4       STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NITRATES DIRECTIVE IN LITHUANIA

4.1         Designation of nitrate vulnerable zones

The final timetable and costs for full implementation of the Nitrates Directive will depend on the size of nitrate vulnerable zones, because the requirements of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice, as detailed in Article 4 of the Directive, will become mandatory for farmers living in the zones. This chapter presents scenario for designation of nitrate vulnerable zones in Lithuania. The Nitrates Directive allows countries to make no specific designations of nitrate vulnerable zones in the event that the decision is made to develop an action programme (s) for the whole national territory.

Nitrate vulnerable zones should be designated according to environmental criteria defined in Annex 1 of the Nitrate Directive. The Nitrate Directive requires Member States to designate as vulnerable all territories of land that drain into and contribute to the pollution of:

·        surface or groundwaters which contain more than 50 mg/l nitrates or could contain more than 50 mg/l nitrates if no appropriate action is taken;

·        natural freshwater lakes, other freshwater bodies, estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters that are found to be eutrophic or in the near future may become eutrophic if no  appropriate action is taken;

·        nitrate vulnerable zones in other Member States.

The issues related to designation of nitrate vulnerable zones are further complicated by the fact that the possibility of meeting any of the criteria (50 mg/l nitrate, eutrophication) in the future is enough to make an area vulnerable.

When designating the nitrate vulnerable zones three theoretical options could be considered, as listed below:

1.      The whole country is considered as non-vulnerable

2.      The country is divided in zones of different vulnerability

3.      An Action Programme is developed for the whole territory of Lithuania (The whole country is considered as one vulnerable zone);

Regardless of which option is adopted in the long term, it will be possible to revise the designation of zones every 4 years in accordance with article 3(4) of the directive.

4.1.1        The whole country is considered as non-vulnerable

Option to declare the whole country as non-vulnerable to nitrates pollution must be considered irrelevant for Lithuania and therefore it is not considered further. The reason for this is the high concentrations of nitrate in groundwater already demonstrated in some parts of the country, and the data documenting the high eutrophication of the Curronian Lagoon. The opinion of the countries that have signed the Helsinki Convention is that the Baltic Sea is a eutrophic water body.

4.1.2        Discrete nitrate vulnerable zones

A scenario for discrete nitrate vulnerable zones in Lithuania has to be based at this stage on surface water considerations, as data on groundwater quality and agricultural activity gives insufficiently clear arguments for the designation of discrete zones.

Applying the criteria of the Nitrates Directive, it is recommended to designate as vulnerable:

o       the part of Lithuania draining to the Curronian Lagoon, via Nemunas and tributaries,

o       river basin of direct tributaries of the Baltic Sea;

o       the areas draining into vulnerable zones in Latvia, i.e. areas so designated by Latvian authorities are designated as vulnerable zones. (According to the information received from the Nitrate Project in Latvia[1], the area around Jelgava is to be designated as a vulnerable zone, possibly the only such zone in Latvia).

 The rest of Lithuania is designated as a non-vulnerable zone.

The total area covered by the proposed nitrate vulnerable zones is 91.2 % of the national territory.

The map illustrating this scenario of discrete vulnerable zones is presented below in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1.     Discrete vulnerable zones approach. Map of proposed vulnerable zones in Lithuania (marked in grey).

If it is decided to designate discrete nitrate vulnerable zones in the future, Lithuania will have to present to the EU Commission appropriate documentation demonstrating that nitrate found in shallow wells is caused by non-agricultural sources. Taking into account the size of the population depending on water from the shallow wells it is doubtful whether the currently available documentation is sufficient for the EU Commission to approve argumentation of Lithuania that shallow wells problem is outside the scope of the Nitrate Directive and therefore is to be disregarded.

Monitoring needs 

If the whole territory is designated as vulnerable to nitrates pollution the extent of monitoring will be lower as compared to the “discrete zones” approach, because the Nitrates Directive requires the carrying out of monitoring in order to define boundaries of the vulnerable zones. However, the Directive sets no specific requirements for the number of monitoring stations and frequency of sampling.

The basic monitoring network will be the same regardless of scenario chosen (discrete zones or the whole territory). More detailed description of the basic monitoring network is presented in Section 4.1.3. In the current section additional monitoring requirements imposed by a decision to designate discrete nitrate vulnerable zones are discussed.

If the “discrete zones” approach is chosen, it will be necessary to set up specific monitoring programmes, not only in areas defined as non-vulnerable, but also in vulnerable zones, all with the aim of identifying the sources of nitrate in the upper aquifers.

Only when the causes of the shallow wells problem outlined in Chapter 2 have been identified will it be possible to decide whether the upper aquifer can be disregarded and defined as being outside the scope of the Nitrate Directive. If indeed the nitrate in the shallow wells is a consequence of agricultural practices, then the upper aquifer must be considered vulnerable nation-wide and it will not be possible to exclude any areas of significant size in the zones defined above as non-vulnerable.

The first step however, should be mapping of the upper aquifer, in order to clarify whether there are high nitrate concentrations inside or outside the non-vulnerable zone, and to identify the opti­mal location of monitoring stations. It is estimated that 50-60 shallow wells (new and existing) in a 15 km net could give a reasonable basis for decisions.

Monitoring in these wells need only to be repeated every 4 years, and in case the nitrate concentrations are below 25 mg/l, a period of 8 years will fulfil the requirements of the directive, cf. Article 6(1). In case it is demonstrated that nitrates in the upper aquifers are not a problem, the number of monitoring stations including deeper aquifers can be reduced.

If the “discrete zones” approach is chosen, a more accurate surface water monitoring network is also needed, compared to the scenario where the whole country is appointed as vulnerable. The network shall make it possible to monitor the evolution in the loss of nitrate from the catchment areas that constitute the non-vulnerable zones. It is estimated that in addition to the monitoring network needed for the “whole country as vulnerable zone”-scenario, stations for monitoring the transport of nitrogen/nitrate are needed for each 500 km² of non-vulnerable zone, and a monitoring station in a lake for each 5000 km² non-vulnerable zone.

4.1.3        Action programme is developed for the whole territory of Lithuania

The approach of establishing and applying Action Programmes throughout the whole national territory of Lithuania eliminates the need to identify specific vulnerable zones, in accordance with article 3(5) of the Nitrates Directive.

This approach will be the most efficient way to manage the environmental quality of shallow wells and the Baltic Sea, as outlined in the table below:

Table 4.1         Criteria for identification of nitrate vulnerable zones in Lithuania

Monitoring needs

If the whole territory of Lithuania is designated as one vulnerable zone, the present monitoring programme can be said to cover the immediate needs regarding documentation.

However, if the effects of future Action Programmes are to be monitored, the monitoring of especially shallow groundwater is insufficient. Around 25 % of the wells in the national monitoring programme are shallow (less than 10 m deep), but given the relatively small monitoring programme in 1997(1998) of 30(33) stations with 86(93) monitoring wells this amounts only to some 20 wells, which is not much on the 65,200 km² of land.

To compare with the other countries the number of monitoring stations should be increased to at least 0.25 per 100 km², which corresponds to 163 wells. This would mean that approximately 80 additional wells should be established within a period of time.

According to the Geological Survey it would be possible to take samples from the wells where only the water level is observed at the moment, if this were to be considered necessary. In this case already at present 39 locations with 192 wells in 7 different aquifers could be sampled, using the existing number of wells. This possibility does not take into consideration the suitability and location of the wells.

Without compromising the requirements of the Nitrate Directive the frequency of sampling and analysing may be reduced from the present 1-2 times per year, to once every second year or even less in areas with steady conditions. Thus the annual running costs need not be higher than at present, once the additional wells have been included in the programme.

