Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder
In many European countries there is an increasing concern about the occasionally high concentrations of nitrate and pesticides in drinking water. The advent of the EU Water Framework Directive particularly highlights this. The directive states that all large drinking water sources should be ident...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | L3 |
| Language: | Swedish Inglés |
| Published: |
SLU/Dept. of Soil Sciences
2006
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1855571916134285312 |
|---|---|
| author | Carlsson, Marianne |
| author_browse | Carlsson, Marianne |
| author_facet | Carlsson, Marianne |
| author_sort | Carlsson, Marianne |
| collection | Epsilon Archive for Student Projects |
| description | In many European countries there is an increasing concern about the occasionally
high concentrations of nitrate and pesticides in drinking water. The advent of the EU
Water Framework Directive particularly highlights this. The directive states that all
large drinking water sources should be identified and protected from pollution before
2009 and that by 2015 all water bodies should reach a 'good status'.
In Sweden about 60 percent of the drinking water sources have protection areas. This
means that about 700 new water protection areas need to be designated before 2009.
This will affect many farmers, restricting their farming practices.
The purpose of this study was to investigate which methods are used in other
countries concerning nitrate and pesticide pollution from agriculture. From this, the
expectation was to generate ideas on what could be undertaken in Sweden when
designating new protection areas. Countries included in the study were Denmark,
Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the northeast part of the USA. Denmark
and Finland were dealt with as whole nations, whereas in Germany, United Kingdom
and USA the focus was on individual states or regions. (Lower Saxony and North
Rhine-Westphalia in Germany, England and Wales in the UK and the Mid-Atlantic
region in the USA.) Information has been collected from literature, Internet and
through contacts with authorities, companies and organisations in the different
countries.
The results indicate that measures to reduce nitrate and pesticide pollution from
agriculture are similar, while the method of implementing these measures differs from
one country to another. A list of common measures can be seen in table 1. Nearly all
of the measures are also used in Sweden. Still, there are many methods of
implementing that are worth considering as alternatives to these used in Sweden. For
example, in some of the countries studied, the farmers' right to compensation is
stronger than in Sweden. There are also many examples of co-operations between
agriculture and water suppliers and in some countries voluntary action programmes
play a more important part compared to Sweden.
All five countries have some type of statutory water protection areas. In Germany cooperative agreements between farmers and water suppliers are quite common. Lower
Saxony has a co-operation model where water suppliers, authorities and land users
work together to deal with drinking water protection on a local scale. The regional
authorities in Denmark are currently working on action plans for all large drinking
water supplies. Measures in these action plans should preferably be carried out on a
voluntary basis such as through co-operative agreements between farmers and water
suppliers.
In Finland, restrictions in ground water protection areas are not mandatory and there
is not much focus on agriculture since it is not considered a major source of pollution.
Most farms in Finland are involved in some of the agri-environmental schemes and this, together with legislation, is considered enough for protecting water supplies.
In England, statutory water protection areas have only been used once. Instead the
Environmental Agency has designated non-regulatory protection areas for groundwater sources. Often voluntary action programs are preferred to legislation and there are many such programs and agri-environmental schemes directed at the protection of natural resources in England.
In the USA, each state is responsible for completing assessments for public water
systems. This is comparable to the work undertaken by the EU Water Framework
Directive. Action programs for source water protection are not statutory, but are
strongly encouraged by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Extension services,
agri-environmental schemes and Best Management Practices are important measures in reducing the impact of nitrate and pesticides from agriculture to water sources. Cooperations within watersheds between agriculture, authorities, water suppliers and
different organisations have been successful and will probably be used more frequently in the future. |
| format | L3 |
| id | RepoSLU11671 |
| institution | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences |
| language | swe Inglés |
| publishDate | 2006 |
| publishDateSort | 2006 |
| publisher | SLU/Dept. of Soil Sciences |
| publisherStr | SLU/Dept. of Soil Sciences |
| record_format | eprints |
