european perspective on integrated management of reactive...

www.ecn.nl

European Perspective on Integrated Management of Reactive Nitrogen

Jan Willem Erisman, ECN, The Netherlands

2 20-10-2008

Summary

• Negative environmental impacts have been observed• Effects translated into effect parameters (indicators) and set long-

term targets for sustainability• Indicators used for risk assessment through Integrated

Assessment Modelling, Best Available Techniques and cost-benefit analysis

• Aim: limit exceedance of limits against lowest cost through targeted policies and measures

• Losses to air and water decreased• Up till now: focus on water and air separate• Future: TFRN will aim for integrative approach

3 20-10-2008

Outline of presentation

• N in Europe: the issues• N policies and their success• A proposal for integrated nitrogen approach• Comparison between the US and Europe• Conclusions

4 20-10-2008

100 years (and 1 week) Haber Process

Erisman et al., 2008

5 20-10-2008

Trends in human population and nitrogen use

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1900 1950 2000

Wor

ld p

opul

atio

n (m

illion

s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

% w

orld

pop

ulat

ion,

ferti

lizer

inpu

t, m

eat p

rodu

ctio

n

world population

world population(no Haber BoschN)% world populationfed by HaberBosch Naverage fertilizerinput (kg N / ha/year)meat production(kg / person / year)

6 20-10-2008

Past and future global N fertilizer consumption 1900-2100

0

50

100

150

200

250

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Tg N

A1 – technol / globalA2 – technol / regionalB1 – environm /globalB2 – environm / regionalTilman et al, 2001FAO, 2000 (baseline)FAO, 2000 (improved)

A1

0

50

100

150

200

250

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Tg N


0

50

100

150

200

250

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Tg N


A2 B1 B2

efficiency increasediet optimizationbiofuelsfood equitypopulation growth

A1 A2 B1 B2


A1 A2 B1 B2


Erisman et al. 2008

We need a new invention that will change the world the coming 100 years

7 20-10-2008

Fossil fuels/energy and nitrogen

• NOx emissions from combustion

• Fertilizer production• Globalisation through

transport• Increased production

through increased manpower

• Biofuels/bioenergy will require more fertilizer use

Energy, transport and industry

8 20-10-2008

The reactive nitrogen formation and cascade

Sources EffectsCascade through the environment

www.ecn.nl

Nitrogen policies in Europe

10 20-10-2008

Changing insights on role of N in water and air

• 1920s: N in water contribute to algal growth• 1940s: NO3 in drinking water has toxic effects on babies• 1960s: N from sewage contribute to algal growth• 1970s: N from agriculture contribute to algal growth• 1980s: Managed pastures contribute to NO3 leaching

• 1972: United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm

• 1980s: ‘das Waldsterben’

11 20-10-2008

Policies on nitrogen in air Europe

1979: UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)1988: NOX Protocol UNECE-CLRTAP1999: Gothenburg Protocol

- 1984: EU Air Framework Directive (84/360/EEC), - 1989: EU Large Combustion Plant Directive 88/609- 1996: EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (96/61/EC- 1999: EU Air Quality Directive (1999/30/EC) - 2000: EU National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001/81/EC) - 2005: EU Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution

- 1997: UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol

Artic Ocean

Atlantic Pacific Ocean

SloveniaHungarySlovakia

PolandLithuaniaLatvia

EstoniaFinland

Armenia

Sweden

Georgia

Norway

BelarusCzech Rep.Ukraine

Denmark

MoldovaGermany

YugoslaviaAustria

BulgariaLiechtenstein

TurkeyItalyMonaco

Cyprus

Switzerland

Malta

Netherlands

Greece

Belgium

F.Y.R.ofMacedonia

Luxembourg

Albania

FranceBosnia andHerzegovina

SpainCroatia

Portugal

IrelandUnited Kingdom

Romania

Russian Federation

Iceland

Kara SeaBarents Sea

North Sea

Atlantic Ocean

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea Caspian SeaAral Sea

Canada

of America

Kyrgyzstan

Artic Ocean

Atlantic Pacific Ocean

SloveniaHungarySlovakia

PolandLithuaniaLatviaEstonia

Finland

Armenia

Sweden

Georgia

Norway

BelarusCzech Rep.Ukraine

Denmark

MoldovaGermany

Serbia and Montenegro

AustriaBulgaria

Liechtenstein

TurkeyItalyMonaco

Cyprus

Switzerland

Malta

Netherlands

Greece

Belgium

F.Y.R.ofMacedonia

Luxembourg

Albania

FranceBosnia andHerzegovina

SpainCroatia

Portugal


Romania

Russian Federation

Iceland

Kara SeaBarents Sea

North Sea

Atlantic Ocean

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea Caspian SeaAral Sea

Canada

United Statesof America

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan

Azerbaijan

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

12 20-10-2008

Effect based approach based on ecosystem critical loads

eq ha-1a-1

< 200200 - 400400 - 700700 - 10001000 - 1500> 1500

CLnut(N) percentile 5

MNP/CCE

Critical load: “the highest deposition of (…) below which harmful effects in ecosystem structure and function do not occur according to present knowledge”

= long-term ecosystem capacity against eutrophication, acidification, heavy metal effects

used as sustainability indicators for policy guidance

13 20-10-2008

Excess of critical loads for eutrophication

Percentage of ecosystems area with nitrogen deposition above critical loads using grid-average deposition. Calculation for 1997 meteorology

2000 2020 2020 Current legislation Max. feas. reductions

14 20-10-2008

Policies on nitrogen in air in Europe: Industry and traffic: decreasing NOX emissions

• Instruments:- Regulatory limits and standards - Regulatory ceilings (from flat-rates to

critical loads) - Economic instruments (charges,

subsidies)• Measures:

- Best available techniques (BATs)- (Structural measures: changes in energy

sources, transport)• Effects:

- In EU-25 in 2006 a decrease in NOXemissions of ~34% relative 1980

- A further decrease needed of ~27% to reach 2010 ceilings

- Side effects: increases in energy use, NH3, N2O, CO2 emissions

Source: EEA

15 20-10-2008

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

kton

nes

of N

H3

Other

Waste

Agriculture

Other Transport

Road Transport

Industry

Fugitive Emissions

Energy Industries

2010: CLRTAP Gothenburg Protocol, 1Dec. 19992010 NECD Target

Policies on nitrogen in air in Europe: Agriculture: decreasing NH3 emissions

• Instruments:- Permits for large pig and poultry

operations- Regulatory ceilings (based on

critical loads) • Measures:

- Best available techniques (BATs)- (milk quota system, less fertilizer)

• Effects: - In EU-15 in 2006 a decrease in NH3

emissions of ~19% relative 1980- A further decrease needed of ~2 -

30% to reach 2010/2020 ceilings- Side effects: increase in N2O

emissions and NO3 leaching

16 20-10-2008

Changes in NH3 emissions

-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%

Spain

Ireland

Norway

Austria

France

Sweden

Italy

Portugal

Luxembourg

Greece

EU15

Belgium

Liechtenstein

United Kingdom

Germany

Finland

Denmark

Netherlands

% change from 1990 to target (1999 & National Ceilings 2010)

1990 - 2001 1990 - 2010 NECD Target

☺

Source: EEA

17 20-10-2008

Policies on nitrogen in water Europe

• 1972: Helsinki Convention / OSCOM / PARCOM• 1976: Mediterranean Action Plan• 1992: HELCOM /OSPAR Conventions :50% decrease in N and P loads

• 1991: EU Urban waste water Directive• 1991: EU Nitrates Directive• 2000: EU Water Framework Directive• 2006: Groundwater Directive• 2007: Marine Strategy

18 20-10-2008

Policies on nitrogen in water in Europe:Urban waste: Decreasing N loading to surface waters

• Instruments:- Regulations for collecting &

treatment- Regulatory limits for discharges

• Measures: - Collection of sewage- Treatment

• Effects: - Decrease in N loading of

surface waters by ~40%- Regional diverse

19 20-10-2008

Policies on nitrogen in water in Europe:Agriculture: Decreasing NO3 leaching losses

• Instruments:- Regulatory limits on the use of fertilizers

and animal manure- Communicative instruments - Economic (through Cross compliance

regulations)• Measures:

- Codes of Good Agricultural Practices- Zoning, Nitrate Vulnerable Zones- Action Programs