The stations already in Lithuania’s national net for trans-boundary pollution cover most of the area. There is however considered to be a need to evaluate the number of  stations for measuring nitrogen transport out of agriculture-dominated sub-catchments in the area, and for nature reference catchments. The monitoring of lakes has to be intensified to show the state and tendency in eutrophication in lakes with catchments dominated by agriculture and reference lakes with nature dominated catchment areas. The monitoring of the Curronian Lagoon has to be evaluated in order to show a picture as clear as possible of its eutrophication status and the role of nitrate in its eutrophication.

Summary Analysis of available data indicates that Nitrates Directive in Lithuania can be implemented under both scenarios: by designating discrete nitrate vulnerable zones or by applying action programme for the whole territory of Lithuania. For the discrete vulnerable zone scenario it is recommended to designate as vulnerable 91.2% of the national territory, namely: Nemunas river basin, river basin of direct tributaries of the Baltic Sea and Musa-Nemunelis river basin.

Designation of discrete nitrate vulnerable zones will reduce costs for application of environmental measures in agriculture, but on the other hand it will increase monitoring and administration. Reports submitted to the EU Commission will need to be more detail. The decision to develop an Action Programme for the whole territory of Lithuania is recommended, and can always be changed in the future.

Regardless of the strategy eventually chosen in the long term, it is recommended to continue investigations into the sources of pollution of the shallow dug wells and to develop action programme for improvement of their water quality. If it is decided to designate discrete vulnerable zones these investigations should be more detail.

4.2         Priorities for implementation

Priorities for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania should be defined according to the objectives specified in the directive and taking into account specific Lithuanian conditions. The objectives specified in the Nitrates Directive are as follows:

1.      to reduce water pollution caused or induced by nitrates from agricultural sources;

2.      to prevent further such pollution.

In Lithuania present agricultural pressure on the environment in terms of livestock density and use of fertilisers is generally low. Although there may be some local problems caused by pollution from animal breeding farms (“hot spots”). Therefore, in contrast to majority of EU Member states, implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania should focus on elimination of the “hot spots” and implementation of prevention measures to ensure that pollution does not increase when agriculture recovers. Appropriate measures should also be taken to eliminate pollution form the “hot spots”. Implementation of Nitrates Directive in Lithuania should not result in reduction of present livestock density.

When implementing the Nitrates Directive and developing prevention measures, care should be taken to define and enforce environmental requirements for newly established or expanding farms. These activities should ensure that the recovery of agriculture in the future will have a minimum impact on the environment. When providing financing for environmental investment projects it is of crucial importance to develop a system for the selection of clearly viable farms that will be able to compete in the future. It is recommended to priority to the farms that are expanding production and investing in modernisation of technologies.

The following priorities should be established when developing the action programmes for implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania:

Top priority: Elimination of point pollution from the large animal farms “hot spots”. 

Top priority actions should include:

·        establishment of manure storage and handling facilities (including manure spreaders) according to that described in Article 5.4 and Annex III of the Nitrates Directive;

·        enforcement of requirements on area of land used for manure spreading, according to that described in Article 5.4 and Annex III of the Nitrates Directive;

Top priority actions should be concentrated on farms with more than 300 LU (it is recommended to carry out the activities in several stages based on the size of the farms). Before allocating financing for environmental investment projects in big animal breeding farms it is strongly recommended to conduct a detailed business analysis of the profitability of the farms and their ability to compete in the future.

Second priority: Implementation of preventive measures and training.

In line with Article 4.1a) of the Nitrates Directive, second priority actions should focus on the enforcement of measures of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice, (including measures which will become mandatory under Action Programmes according to Article 5 of the Directive) aiming to prevent pollution of waters, through such controls as timing for land application of certain types of fertilisers, establishment and maintenance of protection strips around water bodies, crop rotation systems etc. and not entailing big investments. The actions should also include the definition and enforcement of requirements on animal density and manure storage for newly established farms and farms that carry out investment projects and are increasing their animal production. At present the main structural changes are going on in the farmers farm category (majority of these farms are small). Therefore it is not recommended to set any size limit for the support of environmental investment projects, but to analyse business plans of the farms and their perspectives to work steadily in the future.

Second priority measures should also include educational programmes for farmers on implementation of Code of Good Agricultural Practice, in line with Article 4.1b) of the Nitrates Directive.

