Assessing the European Water Stewardship Standard in the Context ...

Assessing the European Water Stewardship Standard in the
Context of the EU Water Framework Directive
–
A Case Study of the Applicability and Acceptance on a Farm Level
Diplomarbeit
für die
Diplomprüfung
zur
Erlangung des Grades: Diplomagraringenieurin (Dipl.-Ing.agr.)
der
Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät
der
Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität
zu
Bonn
Vorgelegt am 30. Juni 2012
von
cand. agr. Susanne Eva Maria Ziegler
1. Prüfer: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Köpke
2. Prüfer: Prof. Dr. Olaf Christen

Eine Bewertung des European Water Stewardship Standard
vor dem Hintergrund der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie
–
Eine Fallstudie zur Anwendbarkeit und Akzeptanz in der
Landwirtschaft

Abstract
The EWS standard is a newly developed tool to evaluate and communicate sustainable water
management. It consists of four principles referring to water abstraction, water quality, water-
cycled related ecosystems and good governance. The applicability and the acceptance of the
European Water Stewardship (EWS) standard on a farm level was analysed in this thesis.
The investigation was threefold (i) to examine how this recently developed standard can
contribute to achieve the targets set under the Water Framework Directive and (ii) to evaluate
the applicability and (iii) the acceptance as certification scheme.
By means of a literature study, the EWS Standard was analysed according to the aims of the
WFD and how it can contribute to its implementation. The case study, referred to as the pilot
testing of the EWS standard, was carried out on five farms situated in the Elbe River basin
specialized on crop production. In cooperation with farmers the pilot tests were conducted to
give feedback on the applicability and acceptance of the EWS standard. The applicability was
assessed by conducting a performance analysis and using a questionnaire. The acceptance was
evaluated by holding expert interviews with the farmers piloting the EWS standard.
It was concluded that the EWS standard is in line with the aims of the Water Framework
Directive and can in theory contribute to its implementation within a river basins. The
indicator set used to evaluate compliance with the principles of the EWS standard was
considered to be applicable, with the exception of two indicators. Reasons for non-
applicability were misleading translation and inaccessible data. The level of compliance was
moderate relating to water abstraction, the first principle of the EWS standard. Compliance
with regard to the other principles, namely, water quality, water-cycled related ecosystems
and good governance, was low. Reasons for the low compliance were insufficient preparation
of the pilot test by farmers. Additionally the extensive indicator set could have led to
relatively low data provision and might constrain the overall applicability for a farm level.
The acceptance of the EWS standard by farmers interviewed in this case study can under
current circumstances not be confirmed. Reasons were various, including missing financial
compensations and a too grand of a workload to comply with the requirements. Acceptance
by all farmers could be imagined, if subsidies or higher prices for certified products are
received.

Kurzfassung
Der EWS Standard ist eine kürzlich entwickelte Arbeitshilfe, um nachhaltiges
Wassermanagement zu bewerten und zu kommunizieren. Der Standard besteht aus vier
Grundsätzen, die sich auf Wasserentnahme, Wasserqualität, dem Wasserkreislauf
verbundener Ökosysteme und „Good Governance“ beziehen. In dieser Arbeit wurde die
Anwendbarkeit und Akzeptanz des “European Water Stewardship” (EWS) Standards für die
landwirtschaftliche Betriebsebene untersucht.
Die Diplomarbeit bezieht sich auf drei Bereiche, (i) wie kann der kürzlich entwickelte
Standard zu den gesetzten Zielen der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie beitragen und (ii) wie ist die
Anwendbarkeit und (iii) die Akzeptanz als Zertifizierungssystem zu bewerten.
Auf der Grundlage einer Literaturanalyse wurde der EWS Standard bezüglich der Ziele der
europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinien ausgewertet und beurteilt. Es wurde untersucht, wie
der Standard zur Implementierung beitragen kann. Eine Fallstudie, hier als Pilottest des EWS
Standards bezeichnet, wurde auf fünf landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben ausgeführt. Die Betriebe
sind auf Pflanzenproduktion spezialisiert und befinden sich im Einzugsgebiet der Elbe. In
Kooperation mit den Landwirten wurden Anwendbarkeit und Akzeptanz des Standards
untersucht. Die Anwendbarkeit wurde anhand einer Performanceanalyse und mit Hilfe eines
Fragebogens geprüft. In Experteninterviews mit den Betriebsleitern wurde die Akzeptanz des
EWS Standards ermittelt.
Es wurde festgestellt, dass der EWS Standard mit den Zielen der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie
übereinstimmt und potenziell zu deren Umsetzung beitragen kann. Die Indikatoren, die dazu
dienen, die Einhaltung der Grundsätze des EWS Standards zu prüfen, wurden mit zwei
Einschränkungen als anwendbar eingestuft. Gründe für die Nichtanwendbarkeit waren
irreführende Übersetzungen und Unzugänglichkeit von Daten.
Der Grad der Konformität war mittelmäßig bezüglich des Grundsatzes zur Wasserentnahme.
Die Einhaltung bezüglich der Wasserqualität, wasserverbundenen Ökosystemen und „Good
Governance“ waren niedrig. Gründe für die geringe Einhaltung war die unzureichende
Vorbereitung des Pilottests durch die Landwirte. Zusätzlich könnte das umfangreiche
Indikatorenset zu einem relativ geringen Datenumfang geführt haben und dadurch insgesamt
die Anwendbarkeit des Standards beschränken.
Die Bereitschaft der Landwirte, den EWS Standard unter den derzeitigen Gegebenheiten zu
akzeptieren, ist nicht gegeben. Gründe waren vielfältig, wie beispielsweise eine fehlende
finanzielle Entschädigungen und ein zu hoher Arbeitsaufwand. Grundsätzlich halten alle
Landwirte die Einführung und Umsetzung des Standards für möglich, sofern Fördermitteln
bereit gestellt werden oder höhere Preise für zertifizierte Produkte erzielt werden können.

Acknowledgement
It is a pleasure to thank those who made this thesis possible.
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis committee, Prof. Dr.
Köpke, Prof. Dr. Christen, Eileen Kloweit and the team at the Institute of Organic Agriculture
of Bonn.
Further I would like to thank my interview partners for sharing their knowledge, opinion and
time with me.
Special thanks go to Sabine von Wirén-Lehr and her team at EWP who contribute with their
knowledge and input.
My warmest thanks are reserved for my parents, who have supported me outmost, in this
period of thesis writing and during my whole studies. I feel fortunate to have such loveable,
supportive and patient parents.
Further I would like to thank David, Till and João who have supported me in this project.

List of Figures I
Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ III
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... III
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. IV
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2 Research Question .............................................................................................................. 3
3 Theoretical Background..................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Water in Europe .............................................................................................................. 4
3.1.1 Water Availability ................................................................................................. 4
3.1.2 Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Status of the Elbe River Basin ........................................................................................ 8
3.2.1 Pollution of Surface Water .................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Pollution of Groundwater ...................................................................................... 9
3.3 The EU Water Framework Directive ............................................................................ 10
3.3.1 Incentives for Sustainable Water Management ................................................... 12
3.4 The EWS Standard ....................................................................................................... 13
3.4.1 Voluntary Certification Schemes ......................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Background and Aims of the EWS Standard ....................................................... 13
3.4.3 The EWS Standard Document ............................................................................. 14
4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Literature Analysis ........................................................................................................ 16
4.2 Case Study .................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.1 Selection of Pilot Farms ....................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Course of Pilot Test ............................................................................................. 18
4.2.3 Applicability of the EWS Standard ..................................................................... 19
4.2.4 Acceptance of the EWS Standard ........................................................................ 21
5 Results ................................................................................................................................ 23
5.1 Literature Analysis ........................................................................................................ 23
5.1.1 The EWS Standard and the EU Water Framework Directive ............................. 23
5.2 Case Study .................................................................................................................... 27
5.2.1 Adjustment of the Case Study ............................................................................. 27

List of Figures II
5.2.2 Applicability of the EWS Standard ..................................................................... 28
5.2.3 Acceptance of the EWS Standard ........................................................................ 33
6 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 38
6.1 Discussion of Methodology .......................................................................................... 38
6.1.1 Literature Study ................................................................................................... 38
6.1.2 Case study ............................................................................................................ 38
6.2 Discussion of Results .................................................................................................... 40
6.2.1 Literature Analysis ............................................................................................... 40
6.2.2 Adjustment of Case Study ................................................................................... 40
6.2.3 Applicability of the EWS standard ...................................................................... 41
6.2.4 Acceptance of the EWS standard ......................................................................... 44
7 Conclusion, Recommendation and Outlook ................................................................... 47
8 References .......................................................................................................................... 49
9 Annex ................................................................................................................................. 59
A.1: Points received per farm to EWS indicator set ........................................................... 59
A.2: Interview part I ........................................................................................................... 60
A.3: Interview part II .......................................................................................................... 61
A.4: Categories for interview part II .................................................................................. 62
A.5: Questions referring to individual indicator ................................................................. 62
A.6: EWS draft standard version 3.3 .................................................................................. 63
A.7: Affirmation ................................................................................................................. 84

List of Figures III
List of Figures
Figure 1: To exemplify early summer droughts, soil humidity measurements on Farm
D in 2010 ................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2: Level of compliance to the EWS standard by principle on farms (n=5) in the
Elbe River basin ........................................................................................................ 29
Figure 3: Motivation for acceptance of the EWS standard by the farmers (n=5) in the
pilot test ..................................................................................................................... 37
List of Tables
Table 1: Timeline of key milestones toward the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive ................................................................................................. 11
Table 2: Overview of principles and criteria of the EWS Standard ......................................... 15
Table 3: Farm profiles of pilot farms testing the EWS standard ............................................. 18
Table 4: Extract of Requirements for Compliance (version 0.6) document used to
assess compliance with the EWS standard ................................................................ 20
Table 5: Alignment of the EWS standard with the Programme of Measures of the
Water Framework Directive for the Elbe River basin .............................................. 26
Table 6: Level of compliance to the EWS standard according to indicator level
performed on farms (n=5) in the Elbe River basin .................................................... 28
Table 7: Evaluation of amount of information, average of compliance, comprehension,
need for support and data accessibility on criteria level of the EWS standard
to assess applicability ................................................................................................ 31
Table 8: Occurrence of categories for non-compliance by principle of the EWS
standard ..................................................................................................................... 32
Table 9: Key statements of farmers (n=5) testing the EWS standard indicating levels
of acceptance ............................................................................................................. 36

List of Tables IV
List of Abbreviations
Art. Article
AWC Available Water Capacity
CAP Common Agriculture Policy
Crit. Criteria
EU European Union
EWP European Water Partnership
EWS European Water Stewardship
HCV High Conservation Value
Ind. Indicator
PoMs Programme of Measures
RBMP River Basin Management Plan
SWM Sustainable Water Management
WFD Water Framework Directive

1 Introduction 1
1 Introduction
Water is indispensable for life. All living organisms and ecosystems on our planet depend on
its existence and availability. Falling as rain, issuing from springs, flowing through rivers,
gathering in lakes and wetlands, finally ending up in the oceans this precious resource has
given rise to an extraordinary diversity and abundance of living forms. Water enabled human
civilizations to grow and prosper.
Though being a renewable resource it must not be considered to be infinite. According to
SALETH & DINAR (2004), freshwater resources might reach their limits towards the end of the
21 st century. In some regions severe water stress due to water constraints is imminent and will
increase in the course of climate change. Altogether 80 countries, with 40% percent of the
world’s population, were suffering from water shortages by the mid-1990s (CSD 1997).
Further it is predicts that by 2025, about 1.8 billion people will live in regions threatened by
water scarcity, which means that two out of three people would live under conditions of water
stress (FAO 2007a). The United Nations has responded to these threats by declaring the
period of 2005 until 2015 as a decade of worldwide conservation of water resources
(UNDESA 2012).
Europe benefits from a geographically privileged situation as water resources are generally
abundant. Still recent surveys reveal that some parts of Europe are experiencing water scarcity
and floods. In 2003 widespread droughts affected over 100 million people, a third of the
European Union (EU) territory, at an expense of billions of Euros (EC 2006). These threats
have led to a heightened awareness in Europe towards the use of water. In addition the EU put
pressure on Member States to protect water resources by bringing into force a new directive in
2000. This directive is framing policy towards an integrated water management and is also
known as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EU 2000).
Further industrial and agricultural business realised the need of sustainable water governance
to be included in their business strategy. In 2008 the development of a sustainable water
management (SWM) standard started on a European level throughout a stakeholder process of
interested parties such as agriculture, industry and cities coordinated by the non-governmental
organisation, the European Water Partnership (EWP) (EWP 2011a). The idea is to manage
water in a comprehensive way and therefore a standard was designed to monitor and mitigate
effects of water use, which was given the name European Water Stewardship (EWS) standard.
To meet the idea of a comprehensive approach the standard is based on four principles
referring to water abstraction, water quality, water-cycled related ecosystems and more
generally, good water governance (EWP 2011b).

1 Introduction 2
Being recently developed and ready to use, however it is not clear whether the EWS standard
can be considered appropriate to be applied in field. This is especially important as the EWS
standard is planned to be used as a certification programme to verify SWM.
This thesis aims to explore in which extend the EWS standard is concordant with the aims of
the WFD and whether the EWS standard is an applicable and accepted tool on a farm level. In
a first step the compliance of the EWS standard and the WFD is analyzed based on a literature
study. In a second step the applicability and acceptance is investigated within a case study on
five German farms located in the Elbe river basin. The detailed research questions can be
described as follows.

2 Research Question 3
2 Research Question
„Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht in der Praxis“(IMMANUEL KANT).
As KANT stated something that might be valid in theory does not always apply in practice.
The EWS standard has been developed by a range of experts, nevertheless it´s practical
applicability needs to be tested and at the best proven scientifically. The declaration of KANT
comprises the stimulus of the research approach and the following questions are addressed:
(i) Is the EWS standard in line with current development of EU water policy, i.e.
the WFD?
This question is answered by a literature analysis exploring in which extent the EWS standard
is according to the WFD. Further to answer how the EWS standard can support the practical
operation of the directive, the standard was compared to the Programme of Measures (PoMs),
a key instrument for implementation of the WFD. As the PoMs are established on a river
basin level this is evaluated referring to the Elbe River basin, where farmers of the case study
are situated.
The applicability and acceptance was explored in the frame of a case study, referred to as a
pilot test of the EWS standard:
(ii) Can the EWS standard be considered as an applicable tool for certification 1 on
a farm level?
(iii) Which is the level of acceptance by farmers in the Elbe River basin?
The applicability was tested by performing a pilot test on five selected farms. The pilot test
was evaluated by making use of a performance analysis accompanied by a questionnaire.
To evaluate the acceptance of the EWS standard the farmers´ of the pilot test have been
interviewed with regard to the usability of the standard and conditions under which they
would participate in the certification scheme.
1 In this study, we define certification as ALBERSMEIER et al.2009: ‘‘the (voluntary) assessment and approval by an
(accredited) party on an (accredited) standard”.

3 Theoretical Background 4
3 Theoretical Background
Europe's freshwater resources range from surface waters to groundwater and wetlands to man-
made bodies of water such as canals and reservoirs. During the last century mankind has
influenced water systems by structural changes, water abstractions, pollution and others. In
the following chapter, the pressure on water resources is described being divided by water
availability and quality for the EU and the Elbe River basin. Furthermore the WFD and its
purposes are outlined. This is followed by a description of the EWS standard background,
aims and content.
3.1 Water in Europe
3.1.1 Water Availability
While water is generally abundant in much of Europe, more and more often, particularly in
southern Europe, society suffers from water shortages, fires and droughts (SVENSSON 2006).
Precipitation across Europe ranges from less than 400 mm/year in parts of the Mediterranean
to more than 1,000 mm/year along the Atlantic shores. Generally, over the last century
average precipitation has increased by 6 - 8%. Taking losses from evapotranspiration into
account, the effective rainfall can be lower than 50 mm/year in the south (MULLIGAN et al.
2006). Additionally seasonal changes are recognised and also predicted in climate models
forecasts with a decrease of winter precipitation for southern and central Europe and an
increase for western and northern parts. Summers will become drier with more frequent and
intense droughts over the coming decades (EEA 2008).
Although it is a more acute issue in the south, nowadays water stress is also recognized in the
north, being predicted to increase in severity and periodicity. Comparing the periods of
1976 – 1990 and 1991 – 2006, a doubling of area and population affected by droughts was
noticed in Europe (EC 2006).
The total freshwater resources across Europe account for 2,270 km² with an abstraction of
13% of the total volume (EEA 2009). Surface water is the predominant source of freshwater,
with 81% of the total abstraction due to its cost effectiveness and easy access. With regard to
the EU, water abstractions by different sectors account 44% for energy production, 24% for
agriculture, 21% for public water supply and 11% for industry (EEA 2009). Abstraction for
energy production is nearly all returned to the water body. This does not apply to agriculture
as up to 80% of water is lost through plant uptake and evapotranspiration and is therefore
considered one of the most critical sectors of water consumption (EEA 1999a). On top of that,

3 Theoretical Background 5
overexploitation of sources can lead to higher pollution, as less water is available for dilution
(EEA 2010a). Especially in southern Europe, groundwater can be significantly affected by
water abstraction lowering groundwater levels for tens of meters by exceeding the natural
refill capacity of aquifers. This often results in reduced river flow and river volumes with
severe impacts on water-related ecosystems and habitats (DOGDU & SAGNAK 2008).
Furthermore, saline intrusion of over-pumped coastal aquifers is increasing throughout
Europe, with rising salt concentration in groundwater and cutting off the use of coastal
aquifers (PETALAS et al. 2009).
In accordance with these facts, a report of the European Commission (EC) estimates that 17%
of the EU territory is currently affected by water scarcity, with a cost of 100 billion Euros
throughout the past 30 years (EC 2007a).
Impacts of water scarcity in the EU are different depending on the sector. Abstraction and
storage of water can heavily contribute to water shortages especially in periods of low rainfall
and natural droughts. This is becoming a key-issue in determining availability of freshwater
resources. The relationship between water demand and availability is not always linear,
leading to problems especially over longer periods of droughts particularly as agriculture
substitutes missing rainfalls with irrigation, resulting in a greater water abstraction. Peak
abstraction is mostly during summer months when water sources are naturally scarce (EEA
2010a). This can have dramatic effects on both society and nature. Low availability of water
for ecosystems can create hostile conditions for water biota and terrestrial ecosystems causing
declines of plant and animal populations (ALLIBONE 1996). For society, meeting the critical
level of water availability, can lead to threats in various sectors like agriculture, tourism and
industry, implying economic losses. To mitigate risks, the interest towards the different water
resources have to be managed wisely, aiming on SWM within the watersheds.
3.1.2 Water Quality
The quality of Europe´s water bodies was recently assessed in the context of the WFD
throughout national monitoring programmes. The assessment was manifold considering all
anthropogenic pollutants entering water resources such as nutrients and heavy metals. Threats
to freshwater quality are pollutants released from different sectors such as industry,
households, agriculture, tourism and urban areas with the agricultural sector being the
dominating polluter (EEA 2010b). However water pollution can also have importance on a
local level from mines, aquaculture, dwellings and others (JARVIE et al. 2006). In general
pollution can be minimised technically through optimising the effectiveness of treatment
plants and strategically by means of policy (OVERVELD 2008). Technically tremendous efforts
have been made leading to a significant decrease of pollution especially for industry and

3 Theoretical Background 6
treatment plants related to point pollution. Strategically the WFD still has to prove its
effectiveness to reduce pollution especially from diffuse sources from agriculture. Within the
next section the most pressing pollutants caused by agricultural production will be described
individually.
Nutrients
Currently within Europe the Western Member States account for the highest values of nutrient
applications. Often nutrient application is not optimised and more fertiliser is applied than
actually needed by the plant (GRIZZETTI et al. 2007).
Focusing on nitrogen, this nutrient enters the environment through point sources from
wastewater treatment plants and non-point sources as atmospheric deposition and run-off
from mineral and organic fertiliser (HILL 2010). After being applied on fields it can leach into
the environment depending on plant uptake, soil and weather conditions (STOATE et al. 2001).
Environmental and ecological effects of nitrogen pollution related to water bodies can
provoke acidification, fertilisation of fresh waters and further coastal eutrophication as known
from the Baltic Sea (DRISCOLL et al 2003).
A calculation of an average between 2002 and 2004 shows that most European Member
States possess a nitrogen surplus of higher then 30 kg/ha of agricultural land, while up to
200 kg/ha was found in the Netherlands (EEA 2010b).Still, in 2008 comparing to the years
1990 and 2004, nitrogen surpluses have actually declined and show a continuing reduction
(OECD 2008).
Phosphorus
Phosphorus enters the environment through point sources from sewage and industrial
effluents and non-point sources from agricultural run-off (JARVIE et al. 2006). The dominating
sources contributing to phosphorus pollution are: fertilisers, metabolic waste from humans,
livestock manure and detergents (EEA 2010b). Phosphorus can greatly contribute to
eutrophication of surface water. The most common effect of an increase in phosphorus
concentration in aquatic systems is the stimulation of algae growth. This can provoke harmful
algal blooms, resulting in eutrophication causing problems related to water quality like smell,
odour and high concentrations of biological toxins (SMITH 2009). Phosphorus values stride
the ecologically tolerable level of 0.1 kg/ha/year across much of Europe with hotspots
exceeding 1.0 kg/ha/year (GRIZZETTI & BOURAOUI 2006).
Technical innovations in treatment plants have improved the efficiency to remove phosphorus
from sewage and industry in the last decades (BECHMANN et al. 2005). This leaves agriculture
with diffuse pollution as the main external contributor.

