Search

Nitrogen losses from intensive agricultural production may end up as high nitrate (NO3−) concentrations in groundwater, with a long-term impact on groundwater quality. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of fertilization practices used for grape cultivation on groundwater quality of Tidone Valley, northwest of Italy, following an integrated socio-hydrogeological approach that consists on (i) the involvement of 175 farmers in the description of agricultural and fertilization practices, using a survey of ad hoc questionnaires, (ii) the evaluation of NO3− occurrence in groundwater and (iii) the identification of NO3− sources through isotopic and hydrochemical analysis. In this area, as for certain particular Apennines shallow aquifers, groundwater is of reduced interest due to its limited storage capacity and there are insufficient wells currently monitored by the local Environmental Agency (ARPAE) to evaluate the impact of agricultural fertilization on existing local aquifers. Farmers' questionnaires results highlighted an extensive use of inorganic nitrogen fertilization and a tendency of farmers to follow their own experience for fertilization. Chemical analyses revealed high variability of major and trace elements concentrations isotope data. NO3− concentrations were significantly higher in deeper wells with respects to shallow wells. Isotopic results indicated that groundwater NO3− origin is inorganic, in agreement with the land use and the declared viticultural practices. Comparing groundwater NO3− occurrence from the studied area with values of entire Emilia-Romagna Region, only 7.7% of groundwater samples showed values above the EQS. (50 mg NO3−/L) between Nov 2017 and Sept 2018, while in the entire region 11.5% of groundwater samples showed values above the EQS in the same period. Considering that the vineyards surface in the studied area represents almost 75% of the entire regional vineyard surface, the obtained results suggest a low t

Although collaborative, multi-level and adaptive governance is put forward as the right approach to manage water resources, it remains a challenge for local water managers to engage with multiple understandings and perspectives and to move towards more transdisciplinary approaches in water governance. In this research, we address this need by proposing a practical guide for water governance assessment and improvement, existing of three successive steps, i.e. (1) an assessment of water governance, (2) the implementation of a multi-actor process and (3) an evaluation of achievements. This guide is tested in the seven action labs of the WaterProtect project, which have in common that they are drinking water catchments suffering from agricultural pollution throughout Europe. By implementing the guide in the different action labs, we find that water managers appreciated the integrated approach of the guide, helping them in the efficient organization of the water governance process while taking into account the human dimension. Furthermore action lab leaders evaluated the governance guide as being hands-on and practical, allowing them to redirect and open up the governance process. Despite this, they welcomed the presence of a facilitator, who boosted the local action lab leaders’ confidence and motivation to put things into motion. Looking at the results, we find that over the different action labs a lot of progress has been made towards intermediary goals, however that an improvement of the water quality cannot be expected in the short time frame of a project. We therefore recommend to improve the design of the guide with insights from transition management, which will allow local water managers to better address change at different time-scale levels.

Current farm systems rely on the use of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to secure high productivity and control threats to the quality of the crops. However, PPP use may have considerable impacts on human health and the environment. A study protocol is presented aiming to determine the occurrence and levels of PPP residues in plants (crops), animals (livestock), humans and other non-target species (ecosystem representatives) for exposure modelling and impact assessment. To achieve this, we designed a cross-sectional study to compare conventional and organic farm systems across Europe. Environmental and biological samples were/are being/will be collected during the 2021 growing season, at 10 case study sites in Europe covering a range of climate zones and crops. An additional study site in Argentina will inform the impact of PPP use on growing soybean which is an important European protein-source in animal feed. We will study the impact of PPP mixtures using an integrated risk assessment methodology. The fate of PPP in environmental media (soil, water and air) and in the homes of farmers will be monitored. This will be complemented by biomonitoring to estimate PPP uptake by humans and farm animals (cow, goat, sheep and chicken), and by collection of samples from non-target species (earthworms, fish, aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates, bats, and farm cats). We will use data on PPP residues in environmental and biological matrices to estimate exposures by modelling. These exposure estimates together with health and toxicity data will be used to predict the impact of PPP use on environment, plant, animal and human health. The outcome of this study will then be integrated with socio-economic information leading to an overall assessment used to identify transition pathways towards more sustainable plant protection and inform decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders regarding farming practices and land use policy.

The agricultural IoT infrastructure transformation is enabling crop producers to receive status information from interconnect farms, crops, crop/field, equipment, storage and livestock. Agricultural corporations down to small family farms are now able to monitor the entire plantation ecosystem, spanning from: crop field physical parameters (temperature, light, humidity, soil moisture etc.), plants phenotyping, crops vigour, local climatic conditions and control of operations such as its irrigation and fertilisation through automation solutions (greenhouses). The TERRATECH approach presented in this paper aims to develop an advanced interactive MSc course related to Agriculture IoT Engineering that will train individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to work in the rising “Smart Agriculture” industry. The course is also formulated to stimulate transversal competences such as the increased sense of initiative and entrepreneurship.

