Technologies

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) agri-environment-climate measure: Rotation program [Luxembourg]

AUK-Fruchtfolgeprogramm

technologies_5617 - Luxembourg

Completeness: 84%

1. معلومات عامة

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

Key resource person(s)

co-compiler:

Conter Gérard

Lycée technique Agricole, Ettelbrück

Luxembourg

SLM specialist:

Richarz Frank

Landwirtschaftlech Kooperatioun Uewersauer (LAKU)

Luxembourg

SLM specialist:

Altmann Gilles

Institut fir biologesch Landwirtschaft an Agrarkultur Luxemburg (IBLA)

Luxembourg

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
European Interreg project FABulous Farmers
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) - United Kingdom

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:

نعم

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?

لا

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Rotation program: Diverse rotation of at least five crops on farm level for more biodiversity and less intensive cultivation practice

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) agri-environment-climate measure aims to increase diversification of arable crops to overcome negative impacts of monocultures. The technology described here focuses on the benefit of the rotation programme focusing on 5-year rotation cycles (although CAP aid is only paid with at least 5 different crops planted in any given year). The program applies to all arable crops on the farm, with the exception of permanent or temporary meadows and pastures.

The allocation of the CAP aid is subject to compliance with the following conditions:
At least five different arable crops must be grown during a crop year (as part of the crop rotation programme)
The minimum area per crop shall not be less than 10 per cent of the total area of arable crops on the farm
The share of maize cannot exceed 30 percent
The same crop cannot be grown more than twice on the same field during the commitment period (5 years)
The conversion of permanent pastures and pasture to arable land is forbidden on the whole farm area

The annual aid per hectare is:
- 100€ if total surface of arable land on the farm is less than 50 hectares
- 75€ if total surface of arable land on the farm is between 50 and 100 hectares
- 60€ if total surface of arable land on the farm is above 100 hectares.

Utilised agricultural area (UAA) in Luxembourg is composed to >50% of permanent grassland (due to pedologic and topographic reasons); more than 70% of UAA is used for fodder production. The fodder is used in cattle production (mainly dairy cows). In the past years the arable production concentrated very much on maize (=>easy and reliable fodder plant) and winter wheat (=> good economic results). On many farms, the rotation degrades to a 2 years rotation: maize – wheat, maize – wheat, … with negative impacts on the soil, problematic weeds, high inputs (fertilisers, pesticides, …). The aim of the CAP agri-environment-climate measure: Rotation program was to reverse this tendency and to give incentives to bring farmers back to longer rotations (at least 5 years). On a short perspective these are less profitable (and have to be financially compensated) but on a long-term view they have many ecological (and economic) benefits. The EFFO-Project (Effizienz durch Fortbildung = Efficiency by Edification) is a demonstration project, run on three pilot farms showing the advantages and practicability of longer rotations and helping thus to implement these in practice.

Benefits of the CAP rotation program:
- reduced land degradation and increased soil health by reduction of soil erosion
- conservation of ecosystems
- protection of water courses and therewith increasing water availability and quality
- increased (bio)diversity by increasing plant and associated fauna diversity
- reduced disaster risks (rainstorms, heatwaves, droughts) due to higher plant diversity and thus increased resilience
- increased crop and fodder quality

Strengths of the technology according to the users:
- higher resilience of the cropping system
- advantage of receiving CAP payments
- positive impact on soil structure and (bio) diversity
- positive impact on (drinking) water quantity and quality

Disadvantages of the technology:
- increased administrative burden
- increased planning of crop rotations needed (more complicated to organise)

The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

بلد:

Luxembourg

Region/ State/ Province:

Entire country

Further specification of location:

Arable land

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

70060000,0

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • > 10,000 km2
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

لا

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2014

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

  • CAP
Comments (type of project, etc.):

CAP = Common Agricultural Policy
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

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
  • reduce risk of disasters

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

لا


Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • cereals - barley
  • cereals - maize
  • cereals - wheat (winter)
  • fibre crops - flax, hemp, other
  • legumes and pulses - peas
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Is intercropping practiced?

