UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Policies for the Control of Agricultural Point
and Non-point Sources of Pollution
&
Pilot Projects on Agricultural Pollution Reduction
(Project Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use
in the Danube River Basin Countries
with Reference to Manure and Land Management
Practices
February 2004
Final Report
GFA Terra Systems
in co-operation with Avalon
Your contact person
with GFA Terra Systems is
Dr. Heinz-Wilhelm Strubenhoff
Danube Regional Project - Project RER/01/G32
"Policies for the control of agricultural point and non-point sources of pollution"
and "Pilot project on agricultural pollution reduction"
(Project Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries with Reference
to Manure and Land Management Practices
Address
GFA Terra Systems GmbH
Eulenkrugstraße 82
22359 Hamburg
Germany
Telephone: 00-49-40-60306-170
Telefax: 00-49-40-60306-179
E-mail: hwstrubenhoff@gfa-terra.de
Preface
The UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project supports through this Project Component the development
of policies for the control of agricultural point and non-point sources of pollution and the
conceptualization and implementation of pilot projects on agricultural pollution reduction in line with
the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive.
The Overall Objective of the Danube Regional Project is to complement the activities of the ICPDR
required to strengthen a regional approach for solving transboundary problems in water management
and pollution reduction. This includes the development of policies and legal and institutional
instruments for the agricultural sector to assure reduction of nutrients and harmful substances with
particular attention to the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
Following the mandate of the Project Document,
Objective 1 stipulates the "Creation of Sustainable Ecological Conditions for Land Use and Water
Management" and under
Output 1.2, "Reduction of nutrients and other harmful substances from agricultural point and non-
point sources of pollution through agricultural policy changes",
Activity: 1.2-3 requires to "Review inventory on important agrochemicals (nutrients, etc) in terms of
quantities of utilization, their misuse in application, their environmental impacts and potential for
reduction"
The present document "Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries with
Reference to Manure and Land Management Practices" responds to this mandate in providing an
analysis on the present use of mineral fertiliser, the existing mechanisms of regulation and control and
proposed measures for policy reforms and their practical application in line with the requirements of
the EU Directives and regulations.
The result of this study on the use of mineral fertilisers (including reference to manure and land
management practices) complements the review and analysis presented in the other key documents
produced within the framework of Output 1.2:
· Inventory of Agricultural Pesticide Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
· Inventory of Policies for Control of Water Pollution by Agriculture in the Danube River Basin
Countries
· Draft Concept for Best Agricultural Practice for the Danube River Basin Countries
The findings and analysis in the present report have been prepared by the principal author, Dr Mark
Redman, supported by contributions from the following national experts:
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Prof. Dr Hamid Custovic
(including Republica Srpska)
Dr. Mihajlo Markovic
Bulgaria
Association for Integrated Rural Development
Croatia
Dr Milan Mesic
Czech Republic
Milena Forejtnikova
Hungary
György Mészáros
Moldova
Alexandru Prisacari
Romania
Dr. Cristian Kleps
Serbia and Montenegro
Prof. Dr. Zorica Vasiljevic
Dr. Vlade Zaric
Slovakia
Dr. Radoslav Bujnovsky
Slovenia
Marina Pintar
Ukraine
Natalia Pogozheva
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Country Codes Used
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Use of Mineral Fertilisers in the 11 Central and Lower DRB Countries .............................................. 17
Problems Associated with Mineral Fertilisers, Manure Application and Land Management in the DRB
Countries ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Potential for Policy Reform in EU Context........................................................................................... 23
"Good Practice" for Improving the Management of Fertilisers and Manures....................................... 31
Recommendations for Policy Reform in DRB Countries ..................................................................... 33
Annex 1: Review of the Use of Mineral Fertiliser Products in the DRB Countries (Questionnaire)... 35
Annex 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina.......................................................................................................... 43
Annex 3: Bulgaria ................................................................................................................................ 53
Annex 4: Croatia .................................................................................................................................. 59
Annex 5: Czech Republic..................................................................................................................... 65
Annex 6: Hungary ................................................................................................................................ 71
Annex 7: Moldova................................................................................................................................ 79
Annex 8: Romania................................................................................................................................ 85
Annex 9: Serbia & Montenegro ........................................................................................................... 89
Annex 10: Slovakia .............................................................................................................................. 95
Annex 11: Slovenia ............................................................................................................................ 101
Annex 12: Ukraine ............................................................................................................................. 107
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BAP
Best Agricultural Practice
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy
DRB
Danube River Basin
DRP
Danube Regional Project
EC
European Commission
EU
European Union
FAO
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation
FAOSTAT
Statistical database of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation
GEF
Global Environmental Facility
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
K
Potassium
Kg/ha
Kilogrammes per hectare
MONERIS
Modelling Nutrient Emissions in River Systems
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
N
Nitrogen
P
Phosphorus
WFD
Water Framework Directive
Country Codes Used
BG
Bulgaria
BH
Bosnia and Herzegovina consisting of 2 entities:
FedBH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
RS Republic of Srpska
CZ
Czech Republic
HR
Croatia
HU
Hungary
MD
Moldova
RO
Romania
SK
Slovakia
SL
Slovenia
UA
Ukraine
CS
Serbia and Montenegro (previously the Former Republic of Yugoslavia)
-9_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
1
Executive Summary
Introduction
Modern agricultural production systems have developed by making widespread use of mineral fertilisers
to replace the traditional reliance upon crop rotations and animal manures to maintain and enhance soil
fertility and support profitable crop production. The two most important plant nutrients applied as mineral
fertilisers are nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). Both occur naturally in the soil and are essential for crop
growth.
The collapse of the centrally-planned economies of central and eastern Europe in the early 1990s
caused a social and economic crisis that profoundly affected agriculture in the central and lower
Danube River Basin (DRB). These changes inevitably led to a significant reduction in agricultural
productivity in the region, including a decline in the use of external inputs such as mineral fertilisers.
Reliable data on mineral fertiliser use in the central and lower DRB region are not available for the
decades leading up to 1990. However, the limited data available from the FAOSTAT database shows
that after rising strongly for three decades the use of N fertilisers (kg N/ha) by farmers in the former
communist DRB countries dropped by approximately 50% around the year 1990 and is now far below
the EU average (Figure 1). The decline in fertiliser use was more severe in some countries than others
in Bulgaria, the average application rate of fertiliser N fell from 109.9 kg N/ha in 1981 to 29.9 kg
N/ha in 1999.
However in all countries, the reduction in the use of mineral fertilisers was the result of economic
necessity rather than environmental awareness since for most farmers the lack of working capital has
made it difficult to buy in more than the minimum of farm inputs.
At the same time, significant changes also occurred in livestock production. The de-collectivisation and
privatisation of the state-controlled animal breeding complexes was particularly dramatic in many DRB
countries and led to a significant decline in livestock numbers by approximately 50% in most countries,
as well as a major change in the way that farm animals are kept. With the decline in livestock numbers
there has also been a decline in the availability of manure as a traditional source of crop nutrients and
this has resulted in a decline in the nutrient balance of many agricultural soils in the DRB countries to the
point that farmers are now relying upon the fertility reserves of the soil to maintain their relatively low
levels of crop yield.
Figure 1:
Long-term trends in nitrogen fertiliser use (kg N/ha) in selected central and lower
DRB countries and EU Member States1
80
70
60
50
a
h 40
kg/
30
20
10
0
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
C E E C s
E U 15
1 Due to limited data availability, the description of the trend in N fertiliser consumption is limited to the following
DRB countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia
2
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Source: FAOSTAT - database of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
The aim of this report is to develop an inventory of fertiliser market products for the central and lower
DRB on a country-by-country basis and to review their typical use, misuse and potential for reduction
of environmental impact. Additionally reference is made to animal manures and land management
practices where these relate to the management of crop nutrients and minimising the risk of water
pollution by diffuse losses from agricultural land.
The national fertiliser inventories are presented in Annexes 2 12 of this report.
Use of Mineral Fertilisers in the 11 DRB Countries
A range of mineral fertiliser products containing nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are available to
farmers in DRB countries. There are no consistent patterns to the products being, except to say that
the most commonly used products in any country are inevitably those that are locally the cheapest
such as ammonium nitrate, calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) and urea.
Figure 2 below shows the annual total consumption (millions tonnes) of N and P mineral fertilisers in
all DRB countries under study during the period 1997 2002. Whilst there has been little change in
total P fertiliser use, there appears to be a discernable trend towards increasing N fertiliser
consumption with an 18% increase between 1997 and 2002.
However, this aggregate increase obscures:
· a 30% increase in total N fertiliser consumption in the 4 DRB countries preparing for EU
accession either as the result of more land being fertilised by farmers and/or an increase in
fertiliser application rate (i.e. farmers applying more fertiliser N per hectare).
· reductions of up to 50% in total N fertiliser consumption in some of the other central and lower
DRB countries, including Romania, Ukraine and Serbia & Montenegro
The existing trend towards increasing fertiliser N consumption in the 4 acceding countries is a cause
for concern since it is likely to be reinforced by EU enlargement and the implementation of the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) leading to increasing areas of cereals and oilseeds being grown
due to the availability of EU direct payments; increased intensification of crop production, particularly
in the more favourable areas with better growing conditions, and a possible reduction in mixed
cropping due to an increase in large-scale cereal monocultures.
Figure 2: Annual total consumption of N and P (thousand tonnes nutrient/year) as fertiliser products in
the central and lower DRB countries (1997 - 2002)
1200
1000
ent
800
r
Use
600
rtilise
/year)
l Fe
ta
400
To
(thousand tonnes nutri
200
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Total N fertiliser use
Total P fertiliser use
-11_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
3
Source: Data submitted by GFA National Experts
Problems Associated with Mineral Fertilisers, Manure Application and Land
Management in the DRB Countries
The total amounts of mineral fertiliser applied to agricultural land are certainly an important
consideration in assessing the environmental impact of agriculture upon water quality and there is also
little doubt that the reduction in fertiliser use in the central and lower DRB countries has contributed to
a reduction in nutrient losses.
However, the environmental impact of fertiliser use is also closely related both to:
a) the way in which farmers apply fertilisers to their crops and
b) the overall management of their farming system
In particular, the changes in management practice required to optimise the use of mineral fertilisers and
avoid their misuse are related to the application of manure and slurry to agricultural land, as well as other
soil management practices such as cultivations. Typical problems and "bad practice" identified by the
GFA national experts during preparation of the national fertiliser inventories (Annexes 2 - 12) included:
· there is a widespread ignorance of ideas such as "pollution" or environment" amongst farmers and
no information on the importance of managing fertilisers and manures properly
· farmers often consider manure as a "waste product" rather than a source of nutrients that should be
used carefully to save money spent on fertilisers
· the agricultural workforce often consists of more elderly people familiar only with previous
farming methods and who have little (if any) agricultural education and do not understand the
importance of applying fertilisers and manures correctly to the soil
· the machinery used for spreading fertilisers is outdated and not appropriate for the modern
agricultural operations consequently application is uneven and commonly results in areas of
"under" and "over"-fertilisation. Farmers do not have the knowledge or experience to
adjust/operate the equipment correctly
· many cheaper mineral fertilisers are only "milled" and during storage become compacted again
which makes uniform spreading very difficult
· fertilisers and manures are commonly stored in unauthorised places where there is a risk of
causing pollution
· there is a tendency in some areas for farmers to grow the same crop (or same simple rotation of
crops) for many years without application of fertiliser or manures. This is leading to a serious
decline in soil fertility and the risk of increasing soil erosion due to loss of soil organic matter
· farmers do not consider the nutrient requirements of the crops they are applying fertilisers (and
manures) to
· it is not very common for farmers to practice soil testing before deciding where to apply fertilisers
and manures and in what quantities
· farmers and agronomists do not sufficiently recognise the potential value of nutrients in livestock
manure. Consequently the application rate of fertilisers is not adjusted and nutrients are wasted
because they are surplus to the crop's requirement
· bad timing of fertiliser application is a common problem, especially when applying large amounts
of fertiliser to higher value crops such as vegetables and potatoes. There are many reasons for this
including poor knowledge and no access to agronomic advice, but also lack of necessary
equipment when needed
· application of nitrogen to soil in autumn before planting a spring crop is common practice in some
countries. It is not understood that the nitrogen can be lost over winter. Spreading fertiliser and
manure to frozen and snow covered ground is also common in some countries
· over-application of fertiliser N at the time of sowing a crop is a common problem
4
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· compound fertilisers are often applied with inappropriate balance of nutrients and there is
tendency to under-fertilise with P and K
· nitrate losses from agricultural land are associated with farming practice not just the rate of
fertiliser or manure application factors that continue to contribute to high levels of nitrate
leaching are poor timing of application, regular cultivations and the ploughing of grassland,
legumes and other crop residues
· fertilisers (and manures) are spread too closely to surface waters rivers, lakes, ponds, streams
and springs
· fertilisers (and manures) are spread on sloping land where there is the risk of surface run-off from
heavy rain washing them into nearby rivers and streams
· even though the number of farm animals has declined and the quantity of animal wastes produced
is less, most farmers do not have good storage facilities for manure and slurry therefore manures
and slurries are being applied at inappropriate times (e.g. autumn and winter) when there is a high
risk of leaching or run-off
· because of simplified tax systems in many countries for households and private agricultural plots,
including small farms, there is no official obligation for them to have a book-keeping system. As
a result they do not keep records of their purchases or use of fertilisers, manures or other relevant
information (e.g. crop yields or sales) and there is therefore no reliable information regarding
application of fertilizers
Potential for Policy Reform in EU Context
As noted in the other summary reports, this review of fertiliser use is undertaken during a period of
great change in the Danube River Basin (DRB) with 4 countries (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia
and Slovenia) in the final stages of preparation for accession to the EU in 2004 and 2 countries
(Bulgaria and Romania) preparing for EU accession sometime after 2004. The policy-making context
for agricultural pollution control in the DRB is therefore undergoing significant change and
preparation for joining the EU is currently a major driving force for the reform of agricultural
pollution control policies in the region.
This includes:
Adoption of EU Legislation
In the European Union, there are three Directives that address the problem of excess nutrient losses
from agriculture:
· Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances (the Groundwater Directive)
· Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
from agricultural sources
· Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
(the Water Framework Directive)
Of these, only the Nitrate Directive 91/676 currently places any direct obligation upon farmers and for
over a decade has effectively promoted a variety of good practices for reducing diffuse nitrate
pollution by nitrates through a variety of good agricultural practices, including good practices in
fertiliser and manure application. Unfortunately, the Nitrates Directive has consistently failed to meet
its environmental objectives and has suffered from both considerable resistance by the EU agricultural
community and poor implementation by many Member States. One problem has been the lack of
appropriate tools particularly economic instruments - to support implementation of the Directive.
For example, Member States have not been able to offer farmers agri-environment payments to
encourage them to meet the obligatory reductions in fertiliser application required in designated
"nitrate vulnerable zones" under the Nitrate Directive because EU rules currently prevent agri-
environment payments being made to farmers for complying with the requirements of EU legislation.
-13_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
5
It is now hoped that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) will offer an additional policy tool for
reducing agricultural water pollution provided that appropriate policy instruments can be
developed/utilised by the WFD to address the pressures upon water resources from agriculture.
Consequently there is much interest in using the policy tools available in the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) to support and implement the WFD, including the Pillar 1 Market Support Measures
and the Pillar 2 - Rural Development Measures.
Financial Incentives for Pollution Control
As mentioned above, the EU Rural Development Regulation 1257/1999 (the "second pillar" of the
CAP) makes provision for Member States to encourage more environmentally-friendly farming
methods, including practices and actions that reduce the risk of agricultural pollution. This offers a
good opportunity for supporting the control of nutrient pollution in those DRB countries joining the
EU, by allowing them to develop EU co-financed schemes that:
a) offer grant-aided investment (up to 50%) in agricultural holdings that helps to "...preserve and
improve the natural environment" for example, by purchasing new manure storage facilities or
purchasing more up-to-date equipment for fertiliser and manure application
b) training farmers for the "...application of production practices compatible with the maintenance
and enhancement of the landscape and the protection of the environment" this includes:
· training for organic farming
· training for farming management practices with a specific environmental protection objective
c) introducing agri-environment schemes that offer area payments to support "...agricultural
production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside" this is
very important tool for supporting the adoption of organic farming, as well other pollution control
techniques such as uncultivated buffer strips, conversion of arable to pasture land and the
introduction of more diverse crop rotations.
While the four DRB countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia) joining the EU in
2004 will shortly be implementing national agri-environment programmes, two DRB countries
(Romania and Bulgaria) are unlikely to join the EU until at least 2007. In these latter countries,
financial assistance is also available for developing and implementing "pilot" agri-environment
measures with SAPARD co-funding the Special Pre-accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural
Development.
Additionally, following agreement on proposals arising from the recent Mid-term Review of the CAP
a new "meeting EU standards" measure will be introduced to "help farmers adapt to the introduction
of demanding standards based on EU legislation...concerning the environment, public, animal and
plant health, animal welfare and occupational safety". This is potentially a very useful tool for
reducing pollution and some of the acceding countries are proposing to make extensive use of it to
improve manure storage and management facilities on farms.
Developing the EU Concept of "Cross Compliance"
The concept of cross-compliance in agriculture (setting conditions which farmers have to meet in
order to be eligible for direct government support) has been growing in importance since the 1970s.
After many years of debate it is now also seen as an important policy tool in the EU to help improve
standards in farming and protect the environment.
The "Agenda 2000" reform of the CAP introduced cross-compliance for the first time as a key policy
instrument for improving the environmental performance of farmers in the EU by:
a) allowing Member States to attach environmental conditions to the so-called `First Pillar' of the
CAP, and;
b) requiring Member States to define verifiable standards of Good Farming Practice (GFP) for
farmers to follow before they could certain receive funds under the Rural Development Regulation
(No. 1257/1999) - the so-called `Second Pillar' of the CAP.
6
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Member States showed relatively little interest in the option for voluntary cross-compliance introduced
in the original "Agenda 2000" CAP reform. In most countries it was not adopted at all, in others it
appears only to have been used to address very specific environmental problems e.g. limits on
pesticide use in maize in the Netherlands. The June 2003 Mid-term CAP reform package however
now obliges all Member States to have a system of cross compliance in place for all direct support
schemes from January 2005 in accordance with the revised `Common Rules' Regulation 1782/2003.
