Grass or stubble in areas prone to flooding and erosion [Norway]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Dominika Krzeminska
- Editor: Lillian Øygarden
- Reviewers: William Critchley, Rima Mekdaschi Studer
Gras (eller ingen jordarbeiding) på arealer utsatt for flom og erosjon
technologies_6170 - Norway
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
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)
![Regional Environmental program](/media/4d/9/4d9c64d3-78fd-43fe-93c0-799f4e72f3b9.jpg)
Regional Environmental program [Norway]
Regulations and financial grants for reduction of pollution and promotion of the cultural landscape.
- Compiler: Kamilla Skaalsveen
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Establishment of grass - or retaining stubble - on arable land that is prone to erosion and flooding to reduce the risk of soil and nutrient losses.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
Flood prone areas are located close to watercourses (up to 22m from the watercourse) and are flooded regularly - at least once every ten years. If the area is considered as “flood prone” area must be assessed locally and approved at municipality or county level. Areas prone to erosion are the areas in the erosion class 2 (if there is a gully erosion), 3 and 4 (based on the erosion risk map; kilden.nibio.no).
Purpose/Aim: The main purpose of establishing grass cover (or at least maintaining stubble over winter) in the areas prone to erosion and flooding is to reduce soil erosion and nutrient losses. Grass cover protects the surface from detachment of particles and erosion processes. Grass covered areas enhance infiltration and provide good conditions for the uptake and storage of water during temporary floods. As such, the measure offers the potential for temporary flood storage, increased water retention in the landscape and runoff attenuation.
Perennial grass cover in the areas prone to flooding also protects water quality by enhanced sedimentation of suspended materials and increased adsorption of material to vegetation and soil surface.
Maintaining grass or stubble in areas prone to flooding and erosion is a subject for subsidies within Regional Environmental Programme RMP. The purpose of subsidies for is to reduced flood erosion. It includes both reducing soil erosion and preventing loss of nutrients.
Establishment/maintenance: vegetated zones or permanent meadows should be established and maintained within agricultural flood prone areas. As a minimum these areas should be left in stubble through the winter. These areas should not be fertilized, and grass should be harvested to reduce nutrient leakage to the watercourse. Where farmers persist in growing cereals in these areas they should at least leave the flood prone areas unploughed and covered in stubble over winter.
Benefit/Impact: The effect of (any) vegetation zones depends on several factors such as the flow properties and the characteristics of the vegetative surface. Studies of Norwegian conditions indicate that the most relevant factor for function of the vegetation zone is the character of the vegetation (height, robustness, and density), rather than the type of vegetation (Blankenberg & Hougsrud 2010). As the efficiency of vegetation is composed of a variety of factors, the implementation of the measures is to a large degree site specific (Kværnø & Stolte 2012). There is insufficient documentation on how the level of erosion is affected by floods. In Norway, there are no direct figures for the efficiency of grass cover on the areas prone to flooding.
Recent trends in climatic changes are expected to result in increase in extreme meteorological events and related natural hazards. The area along the streams and rivers are among the landscape elements, which first will notice the impact of climate change in the form of floods and consequent erosion. Therefore, measures dedicated to these areas might become more and more important.
Natural / human environment: The information about Technology is based on the investigations and/or reports from the Vansjø-Hobøl catchment. For the purpose of 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). Management of areas prone to flooding are part of these regulations.
2.3 Photos of the Technology
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Norway
Region/ State/ Province:
Viken county
Further specification of location:
The Vansjø-Hobøl catchment
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?
Nee
Map
×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.):
Grass cover or stubble on the areas prone to flooding is a measure eligible for subsidies in Regional Environmental Programme (RMP).
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
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
![Cropland](/static/assets/img/pictos/land_1.png)
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - other
- small grains
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
![Forest/ woodlands](/static/assets/img/pictos/land_7.png)
Forest/ woodlands
- natural forest
![Waterways, waterbodies, wetlands](/static/assets/img/pictos/land_waterways.png)
Waterways, waterbodies, wetlands
- Drainage lines, waterways
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)
Land use mixed within the same land unit:
Nee
![Cropland](/static/assets/img/pictos/land_1.png)
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - other
- small grains
Is intercropping practiced?
Nee
Is crop rotation practiced?
