The Role of River Basin Management Plans in
in addressing diffuse pollution from agriculture
to limit the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea
National Report of Estonia
Marit Sall, Kaja Peterson and Piret Kuldna
Proposed reference: Sall, M., Peterson, K., Kuldna, P. 2012. The Role of River Basin
Management Plans in addressing diffuse pollution from agriculture to limit the
eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. National Report of Estonia. Baltic Compass project,
SEI Tallinn, 110p.
Disclaimer: The content of this report reflects the opinions of the authors.
https://www.balticcompass.org
Stockholm Environment Institute Tallinn Centre
Lai Street 34
Tallinn 10133
Estonia
Tel: +372 6 276 100
Web: www.seit.ee
2
List of Abbreviations
AU
–
Animal unit
CAP
–
Common Agricultural Policy
CF
–
Cohesion Fund of the European Union
DRE
–
Directive of Renewable Energy
EEK
–
Estonian Kroon (former currency valid up to 31 December,
2010)
EU
–
European Union
HELCOM
–
Intergovernmental commission established for implementation
of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment
of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Commission)
IPPC
–
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
MS
–
Member State of the European Union
N
–
Nitrogen
ND
–
Nitrate Directive
NDP
–
National Development Plan
NVZ
–
Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
P
–
Phosphorus
PoM
–
Programme of Measures
RDP
–
Rural Development Plan
RBPM
–
River Basin Management Plan
SBS
–
State Budget Strategy
SRBMP
–
Sub-River Basin Management Plan
WFD
–
Water Framework Directive
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 6
PART I .......................................................................................................................... 8
1. AIMS OF THE STUDY........................................................................................... 8
2. OBJECTIVES OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS AND
INTEGRATION WITH OTHER POLICIES ........................................................... 9
2.1. Purpose and objectives of River Basin Management Plans ........................................... 9
2.2. Integration of other policies into River Basin Management Plans ............................... 12
2.3. Other related documents developed to ensure water quality ........................................ 15
2.4. Process of drafting River Basin Management Plans .................................................... 16
3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY ................................. 19
4. AGRICULTURAL MEASURES IN THE PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES
(PoMs) ......................................................................................................................... 21
4.1. Agricultural measures in the East-Estonia River Basin Management Plan ................. 21
4.2. Agricultural measures in the West-Estonia River Basin Management Plan ................ 24
4.3. Agricultural measures in the Koiva River Basin Management Plan ............................ 27
4.4. Share of agricultural measures in all River Basin Management Plans......................... 28
4.5. Allocation of funds for agricultural measures among different categories of measures
in river basins ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.6. Allocation of funds for agricultural measures in different categories in sub-river basins
............................................................................................................................................. 31
4.7. Share of cost of agricultural measures addressing diffuse pollution in River Basin
Management Plans .............................................................................................................. 33
5. MANAGEMENT OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS .................... 37
6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 38
PART II....................................................................................................................... 40
1. AIMS OF THE CASE STUDY ............................................................................. 40
2. MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DIFFUSE POLLUTION IN
PANDIVERE AND ADAVERE – PÕLTSAMAA NITRATE VULNERABLE
ZONE .......................................................................................................................... 41
2.1. Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone territory ......................... 41
2.1.1. Pandivere and Adavere - Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone natural conditions 42
2.1.2. Pandivere and Adavere - Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone socio-economic
conditions........................................................................................................................ 44
2.2. Management of the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone ............................................................... 47
2.3. Status of water bodies in the Pandivere and Adavere – Põltsamaa nitrate vulnerable
zone ..................................................................................................................................... 49
2.4. Measures to limit pollution from agriculture ............................................................... 53
2.4.1. Regulations ........................................................................................................... 54
2.4.2. Sub-river Basin Management Plan Programme of Measures ............................... 56
2.4.3. Estonian Rural Development Plan measures ........................................................ 59
2.5. Discussion of the problems .......................................................................................... 63
3. FARMERS` PERCEPTIONS OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION IN THE PILOT AREA .................................................................. 66
4
3.1. General data on farmers’ perceptions of water and environmental protection ............ 66
3.2. Farmers attitudes towards water protection and impact of agricultural practices in
Pandivere and Adavere – Põltsamaa nitrate vulnerable zone ............................................. 68
3.2.1. Objectives of the survey ....................................................................................... 68
3.2.2. Data and Methods ................................................................................................. 68
3.2.3. Analysis of the results ........................................................................................... 73
3.2.4. Results of the farmers’ survey .............................................................................. 74
4. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SURVEY RESULTS ......................................... 94
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT............................................................................... 97
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 99
ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 105
5
INTRODUCTION
The Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water
policy, in short Water Framework Directive (WFD), came into force in the year
2000. It gives the EU Member States (MS) an opportunity to plan and deliver an
improved water environment, focussing on ecological systems.
The Directive is designed to protect and enhance the quality of surface freshwater
(including lakes, streams and rivers), groundwater, groundwater-dependent
ecosystems, as well as estuaries and coastal waters up to one nautical mile from the
baseline (EC, 2000).
WFD requires all MS to manage the water environment to consistent standards. Each
country is obliged to:
Prevent deterioration in the status of aquatic ecosystems, and protect and
improve the ecological condition of all waters;
Aim to achieve as a minimum of “good” status for all water bodies by 2015.
Where this is not possible and subject to the criteria set out in the Directive,
the aim should be to achieve “good” status by either 2021 or 2027;
Meet the requirements of WFD-protected areas;
Promote the sustainable use of water as a natural resource;
Conserve habitats and species that depend directly on water;
Progressively reduce or phase out the release of individual pollutants or
groups of pollutants that present a significant threat to the aquatic
environment;
Progressively reduce the pollution of groundwater and prevent or limit the
entry of pollutants;
Contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.
The WFD sets out the requirement for MS to develop River Basin Management
Plans (RBMPs) for planning and implementing measures to improve water quality
(Article 13 of WFD). River Basin Management Plans are drawn up for river
basin districts across each of the MS. River Basin Management Plans are aimed at
protecting and improving the water environment and have been developed in
consultation with various organisations and individuals. These plans contain the
general description of the characteristics of the river basin districts, a summary of the
significant pressures and human impact on the status on the water environment,
environmental objectives to improve the status of water bodies and an action plan
(termed a Programme of Measures or PoM) for achieving these objectives. The
RBMP sets out which improvements are viable by 2015 and how those actions will
6
make a difference to the local environment – the catchment areas, estuaries and coasts
and groundwater systems.
The River Basin Management Plan focuses on the protection, improvement and
sustainable use of the water environment. River basin management is the approach
which responsible agencies are using to ensure that the combined efforts achieve the
improvement needed in the river basin district concerned. River basin management is
a continuous process of planning and delivery. The WFD introduces a formal series of
evaluation and reporting in six year cycles. The first cycle will end in 2015 when,
following further planning and consultation, the plan will be updated and reissued.
The current study comprises two parts. Part I addresses the objectives and
implementation of the WFD and the River Basin Management Plans, in particular, in
Estonia. Part II provides the results of the survey of farmers’ perceptions of
implementation of the water protection measures in a nutrient sensitive area in Central
Estonia. Both parts of the study provide insights to the political agenda of water
protection and the practical implementation of the measures to achieve these
objectives.
7
PART I
1. AIMS OF THE STUDY
The objective of this study is to outline the role and priorities of RBMPs in limiting
agricultural pollution, with special reference to diffuse pollution in Estonia. To
accomplish this, the planned measures, associated to limit pollution from agriculture
in the RBMPs were analyzed. Study analyzes measures and the respective budgets
allocated in RBMPs. More specifically, the following questions were raised:
1. What are the objectives and priorities of RBMPs?
2. To what extent are the RBMPs integrated with other policies that address
water protection and the eutrophication of water bodies?
3. Which measures within the PoM can be classified as agricultural measures?
4. What is the share of budget to be allocated to agricultural measures in RBMPs
both individually and in total?
5. How is the budget of agricultural measures divided between measures
contained in the PoM of RBMPs both individually and in total?
6. How is the budget of agricultural measures divided between the measures in
the PoM of Sub-River Basin Management Plans (SRBMPs) both individually
and in total?
7. What is the share of cost allocated to reduce diffuse pollution in both RBMPs
and SRBMPs?
8. What is the structure, and what are the roles of actors, in the management of
RBMPs?
The study draws conclusions concerning the priorities of RBMPs and addresses the
role of RBMPs in combating diffuse pollution.
8
2. OBJECTIVES OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
PLANS AND INTEGRATION WITH OTHER POLICIES
2.1. Purpose and objectives of River Basin Management Plans
According to the WFD and the Water Act (Veeseadus, 1994), measures for water
protection are planned in the water management plans of a river basin or sub-river
basins. A river basin or a sub-river basin is an area of land or water within a circular
boundary which is made up of one or more catchment areas together with
groundwater or coastal waters and which is designated as the primary unit for the
management of catchment areas. With the Regulation of the Government of the
Estonian Republic no. 132 of 9 September, 2010, Estonian territory is divided into
3 river basin districts (East-Estonia, West-Estonia and Koiva), and 8 sub-river
basins. The East-Estonia river basin district is divided into 3 sub-rivers basins
(namely the Peipsi, Võrtsjärve and Viru sub-river basins), the West-Estonian river
basin district is divided into 4 sub-river basins (namely the Harju-, Pärnu, Matsalu and
Läänesaarte sub-river basins) whereas the Koiva river basin district is not divided into
any sub-river districts. There is, however, 1 sub-river basin – the Pandivere
groundwater sub-river basin, which straddles both the West-Estonian (which
constitutes 35 per cent of its area) and East-Estonian (65 per cent of its area) river
basin districts. The map of Estonian river basins and sub-river basins is shown in
Figure 1, and serves to clarify this apportioning of river basins and sub-basins.
Figure 1. Estonian river basins and sub-river basins (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010c).
9
Since the aim of WFD is to achieve at least good status for all water bodies by 2015,
all water bodies must be classified according to the status classes (high, good,
moderate, poor, bad). “Body of surface water” means a discrete and significant
element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a
stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water (2000/60/EC).
Thus, surface water bodies are descrete sections or parts of water bodies, which differ
from each other in specific natural characteristics, the nature of the impact of human
activity, or any other significant and distinguishable parameters (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010c). All rivers with a river basin over 10 km2 and lakes with an area
over 50 ha were considered for the purpose of establishing and identifying surface
water bodies. According to the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment No 44,
there are 95 lake water bodies, 639 river water bodies and 16 coastal water bodies in
Estonia (Pinnaveekogumite moodustamise..., 2009).
4%
9%
High
Good
34%
Moderate
53%
Poor
Bad
Figure 2. The share of natural and heavily modified
lake water bodies in the Estonian sub river basins
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010a; 2010b;2010c).
Following figures describe the status
of water bodies in the year 2009.
Lake water bodies, which have been
assessed in Estonia are mostly in
good condition: 4% are in high and
53% are in good status (Figure 2).
However 34% of them are in
moderate and 9% in poor status. At
the same time, none of the surface
water bodies in the river basin
districts is in bad status.
Yet the situation with river water bodies is not the same. There are 639 river water
bodies in Estonia and it can be said that the status of 1% of the Estonian river water
bodies is high and 74% of them are in good status (Figure 3). Only one coastal water
body,
namely
the
Matsalu
Bay,
is
in
poor
status,
4
of
them are in good and the rest 11 are in moderate status (Figure 4).
Figure 3. The share of natural and heavily modified river water bodies in the Estonian sub-river basins
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010a; 2010b; 2010c).
*Mustjõe sub-river basin equals Koiva river basin territory
10
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Poor
Moderate
Good
Matsalu
Viru
Pärnu
Harju
Läänesaarte
Figure 4. The status of costal water bodies (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010a; 2010b; 2010c).
RBMPs include:
Information related to surface- and groundwater;
An overview of significant human impacts on surface- and groundwater;
Information concerning protected areas;
The status of water bodies;
Objectives for water body protected areas;
A summary of the economic analysis of water use;
Programme of Measures (PoM);
A summary of compliance with legislation;
Implementation of the principle of cost recovery;
Ensuring the availability of high-quality drinking water;
Water abstraction and the damming of water;
A summary of measures;
A list of cases where direct emission into groundwater are permitted;
A list of other programmes and plans;
The publication of management plans.
The PoM in RBMPs and SRBMPs describes measures for achieving a “good” status
of water and for ensuring a safe aquatic environment for all inhabitants and
favourable conditions for the biota that depend on water. The programme comprises
both principal (or basic) and additional measures. The PoMs of river basins are
designed based on previous studies and on the PoMs developed for sub-river basins.
The cost of measures contained within PoMs is indicative and will be adjusted
according to construction prices (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010a).
Estonian RBMPs are guided by integrated principles of river basin management,
taking into consideration all the factors which may affect water bodies.
11
The PoMs of a river basin district reflect expenses which are necessary to ensure the
“good” status of water bodies. Programmes of Measures focus on 7 categories of
measures as follows:
1. Reconditioning and development of drinking water systems;
2. Reconditioning of sources of point source pollution;
3. Reduction of diffuse source pollution;
4. Maintaining the quality and reserves of groundwater;
5. Improvement of surface water bodies;
6. Improvement of coastal water;
7. Management of the Management Plan and organisation of implementation
(Administration of the RBMP in question).
The potential impact of human activities is assessed in terms of individual pressure
factors that hinder the achievement of the desired “good” water status. According to
the Estonian RBMPs there are eight significant pressure factors: wastewater, residual
pollution, agriculture, population without a sewerage system, land reclamation (i.e.
drainage) impoundments, extraction of mineral resources and internal load.
Furthermore, the increasing importance of some pressure factors, such as agriculture,
impoundments and the extraction of mineral resources, is deemed to be a trend in
water management issues. It has been noted, that objects, which have a significant
impact on the environment, must first be in compliance with environmental norms,
regardless of the water status.
According to the 3 Estonian RBMPs (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010a; 2010b; 2010c),
the current significant environmental problems associated with the water quality in
the river basin areas are:
Collection and treatment of waste water and rain water.
Release of pollutants from landfills and other areas contaminated with
hazardous substances.
Agricultural diffuse source and point source pollution load.
Accidents at sea.
Physical modification of water bodies (e.g. drainage, impoundments and
dams, extraction of bottom sediments and the dredging of waterways).
Abstraction of water for human and industrial consumption.
Water discharge, drainage, loss of existing water bodies and the creation of
new water bodies in connection with the extraction of mineral resources.
These problems are considered of equal importance and are not prioritized within the
RBMPs.
2.2. Integration of other policies into River Basin Management Plans
In order to achieve the goal of the WFD, it is necessary to integrate water protection
policy with other policies to ensure consistency with EU environmental policy.
Therefore it is important to apply a common approach to RBMPs and to find possible
synergies between them to successfully implement the PoMs and achieve the general
goal of water protection. Unlike many previous “command and control” directives,
12
the WFD establishes a new integrated approach. The RBMPs are based on natural
geographical and hydrological formations of water, not on national or administrative
boundaries. Implementation of the plans also requires coordination of different EU
policies (e.g. CAP, Natura 2000), creating a framework for EU water policy and is
complemented by other legislation regulating specific aspects of water use in different
sectors.
Other directives and nature conservation policies requirements that have been taken
into account in the Estonian RBMPs in order to achieve “good” water status:
Drinking water quality is required to be adapted to the Drinking Water Directive
(98/83/EC). Therefore adequate measures need to be integrated into an RBMP
PoM. These measures are reflected under “Reconditioning and development of
drinking water systems” category of PoM and can be found in Annex I of this
paper.
RBMPs need to be in compliance with the Urban Waste Water Directive
(91/27/EEC) and Directive concerning Sewage Sludge (86/278/EEC). Appropriate
measures can be found under the category of “Limitation of point pollution” of
PoM, listed in Annex I of this paper.
The Nitrates Directive (ND) (91/676/EEC) is implemented mostly through
measures for the reconditioning of livestock farms, but also via measures for
limiting diffuse pollution, and these are listed under the category “Reconditioning
of sources of point source pollution; and “Reduction of diffuse source pollution” of
the PoM (see Tables 3 to 8 of this paper).
The elimination of residual pollution is compulsory under several Directives
(76/464/EEC; 86/280/EEC; 80/68/EEC), aiming to limit the spreading of
hazardous substances into water bodies. An example of measures to eliminate
residual pollution is reflected under the category “Reconditioning of sources of
point source pollution” of PoM listed in Annex I of this paper.
Directive of Assessment and Management of Flood Risk (2007/60/EC) is also
integrated into RBMPs with measures reducing flood risks in coastal areas (see
Annex I of this study).
Nature conservation is regulated at the EU level by Council Directive on the
Conservation of Wild Birds (the “Birds Directive”) (79/409/EEC) and by Council
Directive on the conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the
“Habitats Directive”) (92/43/EEC). The protection of species and habitats of
European importance is organised through the establishment of Natura 2000
network of protected areas in Estonia. Since the raison d'être of the RBMPs is to
achieve “good” water status, which entails both “good” chemical and ecological
statuses, measures to conserve wild fauna and flora are of the utmost importance.
The direct measures implemented to support habitat conservation are (see also
Annex I of this paper):
a) Maintenance and improvement of the status of river bodies, including
ensuring fish passage through impoundments;
b) Conservation of valuable parts of rivers as natural habitats;
c) Projects to improve ecological status of water bodies.
The High Nature Value (HNV) farming concept describes those types of farming
activity and farmland which, due to their characteristics, can be expected to
13
support high levels of biodiversity or species and habitats of conservation.
Dominant characteristics of HNV farming are its low-intensity, the presence of
semi-natural vegetation and a high diversity of land cover (in a “mosaic” pattern).
Semi-natural land cover, ranging from hay meadows to wood pastures and heaths,
is the most widespread type. These farmlands may also function as buffer strips to
reduce pollution-load being transferred from agricultural land to water bodies.
Therefore, in order to protect and enhance natural resources and landscapes in rural
areas, an adequate supporting system is being developed under Rural Development
Plan (RDP) Axis II. However, these measures are not yet integrated with any of the
Estonian RBMPs.
The goal of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP)
is to achieve a “good” environmental status for the Baltic Sea by 2021. As landbased activities account for most of the marine pollution through rivers, attaining
“good” ecological status in inland waters (including coastal waters) will help to
protect the open sea. HELCOM’s annual reduction target level for Estonia is 220 t.
of phosphorus and 900 t. of nitrogen. Thus national quantitative objectives for the
reduction of nitrate and phosphorus loads in the inland water bodies should be
included in the RBMPs. Most of the measures limiting nutrient pollution are
included in point- and diffuse pollution reduction topics in the PoM; however
annual targets for nutrient quantities have not been set in the RBMPs. A lack of
quantitative targets per river basin or sub-river basin (or water body) impedes the
assessment of the efficiency of measures as well as questioning the feasibility of
one of the fourth goals of BSAP, namely to limit anthropogenic eutrophication.
Integrating WFD concerns into Axis II of Estonian Rural Development Plan (RDP)
increases water-related actions, taken to protect the environment from agricultural
production. Nevertheless pressures exerted on water quantity and quality by some
actions funded under the pillar I of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Axis I
of RDP continue to affect the goal of WFD. Though RDP support should provide
one of the main funding schemes for implementing the measures limiting pollution
from agriculture, the integration and financing of specific agriculturalenvironmental measures from Axis II with RBMPs remains disjointed rather than
integrated. Therefore a higher degree of interdependence of these two policies is
needed.
Due to the horizontal nature of the RBMPs, the management plan also includes
some expenditures that are part-financed through other action plans (namely the
national Waste Management Plan, the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) Action
Plan, the Management Plan for Land Reclamation Systems and the Cohesion
Fund (CF)). However, the RBMPs do not explicitly describe the funding and
share of measures for the improvement of water quality allocated in different
action plans, which has resulted in a weak concerted action from sectoral policies
for the common goal of achieving a “good” water status by 2015. There are also
deficiencies in funding sub-river basin measures (measures listed in Management
Plan for Land Reclamation System and the NVZ Action Plan), which set
limitations to profound analysis of the limitations of diffuse-pollution and
administration of the RBMP.
14
The goals of the Directive of Renewable Energy (DRE) (2009/28/EC) are
reflected in the Estonian National Development Plan of the Energy Sector for
2020 and more specifically in the Estonian National Renewable Energy Action
Plan for 2020. The aim of the Directive is to raise the share of renewable energy
to 20 per cent in overall energy consumption by the year 2020 (2009/28/EC), and
furthermore the share of biofuel should account for 10 per cent of the usage of
fuel in the transport sector by 2020 (Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, 2010). As a result, the Directive encourages more intensive
agricultural production, which may lead in turn to the excessive use of fertilizers.
A conflict of interests between WFD and DRE goals has not been addressed in
the Estonian RBMPs.
Since EU water policy is strictly dependent on other policy areas for achieving its
environmental objectives, actions that enhance water protection need to be integrated
into RBMPs in a coherent way and vice versa. To deliver improved coherence, a high
degree of interdependence of policies is needed.
2.3. Other related documents developed to ensure water quality
Water protection is regulated in Estonia by different laws and regulations, of which
the most important for limiting agricultural pollution are:
a) The Water Act (Veeseadus, 1994);
b) The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Act (Saastuse kompleksse
vältimise ja kontrollimise seadus, 2001);
c) Government Regulation 28 August, 2001 „Water protection requirements for
fertilizers, manure and silage storage facilities and requirements for usage and
storage of manure, silage and other fertilizers“ (Veekaitsenõuded väetise- ja
sõnnikuhoidlatele …, 2001);
d) Government Regulation 21 January, 2003 “Protection rules of Pandivere and
Adavere-Põltsamaa nitrate vulnerable area“ (Pandivere ja Adavere-Põltsamaa
nitraaditundliku ala kaitse-eeskiri, 2003);
e) The Regulation of the Minister of Social Affairs, 2 January, 2003 „The quality
and control requirements of surface and groundwater used for producing
drinking water“ (Joogivee tootmiseks kasutatava …, 2003);
f) The Regulation of the Minister of Social Affairs, 31 July, 2001 „The quality
and control requirements and analysis methods of drinking water“ (Joogivee
kvaliteedi- ja kontrollinõuded ning analüüsimeetodid, 2001);
g) The Regulation of Minister of the Environment no. 75, 29 December, 2009
„Water classes of groundwater bodies, according quality indicator values and
procedure for defining water classes“ (Põhjaveekogumite moodustamise…
2010);
h) The Regulation of the Minister of the Environment no. 44 “Water classes of
surface water bodies, according quality indicator values and procedure for
defining water classes” (Pinnaveekogumite moodustamise …, 2009);
15
i) The Regulation of the Minister of the Environment no. 58, 9 October, 2002
“List of salmonids and cyprinids habitat protection water bodies, water quality
and monitoring requirements and national monitoring stations of salmonids
and cyprinids”(Lõheliste ja karpkalalaste…, 2002);
j) The Regulation of the Minister of the Environment no. 25, 6 April, 2011
“Requirements for river basin water monitoring programmes” (Nõuded
vesikonna veeseireprogrammide kohta, 2011);
k) The Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture, 21 August, 2003
„Requirements for manure ingredients“ (Sõnniku koostise nõuded, 2003);
l) The Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ Action Plan 2009-2011
(Pandivere ja Adavere – Põltsamaa…, 2009);
m) The Estonian Implementation Plan for the Baltic Sea Action Plan 2008-2011
(Läänemere tegevuskava rakendusplaan…, 2008).
