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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1059, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'European Interreg project FABulous Farmers', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6194, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie (ZLTO) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6194, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie (ZLTO) - Netherlands', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Flower strips are established on arable crop access paths to attract and support natural enemies to control and decrease crop pests

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Planting flower strips to provide nectar and pollen to attract beneficial insect species that can help control pests is a well-known and well-used technology in the arable dominated South-West of the Netherlands. The use of such wildflower strips is increasingly being used across the world. Usually these wildflower strips are planted in bands around the edge or through the middle of a crop field.

This technology describes an interesting experiment that aims to see if it is more beneficial to establish several smaller flower strips between the crops to attract functional agrobiodiversity benefits to be compared to a smaller number of wider flower strips as is the standard practice.

The technology is being tested on 2 parcels of land that contain 2 different crops in the South-West of the Netherlands using these micro-flower strips, each approximately 0.5 meters wide, alongside access tracks running through the crops. The premise is these small strips can be effective spaces to increase the number of wild flowers present alongside a crop for the functional agrobiodiversity benefits without needing to use productive crop land.

Overall, the technology ultimately reduces the requirement for spraying of pesticides to control problematic species, thus improving the health and production of the crops while reducing the cost and environmental impact of spraying pesticides.

This trial design for a well-known technology has proven to be successful if designed and implemented well. The increased locations in closer proximity to the crop supported beneficial species presence. However, how different this is compared to standard application of wildflower strip technology is still to be fully understood, especially when considering the slightly more challenging application of the trial technology design.


The technology trial is supported by the EU Interreg FABulous Farmers project.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

FABulous Farmers project

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• preserve/ improve biodiversity

• Provide habitat for functional agrobiodiversity to control pests

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?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Planting of wildflower strips alongside crops.

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:

• not applicable

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):

Euro

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

0.85

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Planting of wildflower strips alongside access paths	Spring
2.	Planting of larger wildflower stip alongside boarder of crop field	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	Seeding wildflower strips	150m strip	6.0	15.0	90.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor & attchments (already owned)	1	1.0			100.0
Plant material	Wildflower seed mix	per 150m strip	6.0	50.0	300.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					390.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					458.82

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The EU Interreg FABulous Farmers project

Comments:

The technology is testing a new design for wildflower planting. The use of wildflower strips is already used by the land user so no new equipment or knowledge required, just additional time for labour and the seed mix required to trial the new design.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

No ongoing maintenence for this technology.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

No ongoing maintenence for this technology.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The price of seed mix required.
If implementing this technology in a new area the cost of equipment would also be required, but not required at this site as the general practice of wildflower strips is already being used.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

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:

• company

Land use rights:

• individual

• partnership

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Specify:

Land use rights are based on ownership or lease agreement

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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 technology has shown a positive outcome of the use of micro-strips of a similar outcome to the use of wider wildflower strips. Generally the use of wildflower strips is very positive for the control of pests and increase in beneficial species.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

Support by an SLM expert thought the EU FABulous Farmers project

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
Utilises the space alongside paths within a crop rather than taking over larger areas on the borders of field (though often these are marginally productive areas anyway so almost a swap like for like).

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Places the wildflowers, and thus the beneficial species, nearer to the crops in the centre of the field.
Reduces the requirement for pesticide use.

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?
More challenging to plant wildflowers in smaller strips in between crops compared to the use of wider strips.	Tractor atachment technology development specifically for implementation could be developed

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Potentially more challenging to plant and harvest crop with more diverse intercropping with wildflowers	Well designed intercropping practice this issue can be overcome

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.4 General comments

This trial design for a well-known technology has proven to be successful if designed and implemented well. The increased locations in closer proximity to the crop supported beneficial species presence. However, how different this is compared to standard application of wildflower strip technology is still to be fully understood, especially when considering the slightly more challenging application of the trial technology design.