler-Rovira, J., Soler-Rovira, P. & Soler-Soler, J. (2001) España (ES). From De Clercq,
P., Gertsis, A.C., Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F. (eds.) (2001).
Nutrient Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of Soil
Management and Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p. 114-137.
Scholefield, D. (2001) United Kingdom (UK). From De Clercq, P., Gertsis, A.C.,
Hofman, G., Jarvis, S.C., Neeteson, J.J. and Sinabell, F. (eds.)(2001). Nutrient
Management Legislation in European Countries. Department of Soil Management and
Soil Care, Ghent, Belgium, p. 294-306.
Vagstad, N., Stålnacke, P., Andersen, H.E., Deelstra, J., Gustafson, A., Ital, A., Jansons,
V., Kyllmar, K., Loigu, E., Rekolainen, S., Tumas, R. & Vuorenmaa, J. (2001). Nutrient
Losses from Agriculture in the Nordic and Baltic Countries. Measurements in small
agricultural catchments and national agro-environmental statistics. Nordic Council of
Ministers, Environment /Agriculture and Forestry TemaNord 2001:591, 75 pp.
JTI – Institutet för jordbruks- och miljöteknik