Van Mele, P. and A.K.M. Zakaria. 2003. Women-to-Women Extension of Post-harvest Innovations. CABI Bioscience and Rural Development Academy, Bogra, Bangladesh.This comprises four award-winning training videos(English and Bangla):    * Spotted seed means diseased seed    * Seed cleaning by floatation    * Well-dried seed is good seed    * Seed preservation techniquesOrdering information: contact Mamunul Haque (IRRI-Bangladesh

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ashby, J.A., A.R. Braun, T. Gracia, M.P. Guerrero, L.A. Hernandez, C.A. Quiros, J.I. Roa. 2000. Investing in Farmers as Researchers. Experience with Local Agricultural Research committees (CIALs) in Latin America. CIAT Publication No. 318. International Center for Tropical Agriculture. Cali. Colombia. More information...  How CIALs have spread to Armenia

Braun A; Thiele G; Fernandez M. 2000. Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: Complementary platforms for integrated descision-making in sustainable agriculture. Agricultural Research & Extension Network (AgREN). Network paper No. 105.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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

deGrassi, A. and P. Rosset. Public research: which public is that? This article is based on the manuscript for Aaron deGrassi and Peter Rosset’s forthcoming book, A New Green Revolution for Africa? Myths and Realities of Agriculture, Technology and Development (Food First Books, 2004).Public research theoretically offers considerably more potential than the corporate, gene-focused approach to generate crops that meet the needs of farmers. But in practice, much public research, especially that undertaken by the world’s international research centres, has also been blinded by the gene. Aaron deGrassi and Peter Rosset assert that farmers need to be returned to centre-stage to re-assume their central role as custodians of the world’s agricultural resources and the directors of research and innovation.

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.

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.

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.

Gupta, A.K., S. Chokkakula, R. Sinha, K. Patel, S. Muralikrishna and D. Koradia. 2001. Harnessing Wisdom for Managing Watersheds:Honey Bee Perspective on Innovations, Institutions and Policies for Marginal Environments. SRISTI.Household survival in marginal environments such as mountains, dry lands, and flood prone regions requires tremendous creativity. As was noted in Alice in Wonderland, you have to move very fast and work very hard even to remain where you are. The choice for large number of households is to sustain the livelihood support systems such as the catchments, biodiversity, other natural resources, etc., in a manner that they do not get trapped in downward spiral of erosion of resources, self-esteem, and of course, economic opportunities. The fact that despite various odds, including lack of policy support, so many communities and individuals manage not only to conserve resources but also augment them is something that this monograph is all about. The Honey Bee perspective builds upon what poor people are rich in i.e. their knowledge, creative potential, and institutional heritage. The discourse on participation often is restricted to the concept of either physical participation in terms of labour or social participation in implementation of externally designed policies and programmes. In this study, we draw attention to the scope of intellectual, moral, and institutional participation of local communities in reconceptualizing the watershed approach and implementation process. The greatest irony of watershed projects is that they founder after they are ‘handed over’ to the people by the project implementation authorities. If the watershed projects are designed, owned and implemented by the people, why should the question of handing over arise at all. Unless we, the external facilitators, learn to participate in peoples’ own plans, the possibility of building upon peoples’ knowledge is very remote. It is extremely opportune that international and national institutions are recognizing the need for incorporating indigenous knowledge and institutional heritage in the design and implementation of modern watershed projects. This blending of traditional knowledge and contemporary innovations developed by people without outsiders help will not take place unless we understand the policy and institutional context of technology generation and diffusion for rainfed, mountain, and dry regions. The macro policy and the framework for organizing incentives to ensure peoples’ participation in design and implementation of watershed are discussed in part one. In part two of the paper we critique the formal models of technology development and transfer. We argue that technology development process in highly ecologically heterogeneous environments cannot take place in the classical lab to land framework. The last part three deals with the framework for institution building in watersheds. In part four, we provide illustrations of more than fifty technological and institutional innovations from Himalayan region as well as western Indian dry regions.

Reij, C. and A. Waters-Bayer (Eds). 2001 Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. Earthscan.One of Africa's major untapped resources is the creativity of its farmers. This book presents a series of clear and detailed studies that demonstrate how small-scale farmers, both men and women, experiment and innovate in order to improve their livelihoods, despite the adverse conditions and lack of appropriate external support with which they have to contend. The studies are based on fieldwork in a wide variety of farming systems throughout Africa, and have been written primarily by African researchers and extension specialists. Numerous lively examples show how a participatory approach to agricultural research and development that builds on local knowledge and innovation can stimulate the creativity of all involved – not only the farmers. This approach, which recognizes the farmers' capacity to innovate as the crucial component of success, provides a much-needed alternative to the conventional 'transfer of technology' paradigm. This book is a rich source of case studies and analyses of how agricultural research and development policy can be changed. It presents evidence of the resilience and resolution of rural communities in Africa and will be an inspiration for development workers, researchers and policy-makers, as well as for students and teachers of agriculture, environment and sustainable development.

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.

Probst, K., J. Hagmann, T. Becker and M. Fernandez. 2000. Developing a framework for participatory research approaches in risk prone diverse environments. Proceedings. Deutscher Tropentag 2000. University of Hohenheim.The paper provides a typology of approaches to innovation development: Four prototypical approaches were identified and described along key characteristics (objectives, types of participation, actors involved, roles, procedures, research methods). Most participatory research activities in the CGIAR are at the level of applied and adaptive research, and participatory research is frequently seen as a better way of technology transfer. In view of the complex challenges in natural resource management (NRM), which are a function of technical skills and knowhow as well as social negotiation, organization and rules, it is recommended that the CGIAR should broaden and reconsider its NRM research strategies in risk prone and diverse environments by enhancing the use of participatory learning and action research.

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.

Garrity, D.P., V.B. Amoroso, S. Koffa, D. Catacutan, G. Buenavista, P. Fay and W. Dar. 2002. Landcare on the Poverty-Protection Interface in an Asian Watershed. Special Feature on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Conservation Ecology. Vol 6(1). Other articles in the Special Issue on INRMSerious methodological and policy hurdles constrain effective natural resource management that alleviates poverty while protecting environmental services in tropical watersheds. We review the development of an approach that integrates biodiversity conservation with agroforestry development through the active involvement of communities and their local governments near the Kitanglad Range Natural Park in the Manupali watershed, central Mindanao, the Philippines. Agroforestry innovations were developed to suit the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions of the buffer zone. These included practices for tree farming and conservation farming for annual cropping on slopes. Institutional innovations improved resource management, resulting in an effective social contract to protect the natural biodiversity of the park. The production of fruit and timber trees dramatically increased, re-establishing tree cover in the buffer zone. Natural vegetative contour strips were installed on several hundred sloping farms. Soil erosion and runoff declined, and the buffer strips increased maize yields by an average of 0.5 t/ha on hill-slope farms. The scientific knowledge base guided the development and implementation of a natural resource management plan for the municipality of Lantapan. A dynamic grass-roots movement of farmer-led Landcare groups evolved in the villages near the park boundary, which had a significant impact on conservation in both the natural and managed ecosystems. Encroachment in the natural park was reduced by 95% in 3 yr. The local Landcare groups also restored stream-corridor vegetation. This integrated approach has been recognized as a national model for the local management of natural resources and watersheds in the Philippines. Currently, the collaborating institutions are evolving a negotiation support system to resolve the interactions between the three management domains: the park, the ancestral domain claim, and the municipalities. This integrated systems approach operated effectively with highly constrained funding, suggesting that commitment and impact may best be stimulated by a "drip-feed" approach rather than by large, externally funded efforts.