| 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