Livestock Farming at the Expense of Water Resources? The Water–Energy–Food Nexus in Regions with Intensive Livestock Farming
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. A Social-Ecological Systems Framework Perspective on German Water Governance
3. Selection of SES Variables for the Analysis of the Water–Energy–Food Nexus in the Study Region Cloppenburg–Vechta and Data Collection
4. Unsustainable Water Governance in Regions with Intensive Livestock Farming in Germany
5. Water–Energy–Food Nexus in the Cloppenburg–Vechta Region
5.1. Resource Systems, Resource Units and Users
5.2. Governance Systems and Interactions
6. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany. Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany, Case C-543/16. 21 June 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1573031485756&uri=CELEX:62016CA0543 (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- BMEL. Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Nutztierhaltung. Gutachten. Available online: http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ministerium/Beiraete/Agrarpolitik/GutachtenNutztierhaltung.pdf%3F__blob%3DpublicationFile (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Von Buttlar, C.; Willms, M. Bewertung des Energiepflanzenanbaus für Biogasanlagen vor dem Hintergrund der Anforderungen der Europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Ber. Landwirtsch 2016, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Water: Commission Refers GERMANY to the Court of Justice of the EU over Water Pollution Caused by Nitrates, European Commission: Brussels. 2016. Available online: https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1453_EN.htm (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- BMJV. Verordnung über die Anwendung von Düngemitteln, Bodenhilfsstoffen, Kultursubstraten und Pflanzenhilfsmitteln nach den Grundsätzen der guten fachlichen Praxis beim Düngen. 2017. Available online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/d_v_2017/index.html (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Taube, F. Expertise zur Bewertung des neuen Düngerechts (DüG, DüV, StoffBilV) von 2017 in Deutschland im Hinblick auf den Gewässerschutz. Studie im Auftrag von: BDEW-Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e. V. 2018. Available online: https://www.bdew.de/media/documents/Expertise_Bewertung_D%C3%BCG_D%C3%BCV_StoffBilV_Taube_11.06.2018_oeffentlich.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- European Commisson. July Infringements Package: Key Decisions, European Commission: Brussels. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_19_4251 (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- BMU; BMEL. Nitratbericht 2016. 2017. Available online: https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Binnengewaesser/nitratbericht_2016_bf.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Hellegers, P.; Zilberman, D.; Steduto, P.; McCornick, P. Interactions between water, energy, food and environment: Evolving perspectives and policy issues. Water Policy 2008, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussey, K.; Pittock, J. The Energy–Water Nexus: Managing the Links between Energy and Water for a Sustainable Future. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingold, K.; Fischer, M.; de Boer, C.; Molinga, P.P. Water management across borders, scales and sectors: Recent developments and future challenges in water policy analysis. Environ. Policy Gov. 2016, 26, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, G.; Pittman, J.; Alexander, S.M.; Berdej, S.; Dyck, T.; Kreitmair, U.; Rathwell, K.J.; Villamayor-Tomas, S.; Vogt, J.; Armitage, D. Institutional Fit and the Sustainability of Social–Ecological Systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Riper, C.J.; Thiel, A.; Penker, M.; Braito, M.; Landon, A.C.; Thomson, J.M.; Tucker, C.M. Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological systems framework. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Endo, A.; Tsurita, I.; Burnett, K.; Orencio, P.M. A review of the current state of research on the water, energy, and food nexus. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2017, 11, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reddy, R.V.; Cunha, D.G.F.; Kurian, M. A Water–Energy–Food Nexus Perspective on the Challenge of Eutrophication. Water 2018, 10, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möck, M.; Vogeler, C.S.; Bandelow, N.C.; Schröder, B. 2019 Layering Action Situations to Integrate Spatial Scales, Resource Linkages, and Change over Time: The Case of Groundwater Management in Agricultural Hubs in Germany. Policy Stud. J. accepted for publication.
