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)

OPtimal strategies to retAIN and re-use water and nutrients in small agricultural catchments across different soil-climatic regions in Europe (OPTAIN)

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

Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia – Institute of Agriculture and Forestry Maribor (KGZS) - Slovenia

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Riparian buffer strips are vegetative zones alongside watercourses. In compliance with EU and Slovenia’s Acts, these protective strips reduce soil erosion, filter pollutants, improve water quality, enhance biodiversity and support climate resilience.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Riparian buffer strips are applied alongside all watercourses and drainage ditches in Slovenia. These buffer zones are legally mandated under the Water Act and GAEC 4 conditionality standards within the EU CAP 2023-2027 framework. Strips, of 3-15 m wide depending on size of the watercourse, serve as transition zones between cultivated fields and waterways, mitigating the impact of agriculture on aquatic ecosystems and surrounding environments.
Strips must comprise grasses, clover, alfalfa, native shrubs, and/or trees. The use of mineral and organic fertilizers is banned, as are pesticides and herbicides. Deep ploughing is prohibited, but surface tillage is allowed for maintenance and sowing (especially if the buffer strip is classified as agricultural land). Grazing is permitted, but with specific restrictions. If the farmer does not maintain the buffer strip, the area is excluded from the system of agricultural land in use and becomes ineligible for any subsidies.
The main purpose of riparian buffer strips is to protect and improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and support biodiversity. By intercepting surface runoff, they reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide contamination from agricultural land. The dense vegetation stabilizes riverbanks. The strips also enhance habitat connectivity for wildlife, providing nesting sites and food sources. Additionally, they play a role in flood mitigation by reducing the speed of stormwater runoff and thus improving water infiltration and retention.
To establish and maintain riparian buffer strips, an initial assessment of existing vegetation and soil determines whether additional planting is needed. If the area lacks sufficient vegetation, direct seeding with suitable species is carried out. Maintenance usually involves mowing, mulching, and occasional pruning. Pruning refers to the removal of overgrown trees and shrubs along the riverbank to prevent spreading onto agricultural land. This work typically requires tools such as a chainsaw and a tractor with a trailer for removing the cut woody material. Farmers must also comply with monitoring and reporting requirements under CAP regulations.
The benefits of riparian buffer strips are primarily environmental. By filtering pollutants before they enter watercourses, they contribute to cleaner water, reduced eutrophication, and improved aquatic ecosystems. They help maintain land productivity in the long term, reducing the need for costly interventions such as dredging or erosion control measures. The vegetation within the strips absorbs carbon, contributing to climate mitigation efforts. Additionally, by complying with regulations, farmers gain access to CAP subsidies and other environmental incentives, making implementation more financially viable.
Despite these advantages, land users have mixed opinions about such strips. Some farmers appreciate the additional forage production, and others find that the buffer zones serve as useful access paths around their fields, making machinery operation easier. However, many landowners dislike the loss of productive farmland, particularly those near first-order watercourses, where wider buffer strips are required. The loss of cultivated land can result in lower crop yields and income reductions, with farms experiencing up to a 6.2% decrease in arable land and financial losses estimated at 7,448 € per farm annually (Lešnik et al. 2024). Some farmers express concerns about the complexity of legal requirements and the costs associated with compliance and maintenance.
While riparian buffer strips are essential for environmental sustainability, their impact on farm economics must be carefully considered. Future strategies may involve flexible width requirements or integration with agroforestry systems to maximize their benefits while minimizing financial burdens.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

• due to the legislative requirements of agricultural and water policy.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Nee

Comments:

The area is generally classified as agricultural land but functions as a buffer zone along water bodies. Fodder crops are typically grown and either harvested for feed or mulched. In some cases, the area may be used for grazing livestock, although this is relatively rare.

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

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)
• wetland protection/ management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

It is considered a vegetative measure because it relies primarily on the establishment and management of permanent vegetation such as grasses, legumes (e.g., clover, alfalfa), shrubs, and trees.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

EUR

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

0.87

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Purchase grass seed mixture	1st year
2.	Pre-sowing preparation and sowing	1st year

Comments:

Select grass species or mixtures adapted to local soil and climatic conditions. Minimal soil disturbance recommended; shallow cultivation to ensure proper seed-soil contact.

