Nitrate Management Discourses in Poland and Denmark—Laggards or Leaders in Water Quality Protection?

'I think this is where this lovely word "sustainability" comes in': Fruit and vegetable growers' narratives concerning the regulation of environmental water use for food production

This article concerns UK commercial fruit and vegetable growers' narratives regarding the sustainability of water use for food production. In it we explore their perspectives on efforts by regulators to limit agricultural withdrawals of water from the natural environment in line with EU Water Framework Directive objectives, alongside their views on retailer sustainability commitments. Discourse analysis is used to investigate how the growers contested restrictive regulation, constructed their identities, portrayed other supply chain stakeholders, and conveyed their social relations with them. Using Erving Goffman's theory of frontstage and backstage performances, the implications for the growers' water management decisions and their internalisation of sustainability agendas for water are examined. Whilst the growers gave accounts of purposely misrepresenting their water withdrawal practices and their discourse illustrated significant polarisation between environmental and agricultural interests, their underlying commitment to environmental sustainability was ambivalent, with both anti and pro-environmental attitudes expressed. The growers also frequently gave critiques of superficial sustainability in fresh produce supply chains. We argue that, given contemporary shifting definitions of agricultural identities, settings in which their construction is negotiated can provide windows of opportunity for conventional growers to engage in genuine pro-environmental performances that may deepen their assimilation of environmental goals and commitment to sustainable water use.

Moving forward to achieve the ambitions of the European Water Framework Directive: Lessons learned from the Netherlands

The restoration and preservation of freshwater ecosystems is one of the prerequisites for a sustainable and fair future for all and therefore part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6). However, countries worldwide are facing a challenge to achieve this ambition by 2030. This paper focuses on the legal and governance challenges faced in the European context with regard to achieving water quality ambitions, using experiences from the Netherlands as a case study. Although many EU Member States (MS) are facing a challenge to meet the ambitions set by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2027, literature on effectiveness of governance approaches in terms of actual water quality improvement, seems to be scarce. Based on interviews, a survey, expert panel discussions and literature we show that in the Netherlands, an important problem is that stakeholders, also within organisations, have different views on ambitions, achievements and necessary follow-up actions. This is problematic because for realising the water quality ambitions, cross-sectoral cooperation (e.g. from agriculture and spatial development) as well as strengthened interlinkages between these related policy fields is crucial. Moreover, there is a tendency to stick to the status quo. In order to increase effectiveness, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms for this lock-in will be necessary. This will enable the development of practical tools and instruments to support cross-sectoral and multi-level collaboration. The sectoral implementation of the WFD in the Netherlands was chosen by many other MS, resulting in similar cross-sectoral challenges as we found in the Netherlands. Insight into how other MS deal with lock-in situations is needed to develop pathways to achieving WFD ambitions.

Water governance diversity across Europe: Does legacy generate sticking points in implementing multi-level governance?

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 complex historic governance structures which cannot easily be restructured, generating a layering effect where new governance systems are fitted to old governance systems. We conclude that there is a need to implement a hybrid approach to water governance and WFD implementation including decentralisation (discretionary) to ensure collaboration and engagement of stakeholders at the local level. This hybrid governance system should run in parallel with a centralised (mandatory) governance and regulatory system to enable national environmental standards to be set and enforced. Such systems may provide the best of both worlds (bottom-up involvement of stakeholders meeting top-down goal achievements) and is worthy of further research.

Promise and performance of agricultural nutrient management policy: Lessons from the Baltic Sea

Following decades of international collaboration to restore the Baltic Sea, we provide an assessment of the domestic implementation of measures agreed to limit diffuse agricultural pollution and the patterns of policy instruments applied. Despite the Helsinki Convention being unusually specific in detailing what measures countries should introduce, we find many shortcomings. These are most pronounced in the larger countries (Poland, Germany and Russia), while smaller countries perform better, notably Sweden and Estonia. The patterns of policy instruments applied differ, influenced by domestic politics. The limited use of complementary policy instruments suggests that other priorities overrule full and effective implementation, with engagement mirroring the advantages that a restored Baltic Sea can bring to countries. Using the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to support farmers in managing nutrients, particularly advisory services and investments in modern manure management technologies, represents a significant opportunity for reducing agricultural pollution in most countries.

