Archive:Agri-environmental indicator - risk of pollution by phosphorus

Data from May 2017. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database.Planned update: November 2018.

This article provides a fact sheet of the European Union (EU) agri-environmental indicator risk of pollution by phosphorus. It consists of an overview of recent data, complemented by all information on definitions, measurement methods and context needed to interpret them correctly. The risk of pollution by phosphorus article is part of a set of similar fact sheets providing a complete picture of the state of the agri-environmental indicators in the EU.

Figure 1: Phosphorus surplus (kg P per ha per year), average 2001-2004 vs 2005-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Figure 2: Average P input/output ratio, 2005-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (code=aei_pr_gnb)

Figure 3: Average phosphorus input per ha per year, 2005-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Figure 4: Share of the different Phosphorus inputs in total Phosphorus inputs (average 2005-2008), EU-27, NO and CH
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Figure 5: Average phosphorus output (kg P per ha per year), 2005-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Figure 6: Share of the different phosphorus outputs in total phosphorus outputs, average 2005-2008, EU-27, NO and CH
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Table 1: Phosphorus inputs (kg P per ha per year), 1990-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Table 2: Share (%) of mineral fertilisers in total phosphorus inputs, 1990-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Table 3: Share (%) of gross manure input in total phosphorus inputs, 1990-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Table 4: Phosphorus outputs (kg P per ha per year), 1990-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Table 5: Phosphorus surplus (kg P per ha per year), 1990-2008, EU-27, CH and NO
Source: Eurostat (aei_pr_gnb)

Map 1: P retention classes in EU-25 (including influence of erosion and artificial drainage) (Bomans et al, 2005)

The indicator provides an indication of the potential surplus of phosphorus (P) on agricultural land (kg P per ha per year) and is measured by the following indicators:

Main indicator:

• Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (kg P/ha/year).

Subindicator:

• Vulnerability to phosphorus leaching/run-off (to be developed).

Main statistical findings

Key messages

• In all countries, with the exception of Latvia, the average gross phosphorus balance (GPB) per ha of utilised agriculture area (UAA) between 2010 and 2014 was lower than between 2000 and 2004.

The average gross phosphorus surplus (GPS) in EU-27 between 2005 and 2008 was 2 kg P per ha per year. The average gross phosphorus surplus in EU-15 (3 kg P per ha per year) is a little bit higher than that of the Central and East European countries (CEC) (0 kg P per ha per year).

• In most countries the average gross phosphorus surplus per ha between 2005 and 2008 was lower than between 2001 and 2004 (Figure 1). Exceptions were Poland and Norway. Data for Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania and Estonia were not available for 2001-2004.
• Due to methodological issues or missing data balances have been estimated by Eurostat for: Malta, Belgium, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, France, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Slovenia. The results of these countries can only be regarded as a rough indication of the gross phosphorus surplus.
• The quality and accuracy of the estimated gross phosphorus surplus per ha is depending on the quality and accuracy of underlying data and coefficients used. As methodologies (especially with regards to the coefficients) and data sources used in countries vary substantially the balances are only consistent within a country across time. The gross phosphorus balances are not consistent across countries, which means that data cannot be compared between countries. Currently a new Handbook is being discussed with experts in the Member States (MS), to improve the coherence and transparency of data and methodologies used across Member States. The next data collection will take place in 2013. 
• The gross phosphorus balance can only indicate the potential risk to the environment as the actual risk depends on many factors including climate conditions, soil type and soil characteristics, management practices such as drainage, tillage, irrigation etc. The risk of phosphorus pollution is only partially determined by the phosphorus balance of a particular year, it is often much more determined by the cumulative P balance of the past. For these reasons results of the main indicator should be interpreted in relation to the sub-indicator.  
• The subindicator is still to be developed. Useful models and primary data exist but their possible inclusion to build the indicator has to be evaluated. A project called DireDate organized a specific workshop in Sevilla on 28 September 2010 with phosphorus experts. Some recommendations from this meeting are: to use the source-mobilization-transport-impact continuum as a general approach / framework for data collection, to set up a general approach for data collection (as the P risk of an area depends on many parameters and the relevance of the parameters differs from area to area in relation to the observed scale), to use statistical approaches for P risk assessment within an area (as the collection of scientific relevant data within an area is very expensive) and information/data collection should be at the level of catchments of 10 000-30 000 ha.

Assessment

Analysis at EU level

Data for EU-15 are available for a longer period. The P Balance for the EU-15 reduced slightly between 2001 and 2008 from an estimated average of 5 kg P per ha per year in the period 2001-2004 to an estimated average of 3 kg P in the period 2005-2008. The P Balance is high in the Mediterranean islands Malta and Cyprus and Northwest-Europe (Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark) while the balance is negative for Italy and Greece and many of the Central and East European countries between 2005 and 2008. 

Another way of presenting the result of the gross phosphorus balance is the input/output ratio, which gives an indication of the phosphorus use efficiency. Figure 2 shows that the ratio between total P inputs and total P outputs is relatively high for Cyprus, Norway and Malta which also have a high P surplus per ha per year.

Figure 3 shows that many of the countries with a high P surplus also have a relative high P input per ha per year (for instance the Netherlands, Malta), though a high input does not necessarily lead to a high P balance, as the balance also is determined by the output. Belgium for instance has a higher P input per ha per year than Norway, but due to a much higher P output per ha per year, the balance per ha of Belgium is estimated lower than that of Norway.

