Approaches

From storylines to scenarios: raising awareness and decision support [Brazil]

approaches_2616 - Brazil

Completeness: 89%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Gil Juliana

julianagil@uol.com.br

Embrapa Rice & Beans,

Brazil

Guggenberger Georg

Leibniz University Hannover

Germany

SLM specialist:

Klingler Michael

University of Innsbruck

Germany

SLM specialist:

Lakes Tobia

Humboldt-University Berlin

SLM specialist:

Böhner Jürgen

University Hamburg

Germany

SLM specialist:

Schaldach Rüdiger

University Kassel

Germany

SLM specialist:

Siebold Matthias

University Hohenheim

Germany

SLM specialist:

Nendel Claas

Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)

Germany

SLM specialist:

Schönenberg Regine

Free University Berlin

Germany

SLM specialist:

Gerold Gerhard

Georg August University Göttingen

Germany

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Carbon optimized land management strategies for southern Amazonia (CARBIOCIAL / GLUES)
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Georg August Universität Göttingen (Georg August Universität Göttingen) - Germany
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography (IfL) - Germany
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (HU Berlin) - Germany
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Universität Kassel - Germany
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Universität Hamburg (UHH) - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

18/06/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Investigating viable carbon-optimized land management strategies, which maintain or improve ecosystem function, under changing climate conditions in the Southern Amazon - using regional scenarios generated from storylines.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: One objective of the Carbiocial project, in close cooperation with its Brazilian partner project Carbioma, is to explore how land use change in one of Brazil’s most dynamic regions will develop in the next 30 years and how it will be affected by the implementation of land-use planning options and conservation policies. For this purpose a set of scenarios was created. The scenarios portray different plausible development pathways for the region. Each scenario consists of a storyline: a brief narrative of the future. At this level farmers and institutions are involved. An expert panel translated the findings of several stakeholder workshops and extensive stakeholder and expert interviews, conducted in 2012, into qualitative information needed to elaborate these scenarios. Four storylines emerged: (1) “business-as-usual”; (2) sustainable, extensive use of the Amazon; (3) legal intensification; (3) illegal intensification.

Methods: It was agreed that the communication between qualitative social science data and quantitative data had to be considered carefully. A blend of the required input factors for the models was agreed as guiding principles for all storylines: these were: population, agrarian production, livestock, agrarian and environmental policies, protected areas, infrastructure, impact of climate change (mitigation/adaptation). In a second step, qualitative data had to be added to the models; to limit bias, all available German experts on Southern Amazonia participated in a day-long (and quite controversial) brainstorming session producing content for the four storylines.
After translating the results into Portuguese the outcome was discussed with representatives of government and NGOs to discuss their plausibility and to modify accordingly. The input of local stakeholders was included on the basis of discussions and qualitative interviews. Generally speaking, the feedback loops with Brazilian stakeholders’ happened rather arbitrarily. Participation could have been better if planned more methodically and earlier.
The three hypothetical storylines describe different pathways of future regional development within the two states. Due to the strong linkages of Southern Amazonia to global markets (e.g. exports of soybean and meat) it was necessary to portray this dependency as one important determinant within the scenarios. Also, law enforcement of the existing legal situation was considered: more than 40% of Amazônia comprises protected areas. In order to portray the possibility of progressive environmental and indigenous legislation, a vibrant civil society, and well-institutionalized public prosecutors, a sustainability scenario was designed.
The next step was the quantification of the qualitative information to facilitate a simulation-based scenario analysis. Simulation models will be combined as software packages to support the decision-taking process from local to landscape and regional scale. All research and implementation activities include direct involvement of the stakeholders. Field experiments for improving C storage and ecosystem function will be performed in cooperation with an NGO founded by the farmers of Mato Grosso.

Other important information: A set of land use maps was generated to depict scenarios from 2010 to 2030. The objective of this modelling and mapping exercise is to support decision-makers to better interpret the scenarios and their implications. These new layers of information will facilitate further model or GIS-based analysis of land use change impacts on the regional carbon balance and the loss of biodiversity, and may act as a test-bed for the development of strategies towards sustainable land management.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Brazil

Region/ State/ Province:

Mato Grosso/Pará, Brazil

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2011

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2016

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (carbon-optimized land management)

The joint main goals are 1) to perform region-specific analyses in order to improve and apply interdisciplinary sets of models of land use impacts on carbon stocks, water and GHG balances, 2) to develop and optimize land management strategies that minimize carbon losses and GHG emissions, and maximize carbon sequestration, 3) to assess the trade-offs between land management options and socio-economic impacts in terms of GHG reduction, profitability, ecological sustainability, and last but not least, 4) to support the Brazilian partners to implement the optimal techniques in practice, considering the soybean value chain and overall carbon balance.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: High loss of vegetative and soil carbon due to agricultural expansion (deforestation), agricultural emissions, biodiversity loss.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

Acceptance of research results

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Dissemination of research results in the form of policy briefs (short graphical illustration of results) and “output-stick” (USB stick with more detailed research results).

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • hindering

Land tenure

Treatment through the SLM Approach: None

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly hindered the approach implementation Especially in Pará, land tenure rights are uncertain and lead to land speculation with resultant land degradation and deforestation.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities
  • community-based organizations

Indigenous groups were involved in stakeholder workshops with the aim of discussing different storyline options, and in the following feedback loops discussing the resulting storylines.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

planning authorities

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation interactive Land users and planning authorities; identification of research priorities, state-of-the-art of agricultural practices, identification of problems.
planning none
implementation none
monitoring/ evaluation none
Research passive Research plots for demonstration.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

The scenario building process. Qualitative scenarios (“storylines”) were developed by an expert panel and successively refined with feedback from regional stakeholders and project partners. In the second step the storylines were interpreted, quantified, and used for scenario building and analysis based on computer models.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

Training focused on raising awareness of the consequences of “business-as-usual” behavior compared with other scenarios.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: dissemination of research results in the form of policy briefs and more detailed “output sticks”

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Dissemination; form of dissemination was adjusted according to the requirements of target groups.
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:
  • ecology
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 100,000-1,000,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (German Ministry of Education and Research BMBF): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Geen

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Geen

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Identification of method of applying organic matter to soil; identification of kind of agriculture most suitable for specific region/area; type of crop sown; crop sowing dates; economic return/economic optimization.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Research had no effect on land tenure; research was not aimed at solving the problem, rather research helped to identify the problem. The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. reforms of land tenure rights underway

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

No-till agriculture, crop rotations, recommended sowing dates, expanding agricultural land according to crop yield information, and information regarding negative effects of cropland/rangeland expansion (e.g. soil and site specific GHG emissions) which were identified through the different scenarios.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improved choice of crop/crop rotation; more environmental friendly choice of kind of agriculture employed (agroforestry systems); improved awareness of existence and functionality of regulations in favor of sustainability better dissemination; heightened awareness of land users to sustainability topics and environmental degradation

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Acceptance of results by famers, planning authorities, decision makers in general (political level).

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

J. Goepel et al. (2016) Future scenarios of land-use and land-cover change in Southern Amazonia and resultant greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils, to be published in Regional Environmental Change Special Issue “Southern Amazonia”,(in review)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Schönenberg et al. (2016)Inter- and transdisciplinary scenario construction to explore future land use options in Southern Amazonia, to be published in Ecology & Society (in review)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

R. Schaldach et al. (to be published) A multi-scale modelling framework for the analysis of societal and environmental processes in Southern Amazonian land systems: Lessons learned from the Carbiocial project.

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules