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

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

Association des Chambres d’agriculture de l’Arc Atlantique (AC3A) - France

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:

The implementation of agroforestry in a cereal field can help aid biodiversity, that will in turn support natural pest control, improve the resilience to water and climate stress through improved infiltration, provide more shade and less wind-stress, and will improve soil health, among other benefits.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Agroforestry, that is the incorporation of trees into agriculture, is a traditional land management practice in Normandy using apple trees inter-grazed by cows on pasture. However, between 1960 and 2000, the restructuring of agricultural land, and technical and technological developments, have led to the disappearance of agroforestry in Normandy. Since the beginning of the 21 century, the integration of trees into the system has started to be reintroduced, not only in grassland systems, but also in crop fields.
The integration of trees into the system is effective for countering:
- Biological degradation: by enhancing biodiversity though improved refuge for insects and birds, providing food for them, breeding opportunities and connectivity corridors across the landscape. This leads to greater biological regulation of crop pests among other benefits.
- Climate related stress: both at the local level (decrease of wind speeds, reduction of evapotranspiration, shade for animals) and at the global level (carbon storage, substitution of fossil energies by renewable energy).
- Water degradation: through the qualitative and quantitative regulation of water at the watershed scale as a benefit of improved rainfall infiltration and less fertilizer lost in runoff.
- Soil erosion by water and chemical deterioration: through the conservation of soils with reduced runoff.
- Soil erosion by wind: through the protection of exposed areas.
and:
- Providing benefits through beautification of the living environment.
As part of the agroforestry SLM technology, trees are planted on grassed strips which are 24 to 30 m apart within the field of cereals. Trees are spaced 8 to 10 m within the strips. This configuration has been adapted to allow mechanized agriculture. The main tree species used are Quercus, Sorbus, Tilia, Prunus and Robinia. Land users, with some support from the local community, financed the re-introduction of agroforestry into Normandy. Soil was prepared using machinery (single line ploughing), mulch was applied and tree seedlings were protected against wild animals.
Despite these financial and management benefits. the SLM technology has not yet been taken up widely. Therefore, the aim is to promote better adoption of agroforestry practices by Normandy farmers. This is becoming more important as the use of external inputs (e.g. fertilizers and pesticides) is increasingly expensive for both farmers and society - and the introduction of agroforestry can both help reduce these costs with more natural pest control and less runoff of fertilisers from the fields.
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:

2017

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
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Farmer innovation and interest has been linked to projects encouraging the uptake of functional agrobiodiversity measures; the project in this case is the EU Interreg Fabulous Farmers project.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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):

• Agroforestry

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:

Yes

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

• Agroforestry

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

• agroforestry
• windbreak/ shelterbelt
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

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 =:

0.9

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Choice of the planting site, the design/layout and the species	Spring
2.	Soil preparation (clearing of land, harrowing)	After harvest of crops
3.	Application of mulch to planting strips	After harvest of crops
4.	Tree whips planted in plough slot (approx. 10cm deep), protection spirals fitted and area recovered with mulch	From Nov to Jan

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	Design & layout of planting	days	0.5	120.0	60.0	100.0
Labour	Surface preparation (clearing & harowing)	days	0.1	120.0	12.0	100.0
Labour	Mulch application	days	0.2	120.0	24.0	100.0
Labour	Planting	days	0.5	120.0	60.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor with harow & Plough	days	0.3	50.0	15.0	100.0
Plant material	Tree whips	piece/ha	30.0	3.0	90.0	20.0
Plant material	Mulch	piece/ha	30.0	2.0	60.0	20.0
Construction material	Base spiral protection	piece/ha	30.0	2.0	60.0	20.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					381.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					423.33

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

Local community and grant funding

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Tree maintenance (pruning by hand as required)	from Jun to Dec all year around
2.	Grass strip mowing (using tractor)	after crop harvest

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	Tree pruning	days	2.0	120.0	240.0	100.0
Labour	Grass mowing	days	1.0	120.0	120.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor & mower	days	1.0	50.0	50.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					410.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					455.56

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Time necessary for maintenance.
Good training to do quality work.

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

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Technology has supported the continued high biodiversity in the region, limiting any possible decline with changing farming practice.

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, 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

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

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

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well
flash flood	not well
storm surge/ coastal flood	not well
landslide	not well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	moderately
insect/ worm infestation	moderately

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period	not well
reduced growing period	not well at all
sea level rise	not well at all

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

• 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%

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
Reduced wind speeds and wind erosion.
Creation of reception areas for biodiversity.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Creation of climate zone "temperate" favorable to crops and / or animals.
Biodiversity increase leading to functional benefits of agricultural production.
Mixed landscape provides a positive social experience
Creation of training and and workshops to share implementation and production of artwork wood and / or energy wood.

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?
Cost and maintenance time	Engage interested local community to support
Possible financial instability of the subsidy payments with regards to hedges	unknown

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Possible financial instability of the subsidy payments with regards to hedges	Unknown

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Agroforesterie, des arbres et des cultures, Fabien Liagre / Christian Dupraz, éditions France Agricole, 2008 (ISBN 978-2-85557-150-8)

Available from where? Costs?

Online / 45 €