Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and rural development
Agriculture pollution control project
Pressure on Croatian water resources caused by nitrates
and phosphorus of agricultural origin
Dr Darko Znaor
Pressure on Croatian water resources caused by nitrates and
phosphorus of agricultural origin
DRAFT
Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Rural Development
Agricultural Pollution Control Programe for Croatia
Dr Darko Znaor
Project nitrate policy and nitrate management consultant
Independent Consultant
Tarthorst 204
6709 JG Wageningen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 61 34 44 505
E-mail: darko@znaor.eu
April, 2011
This report has been carried out with support from the Global Environmental Facility Fund
CONTENTS
1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 6
2
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE ........................................................................................................ 7
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.1
Land use categories recorded by EUROSTAT ...................................................................................... 7
2.2
Agricultural land use in Croatia .............................................................................................................. 9
2.3
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 18
CONSUMPTION OF SYNTHETIC FERTILISERS ....................................................................... 19
3.1
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development ................................................................... 19
3.2
Central Bureau of Statistics .................................................................................................................. 19
3.3
The International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) ......................................................................... 21
3.4
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) .................................................................... 24
3.5
Petrokemija d.d..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.6
Environment Agency ............................................................................................................................ 25
3.7
Overview on fertiliser consumption data discrepancies ....................................................................... 26
3.8
Synthetic fertiliser consumption: Croatia vs. EU Member States ......................................................... 29
3.9
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 35
NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS LOAD FROM LIVESTOCK excreta ..................................... 37
4.1
Livestock statistics in Croatia ............................................................................................................... 37
4.2
Nutrient load from livestock excreta ..................................................................................................... 39
4.3
Nutrients load from livestock excreta: Croatia vs. EU Member States ................................................ 43
4.4
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 49
TOTAL NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS LOAD ..................................................................... 51
5.1
Synthetic fertiliser and livestock excreta load in Croatia ...................................................................... 51
5.2
Comparison of nutrients load from synthetic fertilizers and livestock excreta in Croatia and EU
Member States ..................................................................................................................................... 52
5.3
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 56
GROSS NITROGEN BALANCE .................................................................................................. 57
6.1
Previous and new calculations ............................................................................................................. 57
6.2
Experimental results on N losses into water ........................................................................................ 60
6.3
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 62
GROSS PHOSPHOROUS BALANCE ......................................................................................... 63
7.1
Previous and new calculations ............................................................................................................. 63
7.2
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 67
GROSS POTASSIUM BALANCE ................................................................................................ 68
8.1
Previous and new calculations ............................................................................................................. 68
8.2
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 69
9
NUTRIENT EFFICIENCY AND LOW YIELDS ............................................................................. 70
9.1
Nutrient efficiency ................................................................................................................................. 70
9.2
Why does Croatian agriculture attain low yields? ................................................................................ 71
9.3
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 75
10 APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS PRESSURE ......... 76
10.1
Share of sectors in N and P pressure on Croatian water resources .................................................... 78
10.2
Conclusions and policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 79
11 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 80
11.1
Agricultural land use in Croatia ............................................................................................................ 80
11.2
CORINE Land Cover statistics for Croatia ........................................................................................... 81
11.3
Availability of forage areas in Mediterranean EU countries in 2007 and Mediterranean Croatia in
2009 ...................................................................................................................................................... 82
11.4
Fertiliser consumption in Croatia according to the Statistical Yearbook .............................................. 83
11.5
Fertiliser consumption by Croatian family farms (extrapolated from Statistical Yearbook 2010) ........ 84
11.6
Fertiliser consumption by Croatian legal entities and family farms ...................................................... 85
11.7
Fertiliser consumption according to production, import and export data of CBS, Croatia ................... 86
11.8
Fertiliser production, imports, export and consumption in Croatia ....................................................... 87
11.9
Consumption of straight and compound fertilisers in Croatia .............................................................. 88
11.10 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia in the period 1998–2008 .................................................................. 88
11.11 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia by product ........................................................................................ 89
11.12 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia as recorded by the FAO .................................................................. 90
11.13 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia according to different sources ......................................................... 91
11.14 Comparison of IFA and FAO fertiliser consumption data for the EU-27 .............................................. 92
11.15 Nitrogen fertiliser consumption in the EU ............................................................................................. 93
11.16 Phosphate fertiliser consumption in the EU ......................................................................................... 94
11.17 Potassium fertiliser consumption in the EU .......................................................................................... 95
11.18 Total nutrients (N, P2O5 and K2O) consumption from synthetic fertilisers in the EU ............................ 96
11.19 Utilised agricultural area (UAA) in the EU (‘000 ha) ............................................................................. 97
11.20 Consumption of nitrogen from synthetic fertilisers in the EU ............................................................... 98
11.21 Consumption of phosphate from synthetic fertilisers in the EU ........................................................... 99
11.22 Consumption of potassium from synthetic fertilisers in the EU .......................................................... 100
11.23 Conversion factors used to calculate LUS ......................................................................................... 101
11.24 Population trend of livestock in Croatia .............................................................................................. 102
11.25 Livestock units 2000–2008 in Croatia ................................................................................................ 103
11.26 Average annual (2000–2008) nutrient load from livestock in Croatia ................................................ 104
11.27 Nutrients from livestock excreta produced and applied onto Croatian agricultural land .................... 105
11.28 Nutrients load from livestock excreta ................................................................................................. 106
11.29 Total nutrients load from fertilisers and livestock excreta .................................................................. 107
11.30 Gross nitrogen balance for Croatia in 2006 ....................................................................................... 108
11.31 Gross phosphorous balance for Croatia in 2006 ................................................................................ 108
11.32 Gross potassium balance for Croatia in 2006 .................................................................................... 109
11.33 Crop nutrient requirements ................................................................................................................. 110
11.34 Crop nutrient recovery ........................................................................................................................ 111
11.35 Source apportionment of N and P inputs into the aquatic environment ............................................. 112
11.36 Environmental pressure from N and P onto Croatian water resources in 2008 ................................. 113
12 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 114
Chapter 1: Background information
1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Agricultural
pollution control
in the Danube
Watershed
Under the Danube - Black Sea Strategic Partnership Program - Nutrient
Reduction Investment Fund, the Government of Croatia has requested
and received $5 million assistance from the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) for an Agricultural Pollution Control Project (APCP) to implement
pilot actions for controlling nutrient discharge in the Danube River
Watershed. The GEF assistance is part of a larger $15 million World
Bank project aimed at supporting Croatia's efforts in protecting the
Danube Watershed from adverse agricultural practices.
Project
objectives
The global environmental objective of the project is to reduce the
discharge of nutrients into surface and groundwater in watersheds
draining into the Danube River and Black Sea. The specific project
objective is to increase significantly the use of environmentally friendly
agricultural practices by farmers in Croatia’s Pannonian plain in order to
reduce nutrient discharge from agricultural sources to surface and
ground water bodies.
Project set-up
The project is co-ordinated by the World Bank and the Croatian Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development (MAFRD). A team of
international and Croatian consultants has been engaged to undertake
an in-depth analysis of the feasibility of the proposed actions, select
project regions and design project activities protecting the Danube
Watershed from nutrient discharge deriving from agricultural practices.
Task of nitrate
policy and
nitrate
management
advisor
Dr Darko Znaor acts as nitrate policy and nitrate management advisor to
the project. MAFRD has requested him to produce a study providing a
comprehensive overview on the pressure on Croatian water resources
caused by nitrates and phosphorous of agricultural origin. The study
should contain data and analysis on:
 Agricultural land use statistics
 Consumption of synthetic fertilizers
 Nitrogen and phosphorus load from livestock excreta
 The total nitrogen and phosphorus load from synthetic fertilizers and
livestock excreta
 A comparison of nitrogen and phosphorus load (per hectare of
utilized agricultural area) from synthetic fertilizers and livestock
excreta in Croatia and EU Member States
 The surface nitrogen balance for Croatia, according to OECD
methodology.
 Source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus pressure in
Croatia arising from point and non-point sources. The assessment
should indicate the share of agriculture-induced nitrogen and
phosphorus pressure, compared to the pressure deriving from
background pollution, industry, the population sector (settlements)
and any other relevant source.
6
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
2 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
Why it is
important to
understand
agricultural land
use?
A proper understanding of the statistics on the land use in Croatia is
essential since the entire assessment of nitrogen and phosphorus
pressure on Croatian water resources is based on the data on
agricultural land use. The agricultural land use in Croatia has been a
source of dispute among Croatian agronomists. The debate about how
much agricultural land Croatia has, and how much it utilises, has been
going on since the Agricultural Census from 2003 (CBS, 2003a) showed
that Croatia has nearly three times less agricultural land than registered
in the outdated cadastre maps. A smaller agricultural area leads to a
higher per hectare consumption of nutrients from synthetic fertilisers,
livestock manure and other sources. Knowing the precise per hectare
nutrients consumption (notably nitrogen and phosphorus) is the heart of
the matter since this allows us to compare Croatian consumption with
the consumption in other countries. The Croatian authorities regularly
report relatively low per hectare nutrient/fertiliser consumption (ICID,
2001; MPŠ, 2003; MPŠVG, 2006; MZOPU, 2002; VRH, 2003). However,
these figures should be treated with caution since they contain a
methodological mistake: the estimated nutrient consumption is divided
by a non-existent 2-3 million hectares of agricultural land.
Structure of this
Chapter
This Chapter is an attempt to provide a contribution to a better
understanding on the agricultural land use in Croatia. It begins with an
overview of the agricultural land use records kept by EUROSTAT.
Understanding this is essential as it will help in understanding what
EUROSTAT means under a particular land use category – as well as to
understand the discrepancies between EUROSTAT and Croatian
statistics on the issues. The second part of this Chapter presents and
discusses Croatian agricultural land use statistics.
2.1
Land use categories recorded by EUROSTAT
Functional
dimension of
land use
EUROSTAT records agricultural land use in terms of its functional
dimension. In other words, agricultural land area is recorded according
to its agricultural (production) purpose. All major agricultural land use
categories recorded by EUROSTAT are presented below and their
definitions are taken and quoted from the relevant EUROSTAT
databases.
Utilised
agricultural area
Utilised agricultural area (UAA), in the EUROSTAT statistics often coded
as “AGRAREA” is the total area taken up by arable land, permanent
grassland, permanent crops and kitchen gardens used by the holdings,
regardless of the type of tenure or whether it is used as common land
(EUROSTAT, 2011j). It refers to the total area used for crop production,
which is exhaustively described as: arable land including temporary
grassing and fallow and green manure, permanent grassland, land
under permanent crops (e.g. fruit and grapes), crops under glass and
other utilised agricultural areas. The utilised agricultural area in some
EUROSTAT publications/databases is not fully compatible and
comparable because of different interpretations of the area concepts.
The data relaying on the statistics whose source is the Farm Structure
7
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
Survey do not include areas outside the farm, whereas these areas are,
in principle, included in some other figures referring to utilised
agricultural area (EUROSTAT, 2011j). In the Community vineyard
register "utilised agricultural area" means the total area taken up by
arable land, permanent pasture and meadow, land used for permanent
crops and kitchen gardens (EUROSTAT, 2011j).
Agricultural area
in use (AAU)
Agricultural area in use (AAU) is the total area of arable land, permanent
pasture and meadows, land under permanent crops and family gardens
(EUROSTAT, 2011a). Basically, it means the same as utilised
agricultural area (UAA).
Cropped area
Cropped area refers to the area that corresponds to the total sown area
for producing a specific crop during a given year (EUROSTAT, 2011c).
Temporary
grass
Temporary grass means grass plants for grazing, hay or silage included
as a part of a normal crop rotation, lasting at least one crop year and
less than five years, sown with grass or grass-clover mixtures. These
areas are broken up by ploughing or other tilling or the plants are
destroyed by other means as by herbicides before they are sown again.
Mixtures of predominantly grass plants and other forage crops (usually
leguminous), grazed, harvested green or as dried hay are included here
(EUROSTAT, 2011h).
Fallow
land
All arable land included in the crop rotation system, whether worked or
not, but with no intention to produce a harvest for the duration of a crop
year is called fallow land (EUROSTAT, 2011d). The essential
characteristic of fallow land is that it is left to recover, normally for the
whole of a crop year. Fallow land may be:
1. bare land bearing no crops at all
2. land with spontaneous natural growth, which may be used as feed or
ploughed in
3. land sown exclusively for the production of green manure (green
fallow).
Other
land
Eurostat’s agricultural statistics records (under code “H”) also include a
category called “other land”. This includes:
1. unutilised agricultural land
2. wooded area
3. land occupied by buildings, farmyards, tracks, ponds, quarries,
infertile land, rock, etc. (EUROSTAT, 2011g).
Unutilised
agricultural land
Unutilised agricultural land is the agricultural land which is no longer
farmed, for economic, social or other reasons, and which is not used in
the crop rotation system, i.e. land where no agricultural use is intended.
This land could be brought back into cultivation using the resources
normally available on an agricultural holding (EUROSTAT, 2011i).
Wooded
area
Wooded area comprises areas covered with trees or forest shrubs,
including poplar plantations inside or outside woods and forest-tree
nurseries grown in woodland for the holding’s own requirements, as well
as forest facilities (forest roads, storage depots for timber, etc.)
(EUROSTAT, 2011k). The wooded area can be either for commercial or
non-commercial use.
8
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
Natural
colonization of
non-forest land
Eurostat also records natural colonisation of non-forest land with forest
trees through stages of natural succession without human intervention.
Natural colonization may frequently occur after other (non-forest) land
has been abandoned or withdrawn from its former utilization, e.g.
farming or pasturing (EUROSTAT, 2011f). Natural conversion of other
wooded land to forest is a result of natural processes. The process may
occur without intentional intervention by man, but may be aided by
human interventions such as the withdrawal of animal grazing from the
land allowing tree regeneration to succeed, soil scarification, or actions
to protect the area from fire, over-cutting, etc (EUROSTAT, 2011f).
2.2
Agricultural land use in Croatia
2.2.1 Sources of statistical data
Statistics until
2003
Until 2003 the only sources of official information on agricultural land use
were the Statistical Yearbooks (CBS, 1991-2003) published annually by
the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). According to these, the
agricultural land area in Croatia covers 3.15 million hectares and this
area has remained stable over time. The Statistical Yearbooks indicated
a rather bipolar land use pattern, with arable and permanent crops
occupying nearly half (45%) of the total area and grassland occupying
the other half (56%).
Agricultural
census 2003
In 2003 the CBS performed an agricultural census (CBS, 2003a) – the
first since Croatia gained independence. The census gave quite a
different picture on agricultural land use, suggesting that the total
agricultural area in use is nearly three times smaller – just 1.1 million
hectares, of which about 80% is made up of arable land and permanent
crops and 20% of grassland. This huge discrepancy is due to the
different methodologies employed in making the assessments of the
agricultural land use (CBS, 2007c). The Statistical Yearbook data are
derived from expert estimates based on the land survey register. This
register was last updated at the beginning of the 20th century when
Croatia belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (GRC, 2003). As such
it is unlikely to be a source of reliable information or the basis for a
sound estimate on the present land use. The census, however, was
based on a detailed survey run among all registered agricultural
companies and nearly all agricultural households. It recorded data on
the actual land use and is most likely to give a much more precise
estimate.
Land use data
comparison
from 2004
Surprisingly, the release of the census data on agricultural land use did
not provoke discussion until three months after a report was published
by Znaor and Karoglan Todorović (2004). This study compared the
census data with two other, but unrelated, sources also giving an
indication on the present use of agricultural land and land cover: a
satellite image of habitats from 2000 (SINP, 2004), provided by the State
Institute for Nature Protection (SINP) and the Farm Register maintained
by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management
(MAFWM, 2004b). The figures on agricultural land use from both
sources corresponded much better with the census than with the data
presented in the Statistical Yearbooks. The satellite map suggests that
9
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
in 2000, Croatia had 1.4 million hectares of agricultural land in use while
in 2004 only 0.85 million hectares were inscribed in the Farm Register.
This register includes all farms which have ever received direct
payments from the MAFWM, as well as all smallholdings selling their
produce at local markets.
... triggered a
dispute
Consequently, the study concluded that it is reasonable to believe that
the census data are very likely to reflect the present reality and that the
previously published data on agricultural land use from the Statistical
Yearbooks should be considered as outdated and unreliable. This
conclusion caused disputes within the National Committee for
Agriculture (Maceljski, 2005) and provoked the agri-chemical industry
and the scientific community close to it to send letters of protest (CSSS,
2004; Petrokemija, 2004; PPC, 2004) to the Minister of Agriculture.
These could not accept the study’s suggestion that the “shrunken”
agricultural area also means that Croatia’s per hectare consumption of
fertilisers and pesticides is much higher than previously reported.
... and a change
However, the Ministry of Agriculture acknowledged the approach
presented in this study by adopting the census data in all its key policy
documents that followed (MAFWM, 2004a; MAFWM, 2006a; MAFWM,
2006b; MAFWM, 2006c; MAFWM, 2007). Similarly, in 2005 the CBS
abandoned its sixty year long tradition of assessing agricultural land use
on the basis of the outdated land survey register (CBS, 2006). Instead it
introduced a survey method covering about 11,000 agricultural
households (2.4% of the total). The survey showed that both in 2005 and
2006 there were 1.2 million hectares of agricultural land in use (just 10%
more than according to the census), reconfirming the validity of the
census figures for 2003 (CBS, 2007c). The agricultural land use data
before 2005 have been revised accordingly and the data provided in the
recent Statistical Year Books and other publications are consistent and
harmonised with the EUROSTAT methodology.
2.2.2 Utilised agricultural area (UAA)
UAA according
to the CBS
According to the revised data, in the period 2000–2009 Croatia’s utilised
agricultural area ranged between 1 168 705 ha in 2000, up to 1 299 582
ha in 2009 (Figure 1). The CBS defines utilised agricultural area as the
total surface land that was used for crop production in the year in
question. It covers arable land and gardens, kitchen gardens, orchards,
olive groves, meadows and pastures, nurseries, vineyards and land with
basket willow (osier). Kitchen gardens here are defined as areas
scheduled for growing crops (mostly vegetables) that are primarily
intended for household consumption and not for sale.
10
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
1.350.000
Hectares
1.300.000
1.250.000
1.200.000
1.150.000
1.100.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 1: Utilised agricultural area (after CBS, 2010)
Share of major
land use
categories
With a share of 67%, in 2009 arable land occupied by far the most UAA
(Figure 2). It is followed by permanent grassland (meadows and
pastures) which accounted for 26% of UAA. Orchards covered 3% of
UAA, the same as vineyards. Olive groves, nurseries and osier willows
occupied 1% of UAA. A detailed overview of the share of major
agricultural land use categories in the period 2000 – 2009 is presented
in Appendix 11.1.
3%
3% 1%
Arable land
Permanent grassland
26%
Orchards
67%
Vineyards
Olive groves, nurseries &
osier willows
Figure 2: Share of major agricultural land use categories (after CBS,
2010)
11
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
Farm
Register
In 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture established a Farm Register. This
database includes all farms/land receiving direct payments, as well as all
smallholdings selling their produce at local markets. In 2009 the Farm
Register encompassed 1,036,490 ha, representing 80% of the UAA (as
registered by CBS). Arable land accounted for 76% and permanent
grassland for 15% of the area. Orchards and vineyards occupied 4%
(2% each); forest 3% and other land 1% (olive groves, reed-beds,
unfertile land and other) of the Farm Register area.
2.2.3 CORINE Land Cover
What is CORINE
Land Cover?
Corine Land Cover (CLC) is a map of the European environmental
landscape based on interpretation of satellite images. The land cover
project is part of the CORINE (Coordination of information on the
environment) programme and is intended to provide consistent localised
geographical information on the land cover of the Member States of the
European Community. Recently, Croatia has also been included in the
CLC system. According to the latest reference year (2006), Croatia has
an area of 2,284,112 ha under land cover that is associated with
agricultural practices, which is nearly as twice as big as the UAA area
reported by CBS.
Heterogeneous
agricultural
areas
Heterogeneous agricultural areas with complex cultivation patterns
(CORINE code 242) occupy 42% of the land (Figure 4). An additional
21% of the area is made up of heterogeneous agricultural areas
(CORINE code 243) – land principally occupied by agriculture, with
significant areas of natural vegetation. Meadows and pastures account
for 19% of the area, while arable land accounts for only 16%. Vineyards,
orchards and olive groves cover a tiny 2% of the area. This pattern
substantially differs from those reported CBS and the Farm Register
(Figure 5).
12
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
Figure 3: Land cover pattern according to CORINE Land Cover (EA,
2011)
13
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
Arable land
16%
21%
2%
Vineyards, orchards & olive
groves
Meadows & pastures
19%
42%
Heterogenous, complex
cultivation patterns
Heterogenous, agric. land with
natural vegetation
Figure 4: Land cover pattern according to CORINE Land Cover (after
(EA, 2011)
Land cover vs.
land use
The distinction between land cover and land use is fundamental, and the
two are often confused. Land cover is the observed physical cover, as
seen from the ground or through remote sensing, including natural or
planted vegetation and human constructions (buildings, roads, etc.)
which cover the earth's surface. Land use is based upon function, the
purpose for which the land is being use. It should be noted that
CORINE Land Cover deals only with land cover and not land use
(EPA, 2011). CORINE land cover is primarily used for mapping the type
and distribution of habitats and not for determining agricultural land use
and practices.
EA uses
CORINE as
reference area
The Croatian Environment Agency (EA) has been using CORINE Land
Cover data and the area of 2.3 million ha to determine per hectare
consumption of mineral fertilisers in Croatia (EA, 2011). By doing this it
lowers the actual consumption of fertilisers and disables comparison
with consumption in other countries.
... though this is
not done in the
EU
It should be noted that no EU Member State uses CORINE Land Cover
as the area basis for determining per hectare use of agricultural inputs.
The same goes for EUROSTAT and the European Environment Agency
(EEA). Both organisations base their calculations on UAA and not
CORINE Land Cover.