The inputs of the P balance consist of inorganic fertilisers, other organic fertilisers (excluding manure), gross manure input, other inputs inorganic fertilisers and manure account for more than 98 % of the P input in EU-27 between 2005 and 2008. Other organic fertilisers such as compost, sewage sludge, industrial waste account for less than 2 % of total P inputs. Data on other organic fertilisers are however lacking in many countries, therefore the significance of these fertilisers in these countries and at EU-level could be underestimated. The P input with other inputs (atmospheric deposition, seeds and planting material) is negligible.

Figure 4 shows large differences between countries in the use of inputs. The choice of fertiliser type (manure, mineral fertilisers, other organic fertilisers) has different impacts on the environment. The P in manure and fertilisers is not available to the plant in the same rate for different types of manure and fertilisers. Through the use of energy P fertilisers production contributes to GHG emissions (though some studies show a net GHG emissions benefit for certain production techniques). Mineral P fertilisers are produced from natural resources which are limited available and depleting. Other potential fertilisers like urban wastes often include health hazards (to both plants and humans) and procedures commonly used to reduce these hazards - such as composting - tend to reduce the fertiliser value (leaching/volatilisation). The share of manure in total inputs is on average for 2005-2008 smaller in Central and Eastern European Countries (46 %) than in EU-15 (55 %). Manure withdrawals (manure processing, non-agricultural use, export and stock changes) and imports are only of significance (5 % of total manure production) in a very few countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary). This means that for most countries the manure used is mainly determined by the amount of manure produced in the country. The manure production in kg P per ha per year is twice as high on average in EU-15 than in Central and East European countries in the period 2005-2008. The manure production is determined by the amount and type of livestock in the country. Figure 3 in the fact sheet AEI 10.2 - Livestock patterns shows the livestock density in EU-27 in 2007. Malta, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Cyprus and Ireland have the highest livestock densities and also belong to the countries with the highest rates of manure input per ha (15 kg P per ha per year). Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia belong to the countries with the lowest livestock densities and also belong to the countries with the lowest rates of manure input per ha (5 kg P per ha per year). The countries with the highest livestock densities belong also to the countries with a high share of manure in total input (2/3).

The dependence on mineral fertilisers for P input is on average stronger in the Central and East European countries (51 % of total P input) than in EU-15 (41 %) countries in 2005-2008. There are however big differences between countries; The share of inorganic fertilisers in total P inputs is larger than 50 % in Hungary, Poland, Italy, Latvia, Spain, Estonia, Lithuania, while the share in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Malta is below 25 %. These figures should however be taken with care as the P input of manure is largely depending on the excretion coefficients used to convert animal numbers in P manure production. For many countries coefficients were not available and have been estimated by Eurostat.

The removal of P with harvest and grazing of crops and forage per ha varies between crops and countries as can be seen in Figure 5. Per ha, grassland and cereals production have the highest P removal rates, though great variation exists between countries due to differences in yields and P content per tonne of product. The P content per tonne product is among others depending on farmer practices like fertilisation, irrigation, mowing vs. grazing etc. It should however be noted that coefficients may also vary among countries and crops due to differences in methodologies used, see also section on data and methodology.

The dominant share of total P output in the EU-27 (2005-2008) is the uptake of P with cereal production (36 %) and grassland (31 %), see Figure 6. P output is depending on cropping patterns, yields, farm management practices (tillage, irrigation etc.), climate etc. Figure 2 in fact sheet AEI 10.1 - Cropping patterns shows the cropping pattern in 2007, permanent and temporary grassland covered 39 % of the UAA in 2007 (38 % in 2005) and cereals 34 % (same as 2005). There are however significant differences between countries, in some countries (for example the United Kingdom, Slovenia, Ireland, Norway) grassland dominates the UAA, where for instance in Bulgaria, Hungary and Denmark cereals are the dominating crop. Permanent crops are significant in Mediterranean countries.

Analysis at country level

As explained in the notes on the data and methodology used, the current balances are not comparable between countries due to differences in definitions, methodologies and data sources used. In the next section a few trends for MS are highlighted.

Since 1990 P inputs per ha have been continuously decreasing for Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom. In the Central and East European countries total P input decreased significantly during the economic transition (e.g. in the Czech Republic and Poland total P input decreased with ca 59 % and 54 % respectively between 1989-1993). In some of the Central and East European countries a trend towards recovery can be noted, for example Poland, while in other countries such a trend cannot be noted and P inputs remain well below the level before the transition, e.g. Slovakia and the Czech Republic (Table 1).