Third priority: Collection of information.

Third priority actions should include the introduction of a system for collection of statistical information on fertiliser use on farm level from all farm groups (at present very little information is available on fertiliser use in farmer’s farms). By improving the availability of technical data, this priority will allow Action Programmes to take into account a greater volume of technical information, to address Article 5.3 of the Nitrates Directive.

Fourth priority: Reduction of pollution from small farms.

These actions shall mainly concentrate on establishment of manure storage and handling facilities in farms from 10 to 300 LU that do not expand production, in accordance with Article 5.3 and Annex III. It is strongly recommended to carry out a detailed analysis of performance of the farms in order to minimise the risk of investments in the farms that will not be able to compete in the future.

Fifth priority: Special action programmes

Special action programmes should be developed for regions with animal density over 1.5 LU/ha, again incorporating measures in accordance with Article 5.3 and Annex III. Lowest priority was allocated to these activities as they will not be  applicable in near future. At present the maximum animal density is 0.6 LU/ha arable land (calculated on the basis of administrative regions).

The Ministry of Agriculture has already started the enforcement of environmental measures at farm level by setting requirements for farms applying for support from the SAPARD programme. In order to receive the support the farms must demonstrate that they comply with the environmental requirements.

Summary Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania should initially focus on elimination of pollution from the “hot spots” and on prevention measures, which should be applied first in newly established farms and farms that are expanding their animal production. It is recommended to establish these measures within the Action Programmes, drawing on the content of the already-developed Code of Practice. It is also recommended that Action Programmes establish clear criteria for the selection or farms eligible to support for implementation of environmental measures. The criteria should enable the selection of strong farms that would be able to work effectively in the future. It is recommended to give priority to the farms that are expanding their animal production and investing in modernisation of technologies.

It is recommended to implement the requirements of the Nitrates Directive according to the following priorities (listed in order of importance): 

·        Elimination of point pollution from the large animal farms “hot spots”

·        Implementation of preventive measures and training

·        Collection of information

·        Reduction of pollution from small farms

·        Special action programmes

4.3         Costs and benefits to Agriculture of implementation of Nitrates Directive

The costs of the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania should ideally be presented as part of a broader perspective with an assessment of direct and indirect costs and benefits. The economic impact of reduced nitrate pollution and the economic value of the rural job creation due improved management of manure have not been assessed at this stage. The timing for the preparation of a complete study of costs and benefits is indicated in Chapter 6.

The following chapter focuses only on the financial aspects, in a preliminary assessment of costs and benefits for a scenario when Action Programmes are developed for the whole territory of Lithuania. If it is decided to designate separate nitrate vulnerable zones in the longer term, the costs for implementation of the environmental measures will be lower. If it is decided to designate separate nitrate vulnerable zones in the longer term, the costs for implementation of the environmental measures will be lower. However costs for implementation of environmental measures in nitrate vulnerable zones should not be compared to zero costs in non-vulnerable zones, as some of the requirements of a Code of Good Agricultural Practice will need to be implemented in both nitrate vulnerable and non-vulnerable zones. These measures are already established in the national legislation that was developed according to HELCOM recommendations. 

Requirements of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice become mandatory in the nitrate vulnerable zones and must include the specific elements of Annex III of the Directive to remain compliant with Article 5, if it is to be used as a key element of Action Programmes. The following three groups of measures will have financial implications for farmers:

·        Requirements for density of livestock;

·        Change the value of crops in relation to winter green fields requirements; and

·        Investments in manure storage capacity.

Requirements with cost implications for farmers are described below in more detail:

·        green fields should cover 50% of the agricultural land in autumn, winter, and early spring;

·        the amount of livestock manure applied to the land of a farm yearly (including the animals themselves) cannot exceed the determined amount for hectare of utilised agricultural area - 170 kg of nitrogen

·        manure can be spread only during the periods when plants can absorb the nutrients.

These requirements will become obligatory for the farms larger than 10 livestock units.