CORINE
operates at 25
ha scale grids
Last but not least – it is essential to point that CORINE Land Cover has
a serious methodological shortcoming, which in the case of Croatia
makes it particularly unsuitable and imperfect. The smallest mapping
scale unit applied in CORINE images for Croatia is 25 ha! CORINE
images are unable to detect anything finer than this. Having in mind that
agricultural land in Croatia is extremely fragmented and small, it is very
unlikely that CORINE is the right “tool” to determine agricultural land in
Croatia. Its precision is even more disputable in the Croatian karst
region, where CORINE registers most agricultural land, so called
14
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
heterogeneous areas which CORINE presumes are predominantly
agricultural. According to CORINE, these account for 68% of the area
associated with agricultural practices. However, the fact is that the
average farm size of the farms inscribed in the Farm Register in the
karst region is 2.0 ha. In Šibenik–Knin County for instance, this is even
much smaller – only 0.6 ha. It is therefore no wonder that CORINE
which operates at the scale of 25 ha grids cannot “filter” and extract
agricultural from non-agricultural land cover. Consequently, it reports a
huge heterogeneous “agricultural” area of 1.5 million ha. The difference
in hectares between UAA reported by CBS, hectares inscribed in the
Farm Register and agricultural Land Cover is presented in Figure 5.
(Note that the pink area in the last column indicates 1.5 million ha
heterogeneous land).
2.500.000
2.250.000
Hectares
2.000.000
1.750.000
Others/
heterogeneous
1.500.000
Vineyards
1.250.000
Orchards
1.000.000
750.000
Permanent
grassland
500.000
250.000
Arable land
0
CBS
Farm Register
CORINE
Figure 5: Agricultural land in 2006 according to different sources
(author's calculation after CBS, 2010; EEA, 2011 and
MAFRD, 2011)
2.2.4 Do Croatian farmers utilise more land than the CBS records?
Evergreen
question
The question whether Croatian farmers utilise more land than the CBS
records is central in all discussions on the per hectare nutrients load in
Croatia, notably the per hectare consumption of synthetic fertilisers. This
is a legitimate question and the answer deserves to be properly
analysed.
Outdated
cadastre - basis
for the land use
evaluation
The huge discrepancies regarding the agricultural land use data in
Croatia are primarily the result of the chaotic situation in the cadastre.
15
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
The Croatian cadastre was last updated at the very beginning of the 20 th
century, while Croatia was still part of the Austrian monarchy (VRH,
2000). However, in spite of this the official land use evaluators that were
providing land use data to the CBS prior to 2005, based their
assessment on cadastre maps. Apart from having used cadastre maps
which were decades out of date, the problem was also that this job was
done for years by the same people whose estimates were most likely
influenced by the data they had submitted in previous years.
Legacies of the
past
The problem regarding inaccurate agricultural land use statistics has
been recognised and documented for a long time. Reports from the mid
sixties as well as from the early nineties (RZS, 1964; Stipetić, 1991)
emphasise cadastral inaccuracy in terms of land use. Stipetić (1991)
stresses that Croatia “has less arable land than shown in the cadastre
and statistics on crop production”. According to the same sources, it was
quite common for evaluators to report the surface under wheat and
maize as being 20% greater than actually sown. The same goes for
grassland development into shrubs and later forest. This was not
recorded either, partly because the owners did not report on it. An
additional problem was also cadastre regulations, which “did not accept
conversion of arable land into grassland” (RZS, 1964). This is because
the municipal land tax was paid according to the land use categories
from the cadastre, with arable land, vineyards and orchards being taxed
much higher than grassland. Therefore, each municipality claimed to
have a large area of agricultural land, particularly under arable and
permanent crops (Stipetić, 1991). On the other hand, for the same
reason, most farmers did not declare grassland conversion into arable
land or permanent crops. This system of land taxing was abolished in
2000.
Permanent
grassland is the
biggest puzzle
The biggest dilemma regarding the agricultural land use in Croatia
relates to permanent grassland. It is not unlikely that Croatia uses a
greater area of permanent grassland than what is recorded in the current
statistics. Croatia still has considerable state-owned grassland areas,
notably in the karst region. In practice, these can be utilised free of
charge and without having obtained a permit from the authorities,
notably in remote areas – and most karst grassland is in remote areas.
However, due to the rural exodus and abandonment of livestock
husbandry in the Croatian karst region, vast areas which used to be
pastures and meadows have already been out of production for
decades. Consequently, they are overgrown by forest vegetation by
now. According to EC classification grassland with a forestry canopy of
more than 25% and tree trunks whose diameter is greater than 50 cm
cannot longer be classified as agricultural land, but must be classified as
forests.
CBS disclaimer
on permanent
grassland
The CBS statistics on permanent grassland refer only to the area
actually utilised. According to CBS methodology, permanent grassland
comprises permanent meadows and grassland. Semi-permanent
(temporary) grassland – usually made of sown grass-clover mixtures or
alfalfa - is recorded under arable land use statistics. It is worth noticing
that for figures on permanent grassland the CBS has a disclaimer stating
that “It is estimated that this area is larger due to the fact that the stateowned land is jointly used by more than one family farm for pasture”.
16
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
How large is
unrecorded
permanent
grassland?
The key question is: if there was more permanent grassland in use
(presumably in the karst region) – how large could this unrecorded area
be? This is difficult to estimate. But by relating the current stocking
density of grazing livestock (those requiring grass and/or hay: cattle,
sheep, goats and equidae) with the forage area, one may get an
approximate idea.
... can be
estimated
From the regional CBS data on the number of grazing livestock (CBS,
2011) and by applying standard EU LSU factors (see Chapter 4.2) it
appears that the Croatian Mediterranean region has 68,658 LSU and an
area of 141,346 ha permanent grassland, plus an additional area of
18,466 ha on which fodder plants are grown on arable land (CBS, 2011).
So in total there are 159,812 ha of fodder area. Dividing the total number
of grazing LSU by the permanent grassland it appears that in the
Croatian Mediterranean region there are 2.1 ha available to support 1
grazing LSU – or 2.3 ha if the total fodder area is included in the
calculation. However, the key question here is whether this area is
sufficient to provide enough feed for 1 LU. In case it is not, it is very
likely that Croatian farmers in the Mediterranean region utilise more
permanent grassland than recorded by CBS (because the recorded area
is not able to provide enough fodder).
Comparison
with EU
Mediterranean
countries
In order to get a proxy answer to this question a comparison is made
with the EU Mediterranean countries. The fodder area in these countries
(France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia) is believed to have
comparable agro-ecological conditions and productivity as the Croatian
Mediterranean region. In other words, the hypothesis is that 1 ha of
permanent grassland or total fodder area in Mediterranean Croatia
should be able to support a similar number of grazing LSUs as in the EU
Mediterranean countries. From the EUROSTAT data it appears that
there is a significant variation between these countries. The average
grazing livestock density is 0.7 LSU/ha (vs. 2.1 LSU/ha in Croatia) and
3.1 LSU/ha (vs. 2.3 LSU/ha in Croatia) for the total fodder area. From
this calculation we can conclude that:
1. Croatia has far more (nearly three times) permanent grassland area
per grazing LSU than any of the EU Mediterranean countries. So from
this perspective it is unlikely that Croatia uses more grassland area
than recorded by CBS.
2. When calculated on the basis of the total fodder area (= permanent
grassland + fodder crops on arable land), it appears that Croatia has
25% less area per grazing LSU than the average for the EU
Mediterranean countries (though it has more area than France and
Slovenia and the same as Greece). Consequently, from this point of
view it seems reasonable to argue that Croatia is likely to use an
additional 25% grassland area (approximately 40,000 ha) than
registered by the CBS. However, it is important to highlight that a
more precise assessment of this kind would also have to take into
account the type and quantity of feedstuff imported or bought in from
other areas, as this is also a strategy for farmers to overcome the
problem of grassland shortage or inaccessibility.
Grassland in
Mediterranean
Croatia is not
likely to be
fertilised
Even if we suppose that Croatian farmers use an additional 40,000 ha of
grassland, it is very unlikely that this grassland would be fertilised,
notably with synthetic fertilisers. Nearly all grassland in Mediterranean
17
Chapter 2: Agricultural land use
Croatia is in marginal, remote areas, growing on shallow, rocky soils.
These areas are not easily accessible and fertilising them is not
economically feasible. They are predominantly used for extensive sheep
and goat husbandry, sometimes also for cattle.
2.3
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. Statistics on the agricultural land use have been considerably
improved over the last few years. However, the CBS still does not
provide sufficient data on “other land” use (EUROSTAT code “H”).
2. Approximately 80% of the UAA is now inscribed in the Farm Register.
From 265,000 ha “missing” in the Farm Register, the vast majority –
190,000 ha is permanent grassland.
3. The CORINE Land Cover methodology operates in 25 ha scale grids,
which in Croatian conditions - with plenty of small plots and
fragmented farmland - cannot provide reliable results
4. The Environment Agency uses CORINE Land Cover area as a basis
for determining fertiliser consumption per hectare. This is not an
appropriate approach as CORINE Land Cover deals only with land
cover and not land use. Member States, EUROSTAT or EEA never
use CORINE Land Cover area as basis for agricultural statistics.
5. A hypothetical comparison of grazing LSU per ha of total fodder area
between Croatia and EU Mediterranean countries suggests that
Croatia might utilise an additional area of approximately 40,000 ha
permanent grassland – which is not recorded by the CBS.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the following policy
recommendations can be made:
1. Encourage CBS in further refinement of the statistics on agricultural
land use, notably permanent grassland and “other land”.
2. Discourage the use of CORINE Land Cover area as the basis for per
hectare calculations in agriculture. Prevent the usage of the figure 2.3
million hectares of agricultural land in all official publications.
3. In all calculations and publications use the CBS data on agricultural
land use.
18
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
3 CONSUMPTION OF SYNTHETIC FERTILISERS
No reliable
statistics
Due to the lack of farm accounts, Croatia has no figures on the
consumption of agricultural inputs at the farm level. The available
statistics consist of aggregated figures at the national level and they vary
from source to source. Croatia has no comprehensive statistical method
of data collection with regard to the use of agricultural inputs. In other
words, all sources used provide only partial data with limited reliability.
Thus, the official figures can vary a lot, depending on the source of
primary data used and the purpose for which it is gathered. Currently,
information on fertiliser use in Croatia is provided by several sources
and their estimates are presented below:
3.1 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural
Development
Legal
requirement for
data
The Ordinance on Inscription into the Fertiliser Register (OG, 2007)
requires all producers and traders with synthetic fertilisers to be
inscribed into the Fertiliser Register by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development (MAFRD) and to keep the Ministry informed about
their production and sales. The fertiliser type, their nutrient content and
produced/sold quantity should be reported to the MAFRD. However, this
database is still under development and no precise data on fertiliser
consumption can be obtained and derived from it yet.
3.2
Central Bureau of Statistics
Data provided in
Statistical
Yearbooks
The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) provides data on fertiliser
consumption in its Statistical Yearbooks. The figures are derived from
two sources: annual statistical reports from agricultural companies and
estimates based on questionnaires carried out among some 9,000 family
farms. While the data on the usage of fertilisers by companies should be
quite accurate, estimates based on interviewing representatives of a
limited number of farms are certainly less accurate.
Data
extrapolation for
family farms
Although the data on the total fertiliser consumption are provided both
for legal entities and family farms, this is not the case with nutrients.
CBS provides data on nutrients (active ingredients) consumption only for
legal entities – and not for family farms. However, these can be
extrapolated by subtracting from the total fertiliser consumption the
amount consumed by legal entities. This results in fertiliser consumption
by family farms and provides us a consumption ration between legal
entities and family farms (depending from the year, this range from
1.0:1.0 to 1.0:2.5). Multiplication of this ration with the quantity of
nutrients consumed by legal entities gives us an indication about what
the nutrient (N, P2O5 and K2O) consumption by family farms might have
been in a particular year. Figure 6 and Appendices 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6
offer an indication about fertiliser consumption by Croatian legal entities
and family farms in the period 2000–2008.
19
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
200,000
175,000
tonnes
150,000
Total nutrients
N
P2O
K2O
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 6: Nutrients consumption by Croatian legal entities and family
farms (author's calculation, data extrapolated from Statistical
Yearbook 2010; CBS, 2010)
Data on fertiliser
production,
import and
export
CBS statistics contain very precise data on fertiliser production and their
import and export. However these are available only as “raw” data at the
level of each product and the country from which it has been imported or
to which it has been exported. “Filtering” these data is very laborious
work. It requires not only knowledge of industrial products and their
custom codes, but also good knowledge on fertiliser products and their
nutrient content. Consequently, CBS does not use these data. However,
there have been some independent efforts to “filter“ this data and use
them assuming that the sum of fertiliser production and import, with
exports deducted, would yield reliable figures on fertiliser consumption,
notably if used for multiple year series (this eliminates potential errors
caused by produced and imported fertilisers whose sale has not been
realised in the same year). A detailed calculation of the Croatian fertiliser
based on the data of domestically produced, imported and exported
fertilisers has been presented by Znaor et al., 2005 and Znaor 2008
(Figure 7 and Chapter 11.7). According to these, the average annual
consumption of nutrients (N, K2O and P2O5) in the period 2001-2006 was
203,918 t, of which nitrogen fertilisers contributed with 117,156 t,
phosphate fertilisers with 41,434 t and potassium fertilisers with 45,328 t.
20
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
250.000
225.000
200.000
Total nutrients
N
P2O
K2O
tonnes
175.000
150.000
125.000
100.000
75.000
50.000
25.000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Figure 7: Fertiliser consumption in Croatia (Znaor, 2008 after CBS,
2008)
Agricultural
census
The agricultural census (CBS, 2003a) does not provide information
about the total or per hectare consumption of fertilisers, but it does
provide data on the land area treated. According to these, in 2003
fertilisers were spread on as much as 755,517 hectares - an area that is
equal to 70% of the total UAA or 93% of arable land.
3.3
IFA database
The International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA)
The International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) provides a detailed
overview on the type and quantities of fertilisers consumed in Croatia in
the period 1994-2004. The source of IFA's data for Croatia is its
member, the sole Croatia fertiliser manufacturer, Petrokemija d.d.
(Rousseau, 2011). The IFA database contains historical production,
trade and consumption statistics of nitrogen, phosphate and potash
fertilizers by country and by product. The figures are given in term of the
nutrients N, P2O5 and K2O for production, import, export and
consumption. The data for Croatia are presented in Figure 8 and
Appendix 11.4.
21
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
'000 tonne nutrients
Production
Exports
Consumption
Imports
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 8: Fertiliser production, imports, exports and consumption (IFA,
2011)
The figure below gives an overview of nitrogen, phosphate and
potassium consumption in the period 1998-2007 (after IFA, 2011).
275
250
Nutrients
225
N
'000 tonnes
200
P2O
175
K2O
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
22
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
Particularly interesting is the trend from 2001-2008 (Figure 9). During
this time, consumption of total nutrients increased by 40%, nitrogen
consumption by 36%, potassium by 78% and phosphate consumption by
16%.
275
250
increase 40%
225
'000 tonnes
200
Total
nutrients
175
150
increase 36%
N
125
100
increase 78%
75
50
increase 16%
K2O
P2O
25
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 9: Fertiliser consumption in the period 2001-2008 (after IFA,
2011)
Detailed data on fertiliser consumption by product (the types of fertiliser
are presented in Appendix 11.11. Urea accounts for 38% of all
nitrogenous fertilisers, followed by CAN (31%), while compound NPK
fertilisers make up 27% of all fertiliser consumption (Figure 10).
Urea
38%
CAN
31%
Others
4%
NPK
27%
Figure 10: Share of nitrogen fertiliser products in total nitrogen fertiliser
consumption (after IFA, 2011)
23
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
3.4
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN
(FAO)
FAOSTAT
FAOSTAT – the statistical database of the Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the UN (FAO) provides data on nutrient production,
import, export and consumption for the period 2002-2008. The
compilation of the fertilizer data is made possible by the cooperation of
governments and industry experts.
Improved
data
The new FAO fertiliser datasets have been prepared using a revised
methodology and new dissemination formats. The fertilizer statistics data
received from individual countries are converted to nutrients and
validated for consistency regarding summary totals of production,
imports, exports, consumption and including domestic availability for the
three types of straight fertilizers (N), phosphates (P2O5), potash (K2O)
and complex fertilizers (NP, NPK). In addition, the fertilizer data is
reviewed with regard to the quantities allocated for non-fertilizer use,
fertilizer used for crop production, and fertiliser used to manufacture
other NPK compounds or blended among others. Consumption figures
are developed based on the underlying assumption that supply equals
consumption. The main source of data is the FAO Fertiliser
questionnaires sent to countries. Additional sources include: national
statistical publications, country project reports, studies available in other
FAO Divisions, economic journals, national statistics, Internet websites
and country trade data received from customs departments and industry
experts. MAFRD provides data on fertiliser consumption for Croatia,
after having received these from Petrokemija d.d. (Deur, 2011).
350.000
300.000
tonnes
250.000
Total nutrients
N
P2O
K2O
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 11: Fertiliser consumption in Croatia (after FAO, 2011)
24
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
3.5
Petrokemija d.d.
Uses own data
Petrokemija d.d. - the sole fertiliser manufacturer in Croatia keeps its
own records on fertiliser consumption for Croatia, but these are not
publicly available. However, the Croatian Environment Agency and
scientific community refer to Petrokemija’s figures and sometimes use
these in their reports (CEA, 2007a; CEA, 2007b; Mesić, et al., 2004)
Uses CBS’s data
to calculate
import and
export
However, Petrokemija primarily keeps records about its own production
and sales. The figures it passes to the EA and Croatian scientific
community do not seem to take into account fertilisers imported and sold
by other companies (at least there is no reference to this calculation).
For Petrokemija – as for all others in Croatia - the only source of data on
imported fertilisers are the “raw” data from CBS. This is important to
understand, because Petrokemija’s data on imported fertilisers, as well
as on those exported by other companies can only originate from
“filtering” CBS’s raw data. So, Petrokemija’s calculations on imported
and exported fertilisers are not official data.
3.6
Environment Agency
Uses third-party
data
The Environment Agency uses different data sources in different
publications: from CBS’s Statistical Yearbooks; from the Faculty of
Agronomy of the University of Zagreb (which seems to process data it
obtains from Petrokemija d.d.) or data directly from Petrokemija d.d.
Does not
provide data on
nutrients
consumption
The data from the Faculty of Agronomy, used in the latest Environmental
Report (EA, 2010), provides only an estimate on the total quantities of
fertiliser consumed (Figure 12). It does not provide data on nutrients
consumption, which is far more essential than data on total fertiliser
consumption. This is because different types of fertilisers contain
different quantities of nutrients (N, P2O5 and K2O). Thus a figure
indicating consumption of 100 kg fertiliser gives no idea about how much
nutrients were loaded into the environment. For instance 100 kg of urea
fertilisers contains 46 kg N, while the same amount of calcium
ammonium nitrate (CAN) contains only 25–28 kg N – just over half as
much. In both cases, consumption of fertilisers is 100 kg. But the
consumption of nutrients in the first case is nearly double that of the
second. Finally, it is important to note that the data from the Faculty of
Agronomy do not specify whether the calculation takes into account also
imported fertilisers – or solely those produced and sold by Petrokemija
d.d.
25
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
Figure 12: Fertiliser consumption in the period 1991 – 2007 (after (EA,
2010), quoting the Faculty of Agronomy of the University of
Zagreb, 2010).
3.7
Data
discrepancies
Overview on fertiliser consumption data
discrepancies
As can be seen from the above-presented analysis, the exact fertiliser
consumption in Croatia is not known – or at least there is no consensus
about it. Official and industry data vary substantially from one source to
another. In this Chapter, an overview on fertiliser consumption data
available from the CBS, IFA and FAO is presented (Appendix 11.12 and
Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15). As can be seen, for the period that
is common to all these data (2002–2006), the CBS data from Statistical
Yearbooks report the lowest consumption. The FAO tends to have
somewhat higher consumption figures than the IFA and data derived
from CBS’s statistics on fertiliser production, import and export (as
calculated by Znaor, 2008). The convergence between the CBS data on
production, import and export with those of the FAO is better than
between the IFA and the FAO data (Appendix 11.12 and Figure 13,
Figure 14 and Figure 15). The difference in the case of nitrogen fertiliser
consumption is only 1%, while the difference at the level of total nutrients
consumption is only 9% (Appendix 11.12).
26
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
160,000
140,000
tonnes N
120,000
100,000
80,000
FAO
IFA
60,000
CBS (prod., import, export)
CBS (Statistical Yearbook)
40,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Ø 20022006
Figure 13: Nitrogen fertiliser consumption according to different sources
(author's calculation after CBS, 2010; CBS, 2007a; IFA, 2011
and FAO, 2011)
90,000
FAO
IFA
CBS (prod., import, export)
CBS (Statistical Yearbook)
80,000
tonnes P2O5
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Ø 20022006
Figure 14: Phosphate fertiliser consumption according to different
sources (author's calculation after CBS, 2010; CBS, 2007a;
IFA, 2011 and FAO, 2011)
27
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
75,000
70,000
65,000
FAO
IFA
CBS (prod., import, export)**
CBS (Statistical Yearbook)*
tonnes K2O
60,000
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Ø 20022006
Figure 15: Potash fertiliser consumption according to different sources
(author's calculation after CBS, 2010; CBS, 2007a; IFA, 2011
and FAO, 2011)
270,000
tonnes total nutrients
250,000
230,000
210,000
190,000
170,000
FAO
IFA
CBS (prod., import, export)
CBS (Statistical Yearbook)
150,000
130,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Ø 2002-2006
Figure 16: Total nutrients consumption according to different sources
(author's calculation after CBS, 2010; CBS, 2007a; IFA, 2011
and FAO, 2011)
28
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
3.8
Synthetic fertiliser consumption: Croatia vs. EU
Member States
Comparison of
per hectare
consumption
with EU
The information about the tonnes of fertiliser being consumed in Croatia
tells us very little unless we put it in the context of consumption in other
countries. In order to provide an indication about whether Croatia uses a
“lot”, “similar” or “very little” synthetic fertiliser a comparison of per
hectare consumption is made with the EU Member States. Putting
Croatia’s consumption shoulder-to-shoulder with other countries will
offer us a better idea about the magnitude of the pressure Croatian
fertiliser consumption puts on the environment, notably water resources.
