Hans van Grinsven

Summary for policy makers

Over the past century humans have caused unprecedented • changes to the global nitrogen cycle, converting atmospheric di-nitrogen (N 2 ) into many reactive nitrogen (N r ) forms, doubling the total fi xation of N r globally and more than tripling it in Europe. Th e increased use of N • r as fertilizer allows a growing world population, but has considerable adverse eff ects on the environment and human health. Five key societal threats of N r can be identifi ed: to water quality, air quality, greenhouse balance, ecosystems and biodiversity, and soil quality. Cost–benefi t analysis highlights how the overall environ• mental costs of all N r losses in Europe (estimated at €70–€320 billion per year at current rates) outweigh the direct economic benefi ts of N r in agriculture. Th e highest societal costs are associated with loss of air quality and water quality, linked to impacts on ecosystems and especially on human health.

The European nitrogen assessment : sources, effects and policy perspectives

In what case do you like reading so much? What about the type of the the european nitrogen assessment book? The needs to read? Well, everybody has their own reason why should read some books. Mostly, it will relate to their necessity to get knowledge from the book and want to read just to get entertainment. Novels, story book, and other entertaining books become so popular this day. Besides, the scientific books will also be the best reason to choose, especially for the students, teachers, doctors, businessman, and other professions who are fond of reading.New updated! The latest book from a very famous author finally comes out. Book of the european nitrogen assessment, as an amazing reference becomes what you need to get. Whats for is this book? Are you still thinking for what the book is? Well, this is what you probably will get. You should have made proper choices for your better life. Book, as a source that may involve the facts, opinion, literature, religion, and many others are the great friends to join with.List of contributors Preface Summary for policymakers Technical summary 1. Assessing our nitrogen inheritance Part I. Nitrogen in Europe: The Present Position: 2. The European nitrogen problem in a global perspective 3. Benefits of nitrogen for food fibre and industrial production 4. Nitrogen in current European policies 5. The challenge to integrate nitrogen science and policies Part II. Nitrogen Processing in the Biosphere: 6. Nitrogen processes in terrestrial ecosystems 7. Nitrogen processes in aquatic ecosystems 8. Nitrogen processes in coastal and marine ecosystems 9. Nitrogen processes in the atmosphere Part III. Nitrogen Flows and Fate at Multiple Scales: 10. Nitrogen flows in farming systems across Europe 11. Nitrogen flows and fate in rural landscapes 12. Nitrogen flows and fate in urban landscapes 13. Nitrogen flows from European watersheds to coastal marine waters 14. Atmospheric transport and deposition of nitrogen in Europe 15. Geographic variation in terrestrial nitrogen budgets across Europe 16. Integrating nitrogen fluxes at the European scale Part IV. Key Societal Threats of Nitrogen: 17. Nitrogen as a threat to European water quality 18. Nitrogen as a threat to European air quality 19. Nitrogen as a threat to the European greenhouse balance 20. Nitrogen as a threat to European terrestrial biodiversity 21. Nitrogen as a threat to European soil quality Part V. European Nitrogen Policies and Future Challenges: 22. Costs and benefits of nitrogen in the environment 23. Developing integrated approaches to nitrogen management 24. Future scenarios of nitrogen in Europe 25. Coordinating European nitrogen policies between directives and international conventions 26. Societal choice and communicating the European nitrogen challenge Glossary Index.

When Does Nitrate Become a Risk for Humans

Is nitrate harmful to humans? Are the current limits for nitrate concentration in drinking water justified by science? There is substantial disagreement among scientists over the interpretation of evidence on the issue. There are two main health issues: the linkage between nitrate and (i) infant methaemoglobinaemia, also known as blue baby syndrome, and (ii) cancers of the digestive tract. The evidence for nitrate as a cause of these serious diseases remains controversial. On one hand there is evidence that shows there is no clear association between nitrate in drinking water and the two main health issues with which it has been linked, and there is even evidence emerging of a possible benefit of nitrate in cardiovascular health. There is also evidence of nitrate intake giving protection against infections such as gastroenteritis. Some scientists suggest that there is sufficient evidence for increasing the permitted concentration of nitrate in drinking water without increasing risks to human health. However, subgroups within a population may be more susceptible than others to the adverse health effects of nitrate. Moreover, individuals with increased rates of endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are likely to be susceptible to the development of cancers in the digestive system. Given the lack of consensus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive, independent study to determine whether the current nitrate limit for drinking water is scientifically justified or whether it could safely be raised.