The main phosphorus input at EU-27 level is manure, see Figure 4. The P input from manure is bigger than the P input from inorganic fertilisers between 1990 and 2008 in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. In France the decrease in total input between 1990 and 2008 was mainly due to a sharp decrease in mineral fertilisers' consumption (-56 %). As P input from manure did not change so much, the share of manure in total inputs increased over time and the P input from manure surpassed the P input from inorganic fertilisers since 2001. In many of the Central and East European countries manure P input decreased significantly after the significant decreases in livestock populations during and after the transition. Pig and cattle populations decreased between 1990-2010 with ca 60 % in CZ, which had a significant impact on the manure production and manure input. Manure input (tonnes of phosphorus) decreased with 43 % between 1990-2008 in the Czech Republic. In some Central and East European countries a trend towards recovery can be noted in recent years (Table 2 and 3). Manure input in the gross phosphorus balance is based on manure production, manure withdrawals and manure import where the manure production is calculated from livestock numbers and excretion factors. The average P excretion per animal per year is depending on animal characteristics (e.g. production level, race etc.) and farmer practices (for instance animal diets). Many countries take the average level of milk production per cow into account in the estimation of excretion coefficients (a higher level of milk production per cow in general means a higher feed intake and therefore a higher P excretion). Excretion coefficients are at the moment only updated regularly to take into account changing farmer practices in a few countries. Most countries use fixed coefficients, this means that for these countries changes in farmer practices other than reducing animal numbers are not taken into account. Denmark is one of the countries which has updated its excretion coefficients regularly. The excretion coefficients of cattle for example show an increasing trend between 1985 and 1994, after which a decreasing trend is noted until 2001, from 2001 constant coefficients have been used. Excretion coefficients for pigs decreased between 1985 and 2001, after which constant coefficients have been used. The effect of the change in excretion coefficients is significant: Total manure P production by pigs in Denmark increased only with 10 % between 1985 and 2001 though total pig population increased during the same period with 39 %, this effect is completely due to the development in the excretion coefficients. Another country which regularly updates excretion coefficients is the Netherlands. The excretion coefficients in the Netherlands are estimated annually based on a model which takes into account animal feed requirements, statistical data on livestock numbers, animal products, feed production, grazing systems, animal housing etc. and other data. The P excretion shows for instance decreasing trends after 1997 for most cattle types. The P output depends mainly on the yields of crops and fodder as nutrient contents of crops are constant over time in most countries. In the Netherlands data on nutrient contents of grassland products and silage maize are available from a large sample of measurements from dairy farms for many years.

The yields of crops and fodder are influenced by farmer practices (like pesticide and fertiliser use, irrigation etc.) and by soil type and weather. Weather conditions vary significantly from year to year and these fluctuations can also be seen in the estimated nitrogen outputs and surplus. In 2003 and 2007 large parts of Europe were hit by extreme weather conditions causing significant drops in crop production. In many Member States a peak in the balance can be noted for these years. Variations in the phosphorus surplus between years should therefore be interpreted with care.

For some countries the trend in output is equal to the trend in input, for example a decreasing trend in P inputs over time is followed by a decreasing trend in P outputs in the Netherlands. For other countries the trend in output does not follow the trend in inputs, for example output increased while inputs decreased in Austria.

Table 4 shows the phosphorus outputs per ha and Table 5 the phosphorus surplus per ha for EU-27, Norway and Switzerland between 1990 and 2008.

Vulnerability to phosphorus leaching/run-off

The sub-indicator needs to be developed. Currently only limited data are available. Map 1 is derived from a study commissioned by the Commission in 2005 on phosphorus 'Addressing phosphorus related problems at farm practice'. 'P-retention' refers to the capacity of the soil to retain phosphorus by sorption and by resistance to erosion. 'Sorption of P' in the soil is defined in the study as a process whereby readily soluble phosphate is changed to less soluble forms by reacting with inorganic or organic compound of the soil so that P becomes immobilized. The term 'P-sensitivity' refers to the combined risk of phosphorus loss to the groundwater or to the surface water by the combined action of low sorption capacity, high erosion risk and increased risk of drainage.

Red colour in Map 1 corresponds to class 1: very weak P retention capacities, dark green corresponds to class 5: very strong P retention capacities. At the Member State level the Netherlands, Slovenia, Latvia and Estonia show the highest share in sensitive classes. At the regional level, southern Greece and Scotland have the highest percentage in sensitive classes. As can be seen from this map, very dense clusters of soils with very low P retention capacities (class 1) can be found in Finland, Scotland, North England, North Ireland, the Netherlands, the North of Belgium and the Baltic states. Scattered clusters of soils with very low P-retention capacities (class 1) can be found in the North of Germany, Poland and Greece. Also clusters of soils with low P retention capacities (class 2, orange colour) are detected. These clusters are found in the Northwest of Spain and in the Alps. Phosphorus can easily be leached from highly organic soils (e.g. peat) and from sandy soils with low retention capacity. Small amounts are lost from most soils, but when the soils become phosphate saturated, leaching will be enhanced. P accumulation in soils might increase concentrations of dissolved and colloidal P in drainage. Calcareous soils on flat land were found to be the least sensitive to P surplus.

The study also estimated phosphorus balances which were confronted with the proportion of vulnerable soils in order to indicate areas at risk of encountering potential phosphorus excess. Manure transfers were not included in these balances, and the mineral phosphorus input was assumed linearly proportional to arable land area. The soil sensitivity was determined for the entire NUTS 2 / NUTS 3 region or Member State, not taking into account that sensitive soils (i.e. easily erodible or with a low sorption capacity) are often considered marginal to agriculture. Areas (NUTS 2 / NUTS 3 regions or Member States) with high phosphorus surpluses (pressure) and at the same time a high proportion of soils prone to erosion and/or low P-sorption capacity are most vulnerable. The Netherlands and Slovenia display the highest rate of vulnerable soils and high balance surplus. In the Netherlands sensitive soils are prone to leaching, in Slovenia, erosion and run-off are the main agents of P-loss.