Good Practice for Improving the Management of Fertiliser and Manures
In order to reduce the risk of diffuse pollution by nutrients (N and P) from agriculture it is necessary to
encourage practical farm management techniques that minimise the opportunities for nutrients to
accumulate in a form that is susceptible to loss. By using current and evolving scientific knowledge it is
possible to develop simple practical guidelines for the management of the nutrient inputs most commonly
used by farmers namely mineral fertilisers and manures. These should be applicable to all farmers at
little or no cost thereby minimising the need for financial incentives furthermore, it should always be
stressed to farmers that improvements in nutrient management also means improvements in productivity,
cost-effectiveness and ultimately profit.
The following typical management practices are commonly promoted to reduce the risk of nitrate leaching
(especially during periods of high risk, such as the autumn and winter months):
1. Ensure that fertiliser N is applied according to the crop's requirement and taking account of:
· the crop species/variety, expected yield and required quality
· the natural supply of N from the soil, including N released from soil organic matter, crop residues
and applied manure/slurry
2. Avoid applications of N fertilisers and manure/slurry in autumn and very early spring when crop
requirements for N are very low
3. Limit the application rate of organic manure/slurry to ensure that N supply does not exceed crop
requirements this includes applying in smaller quantities at regular intervals to match more closely
the crops requirement for nutrients during the growing season
4. Take special care when applying fertilisers and manure/slurry on fields where there is a risk of run-off
to surface waters
5. When applying fertilizers/manures, ensure that an adequate distance (a "buffer zone") is kept away
from surface waters to avoid the risk of direct pollution
6. Ensure accurate calibration of fertiliser spreading equipment to minimise the risk of excessive
application
7. Minimise the period when the soil is left bare and susceptible to nitrate leaching by increasing the area
sown to winter crops, cover crops and grassland, whilst decreasing the areas sown to spring crops
8. Sow winter crops early in the autumn to increase nitrate uptake prior to the onset of the winter
leaching period
9. Restrict the ploughing of old grassland.since this leads to excessive amounts of nitrate being produced
by the natural process of mineralisation and commonly leads to high levels of nitrate leaching
It must be remembered, however, that diffuse nutrient losses from agriculture are greatly influenced by
climate, soil type, cropping system and the forms and quantity of fertiliser and manure applied.
Additionally diffuse losses of P are influenced by factors such as the vulnerability of soil to erosion.
The typical management practices outlined above must therefore always be elaborated and expanded
upon according to different national and ideally regional/local contexts.
Technological and scientific developments will also play a major role in continuing to improve the
efficiency of nutrient use in agriculture for example, the use of high technology for targeting
fertiliser inputs in cereal production through the use of so-called "precision farming techniques" offers
considerable opportunity to both improve the efficiency and profitability of fertiliser use, as well
further reduce nutrient losses. But for the moment such technology remains very capital intensive and
beyond the reach of most farmers.
-15_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
7
The important thing is to ensure that the practical guidance developed for "good practice" is flexible
and pragmatic this is likely to involve the combination of both new technologies and more
traditional nutrient conserving techniques such as those outlined above.
Recommendations for Policy Reform in DRB Countries
Despite the relatively low levels (compared to many EU Member States) of mineral fertiliser and
manure currently applied to agricultural land in the central and lower DRB region, national
governments should take seriously the risk of diffuse pollution arising from fertiliser and manure
application. The following objectives relating to fertiliser and manure application are recommended
for all national strategies aiming to control nutrient pollution from agriculture. Comments are also
included on policy instruments that should be adopted where appropriate to national context:
OBJECTIVE 1: Develop greater understanding at a national/regional level of the relationship
between agricultural practice (fertiliser, manure and land management) and
the risk of diffuse nutrient pollution
1.1 Establish progressive and well-funded research programmes whilst scientific understanding
of nutrient losses from agricultural land and the related transport processes to ground and surface
waters has increased in recent years this cannot be applied uniformly across the DRB for the
development of good/best practice. Country/regional specific guidance for farmers must be based
upon an understanding of the behaviour of nutrients in the specific agronomic, environmental and
socio-economic context of each country. For example:
· the nutrient content of animal manures need to be quantified to aid more precise application
· the nutrient losses from different components of the farm system to be measures and the
causes of these losses established
· the underlying soil processes affecting nutrient availability (e.g. soil mineralisation) need to be
better understood
OBJECTIVE 2: Develop appropriate policy instruments and institutional arrangements for
promoting better management of fertilisers and manures
2.1 Raise Farmer Awareness of Good Practice - simple and easy to understand information
materials, combined with well-targeted publicity campaigns, can be very effective at raising
farmers' awareness of the importance of improving the management of fertilisers and manures a
key message to communicate is that better nutrient management increases productivity, saves
money and improves profitability.
2.2 Develop and Promote National Codes of Good Practice national authorities should agree
upon clear and simple codes of voluntary good practice for fertiliser and manure management.
This should be specific to national context and ideally linked to/derived from progressive and
well-funded research programme (see 1.1 above)
2.3 Use Economic Instruments to Promote Good Practice where government schemes are
providing support to farmers then the principle of "environmental cross-compliance" can be
applied. This involves the establishment of certain conditions that farmers have to meet in order
to be eligible to receive government support and can easily be adapted to the promotion of good
practice for fertiliser and manure management. Additionally, payments to farmers from agri-
environment schemes (where implemented) can be conditional upon certain standards for fertiliser
and manure management. Appropriate financial disincentives might also be developed.
2.4 Develop Appropriate Extension Capacity agricultural extension services play a key role in
raising awareness and improving the technical skills of farmers with respect to good practice for
fertiliser and manure management, however they often require support in developing the necessary
capacity to do this. National funding should be provided for the training of advisers in good
8
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
practice and modern extension techniques, as well as the development of appropriate institutional
frameworks for extension services (including the link to progressive and well-funded research
programmes see 1.1 above)
OBJECTIVE 3: Promote certified organic farming and other low input farming systems as
viable alternatives to the conventional use of fertilisers
3.1 Raise Farmer Awareness alternative farming systems, such as organic farming, should be
actively promoted to farmers through the preparation of simple and easy to understand information
materials. Organic farming is the most well-developed of all alternative farming systems and has
good potential to reduce nutrient losses through the avoidance of the most soluble forms of
mineral fertiliser, more rational use of manures and use of more diverse crop rotations (e.g.
increased winter crop cover) - whilst also contributing to the reduction of pesticide pollution etc.
3.2 Develop Relevant Legislation national legislation for the certification and inspection of organic
farming systems in compliance with internationally recognised standards (particularly those in
accordance with EC legislation) should be developed and implemented as a high priority in order
to promote the development of domestic markets and international trade
3.3 Develop Appropriate Extension Capacity agricultural extension services and farm advisers
play a fundamental role in the re-orientation of farmers towards alternative production systems,
particularly those such as organic farming, which require higher levels of technical knowledge and
management. National funding should be provided for the development of appropriate extension
capacity as 2.4 above
3.4 Use Economic Instruments to Promote Organic Farming farmers converting to organic
farming techniques can incur certain additional costs associated with reductions in input,
establishment of new crop rotations, adoption of new technologies etc. These costs can be a
significant obstacle to farmers deciding making the transition from a conventional farming system.
Where funds are available, national authorities should encourage farmers to convert to organic
farming by offering appropriate levels of compensatory payment. Since organic farmers often
have problems to sell or export their products, the marketing of organically-grown products should
also be supported by governmental campaigns and action.
-17_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
9
Introduction
Overview
Modern agricultural production systems have developed by making widespread use of mineral fertilisers
to replace the traditional reliance upon crop rotations and animal manures to maintain and enhance soil
fertility and support profitable crop production.
The two most important plant nutrients applied as mineral fertilisers are nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).
Both occur naturally in the soil and are essential for crop growth.
N occurs within the soil in the simple ionic forms of ammonium (NH +
-
4 ) and nitrate (NO3 ) which
plants can easily absorb and utilise. Of the elements essential for plant growth, N is required in the
greatest quantity by agricultural crops. The exception to this rule-of-thumb being those crops which
form large underground storage organs, notably potatoes, since these also require large quantities of P
and potassium (K). However, as well as being the most important crop nutrient in agriculture, N is also
a potential environmental pollutant since when found in the wrong place, at the wrong time and in the
wrong form, N can cause significant ecological disturbance and, in certain circumstances, may possibly
pose a hazard to human health.
The dominant feature of the behaviour of P in the soil is its strong adsorption to the surfaces of soil
particles and until 20-30 years ago it was thought that P was held so strongly in the soil that its
significance as a cause of water pollution was negligible. However, it is now understood that
phosphate pollution is a major contributing factor to the occurrence of eutrophic waters, algal blooms
and other ecologically-damaging effects. Furthermore, agricultural land is increasingly recognised to
be one of the largest non-point sources of P reaching surface waters.
Both N and P are transient in the soil and the amounts available in the soil at any time to meet the
needs of a growing crop are the product of a network of physical, biological and chemical pathways
through which N and P move the so-called N and P "cycles".
N and P can enter the soil in a number of ways and in a number of different forms. In modern
agriculture it has become broadly accepted that the N and P content of the soil should be regularly
supplemented with mineral fertilisers and this has become common practice where N and P fertilisers
can be easily afforded by farmers.
The most commonly used mineral fertilisers containing N and P are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: N- and P-containing Chemicals and Materials Commonly Used in Mineral Fertilisers
Chemicals/Materials
N Content (%)
P Content (%)
"Straight" Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
21
Ammonium nitrate
35
Calcium nitrate
17
Urea 46
Anhydrous ammonia
82
Aqueous ammonia
25-29
Rock phosphate
14-17
Triple superphosphate
19-23
"Compound" Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
11-12
26
Di-ammonium phosphate
18-21
23
10
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Aim of this Report
The aim of this report is to develop an inventory of fertiliser market products for the central and lower
DRB on a country-by-country basis and to review their typical use, misuse and potential for reduction
of environmental impact.
Additionally reference is made to animal manures and land management practices where these relate
to the management of crop nutrients and minimising the risk of water pollution by diffuse losses from
agricultural land.
The DRB Context
The collapse of the centrally-planned economies of central and eastern Europe in the early 1990s
caused a social and economic crisis that profoundly affected agriculture in the central and lower
Danube River Basin (DRB).
The market situation changed drastically, with average consumer income decreasing, causing a lowered
demand for agricultural products. In addition, important foreign markets, such as the former Soviet
Union, were lost. At the same time, large-scale restructuring of the agricultural sector occurred. Land
was privatised and most of the collectivised/state farm structures were dismantled. However, in many of
the former communist DRB countries the registration of new landownership progressed only slowly (e.g.
due to the complexities of the privatisation process, poor management, disputes etc.), adding to the
uncertainties of the individual farmer.
The economic crisis also put pressure on national budgets. As a result, state support to the agricultural
sector was reduced drastically. To make things worse, capital and credit facilities were lacking in the
private sector. These changes inevitably led to a significant reduction in agricultural productivity in
the region, including a decline in the use of external inputs such as mineral fertilisers2.
Reliable data on mineral fertiliser use in the central and lower DRB region are not available for the
decades leading up to 1990. However, the limited data available from the FAOSTAT database shows
that after rising strongly for three decades the use of N fertilisers (kg N/ha) by farmers in the former
communist DRB countries dropped by approximately 50% around the year 1990 and is now far below
the EU average (Figure 1). The decline in fertiliser use was more severe in some countries than others
in Bulgaria, the average application rate of fertiliser N fell from 109.9 kg N/ha in 1981 to 29.9 kg
N/ha in 1999. Similar declines can also be observed for phosphate (P) and potash (K) use again in
Bulgaria, the average application rate of P and K fell from 90.2 kg P2O5/ha and 26.8 kg K2O/ha in
1981 to 2.2 kg P2O5/ha and 1.2 kg K2O/ha in 19993.
In all countries, the reduction in the use of mineral fertilisers was the result of economic necessity
rather than environmental awareness. The lack of working capital on new private holdings and
remaining collective farms made it difficult to buy in more than the minimum of farm inputs. For
most farmers, the low level and fluctuation of agricultural product prices, as well as uncertainty over
land ownership, have it made it advisable to operate with a minimum of costs since there is no
guarantee of any returns on investment, including farm inputs.
At the same time, significant changes also occurred in livestock production. The de-collectivisation and
privatisation of the state-controlled animal breeding complexes was particularly dramatic in many DRB
countries and led to a significant decline in livestock numbers by approximately 50% in most countries,
as well as a major change in the way that farm animals are kept. For example, when state-controlled
dairy units were liquidated cattle were commonly distributed amongst former employees. However, new
owners were short of facilities for keeping cattle, feed was expensive and land was not easy to buy or
lease ahead of the land restitution process. These circumstances were not favourable to the formation of
new dairy farms and many cattle were sold for slaughter.
2 "Mineral fertilisers" are defined as nutrient-containing fertiliser products which have been manufactured for sale
to farmers
3 Data supplied by the National Statistical Institute, Sofia
-19_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
11
Figure 1:
Long-term trends in nitrogen fertiliser use (kg N/ha) in selected central and lower
DRB countries and EU Member States4
80
70
60
50
a
h 40
kg/
30
20
10
0
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
C E E C s
E U 15
Source: FAOSTAT - database of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
With the decline in livestock numbers there has also been a decline in the availability of manure as a
traditional source of crop nutrients. When taken together with the reduced use of mineral fertilisers, this
has resulted in a decline in the nutrient balance5 of many agricultural soils in the middle and lower DRB
countries to the point that many agricultural scientists in the region are concerned that farmers are now
relying upon the fertility reserves of the soil to maintain their relatively low levels of crop yield.
The long-term changes in the N balance/surplus (kg N/ha) of agricultural areas in selected DRB
countries are shown in Figure 2 below. All the countries shown are characterised by a slow long-term
increase in N balance from the 1950s/1960s until the end of the 1970s the period of most rapid
intensification of agricultural production in most European countries. Depending upon the original
starting level, the N balance/surplus observed in most countries reached a relatively high, but stable
plateau in the 1980s. During the 1990s, however, the changes in N balance/surplus observed are very
different between:
· the gradual decline seen in the upper DRB countries of Germany and Austria, and
· the dramatic fall of 40-50 kg N/ha seen within a few years in the former communist countries of the
central and lower DRB.
Changes in N balance/surplus are commonly used as an indicator to highlight areas potentially at risk
from pollution6 consequently the observed fall in N balance in the countries of the central and lower
suggests a significant reduction in the risk of surplus N being lost from agricultural land to the wider
4 Due to limited data availability, the description of the trend in N fertiliser consumption is limited to the following
DRB countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia
5 Nutrient balances (particularly nitrogen balances) are a key agri-environmenta ind
l
icator and calculate the
balance between nutrients added to an agricultural system (fertilisers, livestock manures, biological N fixation,
atmospheric deposition etc.) and nutrients removed from the system (marketable products) per hectare of
agricultural land. A deficit (negative balance) suggests that the system is losing fertility, while a large surplus
(large positive balance) indicates the risk of nutrient loss and therefore potential pollution
6 Although the calculation of N surplus cannot be immediately interpreted as an ind cat
i
or of loss of nitrogen to
water. The balance between inputs and outputs for a system contains all potential losses, plus any change in the
store of nitrogen, principally within the soil. The potential loss pathways for nitrogen are:
·
to air as ammonia by direct volatilisation after spreading of manure on the field
·
to air as nitrous oxide and nitrogen gas by denitrification
·
to groundwater by nitrate leaching and in organic compounds
·
to rivers and lakes through run-off after heavy rainfall
12
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
environment, notably by nitrate leaching.
Figure 2: Long-term changes in the N balance (kg N/ha) of agricultural areas in selected DRB
countries (including Austria and Germany Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemburg only)
Source: Various compiled by Schreiber et al. (2003)7
Table 2 further presents the most recent calculations (1998-2000) of N balance/surplus for all national
territories falling within the DRB together with the agricultural area of each country within the
catchment and the estimated N loss by diffuse pollution (tonnes N/year) from this agricultural area. The
national territories are divided between the upper DRB countries (Germany and Austria) that are not the
subject of this project and the middle/lower DRB countries that are under study. Within each category
the countries are ranked according to estimated N balance/surplus.
There is a wide variation in the estimated N balances of the agricultural areas of the central and lower
DRB countries ranging from 73.6 kg N/ha in Slovenia to 11.9 kg N/ha in Serbia & Montenegro.
Furthermore the countries fall into two distinct groups that currently suggest there is:
· the highest potential risk of N losses, such as nitrate leaching, occurring from agricultural land in
the territories of Slovenia, Czech Republic and Croatia although the N surplus in these countries
is less than in Germany and previously reported in other EU Member States (e.g. national N
surpluses for farmland in Luxembourg and the Netherlands were estimated to be 121 and 213 kg
N/ha respectively in 19958)
· a lower risk of N loss from the remaining countries all of which have N surpluses estimated to be
less than 25 kg N/ha.
7 Schreiber, H. et al. (2003). Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse Emissions of Nitrogen and Phosphorous
for a Transboundary River Basin. Research Report 200 22 232, Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany.