2.4. Process of drafting River Basin Management Plans
The identification of river basin districts and the allocating of responsible authorities
began in 2003-2004. Subsequently, the assessment of the current situation with the
characterization of a river basin: the pressures, impacts and economic analysis was
commenced in 2004-2005. The adoption and approval of the first SRBMPs was
carried out in 2005. The directive of the Minister of the Environment no. 270, 8
March, 2007, mandated that the sub-river basin plans become the basis for the
compilation of the RBMPs. With the further directive from the Minister of the
Environment no. 670, 10 June, 2008, it is compulsory to adapt SRBMPs to RBMPs
and make the necessary adjustments in turn. 2006 saw the beginning of the
establishment of the monitoring network and public consultation process. The
finalization of RBMPs, including PoMs, dates back to 2009. All three Estonian
RBMPs (West-Estonia, East-Estonia and Koiva) were approved by the Order of the
Government of the Republic no. 118, 1 April, 2010. The implementation of measures
will begin within three years of the adoption of the PoM and by 2015, where possible,
environmental objectives have to be met. This is also the end of the first management
cycle and the beginning of the second, updated management plan cycle.
The progress reporting on the implementation of WFD and RBMP to the European
Commission is carried out based on RBMPs (Directive of Minister of the
Environment no. 270). The objective of the progress report is to give an overview of
the compilation and implementation of RBMPs in the EU.
The process of drafting of RBMPs with the corresponding time table is reflected in
Figure 5.
16
Figure 5. Process of drafting RBMPs (Reisner, 2011).
According to the Government Regulation No. 210, 3 June, 2004, 3 river basins and 8
sub-river basins for protection and usage of water bodies were established. This
regulation was amended on 11 February, 2008 by which the territory of Estonia was
divided into 3 river basins and 9 sub-river basins. A new sub-river basin, Mustjõe,
was designated under the Koiva river basin. At the same time, the Directive of the
Minister of the Environment no. 41, 14 January, 2009 initiated the compilation of the
Mustjõe Sub-River Basin Management Plan. This amendment was followed by the
Government Regulation no. 132, 9 September, 2010, which divided the WestEstonian river basin into 4 sub-river basins, the East-Estonia river basin into 3 subrivers basins and the Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin between the two river
basin districts. With the latter regulation, the Mustjõe sub-river basin was eliminated.
Thus the Koiva river basin district does not contain any sub-river basins.
The description of financial sources for the East and West Estonia RBMP PoMs is
reflected in Table 1. There is no respective data about the recovery of the costs
described in the Koiva RBMP.
17
Table 1. Funding sources for Programmes of Measures (Keskkonnaministeerium 2010a; 2010b;
2010c).
Water consumer
(+ EIC*)
Tax payers (+ EU
funds**)
Short of funds
No
Measures
Total
cost
(millions
EEK)
1
East-Estonia
PoM
12917
1880
14
4856
38
6181
48
2
West-Estonia
PoM
11559
3257
28
4012
35
4227
37
3
Koiva PoM
433
-
-
-
-
-
-
millions
EEK
%
millions EEK
%
millions
EEK
%
EIC* – Environmental Investment Centre and own financing.
EU funds** – CF, ERDF etc.
PoM – Programme of Measures.
The Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ is a protected area where agricultural
activities have caused or may cause the concentration of nitrate ions in groundwater to
be greater than 50 mg/l or where surface waters are eutrophic or in danger of
becoming eutrophic. There are 2 RBMPs and 5 SRBMPs implemented in the
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ. The SRBMPs are: Harju, Pärnu (WestEstonia River Basin) and Viru, Peipsi (East-Estonia River Basin) along with the
Pandivere groundwater SRBMP. Funding sources for the NVZ Action Plan (20092011) are reflected in Table 2.
Table 2. Funding sources for Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ Action Plan 2009-2011
(Pandivere ja Adavere..., 2009).
Action
Total cost
Ministry of the
Ministry of
(thousands EEK)
Environment* (thousands
Agriculture**
EEK)
(thousands EEK)
NVZ Action Plan
2009-2011
4760
4310
450
* including Environmental Investment Centre.
** including Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007-2013.
18
3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
In line with the objective of the study, the types of measures in the PoMs of RBMPs
and SRBMPs were analysed. First, a general description of measures was developed,
second, the list of agricultural measures was populated based on the measures
contained within the PoM. Since the PoM does not have a category of agricultural
measures, all measures which were anticipated to facilitate the combating of
agricultural pollution in 3 Estonian river basins and 8 Estonian sub-basins were
extracted into an Excel table and analyzed.
Therefore, the study analyzes the 3 RBMPs and 8 SRBMPs which have been
compiled and adopted to date. These are as follows:
The Pandivere groundwater SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the
Environment with Directive no. 253, 10 March, 2005.
The Pärnu SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the Environment with
Directive no. 254, 10 March, 2005.
The Viru SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the Environment with
Directive no. 1388, 21 December, 2006.
The Läänesaarte SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the Environment with
Directive no. 1398, 27 December, 2006.
The Matsalu SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the Environment with
Directive no. 633, 28 May, 2008.
The Peipsi SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the Environment with
Directive no. 634, 28 May, 2008.
The Harju SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the Environment with
Directive no. 635, 28 May 2008.
Võrtsjärve SRBMP, approved by the Minister of the Environment with
Directive no. 636, 28 May, 2008.
The West-Estonia, East-Estonia and Koiva RBMPs have been approved by
Government Order no. 118, 1 April, 2010.
This study is based on the legal acts and RBMPs which were valid as of 1 December,
2010. The official Estonian currency has since switched from the Estonian Kroon
(EEK) to the euro (€). This took place on 1 January, 2011 (at an EEK:€ exchange rate
of 15.6466); however the cost of measures in this paper is still reflected in EEK. Since
the task of the study is to compare the share of budgets of agricultural measures in
different categories of PoMs of RBMPs (rather than the total), the currency in this
study has not been converted into euros.
Agricultural measures are considered to be measures which are designed to reduce
pollution-loads from agricultural points and subsequent diffuse sources into water
bodies, as well as to promote the implementation of agricultural programmes, support
pollution-load studies and increase awareness of additional pollution-load-reducing
measures.
Since Estonian RBMP PoMs do not contain a specific category of measures for the
agricultural sector, agricultural measures have been identified by the researcher. Thus,
the “classification” of agricultural measures was first developed for the purposes of
19
this study. Thereafter the agricultural measures identified were extracted from the
PoMs of 3 river- and 8 sub-river basins into an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis.
Six categories out of seven were used for the identification of agricultural measures,
leaving the category “Reconditioning and Development of drinking water systems”
out of scope, since this category did not contain any measures targeting agricultural
activities. In conclusion, the following categories and sub-categories of measures
were analysed:
1. Reconditioning of sources of point source pollution;
1.1. Reconditioning of livestock farms.
2. Reduction of diffuse source pollution.
3. Maintaining the quality and reserves of groundwater.
4. Improvement of surface water bodies.
5. Improvement of coastal water.
6. Administration of the RBMP.
The list of agricultural measures according to the river- or sub-river basin can be
found in the Report, specifically in Tables 2 to 7.
Measures which were not designed to combat pollution directly from agricultural
production were left out of the initial analysis and deemed “other measures”. The
list of other measures can be found in Annex I.
Thereafter, the measures designed to reduce pollution from agriculture (agricultural
measures) and their respective budgets were analysed in RBMPs and SRBMPs,
respectively .
20
4. AGRICULTURAL MEASURES IN THE
PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES (PoMs)
As outlined in the previous chapter, agricultural measures were considered to be
measures, which were designed to reduce pollution-loads from agricultural point and
diffuse sources into water bodies, as well as to promote the implementation of
agricultural programmes, support pollution load studies and increase the awareness of
additional pollution-load-reducing measures. These measures were identified in six
categories: reconditioning of sources of point source pollution (reconditioning of
livestock farms); reduction of diffuse source pollution; maintaining the quality and
reserves of groundwater; improvement of surface water bodies; improvement of
coastal water, and administration of the RBMP.
4.1. Agricultural measures in the East-Estonia River Basin
Management Plan
Concerning the East-Estonia RBMP, the most significant pressure factors for ground
and surface waters are power production and shale oil production arising from oil
shale mining. Important environmental pressure factors are waste management and
polluted areas as well as agricultural diffuse pollution, internal load, land reclamation
systems and impoundment construction. Agricultural measures and respective costs of
the East-Estonia RBMP are reflected in Table 3.
Table
3.
Agricultural
measures
and
respective
costs
in
the
East-Estonia
RBMP
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010a).
No
Measure
I
Reconditioning of sources of point source pollution
1
2
3
4
II
Principal measures for reconditioning of livestock farms
Reconditioning of manure storage facilities
Procurement of manure spreading technology
Construction of silage storage
Improvement of waste water handling*
Reduction of diffuse source pollution
Cost (millions
EEK)
211.3
83.8
17.1
8.6
Principal measures
1
Measures from NVZ Action Plan (65 per cent NVZ measures)
2
3
4
Additional measures
Diffuse pollution studies
Establishment of forest buffer strips for water protection
Additional measures and compensations for limited land use in river
basin areas of poor water quality
28.3
1.9
1.2
467
21
No
Measure
5
Additional pollution-load-reducing measures (land use, marshes, more
intensive maintenance of water bodies) derived from the HELCOM
Pollution Load Compilation (including pollution-load reduction for Lake
Peipsi)
Organizing training and information seminars for agricultural producers
6
III
1
VI
1
Cost (millions
EEK)
1000
1.1
Improvement of coastal water
Coastal water protection principal measures are included in the point and
diffuse pollution programme
Administration of RBMP
Periodical updating, coordinating, evaluating and managing the
implementation of RBMPs. Evaluations, cost analysis, cooperation
(including agricultural programmes,, management plan for land
reclamation systems), instructions, involvement and training of
stakeholders
-
15.8
Total agricultural measures in the river basin
* Improving the systems handling wastewater from livestock farms.
1836.1
There are 3 sub-river basins designated in the East-Estonian river basin. The
agricultural measures of Võrtsjärve, Peipsi and Viru SRBMPs with their
corresponding period of fulfilment and costs are reflected in Table 4.
Table 4. Agricultural measures and respective costs in Peipsi, Viru and Võrtsjärve SRBMP
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2006a; 2007a; 2007b).
No
I
1
2
3
4
II
1
2
Measure
Reconditioning of sources of
point source pollution
Principal measures for
reconditioning of livestock farms
Reconditioning of manure storage
facilities
Procurement of manure spreading
technology
Construction of silage storage
Improvement of waste water
handling*
Reduction of diffuse source
pollution
Principal measures
NVZ Action Plan: Government
regulation for 2004-2008. 2/3 by
W_P**
NVZ Action Plan
Period of
fulfilment
Peipsi
cost
(millions
EEK)
Viru cost
(millions
EEK)
Võrtsjärve
cost
(millions
EEK)
2014
553.2
167.3
200
2014
120
40
50
100
30
2014
50
20
2006-2008
4.14
4.14
2009-2014
10
10
20
22
No
Measure
Period of
fulfilment
Peipsi
cost
(millions
EEK)
Viru cost
(millions
EEK)
Võrtsjärve
cost
(millions
EEK)
Additional measures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
III
1
IV
Phosphorus cycle analysis in the
River Võhandu
Environmental subsidies from
ERDP
Agriculture (plant cultivation)
Additional measures for small
rivers in priority river basin areas
Additional measures limiting
diffuse pollution near lakes
Diffuse pollution studies
Organizing training and
information seminars for
agricultural producers
Improvement of surface water
bodies
Implementation of Water
Framework Directive 2000/60/EC
Principal measures of maintaining
natural state of surface water
Compiling risk assessment reports
based on previous analysis and
forming a corresponding protection
plan to water bodies in “good” or
“very good” condition
Administration of RBMP
1
-2014
118
47
10
-2014
10
2
2009
0.9
2007-2014
0.1
2008
1.9
Participating in agricultural
2007-2014
production planning
Participating in management plans
2
2009
for land reclamation systems
Total agricultural measures in
976.34
the sub-river basin
*Improving the systems handling wastewater from livestock farms.
1
0.3
0.1
320.44
273.3
** W_P – probably Water Programme for low density areas (further not explained in the SRBMPs)
23
4.2. Agricultural measures in the West-Estonia River Basin
Management Plan
According to the West-Estonia RBMP, the most important environmental pressure
factors are agricultural diffuse pollution, internal load (pollutants from previous
activities), impoundments, land reclamation and drainage systems from mining and
quarrying. Agricultural measures and respective costs of the West-Estonian RBMPs.
are reflected in Table 5.
Table 5. Agricultural measures
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010b).
No
and
respective
costs
Measure
I
Reconditioning of sources of point source pollution
1
2
3
4
II
Principal measures for reconditioning of livestock farms
Reconditioning of manure storage facilities
Procurement of manure spreading technology
Construction of silage storage
Improving of waste water handling*
Reduction of diffuse source pollution
1
Principal measures
Measures from NVZ Action Plan (35% NVZ measures)
2
3
Additional measures
Diffuse pollution studies
Establishment of forest buffer strip for water protection
4
5
6
IV
1
VI
1
in
Additional measures and compensation for limited land use in
river basin areas of poor water quality
Additional pollution load-reducing measures (land use, marshes,
more intensive maintenance of water bodies) derived from
HELCOM Pollution Load Compilation
Organizing training and information seminars for agricultural
producers
Improvement of coastal water
Coastal water protection principal measures are included in the
point and diffuse pollution programme
the
West-Estonia
RBMP
Cost (millions
EEK)
255.2
102.1
22.9
11.4
7
4.4
1.1
407
1000
2.8
-
Administration of RBMP
Periodical updating, coordinating, evaluating and managing the
implementation of RBMPs. Evaluations, cost analysis,
cooperation (including agricultural programmes, management
plans for land reclamation systems), instructions, involvement
and training of stakeholders
Total agricultural measures in the river basin
15.5
1829.4
* Improving the systems handling wastewater from livestock farms.
24
There are 4 sub-river basins designated in the West-Estonian river basin and 1 subriver basin that lies partly on East-Estonian river basin territory. The following Tables
(6 to 7) outline the agricultural measures with their corresponding period of fulfilment
and the respective costs of Harju, Pärnu, Matsalu, Läänesaarte and Pandivere
groundwater SRBMPs.
Table 6. Agricultural measures and respective costs in Harju, Pärnu, Matsalu and Läänesaarte SRBMP
(Keskkonnaministeerium 2006b; 2007c; 2007d; 2008a).
No
Measure
I
Reconditioning of sources
of point source pollution
Implementation of Nitrate
Directive
Principal measures for
reconditioning of livestock
farms
Reconditioning of manure
storage facilities
Including farms over 300
AU 15100 AU
Including farms 100-300
AU 10000 AU
Including farms 10-100 AU
3300 AU
Procurement of manure
spreading technology.
Construction of silage
storage.
Improvement of waste
water handling*
Reduction of diffuse
source pollution
Principal measures
Measures from NVZ Action
Plan
Additional measures
Diffuse pollution studies
Environmental subsidies
from ERDPs
Organizing training and
information seminars for
agricultural producers
Maintaining the quality
and reserves of
groundwater
Developing water protection
measures and designating
unprotected groundwater
areas located in the
agricultural land
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
II
1
2
3
4
III
1
Pärnu
cost
(millions
EEK)
Harju
cost
(millions
EEK)
-2008
202.5
76
-2010
75
50
-2010
62.5
17
Period of
fulfilment
-2014
Läänesaarte
cost
(millions
EEK)
Matsalu
cost
(millions
EEK)
143
230
-2014
29
57.5
34
35
-2014
14
23
17
14
-2014
7
11.5
7
0.65
1.2
2.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.5
-2008
-2010
6
continuous
0.5
25
No
Measure
IV
Improvement of surface
water bodies
Compiling risk assessment
report based on previous
analysis and forming a
corresponding protection
plan to water bodies in good
or very good condition
Administration of RBMP
1
V
Period of
fulfilment
Läänesaarte
cost
(millions
EEK)
Matsalu
cost
(millions
EEK)
2008-2014
Participating in agricultural
2008-2014
production planning
Participating in
2
management plans for land
2009
reclamation system
Total agricultural
measures in the sub-river
201.1
basin
* Improving the systems handling wastewater from livestock farms.
Pärnu
cost
(millions
EEK)
Harju
cost
(millions
EEK)
1.4
1
3.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
324.3
396.7
202.3
Table 7. Agricultural measures and respective costs in the Pandivere groundwater SRBMP
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2005a).
No
I
Measure
Period of
fulfilment
Cost
(millions
EEK)
Reconditioning of sources of point source pollution
Implementation of Nitrate Directive
Principal measures for reconditioning of livestock farms
3
4
II
Including farms over 300 AU (IPPC)
Reconditioning of manure storage facilities (from 100
AU)
Procurement of manure spreading technology
Construction of silage storage
Reduction of diffuse source pollution
1
Principal measures
Measures from NVZ Action Plan
2
3
Additional measures
Diffuse pollution studies
Environmental subsidies from ERDP
1
2
III
Maintaining the quality and reserves of groundwater
1
Developing water protection measures and designating
unprotected groundwater areas located in the agricultural
land
-
0
-
200.1
-
0
0
-
1.71
-
0
-
0
-
0
26
No
IV
1
V
1
2
Measure
Period of
fulfilment
Cost
(millions
EEK)
Improvement of surface water bodies
Compiling risk assessment report based on previous
analysis and forming a corresponding protection plan to
water bodies in good or very good condition
Administration of RBMP
Organizing workshops and training for agricultural
producers
Participating in management plans for land reclamation
system
-
0.5
-
0
-
0
Total agricultural measures in the sub-river basin
202.3
4.3. Agricultural measures in the Koiva River Basin Management
Plan
According to Koiva RBMP, the most important environmental pressure factor is
agricultural diffuse pollution, which is followed by the impact of impoundments and
land reclamation systems. Agricultural measures and the respective costs of the Koiva
RBMP are reflected in Table 8.
Table 8. Agricultural measures and respective costs in Koiva RBMP.
No
Measure
I
Reconditioning of sources of point source pollution
1
2
3
4
II
Principal measures for reconditioning of livestock farms
Reconditioning of manure storage facilities
Procurement of manure spreading technology
Construction of silage storage
Improvement of waste water handling*
Reduction of diffuse source pollution
1
2
3
4
5
Additional measures
Diffuse pollution studies
Establishment of forest buffer strip for water protection
Additional measures and compensations for limited land use in river
basin areas of poor water quality
Additional pollution-load-reducing measures (land use, marshes, more
intensive maintenance of water bodies) derived from HELCOM
Pollution Load Compilation
Organizing training and information seminars for agricultural producers
Cost
(millions
EEK)
13.9
5.7
1.6
0.7
0.5
0.3
15.4
50
0.2
27
No
III
1
Measure
Cost
(millions
EEK)
Administration of RBMP
Periodical updating, coordinating, evaluating and managing the
implementation of RBMP. Evaluations, cost analysis, cooperation
(including agricultural programmes, management plan for land
reclamation systems), instructions, involvement and training of
stakeholders
5
Total agricultural measures in the river basin
* Improving the systems handling wastewater from livestock farms.
93.3
4.4. Share of agricultural measures in all River Basin Management
Plans
Further, the share of cost allocated to agricultural measures in three RBMPs
individually and in total and in sub-river basins was calculated.
The share of cost of agricultural measures in the East-Estonia river basin was 1836.1
millions (mln) EEK (14 per cent) while the total cost of all measures was 12 916 mln
EEK. In the West-Estonia river basin agricultural measures formed 1829.4 mln EEK
(16 per cent) of the total cost of all measures (11 559 mln EEK). The Koiva river
basin agricultural measures constituted 93.3 mln EEK, that is 22 per cent of the total
expenses (432.6 mln EEK). The division of agricultural measures in river basins is
reflected in Figure 6 below.
Koiva river basin
78%
22%
West-Estonia river
basin
84%
16%
East Estonia river
basin
86%
14%
0%
20%
Other measures
40%
60%
80%
100%
Agricultural measures
Figure 6. Share of agricultural measures in the three Estonian river basins.
28
Thus when taking the 3 Estonian RBMPs together, that is 24 907.6 mln EEK, 15 per
cent (that is 3758,8 mln EEK) of the total budget for the current period has been
planned to reduce agricultural pollution (Figure 7).
15%
85%
Other measures
Agricultural measures
Figure 7. Share of agricultural measures in the 3 Estonian river basins.
4.5. Allocation of funds for agricultural measures among different
categories of measures in river basins
In the next stage, all the agricultural measures were analyzed by the river basins in six
categories of measures: i) reduction of point-pollution and ii) diffuse pollution, iii)
administration of the RBMP, iv) ground-, v) surface- and vi) coastal water
improvement. The categories of the improvement of drinking water and coastal water
protection were excluded from the study, as agricultural measures were not addressed
in these. The allocation of funds for agricultural measures in different categories of
measures in river basins is reflected in Figure 8.
The study revealed that in the East-Estonia river basin, the majority of the fund,
1499.5 mln EEK (82 per cent), was allocated to combat diffuse pollution. The bulk of
this (1000 mln EEK) originates from additional pollution load reducing measures
(landuse, marshes, more intensive maintenance of water bodies) derived from the
HELCOM Pollution Load Compilation. 320.8 mln EEK (17 per cent) of the expenses
were designated for measures to combat point-pollution and 15.8 mln EEK (1 per
cent) from the total agricultural measures of 1836.1 mln EEK, are designated for the
administration of the plan. The allocation of funds in the East-Estonia river basin is
reflected in Figure 8 below.
Similarly, in the management plan of the West-Estonia river basin, from the total fund
for agricultural measures (1829.4 mln EEK) the majority of the funds, 1422.3 mln
29
EEK (78 per cent), is allocated to limit diffuse pollution, mostly derived from
HELCOM requirements. 391.6 mln EEK (21 per cent of the total) of agricultural
measures comprise expenses to combat point-pollution and 15.5 mln EEK (i.e. the
remaining one per cent) are allocated to administration. The results are reflected in
Figure 8 below.
