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.

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.

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.

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.

Van Mele, P. and A.K.M. Zakaria. 2002. The Innovation Tree: A new PRA tool to reveal socio-psychological factors influencing the innovation adoption process. CABI Bioscience and Rural Development Academy, Bangladesh.A new PR A tool nam ely th e Innovation Tree h as been developed. It h as helped people to visualise and analyse th e w ay in w h ich an innovation is spread over tim e betw een community m em bers. Not only did we find it to be a very useful tool to distinguish betw een innovators, early and late adopters, but also to h elp both outsiders and the community to understand some of the social and psychological dim ensions that influence th e adoption of an innovation within th a community. The Innovation Tree also allowed for investigating how different personalities or types of innovators play a different role in promoting the technology to their colleagues, wh ich is of direct relevance for developing farmer-to-farmer extension activities.

Vaughan, C., Katjiua, J.B. and Branston, N. 2003. Talking with Torra. Proceedings of a Participatory Livelihoods Workshop with Torra Residents. WILD Working Paper 17.People employ a highly diverse mix of livelihood assets and livelihood strategies depending on access. The majority of Torra resident’s have a primary dependence on the natural resource base and livestock farming to achieve their livelihood outcomes. Thus, people do not follow one singular activity but apply a mix of assets, resources and strategies to achieve livelihood outcomes.2. Participants reported 17 factors that made their livelihoods vulnerable and affected security. Other than sudden death or severe illness the next top factors were associated with drought, stock theft and predator damage to stock and livestock illness. They questioned whether the conservancy could not play an increasing role in supporting their livestock systems, including support for marketing and disease outbreaks and reducing predator damage.3. For livelihood problems participants identified 22 factors. The top five issues relate to a lack of employment and training opportunities, and access to cash income and financial support. A number of the key problems, e.g. lack of employment and financial income, are key priorities for Torra Conservancy Committee (TCC), while others fall outside the scope of their remit and capacity.4. Participants identified a variety of policies, institutions and processes affecting livelihood outcomes – both formal rules and regulations, and social norms or informal rules of the community. Participants stated it was unclear at times who was responsible for what, e.g. conservancy and elephants. A businessman who had applied for a Permission to Occupy (PTO) from the Traditional Authority, but had been refused by the conservancy gave another example. Participants stated the conservancy should provide information to clarify conservancies’ roles, responsibilities and actual jurisdiction and develop local conservancy policies with the community.5. Participants identified positive (good) and negative (bad) changes or impacts resulting from conservancy development interventions. The Conservancy Committee need to review further the costs and benefits of the conservancy and incorporate the findings into management plans.6. Participants identified over 25 potential community development options. The variety of options identified shows the community has a wealth of potential ideas about how Torra could spend its money. These options could be consolidated to a top ten (building on visioning work) and tabled at a series of special meetings, fed into the development of TCC action plans for benefit distribution and community development planning.7. Participants identified over 22 critical factors affecting a conservancy’s success. Topics included conflict within the community, lack of information, lack of clarity on decisionmaking and no financial support to members. TCC should review these factors together with the options for a successful conservancy process (below) to ensure strong community support.8. Participants developed options for a successful conservancy process. Top options centred on community involvement in decision-making and awareness of conservancy activities including transport for meetings, farm visits and transparency in management decisions. The conservancy and community need to identify ways to support conservancy successes by reviewing identified options.

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.

Barton, T., G. Borrini-Feyerabend, A. De Sherbinin and P. Warren 1997. Our People, Our Resources: supporting rural communities in participatory action research on population dynamics and the local environment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available also in French and Spanish) This handbook illustrates concepts, methods and tools for primary environmental care, an approach that seeks to empower communities to meet basic needs while protecting the environment. In particular, it focuses on how population size, structure, growth (or decline) and movements relate to the quality of the environment and the qulaity of life. Emphasis is placed on a community-led process of participatory action research in which local knowledge and skills and fully utilized. The main purpose is to promote the effective, integrated management of environment and population dynamics for the benefit of local people in rural communities.

Nefzaoui, A. Y. Saadani, H. Jallouli, N. Raggad, A. Jemai avec Grigory Lazarev. 2003. Guide Operationnel Pour L’elaboration Et La Mise En Œuvre De Plan De Developpement Participatif Avec Les Communautes Agro-Pastotrales. Equipe d’appui Mashreq/Maghreb. Projet De Developpement Agropastoral Et De Promotion Des Initiatives Locales Dans Le Sud Est (PRODESUD). INRAT/FIDA/ICARDA.Le guide opérationnel rappelle et indique la logique des différentes étapes à franchir pour atteindre les objectifs de la planification locale concertée. Il laisse à l’équipe opérationnelle une marge de manœuvre et d’adaptation au contexte spécifique de chacune des communautés impliquées. Sur la base d’un test méthodologique, conduit par une équipe de conseillers en méthodologie en étroite concertation avec l’équipe du projet, la communauté, le personnel du Commissariat régional au développement agricole (CRDA) et d’autres partenaires, une première version a été élaborée et a servi de support de formation de l’équipe du projet composé des facilitateurs/animateurs, des spécialistes matières ainsi que du personnel du CRDA. La version finale du guide a été ensuite élaborée en tenant compte des différents commentaires ainsi que du premier travail engagé par l’équipe du projet dans une nouvelle Unité socio-territoriale (UST), avec l’appui des conseillers en méthodologie. La structure du guide et sa présentation suivent pratiquement les différentes séquences méthodologiques telles qu’elles ont été réellement vécues au moment de leur exécution. Cette référence devrait aider l’équipe du projet à retrouver facilement l’expérience q’elle a vécu lors de la formation sur le terrain.

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.

Horne, P.M. and W.W. Stur. 1999. Developing forage technologieswith smallholder farmers: How to select the best varieties to offer farmers in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 62. ACIAR/CIAT.Livestock are an important component of upland farming systems in Southeast Asia. In the past, feed resources were plentiful. On many farms this is no longer the case, so farmers have to spend more and more time finding feed for their animals. Planting forages can help to overcome this problem. However, no two farms have the same resources and needs. Forages that are suitable on one farm may not be suitable for other farms. The best way to develop the 'right' forage technologies for each farm is for farmers to evaluate promising forage technologies and adapt the best options to their situation.In this participatory approach the role of the development worker is to give farmers information about forages that may solve their problems. There are many forages and ways of growing them on farms. Not all will be suitable for a particular situation and need. This booklet will help development workers to select appropriate forage options to offer farmers.