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

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

Sustainable Landmanagement in south-western Madagascar (SuLaMa / GLUES)

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

Universität Hamburg (UHH) - Germany

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

University of Antananarivo - Madagascar

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/04/2016

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

Establishing a knowledge base and communication platform in collaboration with para-ecologists for monitoring changes in ecosystems, to aid decision-making in forest management.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: This approach strengthens knowledge about the response of biodiversity to environmental changes – namely land conversion, climate change induced impacts and climate-related extreme events, such as droughts and cyclones. Information generated can be used to inform regional authorities. They are then able to adapt management to current conditions, in order to better preserve biodiversity within the National Park. An important component of this approach is the integration of people from the local population as 'para-ecologists' who are trained in survey techniques for biodiversity monitoring. They directly observe changes in biodiversity, and share their knowledge with others in the area. The approach, thus, includes the sensitization of the local population to impacts of environmental change on biodiversity.

Methods: Under this approach, local assistants were trained in biodiversity monitoring techniques by researchers during their regular research activities. Part of the process comprised skills in species identification. Because the researchers had a limited period available for field work, training of these para-ecologists was a pre-requisite for implementation of long-term monitoring activities based on surveying at regular intervals. The surveys initiated by the researchers were plant phenology monitoring, regular capture, marking and recapture of Galidictis grandidieri (the giant striped mongoose) which is a flagship species in the Tsimanampesotse National Park, as well as reptile occurrence monitoring along transects. Monitoring procedures were established, and then continued by para-ecologists under the guidance of a Malagasy researcher who is familiar with ecological field work and acted as a ‘scientific coordinator’. The task of the scientific coordinator was data control and storage, planning of monitoring activities, as well as communication between national authorities, ecologists and para-ecologists. All survey data are available for scientific purposes and can be used to inform Malagasy authorities, or can be directly demanded by Malagasy authorities.

Stages of implementation: A basic research camp for monitoring was established within the Tsimanampesotse National Park in collaboration with Madagascar National Parks and WWF Toliara with third party funding. Four para-ecologists, two cooks and a guard constitute the team. The camp is maintained by a manager who is responsible for maintenance of buildings and electric facilities as well as provision of food. Surveying equipment is stored at the base camp. Computers and other necessary equipment were provided under the SuLaMa project. There are two para-ecologists trained on flora and a further two on fauna. Survey sites for monitoring of animal diversity and plant phenology were established by plant and animal ecologists in cooperation with the para-ecologists. Infrastructure for data acquisition and storage was established. This included the installation of electrical facilities as well as the provisioning of field books and computers. Technicians received language courses and learned computer operation. Regular exchange between the research camp and the national park authority, MNP, was established through a permanently employed scientific coordinator. This exercise resulted in a first workshop on survey techniques, in which staff of Madagascar National Park learned from researchers and para-ecologists.

Role of stakeholders: All survey data are available for scientific purposes and can be used to inform Malagasy authorities, or can be directly demanded from Malagasy authorities.

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 (raising environmental awareness, environmental education)

Collect data on biodiversity to increase understanding of environmental change impacts. Use of this data to inform conservation managers. Involve the local population in this process to raise awareness and create ownership.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of knowledge about the changes in biodiversity within the national park; inadequate expertise in animal and plant identification; lack of knowledge about standardized sampling methods; data storage and dissemination not established.

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	external support	Training, identification of places for monitoring activities
planning	none
implementation	external support	Monitoring within the National Park, giving results of research to National Park staff
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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

Were decisions on the selection of the Technology(ies) made:

• by researchers

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by reasearchers. n/a

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

• local population

Subjects covered:

Local men who were trained in animal and plant identification and survey techniques. They became specialists in their area of work and due to regular surveys, better understand the effects of environmental changes on plant phenology and the occurrence and behaviour of animals. They share their knowledge in their villages, thus contributing to raising awareness about the environment.

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:

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: data collection by paraecologists was observed by researchers during training phase

Control of data quality aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
Regular data collection aspects were regular monitored by project staff through

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: n/a

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was exclusively undertaken within the national park. Extension of research activities into non-protected areas is aspired in collaboration with the local communities.

Research was carried out on station

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: 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?

Ja

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• construction

• infrastructure

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Monthly salary for para-ecologists, as well as staff of research camp.

Research equipment included among others Computers, torches, GPS units, cameras. A cart was needed to transport persons and material.

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Data collection by members of the local population is only valuable if data are subsequently quality-assured, analysed and evaluated. Thus without support from researchers this approach is of no value.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
By employing people from villages surrounding the national Park in regular research activities as well as biodiversity monitoring, knowledge on dynamics of natural systems is experienced firsthand and can be transmitted to other members of the local population. This can be seen as an informal knowledge hub from which communities learn more about the ecosystem they live in. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Creating owenership might lead to a more sustainable resource use practice.)
Collecting data and knowledge to support evidence based decision making for biodiversity conservation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Maintain and carry forward the knowledge base and communication platform by ensuring funding )

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?
Monitoring activities depend on continuous funding. Funding was provided by SuLaMa/BMBF. Efforts for a continuation of funding need to be undertaken throughout project implementation as well as after project has terminated.	The situation could be stabilized by mainstreaming monitoring activities in programs of in-country authorities, which is planned but has not yet been implemented.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information