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

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

01/08/2011

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

Да

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

The MARP approach, as reported here from Madagascar, is a participatory, but rapid, interdisciplinary assessment of local perspectives on livelihoods and natural resources use.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: ‘MARP’ is a methodology for assessing local situations that is both participatory and rapid. It was used during the initial stage of a six-year research project (2011-2016) on sustainable land management (SLM) in Madagascar conducted by a consortium of German and Malagasy universities in collaboration with a NGO. The aim of the MARP study was to facilitate the local population to express their perspectives on local livelihoods and natural resource use. The approach sought to integrate local voices into project planning. Specific objectives were (a) to build a link between German and Malagasy researchers from different disciplines, (b) to train them in the MARP methodology, (c) to understand the broad outlines of subsistence strategies, and (d) to explore the diversity of social and environmental situations in the Mahafa-ly Plateau region.

Methods: The MARP methodology facilitated an exchange between the local population (in-cluding land users and village representatives) and researchers about selected themes. Participants were invited to express themselves about their lives, social and ecological conditions and their use of natural resources. Four villages were chosen for the study, two at the coast and two on the plateau. The researchers were divided into two groups. Each group was accompanied by a facilitator and translators and each collected data in one village at the coast and one village on the plateau. Differ-ent techniques were applied to gather the information including semi-structured interviews, social maps, calendars (demonstrating cropping systems and historic developments etc), venn diagrams, and transect walks. In group discussions among researchers, information was triangulated and validated. After assessing a village, researchers called its villagers for feedback and discussion about the collected data. In this meeting the researchers presented a summary of results on local livelihoods, cropping systems and socio-cultural events, to discuss how accurate they were.

Stages of implementation: The MARP study was developed and carried out by researchers from various disci-plines including agriculture, livestock farming, silviculture, economics and human geography. It was divided into four phases, (1) an introductory workshop and tech-nical training, (2) data collection, (3) data analysis, and (4) a final workshop. In phase (1) two external experts in the MARP techniques introduced these to the par-ticipating Malagasy and German researchers in a four-day workshop. Phase (2) and (3) were implemented in the study region over a four-week period. In phase (4) the MARP study closed with a final workshop in the regional capital Tuléar, where re-sults were discussed with regional stakeholders.

Role of stakeholders: The local population played a particularly important role in the MARP study through providing key information about livelihoods and natural resource use etc. People from different clans and lineages, social status and both men and women were stra-tegically included. The MARP study group comprised 27 people who participated in the assessment: they included researchers, facilitators, socio-organizers, and trans-lators. Researchers had to develop contact with the local population, to learn from their insights, to collect and analyse data and to discuss the results with them. The facilitators’ role was to give directions to the teams during the study process. Social organizers dealt with equipment and accommodation, and translators accompanied non-native researchers during the information-gathering process.

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 (stakeholder participation, inter- and transdisciplinary research, community involvement)

The aim of the MARP study was to start dialogue between the local population and researchers about: subsistence strategies in agriculture and livestock keeping, natural resources use, the socio-cultural context and the local economy. Another aim was to provide information on community perspectives for the research project planning process and to start interdisciplinary exchange.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of dialogue between researchers and local population, researchers’ lack of knowledge of specific insights into community life, researchers’ lack of knowledge about stakeholder participation

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	пассивное
планирование	интерактивное	local decision-makers were involved in the planning process; they took decisions about the study procedure and payment.
выполнение	интерактивное	various persons from the local communities; information exchange and provision of local insights.
мониторинг/ оценка	внешняя поддержка	Various persons from the local communities were involved in monitoring of the results; feedback and discussion.
Research	пассивное

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• исключительно специалисты по УЗП

Поясните:

An international research consortium decided to contuct the MARP study.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. The MARP team introduced the study to the local population and developed together with them the study procedure in the field.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

• researchers

Рассматриваемые темы:

Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal Methodology in the field of local livelihoods and natural resource use for researchers; local population was provided with awareness raising about the research project and the way how to participate in the research process