66.4 mln EEK (71 per cent) was allocated in Koiva RBMP to limit diffuse pollution,
while 21.9 mln EEK (24 per cent) was allocated to point-pollution reduction and 5
mln EEK (five per cent) to the administration of the management plan from the total
agricultural measures of 93.3 mln EEK. The allocation of funds in the Koiva river
basin is reflected in Figure 8 below.
Koiva river basin
71%
West-Estonia river basin
24%
78%
East-Estonia river basin
21%
82%
0%
20%
Limiting diffuse pollution
40%
5%
17%
60%
Limiting point pollution
80%
100%
Administration
Figure 8. Agricultural measures by categories in 3 Estonian river basins.
The summarizing figure of the budget of agricultural measures in different topics
allocated in RBMP in total is shown in Figure 9.
1%
20%
79%
Limiting point pollution
Limiting diffuse pollution
Administration of RBMPs
Figure 9. Agricultural measures by categories in 3 Estonian river basins in total.
30
In conclusion, it can be said that the majority of the funds are allocated to combat
diffuse pollution, making up 2988.2 mln EEK (79 per cent) of the total agricultural
measures of 3758.8 mln EEK in the 3 Estonian river basins.
Diffuse pollution restriction measures include: diffuse pollution studies and the
establishment of forest buffer strips for water protection, measures from the NVZ
Action Plan, organizing training and information seminars for agricultural producers,
additional measures and compensation for limited land use in river basin areas of poor
water quality and additional pollution load-reducing measures (e.g. land use, marshes,
more intensive maintenance of water bodies) derived from the HELCOM Pollution
Load Compilation (including pollution-load reduction in Lake Peipsi).
Twenty per cent (734.3 mln EEK) of the agricultural measures were designated to
combat point-pollution, where the main measures include: reconditioning livestock
farms and manure storage, purchasing manure spreading technology, establishing
silage storage and improving waste water handling.
Administration of the 3 Estonian RBMPs made up about one per cent (36.3 mln EEK)
of the total funds of agricultural measures. Administration of the RBMPs comprise:
periodical updating, coordinating, evaluating and managing the implementation of
RBMPs; participating in agricultural production planning; participating in
management plans for land reclamation systems; evaluation, cost analysis,
cooperation (including agricultural programmes, management plans for land
reclamation systems), instructions and the involvement and training of stakeholders.
4.6. Allocation of funds for agricultural measures in different
categories in sub-river basins
The analysis of the allocation of funds for agricultural measures in 8 sub river basins
was carried out. The same six categories (see chapter 4.5) of measures in PoM of
river basins were applied accordingly.
However, the deficient description of budgets for Management Plans for Land
Reclamation System in Viru, Peipsi, Läänesaarte and Pandivere groundwater subriver basins set limitations on the incisive analysis of the administration of the
management plans. Measures from land reclamation system planning were not
integrated into management plans.
In addition to this, deficient budgets in the Harju and Pärnu sub-river basins had a
substantial influence on the results. The measures from the NVZ Action Plan carry an
important role in combating diffuse pollution. In this paper, data from “Pandivere and
Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Action Plan 2009-2011” was used for
the analysis of the budget of Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin diffuse pollution
restrictions. The budget to limit diffuse pollution was set at 1.71 mln EEK and
included administration and diffuse pollution limitation measures (Annex II). The
allocation of funds for agricultural measures in different categories in sub-river basins
is reflected in Figure 10.
31
Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin
99%
Matsalu sub-river basin
99%
Pärnu sub-river basin
99%
Võrtsjärve sub-river basin
99%
Harju sub-river basin
98%
Läänesaarte sub-river basin
96%
Peipsi sub-river basin
84%
Viru sub-river basin
16%
80%
0%
Limiting point pollution
4%
20%
40%
Limiting diffuse pollution
20%
60%
80%
100%
Administration
Figure 10. Agricultural measures by category in the 8 Estonian sub-river basins.
The share of costs allocated to restrict
agricultural pollution in the 8 SRBMPs
by category of measures in total is
reflected in Figure 11.
8%
92%
Limiting point pollution
Limiting diffuse pollution
The analysis of the allocation of funds
for agricultural measures in the 8 sub
river basins using the same six
categories as for the 3 river basins
revealed a completely different
prioritization of measures. 92 per cent
(2655.6 mln EEK) of the expenses
were planned to limit point-pollution
and only 8 per cent (230.7 mln EEK)
to diffuse pollution restrictions.
Additional measures to address diffuse
pollution derived from HELCOM
pollution-load reduction requirements
(land use, marshes, more intensive
maintenance of water bodies etc.) have
been added to the RBMPs. Those
alterations have not been made in the
SRBMPs.
Figure 11. Share of agricultural measures by
category in the 8 Estonian sub-river basins.
Therefore the total share for diffuse pollution restriction measures has been lower in
the sub-river basins than in river basins. The total cost for ground- and surface water
improvement measures formed less than one per cent of all agricultural measures and
was not reflected in the figure.
32
4.7. Share of cost of agricultural measures addressing diffuse
pollution in River Basin Management Plans
To address the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea, nutrient runoff from inland water
bodies must be reduced with the implementation of relevant measures. Large amounts
of nutrients, mainly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), are released into the water
bodies each year as a result of a modern farming practices and use of fertilizers.
Concerning the runoff of N and P in Estonia, RBMPs give an overview of the annual
N and P emissions. During the period 2004-2008, agricultural diffuse pollution
formed 55 per cent of total N and 20 per cent of total P load (Table 9).
Estonian RBMPs also reflect annual agricultural diffuse pollution to surface water
bodies (Table 10) and run-off into the Baltic Sea (Figure 12). As shown in a Figure
12, nutrient run-off into the sea has increased. Similarly, according to HELCOM
(2009; 2010) riverine, coastal and direct point and diffuse source inputs of total N and
total P have increased in the period 1996-2006 (Table 11).
Table 9. Nitrogen and phosphorus emissions in the environment in Estonia (2004-2007)
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008b; 2010a; 2010b; 2010c).
Total N
Thousand
tonnes/year
DIFFUSE SOURCE
LOAD
Agricultural diffuse source
load
Total P
% from total
emissions
Thousand
tonnes/year
% from total
emissions
29
93
0.684
78
17.2
55
0.176
20
Forestry, wetlands,
precipitation
11.8
38
0.508
58
POINT SOURCE LOAD
2.1
7
0.19
22
Urban- and industrial
effluent discharged into the
sea
0.9
3
0.069
8
Urban- and industrial
effluent discharged into
inland water bodies
0.6
2
0.074
9
Agricultural point source
load (including fish farms)
0.6
2
0.047
5
ESTONIA
31.1
100
0.874
100
33
Table 10. Calculated (2006) agricultural diffuse pollution load (tonnes per year) to surface water bodies
in the East-, West and Koiva river basins and subsequent sub-river basins (Maves, 2008;
Keskkonnaministeerium 2010a; 2010b; 2010c).
Sub-river basin
N (t/y)
P (t/y)
Viru
4480
108
Peipsi
6761
232
Võrtsjärve
1938
68
Total of East-Estonia river basin
13179
408
Harju
3160
110
Matsalu
2040
80
Läänesaarte
1950
79
Pärnu
4930
235
Total of West-Estonia river basin
12080
512
Total of Koiva river basin
720
30
Figure 12. Nutrient run-off from the East- and West-Estonia River Basins into the Baltic Sea (20032008) based on Tallinn University of Technology data (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2010a; 2010b;
2010c).
34
Table 11. Riverine, coastal and direct point and diffuse source inputs of N (total) and P
Sea (HELCOM, 2009; 2010).
Nitrogen
Country
1996 t/y*
2006 t/y*
Estonia
16 813.1
20 411.4
(total)
to the Baltic
Phosphorus
Average annual
proportions of
total input into the
Baltic Sea, 20012006**
5%
1996
t/y*
2006
t/y*
735.6
785.7
Average annual
proportions of
total input into the
Baltic Sea, 20012006**
4%
*HELCOM, 2010
** HELCOM, 2009
While all Estonian RBMPs describe the increase of nutrient run-off into the Baltic Sea
and stress the role of agricultural diffuse pollution, measures adopted in PoMs are
critical to the issue of eutrophication.
Different categories of measures to limit diffuse pollution from agriculture in 3 river
basins and 8 sub-river basins were collected and are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Measures to limit agricultural diffuse pollution.
No
Limitation of diffuse pollution
1
Measures from NVZ Action Plan
2
3
4
5
Government regulation for 2004-2008. 2/3 by W_P
Diffuse pollution studies
Phosphorus cycle analysis in the River of Võhandu
Environmental subsidies from ERDP
6
Establishment of forest buffer strips for water
protection
7
Additional measures and compensation for limited
land use in river basin areas of poor water quality
8
Additional pollution-load-reducing measures (land
use, marshes, more intensive maintenance of water
bodies) derived from HELCOM Pollution Load
Compilation (including pollution load reduction for
Lake Peipsi)
Organizing training and information seminars for
agricultural producers
9
10
11
Agriculture (plant cultivation)
Additional measures for small rivers in priority river
basin areas
12
Additional measures limiting diffuse pollution near
lakes
35
Since the total cost of measures (“agricultural measures” + “other measures”) in EastEstonia, West-Estonia and Koiva river basins are 12 916 mln EEK, 11 559 mln EEK
and 432.6 mln EEK respectively; the total cost of funds is 24 907.6 mln EEK.
However, as shown in the previous figure (Figure 8), the cost for reducing diffuse
pollution in the 3 river basins is 2988.2 mln EEK. Therefore around 12 per cent of the
budget is allocated to measures to limit diffuse pollution among all measures planned
within RBMPs.
36
5. MANAGEMENT OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
PLANS
The management structure of the RBMP is reflected in the Figure 13. River Basin
Management Plans are compiled by the Water Department of the Ministry of the
Environment. The implementation of the Plan is coordinated by the Environmental
Board in cooperation with the Water Management Commission and RBMP Working
Groups established for every 3 river basin district. Representatives from the Ministry
of Agriculture, local authorities (municipalities) and stakeholders are invited to the
Working Group of the river basin district concerned. Local authorities stand for the
implementation of measures in their administrative areas. Implementing the measures
and actions envisaged in the PoMs is the responsibility of all water users and persons
who are required by law to implement a respective measure.The following figure of
the management of a river basin district is composed according to the Water Act
(1994) and information from RBMPs and the web page of the Ministry of the
Environment.
Figure 13. Management of the RBMP in Estonia.
37
6. CONCLUSIONS
The aim of Water Framework Directive is to achieve a “good” status for all water
bodies by 2015. Where this is not possible and subject to the criteria set out in the
Directive, the aim is to achieve good status either by 2021 or 2027. To facilitate
planning and implementing measures to improve the water quality, RBMPs are drawn
up for river basin districts across the Estonian territory. The central goal of the RBMP
is to ensure sustainable development and a natural class of water, and to maintain the
quality, quantity and water flows of seawater, surface and groundwater. River Basin
Management Plans are guided by integrated principles of river basin management,
considering all the factors which may affect water bodies. Estonian territory is divided
into 3 river basins (East-Estonia, West-Estonia and Koiva), and 8 sub-river basins
(Peipsi, Võrtsjärve, Viru, Harju, Pärnu, Matsalu, Läänesaarte and the Pandivere
groundwater river sub-basin).
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can be made:
Agricultural measures form 15 per cent from all measures planned to preserve and
improve ground and surface water condition. In addition, around 12 per cent of the
budget is allocated to measures to limit diffuse pollution of all measures planned in
RBMPs. This is probably not enough to meet the objectives of RBMPs and water
Framework Directive, since some pressure factors, such as agriculture, is deemed to
be an important sector in water management issues. Further to that, agricultural
diffuse pollution forms 55 per cent of nitrogen and 20 per cent of phosphorus load of
the total nutrient emission to the environment in Estonia (Keskkonnaministeerium,
2010a; 2010b; 2010c). Therefore, since the RBMPs lack the prioritisation of issues, it
is difficult to estimate whether this choice of measures in RBMPs meet theobjectives
of water protection. Measures in PoM are notspecificly targeted to certain districts,
which adds uncertainty to the evaluation of the effectiveness of agricultural measures,
both planned and implemented.
According to the three Estonian river basins the majority (79 per cent) of the funds for
agricultural measures has been planned to combat diffuse pollution, however, the
action plans of sub-river basins reflect an opposite allocation, i.e. 92 per cent of the
expenses were planned to limit point pollution. The feedback reporting to European
Commission is carried out based on RBMPs. Additional measures to address diffuse
pollution derived from HELCOM pollution-load reduction requirements have been
added to the RBMPs. These updates have not, however, been made in the SRBMPs.
Thus the priorities of RBMPs and SRBMPs are not in cohesion with each other and
embed a conflict of interests on a practical level. However, it must be noted that
according to the Ministry of Environment, the measures in SRBMPs are being
currently revised and are used to give an input to the PoMs of RBMPs. SRBMPs, in
their current form, will not be actively used any more (R. Reisner pers. Com.,
22.11.2011).
Since the status of the Baltic Sea is strictly dependent on the water flows from inland
water bodies, reduction targets to the nutrient run-off should be integrated into the
RBMPs. All three Estonian RBMPs account for annual nitrogen and phosphorus
emissions into the environment, but annual designated limits per river basins remain
unclear.
38
Programmes of Measures also comprise some partial expenditures financed through
other action plans (e.g. national Waste Management Plan, RDP, Management Plan for
Land Reclamation System and CF), but there are deficiencies in funding, which set
limitations to incisive analysis. The Estonian Rural Development Plan should be one
of the main source of funding, but allocation of funds of agricultural-environmental
subsidies are not clearly incorporated to PoMs. Though RDP measures do finance
activities which theoretically protect nature, there is no direct reference to the
achievement of WFD goals. The measures and respective budgets of Pandivere and
Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ Action Plans are also not fully integrated with SRBMPs.
Due to its horizontal nature, other measures from directives on water protection (such
as the Drinking Water Directive, Urban Wastewater Directive and Directive on
Hazardous Substances) have been integrated with the RBMPs.
The decision-making is rather centralised. The implementation of the WFD and
RBMPs falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment and the
measures that would enable implement the water protection are financed by the
Ministry of Agriculture via the Rural Development Plan. However, both institutions
play a rather isolated role in limiting pollution from agriculture.
39
PART II
PANDIVERE AND ADAVERE – PÕLTSAMAA NITRATE
VULNERABLE ZONE PILOT AREA CASE STUDY
1. AIMS OF THE CASE STUDY
As described in Part I of the current Report, the EU member states have developed
River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and an appropriate Programme of Measures
(PoM) as well as governance systems to ensure or restore good water quality at
national or regional levels. The part II of the Report aims to identify the
appropriateness and sufficiency of measures in the PoM of the Pandivere sub-river
basin to address and minimize diffuse pollution from agriculture in the Pandivere,
Adavere-Põltsamaa nitrate vulnerable zone in Estonia. The latter is selected for a pilot
area because of the marked conflict between the fertile soils for agriculture and the
water courses, naturally unprotected from pollution due to the karst phenomenon.
This is an area, where the selection and implementation of water protection measures
are especially important for maintaining and restoring the good level of water quality.
In order to answer to the question of appropriateness and sufficiency of the measures
to address and minimize agricultural diffuse pollution in the PoM of the SRBMP that
cover the nitrate vulnerable zone, two separate analysis are made. Firstly, the contents
analysis of the PoMs is made with the view to identify the agricultural measures and
the allocated budget compared to the overall spending of the programme. And
secondly, the opinion of the farmers of the pilot area are sought to understand their
perception of the current measures to minimize the water pollution from agriculture.
The analysis of the PoM would enable to draw conclusions for the priority of
reducing agricultural diffuse pollution in the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ.
The opinion survey of the local farmers would provide information of the perception
of the farmers of the appropriateness of the current water protection measures
compared to the measures applied outside of the NVZ and their preparedness to
implement even more stringent water protection measures in the future if requested by
regulation.
Firstly, the general data of the NVZ is provided, such as the territory, socio-economic
features and natural conditions, as well as the management of the area. The main
areas of conflict are highlighted. Thereafter the PoMs of the NVZ sub-river basin
management plans are analyzed to identify the share of agricultural measures and
specifically the measures addressing diffuse pollution, and their relative share to the
overall budget of all measures. Secondly, the results of the opinion survey conducted
among the farmers of the NVZ are reflected.
40
2. MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DIFFUSE
POLLUTION IN PANDIVERE AND ADAVERE –
PÕLTSAMAA NITRATE VULNERABLE ZONE
2.1. Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
territory
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ was established in Estonia in 2003 by the
adoption of the Order on the Protection rules of the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa
Nitrate Vulnerable Zone by the Estonian Government regulation (Pandivere ja
Adavere-Põltsamaa …, 2003). The regulation defines unprotected groundwater areas
as areas with less than 2 m ground cover on limestone plateau and establishes the
extent of restrictions around springs and karst funnels. An area, where agricultural
activities have caused or may cause the concentration of nitrate ions in groundwater to
exceed 50 mg/l or where surface water bodies are eutrophic or in danger of becoming
eutrophic, due to agricultural activities, is deemed to be a nitrate vulnerable zone
(Veeseadus, 1994). The objective of the NVZ is to protect ground and surface waters
from intense agricultural production.
The Estonian NVZ can be geographically viewed as two separate areas, Pandivere
zone 2382 km2 and Põltsamaa-Adavere Zone (667 km2) (Figure 14) which are
connected by the Endla wetland area (201 km2) (Maves, 2006). The area of 3250 km2
forms 7,5% of Estonian land territory.
Figure 14. Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (Pandivere ja Adavere…, 2009).
41
2.1.1. Pandivere and Adavere - Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone natural
conditions
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa area needs protection because of its unique
landscape and hydro-geological conditions. According to landscape, the NVZ area
can be divided into two: Pandivere Upland and Adavere-Põltsamaa plain. For the
whole of Estonia, Pandivere is an important groundwater infiltration area whereas the
plain of Central Estonia is a transit and outlet area:
a) Pandivere Upland – the highest area of Northern Estonia is also the largest
groundwater accumulation area in Estonia. Overall watersheds of rivers,
originated from the Pandivere area, cover 32% of Estonian territory
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2005b). In comparison with the surrounding area,
abundance of precipitation, 714 karst funnels and 135 springs form a great
resource for rivers (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2005b). Groundwater discharges
as springs on the slopes of the upland forming a great source for river flow.
These springs are a starting point for a series of large rivers in Estonia: Pärnu,
Põltsamaa, Pedja, Jägala, Loobu, Kunda, Valgejõgi etc. (Maves, 2006). Because
of the karstification, few lakes are located in the Pandivere area, Porkuni and
Äntu Sinijärv are the two most known. Less than 2 m ground cover of limestone
plateau leaves groundwater scarcely protected. Groundwater depth is usually
between 4–5 and 20 metres (Maves, 2006). Unprotected groundwater area
forms 19% (447,5 km2) of Pandivere Upland territory (Maves, 2006).
b) Adavere-Põltsamaa area has relatively thin soil cover on the limestone
bedrock plateau of Central Estonia, mostly a local groundwater infiltration
area, but important transit and outlet area of rivers (Keskkonnaministeerium,
2005b). Ground moraine cover thickness is mainly 2-5 meters, but partly
thinner than 1 meter (Maves, 2006). Because of its landscape, Adavere Põltsamaa plain as a water outlet area, is often more severely polluted by
nutrients than Pandivere. Groundwater lies usually between 2–5 meters from
the ground, thus unprotected groundwater area forms 18 % (119,7 km2) of the
Adavere-Põltsamaa territory (Maves, 2006).
The Nitrate Vulnerable Zone water supply relies on the Silur-Ordovician water body,
which consists of limestone and dolomites, strongly fractured and karstificated to the
extent of 30 metres (ELLE, 2010a).
The description of NATURA 2000 protection sites of the NVZ is reflected in
Table 13.
There are 17 rivers and 4 streams that lie totally or partly in the NVZ area,
which are confirmed as significant habitat and spawn area for salmon. Endla-, Sirtsi-,
Alam-Pedja- and Kõrvemaa NATURA bird sites cover 1.7% of the NVZ area and
NATURA Habitat sites cover 4.2% of the NVZ.
42
Table 13. Natura 2000 protected sites on NVZ (based on data sent by Keskkonnateabe Keskus,
13.05.2011).
Area on NVZ
(ha)
The total area
of rivers on
NVZ (ha)
The total
area of
lakes on
NVZ (ha)
The total area of arable
land on NVZ (ha)
Natura Habitat
sites (38)
13579.39
69.2
104.49
935.66
Natura Bird sites
(4)
5644.89
43.17
1.62
95.32
Salmon rivers and streams (21)
Since the aim of the WFD is to achieve at least a good status for all water bodies by
2015, all water bodies must be classified according to the status classes (high, good,
moderate, poor, bad). “Body of surface water” means a discrete and significant
element of surface water such as a lake, reservoir, stream, river or canal, part of a
stream, river or canal, transitional water or a stretch of coastal water (2000/60/EC).
There are 51 river water bodies in the NVZ and the majority of them (53%) have a
good status, however 45% of them have either a moderate or poor status (Figure 15).
There are no river bodies that are classed as bad status, yet only one of them (Kaave
river body) has a high status. On the other side, 472 km of rivers are in moderate
condition, that is 43% of the total length of river bodies in the NVZ (Figure 16).
Status of river water bodies in the NVZ
2%
6%
39%
53%
Poor
Moderate
Good
High
Figure 15. The allocation of river bodies according the status class (data based on Keskkonnateabe
Keskus, 08.09.2011).
43
km
600,000
Total length of river water body according to the status
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0,000
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Figure 16. The total length of river bodies according to the status class (data based on Keskkonnateabe
Keskus, 08.09.11).
2.1.2. Pandivere and Adavere - Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone socioeconomic conditions
Besides its unique landscape, the NVZ is located on the best agricultural soils in
Estonia, with the largest fields suitable for cereal production. When an average soil
fertility rating (arable lands) in Estonia is 40 points, then in the NVZ there are three
municipalities, where the rating exceeds 50 points and even the lowest municipal
average rating (42,5) is clearly above the country average (Keskkonnaministeerium,
2005b). The need for drainage is minimal and the average size of field is the largest in
Estonia (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2005b). Therefore agriculture forms an important
part of the economic sector in the NVZ. The share of agricultural land is about one
third, which considerably exceeds the Estonian average of one fifth (Ministry of
Environment, 2008). The total agricultural land, which has received support under the
Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) in 2010 in the NVZ was 128,5 thousand
hectares (ha), which forms 39% of the NVZ area (Loigu et al., 2011). The Estonian
average, agricultural land under subsidies, was only 19% (Loigu et al., 2011). The
total NVZ agricultural land, which hase received agricultural subsidies in 2011 was a
bit smaller, 127 563 ha (Table 14).
