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)

OPtimal strategies to retAIN and re-use water and nutrients in small agricultural catchments across different soil-climatic regions in Europe (OPTAIN)

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

Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia – Institute of Agriculture and Forestry Maribor (KGZS) - Slovenia

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:

Crop rotation is good practice in agricultural production. It comprises alternating different types of crops, usually in a specific order. Crop rotation maintains soil fertility, reduces the risk of diseases and pests, and optimizes nutrient utilization. In Slovenia, a 5-year rotation is proving especially effective.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Crop rotation is a system of alternating arable crops, forage plants, aromatic herbs, and vegetables, generally in a specific sequence. It can be applied in fields, gardens, or enclosed growing spaces. Crop rotation is adaptable and can be used under different farming systems, such as organic, integrated, and conventional farming. It maximises the efficiency of biological, organizational, and spatial influences on soil and plants. The fundamental element of crop rotation is the selection of plant species that are most effectively alternated on the same piece of land over different years. To ensure the best selection, it is essential to understand the farming technology, the type and structure of the soil, and its nutrient composition.
By implementing good crop rotation, nutrient utilization is optimized, and the risk of diseases and pests is reduced. Crop rotation also ensures the sustainable use of soil by improving its structure and fertility. The inclusion of cover crops in a rotation helps to maintain continuous soil cover. Crop rotation also facilitates better adaptation to climate change (drought, hail, floods etc), depending on the plants included in the rotation. The inclusion of green manure crops and the use of organic fertilizers can reinforce crop rotation and further support soil fertility enhancement and conservation.
To establish and maintain crop rotation, a detailed plan must be prepared, including the selection of crops based on soil characteristics, nutrient requirements, and crop sequencing needs. A fertilization plan should also be developed in parallel. It is crucial to ensure appropriate agricultural machinery, especially for specialty crops, and to have sufficient labour available, as more complex rotations may increase workload. Additionally, market research for new crops and demand assessment should be conducted.
In summary, crop rotation offers numerous benefits:
- Enhances soil fertility and improves soil structure.
- Reduces diseases, pests, and weeds.
- Minimises nutrient leaching and soil erosion.
- Increases organic matter content in the soil.
- Boosts biodiversity and strengthens soil resilience to weather changes.
- Enables efficient resource utilization and reduces production costs.
Thus, crop rotation offers numerous benefits that farmers appreciate – all of which help ensure higher and more sustainable yields. However, this technology requires specific knowledge, precise planning, and careful scheduling, which increases the complexity of production. It also demands more labour and sometimes additional machinery, leading to higher production costs. Furthermore, marketing various crops requires careful consideration, which can pose a challenge for farmers.
Crop rotation in Slovenia is supported by Agri-Environmental-Climate Payments (CAP), which enables farmers to receive funding for implementing a diverse and effective crop rotation system.

An effective 5-year rotation system in Slovenia typically follows the following sequence:
1st year – flowering grass mixture
2nd – winter barley
3rd – grain maize
4th – wheat
5th – oil pumpkins

This ensures that at least three different annual crops are grown within the five years, while integrating legumes like alfalfa or red clover every 3–4 years to enrich soil nitrogen levels. Cereals may appear up to three times in the rotation, but never in consecutive years. After cereal crops the farmer may alternatively sow non-winter-hardy honey-producing cover crops. Despite this structured guidance, many rotations in Slovenia remain too narrow. National laws and guidelines for agri-environmental measures support farmers in designing good crop sequences.

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:

• through land users' innovation
• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Over the years, the farmer has experimented with different farming methods and discovered the benefits of crop rotation. His rotation plan is tailored to the farm’s needs, specific production requirements related to on-farm animal husbandry, and market opportunities. He is one of several farmers in the area practicing crop rotation, which is also supported and encouraged through CAP subsidies.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact

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:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)

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):

EUR

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.	Purchase of a roller	1st year

Comments:

At the beginning, the farm is assumed to be equipped with standard agricultural machinery. However, to expand the crop rotation to a 5-year system, additional specialized equipment is usually required for cultivating new crops. Such machinery is later typically used for around 20 years or more, although the standard depreciation period for such equipment is approximately 12 years. This is only an estimated time frame, as actual usage may vary. Farmers generally continue using the roller as long as it remains functional and economically viable. Depreciation was not included in the cost calculation, as it is generally accounted for at the whole-farm level rather than per individual measure/crop production.

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
Equipment	Roller	piece	1.0	6100.0	6100.0	70.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					6100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					7176.47

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

Part of the agricultural machinery intended for the implementation of environmental measures can be funded through non-repayable grants from European and national funds under the CAP.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Total variable costs of grain maize production	Once a year
2.	Total variable costs of barley production	Once a year
3.	Total variable costs of wheat production	Once a year
4.	Total variable costs of oil pumpkin production	Once a year
5.	Total variable costs of flowering grass mixture production	Once a year

Comments:

Variable costs represent the total production costs for each specific crop, including seeds, plant nutrients, plant protection products, other material costs, variable machinery and labor costs, insurance, and financing costs.

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
Other	Variable costs of grain maize production	ha	5.72	1518.0	8682.96	100.0
Other	Variable costs of barley production	ha	5.72	1112.0	6360.64	100.0
Other	Variable costs of wheat production	ha	5.72	1354.0	7744.88	100.0
Other	Variable costs of oil pumpkin production	ha	5.72	2061.0	11788.92	100.0
Other	Variable costs of flowering grass mixture production	ha	5.72	477.3	2730.16	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					37307.56
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					43891.25

Comments:

The farmer cultivates a total of 28.6 hectares of arable land, theoretically divided into five equal parts under the 5-year crop rotation system. For comparison purposes only, if a simpler system with just maize, wheat, and barley were used and the 28.6 ha were equally divided into three parts (9.53 ha per crop), the total variable costs would amount to 37,967.52 €. Such an even distribution is not practiced in reality—it is used here solely to illustrate the cost comparison.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The total area is theoretically divided into five equal parts, following the 5-year crop rotation system. However, in practice, this division is not perfectly even. Other important cost factors include variations in input prices (such as seeds, fertilizers, and plant protection products), machinery costs, labor availability, and weather conditions that impact yields and operational efficiency.

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?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Hydromelioration was carried out in the area, a drainage system and water retention systems (e.g. ponds and basins) were arranged.

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Specify:

Based on national legal system.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The data have not been obtained through specific measurements but rather through a questionnaire with the farmer and insights from other farms and agricultural advisors.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The data have not been obtained through specific measurements but rather through a questionnaire with the farmer and insights from other farms and agricultural advisors.

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	moderately
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	not well
seasonal temperature	spring	increase	well
seasonal temperature	autumn	increase	well
seasonal temperature	winter	increase	well
seasonal rainfall	summer	increase	moderately
seasonal rainfall	spring	increase	not well
seasonal rainfall	autumn	decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately
local hailstorm	not well at all

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	moderately
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	moderately

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended 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:

The establishment costs are relatively high due to investments in new machinery, which can be quite expensive. As a result, the short-term return is considered slightly negative. However, when comparing benefits with these costs, the long-term advantages—such as higher product quality, reduced yield losses, environmental protection, and increased diversification—have a neutral/ balanced impact, leading to more stable and resilient production. In the short term, the comparison of benefits with maintenance and recurrent costs is slightly negative, primarily due to increased labor requirements, the need for more knowledge, and a higher risk of errors. However, as these challenges are addressed and efficiency improves, the long-term outlook is slightly positive, especially due to the potential reduction in costs over time.

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:

Most of the farmers decide for sustainable practices because of the subsidies, but there are three main reasons why many farmers don't adopt the subsidized form of 5 years crop rotation under the agri-environmental scheme (KOPOP), despite available support:
1. One of the specific conditions of the KOPOP measure is that farmers are not allowed to reduce their arable land area over the 5-year period. Due to uncertainty—especially regarding leased land—many farmers hesitate to commit.
2. Farmers prefer to maintain flexibility in their production choices so they can respond to market demand, grow more profitable crops, or focus on crops that are easier to cultivate.
3. Many farmers prioritize lower-cost production systems that offer higher profit margins, which discourages them from choosing more diverse and potentially riskier rotations.

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• changing markets

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The specific changes in crop rotation often involve adjustments based on market conditions, input costs, or weather-related risks. For example, a farmer may decide to stop producing soy due to lower prices or higher production risks and instead increase the area under barley, which is less input-intensive and more market-stable. Such changes are made annually, allowing farmers to remain flexible within the broader rotation framework, even if they maintain a diverse system overall.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduced costs of pesticides and mineral fertilizer use.
Improved soil fertility and higher yields.
Reduced weed pressure.
Improved soil structure.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduction of nitrate leaching into drinking water.
Contribution to environmental protection and emission reduction.
Preservation of biodiversity.
Support for sustainable agricultural practices.

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?
Need for additional knowledge.	Providing targeted training and advisory services to improve knowledge and technical skills.
More time required for planning and monitoring.	Using digital tools and software for more efficient planning and monitoring.
Monoculture is not allowed.	Emphasizing long-term benefits, such as improved soil fertility and yield stability, to outweigh the limitations of monoculture.
Higher labor costs.	Optimizing mechanization and labor organization to reduce workload and improve efficiency.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Improperly implemented crop rotation can lead to the spread of pests and diseases and soil depletion.	Providing training and guidelines on proper crop rotation planning to prevent pest and disease buildup and maintain soil fertility.
Incorrectly collected soil samples for soil analysis, which serves as the basis for fertilizer planning, can result in inaccurate calculations for optimal fertilization and nutrient management.	Educating farmers on correct soil sampling techniques to ensure accurate soil analysis and nutrient management planning.
Lack of farm records and planning can make it difficult to optimize crop rotation.	Encouraging systematic record-keeping and the use of digital tools to document and optimize crop rotation strategies.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ballot, R., Guilpart, N., and Jeuffroy, M.-H. (2023). The first map of crop sequence types in Europe over 2012–2018, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5651–5666.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5651-2023

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Nowak, B., Michaud, A., & Marliac, G. (2022). Assessment of the diversity of crop rotations based on network analysis indicators. Agricultural Systems, 199, 103402.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103402

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Improved Crop Rotation – Ecologic Institute (2022)

URL:

https://www.ecologic.eu/19055

Title/ description:

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. (2024). Unified Application 2024: Guidelines for the implementation of interventions under the Strategic Plan of the Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027. Ljubljana, Slovenia.

URL:

https://www.kgzs.si/uploads/eiv24/NAVODILA%201/00_VELIKA_NAVODILA_2024_-_CELOTA_-_28_5_24.pdf