EXCURSO: EL SINDICALISMO ESPAÑOL

In 2013, zero percent of the Dutch surface water bodies complied with the European ecological quality standards according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The general picture of water quality remains more or less the same as in 2009. The low score is mainly due to poor biological quality, but also to exceeding concentrations of nutrients, heavy metals and other persistent pollutants. The percentage of water bodies where the biological quality is good increased from 2.6 percent in 2009 to 5.5 percent in 2013.

0

2009 2013

%

Source: Informatiehuis Water, adapted by PBL (Statistics Netherlands et al., 2014).

2.24.1 Ecological quality of surface water bodies, 2009 and 2013

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ecology good Biology good Moderate Inadequate Bad Unknown

The percentage of 700 selected Dutch surface water bodies complying with the ecological quality standards of the Water Framework Directive (intermediate results 2013). The ecological quality is determined on the basis of several tests, like biological quality (3 subtests), hydro-morphological characterization, physico-chemical quality and standards for a selection of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons. Water bodies with good biological quality comply with all standards except for the hydro-morphological aspects.

The issue

The ecological quality is a measure for the health of surface water. The availability of healthy fresh water resources is a key factor for green growth. Healthy water bodies can contribute in general to human well-being through their different uses such as bathing, fishing, recreational shipping, water for the preparation of potable water.

Analysis

The poor ecological quality of the Dutch surface waters is caused by the presence of persistent chemicals due to historical emissions, eutrophication caused by high nutrient concentrations, disappearance of natural habitats and natural banks due to modification of water courses and the widespread use of weirs and pumping stations, which hampers the migration of fish (Statistics Netherlands, PBL, WUR, 2014). Many measures are being taken to lower the negative impact of these causes, for instance restoring the natural courses of brooks, building fish passages near weirs and reducing pollutant discharges. The effects of these measures are still not visible in the intermediate results for 2013 but can be evaluated thoroughly in 2016, once official results for 2015 are published.

International comparison

The Netherlands, Poland, Luxembourg, Hungary and Germany face the worst ecological status or potential in river and lake water bodies (situation 2009). More than 90 percent of water bodies have a less than good ecological status/potential. The Netherlands, situated downstream of four international rivers, has the lowest scores due to pollution and hydro-morpholigical pressures6) _{(altered water courses, lack of natural habitats).} The ecological status of each water body is determined by the quality element having the lowest status class, according to the one-out-all-out principle. All European water bodies that currently have a less than good ecological status must be restored to good or better ecological status through measures formulated in the River Basin Management Plans. The next official compliance check will be for the year 2015 (to be published 2016). 2.24.2 Percentage of water bodies with high or good ecological

status/potential, 2009

%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Source: EEA.

High or good ecological quality

100 The Netherlands Poland Luxembourg Hungary Germany Czech Republic Italy Belgium Finland United Kingdom Greece Denmark France Austria Spain Slovenia Portugal Ireland Sweden Slowak Republic Estonia

2.25 Nitrate in groundwater

The average nitrate concentration in the upper groundwater layer has fallen so much that the target value of 50 mg/l was met in 2010. Concentrations have already been below the target for several years, especially in regions with clay and peat soil. For sandy soils the target was first met in 2010, whereas concentrations are still too high in regions with loess.

6) _{http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-waters-assessment-2012}

0 mg/l

2.25.1 Average concentration of nitrate in upper groundwater layer of agricultural sandy soils

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

Source: RIVM Landelijk meetnet grondwaterkkwaliteit. 20 40 60 80 100 120

The average nitrate concentration is weighted for the areas representative for the samples of groundwater. The data are corrected for variations in weather and sample composition. The higher value for 2008 can be explained by a lower precipitation surplus in that year.

The issue

Green growth requires a healthy balance with the required natural resources, like groundwater. In the Netherlands groundwater serves to prepare drinking water. Washing out of nitrogen to the groundwater threatens its quality. High concentrations of nitrate can lead to closure of abstraction points or higher purification costs. A key determinant of the nitrate concentration in the groundwater is the nitrogen surplus in the soil balance of farms. In order to reduce the load of nitrogen to soil and groundwater, the standards for applying nitrogen on agricultural soils are being accentuated stepwise. The effect on nitrate content is already visible and will improve.

Analysis

There is a large spread in the nitrate concentrations between agricultural use, types of farm and regions with different soil types. Soils below arable farms generally have higher concentrations than soils below dairy farms. In the southern part of the sand region, the concentrations are generally higher because there are more crops and soil types that are sensitive to washing out (Statistics Netherlands et al., 2012).