1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

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

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

Universität Hamburg (UHH) - Allemagne

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

University of Antananarivo - Madagascar

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Quand les données ont-elles été compilées (sur le terrain)?

11/04/2016

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

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 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

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 de l'approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

2.7 Type d'Approche

• fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

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 favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche

	Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales	Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
initiation/ motivation	soutien extérieur	Training, identification of places for monitoring activities
planification	aucun
mise en œuvre	soutien extérieur	Monitoring within the National Park, giving results of research to National Park staff
suivi/ évaluation	aucun
Research	aucun

3.3 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Les décisions concernant la sélection de la(des) Technologie(s) ont elles été prises:

• by researchers

Expliquez:

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

4.1 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

• local population

Thèmes abordés:

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 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Oui

Décrivez/ commentez:

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?

• non

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

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 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Oui

Spécifiez les thèmes:

• écologie

Donnez plus de détails et indiquez qui a mené ces recherches:

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 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:

• 10 000-100 000

Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

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

5.2 Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils reçu un soutien financier/ matériel pour la mise en œuvre de la Technologie/ des Technologies?

Oui

5.3 Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques (incluant la main d'œuvre)

• équipement

• matériaux de construction

• infrastructures

Si la main d'œuvre fournie par les exploitants des terres était un intrant substantiel, elle était:

• payée en espèces

Commentaires:

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 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

6.2 Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?

• non

Si non ou incertain, spécifiez et commentez:

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 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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 Méthodes/ sources d'information