IFA data on
fertiliser
consumption
divided with
EUROSTAT’s
UAA
Figures from the IFA database were chosen for the comparison because
they seem to be most complete – time-wise and geographically. The
only EU country which is not in this database is Luxembourg, and the
data for Malta are questionable. However, these two countries are
anyhow insignificant consumers at the level of EU-27. Data from some
other sources suggest that Luxembourg uses less than 0.5% of all
nutrients consumed in the EU-27 and Malta 0.05%. The EUROSTAT
statistics are less useful than IFA since EUROSTAT lacks fertiliser
consumption data for 2003 and 2007. It has no data for Belgium,
Luxembourg and Malta whatsoever and for 2002, 2004 and 2005 for
quite a number of other countries. FAOSTAT is missing data for
Belgium, but its statistics cover only the period 2002–2006 (vs. IFA’s
1985–2008). In any case, at the level of the EU-27, there is a very high
convergence between the IFA and FAO statistics – just 1% difference for
total nutrients consumption (Appendix 11.14). In order to obtain per ha
fertiliser consumption for the EU Member States, consumption data from
IFA statistics have been divided by the UAA obtained from EUROSTAT.
Croatia: one of
the top
European
fertiliser
consumers
Comparison results indicate that Croatia is one of the top European
fertiliser consumers. In the period 2000-2008, the average annual
consumption rate was 98 kg N /ha UAA. This ranks Croatia as the fourth
largest nitrogen user in Europe (Figure 17 and Appendix 11.20). In the
same period, Croatia was the European champion of phosphate use (41
kg P2O5/ha UAA) (Figure 18 and Appendix 11.21) and vice-champion of
potassium fertiliser consumption (45 kg P2O5/ha UAA) (Figure 19 and
Chapter 11.22). It is worth noticing that Croatia’s consumption rates of
all nutrients are substantially higher than the average for the EU-15, EU27 or EU-12. With an input of 185 kg nutrients/ha UAA, in terms of total
nutrient consumption from synthetic fertilisers, Croatia in the period
2000-2008 ranked fourth in Europe (Figure 20).
29
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
Romania
Latvia
Portugal
Bulgaria
Estonia
Austria
Spain
Lithuania
EU-12
Slovak Rep.
Italy
Hungary
Sweden
Poland
EU-27
Cyprus
Greece
UK
EU-15
Finland
Denmark
France
Czech Rep.
Ireland
Croatia
Germany
Belgium
Slovenija
Netherlands
43
60
67
98
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
kg N per ha UAA
Figure 17: Average annual (2000–2008) nitrogen consumption from synthetic
fertilisers (after IFA, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011b and CBS, 2011)
Bulgaria
Romania
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Slovak Rep.
Sweden
Denmark
Austria
EU-12
Czech Rep.
Portugal
UK
Germany
EU-27
Ireland
Finland
EU-15
Spain
France
Poland
Netherlands
Greece
Italy
Slovenija
Belgium
Cyprus
Croatia
12
17
20
41
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
kg P2 O5 /ha
Figure 18: Average annual (2000–2008) phosphate consumption from synthetic
fertilisers (after IFA, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011b and CBS, 2011)
30
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
Bulgaria
Romania
Latvia
Slovak Rep.
Portugal
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Hungary
EU-12
Austria
Sweden
Cyprus
Greece
Lithuania
Spain
EU-27
UK
Italy
EU-15
Poland
Germany
Ireland
Denmark
Netherlands
France
Finland
Slovenija
Croatia
Belgium
12
20
23
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
kg K2 O / ha
Figure 19: Average annual (2000–2008) potassium consumption from
synthetic fertilisers (after IFA, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011b and
CBS, 2011)
31
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
Romania
Bulgaria
Latvia
Estonia
Portugal
Austria
Lithuania
Slovak Rep.
EU-12
Spain
Hungary
Sweden
EU-27
Italy
Greece
UK
Czech Rep.
Poland
Cyprus
EU-15
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
France
Germany
Croatia
Netherlands
Slovenia
Belgium
18
51
28
21
21
6 6
30
6 9
24
14 9
32
12 14
40
10 14
46
11 7
43
12 12
40
20
17
55
10 11
58
11 14
60
17
20
50
26
22
61
25
14
66
15
21
79
13 11
58
22
26
60
34
14
67
20
23
77
11
27
71
19
29
80
19
27
78
22
28
103
17
98
41
142
123
116
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
N
P2O5
K20
26
45
24
32
32
140
160
27
41
60
180
200
220
Total nutrients/ha UAA
Figure 20: Average annual (2000–2008) consumption of total nutrients from synthetic fertilisers
(after IFA, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011b and CBS, 2011)
Worrying
trend
It is not only the high consumption of synthetic fertilisers in Croatia that
is a point of concern and needs improvement. The consumption pattern
in the period 2001–2008 shows a worrying trend (Figure 21). In this
period the EU-15 reduced its fertiliser consumption by 45% and the EU27 by 20%, while the EU-12 increased it by 16%. However, in the same
period, Croatia has increased its fertiliser consumption by as much as
40%.
32
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
160
Linear (EU-12)
150
Linear (EU-27)
140
Linear (Croatia)
130
Linear (EU-15)
Index
120
110
100
90
80
70
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 21: Linear trend of total nutrients consumption from synthetic
fertilisers in Croatia and the EU (author’s calculation after
IFA, 2011)
The European
champion in
2008
Due to the above-mentioned trend, Croatia in 2008 became the
European champion in synthetic fertiliser consumption. It consumed 199
kg nutrients per hectare UAA (Figure 22), as much as 20% higher than
the second most intensive consumer (Belgium). It is also has by far the
highest consumption of phosphate and potassium (27% and 32% higher
than the second most intensive users). In terms of nitrogen consumption
it ranked third – it consumed 18% less nitrogen than the Netherlands
and 3% less than Belgium.
A note on
potassium
It is important to make a clarification regarding the consumption of
potassium. Due to the high consumption of potassium chloride, IFA’s
figures for Croatia for the period 2005–2008 appear to be higher than in
the previous years. Several efforts have been made to clarify with IFA
(Rousseau, 2011) whether potassium chloride was used for the
manufacture of fertilisers or as fertilisers. Unfortunately, IFA wasn’t able
to provide a clear answer. Consequently, potassium chloride was
included in the calculation since it does appear in the IFA statistics as
fertiliser consumption. However, it is important to stress that the exact
figures on potassium consumption are of limited importance in the
context of this study since contrary to nitrogen and phosphorous,
potassium is not a water pollutant.
33
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
Romania
Portugal
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Spain
Austria
Hungary
Greece
Lithuania
Sweden
Italy
EU-12
Slovak Rep.
EU-27
EU-15
UK
Finland
Denmark
France
Cyprus
Ireland
Germany
Poland
Czech Rep.
Slovenia
Netherlands
Belgium
Croatia
25
53
19
9 6
33
31
27
3 8
28
5 7
29
6 7
31
7 7
40
7 6
38
16
9
45
9 12
51
7 9
46
15
11
48
13
12
61
14 0
55
11 12
58
10 11
60
9
14
59
11
17
71
5 14
71
10 13
52
32
12
68
13
16
92
10 11
67
26
26
96
16
84
22
128
108
105
0
20
40
60
80
100
N
P2O5
K2O
16
26
17
17
19
40
41
120
53
140
160
180
200
kg total nutrients/ ha UAA
Figure 22: Consumption of total nutrients from synthetic fertilisers in 2008 (after IFA, 2011;
EUROSTAT, 2011b and CBS, 2011)
Exceptionally
high N use in
APCP pilot
regions
The survey run among 326 farmers cultivating 13,700 ha in the three
APCP pilot regions indicates an exceptionally high consumption of
nitrogen synthetic fertilisers: 265 kg N/ha in Vukovar-Sirmium County,
157 kg N/ha in Osijek-Baranja County and “only” 117 kg N/ha in
Varaždin County. The average consumption is 193 kg N/ha, which is,
theoretically speaking 350% higher than was the average consumption
for EU-27 in 2008. However, this comparison is not entirely fair since we
compare here fertiliser consumption in a fertile lowland practising
intensive agricultural with the national averages – agricultural areas
which besides intensive agricultural land comprise also regions with
extensive or “zero-input” agriculture.
34
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
280
265
240
kg N / ha
200
193
160
157
120
117
80
40
0
Figure 23: Nitrogen fertiliser consumption on 327 farms that took part in
the APCP survey (own calculation after APCP survey)
3.9
Conclusions
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The exact fertiliser consumption in Croatia is not known – or at least
there is no consensus about it. Official and industry data vary
substantially from one source to another.
2. Croatia has three exceptionally valuable sources on fertiliser
statistics: MAFRD’s Fertiliser Register, CBS’s data on fertiliser
production, import and export; and Petrokemija’s d.d. data.
However, for some reason, no sufficient efforts have been made to
standardise these data.
3. Except the CBS’s, all other data on fertiliser consumption in Croatia
derive from those submitted by Petrokemija d.d.
4. Expressing fertiliser consumption in terms of tonnes of total fertiliser
is not appropriate as this does not provide information about the
actual quantity of nutrients loaded into the environment.
5. Comparison with EU countries indicates that Croatia is one of the
heaviest European fertiliser consumers per hectare of UAA, which
potentially leads to environmental problems and calls for a better
water protection policy and practices.
35
Chapter 3: Consumption of synthetic fertilisers
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the following policy
recommendations can be made:
1. It is of the outmost importance to obtain independent, reliable data
on fertiliser consumption in Croatia and not only those provided by
Petroemija d.d. In this respect MAFRD is advised to:
a) Make more efforts in improving and upgrading its Fertiliser
Register.
b) Request the CBS to provide more precise and reliable data on
fertiliser consumption – those presented in the Statistical
Yearbooks are substantially underestimated. MAFRD and CBS
could jointly set up a task force of 3-4 experts and “filter” all raw
data on fertiliser production, import and export since e.g. 2000
and based on these assess fertiliser consumption for each
nutrient.
2. MAFRD should check the source of fertiliser consumption data
provided to FAOSTAT (= Petrokemija d.d.) and try to understand
why these suggest higher fertiliser consumption than other data.
3. MAFRD should enter into a dialogue both with the CBS and the
Environment Agency and request that all Government Agencies use
uniform data on fertiliser consumption.
4. MAFRD should stimulate reduction of synthetic fertiliser
consumption. It should abandon vouchers for mineral fertiliser
purchase and stimulate water-friendly farming practices through
agri-environment schemes and pilot projects.
36
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
4 NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS LOAD FROM
LIVESTOCK EXCRETA
4.1
Livestock statistics in Croatia
Methodology
used by CBS
CBS keeps a record on livestock numbers in Croatia by running regular
surveys among approximately 15,000 private family farms. Until 2004
this survey was not carried out in all Counties. In order to enable
harmonisation with EU requirements, the livestock census date is set at
1 December.
Livestock
unit (LSU)
Croatia has no official statistics on livestock units. Livestock unit (LSU)
is a standard measurement unit that allows the aggregation of the
various categories of livestock in order to enable them to be compared
(EUROSTAT, 2011e). In the EU, livestock units are defined on the basis
of the feed requirements of the individual animal categories, for which
the coefficients are adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure
defined in Regulation (EC) No 1166/2008 of the European Parliament;
the Council of 19 November 2008 on farm structure surveys and the
survey on agricultural production methods and repealing Council
Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 (EUROSTAT, 2011e). Knowing the number
of livestock units is important since this enables easier to assess the
quantity of nitrogen produced in livestock excreta. It is estimated that 1
LSU produces approximately 80 kg N per year.
LSU for
Croatia
Applying standard EU LSU coefficients (Appendix 11.23) to the number
and category of livestock recorded by the CBS an estimate of LSU in
Croatia has been made. In order to allow a comparison between
nutrients supplied in synthetic fertilisers as presented in the previous
Chapter and nutrients supplied through livestock excreta, the LSU
estimate is made for the same period: 2000-2008. The average annual
LSU in this period was 913,493 LSU. The average livestock density
(LSU/ha UAA) was 0.76, which is exactly the same as in the EU-27
average; 17% less than in EU-15 and 49% higher than in the EU-12
(Figure 25). Cattle accounted for 39% of all LSU, followed by pigs (36%).
Poultry makes 16%, sheep 7% and horses and goats 1% each (Figure
25).
37
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Latvia
Bulgaria
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
EU-12
Finland
Czech…
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Poland
Italy
Greece
Croatia
EU-27
Austria
France
EU-15
UK
Germany
Slovenia
Ireland
Denmark
Cyprus
Belgium
Netherlands
0,0
0,51
0,76
0,76
0,87
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
LSU per ha UAA
Figure 24: Livestock density in Croatia and the EU (author's calculation
after CBS, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011b and EC1200/2009)
Horses
1%
Goats
1%
Poultry
16%
Sheep
7%
Cattle
39%
Pigs
36%
Figure 25: Share of livestock categories in total LSU (author's calculation
after CBS, 2011 and EC1200/2009)
38
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Declining
number of
livestock
The current number of livestock in Croatia is some 2.5 times less than at
the beginning of the 20th century and approximately 2 times less than in
the eighties (UPR, 2000). In 2009 Croatia had just 49% of the livestock
it had in 1911 (calculated on LSU basis) (Figure 26 and Chapter 11.24).
In 1991, Croatia still had 1,320,566 LSU. However, the number
significantly dropped during the Homeland War (1991-1995) and in 1995
Croatia had only 904,346 LSU. Since 1995 until today, livestock
population has been quite stable, ranging from 828,034 LSU in 1998 to
981,931 LSU in 2004. In 2009 Croatia ended up with 33% less LSU than
it had in 1999.
2.000.000
1.812.014
1.800.000
1.600.000
LSU
1.400.000
1.320.566
1.200.000
981.936
882.414
1.000.000
800.000
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1996
1995
1991
1911
1997
828.034
600.000
Figure 26: Livestock population in Croatia (author's calculation, after
CBS, 2011; (CBS, 2003b); CBS, 2011 and Stipetić, 1964)
4.2
Nutrient load from livestock excreta
Estimates on
production
It is estimated that Croatian livestock produces some 65,000 tonnes of
nitrogen and 33,000 tonnes of P2O5 annually (MPŠVG, 2006; MZOPU,
2002; UN-ECE, 1999). While in 1991 the Croatian farming sector
consumed 16 million tonnes of manure, due to the decreased number of
animals, this figure was reduced to 10 million tonnes in 2001 (MPŠVG,
2006). In 2000, only 35 percent of the total nitrogen applied in Croatian
agriculture originated from livestock manure (Mesić, 2002) and in the
period 2001-2003 only 33 percent (Znaor, et al., 2005).
Calculation
methodology
employed
In order to allow comparison with the average annual (2000–2008)
nutrients load from synthetic fertilisers, a calculation is made on the
average nutrients load from livestock for the same period. The livestock
number for each livestock category, identified in the previous step has
39
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
been multiplied with the coefficients for the annual nitrogen production
for different type of livestock, as laid down in the Croatian Ordinance on
Good Agricultural Practice in the Use of Fertilizers (OG, 2008).
Phosphate and potassium content of livestock excreta has been
determined by multiplying the LSU number of each livestock type with
the figures on the typical annual P2O5 and K2O content produced in their
excreta (Appendix 11.26), as suggested in the handbooks of the UK and
the Netherlands Ministries of Agriculture (LNV, 2003; MAFF, 2000).
Some of these coefficients have been slightly modified in order to better
match phosphate and potassium production of the livestock categories
which are recorded by CBS, but for whom no figures for the annual P2O5
and K2O production from their excreta is provided.
Nutrient content
in livestock
excreta may
vary greatly
In the context of the above–mentioned calculation, it is important to
highlight that nutrient content in livestock excreta may vary significantly.
The amount of manure produced by livestock and nutrient content in it
varies, even within species. Dietary regime, housing conditions, bedding
system and the breed are among the most important factors influencing
such differences. Shepherd et al. (2002) for instance measured N
content of manure from 43 cattle farmyards and of 14 cattle slurries from
organic farms in the UK and found this to be 20-40% lower than the
standard published values for conventionally produced manures. All this
makes it a challenge to estimate the quantity of nutrients produced in
livestock excreta at a national or regional level. For instance, the
estimates of N excreted by livestock in the EU-27, involving several
teams of top European researchers, still vary significantly (de Vries, et
al., 2007).
Nutrients
excreted by
livestock
(2000–2008)
In the period 2000–2008, the average annual nitrogen excreted by
Croatian livestock was 69,363 t N, 44,967 t P2O5 and 53,463 t K2O (
Figure 27 and Appendix 11.26). All phosphate and potassium produced
remains in the excreta and is applied in that quantity onto the agricultural
land. However, this is not the case with nitrogen. Some nitrogen from
livestock excreta is lost into the atmosphere (as ammonia (NH3) and
nitrous oxide, (N2O)) during storage and transportation to the field.
These loss estimates vary from just a few percent to more than 50%.
The loss of nitrogen into the air and water from livestock manure during
handling, storage and application in Croatia is estimated to be about
40% (Mesić, et al., 2004) to 50% (Vukadinović, 2007b). However, for the
purpose of this study, we have deducted only nitrogen from livestock
excreta that is lost into the air, since all other nitrogen exerts
environmental pressure on soil and water. Thus, in this study it is
estimated that on average 25% N excreted by Croatian livestock would
be lost before it ends up in the soil (or water). This estimate is based on
multi-year, Europe-wide research, suggesting that the average N loss
during storage and transportation of manures and slurries at the level of
the EU-27 is 20-30%. Consequently, it is estimated that from 69,369 t N
produced in livestock excreta on average annually in the period 2000–
2008, 17,341 t N was lost into the atmosphere and that only 52,022 t N
were applied onto agricultural soil. When calculated per hectare of UAA,
40
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
the average nutrient load in the period 2000–2008 was 122 kg, of which
43 kg N, 37 kg P2O5 and 44 kg K2O.
70.000
60.000
50
Lost into
air
17.341
45
40
40.000
30.000
20.000
35
Appled
onto
agric.
land
52.022
kg / ha
tonnes
50.000
44.967
53.463
30
25
20
43
37
44
15
10
10.000
5
0
0
N
P2O5
K2O
N
P2O5
K2O
Figure 27: Average annual (2000–2008) nutrient production from livestock excreta (author's
calculation after CBS, 2011; OG, 2008, LNV, 2003 and MAFF, 2000)
Pigs and cattle
largest source
of N
he overall nutrient composition of Croatian livestock excreta exhibits a
fairly equal content of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium. Phosphate
accounts for 38%, nitrogen for 36% and potassium for 26% of the overall
nutrient content (Figure 28 and Appendix 11.26). In terms of nitrogen
production, the most important are pigs and cattle. The first one
accounts for 38% and the second for 36% of all N produced by Croatian
livestock (Figure 28).
41
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Horses
1%
Goats
1%
Poultry
18%
Cattle
36%
Sheep
6%
Pigs
38%
P2O5
38%
N
36%
K2 O
26%
Figure 28: Average annual contribution to N content in livestock excreta (2000-2008) and share
of N, P2O5 and K2O in the excreta produced (author's calculation after CBS, 2011;
OG, 2008, LNV, 2003 and MAFF, 2000)
Declining
nutrient load
from livestock
excreta
In 2009 the total nutrient load originating from livestock excreta was 56%
of that in 1911 and 71% of what it used to be in 1991 (Figure 29 and
Appendix 11.27). It is worth noticing that this pattern does not entirely
correspond with the percentage of LSU shown in Figure 26. This is due
to the different composition of livestock mix. In 1911, poultry, whose
excreta contains more nutrients than excreta of other livestock –
accounted only for 3% of all LUS, while in 2009 its share was 16%.
Because of the higher share of poultry in the total LSU, the livestock
excreta in 2009 contained more nutrients than in 1911.
42
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
250.000
239.045
Nutrients
225.000
N
K2O
200.000
190.534
P2O5
175.000
154.535
Tonnes
150.000
125.000
100.000
127.713
99.554
119.474
79.050
75.000
50.000
62.773
25.000
Figure 29: Nutrient load from livestock in Croatia (author's calculation,
after CBS, 2011; CBS,2003; Stipetić, 1964, OG, 2008, LNV,
2003 and MAFF, 2000)
4.3 Nutrients load from livestock excreta: Croatia vs. EU
Member States
Calculation
methodology
employed
EUROSTAT provides data on the nitrogen and phosphate content of
livestock excreta at the level of each MS. In order to compare the per
hectare nutrient load from livestock excreta in Croatia and EU MSs,
relevant data on nitrogen and phosphate production from livestock
excreta were taken from EUROSTAT. The production of potassium is
estimated by multiplying the LSU by 65 kg. This is believed to be a
reasonable average estimate for the livestock mix in the EU-27 and is
based on the standard coefficients for K2O production in livestock
excreta, suggested by the UK and the Netherlands Ministries of
Agriculture (LNV, 2003; MAFF, 2000).
Different
approaches for
N calculation
EUROSTAT does not explain how it determines the annual N production
from livestock excreta. However, multiplying the EUROSTAT LSU
numbers for different livestock types with their standard Croatian N
production coefficients laid down in N.N. 56/08 results in very similar
figures on N produced by livestock excreta as those given by
EUROSTAT. The difference at the level of the EU-27 is only 15%. In
other words, for the comparison of N load from livestock excreta
between Croatia and EU-27, it does not matter very much whether data
43
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
on N production from livestock excreta were taken directly from the
EUROSTAT datasets or calculated by multiplying the LSU number with
the coefficients used in Croatia.
Latvia
Bulgaria
Estonia
Slovenia
Lithuania
Romania
Hungary
EU-12
Spain
Czech…
Poland
Sweden
Portugal
Italy
Finland
EU-27
Austria
Croatia
EU-15
France
Greece
UK
Germany
Cyprus
Denmark
Slovakia
Ireland
Belgium
Netherlands
0
21
40
43
47
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
kg N/ha UAA
Figure 30: Average annual (2000–2008) nitrogen load from livestock
excreta applied onto agricultural land (own calculation after
CBS, 2011, OG 2008 and (EUROSTAT, 2011b)
Nitrogen
load
44
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Figure 30 shows the average annual (2000–2008) nitrogen load from
livestock excreta applied onto agricultural land. Croatia's load is 43 kg
N/ha UAA, which is very close to the average N load of the EU-27 (43 kg
N/ha UAA) and EU-15 (47 kg N/ha UAA). However, when compared with
the EU-12, Croatia's livestock produce per ha UAA as twice as much
nitrogen in their excreta.