Cadmium (Cd) is a heavy metal that accumulates in soil and in living organisms and causes severe and permanent damage. Its presence in the soil depends largely on the use of phosphate fertilizers. Phosphorite and apatite rocks used in phosphate fertilizers production contain several other minerals, including Cd. The amount of Cd incorporated in phosphate fertilizers depends on the type of phosphorite and apatite rocks (with low or high Cd content). Cd is present in soil mainly in insoluble form and has no bioavailability for plants. However, plants can increase Cd solubility by releasing root exudates that change the pH of the rhizosphere, therefore increasing Cd accumulation. Once crops absorb Cd, it enters the food chain. Food is the primary source of Cd exposure (for the non-smoking population), with cereals, nuts and legumes, and fish and shellfish being the major contributors. Progressive accumulation of Cd in humans impairs kidney function, affects the liver, and causes bone demineralization. Cd classification as a human carcinogen goes back to the 1990s. The European Union adopted Regulation (EU) 2019/1009, limiting Cd content in organo-mineral fertilizer having total phosphorus (P) content of 5% P2O5 equivalent at 60 mg kg−1 P2O5. This threshold seems inadequate compared to the threshold values for Cd currently in place in some EU countries: 12 member states have a Cd threshold between 20 and 50 mg kg−1 P2O5, 8 have the same threshold as that proposed in the regulation, and 2 have a higher threshold. Meanwhile, the new EU Regulation on CAP Strategic Plans explicitly references soil health and fertility protection and the limitation of contaminants in fertilizers. Fertilizers with low Cd content, with thresholds no higher than 20 mg kg−1 P2O5, would effectively limit bioaccumulation. As stopping P fertilizer application cannot be an option, strategies such as the use of P fertilizers with low Cd content, the use of cultivars that accumulate less Cd in their c

Background: Organic food is generally considered as having healthier properties as consequence of the environmental-friendly management if compared with conventional food. However, there is a lack of strong scientific evidences that organic food is significantly different from the conventional regarding nutritional properties, environmental and human health impacts. Scope and approach: The main scope of the present review is to assess the differences between the organic and conventional food in terms of nutritional properties, environmental impact and consumer perception and to identify future research needed. Key findings and conclusions: Nutritional properties, the “environmental friendly” concept and the consumer perception aspects were analyzed to compare organic and conventional food. In general, non-significant differences in nutrient properties and carbon food prints between organic and conventional food have been observed, even if for the both aspects significant sensitivity and uncertainty are present and specific analysis to assess them are mandatory. Consumers perceive the organic food more valued even if relatively higher prices and poorer availability of organic products compared with their conventional counterparts could limit the purchase and the quality perception.

Current farm systems rely on the use of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to secure high productivity and control threats to the quality of the crops. However, PPP use may have considerable impacts on human health and the environment. A study protocol is presented aiming to determine the occurrence and levels of PPP residus in plants (crops), animals (livestock), humans and other non-target species (ecosystem representatives) for exposure modelling and impact assessment. To achieve this, we designed a cross-sectional study to compare conventional and organic farm systems across Europe. Environmental and biological samples were/are being/will be collected during the 2021 growing season, at 10 case study sites in Europe covering a range of climate zones and crops. An additional study site in Argentina will inform the impact of PPP use on growing soybean which is an important European protein-source in animal feed. We will study the impact of PPP mixtures using an integrated risk assessment methodology. The fate of PPP in environmental media (soil, water and air) and in the homes of farmers will be monitored. This will be complemented by biomonitoring to estimate PPP uptake by humans and farm animals (cow, goat, sheep and chicken), and by collection of samples from non-target species (earthworms, fish, aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates, bats, and farm cats). We will use data on PPP residues in environmental and biological matrices to estimate exposures by modelling. These exposure estimates together with health and toxicity data will be used to predict the impact of PPP use on environment, plant, animal and human health. The outcome of this study will then be integrated with socio-economic information leading to an overall assessment used to identify transition pathways towards more sustainable plant protection and inform decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders regarding farming practices and land use policy.