8 Source: EUROSTAT quoted by EEA (2000). Environmental Signals 2000. Environmental Assessment Report
No.6, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
-21_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
13
However, this situation provides no grounds for complacency in the lower and middle DRB countries
since whilst national nutrient balances are useful tools for tracking change and making comparisons
between countries/national territories, they:
· may hide considerable regional or local nutrient surpluses that are susceptible to high losses
particularly where they occur on vulnerable soils or where groundwater is close to the surface
· do not provide any information about how well farmers are managing the (often limited) amounts
of mineral fertiliser and manure that they are applying
· take no account of the risk of small point source pollution occurring from farms wherever manures
and other livestock wastes are poorly handled or stored
Table 2: Summary of data (19982000) from the MONERIS model showing a) estimates of nitrogen
balance/surplus (kg N/ha), b) agricultural area (km2) and c) estimated nitrogen loss by diffuse
pollution (tonnes N/year) for all national territories within the Danube river basin catchment
Estimated Agricultural Area
Estimated N Loss
N Balance within Danube
by Diffuse Pollution
Country
(kg N/ha)9
Catchment Area (km2)
(tonnes N/year) 10
Upper DRB
Germany
90.9
32 839
75 553
Countries
Austria
44.0
29 639
28 900
Middle and
Slovenia
73.6
6 153
10 629
Lower DRB
Czech Republic
46.8
13 054
16 314
Countries
Croatia
39.2
18 011
14 886
Slovakia
23.9
23 890
16 702
Hungary
21.9
66 400
8 700
Romania
21.5
112 931
68 366
Moldova
19.1
11 474
2 113
Bulgaria
16.8
35 946
18 197
Bosnia & Herzegovina
15.9
13 778
7 332
Ukraine
15.7
19 433
13 976
Serbia & Montenegro
11.9
46 686
10 487
Other
296
388
TOTALS
430 530 km2 292
543
t N/year
Source: Schreiber et al. (2003)11 and personal communication with the MONERIS project, IGB Berlin
9 Nutrient balances for the Danube river catchment were prepared for the MONERIS model using the standard
OECD soil surface nitrogen balance methodology with crop and livestock data supplied by national consultants for
selected countries. Where these data were not available, figures from the OECD and FAO databases were used
10 The total contribution of agricultural non-point source pollution to nutrient emissions into the Danube river is
estimated by the MONERIS model (IGB Berlin) as the sum of losses via Surface Run-off, Erosion, Tile Drainage
and Groundwater less Background losses
11 Schreiber, H. et al. (2003). Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse Emissions of Nitrogen and
Phosphorous for a Transboundary River Basin. Research Report 200 22 232, Federal Ministry of the
Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany.
14
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-23_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
15
Methodology
Due to the limited availability of data sources on mineral fertiliser use in the region, national experts in
each of the DRB countries under study were asked to undertake a survey of:
1. amounts of mineral N and P fertilisers typically applied in their won country and how they are
used (e.g. what crops are they applied to)
2. any information available on bad practice by farmers regarding the use of these fertilisers
A simple questionnaire approach was used that took the experts through 4 key steps (See Annex 1):
Step 1 identification of the types of N and P mineral fertiliser (including the nutrient-containing
chemicals and materials) that are commonly used in agriculture and horticulture.
Step 2 estimation of the total consumption of N and P mineral fertilisers by farmers for the years
1997 - 2002. All data collected was for the amount of nutrient (N or P) not the amount of fertiliser
product/chemical (for example, 1 tonne of ammonium nitrate typically contains only 345 kg of
nitrogen)
Step 3 collection of information on the characteristics of N and P mineral fertiliser use by farmers,
including:
· approximately what percentage of the crops grown currently have mineral fertilisers applied to
them
· the current average or "typical" application rate (kg per ha) for N and P fertilisers
· the typical time of fertiliser application (e.g. in autumn or spring)
Step 4 identification of problems relating to the use of mineral fertilisers, including known "bad
practice" such as:
· using application rates that are higher than recommended rates (unlikely in many countries)
· poor application due to old or poorly maintained equipment
· spreading too closely to water sources e.g. streams and rivers
· applying mineral fertiliser at an inappropriate time of year (i.e. when the crop is not growing)
The results of the survey and the inventories prepared for each country are included in Annexes 2 12
of this report.
16
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-25_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
17
Use of Mineral Fertilisers in the 11 Central and Lower DRB
Countries
A range of mineral fertiliser products containing nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are available to
farmers in DRB countries those products typically being used by farmers are summarised in Table 3.
There are no consistent patterns to the products being, except to say that the most commonly used
products in any country are inevitably those that are locally the cheapest such as ammonium nitrate,
calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) and urea.
Figure 3 shows the annual total consumption (millions tonnes) of N and P mineral fertilisers in all
DRB countries under study during the period 1997 2002. Whilst there has been little change in total
P fertiliser use, there appears to be a discernable trend towards increasing N fertiliser consumption
with an 18% increase between 1997 and 2002.
However, this aggregate increase obscures:
· a 30% increase in total N fertiliser consumption in the 4 DRB countries preparing for EU
accession either as the result of more land being fertilised by farmers and/or an increase in
fertiliser application rate (i.e. farmers applying more fertiliser N per hectare).
· reductions of up to 50% in total N fertiliser consumption in some of the other central and lower
DRB countries, including Romania, Ukraine and Serbia & Montenegro
The existing trend towards increasing fertiliser N consumption in the 4 acceding countries is a cause
for concern since it is likely to be reinforced by EU enlargement and the implementation of the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) leading to increasing areas of cereals and oilseeds being grown
due to the availability of EU direct payments; increased intensification of crop production, particularly
in the more favourable areas with better growing conditions, and a possible reduction in mixed
cropping due to an increase in large-scale cereal monocultures.
Detailed information from the survey of typical fertiliser use is included in Annexes 2 12, but Table
4 summarises the results for N fertiliser use on wheat a crop that is commonly grown in all DRB
countries. The results show a wide variety of typical practices with some surprisingly high application
rates reported in certain countries (e.g. CS!) however there appear to be 3 basic groups of typical
fertiliser practice:
· virtually all of the crop area receives relatively high N application e.g. HR and HU
· virtually all of the crop area receives moderate N application e.g. SI and SK
· significant proportion of the crop areas receives no N application and the remaining crop areas
receives small or moderate N application e.g. RO and MD
18
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Table 3: Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in DRB Countries
(Note that the most commonly used fertiliser products for each country are marked with
)
Fertiliser Type
% N/P
DRB Country
BH BG HR CZ HU MD RO SK SL UA CS
Straight N Fertilisers:
Ammonium sulphate
21% N
Ammonium nitrate
30-35% N
Calcium nitrate
15% N
Calcium ammonium nitrate
27% N
Urea
46% N
Anhydrous ammonia
82% N
Aqueous ammonia
25-29% N
Other
Straight P Fertilisers:
Rock phosphate
Superphosphate
< 25% P2O5
Concentrated superphosphate > 25% P2O5
Calcium phosphate
Other
Compound N-P-K
Fertilisers:
Mono-ammonium phosphate
Di-ammonium phosphate
Other
Figure 3: Annual total consumption of N and P (thousand tonnes nutrient/year) as fertiliser products in
the central and lower DRB countries (1997 - 2002)
1200
1000
ent
800
r
Use
600
rtilise
/year)
l Fe
ta
400
To
(thousand tonnes nutri
200
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Total N fertiliser use
Total P fertiliser use
Source: Data submitted by GFA National Experts
Table 4: Summary of typical fertiliser use on wheat in central and lower DRB countries
-27_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
19
Crop
Typical
Receiving
Application Typical Timing of
Country N Fertiliser (kg N/ha)
Application
Comments
BH
50-60%
95-160
Autumn* & spring Typical NPK fertiliser to apply in the seed-bed
is 15:15:15 followed by to-dressing with CAN
or urea in spring
BG
78%
86
Autumn* & spring 2001/2002 data
HR
95-100%
100-120
Autumn* & spring
CZ 98% 90
Spring
HU
95%
100-110
Autumn* & spring
MD
60-75% 35-55 Spring
RO
45%
30-66
Autumn*
Typical NPK fertiliser where used is 45:23:0.5
SK
90-100% 40-90
Mostly
spring
SI
90% 40-60 Autumn*
&
spring
UA
60% 33 Spring
CS
95% 250 Spring
* for winter wheat
20
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-29_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
21
Problems Associated with Mineral Fertilisers, Manure
Application and Land Management in the DRB Countries
The total amounts of mineral fertiliser applied to agricultural land are certainly an important
consideration in assessing the environmental impact of agriculture upon water quality and there is also
little doubt that the reduction in fertiliser use in the central and lower DRB countries has contributed to
a reduction in nutrient losses.
However, the environmental impact of fertiliser use is also closely related both to:
c) the way in which farmers apply fertilisers to their crops and
d) the overall management of their farming system
In particular, the changes in management practice required to optimise the use of mineral fertilisers
and avoid their misuse are related to the application of manure and slurry to agricultural land, as well
as other soil management practices such as cultivations.
Typical problems and "bad practice" identified by the GFA national experts during preparation of the
national fertiliser inventories (Annexes 2 - 12) included:
· there is a widespread ignorance of ideas such as "pollution" or environment" amongst farmers and
no information on the importance of managing fertilisers and manures properly
· farmers often consider manure as a "waste product" rather than a source of nutrients that should be
used carefully to save money spent on fertilisers
· the agricultural workforce often consists of more elderly people familiar only with previous
farming methods and who have little (if any) agricultural education and do not understand the
importance of applying fertilisers and manures correctly to the soil
· the machinery used for spreading fertilisers is outdated and not appropriate for the modern
agricultural operations consequently application is uneven and commonly results in areas of
"under" and "over"-fertilisation. Farmers do not have the knowledge or experience to
adjust/operate the equipment correctly
· many cheaper mineral fertilisers are only "milled" and during storage become compacted again
which makes uniform spreading very difficult
· fertilisers and manures are commonly stored in unauthorised places where there is a risk of
causing pollution
· there is a tendency in some areas for farmers to grow the same crop (or same simple rotation of
crops) for many years without application of fertiliser or manures. This is leading to a serious
decline in soil fertility and the risk of increasing soil erosion due to loss of soil organic matter
· farmers do not consider the nutrient requirements of the crops they are applying fertilisers (and
manures) to
· it is not very common for farmers to practice soil testing before deciding where to apply fertilisers
and manures and in what quantities
· farmers and agronomists do not sufficiently recognise the potential value of nutrients in livestock
manure. Consequently the application rate of fertilisers is not adjusted and nutrients are wasted
because they are surplus to the crop's requirement
· bad timing of fertiliser application is a common problem, especially when applying large amounts
of fertiliser to higher value crops such as vegetables and potatoes. There are many reasons for this
including poor knowledge and no access to agronomic advice, but also lack of necessary
equipment when needed
· application of nitrogen to soil in autumn before planting a spring crop is common practice in some
countries. It is not understood that the nitrogen can be lost over winter. Spreading fertiliser and
manure to frozen and snow covered ground is also common in some countries
22
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· over-application of fertiliser N at the time of sowing a crop is a common problem
· compound fertilisers are often applied with inappropriate balance of nutrients and there is
tendency to under-fertilise with P and K
· nitrate losses from agricultural land are associated with farming practice not just the rate of
fertiliser or manure application factors that continue to contribute to high levels of nitrate
leaching are poor timing of application, regular cultivations and the ploughing of grassland,
legumes and other crop residues
· fertilisers (and manures) are spread too closely to surface waters rivers, lakes, ponds, streams
and springs
· fertilisers (and manures) are spread on sloping land where there is the risk of surface run-off from
heavy rain washing them into nearby rivers and streams
· even though the number of farm animals has declined and the quantity of animal wastes produced
is less, most farmers do not have good storage facilities for manure and slurry therefore manures
and slurries are being applied at inappropriate times (e.g. autumn and winter) when there is a high
risk of leaching or run-off
· because of simplified tax systems in many countries for households and private agricultural plots,
including small farms, there is no official obligation for them to have a book-keeping system. As
a result they do not keep records of their purchases or use of fertilisers, manures or other relevant
information (e.g. crop yields or sales) and there is therefore no reliable information regarding
application of fertilizers
-31_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
23
Potential for Policy Reform in EU Context
As noted in the other summary reports, this review of fertiliser use is undertaken during a period of
great change in the Danube River Basin (DRB) with 4 countries (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia
and Slovenia) in the final stages of preparation for accession to the EU in 2004 and 2 countries
(Bulgaria and Romania) preparing for EU accession sometime after 2004. The policy-making context
for agricultural pollution control in the DRB is therefore undergoing significant change and
preparation for joining the EU is currently a major driving force for the reform of agricultural
pollution control policies in the region.
Adoption of EU Legislation
In the European Union, there are three Directives that address the problem of excess nutrient losses
from agriculture (Table 5):
· Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances (the Groundwater Directive)
· Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
from agricultural sources
· Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
(the Water Framework Directive)
Table 5: Summary of Legislation Addressing Nutrient Losses from Agriculture in the EU
Title of Legislation
Obligations
Directive 80/778/EEC on
· The Drinking Water Directive (80/778) lays down standards for the quality
the quality of water intended
of water intended for drinking or for use in food and drink manufacture in
for human consumption (the
order to protect human health.
Drinking Water Directive) · The Directive does not impact upon farmers directly, but sets a maximum
to be replaced by Directive
admissible concentration of nitrate in drinking water supplies of 50 mg per
98/83/EC from 2003
litre that water suppliers must comply with. This requires the use of water
treatment in some areas to ensure that drinking water supplied is
acceptable.
Directive 91/676/EEC
· The objectives of the directive are to ensure that the nitrate concentration in
concerning the protection of
freshwater and groundwater supplies does not exceed the limit of 50 mg
waters against pollution
NO3- per litre as imposed by the EU Drinking Water Directive (above) and
caused by nitrates from
to control the incidence of eutrophication.
agricultural sources
· Having set the overall targets, the directive requires individual Member
States to draw up their own plans for meeting them, including:
Drawing up a Code of Good Agricultural Practice
Designating zones vulnerable to pollution by nitrates
Establishing and implementing Action Programmes within these zones to
prevent further nitrate pollution
Directive 2000/60/EC
· The Water Framework Directive (WFD) has the overall environmental
establishing a framework
objective of achieving 'good water status' throughout the EU by 2010 and
for Community action in the
for it to be maintained thereafter. It sets out to establish a Community
field of water policy (the
framework for the protection of surface and ground waters across the EU
Water Framework
through a common approach, objectives, principals and basic measures.
Directive)
· The WFD establishes the river basin as the primary administrative unit for
the purposes of water management. The Directive will have widespread
and significant impacts. It brings together much of the existing water
legislation into an overall framework establishing broad ecological
objectives for water and provides an administrative framework to achieve
these.
· This Directive places no direct obligation on farmers, but they influence the
standards that must be met by them.
24
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Of these, only the Nitrate Directive 91/676 currently places any direct obligation upon farmers and for
over a decade has effectively promoted a variety of good practices for reducing diffuse nitrate
pollution by nitrates through a variety of good agricultural practices, including good practices in
fertiliser and manure application.
The objectives of the Directive are two-fold: i) to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates
from agricultural sources and; ii) to prevent further pollution occurring. The Directive requires EU
Member States to identify waters affected by nitrate pollution (as well as waters which could be
affected) and to designate the areas draining into these as Vulnerable Zones. Within these zones, the
Member States must draw up Action Programmes for the reduction of nitrate leaching these Action
Programmes must contain certain mandatory measures such as limit upon the maximum amounts of
manure that can be applied to farmland every year.
Member States are also required to establish at least one Code of Good Agricultural Practice which is
implemented on a voluntary basis outside the Vulnerable Zones, and is mandatory within them.
Annex II of the Nitrate Directive, provides guidance on what a code of good agricultural practice
should contain. It requires that all codes should contain measures (where relevant) addressing 6 key
issues:
1. periods when land application of fertilizer is inappropriate
2. the land application of fertilizer on steeply sloping ground
3. the land application of fertilizer on water-saturated ground, flooded, frozen or snow-covered
ground
4. the land application of fertiliser near water courses
5. the capacity and construction of storage vessels for livestock manures and other liquid farm
wastes, such as effluent from silage
6. procedures for the land application (including rate and uniformity) of both chemical fertilizer and
animal manure that will maintain nutrient losses to water to an acceptable level
Additionally, the Directive suggests that Member States may also include in their code(s) of good
agricultural practice additional measures that address the following 4 issues:
7. land use management, including the use of crop rotation systems and the proportion of the land
area devoted to permanent crops relative to annual tillage crops
8. maintenance of minimum quantity of vegetation cover during rainy periods that will take up the
nitrogen from the soil that could otherwise cause nitrate pollution of water
9. the establishment of fertilizer plans on a farm-by-farm basis and the keeping of records on
fertilizer use
10. the prevention of water pollution from run-off and downward water movement beyond the reach
of crop roots in irrigation systems.
Unfortunately, the Nitrates Directive has consistently failed to meet its environmental objectives and
has suffered from both considerable resistance by the EU agricultural community and poor
implementation by many Member States12. One problem has been the lack of appropriate tools
particularly economic instruments - to support implementation of the Directive. For example,
Member States have not been able to offer farmers agri-environment payments to encourage them to
meet the obligatory reductions in fertiliser application required in designated "nitrate vulnerable
zones" under the Nitrate Directive because EU rules currently prevent agri-environment payments
being made to farmers for complying with the requirements of EU legislation.
It is now hoped that similar rules will not be applied to implementation of the Water Framework
Directive 2000/60 since this will significantly limit its ability to promote the use of economic
instruments available under the CAP to reduce the risk of nutrient losses from agricultural land and
promote the improvement of water quality.
12 European Commission (2002). Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of
waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources: Synthesis from year 2000 Member States
reports. Report No. COM(2002) 407 final, Brussels, 17.07.2002
-33_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
25
Opportunities for Implementing the Water Framework Directive
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was adopted in December 2000 and arises out of a long
debate concerning the limitations of existing EU water legislation the existing body of legislation
was criticised for being too fragmented, concentrating on specific aspects of environmental quality or
specific threats to that quality.
The Directive requires that surface waters (rivers, lakes and coastal waters) and ground waters are to
be managed within the context of River Basin Management Plans13. All waters are to be characterised
according to their biological, chemical and hydro-morphological characteristics. These together are to
be compared with an assessment of waters unmodified by human activity and classified into different
categories of ecological status. All waters are required to meet `good status', except where specific
derogations are applied.
The means to achieve this is through the use of the River Basin Management Plans which should
integrate existing EU measures to protect the water environment and identify all remaining human
pressures which may result in a failure to achieve `good status'14. Member States are required to
establish a programme of measures in each river basin appropriate to these pressures.
There is now considerable debate within many Member States on what the implications of the WFD
will mean for agriculture - in particular, how the Member States (including the 10 new Member States
joining the EU in 2004) will use appropriate policy instruments to tackle the significant pressures upon
water resources that arise from agriculture, including the risk of pollution. A potential problem in
many Member States is that unlike other sectors, regulation of the agricultural sector is highly
politically sensitive a situation that arises and results from a range of socio-political and cultural
factors. Many governments have therefore tended to avoid the simple imposition of environmental
conditions upon farmers even basic conditions which they would otherwise readily apply, for
example, to heavy industry.
The WFD requires that Member States now address this issue and consequently there is much interest
in using the policy tools available in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to support and
implement the WFD15, including:
· CAP Pillar 1 Market Support Measures according to the revised `Common Rules'
Regulation (No. 1782/2003)16, it will be obligatory for all Member States to include specific
environmental requirements as a condition for farmers receiving direct support payments from
the government (so-called "cross compliance"). Member States were previously reluctant to
voluntarily use this policy instrument, but it could now be used for numerous aspects of water
pollution control
· CAP Pillar 2 - Rural Development Measures EU co-financed rural development programmes
provide funding for several measures that support farmers, rural communities and protection of
the natural environment. Some of these measures could directly contribute to the implementation
of the WFD and the reduction of agricultural water pollution, particularly "investment in
agricultural holdings", "training" and "agri-environment measures"
Of all the tools of the CAP, agri-environment measures seem the most useful for supporting
implementation of the WFD however, EC rules currently prevent agri-environment payments being
made to farmers for complying with the requirements of EC legislation. For example, farmers cannot
be offered support payments to encourage them to meet the obligatory reductions in fertiliser
application required in designated "nitrate vulnerable zones" by the Nitrate Directive. If this rule is
also extended to the WFD then it will significantly limit the use of CAP Pillar 2 funding for
13 Bloch, H. (2000). EU policy on nutrients emissions: legislation and implementation. In: Wastewater and EU-
Nutrient Guidelines, pp 52-59. International Water Association, London.
14 Griffiths, M. (2002). The European water framework Directive: an approach to integrated river basin
management. European Water Management Online, 2002.
15 DG Environment (2003) - Working Document on The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and tools within the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to support its implementation
16 Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
26
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
encouraging farmers to the wide range of actions on water pollution that are necessary to achieve good
ecological status, etc.
No decisions have been made in relation to this issue yet. However, early indications from DG
Environment suggest that it would not seek to restrict payments under agri-environment for
implementing the WFD as has been done for the Nitrates Directive.
Financial Incentives for Pollution Control
As mentioned above, the EU Rural Development Regulation 1257/1999 (the "second pillar" of the
CAP) makes provision for Member States to encourage more environmentally-friendly farming
methods, including practices and actions that reduce the risk of agricultural pollution. This offers a
good opportunity for supporting the control of nutrient pollution in those DRB countries joining the
EU, by allowing them to develop EU co-financed schemes that:
d) offer grant-aided investment (up to 50%) in agricultural holdings that helps to "...preserve and
improve the natural environment" for example, by purchasing new manure storage facilities or
purchasing more up-to-date equipment for fertiliser and manure application
e) training farmers for the "...application of production practices compatible with the maintenance
and enhancement of the landscape and the protection of the environment" this includes:
· training for organic farming
· training for farming management practices with a specific environmental protection objective
f) introducing agri-environment schemes that offer area payments to support "...agricultural
production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside" this is
very important tool for supporting the adoption of organic farming, as well other pollution control
techniques such as uncultivated buffer strips, conversion of arable to pasture land and the
introduction of more diverse crop rotations.
EU Member States began implementing the first so-called "agri-environment programmes" in the
1980s and 1990s, and today such programmes cover over 20% of all agricultural land in the EU.
These programmes pay farmers to modify their farming practices in order to benefit the environment.
Extensive monitoring of agri-environment programmes in EU Member States shows that they lead to
significant benefits for the conservation of valuable semi-natural habitats, biodiversity, landscape,
water and soil resources. The potential for agri-environment schemes to contribute to a wide range of
rural development objectives, including environmental protection, is recognised by the fact that they
are now the only compulsory measures for EU Member States to introduce under Regulation
1257/1999.
It will therefore be obligatory upon accession for all new Member States to introduce an EU co-
financed agri-environment scheme that offers payments to farmers who change their methods of
farming in ways "...which are compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment,
the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity" this includes
support for a range of actions contributing to the control of pesticide pollution, including the adoption
of organic farming.
While the four DRB countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia) joining the EU in
2004 will shortly be implementing national agri-environment programmes, two DRB countries
(Romania and Bulgaria) are unlikely to join the EU until at least 2007. In these latter countries,
financial assistance is also available for developing and implementing "pilot" agri-environment
measures with SAPARD co-funding the Special Pre-accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural
Development.
Co-funding will be available for several years for similar measures to be developed and implemented
in Romania and Bulgaria under the SAPARD programme the Special Pre-accession Programme for
Agriculture and Rural Development. According to the SAPARD Implementing Regulation No.
1268/1999, EU co-financing support may be provided for all the agri-environment actions described in
the Rural Development Regulation No. 1257/1999.
-35_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
27
Additionally, following agreement on proposals arising from the recent Mid-term Review of the CAP
a new "meeting EU standards" measure will be introduced to "help farmers adapt to the introduction
of demanding standards based on EU legislation...concerning the environment, public, animal and
plant health, animal welfare and occupational safety". This is potentially a very useful tool for
reducing pollution and some of the acceding countries are proposing to make extensive use of it to
improve manure storage and management facilities on farms.
Developing the EU Concept of "Cross Compliance"
The concept of cross-compliance in agriculture (setting conditions which farmers have to meet in
order to be eligible for direct government support) has been growing in importance since the 1970s.
After many years of debate it is now also seen as an important policy tool in the EU to help improve
standards in farming and protect the environment.
The "Agenda 2000" reform of the CAP introduced cross-compliance for the first time as a key policy
instrument for improving the environmental performance of farmers in the EU by:
c) allowing Member States to attach environmental conditions to the so-called `First Pillar' of the
CAP, and;
d) requiring Member States to define verifiable standards of Good Farming Practice (GFP) for
farmers to follow before they could certain receive funds under the Rural Development Regulation
(No. 1257/1999) - the so-called `Second Pillar' of the CAP.
Member States showed relatively little interest in the option for voluntary cross-compliance introduced
in the original "Agenda 2000" CAP reform. In most countries it was not adopted at all, in others it
appears only to have been used to address very specific environmental problems e.g. limits on
pesticide use in maize in the Netherlands.
The June 2003 Mid-term CAP reform package however now obliges all Member States to have a
system of cross compliance in place for all direct support schemes from January 2005 in accordance
with the revised `Common Rules' Regulation 1782/200317.
"First Pillar" Cross Compliance
Discussions are currently underway in Member States on how to implement the new obligations for
"first pillar" cross compliance which require that the full payment of direct support schemes under the
CAP must be linked to compliance with rules relating to the management of agricultural land and
production activities.
Most Member States have not yet (December 2003) established a formal position or initiated
consultations on "first pillar" cross compliance, but are waiting for clearer guidance from the
European Commission in the form of an Implementing Regulation (this is not expected until spring
2004). However, it is clear from Regulation 1782/2003 that there are two general obligations upon
Member States:
A. Statutory Management Requirements
There are a total of 18 Directives listed in Annex III of Regulation 1782/2003 on the environment,
public, plant and animal health and animal welfare. Member States are required to ensure that all
farmers receive a list of statutory management requirements for fulfilling obligations under these
Directives. Eight of these Directives have to be implemented from 1 January 200518, a further
seven from 1 January 2006 and the remainder from 1 January 2007. This will require the
development of appropriate verifiable standards, as well on-the-spot checks to ensure compliance
with the management requirements.
17 Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers
18 Those relating to the environment are Directives 79/409/79 on conservation of wild birds, 80/68/79 on
protection of groundwater, 86/278/86 on sewage sludge, 91/676/91 on nitrates and 92/43/92 on conservation of
habitats
28
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
B. Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
Annex IV of the revised Common Rules Regulation requires Member States to ensure that land is
maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, especially land no longer used for
production purposes. Member States must decide how they will define Good Agricultural and
Environmental Condition (GAEC) as set out in Annex IV. Appropriate standards can be set for
maintaining GAEC at national or regional level, and must take into `account `the specific
characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic condition, existing farming
systems, land use, crop rotation, farming practices, and farm structures'.
Various approaches to the implementation of obligatory cross-compliance are expected, since Member
States have considerable subsidiarity on many aspects. Although most Member States will probably
only require farmers to meet minimum standards set out in the Regulation, it is again expected that
some will use this as an opportunity to raise standards in agriculture and may go beyond EU standards.
"Second Pillar" Cross Compliance
Another useful tool will be the "verifiable standards of Good Farming Practice (GFP)" that all farmers
receiving payments from agri-environment and less-favoured area schemes funded by the Rural
Development Regulation - the so-called CAP `Second Pillar' - must comply with across the whole of
their farm19.
Good Farming Practice (GFP) is a relatively new concept to emerge within the EU and its practical
implementation is still being tested in many Member States. Obviously the interpretation of what
constitutes a "reasonable" standard of farming will vary from country to country, however it is generally
assumed that it will consistently involve farmers:
· following relevant existing environmental legislation, and;
· not deliberately damaging or destroying environmental assets, including the pollution of
watercourses.
It should be noted that GFP is not equivalent to the Code of Good Agricultural Practice (CoGAP) that
Member States must introduce in accordance with the requirements of the EU Nitrates Directive
676/91.
GFP is likely to become an even more important element of agricultural policy in future and is very
relevant to the concept of Best Agricultural Practice promoted by the ICPDR. However, the verifiable
standards of GFP prepared by Member States do vary considerably since there are currently no
detailed requirements for the establishment of GFP standards and no common baseline exists across
the EU.
On-farm Quality Assurance Schemes
There is increasing interest shown by farmers, the food industry and food retailers in EU Member
States to establish "on-farm quality assurance schemes" that offer consumers the assurance of food
products having been grown with reduced or minimal pesticide inputs.
The most developed example is organic farming as defined by EC Regulation 2092/91. Organic
farming has the highest potential for reducing the use of toxic pesticides. Many organic crops are
grown without the use of any pesticide, and the former intense use of copper in organic fruits and
vineyards is now regulated.
19 Under Section 9 of EC Regulation No. 1750/1999, which sets out the rules for several measures including
agri-environment, it is stated that: "Usual good farming practice is the standard of farming which a reasonable
farmer would follow in the region concerned.....Member states shall set out verifiable standards in their rural
development plans. In any case, these standards shall entail compliance with general mandatory environmental
requirements."
-37_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
29
In addition, a number of other quality assurance schemes are being developed which are based upon
"integrated crop management". For example, the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP)
has developed a set of standards and procedures for inspecting and certifying farmers who follow so-
called "good agricultural practice" (GAP).
The EUREP-GAP initiative20 is a set of normative documents suitable to be accredited to international
certification laws. Representatives from around the globe and all stages of the food chain have been
involved in the development of these documents and a very robust, very challenging protocol has been
produced which focuses the producer on the key issues that need to be addressed during the pre-farm
gate stage. Table 6 below summarises the mandatory requirements relating to fertiliser usage for
farmers and growers complying with EUREP-GAP Fresh Produce Protocol.
Table 6: Mandatory Requirements Relating to Fertiliser Usage in the EUREP-GAP Fresh Produce
Protocol
Nutrient Requirement
· Fertiliser application, using either mineral or organic fertilisers, must meet the needs of the crops as well as
maintaining soil fertility.
Advice on Quantity and Type of Fertiliser
· Growers or their advisers must be able to demonstrate competence and knowledge.
Records of Application
· All applications of soil and foliar fertilisers must be recorded in a crop diary or equivalent. Records must
include: location, date of application, type and quantity of fertiliser applied, the method of application, and
operator.
Timing and Frequency of Application
· Any application of fertilisers in excess of national or international limits must be avoided.
Nitrate and Phosphate Levels in Ground Water
· It is the responsibility of growers or grower organisations to ensure that the usage of fertilisers does not
result in nitrate or phosphate enrichment of groundwater in excess of national and international limits.
Application Machinery
· Fertiliser application machinery must be suitable for use on the land in question and be kept in good
condition, with annual calibration to ensure accurate delivery of the required quantity of fertiliser.
Fertiliser Storage
· Fertilisers must be stored appropriately.
· Fertilisers must be stored covered in a clean, dry location where there is no risk of contamination of water
sources.
· Fertilisers must not be stored with nursery stock or fresh produce.
· All hazard and risk areas must be clearly indicated.
20 EUREP website: www.eurep.org/sites/index_e.html.
30
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-39_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
31
"Good Practice" for Improving the Management of Fertilisers
and Manures
In order to reduce the risk of diffuse pollution by nutrients (N and P) from agriculture it is necessary to
encourage practical farm management techniques that minimise the opportunities for nutrients to
accumulate in a form that is susceptible to loss.
By using current and evolving scientific knowledge it is possible to develop simple practical guidelines
for the management of the nutrient inputs most commonly used by farmers namely mineral fertilisers
and manures. These should be applicable to all farmers at little or no cost thereby minimising the need for
financial incentives furthermore, it should always be stressed to farmers that improvements in nutrient
management also means improvements in productivity, cost-effectiveness and ultimately profit.
The following typical management practices are commonly promoted to reduce the risk of nitrate leaching
(especially during periods of high risk, such as the autumn and winter months):
10. Ensure that fertiliser N is applied according to the crop's requirement and taking account of:
· the crop species/variety, expected yield and required quality
· the natural supply of N from the soil, including N released from soil organic matter, crop residues
and applied manure/slurry
11. Avoid applications of N fertilisers and manure/slurry in autumn and very early spring when crop
requirements for N are very low
12. Limit the application rate of organic manure/slurry to ensure that N supply does not exceed crop
requirements this includes applying in smaller quantities at regular intervals to match more closely
the crops requirement for nutrients during the growing season
13. Take special care when applying fertilisers and manure/slurry on fields where there is a risk of run-off
to surface waters
14. When applying fertilizers/manures, ensure that an adequate distance (a "buffer zone") is kept away
from surface waters to avoid the risk of direct pollution
15. Ensure accurate calibration of fertiliser spreading equipment to minimise the risk of excessive
application
16. Minimise the period when the soil is left bare and susceptible to nitrate leaching by increasing the area
sown to winter crops, cover crops and grassland, whilst decreasing the areas sown to spring crops
17. Sow winter crops early in the autumn to increase nitrate uptake prior to the onset of the winter
leaching period
18. Restrict the ploughing of old grassland.since this leads to excessive amounts of nitrate being produced
by the natural process of mineralisation and commonly leads to high levels of nitrate leaching
It must be remembered, however, that diffuse nutrient losses from agriculture are greatly influenced by
climate, soil type, cropping system and the forms and quantity of fertiliser and manure applied.
Additionally diffuse losses of P are influenced by factors such as the vulnerability of soil to erosion.
The typical management practices outlined above must therefore always be elaborated and expanded
upon according to different national and ideally regional/local contexts.
Technological and scientific developments will also play a major role in continuing to improve the
efficiency of nutrient use in agriculture for example, the use of high technology for targeting
fertiliser inputs in cereal production through the use of so-called "precision farming techniques" offers
considerable opportunity to both improve the efficiency and profitability of fertiliser use, as well
further reduce nutrient losses. But for the moment such technology remains very capital intensive and
beyond the reach of most farmers.
32
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
The important thing is to ensure that the practical guidance developed for "good practice" is flexible
and pragmatic this is likely to involve the combination of both new technologies and more
traditional nutrient conserving techniques such as those outlined above.
-41_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
33
Recommendations for Policy Reform in DRB Countries
Despite the relatively low levels (compared to many EU Member States) of mineral fertiliser and
manure currently applied to agricultural land in the central and lower DRB region, national
governments should take seriously the risk of diffuse pollution arising from fertiliser and manure
application.
The following objectives relating to fertiliser and manure application are recommended for all national
strategies aiming to control nutrient pollution from agriculture. Comments are also included on policy
instruments that should be adopted where appropriate to national context21:
OBJECTIVE 1: Develop greater understanding at a national/regional level of the relationship
between agricultural practice (fertiliser, manure and land management) and
the risk of diffuse nutrient pollution
1.2 Establish progressive and well-funded research programmes whilst scientific understanding
of nutrient losses from agricultural land and the related transport processes to ground and surface
waters has increased in recent years this cannot be applied uniformly across the DRB for the
development of good/best practice. Country/regional specific guidance for farmers must be based
upon an understanding of the behaviour of nutrients in the specific agronomic, environmental and
socio-economic context of each country. For example:
· the nutrient content of animal manures need to be quantified to aid more precise application
· the nutrient losses from different components of the farm system to be measures and the
causes of these losses established
· the underlying soil processes affecting nutrient availability (e.g. soil mineralisation) need to be
better understood
OBJECTIVE 2: Develop appropriate policy instruments and institutional arrangements for
promoting better management of fertilisers and manures
2.5 Raise Farmer Awareness of Good Practice - simple and easy to understand information
materials, combined with well-targeted publicity campaigns, can be very effective at raising
farmers' awareness of the importance of improving the management of fertilisers and manures a
key message to communicate is that better nutrient management increases productivity, saves
money and improves profitability.
2.6 Develop and Promote National Codes of Good Practice national authorities should agree
upon clear and simple codes of voluntary good practice for fertiliser and manure management.
This should be specific to national context and ideally linked to/derived from progressive and
well-funded research programme (see 1.1 above)
2.7 Use Economic Instruments to Promote Good Practice where government schemes are
providing support to farmers then the principle of "environmental cross-compliance" can be
applied. This involves the establishment of certain conditions that farmers have to meet in order
to be eligible to receive government support and can easily be adapted to the promotion of good
practice for fertiliser and manure management. Additionally, payments to farmers from agri-
environment schemes (where implemented) can be conditional upon certain standards for fertiliser
and manure management. Appropriate financial disincentives might also be developed.
21 Not all policy instruments are appropriate to all countries
34
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
2.8 Develop Appropriate Extension Capacity agricultural extension services play a key role in
raising awareness and improving the technical skills of farmers with respect to good practice for
fertiliser and manure management, however they often require support in developing the necessary
capacity to do this. National funding should be provided for the training of advisers in good
practice and modern extension techniques, as well as the development of appropriate institutional
frameworks for extension services (including the link to progressive and well-funded research
programmes see 1.1 above)
OBJECTIVE 3: Promote certified organic farming and other low input farming systems as
viable alternatives to the conventional use of fertilisers
3.5 Raise Farmer Awareness alternative farming systems, such as organic farming, should be
actively promoted to farmers through the preparation of simple and easy to understand information
materials. Organic farming is the most well-developed of all alternative farming systems and has
good potential to reduce nutrient losses through the avoidance of the most soluble forms of
mineral fertiliser, more rational use of manures and use of more diverse crop rotations (e.g.
increased winter crop cover) - whilst also contributing to the reduction of pesticide pollution etc.
