Main authors: Janja Rudolf, Špela Železnikar, Matjaž Glavan, Andrej Udovč, Sindre Langaas, Marina Pintar
FAIRWAYiS Editor: Jane Brandt
Source document: »Rudolf, J. et al. (2021) Actor's feedback on practices for improvement of water quality in FAIRWAY case studies and interim project results. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 7.2R 74 pp

 

Contents table
1. Questionnaire and survey methodology
2. Results
3. Conclusions

1. Questionnaire and survey methodology

The questionnaire

The questionnaire was based on the results from »Management practices that reduce nitrate transport and »Management practices that reduce pesticide transport, which identified the most promising measures and practices (i.e. those that received scores of at least two ++ for applicability and adoptability and up to three €€€ for cost) and additional interviews with actors on EU level on evidence-based practices. The interviews were taken from 3. to 6. jun. 2019. 

The full questionnaire is given in the Annex A3 of this report.

Best practices for reducing intake of pesticides

For best practices for reducing intake of pesticides in drinking water were then chosen the following 9 measures:

  1. Vegetated filter strips (VFS): Most filter strips are located at the downstream end of a field, where runoff water leaves the field. VFS have been shown to be effective in reducing overland flow and soil erosion.
  2. Crop rotation improvement: Crop rotation is the practice of growing a series of different types of crops in the same area across a sequence of growing seasons. If you improve your crop rotation knowledge you can increase farm system resilience.
  3. Input reduction: Managing the amount of pesticides that are applied to the system is an effective way of reducing pollution. When the input is reduced this will likely also show in a reduction in pollution
  4. Integrated pest management (IPM): IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties.
  5. Obligatory reduced input: If the reduction of pesticides input is prescribed by law, then we call that obligatory reduced input.
  6. Bio filters/beds: A biobed is a mixture of peat free compost, soil and straw (biomix) covered with turf that is placed in a lined pit. A biofilter uses the same biomix but does not require turf and uses a series of intermediate bulk containers instead of a pit.
  7. Economic/tax management: These measures increase the price of pesticides, as an extra incentive to look for alternative crop management methods.
  8. Drift reduction: In an ideal world, 100% of a pesticide that is sprayed onto a field will reach its intended target. However, in reality, this does not happen, and it is more likely that some of the product will drift away from the intended target. The terminology used to describe this off-target movement of a pesticide, if spray drift and the technology used to reduce spray drift is known as DRT (drift reduction technology).
  9. Constructed wetlands: A constructed wetland is an artificial wetland. Similarly, to natural wetlands, constructed wetlands also act as a biofilter and/or can remove a range of pollutants (such as organic matter, nutrients, pathogens, heavy metals) from the water.

The respondents were then asked to rank proposed measures by their applicability, cost and adoptability of measure to their land. The applicability, cost and adoptability were explained before answering the question as follows:

  • Applicability of a measure refers to how appropriate it is in each situation (do you have enough knowledge to implement it, does the soil/climate/crop rotations allow the implementation of measures, do you have the necessary tools/machinery to implement it, etc.).
  • Cost refers to your estimation of price that would need to be spent to apply certain measure in practice.
  • Adoptability of a measure is the willingness to apply such a measure for keeping water resources safe. The adoptability refers to your own will of applying certain measures to your fields.

Afterwards we asked them to rank proposed measures as follows:

  • Please rank presented measures BY APPLICABILITY*. Choose only 5 most suitable for you. Rank them from 1 to 5, using a "drag & drop", meaning 1 the most APPLICABLE method and 5 the least applicable method for you.
  • Please rank presented measures BY COST*. Choose only 5 most suitable for you. Rank them from 1 to 5, using a "drag & drop", meaning 1 the most COSTLY method and 5 the least costly method for you.
  • Please rank presented measures BY ADOPTABILITY*. Choose only 5 most suitable for you. Rank them from 1 to 5, using a "drag & drop", meaning 1 the most ADOPTABLE method and 5 the least adoptable method for you.

Best practices for reducing intake of nitrates

The same methodology was performed also for the 10 best measures for reducing nitrates intake in drinking water resources.

  1. Changes in cropping system or crop rotation: Without much change in nitrogen fertilization input, this measure includes a change to high-yielding crop varieties and energy crops.
  2. Changes in fertilization timing: Precision nitrogen fertilization builds on balanced fertilization; this includes measures like a ban on fertilization in winter, on sloping land, on frozen land, etc.
  3. Changes in the application method: This measure includes sprinkler irrigation, drip irrigation, furrow irrigation, flood irrigation, and fertigation.
  4. Changes in application dose: Matching nitrogen input to the average nitrogen demand of the crop is termed balanced nitrogen fertilization; this measure includes terms like “reduction in fertilization”, nutrient management planning, and more drastic measures such as withholding nitrogen fertilizer inputs; it also includes the combined use of synthetic fertilizers, animal manures, organic fertilizers, bio-based fertilizers, composts, etc.
  5. Cover crops: These crops are grown after the harvest of the main crops, and serve to mop up residual mineral nitrogen from the soil and/or to improve soil quality; these crops may be sown in between the main crops (relay cropping) or after the harvest the main crop.
  6. Reduced tillage: A decreased reliance on inversion tillage; it means less intensity, shallower depth, and less area disturbed.
  7. Buffer strips: strips of land along with watercourses; these strips have adjusted management (fertilization, crops, tillage) and thereby minimize the leaching and overland flow to surface waters; they are placed either between crops and waterways or between rows of crops.
  8. Grassed waterways: Grassed waterways are broad, shallow and typically saucer-shaped channels designed to move surface water across farmland without causing soil erosion.
  9. Farm-scale nutrient management tools: It is more important for cattle then arable farms; this kind of management has up to date information of every nutrient input and output and can optimize nutrient management; it uses certain informational tools such as computer programs or apps.
  10. Outreach and information events: Conferences, workgroups on topic, agricultural advisory.

Survey sample

The questionnaire was open for 30 days, from 10.2.2021 till 13.3.2021. A request for sending this survey to a wider group of interested audience was sent to farmers’ associations that confirmed support to the project FAIRWAY in the Letters of Support. First, we send it only to COPA-COGECA association (on 10th of February 2021) and asked them to distribute further to all interested audience. Mr. Miles (Policy advisor for COPA-COGECA) answered that they will share the survey amongst their members, as well as include it in their weekly briefing. Unfortunately, we only received 17 answered questionnaires, so we decided to try and reach more people by sending the link to the survey also to other organizations that signed the Letter of Support with FAIRWAY project. But only to farmers' organizations:

  • National Farmers Union, UK
  • Danish Agriculture & Food Council Association Ltd, DK
  • Agri-Nord, DK
  • Landvolk Niedersachsen Landersbauernverband, DE and 
  • EUFRAS, EU farmers’ advisory association

Unfortunately, only EUFRAS decided to cooperate and sent the link further to 84 recipients (on 18th of February).

At the end of the survey, there were 212 entrance to the first page of the survey, and we received 40 finished questionnaires. 28 of that were eligible for further analyses. The number of questionnaires is too low for any serious statistical analyses; however we are pleased that a completion rate (people that started to answer the survey and finished it) of more than 70 % was performed.

Completion rates lower than 60 % in web questionnaires should be examined for possible major errors in the survey design or logic (Liu and Wronski, 2018). This questionnaire had demanding questions containing measures and practices that are not widely known and could be considered as a demanding survey, so a completion rate lower than 60 % was expected. However, with the completion rate of 70 % our expectations were exceeded. This could mean that the communication between COPA-COGECA and EUFRAS and their recipients is better than normal and that our introduction to the questionnaire and short explanations kept respondents on answering the survey. This can also suggest that the questionnaire was prepared wisely and that respondents understand the importance of delivering the answers.  

2. Results

Respondents

We had a sample size of 28 respondents from 13 countries. The Figures 25 and 26 show this data, respectively.

D7.2R fig25
Figure 25
D7.2R fig26
Figure 26
D7.2R fig27
Figure 27

For farmers we also asked them what type of cultivation do they have (Figure 27) and if they should pay attention to the risks of polluting water resources? All 5 of farmers agreed that they should pay attention to the risks of polluting water resources.

Potential of selected evidence based best practices/measures for reducing PESTICIDE INTAKE in drinking water resources

Table 1 calculated average of points for each proposed measure. The 5 measures/practices that received the best scores for potential for applicability, cost and adoptability in the field are highlighted in green.

Table 1 Average points for each of the 9 measures proposed to reduce pesticide intake

Measure Applicability
(n=28)
Cost
(n=27)
Adoptability
(n=25)
1. Vegetated filter strips 2.25 1.52 2.60
2. Crop rotation improvement 2.11 1.78 2.28
3. Input reduction 2.50 1.33 1.84
4. Integrated pest management 1.64 2.04 2.24
5. Obligatory reduced input 0.64 1.22 0.60
6. Bio filters/beds 1.39 1.67 1.56
7. Economic/tax management 1.14 0.96 0.44
8. Drift reduction 2.14 2.56 2.08
9. Constructed wetlands 1.18 1.48 1.36

Applicability: the lower the value of the average points, the easier the applicability and hence the greater the potential according to the respondents. The 5 measures that have highest potential for easiest applicability of proposed measures among EU land managers are:

  1. Obligatory reduced input
  2. Economic / Tax Management
  3. Constructed wetlands
  4. Bio beds / filters
  5. Integrated Pest Management