• Effects: - Decrease in fertilizer N use of ~5%- Changes in agricultural practices- Not much change in NO3 concentrations

yet

20 20-10-2008

Nitrate concentrations in some rivers

Source: EEA

21 20-10-2008

Spatialised Gross Nitrogen Balance indicator

Spatialised gross nitrogen balance (average on 10 km grid), JRC

National N surplus kgN/ha

Source: EEA

22 20-10-2008

Successful national examples: the Netherlands• Mineral accounting system• Emission poor housing• Slurry injection• Coverage of manure storage• Maximum manure application

per land use• Decrease of N in concentrates:

lowering urea concentration in milk

• Manure processing • Housing cattle at night• No slurry application in winter• Good agricultural practice• SCR industry and transport• Fuel switch

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1975 1985 1995 2005

Year

N in

put (

Kto

n N

)

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

N2O

em

issi

ons

(kto

n) N input to surface waterN in manureNH3 emissionsNort Sea inputNOx emissionsN to agric. SoilsN2O emissions

23 20-10-2008

Why are some policies effective?

Combustion UrbanNOx NH3 NO3 Ntot

Few stakeholders x xTechnology driven x x xLow costs (x)Cost to consumers x xKnowledge extensive (x) (x)No yield loss x x x

Agriculture

24 20-10-2008

Reasons for being effective

• Regulatory pressure (catalytic converter, MINAS)• No choice and builds good image (catalytic converter)• Cost effectiveness caused by optimization (MINAS)

and emission trading (SCR) and monetizing external costs (fines or taxing)

• Actor is given clear insight in his own actions in relations to the environmental consequences (MINAS)

• Ecological targets for an environmental compartment: effect based approach

25 20-10-2008

Reasons for being less effective

• Ambiguous and complex policies, uniform for all systems and conditions

• Complexity: many small diffuse sources with different owners; complex interactions (scale, components)

• Juridical emphasis of the problem; no education, training and persuasion

• Actors do not support/understand the reasoning behind measures (slurry injector less effective than it could be)

• Measures not profitable (low prices, cheap energy/transport); economic optimum is at 50% efficiency or loss

• Lack of integration and no links with economic and structural developmentsMore integrated approach

www.ecn.nl

Towards an integrated Nitrogen approach

27 20-10-2008

Multiple EU policies affect nitrogen in different sectors

IndustryTransport

Energy

Forests/grass/ecosystems

AgricultureFertilizer

Bird & HabitatDirectiveNature conservation

CAP ReformAnimal welfareRural DevelopmentBiofuels

Kyoto

NEC, CLTRAP

TSIPPC

Nitrate DirectiveWater Framework Directive

Renewable EnergyDirectiveInnovation (Lisboa)IPPC

Euro-5

NH3 N2ONOx

NO3Surface water

NO3 groundwater

N depositionHuman/animal

health

Global changeClimate/biodiversity

28 20-10-2008

Strategy towards a successful integrated approachWhat is needed?• Evidence of effects• Develop a concept• Assessment of benefits of an

integral approach• Tools: models; toolboxes• Organization• Communication/education• Policy forum/outlet

29 20-10-2008

Water quality monitoring

River stations – EIONET Water EUROWATERNET

Nitrate in groundwater

Source: CEC 2002 Implementation of NitrateDirective

More than 3000 river stations from more than 30 countries –timeseries for many stations from 1992-2002

Evidence

30 20-10-2008

Build on the effect based approach for N

• Reduce emissions by increasing nitrogen efficiency• Solve the ‘local problems’ through e.g. the IPPC directive• Established a effect based framework to deal with N in an

integrated manner (Nitrogen ceilings):

Effects

Indicators

Nitrogen Budgets

Emissions/losses

Targets

Concept

31 20-10-2008

Integrated modeling system Miterra-Europe

• Ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from housing, storage and soils

• Nitrate leaching• Interactions between N flows

housing and soils (consistent N budget)

• Measures to mitigate ammonia and nitrate emissions

Oenema et al., 2007

Tools: models

32 20-10-2008

Result of integrated model Miterra: pollutant swapping

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Biofiltration Low NH3applicationtechnique