Nee
Comments:
In cases where grass replaces cereals
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
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
- surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
![agronomic measures](/static/assets/img/pictos/swc_2_agro.png)
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
![vegetative measures](/static/assets/img/pictos/swc_3_veg.png)
vegetative measures
- V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
- V3: Clearing of vegetation
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
![soil erosion by water](/static/assets/img/pictos/degra_watererosion.png)
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
- Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
![water degradation](/static/assets/img/pictos/degra_waterdegrade.png)
water degradation
- Hp: decline of surface water quality
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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
n.a.
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
- per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:
daa of flood prone area
If using a local area unit, indicate conversion factor to one hectare (e.g. 1 ha = 2.47 acres): 1 ha =:
1 ha = 10 daa
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 =:
8.99
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
c.a. 3000 NOK (it is only the cost of the time assuming 8h work per day, 320-500 NOK/hour/ person. Machinery, equipment, materials not included)
4.3 Establishment activities
Activity | Timing (season) | |
---|---|---|
1. | Plowing | |
2. | Harrowing | |
3. | Sowing grass | |
4. | Harvesting grass |
4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:
Grass cover or stubble on the areas prone to flooding is a measure eligible for subsidies in Regional Environmental Programme (RMP)
Comments:
The costs of establishment and management of grass cover on the areas prone to flooding are connected to sowing the area and reduced area for cereal production (in case of cereal production farm). The subsidies should be a compensation for such costs.
Within RMP for 2019-2022 the subside level for maintaining grass on areas prone of flooding is at the level of 210 kr/daa (c.a 233 USD/ha) in Viken region. For leaving such areas in stubble the subsidy level is 110 kr /daa (USD/ha) for areas with special regulations (drinking water quality) and 70 kr /daa (78 USD/ha) outside areas with special regulations.
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|
1. | Plowing | |
2. | Harrowing | |
3. | Sowing grass | |
4. | Harvesting grass |
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:
Grass cover or stubble on the areas prone to flooding is a measure eligible for subsidies in Regional Environmental Programme (RMP)
Comments:
The costs of establishment and management of grass cover on the areas prone to flooding are connected to sowing the area and reduced area for cereal production (in case of cereal production farm). The subsidies should be a compensation for such costs.
Within RMP for 2019-2022 the subside level for maintaining grass on areas prone of flooding is at the level of 210 kr/daa (c.a 233 USD/ha) in Viken region. For leaving such areas in stubble the subsidy level is 110 kr /daa (USD/ha) for areas with special regulations (drinking water quality) and 70 kr /daa (78 USD/ha) outside areas with special regulations.
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
The costs of establishment and management of grass cover on the areas prone to flooding are not deviating for costs connected to regular crop land management. Therefore, implementation of grassed areas does not lead to any additional expenses for the land user.
The cost of the area management are depended on:
- area (daa) location and accessibility
- eligibility for subsidies in Regional Environmental Programme (RMP). For 2019-2022 the subside level for maintaining grass on areas prone of flooding is at the level of 210 kr/daa in Viken region- for areas with special regulations. For leaving such areas in stubble the subsidy level is 110 kr /daa for areas with special regulations (drinking water quality) and 70 kr /daa outside areas with special regulations.
5. Natural and human environment
5.1 Climate
Annual rainfall
- < 250 mm
- 251-500 mm
- 501-750 mm
- 751-1,000 mm
- 1,001-1,500 mm
- 1,501-2,000 mm
- 2,001-3,000 mm
- 3,001-4,000 mm
- > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
- semi-arid
Thermal climate class: temperate
Thermal climate class: boreal
5.2 Topography
Slopes on average:
- flat (0-2%)
- gentle (3-5%)
- moderate (6-10%)
- rolling (11-15%)
- hilly (16-30%)
- steep (31-60%)
- very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
- plateau/plains
- ridges
- mountain slopes
- hill slopes
- footslopes
- valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
- 0-100 m a.s.l.
- 101-500 m a.s.l.
- 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
- 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
- 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
- 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
- 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
- 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
- > 4,000 m a.s.l.
5.3 Soils
Soil depth on average:
- very shallow (0-20 cm)
- shallow (21-50 cm)
- moderately deep (51-80 cm)
- deep (81-120 cm)
- very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
- medium (loamy, silty)
- fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
- medium (loamy, silty)
- fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
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, artificially drainage is needed
Soil water storage capacity is very low-low
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
< 5 m
Availability of surface water:
good
Water quality (untreated):
for agricultural use only (irrigation)
Water quality refers to:
both ground and surface water
Is water salinity a problem?
