General enquiries on this form should be made to:
Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,
Telephone No. 020 7238 1612
E-mail:
[email protected]
SID 5

Research Project Final Report
Note
In line with the Freedom of Information
Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results
of its completed research projects in the
public domain wherever possible. The
SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is
designed to capture the information on
the results and outputs of Defra-funded
research in a format that is easily
publishable through the Defra website. A
SID 5 must be completed for all projects.
A SID 5A form must be completed where
a project is paid on a monthly basis or
against quarterly invoices. No SID 5A is
required where payments are made at
milestone points. When a SID 5A is
required, no SID 5 form will be accepted
without the accompanying SID 5A.


This form is in Word format and the
boxes may be expanded or reduced, as
appropriate.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The information collected on this form will
be stored electronically and may be sent
to any part of Defra, or to individual
researchers or organisations outside
Defra for the purposes of reviewing the
project. Defra may also disclose the
information to any outside organisation
acting as an agent authorised by Defra to
process final research reports on its
behalf. Defra intends to publish this form
on its website, unless there are strong
reasons not to, which fully comply with
exemptions under the Environmental
Information Regulations or the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.
Defra may be required to release
information, including personal data and
commercial information, on request under
the Environmental Information
Regulations or the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. However, Defra will
not permit any unwarranted breach of
confidentiality or act in contravention of
its obligations under the Data Protection
Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents
may use the name, address or other
details on your form to contact you in
connection with occasional customer
research aimed at improving the
processes through which Defra works
with its contractors.
SID 5 (2/05)
Project identification
1.
Defra Project code
2.
Project title
ES0102
EUROHARP (UK) - Evaluating national methods for
quantifying diffuse nutrient losses from land to water
bodies
3.
Contractor
organisation(s)
ADAS Ltd
Woodthornw
Wergs Road
Wolverhampton
WV6 8TQ
UK
54. Total Defra project costs
5. Project:
Page 1 of 6
£
246,744
start date ................
01 January 2002
end date .................
31 March 2006
6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form.
Please confirm your agreement to do so. ................................................................................... YES
NO
(a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They
should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project
which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.
Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property
or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be
disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published)
so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report
without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and
section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No"
answer.
In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the
Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain
Executive Summary
7.
The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the
intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together
with any other significant events and options for new work.
SID 5 (2/05)
Page 2 of 6
The implementation of the Water Framework Directive calls for harmonised methodologies to quantity
nutrient losses from diffuse sources. Experiences gained from reporting on quantitative nutrient losses
from land to the Maritime Area at European level, and the development of the OSPAR HARP-NUT
Guidelines, have highlighted the need for reliable and comparative quantification tools. Furthermore, the
lack of transparency in national reporting led OSPAR in 2000 to call for an intercomparison study of
catchment scale nutrient pollution models focused on methods for estimating losses from diffuse sources.
EUROHARP fulfilled this need for such a scientific evaluation via a EC Framework V study involving 21
partners testing 9 representative nutrient pollution tools used for policy support across a network of
catchments covering a north-south gradient in climate, hydrology, soils, and land use. The main objective
was a detailed evaluation of model performance, strengths and weaknesses, and ranges of applicability.
Model performance was assessed against measured data by an expert group charged with estimating the
magnitude of in-river retention processes. As developers of policy support tools focusing on the effects of
land use management on nutrient pollution to water bodies, ADAS played a key role as leader of one of
six Work Packages in the EC project. Matching Defra funding supporting the UK work focused on the
application and evaluation of the Defra-funded EveNFlow daily nitrate leaching model (developed from
historic Defra projects NT2201-3, and a precursor to the model being developed under NIT18), and
monthly PSYCHIC phosphorus loss model (Defra projects PE0202 and PE0207). Within this project,
ADAS applied these two models to a total of six test catchments across Europe, three of which served as
“core” catchments allowing a more detailed analysis of model performance. These “core” catchments
were the Vansjø-Hobøl (Norway), the Yorkshire Ouse (England) and the Enza (Italy) which represented a
broad north-south gradient in European climate.
Outputs from EUROHARP included (i) a detailed review of the selected models, including their level of
process representation and temporal and spatial resolution; (ii) scrutiny of model performance on different
catchments and compared to other models; (iii) assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of
different model formulations; (iv) analysis of the suitability and applicability of different models for
contrasting catchment typologies and policy purposes; (v) estimates of in-river nutrient retention; and (vi)
the development of an electronic toolbox summarising results in a form accessible to end-users and
considering factors including models’ cost-effectiveness.
