Dairy farmers are continuously accused of increasing nitrate levels in ground water. Ireland and Germany are big players in terms of EU dairying. So how does the nitrate monitoring work in Germany and how do the German results compare to Ireland?

How do other European countries do it? How do the measurements come together? Nitrates in water are measured in different ways around the world, depending on regulations and site limitations.

German measuring networks

To supervise the nitrate levels in groundwater, Germany installed numerous monitoring points all over the country. The individual states are responsible for the establishment and the operation of these monitors. The different monitoring networks use the data of the existing monitoring points. Every monitoring point has a different purpose. The monitoring network is divided into the European Environment Agency (EEA), the European Nitrate Monitoring Network (ENMN) and the European Water Framework Directive (EWFD).

EEA Monitoring Network

Its purpose is to give a general overview of the groundwater quality and give the European Environment Agency annual reports. The 1,215 measuring points all over the European Union are meant to include the distribution of the different usage of the landscape. All of the monitoring points record the data of influences such as settlements (9%), forest (30%), grassland (11%), farmland (45%), special crops (1%) as well as other areas (4%). This monitoring network is not directly in association with the agriculture per se, but it reports the general groundwater contamination.

EU-Nitrate Monitoring Network

All the monitoring points of this network are also part of the EEA Monitoring Network. But in contrast, the EU network is in direct association with agriculture. Using their data, every four years the European Commission rates how effective the sanctions of the action programme for nitrate policy are converted.

Germany and other countries including Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands and Ireland, voted in favor of the action programme in 1991 and decided to use it across the whole country. The EU’s Nitrate Policy demands that measuring networks are located in a way that there is a connection between measurements and the agricultural use at the measuring point.

The measurements are taken from the groundwater closest to the surface (that is 5m to 20m). At that depth the results of human interactions (the nitrate discharges from the usage of farm land) are evident. The deeper the measurements are taken, the bigger the influence of geological and hydrogeological effects (nitrate breakdown, the influence of seepage water and more). The effects of reducing bag nitrogen are more evident at the surface.

WFD Measuring Network

This measuring network concerns the WFD and became effective in the year 2000. Its purpose is to unite the European members into one regulatory framework for better groundwater conditions. It rates the different groundwater bodies for their nitrate pollution. This way it’s more useful to isolate problem areas for actions.

The measurement results of the WFD Measuring Network decide if the groundwater body is considered red (nitrate polluted) or green (less pollution). The rule of thumb is that if one-third of measuring points show more than 50mg/l nitrate, the groundwater body is labelled red, but since the one-third rule didn’t match the WFD guideline, the limit is extended to 20% of the measuring point/area. Whether or not a groundwater body is red is decided by the regional authorities every six years.

The WFD consists of 7,165 measuring points and therefore has a higher density than the EU Nitrate Measuring Network. All groundwater bodies have 4,892 overview measuring points. Additionally, there are 2,273 operative measuring points at locations with higher pollution. The majority of the EU Nitrate Measuring Points are also part of the WFD Measuring Network.

How big is the problem?

The results of the area and usage representative EUA-Measuring Network show the distribution of groundwater in Germany. The nitrate result in 2016 said that the biggest part of the measuring points (64.5%) have results of less 25mg/l nitrate. But in 2012-2014 18.1% of measuring points showed results of more than 50mg/l nitrate. The latest results show no change at 18.3%.

Of the 1,215 measuring points, 517 are not in agricultural usage (villages, forest and other). 5.7% of those exceed the guideline of 50mg/l.

The EUA-Measuring Network provides the data for the European Commission to rate the EG Nitrate Policy for agriculture.

The measurements of the new EU Nitrate Measuring Network had the results that 48.3% of the measuring points show nitrate concentration of less than 25mg/l. In the time between 2012 and 2014, 28% of the nitrate measuring points of the EU Nitrate Measuring Network exceeded the guideline of 50mg/l.

Of the 697 measuring points that are representing the EU Nitrate Measuring Network, 692 have data from the time between 2008-2012. This data shows nearly identical results (Figure 1) with 48% of the data points are below 25mg/l nitrate and 28% over 50mg/l nitrate.

In between those timelines there are nearly the same amount of measuring points where the average nitrate pollution strongly increased (16.3%) and decreased (15.9%). Nearly 40% of the measuring points show no change in the nitrate concentration.

The data of the WFD Measuring Network additionally showed that 27.1% of the groundwater bodies do not reach a good chemical condition. A groundwater body is considered as red/polluted when 20% of the area exceed the guideline of 50mg/l nitrate.

A look on the map shows that in the first place areas with a high usage of fertiliser are affected (Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and others). But intensive vegetable growing also contributes (Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg and others). In parts of Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt, the smaller amounts of rainfall cause nitrate problems in wheat growing areas because of the lack of dilution through the rain.

The bad results of the EU-Nitrate Measuring Network are the cause of the pressure on German agriculture. The European Commission rated the modification of the German Nitrate plan 2017 as not efficient enough to get the pollution problems under control. Germany has to improve.

Other European countries that already endured sanctions are keeping an eye on the European Commission’s sanctions on Germany. Germany’s results of 28% polluted measuring points are not remarkable in comparison to the European Union and its members (chart 3). Is it because of the different way of handling the situation in other countries?

How do other countries measure their nitrate content?

The nitrate guideline has general terms and conditions in regard to monitoring, but the responsibility of the regulation of the monitoring system (location of the measuring points, sampling, density, and more) lies within the individual member countries. The intensity of monitoring (monitoring density and the frequency of taking samples) are different in every country.

The inconsistency for some of the EU member states is shown in Table 1.

The average measuring network density in the European Union is eight stations/1000km². Germany is two stations below the average while countries such as Denmark, Austria or the Netherlands are far above the average.

In the time in between 2012 to 2015 13.2% of Europeans official measuring points had a nitrate content far above 50mg/l nitrate. As shown in Figure 2 there is a big difference between the EU member states as well. Ireland and Finland have little to no measuring points that exceed the guideline, caused by the agricultural structure of the countries. Whether or not the construction has any influence on it can hardly be judged. In Finland, the measuring points density is very low. In Germany and Spain, the 20% of measuring points that exceed the 50mg/l nitrate are giving a bad example.

What is the conclusion?

It should be the task of the European Union to improve the EG-Nitrate Policy and to force the member states to a uniform measuring system. The EU-WFD which became effective 10 years after the EG-Nitrate Policy, is further developed and more uniform.

Despite all the differences between the member states, it doesn’t really matter if they are all measuring in the same way. More important is that the measuring network is representative for the agricultural structure of the country and that the data is consistently collected and evaluated.

EU Chaos is no excuse

In some regions Germany has a big nitrate problem. Seemingly this is caused by intensive fertiliser use, intensive vegetable cultivation or lack of dilution in dry areas. Something has to change in Germany.

In the European Union there is no uniform procedure. That arouses suspicion that some of the member states are constructing the nitrate network to their advantage. This suspicion should be removed by the European Union through a uniform system. Competitive distortion is a big issue through different farming regulations. Our neighbours have had this concern for years.

The results of the representative measuring network show 28% of measuring points that have more than 50mg/l nitrate have seen no visible improvement since 2008. The EU will only stop pressuring Germany when this amount noticeable wanes.

Global environmental challenges and impacts on dairy farming will be discussed on all three stages at Dairy Day 2019 with speakers from the Department of Agriculture, The Irish Farmers Journal, Teagasc and overseas.