1.2 参与该技术评估和文件编制的资源人员和机构的联系方式

有助于对技术进行记录/评估的项目名称（如相关）

Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )

有助于对技术进行记录/评估的机构名称（如相关）

Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme (Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme) - 挪威

1.3 关于使用通过WOCAT记录的数据的条件

编制者和关键资源人员接受有关使用通过WOCAT记录数据的条件。:

是

1.4 所述技术的可持续性声明

这里所描述的技术在土地退化方面是否存在问题，导致无法被认为是一种可持续的土地管理技术？:

否

1.5 参考关于SLM方法（使用WOCAT记录的SLM方法）的调查问卷

2.1 技术简介

技术定义:

Grass buffer zones are established along waterways in cropland to reduce the surface runoff rate, and the amounts of sediment, nutrients and pesticides in the runoff.

2.2 技术的详细说明

说明:

Commonly used names: buffer zones, buffer strips, riparian buffers

Purpose/aim: Vegetative buffers are areas of permanent vegetation located within and between agricultural fields and the watercourses to which they drain. The purpose of the vegetative buffer is to intercept, and reduce the rates of surface runoff and to reduce loads of sediment, nutrients and pesticide delivered to waterways. The processes involved are filtration, sedimentation, infiltration and absorption. Reducing the input of particles and nutrients into surface waterways is desirable both to improve water quality and to prevent eutrophication of downstream water bodies. In Norway, buffer zones are primarily established to reduce surface runoff of particles and phosphorus. However, vegetation in these zones can also serve other useful functions, such as protection against bank erosion, production of biomass, and/or provision of habitats for wildlife.

Establishment/maintenance activities:
Buffer zones are most commonly designed to retain inputs of nutrients and particles from adjacent fields. Vegetative buffers may be constructed or naturally vegetated, within or alongside fields, or adjacent to drainage ditches, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. The buffer zones may consist of grass for fodder production, or be natural vegetation composed of herbs, weeds, bushes and trees.

In Norway, farmers receive subsidies when the area is still used for production, e.g. grass production for fodder. Farmers leave a strip in cropland for grass and herbs to grow alongside rivers, streams and lakes that intersect their cropland areas. It is recommended to sow grass when establishing grass buffer zones. Robust and dense grass types with a high uptake of nutrients are often the best suited for the purpose. The grass strips should generally not be ploughed, fertilized or treated by herbicides, but some exceptions may be made. The degree to which the grass is harvested varies with the grass type and if it is valuable for livestock fodder.

Buffer zones are one of the most common measures in Norway, and the requirements for the dimension of buffer zones have changed with time - and depend on the region. According to current regulations, buffer zones between the field and the watercourse have to be a minimum of 2 meters in order to qualify for production subsidies (PT-forskriften, § 4). In addition, there is a national recommendation (RMP) to maintain a minimum 6-metre wide buffer zone along all watercourses. However, regional guidelines (RMP) can differ from national ones and the width recommendation differ from county to county.


Benefits/impact: The effectiveness of buffer zones in retaining nutrients and soil particles has been explored by many authors. Retention capacity for phosphorus in buffer zones depends on several factors including vegetation, soil type, slope, hydrological conditions, and the width of the zone. There are large variations in the effectiveness of buffer zones: 32-91% retention of sediment, 26-100% retention of phosphorus and 0-100% retention of nitrogen. The retention effect of grass buffer zones along the Hobøl River, measured with rainfall simulation experiments under the BUFFERKLIMA project (Krzeminska et al., 2020), was: 86-94% for sediment, 86-86% for phosphorus and 78-89% for nitrogen.

Natural / human environment: The information about this Technology is based on investigations and/or reports from different part of Norway. For the purpose of the OPTAIN project, the technology is further presented in the natural and human environment context of the Kråkstad River catchment - a Norwegian Case Study catchment within the project.

The Kråkstad River is mainly situated in the Ski municipality in the South-Eastern part of Norway. The river catchment is a western tributary of the Vansjø-Hobøl watercourse, also known as the Morsa watercourse. The Kråkstad River catchment area is c. 51 km², 43% of which is agricultural land. Cereals are the major crop, produced on the heavy clays soils. The main environmental challenge in the area is water quality (incl. high phosphorus pollution) and soil erosion (incl. riverbank erosion and quick-clay landslides).The Morsa watercourse is a drinking water resource and there are specific environmental regulations for land management supported by subsidies through the Regional Environmental Programme (RMP).

2.3 技术照片

2.5 已应用该技术的、本评估所涵盖的国家/地区/地点

2.6 实施日期

如果不知道确切的年份，请说明大概的日期:

• 10-50年前

2.7 技术介绍

详细说明该技术是如何引入的:

• 在实验/研究期间
• 通过项目/外部干预

• Regional Environmental Programme (RMP)

注释（项目类型等）:

The Morsa Project (morsa.org)

Buffer zones along streams and lakes are measures eligible for subsidies under the Regional Environmental Programme (RMP).

3.1 该技术的主要目的

• 减少、预防、恢复土地退化
• 结合其他技术保护流域/下游区域

3.2 应用该技术的当前土地利用类型

注释:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Erosion, flooding and landslides, eutrophication of rivers and lakes.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Cropland is occupied by the buffer strips, which may lead to decreased production and loss of income.

3.3 由于技术的实施，土地使用是否发生了变化？

由于技术的实施，土地使用是否发生了变化？:

• 是（请在技术实施前填写以下有关土地利用的问题）

同一土地单元内混合使用的土地：:

否

注释:

When buffer zones are implemented, part of the cropland is occupied by the grass strips. The grass strips should generally not be ploughed, fertilized or treated by herbicides, but some exceptions may be made. The degree to which it is harvested varies with the grass type, and if it is used for animal fodder.

3.4 供水

该技术所应用土地的供水:

• 雨养

3.5 该技术所属的SLM组

• 地表水管理（泉、河、湖、海）

3.6 包含该技术的可持续土地管理措施

3.7 该技术强调的主要土地退化类型

注释:

Main type of degradation addressed:
Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion
Hp: decline of surface water quality

Secondary types of degradation addressed:
Wg: gully erosion/gullying,
Wr: riverbank erosion
Wm: mass movements/landslides,


Main causes of degradation:
soil management - use of fertilizer and heavy machinery (compression of the soil and low infiltration rate)
crop management - annual, perennial, tree/shrub
heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) - more flooding and erosion, floods

Secondary causes of degradation:
deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) - the runoff has a lower retention time in the forest. Leads to higher velocity and more flooding of downstream cropland areas),
change of seasonal rainfall - heavier rainfall events due to climate change,
land tenure
governance / institutional

3.8 防止、减少或恢复土地退化

具体数量名该技术与土地退化有关的目标:

• 防止土地退化
• 减少土地退化

注释:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 该技术的技术图纸

4.2 有关投入和成本计算的一般信息

具体说明成本和投入是如何计算的:

• 每个技术单元

其它/国家货币（具体说明）:

Kroner (NOK)

如相关，注明美元与当地货币的汇率（例如1美元=79.9巴西雷亚尔）：1美元=:

8.89

4.3 技术建立活动

	活动	时间（季度）
1.	Plowing	1 time/yr
2.	Harrowing	2-3 times/yr
3.	Sowing grass	2-3 times/yr
4.	Harvesting grass	2-3 times/yr

4.4 技术建立所需要的费用和投入

	对投入进行具体说明	单位	数量	单位成本	每项投入的总成本	土地使用者承担的成本%
劳动力	Ploughing	zone/farmer/day	1.0	321.0	321.0	7.0
劳动力	Harrowing	zone/farmer/day	1.0	321.0	321.0	7.0
劳动力	Sowing grass	zone/farmer/day	1.0	321.0	321.0	7.0
劳动力	Harvesting grass	zone/farmer/day	1.0	321.0	321.0	7.0
技术建立所需总成本					1284.0
技术建立总成本，美元					144.43

如果土地使用者负担的费用少于100%，请注明由谁负担其余费用:

Grass covered buffer zones are measures eligible for subsidies under the Regional Environmental Programme (RMP)

注释:

The costs of establishment and management of grass covered buffer zone are the same as in the case of regular crop land management. The subsidy is compensation for land withdrawn from the main production (crop land).
Grass covered buffer zones are measures eligible for subsidies under Regional Environmental Programme (RMP) - between 2019 and 2022 the subsidy for grass covered buffer zones was 15 kr/m in Viken county.

4.5 维护/经常性活动

	活动	时间/频率
1.	Ploughing	Every 5th year
2.	Harrowing	Every 5th year
3.	Sowing grass	Every 5th year
4.	Harvesting grass	1-2 times/yr

注释:

These areas are often used as grass production areas so some maintenance and harvesting of grass is needed.

4.6 维护/经常性活动所需要的费用和投入（每年）

	对投入进行具体说明	单位	数量	单位成本	每项投入的总成本	土地使用者承担的成本%
劳动力	Ploughing	zone/farmer/day	1.0	53.0	53.0
劳动力	Harrowing	zone/farmer/day	1.0	321.0	321.0
劳动力	Sowing grass	Day	1.0	321.0	321.0
劳动力	Harvesting grass	Day	1.0	321.0	321.0
技术维护所需总成本					1016.0
技术维护总成本，美元					114.29

如果土地使用者负担的费用少于100%，请注明由谁负担其余费用:

Grass covered buffer zones are eligible for subsidies under the Regional Environmental Programme (RMP)

注释:

The costs of establishment and management of grass covered buffer zones are are the same as in case of regular crop land management.

Maintenance of grassed buffer zones is a part of the subsidy system:
-production subsidies - the regulations relating to production subsidies include a number of environmental standards that farmers must meet to receive production support, including two-metre buffer zones along water ways. A farmer who does not comply with the requirements may lose part of their production subsidies.
- RMP - Buffer zones may be eligible for subsidies under the Regional Environmental Programme (RMP) – for 2019-2022 the subsidy level for maintaining grass covered buffer zones was 15 kr/m in the Viken region. The subsidy is compensation for land withdrawn from the main production (crop land).

4.7 影响成本的最重要因素

描述影响成本的最决定性因素:

The costs of establishment and management of grass buffer zone are are the same as in case of regular crop land management. The subsidy is compensation for land withdrawn from the main production (crop land).

Establishment and maintenance costs of buffer strip depends mostly on:
- the area (width and continuity) of the buffer strip.
- type of vegetation
- possibility to use the grass as a fodder.

5.1 气候

5.2 地形

5.3 土壤

如有可能，附上完整的土壤描述或具体说明可用的信息，例如土壤类型、土壤酸碱度、阳离子交换能力、氮、盐度等。:

Soil fertility is medium-high
Soil drainage/infiltration is poor
Soil water storage capacity is very low-low

5.4 水资源可用性和质量

水的盐度有问题吗？:

否

该区域正在发生洪水吗？:

是

规律性:

频繁

5.5 生物多样性

5.6 应用该技术的土地使用者的特征

说明土地使用者的其他有关特征:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
10% of the land users are rich and own 10% of the land.
90% of the land users are average wealthy and own 90% of the land.