Nee
Is flooding of the area occurring?
Ja
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Habitat diversity:
- low
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Sedentary or nomadic:
- Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
- > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
- rich
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- women
- men
Age of land users:
- youth
- middle-aged
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
- < 0.5 ha
- 0.5-1 ha
- 1-2 ha
- 2-5 ha
- 5-15 ha
- 15-50 ha
- 50-100 ha
- 100-500 ha
- 500-1,000 ha
- 1,000-10,000 ha
- > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
- medium-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- communal (organized)
- individual
Water use rights:
- open access (unorganized)
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
health:
- poor
- moderate
- good
education:
- poor
- moderate
- good
technical assistance:
- poor
- moderate
- good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
- poor
- moderate
- good
markets:
- poor
- moderate
- good
energy:
- poor
- moderate
- good
roads and transport:
- poor
- moderate
- good
drinking water and sanitation:
- poor
- moderate
- good
financial services:
- poor
- moderate
- good
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
Comments/ specify:
Crop production will be reduced if there is permanent grass cover. However, with frequent flooding events the area is not 100% productive anyway.
Income and costs
farm income
Comments/ specify:
depending on subsidies or whether the grass are being harvested or not
workload
Comments/ specify:
The costs of establishment and management of grass cover on the areas prone to flooding are not deviating for costs connected to regular crop land management
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
water quality
surface runoff
evaporation
Soil
soil loss
soil accumulation
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
Comments/ specify:
In the areas with permanent grass cover
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
groundwater/ river pollution
Comments/ specify:
Minimum that is expected, not measures/monitored yet.
buffering/ filtering capacity
Comments/ specify:
Minimum that is expected, not measures/monitored yet.
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 | |
annual rainfall | increase | well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local rainstorm | moderately |
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 |
Comments:
It is expected that climate change will:
- increase the growing season and not reduce the growing period - the technology will cope well with it.
- increase the frequency and intensity of flooding - the technology should cope well with it.
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
neutral/ balanced
Long-term returns:
neutral/ balanced
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
neutral/ balanced
Long-term returns:
neutral/ balanced
Comments:
The cost and income will depend on whether the farmer will harvest the grass covered area or not. If the area is not harvested it will reduce the area for production. The subsidies should partly compensate for costs.
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- 1-10%
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.
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 |
---|
Less soil erosion, less loss of nutrients , less work with removing soil erosion pattern |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
reduced soil erosion |
reduced nutrient losses |
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? |
---|---|
land removed from crop production | |
maintenance needed |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Not enough field based research about efficiency |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
see the references
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
15/02/2022
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Blankenberg, A-G.B. and Skarbøvik E. 2019. Vegetasjon som miljøtiltak i jordbruket: Varianter, tilskudd og lovverk.NIBIO POP 5(10) 2019
Available from where? Costs?
NIBIO website
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Kværnø S., Øygarden L., Bechmann M., Barneveld R. 2020. Tiltak mot erosjon på jordbruksareal. NIBIO POP 6(38)2020
Available from where? Costs?
NIBIO website
7.3 Links to relevant online information
Title/ description:
Blankenberg, A-G.B. and Skarbøvik E. 2019. Vegetasjon som miljøtiltak i jordbruket: Varianter, tilskudd og lovverk.NIBIO POP 5(10) 2019
URL:
https://nibio.brage.unit.no/nibio-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2590439/NIBIO_POP_2019_5_10.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Title/ description:
Kværnø S., Øygarden L., Bechmann M., Barneveld R. 2020. Tiltak mot erosjon på jordbruksareal. NIBIO POP 6(38)2020
URL:
https://nibio.brage.unit.no/nibio-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2723843/NIBIO_POP_2020_6_38.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
7.4 General comments
no remarks
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
![Regional Environmental program](/media/4d/9/4d9c64d3-78fd-43fe-93c0-799f4e72f3b9.jpg)
Regional Environmental program [Norway]
Regulations and financial grants for reduction of pollution and promotion of the cultural landscape.
- Compiler: Kamilla Skaalsveen
Modules
No modules