Preventing and remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care.

Transcription

1

2 i

3 DOCUMENT SUMMARY Project Information Project Title: Project Acronym: Call Identifier: Preventing and remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care RECARE FP7 - ENV : Sustainable land care in Europe Grant agreement no.: Starting Date: End Date: Project duration Web- Site address: Project coordinator: EU project representative & coordinator: 66 months Wageningen University Prof. Dr. C.J. Ritsema - (coen.ritsema@wur.nl) Project manager: Dr. Rudi Hessel (rudi.hessel@wur.nl) Report Information Report Title: Principle Author(s): Principle Author Report from Stakeholder Workshop 2 Foulum, Denmark Per Schjonning Per.schjonning@agro.au.dk Deliverable Number: - Work Package: - WP Leader: Nature: Dissemination: Editor (s): E- Mail(s): AU, Denmark Public Document Erik van den Elsen Erik.vandenelsen@wur.nl Telephone Number: Report Due Date - Report publish date: Copyright 2016 the RECARE project and Partners Copyright notice and disclaimer: ii

4 iii

5 RECARE partner list No Name Short name Country Country 1 WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY WU Netherlands NL 2 TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETE TUC Greece GR 3 AARHUS UNIVERSITET AU Denmark DK 4 UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA UVEG Spain ES 5 THE CYPRUS INSTITUTE LIMITED CyI Cyprus CY 6 NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF BIOECONOMY RESEARCH NIBIO Norway NO 7 UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO UA Portugal PT 8 LANDGRAEDSLA RIKISINS SCSI Iceland IS 9 EVENOR TECH SL EVENOR TECH Spain ES 10 UNIVERSITAET BERN UNIBE Switzerland CH 11 UMWELTBUNDESAMT GMBH EAA Austria AT 12 STICHTING INTERNATIONAL SOIL REFERENCE AND INFORMATION CENTRE ISRIC Netherlands NL 13 JRC -JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE- EUROPEAN COMMISSION JRC Belgium IT 14 ECOLOGIC INSTITUT gemeinnützige GmbH EI Germany DE 15 UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS UNIVLEEDS United Kingdom UK 16 STICHTING WAGENINGEN RESEARCH WEnR Netherlands NL 17 CONSULT AND RESEARCH ON PARTICIPATION AND GENDER - COREPAGE - CLARINGBOULD HELEEN ELSA COREPAGE Netherlands NL 18 SVERIGES LANTBRUKSUNIVERSITET SLU Sweden SE 19 AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS CSIC Spain ES SLOVENSKA TECHNICKA UNIVERZITA V BRATISLAVE INSTITUTUL NATIONAL DE CERCETARE- DEZVOLTARE PENTRU PEDOLOGIE, AGROCHIMIE SI PROTECTIA MEDIULUI INSTYTUT UPRAWY NAWOZENIA I GLEBOZNAWSTWA, PANSTWOWY INSTYTUT BADAWCZY STUBA Slovakia SK ICPA Romania RO IUNG Poland PO 23 UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE UOG United Kingdom UK 24 RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS BV RIKS Netherlands NL 25 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY CU United Kingdom UK 26 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA UNIPD Italy IT 27 KONGSKILDE INDUSTRIES AS KONGSKILDE Denmark DK 28 UNIVERSITY OF READING READING United Kingdom UK 29 AGRO INTELLIGENCE APS AGRO INTELLI Denmark DK iv

6 v

7 Case study Soil Compaction Report from Stakeholder Workshop 2 Foulum, Denmark, May 3,

8 This report was written July-October It describes the second stakeholder workshop May , Foulum, Denmark, in the RECARE Soil Compaction Case Study. Primary author: Per Schjønning Contributors: Egon Noe, Mathieu Lamandé, Lars J. Munkholm, Martin H. Thorsøe, Anna Dorthe Østergaard, Henning C. Thomsen, Janne Hansen (all Aarhus University), Ole Green, Kamila Smolucha (AgroIntelligence), Aage Boller (Michelin Denmark), Matthias Stettler (Bern University of Applied Sciences). RECARE (Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care) is a project receiving funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ ) under grant agreement no

9 Introduction The RECARE Case Study for soil compaction (CS-SC) relates to Denmark as a nation. The aim is to identify solutions to the challenge of soil compaction for a case (Denmark) that is relatively uniform in terms of geography and socio-economics, simultaneously optimizing the possibility of extending the experiences gathered to other EU countries. A field experiment with different compaction treatments, run by SEGES (an organization associated to the CS-SC) but located at the Aarhus University (AU) Research Centre Aarslev serves among a range of demonstration objects for facilitating the work in the stakeholder group. The Aarslev label sometimes used for the RECARE case study 5 on soil compaction derives from this field experiment. Different management systems are tested in this experiment as well as in two related field trials (Flakkebjerg and Taastrup) in Denmark and are subject to studies in RECARE Work package 6. A workshop was held May at Research Centre Foulum of Aarhus University and should be seen as the RECARE-scheduled second stakeholder workshop for CS-SC. The first stakeholder workshop of the CS-SC was held May 20, 2015 and is described in an unpublished note (Schjønning et al., 2015). The 2016 workshop included a morning session with presentations and group work as well as a field demonstration of innovative machinery for minimizing soil compaction in the afternoon. The present report gives a short description of the workshop. PPslides, video-films, photos, press releases and a Danish-language summary of the workshop can be found at: Workshop participants The identification of stakeholders relevant for participation in the series of workshops (and hence also in the present workshop) was based on the list of stakeholders identified during the so-called snow-ball approach applied in the initial RECARE stakeholder analysis for CS-SC. We initially identified 46 stakeholders. 44 individuals attended workshop 1 in May Of these, 24 also participated in workshop 2. Eight people attended the second but not the first workshop. In total, workshop 2 was attended by 32 stakeholders (29 male; 3 female individuals). In addition, Matthias Stettler from Bern University of Applied Sciences attended the workshop and gave a presentation on soil compaction in Swiss agriculture. Finally, three individuals from a commercial Canadian company followed the workshop as guests. The participants represented the following stakeholder categories: farmers, farmer consultants, academics (researchers), the agricultural industry, government-level authorities, political interest organizations, and contractors. Non-governmental organizations were not presented in the second workshop although invited. In order to arrive at operational groups for group work at the workshop, we merged some of the stakeholder categories and arrived at four groups representing each their specific perspective on the compaction challenge: 1) farmer, 2) policy (authorities, interest organizations, researchers), 3) the agricultural industry, and 4) consultants. 3

10 Workshop organization The workshop was organized by AU, while the other Danish CS-SC partner, AgroIntelligence, participated in the event in field demonstration (Ole Green) and by video-filming the activities in the meeting room (Kamila Smolucha). The field demonstration was video-filmed by Henning C. Thomsen (AU), while Janne Hansen (AU) served as a consultant regarding video-filming and on press contact. Aage Boller from Michelin Denmark participated in the planning of the field demonstration. Finally, Matthias Stettler from Bern University of Applied Sciences (RECARE participant formally affiliated at University of Bern) gave a lecture in the meeting room session and organized measurements of mechanical stresses in the soil during the field demonstration. The workshop was geographically located at Research Centre Foulum, a campus of Aarhus University. Workshop programme The workshop programme was as follows: 1. Welcome and overview of RECARE CS-SC work since workshop 1. Per Schjønning 2. Soil compaction in Danish agriculture an inventory based on Terranimo -simulations. Hans Christian G. Carstensen 3. Options for minimizing soil compaction,- examples. Per Schjønning and Mathieu Lamandé 4. Policy regulation targeting soil compaction 4.1. Experiences with Terranimo in Switzerland. Matthias Stettler, Bern Univ. App. Sci Aspects of regulation in Danish agriculture. Jeppe Jensen, Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Environment 4.3. Soil compaction and challenges for farmers in potential regulation. Søren T. Jørgensen, Danish Agriculture & Food Council 5. Introduction to group work Egon Noe 6. Group work on potential use of Terranimo in regulation of soil compaction. 7. Summary of group work. Egon Noe 8. Introduction to further work in the CS-SC stakeholder group. Per Schjønning 9. Machinery demonstration in the field. The following paragraphs will give a short description of the main aspects of oral presentations in the meeting room as well as the field demonstration. Please consult the RECARE hub for detailed inspection of the workshop activities: Ad 1. Welcome and overview Per Schjønning brushed up on the RECARE project and its progress since the first stakeholder workshop. He showed the general trend in size of machinery and the associated increase in mechanical stresses imposed to the agricultural soils. The main focus of workshop 2 is the potential 4

11 use of the decision support tool Terranimo for regulation of field traffic to avoid subsoil compaction. The importance in active participation by all stakeholder categories in this evaluation was emphasized, and workshop participants were encouraged to give their inputs during the group work. Please consult where the PP-show as well as videos of presentations are available. Ad 2. Soil compaction in Danish agriculture an inventory based on Terranimo -simulations Hans Christian G. Carstensen (HCGC) reported the results of an inventory of soil compaction for 11 farms performed as a part of the RECARE project. HCGC has been employed as a student for a period in late For two fields and two consecutive years (2014 and 2015) of all farms investigated, all traffic on the field had been registered with wheel loads, tyre inflation pressures, tyre types, soil type and soil water content. Soil compaction had then been predicted for the total of 612 traffic events, using the decision support tool Terranimo ( For 48% of the investigated wheel passes, no risk of soil compaction had been found. For 14% there was a moderate compaction risk, while for 38% a high compaction risk was found. The risk was assessed in terms of the compaction at 50 cm depth of the soil profile. HCGC pointed out four parameters especially affecting the compaction risk: 19 soil water content, tyre inflation pressure, size of tyre, and the wheel load. Examples were given on innovative machinery minimizing soil compaction Please consult where the PP-show as well as videos of presentations are available. Ad 3. Options for minimizing soil compaction Per Schjønning (PSC) and Mathieu Lamandé (MLD) reported the results of new studies affecting risk of soil compaction. PSC mentioned the previously unheeded effect of repeated traffic with several wheels in the same track. MLD reported a study on soil stresses below tracks as compared to tyres. Please consult where the PP-show as well as videos of presentations are available. Ad 4. Policy regulation targeting soil compaction 4.1. Experiences with Terranimo in Switzerland Matthias Stettler (MST) from Bern University of Applied Sciences reported on general approaches to protect Swiss soils as well as specific achievements in avoiding soil compaction. Please consult 5