3.6 Develop Relevant Legislation national legislation for the certification and inspection of organic
farming systems in compliance with internationally recognised standards (particularly those in
accordance with EC legislation) should be developed and implemented as a high priority in order
to promote the development of domestic markets and international trade
3.7 Develop Appropriate Extension Capacity agricultural extension services and farm advisers
play a fundamental role in the re-orientation of farmers towards alternative production systems,
particularly those such as organic farming, which require higher levels of technical knowledge and
management. National funding should be provided for the development of appropriate extension
capacity as 2.4 above
3.8 Use Economic Instruments to Promote Organic Farming farmers converting to organic
farming techniques can incur certain additional costs associated with reductions in input,
establishment of new crop rotations, adoption of new technologies etc. These costs can be a
significant obstacle to farmers deciding making the transition from a conventional farming system.
Where funds are available, national authorities should encourage farmers to convert to organic
farming by offering appropriate levels of compensatory payment. Since organic farmers often
have problems to sell or export their products, the marketing of organically-grown products should
also be supported by governmental campaigns and action.
-43_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
35
Annexes
-44_1.jpg)
36
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-45_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
37
Annex 1
Review of the Use of Mineral Fertiliser Products in the DBR (Questionnaire)
-46_1.jpg)
38
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-47_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
39
Annex 1: Review of the Use of Mineral Fertiliser Products in the DRB Countries (Questionnaire)
Step 1 Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers
Please identify the types of mineral fertiliser (including the nutrient-containing chemicals and materials) that are commonly used by in agriculture and
horticulture by completing the boxes in the tables below.
I make the distinction between the use of so-called straight fertilisers that include a single nutrient-containing chemical and compound (NPK) fertilisers
that include chemicals or mixtures of chemicals that contain more than one nutrient
If you have any comments upon the importance of particular fertiliser types, trends in use etc please add them to the final column
Used by
Typical
Farmers
Typical Nutrient-
Yes/
Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
- Yes/No?
containing Chemicals
No?
(N:P:K)
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium
sulphate
No
t
Ammoniu
m nitrate
applicable
Calcium nitra
te
Urea
Anhydrous
ammonia
Aqueous am
monia
Other please specify
Compound Fertilisers Mono-ammoniu
m
phosphate
Di-ammoniu
m phosphate
Other please specify
-48_1.jpg)
40
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Used by
Typical
Farmers
Typical Nutrient-
Yes/
Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
- Yes/No?
containing Chemicals
No?
(N:P:K)
Comments
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Rock phosphate
Not
Triple
superphosphate
Applicable
Other please specify
Compound Fertilisers Mono-ammoniu
m
phosphate
Di-ammoniu
m phosphate
Other please specify
Step 2 Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers
Please complete the following table with as much national data as possible on the total use of mineral fertilisers by farmers in your country for the years 1997 -
2002. Please ensure that the data you use for the quantity of fertilisers used and applied is the amount of nutrient (N or P) not the amount of fertiliser
product/chemical (for example, 1 tonne of ammonium nitrate contains only 345 kg of nitrogen)
Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002(?) Source of data
N FERTILISERS
Total
N
consumption
(tonnes)
Total agricultural area treated with N
fertilisers (`000s ha)
P FERTILISERS
Total
N
consumption
(tonnes)
Total agricultural area treated with P
fertilisers (`000s ha)
-49_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
41
Step 3 Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers
The data on national sales collected above is very important, but the environmental impact of mineral fertiliser use is related closely to the way in which
farmers apply fertilisers to their crops. Please help us to understand more about how farmers are currently using mineral fertilisers in your country by
completing the following table as fully as possible this is organised according to main crop type and includes:
1. approximately
what
percentage of the crops grown currently have mineral fertilisers applied to them if no crops are have fertilisers applied because of
the current economic situation, for example, please clearly state this in the final column under Comments
2. the
current
average or "typical" application rate (kg per ha) for N and P fertilisers again please ensure this is the amount of nutrient (N or P) applied
not the amount of fertiliser product/chemical. If the application rates vary greatly according to the crop, please clearly state this and include the range of
application rates (e.g. 30 - 70 kg N per ha according to the crop variety being grown)
3. the
typical time of fertiliser application (e.g. in autumn or spring when planting) this is particularly important regarding the application of N fertilisers
Please feel free to add any additional comments to the final column, such as trends in fertiliser use etc
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving
Application
Timing of
Receiving
Application
Crop
N Fertiliser Rate (kg N/ha)
Application P Fertiliser Rate (kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
Maize
Sunflower
Sugar beet
Tobacco
Potatoes
Field vegetables (except
potatoes)
Glasshouse vegetables
Orchards
Vineyards
Pasture and other grassland
Others please specify
-50_1.jpg)
42
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Step 4 - Known "Bad Practice" Regarding the Use of Mineral Fertilisers
Next - we would like you to identify any "bad practice" associated with the use of mineral fertilisers by farmers in your country - for example, this might include:
· using application rates that are higher than recommended rates (unlikely in many countries)
· poor application due to old or poorly maintained equipment
· spreading too closely to water sources e.g. streams and rivers
· applying mineral fertiliser at an inappropriate time of year (i.e. when the crop is not growing)
It would be useful to know where this information about bad practice comes from is it the professional knowledge of yourself or other experts? Is it actually
the common practice amongst farmers? Was it reported in a farming journal or a report? Please do not hesitate to be honest about these things it is
very important information for us to collect
The table below is organised according to crop, but if you have only general comments to use please delete these crops (or if you have more specific
comments to make, please add more crops)
Crops
Known Bad Practice by Farmers
Source of Information
Wheat, barley etc
Maize
Sunflower
Sugar beet
Tobacco
Potatoes
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
Glasshouse vegetables
Orchards
Vineyards
Pasture and other grassland
Others
-51_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
43
Annex 2
Bosnia & Herzegovina
-52_1.jpg)
44
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-53_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
45
Annex 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in the Republic of Srpska
Typical Formulation
Typical Nutrient-containing Chemicals
(N:P:K)
Type of Fertiliser
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
Relative high use in relation to the total quantity of
single N fertilisers.
Ammonium nitrate
As above
C
alcium nitrate
Urea
The largest use in relation to single N fertilisers.
Anhydrous ammonia
Aqueous ammonia
Calcium ammonium nitrate KAN
High use in relation to total quantity N fertilisers.
Mixture of urea and ammonium nitrates in
High use with trend of increase.
aqueous or ammonia form.
Mixture of calcium nitrate & ammonium nitrate.
Low level of use.
Sodium nitrate/Calcium nitrate
Low level of use.
Ammonium chloride
Low level of use.
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
-
Low level of use with trend of decrease
Di-ammonium phosphate
-
Low level of use with trend of decrease
Nitrophosphates
-
Insignificant use
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Rock phosphate
Low level of use
Triple superphosphate
The largest use of P fertilisers, but it is still low
Calcine phosphates
Noted very low use (consumption)
Thomas's flour
Very low rate of use
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
-
Low level of use with trend of decrease
Di-ammonium phosphate
-
Low level of use with trend of decrease
Nitrophosphates
-
Insignificant use
-54_1.jpg)
46
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in the Republic of Srpska
Year
1997
1
998
1
999
2
000 2001 2002(?)
So
urce
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
756*
977*
1,280*
9,212
17,971
20,138 Institute for Statistics of RS ,
Customs Administration of RS
Total agricultural area treated with N
19
20
16
405
389
360 Institute for Statistics of RS
fertilisers (`000s ha)
P FERTILISERS
Total P consumption (tonnes)
315*
348*
488*
3,562
7,455
6,204 Institute for Statistics of RS,
Customs Administration of RS
Total agricultural area treated with P
19
20
16
405
389
360 Institute for Statistics of RS
fertilisers (`000s ha)
* Years: 1997, 1998 and 1999 - these data are related to public sector only (i.e. STATE FARMS ) (Source: Institute for Statistics of RS).
The data for: 2000, 2001 and 2002 years are related to the total land under cultivation (arable land), that means and individual and public sector.
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Republic of Srpska
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
Crop %
Crop
Typical
TypicalTiming of
% Crop
Typical
Comments
Receiving N
Application
Application
Receiving P
Application
Fertiliser
Rate (kg N/ha)
Fertiliser
Rate (kg P/ha)
Wheat 50-60 95
Autumn
(during
50-60
45
About 70,000 ha are under wheat in RS.These application
seeding) and Spring
rates (norms) are related to good producers. Farmers
(top- dressing)
mostly have not money to acquire adequate quantities of
fertilisers. For start fertilisation (during soil cultivation-
preparation for planting) NPK fertilisers are used, mostly
15-15-15, or similar formulation. For top-dressing KAN
is used (somewhere UREA).
Barley
50
90
Spring
50
45
The smaller areas in the higher altitudes are under
barley. Some farmers are used mineral fertilisers, but
most of them are used the manure, without fertilisers.
-55_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
47
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
Crop %
Crop Typical
TypicalTiming of
% Crop
Typical
Comments
Receiving N
Application
Application
Receiving P
Application
Fertiliser
Rate (kg N/ha)
Fertiliser
Rate (kg P/ha)
Oats
40
90
Spring
40
45
Mostly in hilly-mountain areaa, without top- dressing and
with manure application. Left mentioned application rates
are for better producers only.
Maize
70
120
During seeding and
70
45
Maize is crop on the first place in RS regarding seeded
top-dressing
area (140,000-160,000 ha). NPK fertilisers, mostly 300
kg of 15-15-15 formulation/haare using for fertilisation,
during soli cultivation and seeding + 1X top-dressing,
with CaAN=KAN (80% of producers) and urea (20% of
producers) fertilisers. Such situation applied 70% of
farmers. 30 of them applied full quantity of fertilisers
before and during the seeding and 70%. About 30% of
farmers are used manure (before ploughing) + NPK
fertilisers (during the seeding) for maize fertilisation
(without top-dressing).
Soyabean
70
45
Before seeding
70
45
Before sowing or in autumn before ploughing
or in autumn before
ploughing
Tobacco
80
20
Before seeding and
80
60
For fertilisation super phosphates are used and for top-
top-dressing
seeding compound (complex) fertilisers.
Potatoes
60
180
All before planting
60
100
Farmers are used NPK 10-20-30, 15-15-15 and urea
fertilisers mostly. In hilly-mountain regions they are
using manure without mineral fertilisers application.
Field
70 190
Before
ploughing,
70
125
Farmers are used NPK formulations: 7-20-30, 15-15-15,
vegetables
before planting and
and urea, CaAN=KAN. If they are using manure,
(Tomato and
top-dressing
application rates are about 20-30 t/ha
pepper)
Orchards
60
95
Two application
60
50
These application rates of fertilisers are related to farmers
February-March,
with extensive fruit production, which is dominant now
and top-dressing
in BIH. Only small areas are under intensive production
after blooming
where farmers are using about 130 kg N/ha about 100 kg
(flowering)
P/ha, and sometimes 10-20% more.
Pasture and
40 50-80
Top-dressing
Mainly for top-dressing, after mowing tha grass (2-3
Forage
times with CaAN=KAN or urea fertilisers)
-56_1.jpg)
48
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in the Republic of Srpska
Crops
Known Bad Practice by Farmers
Source of Information
Wheat, barley etc
Erosion is increased by irregular cultivation on slopes. Insufficient use of manure and
M.Sc. Milos Nozinic, Agricultural
fertilisers. Uneducated farmers. Application of manure into a dry soil where NH4 evaporate. institute, Banja Luka, Dept. for cereals
The main problem is old and uncompleted mechanical equipment.
Maize
Wrong time of application, bad quality of cultivation, insufficient quantity of manure, bad and M.Sc. Slavko Radanovic
insufficient mechanical equipment.
Maize department,
An example of BAD Agr Practice is state farm "Mladen Stojanovic, Nova Toplola, near
Agricultural institute, Banja Luka
Vrbas river, between Banja Luka and Gradiska, where during last autumn and this spring they
cultivated and fertilised about 100,000-200,000 ha, but not planted (unsatisfied workers-this
is on some way their protes against poor relation of society and government to their position).
Soybean Bad
application
because
lack of appropriate mechanisation and inappropriate time of
Slobodanka Markovic, B.Sc. State
fertilisers application.
Farm "Semberija" Bijeljina.
Tobacco
Lack of manure, that is very effective in tobacco production.
Own experience.
Potatoes
In some production areas farmers are applyied too big application rates (doses) of mineral
Spremo Drago, B.Sc., Agricultural
fertilisers (e.g. in Lijevce polje, near Vrbas river, about 1000 kg NPK before seeding and 400 institute, Banja Luka
kg urea for top-dressing).
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
Mineral fertilisers application rates which are using farmers in Lijevce polje are without the
M.Sc. Vida Todorovic-Mitric. Faculty
results of earlier soil analyses (approximate). Lack of organic fertilisers, and than using high of agriculture, Banja Luka
doses of mineral fertilisers.
Orchards
Late application of NPK. Application of fertilisers on soil surface, without incorporation.
M.Sci. Rados Ljubomir
Application of inappropriate NPK formulations.
Agricultural institute Banja Luka
-57_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
49
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Typical Formulation
Typical Nutrient-containing
(N:P:K)
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
(NH4) SO
2
4, 21% N
Very low*
Calcium nitrate
Ca(NO3) 1
2, 5 % N
Very low*
Urea CO(NH )
2 2,
46 % N
About 40 %
Calcium ammonium nitrate
NH NO
4
x CaCO
3
3
KAN
27 % N
About 45%
Mixture of urea + ammonium
nitrates + water (UAN)
30% N
Very little*
Liquids N-fertilizers
Very little for plastic and green houses, vegetable and flower
production*
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
NH H
4
PO
2
4
Very little*
MAP
12 % N
52 % P2O5
Di-ammonium
(NH )
4 HP
2
phosphate DAP
O
4
10 %
!8 % N
Usages are increasing every year
46 % P2O5
* Total amount of the nitrogen from this sources is about 5%
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
-
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
NH4H2PO4 - 12 % N, 52 % P2O5 Very
littl
e
MAP
Di-ammonium phosphate
(NH4)2HP
O4 - !8 % N, 46
%
Usages are increasing every years.
DAP
P2O5
-58_1.jpg)
50
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Year
1997
1
998 1999 2000
2001
2002(?)
Source
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
6.066
9.963
11.826
30.315,31
22.207,12
10.292,04
Federal Ministry for
Agriculture Custom office
Total agricultural area treated with N
766
787
784
729
614
605
Federal Statistics biro
fertilisers (`000s ha)
P FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
2.729
5.011
4.570
3.428,83
2.410,16
1.193
Federal Ministry for
Agriculture
Custom office
Total agricultural area treated with P
766
787
784
729
614
605
Federal Statistics biro
fertilisers (`000s ha)
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
Crop
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical Application Comments
Receiving N
Application Rate
Timing of
Receiving
Rate (kg P2O5/ha)
Fertiliser
(kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser
(kg P/ha)
Wheat 11,58
120-160
11,58
Atom
70-120
Typical NPK use fertilizers for star is
(70%)and
30,5-52,3
15:15:15 or 10:30:20 or 7:14:21, and
Spring (30%)
for topdressing use is nitrogen
fertilizers as is 27% KAN, or 46%
UREE-a. Sometimes for topdressing
farmers use also NPK formulation 15:
15:15 to.
Ray 0,66
100-120
0,66
Atom (70%)
90-100
and Spring
39,3-43,6
Same like wheat
(30%)
Barley 5,38
80-120
5,38
Spring
90-110
(70%)and
39,3 48,0
Same like wheat
topdressing
(30%)
-59_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
51
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
Crop
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical Application Comments
Receiving N
Application Rate
Timing of
Receiving
Rate (kg P2O5/ha)
Fertiliser
(kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser
(kg P/ha)
Oats 2,13
80-100
2,13
Spring (80%)
80-100
& topdressing
34,9 43,6
Same like wheat
(20%)
Maize 23,2
150-200
23,2
Spring (50%)
100-130
& topdressing
43,6 56,7
Same like wheat
(25 + 25%)
Soya bean
0,19
30-70
Spring
0,19
120-130
NPK formulation 5:20:30
52,3-56,7
Tobacco 0,68
20-50
0,68
Spring (80%),
80-150
topdressing
34,9-65,5
Typical 7:14:21
(20%)
Potatoes
11,62
100-140
Spring (60 %) 11,62 90-120
NPK formulation 7:14:21 or 10:20:30
& top dressing
339,3-52,3
An topdressing 2 times with 27 KAN
(40 %)
and 46% URRE-a
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
7,0
100-120
Spring (50%)
7,0 100-120 Typical NPK formulation 7:14:21 or
& topdressing
43,6-52,3
15:15:15. The formulation 15:15:15 is
(20 +20+10%)
often use for topdressing to
Summer
Glasshouse vegetables
0,83
150-180
Through the
0,83 110-130
NPK - 8:26:26, 7:14:21
season
48,0-56,7
(5 times)
Orchards 12,0
130-160
12,0
Spring
90-120
Typical 7:14:21
(70 %),
39,3-52,3
topdressing
(30%)
Vineyards 2,0
110-140
2,0
Spring (70%),
80-110
Typical 7:14:21
topdressing
34,9-48,0
(30%)
Pasture and other grassland
22,39
80-120
Spring and
22,39 70-90
Almost always 15:15:15
summer (70 +
30,5-39,3
30 %)
-60_1.jpg)
52
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Crops
Known Bad Practice by Farmers
Source of Information
Wheat, barley etc
Generally with cereals in BiH we have a very low yields in farmers plots. Reason for that is
Personal experts experience and
inadequate amount of fertilizers especially NPK and an proper NPK combination. Also in
research work at the Agricultural
many cases physical condition of soil are very poor (heavy soils)
Faculty of Sarajevo. There are no
Government instructions for any
agricultural practises, or government
investigations of all this problems.
This is for all crops mentioned in this
table.
Maize
Poor soil fertility, inadequate hybrids, sowing on the slop, and bad equipped farmers.
