1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название проекта, содействовавшего документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

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

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

University of Greifswald (University of Greifswald) - Германия

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

University of Antananarivo - Мадагаскар

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Université de Tuléar - Мадагаскар

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

01/08/2014

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

Participatory simulation to foster stakeholder dialogue in natural resource management, conciliate resource conflicts and enable participatory land use planning

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: Two role-playing games were designed to understand land users' livelihoods strategies in both “normal” but also in times of drought events and cattle raids. The aim was to find out how, and why, livelihood decisions differed between household types in south-western Madagascar. Under the role-playing methodology, land users actively participate through discussing livelihood strategies, negotiating interests, and planning for the future. The methodology proved to be very dynamic, interactive and useful.

Methods: The SuLaMa project is a five-year Malagasy and German research project involving an interdisciplinary team (consortium) that aimed at developing sustainable land use techniques in south-western Madagascar. To validate soft-models that fed into computer-based models on land use change in the region, four workshops were held in four villages on the Mahafaly Plateau. Two groups of land users, with twelve participants each, worked simultaneously in each village: a total number of 96 participated. The games, ‘Livelihood Game’ and ‘Livestock Game', were designed to foster both scientific knowledge production on land use systems, and dialogue with land users. The essence of the methodology is that participants assume the roles of different household types and simulate their annual livelihood activities on a village map. The four household types differed from relatively wealthy (owning cattle; a lot of land) to poor (no cattle, little land). Each household type was represented by two or three participants and roles were allocated randomly.

Stages of implementation: The 'Livelihood Game' covers a time span of four fictive years. Each round represents the household’s annual subsistence decisions. In contrast, the 'Livestock Game' covers just one year with each round encompassing one of three seasons. In the 'Livelihood Game', players have a set of activity options: for example they can locate fields on the map and choose how to cultivate them. Moreover, additional activities like livestock keeping, charcoal making, paid work, collecting/hunting or educating children are available to them. The 'Livestock Game' concentrates on grazing and animal feeding decisions. Each decision is visualized by pictured cards, tokens and symbols - and grazing areas are mapped. While this participatory simulation remains a game, it would be feasible to integrate the methodology into a land use planning process.

Role of stakeholders: Initially, the joint interdisciplinary team conducted a baseline survey using Rapid Rural Appraisal tools to gain a general understanding of local socio-ecologic systems. Following this, a quantitative household survey was carried out in several villages (665 households in total) to analyse household composition and structures. Based on the results, researchers designed the structure of the role-playing games.

Other important information: A crucial precondition was that local communities were well-informed and participation was voluntary. This was achieved by an ‘announcement tour’ where timings were adapted to social, cultural and labour schedules of the local population. The communities were invited to determine the participants according to specific criteria. Participants had to be those who practiced the typical livelihood activities of agriculture and livestock keeping, and who contributed to household decision-making. Furthermore, a balance in terms of gender, age and lineage was requested.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Participation, stakeholder communication, joint natural resource management, mutual learning)

The community workshops were held in order to (1) validate the researchers’ systems understanding about rural livelihoods and land use activities, and to (2) discuss land users' responses to drought events and cattle raids.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of communication and negotiation between technicians, resource users and scientists. Lack of participation of rural communities in long-term planning and decision-making. Lack of regulations for the use of scarce resources.

2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	нет
планирование	нет
выполнение	интерактивное	Villagers participated in the workshops. As compensation for their time, they received a community remuneration.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	After the workshops, participants were asked to give feedback on the methodology.
Research	нет

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• в основном землепользователи при поддержке специалистов по УЗП

Поясните:

During the simulations, land users decided which activities they carried out to feed their (fictive) households. A set of predetermined activities was available to them. The discussions were moderated by a facilitator.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). The SuLaMa research project decided to use the Role-Playing Games methodology to trigger discussion among and with land users. Within the simulation, land users strongly influenced the game process by decidion on their household activities.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

• research assistants, WWF staff

Тип обучения:

• в ходе работы
• обмен опытом между фермерами

Тип обучения:

