This research has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ ) under grant agreement No WP 7: Cultural and Spiritual Vulnerability K. J. Joy and Suhas Paranjape SOPPECOM, Pune 17 March 2010

Objectives of the WP Demarcating the boundaries for the WP Areas of enquiry and data needs Instruments/tools for data collection Various steps Analysis: vulnerability matrix Timeline Presentation Overview

Objectives of the WP To understand the interconnections between cultural and spiritual practices, beliefs and attitudes of different representative groups with different livelihood patterns and biodiversity with which they interact To identify the various contextual factors and developments in the area that are likely to generate cultural and spiritual vulnerability – by directly threatening cultural and spiritual diversity – by threatening biodiversity through the above interconnections

Objectives of the WP To explore in a participative mode coping mechanisms and policies for dealing with cultural and spiritual vulnerability through scenarios

Demarcating the boundaries for the WP Difference between WP4 and WP7 – WP4 dealing with public beliefs, perceptions, attitudes and preferences is much wider in scope – WP7 dealing with culture and spirituality could be a sub- set of WP4 – In WP7 we focus on cultural and spiritual practices/traditions and institutions in the case basins – The key concepts are diversity and vulnerability – Our orientation would be to identify vulnerabilities in the context of the drivers for the scenarios

Demarcating the boundaries for the WP Not getting into the definitional/conceptual issues related to culture, spirituality, religion, ethnicity, etc., here; would focus more on the practices, traditions, institutions that we want to study

Demarcating the boundaries for the WP Shared cultural and spiritual practices, traditions, institutions – Religion – Ethnicity – Castes – Indigenous people – Sects We are not bringing in the issue of territorial dimension here – Communities do get dispersed over time for various reasons; still they do share in common practices/traditions

Areas of enquiry and data needs 1.Number of distinct cultural/spiritual groupings in the case basins – Distribution/locations on GIS 2.Prepare a separate profile for each group – Rituals and ceremonies around important milestones in the life cycle Birth, marriage, death and so on To be captured separately for men, women and any other hierarchy (example: chiefs)

Areas of enquiry and data needs Preparation of the profile – Ways of dressing – Day to day and ceremonial (festivals, events) – Sacred entities and associated practices Sacred groves, water bodies (Lake Fundudzi), Animals (crocodile), plants, etc. Practices and taboos around these Gender distinctions and issue of exclusions – Institutions around all of these How they get organised? Who are all involved? What roles do they play? Etc. Formal and informal institutions

Areas of enquiry and data needs These are the main areas where there is a set of shared practices which distinguishes each group Another set of groupings could be around livelihoods Groups based on the ways one earn one’s livelihoods These groups may not have the same degree of shared practices/traditions for various reasons We need a broad mapping of various livelihood groups in the case areas Two areas: – Housework (various household activities, rearing of children and so on – reproductive arena – Activities directly related to earning livelihoods – productive arena – Gender division of labour/practices/traditions Need to capture trends and historical contexts

Areas of enquiry and data needs To sum up what all should go into the profile: – Rituals and ceremonies around important milestones in the life cycle – Dressing – Sacred entities and associated practices – Institutions around all of these – Livelihoods and associated practices – Trends and historical contexts with regard to all of these

Sources, instruments and tools Secondary data and sources – The demographic profile and distribution – time series data – Government records, census data, communities’ own documents, gazetteers, historical records, articles, ethnographic studies on communities, and so on

Sources, instruments and tools Primary data – Interviews and focus groups Interviews – For the detailed profile of the cultural and spiritual groups we have interviews with key informants in the groups – About 4 to 5 interviews per group Male Female It would also be good to have an interview with the chief, leader and so on Here we cover the issues that go into the preparation of the profile of the groups

Sources, instruments and tools Focus group discussions (FGDs) – Basically to capture changes and trends, drivers, isolate practices that could be taken forward, perceived vulnerabilities, future visions and so on – Two focus group discussions per settlement We would prepare guidelines/checklists for both interviews and FGDs and circulate Including the questions related to WP 7 in the HH survey is optional We could draw on the HH survey for the livelihood groupings

Cultural spiritual practices and biodiversity Not a perception analysis Basis is the detailed profile of shared cultural and spiritual practices and institutions The entire set may then be analysed in relation to biodiversity Isolate practices that may require or depend on biodiversity (food habits, types of dress, livelihood patterns)

Cultural spiritual practices and biodiversity Isolate practices that may bring about biodiversity conservation (Sacred groves, bans or taboos related to species, preservation of sacred place, etc.) Isolate a set of best practices that may contribute to sustainable development

It is suggested to develop a vulnerability matrix for analysing vulnerability. It is also a useful tool for the purposes of scenario building. A matrix rather than a linear scale is suggested to capture the complexity of cultural spiritual practices. A vulnerability matrix

Along the rows, we have the cultural spiritual practices that the community shares Along the columns we have the main drivers or the proximate drivers that are important for the case study area and the particular community. Each cell then has a vulnerability value that represents the vulnerability of that practice (row) to that driver (column) A vulnerability matrix

Along the rows, we have the cultural spiritual practices that the community shares Along the columns we have the main drivers or the proximate drivers that are important for the case study area and the particular community. Each cell then has a vulnerability value that represents the vulnerability of that practice (row) to that driver (column) A vulnerability matrix

A scale of 1 to 5 is suggested, but it is not a linear scale and may be best translated into categories : for example [Slight or none, Mild, Moderate, High, Very High] The vulnerabilities here are not necessarily perceived vulnerabilities, but an assessment based on data that includes community perceptions but is not aimed at them. A vulnerability matrix

The matrix described above relates to the vulnerability of the community as a whole. It does not take account of internal variations within the community. For example, women and chiefs may be very differently vulnerable in some respects. That would require a separate analysis. It is not yet clear whether we should indicate it within the matrix or have a separate analysis for them which points out how they are differently vulnerable. Sectional vulnerabilities

Steps 1.Secondary data collection Preparation of a preliminary report based on this 2.Interviews Preparation of profiles for each cultural-spiritual groups 3.Focus Groups Preparation of a report that captures historical trends, perception by he groups about vulnerabilities, drivers, future visions 4.Analysis and preparation of the vulnerability matrix along with drivers

List of main cultural spiritual groups within the case study area [Case study partners] [April 15] Guidelines for FGDs and interviews [WP 7] [April 15] Preliminary report based on secondary data (distribution, demography, etc.) [Case study partners] [April 30] Field work [Case study partners and WP 7] [July 31] Timeline

Draft Reports [Case study partners] [August 31] Consolidated draft report [WP 7] [September 30] Timeline

This research has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ ) under grant agreement No