- Ingold, K.; Moser, A.; Metz, F.; Herzog, L.; Bader, H.-P.; Scheidegger, R.; Stamm, C. Misfit between physical affectedness and regulatory embeddedness: The case of drinking water supply along the Rhine River. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 48, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metz, F.; Glaus, A. Integrated Water Resources Management and Policy Integration: Lessons from 169 Years of Flood Policies in Switzerland. Water 2019, 11, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Stud. J. 2011, 39, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E.; Cox, M. Moving Beyond Panaceas: A Multi-Tiered Diagnostic Approach for Social-Ecological Analysis. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 451–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGinnis, M.D.; Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlager, E.; Cox, M. The IAD Framework and the SES Framework: An Introduction and Assessment of the Ostrom Workshop Frameworks. In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th ed.; Weible, C.M., Sabatier, P.A., Eds.; Westview Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 212–252. [Google Scholar]
- Leslie, H.M.; Basurto, X.; Nenadovic, M.; Sievanen, L.; Cavanaugh, K.C.; Cota-Nieto, J.J.; Erisman, B.E.; Finkbeiner, E.; Hinojosa-Arango, G.; Moreno-Báez, M.; et al. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework to assess sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 5979–5984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hinkel, J.; Cox, M.E.; Schlüter, M.; Binder, C.R.; Falk, T. A diagnostic procedure for applying the social-ecological systems framework in diverse cases. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiel, A.; Adamseged, M.E.; Baake, C. Evaluating an instrument for institutional crafting: How Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework is applied. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 53, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lijphart, A. Patterns of Democracy-Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 2nd ed.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA; London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Alons, G. Environmental policy integration in the EU’s common agricultural policy: Greening or greenwashing? J. Eur. Public Policy 2017, 24, 1604–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, A.; Liefferink, D. The Europeanization of National Environmental Policy; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Daugbjerg, C.; Farsund, A.A.; Langhelle, O. The resilience of paradigm mixes: Food security in a post-exceptionalist trade regime. J. Eur. Public Policy 2017, 1698–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebherr, E.; Ingold, K. Actors in Water Governance: Barriers and Bridges for Coordination. Water 2019, 11, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirschke, S.; Franke, C.; Newig, J.; Borchardt, D. Clusters of water governance problems and their effects on policy delivery. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 255–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Villamayor-Tomas, S.; Grundmann, P.; Epstein, G.; Evans, T.; Kimmich, C. The Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus through the Lenses of the Value Chain an the Institutional Analysis and Development Frameworks. Water Altern. 2015, 8, 735–755. [Google Scholar]
- Klümper, F.; Theesfeld, I. The Land–Water–Food Nexus: Expanding the Social–Ecological System Framework to Link Land and Water Governance. Resources 2017, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OOWV. Unsere Regionen; OOWV: Brake, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Landesamt für Statistik Niedersachsen. Bevölkerungsveränderungen der kreisfreien Städte und Landkreise. 2017. Available online: https://www.statistik.niedersachsen.de/themenbereiche/bevoelkerung/themenbereich-bevoelkerung---tabellen-87673.html (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Bogner, A.; Littig, B.; Menz, W. Interviewing Experts; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. The EU Water Framework Directive—Integrated River Basin Management for Europe, European Commission: Brussels. 2016. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Arle, J.; Mohaupt, V.; Kirst, I. Monitoring of Surface Waters in Germany under the Water Framework Directive—A Review of Approaches, Methods and Results. Water 2016, 8, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of the European Communities. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 Concerning the Protection of Waters against Pollution Caused by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources. 1991. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31991L0676 (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Kastens, B.; Newig, J. The Water Framework Directive and Agricultural Nitrate Pollution: Will Great Expectations in Brussels be Dashed in Lower Saxony? Eur. Environ. 2007, 17, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umweltbundesamt. Fakten zur Nitratbelastung in Grund- und Trinkwasser. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/fakten-zur-nitratbelastung-in-grund-trinkwasser (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Umweltbundesamt. Quantifizierung der landwirtschaftlich verursachten Kosten zur Sicherung der Trinkwasserbereitstellung; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2017; Volume 43. [Google Scholar]
- Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. Die Niedersächsische Landwirtschaft in Zahlen. 2017. Available online: https://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/download/124920/Die_niedersaeschsische_Landwirtschaft_in_Zahlen_2017.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Vogeler, C.S. Farm Animal Welfare Policy in Comparative Perspective: Determinants of Cross-national Differences in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Eur. Policy Anal. 2017, 3, 20–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umweltbundesamt. FAQs zu Nitrat im Grund- und Trinkwasser. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/faqs-zu-nitrat-im-grund-trinkwasser#textpart-6; (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Thünen-Institut, Statistisches Bundesamt. Nutztierhaltung und Fleischproduktion in Deutschland. 2010. Available online: https://www.thuenen.de/de/thema/nutztiershyhaltung-und-aquakultur/nutztierhaltung-und-fleischproduktion-in-deutschland/ (accessed on 5 November 2019).
- Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen. Stickstoff: Lösungsstrategien für ein drängendes Umweltproblem. Sondergutachten; Berlin. 2015. Available online: http://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/02_Sondergutachten/2012_2016/2015_01_SG_Stickstoff_HD.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Vogeler, C.S. Why do farm animal welfare regulations vary between EU member states? A comparative analysis of societal and party political determinants in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. J. Common Mark. Stud. 2019, 57, 317–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, M.; Jiang, D.; Wang, J.; Fu, J.; Huang, Y. Could biofuel development stress China’s water resources? GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 1447–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kompetenzzentrum Niedersachsen Netzwerk Nachwachsenda Rohstoffe und Bioökonomie e.V. Biogas in Niedersachsen-Inventur 2016; Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz: Hannover, Germany, 2017; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
- Grethe, H. The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2017, 9, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundmark, F.; Berg, C.; Röcklinsberg, H. Private Animal Welfare Standards—Opportunities and Risks. Animals 2018, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W. Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges and Opportunities. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeates, J.W. Naturalness and Animal Welfare. Animals 2018, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Merz, N.; Regel, S. Die Programmatik der Parteien. In Handbuch Parteienforschung; Niedermayer, O., Ed.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013; pp. 211–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandelow, N.C.; Eckert, F.; Rüsenberg, R. Wie Funktionieren Koalitionsverhandlungen in Der Gesundheitspolitik? Observer Gesundheit: Bonn, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Coleman, W.D.; Skogstad, G.D.; Atkinson, M.M. Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture. J. Public Policy 1996, 16, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, W. Is agricultural policy still exceptional? Political Q. 1995, 66, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skogstad, G. Ideas, Paradigms and Institutions: Agricultural Exceptionalism in the European Union and the United States. Governance 1998, 11, 463–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daugbjerg, C.; Feindt, P.H. Post-exceptionalism in public policy: Transforming food and agricultural policy. J. Eur. Public Policy 2017, 24, 1565–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greer, A. Post-exceptional politics in agriculture: An examination of the 2013 CAP reform. J. Eur. Public Policy 2017, 2, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tosun, J. Party support for post-exceptionalism in agri-food politics and policy: Germany and the United Kingdom compared. J. Eur. Public Policy 2017, 1623–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daugbjerg, C.; Swinbank, A. Three Decades of Policy Layering and Politically Sustainable Reform in the European Union’s Agricultural Policy. Governance 2016, 29, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Regierungsentwurf Haushalt 2018. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. 2018. Available online: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Presse/PM32-2018-HaushaltAnlage.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Hirt, A.; Maisack, C.; Moritz, J. Tierschutzgesetz: Mit TierSchHundeV, TierSchNutztV, TierSchVersV, TierSchTrV, EU-Tiertransport-VO, TierSchlV, EU-Tierschlacht-VO: Kommentar, 3rd ed.; Verlag Franz Vahlen: München, Germany, 2016; p. 1210. [Google Scholar]
Selection of SES Variables for the Case Study | ||
---|---|---|
First Tier | Second Tier | Characteristic in the Case Study |
Resource System (RS) | RS1 Sector | Groundwater affected by surplus nitrate levels |
Decoupling of arable land and livestock production | ||
Proximity to the ports | ||
Cluster benefits (abattoirs, processors close) | ||
Energy production with bioenergy plants | ||
RS2 Clarity of system boundaries | ||
RS3 Size of resource system | ||
RS4 Human-constructed facilities | Large number of livestock keeping facilities, intensive farming in indoor housing systems, high regional density | |
Installation of biogas plants from 2000 onwards | ||
RS5 Productivity of the system | ||
RS6 Equilibrium properties | ||
RS7 Predictability of system dynamics | ||
RS8 Storage characteristics | ||
RS9 Location | ||
Resource Units (RU) | RU1 Resource unit mobility | Livestock facilities and animals hardly movable |
Water highly mobile | ||
RU2 Growth or replacement rate | ||
RU3 Interaction among resource units | Pressure on water and soil resources, particularly handling of manure | |
Impossibility of closing natural loops, therefore large amounts of manure applied to the fields for a long time | ||
Nutrient requirement varies depending on soil, weather, yields | ||
Standardized calculation of amount of manure or mineralized fertilizers applied to fields is difficult | ||
Traceability of pollutions sources due to groundwater mobility difficult | ||
Interactions between resources not considered sufficiently in the past | ||
Input of manure or crops to biogas plants | ||
Increased competition for land following the installation of biogas plants | ||
Application of fermentation residues to land | ||
RU4 Economic value | Intensification and specialization, rising number of animals | |
Export orientation | ||
Competition for land | ||
High dependence of the region on the livestock sector | ||
RU5 Number of units | ||