Tobacco
This production is almost abounded in Mediterranean region where was production of oriental
tobacco. Nowadays production is mostly in northern part of the Country with tip of Virginia
and Barley. Sometimes to high amount of nitrogen and as problem high amount of nicotine
(bed qualities)
Potatoes
Saving on the slop and erosion problem, seeds with no good quality, inadequate protection,
and shortage of potassium in NPK formulation.
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
The remarks from ordinary people is to high use of fertilizers especially nitrogen, but there is
no official conformation about it. Also organic fertilizers is not use properly and close
environmental problems to.
Glasshouse vegetables
The remarks from ordinary people is to high use of fertilizers especially nitrogen, but there is
no official conformation about it. Also organic fertilizers are not use properly and close
environmental problems to. Artificial test and low quality by estimation ordinary people.
Orchards
Bed agro technical practise (lack of cutting), bed protection practise, sidling material is low
quality, growing on the to high slop, shortage of experience in intensive production and lack
of research. No foliar application of fertilizers.
Vineyards
The farmers have good experiences with this crop. On stony soils high loses of fertilizers by
ground percolation.
Pasture and other grassland
Still inadequate use of fertilizers, with problems and lack of other agro technical measures.
-61_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
53
Annex 3
Bulgaria
-62_1.jpg)
54
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-63_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
55
Annex 3: Bulgaria
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Bulgaria
Typical Nutrient-containing
Typical Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
(N:P:K)
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
Ammonium nitrate
Most commonly used N fertiliser
Diamid of carbonic acid
Commonly used
Sodium nitrate
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
N: 10-11%; P2O5: 46-50%
Di-ammonium phosphate
N: 20-21%; P2O5: 46-51%
Potassium nitrate
N: 13,5%; K2O: 46%
N-K-Mg
N: 10%; K2O: 15%; MgO: 7%
Nitrofoski
N: P2O5: K2O
Macro + Micro
N: 14%; P2O5: 4%; K2O: 6% + micro-elements
They are produced with different nutrient ratios
D
eviferti-Betabor
N:
12
P
%;
2O
5: 2%; K2O: 6% + micro-element B
D
eviferti-Zeazinc
N:
14%;
P2O
5: 0%; K2O: 6% + micro-element Zn
Deviferti- Feriazotan
N: 10%; P2O5: 0%; K2O: 4% + micro-element Fe
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Rock phosphate
Triple
superphosphate
Superphosphate-fosphorite
Double
superphosphate
P
hosphorite flour
Bone flour
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
N: 10-11%; P2O5: 46-50%
Di-ammonium phosphate
N: 20-21%; P2O5: 46-51%
Nitrofoski
N: P2O5: K2O
They are produced with different nutrient ratios
Macro + Micro
N: 14%; P2O5: 4%; K2O: 6% + micro-elements
D
eviferti-Betabor
N:
12
P
%;
2O
5: 2%; K2O: 6% + micro-element B
-64_1.jpg)
56
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Bulgaria
Year
1997
1
998
1999
2
000
2
001
2
002 Source
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
145773
97497 140269
144928
167962
155411
National Service for Plant Protection
Total agricultural area treated with N
1417 1332 1468
National
Service
for
Plant
Protection
fertilisers (`000s ha)
P FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
16275
8900
10367
16104
8474
21400
National Service for Plant Protection
Total agricultural area treated with P
110,5
93,3
92,1
National Service for Plant Protection
fertilisers (`000s ha)
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Bulgaria
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
Crop
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical Application Rate (kg
Receiving N
Application Rate Timing of Application
Receiving
P/ha)
Fertiliser
(kg N/ha)
P Fertiliser
Wheat
77,7
86,0
Autumn (1/3 of the dose),
3,4 79,0
spring (2/3 of the dose)
Barley
65,5
76,0
Automn (1/3 of the dose),
3,0 61,0
spring (2/3 of the dose)
Maize 27,2
83,0
Spring
1,4
79,0
Sunflower 27,9
69,0
Spring
4,1
108,0
Sugar beet
No data
No data
Spring
No data
No data
Tobacco 44,5
43,0
Spring
0,0
0,0
Potatoes 39,0
121,0
Spring
11,1
96,0
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
10,3
136,0
Spring
0,02
96,0
Glasshouse vegetables
No data
No data
No data
No data
Orchards, vineyards
5,6
85,0
Spring (twice: I-March, II -
2,6 70,0
end of may beginning of
June)
Pasture and other grassland
No data
No data
Spring
No data
No data
-65_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
57
Additional Data
In 1999 485000 t of mannure have been used. The manure was applied only on 14800 ha mainly potatoes and vegetables.
In 2002 240000 t of manure have been used- 85% of the quantity used in 2001.
The manure was applied on approximately 11900 ha - 85% of the acreage in 2001. In 2002 manure was applied mainly potatoes- 4840 ha, vegetables- 3220
ha, orchards - 280 ha, maize - 350 ha, other crops -770 ha.
Comments
While the optimum proportion N:P:K is 1:0,8:0,4, in 2000, N:P:K recorded 1:0,11:0,02, indicating an average use of phosphates nearly 8 times and use of
potassium fertilizers over 20 times lower than the recommended.
In 2001 the ration was 1:0,05:0,01, that is an imbalance of 16 times less phosphorous and 40 times less potassium. For the past few years, this is the worst
nutrient balance observed
In the country it is very commonly used the unbalanced fertilization (mainly with N). In many regions (Shoumen, Gabrovo, Lovetch, Sofia-town and
Kardjali) was not used even a single tonne of K and Pthis reflects in the yields of the different crops as well as on their quality. It also leads to physisological
disturbances in the cultivated crops that are results of the insufficient nutrients
The reasons for the decline of the use of the mineral fertilisers are different, but the main one is the high preces of the fertilizers on one hand and the limited
financial resources of the farmers on the other. Another reason is the low efficiency of the inputs because the technologies are not strictly followed.
This information about bad practice comes from experts of National Service for Plant Protection.
-66_1.jpg)
58
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-67_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
59
Annex 4
Croatia
-68_1.jpg)
60
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-69_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
61
Annex 4: Croatia
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Croatia
Typical Nutrient-containing
Typical Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
(N:P:K)
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium nitrate
33,5 %
Calcium ammonium nitrate
27 %
Very important and widely used type of single fertilizer in Croatia
Urea
46 %
Very important and widely used type of single fertilizer in Croatia
Urea ammonim nitrate liquid 30%
Relatively small amounts are sold because of different mechanization for
fertilizer
application and lack of habit between farmers
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
12:52:0
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
None
Only small amounts of these fertilizers are in use in Croatia because there is
currently no demand for such fertilizers in farmer's community they will
probably became more important because of problems of P deficiency in soil.
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
12-52-0 MAP
NPK 5-20-30S
Good for tobacco
NPK 7-20-30
One of the most important fertilizers for basic fertilization
NPK 8-16-24
NPK 8-26-26
One of the most important fertilizers for basic fertilization
NPK 10-20-30
One of the most important fertilizers for basic fertilization
NPK 10-30-20
This formulation is very good for soils low on plant available phosphorus, but
farmers do not have habit to buy them because of higher price
N
PK 13-10-12
Good
formulation for pre-seeding fertilization
NPK 15-15-15
Farmers use this formulation very often in basic fertilization. The problem is that
they applied too low amounts of phosphorus and potassium.
NPK 20-10-10
Usually used for topdressing or sidedressing
Other please specify
There are also some amounts of compound fertilizers imported in Croatia by
individuals or by companies, but there is no adequate statistics on quantities
distributed in different parts of country. At the same time, some of the fertilizers
sold in Croatia are transported to neighbouring countries.
-70_1.jpg)
62
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Croatia
Year
1997
1
998
1999
2000
2
001 2002(?)
So
urce
of
data
Petrokemija fertilizer plant data on sale of
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
126.462 98.818 104.822 110.471 109.798
fertilizers,
Statistical yearbook, Personal calculation
2992 3151 3151 3156 3148
Agricultural
area
Total agricultural area treated with N
1858 2021 1998 1994 1975
Cultivated
area
fertilisers (`000s ha)
1441
1587
1586
1582
1576
Probably fertilized area (assumption)
Petrokemija fertilizer plant data on sale of
Total P consumption (tonnes)
P FERTILISERS
46.904 48.176 37.645 39.932 44.926
fertilizers,
-as P2O5
Statistical yearbook, Personal calculation
2992 3151 3151 3156 3148
Agricultural
area
Total agricultural area treated with P
1858 2021 1998 1994 1975
Cultivated
area
fertilisers (`000s ha)
1441
1587
1586
1582
1576
Probably fertilized area (assumption)
-71_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
63
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Croatia
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving N
Application
Timing of
Receiving
Application
Crop
Fertiliser
Rate (kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser
Rate (kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
95-100
100-200
Autumn - small
95-100 50-100
amounts, spring
2-3 topdresings
Maize 95-100
100-200
Autumn, spring,
95-100
60-120
1 topdressing
Sunflower 95-100
80-120
Autumn, spring,
95-100
100-140
ev. 1 topdressing
Sugar beet
95-100
120-160
Autumn, spring,
95-100 120-200
1 topdressing
Tobacco 95-100
20-40
Autumn,
spring
95-100
80-160
Potatoes 95-100
80-140
Autumn, spring,
95-100
80-120
1 topdressing
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
95-100
100-400
95-100
80-160
Glasshouse vegetables
100
100-400
100
80-160
Orchards 40
40
Vineyards 60
60
Pasture and other grassland
0 (pastures)
0 (pastures)
15
15 (grassland)
(grassland)
-72_1.jpg)
64
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in Croatia
Crops
Known Bad Practice by Farmers
Source of Information
Wheat, barley etc
Fertilization is carried out without soil analyses and it is mainly based on farmer's experience Well known fact
and on general fertilization recommendations and habits in certain parts of Croatia
Maize
Farmers usually apply wrong formulation in autumn (15-15-15, Urea). That can cause
imbalance in three major nutrients N, P and K later, and it can influence on nitrogen losses
during winter
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
Sometimes amounts of fertilizers are very high but it is production on relatively small area in
Croatia, compared to the area under arable crops
Orchards
From the agronomic point of view there is a lot of old orchards without any fertilization.
Modern orchards are mainly fertilized according to the recommendations from the existing
literature including modifications done by owners
Vineyards
Same goes for the vineyards
Pasture and other grassland
To low fertilization compared to the current state of domestic livestock production
One of the most important indicators of intensity of agriculture is average mineral fertilizer consumption per unit of agricultural land. Problem is in a fact that
in Croatia there is no one place or one institution responsible for evidence of consumption on territorial base. The farmers are not educated to take care about
nutrient balance on their farms and there is no such program that will introduce some kind of "green accounting" at the farm level. The advantages of such
practice can be expressed through the savings of money and better efficiency of mineral fertilizers.
-73_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
65
Annex 5
Czech Republic
-74_1.jpg)
66
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-75_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
67
Annex 5: Czech Republic
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in the Czech Republic
Farmers in CZ are obligated to record data on fertilising their fields. No authority has collected this primary information yet. Therefore the consumption of
various types of fertilisers in CZ is calculated from production, import and export data in next table.
Typical Nutrient-containing
Typical Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
(N:P:K)
Comments
data from FAO Annual Questionaire on
Fertilizers
N FERTILISERS
N t/yea
r 2001
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
18776
Calcium nitrate
402
U
rea
49374
Aqueous ammonia
98189
Calcium ammonium nitrate
94306
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
8173
Other
20-20-0
614
15-15-15,
22-8-8, 17-13-13
11396
P FERTILISERS
P t/year 2001
Straight P Fertilisers
Rock phosphate
Triple
superphosphate
Single
superphosphate
1
857
(below 25% P2O5)
Concentrated
superphosphate
120
(25% P2O5 and over)
Other Basic slag
4847
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
38628
Other
20-20-0
714
15-15-15, 17-13-13, 12-12-12
6340
-76_1.jpg)
68
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in the Czech Republic
Year
1997
1
998
1
999
2
000
2
001 2002 Source
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
205757
202932
200247
212988
225763
286600 the years 1997-2001 - Statistical Yearbook
Total agricultural area (`000s ha)
2985 of the Czech Republic
the year 2002 -
P FERTILISERS
Total P consumption (tonnes)
50411
45838
40270
39834
44397
50900 Research Institute of Crop Production
Total agricultural area (`000s ha)
1258
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Czech Republic
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving N Application Rate Timing of
Receiving
Application
Crop
Fertiliser
(kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser Rate (kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat spring
98
90
spring
38,6
31 Source of Information:
Wheat winter
100
122
autumn, spring
50,5
40 "%Crop" and "Application rate" - from
Barley spring
100
60
spring
54,3
33 Research Institute of Crop Production
Barley winter
100
92
autumn, spring
42,5
38 (tables prepared for FAO)
Rye 96
90
spring
17,8
38
Oat
96
70
-"-
23,0
32 "Typical timing" information from
Maize (for corn)
100
105
spring
77,4
39 district agriculture cunsultant
Sunflower 100
75
-"-
15,4
32
Rapeseed 100
155
-"-
39,6
47 In face of economical situation
Sugar beet
100
92
-"-
66,9
43 majority of farmers keep to recommendation
Potatoes (early)
100
90
-"-
86,7
76 to apply two rations of N, first before
Potatoes (for starch industry)
100
120
-"-
99,1
82 seed-time, second later in spring.
Potatoes (ware)
100
100
-"-
78,2
70 In autumn there are applied P, K.
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
100
128
-"-
84,6
92 N fertiliser for winter cereals only.
Orchards
40
25
57,1
35 Orchards and vineyards high rate in time of
Vineyards 100
50
100,0
65
their foundation.
Pasture and other grassland
44
50
spring, summer
3,1
6 Grassland - in spring or after haymaking,
Maize (green, silage)
98
120
42,8
51 but mostly animal manure is applied.
-77_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
69
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in the Czech Republic
There are not any problems with using the application rates that are higher than recommended rates or with applying mineral fertilisers at an inappropriate
time of year. It is expensive for farmers to buy mineral fertilisers, so they effort to make use of them as most as possible.
An agriculture consultant is available in every district. Large farms and co-operative farms apply fertilisers according to chemical analysis of soils. The
second rate of N fertilisers should be calculated in accordance with an expected harvest. This practice should be introduced at all farms, including small ones.
More problems are associated the application of animal fertilisers. Though there are strong rules when and how to use them, sometimes it can happen that
they are applied at an inappropriate time because of the lack of storage capacity. The Czech Environment Inspection yearly solves a few accidents on streams
that are related to use of slurry; such accidents are usually not related to use of mineral fertilisers.
Manure is commonly stored on fields; sometimes the manure/dung heaps are not secure enough.
According to my opinion (and based on the professional knowledge) one of greatest problems is arable land spreading very close to streams and rivers. There
are not any legal rules for creating the protective zones along streams. Restrictions for farmers are only in water protection zones (drinking water).
The farmers are permanently informed to practice contour ploughing (not down hill one) and do not grow hazard crops (such as maize) on slope fields. Strict
keeping this rule can help to avoid many problems on soil erosion.
Most vineyards are laid out in rows down the slopes. Only some vineyards and orchards from 70s´ and 80s´ practised terracing.
It would be necessary to convert some arable land on slopes to grassland and thus reduce the risk of erosions and loss of nutrients.
Additional Data
There is no central register of animal manure application. All this animal fertilisers should be return to agricultural land.
-78_1.jpg)
70
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-79_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
71
Annex 6
Hungary
-80_1.jpg)
72
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-81_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
73
Annex 6: Hungary
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Hungary
Typical Nutrient-containing
Typical Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
(N:P:K)
(Yearly sales in 2001, tonnes) (Yearly sales in 2000, tonnes)
N FERTILISERS (total)
552224 t 594000 t
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
151 t 799 t
Ammonium nitrate
312612 t (gran.) 343167 t (gran)
Calcium nitrate
Soil fert., foliar fert., and nutrient solution
Urea
92543 t 94639 t
Anhydrous ammonia
8079 t 53912 t
Calcium ammonium nitrate
49865 t 42978 t
Other Nitrogen fertilisers
88974 t 58505 t
Compound Fertilisers
Compound N fertilizers,
15-15-15
68914 t 46595 t
granulated
15-10-20
229 t 482 t
15-10-10
112 t 215 t
Foliar fertilizers
1815 t (In solutions) 643 t
P FERTILISERS (total)
18902 t 15573 t
Straight P Fertilisers
Triple superphosphate
Granulated fertiliser, used in diff. mixtures
Superphosphate
16866 t 15191 t
Other P fertilizers total
2036 t 382 t
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
12:62:0
Granulated fertiliser
Di-ammonium phosphate
21:54:0
Mostly in suspension form
Other comp. fertilizers with fixed
11-53-0
21301 t 18162 t
formulation, granulated
0-10-24,5
8059 t 7687 t
8-21-21
7379 t 7379 t
8-16-30
2678 t 6068 t
2-18-18
778 t 390 t
7-12-12
42 t 137 t
Other compound fertilizers, different
82963 t 68566 t
formulation
-82_1.jpg)
74
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Hungary
Year
1997
1
998
1
999 2000 2001
2002
(?)