• 'Learning by doing and failing'

Рассматриваемые темы:

Research assistants and WWF staff were trained to facilitate and document the method adequately.
During the workshop sessions, land users gained understanding of the interdependencies of land use and conservation practices and came to reflect the livelihood strategies in their villages.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Описание/ комментарий:

Participatory simulations, role-playing games; Key elements: Taking on another households' role, Developping livelihood strategies in different scenarios, Discussion, communication and negotiation

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• нет

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: data on land use practices were collected

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: data on human well-being and social conventions (traditions, rituals) were collected

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: data on expenses and revenues were collected

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: spatial decisions were visualised and marked on maps

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: in each of the 4 villages 24 land users took part in the workshops

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: qualitative and quantitative data on livelihood strategies were collected

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: To synchronize the process in the two groups within a village, it was essential to have one observer who could move between the two groups and detect differences. For instance, it was observed that while one facilitator preferred to gather all participants around one big table, the other one arranged separate tables for each household. After the workshop sessions, observers, facilitators and documenters discussed the process and crosschecked the results of different groups. Eventually, it was agreed that it was better to have all participants around one big table. Also household assets, such as poultry or houses, were adopted in the game by the players.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

• households' livelihood strategies

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

An international research consortium conducted the Role Playing Game workshops to validate human decisions in their land use models. However, the approach can be applied for various purposes.

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 2000-10000

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

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

5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Да

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• оборудование

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• добровольный

Комментарии:

Participants were paid expense allowance for the workshop days.

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• нет

Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

As the methodology needs preparation and facilitations, some method specialists are required to accompany the process.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей

The participants understood and generally accepted the game rapidly. They confirmed to have recognized that it was not just a game but a simulation of reality. As all the activities referred to the people’s everyday life, no long introduction or explanation was necessary to start the game. People seemed to feel comfortable in their “roles” and spoke freely about their household decisions. They could actively take part in the game not only by answering to the questions but also by manipulating the game materials on their own. . “This game is easy, because it refers to our daily life, not to something you have created for yourself. This is the reality of our daily lives.” (Participant in Efoetse, August 2014)

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов

The Role Playing Game became vivid and lively by using visualization and communication tools. Complex decisions on land use system could be explained with the help of pictures and symbols from people’s daily life. The tools not only helped to capture the whole systems complexity and open discussions, they also assured mutual understanding and synchronized different agents’ perception. Pictures also helped to achieve a common understanding beyond language barriers. In a region with a high illiteracy rate, these visualization tools can be regarded as measures for empowerment as no writing or reading skills are necessary to take part in the game. Thus, the method is a dynamic and interactive tool for stakeholder integration and awareness raising.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
The methodology is time consuming and brings no direct or sudden benefits for land users.	The method could potentially be changed so that results are less research-oriented and more visible for the participants. Now technologies or alternative livelihood activities could be simulated during the game.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
It must be mentioned that a lot of investment and preparation is needed for conducting the workshop successfully. The Role-Playing Game not only requires very specific material and tools, but also a lot of time for development, preparation, team training, testing and on-site execution is required. If the time needed for carrying out the game cannot be planned and tested carefully in advance, it may lead to frustration and disappointment.	The benefits of this approach need to be justified and proved to donors and the extension / advisory services to convince them to invest.
Though the methodology was generally accepted and understood, it turned out to be challenging for facilitators and documenters. It requires high communication skills, empathy, and understanding for local conditions and the willingness to listen to the peasants in order to build trust among the group.	To become good facilitators, capacity building and training of extension workers or advisors is needed.
The role-playing games methodology is laborious to design and prepare, it usually needs one dedicated institution to initiate and coordinate the workshops.	The only option for continuing this methodology is if a generally-accepted and professional organisation can be found to take on the responsibility in the long term.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Wesselow et al. 2015: Participatory Gaming for Sustainable Land Management in the Mahafaly Region. A Practical Guide for Researchers and Practitioners

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

http://www.sulama.de/files/products/WP5_Product3_Participatory_Gaming_for_SLM_eng.pdf