Current farm systems rely on the use of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to secure high productivity and control threats to the quality of the crops. However, PPP use may have considerable impacts on human health and the environment. A study protocol is presented aiming to determine the occurrence and levels of PPP residues in plants (crops), animals (livestock), humans and other non-target species (ecosystem representatives) for exposure modelling and impact assessment. To achieve this, we designed a cross-sectional study to compare conventional and organic farm systems across Europe. Environmental and biological samples were/are being/will be collected during the 2021 growing season, at 10 case study sites in Europe covering a range of climate zones and crops. An additional study site in Argentina will inform the impact of PPP use on growing soybean which is an important European protein-source in animal feed. We will study the impact of PPP mixtures using an integrated risk assessment methodology. The fate of PPP in environmental media (soil, water and air) and in the homes of farmers will be monitored. This will be complemented by biomonitoring to estimate PPP uptake by humans and farm animals (cow, goat, sheep and chicken), and by collection of samples from non-target species (earthworms, fish, aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates, bats, and farm cats). We will use data on PPP residues in environmental and biological matrices to estimate exposures by modelling. These exposure estimates together with health and toxicity data will be used to predict the impact of PPP use on environment, plant, animal and human health. The outcome of this study will then be integrated with socio-economic information leading to an overall assessment used to identify transition pathways towards more sustainable plant protection and inform decision makers, practitioners and other stakeholders regarding farming practices and land use policy.

Despite an improvement of water quality across Europe there are many pollution hotspots for both nitrates and PPPs, mainly due to agricultural activities. The BMPs and MMs to reduce pollution from agriculture are well known, and there are policy instruments in place to ensure drinking water standards, but the current approach has not been efficient enough. Within the H2020 Water Protect project the premise was that there is a need for a multi-actor, participatory approach to tackle the issue from a new angle, and to assess why the uptake of known BMPs and MMs was not better among farmers. Seven “Action Labs” were selected that represent major physical, socio-economical, cultural and farming settings across Europe. A methodology of multi-actor engagement was chosen but with different approaches due to the local context. Initially the level of farmers' awareness about water quality issues was matched to the observed uptake rates of BMPs and MMs. In a second survey barriers hindering the uptake of measures were identified. The first survey revealed a low general awareness on the potential pollution to drinking water sources. Despite this, between 24% to 88% of the surveyed farmers per Action Lab were already voluntarily adopting one quarter of the selected BMPs and MMs. The second survey demonstrated the need to address organisational, legislative, sociological and technical barriers. The lack of coordination between different institutional bodies promoting measures and the financial incentives needed to invest and operate these often-costly measures need to be considered. The multi-actor, participatory approach with its improved awareness and collaboration made it possible to identify the crucial factors for improvement - to build a social acceptance among all actors and communicate the issues and solutions from the start.

Although collaborative, multi-level and adaptive governance is put forward as the right approach to manage water resources, it remains a challenge for local water managers to engage with multiple understandings and perspectives and to move towards more transdisciplinary approaches in water governance. In this research, we address this need by proposing a practical guide for water governance assessment and improvement, existing of three successive steps, i.e. (1) an assessment of water governance, (2) the implementation of a multi-actor process and (3) an evaluation of achievements. This guide is tested in the seven action labs of the WaterProtect project, which have in common that they are drinking water catchments suffering from agricultural pollution throughout Europe. By implementing the guide in the different action labs, we find that water managers appreciated the integrated approach of the guide, helping them in the efficient organization of the water governance process while taking into account the human dimension. Furthermore action lab leaders evaluated the governance guide as being hands-on and practical, allowing them to redirect and open up the governance process. Despite this, they welcomed the presence of a facilitator, who boosted the local action lab leaders' confidence and motivation to put things into motion. Looking at the results, we find that over the different action labs a lot of progress has been made towards intermediary goals, however that an improvement of the water quality cannot be expected in the short time frame of a project. We therefore recommend improving the design of the guide with insights from transition management, which will allow local water managers to better address change at different time-scale levels.

Despite an improvement of water quality across Europe there are many pollution hotspots for both nitrates and PPPs, mainly due to agricultural activities. The BMPs and MMs to reduce pollution from agriculture are well known, and there are policy instruments in place to ensure drinking water standards, but the current approach has not been efficient enough. Within the H2020 Water Protect project the premise was that there is a need for a multi-actor, participatory approach to tackle the issue from a new angle, and to assess why the uptake of known BMPs and MMs was not better among farmers. Seven “Action Labs” were selected that represent major physical, socio-economical, cultural and farming settings across Europe. A methodology of multi-actor engagement was chosen but with different approaches due to the local context. Initially the level of farmers' awareness about water quality issues was matched to the observed uptake rates of BMPs and MMs. In a second survey barriers hindering the uptake of measures were identified. The first survey revealed a low general awareness on the potential pollution to drinking water sources. Despite this, between 24% to 88% of the surveyed farmers per Action Lab were already voluntarily adopting one quarter of the selected BMPs and MMs. The second survey demonstrated the need to address organisational, legislative, sociological and technical barriers. The lack of coordination between different institutional bodies promoting measures and the financial incentives needed to invest and operate these often-costly measures need to be considered. The multi-actor, participatory approach with its improved awareness and collaboration made it possible to identify the crucial factors for improvement - to build a social acceptance among all actors and communicate the issues and solutions from the start.

