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)

European Interreg project FABulous Farmers

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

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) - United Kingdom

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:

Rotation program: Diverse rotation of at least five crops on farm level for more biodiversity and less intensive cultivation practice

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) agri-environment-climate measure aims to increase diversification of arable crops to overcome negative impacts of monocultures. The technology described here focuses on the benefit of the rotation programme focusing on 5-year rotation cycles (although CAP aid is only paid with at least 5 different crops planted in any given year). The program applies to all arable crops on the farm, with the exception of permanent or temporary meadows and pastures.

The allocation of the CAP aid is subject to compliance with the following conditions:
At least five different arable crops must be grown during a crop year (as part of the crop rotation programme)
The minimum area per crop shall not be less than 10 per cent of the total area of arable crops on the farm
The share of maize cannot exceed 30 percent
The same crop cannot be grown more than twice on the same field during the commitment period (5 years)
The conversion of permanent pastures and pasture to arable land is forbidden on the whole farm area

The annual aid per hectare is:
- 100€ if total surface of arable land on the farm is less than 50 hectares
- 75€ if total surface of arable land on the farm is between 50 and 100 hectares
- 60€ if total surface of arable land on the farm is above 100 hectares.

Utilised agricultural area (UAA) in Luxembourg is composed to >50% of permanent grassland (due to pedologic and topographic reasons); more than 70% of UAA is used for fodder production. The fodder is used in cattle production (mainly dairy cows). In the past years the arable production concentrated very much on maize (=>easy and reliable fodder plant) and winter wheat (=> good economic results). On many farms, the rotation degrades to a 2 years rotation: maize – wheat, maize – wheat, … with negative impacts on the soil, problematic weeds, high inputs (fertilisers, pesticides, …). The aim of the CAP agri-environment-climate measure: Rotation program was to reverse this tendency and to give incentives to bring farmers back to longer rotations (at least 5 years). On a short perspective these are less profitable (and have to be financially compensated) but on a long-term view they have many ecological (and economic) benefits. The EFFO-Project (Effizienz durch Fortbildung = Efficiency by Edification) is a demonstration project, run on three pilot farms showing the advantages and practicability of longer rotations and helping thus to implement these in practice.

Benefits of the CAP rotation program:
- reduced land degradation and increased soil health by reduction of soil erosion
- conservation of ecosystems
- protection of water courses and therewith increasing water availability and quality
- increased (bio)diversity by increasing plant and associated fauna diversity
- reduced disaster risks (rainstorms, heatwaves, droughts) due to higher plant diversity and thus increased resilience
- increased crop and fodder quality

Strengths of the technology according to the users:
- higher resilience of the cropping system
- advantage of receiving CAP payments
- positive impact on soil structure and (bio) diversity
- positive impact on (drinking) water quantity and quality

Disadvantages of the technology:
- increased administrative burden
- increased planning of crop rotations needed (more complicated to organise)

The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

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:

2014

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

• CAP

Comments (type of project, etc.):

CAP = Common Agricultural Policy
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• reduce risk of disasters

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)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

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)
• ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

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):

€

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

0.91

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	change from a two years rotation (wheat-maize) to a diverse five years rotation	annually

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	laber total		1.0	69.0	69.0
Plant material	seeds		1.0	130.0	130.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer		1.0	164.0	164.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbizide		1.0	145.0	145.0
Other	additional		1.0	37.0	37.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					545.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					598.9

Comments:

Costs are for a total area of 5 ha planted over 5 years with: 1) winter wheat, 2) peas, 3) rapeseed, 4) winter barley, 5) maize.
This crop rotation results in a rotation benefit of €100.
Data retrieved from the "Fruchtfolgerechner" of the EFFO.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Yields, market prices, logistical difficulties

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

from a pH below 5 in the north to a pH above 7 in the south (also check Soil acidity map of Luxembourg: www.geoportail.lu)

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:

Maize and winter wheat as main crops are not very beneficial to a (bio-) diversity. One of the goals of the described Technology is to improve (bio-) diversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Mainly family farms

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, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

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

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	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
seasonal temperature	winter	increase	well
seasonal temperature	spring	increase	well
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	well
seasonal temperature	autumn	increase	well
seasonal rainfall	winter	decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	spring	decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	autumn	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

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

• 11-50%

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

• 0-10%

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
More resilient cropping system
Possibility to receive CAP-payments
Positive impact on soil structure + life

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
More resilient cropping system
Positive impacts on (drinking) water production + quality

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?
administrative burden	unknown
more complicated to organise because more crops need to be handled	unknown/more practice with time

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
higher percentage of participating farmers	unknown

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Homepage Chamber of agriculture

URL:

https://www.lwk.lu/pflanzenbauberatung/effo-effiziente-fruchtfolgen-und-wasserschutz

Title/ description:

Homepage LTA

URL:

https://www.lta.lu/effo.html

Title/ description:

Homepage LIST

URL:

https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/effo/

Title/ description:

Homepage Ministry of agriculture

URL:

https://agriculture.public.lu/de/beihilfen/agrar-klima-umwelt/agrar-umwelt-klimamassnahmen/fruchtfolgeprogramm.html