Rural Innovation Institute SW-3: PRGA Program Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutionallnnovation A CGIAR Systemwide Program r . . . .. ~ . .. . . "'.: . . . 1 • • 1 •• ... .... • .... lf -.. • • ~. J 1 • ~ VOLUMEIV Annual Report 2005 Contents Project SN- 1: Rural Agro-Enterprise Development Volume 1 Project SN-3: Participatory Research Approaches to Reduce Poverty and Natural Resource Degradation through the Creation of Market Links and Social Control of Community Projects Volume II Project SN-4: Information and Communications (InforCom) Volume III PRGA Program-Program on Partlcipatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation A CGIAR Systemwide Program VolumeiV 1 267 445 525 PRGA Program Progra.m on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutionallnnovation A CGIAR Systemwide Program 525 Contents Progrc.rn Overview 529 Program Logical Framework 2005 532 Research and Development Highllghts 536 Output 1: Mainstreanúng-Capacity Developed for Mainstreamtng Gender Analysis and Equttable Partictpatory Research in Selected CG Centers and NARS 536 1Taintng 536 Collaborative action research 538 Output 2: Impact Assessment-Evidence of the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Methods Assessed, and Methods Developed to Permlt Impact-assessment Results to Be Effectively Integrated tnto Research-for-development Dectston-making 549 Emptrtcal studtes 549 Development and dtssemtnatton of tools and methods, capacity building 565 Output 3: Communications-Communication Strategies for Learning and Change wtth Partners 572 Website 572 Dissemtnation of research results to peers 572 Dissemination of research results to non-specialtst audiences 573 Appendlces 574 1: Program and staff publications 574 2: Special project fundtng approved in 2004 and 2005 579 3: Staff list 580 4! Advisory Board 581 5: Budget 2005 582 6: PRGA Program logical framework 2006-2008 585 7: Program strategy for participatory research 588 8: Workshop on Strategic Planning for Gender Analysis and Organtzation Change 590 9: Plant breeding book: Contents 604 10: Planning workshop of the Eastem Himalayan Network 607 11: Abbreviations and acronyms 610 527 PRGA Program-Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation A CGIAR Systemwide Program Program Overview Background The Systemwtde Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program) was established in 1997 with two majar objectives: • To assess and develop methodologies and to operationalize their use in plant breeding and natural-resource management research; • To systematize and matnstream what is being leamed worldwtde from the integration of gender-sensitive participatory research with plant breeding, crop and natural- resource management research. During phase 1 (1997-2002), the PRGA Program, together wtth its partners, helped create strong momentum to implement gender-sensitive participatory approaches both within the Consultative Group on Intemational Agricultura! Research (CGIAR) system and on a broader scale. Many respected scientists and practitioners are using these approaches in their research, and demand is growtng for training. The PRGA Program has demonstrated that participatory research and gender analysis embody rtgorous methods that are scientitlcally grounded. The PRGA Program's work has built a body of evidence that shows that these methods are delivering broad tmpact by producing technologies and resource-management options that are well suited to end-users' needs, thus significantly reducing the possibility of farmers rejecting newly developed technologies. In addition, participatory research is producing "process impacts," resultlng in, for example, increased human and social capital, which is essentlal to the sustainability of rural development and innovation. Among those who benefit most from the implementatlon of these approaches are the very poor, especially women, and marginal groups, who are often overlooked by conventional research. Finally. the PRGA Program has demonstrated how gender-sensitlve participatory research can be cost-efficient, beca use of its increased impact and shortened time to produce relevant technologtes. The accomplishments of the PRGA Program during Phase l can be summarized as follows. • Assessed the global state-of-the-art and emergtng issues in participatory research and gender analysis. • Enabled the scientlflc use of participatory research and gender analysis. • Provided support and engaged in cuttlng-edge research. • Fostered community of knowledge and practice. • Conducted rigorous evaluation of impacts. 529 Major lessons from Phase 1 While these accomplishments are in themselves good news, there are nevertheless several challenges that mise from the experiences in Phase l. Much of the effectiveness of partictpatory research and gender analysis methods to address client demands. particularly those of poor rural women, is critically constrained by the following factors. • While there is a general and increastng interest in the use of participatory research approaches, there is little evtdence that gender analysis is being gtven due attentlon. • Among the CG Centers. there ts an absence of a critlcal mass of members who are ustng equitable participatory research and gender analysis methods. • There is a great and unmet need for capacity development in the use of these methods. • In cases where participatory research approaches have been applied. there is enhanced learning as a result of experimentatlon with methods. However. much of the leamtng and change that accompanies the use of these methods remains isolated from the project cycle and does not extend to the organizatlon leve!. These factors severely restrict the extent to which equitab!e participatory research and gender-analysis approaches are integrated tnto the research process, thereby limitlng the extent to which their positlve impacts can be scaled up. Program goal (2003- 2007} Building on these key lessons, the major goal and focus for Phase 2 of the PRGA Program (2003-2007) is to mainstream gender analysis and equitable participatory research to promote leaming and change in CG Centers and natlonal agricultura! research systems (NARS) so that they can better target the demands of beneflciary groups. particularly poor rural women. In order to achieve this goal, the PRGA Program adopted a renewed focus on developing capacity and actlon research for mainstreaming; a continued emphasis on assessing impacts for institutlonal learning and change; and. a continuously evolving partnership and communication strategy. Looking to the future Along with the rest of the CG System, the PRGA Program undertook a major revtsion of its Medium-Term Plan and logtcal framework (logframe) in 2005. The revtsed logframe is presented in Appendix 6. To complement the Program strategies for mainstreamtng. gender analysts, impact assessment. and capacity development (all published in last year's Annual Report), we developed a new Program strategy for participatory research (presented in Appendix 7) and drafted revtsed strategies for our communicatlons and partnerships, both of which will be further developed in 2006. The three-year gender-mainstreaming project in Africa will come to a fruitlon in 2006 as the lmpact of actlon plans in the natlonal agricultura! research programs will be assessed. 530 The outcomes of the Impact Assessment Workshop (see page 566) ha ve catalyzed a new set of innovative activities for our impact-assessment work in 2006. One such new focus wtll be on understanding impacts of social inclusion in agrtcultural research. In addition. several aspects of the Program's modus operandi were tabled for discussion at the January 2006 annual meeting of our Advtsory Board. 531 Program Logical Framework 2005 NarrativeSummary Meaaurable Indicators Means ofVerification Important Assumptions Goal . By the end of 5 years, partlclpating instltutlons in . Monitoling and evaluatlon system . CGIAR Centers and partner Mainstream gender analysis and the CG System and NARS have an increased indlcators for assessing capactty instltutions w1lllng to become equttable partlclpatory research to capaclty to use GA and PR methods and in GA and PR and organtzational involved in learntng and change by promote learntng and change through mainstream them in their own organizatlons. change. comnúttlng staff and budget to ustng partnershlps wlth CG Centers, NARS, . The CG and NARS organtzatlons who have made . Impact-assessment studles. GA and PR methods, contrlbuting to and civil soclety groups, so that they an attempt to mainstream gender analysls and . Externa! revtew reports . capaclty development of their can better target the demands of partlclpatory approaches have been able to better . Reports of collaborating members. and making the necessary beneftctary groups, partlcularly poor target the demands of beneftctary groups. instltutions. organtzatlonal adjustments for rural women. partlcularly poor rural women. integrating such approaches into . A team of trainers, networked to support each thelr organtzatlons. other and provlde training to others, ts established. . Process of incorporatlng GA & PR into organtzational pollcles and practlces well underway in partlclpating CG Centers and partner instltutlons. Project purpose . Effectlve approaches developed and disseminated . Monitoling and evaluatlon system . Donar commitment to the PRGA 1 lmprove the competencles of the CG for mainstreaming GA and PR methods; methods indicators for assesslng capaclty Program constant over the 5-year System and collaborating lnstitutlons recogntzed and understood by relevant senior In GA and PR and organtzatlonal perlod. to ma1nstream the use of gender- management and staff; and belng applled change. • IARCs and other lnstitutlons sensltive partlclpatory approaches in approprlately by at least 700/o of lnstltu tlons • PRGA Program publicatlons; collaboratlng wlth the PRGA Program plant breedlng, and natural-resource supported by PRGA Program research and IARC annual revtews, reports and able to lnclude results In thelr management research. capaclty building at the end of 5 years. publicatlons. instltutlon's reports and annual . Impact of mainstreaming GA and PR approaches • Published results of PRGA revtews. documented in multlple studtes. Program's lmpact studles. . Stakeholders wllling to contrlbute • Results of PRGA Program actlvely to PRGA Program plannlng partnershlps. and evaluatlon. . Externa! revtew reports . • Reports of collaborating lnstltutions. - -- - ·- - 532 • NarrativeSwnm.aiY Measurable Indicators Meana of Verification Important Aaaum.ptione Output 1 Capactty developed for matnstreaming . At least 12 robust partnershJps are formed with . MonJtortng and evaluation by the . Potential partner tnstitutions are gender analysls and equttable regtonal networks, prominent national partners. PRGA Program. willtng and tnterested to collaborate participatory research in selected Challenge Programs that have (or have the . Collaborators' reports . with the PRGA Program. CG Centers and NARS potentlal to have) considerable 1mpact on the rural . PRGA Program's Annual Report . With support from the PRGA poor by 2005. and website. Program. working groups are willtng Specifte outputs: • The nature of collaboration takes the form of and tnterested to collaborate with l . Strategtc partnershJps formed with (1) exploittng synergtes tn objectives, (2) taktng different partners. organizations that enable the opportun!ties to considerably expand the . Funding partners tnterested tn PRGA Program to have a major tntegratlon, or 1mprove the quality of, the supporttng fruitful engagement with impact on: (a) tntegrattng GA & PR GA and PR practlced , or (3) tncorporattng GA and partners. tnto agricultura! and NRM research PR approaches where they would otherwise be practice. and (b) enhanctng absent or weakly applied. methods and approaches that . GA, PPB and PNRM Worktng Groups are engaged help improve the livelihoods of tn the partnershJp process, as reflected tn their the very poor. particularly rural work plans by 2005. women. 2. Development of effective methods . F1eld traintng manual for GA and PR. lA of ILAC. . Published field manual. • Potential partner tnstitut!ons are and capaclty for uslng GA and PR; and OD developed and widely dissemtnated. Th!s • Tra1nlng reports . w1lling and tnterested to collaborate organizational development (OD) document should also provtde a brtef revtew of . Collaborators' reports . with the PRGA Program. concepts and skills for existtng GA and PR. lA, and OD methods, and . PRGA Program's Annual Report . Fundtng partners tnterested in mainstreamJng these approaches. draw on best practices tn developtng guldelines by and website. supporttng capacity buHdtng. and impact assessment (lA) of 2005. • PRGA Program publications . . IARCs and partner tnstitutlons willtng tnstltutionallearnJng and change . At least 3 methods workshops held for GA, PR. lA . Workshop proceedtngs . to commlt budget and human (ILAC). of ILAC, and OD. trainJng a mtnJmum of resources for tntemal capaclty 40 partlcipants tn a vartety of "best practice" development. approaches; and follow-up support extended to particlpants to enable them to contlnue change process tn the!r respective mstltutlons between 2004 and 2005. 3. Capaclty of IARC and NARS • One traJ.ning-of-trainers workshop held for GA. PR. • Workshop proceedtngs . • CG Centers and NARS tnterested tn, sclentlsts to use "best practice" for and lA of ILAC. tratn1ng a mtn1mum of . Manuals produced from and contributtng budget and human GA, PR. and lA of ILAC, and OD 8 trainers tn a vartety of "best practice" workshop outcomes. resources to, partlclpating tn methods is considerably approach es; and follow-up support extended to . PRGA Program's Annual Report workshops and host local follow-up strengthened through tratn1ng of trainers to enable them to provtde trainJng and and webslte. traintng. tratners. technJcal support to sclenusts tn the!r tnstitutes In . Collaborators' reports . 2006. . At least 2 manuals produced on "best practice" tn GA, PR. lA of ILAC, and OD. based on workshop outcomes. One tn 2004 and another tn 2005. ~-----~ --- 533 NarrativeSummary Measurable Indicators Means ofVerification Important Assumptions 4. Evaluatlon studies are conducted . At least 10 collaboratlve actlon-research actlvttles . PRGA Program publicatlons. . CG Centers and NARS interested in. to assess opportunitles and undertaken through strateglc partnerships • PhD dissertatlon . and contrtbutlng budget and human constraints for mainstreaming between 2005 and 2006. . PRGA Program website . resources to, partlctpatlng tn GA & PR. and a plan of actlon for • Instltutional analysis conducted with 10 partner . PRGA Program Annual Reports . workshops, and to learning and implementatlon is developed. instltutlons, and ~best practlces" analyzed and . Collaborators' reports . change process. dissemtnated through publicatlons by 2005. • Mentor's reports . . An interna! working group is formed to spearhead organizatlonal change and mainstream GA & PR in each partlctpatlng instltutlon between 2005 and 2006. . Mentoring and capacity building provtded to partner instltutlons to guide and lend support to the mainstreaming process between 2004 and 2007. 5. Assessment of etfects of • Research results publ1shed and dtssemtnated on . Workshop proceedings. . CG Centers and NARS interested in, mainstreaming of GA & PR the process of instltutlonalizatlon through . Manuals produced from and contributlng budget and human approaches through organtzatlonal organtzatlonal change between 2005 and 2007. workshop output. resources to, partlclpatlng in change. . PRGA Program's Annual Report workshops, and to host local follow- and website. up training. . Collaborators' reports . Output 2 Evtdence of the tmpact of . At least 3 collaboratlve tmpact studies are . lA studtes and methods . IARCs and partner instltutlons willing partlcipatory research (PR) and conducted, including an analysis of tmpact of pubUshed as PRGA working to collaborate in lA. gender analysts (GA) methods ditferent PR approaches under contrastlng documents. . Funds available to conduct emplrtcal assessed, and methods developed to conditlons-b!ophysical, instltutlonal, and policy . PRGA Program's publicatlons, studies . permit impact assessment (lA) results envtronments. Results are published as working brtefs, presentatlons, peer- to be effectlvely integrated into documents and in professional joumals between reviewed journal articles, books, research-for-development dects1on- 2004 and 2007. website. making . Publlshed results of 3 collaboratlve studles and • PRGA Annual Reports, workshop impact of PR and GA methods dtsseminated to proceedings. Spec(fic outputs: CGIAR liaison contacts, PNRM and PPB Working l. Empirtcal studtes on PR methods Groups, CGIAR librarles, and donor community by in PB and NRM assessed. 2007. . Three research brtefs and PowerPoint presentatlons are prepared to highlight the recent evtdence on lA of GA and PR in general. and they are Widely disseminated to IARCs, NARS. and NGOs between 2005 and 2007. . Two lnternatlonal workshops are conducted to disseminate results of empirtcal impact studies in 2005 and in 2007. 534 NarrativeSum.maJY Me aaurable Indicators Meana of VerlB.cation Important Aaaumptiona 2. Tools and methods developed and . Collaboratlve actlon research conducted wtth at . Publlshed studies (PRGA worldng . Partner lnstltutlons lnterested and disseminated to enable sc!entlsts least 4 CG and NARS partners to develop, test, documents) on IA tools and W1lling to partlc!pate In actlon to capture !mpact of products (!.e. and assess methods for !mprovtng lnformatlon methods. and assessments of research. crop technolog!es and management resulting from IA (product and process !mpacts), the!r effectlveness In !mprovtng . Fundlng partners lnterested In practlces) and !nnovat!on and assesslng the contr!butlon of IA to ILAC by the usefulness of IA and supporting these !n!t!atlves. processes, and lntegrate learn!ng 20070 st!mulaUng organizatlonal from IA lnto research planntng and . D!scuss!on paper on IA for II.AC !s developed and leamtng and changeo research pr1or1ty-settlngo made available to lARCs, NARS. and NGOs by . PRGA Program's Annual Reports 2007o and webs!teo • 1\vo IA capac!ty-development traJ.n1ng and . Collaborators' reportso methods learn!ng workshops are organtzed In 2005 and In 20060 Output 3 Commun!cat!on strategtes for . S!te developed that !s fr1end.ly and accesslble to . Monthly webs!te statlst!cs: . Users h ave the lnterest and time to learn!ng and .change wtth partners users In developlng countr!es wtth s low modem number of bits, v!s!tor sesslons. contr!bute to webs!te content. connectlons between 2004 and 20050 and downloadso • A quali.fled tnd!v!dual Spec(fic outputs: . Site conta1ns a rtch set of research fl.ndings and . Mon!tortng and evaluatlon system (commun!cat!ons officer) !s ldent!fted l . PRGA Program's lnteractlve webs!te resources that are relevant to users, and 1s of the PRGA Programo to manage and update the slte's launched and attracts a large and regularly updated between 2004 and 2007. contents. diverse range of users who not only . Donors lnterested In provtding read, but also contr!bute to the support for the technlcal development site's contents. of the new slte and the PRGA Program's capaclty for commun!catlonso 2. Awareness of PRGA research . Systems In place to regularly publlclze new . PRGA-lnfo llstserv membership . PRGA Program has the capac!ty to results and other publlcat!ons ls GA and PR research results through PRGA-Info (number and profess!on)o strengthen relat!onships wtth lts considerably helghtened, Ustserver, webslte, and pr1nted copies to authors, . Monthly webs!te statlst!cs . Ualson contacts and ensure the!r partlcularly among agrtcultural donors, and CGIAR llbrartes by 2004, and partlcularly downloaded commltment to dlsseminatlng sclent!sts. updated continuously t1ll 20070 publlcat!onso lnformatlon on GA and PR . PRGA Program's lla!son contacts regularly forward . Mon!tortng and evaluatlon system • A quali.fled !nd!v!dual publiclty on PRGA to the!r Center sclent!sts of the PRGA Programo (commun!catlons officer) ls !denutled between 2004 and 2007 o to promote awarenesso . New sources of d!str!but!on are ldentlfled by 2005o . Donors are lnterested In supporting . Membership to PRGA-lnfo Ustserv doubles to the PRGA Program's capacity for 800 members between 2005 and 2007o commun!cations. 