Figures that best describe agricultural production and land use in Pandivere and
Adavere – Põltsamaa NVZ are reflected in Table 14 and Table 15. Corine land cover
(2006) illustration about the NVZ is reflected in Figure 17. It must be noted, that
according to Agricultural Registers and the Information Board (PRIA), agricultural
land consists of crop, permanent pasture, natural grassland, black fallow and
permanent crop (basically arable land + pastures) (see Table 14). According to Corine
land cover (2006), agricultural land consists of non-irrigated arable land (2.1.1.), fruit
trees and berry plantations (2.2.2.), pastures (2.3.1.), complex cultivation patterns
(2.4.2.), land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural
vegetation (2.4.3.). Natural grasslands (3.2.1.) are not considered as agricultural lands
under this classification scheme (see Table 15).
44
Table 14. Agricultural land in Panidvere and Adavere--Põltsamaa NVZ (Loigu et al., 2011; based on
data sent by PRIA 25.10.2011)
NVZ
Crop (ha)
Permanent
pasture (ha)
Natural
grassland (ha)
Black fallow
(ha)
Permanent
crop (ha)
2011*
105 754
18 328
2170
1174
137
* - based on the data of Agriculture Registers and Information Board (PRIA)
Table 15. Agricultural land in Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ according to Corine land cover
(2006) (based on data sent by Keskkonnateabe Keskus, 17.08.2011)
Non-irrigated arable land (ha)
97 902
Fruit trees and berry plantations (ha)
141
Pastures (ha)
27 780
Complex cultivation patterns (ha)
21 964
Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation
(ha)
17 923
TOTAL (ha)
Natural grasslands (ha)
165 709
935
Though the differences in agricultural land size between PRIA and Corine land cover
data are noticeable, it must be emphasized that the data from PRIA reflects only land,
which has received agricultural supports, thus leaving out potential agricultural land.
In addition, the methodology behind data collecting by PRIA and Keskkonnateabe
Keskus is different, also the recent data by Corine database dates back to the year
2006 only. Further to that, when it comes to monitoring the effect of measures applied
in the NVZ area by RDP, NVZ action plan and RBMP, it appears quite often that the
original data varies between the Ministries of Environment and Agriculture, which
may reduce the credibility of the analyses made.
Taking into account the fertile soils of the area on one hand, and unique geological
construction, which leaves groundwater unprotected, on the other hand, it is clear that
the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa area needs protection. The conflict of issues
between food production and water protection is relatively sharp and thus needs to be
addressed with appropriate measures to reduce the sources of agricultural diffuse
pollution in a manner that does not undermine yield size. Therefore the Pandivere and
Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone has been chosen as a pilot area for this
case study. Thus, the following chapters will analyze the measures that have been
taken to limit agricultural pollution, show the results of these actions on the water
environment as well as farmers’ perception and practices towards water protection.
45
Figure 17. Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone land cover (Corine, 2006)
(ELLE, 2010a).
46
2.2. Management of the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
Administratively, the NVZ of Estonia covers 23 municipalities in 3 counties (Järva,
Jõgeva and Lääne-Viru county), including 21 parishes and 2 cities (Põltsamaa and
Rakvere) (ELLE, 2010a), (Table 16).
Table 16. Municipalities that lie in the Pandivere and Adavere--Põltsamaa NVZ.
No
Municipality
County
1
Albu
Järva
2
Ambla
Järva
3
Järva-Jaani
Järva
4
Kareda
Järva
5
Koeru
Järva
6
Koigi
Järva
7
Paide
Järva
8
Roosna-Alliku
Järva
9
Pajusi
Jõgeva
10
Põltsamaa
Jõgeva
11
Põltsamaa city
Jõgeva
12
Puurmani
Jõgeva
13
Kadrina
Lääne-Virumaa
14
Laekvere
Lääne-Virumaa
15
Rakke
Lääne-Virumaa
16
Rakvere
Lääne-Virumaa
17
Rakvere city
Lääne-Virumaa
18
Rägavere
Lääne-Virumaa
19
Sõmeru
Lääne-Virumaa
20
Tamsalu
Lääne-Virumaa
21
Tapa
Lääne-Virumaa
22
Vinni
Lääne-Virumaa
23
Väike-Maarja
Lääne-Virumaa
Share of
municipalities
from the county
(%)
66,7
30,8
73,3
In order to protect ground and surface waters from agricultural pollution and achieve
a good status for waters, Member States have to establish Action Plans for the NVZ.
The Action Plan for the NVZ, valid from 2009 to 2011 and approved by the
Government of the Republic order no 589 on 29.12.2009, is being managed by the
Ministry of Environment in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and
coordinated by the Council of the NVZ, which includes members from the Ministry
of the Environment, Environmental Board, Environmental Inspectorate, Ministry of
Agriculture, Agricultural Board, Health Board, local municipalities and agricultural
producers associations (Pandivere ja Adavere-Põltsamaa nitraaditundliku…, 2009).
The Council of the NVZ coordinates the implementation of the Action Plan, initiates
47
changes in the measures and gives suggestions about the results of the Plan annually.
Supervision of measures is done by the Agricultural Board, Health Board and
Environmental Inspectorate. Structure of the management of the NVZ Action Plan is
reflected in Figure 18.
The Environmental Board has the executive power in the structure of the Ministry of
Environment. The NVZ is distributed between three Environmental Board regions:
Harju-Järva-Rapla region; Viru region and Jõgeva-Tartu region.
Since water flows do not follow administrative borders, protecting measures for water
environment must be introduced based on river basins. According to the WFD and
Water Act, Estonian water protection and usage is planned via river basins and subriver basins accordingly. Sub-River Basin Management Plans that are implemented in
the NVZ are: Harju, Pärnu (West-Estonia River Basin) and Viru, Peipsi (East-Estonia
River Basin) and Pandivere groundwater Sub-River Basin Management Plan.
Figure 18. Management of the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ Action Plan.
48
2.3. Status of water bodies in the Pandivere and Adavere – Põltsamaa
nitrate vulnerable zone
To evaluate the importance of environmental measures for the protection of water
quality, it is necessary to monitor the status of water and analyze the changes in
farming practice. This chapter will give an overview about the current water
conditions in the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ.
Nitrogen- and phosphorus overload is defined as water pollution when their
concentration exceeds the environmental norms established. Those norms depend on
the purpose of water usage: drinking, recreational or biological protection purpose.
The norms are established by the following legal acts:
Regulation of the Minister of the Environment no. 58 establishes a list of
salmonids and cyprinids habitat protection water bodies, water quality and
monitoring requirements and national monitoring stations (Lõheliste ja
karpkalalaste elupaikadena…, 2002) and results from European Council
Directive 78/659/EEC (Fish Directive). 17 rivers and 4 streams in the NVZ are
named as salmonids habitat protection rivers, where the total nitrogen
concentration limit is 3 mgl/N2 and total phosphorus limit is 0,08 mgl/P.
(Whereas the nutrients limits for lakes is 0,7 mgl/N2 and 0,06 mgl/P).
The quality norms for nitrates in ground- and surface waters used as a drinking
water source is 50 mg/l (Joogivee tootmiseks kasutatava…, 2003).
Regulation of the Minister of the Environment no.75 sets a limit value to
nitrates in groundwater, which is 50 mg/l. (Põhjaveekogumite moodustamise
kord ja nende põhjaveekogumite nimestik…, 2010).
The EU recommended value for surface water nitrate limits is 25 mg/l.
(25 mg/l is a ‘guide value’ beneath which, in the case of stability, the Nitrates
directive allows a slowing down of the monitoring (EC, 1991).
According to Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus (2011), nutrients are leaching from the
field most likely during the autumn, after the harvest period and with rainfall. When
the field is fertilized in the spring, the nutrients are utilized quite quickly, since it is a
period of intensive plant growth. After harvest and autumn fertilization, the content of
nitrogen is continuingly decreasing till the soil freezes. Consequently, the nitrogen
that is added with manure during the autumn plowing, does not accumulate in the
field, but is washed out with drainage water (Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus, 2011).
This shows the importance of winter vegetation cover. Thus, Figure 19 reflects the
content of nitrate ions and ammonium ions in the fields of Aravete and Kukevere in
the period of 2007-2010. As described, the content of nitrate is rapidly decreasing
from August till December. The consequences of this process are shown in Figure 20,
where the nitrate-ions, that have leached from the field, increase the nitrogen content
in the drainage water, especially during autumn, October.
49
Figure 19. Content of nitrate-ions and ammonium-ions in the monitoring fields of Aravete and
Kukevere in 2007-2010 (Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus, 2011).
Figure 20. The content of nitrate-ions in the drainage water in the monitoring fields of N1 and N2
(Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus, 2011).
Status of groundwater
Natural nitrate concentration in groundwater in surface layers is 5-6 mg/l,
concentrations higher than that can be seen as having a human impact (Santti et al.,
1996). Based on the monitoring results, it can be said that during the last Action Plan
(2004-2007), annual mean nitrate concentrations have increased in two-thirds of wells
and decreased only in one-fifth of wells in the Pandivere zone
50
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008). However in the Adavere-Põltsamaa zone, the
majority (three-fifths) of the nitrate concentrations have decreased
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008). The change of concentrations between the periods is
reflected in Table 17.
Table 17. The change in annual mean nitrate concentrations in the wells between the periods of 20002003 and 2004-2007 (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008).
Annual mean nitrate concentration (mg/l)
2000–2003
2004–2007
Pandivere zone
18
23
Adavere – Põltsaaa zone
45
32
Though it is too early to have the summarizing monitoring results from the Action
Plan of 2009-2011, it can be said that although in 2009 nitrate ions concentrations
have dropped in groundwater springs and in rivers, the concentrations do not exceed
the limits, the overall concentrations have significantly raised throughout the last
years and are now comparable with the situation in the beginning of the 1990s
(Keskkonnateabe Keskus, 2010; Tallinna Tehnikaülikool, 2010). However, the
monitoring results of 2010 show a steady decrease of nitrate concentrations in
Pandivere groundwater zone (Figure 21) (Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus, 2010).
These positive results can be explained by a long, cold and snowy winter, as well as a
decreased use of fertilizers due to economic recession (Eesti Keskkonnauuringute
Keskus, 2010). Therefore, it must be stressed that changes in groundwater quality
may happen very fast and yet still deteriorate in unfavourable conditions.
Figure 21. Mean annual groundwater nitrate concentrations in Pandivere zone between 1991-2010
(Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus, 2010).
51
Surface water
Monitoring results of annual mean nitrate concentration in 10 NVZ rivers show some
small and some major increase of concentration in 5 rivers between the period of 20002003 and 2004-2007 and the rest of the 5 rivers have stayed stable (Kunda springs,
Valgejõgi-Porkuni, Pedja, Preedi ja Oostriku) (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008). The
change of concentrations in rivers between the periods are reflected in Table 18
(Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008).
Table 18. The change in annual mean nitrate concentrations in rivers between the periods of 2000-2003
and 2004-2007 (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008).
However it must be emphasized that annual maximum concentrations of nitrate have
increased in six rivers, with four rivers more than 5 mg/l (Keskkonnaministeerium,
2008). The overall rise of nitrate content in water bodies can be explained by
particular weather conditions, a warm and rainy winter, which caused a continuous
water flow (Keskkonnaministeerium, 2008).
The comparison of nitrate concentration in the NVZ rivers between the Action Plan
period of 2000-2003, 2004-2007 and 2008-2009 is reflected in Figure 22
(Keskkonnateabe Keskus, 2010). It can be concluded that the mean nitrate
concentration has increased in every river monitored during the Action Plan period
2009–2011.
52
Figure 22. Mean nitrate concentrations in 2000-2003, 2004-2007 and 2008-2009 in NVZ rivers
(Keskkonnateabe Keskus, 2010).
Based on the monitoring results, it can be said that the eutrofication is a continuing
problem for our coastal- and surface water bodies and requires restrictions and
constraints on agricultural production.
2.4. Measures to limit pollution from agriculture
The aim of the WFD and Baltic Sea Action Plan is to achieve and maintain a good
ecolgical status for water bodies. Since one of the goals is to reduce eutrophication,
then water status will only improve if runoff loads of both nitrogen and phosphorus
are significantly reduced. The input of nutrients must be reduced, by avoiding
leaching out with supports to appropriate agriculutral measures and constraints on
production. Priority should be given to measures that decrease N losses and increase
N output in useful products. As the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa nitrate
vulnerable zone is an intensive agricultural area, the role of measures addressing
agricultural pollution is especially significant. Thus, the following chapter will take a
closer look at the variety of measures implemented in the NVZ to discover the
differences of agricultural measures in the NVZ and the rest of the country as well as
sufficiency of these measures to combat and minimize agricultural diffuse pollution.
There are different measures that are designed to limit pollution from agriculture.
These measures can be divided as follows:
a) Regulations (legislation, limits) (compulsory)
b) Measures from the Sub-River Basin Management Plans (compulsory)
c) Agricultural supports (voluntary basis)
53
2.4.1. Regulations
Pollution prevention reduces the impact upon the environment and is more effective
than managing the effects of contamination. Regulations that set environmental norms
and limits to the production act as preventive measures. These restrictions on
agricultural production in the NVZ are establised by legal acts of the Estonian
Republic. According to the Water Act (Veeseadus, 1994), the NVZ is a protected
area, where more strict protection requirements are implemented. In order to control
and reduce the water pollution resulting from the spreading excessive use of
fertilizers, the restrictions imposed on production specifically in the NVZ are pointed
out in Table 19.
Table 19. Restrictions that are set to agricultural production for land under cultivation in the NVZ
compared to the rest of the country (Veeseadus, 1994).
N
o
1
Subject
Balanced
fertilization:
organic
fertilizers
2
Balanced
fertilization:
mineral
fertilizers
Limited areas
3
Limited areas
4
Restrictions on agricultural
production specifically in NVZ
It is allowed to use up to 170 kg of N
together with manure and mineral
fertilizers a year per one hectare of
arable land. Quantities of mineral
nitrogen exceeding 100 kg per hectare
shall be spread in parts.
It is not permitted to spread an average
of more than 140 kg of the total volume
of N with mineral fertilizers per year
per hectare of land under cultivation.
Restrictions on agricultural
production in Estonia
It is permitted to spread up to 170
kg of N and 25 kg of P with
organic fertilizers per year per
one hectare of arable land.
With mineral fertilizers it is
permitted to spread an amount of N
and P as is needed for agricultural
crops to grow. Amounts of mineral
fertilizers exceeding 100 kg per
hectare shall be spread in parts.
In NVZ with unprotected groundwater
and a soil depth of up to 2 m, and in karst
funnel areas, it is permitted to restrict the
following rules on the basis of the
protection rules: a) Spreading of mineral
N during one year up to 100 kg per one
hectare of arable land; b) Keeping of
livestock to 1.5 livestock unit per one
hectare of arable land; c) Using of waste
water sediment.
In areas surrounding springs and karst
funnels and in a range of 50m from the
boundary of the water or from the edge
of a funnel, it is prohibited to use
fertilizers, plant protection products
and to keep manure in a manure
stack, if the Order of Protection will not
establish otherwise.
In areas surrounding springs and
karst funnels and in a range of 10
m from the boundary of the water
or from the edge of a funnel, it is
prohibited to use fertilizers and
plant protection products and to
engage in any other activities
endangering water quality.
54
N
o
5
Subject
Plant coverage
Restrictions on agricultural
production specifically in NVZ
From 1 November until 31 March, at
least 30% of the land under
cultivation, used by an agricultural
producer shall be under plant cover.
1/3 of the above percentage may be
substituted by ploughing into the ground
of the straw of cereals, oil rape or turnip
rape. For the purposes of this Act, “plant
cover” means winter crops such as
winter cereals, winter oil rape, winter
turnip rape, herbaceous grasses,
leguminous crops, and culinary and
medicinal plants.
Restrictions on agricultural
production in Estonia
Other restrictions concerning fertilizing time, limits subject to ground inclination,
constraints around water bodies and requirements for manure and silage storage are
the same for the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ as for other agricultural
areas. However agricultural producers are recommended to follow good agricultural
practice, which means commonly accepted production techniques and methods which,
when followed correctly, do not endanger the environment. The updated version of
Good Agricultural Practice was completed in 2007 and has a more thorough approach
to water protection issues, including a separate chapter devoted to the Pandivere and
Adavere‐Põltsamaa NVZ (Põllumajandusministeerium, 2007).
Limitations on the usage of fertilizers compared to the rest of the country should
decrease the pollution load to the water environment. Following figures (Figure 23
and Figure 24) describe the usage of fertilizers in Estonia and in 3 NVZ counties
(Järvamaa, Jõgvamaa and Lääne-Virumaa) according to Statistics Estonia data during
the period of 1992 to 2010.
Figure 23. Usage of organic fertilizers in Estonia and in 3 NVZ counties between the period of 1992 –
2010 (based on Statistics Estonia data).
55
Figure 24. Usage of mineral fertilizers in Estonia and 3 NVZ counties between the period of 1992 to
2010 (based on Statistics Estonia data).
Statistics Estonia does not collect data separately on the usage of fertilizers in the
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ. However, since the majority of
municipalities from Järva- and Lääne-Viru counties (see Error! Reference source
ot found.) are located in the NVZ, the average usage of fertilizers per crop field
hectare in these 3 counties gives a quite credible overview of the fertilizers
management situation in the protected area. As it can be seen from the figures (Figure
23-24) the average usage of fertilizers per hectare in 3 NVZ counties does not differ
from the countries average. In addition, the usage of organic fertilizers per hectare is
even slightly higher in these 3 counties and the average of mineral fertilizers in
Estonia is comparable to the amounts used in the beginning of the 1990s.
2.4.2. Sub-river Basin Management Plan Programme of Measures
Establishing action plans, which would include specific measures to limit pollution,
with a valid timeline and funding scheme, are the policy instruments that support
directly the improvement of environmental status. Action plans should reflect
measures that are necessary to take to reach the goal of good water status. However,
as seen in Part I of the Report (see chapter 6), 15% of the budget in the RBMP PoMs
were planned to reduce pollution from agriculture and 12% of the budget was
allocated to measures addressing agricultural diffuse pollution. Yet, agriculture was
described to be one of the three most important pressure factors on the water
environment, notably in the NVZ. Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ lies partly
on four river basin districts: Harju-, Pärnu-, Viru- and Peipsi sub-river basin. Besides,
Estonia has established Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin, which is formed to
protect the waters in the Pandivere region, since it is an important groundwater
formation area and starting point for many rivers.
Sub-river basins, which form the NVZ area:
56
a) Pandivere NVZ – 2382 km2, which is 73% of the total NVZ area, lies fully on
Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin district. Therefore agricultural
measures from the Pandivere SRBMP PoMs were analysed.
b) The northern part of Pärnu sub-river basin district, 1004 km2, is included in
the Panidvere NVZ and thus has a common area with the Pandivere
groundwater sub-river basin. According to the Pärnu SRBMP, the fulfillment
of the NVZ is done under the Pandivere groundwater SRBMP and the diffuse
pollution limitation principle measures are implemented under the NVZ
Action Plan.
c) 50% of the NVZ lies in the Peipsi sub-river basin area, covering part of
Panidvere as well as the Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ region. According to the
Peipsi SRBMP, the diffuse pollution limitation measures originate from the
NVZ Action Plan.
d) A small part of the Pandivere NVZ lies in the territory of Viru sub-river basin,
which is covered also by the Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin area.
Therefore the agricultural measures origin from the Pandivere groundwater
SRBMP and diffuse pollution limitation measures from the NVZ Action Plan.
e) Since Pandivere NVZ lies also partly in the Harju sub-river basin district,
which covers the Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin area, the
implementation of Pandivere NVZ is done in the frames of Pandivere
groundwater SRBMP and NVZ Action Plan.
Therefore the fulfilment of the Pandivere NVZ Action Plan is done under the
Pandivere groundwater SRBMP and NVZ Action Plan. Thus pollution limitation
measures in the Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ origin from the Peipsi SRBMP and NVZ
Action Plan.
Similarly to Part I of the Report (see chapter 3), the share of cost allocated to
agricultural measures in the PoMs of Panidvere groundwater SRBMP and Peipsi
SRBMP individually and in total were calculated. As discussed in Part I of the
Report, the data from “Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
Action Plan 2009-2011” was used for the analysis of the budget of the Pandivere
groundwater sub-river basin diffuse pollution restrictions. The budget to limit diffuse
pollution was set at 1.71 mln EEK and included administration and diffuse pollution
limitation measures (see Annex II of the Report).
As expected, the allocation of funds revealed that the share of agricultural measures
was highest in the Pandivere groundwater SRBMP and formed 202.3 mln EEK
(42%) from the total fund of 480 mln EEK (Figure 25). The share of agricultural
measures in the Peipsi SRBMP formed 976.34 mln EEK (26.3%) out of 3714 mln
EEK. It can be said that the share of measures allocated to limit pollution from
agriculture in the NVZ is considerably higher than in Estonia, forming 1178.64 mln
EEK (28%) from the 4194 mln EEK planned for the two Programmes of Measures
(Figure 26).
57
Pandivere groundwater
srb
42,1
57,9
Agricultural
measures
Peipsi srb
26,3
Other
measures
73,7
0%
50%
100%
Figure 25. Share of agricultural measures in the two sub-river basins (srb).
28%
Other measures
Agricultural measures
72%
Figure 26. Share of agricultural measures in total in the two sub-river basins.
The priority of agricultural measures in Estonian RBMPs was to address pollution
from diffuse sources, yet SRBMPs highlighted the importance of point source
limitation measures. As for the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ, the analysis
of the allocation of measures in Part I of the Report revealed, that the majority of
funds are designed to limit point source pollution. 99% of agricultural funds are
dedicated to point pollution limitation in the Pandivere groundwater SRBMP PoM
and 94% in the Peipsi SRBMP PoM correspondingly.
Therefore in total, 13% (154.85 mln EEK out of 1178.65 mln EEK) of agricultural
measure funds are allocated to limit diffuse source pollution in the NVZ (Figure 27).
From all the measures planned in the PoMs of Pandivere groundwater SRBM and
Peipsi SRBM, which is 4194 mln EEK, around 4% (that is 154.85 mln EEK) was
placed to financing activities that combat pollution from diffuse sources.
58
13%
Limitation of pointpollution
Limitation of diffuse
pollution
87%
Figure 27. Share of agricultural measures by category in the Pandivere groundwater
and Peipsi sub-river basins.