So
urce
of
data
"Agricultural area" treated with mineral fertilizers
"Enterprises and co-
Total (`000s ha)
1841.7 1766.4 1519.8 1578.7 1571.8
1511.3 Hungarian
Central
Statistical
Offic
e
operatives
arable land (`000s ha)
1799.5 1716.2 1540.8 1484.8 1530 1474.3 Research and Information Institute for
orchard (`000s ha)
7.6
9.4
8
9.5
10.3
9.6
Agricultural Economics (RIIAE)
vineyards (`000s ha)
2.1
1.8
2
3
3
2.4
From which:
meadow, pasture (`000s ha)
29
31.5
24.6
20.2
24.5
25
Private holdings
(`000 ha)
1010.8 1749.1 1962.5 2148.5 2302.7
2301.9 Expert
estimation
Total
(`000
ha)
2852 3516 3482 3727 3875
3813 Expert estimation
Total NPK nutrients
285400
328100
346600
354800
395300
423300
Research and Information Institute for
supply (tonnes)
Agricultural Economics (RIIAE)
Specific NPK use
46.1
53
56
60.6
67.4
72.2
Experts appraisal using official statistical
(kg/ha)
data
NPK nutrients used by enterprises 238800 235400 236700 224600 240100 257100 Hungarian
Central
Statistical
Offic
e
and co-operatives (tonnes)
"experts appraisal
Specific NPK use (enterprises and 85.3
86
88
85.5
109.4
119.7
Experts appraisal using official statistical
co-operatives, average) (kg/ha)
data
NPK nutrients used by private 46600 92700 109900 130200 155200
166200 Experts
appraisa
l
holdings (tonnes)
N FERTILISERS
Total N nutrient
(tonnes)
206100
247900
262400
257700
275500
293700
Research and Information Institute for
supply
Agricultural Economics/HCSI
N nutrient used by enterprises and 172414
177962
179182
163059
192023 178427
Experts appraisal using national average
co-operatives (tonnes)
nutrient ratio from statistics
Total agricultural area treated with
1841.7
1766.4
1519.8
1578.7
1571.8
1511.3
Experts appraisal: 100 % of the treated area
N fertilisers (enterprises and co-
received N nutrient
operatives, `000s ha)
Specific N use (enterprises and co- 98.5
106.1
182
108.7
128.6
120
Experts appraisal
operatives, average) (kg/ha)
N nutrient used by private holdings 33686
69938
83218
94641
83477
115273
Experts appraisal using official statistical
(tonnes)
data
-83_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
75
Year
1997
1
998
1
999 2000 2001
2002
(?)
So
urce
of
data
P FERTILISERS
Total P supply
(tonnes)
42000
39100
39400
45100
57600 59800
Research and Information Institute for
Agricultural Economics/HCSI
Total agricultural
(`000s ha)
2139
2637
2612
2795
2906
2860
Experts appraisal: 75 % of the total treated
area treated with P
area received P nutrient
fertilisers
P nutrient used by enterprises and
35103
26600
26984
28524
35054
36251
Experts appraisal using national average P
co-operatives (tonnes)
nutrient ratio from the statistics
Total agricultural area treated with P 1841.7
1766.4
1519.8
1578.7
1571.8
1511.3""
Experts appraisal: 100 % of the treated area
fertilisers (enterprises and co-
received P nutrient
operatives, `000s ha)
Specific P use (enterprises and co-
19 15 18 18 22 24 Expert
s
appraisal
operatives, average) (kg/ha)
P nutrient used by private holdings
6897
12500
12416
16576
22546
23549
Experts appraisal using official statistical
(tonnes)
data
ANIMAL MANURE APPLICATION
Data from the enterprises and co-
operatives only!
Total manure
(`000 tonnes)
4908
3257
3915
3863
2869
---
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
applied
On arable land (`000 tonnes)
4839
3172
3822
3737
2746
---
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
from which
applicated:
In orchards (`000 tonnes)
30
38
49
52
42
---
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
In vineyards (`000 tonnes)
5
9
15
40
15
---
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
Agricultural area
Total (ha)
118238
92065
107910
104339
95898
---
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
with manure
arable land (ha)
110293
84527
99592
96924
84632
---
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
application
orchard (ha)
892
1086
1203
1475
1340
---
Hungarian Central Statistical Office
from witch:
vineyard (ha)
239
392
454
996
666
---
Hungarian Central l Statistical Office
-84_1.jpg)
76
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Hungary
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving N
Application
Timing of
Receiving
Application Rate
Sector/Crop
Fertiliser
Rate (kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser
(kg P/ha)
Comments
Data from the enterprises and co-operatives only for 2002
Wheat, barley etc
95
100-110
base 40
95 30-35
top 60-70
Maize 96
100-110
base 60
96
20-30
top 40-50
Sunflower,
91
50-60
base 35
91 20
top 25
Sugar beet
88
60-70
base 30-35
88 50-60
top 40
Potatoes
130-140
80-90
Orchards (apple only)
40-50
base 20-25
20-25
top 20-25
Vineyards
30-6+0
30-80
Rape
105-115
30-40
Peas ---
60
base 35
30
top 25
-85_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
77
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in Hungary
No crop-specific information available - only general statements as follows:
· poor application due to old or poorly maintained equipment. The agricultural machinery in general and the mineral fertiliser spreaders also are mostly
old and unsuitable for precise and equal spreading. For 10 years 70% of the machinery was more than 10 years old.
· spreading too closely to surface waters e.g. on hilly regions
· applying mineral fertiliser at an inappropriate time of year e.g. spreding the mineral fertilizers on the top of the snow in winter
· using application rates that are locally higher than optimal rates on big fields, where the soil quality differences are high.
· A big part of the fertilisers is only milled, their spreading parameters becoming worsen during the storage.
· The knowledge of the farmers is poor concerning the right adjustment and operating the spreaders.
(Sources of information: Report of Hungarian Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Gödöll; Dr I. Marton: PhD dissertation, Keszthely,2001; Agroforum/
Plant nutrition section, 2002; Res. & Inf. Inst. For Agr.Economics - Report on Agrochemical plants, Education and Extension Institute of the Ministry of
Agriculture)
Comments
1. There are official statistical data from the yearly sales (supply) of the mineral fertilisers regarding the nutrients, but no general cadastre from the real use
of fertiliser on the fields (plots).
2. The yearly N and P nutrient use was calculated on the ground of the average N:P:K ratio from the total NPK "use"
3. There are more official data from the plant nutrition activity of the agricultural enterprises and co-operatives so the nutrient use of private holdings was
calculated as the difference of the enterprises/co-operatives and the total.
4. The ratio of the land area treated with mineral fertilisers is approximately 70% of the total at the enterp./co-ops in average, at the main crops is higher,
appr. 90%.
5. The consumption of mineral fertiliser at the enterprise/co-ops is much higher as the total average but at present is not enough high comparing to the
needs. It means that the use of mineral fertiliser of the private holdings is even lower in average. Many of the private farmers do not use any fertilisers
because of the lack of capital. We can calculate approximately the fertilised area in this segment with the average consumption and the real fertiliser
quantity.
There are results of the nutrient use of the main crops and cultures from a representative survey made by the Central Soil and Plant Protection Service
measuring more than 500 000 ha in all over Hungary. The average application rate is shown in the Table above. From the results we can state that all the
fertilised crops were treated N and nutrients too. That is why the areas treated was calculated equally by the N and P fertilisation.
-86_1.jpg)
78
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-87_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
79
Annex 7
Moldova
-88_1.jpg)
80
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-89_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
81
Annex 7: Moldova
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Moldova
Typical
Typical Nutrient-containing
Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
(N:P:K)
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium nitrate
This type of fertiliser constitutes about 99% of total straight N fertilisers applied in Moldova
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
11 : 44 : 0
This type of fertiliser constitutes about 40% of total compound fertilisers applied in Moldova
Compound fertiliser
17 : 17 : 17
This type of fertiliser constitutes about 60% of total compound fertilisers applied in Moldova
"Nitroamofosca"
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Not
used
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
11 : 44 : 0
This type of fertiliser constitutes about 40% of total compound fertilisers applied in Moldova
Compound fertiliser
17 : 17 : 17
This type of fertiliser constitutes about 60% of total compound fertilisers applied in Moldova
"Nitroamofosca"
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Moldova
Year
1997
1
998
1
999 2000
2
001
2
002
S
ource
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
11,70 19,90
6,70
8,10
13,45 20,58
Department for Soil Fertilization,State Inspectorate
of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha)
377,4 568,6
197,0
270,0
395,6 588,0
As above
P FERTILISERS
Total
P
consumption
(tonnes)
0,50 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,28 1,83 As
above
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha)
26,3
4,5
5,0
5,9
12,2
83,2
As above
-90_1.jpg)
82
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Moldova
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving N Application
Timing of
Receiving
Application
Crop
Fertiliser
Rate (kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser Rate (kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
60 - 75
35 - 55
In spring and 5 10
15 25
summer
Maize
10 - 15
25 - 35
In spring
0
0
The P fertilisers are not applied to maize
because of the current economic situation
Sunflower
5 - 10
25 - 30
In spring
0
0
The P fertilisers are not applied to sunflower
because of current economic situation
Sugar beet
35 - 45
35 - 55
In spring
30 - 40
15 30
Tobacco
10 - 15
25 - 35
In spring
5 - 10
15 25
Potatoes
30 - 40
25 35
In spring
30 40
20 25
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
20 - 25
25 35
In spring and 20 25
15 25
summer
Glasshouse vegetables
60 - 80
25 30
In autumn and 60 80
15 - 25
spring
Orchards
0
0
0
0
The fertilisers are not applied to orchards
because of current economic situation
Vineyards
0
0
0
0
The fertilisers are not applied to vineyards
because of current economic situation
Pasture and other grassland
0
0
0
0
The fertilisers are not applied to pasture
because of current economic situation
-91_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
83
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in Moldova
Crops
Known Bad Practice by Farmers
Source of Information
Wheat, barley, maize, sunflower
Unilateral application of straight N fertilisers (increase the risk of water pollution with
Mr Valentin Gurau, senior specialist of
nitrogen)
the Department for Soil Fertilization,
Frequent fertilisers storage in unauthorized places
Plant Protection with the State
Inspectorate of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food Industry
Maize, sunflower, sugar beet, tobacco Irregular application due to old equipment
As above
Frequent fertilisers storage in unauthorized places
Potatoes, field vegetables
Spreading too closely to water sources (ponds and rivers)
As above
Glasshouse vegetables
Applying mineral fertilisers without estimate the nutrient needs of vegetables and soil
As above
test
Additional Data
According to the data of the Department for Soil Fertilization, Plant Protection with the State Inspectorate in Moldova were applied for soil fertilization
157,837 tonnes of manure in 2001 and 199,245 tonnes in 2002.
Currently the use of mineral fertilisers in agriculture of Moldova was reduced by 10 15 times comparative to the 1990s. At the moment in Moldova does not
exist the special report on the environmental impact of mineral fertilisers use in the last years. The latest report on this issue is: "Nutrient Balances for Danube
Countries. Country Report Moldova. Volume 1. 1996", which was prepared of the National Institute of Ecology. Some of these data's report were included in
the "UNDP / GEF Danube Pollution Reduction Programme, National Review, 1998. Moldova. Executive Summary".
-92_1.jpg)
84
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-93_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
85
Annex 8
Romania
-94_1.jpg)
86
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-95_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
87
Annex 8: Romania
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Romania
Typical
Typical Nutrient-containing
Formulation
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
(N:P:K)
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
21% N+24 S
Ammonium nitrate
33-34.5% N
Urea
46% N
Aqueous ammonia
250 (2.9
:0:0)
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
61% P2O5 ; 12% N
Di-ammonium phosphate
10% P
2O5: 20%N
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Triple superphosphate
55-66 P2O5: 13-18 N
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
48 P2O5: 11 N : 0 K
Di-ammonium phosphate
10:20:0
Poliphosphats
56-60 13-18 0
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Romania
Year
1991 1998
1
999 2000
2
001 2002 Source
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
651
505
495
460
390
340
Agriculture Ministry
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha)
5400000 4200000 3100000 2900000 2700000
2500000
P FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
313
225
218
205
183
165
As above
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha)
2900000 2050000 1950000 1800000 1750000
1700000
-96_1.jpg)
88
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Romania
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving N
Application Rate
Timing of
Receiving
Application Rate
Crop
Fertiliser
(kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser
(kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
45
30-66
autumn
48
30-60
N 45: P 23: K 0.5: trends in fertiliser use
Maize
35
48-60
spring
20
48-60
-//- -//- -//-
Sunflower 40
48-60
spring
20
48
Sugar beet
40
60-80
spring
48
48-60
Tobacco 20
20-45
spring
20
40-60
Potatoes 60
60-120
spring
40
60-80
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
65
60-80
spring
45
30-60
Glasshouse vegetables
85
60-80
vegetation
35
30-70
Orchards 20
40-60
vegetation
20
30-40
Vineyards 45
30-60
spring
25
30-40
Pasture and other grassland
15
30
spring
-
-
-97_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
89
Annex 9
Serbia & Montenegro
-98_1.jpg)
90
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-99_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
91
Annex 9: Serbia & Montenegro
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Serbia & Montenegro
Typical Nutrient-containing
Typical Formulation
Comments (Trade names of Fertilizer and
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
(N:P:K)
Labelling)
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium nitrate
AN 30-35%
Calcium nitrate
CALCIJUM NITRAT 15,5+25,5%
Urea (Carbamid)
UREA 44-46 %; Terafert 36%
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
N-11,1 % +P2O5-51,8 %
Chilean
Nitrate (KNO3)
N-13%+K-46%
NPK in Different %
15:15:15; 13:13:13; 14:14:14; 10:30:10; 8:16:24; 7:14:24;
No specific Names
12:24:12; 17:13:10
Compound Hard Fertilisers
NPK + Microelements (B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn,
with Microelements
Mg etc.)
C
ompound
Liquid Fertilisers
NPK + Microelements (B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn,
with Microelements
Mg etc.)
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Rock phosphate (SP)
SP Powder 16-18%, SP Granulate 17,5
19%
Triple superphosphate (TSP)
TSP- Powder 43-43,5 %, Granulate 45,1 %
Compound Fertilisers
Duo Calcium
40% P2O5
-
Calcium P
60-65%
-
Other,
20
-30%
-
Other, 5-8%
P2O5
Other, 5,5-7% P
-100_1.jpg)
92
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Serbia & Montenegro
Year
1997
1
998
1
999 2000
2
001
2
002(?)
So
urce
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total
N
consumption
(tonnes)
89.000 89.000 70.000 74.000 92.000 66.000
Statistical Yearbook of the FRY, 2002
Total agricultural area treated with N
Statistical Yearbook of the FRY, 2002
2.382 2.360 2.128 2.750 2.630 2.300
fertilisers (`000s ha)
P FERTILISERS
Total
N
consumption
(tonnes)
26.000 20.000 14.000 16.000 19.000 18.600
Statistical Yearbook of the FRY, 2002
Total agricultural area treated with P
Statistical Yearbook of the FRY, 2002
2.380 2.410 2.350 2.340 2.730 2.347
fertilisers (`000s ha)
N Consumption (Wheat, Maize, Sugar beet, Sunflower)
P Consumption (Maize, Sugar beat, Sunflower, Soya been, Vegetable, Fodder Crops)
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Serbia & Montenegro
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Typical
Receiving N Application
Timing of
Receiving
Application Rate
Application Rate
Crop
Fertiliser
Rate (kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser (kg N/ha)
(kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
95
250
Top Dressing
5
30
Basic Fertilising
Maize 50
100
Top Dressing
100
200
Basic Fertilising
Sunflower 50
95-127
Top Dressing
100
100-120
Basic Fertilising
Sugar beet
80
116-159
Top Dressing
100
110-150
Basic Fertilising
Tobacco 50
46-83
Top Dressing
90
88-11
2
Basic
Fertilising
Potatoes 20
140
Top
Dressing
90
105-114
Basic Fertilising
Manure
Field vegetables (except potatoes) 50
100
Top Dressing
80
150
Basic Fertilising
Manure
Glasshouse vegetables
70
150
Top Dressing
90
200
Basic Fertilising
Manure
Orchards 70
100
Top
Dressing
20
200
Basic Fertilising
Manure
Vineyards 80
100
Top
Dressing
40
200
Basic Fertilising
Manure
Pasture and other grassland
No
No
Top Dressing
10
200
Basic Fertilising
Liquid Manure
-101_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
93
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in Serbia & Montenegro
Crops
Known Bad Practice by Farmers
Source of Information
Wheat, barley etc
No application of Basic Fertilizer
Common practice by farmers caused by
Maize
Application of basic fertilizer in inappropriate time, that is before sowing and not in autumn by inadequate education and awareness
Sunflower
tilling.
absence of the negative environment
impacts.
Sugar beet
Tobacco
Own experience and experts knowledge
Potatoes
from Faculty of Agriculture,
Orchards
Small quantity applied without analysis of soil chemical contents and quality.
Pasture and other grassland
No control of using liquid manure.
Information from Farmers and Local
Others
Using of all kind of fertilizer close to the water (rivers, springs, etc.)
Communities.
-102_1.jpg)
94
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-103_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
95
Annex 10
Slovakia
-104_1.jpg)
96
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-105_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
97
Annex 10: Slovakia
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Slovakia
Type of Fertiliser
Typical Nutrient-containing Chemicals Typical
Formulation
(N:P:K)
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
7% share on total within N fertilisers in 2002
Ammonium nitrate
7.1% share on total within N fertilisers in 2002
Ammonium-calcium nitrate
45.4% share on total within N fertilisers in 2002
Urea
15.2% share on total within N fertilisers in 2002
Ammonium nitrate with urea (liquid fertiliser)
14.2% share on total within N fertilisers in 2002
Ammonium nitrate with ammonium sulphate
9.6% share on total within N fertilisers in 2002
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Triple superphosphate
25.8% share on total within P fertilisers in 2002
Single superphosphate
60% share on total within P fertilisers in 2002
Hyperphosphate (12.3% P)
14.2% share on total within P fertilisers in 2002
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
(8534 t in 2002)
Compound NPK fertilisers (in different N-P-K ratios) NPK 15-15-15 dominates within Dominate in the structure of compound fertilisers
NPK fertilisers 42.3 t
(93174 t in 2002).
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Slovakia
Year
1997
1
998 1999 2000
2
001
2
002(?) Source
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total
N
consumption
(tonnes)
88017 81842 65393 72653 76032 81792
Slovak
Statistical
Office
dat
a
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha)
P FERTILISERS
Total P consumption (tonnes) as P2O5 24494 20475 13115 15731 17559 18493
Slovak
Statistical
Office
dat
a
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha)
-106_1.jpg)
98
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Slovakia
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical (average)
Typical
% Crop
Typical (average)
Receiving N
Application Rate
Timing of Application
Receiving
Application Rate
Crop
Fertiliser
(kg N/ha)
P Fertiliser
(kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
90-100%
40 90
mostly in spring
4 9
Grain maize
90-100%
100
In spring
9
Sunflower 90-100%
75
In spring
7
Sugar beet
90-100 %
70
In spring
15
Tobacco
90-100 %
25
Before seeding
17
Potatoes
90-100 %
95
In spring
19
Field vegetables (except potatoes) 90-100 %
80 120
In spring
9 18
Glasshouse vegetables
(100%)
before/after planting
Orchards
40-50 %
50
In spring
11
Vineyards
50-60 %
60
In spring
15
Pasture and other grassland
30-40 %
20
after cuts 1
Not after the last
Rape (seeds)
90-100 %
130
Mostly in spring
10
Silage maize
60-70 %
83
Before seeding
5
The rate of phosphorus is often a result of compound fertilisers use
-107_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
99
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in Slovakia
There are rather general opinions of inappropriate fertiliser and animal manure utilisation as follows:
· often neglecting of nutrients applied especially from liquid manures
· use NPK fertilisers is not always appropriate to meet the crop demands with regard to actual inorganic N, available P and K supply within concrete field
(Compound NPK fertiliser can not be applied in autumn when in the soil is sufficient Nin supply often after legumes or liquid animal manure application
or as consequence of residual N in the soil; by compound NPK fertiliser can not cover different crop needs on nutrients such as P and K when their
available soil supply is different occurrence of under/over -fertilisation).