3o Research results publlshed In . Packaglng of research results In 1- to 2-page brtef • Mailing list membership for br1efs . Donors lnterested In supportlng the media favored by non-academlc forms. dissemlnated both as hard copy and (numbers and professlons)o PRGA Program's capaclty for aud!ences and researchers not well electron!c form between 2004 and 2007 o commun!cat!ons and malllng costso acqualnted wtth the PRGA fleldo . Mailing list bullt to lnclude IARC and NARS . A quali.fled Individual sclentlsts. NGO practlt!oners, dv!l soclety (commun!cat!ons officer) ls ldent!fted organ!Zatlons, and policy-makers. between 2004 to prepare brtefs from PRGA and 20070 Program's research publlcauons. - ---- 535 Research and Development Highlights Output 1: Mainstreaming-capacity Developed for Mainstreaming Gender Analysis and Equitable Participatory Research in Selected CG Centers and NARS Output targets l . Team of eight trainers. trained in a vartety of Mbest practice" approaches. established and enabled to provide training and technical support on participatory research and gender analysis, and impact assessment for institutionallearning and change, to scientists in their institutes. 2. At least 10 collaborative action-research activities undertaken through strategic partnerships. Training Meeting capacity development needs for participatory research (PR) and gender analysis (GA) is a critlcal component in mainstreaming these methodologies in agricultura! research. One central component in ensurtng that these methodologies are mainstreamed is to develop a cadre of trainers who can then serve as a resource to their own (and other) organizations. Severa! capacity-development initlatives were conducted in 2005 towards achieving the goal of developing a cadre of trained trainers in PR and GA methods. The activities were conducted in collaboration with CGIAR Centers and NARS, prtmarily in Africa and Asia. The content of the capacity-development workshops varied according to needs and experience in PR and GA approaches of the partlcipatlng organizations. As a result. sorne workshops were organized for more baste skllls development, while others were targeted to those individuals and organizatlons that had already developed experience in the application of PR and GA methods in research, but were seeking to institutionalize these approaches in their research organizatlons. Towards meeting the needs of the latter group. the focus of the capacity-development initlatives was more exclusively on developing concepts and skills for becoming effective change agents, and for organizational development. C.IAT/J\frica training on participatory research and gender analysis of AjNet: A workshop was conducted in collaboration with the International Center for Tropical Agriculture's Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute (CIAT /TSBF) with the objective to develop the capacity of scientist members of the African Network for Soil Biology and Fertility (AfNet) in terms of their knowledge of and skill level in farmer participatory research (FPR) and scaling-up approaches and to enhance their ability to apply the FPR and scaling-up approaches in their research and development work. Expected outcomes of the workshop were: Initial exposure to participa tory research and scaling up/out. covertng concepts, approaches. issues. methods and tools; Being able to communicate and relate more effectively and equitably with rural farmers; Thinking critically and reflectively about own role in research; 536 Increasing the relevance and impact of research for integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), natural-resources management (NRM) and for the livelihoods of local farmers; Identifying and incorporating participatory research expertise and interdisciplinary teams for more effective research; Creating a community of learning among the scientists and an ongoing network of support; Identifying action plans and changes in personal approaches to research and interactlon with farmers and stakeholders in the field; Applying these approaches with farmers in the field and reviewing the process. This was the second training of combined AfNet scientists in FPR methods and scaling up. The 39 participants in the 2-week training were AfNet NRM scientists from West Afrtca (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Nigerta and Senegal), Central Africa (DR Congo). East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda}. Southern Afnca {Botswana, Malawi, South Africa and Zimbabwe) and Madagascar. There were 15 women and 24 men scientists, both Anglophones and Francophones, whose individual disciplines included rangeland ecology, soil science, anthropology, agroforestry. sociology and economics. The training covered key concepts and tools for applying farmer participatory methods and approaches to NRM research. Participants applied the learning of participatory approaches directly with farmers in the Meru District of Kenya, durtng a field trip at the end of the first week. ASARECA workshop on Strategic Planningfor Gender Analysis and Organization Change: This workshop was the second in a series of workshops for members from eight country NARS in the ASARECA (Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastem and Central Africa) region. who are involved as change agents for mainstreaming gender analysis in their respective organizations under the PRGA-ASARECA project MBuilding Capacity in Gender Analysis and Mainstreaming in the NARS of ASARECA." The first workshop was held in Nairobi in November 2004 (and is reported in the PRGA Annual Report 2003-o4). Seventeen participants attended this second workshop, which was held at the campus of ILRI (Intemational Livestock Research Institute), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 4-15, 2005. The participants were from DR Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan. Tanzania and Uganda. There will be a final Training for Trainers workshop in June 2006. The workshop objectives were to: Assess existing gaps in ongoing research activities; Design strategies on how to move forward on: (a) gender analysis, (b) organization development for mainstreaming; Develop monitoring and evaluation indicators for mainstreaming; Develop an action plan for implementing organizational development. The content and outcomes of the workshop are summarized in Appendix 8. Participatory plant breeding book: One of the main activities suggested to achieve sorne of the objectives of the Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) Working Group was to 537 publish a book on plant breeding with an emphasis on participatory methodology; this was also one of the PPB Working Group recommendations from the Rome consultation (2002). The various initiatives have been lumped together and a draft outline has been circulated. The book will be (co-)published by (with) FAO and is being edited by Salvatore Ceccarelli, Elcio Guimares, Eva Weltzien and P. Rajendran. By the end of 2005, sorne 18 of the projected 27 contrtbutions had been received. The book is scheduled for publication during the second half of 2006. More details on the contents of the book are provtded in Appendix 9. Other training activities (participatory plant breeding): The PPB Working Group Facilitator vtsited to Eritrea in the first quarter of 2005, to support the participatory breeding program in that country, to train Eritrean sctentists in interacting with farmers. and to contrtbute to the In-country Short-term Training Course on various technical aspects of PPB. In June, 9 hours of lectures on PPB were gtven at the course "Explotting Plant Adaptation and Btodíversíty for Higher and More Stable Yields" organized jointly by the Ministero Degli A.ffari Esteri - Istituto Agronomico per L'Oltremare and the Crop and Grassland Servtce of FAO. This was followed by a further vtstt to Eritrea to provtde technical support vtsit to the National Agricultura! Research Institute and the College of Agriculture of the Universtty of Asmara. both of which are involved tn a partlcipatory breedtng program on barley, wheat, hanjets and food legumes such as lentil, faba bean and chickpea. In August, a workshop on "Recognition. Access. and Benefit Sharing in Partictpatory Plant Breeding" was held in Amman, Jordan, wtth the participation of 81 farmers (63 men and 18 women) and 28 scientists. In the third quarter of the year, the PPB Working Group Facilttator presented a lecture on PPB at the training course on "Changes Agent in Rural Development" in Obregón, Sonora. Mex:ico. During that trtp. he also vtsited and discussed future collaboration on PPB with Dr Fernando Galván Castillo. Director General de Agricultura. Gobierno de Guanajuato. Raising awareness of participatory plant breeding: In the second quarter of 2005, a Consultative Workshop on Participatory Plant Breeding was conducted in Aleppo, Syria, with participants from 6 countries. who all joined the PPB maillist. In July. the PPB Working Group Facilitator presented a lecture on PPB ata Workshop on "Barley research in Iran: priorities and strategies," held at the Seed and Plant Improvement Institute (SPII) in Karaj . Iran. Collaborative action research The PRGA Program. in collaboration with various partner institutions in the CGIAR and NARS, and NGOs, conducted severa! studies aimed at understanding organizational opportunities and constraints for mainstreaming gender-sensitive partlcipatory research. 538 CGIAR Centers ILRI: Institutional assessment to identify opportunities and constraints jor mainstreaming gender analysis in ILRI The concept of gender analysis is not new to ILRI. However, a strategy that ensures an engendered research agenda is weak or non-existent in the Center. A collaborative initiative between PRGA and ILRI was established with a view to making an inventory of past experiences, synthesizing lessons learned and assessing the capacity for GA. The collaboration is divided into two phases: phase one consists of the institutional assessment; phase two will comprise the development and implementation of an action plan to mainstream GA. The specific targeted outputs (sorne already achieved) of the collaboration are: Development of a comprehensive survey questionnaire for institutional analysis Development of an action plan for implementation with support from ILRI management and senior leadership. The proposed activities (in progress) for phase 1 are: Institutional diagnosis: the analysis should focus on identifying the opportunities and constraints for mainstreaming GA; assess the status of GA in the institute-includes emphasiztng changes since the 1997 review (review of reports, survey, discussions with project leaders and key stafO; carry out a SWOT analysis-with a focus on why recommendations in 1997 were not adopted-and using the results to develop a draft work plan. Conduct a planning workshop in collabora tion with the PRGA Program. The purpose of the workshop is to report research findings. which will form the basis of a plan of action to be developed. A meeting was held in March 2005 with representatives of all ILRI research Themes to reflect on the role of PR and GA within ILRI. Methods for mainstreaming PR and GA were presented by the PRGA Program Coordinator. This was followed by an e-mail discussion among key ILRI scientists and PRGA on strategies for an institutional assessment of PR and GA. It was concluded that ILRI would commit one or two staff to implement the institutional analysls rather than a big team of scientists, due to scarcity of staff time. A communication strategy was developed ensuring engagement of a wide ILRI audience. A protocol for a gender audit and action plan for mainstreaming within ILRI was designed and an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between ILRI and PRGA. ICRAF: The quality of participatory research and gender analysis at ICRAF Participatory research and farmer involvement are an integral part of ICRAF's work. The staff at ICRAF have a very positive attitude towards participatory research and farmer involvement in R&D. Most researchers have a strong commitment to involving farmers, mak.ing research relevant to their needs and achieving impact on the ground. Thls situation developed without a formal policy. strategy or conceptual model for participatory research. 539 ICRAF is rightly putting a great deal of emphasis on working with and through partners in arder to ensure impacts and long-term sustainability, while staying focused on its relative strengths as an intemational research organization. The implementation of participatory research and farmer involvement has been diverse in terms of methods, quality and outputs. mainly due to ICRAF's highly decentralized mode of working in conjunction with its somewhat weak intemal leaming and exchange mechanisms. Participatory research has greatly contributed to an increased relevance and usefulness of research at ICRAF and, in sorne places. to empowering users to co-develop integrated resource management approaches. including the necessary policy changes. Although staff generally have a simJiarly positive attitude towards gender issues. commitment and capabilities for a deeper lntegration into ICRAF's work are more variable than for partlcipatory research. Research with a more strategic use of partlcipatory research and gender issues, aimed at the integration of local-level leaming and the development of intematlonal public goods (IPGs) on a higher level, ts rare at ICRAF. ICRAF should explore ways to more formally involve farmers in decision-making in the research process in arder to ensure its lnstitutional contlnuity and to increase its demand orientation. Currently, farmers' perspectives and needs play an important role in guiding ICRAF's work, but only informally through researchers who incorporate them into R&D design and implementation. The success indicators being used by ICRAF only reflect the traditional scientiflc paradigm. Success indicators for ICRAF's wider goals-Uke relevance of research. usefulness for the target groups. empowerment of partners and target groups, policy dialog and poverty reduction-do not exist. Knowledge management, intemallearning and exchange, and the development of IPGs through better systematization and synthesis of approaches seem to be the main challenges for ICRAF. To better capitalize on the various experiences made in the regions and in the Systemwide Programs it hosts, more and better mechanisms that foster sharing of experiences and leaming processes should be developed. lso on the strategic level, there was an absence of a conceptual framework for R&D which lntegrates localleaming, partlcipatory research, actlon research, empirical research, development and scaling up. This would be the basls for the development of a widely agreed policy and strategy which would clarify roles and prioritles. Social sctence capacity is becoming increasingly important in approaches to integrated NRM (INRM) and elsewhere. ICRAF should consider substantially increasing its limited capacity especially in the field of qualltative methods. This would enhance the depth of participatory research and of the u se of gender-relevant information for project deslgn and implementation. Increased social-science capaclty would also be instrumental in better understanding of the social, institutional and political dimension of INRM and strengthen ICRAF's ability to develop IPGs through cross-country comparisons of different approaches. 540 , Urban Haruest/ Sub·Saharan A frica Programme/ Intemational Po tato Centre (CIP): mainstreaming gender analysis in the research process in CIP This activity is a follow up to an earlier collaboration between PRGA Program and Urban Harvest (CIP) in 2004, which resulted in an international workshop on MWomen Feeding Cities: Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Agriculture and Urban Food Security" in Acera. Ghana. The proposed activity allows the opportunity for Urban Harvest and PRGA to develop capacity of mutual NARS partner instltutlons in Kenya (KARI). Uganda (NARO} and Ethiopia (EARO). Finally, the opportunity to integrate the learning into the research and policy-setting actlvities of CIP is enhanced through the coordination by the CIP Gender focal person, who is a principal investigator in the proposed project. Objectives: The overall objectlve is to initiate a process of gender mainstreaming in CIP through instltutlonal mechanisms as well as by piloting the approach in Sub-Saharan Africa through Urban Harvest. other CIP Divisions, and at least one NARI partner. The speciflc objectives are to: l. Initlate institutlon-wide adoption of an approach to gender mainstreaming through internal e-debate and management support; 2. Complete pilot testing of the Urban Harvest Strategy for Gender Mainstreaming developed under the previous PRGA grant in 2004; 3. Complement the capacity-development actlvities of PRGA by working with selected officers of at least one Eastern Afrtcan NARI on Urban Harvest and other CIP project activities dealing with PR and GA: 4. Strengthen the capacity of Urban Harvest and other CIP staff to support the work of partners on PR and GA activitles. as a basis for a la ter internal capacity- building program in CIP. Outputs: l . At least two PR and GA field activities involvtng selected NARI personnel, Urban Harvest and CIP staff. 2 . Prototype guidelines on application of PR and GA activities on urban and pert- urban agriculture and other CIP projects in Sub-Saharan Afrtca, based on the project activities. 3. Framework for application of GA in CIP's research program. based on CIP staff involvement in the development of prototype gutdelines. Activities: 1. Introduction of intention to undertake an institutional gender-mainstreaming approach by the Director General at the CIP Annual Meeting in 2005. 2. Selection of at least two PR and GA activíties (at least one in the Urban Harvest program} in consultatlon with relevant partners including PRGA, the selected NARI and CIP staff. 3 . Identlfication of the methods and tools to be employed, using available sources including CIP, RUAF and PRGA. 4. Adaptlve testing of methods and tools in the field. 5 . Incorporation of adapted PR and GA methods and approaches into the NARI and CIP-Urban Harvest country agendas through workshops and other meettngs. 6 . Reporting on field testtng and workshop. 7. Drafttng of guidelines by Urban Harvest, CIP and NARI participants. 541 8. Oissemination of guidelines to partners through electronic rneans. including through the CIP gender and diverslty interna! e-debate, and by postlng presentation on the CIP. Urban Harvest and partners' websites. 9. Presentatlon of guidelines in CIP forums and recommendations for actlon. !CARDA: Assessment of capacity developmentjor participatory research and gender analysis among !CARDA and its partner insti.tutions Two main views of PR and GA approaches were apparent among ICARDA researchers and in the national programs visited. The first is a functional view, which perceives the main value of these approaches as related to improved efficiency, effectiveness and impact of research . Within this functional view, a prominent perceptlon in !CARDA and among sorne natlonal researchers and programs is that participatory approaches are a tool for promotlng researcher -generated technologies. The second view, which values PR and GA as means of empowerment. is less prominent. This view sees gender-sensitive and equitable participatory approaches as a means to bring about positlve social change and democratization through sharing of knowledge, decision-making and power. Researchers holding this view tend to see technology development as a component in the wider process of developing sustainable livelihoods, and view themselves as contributlng one form of knowledge to the process. while playing a role in facilitating the integratlon of other sources of knowledge. Among national researchers. the functional view was more associated with programs that have less experience and expertise with participatory approaches. Among !CARDA researchers. two rnain views exist about researcher roles within teams involved in PR and GA. Sorne researchers prefer a multidisciplinary rnode in which research is handled from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. In practice this translates fnto assigning responsibility for participatory resea:rch to the social scientists in a team. Others prefer an interdisciplinary rnode in which teams purposefully integrate concepts and methodologies from different disciplines and perspectives into a common framework. In practlce this translates into shared responsibility for PR and GA. There was a s trong recognition among !CARDA and national-program researchers that the incorporation of gender perspectives is important in current commodity-oriented and NRM work and that this is a weak area. Concerns about PR and GA approaches were mainly focused on how these can be better supported and developed. Key lssues included the following. Institutional: Many researchers would like to see more support frorn !CARDA management to "raise the flag" of PR and GA at !CARDA. This would allow the Center to respond to emerging opportunitles around the CWANA (Central and West Asia and North Africa) region to link with and help empower other organizatlons (including an emerging NGO presence) that apply participatory approaches. in order to improve the livelihoods of farmers and agropastoralists, conserve biodiversity and address other key NRM issues. Methodological: Despite the development and use of comrnunity and INRM approaches in severa! projects, sorne researchers voiced concern about a perceived lack of clear rnethodologies, particularly for participatory research related to cornplex NRM issues. Approaches for data collection and analysis within participatory research frarneworks and better docurnentation in general were identlfied as needs. There is also sorne concern about 542 how to move from the use of participatory approaches to promote the supply of existing technologies to a more demand-driven mode of participatory technology development. lntegration: Many researchers would like to see more integration occurrtng across disciplines. projects and with other actors. including national programs, NGOs and the priva te sector. Participatory research and GA approaches and joint proposal and project development are seen as going "hand in hand" with integration. Capacity: Many researchers feel that !CARDA does not have enough in-house expertise in participatory research, that more gender expertise is also needed, and that more women researchers are needed in order to reach women farmers and agropastoraltsts. A number of scientists have developed their own expertise in participatory research and are recognized as innovators by colleagues. A common perception is that the innovators do not have the time to help others develop capacity in participatory research. There is recognttion by sorne researchers that sorne NARS have significant expertise and experience in PR and GA- especially in Africa (e.g. Ethiopia. Kenya. Morocco, Tunisia). Capacity d.evelopment Researchers in projects applying participatory approaches recognize a need for capacity-building and articulated a number of strategies for going about this including: (1) raising the visibility of participatory research at !CARDA as a way to attract resources for capacity-building; (2) increasing exposure to PR and GA experiences elsewhere; (3) combining formal and informal mechanisms of capacity-building and using innovatlve approaches; (4) addressing gender staffing issues; {5) making sure capacity- building is well targeted; (6) using pilot projects with positive results to demonstrate the value of participatory research. Demand and speclftc needs jor capacity development About half of the projects identified the need for capacity development through stakeholder consultation processes. The other projects based their decisions on technology adoption rates and on perceptions that knowledge of participatory approaches needed to be increased. Most of the effort in capacity-buildtng is betng directed at NARS researchers and research assistants. Farmers and extension workers are also included in sorne of the capacity-development plans. Although the inventory asked specifically about capacity-buildtng related to PR and GA. sorne of the objectives of the planned capacity-building relate to more conventional research skills, such as capacity to conduct household and community surveys. assessing the impact of technologies. improving disease diagnosis and control, and decreasing the gap between yield poten tia! and production in wheat fields. Sorne of the objectlves are very general, such as getting farmers involved in pest management, improving technology adoptlon. reducing poverty; while others are much more specific, such as formulating plans and strategtes for implementing PPB in crops with strategic importance for drought-prone areas. The very general objectives do not provide a strong basis for formulating well-designed capacity- development interventions. The formats and approaches for capacity-building are diverse and in most cases there are plans to combine workshops with fieldwork, on-the-job training and other modalities. such as cross visits, individual mentoring and action research. 543 The content of training, which specifically mentioned participatory research, included: Theory and principies of participatory research Livelihoods approaches Tools for participatory research Design of participatory fleld trials and analysis of data Organization of meetings with farmers, sharing data with farmers Needs-based technology design Participatory learning processes Encouragtng farmers' experimentation Communlcation/listening skms Skills for integrating local/outsider knowledge Facil1tation skills Gender The action-research cycle Joint planntng and partnerships with rural communities. Most of the planned capacity-buildtng was designed and facilitated by small teams, usually with sorne support from externa! consultants. At least 320 people were trained and at least 70 days of formal training condu cted in 2005 (not counting season-long farmer fleld schools). In addition, most projects have identified additional capacity-building needs, which are not yet included in proposals or work plans. Lessons leamedjrom capacity-development experience: The current capacity-buildtng strategy involves significant reliance on externa! consultants as trainers. combtned with on- the-job training and informal mentoring ln project settings. There are also a number of self- motivated individuals in ICARDA and among partner organizations who gained competence in partlcipatory approaches through independent study and learning from practica! experiences. A few of these individuals have gatned prominence in ICARDA and beyond as pioneers and methodological innovators, and have developed the capacity of others (individuals and teams) through a combination of hands-on experience, mentoring and formal training. Whether done by training consultants or interna! innovators, formal capacity-building has been organized mainly on a project basis with insufftcient cross- project collaboration or communication. Since 2002, ICARDA's Natural Resource Management Program (NRMP) has played a role in organiztng seven formal workshops on participatory approaches. The Socioeconomics of Production Systems Project has facilitated in the organization of most of these workshops. Other signlficant capacity-building has been conducted by the barley PPB project, by the IPM project on sunn pest. by the PRODESUD project led by INRAT in Tuntsia and by the Agrobiodiversity project in West Asia, the IRDEN Project, the WANA Benchmark Project, the CP in Karkheh River Basin in Iran, and the Mountain and T1llage projects in Morocco. Lessons Iearned from these capacity-building experiences include the following. 544 Follow-up to formal capacity-building is perceived as a weak point in many projects. Without follow-up it will be difficult for participants to translate what they have leamed into good quality gender-sensitive/equitable participatory research processes. Unless the need for follow-up is acknowledged from the beginning. adequate funding for it may not be factored into budgets. Capacity-building needs to be more practice oriented. Both training consultants and participatory research innovators in the !CARDA network recommend a programmed and iterative local approach where training and mentoring is built into projects. and opportunities to discuss and reflect on experiences are a frequent and regular element of the process. Although stgnificant progress has been made. there is still a great deal of work to be done to internalize participatory approaches in !CARDA and among its partners. In addition to inadequate follow-up, main constraints include (1) the top-down culture in the regton; (2) limited knowledge about participatory approaches among managers. researchers and extension staff; (3) disinterest or resistance among researchers and research assistants; (4) a transfer-of-technology culture; and (5) compartmentalized organizational structures. It would be also be helpful if more researchers realized that improving the efficiency and effectiveness of research by increasing stakeholder participation is compatible with more development- and empowerment-oriented views of participatory approaches. Current capacity-buildtng approaches could be tmproved by the following. Bringlng together innovators identified from the different projects and countries to bralnstorm ways to move participatory approaches forward and to build capacity for them. These could be the core group of tralners. They could play a key role in designtng capacity-development. training tratners. accesstng extemal skills as needed, and in monttoring and evaluation of capacity-development processes. Integrating experience from the diversity of projects that ICARDA and its partners are involved in, as raw material for training. A benefit of this would be that more people would gain a "broader" picture of the diversity of participatory approaches. the skills. tools and processes and principies common to all of them. and how different approaches suit different contexts. More people would gain fanúliarity with PR and GA experiences from the region. Strategies for jut:ure capacity development: Three complementary strategies emerge from the context. demand. needs. lessons leamed and views on how capacity-building can be tmproved. l. Each project undertaking PR and GA should integrate capacity-development into its project cycle and strengthen follow-up. mentoring and reflection processes in order to make the learning process iterative and practice oriented. 2 . Projects and programs undertaking PR and GA should form a resource group or network to support capacity-development across the board. The resource group to be composed of methodological innovators and facilitators identified by each project. These tnnovators and facilitators could become a core group of trainers for the ICARDA network of projects. 3. The projects undertaking PR and GA could contribute core funds or collaborate In resource-mobilization to engage a resource person who could coordinate the network of innovators, facilitators-cum-core tralners. help raise the visibility of the 545 PR and GA work undertaken by the !CARDA network, and facilitate linkages to other networks and resources. In addition, this person could conduct research related to rnethodology developrnent for PR and GA orto rnonitortng, evaluation and irnpact assessrnent. He or she could help stirnulate and support discourse in ICARDA and regionally on key issues related to PR and GA approaches, such as rnultidisciplinary and interdisciplinary rnodels of integration and the relationship between the functional and ernpowerment objectives or functions of participatory approaches. Regional networks, NARS, NGOs and universities CAREl Laos: Mapping gender mainstrewning:1 The PRGA Prograrn provided a US$10,000 grant for the institutional assessrnent of CARE/Laos in 2004-2005. The eight-rnonth study docurnented the organizational "best practices" for rnainstrearning gender; identifled the opportunities and constrains for rnainstrearning; and identified key areas for further input such as capacity-developrnent reformulation of organizational policy and incentives for charnpions. The following recornrnendations were rnade. l. Developrnent of a 'Gender End-state' and accornpanying Gender Strategy. This should be linked to existing organizational and prograrnrnatic docurnents and rnap out responsibilities for gender rnainstrearning throughout the organization. 2. Put recruitrnent strategy and procedures in writing. 3. Include gender-responsive responsibilities in generic terms of reference and Annual Performance Appraisal format. 4. Continue and diversify formal interna! gender training: baste awareness. advanced sector specific, gender planning, gender analysis. 5. Utilize creative rnethodologies to facilitate ongoing leaming and discussion about gender and diversity issues in informal and existing formal work settings. 6. Continue to monitor wage-representation levels. Ensure these findings are shared regularly with staff. 7. Couple the rolling out of the new staff policy with ongoing awareness raising and discussion around issues such as sexual harassrnent; giving staff the space and opportunity to discuss and debate these relevant thernes and issues. 8. Conducta clirnate survey to gauge how cornfortable staff are in their workplace. 9. Continue to seek ways to sustainably fund the Gender Equity and Diversity (GED) Officer position. 10. Include rnale rniddle rnanagement more fully in gender-related activities. This will lirnit feelings of exclusion and suspicion and help to strengthen the effectiveness of gender-rnainstrearning efforts; especially on the project level. In the past few years, CARE Laos has gained considerable ground in relation to gender rnainstrearning. At the beginning of 2002, the Country Director considered time and resources spent on GED to be a waste-her stance has changed considerably and fortunately she is not alone in her conviction. She is joined by a tearn of staff frorn all levels of the organization; sorne of whom are officially aligned with the gender work, others who l. Summarized from Sharp K. 2005. Ma pplng gender mainstreamlng. The CARE Laos expertence. Report for PROA Program by CARE lntemational in Lao PDR. 546 take it upon themselves to "try on the gender hat." This personal-leve! support is the strength of the gender movement at CARE Laos now. The organization is making huge strides in capturing this momentum in tangible forms and needs to continue along this path. Staff also have to be given the time and space to contextualize theory and decide how they will integrate it into their Uves and work. While fmnness and accountability is needed in relation to the organization's position on gender equality, aggression will have limited success in bringing the message home. China Agricultural University: Assessing participatory leaming and action in China The proposed activities were reported in the PRGA Annual Report 2003-Q4. However, dueto a requested extension from the China Agricultural University (CAU). the final Learning Workshop was postponed and is planned for February 2006. Hence. a more comprehensive assessment of the outcome of the activities, particularly the plan of action that will emerge from the learning workshop will be included in the ne:xt annual report. The objectives of this research project were to: Develop a viable framework to accelerate learning Identify key areas for capacity-development Establish a network of innovators from the learning communities Develop a high-level community of partners that can support the network of innovators and enhance the learning alliance. Five-step proposed activities: Step l. Conduct survey to assess the quality of participation among existing members of the College of Rural Development (CORO) Network, May-June 2004 Step 2. Analysis of survey results. July 2004 Step 3. Conduct an institutional assessment of CORO to assess the opportunities and constraints for mainstreaming gender-sensitive participatory approaches. August-October 2004 Step 4. Analysis of the institutional assessment, October-November 2004 Step 5. Learning Workshop to develop a plan of action for mainstreaming participatory research in CAU and its partner institutions, February 2006. Eastem Himalayan Network: Institutionalizing gender-responsive R&D in agriculture and NRM through tOOmen's nettOOrks This is an ongoing collaboration between PRGA and NARS and NGOs from Bhutan. northeastem India (Sikkim, Nagaland, Meghalaya). Laos and Nepal. The project is based on action research to generate and document experiences from leaming and change processes surrounding efforts to institutionalize participatory research and social/gender analysis (SA/GA) approaches. Action research will be conducted by highly motivated and committed organizational insiders identified as potential change agents. They will participate in a common action-research framework and forma cadre of researchers conducting analyses of their own organizations and those of national partners to assess various factors that either facilitate or hinder mainstreaming of participatory research and SA/GA approaches. Capacity-building to apply the research methodology is a central component of the project. The development goal of this project is to use the knowledge generated through this research to assist poor rural women emerge from poverty by (a) more effectively managing 547 thetr own agricultura! assets, Le. labor, knowledge and other assets; (b) gatntng access to agricultura! and NRM technologtes, services, inputs and markets; and (e) having more effective input into decision-maklng processes of agricultura! and NRM organizations that can affect their livelihoods. The specific objectives of the project are: l. To build the capacities of rural women to meet thetr needs for food security and income-generating opportunities through local organizations and agro-enterprtse development; 2. To support partner agrtcultural and NRM organizations to institutionalize a planning and deüvery process that is more responsive to the needs of rural women through facilitating organizational change; 3 . To generate a viable set of Mgood practices" for mainstreaming gender-sensitive partlcipatory R&D approaches within selected organizations through action research and assesstng the tmpacts of these methodologtes for learntng and change. Research questions: What types of changes are requtred, or are suffictent, to mainstream partlcipatory research and SA/GA approaches? What are the practices that are most effective for drtving the process of organizational change from wtthin and extemally? What are the principie factors that motívate organizational management and members to change? How can a client group, such as that of rural women, affect the process of change within an organization? What will those changes entail? What would an organization that has institutionalized partlcipatory research and SA/GA look like? What are the links between organizational change and poverty alleviation? Can organizational change engender positive outcomes for poor rural women in relatton to increasing their access to and control over agrtculture and natural resources? A comprehensive planning workshop was conducted in October 2005 (details in Appendix 1 0) and a second workshop ts planned for February 2006 in Nepal. 548 Output 2: lmpact Assessment-Evidence of the lmpact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Methods Assessed, and Methods Developed to Permit Impact-assessment Results to Be Effectively Integrated into Research-for-development Decision-making The PRGA Program's impact-assessment (lA} activities are typically conducted by establlshing teams with one or more CG Centers in arder to develop impact-assessment methods and tools, conduct empirical cases studies. and promote cross-Center learning through impact-assessment results. Output targets l. Empirical studies on participatory research methods in plant breeding and natural- resource management assessed. 