Approaches

Mobile Community Garden [Germany]

  • Creation:
  • Update:
  • Compiler:
  • Editor:
  • Reviewer:

approaches_2603 - Germany

Completeness: 86%

1. معلومات عامة

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:

Shaw Robert

kontakt@prinzessinnengarten.net

PRINZESSINNENGARTEN BERLIN

Prinzenstrasse 35 – 38, Berlin

Germany

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:

نعم

2. Description of the SLM Approach

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

بلد:

Germany

Region/ State/ Province:

Berlin

Further specification of location:

Kreuzberg

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2009

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Treatment through the SLM Approach: attempt to diversify the income

institutional setting
  • hindering

no official institution is clearly responsible for this type of approach

Treatment through the SLM Approach: regular exchange with politicians, especially on local level

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation: As the existing land ownership was already known before the implementation of the approach started, this aspect was being strongly considered (leading to the design of a mobile cultivation system). Furthermore the existing land ownership (the community is owning the land) led to the possibility to have public negotiations about the renting contract. If the area would have been in private ownership such negotiations would not have been possible and it is more than likely that the Approach could not have been realised in the way it is realised now.

  • hindering

no long term renting contract, no official institution is clearly responsible for this type of approach

Treatment through the SLM Approach: political campaign

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

due to the high presence in the media there is a high demand for communication acitivities

Treatment through the SLM Approach: establishment of paid jobs to have people working professionally on certain topics

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

In the surroundings of the Moritzplatz a great part of the population were/are immigrants (most of them coming from muslim countries) and people without a job. In principle the project was/is open for all people, including disadvantaged groups as well. During the interviews it was said though that the selling and consumption of alcohol on the project area could have led to the fact that especially immigrants from muslim countries could have been felt excluded.

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. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

نعم

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?

نعم

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?

نعم

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?

نعم

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. 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: 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?

نعم

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
Kitchen partly financed For educational purposes
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

لا

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

The approach helped the land users to cultivate on areas, which were not suitable for cultivation before. Furthermore the approach enhanced the knowledge sharing concering different topics regarding sustainable land management. Therefore the impact of the Approach on SLM is not only to be measured on the project area itself, but also under consideration of the outreach of the project.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Through the Approach a space for knowledge sharing was created, which is also open for socially and economically disadvantaged groups. The utilisation of this space by the groups in question is limited up to date though.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach was adopted in modified ways in several urban gardening projects accross Germany. It is not possible to quantify the number. A guess would be around 20.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Creation of a space open to the public, which is dedicated for knowledge sharing.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The goal of the approach was not set on the alleviation of poverty.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • 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:

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. 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:

website, 2015

Available from where? Costs?

prinzessinnengarten.net/

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules