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)

Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)

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

Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences (IAES/EMÜ) - Estonia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

04/06/2017

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

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?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A permanent plant cover is maintained or established to protect soil against erosion or peat decomposition.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in sub-humid climate with an average of 696 mm of precipitations per year, from which more comes from July to October and less in March and April. Average annual temperature is +4 C, length of the growing period is 180-195 days. The territory is mostly flat to slopes of 6-10%. Average altitude from the sea level is 50 m. About half of the Estonian territory is above 50 m and half is below it. Soils are from very shallow (less than 0.1 m) inthe north to very deep (> 120m ) in the south. Soil cover is very variable. The peat cover of peatlands varies from 0.3 m to more than 10 m from well decomposed to poorly decomposed peat. On hilly areas the soils are medium textured with low (< 1%) organic matter in topsoil. Groundwater in near the surface in peatlands and deep in hilly areas. Biodiversity of these areas is medium. Market orientation of production system is mixed and off-farm income less than 10%. Relative level of wealth is average from individual households to cooperatives. Soil management is mechanized. Land belongs to land users but is leased also in case of bigger farms (over 1000 ha).
In the agricultural land the area will be excluded from intensive tillage by establishing a permanent plant cover, mainly with grass. The aim is to protect the slopes over 10% against erosion and peaty soils from further intensive decomposition of organic matter and with that the reduction of CO2 emission. The farmers should maintain permanent plant cover in the areas mentioned, or establish permanent plant cover. Renewing of the grassland is allowed from the top (without ploughing) once in a 5 year period. Government pays support of 50 EUR/ha if the area is bigger than 0.3 ha. The technology reduces intensively tilled area and thus the possibility to grow cash crops and/or reduces the yield from grassland. On the other hand it allows to still use wet areas for agriculture (i.e. fodder production).
The rules of the technology are fixed with the Estonian Rural Development Plan (ERDP) for 2014-2020 under activity "Support for regional soil protection" (https://www.agri.ee/et/eesmargid-tegevused/eesti-maaelu-arengukava-mak-2014-2020) related to the reguation of the European Parliment and of the Council 1305/2013, article 28. The regulation is relevant more to the South-Estonia in case to reduce erosion, as the landscape is more hilly there. The exclusion of peatlands from agricultural use is relevant more in West-Estonia where the share of peatlands of the total area is the highest. However, it can be applied in whole Estonia if the area of peatland is bigger than 0.3 ha.

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

• Governmental tool

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The tool is a part of Estonian Rural Development Plan (ERDP) for 2014–2020 for soil fertility.
The survey was done by the Soil Survey Bureau of the Estonian Agricultural Research Centre (http://pmk.agri.ee/). The results presented here are partly from this survey and from the work done by the project iSQAPER.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• mitigate climate change and its impacts

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

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Usually before the implementation of the technology the land was intensively tilled and used for annual crop plantation. After implementation the grasslands can be used for cutting and grazing.

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

Comments:

On Histosols the groundwater is close to the surface.

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

For the cereals one harvest per year, for grasslands 1-4 cuts per year. For hay 1 cut, for silage 2-4 cuts depending on the year

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 1-10 km2

Comments:

To get the governmental support the area should be larger than 0.3 ha. Othervise the size is not important, depending on the area covered by hilly area or wet soils in the landscape.
In 2016 it was 10554 ha Histosols and only 40 ha of eroded soils covered with this technology in Estonia. This area excludes grasslands on another soil types. On specific sites: in Rapla county in Pae the size of the field is ca 3.2 ha, at Tartu county, Annikoru 2.8 ha.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

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 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The requirements to create a permanent grassland depends on soil type.
Species mixture suitable for the permanent grassland on wet soils (Histosols): Bromus sitchensis 30%, Phalaris arundinacea 45%, Phleum pratense 20%, Poa pratensis 5%. Sowing rate 20 kg/ha.
For the drier areas (eroded soils) the next mixture is suitable: Dactylis glomerata 65%, Phleum pratense 26%, Poa pratensis 9%. Sowing rate 23 kg/ha.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

EUR

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

1.18

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Tillage (ploughing, cultivation)	Agronomic	in spring
2.	Collecting stones, slip (by demand)	Management	in spring
3.	Fertilization	Agronomic	in spring complex fertilizer
4.	Sowing	Agronomic	in spring
5.	Rolling	Agronomic	in spring
6.	Cutting the weeds	Agronomic	during growth (summer)
7.	Fertilization during growth period	Agronomic	after every cut of grass, if cutted grassland, N-fertilizer

Comments:

If renewing the grassland, there will be no ploughing, collecting the stones and sliping. Only chisel plowing and/or sowing with fertilization. If the grassland will be use for grazing, no need for fertilization during growth period.

