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

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

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.

Gladwin, C.H., J.S. Peterson, A.C. Mwale. 2002. The Quality of Science in Participatory Research: A Case Study from Eastern Zambia. World Development, 30(4):523-543. Request reprintRecent discourse in the development field has been directed to the question of how to maintain and enhance the quality of science in agricultural research using participatory methods. Discussion has also focused on the question of how to combine microlevel research/extension efforts using participatory methods with scientific methods employing rigorous and statistical testing techniques. Is there a tradeoff between researchers' use of microlevel, gender-sensitive, ethnographic participatory methods and a commitment to "the scientific method," with its conventional assumptions about sampling, data collection, hypothesis testing, and use of standard measures of statistical significance? If there is such a tradeoff, which of the two methods should be given the greater attention? Should scientific and rigorous testing methods take precedence in the agricultural science community over use of farmer-sensitive participatory methods? Should scientific rigor be sacrificed for ethnographic accuracy, or vice versa.

Humphries, S. J. Gonzales, J. Jimenez and F. Sierra. 2000. Searching for sustainable land use practices in honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory research with hillside farmers. AgREN Network Paper 104. ISBN 0-85003-486-8Participatory Research in Central America (Investigación Participativa en Centroamerica, IPCA) is a project established by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, and coordinated through the University of Guelph, Canada, to support farmers in community-based agricultural research in the region. Local agricultural research committees, known by the Spanish acronym CIALs (comités de investigación agricola local), are found in eight Latin American countries at the present time. The IPCA project has been monitoring the development of CIALs in Honduras for the past five years. This paper presents the results of the evaluation to date and considers these in light of current debates around farmer participatory research.The experience of IPCA shows that teaching formal research methods to poor hillside farmers is viable and has served to link farmers to formal-sector researchers in innovative technology development programmes that directly meet users’ needs. Farmers have not only benefited through access to new technologies, but they have also learnt new ways to manage their environments and have been empowered in the process. However, evaluation of the project has shown that unless research has relatively short-term payoffs, farmers are apt to lose interest. Thus, complex research – in particular research involving natural resource management – needs to be framed within the context of social programmes that can provide more immediate benefit to farmers. Technology-led development must be supported by other development initiatives that aim to build social capital as widely as possible across the community.

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.

McDougall, C and Braun, A. 2003. Navigating Complexity, Diversity and Dynamism: Reflections on Research for Natural Resource Management. In: Pound B; Snapp S; Mcdougall C; Braun A (ed) Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.

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.

Pound, B., S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds). 2003. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.Management of local resources has a greater chance of a sustainable outcome when there is partnership between local people and external agencies, and agendas relevant to their aspirations and circumstances. Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods analyses and extends this premise to show unequivocally that the process of research for improving natural resource management must incorporate participatory and user-focused approaches, leading to development based on the needs and knowledge of local resource users.Drawing on extensive and highly relevant case studies, this book presents innovative approaches for establishing and sustaining participation and collective decision-making, good practice for research, and challenges for future developments. It covers a wide range of natural resources – including forests and soils, and water and management units such as watersheds and common property areas and provides practical lessons from analysis and meta-analysis of cases from Asia, Africa and Latin America. It offers insights on how to make research participatory while maintaining rigour and high-quality biological science, different forms of participation, and ways to scale up and extend participatory approaches and successful initiatives.This book will be invaluable for those professionally involved in natural resource management for sustainable development, and an essential resource for teachers and students of both the biophysical and social science aspects of natural resource management.

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.

