Team:Groningen/Human Practices
Human Practices
Introduction
As described on our landing page and project description page the Dutch nitrogen crisis is a complicated problem, with various needs opposing each other (environmental, economical and food-security) and different actors who have very different interests. Finding a fitting solution to the Dutch nitrogen crisis is therefore no easy task, considering that not only does the problem consist of multiple facets, but also the people affected by the problem and possible solutions consist of multiple diverse groups.
It is therefore important that anyone, including us, who is trying to contribute to a solution to this problem, studies the problem and the affected groups in both deepening and broadening research. Especially for (starting) scientists it is important that they step out of the 'ivory tower', and look at the problem they are tackling from outside the lab: it is important that they actively engage with how and IF their solution would work in 'the real world', outside the lab. Only then can a solution be developed that actually addresses the problem; that is actually wanted by and feasible for the people involved in the problem and the solution; and that is responsible, good and safe for use outside the lab.
Throughout the iGEM season, our team has therefore actively engaged in exploring both the problem, and the actors involved in the problem and possible solutions. We have looked at various ethical, economic, environmental, safety and sustainability aspects of our project: not only by consulting literature, but also by actively engaging with people in the field. In addition, over the span of several months, we completed an extensive brainstorming tool to gain more insight into the needs and problems, safety, future, stakeholders and alternatives for our project. Moreover, to ensure the safety of our project even further, we have included several Safe-by-Design principles in our project. Moreover, we created templates that future iGEM teams can use in their Human Practices work to responsibly engage with stakeholders and be more environmentally friendly in the lab. And lastly, we have collaborated with other iGEM teams on their Human Practices work. All to ensure that BYE-MONIA is responsible, good and safe for everyone.
On this Human Practices page, we talk about all the different things we did to research whether BYE-MONIA is responsible, safe and good for the world. On our Integrated Human Practices page, we talk about how we then used this information to adjust our project so that BYE-MONIA is actually responsible, safe and good for the world. All leading to us proposing to use BYE-MONIA as described on our implementation page.
Scope of the problem
Introduction
By consulting literature we have tried to get a first indication of the scope of the Dutch nitrogen crisis and do in depth research on the Dutch nitrogen crisis. Before work can be done on a solution to the problem, it must be understood how big the problem actually is and whether the problem is actually a problem. A first summary of the results of this research can be found on our project description page. On this page we will discuss the problem in more detail.
Nitrogen emission
The first step of our background research was to investigate which nitrogen-containing compounds are important in the Dutch nitrogen crisis and whether the emissions of these compounds are and have always been too high.
We soon found that, as stated in the project description page, the Netherlands emits too many nitrogen-containing compounds [1], and that this can be harmful to both people and the environment [2][3][4]. And although the Netherlands has succeeded in reducing these emissions substantially over the past few years, the decline in emissions has stagnated around 2013, see Figure 1.
There are two (classes of) nitrogen-containing compounds that are part of the nitrogen crisis: ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) [2]. Nitrogen oxides emissions include emissions of nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) [5]. As shown in Figure 2, ammonia emissions nearly completely originate from agriculture and the decline in emissions has stagnated around 2010. In outdoor air, the ammonia concentration is almost never high enough to be harmful to human health [2]. As shown on Figure 3, nitrogen oxide emissions originate mainly from traffic and emissions continue to decline. When the concentration of nitrogen oxides in the air is too high, it is harmful to human health. People with lung problems and asthma are particularly affected [2].
Nitrogen deposition
We then used literature to investigate why these nitrogen-containing compounds, or rather their deposition, is so harmful to nature and if there is a difference between the deposition of ammonia and nitrogen oxides.
We found that, as described on the project description page, excess deposition of ammonia in nitrogen-sensitive nature areas can harm biodiversity and the quality of habitats in these areas through acidification and eutrophication [6]. When nitrogen oxides deposit in excess in nitrogen-sensitive nature areas, they can also have adverse effects on these nature areas [2]. However, deposition of nitrogen oxides varies a bit from deposition of ammonia. As can be seen in Figure 4, most of the nitrogen deposition in the Netherlands is due to the deposition of ammonia, in the form of reduced nitrogen. Moreover, the acidifying effect of ammonia deposition is almost triple the acidifying effect of nitrogen oxide deposition: The statistical office of the European Union (Eurostat) expresses various air pollutants in equivalents of another air pollutant and ammonia is expressed in 1.9 SO2 equivalents, whereas NOx is expressed in 0.7 SO2 equivalents [7]. Therefore, the total Dutch deposition of ammonia has a bigger eutrophying and acidifying effect than the total Dutch deposition of nitrogen oxides.
We also learned that the limit above which there is a risk that the quality of the habitat will significantly be affected by the acidifying and/or eutrophication influence of (atmospheric) nitrogen deposition is called the “critical load for nitrogen deposition” [8]. To put the Dutch nitrogen crisis in perspective, in 2016, 70%of nature areas in the Netherlands exceeded limits for nitrogen [1]. Moreover, during the 2016-2019 period, 13% of the Dutch water bodies reported poor quality and exceeded the nitrate concentration norm [1].
