NUTRIENTS

International, National or Local Regulations

To achieve a reduction of nutrient emissions from agriculture to surface waters, rivers, estuaries, shelves, seas and oceans, various recommendations or regulations have been instituted and some specific initiatives have been brought into action. Particular attention is given to watershed management (26, 61, 69, 151). Most of the adopted measures or regulations refer to specific rivers, estuaries, bights, and local or national coastal lines.

Under Agenda 21 of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992 (345), specific points for action for the protection of oceans and coastal areas aiming at a sustainable management of coastal ecosystems have been approved. The European Union has also proposed various measures to combat nitrogen pollution (303, 313).

International environmental targets have been set for e.g. the Baltic Sea (122) by the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) Declaration1988, requesting a significant reduction (e.g. 50%) of the nutrient load by 1995 (159, 164, 272). A similar option had been placed for the Oslo and Paris (OSPARCOM) Convention Waters (4).

The Paris Convention and Commission is part of an institutional framework established by governments to work towards the prevention of marine pollution in the Northeast Atlantic (371). However, neither the targets of the Declaration nor the ones set by the Convention, have been met. This is mainly due to an incomplete implementation of the recommended changes, in particular structural changes.

In Lithuania a Demonstration Watershed Project has been established, which focuses amongst other targets also on legislation activities (187). In Denmark a national Action Plan on Aquatic Environment had been launched in 1987, requesting a reduction of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) discharge by 50% and 80% respectively (162). However, a later monitoring showed that the measures were insufficient to reach this target. In 1997 an 'Action Plan on the Environment' was agreed upon. This plan maintained the old target and further outlined a list of measures through which this should be achieved (restoration of wetlands, groundwater protection areas - in line with EU-regulations - , reforestation, requirements on livestock density, improved fodder utilization, strict requirements for handling and application of animal manure, and others) (293). In addition, alternative strategies for reducing nitrogen (N) loading are also discussed here (297). The management of nitrate to protect water resources and the water environment has also be discussed in the UK (309). In Germany, the German Federal Maritime and Hydrology Agency (BSH) has carried out a survey of the characteristics of the German Bight in connection with the TUVAS and PRISMA projects (276). Steps have also been taken to reduce the nutrients load to the Black Sea (170). A policy specific to the Mediterranean zone aiming at reducing of coastal pollution has been adopted under MEDSPA (275).

In the U.S., the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) has got a legal mandate to control water pollution of lakes, rivers and estuaries from agricultural sources of phosphorus (P) (336). Under this mandate states are required to develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL).
Positive results have led to agricultural pollution abatement programmes at the Lake Erie Agro-ecosystem through careful nutrient management and conservation tillage (38). A successful model case is the recuperation of Chesapeake Bay (67). Strategies for reducing excessive nitrogen (N) release into the Mississippi river basin have been established by the USDA's Economic Research Service (238).

Publication (93) reports on the present state of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) regulation in Japan.

Referring to ammonia and NOx emissions from agriculture, (through the agricultural nitrogen (N) cycle), development guidelines have been given for national greenhouse gas inventory methodology (236) under the OECD/IPPC/IEA phase II.

Financial implications are of great importance in all pollution abatement programmes.
This is because agriculture can only be officially regulated through the combined use of regulatory, advisory and financial instruments. For Norway, the State Pollution Control Authority (SFT) has analysed several cost alternatives (127), according to the terms of the Ministerial Declaration on the Protection of the North Sea. Such cost analyses on reduction of nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea have also been made in Sweden (145, 271), as well as for agricultural non-point pollution abatement programmes in Florida (53).

However, apparently there seems to be no easy or cheap solution for pollution control which is also politically and socially acceptable (293), and the strict implementation of pollution reducing instruments may create differences between farmers and officials (313).