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

Recommendations

Info

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).
Page 1 and 2: Assessing the European Water Stewar
Page 3 and 4: Abstract The EWS standard is a newl
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgement It is a pleasure to
Page 7 and 8: List of Figures II 5.2.2 Applicabil
Page 9 and 10: List of Tables IV List of Abbreviat
Page 11 and 12: 1 Introduction 2 Being recently dev
Page 13 and 14: 3 Theoretical Background 4 3 Theore
Page 15 and 16: 3 Theoretical Background 6 treatmen
Page 17 and 18: 3 Theoretical Background 8 very low
Page 19 and 20: 3 Theoretical Background 10 3.3 The
Page 21 and 22: 3 Theoretical Background 12 units a
Page 23 and 24: 3 Theoretical Background 14 coordin
Page 25 and 26: 4 Methodology 16 4 Methodology The
Page 27 and 28: 4 Methodology 18 The chosen farms w
Page 29 and 30: 4 Methodology 20 Table 4: Extract o
Page 31 and 32: 4 Methodology 22 considered to be i
Page 33 and 34: 5 Results 24 improvement of the aqu
Page 35 and 36: 5 Results 26 Table 5: Alignment of
Page 37: 5 Results 28 difficulties during th
Page 41 and 42: 5 Results 32 been derived from othe
Page 43 and 44: 5 Results 34 Farmer E additionally
Page 45 and 46: 5 Results Table 9: Key statements o
Page 47 and 48: 6 Discussion 38 6 Discussion 6.1 Di
Page 49 and 50: 6 Discussion 40 6.2 Discussion of R
Page 51 and 52: 6 Discussion 42 of farmers was the
Page 53 and 54: 6 Discussion 44 cooperation with th
Page 55 and 56: 6 Discussion 46 Acceptance of stand
Page 57 and 58: 7 Conclusion, Recommendation and Ou
Page 59 and 60: 8 References 50 COLLINS, A., OHANDJ
Page 61 and 62: 8 References 52 EU (European Union)
Page 63 and 64: 8 References 54 KAVANAGH, P. & T. B
Page 65 and 66: 8 References 56 SRU (Sachverständi
Page 67 and 68: 8 References 58 EWP (European Water
Page 69 and 70: 9 Annex 60 4.3.1 n.a. 0 0 2 0 4.3.2
Page 71 and 72: 9 Annex 62 A.4: Categories for inte
Page 73 and 74: 9 Annex 64 1.1.3 Major 1.1.4 Major
Page 75 and 76: 9 Annex 66 Grundsatz 2. Sicherstell
Page 77 and 78: 9 Annex 68 2.1.6 Recc Kriterium 2.2
Page 79 and 80: 9 Annex 70 2.2.4 Major 2.2.5* Major
Page 81 and 82: 9 Annex 72 3.1.2 Minor 3.1.3 Recc 3
Page 83 and 84: 9 Annex 74 4.2.1 Recc 4.2.2 Recc Kr
Page 85 and 86: 9 Annex 76 4.4.1 Minor Ist das Wass
Page 87 and 88: 9 Annex 78 4.4.6 Minor Kriterium 4.
Page 89 and 90:
9 Annex 80 4.6.2 Major 4.6.3 Minor
Page 91 and 92:
9 Annex 82 4.8.1 Recc Kriterium 4.9
Page 93:
9 Annex 84 A.7: Affirmation Eidesst
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?