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	Own labor	hour	3.0	9.0	27.0	100.0
Labour	Pre-sowing preparation and sowing	hour	3.0	35.0	105.0	100.0
Plant material	Grass seed mixture	kg/ha	16.412	5.6	91.91	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					223.91
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					257.37

Comments:

Labor and pre-sowing preparation and sowing also include travel time between sites. The total size of the farm is 31,2 hectares. An area of 4103 m² falls under the restricted buffer strip zone at his farm.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Mulching/mowing	2 times per year
2.	Pruning and clearing of overgrowth	1 time, winter time

Comments:

4103 m² of agricultural land represents the buffer strips that the farmer actively manages and maintains. Pruning or cutting of woody vegetation, such as trees or shrubs, when they begin to encroach on agricultural land near the riverbank. Farmers typically carry out this work in winter, but it is difficult to estimate the cost, as it can vary significantly depending on the extent of overgrowth.

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	Mulching/mowing	hours	6.0	32.0	192.0	100.0
Labour	Pruning and clearing of overgrowth	hours	4.0	4.5	18.0	100.0
Labour	Own labor	hours	10.0	9.0	90.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					300.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					344.83

Comments:

Opportunity costs were calculated based on the loss of arable land due to the establishment of buffer zones in 2024 on Farm Ropic (total farm size: 32,2 ha, of which 28,6 ha is arable land). The planned crop rotation for that year included wheat, oil pumpkins, barley, and maize. The income foregone represents the estimated revenue that could have been generated from these crops on the area now designated as buffer strips (a total of 4103 m² of arable land).
The estimated income losses by crop type are:
Winter wheat: 113.52 €
Oil pumpkin: 396.80 €
Winter barley: 120.60 €
Grain maize: 68.04 €.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Exact costs are difficult to estimate as they depend heavily on the specific location. If regular maintenance, such as mulching/mowing, is carried out, annual costs remain low, and pruning and clearing of overgrowth work is likely unnecessary. Costs are calculated for farm Ropič.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• concave situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

There are depressions, settlements are in the valley, concave type.

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Ja

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Hydromelioration was carried out in the area, a drainage system and water retention systems (e.g. ponds and basins) were arranged.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Specify:

Based on national legal system.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

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

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The data provided are not based on direct measurements but are derived from statements by the land user (farmer) and expert judgement from an agricultural adviser. They reflect practical experience and informed estimates rather than measured field data.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The data provided are not based on direct measurements but are derived from statements by the land user (farmer) and expert judgement from an agricultural adviser. They reflect practical experience and informed estimates rather than measured field data.

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	moderately
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	spring	increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	autumn	increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	winter	increase	moderately
seasonal rainfall	summer	increase	very well
seasonal rainfall	spring	increase	very well
seasonal rainfall	autumn	decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well

Hydrological disasters

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

Establishment costs are high, including soil preparation, seeding, and potential fencing, while the loss of productive land immediately reduces farm income. Subsidies may offset some costs, but they do not fully compensate for the initial financial impact. In a long-term benefits such as improved soil stability, water quality, and flood protection reduce future expenses. Over time, subsidies, reduced erosion, and potential fodder production help balance the initial investment.

Maintenance costs, such as mowing or mulching and tree maintenance, add labor and equipment expenses, but the absence of fertilizer and pesticide costs helps balance them. Subsidies for maintaining buffer strips further offset these recurrent costs, keeping short-term financial impact neutral. Once vegetation is established, maintenance costs decrease, requiring only occasional mowing or grazing. Over time, benefits like erosion control, improved soil health, and reduced flood damage outweigh the minimal upkeep expenses, making the practice economically sustainable.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

All farmers in the area must comply with the implementation of riparian buffer strips as part of the GAEC 4 standard under CAP conditionality. This means that all agricultural land users with fields adjacent to watercourses are required to establish and maintain these protective strips, ensuring compliance with national and EU environmental regulations.

