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

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

1.4 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

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

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

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).

3.1 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:

No

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:

No

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

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):

NOK

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

8.99

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.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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 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

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

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

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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	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)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

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?

No

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

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