3 Theoretical Background 7
Pesticides
Pesticide usage has increased during the past 25 years resulting in the presence of residues in
aquatic environments (KONSTANTINOU et al. 2006). They are used for public and private
purposes in agriculture, forestry, manufacturing and industrial activities. Sources of pesticides
differ between diffuse and point pollution. Point pollution tends more to occur mainly in
industry by accidents during production, storage and discharge of effluents (EEA 1999b). In
agriculture diffuse pollution is dominated by diffuse run-off. However point pollution can
occur from spillage, filling, cleaning and inappropriate storage or disposal (RICHARDS &
BAKER 1993). Point pollution is less complex to combat and has been significantly reduced in
the past. In contrast little success has been accomplished to mitigate diffuse pollution due to
the chemical and environmental properties of pesticides, climate conditions and soils
characteristics, topography and agricultural practices, all influencing the pathways and extent
of pollution (LEONARD 1990, GUNNINGHAM & SINCLAIR 2005). A hardly investigated issue is
the interaction between different pesticides and their combined effects, which may be of great
danger to human health (KONSTANTINOU et al. 2006).
Heavy Metals
Heavy metal emission may result from agricultural activities such as fertilization, the use of
organic residual materials and feeding livestock. They may enter the soil and plant biota and
therefore the food chain. Also they accumulate in soils in less soluble forms or move to the
watershed through leaching and erosion (NZIGUHEBA & SMOLDERS 2008).
Heavy metals like copper, zinc (directly), cadmium or plumb (indirectly) are added to
livestock feed, and are often not fully absorbed by animals and can end up in the environment
via excrements. The use of copper-disinfectants of livestock hooves in cattle farming was
found to contribute up to 40% of the total copper inputs in the environment in Europe (ECKEL
et al. 2004). While metals are generally well retained in soil, there is evidence that agricultural
sources can make a significant contribution to freshwater loads as well (VOS et al. 2008).
Pharmaceuticals
The relatively recent awareness of pharmaceutical products is caused by both a growing use
of human and veterinary pharmaceutical products and improved techniques to trace them.
Often the organic contaminants are released via wastewater or in agriculture directly through
the application of manure (ZUCCATO et al. 2005). The residues are often detected in surface
waters, groundwater and drinking water. They may negatively impact ecosystems and public
health, as recent research shows by MOMPELAT et al. (2009). Different pharmaceutical
products are known to produce acute or chronic adverse effects on ecosystems. For instance
hormones recognized as endocrine disruptors trigger feminising effects in male fish even at

3 Theoretical Background 8
very low concentrations, speaking of nanogram per litre, raising fertility implications
(ROBINSON et al. 2007). Still there is an extensive need for research on possible effects on
human health and ecology to evaluate potential risks.
Radiological Contamination
Phosphate fertilisers can be a source of radiological contamination. In the form of apatite they
may also contain the 238 U and 232 Th radionuclide. By applying these fertilisers agricultural
fields are exposed to radiation, which is then entering the food chain by plant uptake.
Furthermore soluble uranium compounds and their decay products can lead to radiological
contamination of surface and groundwater (MORARI et al. 2011).
3.2 Status of the Elbe River Basin
To give an overview of the situation of the water status in the River basin where the farmers
of this case study are situated, the following chapter summarizes the main pressure points
mainly referring to agriculture for the Elbe River basin. The Elbe River basin makes part of
Germany, Czech Republic, Poland and Austria. For the German territory 18 million
inhabitants are situated in the Elbe River basin with major cities of Berlin, Hamburg, Leipzig
and Dresden. More than half of the river basin is situated in Germany (96,874 km²). Around
60% are reserved for agriculture activities within this area. Urban area and open spaces only
make a small part with 8% (FGG Elbe 2009).
3.2.1 Pollution of Surface Water
All in all 3140 surface waters are recognized such as lakes, dam reservoirs, rivers and coastal
waters. Surface water is threatened by water flow regulation and hydro morphological
alterations (44.3%), diffuse pollution (43.8%), point pollution (9.8%), abstraction (0.8%), and
others (1.3%)(ibid).
Main pathways of diffuse pollution are atmospheric deposition, groundwater, farmyard run-
off and drift, drainage, erosion, diffuse emissions from urban areas, waste water treatment
plants and industry (ibid).
70% of all surface water pollution occurs from inputs of nutrients, contaminants and
pesticides mainly caused by agriculture. In comparison to the 1980s nitrogen concentration
could partly be reduced with up to 50% and for phosphorus up to two third (ibid).
Nevertheless nutrient reduction is pending in the Elbe River basin, as aquatic systems of
coastal and inland waters are still at risk to eutrophication. High inputs of phosphorus are
caused by erosion mainly originated from areas with intensive crop production. Extensive

3 Theoretical Background 9
inputs of nitrogen are flushed through groundwater and drainage systems to surface waters
(ibid).
Major entry of pesticide pollution is caused by dissolved active agents coming from
agricultural fields and farmyard run-off mostly in areas with sugar beet, corn and potato
cultivation and fields with steep slopes (ibid).
Major entry of pesticide pollution is caused by dissolved active agents coming from
agricultural fields and farmyard run-off mostly in areas with sugar beet, corn and potato
cultivation and fields with steep slopes (ibid).
3.2.2 Pollution of Groundwater
All in all 224 groundwater bodies were distinguished in the German part of the Elbe River
basin. Groundwater bodies are stressed by diffuse pollution (81.7%), point pollution (8.7%),
groundwater abstraction, brown fields (7.8%), groundwater nourishment (no data) and
intrusions (0.9%)(ibid).
Diffuse pollution is dominantly recognized from agriculture and urban field use, extensive
industrial areas, traffic, households and air pollution from industry.
Nutrients in groundwater are mainly caused by agricultural activities especially regarding to
nitrates. Due to the mitigation of over fertilization the inputs from nutrients were reduced in
the past years. However this is not yet widely recognizable and measurable in the
groundwater quality due to geological reasons such as the slow movement of the seepage
water and groundwater. Nitrate inputs result in 59 out of 224 groundwater bodies to a bad
chemical status. Furthermore pesticides enter the groundwater by diffuse pollution from
agricultural fields. Three groundwater sources were assessed with a bad chemical status due
to pesticides. Mostly these are active substances or metabolites which are not admitted
anymore but still apparent in groundwater sources (ibid).
Abstraction of groundwater caused for six groundwater bodies the classification of a bad
quantitative status and is of minor importance for the Elbe River basin Within the analysis
abstraction points > 100 m³/day were determined disregarding the designated use. Abstraction
from agriculture is only relevant for the river basin Saale where it leads to a bad quantitative
status (ibid).In the other five cases the rehabilitation of lignite mining led to the classification
of a bad quantitative status.

3 Theoretical Background 10
3.3 The EU Water Framework Directive
In the present chapter a brief summary of the development of the WFD will be given,
followed by a description of the directive’s main purposes and the legal instruments
implemented to achieve them.
In 2000, the EU adopted the Directive 2000/60/EC which provides a framework for collective
efforts in water policy within the union, also known as the European WFD. The WFD is a
legislative framework that analyses, plans and manages water resources and protects aquatic
ecosystems within the EU (RUMM et al. 2006). It is the most significant legal instrument
adopted in the environmental sector and guides on an institutional level and as a whole
(CHAVE 2001). The development of the directive can be described in three waves. The first
wave started in 1975 with the idea of setting standards for water quality and the conservation
of drinking water with bringing the Surface Water Directive and the Drinking Water Directive
into force (KAIKA 2003). The second wave followed in 1991 focusing on emissions adding up
on the previous quality standards including the Urban Wastewater Management Directive, the
Directive for Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control, the new Drinking Water Quality
Directive and the Nitrates Directive (RUMM et al. 2006).
The WFD summarizes what is known as the third wave with the new approach of managing
water in an integrative and holistic way. Once the WFD is completed in all its levels, seven
other related Directives will be replaced (COLLINS et al. 2012).
Besides the achievement of a good ecological status the four most striking and innovative
characteristics of the WFD, as stated by VANROLLGHEM (2011), are:
� To manage water according to its natural environment on a river basin basis crossing
boundaries;
� To perform a combined approach to control pollution, setting emission limit values
and water quality objectives;
� To recover costs by the user through reflecting the real costs of water use; and
� To enable the public to be actively involved and comment on the suggested water
management practices
The main purpose of the Directive is to achieve a good ecological status for all types of water
bodies by 2015. The requirements of the WFD refer to all surface waters – i.e. rivers, lakes
and coastal waters – plus the whole groundwater within the EU. For natural surface water a
good ecological and a good chemical status should be achieved. The ecological status is
oriented along the natural character of a water body. The good chemical status is reached, if a
water body is free of pollutants being listed in Annex VIII & X of the WFD (EU 2000). For
artificial and heavily modified water bodies a good ecological potential is to be achieved.

3 Theoretical Background 11
Whereas the good chemical status can be defined quickly, the good ecological status includes
a set of different parameters and quality components. The main criteria of the so called
biological quality components are typical fauna and flora of the surface waters (GRIFFITHS
2002). Furthermore, the hydro-morphological components, which refer to the structural
characteristics of a water body, and the general physical-chemical components like nutrients,
temperature, oxygen and salt content are taken into account. Additionally, there are specific
synthetic and non-synthetic pollutants that are detected and monitored (EU 2010a). For
groundwater the Member States shall ensure the limitation of pollutant input and prevent the
deterioration of the status with the aim of achieving good groundwater status in 2015 (CHAVE
2001).
The first period of implementation lasts from 2000 to 2015 (Table 1). To reach the
environmental target of the WFD there is the possibility to extend the deadlines by two more
cycles of six years each, i.e. at the latest until 2027 (BMU 2010).
Table 1: Timeline of key milestones toward the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive (Source: EC 2012)
Year Issue Reference
2000 Directive comes into force Art. 25
2003 Transposition in national legislation
Identification of River Basin Districts and Authorities
Art. 23
The instruments to achieve the objectives of the WFD are the River Basin Management Plans
(RBMP) (WFD, Art.13) and the PoMs (WFD, Art.11). Whilst the RBMPs have an
informative and documentary character, the PoMs set out a comprehensive framework of
action which is implemented on a Member States level addressing changes in water
management. The RBMPs force Member States to administrate water on natural hydrological
Art. 3
2004 Characterisation of river basin: pressures, impacts and economic analysis Art. 5
2006 Establishment of monitoring network
Start public consultation
Art. 8
Art. 14
2008 Present draft River Basin Management Plan Art. 13
2009 Finalize River Basin Management Plan including Programme of Measures Art. 13 & 11
2010 Introduce pricing policies Art. 9
2012 Make operational Programmes of Measures Art. 11
2015 Meet environmental objectives
First management cycle ends
Second River Basin Management Plan & first Flood Risk Management Plan
Art. 4
2021 Second management cycle ends Art. 4 & 13
2027 Third management cycle ends, final deadline for meeting objectives Art. 4 & 13

3 Theoretical Background 12
units and not on country boundaries (CARTER & HOWE 2006). The tasks of the authorities of
the different river basins are divided into four main domains which gradually have to be
realised within the first nine years after the directive put into force: (i) an analysis of the
current situation on a river basin level regarding water management, ecological and economic
state, (ii) monitoring of the water bodies´ status, (iii) a clear definition of the targets with
regard to the water status, and (iv) the determination of the PoMs to achieve these targets
(MULEWF 2002).The targets and measures of (iii) and (iv) must be agreed on transnational
cooperation throughout the whole river basin, which requires coordination between the
national and international authorities.
A further task of the Member States with regards to the PoMs is the design of adequate
measures based on the monitoring results of the water bodies considering cost effectiveness to
achieve the environmental objectives. The PoMs consist of basic and supplementary measures
(KAVANAGH & BREE 2009). Basic measures are primarily measures to implement the already
existing legislations. If the basic measures cannot sufficiently support the realisation of the
environmental objectives, supplementary measures need to be adopted (RUMM ET AL 2006).
3.3.1 Incentives for Sustainable Water Management
Besides the WFD which already provides an important fundament for the protection of water
resources, the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform, which is supposed to come into
force beginning of 2014, aims to support the implementation of the WFD with subsidies. The
reform proposal of the CAP post 2013 was presented in October 2011 by the EC. It
accelerates the integration of environmental requirements and promises a strong greening in
the first pillar of the CAP. Further it intends to reward the provision of public goods. Public
goods are often provided by ecological thinking farmers such as agricultural biodiversity,
beauty of landscape and water and are by large not rewarded over the market (COOPER et al.
2009). Thus these farmers are providing relative positive externalities 2 . An internalisation of
positive external effects and therefore a reward for the provision of public goods can serve as
an additional income source and diversification for farms (SRU 2009).
The European Commission states to be committed to introduce the WFD within the first pillar
in Cross Compliance underpinning measures related to water management. Additionally the
European Commission wants to ensure that all farmers who receive support will go beyond
the requirements of cross compliance and deliver environmental public goods as a part of
their activities (EC 2011a). Within the second pillar of rural development the CAP should
indirectly support the implementation of the WFD by the objectives of sustainable
2 “A positive externality can be defined as an unpaid-for benefit enjoyed by others in society that is generated as a by-product
of production and exchange“ (HACKET 2011)

3 Theoretical Background 13
management of natural resources as well as resource efficiency (EC 2011b). The proposal for
the CAP reform also foresees support for farmers who support the PoMs and going beyond
legislation within the river basin (EC 2011a).
3.4 The EWS Standard
3.4.1 Voluntary Certification Schemes
During the past twenty years environmental standards and voluntary certification
programmes 3 have been introduced in the agricultural sector (FAO 2004). Certification and
labelling schemes aim to provide assurance that specified product characteristics or
production methods are met. The idea is to make the history of products more transparent for
traceability. Further it empowers consumers to express their environmental and social values
through their purchasing decisions (EC 2011c).
The strength of voluntary schemes is the combination of multiple interests towards superior
environmental performance while sustaining lower administration. They cannot replace
regulatory governance structures, but still can encourage applying better management
practices. (EWP 2012a).
3.4.2 Background and Aims of the EWS Standard
During the past years the increases in events of droughts and floods have led to awareness in
society to use water resources more sustainable. Also industrial and agricultural business
realised the need of sustainable water governance to be included in their business strategy.
This resulted in the inquiry for a tool to provide guidance on how to implement and
communicate SWM. Water foot printing, i.e. water accountancy, represents a tool to monitor
water use and clarify potential water risks in the production or supply chain. However, it does
not include parameters to judge the local impact of the operational water management on
water resources and their related ecosystems like effects on regionally endangered species
(EC 2011C). Considering that water accountancy methods may not provide guidance on how
to reduce harmful impacts, there is an actual necessity to provide water users with concrete
directions on how to implement SWM within a local context. The evaluation of impacts and
the idea towards a comprehensive approach to SWM arose within a group of organisations
that previously came together under the EWP. EWP is a non-profit organization elaborating
strategies and concrete actions to promote a sustainable water use, raise awareness and
3 Voluntary certification scheme means that any private certification scheme for the agricultural and food sector must remain
voluntary (EU 2010b)

3 Theoretical Background 14
coordinate initiatives in international water issues (EWP 2012b). One of these initiatives was
the EWS standard which was developed within the idea of environmental stewardship.
As defined by WORRELL & APPLEBY (2000):
“Stewardship is the responsible use (including conservation) of natural resources in a way that
takes full and balanced account of the interests of society, future generations, and other species, as
well as of private needs, and accepts significant answerability to society.”
For water this means sustainable use with regard to (i) the environment referring to
biodiversity and ecology at a watershed level, (ii) social aspects as a basic human need locally
and at large and (iii) at an economy level to minimize corporate risk and ensure economic
benefits on a long-term basis (WSA 2012).
In 2008 the concept of water stewardship was adopted within a multi-stakeholder process to
establish a voluntary certification scheme on SWM coordinated by EWP. This certification
scheme was aiming to go beyond pure water accountancy, as practiced by the water foot print.
It provides a guidance tool for impact and risk assessment of water use on an operational
level. Stakeholders include academics, corporations, non-governmental environmental and
social organizations, governments and other interested parties (EWP 2011a).
The result was the EWS standard which intends to change behaviour and practices towards
SWM. More concretely the EWS standard aims to (i) initiate private actions with independent
guidance, (ii) provide positive incentives for SWM, and (iii) support existing legal processes
in the EU (EWP 2012c). In case of a third party certification it can further (iv) communicate a
successful implementation of SWM.
The EWS standard is one of the first water stewardship standards to be established. The only
other stewardship standard in existence is the Water Stewardship Australia, which was set up
in 2007.
3.4.3 The EWS Standard Document
A standard can be defined as a set of rules which is further divided in a set of principles,
criteria and indicators, which are arranged in hierarchical levels. Principles serve as a
fundamental determinant and are explicit elements of the standard´s goal (VAN BUEREN &
BLOM 1996). In the EWS standard a total of four principles serve to evaluate SWM. Each
principle is further divided into criteria which assure the adherence to a principle. The criteria
are split into indicators, i.e. quantitative and qualitative parameters, to assess the operation´s
compliance. Depending on the importance of the indicators they receive a status of major,
minor or recommendation. A detailed overview of the principles and criteria of the EWS
standard to assess SWM can be found in Table 2.

3 Theoretical Background 15
Table 2: Overview of principles and criteria of the EWS Standard* (Source: EWP
2011b)
Principle 1 Achieve and maintain sustainable water abstraction in terms of water quantity
Criteria 1.1 Quantify total and net water abstraction (consisting of four indicators)
1.2 Describe and evaluate impact of water abstraction, intensity of water management and
uniqueness of source (consisting of seven indicators)
Principle 2 Achieve and maintain a good status in terms of chemical quality and biological elements
Criteria 2.1 Total effluent quality (consisting of six indicators)
2.2 Destinations affected by discharge (consisting of six indicators)
2.3 Local issues of water quality (consisting of one indicator)
Principle 3 Restore and preserve water-cycle related High Value Conservation areas
Criteria 3.1 Evaluation of impact on changes in water status in high conservation wetlands, lakes and
riparian areas (consisting of four indicators)
Principle 4 Achieve equitable and transparent water governance
Criteria 4.1 Compliance with legal requirements (consisting of one indicator)
4.2 Water management in the supply chain (on-hold) (consisting of two indicators)
4.3 Linkage of water management to other resources (consisting of three indicators)
4.4 Efficiency of consumption by re-cycling or reduction of losses (consisting of six indicators)
4.5 Best Management Practices (consisting of three indicators)
4.6 Transparency on water management internally and to the public (consisting of six
indicators)
4.7 Awareness raising for SWM within a defined strategy and by pro-active measures
(consisting of two indicators)
4.8 Innovation and continuous improvement (consisting of one indicator)
4.9 Economic transparency (consisting of three indicators)
*for a detailed overview of the EWS standard including the indicator set see also Annex 6

4 Methodology 16
4 Methodology
The research design of the present study contains different qualitative methods which will be
presented in the following sections. The first part provides details to the literature review
serving to assess the EWS standard in the context of the WFD. The second part introduces the
case study which is further divided into three methods, namely performance analysis,
questionnaire and expert interviews. These are used to investigate the applicability and the
acceptance of the EWS standard.
4.1 Literature Analysis
The purpose of the WFD, to conserve EU´s water resources, is shared by the four principles
of the EWS standard. An analysis of literature serves to explore in which extend the EWS
standard is aligned with and can support the targets and implementation of the WFD.
To which extent the standard complies with the WFD is evaluated on a theoretical level
according to two articles of the directive and on a practical level by the PoMs. Firstly it is
assessed (i) how the principles of the EWS standard comply with the general purpose as stated
in Article 1 (WFD) and (ii) how the criteria and indicators of the EWS standard support the
environmental objectives stated in Article 4 (WFD). The second approach refers to the
practical implementation of the WFD within a river basin. As mentioned in chapter 3.3 the
PoMs are the key element to ensure the implementation of the WFD. Therefore, it was
exemplarily explored, how the EWS programme can actively support the PoMs, designed
according to Article 11 (WFD), within a river basin. As the farms of the case study are
situated in the Elbe River basin, the indicators of the EWS standard were assessed by the
catalogue of measures prepared by the Elbe River basin committee for the German territory.
4.2 Case Study
The applicability and acceptance of the EWS standard on a farm level were analysed within a
case study, which was conducted as a pilot test of the EWS standard. To describe the setting
of the case study, first the selection of pilot farms and course of pilot test is described. This is
followed by a description of the methodology testing the EWS standard on its applicability
and acceptance.

4 Methodology 17
4.2.1 Selection of Pilot Farms
Over the course of pilot testing the EWS standard was applied in all European regions. In this
study Germany was chosen as a representative country for Central Europe. To keep the frame
of a diploma thesis five farms were selected. To inquire into general conditions for one group
of users, the cases were situated in the same region having similar farm profiles. This
complied with the idea to examine a number of similar cases jointly in order to provoke better
understanding and theorisation (STAKE 1995). Farms were selected according the following
criteria:
(i) Farmers who suffer from water stress. A higher sensitivity towards water and
therefore a higher interest in the EWS standard was assumed.
(ii) Farmers participating in certification systems, since this enables them to provide
adequate feedback towards the EWS standard as a certification scheme.
(iii) Farmers situated in the same river basin.
Farmers were contacted via a research project investigating the sustainability of different land
management systems called “Klimawirkungen und Nachhaltigkeit von Landbausystemen”
(Climate effects and sustainability of agricultural production systems). The names of the
farms were made anonymous to assure confidentiality and are referred to as farmer and farm:
A, B, C, D and E.
% Available Water Capacity (AWC)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Humidity of soil layers 0-60cm
01.Jan.
15.Jan.
29.Jan.
12.Feb.
26.Feb.
12.Mar.
26.Mar.
09.Apr.
23.Apr.
07.May
21.May
04.Jun.
18.Jun.
02.Jul.
16.Jul.
30.Jul.
13.Aug.
27.Aug.
10.Sept.
24.Sep.
08.Oct.
22.Oct.
05.Nov.
19.Nov.
03.Dec.
17.Dec.
31.Dec.
% AWC 0-60cm
Figure 1: To exemplify early summer droughts, soil humidity measurements on Farm D
in 2010 (Source: NPa 2011)

4 Methodology 18
The chosen farms were situated in three different Federal States of Eastern Germany, namely
Brandenburg, Saxony, and Saxony-Anhalt. Within this region rainfalls reach from 435 to
600mm/year, which are the lowest within German territory (DW 2012a). All farms suffer
frequently from water stress, mostly during early summer months from May to July
(Figure 1). The land use activities of the farms were similar, all being specialized on crop
production without husbandry. A detailed overview of the farm profiles is presented in Table
3.
Table 3: Farm profiles of pilot farms testing the EWS standard (NP 2011b added by
ZIEGLER)
Type of farm
management*
Cultivated are in ha 483 1525
Grassland in ha 123 0
Farm A Farm B Farm C Farm D Farm E
org. conv. conv. & org. conv. org.
1262 conv.
622 org.
5 conv.
1 org.
770 636
130 0
Soil type** S, SL, LS S,SL,LS SL S, SL, LS S, SL, LS
Average rainfall in mm
1961 – 1990
Average rainfall in mm in
May 1990-2011
563 563 570.4 494 494
57.7 57.7 56.5 46.6 46.6
Irrigation No Yes Yes No No
Sources of water used
on farm
Public
Service
Certification in place*** CC, OC CC
Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater
CC, G.GAP,
OC
CC, BQM, BQM, CC, OC
*Org. =organic, conv. = conventional; ** S= sand, SL = sandy loam, LS = loamy sand; ***CC=Cross Compliance, G.G.A.P. =
Global Good Agricultural Practices, OC = Organic Certification
4.2.2 Course of Pilot Test
In the past two years the applicability of the EWS standard has been tested for the sector of
industry, agriculture, urban areas and airports by means of pilot tests. These can be described
as follows: A first visit on the respective pilot site serves to introduce the EWS system and its
documents. Documents provided are the EWS standard itself, its annexes, the glossary and the
system plan 4 . Pilots are asked to fill out the system plan within an agreed time period, which
is later used to audit the pilot site during a second visit. Further in the second visit the
responsible of the operation is provided with a questionnaire and feedback form to respond on
4 The system plan represents the “Water Management Strategy” of the water user (in this case the farmer) as a subject to
certification. It is filled out by the water user who makes references to the existing production system. After completion it
is used for audition of the water users´ compliance towards the indicator set of the EWS standard.

4 Methodology 19
the EWS system and its documents. After the visit the auditor provides a report, which
includes a performance analysis. The performance analysis enables the pilot to get a detailed
inside on compliances and non-compliances and further is used to decide whether an
operation can receive certification. At the end of the pilot test, each pilot provides feedback by
filling out a feedback form and questionnaire.
4.2.3 Applicability of the EWS Standard
The applicability of the EWS standard on a farm level was analysed within a case study
operated like a pilot test of the EWS standard. In general the pilot test was conducted as
presented. However to meet the needs of the investigation the following changes were made
to the pilot test setting. An additional questionnaire was designed to feedback on the
applicability of the indicator set. All documents used for pilot tests were translated into
German by the EWP.
Design of Performance Analysis
The performance analysis served to evaluate whether a farm was able to receive certification
based on the system designed for the EWS standard. This is based on the information
provided by a pilot organization in the system plan. Depending on the information it is
decided whether a farm complies with the criteria or not. Besides the amount and quality of
information also threshold values decide on compliance. The baseline of receiving
certification is to fulfil 100% of all major and 50% of all minor indicators. An indicator is
considered to be complied with in case of receiving a minimum of three out of five points.
Points are given depending on a document called Requirements for Compliance 5 (Table 4).
When achieving a score below of three the operation has the opportunity to implement
corrective measures within a time period of four weeks after the auditor´s visit. Within the
study only major and minor indicators were evaluated as indicators labelled with
recommendation do not influence the gain of certification. To remark, all farmers had a
different amount of indicators to fulfil due to the different farm profiles.
5 The document Requirements for Compliance aims at providing guidance to auditors and pilots and water users on the
requirement for compliance to the principles and criteria of the EWS standard document.

