Browsing by Author "Klages, Susanne"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Nitrogen surplus – a unified indicator for water pollution in for Europe?(MDPI, 2020-04-22) Klages, Susanne; Heidecke, Claudia; Osterburg, Bernhard; Bailey, John S.; Calciu, Irina; Casey, Clare; Dalgaard, Tommy; Frick, Hanna; Glavan, Matjaz; D'Haene, Karoline; Hofman, Georges; Leitao, Ines Amorim; Surdyk, Nicolas; Verloop, Koos; Velthof, GerardPollution 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.Item Protection of drinking water resources from agricultural pressures: Effectiveness of EU regulations in the context of local realities(Elsevier, 2021-03-15) Wuijts, Susanne; Claessens, Jacqueline; Farrow, Luke; Doody, Donnacha; Klages, Susanne; Christophoridis, Chris; Cvejic, Rozalija; Glavan, Matjaz; Nesheim, Ingrid; Platjouw, Proukje; Wright, Isobel; Rowbottom, Jenny; Graversgaard, Morten; van den Brink, Cors; Leitao, Ines; Ferreira, Antonio; Boekhold, SandraOver 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.Item Stocktake study of current fertilisation recommendations across Europe and discussion towards a more harmonised approach(Wiley, 2023-10-23) Higgins, Suzanne; Keesstra, Saskia D.; Kadziuliene, Zydre; Jordan-Meille, Lionel; Wall, David; Trinchera, Alessandra; Spiegel, Heide; Sandén, Taru; Baumgarten, Andreas; Jensen, Johannes L.; Hirte, Juliane; Liebisch, Frank; Klages, Susanne; Löw, Philipp; Kuka, Katrin; De Boever, Maarten; D'Haene, Karoline; Madenoglu, Sevinc; Özcan, Hesna; Vervuurt, Wieke; de Haan, Janjo; van Geel, Willem; Stenberg, Bo; Denoroy, Pascal; Mihelic, Rok; Astover, Alar; Mano, Raquel; Sempiterno, Cristina; Calouro, Fatima; Valboa, Giuseppe; Aronsson, Helena; Krogstad, Tore; Torma, Stanislav; Gabriel, Jose; Laszlo, Peter; Borchard, Nils; Adamczyk, Bartosz; Jacobs, Anna; Jurga, Beata; Smreczak, Bożena; Huyghebaert, Bruno; Abras, Morgan; Kasparinskis, Raimonds; Mason, Eloise; Chenu, Claire; Grassland and Plant ScienceThe European Commission has set targets for a reduction in nutrient losses by at least 50% and a reduction in fertiliser use by at least 20% by 2030 while ensuring no deterioration in soil fertility. Within the mandate of the European Joint Programme EJP Soil ‘Towards climate-smart sustainable management of agricultural soils’, the objective of this study was to assess current fertilisation practices across Europe and discuss the potential for harmonisation of fertilisation methodologies as a strategy to reduce nutrient loss and overall fertiliser use. A stocktake study of current methods of delivering fertilisation advice took place across 23 European countries. The stocktake was in the form of a questionnaire, comprising 46 questions. Information was gathered on a large range of factors, including soil analysis methods, along with soil, crop and climatic factors taken into consideration within fertilisation calculations. The questionnaire was completed by experts, who are involved in compiling fertilisation recommendations within their country. Substantial differences exist in the content, format and delivery of fertilisation guidelines across Europe. The barriers, constraints and potential benefits of a harmonised approach to fertilisation across Europe are discussed. The general consensus from all participating countries was that harmonisation of fertilisation guidelines should be increased, but it was unclear in what format this could be achieved. Shared learning in the delivery and format of fertilisation guidelines and mechanisms to adhere to environmental legislation were viewed as being beneficial. However, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to harmonise all soil test data and fertilisation methodologies at EU level due to diverse soil types and agro-ecosystem influences. Nevertheless, increased future collaboration, especially between neighbouring countries within the same environmental zone, was seen as potentially very beneficial. This study is unique in providing current detail on fertilisation practices across European countries in a side-by-side comparison. The gathered data can provide a baseline for the development of scientifically based EU policy targets for nutrient loss and soil fertility evaluation.Item Water governance diversity across Europe: Does legacy generate sticking points in implementing multi-level governance?(Elsevier, 2022-07-07) Rowbottom, Jenny; Graversgaard, Morten; Wright, Isobel; Dudman, Karl; Klages, Susanne; Heidecke, Claudia; Surdyk, Nicolas; Gourcy, Laurence; Leitão, Ines Amorim; Ferreira, António Dinis; Wuijts, Susanne; Boekhold, Sandra; Doody, Donnacha G.; Glavan, Matjaž; Cvejić, Rozalija; Velthof, Gerard; Environmental ProtectionThe 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.