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

Colfer, C.P.J., R. Prabhu, M. Günter, C. McDougall, N.M. Porro, R. and Porro.. 1999. Who counts most? Assessing human well being in sustainable forest management. C&I Tool No. 8. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Who Counts Most? Assessing Human Well-Being in Sustainable Forest Management presents a tool, ‘the Who Counts Matrix’, for differentiating ‘forest actors’, or people whose well-being and forest management are intimately intertwined, from other stakeholders. The authors argue for focusing formal attention on forest actors in efforts to develop sustainable forest management. They suggest seven dimensions by which forest actors can be differentiated from other stakeholders, and a simple scoring technique for use by formal managers in determining whose well-being must form an integral part of sustainable forest management in a given locale. Building on the work carried out by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) on criteria and indicators, they present three illustrative sets of stakeholders, from Indonesia, Côte d’Ivoire and the United States, and Who Counts Matrices from seven trials, in an appendix.

Beaulieu, N. with G. Leclerc and J. Jaramillo. 2002. Vision, Actions and Requests (VAR) across administrative levels: A methodological proposal for strategic planning in territorial development. Discussion document. CIAT, Cali Colombia.

Allen, W., M. Kilvington and C. Horn. 2002. Using Participatory and Learning-Based Approaches for Environmental Management to Help Achieve Constructive Behaviour Change. Landcare Research Contract Report LCO102/057. Landcare, Lincoln, New Zealand.

McAllister, K. 1999. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and evaluating process, outputs and outcomes. IDRC. 54 pp.The focus of this paper is on using monitoring and evaluation as a tool for adaptive learning and project improvement, for integrating social theory into participatory methods, and for understanding the links between participatory processes and outcomes. The importance of using participatory monitoring and evaluation methods for bringing in the perspectives of local people whose lives are being influenced by the research is also explored. The first part of the paper provides a background for understanding participatory research in community-based natural resource management projects. Participatory research and the various interpretations of “participation” in research - from consultative to collegiate - are described, and the complexities of applying and interpreting participatory research in community-based natural resource projects are explored. These complexities include the influence of social identity, divergent interests, local norms and institutions and power dynamics on the process and outcomes of the research. Sections 5 and 6 describe the rationale and present a framework for monitoring and evaluating participatory research within the context of donor institutions which have the dual objectives of supporting quality and relevant applied development research while at the same time strengthening institutional and individual research capacity. In this case, a balance must be struck between “academically ideal” research, available resources, researcher capacity and skills, and community needs. This influences evaluation criteria and expectations of participatory research projects. Section 7 describes key considerations for developing an appropriate and learning-based approach to monitoring and evaluating participatory research projects. This draws from a number of different evaluation strategies and recognises that different groups (researchers, donor agency, community members) have different monitoring and evaluation needs, as well as different perceptions of positive and negative research outcomes. Section 8 presents options for integrating monitoring and evaluation into the different stages of the project cycle (pre-project, in-project and interim or post-project). The final sections of the paper present the issues and questions to consider in monitoring and evaluating the process and outcomes of participatory research for natural resource management. This is based on characteristics which indicate validity and quality of the participatory research process and methods, as well as the potential of the methods used to contribute to reaching the general goals of community-based natural resource management (sustainability, equity, local empowerment, poverty alleviation and so on). The ideas are geared for both the programme level and the project level, to be used by researchers during the project to help inform the research project, as well as to provide guidance for interim or post project assessments. July, 1999

Beaulieu, N. J. Jaramillo, A. Fajardo, and N.Peñuela 2001. The use of Remote Sensing Imagery in support to Participatory Natural Resources Management. Progress in a case study in the indigenous reserve of Humapo and La Victoria. CIAT internal report

Colfer, C.J.P., Brocklesby, M.A., Diaw, C., Etuge, P., Harwell, E., McDougall, C., Porro, N.M., Porro, R., Prabhu, R., Salim, A., Sardjono, M.A., Tchikangwa, B., Tiani, A.M., Wadley, R.L., Woelfel, J. and Wollenberg, E. 1999. The Grab Bag: Supplementary Methods for Assessing Human Well-Being. C&I Tool No. 6. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.The Grab Bag: Supplementary Methods for Assessing Human Well-being is designed to complement The BAG. The Grab Bag is designed for use by social scientists who may find The BAG overly prescriptive. The eight methods presented are either more difficult for non-social scientists to use or, in a couple of cases, can substitute for one or more method presented in The BAG. Again, The Scoring and Analysis Guide provides the user with help in making an actual assessment of the social criteria and indicators, based on the results of these methods.