Strengthening the policy framework to resolve lax implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan for agriculture

In this perspective article, we provide recommendations for strengthening the policy framework for protecting the Baltic Sea from agricultural nutrient pollution. The most striking weakness is the lax implementation of prescribed abatement measures, particularly concerning manure management, in most countries. Institutions of the EU should also be leveraged for achieving Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) goals. In contrast to the Helsinki Convention, the European Union has economic, political and legal mandates to further implementation and compliance. Equally important is the need for strengthening of local institutions, particularly Water Boards and independent agricultural advisory services in the eastern Baltic Sea Region countries. There is also an urgent need for implementation of voluntary land-use measures where EU funding available to farmers is more broadly and effectively used by providing it on the basis of estimated abatement performance, which can be realized through modelling. The enormous potential for funding performance-based schemes, manure management infrastructure and advisory services through the EU's Common Agricultural Policy are currently underutilized.

Three decades of regulation of agricultural nitrogen losses: Experiences from the Danish Agricultural Monitoring Program

Excess nitrogen (N) losses from intensive agricultural production are a world-wide problem causing eutrophication in vulnerable aquatic ecosystems such as estuaries. Therefore, Denmark as one of the most intensively farmed countries in the world has enforced mandatory regulations on agricultural production since the late 1980s. We demonstrate the outcome of the regulations imposed on agriculture by analyzing decadal trends in nitrate (NO₃^-) concentrations and loads in streams using 29 years of detailed monitoring data and survey information on agricultural practices at field level from five intensively cultivated headwater catchments. The analysis includes the importance of four main drivers (climate, land use, agricultural practices, and biogeophysical properties of catchments), each divided into different factors that may influence stream NO₃^- loads during three subperiods defined by the time of introduction of different mitigation measures: i) 1990-1998, ii) 1999-2007, and iii) 2008-2018. Significant correlations with annual flow-weighted stream NO₃^- concentrations and/or loads were found for factors representing all of the four main drivers including precipitation, large scale climate fluctuations, runoff, previous year's runoff, baseflow index, number of annual frost days, agricultural area, livestock density, field N surplus, catch crop cover, manure storage capacity, method and time of manure spreading, and time of soil tillage. Changes in the four drivers were reflected by the load-runoff (L-Q) relationships for each of the three subperiods within each of the five headwater catchments. The five catchments experienced large but catchment-specific downward shifts in the L-Q relationship attributable to changes in land use and agricultural management within the catchments. The documented large downward shifts in NO₃^- loads demonstrated for the five catchments (30-52%) as a consequence of mandatory regulation over a period of nearly three decades are a unique example of how agriculture can reduce its environmental impact.

Agricultural Diffuse Pollution and the EU Water Framework Directive: Problems and Progress in Governance

Progress has been made on improving Europe’s water quality. Nevertheless, there is much scepticism as to whether the goals of the European Water Framework Directive will be realised by 2027. Addressing diffuse agricultural sources of pollution remains a persistent problem. The Special Issue “Water Quality and Agricultural Diffuse Pollution in Light of the EU Water Framework Directive” aims to advance the understanding of the different governance arrangements European Member States developed to address this problem. The contributions in this Special Issue focus on governance arrangements in Denmark, England, Flanders/Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Poland, The Netherlands, Norway and Scotland. The contributions address three themes. First, the contributions signal serious concerns with policy integration across policy domains. Second, it appears to be tough to prioritise source-based measures over effect-based measures of all sorts despite the principles embedded in the Directive. Third, scientific knowledge is an important ally for water interests, yet politicisation in power struggles looms. The contributions in the Special Issue offer reflections on the open, participatory, experimentalist governance that the WFD exemplifies. While most authors agree that this path is attractive and appropriate in some respects, questions can be raised as to whether it also avoids confrontations and hampers the effectiveness of policies.