Roothaert R; Kaaria S. 2004Issues and Strategies for going to scale: a case study of the Forages for Smallholders Projects in the Philippines. In: D. Pachico (ed) Saling up and out: Achieving Widespread Impact Through Agricultural Research. CIAT, Cali, Colombia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pound, B. 2002. Sustainble Rural Livelihoods Pilot Project, Moldova. Summary of a consultancy to implement sustainable livelihoods analysis in two pilot villages in the south of Moldova. Natural Resources Institute. Chatham, England.The “Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Pilot Project” addresses problems faced by small-scale rural producers and other rural citizens, many of which have been caused by the transition to a market economy. The core strategy of the project is based on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Over the last two years the project has taken concrete steps to improve farmers’ access to information, legal advice, markets and financial sources, and to increase the number of new service-providing enterprises and revitalise rural social assets. The project has operated up to now in the north of Moldova. There is now a call to “replicate” project experiences in the south of the country.

Gündel, S., J. Hancock,. and S. Anderson. 2000. Scaling-up Strategies for Research in Natural Resources Management:A Comparative Review. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.This review, commissioned by the Department for International Development (DFID) Natural Resources Systems Programme (NRSP) Hillsides Research, had as its objective the identification of appropriate strategies to accelerate uptake of innovations by target farmers, and to provide a framework to guide the formulation of scaling-up mechanisms for these innovations towards the aim of poverty reduction and improvement of livelihoods. The review methodology consisted of key literature consultation, an electronic discussion, a mid-term workshop with various stakeholders (e.g. researchers, NGOs) from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe and a detailed case study analysis. It was decided to adopt the terms ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ scaling-up as discussed and defined during the ‘Going to Scale Workshop’ (IIRR, 2000). Horizontal scaling-up is the geographical spread to more people and communities within the same sector or stakeholder group, commonly referred to as dissemination. Others refer to it as a scaling-out process across geographical boundaries. Vertical scaling-up is institutional in nature and involves expansion to other sectors/stakeholder groups, from grassroots organizations to policymakers, donors, development institutions and international investors. Furthermore the review is based on the following overarching definition of the objective of scaling-up: "more quality benefits to more people over a wider geographical area more quickly, more equitably and more lastingly" (IIRR, 2000). This definition stresses the importance of a people-centred vision to scaling-up. Furthermore it introduces the quality dimension to the definition without neglecting the quantitative dimension and it highlights the importance of time, equity and sustainability, dimensions which are of particular importance in the natural resources management (NRM) context.Few cases of successful scaling-up were encountered in relation to research, where creating impact has largely resided with the development of traditional uptake material at the end of projects, without taking into account the dimensions mentioned above. The majority of research cases took a narrow perspective to scaling-up and emphasized the existence of knowledge and technologies. They saw the challenge in improving the ways to "get these technologies out" to the target groups over a wider geographical area (horizontal scaling-up). Many of the development-oriented cases acknowledged the multidimensional nature and complexity of scaling-up, and stressed the importance of institutional processes and learning and the need to include a range of stakeholders from different sectors. However, these perceptions should not be seen in isolation and it is important to acknowledge that the transfer and adaptation of existing knowledge, as well as the creation of new knowledge, is important in NRM research. Agreement exists that scaling-up is about creating sustained poverty alleviation and increasing local capacity for innovation on larger scales. The review and case studies showed that there are no simple rules to achieving scaling-up. Attempts focus either on geographical and quantitative dimensions of scaling-up, or on institutional processes. These two are not mutually independent pathways, but synergistic and overlapping. A key finding is that research has to be integrated within wider pro-poor development processes.

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.

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.

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

Hambly Odame, H. and A. Kassam. 2002. Linking Agricultural Research and Rural Radio. ISNAR Briefing Paper No. 48. ISNAR: The Hague.Radio remains the most important medium for communicating with the rural populations of developing countries. This is particularly true in Africa where, according to the BBC World Service, there were an estimated 65 million radio receivers in 1996 (see figure 1). By the end of the 1990s, there were approximately 12 newspapers, 52 televisions, and 198 radios for every 1000 Africans (Niang 2001). This lack of newspapers and televisions plus the “digital divide” that exists between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not merely reinforces the importance of radio in Africa (table 1). Rural radio is technically defined in terms of its relatively local range (25–50 km radius) or functioning at frequencies of less than 1000 MHz. However, the terminology of rural radio is more often used to refer to the multiple technologies behind rural broadcasting, which may include satellite communications and the Internet. Radio is relevant to any strategy that involves rural development in Africa

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.

Escalada, M.M., Heong, K.L., Huan, N.H. and Mai, V. 1999. Communications and behavior change in rice farmers' pest management: The case of using mass media in Vietnam. Journal of Applied Communications, 83 (1), 7-26 .Winner of the 2002 St. Andrew Prize for the Environment  Request reprintRice farmers' unnecessary insecticide use for leaf folder control is due to misperceptions. A mass media campaign was organized to motivate farmers to test a conflict information expressed as a heuristic. After the campaign, insecticide use dropped from 3.35 sprays per farmer to 1.56. Proportions of farmers spraying at the early and late tillering and booting stages decreased from 59%, 84% and 85% to 0.2%, 19% and 30%, respectively. Leaf folder control perceptions, expressed as the belief index, changed from 11.25 to 7.62. Proportions of farmers believing that leaf folders could cause damages, yield loss and needed sprays, dropped from 66%, 70% and 77% to 24%, 25% and 23%, respectively. The study showed that mass media could effectively transfer some elements of knowledge-intensive pest management, especially simple non-site specific information designed to motivate.