Ashby, J.A.; Braun, A.R.; Gracia T.; Guerrero, M.P.; Hernandez, L.A.; Quiros, C.A.; Roa, J.A. 2001. La comunidad se organiza para hacer investigación CIAL en America Latina. CIAT. Cali, Colombia.Este libro trata acerca de una nueva clase de institución aquella en la que los agricultores de escasos recursos se encargan de un proceso de investigación agrícola que los beneficia a ellos y a su comunidad. El Comité de Investigación Agrícola Local (CIAL) pretende, con la ayuda de personas capacitadas provenientes de otros lugares, animar a los agricultores para que realicen su propia investigación agrícola y para que involucren en esa tarea a su comunidad. Este enfoque participativo es efectivo mientras el CIAL dé resultados útiles a su comunidad. La metodología está diseñada para que garantice una capacitación eficaz tanto para los agricultores como para las personas ajenas a esa comunidad pero que estén interesadas, y para que sea relevante a diferentes ámbitos institucionales y culturales. La Fundación W.K. Kellogg patrocinó el proyecto que desarrolló originalmente la metodología. Se presentan resúmenes en inglés, español y francés. Disponible también en ingles.

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.

CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical) JIRCAS (Japanese Internacional Research Center for Agricultural Science); PRGA Program. 2002. Proc. Workshop on “How participatory research can complement conventional research approaches”, held in Tsukuba, Japan, 4-8 march 2002. (CD-Rom).

Braun, A.R. and H. Hocdé. 2000. Farmer Participatory Research in Latin America: Four Cases. pp. 32-53 IN: W.W.Stur, P.M. Horne, J.B.Hacker and P.C. Kerridge (Eds.) Working with Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies. ACIAR Publication PR095. 325 pp.Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) emerged in response to limitations of top-down R&D approaches. In Latin America, the principles and concepts of FPR are rooted in earlier participatory research experiences in fields such as education, sociology and health, usually played out within a community-development context. Contributions of Paulo Freire and Orlando Fals Borda are discussed briefly. To analyse these experiences, a typology based on decision-making locus in research, farmers’ and scientists’ roles, and the style of research conducted was used. Three approaches were distinguished: scientist-led, farmer-led and interactive research. Four cases are analysed: (1) Farmer-to-Farmer program, Nicaragua, founded in 1987 by the National Farmers and Ranchers Union (UNAG) based on volunteer farmer-promoters. The focus is on low external-input agriculture. (2) Diagnosis, Investigation and Participation (DIP), formed in 1994 by a multidisciplinary team with linkages to the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science Faculty at the Autonomous University in Yucatan, Mexico. Their objective is to improve the quality of life of indigenous communities at the forest-agriculture interface through participatory innovation based on local resources. (3) Farmer Experimentation, initiated by PRIAG (Regional Program for Reinforcement of Agronomic Research on Basic Grains) in Central America, in 1991. The objective is to increase the self-reliance of small- and medium-scale producers in generating and disseminating technology. (4) Local agricultural research committees (CIALs), first launched by CIAT in Colombia in 1990, to strengthen rural communities’ capacity as decision-makers and innovators of agricultural solutions and to exert demand on the formal R&D system. The discussion focuses on similarities and differences in the processes, principles, roles and relationships underlying these experiences and key lessons learned.

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.

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.

Hagmann, J. and E. Chuma. 2002. Enhancing the adaptive capacity of the resource users in natural resource management. Agricultural Systems Vol 73 (1), 23-39 pp. Request reprintThe paper focuses on the role of learning tools in enhancing the capacity of resource users to innovate and manage their land in an adaptive manner. Based on experiences in Zimbabwe, core elements of a learning process approach to innovation in natural resource management using "learning tools" is described and analysed. The approach is centred around socio-organisational strengthening and farmer learning through experimentation and discovery, both integrated into a coherent intervention process design. High quality process facilitation led by strong vision, empathy and a `culture of inquiry' is considered fundamental to unleash the potential of learning tools and process approaches. The experiences of the case study presented in the paper reveal that learning tools can only be highly effective if applied within a coherent learning process. Dissemination or scaling-up of this type of capacity building through learning tools therefore needs to focus on promoting of the process of learning rather than simply recommending certain tools or technologies which have been developed. This requires the development of facilitation skills of development agencies and farmer organisations.

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..

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.

