Comparison of nitrate reduction policies in six European regions – Synthesis
Publication date: 10 Dezember 2025 | Report language: EN
Nutrient losses from agriculture remain a primary contributor to high nitrate concentrations in EU ground- and surface waters, causing visible eutrophication as well as less visible ecological degradation. The EU Water Framework Directive and Nitrate Directive have set binding objectives for member states to reduce nutrient losses, with a focus on mineral fertiliser and manure as key pollution sources. Although different sets of measures have been implemented across member states, monitoring data indicate that nitrate concentrations have not significantly declined, and especially regions with high agricultural activity continue to exceed environmental standards.
A recent study that Technopolis carried out for the Flemish Land Agency takes a helicopter view above six agricultural hotspots in Europe – Brittany, Denmark, Wallonia, The Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia, and Flanders – to compare their arsenal of policy instruments and identify promising approaches. What instruments are perceived as the most effective and efficient in addressing nutrient losses from agriculture? To what extent are they accepted by farmers and broader communities? With input from expert and stakeholder interviews, the study identifies 42 policy instruments across the six studied regions. It also provides a more detailed analysis of ten of these instruments that were selected by Flemish stakeholders as particularly relevant for Flanders.
The six studied regions have distinct geographies, agricultural systems, environmental issues, and institutional contexts. For example, the Netherlands, North Rhine-Westfalia, and Flanders are relatively crowded areas, with a population density over three times that of Brittany and Denmark. The Dutch agricultural system is the most intensive in terms of the size of the livestock, while the Danish agricultural system has the highest share of organic farming (12% of agricultural land). Although the same European directives apply, the institutional context also varies per region in terms of the definition of ecological targets, spatial differentiation of policy, and the extent to which models are used and trusted.
Some of the most ambitious policy instruments identified in this study are those scheduled for implementation in Denmark. The other European regions in this study face greater political resistance compared to Denmark. They are also generally more densely populated, which can form an additional obstacle for interventions that rely on changing and redistributing land use.
However, several instruments with a more voluntary character also showed promise and could be replicable in the short to medium term. Ten specific options were selected by Flemish stakeholders for further research, based on their potential relevance for Flanders. The selected instruments are often a combination of market incentives, funding for voluntary practices, and advisory services.
Some of the selected instruments intervene across the entire value chain. For example, the Terre de Sources label in Wallonia and the scaling up of organic farming in Denmark show how governments can join forces with actors across the supply chain to create a business model for sustainable farming practices. This type of instruments allows pioneering farmers to demonstrate the feasibility of their practices and supports the eventual transition of such practices into mandatory standards.
Another interesting, selected instrument is the alliance between water authorities and farmers in North Rhine-Westphalia, built on the principle of “cooperation over confrontation”. Farmers can join a cooperation with local drinking water authorities and receive guidance and remuneration for adopting sustainable farming practices. Each local cooperation defines the measures it supports. Subsequent improvements in water quality reduce costs for water authorities, and these savings are shared with the participating farmers.
Denmark is implementing several ambitious policy instruments. One such policy instrument is a new regulatory system in which a nitrogen retention model is used to define targeted, spatially differentiated obligations and incentives for farmers to protect coastal waters from eutrophication. A key enabler that allowed Denmark to introduce such a regulatory system is a high level of trust and collaboration between farmers, government, universities, and NGOs. There is also high public awareness about eutrophication, as the entire population lives within 100km from the coast, which likely contributes to broad public support for such policies. In addition, Denmark has announced a CO₂-e tax on cattle for 2030 which will address both nitrate and carbon emissions from cattle through pricing. This political momentum is unique to Denmark and follows from decades of collaboration, research, and political negotiation. Although these instruments may not be easily replicable elsewhere in the short term due to political constraints, they do show what could become possible over the medium to long term.
Another notable finding is the opportunity for nitrate reduction policies to serve multiple objectives. Similar to the already-mentioned CO₂-e tax on cattle, several policy instruments show synergy with environmental objectives beyond nitrate. For example, the creation of wetlands simultaneously addresses nitrate pollution and biodiversity loss, while also restoring original landscapes. Agri-Environment-Climate (AEC) measures under the EU’s Common Agricultural policy, operate on this principle. They provide funding to farmers who adopt practices that exceed the legal requirements and contribute to broader environmental benefit such as biodiversity, soil quality, and climate performance. Wetland restoration would typically fit within AEC schemes as it contributes to nutrient reduction, habitat creation, and broader landscape management. This type of policy instrument may allow multiple sources of funding to be combined but also requires coordination across different parts of government.
The ambitions set in the Water Framework Directive remain out of reach and some regions still face strong political resistance. At the same time, various policy instruments offer promising solutions for the longer term. Progress depends on governments establishing clear, long-term incentives, supporting alternative business models that are economically viable for farmers, and collaborating closely with the agricultural sector to put these measures into practice. All regions have different institutional capacities and regional practices, but in all regions building trust and communication between government and farmers is vital for implementing durable, widely accepted and effective policy instruments.
The full report can be consulted in Dutch, and a synthesis of the report is available in English.
