Enfoques

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

approaches_2616 - Brasil

Visualizar secciones

Expandir todo Colapsar todos
Completado: 89%

1. Información general

1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Persona(s) de referencia clave/s

Especialista MST:
Especialista MST:
Especialista MST:

Gil Juliana

julianagil@uol.com.br

Embrapa Rice & Beans,

Brasil

Guggenberger Georg

Leibniz University Hannover

Alemania

Especialista MST:

Klingler Michael

University of Innsbruck

Alemania

Especialista MST:

Lakes Tobia

Humboldt-University Berlin

Especialista MST:

Böhner Jürgen

University Hamburg

Alemania

Especialista MST:

Schaldach Rüdiger

University Kassel

Alemania

Especialista MST:

Siebold Matthias

University Hohenheim

Alemania

Especialista MST:

Nendel Claas

Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)

Alemania

Especialista MST:

Schönenberg Regine

Free University Berlin

Alemania

Especialista MST:

Gerold Gerhard

Georg August University Göttingen

Alemania

Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)
Carbon optimized land management strategies for southern Amazonia (CARBIOCIAL / GLUES)
Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)
Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)
Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)
Georg August Universität Göttingen (Georg August Universität Göttingen) - Alemania
Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)
Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography (IfL) - Alemania
Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (HU Berlin) - Alemania
Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)
Universität Kassel - Alemania
Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)
Universität Hamburg (UHH) - Alemania

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

18/06/2016

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

1.4 Referencia/s al/los Cuestionario(s) de Tecnologías MST

2. Descripción del Enfoque MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

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 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

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 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

País:

Brasil

Región/ Estado/ Provincia:

Mato Grosso/Pará, Brazil

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

Indique año del inicio:

2011

Año de conclusión (si el Enfoque ya no se aplica):

2016

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

  • proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

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 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

normas y valores sociales/ culturales/ religiosos
  • impiden

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).

marco de trabajo legal (tenencia de tierra, derechos de uso de tierra y agua)
  • impiden

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. Participación y roles de las partes interesadas involucradas

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

  • usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales
  • organizaciones comunitarias

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.

  • especialistas MST/consejeros agrícolas
  • gobierno nacional (planificadores, autoridades)

planning authorities

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque
Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación interactivo Land users and planning authorities; identification of research priorities, state-of-the-art of agricultural practices, identification of problems.
planificación ninguno
implementación ninguno
monitoreo y evaluación ninguno
Research pasivo Research plots for demonstration.

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

Descripción:

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 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:
  • principalmente por especialistas MST en consulta con usuarios de tierras
Explique:

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

4. Apoyo técnico, fortalecimiento institucional y gestión del conocimiento

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Especifique quién fue capacitado:
  • usuarios de tierras
Forma de capacitación:
  • de agricultor a agricultor
  • áreas de demostración
  • reuniones públicas
Temas avanzados:

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

4.2 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:
  • en los campos de los usuarios de tierras
Describa/ comentarios:

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 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?
  • no

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Comentarios:

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 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

Especifique los temas:
  • ecología
  • tecnología
Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financiamiento y apoyo material externo

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:
  • 100,000-1,000,000
Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

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

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :

No

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

6. Análisis de impacto y comentarios de conclusión

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

¿El Enfoque ayudó a los usuarios de tierras a implementar y mantener Tecnologías MST?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho

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.

¿El Enfoque empoderó a grupos en desventaja social y económica?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho
¿El Enfoque mejoró cuestiones de tenencia de tierra/ derechos de usuarios que obstaculizaron la implementación de la Tecnologías MST?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho

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
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

  • producción incrementada
  • incremento de la renta(bilidad), proporción mejorada de costo-beneficio
  • pagos/ subsidios
  • reglas y reglamentos (multas)/ aplicación
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?
Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:

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 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
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 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave ¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Acceptance of results by famers, planning authorities, decision makers in general (political level).

7. Referencias y vínculos

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

  • visitas de campo, encuestas de campo
  • entrevistas con usuarios de tierras

7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, 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)

Título, autor, año, 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)

Título, autor, año, 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.

Vínculos y módulos

Expandir todo Colapsar todos

Módulos