# Protection of water resources from agricultural pressures: Embracing different knowledge domains in governance approaches

Susanne Wuijts, Morten Graversgaard, Cors van den Brink, Sandra Boekhold, Frode Sundnes, Luke Farrow, Nicolas Surdyk, Rozalija Cvejic, Helle Tegner Anker, Antti Belinskij, et al.

► To cite this version:

Susanne Wuijts, Morten Graversgaard, Cors van den Brink, Sandra Boekhold, Frode Sundnes, et al. Protection of water resources from agricultural pressures: Embracing different knowledge domains in governance approaches. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2024, 10.1002/eet.2136. hal-04776960

HAL Id: hal-04776960

https://brgm.hal.science/hal-04776960v1

Submitted on 12 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Protection of water resources from agricultural pressures: Embracing different knowledge domains in governance approaches

Susanne Wuijts<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID

Morten Graversgaard<fnref n="3" />

Cors Van Den Brink<fnref n="4" /> |

Sandra Boekhold<fnref n="1" />

Frode Sundnes<fnref n="5" />

Luke Farrow<fnref n="6" />

Nicolas Surdyk<fnref n="7" /> ID |

Rozalija Cvejic<fnref n="8" />

Helle Tegner Anker<fnref n="9" />

Antti Belinskij<fnref n="10" />

Marleen Van Rijswick<fnref n="2" />

**Correspondence**

Susanne Wuijts, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, Netherlands.

Email: susanne.wuijts@rivm.nl

**Abstract**

The remediation of nitrate and pesticide pollution from agriculture in drinking water resources has manifested itself as a complex and multifaceted challenge in Europe and in other continents. Addressing agricultural pollution in water resources requires cross-sectoral approaches. The EU Water Framework Directive aims to build bridges among these sectors, but the often sectoral implementation by Member States prevents its potential from being fully explored. This study aims to contribute to the body of interdisciplinary knowledge on the driving forces towards water quality improvement from agricultural pollution by case study research in five European countries in an interdisciplinary setting. The cases have shown that the added value of voluntary practices is considerable for creating shared ambitions but limited for actual water quality improvement. Implementation of strategies should be supported by practical guidance and monitoring of outcomes that enables compliance testing and refines simulation models for the formulation of follow-up actions. Dynamic interactions among the knowledge domains, for example, social-economic context, the legal framework, and the state of the water system, help to identify necessary actions at the different stages of the policy cycle. Especially in the implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation stage of the policy cycle, there is a need for further studies in order to improve effectiveness, for example on the role of monitoring and evaluation, licensing, and the issue of scale in cross-sectoral approaches.

**KEYWORDS**

diffuse pollution from agriculture, drinking water resources, interdisciplinary approaches, Water Framework Directive, water law, water quality governance

# 1 | INTRODUCTION

The preservation, protection and restoration of freshwater ecosystems is one of the prerequisites for a sustainable and fair future for

all, and therefore, part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6). As the long term protection of freshwater ecosystems needs to be balanced with short term social-economic interests such as agriculture (food production), urban and industrial

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

© 2024 The Author(s). *Environmental Policy and Governance* published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

<footnote n="1">¹National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Province of Drenthe, Assen, Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Oslo, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Agri-Environment Branch, Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute, Belfast, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷BRGM, Orléans, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Agronomy, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Centre for Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Law (CCEEL), Law School, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland</footnote>
development, countries and regions worldwide are challenged to
achieve this ambition by 2030 (UN, 2022). The effects of climate
change further complicate achieving this ambition.

In Europe, these ambitions are supported by the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC). This directive obliges Member States (MS) to achieve good ecological and chemical water quality of surface waters and a good chemical and quantitative status of groundwater by 2027 ultimately. In the EU Fitness Check, the European Commission (EC, 2019) concluded that less than half of the water bodies in Europe are in a good ecological, chemical and quantitative state. Objectives cannot be achieved without extra incentives to existing programmes of measures (EC, 2019).

Reported substances of concern for drinking water resources are
pesticides, nitrates, industrial chemicals and emerging substances of
concern (Hartmann et al., 2019; UN, 2022). Even though agriculture is
often the main source of degradation of the state of the waterbody
(EEA, 2018), there is often a mix of pollution sources present, includ-
ing sewage water overflows and emissions from industrial sites.

Emissions of nutrients and pesticides from agriculture have been
a major source of pollution of both drinking water resources and
(aquatic) ecosystems in Europe over the last decades (EEA, 2018). The
reduction of these emissions is crucial to meet the WFD-objectives
(EEA, 2018). Although an extensive legislative framework has been
developed by the EC since the 1990s, and transposed by individual
MS into their legal systems, the pressure of agriculture on water qual-
ity remains a challenge throughout Europe (Foster & Custodio, 2019).
After initial reductions in nutrients and pesticides emissions, further
reduction has come to a halt since 2010, although the scale and
extent differs among MS (EC, 2021).

With its European Green Deal (EC, 2020), the EC aims to provide
an incentive to further reduce nutrients and pesticides losses, neces-
sary to achieve the ambitions set by the WFD, the Pesticides Direc-
tive (2009/128/EC) and the Nitrates Directive (ND, 91/676/EEC).
Furthermore, additional governance initiatives have been developed
at local, regional and national scales to further contribute to the pro-
tection of drinking water resources (Environment Agency, 2019;
Graversgaard et al., 2018; Van den Brink et al., 2021). In this context,
governance is defined as the process of interaction between public
and/or private actors, aiming to achieve collective goals, including the
knowledge, instruments and means to do so (Lange et al., 2013).
The governance initiatives related to agricultural pollution that are
described in literature, often seem to have a voluntary character for
farmers to participate (Sundnes, De Vries, & Van den Brink, 2021) and
their effects on water quality at the scale of a catchment or basin are
not always clear (Wuijts et al., 2021).

In the scientific literature, different explanations for the
difficulties to reduce pressures from agriculture on water quality are
provided. Existing legal frameworks were found to be insufficient to
adequately protect drinking water resources from agricultural pollu-
tion (Doody et al., 2012; Jacobsen et al., 2017; Serra et al., 2024).
Physical explanations like the lag-time in the response of the water
system to measures and the complex processes of nitrogen, phospho-
rous and carbon in the soil-water systems were also suggested for this

negative outcome (EC, 2021; Hering et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2020; Voulvoulis et al., 2017). Thirdly, inconsistency and fragmentation of policies, regulations and governance structures were identified as ‘low hanging fruit’ for improvement (EC, 2014; Lange et al., 2013; Van Holten & Van Rijswick, 2014). Moreover, the coherence among these explanations from different knowledge domains, and especially their combined effects on water quality improvement seems to have been studied only limitedly (Wuijts et al., 2018).

This interdisciplinary study aims to further explore these observa-
tions and test the hypothesis that a better systemic understanding of
the interactions among the knowledge domains related to the social-
economic context, the legal framework and the state of the water sys-
tem, in the process of achieving water quality ambitions in agricultural
areas in Europe during the past decades, helps to diagnose constrain-
ing factors and to identify new pathways that support future improve-
ment. Case study material from five European countries has been
used to test this hypothesis.

2 | EXPERIENCES FROM LITERATURE

The introduction of the WFD has led to an extensive body of litera-
ture, related to the water system and water quality objectives, the
legal framework and its implementation in national law and gover-
nance approaches (Boeuf & Fritsch, 2016; Copetti & Erba, 2023).