4 Methodology 20
Table 4: Extract of Requirements for Compliance (version 0.6) document used to assess
compliance with the EWS standard (EWP 2011c)
Criterion 1.1 The total and the net water abstraction shall be quantified and monitored by source.
Ref Indicator Baseline Requirements
1.1.1
Major
Questionnaire
1) Are all sources used for water abstraction
documented?
Sources with a (legal) permit*.
Sources without a (legal) permit (i.e. sources
for which a permit is not necessary and
unofficial sources).
For example: Self-supply sources:
Groundwater* (specify renewable
groundwater* and fossil water*).
Surface (fresh) water* (including water from
wetlands, rivers, lakes or artificial* and
heavily modified surface water bodies).
Alternative sources:
Rainwater collection.
Recycled water*.
Re-used water* (in this case also state the
source/provider of the re-used water).
Desalinated water.
From public/private water supplier (WS)
Other.
Municipal water (tap, drinking, supply water).
2) Is documentation regularly updated?
The questionnaire served to evaluate the applicability of the standard. There has been no
comparable case found in literature to assess the applicability of sustainability standards. Thus
the researcher established an own method to address applicability. Applicability can be
assessed in manifold ways nevertheless the researcher focused on comprehension and data
availability considered to be the most pending parameters.
Therefore applicability was defined by the researcher (ZIEGLER 2012) as follows:
An indicator is considered to be applicable if its formulations are comprehensible by users. Further
data requested to evaluate an indicator is accessible or can be provided with a reasonable effort.
Due to the definition the questionnaire was designed to follow up on each indicator with four
questions (Annex 5), namely:
The questionnaire was conducted during the second on-site visit based on the information
provided in the system plan.
3 = Complete list of all water sources used
WITH a legal permit:
Identify the maximum permitted
abstraction volume.
Identify the expiry date.
5 = Complete list of all water sources used
WITH a legal permit:
Classified by source type (groundwater,
surface water, alternative source, public
water system ref. to Annex 1).
Disclosing expiry dates.
Refer to annex 1
Question and
list of
requirements
referring to
indicator
Requirements
of EWS
Standard to
achieve 3-5
points

4 Methodology 21
Referring the level of comprehension, results were derived as follows: When problems with
wording occurred which could not be solved by consulting the glossary, an indicator was
considered as non-comprehensive.
Regarding the accessibility of data this was checked by categorizing indicators where no data
could be provided. In other words, the reasons of non-compliance was explored with the
questionnaire and further investigated with a literature review or consultancy of authorities. If
an indicator could not fit in any of the defined categories, it was declared as inaccessible. The
forming of the categories will be explained in chapter 5.2.2 as they were derived from the
result of the pilot study.
Additional parameters assessed
The baseline for analysing the applicability is comprehension and accessibility of data.
Additionally information collected in the system plan, level of compliance and need for
support, will be considered to discuss the applicability from a holistic view point.
4.2.4 Acceptance of the EWS Standard
To explore the acceptance of the EWS standard, expert interviews were held with the five
farmers of the case study.
Interview
Interviews are an essential source of case study evidence (YIN 1984). In this case study expert
interviews were conducted. The farmers can be considered as field internal experts due to
their knowledge and experience in the activity of the research field (FROSCHAUER & LUEGER
2002).
The interview setting was two-fold including an introduction interview held during the first
visit (Annex 2) and a closing interview at the end of the second visit (Annex 3). The
introduction interview aimed to bridge the distance between researcher and farmer.
Furthermore it served to outline water issues on the respective farm. The second interview
investigated the overall comprehension and the current and future participation in the
certification system.
The introduction interview lasted 30-45 minutes and the closing interview between 20-35
minutes. Both interviews were semi-structured, i.e. based on a guideline that served as a basic
structure, but did not have to be strictly followed step by step. The interview guidance
contained open questions aiming to encompass the experts´ knowledge concerning the
process, contents and their evaluation of the standard. Due to the open style of the interviews,
the interviewees were able to individually place emphasis on key aspects from their
perspectives. It further gave the opportunity to follow up on answers whenever they were

4 Methodology 22
considered to be important for the research (WEISCHER 2007). Still, the semi-structured
character of the interviews guaranteed compatibility, as all interviews addressed the same
topics (GIERETH 2011).
The analysis of interviews was guided by the concept of qualitative content analysis according
to MEUSER & NAGEL (1991) and can be described as follows: In a first step individual
interviews were sequenced depending on their thematic scopes of the content. These scopes
were paraphrased, meaning that their content was transferred into expressions formulated by
the researcher. The paraphrases were given thematic headlines to break down their content
into a short phrase. As a second step, the results of the previous step were used to create
categories expressing the main directions of the discourse.
A tape recorder was not used as an atmosphere of trust was required to avoid concealment of
data referring to farm management (FLICK et al. 1995). The written protocol was not
disadvantageous because in case of dubiety statements could be confirmed via phone.
Additionally the researcher practiced communicative validation meaning the essence of the
interview was submitted to farmers (FLICK et al. 1995). The compiled interviews were
presented to the farmers via e-mail to allow them to revise their statements and confirm
accuracy.

5 Results 23
5 Results
In a first step the literature analysis is presented aligning the EWS standard with the WFD. In
a second step the results of the case study are presented giving feedback on the applicability
and the acceptance of the EWS standard. The applicability is evaluated by the results of the
performance analysis and questionnaire. The acceptance is assessed based on the expert
interviews.
5.1 Literature Analysis
The analysis of literature presents how the EWS Standard refers to the purpose (Art.1), the
environmental objectives (Art.4) of the WFD and the PoMs for the Elbe River basin (Art.11).
5.1.1 The EWS Standard and the EU Water Framework Directive
EWS Standard and the Purpose of the WFD (Art.1)
As defined in Article 1 of the WFD, the purpose of the Directive is “to establish a framework
for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and
groundwater”. This purpose is divided into five more specific targets of Article 1: (a) prevent
further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems, (b) promote sustainable water use, (c) enhance
protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, (d) ensure the progressive reduction
of pollution and (e) contribute to mitigate effects of floods and droughts. In the following
portion it will be described in detail how the EWS standard is aligned with these targets.
The standard serves “to promote sustainable water use” (WFD, Art.1(b)) within its function as
a tool for SWM. This is covered by the four different principles of the standard: to achieve a
sustainable water abstraction (EWS, principle 1), to achieve and maintain a good status in
terms of chemical quality and biological elements (EWS, principle 2), to restore and preserve
water-cycle related high conservation value (HCV) areas (EWS, principle 3), and to achieve
equitable and transparent water governance (EWS, principle 4). These four principles are a
comprehensive approach to SWM that can potentially contribute to the conservation of water
resources on the long run. The principles will be applied by the respective users of the EWS
standards and therefore will contribute to prevent “further deterioration and protect and
enhance the status of aquatic ecosystems and with regard to their water needs, terrestrial
ecosystems and wetlands” (WFD, Art.1(a)).
The achievement and maintenance of a good water status in terms of chemical quality and
biological elements (EWS, principle 2) can support the objective of “enhanced protection and

5 Results 24
improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the
progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances” (WFD,
Art.1(c)). In addition principle 2 can contribute to the “progressive reduction of pollution of
groundwater” (WFD, Art.1(d)).
The fifth target of the WFD is defined as “mitigating the effects of floods and droughts”
(WFD; Art.1(e)). This is supported by the standard requested appliance of best management
practices (EWS, crit.4.5). To name an example, the effects of floods can be mitigated through
the maintenance of vegetation-like cover crops. This prevents soil erosion and therefore a
reduction of nutrient input into the water (STONE 2000). Regarding droughts, a best practice is
to supply the soil with organic matter, which increases soil moisture capacities and can be
vital for cultivated crops, hence attenuating yield losses in periods of droughts (OUATTARA et
al. 2006).
EWS Standard and the Environmental Objectives of the WFD (Art.4)
To make the programmes of measures operational the environmental objectives are defined in
article 4 of the WFD. The environmental objectives are presented referring to surface water,
groundwater and protected areas:
With regards to bodies of surface water “Members States shall protect, enhance and restore all
bodies of surface water [...] with the aim of achieving good surface water status” (WFD,
Art.4(a)(ii)). As defined by Article 2(17) the surface water status refers to chemical and
ecological aspects. The standard can support this environmental objective as it requests to
determine, monitor and document the total effluent quality (EWS, crit.2.1), to identify
destinations affected by discharge and to provide actions to mitigate possible impacts of
effluents and discharge (EWS, crit.2.2 & ind.2.2.6). Further the “aim of progressively
reducing pollution from priority substances” (WFD, Art.4(a)(iv)) is directly addressed in the
requirement to provide an inventory of potential and actual pollutants indicating type and
quantities. This includes indication whether potential pollutants can be classified as pollutants
hazardous to the aquatic environment, main pollutant and priority substances (EWS, ind.2.1.1
& ind.2.1.2). Additionally an analysis of actual effluents should be provided (EWS,
ind.2.1.5).
Regarding groundwater, the “Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of
groundwater, [...] with the aim of achieving good groundwater status” (WFD, Art.4(b)(ii)). As
defined in Article 2(19) this refers to its quantitative and chemical status. The standard
contributes to this objective by requesting the quantification of the total and net water
abstraction, the impact of the water abstraction (EWS, crit.1.1 & crit.1.2) and actions for
mitigation of possible impacts (EWS, ind.1.2.7).

5 Results 25
Concerning the chemical status of groundwater bodies and the “measures necessary to prevent
or limit the input of pollutants into groundwater and to prevent the deterioration” (WFD,
Art.4(b)(i)) the same criteria and indicator to achieve a good status for surface water as
explained in the paragraph above can be referred to.
Regarding protected areas “Member States shall achieve compliance with any standards and
objectives” (Art.4(c)). This is addressed in the EWS standard to restore and preserve water-
cycle related HCV areas (EWS, principle 3).
EWS standard and the Programme of Measures of the WFD (Art.11)
The directive provides guidance towards the PoMs under article 11 but is realized within the
river basin district on a national level and co-ordinated on an international level. The
evaluation of the PoMs provided insight on how the EWS standard can support a Member
State in practice with the implementation of the WFD. The river basin district for the German
part of the Elbe River basin suggested measures for agriculture being divided into the
following categories: (i) measures for reduction of nutrient inputs, pesticides and sediments,
(ii) measures to protect drinking water zones, (iii) measures to improve habitat and (iv)
measures to reduce water abstraction. The EWS standard could contribute to all suggested
measures to reduce effects from agriculture with indicators of monitoring and mitigation
(Table 5).

5 Results 26
Table 5: Alignment of the EWS standard with the Programme of Measures of the Water
Framework Directive for the Elbe River basin (Source: LAWA 2008 added by
ZIEGLER)
Programme of
Measures (WFD)*
Measure 1-5 refer to
nutrient pollution
Measure 1: Reduction of
direct nutrient inputs from
agriculture (SW*)
Measure 2: Reduction of
nutrient leaching from
agriculture (SW*, GW*)
Measure 3: Reduction of
nutrient and fines inputs
due to erosion and runoff
in agriculture (SW*)
Measure 4: Reduction of
pollution from plant
protection products from
agriculture (SW*, GW*)
Measure 5: Reduction of
pollution from other
diffuse sources (SW*,
GW*)
Measure 6:
Implementation of buffer
stripes to reduce nutrient
inputs (SW*)
Measure 7: Reduction of
nutrient inputs from
drainage in agriculture
(SW*)
MONITOR
Indicators (EWS Standard)
Ind. 2.1.1: Provide complete and up to date inventory of potential and actual
pollutants indicating type (main pollutant, priority substance) and quantities
Ind. 2.1.2: Provide complete and up to date record indicating number and amount/
volume of application and potentially polluting input. Indicate potential type and
source of pollution; i.e. point pollution and diffuse pollution
Ind. 2.1.5: Identify main pollutants and priority substances detected by analysis of
actual effluents
Ind. 2.2.1: Identify and characterize areas which pose an elevated risk for water
pollution. Vulnerable areas need to be characterized according to their elevated
potential/ risk for pollution via leaching, run-off or drainage
Ind. 2.2.2: Analyse potential destinations that may be affected by discharge/ run-off/
leaching of water and contained pollutants
MITIGATE
Ind. 2.2.6: Take actions to mitigate possible impacts; proper planning,
implementation and monitoring of management measures, e.g.: Integrate pest,
water and nutrient management, install buffer stripes or Riparian zones along
surface water on the course, redirect storm water run-off and avoid off-site
flows
Ind. 4.5.1: Describe and implement best management practices known and involved
in a water resource management strategy
Ind. 4.6.1: Establish exhaustive water resource management strategy, implement
and monitor (including leakage management)
MITIAGTE
Ind. 2.2.6: Install buffer stripes or Riparian zones along surface water on the course
MONITOR
Ind. 2.1.2: Identify potential type and source of pollution including diffuse pollution
from drainage losses
Ind. 2.2.1: Characterize vulnerable areas according to their elevated potential/ risk
for drainage
Ind. 3.1.2: Describe direct interference in water cycle-related ecosystems, e.g.
drainage
MITIGATE
Ind. 4.6.5: Ensure water quality protection and enhancement through proper
planning, implementation and monitoring of management measures

5 Results 27
Programme of
Measures (WFD)*
Measure 8: Nutrient
inputs due to accidents
(SW*)
Measure 9:
Implementation and
maintenance of specific
water conservation
measures for
drinking water conservati
on zones (SW*, GW*)
Measure 10:
Improvement of habitat
Measure 11: Reduce
water abstraction for
agriculture (SW*, GW*)
Indicators (EWS Standard)
MONITOR
Ind. 4.6.5: Describe procedures established, published and maintained on how to
respond to accidents, security incidents, emergency situations, disasters and
the like, as well as the adverse impacts of such an occurrence
MONITOR
Ind. 3.1.1: Identify, define, document and map protected and HCV* value areas
identified
Ind. 3.1.2: Identify and describe impacts on the water status – if possible – on
ecosystems of HCV* in general which are linked to the organization´s activities
or services
MONITOR
Ind. 2.2.4: Describe impact of effluents on water bodies and related habitats
affected by quality of effluent/ discharged water and run-off. Provide information
on biodiversity value, environmental impact from pollutants to water, socioeconomic
impact
MITIGATE
Ind. 2.2.6: Take actions to mitigate possible impacts
MONITOR
Ind. 1.1.1: Document and update legal permits for water abstraction
Ind. 1.1.2: Quantify, monitor and record water volume abstracted from each source
Ind. 1.2.1: Classify all sources of water in terms of their sensitivity
MITIGATE
Ind. 1.2.7: Take actions to mitigate possible impacts
*referring to: SW = Surface water, GW = Groundwater, HCV = High Conservation Value
5.2 Case Study
The case study provided feedback on the applicability and the acceptance of the EWS
standard. The first section presents the results of the performance analysis and the
questionnaire which were unified as both refer to the applicability of the EWS standard. The
second section illustrates the results of the expert interviews and provides information on the
acceptance of the EWS standard on a farm level.
5.2.1 Adjustment of the Case Study
During the second visit it became clear that farmers did not abide by the agreement to fill out
the system plan. As YIN (1984) states very few case studies end up exactly as planned, though
the researcher must be skilled enough to change procedures while remembering the purpose
of the investigation. Procedures were changed in a way that the system plan was filled in
together with the farmers. This had the advantage that the researcher could evaluate

5 Results 28
difficulties during the data collection by observing the farmer directly. These impressions
were also incorporated in the results being noted in a field observation protocol. The
questionnaire was not filled in separately but questions were directly asked while going
through the system plan. The interview was held as planned. All farmers indicated to have not
filled the documents due to time pressure.
5.2.2 Applicability of the EWS Standard
Performance Analysis and Questionnaire
None of the farms can currently obtain certification (Table 6). Farm A was performing best
with the fulfilment of 50% of all major and 25% of all minor indicators. The achievement of
comparably high scores was due to a farm management without any water abstraction or
chemical inputs and therefore few requirements to comply with. Farm B and Farm C had very
similar scores, both farms with irrigation systems in place. Farm D and Farm E had lowest
scores and could only comply with few criteria.
Table 6: Level of compliance to the EWS standard according to indicator level
performed on farms (n=5) in the Elbe River basin
Farm A Farm B Farm C Farm D Farm E Required % to
receive certificate
Major Ind.* 50% 33% 35% 6% 18% 100 %
Minor Ind.* 25% 18% 18% 20% 15% 50 %
Certification No No No No No
*Ind. = Indicator
To further visualize performance per farm according to each principle Figure 2 can provide an
overview of the level of compliance. It can be observed that farmers comply most with the
criteria of principle 1 addressing water quantity. Farm A could comply with all criteria
towards water abstraction as the farm only consumed water from public water services and
documentation was relatively easy. The mean value of all farms was 65% for principle 1. The
other farms were abstracting water from groundwater sources which required a more
extensive provision of data. Difficulties to data provision occurred to provide data to monthly
abstraction rates (ind.1.1.3). Further no points could be achieved to the maximum abstraction
and discharge rate related to water stress periods (ind.1.2.2). Mean value of principle 2 was
23%. Non-compliance occurred for not being able to indicate priority substances (ind.2.1.1)
and the referring potential type and sources of pollution (ind.2.1.2). No data could be
provided to the analysis of actual pollution (ind.2.1.5) and the classification of vulnerable
areas with the calculation of indices. The potential destination of pollutants (ind.2.2.2) and a

5 Results 29
description of the destinations (whether it is a HCV area) was not provided (ind.2.2.3). An
impact assessment of actual effluents 6 on parameters like biodiversity value, protected species
and others was not provided (ind.2.2.4).
Principle 4
Figure 2: Level of compliance to the EWS standard by principle on farms (n=5) in the
Elbe River basin
For principle 3 it could not be complied with any major and minor indicator. Insufficient
documentation of data was according to mapping of HCV areas (ind.3.1.1). None of the
farmers could provide information on the link between the impacts of farm activities on HCV
areas (ind.3.1.2). Information could also not be provided to social aspects of surrounding
areas (ind.3.1.4).
Principle 1
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Recommendation indicators have been assessed but neither were included in the performance
analysis nor are widely presented in the results, as they do not contribute to whether a farmers
achieve certification. Still one case will be presented, as it can picture the change frmers
behaviour´towards management practices when receiving financial support. Farmers A and B
participated in a programme financed by the Rural Developement Programme of the CAP,
which was desinged by the Agricultural Ministry of Brandenburg. Within the programme
farmers are payed to change farm management to delayed grass cutting and reduced nutrient
input to sustain biodiversity and good water quality near wetlands (THOMAS et al 2007).
Because of the participation of Farmers A and B, they both could achieve three points for
6 Actual effluent in agricultural are any solid, liquid or gas that enters the environment as a by-product of
agricultural activities (e.g. by run-off, drainage, etc.) (EWP 2011d)
0%
Principle 3
Principle 2
Farm A
Farm B
Farm C
Farm D
Farm E

5 Results 30
indicator 3.1.1, refering to the protection of wetlands. This example shows that financial
incentives can help to change farmers´ beahviour and can positively effect the local
environment.
Principle 4 achieved a mean value of 22%. Results will be presented on criteria level as this
was considered to give sufficient explanation to difficulties. Non-compliance occurred for
providing to the link of water management to other resources like energy and soil (crit.4.3).
Further few data was available to the efficiency of water consumption and recycling
installations (crit.4.4). Efforts were also lacking towards transparency, thinking of
communicating SWM internally and to the public. Further none of the farmers had a person
designated to participate in and report on river basin activities designed to implement the
WFD (crit.4.7).
To present all aspects related to the applicability, the results of the performance analysis and
the questionnaire are jointly presented (Table 7). Relating to the results from the questionnaire
the level of comprehension referring to individual criteria ranged from good to excellent.
Expressions with comprehension problems occurred with: “empfindlicher Zeitraum”
(sensitive time period), “derzeitige Ausflüsse” (actual effluents), “Analyse der potentieller
Ziele” (analysis of potential destinations), “sonstige hohe Schutzwerte” (all other HCV
values), “gesetzliche Compliance” (compliance with law) and “verstärktes Recycling”
(increase of recycling) by one or more farmers. Besides compliance with law and analysis of
potential destination all other expressions were explained in the glossary.
Out of these expressions “compliance with law” achieved a bad status of comprehension
which is mentioned in indicator 4.1.1. According to the definition this indicator fails the status
of applicability. This is a result of inadequate translation of the documents into German. In
this case the word “compliance” was not translated into German, which caused to fail the
status of applicability. In general it could be observed that farmers tend to be confused when
English expressions occurred.
Additionally it should be highlighted that the use of the glossary was essential for
comprehension, as problems occurring with wording would have been more difficult.
The evaluation of all criteria with respect to the amount of support needed, showed that
farmers did not need support in cases of provision of receipts, calculations, appointing a
responsible person or complying with legal requirements. Difficulties occurred in cases of
evaluating the impact of the farm management to water resources and setting up strategies for
good water management. One indicator is considered to fail the status of accessibility (s. next
paragraph).

5 Results 31
Table 7: Evaluation of amount of information, average of compliance, comprehension,
need for support and data accessibility on criteria level of the EWS standard to
assess applicability
Principle 1
C 1.1: Water abstraction
quantified and monitored
Reasons for non-provision of data
Amount of
information
provided
Average of
compliance
by all farms
Comprehension
of
phrasing**
The following section presents the reasons of non-provision of data. These were evaluated
based on the questionnaire. Building on the outcomes the following categories for non-
provision of data were defined: (i) difficulties in comprehension, (ii) missing documentation,
(iii) technical innovation needed, (iv) lack of knowledge, (v) lack of awareness, structural
innovation needed, (vi) inaccessibility of data and (vii) legal issues.
Average of
support
needed
Data
accessible
Good 57% Very good 0% Yes
C 1.2: Impact of water abstraction Good 64% Excellent 0% Yes
Principle 2
C 2.1: Effluent quality Few 25% Very good 66,7% No
C 2.2: Description and mitigation
towards affected destinations
Principle 3
C 3.1: Impact on water status and
ecology of high conservation
value areas
Principle 4
C 4.1: Compliance with legal
requirements
C 4.3: Integrated approach
related other recourses
Very Few 20% Very good 50% Yes
Very Few 0% Very good 53,3% Yes
Good 80% Bad 0% Yes
Very Few 9% Excellent 30% Yes
C 4.4: Efficiency of consumption Very Few 16% Excellent 52,9 Yes
C 4.5: Implementation of Best
Management Practices
C 4.6: Internal and External
Transparency
C 4.7: Definition of
communication strategy
C 4.9: Transparency on economic
aspects
Good 55% Excellent 25% Yes
Very Few 0% Excellent 37% Yes
No
information
Few
information
0% Excellent 0% Yes
0% Excellent 0% Yes
To start, the category comprehension (i) was given when difficulties with comprehension
were the first barrier to fulfil the indicator´s requirement like specific words or phrasing. An
indicator is not marked with “comprehension” if it can be comprehended with the help of the
glossary. The topic documentation missing (ii) is referring to the case when data could have

5 Results 32
been derived from other documents or is implied in farmer´s knowledge but not documented
adequately e.g. in case the volume of water abstracted could have been calculated on basis of
the irrigation schedule. Technical innovation (iii) is chosen in case a meter or an analysis-like
concentration of substances in water would have been needed to comply with an indicator. A
lack of knowledge (iv) is assumed when authorities or other institutions needed to be
addressed to obtain knowledge. This could also be the consultancy of a website of authorities
to receive information on protected areas. Lack of awareness (v) applies in case farmers were
unaware of the link between farm management and water resources e.g. the farmer did not
link fields of erosion with potential pollution of water with nutrients. Structural innovation
(vi) is defined as the need of innovation on a structural or management level like the
implementation of a recycling system or implementing periodic training sessions on SWM for
employees. The category inaccessibility of data (vii) is defined if it is not possible to provide
data or the provision would imply unreasonable efforts in time or financial investments. Legal
issues (viii) apply in case farmers do not comply with legal requirements such as lack of
abstraction permits. For the evaluation of the categories named above only non-compliant
indicators were evaluated and results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Occurrence of categories for non-compliance by principle of the EWS standard
Principle 1
(Water quantity)
Principle 2
(Water quality)
*struct. = Structural, tech. = technical, HCV = High Conservation Value
Principle 3
(HCV Value
areas)*
Principle 4
(Good governance)
Documentation 88,9 % 12,5 % 0 16,9 %
Innovation (tech.)* 0 6,3 % 0 4,6 %
Knowledge 0 37,5 % 40 % 1,5 %
Awareness 0 31,2 % 60 % 7,7 %
Innovation (struct.)* 0 0 0 69,2 %
Inaccessible 0 12,5 % 0 0
Legality 11,1% 0 0 0
Regarding principle 1 (water quantity) non-compliance was mainly caused by missing
documentation of data. In general information was implicit in farmer´s knowledge or could be
derived from other documents like volume of water abstracted (ind.1.1.3 & ind.1.1.4) and
maximum water abstraction per period of water stress (ind.1.2.2). Regarding principle 2
(water quality) major reasons of non-compliance were due to missing knowledge and
awareness. Awareness was missing to categorize potential type and sources of pollution for
example from farmyard run-off or drainage losses (ind.2.1.2). Further potential destinations
that may be affected by discharge, run-off and leaching could not be identified (ind.2.2.2).
Referring to missing knowledge farmers could not indicate whether water bodies have been

5 Results 33
recognized to have a status as rare, threatened or endangered systems (ind.2.2.3). Further the
impact of effluents on water bodies and related habitats could not be described (ind.2.2.4).
Indicator 2.1.5 referring to an analysis of actual effluents failed the status of applicability.
This was due to the fact, that an analysis of potential destinations on concentrations of
polluting substances from diffuse pollution would not be suitable for a single farm.
Regarding principle 3 (HCV areas) reasons were similar to principle 2 with the main cause of
missing knowledge and awareness. Farmers did identify HCV areas but did not document and
map them for which they would have needed to contact authorities (ind.3.1.1.). Regarding to
awareness they could not link the impacts of their farm management to changes in
quantitative or qualitative water status (ind.3.1.2). Further they did not identify an impact to
other HCV values referring to social or cultural aspects like leisure areas (ind.3.1.4).
For principle 4 (good governance) it can be seen that structural innovations need to be
implemented thinking of recycling facilities, a strategy to improve water efficiency (crit.4.4)
procedures to set up internal and external transparency and emergency plans (crit.4.6). Further
awareness for SWM should be raised and a responsible person to report on the RMBP
activities appointed (crit.4.7). To comply with principle 4 farmers would have to work more
strategically by setting up an all-embracing strategy to ensure SWM.
5.2.3 Acceptance of the EWS Standard
Interview part I
In the first section the results of the introduction interview are summarized to outline water
issues on respective farms. This is followed by the results of the second interviews presenting
the assessment of the EWS standard by farmers.
Why did farmers participate in the EWS standard?
Farmers C and E indicated to participate in the standard to prepare themselves to the WFD.
Farmers B and D participated as they suffer from water scarcity and were interested to
improve their water management. Farmer A participated due to a general interest in the
standard.
What are problems faced related to water management?
The analysis of the introduction interview on water issues resulted in the definition of three
major categories; (i) flooding, (ii) water scarcity and (iii) water rights.
To start with, in four cases farmers were facing floods (i) due to missing maintenance of
discharge and drainage systems by respective authorities. This was due to missing
communication between the farmers and the “untere Wasserbehörde” (lower water authority).

5 Results 34
Farmer E additionally indicated that the entities of a hydro dam released water during the
main harvest season, as the damn needed more capacity for autumn rainfalls, which led to
flooding of fields and major yield losses.
The category water scarcity (ii) was defined as all farmers reported on droughts during the
early summer months resulting in yield reduction. In one case even the groundwater sources
used for abstraction fell dry during certain periods.
The last category refers to the allocation of water rights (iii) and the limited access to water.
Farmer E indicated that he only has limited access to water sources situated on his private
land. He further stated that this was caused by the introduction of water rights after the
reunification of Germany in 1990 without informing the farmer adequately. Water rights were
quickly bought by externals and could not be accessed by farmers anymore. Farmer B
mentioned the competition for water rights with neighbours and Farmer D suspects that water
permits were given to the neighbour due to political friendship. This category emphasises that
problems related to water issues are not only of environmental nature but also a political
issue.
Are farmers informed about the Elbe RBMP, and are they actively involved in activities of the
RBMP?
All farmers indicated not to be informed about the RBMP of their river basin by authorities
nor are actively involved in the development or implementation.
Interview part II
The second interview was conducted during the second on-site visit and served to investigate
on the acceptance of the EWS standard by farmers. The farmers´ feedback aimed to focus on
(i) layout, (ii) overall phrasing, (iii) advice for completing the documents and (iv) the
potential participation in the EWS system (Table 9).
All farmers considered the layout practical for daily life.
Comprehension was verified by three farmers whereas two farmers expressed that the
standard is written in a manner that is too complicated. One farmer additionally felt that it was
too complicated to understand certain indicators without additional support. Therefore he
considered the standard not to be suitable for inexperienced users.
All five farmers indicated that consultancy is necessary to comprehend requirements and all
five farmers made use of an advisory service (assistance of researcher).
Farmers expressed to not take part in the EWS system under current conditions. To the
question would you participate in the standard? the farmers´ statements are presented
individually in the following:

5 Results 35
Farmer A expressed that due to his organic farm management the standard is not suitable for
his operation as he is not abstracting any water for crop production. He states to only have a
minimal application of nitrogen and phosphorus through organic matter and no application of
plant protection products or other chemicals. Therefore, he neither saw the use nor the benefit
of a certification.
Farmer B stated that the standard requirements are too extensive. The amount of work and
time for a certification is considered to be too high. He also assumed that the effort is not in
proportion to the reward.
Farmer C indicated that he is already spending 40% of his working hours in the office for
desk work. The time for field work is very constrained. He could only imagine participation in
case of adequate reimbursement for the additional work load or in case it would be requested
by retailers.
Farmer D could not imagine participating in the standard. He claims that the standard is
written in a too complicated manner. He also postulated that requirements for compliance are
exaggerated and cannot be accomplished by a single farmer. From his point of view the
standard is another inordinateness of requirements for farmers.
Farmer E stated that he cannot imagine a participation in the standard system. He is already
trying to integrate good practices towards water management with buffer strips and organic
farm management. As he also has no irrigation system in place he did not see the sense to
participate in a certification for SWM.
Reasons for rejecting participation in the standard were categorized as: (i) missing
compensation, (ii) no use for farm management, (iii) too high requirements and (iv) a too
large work load (Table 9). The category of missing compensation occurred three times and
was the major reason to refuse a participation in the EWS system. No use for farm
management was indicated by both organic farmers. Two farmers indicated that the
requirements for a farm level are too excessive for a farm level and one farmer mentioned that
he considers the workload too high
.

5 Results
Table 9: Key statements of farmers (n=5) testing the EWS standard indicating levels of acceptance
Water issues on farm
Farmer A Farmer B Farmer C Farmer D Farmer E
� water scarcity
during early
summer
� water logging due
to broken drainage
system
� soil compaction
� water scarcity
during early
summer
� water logging due
to broken drainage
� flooding
� water rights
� water scarcity
during early
summer
� water scarcity
during early
summer
� broken discharge
and drainage
system
� water logging
� flooding
� water rights
� water scarcity
during early
summer
� broken discharge
system
� water logging
flooding
� broken discharge
and drainage
system
� water rights
Layout yes yes yes yes yes
Overall
comprehension of
standard
Farmer could follow
the phrasing of the
standard.
Farmer indicated that
standard was written in
a too complicated
manner.
Farmer stated that
standard was written in
a too intricate manner
Farmer could
understand the
phrasing of the
standard.
Famer said that the
standard is written in a
comprehensive
manner.
Need of consultancy yes yes yes yes yes
Participation in the
EWS system
Category of reasons Missing compensation,
no use for farm
management
no no no no no
Workload too high,
missing compensation
Missing compensation,
requirements to be
fulfilled too high
Requirements to be
fulfilled too high
No use for farm
management
36

5 Results 37
In the last part of the interview it was evaluated under which conditions farmers would
participate in the standard (Figure 3). A detailed definition of the offered options prepared by
the researcher can be found in Annex 4.
One of the five farmers indicated to participate if certification is available within a group
certification. All farmers were willing to participate in the standard in the case of receiving
subsidies. Four farmers were willing to participate in the case of a higher turnover for
certified products. Three farmers indicated a possible certification in the case of the
combination with other certification systems like organic or GLOBALGAP. One farmer
additionally would participate from an idealistic point of view. The option “Others” included
the simplification of the indicator set and the fulfilment of the criteria of the EWS standard
forced by authorities.
Number of positive responses
5
4
3
2
1
0
group
certification
Figure 3: Motivation for acceptance of the EWS standard by the farmers (n=5) in the
pilot test
At the end of the interview, farmers were asked to share their ideas and knowledge towards
the indicator set and which indicators are considered to be needless or missing. Farmers did
not have any specific ideas to contribute towards the indicator set. Comments on the overall
improvement of the standard were given by Farmer C. He suggested using software where
data can be combined with already existing systems like cross compliance or other programs.
He stated that the facilitation of data collection would lead to a higher acceptance of the
standard on the long run.
combined
certification
certified
products raise
profit
subsidies idealistic
reasons
others

6 Discussion 38
6 Discussion
6.1 Discussion of Methodology
6.1.1 Literature Study
The literature analysis has been chosen as it can give comprehensive inside about the potential
success and extend in which the EWS standard accompanies policies. The literature analysis
shows that the EWS standard in theory is aligned with the purpose, environmental objectives
and PoMs of the WFD. The analysis provides information in theory, but it still has to be
proven that this theoretical approach also applies in practice. This can be evaluated after the
EWS standard has been used on a larger scale.
6.1.2 Case study
Availability of scientific literature
Environmental standards and voluntary certification programmes has only been introduced in
the agriculture sector about 25 years ago (FAO 2004) and the research field is still not widely
explored. The assessment of the applicability and potential acceptance of a certification
scheme, has not yet received adequate attention in the scientific community. Therefore few
comparable studies can be referred to.
Selection, number and representativeness of farms
Farmers were addressed within the project of “Klimawirkungen und Nachhaltigkeit von
Landbausystemen”. The selection was not coincidental, but was limited to the farms
participating in the project. Being involved in a research project, might have led to a more
extensive basis of data compared to other farms. Due to the participation in a research project
towards sustainable land management systems, it is assumed that farmers are interested in
sustainable solutions for farm management and might have a higher level of education.
Considering that primary results are only applicable for the examined region and farm type,
results can only be partly generalized. The size of sample of farms selected was too low. To
inquire into general conditions, it would have been necessary to evaluate a higher number of
farms. However the standard has also been pilot tested for the agricultural sector on an olive
oil production site in Spain, two organic crop production sites in Cyprus and a vegetable
production site in Belgium. This served to provide feedback from different regions operating
under different conditions, which have confirmed results by and large (EWP 2012d).

6 Discussion 39
Representativeness of different agricultural production types was not a criterion of choosing
the farms and therefore the case study was limited to crop production farms. Animal
husbandry was not addressed within the pilot tests, and further pilot tests are highly
recommended, as the applicability of some indicators might differ due to more extensive
documentation and measures when keeping animals.
Assessment of Applicability and Acceptance
To assess the applicability of a voluntary certification scheme, there has been no comparable
case found in scientific literature. Therefore the researcher has developed his own
methodology to assess the applicability. To judge the effectiveness of the assessment it would
have been favourable to act in accordance with similar investigations. In this case the
applicability was tested with the parameters of data availability and comprehension, which
refers to more a technical level. Nevertheless applicability can also be defined differently, as
it is also influenced by other aspects such as, times of having to consult the glossary or
extensiveness of data provision.
It should also be noted that recommendation indicators have not been assessed. Additionally
due to the examined farms and their profile the following indicators could not be tested on
applicability: 1.1.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 2.1.4, 2.2.5 and 4.4.5. It is recommended to
investigate the applicability for recommendation indicators and the indicators named above.
Comprehension
Another point that should be remarked is that results gained from the interview did not
comply with the results from the questionnaire. Referring to the individual indicators level of
comprehension was mainly between very good and excellent. In contrast within the interview
two farmers considered the formulations to be too complicated. This might be caused by the
one-sided evaluation of comprehension, which just referred to wording. It would have been
more favourable to let farmers read the indicator and evaluate whether they could provide the
desired data. This could have been possible if farmers had filled out the system plan in
advance. As the agreement was disregarded a more comprehensive evaluation has not been
possible and is recommended to be evaluated again in future.
Evaluating the Acceptance
Regarding the acceptance of the EWS standard it should not be entered into generalization.
The acceptance can strongly depend on different parameters such as the regional context,
farm type, size, farm manager, financial incentives, necessity to proof SWM and others. Not
to mention, compared to the applicability, the acceptance has not been investigated in other
pilot tests.

6 Discussion 40
6.2 Discussion of Results
6.2.1 Literature Analysis
Based on the results from aligning the EWS standard with the WFD it can be assumed that the
EWS standard is in accordance with current developments of EU water policy. This
assumption was made as the standard is concordant on a theoretical level with the purpose and
environmental objectives of the WFD. Additionally the EWS standard is supporting the
designed PoMs, which are a key element to implement the WFD in practice. As most
successful standards are complement to other policy initiatives, the potential of becoming a
successful certification scheme is higher due to its conformity to the WFD (UNEP 2012).
Lately during a workshop of the Green Week in Brussels, a representative of the European
Commission, named the EWS Standard as the only existing applicable tool for SWM
(personal communication v. WIRÉN-LEHR 2012a). As shown, the EWS standard can
contribute in many ways to reduce diffuse pollution in agriculture thinking of leaching,
erosion or run-off. Diffuse pollution from agriculture is still one of the major threats to water
quality in the EU (EEA 2005b). In case the EWS standard will be successfully applied, this
can have a great benefit for the conservation of water resources. This is underlined by the fact
that commercial policies in the private sector are becoming a far more important factor in the
spread of environmental requirements (UNEP 2012).
However the first phase of implementation is ending December 2012 (RUMM et al. 2006). The
standard has only been pilot tested i.e. cannot contribute to the realisation of the measures
until the end of the first phase. An assurance of the measures and a possible adaption will
happen in 2015 and then every six years until 2027 which could allow the standard to support
the PoMs in the different river basins in near future (IKSE 2009). Still it has to be taken into
account, that the EWS standard is not yet implemented on a wide scale.
Concluding it can be said, that the EWS standard is concordant with current EU water policy
and has potential to be applied in future. Still it is not clear whether it will be successfully
implemented and therefore will support the targets of the WFD.
6.2.2 Adjustment of Case Study
During the second visit of the pilot testing it was discovered that farmers did not stick to the
agreement to fill out documents by themselves. Documents were filled in during the second
on-site visit in the presence of the researcher. This had affected the results referring to the
comprehension of the indicators, as the researcher was able to assist the farmers directly. The
assistance of the researcher can be considered as consultancy. On the one hand results may

6 Discussion 41
have been positively influenced, on the other hand this enabled the researcher to gain a better
inside into difficulties related to the indicator set. Additionally this had the positive effect that
application of the EWS standard was more close to an actual process of implementation of a
new certification programme, as farmers are accustomed to consultancy and generally make
use of it.
6.2.3 Applicability of the EWS standard
This section discusses whether the EWS standard can be considered as an applicable tool.
Technical Applicability
On a technical level, the EWS standard can be considered as an applicable tool, except
indicator 2.1.5 referring to actual effluents and indicator 4.1.1, to ensure compliance with law.
In the first case the assessment of detecting concentrations of main and priority substances in
destination effected by diffuse pollution, were considered to be too complex in costs and
efforts. Therefore it is recommended to remove this aspect for diffuse pollution in agriculture.
Still it can be considered to keep it for point pollution in industry. In the second case the word
compliance caused difficulties, as it was not translated into German language. It is
recommended to keep the indicator as such but change the wording.
The technical applicability of the indicator set was also confirmed in other pilot studies in
Spain, Belgium and Greece (EWP 2012d). Additionally if the WFD provides a common
policy within the EU and obliges Member States to provide a standardised base of data on
water quality, quantity and related HCV areas, it is assumed, that potential users of the EWS
standard can provide the requested data. Therefore the indicator set is considered to be
applicable on a technical level.
Overall applicability
Having examined the technical applicability of the EWS standard, the overall applicability
which also may include the acceptance of the EWS standard on a farm level, can be
questioned. This question was provoked by the achievement of low scores in the performance
analysis. The scoring of only few points had several reasons. Farmers expressed that they
have been under time pressure. Further, to refer to the results of categories hit for non-
compliance, it can be observed that in 16 cases data was missing due to lack of documentation
when data was actually implicit in farmers´ knowledge or could be derived from other
documents. By simply investing more time in the documentation process farmers could have
received higher scores already. This leads to the assumption that the testing of the EWS
standard was not part of farmers´ priorities. Further is assumed that farmers willing to invest
more time and efforts may achieve certification. Still it is not certain whether the motivation

6 Discussion 42
of farmers was the only reason for not being considered as a sustainable water steward. As
shown by the pilot studies in the sector of industry, results have also been moderate referring
to scores of the performance analysis (EWP 2012g).
This raises the question whether there are more reasons for the low to moderate level of
compliance. One reason could be that the requirements set under the EWS standard are too
high and the indicator set is too extensive. To give an example referring to indicator 2.1.2,
farmers were asked to categorize potential type and source of pollution. Evaluating diffuse
pollution from agricultural fields can be difficult and complex. As stated by HEATHWAITE et
al. (2003) the extent and sources of diffuse pollution varies due to the complex function of
soil type, climate, topography, hydrology, land use and land management. An untrained
farmer might not be able to define its diffuse pollution from farm fields, even if the annexes
of the EWS standard can provide support. Another example is that farmers should define the
impact of effluents on water bodies and related habitats (ind.2.2.4). Here it can be helpful to
contact authorities for further information, but still this can be very time consuming and
authorities might also not be aware of the impact from the specific agricultural site. This
could lead to the assumption that the indicator set of the EWS standard is too extensive and
should be reduced to increase overall applicability, also thinking of an increase of acceptance
on the EWS standard. However, reducing the requirements to be considered a sustainable
water steward would mean to abridge the indicator set. This could be dangerous as labels of
certification programmes, are found to be used as marketing tools by giving a product a
greener imagine (ACKERSTEIN & LEMON 1999). This is also known under the expression
“green-washing”, and might not lead to the environmental benefits expected by consumers
buying certified products.
Farmers associations claim that a set of ten indicators would find acceptance. To further
reduce the number of requirements could endanger the quality of the EWS standard.
According to scientists there are up to 130 indicators available to assess SWM (personal
communication V. WIRÉN-LEHR 2011). The EWS standard currently does include
54 indicators, which seems to be an adequate compromise between the desires of the both
parties, namely scientists and farmers. Therefore the extensiveness could on the one hand be a
constraint to the overall applicability but on the other hand, also be a chance to implement a
label, which due to its extensiveness can cover a more complete evaluation of SWM
providing real environmental benefits.
To improve the overall applicability, it is recommended to conduct an impact assessment.
This can help in evaluating in which extend the EWS standard can verify SWM and also
could lead to a simplification and shortening of the indicator set by removing indicators found
to have low to no impact. To conclude, on a technical level the EWS standard can be

6 Discussion 43
considered to be applicable, however due to its extensiveness, it is still under question
whether the EWS standard will be accepted and used as a certification scheme.
Importance of EWS standard
The performance analysis gave insight into the data and knowledge referring to how water is
managed on farm. The disadvantage that farmers did not fill in the system plan themselves
turned out to be, in this specific case, an advantage as a direct feedback on farmers´
knowledge and current data availability could be given. It could be shown that a good level of
information towards principle 1 referring to water abstraction could be provided. The main
reason for non-compliance was related to the category documentation. If farmers had spent
more time on documentation they could have easily being able to comply with the criteria of
principle 1. This might have not been as easy for principles 2, 3, and 4 and scores achieved
were low. Connecting this fact with the theoretical background it became apparent that
farmers performed worst where issues of water and its management were most urgent, namely
water quality. Further, related ecosystems are threatened by pollution from agriculture, as a
recent report of the EC has proven, with only 7% of habitats in agricultural areas being in a
favourable status (EC 2010). This can lead to the presumption that the EWS standard could be
a tool to improve practices, where issues related to water are most pending. To provide
examples, main causes for non-compliance to principle 2 and principle 3, were missing
knowledge and awareness. Referring the category of awareness indicator 2.2.2 showed that
destinations being affected by discharge run-off and leaching could not be identified. This
leads to the assumption that farmers currently do not link their farm-management to potential
environmental risks. A higher awareness towards farm management and the environment
would be favourable to identify pathways of pollution and implement preventive measures.
Referring to the category documentation, farmers could recognize habitats close to their farm
but not in the wider surrounding areas (ind. 3.1.1.), nor could they describe the impacts of
their farm management on these areas (ind.3.1.2). To cover these aspects, farmers would have
to be referred elsewhere to be provided with data, e.g. consult authorities in order to gain
information about endangered species and maps of protected areas. Vice versa, authorities are
under pressure to provide requested data to farmers. This shows the importance of the EWS
standard as a tool to improve SWM, as farmers will be trained with regard to water
management and awareness will be raised and communication within the river basin
increased. The EWS standard was also considered by CRAMWINCKEL as a tool to increase
public participation and to create a shared responsibility within the river basin (EWP 2012e).
As the performance analysis showed, referring to principle 4, farmers were not participating
in RBMP activities. If farmers participate in the RBMP, this may lead to an increase of
communication with authorities and actors of the river basin and more applicable measures in

6 Discussion 44
cooperation with the farmers could be designed. That participatory water management can
increase communication was also confirmed by WRIGHT (2010). He conducted a case study,
which involved farmers in river basin planning to tackle diffuse nutrient pollution. Farmers
participating were able to provide new information unavailable to planners based on local
knowledge and on the other hand tried to soften ambitious proposals. Win-win solutions could
be made regarding the acceptance of farmers to additional policies addressing nutrient
pollution and acknowledging their responsibility (WRIGHT & FRITSCH 2011). BLACKSTOCK &
RICHARDS (2007) conclude from their case study that using participatory approaches
improved relationships between different organisations and stakeholder groups in the river
basin.
The EWS standard can also be of importance to prepare farmers for the WFD. Indicator 2.1.1
referring to priority substances can provide an example. Priority substances can be a fraction
of plant production products or heavy metals. Their constant reduction and finally abandoning
of emission has to be achieved by 2025 (HILLENBRAND et al. 2007). Farmers of the case study
had not yet heard about the list of priority substances, and were not prepared to identify their
products according to this list, which can be found in Annex X of the WFD (EU 2000). If
farmers use the EWS standard they are aware of priority substances and at the same time are
prepared for future measures being implemented in the context of the WFD. A better
preparation towards the WFD can further lead to the access of subsidies through the new CAP
coming into force after 2013. As the European Commission stated, measures to water
management will be implemented in the programme of Cross Compliance and will provide
support to regional programmes to be implemented under the Rural Development Programme
of pillar two (FALKENBERG 2012). In case farmers have implemented the EWS standard on
farm, the requested measures from pillar one and pillar two, are predicted to easily be
complied with which grants access to financial support.
In conclusion, it can be said that when applying the EWS standard many positive synergies
can evolve. This on a long run can lead to a shared responsibility in the river basins to achieve
the targets set under the WFD.
6.2.4 Acceptance of the EWS standard
The acceptance of the EWS standard has been denied by farmers, the reasons and potential
constraints to acceptance will be explained in the following section.
Overall Comprehension
The overall comprehension was indicated to be difficult by two farmers. Not to comprehend a
document can be discouraging. Considering the new topic and the amount of indicators it is
suspected that farmers may have felt overstrained in general. In addition a hindered

6 Discussion 45
comprehension might have negatively influenced the acceptance. It is recommended to
simplify phrasing as much as possible. It further should be remarked, that the acceptance of
the EWS standard related to the comprehension of documents, would only be in the beginning
a constraint, as once documents are understood, farmers would not need to invest further to
understand the phrasing.
Need for consultancy
All farmers indicated that consultancy was necessary to fulfil the requirements of the indicator
set. This statement was also confirmed by the researchers´ impression during the second on-
site visit. Additionally the outcome of the questionnaire proved that farmers needed support,
to understand the EWS standard and to provide data. Due to the reasons mentioned above,
consultancy is considered to positively influence the acceptance of the EWS standard.
However it also may be constraint to acceptance, as it is expensive and therefore will increase
costs for the certification process.
Missing benefits for farmers and future acceptance
Farmer A stated that he does not see the benefit to participate in the EWS standard.
Furthermore Farmer B expressed that efforts are not in proportion to the reward. These
statements show that farmers currently do not see the benefit in participating in the EWS
programme. The fact that the EWS standard can serve as a tool to prepare measures and future
obligations coming with the implementation of the WFD was not a sufficient driver of
motivation.
When asked under which conditions farmers can imagine to participate, all five farmers
indicated subsidies and four farmers indicated participation in the case of a higher price paid
for the product. According to a report of the UNEP (2012) whether a business applies to a
certification programme will depend on the expectations of profit. Referring to the farmers´
statements this does also apply in the case of the EWS standard with financial incentives
being the major driver of motivation. It can be assumed that financial incentives would result
in a higher acceptance of the standard and currently be a major driver of motivation.
Example of financial incentives improving practice
Under indicator 3.1.3 two farmers did apply measures to protect surrounding wetlands due to
financial incentives. This was related to an agro-environmental programme subsidised by the
Federal Ministry of Brandenburg with a decrease of nutrient applications and a delayed grass
cutting on fields bordering to wetlands. This case can highlight the importance of providing
financial incentives to encourage farmers to get involved in the conservation of water and
related ecosystems.

