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 La Voulzie case study 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 La Voulzie case study provided information about the measures that have been implemented in the local area.
| Name of measure | Buffer strip, grass strip |
| Target | Quality surface water resources |
| Description | Establishment of buffer or grass strip adjacent to field edges and/or water courses |
| Mode of action | Use of buffer strip to slow down water (and solute) transfer to surface water |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | Moderate: 10-50 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Yes (> 5 reports) |
| Applicability | Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | No (on <25% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Yes, contributes to landscape diversity |
| Disadvantages | Yes, decreases crop yield |
| References | Reichenberger S. et al, 2007; CORPEN, 2007 |
| Additional comments |
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 La Voulzie case study provided an overview of the measures that have been implemented in the local area.
| Name of measure | Buffer strip, grass strip |
| Target | Quality surface water resources |
| Description | Establishment of buffer or grass strip adjacent to field edges and/or water courses |
| Mode of action | Use of buffer strip to slow down water (and solute) transfer to surface water |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | Moderate: 10-50 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Yes (> 5 reports) |
| Applicability | Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | No (on <25% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Yes, contributes to landscape diversity |
| Disadvantages | Yes, decreases crop yield |
| References | Reichenberger S. et al, 2007; CORPEN, 2007 |
| Additional comments |
| Name of measure | Rotation improvement |
| Target | Quality groundwater resources |
| Description | Respect for an annual maximal proportion of surfaces |
| Mode of action | Improvement of the crop rotation to minimize the pesticide use |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | High: 50-100 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | No (on <25% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | Yes, contributes to landscape diversity |
| Disadvantages | |
| References | Reichenberger S. et al, 2007 |
| Additional comments |
| Name of measure | Pesticide decrease |
| Target | Quality groundwater resources |
| Description | Respect for an maximal IFT fixed for year |
| Mode of action | Reduction of the maximun pesticide load by the farmer during the cropping season. |
| Expected effectiveness | Moderate: 10-25% decrease in concentration/load |
| Expected cost | High: 50-100 euro per ha |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) |
| Adoptability | No (on <25% of the addressees) |
| Other benefits | No |
| Disadvantages | |
| References | Reichenberger S. et al, 2007 |
| Additional comments |
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