2.4.3. Estonian Rural Development Plan measures
In order to meet theWFD goals, farmers have the opportunity to apply for financial or
educational support. Farmers should be supported by providing ecosystem services –
using measures to avoid nutrient runoff into the water environment. EU Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) regulates manufacturing, selling and producing of
agricultural goods. The overall goal of the CAP is to help European farmers remain
competitive, support rural development and promote environmental protection. CAP
measures, that promote water quality protection are cross compliance measurements
and rural development supports under the 2nd pillar of the policy.
In the framework of the Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 (RDP), the
majority of support payments are done to Axis I (38%) (improving the
competitiveness of the agricultural and foresty sector) and Axis II (36%) (improving
the environment and countryside) activities. The majority of Axis II measures, which
have been paid to the farmers in 2009, were supports for environmentally friendly
management (47%) and followed by supports for less-favoured areas (17%) and
organic production (16%) (Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus, 2011).
Though the Axis II measures are aimed to protect nature, according to analyses, the
main target of Estonian RDP measures is still to maintain viability of rural
development and water protection is considered as an additional value (ELLE,
2010b). Therefore improving competitiveness and supporting more intensive farming,
through the 1st pillar of CAP and Axis I of RDP, may raise the potential water
pollution load and impose a negative effect on the water quality. These ideas are
supported by several studies (European Parliament’s Committee..., 2011; Deloitte
consulting et al., 2011; Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2011) and thus,
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the allocation of supports between Estonian counties in
2009. It can be seen that supports from the 1st pillar of CAP are higher than from the
2nd pillar (RDP), especially in the three NVZ counties (Lääne-Viru, Järva and
59
Jõgeva) (Figure 28). In addition, the support for the Axis I of the RDP, which raise
competitiveness and supports intensifying agriculture, are noteably higher in NVZ
counties than in the rest of the country (Figure 29).
Figure 28. The allocation of pillar I and II supports between Estonian counties in 2009 (million of
euros) (Keskkonnauuringute Keskus, 2011).
Figure 29. The allocation of ERDP 2007-2013 supports (Axis I, Axis II, Axis II and LEADER)
between Estonian counties in 2009 (millions of euros) (Keskkonnauuringute Keskus, 2011).
60
Though supports for improving competitiveness outweigh supports to protecting
water, subsidies for environmentally friendly management in the NVZ are rather
significant. According to Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus (2011), the share of
environmentally friendly support under the agricultural area eligible for Single Area
Payment Scheme (SAPS) in the NVZ is higher than in the rest of Estonia (Figure 30).
In addition it must be noted, that permanent pastures are excluded from the figure,
which shows the popularity of this measure in intensive agricultural areas. Yet the
importance of other agri-environmental supports (support for less-favoured areas,
supports for organic production and NATURA supports for agricultural land) is rather
modest, comparing to the rest of the country (Figure 31).
Figure 30. The share of area under environmentally friendly management support from the area eligible
for Single Area Payment Scheme (Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus, 2011).
61
The share of area under environmental subsidies from the area
eligible for Single Area Payment Scheme in 2010
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Estonia
NVZ
LESS-FAV
NATURA_agri
EFM
ORG
Figure 31. The share of agri-environmental supports in the NVZ and in Estonia from the area eligible
for SAPS in 20101 (based on data sent by PRIA, 23.05.2011).
Axis I measures under the RDP do not support only viability of agriculture, but
provide necessary investments for buildings, like manure storage facilities. However,
according to the study carried out in 2010, 21% of the 252 farms (over 10 AU) that
were monitored in the NVZ did not have proper manure storage facilities (ELLE,
2010a). During the forth application period (in 2010), only 15% of the supports from
the measure 1.4.2 “Investments in livestock buildings”, was allocated to construction
of manure storage facilities in Estonia (Simmo, 2011). Figure 19 reflects the
differences in finances per applicant in 2010. Investments in livestock buildings per
capita are higher in the NVZ (Figure 32), though the amount of money invested in
manure storage is not clear. When registered in the NVZ municipality, the actual
production facilities may not be located in the protected area. Thus the deficiencies in
the data collection increases uncertainty in assessing the efficiency of the
environmental supports gained.
(LESS-FAV – supports for less-favoured areas; NATURA_agri – NATURA2000 supports for
agricultural land; EFM – supports for environmentally friendly management; ORG – supports for
organic production)
1
62
The amount of Axis I supports per applicant in 2010
Infrastucture of agriculture…
Euros per applicant
from other
municipalities
Adding value to agricultural…
Investments into the…
Euros per applicant fom
NVZ municipalities
Investments in livestock …
Investments into the…
0,0
100,0
200,0
300,0 Thousand Euros
Figure 32. The share of investments per capita in NVZ municipalities and in other municipalities
(based on data sent by PRIA, 31.03.2011).
The annual monitoring report of ERDP refects only the share of farmers, or share of
agricultural land, that have gained support, which makes it impossible to assess the
effectiveness and actual environmental benefit of supporting measures (ELLE,
2010b). Though ERDP measures finance activities, which theoretically protect nature,
there is no direct reference on the achievement of WFD goals and it can be said that
ERDP measures have not produced a positive outcome on water quality in
agricultural land in the NVZ (ELLE, 2010b). Because of the current CAP and its
supports to intensive agriculture, the EU is likely to fail to meet its international
obligations in relation to water protection, biodiversity and climate change (WWF
Baltic Ecoregion Programme, 2009).
2.5. Discussion of the problems
Intensive agriculture and environmental protection are quite adverse activities. More
intensive agricultural production causes continuing conflicting issues amongst the two
sectors. One of the main issues is nutrient leakage, polluting ground and surface
waters, notably in the NVZ due to its geological construction. Difficulty of direct
monitoring of diffuse pollution, inaccurate estimations and complexity of the leaching
process raise pressure in reaching the good status of waters. Though the monitoring
results of Pandivere groundwater zone in 2010 showed a slight decrease in nitrate
concentrations (Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus, 2010), these results are thought to
be coincidence due to favourable conditions (cold snowy winter and economic
recession), and the overall nitrate concentration trend seems to be rising in both
ground and surface waters. The same can be said about the usage of fertilizers. Usage
of mineral fertilizers per crop field hectare in the 3 NVZ counties does not differ from
the Estonian average. In addition, the average use of mineral fertilizers in Estonia in
2010 was similar to the beginning of 1990s. Therefore it can be said, that the nitrate
ion concentrations in the waters reflect the average use of fertilizers. This has also
been noted by a recent study of Loigu et al. (2011) (Figure 33).
63
Figure 33. Mean annual nitrate concentrations in Pandivere in the 16 monitored wells and springs and
used mineral and organic fertilizer per area fertilized in the period of 1991-2009 (Loigu et al., 2011).
To reduce the impact of agricultural activities on water bodies, several development
documents have been established. The main agri-environmental targets have been
covered in the relevant policy documents. An additional Pandivere groundwater subriver basin has been formed to protect the significant groundwater formation area Pandivere. In addition to that, NVZ Action Plans have been implemented in the
protected area, to specifically reduce the impact of agriculture on the water
environment. Based on the literature overview and data analyzed in this chapter, the
lack of success of the NVZ scheme can be explained by the following factors:
Since Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ do not follow the exact river
basin district borders, it is divided between five sub-river basins. However the
fulfilment of the Pandivere NVZ objectives are done under the Pandivere
groundwater SRBMP and NVZ Action Plan and the pollution limitation
measures in the Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ originate from the Peipsi SRBMP
and NVZ Action Plan. Yet the integration of NVZ Action Plan measures to
the SRBMP remains rather fragmented.
As seen from the analysis of SRBMPs PoM, the share of measures addressed
to limit pollution load from agriculture is notably higher (28%) in the NVZ
than in the rest of the country (15%). However, the priority of the Pandivere
groundwater and Peipsi SRBMP is to limit pollution point sources.
The monitoring system for agricultural diffuse pollution should be improved
in order to evaluate the efficiency of the measures implemented. Both
agricultural point- as well as diffuse pollution cause continuing problems in an
64
intensive agricultural area – Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa nitrate
vulnerable zone. Further, the actual sources of contamination remain unclear.
Though the Estonian RDP measures finance activities, which theoretically
protect nature, there is no direct reference on the achievement of the WFD
goals. These measures were not fully integrated into the PoMs of Pandivere
groundwater and Peipsi SRBMPs. Therefore it cannot be said whether the
RDP measures have produced a positive outcome on water quality on
agricultural land in the NVZ.
Therefore according to the literature analysed, it can be said that the understanding
and mitigating diffuse pollution from agriculture continues to pose a demanding
challenge in the NVZ.
65
3. FARMERS` PERCEPTIONS OF WATER AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE PILOT
AREA
3.1. General data on farmers’ perceptions of water and
environmental protection
As most nutrients from terrestial sources, largely originating from agriculture, are
delivered fluvially, controlling these inputs requires an understanding of land uses
within the river catchment, especially the decision making process of land managers
(Macgregor et al., 2006). While there are management practices that the farmers
within the NVZ are required to respond to adopt, legislative initatives can not be the
only drivers that play a role in improving water quality long-term.
Farmers are the actors responsible for the practical delivery of these broader
environmental aspirations, therefore it is the desires and beliefs of farmers operating
at the farm and local levels that will determine what actually happens on the ground
(Bratt, 2002). Thus it is of utmost importance to understand farmers’ attitudes, roles
and responsibilities. Besides determining the environmental awareness of farmers, the
efficiency of agro-environmental policy can be estimated by comprehending the role
of farmers delivering non-market goods as well as traditional produce (Hall et al.,
2004), including an understanding of their role as environmental managers in the
countryside.
3.1.1. Previous studies on farmers’ perception on water mangement in the EU
There are several studies conducted on environmental management issues in water
catchment areas. Previous studies in the EU frequently express a lack of responsibility
for creating and addressing water pollution problems (Popp et al., 2007) and that
farmers rarely consider environmental issues beyond the boundaries of their farms
(Macgregor et al., 2006), furthermore, they fail to acknowledge that any water
pollution problem exists (Popp et al., 2007).
Some studies exist, which directly examine the perceptions of farmers operating
within NVZs. Studies have been conducted in Denmark and England (Nimmo Smith
et al., 2007) and in Scotland (Macgregor et al., 2006; Barnes et al., 2009). A recent
survey conducted in four NVZs in Scotland showed that the bulk of farmers have
made little capital investment since the 2003 designation (Barnes et al., 2009).
Experience of environmental regulations has left many with concerns about rules
changing in unfavourable ways (Macgreogor et al., 2006) and in general farmers
either did not believe the evidence related to the designations, or wanted to see proof
that reductions in application levels may have some positive impact (Barnes et al.,
2009). In addition to that, farmers felt unfairly penalised by the restrictions placed on
them, compared to those outside the zone (Barnes et al., 2009; Macgreogor et al.,
2006).
66
Burton (2004) explored the cultural influences behind farmer decision-making and
found that a productivist approach represents a means of obtaining “social status and
recognition within the community as a good farmer”. He argued that, from a policymaker perspective, there should be greater consideration of cultural values when
promoting change in agriculture.
Clearly, all of these studies show a lack of any pro-active uptake of measures within
the scheme and indicates farmers’ unwillingness to accept responsibility for any
negative impacts on water quality.
3.1.2. Previous studies on farmers’ perceptions on environmental issues in
Estonia
The Estonian Agricultural Research Centre has conducted two extensive surveys
about environmental awareness among Estonian agricultural producers, the first one
in 2004 and the second in 2007, during the last period of the Estonian Rural
Development Plan. A recent study, curried out in 2009 focused on opinion and usage
of Axis II measures of the RDP, besides environmental awareness. However, since
the nature of the questionnaires of 2007 and 2009 is different, the results cannot be
compared. Though surveys about environmental attitudes among farmers have been
conducted by other organizations and institutions, quite often they are too specific or
directed to a smaller target group.
The aim of the study conducted in 2007, was to find out how agro-environmental
support schemes have affected environmental awareness and knowledge among
farmers in Estonia (Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus, 2007). It was found that most of
the producers believe that the usage of mineral fertilizers and pesticides have a
negative effect on water quality and biodiversity. However, the main driver for
environmentally friendly management was considered to be financial support by 80%
of the producers, which was followed by personal interest. A majority of the
respondents estimated that agricultural production causes environmental problems at
some or other important degree in Estonia and on a regional level. Though, relatively
few have associated environmental problems with their own actions. In addition to
that, the survey showed that half of the respondents have participated in soil-,
nutrient- and grassland management training, as well as environmentally friendly
plant protection product training.
The objective of the recent survey carried out in 2009, included also questions about
the opinion and usage of Axis II measures (RDP 2007-2013)
(Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus, 2010). The results show that joining the RDP
supporting scheme have increased interest in environmentally conscious agriculture
among farmers (85%), while for 23% of the respondents, it has not. The main
motivator for environmentally friendly management was the idea of preserving the
environment for future generations (49%). If additional environmental restrictions
were to be supported by the scheme, half of the producers would agree with
environmental constraints preserving biodiversity. However, the second half of the
producers found that there are enough restrictions already. A majority of the
environmentally friendly managing farmers believed also that there are enough
restrictions already. Whereas, a vast majority of organic producers would continue
producing even without support payments.
67
3.2. Farmers attitudes towards water protection and impact of
agricultural practices in Pandivere and Adavere – Põltsamaa nitrate
vulnerable zone
3.2.1. Objectives of the survey
There has not been a further study about farmers’ opinions specifically towards water
pollution and management or behavioral and attitudinal barriers in Pandivere and
Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ. And yet, collecting information about water quality
perception from stakeholders is critical for predicting water quality more accurately.
In attempting to understand the cause of behavioural actions, it is argued that this
behaviour could be predicted by a producer’s intentions (Barnes et a.l, 2009). These
intentions can also be determined by the farmer’s attitudes and the influence of other
reference groups (Barnes et al., 2009).
Since the cause of farmers’ actions in the fields are determined by their attitudes,
attitudinal questionnaire was chosen as a study method. Therefore, a web-based
questionnaire was developed to understand farmers opinion about the adequacy and
relevance of water protection measures as well as suggestions about the possibilities
to improve the efficiency of water protection.
The aim of the survey was to find out:
a) Whether farmers who operate in Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate
Vulnerable Zone see water pollution as a problem?
b) Do the farmers of the NVZ see water pollution as a consequence of their own
actions?
c) What role do farmers see themselves as agricultural producers in protecting the
water?
d) What is the main problem according to farmers, that needs to be solved to protect
the water more efficiently?
e) Are the farmers willing to take a pro-active role in decision making and discussions
about water quality?
3.2.2. Data and Methods
Questionnaire
To reach the goal of the study, a quantitative survey based on a web-based
questionnaire was chosen as the research method. An online survey research makes it
possible to access a large number of recipients, which would be difficult with face-toface interviews. Since agricultural producers apply for state support also via the
Internet, the use of Internet was not regarded as a notable obstacle in carrying out the
web-based survey. In addition, web-based surveys have a number of advantages, they
68
are cheap to carry out, the data is captured directly in an electronic format, making
analysis faster and provides anonymity for respondents that may result in more honest
answers to sensitive topics like environmental pollution. However, not all of the
recipients of the questionnaire may find answering to the electronic form easy and
such an impersonal approach may result in a low answering rate, therefore results
may not be fully representative of the whole target group.
A web-based tool – www.surveymonkey.com was used to compile the survey.
Thereafter an interactive link to the survey and pdf-format file, were added to the email of respondees with a request to complete the survey.
The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions divided into 6 blocks of issues:
1) Introductory text that contained information about the aims of the survey,
structure of the survey, researchers` contacts for further comments or
questions, information about the finalisation of the results of the study. The
importance of the responses and anonymity of the survey for the respondents
was underlined.
2) Questions 1 to 7 were about farmers’ opinion about water quality and
efficiency of water protection measures in the NVZ;
3) Farmers’ perceptions of their role as land managers and of environmental
awareness (Question 8);
4) Questions 9 to 10 were about farmers’ opinion about the characteristics of
fertiliser management in the NVZ;
5) Questions 11 to 13 were about farmers’ attitudes to the advisory system,
supervision and stakeholder involvement;
6) Social-demographic background of respondents was covered by Questions 14
to 22, including description of respondents’ land use and agricultural
production.
The survey was constructed with questions with optional answers (closed-ended
questions). Each question had an additional comment line where appropriate, which
enabled respondents to create their own response if choices did not represent their
preferred response (partial open-ended). Closed-ended questions provide primarily
quantitative data, and are frequently used in research. These questions require
participants to choose an answer from a limited number of options predetermined by
the researcher. A majority of the questions asked in the questionnaire were basic type
closed-ended questions like:
a) Single choice questions (n=8), where respondents have to choose the best
possible answer among all options presented, like social-demographic
background questions and multiple choice questions (n=3);
b) Likert-scale questions (n=8) to determine respondents’ attitudes or feelings
about something, like attitude statements about water- or environment
protection and fertiliser management. The most commonly used approach to
measuring attitude is the itemised rating scale (Brace, 2004). These provide a
straightforward way of asking attitudinal information that is easy and versatile
69
to analyse, thus one of the most known and commonly used is the Likert scale
(Brace, 2004). Usually a balanced scale, of equal positive and negative ratings
are used in surveys. Responses using the Likert scale can be given scores for
each statement, usually from 1 to 5 (disagree strongly, disagree, neither agree
nor disagree, agree, agree strongly).
c) Ordinal questions (n=1), where respondents have to rank their responses. A
ranking indicates the importance assigned by a participant to responses
predetermined by the researcher. These types of questions determine the
relative importance to respondents of various options, however, the number of
options should be limited in order to facilitate a ranking process. Only one
ordinal question was used in the study, asking the respondents to evaluate the
importance of five different types of water protection measures.
d) Numeric values questions (n=1). Only one numeric value question was asked
about the agri-environmental support, which farmers had received during the
last four year period.
e) Open-ended question for additional comments (n=1);
f) If the respondent was unable to rate or rank the provided choices, a special
option “do not know” was included in the answer row for attitudinal statement
questions.
Traditional method of measuring attitudes is by means of evaluation of attitude
statements. As measurement of attitude poses more problems than does the
measurement of behaviour, respondents need to be helped to express attitudes and
describe images (Brace, 2004; Oppenheim, 1992). The unreliability of a single
question in an attitudinal survey will pose a serious problem (Oppenheim, 1992) and
therefore various forms of wording of the same question are used. The total score of a
set of statements, to measure the same continuum in a variety of ways, calculated for
each respondent, is better and more reliable. It is suggested that the more items used,
the higher will be the reliability of the total score, though the statement should be
balanced and not overlap, thus most scales tend to consist of no more than a couple of
dozen items each (Oppenheim, 1992). Attitudinal statements were used to assess
farmers’ perceptions of their role as land managers and of environmental awareness.
Before launching the survey, it was tested in a test group consisting of an
environmental expert Mr K. Heinma, from ELLE OÜ, Ms K. Rannik, Head of the
Agri-Environmental Bureau in Ministry of Agriculture, and Mr Ü. Niisuke, Head of
the Lääne-Virumaa Farmers’ Union (Lääne-Virumaa Põllumeeste Liit). After testing,
appropriate improvements in both wording and content of the questionnaire were
made. In order to raise the number of respondents, the survey was carried out in
Estonian, with the results translated into English.
Population of the survey
The questionnaire was targeted to the owners (partly or totally owned, tenanted,
rented out or trading on a partnership basis) of agricultural companies and private
persons who manage at least one agricultural entity that operates in the area of
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa nitrate vulnerable zone (3250 km²). These
agricultural producers form the population of the survey. According to the Estonian
70
Agricultural Registers and Information Board, there are 1321 producers in that area.
Since the study was conducted via e-mail and not all of the farmers have an e-mail
address or have made it available to public sources, the survey was addressing only a
sample of the population. In order to have a representative sample, e-mail addresses,
as many as possible, were collected.
To raise the number of respondents and to meet the time scale of the research, the
survey was sent out during one of the periods of the lowest agricultural activity: just
before the start of the high season for crop harvesting. The invitation to participate in
the survey was sent out in three dispatches, with a request to respond by 1 September
2011.
At first, the survey was sent out on the 1st of August 2011 and farmers were asked to
respond in 12 days with an extra notification of the deadline on the 8th of August. The
second sending was done on the 19th of August after collecting new contact addresses
for agricultural producers operating in the NVZ. The third sending was made on the
25th of August and a reminder of the deadline was sent out on the 30th of August.
According to Oppenheim (1992), half of the survey responses arrive within one day.
Further to that, the response period was prolonged and the survey remained opened
till the 1st of September. It was expected that the surveys’ 22 questions on 12 pages
would take approximately 15-20 minutes for a person to answer.
The sample of the study population consisted of 298 e-mail addresses to where the
invitation to participate in the survey was initially sent. 21 notifications of false
address or non-delivery were received. Thus, the final sample comprised of 277 email addresses that were safely delivered. The initial list of addressees was collected
from seven main sources:
1) Local agricultural advisory centres play an active role in providing
information to producers and organising trainings. Therefore e-mail addresses
for the NVZ producers were asked via e-mail from the local agricultural
advisory centres. Since Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa nitrate vulnerable
zone lays over 3 counties, a request was sent to the managers of Lääne-Viru,
Järva and Jõgeva county agricultural advisory centres. All contacts for
advisory centres can be found on Estonians’ agriculture and rural economy
information portal (www.pikk.ee). Only Lääne-Virumaa Farmers’ Union
(where Lääne-Viru advisory centre works as a subdivision) and Järva county
advisory centre provided e-mail addresses for producers who operate in the
NVZ. Farmers’ contacts from Jõgeva county were found from the web page
and the suitability of these addresses were checked via a web-based map of the
NVZ of the Estonian Land Board (www.maaamet.ee).
2) The contact information about legal entities can be found from Internet sites
(www.baltinfo.ee; www.1181.ee; www.ariinfo24.ee; http://jarve.ee.ee;
http://viru.ee.ee; www.jarva.ee), where some producers have made their email
address public. After collecting agricultural producers’ e-mail contacts, the
location of the production site was checked via the web-based map of the
NVZ of the Estonian Land Board (www.maaamet.ee).
3) Since Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ covers administratively 21
parishes (partially or totally), local environmental specialists were provided
(via e-mail) a preliminary list of producers (name and address of the
71
production site) and with a request to correct and supplement the initial list
with e-mail contacts. The initial list of NVZ producers was developed by the
author based on the address of the production site. Addresses were looked up
from Internet sites (www.baltinfo.ee; www.1181.ee; www.ariinfo24.ee) that
gather information about legal entities. Information was received from five
local environmental specialists.
4) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) permits are compulsory
for production facilities of beef (more than 300 dairy cows), pig (more than
2000 pigs) and poultry (40 000 birds) husbandry. Information about the IPPC
permit holders and the location of their production units can be found in the
Estonian Environmental Permits Information System (www.klis.envir.ee/klis).
