Allen, W. 2001. Working together for environmental management: the role of information sharing and collaborative learning. PhD Dissertation, Development Studies, Massey University, New Zealand.

Probst, K. 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Promising Concept in Participatory Research? Lessons from two case studies in Honduras (Kommunikation und Beratung Bd. 49), 2002, XII + 220pp., 21 x 14,8 cm, paper, ISBN 3-8236-1386-3.To date in agricultural research, farmer participation in monitoring and evaluation has been limited to assessing technologies, and to consultations on adoption and impacts of innovations. However, participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) may have much more to offer as an approach for regular self-reflection and learning within projects, and it could make a significant contribution in the complex field of participatory research for natural resource management. These were the initial assumptions which formed the starting point for the study documented in this book. Based on action research undertaken in two case study projects in Honduras, this book assesses the potential benefits and limitations of using PM&E in participatory research, and elucidates key conditions for success in its implementation. It contributes to the actual debate on participatory research, the re-orientation of international agricultural research, and adds new aspects to the age-old topic of monitoring and evaluation. This dissertation was supported in part by a small grant from the PRGA.

Allen, W. NRM-Changelinks.Net. Links for developing Change in Natural Resource Management: an on-line resource guide for those seeking to improve the use of collaborative and learning-based approaches. Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, New Zealand and Natural Resource Management Programme, Massey University, New Zealand.

Defoer, T. and A. Budelman (Eds) 2000. Managing Soil Fertility in The Tropics: A Resource Guide for Participatory Learning and Action Research.. Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) Institute in collaboration with IIED, IER, FAO and CTA.

Candelo, C. Cárdenas, J.C, JE. Correa, M.C. López, D.L. Maya y M. X. Zorrilla and A.M.Roldan. 2002. Juegos económicos y diagnostico rural participativo. Un manual con ejemplos de aplicación para la cooperación. Universidad Javeriana y WWF Colombia.

Gündel, S. 1998. Innovación, desarrollo y difusión participativas: Adopción y adaptación de leguminosas introducidas en el sistema agrícola tradicional de rozatumba y quema en Yucatán, México. Begleitprogramm Tropenökologie, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.

Horton, D., A. Alexaki, S. Bennett-Lartey, K.N. Brice, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. de Souza Silva, L.T. Duong, I. Khadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I, Kayes Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. Somarriba Chang, R. Vernooy, and J. Watts. 2003. Developing and Evaluating Capacity in Research and Development Organization. ISSN 1021-2310. 8p. ISNAR Briefing Paper.The international aid community is placing a growing emphasis on developing the capacity of local organizations as the key to alleviating poverty and hunger in the developing world. Ensuring the effectiveness of a capacity building effort requires the appropriate use of evaluation. Yet few organizations have systematically monitored or evaluated organizational development processes. In January 2000, ISNAR began an ambitious "Evaluating Capacity Development" project, which aims to improve capacity development efforts in research and development organizations through evaluation. This Briefing Paper explains how the project used an action-learning approach, bringing together people from various countries and different types of organizations. These people conducted six evaluation studies over the course of three years, learning a great deal about capacity development and evaluation in the process. One of the key findings was the importance of involving staff and stakeholders in the evaluation process. A participatory approach fosters commitment to building the future of an organization and can speed up decision making. As people "learn by doing", they strengthen their own capacity for evaluation and are motivated to pass their knowledge on to others. When conducted in a participatory and structured way, evaluation can make a substantial contribution to improving overall organizational performance.

Horton, D., A. Alexaki, S. Bennett-Lartey, K.N. Brice, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. de Souza Silva, L.T. Duong, I. Khadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I, Kayes Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. Somarriba Chang, R. Vernooy, and J. Watts. 2003. Developing and Evaluating Capacity in Research and Development Organization. ISSN 1021-2310. 8p. ISNAR Briefing Paper.The international aid community is placing a growing emphasis on developing the capacity of local organizations as the key to alleviating poverty and hunger in the developing world. Ensuring the effectiveness of a capacity building effort requires the appropriate use of evaluation. Yet few organizations have systematically monitored or evaluated organizational development processes. In January 2000, ISNAR began an ambitious "Evaluating Capacity Development" project, which aims to improve capacity development efforts in research and development organizations through evaluation. This Briefing Paper explains how the project used an action-learning approach, bringing together people from various countries and different types of organizations. These people conducted six evaluation studies over the course of three years, learning a great deal about capacity development and evaluation in the process. One of the key findings was the importance of involving staff and stakeholders in the evaluation process. A participatory approach fosters commitment to building the future of an organization and can speed up decision making. As people "learn by doing", they strengthen their own capacity for evaluation and are motivated to pass their knowledge on to others. When conducted in a participatory and structured way, evaluation can make a substantial contribution to improving overall organizational performance.