6 Discussion 46
Acceptance of standard by the sector of industry
The EWS standard might be a more successful tool in the sector of industry. In general
institutions will voluntarily adopt eco-labels because (i) it is mandatory in terms of
regulations or (ii) because there is an economic benefit. Not only short-term profit
expectations but also future profitability are two basic types of economic incentives
influencing an enterprise’s decisions to accept an eco-label (UNEP 2012). Eco-labelling is
further incentivised by corporate reputation, brand impact and others (CERC 2004).
Specifically larger companies may have a number of vague intangible benefits like
competitive advantage by greening their companies profile. Farmers often sell their products
to retailers and therefore are not able to promote a certificate in such an extent on the market,
as a company can do. Another constraint on a farm level can be the reduced number of
employees. Within the industry sector tasks can be distributed more easily and responsible
persons can be appointed to manage the certification process. In general it can be assumed
that the EWS standard will have a higher acceptance in the sector of industry. This is also
reflected by the business parties involved in the development and pilot testing of the EWS
standard, as the majority of actors are coming from industry (EWP 2012f).
Acceptance by Organic Farmers
The study has shown that in general fewer indicators applied to the organic farms than to the
conventional managed farms, due to reduced inputs from fertilizers and plant protection
products. As stated by Farmer A with organic farm management in place, he does not find the
EWS standard suitable, due to low inputs. A lower acceptance by organic farmers of the EWS
standard is expected, as they are already certified to practice sustainable farming. Certainly
lower effects towards water pollution and water-cycle related areas can be assumed compared
to conventional farm management, where fertilizers and pesticides are used abundantly.
However organic farm management can also have negative effects with regard to water
abstraction from non-renewable groundwater sources for irrigation or diffuse pollution
through nutrients from animal excrements being applied on fields. The regulation of the EU,
to production and labelling of organic products, namely regulation No 834/2007, is stating
that organic agriculture “makes responsible use of energy and the natural resources, such as
water, soil, organic matter and air” (Art.3 (a)(iii)) and “respects nature´s systems and cycles
and sustains and enhances the health of soil, water, plants and animals” (Art.3 (a)(i)) (EC
2007b). However, referring to water this is not related to any binding measures.
To conclude, there is a risk that organic farmers neglect the aspect of SWM within their farm
management, therefore the appliance of the EWS standard on organic farms can be a
promising complement to certify the responsible use of water.

7 Conclusion, Recommendation and Outlook 47
7 Conclusion, Recommendation and Outlook
A literature analysis served to align the EWS standard with the purposes, environmental
objectives and the PoMs of the Elbe River basin. The theoretical approach confirmed that the
EWS standard is concordant with the WFD and can facilitate its implementation for the
private sector.
A case study has been conducted exploring the applicability and acceptance of the EWS
standards on five farms in the Elbe River basin. A pilot test of the EWS standard was
conducted, testing its applicability by making use of a performance analysis supported by a
questionnaire. The second step of a successful implementation of a standard, the acceptance,
was explored by interviewing farmers pilot testing the standard.
The result, that the EWS standard is by and large applicable on a technical level for farms
specialized on plant cultivation, is assumed to serve for generalization, as results could be
confirmed by other pilot tests in the EU.
To also explore the EWS standards applicability for other sectors, it is recommended to
conduct additional pilot tests on farms with animal husbandry. The applicability can differ
due to an additional need for data provision and measures due to the use of pharmaceutical
products and the need to cope with animal excrements.
To mention, being an applicable tool for certification, does not prove whether the EWS
standard is suitable to assess SWM. An impact assessment could serve two purposes. Firstly it
can avoid the danger of the EWS standard being a tool to green-wash business management
by proving a positive impact on water resources. Secondly an impact assessment can provide
information, which indicators can be removed due to their insignificant impact. This can
shorten the indicator set and reduce workloads for users.
Compared to the applicability, the evaluation of acceptance is not suitable for generalization.
The acceptance of the EWS standard can very much depend on the socio-economic
background and influenced by parameters like farm size, viability of water to farm
management, ability to invest and others. It could be observed that the acceptance by the
questioned farmers was denied, mainly due to missing economic benefits. Regardless of
whether the standard will be accepted on a farm level or not, it can be assumed that the
provision of financial incentives can play a key factor to increase the acceptance.
The acceptance of the EWS standard might not only be improved by the provision of
economic benefits, but also by other factors leading to a simplification of certification
process. It can be favourable to use synergies with already implemented certification systems

7 Conclusion, Recommendation and Outlook 48
like GLOBALGAP to avoid double documentation. Additionally software can help to
facilitate the certification process. Besides this, the EWS standard also may apply to smaller
farmers by offering the possibility of group certification.
Launched in November 2011, the EWS standard is still a very new certification system.
However, companies such as the paper and bottled water industry are already committed to
becoming certified users (EWP 2012h). Further sectors like urban areas, airlines and tourism
are interested in future participation and are currently pilot testing the EWS standard.
Regarding the acceptance of the EWS standard, it can be speculated, that EWS standard is
more likely to be implemented where water is scarce and a risk to business. To give an
example, Cyprus has been hit by drought incidence, which has increased in the last decades in
magnitude and frequency (ZACHARIADIS 2010). Agriculture remains the major water user with
60%. The EWS standard has been tested on pilot farms in Cyprus. Farmers in Cyprus were
most motivated to implement the EWS system to improve their reputational risk and to
mitigate the risk to be cut-off from water use (personal communication V.WIRÉN LEHR 2012).
It is assumed that a higher pressure on water resources and future policy developments will
influence whether the EWS standard will become a successful certification programme. It
cannot be predicted yet whether it will become as successful as other certification systems
such as the Forest Stewardship Council standard. Given the challenges posed by climate
change, rising awareness of water issues and new policies being set into force, the pressure on
the private sector to implement SWM is increasing. In comparison to the Water Footprint, the
EWS standard provides a comprehensive tool, as it addresses the local impact and the
complexity of assessing water management.
More generally speaking, voluntary certification schemes are not the only way to address
SWM. Policy instrument will play a major role in regulating the use of water resources,
through mechanisms such as prices or tradable permit systems. Pricing mechanisms help
reduce the cost of achieving a given objective and provide incentives for further efficiency
gains and innovation (OECD 2007). Further the UNEP (2012) stated commercial policies are
becoming a far more important factor than any formal environmental policy. It can be
observed that retailers and supply chains requirements´ can play an important role due to their
market power and have a great capacity to change the practices of producers.
This study shows that EWS standard can be considered as an applicable tool and therefore
may assist the private sector to implement the WFD, encourage a SWM within the EU river
basins and to contribute to a collective effort to safe-guard European water resources.

8 References 49
8 References
ACKERSTEIN, D.S. & K.A. LEMON, 1999: Greening the brand – environmental marketing
strategies and the American consumer. In CHARTER, M. & POLONSKY, J. (Eds.): Greener
marketing – a global perspective on greening marketing practice. Greenleaf, Sheffield.
ALBERSMEIER, F., SCHULZE, H., JAHN, G. & A. SPILLER, 2009: The reliability of third-party
certification in the food chain: From checklists to risk-oriented auditing. Food Control,
20 (10), 927-935.
ALLIBONE R., 1996: Water abstraction impacts on non-migratory galaxiids of Otago streams.
Departement of Conservation, Wellington.
BECHMANN, M. E., BERGE, D., EGGESTAD, H. O., & S.M. VANDSEMB, 2005: Phosphorus
transfer from agricultural areas and its impact on the eutrophication of lakes—two longterm
integrated studies from Norway. Journal of Hydrology, 304 (1-4), 238-250.
BLACKSTOCK, K.L. & C. RICHARDS, 2007: Evaluating stakeholder involvement in river basin
planning: A Scottish case study. Water Policy, 9 (5) 493–512
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit)(Hrsg.), 2010: Die
Wasserrahmenrichtlinie – Auf dem Weg zu guten Gewässern. Rautenberg Verlag, Berlin.
URL viewed online 03/02/2012 http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4012.pdf,
2010.
VAN BUEREN E. L. & E. BLOM, 1996: Hierachical framework for the formulation of
Sustainable Forest Management standards. The Tropenbos Foundation.
CARTER, J. & J. HOWE, 2006: The Water Framework Directive and the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Directive: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 26 (3), 287-300.
CSD (Commission on Sustainable Development), 1997: Comprehensive assessment of the
freshwater resources of the world. Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations
Economic and Social Council, New York.
CERC (Center for Environmental Research and Conservation), 2004: Economic benefits of
certification programmes: producers, resellers and end consumers. Prepared on behalf of
the Rainforest Alliance. Columbia University, New York.
CHAVE, P., 2001: The EU Water Framework Directive: An Introduction. IWA Publishing,
London.

8 References 50
COLLINS, A., OHANDJA, D.-G., HOARE, D. & N. VOULVOULIS, 2012: Implementing the Water
Framework Directive: a transition from established monitoring networks in England and
Wales. Environmental Science & Policy, 17, 49-61.
COOPER, T., HART, K. & D. BALDOCK, 2009: The provision of public goods through
agriculture in the European Union. Report prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural
Developement. Institute for European Environmental Policy. URL viewed online
09/01/2012
London.http://www.wzw.tum.de/wdl/forschung/gutachten/2009_IEEP.report_en.pdf
DOGDU, M. S. & C. SAGNAK, 2008: Climate change, drought and over pumping impacts on
groundwaters: Two examples from Turkey. Water observation and information system of
balkan countries, 1-13.
DRISCOLL, C. T., WHITALL, D., ABER, J., BOYER, E., CASTRO, M., CRONAN, C., GOODALE, C.
L., GROFFMAN, P., HOPKINSON, C., LAMBERT, K., LAWRENCE, G. & S. OLLINGER, 2003:
Nitrogen pollution in the Northeastern United States: sources, effects, and management
Options. BioScience, 53 (4), 357-374.
EC (European Commission), 2006: First interim report: Water scarcity and drought – In-depth
assessment. European Commission, Brussels, version 2. URL viewed online 03/03/2012
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/comm_droughts/2006_11_1st_int_repo
rt.pdf
EC (European Commission), 2007a: Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council – Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in
the European Union. European Commission, Brussels.
EC (European Commission), 2007b: Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007
on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC)
No 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Union. URL viewed online 11/12/2011
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF
EC (European Commission), 2010: Healthcheck for Europe´s protected nature. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. URL viewed online 01/02/2012
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/healthcheck.pdf
EC (European Commission), 2011a: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and
the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within
the framework of the common agricultural policy. European Commission, Brussels.

8 References 51
EC (European Commission), 2011b: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and
the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD). European Commission, Brussels.
EC (European Commission), 2011c: Assessment of the efficiency of the water footprinting
approach and of the agricultural products and foodstuff labelling and certification scheme.
Executive Summary prepared by Risk & Policy Analysts & Cranfield University. URL
viewed online 07/01/2012
http://www.rpaltd.co.uk/documents/WaterFootprintingSummary.pdf
ECKEL, H., ROTH, U., DÖHLER, H. & U. SCHULTHEIß, 2004: Assessment and reduction of
heavy metal input into agro-ecosystems. Association for Technology and Structures in
Agriculture (KTBL), Darmstadt.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 1999a: Sustainable water use in Europe – Part 1:
Sectoral use of water. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 1999b: Groundwater quality and quantity in Europe.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2005a: Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change
in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2005b: European environment outlook, Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2008: Joint Report: Impacts of Europe's changing
climate — 2008 indicator-based assessment. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2009: Water resources across Europe – confronting
water scarcity and drought. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2010a: The European Environment – State and
outlook 2010: Water Resources: Quantity and flows. Publication Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2010b: The European Environment – State and
outlook 2010: Freshwater Quality. Publication Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.

8 References 52
EU (European Union), 2000: EU Water Framework Directive: Directive 2000/60/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community
action in the field of water policy. EU Official Journal, Brussels.
EU (European Union), 2010a: Water is for life: How the Water Framework Directive helps
safeguard Europe ’ s resources. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
EU (European Union), 2010b: Commission Communication – EU best practice guidelines for
voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuff. Official Journal of
the European Union. URL viewed online 06/01/2012 http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:341:0005:0011:en:PDF
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2011b: European Water Stewardship standard,
version 3.3, unpublished. European Water Partnership, Brussels.
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2011c: EWS Standard: Requirements for Compliance.
Version 0.6. European Water Partnership, Brussels. Unpublished.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2004: Voluntary standards
and certification for environmentally and socially responsible agricultural production and
trade. Rome. URL viewed online 04/03/2012
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5763e/y5763e04.htm#bm04
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2007: Coping with water
scarcity. Challenge of the twenty-first century. URL viewed online 01/03/2012
http://www.unwater.org/wwd07/downloads/documents/escarcity.pdf
FGG Elbe (Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe), 2009: Bewirtschaftungsplan nach Artikel 13 der
Richtlinie 2000/60/EG für den deutschen Teil der Flussgebietseinheit Elbe.
Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe, Magdeburg. URL viewed online 06/03/2012
http://www.fggelbe.de/tl_fgg_neu/tl_files/Downloads/EG_WRRL/ber/bp/0911_Bewirtschaftungsplan.pdf
FLICK, U., VON KARDORFF, E., KEUPP, H., VON ROSENSTIEL, L. & S. WOLFF, 1995: Qualitative
Sozialforschung, Grundlagen, Konzepte, Methoden und Anwendungen,. Psychologie
Verlags Union, Weinheim, 2.Auflage.
FROSCHAUER, U & M. LUEGER, 2002: ExpertInnengespräche in der interpretativen
Organisationsforschung. In: BOGNER, A., LITTIG, B. & W. MENZ (Hrsg.): Das
Experteninterview: Theorie, Methode und Anwendung.. Leske & Budrich, Opladen, 223-
240.
GIERETH, S., 2011: Leitfadeninterview und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrument der
Qualitativen Forschung. GRIN Verlag, Norderstedt.

8 References 53
GRIFFITHS, M., 2002: The European Water Framework Directive: An approach to European
water management. European Water Management Online, Official Publication of the
European Water Association, 1-15.
GRIZZETTI, B., & F. BOURAOUI, 2006: Assessment of nitrogen and phosphorus environmental
pressure at European scale. Joint Research Centre, Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg.
GRIZZETTI, B., BOURAOUI, F. & A. ALOE, 2007: Spatialised European nutrient balance.
Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Joint Research Centre. Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. URL viewed online 05/04/2012
http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR22692.pdf
GUNNINGHAM, W. & D. SINCLAIR, 2005: Policy Instrument choice and diffuse source
Pollution. Journal of Environmental Law, 17 (1), 51-81.
HACKET, S.C., 2011: Environmental and natural resources economics: theory, policy, and the
sustainable society. M.E. Sharpe Inc, New York. Auflage 4.
HEATHWAITE, A. L., QUINN, P. F. & C. J. M. HEWETT, 2005: Modelling and managing critical
source areas of diffuse pollution from agricultural land using flow connectivity simulation.
Journal of Hydrology, 304 (1-4), 446-461.
HILL, M.J., 2010: Understanding Environmental Pollution. Cambridge University Press, UK.
HILLENBRAND, T., MARSCHEIDER-WEIDEMANN, F., STRAUCH, M., HITMANN, K. & D.
SCHAFFRIN, 2007: Emissionsminderung für prioritäre und prioritäre gefährliche Stoffe der
Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.), Dessau.
IKSE (International Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe), 2009: Internationaler
Bewirtschaftungsplan für die Flussgebietseinaheit Elbe nach Artikel 13 der Richtlinie
2000/60/EG.
JARVIE, H. P., NEAL, C. & P.J. A. WITHERS, 2006: Sewage-effluent phosphorus: a greater risk
to river eutrophication than agricultural phosphorus? Science of the Total Environment,
360 (1-3), 246-253.
KAIKA, M., 2003: The Water Framework Directive: A new directive for a changing social,
political and economic European framework. European Planning Studies, 11 (3), 300-315.
KANT, I., *1724 - †1804: Über den Gemeinspruch. In: EBBINGHAUS, J. (Hrsg.), Vittorio
Klostermann GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 1992, 5. Auflage.

8 References 54
KAVANAGH, P. & T. BREE, 2009: Water Framework Directive Programme of Measures:
Protection of high-status sites, forest, water and on-site wastewater-treatement systems.
Biology and Environment, 109 (3), 345-364.
KONSTANTINOU, I. K., HELA, D. G. & T.A. ALBANIS, 2006: The status of pesticide pollution in
surface waters (rivers and lakes) of Greece. Part I. Review on occurrence and levels.
Environmental pollution, 141 (3), 555-70.
LAWA (Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser), 2008: Maßnahmenprogramm FGG Elbe,
Anhang A1-1. URL viewed online 07/01/2012
http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/w/WRRL_2009/MNP_Elbe/Anhaenge_Karten/Anhang_
A1_1.pdf
LEONARD, R.A., 1990: Movement of pesticides into surface waters. In: Cheng, H.H. (Ed.),
Pesticides in the soil environment: Processes, impacts and modelling. Soil Science Society
of America, Madison,WI, 303-349.
MEUSER, M. & U. NAGEL, 1991: Experteninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. In:
Garz D. & Krainer K (Hrsg.), Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung. Westdeutscher
Verlag, Opladen.
MOMPELAT, S., LE BOT, B. & O. THOMAS, 2009: Occurrence and fate of pharmaceutical
products and by-products, from resource to drinking water. Environment International, 35
(5), 803-814.
MORARI, F., VELLIDIS, G., & P. GAY, 2011: Environment and human health effects: Fertilizers.
In: NRIAGU, J. (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of Environmental Health, Elsevier Science Publishers,
Amsterdam, 727-737.
MULEWF (Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung, Weinbau und Forsten),
2002: Umsetzung der Europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Rheinland-Pfalz. Mainz.
URL viewed online 09/03/2012 http://www.wrrlinfo.de/docs/UmsetzungWRRL_RL_P.pdf
MULLIGAN, D., BOURAOUI, F. GRIZZETTI, B., ALOE A. & J. DUSAR, 2006: An atlas of pan-
European data for investigating the fate of agrochemicals in terrestrial ecosystems. Joint
Research Center Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg. URL viewed online 04/03/2012
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/fileadmin/Documentation/Highlight/FATE_Atlas_compr
essed.pdf
NP (NETZWERK DER PILOTBETRIEBE), 2011a: Projekt „Klimawirkungen und Nachhaltigkeit
von Landbausystemen – Untersuchungen in einem Netzwerk von Pilotbetrieben“. Climate
data. Unpublished.

8 References 55
NP (NETZWERK DER PILOTBETRIEBE), 2011b: Projekt „Klimawirkungen und Nachhaltigkeit
von Landbausystemen – Untersuchungen in einem Netzwerk von Pilotbetrieben“. Farm
data. Unpublished.
NZIGUHEBA, G., & E. SMOLDERS, 2008: Inputs of trace elements in agricultural soils via
phosphate fertilizers in European countries. The Science of the total environment, 390 (1),
53-7.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2007: Instrument mixes
for environmental policy. OECD, Paris. URL viewed online 05/06/2012
http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Call_for_information/Instrument%20Mixes%20for%20
Environmental%20Policy%20--%2031.05.2007.pdf
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2008: Environmental
performance of agriculture in OECD countries since 1990, Paris, France. URL viewed
online 27/02/2012 www.oecd.org/tad/env/indicators
OUATTARA, K., OUATTARA, B., ASSA, A. & P. M. SÉDOGO, 2006: Long-term effect of
ploughing, and organic matter input on soil moisture characteristics of a Ferric Lixisol in
Burkina Faso. Soil and Tillage Research, 88 (1-2), 217-224.
OVERVELD, P. V., 2008: Masterthesis: Countering threats to drinking water quality. University
of Technology, Delft.
PETALAS, C., PISINARAS, V., GEMITZI, A., TSIHRINTZIS, V. A. & K. OUZOUNIS, 2009: Current
conditions of saltwater intrusion in the coastal Rhodope aquifer system, northeastern
Greece. Desalination, 237 (1-3), 22-41.
RICHARDS, R.P. & D.B. BAKER, 1993: Pesticide concentration patterns in agricultural drainage
networks in the lake Erie Basin. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 12 (1), 13–26.
ROBINSON, I., JUNQUA G., VAN COILLIE R. & O. THOMAS, 2007: Trends in the detection of
pharmaceutical products, and their impact and mitigation in water and wastewater in North
America. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 387 (4), pp. 1143-1151.
RUMM, P., VON KETZ, S., & M. SCHMALHOLZ, 2006: Handbuch der EU-
Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, 2. Auflage.
SALETH, R.M. & A. DINAR, 2004: The institutional economics of water - A cross-country
analysis of institutions and performance. The World Bank. Washington.
SMITH, V. H., 2009: Eutrophication. In: GENE E. LIKENS, (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Inland Waters
Elsevier, Oxford, 3, 61-73.

