“SERVICE CONTRACT: INTEGRATED MEASURES IN AGRICULTURE...

INCEPTION REPORT

“SERVICE CONTRACT: INTEGRATED MEASURES IN AGRICULTURE TO REDUCE AMMONIA EMISSIONS”

Contract number 070501/2005/422822/MAR/C1

Tenderer Consortium

Alterra, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands EuroCare, University of Bonn, Germany A&F, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands

Sub contractors:

Umweltbundesamt, Austria NEIKER, Spain IMUZ, Poland

CEH, United Kingdom MNP, Netherlands ECN, Netherlands

APRIL 2006

3

“SERVICE CONTRACT: INTEGRATED MEASURES IN AGRICULTURE TO REDUCE AMMONIA EMISSIONS”

INCEPTION REPORT

Oene Oenema, Gerard Velthof, Peter Witzke, Gert-Jan Monteny

April 2006

5

Administrative summary Service contract: Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”, Contract number 070501/2005/422822/MAR/C1 Co-ordinating institution: Alterra, Wageningen University and Research Centre Person that signed the contract on behalf of the consortium: Prof. dr. W. van Vierssen, general director of Alterra Person authorised to manage the contract: Prof. dr. Oene Oenema Persons responsible for carrying out the technical aspects of the work: Dr. Wim de Vries Dr. M. Sutton Dr. Gert-Jan Monteny Dr. M. Pinto Dr. AndreasAarnink Dr. S. Pietrzak Dr. Peter Witzke Dr. A. Bleeker Dr. Wolfgang Britz Dr. Ignazio Perez Dominguez Dr. Gerard Velthof Mr. Henk Westhoek Dr. Elizabeth Schwaiger Dr. Jan-Willem Erisman Person responsible for administrative matters: Elisabeth Rijksen (Alterra) Price: Total cost: 300,000 € (excluding VAT) Cost of travel and subsistence: € 5,000 Costs for subcontracts: € 40,000 Total cost excluding travel and subsistence: € 295,000 Contact information: Alterra Prof. Dr. Oene Oenema P.O. Box 47; NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands [email protected]

7

Contents Administrative Summary 5 Summary 9 1. Introduction 11 2. Overview of the service contract 13 3. Task 1 Develop an integrated approach 17 3.1. General introduction 17 3.2. Subtask 1.1. Development of a simple integrated method 18 3.2.1. Introduction 18 3.2.2. Methodology 18 3.2.3. Activities 23 3.3. Subtask 1.2. Assessment of measures for NH3 emissions on nitrate leaching 23 3.3.1. Introduction 23 3.3.2. Methodology 23 3.3.3. Activities 23 3.4. Subtask 1.3. Assessment of measures for NO3 leaching on NH3 and

N2O emissions 25 3.4.1. Introduction 25 3.4.2. Methodology 25 3.4.3. Activities 27 3.5. Subtask 1.4. Assessment of three RAINS/GAINS scenarios on nitrate leaching 27 3.5.1. Introduction 27 3.5.2. Methodology 27 3.5.3. Activities 28 4. Task 2 Analysis of International and European Instruments 29 4.1. General Introduction 29 4.2. Methodology 29 4.3. Activities 30 5. Task 3 In depth assessment of the most promising measures 31 5.1. General Introduction 31 5.2. Methodology 31 5.3. Activities 34 6. Task 4 Impact assessment of a possible modification of the IPCC Directive 37 6.1. General introduction 37 6.2. Subtask 4.1. Data gathering 37 6.2.1. Introduction 37 6.2.2. Methodology 37

8

6.2.3. Activities 38 6.3. Subtask 4.2. Assessment of options for lowering the current thresholds

in the IPPC 39 6.3.1. Introduction 39 6.3.2. Methodology 39 6.3.3. Activities 40 6.4. Subtask 4.3. In depth assessment of options for lowering the current

Thresholds 41 6.4.1. Introduction 41 6.4.2. Methodology 41 6.4.3. Activities 43 7. Task 5 Stakeholder consultation, presentations, workshops 45 7.1. General Introduction 45 7.2. Methodology 45 7.3. Activities 46 8. Project management and planning 47 8.1. Project management 47 8.2. Overall planning and time schedule 49 8.3. Costs 51

Annex A. Service contract: integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”, (no ENV.C.1/SER/2005/0035) 53 Annex B. Minutes of the kick-off meeting 59 Annex C. Declaration of confidentially 65

9

SUMMARY European Commission, Directorate-General Environment has contracted Alterra, Wageningen UR for the “Service contract: integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”. The general objective of the service contract is to have defined the most appropriate integrated and consistent actions to reduce various environmental impacts (notably water, air, climate change) from agriculture. Specifically, the objective is to have developed and applied a methodology allowing the assessment and quantification of the costs and the effects of various policies and measures aiming at reducing the impact of agriculture on water air pollution and climate change. Both ancillary benefits and trade offs of measures have to be identified. The impacts and feasibility of the most promising measures have to be analysed in depth. The service contract contains the following five tasks: Task 1. Develop an integrated approach. Task 2. Analysis of International and European instruments Task 3. In depth assessment of the most promising measures Task 4. Impact assessment of a possible modification of the IPCC directive Task 5. Stakeholder consultation, presentations, workshops. This Inception Report describes all activities to be carried out within the framework of the Service Contract. The Inception Report makes the initial offer more precise and complete. It does reflect the findings of the inception phase of the contract, from the date of signing the contract (21 December 2005) to the deadline of the submission of this report (26 February 2006). During this 2 months periods, several meetings and discussions were held, including the kick-off meeting in Brussels (26 January 2006), to present the contract and to get feedback on the proposed activities. The Inception Report builds on further of the tender of the contractor and describes in detail the activities of the service contract (what, how, when and by whom). It includes the information assembled during the kick-off meeting and various other consultations.

11

1. INTRODUCTION European Commission, Directorate-General Environment has contracted Alterra, Wageningen UR for the “Service contract: integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”. The general objective of the service contract is to have defined the most appropriate integrated and consistent actions to reduce various environmental impacts (notably water, air, climate change) from agriculture. Specifically, the objective is to have developed and applied a methodology allowing the assessment and quantification of the costs and the effects of various policies and measures aiming at reducing the impact of agriculture on water air pollution and climate change. This Inception Report describes all activities to be carried out within the framework of the Service Contract. It makes the initial offer of the tenderer consortium more precise and complete. The Inception Report is a first obligation of the Service contract following its official approval on 21 December 2005 (date of signing the contract by European Commission and the contractor). The Inception Report describes in detail the methodologies, activities, deadlines (how, what, when and by whom) of the service contract. The Inception Report builds on further of the descriptions of the methodologies described in the offer for tender by the contractor, which is an integral part of the service contract, and the minutes of the kick-off meeting. The official tender has been attached as Annex A and the minutes of the kick-off meeting as Annex B of this Inception Report. During the kick-off meeting at DG-ENV in Brussels on 26 January 2006, the contractor presented its proposal to carrying out the five tasks. Various questions were raised and discussed and suggestions given, some of which had to be clarified further in the current Inception Report. Task 4 was discussed during a meeting at DG-ENV in Brussels on 16 March 2006. The minutes of this latter meeting have been attached as Annex C of this Inception Report The general impression of the inception phase is that the contract proceeds on schedule. So far, no major issues have been identified that could hamper the achievement of the main purpose of the contract, though one issue needs to be mentioned here. Following discussions in the consortium and DG Environment, it was decided to build the simple tool MITERRA-EUROPE in Gams and not in Excel language. This shift will contribute to the flexibility of the tool to be delivered to the European Commission. Further, the overall time schedule has become tighter, and the planned deliverables have to be achieved earlier than foreseen in the tender. This change in planning is related to the planned meetings for the revision of NEC and IPPC Directives, and the need to have a new baseline scenario available for discussion in early July. These changes in the planning are elaborated in detail in the next chapters. The Inception Report follows more or less the structure of the tender and the service contract. Chapter 2 provides a general overview and coherence of the tasks of the service contract. Chapters 3 to 7 describe each the details of one of the five tasks. Chapter 8 summarizes the management aspects and timing of the various activities.

13

2. OVERVIEW OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT. In this chapter a brief overview of work of the “Service contract: integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions” is presented. There are five tasks with a variable number of subtasks in the service contract. The coherence of the five tasks is illustrated in Figure 1. It clearly shows how task 1 delivers to tasks 2, 3, 4 and 5. Task 2 delivers to task 3 and 5. Conversely, there is also information flow backwards from the stakeholder meetings in task 5 to the work to be done in Tasks 1 to 4.

Figure 1. Coherence and information flow chart of tasks 1 to 5. For the execution of the variable tasks, a combination of modelling tools will be used in a coherent framework (Figure 2). This combination of modelling tools consists of CAPRI, MITERRA and INITIATOR, supplemented with knowledge and expertise about ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen leaching processes. The CAPRI model will be the central tool and working equipment. CAPRI will be extended with expertise and data from MITERRA and INITIATOR and from key experts (emission processes and factors) so as to perform the integrated impact studies. Next, algorithms from MITERRA and INITIATOR will be combined and supplemented with data from CAPRI to a simple model called MITERRA-Europe. MITERRA-Europe will be calibrated in line with the results from calculations with CAPRI, INITIATOR and

Task 1. Development of an integrated approach Calculation of effects of measures on emissions of NH3, N2O, CH4, and NO3

Task 2. Analysis of existing policy instruments to reduce emissions

Task 3. In depth assessment of the most promising measures: • Effect on emissions • Economic Costs • Social impact

Task 4. Impact Assessment of a possible modification of the IPPC directive

Task 5. Stakeholder consultation, presentations, workshop & dissemination of results

14

RAINS/GAINS. MITERRA-Europe is the output of the specific objective of the service contract, i.e. “…to have developed and applied a methodology allowing to assess and quantify the cost and benefits of various policies and measures…”. Other outputs will be integrated impact assessments, evaluations of model performances and views and opinions from stakeholders.

Figure 2. Coherent framework of the tools to be used by the contractor. The major tools to be used are an extended version of CAPRI model and the simple integrated tool MITERRA-Europe. MITERRA-Europe will be developed and used in task 1. RAINS/GAINS is the model that is being used by European Commission (DG ENV) to assess the effects of policy instruments on gaseous emissions into the atmosphere in the EU. The service contract has to make information and knowledge available to be able to extent and amend the RAINS/GAINS model for the assessment of the effects of the implementation of the Nitrates Directive. However, the actual extension and implementation of new algorithms in RAINS/GAINS falls outside the scope of the current service contract. A special service contract between European Commission and IIASA is envisaged for the implementation of the results of the current service contract into RAINS/GAINS. Discussions have taken place during the inception phase between IIASA and the contractor about the involvement of the contractor in this special service contract, and some tentative agreement has been met.

CAPRI MITERRA-EUROPE

MITERRA & INITIATOR SOIL DATA

QUANTIFICATION & IMPACT

ASSESSMENTS

EUROSTAT

EVALUATION

RAINS /GAINS

CONSULTATION & DISSEMINATION

POLICIES & MEASURES

15

The principal scales of the study are the NUTS-2 level, the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ’s), member state level and EU-25 level. The modelling output of RAINS/GAINS is at member state level. The output of CAPRI is at NUTS-2 level. The designation of NVZs as indicated by member states and soil information data will be derived from maps and reports (derived from EU contract 2005/409860?MAR/B1) and used as input in CAPRI and MITERRA, to be able to calculate the area and location of the NVZ’s per NUTS-2. Abatement technologies and measures in RAINS/GAINS will be disaggregated to NUTS-2 level in CAPRI and MITERRA-EUROPE and coupled with N surplus data and NVZ’s and soil information data allowing the assessment of the effects of the abatement technologies and measures on nitrate leaching. Similarly, measures and practices as noted in the Water Framework Directive (including the Nitrate Directive) are at member state, NVZ and catchments levels. The effects of these measures and practices in terms of N surplus can be calculated at NUTS-2 and member state level with MITERRA-EUROPE . Assessments will be made for all 25 Member States of the EU and Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Croatia. The availability of accurate data varies for these countries. CAPRI includes statistical data for the 25 EU member states and Romania and Bulgaria. For Turkey and Croatia, there is no information at NUTS-2 level. However, we will explore national and international data sources, literature and ongoing projects so as to make assessments for Turkey and Croatia at national levels. The structure of the emission factor approach in MITERRA-EUROPE is shown below in Figure 3. All N sources and all major processes and factors affecting the cycling and emission of N species will be addressed in MITERRA-EUROPE. Figure 3 shows the partitioning of N from all major sources, i.e., from animal manure from housed animals (during storage and following application or processing) and from grazing animals. from applied N fertilizers, atmospheric N deposition and biological N2 fixation. It also describes the fate of the residual N in soil; immobilization in soil organic matter, denitrification and leaching. Evidently, all N entering the agricultural system is taken into account, and care will be taken to circumvent double counting.

16

leaching

NH3

N2O

housing storage

LFhs

FNH3hs

FN2Ohs

N excretion animals

FN2Om

manure atmospheric deposition fertilizer grazing N fixation

soil

N2O

RFg run-off

FNH3g

FN2Og

NH3

N2O

RFf run-off

FNH3f

FN2Of

NH3

N2O FN2Od N2O

FN2ONf

export treatment

RFm run-off

FNH3m NH3

N2O

FN2Ol

LF

N removal via harvested crop

soil N surplus accumulation in organic matter

denitrification to N2

leaching to soil water under rooting zone

AF DF

N2O

N flows in MITERRA-EUROPE

Figure 3. Simplified structure of the emission factor approach in MITERRA-EUROPE

17

3. TASK1. DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF AN INTEGRATED MODEL 3.1. General introduction The aims of this task are defined as follows: To develop a simple, integrated model (including parameters and data) for the assessment of

(i) the impact of measures/technologies aiming at reducing ammonia emissions as integrated in the RAINS/GAINS model on nitrate emissions and,

(ii) the effects of the EU Nitrate Directive at 3 levels of implementation on ammonia, N2O and methane emissions.

Task 1 has been further subdivided in four subtasks, following the suggestion of the call for tender. These subtasks are described in detail in the paragraphs below. Table 3.1 provides an overview of the subtasks, planning of subtasks and the deliverables. Table 3.1. Overview of subtasks, planning and deliverables of task 1. Subtasks Start Complete Responsible

person + contributing institutes

Deliverables

1.1 Development of a simple integrated method

16 Jan ‘06 Model: draft 1 Aug ‘06 available for Commission: 1 Dec ‘06 Report: Interim 21 September Draft final 21 Jan ‘07 Revised final 21 March ‘07

Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare

i) simple model MITERRA-EUROPE ii) chapter in technical report with description of the model

1.2 Assessment of abatement measures for NH3 emissions on nitrate leaching

1 May ‘06 Interim 21 September Draft final 21 Jan ‘07 Revised final 21 March ‘07

Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare, MNP, CEH, ECN

chapter in report with the results of calculations with MITERRA- EUROPE of effects of “NH3 measures” on emissions1

1.3 Assessment of abatement measures for nitrate leaching on NH3 and N2O emissions

15 May ‘06 Interim 21 September Draft final 21 Jan ‘07 Revised final 21 March ‘07

Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare, UBA, NEIKER, MNP, CEH, ECN

chapter in report with the results of calculations with MITERRA-EUROPE of effects of “NO3 measures” on emissions1

1.4 Assessment of three scenarios developed by RAINS/GAINS on nitrate leaching

1 Aug ‘06 Interim 21 September Draft final 21 Jan ‘07 Revised final 21 March ‘07

Velthof, Alterra, IIASA, DG-ENV.C1, MNP, MNP, CEH, ECN

chapter in report with the results of calculations with MITERRA-EUROPE of the effect of three RAINS/GAINS scenarios on emissions1

1emissions of NO3, NH3, N2O, NOx and CH4

18

The outputs of this task are defined as follows: - A technical report covering the tasks and sub tasks and - A documented calculation sheet (MITERRA-Europe) allowing the Commission to make additional simulations. 3.2. Subtask 1.1. Development of a simple integrated method 3.2.1. Introduction The aim of this subtask is to develop a simple, integrated model (including parameters and data) to bridge the grid/country approach used in RAINS/GAINS and other models and the different zones as defined in the Nitrate Directive. The output of this subtask is a documented calculation sheet (MITERRA-Europe) allowing the Commission to make additional simulations. 3.2.2. Methodology Aims A simple model (MITERRA-EUROPE) is developed in order to: i) assess the effects of the implementation of the ammonia abatement techniques on emissions of NO3, NH3, N2O, and CH4, and on the phosphorus balance; ii) assess the effects of the implementation of measures to decrease nitrate leaching on emissions of NO3, NH3, N2O, and CH4, and on the phosphorus balance. Set-up of the model MITERRA-EUROPE is a simple model consisting of input module with activity data and emission factors, a set of (packages of) measures to mitigate NH3 emission and NO3 leaching, a calculation module, and an output module (presenting results in tables). The data-base of MITERRA-EUROPE is on NUTS 2 level and includes data of N inputs, N outputs, N surplus, land use, soil type, topography, livestock numbers etc., and emission factors for NH3, N2O, NOX and CH4, and N leaching factors. In MITERRA-EUROPE, also emissions of NOX from agricultural sources (housing and soils) are included. Phosphorus is an important nutrient causing eutrophication of surface waters and, thus, is important for both the Nitrate Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Therefore, in MITERRA-EUROPE also a phosphorus balance on NUTS-2 level is included, by which it is possible to calculate the effects of measures on phosphorus surplus in agriculture. Effects of NH3 and NO3 measures on the emissions of the greenhouse gases N2O and CH4 are included (see tasks 1.2 and 1.3). This facilitates the identification of integrated measures to reduce emissions of NH3, NOx, and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and the leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus to ground and surface waters.

19

The effectiveness of abatement options for NH3 emission and implementation of the measures and Codes of Good Agricultural Practice and Action Programs of the Nitrate Directive can be calculated on a regional scale (NUTS 2 level). In task 1.2 a description is given of the ammonia measures and in task 1.3 of the nitrate measures that are included in MITERRA-EUROPE. The starting point for MITERRA-EUROPE are the existing models CAPRI, MITERRA and INITIATOR, supplemented with existing data bases, soil data and expertise about emission processes, with the RAINS/GAINS model as reference. This MITERRA-Europe is a simple model programmed in the language GAMS. The advantage of using GAMS is that the model can be directly coupled to the data base of CAPRI (which is modelled in GAMS) and the equations for calculating nitrate leaching can be easily transferred to CAPRI (and used for the in-depth assessments in task 3). A GAMS licence is required to run the GAMS model. Eurocare has a GAMS licence and Alterra will buy a GAMS licence for this project. The GAMS model cannot be run via internet. Therefore, a set of scenarios (i.e. packages of measures to mitigate ammonia emissions and nitrate leaching) are selected (after consultation of the Commission) and are run with the GAMS model. From the inputs and outputs of these scenarios a simple model is made that can be run via the internet. Tools are available to generate XML-tables [?] via a browser. Thus, the Commission can consult these tables to get insight in the effects of different packages of measures on emissions of NH3, NO3, N2O, and CH4 and phosphorus balances. This will include options to assess simple variations of the existing set of tables, for example a lower level of enforcement. However, it is not possible to make additional simulations with the internet tool for other scenarios. This can only be done with the GAMS model. If DG ENV has the possibility to buy a GAMS licence, additional simulations can be made using the GAMS version of MITERRA-EUROPE. The use of GAMS by DG ENV can be simplified by using GSE as an user-interface. GSE is already available at DG-Agri.

Activity data The required activity data are derived from the database of CAPRI at NUTS-2 level. Data are available of farm statistics, N inputs and outputs, number of livestock and farm buildings. Soil and climatological data at NUTS-2 level are derived from JRC and Alterra. Maps of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) are available at Alterra from service contract 2005/409860/MAR/B1). In the kick-off meeting, Dr. Cortellini of DG ENV.B1 has stated that these maps are also available for the current project. Emission factors The emission factors for NH3, N2O and CH4 are derived from the RAINS/GAINS model, so as to maintain consistency in the environmental assessments. These national emission factors are used on NUTS-2 level. No specific NUTS-2 emission factors are derived for

20

NH3, N2O and CH4, unless available information and data will allow us to do so. Emission factors for NOx will be derived from a literature review. Desk studies will be carried out to define leaching classes on NUTS-2-level. MITERRA-EUROPE will estimate nitrate leaching in three steps: • surface runoff of nitrogen from solid manure heaps, using data of manure storage and

climate. • surface runoff of nitrogen applied to soil via fertilizer and manure, using data of

slope, soil type, and N application. • leaching of nitrate from the rooting zone, using the data of the N surplus, estimation

of N accumulation in soil organic matter, and N leaching fractions. The soils are grouped in different leaching classes. These leaching classes are defined on basis of soil type, slope, hydrology (groundwater table) and climatologically data and knowledge of the occurrence of denitrification in soils.

The soil N surplus and the leaching fractions on NUTS-2 level are used to calculate nitrate leaching in the NVZ, by making overlays of the maps of NVZ and NUTS-2 level. Temporal and spatial scales The reference year of MITERRA-EUROPE is the year 2000. Measures that are implemented will start from the situation in 2000 (see also subtasks 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4). MITERRA-EUROPE calculates emissions on NUTS-2 level, the level of nitrate vulnerable zones, and country level. In terms of the crop allocation within (about 400) NUTS-2 regions, the CAPRI Dynaspat project offers the possibility to map the cropping pattern into (about 25000) so called ‘Homogenous Spatial Mapping Units’ (HMSUs). The RAINS/GAINS model calculates emissions on a national scale, using activity data and emission factors on a national scale. The deposition is calculated on a grid level using an atmospheric transport model and the RAINS/GAINS emission data on a national scale. The following approach is used to transfer the results on HMSUs, NUTS-2 level and NVZ zones in MITERRA-EUROPE to the country/grid level in RAINS/GAINS: • an overlay of the maps of HMSUs (which aggregate to NUTS-2 regions) and NVZ is

made, by which the percentage of the area of the HMSUs and NUTS-2 regions (and thereby the countries) covered by NVZ is known;

• measures of the action programmes of the Nitrate Directive are implemented in the NVZ and underlying HMSUs;

• the effect of the measures in NVZ on activity data (e.g use of N fertilizer, method of manure application) and emissions are calculated;

• the results for the NVZ are scaled up to HMSUs, NUTS-2 level and country level, using the percentages of area covered by NVZ;

• the results on the country level are transfered to RAINS/GAINS (e.g. implementation of the action programmes in NVZ of certain country results in a decrease of the N fertilizer use of certain percentage in that country);

21

• RAINS/GAINS calculate the NH3 emissions on the country level and these results are used in the atmospheric model of RAINS/GAINS to calculate deposition on a grid level.

In MITERRA-EUROPE the 25 member countries of the EU are included, plus Bulgaria and Romania. Croatia and Turkey are likely not included, because the required activity data and emission factors are not available yet. However, we will make additional inventories and assessments for Turkey and Croatia and will try to making assessments at national level and it possible at NUTS-2 level. 3.2.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time. Table 3.2. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of task 1.1. Activities Start

(in 2006) Complete (in 2006)

Responsible person + contributing institutes

Deliverables

Drafting scheme of the model

16 Jan 1 Feb Velthof, Alterra

Scheme with model

Transfer activity data CAPRI to Alterra

1 March 15 March Witzke, Eurocare, Alterra

Tables with activity data for MITERRA-EUROPE

Transfer of emission factors of NH3, N2O, and CH4 to Alterra

1 March 15 March Klimont, IIASA, Alterra

Tables with emission factors for MITERRA-EUROPE

Desk studies of runoff fractions for manure storage, including description of manure storage (risk on leaching)

1 March 1 May Pinto, NEIKER, IMUZ, Alterra

Tables with runoff fractions for different soil types, slopes and climatological conditions

Desk study of runoff fractions for application of fertilizers and manures to soil

1 March 1 May Schwaiger, UBA, Alterra

Tables with runoff fractions and leaching factors for different soil types, slopes and climatological conditions

Desk studies of leaching factors for the N surplus of the soil balance

1 March 1 May Velthof, Alterra

Tables with runoff fractions and leaching factors for different soil types, slopes and climatological conditions

Making an overlay of the maps of NVZ with NUTS-2

15 March 15 April Velthof, Alterra, JRC, Eurocare

Table with percentages NVZ in NUTS-2 regions

Calculation of average soil properties at NUTS-2 level

1 April 15 April Velthof, Alterra, JRC

Table with average soils properties

Calculation of average runoff and leaching fractions at NUTS-2 level

15 April 15 May Velthof, Alterra

Table with average runoff and leaching fractions at NUTS-2 level

Transfer of runoff and 15 May 1 June Velthof, Table with average runoff and

22

leaching fractions to CAPRI

Alterra, Eurocare

leaching fractions at NUTS-2 level properties available for CAPRI

Selection of packages of measures to be implemented in the scenarios that are available on the internet

1 May 1 June Velthof, Alterra, DG ENV, IIASA

Table with measures

Implementation of ammonia measures in the model

1 April 1 June Velthof, Alterra, IIASA

Table with ammonia measures and effectivity of measures (derived from task 1.2)

Implementation of nitrate measures in the model

1 April 1 June Velthof, Alterra

Table with nitrate measures and effectivity of measures (derived from task 1.3)

Programming MITERRA-EUROPE

1 Feb 1st draft: 1 June draft: 1 Aug

Oudendag, Alterra, Eurocare

Concept model

Transfer of knowledge about effect of Nitrate Directive to IIASA (to be used for new baseline scenario)

1 June 15 June Velthof, Alterra, IIASA

Draft results on consequences Nitrate Directive

Testing MITERRA-EUROPE, including sensitivity analysis

1 June 1 Sept Oudendag, Alterra

Results of the draft model

Comparison results of MITERRA-EUROPE with CAPRI and RAINS/GAINS

1 July 1 Sept Oudendag, Alterra, Eurocare, IIASA

Tables with comparison of NH3, N2O, and CH4 emissions from MITERRA-EUROPE with CAPRI and RAINS/GAINS

Presentation of draft model to DG ENV

to be decided by DG ENV Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare

Presentation of the draft model to DG ENV

Review of the model 1 Sept 1 Oct Van Grinsven, MNP, CEH, ECN

Review reports

Improving model 1 Oct 1 Dec Oudendag, Alterra, Eurocare

Final model available

Description of the model 1 Sept 1 Dec Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare

Chapter in technical report of task 1

Report 1 Aug Interim 21 Sept ‘06 Draft final 21 Jan ‘07 Revised final 21 March ‘07


Report with description of model and results of subtasks 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

23

3.3. Subtask 1.2. Assessment of measures for NH3 emissions on nitrate leaching 3.3.1. Introduction The aim of this subtask is to assess the impact of measures/technologies aiming at reducing ammonia emissions as integrated in the RAINS/GAINS model and the UNECE Working Group on guidelines for ammonia abatement with MITERRA-EUROPE. The output of this subtask is a chapter in the technical report of task 1 covering the results of this sub-task. 3.3.2. Methodology For each of the major sources of ammonia emissions (livestock farming, fertilizer use, and chemical industry), RAINS/GAINS considers a number of emission control options. Ammonia emissions from livestock manures occur at four stages, i.e., (i) in the stable, (ii) during storage of manure, (iii) following its application and (iii) during the grazing period. At each stage, emissions can be controlled by applying various techniques. The major abatement categories for agriculture considered in RAINS/GAINS are • Low Nitrogen Fodder (dietary changes), e.g., multi-phase feeding for pigs and

poultry, use of synthetic amino acids (pigs and poultry), and the replacement of grass and grass silage by maize for dairy cattle;

• Stable Adaptation by improved design and construction of the floor (applicable for cattle, pigs and poultry), flushing the floor, climate control (for pigs and poultry), or wet and dry manure systems for poultry;

• Covered Manure Storage (low efficiency options with floating foils or polystyrene, and high efficiency options using tension caps, concrete, corrugated iron or polyester);

• Biofiltration (air purification), i.e., by treatment of ventilated air, applicable mostly for pigs and poultry, using biological scrubbers to convert the ammonia into nitrate or biological beds where ammonia is absorbed by organic matter;

• Low Ammonia Application of Manure, distinguishing high efficiency (immediate incorporation, deep and shallow injection of manure) and medium to low efficiency techniques, including slit injection, trailing shoe, slurry dilution, band spreading, sprinkling (spray boom system).