AN OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND LEARNING PROCESSES AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. 2003. An overview of participatory research and learning processes and their relevance to watershed management and development. Paper commissioned to the working group on Participatory Natural Resource Management of CGIAR System wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. 30 p.

Matsaert, H., Z. Ahmed, N.Islam and F.Hussain. 2004. Actor oriented tools for analysis of innovation systems: Some guidelines from experience of analysing natural resource based innovation systems in Bangladesh. DRAFT.These guidelines are based on our experiences of using actor oriented tools to analyse chilli and livestock innovations systems and identify pro poor interventions in the char lands of Bangladesh, and in sharing and discussing these tools with other development partners. These tools are drawn from a wide range of sources. These include social anthropological and social network research techniques (see Long and Long 1992, Lewis 1998), stakeholder analysis (see Grimble and Wellard 1997), agricultural information knowledge systems (see Roling and Jiggins 1997) and process monitoring and documentation (see Mosse et al 1998). However, the tools are not commonly found in the analysis and planning of interventions in natural resource based innovation systems. Actor oriented tools complement other planning, monitoring and evaluation tools by focusing on the structure of social relationships between the key actors involved in a development scenario. We have found them useful for:- Analysis of a given institution (e.g organisation or enterprise, project or sector) in terms of strong and weak linkages between its actors; planning: visual presentation of critical links which should be supported or developed to meet the overall development goals e.g poverty reduction, inclusion of marginal groups and in monitoring and evaluation for visualising how interventions have impacted on critical linkages over time.

Ashby, J. 2003. Uniting Science and Participation in the Process of Innovation – Research for Development. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Researchers are approaching the process of innovation, as well as their own role in improving natural resource management (NRM) in a new way. ‘Research and development’ – also known as R&D – derives from the concept of researchers who are in control of a pipeline for producing technological innovations: an idea goes in at one end of the pipeline, research develops a prototype, and then a fully developed product comes out, ready to be released to eager users, at the other end of the pipeline. In contrast, ‘research for development’ emphasizes the iterative, adaptive nature of innovation in complex ecosystems, which is achieved through systematic enquiry combined with learning based in action. The purpose of this chapter is to set the scene for understanding the evolution of new approaches to innovation in agriculture and NRM and the kind of research and development process needed to realize their potential for NRM.

Ravnborg, H.M. and O. Westermann. 2002. Understanding Interdependencies: Stakeholder identification and negotiation for collective natural resource management. Agricultural Systems. Volume 73(1)3-22. Special Issue: Deepening the Basis of Natural Resource ManagementMany natural resource management (NRM) problems transcend farm boundaries. Particularly in hilly regions where land tends to be fragmented among numerous users, managing these biophysical interdependencies to solve transboundary NRM problems implies the coordination of the management decisions of diverse resource users among whom complex social interdependencies are likely to exist. This paper argues that joint learning about the social and biophysical interdependencies existing among users and between the resources they manage is a valuable and often essential element in efforts to improve NRM. Based on action research carried out in the Colombian Andes, the paper presents a process––the stakeholder identification and negotiation process––which facilitates such joint learning using a combination of individual interviews, group meetings and joint problem analysis.