8 References 56
SRU (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen), 2009: Für eine zeitgemäße Gemeinsam
Agrarpolitik (GAP), Stellungnahme, Nr.14. URL viewed online 30/03/2012
http://www.umweltrat.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/812334/publicationFile/50105/2009_11_
Stellung_14_GAP.pdf
STAKE, R.E., 1995: The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, California.
STOATE, C., BOATMAN, N., BORRALHO, R., CARVALHO, C. R., SNOO, G. R. D. & P. EDEN,
2001: Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. Journal of Environmental
Management, 63 (4), 337-365.
STONE, M., 2000: The role of erosion and sediment transport in nutrient and contaminant
transfer. IAHS Press, Oxfordshire.
SVENSSON, M. G. E., 2006: Water and water use in Europe: policies, targets, problems and
driving forces. Background Paper 1 st Integration Workshop, Brussels. Lund University,
Centre for Sustainability Studies, Sweden. URL viewed online 20/02/2012
http://www.forescene.net/Resources/Brussel_IWS1/FORESCENE_D.1.2_BackgroundPap
er_2.pdf
THOMAS, F., DENZEL, K., HARTMANN, K., HARTMANN, E., LUICK, R. & K. SCHMOOCK, 2007:
Kurzfassung der Agrarumwelt- und Naturschutzprogramme. Bundesamt für Naturschutz
(Hrsg.). BMU-Druckerei, Bonn.
UBA (Umweltbundesamt), 2008: Eintragspfade für Stickstoff- und Phosphoreinträge im
deutschen Teil des Elbe-Einzugsgebiets im Zeitraum 2003 bis 2005. Umweltbundesamt,
Berlin.
VANROLLGHEM, P.A (Ed.), 2011: Decision support for Water Framework Directive
implementation – Water Framework Directive series. IWA Publishing, London.Volume 3.
VOS, H., LUKACS, S., & M. JANSSEN, 2008: EU-wide control measures to reduce pollution
from WFD relevant substance – Cadmium in the Netherlands. National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment. Bilthoven.
WEISCHER, C., 2007: Sozialforschung. UVK Verlagsgesellschaft, Konstanz.
v. WIRÉN – LEHR, S., 2011a: Personal communication with the project coordinator of the
European Water Stewardship programme, European Water Partnership. In Brussels 05
October 2011.
v. WIRÉN – LEHR, S., 2012a: Personal communication with the project coordinator of the
European Water Stewardship programme, European Water Partnership. In Brussels 12
February 2012.

8 References 57
v. WIRÉN – LEHR, S., 2012b: Personal communication with the project coordinator of the
European Water Stewardship programme, European Water Partnership. In Brussels 07
June 2012.
WORRELL R. & M.C. APPLEBY, 2000: Stewardship of Natural Resources: Definition, ethical
and practical aspects. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12 (3), 263-277.
WRIGHT, S. A. L, 2011: Instruments and Institutions for Sustainable Water Management. PhD
Thesis, Copenhagen University.
WRIGHT, S. A. L. & O. FRITSCH 2011: Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water
Framework Directive: Why, when and how? Ecological Economics, 70 (12), 2268-2274.
WWAP (World Water Assessment Program), 2003: Water for People, Water for Life: World
Water Development Report. URL viewed online 19/02/2012
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/
YIN, R. K., 1984: Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications Sage, Beverly
Hills.
ZACHARIADIS, T., 2010: Residential Water Scarcity in Cyprus: Impact of Climate Change and
Policy Options. Water, 2 (4), 788-814.
ZUCCATO, E., CASTIGLIONI, S.,& R. FANELLI, 2005: Identification of the pharmaceuticals for
human use contaminating the Italian aquatic environment. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 122 (3), 205-209.
Internet Source
DW (Deutscher Wetterdienst), 2012: Mittelwerte des Niederschagls bezogen auf den Standort
1990, Deutscher Wetterdienst. URL viewed online 12/6/2012
http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/appmanager/bvbw/dwdwwwDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=
_dwdwww_spezielle_nutzer_energiewirtschaft_historisch&T26607173141161345039102g
sbDocumentPath=Navigation%2FOeffentlichkeit%2FKlima__Umwelt%2FKlimadatenzent
ren%2FNKDZ%2Fkldaten__akt%2Fausgabe__mittelwerte__node.html%3F__nnn%3Dtru
e
EC (European Commission), 2012: WFD: Timetable for implementation. URL viewed online
04/02/2012 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/info/timetable_en.htm

8 References 58
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2011a: Background. URL viewed online 10/01/2012
http://www.ewp.eu/activities/water-stewardship/project-communication-swm/background/
EWP(European Water Partnership), 2011d: Glossary. URL viewed online 09/12/2011
http://www.ewp.eu/activities/water-stewardship/partnership/
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2012a: Frequently Asked Questions. URL viewed online
6/03/2012 http://www.ewp.eu/activities/water-stewardship/faq/#question-4
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2012b: What is EWP? URL viewed online 08/01/2012
http://www.ewp.eu/about-ewp/what-is-ewp/
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2012c: European Water Stewardship. URL viewed
online 18/02/2012 http://www.ewp.eu/activities/water-stewardship/
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2012d: Pilot studies agriculture. URL viewed online
10/02/2012 http://www.ewp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A4-AGRI.pdf
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2012e: Follow-up EWS standard launch. URL viewed
online 20 February 2012 http://www.ewp.eu/events/ews-launch/follow-up/
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2012f: EWS Standard: Partnership. URL viewed online
20/06/2012. http://www.ewp.eu/activities/water-stewardship/partnership/
EWP (European Water Partnership) 2012g, EWS standard: Pilot studies industry. URL
viewed online 10/06/2012 http://www.ewp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A4-INDU.pdf
EWP (European Water Partnership), 2012h: EWP Water Stewardship programme: Rationale.
URL viewed online 2/06/2012 http://www.ewp.eu/events/ews-launch/follow-up/
FALKENBERG, K., 2011: in workshop: Water and agriculture in the EU. How blue is the
Common Agricultural Policy? European Commission. Green Week 2012, Brussels. URL
viewed online 15/06/2012
http://scic.ec.europa.eu/str/index.php?sessionno=8c9a14ffebb7677d033ffce847991293
WSA (Water Stewardship Australia), 2012: Strategic plan 2011-2013. URL viewed online
02/02/2012 http://www.waterstewardship.org.au/pdfs/WSA%20strategy%20130511b.pdf
UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), 2012: International
decade for action „Water For Life“ 2005-2015, URL viewed online 26/04/2012
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/background.shtml
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), n.d.: The trade and environmental effects
of eco-labels: assessment and response. URL viewed online 04/06/2012
http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/Ecolabelpap141005f.pdf

9 Annex 59
9 Annex
A.1: Points received per farm to EWS indicator set
Prinicple 1
Farmer A Farmer B Farmer C Farmer D Farmer E
1.1.1 5 3 3 1 3
1.1.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1.1.3 5 3 2 2 2
1.1.4 n.a. 3 2 n.a. n.a.
1.2.1 n.a. 4 4 4 4
1.2.2 n.a. 0 0 0 0
1.2.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1.2.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1.2.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1.2.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1.2.7 n.a. 3 3 3 n.a.
Principle 2
2.1.1 4 2 2 2 2
2.1.2 3 2 2 2 2
2.1.3 n.a. 3 3 n.a. n.a.
2.1.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2.1.5 n.a. 0 0 0 0
2.1.6 2 2 3 3 3
2.2.1 0 0 0 0 0
2.2.2 0 0 0 0 0
2.2.3 0 0 0 0 0
2.2.4 0 0 0 0 0
2.2.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
2.2.6 3 3 3 3 3
2.3.1 2 0 0 0 0
Principle 3
3.1.1 2 2 2 2 2
3.1.2 0 0 0 0 0
3.1.3 3 3 n.a. n.a. n.a.
3.1.4 0 0 0 0 0
Principle 4
4.1.1 3 3 3 3 3
4.2.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a
4.2.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a

9 Annex 60
4.3.1 n.a. 0 0 2 0
4.3.2 n.a. 0 0 n.a. n.a.
4.3.3 3 2 2 2 0
4.4.1 0 0 0 1 1
4.4.2 n.a. 0 3 0 0
4.4.3 n.a. 3 3 n.a. n.a.
4.4.4 n.a. 0 0 0 0
4.4.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
4.4.6 n.a. 0 0 0 0
4.5.1 3 2 3 3 3
4.5.2 3 2 3 2 2
4.5.3 n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. n.a.
4.6.1 0 0 0 0 0
4.6.2 0 0 0 0 0
4.6.3 n.a. 0 2 2 2
4.6.4 0 0 0 0 n.a.
4.6.5 3 1 2 2 2
4.6.6 n.a. 0 0 n.a. n.a.
4.7.1 0 0 0 0 0
4.7.2 0 0 0 0 0
4.8.1 0 2 3 3 0
4.9.1 n.a. 1 1 1 n.a.
4.9.2 0 0 0 0 0
4.9.3 0 0 0 0 0
Style of writing signifies: bold = major indicator, italic = minor indicator, normal = recommendation indicator, n.a. = non
applicable indicator
A.2: Interview part I
Questions before the pilot test
(Questions are translated from German to English)
1. How is the current situation on your farm related to water availability? Are there other
important issues towards water that influence your farm management?
2. Why is water management important to you?
3. Are you informed about and actively involved the Elbe River Basin Management
Plan?
4. Do they actively involve you in the River Basin Management Plans of your river
basin?
5. What do you expect from participation in the standard?

9 Annex 61
A.3: Interview part II
Questions after pilot test
(Questions are translated from German to English)
1. Is the standard written in a clear and comprehensive way?
2. Are format and layout of the documents suitable for use in daily tasks?
3. If not do you have suggestions for improvement?
4. Did you use an external consultancy service to support the pilot test?
If yes, what were important inputs of the consultant? Could you have imagined to pilot
test the EWS standard without consultancy?
5. Do you think that the use of consultancy would have simplified the pilot test?
6. Did you integrate the EWS standard in your existing environmental and water
management system?
7. How many persons and working hours have been involved in the pilot test?
8. Did you provide training to responsible persons involved in the pilot test? If yes,
please indicate training hours and programmes.
9. What are external costs of the pilot test?
10. What are your major criticisms with regards to the technical requirements of the pilot
test?
11. Which additional aspects of water management would you like to see developed in
future?
12. Do you have any other comments you would like to mention towards the standard
draft and its guideline?
13. Did any of the indicators of the standard doubl with other standards like QS,
GlobalGap or others?
14. Do you consider taking part in the European Water Partnership programme in future,
why/ why not?
15. Under which conditions would you take part in the standard?
� Group certification
� Combined with another certification
� Certified products raise profit
� Subsidies
� Idealistic reasons
� Others

9 Annex 62
A.4: Categories for interview part II
Options provided by the researcher to question 15:
a. Group certification, in this context: a joint certification of a group of farmers with the
certification applying to the whole group. The group shall be managed by a central
administration, which is responsible for ensuring the group´s compliance with the
applicable standard and manages the group documentation.
b. Combined with other certifications, in this context: certification can be combined with
the process of another certification system. Documents of the standards are separate
but the auditing process is united.
c. Certified products result in higher turnover, in this context: Consumers are willing to
pay more for certified products and the farmer receives a higher income for his
products.
d. Subsidies in this context: governmental compensation to cover the additional efforts
for certification.
e. Idealistic in this context: taking part in the EWS standard to contribute to the
protection of water.
A.5: Questions referring to individual indicator
Questions to each indicator:
1. Is this indicator written in a comprehensive manner?
2. Did or do you need further support to provide information to this indicator?
3. In case of non-provision of data; what are the constraints to provide data to this
indicator?
4. Do you have any further comments on this indicator?

9 Annex 63
A.6: EWS draft standard version 3.3
Grundsatz 1. Erreichen und Erhalten von nachhaltiger Wassergewinnung bezüglich
Wassermenge.
Erläuterung: Eine nachhaltige Wasserbewirtschaftung soll eine nachhaltige Wassergewinnung aus allen
Quellen erreichen und erhalten, und ein Umweltflusssystem in allen Wassereinzugsgebieten, in denen ein
signifikanter Einfluss besteht, erhalten oder wieder herstellen. Die Gewinnung und die Nutzung von Wasser
aus allen Quellen ist daher vom Wasser-Manager zu beurteilen.
Principle 1. Achieve and maintain sustainable water abstraction in terms of water quantity.
Explanation: Sustainable Water Management shall achieve and maintain sustainable water abstraction from all sources,
and maintain or restore environmental flow regime in all catchments where it has a significant influence. Therefore, the
abstraction and use of water from all sources shall be evaluated by the water manager.
Kriterium 1.1
Die Gesamt- und Netto-Wassergewinnung ist nach Quelle zu quantifizieren und zu überwachen.
Criterion 1.1
The total and the net water abstraction shall be quantified and monitored by source.
1.1.1
Major
1.1.2*
Major
Indicator.
Werden alle Quellen mit einer rechtlichen Genehmigung und die für Wassergewinnung
genutzt werden, vollständig dokumentiert und regelmäßig aktualisiert?
Beispiel: Selbstversorgungsquellen:
Grundwasser (spezifisch erneuerbares Grundwasser und fossiles Wasser)
Oberflächen (Süß)-wasser (einschließlich Wasser aus Feuchtgebieten, Flüssen, Seen oder künstlichen
oder stark modifizierten Oberflächenwasserkörpern)
Alternative Quellen:
Sammlung von Niederschlagswasser
Recyceltes Wasser
Entsalztes Wasser
Aus öffentlichen/privaten Wassersystemen:
Sonstige
Kommunales Wasser (Leitungs-, Trink-, Reinwasser)
Öffentliche Versorgungsunternehmen = Wasserversorgungsunternehmen
Are all sources with a legal permit and which are used for water abstraction, fully documented and
regularly updated?
For example: Self-supply sources:
Groundwater (specify renewable groundwater and fossil water)
Surface (fresh) water (including water from wetlands, rivers, lakes or artificial and heavily modified surface
water bodies)
Alternative sources:
Rainwater collection
Recycled water
Desalinated water
From public/private water system:
Other
Municipal water (tap, drinking, supply water)
Public Water Services (PWS) = Water utilities
Werden alle Quellen ohne rechtliche Genehmigung und die für Wassergewinnung genutzt
werden, vollständig dokumentiert und regelmäßig aktualisiert?
Are all sources without a legal permit and which are used for water abstraction, fully documented and
regularly updated?

9 Annex 64
1.1.3
Major
1.1.4
Major
Wird das von jeder genannten Quelle gewonnene Wasservolumen quantifiziert, überwacht
und verzeichnet?
Eine allgemeine Tabelle bereitstellen, mit:
Gewonnenem Wasser pro Jahr/pro Quelle
Gewonnenem Wasser pro empfindlichem Zeitraum/pro Quelle
Gewonnenem Wasser pro Monat/pro Quelle
Berechnen Sie den Wasserverbrauch pro Quelle: Gesamtwassergewinnung minus Wassereinleitung für jede
Quelle.
Kriterium 1.2
Is the water volume abstracted from each source as identified above quantified, monitored and
recorded?
Provide a general table including:
Abstracted water per year/ per source
Abstracted water per sensitive period / per source
Abstracted water per month / per source
Calculate the water consumption per source: total water abstraction minus water discharge for each source.
Nur für Bewässerung: Wird das zur Bewässerung verwendete Wasservolumen quantifiziert,
überwacht und berichtet?
Bitte angeben:
Unterschiedliche bewässerte Gebiete oder Nutzpflanzen
Wassernutzung auf einer täglichen oder monatlichen Grundlage
For irrigation only: Is the water volume used for irrigation quantified, monitored and reported?
Specify:
Different irrigated areas or crops
Water use on a daily and monthly basis
Die Auswirkung der Wassergewinnung ist entsprechend der Größenordnung, der Intensität der
Wasserbewirtschaftung und der Einzigartigkeit der signifikant betroffenen Quellen zu beschreiben und
zu beurteilen.
Außerhalb
Indirekte Wassernutzung für gekaufte Elektrizitäts- und Energieerzeugung, z.B. Hydro (geparkt)
Gekauftes Wasser (nicht in Beurteilung enthalten, sollte aber quantitativ überwacht werden): Wasser in Produkten und
Material für Produktion (siehe Kriterium 4.2)
Criterion 1.2
The impact of water abstraction shall be described and evaluated appropriate to the scale, the intensity of water
management and the uniqueness of the significantly affected sources.
Out of scope
1.2.1
Minor
Indirect water use for purchased electricity and energy production, e.g. hydro (parked)
Purchased water (not included in assessment but should be quantitatively monitored): Water in products and material
for production (ref. Criteria 4.2)
Indikator
Sind alle Wasserquellen bezüglich ihrer Empfindlichkeit nach einem oder mehreren der
nachfolgenden Kriterien klassifiziert?
Gewinnung, die durchschnittlich 5 Prozent oder mehr des jährlichen durchschnittlichen Volumens eines
bestimmten Wasserkörpers ausmacht
Gewinnung aus Wasserkörpern, die von Experten infolge ihrer relativen Größe [m 3 ] als besonders
empfindlich anerkannt sind
Ob die Quelle als geschütztes Gebiet (national und/oder international) unabhängig vom
Gewinnungsvolumen ausgewiesen ist oder nicht
Grundwasser wird per se als empfindliche Quelle angesehen
Are all sources of water classified in terms of their sensitivity according to one or more of the following
criteria?
Abstractions that account for an average of 5 percent or more of the annual average volume of a given
water body
Abstractions from water bodies that are recognized by professionals to be particularly sensitive due to their

9 Annex 65
1.2.2
Minor
1.2.3*
Major
1.2.4*
Major
1.2.5*
Major
1.2.6*
Major
> 50%
Rec.
< 50%
1.2.7
Minor
relative size [m 3 ]
Whether or not the source is designated as a protected area (nationally and/or internationally) regardless
the amount of abstraction
Groundwater is considered as sensitive source per se
Wird für jede in 1.2.1 oben identifizierte empfindliche Wasserquelle die
Höchstwassergewinnung und -einleitung pro Zeitraum bezüglich der Wasserstresszeiträume
der Quelle berechnet?
Ein angemessener und aussagekräftiger Zeitraum für Wasserstress sollte definiert werden
For each sensitive water source identified in 1.2.1 above, is the maximum water abstraction and
discharge per period calculated related to water stress periods of the source?
A suitable and meaningful time period of water stress should be defined
Nur für nicht genehmigte Quellen: Wird der Wasserstress-Index (WSI) des Unternehmens pro
Quelle berechnet?
WSI = Wassergewinnung/verbrauch als Prozentsatz des pro Quelle verfügbaren Wassers (%) mit
Wassergewinnungsvolumen pro Quelle in [m3/Monat oder empfindlichem Zeitraum] und [durchschnittliche
m3/Jahr]
For non-permitted sources only: Is the operations Water Stress Index (WSI) calculated per source?
WSI = water abstraction/consumption as percentage of available water per source (%) with the water
abstraction volume per source in [m3/month or sensitive period] and [average m3/year]
Nur für nicht genehmigte Quellen: Wird der Wassereinleitungs-Index (WDI) des
Unternehmens pro Quelle berechnet?
WDI = Gesamtmenge der Wassereinleitung [m3/Zeitraum oder m³] in Relation zur Gesamtmenge des
verfügbaren Wassers der Quelle [m3/Zeitraum oder m³]
For non-permitted sources only: Is the operations water discharge index (WDI) calculated per source?
WDI = total amount of water discharge [m3/time period or m³] in relation to total amount of available water
in source [m3/time period or m³]
Nur für nicht genehmigte Quellen: Unter Berücksichtigung von WSI und WDI wird die
Auswirkung der Gewinnung/des Verbrauchs bezüglich WASSERVOLUMEN und
DURCHFLUSS jeder Quelle beschrieben?
Diese Beschreibung muss umfassen:
Berechnetes Gesamtvolumen, das aus nicht genehmigten Quellen gewonnen wird, in Relation zum aus
allen Quellen gewonnenen Gesamtwasser in [m 3 /Jahr]
Wasserquelle selbst (z.B. Verschlechterung der Quantität, Eindringen von Meerwasser, usw.)
Umweltauswirkung (z.B. Biodiversität, geschützte Gebiete, Desertifikation, Änderung der
Flussmorphologie, usw.)
Sozioökonomische Auswirkung (z.B. Wasserknappheit, -unterbrechungen, -beschränkungen, -einfuhren,
usw.)
Regionale Bevölkerung potentiell nachgeordnet durch Wassergewinnung betroffen (Anzahl der Personen)
For non-permitted sources only: Taking the WSI and WDI into account, is the impact of
abstraction/consumption on the WATER VOLUME and the FLOW RATE of each source described?
This description shall include:
Total volume calculated abstracted from unpermitted sources into relation with total water abstracted by all
sources in [m 3 /year]
Water source itself (e.g. deterioration of quantity, seawater intrusion, etc.)
Environmental impact (e.g. biodiversity, protected areas, desertification, changes in river morphology, etc.)
Socio-economic impact (e.g. water shortage, interruptions, restrictions, imports, etc.)
Regional population potentially affected downstream by water abstraction (number of persons)
Wird die Leistung Ihres Wasserlieferanten bezüglich nachhaltiger Wasserbewirtschaftung
beurteilt?
Is the performance of your water supplier evaluated in terms of Sustainable Water Management?
Bezüglich des obigen werden Maßnahmen ergriffen, um mögliche Auswirkungen
abzuschwächen?
With reference to the above, are any actions taken to mitigate possible impacts?

9 Annex 66
Grundsatz 2. Sicherstellen, dass ein guter Status bezüglich chemischer Qualität und
biologischer Elemente erreicht und erhalten wird.
Erläuterung: Die nachhaltige Wasserbewirtschaftung soll sicherstellen, dass erreicht und erhalten wird, dass
der gute Status des Wassers die gesetzlichen und/oder vereinbarten Qualitätsstandards in den betroffenen
Flusseinzugsgebieten erfüllt. Der Wasser-Manager hat daher die Qualität aller Ausflüsse zu beurteilen.
Principle 2. Ensure the achievement and maintenance of good status in terms of chemical quality and biological
elements.
Explanation: Sustainable Water Management shall ensure to achieve and maintain that the good status of water meets
legal and / or agreed quality standards in all affected river basins. Therefore, the quality of all effluents shall be evaluated by
the water manager.
Kriterium 2.1
Die Gesamtaussflussqualität ist zu bestimmen, zu überwachen und zu dokumentieren.
Criterion 2.1
The total effluent quality shall be determined, monitored and documented.
2.1.1
Major
2.1.2
Major
Indikator.
Angaben: Gibt es eine vollständige und aktuelle Liste potentieller und tatsächlicher
Schadstoffe mit Angabe von Art und Mengen?
Eine allgemeine Tabelle bereitstellen, mit:
Stoffen und anderen physikalischen Schadstoffen
Wirkstoff / Wirksubstanz
Ob diese/r nach den folgenden Einstufungen als potentieller Schadstoff angesehen wird:
a) Eingestuft als schädlich für Wasserorganismen (R50, R51, R53: R-Sätze sind in Anhang III der EU-
Richtlinie 67/548/EWG definiert: sehr giftig, giftig, längerfristig schädliche Wirkung)
b) Nach der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie der EG als Hauptschadstoff angesehen
c) Als Prioritätsstoff oder spezifischer Schadstoff in Flusseinzugsgebieten angesehen
Ob es sich um einen regulierten Schadstoff handelt
Bezugnahmen auf Materialsicherheitsdatenblätter (MSDS)
Inputs: Is there a complete and up to date inventory of potential and actual pollutants indicating type and
quantities?
Provide a general table including:
Substances and other physical pollutants
Active substance / ingredient
Whether it is considered a potential pollutant according to following classifications:
d) Classified as hazardous to the Aquatic Environment (R50, R51, R53: Risk Phrases are defined in Annex
III of European Union Directive 67/548/EEC: very toxic, toxic, long term effects)
e) Considered a main pollutant according to the EC Water Framework Directive
f) Considered a priority substance or specific pollutant in river basin
Whether it is a regulated pollutant
Material safety data sheet (MSDS) references
Hinsichtlich 2.1.1 oben gibt es aktuelle und vollständige Unterlagen mit Angabe der Anzahl
und Menge/Volumen der Anwendungen und möglichen Verunreinigungsquellen für jeden
potentiell verunreinigenden Input?
Für alle potentiellen Schadstoffe, bitte angeben:
Anzahl der Anwendungen und Menge oder Volumen
Potentielle Art und Quelle der Verunreinigung; d.h. Punktverunreinigung (z.B. landwirtschaftlicher Abfluss,
Tanklecks), diffuse Verunreinigung (z.B. Oberflächenabflüsse oder Drainageverluste aus weitflächigem
Dünger- oder Pestizidauftrag auf Feldern) oder Abwasser, das von den berichtenden Unternehmen
entsorgt wird (z.B. mit Lastwagen)
With regard to 2.1.1 above, is there an up to date and complete record available indicating number and
amount/volume of applications and potential sources of pollution for each potentially polluting input?
For all potential pollutants report on:
Number of applications and quantity or volume
Potential type and source of pollution; i.e. point pollution (e.g. farmyard run-off, tank seepage), diffuse
pollution (e.g. surface run-off or drainage losses from broadcast fertilizer or pesticide application to fields)
or wastewater removed from the reporting organization (e.g. via truck)

9 Annex 67
2.1.3
Major
2.1.4*
Major
2.1.5
Major
Nur für Bewässerung: Wird die Qualität des zur Bewässerung genutzten Wassers überwacht
und berichtet?
Bericht über Wasseranalyse für
Nährstoffkonzentration
Salzgehalt
Pathogene
Sonstiges
For irrigation only: Is the quality of the water used for irrigation monitored and reported?
Report on water analysis for
Nutrient concentration
Salinity
Pathogens
Other
Abwassereinleitung: Werden gesetzliche Überwachungsberichte gefordert und erstellt?
Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Abwasseranalyse (eingeleitetes Abwasser) für
Gefahrstoffe
Nährstoffe
Schadstoffe
Schadstoffe können eingestuft werden in
Biologische Schadstoffe (z.B. gefährliche Bakterien)
Chemische Schadstoffe (z.B. Pestizide, Schwermetalle, pharmazeutische Produkte usw.)
Effluent discharge:Are statutory monitoring reports required and completed?
Report on results of effluent water (discharged wastewater) analysis for
Hazardous substances
Nutrients
Pollutants
Pollutants may be classified in
Biological pollutants (e.g. hazardous bacteria)
Chemical pollutants (e.g. pesticides, heavy metals, pharmaceutical products, etc.)
Hinsichtlich 2.1.1 oben, welche Hauptschadstoffe und Prioritätsstoffe wurden durch die
Analyse der derzeitigen Ausflüsse festgestellt?
Bitte identifizieren, angeben und, wenn möglich, quantifizieren
Die Konzentration des Stoffs im Ausfluss
Ob es sich um einen potentiellen Schadstoff handelt:
a) Nach der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie der EG als Hauptschadstoff angesehen
b) Als Prioritätsstoff oder spezifischer Schadstoff in Flusseinzugsgebieten angesehen
Für regulierte Inputs: Schadstoffdaten und Genehmigungen/Anforderungen angeben
(Standardschwellenwerte für Schadstoff)
With regard to 2.1.1 above, what are the main pollutants and priority substances detected by analysis of
actual effluents?
Identify, indicate and if possible quantify
The substance’s concentration in the effluent
Whether it is considered a potential pollutant:
c) Considered a main pollutant according to the EC Water framework Directive
d) Considered a priority substance or specific pollutant in river basin
For regulated inputs: Provide pollutant data and permits/ requirements (Pollutant Standard Limits)

9 Annex 68
2.1.6
Recc
Kriterium 2.2
Gibt es ein Verfahren zur Berechnung des Eutrophierungspotentials? Werden Daten von
Behörden angefordert? (Eutrophierung: Anreicherung eines Nährstoffs über das zur Entwicklung
erforderliche Maß, d.h. Wachstum von Wasserpflanzen aufgrund erhöhten Nährstoffgehalts und dies führt zu
Sauerstoffzehrung und weniger Lichtzufuhr für andere Lebensformen).
Identifizieren, schätzen und – wenn möglich – berechnen Sie Ihr Eutrophierungspotential für Binnengewässer
Definieren und quantifizieren Sie potentielle Verluste (Abwassereinleitung, Auswaschung, oberirdischer Abfluss,
Luftemissionen) der Stoffe mit Eutrophierungspotential (Stickstoff- (N) und Phosphorverbindungen (P))
Die Größen für N und P sollten umfassen
Konzentration von N und P im Ausfluss
Nährstoffhaushalt N und P aus Düngereinsatz & Viehbestandsbedingungen
BSB/SB in Binnengewässern
Konzentration von N und P in Binnengewässern, die direkt mit der Wassernutzung durch Unternehmen
verbunden sind
Berechnen Sie das Eutrophierungspotential des Unternehmens über den Umrechnungsfaktor für Phosphor-
und Stickstoffverbindungen (Abwassereinleitungen und Luftemissionen von NOx und NH3) in
Phosphoräquivalente (Verfahren in Anhang 5 beschrieben)
Is there a procedure to calculate the eutrophication potential in place? Is data requested from public
authority? (Eutrophication: Increasing the availability of a nutrient beyond the level that may be needed to
develop. i.e. aquatic weed development due to increased nutrients and this leads to depletion of oxygen and
shading of other life).
Identify, estimate and - if feasible - calculate your inland water eutrophication potential
Define and quantify potential losses (wastewater discharge, leaching, un-off, air emissions) of substances with
eutrophication potential (nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) compounds)
Measures of N and P shall include
Concentration of N and P in the effluent
Nutrient balance N and P from fertilizer use & livestock conditions
BOD/DO in inland waters
Concentration of N and P in inland water bodies that are directly linked to the operational water use
Calculate the organization’s eutrophication potential through the conversion factor of phosphorous and nitrogen
compounds (waste water discharges and air emissions of NOx and NH3) into phosphorous equivalents (Method
described in Annex 5).
Ziele, die von der Wassereinleitung betroffen sind, sind zu identifizieren und detailliert zu beschreiben.
Criterion 2.2
Destinations that are affected by discharge of water shall be identified and described in detail.
Indikator.

9 Annex 69
2.2.1
Major
2.2.2
Major
2.2.3
Major
Sind empfindliche Gebiete am Produktionsstandort oder auf Kulturland auf Landkarten
verzeichnet und steht dies den Verantwortlichen zur Verfügung?
Identifizieren und charakterisieren Sie Bereiche, die ein erhöhtes Risiko für Wasserverunreinigung darstellen
Für Landwirtschaft und Golf:
Gefährdete Gebiete müssen nach ihrem erhöhten Potential/Risiko für Verunreinigung durch Auswaschung,
oberirdischen Abfluss oder Drainage (z.B. bezüglich Bodentextur, organischer Kohlenstoffgehalt,
Grundwassertiefe, unterirdisches Material, Gefälle) charakterisiert werden
Berechnung des Landsensitivitätsindex [%]: Gefährdete Gebiete mit Produktion (ha) / Gesamtanbaufläche
(ha)
Berechnung des Land-Wasser-Schutzindex [%]: Gefährdete Anbaufläche unter
Wasserschutzmaßnahmen [ha] (z.B. Flussuferstreifen, Grüngürtel, Windschutz, pflugloser Anbau) in
Relation zur Gesamtanbaufläche des Unternehmens / des landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs, die als gefährdet
eingestuft ist [ha]
Are sensitive areas at production site or on cultivated land indicated in maps and made available to
operatives?
Identify and characterize areas which pose an elevated risk for water pollution
For agriculture and golf:
Vulnerable areas need to be characterized according to their elevated potential/ risk for pollution via
leaching, run-off or drainage (e.g. regarding soil texture, organic carbon content, groundwater depth,
subsurface material, slope, etc.)
Calculation of the land-sensitivity index [%]: Vulnerable area under production (ha) / total cultivated area
(ha)
Calculation of the land-water-protection index [%]: Vulnerable cultivated area under water protection
measures [ha] (e.g. river-bank strips, green-belt setting, wind-protection, conservation tillage) in relation to
total cultivated area of the organization / farm classified as vulnerable [ha]
Gibt es eine Analyse der potentiellen Ziele, die von Einleitung/oberirdischem
Abfluss/Auswaschung von Wasser und enthaltenen Schadstoffen betroffen sein könnten?
Potentielle Ziele/Senke/Empfänger:
Grundwasser
Seen, Flüsse (Oberflächensüßwasser)
Übergangsgewässer
Küstengewässer, Meer
Kommunale/industrielle Abwasseraufbereitungsanlagen (Zufluss- und Abfluss-Schadstoffkonzentrationen)
Abwasserkanäle, die in Flüsse, Meere, Seen, Feuchtgebiete führen
Is there an analysis of potential destinations that maybe affected by discharge/run-off/leaching of water
and contained pollutants?
Potential destination/sink/recipients:
Groundwater
Lakes, rivers (surface freshwater)
Transitional waters
Coastal waters, sea
Municipal/industrial waste water treatment plants (inflow and outflow pollutants concentrations)
Sewers that lead to rivers, oceans, lakes, wetlands
Werden die Ziele, die von den Wassereinleitungen des berichtenden Unternehmens betroffen
sind, berichtet?
Geben Sie Informationen an über:
Ob die Wasserkörper von entsprechenden Experten (z.B. kommunalen Behörden) infolge ihrer relativen
Größe, Funktion oder Status als seltenes, bedrohtes oder vom Aussterben bedrohtes System (oder vom
Aussterben bedrohte Pflanzen- oder Tierarten unterstützend) als besonders empfindlich ausgewiesen sind
Alle Einleitungen in ein in der Ramsar-Konvention aufgeführtes Feuchtgebiet oder sonstiges national oder
international ausgewiesenes Schutzgebiet, unabhängig von der Einleitungsrate
Are the destinations affected by the reporting organization’s water discharges reported?
Add information on:
Whether the water bodies are recognized by appropriate professionals (e.g. municipal governments) to be
particularly sensitive due to their relative size, function, or status as a rare, threatened, or endangered
system (or support endangered species of plant or animal)
Any discharge to a Ramsar-listed wetland or any other nationally or internationally proclaimed conservation
area regardless of the rate of discharge

9 Annex 70
2.2.4
Major
2.2.5*
Major
2.2.6
Minor
Wird die Auswirkung von Ausflüssen auf Wasserkörper und verbundene Habitate, auf die
sich die Qualität der Ausflüsse/des eingeleiteten Wassers und der oberirdischen Abflüsse
auswirkt, beschrieben?
Geben Sie Informationen an über:
Biodiversitätswert (z.B. Artendiversität und Endemismus, Anzahl der geschützten Arten)
Recycling- und Aufbereitungsanlagen (z.B. getrennte biologische, chemische, mechanische Aufbereitung
usw.)
Umweltauswirkung von Schadstoffen auf Wasser (z.B. Biodiversität, Schutzgebiete usw.)
Sozioökonomische Auswirkung
Regionale Bevölkerung (negativ) nachgeordnet durch Wassereinleitung betroffen (Anzahl)
Is the impact of effluents on water bodies and related habitats affected by quality of
effluents/discharged water and run-off described?
Add information on:
Biodiversity value (e.g. species diversity and endemism, number of protected species)
Recycling and treatment facilities (e.g. separate biological, chemical, mechanical treatment, etc.)
Environmental impact from pollutants to water (e.g. biodiversity, protected areas,etc)
Socio-economic impact
Regional population (negatively) affected down-stream by water discharge (number)
Gibt es quantitative und qualitative Informationen über die Einleitung in öffentliche
Abwasseraufbereitungsanlagen?
Geben Sie bitte an, ob Sie mit über 50% des Gesamtausflusses in das öffentliche aufbereitete Abwasser
beitragen [Volumen]
Are there quantitative and qualitative details as to the discharge to public waste water treatment plants?
Please indicate if you contribute with more than 50% of the total effluent in the public waste water treated
[volume]
Kriterium 2.3
Bezüglich des obigen werden Maßnahmen ergriffen, um mögliche Auswirkungen
abzuschwächen? Werden der Schutz und die Verbesserung der Wasserqualität durch
angemessene Planung, Implementierung und Überwachung der
Bewirtschaftungsmaßnahmen gewährleistet?
Für Landwirtschaft und Golf:
Durch ordnungsgemäße Anwendung von Pestiziden, Düngern oder anderen Chemikalien ordnungsgemäße
See- und Feuchtgebietebewirtschaftung und ordnungsgemäße Handhabung von Regenwasserabfluss?
Geben Sie Informationen über Maßnahmen an, um:
Schädlingsmanagement, Wasserbewirtschaftung und Nährstoffmanagement zu integrieren
Pufferstreifen oder Gewässerrandstreifen entlang des Oberflächenwassers auf dem Platz zu installieren
Den Fluss von Seen auf dem Golfplatz mit Sauerstoff anzureichern und zu erhalten
Regenwasserabfluss in Bereiche umzuleiten, in denen eine Versickerung möglich ist, und Off-Site-Flüsse
zu vermeiden
With reference to the above, are any actions taken to mitigate possible impacts? Is water quality
protection and enhancement ensured through proper planning, implementation and monitoring of
management measures?
For agriculture and golf:
Through proper application of pesticides, fertilizers or other chemicals, proper lake and wetland management
and proper handling of storm water run-off?
Add information on measures to:
Integrate pest, water and nutrient management
Install buffer strips or Riparian zones along surface water on the course
Aerate and maintain the flow of lakes on the golf course
Redirect storm water run-off to areas where infiltration is possible and avoid off-site flows
Lokale Fragen der Wasserqualität, auf die sich die Wassernutzung potentiell auswirkt, sind klar
qualitativ und – wenn möglich – quantitativ anzugeben.
Criterion 2.3

9 Annex 71
Local issues of water quality that are potentially influenced by the water use shall be pointed out clearly in
qualitative and - if possible - quantitative terms.
2.3.1
Recc
Indikator.
Werden lokale Probleme aufgrund nicht-chemischer Verunreinigung identifiziert, angegeben
und quantifiziert?
Sedimente
Geruch
Schaum
Sonstiges
Überschwemmung.Are local issues due to non-chemical pollution identified, indicated and quantified?
Sediments
Odor
Foam
Floodin
Others
Grundsatz 3. Wiederherstellung und Wahrung der mit dem Wasserkreislauf verbundenen
hohen Schutzwertkriterien.
Erläuterung: Nachhaltige Wasserbewirtschaftung soll die Biodiversität und ihre verbundenen Werte in
Feuchtgebieten, Seen oder Gewässerrandstreifen von hohem Schutzwert, die direkt mit ihrem Wasserkreislauf
verbunden sind, wieder herstellen und bewahren.
Principle 3. Restore and preserve water-cycle related high conservation value criteria.
Explanation: Sustainable Water Management shall restore and conserve biological diversity and its associated values in
high conservation value wetland, lake or riparian areas that are directly linked to its water-cycle.
Kriterium 3.1
Die Auswirkung der Änderungen des Wasserstatus und verbundener ökologischer Prozesse außerhalb
des natürlichen Veränderungsbereichs (z.B. Salzgehalt oder Veränderungen des Grundwasserstands)
ist in Feuchtgebieten, Seen und Gewässerrandstreifen von hohem Schutzwert, die mit dem
Wasserkreislauf des Unternehmens verbunden sind, zu beurteilen.
Criterion 3.1
The impact on changes in water status and linked ecological processes outside the natural range of variation (e.g.
salinity or changes in groundwater level) shall be evaluated in high conservation value wetlands, lakes and riparian
areas that are linked to the water-cycle of the operation.
3.1.1
Minor
Indikator.
Werden geschützte Gebiete von hohem Schutzwert identifiziert, definiert, dokumentiert und
kartiert?
Gilt für Gebiete in der Nähe des Unternehmensstandorts und innerhalb eines Radius von 25 km.
Are protected and high conservation value areas identified, defined and documented and mapped?
Applicable to areas in vicinity of the operation site and within a radius of 25 km.

9 Annex 72
3.1.2
Minor
3.1.3
Recc
3.1.4
Minor
Werden die Auswirkungen auf den Wasserstatus und – wenn möglich – auf das Ökosystem
mit hohem Schutzwert im Allgemeinen, die mit den Aktivitäten oder Dienstleistungen des
Unternehmens verbunden sind, identifiziert und beschrieben?
Änderungen des quantitativen oder qualitativen Wasserstatus, die sich auf die ökologischen Prozesse
außerhalb des natürlichen Veränderungsbereichs auswirken (z.B. bezüglich Salzgehalt, sinkende
Grundwasserstände)
Direkte Eingriffe in die mit dem Wasserkreislauf verbundenen Ökosysteme (z.B. Verkehrsinfrastruktur,
Kulturfläche, Dämme, Drainage)
Are the impacts on the water status and – if possible – on the ecosystems of high conservation value in
general which are linked to the organization’s activities or services Identified and described?
Changes in quantitative or qualitative water status, which may impact on ecological processes outside the
natural range of variation (e.g. changes in salinity, falling groundwater level)
Direct interference in water cycle-related ecosystems (e.g. transport infrastructure, cropland, dams,
drainage)
Werden Management-Bemühungen des Unternehmens für Feuchtgebiete-Habitate
identifiziert und beschrieben?
Bezüglich Gebieten und Feuchtgebieten
Saniert: Gebiete, die während der Unternehmensaktivitäten genutzt oder davon betroffen waren, und bei
denen Sanierungsmaßnahmen entweder den ursprünglichen Zustand der Umwelt wieder hergestellt haben
oder bei denen ein gesundes und funktionierendes Ökosystem wieder hergestellt wurde
Geschützt: Gebiete, die gegen Schäden während der Aktivitäten des Unternehmens geschützt sind, und
bei denen die Umwelt im Originalzustand mit einem gesunden, funktionierenden Ökosystem bleibt
Bemühungen können beschrieben werden durch
Größe und Lage aller geschützten Gebiete und/oder sanierten Gebiete (in ha)
Erfolg der Sanierungsmaßnahmen wurde/wird von unabhängigen externen Sachverständigen bestätigt
Beschreibung der Partnerschaften mit Dritten, um Habitat-Gebiete zu schützen oder zu sanieren
Implementierte Sanierungs- oder Schutzmaßnahmen
Sonstiges
Are wetland habitat management efforts of the organization identified and described?
Referring to areas and wetlands
Restored: Areas that were used during or affected by operational activities, and where remediation
measures have either restored the environment to its original state or to a state where it is a healthy and
functioning ecosystem
Protected: Areas that are protected from any harm during operational activities, and the environment
remains in its original state with a healthy functioning ecosystem
Efforts may be described by
Size and location of all protected areas and/or restored areas (in ha)
Success of the restoration measure was/is approved by independent external experts
Description of partnerships with third parties to protect or restore habitat areas
Implemented restoration or protection measures
Other
Wird die Auswirkung aller sonstigen hohen Schutzwerte (gesellschaftlich, kulturell usw.)
ggf. identifiziert und beschrieben?
Is the impact on all other HCV values (social, cultural etc.) as applicable identified and described?
Grundsatz 4. Erreichen einer gerechten und transparenten Wasser-Governance.
Erläuterung: Dieser Grundsatz bezieht sich explizit auf einen Ansatz der ‚kontinuierlichen Verbesserung’
anstelle eines Ansatzes auf ‚Leistungsebene’ bezüglich der Nachhaltigkeit von Flusseinzugsgebieten, außer es
werden zusätzliche Mindestleistungsanforderungen spezifiziert.
Principle 4. Achieve equitable and transparent water governance.
Explanation: This principle refers explicitly to a 'continuous improvement ' approach rather than 'performance level'
approach in relation to river basin sustainability, unless additional minimum performance requirements are specified.
Kriterium 4.1
Die Wasserbewirtschaftung soll die Compliance mit allen gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zur
Wassernutzung sicherstellen.

9 Annex 73
Criterion 4.1
The water management shall ensure the compliance with all legal requirements linked to water use.
4.1.1
Major
Indikator.
Gibt es eine für die gesetzliche Compliance verantwortliche Einzelperson oder Abteilung und
wie wird sichergestellt, dass die entsprechenden Aktualisierungen umgesetzt werden?
Beispiel:
Gewinnungs-, Recycling-, Einleitungszertifikate
Wassergenehmigungen
Is there an individual person or department designated to ensure compliance with the law and how is it
ensured that relevant up-dates are implemented?
Example:
Abstraction, recycling, discharge certificates
Water permits
Kriterium 4.2 (AUSGESETZT)
Die Wasserbewirtschaftung in der Lieferkette ist langfristig zu beurteilen.
Erläuterung:
Für Wassernutzer ist ein 3-stufiger Ansatz geplant:
1. Stufe: Beurteilung der Wasserbewirtschaftung des Produktionsstandorts (innerhalb)
2. Stufe: Sensibilisierung der Lieferanten
3. Anforderung einer schriftlichen Bestätigung aller Lieferanten bezüglich der Umsetzung eines Water
Stewardship-Systems
Für Landwirtschaft: Als erstes Element der Lieferkette gibt es für Landwirte keine allgemeine Verpflichtung, das
Wasser in Produkten und für die Produktion verwendeten Materialien nachzuweisen – ausgenommen für
Landwirte mit Viehzucht.
Criterion 4.2 (ON HOLD)
Water management in the supply chain shall be evaluated on long term.
Explanation:
For water users, a 3-step approach is envisaged:
1. Step: Assessment of water management of production site (in-gate)
2. Step: Awareness raising suppliers
3. Requirement of a written approval from all suppliers referring to the implementation of a Water Stewardship system
For agriculture: As first part of the supply-chain, farmers have no general obligation to prove the water in products and
materials used for production – except for farms with animal production.
Indikator.