• Urea substitution, substitution of urea with ammonium nitrate • Incineration of poultry manure The measures identified in the UNECE Expert Group on NH3 abatement (most recent meeting held in Segovia, Spain, 13-15 April 2005) are divided in the four major agricultural NH3 sources housing, grazing, manure storage, land spreading of manures. The measures are the same as those in RAINS/GAINS, but also include specifications and modifications. In MITERRA-EUROPE, the ammonia measures (and parameters) of RAINS/GAINS (as listed above) and possible additional measures (covering solid manure) are included.

24

MITERRA-Europe developed in sub-task 1.1. will be used to assess the effects of the implementation of abatement measures for ammonia emissions on nitrate emissions to groundwater and surface waters and nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere. The calculations will be made for all 25 Member States of the EU and Bulgaria and Romania at NUTS-2 level, and also integrated at country level. For Croatia and Turkey we will make assessments at national level, because the required activity data and emission factors at NUTS-2 level are not available. To calculate the effects of these ammonia abatement measures, MITERRA-EUROPE adapts the removal efficiencies of RAINS/GAINS for NH3, N2O and CH4. In addition, the direct cost related to the most promising measures will be collected for use in Task 3. At this point these costs will be allocated to technical measures, say ‘moderately efficient covered manure storage’. The allocation of these costs to scenarios and policy packages will depend on the definition of these packages under Task 3. 3.3.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time Table 3.3. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of subtask 1.21. Activities Start Complete Responsible


Deliverables

Parameterization of NH3 measures in MITERRA-EUROPE

1 March 1 April Velthof, Alterra, IIASA

MITERRA-EUROPE able to estimate effects of NH3 measures on emissions

Collection of the direct cost related to the most promising measures will be collected for use in Task 3.

1 April 1 June Witzke, Eurocare, Alterra

Table with costs of ammonia abatement techniques

Transfer of parameters of measures to CAPRI 1 April 1 May Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare

Measures available in CAPRI

Calculation of the effect of (packages) of ammonia measures on emissions using final model

1 May draft 1 June final 1 Dec

Velthof, Alterra

Data of calculations with MITERRA-EUROPE

Report 1 July Interim 21 Sept ‘06 Draft final 21 Jan ‘07 Revised final 21 March ‘07



Final report with chapter of subtask 1.2 (results presented in tables, maps and figures)

1 Nov 1 Dec Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare

Chapter in final report of task 1

25

1the planning of development and testing of the model, including the measures is given in the activities in subtasks 1.1 3.4. Subtask 1.3. Assessment of abatement measures for NO3 leaching on NH3 and N2O emissions 3.4.1. Introduction The aim of this subtask is to assess the impact of measures/technologies aiming at reducing nitrate leaching (for three levels of implementation according the Nitrate Directive) on ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions. The output of this subtask is a chapter in the technical report of task 1 covering the results of this sub-task 3.4.2. Methodology The EU-Nitrates Directive is aiming at reduction of the N pressure from agriculture to achieve maximum concentrations of NO3

- in the ground water of 50 mg/l. To achieve this, Member States must have designated their nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZ). This has resulted in countries that have their total area designated as NVZ (e.g. Finland, The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany), whereas other MS (e.g. UK, France, Belgium) have parts of their agricultural area as NVZ. For NVZ, Action Programmes with different types of measures have to be issued and legally anchored. In MITERRA-EUROPE, three levels of implementation of the Nitrate Directive are included: 1. Reference year 2000, i.e. partial implementation of the Nitrate Directive. In 2000,

the Nitrate Directive was only partly implemented in the “old” member states and not implemented in the “new” member states.

2. Full implementation of the Nitrate Directive. This is a year in the near future, in

which the action programmes are fully implemented in NVZ of all countries. The map of the predicted NVZ in the future (according to DG ENV) is used (having a larger area NVZ than in 2000). It is assumed that country specific and NVZ-specific packages of measures are implemented to decrease nitrate leaching to ground and surface water, as described in the Member States’ reports of the third action period. In MITERRA-EUROPE, the following measures to decrease nitrate leaching in NVZ are included; • maximum manure N application rate of 170 kg N per ha (except where a

derogation applies) • balanced N fertilizer application based on soil analysis, expected N

mineralisation, weather conditions, and crop demand • no fertilizer and manure application in winter and wet periods • limitation to fertilizer application on steeply sloping grounds • manure storage with minimum risk on runoff and seepage • appropriate fertilizer and manure application techniques, • bufferstrips near water courses;

26

The following (optional) measures will be included in the case they are included by member states in their action programmes: • growing winter crops • restricted grazing • restrictions to ploughing of grassland • decrease number of animals

3. Further implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in particular

with reinforced actions also addressing phosphate pollution in RISK AREAS, this requires additional measures to meet ‘good water status’, to also deal with phosphate pollution of ground and surface waters (by 2015). For achieving, the target of ‘good water status’ within the Water Frame Work Directive specific measures are required. However, because there are not yet action programmes to decrease phosphate pollution and to meet good water status, a set of measures will be defined in MITERRA-EUROPE which probably have to be implemented for the Water Frame Work Directive. These measures include decrease livestock number, equilibrium fertilisation with phosphate, negative phosphorus balance (phosphorus mining) bufferstrips near water courses in which no fertilisers and manure are applied and measures to prevent surface run-off in hilly and mountainous areas. Part of these measures is also included in the measures that have to be taken in action programmes for the Nitrate Directive. The measures phosphorus that are included in MITERRA-EUROPE are: • balanced fertilization for phosphorus (phosphorus input = phosphorus output) • mining of phosphorus in regions with very high phosphorus surplus, because it is

expected that soils in these regions are saturated with phosphorus (and vulnerable for phosphorus leaching to surface water)

The effects of measures on nitrate leaching is expressed via i) the N inputs and N balance (e.g. less fertilizer input results in less leaching; less animals result in less manure N) and ii) via changes in leaching fractions (e.g. covering manure storage results in less surface run-off, wet bufferstrips enhance denitrification and reduce N leaching to surface water). A number of measures results in a higher N efficiency of the system by which less N fertilizer can be used (e.g. winter crops, balanced N fertilization, restricted grazing). The effect of a measure on a leaching fraction will be estimated on basis of expert knowledge. A similar approach is followed for the removal efficiencies in RAINS/GAINS, i.e. the effects of measures on emissions of NH3, N2O, and CH4. The calculations will be made for all 25 Member States of the EU plus Romania and Bulgaria at NUTS 2 level and at country level. For the EU-15, assessments will be made also at NVZ-level. For Turkey and Croatia, assessments will be made at country level only. The results at country level can be directly linked to the country approach in RAINS/GAINS to calculate ammonia emissions. The effects of implementation of individual measures as described above, and packages of measures (nitrate directive at three levels of implementation) on emissions of NH3, N2O, CH4 and NO3 are calculated using the simple model MITERRA-Europe derived in Sub task 1.1.

27

3.4.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time. Table 3.4. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of subtask 1.31. Activities Start Complete Responsible


Deliverables

Parameterization of NO3 measures in MITERRA-EUROPE

1 March 1 April Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare, UBA, NEIKER

MITERRA-EUROPE able to estimate effects of NH3 measures on emissions

Collection of the direct cost related to the most promising measures will be collected for use in Task 3.

1 April 1 June Witzke, Eurocare, Alterra

Table with costs of nitrate measures

Transfer of parameters of measures to CAPRI 1 April 1 May Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare

Measures available in CAPRI

Calculation of the effect of (packages) of nitrate measures on emissions (three levels of implementation of the Nitrate Directive)

1 May draft 1 June final 1 Dec

Oudendag, Alterra

Data of calculations with MITERRA-EUROPE

Transfer of knowledge about effect of Nitrate Directive to IIASA (to be used for new baseline scenario)

1 June 15 June Velthof, Alterra, IIASA

Draft results on consequences Nitrate Directive

Report 1 July Interim 21/09/06 Draft final 21/01/07. Final 21/03/07



1the planning of development and testing of the model, including the measures is given in the activities in subtasks 1.1 3.5. Subtask 1.4. Assessment of 3 scenarios developed by RAINS/GAINS on nitrate leaching 3.5.1. Introduction The aim of this subtask is to assess the impact of three scenarios developed by the RAINS/GAINS model in terms of nitrate leaching. The scenarios will be chosen following consultation of the European Commission and IIASA. The output of this subtask is a chapter in the technical report of task 1 covering the results of this sub-task. 3.5.2. Methodology In RAINS/GAINS predictions of future trends of emissions are based on scenarios, in which changes in policy (including environmental policy) and economic activities are defined. In this task MITERRA-EUROPE is used (including measures of task 1.2 and 1.3) to calculate the emissions and leaching at the different RAINS/GAINS scenarios.

28

The RAINS/GAINS scenarios have to be translated in predicted trends in emission factors and activity data that can be used as input data for MITERRA (especially trends in N fertilizer input, number of animals, and land use change). The scenarios are selected by the RAINS/GAINS team in consultation with DG ENV. Translation of the RAINS/GAINS scenarios into input for MITERRA is carried out by the RAINS/GAINS team and Alterra. The RAINS/GAINS data on a national scale should be scaled down to the NUTS-2 level, because MITERRA-EUROPE requires input data on NUTS-2 level. This is done by simple procedure, in which it is assumed that the relative change in activity data of NUTS-2 regions in countries is equal to that of the whole country (derived from the RAINS/GAINS scenario). If the RAINS/GAINS scenarios in turn are based on earlier CAPRI simulations, as is envisaged, we could directly use the NUTS-2 activity results from CAPRI and thus avoid the errors involved in a rule of thumb disaggregation. 3.5.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time Table 1.5. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of subtask 1.41 Activities Start Complete Responsible


Deliverables

Selection of RAINS/GAINS scenarios 1 April 1 Sept Klimont, IIASA, DG ENV

RAINS/GAINS scenarios, including activity data

Translation of activity data and emission factors of the different RAINS/GAINS scenarios into input for MITERRA-EUROPE and transfer of these data to Alterra

1 April 1 June Klimont, IIASA, Alterra

Data to be used as model input for MITERRA-EUROPE

Parameterization of MITERRA-EUROPE with data from the RAINS/GAINS scenarios, including the procedure to scale down national figures to NUTS-2 level

1 April 1 Aug Velthof, Alterra, Eurocare

Adjusted MITERRA-EUROPE

Calculation of the effects of the RAINS/GAINS scenarios on emissions, using MITERRA-EUROPE

1 Aug 1 Sept Velthof, Alterra Data of calculations with MITERRA-EUROPE

Comparison results of MITERRA-EUROPE with those of RAINS/GAINS and the national submissions under the NEC/CLRTAP and Climate Change

1 Sept 1 Dec Velthof, Alterra Table

Report 1 July Interim 21/09/06 Draft final 21/01/07 Final 21/03/07



1the planning of development and testing of the model, including the measures is given in the activities in subtasks 1.1

29

4. TASK. 2 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN INSTRUMENTS 4.1. General introduction The aims of this task are defined as follows: To analyze the effectiveness of existing policy instruments aiming at reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and methane to the atmosphere and, ammonia and nitrate to groundwater and surface waters. The output of this task has been defined as: A technical report describing the results of the abovementioned analysis 4.2. Methodology A desk study will be carried out to analyze existing European and international instruments aiming at reducing emissions to the atmosphere of nitrous oxide, methane and ammonia and nitrate to waters. The policy instruments that will be analysed include: • The Codes of Good Agricultural Practice in the Nitrate Directive (Annex II of the

Nitrate Directive) • The Measures included in the action programmes established in application of the

Nitrate Directive (Annex III of the Nitrate Directive) • Additional measures described in action programmes of countries for the Nitrate

Directive (additional to the measure and Codes of Good Agricultural Practice of Annexes II and III).