Data sources and availability

Indicator definition

Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural on agricultural land (kg P/ha/year).

Measurements

Main indicator:

• Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural on agricultural land (kg P/ha/year).

Subindicator:

• Vulnerability to phosphorus leaching/run-off.

Links with other indicators

• AEI 05 - Mineral fertiliser consumption
• AEI 10.1 - Cropping patterns
• AEI 10.2 - Livestock patterns
• AEI 11.1 - Soil cover
• AEI 11.2 - Tillage practices
• AEI 11.3 - Manure storage
• AEI 21 - Soil erosion
• AEI 26 - Soil quality

Data used and methodology

Main indicator: gross phosphorus balance

The methodology of the phosphorus balances is described in Eurostat/OECD Phosphorus Balance Handbook. The phosphorus balance lists all inputs and outputs and calculates the gross phosphorus surplus as the difference between total inputs and total outputs. The gross phosphorus surplus per ha is derived by dividing the total gross phosphorus surplus by the reference area. The reference area of the current version of balances uploaded in Eurobase is the sum of arable land (L0001), permanent grassland (L0002) and land under permanent crops.

The inputs of the phosphorus balance are:

• Fertilisers, which consist of:

• inorganic fertilisers,
• organic fertilisers (excluding manure).

• Gross manure input, which is calculated from:

• manure production (phosphorus excretion);
• manure withdrawals (manure export, manure processed as industrial waste, non-agricultural use of manure, other withdrawals);
• change in manure stocks;
• manure import.

• Other phosphorus inputs, which consist of :

• seeds and planting material;
• atmospheric deposition.

The outputs of the gross phosphorus balance are:

• Total removal of phosphorus with the harvest of crops (cereals, dried pulses, root crops, industrial crops, vegetables, fruit, ornamental plants, other harvested crops).

• Total removal of phosphorus with the harvest and grazing of fodder (fodder from arable land, permanent and temporary pasture consumption).

• Crop residuals removed from the field.

The P input and P output is estimated for each item of the balance from basic data multiplied with coefficients to convert the data in P content. Basic data (fertiliser consumption, crop production, livestock number, agricultural area) are mostly derived from statistics. Coefficients are mainly estimated by research institutes and can be based on models, statistical data, measured data as well as expert judgements. A more detailed description of the data used and coefficients follows in the next paragraph.

The following countries submitted data which have been approved by Eurostat: Austria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Denmark. 

Data were not available in the following countries: Greece, Luxembourg, Italy, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia. The balances of these countries have been estimated by Eurostat based on data available in Eurostat, other sources and assumptions regarding coefficients. The results for these countries need to be taken with precaution and can only be regarded as rough estimates as national specific coefficients were missing to convert basic data (tonnes of product, hectares, number of animals) in phosphorus content, and manure withdrawals and imports, use of other organic fertilisers, seeds and planting material have not been taken into account.

The balances of the following countries have been estimated by Eurostat using data supplied by the country, however due to methodological differences the results may not be directly comparable to national published figures: Belgium, Spain, France.

Partial data was available for Malta (crop production, livestock number, agricultural area). Eurostat has estimated the balances based on the data received by the country and other sources.

Data on fertiliser consumption is available in many countries from country specific data sources (surveys, trade/production statistics), for countries where such data was not available data from Fertilizers Europe have been used. Data on fertiliser use for Malta was only available from the FAO. Due to different data sources used (farmer surveys vs trade/production statistics) and inherent problems of data sources used (for instance inclusion of non-agricultural use in statistics based on trade and production) the quality of data cannot be sufficiently verified. There is need for a common methodology to estimate fertiliser consumption by agriculture to ensure reliable and consistent estimations and comparability across MS. 

Data on crop production, livestock number, and agricultural area are available in all countries from harmonised and regulated European statistics (FSS, animal production statistics, livestock registers, crop production statistics). Livestock numbers have been checked with statistics in Eurostat. These data can be considered to be of good reliability.

Excretion coefficients delivered by the country have been used together with the livestock numbers reported by the country to estimate manure production. In the case the country did not deliver excretion coefficients: the P excretion coefficients vary among countries due to differences in farming practices etc. If N coefficients were available for the country the average P:N relation of available countries has been multiplied with the N coefficient to estimate the P coefficient. Though the N:P ratio may vary between countries due to differences in farming practices it is assumed this variation is less than the variation in P excretion coefficients between countries. If N coefficients were not available P coefficients have been based on other country coefficients. Verification and validation of the coefficients requires expert knowledge. A sufficient structure to verify and validate these coefficients is missing. A European uniform methodology and validation procedure to estimate excretion coefficients would be necessary to ensure reliable and consistent estimations and comparability across MS. At present the estimation of coefficients vary between countries in methodology (expert judgement vs complex models based on statistical data) and in updating procedures (to take into account the effect of mitigation actions (other than reducing the level of production) in the estimations, coefficients need to be updated regularly to reflect these changes in farmer practices (mitigation actions)). Because excretion is a large part of the balance, the data (especially the level of surplus) cannot be compared between countries as these are largely depending on coefficients used which are based on varying methodologies. A service contract 40701.2012.002-2012-312 'Methodological studies in the field of Agro-Environmental Indicators. Lot 1 Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion factors for livestock' was signed mid-September 2012. The general objective of the service contract study is 'to bring clarity into the issue of excretion factors so that a recommendation on a single, common methodology to calculate N and P excretion coefficients can be identified. This methodology should be flexible enough to allow local conditions to be taken into account, but without distorting the picture'.

Manure withdrawals, manure stocks and imports are not available in most countries but are likely not significant with the exception of a few countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark) who already submitted such data. Hungary reports that 20 % of manure is not used in agriculture. This amount is however not verifiable, also the question where this amount of manure has been placed remains. Not taking into account the non-agricultural use would increase the balance per ha for Hungary with ca 4 kg P/ha/year.

Crop production is available from reliable statistics for most of the significant crops cultivated except grassland. The harvest and grazing of grassland is estimated in some countries based on feed requirement models (for example the Netherlands) while in other countries expert judgement is used. As grassland production is estimated on average as 31 % of total P output in the EU-27 (in 2005-2008) the estimation of grassland determines to a large extent the outcome of the balance. It is necessary to develop a uniform European method to estimate grassland production to ensure reliable and consistent estimations and comparability across MS. Only the P uptake by crops and fodder harvested and crop residuals removed from the field are included in the output of the balance. For permanent crops a part of the P uptake is stored in the plant (which is not harvested) and is therefore not at risk to run-off, leaching or volatilisation, this is not taken into account in the balance estimations. Many countries do not have coefficients (used to convert the production in nutrient content) available and reliability varies due to the method used (scientific research vs expert judgement). Verification and validation of these coefficients requires expert knowledge. A sufficient structure to verify and validate these coefficients is missing. Improvements in the coefficients used are therefore necessary. Pilot projects on improving or establishing crop nutrient coefficients have been signed in 2012 with Finland, Sweden, Romania, Italy and Latvia. A service contract 40701.2012.002-2012-312 'Methodological studies in the field of Agro-Environmental Indicators. Lot 2 Grassland areas, production and use was' signed mid-September 2012. The general objective of this tender is 'to bring clarity into the issue of defining, classifying, collecting and disseminating data on European grassland areas, use and production. This project focuses a.o. on methodologies to estimate grassland production and nutrient contents'.

Seeds and planting material have been estimated when the required data were available. The quality of data depends on the data sources and assumptions made, as well as the availability and quality of coefficients. This item is however not of large significance to the final balance. It could be considered to drop this item from the balance, or invest in improvements of the estimation of the most significant seed inputs.

Deposition rates have been obtained from MS if available. Most countries however do not have data available on P deposition. Available data (Germany, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Norway) show that it is of some significance only in the Czech republic (4.5 % of total inputs). The Diredate project recommended that P deposition is small and can be neglected in the balance.

Reference area: At the moment the reference area has been based on the land use statistics in Eurostat and is the total of arable land, land under permanent crop and permanent grassland. Note that this area is not equal to the utilised agricultural area (UAA), as the UAA also includes a.o. area under glass and kitchen gardens. According to the Eurostat/OECD Handbook the balance should in principle relate to the potential fertilised area, excluding very extensive unfertilised areas, to make comparisons useful and to identify the potential risks of agricultural production to the environment in respect to P surplus and deficits. Some countries have identified and excluded certain extensive areas from their balance estimations (the United Kingdom, Switzerland). Some areas used by agriculture may not be sufficiently covered by current land use statistics, this is for instance the case of the dehesas in Spain. A service contract 40701.2012.002-2012-312 'Methodological studies in the field of Agro-Environmental Indicators. Lot 2 Grassland areas, production and use' was signed mid-September 2012. The general objective of this tender is 'to bring clarity into the issue of defining, classifying, collecting and disseminating data on European grassland areas, use and production. Improvements in the definition and classification of grasslands and data collection could improve to a better estimation of nutrient surplus on a hectare base'.

Climatic conditions have a big impact on the balance through the impact on yield and therefore P output. Climate and weather conditions are beyond the control of the farmer. To dampen the effect of weather conditions on the balance all results presented under the headings [[Agri-environmental indicator - risk of pollution by phosphorus Key messages and Analysis at EU level with regards to the nutrient balance will be presented not referring to a particular year but as an average for a certain period.

Subindicator: Vulnerability to phosphorus leaching/run-off

The methodology of the sub-indicator is still under development. Several factors influence the risk of P leaching and run-off such as soil erosion, drainage and sorption capacity. The retention map from the study commissioned by the Commission in 2005 on 'Addressing phosphorus related problems at farm practice' was created based on the Soil Geographic Database of Europe. Pedotransfer-rules were used to define areas at potential risk, i.e. with a low sorption capacity, high erosion rates and increased risk of accelerated drainage. Because of the unclear effect of the factor drainage and the lack of reliable data for the EU-25, efforts were focused on sorption capacity and erosion risk. Five vulnerability classes for phosphorus retention capacity were determined, whereby soils with sandy texture, poor drainage and wet water regime or high water table, with low pH and with low content of sesquioxides and/or soluble salts are most susceptible. The sorption vulnerability class was corrected through iteration for erosion, runoff and drainage processes based on soil physical properties such as soil texture, erodibility and slope.

Another factor which influence the risk of P leaching and run-off is the applications of P to the soil in the present and in the past. A high value of soil test P (STP) is an indication of a strong accumulation of P in the past. Unfortunately, a database of STP as a risk indicator is not available in most EU countries.