Horne, P. and W. Stür. 2003. Developing agricultural solutions with smallholder farmers -- how to get started with participatory approaches. ACIAR Monograph No. 99 120 pp.Contents1 - Before you start2- Why should I use participatory approaches3 - A participatory approach that has worked for us- Selecting villages- Agreeing on issues - Participatory Diagnosis- Searching for technology options with the focus-group- Testing and evaluating options - starting small- Reporting back to the village- Integrating promising solutions on farms- Reaching other farmers in the village- Sharing successful technologies with other villages4 - Communication and facilitation skills- Why is it important to be neutral?- What type of questions should I use?- How do I facilitate group meetings?- Using cards to analyse ideas5 - Tools- Ranking,scoring and weighting- Village walks- Village resource maps- Wealth analysis- Historical calendars- Seasonal calendars- Problem-cause diagrams- Preference analysis6 - Just do it!7 - Where can I get more information

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.

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.

Allen, W., Bosch, O., Kilvington, M., Oliver, J. and Gilbert, M. 2001. Benefits of collaborative learning for environmental management: Applying the Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management approach to support animal pest control. Environmental Management 27:2 pp. 215-223.

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.

Braun, A. 2004. A training workshop on Participatory Research Approaches for the ICARDA project on Improving Rural Livelihoods through Efficient On-farm Water and Soil Fertility Management in Central Asia. 6-10 September, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Facilitation Plan.Contents:1. Setting the context for the workshop2. Understanding participatory research Analysis of examples of participatory research Theory/Concepts3. Enabling participatory researchTools and skillsPotentials and constraints for adapting participatory research for application in Central Asia4. Doing participatory research# Taking advantage of the potentials /overcoming constraints# How are we doing research now and how can we make it more participatory?

Martin, A. and A. Sutherland. 2003. Whose Research, Whose Agenda? IN: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (Eds.O Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. Earthscan/IDRC.His chapter starts with the premise that fostering ownership during the natural resource research process is good practice. Fostering ownership requires time and resources. Moreover, it becomes increasingly complex and challenging as the scale of research moves from farm to landscape levels, and research moves beyond the analysis of situations and into the implementation, evaluation and uptake stages. Conflicts of interest may arise at various levels, as each of the stakeholders has a particular perspective, time horizon and expectation about outcomes. The focus of this chapter is on the factors that influence the ownership of research processes; from the identification of the problems and setting of the research agenda through to the ownership and direction of research implementation, evaluation and dissemination. We use the term ‘research’ liberally, to include situational analysis, participatory learning and planning and the investigation of the constraints to and opportunities for uptake of natural resource management (NRM) strategies and technologies. Three levels of ownership are addressed:    * Ownership at the macro (national and global) level, by policy- and decision-makers in national governments, donor organizations and international research organizations.    * Ownership at the meso/district level, by administrators, technical experts, politicians and private sector players.    * Local ownership, involving communities, households and individual farmers.We begin with a short discussion of ownership at the macro level and then move on to examine a case of a project fostering ownership at a district level. The cases illustrate some of the different institutional contexts and participatory approaches used and bring out important general principles relating to ownership of the process. We then focus in more detail on the local level, through a series of case studies which document interventions in communities covering different aspects of ownership of natural resource research and management processes. These cases describe the involvement of communities and other stakeholders during agenda setting and problem identification, research implementation, review and evaluation. The final section discusses some of the critical issues and factors in encouraging broader ownership of research, the benefits of this sharing and the implications for researcher roles and institutional relationships.

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.

Searching for sustainable land use practices in honduras: lessons from a programme of participatory 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

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,

Vaughan, K., Kuvare, U., Long, S.A. and Murphy, C. 2002. The Khaibasen Participatory Research Group Livelihoods Workshop Report, 3rd to 8th December 2001. Grootberg multi-purpose training centre ≠Khoadi //Hoas Conservancy. Kunene. WILD Working Paper Series 2.As part of the WILD project’s first phase of field research, a participatory research workshop was held with community and conservancy members from the ≠Khoadi /Hoas conservancy. This report provides details on the findings of the PRA workshop. The workshop was held at the Grootberg MET Multipurpose Training Center between the 3 and 8 December 2001. The findings of this workshop aim to inform the further development of household-level research focused on the impacts of changing Natural Resources (NR) use and management for The purpose of the workshop was to conduct a livelihoods PRA with community and conservancy members to provide an understanding of local livelihood priorities in the context of changing natural resource use and management practice (including an understanding of existing institutional arrangements to support various aspects of peoples’ livelihoods). Additionally, the workshop aimed to establish and develop the PLA research-working group for ≠Khoadi /Hoas community and implement the first phase of the community-level livelihood research activities.

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.

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.

ETC-RUAF and SIUPA. 2001. Proceedings of the expert workshop on Appropriate Methodologies for Urban Agriculture: Research, Policy development, Planning, Implementation and Evaluation. 1-5 Oct, 2001. Nairobi, Kenya. ETC Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Forestry, Leusden, the Netherlands and CGIAR Strategic Initiative on Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture SIUPA, Lima, Peru.Urban agriculture is an ancient practice but a recent focus of attention for a wide range of professionals associated with urban management, urban planning and agriculture. In the past these fields have been quite separate, and have elaborated their own approaches and methods associated with policy development, planning, research and monitoring and evaluation. The organisers of the workshop believe that to strengthen and develop agriculture in the urban environment, there is a pressing need not only to explore the adaptation of the wide range of methods used in rural agricultural research and development, but also to provide an innovative integration of these procedures with the specifically urban methods applied to understanding planning and policy issues. In order to stimulate such a process CGIAR-SIUPA and ETC-RUAF decided to jointly organise a multi media process of collection, discussion and synthesis of a set of appropriate methods for urban agriculture research, policy developoment, planning, implementation and evaluation. We started with a brain-storming meeting (in Leusden, the Netherlands )with a small group invited resource persons. As a result six thematic areas were chosen through which to identify and debate appropriate methods for urban agriculture. These themes, which are elaborated in more detail below, are: • Situation analysis/diagnosis and baseline studies on UA • Participatory UA policy formulation and action planning • Integration of UA in urban land use planning • Participatory technology development in UA • Marketing assessments and micro-enterprise development related to UA • Monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of UA As a next step we invited experts on each of these themes to prepare a synthesis paper. The topic coordinators identified interesting experiences, commissioned the preparation of case study papers and synthesized current methodological experiences. The synthesis papers were used as the basis for the discussions during the expert consultation held in Nairobi in October 2001, on which we report in this document. The objective of the workshop was: to bring together, exchange and discuss experiences gained with a variety of methodologies applied in intra-urban and peri-urban agriculture (UA)1 research, policy development, spatial urban planning, project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Vernooy, R. and C. McDougall. 2003. Principles for Good Practice in Participatory Research: Reflecting on 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.In previous chapters our colleagues have described their experiences in exploring new conceptual and methodological grounds in participatory research (PR) in natural resource management (NRM), often as a complement to existing (‘traditional’) research from both the natural and social sciences. These explorations are producing new and exciting insights into promising alternatives for the management of natural resource systems, including crops, soils, water, trees and animals. These experiences are also resulting in the innovative adaptation of participatory research approaches. Venturing into this still relatively new research terrain of working for rural transformations, however, raises difficult questions about the research process. Researchers are faced with the challenge of critically assessing the kind(s) of participation and processes appropriate to the different stages of the research cycle. This expansion of the research domain and the new knowledge generated require that researchers must be able to identify what is ‘good practice’ in PR in NRM. While this challenge is starting to be met in some individual research projects, the emergent learning has been somewhat insular. Perhaps because the experience of doing participatory research in one context is not easily compared to another, shared learning between research institutions about ‘what is good practice in PR in NRM’ has been slow. We consider that comparisons and the integration of ideas are necessary elements of identifying good practice. The PRGA (Participatory Research and Gender Analysis) Program and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) NRM workshop in Chatham, England, created an ideal opportunity to begin such a process of shared learning. In this chapter we draw on the case studies from the Chatham workshop and other literature to generate a number of principles of good practice in PR in NRM and, potentially, beyond this field.1 The intention is that these principles may be useful in the planning and assessment of the rigour of participatory research methodologies. As such, we aim to contribute to the growing interest in the development of appropriate methodologies for monitoring and evaluating participatory research. We argue that this on-going assessment of rigour, and the subsequent refinement of methodologies are integral parts of participatory research.

Heong, K.L. and Escalada, M.M. 1997. Perception change in rice pest management: A case study of farmers' evaluation of conflicting information. Journal of Applied Communications 81, 3-17. Journal of Applied Communications Article of the Year 1997 Request reprintA simple rule-of-thumb, or heuristic, in pest management which was in conflict with farmers' prevailing perceptions was communicated to farmers to examine whether their cognitive dissonance would challenge them to evaluate it and change their perceptions. The simple rule used was: "In the first 30 days after transplanting (or 40 days after sowing), leaffolder control is not necessary." The participatory experiments were carried out by 101 rice farmers. Although farmers' perceptions of pests and pesticide use were deeply entrenched, the simple experiment reduced their early-season insecticide applications and number of sprays. Farmers' attitudes toward leaf-feeding insects also changed. Besides dissonance resolution, the main incentives that had encouraged farmers seemed to be money savings and labor reduction. Few studies in communication, if any, have explored the impact of the use of conflicting information on changing farmers' perceptions. This article presents the results of a study which examined farmers' evaluation of conflicting information and its influence on their perception changes in rice pest management. It also documents the process and effects of farmer experimentation with a simple decision rule or heuristic.

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.

Escalada, M.M. and K.L. Heong. Participatory Frameworks for Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research in Rice Pest Management. Synopsis of forthcoming book.

Barrios, E., M. Bekunda, R. Delve, A. Esilaba and J. Mowo. 2000. Methodologies for Decision Making in Natural Resource Management: Identifying and Classifying Local Indicators of Soil Quality. Eastern Africa Version. CIAT, SWNM, TSBF, AHI. ISBN: 958-694-013-6.The increasing interest in local soil knowledge is largely due to the realization that farmer communities that have been interacting with their soils for a long time can provide many insights into the sustainable management of tropical soils. A participatory approach, in the form of a methodological guide, has been developed and used in Latin America and Africa to identify and classify local indicators of soil quality related to permanent and modifiable soil properties. This methodological tool aims to empower local communities to better manage their soil resources through improved decision making and monitoring of their environment. It is also designed to steer soil management towards developing practical solutions to identified soil constraints and monitoring the impact of the management strategies implemented to address such constraints. The methodological approach presented here constitutes one tool to capture local demands and perceptions of soil constraints as an essential guide to relevant research and development activities. A significant component of this approach is the collaboration between technical officers and farmers to build an effective communication channel with each other. The participatory process also places considerable emphasis on consensus building among farmers to determine those soil-related constraints that should be tackled first. Such consensus is an important step toward collective action by farming communities if improved soil management strategies are to be adopted at a landscape scale.

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.

Morin, S., F. Palis, K. McAllister, A. Papag, and M. Magsumbol. 2001. Farmer Learning and the International Research Centres: Lessons from IRRI. IIED Gatekeeper Series Issue 96.The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is one of 16 centres in the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). IRRI has a huge mandate: to conduct research and training to improve the lives of rice producers and consumers, particularly those with low incomes. This broad mandate means that whilst IRRI generates knowledge and products such as improved pest management methods or new varieties and machinery, it is the role of extension workers from other organisations to promote and disseminate these to the farmers. This means that the dissemination of the research outputs is outside IRRI’s control. However, some IRRI researchers have recently developed ‘decision aids’ as a way for farmers to adopt and adapt technologies on a much wider scale than can be achieved through focused research projects alone. In this paper we highlight one of these innovative approaches, the development and promotion of the ‘no early spray’ (NES) technique in integrated pest management in Central Luzon, Philippines, and discuss its implications for farmer learning within the institutional culture of IRRI. The NES technique grew from research revealing that farmers’ belief that leaf folders caused yield-reducing damage in rice was incorrect. The research showed that in fact spraying for leaf folder is not necessary up to 40 days after transplanting. This simple message was tested by farmers in the Philippines, prompting them to conduct site specific research and to entirely cease spraying their fields for leaf folder when they found it to be true. These experiences suggest that decision aids work best when the decisions farmers are encouraged to take are not mandated or fixed, but prompted by the research process itself. The NES started out as a decision aid and, through farmer experimentation, turned into a learning tool. The success of NES indicates that decision aids offer ways to have impact and foster farmer learning at the farm level within the corporate culture of IRRI, and other similar International Agricultural Research Centres.