• The measures in the Annex IX of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

• Measures defined in national programmes established to comply with the National Emissions Ceilings Directive

• Measures defined in national permits in application of the IPPC Directive • UNFCCC/IPCC measures to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases • Cross-compliance measures applicable within the framework of the CAP direct

payments, i.e., (i) statutory management requirements stemming from provisions of 19 community legal acts in the area of the environment, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare, (ii) minimum standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs) (iii) obligation to maintain the ratio of permanent pasture over total utilized agricultural area (UAA).

• Agri-environmental measures under Rural Development Policy • Other Rural Development measures • Possible measures to achieve the objectives of the Habitats Directive (grazing,

buffers) Firstly, all separate measures in the existing policy instruments are identified. Secondly, the effects of the different instruments and separate measures are assessed on reducing the emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, ammonia and nitrate. These assessments will

30

be done qualitatively, using literature data and expert judgments. Special attention will be given to synergies and antagonisms of the instruments. The results are presented in tables showing the effects of the instruments on the emissions and the possible synergies and antagonisms between instruments. Recommendations are made to avoid antagonisms and to obtain and optimize synergy between instruments. We will also briefly discuss the integrated N approaches for policy, as proposed in scientific literature, for example within the framework of the International Nitrogen Initiative, Nitrogenius, and Nitro-Europe. 4.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time Table 4.1. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of task 2. Activities Start Complete Responsible

person and institution involved

Deliverables

Inventory of legislative (EU and national) frameworks and their instruments, including their literature source

January 01 March Monteny, A&F/ASG, Alterra, MNP

Draft overview table

Qualitative assessment (relative scoring) of the effectiveness of each instrument (or measure) on N2O, CH4, NH3, NO3 (and PM)

01 March

15 April Monteny, A&F/ASG, Alterra, MNP

Draft chapter (with table(s)) on the qualitative analysis

Internal review 15 April 30 April Monteny, A&F/ASG, ECN, CEH, IIASA

Review Consolidated quantitative table(s)

Qualitative assessment of measures and their impact on environmental issues, including an assessment of strengthening and swapping issues

30 April 31 May Monteny, A&F/ASG, Alterra, MNP

Draft report with (tabulated) qualitative assessment

Finalization of this task 31 May 15 June A&F/ASG Draft Final report Internal review 15 June 15 July Monteny,

A&F/ASG, ECN, CEH, IIASA

Review Revised report

31

5. TASK 3. IN DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF THE MOST PROMISING MEASURES 5.1. General introduction The aim of this task has been defined as: To assess the effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio of a package of measures aiming at reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and methane to the atmosphere and, ammonia and nitrate to groundwater and surface waters. Whereas the cost will be mainly measured in terms of agricultural income foregone (net of other monetary welfare impacts on consumers, the EU budget etc), the benefits will be measures in terms of an array of environmental indicators in physical units. The output of this task has been defined as: A technical report covering the results of the identification of promising packages of abatement technologies, in depth integrated assessments of three packages of measures, and suggestions for suitable policy instruments. 5.2. Methodology The in depth assessment of most promising measures involves a full simulation of their impacts at the level of NUTS2 regions, Member States, the EU level and international markets with the CAPRI modelling system (see http://www.agp.uni-bonn.de/agpo/rsrch/capri/capri-documentation.pdf). The latter levels have to be considered because in principle all markets are interrelated even though the international impacts of EU environmental policies will in general be quite small. The potential impact of the most promising measures will be discussed analysed and for each country. Such a full scale assessment requires tackling a number of issues. Base line definition

The impacts of measures addressing ammonia emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, or nitrate leaching will be determined as the difference between a reference situation and alternative scenarios, therefore with and without those measures. For this approach it is critical to be clear in terms of which measures are additionally introduced and which are already incorporated in the reference run. This definition also depends on the simulation horizon which ultimately has to run to 2020 to be in line with the horizon of RAINS/GAINS simulations for the NEC revision. For the year 2012 (the current horizon of CAPRI simulations) it will be appropriate to incorporate a ‘full’ implementation of the Nitrate directive in EU Member States in the reference run already (see task 2 about “full” implementation of the Nitrate Directive). Identifying the impact of this ‘full’ implementation compared to the ‘partial’ implementation in the current situation would require to run a counterfactual scenario assuming that, contrary to legal obligations, the current ‘partial’ implementation would be maintained in 2012 as well. The assignment of different measures to the baseline or to alternative scenarios will be made in view of existing commitments and legal obligations.

32

In terms of the Common Agricultural Policy a long run baseline has to incorporate assumptions about full or partial decoupling in EU Member States. For a medium term horizon (say 2012) the policy specification may rely on declarations from Member States but for the long run it will be necessary to introduce own assumptions. It is likely, for example, that the income losses associated with coupled versus decoupled payments would create political pressure in favour of additional decoupling even in those Member States which currently have strongly opted for coupled payments (e.g. France). Further assumptions will be necessary about the outcome of the current Doha WTO negotiations. Definition of measures

For the definition of measures results will be collected from Tasks 1, 2, 4 and 5. It requires a definition of the technical measures in terms of their impacts on emission factors and in terms of their direct cost assuming a full implementation. Three (3) packages of measures will be selected using the results of especially task 1 and following a dialogue with the Commission which involves the presentation and revision of scenarios on preliminary selections of measures. The list of measures will include adapted feeding strategies aiming at ensuring the same level of production with a reduced nitrogen contents in animal feed. The packages will include optimal combinations of the following (and possible other, non-technical) measures, in part derived from the assessments made in task 1:

- crop rotation aspects, cover crops, mixed cropping; - soil cultivation, weed control; - fertilization practices; - irrigation measures; - post harvest losses, crop residue management - animal feeding strategies, phase feeding - livestock breeding targets - herd replacement rate - livestock housing systems, including low-emission housing - grazing systems - livestock management systems - animal manure storage and treatment systems - animal manure application methods

Some of these measures may reduce both ammonia emissions and nitrate leaching while others will involve trade off relationships. The same holds for the effects on greenhouse gas emissions. For an economic assessment we need first the additional cost of each on these measures compared to a situation without the additional measures, that is compared to the status quo. However, to correctly identify the cost associated with certain policy packages we have to avoid double counting. If the base line, for example, already incorporates the full implementation of the Nitrate Directive then some additional measures are already included therein. Their cost may be identified in the comparison with the counterfactual status quo scenario. The cost associated with a specific ‘ammonia

33

abatement’ package would be the difference to the base line such that those measures already included therein will not involve any additional cost. To assess the most promising measures it may be useful to undertake simulations with emission ceilings as has been done in the past already with CAPRI. This will not permit an endogenous choice among various technological abatement options because this would quickly drive the number of endogenous variables beyond manageable orders of magnitude. Instead a single, reasonable abatement option will be predefined with respect of the change in environmental indicators and associated direct cost. Given this selection of a ‘conceivable’ abatement option CAPRI simulations may determine whether it is useful to apply this option or whether it is cheaper to change the scale and composition of agricultural production. After the technical definition of measures the next step will be to assess the average implementation level per NUTS2 region. This assessment may partly rely on hard information indicating limits to full implementation. For example the information on soil types and slopes in the region may indicate that certain measures are not applicable. Another example is the percentage of a NUTS2 region overlapping with a NVZ. Moreover the information on the size distribution of farms may be used to estimate the percentage of farms affected, for example, by new thresholds considered for the IPPC revision as investigated under Task 4. At least for EU15 countries it is also possible to disaggregate the NUTS2 regions in the CAPRI database into a small number of farm types, distinguishing ‘small’ and ‘large’ farms according to economic size. In addition to this statistical information there will always be the need to acknowledge farmers behaviour which is not always optimal against the standard of fully informed experimental design. It is quite clear, for example, that in many countries protein supply exceeds animal needs such that farmers might save money and the environment at the same time if they adjusted this feeding practice. If this does not occur at present it is unlikely to occur in the future without additional efforts in terms of intensified extension and so forth. This behavioural slack cannot be assessed based on statistical information but has to rely on assumptions and expert judgement, possibly varied in a sensitivity analysis. Update of environmental indicators in CAPRI In view of consistency the updated and extended coefficients from MITERRA EUROPE regarding emission, leaching fractions and so forth will be incorporated as far as possible in CAPRI as well. This is easy in principle because a large part of the database for MITERRA EUROPE comes from the CAPRI system, and in terms of the emission calculations both rely on earlier work for RAINS/GAINS. Nonetheless, depending on the technical platform for MITERRA EUROPE this incorporation step will require some time for the transfer and testing.

34

Interpretation and presentation of results

The potential impact of the three packages of most promising measures will be analysed and discussed for each country, in terms of emission reductions and costs quantitatively, and in terms of social impacts and administrative burden qualitatively. An assessment will be made in terms of costs of the measures for different farm sizes and of the affordability of the packages of measures to different farm scales. Clearly, for most of the economic and environmental impacts quantitative assessments will be produced. The new environmental indicators (nitrate leaching) in CAPRI will require some adjustments in the infrastructure to display quantitative results in maps, tables and graphs. For many other (social) aspects, assessments can be made only in a qualitative manner. These qualitative assessments will be made according to the guidelines on impact assessment as established by the European Commission, and include: Economic Impact

• investment flows • administrative requirements imposed on business and public authorities • innovation and research • macroeconomic environment

Environmental impact

• biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes Social impact

• employment and labour market access • job quality • social inclusion • equality of treatment and opportunities • social rights and standards • consumer rights • governance and participation • public health and safety • access to social protection, health and educational goods and services

The interpretation will also cover a discussion of possible policy instruments to implement the technical measures. This will partly draw on the experience with existing instruments and could concern new legislation, adaptation of code of good practises (notably those developed under the nitrate directive and under the CLRTAP Convention), provisions under the Common Agricultural policy. In addition new instruments such as emission ceilings will be discussed. The most effective policy instruments will be identified following discussions with the European Commission and other stakeholders, also in conjunction with meetings and discussion organized in task 5. Suggestions will be made for possible integrated possible future policy instruments.

35

5.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time (see table 5.1). Table 5.1. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of task 3. Activities Start Complete Responsible

person + contributing institutions

Deliverables

Update of CAPRI reference run to 2012 1 Jan 1 May Witzke Eurocare

New reference run and comparison with 2004 outlook for RAINS/GAINS

Preliminary collection of promising technical measures with associated direct cost for CAPRI

1 March 1 May Witzke Eurocare, Alterra, MNP, CEH, ECN

Preliminary table of technical measures with associated cost

Discussion and approval of a proposal of packages of most promising measures with European Commission

1 April 1 May Witzke Eurocare Alterra European Commission

Preliminary definition of 3 packages of promising measures

Assessment of percentage implementation in NUTS2 regions in different scenarios

1 April 1 July Witzke Eurocare, Alterra

Preliminary table of technical measures and estimated application allocated to scenarios

Incorporation of MITERRA Europe calculation routines into CAPRI system

1 April 1 June Witzke Eurocare, Alterra

Informal interim report on update of parameters and CAPRI code from MITERRA Europe

Update and extension of CAPRI reference run to 2020

1 June 1 Sept Witzke Eurocare

Updated reference run result available for RAINS/GAINS and report

Simulation of first alternative scenarios to identify impacts of measures

1 July 1 Sept Witzke Eurocare

First simulation results for alternative scenarios

Preparation of interim report including qualitative assessments

1 July 21 Sept Witzke Eurocare, Alterra

Interim report on methodology and preliminary results

Review and refinement of methodology 1 Sep 1 Dec Witzke Eurocare, Alterra MNP, CEH, ECN

Revised code

Revision of scenarios in view of suggestions from DG Env, stakeholders and RAINS/GAINS team

1 Nov 1 Jan Witzke Eurocare

Revised and supplementary results

Preparation of draft final report including qualitative assessments

1 Dec 21 Jan Witzke Eurocare, Alterra

Draft presentation of final methodology and results

36

Final revisions of methodology and scenarios 1 Jan 1 March Witzke Eurocare, Alterra

Final revisions on code and results

Identification and assessment discussions of the most effective policy instruments

1 Jan 1 March Witzke Eurocare, Alterra, MNP ECN, CEH

Assessment of effectiveness of policy instruments

Identification of elements to be integrated in possible future European instruments

1 Jan 1 March Witzke Eurocare, Alterra, CEH, ECN European Commission MNP

Assessment of elements for integrated policy instruments

Internal review 1 Jan 1 February Witzke MNP, ECN, CEH

Review report

Revision of draft final report including qualitative assessments

1 Feb 21 March Witzke Eurocare, Alterra

Revised final report

Presentations, dissemination 1 Jan 21 April Witzke Eurocare, Alterra

Presentation of study in meetings and papers

37

6. TASK 4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF A POSSIBLE MODIFICATION OF IPPC DIRECTIVE 6.1. General introduction The aim of this task has been defined as: To assess the impacts of the extension of the IPPC directive to intensive cattle rearing installations and a possible revision of the thresholds for intensive rearing installations of pigs and poultry’ The output of this task has been defined as: A technical report describing the results of the abovementioned in-dept assessments

Three sub tasks have been suggested, as described below.