Since IPPC permits include detailed contact information (e-mail and address),
it enabled to check the suitability of the production site for the purposes of the
survey as with the help of the web-based nitrate vulnerable zone map of the
Estonian Land Board (www.maaamet.ee).
5) The Agricultural Board keeps a register for organic producers
(http://saku.pma.agri.ee:22001/jisweb/forms/mainframe.htm).
Since
this
register includes detailed contact information (e-mail and address), the
suitability of the production site for the purposes of the survey was again
checked via the web-based nitrate vulnerable zone map of the Estonian Land
Board.
6) After sending an information request, the Chancellor of the Ministry of the
Environment provided a list of farmers operating in mixed or livestock
farming of more than 10 animal units (AU) in the NVZ. The Ministry of
Environment provided a list of livestock farmers in the NVZ whose manure
storages were inventoried during a project commissioned by the ministry in
2009-2010.
7) After sending an information request, the Estonian Agricultural Registers and
Information Board provided a list of legal entities of agricultural producers in
the NVZ who have applied for Single Area Payment Scheme in 2011. Due to
the confidentiality of the personal contact addresses, e-mails for agricultural
producers in the NVZ who operate as physical persons, were not possible to
receive.
Thus from all seven sources of information, 468 initial contacts were collected (Table
20). After removing duplicated e-mails, 298 e-mail addresses were selected and used
for sending out the questionnaire to farmers. 21 e-mail addresses were, however,
unreachable.
72
Table 20. Sources and number of contact e-mail addresses.
Source of information
Number of contacts received (e-mail
addresses)
Agricultural advisory centres
85
Internet sites
24
Local environmental specialist
21
IPPC permits
10
Agricultural Board Registers for Organic Producers
33
Ministry of the Environment
109
Estonian Agricultural Registers and Information Board
186
TOTAL NO OF CONTACTS
468
TOTAL NO OF CONTACTS AFTER REMOVING
DUPLICATE E-MAIL ADDRESSES
298
DELIVERED E-MAILS (SAMPLE OF THE
SURVEY)
277
Thus, the total sample of the survey population was eventually 277 agricultural
producers, representing legal persons, who managed the arable land (own, partly own,
rent or trade on a partnership basis for at least one entity) in the borders of Pandivere
and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone due 1 September 2011.
3.2.3. Analysis of the results
Analysis of the study consisted of simple frequency statistics and basic graphs of the
data collected. Since the sample of the study (277 sent e-mails) was relatively small,
which in turn resulted in a small number of respondents (also noted as a sample of
respondents), profound statistical analysis was not eligible to conduct. The data was
collected via “Surveymonkey.com” web-page and downloaded to Excel file, where
the analysis was carried out. A basic frequency distribution was calculated. After that,
a graph was compiled, showing how many respondents or what was the allocation of
respondents in each category of answers. The percentages reflected in the figures are
given one decimal point accuracy, where applicable.
Since with almost every survey question, some respondents did not answer to some
questions, missing values were ignored and only valid answers to the question were
counted. This means that the respondents` number differs between questions, thus the
number of respondents to each question is noted in a subscription of the figure
(marked with “N”). To questions where multiple answers were possible, the share of 1
73
answer version from the total was calculated according to the number of people who
chose that same answer version (except question 8 “Environmental protection”). Not
according to the total number of answers to all the versions possible (except question
8 “Environmental protection”). The survey consisted of 3 questions where more than
one answer was possible, these were the socio-economic questions.
For multiple choice questions, the share for answers was calculated and the results
were represented in the pie-charts. Likert-scale attitudinal answers were represented
in percentages on a basic bar chart. All answer versions in the bar chart were aligned
by the same sequence of indicators (strongly agree, agree etc.) to add consistency.
Additional analysis was carried out for the question about environmental protection
(question no 8), where farmers had to indicate their agreement with the statements
given. These statements were designed by a researcher to divide respondents into
groups, according to their answers. The profound description of the grouping
methodology is presented in the next chapter. To represent the results of ordinal
questions, where respondents had to rank their responses, response average was
calculated. Since farmers had to rank the most efficient measures with number one
and the least effective with number five, the measure with the lowest average value
was constructed on top of the bar chart.
The majority of the questions also contained a comment line for respondents to add
any additional information they wanted to point out. These act like open-ended
questions, where various answers are possible. However, since the number of
respondents was small, which resulted in an even smaller number of additional
comments, there was no need to carry out an additional analysis (classify, encode) for
these comments. Respondents’ comments are pointed out in the descriptive part of the
figure to add in-depth understanding of the results. Again, since the sample of
respondents was relatively small, cluster analysis about the distribution of respondents
according to the socio-economic characteristics for every question was not
statistically reasonable to carry out.
All questions, where special features of the certain data analysis and charts were
needed, are more thoroughly represented in the next chapter.
3.2.4. Results of the farmers’ survey
Respondents
During the conducting period from 1st of August till 1st of September, 52 responses
were collected from the farmers. As the sample of the survey was 277 contacts, the
response rate was 18,8%. This was considered a good result, since the average
response rate for a web-based questionnaire is 5–20% (Ojala, 2011). However, due to
the small number of respondents, in depth statistical analysis was not possible to carry
out. Since empirical sampling was used, results can not be generalised for the
population of the study. Thus is must be stressed, that fundamental conclusions based
on the results cannot be made, rather these provide a first reflection on the NVZ
farmers’ attitude towards water protection. The socio-economic description of the
74
respondents, who shared their opinion about farming and water protection, is reflected
in the following Figures from 34 to 38.
A majority, 23 respondents operated in the Pandivere region of the NVZ. Surprisingly
few, 5 responses came from Põltsamaa region and only 3 from the smaller Adavere
region (Figure 34).
It can be said that the majority of the respondents were large producers (Figure 34).
13 farmers (39.4%) produced crop on arable land of 500 hectares and more. However,
the size of the production land of 13 farmers (39.4%) varied greatly from 50 hectares
to 499 hectares. Yet seven (21.2%) farmers were small producers with up to 49
hectares of land. 26 respondents out of 52 claimed to be operating in livestock
farming and chose to mark the size of the farm. Half of them, 13 farmers (50%)
managed large farms of more than 300 AU. Two farmers (7.7%) operated in medium
farms with a size of 100-300 AU and seven farmers (26.9%) with a size of 11-99 AU.
There were only four small livestock farmers with a farm size up to 10 AU.
A vast majority, 27 of the respondents (79.4%), were not organic producers. Only
four (11.8%) farmers produced 100% organically and three farmers had up to 99% of
their product organically produced (Figure 34). The survey showed that the majority
of the respondents have long experience in farming (Figure 34). 41.2% of the
respondents have been agricultural producers for 21 years or more. In addition, 26.5%
of respondents have 16-20 years of experience. There were only four newcomers with
less than six years of experience.
Figure 34. The socio-economic background of the respondents (N=26-34)2.
2
“N” - Number of respondents here and further in the tables
75
34 farmers out of 52 chose to indicate the specialization of their production. Farmers
who answered the survey were mainly occupied with producing crop and cereals (14
farmers), but also mixed farming of both livestock and cereals (13 farmers) and dairy
farming (12 farmers) (Figure 35). Seven farmers noted their main occupation as beef
cattle farming. Fruit-, berry and vegetable farming together with the maintenance of
semi-natural habitats were mainly noted as partial activities. There were very few pig
and poultry farmers. Only one farmer, whose main activity was poultry and one who
partly dealt with pig farming responded.
Specialization of the production
Cereals and general cropping (winterand summer crops)
Mixed farming (crop- and livestock
farming)
Dairy farming
Beef cattle farming
Maintenance of semi-natural habitats
Fruit farming (apple, plum, cherry etc)
Vegetable farming (potato, carrot,
cabbage, cucumber, salad etc)
Poultry and broiler farming
Berry farming (strowberry, blueberry,
blackberry atc)
Pig farming
0
Mostly
Partly
5
10
15
20
25
Responses
Figure 35. Question: My agricultural production is specialized on…More than one answer is possible.
(N=34).
37 farmers out of 52 answered the question about the proprietary of the land. Multiple
answers about the share of ownership were possible and thus the distribution of
answers is reflected in Figure 36. Questions about the ownership of the production
showed that 12 (32%) of the respondents manage their own production. However, 19
farmers operate on partly (up to 99%) tenanted arable land. Only four farmers
managed a 100% tenanted production.
76
Ownership of the production
3% 3%
Owned
11%
50% - 99% tenanted
32%
Up to 49% tenanted
21%
100% tenanted
Up to 49% rent out
30%
Trading on a partnership
basis
Figure 36. Question: The arable land managed by you is… More than one answer is possible (N=37).
The analysis of producers’ revenue showed that for the majority of farmers,
agricultural production was not their only source of income (Figure 37). 16 (48.5%)
farmers received 50-99% of their income from agricultural production and 8 farmers
(24.2%) received less than 50% of their total income from agriculture. For nine
farmers (27.3%) agriculture was their primary and only source of income.
Revenue from agricultural production from the total income
6,1%
24,2%
51%-99%
42,4%
100%
<50%
27,3%
ca 50%
Figure 37. Question: From my total income, the revenue from agricultural production forms
approximately… (N=33).
21 farmers out of 52 marked, that they have received agri-environmental supports
from the Estonian RDP (Figure 38). As expected, a majority of the respondents (18
77
farmers) have received mainly supports for environmentally friendly management,
whereas only 7 have received supports for organic production. This allocation of agrienvironmental supports is similar to the allocation of the Estonian Rural Development
Plan Axis II funds in Estonia. The analysis of the amount of rural development
supports, was left out in this study, because there were not many, who chose to
answer this question.
Share of farmers, who have received agri-environmental
supports
Support for environmentally
friendly management
9%
9%
Support for organic
production
9%
53%
20%
Support for keeping local and
endangered animal breeds
Support for growing plants of
local varieties
Support for the maintenance
of semi-natural habitats
Figure 38. Question: I have received the following agri-environmental supports. If possible, please
indicate the total sum during the last four year period of 2007-2010 (EEK) in the text box next to the
support measure! More than one answer is possible! (N=21).
Conclusion:
The socio-economic description of the farmers showed that the majority of the
respondents were large producers, dealing mostly with cereal and general cropping,
mixed farming or dairy and beef cattle farming. These producers have been occupied
with agricultural production for more than 20 years and manage their own or partly
tenanted production. Though 79% of the respondents were not organic producers,
53% have received supports for environmental friendly management.
Water protection
To understand whether farmers themselves consider water quality to be a problem in
the NVZ, they were asked to describe the condition of drinking and recreational water
in the nearby neighbourhood.
A majority of the respondents (34 people) found that the quality of drinking water in
their home area is either of high or good quality (Figure 40). However, six of the
respondents claimed that their drinking water is of poor or bad quality. The reasons
78
given in the commentary line were that the water was limy and hard or tasted weird
during springtime.
The quality of drinking water in the area
4,0%
8,0%
Good
44,0%
20,0%
High
Moderate
Poor
Bad
24,0%
Figure 40. Question: What is the quality of drinking water in your area? (N=50).
Correspondingly, 34 respondents also found that the quality of the water in the water
bodies in the nearby neighborhood is of high or good quality for fishing, bathing or
drinking, for the livestock etc. (Figure 41). However, 13 respondents found the
surface water to be of moderate quality. None of the farmers thought that the water
quality was poor or bad, although one farmer questioned the quality of the water in a
lake near to a specific dairy farm. Three farmers did not know how to answer, because
there were no rivers or lakes in their home area.
The quality of water in water bodies in the area
6,0%
Good
16,0%
Moderate
52,0%
26,0%
High
Don't know
Figure 41. Question: What is the quality of water in water bodies in your area (for fishing, bathing,
drinking, livestock etc.)? (N=50).
Overall, it can be concluded that 68% of the respondents regarded the quality of
drinking water and the quality of surface water in their neighbourhood as high or
good. However six respondents found the quality of their drinking water to be poor or
bad. The statistical difference between the NVZ regions about water quality could not
79
be pointed out, since the number of respondents from each of the three sub-regions of
the NVZ was too small for comparison.
Further, the farmers were asked to assess the potential of impacts of agricultural
activity on water quality and the importance of water protection measures. To get an
overview, two attitudinal questions, one ordinal question and one open question for
additional information on water protection were asked.
Firstly, the farmers were asked to rate the factors that affect the quality of water
(Figure 42). Farmers found that manure management is the factor that affects water
quality the most. More than 80% of the respondents found that leakage from manure
and silage storages was an important factor to affect the water quality. Also, the
timing of fertilizer application, manure storage facilities and method of application
were regarded as the factors that affect the quality of water to a large or some extent.
More than half of the respondents regarded nutrient emission through air or via water
flows from outside the NVZ area as factors that affect water quality the least. These
factors were thought to have either little or no effect. However, more than 15% of the
respondents lacked information about these problems, as they chose to answer “don’t
know”. It can be concluded that farmers generally agree that the source of probable
contamination of waters lies within not outside the NVZ area.
Somewhat surprisingly, the usage of fertilizers, fertilizer composition and plant
protection products were not considered to be a primary issue in agricultural practice
affecting the water. 34% of respondents regarded these factors as having little or no
effect. However, 20% of the responding farmers found that these factors affect water
quality to a large extent. Still, some of the respondents emphasized that the high
prices for fertilizers and for plant protection chemicals coupled with regulatory limits
for application set boundaries for a possible overdose. This distribution of answers
was common among livestock farmers, mixed farmers as well as cereal producers.
However, all six responding producers, whose production is 50% to 100% organic,
found that the use of fertilizers affects water quality to a large or some extent.
80
Factors that affect water quality
Leakage from manure and silage
storages
Timing of fertilizer application
(month, weather)
Manure storage facilities in place
Fertilizing method and application
(machinery, technology dose)
Usage of plant protection
products
Composition of fertilizers
(proportion of ingridients,…
Usage of fertilizers (kg/ha)
Nutrient emissions from water
flows outside of the NVZ area
Nutrient emissions through air
0%
Large extent
Some extent
20%
40%
Little extent
60%
No extent
80%
100%
Don't know
Figure 42. Question: To what extent do you think is the water quality affected by the following factors?
(N=45-27).
Secondly, the farmers were asked to list the actions they would take to protect the
quality of water (Figure 43). A majority (more than 80%) of the farmers would or are
taking the actions that were listed in the question (actions 1-8). These actions are also
compulsory according to the Water Act, Order on the Protection rules of the
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ or follow the suggestions of good
agricultural practice.
Since farmers stressed that the use of pesticides is already within the regulatory limits,
more than 30% of the respondents were definitely not willing to reduce their current
levels of pesticide use.
Protecting measures such as establishing buffer strips, field drainage and wetlands
between field and water bodies were not that populat and around 20% of responding
farmers admitted that they did not know about these measures or were not familiar
with the efficiency factor of these actions in protecting the quality of both ground and
surface waters. Establishing wetlands is yet not supported by the Estonian RDF,
according to several studies and research recommendations, it is regarded as a
necessary measure to reduce nutrients’ run-off to rivers.
81
Taking actions to protect the quality of water
1.Adjust manure storages according to the
requirements
2.Store manure farther than 50m from
springs and karst funnels
3.Take into account timing of fertilizing
4.Take into account ground inclination in
fertilizing the field
5.Apply pesticides farther than 50m from
springs and karst funnels
6.Fertilizer farther than 50m from springs
and karst funnels
7.Improve fertilizing technology
8.Take into account soil texture in
fertilizing the field
9.Keep at least 30% of the arable land
under plant cover durng the winter
10.Limit the usage of pesticides
11.Establish buffer strips and protection
forest between field and water bodies
12.Establish field drainage
13.Establish wetlands between field and
water bodies
0%
Definitely
Probably
20%
Maybe
40%
60%
Definitely not
80%
100%
Don't know
Figure 43. Question: Which of these actions would you take to protect the quality of water? (N= 4447).
To understand farmers’ preference for water protection measures, they were asked to
prioritise the measures according to their effectiveness in protecting the water. The
preference list can be viewed in Figure 44. Supporting of the upgrading of manure
storage facilities was regarded as the most important measure for water protection.
This measure was also most popular among cereals’ and general cropping producers,
who do not benefit from this support. The second most important measure for
protecting the water environment in the opinion of the respondents was raising the
environmental awareness among agricultural producers. As presumed, intensifying
supervision support was the least popular measure. However, producers, whose
production was 50% - 100% organic, regarded a more efficient supervision scheme to
be the second most important measure to ensure better water quality.
Since the farmers were asked to rank the most effective measure with number 1 and
least effective measure with number 5, the Figure 44 reflects the order of preferences.
Thus, the measure, which collected least points, is the measure most popular among
the respondents. Therefore supports for reconditioning manure storage facilities with
82
a response average of 1.94 was the most effective measure and pictured as an upper
bar in the Figure.
Importance of measures in protecting the quality of water
Support for reconditioning manure
storage facilities
1,94
Raising environmental awareness of
farmers
2,20
3,20
Support for the establishment and
maintenance of buffer strips of mixed
species or wetlands between field and
water bodies
Mainly support for organic production
3,43
3,77
More efficient supervision system
5,00
4,00
3,00
2,00
1,00
Order
Figure 44. Question: Please evaluate the importance of the following actions for the protection of water
quality. Evaluation should be done in a range from 1 to 5, marking the measure you think is the most
effective in water protection with number 1 and 5 to the measure you think is the least effective. (N=
46-47).
To get an overview about farmers’ perceptions about regulatory restrictions applied to
the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa protected area, the Estonian farmers were
asked to assess whether they have too much restrictions, too high responsibility
and substantially higher costs compared to the farmers outside the NVZ. The
results are shown in Figure 45.
It can be concluded that over 60% of respondents agreed strongly or partly that NVZ
farmers had more restrictions, more responsibilities and higher expenses than fellow
farmers outside of the NVZ. The explanations for these views were relatively alike.
16 farmers strongly stressed that due to stricter environmental restrictions, their yields
and thus profits were smaller compared to extensive agricultural producers. Limits set
for the use of fertilizers (kg/ha) reduce yield per hectare, which in turn lead to a lower
income. Yet the expenses of cultivation are the same.
83
Compared to other producers, farmers in NVZ have...
Substantially
higher costs due to
environmental
restrictions
Strongly agree
Partly agree
Too much
environmental
restrictions
Partly disagree
Disagree
Don't know
Too high
responsibility for
water protection
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 45. Question: Do you agree that compared to other producers, farmers in the NVZ
have...(N=47).
Conclusions about the farmers’ attitude towards water protection:
a) A majority of the respondents, 68%, did not consider water quality in the NVZ to
be a problem. Accordingly, it was found that the quality of drinking and recreational
water in the neighbourhood was high or good. However, 6 respondents (12%) found
the quality of their drinking water to be poor or bad.
b) The farmers strongly agree that their own agricultural activities might affect water
and that the source of probable contamination of waters lies within the NVZ area.
80% of the respondents agreed that leakage from manure and silage storages, timing
of fertilizer application, manure storage facilities and method of application were the
four factors that affect the quality of water to a large or some extent.
c) To address the problem of water contamination, farmers considered support for
upgrading the manure facilities to be the most effective measure. This opinion was
also shared by crop producers.
c) The use of fertilizers in the field (kg/ha) was not considered as a primary
agricultural factor affecting the water quality. It was noted that high prices for
fertilizers together with regulatory limits set boundaries for possible overdose. It can
be concluded that farmers do not consider diffuse pollution resulting from fertilizer
load as a severe problem. Rather, the problem may arise from wrong timing and
method of the application of fertilizers.
d) Farmers admit responsibility to follow the measures set in the environmental
legislation and good agricultural practice.
e) Farmers felt unfairly penalised by the environmental restrictions placed on them,
compared to the farmers outside the NTZ. They strongly expressed their view that
84
limits to the use of fertilizers (kg/ha) reduce yield per hectare, which lead to a lower
income. Yet the expenses on cultivation are the same for everybody.
II Environmental protection
In order to assess farmers’ attitude towards environmental responsibility, they were
asked to express their perception about the importance of environmental protection
and its role in agricultural production, by choosing the answers that best fitted with
their opinion. The 16 statements that were presented to the farmers to evaluate,
consisted of two types of statements:
a) Eight statements that expressed the importance of agricultural production
rather than environmentally friendly land management. The responses, which
“strongly agreed” or “agreed” with these statements were grouped as “Farmers
as a producer”;
b) Eight statements that expressed the importance of land protection next to the
production objectives. The responses, which “agreed” or “strongly agreed”
with these statements were grouped as “Farmer as a land manager”;
An additional group was formed for respondents, who “neither agreed nor
disagreed” with these 16 statements and named as “Indifferent farmer”.
The statements that defined the affiliation of farmers into these two groups are
presented in Table 21. The sequence of these 16 statements was mixed in the
questionnaire and the division of statements into groups was not shown in the
questionnaire. The respondents answered all 16 statements in the random order.
Table 21. Categorization of the statements.
“Farmer as a producer”
“Farmer as a land manager”
1
A "good farmer" utilizes fully its resources
The role of farmers is to deliver public
goods (environmental protection) as well
as food
2
Meeting the production standards overweighs the
contamination of a water body
Farmers should also be responsible for any
negative impact on the water quality in the
area
3
Nowadays farming methods and RDP support
schemes are sufficient to maintain environmental
standards
Current methods of farming present great
threat to water quality
4
Until the sources of water contamination are fully
known, farmers should not change their practice
There is strong scientific evidence that
farming is responsible for groundwater
pollution in the NVZ
5
Paying farmers for providing ecosystem services
is a good way in which wildlife and environment
can be protected and improved
Environmental impacts of agriculture
exceed the boundaries of one farm
6
Farmers do not get any benefit from
environmentally friendly management
Farmers play an important role in
providing an attractive and well-managed
85
“Farmer as a producer”
“Farmer as a land manager”
countryside
7
Farmers must be oriented primarily towards
production if they want to be competitive
Farmers in the NVZ have to observe
carefully their practice methods to reduce
environmental pollution
8
The spending priority of the government for the
countryside should be paying farmers to produce
food
Farmers should receive public money only
for protecting the environment and
maintaining rural landscapes
To calculate the number of responses that formed the group “Farmer as a producer”,
the number of responses indicating “strongly agree” or “agree” with corresponding
statements was summed up with the number of responses indicating “strongly
disagree” or “disagree” with the “Farmer as a land manager” statements. The same
procedure was carried out to calculate the number of responses that formed the group,
“Farmer as a land manager”. Thirdly, the number of responses “neither agree nor
disagree” was calculated. According to these calculations, a column chart was created
(Figure 46).
