Main authors: Birgitte Hansen, Hyojin Kim, Rikke Krogshave Laursen
FAIRWAYiS Editor: Jane Brandt
Source documents: »Oenema, O. et al. 2018. Review of measures to decrease nitrate pollution of drinking water sources. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.1, 125 pp
»Commelin, M. et al. 2018. Review of measures to decrease pesticide pollution of drinking water sources. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.2, 79 pp
»Velthof, G. et al. 2020. Identification of most promising measures and practices. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.3, 72 pp

 

One of FAIRWAY's major research themes is the identification and assessment of most promising measures and practices to decrease nitrate and pesticide pollution of drinking water supplies by agriculture (see »Farming practices: review and assessment).

Data and information collected from the Island Tunø and Aalborg case studies was used in the research tasks as described here.


Contents table
1. Measures to decrease nitrate pollution
2. Measures to decrease pesticide pollution
3. Effectiveness of nitrate and pesticide measures

1. Measures to decrease nitrate pollution

In »Review of measures to decrease nitrate pollution of drinking water sources we describe how FAIRWAY built on insights and results gathered in EU-wide and global projects and studies. We provide an overview and assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of measures aimed at decreasing nitrate pollution of drinking water sources. As part of the review, the Island Tunø and Aalborg case studies provided information about the measures that have been implemented in the local area.

Name of measure IPM, precision farming and timing
Target Quality groundwater resources
Description Spatial and temporal targeted nitrate and pesticides application 
Mode of action Reduction and application of the most effective legal pesticides in minimal amounts 
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load 
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha 
Underpinning Yes (> 5 reports) 
Applicability Unknown 
Adoptability Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees) 
Other benefits Yes, decreases greenhouse gas emissions 
Disadvantages Labour consuming 
References http://www.endure-network.eu/endure_publications/papers_in_scientific_journals2 
Additional comments References are written in Danish
Name of measure Legal measures
Target Quality groundwater resources 
Description Manure is not allowed to be used in the autumn. Combined with quotes on nitrogen application and high utilisation of organic manure. 
Mode of action Reduction of nitrate leaching 
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load 
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha 
Underpinning Yes (> 5 reports)
Applicability Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land) 
Adoptability Yes (more than 75% of the addressees) 
Other benefits Yes, decreases greenhouse gas emissions, reduction in energy consumptions  
Disadvantages Increased management requirements 
References  
Additional comments  
Name of measure Cover crops 
Target Quality groundwater resources 
Description Between 10 - 35 % of the farm area must be sowed with cover crops 
Mode of action Modification of pollution pathway 
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load
Expected cost High: 50-100 euro per ha 
Underpinning Yes (> 5 reports) 
Applicability Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) 
Adoptability Yes (more than 75% of the addressees) 
Other benefits No 
Disadvantages cost 
References  
Additional comments The cost varies based on the farm types 
Name of measure Restriction in farming system 
Target Quality groundwater resources 
Description Agreement on no pesticide use and reduction of nitrogen leaching 
Mode of action Reduction 
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load 
Expected cost Very high: >100 euro per ha 
Underpinning Unknown 
Applicability No (on <25% of the agricultural land) 
Adoptability No (on <25% of the addressees)
Other benefits Benefits for the water quality but none for the farmers 
Disadvantages Decrease in crop yield, causes problems for the management of the farm 
References  
Additional comments One-off payment 

2. Measures to decrease pesticide pollution

In »Review of measures to decrease pesticide pollution of drinking water sources we describe how FAIRWAY also built on insights and results gathered in EU-wide and global projects and studies. We provide an overview and assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of measures aimed at decreasing pesticide pollution of drinking water sources. Again, as part of the review, the Island Tunø and Aalborg case studies provided an overview of the measures that have been implemented in the local area.

Name of measure Legal measures
Target Quality groundwater resources
Description Farmers cannot use pesticides which will exceed the treshold of 0,1 µg / l.
Mode of action Substitution of contaminant input
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha
Underpinning Yes (> 5 reports)
Applicability Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land)
Adoptability Yes (more than 75% of the addressees)
Other benefits No
Disadvantages No
References Rosenbom, et al. 2016: http://pesticidvarsling.dk/xpdf/vap-results-99-16.pdf
Additional comments References are written in Danish
Name of measure Economic measure
Target Quality groundwater resources
Description Variable tax on different pesticides depending on their impact on the environment
Mode of action Reducing the application of the worst pesticides
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load
Expected cost Moderate: 10-50 euro per ha
Underpinning Partly (1-5 reports)
Applicability Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land)
Adoptability Yes (more than 75% of the addressees)
Other benefits Other environmental effects and human health
Disadvantages  
References  
Additional comments  
Name of measure IPM, precision farming and timing 
Target Quality groundwater resources
Description Spatial and temporal targeted nitrate and pesticides application
Mode of action Reduction and application of the most effective legal pesticides in minimal amounts
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha
Underpinning Yes (> 5 reports)
Applicability Unknown
Adoptability Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees)
Other benefits Yes, decreases greenhouse gas emissions
Disadvantages Labour consuming
References http://www.endure-network.eu/endure_publications/papers_in_scientific_journals2
Additional comments References are written in Danish
Name of measure Restriction in farming system
Target Quality groundwater resources
Description Agreement on no pesticide use and reduction of nitrogen leaching
Mode of action Reduction
Expected effectiveness High: >25% decrease in concentration/load
Expected cost Very high: >100 euro per ha
Underpinning Unknown
Applicability No (on <25% of the agricultural land)
Adoptability No (on <25% of the addressees)
Other benefits Benefits for the water quality but none for the farmers
Disadvantages Decrease in crop yield, causes problems for the management of the farm
References  
Additional comments One-off payment

3. Effectiveness of nitrate and pesticide measures

The information about 34 different nitrate mitigation measures, implemented locally in 10 different FAIRWAY case studies, was collected and analysed. The measures were aggregated by type and the average/overall scores for effectivity, cost, applicability, and adoptability were assessed from the individual records and comments. See »Management practices that reduce nitrate transport - Results and discussion - Case studies.

Similarly, information about 17 different pesticide mitigation measures, implemented locally in 7 different FAIRWAY case studies, was collected and analysed. The measures were evaluated for their cost and effectiveness for reducing pollution of groundwater and surface water. See »Management practices that reduce pesticide transport - Results - Case studies

 


Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References

 

Go To Top