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)

Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )

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

Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (Soil Conservation Service of Iceland) - Iceland

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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Rangeland restoration - Spreading small portions of inorganic fertilizer and seeds on degraded rangelands

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The concerning rangelands are severely degraded and parts of them have even lost their topsoil layer entirely. Nevertheless, in many cases some remnant vegetation patches are still in place and can serve as seed banks during the restoration process. In order to stabilize the surface (i.e. to reduce the effects of freeze-thaw processes), provide nutrients to the system, increase water availability and facilitate the distribution of native species within the degraded areas, tractors are used to fertilize and reseed the areas with grass species that later in the process will retreat as soon as the dispersal of native species increases. All implementations are based on the methods and tools used in ecological restoration, aiming at re-activating environmental and ecological processes and increasing the resilience of the ecosystems undergoing restoration. Minimum portions of fertilizer and seed are distributed over pre-selected areas, preferably close to the remaining vegetation "islands" in order to facilitate seed production and dispersal and provide safe sites for seed germination.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose with the technology is to halt further land degradation and facilitate natural succession within the area undergoing restoration. In the long-term, it should substantially reduce wind and water erosion. It should also lead to increased biodiversity, enhanced water availability and accelerated carbon sequestration (in soil and vegetation). The overall restoration task is to increase the resilience of the ecosystems against natural hazards; such as volcanic activities.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: In the first year, the areas are treated with a mixture of chemical fertilizer that fits the local soil condition and grass seed that are proofed to survive under harsh condition. A mixture of approx 200 kg/ha of fertilizer and around 10 kg/ha of grass seed (usually a mixture of Poa and Festuca species) is spread over the treated area. The year after the area is treated again, this time with fertilizer only (approx 100-150 kg/ha). Then the area is usually treated biannually for 4 to 6 years, based on the vegetational succession rate.

Natural / human environment: In the long-term, the technology is expected to substantially increase biomass production, re-build soil qualities, accelerate carbon sequestration and secure water availability within the rangeland and the adjacent ecosystems. The areas still grazed are expected to be more suitable for livestock grazing and the protected areas are expected to be of more recreational and aesthetic value. Increased vegetation cover will reduce and even halt the sand drift that still creates challenges for inhabitants in adjacent villages, on farmsteads and within the summerhouse clusters, scattered around the area. As the degraded rangeland is in the vicinity of an active volcano (Mt Hekla) the technology is also expected to increase ecosystem resilience against natural hazards like ash and pumice drift and reduce potential offsite damages caused by these materials.

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:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
• through projects/ external interventions

• by the Soil Conservation Service (governmental institute)

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Vast parts of the area are heavily degraded due to unsustainable land use through the centuries in combination to harsh climate and frequent volcanic eruptions. The major land use problem are related to the fact that the concerned ecosystems collapsed long time ago and despite all restoration efforts implemented within the area for over 100 years, the systems are still highly dysfunctional. Their carrying capacity is limited and even light livestock grazing can keep further vegetational succession down. Passive restoration might take place where the livestock grazing has been excluded but in most cases some technologies are needed to "kickstart" the ecosystem and brake their negative resilience against changes.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): They are fully aware that the ecosystems are in a poor condition and restoration is needed in order to push improvements forward. They acknowledge that grazing of collapsed ecosystems can maintain the dysfunctional of the systems and hinder ecological improvements. Nevertheless, in many cases they believe the harsh climate and volcanic activities are the main contributors to land degradation - that livestock grazing and the grazing carrying capacity of the rangeland are not fundamental issues in this context.

Types of other land: Wastelands / deserts / glaciers / swamps

Types of other land: Recreation

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures, management measures

Specification of other structural measures: fertilizing and seeding rather flat but gravel surface

Type of agronomic measures: retaining more vegetation cover, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers

Type of vegetative measures: scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Et: loss of topsoil, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wo: offsite degradation effects, Hg: change in groundwater / aquifer level

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (in earlier centuries), over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (in earlier centuries), overgrazing (in earlier centuries), change in temperature, wind storms / dust storms, other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify, poverty / wealth (in earlier centuries)

Secondary causes of degradation: soil management (in earlier centuries (from settlement in 874 onward)), floods, droughts, land tenure, governance / institutional (vague policies (especially in the last 50 years or so))

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation, mitigation / reduction of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

ISK

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

113.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Fertilizing and re-seeding	May/June

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Fertilizing and re-seeding	ha	1.0	66.0	66.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	44.0	44.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds (20kg)	ha	1.0	137.0	137.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer (200kg)	ha	1.0	118.0	118.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					365.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					3.23

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	66.0	66.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	44.0	44.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	fertilizer	ha	1.0	118.0	118.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					228.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					2.02

Comments:

The cost was estimated based on official estimation numbers from the SCSI

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 fertility is very low- low
Soil water storage capacity is very low-low

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

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: < 10 persons/km2

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

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

• governmental institutes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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	not known

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	not 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	not known
Cold spells combined with wind storms	not 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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It bases on the ecosystem approach - working with nature and re-establishing dysfunctional environmental and ecological processes with strong stakeholder involvement

7.1 Methods/ sources of information