6.2. Subtask 4.1. Data gathering

6.2.1. Introduction The aim of this subtask has been defined as: To collect data about the number of installations, number of animals, environmental impacts and performance of (i) pig and poultry installations, and (ii) cattle installations 6.2.2. Methodology For each Member State, the following information is gathered:

Pig and poultry installations: (1) the number of installations linked with the number of animals with a clear

distinction between those already covered by IPPC and the others (2) a quantitative assessment of the environmental impacts for each size-category of

installation (3) level of variation of environmental performance across the EU (4) estimation of the impacts of implementing the IPPC Directive (reduction of the

environmental impacts/estimation of the economic and social impacts) Cattle installations:

(1) the number of installations linked with the number of animals with a clear distinction between those already covered by national permitting legislation (which can be based on the concept of BAT or can fix minimum standards for the operation of such installations)

(2) a quantitative assessment of the environmental impacts for each size-category of installation

(3) a description of the current regulation of this sector across the EU (4) level of variation of environmental performance across the EU.

38

In table 6.1 the approach/method for data gathering is described, where the numbers between parentheses refer to the activities under the sub-task 4.1. Table 6.1. Approaches and methods for data gathering in this task (numbers between brackets refer to the issues mentioned above under data collection). See also Annex C. Pig/Poultry activities

Cattle activities Approach and method

Pigs/Poultry (1) Cattle (1) - Literature survey (e.g. BREF, through internet) - data sources (e.g. CAPRI, FAO, EUROSTAT) - verification via various international networks

Pigs/Poultry (2) Cattle (2) - using the same emission factors as under Task 1 - for cattle, use a simple model as used in Monteny et al., 2005 (submitted)

Pigs/Poultry (3) Cattle (4) - using the same emission factors as under Task 1, taking into account regional/local variations

Pigs/Poultry (4) - using the same emission factors as under Task 1, extended with a socio-economic survey (economics adopted from BREF and checked against MS economy levels) using the international networks

Cattle (3) - survey based upon literature and reports issued by the EU, and inquiries at MS representatives in the networks

The outcome is this sub-task is directly used in sub-task 4.2/4.3 that is dealing with an integrated assessment of various options for lowering IPPC-thresholds for pigs and poultry installations, and a possible new threshold for cattle. 6.2.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time Table 6.2. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of subtask 4.1 Activities Start Complete Responsible

Person + contributing institutions

Deliverables

Farm structure survey in 25 MS linked to current and potential future thresholds for pigs, poultry, and cattle

Jan. 06 31 March 06

Monteny A&F/ASG

Chapter (tabulate) with data on farm sizes and their distribution

Environmental assessment for each size category

Jan. 06 15 April 06 Monteny A&F/ASG, MNP

Chapter with environmental pollutant emissions per size category

Implementation characteristics of IPPC in selected MS (SUGGESTED: NL, Germany, UK, Poland, Estonia, Bulgaria, Italy/Spain, France)

Jan. 06 30 April 06 Monteny A&F/ASG, IMUZ, NEIKER,

Chapter with description of implementation of IPPC in the selected MS

39

Alterra Inventory of current legislation on cattle farm environmental issues across the EU-25

Jan. 06 30 April 06 Monteny A&F/ASG

Chapter with a comprehensive overview of cattle related regulations in EU-25

Quick scan on socio-economic and ecological impact of implementation of the IPPC in the EU

March 06

30 June 06 Monteny A&F/ASG MNP

Chapter with socio-economic and ecological assessment

Finishing the Task 4.1. section of the final report on Task 4

June 06 31 July 06 Monteny A&F/ASG

Draft final report on this sub-Task

Internal review 1 July 31 July Monteny ECN, CEH


Discussing and Making the data available to the RAINS/GAINS

1 June 31July Monteny Discussions

6.3. Subtask 4.2. Assessment of options for lowering the current thresholds in the IPPC

6.3.1. Introduction The aim of this subtask has been defined as: Broad assessment of the implications of three realistic options for lowering the current thresholds in the IPPC Directive for intensive pig and poultry rearing, and a potential threshold for cattle operations. 6.3.2. Methodology The current thresholds for intensive rearing of pigs and poultry are:

i. > 2,000 fattening pigs (over 30 kg) ii. > 750 sows

iii. > 40,000 head of poultry First, an inventory is made of the number of installations that should operate (with permits) under the IPPC in all 25 MS. Sources for this information are:

- EPER database (15 MS) - Formal documents found on the internet (approx. 5 MS) - Inquiries within the consultants network (remainder MS)

A distinction has to be made between the formal number of IPPC permitted installations and the actual number of permits issued in the various MS. Potential discrepancies will be addressed and checked within the MS network. Based in the above mentioned survey, and using data from Sub-Task 4.1 on farm size distributions, three options for lowered thresholds for pigs and poultry, and a potential threshold for cattle farms will be formulated and assessed on:

(1) the number of installations which could be concerned (additionally to those already covered by IPPC and/or national legislation)

40

(2) on the basis of possible BAT, emission reductions at least of ammonia, nitrate, nitrous oxide, and methane (in harmony with task 1)

(3) costs, being the investment costs and the annual operational costs. Also, costs for the uptake of BAT and the administrative burden (e.g. permits application, costs for authorities for issuing permits and controlling the installations) are included.

A short list of potential thresholds has been discussed with the Commission/DG ENV. All options will be assessed relative to a “business as usual scenario” (reference) to assess the added value (in terms of environmental pollution prevention) of the extended IPPC. For cattle, emphasis will be on the animal nutrition (e.g. using milk urea as a monitoring instrument in dairy farming), since this is in general a widely applicable and acceptable (and also effective) way of reducing environmental pollution. Also grazing strategies that are also found to be important for lowering nitrate leaching in dairy and beef farming, will be considered. In accordance with RAINS/GAINS, related measures described in UNECE-CLTRAP documents on various low-emission techniques for cattle (Expert Group on Ammonia Abatement; Category 1 and 2 techniques) will be short addressed in terms of effectiveness and costs. An example of Category 1 techniques for cattle farms (housing systems) is, beside covering of slurry storages and low-emission slurry application, the so-called ‘Grooved Floor’, which has limited costs (especially when old slats need replacement), no negative animal related effects, and a reasonably large emission reduction potential. The main deliverable of this sub-task is a report with an assessment of options to extend IPPC thresholds for pigs and poultry and to include a cattle threshold, using the outcome of sub-task 4.1, and an inventory of MS related legal frameworks. This report forms the basis for sub-task 4.3. 6.3.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time. See also suggestions and comments in Annex C. Table 6.3. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of subtask 4.2 Activities Start Complete Responsible


Deliverables

Inventory of IPPC farms in EU-25 Jan 06 28 Febr. 06 Monteny A&F/ASG

Table with IPPC farms in EU-25

Verification of permits/IPPC farms 01 March 06

31 March 06

Monteny A&F/ASG

Consolidated overview of IPPC farms in EU-25

Defining 3 possible lowered thresholds for pigs and poultry farms

01 March 06

31 March 06

Monteny A&F/ASG, European Commission

Short communication addressing the 3 possible thresholds for pigs and poultry farms

Defining 3 new threshold(s) for cattle 01 March 31 March Monteny Short communication

41

farms 06 06 A&F/ASG, European Commission

addressing threshold(s) for cattle farms

Broad assessment of the thresholds for pigs, poultry and cattle

31 March 06

31 May 06 Monteny A&F/ASG, MNP, Alterra

Chapter on broadly assessed lowered thresholds

Discussion and selection of threshold for in-depth assessment

Early June 06

1 July Monteny A&F/ASG

Consolidated options for new thresholds for pigs, poultry, and cattle

Discussing and Making the data available to the RAINS/GAINS

1 June 31July Monteny Discussions

Drafting report Early June 06

1 july Monteny A&F/ASG

Draft report

Internal review 1 July 06 31 July 06 Monteny ECN, CEH


6.4. Subtask 4.3. In depth assessment of options for lowering the current thresholds

6.4.1. Introduction The aim of this subtask has been defined as: In-depth assessment of the implications of one option for lowering the current thresholds in the IPPC Directive 6.4.2. Methodology Where the outcome of sub-task 4.2 was in the pure content of IPPC threshold adaptations, this sub-task will mainly deal with the best option for future IPPC threshold values for pig, poultry and cattle installations (farming systems). The qualitative assessment of this best option will address the following items:

1) description of the IPPC threshold levels (one for pigs, poultry, cattle farms) 2) farm structure in the EU: numbers of farms and animals resorting under the new

IPPC threshold levels (based on data gathered under sub-task 4.1) 3) potential impact on ammonia, nitrate, and greenhouse gas emissions on system,

MS and EU level (partly taken from earlier tasks and sub-tasks), including information on heavy metals

4) potential economic impacts (farmers’ income on MS level, investment and operational costs, administrative burdens, business opportunities for the agro-industry, local employment)

5) potential social impacts (economic sustainability, consumers’ attitude towards environmentally friendly producers, impact of BAT measures on reduction of noise and odour)

6) potential administrative aspects 7) possible measures to support reduced and new IPPC threshold levels

42

Annex 2 of the Impact Assessment Working Paper provides an overview of the issues that should be addressed in an impact assessment (Table 6.4). Evidently, this is an extensive list and all items included in the list cannot be assessed in-depth. In consultation with the European Commission, we will select (key) items for a more in-depth analysis while other items will be addressed in a global, qualitative way only. Possible items selected for a more in-depth assessment have been indicated in italic in table 6.4; other items will be addressed qualitatively. Assessments will be based on simple model calculations and expert judgements. Table 6.4. Economic, environmental and Social items that should be considered according to the Impact Assessment Working Paper. Possible items selected for a more in-depth assessment have been indicated in italic (see also Annex C.) Economic Items Assessment of potential impacts Competitiveness, markets, trades and investment flows

Direct and indirect costs imposed on business Impact on the administrative requirements imposed on business

Innovation and research Households Specific regions, sectors or workers Third countries and international relations Public authorities Macroeconomic environment Environmental items

Air quality Water quality and resources Soil quality and resources Climate Renewable or non-renewable resources Biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes Land use Waste production/generation or recycling Environmental risks Mobility and the use on energy Environmental consequences of business activities Social items

Employment and labour market access Job quality Social inclusion Equality of treatment and opportunities Social rights and standards Consumer rights Governance and participation Public health and safety Access to social protection, health and educational goods and services

43

6.4.3. Activities Only a table of provisional activities has been included for this sub-task yet, since this sub-task has to be discussed in depth with the Commission (content, planning). This will be addressed during the sessions planned on this Task early March (Thursday 9 March 2006). A part of the work conduced in this sub-task is related to the use of Miterra-Europe and RAINS/GAINS to assess the suggested thresholds. Table 6.5. Overview of main activities, planning and deliverables of subtask 4.3. Provisional Activities Start Complete Responsible


Deliverables

Discuss items for the assessments and the table of contents for this sub-task

February 06

9 March 06 Monteny A&F/ASG

Draft table of contents for the in-depth assessment

Choosing the revised IPPC threshold for pig and poultry farms, and the new threshold for cattle farms

June 06 Monteny A&F/ASG

Consolidated new thresholds

In depth assessment of these new thresholds on MS level, addressing the items described above, and using RAINS/GAINS, and possibly Miterra-Europe

July 06 December 06

Monteny A&F/ASG, Alterra, European Commission

Draft assessment report

Discussion and finalization 31 December 2006

Monteny A&F/ASG, European Commission

Final report

Internal review 1 Jan. 07 31 Jan. 07 Monteny ECN, CEH


45

7. TASK 5. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION, PRESENTATIONS, WORKSHOPS 7.1. General introduction The aim of this task has been defined as: “To consult stakeholders about relevant issues of the contract and to present and discuss results”. The output of this task has been defined as: A technical report describing the results of the abovementioned consultations, presentation on international conferences and workshops and draft manuscripts to submit to peer-reviewed international scientific journals. 7.2. Methodology The call for tender asks for six stakeholder meetings and 3 follow-up meeting with the European Commission. A stakeholder meeting is a strategic way to derive ‘usability objectives’ from ‘business objectives’, and to gain commitment to usability. It also collects information about the purpose and its overall context of use. The kick-off meeting in Brussels on 26th January 2006 and the current Inception Report have ensured that all relevant factors and issues that relate to the service contract have been identified before the actual work starts. The follow-up meetings and stakeholder meetings are meant to discuss the progress of the work, to discuss intermediate results, views and opinions, and to discuss possible bottlenecks and possible solutions. We will organize well-focused and well-organized meetings, of half a day to one day. Relevant written information will be send to the participants in advance. At the meetings, brief introductory talks facilitated with powerpoint presentations will be held followed by participatory discussions. Whenever needed, we will invite experience facilitators to lead the meetings. Minutes of the meetings will be made and distributed among all participants. Person responsible for this task: Oene Oenema, Alterra Persons involved in this task: Erisman, Van Grinsven, Monteny, Sutton, Velthof,

Witzke

46

7.3. Activities This paragraph provides an overview of the activities that have to be carried out to achieve the deliverables in time Table 7.1. Overview of activities, planning and deliverables of task 5. Activities When Responsible +

contributing institutions

Deliverables

Meeting with mr. M. Sponar at DG ENV to prepare the kick-off meeting

19-01-06 Oenema Agenda Minutes

Kick-off meeting 26-01-06 Oenema Eurocare, A&F, Alterra

Tender and Service contract discussed Minutes

1st Follow-up meeting about task 1and the material for the baseline scenario in RAINS/GAINS

May 06 Oenema Eurocare, A&F, Alterra

Approval of draft model and data for RAINS/GAINS Minutes

2nd Follow-up meeting about Interim Report Sept 06 Oenema Eurocare, A&F, Alterra

Interim report discussed Minutes

3rd Follow-up meeting; presentation and discussion of results of tasks 3 and 4

Dec 06 Oenema Eurocare, A&F, Alterra

Results tasks 3 en 4 Discussed Minutes

Presentation task 4 in advisory Group of IPPC May 06 Monteny/ Sponar/Paquot

Results task 4 presented & discussed Minutes

Presentation Service Contract in UNECE Expert Group on Ammonia Abatement Meeting in Prague

April 2006

Monteny/

Service contract discussed Minutes

Presentation tasks 1 and 3 in Nitrate Committee To be defined

Oenema Results tasks 1 and 3 presented & discussed Minutes

Presentation of service contract within NEC working group

To be defined

Oenema Results tasks 1,2, 3 and 4 presented & discussed Minutes

Presentation of service contract within steering group of IP NitroEurope

To be defined

Oenema Results tasks 1 and 3 presented & discussed Minutes

Presentation of the Results at the COST 729 meeting in Poland or Czech Republic (Prague)

End ‘06 Erisman Presentation and draft manuscript Minutes

Organisation of a workshop to inform and discuss with stakeholders

Spring 2007

Oenema Presentations and minutes

Presentation of results at the First International Ammonia Conference at Ede, The Netherlands

19-03-06 21-03-06

Monteny/ Oenema

Presentation and draft manuscript Minutes

47

8. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING 8.1. Project management The service contract project will be coordinated by Dr. Oene Oenema from Alterra. Each task will further be co-ordinated by a task-coordinator. Overall coordinator and the task coordinators together form the management team (see figure 8.1). The partners and subcontractors are involved in various tasks, subtasks and activities as outlined in chapters 3 to 7. The progress in the execution of the various tasks, subtasks and activities will be monitored per task by the task-coordinator on a two-monthly basis. Task-coordinators will report to the coordinator and the coordinator will report to the DG ENV on a two-monthly basis. Coordinator is the liaison between DG ENV and the consortium.

