GEF Romania Agricultural Pollution Control Project

Agricultural Pollution Control Project

WBTF 050327-RO

ROMANIA

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND WATER MANAGEMENT

Project Management UnitStefan NICOLAU, PhD

The Governmentof Romania

Global EnvironmentFacility

The World Bank

Danube Basin

Catchment Area: 817,000 km2

Danube’s average annual discharge:6,430 m3/sec.

1. Germany2. Austria3. Slovakia4. Hungary5. FYR Countries6. Bulgaria7. Romania8. Moldova9. Ukraine

Countries in the Basin:

ROMANIA – GENERAL INFORMATION

Area: 238,392 km2

Population: 22.7 mil. inh.

Capital: Bucharest

No. of Counties: 42

Large Cities: 7

Communes: 2,686

Agricultural Land: 14.9 mil. ha

Forests: 6.4 mil. ha

International Waters(Danube River): 1.075 km

National Waters: 9,301 km

The data published by the ICPDR shows that Romania is an important contributor to the overall pollution of the Danube River with nutrients

from non point sources

Project Global Environmental Objectives

• The global environmental objective of the Project is to reduce, over the long-term, the discharge of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) into the Danube River and Black Sea through integrated land and water management of the Calarasi region and ecological rehabilitation of two agricultural polders.

Project Funding

Total Project value: US$ 10.8 mil., out of which:

• US$ 5.15 mil. World Bank from GEF funds;• US$ 1.86 mil. Government of Romania;• US$ 0.29 mil. Calarasi County Council;• US$ 1.0 mil. From the Governmental “Agricultural

Support Services” Project;• US$ 2.50 mil. In kind contribution of the direct

beneficiaries.

Project ComponentsComponent 1: Activities in the Calarasi County (US$ 9.22 mil.)

– Manure Management Practices (US$ 5.20 mil.)

– Promotion of Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices (US$ 2.47 mil.)

– Integrated Management of Boianu-Sticleanu Polder and Ecological Restoration of part of the Calarasi-Raul Polder (US$ 1.09 mil.)

– Strengthening Capacity in Calarasi County (Service for Water Management, Soil and Agro-chemistry Office and Public Health Directorate) to Monitor Soil and Water Quality and Environmental Impacts (US$ 0.46 mil.)

Component 2: Strengthening National Policy and Regulatory Capacity

(US$ 0.27 mil.)

Component 3: Public Awareness and Replication Strategy (US$ 0.45 mil.)

Component 4: Project Management Unit (US$ 0.86 mil.)

Main Actions Supported by the Project

At the Local level• Provision of Sub-grants for Beneficiaries to support:

(i) Adopting organic farming; Funds from the ASSP-Competitive Grant Scheme are leveraged to support organic farming projects in Calarasi County;

(ii) Purchasing and installation of household level manure storage facilities;

• Promotion of Good Agricultural Practices through Testing and Demonstrating Programs;

• Training Beneficiaries in the field of Good Agricultural Waste Management Practices;

• Construction of 14 Commune Level Manure Management Facilities and procurement of related Equipment;

• Demonstration of a number of improved agricultural practices, including integrated crop and nutrient management;

• Tree planting in erosion-prone locations in the terrace area and windbreaks or shelterbelts on privately-owned agricultural land;

• Agro-forestry on degraded lands and implementation of Code of Good Agricultural Practices on the arable land in Boianu-Sticleanu Polder;

• Design and implementation of a conservation management plan for the proposed Iezer Calarasi nature reserve;

• Studies for the ecological restoration of part (about 3,000 ha) of the Calarasi-Raul Polder;

• Specific laboratory and field equipment for the local agencies in charge with soil and water quality monitoring;

• Preparing a Code of Good Agricultural Practices for water and soil protection;

• Support for adoption of the EU Nitrates Directive and estimating the costs at the national level for voluntary and non-voluntary application of the CGAP in accordance with the provision of the EU Nitrates Directive.

• Support a number of public awareness activities to familiarize the population and help induce the behavioral changes necessary to the success of the Project in the seven selected communes and replication in the County area.

• Promote the Project as a possible model for replication in the Danube and Black Sea riparian countries.

Identified sources of pollution with nutrients:

At household level:

Inappropriate manure storage

Lack off or bad conditions of the concrete slab protecting the water well against direct infiltrations

Aggravating factors:

Identified sources of pollution with nutrients:

At commune level:

Inappropriate manure disposal

Identified sources of pollution with nutrients:

At commune level:

Inappropriate manure disposal

Grazing of animals on soil erosion prone areas

Large areas of slopped land draining into watercourses

Temporary housing of livestock near watercourses

Project Interventions

At household levelIndividual Platforms

Plastic Bins for waste segregation

Project Interventions

At household level

At commune level

Reclamation of former unauthorized manure storages

Construction and operation of manure storage and composting facilities

Project Interventions

At commune level

Demonstrations of well head rehabilitation

Project Interventions

At commune level

Riparian Buffers with forest vegetation

Windbreaks, Shelterbelts

• Demonstration of good agricultural practices for farmers; use of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices.

Testing and demonstration program

Weeds and pests control

Crop rotation

Green fertilizersSoil tillage

Nutrients management

Demonstrated practices

Project Interventions

At project area level:

A detailed water quality monitoring network

Rehabilitation of the water and soil quality monitoring laboratories

Measuring results of nutrient pollution control interventions

• Monitoring the nutrients concentration into the surface and ground water and review of eutrophical state of the surface waters at regular intervals.