A workshop organized by the Diredate project in Sevilla on 28 September 2010 with experts on the issue identified data needed to build the sub-indicator:

Data needed	Description	Availability / Source of data
Soil P status	The release of P into a mobile water phase (surface and subsurface) depends largely on the degree of P saturation in soils, which typically is related to soil test P. Similarly, the release of colloidal P is also related to soil test P.	Data will be available from the LUCAS survey 2012.
Soil type	Soil texture and mineralogy affect the risk of erosion and macropore transport as well as colloid mobilization; the P retention capacity depends on the contents of active P sorbents and pH.	Partial data from the LUCAS survey (because LUCAS only characterizes the superficial texture of the soil).
Tillage and cropping practice	The vulnerability to erosion and surface runoff is affected by plant and residue cover, surface roughness, tramlines and traffic-induced soil compaction	Use of the indicator (AEI 21 - Soil erosion), and use of JRC models.
Fertiliser and manure use and practices	There is a risk of direct P loss from fertilisers and manures when they are not incorporated into soils during periods with high precipitation. Also, historic P applications affect soil P enrichment and hence the soil P status and degree of P saturation.	Data from SAPM (2010). Discussions are ongoing on including variables in FSS, see also the indicator AEI 5 - Consumption of mineral fertilisers.
Climate	Total rainfall and its distribution over the year affect the hydrological pathways and the vulnerability to leaching and runoff.	Easily available from JRC.
Drainage	Land drainage creates shortcuts between P-enriched soils and water courses.	Data from SAPM (2010). Discussions are ongoing on including variables in FSS.
Topography	Surface and subsurface runoff depend to a large degree on terrain attributes like slope gradient and upslope contributing area as well as the distance of effective discharge and eroding areas to water courses.	Easily available from JRC.
Landscape structure	The connectivity between P sources and receiving waters depends on field size and shape as well as landscape elements like hedges, roads, ditches and buffer zones.	Data from SAPM (2010). Administrative data, possibly available as an outcome of the greening of direct payments, if landscape elements are registered in LPIS. Field size available from LPIS. Field shape not specifically registered but the possibility to codify and extract this data can be explorated.

Context

The gross phosphorus balance provides insight into links between agricultural phosphorus use, losses of phosphorus to the environment, and the sustainable use of soil nutrient resources. A persistent surplus indicates potential environmental problems, such as phosphorus leaching (resulting in pollution of drinking water and eutrophication of surface waters). A persistent deficit can impair the resource sustainability of agriculture soil through soil degradation, or soil mining, resulting in declining fertility in areas under crop or forage production.

Further, EU-27 is almost entirely depending on imports of phosphorus for fertilisation as there are no significant phosphate rock reserves (the main source for the production of phosphorous fertilisers) in the EU. Phosphate rock is a non-renewable natural resource. Estimations on the global availability of phosphate rock and the rate of depletion vary Though there is uncertainty on the lifetime of remaining high quality phosphate rock reserves, there is a general consensus that the quality of remaining reserves is in decline, that phosphate layers become more difficult to access, that more waste is being generated and that costs are increasing. A sustainable use of phosphorus is needed to ensure food supply in the future and to reduce negative impacts of waste of natural resources on the environment. These include a.o. appropriate fertilisation practices, reduction of imbalances in P inputs and outputs to agricultural soils, recovery of phosphorus from sewage for fertilisation.

Policy relevance and context

International conventions of importance to phosphorus use in agriculture include inter alia MAP (Mediterranean Action Plan), CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) and OSPAR (Oslo & Paris Convention to prevent pollution). Such international treaties often give an impetus to harmonise standards amongst all Member States of the European Union. Despite the significant off-site impact that diffuse contamination of phosphorus from agricultural land poses, there is however no specific legislation that is directly concerned with the use of phosphorus in agriculture at the European level. There is a lack of appropriate institutional arrangements specific to the environmental pollution of phosphorus. Aspects of the phosphorus problem are however integrated in several policy areas and related legal instruments at the European level. This section provides an overview of existing regulations and directives dealing with farm-level nutrients (and phosphorus) use and production at the international and European level (see also the sections on policy relevance and context in AEI 5 - Mineral fertiliser consumption and AEI 15 - Gross nitrogen balance).