van de Fliert, E. and A.R. Braun. 1998. Farmer Field School for Integrated Crop Management of Sweetpotato: Field Guides and Technical Manual. CIP/UPWARD.Sweetpotato cultivation can be highly profitable for farmers. When market prices are high, farmers' profits double or triple compared to those from growing rice. The relatively high yield and low production costs contribute to this profitability, but unfortunately, in many places in the world sweetpotato prices fluctuate widely. The marketing system may also limit farmers' profits, particularly when middlemen are involved who make contracts with farmers to buy the standing crop. Because farmers rarely know how to estimate the yield of the unharvested crop and are not fully aware of the prevailing prices at wider distribution markets, they are at a disadvantage in price negotiations with the trader and usually accept the offer with little discussion. Most farmers believe that profit is determined more by their luck in making a sale agreement with the trader than by the yield of the crop. Highly fluctuating prices and a weak bargaining position influences farmers’ attitudes towards sweetpotato cultivation because it provides little incentive to produce high yields. Nevertheless, comparison of yields and profits obtained by farmers in Indonesia showed a tendency for farmers who produced higher yields to earn higher profits. This suggests that farmers can increase profits by increasing their yields through better crop management, and by learning to estimate what the yield is likely to be before entering into negotiations with a trader. How can farmers’ knowledge and skills be developed so that they can improve their crop management and business capacities? In the activities described in this guidebook, farmers analyze the relative importance of the sweetpotato enterprise and its constraints. Integrated Crop Management is presented as an alternative to tackle the constraints, and the Farner Field School as a way to learn about ICM.

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.

Harrington, L. J. White, P. Grace, D. Hodson, A.D. Hartkamp, C. Vaughan and C. Meisner. 2002. Delivering the Goods: Scaling out Results of Natural Resource Management Research. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology 5(2).To help integrated natural resource management (INRM) research "deliver the goods" for many of the world's poor over a large area and in a timely manner, the authors suggest a problem-solving approach that facilitates the scaling out of relevant agricultural practices. They propose seven ways to foster scaling out: (1) develop more attractive practices and technologies through participatory research (2) balance supply-driven approaches with resource user demands, (3) use feedback to redefine the research agenda, (4) encourage support groups and networks for information sharing, (5) facilitate negotiation among stakeholders, (6) inform policy change and institutional development, and (7) make sensible use of information management tools, including models and geographic information systems (GIS). They also draw on experiences in Mesoamerica, South Asia, and southern Africa to describe useful information management tools, including site similarity analyses, the linking of simulation models with GIS, and the use of farmer and land type categories.

Guijt, I., Berdegue, J.A. and Loevinsohn, M. 2000. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management. Proceedings of a workshop, February 16-18 2000, The Hague. ISNAR and RIMISP (Red Internacional de Metodologia de Investigaciones de Sistemas de Produccion,. 222pp. Also published in 2002 as a  Special Issue of Agricultural Systems: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.

Ashby, J, J. Beltran, T. Gracia, M. Guerrero, C. Quiros, J. Roa, C. Trujillo and F. Escobar. 1993. Cartillas para Comites de Investigacion Agricola Local 1-13/. Primers for Local Agricultural Research Committees 1-13 (translated by A. Braun). CIAT, Cali, Colombia.