Review of sixteen forest-soil-atmosphere models

Abstract The principles and characteristics of sixteen forest-soil-atmosphere models, describing the flows of water, carbon and nutrients in a forest ecosystem were compared. This comparison addresses technical aspects of model implementation and system discretisation, as well as the nature of the included processes. A large variety of integrated models exists, but only a few of them are ‘well-balanced’, describing all aspects of the forest ecosystem with a comparable level of detail. As a result, only a few models can be used to assess effects of air pollution and acid deposition on forest growth. There is considerable agreement with respect to the description of the water cycle and geochemical processes; differences result mainly from different levels of process aggregation. There is no general agreement on the description of the nutrient cycle. Models differ most with respect to nutrient uptake and nutrient (re)allocation in the plant. It is impossible to develop simple lumped models for regional, policy-oriented applications, without a well-based strategy for simplification. Therefore, simple models should always be backed up by more detailed mechanistic models, which can be tested against field observations. Only a few models are well-documented and available to others. The lack of concise and adequate model documentation hampers model exchange and may lead to unnecessary development of new models. Therefore, model documentation must be given high priority.

Nitrogen and biofuels; an overview of the current state of knowledge

Biofuels are forms of energy (heat, power, transport fuels or chemicals) based on different kinds of biomass. There is much discussion on the availability of different biomass sources for bioenergy application and on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional fossil fuels. There is much less discussion on the other effects of biomass such as the acceleration of the nitrogen cycle through increased fertilizer use resulting in losses to the environment and additional emissions of oxidized nitrogen. This paper provides an overview of the state of knowledge on nitrogen and biofuels. Increasing biofuel production touch upon several sustainability issues for which reason sustainability criteria are being developed for biomass use. We propose that these criteria should include the disturbance of the nitrogen cycle for biomass options that require additional fertilizer inputs. Optimization of the nitrogen use efficiency and the development of second generation technologies will help fulfill the sustainability criteria.

Costs and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation.

Cost-benefit analysis can be used to provide guidance for emerging policy priorities in reducing nitrogen (N) pollution. This paper provides a critical and comprehensive assessment of costs and benefits of the various flows of N on human health, ecosystems and climate stability in order to identify major options for mitigation. The social cost of impacts of N in the EU27 in 2008 was estimated between €75-485 billion per year. A cost share of around 60% is related to emissions to air. The share of total impacts on human health is about 45% and may reflect the higher willingness to pay for human health than for ecosystems or climate stability. Air pollution by nitrogen also generates social benefits for climate by present cooling effects of N containing aerosol and C-sequestration driven by N deposition, amounting to an estimated net benefit of about €5 billion/yr. The economic benefit of N in primary agricultural production ranges between €20-80 billion/yr and is lower than the annual cost of pollution by agricultural N which is in the range of €35-230 billion/yr. Internalizing these environmental costs would lower the optimum annual N-fertilization rate in Northwestern Europe by about 50 kg/ha. Acknowledging the large uncertainties and conceptual issues of our cost-benefit estimates, the results support the priority for further reduction of NH3 and NOx emissions from transport and agriculture beyond commitments recently agreed in revision of the Gothenburg Protocol.

Does the evidence about health risks associated with nitrate ingestion warrant an increase of the nitrate standard for drinking water

