PROJECT DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND
An inventory and comparison of approaches in different countries to diffuse and dispersed pollution in surface water on the river basin scale can be an interesting exercise. The International Office for Water is in a priviledged position to gather information and involve public and private partners in such a exercise. This LIFE project was to involve an international river basin district, the Meuse and a river basin in Denmark, in the U.K., in Sweden and in Germany. The results of the comparisons were to be presented according to type of pollution and country, as follows: - National and river district basin objectives - Policies and measures implemented in the past, currently in place or planned for the future - Current understanding of the effects of policies and measures for diffuse pollution control - Past, present and future estimated costs - Overall efficiency of the measures evaluated - Characteristics of policies that are specific to one country - Characteristics common to several countries - Characteristics that can be shared by the European Union. The aim was to list, gather and describe the methods used in each river basin in order to provide the Commission and Member States with a comparison of the technical and economical characteristics of diffuse and dispersed pollution prevention and control in the case of each River Basin District, taking into account the targets, timescales and objectives set by the water managers in these Districts.
OBJECTIVES
The project aimed to make a comparative analysis of the policies for prevention and control of diffuse pollution in surface water implemented in seven countries (Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark). It was to focus on the problem of diffuse and dispersed pollution on the river basin scale. The sources of pollution covered in the study were to be: - agricultural pollution - rain and storm pollution and infrastructures - pollution due to scattered settlements not connected to a waste water treatment plant - pollution due to unconnected individual sewerage systems - scattered toxic wastes - atmospheric pollution - historical pollution involving ground water. For each kind of pollution, the study was to deal with: - The type of pollution considered by each State, national and/or river district basin, objectives and policies for pollution prevention and control, the measures taken to prevent or mitigate this pollution, the assessment methods used to evaluate pressures and states, relating to the of measures, the effectiveness and cost of pollution prevention and control measures. - The comparison with National standards to be met for each type of inventoried pollution, evolution or objectives of these standards, the methods used for carrying out surveys and analysis, present and estimated costs. The dissemination of results: The national methods used were to be systematically compared between the countries in order to list the convergences and divergences and to explain them during a workshop to be held with the national authorities in charge of water management in each country. The results will also be disseminated to the Meuse Commission and to all of the interstate organizations in Europe and to the countries participating in the study (Official bodies).
RESULTS
At the beginning of the project M. Jean DUCHEMIN, an expert from the technical Unit "Water" recommended to the beneficiary that the study should be confined to the main pollution sources. This inventory cannot be considered to be exhaustive but it gives a good idea as to the political approaches undertaken in these 6 countries, which differ in their environmental culture and their constraints (in particular, the population density). 1. Agriculture Agriculture is the most important source of diffuse pollution, except locally where polluted industrial sites, for example, are present. Nonetheless, the efforts carried out to improve the situation seem promising and must be intensified. Thus, planting buffer strips of vegetation between fields and rivers enables the impact of agricultural activity on the quality of the rivers to be reduced. Moreover, measures to inform and educate about improved management of fertilisation (mineral and organic), management of phytosanitary products, cultural techniques (planting cover crops in winter so as not to leave the soil bare during this period) adapted to the local situation are effective and in general positively perceived by the farmers to the extent that supportive measures have been implemented in the field with demonstrations of their efficiency through local pilot zones. The European Nitrate Directive led to a decrease in N fertilisation. However, compared to N, P is a lot less mobile in soil. It may therefore be easier to focus future measures on the limitation of nutrient surplus on P instead of N. One advantage would be an increased year-to-year comparability of results from soil nutrient analyses. Consequently, it would be easier to keep track of the efficiency of individual measures. The main problem of excessive nutrient use in most European Member States is that of manure application as a result of high livestock densities. With manure, the surplus of N fertilisation is likely to be reduced automatically when the P surplus is reduced. Introduction of maximum limits of N or P application per farm, or a maximum tolerated application per ha can be proposed. As the Swedish legislation initiative on P application with manure has shown, this will lead to a substantial reduction of nutrient surplus and will encourage farmers to increase the efficiency of nutrient use. 2. Individual household discharge and activities not connected to a public network Improved education of the population, including small craftsmen, can be beneficial. Thus, operations to collect the toxic waste from craft activities have been implemented in France and have achieved a degree of success. Although their efficiency with regard to the quality of surface waters has not clearly been quantified, these approaches provide an awareness of the risks to the environment of certain practices and also general information on the subject of solid or liquid waste, discharge, etc., and regarding the rights, duties and sources of assistance on the subject of the protection of the environment. By way of example, amateur gardeners in France are fast becoming greater polluters locally with regard to pesticides than the farmers themselves. In Germany, it is compulsory to sell phytosanitary products to individuals in a restricted area where information is available on their use. However, the opposite is true in France, where such products are sold at self-service outlets. The former method enables users to be made aware of the dangers, bearing in mind that they are also consumers of drinking water and thus directly affected by the preservation of the quality of surface and groundwater. 3. Historic pollution (old mines; old landfill, industrial and military sites) In order to describe the effects of soil pollution on the quality of surface water and groundwater, it is necessary to develop a European database. In order to minimise future problems it is recommended that all European countries implement legal regulations to prevent new pollution and to restore contaminated soil, define responsibilities and financing (for example the "polluter pays” principle) and provide technical guidelines. This will speed up the solution of the soil problem in Europe. Measures may be very effective but the effects cannot be demonstrated because the measures themselves are often not monitored. This monitoring can be improved or introduced by developing national databases for polluted sites. 4. Runoff water from the transport network, As regards storm and runoff water pollution, legislation, where it exists, and economic measures tend to concern another form of pollution with only indirect influences on runoff. There is no specific measure to prevent pollution from runoff water from impervious surfaces of the transport networks, except technical ones: either to reduce the amount of runoff, or to treat the runoff once it has been produced. 5. Pollution from wet and dry deposition Depending on levels of local atmospheric pollution, chemical monitoring of pollutants in the atmosphere and rainwater takes place in many countries and is seen as an important tool for setting priorities in the member states of the European Union. Ecological monitoring of lichens and mosses provides a more accurate assessment of the true impact of atmospheric pollutants and complements the chemical methods prescribed in the EU-guidelines and national laws. The use and development of these ecological methods should be encouraged. 6. Scattered toxic waste. Experience from Sweden, for example, shows that considerable progress can be made against pollution from scattered toxic waste if policy measures target the driving forces behind pollution problems instead of the resulting pressures and impacts. The project shows that considerable reductions in the use of toxic substances can be achieved without necessarily impeding business competitiveness. 7. Conclusion To conclude, an important aspect of this project is to prove that measures against diffuse and dispersed pollution have to be applied locally with the involvement of all the local participants to be effective, and must consider all the constraints of the local situation. Measures of close support, information supply and diffusion of the results obtained have to be developed in order to motivate those involved and increase the field of influence of the measures.