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)

Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)

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

Climate Change - Land Use Strategies (CC-LandStraD / GLUES)

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

Thünen Institute (Thünen Institute) - Germany

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:

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Re-wetting of organic soils and following adapted management suitable for wet conditions like extensive grazing land or paludiculture.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In peat lands, formed over centuries, reducing the ground water level leads to min-eralization: this results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and leaching of dis-solved organic nutrients into adjacent water bodies. Furthermore, drainage leads to the destruction of highly specialized ecosystems. Re-wetting, by removing of drain-age systems (etc.), means the restoration of a higher ground water level which can reduce GHG emissions in the long term. Re-wetting to a water-level of 10 cm below the soil surface is ideal for reducing GHG emissions and preventing peat mineraliza-tion. One prerequisite for re-wetting is that soil degradation and peat mineralization are not too advanced. An adequate water supply must be available. Re-wetting also affects adjacent areas so possible impacts such as flooding of settlements and in-frastructure must be considered.

Purpose of the Technology: Land uses suitable for the soil conditions after re-wetting are extensive grazing, or paludiculture. Paludiculture is the cultivation of wet organic soils by preserving or renewing peat by planting and harvesting specific trees (e.g. alder), reeds and sedges. On fens, alder trees (for wood /biomass production) or plant species grown for their products (e.g. for thatch) or bioenergy, including the common reed, reed canary grass or cat’s-tail, can be cultivated. On peat bogs sphagnum farming as a peat substitute in horticulture, or as a medicinal plant, is possible. The first harvest of the common reed can take place four years post-establishment; thereafter annually. Alternatively, extensive livestock grazing with water buffalo or suitable breeds of cattle like Galloway or Heck has potential for re-wetted land. Year-round grazing is possible with a carrying capacity of up to 0.7 livestock units/ha.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Apart from avoiding huge amounts of GHG emissions and bringing land into alter-native production, further aims of re-wetting and adapting land use are:
-soil protection (soil structure, water content, peat protection);
-water protection (water quality, buffering / filtering water);
-protection of the landscape’s water regime and material balance (solute transport);
-biodiversity protection (retaining a sensitive ecosystem with specialized/ threatened species); and
-flood protection (organic soils can quickly absorb large amount of water).
There are many advantages for the environment while still creating a (modest) in-come for land users. Unlike most other bioenergy production chains (e.g. maize, rapeseed) which do not have these environmental co-benefits, paludiculture with the common reed can become a sustainable production system.

Natural / human environment: The Altmark region is located on the North German Plain. The region is predomi-nantly characterized by agriculture but has many forests too. Because of the high proportion of grassland, cattle are important. The use of biomass for bioenergy was increasing and many biogas plants were established in the last few years. Fens are mostly located in Altmark-County Salzwedel. Here, the average population density (42.7 inhabitants km2) is relatively low in the German context and the annual precipi-tation of 466mm is also below the overall German average.

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

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

answer refers to re-wetting

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

Main species: Water buffalo, adapted cattles (e.g. Heck cattle, Galloway)

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Drainage causes mineralization, sagging and reduction of organic matter of organic soils as well as high GHG emissions, disturbed water regimes, destruction of valuable ecosystems and loss of ecosystem services.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Long term use of drained organic soils leads to soil degradation and lower productivity. Thus, more fertilizer is needed. Due to sagging of organic soils, ditches and drainages need to be renewed every 10-15 years.

Ranching: Water buffalo, adapted cattles (e.g. Heck cattle, Galloway)

Grazingland comments: extensive grassland use with mowing and/or grazing; or paludiculture (e.g. Common Reed)

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land

Type of grazing system comments: extensive grassland use with mowing and/or grazing; or paludiculture (e.g. Common Reed)

Livestock density: 50-100 LU /km2

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)

3.4 Water supply

Comments:

Water supply: rainfed, rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• wetland protection/ management

• Re-wetting of organic soils

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures, structural measures, management measures

Specification of other vegetative measures: paludiculture

Specification of other structural measures: removal of drainage system, dykes, etc. allowing rise in groundwater level

Type of vegetative measures: in blocks

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Pc: compaction, Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil, Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Bh: loss of habitats, Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline, Ha: aridification, Hg: change in groundwater / aquifer level, Hq: decline of groundwater quality, Hw: reduction of the buffering capacity of wetland areas

Main causes of degradation: soil management (drainage), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (drainage)

Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (ploughing, fertilization)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	For fen re-wetting, removal or blocking of drainage systems like ditches, pumping stations, dykes or drainages is necessary. Extent depends strongly on local site conditions! (examples chosen from Landesumweltamt Brandenburg (2004)).
2.	Extensive grassland or paludiculture
3.	Extensive grassland: if field is not already used as grassland but as cropland: grassland sowing	July/August
4.	Extensive grassland: natural spread: no input
5.	Paludiculture: planting Common Reed	Spring