2 . Tools and methods developed and disseminated to enable scientists to capture impact of products (Le. crop technologies and management practices) and innovation processes, and integrate learning from impact assessment into research planning and research priority-setting. Empiri.cal studies Providing compelling empirical evidence of the impacts of participatory research has been a majar goal of the PRGA Program s ince its lnltlation. The number of lA documents that the Program has publlshed over the past 5 years supports the conclusion that the Program and its partners have built a considerable body of evidence on impacts of partlcipatory research and gender analysis. This year, five empirical impact studies were completed: • a study coveringl9 PR projects at CIMMYT • a study on local farmer innovatlon committees (CIALs) in Colombia • an assessment of farmer participatory cassava breeding in Brazil • a study of lO years of cassava-based natural-resource management (NRM) projects in Vietnam and Thailand • a study of the instltutional impact of the Astan Cassava Participatory Research and Extension Project. Participatory research projects at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)2: CIMMYT ls an organizatlon devoted to the development of improved maize and wheat germplasm for the developing world, with a increasing emphasis on addressing the needs of the poor. CIMMYT is increasingly u sing participatory research as a component of its research portfolio. However. there had not been any systematlc assessment of the extent to which participatory research , its methods and approaches have been used, and how they are perceived by the sclentists who rely on them-both in terms of thelr benefits and limita tions-with a vlew to critlcally reflectlng on how partlclpatory research can make an even better contrlbu tion to CIMMYTs mission. Thus. a study was 2. Summartzed from: Lilja N: Bellon M. in press. Participatory Research Projects at the Intemational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia , and CIMMYT, Mexico, OF. 43p. In press. 549 made of the use of participatory methods and approaches in the research process from the perspective of the CIMMYf scientists who use them. The purpose of the study was to take a ~broad look" at these issues and to record: (l) what is considered participatory research; (2) how it is implemented across CIMMYT projects; and (3) sorne of the lessons leamed by scientists involved in these projects. The study had five broad research questions formulated after a review of the relevant literature: l. What are the main characteristics of the projects using particfpatory research approaches? 2 . What types of participatory research approach do the projects use? 3 . What are the researchers' opinions about the usefulness of participatory research methods and what are their skills in participatory methods? 4. Is the institutional and externa! environment supporting or constraining participatory research at CIMMYT? 5. What are the benefits and costs of participatory research? Eighteen CIMMYT scientists were surveyed. who reported on 19 projects that they considered to have at least a participatory component. Thus, the projects included in the study were self-selected. The range of the study was broad, since there was great vartation in the characteristics and types of participatory research among the projects reported. The survey instrument allowed characterization of the self-deftned participatory research projects, but did not allow further critica! analysis of the quality or the appropriateness of the research methods applied. Neither did it provide an objective impact assessment of their use. Although ideally one might want to link the use of participatory research to specific impacts on the livelihoods of farmers, this process is complex and requires intermediate steps. One fundamental step is to understand and document how participatory research is perceived and used by scientists within the organizational context in which they work, and this was the scope of the present study. Thus, the main use of these results is for institutional review and leaming purposes. The main findings of the study are summarized below. Characteristics of participatory projects Among the CIMMYf projects with participatory components, the most commonly cited goal was that of increasing productivity (broadly defined, but especially airning for improved performance under various stresses). The main motivation for using participatory methods was to understand farmers' preferences better. Primary beneficiarles of CIMMYT participatory research projects are marginal farmers, but beneficiartes are not generally differentiated by gender. An "average" CIMMYf participatory research project lasts for less than 5 years, has an annual budget of less than US$1 00,000, works in Asia or Africa, and has six project sites. involving 400 farmers and eight scienttsts. That said, there is a great range and diversity in the self-defined participatory projects at CIMMYT. CIMMYT participatory research projects can be viewed as collaborative activities that bring together the scientific and local knowledge and efforts of all stakeholders to improve upon the status quo. The biggest obstacle to participatory research is that beneficiartes are frequently thought of as objects of research and not as actors. Of the 19 projects surveyed, 15 targeted farmers. but only one specified multiple beneficiarles. Given that nearly three- quarters of the projects stated that the motivation for stakeholder participation was to understand farmers' preferences and constraints better. this lack of recognition of multiple beneficiarles (especially the scientists) may be due to the conventional notion of "project 550 beneficiaries" seen as synonymous with ~end-users of the technology." with less emphasis placed on benefits to scientists. It is a well-documented fact in many empirical studies that most agrtcultural innovations affect men and women differently. There was a noticeable absence of specific gender focus in the survey results. This does not necessarily imply exclusion of gender concems by the projects in actual research activities, only the lack of disaggregation of beneficiaries by gender. Only one project targeted women and children specifically. One other project had used a "whole family training" approach. which included wife and another adult female member access to project activities. Type of participatory research approach used The type of participatory research conducted lnfluences the outcome of the participatory research process. The type of participatory research is shaped by the stage at which stakeholder involvement takes place and the types of activities stakeholders are involved in. The type of participatory research used is a direct result of the motlvation to involve (or the objective of involving) stakeholders in the research- that is, whether the project has primarily functlonal or empowertng objectives. Functlonal and empowering objectives are not mutually exclusive. but (in any particular project} emphasis is typically placed more on one or the other. In relatlon to the development of agrtcultural technologtes and informatlon, empowertng can mean giving farmers the ability to take more control of the technology options available to them and make informed decisions about their farmtng practlces. Participatory approaches with either functional or empowertng objectives can have both functional and empowertng types of outcomes associated with them. In economic development. the empowering approach focuses on mobilizing the self-help efforts of the poor and is less often assoclated with the use of a single type of partlcipatory actlvity or tool. In this survey, half of the projects applied participatory tools either in priority-setting only or in technology testlng alone, while the other half used partlcipatory tools in more than one stage of the research process. The majority of the projects ( 15 out of 19) used a single partlcipatmy tool. These two facts combined (stage and methods) can be used to characterize the types of participatory research that the projects applied. which will affect the outcomes of the research processes. The majority of CIMMIT projects surveyed appeared to be associated with functional types of participatory methods, but we do not have the necessary informatlon to directly link the use of methods to types of outcomes. The majority (three-quarters) of the projects said that their primary reason for involving stakeholder participatlon was to increase the relevance of research and to brtng about more demand-driven research and extension by better understanding of farmer preferences and constraints, and to u se farmer knowledge in technology evaluation and development. This can be interpreted as a functional approach with emphasis on co-leaming. A small proportion (one-quarter) of the projects said that their main motivatlon for including participatory approaches was to involve stakeholders in technology disseminatlon and to improve awareness and hence the reach of technology. Our interpretation is that these projects also have a functional, but more action -oriented approach , where emphasis is placed on translating new knowledge into improved farmer practlce through improved participatory dissemination. Both of these functionally motivated approaches may also lead to greater farmer empowerment. 55 1 Quality of science in participatory research In understanding the potentlal advantages of partlcipatory approaches, there are also methodological issues in blending scientlfic and local knowledge that need to be carefully considered. Rather surprtsingly, none of the scientlsts in the survey said that partlcipatory research would be best suited for all aspects of the research contlnuum; about two-thirds said it was best suited for technology evaluatlon, testlng and disseminatlon, and one-third said the partlcipatory research approach was best suited for priortty-settlng actlvitles. The answers may reflect two opposing attltudes and situatlons: one in which research has identlfied what is believed to be a set of suitable technology optlons and interactlon with farmers is believed to increase adoptlon (farmers play a role in selectlng the best technology optlons from those offered and, in additlon, farmers need to learn about the optlons through experimentallearning and through farmer-to-farmer disseminatlon); the other situatlon may reflect the opinion that farmers have a key role in identlfying and defining the research prioritles (for example, the types of crops and stresses that varietal improvement should address). but a lesser role in developing the technology optlons. Most partlcipatory research at CIMMYT has a functlonal objectlve, aimed basically at either increasing the efficiency of the research process in terms of generatlng "betterH research products. or at fostering the diffusion of these products by enhancing the awareness and knowledge of potentlal beneficiarles about them. For example, as the physical and economic resource bases of different groups necessitate tailored research, the functlonal approaches allow scientlsts to direct their research according to the needs of the specific groups of farmers and specific environments. Farmers can assure scientlsts that they are assessing trade-offs among variety traits and management practices "correctly and under real-life conditlons," which en sures greater success of adoptlon of innovatlon by the farmers. More empowertng objectlves to partlcipatory research would aim at increasing farmer knowledge and skills so that farmers can partlclpate more fully in the collaboratlve breeding efforts and be better at their own personal efforts. Empowertng approaches to partlcipatory research are not merely about increasing farmers' awareness . As most CIMMYT projects are concemed with understanding farmer preferences, there is less focus on targetlng equity concems and skill-building of participants. For example, many scientlsts felt at the onset of the project that farmers needed to learn information about new varietles and management practices. The apparent emphasis on building farmers' awareness about new varieties and management practices is understandable if we think that the limiting factor in scientist- farmer exchange is the farmers' (limited) knowledge base. Thus, in situatlons such as marginal areas and in small-holder farming, exposure to new genotypes and best-bet management options would be a first requirement for effective interactions. The fact that the majority of the respondents said that farmers needed to leam more information could be viewed in two different contexts. On one hand, it may reflect the prior understanding of the farmers' specific needs and constraints for improved varieties, and management and resource-conservatlon techniques. On the other hand, it may reflect sorne biases on the scientists' behalf about how the formal-sector research already has fully identified solutlons to the specific farmer problems and constraints-four-fifths of the respondents said that it was determined by the start of the projects that farmers needed more information. Partlcipatory research has its origins in qualitative methods, and the use of these methods is most often associated with social scientists. Interestingly, the majority (13 out of 552 18) of the respondents who answered the survey were biophysical scientists. The survey method did not include assessment of scientists' competence in participatory methods, as doing so would have required more detailed individual interviews and field observations. Instead, we asked about their "comfort level" in using the participatory methods---this should not be understood as a proxy for competence in the use of participatory methods. There was a very high confidence level in the use of participatory methods, yet hardly any of the respondents had any training in participatory research. Sorne of the answers refiected the common attitude that the use of participatory methods is "common sense." requires little or no formal training, and that the use of participatory methods is easy for "people-oriented" researchers. There seems to be a positive perception of participatory research among the majortty of its practitioners across the Center. The majority considered participatory methods most appropriate for technology and vartetal evaluation and testing. Rather surprisingly, although there is apparent comfort in extending the methods combined with a perceptlon that colleagues at CIMMYT appreciate participatory research. the majortty of scientists said that they had never been asked to advise on parttcipatory research. This suggests that there is a lack of comrnunication and shartng of knowledge and experience among them. This may be problematic since most scientists are self-taught in participatory research methodology. and even though they feel comfortable using the methods after one year. and with extending the methods to others after two years, they do not seem to have any formal training on the methods and approaches of participatory research. hence in many cases they may be "reinventing the wheel," or their work may not be as efficient as it could be. Furthermore. this suggests a lack of institutional space to share and leam from the extensive and valuable expertence being generated by CIMMIT scientists in this respect. Three facets of CIMMYT participatory research are expected to further foster and promote peer acceptance of new approaches and to allow for faster scaling up in research efforts. namely, that biophysical scientists (and notjust social scientists) are involved in participatory projects. that there seems to be an interdisciplinary approach in most projects, and because these projects seem rather well connected to the pre-existing network of scientists and other projects. lnstitutional issues In agricultura! research, participatory methods are used to enhance ongoing activities. They establish research partnerships to develop more relevant technology by complementing existing farmer experimentation and enhancing farmers' ability to use and understand experimental methods used by professional researchers. The comerstone of participatory research is that farmers actively search for and evaluate ideas and options. Limitations and challenges to these objectives are: (1) most programs are largely concemed with evaluating. adapting and extending technologies developed previously by the formal research system- this is what our results show too; and (2) perceived problems associated with reduced researcher control and most evident in on-farm trtal activities. There is no clear. broad trend towards client participation in the testing stages of the research process. This model of participation (Le. farmers actively involved in research) is often set as an "ideal type." The evidence from this study suggests that while information fiows go both ways between scientists and farmers. the dominant information fiow ts still top-down or researcher directed. This implies that participatory research (with its two-way tnformation 553 flows) conducted within a linear. "pipeline" model of lnnovation still has a predominantly suppiy-driven agenda. In short. lt ls unrealistic to think that these two-way infonnation flows will occur without structural adjustments in the institution. lf they do. they will most likely be limited to an individual research experlence (in the fteld) where the researcher has capacity or experlence in particlpatory approaches to facilitate such a process. Additionally. any research process can stimulate sorne sort of infonnation feedback from end-users. but that in itself does not constitute "participation" in the sense implied by participatory research. The survey results show limited interaction among CIMMYT participatory projects. One can speculate on reasons for limited advice-seeking by colleagues: one possible explanation is that there is sometimes a tendency for individual scientists or projects to "trademark" their participatory methodology with an excessive focus on participatory terminology. This is of course good as it shows a sense of ownership regarding the production of participatory research methodologies that project scientists have developed. but it can be problematic if it leads to technical solutions being seen as a separate. isolated research effort. BenefiÍS an.d. costs The scientlsts' perceptions of what differences participatlon made in the research process or outputs are rather "outcomes," and these are compared with the expected outcomes had participation not been used. At least conceptually. these perceptions provide a sort of counterfactual regarding participation. Box 1 presents a synthesis of the outcomes derived from these perceptlons-these clearly are not impacts. since the links to changes in the beneftciaries' livelihoods have not been documented or measured; however, they are fundamental, being a necessary but not sufficient condition for impact. Box 1: Outcomes associated with particlpatory research at CIMMYT • Increased diversity • Demonstrated the value of di verse maize Jandraces to fanners • Demonstrated the fanners' preference for open-pollinated varietles over hybrids, partlcularly under stress conditions • Provided farmers with access to seed and promoted faster adoptlon • Made farmers aware of new varietles and fostered fas ter adoption • Provided farmers with varietles with valued traits • Increased the ability of farmers to evaluate resource-conserving technologies and assess thetr benefits • Minimized the error of developing varietles that farmers do not want (or with traits they do not value) or are not relevant for their preferences and circumstances • Developed research products (varietles) that are relevant for users that value multlple characteristlcs • Understood the constraints faced by farmers: established baselines to assess impacts • Made the research process more efficlent by identifying pathways to reach farmers • Understood the context in which new technology has to operate • Allocated technologies to appropriate niches in the farmmg system • Provided farmers with infonnaUon from other stakeholders that have impact on their lives. 