Suchergebnisse

Intensive agriculture causes nutrient leaching and accelerates erosion processes, which threatens the good quality status of surface waters, as proposed by the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive. The purpose of this study was to define the impact of two alternative agricultural land-use change scenarios defined in a Municipal Spatial Plan on surface water quality by using the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model. As experimental area, we chose a small Kožbanjšček stream catchment (1464 ha) situated in the Goriška Brda region in Slovenia. The area, due to favorable conditions for vineyards, is facing increasing deforestation. The change of 66.3 ha of forests to vineyards would increase the sediment, nitrate, and phosphorus loads in the stream by 24.8%, 17.1%, and 10.7%, respectively. With the implementation of vegetative buffer strips as a mitigation measure of the current situation, we could reduce the sediment, nitrate, and phosphorus loads by 17.9%, 11.1%, and 3.1%, respectively, while a combination of the two land-use change scenarios would result in a slight increase of the above-mentioned loads, corresponding to 0.61%, 2.1%, and 6.6%, respectively, compared to the baseline situation. The results confirm that, as we can increase pollution levels with deforestation, we can also reduce water pollution by choosing proper types of land management measures.

Throughout the European Union (EU), high concentrations of nitrates and pesticides are among the major polluting components of drinking water and have potential long-term impacts on the environment and human health. Many research projects co-funded by the European Commission have been carried out, but the results often do not influence policy making and implementation to the extent that is duly justified. This paper assesses several issues and barriers that weaken the role of science in EU policy making and EU policy implementation in the case of agricultural impacts on drinking water quality. It then proposes improvements and solutions to strengthen the role of science in this process. The analysis is conceptual but supported empirically by a desk study, a workshop, and complementary individual interviews, mostly with representatives of organizations working at the EU level. The results indicate that perceived barriers are mostly observed on the national or regional level and are connected with a lack of political will, scarce instruction on the legislation implementation process, and a lack of funding opportunities for science to be included in policy making and further EU policy implementation. In response to that, we suggest translating scientific knowledge on technological, practical or environmental changes and using dissemination techniques for specific audiences and in local languages. Further, the relationship between data, information and decision making needs to change by implementing monitoring in real-time, which will allow for the quick adaptation of strategies. In addition, we suggest project clustering (science, policy, stakeholders, and citizens) to make science and research more connected to current policy challenges and stakeholder needs along with citizen involvement with an aim of establishing sustainable long-term relationships and communication flows.

Throughout the European Union (EU), high concentrations of nitrates and pesticides are among the major polluting components of drinking water and have potential long-term impacts on the environment and human health. Many research projects co-funded by the European Commission have been carried out, but the results often do not influence policy-making and implementation to the extent that is duly justified. This paper assesses several issues and barriers that weaken the role of science in EU policy-making and EU policy implementation in the case of agricultural impacts on drinking water quality. It then proposes improvements and solutions to strengthen the role of science in this process. The analysis is conceptual but supported empirically by a desk study, a workshop, and complementary individual interviews, mostly with representatives of organisations working at the EU level. The results indicate that perceived barriers are mainly observed on the national or regional level and are connected with a lack of political will, scarce instruction on the legislation implementation process, and a lack of funding opportunities for science to be included in policy-making and further EU policy implementation. In response to that, we suggest translating scientific knowledge on technological, practical or environmental changes and using dissemination techniques for specific audiences and in local languages. Further, the relationship between data, information and decision making needs to change by implementing monitoring in real-time, which will allow for the quick adaptation of strategies. In addition, we suggest project clustering (science, policy, stakeholders, and citizens) to make science and research more connected to current policy challenges and stakeholder needs along with citizen involvement to establish sustainable long-term relationships and communication flows. ; Author Contributions Conceptualization, M.G. and M.P.; Methodology, M.P., M.G., S.L., S.B. and G.V.; Formal Analysis, Š.Ž. and M.G.; Investigation, Š.Ž., ...