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	Labour	ha	1.0	300.0	300.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	400.0	400.0	100.0
Plant material	Seedling	ha	1.0	2500.0	2500.0	100.0
Other	Removal of drainage	ha	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Other	Ditch filling	ha	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Other	Make-ready and set-up cost	ha	1.0	2500.0	2500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					6000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					6000.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	water level management: weir control ~once a week: efforts depends strongly on local conditions. Control is also necessary when weirs are used to ensure controlled water level.
2.	extensive grassland: mowing	2 times per year
3.	extensive grassland: grazing with water buffalo, adapted cattles (e.g. Heck cattle, Galloway)	year round
4.	paludiculture (Common Reed): harvesting	Winter (ideally: frozen ground)/first harvest 4 years after establishment, thereafter annually
5.	management	yearly

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	Labour	ha	1.0	250.0	250.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	600.0	600.0	100.0
Other	Management	ha	1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					1000.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: paludiculture: harvest in winter (frozen soil): normal machinery. If soil is not frozen: special machinery: snow groomer (crawler chain) modified as harvester

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Only rough estimates on costs and income can be given due to the very new and innovative technology. The technology is still in the introductory phase at present

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 0-100 m a.s.l. (this only characterises the Altmark region), 500-1000 m a.s.l., 1000-1500 m a.s.l.

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 depth on average: shallow (21-50 cm) (refers to histic layer), moderately deep (51-80 cm), deep (81-120 cm), very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil fertility is very low-low
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is very high

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Seasonal fluctuations (surface water): Wet conditions throughout the year.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Not high in number but in quality! Highly specified species. Depends on definition of Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: negative
Market orientation of production system: nature conservation
Market orientation of cropland production system: Comercial/market (cows for dairy farming and reed sold for bioenergy and thatching)
Market orientation of grazing land production system: Comercial/market (Grazing, mowing; paludiculture )

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:

• state
• communal/ village

• NGO

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Comments:

Land owners can re-wet their land and manage it suitable for wet conditions afterwards. The state or NGO, for example, can buy land and re-wet it; normally followed by nature protection. This technology can not be done by one land user. It has major impacts off-sites and reflects normally more then one farmer.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

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	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not 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?
reduced growing period	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:

Depends strongly on subsidies and other incentive mechanisms as well as opportunity costs (regionally different). Further, if re-wetting is not financed by the land user the economic benefit is greater but even less as before re-wetting.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There is no increasing trend to adopt the technology as it is not economically attractive for farmer. But for environment groups (NGOs), without an economical interest, this measure can be interesting.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
By re-wetting organic soil huge amounts of GHG emissions can be avoided on a relatively small area How can they be sustained / enhanced? Financial incentives for farmers are needed e.g. based on GHG-mitigation potential. Alternatively, areas can be bought by e.g. NGOs or government for re-wetting/ nature protection
Paludiculture on re-wetted soils allows an adapted agricultural land use How can they be sustained / enhanced? Financial incentives (e.g. subside payments) for farmers are needed
Extensive grassland cultivation on re-wetted soils allows an adapted agricultural land use (grazing/mowing) How can they be sustained / enhanced? Financial incentives (e.g. subside payments) for farmers are needed
The use of fertilizer and manure inputs leads to pollution of water bodies. The water quality will be enhanced by less fertilizer/manure input through this technology compared to intensive agriculture.
Due to the technology, higher water retention, flood prevention and biodiversity can increase compared to use of drained organic soils.

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?
On re-wetted soil land use options are very restricted due to wet soil conditions.	Financial incentives for farmers are needed.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
High opportunity cost for land users: income from intensive cropland on drained soils is higher than income from re-wetted soils with extensive land use.	The technology could be economically attractive if farmers get financial incentives for applying it (re-wetting and adapted extensive usage). It would become even more attractive if no incentives were paid for e.g. maize production on drained organic soils (those incentives are actually paid if the maize is used for bioenergy production).

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Bonn A, et al. (2014) Klimaschutz durch Wiedervernässung von kohlenstoffreichen Böden. In: Naturkapital und Klimapolitik-Synergien und Konflikte.

Available from where? Costs?

Naturkapital Deutschland TEEB DE Report. Technische Universität Berlin Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung-UFZ, Berlin, Leipzig

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Wichtmann W, Wichmann S (2011) Environmental, Social and Economic Aspects of a Sustainable Biomass Production.

Available from where? Costs?

Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment, Special Issue (2011):77-81

7.3 Links to relevant online information

URL:

http://www.duene-greifswald.de/de/projekte.php_enim.php

URL:

http://www.naturkapital-teeb.de/publikationen/projekteigene-publikationen.html

URL:

http://daten.ktbl.de/feldarbeit/home.html

URL:

https://www.stmelf.bayern.de/idb/default.html

URL:

ttps://www.google.de/search?q=Leitfaden+zur+Renaturierung+von+Feuchtgebieten+in+Brandenburg.+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=btyoVebdJcGYsAH4tpWoCA