Figure 16. Schematic organization of project, showing the partners of the consortium, the sub-contractors and the coordinators of the five tasks.. The dashed lines at the bottom show the suggested bridging of the work of tasks 1, 3 and 4 with RAINS/GAINS and IIASA.

Co-ordinator Oene Oenema

Task 5

Alterra Gerard Velthof

EuroCare Peter Witzke

A&F Gert Monteny

Sub-contractors: - CEH, UK - NEIKER, SP - IMUZ, PL - MNP, NL - ECN, NL - UBA, A

Task 3

Task 1

Tasks 2, 4

IIASA - RAINS/GAINS

48

A special issue involves the cooperation with IIASA and the RAINS/GAINS model, as the current service contract has to contribute to extensions of RAINS/GAINS, but does not provide for cooperation with IIASA. A special service contract to be signed by the European Commission and IIASA will provide the means for cooperation. During the Inception phase of the service contract, and especially following the kick-off meeting, there has been intensive contact between consortium members (Oenema, Monteny) and IIASA (Klimont) and there is confidence that the cooperation between the consortium and IIASA will be fruitful. An option discussed is the possible involvement of a core member of the consortium in the extension and amendment of RAINS/GAINS. Further discussions are needed to find out whether this is achievable. A special issue is also the tuning of activities with projects related to the service contract. Task coordinators will take care about the coordination and tuning of activities with related projects, and will act as liaison, as follows: - IP Nitro-Europe Gerard Velthof - Seamless, Dynaspat, Peter Witzke - IPPC, NEC, UNECE working groups: Gert-Jan Monteny Quality control will be ensured throughout the project by several means: - The project coordinator will manage the project and the information flow through

regular coordination meetings (telephone and electronic conferences) with the consortium members and sub-contractors.

- Task coordinators will submit brief progress reports about the tasks, subtasks and activities via email on a two-monthly basis to inform the coordinator. Coordinator will submit progress reports to the European Commission also on a two-monthly basis.

- Internal reviews will be carried out prior to each meeting and reporting towards European Commission, Directorate General Environment.

- We will uniform and harmonized, Pan-European data bases (Eurostat, CAPRI), emission factors (RAINS/GAINS), and guidelines and information from key working groups, notably UNECE Working Group on Ammonia Abatement and IPPC.

- Oversight will be maintained by the management team, through regular meetings and review of the monthly progress report of the partners and subcontractors.

- Throughout the project, attempts will be made to engage officials of the DG-Environment and other relevant stakeholders from working groups, partly also through the subcontractors, to ensure that the findings and recommendations are as policy relevant as possible.

- Scientific quality will be maintained by publishing as much as possible the results in peer-reviewed international scientific journals.

All reports and notes will be written in English. All reports/notes will have a well-written executive summary (maximal 3 pages), and will be submitted as hard copies and as Microsoft Word files. The final reports will be delivered in triplicate (hardcopies) and as Word-files.

49

The project coordinator will meet the DG Environment manager 4 times. The project coordinator will also participate in the five meetings with stakeholders, and when needed the key-scientists of the other participating institutions as well. The latter should be decided following consultation with DG-Environment 8.2. Overall planning and time schedule The project will run for 16 months. The project has started on the date of the approval (date of official signing) of the contract. Table 8.1 provides an overview of the major contract events. Table 8.1 Overview of contract events and planning Events Date Foreseen in contract Invoices Signature of the contract 21-12-2005 30% Kick-off meeting 26-01-2006 1 month Inception report 26-02-2006 1 month Interim report - Comments by commission - revised version of report - Approval by Commission

21-09-2006 4-11-2006 3-12-2006

?

9 months 45 day 30 days Not specified

40% after approval

Draft final report Comments by commission

21-01-2007 ?

13 months Not specified

Final report - Comments by commission - revised version of report

21-03-2007 5-05-2007 5-06-2007

15 months 45 day 30 days

30% after approval

Formal end of contract 21-04-2007 16 months An overview of the planning of tasks, subtasks and reports is presented in Table 8.2. Most of the activities are concentrated in the first half year of the project, mainly because of the need to deliver results to the policy process of the revision of IPPC and NEC Directives.

50

Table 8.2 Overview of the planning of tasks, subtasks and reports

Description k€ Outputs promised 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4

1 Develop an integrated approach 851.1. Development of a method > Miterra-EU *

> Update Capri *> Comparison of Miterra-EU, Capri and Rains *

1.2. Nitrate emissions > Report; results of calculations with *Miterra-EU (and Capri)

1.3. NH3, N2O, CH4 and NO3 emissions > Report; results of calculations with *Miterra-EU

1.4. Rains scenarios on NO3+NH4 leaching > Report; results of calculations with *Miterra-EU

2 Analysis of Instruments 35 >Report on the effectiveness of policies *3 Assessment promising measures 70 > Packages of abatement strategies *

> Report; results of calculations with *Capri and Miterra-EU+ policy instruments

4 Assessment of IPPC directive 604.1. Data Gathering > Desk & consultation & modeling studies

> Report on number and impact of IPPC-farms *4.2. Definition and assessment of options > Options to be discussed with Commission

> Report on assessment of options *4.3. Assessment of lowering thresholds > Desk study

> Report on effects of changing IPPC-thresholds *5 Stakeholder consultation 30 > Report on 6 stakeholder consultations 1 2 3 4 5 6

> presentations & manuscripts

Final report; summary of (sub)tasks reports *Meetings with Commissions; will be combined with coordinator meetings 1 2 3 4Project meetings, will be combined with stakeholder consultation meetings 1 2Coordinator meetings; will proceed meetings with Commission 1 2 3 4Progress report to Commission; Once *Internal prgress reports; once every 2 months * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Internal reviews; combined with coordinator meetings 1 2 3

Planning, months of the year, 2006 and 2007Tasks

51

Annex A. Call for tender Service contract: Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions. Reference no ENV.C.1/SER/2005/0035.

I. Background information

The European Commission is planning to adopt by mid 2005 a Thematic Strategy on air pollution. The objective of this Strategy is to meet the objectives of the Environmental action plan, which have the aim of achieving levels of air quality that do not give rise to significant negative impacts on and risks to human health and the environment. The Clean Air for Europe program has produced the scientific basis for the Strategy (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/cafe/index.htm). Various health and environmental ambition levels for 2020 have been evaluated and a global ambition level will be proposed in the Strategy. On the basis of the national reports and during the preparation of the Strategy, it has been demonstrated that ammonia emissions participate to the eutrophication and acidification and to the formation of secondary particulate matter in the atmosphere. The main source of ammonia emission is agriculture (cattle farming for about 40%, pig and poultry about 40%, and the use of N-fertilisers about 20%). These ammonia emissions and impacts have been quantified using the RAINS/GAINS model developed by IIASA (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/tap/RAINS/GAINSWeb/). The model allows identifying the most cost effective packages of measures to meet various environmental and health objectives, such as the objectives of the Strategy. Different abatement technologies and associated costs are included in the model. For each country, assumptions on projections of the main drivers for the agricultural sector (such as animal numbers, fertiliser use) and on the penetration rate of the various agricultural practices and technologies were made on the basis of bilateral consultations with the countries and as a results of a questionnaire sent to all Member States (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/RAINS/GAINS/reports/ir-04-048.pdf ). The data on abatement technologies used in the RAINS/GAINS model are based amongst others on the guidelines for ammonia abatement developed and updated by Working Group on Ammonia Abatement of the UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) (http://www.unece.org/env/aa/welcome.htm). In a first approach, the following measures to reduce ammonia were identified in the Thematic Strategy: (i) In the framework of the revision of the emission ceilings under the National Emission Ceiling directive (NEC) (2000/1258/EC) — integration of new objectives for eutrophication, acidification and for particulate matter. As a consequence, new emission ceilings for ammonia will be developed before end 2006 as well as new guidelines for the national programs required under the directive. (ii) In the context of the general review of the Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control (IPPC) directive, a possible extension of the directive to include installations for intensive cattle rearing and a possible revision of the current thresholds for installations for the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry.(iii) In the context of the current rural development regulation and the Commission proposals for rural development for 2007-13, the Commission encourages the Member States to make full use of the measures related to farm modernisation, meeting standards and agro-environment to tackle ammonia emissions from agricultural sources In the evaluation of the measures aimed at reducing ammonia emissions, the necessity and the interest of an integrated approach to the nitrogen cycle (N cycle) as a whole was highlighted, in

52

order to address ammonia, but also nitrous oxide (N2O) and nitrate emission. The importance and relevance to consider the nitrogen cycle as a whole for policy development was recently highlighted notably through the Nanjing declaration on nitrogen management (http://www.initrogen.org/nanjing_declaration.0.html). Such an integrated approach shall also cover methane emissions, which are intensively linked to the nitrogen cycle. Measures aiming at reducing the emissions of one of those pollutants could imply either a reduction, an increase or have no effects on other pollutants. During the preparation of the Strategy, the integrated approach was only partly taken into account notably because the current version of the RAINS/GAINS model does not include estimates of the effect of the different measures taken to reduce ammonia emission on nitrate losses to the aquatic environment. On the other hand, the impact of measures taken to reduce nitrate emissions to water on ammonia, N2O and methane emissions is not yet assessed. The integrated approach to N-cycle should be considered, taking also into account the obligations set out by the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EEC) to achieve a good status for all water by 2015, which may have as implication, the need to reduce nutrient inputs via fertilisers beyond the levels currently required, notably in order to tackle phosphate water pollution and eutrophication. Finally, in the framework of the revision of NEC directive, a new baseline scenario will be developed by IIASA and submitted to bilateral consultations with the stakeholder. This new baseline will include new energy and agriculture projections integrating the measures taken by the Member States in order to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. The impact of the CAP reform as assessed by a recent study of EEA will also be integrated. The new baseline should be finalised for end 2005. II Objectives The objective of the contract is to have defined the most appropriate integrated and consistent actions to reduce various environmental impacts (notably water, air, climate change) from agriculture. Specifically, the objective is to have developed and applied a m allowing to assess and quantify the costs and the cost and the effects of various policies and measures aiming at reducing the impact of agriculture on water air pollution and climate Both ancillary benefits and trade offs of measures need to be identified. The impacts and feasibility of the most promising measures needs to be analysed in depth. III Description of tasks The tenderer shall provide in his offer a proposal for a work plan and methodology for each identified task and sub-task to achieve the objectives of the assignment. This work plan will be discussed with the Commission within one month of the signing of the contract at a kick-off meeting. At that meeting the details of the work plan will be decided to be included in the inception report with the final work plan. It is essential in the offer to clearly state the sources of information for each task and hence to avoid double work as compared to existing contracts/reports/studies. The place of performance will be outside Commission premises (extra muros).

The EU 25 Member States are to be covered in this assignment and as far as possible Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Croatia. For these 4 countries, the tenderer should describe in its offer the limitations he expects to encounter and their implications for the output of each task. If necessary,

53

for specific sub-tasks to be specified in the offer, a methodology could be proposed based on the detailed analysis of case studies in certain representative Member States or geographical/agricultural zones to enable a general assessment for all the countries. The tenderer should justify in its offer the relevance and representativeness of the possible case studies he intends to propose.

As the Commission has used the RAINS/GAINS model as a basis for the Strategy and will use the same model in order to prepare the review of the NEC ceilings, it is important to explain in the offer how the contractor will use and build bridges with the information, results and approaches of the RAINS/GAINS model and the associated CAFE cost and benefit analysis In addition, all the calculations will be achieved for the same years as those used in the RAINS/GAINS model. The contractor will have to reserve some resources to ensure a good understanding and compatibility with the RAINS/GAINS model, including if necessary direct contacts with the IIASA team.