Stroud, A. 2003. Transforming Institutions to Achieve Innovation in Research and Development. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Researchers around the globe are taking on complex, multi-faceted environmental and livelihood challenges. In doing so, they are searching for, testing and proposing a number of methods and approaches that depart from those normally used in traditional agricultural research. There are several driving forces behind this evolution: a growing dissatisfaction of governments and donors in the limited impact from the substantial investment that has been made in agricultural research; a heightened pressure to deliver and to show that farmers are using the technologies that have been ‘on the shelf’; and an awareness that technologies and other research products need supportive conditions, coupled with local innovation and incentives, to enhance adoption. There is also a growing realization by researchers and natural resource management (NRM) practitioners that technologies in themselves are not a panacea to address NRM issues, but need to go hand-in-hand with supportive social, institutional, economic and policy arrangements. It is the major hypothesis of this book that the participatory research and gender analysis (PRGA) approaches promoted by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) will help to address these sorts of concern.As researchers are being pressured to be more client, impact and results-oriented, research managers are also being pressured to change their organization’s orientation. The changes sought in research practice to more directly address local capacity needs and support sustainable, self-led change require supportive changes in institutional operations, arrangements and values. This path of change should lead to a more ‘learning type’ research system – one that internalizes the necessary changes in attitudes, structures and research practices so as to increase responsiveness to local community development needs, consideration of economic, institutional and social aspects, and the ability to positively influence policy. Public research organizations are, in fact, currently being challenged to embrace a twofold change: to move towards the use of PRGA approaches in research practice (see Box 5.1); and, to become ‘learning organizations’ so that they can continue to effectively innovate in the future (see Table 5.1). To date, the promotion of PRGA methods has been primarily addressed through projects and one-off training programmes. Very few of these projects or programmes are conceived to, or have strategies that, influence the core attitudes or working practices of the institutions, so that many of the experiences remain isolated, and as a result there is still a dearth of public institutional support for these new approaches. However, some researchers are promoting an integrated natural resource management research and development (INRM R&D) approach, which also embraces participatory approaches) (CGIAR INRM Task Force, 2001; CGIAR INRM, 2000; Stroud, 2000, 2001; AHI, 2000). There are now some examples of changes in attitudes,

Hagmann, J. R., E. Chuma, K. Murwira, M. Connolly, and P. Ficarelli. 2002. Success factors in integrated natural resource management R&D: lessons from practice. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 29.This paper analyzes integrated natural resource management (INRM) lessons and success factors based on a practical case study over more than 10 years in Zimbabwe. The work was geared toward enhancing the adaptive management capacity of the stakeholders in their resource-use systems. One main result was the development and institutionalization of an approach for participatory and integrated NRM research and extension. The INRM approach described is grounded in a learning paradigm and a combination of theories: the constructivist perspective to development, systemic intervention, and learning process approaches. Participatory action research and experiential learning, in which researchers engage themselves as actors rather than neutral analysts in an R&D process to explore the livelihood system and develop appropriate solutions together with the resource users, has shown high potential. However, this should be guided by a clear strategy, impact orientation, and high-quality process facilitation at different levels. The case study revealed the importance of a “reflective practitioner” approach by all actors. More effective response to the challenges of increasing complexity in NRM requires a shift in thinking from the linearity of research–extension–farmer to alternative, multiple-actor institutional arrangements and innovation systems. To overcome the weak attribution of research outcomes to actual impact, it also suggests an alternative to conventional impact assessment in INRM R&D interventions.

Hagmann, J. E. Chuma, M. Connolly, and K. Murwira. 1997. Propelling change from the bottom-up: Institutional reform in Zimbabwe. IIED Gatekeeper Series. Issue 71.Participatory approaches to extension and innovation development are increasingly being seen as the way forward for agricultural development. Yet the challenges arising when trying to reform conventional government bureaucracies to make all the changes this approach requires are many. This paper describes how just such a reform process was undertaken in Zimbabwe. Scaling-up of this approach through institutionalisation into the agricultural extension department required a complex and multi-pronged strategy. The development of 'learning cases', and the exposure of officers to these case studies helped raise awareness and commitment for change. An informal network of initiatives pursuing participatory development as a lobby group strengthened the influence and brought participatory approaches into mainstream thinking. Once commitment for change had developed in the extension department, operationalisation of participatory extension approaches (PEA) became a major challenge. This reform required substantial changes in the organisational culture, roles, relationships and attitudes of individuals and groups. Changes of that nature are presently being addressed in an organisational development programme which includes a learning process to facilitate behavioural and attitude changes. The paper concludes that institutionalisation and operationalisation of participatory approaches is far more than training of staff in participatory methods. It is a highly complex intervention which requires high commitment of all actors, sound strategies, flexible methodologies, a conducive atmosphere for learning and a focus on human relationships, rather than on technical and formal issues. The lessons learned and steps taken will have resonance and value for any other organisations embarking on a similar journey.