9 Annex 74
4.2.1
Recc
4.2.2
Recc
Kriterium 4.3
Sind Ihre Lieferanten klassifiziert nach
Ihrem Standort? Führen Sie Lieferanten in einem Flusseinzugsgebiet mit Wasserknappheit auf.
Der Transparenz bei der Wassernutzung? Lieferanten können unterteilt werden in Lieferanten mit
a) Bestätigter / zertifizierter Wasserbewirtschaftung
b) Wasserbewirtschaftungssystem mit internem Audit
c) Keiner Transparenz bei der Wassernutzung
Sind sich die Lieferanten der Nachhaltigkeit ihrer Wasserbewirtschaftung bewusst? Wie weisen die Lieferanten
die Nachhaltigkeit ihrer Wasserbewirtschaftung nach? Gibt es eine Strategie zur Festlegung, welche
Informationen von den Lieferanten erhalten werden?
Are your suppliers classified according to their
Location? List suppliers situated in a water scarce river basin.
Transparency on water use? Suppliers may be divided in suppliers with
d) Approved / certified water management
e) Water management system with internal audit
f) No transparency on water management
Are the suppliers aware of the sustainability of their water management? How do suppliers prove the
sustainability of their water management? Is there a strategy defining which information is received from the
suppliers?
Berechnen Sie Ihren Stewardship-Lieferkettenindex: Lieferanten mit Wassergenehmigung in
Relation zur Gesamtheit der Lieferanten [% der Anzahl der Lieferanten und % des Gewichts der
gekauften Produkte]
Sind Wasserlieferanten nach einem Water Stewardship-Standard zertifiziert und gibt es verweisende Zertifikate?
Are your water suppliers certified according to a Water Stewardship standard and are there referring
certificates?
Calculate your Stewardship supply chain index: water-approved suppliers in relation total entity of suppliers [%
of number of suppliers and % of weight of products purchased]
Verbindung der Wasserbewirtschaftung zur Bewirtschaftung anderer Ressourcen.
Criterion 4.3
Link of water management to the management of other resources.
4.3.1
Major
4.3.2
Minor
Indikator.
Sind die Wassernutzungs- und Energieanforderungen optimiert und gibt es einen integrierten
Wasser- und Energiebewirtschaftungsplan?
Beispiel:
Wird die Wassernutzung um das 2-fache gesenkt, steigt die Energienutzung um das x-fache
Are the water use and energy requirements optimised and is an integrated water and energy
management plan in place?
Example:
When decreasing the water use by 2-fold, the energy use increases by x-fold
Nur für Bewässerung: Wird der Energieinput für Bewässerung dokumentiert?
For irrigation only: Is the energy input in irrigation documented?

9 Annex 75
4.3.3
Minor
Kriterium 4.4
Ist die Bewirtschaftung von Wasser und anderen Ressourcen optimiert und wird die
Auswirkung der Änderungen bei der Wasserbewirtschaftung auf andere Ressourcen
berichtet und beurteilt?
Beispiele:
Die Erhöhung organischer Substanzen in Ihrem Boden kann das für die Bewässerung erforderliche
Wasservolumen senken
Führt eine Senkung der Wassermenge zu einem Anstieg des Reinigungsmittels?
Is the management of water and other resources optimised and is the impact of changes in water
management on other resources reported and evaluated?
Examples:
Increasing the organic matter in your soil can reduce the needed water volume for irrigation.
Does a reduction in the amount of water result in an increase of a cleaning agent?
Effizienter Wasserverbrauch durch verstärktes Recycling und Reduzierung der Verluste.
Außerhalb
Wasser in Produkten und Material für Produktion (siehe Kriterium 4.2)
Lagerung vor Ort
Diffuse Wasserverluste
Criterion 4.4
Efficiency of water consumption through the increase of re-cycling and the reduction of losses.
Out of scope
Water in products and material for production (ref. Criteria 4.2)
Storage on site
Diffuse water losses
Indikator.

9 Annex 76
4.4.1
Minor
Ist das Wasserrecycling in der Bewirtschaftungsstrategie implementiert und überwacht?
Erläuterung:
Berechnen Sie das Gesamtvolumen des vom Unternehmen recycelten Wassers in [m 3 /Jahr]
Berechnen Sie das Gesamtvolumen des vom Unternehmen recycelten Wassers in [m 3 /Jahr] in Relation
zum Gesamtwasserverbrauch [m 3 /Jahr]
Wird Wasser mehr als einmal wieder verwendet/recycelt, berechnen Sie den "Substitutionswert": das
Volumen des recycelten Wassers auf der Grundlage des Volumens der vom recycelten Wasser
befriedigten Wassernachfrage anstelle von weiteren Gewinnungen
Für die folgenden Recyclingarten:
Abwasser, das in derselben Anlage wieder verwendet wird, oder übergeordnete Nutzung von recyceltem
Wasser im Prozesszyklus
Abwasser, das in einem anderen Prozess, jedoch in derselben Anlage, recycelt wird
Abwasser, das in einer anderen Anlage des berichtenden Unternehmens wieder verwendet wird
Beispiel: Das Unternehmen weist einen Produktionszyklus auf, der 20 m 3 Wasser pro Zyklus
erfordert; das Unternehmen entnimmt 20 m 3 Wasser für einen Produktionsprozesszyklus und
verwendet es wieder für weitere drei Zyklen. Das Gesamtvolumen des für diesen Prozess recycelten
Wassers beträgt 60 m 3 .
Is re-cycling of water implemented in the management strategy and monitored?
Explanation:
Calculate the total volume of water recycled by the organization in [m 3 /year]
Calculate the total volume of water recycled by the organization in [m 3 /year] in relation to total water
consumption [m 3 /year]
In case that water is re-used/recycled more than one time, calculate the “substitution value”: the volume of
recycled water based on the volume of water demand satisfied by recycled water rather than further
abstractions.
For the following recycling types:
Wastewater recycled back in the same process or higher use of recycled water in the process cycle
Wastewater recycled in a different process, but within the same facility
Wastewater re-used at another of the reporting organization’s facilities
Example: The organization has a production cycle that requires 20 m 3 of water per cycle; the organization
withdraws 20 m 3 of water for one production process cycle and then reuses it for an additional three cycles. The
total volume of water recycled for that process is 60 m 3 .

9 Annex 77
4.4.2
Minor
4.4.3
Major
4.4.4
Major
Werden Wasserverluste identifiziert und sind nachteilige Wirkungen des Abwassers
bekannt?
Beispiel für Wasserverlust:
Verdampftes Wasser während der Produktionsprozesse, eingestuft nach
Prozesswasser
Kühlwasser
Sonstiges
Wasser ansonsten in Produktion, definiert als:
Verlust aus Verarbeitung
Verlust aus Kühlung
Verlust aus Bewässerung
Verlust aus anderen Prozessen
Lecks, Aussickern, schlechte Infrastruktur
Nachteilige Wirkungen können verursacht werden durch
Kontrollierten Wasserverlust (in die Luft, in den Boden, in Wasserkörper)
Unkontrollierten Wasserverlust (beliebiges Ziel)
Are water losses identified and are any adverse effects of the waste water known?
Example of water loss:
Evaporated water during production processes, classified according to
Process water
Cooling water
Other
Water otherwise in production defined as:
Lost from processing
Lost from cooling
Lost from irrigation
Lost from other processes
Leakage, seepage, bad infrastructure
Adverse effects can be caused by
Controlled water loss (to air, to soil, to water body)
Un-controlled water loss (any destination)
Nur für Bewässerung: Wird das Bewässerungssystem beschrieben, für unterschiedliche
klimatische und lokale Bedingungen und Nutzpflanzen optimiert und ist das System gut
gewartet?
Beschreiben Sie:
Die Art der Anlage, des Kontrollsystems und des Überwachungssystems
Die Häufigkeit, die verantwortliche Person und die Verfügbarkeit von Ersatzteilen und technischen
Anweisungen, um die Systemwartung sicher zu stellen
Den Bewässerungsplan und die wichtigen Nutzpflanzen, Gebiete und lokale empfindliche Zeiträume (z.B.
mit unzureichendem Niederschlag oder extremen Temperaturen) für die Bewässerung
For irrigation only: Is the irrigation system described, optimized to different climatic and on-site
conditions and crops and is the system well maintained?
Describe:
The type of installation, control system and monitoring system
The frequency and responsible person and availability of spare parts and technical instructions to ensure
the system maintenance
The irrigation schedule and the crucial crops
Gibt es eine Strategie zur Reduzierung der Wasserverluste und Sicherstellung der maximalen
Wassernutzungseffizienz?
Is there a strategy to reduce water losses and ensure maximum water use efficiency that is
implemented?
4.4.5* For golf courses only

9 Annex 78
4.4.6
Minor
Kriterium 4.5
Wird der Wasserverbrauch pro Produktstück quantifiziert?
Berechnen Sie die folgenden Produktivitätsparameter:
Gesamtwassernutzung pro Produktstück [m³/kg Produkt oder pro ha]
Gesamtwasserverbrauch( Verdampfung und andere Verluste) pro Produktstück [m³/kg Produkt oder pro
ha]
Listung und Beurteilung des Wasserverlustes in Kühlwasser, Bewässerungswasser oder sonstigem
Wasser
Is water consumption per unit product quantified?
Calculate the following productivity parameters:
Total water use per unit of product [m³/kg product or per ha]
Total water consumption (evaporation and other losses) per unit of product [m³/kg product or per ha]
Performance and assessment of water losses in cooling water, irrigation water or others
Gute/beste Bewirtschaftungspraktiken als Leitlinie für kontinuierliche Verbesserung
Criterion 4.5
Good/Best Management Practices as guidance for continuous improvement
4.5.1
Major
4.5.2
Major
Indikator.
Ist „gute fachliche Praxis“ bekannt, in einer Wasserressourcen-Bewirtschaftungsstragie
beinhaltet und in allen relevanten Bereichen des Produktionssystems implementiert?
Identifizieren und berichten Sie geeignete gute fachliche Praxis für Ihr Unternehmen
Liste der guten/besten Bewirtschaftungspraktiken und Umweltmanagementsysteme, die auf europäischer,
nationaler und internationaler Ebene verfügbar sind, mit Bezug auf Teile der Wasserbewirtschaftung des
Unternehmens (z.B. ISO 14001, BREF, sonstige)
Anzahl und Art der umgesetzten Systeme der guten/besten Bewirtschaftungspraxis
Are good/ best management practices known, involved in a water resource management strategy and
implemented in all relevant areas of the production system?
Identify and report applicable good/ best management practice systems for your organization
List of good/ best management practices and environmental management systems available at European,
national and local level referring to parts of the operational water management (e.g. ISO 14001, BREF,
others)
Number and type of good/ best management practice systems in place
Welche Verfahren gibt es um sicherzustellen, dass die Systeme der guten fachlichen Praxis
mit dem Ziel der ‚kontinuierlichen Verbesserung’ umgesetzt, regelmäßig überwacht und
beurteilt werden?
Bestätigung Ihrer umgesetzten guten/besten Bewirtschaftungspraktiken:
Internes Audit
Zertifizierung durch Dritte
Sonstiges
What are the procedures in place to ensure that the good practice systems are implemented and
regularly monitored and evaluated with the aim of 'continuous improvement'?
Approval of your implemented good/ best management practices
An internal audit
A third party certification
Other

9 Annex 79
4.5.3
Major
Nur für Unternehmen ohne anerkanntes System für gute/beste Praxis: Ist Ihre interne
Definition der guten Praxis beschrieben?
Beziehen sie sich auf:
Einsatz von Technologie und Management
Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten
Verhaltenskodizes
Sonstiges
Berichten Sie die Anzahl und Art der verweisenden technischen Maßnahmen, die zur Verbesserung umgesetzt
wurden, klassifiziert nach Anwendungsbereich wie folgt:
Wassereinleitung: Anschluss an Kanalisationssystem oder sonstige adequate Lösungen (z.B,
Aufbereitung vor Ort)
Wassernutzung in Produktion: Ersatz potentieller Gefahrenstoffe
Abfluss vom Standort
Sonstiges
For organizations only with no recognized good/ best practice system in place: Is your internal definition
of good practice in place described?
Refer to:
Kriterium 4.6
Technology and management adoptions
Improvement options
Codes of conduct
Other
Report number and type of the referring technical measures implemented for improvement classified by field of
application as follows:
Water discharge: connection to sewage or other adequate solution (e.g. local treatment)
Water use in production: replacement of potential hazardous substances
Run-off from site
Other
Transparenz der Wasserbewirtschaftung intern und öffentlich
Criterion 4.6
Transparency on water management internally and to the public
4.6.1
Major
Indikator.
Ist eine umfassende Wasserressourcen-Managementstrategie, die die relevanten Aspekte
der Wassernutzung des Unternehmens abdeckt, eingerichtet, wird sie umgesetzt und
überwacht?
Diese Strategie soll aufzeigen:
Risikobeurteilung für Wassernutzung
Präventive Maßnahmen, um die Auswikrungen der Wassernutzung zu mildern
Wasserspareinrichtungen und -potential
Einbau neuer Messvorrichtungenn
Lekkage-Management
Strategie für Wasserbewirtschaftung im nächsten und in dre iJahren
Sonstiges
Is an exhaustive water resource management strategy established, implemented and monitored which
covers relevant aspects of the operational water use?
This strategy shall disclose
Risk assessment for water use
Preventive measures to mitigate impacts of water use
Water saving devices and potential
New metering systems installation
Leakage management
Strategy for water management in the next and in three years
Other

9 Annex 80
4.6.2
Major
4.6.3
Minor
4.6.4
Minor
4.6.5
Major
Gibt es eine Einzelperson oder eine Abteilung, die dafür verantwortlich ist, dass die
Umsetzung der Wasserressourcen-Managementstrategie sichergestellt wird?
Dies umfasst:
Häufigkeit der Überwachung
Bericht über die Überwachungsergebnisse
Is there an individual person or department designated to ensure the implementation of the water
resource management strategy?
This includes
Frequency of monitoring
Report on outcomes of monitoring
Für interne Transparenz: Wird nachhaltige Wasserbewirtschaftung im Unternehmen
verbreitet?
Für interne Kommunikation hat das Untenehmen:
Ein Water Stewardship einzurichten und alle Personen für und im Namen des Unternehmens darüber zu
informieren
Den Schulungsbedarf bezüglich der Umsetzung seines Water Stewardship-Programms zu identifizieren
Schulungen bereitzustellen oder andere Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um diesen Bedarf zu decken, und
entsprechende Aufzeichnungen führen
For internal transparency: Is sustainable water management disseminated within the operation?
For internal communication the organization shall
Establish and distribute to all persons working for it or on its behalf a communication on Water
Stewardship.
Identify training needs regarding the implementation of its Water Stewardship scheme
Provide training or take other action to meet these needs, and maintain associated records
Für externe Transparenz: Wird die Wasserbewirtschaftung des Unternehmens den Kunden,
der allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit und den Behörden angemessen übermittelt, z.B. durch einen
Wasserbericht?
Gibt es keinen öffentlichen Wasserbericht, ist die Wasserbewirtschaftung des Unternehmens auf eine
äquivalente Art und Weise mitzuteilen, mit Berichten über, jedoch exklusiv
Bemühungen und Ergebnisse des Unternehmens bezüglich nachhaltiger Wasserbewirtschaftung
Definition der wasserverbundenen Risiken und umgesetzten präventiven Maßnahmen
For external transparency: Is the operational water management adequately published to customers, the
general public and public authorities e.g. by a water report?
In case there is no public water report, the operational water management has to be disclosed in an equivalent
manner reporting on but exclusively
Operational efforts and achievements linked to sustainable water management
Definition of water-related risks and preventive measures implemented
Gibt es eingerichtete, veröffentlichte und aufrecht erhaltene Verfahren darüber, wie auf
Unfälle, Sicherheitsvorfälle, Notfälle, Katastrophen und ähnliches zu reagieren ist, wie auch
darüber, welche nachteiligen Auswirkungen ein solcher Vorfall auf die Mitarbeiter,
Anwohner und Gemeinden haben könnte?
Are there procedures established, published and maintained on how to respond to accidents, security
incidents, emergency situations, disasters and the like, as well as the adverse impacts such an
occurrence may exert on the employees, local citizens and communities?

9 Annex 81
4.6.6
Major
Nur für Bewässerung: Gibt es Anweisungen oder Einrichtungen und sind diese beschrieben,
um unvorhergesehene klimatischen Bedingungen und Systemausfälle zu handhaben?
Beispiel:
Die Anweisungen zum Umgang mit Systemausfällen
Die Verfügbarkeit von Rückhaltebecken, um Niederschlagswasser für spätere Nutzung zu speichern
For irrigation only: Are instructions or facilities set up and described to deal with unforeseen climatic
conditions and system breakdown?
Example:
Kriterium 4.7
The instructions of dealing with system breakdown
The availability of retention basins to store rainwater for later use
Bewusstsein für nachhaltige Wasserbewirtschaftung innerhalb einer festgelegten
Kommunikationsstrategie und durch proaktive Maßnahmen schaffen
Criterion 4.7
Raise awareness for SWM within a defined communication strategy and by pro-active measures
4.7.1
Minor
4.7.2
Recc
Kriterium 4.8
Indikator.
Gibt es eine Einzelperson oder eine Abteilung, die an bekannten und verfolgten Aktivitäten
des Ausschusses für Flusseinzugsgebiete teilnimmt und darüber berichtet?
Die Teilnahme kann erfolgen durch:
Eine vom Unternehmen ernannte Person oder
Durch einen Bevollmächtigten (z.B. Vertreter eines Sektorverbands)
Is there an individual person or department designated to participate in and report on River Basin
Committee activities known and followed?
Participation may be performed
A person designated by the organization or
By a procurator (e.g. a representative of a sector´s association)
Haben Sie Kampagnen durchgeführt / verfügen Sie über Partnerschaften, um über Themen
bezüglich Wasser zu informieren?
Have you performed campaigns/partnerships in place to inform on water linked topics?
Innovation und Entwicklung für kontinuierliche Verbesserung der Wasserbewirtschaftung bezüglich
Nachhaltigkeit auf Ebene der Flusseinzugsgebiete
Criterion 4.8
Innovation and development for continuous improvement of water management in terms of sustainability on river
basin level
Indikator.

9 Annex 82
4.8.1
Recc
Kriterium 4.9
Wurden Innovationen umgesetzt, die die Nachhaltigkeit der Wasserbewirtschaftung des
Unternehmens und des Flusseinzugsgebiets verbessern?
Innovationen können sein:
Auf technischer Ebene (z.B. Verbesserung der Produktionsprozesse, Verbesserung des
Bewässerungsverfahrens)
Auf Produktebene (Änderung / Anpassung des Produktportfolios oder der landwirtschaftlichen
Systeme/angebauten Nutzpflanzen)
Auf Forschungs- / Pilotebene (z.B. in der Produktentwicklung oder mit Piloterprobung des Stewardship-
Programms)
Der Umfang und das Wesen der Innovationen können beschrieben werden durch:
Mittel, die für Innovations-/Studien-/Entwicklungsprojekte beschafft wurden
Gesamtbudget Innovations-/Studien-/Entwicklungsprojekte
Strategie zur Verbesserung der Nachhaltigkeit der Wassernutzung (durch neue Verfahren, neue Produkte
usw.)
Are innovations implemented which improve the sustainability of the operational and the river basin
water management?
Innovations may be
At technical level (e.g. improving production processes, improving irrigation techniques)
At product level (changing/ adapting the product range or the farming systems/cultivated crops)
At research / piloting level (e.g. in product development or with pilot testing the Stewardship scheme)
Size and nature of innovations may be described by
Wirtschaftliche Transparenz
Criterion 4.9
Economic transparency
4.9.1
Minor
Funds raised for innovation/investigation/development- projects
Total budget in innovation/investigation/development- projects
Strategy plan to increase sustainability of water use (by new techniques, new products etc.)
Indikator.
Werden die Investitionen für Erhaltung und Verbesserung der Wasserbewirtschaftung
transparent und vollständig berichtet?
Der Bericht ist zu unterteilen in
Anlageinvestition, Beihilfen, Kredite und Versicherungsdienste, einschließlich Investitionen für alle in
diesem Dokument aufgeführten Kriterien
Grad der Kostendeckung, einschließlich Investitionen für alle in diesem Dokument aufgeführten Kriterien
Der Umfang und das Wesen der Investitionen können beschrieben werden durch
Prozentsatz der Investitionen in nachhaltige Wasserbewirtschaftung in Relation zu den
Gesamtinvestitionen in die Wasserbewirtschaftung (€)
Investitionen und Subventionen in Wassersparprogramme und -maßnahmen
Betrag der Investitionen in langfristige Wasserversorgungsinfrastrukturen: Reservoirs, innovatives
Produktionsprozesssystem, Leckagemanagement, Abwasseraufbereitung
Umweltgebühren als Prozentsatz des Wasserpreises
Are investments for maintenance and improvement of the water management transparent and fully
reported?
The report shall be classified in
Capital investment, granting, loans and insurance services including investments on all criteria listed in this
document
Level of cost-recovery including investments on all criteria listed in this document
Size and nature of investment may be described by
Percentage of investment in SWM in relation to total investments in water management (€)
Investments and subsidies in water saving programs and measures
Amount of investments on long term water supply infrastructures: reservoirs, production process innovative
system, leakage management, waste water treatment
Environmental charges as percentage of water tariff

9 Annex 83
4.9.2
Recc
4.9.3
Recc
Gibt es Anreizsysteme, die die Umsetzung der nachhaltigen Wasserbewirtschaftung
unterstützen? Diese Systeme können umfassen::
Preisgestaltung für Wasser
Subventionen für nachhaltige Versorgungsunternehmen oder Wasserschutzmaßnahmen
Abgaben oder Gebühren, die das „Verursacherprinzip“ widerspiegeln
Are incentive systems in place that support the implementation of Sustainable Water Management?
These systems may include
Water pricing
Subsidies for sustainable utilities or water protection measures
Fees or charges reflecting the “polluter pays principle”
Gibt es eine Umweltkostenanalyse?
Dies umfasst Kosten für Prävention und Umweltmanagement auf der Grundlage der mit den folgenden Aspekten
verbundenen Ausgaben
Personal, das für die Ausbildung und Schulung eingestellt wird
Externe Dienstleistungen für Umweltmanagement
Externe Zertifizierung des Managementsystems
Personal für allgemeine Umweltmanagementaktivitäten
Forschung und Entwicklung
Zusatzaufwendungen zur Installation von Reinigungstechnologien (z.B. zusätzliche Kosten über
Standardtechnologien hinaus)
Zusatzaufwendungen für „blaue“ Käufe
Sonstige Umweltmanagementkosten
Wie auch
Kosten bezüglich Abwasserentsorgung, Abflussaufbereitung und Sanierung, wie z.B.
Aufbereitung und Entsorgung von Abwasser
Aufbereitung von Abflüssen (z.B. Aufwendungen für Filter, Mittel)
Aufwendungen für den Kauf und die Nutzung von Zertifikaten und Genehmigungen bezüglich der
Wasserbewirtschaftung
Abschreibung von verbundener Ausrüstung, Wartung und Betriebsstoffen und Dienstleistungen und
verbundener Personalkosten
Versicherung für Umwelthaftung
Reinigungskosten (einschließlich Kosten für Sanierung von Verlusten, wie in 4.4.2 berichtet)
Is an environmental cost analysis in place?
This includes prevention and environmental management costs based on expenditures related to the following
items
As well as
Personnel employed for education and training
External services for environmental management
External certification of management systems
Personnel for general environmental management activities
Research and development
Extra expenditures to install cleaner technologies (e.g. additional cost beyond standard technologies)
Extra expenditures on “blue” purchases
Other environmental management costs
Costs related to wastewater disposal, effluents treatment, and remediation as there are
Treatment and disposal of waste water
Treatment of effluents (e.g. expenditures for filters, agents)
Expenditures for the purchase and use of water-management related certificates and permits
Depreciation of related equipment, maintenance, and operating material and services, and related
personnel costs
Insurance for environmental liability
Clean-up costs, including costs for remediation of losses as reported in 4.4.2

9 Annex 84
A.7: Affirmation
Eidesstattliche Erklärung
Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Diplomarbeit selbständig angefertigt habe. Es
wurden nur die in der Arbeit ausdrücklich benannten Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt.
Wörtlich oder sinngemäß übernommenes Gedankengut habe ich als solches kenntlich
gemacht. Die Arbeit hat in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form keiner anderen Prüfungsbehörde
vorgelegen.
Bonn, den 30. Juni 2012
Ort, Datum Unterschrift