Copyright © February 2001. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program). All Rights Reserved. ANNUAL REPORT CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation April 1999 – March 2000 Co-Sponsors: CIAT - Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (Convening Center) CIMMYT - Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo ICARDA - International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas IRRI - International Rice Research Institute Contents i Contents Page 1 Program Overview 1 1.1 Summary 1 1.1.1 Goal 1 1.1.2 Purpose 1 1.1.3 Work Breakdown Structure 1 1.1.4 Milestones 2 1.2 Strategy 4 1.2.1 Strategy for Mainstreaming 4 1.2.2 Strategy for Partnerships Based on Collaborative Advantage 5 1.2.3 Strategy for Gender Analysis 6 1.2.4 Strategy for Capacity Building 7 1.2.5 Information Dissemination and Public Awareness 8 1.3 Overview of Progress 1999-2000 8 1.3.1 Research 8 1.3.2 Capacity Building 9 1.4 Progress on the 5-Year Work Plan 10 2 Program Organization and Staffing 11 2.1 Background 11 2.1.1 Appropriateness of Participatory Research for Agricultural Research 11 2.1.2 Who should Participate? 11 2.1.3 “Whose” Research Focus? 11 2.2 Establishment of Program 13 2.3 Program Organization 13 2.4 Program Partnerships 14 2.4.1 Collaborative Partnerships 14 2.4.2 Staffing 17 3 Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group (PBG) 19 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 ii 3.1 Workplan 19 Contents iii Page 3.2 Progress to Date 19 3.2.1 Activities 19 3.2.2 “State-of-the-Art” Papers 20 3.2.3 Best Practice, Ethical Issues, and Property Rights in PPB 22 3.3 Capacity Building in PPB 23 3.3.1 Listservers 23 3.3.2 PPB Guidelines 24 3.3.3 Seminars and Training 25 3.3.4 International Symposium on Participatory Plant Breeding in Latin America and the Caribbean: an Exchange of Experiences: August - September 1999 26 3.3.5 The IARCs’ Capacity Building and Awareness Building 27 3.4 PBG Small Grants 29 3.5 Affiliated Projects 32 3.5.1 Participatory Plant Breeding with Women and Small-scale Farmers in Africa and Latin America 32 3.5.2 Values, Knowledge, and Practice in Plant Breeding for Sustainable Agriculture: Differences among Breeders and the Possibility for Collaboration with Farmers 32 3.5.3 IPGRI in situ Conservation 32 3.5.4 IPGRI Home Gardens 33 3.5.5 Support to PhD Students 33 3.5.6 Variations in PPB 33 4 Participatory Natural Resource Management Working Group (NRMG) 37 4.1 Workplan 37 4.1.1 Activities 37 4.1.2 Specific Outputs for 1999-2000 37 4.1.3 Coordination of the NRMG 38 4.2 Progress to Date 38 4.2.1 Inventorying “State-of-the-Art” Practice of Participatory Research in NRM 38 4.2.2 NRM Typology 40 4.2.3 Assessing the Benefits of Rural Women’s Participation in NRM Research and Capacity Building 40 4.3 NRM Small Grants 41 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 iv 4.3.1 Main Highlights from the NRM Small Grants 44 4.3.2 Overview of NRM Small Grants 48 4.3.3 Capacity Building for Small-Grant Recipients 50 4.3.4 PRGA Program – Natural Resources Institute (NRI) Workshop 51 Page 4.3.5 Project Proposal: Enabling IPM Programs to Include Farmers as Partners in Research and Learning 52 4.4 Affiliated Projects 54 4.4.1 Assessing Approaches to Innovation Development in NRM through Participatory M&E 54 4.4.2 The GTZ-Supported Project AFOCO Yuscarán, El Paraíso, Honduras 55 4.4.3 The Participatory Research Project for Central America (IPCA) 56 4.4.4 The CIAT-Hillsides Project 56 5 Farmer-Led Research 57 5.1 Strategy 57 5.2 Analysis of Experiences with Farmer-led Research 57 5.2.1 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences and Lessons Learned from Community-led Initiations of Rural Development in Latin America 57 5.2.2 State-of-the-art Paper: Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding – Done from a Perspective of Farmer Plant Breeding 58 5.3 Networking Support: Integration of Farmer Breeders with Formal Research Networks and Communities of Practice 59 5.4 Organizational Models to Support Farmer Research 60 5.4.1 Example: Small Grant NRM-02 to AHI – ICRAF Entitled Impact of Using Participatory Methods to Solve NRM Issues in the East African Highlands 60 5.4.2 An Example of Support for Farmer Research Networks: Small Grant NRM FL-08 Entitled Establishment of a Farmer- Centered Agricultural Research Network in China 61 5.5 Future Directions in Support to Farmer-led Research 61 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 63 6.1 Integration of Gender Analysis into Research (CIMMYT-Nepal) 63 6.1.1 Chinese Hand Tiller Project 63 6.1.2 Wheat Breeding: CIMMYT-Nepal 63 Contents v 6.1.3 Gender Analysis Skills’ Training: Asia 64 6.2 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis in PPB 64 6.2.1 Integration of Gender and User Analysis in PPB Case Inventories 64 6.2.2 Mainstreaming Gender and User Research Issues within Ongoing Programs through Small Grants 64 Page 6.3 Capacity Building in Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 65 6.3.1 Contributions from PPB 65 6.3.2 Research on Methodological Options Identifying and Involving Stakeholders, Including Women and the Poor, in R&D 68 6.3.3 Capacity Building for Research that is Gender-Sensitive and Client-Oriented within the PPB Small Grants 69 6.3.4 CGIAR Mid-term Meeting Seminar 69 6.3.5 PRGA Learning Workshops 70 6.4 Gender Analysis in NRM 70 6.5 Skills Training and GSA Materials 71 6.5.1 UPWARD 5-Year Planning Meeting, Bogor, Indonesia 71 6.5.2 IPGRI Global Project on In Situ Conservation, Pokhra, Nepal 71 6.5.3 Philippines Inter-Center Meeting, University of the Philippines at Los Baños 72 7 Impact Assessment 77 7.1 Background 77 7.2 Impact Assessment Framework 77 7.2.1 Key Components of the Impact Assessment Framework for PR and GSA 79 7.2.2 Assessing the Impact of the PRGA Approach 80 7.3 Empirical Studies in Impact Assessment of PRGA 80 7.3.1 Book on Impact Assessment 80 7.3.2 Impact Assessment of NRM 81 7.3.3 Impact Assessment of PPB 82 7.4 Capacity Building in Monitoring and Assessing the Impact of Using PR Approaches and Gender Analysis 82 7.5 Milestones 83 8 PRGA Highlights in the CG System 85 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 vi 8.1 CIP 85 8.2 ICARDA 86 8.3 EMBRAPA-CNPMF 87 8.4 Assessing Approaches to Innovation Development in NRM through Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation 88 Page 8.5 NRM Scientists’ Meeting 89 8.6 GSA Capacity Building 90 8.7 Farmer-Breeder Discussion 91 9 Information Dissemination 93 10 Publications 95 References 97 Annexes: 99 Annex 1 PRGA Program Logical Framework Matrix 101 Annex 2 5-Year Workplan 107 Annex 3 Program Budget Allocation 111 Annex 4 List of Collaborators 113 Annex 5 Small Grants’ Conditions and Opportunities 115 Annex 6 Donor Agencies 123 Annex 7 Planning Group Members and Terms of Reference 1999-2000 125 Annex 8 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Liaison Persons and Gender Focal Points 127 Annex 9 Program Personnel 129 Annex 10 Executive Summaries of Three Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) Papers 131 10.1 Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding from the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding 131 10.2 Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding from the Perspective of Farmer Plant Breeding 139 10.3 Biotechnology-assisted Participatory Plant Breeding: Complement or Contradiction? 144 Annex 11 PRGA Working Document 6 and Survey 149 Annex 12 Summary of NRM Plans for Impact Assessment of PRGA Methods Contents vii (BMZ 1998-2001) 157 Annex 13 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences 163 Annex 14 Types of Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 167 Annex 15 Workshop Schedules 169 Annex 16 Natural Resource Management (NRM) Impacts and Costs Study 175 Annex 17 Outline of Analysis of Natural Resource Management (NRM) Inventory 181 Annex 18 Inventory of PR Projects for Natural Resource Management (NRM) 183 Annex 19 Case Studies Prepared for the Natural Resource Management (NRM) Scientists’ Meeting 189 Annex 20 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used 191 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 viii List of Boxes Page Box 1 Mainstreaming: critical factors for success 4 Box 2. Adding value to research 8 Box 3 PRGA networks 17 List of Figures Figure 1. Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Program Work Breakdown Structure. 3 Figure 2. Varietal traits known to women. 67 Figure 3. The impact assessment framework for participatory research and gender stakeholder analysis. 78 List of Tables Table 1. PRGA partnerships for innovation. 6 Table 2. Institutions participating as small-grant recipients or partners of recipients. 14 Table 3. Overview of PRGA Program work with CGIAR Centers, 1998-99. 15 Table 4. Membership in the PRGA E-mail Listservers. 16 Table 5. Types of organization on the Fitomejoramiento Participativo (FMP) Spanish Language participatory plant breeding Listserver. 24 Table 6. Small grants of participatory plant breeding working groups. 30 Table 7. Small grants supporting participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management. 42 Table 8. The importance of women’s knowledge in participatory plant breeding cases considering gender. 67 Table 9. User preference diagnostic methods being used at five participatory plant breeding sites in Project R7027:C funded by the Department for International Development, UK. 68 Program Overview 1 1 Program Overview 1.1 Summary 1.1.1 Goal To improve the ability of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) System and other collaborating institutions to develop technology that alleviates poverty, improves food security, and protects the environment with equity. 1.1.2 Purpose To assess and develop methodologies and organizational innovations for gender-sensitive participatory research (PR) and to operationalize their use in plant breeding, and crop and natural resource management (NRM). 1.1.3 Work Breakdown Structure Figure 1 gives the PRGA Program’s work breakdown structure for the 5 years of the project. Annex 1 gives the full logical framework matrix of the PRGA Program and Annex 2 gives the 5-year workplan. The Program Budget Allocation is given in Annex 3. Outputs i. Gender-sensitive methods developed for participatory plant breeding (PPB) and for PR on NRM. ii. Organizational innovations for institutionalizing participatory approaches operationalized and evaluated. iii. Innovative approaches to capacity building operationalized. iv. New partnerships developed among the International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), national agricultural research systems (NARS), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and farmer groups. Gains · Access gained to a worldwide exchange of PRGA expertise among a wide range of institutions. · Learning from existing experience accelerated and new, widely applicable methodologies for PRGA generated. · Considerable savings and increased impact from NARS generated by better-designed technologies. · Indigenous systems of crop development and NRM strengthened and integrated with formal research in a mutually reinforcing way. · Poor rural women become meaningful participants in and beneficiaries of the research. · Development and adoption of diverse germplasm in major food crops greatly accelerated. Users Poor rural farmers, IARC centers, national agricultural research institutes (NARIs), NGOs, and rural grassroots organizations Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 2 Collaborators IARCs, NARS, NGOs, grass-roots organizations, universities (see Annex 4) CGIAR system linkages Enhancement and breeding (25%), crop and livestock production systems (25%), protecting the environment (30%), and organization and management (20%) CIAT internal project linkages SB-1, IP-2, IP-3, PE-2, SN-3, BP-1 1.1.4 Milestones 1998 Guidelines for PPB circulated. At least 10 empirical studies and six NRM case studies funded. At least one global and one regional NRM workshop held to identify methodological innovations. The CGIAR’s Gender Analysis Program (GAP) amalgamated into the Systemwide Program (SWP). Full-time gender specialist appointed. First seminar of the gender training initiative conducted. 1999 Ways in which participatory breeding programs work with farmers reviewed and documented. Workshops conducted at up to six sites to incorporate gender and gender-sensitive participatory methods into IARC research. New local networks formed. Training conducted. Guidelines for use of gender analysis (GA) and for involving different types of users included effectively in plant breeding (PB) and NRM technology development. 2000 Evidence available that PB products are more user-differentiated. Synthesis of case studies on how to strengthen local seed systems. Guidelines prepared on methods for scaling up NRM options and participatory methods. Ten experiments on how to integrate farmer and research experimentation conducted and evaluated. A comparison of costs and benefits in participatory NRM compiled and published as a working paper. Synthesis published of case studies on effectiveness of GA and methods for including different users across technology development in PB and NRM. 2001 Guidelines published on the costs and benefits of different approaches to involving and targeting differentiated users, as well as for PRGA methods and strategies in NRM. Three case studies of organizational change for improving the effective participation of different stakeholders completed and synthesized. The costs and benefits assessed of including GA in PB and NRM. 2002 At least three IARCs and their partners incorporate PPB into core PB programs; at least two IARCs incorporate PR methodologies resulting from the Program's work into their NRM research. 1 Program Overview 3 Program Goal To improve the ability of the CGIAR System and other collaborating institutions to develop technology that alleviates poverty, improves food security, and protects the environment with greater equity Program Purpose To assess and develop methodologies and organizational innovations for gender-sensitive participatory research, and operationalize their use in plant breeding, and crop and natural resource management Outputs 1. Methods and Organization for Participatory Plant Breeding Developed 2. Methods and Organization for Participatory Natural Resource Management Research Developed 3. Use of Gender Analysis “Mainstreamed” 1.1 Effective PPB methods assessed and developed, with focus on: - farmers’ breeding - plant selection (segregating lines) - variety selection (fixed lines) 2.1 State-of-the-art synthesis in applying PR-GA1 approaches in NRM research for different types of technologies compared across three scales of management 2 3.1 Effective methods and capacity for using GA integrated into research 1.2 Beneficiary groups more accurately involved and targeted in PPB through development of methods for involving direct and indirect stakeholders 2.2 Improved crop and NRM strategies developed and disseminated incorporating better use of existing and new PR-GA methods at different scales of management 3.2 The costs-benefits of using GA in technology development assessed 1.3 Effective organization forms identified and developed for operationalizing PPB in the research process 2.3 Organizational capacity to use PR-GA methods in NRM research improved with a focus on farmers, local institutions, individual scientists and extension workers, and research and extension institutions 1.4 User access to products of PPB assured through identification of effective organizational forms and links to supporting seed services 2.4 Effective methods developed for involving gender-differentiated and other direct and indirect stakeholders in NRM 1 PR/GA refers to the use of gender analysis to identify types of users by gender, wealth and other variables, and participatory methods inclusive of different types of users. 2 The three scales of NRM are (a) field and farm level, (b) community, and (c) beyond community, e.g., watershed management. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 4 Figure 1. Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Program Work Breakdown Structure. (For acronyms and abbreviations, see Annex 20.) Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 4 1.2 Strategy The PRGA Program’s goal will be accomplished through capacity building and collaborative research to disseminate sound use of methodologies and organizational innovations for gender-sensitive PR in the CGIAR Centers. The Program operationalizes the use of participatory approaches, methodologies, and organizational innovations in plant breeding and in crop, livestock, and natural resource management through three main areas: organizational innovation and partnership; collaborative empirical studies; and capacity building and information dissemination. The following is a brief description of the most important facets of the strategy. 1.2.1 Strategy for Mainstreaming Mainstreaming the Program’s outputs is critical to its success (Box 1). Client-oriented research and development (R&D) requires skillful interactions between researchers and end-users of technology to ensure that innovations are appropriate and rapid adoption occurs. Mainstreaming the use of PRGA will have been achieved if these research approaches and principles are: · Widely accepted by donors, IARC management, and scientists as valid for achieving scientific research goals (e.g., soil analysis and gender analysis have equivalent legitimacy and validity as research tools) · Used scientifically in a discriminating fashion for improving research in the CGIAR system—not for advocacy or the sake of appearances. Box 1 Mainstreaming: critical factors for success Convincing evidence of impact Appropriate tools and methods Timely information Building a learning process for scaling up Learning cases Informal network Small groups of innovators Training over time Monitoring and evaluation Full integration of gender Time and donor support (Derived from Campilan 1997, Sperling and Loevinsohn 1997, Ashby et al 1998, Goyder et al 1998, Heinrich and Monyo 1998, Scherler et al 1998, and others). 1 Program Overview 5 · Assigned sufficient resources at the system level to enable IARCs to apply the approaches and methods when needed to solve priority research problems, to learn from one another’s experience, and to conduct strategic research for developing new applications and cutting-edge methodologies. · Applied to increase gender-equitable stakeholder and client participation in relevant research processes and decisions so that feedback to research, research efficiency and effectiveness are improved; technology appropriate to different stakeholders is developed; and adoption rates increase among the CG’s priority client groups such as poor rural women. · Used by IARCs to develop and promote collaborative research partnerships that incorporate gender-sensitive stakeholder and client participation and contribute to empowering poor rural women to access new opportunities through technological innovation. · Used to encourage gender-equitable stakeholder and client representation in CGIAR external and internal reviews, impact assessment, and consultations for strategic planning. 1.2.2 Strategy for Partnerships Based on Collaborative Advantage Given the complexity of the research problems, the program was designed for implementation through interinstitutional collaboration. A special task force at the Systemwide Planning Meeting developed the principles guiding these partnerships. There will be decentralized partnerships among IARCs, NARIs, NGOs, and government regional offices (GROs). The methods will be introduced into ongoing plant breeding and/or NRM projects, consistent with their priorities. Emphasis is on horizontal arrangements where collaborative advantages are sought. The creation of synergy between and among collaborators who together produce something new is achieved by working to accomplish what no organization can do alone. Table 1 shows the Program’s partnerships. The principles for successful partnerships adopted by the Program are: · Compelling, shared vision and sense of purpose, · Strong, skilful, shared leadership that purposely seeks to create collaborative advantage, · Shared problem definition and approach, · Guidelines for using methodologies and organization innovations based on comparisons across agro- socioeconomic environments, technologies, and user groups, · Common learning process derived from sharing global experiences, · Power equity, · Interdependency and complementarity, · Cost-effective divisions of research labor as a result of joint research and development capacity, · Mutual accountability, and · Building upon ongoing IARC research to the extent possible, with 50/50 co-financing by the Program when partner institutions agree to contribute to at least 50% of the resources required for collaborative activities. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 6 Table 1. PRGA partnerships for innovationa. Continent Partnerships for innovation IARCs NARS Africa CIMMYT Yemen ICARDA Ethiopia ILRI Tanzania IPGRI Malawi WARDA Zimbabwe AHI (ICRAF) SWNM (SWP) TSBF Asia UPWARD (CIP) Himalayan network CIFOR LI-BIRD, Nepal CIMMYT SRBLI IRRI Latin America CIAT Bolivia CIP Colombia TLAP (SWP) Ecuador Honduras Mexico a. For acronyms and abbreviations, see Annex 20. 1.2.3 Strategy for Gender Analysis Use of GA as a research tool is basic to technology development that is aimed at alleviating the poverty of severely disadvantaged social groups—especially in the case of poor rural women. The Program’s strategy is to promote the use of GA, not only to understand the implications of women’s existing roles and responsibilities in agriculture and NRM for technology development and institutional innovation, but also to identify new opportunities for innovation that involve a concomitant change in women’s status. Integration is more effective than isolation; thus GA is a central component in the Program’s research, capacity building, and partnership-development activities. Analysis of differences among stakeholder groups is a first step in the design of a good PR agenda. Gender analysis, together with the analysis of other differentiating characteristics within and among groups of technologies, can help ensure that technologies are useful and used. 1 Program Overview 7 · The focus is on mainstreaming gender and/or stakeholder analysis principles, methods, and tools in PB and NRM research so that their use becomes an integral part of the processes of research design and implementation within the CG System. · Participatory research in PB and NRM integrates GA into the research process and involves diverse stakeholders groups. · Our capacity-building strategy (see 1.2.4) gives our partners the skills needed to integrate gender and stakeholder analysis and partnership principles as critical components of the PR processes in which they are involved. · Our information dissemination and public awareness activities (see 1.2.5) make visible the needs of both men and women innovators and users of technology. · The Program develops criteria for assessing the extent to which GA and user involvement in the research process have been achieved and what impact they have had. The Program does not limit itself to gender as the sole user-differentiating variable for women in PR just for the sake of involving them, but also to build skills in GA outside the context of PB and NRM research and advocate gender-staffing policies per se. The Program itself should be an example of gender-sensitive stakeholder participation in its own organizational structure and functions in order to serve as a “learning lab.” Gender-sensitive stakeholder representation is sought in all the Program’s collaborative partnerships at all levels—from the Planning Group that advises management to the formation of stakeholder committees in projects receiving small grants. 1.2.4 Strategy for Capacity Building Building capacity to use GA and PR approaches is basic to technology development and institutional innovations that benefit disadvantaged rural groups, especially women. This can be done effectively through a learning-process approach designed to rigorously critique and assess the use of these approaches and to generate knowledge on when, where, and how it is appropriate to use them. Capacity building aims to provide skills and concepts needed to carry out this critical assessment. The thematic contents for capacity building can be summarized as: · Gender and stakeholder tools and methods, · Research approaches built on sound use of gender and stakeholder analyses, · Participatory research methods, processes, and skills for NRM and PB, · Forming and sustaining effective partnerships for participation, and · Methods, tools, and procedures for impact assessment, participatory monitoring, and evaluation. A small-grants program forms part of this strategy that adds capacity to ongoing research using PRGA and conducts a rigorous assessment of the impact of PRGA research methods and approaches. Annex 5 provides details on conditions and opportunities for small grants. An inherent part of each small grant is the building of local capacity through learning workshops that the Program supports. Receivers of grants are committed to conducting a joint workshop or seminar in their own institutions to expand Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 8 awareness of the results of PRGA approaches, to promote exchange with NARS, and to participate in international events sponsored by the Program. The Program also promotes awareness building, involving donors and senior management of the CGIAR Centers. Box 2 shows the financing of grants. A list of donor agencies is given in Annex 6. Capacity building aims to develop skills and increase awareness among the audiences or client groups as listed below. · Gender analysis and PR skills for researchers. · Increased awareness among senior management and ability to assess when to use PRGA research approaches. · Collaborative partnership development skills for researchers and the IARCs that work with small grants, as well as other institutions that work within the PRGA Program. · Impact assessment tools, methods, and skills for partners in small-grant research. 1.2.5 Information Dissemination and Public Awareness An important part of mainstreaming is the dissemination of results through international workshops, publications, and electronic conferencing to a broad audience. This includes all those partners who need to have a critical appreciation of the dimensions of appropriate use and the results that can be realistically expected. This audience—the stakeholders in IARC research results—includes donors, research managers, scientists, development practitioners, and farmers. To reach these stakeholders effectively, the Program promotes awareness and use of PRGA as valuable scientific tools. It involves focusing, encouraging, and supporting the practical application and critical assessment of the PRGA methods by: · Providing training materials for capacity building; · Partnering with CG scientists already using PRGA methods so as to give their work added value and a wider audience; · Providing channels whereby gender-sensitive PR experiences and methods outside the CG are made available to interested CG scientists; and · Creating a space where PRGA issues and experiences in PPB and NRM can be exchanged. 1.3 Overview of Progress 1999-2000 Box 2 Adding value to research US$ PRGA total grants 984,820 Co-financing by grant recipients 1,627,500 Total value of research 2,612,329 1 Program Overview 9 1.3.1 Research · State-of-the-art analysis for PPB completed and three commissioned papers distributed (formal-led PPB, farmer-led PPB, PPB and Biotechnology, Gender and Users in PPB). · Over 60 cases of PPB in progress identified from an exhaustive, worldwide search and described in the PPB inventory, made available on the PRGA Web page. · 22 PPB cases received as chapters for a book-length report to be published in early 2001. · Intellectual property rights (IPR) implications of PPB—assessment by legal, ethical, social and technical experts to identify and recommend best practices—initiated in interaction with the PPB Working Group listserver to be completed by March 31, 2000. · State-of-the-art analysis for PR and gender-stakeholder analysis in NRM: inventory (designed as a searchable database on Web page) of community-based NRM projects initiated with over 400 projects queried for information on types of PR methods, use of gender and stakeholder analysis (GSA), technology, and impacts. · NRM and PPB Impact and Cost Studies: seven cases selected and data collection designed ready for collaborative field research. · Types of Participation questionnaire for Impact Studies completed and pre-tested with small-grant recipients. · Impact Assessment Guide prepared as a working paper for testing by small grants. · Toolbox with recommended tools on PRGA Web page, some downloadable, as well as references to sources for tools – as a searchable database – further input required. · Quality of Participation, under preparation as a working document, provides several ways to assess how participation is being implemented in an R&D process (in press). · Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation research carried out at two sites by Regional Fellows in Latin America and Africa. · Women and Technology Initiative position paper published and concept note completed. · Regional input obtained from South Asia PPB symposium participants to Participatory Plant Breeding Guidelines. · Working paper on “Types of Participation” available on Web page. · The impact assessment framework edited and published as a PRGA publication entitled “Assessing the impacts of participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management and plant breeding” (forthcoming). 1.3.2 Capacity Building Small grants · Small Grant Program sustained at a total value including co-financing to date of US$3,048,243. From 1998 – 2000, 23 small grants were made to the value of US$1,201,657 and co-financed to a value of US$1,846,586. · Small Grant Program includes CGIAR Centers, NARS institutions – including China, Indonesia, Solomon Islands, Yemen, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, Ecuador (seven formal-led NRM, 10 PPB, two Women and Technology, and four Support to Farmer-Led NRM). Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 10 · Most 1998 small grants for NRM formal-led research were visited by the PRGA and participated in on-site or regional Learning Workshops. · First-year research reports received from the 16 small grants awarded in 1998. · Four NRM small grants for farmer-led research include two large networks, the Center for Integrated Agricultural Development (CIAD) in China, and the CGIAR SWP on Integrated Pest Management. · Two small grants awarded to research for women’s agro-enterprise development in collaboration with the CIAT- International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Agro-enterprise Program. · April 17-21, training seminar at the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), session on impact assessment. · May 3-6, African Highlands Initiative (AHI) capacity-building seminar in Ethiopia, session on participatory monitoring and evaluation. · Impact session at the 3rd international seminar. Regional Fellows · Regional Fellows conducting research and capacity building with CGIAR Centers and/or NARS (two postdoctoral in Africa and one in Asia, and one MSc and one PhD candidate in Latin America). Learning workshops · Trainers Workshop on Gender and Stakeholder Analysis, Lima, Peru - February 2000 (Universidad Nacional Agraria “La Molina” [UNALM] - A New Initiative in Rural Development (UNIR) - CIAT Hillsides - PRGA) · Southeast Asia Learning Workshop on Analyzing Gender and Stakeholder Analysis in Agriculture and Natural Resources Management, Vietnam - March 2000 (Centro Internacional de la Papa [CIP] - Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research Development [UPWARD], CIAT Asia) - Report on this workshop will be available after April 30, 2000. · African Hillsides Trainers’ Learning Workshop on Gender and Stakeholder Analysis and NRM Tools, Kampala, Uganda, March 2000 (PRGA - AHI - SWP on Soil, Water, and Nutrient Management [SWNM] - CIAT Hillsides) – Report on this workshop will be available after April 30, 2000. International meetings · Latin America Ecoregional Workshop on Approaches to Participatory Research, Cali, Colombia, February 2000 – co-sponsored by PRGA. · Latin America Ecoregional Farmer Researchers’ Workshop, Cali, Colombia, February 2000 – co- sponsored by PRGA. · South Asian PPB Symposium, Pokhara, Nepal, May 2000. 1.4 Progress on the 5-Year Workplan The 5-year workplan was developed at the 1996 planning meeting and is reproduced in Annex 2. The shaded areas of the workplan indicate parts that have been completed or are in progress and are reported on here. 2 Program Organization and Staffing 11 2 Program Organization and Staffing 2.1 Background The CGIAR SWP on PRGA was established to increase the use of PR approaches and gender analysis (GA) in the CG system of IARCs. This is expected to improve the CG’s capacity to deliver research outputs that are more appropriate for the poor, and more likely to benefit disadvantaged groups such as poor rural women and farmers in marginal agricultural environments. The Program was set up at a point in time when there was some empirical evidence that use of PR methods could dramatically improve rates of adoption when applied to plant breeding, soil conservation, and integrated crop management systems. Cases demonstrating positive effects of using GA on technology design and adoption have also been documented, but anecdotal evidence to the contrary is also available. Basically, three main issues below need to be resolved. 2.1.1 Appropriateness of Participatory Research for Agricultural Research Criticism of the use of PRGA tools in the CGIAR—especially by the NGO community—is that these can easily be applied in a manipulative fashion without proper attention to the processes of empowerment, creation of social capital, and capacity building required for the poor to benefit from participation. This critique of what is termed “functional” participation and gender differentiation raises the issue of what types of participation are appropriate for agricultural research. In contrast, most CG scientists perceive empowering participation as a development issue, irrelevant to agricultural research. 2.1.2 Who should Participate? Differences in perspective divide those who argue that PR should involve expert farmers or farmer- researchers and those who argue that this participation should be representative, democratic, and broad based. Farmer-researchers are the knowledgeable, inventive members of the farming community, who experiment with crop domestication, pest and disease control, or soil improvement, among others. Farmer-researchers may also be an elite with a different resource base and research agenda from other groups; however, little systematic documentation has been made of these differences or their implications for farmer participation in research intended to benefit the poor. Considerable evidence exists that rural women have a long-standing role in this knowledge generation and dissemination. The use of GA as a diagnostic tool to help scientists flesh out these implications and decide whom they should work with in the farming community needs to be assessed, particularly with respect to the cost of not doing GA. 2.1.3 “Whose” Research Focus? Reference is made to the difference between the focus of the scientific community on the merits (or otherwise) of farmers’ participation in scientists’ research and vice versa. This is not a trivial difference. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 12 The CG system and NARS annually invest millions of dollars in producing research outputs to benefit the poor. Ultimately, adaptive research—carried out partially by formal research and extension systems, NGOs, or farmer cooperatives—is necessary to adjust the resultant technology to the highly difficult, marginal, location-specific conditions of impoverished small-scale producers. Nevertheless, farmers carry out a substantial portion of this required adaptive research. Through trial and error, they discover how to fit new technologies to their difficult conditions and resource constraints. Farmers’ research is not simply reactive, adapting what comes from outside to local circumstances, but also inventive. Many examples exist of the rich innovation occurring in farmers’ fields, and the documentation of this indigenous knowledge has become an important field of research in its own right. Farmer-researchers in developing countries have only just begun to emerge from obscurity, largely because of the popularization of PR methods in recent years. World Bank agricultural experts attribute to farmers’ research at least 60% of sustainable agricultural innovations with low external input of the past decade. Throughout the developing world, participatory approaches and efforts to document indigenous knowledge demonstrate that farmers’ research is the foundation stone of their expert knowledge of local ecology, and a valuable asset on which rural people rely for managing fragile resources to obtain a livelihood. Nevertheless, farmer-researchers are still isolated from and poorly served by formal agricultural research systems. Their research techniques and their needs as researchers are not well understood. Most efforts focus on involving farmers in research planned, managed, interpreted, and evaluated by scientists employed in formal research systems or by development practitioners in NGOs. A “state-of-the-art” analysis of PPB efforts commissioned by this Program shows that very few ask the questions, “How should scientists participate in farmers’ research, and how can formal research systems strengthen and build upon farmer research?” The lack of articulation between these two systems of research—formal- and farmer-led research—is evident in the poor record of adoption achieved by CG research in rainfed, small farm systems since the green revolution. Farmers are not able enough to orient formal-led technology development; and scientists are not making a targeted input into farmer-led research and development. A key question to be addressed in this debate is “What is the appropriate division of labor between scientists and farmers in agricultural technology research and development?” That is to say, between formal- and farmer-led research. This is particularly crucial in the area of NRM. Both the IARCs and NARS will continue to invest in and rely on adaptive research even more heavily in the future given that NRM requires research strategies that work with technologies built on natural diversity rather than with technologies built on broad adaptation (the pivot of green revolution research). Managing diversity will require new kinds of decentralized adaptive research methodologies, new forms of partnership, and new kinds of institutional relationships involving both formal- and farmer-led research. As can be seen from the foregoing, a high degree of uncertainty and dissent exists both within and outside the CGIAR about the appropriate applications of PRGA to technology development research. These issues need to be resolved if the hypothesized benefits from their use are to be realized. Lack of clarity undermines scientists’ capacity to apply these approaches, the commitment of senior management to support their institutionalization in formal-led research, and the formation of mutually advantageous research partnerships with farmer-led research. 2 Program Organization and Staffing 13 2.2 Establishment of Program In December 1996, the CGIAR Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) decided to include this program in the CGIAR-approved research agenda. Four CGIAR international research centers—CIAT (the convening center), CIMMYT, ICARDA, and IRRI—sponsored the proposal. It was prepared after 1 year of consultation with a wide range of donors, practitioners, and other users of PRGA in agricultural development. The process culminated in an International Seminar and Planning Meeting (September 1996, Cali, Colombia), at which some 50 researchers, development professionals, and donor representatives developed a 5-year workplan for each of the three working groups. The PRGA Program Coordination Office, which began formal activities in April 1997, is located at the convening institution’s (CIAT) headquarters (HQ). For a full report of the first year of activities, see the 1997-98 Annual Report (CIAT 1998). The 5-year workplan is explained in detail in the TAC- approved proposal entitled “Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation” (CIAT 1996). 2.3 Program Organization Annex 7 gives a list of current members of the planning group. Nine members are elected: · Three representatives, one from each of the three working groups, · Five representatives one from each of the five stakeholder groups in the initiative: NARIs, NGOs, IARCs (excluding the convening Center), farmers, and donors, and · One member from the convening center. At the 1998 annual meeting, selection of the farmer representative through an NGO such as Via Campesina was discussed, as was the wisdom of including a farmer at a strategic level as opposed to the research- and working-group level. The Planning Group started a formal search procedure, led by the Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI), the NGO representative, to identify potential farmer representatives. Two strategies were chosen: i. Working with international NGOs with a shared interest in the PRGA program areas to identify farmer representatives for the 1999 annual meeting; and ii. Requesting each PRGA small-grant project to form a project steering committee with farmer membership in 1999 and to elect a farmer representative to the Planning Group from the steering committees in 2000. Formal terms of reference were adopted for the Planning Group (Annex 7), defining its mandate. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 14 2.4 Program Partnerships 2.4.1 Collaborative Partnerships Ford Foundation Program on Organizational Change The Ford Foundation Program on Organizational Change accepted a PRGA Program proposal to work on principles for partnership. The trainer and specialist in organizational development and partnership first gave a 2-day workshop in September 1988 for the Planning Group, where participants from the small grants in the II PRGA International Seminar in Quito adapted a set of principles for collaborators. In February 1999, this was followed up by a 5-day workshop at CIAT for the Program staff and their most important partners. Work continued on incorporating these partnership principles in the formulation of policies and procedures for the Program’s small grants and collaborative training and research activities with CG centers, NGOs, NARS, universities, and GROs on principles of partnership based on “collaborative advantage.” For example, letters of agreement incorporate the principles adopted in Quito. Table 2 shows the participating institutions that are small-grant recipients or partners of such recipients. Table 2. Institutions participating as small-grant recipients or partners of recipientsa. Center Number Institution NARs 7 CORPOICA x 3, INIAP, EMBRAPA, CIAD, IPCA NGOs 3 PROINPA, EAP-Zamorano, FIDAR AROs 1 LI-BIRD Universities 6 Universities of Arizona, Norway, Maine, Guelph, IES University (Zimbabwe), Appalachian State University CG Centers 14 ICARDA, ILRI, IPGRI, CIP, ICRISAT, ICLARM, CIMMYT, IPM Program, ICRAF x 2, CIAT x 4 a. For acronyms and abbreviations, see Annex 20. International working groups In 1996, three working groups were set up, one on PPB (the PBG), one on participatory NRM (the NRMG), and one on gender analysis (the GWG). Each group developed detailed workplans to guide the Program’s future activities. A detailed synthesis of the issues discussed at that meeting is available in the published proceedings entitled “New frontiers in participatory research and gender analysis” (PRGA Program, 1997). In 1998, the GWG reformulated its role as the PRGA resource group providing advice on GA to the Program staff, and the PB and NRM working groups. The Gender and Development Research Network (GENDEV) was set up with facilitation by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) to help interested researchers and practitioners keep abreast of new 2 Program Organization and Staffing 15 developments in research on gender and agricultural development.3 Table 3 gives an overview of PRGA Program work with the CG Centers. 3 To join this network, contact m.hoffman@cgiar.org. 2 Program Organization and Staffing 15 Table 3. Overview of PRGA Program work with CGIAR Centers, 1998-99.a CGIAR Centers PRGA Program areab Learning workshops, training events International symposia and meetings Expertise (technical assistance) Publications, networking Method development and dissemination Small-Grant or affiliated projects AHI - ICRAF vv vv vv vv v vv CIAT v vv vv vv vv v CIFOR vv vv vv vv vv vv CIMMYT vv vv vv v vv CIP vv vv v vv IPGRI v vv vv vv vv ICARDA v vv vv vv IRRI v vv v vv vv ICLARM v IFPRI vv IWMI ISNAR v vv IITA v ICRISAT vv vv vv vv v v ILRI v vv vv WARDA v vv vv vv vv a. For acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex20. b. vv signifies in progress since 1998, v signifies work beginning in 1999. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 16 The PBG and NRMG involve practitioners from IARCs, NARIs, NGOs, GROs, and indigenous research systems. Membership in these multidisciplinary working groups, which include a mix of biophysical and social scientists, is voluntary, self-selected, and active through E-mail conferencing facilitated by Program staff (Table 4). Working group members meet face to face at periodic research workshops or on-site visits and contribute to and participate in the Program’s regular international seminars. Facilitators were identified to assist each working group in carrying out the first steps in their respective workplans. Details of working group activities during the reporting year follow. Participants in the Program’s international seminar on “Assessing the impact of participatory research and gender analysis” highlighted the importance of mainstreaming the use of PR and GA in the CG system and of working with the concept of stakeholder “diversity” rather than exclusively with gender. Many participants perceived the existence of a separate working group on gender as antithetical to the Program’s objective of integrating gender into everyday research practice. During the seminar, members of the GWG worked integrally with the two other working groups (PBG and NRMG). As a result, the Program decided to expand its focus formally to include stakeholders differentiated by levels of poverty, ethnicity, age, and other key characteristics as well as gender. Table 4. Membership in PRGA E-mail Listservers. Type of institutiona Listserverb PB NRM PRGA- Resource CGIAR Centers 43 40 36 NARS 28 19 2 Advanced Research Institutes 41 20 4 NGOs 13 6 - Other (private sector, donors, government) 15 48 10 Total 140 133 52 a. CGIAR = Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, NARS = national agricultural research systems, and NGOs = non-governmental organizations. b. PB = plant breeding and NRM = natural research management. PRGA resource group electronic network This group is composed of liaison persons from each IARC and external resource persons to support field researchers using participatory methods in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Electronic network membership of the PRGA Gender and Stakeholder Analysis Resource Group is by nomination. The respective Directors General at the different CG centers have appointed PRGA Program liaison persons. Annex 8 gives the respective data for each center. The PRGA Program staff synthesizes contributions and post inquiries from the IARC, NARI, and NGO collaborators as occasions arise. Box 2 Program Organization and Staffing 17 3 shows the different PRGA networks. Network efforts are complemented with information and materials posted on the PRGA Web site. Contributions made by Network members include: · Disseminating information on PR activities in their respective Center or Institution, · Authorship and/or contribution to PRGA papers on “research and development issues”, · Reviewing and testing an in-progress typology of PR approaches, · Contribution to PRGA Web Tool Kit and Resource Bank, and · Mentoring projects in need of support and advice on GA or PR. 2.4.2 Staffing In order to provide a critical mass of outstanding scientific capacity that can be deployed to work with individual IARCs or other inter-center initiatives and programs, the Program maintains a nucleus of three full-time, internationally recruited specialists who support collaborative research and capacity building. Program staff facilitate identification of research opportunities and needs, contribute to training, support the synthesis and international exchange of lessons learned among the various participants, and promote the dissemination of results. Staff are being recruited as funding permits and outposted to partner institutions to reinforce the research of the IARCs and our partners, as well as carry out capacity building. Annex 9 provides information on Program personnel. Specialist in gender analysis and NRM appointed Following the recommendation by the donor-support group to recruit a full-time, PhD-level scientist to lead the area of Gender Analysis, an international recruitment process was held. From the 35 CVs received, five candidates were short-listed (two withdrew). After an international screening process, followed by an internal selection process, Dr Maria Fernandez was appointed, joining the Program in June 1998. Dr Fernandez was outposted to Peru as of January 1999. Box 3 PRGA networks · PRGAinfor@cgnet.com – gives general administrative information on the Systemwide Program. Everyone on the other lists is also on this one (299 participants). · NRMGROUP-PRGA@cgnet.com – shares information on meetings, relevant publications, etc. and stimulates interactive dialogue on participatory NRM (133 members). · PBG@cgnet.com – shares information on meetings, relevant publications, etc. and stimulates interactive dialogue on PPB (140 members). · PRGA-resource@cgnet.com – is the most recent of the networks. It links CG gender focal points and PRGA liaison persons and is intended to facilitate communication among IARCs and external resource persons. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 18 Research fellowships Kirsten Probst, a doctoral student from the University of Hohenheim, is working with the NRM working group, assessing the benefits of rural women’s participation in NRM and capacity building. Kirsten joined the Program in June 1998 to carry out case studies in Honduras. Nadine Saad, MA in Political Science and Environmental Studies, from the University of Toronto- Canada, is working on PPB in Latin American NARS. She is based at PRGA Program HQ. A small grant and fellowship was awarded to the AHI - International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) to support collaborative research with AHI, CIAT, CIMMYT, and ILRI in East Africa. Postdoctoral Fellow in participatory approaches to NRM Recruitment began in June 1998 after funding was confirmed. An international screening committee drawn from members of IARCs, NGOs, and NARS participating in the Program short-listed five applicants for screening and ranking on the basis of their CVs and references. Two candidates were interviewed in December. The successful candidate, Barun Gurung (PhD in anthropology), will focus on GA, starting in April 1999, based at Resources Nepal in Katmandu. He will cover Asia and the South Pacific and work closely with CIMMYT-Nepal and the Himalayan Network. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) specialist At the annual meeting held in Quito in September, the Planning Group recommended that a new position be financed to provide research leadership in impact assessment and to work closely with Program coordination and stakeholders. Recruitment for this position began in November 1998, and interviews will be conducted in April 1999. 3 Participatory PBG 19 3 Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group (PBG) 3.1 Workplan The 5-year workplan developed by the PBG in 1996 has four main outputs (see Annex 2). These have proved highly useful as an organizing framework for activities, and they have remained valid over time. However, two additions were added to the logframe to anticipate future trends and concerns. i. Biotechnology-assisted PPB. Under Output 1, which focuses on effective participatory PB methods, we have added biotechnology-assisted, formal- and farmer-led PPB, and those methods that work with either stable or variable materials. ii. Property Rights, Ethical Concerns, and Best Practice in PPB Collaborations. A new output was added (now No. 5), which addresses user access to PPB processes and products through identifying and/or developing appropriate benefit-sharing mechanisms (see logframe, Annex 2). This parallels Output 4, which addresses user access to PPB processes and products through identification of effective support and dissemination services (such as seed services). 3.2 Progress to Date 3.2.1 Activities The activities for achieving the outputs above are a continuation of those reported in the last Annual Report and are listed below. · Commissioning state-of the art reviews (documents and books) to review and reflect on current and on “better” practices. · Effecting worldwide inventories to describe and analyze the full range of PPB practice (by such variables as breeding methods used, crop type, institutional base, gender, and stakeholder expertise). · Developing informal think networks – to move PPB discussion forward in a dynamic way, with multiple stakeholders being given voice. · Disseminating results and methods widely (presently in three languages and in different formats according to audience). The PBG weaves these activities within a philosophy consciously directed at: · Accomplishing together what no single or even several institutions can do alone, · Adding value to existing work through strong collaborative support, and · Commissioning studies only in key gap areas. As such, the PBG aims for high-quality processes (strategic, effective, transparent, and fair) and quality products. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 20 In the last year, four areas have seen significant progress in moving forward the PPB research agenda of PPB. 3.2.2 “State-of-the-Art” Papers Two papers were completed April 1999 – March 2000: i. Smith ME, Weltzien R, Meitzner LS, Sperling L. Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding from the perspective of formal plant breeding. ii. Thro AM, Spillane CS. Biotechnology-assisted participatory plant breeding: complement or contradiction? These papers are significant landmarks, together with the inventories of PPB on which they draw, providing visibility to PPB as a field of research. The papers were provided to the CGIAR TAC Review Panel on Breeding Methodology in the CGIAR, which carried out its work in 1999–2000. The Executive Summaries of these two papers appear in Annex 10. Both summarize and anticipate future trends in formal-led research, and in farmer-led research to which the public sector gives key support. Demand for these papers has been extremely high. They are available in hard copy, through the PRGAinfo Listserver, which has over 160 members. The papers are also posted on the PRGA Web page. (For comparative purposes, the Executive Summary of the farmer-led PPB paper, completed in February 1999, is also included in Annex 10). The following process was followed to include a broad cross section of perspectives and experiences in the development of these papers: a. Initial outlines were widely circulated—on listservers and beyond. b. Case selection and documentation enjoyed wide consultation (e.g., 300 letters sent to amass biotechnology - PPB cases). c. Listserver discussion was facilitated for ideas and feedback (separate biotechnology - PPB and farmer-led PPB listservers were set up to encourage focused exchange among highly interested— and specialized—individuals). d. Individual sections of each paper were fed back directly to specific “partners” (those who had effected the work) for comment on accuracy and interpretation. All “personal communications” were double-checked with the speaker. e. Oversight committee of three to five “experts” read and critiqued full paper. f. For the formal-led paper, the full paper was posted on listserver twice prior to publication for feedback on accuracy and interpretation. Through such a process, the PBG aims to obtain more accurate papers, more representative of cases worldwide and across institutions, and more analytical pieces in that they draw from varied sides of any single debate. Such a process is obviously transparent and permits broad-based ownership in any single 3 Participatory PBG 21 document. Greater ownership should lead to greater reflection on and/or internalization of the “lessons learned”. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 22 Gender in PPB Our strategy with the PBG (and the PRGA as a whole) has been to integrate both gender and stakeholder concerns into the core of research strategies, methods used, and capacity-building efforts. Two types of “gender-sensitive” thrusts are described below. Integration of gender and user analysis in PPB case inventories Inventories are in the process of being put on the World Wide Web as searchable databases. Extensive inventories now exist of both formal-led PPB (about 50 cases) and farmer-led PPB (about 20 cases). These inventories analyze the technical- and development-oriented content of cases. The gender and user orientation or lack of it is still in progress for each case. Five sets of questions are being asked of each PPB project: i. Who is directly involved and at what stage? Stages are setting goals, diagnosing preferences, actual breeding or selection, evaluation, seed production. ii. Who is indirectly involved? iii. How does stakeholder involvement effect the design of research? How does stakeholder involvement affect the scale of the research? iv. Who directly benefits—and how is this linked to involvement (for what type of impacts)? v. Who has control over products and processes emerging from PPB (property rights, seed multiplication and distribution)? Mainstreaming gender and user research issues within ongoing programs through small grants Attention to gender is a criterion of the submission and selection guidelines for small grants. Each proposal had to meet the minimum criteria of: having men and women on the research staff; working with male and female farmers; incorporating GA perspectives throughout all cycles of the proposed project; and evaluating gender-differentiated benefits of the PPB project. However, the 6-month and first year reports of nine projects receiving small grants show that few have really internalized the importance of gender and user differentiation at the heart of their research. For example, while programs may have both men and women involved in varietal evaluations, they still fail to disaggregate responses by gender (or other key social variables). Projects in some cases attribute their “problems in interacting with female farmers” as caused by their lack of female staff. One project, Fundación Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andina (PROINPA), has recently hired a number of female Masters students. Others simply do not realize their limitations; they are still “analyzing the social data” while the breeding component moves at full speed. The need for skill building in GA in PPB is evident. To build gender and user analysis capacity in PPB projects, each small grant will be assisted in making an explicit “gender and user research plan”—in the same way that they have breeding protocols and monitoring protocols. 3 Participatory PBG 23 3.2.3 Best Practice, Ethical Issues, and Property Rights in PPB Project rationale Joint collaboration should mean joint benefit sharing. At this time, no ready-made arrangements or “best practices” can be suggested for the processes and materials that emerge from PPB collaborations. Most of the PPB work to date has simply skirted the property rights’ issues with two highly diverse strategies: i. Materials jointly developed by formal breeders and farming communities have been fed into the formal variety release and seed multiplication system (completely unrecognizing farmers’ input); or ii. The PPB-developed materials have been “released” or “let go” into farming communities – with no official launch of any kind. This has had positive impact among farmers mostly with self-pollinated crops, where seed increase and quality issues are relatively easy for farmers to manage at their own acceptable levels. The urgency to define property rights issues for PPB arises at an opportune time. The farmers’ rights debate seems stalled in many quarters on political, legal, and practical levels. Further, the Plant Breeders’ Rights legislation makes varied assumptions about how much formal breeders control the process (to the exclusion of farmers)—assumptions that have rarely been placed under closer scrutiny. Exploration of property rights, and related issues within the field of PPB offers the possibility of giving a second mirror to these other realms. Participatory plant breeding has the advantage of being able to follow farmers’ practical, and often varying, contribution in highly specific ecological and historical contexts. Similarly, within PPB work, plant breeders’ contribution is given well-defined geographical and historical specificity. Participatory plant breeding has many variations, ranging from superficial consultation of farmer preferences to farmers’ being actually involved in choosing parents and crossing material. Scrutiny of the variations of PPB—and the reflections on property rights associated with these different farmer and breeder relationships—might indeed prove useful for grounding some of the discussions of farmer rights and plant breeder rights. The PRGA’s work on property rights and PPB is unique. We aim to develop several different types of outputs: · State-of-the-art paper analyzing PPB-type cases in reference to existing legal regimes in the field of intellectual property, access, and related legislation. (Civil law options, such as direct contracts, will be sketched.) · Background paper on “Approaches to addressing deficits in legislation that are critical for PPB work”. · Best practice guide: recommendations and principles for implementing PPB. Note: we use the term “property rights” as shorthand for considering three separate, but related, aspects: legal issues, best practice options to guide field programs, and ethical concerns in PPB work. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 24 Progress to date Process outlined. The process for arriving at a best practice has to be as rigorous, and as consciously equitable, as the product. The process has been defined in nine central tasks and involves a mixture of: · Wide consultation with PPB practitioners within PBG and beyond (e.g., the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice [SBSTTA] Secretariat), · Focused analyses by legal specialists, · Discussions and negotiations on best practice by a highly informed working group (with IARC, NARS, civil society, private sector representation), and · A review of results on a reiterative basis by all involved, including the Planning Committee of the PRGA. Legal specialist contracted. An IPR specialist was contracted to prepare necessary background documents. He has broad knowledge of CGIAR policy and emerging types of national legislation as well as a substantial background in developing local and indigenous peoples rights’ decrees relating to domesticated species. The IPGRI IPR lawyer has also volunteered to serve as a legal backstop. PBG listserver engaged. Over a period of 4 months, the overall proposal has been posted twice on the listserver for general comment. Many on the serve have never addressed the issue of property rights in their work – and others have done so vigorously – but mainly on an advocacy, rather than a practical basis. The overwhelming response has been that a project needs to be done. The PBG listserver is now discussing the first two substantive steps of the process: defining variables to discriminate among PPB cases, and constructing type-cases for comment. First two major substantive steps under debate. Variables for differentiating PPB cases and the first delineation of PPB type-cases are to be analyzed. Seven cases are outlined under 3.5.6. 