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

Recommendations

Info

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
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 and 38: 5 Results 28 difficulties during th
Page 39: 5 Results 30 indicator 3.1.1, refer
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?