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

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

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (ed. with D. Buchan). 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. (2 volumes: a process companion and a reference book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

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.

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.

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.