| spelling | RepoSLU116712017-11-24T10:08:16Z Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder Carlsson, Marianne nitrat bekämpningsmedel dricksvatten vattenskyddsområde In many European countries there is an increasing concern about the occasionally high concentrations of nitrate and pesticides in drinking water. The advent of the EU Water Framework Directive particularly highlights this. The directive states that all large drinking water sources should be identified and protected from pollution before 2009 and that by 2015 all water bodies should reach a 'good status'. In Sweden about 60 percent of the drinking water sources have protection areas. This means that about 700 new water protection areas need to be designated before 2009. This will affect many farmers, restricting their farming practices. The purpose of this study was to investigate which methods are used in other countries concerning nitrate and pesticide pollution from agriculture. From this, the expectation was to generate ideas on what could be undertaken in Sweden when designating new protection areas. Countries included in the study were Denmark, Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom and the northeast part of the USA. Denmark and Finland were dealt with as whole nations, whereas in Germany, United Kingdom and USA the focus was on individual states or regions. (Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany, England and Wales in the UK and the Mid-Atlantic region in the USA.) Information has been collected from literature, Internet and through contacts with authorities, companies and organisations in the different countries. The results indicate that measures to reduce nitrate and pesticide pollution from agriculture are similar, while the method of implementing these measures differs from one country to another. A list of common measures can be seen in table 1. Nearly all of the measures are also used in Sweden. Still, there are many methods of implementing that are worth considering as alternatives to these used in Sweden. For example, in some of the countries studied, the farmers' right to compensation is stronger than in Sweden. There are also many examples of co-operations between agriculture and water suppliers and in some countries voluntary action programmes play a more important part compared to Sweden. All five countries have some type of statutory water protection areas. In Germany cooperative agreements between farmers and water suppliers are quite common. Lower Saxony has a co-operation model where water suppliers, authorities and land users work together to deal with drinking water protection on a local scale. The regional authorities in Denmark are currently working on action plans for all large drinking water supplies. Measures in these action plans should preferably be carried out on a voluntary basis such as through co-operative agreements between farmers and water suppliers. In Finland, restrictions in ground water protection areas are not mandatory and there is not much focus on agriculture since it is not considered a major source of pollution. Most farms in Finland are involved in some of the agri-environmental schemes and this, together with legislation, is considered enough for protecting water supplies. In England, statutory water protection areas have only been used once. Instead the Environmental Agency has designated non-regulatory protection areas for groundwater sources. Often voluntary action programs are preferred to legislation and there are many such programs and agri-environmental schemes directed at the protection of natural resources in England. In the USA, each state is responsible for completing assessments for public water systems. This is comparable to the work undertaken by the EU Water Framework Directive. Action programs for source water protection are not statutory, but are strongly encouraged by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Extension services, agri-environmental schemes and Best Management Practices are important measures in reducing the impact of nitrate and pesticides from agriculture to water sources. Cooperations within watersheds between agriculture, authorities, water suppliers and different organisations have been successful and will probably be used more frequently in the future. Många länder i Europa har problem med för höga halter av nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten. Frågan är speciellt aktuell i och med införandet av EU:s ramdirektiv för vatten. I Sverige saknar många dricksvattentäkter skydd och före år 2009 ska cirka 700 nya vattenskyddsområden ha inrättats för att uppfylla direktivet. Detta kommer att påverka många jordbrukare vars odlingsmöjligheter begränsas. Syftet med detta arbete har varit att kartlägga vilka metoder som används för att skydda dricksvatten mot förorening av nitrat och bekämpningsmedel från jordbruket i andra länder, samt att från detta få idéer om vad som kan göras i Sverige vid införandet av nya vattenskyddsområden. De länder som ingick i studien var Danmark, Finland, Tyskland, Storbritannien, samt nordöstra USA. Arbetet har genomförts genom litteraturstudier, Internetsökningar och kontakt med olika myndigheter, företag och organisationer i respektive land. Resultatet av sammanställningen visar att åtgärder för att minska jordbrukets påverkan på dricksvattenkvaliteten oftast är desamma, medan sätten att genomföra åtgärderna på skiljer sig åt mellan de olika länderna. De flesta åtgärder och även många styrmedel används också i Sverige. Andra styrmedel skulle kunna anpassas till svenska förhållanden. I några länder är markägares rätt till ersättning starkare än i Sverige. Det finns också många exempel på samarbeten mellan vattenverk eller myndigheter och lantbruket, samt länder där frivilliga åtgärdsprogram har stor betydelse. Detta är metoder som skulle kunna användas i större omfattning även i Sverige. SLU/Dept. of Soil Sciences 2006 L3 swe eng https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/11671/ |
| spellingShingle | nitrat bekämpningsmedel dricksvatten vattenskyddsområde Carlsson, Marianne Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder |
| title | Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder |
| title_full | Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder |
| title_fullStr | Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder |
| title_full_unstemmed | Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder |
| title_short | Skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder |
| title_sort | skydd mot nitrat och bekämpningsmedel i dricksvatten : åtgärder och styrmedel i fem länder |
| topic | nitrat bekämpningsmedel dricksvatten vattenskyddsområde |