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.

Lilja, N. and J.A. Ashby. 1999. Types of participatory research based on locus of decision making. Working Document No. 6. PRGA Program. Cali, Colombia.

Lilja, N. and J.A. Ashby. 1999. Types of gender analysis in natural resource management and plant breeding. Working Document No. 8. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia.The objective of the gender/stakeholder analysis is to assess what can be done to better involve all stakeholders in the innovation process. This assessment requires considering what patterns affect development among the stakeholders, analyzing what activities different types of stakeholders carry out, and assessing what resources different stakeholders have to work with. Gender and stakeholder analysis does not always directly provide answers to agricultural production or natural resource management problems, but it provides means for raising questions about links between and among different stakeholders and agricultural production or natural resource management. Moreover, carefully conducted and documented gender/stakeholder analysis provides convincing basis for developing strategies to incorporate gender issues that are key to the success of development efforts. (For gender analysis frameworks see for example: Wilde and Vainio-Mattila 1995; Lingen 1997) Similarly, a sound assessment of impacts of gender/stakeholder analysis provides convincing evidence on effectiveness of gender/stakeholder analysis on meeting the overall goals of the development.

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.

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.

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

Lilja, N. and N. Johnson. 2001. Guide to Impact Assessment of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. Working Document No. 7. PRGA Program. Cali, Colombia. This zipped file contains a Powerpoint presentation and several Word files. After downloading, unzip them into a single directory.

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.

Bosma, R.H., R.L Roothaert, Ibrahim. 2001. Economic and social benefits of new forage technologies in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. CIAT Working Document No. 190. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Los Banos, Philippines, 61 pp..

Loevinsohn, M. (Ed.) 2002. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management. Agricultural Systems 73(1) Special Issue.This Special Issue of Elsevier Science's Agricultural Systems includes eight of the papers presented at a workshop entitled “Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management,” held at ISNAR in The Hague in February 2000. The workshop brought together researchers working in diverse situations and with resources of different types -- natural, human, and economic -- who are developing innovative methods aimed at enabling farming communities to adjust their decision making in the face of rapid and significant change. The workshop sought to throw light on four main questions: 1. What are the features of methods that are effective in supporting farmers’ decision making where resource systems are undergoing such change? 2. How do the features of effective methods vary in different types of resource management situations? 3. What approaches are available to assess the impact of these methods? 4. What institutional factors have favored or hindered the development of effective decision support methods and their use over wider areas? The articles in this Special Issue include a critical review of the key issues emerging from the workshop, five diverse case studies and one of two theme presentations, on the state of the art in decision support in rural resource management. The other theme paper, on learning theory and its relevance for rural resource management, can be found in the workshop’s proceedings, as can the other nine case studies.

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.

Adato, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2002. Assessing The Impact Of Agricultural Research On Poverty Using The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. EPTD Discussion Paper 89. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Kristjanson, P. F. Placeb, S. Franzel and P.K. Thornton. 2002. Assessing research impact on poverty: the importance of farmers' perspectives. Agricultural Systems. 72(1):73-92.In this paper we provide evidence to show that farmers' perspectives on poverty processes and outcomes are critical in the early stages of evaluating impact of agricultural research on poverty. We summarize lessons learned from farmer impact assessment workshops held in five African locations, covering three agro-ecological zones and five different agroforestry and livestock technologies arising from collaborative national–international agricultural research. Poverty alleviation is a process that needs to be understood before impact can be measured. Workshops such as those we describe can help researchers to identify farmers' different ways of managing and using a technology and likely effects, unanticipated impacts, major impacts to pursue in more quantitative studies, the primary links between agricultural technology and poverty, and key conditioning factors affecting adoption and impact that can be used to stratify samples in more formal analyses. Farmer workshops inform other qualitative and quantitative impact assessment methods. We discuss the linkage of farmer-derived information with GIS-based approaches that allow more complete specification of recommendation domains and broader-scale measurement of impact.

Lilja, N. 2002. The impact of user participation in Natural Resource Management Research in the CGIAR. PRGA Program. Powerpoint presentation with explanatory notes

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.

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.

 The importance of social capital in 50 small or medium-sized rural agroenterprises in Colombia was studied by CIAT, CCI (Corporación Colombiana Internacional), and CEGA (Centro de Estudios Ganaderos y Agrícolas), with funds from CGIAR’s CAPRi (Collective Action and Property Rights) Program. Social capital—that is, networks, trust, and capacity for collective action—helps firms reduce transactions costs and establish and maintain solid relationships in their communities and along the supply chain. Social capital is an important determinant of a firm’s organizational structure and its productivity. Support organizations can help rural agro-enterprises by recognizing the importance of social capital, by providing information on how to select appropriate organizational structures, and by exploring alternatives for making those services currently provided by social capital more widely accessible and less costly.

Onduru, D., A. de Jager, G. Gachini and J-M. Diop. 2001. Exploring new pathways for innovative soil fertility management in Kenya. IIED Series on Managing Africa's Soils. No. 25.This working paper discusses the impact of a multi-institutional research programme in low potential areas of Kenya. The programme elaborated nutrient balances, combined with economic analysis, to better understand causes and effects of soil fertility decline. Alongside, better soil fertility management practices were developed using a participatory technology approach. This paper assesses to what extent farmers changed their practices, if the programme has influenced ways of working with extension and research, or has led to better informed policies.

Bosma, R.H., R.L. Roothaert, P. Asis, J. Saguinhon, L.H. Binh, and V.H.; Yen, 2003. Economic and social benefits of new forage technologies in Mindanao, Philippines and Tuyen Quang, Vietnam. CIAT Working Document No. 191. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Los Baños, Philippines, 92 pp..

Loevinsohn, M.E., G. Meijerink and B. Salasya, 2001. Developing Integrated Pest Management with Kenyan Farmers: Evaluation of a Pilot Project. In: N. Lilja, J.A. Ashby and L.J. Sperling (eds) Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis, CIAT, Cali, pp. 231-247.The farmer field school (FFS) is a group learning approach to building capacity among farmers in integrated pest management (IPM) and other aspects of natural resource management (NRM). This chapter reports on an evaluation of a pilot project in Kenya, one of the first to adapt to African conditions the approach pioneered in Asia. International partners in the project are: the International Institute of Biological Control (IIBC), the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MOALDM), the Coffee Research Foundation (CRF), the Kenyan Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF), and the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). The Global IPM Facility provided financial support. Two purposes motivated the evaluation. First, Kenyan and international partners in the project were considering a follow-up to the pilot phase and needed to understand what it had accomplished. Second, the evaluation serves as a case study within a wider review of different types of participatory research and development. It is intended to provide policy makers of the national agricultural research systems (NARS) with greater insights into the costs, benefits, and institutional implications of the choices they must make when taking up participatory approaches.