• The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 0060/2000) is a legal obligation to protect and restore the quality of waters across Europe. Measures applied under the Water Framework Directive affecting the use of phosphorus in agriculture relate to best environmental practices and include the reduction of nutrient application, the modification of cultivation techniques, the proper handling of pesticides and fertilisers, and the prevention of soil erosion through erosion minimising soil cultivation. Most measures suggested in this context are aimed at reducing the influx of nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus as well as pesticides to the groundwater as well as surface waters. The P balance surplus (every 6 years at level of water body catchment) is a commonly used indicator for identifying areas vulnerable to nutrient pollution in the pressures and impacts analysis.
• The Nitrates Directive (ND) (Directive 0676/1991), established in 1991 aims to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources and prevent further such pollution. The Water Framework Directive explicitly refers to the Nitrates Directive for information on diffuse pollution of nitrates from agricultural activities and extends this to phosphates. The measures established within the Action Programmes aim to control diffuse and direct water pollution and also influence the use of phosphorus in farm practice. For instance, by limiting the annual application of nitrogen fertiliser and livestock manure, defining legally binding maximum concentrations of nitrates in drinking water and designating periods when the application is prohibited, the directive clearly aims at establishing and maintaining the natural balance of fertilisers in soils. Through these measures a massive influx of nutrients to ground- and surface water and thus potential eutrophication is prevented, while excess nutrients, oversaturation and a possible ensuing degradation is avoided at the same time. Currently the Action Programmes are no longer expected just to address losses of nitrate-nitrogen but are also judged on their ability to reduce losses of phosphorus.
• The 6th Environmental Action Programme (Decision 1600/2002) encourages the full implementation of WFD, in order to achieve levels of water quality that do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on, and risks to, human health and the environment.
• Rural Development Programme (RDP) (Regulation 1698/2005): Various agri-environment measures have been established throughout the European Union directly or indirectly addressing diffuse contamination by phosphorus. Some of these measures are directed at mitigating soil erosion such as crop rotations, mulch seeding retaining stubble after harvest and ploughing restrictions. Other measures tackle the problem of excess nutrients through reduced fertiliser use. All measures that impact soil erosion and nutrient balances ultimately result in a reduction of diffuse contamination by phosphates from agricultural land. Phosphorus balances are required for the RDP 2007-2013 (Council Regulation No 1698/2005) as part of the EU’s Common monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the impact of RDP.
• The Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) (Directive 0001/2008) introduces an integrated cross-media approach, aiming to prevent or minimise emissions to air, water and land, as well as to avoid waste production with a view to achieve a high level of environmental protection as a whole. The IPPC Directive concerns highly polluting industries, among which intensive pig and poultry farms. A single permit based on the concept of Best Available Techniques (BAT including limit values) must include all arrangements made, including emission limit values for pollutants, for water, air and land, and may, if necessary, contain requirements for the protection of the soil and the groundwater as well as measures or waste management (Art. 9(3)) in order to continuously prevent and reduce pollution. The purpose of the IPPC Directive is to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from several categories of industrial activities. The indicative list of main polluting substances to be taken into account if they are relevant for fixing emission limit values includes oxides of nitrogen and substances which contribute to eutrophication (phosphates and nitrogen).
• Habitats Directive (Directive 0043/1992) and Birds Directive (Directive 0147/2009): The main purpose of this directive is to ensure biological diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna within the European territory, while taking into account economic, social, cultural and regional requirements. Farmers who have agricultural land in Natura 2000 sites and face restrictions due to the requirements of the Habitat-Directive are eligible to receive payments for the management of these sites by the Rural Development Regulation, which helps promote environmental-friendly farming. Depending on the specific conditions of a certain area, these include measures to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilisers, measures to mitigate the effects of soil compaction, e.g. limitations on the use of machinery or the setting of stocking limits, or measures aiming to regulate the irrigation of agricultural land.

Pollution by phosphorus is also partially covered by the Directive on Bathing Water (Directive 0007/2006), the Directive on Sewage Sludge (Directive 0278/1986) and the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment (Directive 0271/1991), which together with the Nitrates Directive and the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention Control, have been linked since 2000 in the Water Framework Directive.

A Green Paper on the sustainable use of phosphorus is under development in the Commission. The purpose is to draw attention to this resource and the way in which it is currently used, to set out the issues around the sustainability of P use and to launch a debate on the state of play and the actions that should be considered. Handling eutrophication of lakes and rivers caused by excess phosphorus from intensive agriculture is one of the objectives of the Green Paper. The Green Paper was announced in the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM final 0571/2011).

Agri-environmental context

The gross phosphorus balance indicates the total potential risk to the environment (water and soil). The output side of the balance presents the nutrient uptake by harvested (and grazed) crops and fodder and crop residues removed from the field; id est the agricultural production from the soil. The input side of the balance counts all P supplied to the soil. Sustainability could be defined by preserving and/or improving the level of production without degrading the natural resources. The harvest and grazing of crops and fodder means that P is removed from the soil. To sustain soil fertility this removal of P should be compensated. Fertilisers and manure are therefore necessary to supply the crops with the necessary P for growing. There are certain complications however. The phosphorus cycle is very different from the Nitrogen cycle, depending on the soil P capacity, excessive P can be stored in the soil. Not all of P in fertilisers and manure are directly available to the plant, a part is converted from active P (active P pool is the main source of available P for crops) to fixed P (The fixed P pool of phosphate will contain inorganic phosphate compounds that are very insoluble and organic compounds that are resistant to mineralization by microorganisms in the soil. Phosphate in this pool may remain in soils for years without being made available to plants and may have very little impact on the fertility of a soil). Depleting the active pool through crop uptake may cause some of the fixed P to slowly become active. The storage capacity of the soil is however depending on soil characteristics like soil texture. However, an important aspect of the ability of a soil to hold phosphate is that a soil cannot hold increasing amounts of phosphate in the solid phase without also increasing soil solution phosphate. Increased amounts of phosphate in solution will potentially cause more phosphate to be lost to water running over the soil surface or leaching through the soil. Loading soils with very high levels of phosphate will generally not hurt crops but may result in increased phosphate movement to nearby bodies of water. It has been estimated that 25 % or less of P applied annually is actually taken up by the growing crop, the remaining 75 % becomes bond in the soil profile or is lost to the water. The crop uptake of P is in sharp contrast to the crop use of N and K fertilisers, where the recovery in the season of application can be as high as 80 %. Yield and therefore the uptake of P by crops is not only determined by inputs but also by uncontrollable factors like climate.