The MERLIN-Expo tool was evaluated using a SWOT analysis, which was based on expert judgement and literature review. A list of criteria was set up containing the major model characteristics, which were divided in general model criteria and relevance model criteria. Relevance model criteria were defined as criteria, which are highly depending on the regulatory framework the model is used in. From the analysis presented above, it appeared that certain regulatory chemical frameworks (e.g. REACH, biocides) are stricter towards their requirements compared to others (e.g. site-specific/local regulatory frameworks). Based on expert judgement, the MERLIN-Expo tool was evaluated using the general and relevance criteria. MERLIN-Expo has many advanced functionalities (such as uncertainty analysis, modular approach, dynamic model, combines environmental fate with pharmacokinetics) and models (many fate processes and environmental compartments, different human populations). At the same time, the threat is that current (regulatory) applicability frameworks do not always require these advanced assessment functionalities. The MERLIN-Expo tool appeared to be most suitable for the site-specific assessment as this is the most flexible framework. Based on this analysis, weaknesses of the MERLIN-Expo tool for its use in a certain regulatory framework could also be identified. These weaknesses are at the same time further development opportunities for MERLIN-Expo. On general model characteristics, MERLIN-Expo was identified as a highly documented (both for novice and expert level), transparent, user-friendly tool with regular trainings. Its main treat now is to ensure continuing support and mechanisms for future developmental work and updates.

The adoption of pesticide mitigation measures and innovation at farm level, are seen as a drivers to reach the sustainable water policy objectives. With the aim to prevent the pesticide pressure of hilly vineyards on groundwater contamination, a stepwise approach in Tidone Valley was applied using different consultation mechanisms and involvement strategies throughout the overall process. Face to face meetings, direct surveys, participatory monitoring and planning of several activities aiming to inform, educate, improve skills, change of individual behaviour or raise awareness, or even initiatives to build institutional trust or support for new investment in innovation are some examples. These activities allowed us to involve key actors of water use and governance (such as farmers, advisors, representatives of drinking water management, farmer's associations, Winemaking cooperatives, local Health Authority), and to have a deeper knowledge of the context agricultural practices, of farmer's knowledge and skills concerning factors influencing water contamination and also to promote the most suitable Best Management Practices aimed at limiting the pesticide occurrence in groundwater. Indeed, the surveys results highlighted that the majority of the farms are small (64% of vineyards <10 ha), that most of the farmers (62%) are not aware of the current legislation on water, even if 64% of them declare to participate regularly to training courses for the prevention of water contamination and that there is a low to moderate level of adoption of Best Practices able to prevent contamination by pesticides. At the end of the overall process, it can be stated that the multi-actor approach and engagement strategy adopted were successful in improving attitudes to more sustainable practices. This is supported also by the monitoring data that show in 2019 a decrease by 44% of pesticides occurrences and a fall by 68% of values above EQSgw if compared with the period 2017–2018.

Despite an improvement of water quality across Europe there are many pollution hotspots for both nitrates and PPPs, mainly due to agricultural activities. The BMPs and MMs to reduce pollution from agriculture are well known, and there are policy instruments in place to ensure drinking water standards, but the current approach has not been efficient enough. Within the H2020 Water Protect project the premise was that there is a need for a multi-actor, participatory approach to tackle the issue from a new angle, and to assess why the uptake of known BMPs and MMs was not better among farmers. Seven “Action Labs” were selected that represent major physical, socio-economical, cultural and farming settings across Europe. A methodology of multi-actor engagement was chosen but with different approaches due to the local context. Initially the level of farmers' awareness about water quality issues was matched to the observed uptake rates of BMPs and MMs. In a second survey barriers hindering the uptake of measures were identified. The first survey revealed a low general awareness on the potential pollution to drinking water sources. Despite this, between 24% to 88% of the surveyed farmers per Action Lab were already voluntarily adopting one quarter of the selected BMPs and MMs. The second survey demonstrated the need to address organisational, legislative, sociological and technical barriers. The lack of coordination between different institutional bodies promoting measures and the financial incentives needed to invest and operate these often-costly measures need to be considered. The multi-actor, participatory approach with its improved awareness and collaboration made it possible to identify the crucial factors for improvement - to build a social acceptance among all actors and communicate the issues and solutions from the start.