12 MST s PP-slides, which is in English and can be found at Aspects of regulation in Danish agriculture Jeppe Jensen (JEJ) from The Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Environment accounted for the principles for implementation of EU regulation in Danish agriculture. Regulation can relate to decrees or to directives. It can also take place with reference to statements in the Common Agricultural Policy. There is no Danish tradition for regulation with the purpose of the soil resource as such, while much regulation aims at regulating for protection of the environment. JEJ found that a potential regulation regarding soil compaction has to a) be simple and easily administered, b) not demand more than requested by EU, and c) be precise (because control by inspection of farmers fields will not be possible). Please consult where the PP-show as well as videos of presentations are available Soil compaction and challenges for farmers in potential regulation Søren T. Jørgensen (STJ) from Danish Agriculture & Food Council related the increase in compaction risk to the structural development in Danish agriculture. Farms have increased in size and the machines used are much bigger. He pointed out three tools for obtaining behavioural change: development, regulation and education. STJ found that regulation could only be effective, where behavioural change will induce economic profit. STJ considered the complexity of soil compaction as obstacle for general regulation. STJ emphasized the need for a) better quantification of the economic penalty deriving from soil compaction, b) more research in the soil compaction process, and c) better education on soil compaction and ways to prevent it. He found that minimizing soil compaction might best be achieved through subsidies promoting new technologies. Please consult where the PP-show as well as videos of presentations are available. Ad 5. Introduction to group work Egon Noe (ENO) introduced the SWOT term: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. The workshop participants were asked to consider the option of regulating field traffic based on recommendations by the Terranimo decision support tool. In the groups, they should identify keywords they found best expressing their impression of that potential regulation mechanism. More specifically, they were faced with the question (translated from Danish): Which strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats do you see from your perspective in using Terranimo as a tool for targeted regulation of soil compaction? Please consult where the PP-show is available. 6

13 Ad 6. Group work The stakeholder participants worked in four groups according to their stakeholder perspective (as explained previously). Below two photos from the group work sessions. 7

14 Ad 7. Summary of group work Egon Noe (ENO) chaired the plenum session summarizing the group work. For each group, the moderator of the group work (a person from the organizing group) reported the keywords set up for each of the four aspects of the SWOT term. ENO concluded that the discussions in the groups and in the workshop generally had focused the following main issues: 1) Voluntary or policy-imposed regulation of field traffic. There was a general agreement that soil compaction is a serious problem and that there is a need for modifying field traffic to mitigate soil compaction. On the other hand, stakeholders had contrasting opinion, whether change in current management can be achieved by voluntary initiatives by farmers, their consultants, and the machine industry. Some claimed this the only way forward, while other found it most likely not to happen, given the socioeconomic conditions prevailing in modern farming. 2) Terranimo as a tool in regulation of field traffic. There was a general agreement that Terranimo is a valuable tool for educating in how to avoid soil compaction. Several stakeholders pointed out that subsoil compaction is generally not recognized by farmers as it is a hidden damage. Terranimo can make a difference by raising the awareness among farmers and other relevant stakeholders. An increasing awareness among farmers may create a demand for technical solutions to be offered by contractors and also machine manufacturers. Ad 8. Intro to further work in the stakeholder group Per Schjønning (PSC) concluded the stakeholder workshop by informing about (modifications in) the future work in the group. Originally, four workshops had been planned. The Soil Compaction Case Study group has decided to fulfil the purpose of the previously planned workshops 3 and 4 by communication by and by the closed Facebook group. The stakeholder group accepted to participate in evaluation of A) cost-benefit considerations for solutions to the compaction problem, and B) strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats by potential policy-imposed regulation. Further information about the stakeholder workshop can be found at: 8

15 Field demonstration After lunch, the stakeholder group participated in a demonstration of machinery that was open also to the public. Also this event was organized by the RECARE Case Study Soil Compaction group. Photo 1. Birds-view of the field demonstration. The on-site tests with Bolling probes took place where people are gathered. The photo shows a tractor-trailer system driving forward to the test location. Photo 2. The stress peaks from the machinery tested are displayed on a large screen and explained to the audience. This was done in English by the Bolling-probe expert Matthias Stettler and in Danish by Egon Noe (picture) from Aarhus University. 9

16 Photo 3. A detailed view of the Bolling-sensor outputs, here explained by Matthias Stettler. Photos 4 and 5. Sandwiches of sand and topsoil after traffic with modern, low-pressure tyre (left) and traditional (dual) high pressure tyres (right). A video (~4 min) from the event: 10