Phosphate
load
With a load of 37 kg P2O5/ha UAA (Figure 31), Croatia is also very close
to the phosphate load from livestock excreta of EU-27 (42 kg P2O5/ha
UAA), but is 25% lower than in EU-15 (50 kg P2O5/ha UAA). Compared
with the EU-12, which has a load of only 24 kg P2O5/ha UAA, Croatia’s
livestock produce 53% P2O5/ha UAA.
Latvia
Bulgaria
Estonia
Lithuania
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
EU-12
Sweden
Spain
Poland
Czech Republic
Finland
Italy
Portugal
45
24
37
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Figure 31: Average annual (2000–2008) phosphate load from livestock
excreta applied onto agricultural land (author's calculation
after CBS, 2011, OG 2008 and EUROSTAT, 2011b)
Potassium
load
Similarly as with nitrogen and phosphate, Croatia’s per hectare
potassium load of 46 kg K2O/ha UAA (Figure 32) is very similar to that of
the EU-27 (50 kg K2O/ha UAA). However it is 19% lower than in the EU15 and 38% higher than in the EU-12.
46
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Latvia
Bulgaria
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
EU-12
Finland
Czech Republic
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Poland
Italy
Greece
Croatia
EU-27
Austria
France
EU-15
UK
Germany
Slovenia
Ireland
Denmark
Cyprus
Belgium
Netherlands
33
46
50
56
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
kg K2O/ha UAA
Figure 32: Average annual (2000–2008) potassium load from livestock
excreta applied onto agricultural land (author's calculation
after CBS, 2011, OG 2008 and EUROSTAT, 2011b)
Total nutrients
load
When calculated per hectare of UAA, Croatia’s total nutrient load from
livestock excreta of 125 kg nutrients/ha UAA is just 5% lower than in EU27 and 19% lower than in EU-15. However, compared with EU-12, which
has a load of only 78 kg nutrients/ha UAA, Croatia’s livestock produce
60% more nutrients/ha UAA.
47
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Latvia
Bulgaria
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
EU-12
Spain
Czech Republic
Poland
Sweden
Finland
Portugal
Italy
Croatia
EU-27
Greece
Austria
EU-15
France
UK
Germany
Slovenia
Ireland
Denmark
Cyprus
Belgium
Netherlands
78
125
131
154
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
kg total nutrients/ha UAA
Figure 33: Average annual (2000–2008) potassium load from livestock
excreta applied onto agricultural land (author's calculation
after CBS, 2011, OG 2008 and EUROSTAT, 2011b)
More detailed information on the load of each of the three nutrients, as
well as the total nutrients is provided in Appendix 11.28 and Figure 31.
Latvia
Bulgaria
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
EU-12
Spain
91115
48
111318
1216 25
1619 26
14 24 27
19 19 30
19 23 31
21 24 33
24 30
37
N
P2O5
K2O
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
Figure 34: Average annual (2000–2008) potassium load from livestock excreta
applied onto agricultural land (author's calculation after CBS, 2011,
OG 2008 and EUROSTAT, 2011b)
4.4
Conclusions
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
49
Chapter 4: Nitrogen and phosphorous load from livestock excreta
1. Croatian official statistics do not contain information about the number
of livestock expressed in LSU.
2. Croatian livestock density equals that in the EU-27
3. Croatia has no official data on the nutrient production from livestock
excreta.
4. Nutrients load from livestock excreta in Croatia per ha of UAA is very
similar to the average for the EU-27.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the following policy
recommendations can be made:
1. MAFRD is suggested to encourage the CBS to further refine the
statistics on livestock number, notably their expression in LSU.
2. MAFRD is recommended to produce typical standard values for
nitrogen, phosphate and potassium annually produced by different
livestock categories. This would facilitate an easier estimate of
nutrients production in livestock excreta, both at the national and
regional level, as well as on individual farms.
50
Chapter 5: Total nitrogen and phosphorous load
5 TOTAL NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS LOAD
5.1 Synthetic fertiliser and livestock excreta load in
Croatia
Synthetic
fertilisers
supply majority
of nutrients
Figure 35 shows the contribution of synthetic fertilisers and livestock
excreta to the total load of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium, as well
as the total nutrients. Synthetic fertilisers are a source of 69% of
nitrogen, 52% of phosphate, 51% of potassium and 60% of all nutrients
applied onto Croatian agricultural land. Calculated per hectare of UAA,
fertilisers supply 98 kg N, 41 kg P2O5 and 47 kg K2O. Livestock excreta
provide 43 kg N, 37 kg P2O5 and 44 kg K2O (Figure 36).
Nitrogen
P2O5
Livestock
excreta
31%
Synthetic
fertilisers
69%
Synthetic
fertilisers
52%
Total nutrients
K2O
Synthetic
fertilisers
51%
Livestock
excreta
48%
Livestock
excreta
49%
Synthetic
fertilisers
60%
Livestock
excreta
40%
Figure 35: Share of synthetic fertilisers and livestock excreta in nutrients applied to
Croatian agricultural soils (2000–2008) (author’s calculation)
51
Chapter 5: Total nitrogen and phosphorous load
150
135
120
43
kg/ ha UAA
105
Livestock excreta
Fertiliser
90
75
60
45
37
44
98
30
15
41
47
P2O5
K2O
0
N
Figure 36: Average annual (2000–2008) nutrients supply by synthetic
fertilisers and livestock excreta in Croatia (author’s
calculation)
5.2 Comparison of nutrients load from synthetic fertilizers
and livestock excreta in Croatia and EU Member
States
Only 7 EU MS
have a higher
nutrients load
From the above-presented calculations, it appears that only seven EU
Member States have a higher per hectare nutrients load than Croatia
(Figure 37 and Figure 39). Croatia’s consumption of nutrients per
hectare of UAA is 19% higher than in the EU-15, 37% higher than in the
EU-27 and 115% higher than in the EU-12.
52
Chapter 5: Total nitrogen and phosphorous load
Latvia
Bulgaria
Romania
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Hungary
EU-12
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Austria
Poland
Italy
Finland
EU-27
Greece
UK
EU-15
France
Croatia
Germany
Ireland
Cyprus
Denmark
Slovenia
Belgium
Netherlands
31 1821
39 1519
37 27 32
42 22 34
56 29 40
60
35 34
74
29 41
64
36 45
57
50
64
N
48
50
89
53
44
48
75
61
63
84
53
69
84
63
66
106
55
63
99
59
69
110
71
117
65
80
114
70
79
126
58
77
142
79
78
159
91
79
168
97
89
131
120
119
153
128
95
209
136
96
257
115
169
335
0
K2O
54
41
104
P2O5
200
247
196
400
249
600
800
kg nutrients/ha UAA
Figure 37: Average annual (2000–2008) nutrients load in European agricultural soils
(author’s calculation)
53
Chapter 5: Total nitrogen and phosphorous load
Latvia
Bulgaria
Romania
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Hungary
EU-12
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Austria
Poland
Italy
Finland
EU-27
Greece
UK
EU-15
France
Croatia
Germany
Ireland
Cyprus
Denmark
Slovenia
Belgium
Netherlands
N fertilisers
N livestock excreta
P2O5 fertilisers
P2O5 livestock excreta
K2O fertilisers
K2O livestock excreta
0
200
400
600
800
kg nutrients/ha UAA
Figure 38: Synthetic fertilisers and livestock excreta as source of nutrients load in
European agricultural soils (average annual for 2000-2008) (author’s
calculation)
54
Chapter 5: Total nitrogen and phosphorous load
Highest
dependence on
fertilisers
Among all European countries, Croatia seems to be the country that is
most dependent on the use of synthetic fertilisers. As much as 60% of all
nutrients applied onto Croatian agricultural soils originate from synthetic
fertilisers. This is much higher than in any EU Member State. At the level
of the EU-27 and EU-15, fertilisers provide only 42-41% of nutrients
supplied. The situation in the EU-12 is slightly different. But the share of
46% is still far lower than in the case of Croatia.
Netherlands
Romania
Austria
Cyprus
Portugal
Denmark
Belgium
Ireland
UK
EU-15
Bulgaria
Greece
EU-27
Germany
Sweden
France
Spain
EU-12
Italy
Slovenia
Estonia
Latvia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Poland
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Finland
Croatia
41
42
46
60
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Percent
Figure 39: Share of synthetic fertilisers in total nutrients load from
(author's calculation after IFA, 2011; CBS 2011 and
EUROSTAT, 2011b)
55
Chapter 5: Total nitrogen and phosphorous load
5.3
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. Synthetic fertilisers supply the majority of nutrients applied to
Croatian agricultural soils.
2. Per hectare of UAA, Croatia consumes more nutrients than the EU15, EU-27 and notably the EU-12. Only 6 EU MS have a higher
consumption rate.
3. Among all countries in Europe, Croatia is most dependent on
synthetic fertilisers as a source of nutrients applied onto agricultural
soils.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the following policy
recommendations can be made:
1. Croatia should reduce its nutrient application on agricultural soils.
The level of yields it obtains does not justify such a high input of
nutrients.
2. Croatia should reduce its high dependence on synthetic fertilisers at
least because of the following three reasons:
a) Synthetic fertilisers are prone to run-off and leaching and pollute
water resources.
b) Long-term and irrational application of synthetic fertilisers
reduces soil organic matter, causes soil acidity and in the long
run depletes soil nitrogen reserves and the overall soil fertility.
c) Production and transport of synthetic fertilisers are energyintensive operations. A likely energy crisis will hit hard the
Croatian farming sector and threaten Croatia’s food security.
56
Chapter 6: Gross nitrogen balance
6 GROSS NITROGEN BALANCE
6.1
Previous and new calculations
What is nitrogen
balance?
The N balance is the difference between the sum of N supplied to
agricultural land (fertilisers, organic manures, biological N fixation,
atmospheric deposition, seeds and planting material) and N withdrawn
by harvested crops (OECD, 2001). This is a widely accepted
methodology and is also used by the EEA (EEA, 2008).
Contradicting
information
The official information on the gross nitrogen balance of Croatian
agriculture is contradictory. According to the MAFRD (MAFRD, 2009),
the average annual gross nitrogen balance for the period 2001– 2003
was 124,371 t N – an equivalent of 115 kg N/ha UAA. The MAFRD has
taken this calculation from the Sectoral Analysis for Agri-Environment
(Znaor and Karoglan Todorović, 2006). However, according to the
Environment Agency (EA, 2005), in the period 2000–2003 the annual
nitrogen balance ranged from 39,000 t to 67,000 t – equalling 12–21 kg
N/ha agricultural land. The Environment Agency has taken this data from
the Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Zagreb. According to a
more recent study (Znaor, 2008), the average annual nitrogen balance in
the period 2001–2005 was 114,415 t N, or 106 kg N/ha UAA.
Time
series
In order to compare the Croatian gross nitrogen balance with that of the
EU, an attempt has been made to make a more recent calculation of the
Croatian gross nitrogen balance. EUROSTAT has a mineral balance for
the time series 1998–2009 (EUROSTAT, 2011b). However, the year
2006 is the last one with the complete statistics for all EU countries
having a mineral balance account. It is therefore decided to make the
gross mineral balance also for Croatia for this year. An average annual
nitrogen balance of the EU Member States for the period 2000–2008
would offer a better and more comprehensive overview (as done with all
other calculations in this study). However, calculating the average
annual nitrogen balance for 2000–2008 from the annual balances
presented by EUROSTAT would be methodologically incorrect because
it would be a calculation of the average of an average. A proper
calculation for this period would be the calculation of the average of all
annual nitrogen inputs and outputs. However, this is a very laborious
exercise and would be by far beyond the scope and time allocated for
this report.
Methodology
The Croatian gross nitrogen balance for 2006 is calculated using the
standard OECD soil surface N balance methodology (OECD, 2001;
OECD and EUROSTAT, 2007; OECD/Eurostat, 2004). The amount of N
in fertilisers and livestock excreta is taken from the calculations
presented in Chapters 3 and 4. Biological N fixation rates are estimated
from the OECD Nitrogen Balance Database (OECD, 2007) and Habets
(1999). The N-fixing free-living micro-organisms are assumed to be 4 kg
N ha-1 yr-1. For the N-fixing crops the following N fixation is assumed:
soya beans 100 kg N ha-1 yr-1, beans 80 kg N ha-1 yr-1, other pulses 80
kg N ha-1 yr-1, alfalfa 250 kg N ha-1 yr-1, grass-clover 150 kg N ha-1 yr-1
57
Chapter 6: Gross nitrogen balance
and for meadows and pastures 40 kg N ha-1 yr-1. The average annual N
atmospheric deposition is taken from CBS data (CBS, 2010). The N
content of seeds and planting material is calculated using the standard
seeding rates reported by the CAEI (Mikšić, et al., 2004) and applying
the N content in seeds reported in Habets (1999). The crop output data
(t crop-1) for individual crops is taken from the CBS (CBS, 2010). The N
content of crops is taken from the OECD Nitrogen Balance Database
(OECD, 2007), Habets (1999) and Grbeša (Grbeša, 2004).
N inputs
In 2006, the N input in Croatian agriculture was 251,262 t N (Appendix
11.30 and
Figure 41). The majority of N (52%) was provided by synthetic fertilisers,
while livestock manure provided 28%, biological N fixation by legume
crops 10%, atmospheric deposition 6% and other sources 3% (Figure
40).
Livestock
manure
production
29%
Total
fertilisers
52%
Biological N
fixation
legumes
10%
Others
3%
Atmosph.
deposition
6%
Figure 40: N inputs in Croatian agriculture in 2006 (author’s calculations)
N outputs
In 2006, the N output in Croatian crops was 127,088 t N, of which
90,993 t N was harvested in crops and 36,094 t N in forage crops (
Figure 41).
N surplus
The nitrogen surplus for Croatian agriculture in 2006 was 124,174 t N (
Figure 41), which is equivalent of 101 kg N/ha UAA. From the data on
gross nitrogen balance from EUROSTAT (2011), it appears that in 2006
58
Chapter 6: Gross nitrogen balance
only the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany had a higher nitrogen
surplus per hectare of UAA. Croatia shares the fourth place with
Germany (Figure 42).
It is very difficult to estimate what is the percentage of nitrogen surplus
that might have been lost into water resources. However, following IPCC
recommendations (IPCC, 2001) it is estimated that 30% nitrogen from
fertilisers and livestock excreta leaches and runs off into groundwater
and watercourses. The same factor for N loss into water is also used by
the Croatian Ministry of Environment (MEPSPC, 2006). Consequently, in
2006, some 62,857 t N might have been lost into water (
Figure 41). However, this figure has to be treated with caution. It
should be considered as an indicator – a guide value of possible losses
– rather than the actual N loss into water. Especially since N losses into
water are subject to spatial and temporal variability, notably precipitation.
Los t into air &
accumulated in s oil
260,000
240,000
6,766
14,147
220,000
25,957
Los t into water
200,000
Harvested forage
crops
180,000
160,000
t N
Surplus N that
potentially
ended into water
74,392
Harvested crops
140,000
Others
120,000
36,094
100,000
62,857
80,000
60,000
Biological N fixation
legumes
130,000
90,993
40,000
61,318
20,000
Atmospheric
deposition
0
Livestock manure
production
Total fertilisers
N input
N output
N surplus
Figure 41: Nitrogen input, output and surplus in 2006 (author’s
calculations)
59
Chapter 6: Gross nitrogen balance
6.2
Experimental results on N losses into water
Three major
experimental
sites
The relationship between agricultural inputs and nitrogen loss into water
has been subject to several experiments in Croatia. However, nearly all
relevant data from the last 15-20 years seem to be derived from the
three experimental sites in central Croatia: Popovača, Karašica and
Kutina. Too few data seem to exist for the karst region. This area covers
some 50 percent of Croatian territory and due to its hydro-geological
structure it is particularly prone to nitrate leaching.
Popovača site
experiments
The results from the experimental field in Popovača have been widely
reported in various publications by Mesić et. al. (2002b; 2003; 2005b)
and Sumelius et al. (2002b; 2003; 2005b). Depending on the year and
the amount of nitrogen applied, the experiment recorded a leaching
range from 7.1 kg NO3-N ha-1 for plots receiving no nitrogen, up to 64.2
kg NO3-N ha-1 at the input level of 300 kg N ha-1. The latter leaching
corresponds to 21.3 percent of the nitrogen amount applied by fertilisers.
However, these figures do not seem to include N loss from the run-off
and drainage water. Treatments with nitrogen input above 150 kg N/ha
basically recorded nitrogen concentrations above the admissible level of
10 mg NO3-N L-1, while other treatments exhibited much higher nitrogen
concentrations - up to 28.7 mg NO3-N L-1.
… used for
mathematic
models
Based on the results from the Popovača experiments, Sumelius et al.
(2002b; 2003; 2005b) have developed a mathematical model which
enabled them to determine nitrogen leaching for the family farms in
Lonjsko Polje Nature Park. Although farming in this area is perceived as
extensive, farmers in Lonjsko Polje Nature Park have been found to be
applying rather high dosages of nitrogen: 206-230 kg N ha-1 (fertilisers
plus manure) on maize and 234-236 kg N ha-1 on wheat. The average N
application on maize was 218 kg N ha-1, of which 161 kg (74 percent)
originated from fertilisers and 57 kg (26 percent) from livestock manure.
The corresponding leaching levels as determined by the mathematical
model were in the range of 82-96 mg NO3-N L-1, which is some 60-90
percent higher than the critical maximum level defined by the EU
Nitrates Directive (50 mg NO3 L-1). Profit maximising levels of fertilisation
in maize production were estimated to be in the range of 145-185 kg N
ha-1 (average 160 kg N ha-1). At this level the NO3 level in water was
found still to be 25 percent higher than the MAC for nitrates prescribed
by the EU Nitrates Directive (Sumelius, et al., 2002a).
Kutina site
experiments
Šimunić et al. (2002; 2003; 1998a; 1998b; 1996; 2002a; 2002b)
performed a ten-year experiment (1991-2000) in the vicinity of the
Petrokemija fertiliser plant. The crop rotation included maize and winter
wheat (a common crop rotation in Croatia) and received fertiliser
application of 145-200 kg N ha-1. The average NO3-N concentration in
drainage water was found to be 12.7 mg NO3-N L-1, which is above the
maximum allowable concentration of 10 mg NO3-N L-1. Similar results
were also reported by Klačić et al. (Klačić, et al., 1998). The average
ammonia nitrogen levels at the Kutina experiments were also above the
MAC, typically ranging from 0.7-1.9 mg NH4-N L-1.
60
Chapter 6: Gross nitrogen balance
Karašica site
experiments
In the Karašica and Vučica catchment Vidaček et al. (2003; 2002; 1999)
ran a seven year experiment measuring the environmental impact of
different fertilisation levels. The crops included were maize (173 kg N ha1
), winter wheat (199 kg N ha-1), winter barley (110 kg N ha-1) and
oilseed rape (128 kg N ha-1). In spite of these - by the standards of
Croatian farming - modest nitrogen levels, typical nitrate concentrations
in ground water were above the maximum admissible levels – in the
range of 12.0-97.9 mg NO3 L-1, sometimes reaching levels up to 147 mg
NO3 L-1 in groundwater and 171 mg NO3 L-1 in drainage water.
Other findings
Excessive nitrate concentrations found in Croatian drainage and
groundwater have also been reported by several other authors (Grgić, et
al., 2002; Klačić, et al., 1998; Mesić, et al., 2000; Romić, et al., 1997;
Šimunić, 2002; Šimunić, 2003; Šimunić, et al., 1998a; Tomić, et al.,
1997) The nitrate concentration has sometimes reached levels up to 147
mg NO3 L-1 in groundwater and 171 mg NO3 L-1 in drainage water
(Vidaček, et al., 2003; Vidaček, et al., 2002; Vidaček, et al., 1999). The
left tributaries to the Sava have been found to have high levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus, leading to occasional blooming and in some
locations mass fish deaths (Bacca, et al., 2007). Nitrate leaching is
endangering drinking water supplies in some Croatian areas (Bacca, et
al., 2007).
Hungary
Portugal
Italy
Estonia
Greece
Austria
Spain
Slovakia
France
Sweden
Ireland
Finland
Poland
Slovenia
Luxembourg
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Germany
Croatia
UK
Belgium
Netherlands
-6
11
22
25
26
31
37
42
49
51
60
60
64
72
72
88
96
101
101
103
131
-25
0
25
50
75
220
100 125 150 175 200 225 61
kg N/ha UAA
Chapter 6: Gross nitrogen balance
Figure 42: Nitrogen budget for 2006 (author's calculation)
6.3
Conclusions
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The official information on the gross nitrogen balance of Croatian
agriculture is contradictory.
2. The calculation for 2006 suggests that Croatia’s gross nitrogen
balance for 2006 was 101 kg N/ha UAA, ranking Croatia among the
four European countries with the highest gross nitrogen balance per
ha UAA.
3. Results from the Croatian experiments on N losses from agriculture
suggest that – generally speaking – N inputs above 150 kg N/ha
result in nitrogen concentrations in water above the maximum
admissible level.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the following policy
recommendations can be made:
1. The MAFRD is advised to enter into a dialogue with the Environment
Agency in order to harmonise the figures on gross nitrogen balance.
2. The MAFRD is advised to enforce cross-compliance requirements
and further stimulate water-friendly farming methods, notably those
reducing N inputs (e.g. organic farming, integrated farming,
extensive livestock husbandry, etc.).
62
Chapter 7: Gross phosphorous balance
7 GROSS PHOSPHOROUS BALANCE
7.1
Previous and new calculations
Limited
information
Phosphorous is a major factor contributing to eutrophication. The only
official information on phosphorous balance is provided by the
Environment Agency (EA, 2005), for the period 2000–2003.
Unfortunately, the map presented and the accompanying text, do not
give information about the aggregated figure at the national level – but
rather at the county levels. The map suggests that most countries have
a phosphorous balance in the range 0–10 kg P/ha.
Regional
calculations
questionable
At this point it seems to be appropriate to say a few words about the
regional (county) calculations of agricultural inputs and nutrient
balances. In the case of Croatia these calculations have to be treated
with caution as they are of questionable reliability. Chapters 3 and 4
provide a detailed analysis highlighting difficulties in obtaining reliable
figures on nutrient inputs at national level. These difficulties are even
more pronounced at the regional levels, notably for the consumption of
synthetic fertilisers. Croatia simply does not have any recording and
monitoring mechanism for fertiliser consumption at the county levels.
