1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Climate Change - Land Use Strategies (CC-LandStraD / GLUES)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Thünen Institute (Thünen Institute) - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Grassland preservation by the avoidance of ploughing up of grassland and its transformation into cropland

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Increasing demand for food, feed and bioenergy provokes an increased demand for cropland. This leads to intensification of grassland and conversion of e.g. grassland to cropland. By converting grassland to cropland the enhanced mineralization of organic soil matter leads to high emissions of the greenhouse gases CO2 and, in a much lower extent, N2O. the other way around, if cropland is converted to grassland a long-term carbon sink is established that accumulates high amounts of carbon. Nevertheless the conversion of cropland to grassland cannot compensate GHG emissions caused by conversion of grassland to cropland. Due to the soil structure and characteristics C-sequestration in the soil is higher for grassland than for cropland and within the grasslands it is substantially higher for old, humus-rich and boggy sites (e.g. fens or peatbogs) than for young grassland on mineral soils (Schuler et al. 2014). GHG emissions from converting grassland to cropland are more than 12.5 times per areaunit higher for organic than for mineral soils (own calculations after UBA 2014). Avoiding conversion of grassland into cropland avoids on average 10 tCO2-equ/ha*a considering a time-period of ten years (Osterburg et al. 2009).

Purpose of the Technology: The aim of grassland preservation is to avoid/reduce GHG emissions and maintain and develop a carbon sink. Furthermore, grassland habitats have higher biodiversity than croplands and are, in general, less intensively managed. Thus, inputs of fertilizers and pesticides are lower, which is beneficial for water quality regardless of how intensively the grassland is managed. Unlike cropland, grassland is not ploughed or harrowed annually, resulting in better soil protection and a lower risk of erosion; the latter because of the year-round vegetation cover.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: During a research project, the interdependencies between climate change and land use were analysed, and different strategies for sustainable land use management in Germany were modelled. Relevant land use measures which can contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions were evaluated with respect to climate mitigation, bioenergy by biomass, environmental and biodiversity protection (www.cc-landstrad.de). Grassland preservation is one land use practice which showed multiple advantages compared to cropland (after conversion from pasture): these were higher carbon sequestration and lower GHG emissions, better soil protection against erosion, and improved water storage capacity. The disadvantages and thus trade-off of grassland preservation are foregoing production of high-yielding cash crops, higher labour demand per hectare, and lower agricultural income. However, given the importance of preserving carbon stocks accumulated under grassland, the existing pastures should be retained wherever possible. The preservation of grassland is recommended everywhere, but especially for areas with organic soils/peaty soils - as high GHG emissions are the consequence otherwise.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Introduction of Cross Compliance (requirement for direct payment) in 2005 in the EU for protection and preservation of grassland
Technology has been refined and increased its significance especially in the past 10 years.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Increasing demand for cropland area, and higher income options by cultivating cropland rather than grassland, thus loss of GHGs through conversion.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Increasing demand for cropland area. Grassland conversion into cropland might increase the farmer’s income if the soil is suitable for cropping.
Ranching: Cattle, sheep, horses
Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing: Yes
Improved pasture: Yes

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Longest growing period in days: 235
Livestock density: 50-100 LU /km2

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

• Carbon sink

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (land use change connected with ploughing), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (annual), increasing demand for land

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	The costs depend on the intensity of the management, the more intensive the use the higher the cost (e.g. reseeding etc.)

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	135.0	135.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					335.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					335.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

There are no direct costs if grassland is not converted but managed as before but there might be opportunity costs: If a farmer would convert his grassland to cropland and cultivate arable crops he might have a higher profit than he would have from grassland cultivation.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil depth on average: Very shallow-shallow (Aspects not relevant. Further, grasslands are distributed german-wide and thus conditions are diverse)
Soil texture (Aspects not relevant. Further, grasslands are distributed german-wide and thus conditions are diverse).
Soil fertility (Aspects not relevant. Further, grasslands are distributed german-wide and thus conditions are diverse).
Topsoil organic matter (Aspects not relevant. Further, grasslands are distributed german-wide and thus conditions are diverse).
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is very high

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Especially extensive grassland is species rich and contains rare and specialized species

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Population density: 200-500 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
Market orientation of production system: nature conservation

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

• NGO

Land use rights:

• individual

Comments:

human environment: Grassland per household: Grassland 4.700.000 ha, farms 300.000

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

main cost are opportunity cost of arable land use, they occur yearly.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: Within the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU reform grassland protection is enhanced since 1 January 2015. In Germany the conversion of grassland is subject to approval and in general only permitted if the same area converted is established as grassland in the same region.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Conservation/restoration of regional typically landscapes.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
By avoiding conversion of grassland to cropland huge amounts of GHG emissions can be avoided. Further advantages are a lower risk of soil erosion, possible flood prevention, lower levels of fertilizers and pesticides leaching into runoff waters, and higher biodiversity conservation.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
The income from grassland might – if location factors like soil, water availability are suitable – be lower than it would be for cropland. Thus, there can be high opportunity costs of preserving grassland.	Grassland preservation can be enhanced by legal restrictions. Financial incentives for land users make grassland preservation more attractive from an economical point of view.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

UBA (2014)

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/schwerpunkte-2014

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Osterburg B et al. (2009) Erfassung, Bewertung und Minderung von Treibhausgasemissionen des deutschen Agrar- und Ernährungssektors.

Available from where? Costs?

Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz. Arbeitsberichte aus der vTI-Agrarökonomie 2009/03, Braunschweig, Hamburg, Trenthorst

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Schuler J et al. (2014) Instrumente zur Stärkung von Synergien zwischen Natur- und Klimaschutz im Bereich Landbewirtschaftung

Available from where? Costs?

BfN-Skripten, pp. 187. Bonn, Bad Godesberg

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/berichterstattung-unter-der-klimarahmenkonvention

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/berichterstattung-unter-der-klimarahmenkonvention

7.3 Links to relevant online information

URL:

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/submission-under-the-united-nations-framework