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

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.

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.

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

Sustainable Livlihoods ToolboxContents:Policy, Institutions and ProcessesPower Tools for Policies and InstitutionsProgramme Identification and DesignGender AnalysisPlanning New ProjectsReviewing Existing ActivitiesMonitoring and EvaluationWays of WorkingSharing the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beaulieu, N., G. Leclerc, M. Alvarez, G. De Wispeleare, J. Jaramillo, Y. Rubiano, A. Fajardo, O. Muñoz, N. Peñuela. 2001. A Proposed Framework for Using Remote Sensing Imagery to monitor environmental dynamics in support to local planning efforts. Presented at the Workshop on Integrated Natural Resources Management (INRM), 28-31 August, 2001, CIAT, Cali, Colombia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Groenfeldt, D. Electronic Learning Guidebook on Participatory Irrigation. Prepared and developed under the sponsorship and guidance of a partnership between the Management.Environment and Natural Resources Division (EDIEN) and New Products and Outreach Division (EDINP) World Bank Institute (WBI), of the World BankParticipatory Irrigation Management (PIM) refers to the involvement of irrigation users in all aspects of irrigation management, and at all levels. This electronic learning guidebook is a self-paced learning tool for acquiring knowledge about PIM and how to implement and promote PIM at the country level. The intended users of are task managers, staff of borrowing countries, irrigation managers, consultants, trainers, and NGOs