• Use of indirect measurement methods.

Options:

Measuring nutrients concentration into the ground and surface waters

Strong points:– It shows the actual

quality of the ground and surface waters at designated measuring stations.

Weak points:– The existing sampling

stations could be not representative for project interventions.

– The frequency of measurements could not catch stochastic events as storm rains, snow melting or variable factors as fertilizers or manure applications.

– The trend of nutrient concentration does not reflect only the project interventions.

– It is expensive.

Nitrate concentration in Piezometers

Piezometer P5

0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

01.0

9.03

01.1

1.03

01.0

1.04

01.0

3.04

01.0

5.04

01.0

7.04

01.0

9.04

01.1

1.04

01.0

1.05

01.0

3.05

01.0

5.05

01.0

7.05

01.0

9.05

01.1

1.05

01.0

1.06

01.0

3.06

01.0

5.06

01.0

7.06

Testing Date

NO

3 -

mg

/l

NO3

Piezometer P8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01.0

9.03

01.1

1.03

01.0

1.04

01.0

3.04

01.0

5.04

01.0

7.04

01.0

9.04

01.1

1.04

01.0

1.05

01.0

3.05

01.0

5.05

01.0

7.05

01.0

9.05

01.1

1.05

01.0

1.06

01.0

3.06

01.0

5.06

01.0

7.06

Testing Date

NO

3 -

mg

/l

NO3

Drinking water quality

Water Well C18

0.000

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

24.1

1.03

24.0

1.04

24.0

3.04

24.0

5.04

24.0

7.04

24.0

9.04

24.1

1.04

24.0

1.05

24.0

3.05

24.0

5.05

24.0

7.05

24.0

9.05

24.1

1.05

24.0

1.06

24.0

3.06

Testing Date

NO

3 -

mg

/l

NO3

Why use the indirect measurement methods?

• Are based on extensive scientific research.

• Allow assessment of total results of a variety of diverse interventions.

• Are cheap and offer good accuracy.

• Allow for quantitative estimate in terms of nutrient pollution reduction using the survey results.

• Allow for forecasting of results of new projects implementing the same nutrient pollution control interventions.

Before Project (Year 2000)

Total manure (tons):

Of which:

Use Comments% tons

80,184

2 1,604As fertilizers in the back yard vegetable garden

Good practice, reduced looses

98 78,850Mixed with household waste and dumped in unauthorized places

The entire quantity of nutrients is lost

Nutrients (kg/t)

N P K

6 3.5 8

Nutrients in fresh manure

Year 2005 (Project year 4)

Total manure (tons):

Of which:

Use Comments% tons

80,184

5 4,009As fertilizers in the back yard vegetable garden

Good practice, reduced looses

29 22,950Manure applied as fertilizer on agricultural lands

Good practice. Only the nutrients that are not available to plants are lost

66 53,225

Still unmanaged manure, source of pollution, due to the inappropriate behavior of some farmers

The entire quantity of nutrients is lost

According the monitoring surveys and the communes’ reports, the use of the manure during the year 2005 was as follows:

Reduction of nutrients discharge into the waters in the year 2005, due to manure management interventions at commune and household levels:

N (t/year) P (t/year) K (t/year)

Nutrients subject to leaching WITHOUT PROJECT (t/year)

473.41 276.15 631.21

Nutrients subject to leaching PY4 - 2005 (t/year)

389.57 194.83 489.59

Reduction of nutrients discharge into the ground and surface waters in year 2005 (t/year)

83.84 81.32 141.62

Total reduction of the nutrients discharge into the waters in the Project area, in the year 2005, as result of appropriate Manure Management and use of the

Code of Good Agricultural Practices:

Reduction of nutrients discharge into the ground and surface waters in year

2005 (t/year)

From manure and factory made fertilizers used into the Project area

N (t) P (t) K (t)

128.6 110.8 141.7

Effectiveness of investmentDemonstrations measured in terms of actual stress reduction (N reduction) achieved at the project site(s)

Estimate of impact achievable through country-wide application of new approach (to all NVZs)

Extrapolation to the entire watershed

Measurable during project lifetime

Due to lag time of response, changes in environmental status in the target water-body will only be detected well beyond project completion

Stress reduction Environmental status

Source: Andrea Merla – GEF Secretariat

N (tons)

P (tons)

K (tons)

Present situation:Total nutrients looses into the aquatic system (tones/year)

15,350 8,950 20,460

After Project implementation (year 2011):Total nutrients looses into the aquatic system (tones/year)

11,010 5,255 15,585

Forecasted reduction of nutrients looses into the aquatic system (tones/year) 4,340 3,695 4,875

Estimation of the impact achievable through application of manure management and use of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices to all NVZs

Lessons learned that could be transferred to help other GPA – Partnership in order to achieve similar results

The Recipe of a Smooth and Successful Implementation

- Strong support of the central coordinating authority and the World Bank counterparts;

- Permanent contacts and substantial involvement of the local authorities

- Total commitment of the Project beneficiaries

- Timely and appropriate guidance from the National and Local Coordination Committees

- GEF, GOR and Local funds available on timely basis

- A knowledgeable and dedicated Project Implementation Team.

Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention

Project Management Unit “Agricultural Pollution Control”

Tel: 0242.331.614; 0741.242.001; 021.317.04.03;Fax: 0242.331.619; E-mail: [email protected]; www.apcp.ro