The model review revealed that only four out of the nine models studied were capable of subannual
outputs, and this inevitably imposes restrictions on the use of the remainder to simpler “screening” type
policy tools for identifying and quantifying losses from higher risk areas. In contrast, the subannual
models, including EveNFlow and PSYCHIC could also be used to explore seasonal effects on flows,
concentrations and loads, while the daily timestep of EveNFlow also permitted the estimation of
exceedance of water quality thresholds (e.g. associated with the Nitrates Directive).
Results revealed that overall, no single model appeared consistently superior in its ability to represent the
variations in observed flows, concentrations and loads across all European catchments. However, it was
possible to compare performance between models on the same catchment, and between applications of
the same model on different catchments. In addition, the nested approach adopted in the model
application methodology ensured that model performance between individual subcatchments could be
considered (as subcatchments differ in their climate, soils, topography, land use and hydrology).
Focusing specifically on the Defra-funded models, EveNFlow generally performed well in the test
catchments, and compared to the other models was associated with the best (i.e. smallest root mean
squared error) performance in subannual outputs for dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) concentrations in
the English and Italian catchments. Model performance differed between subcatchments with, for
example, in the Norwegian catchment EveNFlow and NL-CAT were the best performing models above
lake Vansjø but TRK was the best performing model at the main catchment outlet below this lake. This
reflects the differing capabilities of the models tested and, in this case, the fact that EveNFlow does not
include a function for considering the temporal lag and nutrient retention effects associated with large
deep lakes and reservoirs. Mean annual loads predicted by PSYCHIC on a long-term climatic basis were
also encouraging, usually lying within the range reported in measured annual data. The exception to this
promising performance was for applications by all models to the Greek catchment. Experience in
EUROHARP has shown that, across different European countries, the most common limiting factors
constraining model performance were poor characterisation of point source inputs or hydrology (e.g.
Greece), limited or absent information on the location and management of agricultural livestock (e.g. Italy,
Greece, Czech republic), and the relative experience and key assumptions made by the modellers
themselves (e.g. inappropriate retention functions used in SWAT model).
From a Defra perspective, EUROHARP has shown that the EveNFlow and PSYCHIC models have proved
SID 5 (2/05)
Page 3 of 6
capable of generally good performance in modelling flows, nutrient concentrations and loads in five out of
the six test catchments considered in this study, including catchment environments with frozen soils and
snowmelt processes (Norway), and situations with significant in-river retention (but not lake and reservoir
retention). Results also showed that EveNFlow and PSYCHIC can be successfully applied to catchments
where agricultural practices contrast markedly with the UK situation (e.g. widespread lagooning of pig
slurry reduces N available for leaching in the Italian Enza), and this adaptability conveys significant
benefits by demonstrating that these models have the flexibility required for policy support purposes,
including tasks investigating the impact of catchment management scenarios.
Outputs have included five newsletters for end-users (scientists and those responsible for implementing
and evaluating environmental policy in government and associated agencies); a total of 19 EUROHARP
project reports covering different aspects of the project (model review, modelling approaches, in-river
retention estimates and trend analyses etc); annual and final project reports to Defra and the EC; and a
total of 15 papers summarising various cross-cutting aspects of model performance submitted to a special
issue of Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences (HESS). ADAS are one of the first three authors on two
EUROHARP reports and five HESS papers. In addition, ADAS have submitted a separate paper on the
EveNFlow modelling methodology, and two further ADAS papers are planned covering the results from
the EveNFlow and PSYCHIC applications to the six test catchments. The resulting total of eight refereed
publications (see Section 9) is therefore double that in the original project proposal submitted to Defra. A
spin-off of specific benefit to policy support has been the direct use of the outputs from EUROHARP to
develop a revised OSPAR HARP-NUT Guideline 6 on quantifying diffuse nutrient losses form land to
surface water systems. This new development includes guidance on model selection, model limitations
and performance assessment, and was undertaken by a scientific working group of the OSPAR
Eutrophication committee which included the leaders of EUROHARP Work Packages 3 (Alterra,
Netherlands), 4 (ADAS, UK) and 5 (NERI, Denmark).
Further research is needed to improve the confidence in the net effect of retention of nutrients in surface
water systems used in EveNFlow and PSYCHIC models, and to better simulate situations with significant
contributions from deep and shallow groundwaters. In addition, as agricultural loads cannot be easily
verified due to uncertainty in point sources and retention, increased confidence in using model results for
policy support purposes requires (i) that existing strategic monitoring is supported by more “nested”
monitoring in order to quantify agricultural loads in test micro-catchments (for example, by extending the
valuable dataset developed under the Defra-funded NVZ monitoring/modelling study NIT18), and (ii)
greater awareness of the importance of the expert judgement of the modeller with respect to missing data
(as model performance is a combination of model and modeller).