Coveredstorage

Stableadaptation

Low nitrogenfeed

Incineration Ureasubstitution

NH3 package

NH3 emissionNO3 leachingN2O emission

change in emission, % to situation without measures

Ammonia measures

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

Balancedfertilization

Decreasedapplication onsloping soils

Efficient applicationtechnique

No winterapplication

Winter crops NO3 package

NH3 emissionNO3 leachingN2O emission

change in emission, % to situation without measures

Nitrate measures

Oennema et al., 2008

NH3 NO3

Tools: models

33 20-10-2008

Artic Ocean

Atlantic Ocean

Pacific Ocean

SloveniaHungary

Slovakia

Poland

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Finland

Armenia

Sweden

Georgia

Norway

Belarus

Czech Rep. Ukraine

Denmark

Moldova

Germany

Yugoslavia

Austria

Bulgaria

Liechtenstein

Turkey

Italy

Monaco

Cyprus

Switzerland

Malta

Netherlands

Greece

Belgium

F.Y.R.ofMacedonia

Luxembourg

Albania

France

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Spain

Croatia

Portugal


Romania

Russian Federation

Iceland

Kara SeaBarents Sea

North Sea

Atlantic Ocean

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea Caspian Sea

Aral Sea

Canada

of America

Kyrgyzstan

Artic Ocean

Atlantic Ocean

Pacific Ocean

SloveniaHungary

Slovakia

Poland

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Finland

Armenia

Sweden

Georgia

Norway

Belarus

Czech Rep. Ukraine

Denmark

Moldova

Germany

Serbia and Montenegro

Austria

Bulgaria

Liechtenstein

Turkey

Italy

Monaco

Cyprus

Switzerland

Malta

Netherlands

Greece

Belgium

F.Y.R.ofMacedonia

Luxembourg

Albania

France

Bosnia andHerzegovina

Spain

Croatia

Portugal


Romania

Russian Federation

Iceland

Kara SeaBarents Sea

North Sea

Atlantic Ocean

Mediterranean Sea

Black Sea Caspian Sea

Aral Sea

Canada

United Statesof America

Kyrgyzstan

Kazakhstan

Azerbaijan

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Programme Coordinating

Centre

Implementation Committee

ICP Forests

Task Force

Working Groupon Effects

Task Force onEmission Inventories

and Projections

Task Force onMeasurement and

Modelling

Chemical CoordinatingCentre

Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-West

Task Force on Integrated

Assessment ModellingCentre for Integrated

Assessment Modelling

EMEP Steering Body

Expert Group on Ammonia Abatement

Task Forceon POPs

Network of Experts on Benefits and

Economic Instruments

Expert Group on Techno-economic Issues

Working Group onStrategies and

Review

Executive Body

ICPIntegrated Monitoring

Task Force

Task Force Health

ICP Modelling and Mapping

Task Force

ICP Materials

Task ForceICP

Vegetation Task Force

ICP Waters

Task ForceProgramme

Centre

ProgrammeCentre

ProgrammeCentre

CoordinationCenter for

Effects

Main ResearchCentre

Meteorological Synthesizing Centre-East

Task Force onHeavy Metals

Expert Group onParticulate Matter

Task Force onHemispheric Transport of

Air Pollution

Nitrogen and the Convention on LRTAP

Task Force onReactive Nitrogen

Organization

34 20-10-2008

Long-term:• To provide technical information to be able

– to develop an integrated vision and approach to abatement of Nr emissions and effects;

– to improve coordination on the development of integrated Nr policies;– to search for synergies between policies on air pollution and other policies;

Short-term activities:• Expert Panel on N balances and budgets• Expert Panel on mitigation of agricultural nitrogen• European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA)• Analyse the linkages across Convention,

plus Convention Biological Diversity and Marine Conventions• Develop Nr related options for revision of the Gothenburg Protocol

Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen: TFRNco-chairs: Mark Sutton (UK) and Oene Oenema (NL)

35 20-10-2008

http://www.clrtap-tfrn.org

www.nine-esf.org

European Nitrogen Assessment

1. Nitrogen in Europe2. Nitrogen processing in the

atmosphere, aquatic and biosphere system

3. Dispersion and fate of nitrogen on different scales

4. Managing nitrogen in relation to key social threats

5. EU nitrogen policies and future challenges

www.nine-esf.org

37 20-10-2008

Communication and visualisationNitroGenius Visualisation tool:

Communication

38 20-10-2008

Policy starts to work …..

