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)

Technische Universität Berlin (Technische Universität Berlin) - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

08/05/2015

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

The SLM approach can be defined as community supported mobile urban farm, which serves the goals of vegetable production, and place of learning and knowledge sharing.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the SLM approach 'Prinzessinnengarten' was to create an urban garden on a waste land plot in the center of Berlin. The plot was characterised by having sealed and contaminated soils, which is characteristic for open land plots in most urban areas. The garden is supposed to practically demonstrate an ecologically and socially different approach to urban spaces and their inhabitants, enable the social empowerment of marginalized communities. Furthermore opportunities for local micro-economies and other economic models are supposed to be created. In an unobtrusive and pragmatic way, urban gardens in general aim to raise the question of 'How we want to live in our cities in the future?

Methods: The project was first was implemented by the group Nomadisch Grün (Nomadic Green) in summer of 2009. Along with friends, activists and neighbours, the group realised the first steps of implementation through clearing of rubbish and through the construction of the first cultivation units. The project, being open to everybody, attracted new participants quite fast. Now the garden owes its existence to the commitment of countless neighbors and interested people. The work of these participants, their diverse skills and ideas transform the place continuously.

Stages of implementation: I. Development of the idea. During this phase of implementation mainly Robert Shaw (he was involved in similar projects in Cuba before) and Marco Clausen were involved.. II. Implementation in practice. Starting in summer of 2009, the project idea was being implemented on the ground by a group of people. During this stage of implementation mainly physical work, such as the clearing of rubbish was realised. III. Opening to the wider public (still ongoing). The non-profit company 'Nomadisch Grün (Nomadic Green) serves as a framework for the different social, educational and economic activities with the primary aim of making the garden a place of learning. Skills are gained through practical experience and knowledge sharing.

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (utilisation of waste land/abandoned land plots, urban areas,production of vegetables, place of knowledge sharing)

The aim of the project was to find solutions for the lack of knowledge sharing within the society and to address the topic of food production.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems addressed by the approach can be described as manifold, e.g. insufficient local food production, or the general lack of public spaces for knowledge sharing and exchange within the community.

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	self-mobilization	There was a constant change of the people that were being involved in the different phases of the project. The decision to what degree people got involved, were to be taken under the consideration of the personal needs and possibilities.
planning	self-mobilization	There was a constant change of the people that were being involved in the different phases of the project. The decision to what degree people got involved, were to be taken under the consideration of the personal needs and possibilities.
implementation	self-mobilization	There was a constant change of the people that were being involved in the different phases of the project. The decision to what degree people got involved, were to be taken under the consideration of the personal needs and possibilities.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	There was a constant change of the people that were being involved in the different phases of the project. The decision to what degree people got involved, were to be taken under the consideration of the personal needs and possibilities.
Research	interactive

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

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

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Through creating a open public space/place and by offering manifold practical activity the approach provides training by using a peer to peer approach on topics like biodiversity, healthy eating, recycling, environmental justice, climate change and food sovereignty. This training / awareness raising takes place informally (peer to peer) as well as formally (announced courses, lectures, discussions)

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is inadequate 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 land users through observations

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There is a constant change according to the findings of the monitoring and the needs/possibilites of the project participants.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The research of the Technical University of Berlin showed that vegetables which were cultivated very close to the street, contained more pollutants. Therefore a 'green belt' of about 2 m width was established around the garden, where only non-food-crops are cultivated

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

There was research on the soil and plant quality and possible contamination of the soil and the plants (performed e.g. by the Technical University of Berlin)

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:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s): 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)

• infrastructure

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

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)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

Through the diverse income opportunities (consulting, selling/using the produce in gastronomy, donation) the Approach activities can be self-financed.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
not dependent on a certain plot (mobility, flexibility)
flat hierachy leads to the fact, that a lot of people can bring in their ideas easily
Everybody can decide on his/her own to what extend he/she wants to get involved and in what kind of activity. Through this the participants can focus on their strengths and there is little chance that overworking occurs.
Creation of paid jobs

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
self-financed
sharing of knowledge (possible between all participants)
open to everybody

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
only to a certain point 'sustainable', as the project is dependent on a great amount of external inputs (water, plastic boxes)

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
only to a certain point 'sustainable', as the project is dependent on a great amount of external inputs (water, plastic boxes)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

website, 2015

Available from where? Costs?

prinzessinnengarten.net/