5.7 应用该技术的土地使用者使用的平均土地面积

5.8 土地所有权、土地使用权和水使用权

土地所有权:

• 个人，有命名

土地使用权:

• 社区（有组织）
• 个人

用水权:

• 自由进入（无组织）

5.9 进入服务和基础设施的通道

6.1 该技术的现场影响

社会经济效应

生产

收入和成本

社会文化影响

生态影响

水循环/径流

土壤

生物多样性:植被、动物

6.2 该技术的场外影响已经显现

6.3 技术对渐变气候以及与气候相关的极端情况/灾害的暴露和敏感性（土地使用者认为的极端情况/灾害）

渐变气候

渐变气候

	季节	增加或减少	该技术是如何应对的？
年温度		增加	好
年降雨量		增加	好

气候有关的极端情况（灾害）

气象灾害

	该技术是如何应对的？
局地暴雨	适度
局地风暴	好

气候灾害

	该技术是如何应对的？
干旱	好

水文灾害

	该技术是如何应对的？
比较和缓的（河道）洪水	适度

其他气候相关的后果

其他气候相关的后果

	该技术是如何应对的？
缩短生长期	好

6.4 成本效益分析

技术收益与技术建立成本相比如何（从土地使用者的角度看）？

技术收益与技术维护成本/经常性成本相比如何（从土地使用者的角度看）？

6.5 技术采用

• 11-50%

在所有采用这项技术的人当中，有多少人是自发的，即未获得任何物质奖励/付款？:

• 0-10%

注释:

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology. Doubts about the retention capacity of buffer zones reduce farmers’ motivation.
Local regulations determine that farmers only receive subsidies per production area along with financial grants if they implement the technology.

6.6 适应

最近是否对该技术进行了修改以适应不断变化的条件？:

否

6.7 该技术的优点/长处/机会

土地使用者眼中的长处/优势/机会
Probably good for the environment

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的长处/优势/机会
The grass captures sediments and nutrients from the cropland How can they be sustained / enhanced? May be more efficient with a change in grass type (but this has not been not tested)
Reduced fertilizer usage How can they be sustained / enhanced? Continue in the same way
Co-operation between farmers How can they be sustained / enhanced? Joint utilization of the buffer strips for grass production

6.8 技术的弱点/缺点/风险及其克服方法

土地使用者认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
Loss of productive cropland	Narrower buffer strips
Not always good for the farm economy	Review the subsidies scheme
Doubts about the effectiveness of the technology (infiltration and stream bank erosion)

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
Low infiltration rates	Less heavy machinery on the buffer strips and a wider zone of natural vegetation along the banks

7.1 信息的方法/来源

7.2 参考可用出版物

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

Blankenberg, A-G.B., Skarbøvik E., 2020. Phosphorus retention, erosion protection and farmers’ perceptions of riparian buffer zones with grass and natural vegetation: Case studies from South-Eastern Norway.

可以从哪里获得?成本如何?

Ambio

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

Krzeminska D, Blankenberg A‐G, Bøe F, Nemes A, Skarbøvik E. 2020.Renseeffekt og kanterosjon i kantsoner med forskjellig vegetasjonstype.

可以从哪里获得?成本如何?

NIBIO website

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

Blankenberg, A-G.B., Skarbøvik E., Kværnø S. 2017. Effekt av buffersoner ‐ på vannmiljø og andre økosystemtjenester.

可以从哪里获得?成本如何?

NIBIO website

7.3 链接到网络上的相关信息

标题/说明:

Blankenberg and Skarbøvik, 2020. Phosphorus retention, erosion protection and farmers’ perceptions of riparian buffer zones with grass and natural vegetation: Case studies from South-Eastern Norway.

URL:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13280-020-01361-5.pdf

标题/说明:

Krzeminska D, Blankenberg A‐G, Bøe F, Nemes A, Skarbøvik E. 2020.Renseeffekt og kanterosjon i kantsoner med forskjellig vegetasjonstype.

URL:

https://nibio.brage.unit.no/nibio-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2645890/NIBIO_RAPPORT_2020_6_30.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

标题/说明:

Blankenberg, A-G.B., Skarbøvik E., Kværnø S. 2017. Effekt av buffersoner ‐ på vannmiljø og andre økosystemtjenester.

URL:

https://nibio.brage.unit.no/nibio-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2448787/NIBIO_RAPPORT_2017_3_14.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

7.4 一般注释

no remarks