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

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

Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO) - Norway

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:

Reduced tillage, involving no plowing in the autumn, preserves stubble or plant cover during the autumn and winter to prevent soil erosion, and particle and nutrient loss from cropland to watercourses.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Purpose/aim: Reduced tillage (i.e., no tillage in autumn) is an efficient measure of preventing soil erosion, and particle and nutrient loss from cropland to watercourses. In addition to the protection of soil from water erosion, stubble fields contribute to increasing organic matter content, which may also increase the aggregate stability of the soil (in the upper soil layers). It is also possible that, as a result of this measure, higher biological activity may improve the soil structure.

Establishment/Maintenance: No tillage in autumn means that cropland areas are left as stubble fields after the harvesting is carried out and they remain like this throughout the winter.
It is of importance to keep in mind the potential for increased amounts of weeds and diseases (incl. fungi) when practicing this measure. The soil may also develop a rather dense structure over time if the climate is humid.

Natural / human environment: The information about Technology is based on the investigations and/or reports from different part of Norway.
For the purpose of the OPTAIN project (https://www.optain.eu/), the technology is further presented in the natural and human environment context of the Kråkstad River catchment - a Norwegian Case Study catchment within OPTAIN project.

The Kråkstad River is mainly situated in Ski municipality in South-Eastern parts of Norway. The river catchment is a western tributary of the Vansjø-Hobøl watercourse, also known as the Morsa watercourse. The Kråkstad River catchment area is c.a 51 km², 43% of which is agricultural land, where mostly cereals are produced on heavy clays soils. The main environmental challenge in the area is water quality (incl. high phosphorus pollution) and soil erosion (incl. riverbank erosion and quick-clay landslides). The Morsa watercourse is a drinking water resource and there are specific environmental regulations for land management followed by subsidies through the Regional Environmental Programme (RMP).
Special regulations in the Morsa catchment (https://morsa.org/) recommend that tillage, and fertilizer additions, are postponed to the start of March at the earliest.

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

• Regional Environmental Programme (RMP)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The traditional soil tillage method until 1990 was autumn ploughing. From 1991 subsidies (RMP) were given for reduced autumn tillage and during the
period from 1990 to 2002 the autumn ploughed area was reduced from 82% to 43% of the cereal area (Bechmann, 2015). In 2009 about 53% of the grain area
was tilled in spring (Snellingen-Bye et al., 2010). In 2019 about 42% of the grain area was left in stubble during winter (Bjørlo et al. 2021).

Reference:
Bechmann, M., Collentine, D., Gertz, F., Graversgaard, M., Hasler, B., Helin, J., Jacobsen, B., Rankinen, K. and Refsgaard, K. 2016 Water management for agriculture in the nordic countries. Background document for NJF seminar 487. NIBIO report 2/2/2016.
Snellingen, Bye, A. and Løvberget, A. 2010. Landbruksteljing 2010. Statistisk sentralbyrå Rapport 2014/5.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Nee

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures
Type of agronomic measures: minimum tillage

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion
Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Hp: decline of surface water quality

Main causes of degradation: soil management, heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts), governance / institutional
Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff), change of seasonal rainfall, floods, land tenure

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

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation
Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

NOK

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

8.89

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	no tillage in autumn	autumn

Comments:

No initial investment

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

No initial investments

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	no tillage in autumn	autumn

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

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Under the RMP system (Regional Environmental Programme ) farmers can apply for subsidies for changed tillage practices. The subsidies are paid after erosion risk class.

Comments:

The measure does not lead to any additional expenses for the land user.
However, land users indicate the need for consequent Increased usage of pesticides and reduced production. Subsidies for reduced tillage should compensate for negative effects and costs.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The measure does not lead to any additional expenses for the land user.However, land users indicate the need for consequent Increased usage of pesticides and reduced production.

Under the RMP system (Regional Environmental Programme in agriculture) farmers can apply for subsidies for changed tillage practices. The level of subsidy are based on erosion risk of the area. Depending on erosion risk class, farmer is entitled to ca. 20-200 kr/daa when implementing reduced autumn tillage (RMP for 2019-2022). In exposed watersheds, like those used for drinking water supply (e, g Vansjø- Hobøl catchment) farmers are obliged to implement stricter management practices to receive production support. The farmers in these catchments get higher subsidies than those in other catchments (Bechmann et al. 2016)

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 medium-high
Soil drainage/infiltration is poor, need artificial drainage
Soil water storage capacity is very low-low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Ja

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
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
10% of the land users are rich and own 10% of the land.
90% of the land users are average wealthy and own 90% of the land.

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, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Erosion, flooding and landslides, eutrophication of rivers and lakes
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Increased usage of pesticides and reduced production

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
seasonal rainfall	autumn	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?
extended growing period	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

Comments:

There are no establishment costs.
Subsidies paid after erosion risk are supposed to cover for negative effects and costs for maintenance (e.g for increased pesticide use, lower yield )

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

Comments:

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology.
Local regulations determine that farmers only receive subsidies per production area along with financial grants if they implement the technology.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduced soil loss and erosion

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduced soil loss and erosion
Reduced eutrophication of rivers and lakes

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?
Increased usage of pesticides
Reduced production

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Higher demand for pesticides	Autumn and spring harrowing

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Water management for agriculture in the nordic contries. Bechmann et al. 2016. NIBIO report 2/2/2016

Available from where? Costs?

www.nibio.no

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Norwegian policy and practices regarding mitigation measures in agriculture. 2016. NIBIO POP 2(21) 2016.

Available from where? Costs?

www.nibio.no

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Soil Tillage and Crop Growth Effects on Surface and Subsurface Runoff, Loss of Soil, Phosphorus and Nitrogen in a Cold Climate. Benchmann and Bøe 2021. Land 2021, 10(1), 77

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.mdpi.com/

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Water management for agriculture in the nordic contries. Bechmann et al. 2016. NIBIO report 2/2/2016

URL:

https://nibio.brage.unit.no/nibio-xmlui/handle/11250/2382641

Title/ description:

Norwegian policy and practices regarding mitigation measures in agriculture. 2016. NIBIO POP 2(21) 2016.

URL:

https://nibio.brage.unit.no/nibio-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2387569/NIBIO_POP_2016_2_21.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Title/ description:

Soil Tillage and Crop Growth Effects on Surface and Subsurface Runoff, Loss of Soil, Phosphorus and Nitrogen in a Cold Climate. Bechmann and Bøe 2021. Land 2021, 10(1), 77

URL:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/1/77

7.4 General comments

no remarks