Case, D.D. 1990. The community's toolbox: The idea, methods and tools for participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation in community forestry. FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand.In June of 1988, in the small town of Kisumu, on the shore of Lake Victoria in Kenya a workshop on participatory monitoring and evaluation was held. It was sponsored by the FAO/SIDA Forests, Trees and People Programme, CARE International and the Ford Foundation; and was attended by people from many countries. In the year preceding the workshop, case studies on the information systems of six forestry projects in East Africa had been done by a team of researchers. The results of the workshop, and the case studies have been reported in "Proceedings of the National Agroforestry Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology Project (AFMEMP) Workshop". The field staff who attended this workshop expressed their concern that although "participation" was now considered essential for sustainable and successful community/social forestry, there was little information available to them on "how to do it". As one workshop participant said: "I'm convinced that participation is necessary, but when I return to my country and the communities I work with, I don't know where to begin!". Soon after the workshop, D'Arcy Davis-Case, a forester specializing in grass-roofs participation and a member of the AFMEMP case study team, began putting together a concept paper on this topic for the FAO/SIDA Forests, Trees and People Programme. The concept paper is now being followed by this field manual, which has been built on the needs expressed by field staff f at the AFMEMP workshop; and based on field staff experiences. Many of the traditional monitoring and evaluation methods and tools have been adapted to be more participatory. The result is "The Community's Toolbox". The manual is organized into Three Sections. Section One introduces the idea, and benefits to be gained from a new approach. This section also provides some two-way communication exercises for field staff. Section Two provides the methods for determining information needs, and ways that information can be analyzed and presented. Section Three describes the information collecting tools, and offers some suggestions for selection of tools. Because the manual will be used by field staff in many countries of the world, the illustrator has used simple drawings so that differences such as nationality, culture, dress and race are not a problem. Three distinct categories of people are characterized in the illustrations.

Sustainable Livlihoods ToolboxContents:Policy, Institutions and ProcessesPower Tools for Policies and InstitutionsProgramme Identification and DesignGender AnalysisPlanning New ProjectsReviewing Existing ActivitiesMonitoring and EvaluationWays of WorkingSharing the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

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.

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.

Braun, A., D. Peters, M. Covault, and J.C. Mercado. 2002. Mid -Term Evaluation of: CATIE's Program on Ecologically-Based Participatory Implementation of IPM and Agroforestry in Nicaragua and Central America (CATIE-MIP/AF) Phase III. 59 pp. CATIE-MIP/AF is a well-conceived and well-managed program that has capitalized on lessons learned in previous phases and from other programs. It developed in response to the weakening of the extension function within national agricultural systems in Central America and has contributed to the reorientation of the linear transfer-of-technology model prevailing in Nicaragua and other Central American Countries into a participatory extension approach that links farm families, extensionists, researchers and trainers, and decision-makers. The participatory methodologies developed by the program are a major strength in addressing challenges posed by modern-day complexity, uncertainty and dynamism in agriculture and natural resource management by farmers. The Program has catalyzed the establishment of a field-based multi-level, multi-institutional platform for participatory development and extension of technology for three important Central American farming systems, coffee, vegetables and basic grains (maize and beans), combining these with a broad array of ecological practices based on principles of agroforestry, integrated pest management, and natural resource conservation. The participatory capacity-building supported by the program develops powers of ecological reasoning, and incorporates a gender and family focus. The program has supported participatory training of significant numbers of farmers, extensionists, trainers and has involved decision-makers in joint planning and public monitoring of the process. Future emphasis on developing empresarial reasoning as a complement to the current focus on ecological reasoning. could increase the sustainability of achievements and the chances of significant impact on poverty alleviation in the future

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.

