Main authors: Nicolas Surdyk, Marc Laurencelle 
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 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

» References

 

Go To Top