Urban gardening is not a new phenomenon but it has received considerably more practical and academic interest in recent years. Studies on economic aspects such as crop yields, inputs and outputs of production, productivity, gross margins and the contribution to home economics are rare, especially in Europe. While urban gardening plays an important role in the Global South, its role in Western Europe for food productivity and home economics is currently under-researched. The aim of this study is to analyse European urban gardeners' economic performance and self-sufficiency on a household level, as well as to reach a better understanding of their contribution to food self-provision and food security in the metropolitan areas. In a study carried out in 2014 with on-site personal and with online questionnaires participated 180 urban gardeners from three case study cities (Ljubljana, Milan, and London). Results from the economic analysis showed that although for most urban gardeners, profit is not their main motivation, the economic calculation shows that productivity in small urban plots can be comparable to market garden production. Urban gardeners are saving money, especially when, compared to retail prices for regular produce or organic produce, their input is included in the gross margin calculation. We conclude that, in the case-study cities, the self-provisional potential of urban gardeners' households to adequately cover the annual vegetable need of five-a-day servings can be met under three conditions: (1) sufficient garden size; (2) increased area productivity, and (3) sufficient labour-hour inputs. ; Acknowledgement This work has been carried out within the framework of the international project called 'Food Planning and Innovation for Sustainable Metropolitan Regions' (FOODMETRES), 7th Framework Project funded by the European Commission.

Solutions to current complex environmental challenges demand the consultation and involvement of various groups in society. In light of the WFD's requirements of public participation, this paper presents an analysis of the establishment and development of nine different multi-actor platforms (MAPs) across Europe set up as arenas for long-term engagements to solve water quality challenges in relation to agriculture. The MAPs represent different histories and legacies of engagement; some are recent initiatives and some are affiliated with previous government-initiated projects, while other MAPs are long-term engagement platforms. A case study approach drawing on insights from the nine engagement processes is used to discuss conditions for enabling long-term multi-actor engagement. The perceived pressure for change and preferred prioritization in complying with mitigating water quality problems vary within and among the MAPs. The results show that governmental and local actors' concern for water quality improvements and focusing on pressure for change are important for establishing meaningful multi-actor engagement when concerns translate into a clear mandate of the MAP. Furthermore, the degree to which the MAPs have been able to establish relationships and networks with other institutions such as water companies, agricultural and environmental authorities, farmers, and civil society organizations influences possibilities for long-term meaningful engagement. ; publishedVersion

Solutions to current complex environmental challenges demand the consultation and involvement of various groups in society. In light of the WFD's requirements of public participation, this paper presents an analysis of the establishment and development of nine different multi-actor platforms (MAPs) across Europe set up as arenas for long-term engagements to solve water quality challenges in relation to agriculture. The MAPs represent different histories and legacies of engagement; some are recent initiatives and some are affiliated with previous government-initiated projects, while other MAPs are long-term engagement platforms. A case study approach drawing on insights from the nine engagement processes is used to discuss conditions for enabling long-term multi-actor engagement. The perceived pressure for change and preferred prioritization in complying with mitigating water quality problems vary within and among the MAPs. The results show that governmental and local actors' concern for water quality improvements and focusing on pressure for change are important for establishing meaningful multi-actor engagement when concerns translate into a clear mandate of the MAP. Furthermore, the degree to which the MAPs have been able to establish relationships and networks with other institutions such as water companies, agricultural and environmental authorities, farmers, and civil society organizations influences possibilities for long-term meaningful engagement.

Pollution of ground-and surface waters with nitrates from agricultural sources poses a risk to drinking water quality and has negative impacts on the environment. At the national scale, the gross nitrogen budget (GNB) is accepted as an indicator of pollution caused by nitrates. There is, however, little common EU-wide knowledge on the budget application and its comparability at the farm level for the detection of ground-and surface water pollution caused by nitrates and the monitoring of mitigation measures. Therefore, a survey was carried out among experts of various European countries in order to assess the practice and application of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level and the differences between countries within Europe. While fertilization planning is practiced in all of the fourteen countries analyzed in this paper, according to current legislation, nitrogen budgets have to be calculated only in Switzerland, Germany and Romania. The survey revealed that methods of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level are not unified throughout Europe. In most of the cases where budgets are used regularly (Germany, Romania, Switzerland), standard values for the chemical composition of feed, organic fertilizers, animal and plant products are used. The example of the Dutch Annual Nutrient Cycling Assessment (ANCA) tool (and partly of the Suisse Balance) shows that it is only by using farm-specific "real" data that budgeting can be successfully applied to optimize nutrient flows and increase N efficiencies at the farm level. However, this approach is more elaborate and requires centralized data processing under consideration of data protection concerns. This paper concludes that there is no unified indicator for nutrient management and water quality at the farm level. A comparison of regionally calculated nitrogen budgets across European countries needs to be interpreted carefully, as methods as well as data and emission factors vary across countries. For the implementation of EU nitrogen-related policies—notably, the Nitrates Directive—nutrient budgeting is currently ruled out as an entry point for legal requirements. In contrast, nutrient budgets are highlighted as an environment indicator by the OECD and EU institutions. ; ISSN:2073-4441

Pollution of ground-and surface waters with nitrates from agricultural sources poses a risk to drinking water quality and has negative impacts on the environment. At the national scale, the gross nitrogen budget (GNB) is accepted as an indicator of pollution caused by nitrates. There is, however, little common EU-wide knowledge on the budget application and its comparability at the farm level for the detection of ground-and surface water pollution caused by nitrates and the monitoring of mitigation measures. Therefore, a survey was carried out among experts of variousEuropean countries in order to assess the practice and application of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level and the differences between countries within Europe. While fertilization planning is practiced in all of the fourteen countries analyzed in this paper, according to current legislation, nitrogen budgets have to be calculated only in Switzerland, Germany and Romania. The survey revealed that methods of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level are not unified throughout Europe. In most of the cases where budgets are used regularly (Germany,Romania, Switzerland), standard values for the chemical composition of feed, organic fertilizers, animal and plant products are used. The example of the Dutch Annual Nutrient Cycling Assessment(ANCA) tool (and partly of the Suisse Balance) shows that it is only by using farm-specific "real" data that budgeting can be successfully applied to optimize nutrient flows and increase N efficiencies at the farm level. However, this approach is more elaborate and requires centralized data processing under consideration of data protection concerns. This paper concludes that there is no unified indicator for nutrient management and water quality at the farm level. A comparison of regionally calculated nitrogen budgets across European countries needs to be interpreted carefully, as methods as well as data and emission factors vary across countries. For the implementation of EU nitrogen-related policies—notably, the Nitrates Directive—nutrient budgeting is currently ruled out as an entry point for legal requirements. In contrast, nutrient budgets are highlighted as an environment indicator by the OECD and EU institutions.

Pollution of ground-and surface waters with nitrates from agricultural sources poses a risk to drinking water quality and has negative impacts on the environment. At the national scale, the gross nitrogen budget (GNB) is accepted as an indicator of pollution caused by nitrates. There is, however, little common EU-wide knowledge on the budget application and its comparability at the farm level for the detection of ground-and surface water pollution caused by nitrates and the monitoring of mitigation measures. Therefore, a survey was carried out among experts of various European countries in order to assess the practice and application of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level and the differences between countries within Europe. While fertilization planning is practiced in all of the fourteen countries analyzed in this paper, according to current legislation, nitrogen budgets have to be calculated only in Switzerland, Germany and Romania. The survey revealed that methods of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level are not unified throughout Europe. In most of the cases where budgets are used regularly (Germany, Romania, Switzerland), standard values for the chemical composition of feed, organic fertilizers, animal and plant products are used. The example of the Dutch Annual Nutrient Cycling Assessment (ANCA) tool (and partly of the Suisse Balance) shows that it is only by using farm-specific "real" data that budgeting can be successfully applied to optimize nutrient flows and increase N efficiencies at the farm level. However, this approach is more elaborate and requires centralized data processing under consideration of data protection concerns. This paper concludes that there is no unified indicator for nutrient management and water quality at the farm level. A comparison of regionally calculated nitrogen budgets across European countries needs to be interpreted carefully, as methods as well as data and emission factors vary across countries. For the implementation of EU nitrogen-related policies-notably, the Nitrates Directive-nutrient budgeting is currently ruled out as an entry point for legal requirements. In contrast, nutrient budgets are highlighted as an environment indicator by the OECD and EU institutions.