## 2.1 | Ambitions and ambiguity

To meet its objectives, the WFD actively establishes connections to
other directives on pressures (the combined approach for point and
diffuse sources, 2000/60/EC, Article 10 and Annex II), on water bod-
ies that require specific protection like drinking water resources
(2000/60/EC, Article 6 and 7 and Annex IV connecting to the Drink-
ing Water Directive (EU/2020/2184, Article 8)), and on the establish-
ment of measures (2000/60/EC, Annex VI). However, as this legal
framework has been developed through decades during different pol-
icy regimes, coherence and consistency are not self-evident (Platjouw
et al., 2021).

In this pursuit, the EC seeks to balance between land use and the
environment with the Farm to Fork Strategy as part of the Green Deal
and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (EC, 2020). The Farm to
Fork Strategy aims to reduce nutrient losses from agriculture by at
least 50% by 2030 and reduction of pesticide use by 25%, while
ensuring no deterioration of soil fertility, aiming for improvement, and
providing food security. Funds are provided to enhance innovation
and knowledge transfer. A recent European study has shown that
achieving the ambitions set by the Farm to Fork Strategy would lead
to the reductions that are necessary to comply with the objectives of
the ND (De Vries et al., 2021).

At the same time there is also ambiguity in this ambition: the
European Parliament recently decided not to tighten existing regula-
tions on the use of pesticides (A ‘black day’ for the EU Green Deal:
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

lawmakers reject proposal to cut use of chemical pesticides | AP News, last Accessed January 4th, 2024). Furthermore, financial support provided to farmers by the EU with the CAP focuses on market management and income support that does not necessarily support environmental protection and may even lead to negative trade-offs (Doody et al., 2012; Thorsøe et al., 2022; Wuijts et al., 2021).

The WFD (2000/60/EC) explicitly acknowledges the role of capacity building (Soininen et al., 2023) during implementation by its common implementation strategy (EC, 2001), its cyclic approach, the use of investigative monitoring (2000/60/EC, Article 11.5) and the inclusion of regional characteristics. With the implementation of EU law, MS need to balance between autonomy and loyalty. MS have the autonomy to decide how to implement EU directives, respecting geographical, cultural and institutional settings (Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (C2012/326/01)), but also have an obligation to take all necessary measures to achieve EU objectives (TEU, Article 4(3)) (Essens, 2019).

## 2.2 | Implementation and governance arrangements

To implement (transpose) the WFD into national legislation, the competent, often national, authority have to set a normative framework to anchor the objectives (Van Kempen, 2014) and develop instruments such as planning (Westholm, 2021), licensing (Braaksma, 2023), cost recovery (Lindhout, 2015) and reporting and enforcement (Beijen et al., 2014; Essens, 2019), to enable authorities involved to meet the objectives and to provide legal protection for its citizens (Van Holten & Van Rijsswick, 2014).

Many MS however, have opted for a sectoral implementation into existing structures (Giakoumis & Voulvoulis, 2018; Rowbottom et al., 2022), leaving much of its potential ‘untapped’ (Green et al., 2013). This implies that, although the WFD has been drafted as an overarching umbrella, cross-sectoral objectives such as the reduction of agricultural pollution of drinking water resources need to be achieved at the local-regional level. Instruments, capacity, and means are not necessarily tailored to cross-sectoral objectives (Wuijts et al., 2021). This thus leaves uncertainty to MS on achieving WFD-objectives (Dieperink et al., 2012; Suykens, 2018) as these may not be sufficiently implemented in other sectoral legislation, such as legislation on the use of manure (Platjouw et al., 2023).

Decision-making on water quality management needs to be effective, efficient, and legitimate. Legitimacy in this context reflects the moral dimension of compliance (Peter, 2017). Involve-ment of stakeholders at different levels of decision-making with dif-ferent priorities can be regarded as a challenge for effective water quality governance from a social-economic perspective (Graversgaard, 2018; Peter, 2017), but is also considered to deliver better informed, better accepted and better implementable deci-sions for complex water challenges than could be achieved with conventional legal frameworks with top-down steering mechanisms (Howarth, 2017; Lee, 2009).

The consequence of working with governance arrangements is that involvement of stakeholders also brings different values and beliefs to the table that need to be explored first. Trust needs to be built before joint ambitions towards water quality can be set (Sundnes, Van den Brink, & Graversgaard, 2021; Van Eerd & Wiering, 2021). This may lead to lower ambitions than necessary to achieve objectives formulated at national or international scales (Dieperink et al., 2012). The balance between meaningful engagement and policy objectives set by law, challenges authorities on their role and the types of instruments that could be used to support this process (Suykens, 2018).

## 2.3 | The role of different knowledge domains

A systematic literature review on the effectiveness of governance approaches showed that different knowledge domains may bring in different, yet complementary perspectives towards effectiveness (Wuijts et al., 2018). For instance, from a legal perspective, water quality governance is regarded as effective if the objectives of the legal framework are met and the procedures that are described are followed. This may not self-evidently lead to a good ecological status in practice, the focal point of the ecological domain. From a social-economic perspective, a governance approach is effective if the societal decision-making on water quality improvement is effective, efficient, and legitimate. However this also may not necessarily lead to a healthy water system in which indigenous species can thrive and where other functions like drinking water supply are served. To further complicate matters, the role of these perspectives in governance approaches may manifest itself across physical scales (catchment, river basin), institutional levels (local to regional, national, Europe) and different sectors (e.g. water, agriculture, industry) (Wuijts et al., 2018) but seems to be studied limitedly to date (Copetti & Erba, 2023).

# 3 | METHODS

## 3.1 | Conceptualization

To test the hypothesis in this study, that is that an interdisciplinary evaluation of the interactions among knowledge domains would bring forward additional explanations and new pathways to water quality improvement, we have used an existing conceptual model (Wuijts et al., 2018) and tailored it to the objective of this study. The model identifies three knowledge domains as dominant in the field of water quality management, related to (1) the state of the water system, (2) the legal system, and (3) the social-economic context.

The results from an earlier systematic literature review (Wuijts et al., 2018) and expert discussions were used to identify the processes that take place between these knowledge domains, in this study referred to as interactions, and to identify the governance conditions that are prerequisites for successful interactions and contribute to achieving water quality objectives. Both the interactions and
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

the governance conditions were updated with more recent literature for the purpose of this study.

In the conceptual model the state of the water system is the starting point for identifying water quality issues. This would ideally set boundary conditions for the legal framework (interaction #1 in Figure 1). Governance conditions in this interaction are the importance to identify clear objectives that enable monitoring on effects (governance condition 1.1, Figure 1), to develop knowledge of possible interventions that may result in improvement (doing the right things) (governance condition 1.2), in order to create (fundaments of) ecological objectives in the legal framework that can develop in the process of increased understanding (governance condition 1.3). By its nature the capacity of legislation to adapt to the increased understanding of water and ecosystems and drivers of improvement can be regarded as a challenge because of requirements following from the rule of law, such as providing stability and legal certainty. The information on pressures, water bodies that require specific protection, and suitable measures can be used to decide on appropriate stakeholder involvement (who to involve and how) (governance condition 4.1), and as information basis for the societal debate on the value of ecology for society (governance condition 1.4).

At the same time, other social-economic values and interests (e.g. agricultural activities or building activities) provide input to the legal framework on where it should offer room for specific standards, measures or circumstances, and where not (interaction #3 in Figure 1). This brings forward the importance to know the societal context that may influence water quality management, and to develop knowledge of its impact on water quality to support the societal debate (governance condition 3.1).

Adressing water quality issues that are not sufficiently or explicitly enough covered by the general objectives of the legal framework, including cross-sectoral legislation (e.g. agriculture), often have to be (re)negotiated in the social-economic context, and balanced with other interests (interaction #2 in Figure 1), for instance regarding trade-offs with other sectors (e.g. Behagel and Arts (2014); Le Bourhis (2016)). This may result in less stringent measures or compensation schemes (Dieperink et al., 2012). Governance condition 2.1 (Figure 1) relates to creating awareness of issues, the value of these issues to society, possible interventions and the possibilities and constraints of the legal framework in order to create engagement of society, and set policy agendas. In this study, the trade-offs among economic viability of the farming sector, food safety and the protection of drinking water resources for

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework (elaborated on Wuijts et al. (2018)).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

citizens are the most prominent aspects in the social-economic context that need to be taken into account.

Interactions between the legal and the social-economic knowledge domains are needed to incorporate the concepts of equity, legitimacy and access to justice in the water quality governance process (interaction #4, Figure 1). Involvement of stakeholders at different levels of decision-making are considered to deliver better informed, better accepted and better implementable decisions for complex water challenges (Howarth, 2017; Lee, 2009). For stakeholders and citizens, having to participate appropriately at different scales and levels can be a challenge due to limitations in (legal) capacity and means (Hüesker & Moss, 2015; Van Holten & Van Rijsswick, 2014).

Interactions #5 and #6 (Figure 1) focus on the execution of measures, mandatory measures (interaction #5) or measures based on voluntary participation (interaction #6), monitoring of their contribution to water quality objectives and consequently, the discussion on the necessity of adjustments in policy plans and instruments used, in case the envisaged result is not being achieved (as input for interaction #1 in a next planning cycle). Governance conditions include the knowledge base for both mandatory measures (governance condition 5.1, Figure 1) and measures that are found necessary to achieve water quality objectives, but are not covered by the legal framework (governance condition 6.1). Monitoring the effects of programmes of measures, and making it input for the debate on consequent steps strengthens the adaptive capacity of a governance approach and its effectiveness towards achieving water quality objectives (governance conditions 5.2 and 6.2) (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012; Wuijts et al., 2023).

The governance conditions identified for each of the interactions formed the basis of a semi-standardized questionnaire that was set up to collect information from the cases on the interactions and the governance conditions (See Table S1).

## 3.2 | Cases

Case study material of five countries that participated in the EU H2020 Fairway project (https://www.fairway-is.eu, Last Accessed January 4th 2024) was used for this analysis and extended with additional data on national implementation, guided by the questionnaire developed for this analysis. The Fairway project studied local to regional governance approaches, aiming to reduce diffuse pollution of nitrogen and pesticides from agriculture in drinking water resources (Nesheim et al., 2021; Sundnes, Van den Brink, & Graversgaard, 2021). The size of these case studies varied as a consequence of both institutional settings and water system characteristics, ranging from 100 to 10,000 km² (local to regional scale), covering different types of drinking water resources, pedo-climatic zones, type of farming, land use, legal framework and governance approaches used (see Table 1). For this study, the national implementation and the resulting local-regional governance approaches served as the unit of analysis. The cases include Denmark (DK), France (FR), Slovenia (SI), Northern Ireland (NI), and the Netherlands (NL). Table S2a-c provides a more elaborate overview of the cases, structured by the knowledge domains of the conceptual framework.

## 3.3 | Analytical framework

The national implementation<fnref n="1" /> and the resulting local-regional governance arrangements in the case studies, served as the unit of our analysis. The analysis was carried out in three consecutive steps (see Figure 2). First, the case study material that was collected during the lifetime of the H2020 Fairway project was updated and complemented by national experts, using an open-ended standardized questionnaire that was tailored to the conceptual framework (Figure 1). The results were discussed and clarified in the working group of this analysis, consisting of experts from the former Fairway project. Secondly, the results of the individual cases were aggregated into a synopsis for each interaction in the conceptual framework. To avoid a national bias, two researchers from different countries and not involved in the case studies themselves, carried out this aggregation individually, and subsequently compared and discussed differences in the observations. The results of the synopsis were reported back to the experts on the cases for feedback. In the third step, the results of the individual cases and the synopsis were discussed during an interdisciplinary workshop with a wider group of experts with a legal, hydrogeological, social-economic, or agronomic background. The conceptual model (see Figure 1) was used to structure this discussion. The input from the workshop was used to reflect on the case study results and identify pathways that could potentially lead to water quality improvement. Finally, results from literature were used to reflect on the results in a wider arena.

# 4 | RESULTS

The results from the case study analysis and the interdisciplinary discussion have been structured based on the interactions and underlying governance conditions in the conceptual framework (Figure 1). For each of these interactions and attributed conditions, a synopsis of the most prominent observations is given and complemented with the results from the interdisciplinary discussion. In case an observation was typical for one or two cases, this was indicated with the country code between brackets. More elaborate information on case study results can be found in Table S3.

## 4.1 | State of the water system—Legal framework (interactions #1, #5)

Interactions between the state of the water system and the legal framework focus on the identification of the challenges regarding the protection of drinking water resources from agricultural

<footnote n="1">¹The term ‘implementation’ is used in different ways in the scientific debate: as an explicit phase in the policy process, referring to the execution of interventions in order to achieve policy objectives, to the transposition of European legislation into national law and in the most wide interpretation of execution of policy plans, including the necessary conditions, e.g. related to stakeholders, trade-offs and instruments, monitoring and adaptation to support achieving set objectives. This paper uses the term both in the legal context and in the wide interpretation. To avoid confusion, the term ‘transposition’ is added when ‘implementation’ is used in the legal context of implementing EU Directives.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 1 Overview of case studies.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th rowspan="2">Case</th><th rowspan="2">Type of resource for drinking water</th><th colspan="2">Principal water quality issue(s)</th></tr><tr><th>Nitrates</th><th>Pesticides</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Island Tunø</td><td>Groundwater</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Aalborg</td><td>Groundwater</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>La Voulzie</td><td>Groundwater (springs)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>Province of Overijssel</td><td>Groundwater</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>Province of Noord-Brabant</td><td>Groundwater</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Northern Ireland</td><td>Derg catchment</td><td>Surface water</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>Dravsko Polje</td><td>Groundwater</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Data-collection and analysis.</figcaption></figure>

pollution, and setting up boundary conditions for the legal framework (Figure 1, interaction #1). At the implementation phase, this interaction includes the execution of legally based measures (Figure 1, interaction #5) and consequently, the discussion on the necessity of adjustments in policy plans and instruments used, in case the envisaged result is not being achieved (as input for interaction #1 in a next planning cycle).

### 4.1.1 | Observations from cases on interaction #1 (water quality issues and legal system's boundary conditions)

The cases show that the legal objectives are clear to those involved (governance condition 1.1, Figure 1), but it appears to be difficult to monitor effects of individual measures, due to diffuse sources of pollution. Furthermore, the monitoring and adaptation of agricultural practices, based on monitoring results, is inadequate. Some cases indicate limited public awareness of water quality issues in general (NI). Further, whilst information is generally available about measures and

their potential effects (governance condition 1.2), there is a limited understanding of the effects of specific measures/contexts on water quality objectives reported for SI and FR, knowledge is available, but is not easy to interpret (NI) or may need further explanation to farmers (SI). It was also reported that economic motivation was more important than knowledge in order to adapt agricultural practices (NL).

Principles are legally anchored (governance condition 1.3, Figure 1), but sometimes at different institutional levels. They are generally clear to the actors involved, although the measures undertaken are often voluntary, which leaves uncertainty about how to achieve the objectives (NI). Although threshold values and requirements are clear, the complex legal framework on water quality might not be fully understood by everyone (FR).

In principle, the inclusion of relevant local stakeholders is key to successful governance approaches (governance condition 4.1, Figure 1). However, there are examples of limitations in engagement; for example due to the physical distance from water source to water user (FR), or the use of preexisting stakeholder networks set up with other objectives in mind (NI). Through outreach campaigns and civil
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

initiatives, efforts are made in some cases to increase the level of involvement (DK, SI).

The value of good water quality is used to feed societal debate in some of the cases (DK, NL) (governance condition 1.4, Figure 1). The effect of these efforts may however be hampered by the necessity of making politically hard decisions that have economic consequences for the agricultural sector (DK, NL). For NI on the other hand, the value of good water quality has only recently been brought into the national debate. For SI this has mostly been done within scientific circles so far, but has started to impact decision- and policy-making. In FR, the value of good water quality is in the public debate at the consumers' end. The long distance from water resources to users may also inhibit a direct debate among stakeholders.

### 4.1.2 | Observations cases on interaction #5 (legally based measures)

Measures in all cases are developed based on knowledge of issues, possible interventions, their effects and on legal obligations (governance condition 5.1, Figure 1). To achieve water quality objectives, it is often necessary to use measures additional to the general standards on, for example fertilizer use as stipulated in the Nitrates Directive. Such additional measures are often based on voluntary participation reflecting also the potential conflict with private property rights. Additional mandatory measures are only applied in some of the cases if the problems that have been identified are not solved despite prior actions (the carrot is followed by the stick). FR reports that upcoming issues are generally addressed with voluntary measures and require funding. Finally, measures tend to be based on field experiments and experimental farms (SI/NL), at times including citizen participation (SI).

Governance condition 5.2 (Figure 1) addresses two aspects: the actual effects of measures and the input for the societal debate. Effects are measured for the legally based measures, locally, and at times through national monitoring programmes. Subsidy schemes for agriculture may also have negative trade-offs for water quality: The Source to Tap project has highlighted that areas less suitable for farming were still sprayed to keep them eligible for farming under CAP (NI).

### 4.1.3 | Interdisciplinary discussion on interactions #1 and # 5

The cases showed that it is difficult to monitor effects of measures and to track the progress towards attaining water quality objectives and to adapt measures where these do not result in the effects envisaged. At the same time, monitoring and adaptive capacity are regarded (by both authorities and stakeholders) as important instruments for effective implementation (Blackstock et al., 2012; Carvalho et al., 2019). In general, the so-called ‘investigative monitoring’ as required by the WFD (2000/60/EC, Article 11.5) is being applied rarely next to regular monitoring programmes, also due to the

difficulty to identify pathways and effects of measures (Carvalho et al., 2019). In the process of building trust and engagement, the demonstration of effects of measures however, is considered an important aspect and provides a strong motivation to develop targeted monitoring and follow up on the observed effects of measures (Nesheim et al., 2021; Sundnes, Van den Brink, & Graversgaard, 2021). The adaptive capacity of the WFD may also be constrained as licenses of point source emissions are often granted without a fixed end date (Puharinen, 2024).

## 4.2 | Social-economic context—Legal framework (interactions #3, #4)

Interactions between the legal and the social-economic knowledge domains are needed to incorporate the concepts of equity, legitimacy and access to justice in the water quality governance process (interaction #3, #4, Figure 1).

### 4.2.1 | Observations cases interaction #3 (values and interests from society)

The case study results are quite varied regarding the role of the societal context (governance condition 3.1, Figure 1). For DK, the issue of diffuse water pollution from agriculture is highly influencing the societal debate. For the NL, the impacts of agriculture on water quality are known, but the legal framework for agricultural practice does not sufficiently support achieving the water quality objectives. In SI, bringing water quality issues into the societal debate continues to benefit from active facilitation, for example through research projects, civil initiatives, subsidy schemes and, to some extent, by NGOs. For NI, people tend not to perceive that there is a link between agricultural pesticide usage and water quality. In FR, low ‘nitrate’ concentration is used as a means of communication for a good water quality and a good agricultural practice. Yet a focus on impacts of agriculture on water quality is difficult due to the lag time between polluting activities in the catchment of the resource and water quality of the wells (Kim et al., 2020).

### 4.2.2 | Observations cases interaction #4 (legally based participation processes)

Some cases report that participation is organized mainly through information and consultation, with limited active involvement (DK, SI). But in order to increase the level of engagement stakeholder networks are used (NL, SI, NI), providing a pathway for input from stakeholders and farmers into decision-making processes (governance condition 4.1, Figure 1). In SI, civil initiatives also enable broader involvement. Participatory processes take place at different levels, varying between local-regional level and country level for general issues. This differs for the cases and countries studied here and makes it difficult to make country wise comparisons on this interaction.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

### 4.2.3 | Interdisciplinary discussion

The case study analysis highlights the imbalance in practice between the limited use of legal instruments and the tendency to apply initiatives based on voluntary participation by farmers often accompanied by financial support. This was motivated by other social-economic factors such as food security and farmers' livelihoods but also by the perception of actors involved, that the available legal (agri-environmental) instruments are insufficient to meet water objectives, especially if there is no fair compensation for land use restrictions at private land related to meeting environmental goals.

Furthermore, the limitations of stakeholder involvement were also raised: as processes take place at different levels, representation is often limited to larger interest groups. This can be recognized in other studies as well (Blackstock et al., 2014; Kastens & Newig, 2008).

The tendency to use voluntary practices was appreciated in terms of building trust by the stakeholders involved, but has resulted in limited added value in terms of water quality improvement, due to the limited level of engagement as only a relatively small percentage of farmers tend to participate in voluntary programmes (Van den Brink et al., 2021). Even more, participatory activities are often part of specific projects. While financial support is given for the duration of the project, once the project has ended, other priorities prevail in the farmer's daily practice and engagement reduces (Farrow et al., 2024, under review). These observations raised several questions during the interdisciplinary discussion that would need to be studied further, (1) regarding the polluter pays principle: Can you compensate for achieving legally set goals; Does such an approach support the 'polluter pays principle' adequately; What are the implications of the potential tension between 'the polluter pays principle' and property rights, and (2) regarding the legitimate use of instruments: Are voluntary approaches and subsidy schemes allowed as a means to achieve legal objectives?

## 4.3 | State of the water system—Social-economic context (interactions #2, #6)

The solutions to water quality issues that are not sufficiently or not explicitly enough covered by the general objectives of the legal framework including cross-sectoral legislation, need to be discussed and decided on in terms of their relevance in the wider social-economic context (#4, Figure 2). For instance in the case where agricultural legislation is perceived as insufficient to meet water quality objectives, the need to apply additional measures in agricultural practices is subject to societal debate (Behagel & Arts, 2014).