Vincent, L. 2003. Participatory Research, Natural Resource Management and Rural Transformation: More Lessons from the Field. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.The word ‘lesson’ can refer to a teaching exercise that is structured to provide facts, skills and information, or to the meaning and awareness that is extracted from an experience. By reflecting on what we are doing and why, we can hope to limit our mistakes and create new ways of seeing, negotiating and resolving problems and opportunities. Lessons are important to the future of participatory research, as the recent critique of participatory development as a ‘tyranny’ shows (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). They call for a critical review of participatory development approaches and research methods – to study the controls on the processes behind ‘participation’ paradigms, and to demonstrate why it should be preserved as an approach. However, even ten years ago, Fals-Borda and Rahman (1991) were also warning of the take-up of participatory methods by agencies as a requirement and new form of control and social engineering, that would bring criticism of the role of participatory research methods. They emphasized the need for reflection to counter such outcomes, going on to stress instead how the importance of participatory research might increase in the future. This is through its demonstration of the complexities and stresses of local joint action in changing social and political conditions, at the same time as showing the changes achievable by people in such joint action – to continue to understand the commitment, understanding and support their ever-changing context might require. Although participatory research may also provide better ‘knowledge’ for more enlightened action by planners and policy-makers, or create more local civic action, the changes it achieves are part of a more profound self-awareness about the taking of action for change. This chapter aims to show that this critical review and personal reflection is taking place for participatory research, in both methodological and personal practice, to make it better placed to meet the challenges and critiques of research for transformation in natural resources management (NRM) (see also Hobart, 1994). It illustrates why and how people at the Chatham workshop have continued learning with participatory processes in research supporting development, despite the many stresses in their conduct. Chapter 6 has already reviewed certain key ‘good practices’ from the case studies, emphasizing ‘the field’ as a critical alternative to controlled, narrowly focused pilot trials and models of conventional scientific agricultural research. It showed how to build bridges between different research methodologies, both for better work with stakeholders and new learning possibilities for users of natural resources and for those researching NRM. This chapter brings together lessons from the wider range of practitioners at the Chatham workshop, and the wider field of development-related and action-oriented research they represented. These lessons reflect on why participatory research was being done, why collegiate research was important and difficult, how new frameworks help those involved to rethink the relations between action and knowledge, and what ‘ownership’ means in research terms, going well beyond a ‘restatement of methodologies’ (Biggs and Smith, 1998). It thus looks beyond the ‘learning’ discussion of Chapter 6, to look at the complex questions of action if research is to have real transforming power. Much of the recent effort and critique of participatory research has been about recognition and sharing of different knowledge to enable action to be planned, and giving local people a clearer voice However, there is a wider effort and critique within participatory research – to bring understanding and confrontation of social relations and dynamics into the design of action, beyond just those experienced in knowledge and its synthesis. This chapter tries to look at the impact of these new lessons on action, learning and knowledge as presented at the Chatham workshop.

Gündel, S. 1998. Participatory Innovation Development and Diffusion: Adoption and adaption of introduced legumes in the traditional slash-and-burn peasant farming system in Yucatan, Mexico. Begleitprogramm Tropenökologie, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.

Barton, T., G. Borrini-Feyerabend, A. De Sherbinin and P. Warren 1997. Our People, Our Resources: supporting rural communities in participatory action research on population dynamics and the local environment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available also in French and Spanish) This handbook illustrates concepts, methods and tools for primary environmental care, an approach that seeks to empower communities to meet basic needs while protecting the environment. In particular, it focuses on how population size, structure, growth (or decline) and movements relate to the quality of the environment and the qulaity of life. Emphasis is placed on a community-led process of participatory action research in which local knowledge and skills and fully utilized. The main purpose is to promote the effective, integrated management of environment and population dynamics for the benefit of local people in rural communities.