Several authors have suggested that it is safe to raise the health standard for nitrate in drinking water, and save money on measures associated with nitrate pollution of drinking water resources. The major argument has been that the epidemiologic evidence for acute and chronic health effects related to drinking water nitrate at concentrations near the health standard is inconclusive. With respect to the chronic effects, the argument was motivated by the absence of evidence for adverse health effects related to ingestion of nitrate from dietary sources. An interdisciplinary discussion of these arguments led to three important observations. First, there have been only a few well-designed epidemiologic studies that evaluated ingestion of nitrate in drinking water and risk of specific cancers or adverse reproductive outcomes among potentially susceptible subgroups likely to have elevated endogenous nitrosation. Positive associations have been observed for some but not all health outcomes evaluated. Second, the epidemiologic studies of cancer do not support an association between ingestion of dietary nitrate (vegetables) and an increased risk of cancer, because intake of dietary nitrate is associated with intake of antioxidants and other beneficial phytochemicals. Third, 2–3 % of the population in Western Europe and the US could be exposed to nitrate levels in drinking water exceeding the WHO standard of 50 mg/l nitrate, particularly those living in rural areas. The health losses due to this exposure cannot be estimated. Therefore, we conclude that it is not possible to weigh the costs and benefits from changing the nitrate standard for drinking water and groundwater resources by considering the potential consequences for human health and by considering the potential savings due to reduced costs for nitrate removal and prevention of nitrate pollution.

The European Nitrogen Assessment: Costs and benefits of nitrogen in the environment

Single issue policies have been an effective means of reducing reactive nitrogen (N_r) emissions in the EU, but to make further reductions more-integrated approaches are required.

The European Nitrogen Problem in a Global Perspective

Nature of the problem Reactive nitrogen has both positive and negative eff ects on ecosystems and human health. Reactive nitrogen is formed through the • use of fossil fuels releasing large amounts of nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere and through the production of ammonia by the Haber–Bosch process and using it in agriculture to increase our food, feed and fuel production. While the use of nitrogen as a fertilizer and chemical product has brought enormous benefi ts, losses of fertilizer nitrogen and combustion nitrogen to the environment lead to many side eff ects on human health, ecosystem health, biodiversity and climate.

Nitrogen processes in aquatic ecosystems

Nature of the problem * Freshwater ecosystems play a key role in the European nitrogen (N) cycle, both as a reactive agent that transfers, stores and processes N loadings from the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems, and as a natural environment severely impacted by the increase of these loadings. Approaches * This chapter is a review of major processes and factors controlling N transport and transformations for running waters, standing waters, groundwaters and riparian wetlands. Key findings/state of knowledge * The major factor controlling N processes in freshwater ecosystems is the residence time of water, which varies widely both in space and in time, and which is sensitive to changes in climate, land use and management. * The effects of increased N loadings to European freshwaters include acidifi cation in semi-natural environments, and eutrophication in more disturbed ecosystems, with associated loss of biodiversity in both cases. * An important part of the nitrogen transferred by surface waters is in the form of organic N, as dissolved organic N (DON) and particulate organic N (PON). Th is part is dominant in semi-natural catchments throughout Europe and remains a signifi cant component of the total N load even in nitrate enriched rivers. * In eutrophicated standing freshwaters N can be a factor limiting or co-limiting biological production, and control of both N and phosphorus (P) loading is oft en needed in impacted areas, if ecological quality is to be restored. Major uncertainties/challenges * The importance of storage and denitrifi cation in aquifers is a major uncertainty in the global N cycle, and controls in part the response of catchments to land use or management changes. In some aquifers, the increase of N concentrations will continue for decades even if efficient mitigation measures are implemented now. * Nitrate retention by riparian wetlands has oft en been highlighted. However, their use for mitigation must be treated with caution, since their effectiveness is difficult to predict, and side eff ects include increased DON emissions to adjacent open waters, N2O emissions to the atmosphere, and loss of biodiversity. * In fact, the character and specifi c spatial origins of DON are not fully understood, and similarly the quantitative importance of indirect N2O emissions from freshwater ecosystems as a result of N leaching losses from agricultural soils is still poorly known at the regional scale. * These major uncertainties remain due to the lack of adequate monitoring (all forms of N at a relevant frequency), especially - but not only - in the southern and eastern EU countries. Recommendations * The great variability of transfer pathways, buffering capacity and sensitivity of the catchments and of the freshwater ecosystems calls for site specific mitigation measures rather than standard ones applied at regional to national scale. * The spatial and temporal variations of the N forms, the processes controlling the transport and transformation of N within freshwaters, require further investigation if the role of N in infl uencing freshwater ecosystem health is to be better understood, underpinning the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive for European freshwaters.