### 4.3.1 | Observations cases interaction #2 (issues not addressed by the legal system)

Generally, knowledge is available on water quality issues to the actors involved. Yet, it is pointed out that knowledge about opportunities

and constraints is mainly available to administrators (DK), and that the challenges are recognized much more at the regulatory and utility scale, rather than at catchment or farm scale (NI). Relatedly, processes are centralized in a way that omits local knowledge also due to lack of financial means for a knowledge infrastructure (SI). Furthermore, the voluntariness of measures hampers acting on the available knowledge (NL). The value of water quality issues to society was not mentioned in the cases as an important aspect (governance condition 2.1, Figure 1).

### 4.3.2 | Observations cases interaction #6 (voluntary based measures)

Limited information was provided by the cases on the use of knowledge to develop measures (condition 6.1, Table 1). Effects of additional measures are not regularly monitored (SI) or only in projects (NI, NL). Limited information was also provided regarding the use of data on the effects on water quality in the societal debate, to support adaptive capacity of the policy cycle (governance condition 6.2, Figure 2). Farmers in general do not question monitoring results, only regarding individual excess values (NL), but it is unclear whether this information is used for a societal discussion with other stakeholders and citizens. If supported by direct advice at farm level and economically viable, measures can be very effective, exemplified by how farmers reduced N-surplus in case study areas by 40% (NL).

### 4.3.3 | Interdisciplinary discussion

All countries studied have an average to high agricultural intensity and face water quality issues related to nutrients and/or pesticides (EC, 2021; EEA, 2018). The interdisciplinary discussion revealed that the scale and extent of nitrate pollution by agriculture varies for MS and thus MS may perceive a different sense of urgency to take action. Agriculture is also considered an important economic sector. Both aspects could affect choices made by MS on necessary measures and whether they should be regarded as additional voluntary based or not.

Furthermore, the social-economic debate may take place at a different scale than the operating scale of water management. This makes the interaction (bringing issues into the debate, developing strategies that may actually work) even more complicated.

## 5 | DISCUSSION

The protection and remediation of both surface water and groundwater from agricultural pollution remains a challenge throughout Europe despite the extensive legislation that has been developed. Although emissions were reduced during the first years after the introduction of the ND, emissions and water quality improvement have stabilized since 2010.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Explanations to overcome this multifaceted challenge address dif-
ferent aspects related to the state of the water system, the legal
framework, and the social-economic context for example, lack of
funding and political will power, or the complex and long-lasting
response of the water system. This study aimed to test the hypothesis
of whether an interdisciplinary evaluation of the interactions between
knowledge domains would bring forward additional explanations and
new pathways that support water quality improvement. Case study
material from the H2020 Fairway project was used from five
European countries focusing on the reduction of agricultural pollution
in drinking water resources: Denmark, France, Slovenia, Northern
Ireland, and the Netherlands.

Our research reveals three cross-cutting elements in the interac-
tions among the knowledge domains that manifest themselves mainly
in the implementation stage (interactions #4, #5 and #6), when policy
plans have to be implemented, measures have to be executed, moni-
tored and evaluated, and stakeholders have to adapt accordingly:
(1) expectations on the effectiveness of ‘carrot or stick’ approaches;
(2) monitoring and adaptive capacity; and (3) the value of water in
decision-making and possible new pathways. These elements are dis-
cussed in this section.

5.1 | Expectations on the effectiveness of ‘carrot or stick’ approaches

With its Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy, the EC aims to achieve sustainable agricultural practices that are aligned to environmental objectives of the ND (91/676/EEC) and the WFD (2000/60/EC). National reports (EC, 2021) show that water quality improvement related to agriculture (N-surplus, nitrate and pesticide concentrations) has stabilized since 2010 and does not yet meet quality standards. Achieving these objectives requires harsh policy choices on the use of fertilizers and pesticides (De Vries et al., 2021). As described for the cases studied here, actors involved perceive existing legal instruments for agricultural practices as insufficient to achieve water quality objectives. This has resulted in the development of additional initiatives to further reduce the pressure on the water system. Engagement in these initiatives is often voluntary for farmers, yet MS have an obligation to achieve objectives. Participation relies on the farmer's expectation of the costs and benefits of the initiative. As a consequence, the participation rate is often too low to lead to significant improvements in groundwater quality to date (Environment Agency, 2019; Van den Brink et al., 2021). Other studies have reported that the process of achieving environmental objectives is best supported by a mix of instruments (OECD, 2012; Van Rijsswick & Salet, 2012), with limited changes in time supported by progressive pricing mechanisms that support investments by farmers (Verschuuren & Bink, 2015).

All cases show the need for continuous monitoring, sufficient
means and practical support to ensure long lasting participation of
stakeholders. Furthermore the local governance arrangements in the
cases show the importance of shared ambitions, trust and a sense of
urgency (Sundnes, Van den Brink, & Graversgaard, 2021). In these

arrangements, farmers' livelihoods play an important role: measures
should primarily support agricultural practices. Water quality manage-
ment is often regarded as one of the co-benefits and not a primary
objective. In the EU Common Agricultural Policy, a similar balance can
be recognized. CAP subsidy schemes set up to support farmers, may
lead to negative trade-offs for water quality because these effects are
not accounted for in assigning subsidies (Doody et al., 2012).

Long-lasting arrangements are required for water quality improvement. The arrangements also require substantial participation of farmers in the catchment and a shared sense of urgency. These conditions are not self-evidently guaranteed in a voluntary based approach. Other studies (Graversgaard et al., 2018; Thorsøe et al., 2022) also report limited levels of engagement. Such low levels of participation are insufficient to achieve substantial reduction of emissions that are needed to achieve the ambitions formulated in the EU Green Deal (De Vries et al., 2021). To achieve these ambitions would require substantial reductions in the application of fertilizers and it could be argued that voluntary instruments cannot be expected to achieve such levels of ambition. Yet policy makers and public servants tend to have a preference towards voluntary instruments (Wiering et al., 2020). The interdisciplinary discussion questioned the legitimacy of the use of voluntary instruments to achieve legally binding objectives. Furthermore, it could be argued that although water quality objectives are legally binding, EU legislation does not provide guidance on how to allocate the regulatory burden among different sectors at the national level. These are questions that would need to be studied further.

5.2 | Monitoring and adaptive capacity

As discussed, monitoring of both the process and the effects on water quality, and adaptation of measures based on these results, are important steps in the process of continuous improvement. The WFD (2000/60/EC) process can be characterized by this cyclic approach as well. The characterization of waterbodies, identification of issues, formulation, and execution of measures, and monitoring and evaluation of status and trends, all provide input for the identification of necessary measures in the next planning stage. For more complex challenges, 'investigative monitoring' (2000/60/EC, Article 11.5) and (conceptual) models (EC, 2010), can be used to identify emission sources and pathways in order to improve the evidence-base for developing better targeted and more effective remediation strategies, for example the use of more stringent instruments or specific measures regarding good agricultural practices. The cases show that this possibility is being applied rarely, due to the difficulty to identify pathways and effects of measures in the complexity of the soil-water system (Carvalho et al., 2019), but also due to limitations in financial and human resources.

The lack of monitoring data that support a good diagnosis of
issues and the development of suitable remediation strategies, creates
a gap in the policy cycle and thus hampers the adaptive capacity of
actors involved. Both monitoring and evaluation, and adaptation are
regarded as important building blocks for effective implementation of the WFD (2000/60/EC) (Carvalho et al., 2019; EC, 2019). The use of both in practice however, seems to have been the focus of limited study to date (Boeuf & Fritsch, 2016; Wuijts et al., 2023).