Vaughan, C., Katjiua, J.B., Mulonga, S., and Branston N. 2003. Living with Wildlife. Proceedings of Workshop to Evaluate Wildlife Utilization and Human Wildlife Conflict with Community Game Guards in Kunene. WILD Working Paper 16.This paper presents a preliminary analysis of research conducted in the Kunene Region on the role of wildlife use and management for livelihoods. There are two main components to the paper. The first presents a discussion of issues and options arising from research, drawing on a participatory workshop dealing with issues associated with ‘living with wildlife’, Other data that this paper draws on includes material from the main WILD/EEU CBNRM livelihood survey, two further participatory research workshops (Vaughan et al 2002, and Vaughan and Katjiua 2003), informal interviews and household visits and work in progress on wildlife use (Katjiua forthcoming). The second part presents the proceedings of the workshop to discuss project findings verbatim. The workshop gathered together 18 Community Game Guards (CGGs) from different conservancies in Kunene, three MET representatives, three NGO facilitators and four WILD Project researchers, to explore in more detail some of the issues raised through previous research. The workshop focused on gaining a balanced picture and broader understating of the relationship between the management of wildlife through conservancies and local people’s own use, the role wildlife plays in people’s lives and the pressures or conflicts they face.

Editado por Per Pinstrup-Andersen y Rajul Pandya-Lorch 302 páginas / 2001 / ISBN 0-89629-712-8En las últimas décadas, el mundo ha dado pasos impresionantes para mejorar la calidad de vida de millones de personas; sin embargo, todavía sigue inconclusa la tarea de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria a los más pobres de una manera sostenible. La explosión demográfica, la expansión urbana, la desnutrición y la mala salud persistentes, las tierras agrícolas degradadas y el agua escasa, la carencia de poder de las mujeres, la globalización acelerada y la rápida aparición de nuevas tecnologías – todos estos y muchos otros factores están influenciando este esfuerzo continuo.Este libro compila docenas de resúmenes y artículos para presentar las perspectivas de los expertos sobre estos tópicos vitales. Producidas como parte de la iniciativa “Visión de la alimentación, la agricultura y el medio ambiente en el año 2020”, del Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones sobre Políticas Alimentarias, las contribuciones aquí coleccionadas ofrecen una visión completa de los temas de política que el mundo debe abordar si ha de superar la pobreza, el hambre y la degradación ambiental; también señalan el camino hacia las acciones necesarias en materia de política para que se logren estos objetivos.

Baltissen,G., E. Wabwile, M. Kooijman and T. Defoer. 2000. IIED Series on Managing Africa's Soils. No. 20. Facilitating Learning Processes in Agricultural Extension: lessons from Western Kenya.

Horne, P.M. and W.W. Stur. 1999. Developing forage technologieswith smallholder farmers: How to select the best varieties to offer farmers in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 62. ACIAR/CIAT.Livestock are an important component of upland farming systems in Southeast Asia. In the past, feed resources were plentiful. On many farms this is no longer the case, so farmers have to spend more and more time finding feed for their animals. Planting forages can help to overcome this problem. However, no two farms have the same resources and needs. Forages that are suitable on one farm may not be suitable for other farms. The best way to develop the 'right' forage technologies for each farm is for farmers to evaluate promising forage technologies and adapt the best options to their situation.In this participatory approach the role of the development worker is to give farmers information about forages that may solve their problems. There are many forages and ways of growing them on farms. Not all will be suitable for a particular situation and need. This booklet will help development workers to select appropriate forage options to offer farmers.

Carberry, P. and A. Whitbread. are members of the APSRU team that developed the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM) model and FARMSCAPE an action research project that set out to understand and change the use of Decision Support Systems in farmers’ management practice in Australia.

Rachmatika, I.; Nasi, R.; Sheil, D.; Wan, M. 2005. A First look at the fish species of the Middle Malinau: taxonomy, ecology, vulnerability and importance. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. vi, 34p.The research was made possible by the funds from MacArthur Foundation and the European Commission, and the study contributes to a larger project undertaken by Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia and CIFOR funded by International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). The first author would like to thank Dr. Arie Budiman (former head of Research Center for Biology, LIPI) and Dr. St. Nuramaliati Prijono (former head of Division of Zoology, Research Center for Biology, LIPI) who gave the first author permission to conduct the survey; Dr. Kuswata Kartawinata and Dr. Douglas Sheil (CIFOR) who facilitated the first author in conducting the survey; also Dr. Herwasono Soedjito, the Seturan camp staff and the MLA team who provided help and guidance in the field.