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.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (ed. with D. Buchan). 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. (2 volumes: a process companion and a reference book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

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.

Rocheleau, D. 2003. Participation in Context: What’s Past, What’s Present, and What’s Next. IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Since embracing participatory methods in the 1990s, scientists at international and national agricultural research centres and a variety of natural resource management (NRM) agencies have encountered both successes and failures. Innovations have been identified, as well as pitfalls, among the panoply of participatory methods available. The early days of debate for and against the participation of farmers, residents and local land users in research have given way to more grounded discussions about appropriate approaches and specific methods for particular circumstances. The examples presented in this volume illustrate how far the debate has matured. Rather than advocating one ‘brand’ of participatory research over another, researchers are innovating and experimenting to match the methods and the situation. They are also working to bring the insights of everyday practice in the field back into the design of new technologies and future research practices, protocols, structures and strategies. Researchers are not asking if participatory methods should be used, but rather when and how, and which type of method, in combination with which traditional research tools. The experience and insights of the participants at the Chatham workshop complement those of prior meetings and publications focused on the challenges and potentials of participatory research in practice, targeting technology generation for sustainable agriculture and NRM. This effort is part of a decades-long conversation between social scientists, biological scientists, farmers and forest dwellers on the possibilities for a collaborative science of agriculture, forestry and watersheds (Buck et al, 1998). It is also part of a wider movement to support people’s ability to envision, choose and create their own futures. The contributors to this volume have touched upon several recent developments in the field of participatory research that warrant further attention from individuals and organizations engaged in sustainable agriculture and NRM. Promising trends include: A focus on the ethics and power relations involved in participatory research approaches. A call for more accountability, standards of practice, codes of conduct and constructive critique among practitioners of participatory research. An exploration of research on the process of participation under uneven relations of power, including conflict resolution. A shift from participation in technology transfer to collaborative science. A creative proliferation of hybrid methods, mixing quantitative and qualitative analysis, and social and biological approaches. The experimental combination of geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, maps, models and participation. A serious effort to scale up, from farm to landscape level, participatory research and an exploration of regional and national applications (Landcare, adaptive co-management, and future-visioning). A willingness to place research questions and results in their social and historical context. Attempts to link specific practices and information to broader meaning, including interpretations of history and visions of the future, through scenarios and other integrative tools for negotiation and planning. For the purpose of this discussion I have grouped these points under four themes: (1) ethics and standards; (2) collaborative science; (3) context; (4) scales and vision.

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.

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.

Garrity, D.P., V.B. Amoroso, S. Koffa, D. Catacutan, G. Buenavista, P. Fay and W. Dar. 2002. Landcare on the Poverty-Protection Interface in an Asian Watershed. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 6(1). Other articles in the Special Issue on INRMSerious methodological and policy hurdles constrain effective natural resource management that alleviates poverty while protecting environmental services in tropical watersheds. We review the development of an approach that integrates biodiversity conservation with agroforestry development through the active involvement of communities and their local governments near the Kitanglad Range Natural Park in the Manupali watershed, central Mindanao, the Philippines. Agroforestry innovations were developed to suit the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions of the buffer zone. These included practices for tree farming and conservation farming for annual cropping on slopes. Institutional innovations improved resource management, resulting in an effective social contract to protect the natural biodiversity of the park. The production of fruit and timber trees dramatically increased, re-establishing tree cover in the buffer zone. Natural vegetative contour strips were installed on several hundred sloping farms. Soil erosion and runoff declined, and the buffer strips increased maize yields by an average of 0.5 t/ha on hill-slope farms. The scientific knowledge base guided the development and implementation of a natural resource management plan for the municipality of Lantapan. A dynamic grass-roots movement of farmer-led Landcare groups evolved in the villages near the park boundary, which had a significant impact on conservation in both the natural and managed ecosystems. Encroachment in the natural park was reduced by 95% in 3 yr. The local Landcare groups also restored stream-corridor vegetation. This integrated approach has been recognized as a national model for the local management of natural resources and watersheds in the Philippines. Currently, the collaborating institutions are evolving a negotiation support system to resolve the interactions between the three management domains: the park, the ancestral domain claim, and the municipalities. This integrated systems approach operated effectively with highly constrained funding, suggesting that commitment and impact may best be stimulated by a "drip-feed" approach rather than by large, externally funded efforts.