International audience ; The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to protect and improve water quality across Europe through an integrative and multi-level water governance approach. The goal is to ensure that water quality in Europe meets good ecological status by 2027. Whilst the WFD has been hailed as a cornerstone for governance innovation in water management, most EU member states (MS) still struggle to achieve good ecological status of their waters. The realignment to a multi-level governance structure under the WFD is discretionary, and has generated diversity in WFD multi-level governance implementation approaches and final governance arrangements across MS. This diversity may contribute to low goal achievement and weak compliance. This paper investigates how visual impressions of legislative structure across nine MS can illustrate and contribute to understanding the differences in multi-level implementation of WFD and associated water protection directives. We explore, in-depth, the drivers of visual differences in Portugal, Germany (Lower Saxony) and France. We hypothesise that many of the challenges of WFD implementation, and resulting governance arrangements can be explained in terms of the legacy effects of previous water governance choices. With this conceptual framework of investigating the history and legacy, we found the three in depth studies have had different starting points, paths, and end points in their water governance, with sticking points influencing the decision-making processes and compliance required by the WFD. Sticking points include the complexity of existing water governance structures, lobbying by different sectors, and the mandatory WFD timeline for implementation. Portugal had to resolve its focus on water infrastructure and engineering to enable a re-focus on water quality. France and Portugal experienced 'top down' governance at different points in time, slowing the shift to a multi-level governance system. Lower Saxony, representing just one of 16 federal state systems in ...

International audience ; The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to protect and improve water quality across Europe through an integrative and multi-level water governance approach. The goal is to ensure that water quality in Europe meets good ecological status by 2027. Whilst the WFD has been hailed as a cornerstone for governance innovation in water management, most EU member states (MS) still struggle to achieve good ecological status of their waters. The realignment to a multi-level governance structure under the WFD is discretionary, and has generated diversity in WFD multi-level governance implementation approaches and final governance arrangements across MS. This diversity may contribute to low goal achievement and weak compliance. This paper investigates how visual impressions of legislative structure across nine MS can illustrate and contribute to understanding the differences in multi-level implementation of WFD and associated water protection directives. We explore, in-depth, the drivers of visual differences in Portugal, Germany (Lower Saxony) and France. We hypothesise that many of the challenges of WFD implementation, and resulting governance arrangements can be explained in terms of the legacy effects of previous water governance choices. With this conceptual framework of investigating the history and legacy, we found the three in depth studies have had different starting points, paths, and end points in their water governance, with sticking points influencing the decision-making processes and compliance required by the WFD. Sticking points include the complexity of existing water governance structures, lobbying by different sectors, and the mandatory WFD timeline for implementation. Portugal had to resolve its focus on water infrastructure and engineering to enable a re-focus on water quality. France and Portugal experienced 'top down' governance at different points in time, slowing the shift to a multi-level governance system. Lower Saxony, representing just one of 16 federal state systems in ...

Pollution of ground-and surface waters with nitrates from agricultural sources poses a risk to drinking water quality and has negative impacts on the environment. At the national scale, the gross nitrogen budget (GNB) is accepted as an indicator of pollution caused by nitrates. There is, however, little common EU-wide knowledge on the budget application and its comparability at the farm level for the detection of ground-and surface water pollution caused by nitrates and the monitoring of mitigation measures. Therefore, a survey was carried out among experts of various European countries in order to assess the practice and application of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level and the differences between countries within Europe. While fertilization planning is practiced in all of the fourteen countries analyzed in this paper, according to current legislation, nitrogen budgets have to be calculated only in Switzerland, Germany and Romania. The survey revealed that methods of fertilization planning and nitrogen budgeting at the farm level are not unified throughout Europe. In most of the cases where budgets are used regularly (Germany, Romania, Switzerland), standard values for the chemical composition of feed, organic fertilizers, animal and plant products are used. The example of the Dutch Annual Nutrient Cycling Assessment (ANCA) tool (and partly of the Suisse Balance) shows that it is only by using farm-specific "real" data that budgeting can be successfully applied to optimize nutrient flows and increase N efficiencies at the farm level. However, this approach is more elaborate and requires centralized data processing under consideration of data protection concerns. This paper concludes that there is no unified indicator for nutrient management and water quality at the farm level. A comparison of regionally calculated nitrogen budgets across European countries needs to be interpreted carefully, as methods as well as data and emission factors vary across countries. For the implementation of EU nitrogen-related policies—notably, the Nitrates Directive—nutrient budgeting is currently ruled out as an entry point for legal requirements. In contrast, nutrient budgets are highlighted as an environment indicator by the OECD and EU institutions.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to protect and improve water quality across Europe through an integrative and multi-level water governance approach. The goal is to ensure that water quality in Europe meets good ecological status by 2027. Whilst the WFD has been hailed as a cornerstone for governance innovation in water management, most EU member states (MS) still struggle to achieve good ecological status of their waters. The realignment to a multi-level governance structure under the WFD is discretionary, and has generated diversity in WFD multi-level governance implementation approaches and final governance arrangements across MS. This diversity may contribute to low goal achievement and weak compliance. This paper investigates how visual impressions of legislative structure across nine MS can illustrate and contribute to understanding the differences in multi-level implementation of WFD and associated water protection directives. We explore, in-depth, the drivers of visual differences in Portugal, Germany (Lower Saxony) and France. We hypothesise that many of the challenges of WFD implementation, and resulting governance arrangements can be explained in terms of the legacy effects of previous water governance choices. With this conceptual framework of investigating the history and legacy, we found the three in depth studies have had different starting points, paths, and end points in their water governance, with sticking points influencing the decision-making processes and compliance required by the WFD. Sticking points include the complexity of existing water governance structures, lobbying by different sectors, and the mandatory WFD timeline for implementation. Portugal had to resolve its focus on water infrastructure and engineering to enable a re-focus on water quality. France and Portugal experienced 'top down' governance at different points in time, slowing the shift to a multi-level governance system. Lower Saxony, representing just one of 16 federal state systems in Germany, highlighted the ...

Over the last decades, nutrients and pesticides have proved to be a major source of the pollution of drinking water resources in Europe. Extensive legislation has been developed by the EU to protect drinking water resources from agricultural pollution, but the achievement of water quality objectives is still an ongoing challenge throughout Europe. The study aims to identify lessons that can be learnt about the coherence and consistency of the application of EU regulations, and their effects at the local level, using qualitative expert data for 13 local to regional governance arrangements in 11 different European countries. The results show that the complexities and inconsistencies of European legislation drawn up to protect drinking water resources from agricultural pollution come forward most explicitly at local level where cross-sectoral measures have to be taken and effects monitored. At this local level, rather than facilitate, they hamper efforts to achieve water quality objectives. The upcoming revision of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) should strengthen the links between the different directives and how they could be applied at local level. In addition, a more facilitated cross-sectoral approach should be adopted to improve stakeholder networks, between institutional levels and hydrological scales, to attain policy objectives at local level.