The following measures will also have cost implications:

·              education of farmers;

·              assurance of good quality and relevant capacity manure and slurry storage at the farm (minimum requirement  - to ensure that capacity is sufficient to store manure for 6 months); 

·              relevant manure and slurry transportation and spreading equipment.

The estimated costs for implementation of the Nitrates Directive are presented below. Present statistical data shows that farmers already comply with two types of requirements, namely requirements regarding winter green fields, and requirements for livestock density per hectare of agricultural land. Hence, there are no financial implications connected with the implementation of these requirements of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice.

4.3.1        Overall costs for implementation

When estimating the consequences of implementation of the Nitrates Directive, we primarily look at the financial consequences for the farmers of complying with a Code of Good Agricultural Practice, one which is also compliant with the mandatory measures in Article 5.

Overall costs for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive (scenario when action programmes are developed for the whole territory of Lithuania) are presented in Table 4.2 below. They are summed of two main groups of costs for two main groups of farms in Lithuania – (1) farmers and household farms and (2) enterprises and partnerships. Where possible two scenarios was evaluated (modern and less modern scenario).

The main differences between these two scenarios are different unit prices for slurry storage facilities and manure spreading equipment. A more detailed methodology for the cost assessment and differences between the modern and less modern scenario is presented in the Box 1.

Table 4.2           Overall estimated costs for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive (million Lt)

As it can be seen from the table, total investments for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive (except monitoring of related activities) amounts to between 757 million Lt and 1.7 billion Lt (or 185 to 415million Euro), including acquisition of modern or not so advanced manure spreaders. If the latter is excluded (and it could be argued that it is not necessary for the Nitrates Directive implementation), investments come to approximately 600 million Lt to 1.1 billion Lt or (or 146 to 268 million Euro[3]). The annualised costs burden amounts to respectively 130 to 230 and 70 to 130 million Lt (32 to 56 and 17 to 32 million Euro).

4.3.2        Total benefits 

Financial benefits are estimated in terms of increased yield and reduced costs of buying chemical nitrogen. The benefits stem from increased availability to the plants of natural nitrogen due to improved nutrient management practices. The estimated total benefits of implementation of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice are presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3        Total benefits from increased yields and saved money for chemical fertilisers after implementation of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice (Lt)

The benefits of implementing the Code are the reduction in loss of nitrogen to the environment as a consequence of improved manure management practices, as well as increased yield for the farmers or reduced costs of procurement of artificial nitrogen. Potential creation of new jobs and increased income for local rural populations should also be regarded as social benefit and detailed in future analyses.

4.3.3        Net annualised costs

The annualised costs, depending on the scenario, range from 71 to 233 million Lt. Therefore, so called net costs become not so considerable and, once again depending on the scenario, could amount to between 3 to 165 million Lt. The preliminary comparison among different cost scenarios and benefits is presented in the following table:

Table 4.4   Net annualised costs (million Lt)

4.3.4         Investment needs at farm level

The figure on the overall costs of implementation of the Nitrates Directive should be used with reservation. The structural and economic situation in the agricultural sector is changing very rapidly with most dramatic changes being seen in the farm group called agricultural enterprises and partnerships – the group with largest farms and the need for major investments. Animal production in this farm group decreased by almost 30% in 1999 alone.

Therefore for the planning of investments and development of Action Programmes it is recommended to use unit costs. The table below presents investment needs per average farm in four major farm size groups. According to the developed Lithuanian Code of Good Agricultural Practice, farmers must ensure that the capacity of manure and slurry storage is sufficient to store manure at least for 6 months. The average farm was defined, using statistical data[4] on grouping of farms, by number of livestock. Only farms larger than 10 livestock units were used for the calculations. More detailed calculations for smaller farms will be covered in later analyses. Method for estimation of average investment costs per farm is presented in Box1.

After consultation with specialists from Agricultural Advisory Service, it was decided to split agricultural enterprises and partnerships into two broad groups: cattle farms and pig farms as agricultural enterprises and partnerships are rather specialised. The majority of farmer’s farms is not specialised and grows both cattle and pigs.

Table 4.5         Estimated average investment costs in manure storage facilities per farm in farm group “agricultural enterprises and partnerships”

According to the Lithuanian Agricultural Service (special enquiry), approximately 40% of the biggest agricultural enterprises already have proper manure storage, and approximately 15% of farmers could have such kind of facilities.

Table 4.6         Estimated average investment costs in manure storage facilities per farm in farm group “farmers farms and household farms”

BOX 1

1: METHOD USED FOR ASSESSMENT OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT COSTS PER FARM

As manure or slurry storage conditions on farms could be different depending on the size and development of a farm, the following assumptions were made in order to estimate required capacities and types of storage and to choose the closest unit cost for the construction:

Based on the above and on the average volumes of manure and slurry produced by one animal given in the draft Code of Good Agricultural practice, the following data on quantities were used for the calculation of deficiencies in manure storage capacities on different farms:

** - Source: Code of Good Agricultural Practice, draft, Kedainiai, 1999

It was assumed that the price 130 Lt per m² for manure pad, 200Lt/m³ for slurry tank (hole together with manure pad) and 400 Lt/m³ for slurry reservoir as suitable for the calculation of costs for manure storage construction. For less modern scenario unit price of 200 Lt/m³ for construction of liquid manure storage was used.

The average farm was defined using statistical data on grouping of farms by number of livestock. Only farms larger than 10 livestock units were used for calculations. Number of livestock in average farm in size groups is presented in table below: 

Investment needs for the average farmers farm and average agricultural enterprise are quite different, even in the same farm size group. This is due to the following reasons: 

·        Within the same farm size group the average farmers farm is much smaller as compared to average agricultural enterprise (see Box 1);

·        Different manure storage practices are used in farmers farms and agricultural enterprises: the average farmers farm will need to build a manure storage facility and slurry tank (typical animal keeping method is a deep litter barn). The average agricultural enterprise will need to build a slurry reservoir (typical animal keeping method is grate floor barns). Assumptions used for the calculations are described in Box 1. When keeping animals on grate floors, large quantities of slurry are produced, therefore investment costs for this type of manure management are higher.

Prices for the manure transporting and spreading equipment are very different depending on the quality and type of the machines. Most popular in Lithuania are the old Russian- produced manure spreaders. As of today most farmers and enterprises can not afford the acquisition of new modern effective spreaders. Therefore, two types of prices were used for calculations - 1) prices for new modern equipment (unit cost 40 000 – 60 000 Litas) and 2) prices for machines produced/upgraded in Lithuania, Latvia or other countries in transition or for used machines (unit cost 10 000 Litas). It should be noted that average prices for solid and liquid manure spreaders do not differ. More detailed analysis is needed to estimate the need for investments for acquisition of manure spreaders. The presentation of these investment costs have depended on type of machinery available, geographical distribution of farms, and willingness of farmers to co-operate. Rough estimates indicate that the total investments needed for the acquisition of manure spreaders is between 143 and 585 million Litas (depending on scenario).

The overall estimated costs for the education of farmers is approximately 24 million Litas. More detailed analysis is needed to estimate education costs at farm level.

Summary. The major costs for the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania are associated with installation of manure storage facilities, acquisition of manure spreaders and education of farmers of practical application of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice. The preliminary cost assessment indicates that investment costs for the installation of manure storage facilities and education of farmers will be approximately 614 million. Lt. The estimated yearly benefits to agriculture from improved manure management is estimated to 66 millions Litas, therefore the annual net cost to agriculture is 5 million Litas. Part of this investment could be subsidised by up to 50% by the SAPARD programme.

The costs of implementation of environmental measures in agriculture will be reduced if separate nitrate vulnerable zones are designated, however costs of environmental measures in nitrate vulnerable zones should not be compared to zero costs in non-vulnerable zones because some measures defined in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice will need to be implemented regardless of vulnerability of the zone. These are the measures already established in national regulations which were developed in line with the HELCOM recommendations.

At present the situation in agricultural sector is changing very rapidly therefore for planning of investments it is recommended to use unit costs (investment costs at farm level). When developing the financing strategy of the Nitrates Directive it is recommended to estimate the long term benefits that farmers will receive due to improved manure management techniques.

4.4         Timing and implementation periods

The specific Lithuanian conditions should be taken into account when implementing the Nitrate Directive. These arguments justify longer implementation periods for some of the measures of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice and Action Programmes: 

·        The high costs of implementation of the requirements of the Nitrates Directive. It was assessed that costs for the establishment of manure storage facilities and education of farmers could be between 614 million and 1.1 billion Litas.

·        The present use of nitrogen in agriculture is several times lower than the limits set in the Nitrates Directive. The average use of nitrogen fertiliser is 10-12 kg and average livestock density is 0.3 animal units per hectare of agricultural land. Measures of implementation of the Nitrates Directive should aim to prevent pollution, therefore a longer implementation period would allow the identification of major problems caused by increases in agricultural production and will better prevent increases in pollution.

·        At present the farm structure in Lithuania is rapidly changing due to privatisation and land reform. Agriculture currently employees 20.5 per cent of the number of people employed in the country and the majority of the farms are small. It is expected that the process will result in fewer but larger farms and changes in farm structure will slow down. Big changes (decreasing number of farms) are also going on in the category of large farms i.e. agricultural enterprises and partnerships. Implementation of the high cost measures (i.e. establishment of manure storage facilities) should be phased in to reflect changes in the structure of the farms and ensure that investments are made on viable farms.

·        A short implementation period will create a number of problems with the administration of subsidies and loans due to large number of farms.

·        Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Lithuania should be co-ordinated with implementation of EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC. The present scale of agricultural activities is rather small and effect of measures to combat diffuse pollution from agricultural sources will be noticeable only after the point source pollution from urban agglomerations is eliminated. Implementation of the requirements of UWWT Directive is foreseen by the year 2015.

The Nitrates Directive in Lithuania should therefore be implemented via two Action Programmes. This approach will best reflect the dual objective of the Directive and will enable to follow development of Lithuanian agriculture.

The first action programme shall focus on the prevention of pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources. It should cover all farms located in the vulnerable zones above 10 livestock units and should aim to implement low cost preventive measures defined in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice. The list of measures to be established in the first four year Action Programme may include: establishment and maintenance of protection strips around water bodies, limitation of livestock density, limitation of application of fertilisers including prohibition to spread manure on frozen land, limitation of fertilisation on steep slopes, requirements for green cover during the winter time etc. The first Action Programme shall also aim to eliminate point pollution from large animal farms or “hot spots”. In addition to preventive measures these priority farms should also implement measures regarded as high cost measures (i.e. establishment of manure and slurry storage and handling facilities).

The first Action Programme should be followed by a second four year Action Programme, which should aim to continue enforcement of the mandatory requirements of the Directive in all farms larger than 10 LU.

When enforcing the high cost mandatory requirements of Article 5 of the Directive (i.e. establishment of manure storage and handling facilities) in farms located in vulnerable zones it is recommended to concentrate on strong farms and farms that are carrying out the investment projects and expanding their animal production. Implementation of the mandatory measures in the small farms and farms that are not expanding should be postponed. The proposed timetable would be synchronised with the timetable for implementation of the requirements of UWWTD and to fit best the changing structure of the farms.

Requirements of the Nitrates Directive are therefore proposed to be implemented according to the following timetable: 

The detailed scheme for implementation of the Nitrates Directive is presented in Chapter 6.

[1] Information received December 1999 from Lars Lundholm Hyttel, Project Leader of the project on Long-term Assistance in the transposition and implementation of the Nitrates Directive, running in Latvia.

[2] Calculated simply by dividing total investments by 11 years (until the deadline for planned implementation of EU requirements – end of 2012)

[3] 1 euro=4.1Lt (January 1999)

[4] Number of Livestock in Lithuania 2000.01.01 publication of the Statistical Department of Lithuania No B523. Vilnius 2000