RU6 Distinctive markings | ||
RU7 Spatial and temporal distribution | ||
Users (U) | U1 Number of users | |
U2 Socioeconomic attributes of users | ||
U3 History of use | Farmers encouraged by government to grow | |
Path dependencies created by long amortisation periods for stables and establishment of clusters | ||
U4 Location | ||
U5 Leadership/entrepreneurship | ||
U6 Norms/social capital | ||
U7 Knowledge of SES/mental models | ||
U8 Importance of Resource | Farmers operate on the local level; manure is a regional problem. Retailers and processors operate on the international level. Regional concomitants (e.g., manure) are not considered by retailers | |
Introduction of animal welfare labels as a chance to keep less animals if financial compensation is sufficient | ||
U9 Technology used | ||
Governance Systems | GS1 Government organizations | Institutional division of ministries (Food—Agriculture, Water—Environment, Energy—Economy) |
Party political differences influence work of ministries, coalition governments | ||
Different goals of actors within the agricultural system and within the energy and the water system | ||
GS2 Nongovernment organizations | ||
GS3 Network structures | ||
GS4 Property-rights systems | ||
GS5 Operational rules | ||
GS6 Collective-choice rules | ||
GS7 Constitutional choice rules | Fertilizer as implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) was executed by the ministry of agriculture, the ministry used implementation leeway in favour of original agricultural goals. Prioritization of food over water interests in the original version of the fertilizer ordinance of 1996. | |
Fertilizer ordinance as most important policy for steering nutrient inputs in water and soil | ||
Fermentation residues not considered in original fertilizer ordinance as a problem | ||
Ecological context such as weather insufficiently considered in the fertilizer ordinance | ||
Revision of fertilizer ordinance in 2017 (inclusion of fermentation residues) | ||
GS8 Monitoring and sanctioning | Problems with control and enforcement of fertilizer ordinance, pollution sources partly difficult to identify | |
New fertilizer ordinance results in a major surplus of manure which leads to partly illegal spreading | ||
Interactions | I1 Harvesting levels of diverse users | |
I2 Information sharing among users | ||
I3 Deliberation processes | ||
I4 Conflicts among users | ||
I5 Investment activities | ||
I6 Lobbying activities | Lobbying by farmers organizations impeded inclusion of fermentation residues into fertilizer ordinance | |
No consent from other federal states in Bundesrat for tightening of fertilizer ordinance, burden for farmers in other states with no over-fertilization | ||
Even in new fertilizer ordinance agrarian interests dominate water interests | ||
Water suppliers filed a complaint at the European level | ||
I7 Self-organizing activities | Trading of manure across regions | |
I8 Networking activities | ||
Outcomes | O1 Social performance measures | Harsh economic losses particularly for small and family-owned farms since new fertilizer ordinance |
Structural transformation in the region is accelerated | ||
O2 Ecological performance measures | Adding of surplus nutrients to the fields as a consequence of the non-consideration of fermentation residues | |
Interrelations of biogas with water and agriculture were underestimated | ||
Local policymakers in Vechta early on recognized the pressure on land and water resources, therefore less plants than in Cloppenburg | ||
Scope of local policymakers to prevent installation of biogas plants was limited, because the plants were privileged by national law | ||
Few years after installation of biogas plants water suppliers identified biogas plants as major cause of water pollution, they approached local, federal and national policymakers but were not heard | ||
O3 Externalities to other SESs | ||
Related Ecosystems | ECO1 Climate patterns | |
ECO2 Pollution patterns | ||
ECO3 Flows into and out of focal SES | Transportation of manure to other regions, storage capacities in the regions exhausted | |
But: farmers in other regions prefer artificial fertilizer because of the complex documentation process for manure | ||
Sharp price increase for selling manure |
Interview Partner | Date, Location, Duration (in Hours) |
---|---|
Representatives from the local administration (two actors) | 20 June 2018, Cloppenburg, 1:20 |
Political actor | 1 June 2018, Vechta, 1:06 |
General manager of the regional water board | 20 June 2018, Brake, 1:32 |
Representative of the regional farmers’ association | 31 May 2018, Vechta, 1:57 |
Representative of the regional farmers’ association | 31 May 2018, region Cloppenburg, 1:53 |
General Manager of a regional animal food manufacturer | 21 June 2018, region Cloppenburg, 1:21 |
Owner of a company for transportation of manure | 31 May 2018, Vechta, 1:37 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vogeler, C.S.; Möck, M.; Bandelow, N.C.; Schröder, B. Livestock Farming at the Expense of Water Resources? The Water–Energy–Food Nexus in Regions with Intensive Livestock Farming. Water 2019, 11, 2330. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112330
Vogeler CS, Möck M, Bandelow NC, Schröder B. Livestock Farming at the Expense of Water Resources? The Water–Energy–Food Nexus in Regions with Intensive Livestock Farming. Water. 2019; 11(11):2330. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112330
Chicago/Turabian StyleVogeler, Colette S., Malte Möck, Nils C. Bandelow, and Boris Schröder. 2019. "Livestock Farming at the Expense of Water Resources? The Water–Energy–Food Nexus in Regions with Intensive Livestock Farming" Water 11, no. 11: 2330. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112330