Crossing Boundaries: Comparing European National Nitrogen Policies – Different Agenda Setting and Governance Frameworks

Anthropogenic nitrogen emissions and discharges are affecting and transcending different ecosystems and elements of society. From air pollution and climate change due to ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxides (NOX), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to water quality degradation from agricultural nitrate runoff. For these reasons, nitrogen affects and dominates many environmental policy domains and governance arrangements internationally, including policies on water quality, climate mitigation, agriculture, forestry and biodiversity and more recently built development. European countries, however, often address nitrogen challenges through fragmented policies shaped by divergent political agendas and sectoral silos and policy responses often happen in silos with no integration or cooperation between the different domains and in some case political boundaries. This paper examines how nitrogen policies are embedded within the broader agendas of competitiveness and resilience, reflecting the growing tension between economic priorities and sustainability goals. Our analysis focuses on five European countries—Denmark, the Netherlands, England, Portugal, and France—each of which exemplifies distinct approaches to nitrogen management. Denmark frames nitrogen challenges within a water quality agenda, driven by compliance with the EU Water Framework Directive, and emphasizes the reduction of nitrate runoff into coastal ecosystems. In the Netherlands, nitrogen management has reached a crisis point, with debates centering on biodiversity loss and compliance with the EU Habitats Directive. In England, the legacy of the EU Habitats Directive has seen nitrogen from built development become highly political, with the nature regulator Natural England halting house building in many parts of the country, at a time of a “housing crits”, sparking a nutrient offset market and evolving policy responses. Nitrogen policies in England intersect with land-use planning and housing development, as nutrient offset schemes attempt to reconcile environmental regulations with economic growth pressures. Meanwhile, Portugal and France demonstrate contrasting governance frameworks influenced by varying levels of agricultural intensification, ecological priorities, and socioeconomic contexts. The findings illustrate how countries balance—or fail to balance—nitrogen management within the new agendas of competitiveness, resilience, and sustainability. Denmark and the Netherlands have implemented advanced but contentious nitrogen reduction measures, yet these often exacerbate tensions between agricultural interests and environmental goals. In England, linking nitrogen mitigation to housing development has sparked debates over the role of market mechanisms in addressing environmental challenges. Portugal and France, with less intensive agricultural systems, offer insights into alternative governance approaches, though they face their own challenges in aligning policies with EU directives. Across all cases, the integration of nitrogen policies into broader agri-food governance remains constrained by conflicting priorities, fragmented implementation, and limited coordination across sectors. This paper contributes to the literature on post-exceptionalism in agri-food policy by exploring how nitrogen management is shaped by emerging agendas of competitiveness, sustainability and resilience. The study reveals the complexities of navigating nitrogen governance in a post-exceptionalist framework, where old and new ideas, institutions, and policy instruments coexist.. By comparing these cases, we highlight the potential for transformative change and identify pathways for more integrated and effective governance of nitrogen pollution in Europe.