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Name of method used for advisory service: Rapid and participatory rural appraisal (MARP); Key elements: Applying a multitude of visual and verbal appraisal techniques, Triangulation of information to guarantee validity, Starting dialogue, communication and discussion concerning local livelihoods

Land conservation activities were not part of the MARP study

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:

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: data on history and socio-cultural aspects in natural resource use

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: data from venn-diagram

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: data on local livelihoods and subsistence economy

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: data from e.g. social mapping and crop calendars

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through observations; indicators: data on stakeholder participation in conservation activities

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through observations; indicators: data for project evaluation

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Based on the data in the first two villages studied at the coast, other villages were chosen for the second set on the plateau; this was a result of social and economic interdependencies between coastal and plateau villages; furthermore, the set of applied tech-niques and the questions posed in the semi-structured interviews were adapted.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• социология
• экономика / маркетинг

• natural resources use

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

The aim was to gain a collective picture about local livelihoods, subsistence economy, and natural resources use.

Research was carried out on-farm

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:

At the final meeting as expression of gratitude for participation some money was transferred to the community heads to be shared in the village.

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:

The MARP study is mainly conducted by researchers who were trained in the application of techniques. If other stakeholders are interested in continuing this Approach they need technical training.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей

From the land users’ point of view the MARP study offered the opportunity to start dialogue with researchers. By participating and responding to researchers’ questions they reflected about own livelihoods and their way of living. Local people took the experts role in the study by explaining their perspective on local livelihoods and natural resource use. The MARP methodology also facilitated to include everybody who was willing to participate, including illiterate and socially disadvantaged people.

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

A team building process was initiated by the MARP study. A team of interdisciplinary researchers from Madagascar and Germany got together to work on a common goal. Communication between disciplines was fostered and team members learned how to overcome cultural differences. The MARP team had the opportunity to gain hands-on experiences with the MARP methodology. The MARP study facilitated mutual exchange between local people and researchers. By spending time in the field together with local people researchers started dialogue with them and thus gained important insights into local livelihoods and natural resource use. With the process of joint reflection on gained insights the researchers had valuable information at hand to design the further research process including interdisciplinary approaches. Participants also benefitted from an improved intercultural understanding.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей

Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?

Local people were only involved in a late stage of the MARP study’s development process. Although village representatives were consulted before the MARP study implementation, local people only received the information about the study when the study started. Local people did not see a direct benefit in participating in the MARP study. They rather noticed that they need to spend valuable hours of work for the study. People perceived a sort of disturbance of their village life through a group of foreign people with a different cultural background.

In order to prepare local people for the study, the overall research project should be introduced in an early stage. Inform about and communicate MARP study objectives, methodologies, visions etc. to target groups early enough and as detailed as possible. Local people (not only representatives) should be involved right from the beginning of the conception of the study. Compensation could be provided to participants (local people) for hours spent for the study. In order to avoid cultural disturbances in the villages and provide for compliance with local norms and rules, researchers should be provided with cultural awareness training.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов

Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?

In some cases communication barriers (lack of language skills) hindered the process. This was true for communication between local people and researchers but also among German and national/local researchers. Consequently a great number of translators were needed, who increased the number of people participating the MARP study. Some researchers were new to the area or even to the country and had to work with a high amount of complex new information, while being required to adapt to local conditions. This led to an overwhelming workload. Concerning the MARP study process local people were not always available for enquiry, which was difficult to manage for the MARP team.

A session on cultural awareness should be integrated into the introductory workshop. The MARP study should be announced early enough to both the researchers so that they can prepare and the local people so that they can plan their availability for the study.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Diagnostic participatif de la gestion des ressource naturelles sur le plateau Mahafaly Commune Rurale de Beheloka – Toliara, SuLaMa, 2011Summary MARP survey, SuLaMa, 2012Freudenberger, K. (1999). Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) - A manual for CRS field workers and partners

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

www.sulama.de

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Summary MARP survey, SuLaMa, 2012

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

www.sulama.de

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Freudenberger, K. (1999). Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) - A manual for CRS field workers and partners

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

Baltimore, Maryland