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

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Ja

other (specify):

CAP

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The requirements for riparian buffer strips have been updated to align with GAEC 4 conditionality and the EU Strategic Plan Regulation. The establishment of buffer strips is now mandatory along first-order watercourses (15 m wide), second-order watercourses (5 m wide), and drainage ditches (3 m wide).
Within these buffer zones, the use of organic and mineral fertilizers, as well as plant protection products (PPPs), is strictly prohibited. Ploughing is not allowed, but shallow tillage is permitted for maintenance (mowing, mulching, or grazing) and for preparing soil for sowing approved crops.
The buffer strips can be covered with grass, grass-legume mixtures, clover, alfalfa, naturally occurring vegetation, shrubs, or trees. Livestock grazing is permitted but must not alter the structure of the riverbank. Animals cannot be supplementary fed within the buffer zones and must be provided drinking water only at designated, controlled locations in small groups to minimize environmental impact.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Buffer strips stabilize soil and prevent erosion.
They reduce the impact of flooding on agricultural land.
Less leaching of nutrients and plant protection products into water.
Additional turning point and driving path for machines.
Establishing and maintaining buffer strips can qualify farmers for financial incentives and support programs.
Additional shelters for wildlife.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
These buffers effectively filter out nutrients, pesticides, and sediments from agricultural runoff, thereby enhancing the quality of nearby water bodies.
By stabilizing stream banks, riparian buffers reduce soil erosion, preserving valuable topsoil and maintaining land productivity.
They provide critical habitats for various wildlife species, promoting biodiversity and creating wildlife corridors in agricultural landscapes.
Riparian buffer strips contribute to ecosystem services like carbon sequestration and pollination, supporting broader environmental goals.

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 buffer zones are too wide, significantly reducing cultivated land area, which negatively impacts crop yields and farm income.	Increase subsidies and financial incentives for farmers to compensate for the loss of productive land within riparian buffer strips.
Maintenance tasks such as mowing, mulching, or controlled grazing require extra labor and resources and establishing buffer strips involves expenses for seeds, machinery, soil preparation, and potential fencing.	Provide additional payments for ongoing maintenance activities or investment support to offset initial establishment costs.
The legislation and administrative requirements are complex, involving numerous regulations that farmers find difficult to understand and follow.	Provide more accessible, user-friendly information, along with targeted advisory services and educational programs to help farmers better navigate these rules.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
In certain conditions, the redirected flow of water due to buffer strips may weaken streambanks, leading to erosion and land loss.	Designing buffer zones with appropriate vegetation, width and adapted to local conditions, and regularly monitoring the situation.
Over time, buffer strips can become saturated with nutrients, reducing their effectiveness and possibly turning them into sources of pollution.	Regular vegetation management, harvesting or removal of biomass to prevent nutrient accumulation. Crop rotation or periodic rejuvenation of buffer zone vegetation to maintain its filtering capacity.
Proper upkeep involves tasks like weed control, pruning, replanting, and protection against wildlife, increasing the workload for farmers.	Provide farmers with targeted financial support or subsidies for maintenance tasks, promote low-maintenance vegetation species, and offer technical assistance or training in efficient management practices.
Initial setup requires investment in planting, while ongoing maintenance demands additional labor and resources.	Offer financial incentives, subsidies, or cost-sharing programs to cover initial establishment expenses, and provide ongoing support or training to minimize labor and maintenance costs.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Cole, L. J., Stockan, J., & Helliwell, R. (2020). Managing riparian buffer strips to optimise ecosystem services: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 296, 106891.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106891

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Macleod, C. J. A., Haygarth, P. M., et al. (2022). Impacts of different vegetation in riparian buffer strips on runoff and suspended sediment loss. Environmental Research Communications, 4(1), 015001.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac3c2b

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Dlamini, J. C., Cardenas, L. M., Tesfamariam, E. H., Dunn, R. M., Loick, N., Charteris, A. F., Cocciaglia, L., Vangeli, S., Blackwell, M. S. A., Upadhayay, H. R., et al. (2022). Riparian buffer strips influence nitrogen losses as nitrous oxide and leached N from upslope permanent pasture. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108031

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Lešnik, T., Bogovič, D., Pokupec, D., & Borec, A. (2024). The impact of riparian zones along rivers under the new CAP in Slovenia. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 25(4), 1185–1192.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/25.4.4348

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. (2024). Unified Application 2024: Guidelines for the implementation of interventions under the Strategic Plan of the Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027. Ljubljana, Slovenia.

URL:

https://www.kgzs.si/uploads/eiv24/NAVODILA%201/00_VELIKA_NAVODILA_2024_-_CELOTA_-_28_5_24.pdf