Nutrient Reduction Strategyfor the Elbe River Basin

HELCOM Workshop with River Basin Management Authorities18-20 September 2019, Rīga, Latvija

Pavel Rosendorf – International Commission for the Protectionof the Elbe River (ICPER) & T. G. Masaryk Water Research Institute

in cooperation with Michael Trepel (Schleswig-Holstein, Ministry for Energy Transition, Agriculture, Environment, Nature and Digitalization), Gregor Ollesch (FGG Elbe - Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe), Jindřich Duras (Vltava River Board Authority), the staff of ICPER Secretary and other members of the Nutrient expert group

1/13

Foto: Michael Trepel

The Elbe basin is

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

… Europe‘s fourth largest basin(148,268 km2)

… part of Germany (65.5%), Czech Republic (33.7%),Austria (0.6%) and Poland (0.2%)

… managed by the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe River (ICPER) founded in1990

… highly eutrophic

2/13

Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin(Story of the Strategy)

3/13

The International Elbe River Basin Management Plan (2009) identified high nutrient content as a major problem in coastal, transitional and inland waters.

The ICPER, at its 27th meeting in October 2014 in Berlin, set up an ad hoc expert group "Nutrients" and mandated it to coordinate procedures to reduce nutrient intake into waters in the international Elbe River Basin District.

Protection of marine and coastal waters against excessive nutrient intake came to the forefront when updating the International Elbe RBMP in 2015.

The ICPER adopted the Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin on 17 October 2018.

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin(Content of the Strategy)

4/13

Summary Introduction Eutrophication Monitoring and Assessment of nutrients Nutrient status and gap analysis – inland waters Nutrient status and gap analysis – protection of

marine waters Sources and pathways of nutrients Measures for reduction of nutrient inflow Recommendations for reaching targets in all water

bodies

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

Monitoring and Assessment of Nutrients – inland waters

5

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

Total Phosphorusaverage concentration

in 2010 – 2015

Description and comparison of monitoring and assessment methods for rivers, lakes and groundwater in

Germany and Czech Republic

Joint assessment of nutrients in water bodies based on uniform methodology

(time series, characteristic values)

Better understanding of trophic situation in water bodies

Better planning of efficient measures

6

Monitoring and Assessment of Nutrients – inland waters

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

Description and comparison of monitoring and assessment methods for rivers, lakes and groundwater in

Germany and Czech Republic

Joint assessment of nutrients in water bodies based on uniform methodology

(time series, characteristic values)

Better understanding of trophic situation in water bodies

Nitrate Nitrogenaverage concentration

in 2010 – 2015

Better planning of efficient measures

7/13

Nutrient status and gap analysis – protection of marine waters

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

In the Elbe River Basin District were designated six water bodies, one water body of transitional waters and five coastal water bodies of the North Sea.

Five of the six water bodies assessed are in worse than good status.

WB category WB type Profile name Time series Total Nitrogen (annual mean)

Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen

(winter mean)

Total Phosphorus (annual mean)

mg/ltarget value

monitoring target value

monitoring target value

monitoring

transitional

22.3/T1 - Transitional waters Elbe-Weser-Ems Grauerort 2011–2015

≤13,45

≤0,83,61

≤0,0450,241

T1/N3 - Transitional waters Elbe-Weser-Ems Cuxhaven 2011–2015 1,89 2,15 0,125

coastal

N3 - polyhaline open coastal waters

Norderelbe 2013–2015

≤0,56

0,87

≤0,44

1,84

≤0,036

0,051

Vogelsander Norderelbe 2011–2015 0,63 0,44 0,062OSee-W-2 (buoy No. 13) 2011–2015 0,87 0,83 0,064

N4 - polyhaline WaddenSea Nordertill 2011–2015 0,64 0,59 0,058

N5 - euhaline rock-shaped coastal waters around Helgoland

Helgolandreede 2013–2015 ≤0,24 0,26 ≤0,19 0,18 ≤0,03 0,025

8

Targets and load reduction requirements for reaching GES

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

The ad hoc expert group proposed target values for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in key inland water body profiles:● Labe/Elbe - Hřensko/Schmilka:

the border between the Czech Republic and Germany

● Elbe - Seemannshöft: the border between inland and transitional waters

Target values were derived from values for coastal waters considering retention and transformation in the inland water bodies.

Labe/Elbe – Hřensko/Schmilkatarget values (annual mean):TN – 3,2 mg/lTP – 0,1 mg/l

Elbe – Seemannshöfttarget values (annual mean):TN – 2,8 mg/lTP – 0,1 mg/l

9/13

Targets and load reduction requirements for reaching GES

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

Based on the target nutrient concentrations and the long-term average annual flow, target load in key profiles were derived.

Reduction requirements were set up as a difference of present load (2011-2015) and target load.

Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus

Reduction requirement for the Czech Republic at Labe/Elbe – Hřensko/SchmilkaTarget concentration (annual mean) mg/l 3.2 0.1Flow-normalized target Load ton/year 30,799 962Present concentration (mean 2011–2015) mg/l 3.93 0.115Present Flow-normalized Load ton/year 45,810 1,541Reduction requirement ton/year (%) 15,011 (33%) 579 (38%)

Reduction requirement for coastal waters at Elbe – SeemannshöftTarget concentration (annual mean) mg/l 2.8 0.1Flow-normalized target Load ton/year 66,580 2,385Present concentration (mean 2011–2015) mg/l 3.2 0.17Present Flow-normalized Load ton/year 84,400 3,940Reduction requirement ton/year (%) 17,800 (21%) 1,550 (40%)

10/13

Development of Nutrient loads in the Elbe Riverand its main tributaries – Total Nitrogen

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

1997–2001 2011–2015

11/13

Development of Nutrient loads in the Elbe Riverand its main tributaries – Total Phosphorus

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

1997–2001 2011–2015

12/13

Rosendorf P. et al. | Nutrient Reduction Strategy for the Elbe River Basin

Identified differences in nutrient assessment and carried out a joint assessment across the Elbe River Basin

Agreed on nutrient targets and calculated required load reductions in key profiles

Identified the need to revise the target values for inland water bodies, especially fornitrogen

Improved cooperation and understanding between nutrient experts

Summary

Foto: Michael Trepel

Nutrient load decreased in the past significantly, but for WFD and MSFD further reductions is needed

Use the website: https://www.ikse-mkol.org/ to download the Strategy (in German/Czech language only)

Výzkumný ústav vodohospodářský T. G. Masaryka, v.v.i.Podbabská 2582/30, 160 00 Praha 6 | +420 220 197 111 | info@vuv.cz, www.vuv.cz, Pobočka Brno | Mojmírovo náměstí 16, 612 00 Brno-Královo Pole | +420 541 126 311 | info_brno@vuv.cz, Pobočka Ostrava | Macharova 5, 702 00 Ostrava | +420 595 134 800 | info_ostrava@vuv.cz

Thank you for your attention / Paldies par jūsu uzmanību

Elbe in Magdeburg Germany

Pavel Rosendorf, pavel.rosendorf@vuv.cz

Greetings from the core Nutrient expert group