The exclusive source of information about this is Petrokemija d.d. This
sole Croatian fertiliser manufacturer does have records about where to it
has sold its fertilisers. However, this information is of limited validity for
the assessment of fertiliser consumption. The address of traders or
farmers who have bought fertilisers from Petrokemija d.d. is unreliable
source of information about the location of fertilisers consumption
because:
1. The address of many companies and individuals differs from their
place of farming. This is particularly true for large companies, whose
headquarters tend to be in urban areas, often far away from farming
regions.
2. It does not take into account further distribution and resale of
fertilisers bought.
3. It does not take into account fertilisers that are temporarily stored
before being exported.
4. It does not contain any imported fertilisers.
Methodology
Croatian gross phosphorous balance for 2006 is calculated using the
same methodology as described in the Chapter on gross nitrogen
balance. The only exception is biological fixation and atmospheric
deposition. These are excluded from the calculation as these inputs are
nitrogen-specific and not applicable to phosphorous.
P inputs
In 2006, the P input was 45,508 t P, of which 53% was provided by
synthetic fertilisers, 46% by livestock manure and 1% by seeds and
planting material (Figure 43 and Appendix 11.31).
P outputs
In 2006, phosphorous output in Croatian crops was 21,917 t P, of which
16,944 t P was harvested in crops and 4,973 t P in forage crops (Figure
44).
63
Chapter 7: Gross phosphorous balance
Total
fertilisers
53%
Livestock
manure
46%
Seeds
1%
Figure 43: Phosphorous inputs in Croatian agriculture in 2006 (author's
calculation)
P surplus
The phosphorous surplus for Croatian agriculture in 2006 was 23,951 t P
(Figure 44), which is equivalent to 19 kg P/ha UAA. From the data on
gross phosphorous balance from EUROSTAT (2011), it appears that in
2006, besides Croatia, only the Netherlands had such a high per hectare
phosphorous surplus (Figure 45).
Surplus P that
potentially
ended up in
water
Surplus phosphorous that potentially might have ended up in water in
2006 is very difficult to estimate. There are no widely accepted
methodologies for this estimate.
64
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
50,000
45,000
Surplus
615
40,000
35,000
Harvested forage crops
20,913
Harvested crops
t P
30,000
25,000
20,000
Seeds and planting
material
4,973
15,000
10,000
23,981
23,591
Livestock manure
production
16,944
5,000
Total fertilisers
0
P input
P output
P surplus
Figure 44: Phosphorous input, output and surplus in 2006 (author's
calculation)
65
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
Hungary
Estonia
Italy
Greece
Slovakia
Luxembourg
Sweden
Austria
France
Germany
Czech Rep.
Switzerland
Spain
Portugal
Ireland
Finland
Poland
Denmark
Belgium
UK
Slovenia
Norway
Croatia
Netherlands
-10
-5
-4
-2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
6
7
9
9
9
10
10
16
19
19
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Figure 45: Phosphorous budget for 2006 (author's calculation)
66
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
7.2
Conclusions
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The official information on the gross P balance of Croatian
agriculture is limited and presented at the county level only – which
is of questionable validity since Croatia has no monitoring system of
fertiliser consumption in place at the county level.
2. The calculation for 2006 suggests that Croatia’s gross P balance for
2006 was 19 kg N/ha UAA, ranking Croatia (and the Netherlands) as
the European country with the highest gross P balance per ha UAA.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the following policy
recommendations can be made:
1. The MAFRD is advised to enter into a dialogue with the Environment
Agency in order to harmonise the figures on P balance.
2. The MAFRD is advised to enforce cross-compliance requirements
and further stimulate water-friendly farming methods, notably those
reducing P inputs (e.g. organic farming, integrated farming,
extensive livestock husbandry, etc.).
67
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
8 GROSS POTASSIUM BALANCE
8.1
Previous and new calculations
Limited
information
Unlike nitrogen and phosphorous, potassium is not considered to be a
source of water pollution. However, it is one of the three major plant
nutrients and its presence in soil and inputs largely determines crop
growth and the overall efficiency of N and P. The only official information
on potassium balance is provided by the Environment Agency (EA,
2005), for the period 2000–2003. Unfortunately, the map presented and
the accompanying text, do not give information about the aggregated
figure at the national level – but rather at the county levels. The map
suggests that most countries have either a negative potassium balance,
or that this is in the range of 0–10 kg K/ha.
Methodology
The Croatian gross potassium balance for 2006 is calculated using the
same methodology as described in the Chapter on phosphorous.
K inputs
In 2006, the K input was 106,188 t K, of which 54% was provided by
synthetic fertilisers, 45.5% by livestock manure and 0.5% by seeds and
planting material (Appendix 11.32).
K outputs
In 2006, the K output in Croatian crops was 44,543 t K, of which 24,219 t
K was harvested in crops and 20,324 K in forage crops (Figure 46).
K surplus
The potassium surplus for Croatian agriculture in 2006 was 61,575 t K
(Figure 46), which is an equivalent of 50 kg K/ha UAA. Unfortunately,
EUROSTAT does not provide data on gross potassium balance.
Consequently, comparison between Croatia and EU Member States on
gross potassium balance is not possible.
Surplus K that
potentially
ended up in
water
Surplus phosphorous that potentially might have ended up in water in
2006 is very difficult to estimate. There are no widely accepted
methodologies for this estimate. Last but not least – this information
would be of limited use since potassium does not cause water pollution.
68
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
120,000
100,000
t K
80,000
Surplus
492
Harvested forage crops
48,126
Harvested crops
60,000
Seeds and planting
material
40,000
57,500
20,324
61,575
Livestock manure
production
20,000
24,219
Total fertilisers
0
K input
K output
K surplus
Figure 46: Potassium input, output and surplus in 2006 (author's
calculation)
8.2
Conclusions
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The official information on the gross P balance of Croatian
agriculture is limited and presented at the county level only – which
is of questionable validity since Croatia has no monitoring system of
fertiliser consumption in place at the county level.
2. The calculation for 2006 suggests that Croatia’s gross K balance
for 2006 was 50 kg N/ha UAA. Comparison with the EU Member
States is not possible since EUROSTAT does not provide
information on gross potassium balance.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the MAFRD is
advised to enter into a dialogue with the Environment Agency in order to
harmonise the figures on potassium balance.
69
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
9 NUTRIENT EFFICIENCY AND LOW YIELDS
9.1
Nutrient efficiency
Low nutrient
efficiency
If the Croatian Agriculture Extension Institute per hectare nutrient
recommendations for each crop (Mikšić, et al., 2004) are multiplied by
the cropping pattern for 2006, it appears that crops require 135,586 t N,
105,988 t P2O5 and 142,581 t K2O (Figure 47 and Appendix 11.33). At
the same time, fertilisers, manure, soil and other sources provided
246,550 t N, 120,317 t P2O5 and 159,761 t K2O of readily available
nutrients (Figure 47 and Appendix 11.34). The average annual supply
from soil is assumed to be 40 kg N/ha, 38 kg P2O5/ha and 50 kg K2O/ha.
These figures are derived from the estimated average soil nutrient
content for Croatia and are based on soil test results run by the
Agricultural University of Osijek (Vukadinović, 2007b). Calculations from
Vukadinović (2007a, 2007b), show that depending on texture, soils on
the Croatian Pannonian plan with 2 percent of organic matter provide
35-100 kg N ha-1 year-1. Here a conservative average of 40 kg N ha-1
year-1 for the whole country is estimated. Phosphate and potassium
content in the soil is assumed to be on average 15 mg P2O5/ 100 g soil
and 22 K2O/ 100 g soil.
Low recovery
rate
However, in spite of the abundant nutrient supply in 2006, the crops took
up (recovered) only a portion of the supplied nutrients: 52% N, 32% K2O
and 33% P2O5 (Figure 47 and Appendix 11.34).
260,000
240,000
Readily available
Required
Recovered
Surplus
220,000
200,000
tonnes
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
N
P2O5
K2O
Figure 47: Nutrient recommendation, supply and uptake in 2006
(author's calculation)
70
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
Nutrient supply
exceeds
requirements
The N supply exceeded crop requirements by 90 kg N/ ha. The situation
with P2O5 and K2O is much more balanced, since the supply exceeds
the requirements only by 12 and 14 kg/ha. This calculation shows that
there is room for nutrient reduction and suggests that a reduced nutrient
supply under a less intensive nutrient regime would not necessarily be a
bottleneck for sound yields, especially in the case of N, whose reduction
is a precondition for preventing water pollution.
N fertiliser
reduction
needed
Since the N supply from the soil, livestock manure, biological deposition
and biological fixation is a given factor which is difficult and/or
uneconomical to reduce, the only possible N reduction can come
through a cut in fertiliser usage.
9.2
Causes of low
yields
Why does Croatian agriculture attain low yields?
Exceptionally high inputs on one hand and the rather low yields
achieved by Croatian farming (Figure 48) on the other hand call for a
deeper analysis of this anomaly. This discrepancy suggests that
nutrients and pesticides - which are abundantly supplied - might not be
the key bottleneck preventing higher yields in the case of Croatia and
point to inappropriate overall management practices. It is far beyond the
scope of this study to analyse the causes of low yield in Croatia.
However, a brief attempt is made to clarify this issue as the low yields in
Croatia are often used as one of the key arguments denying the validity
of figures on high fertiliser use. The poor yields obtained by Croatian
farming could be explained as the result of one or a combination of the
following factors:
175
Belgium
Netherlands
Germany
Croatia
150
125
100
EU-15
75
50
25
0
Wheat
Barley
Sugar beet
Grain maize
Cows' milk
Potatoes
Figure 48: Croatian average (2001-05) yields per hectare or milking cow
as compared with those in the EU-15 (after EUROSTAT 2011
and CBS, 2006)
71
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
9.2.1 Water shortage
Precipitation
Croatian agricultural soils are “thirsty” and badly need more water. They
are relatively poor in organic matter and have an unfavourable ratio
between water and air holding capacity, leading to a constant or
temporary water surplus or shortage (Martinović, 1997; Moller, 2003).
Croatian farming is exposed to low quantity or unfavourable distribution
of precipitation (Bašić, 2003) and suffers from periodical water
shortages. This has worsened over the time and Croatian agricultural
soils have become thirstier every year. In the period 1994-2003, all
agricultural crops grown in Croatia annually required 22 L/m2 more water
than in the period (1961-2003)(Šimunić, et al., 2006). In the period 19942003, Croatian soils on average annually failed to provide sufficient
water quantities to crops by 9 L m-2 (Šimunić, et al., 2006). However, in
spite of this, less than 1% of Croatian agricultural land is irrigated (CBS,
2003b).
Drainage
On the other hand, there is a severe problem with water logging. Some
57% of agricultural land (mostly arable) suffers from seasonal water
logging (CEA, 2007a) and requires drainage. This is completely or partly
built on about two-thirds of the area needed, while another third with
excessively moist soils have no drainage systems at all (UN, 2002).
Subsoil pipe drainage has been installed on only 19% of the area
requiring this system (UN, 2002). However, since nearly the entire
drainage system was built before 1990 and has been inadequately
maintained, it is in rather bad condition (MAF, 1996).
Neglected
drainage
channels
Neglected maintenance of drainage channels is another serious
problem. According to Marušić (2003a; 2003b) since the fall of the
centrally planned economy, most of these channels have become
neglected, resulting in 60-66% lower yields for maize and 57-60% for
wheat on the land along them.
9.2.2 Deprived soil fertility
Soils poor in
organic matter
Agricultural soil organic matter has been subject to a constant decline
since the mid 1960s (Martinović, 1997; Vidaček, et al., 2003). The most
fertile Croatian soil types (chernozem and eutric brown soil) have in the
last hundred years of cultivation lost 50-70% of their SOM - their
average content has dropped from 4-6% to 1-2% and most Croatian
agricultural soils currently have a SOM level of 1.5%-2.5% (Vidaček, et
al., 2005). Martinović (1997) gives a similar estimate stating that in the
last 50 years SOM decreased from 4-5% to 2.1-2.8%. The mean SOM
content of the most fertilised Croatian soils (Eastern Croatia) today is
less than 1.98% and the mean pH value 5.6 (Vukadinović, 2007b). Soil
compaction is another pronounced problem in Croatian soils and the
reported loss of air/water porosity is in the range of 3-9% (Vidaček, et
al., 2005).
Soil
acidity
Another cause that hinders Croatian yields is the ever increasing soil
acidity due to the application of synthetic fertilisers and water logging.
Soil acidity seriously hinders the fertility and the effective utilisation of
applied nutrients, particularly phosphorus (Vukadinović, 2007b). It is
estimated that about 35% of the total agricultural land has a mean pH
72
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
value less than 5.5 (Moller, 2003).
… promoted by
fertilisers
Mihalić and Bašić (1997) suggest that all fertilisers produced by
Petrokemija d.d. promote soil acidity. From their recommendations on
CaO-equivalents required to correct acidity caused by fertiliser use it
appears that based on the fertiliser consumption in 2001-05, Croatia
should have applied about 111 kt CaO-equivalents or 191 kt CaCO3 per
year (Znaor, 2008). This means that for every kg of applied fertilisers, on
average an additional 0.2 kg CaO or 0.4 CaCO3 should have been
added. However, from the CBS data it appears that on the Croatian
market less than 1% of the required amount was available and
consequently applied (CBS, 2007b). The results of 6,000 analyses of the
most fertile Croatian soils - in Eastern Slavonia (Vukadinović, 2007a;
Vukadinović, 2007b) - suggest that due to increased soil acidity the
requirements for liming might actually be about ten times higher than
estimated by Mihalić and Bašić (1997) - on average 1.1 t CaO ha-1.
Pronounced soil acidity is believed to be the cause of the low recovery
rate of applied nutrients and the reason for the rather high
recommendations in regard to their supply through fertilisers (Moller,
2003). It is also worth noticing that acid soils seem to accelerate
ammonia loss from urea (Fan and Mackenzie, 1993; Siva, 1999).
9.2.3 Inappropriate use of inputs
Poor nutrient
management
Croatian farmers and agronomists do not seem to be sufficiently aware
of the potential utilisation of nutrients in livestock manure (Moller, 2003;
Znaor and Karoglan Todorović, 2004). Neither the application of
fertilisers nor manure is satisfactory, since it is often applied in
inadequate formulations, quantities and time, as well as using
inadequate technical equipment (Moller, 2003; Sumelius, et al., 2005b).
The application of fertilisers is done without prior analysis on nutrient
content, mostly according to farmers’ experience and “feeling” of what is
needed (Sumelius, et al., 2005b). Soil testing and monitoring is reported
to be inadequate and insufficient (Bašić, 2002; Vidaček, et al., 2005). It
is estimated that less than 1 percent of the farmers practice soil testing.
Application of nitrogen in autumn preceding a spring crop is common
practice by many farmers. The soil nutrient application rates
recommended by the extension service often double the
recommendations in Denmark for instance (Moller, 2003). The official
extension service fertilisation recommendations do not suggest or take
into account fertilisation with livestock manure/slurry for any single crop
(Mikšić, et al., 2004).
No tailor-made
fertilisers
Unlike in many other countries, Croatian farmers cannot purchase tailormade fertilisers. This is a common practice in most EU Member States.
After having made the soil analysis, farmers order tailor-made fertilisers
with formulations matching the exact needs of their crops. However, in
Croatia, farmers are forced to purchase one of the few fertilisers
available on the market. These contain a fixed amount and ration of
nutrients. Consequently, it is practically impossible to match the crop
nutrient needs with the supply, resulting either in under or overfertilisation. Single P and K fertilisers are also not available on the
Croatian market, largely because Petrokemija does not produce them.
So farmers can purchase P and K only in NPK fertilisers.
73
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
Over usage of
urea
However, when in need of N, farmers prefer to buy urea fertilisers
instead of NPK because urea is a cheaper source of N. Consequently,
there is oversupply of urea fertilisers and undersupply of NPK fertilisers.
In the period 2001-2005, Croatian farmers applied 61% more urea and
51% less NPK than recommended by the extension service (Znaor,
2008). The use of urea is a particular problem, since if not quickly
incorporated into the soil, urea releases ammonia into the air and this
loss can be up to 60% of the N applied (Christianson, 1989; Motacha,
1976). It is likely that many Croatian farmers are not informed about this
and do not practice quick incorporation of urea into the soil, resulting in
less N supplied to crops.
9.2.4 Lack of farming skills and inappropriate farm management
Poorly educated
farmers
Farming in Croatia is practiced by people who do not have adequate
agricultural education. A huge 98% of those living in agricultural
households rely only on practical experience and do not have any
agricultural education at all (CBS, 2003a). An additional 0.3% have
attended an agricultural course, while 1.3% have finished a secondary
agricultural school and 0.4% have finished an agricultural college or
university (CBS, 2003a).
Inappropriate
farm
management
Further reasons for the poor yields obtained by Croatian farming relate
to inappropriate farm management (rather than to a shortage of inputs)
and include one or a combination of the following factors:
 Inadequate crop rotation: cereals occupy about 70% of the arable
land (grain maize alone nearly 40%). Improperly designed crop
rotation enhances pest, disease and weed occurrence (Oomen, et
al., 1998; van Mansvelt and Znaor, 1999; Znaor, 1995). It is also
detrimental to soil fertility, as it can destroy the soil structure and
deplete soil organic matter (van der Werff, 1992).
 The use of lower quality, cheaper seeds (Ćorić, 2007; Sever, 2007)
and inadequate choice of crop variety and crop density (Bašić,
2003).
 Neglected or inappropriate management of livestock manure,
resulting in high nutrient losses (Mesić, et al., 2004; Moller, 2003;
Znaor and Karoglan Todorović, 2004; Znaor and Karoglan
Todorović, 2007).
 Absence of crops whose root exudates are able to mobilise less
available forms of P and K (Znaor and Karoglan Todorović, 2007).
 Absence of anti-erosion measures (Znaor and Karoglan Todorović,
2006).
 Non-application of soil acidity corrective measures, notably lime
 Poor overall management skills of Croatian farmers (Krištek, et al.,
2002; Sumelius, et al., 2005a; Summers, 1996), the application of
inappropriate technology and farmers’ limited knowledge (Franić,
2003; Mesić, 2003; Znaor and Karoglan Todorović, 2006).
74
Chapter 9: Nutrient efficiency
9.3
Conclusions
Conclusions and policy recommendations
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The nutrient supply in Croatian agriculture exceeds crop
requirements, suggesting that there is room for nutrient reduction.
Nutrients – which are abundantly supplied – are probably not the key
bottleneck preventing higher yields – but rather other factors.
2. Among these the most important are: water shortage, deprived
soil fertility, inappropriate use of inputs, the lack of farming skills and
inappropriate farm management practices.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the MAFRD is
advised to:
1. Stimulate the adoption of measures aimed at more efficient use of
nutrients, notably those increasing the soil organic matter.
2. Introduce massive training programmes aiming at educating farmers
about the more efficient use of nutrients and general farm
management skills.
75
Chapter 10: Apportionment assessment of N and P pressure
10 APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT OF NITROGEN
AND PHOSPHOROUS PRESSURE
Agriculture is
the main source
of N pollution
According to the European Environment Agency, agricultural land is the
principal source of nitrogen pollution of European water resources
(Figure 49) (EEA, 2005). In Europe, agriculture typically contributes 50–
80% of the total nitrogen load (EEA, 2005). The agriculture’s “nitrogen
footprint” is even greater if water pollution by nitrogen arising from
production of synthetic fertilisers is added.
Figure 49: Total area-specific nitrogen load (before retention) by
sources and nitrogen surplus in large river catchments
(EEA, 2005)
Type of
pollution
sources
Generally, nitrogen and phosphorous enter water resources through so
called point and diffuse sources. Point sources include discharges from
urban wastewater (settlements), industry and fish farms. Diffuse sources
comprise background losses (N and P deriving from forest and other
non-agricultural land), losses from agriculture, losses from scattered
dwellings and atmospheric deposition on water bodies, for example
marine areas or lakes (EEA, 2005). The background loss of nitrogen is
76
Chapter 10: Apportionment assessment of N and P pressure
usually small, typically estimated at 1–2 kg N/ha. When assessing N and
P load, some countries do not distinguish between agriculture and
diffuse sources and express the agriculture-induced pollution as part of
the diffuse pollution (Figure 50). However, agriculture accounts for by far
the biggest portion of the diffuse pollution.
Figure 50: Source apportionment of nitrogen load in selected European regions and
catchments (EEA, 2005)
77
Chapter 10: Apportionment assessment of N and P pressure
10.1 Share of sectors in N and P pressure on Croatian
water resources
Agriculture
makes >90% of
the total N load
Data from the Croatian Water Resources Management Plan indicate that
agriculture accounts for more than 90% of the total nitrogen pressure on
Croatian water resources (Hrvatske vode, 2003a). A calculation from
Znaor (2008) confirms this estimate for the period 2001-2005,
suggesting that the quantity of nitrogen excreted by humans (faeces and
urine) which is often believed to be a significant source of nitrogen is
barely a few percent of the total man-made nitrogen load.
Pressure from
different sectors
in 2008
In order to assess N and P pressure on Croatian water resources from
the individual sectors, a new calculation has been made for 2008.
Background N load is estimated by multiplying the non-agricultural land
area with wet and dry N deposition indicated in CBS (2010), as well as
by multiplying this area with an estimated average rate of N
mineralisation (15 kg N/ha). The N pressure from population/settlements
is taken from the Environment Agency (EA, 2007) figure for 2003 (the
latest available year). Values for the N load from agriculture are taken
from the previous calculations made in this study. Industrial N load is
taken from the figures provided by the Environment Agency (EA, 2011a).
The same methodology was applied for calculating P load, except that
an average rate of P load from non-agricultural soils is assumed to be 6
kg P/ha. From Figure 51 and Appendix 11.36 it appears that 67% of the
total nitrogen pressure and 61% of phosphorous pressure derives from
agriculture.
Background
31.5%
Background
37.0%
Agriculture
61.4%
Agriculture
66.7%
Population
1.8%
Industry
0.2%
Population
1.5%
Industry
0.1%
Figure 51: Share of sectors in total nitrogen (left) and phosphorous (right) pressure on Croatian
water resources in 2008 (author’s calculation)
78
Chapter 10: Apportionment assessment of N and P pressure
However, when only anthropogenic (man-made) pressure is taken into
account, agricultural N and P input is exceptionally high. From Figure 52
and Appendix 11.36 it appears that 97.3 of the anthropogenic (manmade) N pressure and 97.4% P pressure originate from agriculture.