Douthwaite, B. J.D.H. Keatinge and J.R. Park. 2002. Learning selection: A model for planning, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development. Agricultural Systems 72 (2):109-131. Request reprintThis paper develops a model of the early adoption process that takes into account modifications made by users. The model is based on data from 13 attempts to introduce six postharvest technologies into the Philippines and Vietnam. It is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution. At the core of the model is the interactive experiential learning process –– learning selection (LS) –– that is analogous to natural selection in the living world. In learning selection stakeholders engage with a new technology, individually playing the evolutionary roles of novelty generation and selection, and in their interactions creating recombinations of ideas and experiences and the promulgation of beneficial novelties. Peoples' motivations to engage in learning selection, and its outcomes, are influenced by the interaction between their lifeworlds and their environments. The model has implications for management of agricultural technology change. It suggests the need for a nurturing of new technology during its early adaptation and adoption, until the point where the beneficiary stakeholders (manufacturers and users) are sufficiently numerous and have adequate knowledge to play the evolutionary roles themselves. The LS model, while developed with data from agro-mechanical technologies, could provide a theoretical underpinning for participatory technology development.

Robertson, N.; Wunder, S. 2005. Fresh tracks in the forest: assessing incipient payments for environmental services initiatives in Bolivia. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. xii, 137p.As threats to the world’s ecosystems grow and change, increasing attention has been focused on the important services that ecosystems provide to humans. These services include carbon sequestration and storage, watershed protection, and landscape beauty and biodiversity conservation. Worldwide, a new generation of conservation initiatives aims at creating systems in which the users of one or more environmental services compensate resource managers for improved conservation of these services. Such systems, termed ‘payments for environmental services’ (PES), may have the potential to protect environmental services while at the same time improving local livelihoods. This study provides an overview and assessment of environmental, economic and social effects of various PES-related initiatives as well as an overview of challenges and promoting factors to PES in Bolivia.We use five criteria to define PES systems: a voluntary agreement, a well-defined service, at least one buyer, at least one seller, and a conditional (quid pro quo) transaction.

Horton, D., A. Alexaki, S. Bennet-Lartey, K. Noële Brice, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. de Souza Silva, L. Thanh Duong, I. Khadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I, Kayes Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. Somarriba Chang, R. Vernooy, and J. Watts. 2003. Evaluating Capacity Development: Experiences from Research and Development Organizations around the World. ISNAR/IDRC/CTA. 188 pp.The international community is placing a growing emphasis on developing local capacity as the key to alleviating poverty and hunger in the developing world. Although ensuring the effectiveness of a capacity building effort requires appropriate use of evaluation, few organizations have implemented a system for monitoring or evaluating the changes taking place during organizational development. In January 2000, ISNAR began the ambitious Evaluating Capacity Development project, which aimed to improve capacity development efforts in research and development organizations through the use of evaluation.This book explains how the project used an action learning approach, bringing together people from various countries and different types of organizations. As they conducted six evaluation studies over the course of three years, project participants learned a great deal about capacity development and the process of evaluation. The authors use examples and lessons drawn from the evaluation studies as a basis for making more general conclusions regarding how capacity development efforts and evaluation can help organizations to achieve their missions.

Braun, A. 2004. Ethics and Professional standards. Paideia Resources.Over the last decade many practitioners have realized that Participatory Research and Development can be done well or not. The quality of participatory research and development can affect the well-being of people and the environment and poor quality initiatives can have serious social, economic and ecological consequences. Furthermore, a high quality participatory process is not sufficient to guarantee success. The wrong approach or design –however well implemented – is unlikely to lead to the desired outcomes. The question of ethics, professional standards and accountability is one of several key elements crucial to improving the design and quality of participatory research and development.Ethical frameworks and professional standards and accountability mechanisms for these are well developed in the medical field and in academia among researchers who study human subjects, however has been relatively little discourse about these in the arena of participatory research and development. Nevertheless, some organizations have explored these issues and examples of key elements from a variety of frameworks are summarized.

Conroy, C., Y. Thakur and M. Vadher. 2002. The efficacy of participatory development of technologies: experiences with resource-poor goat-keepers in India. Livestock Research for Rural Development 14(3) 2002.The adoption by resource-poor livestock-keepers of technologies developed by livestock and forage researchers has been poor. It has been argued that a participatory approach to technology development can help to ensure that new technologies are more appropriate to livestock-keepers’ needs and circumstances, and hence increase the likelihood of adoption. This paper describes trials conducted in India by a goat research project that adopted a participatory approach, and assesses to what extent the postulated benefits of participatory technology development have been realised, and the factors affecting this. It describes trials involving two of the most promising technologies developed by the project. It then discusses: (a) the prospects for adoption of these and other technologies investigated by the project; (b) methodological issues relating to control groups; and (c) the challenges associated with achieving a high degree of participation by livestock-keepers. Finally, it identifies what conclusions can be drawn, and lessons learned, from the project’s experiences.

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.

Ritchie, B., C. McDougall, M. Haggith and N. Burford de Oliveira. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Community Managed Forest Landscapes. CIFOR.This guide is intended to make a contribution to the larger efforts worldwide at improving forest management, human well-being, and the sustainability of natural resources. Three points should be noted by anyone intending to use the Guide:1. As with any such tool, everything in this guide needs to be considered in, and adapted to, the local context in which it is to be used.2. Successful implementation of the approach suggested in this guide relies on adequate understanding of, commitment to, and skills in participatory approaches and processes.3. This is a work in progress. CIFOR and collaborators are continuing work in this area, and we welcome input and feedback on this guide.

van de Fliert, E and A. R. Braun 2001. Conceptualizing Integrative, Farmer Participatory Research for Sustainable Agriculture: From Opportunities to Impact. Working Document No. 16. PRGA Program. Cali, Colombia.

McDougall, C., Isbadi, I.R., Santoso, L., Corless, M. and Purnomo, H. (eds.) The CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Resource Book DatabaseThe CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Resource Book Database offers information on attributes; definitions, relevance, method for assessment, how to go about measuring a particular indicator, how to design a sample plot etc. The Resource Book Database is a work in progress at CIFOR and subject to further improvements.

Vaughan, C., Katjiua, J.B. and Branston, N., and Bundra K.2003. CBNRM in the Kunene Region Proceedings of a Workshop Held to Discuss WILD Project Key Findings and Build Stakeholder Consensus. Ombinda Lodge. WILD Working Paper 18.The Kunene WILD Project and MET regional staff conducted a workshop with regional CBNRM stakeholders. This workshop created a unique opportunity for individuals to come together at a regional level to evaluate and discuss WILD project research findings. The workshop purpose was to share WILD research findings for discussion, validation and dissemination to support the CBNRM programme in the north-west and nationally. The workshop was prepared as part of the WILD engagement strategy, which involved individual consultations with Windhoek-based stakeholders to discuss findings, and further workshops based on this one for Caprivi and Windhoek. The outcomes of the other consultations are available as separate WILD working papers.WILD Project staff presented the main research findings, their livelihood implications and recommended action points on the four following topics:1) Livelihoods and conservancies2) Tourism and enterprises3) Livelihoods and wildlife findings4) Policy, institutions and practice findingsThe CBNRM stakeholders then held discussions and contextualised a number of research findings and issues on each topic, and made a number of recommendations based upon their knowledge and experience.

Vaughan, C., Mulonga, S and Katjiua, J.B. 2003. Cash from Conservation: Torra Community Tastes the Benefits. A Short Survey and Review of the Torra Conservancy Cash Payouts to Individual Registered Members. WILD Working Paper 15.Between January and October 2003, Torra Conservancy implemented the ongoing process of distributing N$ 630 to each of its registered members. Torra Conservancy Committee (TCC) allocated N$ 200,000 in total for the cash payout to individual registered members. The WILD Project in conjunction with the TCC and community members conducted a short questionnaire survey (67 respondents) and held a number of interviews with TCC, NGOs, MET and community members to review the payout. The research documents the experiences from the payout and provides options to support future payouts.Torra is a premier conservancy that is financially self-sustaining. It has generated considerable income (approximately N$ 1.2-1.5 million) from its joint venture with Wilderness Safaris at Damaraland Camp, trophy hunting and live game sales. The payout to individual registered members is a clear demonstration of the potential of the conservancy and CBNRM programme to make tangible livelihood benefits available to communal-area residents and stands as an example for other conservancies to follow. The majority of respondents were pleased with the payout and receipt of cash income. However, 97% of respondents were unaware of how the conservancy generated its income and 85% were unaware of the how the money was spent, which indicates a shortfall in terms of disseminating information, especially financial, to conservancy members. This limits the ability of members to make the link between income generated and wildlife conservation and tourism, and their awareness of alternative (i.e. financial) values for wildlife. The conservancy should disseminate more information, especially financial information, to its members to increase transparency, instil ownership, pride and awareness of income-generating activities and alternative wildlife values.Monitoring needs to be conducted into how receiving distributed cash acts as an incentive for living with wildlife. The community was not consulted in the decision- making process for the payout, not involved in setting the total amount for distribution, nor the amount allocated for individual members. The primary rationale for the payout was a response to community pressure to ‘taste’ the cash. The community was not consulted as to who (e.g. members versus non-members, or individuals versus households) should receive the payout or on the criteria used to confirm eligibility for receipt of the payout. There was minimal community involvement in setting the criteria and ‘rules’ for the process of the payment. In future, full community involvement should be incorporated to ensure transparency and accountability for decision-making over payouts. This could be achieved through publications, the radio, holding meetings on specific issues, and by conducting farm visits and action-orientated research.The payout was a positive step in Torra’s development and demonstrates the potential for conservancies to generate and distribute tangible and meaningful livelihood benefits to its members. However, key challenges remain for supporting inclusive decision-making, developing simple processes for monitoring and evaluating payouts, and promoting good governance. Most important is to understand and document the extent to which the payout was not a ‘quick fix’ to resolve community tensions, but the development of a foundation for supporting the long-term livelihood and conservation needs of Torra Conservancy

Douthwaite, B., N.C. de Haan, V. Manyong and D. Keatinge 2002. Blending “Hard” and “Soft” Science: the “Follow-the-Technology” Approach to Catalyzing and Evaluating Technology Change. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 5(2). Other articles in this special issueThe types of technology change catalyzed by research interventions in integrated natural resource management (INRM) are likely to require much more social negotiation and adaptation than are changes related to plant breeding, the dominant discipline within the system of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Conceptual models for developing and delivering high-yielding varieties have proven inadequate for delivering natural resource management (NRM) technologies that are adopted in farmers' fields. Successful INRM requires tools and approaches that can blend the technical with the social, so that people from different disciplines and social backgrounds can effectively work and communicate with each other. This paper develops the "follow-the-technology" (FTT) approach to catalyzing, managing, and evaluating rural technology change as a framework that both "hard" and "soft" scientists can work with. To deal with complexity, INRM needs ways of working that are adaptive and flexible. The FTT approach uses technology as the entry point into a complex situation to determine what is important. In this way, it narrows the research arena to achievable boundaries. The methodology can also be used to catalyze technology change, both within and outside agriculture. The FTT approach can make it possible to channel the innovative potential of local people that is necessary in INRM to "scale up" from the pilot site to the landscape. The FTT approach is built on an analogy between technology change and Darwinian evolution, specifically between "learning selection" and natural selection. In learning selection, stakeholders experiment with a new technology and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation. The motivation to participate is a "plausible promise" made by the R&D team to solve a real farming problem. Case studies are presented from a spectrum of technologies to show that repeated learning selection cycles can result in an improvement in the performance of the plausible promise through adaptation and a sense of ownership by the stakeholders.

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.

McAllister, K. and R. Vernooy. 1999. Action and reflection: A guide for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. IDRC. 94pp. This guide outlines an approach for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. It is intended to provide support to people involved in research and development projects using a participatory research methodology, in particular at the community level dealing with natural resource management issues. The guide is not a blue-print, but addresses issues that are at the heart of making an art of monitoring and evaluating participatory research. The guide is organized around six basic, interrelated questions that need to be answered when doing monitoring and evaluation. These questions are:- WHY do we monitor and evaluate participatory research ? (Chapter 2)- FOR WHOM will we monitor and evaluate ? (Chapter 3)- WHAT will we monitor and evaluate? (Chapter 4)- WHO will monitor and evaluate? (Chapter 5)- WHEN will we monitor and evaluate ? (Chapter 6)- HOW will we do it ? (Chapter 7).Examples of tools to operationalise HOW will be given in each of the five preceding chapters. It will be useful to supplement this guide with resource books on participatory research methods since many of these methods may also be used for monitoring and evaluation. For those interested in more details about specific tools, a selected bibliography is presented in Chapter 7.

McAllister, K. and R. Vernooy. 1999. Action and reflection: A guide for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. IDRC. 94pp. This guide outlines an approach for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. It is intended to provide support to people involved in research and development projects using a participatory research methodology, in particular at the community level dealing with natural resource management issues. The guide is not a blue-print, but addresses issues that are at the heart of making an art of monitoring and evaluating participatory research. The guide is organized around six basic, interrelated questions that need to be answered when doing monitoring and evaluation. These questions are:- WHY do we monitor and evaluate participatory research ? (Chapter 2)- FOR WHOM will we monitor and evaluate ? (Chapter 3)- WHAT will we monitor and evaluate? (Chapter 4)- WHO will monitor and evaluate? (Chapter 5)- WHEN will we monitor and evaluate ? (Chapter 6)- HOW will we do it ? (Chapter 7).Examples of tools to operationalise HOW will be given in each of the five preceding chapters. It will be useful to supplement this guide with resource books on participatory research methods since many of these methods may also be used for monitoring and evaluation. For those interested in more details about specific tools, a selected bibliography is presented in Chapter 7.

