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

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

Institute of Soil Science, University of Hannover - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

12/06/2015

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

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Find carbon optimized land management practices.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: (1) determine the native background stocks of N, P, K, Mg, Ca, and S in soil to a depth of 10 m in the native systems (rain forest and Cerrado).

(2) determine the temporal change in C and nutrient stocks using space-for-time substitution along the pioneer front gradient from central Mato Grosso to south Pará to assess the influence of land use on C and nutrient budgets.

(3) analyze the stocks of bulk C and of C in soil fractions differing in function and turnover to determine the influence of land use and soil management on distribution of SOM into different pools (i.e., analysis of the quantity and quality of C storage in soil).

(4) quantify the C turnover in these fractions by a combination of the stable C isotope and the 14C approaches (i.e., analysis of the sustainability vs. vulnerability of C storage in soil as affected by land use and soil management).

(5) assess the influence of climatic change on these parameters along the climatic gradient from central Mato Grosso to south Pará (i.e., analyze the sustainability vs. vulnerability of C storage in soil as affected by climate change).

(6) parameterize a C and N turnover model (e.g. CANDY, Rühlmann et al. 2006) at plot level and calculate different land-use and climate-change scenarios.


Methods: Analysing carbon stocks – sampling laboratory work (Elementar analyses).
Soil properties of the two most common soil types (texture, bulk density, pH, plant available nutrients, etc.).
Modelling– model the process of carbon storage after land-use change.


Stages of implementation: Transport into meanings – translate scientific results into recommendations for farmes which land-use type is most carbon friendly.

Role of stakeholders: Implementation of land use decision– depending on the soil properties.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (soil organic carbon pools)

Analyze the impact of different land use types on soil organic carbon storage after deforestation.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: the meaning of scientific results to farmers – there is no real importancy for them how much carbon is in their soil

The problem is that the whole climate change debate is based on Carbon, however by land use shift from rainforest to pasture or crop fields, soil organic carbon is not the parameter which is the most important, nevertheless is always in the focus if land-use change is discussed.

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

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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	passive	The land users and communities were contacted by the research project.
planning	interactive	Active in giving us allowance for our research.
implementation	external support	Giving us a platform to present our results- communities.
monitoring/ evaluation	none	Until now not happening.
Research	passive

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

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down)

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Conferences; Key elements: presenting results, transport into meanings, podium discussion

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Results are a basis for further discussions of ‘good practice’ management on community level.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Workshop 'What is carbon?' to indigenous people (Indian tribe Kayapó)

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Comments:

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

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

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (German Government, BMBF): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Ja

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

Comments:

equipment: machinery not financed.
equipment: tools fully financed.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The political program concerning land use change needs to be changed or must support the farmers.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The possibility to work with indigenous people on the same topic (soil organic carbon) as with farmers.

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?
Too much scientific research from top-down on a topic which farmers are not really interested in.	Plan the project with locals.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information