| Main authors: | Donnacha Doody, Rachel Cassidy, Luke Farrow |
| 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 Derg Catchment case study was used in the research tasks as described here. Pesticide, rather than nitrate, pollution is the main issue in this area.
| Contents table |
| 1. Measures to decrease pesticide pollution |
| 2. Effectiveness of nitrate and pesticide measures |
1. 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 Derg Catchment case study provided an overview of the measures that have been implemented in the local area.
| Name of measure | Installation of a pesticide sprayer loading area and wash down area |
| Target | Quality surface water resources |
| Description | Construction of a concrete pesticide loading, and/or washing area. This item could include; a new bunded concrete loading area, holding tanks, fixed pumps and pipework for removing washings from the holding tank. Site preparation and excavation is included |
| Mode of action | Source Reduction |
| Expected effectiveness | Unknown |
| Expected cost | Unknown |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Unknown |
| Adoptability | Unknown |
| Other benefits | No |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References | https://voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/media/1085/design_manual_updated_922015.pdf |
| Additional comments |
| Name of measure | Biobeds |
| Target | Quality surface water resources |
| Description | A biobed is a lined pit in the ground filled with a mixture of peat free compost, straw and soil turfed over. This provides an area where pesticides can be mixed and handled. |
| Mode of action | Source Reduction |
| Expected effectiveness | Unknown |
| Expected cost | Unknown |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Unknown |
| Adoptability | Unknown |
| Other benefits | No |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References | https://voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/media/1085/design_manual_updated_922015.pdf |
| Additional comments |
| Name of measure | Biofilters |
| Target | Quality surface water resources |
| Description | The biofilter system is made up of three Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) in sequence which are filled with biomix. Washings from the pesticide sprayer loading area are pumped into the uppermost tank and filtered through the biomix as it moves through the tanks. The treated washings are then pumped to an irrigation area. |
| Mode of action | Source Reduction |
| Expected effectiveness | Unknown |
| Expected cost | Unknown |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Unknown |
| Adoptability | Unknown |
| Other benefits | No |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References | https://voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/media/1085/design_manual_updated_922015.pdf |
| Additional comments |
| Name of measure | Pesticide storage unit |
| Target | Quality surface water resources |
| Description | The Industry standard Pesticide Storage Cabinet will be resistant to fire, capable of retaining leakages/spillage, dry, frost-free, adequately ventilated and secure against unauthorised access. |
| Mode of action | Source Reduction |
| Expected effectiveness | Unknown |
| Expected cost | Unknown |
| Underpinning | Partly (1-5 reports) |
| Applicability | Unknown |
| Adoptability | Unknown |
| Other benefits | No |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References | https://voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/media/1085/design_manual_updated_922015.pdf |
| Additional comments |
| Name of measure | Contractor for Weed Wiping to replace MCPA Use |
| Target | Quality surface water resources |
| Description | Using weed wipers to manage grassland weeds like rushes reduces spray drift, uses less pesticide and is applied directly to the plant. Weed wipers will be used with glyphosate which potentially has less impact on water quality than MCPA. Glyphosate translocates through the plant meaning it kills the weed at the root, unlike MCPA. |
| Mode of action | Source Reduction |
| Expected effectiveness | Unknown |
| Expected cost | Unknown |
| Underpinning | No (≤ 1 report) |
| Applicability | Unknown |
| Adoptability | Unknown |
| Other benefits | No |
| Disadvantages | No |
| References | |
| Additional comments |
2. 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