An example of this insufficient adaptive capacity from the inter-disciplinary discussion is the process of licensing. Authorities quite often grant discharge licenses without a fixed end date and without obligations to monitor whether emissions meet the requirements as planned or that additional measures are necessary. Reviewing and updating existing licenses may interfere with existing legal rights and also requires sufficient capacity and means of the competent authority to assess the impacts of licenses from a system-based scope. On the other hand, the WFD (Article 11) requires licenses to be reviewed and revised whenever necessary to improve the status of water bodies. So far, limited knowledge is available on the role of licensing and pathways to improve its adaptive capacity to support water quality improvement (Undeman et al., 2022).

## 5.3 | The value of water in decision-making

The post-war paradigm of zero hunger is often regarded as one of the leading principles of today's agricultural system in Europe (EEC, 1957), while also ensuring farmers' livelihoods (CAP reform 1992). Since the 1980s, the negative impacts of intensive farming on the environment became more apparent and have resulted in a complex legal framework for environmental protection, without compromising food production and economic development. The improvements achieved by the introduction of this framework have come to a halt since approximately 2012, while, all over Europe, objectives have not been achieved yet (EC, 2021). Yet the implications of non-compliance to human health (WHO, 2011) and ecosystem health requirements (Grizzetti et al., 2017), seems to be left out of the societal debate and decision-making, as was shown in the cases studied (interaction #2). As a result, water quality issues may be overlooked or not addressed or decisions are made that may have unforeseen trade-offs on water quality.

A possible explanation for this effect could be that the societal debate may take place at a different scale than the operating scale of water management and the governance approaches studied here. This makes it even more complicated to include the value of water in societal decision-making (bringing issues into the debate, developing strategies that may actually work, long term preservation of water resources). Other explanations could be found in the dynamics of power among these different interests (Le Bourhis, 2016; Wiering et al., 2020).

## 5.4 | Possible new pathways?

The cases studied here and the interdisciplinary discussion, have shown that governance approaches based on voluntary participation, only limitedly contribute to the ambitions set by the WFD and the

ND. Yet policy makers tend to have a preference towards these approaches. To make a step forward would require a more balanced mix of instruments ('carrot and stick'), with an explicit link to water quality improvement and follow up and decision-making that includes the value of water to society.

Of interest in this regard are the recent initiatives in both Denmark and the Netherlands (2021 and 2023 respectively) to create a long-term national agreement. Whereas Denmark created a broad political agreement (time horizon 2030) (https://fm.dk/media/25302/aftale-omgroen-omstilling-af-dansk-landbrug_a.pdf [Last Accessed October 2nd, 2024]), the Netherlands aimed for an agreement among responsible authorities, farmers and other actors in the farming sector, to commit themselves to environmental and climate-related objectives, while ensuring a long term perspective on their farming practices (time horizon 2040). In June 2024, the Danish Government also reached an agreement with key organizations, including farmers organizations and nature conservation groups (https://mim.dk/media/5jsoi3se/aftale-omet-groent-danmark.pdf [Last Accessed October 2nd, 2024]) In the Netherlands, this initiative failed to come to an agreement because farmers' groups felt their long-term interests were not secured enough (https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/aanpak-stikstof-natuur-water-en-klimaat/documenten/kamerstukken/2023/07/05/eindverslag-onafhankelijke-voorzitter-traject-landbouwakkoord [Last Accessed October 2nd, 2024]). Both initiatives highlight the importance for farmers to achieve objectives in a way that fits into their farm management practices and enables long term investments.

Denmark has opted for a combination of stricter standards and voluntary contributions by farmers, periodic monitoring and evaluation accompanied by more stringent measures if necessary, thus strengthening the adaptive capacity. The Dutch agreement tended towards handing over the responsibility to achieve objectives to the farmer, including the harsh choices that may impact their economic viability. The capacity and instruments to monitor effectiveness of measures and adaptation were also identified as gaps that need to be overcome. Participation was primarily voluntary and the use of legal instruments was listed as the last option in case other actions have proven to be insufficient. As a result, the draft agreement itself was a promising initiative but left much uncertainty regarding its actual contribution to water quality improvement.

## 5.5 | Reflections on the methodology used

The concept of connecting different knowledge domains can also be recognized in the concept of the environmental rule of law (UNEP, 2013, Decision 27/9). It stipulates the importance of law to establish a framework of obligations for authorities and obligations and rights for its citizens in order to protect humans and the environment beyond generations (Environmental Rule of Law | UNEP-UN Environment Programme) reflecting universal moral values and ethical behavioral norms. As such, it also underlines the importance of connecting environmental boundaries and societal needs (Ostrom et al., 2007).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

In the concept of environmental rule of law, the interplay with other knowledge domains seems to have the nature of a boundary, rather than a dynamic interaction. The interdisciplinary approach in this study showed the dynamic nature of the interactions between knowledge domains, for example in the process of objective setting while there are many unknowns. Rather than attempting to achieve a fully integrated approach, input from different knowledge domains should be mutually appreciated and understood and used complementary in order to create meaningful interactions among knowledge domains and a shared sense of urgency, for example to develop the right balance between mandatory and voluntary measures that may also evolve over time. This dynamic interaction however, also sets a challenge to the design and use of legal instruments, which include both rights (e.g. property rights, right to environmental protection) and obligations (e.g. emission limits, good agricultural practices, and polluter pays principle). The question how to create such dynamic interdisciplinary interactions and make it work in practice would require further study. The cases do however show that a shared objective and monitoring of progress and outcomes do help to keep such a process on track.

Furthermore, in the interdisciplinary discussion, it was argued that the role of economics in governance approaches might need to be addressed explicitly. As agriculture is considered an important economic sector, MS may perceive a different sense of urgency. This could affect choices made by MS on necessary measures and whether they should be regarded as additional or not. Expanding the discussion with experts from this field could open up the perspective on the balance between livelihoods and healthy environments and identify pathways for more sustainable developments and conditions that would be necessary to support a transition, for example in terms of long-term investments.

## 6 | CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study aimed to contribute to the body of interdisciplinary knowledge on the driving forces towards water quality improvement from agricultural pollution.

Addressing agricultural pollution in water resources requires cross-sectoral approaches. Although the WFD aims to build bridges among these sectors, the often sectoral implementation by MS leaves much of its potential unexplored. As a result, the public sense of urgency and the capacity to improve water quality is generally low. The cases have shown that the added value of voluntary practices is considerable for creating shared ambitions but limited for actual water quality improvement. Implementation of strategies should be supported by long-term arrangements regarding capacity and means to embed lessons learned in daily practice. Furthermore, implementation should include practical guidance and monitoring of outcomes that enables compliance testing, and refines simulation models for the formulation of follow-up actions.

Dynamic interactions among the social-economic context, the legal framework and state of the water system help to identify necessary actions at the different stages of the policy cycle. Especially regarding implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptation, further study is necessary in order to improve effectiveness, for example on the role of monitoring and evaluation in decision-making, licensing, and the coherence and consistency in cross-sectoral approaches across scales.

### ORCID

Susanne Wuijts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1170-8082

Nicolas Surdyk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6692-325X

### REFERENCES

Behagel, J., & Arts, B. (2014). Democratic governance and political rationalities in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in The Netherlands. *Public Administration*, 92(2), 16–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12059

Beijen, B., Van Rijswick, H., & Anker, H. (2014). The importance of monitoring for the effectiveness of environmental directives, a comparison of monitoring obligations in European environmental directives. *Utrecht Law Review*, 10(2), 10.