The estimated P surplus represents the potential risks to water and soil. The actual P loss from agricultural land to surface waters is a complex function of climate, topography, soil type, soil P status, P fertilization, and land management. These factors vary greatly in space and over the year, and the hydrological pathways for P losses also vary greatly in space and time. The effects of these individual factors on P loss from agricultural land to surface waters are rather well understood, but in combination the understanding is less well developed. As a consequence, current simulation models do no simulate the actual P loss from agricultural land to surface waters very accurately yet. Further, the ecological effect of P from agricultural land in surface waters depends on the 'bio-availability' of the P. A significant fraction of the P from agricultural land that is lost to surface waters is particulate P and the availability of this P to growing organisms in surface waters is much less than dissolved reactive P, at least in the short term. Hence, ‘the pollution effect’ of P lost from agricultural land to surface waters does not depend on the total P loss but on the fraction 'reactive P'.

The accumulated amount of P represents a larger actual risk for the environment than the amount of P which is applied yearly, or the surplus on today’s balance. However, the future risk is strongly influenced by the P balance of today and the near future, in combination with the capacity of a soil to bind P. This contrasts with nitrogen, for which the cumulative N balance of the past is much less relevant since N hardly accumulates in soils. This is why the main indicator on its own is not sufficient to indicate areas at risk of phosphorus pollution.

The gross phosphorus balance also gives information on the dependence on mineral fertilisers. Phosphorus, contrary to Nitrogen, is a finite resource – in the sense that phosphate ores are becoming depleted – and after being used in agriculture, the mineral ultimately becomes unavailable for reuse, or can be reused only to a very limited extent. Phosphorus builds up in agricultural soils, it ends up in the sludge from water treatment plants – which is largely incinerated and thereby removed from the agricultural cycle – but mostly it is eroded, thereby ending up in the sediments of lakes, coastal seas and the ocean. Phosphorus in contrast with nitrogen is not part of a global ecological cycle, large amounts of P (in the same magnitude of crop uptake) are lossed by erosion and end up in ocean sediments. Recycling from ocean sediments takes place during a period of millions of years.

The natural level of phosphate in the soil is very low and is limiting to plant growth. Before the industrial revolution, phosphate was a limiting factor nearly everywhere on Earth. A breakthrough occurred in the 19th century by means of the external application of phosphate as a fertiliser, where the mineral originated outside the area to be fertilized. As a result of this external source, the local phosphate cycles were broken; at the same time, this created the basis for a potential shortage in the future. This external application of phosphate (and other fertilisers) from external sources was one of the preconditions for the increase in the world population from approximately 1 billion people in 1850 to the current population of 6.8 billion. The EU is almost entirely dependent on imports of phosphate; very little is mined in the EU. Import takes place in two forms: artificial fertiliser and animal feed. In total, 1.6 Mt P per year is imported, where the phosphate contained in animal feed ultimately ends up in animal manure. The total phosphorus import of the EU concerns nearly 10 % of the entire world production of artificial phosphate fertiliser. It is important to note that the EU, other than is usually assumed, is not at all self-sufficient in food production due to this phosphate dependency.

See also

• Agri-environmental indicators (online publication)

Further Eurostat information

Publications

• Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics — 2016 edition
• Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics - 2014 edition
• Environmental statistics and accounts in Europe - 2010 edition
• Food: from farm to fork statistics - 2011 edition

Database

• Agri-environmental indicators (aei), see:

Farm Management (aei_fm)

Consumption estimate of manufactured fertilizers (source: Fertilizers Europe) (aei_fm_manfert)

Pressures and risks (aei_pr)

Gross Nutrient Balance (aei_pr_gnb)

• Agriculture, see:

Farm structure (ef)

Farm structure: historical data (1990-2007) (ef_h)

Land Use (ef_lu)

Land use overview (ef_lu_ov)

Farmland: Number of farms and areas by size of farm (UAA) and NUTS 2 regions (ef_lu_ovcropaa)

Livestock (ef_ls)

Livestock overview (ef_ls_ov)

Livestock: Number of farms and heads by size of farm (UAA) and NUTS 2 regions(ef_ls_ovaareg)

Agricultural production (apro)

Crops products (apro_cp)

Crops products: areas and productions (apro_cpp)

Crops products - annual data (apro_cpp_crop)

Land use - 1 000 ha - annual data (apro_cpp_luse)

Livestock and meat (apro_mt)

Livestock (apro_mt_ls)

Cattle population - annual data (apro_mt_lscatl)

Goats population - annual data (apro_mt_lsgoat)

Sheep population - annual data (apro_mt_lssheep)

Pig population - annual data (apro_mt_lspig)

Dedicated section

• Agri-Environmental Indicators

Methodology / Metadata

• Eurostat/OECD Nutrient Balance Handbook
• Gross nutrient balance (ei_pr_gnb_esms)

Source data for tables, figures and maps (MS Excel)

• Download Excel File 

Other information

• Commission Communication COM(2006)508 final - Development of agri-environmental indicators for monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy
• Agri-Environmental Indicators, see:

Legislation: Commission Staff working document accompanying COM(2006)508 final

External links

• FAO - FAOSTAT
• OECD - Agri-environmental Indicators and Policies
• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
• Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities GPA)
• Our Nutrient World