Cost: the higher the value of the average points, the lower the cost and hence the greater the potential, according to the respondents. The 5 measures that have highest potential for lowest cost of proposed measures among EU land managers are:

  1. Drift reduction
  2. Integrated Pest Management
  3. Crop rotation improvement
  4. Bio beds / filters
  5. Vegetated filter strips

Adoptability: the lower the value of the average, the easier the adoptability and hence the greater the potential, according to the respondents. The 5 measures that have highest potential for easiest adoptability of proposed measures among EU land managers are:

  1. Economic / Tax Management
  2. Obligatory reduced input
  3. Constructed wetlands
  4. Bio beds / filters
  5. Input reduction

We can clearly see that the measures that have highest potential in applicability and adoptability (the Economic/Tax Management and The Obligatory reduced input) are also the costliest measures according to the respondents.

The potential of selected evidence based best practices/measures for reducing NITRATE INTAKE in drinking water resources

As for the pesticides, we also collected and analysed answers for measures that are reducing nitrates in drinking water. The same methodology was used to show the applicability, cost and adoptability of proposed measures (Table 2).

Table 2 Average points for each of the 9 measures proposed to reduce nitrate intake.

Measure Applicability
(n=18)
Cost
(n=18)
Adoptability
(n=18)
1. Changes in cropping system or crop rotation 1.61 1.56 1.44
2. Changes in fertilization timing 1.56 0.78 1.83
3. Changes in the application method 0.83 1.28 1.06
4. Changes in application dose 1.33 0.89 1.56
5. Cover crops 1.50 1.17 1.67
6. Reduced tillage 1.89 1.11 2.11
7. Buffer strips 1.89 2.06 1.94
8. Grassed waterways 0.61 1.33 0.39
9. Farm-scale nutrient management tools 1.39 2.39 1.61
10. Outreach and information events 2.33 2.28 1.33

Applicability: the lower the value of the average points, the easier the applicability and hence the greater the potential according to the respondents. The 5 measures that have highest potential for easiest applicability of proposed measures among EU land managers are:

  1. Grassed waterways
  2. Changes in the application method
  3. Changes in the application dose
  4. Farm-scale nutrient management tools
  5. Cover crops

Cost: the higher the value of the average points, the lower the cost and hence the greater the potential, according to the respondents. The 5 measures that have highest potential for lowest cost of proposed measures among EU land managers are:

  1. Farm-scale nutrient management tools
  2. Outreach and information events
  3. Buffer strips
  4. Changes in cropping system or crop rotation
  5. Grassed waterways

Adoptability: the lower the value of the average, the easier the adoptability and hence the greater the potential, according to the respondents. The 5 measures that have highest potential for easiest adoptability of proposed measures among EU land managers are:

  1. Grassed waterways
  2. Changes in the application method
  3. Outreach and information events
  4. Changes in cropping system or crop rotation
  5. Changes in the application dose

A quick overlook shows one measure that is included in all 5 best measures for applicability, cost and adoptability. Grassed waterways are on 1st place for applicability and adoptability and on 5th place for cost. This is already one of the win-win solutions that is suitable among EU land managers, among stakeholders from MAPs and among actors on EU level- the decision makers.

3. Conclusions

Nine and ten measures were placed for ranking from easiest to hardest applicability and adoptability and from highest to lowest cost according to the respondents.

For pesticides we can clearly see that the measures that have highest potential in applicability and adoptability (the Economic/Tax Management and The Obligatory reduced input) are also the costliest measures according to the respondents. This suggests that here an exceptionally good win-win solution will be harder to find and apply on field. However, we can still find one measure that is a potential win win solution, because it is placed in the top 5 measures for applicability, cost and adoptability. And this are the Bio beds/filters that are in the 4th place, respectively in all three categories. Constructed wetlands could also be a potential win-win solution, placed on 3rd place for applicability and adoptability and on 6th place for cost.

For nitrates, we have better prognosis. The analyse showed that there are certain measures that are at the same time in the middle scale of cost and in the top 5 on scale for applicability and adoptability, like Changes in the application method, Grassed waterways and Changes in cropping system and crop rotation. We can also see that one measure is included in all 5 best measures for applicability, cost and adoptability. This is the Grassed waterways, that is on 1st place for applicability and adoptability and on 5th place for cost. This could be one of the win-win solutions that is suitable among EU land managers, among stakeholders from MAPs and among actors on EU level- the decision makers.

The Bio beds/filters for reducing pesticides and the Grassed waterways for reducing nitrates could be one of the main findings of FAIRWAY.

These findings are further investigated in »Recommendation for the most promising activities, policies and tools in which we seek to identify win-win solutions.  

 


Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References

Go To Top