Blackstock, K., Waylen, K., Dunglinson, J., & Marshall, K. (2012). Linking process to outcomes—Internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in River Basin Management Planning. *Ecological Economics*, 77, 10–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.015

Blackstock, K., Waylen, K., Marshall, K., & Dunglinson, J. (2014). Hybridity of representation: Insights from river basin management planning in Scotland. *Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy*, 32, 18–566. https://doi.org/10.1068/c11261

Boeuf, B., & Fritsch, O. (2016). Studying the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe: A meta-analysis of 89 journal articles. *Ecology and Society*, 21(2), 19.

Braaksma, L. (2023). *The programmatic approach in environmental law; towards legal designs in the European Union and The Netherlands that pursue sustainability University of Groningen*. University of Groningen.

Carvalho, L., Mackay, E., Cardoso, A., Baattrup-Pedersen, A., Birk, S., Blackstock, K., Borics, G., Borja, A., Feld, C., Ferreira, M., Globevnik, L., Grizzetti, B., Hendry, S., Hering, D., Kelly, M., Langaas, S., Meissner, K., Panagopoulos, Y., Penning, E., ... Solheim, A. (2019). Protecting and restoring Europe's waters: An analysis of the future development needs of the Water Framework Directive. *Science of the Total Environment*, 658, 1228–1238.

Copetti, D., & Erba, S. (2023). A bibliometric review on the Water Framework Directive twenty years after its birth. *Ambio*, 53(2024), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01918-0

De Vries, W., Schulte-Uebbing, L., Kros, H., Voogd, J., & Louwagie, G. (2021). Spatially explicit boundaries for agricultural nitrogen inputs in the European Union to meet air and water quality targets. *Science of the Total Environment*, 786(147283), 147283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147283

Dieperink, C., Raadgever, G., Driessen, P., Smit, A., & Van Rijswick, H. (2012). Ecological ambitions and complications in the regional implementation of the Water Framework Directive in The Netherlands. *Water Policy*, 14, 14–173.

Doody, D., Foy, R., & Barry, C. (2012). Accounting for the role of uncertainty in declining water quality in an extensively farmed grassland catchment. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 24, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.007

EC. (2001). Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive. (2000/60/EC) Strategic Document as agreed by the Water Directors under Swedish Presidency, Issue. file:///N:
/Documents/Downloads/CIS%20-%20Strategic%20Document%20-%20May%202001.pdf.

EC. (2010). Guidance on risk assessment and the use of conceptual models for groundwater Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Issue. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/8564a357-0e17-4619-bd76-a54a23fa7885/Guidance%20No%2026%20-%20GW%20risk%20assessment%20and%20conceptual%20models.pdf

EC. (2014). 2nd EIP water annual conference - conference report. Publications Office of the European Union.

EC. (2019). Fitness Check Evaluation of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive; Final evaluation report. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/fitness_check_of_the_eu_water_legislation/documents/Study%20report%20FC%20WFD%20and%20FD_Final%20report_TRI%20_TEC6327EU.pdf.

EC. (2020). Farm to fork strategy; for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. EC. Retrieved from f2f_action-plan_2020_strat egy-info_en.pdf (europa.eu).

EC. (2021). Report from the Commission to the council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2016-2019. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ publication/2596c08f-2a8b-11ec-bd8e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

EEA. (2018). European waters; Assessment of status and pressures 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water

EEC. (1957). Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC).

Environment Agency. (2019). Catchment Sensitive Farming Evaluation Report—Water Quality. Phases 1 to 4 (2006–2018) Natural England Publication, Issue. https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/ publication/4538826523672576.

Essens, O. (2019). Operationalising effective public enforcement of environmental law in the European Union, with a focus on England, Germany and The Netherlands. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Farrow, L., Glass, C., Morton, P. A., McRoberts, C., Floyd, S., Burgess, D., Jordan, P., & Cassidy, R. (2024). Science of the Total Environment (under review). Catchment Management Interventions Alter Pesticide Practices-but Long-Term Investment Is Needed to Achieve Sustained Water Quality improvements.

Foster, S., & Custodio, E. (2019). Groundwater resources and intensive agriculture in Europe—Can regulatory agencies cope with the threat to sustainability? *Water Resources Management*, *33*, 2139–2151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02235-6

Giakoumis, T., & Voulvoulis, N. (2018). The transition of EU water policy towards the Water Framework Directive's Integrated River Basin Management paradigm. *Environmental Management*, *62*, 819–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1080-z

Graversgaard, M. (2018). Stakeholder participation for effective governance: *Bridging the gap between top-down water resource management and bottom-up local implementation*. PhD thesis Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Graversgaard, M., Hedelin, B., Smith, L., Gertz, F., Højberg, A., Langford, J., Martinez, G., Mostert, E., Ptak, E., Peterson, H., Stelljes, N., Van den Brink, C., & Refsgaard, J. (2018). Opportunities and barriers for water co-governance - a critical analysis of seven cases of diffuse water pollution from agriculture in Europe, Australia and North America. *Sustainability*, *10*(1634), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051634

Green, O., Garmestani, A., Van Rijwick, H., & Keessen, A. (2013). EU water governance: Striking the right balance between regulatory flexibility and enforcement? *Ecology and Society*, *18*(2), 11.

Grizzetti, B., Pistocchi, A., Liquete, C., Udias, A., Bouraoui, F., & Van de Bund, W. (2017). *Human pressures and ecological status of European*

rivers, 7(205). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00324-3

Hartmann, J., Wuijts, S., Van der Hoek, J., & De Roda Husman, A. (2019). Use of literature mining for early identification of emerging contaminants in freshwater resources. *Environmental Evidence*, 8(33), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0177-z

Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C., Heiskanen, A., Johnson, R., Moe, J., Pont, D., Solheim, A., & Van de Bund, W. (2010). The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: A critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. *Science of the Total Environment*, 408, 13–4019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031

Howarth, W. (2017). Water pollution and water quality - shifting regulatory paradigms. In W. Howarth, A. Rieu-Clarke, A. Allen, & S. Hendry (Eds.), *Handbook on water law and policy*. Routlegde.Routlegde.https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/53958

Hüesker, F., & Moss, T. (2015). The politics of multi-scalar action in river basin management: Implementing the EU water framework directive (WFD). *Land Use Policy*, 42, 10–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.003

Jacobsen, B., Anker, H., & Baaner, L. (2017). Implementing the Water Framework Directive in Denmark—Lessons on agricultural measures from a legal and regulatory perspective. *Land Use Policy*, 67, 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.021

Kastens, B., & Newig, J. (2008). Will participation foster the successful implementation of the Water Framework Directive? The case of agricultural groundwater in northwest Germany. *Local Environment*, 13(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701581713

Kim, H., Surdyk, N., Møller, I., Graversgaard, M., Blicher-Mathiesen, G., Henriot, A., Dalgaard, T., & Hansen, B. (2020). Lag time as an indicator of the link between agricultural pressure and drinking water quality state. *Water*, 12(9), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092385

Lange, P., Driessen, P., Sauer, A., Bornemann, B., & Burger, P. (2013). Governing towards sustainability: Conceptualizing modes of governance. *Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning*, 15(3), 25–425.