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Driver (machinery work)	person day	0.5	36.0	18.0	100.0
Equipment	Equipment (machinery) cost on establishment year	year	1.0	207.0	207.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	kg	22.0	2.47	54.34	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Complex fertilizer	kg	500.0	0.42	210.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Ammonium fertilizer	kg	100.0	0.33	33.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					522.34

Comments:

For tillage and other operations it is calculated 14-18 EUR/ha.
If to hire equipment the labour costs should be included to the machinery costs - for cutted grassland 225 EUR/ha, for grazed grassland 162 EUR/ha

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Cutting or grazing the grass	Vegetative	1-4 times per vegetation period
2.	Fertilization	Agronomic	in spring in the beginning of season and after every cut N-fertilizer, after each second year complex fertilizer

4.7 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
Equipment	Grasslands for cutting - machinery costs	year	1.0	141.0	141.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Ammonium fertilizer	kg	200.0	0.33	66.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Complex fertilizer	kg	200.0	0.42	84.0	100.0
Other	Materials for hay making	year	1.0	15.0	15.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					306.0

Comments:

The governmental support to establish and to maintain the grassland is 50 EUR/ha.
If to use the land for the grazing, the machinery cost per year is 38 EUR/ha.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Fuel price.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

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.

Eutric Histosol, well decomposed peat, drained area.N 2.32%; C32.89%; C/N14.20%; P2,62 mg/100g; K 13.73 mg/100g; Ca 1762.32 mg/100g; Mg 166.98mg/100g

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Histosols biodiversity depends on the base saturation and level of groundwater (degree of drainage). Diversity is higher at higher pH and better drainage.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

• individual/open access

Comments:

Groundwater belongs to the state. Smaller water bodies can be in individual use, larger are usually open access

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

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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	winter	increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	spring	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		increase	not known
seasonal rainfall	winter	increase	not known
seasonal rainfall	autumn	increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately
local thunderstorm	not known
local hailstorm	not known
local snowstorm	moderately
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
cold wave	not known
extreme winter conditions	moderately
drought	moderately
land fire	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	moderately
storm surge/ coastal flood	moderately
landslide	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	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

• more than 50%

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

In 2016 two hundred four households got the governmental support, in total 10554 ha

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

• 10-50%

Comments:

Anyway, the use of Histosols and Gleysols is limited due to their properties and regular use of these soils is for grazing or grass cutting.

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Better soil protection
Possibility to earn money in unsuitable soil conditions.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduces soil erosion on hilly landscape
Reduces the decomposition of peat on Histosol
Reduces CO2 emission from agricultural land.

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?
Loss of income	Governmental support (50 EUR/ha)
Problems with the grass (farms without animals)	Cooperation with neighbours, selling the hay for energy production

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Farmers don't want to use the technology	More effective lobbying
Wrong declaration of the land under the technology	Better advisory system and improvement of electronic databases

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Bender, A. (koostaja) 2006. Eritüübiliste rohumaade rajamine ja kasutamine. I. ja II. osa. Jõgeva

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Bender, A. 2010. Heintaimede sordiaretus ja seemnekasvatus. Jõgeva Sordiaretuse Instituut

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Older, H. 2011. Kohalikud söödad. Eesti Rohumaade Ühing.

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Estonian Rural Development Plan (ERDP) for 2014–2020

URL:

https://www.agri.ee/en/objectives-activities/estonian-rural-development-plan-erdp-2014-2020

Title/ description:

Kattetulu arvestused taime- ja loomakasvatuses 2016. Koost: Marju Aamisepp, Helle Persitski. Maamajanduse infokeskus. 2017.

URL:

http://www.maainfo.ee/data/trykis/kattetulu/KATTETULU2016.pdf

Title/ description:

Statistics Estonia

URL:

https://www.stat.ee/en

Title/ description:

Eesti maaelu arengukava 2007-2013 2. telje ning Eesti maaelu arengukava 2014-2020 4. ja 5. prioriteedi püsihindamiseks 2016. aastal läbiviidud uuringute aruanne. Põllumajandusuuringute keskus. Saku 2016.

URL:

http://pmk.agri.ee/mak/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/09/aruanne_uuringud_2015.pdf

Title/ description:

Eesti tuleviku kliimastsenaariumid aastani 2100

URL:

https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/kliimastsenaariumid_kaur_aruanne_ver190815.pdf