554 The identlfied outcomes can also be the subject of a more rigorous study and of monitoring, but this would be a next step. Furthermore, since the outcomes have been identlfied, it may be easier to make predictions about the potential impacts that may be associated with them. These predictions could then form the basis for more rigorous impact analyses that link research process and outputs to livelihood changes. This in turn could be the basis for a more in-depth quantitative study on the lmpact of participatory research at CIMMYr. Most importantly, such a study would also have to address the perceptions of the outcome of participation from the perspectives of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders. and would require additional work and funds. The benefits of the research project are evaluated in comparison to the costs of the research. The survey results show that there is also a diversity of views about the costs among practitioners: sorne considered that there were additional costs, while others did not. Furthermore. it is clear that in many cases comparing the costs of participatory research with those of more conventional research is difficult, beca use both approaches may be so different that it is not really meaningful to compare them. In any case. it seems that from the perspectives of CIMMYT practltioners. participatory research may not entail additional costs or, if it does. the results justify the expense. It is also difficult to compare the costs of participatory research with those of "conventional" research. because a research process is often shaped by both conventional and participatory activities. It would be erroneou s simply to conclude that participatory research is more costly than conventional research. In reality. the share of the overhead and personnel costs often remains fixed , and operations are adjusted according to the availabUity of funds. Participatory research usually affects the operational costs the most-and not a lways by increasing them, especially if it replaces sorne other activities. lf participatory research is implemented asan add-on activity. then the research costs are likely to increase. Nearly half of the survey responses on the impact of participatory research provided examples of impact of variety and technology evalu ation and showed the improvement in understanding of farmers' preferences. experiences. needs. social and production constraints, as well as solutions they may offer to the collaborative research process. The results imply success in shortening the time-lag between technology development and its adoption. which has important implications to overall retums to research investment. Examples of the impact of surveys (11 out of 27) (elicitation of farmer preferences and knowledge). and diagnostic needs assessment show the benefits of broader socio-economic information. and h ow it can help determine who the actual beneficiaries will be in the various social strata or resource-dependent groups. and what the specific preferences and constraints are for each . Su ch information can also help reveal. in advance. the potential unintended (negative and positive) impacts of a project on different groups within the project are a. Conclusions The amount of financia! resources associated with what is claimed to be participatory research is rather surprising. approximately US$9 million per year. While this amount refers to the research that has participatory components and may not reflect the specific resources invested in participatory research activities. this leve! of investment clearly indicates that participatory research is more than justa marginal activity in the Center. CIMMYT may need to consider investing additional resources to create a more conducive environment for its 555 scientists to share their experiences and leam from each other. and in doing so add value to this research endeavor. or else participatory research may become a meaningless, catch-a11 term used for data collection or the analyttcal phase of research. Furthermore. this may also require more investment in documenting the outcomes and impacts of participatory research at CIMMYT. We believe that. by identifying the projects and the outcomes associated wtth partictpation. the research reported here ts laytng the groundwork for further advances in this area. Assessing impacts of fanner participatory research approaches: A case study of local agricultura{ research committees in Colombia3: Because they incorporate user perspecttves in the research process. it is often claimed that farmer participatory research {FPR} approaches make research more oriented towards the needs of the poor, therefore leading to greater impact on poverty alleviation. The premise is that user participation wtll lead to more efficient and effective design and targeting of technologies. This may reduce diffusion time. increase adoption and help to ensure that the intended beneficiarles are reached wtth technologies that are appropriate to their particular circumstances. needs and priorities. However. Within the area of participatory research there are many types and degrees of participation wtth very different implications for the benefits and costs of research. Whether FPR makes research more pro-poor is essentially an empirical question. Therefore. to understand the relationship between FPR and poverty alleviation better, empirical evidence is needed on what impacts participatory methods have had on poverty in the context of specific projects and participatory methodologies. Here we present preliminary results from a study aimed at beginning to fill this gap by exarnlning the impact of one particular method of incorporating farmer participation: Local Agricultura! Research Committees. Since 1992. the Participatory Research in Agriculture (IPRA) Project at the Intemational Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) has promoted the formation of community-based research services called Local Agricultural Research Committees (CW..S). Our study sought to evaluate the changes in the livelihoods of the farmers, and their communitles. that are attributable to the CIAL methodology. The CIAL methodology was developed at CIAT wtth the goal of in creasing the efficiency of the agrtcultural research and technology development system by integrating farmers better into the process. The s tudy assessed the effectiveness of the CIAL methodology, the extent to which the problems addressed by the CIALs are relevant to the communities, and the benefits of CIALs to their members as well as to the communities in terms of the development of appropriate technologtes and who benefits from the innovations. It also examined how farmer participation in the agrtcultural research process affected the process itself, as well as the specific communities and indivtduals involved. Particular attention was paid to how CIALs as institutional innovations affect the human. social and other capital assets available to individuals and communities. and what implicatlons these impacts have for livelihood ou tcomes. The study involved 13 CIALs: focus-group discussions were held in all of them and formal interviews were conducted in six of them. In addition. four rural commu nitles without CIALs {comparative communities) were also surveyed. 3. Summarized from: Kaarta S; Lilja N; Sandoval V: Garcia J; Hincapié F; Sanchez F. Assessing impacts of farmer partlcipatory research approaches: A case study of local agricultura! research committees in Colombia. Paper presented at the Impact Assessment Workshop. October 19-21. 2005, CIMMYT, Mex:ico. DF. 556 Preliminary results showed that there are significant social and human capital benefits for CIAL members. CIAL members indicated that they had gained more knowledge about agriculture, were experimenting with new technology, and were seen as agricultural experts and advisors in the community. They had also improved their communication and leadership skills, and had increased relationships with neighbors and with outside institutions. CIAL members experimented more with new crops. had learned other new skills, and had higher levels of commitment to thelr communltles, thereby leading to a higher level of communlty partlcipatlon. In communities where the CIAL had identlfied new technology and converted into commercial seed producers, the communitles benefited by having easy access to new technology (e.g. new varietles, such as early maturtng maize and new bean varietles). The communities al so consulted CIAL members when they had agricultura! problems. Participatory cassava breeding in northeast Brazil: Who adopts and why?4: This study examined the participatory research methodology implemented by a cassava-breeding project in four communitles of northeast Brazil over an 8-year period. We assessed the soundness of the project methodology by testing whether participant fanners were representatlve of the farming communities in which the project was implemented. We also investigated the adoption potentlal of the cassava varietles developed in the project, benefits perceived to have accrued from adoptlon, and the time spent on project actlvities by the partlcipating fanners. A survey, conducted in April 2002, consisted of 30 questlons grouped into four general areas of inquiry: fanner characteristlcs and household agricultural activitles, production and in come; uses of cassava, percentage of production used for consumptlon and for sale, vartetal preferences, varietles grown, experimented with and those abandoned, plantlng material sources. willingness to pay for plantlng material of new varietles; involvement in participatory trials and other agricultura] research, costs of partlcipation; changes in productlon and income from new varieties. Four communitles were selected for this study: Lagoa do Barro and Tanquinho in the municipality of Maniacu, southwest Bahía; Cajuero dos Potes in the municipality of Simao Diaz, and Muniz in the municipality of Aquidabá, both in the state of Sergipe. All four communitles are principally cassava producers. In each of the four communities, an average of 30 fanners was interviewed, with a total sample size of 122. The results showed that the representatlvity was not a factor in the selection of the project participants at the initlation of the project. (This did not make much of a difference in the North Coast region of Colombia-where the participatory plant breeding approach was first implemented-because the different stakeholders who partlcipated in the project happened to select the same varieties .) The wealth ranking of the four study communities showed that the project did not privilege any specific wealth category in any of the 4. Summarized from: Saad N; Lilja N; Fukuda W, in press. Participatory cassava breeding in Northeast Brazil: Who adopts the new varieties and why? Working Document No. 24. PRGA Prograrn, Cal!. Colombia. 27p. In press. 557 communities or across most of the wealth categories-that is, both participant and non- participant poor. middle-income and wealthy were equ ally represented in proportion to the community's overall wealth distribution . Our results indicated that participant farmers were representative of their communities in most of the characteristics measured. The only significant differences between the two groups were that the participant farmers (as compared with non-participants) tended to plant more area to maize, to derive a greater percentage of their tncome from processed cassava. and to derive a larger share of income from the sale of crops other than cassava. However, the methodology overlooked women. who did not partlcipate in the project and who were not represented in the survey, but who do play an important part in the selection of the cassava vaiieties that they use in the production of cassava dumplings. This is an important economic activity for women in the region. and is direcUy Unked to cassava starch quality. Had they participated in the project, perhaps they would have selected a cassava variety that suited their specific needs for high- quallty starch. The results indicated a potentially high degree of adoption after 4 years of project activities: nearly half of the participating farmers initially adopted (tried and continued to cultivate) the experimental vaiieties they had seen in the participatory trials. and about 10% of the non-participant farmers did so. On the other hand. similar numbers of farmers tried sorne of the experimental vaiieties and discontinued their use. The interest in experimental varieties was also shown in the fact that many farmers (44%) were willing to pay for cassava planting material, which is not a typical practice in the region. Both the demonstrated willingness to expertment wíth varieties and the willingness to pay for the planting material highlight the acute need for new clean planting material for cassava in the region. Despite the rather high adoption rate of the experimental cassava clones. farmers did not report large increases in cassava production or cassava revenue. These results should be viewed in the context of the historical trend of declining cassava yields in the regton: the fact that most participants and non-partlcipants reported no change in cassava yield may imply the success of adoption of new cassava clones in maintaining stable yields. The fact that participants also reported increased time spent on cassava production may be due to the area expansion of cassava caused by project influence or time spent on project activities- since the project did not introduce any labor-saving techniques, a rise in production necessarily means a rise in amount of time required to tend the crop. Impac t of participatory natural-resource management research in cassava- based cropping sys tems in Vietnam and Thailand tS: Background and research overoiew Between 1994 and 2003, CIAT. in collaboration with national agricultura! research (NARS) partners in Thailand and Vietnam. implemented a Nippon Foundation-funded project entitled "Improving the Sustainability of Cassava-based Cropping Systems in Asia.·· The purpose of the project was to address the problem of the observed widespread non-adoption of sol} conservation and fertility management technologies in cassava production in Asia. In 5. Summary taken from: Consultative Group on Intemational Agricultural Research, Science Council, Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA). 2005. Natural Resources Management Research Impacts: Evidence from the CGIAR (Draft Report). CGIAR Sctence Council Secretariat. December 2005. Fui! report: Dalton T: Lilja N: Johnson N: Howeler R. 2005. Impact of partlcipatory natural resource management research in cassava-based cropptng systems in Vietnam and Tha.iland. Working Document No. 23 (revised). PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. 27p. 558 addition to conservation technologies (such as contour lines and h edgerows) and management technologies (including intercropping. use of manure and mineral fertilizer). genetic improvement technologies (improved cassava varieties) were also included in the project. Hence. the project was conducting applied, adaptive research on existing NRM technologies and principies where adoption by fanners was low. The project was working with fanners in selected villages. The fanner participatory research (FPR) methodology included on-farm experiments to identify, test and adjust promising natural-resource conservation and cassava productivity enhancement technologies. The impact study was conducted in 2003 in Vietnam and Thailand. Data were collected from a total of 800 farm households. In each country, eight villages were selected, Le. four project and four control villages. In the project villages. CIAT and their (respective) NARS partner had implemented FPR activities. As control, nearby villages were chosen that had similar natural-resource and soclo-economic conditions. In addition, the national extension services were engaged in promoting technology and advising farmers in the control villages accordtng to their standard operating procedure. Thus, the control villages provided a counterfactual for the FPR component of the project. Data were collected following the focus-group methodology-focus-group partlcipants completed survey fonns that contained questions on wealth, socio-economic status and details of cassava production inputs, outputs and technologies. Cassava area and cassava yields were elicited through recall questions depicting the befare and after project situation in tenns of farmer performance. Impact assessmentjramework Household theory served as the general conceptual framework to measure lmpacts of technology adoption and knowledge. A household utility function with a multi-product production function including commodity and non-commodity outputs was fonnulated. Knowledge was included as a stock resource to be enhanced by project partlcipation. Model estimatlon was only possible in a reduced fonn as the parameters of the equations are not directly observable: first, a participation dummy was used as a proxy for knowledge; second. the impact of participation on non-commodity outputs was captured through the adoption of soil-conservation practices: and third, the wage effect was measured by separating the productivity impact of technology variables from the knowledge variable, t. e. the participation dummy. Adoption and outcome Analysis showed that the overalllevel of adoption was htgh for varieties and fertilizer, but lower for soil-conservation practices including intercropping. Differences between participants and non-participants are more pronounced for conservation practices than for varieties and fertilizer. Adoption levels differed between Thailand and Vietnam. with the latter having lower levels of adoption. For example. only about half of the project participants in Vietnam adopt improved varieties, while there was 100% adoption by project participants in Thailand. Also the differences between participants and non-participants were smaller in Thailand. Results of the impact analysis using simultaneous equations systems showed that the cassava technologtes themselves and knowledge as measured by project partlcipation significantly affected behavioral and productivity variables. In short. the following outcomes could be summarized: 559 Adoptlon of improved cassava varieties signiflcantly contrtbuted to expansion of cassava area and increased cassava ytelds: Farmers with larger cassava areas tended to expand less than farmers with smaller areas: Adoptlon of contour-rtdging led to smaller area expansions for both cassava and total farm land area: Female household heads tended to expand their area more than did males: Adoption of hedgerows positively affected cassava yields: There were significant positive spillover effects from partlcipants to non- partlcipants in project villages; Yield gains were significantly higher in Vietnam than in Thailand: Project participation had a signillcant effect on yteld, indicating that participatton in technology development and testlng may tmprove managertal capacity. and knowledge can lead to more effective use of cassava technology, although the true relatlonship rematns in a "black box." Welfare analysis and rate of retum Costs included research-and-development (R&D) costs of CIAT and the NARS, as well as farmers' costs of technology adoptlon, including investment. variable material costs and labor. The total R&D and adoptlon costs ofover the 10-year period from 1994 to 2003 were US$3.96 million. Costs were spread evenly over the lifespan of the project. The project benefits were derived from the total yield effects as esttmated in the simultaneous equatlon system aggregattng the technology and knowledge effects and weighted with adoption rates at village level. The resulting shift in cassava output was then valued at domestlc market prtces for the year 2003. To estimate the cumulatlve benefits over the 10-year project period, the usuallogistic adoptlon curve was used, assuming that annual benefits are a fractlon of the 2003 figure equivalent to the number of farmers tratned by year. Based on these data, the intemal rate of retum (IRR) was calculated at 41.2%. Various scenario analyses revealed that the rate of retum of the R&D investment was indeed a safe bet considertng that the most conservatlve scenartos stlll ytelded an IRR of 20o/o. Since the IRR does not include the environmental benefits attributable to the project from the abatement of soil degradation , the calculated IRR is most likely an underestimate. Lessonsleamed The CIAT case study is an example of an integrated NRM type of project that focused on the complementarities between NRM and genetlc improvement research. The study is unique as it provides a methodology that can be applied to separate the technology effects from the knowledge effects to be assumed from FPR. Unfortunately, no knowledge data were collected (e.g. through knowledge tests) for partlcipants and non-participants before and after project implementatton. A baseline survey would have allowed using a classic difference-tn-difference model. This would have provided a better understanding of the mechanisms through which FPR can change behavior and increase productlvity. Finally. the rate of retum was limited to a financial analysis, thus ignortng differences between domestlc and world prtces. Including an attempt to value the expected environmental effects of the CIAT project would have made the case more valuable. Furthermore. the study lea ves open the question of the economics of scaling up the FPR approach. Since the R&D investment is relatively small and the yield effects in project vtllages are high, we are getung a good rate of retum. But does this justtfy recommending 560 that extension servtces in Thailand and Vietnam should adopt the FPR approach on a wide scale? We know little about the quality of the FPR method if there is no extemal project input. Le. if CIAT support comes toan end. Overall, the case study demonstrates the need to plan for ex-post impact assessment during the early phase of an R&D project in NRM. Institutional impacts of the Cassava Participatory Research and Extension Project in Thailand and Vietnam 1993- 20048: This study undertook to trace, measure and test the signiflcance of the beneflts to the implementing research and extension institutions of the Cassava Farmer Participatory Research and Extension (CFPRE) project in Thailand and Vietnam from 1993 to 2004. Scope of the i.nstitutional impact assessment In addition to the prtmary objective of improvtng the sustainability of cassava-based cropping systems, the project also had three institutional objectives: (1) to support national institutions in conducting strategtc and applied research; (2) to strengthen the farmer participatory research (FPR) capacity in natlonalinstltutlons and in selected fanntng communities; and (3) to improve institutlonal linkages and acceptance of an FPR approach in collaboratlng institutions, with persons trained in FPR methodologtes. 7 An assessment of the extent to which the institutional objectlves were met by the project was conducted through focus-group discussions involving 1 O of the 11 local instltutlons involved in the study. Because the assessment is based on focus-group discussions with the partner organtzations. the results capture how researchers and extension personnel perceive that the structure, procedures. behavior, collegiality and efflcacy of their home lnstltutlon hav.e changed as a result of involvement in the FPR. The project's local partner organizatlons were: Govemment lnstltutions involved primarily in researc~the Department of Agriculture (DOA). the Land Development Department (LDD) and the Thailand Tapioca Development Institute (TfDI) in Thailand; and the Institute of Agricultural Sciences (lAS), the Vietnam Agricultura! Sciences Institute (VASI), and the National Institute for Soils and Fertlltzers (NISF) in Vietnam; Govemment instltutions involved primarily in extension-the Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) in Thailand; Agricultura! universities-Kasetsart University (KU) in Thailand; and University of Agriculture and Forestry II (UAF2), Hue Agricultura! Untversity and Thai Nguyen Agricultura! University (TNAU) in Vietnam. The different institutional structures of Vietnam and Thailand make strict comparison by institution type and region difflcult. In Vietnam. multidiscipllnary research and extension teams work in specific geographical localities. In contrast, cassava development in Thailand 6. Surnmarized from: Calkins P; Thao V, 2005. Institutlonal impacts of the Cassava Fanner Participatory Research and Extens!on Project in Tha!land and Vietnam. 1993-2004. PRGA Program. Cal!. Colombia . 66p. 7. See Howeler R. 2004. End-of-project report: Second phase of the Nippon Foundat!on Cassava Project in Asia 1999-2003. CIAT, Cal!, Colombia . 20p. 56 1 is orgaruzed into separate teams of researchers on the one hand and extension workers on the other, who either have national-level mandates or have worked in several parts of the country. Methodology In order to collect information on the benefits and constraints of FPR. five focus-group discussions were conducted in 2004. In these groups, positive impacts and htndrances to greater success were collectively identified, and then ranked by vote. In each focus group. individual partlctpants wrote down a list of responses to a given question (positive tmpacts, negative constraints). All answers were recorded on a whtteboard and then each partlctpant voted for the five answers that she or he considered to be the most tmportant, with the followtng ranking: 10 potnts for the single most important response, 7 for the next. 5 for the third, 3 for the fourth, and 1 for the fifth . The total score for each question was calculated, and the responses sorted by descending order of score. Responses were classtfied into five types of benefits (management work, scientlfic and professional knowledge. understanding of farmers and their envtronment. motivation. work efficiency) or five types of constraints (operating budget, government policies. internal management, external economic and market condttions, necessary knowledge or information). In cases where an answer seemed to straddle more than one of these categortes, points were divided among them. Benefits of farmer participatory research to partner institutions The classified responses regarding the institutional benefits of partlctpatory research are summartzed in panels A through E of Figure l. The institutional benefits felt by each of the three geographical (Vietnam) and two disciplinary (Thailand) groups across the two countries were substantial and widely divergent. ThaUand: 1\vo focus-group discussions were carrted out in Thailand: an wextensionist group" anda wresearcher group." Both extension workers and researchers appreciated improved work management as one of the important institutional benefits of the FPR approach. allocating to 1t 22% and 28%. respectively, of the total scores of all ranked benefits. The improved management for extension workers meant the ability to apply FPR approaches to other crops. and transform the nature of their work from teachtng to facilitation. In addition to improved ability to apply FPR in other projects, the researchers Hsted the principal management-related beneflts as no longer working alone but in partnership wtth other researchers, extension workers from other institutions and farmers: and DOA acceptance of the FPR approach as new policy. Combining many institutions and ministrtes into one unifled program makes it clearer for farmers and enhances planning for the future through better coordination among institutions. Although both extension workers and researchers agreed on the improved management beneflts from FPR. the two groups allocated the remaining three-quarters for the total scores quite differently. Thai extension workers perceived that more than half (62%) of the total institutional benefits from particlpatory research carne from improved efflclency and motivation combtned. The lmproved efficlency was deflned in terms of easler work because project targets are clearly defined. approval from supervisors (who see the results), and more cooperation from farmers and officers. Increased motivatlon takes the form of (self- )satisfactton from the knowledge tha t living standards of farmers have lmproved, and the feeling that farmers are motivated. 562 (A) (B) Work management Work management 4 Efflclenc Knowledge Efflcienc Knowledge (C} (D) Work management 3 Work management 3 Efflclenc Knowledge Efflclenc Knowledge (E) Work.management "4 Efflclenc Knowledge Figure l. Contrasting pattems of perceived lnstitutional benefits from the Cassava Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) project: (A) researchers, Bangkok, Thatland: (B) extension workers. Bangkok. Thailand: (C) Dong Nal. Vietnam: (D) Hanoi, Vietnam: and (E) Thai Nguyen, VIetnam. In contrast. Thai researchers felt that increased scientific and professional knowledge and understanding of farrners and their environment combined (55% of total scores) constituted the most important institutional benefits from FPR. The benefit ranked highest by researchers was the new knowledge they leamed from CIAT, for instance about soU fertilizers. This benefit obviously did not result from the FPR, but rather from partnership with the project-coordinating institution, CIAT. Other beneftts related to increased knowledge included the confidence to extend FPR approaches to other projects because of having hadan opportunity to experiment with the approach and see lts merlts. The fact that Thai researchers allocated almost one-quarter of total scores to increased understanding of farrners and their environments. as compared to only 6% by extension workers. highlights one of the most often-cited impacts of the FPR approach: providing feedback to research on end-users' preferences. Since extensionists already work closely with farrners, FPR may have less impact on their understandÍng of farrner preferences, and more on their motivation. as they are not merely delivering finished technologtes and 563 management options to farmers, but rather engaging them as partners in the process of developing those end-products. Vietnam: Three focus-group discussions were held in Vietnam; the "Hanoi group" was attended by project participants from IAS, VAS! and NISF. The "Dong Nai group" was attended by project participants from UAF2; and the "Thai Nguyen group" was attended by participants from TNAU. For all three groups, the improved scientific and professional knowledge earned between 24 and 30% of the total scores for institutional benefits. In specific terms, this meant increased ability to teach and help students think better, thus raising the ability of students to apprehend conditions in the villages; ability to capture the role of farmers in the research-to-innovation-to-technology transfer process; and getting to know the needs, problems, advantages and disadvantages of cassava farmers, so asto propose solutions and target research more adequately. The three groups further allocated between 14 and 23% of the total institutional benefit scores to improved management; in other words, gaining the scientific and experiential basis to be able to implement other FPR projects in the future. The biggest difference between the three focus groups was in the relative share of scores relating to efficiency and understanding of farmers and their environments. Dong Nai and Hanoi aUocated 28% and 18% to efficiency benefits and 24% and 21 o/o to understanding of farmers and their environments, respectively. In marked contrast, the Thai Nguyen placed the highest weight of any allocation on a single category, improved efficiency {37%) and a relatively low allocation {8%) to understanding of farmers and their environments. All three focus groups in Vietnam allocated less that 8% of institutional benefit scores to improved motivation. Constraints to greater success The classified responses regarding the institutional constraints of partlcipatory research are summarized in panels A through E in Figure 2. ThaUand: Both extension workers and researchers saw interna! management issues as the single most important institutional constraint to greater success from the FPR approach, allocating 49% and 35% to them, respectively. Both groups perceived a similar, relatively low, level of constraint coming from either externa! economic and market conditions or the lack of necessary knowledge. The largest difference of opinion on institutional constraints to success of FPR concemed operating budgets and govemment policies. The researcher group gave govemment policies 29% of the total institutional constraints scores, as compared to 18o/o by the extension workers. Meanwhile. extension workers considered operating budget as one of the largest institutional constraints, allocating to that category 31% of their total score, as compared to only 2% by researchers. Vietnam: Both groups involving universities (Dong Nai and Thai Nguyen) saw necessary knowledge and information as the most important category of factors constraining greater success from FPR. allocating 33% and 48% of their total scores, respectively. to such constraints. 564 (A) Know ledg (C) (E) Pollcles Budget 50 (B) (D) Budget Knowledg Pollclea Budget Knowledg Pollclea Poi k: lea Figure 2. Contrasting pattems of perceived institutional constraints of ach ieving greater success from the Cassava Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) project: (A) researchers, Bangkok, Thailand; (B) extension workers, Bangkok, Thailand; (C) Dong Nai, Vietnam; (D) Hanol, Vietnam; and (E) Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. While the operating budget received a full 23% of the total constraint score from the Hanoi group, the Dong Nai and Thai Nguyen groups saw this category as far less constraining, allocating less that 8% of their total scores to it. The second most important factor constraining greater success, as perceived by the Dong Nai and Hanoi groups, was externa! economic and market conditions, receiving 30% and 35% of their total scores, respectively; but Thai Nguyen personnel did not see this category of constraints as important at all. Development and dissemination of tools and methods, capacity building Reaching the Program goals of enabling scientists to capture the impact of products (i.e. crop technologles and management practices) and innovation processes, and integrate learning from impact assessment into research planning and research priority-setting requires a 565 multitude of activities and approaches. Duiing the Program's initiation phase. it sought to convince researchers of the val u e of trying to assess the impact of a participatory research approach (rather than focusing solely on the impact of the technologies in volved) and formed a network of people interested in working together to accomplish this goal. Furthermore. reaching this goal has required developing frameworks for assessing the impacts of the participatory research and gender-analysis methods themselves as opposed to the impacts of technologies alone; developing and testing sorne specific tools and methodologies for such assessments; organizing workshops and intemational meetlngs to build the impact- assessment capacity in the CG System and to promote mutualleaning among the impact- assessors and keep them networked; and providing support and backstopping to the Centers and specific programs that conduct impact studies of participatory research. Sorne of the specific activities related to developing tools and methods. as well as information dissemination, backstopping and capacity-building that were conducted this year are summarized below. Impact Assessment Workshop, website and electronic discussion group for impact-assessors: One the major activities towards the Program's impact-assessment goals this year was the Impact Assessment Workshop that we co-organized with CIMMYT in October. Impact assessment has moved a long way from adoption and rate of retum studies. Over the past 10-15 years, impact has been increasingly seen in terms of poverty alleviation-whether research and development projects deliver on improving the lives and livelihoods of the poor, including such issues as access to social services (e.g. healthcare and education) and their ability to partlcipate in society in cultural. economic. political and social arenas. Participatory research in particular has forced impact-assessors to adopt and adapt new methods of analysis that are not purely quantitative, but also qualitative. More recently, Robert Chambers and others ha ve promoted the concept of "integrated impact assessment." combining quantitative, qualitative and participatory impact-assessment methods. and proposing that participatory methods should in fact be the first choice of impact-assessors. As a result of the workshop. 25 empiiical impact-assessment studies from vaiious CG Centers. using multiple impact-assessment methods and approaches. are now available in the public domain (via an Impact Assessment Workshop section of the PRGA website).a The findíngs of the vaiious research projects presented and the outcomes of vaiious group discussions highlighted a number of important implications for the future of participatory research, gender analysis and impact assessment of projects using these methodologies, for the CG as a whole and the CG Centers. and for the PRGA Program itself. These are summarized in the following bullets. On a general leve!. participatory research should no longer be considered as something different from mainstream research-and-development activities. Individual projects should consider participatory methods alongside traditlonal ones as they seek the best ways of achieving their goals. There should be a 8. See http:/ /www.prgaprogram.org/IAWFTP/IA%20WEB/index.htm 566 contlnuum of research and development projects from the fully conventional to the full partlcipatory. with conventional projects with partlcipatory components and prtmarily participatory projects with sorne Mpure science" components in between. It is clear that there is no one single approach to impact assessment. Rather. impact-assessors have a whole range of methods and techniques from which to choose those most suited to the needs of the project or community in question, taking into consideration the cultural, social, political and environmental realities of the project communities and the approprtateness of particular methods to the organizational structure of the research institution. Furthermore, 1t may not be so much the methodologtes themselves that can be transferred from one setting to another, as the principies behind the methods. This then has direct consequences on the approach to scaling up and scaling out: as one seeks to take lmpact assessment from one project site to another project site, one has to recognize that each site has its own context-sociologtcally, politically and ecologtcally. Each of these domains has the potential to make the direct transfer of a method from one site to another inappropriate. Projects usually have three layers of stakeholders, and frequently many more. Each of these has different requirements from impact assessment. All too often, donors have demanded impact data and then either they or the chosen impact- assessors have set the indicators without consultation with either the researchers or the fanners. This has Ied researchers and fanners alike to feel used. The answer to the differtng needs is to involve the stakeholders in the planning as well as the conduct of impact assessment. In this way, each of the stakeholder groups has the opportunity to brtng in their perceptions and identify relevant indicators to provide the informatlon that they require. Moreover, the active participatlon of (representatives oO all stakeholders in the assessment itself should ensure that each one's needs are addressed during the process. This of course ma.kes impact assessment more complicated and most likely more costly. but re-emphasizes the need to include impact assessment when planning the project- before the project even starts. Impact-assessors need time to reflect on their results. All too often. simply because indicators were determined with the project effects in mind, insufflcient time is allocated to enable the evaluators to study and think about the results. As Andrew Bartlett said at the workshop, MI'd like to know if there are any possible alterna Uve explanations for the results." Researchers al so need to reflect on how the organizational structure of their research instltution affects the research process and its outcomes. There is a whole range of ethical issues associated with participatory research and assessment of its impact. As already mentloned. there is often a feeling of being used among farmers involved in participatory research. There should be a moral obligation on researchers and impact-assessors to take their results back to those involved in their work, be that farmers who provided indigenous knowledge or feedback on the impact that a project has had on their Uves. families and communities. or local govemment officials who have provided informatlon and feedback to the project. Then there is the whole issue of data-manipulation. es pecially within cost- benefit analyses-it is important that realistlc values be attached to such things as indigenous knowledge (accumulated through generations of working the same land). researchers' education. and farmers' 567 opportunity costs (costs of participatlng in the research compared to doing other things). Researchers need to understand farrners' perceptlon of risk-for many there is an element (sometimes a large element) of perceived risk in participatlng in something that taps their indigenous knowledge. Overall. ethical issues are usually best addressed by adopting the "do no harrn" principie. One of the most important roles highlighted for the CG at the workshop was that of helping those whose understanding of irnpact assessment is lirnited to grasp the new directions and concepts of agricultura! impact on poverty. All stakeholders need to understand that real impact is primarily long terrn. usually occurring well after a project has been completed-this is frequently true of adoptlon rates. so the benefits in terrns of poverty alleviation are hardly likely to be short terrn. In the shorter terrn. project monitoring and evaluation are related to irnpact assessment, enabling projects to be steered in the most productive directions rather than sirnply maintaining a course that is likely to be less productive. Flexibillty is therefore the order of the day. It is clearly far better for a project to pursue a sideline actlvity that has direct irnpact on farmers' welfare than sticking rigidly to a project work-plan that is not delivering anything. Project monitoring and evaluation need to be built in from the start. rather than being added on at a later date; ideally, monitoring and evaluatlon should be done with the full participation of all the stakeholders. Donors do not always appreciate the irnpact-assessment results that Centers provide. 1t is therefore advisable that donors be involved in the impact-assessment planning process. What is more, all stakeholders (but especially donors) need to accept the occasional failure. It is more irnportant to see every experience as a learning experience: we learn from our successes. but also from our failures. The CG Centers need to communicate their findings effectlvely, especially to donors. In the light of the strong donor demand for impact assessment. but the apparent minimal application of that data in funding decisions. it is vital that the CG finds altematlve ways of getting its messages through. 1)rpical research reports are lengthy documents, and donors are decision-makers with lirnited time at their disposal. Full-blown impact-assessment reports are therefore gotng to have minimal impact on their intended target audiences. One potentially valuable avenue is externa! review panels-groups of people that spend a significant arnount of time reviewing research prograrns and often do have the time to read detailed reports. If positive impact-assessment results are picked up by externa! reviewers. then they will reach donors' desks in a forrn that they will take notlce of. Another potential outlet suggested at the workshop was the production of briefs- short documents sumrnarizing the salient points of impact assessments. The danger here is that in an effort to provide simple documents, one's interpretatlon becomes sirnplistic. Despite over 30 years of gender research related to agricultura! R&D. gender analysis is still viewed by many as a sideline activity within the CGIAR. Those who are involved in gender work are motivated and excited researchers-as demonstrated by their keenness to devote extra time to discussing gender issues outside of that tlmetabled at the workshop-. but they do not necessarily find the space to promote their work and encourage all researchers to take them sertously. There is. therefore. a continuing need to raise awareness among biophysical researchers of the value of gender analysis and gender-sensitlve approaches to research. partlcularly participatory research. Above and beyond simple 568 awareness-raising, there is continued perception of a need to mainstream gender analysis at the Center level-a task that the PRGA Program aims to facilitate. For many. the primary objective of the CGIAR is the production of tntemational public goods. Hlstorically, this has been viewed in the biophysical arena as the production of technologtes, be they varteties or management practices. There ls a need to promote the concept of research methods and principies aristng out of partlcipatory research and impact assessment as equally valid internatlonal public goods. The workshop should be considered the Program's most tmportant tmpact-assessment achievement this year because it achieved two objectives: (a) it brought to fruttion several years of Program efforts to bring to public domain a slgnificant body of impact-assessment frameworks. methods and empirical case studies: and (b) it promoted cross-Center mutual learning among the scientists, whtch should result in tncreasing recognttion of the value of involving the ultimate beneficiarles in research and development processes. Ultimately, this serves to promote the understanding of why impact assessment should move beyond simple project accountability and attrtbutlon to includlng learntng about effectlve research processes, includtng the organizatlonal changes necessary to reach the poor and to have sustainable impact on their livelihoods. In additlon, we established and are facilitatlng an electronic discussion group, membership of which has now expanded beyond the workshQp partlcipants. 'lb e purpose of the discussion group is to contlnue the mutual tnstltutlonallearning (CG as well as non-CG). as it is not researchers in isolatlon who must learn. but the research-and-development organizatlons themselves need to learn from their experiences and change their own impact- assessment and research processes accordingly. Participatory research and gender analysis in agricultural and natural- resource management research: An annotated bibliography of selected literature: In order to synthesize the results from published works on the impact of participatory research and gender analysis, and to further facUitate instltutlonallearntng and change processes by shartng this informatlon with the PRGA Program's stakeholders, we have prepared an annotated bibliography of participatory research and gender analysis in agrtcultural and natural-resource management research. At the end of 2005, there were 97 entrtes in the database, comprtsing refereed journal articles published in English that flt the established search parameters, namely: lmpact empirtcal studies (results) on impact of agricultura! technologies that were developed vía the use of participatory research and gender-analysis methods. Practice: articles that describe how projects implemented partlclpatory research and gender analysis, together with sorne of their findtngs or outcomes, but they do not necessarily assess the impact of technologies on end-users. Methodology: artlcles that focus on evaluatlng and discusslng the pros and cons of partlcipatory research and gender-analysis methods, and talk about speciflc lessons learned on what works and where. The studies in the other two categories may also tnclude descriptlons of the methodology used. but they are not speciflc evaluatlons of the methodology. This category also has papers discussing or evaluatlng the use of participatory and gender-analysis methods in impact assessment. monitoring and evaluation, and project planning. 569 The publication of an annotated bibliography from the database was delayed in 2005. but it is expected to be availabie as PDF on the Program website in the first half of 2006. A small number of copies will be printed for those partners who cannot download large files from the Internet. Strengthening rural innovation ecologies: Participatory development of a methodologyfor strengthening social networJcs9: Innovation is a social process of putting new ideas and technologtes to work. A rural innovation ecology is a metaphor for the web of social communication and interactions that may foster or curtatl rural innovation. This project researched and developed a participatory methodology to help make rural innovation ecologtes Visible, help identify interventions for strengthentng social networks, and then help monitor and evaluate subsequent interventions. The research was carried out with two Committees for Local Agricultura! Research (CIALs, thetr Spantsh acronym): Fortaleza Carpintereña (Morales, Cauca) andEl Progreso (Piendamó, Cauca). CIAL members participated actively in the development of the methodology. We conducted the followtng steps with each group: Explortng the nature and importance of social networks with participating groups Designing a social network questionnaire Mapptng and participatory analysis of the networks Destgntng and tmplementing a strategic plan based on thts analysis Partictpatory monitortng and evaluation based on re-drawtng the networks. This project is work in progress: the two groups are currently implementing thetr respective strategtc plans. A prototype of the tool has been destgned and implemented in two communities. It still rematns to be seen how this prototype may apply (or not) in groups different from CIALs-groups that do not have such an advanced previous interest in partictpatory research and monftonng techniques, and if the insights gained by the groups will translate into measurable interventions in the future. For now. the maps generated are being used as communication and fund-raising tools by the groups. Additionally, gtven the importance of social capital and networks for these small rural communities, any insight into the concept and even a partial approximation of the status of these in the community is bound to be of help. Periodical remapping is the longer-term objective of this study. For now, this prototype will be further developed and honed for application in other cases. and presented to NGOs, so it can hopefully go into a further stage of collaborative research (between NGOs themselves and with communities). Generations Challenge Program: The Generations Chailenge Program (GCP) aims to capitalize on the fruits of the genomtcs revolution to salve the agricultura! constraints of farmers in the world's poorest countrtes. An important success factor is the GCP's abillty to ensure that the products of GCP research can and will be adopted, adapted and applied for the ultimate benefit of resource-poor farmers. In July 2005, Sub-program 5 of the GCP organized an expert consultation to draft a delivery strategy document. A PRGA Program 9. Summartzed from Douthwaite B; Hemández LA; Claros E; Alvarez S; Carvajal A. Strengthening rurallnnovat1on ecologles: Participatory development of a methodology for strengthenlng social networks. Unpublished report. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 570 representative (N. Lilja) attended the meeting and provided input into the development of GCP's delivery strategy document.1o Water Challenge Program: The PRGA Program is a partner in the ICARDA-led Water Challenge Program project "Improving Water Productivity of Cereals and Food Legumes in the Atbara River Basin of Eritrea. M The project initiation meeting was held in Eritrea in May 2004. The project will produce. in partnership with farmers, new varieties of cereals and food legumes, with associated management practices, which have proven fanner acceptability: establish seed systems to supply farmers with quality seed in a sustainable manner: enhance farmers' skills in participatory research and in community-based seed production: strengthen the capacity of national institutions to carry out partlcipatory research and technology transfer. and to monitor and assess the impact of their research: and strengthen linkages between research, seed and extension departments by working together in cooperation with farmers and farming communities. The role of the PRGA Program is to provide social-science backstopping support to the NARS. especially in setting up an impact- assessment plan and assisting in the implementation of the impact-assessment plan over the next 5 years. The impact-assessment work has been slow to start owing to a lack of local social-science support at the field level. Plans have now been made to engage social scientists from Asmara University and to establish a longer-term partnership to carry out these activities. 10. A copy of the detailed delivery strategy docurnent can be obtained frorn Dr M. Carmen de Vicente c.devlcente@cgiar.org 571 Output 3: Communications-Communication Strategies for Learning and Change with Partners Output targets l. PRGA Program's interactive website launched and attracts a Iarge and diverse range of users who not only read, but also contribute to the site's contents. 2. Awareness of PRGA research results and other publications is considerably heightened, particularly among agricultura} scientists. 3. Research results published in media favored by non-academic audiences and researchers not well acquatnted with the PRGA fleld. Website The Program's website (http:/ /www.prgaprogram.org) was launched back in December 2003 (see PRGA PrograniAnnual Report 2003-o4). Several spot-checks ofwebsite use showed a peak in simultaneous access at 158 users on 3 November 2005; other website statistics are being compiled. However, to date. users' contributions to the site have been few. During 2005. a large number of new resources were added to the site. Al1 new PRGA publications are routinely uploaded, and we are in the process of locating as many staff publications as possible for upload as PDF files. Of particular note is the new sub-website established after the Impact Assessment Workshop in October 2005, vía which users may access draft papers. presentations. abstracts and notes from discussions held at the Workshop. The issue of website access from sites with slow connections was addressed in a questionnaire sent out on the PRGA Info listserv in December 2005, asking for feedback on users' experiences. Results from this exercise will feed 1nto decisions about the future of the website. Dissemination of research results to peers A list of PRGA Program and staff publications for the reporting period is given in Appendix l . New PRGA publications are routinely uploaded to the website, and frequently publicized vía a "News itemH on the homepage. Durtng the latter part of 2005, we started to "hunt down" Program and staff publicatlons that were not available on Une (see above under "l. WebsiteH). The monthly PRGA Newsletter was relaunched in September 2005, províding information on new publicatlons, new web-based resources and other news items. It is currently being produced in electronic fonnat only and sent out on the PRGA Info listserv. Our mailing list for printed copies of PRGA publicatlons currently comprises only donors and Advísory Board members. This is an issue that will be addressed from 2006 onwards. However. a communications strategy drafted durtng 2005 proposes that publicatlons be made available to partners in areas with poor Internet connectlon as PDF files on CD-ROMs. 572 • Durtng the year. it was proposed that a ll subscribers to PRGA's specialist (GWG. PBG and PNRM) and project-based (ASARECA project) listservs should be subscribed to PRGA Info. The idea was that the specialist and project-based Hstservs would actas the discussion forums, while PRGA Info would become PRGA's electronic mailing list. However. this proposal has not gone exactly to plan! First. severa! subscribers were unhappy with the increased e-mail traffic and withdrew their subscriptions (this was mostly a regrettable result of severa! subscrtbers sending their responses to a questionnaire sent out on PRGA lnfo to the listserv as a whole). Second, the most active e-mail discusston of the year started and ran its course on PRGA Info rather than on one of the specialist listservs. The PRGA Info listserv had 600 members by the end of 2005. Various presentations were made on the work of, and research results from. the PRGA Program by senior staff and others throughout the year (see Appendix 1, section "Workshop and conference papers. presentations and posters"). An article on partlcipatory plant breeding was published in the electronic newsletter, Plant Breeding News. and a brochure on participatory plant breeding was published by !CARDA. Dissemination of research results to non-specialist audiences A four-page summary of the Impact Assessment Workshop. and a half-page piece on the Program's role in mainstreaming participatory research and gender analysis were prepared for the CGIAR Annual General Meeting in December 2005. Work on productng a specific series of Research Briefs is expected to start in 2006. During the second half of the 2005, we started a process of updating our mailing list (PRGA Info listserv) subscriber informatlon so as to provide a breakdown of institutional types (e.g. IARC, NARS. NGO. civil society. policy-maker). This data should be available during 2006. 573 Appendix 1: Progra.m and staff publications Refereed joumal articles Mangione D; Senni S; Puccioni M; Grando S; Ceccarelli S. in press. The cost of partlcipatory barley breeding. Euphytica, in press. Westennann O; Ashby JA; Pretty J. 2005. Gender and social capital: The importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World Development 33(11): 1783-1799. Book chapters and books Averill D; Lilja N; Manners G. in prep. Participatory Research and Gender Analysis in Agri.cultural and Natural Resource Management Research: An ArtTWtated Bibliography of Selected Literature. PRGA Program . Calt, Colombia. in prep. Braun A.R. 2005. Beyond the problem-solving approach to sustainable rural development. In: Gonsalves J; Becker T; Braun A; Campilan D; De Chavez H; Fajber E; Kaptriri M; Rivaca-Caminade J; Vemooy R (ed.) Participatory Research and Developmentjor Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook. Volurne 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. Intemational Potato Center - Users' Perspectives With Agricultura! Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD). Laguna, The Philippines and Intemational Development Research Centre (IDRC). Ottawa. Canada. Pp. 129-134. CeccarelU S; Grando S. 2005. Decentralized participatory plant breeding: A case from Syria. In: Gonsalves J ; Becker T; Braun A; Campilan D; De Chavez H; Fajber E; Kapiriri M; Rivaca-Caminade J; Vemooy R (ed.) Participatory Research and Developmentjor Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management A Sourcebook. Volurne 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. Intemational Potato Center - Usets' Perspectives With Agricultura! Research and Development (CIP-UPW ARO). Laguna. The Philippines and Intemational Development Research Centre (IDRC). Ottawa. Canada. Pp. 193-199. Dalton T; Lilja N; Johnson N; Howeler R. in press. Impact of partlcipatory natural resource management research in cassava-based cropping systems in Vietnam and Thailand. In: Zilbennan D; Waibel H (ed.) The Impact of Natural Resource Management Research in the CGIAR. CAB Intemational. Wallingford, UK. In press. Gonsalves J; Becker T; Braun A; Campilan D; De Chavez H; Fajber E: Kapiriri M: Rivaca- Caminade J ; Vemooy R (ed.), 2005. Participatory Research and Developmentjor Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Re so urce Management A Sourcebook. Volurne 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. Volurne 2: Enabling Participatory Research and Development. Volurne 3: Doing Participatory Research and l)evelopment. Intemational Potato Center - Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD). Laguna. The Philippines and Intemational Deyelopment Research Centre (IDRC}. Ottawa. Canada. 574 Gurung B. 2005. Organizational implications for mainstreamtng partlcipatory research and gender analysis. In: Gonsalves J; Becker T; Braun A; Campilan D; De Chavez H; Fajber E; Kapirlri M; Rlvaca-Caminade J; Vernooy R (ed.). 2005. Participatory Research and Developmentjor Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management A Sourcebook. Volwne 2: Enabling Participatory Research and Development International Patato Center- Users' Perspectives With Agricultura! Research and Development (CIP- UPWARD), Laguna. The Philippines and Internatlonal Development Research Centre (IDRC). Ottawa. Canada. Pp. 133-138. Roothaert R; Kerridge P. 2005. Adoption and scaling out- experiences of the Forages for Smallholders Project in South-east Asia. In: C. Conroy (ed.) Participatory Uvestock Research: A Guide. lntermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), Warwickshire, UK. Pp. 225-236. Roothaert R; Kaarta S, 2004. Issues and strategies for going to scale: A case study of the forages for smallholders project in the Philippines. In: D. Pachico (ed.) Scaling Up and Out Achieving Widespread Impact Through Agricultural Research. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. Thiele G; Braun A. Edson Gandarillas E. 2005. Farmer field schools and local agricultura! research committees as complementary platforms: New challenges and opportunitles. In: Gonsalves J; Becker T; Braun A; Campilan D; De Chavez H; Fajber E; Kapiriri M; Rivaca-Caminade J; Vernooy R (ed.) Participatory Research and Developmentjor Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management A Sourcebook. Volwne 3: Doing Participatory Research and Development International Patato Center - Users' Perspectives With Agricultura! Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD). Laguna. The Philippines and Internatlonal Development Research Centre (IDRC). Ottawa, Canada. Pp. 142-152. Van Mele P; Braun AR, 2005. Importance of Methodological Diversity in Research and Development Innovation Systems. In: Gonsalves J; Becker T; Braun A; Campilan D; De Chavez H; Fajber E; Kapiriri M; Rivaca-Caminade J; Vernooy R (ed.) Participatory Research and Developmentjor Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook. Volwne 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. International Patato Center - Users' Perspectives With Agricultura! Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD). Laguna, The Philippines and International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Ottawa. Canada. Pp. 151-156. Workshop and conference papers, presentations and poste rs Amede T; Mengistu S; Roothaert R. Intensification of livestock feed production in Ethiopian highlands: Potential and experiences of the African Highlands Initiatlve. Paper presented at the 19th Ethiopian Veterinary Association Annual conference, June 8. 2005, Economic Commission for Africa. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Aw-Hassan A. Participatory research. Lecture at the Consultative Workshop on Particlpatory Plant Breeding (CONPAB) a Specific Support Action funded by the European Commission (Contract no. INCO-CT-2003-502444). April- May 2005. Aleppo. Syria. 575 Ceccarelli S. Participatory plant breeding. Lecture presented at the Workshop on MBarley research in Iran: Prtorities and strategtes." July 2005. Seed and Plant Improvement Institute {SPII). Karaj, Iran. Ceccarelli S. Participatory plant breeding. Lecture at the Changes Agent in Rural Development training course. August 2005. C. Obregón, Sonora. Mextco. Ceccarelli S. Participatory plant breeding and drought resistance. Seminar presented at Comen UnJversJty, USA. November 2005. Ceccarelli S. Participatory plant breeding-An example of demand-driven research. Lecture at the European Seminar on MSeeds Liberate Oiversity," November 24-25, 2005. Poitiers. France. CeccarelU S; Grando S. Participatory plant breeding. Lectures at the Consultative Workshop on Participatory Plant Breeding (CONPAB) a Speciftc Support Action funded by the European Commission (Contract no. INCO-CT-2003-502444), April- May 2005, Aleppo. Syria. Ceccarelli S; Grando S. Workshop on "Recognition, Access. and Benefit Sharing in Participatory Plant Breeding," August 2005, Amman, Jordan. (Supported by IDRC.) Ceccarelli S; Grando S, 2005. Decentralized-partlcipatory plant breeding. In: 1\J.berosa R; Phillips RL; Gale M (ed.) Proceedings of the lntemational Congress "In the Wake of the Double Helix: From the Green Reuolution to the Gene Reuolution," May 27-31. 2003, Bologna. Italy. Avenue Media, Bologna. Pp. 145-156. Ceccarelli S; Grando S. Partlcipatory plant breeding: A fast track to variety development. Paper presented at the American Soctety of Agronomy (ASA) Meeting. November 2005, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Ceccarelli S; Grando S; Baum M. Participatory plant breeding in water-limited environments. Paper presented at the 2nd lnternational Conference on Integrated Approaches to Sustain and Improve Plant Production under Drought Stress {INfERDROUGHT II) . September 24-28, 2005, Rome, Italy. Dalton T; Lilja N; Johnson N; Howeler R. lmpact of participatory natural resource management research in cassava-based cropping systems in Vietnam and Thailand. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Integrated Natural Resource Management Group (INRM) and CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA), June 13-19, 2005, International Rice Research lnstitute (IRRI). Los Baños. The Philippines. Dalton T: Lilja N; Johnson N: Howeler R. Human capital accumulation and productivity improvements in Asían cassava systems: Are partlcipatory research approaches beneficial? Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economtcs Association meeting. July 24-27, 2005, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. Dalton T; Lilja N; Johnson N; Howeler R. Impact of participatory natural resource management research in cassava-based cropptng systems in Vietnam and Thailand. Paper presented at CIAT, Cali. Colombia, November 16. 2005. 576 Delve J; Roothaert R How can smallholder fanner-market linkages enhance improved technology options and natural resource management strategies? Paper presented at NARO conference, September 2004, Kampala, Uganda. Feldstein HS. Gender differences in production and supply elasticities. Paper presented at the IFPRI Gender Impact Seminar, November 2-3, 2004, IFPRI. Washington, OC, USA. Joachim V: Gurung B. Escaping the rural poverty trap: What do private sector and gender have todo with it? The contributlons of gender-based approaches and private-publlc partnerships in rural enterprtses to reduce poverty. Paper presented at the Canadian Intematlonal Development Agency (CIDA). Canada. September 14, 2005. Kaaria S; Lilja N: Sandoval V: Garcia J: Hincapié F. Assessing impacts of farmer partlcipatory research approaches: A case study of local agricultura! research committees in Colombia. Paper presented at Impact Assessment Workshop. October 19-21. 2005, CIMMYT. Mex:ico, DF. Lilja N. Reframing impact assessment and evaluatlon. Keynote presentatlon at Impact Assessment Workshop, October 19-21, 2005, CIMMYT. Mex:ico, DF. Maatougui M. Workshop on "Partlcipatory Plant Breeding," Algiers, Algerta, December 24, 2005. Supported by the European Commission (Contract no. INCO-CT-2003-502444) as Speciflc Support Actlon. Mustafa Y: Granda S; Ceccarelli S. Benefit-cost analysis of a partlcipatory breeding program in Syria. Paper presented at Impact Assessment Workshop, October 19-21, 2005, CIMMIT, Mex:ico, DF. Roothaert R. Forage utlllsatlon in smallholder systems- Afr1can and S.E. Asian perspectlves. Paper presented ata Workshop on strategies for ensuring clean germplasm for distributlon and use. October 3, 2005, ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Roothaert R; Binh L; Magboo E; Yen V: Saguinhon J. 2005. Partlcipatory forage technology development in Southeast Asia. In: Yimegnuhal A: Degefa T (ed.) Participatory Innovation and Research: Lessonsfor Livestock Development Proceedings of the 12th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Productlon (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 12-14, 2004, vol. 1: Plenary Session. Ethiopian Society of Animal Productlon, Addis Ababa. Pp. 21- 30. Working documents Dalton T: Lilja N; Johnson N; Howeler R. 2005. Impact of participatory natural resource management research in cassava-based cropping systems in Vietnam and Thailand. Working Document No. 23 (revised). PRGA Program. Cali, Colombia. 27p. Gabriel J; Herbas J : Salazar M; Rulz J ; López J; Villarroel J; Cossio D. 2004. Partlcipatory plant breeding: A new challenge in the generation and approprtation of patato varieties by farmers in Bolivia. Working Document No. 22. PRGA Program. Cali, Colombia. 22p. 577 Saad N; Lilja N; Fukuda W, m press. Participatory cassava breeding in Northeast Brazil: Who adopts the new varieties and why? Working Document No. 24. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. 27p. In press. Reports Braun A, 2005. Assessment of capacity development for participatory research and gender analysis among ICARDA and partner institutions. Report for PRGA Program by PAIDEIA Resources, Nelson, New Zealand. 63p. · Calkins P; Thao vr, 2005. Institutlonalimpacts of the Cassava Farmer Participatory Research and Extension Project in Thailand and Vietnam, 1993-2004. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. 66p. Lilja N: Bellon M. m press. Partlcipatory research projects at the Intemational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMY11. PRGA Program. Cali, Columbia, and CIMMYT. Mexico, DF. 43p. In press. Other publications Ceccarelli S, 2005. Participatory plant breedtng: A fast track to variety development. Plant Breeding News 156 (2 May 2005): 1.09. (An Electronic Newsletter of Applied Plant Breedtng.) Ceccarelli S; Grando S. 2004. Decentralized-Participatory Plant Breeding [brochure]. !CARDA. Aleppo, Syria. 6p. 578 Appendix 2: Special project funding approved in 2004 and 2005 • Institutionalizing Social and Gender Analysis jor Poverty Alleviation m Agricultura! Research and DeveLopment in the Eastem Himalayas Region, funded by IDRC. 2005- 2008. US$162,710. 579 Appendix 3: Staff list To provide a core of outstanding scientlftc capacity that can be deployed to work With individual IARCs or inter-Center initlatives and programs. the PRGA Prograrn maintains a nucleus of internationally recruited specialists who support collaborative research and capacity-building. PRGA Program staff facilitate the identlftcation of research opportunities and needs, conduct research, contribute to training. support the synthesis and intemational exchange of lessons leamed among the various participants, and promote the disseminatlon ofresults. Staff are being recruited as funding permits and outposted to partner instltutions to reinforce the research of IARCs and our partners, as well as to carry out capacity-building. Principal sta.ff Barun Gurung, PhD Anthropology. Senior Scientist Coordinator, PRGA Prograrn (lOO% PRGA) Nina Lilja. PhD Agricultura! Economics, Senior Scientist Impact Assessment (1 00% PRGA) Ralph Roothaert, PhD Crop and Weed Ecology. Senior Scientlst Forages for Smallholders Project. Joint appointment PRGA Program and ILRI. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia (50% PRGA) Ann Braun. •• PhD Ecology Facilitator. PRGA Participatory Natural Resource Management Working Group (50% PRGA) Salvatore Ceccarelli. PhD Plant Breeding Facilitator, PRGA Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group (50% PRGA) Hilary Sims Feldstein, MPA Facilitator, PRGA Gender Analysis Working Group (50% PRGA) Guy Manners. • BSc Zoology Communicatlons Consultant (50% PRGA) Acting Facilitator, PRGA Participatory Natural Resource Management Working Group Administrative staff Juliana Aristizábal,* Bachelor's in Social Communication and Joumalism PRGA Communtcations Assistant ( 100% PRGA) Freddy Escobar Assistant/Driver (50% PRGA) Claudia García. BA Production Engtneertng PRGA Administrative Assistant (100% PRGA) Jorge Mario Quiceno,•• MBA PRGA Administra Uve Assistant ( 100% PRGA) Note: • Staff joined PRGA in 2004-05; ** Staff left PRGA in 2004-05. 580 Appendix 4 : Advisory Board Current Board members (31 December 2005) Jacqueline A. Ashby Convening Center representative Director, Rural Innovation Instltute CIAT. Call, Colombia Aden A. Aw-Hassan PNRM representatlve Coordinator, Dry Land Resources Management Project Jantce Jlggtns Gender representatlve Montea Kapirirt NGO representative Kampala, U ganda Andrés LaJgnelet Sierra NARS representative CORPOICA Annina Lub bock IFAD. Techntcal Advtsory Divlslon Donor Representative Gordon Pratn CGIAR representative CGIAR/SIUPA CIP Bhuwon Sthapit PPB representative IPGRI/Nepal Position vacant Farmer representative '· 581 Appendix 5: Budget 2005 Contributions US$ CIDA 338.300 IDRC 53,893 Italy 185,000 Netherlands 100,000 New Zealand 50,000 Nozway 234,354 Switzerland 70,000 Others 501,862 Total 1,533,409 Expenditures US$ .. CIDA 256,641 IDRC 44,101 Italy 185,000 Netherlands 100,000 New Zealand o Nozway 234.354 Switzerland 70,000 Others 52,412 Total 942,508 582 2005 Fund.s Allocation Supplies, Operations and Services Allocation of Funda Main budget items CIAT- Overhead Working Grou s Gender and Organtzational Change in Afrtca Institutionaltzation, support to partner institutions Impact Assessment Institutionaltz'n SA/GA Eastem Himalayas Working Group Facllitators Other budget items Salaries Supplies, Operations and Services Publications Strategtc Meettngs (AGM. CIAT Review, ABM, etc.) Consultants CIA!-Overhead Total Gender and Organization'l Changein Africa lmpact Assessment lnstitutionaliz'n SAlGA Eastem Himalayas US$ 490,724 216,841 97,889 73,495 44,101 58,399 451,783 237.253 18,195 2,863 48,786 3.687 141,000 942,508 • Carryouer is airead y committed In 2005 jor 2006 actiuities 590,901 583 Breakdown of institutionalization support to partner institutions AfNet 10,000 CARE Intematlonal in Laos 2,500 CIP - Mainstreaming GA In the research process 7,750 CIP - Women Feeding Citles Workshop 5,000 !CARDA 5,000 IFPRI 2,000 ILRI 7,000 Supportlng ILRI staff- forages 43,353 Supporting IPRA staff 2,486 PROINPA 12,800 Total 97,889 584 Appendix 6 : PRGA Program Logical Framework 2006-2008 Out puta Intended usen Out come Impact Output 1 Capactty developed for 5elected CG Centers and NARS CG System and collaboratlng Better-targeted R&D that mainstreaming gender analysis and 1nst1tutlons routlnely use beneflts all end-users, equttable parttctpatory research- gender-sensttlve parttctpatory espectally poor women (gender lmproved competenc!es of the CG approaches 1n plant breed1ng, groups), 1n target communtues System and collaboratlng and natural-resource and reglons 1nst1tut1ons to mainstream the use management research of gender-sens!tlve partlc!patory approaches 1n plant breed1ng, and natural-resource management research Output Targets 2006 . Team of B tratners, tratned 1n a NARS, NGOs. regional networks . Collaboratlng 1nsUtut1ons variety of 'best practtce' hold their own workshops on approaches, establlshed and PR and GA, and lA of Il.AC enabled to provtde tratn1ng and us1ng their own tratners techntcal support on . An interna! working group 1s parttctpatory research (PR) and formed to spearhead and gender analys!s (GA), and 1mpact facllitate organtzatlonal assessment (lA) of 1nstltuttonal change and mainstream PR learntng and change (II.AC), to and GA 1n each parttclpatlng scienttsts 1n their 1nstltutes; At 1nstltuUon least 10 collaboratlve actlon- research actlvitles undertaken through strateglc partnerships Output Targets 2007 . Field tra1n1ng manual for PR and CGlAR, NARS, NGOs, regional . Scaling up and scal1ng out GA, lA of II.AC, and networks effects of publlcatton organtzattonal development (00) reach1ng new aud!ences developed and wtdely disseminated, 1nclud1ng a brtef revtew of existlng PR and GA, lA. and 00 methods , draw1ng on best practlces 1n developmg gutdellnes Output Targets 2008 . Research results publlshed and Other CG Centers. lARCs and . Scaling up and scal1ng out d!sseminated on the process of NARS;other1nstttut1ons effects of publlcatton mainstreaming through 1nterested 1n mainstreaming reach1ng new aud!ences organtzatlonal change PR&GA -- ----- 585 Outputs Intended users Outcome lmpact Output 2 Evidence of the lmpact of PR and CG Centers. other IARCs. R&D decls!on-making Better-targeted R&D that 1 GA methods assessed. and methods NARS. NGOs integrates lA results of PR and benefits all end-users. developed to pemút lA results to be GAmethods especially poor women (gender effectlvely integrated !nto research groups). in target cornmunitles for development dec1slon-mak1ng and regions 1 1 Output Targets 2006 . Results of emp!r!calimpact . Researchers understand the studles and of the impact- use of PR and GA methods assessment workshop are and have evidence available publ!shed and disseminated; concem!ng the!r lmpact PowerPoint presentations are prepared to hlghlight the recent evidence on IA of PR and GA in general. and they are Widely disseminated to Program collaborators and vta webs!te Outpul Targets 2007 . Collaborative action-research . The 1mpact of participatory conducted with CG and NARS research. as well as how well partners to develop. test. and R&D organlzatlons have assess methods for lmprovtng been able to learn and infonnatlon resulting from lA change as a result of the!r (product and process impacts). expertences in PR and GA 1s and methods for assess!ng the documented and available to contrtbutlon of lA to ILAC; researchers Results of emp!r!calimpact studies are publ!shed as working documents and in professlonal joumals Output Targets 2008 . Dlscuss!on paper on methods of . Researchers have tools and lA for ILAC !s publ!shed and methods available to enable d!sseminated to Program them to assess the impact of partners and collaborators; gender-sensltive Results of emp!r!cal studles on lA partic!patory research for ILAC are analyzed and process. and which publ!shed as working documents contrtbutes to enhanced and in profess!onal joumals ILAC ----- 586 Outputs lntended users Outcome Impact Output 3 Comrnunicatlon strategies for CGIAR. IARCs. NARS. donors. Agricultura! R&D practltloners Better-targeted R&D that leaming and change wtth partners- anyone tnterested tn PR and GA utllize approprtate elements of benefits all end-users. PRGA Program communicates PR and GA tn their work, espec.lally poor women (gender effectlvely with partners. donors. thereby generatlng gender- groups). tn target commun1tles and other interested partles sensltlve results for equitable and regtons development Output Targets 2006 . Program communicattons . Partners and web-users are strategy ls up and running: kept abreast of developments lntematlonal workshop held on tn al1 aspects of PR and GA tntegrating gender-sensltlve partlclpatory research through organizatlonal change Output Targets 2007 . Membership of PRGA-lnfo IARC and NARS sclentlsts, NGO Ustserv reaches 800; Mailing !1st practltloners. ciVil soclety built organizatlons, pol1cy-makers . Research results packaged tnto 1- to 2-page brtef forms. and dlsseminated both as hard copy and tn electronic form . Report on feastbillty of PRGA Program acting as 'tnformatlon hub' on global agrtcultural PR andGA Output Targets 2008 . Mechanism set up for PRGA Al! agrtcultural R&D . PRGA Program acts as a Program to source and practttloners source for all relevant redistrtbute 5