Le Bourhis, J. (2016). The politics of Green knowledge: A comparative study of support for and resistance to sustainability and environmental indicators. *Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis*, 18(4), 16–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1023054

Lee, M. (2009). Law and governance of water protection policy. In J. Scott (Ed.), *EU environmental governance*. Oxford University Press.

Lindhout, P. (2015). Cost recovery as a policy instrument to achieve sustainable and equitable water use in Europe and The Netherlands. (Publication number 828) PhD thesis Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/309223/lindhout.pdf?sequence=1

Nesheim, I., Sundnes, F., Enge, C., Graversgaard, M., Van den Brink, C., Farrow, L., Glavan, M., Hansen, B., Leitão, I., Rowbottom, J., & Tendler, L. (2021). Multi-actor platforms in the water-agriculture nexus: Synergies and long-term meaningful engagement. *Water*, 13, 3204. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223204

OECD. (2012). Water quality and agriculture: Meeting the policy challenge. OECD Studies on Water. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264168060-en

Ostrom, E., Janssen, M., & Anderies, J. (2007). Going beyond panaceas. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 104(39), 3–15178. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104

Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Towards adaptive water governance in river basins. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 23, 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.014

Peter, F. (2017). Political legitimacy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/legitimacy/

Platjouw, F., Moore, H., Wuijts, S., Boekhold, S., Klages, S., Heidecke, C., Wright, I., Rowbottom, J., Hall, M., Graversgaard, M., Hasler, B.,
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Ferreira, A., Leitão, I., Glavan, M., Curk, M., Pintar, M., Doody, D., Williams, J., Turner, C., ... Langaas, S. (2021). Coherence in EU Law for the protection of drinking water resources. www.fairway-project.eu

Platjouw, F., Nesheim, I., & Enge, C. (2023). Policy coherence for the protection of water resources against agricultural pollution in the EU and Norway. RECIEL, 32, 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12509

Puharinen, S.-T. (2024). Normative environmental quality as a regulatory strategy in EU environmental law: Legal implications of water status objectives. University of Eastern Finland. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-61-5196-0

Rowbottom, J., Graversgaard, M., Wright, I., Dudman, K., Klages, S., Heidecke, C., Surdyk, N., Gourcy, L., Leitão, I. A., Ferreira, A. D., Wuijts, S., Boekhold, S., Doody, D. G., Glavan, M., Cvejić, R., & Velthof, G. (2022). Water governance diversity across Europe: Does legacy generate sticking points in implementing multi-level governance? Journal of Environmental Management, 319, 115598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115598

Serra, J., Marques-dos-Santos, C., Marinheiro, J., Cruz, S., Cameira, M. R., De Vries, W., Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., Graversgaard, M., Giannini-Kurina, F., Lassaletta, L., Sanz-Cobeña, A., Quemada, M., Aguilera, E., Medinets, S., Einarsson, R., & Garnier, J. (2024). Assessing nitrate groundwater hotspots in Europe reveals an inadequate designation of nitrate vulnerable zones. Chemosphere, 355, 141830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141830

Soininen, N., Cosens, B., Ruhl, J., & Puharinen, S.-T. (2023). Adaptive governance, law and regulation. In S. Juhola (Ed.), Handbook on adaptive governancen (pp. 35–53). Elgaronline. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800888241.00012

Sundnes, F., De Vries, A., & Van den Brink, C. (2021). Multi-Actor Platforms in the FAIRWAY Project: Summary of Activities and Experiences. https://www.fairway-project.eu/

Sundnes, F., Van den Brink, C., & Graversgaard, M. (2021). Advancing MAPs as vehicles for resolving issues on drinking water pollution from agriculture. Niva.

Suykens, C. (2018). The law of the river. The institutional challenge for trans-boundary river basin management and multi-level approaches to water quantity management. PhD thesis KU Leuven and Utrecht University.

Thorsøe, M., Andersen, M., Brady, M., Graversgaard, M., Kilis, E., Branth Pedersen, A., Pitzén, S., & Valve, H. (2022). Promise and performance of agricultural nutrient management policy: Lessons from the Baltic Sea. Ambio, 51, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01549-3

UN. (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2022.pdf

Undeman, E., Josefsson, H., Ågerstrand, M., Sobek, A., & Nilsson, A. (2022). The potential of the EU water framework directive for reducing emissions of pollutants is limited: A case study on river basin specific pollutants in Swedish environmental permitting processes. Environmental Sciences Europe, 34(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00705-0

Van den Brink, C., Hoogendoorn, M., Verloop, K., De Vries, A., & Leendertse, P. (2021). Effectiveness of voluntary measures to reduce agricultural impact on groundwater as a source for drinking water: Lessons learned from cases in the Dutch provinces Overijssel and Noord-Brabant. Water, 13, 3278. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223278

Van Eerd, M., & Wiering, M. (2021). The politics of practical implementation: Reloading of information by competing coalitions in EU water governance. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 38, 579–595.

Van Holten, S., & Van Rijsswick, H. (2014). The governance approach in European Union environmental directives and its consequences for

flexibility, effectiveness and legitimacy. In M. Peeters & R. Uylenburg (Eds.), EU environmental legislation: Legal perspectives on regulatory strategies (pp. 13–47). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Van Kempen, J. (2014). Obligations of the Water Framework Directive: Dealing with problems of interpretation. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264168060

Van Rijsswick, H., & Salet, W. (2012). Enabling the contextualization of legal rules in responsive strategies to climate change. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04895-170218

Verschuuren, J., & Bink, K. (2015). Towards smart environmental regulation that stimulates innovation [in Dutch, English abstract]. https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/naar-slimme-milieuregeleving-die-innovatie-stimuleert.

Voulvoulis, N., Arpon, K., & Giakoumis, T. (2017). The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228

Westholm, A. (2021). Scaling marine and water management. PhD thesis University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. file:///N:/Documents/Downloads/ScalingMarineandWaterManagement.pdf.

WHO. (2011). Nitrate and nitrite in drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality.

Wiering, M., Boezeman, D., & Crabbé, A. (2020). The water Framework Directive and Agricultural Diffuse Pollution: Fighting a Running Battle? Water, 12(1447), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051447

Wuijts, S., Claessens, J., Farrow, L., Doody, D. G., Klages, S., Christophoridis, C., Cvejić, R., Glavan, M., Nesheim, I., Platjouw, F., Wright, I., Rowbottom, J., Graversgaard, M., Van den Brink, C., Leitão, I., Ferreira, A., & Boekhold, S. (2021). Protection of drinking water resources from agricultural pressures: Effectiveness of EU regulations in the context of local realities. Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112270

Wuijts, S., Driessen, P., & Van Rijsswick, H. (2018). Towards more effective water quality governance: A review of social-economic, legal and ecological perspectives and their interactions. Sustainability, 10(914), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040914

Wuijts, S., Van Rijsswick, H., Driessen, P., & Runhaar, H. (2023). Moving forward to achieve the ambitions of the European Water Framework Directive: Lessons learned from The Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management, 333, 117424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117424

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**How to cite this article:** Wuijts, S., Graversgaard, M., Van Den Brink, C., Boekhold, S., Sundnes, F., Farrow, L., Surdyk, N., Cvejic, R., Tegner Anker, H., Belinskij, A., & Van Rijsswick, M. (2024). Protection of water resources from agricultural pressures: Embracing different knowledge domains in governance approaches. Environmental Policy and Governance, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2136