Nitrogen deposition in Natura 2000 areas
During our literature review, we noticed that Natura 2000 areas were often mentioned in the discussion of the nitrogen crisis. We therefore paid extra attention to finding out what these areas are and what excess nitrogen deposition means for these areas.
We learned that Natura 2000 is “the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world”. Natura 2000 areas therefore form “a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right”. The Natura 2000 network stretches across all 27 countries within the European Union and covers areas both on land and at sea. The aim of the network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats [9]. As of December 2020, 15% of the land area of the Netherlands belongs to the Natura 2000 network (EU average: 17.46%) [10]. From the 160 Dutch Natura2000 areas (in 2018), 118 were considered to be nitrogen-sensitive areas, based on the presence of at least one nitrogen-sensitive habitat type or the nitrogen-sensitive habitat for species [11]. The European Commission therefore stated that “The high deposition of nitrogen in Natura 2000 areas (above the critical deposition value) requires further efforts in order to protect and restore biodiversity in nature reserves and on farmland” [1].
NEC guidelines for nitrogen emissions
After investigating which nitrogen-containing compounds are harmful to nature and why, we examined how much of these compounds is actually too much. In other words, we looked into if guidelines have been established on how much ammonia and nitrogen oxides can be emitted.
We found that, to counteract the harmful effects of nitrogen emissions, international emission ceilings have been set for how much each country can emit. The emission ceilings (National Emission Ceilings (NEC)) set for 2010 were intended to reduce the area of Europe affected by acidification by at least half and to reduce the ozone load (which can be formed from NOx emissions) for humans. In 2016 new NEC guidelines were published for 2020. These guidelines are based on agreements made in the Gothenburg Protocol, which applies (at least) to the member states of the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, Croatia and Belarus [13].
In 2010, the Netherlands was allowed to emit a maximum of 128 kilotons of ammonia according to the Dutch NEC. Of this, 122 kilotons were actually emitted, therefore achieving the 2010 NEC. In 2020, the Netherlands was allowed to emit a maximum of 123 kilotons of ammonia according to the Gothenburg ceiling. It is not yet known whether this ceiling has been met, since the most recent numbers on Dutch ammonia emissions are from 2019. However, if planned policy were to be followed the Netherlands would theoretically have emitted 119 kilotons of ammonia in 2020, thus also meeting the 2020 Gothenburg ceiling [13]. However, as can be seen in Figure 6, total Dutch ammonia emissions have increased again since (approximately) 2013. As a result, the 2010 Dutch NEC was no longer met in 2019, and more action is needed to initiate a decline in ammonia emissions to meet the 2020 Gothenburg ceiling. The European commission then also stated that: “The Netherlands has been found to be at high risk of non-compliance with the ammonia emission reduction commitments for both 2020-2029 and for 2030 and beyond[1].
Nitrogen emissions from agriculture
Our next step was to examine whether it is correct and fair that agriculture is often mentioned in the discussion of the nitrogen crisis. More specifically, is it indeed agriculture that causes most of the ammonia emissions? And how big is the share of ammonia emissions caused by cows?
We discovered that, as can also be seen in Figure 7, most of the Dutch ammonia emissions indeed originate from Agriculture. Within Dutch agriculture, most ammonia emissions originate from farmed animals, more specifically cattle, as can be seen in Figure 7. In 2019, the Netherlands emitted 125.8 kilotons of ammonia in total, of which 85.45% (107.5 kilotons) originated from agriculture alone. From the total Dutch ammonia emissions, 74.55% (93.79 kilotons) originated from farmed animals and 49.32% (62.04 kilotons) originated from cattle alone [14].
Moreover, as can be seen in Figure 8, in the entirety of the 27 member states of the European Union, Agriculture, forestry and fishing are the main cause of ammonia emissions (in SO2 equivalents) [15].
Comparing the Netherlands
Since we ourselves knew the nitrogen crisis only as a Dutch problem, we decided to investigate whether this was the case. We therefore used the literature to investigate how much nitrogen and ammonia other European countries emit and how many natural areas they had that were vulnerable to excessive nitrogen deposition (using Natura 2000 areas as a yardstick). At the end we compared this with the same data from the Netherlands. The most important data we found is displayed in Figure 9, which is available (with even more data) in PDF format for download in the link below Figure 9.
Our main conclusions were that, when comparing the Netherlands to other European countries, the Dutch nitrogen surplus is four times the average of the European Union [1]. Moreover, as can be seen in Figure 9, the Netherlands has the second highest ammonia production per square kilometer of land area compared to other (partially) European countries. Moreover, when comparing the ammonia production per square kilometer of each country to the surface area of the country that is covered by Natura 2000 areas (which are, as explained above, generally sensitive to nitrogen), the Netherlands is still in the top 3 of several (partially) European countries. However, it is important to mention that this benchmark is not perfect for comparing the severity of the situation in different countries, considering that also other nature areas can be sensitive to excess ammonia deposition; that ammonia emitted by foreign countries can also be deposited in national Natura 2000 areas and that not necessarily all emitted ammonia will deposit in the national Natura 2000 areas. Lastly, it is notable that ammonia production per capita is not significantly higher in the Netherlands compared to other (partially) European countries.