نعم

If yes, specify which crops are intercropped:

any type of catch crop; different species inter-cropped in different regions of the country

Is crop rotation practiced?

نعم

If yes, specify:

Maize, winter wheat, peas, winter rapeseed, flax, false flax, winter barley

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)
Land use mixed within the same land unit:

لا

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

  • rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
  • ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
management measures

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bl: loss of soil life
  • Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators

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):

Across Luxembourg, sizes of fields and farms vary. Ideal 5-year crop rotation cycles are suggested as part of the EFFO project to maximise benefits of the crop rotations.
https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/effo

Author:

EFFO project

Date:

09/10/2019

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:

7006 ha

other/ national currency (specify):

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

0,91

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. change from a two years rotation (wheat-maize) to a diverse five years rotation annually

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 laber total 1,0 69,0 69,0
Plant material seeds 1,0 130,0 130,0 100,0
Fertilizers and biocides Fertilizer 1,0 164,0 164,0
Fertilizers and biocides Herbizide 1,0 145,0 145,0
Other additional 1,0 37,0 37,0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 545,0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 598,9
Comments:

Costs are for a total area of 5 ha planted over 5 years with: 1) winter wheat, 2) peas, 3) rapeseed, 4) winter barley, 5) maize.
This crop rotation results in a rotation benefit of €100.
Data retrieved from the "Fruchtfolgerechner" of the EFFO.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Yields, market prices, logistical difficulties

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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

In the last years extreme weather conditions (rainfall, drought, …) are happening more and more often.
Healthy soils (on the basis of large rotations) are more resilient towards these extreme weather situations.

Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid

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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

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):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
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.

from a pH below 5 in the north to a pH above 7 in the south (also check Soil acidity map of Luxembourg: www.geoportail.lu)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Water quality refers to:

ground water

Is water salinity a problem?

لا

Is flooding of the area occurring?

لا

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • low
Habitat diversity:
  • low
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Maize and winter wheat as main crops are not very beneficial to a (bio-) diversity. One of the goals of the described Technology is to improve (bio-) diversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • rich
  • very rich
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Mainly family farms

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, not titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

لا

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 quality

decreased
increased

fodder quality

decreased
increased

risk of production failure

increased
decreased

product diversity

decreased
increased
Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

drinking water quality

decreased
increased

water availability for livestock

decreased
increased

water quality for livestock

decreased
increased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

also through CAP subsidies

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

also through CAP subsidies

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

water quality

decreased
increased

harvesting/ collection of water

reduced
improved

surface runoff

increased
decreased

excess water drainage

reduced
improved

groundwater table/ aquifer

lowered
recharge

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil compaction

increased
reduced

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

plant diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

flood impacts

increased
decreased

drought impacts

increased
decreased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

micro-climate

worsened
improved

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave well
drought well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood very well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Long-term returns:

positive

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%

6.6 Adaptation

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

لا

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
More resilient cropping system
Possibility to receive CAP-payments
Positive impact on soil structure + life
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
More resilient cropping system
Positive impacts on (drinking) water production + quality

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?
administrative burden unknown
more complicated to organise because more crops need to be handled unknown/more practice with time
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
higher percentage of participating farmers unknown

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/10/2019

Comments:

Part of EFFO-Project and Interreg FabulousFarmers

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Homepage Chamber of agriculture

URL:

https://www.lwk.lu/pflanzenbauberatung/effo-effiziente-fruchtfolgen-und-wasserschutz

Title/ description:

Homepage LTA

URL:

https://www.lta.lu/effo.html

Title/ description:

Homepage LIST

URL:

https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/effo/

Title/ description:

Homepage Ministry of agriculture

URL:

https://agriculture.public.lu/de/beihilfen/agrar-klima-umwelt/agrar-umwelt-klimamassnahmen/fruchtfolgeprogramm.html

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules