Food and Agriculture FA Domain Committee MONITORING PROGRESS

Food and Agriculture (FA) Domain Committee MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT 2006 3 rd DC meeting, Antalya (TR), 31 Jan – 2 Feb 2007

COST Action 869 Domain Food and Agriculture (FA) Mitigation Options for Nutrient Reduction in Surface Water and Groundwaters CSO approval date 29/03/2006 Entry into force 11/05/2006 Kick-off meeting 07/11/2006 End date 06/11/2011

We don’t want this … How can we avoid it?

Participating Countries : 26 Chair: NL Vice chair: UK AT BE CH DK EE ES FR FI DE GR HU IE IL IT LT LU LV NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Economic Dimension: 165 Million € Duration: 5 years + Israel

OBJECTIVES The main objective of the Action is : to undertake a scientific evaluation of the suitability and cost-effectiveness of different options for reducing nutrient loss to surface and groundwaters at the river basin scale.

Working Groups WG Theme Chair/vice 1 Localisation of critical source areas in catchments UK / IL 2 Influence of nutrients on ecological processes in surface waters FI / GR 3 Mitigation options NL / IT 4 Evaluation of projects in example areas across the EU DK / AU

Nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen § Nitrate important in groundwater; in many countries options for reducing nitrate leaching were introduced (Nitrate Directive) § Phosphorus most important for eutrophication of inland surface water § Options not always effective for both N + P

Interactions phosphorus and nitrogen § Nitrate can be reduced under wet conditions (high water table, buffer zone), but then phosphorus can be mobilized. § Sowing catch cops (reduce N loss in winter) can induce erosion and thus increase P loss. § Conclusion: mitigation options must be evaluated on N / P interactions.

Differences between climate zones § In arctic zones runoff may occur on a frozen subsoil, leading to erosion. Nutrients can be lost from a frozen catch crop. § In arid zones often no water is available for catch crops; improper irrigation can lead to nutrient loss via erosion. § Conclusion: mitigation options not always applicable in other climate zones.

Climate zones in COST Action 869: from Spitsbergen to Crete + Israel

Past meetings, 2006 § 7 and 8 November, Brussels: kick-off meeting – – Discussion of procedures Chairs, vice-chair, WG coordinators were chosen Program 2007 Inventory of (experience with) mitigation options § 14 December, Amsterdam: small organizing meeting of chair and WG coordinators

Inventory of 88 mitigation options Before kick-off meeting a list of 88 options, taken from literature, was sent to MC members. They were asked if research has been done on these options in their country, and if the options are part of any regulation or recommendation

Inventory of 88 mitigation options

Inventory of 88 mitigation options

Future meetings planned, 2007 21 May, Small meeting WG 2 Oslo, Norway Planning of future activities 23 -25 May, workshop WG 1 Biri, Norway Approaches to tools to localise Critical Source Areas Nov. /Dec. : work- Devon, shop WG 3 + MC UK Building a framework where different types of mitigation options fit in March 2008: meeting WG 4 Assessing trend analysis in data time series Austria