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) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6286, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Klaipeda University (KU) - Lithuania', '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:

The installation of this wetland contributes to reducing the ecological debt to nature by restoring natural complexes, reaching a balance between environmental and economic interests, and promoting sustainable farming conditions in one of the most important and valuable natural areas of central Lithuania.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In the lower part of the river Stabė, 1.8 km from its mouth, a wetland of 2.38 ha has been installed. The wetland was constructed by artificially flooding the valley. Corrugated metal plating was used at the inlet and outlet of the wetland to protect the stream banks. While most Lithuanian wetlands are peaty, this one is not. Over time, the surface layer of the wetland has been altered by the hydrophytic wetland-specific plants, their species composition, and the degree of decomposition of these plants. Sediments washed down from the fields accumulate here. The organic matter in these sediments creates the typical habitats of saturated organic soils, which are effective in terms of nitrogen - and especially phosphorus - retention.
The wetland has four main sections. The deepest part covers 0.21 ha and is up to 2.0 m deep. Sediments are deposited here. When there is a decrease in flow, these sediments can then be removed mechanically and transported to fertilize the adjacent fields. The next section covers 0.94 ha and its depth is less than 0.5 m. It is covered with wetland vegetation. The third section works as a filter and the water is aerated. It is protected by a dyke, 6 metres in length, perpendicular to the direction of flow. The dyke is formed from soil and pitched with stone and gravel. The maximum depth of the water in this section is 0.1 metres. The fourth and final section is where the surface water is treated by macropytic vegetation. It covers 1.2 ha and is from 0.2 to 0.5 m deep. Barriers help prolong the period that the water is held.
The wetland was designed to retain nutrients in the spring and reduce their concentrations downstream. Through an ongoing research programme, the impact of the wetland has been monitored from the start. In the first year, vegetation had not become established so there were no impacts. However in 2020 and 2021 there were very positive results in terms of nutrient capture.

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:

2015

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 projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

EEE Grants. Project implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency at the Ministry of Environment

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• 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:

No

Comments:

land use has changed to agriculture because the wetland has helped to drain the farmland area

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:

Note: the wetland has enabled the surrounding area to become farmland through drainage and fertilization with excavated silt.

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

• wetland protection/ management

• New wetlands establishment

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:

• adapt to land degradation

Comments:

Land owner started using the field for agriculture after the establishment of this wetland.

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 unit

other/ national currency (specify):

EURO

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Preparation of the river part	autumn
2.	Bank establishment	autumn
3.	Construction of the deep part	autumn
4.	Construction of the shallow parts	autumn
5.	Lower barrier works	autumn

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	Preparation of the river part	total costs	1.0	2038.0	2038.0
Labour	Bank establishment	total costs	1.0	2340.0	2340.0
Labour	Construction of the deep part	total costs	1.0	2776.0	2776.0
Labour	Construction of the shallow parts	total costs	1.0	9135.0	9135.0
Equipment	Lower barrier works	total costs	1.0	1053.0	1053.0
Equipment	Preparation of the river part	total costs	1.0	2300.0	2300.0
Equipment	Bank establishment	total costs	1.0	3228.0	3228.0
Equipment	Construction of the deep part	total costs	1.0	11833.0	11833.0
Equipment	Construction of the shallow parts	total costs	1.0	3750.0	3750.0
Plant material	Lower barrier works	total costs	1.0	3655.0	3655.0
Construction material	Preparation of the river part	total costs	1.0	258.0	258.0
Construction material	Bank establishment	total costs	1.0	7336.0	7336.0
Construction material	Construction of the deep part	total costs	1.0	44.0	44.0
Construction material	Construction of the shallow parts	total costs	1.0	34363.0	34363.0
Other	Lower barrier works	total costs	1.0	5482.0	5482.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					89591.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					89591.0

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

Total cost covered by the project.

Comments:

The price is calculated for the whole wetland (89591.00 EUR). The establishment costs indicate the actual expenses that occurred in 2015.
Project preparation 9,09 %, Labour 43,36 %, Construction materials 31,25 %, Equipment 16,30 %.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Vegetation observations and removal of excess vegetation	once a year
2.	Measurements of sediments and their removal	once a year
3.	N and P measurements and removal of priming	depending on the measurements after fertilization
4.	Animal regulation and removal of damage	depending on the needs and season
5.	Other activities (after floods, vandalism)	after events

Comments:

The maintenance activities depend and differ on the year. Not every year there is a need to remove sediments or excessed plants. Sometimes were is a need of reintegration or replacement of plant material, especially after winter.

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

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

5000.0

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

Since the wetland was established form the project funds, the project team UAB "Aplinkos inžinierių grupė" is responsible for the maintenance of the wetland until the end of the project. After the end of the contract - the successor or authorized person of its results, local farmers or members of rural communities will be responsible for the maintenance of wetland.

Comments:

The estimated costs are based on the report "Pasklidosios vandens taršos mažinimo priemonių įrengimo pilotiniame baseine darbai [Establisment of measures to reduce diffuse water pollution in the pilot basin]" presented in 2016.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Inflation is one of the most affecting factors. The real costs of the last years are not publicly available.

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.

Sandy loam with high organic carbon

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Ecological impacts

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

These are observed impacts by the land owner

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	summer	increase	well
annual rainfall		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local thunderstorm	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:

Land user has no maintenance costs and had no establishment costs.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

1

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

No adoption

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 even seasonality, land more suitable for agriculture.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Biodiversity supported/ sediment capture/ nature-based sustainable solution.

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 nutrients come out of the exit point of the wetland than enter in the entry point.	Accurate details of impact still under assessment

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Report about installation of the technology - UAB "Aplinkos inžinierių grupė", 2015. Šlapynės įrengimas Terespolio k., Kėdainių rajone [Installation of wetland in Terespolis village, Kedainiai district], Kaunas

Available from where? Costs?

https://old.gamta.lt/files/%C5%A1lapyn%C4%97s%20projektas1550671582565.pdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Report about implementation of the technology - UAB "Aplinkos inžinierių grupė", 2016. Pasklidosios vandens taršos mažinimo priemonių įrengimo pilotiniame baseine darbai [The installation of diffuse water pollution abatement measures in pilot river basins], Kaunas

Available from where? Costs?

https://old.gamta.lt/files/Galutine%20ataskaita%20pakoreguota.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Report about installation of the sedimentation points close to wetland

URL:

https://old.gamta.lt/files/sedimentacijos%20tvenkin%C4%97li%C5%B3%20projektas1550671609855.pdf

Title/ description:

Report of wetland monitoring in 2021

URL:

https://aaa.lrv.lt/uploads/aaa/documents/files/II%20kasmetin%C4%97%20ataskaita.pdf

Title/ description:

Report of wetland monitoring in 2022

URL:

https://aaa.lrv.lt/uploads/aaa/documents/files/III%20kasmetine%20%2Bgalutine%20ataskaita(2).pdf

7.4 General comments

The questionnaire is well designed, clear and concise with nice explanations and examples that makes it easy to understand what needs to written. However it was difficult to find some material to give a detail answers, especially with the maintenance costs.