www.ecn.nl

Comparison between Europe and the US

40 20-10-2008

N efficiency in EU27 and the US

In the US:• Population less than half• Surface twice as high• N creation a little higher• Less intensive• Atm. emissions 25% higher• N consumption similar• Agricultural N efficiency 8%

lowerthan in Europe

05

101520253035404550

N cre

ated:

per h

a

total

Atmo

sphe

ric in

puts

N co

nsum

ption

Ag N

eff-fe

rtiliz

erAg

Neff

-total

N in

put

Kg/

ha USEurope

Tg

Kg/ha

kg N/pers/yr

%

%

41 20-10-2008

A view from Europe• Good science, quantification of the major national N fluxes and the

cascade! Coastal/watershed areas well covered. Good focus on ‘control points’. There is still large uncertainty (50%): ammonia; deposition; regionalisation needed

• Starting point should be the effects and sustainable levels of protection (end points); effect based approach through indicators (metrics) and risk assessment (exceedance of long-term targets)

• Integrated models and assessments to determine optima cot-effective policies (and co-policy e.g. climate change: less meat; manure processing; renewables; CO2 sequestration, ..)

• Focus on N balances/budgets and improvement of efficiency• Visualisation, communication• “struggle with agriculture”

www.ecn.nl

Thank you for your [email protected]

43 20-10-2008

Conclusions

• Negative environmental impacts have been observed

• Effects translated into effect parameters• Indicators for risk assessment have been

identified (incl. Nitrogen balances/budgets; Neff)

• Risk reduction through Integrated Assessment Modelling, Best Available Techniques and cost-benefit analysis

• Aim: limit exceedance of limits against lowest cost through targeted policies and measures

• Up till now: too much focus on water and air separate

• TFRN will aim for integrative approach

44 20-10-2008

Effects of reactive nitrogen in the environment

Overall effects

45 20-10-2008

Policies on nitrogen in Europe• Policy responses: Sectoral & species approaches

- Industry/traffic: NOX (NH3, N2O), Norg, NO3- Agriculture: NH3, NO3, N2O, (NH4, Norg)- Urban: Norg, NO3, NH4

• Focus on command and control measures:- Ambient targets- Emission targets- Technology targets - Penalties if limits / targets / standards are not met

• Other factors and processes affecting N- Food production (Common Agricultural Policy)- Rural development and demographic effects- Industrial changes- Changes in traffic, transport, shipping- Energy consumption- Nature and agricultural policies - Climate, etc.

46 20-10-2008

European Nitrogen research and policy

European and National policies UNEP, EU, VROM, LNV, TFRN

Integrated Assessment, Policy support

European Nitrogen Assessment Scientific coordination

ScienceKnowledge basis

COST Action on Nitrogen

NinE ESFScience

NitroEuropeIP FP6

National and EU fundedresearch

Organization

47 20-10-2008

More information on nitrogen:

48 20-10-2008

The Netherlands is the ‘Nitrogen Hot spot’ of Europe

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Hung

aryIce

land

Austr

iaPo

land

Italy

Swed

enGr

eece

Spain

Franc

e

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Switz

erlan

dGe

rman

yFin

land

Portu

gal

Norw

ayIre

land

Unite

d King

dom

Denm

arkBe

lgium

Nethe

rland

s

Country

N s

oil b

alan

ce (K

ton)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

N e

ffici

ency

(%)

N balanceN efficiency N in rivers

N deposition

Nitrogen surplus

NO2 concentrations

49 20-10-2008

N-efficiency of protein consumption for different regions in the world

Nitrogen consumption (kg/cap/year) Nitrogen efficiency (%) in 1995

50 20-10-2008

Lessons to be learned from EU

• Effect based approach• Integrated assessment for most optimal (cost-effective) measures• One size does not fit all• Emphasis on technological innovations as well as emphasis on

management, structural, institutional innovations, and integration with economic policies

• There is need for more effective and efficient environmental policy measures in EU:

- Integration of environmental policies needed- Integration of agricultural and environmental policies needed- More emphasis on increasing resource use efficiency needed through input

control - Proper mix of policy instruments needed, targeted to the specific conditions

- Communicative instruments- Economic instruments- Regulatory instruments

51 20-10-2008

Tool box of policy instruments• Regulatory measures

- Limits, pollution standards- prohibition of specific methods, tools, techniques- public land use planning (zoning/spatial planning)- Fertilizer application limits

• Economic instruments- taxes & subsidies, fines - price support - import/export tarifs - tradable rights and quotas

• Communicative instruments- education, demonstration and persuasion - co-operative approaches - extension services

Instruments

european perspective on integrated management of reactive...

Documents