Since the number of respondents varied between these 16 statements (N=45–47), the
total number of responses to all answer versions was calculated according to the
number of respondents. The total number of answers was 739 (5*47 + 9*46 + 2*45).
Therefore it can be said 43% ((319/739)*100) of the respondents see themselves as a
land manager rather than just an agricultural producer. Yet, 39% ((287/739)*100) of
the respondents see their role mainly as a producer for whom environmental
protection is a secondary issue. However, 18% ((133/739)*100) of farmers do not
have a clear opinion about the role they have or have inadequate information about
the current situation in farming practices and its influence on the environment.
It can be said that the answers between these two groups are divided quite equally,
though, majority agreed with the statements indicating the role of farmer as a land
manager. Statements like “Farmers play an important role in providing an attractive
and well-managed countryside” and “The role of farmers is to deliver public goods
(environmental protection) as well as food” were the ones mostly agreed on.
However, according to the answers, slightly less than half of the respondents see their
role primarily as a producer only. For example, respondents agreed that “Farmers
must be oriented primarily towards production if they want to be competitive” and
“The spending priority of the government for the countryside should be paying
farmers to produce food”. 133 neutral answers indicate that farmers do not have a
clear overview or are in doubt about sustainability of the current farming practices.
The statements that had the most neutral answers (“Nowadays farming methods and
RDP support schemes are sufficient to maintain environmental standards” and “There
is strong scientific evidence that farming is responsible for groundwater pollution in
the NVZ”) reflect the need for more information about problems resulting from
agricultural production.
86
18%
43%
39%
Farmer as a land
manager
Farmer as a
producer
Indifferent farmer
Figure 46. The share of answers to the environmental protection statements according to the role
farmers see themselves having (Ntotal_answers = 739).
Since the sample of the respondents was quite small, it was inadequate to carry out
additional (cluster or factor) in-depth analysis for this question.
III Fertilizer management
Nutrient emission to water bodies from agricultural activities usually originates from
fertilizer storage facilities and from fertilization of the field. To specify the issue of
fertilizer management, 2 attitudinal questions about this issue were asked.
To analyze the situation in fertilizer management, the farmers were asked to assess
the problems in manure management in the NVZ area (Figure 47). The answers to this
question supported previous conclusions about the most effective measures to be
taken, as support for reconditioning manure storage facilities was regarded the most
effective for solving water quality issues (see Figure 44). About 55% of the
respondents strongly agreed and 25% partly agreed with the statement that there were
not enough support schemes to meet the requirements for manure storage. In addition,
64% of the answers concluded that the manure storages were not meeting the
standards.
As only 20% of the farmers strongly agreed that fertilizing the fields would affect
water quality to a large extent (see Figure 42), the cause for this belief would be a
current situation, where there was said to be a lack of manure to fertilize the fields.
This was strongly agreed with by 52% of the farmers and partly agreed with by 25%
of them.
The answers about manure spreading technology were partly controversial.
Availability of proper technology was considered to be a problem for 62% of the
respondents. However, 31% of the farmers did not consider this an obstacle.
Supervision about requirements for manure storage facilities were not considered to
be a problem. 58% of the respondents did not think that there was not enough
supervision.
87
Problems in manure management
There is not enough support schemes to
meet the requirements for manure …
There is a lack of manure to fertilize the
fields
Manure storages are not meeting the
standards
There is no technology for precise
application of manure
There is not enough supervision to meet
the requirements for manure storages
0%
Strongly agree
Partly agree
50%
Partly disagree
Disagree
100%
Don't know
Figure 47. Question: What is the situation in manure management in your neighbourhood? Please
evaluate the following statements! (N= 44-45).
Further, the farmers were asked to assess the changes in their practice since the
designation of the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa protection area in 2003 (Figure
48). A vast majority, 86% of the respondents agreed that fertilizer spreading
technology has been renewed. Similarly, 75% agreed that the precision of fertilizer
application has improved. However, it was expressed by the farmers, that the
availability of modern technological facilities has not improved due to the designation
of the NVZ.
The timing for fertilizer spreading has been set in the Water Act , therefore none of
the farmers strongly disagreed that the timing for fertilizer application has not
changed. Moreover, 75% of the farmers agreed with that statement.
Confirming the previous statement of the farmers, that there was a lack of manure to
fertilize the fields and that its overdose is precluded by the high prices of fertilizers,
40% of the respondents found that the use of manure has not increased. By the
opinion 61%, the usage of mineral fertilizers has not increased either. However 23%
of the farmers were not familiar with the issue, these were mainly small livestock
farmers with less than 100 ha of production land and less than 100 Animal Unit (AU)
of livestock.
88
Changes in fertilization management since the designation of
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ in 2003
Fertilizer spreading technology has
renewed
Precision of fertilizer application has
increased
Timing for fertilizer spreading has
changed
Usage of manure has increased
Usage of mineral fertilizers has increased
Nothing has changed
0%
Strongly agree
Partly agree
50%
Partly disagree
Disagree
100%
Don't know
Figure 48. Question: What has changed in fertilization management since the designation of the
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ in 2003?(N= 42–44).
Conclusions on the fertiliser management in NVZ:
a) Condition of manure storages was considered to be a primary issue in fertiliser
management. About 55% of the respondents strongly agreed and 25% partly agreed
with the statement that there were not enough support schemes to meet the
requirements for manure storage. In addition, 64% of the answers concluded that the
manure storages were not meeting the standards. 52% of the farmers strongly agreed
and 25% partly agreed that there is a lack of manure to fertilize the fields.
b) It can be concluded that there have been considerable changes in fertilizer
management since 2003. Accordingly, 81% of the respondents found that previous
years have brought some changes. However, the majority of the changes are caused
by the overall adoption of adequate legal acts and agricultural policy, which apply for
everyone and thus cannot be connected with the designation of the Pandivere and
Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ. On the other hand, it was noted that also the responsibility
of farmers for the environment has increased.
89
IV Supervision, advisory service and stakeholder involvement
To understand the involvement of agricultural producers in decision making as well
as the efficiency of supervision and role of advisory systems, two attitudinal questions
and one multiple choice question were asked concerning the relevant issues.
Firstly, producers were asked to assess the role of agricultural and environmental
institutions in improving and maintaining the quality of water (Figure 49). As
expected, the answers revealed that the supervision system of agricultural and
environmental institutions should be left unchanged by the total opinion of 58% of the
respondents. However, more than 20% of the farmers expressed that their role in
supervision should be increased or significantly increased. At the same time only 7%
of the farmers would significantly decrease or decrease the supervision of the
Agricultural Registers and Information Board, Environmental Inspectorate and
Environmental Board. This shows that farmers are rather satisfied with the current
supervision system and agree on its necessity.
The answers also revealed that 65% of the respondents would increase or significantly
increase the role of producers in the Council of NVZ, which coordinates the
implementation of the NVZ Action Plan for NVZ. 40% would also increase or
significantly increase the role of local municipalities in the NVZ Council. 27% would
increase or significantly increase the role of theCouncil of NVZ in decision making
on water quality issues, yet 32% did not know how to answer. In addition, it was
suggested that scientists should also have a stake in the Council of NVZ.
20 farmers out of 52 were also further interested in the results of the survey and added
their contact e-mail address at the end of the survey. This shows that water protection
is an important issue for farmers and that they would like to take an active role in
decision making and discussions concerning water problems.
90
Situation in supervision and stakeholder involvement system
The role of producers in NVZ Council
Agricultural Registers and Information Board
supervision on the usage of subsidies for
improving water protection
Environmental Inspectorate supervision on
manure storage facilities
Environmental Board supervision on fertilizing
Environmental Inspectorate supervision on
environmental permits (waste-, water-, IPPC
permits etc)
The role of NVZ Council in decision making
on water quality issues
The role of local municipalities in NVZ Council
0%
Significantly increase
Increase
Unchange
50%
Decrease
Significantly decrease
100%
Don't know
Figure 49. Question: What should be done to improve and maintain the quality of water? (N= 43–45).
Secondly, agricultural producers were asked to assess their knowledge about
environmental requirements that are valid in the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa
NVZ (Figure 50). Less than a half, 41% of the respondents stated that they have a
good overview about environmental requirements. 52% of the respondents regarded
their knowledge more or less good and only 7%, 3 farmers out of 46 regarded
themselves to have no overview of the requirements applied in the study area. These
were small farmers with less than 100 ha of production land and with relatively few
years of experience.
91
Overview of the environmental requirements valid in NVZ
7%
More or less good
overview
41%
Good overview
52%
No overview
Figure 50. Question: What is your knowledge about environmental requirements valid in NVZ?
(N=46).
Finally, agricultural producers were asked to assess their primary sources of
information about the environmental requirements valid in the NVZ (Figure 51). As
expected, a majority of the respondents get relevant information mostly (56%) or
occasionally (30%) by attending trainings for agricultural producers. In addition to
that, 71% of the producers ask information themselves, mostly or occasionally from
agricultural consultants.
However, similarly to trainings, 53% of the farmers get information mostly by
searching from the Internet and 37% do it occasionally.
A large number of farmers, 39 (89%) out of 44 get relevant information mostly or
occasionally from neighbours and friends.
Contacts with local agricultural advisory centres, Environmental Board regional
office or local environmental specialist are somewhat occasional. Less than 10% of
the farmers get the information needed by communicating mostly with authorities. It
was added that some information is also received through Agricultural Registers and
Information Board (PRIA).
Very few, only 7% of the respondents attend NVZ Council meetings.
Legislation was noted as one source of information by one farmer only.
92
Sources of information about the environmental requirements
valid in NVZ
I attend trainings for agricultural
producers
I search information on the internet
I get information from neighbors and
friends
I communicate with agricultural
consultants
Local agricultural advisory centre informs
me
I ask from local agricultural advisory
centre
Environmental Board regional office
informs me
Environmental specialist from local
municipality informs me
I attend NVZ Council meetings
I ask from local municipality
(environmental specialist)
I ask from Environmental Board regional
office
0%
Mostly
Occasionally
50%
Never
100%
Don't know
Figure 51. Question: In order to get relevant information about the environmental requirements valid in
NVZ... (N = 41–44).
Conclusions on the involvement of farmers in decision making on environmental
issues:
a) Water protection is an important issue for farmers and they would like to take
an active role in decision making and discussions concerning water problems.
b) Majority of the relevant information on agri-environmental restrictions is
searched from the Internet or heard from neighbours and friends. In addition to
that, more than 71% of the producers get information mostly or occasionally
from trainings or ask agricultural consultants.
93
4. CONCLUSIONS OF THE SURVEY RESULTS
Understanding farmers attitudes towards water protection and farming practices helps
to assess water policies that have been implemented, notably the role of River Basin
Management Plans in combating diffuse pollution from agriculture. Therefore an
attitudinal questionnaire was developed to understand the farmers’ opinion about the
adequacy and relevance of water protection measures as well as suggestions about the
possibilities to improve the efficiency of water protection.
The survey, carried out between the period of 1st of August 2011 till the 1st of
September 2011, was the first survey conducted among farmers who operate in
Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. The sample of the survey
was 277 agricultural producers, representing legal persons, who managed the arable
land. The response rate 18,8% resulted from 52 responses. Though the results of the
survey are useful for better policy making and implamentation in both evironmental
and agricultural sector, it must be stressed that due to a low answering rate
fundamental conclusions based on the results cannot be made and cautiousness must
be taken when using the results. Rather, it gives a first reflection of the NVZ farmers
attitudes towards water protection and points out the need for more a more
widespread survey.
According to the results of the survey, it can be said that farmers do not consider
water pollution to be a severe problem in the NVZ. An overall majority (68%) of
the respondents regard the quality of both drinking and surface water to be high or
good. Only 12% think that their drinking water is in poor or bad condition.
Although the deterioration of the status of water was not seen by the farmers, they
strongly agreed that their own agricultural activities might affect water to a large
extent and that the source of probable contamination of waters lies within, not
outside the area. Leakage from manure and silage storages, the timing of fertilizer
application, manure storage facilities and method of application were regarded as the
factors that affect the quality of water to a large or some extent. More than half of the
respondents regarded nutrient emission through air or via water flows from outside
the NVZ area as factors that have either little or no effect.
For limiting the pollution caused by their own farming practices, farmers take
responsibility to follow the measures set in the environmental legislation and
good agricultural practice (like adjust manure storages according to the
requirements, fertilizer farther than 50 m from springs and karst funnels, take into
account timing of fertilizing, etc). Since raising environmental awareness among
agricultural producers was chosen to be the second most important measure for
protecting the water environment, farmers are still ready to learn more about
nature friendly management. On the other hand, it was shown that the majority of
NVZ producers (60%) felt unfairly penalised by the environmental restrictions
placed on them, compared to farmers outside the area. They strongly expressed, that
limits on the use of fertilizers (kg/ha) reduce yield per hectare, which lead to lower
incomes. This shows that NVZ farmers are not willing to take responsibility about
the sensitive area they are located on unless compensated for the yield loss.
Thereby they are not satisfied that protecting water comes at the expense of yield
size and the subsequent profit.
94
It can be concluded that the respondents see their role both equally as
“producers” or “land managers”. Though a slight majority (43%) of farmers see
their role as a “land manager” for whom agricultural producer is also a land guardian,
a person responsible for the protection of their natural environment. These
respondents agreed that farmers play an important role in providing an attractive and
well-managed countryside and that the role of farmers is to deliver public goods
(environmental protection) as well as food. Yet, 39% of the respondents see their role
mainly as a producer for whom environmental protection is a secondary issue. These
respondents agreed that farmers must be oriented primarily towards production if they
want to be competitive and that the spending priority of the government for the
countryside should be paying farmers to produce food. However, 18% of farmers do
not have a clear opinion about the role they have or have inadequate information
about the current situation in farming practices and its influence on the environment.
This reflects the need for more information about problems resulting from agricultural
production.
Farmers found that manure management is the factor that affects water quality
the most. More than 80% of the respondents found that leakage from manure and
silage storages was an important factor that affects water quality. Therefore,
supporting of the upgrading of manure storage facilities was regarded the most
important measure for water protection. This measure was also popular among
cereal and general crop producers, who do not benefit from this support. The main
problem in manure management was considered to be the condition of storages.
About 55% of the respondents strongly agreed and 25% partly agreed with the
statement that there were not enough support schemes to meet the requirements for
manure storage. In addition, 64% of the answers concluded that the manure storages
were not meeting the standards. Thereby it can be concluded that farmers see the need
for supports for manure facilities, because they are still not meeting the standards and
that these are considered to be primary pollution sources.
Somewhat surprisingly, the usage of fertilizers in the fields (kg/ha) was not
considered to be a primary issue in agricultural practice affecting the water. 34% of
respondents regarded these factors as having little or no effect. Some of the
respondents emphasized that high prices for fertilizers and for plant protection
chemicals coupled with regulatory limits for application set boundaries for
possible overdose. As only 20% of the farmers strongly agreed that fertilizing the
fields would affect water quality to a large extent, the cause for this belief would be a
current situation, where there was said to be a lack of manure to fertilize the fields. In
addition, 40% of the respondents found that the use of manure has not increased. By
the opinion of 61%, the usage of mineral fertilizers has not increased either. It can be
concluded that farmers do not consider diffuse pollution from agriculture as a severe
problem.
It was seen that water protection was an important issue for farmers and that they
would like to participate in discussions concerning water problems. Majority of the
relevant information on agri-environmental restrictions is searched from internet or
heard from neighbours and friends. Besides that, producers get information mostly or
occasionally from trainings or ask agricultural consultants, the authorities are seldom
contacted.
95
Thus it can be concluded that:
a) Farmers do not consider water pollution to be a severe a problem in the NVZ;
b) Farmers agree that their own agricultural activities might affect water at a large
extent and that the source of probable contamination of waters lies within, not outside
the area. Yet pollution from diffuse sources, more precisely fertilizer load from the
field was not considered to be a severe problem. However, the answers revealed that
wrong timing and method of application of fertilizers were considered to have a large
effect on water;
c) Several questions strongly indicated that there are two groups of farmers - farmers,
who see their role as “producers” and farmers, who see their role as “land managers”.
It was seen that farmers take responsibility to follow the measures set in the
environmental legislation and good agricultural practice, yet it is not clear whether
they are willing to take initiative to go beyond these regulations. Raising
environmental awareness was considered be the an important measure for protecting
water environment, however NVZ farmers were not satisfied that protecting water
comes at the expense of yield size and profit.
d) Farmers think that manure management, namely storage facilities are the factors
that affect the quality of water the most and that increasing supports to manure
storages would help to protect water more effectively.
e) The answers of the respondents indicated still that water protection was an
important issue for farmers and that they would like to participate in discussions
concerning water problems.
In conclusion it can be said that Estonian NVZ farmers do admit that their own
actions might affect water quality and that raising environmental awareness is an
important issue, but emphasis is put on point sources mainly. Raising awareness is an
increasingly important environmental policy instrument, especially concerning the
sources of eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Thus the role of RBMPs in addressing
diffuse pollution may be seriously undermined when neglecting the actors, who
actually determine whether good water status would actually be achieved or not.
96
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
Eutrophication is considered to be one of the most serious cause of the poor status of
the Baltic Sea ecosystem. The eutrophication of waters is largely caused by the
nutrients that leach into the water environment from agricultural activities. Further, is
has been estimated that the majority of agricultural pollution originates from diffuse
sources. The European Water Framework Directive is the most ambitious piece of
legislation aiming to ensure good water quality throughout the EU territory by 2015.
The directive sets the requirements for the compilation of River Basin Management
Plans (RBMP) and the plan of measures that need to be taken to reach good water
quality in the water bodies. Yet, the legislative drivers alone do not guarantee the
systematic adoption of adequate measures leading to better quality water. Farmers in
the field are responsible for the delivery of environmentally sound practices and thus
it is their attitudes to water protection that also determine the future of the Baltic Sea.
The aim of the Estonian national Report to Baltic Compass project was to describe the
content of the RBMPs of Estonia in terms of agricultural measures and particularly
the measures that address diffuse pollution and to uncover the attitude of farmers
towards water protection measures. For doing that, Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa
nitrate vulnerable zone was chosen as the pilot area, since it is a sensitive region and
yet one of the most intensified agricultural areas in Estonia.
A synthesis of the literature, analysis of the PoMs of RBMPs and SRBMPs, and
conduction of the farmers’ survey in NVZ resulted in the following conclusions:
o Agricultural measures form 15% from all measures planned in the three RBMPs
to preserve and improve ground and surface water condition. Most (79%) of the
funds for agricultural measures have been planned to combat diffuse pollution,
however, the action plans of sub-river basins reflect an opposite allocation, i.e.
92% of the expenses were planned to limit point-pollution. Thus the priorities of
the RBMPs and SRBMPs are not in cohesion with each other and embed a
conflict of interests on a practical level. However, according to the Ministry of
Environment, only RBMPs will be actively used and renewed for future use.
Measures on the SRBMPs give an informative unput to the renewal of RBMPs.
As agricultural diffuse pollution has been identified as one of the main threats to
the water environment, from all the measures in the PoMs, the share of funds
dedicated to tackle this is only 12%. Moreover, 4% of the Pandivere groundwater
SRBMP and Peipsi SRBMP budget are designed to alleviate diffuse pollution in
the Pandivere and Adavere-Põltsamaa NVZ. It can be concluded that the share of
budget for the agricultural diffuse pollution restriction measures is even lower in
an intensive agricultural region – the Estonian NVZ.
o The analysis of the measures in PoMs of RBMPs revealed that to deliver
improved coherence, a higher degree of interdependence of policies is needed.
The agricultural sector is not firmly intertwined with the environmental policy
sector, namely RBMPs. Thus further trade-offs and synergies between
environmental policy and agricultural policies should be more systematically
taken into consideration.
97
o The understanding and mitigating of diffuse pollution from agriculture continues
to pose a demanding challenge in the NVZ. Further emphasis is needed on
collecting data on a farm basis and improving monitoring system to assess the
water pollution more accurately.
o Estonian NVZ farmers do admit that their own actions might affect water quality
and that raising environmental awareness is an important issue, but emphasis is
mainly put on point sources. Pollution load from the field (diffuse pollution) is not
seen so severe problem. Raising awareness is an increasingly important
environmental policy-making instrument, especially concerning the eutrophication
of the Baltic Sea. Though the results of the survey are useful for better policy
making and implementation in both the environmental and agricultural sector, it
must be stressed that due to a low answering rate fundamental conclusions based
on the results cannot be made. Rather, it gives a first reflection of the NVZ
farmers’ attitudes towards water protection and points out the need for a more
widespread and in depth survey.
The Report has pointed out some serious deficiencies that might jeopardise the
important goal that has been assigned to Estonian River Basin Management Plans,
namely to reach the good status of all waters by 2015. Further, the Report would like
to emphasise that the attitudinal survey among the NVZ farmers showed clear trends
that agricultural producers do not regard diffuse pollution caused by fertilizer load, to
be a serious problem to the water environment. Therefore further research on this
topic is recommended, since neglecting the actors responsible for the delivery of
environmentally sound practices curbs the ambitious task of the WFD.
98
REFERENCES
Barnes, A., P., Willock, J., Hall, C., Toma, L. 2009. Farmer perspectives and
practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland.
Agricultural Water Management, 96, 1715-1722.
Brace, I. 2004. Questionnaire Design: How To Plan, Structure And Write
Survey Material For Effective Market Research.
Bratt, A. 2002. Farmer’s choices: management practices to reduce nutrient
leakage within a Swedish catchment. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 45 (5), 673-689.
Burton, R., J., F. 2004. Reconceptualising the “behavioral approach” in
agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural
Studies, 20, 359-371.
Collins, A., L., McGonigle, D., F. 2008. Monitoring and modelling diffuse
pollution from agriculture for policy support: UK and European experience.
Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 97-101.
Deloitte Consulting, Institute for European Environmental Policy. 2011.
Support to Fitness Check Water Policy. [WWW]
http://www.ieep.eu/assets/826/Water_Policy_Fitness_Check.pdf
(23.09.2011)
Ecologic Institute. 2010. Assessment of agriculture measures included in the
draft River Basin Management Plans. [WWW]
http://ecologic.eu/download/projekte/2300-2350/2313/2313-finalsummary.pdf(22.03.2011)
Eesti Keskkonnauuringute Keskus. 2010. Nitraaditundliku ala põhjavee seire
2010a. Tallinn. [WWW]
http://eelis.ic.envir.ee:88/seireveeb/aruanded/11481_aru10_3.3_NTA_pv_lopp
aruanne.pdf (04.04.2011)
ELLE. 2010a. NTA üle 10 LÜ farmide sõnnikukäitluse ja sõnnikuhoidlate
inventuur.[WWW]http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1
140591/NTA+s6nnikuk%E4itluse+aruanne+ELLE+230710.pdf(22.03.2011)
ELLE. 2010b. Hea veeseisundi saavutamiseks ühtse põllumajanduspoliitika
rakendamise seadusest ja MAK tulenevate meetemete ja toetuset rakendamise
analüüs. [WWW]
European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food
Safety. 2011 EU subsidies for polluting and unsustainable practices. [WWW]
http://qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/EST34691.pdf
(24.09.2011)
Hall, C., McVittie, A., Moran, D., 2004. What does the public want from
agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. Journal
of Rural Studies, 20 (2), 211-225.
HELCOM, 2010. Waterborne loads of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Baltic
Sea in 2008. [WWW]
http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP_assessment/ifs/ifs2010/en_GB/nutrient_load/
(09.09. 2011)
99
HELCOM. 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea - An Integrated thematic
assessment of the nutrient enrichment in the Baltic sea region. Balt. Sea
Environ. Proc. No. 115B. HELCOM, Helsinki.
HELCOM. 2007. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. HELCOM, Helsinki.
Iital, A., Pachel, K., Deelstra, J. 2008. Monitoring diffuse pollution from
agriculture to support implementation of the WFD and Nitrate Directive in
Estonia. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 185-193.
Institute for European Environmental Policy. 2011. Greening the CAP:
Delivering environmental outcomes through pillar one. [WWW]
http://www.ieep.eu/assets/831/Greening_Pillar_1_IEEP_Thinkpiece__Final.pdf (23.09.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2010a. Ida-Eesti veemajanduskava. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1117261/2010.04.07
+Kinnitatud+Ida-Eesti+vesikonna+veemajanduskava.pdf (04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2010b. Lääne-Eesti veemajanduskava. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1117262/2010.04.07
+Kinnitatud+Laane-Eesti+vesikonna+veemajanduskava.pdf (04.04.2011
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2010c. Koiva veemajanduskava. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1117263/2010.04.07
+Kinnitatud+Koiva+vesikonna+veemajanduskava.pdf (04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2008. Nõukogu direktiivi 91/676/EMÜ veekogude
kaitsmise kohta põllumajandusest lähtuva nitraadireostuse eest, täitmine Eestis
2004-2007. [WWW] http://www.envir.ee/1082378 (22.03.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2008a. Pärnu alamvesikonna meetmeplaan. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/vesikonnad/static/files/169.Pärnu_koondmeetmeplaan.pdf
(04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2008b. Nõukogu direktiivi 91/676/EMÜ, veekogude
kaitsmise kohta põllumajandusest lähtuva nitraadireostuse eest, täitmine Eestis
2004-2007. [WWW] http://www.envir.ee/1082378 (30.08.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2007a. Peipsi alamvesikonna meetmeplaan. [WWW]
http://www.vesikonnad.envir.ee/static/files/33.Peipsi%202007%20I%20mudat
used%20meetmekava%20tabel.xls (04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2007b. Võrtsjärve alamvesikonna meetmeplaan.
[WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/vesikonnad/static/files/60.Koondmeetmeplaan.xls
(04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2007c. Harju alamvesikonna meetmeplaan. [WWW]
www.vesikonnad.envir.ee/static/files/48.Harju_Meetmeplaan.xls(04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2007d. Matsalu alamvesikonna meetmeplaan.
[WWW]
www.vesikonnad.envir.ee/static/files/49.Matsalu_meetmeplaan.xls(04.04.20
11)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2006a. Viru alamvesikonna meetmeplaan. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/vesikonnad/static/files/51.Viru_alamvesikonna_meetmek
ava.pdf (04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2006b. Läänesaarte alamvesikonna meetmeplaan.
[WWW]
100
http://www.vesikonnad.envir.ee/static/files/50.LS%20alvk.%20VMK%20mee
tmekava.pdf (04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2005a. Pandivere põhjavee alamvesikonna
meetmeplaan. [WWW]
http://www.vesikonnad.envir.ee/static/files/63.Pandivere%20põhjavee%20AV
K%20meetmed%2007.xls (04.04.2011)
Keskkonnaministeerium. 2005b. Report of Estonia on the Implementation of
Nitrates Directive 2000-2003.
[WWW]http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=189508/Est
onian+Nitrate+report+PDF.pdf (22.03.2011)
Keskkonnateabe Keskus. 2010. Eesti keskkonnaseire 2009. [WWW]
http://eelis.ic.envir.ee:88/seireveeb/aruanded/11429_Eesti_Keskkonnaseire200
9.pdf (28.03.2011)
Loigu, E., Iital, A., Pachel, K., Leisk, Ü. 2010. Fosfori- ja lämmastikukoormuse uuring punkt- ja hajureostuse allikatest. Fosforväetistes kaadmiumi
reostusohu hindamine. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1153924/Koormuste
+v%E4hendamine+ja+Cd_+2010.pdf (28.03.2011)
Loigu, E., Iital, A., Pchel, K. 2011. Nitraaditundliku ala (NTA)
laiendusvajaduse analüüs. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1171986/Nitraadi+l
%F5pparuanne.pdf (23.10.2011)
Läänemere tegevuskava rakendusplaan aastateks 2008-2011. 2008. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1090330/Rakendusp
laan.pdf (22.03.2011)
Macgregor, C., J., Warren, C., R. 2006. Adopting sustainable farm
management practices within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone in Scotland: The view
from the farm. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Evironment, 113, 108-119.
Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium. 2010. Eesti taastuvenergia
tegevuskava aastani 2010. [WWW]
http://www.mkm.ee/public/nreap_EE_final_101126.pdf (12.09.2011)
Maves. 2008. Eesti hajukoormuse baseline stsenaariumi koostamine
alamvesikonniti. Aruande “Veemajanduskavade täiendamine ja
ajakohastamine” lisa. [WWW] http://www.envir.ee/1085015 (30.09.2011)
Maves. 2006. Pandivere ja Adavere – Põltsamaa nitraaditundlik ala. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=189510/Pandivere+j
a+Adavere-P%F5ltsamaa+nitraaditundlik+ala.pdf (22.03.2011)
Nimmo Smith, R., Glegg, G., Parkinson, R., Richards, J., 2007. Evaluating the
implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Denmark and England using an
actor oriented approach. European Environment, 17, 124-144.
Oenema, O., Witzke, H., P., Klimont, Z., Lesschen, J., P., Velthof, G., L.
2009. Integrated assessment of promising measures to decrease nitrogen losses
from agriculture in EU-27. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 133,
280-288.
Ojala, Triinu. 2011. Kvantitatiivsed uurimismeetodid. Tallinn University.
101
Oppenheim, A., N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude
Measurement.
Popp, J., Rodriguez, G. 2007. The role of stakeholders’ perceptions in
addressing water quality disputes in an embattled watershed. Journal of
Environmental Monitoring and Restoration,3, 225-263.
Põllumajandusministeerium. 2007. Hea põllumajandustava. [WWW]
http://www.agri.ee/public/Hea_pollumajandustava.pdf (22.03.2011)
Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus. 2007. Indikaatori „Keskkonnateadlikkus”
2004
ja
2007
a
uuringute
võrdlus,
lühiaruanne.
[WWW]
http://pmk.agri.ee/pkt/files/f13/Kkteadlikkus2007JONK.pdf (09.05.2011)
Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus. 2010. Ülevaade Eesti Maaelu Arengukava
2007-2013
II
telje
hindamisest
2009.
aastal.
[WWW]
http://pmk.agri.ee/pkt/files/f32/PMK_aruanne_veebi.doc (09.05.2011)
Põllumajandusuuringute Keskus. 2011. Eesti Maaelu Arengukava 2007-2013
2. telje püsihindamine. Hindamisalased uuringud ja 2. telje üldanalüüs.
[WWW]
http://pmk.agri.ee/pkt/files/f32/PMK_pysihindamisaruanne_2010a_kohta_web
_2011.pdf (23.10.2011)
Reisner, R. 2011. Keskkonnaministeerium. [WWW]
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agri.ee%2Fpublic%2Fjuurkataloog%2FMAAELU
%2Fpollumajanduskeskkond%2Frene_reisner_Veefoorum_1711.ppt&rct=j&q
=rene%20reisner%20veemajanduskavade%20koostamine%20ja%20rakendam
ine&ei=7HrbTaS1EcTo-gb2qNGzDw&usg=AFQjCNELkthF9Fiq7r8kTNDfP4q73g5KA (24.05.2011).
Santti, R., Suominen, J., Ahotupa, M., Saava, A. 1996. Muutuv keskkond ja
tervis. Turu Ülikool, Tallinna Tehnikaülikool. Tartu.
Simmo, S., 2011. Meetme 1.4.2 „Investeeringud loomakasvatusehitistesse”
rakendamistulemuste analüüs. IV taotlusvoor. Eesti Maaülikool, Tallinn.
[WWW] http://www.agri.ee/public/1.4.2_rakendusanal_06.10.2011.ppt
(20.10.2011)
WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme. 2009. No more EU-trophication! How
CAP reform can save the Baltic Sea. Solna.
Legal Acts
EC. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of The European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action
in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities,
L327/72pp.
EC. 1991. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 24 December 1991 Concerning
the Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from
Agricultural Sources. Official Journal of the European Communities, L375,
31/12/1991, 1-8.
Joogivee tootmiseks kasutatava või kasutada kavatsetava pinna- ja põhjavee
kvaliteedi- ja kontrollinõuded. 2003. Riigi Teataja, 9, 100. [WWW]
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13256510
102
Joogivee kvaliteedi- ja kontrollinõuded ning analüüsimeetodid. 2001. Riigi
Teataja, 100, 1369. [WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13256473
Lääne-Eesti, Ida-Eesti ja Koiva vesikonna veemajanduskavade kinnitamise ja
Euroopa Komisjonile aruande koostamise ettevalmistamise korraldamine,
vesikonna ja alamvesikonna veemajanduskava sisu- ja vorminõuete
kehtestamine. Keskkonnaministri käskkiri nr 670. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1075654/2008.06.10
+KKMk+nr+670+Vesikonna+veemajanduskavade+sisu+ja+vormin%F5uded+%28allkirjata%29.pdf
Läänemere tegevuskava rakendusplaan aastateks 2008-2011. 2008. [WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1090330/Rakendusp
laan.pdf
Lõheliste ja karpkalalaste elupaikadena kaitstavate veekogude nimekiri ning
nende veekogude vee kvaliteedi- ja seirenõuded ning lõheliste ja karpkalalaste
riikliku keskkonnaseire jaamad. 2002. Riigi Teataja,118, 1714. [WWW]
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/208599?leiaKehtiv
Nõuded vesikonna veeseireprogrammide kohta. 2011. Riigi Teataja I.
[WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/112042011009
Pandivere- ja Adavere-Põltsamaa nitraaditundliku ala tegevuskava aastateks
2009-2011. 2009.[WWW]
http://www.envir.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=1110073/NTA_tege
vuskava_kinnitatud.pdf
Pandivere ja Adavere-Põltsamaa nitraaditundliku ala kaitse-eeskiri. 2003.
Riigi Teataja I, 10, 49. [WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13136785
Pinnaveekogumite moodustamise kord ja nende pinnaveekogumite nimestik,
mille seisundiklass tuleb määrata, pinnaveekogumite seisundiklassid ja
seisundiklassidele vastavad kvaliteedinäitajate väärtused ning seisundiklasside
määramise kord. 2009. Riigi Teataja, 64, 941. [WWW]
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/125112010015
Põhjaveekogumite moodustamise kord ja nende põhjaveekogumite nimestik,
mille seisundiklass tuleb määrata, põhjaveekogumite seisundiklassid,
seisundiklassidele vastavad kvaliteedinäitajate väärtused ja koguseliste
näitajate tingimused, põhjavett ohustavate saasteainete nimekiri, nende
saasteainete sisalduse läviväärtused ja kvaliteedi piirväärtused põhjavees ning
põhjaveekogumite seisundiklasside määramise kord. 2010. Riigi Teataja, 2,
22. [WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/104082011003
Saastuse kompleksse vältimise ja kontrollimise seadus. 2001. Riigi TeatajaI,
85, 512. [WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/115032011021
Sõnniku koostise nõuded. 2003. Riigi Teataja, 95, 1428. [WWW]
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/949455?leiaKehtiv
Veemajanduskavade koostamise ajagraafiku ja tööplaani kinnitamine, otsus
veemajanduskavade koostamise algatamiseks. Keskkonnaministri käskkiri nr.
270. [WWW] http://www.envir.ee/381047
Veekaitsenõuded väetise- ja sõnnikuhoidlatele ning siloladustamiskohtadele ja
sõnniku, silomahla ja muude väetiste kasutamise ja hoidmise nõuded. 2001.
Riigi Teataja I, 72, 443. [WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13259522
Veeseadus. 1994. Riigi Teataja I, 40, 655 [WWW]
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12769937
103
Vesikondade ja alamvesikondade nimetamine. 2004. Riigi TeatajaI, 48, 339.
[WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/768167
Vesikondade ja alamvesikondade nimetamine. 2008. Riigi TeatajaI , 7,
55.[WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12918814
Vesikondade ja alamvesikondade määramine. 2010. Riigi Teataja I, 64, 477.
[WWW] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13357292
104
ANNEXES
Annex I. Measures in the RBMPs which were not designed to combat pollution from
agricultural production (“Other measures”).
No
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Measures
Reconditioning and development of drinking water systems
Implementation of Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC.
Reconditioning of water supply, construction of new water pipelines:
settlements with over 50 consumers or supply system output over 10m3/d
and smaller water supply to public (child care institutions, recreation
centres etc.)
Reconditioning of water supply, construction of new water pipelines: small
settlements with under 50 consumers or supply system output under
10m3/d
Reconditioning and development of water supply, construction of new
pipelines: settlements with over 500 consumers
Reconditioning and development of drinking water systems in CF projects
Reconditioning and development of drinking water systems (without) CF
projects
Preparation of the projects
Support for replacement of dry or polluted wells
Risk assessment for waters containing Fe and research about usage of new
spring water
Analysis for finding safe drinking water springs
Detailed analysis for finding safe drinking water springs
Supporting well drilling in areas of intensive agriculture
Ensuring safe drinking water in areas where groundwater is polluted with
hazardous substances
Replacement support of dry dug wells
Renovation and extension of existing water supply systems
Reconditioning of sources of point source pollution
Reconditioning and development of waste water collection systems
Construction of new and reconstruction of old sewerage systems
Construction of drainage systems
Support for sewerage systems in low density areas
Additional Phosphorus removal measures
Additional Nitrogen removal measures
Cleaning of water bodies from residual Phosphorus pollution (polluted
meadows, bioponds, muddy rivers)
Additional sewage treatment reconstruction measures derived from
HELCOM
Construction of sewage discharge systems
Reconditioning and developing of sewerage systems in CF projects
Reconditioning and developing of sewerage systems (without CF projects)
Additional measures for limiting point pollution near lakes
Ensuring water collection and cleaning in accumulation wells
Reconditioning of polluted areas (residual pollution)
105
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
III
1
2
IV
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
V
Measures
Closure of semi-coke landfills in Kohta-Järve and Kiviõli (Waste
Management Plan CF)
Closure of oil shale power plant ash fields and improvement of ash
removal systems (Waste Management Plan CF and Eesti Energia)
Reconditioning the river basin area of Purtse
Localizing and eliminating residual pollution of national importance
Localizing and eliminating residual pollution of regional importance
Support for elimination of locally discoverable polluted areas and
hazardous waste
Additional monitoring and studies for reconditioning residual pollution
Develop measures to reduce the impact of occasional pollution incidents
Follow-up inspection and reconditioning of closed landfills (financial
resources from Waste Management Plan and CF)
Reconditioning of industrial areas
Water protection measures for oil shale power plants
Surveys and digital mapping of soil pollution under former liquid fuel
storages
Reduction of diffuse source pollution
Measures for peat extraction and for quarries
Forestry measures
Maintaining the quality and reserves of groundwater
Research and surveillance of groundwater reserves; protection measures
Establishing water protection areas for important public water supply
Inventory of sanitary protection areas of less important public water supply
Inventory, liquidation or conservation of unused drilled wells
Composing a project about sanitary protection zones of drilled wells
Management of local water intake in unprotected groundwater areas
Supporting the usage of near surface groundwater (including technological
purposes)
Organizing training and information workshops
Studies on mining technologies, which sustain groundwater; finding
solution for water supply for villages under impact of mining
Reconditioning of effluent discharge
Studies on endangered aquifer of bad water status and implementation of
water protection measures (oil shale energetics, agriculture, Vasavere
groundwater reserve, vulnerability maps)
Specific stringent groundwater protection measures for Pandivere zone
(which have not been pointed out in "V_P" plans)
Clarifying the perspective of long-term use of Quaternary aquifer in the
City of Tallinn
Specification of sub-river basin ground cover maps, on the basis of
stratigraphy of drilled wells, through interpolation
Digitalization of groundwater vulnerability maps and displaying the maps
to all local governments to use
Updating of the register of springs and karst areas and management of
protection
Principal measures of maintaining the resource and quality of groundwater
The Quaternary aquifer
The Silur-Ordovician aquifer
The Ordovician-Cambrian aquifer
The Cambrian-Vend aquifer
Improvement of surface water bodies
106
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
VI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VII
Measures
Assessing and studying the status of water bodies (including water
habitats), management plans for protected areas
Preservation of the status of lakes
Maintenance and improvement of the status of river bodies (incl. ensuring
passage of fish through impoundments)
Reconditioning of bathing and recreational water bodies
Supporting plans for water bodies of recreational use
Maintaining ecological potential for artificial- and heavily modified water
bodies (including reconditioning of quarry lakes and reservoirs)
Inventory and assessment of artificial water bodies
Preventing flood
Designating the extent of floods and inventory of impoundments
Repairing regulated drainage networks.
Hydrotechnical work assuring sanitary water flows, reconditioning or
reconstructing of the regulators
Elimination of the reservoir sediments and vegetation
Renewal of regulated drainage networks
Precautionary measures for water bodies of “good” status
Reconditioning and maintenance of good water status and valuable parts of
river
Reconditioning of rivers with poor chemical water status
Purtse, Selja, Pühajõgi, Ilmatsalu, Soolikaoja, Toolse, Rausvere, Kavilda,
Sanniku and Koreli rivers
Pilot works
Renewal of rivers with bad water status
Reconditioning of rivers with poor water status
Conservation of valuable parts of rivers as natural habitats
Support for reduction of the number of beavers
Reconditioning the ecological state of river bodies in CF projects
Restoration of Narva river valley
Cleaning of Purtse-, Erra- and Kohtla rivers
Additional measures for Lake Peipsi
Ensuring waste and bilge water receiving points at the harbours of Peipsi
(Waste Management Plan)
Improvement of coastal water
Preventing accidents in the harbours, supporting waste receiving points and
oil spill combating
Reconditioning of bathing and recreational water bodies
Necessary studies to reduce the flood risk in coastal areas and development
of programmes of measures according to the Directive on Assessment and
Management of Flood Risk
Coastal water status studies and implementation plans for protection and
improvement of water status
Specification of flood reach and compilation of different water status
maps. Compilation of programme of measures
Compilation of thematic planning to raise the storm-proof of the coastal
areas
Feasibility assessment for possibilities to improve the status of bays and
compilation of action plans
Supporting studies to reach good ecological potential of significantly
modified water body - Väike Väin
Administration of RBMP
107
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Measures
Specification of environmental goals on the basis of social-, economic- and
environmental assessment
Organizing Environmental Impact Assessment according to the river
basins
Cross-border cooperation with Russia
Cooperation on Lake Peipsi
Ensuring horizontal nature of institutional cooperation
Relating RBMPs horizontally with other programmes (ERDP, NDP, SBS)
Regular updating of the PWSS development plans by local governments
Managing, coordinating evaluating the implementation of the MP,
cooperation, guidelines, involvement of stakeholders (including other
programmes) and public, training
Regular review and specification of the management plan of the sub-river
basin
Economic studies and model on water use (considering indirect cost and
impact compensating)
Specification of public interest in the use of water bodies, combining the
actions of water management and nature conservation, managing
recreation on water bodies
Economic assessment of measures and of usage of water service
Summary of important water problems
Inventory of impoundments and water reservoirs
Surveillance of environmentally dangerous objects and production
requirements
Limiting the discharge of phenols - control, training and monitoring
Surface water and groundwater surveillance programmes, including
hazardous substance
Surface water and groundwater surveillance programmes, linking them
with the RBMPs
Linking the surveillance of environmentally hazardous objects and of
compliance with the RBMPs’ objects
Monitoring and surveillance of residual pollution areas
Surveillance of recreational water bodies
Surveillance of water quality and water supply systems in low density
areas
108
Annex II. Measures from NVZ Action Plan 2009-2011 to limit diffuse pollution in
Pandivere groundwater sub-river basin.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Measures
Organizing cooperational seminars once a year for the
Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture,
Estonian Agricultural Registers and Information Board,
Board of Agriculture, Health Board and Environmental
Inspectorate and consultants
Participating in the EU Pilot River Basin cooperation
project, combining CAP and RDP
Adjusting legal acts regulating agricultural production
Continuing the work of the NVZ Council
Developing cooperation with state- and science institutions
(increasing the cross-usage of databases, ensuring data
transfer)
Limiting the impact of autumn manure spreading on
surface- and groundwater
Intensifying support of consultants in planning sustainable
production
Considering compensating production restrictions for
agricultural producers
Updating guidance materials according to the amendments
made in EU, HELCOM, RBMPs and national legal acts.
Adjusting environmental-, including water protection
training materials
Organizing regular water protection training for consultants
Organizing training and consulting for agricultural
producers
Updating of the register of springs and karst areas
Reinforcing the surveillance over agricultural producers in
following the surface and groundwater protection
requirements
Collecting data and analysing the monitoring results
annually
Compiling a report on II NVZ Action Plan
Total agricultural measures from NVZ Action Plan
Cost (thousands
EEK)
400
210
150
400
200
350
1710
109
Baltic Compass
Baltic COMPASS promotes sustainable agriculture in the Baltic Sea region. The
region’s 90 million inhabitants anticipate both high quality food produced in the
region and a healthy environment, including a cleaner Baltic Sea. Baltic Compass
looks
for innovative solutions needed for the future of the region and its
agriculture, environment and business.
Baltic Compass has a wide approach to the agri-environmental challenges,
covering agricultural best practices, investment support and technologies, water
assessment and scenarios, and policy and governance issues.
Baltic Compass is financed by the European Union as a strategic project for its
support to investments and policy adaptation. The 22 partners represent
national authorities, interest organizations, scientific institutes and innovation
centres from the Baltic Sea Region countries. Baltic Compass is a three year
project running until December 2012.
www.balticcompass.org
110