Beaulieu, N., G. Leclerc, M. Alvarez, G. De Wispeleare, J. Jaramillo, Y. Rubiano, A. Fajardo, O. Muñoz, N. Peñuela. 2001. A Proposed Framework for Using Remote Sensing Imagery to monitor environmental dynamics in support to local planning efforts. Presented at the Workshop on Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM), 28-31 August, 2001, CIAT, Cali, Colombia.

Carberry, P.S., Z. Hochman, R.L. McCown et al. 2002. The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers', advisers', researchers' monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation. Agricultural Systems, 74:141-177.FARMSCAPE (Farmers', Advisers', Researchers', Monitoring, Simulation, Communication And Performance Evaluation) is a program of participatory research with the farming community of northeast Australia. It initially involved research to explore whether farmers and their advisers could gain benefit from tools such as soil characterisation and sampling, climate forecasts and, in particular, simulation modelling. Its current focus is facilitating the implementation of commercial delivery systems for these same tools in order to meet industry demand for their access. This paper presents the story of what was done over the past decade, it provides performance indicators of impact, it reflects on what was learnt over this period and it outlines where this research is likely to head in the future.Over the past 10 years, the FARMSCAPE team employed a Participatory Action Research approach to explore whether farmers could value simulation as a decision support tool for managing their farming system and if so, could it be delivered cost-effectively. Through farmer group engagement, on-farm trials, soil characterisation, monitoring of crops, soils and climate, and sessions to apply the APSIM systems simulator, FARMSCAPE represented a research program on decision support intervention. Initial scepticism by farmers and commercial consultants about the value of APSIM was addressed by testing its performance both against measured data from on-farm trials and against farmers' experiences with past commercial crops. Once this credibility check was passed, simulation sessions usually evolved into participants interactively inquiring of the model the consequence of alternative management options. These `What if' questions using APSIM were contextualised using local climate and soil data and the farmer's actual or proposed management rules.The active participation of farmers and their advisers, and working in the context of their own farming operations, were the key ingredients in the design, implementation and interpretation of the FARMSCAPE approach to decision support. The attraction of the APSIM systems simulator to farmers contemplating change was that it allowed them to explore their own system in a manner equivalent to learning from experience. To achieve this, APSIM had to be credible and flexible. While direct engagement of farmers initially enabled only a limited number of beneficiaries, this approach generated a commercial market for timely and high quality interactions based on soil monitoring and simulation amongst a significant sector of the farming community. Current efforts are therefore focused on the training, support and accreditation of commercial agronomists in the application of the FARMSCAPE approach and tools.

Colfer, C.J.P., M.A. Brocklesby, C. Diaw, P. Etuge, M. Günter, E. Harwell, C. McDougall, N.M., Porro, R. Porro, R. Prabhu, A. Salim, M.A. Sardjono, B. Tchikangwa, A.M. Tiani, R.L. Wadley, J. Woelfel,. and E. Wollenberg. 1999. The BAG (Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-Being). C&I Tool No. 5. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.The Basic Assessment Guide for Human Well-Being (or The BAG) focuses on the social criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, a topic that has been the subject of considerable controversy and uncertainty. It is designed for people interested in assessing sustainable forest management, but who do not have a high degree of expertise in social sciences. The six simple methods described in this manual are designed for use by biophysical scientists with a college education. They can also be used by assessors with higher levels of expertise in social sciences, but they are presented in a ‘cookbook’ format. The Scoring and Analysis Guide, meant to be used with The BAG, provides additional help in making assessments of human well being, including a specific scoring method. It also provides increasingly detailed levels of guidance in analysis.

Aarnink, W., S. Bunning, L. Collette, P.Mulvany. 1998. Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and Agro-ecosystem functions: Opportunities, incentives and approaches for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity in agro-ecosystems and production systems . Report of International Technical Workshop organized by FAO and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, with the support of the Government of the Netherlands. 2 - 4 December 1998, FAO, Rome, Italy.