Population
2.6%
Agriculture
97.3%
Industry
0.1%
Population
2.4%
Agriculture
97.4%
Industry
0.1%
Figure 52: Share of sectors in nitrogen (left) and phosphorous (right) anthropogenic pressure on
Croatian water resources in 2008 (author’s calculation)
10.2 Conclusions and policy recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the above-presented analysis, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. Agriculture is by far the most significant human activity causing
nitrogen and phosphorous pressure on European water resources.
2. In Croatia, agriculture is responsible for 61%-67% of the total and
97% of the anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorous pressure on
water resources. Consequently, agriculture should be the primary
sector to be tackled in relation to nitrogen and phosphorous load
reduction to Croatian water resources.
Policy
recommendations
From the above-presented analysis and conclusions, the MAFRD is
advised to:
1. Publish a clear statement indicating that agriculture, and not
population, industry or any other sector is the primary source of
water pollution in Croatia.
2. Stimulate more pro-actively the adoption of water-friendly farming
measures.
79
Chapter 11: Appendices
11 APPENDICES
11.1 Agricultural land use in Croatia
UAA
2009
ha
%
2008
ha
%
2007
ha
%
2006
ha
%
2005
ha
%
2004
ha
%
2003
ha
%
2002
ha
%
2001
ha
%
2000
ha
%
Arable land and gardens 863.023 66,4 855.416 66,4 846.730 70,5 873.028 71,0 864.830 71,4 840.587 71,5 858.905 71,8 852.224 72,2 848.642 72,0 836.425 71,6
Kitchen gardens
5.315 0,4
5.337 0,4
5.275 0,4
7.604 0,6
7.852 0,6
5.500 0,5
5.436 0,5
5.400 0,5
5.400 0,5
5.400 0,5
Permanent grassland 343.306 26,4 342.430 26,6 269.745 22,4 273.193 22,2 265.238 21,9 259.465 22,1 260.866 21,8 253.491 21,5 254.708 21,6 257.657 22,0
Orchards
36.659 2,8
35.933 2,8 32.720 2,7 31.807 2,6
30.280 2,5 29.421 2,5
30.903 2,6 30.170 2,6
29.424 2,5
28.828 2,5
Vineyards
34.380 2,6
32.741 2,5 32.454 2,7 30.766 2,5
29.670 2,5 28.000 2,4
27.688 2,3 27.727 2,3
27.723 2,4
28.394 2,4
Olive groves
15.304 1,2
14.971 1,2 14.346 1,2 13.363 1,1
12.357 1,0 12.391 1,1
11.275 0,9 11.480 1,0
11.412 1,0
11.398 1,0
Nurseries
579 0,0
346 0,0
210 0,0
247 0,0
296 0,0
445 0,0
344 0,0
327 0,0
365 0,0
332 0,0
Osier willows
1016 0,1
917 0,1
276 0,0
175 0,0
267 0,0
352 0,0
321 0,0
319 0,0
325 0,0
271 0,0
Total
1.299.582 100,0 1.288.091 100,0 1.201.756 100,0 1.230.183 100,0 1.210.790 100,0 1.176.161 100,0 1.195.738 100,0 1.181.138 100,0 1.177.999 100,0 1.168.705 100,0
Source: CBS, 2010
80
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.2 CORINE Land Cover statistics for Croatia
Code Land cover type
211
212
221
222
223
231
242
243
1980
ha
%
Non-irrigated arable land
385.633
16
Permanently irrigated arable land
9.443
0
Vineyards
28.200
1
Fruit trees and berry plantations
9.760
0
Olive groves
18.759
1
Meadows/Pastures
475.815
19
Heterogeneous agricultural areas, complex cultivation patterns
1.034.844
42
Heterogeneous agricultural areas,"land principally
515.282
21
occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural
vegetation"
Total
2.477.736 100,0
1990
ha
378.430
9.397
28.193
9.410
18.705
477.566
1.026.779
510.822
%
2000
ha
15 368.974
0
9.821
1
28.925
0
9.548
1
20.223
19 307.296
42 1.017.238
21 523.509
%
2006
ha
16 370.262
0
9.821
1
29.055
0
9.574
1
20.197
13 298.950
45 1.022.051
23 524.202
%
Ø 2000-2006
ha
%
16
0
1
0
1
13
45
23
377.679
99.731
23.785
14.443
16.815
320.219
844.453
642.916
16,1
4,3
1,0
0,6
0,7
13,7
36,1
27,5
2.459.302 100,0 2.285.534 100,0 2.284.112 100,0 2.340.040 100,0
Source: EA, 2011
81
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.3 Availability of forage areas in Mediterranean EU countries in 2007 and Mediterranean Croatia in 2009
Mediterranean and EU
countries with extensive
grassland
France
Greece
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Slovenia
Cattle
No.
19.350.470
732.000
6.364.350
1.324.290
5.740.560
472.360
Total 33.984.030
Mediterranean Croatia
40.367
LSU
14.125.843
534.360
4.645.976
966.732
4.190.609
344.823
24.808.342
29.468
Sheep
No.
8.446.620
10.079.900
6.790.050
2.339.610
18.758.640
135.890
46.550.710
339.416
LSU
844.662
1.007.990
679.005
233.961
1.875.864
13.589
4.655.071
33.942
Goats
No.
LSU
1.308.240
130.824
4.987.090
498.709
936.840
93.684
389.290
38.929
2.475.710
247.571
34.590
3.459
10.131.760 1.013.176
27.273
2.727
Equidae
No.
394.000
31.990
156.610
52.500
276.990
19.620
931.710
3.602
LSU
Total grazing
livestock
(LSU)
275.800
22.393
109.627
36.750
193.893
13.734
652.197
2.521
15.377.129
2.063.452
5.528.292
1.276.372
6.507.937
375.605
31.128.786
68.658
Forage plants
Permanent Forage plants
grassland
on arable
(ha)
land (ha)
Total forage
plants area
(ha)
8.105.260
819.610
3.451.760
1.780.580
8.649.790
288.220
23.095.220
141.346
35.582.190
4.895.840
16.195.960
5.253.520
33.542.310
776.990
96.246.810
159.812
27.476.930
4.076.230
12.744.200
3.472.940
24.892.520
488.770
73.151.590
18.466
Availability of forage area per LSU
Permanent Forage plants Total forage
grasland on arable land plants area
(ha/LSU)
(ha/LSU)
(ha/LSU)
0,5
0,4
0,6
1,4
1,3
0,8
0,7
2,1
1,8
2,0
2,3
2,7
3,8
1,3
2,3
0,3
2,31
2,37
2,93
4,12
5,15
2,07
3,09
2,33
Source: author's calculation, after Eurostat 2001 and CBS, 2011.
82
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.4 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia according to the Statistical Yearbook
Source: CBS, 2010
83
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.5 Fertiliser consumption by Croatian family farms (extrapolated from Statistical Yearbook 2010)
Source: author's calculation, extrapolated from the Statistical Yearbook 2010 (CBS, 2010)
84
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.6 Fertiliser consumption by Croatian legal entities and family farms
Source: author's calculation, extrapolated from the Statistical Yearbook 2010 (CBS, 2010)
85
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.7 Fertiliser consumption according to production, import and export data of CBS, Croatia
kt nutrients
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
124.341
122.151
110.509
107.722
132.430
105.785
Ø 20012006
117.156
Phosphate fertilisers
43.014
42.869
40.210
39.474
41.257
41.782
41.434
Potash fertilisers
53.643
50.857
43.249
43.252
38.448
42.519
45.328
220.997
215.877
193.968
190.448
212.135
190.086
203.918
Nitrogen fertilisers
Total
Source: Znaor, 2008 (after CBS, 2008)
86
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.8 Fertiliser production, imports, export and consumption in Croatia
kt nutrients
Nitrogen
Production
Imports
Exports
Consumption
Phosphate
Production
Imports
Exports
Consumption
Potash
Production
Imports
Exports
Consumption
Total nutrients
Production
Imports
Exports
Consumption
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007
2008 Ø 20002008
328
3
211
116
263
29
161
99
258
22
136
109
275
12
168
108
327
14
181
113
315
9
180
122
333
14
205
130
328
12
197
134
334
7
184
135
307
13
180
119
99
22
46
49
67
27
29
46
64
15
35
38
72
23
17
42
94
31
15
42
65
12
15
64
79
15
30
55
79
6
34
57
76
5
34
53
77
17
28
49
0
107
52
58
0
96
32
38
0
84
34
32
0
81
45
52
0
89
16
51
0
80
10
68
0
92
25
69
0
108
28
74
0
92
25
68
0
92
30
57
427
133
309
223
330
152
222
183
322
120
205
179
347
116
230
201
421
134
212
206
380
101
205
254
412
122
260
254
407
125
259
265
410
103
243
256
384
123
238
225
Source: IFA, 2011
87
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.9 Consumption of straight and compound fertilisers in Croatia
kt nutrients
N straight
N compound
Total N consumption
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ø 20002008
82
34
116
70
29
99
81
29
109
74
34
108
76
37
113
81
41
122
89
41
130
91
43
134
92
43
135
82
37
119
P straight
P compound
0
49
0
46
0
38
0
42
0
42
0
64
0
55
0
57
0
53
0
49
Total P2O5 consumption
49
46
38
42
42
64
55
57
53
49
K straight
K compound
0
58
0
38
0
32
0
52
0
51
36
32
37
32
40
34
37
31
17
40
Total K2O consumption
58
38
32
52
51
68
69
74
68
57
Total straight
Total compound
Total nutrients
82
141
70
113
81
98
74
127
76
130
117
137
126
128
131
134
129
127
98
126
223
183
179
201
206
254
254
265
256
225
Source: IFA, 2011
11.10 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia in the period 1998–2008
Source: IFA, 2011
88
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.11 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia by product
kt nutrients
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
3,6
3,7
6,0
-
1,6
-
-
1,3
-
0,8
-
39,1
39,6
33,7
29,5
37,2
28,6
41,4
33,4
28,5
4,0
47,0
27,0
30,2
5,0
43,7
30,5
32,0
9,0
45,0
36,0
32,0
9,0
50,0
38,0
32,0
Total nitrogen
Phosphate
Ammonium phosphate (P)
Basic slag
Ground rock dir. applic.
N P K compound (P)
Other NP (P)
Other P straight
P K compound (P)
Single superphos.
Triple superphos.
116,0
99,0
109,3
108,2
112,8
122,0
49,0
-
45,6
-
38,3
-
41,5
-
42,0
-
Total phosphate
Potash
N K compound (K)
N P K compound (K)
Other K straight
P K compound (K)
Potassium chloride
Potassium sulphate
49,0
45,6
38,3
41,5
58,0
-
38,3
-
31,5
-
Total potash
58,0
38,3
3,6
39,1
39,6
140,7
223,0
Nitrogen
Nitrogen solutions
Other N straight
N K compound (N)
Other NP (N)
Ammonia dir. applic.
Ammonium nitrate
Ammonium sulphate
Ammonium sulphate
Ammonium phosphate (N)
Urea
CAN
N P K compound (N)
Total nutrients
Ammonium (all)
Other N straight
NP
NK
PK
Urea
KAN
NPK
K chloride
K sulphate
GRAND TOTAL NUTRIENTS
2008 Ø 20002008
%
9,1
50,0
40,0
34,0
9,0
51,0
41,0
34,0
1,2
4,4
7,5
44,1
35,9
31,7
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
37
30
27
130,3
133,9
135,0
123,6
100
23,0
41,0
-
23,0
32,0
-
23,0
34,0
-
21,0
32,0
-
22,5
39,5
-
36
64
-
42,0
64,0
55,0
57,0
53,0
62,0
100
51,5
-
51,0
-
32,0
35,0
1,0
32,0
36,0
1,0
34,0
38,0
1,8
35,0
2,0
39,9
36,0
1,5
52
47
2
31,5
51,5
51,0
68,0
69,0
73,8
68,0
77,4
100
3,7
29,5
37,2
112,5
-
6,0
41,4
33,4
98,3
-
4,0
47,0
27,0
123,2
-
5,0
1,6
43,7
30,5
125,0
-
32,0
45,0
36,0
105,0
35,0
1,0
32,0
1,3
50,0
38,0
96,0
36,0
1,0
32,1
0,8
50,0
40,0
102,0
38,0
1,8
30,0
51,0
41,0
97,0
35,0
2,0
16,5
1,2
7
1
44,1
35,9
111,1
36,0
1,5
18
15
45
15
1
182,9
179,1
201,2
205,8
254,0
254,3
264,7
256,0
246,2
100
31,0
Source: IFA, 2011
89
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.12 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia as recorded by the FAO
kt nutrients
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2008
Ø 20022008
Nitrogen fertilisers
Phosphate fertilisers
Potash fertilisers
129.821 123.597 145.499 124.858 113.944 130.646 170.541 170.541
39.876 63.829 48.844 76.410 82.036 77.708 90.605 90.605
50.799 65.555 70.416 55.838 62.280 59.292 72.207 72.207
138.681
71.239
63.574
Total
220.496 252.981 264.759 257.106 258.260 267.646 333.353 333.353
273.494
Source: FAOSTAT, 2011
90
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.13 Fertiliser consumption in Croatia according to different
sources
Source: author's calculation after CBS, 2010;CBS, 2007a; IFA, 2011 and FAO,
2011
91
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.14 Comparison of IFA and FAO fertiliser consumption data for
the EU-27
kt nutrients
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Ø
2002-2006
11.055.900
10.990.137
11.272.000
11.562.837
10.870.200
11.073.569
10.653.000
10.723.233
10.563.500
10.471.949
10.882.920
10.964.345
101
Phosphate fertilisers
IFA
FAO
3.494.500
3.435.420
3.360.900
3.435.420
3.334.900
3.435.420
3.095.100
3.435.420
3.012.400
3.435.420
3.259.560
3.435.420
105
Potash fertilisers
IFA
3.906.400
3.888.900
3.804.700
3.417.600
3.518.100
3.707.140
FAO
3.691.736
3.691.736
3.691.736
3.691.736
3.691.736
3.691.736
100
18.456.800
18.117.293
18.521.800
18.689.993
18.009.800
18.200.725
17.165.700
17.850.389
17.094.000
17.599.105
17.849.620
18.091.501
101
Nitrogen fertilisers
IFA
FAO
Total nutrients
IFA
FAO
Index
(IFA=100
)
Source: IFA, 2011 and FAO, 2011
92
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.15 Nitrogen fertiliser consumption in the EU
Source: IFA; 2011
93
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.16 Phosphate fertiliser consumption in the EU
Source: IFA; 2011
94
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.17 Potassium fertiliser consumption in the EU
Source: IFA; 2011
95
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.18 Total nutrients (N, P2O5 and K2O) consumption from synthetic fertilisers in the EU
Source: IFA; 2011
96
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.19 Utilised agricultural area (UAA) in the EU (‘000 ha)
Country
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ø 2000-2008
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU-15
3.399
1.396
2.666
2.211
29.865
17.067
3.901
4.418
15.401
1.976
3.881
25.425
2.980
15.722
130.308
3.375
1.390
2.694
2.216
27.856
17.038
3.575
4.458
15.355
1.933
3.838
25.596
3.054
15.799
128.177
3.387
1.393
2.690
2.216
29.622
16.971
3.917
4.372
15.341
1.933
3.813
25.554
3.039
15.722
129.970
3.374
1.392
2.641
2.246
29.430
17.008
3.897
4.370
15.097
1.924
3.745
25.270
3.129
16.352
129.875
3.254
1.394
2.664
2.253
29.632
17.020
3.960
4.307
13.159
1.927
3.819
25.249
3.153
17.069
128.860
3.263
1.386
2.712
2.267
29.584
17.035
3.805
4.307
14.710
1.924
3.737
25.690
3.019
16.761
130.200
3.240
1.382
2.699
2.301
29.538
16.951
3.254
4.307
14.710
1.899
3.767
25.359
3.150
16.761
129.318
3.239
1.370
2.695
2.255
29.414
16.954
3.984
4.276
14.490
1.886
3.679
24.991
3.121
16.761
129.115
3.171
1.374
2.695
2.296
29.385
16.926
3.984
4.200
13.338
1.933
3.733
25.657
3.076
15.263
127.030
3.300
1.386
2.684
2.251
29.370
16.997
3.809
4.335
14.622
1.926
3.779
25.421
3.080
16.246
129.206
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
EU-12
EU-27
5.582
101
4.282
1.001
5.854
2.488
3.489
18.220
14.811
2.444
491
58.763
189.071
5.498
143
4.280
891
5.853
2.485
3.487
18.246
14.897
2.444
486
58.710
186.887
5.325
144
3.652
890
5.867
2.480
3.487
16.891
14.819
2.240
506
56.301
186.271
5.326
136
3.674
796
5.865
1.582
2.531
16.136
14.819
2.236
509
53.610
183.485
5.331
158
3.631
770
5.862
1.642
2.604
16.301
14.324
1.935
491
53.049
181.909
5.265
136
3.606
834
5.863
1.734
2.837
15.906
14.270
1.941
509
52.901
183.101
5.190
169
3.566
762
5.809
1.856
2.791
15.957
14.117
1.939
491
52.647
181.965
5.116
151
4.254
823
5.807
1.839
2.696
16.177
13.714
1.931
499
53.008
182.122
5.101
148
3.551
802
5.790
1.825
2.672
15.608
13.717
1.936
492
51.642
178.672
5.304
143
3.833
841
5.841
1.992
2.955
16.605
14.388
2.116
497
54.515
183.720
Source: EUROSTAT, 2011
97
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.20 Consumption of nitrogen from synthetic fertilisers in the EU
kt N
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU-15
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovak Rep.
Slovenija
EU-12
EU-27
kt N
2004 2005
2007
2008 Ø 2000-
118
120
104
100
99
104
104
106
162
165
165
165
163
160
156
166
234
212
202
206
206
198
195
222
167
165
162
163
159
158
159
164
2.317 2.392 2.278 2.330 2.323 2.204 2.200 2.403
1.848 1.792 1.788 1.828 1.779 1.786 1.599 1.807
285
262
255
259
228
227
207
217
368
366
388
362
350
343
339
310
828
819
789
753
685
641
701
708
300
296
288
275
269
263
261
268
113
103
96
95
88
83
80
78
1.114 1.111 1.075 1.158 1.023
951
937
977
191
187
182
177
164
170
175
197
1.167 1.195 1.131 1.130 1.074 1.026 1.005 1.036
9.212 9.185 8.903 9.001 8.610 8.314 8.119 8.659
145
150
130
134
134
137
158
160
8
8
8
9
9
8
10
9
262
311
289
304
293
289
295
311
22
29
30
26
29
30
15
24
320
336
330
333
354
326
341
319
29
39
36
36
38
39
45
56
98
102
115
116
117
119
122
127
896
864
831
948
892
996 1.056 1.142
240
269
239
213
242
241
234
324
82
85
81
93
90
90
100
115
64
59
63
59
63
64
70
69
2.166 2.250 2.153 2.271 2.261 2.339 2.445 2.655
11.377 11.436 11.056 11.272 10.870 10.653 10.564 11.313
98
106
149
161
190
207
136
159
2.099 2.283
1.551 1.753
150
232
286
346
609
726
247
274
70
90
732 1.009
158
178
918 1.076
7.392 8.599
166
146
8
9
340
299
22
25
232
321
51
41
119
115
1.050
964
345
261
118
95
42
61
2.491 2.337
9.884 10.936
2000
2001
2002
2003
2006
2008
kg N per ha
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ø 2000-
2008
35
116
88
76
78
108
73
83
54
152
29
44
64
74
71
26
77
61
22
55
11
28
49
16
34
130
37
60
36
119
79
74
86
105
73
82
53
153
27
43
61
76
72
27
55
73
32
57
16
29
47
18
35
121
38
61
31
118
75
73
77
105
65
89
51
149
25
42
60
72
69
24
56
79
34
56
15
33
49
16
36
124
38
59
30
119
78
73
79
107
66
83
50
143
25
46
57
69
69
25
67
83
33
57
23
46
59
14
42
115
42
61
30
117
77
71
78
105
58
81
52
140
23
41
52
63
67
25
59
81
38
60
23
45
55
17
47
127
43
60
32
115
73
70
75
105
60
80
44
137
22
37
56
61
64
26
62
80
36
56
23
42
63
17
46
125
44
58
32
113
72
69
74
94
64
79
48
137
21
37
56
60
63
30
59
83
19
59
24
44
66
17
52
142
46
58
33
121
83
73
82
107
54
72
49
142
21
39
63
62
67
31
56
73
29
55
30
47
71
24
60
139
50
62
31
108
71
59
71
92
38
68
46
128
19
29
51
60
58
33
52
96
27
40
28
45
67
25
61
84
48
55
32
116
77
71
78
103
61
80
50
142
24
40
58
66
67
28
60
79
30
55
21
40
58
18
46
123
43
60
Source: After IFA, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011 and CBS, 2011
98
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.21 Consumption of phosphate from synthetic fertilisers in the EU
kt P2O5
kt P2O5
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU-15
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovak Rep.
Slovenija
EU-12
EU-27
kg P2O5 per ha
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ø 2000-2008
48
45
36
52
795
351
113
96
504
54
63
569
39
279
3044
4
5
43
7
45
11
20
270
56
19
18
498
3542
47
45
34
52
759
315
112
97
457
54
63
604
37
279
2955
4
5
53
7
45
15
20
317
86
21
17
589
3544
45
45
33
45
729
327
106
97
449
52
57
606
37
282
2910
4
6
46
5
68
15
30
303
73
19
16
585
3495
38
45
32
45
721
284
110
96
454
52
54
508
38
279
2756
4
4
44
7
67
10
31
338
64
20
16
605
3361
39
52
32
45
685
303
88
85
393
45
51
585
35
260
2697
9
4
49
7
69
10
32
346
75
21
17
638
3335
35
52
31
45
599
274
88
84
346
43
50
465
30
237
2379
11
5
49
7
66
14
32
422
74
21
15
716
3095
35
49
31
43
561
265
81
82
381
43
47
461
31
229
2339
12
5
45
3
62
15
32
412
49
24
15
673
3012
38
47
30
40
631
317
91
61
319
45
48
526
33
215
2441
13
5
61
4
70
15
34
462
68
30
17
778
3219
21
23
14
25
296
174
64
54
194
33
32
158
23
132
1243
13
5
55
2
38
9
24
410
64
28
11
660
1903
38
45
30
44
642
290
95
84
389
47
52
498
34
243
2.529
8
5
50
5
59
13
28
364
68
22
16
638
3.167
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
14
32
14
24
27
21
29
22
33
27
16
22
13
18
23
1
48
10
6
8
4
6
15
4
8
37
8
19
14
32
13
23
27
18
31
22
30
28
16
24
12
18
23
1
36
12
8
8
6
6
17
6
8
34
10
19
13
32
12
20
25
19
27
22
29
27
15
24
12
18
22
1
40
13
6
12
6
9
18
5
8
31
10
19
11
32
12
20
24
17
28
22
30
27
14
20
12
17
21
1
30
12
9
11
6
12
21
4
9
31
11
18
12
37
12
20
23
18
22
20
30
23
13
23
11
15
21
2
28
13
9
12
6
12
21
5
11
35
12
18
11
38
11
20
20
16
23
20
24
22
13
18
10
14
18
2
33
14
9
11
8
11
27
5
11
29
14
17
11
35
11
19
19
16
25
19
26
23
12
18
10
14
18
2
30
13
4
11
8
11
26
3
12
31
13
17
12
34
11
18
21
19
23
14
22
24
13
21
11
13
19
3
33
14
5
12
8
13
29
5
16
33
15
18
7
17
5
11
10
10
16
13
15
17
9
6
7
9
10
3
32
16
3
7
5
9
26
5
14
22
13
11
Ø 2000-2008
12
32
11
19
22
17
25
19
26
24
14
20
11
15
20
2
34
13
6
10
6
10
22
5
11
32
12
17
Source: after IFA, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011 and CBS, 2011
99
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.22 Consumption of potassium from synthetic fertilisers in the EU
kt K2 O
kt K2O
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU-15
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovak Rep.
Slovenija
EU-12
EU-27
kg K2O per ha
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ø 20002008
51
54
88
80
79
77
80
68
1033,5 1014,5
544 503,1
58
58
135
130
400
380
64
66
43
40
467
481
48
50
394
396
3.485 3.398
2,6
2,6
1,7
1,7
24,6
31,4
6,6
8,6
52
54,6
11,6
11,8
35
40
370
380
14,6
15
16,8
17,4
22,3
20,9
558
584
4.042 3.982
50
85
75
68
960,1
480
58
130
378
66
37
488
55
375
3.305
3
1,6
30,6
11,5
70
11,5
44
378
14
16,5
20,6
601
3.906
49
85
77
68
932
485
57
128
380
67
37
488
46
376
3.275
3
3,1
32,1
10
72
13
43
388
13
16
20,7
614
3.889
45
89
81
67
900
479,5
56
131,8
345
45
35
493,7
41
351,7
3.161
4,6
1,7
39,4
7,1
75
12,2
44
405
17
16,5
21,5
644
3.805
42
89
76
67
734,8
426
55
128,6
291
42
33
387,4
37
336
2.745
4,9
2
45,8
7
75
12
44
425
20
16,1
21
673
3.418
43
89
77
67
731,1
442,6
52
110
298
46
33
411
37
316
2.753
6,9
1,8
46,7
7,3
86
13
46
502
15
19,7
21
765
3.518
46
84
72
64
794,2
511,3
47
84
303
44
34
432
39
325
2.880
3,8
2
62,5
6
83
13
42
537
37
21
22
829
3.709
23
55
37
39
390,4
179,1
37
68
149
36
21
188
28
207,4
1.458
4,5
1,8
55,5
6,8
33
12
32
410
35
0
13
604
2.062
45
83
72
65
832
450
53
116
325
53
35
426
42
342
2.940
4
2
41
8
67
12
41
422
20
16
20
652
3.592
2000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ø 2000-
2008
15
63
30
36
35
32
15
31
26
32
11
18
16
25
27
0
17
6
7
9
5
10
20
1
7
45
9
21
16
58
29
31
36
30
16
29
25
34
10
19
16
25
27
0
12
7
10
9
5
11
21
1
7
43
10
21
15
61
28
31
32
28
15
30
25
34
10
19
18
24
25
1
11
8
13
12
5
13
22
1
7
41
11
21
15
61
29
30
32
29
15
29
25
35
10
19
15
23
25
1
23
9
13
12
8
17
24
1
7
41
11
21
14
64
30
30
30
28
14
31
26
23
9
20
13
21
25
1
11
11
9
13
7
17
25
1
9
44
12
21
13
64
28
30
25
25
14
30
20
22
9
15
12
20
21
1
15
13
8
13
7
16
27
1
8
41
13
19
13
64
29
29
25
26
16
26
20
24
9
16
12
19
21
1
11
13
10
15
7
16
31
1
10
43
15
19
14
61
27
28
27
30
12
20
21
23
9
17
12
19
22
1
13
15
7
14
7
16
33
3
11
44
16
20
7
40
14
17
13
11
9
16
11
19
6
7
9
14
11
1
12
16
8
6
7
12
26
3
0
26
12
12
14
60
27
29
28
26
14
27
22
27
9
17
14
21
23
1
14
11
9
11
6
14
26
1
7
41
12
20
Source: after IFA, 2011; EUROSTAT, 2011 and CBS, 2011
100
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.23 Conversion factors used to calculate LUS
Type livestock
Bovine animals
Category livestock
Under 1 year old
1 but less than 2 years old
Male, 2 years old and over
Heifers, 2 years old and over
Dairy cows
Other cows, 2 years old and over
Sheep and goats
Equidae
Piglets having a live weight of under 20 kg
Breeding sows weighing 50 kg and over
Other pigs
Broilers
Laying hens
Poultry
Ostriches
Other poultry
Rabbits, breeding females
Pigs
LU factor
0,4
0,7
1
0,8
1
0,8
0,1
0,8
0,027
0,5
0,3
0,007
0,014
0,35
0,03
0,02
Source: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2009
101
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.24 Population trend of livestock in Croatia
Year
LSU
% of
1911
% of
1991
1911
1991
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1.812.014
1.320.566
904.346
867.382
853.857
828.034
888.494
100
73
50
48
47
46
49
100
68
66
65
63
67
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
878.314
882.572
886.237
925.046
981.936
909.845
978.842
924.070
854.576
882.414
48
49
49
51
54
50
54
51
47
49
67
67
67
70
74
69
74
70
65
67
Source: author’s calculation after CBS 2011 and Stipetić, 1964
102
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.25 Livestock units 2000–2008 in Croatia
LSU
Type
livestock
Cattle
Pigs
Sheep
Goats
Poultry
Horses
Total
LSU/ha UAA
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
352.701
305.277
52.868
7.939
150.546
8.984
878.314
0,75
355.003
300.378
53.950
9.294
155.619
8.328
882.572
0,75
342.492
316.834
58.002
9.653
152.228
7.029
886.237
0,75
359.342
338.019
58.664
8.609
153.197
7.217
925.046
0,77
358.848
375.013
72.158
12.606
155.092
8.219
981.936
0,83
361.554
302.977
79.648
13.448
144.869
7.349
909.845
0,75
367.813
377.866
67.984
10.288
145.292
9.600
978.842
0,80
354.519
342.156
64.599
9.190
144.019
9.586
924.070
0,77
2008 Ø 2000
-2008
343.312
285.732
64.338
8.388
140.187
12.619
854.576
0,66
355.065
327.139
63.579
9.935
149.005
8.770
913.493
0,76
Source: CBS, 2011
103
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.26 Average annual (2000–2008) nutrient load from livestock in Croatia
Type
livestock
Cattle
Pigs
Sheep
Goats
Poultry
Horses
Total
kg/ha UAA
kg N/
tN
LSU Excreted by
livestock
70
80
70
70
85
60
76
24.855
26.171
4.451
695
12.665
526
69.363
58
kg N/
tN
LSU Applied to
agric. land
53
60
53
53
64
45
57
18.641
19.628
3.338
522
9.499
395
52.022
43
kg
kg
t P2 O5
P2 O5/ Excreted by Applied to
LSU
livestock
agric.
land
28
9.942
9.942
70
18
16
72
25
49
22.769
1.113
159
10.766
219
44.967
37
22.769
1.113
159
10.766
219
44.967
37
t K2O
K2O/ Excreted by Applied to
LSU
livestock agric. land
70
56
35
32
48
60
59
24.855
18.320
2.225
318
7.219
526
53.463
44
24.855
18.320
2.225
318
7.219
526
53.463
44
kg t nutrients
nutri./ Excreted by
LSU
livestock
168
206
123
118
206
145
184
59.651
67.260
7.788
1.172
30.650
1.272
167.793
139
kg t nutrients
nutri./ Applied to
LSU agric. land
151
186
105
101
184
130
165
53.437
60.717
6.676
998
27.484
1.140
150.453
125
Source: author’s calculation after CBS, 2011; NN 56/08; LNV, 2006 and DEFRA, 2000
104
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.27 Nutrients from livestock excreta produced and applied onto Croatian agricultural land
tN
Year
t P2O5
Excreted by Applied to Excreted by
livestock agric. land
livestock
t nutrients
t K2O
Applied to
agric. land
Excreted by
livestock
Applied to
agric. land
Excreted by
livestock
Applied to
agric. land
1911
1991
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
127.713
99.554
68.513
65.773
64.780
62.773
67.706
95.784
74.666
51.385
49.330
48.585
47.080
50.779
47.485
45.870
32.054
30.764
30.316
29.198
31.839
47.485
45.870
32.054
30.764
30.316
29.198
31.839
95.775
69.998
47.751
45.449
44.631
43.196
45.591
95.775
69.998
47.751
45.449
44.631
43.196
45.591
270.973
215.423
148.318
141.987
139.728
135.167
145.135
239.045
190.534
131.189
125.544
123.533
119.474
128.209
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
70.708
71.051
71.346
74.470
79.050
73.247
78.801
74.392
68.797
71.038
53.031
53.288
53.509
55.853
59.288
54.935
59.101
55.794
51.598
53.279
35.133
35.303
35.449
37.002
39.277
36.394
39.154
36.963
34.183
35.297
35.133
35.303
35.449
37.002
39.277
36.394
39.154
36.963
34.183
35.297
50.064
50.307
50.516
52.728
55.970
51.861
55.794
52.672
48.711
50.298
50.064
50.307
50.516
52.728
55.970
51.861
55.794
52.672
48.711
50.298
155.905
156.660
157.311
164.200
174.298
161.502
173.749
164.027
151.691
156.632
138.228
138.898
139.474
145.582
154.535
143.190
154.048
145.429
134.492
138.873
Source: own calculation after CBS 2011; NN 2008 and Stipetić, 1964
105
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.28 Nutrients load from livestock excreta
tN
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU-15
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
EU-12
EU-27
Croatia
t P2 O5
Excreted by
livestock
Applied to
agric. land
Excreted by
livestock
190.512
260.447
271.712
106.990
1.897.072
1.272.053
246.022
509.154
670.094
495.996
168.491
826.798
129.247
1.100.278
8.144.866
78.695
13.555
129.773
13.465
151.381
24.961
63.047
564.131
366.421
39.730
57.273
1.497.351
9.689.638
69.363
142.884
195.335
203.784
80.243
1.422.804
954.040
184.517
381.866
502.571
371.997
126.368
620.098
96.935
825.208
6.108.649
59.021
10.166
97.330
10.099
113.536
18.721
47.285
423.098
274.816
29.798
42.955
1.123.013
7.267.228
53.031
162.739
189.798
225.674
79.978
1.628.979
1.050.670
174.738
300.454
529.282
330.036
137.570
771.326
92.967
809.496
6.483.708
69.893
12.039
119.664
13.301
112.007
22.169
55.995
506.622
325.436
50.715
32.056
1.329.869
7.692.340
44.967
Total nutrients (t)
t K2 O
kg N/ha UAA
Applied to Excreted by Applied to
agric. land
livestock agric. land
Excreted by Applied to
Excreted
livestock agric. land by livestock
162.739
189.798
225.674
79.978
1.628.979
1.050.670
174.738
300.454
529.282
330.036
137.570
771.326
92.967
809.496
6.483.708
69.893
12.039
119.664
13.301
112.007
22.169
55.995
506.622
325.436
50.715
32.056
1.329.869
7.692.340
44.967
517.524
469.896
710.049
644.937
790.709
722.781
263.504
236.756
5.025.671 4.551.403
3.527.404 3.209.391
587.728
526.223
1.214.364 1.087.075
1.840.213 1.672.690
1.253.497 1.129.498
452.405
410.282
2.540.655 2.333.956
343.072
310.760
2.860.951 2.585.881
21.927.745 19.891.529
243.314
223.640
41.910
38.522
390.621
358.178
47.595
44.229
436.913
399.067
77.177
70.937
194.932
179.171
1.786.177 1.645.144
1.132.920 1.041.315
146.857
136.925
126.281
111.963
4.629.587 4.255.249
26.483.517 24.061.107
167.793
150.453
164.273
259.804
293.323
76.535
1.499.620
1.204.681
166.968
404.756
640.837
427.466
146.344
942.531
120.857
951.177
7.299.172
94.726
16.316
141.184
20.829
173.524
30.046
75.890
715.424
441.063
56.413
36.952
1.802.367
9.101.539
53.463
164.273
259.804
293.323
76.535
1.499.620
1.204.681
166.968
404.756
640.837
427.466
146.344
942.531
120.857
951.177
7.299.172
94.726
16.316
141.184
20.829
173.524
30.046
75.890
715.424
441.063
56.413
36.952
1.802.367
9.101.539
53.463
58
188
101
48
65
75
65
117
46
258
45
33
42
68
63
15
95
34
16
26
13
21
34
25
19
115
27
53
58
kg P2O5 /ha UAA
kg K2O/ha UAA
kg total nutrients/ha UAA
Applied to Excreted by Applied to Excreted by Applied to Excreted
agric. land
livestock agric. land
livestock agric. land by livestock
43
141
76
36
48
56
48
88
34
193
33
24
31
51
47
11
71
25
12
19
9
16
25
19
14
86
21
40
43
49
137
84
36
55
62
46
69
36
171
36
30
30
50
50
13
84
31
16
19
11
19
31
23
24
64
24
42
37
49
137
84
36
55
62
46
69
36
171
36
30
30
50
50
13
84
31
16
19
11
19
31
23
24
64
24
42
37
50
187
109
34
51
71
44
93
44
222
39
37
39
59
56
18
114
37
25
30
15
26
43
31
27
74
33
50
44
50
187
109
34
51
71
44
93
44
222
39
37
39
59
56
18
114
37
25
30
15
26
43
31
27
74
33
50
44
157
512
295
117
171
208
154
280
126
651
120
100
111
176
170
46
293
102
57
75
39
66
108
79
69
254
85
144
139
Applied to
agric. land
142
465
269
105
155
189
138
251
114
586
109
92
101
159
154
42
269
93
53
68
36
61
99
72
65
225
78
131
125
Source: author’s calculation after CBS, 2011; NN, 2008; EUROSTAT, 2011; MAFF, 2000 and LNV, 2006
106
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.29 Total nutrients load from fertilisers and livestock excreta
Fertilisers
N P2 O5
Netherlands
Belgium
Slovenia
Denmark
Cyprus
Ireland
Germany
Croatia
France
EU-15
UK
Greece
EU-27
Finland
Italy
Poland
Austria
Czech Rep.
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
EU-12
Hungary
Slovakia
Lithuania
Estonia
Romania
Bulgaria
Latvia
142
116
123
77
60
80
103
98
78
67
66
61
60
71
50
58
32
79
58
40
24
43
55
46
40
30
18
28
21
24
32
32
11
34
19
17
41
22
20
15
25
17
19
26
22
12
13
11
20
14
12
10
11
10
6
5
2
6
Livestock excreta
K2 O Total
27
60
41
27
14
27
26
45
28
23
21
14
20
29
22
26
14
11
14
17
9
12
11
7
14
9
1
1
6
194
208
196
116
108
126
147
185
128
109
102
100
96
119
98
106
57
102
82
76
46
67
76
64
64
46
24
30
34
N P2O5
193
141
86
76
71
88
56
45
48
47
51
48
40
36
34
25
43
25
31
24
33
21
19
14
16
12
19
11
9
171
137
64
84
84
69
62
39
55
50
50
46
42
36
36
31
49
31
30
30
36
24
19
24
19
16
23
13
11
Fertilisers + Livestock excreta
K2 O Total
222
187
74
109
114
93
71
47
51
56
59
44
50
34
44
43
50
37
39
37
39
33
30
27
26
25
31
18
15
586
465
225
269
269
251
189
131
155
154
159
138
131
105
114
99
142
93
101
92
109
78
68
65
61
53
72
42
36
N
P2O5
K2O
Total
335
257
209
153
131
168
159
144
126
114
117
110
99
106
84
84
75
104
89
64
57
64
74
60
56
42
37
39
31
196
169
96
95
119
89
79
80
77
70
65
71
59
55
63
53
61
44
41
50
50
36
29
35
29
22
27
15
18
249
247
115
136
128
120
97
92
79
79
80
58
69
63
66
69
63
48
53
54
48
45
41
34
40
34
32
19
21
780
673
421
385
378
376
335
316
283
263
262
238
227
224
212
205
200
196
183
168
155
145
145
129
125
98
97
72
70
Source: author's calculation after CBS, 2011; NN, 2008; EUROSTAT, 2011; MAFF, 2000 and LNV,
2006
107
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.30 Gross nitrogen balance for Croatia in 2006
Code Item
tN
% kg N/ha
UAA
N inputs
F1
Total fertilisers
A1
Livestock manure production
B11 Biological N fixation legumes
B12 Biological N fixation - free living organisms
C1
Seeds and planting material
L111 Atmospheric deposition
Total N inputs
130,000
74,392
25,957
4,921
1,845
14,147
251,262
52
30
10
2
1
6
100
106
60
21
4
2
12
204
N outputs
C21 Harvested crops
C22 Harvested forage crops
Total N outputs
N surplus
N recovery/efficiency
Estimated loss to water
90,993
36,094
127,088
124,174
61,318
72
28
100
49
51
49
74
29
103
101
50
Source: author's calculation
11.31 Gross phosphorous balance for Croatia in 2006
Source: author's calculation
108
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.32 Gross potassium balance for Croatia in 2006
Source: author's calculation
109
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.33 Crop nutrient requirements
Nitrogen
tN
ha kg N/ha
UAA
Crop
Cereals
Wheat
Maize
Barley
Others
Phosphate
t
kg
P2O5
P2O5/
ha UAA
Potassium
t
kg K2O/
K2O
ha UAA
Total nutrients
t
kg
nutrients/ nutrients
ha UAA
Subtotal
175,551
296,195
59,159
39,212
570,117
148
151
118
110
144
25,982
44,725
6,981
4,313
82,001
79
102
83
75
91
13,869
30,212
4,910
2,941
51,932
109
158
113
105
135
19,135
46,799
6,685
4,117
76,736
336
411
314
290
370
58,985
121,736
18,576
11,371
210,669
Subtotal
35,308
8,413
43,721
95
128
101
3,354
1,077
4,431
102
75
177
3,601
631
4,232
174
113
287
6,144
951
7,094
371
316
687
13,099
2,659
15,758
Dry pulses and beans
Beans
Other pulses
Subtotal
6,367
684
7,051
95
95
190
605
65
670
100
100
200
637
68
705
150
150
300
955
103
1,058
345
345
690
2,197
236
2,433
Subtotal
16,759
16,759
197
197
3,302
3,302
160
160
2,681
2,681
240
240
4,022
4,022
597
597
10,005
10,005
Subtotal
62,810
31,881
22,345
117,036
83
151
100
105
5,213
4,814
2,235
12,262
113
140
120
122
7,098
4,463
2,681
14,242
143
234
130
165
8,982
7,460
2,905
19,347
339
525
350
392
21,293
16,738
7,821
45,851
Subtotal
1,051
1,628
7,464
10,143
88
106
100
100
92
173
746
1,011
80
110
100
100
84
179
746
1,010
120
165
130
135
126
269
970
1,365
288
381
330
334
303
620
2,463
3,386
2,628
100
3,635
190
3,591
170
4,093
120
139 13,948
0
0
135 117,624
325
80
110
100
157
0
104
8,542
1,531
2,324
3,411
15,807
0
90,609
8,542
325
2,296
120
2,746
130
4,093
120
176 17,677
0
0
146 127,299
750
390
410
340
471
0
384
19,712
7,462
8,660
11,597
47,431
0
335,532
Oil crops
Sunflowers
Rape seed
Root crops
Potatoes
Industrial crops
Soyabean
Sugar beet
Others
Vegetables
Onions
Cabages
Other vegetables
Forage crops
Alfalfa
Grass-clover
Silage maize
Other fodder crops
Subtotal
Fallow land
Total arable land
Kitchen gardens
Meadows and pastures
Fruit and grape
Orchards
Olive groves
Vineyards
Subtotal
Nurseries & ossier willows
Nutrient requirements
26,282
19,134
21,123
34,109
100,648
7,553
873,028
7,604
60
456
100
760
130
989
290
2,205
273,193
45
12,294
40
10,928
30
8,196
115
31,417
2,863
90
1,069
80
2,154
70
6,085
80
13
30
116 142,581
220
180
180
197
140
312
6,998
2,405
5,538
14,941
59
384,155
31,807
13,363
30,766
75,936
422
1,230,183
2,226
70
802
60
2,154
70
5,182
68
30
70
110 135,586
1,908
60
535
40
1,231
40
3,674
48
17
40
86 105,988
Source: author's calculation
110
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.34 Crop nutrient recovery
Source: author's calculation
111
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.35 Source apportionment of N and P inputs into the aquatic environment
Source: (EEA, 2005)
112
Chapter 11: Appendices
11.36 Environmental pressure from N and P onto Croatian water resources in
2008
Source: author's calculation
113
Chapter 12: References
12 REFERENCES
Bašić, F., 2002. Obilježja talnog pokrova (pedosfere) Hrvatske [Croatian soil
(pedosphere) characteristics]. In: Mesić, M., Bašić, F., Grgić, Z., Igrc-Barčić., J.,
Kisić, I., Petošić, D., Posavi, M., Romić, D., Šimunić, I. (eds.). Procijena stanja,
uzroka i veličine pritisaka poljoprivrede na vodne resurse i more na području
Republike Hrvatske [Assessment of the Situation, Causes and Magnitude of
Agricultural Environmental Pressure on Water Resources and Sea in the
Republic of Croatia]. Zagreb, Agronomski fakultet.
Bašić, F., 2003. Soil Resources of Croatia. Research Report No. 9. Brussels, European
Soil Bureau: 89-96.
CBS, 1991-2003. Statistical Yearbooks 1991-2003. Zagreb, Central Bureau of Statistics.
CBS, 2003a. Agricultural Census 2003. Zagreb, Central Bureau of Statistics.
CBS, 2003b. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia 2003. Zagreb, Central
Bureau of Statistics.
CBS, 2006. Statistical Yearbook 2006. Zagreb, Central Bureau of Statistics.
CBS, 2007a. Data set on fertiliser production, import and export. Provided on request.
Zagreb, Central Bureau of Statistics.
CBS, 2007b. Data sets on fertiliser, pesticide and feedstuff production, import and export.
Zagreb, Central Bureau of Statistics.
CBS, 2007c. Statistical Yearbook 2007. Zagreb, Central Bureau of Statistics.
CBS, 2010. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia 2010. Zagreb, Central Bureau
of Statistics.
CBS, 2011. Regional agricultural statistics - data provided on request. Zagreb, Central
Bureau of Statistics.
CEA, 2007a. Izvješće o stanju okoliša u Republici Hrvatskoj [State of Environment Report
of the Republic of Croatia]. Zagreb, Croatian Environment Agency: 307.
CEA, 2007b. Okoliš na dlanu I-2007 [Environment in a Nutshell I-2007]. Zagreb, Croatian
Environment Agency: 35.
Christianson, C. B., 1989. Ammonia volatilization from urea nitric phosphate and urea
applied to the soil surface. Fertilizer Research (19): 183-189.
Ćorić, D., 2007. Hrvatsko tržište sjemenom [The Croatian seeds market]. Sjemenarstvo
24 (1).
CSSS, 2004. Letter sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management.
March 8th, 2004, Croatian Society of Soil Science, Zagreb.
de Vries, W., Leip, A., Kros, H., Reinds, G. J., Lesschen, J. P. and Bouwman, L., 2007.
Comparison of land nitrogen budgets for European agriculture by various model
approaches. Alterra, Wageningen.
Deur, M., 2011. Personal communication. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural
Development, Zagreb.
EA, 2005. Poljoprivredno-okolišni indikatori Republike Hrvatske. Environment Agency,
Zagreb.
EA, 2007. Izvješće o stanju okoliša u Republici Hrvatskoj. Environment Agency, Zagreb.
EA, 2010. Okoliš na dlanu I - 2010. Environment Agency, Zagreb.
EA, 2011. Pokrov i namjena korištenja zemljišta u Republici Hrvatskoj - stanje i trendovi.
Environment Agency, Zagreb.
EA, 2011a. Data on water pollution, submitted on request on May 10, 2011. Environment
Agency, Zagreb.
EEA, 2005. Source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into the aquatic
environment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
EEA, 2008. CSI 025 Specification - Gross nutrient balance.
EEA, 2011. Corine Land Cover Types 2006. European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/figures/land-cover-2006-and-changes/croatia/image_original.
EUROSTAT, 2011a. Agricultural area in use. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions
Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
114
Chapter 12: References
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16414435&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=1.
EUROSTAT, 2011b. Agriculture and fisheries statistics. Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes.
EUROSTAT, 2011c. Cropped area. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=24000696&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=3.
EUROSTAT, 2011d. Fallow land. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16468285&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=4.
EUROSTAT, 2011e. Livestock Unit (LSU). Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database.
From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16514235&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=7.
EUROSTAT, 2011f. Natural colonization of non-forest land. Eurostat's Concepts and
Definitions Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16528185&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=8.
EUROSTAT, 2011g. Other land. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16546485&RdoSearch=CONTAIN&TxtSearch=other%20land&CboTheme=&Int
CurrentPage=1.
EUROSTAT, 2011h. Temporary grass. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database.
From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16604135&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=14.
EUROSTAT, 2011i. Unutilised agricultural land. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions
Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16618235&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=14.
EUROSTAT, 2011j. Utilised agricultural area. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions
Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=16619335&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=&IntCurrentPage=21
6.
EUROSTAT, 2011k. Wodded area. Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database. From
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_GL
OSSARY_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=CODED2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntKey
=25292212&RdoSearch=BEGIN&TxtSearch=&CboTheme=16713660&IntCurrent
Page=15.
Fan, M. X. and Mackenzie, A. F., 1993. Urea and phosphate interactions in fertilizer
microsites: ammonia volatilization and pH changes. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 57: 839-845.
115
Chapter 12: References
FAO, 2011. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Avalilable at: http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx.
Franić, R., 2003. Review of Agricultural Water Pollution Control Policy and Practice in the
Danube River Basin. Policy Review Questionnaire for Croatia for the IPCDR
Project No. 01/G32. Zagreb, Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Zagreb:
26.
Grbeša, D., 2004. Metode procjene o tablice kemijskog sastava i hranjive vrijednosti
krepkih kmiva. Hrvatsko agronomnsko društvo, Zagreb.
GRC, 2003. Answers to the Questionnaire of the European Commission. Zagreb,
Government of the Republic of Croatia.
Grgić, Z., Mesić, M. and Sumelius, J., 2002. Excessive nitrogen use and leakage of
nitrates in Croatian farming systems. Farming and Rural Systems Research and
Extension, Local Identities and Globalisation. Florence.
Habets, F., 1999. FARM: farm balances software for mixed farms. Wageningen,
Department of Ecological Agriculture, Wageningen Agricultural University.
Hrvatske vode, 2003a. Vodnogospodarska osnova Hrvatske [Water Resources
Management Plan of Croatia]. Zagreb, Hrvatske vode.
ICID, 2001. Country Report Croatia. New Delhi, International Commission on Irrigation
and Drainage.
IFA, 2011. IFADATA. International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris. Available at:
http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/HomePage/STATISTICS.
IPCC, 2001. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Workbook. Chapter 4 Agriculture. Paris, Organisation for Co-operation and
Development.
Klačić, Ž., Petošić, D. and Čoga, L., 1998. Ispiranje dušika pri različitim sustavima cijevne
drenaže [Nitrogen leaching from different drainage systems]. Poljoprivredna
znanstvena smotra 63: 4:331-338.
Krištek, A., Brkić, S. and Milaković, Z., 2002. Nutritional unbalances of soils used for
sugarbeet growing in Croatia. Listy Cukrovarnicke A Reparske 118 (5-6): 129130.
LNV, 2003. Mest en kompost. Ministeries van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit,
Den Haag.
Maceljski, M., 2005. Personal communication. Croatian Academy of Science and Arts.
MAF, 1996. Croatian Agriculture at the Crossroads: the Country Position Paper of the
Republic of Croatia prepared for the World Summit. Zagreb, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry.
MAFF, 2000. Fertiliser recommendations for Agricultural and Horticultural Crops (RB 209)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.
MAFRD, 2009. IPARD Program: Plan za poljoprivredu i ruralni razvoj 2007.- 2013.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development. Zagreb.
MAFRD, 2011. Farm Register. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development.
Zagreb.
MAFWM, 2004a. Godišnje izvješće o stanju poljoprivrede u 2003. godini [Annual
agricultural report for 2003]. Zagreb, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management: 153.
MAFWM, 2004b. Upisnik poljoprivrednih proizvođača 2003 [Farm Register 2003].
Zagreb, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management.
MAFWM, 2006a. Odgovori na upitnik Europske komisije [Answer to the Questionnaire of
the European Commission]. Zagreb, Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, šumarstva i
vodnoga gospodarstva: 412.
MAFWM, 2006b. SAPARD Programme Agriculture and Rural Development Plan, 20052006. Zagreb, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management: 240.
MAFWM, 2006c. Strateške smjernice razvitka poljoprivrede i seoskog prostora Republike
Hrvatske u predpristupnom razdoblju [Strategic Guidelines for Development of
Agriculture and Rural Areas During the Preaccession Period]. Zagreb,
Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, šumarstva i vodnoga gospodarstva: 58.
MAFWM, 2007. IPARD Programme 2007-2013: Agriculture and Rural Development Plan.
Zagreb, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management: 376.
116
Chapter 12: References
Martinović, J., 1997. Tloznanstvo u zaštiti okoliša [Soil science in the service of
environmental protection]. Zagreb, Pokret prijatelja prirode “Lijepa naša”.
Marušić, J., 2003a. Construction and management of land drainage system in Croatia.
Hrvatske vode: časopis za vodno gospodarstvo Vol. 11 (45): 45:433-444.
Marušić, J., 2003b. Ekonomske posljedice stanja hidromelioracijskih sustava za odvodnju
u Hrvatskoj (Economic consequences of the situation in the hydromelioration
systems in Croatia). Hrvatske vode u 21. stoljeću, 3. hrvatska konferencija o
vodama, Osijek, Hrvatske vode.
MEPSPC, 2006. National inventory report 2006: Croatian greenhouse gas inventory for
the period 1990-2004, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Spatial Planning and
Construction, Zagreb.
Mesić, M., 2002. Potrošnja gnojiva [Fertiliser Consumption]. In: Mesić, M., Bašić, F.,
Grgić, Z., Igrc-Barčić., J., Kisić, I., Petošić, D., Posavi, M., Romić, D., Šimunić, I.
(eds.). Procijena stanja, uzroka i veličine pritisaka poljoprivrede na vodne resurse
i more na području Republike Hrvatske [Assessment of the Situation, Causes and
Magnitude of Agricultural Environmental Pressure on Water Resources and Sea
in the Republic of Croatia]. Zagreb, Agronomski fakultet.
Mesić, M., 2003. Review of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Countries. Policy
review questionnaire for Croatia for the IPCDR project No. 1/G32. Zagreb,
Faculty of Agriculture: 11.
Mesić, M., Butorac, A., Bašić, F., Kisić, I. and Gašpar, I., 2000. Influence of Black Fallow
on Nitrate Leaching. Proceedings of 15th ISTRO Conference, CD, p. 7. Fort
Worth, Dallas, USA.
Mesić, M., Kisić, I., Bašić, F., Vadić, Ž., Vuković, I. and Sajko, K., 2004. Procijena utjecaja
organske i mineralne gnojidbe na onečišćenje površinskih i podzemnih voda u
Republici Hrvatskoj [Livestock manure and fertiliser impact assessment on
surface and ground water pollution in the Republic of Croatia], Anonymous: 151.
Mihalić, V. and Bašić, F., 1997. Temelji bilinogojstva [Basics of crop production]. Zagreb,
Školska knjiga.
Mikšić, M., Murguić, N., Borbaš, T., Črep, R., Kantoci, N., Hrgović, S., Čuljak, L.,
Zagorec, D., Komljenović, J., Gržan, N. and Kucjenić, Ž., 2004. Katalog
kalkulacija poljoprivredne proizvodnje [Manual for calculations in agricultural
production]. Zagreb, Hrvatski zavod za poljoprivrednu savjetodavnu službu: 186.
Moller, P., 2003. Agri-environmental Support Policy. Report made to the World Bank’s
Project “Farmers Services Support Policy in Croatia”. Copenhagen., Scanagri.
Motacha, J. E., 1976. Ammonia volatilization and nitrogen utilization from soil sulphurcoated urea and conventional nitrogen fertilizers. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 40: 597-601.
MPŠ, 2003. Nacionalani program za poljoprivredu i seoska područja- nacrt [National
Programme for Agriculture and Rural Areas- Draft]. Zagreb, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry.
MPŠVG, 2006. SAPARD Programme Agriculture and Rural Development Plan, 20052006. Zagreb, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management: 240.
MZOPU, 2002. Priority Action Plan Projects, January, 2002. PAP No.21, Ministry of
Environment and Spatial Planning, Zagreb.
OECD, 2001. OECD National soil surface nitrogen balances: explanatory notes. Paris,
Organisation of economic Co-operation and Development: 19.
OECD, 2007. OECD Nitrogen Balance Database, Paris.
http://www.oecd.org/document/29/0,2340,fr_2649_33795_1890205_1_1_1_1,00.
html.
OECD and EUROSTAT, 2007. Gross nitrogen balances handbook.Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris and EUROSTAT, Luxembourg.
OECD/Eurostat, 2004. OECD/Eurostat Gross Nitrogen Balances Handbook. Paris,
Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation.
OG, 2007. Ordinance on Inscription into the Fertiliser Register. Official Gazette No.
61/07.
OG, 2008. Good Agricultural Practice in the Use of Fertilizers. Official Gazette No. 56/08.
117
Chapter 12: References
Oomen, G. J. M., Lantinga, E. A., Goewie, E. A. and Van der Hoek, K. W., 1998. Mixed
farming systems as a way towards a more efficient use of nitrogen in European
Union agriculture. Environmental Pollution 102: 697-704.
Petrokemija, 2004. Letter sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management. March 8th, 2004. Kutina, Petrokemija d.d.
PPC, 2004. Letter sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management.
March 25th, 2004. Zagreb, Plant Protection Committee of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management.
Romić, D., Romić, M., Klačić, Ž., Petošić, D. and Stričević, I., 1997. Effect of land use
upon the leaching of nitrogen into groundwater in the area of the future water
pumping station. Bal Gumpenstein, Austria, 7. Gumpensteiner Lysimetertagung
Lysimeter und Nachhaltige Landnutzung.
Rousseau, O., 2011. Personal communication. International Fertilizer Industry
Association, Paris.
RZS, 1964. Reports, Volume 14. Zagreb, Statistical Office of the Socialist Republic of
Croatia.
Sever, M., 2007. Personal communication. Croatian Organic Producers Association,
Zagreb.
Shepherd, M. A., Philipps, L., Jackson, L. and Bhogal, A., 2002. The nutrient content of
cattle manures from organic holdings in England. Biological Agriculture &
Horticulture 20: 229-242.
Šimunić, I., 2002. Postojeće stanje i procijena kakvoće drenažnih voda [Current state and
assessment of water drainage water quality]. In: Mesić, M., Bašić, F., Grgić, Z.,
Igrc-Barčić., J., Kisić, I., Petošić, D., Posavi, M., Romić, D., Šimunić, I. (eds.).
Procijena stanja, uzroka i veličine pritisaka poljoprivrede na vodne resurse i more
na području Republike Hrvatske [Assessment of the Situation, Causes and
Magnitude of Agricultural Environmental Pressure on Water Resources and Sea
in the Republic of Croatia]. Zagreb, Agronomski fakultet.
Šimunić, I., 2003. Soil and water contamination by drainage systems. Hrvatske vode:
časopis za vodno gospodarstvo Vol. 11 (45): 45:541-545.
Šimunić, I., Senta, A. and Tomić, F., 2006. Irrigation requirements and potentials of
agricultural crops in northern Croatia. Agronomski glasnik 1: 13-29.
Šimunić, I., Tomić, F. and Klačić, Ž., 1998a. Djelovanje drenaži na koncentraciju dušika u
drenažnoj vodi [Impact of drainage on nitrogen concentration in drainage water].
Hrvatske vode: časopis za vodno gospodarstvo (1): 107-110.
Šimunić, I., Tomić, F. and Klačić, Ž., 1998b. Stupanj onečišćenja drenažnih voda na
hidormelioriranom presudogle-glejnom tlu srednje Posavine [Drainage water
pollution on hydromeliorated pesudogley-gley soils of mid Posavina region].
XXXV Znanstveni skup hrvatskih agronoma. Opatija.
Šimunić, I., Tomić, F. and Marušić, J., 1996. Drnänabfluß und Stickstoffaustrag bei den
verschindenen Systemen derr Detaile-nentwässerung. XVIIIth Conference of the
Danube Countries on Hydrological Forecasting un Hydrological Bases of Water
Management, Graz.
Šimunić, I., Tomić, F., Mesić, M. and Kolak, I., 2002a. Nitrogen leaching from meliorated
soil. Bodenkultur 53 (2): 73-81.
Šimunić, I., Tomić, F., Petošić, D., Mesić, M. and Čoga, L., 2002b. Quality of drainage
waters of the Danube catchment area in the Republic of Croatia (Quality of
drainage waters of the Danube catchment area in the Republic of Croatia). XXI
Conference of the Danubian Countries, Bucharest.
SINP, 2004. Habitats Mapping of the Republic of Croatia. Zagreb, State Institute for
Nature Protection.
Siva, K. B., 1999. Ammonia volatilization from urea as affected by tropical-based palm oil
palm effluent (pome) and peat. Communications in Soil Science and Plant
Analysis 30: 785-804.
Stipetić, I., 1991. Crop Production in Croatia 1885-1990. Zagreb, Faculty of Economics of
the University of Zagreb.
Sumelius, J., Grgić, Z., Mesić, M. and Franić, R., 2002a. Farm level cost of reducing
nitrate leaching by economic instruments in Croatian farming systems. CEESA
118
Chapter 12: References
Discussion Paper No. 11. Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, Chair of
Resource Economics.
Sumelius, J., Grgić, Z., Mesić, M. and Franić, R., 2002b. Farm level cost of reducing
nitrate leaching by economic instruments in Croatian farming systems. CEESA
Discussion Paper No. 11. Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, Chair of
Resource Economics.
Sumelius, J., Grgić, Z., Mesić, M. and Franić, R., 2003. Marginal abatement costs for
reducing leaching of nitrates in Croatian farming systems. Proceedings of the
25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists (IAAE). Durban, South
Africa.
Sumelius, J., Mesic, M., Grgic, Z., Kisic, I. and Franic, R., 2005a. Marginal abatement
costs for reducing leaching of nitrates in Croatian agriculture. Agricultural and
Food Science 14 (3): 293-309.
Sumelius, J., Mesić, M., Grgić, Z., Kisić, I. and Franić, R., 2005b. Marginal abatement
costs for reducing leaching of nitrates in Croatian agriculture. Forthcoming in
Agricultural and Food Science.
Summers, M., 1996. Overview of Agriculture in Eastern Europe. Sustainable Agriculture:
Econonmic Alternatives for Eastern Europe. Jones, R., Summers, M. and Mayo,
E. London, The New Economics Foundation. III.
Tomić, F., Šimunić, I., Petošić, D., Stričević and Klačić, Z., 1997. Utjecaj cijevne drenaže
na ispiranje dušika iz tla. 4. stručna sjednica Radne skupine "Zaštita tla "
Podunavskih zemalja [The effect of pipe drainage on nitrogen leaching. 4th
expert committee meeting of the Danube Basin Task Force "Soil Protection"],
Osijek.
UN-ECE, 1999. Environmental Performance Reviews: Croatia, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe, New York and Geneva: 196.
UN, 2002. Johannesburg Summit 2002: Croatia Country Profile. New York, United
Nations.
UPR, 2000. Development Strategy for Agriculture and Areas of Special State Concern:
Proposal. Working Group of the President of the Republic of Croatia for the
Preparation of the Development Strategy for Agriculture and Areas of Special
State Concern. Zagreb, Office of the President of the Republic of Croatia.
van der Werff, P. A., 1992. Applied Soil Ecology in Ecological Agriculture, Department of
Ecological Agriculture, Wageningen Agricultural University: 109.
van Mansvelt, J. D. and Znaor, D., 1999. Criteria for the a-biotic and biotic realm:
environment and ecology. Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management.
van Mansvelt, J. D. and Lubbe, M. J. Amsterdam-Lausanne-New York-OxfordShannon-Singapore-Tokio, Elsevier.
Vidaček, Ž., Bogunović, M. and Bensa, A., 2005. Aktualno stanje zaštite tla u Hrvatskoj
[Current situation of soil protection in Croatia]. Gazophylacium, in print.
Vidaček, Ž., Racz, Z., I, C. and Milović, B., 2003. Efficiency of land reclamation and soilimprovement systems in the Vučica and Karašica catchment. Hrvatske vode:
časopis za vodno gospodarstvo Vol. 11 (45): 45:507-513.
Vidaček, Ž., Sraka, M. and Bensa, A., 2002. Utjecaj hidromelioracija na režim vlažnosti
tla i ispiranje nitrata. Soil Science: Confronting New Realities in the 21st Century,
Bangkok, Thailand, Society of Soil Science of Thailand.
Vidaček, Ž., Sraka, M., Čoga, L. and Mihalić, A., 1999. Nitrati, teški metali i herbicidi u tlu
i vodama sliva Karašica- [Vučica Nitrates, Heavy Metals and Herbicides in Soil
and Waters of Karašica- Vučica Catchment Area]. Poljoprivredna znanstvena
smotra 64 (2): 143-150.
VRH, 2003. Answers to the Questionnaire of the European Commission. Zagreb,
Government of the Republic of Croatia.
Vukadinović, V., 2007a. ALR kalkulator: Proračun gnojidbe ratarskih usjeva [ALR
calculator: assessment of nutrient requirements for arable crops]. From
http://www.pfos.hr/~vladimir/Kalkulatori/alr_41c2.html.
Vukadinović, V., 2007b. Personal communication. Institute for Agroecology of the
University of Osijek, Osijek.
119
Chapter 12: References
Znaor, D., 1995. Ekološka poljoprivreda: poljoprivreda sutrašnjice [Ecological agriculture:
agriculture of tomorrow]. Zagreb, Nakladni zavod Globus.
Znaor, D., 2008. Environmental and economic impacts of agriculture in Croatia and
consequences of large-scale conversion to organic farming. PhD. thesis.
Department of Biological Sciences. Colchester, University of Essex.
Znaor, D. and Karoglan Todorović, S., 2004. Agri-Environment Programme for Croatia,
Ecologica, Zagreb: 103.
Znaor, D. and Karoglan Todorović, S., 2006. Agri-Environment Sector Analysis for
Croatia. Report prepared for the European Commission under the EU CARDS
2003 programme. Aylesbury, Cardno Agrisystems: 120.
Znaor, D. and Karoglan Todorović, S., 2007. Agricultural Pollution Control Programme for
Croatia. Study commissioned by the World Bank. Wageningen, DZ-IC: 122.
Znaor, D., Pretty, J., Morison, J. I. L. and Karoglan Todorović, S., 2005. Environmental
and macroeconomic impact assessment of large-scale conversion to organic
farming in Croatia. Colchester/Rome, University of Essex and the UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation: 221.
120