Project Report to Defra
8.
As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with
details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and
to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or
Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also
seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other
journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms.
The report to Defra should include:
 the scientific objectives as set out in the contract;
 the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met;
 details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate);
 a discussion of the results and their reliability;
 the main implications of the findings;
 possible future work; and
 any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).
SID 5 (2/05)
Page 4 of 6
References to published material
9.
This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other
published material generated by, or relating to this project.
SID 5 (2/05)
Page 5 of 6
Project website: http://www.euroharp.org The reports below may be downloaded from this website.
EUROHARP project newsletters:
EUROHARP newsletters #1 - #5 (2003-2005)
EUROHARP project report series:
EUROHARP Report #1 (2003) Schoumans, O.F. & Silgram, M. (eds.), 2003. "Review and literature
evaluation of quantification tools for the assessment of nutrient losses at catchment scale.
EUROHARP report 1-2003, NIVA report SNO 4739-2003, ISBN 82-557-4411-5, Oslo, Norway, 120 pp
EUROHARP Report #8 (2004) Silgram, M., & Schoumans, O.F. (eds.), 2004. Modelling approaches:
Model parameterisation, calibration and performance assessment methods in the EUROHARP project.
EUROHARP report 8-2004, NIVA report SNO 4740-2003, ISBN: 82-577-4491-3, Oslo, Norway, 18 pp
EUROHARP Reports #2-#7, #10, #11-#19 (2003-2005) Kronvang et al. Trend analysis, nutrient retention
and source apportionment in individual EUROHARP catchments:
Nutrient retention software for lakes and rivers:
EUROHARP Report 9-2004: Kronvang, B., Hezlar, J., Boers, P., Jensen, J.P., Behrendt, H., Anderson, T.,
Arheimer, B., Venohr, M. & Hoffmann, C.C. , 2004. Nutrient Retention Handbook. Software Manual for
EUROHARP-NUTRET and Scientific review on nutrient retention, EUROHARP report 9-2004, NIVA
report SNO 4878/2004, Oslo, Norway, 103 pp. (Nutret_software.zip)
Papers submitted to a special issue of Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences (HESS):
1. Quantification of nutrient losses from diffuse sources- the EUROHARP project contributions towards
harmonisation of approaches
2. Relationship between basin characteristics and nutrient losses through the Euroharp catchment
network
3A. EUROHARP Quantification tools - Intercomparison of nutrient loss quantification tools
3B. EUROHARP Quantification tools - Applicability of nine contemporary nutrient quantification
tools across Europe
4. Evaluation of nine quantification tools to assess diffuse annual nutrient losses
5. Estimating sub-annual nutrient losses to surface waters: an intercomparison of modelling tools
6. Nutrient retention in surface waters: Intercomparison of model results and development of the
EUROHARP Retention Tool
7. Data availability/quality throughout Europe from a modelling perspective- the case of EUROHARP
8. Nutrient state and sources in European catchments: Outcome of load partitioning methods
9. The value of calibration: model performance in catchments with limited data
10. Scenario analyses - models’ potential for assisting in RBMPs
11. Agriculture scenarios- socio-economic implications in Zelivka and Enza
12. Identification of priority agricultural areas across Europe which are likely to present a potential for
water pollution due to phosphorus losses
13. Use of a complex integrated approach to locate priority agricultural areas across Europe which are
likely to present a potential for water pollution due to nitrogen losses and to design management
practices able to reduce nitrogen pollution
14. Northern European condition and a ‘Southern’ nutrient model- Runoff and nutrient losses during winter
periods in cold climates
15. The EUROHARP Toolbox- choices, structure and specifications. The European dimension of the
EUROHARP Toolbox- a future role as a policy support tool? Perspectives
Defra’s matching funding is responsible for ADAS leading papers 5 and 9 and being a significant (i.e.
second or third) co-author on papers 3A, 3B and 4. This, together with the ADAS-only papers described
below, means this total of eight papers is double the CSG7 Milestone of four refereed papers.
ADAS-only papers
Anthony, S.G., Fawcett, L., Silgram, M. and Collins, A.L. 2006. EveNFlow: catchment river water quality
modelling for policy support. Submitted to Hydrological Processes.
Two further papers are planned on catchment applications of the EveNFlow and PSYCHIC models.
Posters and conference presentations
A total of 17 presentations (see project website), exceeding the CSG7 target of six. In addition:
Silgram, M. 2006. EUROHARP – contrasting P loss methodologies. Defra P coordination meeting, Jul 06.
SID 5 (2/05)
Page 6 of 6