· use of soil analysis for precision the splitted N-rates is not systematic and rather oriented on market crops (winter wheat, spring barley, sugar beet)
· good agriculture practice (environmentally oriented) is in the stage of introducing into farm management - so inconsistency occurs.
Additional Data
Precise information on area treated with N and P fertilisers is not available; use of fertilisers is monitored on around 70 % of agricultural soil involved set of
farms depends on return of completed questionnaires sent to the farmers. Official statistical data are assuming the total agricultural area. Of course, mineral
fertilisers are primarily concerned on arable land.
-108_1.jpg)
100
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-109_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
101
Annex 11
Slovenia
-110_1.jpg)
102
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-111_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
103
Annex 11: Slovenia
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Slovenia
Type of Fertiliser
Typical Nutrient-containing Chemicals Typical
Formulation
(N:P:K)
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium nitrate
Not widely used
Calcium nitrate
Not widely used
Urea
Not widely used
Calcium ammonium nitrate/
Urea ammonium nitrate
Mostly used
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
12 %
NPK with emphasis on P and K
15:15:15, 7:20:30, 8:26:26
Mostly used
NPK with Mg and B
For sugar beet, orchards, vineyards
NK 16:00:44
16 %
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Rock phosphate
Available but too expensive for the farmers to use
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium phosphate
12 52 0
Not widely used
Other PK
0 15 30
Not widely used
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Slovenia
Year
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source
of
data
N FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
34102
34813 34392 34847 34771 Statistical office of RS
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha) 411
410
439
431
434
arable land, permanent crops and cut grassland (2 or more cuts)
P FERTILISERS
Total
P
consumption
(tonnes)
17534 18785 19751 18375 16685
Total agricultural area treated (`000s ha) 411
410
439
431
434
arable land, permanent crops and cut grassland (2 or more cuts)
-112_1.jpg)
104
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Slovenia
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving N
Application Rate Timing of
Receiving
Application Rate
Crop
Fertiliser
(kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser (kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
90
40 60
March, April,
80
60 80
* winter wheat
May,
September*
Maize
90
50 100
April, May,
80
60 100
beginning of
June
Sugar beet
100
40 80
½ at so n
wi g
100 100
time, ½ side
dressing
Potatoes
80
80 140
80
60 100
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
100
With fertigation:
*
With
5 10
* depends on the type of vegetable mostly
10 20
fertigation:
March - September
Without
100
fertigation:
50 100
50 100
Glasshouse vegetables
100
20
Whole year
100
10
50 100
100
Orchards
75*
50 70
Budbreak
75*
20
* intensive orchards
Vineyards
60
50
15.4. 15.6.
30 40
50
Pasture and other grassland
25
50
March May
25
20
IMPORTANT: There is no statistical data available, therefore these raw estimations are based on an expert knowledge.
-113_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
105
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in Slovenia
Crops
Known Bad Practice by Farmers
Source of Information
Wheat, barley etc
Over dosage of N at sowing (>40 kg N/ha)
Maize
On large livestock farms soils are rich with organic N an therefore any N addition is superfluous
Sugar beet
On large livestock farms soils are rich with organic N an therefore any N addition is superfluous Chair for Crop Science and Sustainable
Farming, Agricultural Institute of
Slovenia
Potatoes
Over dosage of N and P
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
Over dosage of N and P
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia
Glasshouse vegetables
Over dosage of N and P
Orchards
Where the Integrated fruit production rules are not practised, which is 15% of the whole Chair for Fruit Production, Biotechnical
Slovenian fruit production
Faculty, Agricultural Institute of
Slovenia
Pasture and other grassland
Low values of P and K due to the unsuitable use mineral fertilisers
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia
Others
Spreading too closely to water sources is (or it use to be) a common practice.
"Water act" which has been accepted in 2002 interdicts spreading fertilisers or pesticides in the
5 m strip near smaller creaks and in 15 m strip near main water courses.
-114_1.jpg)
106
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-115_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
107
Annex 12
Ukraine
-116_1.jpg)
108
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
-117_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
109
Annex 12: Ukraine
Types of N and P Fertiliser Commonly Used by Farmers in Ukraine
Typical Nutrient-containing
Type of Fertiliser
Chemicals
Typical Formulation (N:P:K)
Comments (product names)
N FERTILISERS
Straight N Fertilisers
Ammonium sulphate
Ammonium nitrate
Urea
Ammonium sulphate
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium Phosphate N -11%; P2O5 - 49%; N - 3%; P2O5 - 5%; N -2%; P2O5 - Superagro NP, Ammonium Phosphate, 2-16-0;
16%; N -1-2%; P2O5 -18-29%; N - 3%; P2O5 -17-18% Granphose
Diammonium Phosphate
N -16%; P2O5 -16%
Ammophosphate NP
Compound - NK
N -10%; K2O -6%; S -5%; B -0,4%
Ecolist
Compound various NPK
N -3-20%; P2O5 -5-41%; K2O -8-38%; N -2,1-6%; P2O5 Aquarine; Tekos; Kemira NPK; Nitrogranphoska;
- 0,8-17%; K2O -0,8-14,0%; N -6-18%; P2O5 -7-24%; Rastvorin; Riverm; Superagro NPK
K2O -8-24%; N -10-17%; P2O5 -9-19%; K2O -9-17%; N
-8-18%; P2O5 -5-17%; K2O -16-28%; N -4,3%; P2O5 -
1,9%; K2O -1,9%; N -3%; P2O5 -5%; K2O -5%;
P FERTILISERS
Straight P Fertilisers
Super Phospfate (GR)
P2O5 - 17%-20%
Compound Fertilisers
Mono-ammonium Phosphate N -11%; P2O5 - 49%; N - 3%; P2O5 - 5%; N -2%; P2O5 - Superagro NP, Ammonium Phosphate, 2-16-0;
16%; N -1-2%; P2O5 -18-29%; N - 3%; P2O5 -17-18% Granphose
Di-ammonium Phosphate
N -16%; P2O5 -16%
Ammophosphate NP
Compound - PK
P2O5 -14,4%; K2O -14,5%
Granphoska
Compound various NPK
N -3-20%; P2O5 -5-41%; K2O -8-38%; N -2,1-6%; P2O5 Aquarine; Tekos; Kemira NPK; Nitrogranphoska;
- 0,8-17%; K2O -0,8-14,0%; N -6-18%; P2O5 -7-24%; Rastvorin; Riverm; Superagro NPK
K2O -8-24%; N -10-17%; P2O5 -9-19%; K2O -9-17%; N
-8-18%; P2O5 -5-17%; K2O -16-28%; N -4,3%; P2O5 -
1,9%; K2O -1,9%; N -3%; P2O5 -5%; K2O -5%;
-118_1.jpg)
110
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Total Consumption of N and P Fertiliser by Farmers in Ukraine
Year
1997
1
998 1999 2000
2
001
2
002
Comments
N FERTILISERS
Total
N
consumption
(tonnes)
410,3 406,5 327,2 223,3 318,2 311,1
Total
agricultural
area treated with N 9317 8204 7196 4632 6388 6226
fertilisers (`000s ha)
P FERTILISERS
Total N consumption (tonnes)
103,7
76
,1 62,0 37,6 52,0 55,0
Total agricultural area treated with P
9317
8
204
7
196 4632 6388 6226
fertilisers (`000s ha)
Characteristics of N and P Fertiliser Use by Farmers in Ukraine
N FERTILISERS
P FERTILISERS
% Crop
Typical
Typical
% Crop
Typical
Receiving N
Application
Timing of
Receiving
Application
Crop
Fertiliser
Rate (kg N/ha)
Application
P Fertiliser
Rate (kg P/ha)
Comments
Wheat, barley etc
60
33
spring
60
31
Maize
42
27
spring
7,2
Sunflower
12
2,5
spring
2,1
Sugar beet
68
59
spring
20
Tobacco
-
-
-
-
-
Potatoes 52
3
9
spring
26
Field vegetables (except potatoes)
31
27
spring
12
Pasture and other grassland
13
5,8
spring
0,6
-119_1.jpg)
Inventory of Mineral Fertiliser Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
111
Known "Bad Practice" by Farmers Regarding Nutrient Management in Ukraine
Agricultural policy of Ukraine in part of agrochemical protection of plants and certain out of control activities of farmers make the agri-industrial sector un
efficient. It causes overuse of fertilisers and pesticides and does facilitate pollution of the environment - particularly water, air and soil. It also induces soil
erosion and sedimentation of water reservoirs.
There are the following bad agricultural practices that are common in Ukraine:
· Farmers use out of date, illegal and non-certified pesticides and fertilisers that cost much less than normal. The practice causes soil oxidisation and has
unpredictable effects on the environment and crops.
· Farmers apply machines with non-point sprayers. It makes fertilisers spread too largely and thus contaminate soils and water. It also causes over-
enrichment of fertilisers to crops.
· There are no unique or complex fertilisers. Farmers use several kinds of fertilisers for every certain kind of weeds and pests. It results in mixing of
fertilisers and thus unpredictable influence on the environment and crops.
· Farmers do not apply
llutants come easily
the practice of vegetative cover. It makes po
to air and finally drop down into water and soils.
· No practice of covered storage of animal wastes. It causes air pollution and water eutrophication (nitrogen and phosphorous load).
· Farmers do not apply the practice of crop rotation following short-term economic purposes. Steadily it causes more and more poor yields and thus farmers
apply more and more fertilisers.
·
de p
Local agriculture and forest bodies do not provi
lanting of forest and grass buffers around agricultural fields in order to protect water basins from
sedimentation.
· Local agriculture, forest and water industry bodies do not provide engineering protection of water streams and water reservoirs from sedimentation due to
agricultural activity.
·
19 tho
In Ukraine around
usand tones of pesticides prohibited for use are stored. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine issued the Decree that prohibited
some chemical weeds- and plants-killers. Hence agricultural enterprises came Negative list fertilisers to specials storage places. For the time being the
chemicals started dropping down to soils and contaminating water and air.
Document Outline
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methodology
- Use of Mineral Fertilisers in the 11 Central and Lower DRB Countries
- Problems Associated with Mineral Fertilisers, Manure Application and Land Management in the DRB Countries
- Potential for Policy Reform in EU Context
- þÿ
- Recommendations for Policy Reform in DRB Countries
- Annex 1: Review of the Use of Mineral Fertiliser Products in the DRB Countries (Questionnaire)
- Annex 2: Bosnia & Herzegovina
-
-
-
-
-
- N FERTILISERS
- P FERTILISERS
- Crop
- % Crop Receiving N Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg N/ha)
- TypicalTiming of Application
- % Crop Receiving P Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg P/ha)
- Comments
- 50-60
- 95
- Autumn (during seeding) and Spring (top- dressing)
- 50-60
- 45
- About 70,000 ha are under wheat in RS.These application rates (norms) are related to good producers. Farmers mostly have not money to acquire adequate quantities of fertilisers. For start fertilisation (during soil cultivation-preparation for planting
- 50
- 90
- Spring
- 50
- 45
- 40
- 90
- Spring
- 40
- 45
- Mostly in hilly-mountain areaa, without top- dressing and with manure application. Left mentioned application rates are for better producers only.
- 70
- 120
- During seeding and top-dressing
- 70
- 45
- Maize is crop on the first place in RS regarding seeded area (140,000-160,000 ha). NPK fertilisers, mostly 300 kg of 15-15-15 formulation/haare using for fertilisation, during soli cultivation and seeding + 1X top-dressing, with CaAN=KAN (80% of prod
- 45
- Before seeding
- 70
- 45
- Before sowing or in autumn before ploughing
- 80
- 20
- Before seeding and top-dressing
- 80
- 60
- For fertilisation super phosphates are used and for top-seeding compound (complex) fertilisers.
- 60
- 180
- All before planting
- 60
- 100
- Farmers are used NPK 10-20-30, 15-15-15 and urea fertilisers mostly. In hilly-mountain regions they are using manure without mineral fertilisers application.
- 70
- 190
- 70
- 125
- 60
- 95
- Two application February-March, and top-dressing after blooming (flowering)
- 60
- 50
- These application rates of fertilisers are related to farmers with extensive fruit production, which is dominant now in BIH. Only small areas are under intensive production where farmers are using about 130 kg N/ha about 100 kg P/ha, and sometimes 10-20%
- 40
- 50-80
- Top-dressing
- þÿ
- N FERTILISERS
- P FERTILISERS
- Crop
- % Crop Receiving N Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg N/ha)
- Typical
- Timing of Application
- % Crop
- Receiving
- P Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg P2O5/ha)
- Comments
- 11,58
- 120-160
- Atom (70%)and Spring (30%)
- 11,58
- 70-120
- Typical NPK use fertilizers for star is 15:15:15 or 10:30:20 or 7:14:21, and for topdressing use is nitrogen fertilizers as is 27% KAN, or 46% UREE-a. Sometimes for topdressing farmers use also NPK formulation 15: 15:15 to.
- 0,66
- 100-120
- Atom (70%) and Spring (30%)
- 0,66
- 90-100
- Same like wheat
- 5,38
- 80-120
- Spring (70%)and topdressing (30%)
- 5,38
- 90-110
- 2,13
- 80-100
- Spring (80%) & topdressing (20%)
- 2,13
- 80-100
- 23,2
- 150-200
- Spring (50%) & topdressing (25 + 25%)
- 23,2
- 100-130
- 0,19
- 30-70
- Spring
- 0,19
- 120-130
- NPK formulation 5:20:30
- 0,68
- 20-50
- Spring (80%), topdressing (20%)
- 0,68
- 80-150
- Typical 7:14:21
- 11,62
- 100-140
- Spring (60 %) & top dressing
- (40 %)
- 11,62
- 90-120
- 7,0
- 100-120
- Spring (50%) & topdressing (20 +20+10%) Summer
- 7,0
- 100-120
- 0,83
- 150-180
- Through the season
- (5 times)
- 0,83
- 110-130
- NPK - 8:26:26, 7:14:21
- 12,0
- 130-160
- Spring
- (70 %), topdressing (30%)
- 12,0
- 90-120
- Typical 7:14:21
- 2,0
- 110-140
- Spring (70%), topdressing (30%)
- 2,0
- 80-110
- Typical 7:14:21
- 22,39
- 80-120
- Spring and summer (70 + 30 %)
- 22,39
- 70-90
- Almost always 15:15:15
- þÿ
- Annex 3: Bulgaria
-
-
-
-
-
- N FERTILISERS
- P FERTILISERS
- Crop
- % Crop Receiving N Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg N/ha)
- Typical
- Timing of Application
- % Crop
- Receiving
- P Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg P/ha)
- 77,7
- 86,0
- Autumn (1/3 of the dose), spring (2/3 of the dose)
- 3,4
- 79,0
- 65,5
- 76,0
- Automn (1/3 of the dose), spring (2/3 of the dose)
- 3,0
- 61,0
- 27,2
- 83,0
- Spring
- 1,4
- 79,0
- 27,9
- 69,0
- Spring
- 4,1
- 108,0
- No data
- No data
- Spring
- No data
- No data
- 44,5
- 43,0
- Spring
- 0,0
- 0,0
- 39,0
- 121,0
- Spring
- 11,1
- 96,0
- 10,3
- 136,0
- Spring
- 0,02
- 96,0
- No data
- No data
- No data
- No data
- 5,6
- 85,0
- þÿ
- 2,6
- 70,0
- No data
- No data
- Spring
- No data
- No data
- Annex 4: Croatia
- Annex 5: Czech Republic
-
-
-
-
-
- N FERTILISERS
- P FERTILISERS
- Crop
- % Crop Receiving N Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg N/ha)
- Typical
- Timing of Application
- % Crop
- Receiving
- P Fertiliser
- Typical Application Rate (kg P/ha)
- Comments
- 98
- 90
- spring
- 38,6
- 31
- Source of Information:
- 100
- 122
- autumn, spring
- 50,5
- 40
- þÿ
- 100
- 60
- spring
- 54,3
- 33
- Research Institute of Crop Production
- 100
- 92
- autumn, spring
- 42,5
- 38
- (tables prepared for FAO)
- 96
- 90
- spring
- 17,8
- 38
- 96
- 70
- þÿ
- 23,0
- 32
- þÿ
- 100
- 105
- spring
- 77,4
- 39
- district agriculture cunsultant
- 100
- 75
- þÿ
- 15,4
- 32
- 100
- 155
- þÿ
- 39,6
- 47
- In face of economical situation
- 100
- 92
- þÿ
- 66,9
- 43
- majority of farmers keep to recommendation
- 100
- 90
- þÿ
- 86,7
- 76
- to apply two rations of N, first before
- 100
- 120
- þÿ
- 99,1
- 82
- seed-time, second later in spring.
- 100
- 100
- þÿ
- 78,2
- 70
- In autumn there are applied P, K.
- 100
- 128
- þÿ
- 84,6
- 92
- N fertiliser for winter cereals only.
- 40
- 25
- 57,1
- 35
- þÿ
- 100
- 50
- 100,0
- 65
- their foundation.
- 44
- 50
- spring, summer
- 3,1
- 6
- Grassland - in spring or after haymaking,
- 98
- 120
- 42,8
- 51
- but mostly animal manure is applied.
- þÿ
- Annex 6: Hungary
- Annex 7: Moldova
- Annex 8: Romania
- Annex 9: Serbia & Montenegro
- Annex 10: Slovakia
- Annex 11: Slovenia
- Annex 12: Ukraine