Task 1: Develop an integrated approach

It is expected from the contractor to develop a simple method to assess the impact on nitrate measures/technologies aiming at reducing ammonia emissions as integrated in the RAINS/GAINS model. Similarly, the impact on ammonia, N2O and methane emissions of at least 3 level of implementation of the nitrate directive will be assessed This will require development of an integrated model parameters and data for the assessment.

The following sub-tasks are suggested:

a). For each of the abatement technologies identified in the RAINS/GAINS and in the UNECE WG guidelines for ammonia abatement estimation of its implication in terms of nitrate emission;

b.) Development of a method allowing to make bridges between on one hand the grid/country approach as developed in RAINS/GAINS and the linked models (such as the atmospheric pollutant dispersion model EMEP) and on the other hand the different zones as defined in the nitrate directive;

c). Assuming 3 of implementation of the nitrate directive (partial, full compliance, reinforced actions, to address phosphate pollution and to meet the good water status of the WFD by 2O1 for each Member State, identification of the measures aiming at reducing nitrate emissions in the waters and assessment of their implications in terms of air emissions. The measures to be considered should be those to be included in the action programme according to the nitrate directive and in particular the measures of annexes II and III. It is expected from the contractor to define as far as possible the possible other specific measures and reinforced actions to be included by the Member States in their programs for nitrate vulnerable zones according to article 5 paragraph 5 of the nitrate directive;

d). Analysis of the consequences on nitrate emissions and as far as possible on the compliance with the directive of at least 3 scenarios with the RAINS/GAINS model and chosen after consultation with the Commission.

The final output of this task will be report covering the task and sub tasks as described above accompanied with a documented calculation sheet allowing the Commission to make additional simulations on the basis of both RAINS/GAINS new scenario and other measures which could be taken under the nitrate directive

Task 2: Analysis of International and European instruments

54

The contractor will analyse the existing European and international (under the CLRTAP and climate change Conventions) instruments aiming at reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, ammonia and nitrate in the waters. This concerns at least the code of good practises (notably those developed under the Nitrate Directive and under the CLRTAP Convention), provisions under the two pillars of the CAP, action plans in the vulnerable zones under the nitrate directive. In its offer, the tenderer should clearly identify the relevant instruments he intends to analyse.

It is expected from the contractor to identify the possible synergies (and/or possible antagonisms — if any) in existing International and European policies accompanied with recommendations to ensure an optimal coherence.

The final output of this task will be a technical report covering the task and sub-tasks as described above.

Task 3: In depth assessment of the most promising measures

Based on the results of task 1 and 2, and on other relevant sources of information and expertise to be detailed in the offer a list of the most promising (package of) measures will be identified and proposed to the Commission for in depth analysis. For each measure a broad assessment of its cost and impact will be achieved. In order to be considered as promising, the (package of) measure should correspond to the following criteria i) co-beneficial effects for water, air, climate change and soil protection; ii) feasible notably from an administrative and enforceability point of view; iii) potentially acceptable by the farmers notably for what concerns costs and additional efforts at• farm level; iv) compatibility with the need for improved animal welfare’.

This list will include at least adapted feeding strategies aiming at ensuring the same level of production with a reduced nitrogen contents in food and/or an adaptation of the feeding to the level of growth of the animals.

Three (3) set of (package of) measures will be selected after a dialogue with the Commission and assessed in depth by the contractor. On the basis of the results of the RAINS/GAINS model, the output of task 1, and of the CAFE cost and benefit analysis, the contractor will analyse for each country the potential impact of the promising measures notably in terms of emission reduction, costs and benefits, social impact, and additional administrative burden. These assessments will be achieved respecting the guidelines on impact assessment as established by the Commission.

The contractor will furthermore identify the most effective European and/or national instruments in order to implement this could concern new legislation, adaptation of code of good practises (notably those developed under the nitrate directive and under the CLRTAP Convention), provisions under the two pillars of the Common Agricultural policy, etc. On the basis of a dialogue with the Commission, he will then summarise the main elements to be integrated in possible future European instruments.

The final output of this task will be a technical report covering the task and sub tasks accompanied with an impact assessment for the 3 identified set of measures and/or policies respecting the guidelines on impact assessment as established by the Commission.

Task 4: Impact Assessment of a possible modification of the IPPC directive:

One of the proposed measures of the Strategy is the assessment of the extension of the IPPC directive to intensive cattle rearing installations and a possible revision of the thresholds for intensive rearing installations of pigs and poultry’ In the offer, a clear distinction should be

55

introduced for cattle pig and poultry in way of including the impact of the CAP reform as well as the possible evolution of the farming structure in the new Member States should be detailed in the offer. The following sub-tasks are suggested:

1. Data gathering on the current situation: For each Member State, the following information should be gathered:

a) Pig and poultry installations: (1) the number of installations linked with the number of animals with a clear distinction between those already covered by IPPC and the others (2) a quantitative estimation of the environmental impacts for each size-category of installation (3) level of variation of environmental performance across the EU (4) estimation of the impacts of implementing the IPPC Directive (reduction of the environmental impacts/estimation of the economic and social impacts);

b) Cattle installations: (1) the number of installations linked with the number of animals with a clear distinction between those already covered by national permitting legislation (which can be based on the concept of BAT or can fix minimum standards for the operation of such installations) (2) a quantitative estimation of the environmental impacts for each size-category of installation (3) a description of the current regulation of this sector across the EU (4) level of variation of environmental performance across the EU.

2. Definition and broad assessment of various options: On the basis of existing legislation in the Member States (and notably any thresholds set by Member States for the purposes of the ETA Directive Annex II which refers to intensive livestock installations), and on the basis of its own expertise, the contractor will propose various realistic options (at least 3 different options) to the Commission for lowering the current thresholds (and introducing a new threshold for cattle installations).

After approval of the proposed options by the Commission, the implications of various possible thresholds for each of these activities will be assessed for each country and for the EU as a whole. This includes at least an assessment of: (1) the number of installations which could be concerned (additionally to those already covered by IPPC and/or national legislation) (2) on the basis of possible BAT (Best available techniques), emission reductions at least of ammonia, methane and N emissions as well as, on the basis of the results of task 1, the implications on nitrate emissions (3) costs and benefits. Costs evaluation will include in particular the up take of BAT and the administrative burden (e.g. permits application, costs for authorities for issuing permits and controlling the installations). All the scenarios should be compared to a do nothing scenario, including in particular the application of the current Community framework (in particular the nitrate directive, the water framework directive and common agricultural policy,.). On this basis, the potential added value of a possible extension of the IPPC directive will be discussed.

In order to calculate the potential impact of these options, the contractor is supposed to define broadly the possible BAT to be applied. This should be done on the basis of the existing BREF on intensive livestock, definition of BAT and comparison with the technologies integrated in RAINS/GAINS. For cattle installations, for which the BAT are not yet defined at EU level, the contractor is expected to define the main elements which could be integrated in possible BAT and their associated costs, notably on the basis of existing national legislation and permitting rules which will be summarised in the report. Particular focus should be set on feeding strategies, housing techniques, storage of manure and spreading of manure.

Assessment of the impacts of lowering the current thresholds: On the basis of the results o t e sub-task 2, and after approval of the Commission, one level of threshold will be chosen for each activity and in depth assessed in respect of the guidelines on impact assessment as established by

56

the Commission. In. its offer, the tenderer is expected to include a first proposal of table of contents of the impact assessment.

In addition to the impacts already analysed in task 2, local disturbance (odour, noise) and diffuse spreading of heavy metals and as well as social impact will notably be assessed. The social impact will need to take account of the economic state of the sector and the extent to which applying ]IPPC would affect the ability of farmers to keep operating, employment, etc. In order to reduce the possible social impact, it is expected from the contractor to identify possible European accompanying measures.

The final output of this task will be a technical re ort covering the task and sub tasks as defined above accompanied with a complete proposal o impact assessment for the selected scenario for each sector strictly respecting the guidelines on the impact assessment as established by the Commission.

Task 5: Stakeholder consultation, presentations, workshop

In its offer, the tenderer will describe its methodology to ensure an appropriate stakeholder (including NGO’s, farmer organisation, Members States experts, etc) consultation. It is expected from the contractor to present the results in various relevant working groups notably under the IPPC, nitrate and national emission ceiling directives. At least six presentations/meetings in Brussels should be foreseen in these specialised working groups. In addition, at least 3 follow-up meetings should be foreseen with the Commission representatives. Depending on the proposals of the contractor, ad-hoc workshops and/or expert meetings could be organised in Commission buildings.

57

Annex B Minutes of kick-off meeting of the Service Contract No 070501/2005/422822/MAR/C1- “Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”

Place: DG ENV, Rue de Beaulieu 5, Brussels Date: Thursday, 26 January, 2006 Time : 10.30 – 16.30 Attendants: Michel Sponar (DG ENV.C1), Lars Müeller (DG ENV.C2), Gilles Crosnier (DG

ENV.D2), Jeroen Casaer (DG ENV.B1), Liliana Cortellini (DG ENV.B1), Adrian Leip (JRC), Caroline Raes, (DG AGRI.F1), Zbigniew Klimont (IIASA), Alexandre Paquot (DG ENV.C4), Peter Witzke, (EuroCARE), Gert-Jan Monteny (Wageningen UR), Gerard Velthof (Alterra), Oene Oenema (Alterra)

1. Opening; presentation of the background, the project and team Sponar welcomed the participants and introduced the background and context of the contract. He emphasized the importance of the ammonia issue in the thematic strategy on air pollution as in relative terms, projections are showing that ammonia will become an important contributor to acidification, eutrophication and formation of secondary particulate matters. Nevertheless, there are uncertainties involved: impact of CAP reform, implementation of Water Framework, Nitrate and IPPC Directives. In addition, the thematic strategy calls for “integrated actions” to reduce the nitrogen pollution as a whole by promoting synergies between policies and avoiding contradictions. A new baseline scenario is currently under development in the framework of the NEC revision. As far as possible, the results of the service contract will have to be added into the new Baseline scenario at least for what concerns implementation of the existing directives, and as “sensitive case” for the development of new measures. The results will also be used for the revision of the IPPC Directive. The first baseline scenario has to be produced in the beginning of July 2006 for the discussion in the working group NECPI. This means that most of the relevant information for the baseline scenario (mainly information on the possible impact of the implementation of the Nitrate Directive, the Water Framework Directive and the IPPC Directive should have been produced and send to IIASA in due time. Another “chance” of including information will be given when finalising the “policy” scenarios between September and December 2006. This could concern part of tasks 3 and 4, for which the links with RAINS/GAINS are important. These dates should be taken into account when scheduling the work of the service contract. A framework contract is under construction, to organize the involvement of IIASA. Next, Oenema presented the project and team (see sheets of the presentation) Questions:

- Related to proposed scales in the project, and especially in relation to the NVZs’, a “bridge” has to constructed between the RAINS/GAINS model and the models used in the consortium (as foreseen in the technical annex). This point should be clarified in the inception report.

- It was noted that national measures and instruments are often more specific than international instruments, therefore national instruments should be included in the analyses of task 2. National action programmes will be made available via the service contract with Alterra about the implementation of the Nitrate Directive. Countries also report about the measures within the climate change reports.

- It was agreed that cost and benefit analysis should be limited to cost analysis linked with key environmental indicators. An appropriate attribution of the costs to each instrument/piece of legislation is also important in order to properly distinguish what is related to the implementation of existing legislation and what is new.

- It was emphasized that rural development programmes can contribute to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, but this needs to be discussed further as no conclusion was reached

58

during the meeting about how this should be implemented. The contractor was invited to address this issue in the inception report.

2. Presentation of task 1 Integrated approach Gerard Velthof presented the work in task 1 (see powerpoint presentation). Questions:

- It was agreed that Scenario 1 (partial implementation) means the situation of to-day., scenario 2 (full implementation) means full designation of the NVZ’s and action programmes developed in line with the requirements of the Nitrates Directive (ref. ERM report) (the map is already there), and scenario 3 (enforced action within the framework of the Nitrate Directive) means additional measures to decrease eutrophication, in terms of for example a decrease of livestock density, measures related to phosphorus inputs, bufferstrips, etc. This difference between scenarios should be explained further in the inception report.

- The result of task 1 should be the results of three scenario’s and the effects of the individual measures. The characteristics of potential measures that could be implemented should be described well. As regards the choice of scenarios/ measures: the consortium should come up with a proposal in the inception report. The new RAINS/GAINS baseline should be used as well as national projections. Additional scenario could concern climate change measures.

- After discussion, it was decided to use 2000 as reference year, as the situation is know for that year, including land cover database of Corinair in addition, this is in line with the years used in the RAINS/GAINS model..

- Attention will be paid to consistency with the national greenhouse gas inventories in order to keep it comparable with the national reports.

- Even if member states often use different methods and emissions factors (the emission factors sometimes also change from year to year) it would be good to have uniform emission factors and activity data. It was explained that emission factors in RAINS/GAINS are average factors at national level. They have been discussed and approved by experts from the member states having participated in bilateral consultations in IIASA.

- It was suggested to involve EFMA in the process as on of the stakeholders as they have provided projection of fertilizer use. .

- It was highlighted that developments are made in CAPRI to include farm structure and methodology, but that this information does not become available in time for this service contract at least for task 1 and 2. It was noted that this could be more important when discussing IPPC review and potential number of farms to be included. Farm structure data for 2000 are available at Eurostat (also for 2003 (intermediate survey). For soil data, use can be made of the DYNASPAT – JRC data.Klimont argued that the more detailed information generated at NUTS-2 level should be transferred to RAINS/GAINS, and that the implications of this more detailed information for the national level should be explored.

- Klimont argued that it is important to find the potential of the implementation of various measures; he also stated that the implementation gaps should be assessed and explored using expert knowledge.

- The inception report should explain what the contractor can offer about Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Turkey.

- CAP-reform effects in RAINS/GAINS projections will be done via CAPRI calculations. Klimont raised the issue that the projections about the decoupling are different between national scenario and the RAINS/GAINS CAFÉ scenarios’.

- It was mentioned that the biomass action plan, the CAP reform and sugar reform, which could have effect on the fertilizer use are not yet included in the projections of RAINS/GAINS.

- The issue about carbon sequestration was raised. Following some discussion it was agreed that this is a complicated issue that this issue should be addressed via NitroEurope and not in the current service contract.

- As regards to the questions put forward by Velthof: o How to present the results: have look at the RAINS/GAINS way (mix of tables, figures

and, maps – depending on the message to be addressed).

59

o Programming language: It was agreed that Sponar will come up with a list of possible variables that DG ENV likely will explore. He will also indicate whether an Excel spreadsheet or other language program is to be preferred. Action: Sponar

o Reports can be combined to one, up to the contractor, as long as the reports are following what is foreseen in the contract (Inception, Interim, draft final and final reports).

o The possibilities of publication in scientific journals and compatibility with the declaration of confidentiality: Sponar will check. Action: Sponar

o Linkage with NitroEurope: Gerard will be the liaison o Linkage with Capri Dynaspat: Peter Witzke o Linkage with Seamless: via Peter Witzke

3. Presentation of task 2 Analysis of International and European Instruments. Gert-Jan Monteny presented the work in task 2 (see powerpoint presentation) Questions:

- The list of instruments and the source of information of the implementation should be written down in the inception report. The importance of CAP was highlighted (cross compliance and rural development).

- The major aim of this task is to explore the antagonism en synergies of the different instruments and propose an effective way of implementing the Protocol of Gothenburg (ratified in June 2005) at EU level. .

- Habitat Directive might have impact on the spatial distribution of livestock in some member states. So, this directive should be explored qualitatively, but it has not to be included in the modeling.

4. Presentation of task 3 In-depth assessment of promising measures Peter Witzke presented the work of this task (see powerpoint presentation). Questions:

- Which costs are included: direct operation costs at farm level, NUTS-2. Hence, no costs associated with lost-life, ecosystem disturbance, human health effects, etc. Benefits will be expressed in terms of less ammonia emissions, less nitrate leaching, less nitrous oxide emissions, a.s.o.

- The additional aspect of this task should be more precise information about crops, farms, and livestock where measures can be implemented (where they are feasible) and effective.

- Klimont argued that there are some critical values below which certain measures will or can not be implemented. For example for farm size, soil depth, texture, etc. These critical values should be taken into account when making assessments of the potential effects of the implementation of measures. Witzke acknowledged that it might be possible to assess a maximum implementation rate in this way but referred to a slide by Oenema pointing out that actual implementation will always be lower due to farmers’ behaviour which only permits reasonable guesses (e.g. 50%?)

- It was noted that the implementation of measures have an effect on emission factors, which is generally ignored.

- Task 3 could include emission trading, but this needs to be discussed further. - Social impacts can be addressed only in a qualitative sense (interpretation). - What is the time horizon; current CAPRI simulation horizon is 2012, but is that sufficient for

impact assessment. It was agreed that this does not matter so much, as this contract is focused especially on differences between scenarios and on the effects of measures. Nevertheless, Sponar noticed that the NEC Directive has the horizon at 2020 and therefore, results have to be produced to allow comparison with the thematic strategy.

- Leip will contact Jean Dusart about the designation of the vulnerable zone. Action: Leip - Precise timing of the activities has to be included in the inception report. - Measures should be identified as soon as possible to allow discussion with DG ENV. These

measures have to be agreed upon.

60

5. Presentation of task 4 Impact Assessment of IPPC thresholds Gert-Jan Monteny presented the work in task 4 (see powerpoint presentation). Questions:

- The IPPC Directive will be fully implemented by October 2007. A review process has recently been launched which will evaluate the scope of the Directive. The IPPC Review will proceed through 2006 and will be concluded in 2007. An advisory group, with experts from member states, industry, NGO’s has been set up. Next meeting is in May 2006. The service contract and later the results will be presented in the advisory group. Action: Sponar and Paquot

- Concerning the strategy of information gathering, Monteny informed that the strategy is focused on farm size and number of animals, using data bases. Account needs to be taken of the evolution of the sector. He will also use his and other experts’ network on animal manure and livestock farming to be able to obtain information about the impacts of these farms. The methodology will be included in the inception report. The assessment will be made at the member state level (although it was mentioned that the spatial distribution of the farms has great impact, also in relation to NVZ’s). It was nevertheless acknowledged that providing detailed information on national implementation and legislation of the IPPC in a few MS familiar to the contractor would be a valuable contribution, as a systematic review of national implementation in 25 MS would be infeasible in this project and as the Directive provides some flexibility to the member states how to implement the Directive. (comment: preferably this detailed information should cover these countries where the ammonia problem is more serious according to the outcome of the RAINS/GAINS modelling)

- The CAFÉ process has identified that the cattle farms could be a possible options for the review of the directive. An important question is “what is the farm structure of the cattle farms and what should be the threshold?” There is no a priori idea about the opportunities and the implementation of thresholds for cattle farms. There are some member states that have implemented some BAT measures for cattle farms already. Hence, one of the objectives of this task is also to make an inventory about what is happening in the various member states already. Cattle rearing are an important source of ammonia, but there are big differences in terms of benefits of including cattle farms under IPPC between countries.

- The objective of task 4 is not to develop a detailed BAT. However, the effect of possible BAT’s should be assessed (explored) and therefore the Consortium has to develop a kind of basic requirements which could be included in possible BAT on the basis notably of existing MS legislation and other literature (like the guidance document from the CLRTAP convention) .

- Paquot will provide the contractor with the reports of the member states in which they report about the number of pig and poultry farms under the IPPC.

- Heavy metals: DG Health is involved in the metal content of the animal feed. Copper and Zinc contents in the animal feed have effects on the feed conversion ration and hence on the nitrogen use efficiency.

- Monteny indicated that multiphase air scrubbers are effective in decreasing the emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 from livestock farms. Klaas van den Hoek (RIVM) is involved in the assessment of PM emissions from agriculture.

- The in-depth assessment may be done quantitatively by using CAPRI, but this possibility should be explored further (depends on the share of farms under IPPC; when it only has local effect, then it not relevant for CAPRI-modeling on Nuts 2 level).

- Klimont informed that RAINS/GAINS assesses the implementation of the IPPC very simple, by making an assessment of the number of farms that fall under the Directive.

- The results of this task should feed in the RAINS/GAINS model. Some elements of this work should be included in the baseline preparation by RAINS/GAINS. The work on the baseline will be in principle completed in July 2006, but this will be discussed next week. Sponar will inform the Consortium about the exact deadlines. Action Sponar

- The initial views of the Commission were to broadly “test” 3 levels of thresholds for pig/poultry and cattle, and to decide together on the most appropriate possible threshold.

- The timing of the major events in the course of the contract was distributed. The decision was made that Gert-Jan Monteny will discuss proposals for thresholds/BAT requirements during

61

bilateral discussion with Paquot. These should then be put to the opinion of the study steering group. Action: Paquot and Monteny

6. Presentation of task 5 Stakeholder consultation, presentations and workshops. Oene Oenema presented the proposed work in task 5 (powerpoint presentation). Questions:

- EFMA should be included as stakeholder. - The existing working groups for consultation and dissemination of results will be used. Sponar

offered the possibility to organize jointly a technical workshop at DG ENV with DG AGRI about the results of the contract in the second part of 2006.

- Presentation in the Prague meeting can be done by Gert Jan Monteny. - Timetable should be updated and should comply with the contract. The timing of the stakeholder

meetings should be left open. 7. Other issues - Klimont argued that NO should also be included in the assessment? He suggested that there is recent literature that suggest that NOx is important. He will try to find the literature. Action Klimont. _ Sponar indicated that the issues raised during the discussion should be clarified further in the inception report. Action: Contractor - Sponar thanked the participants for their input and closed the meeting at 16.45. Oene Oenema

27th January 2006

63

Annex C. Minutes of trilateral meeting on Task 4 of the Integrated Measures Service Contract Date: Thursday, 16 March 2006 Present: Alexandre Paquot, Michel Sponar and Gert-Jan Monteny (notes) Paperwork discussed:

- Inventory of Eurostat data on size categories of pigs and poultry farms across EU-25 (with thresholds used by Eurostat)

- First suggestions for alternative, lowered thresholds (and a new one for cattle), including the number of IPPC farms from EPER and web-sources

The following points were discussed and/or decided:

1. Gert-Jan contacts Eurostat to ask for information about farm structure, using the current IPPC thresholds; if no success, Michel will contact them

2. Gert-Jan (or Alterra) checks with CAPRI and RAINS about their approach of the number of animals covered by current IPPC and the way they model IPPC implementation

3. Use officially submitted data on number of IPPC installations (and compare with EPER and web-sources)

4. Gert-Jan provides a good overview of current legislation in the MS and will check in his network (ready before May)

5. Gert-Jan (or the Alterra representative at IIASA) compares Emission Factors for NH3 in BAT/BREF document with EF used in CAPRI and RAINS

6. Central issue on short term is to calculate the ammonia emission (reduction) from IPPC installations; this can be done for the current situation (not all MS have permitted all IPPC farms, no policy change), and the ‘2010’ situation (100% compliance of existing and new installations; full BAT as provided in the BREF)

7. For these situations, also the other gaseous and water emissions need to be calculated on MS level (using MITERRA-EUROPE, RAINS); introduce in Project Team

8. Gert-Jan will analyze information to see how BAT/BREF is applied in different MS and how they use (and which) Emission Factors related to these BAT-systems

9. There is a need to check in the RAINS database to see how that model zooms in on sectors and BAT/BREF techniques (their application, categories of mitigation options etc.) Part of the added value of this work is to improve the knowledge on how IPPC directive is implemented in MS and make this knowledge available to RAINS.

10. Environmental permitting and control for cattle exists at least in Germany, France and Estonia (Gert-Jan will make an inventory – it is essential for the project that the overview is as complete as possible – it should also be assessed whether the existing legislation in the MS concerned are based on BAT); it is expected that any IPPC threshold for cattle could become in act around 2015

11. No need to deliver a full BREF for cattle, but an inventory will be made of potential BAT (notably based on existing BAT in countries where it is in force) and their environmental benefit (and economic impact)

12. Animal feeding: discuss in the project team how this can be promoted at EU level (N balance, MITERRA, instruments) - need to check how BAT on feeding (as determined in the BREF) are applied in real life

13. It would be interesting to see how CAP (CAP money) and Nitrates Directive (Code of Good Ag. Practice, Action Programmes) can be or are linked with IPPC

14. Costs of permitting process/permits and cost curves from UNECE/CLTRAP-Guide Book will become available (note: under UNECE an inventory is currently being made on costs associated with mitigation options)

15. Gert-Jan will present the project and the progress at future (broad) IPPC meetings, method will be presented at next meeting 23 May 2006.

16. In the first part of Task 4, 3 * 3 thresholds will be suggested. It is important to involve DG-Agri in the decision process. So, the suggested thresholds will be discussed with them, and further detailed work is conducted afterwards

64

17. The German IPPC threshold for cattle (250) is regarded as one possibilty No sure if young stock are involved or if the number refers to lactating cows + dry cows only. A higher threshold of 400 seems logic (cows + young stock). Comparison with existing thresholds of other animals could be useful (e.g. on the basis of N total production – good indicator of possible damages for environment)

18. Alternative thresholds for poultry could be: 40,000 for small animals and try to find equivalent numbers for larger animals (e.g. turkeys); also, 40,000 for bigger animals and find equivalent numbers for smaller animals (e.g. broilers)

19. Include evolution of agriculture and impact of size evolution on the possible number of IPPC permits. CAPRI should contains this information (horizon: 2020)

20. If possible, try to address the topic of WTO and impact on the environment (may be in Task 1 of the project)

21. About the Ammonia Conference: it would be interested to have a lecture on N cycle and broad impacts (including biodiversity)

22. Gert-Jan will ask by mail decision makers and policy makers to provide the organizing committee with the top-10 questions that need to be answered

65

Annex D. Declaration of confidentiality

DECLARATION The undersigned declares that (s)he will respect the confidentiality of any information which is linked, directly or indirectly, to the execution of the tasks under

Service Contract No 070501/2005/422822/MAR/C1- “Integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions”

and will not divulge to third parties or use for her/his own benefit or that of any third party any document or information not available publicly, even after completion of the tasks. _______________ Name: Oene Oenema Institution Alterra Date: 12 January, 2006

“SERVICE CONTRACT: INTEGRATED MEASURES IN AGRICULTURE...

Documents

Transcript of “SERVICE CONTRACT: INTEGRATED MEASURES IN AGRICULTURE...