3.3 Capacity Building in PPB The PRGA capacity-building strategy has multiple thrusts, as outlined below. The year 1999 is particularly notable for moving into the development strategies to reach Spanish-speaking PPB practitioners. Year 2000 will be marked by a “Francophone” thrust. 3.3.1 Listservers The listserver in English This server is growing in number and geographic spread (i.e., two new members are from Afghanistan and Samoa) and as of March 2000 has over 175 members. The listserver continues to encourage an exchange of ideas on focused topics: i.e., property rights and best practice discussions were launched in December 1999. The listserver also posts notice of publications and the full text of PRGA documents (for those not having good access to libraries). Key meetings, employment opportunities – of the PRGA and beyond – are also posted. The listserver in Spanish: – Fitomejoramiento Participativo (FMP) 3 Participatory PBG 25 This server was established at the request of the participants of the International Symposium on PPB in Latin America and the Caribbean (August 1999). They asked to form a Spanish language E-mail network to continue to exchange information and emerging issues in PPB. This network runs parallel to the English listserver - PBG facilitated by the PRGA. The two groups are bridged by periodic messages from the facilitators summarizing and translating crossover discussions. Although some of the members are on both lists, FMP and PBG are quite different in their membership representation and substantive discussions – the PBG being 2 years older. Members of the FMP listserver are at the stage of introducing themselves, explaining their respective interest and involvement in PPB, and proposing themes for group analysis. The eventual aim of the PRGA is to merge the two lists. But this will be only after the Spanish server has established a sense of regional ownership in PPB and accomplished a solid self-analysis of how PPB concerns in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) may be distinct or coincident with research directions on other continents. Presently the FMP listserver has 65 members from 16 countries. Table 5 shows the breakdown by type of organization represented on the FMP listserver. Table 5. Types of organization on the Fitomejoramiento Participativo (FMP) Spanish language participatory plant breeding Listservera. Type of organization Members on FMP (no.) National agricultural research systems (NARS) 22 International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) 13 Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 12 Universities 8 Private organizations 4 International government organizations (IGOs) 3 Other 4 Total 66 a. Countries represented: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, (Italy), Guatemala, Mexico, (Netherlands), Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, (USA), Venezuela. Of the 65 FMP members, 24 attended the Latin America and the Caribbean Symposium. 3.3.2 PPB Guidelines A second draft of these “how-to” guidelines was issued in English and Spanish (for the first time) in June 1999. Our strategy is to up-date them every 6 months based on synthesizing lessons learned from overview reports, small grants, and affiliated projects. We are also tailoring the guidelines to region- Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 26 specific needs, that is, giving them an African, Asian, and Latin American lens by elaborating them in working groups at each of the Regional Symposia. (A Latin American and Caribbean Workshop was held in Quito, August 1999, a South Asian Symposium is to be held in May 2000, and a West African Symposium in March 2001). “Crossing perspectives: farmers and scientists in participatory plant breeding” is a promotional booklet on PPB, which was published in October 1999. Its objective is to introduce the PPB area of research to researchers and donors, highlighting its difference from conventional breeding, its methods, and most importantly, its impacts. The narrative of about 30 pages (including illustrations) begins with an explanation of what PPB is and who its beneficiaries are. It then distinguishes between formal- and farmer-led PPB and the different physical and economic environments, institutional settings, and plant breeding stages in which PPB may unfold. Case studies bring the text to life, illustrating work in progress and impacts of advanced projects in many parts of the world. Crucial issues in PPB, such as the use of biotechnology and IPRs, are also briefly addressed. 3.3.3 Seminars and Training ICARDA-PRGA participatory research workshop, May 1999 This workshop served to expose a wide range of scientists in the North and the Middle East to ongoing PR in both breeding and natural resource management. Forty-eight representatives attended the workshop. They were mainly breeders from national programs in 17 different countries, including Ecuador, China, Iran, and Eritrea. Two NARS have well advanced programs underway in PPB for barley breeding. This meeting gave very good visibility to the PRGA and the effort to promote understanding of PPB approaches. WARDA-PRGA training (in French) for NARS, April 1999 The PRGA facilitated this training workshop (April 16-27 1999), geared to improve specific participatory variety selection (PVS) in the 17 WARDA-member countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, The Gambia, Ghana, Mauritania, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, Mali, Liberia, and Senegal. Participants included NARS scientists (both a breeder and social scientist from each country), United Nations’ volunteers, extension agents, and representatives from development projects. The program was divided into two parts: intensive training in key participatory and gender and stakeholder techniques (e.g., communication skills, and recording and analyzing qualitative data), and rigorous analysis of specific PVS workplans and progress (e.g., farmer selection, protocols) for each of the countries represented. Projects in this region are funded for 3 years from a grant given by the Government of Japan. The first set of grantees has funds for the period 1998- 2001; the second set from 1999-2002. The WARDA PVS is based on a prototype model that is adapted to country-specific needs. Basically it advises putting 40-60 rice materials (breeders’ choices, farmers’ bests, some inter-specifics) in “community plots” either on individualized farms or in centralized locations managed by extension agents. Farmers from surrounding communities are invited to evaluate these local trials and select several varieties for subsequent testing on their own farms. In the third year, farmers are asked to buy the seed; they continue to be interested in the varietal performance of the new entries. 3 Participatory PBG 27 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 28 The WARDA model is particularly innovative in at least two features: i. PVS is being initiated on a large scale: 17 countries within 2 years, and ii. Seed multiplication is being tied to the PVS work from the initial stages. 3.3.4 International Symposium on Participatory Plant Breeding in Latin America and the Caribbean: an Exchange of Experiences: August-September 1999 From August 31 to September 3 1999, the SWP on PRGA held an International Symposium on PPB in LAC in Quito, Ecuador. The meeting gathered together 75 scientists, social scientists, and farmers, from 12 countries in the region to discuss the importance and results, methodologies and strategies, and the beneficiaries and environments of PPB. The Symposium was organized with the help of an international Steering Committee composed of members of the national agricultural research programs of Brazil, Ecuador, and Cuba. More than 40 presentations were given on ongoing work in the region including PVS and breeding with potatoes (and other Andean roots and tubers), sweet potatoes, cassava, wheat, beans, rice, maize, millet, bananas, Barbados cherry, citrus, squash, garden vegetables, and forages. Presentations were also given on producing low-cost seed using tissue culture, using biotechnology techniques with farmers, in-situ conservation, seed systems, indigenous knowledge, IPRs, capacity building, and scaling-up of PR approaches, among others. A half-day “teach-in” followed after 2 days of presentations and a field visit to two local agricultural research committees (CIALs, the Spanish acronym) promoted by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). At this “teach-in”, learning workshops were given on GA, communication strategies with farmers, capacity building with farmers, and varietal preference ranking. Two sessions were also held in which participants discussed and contributed to the Guidelines for PPB, a document that is the ongoing product of a 2-year exchange among members of the broad-based PBG of the PRGA Program. The next edition of this document will include input from the symposium participants. The farmer-breeders’ workshop, which ran parallel to the scientific meeting, was an important innovation in bringing farmer-led research into an organized interaction with public sector formal research. This workshop took place mainly on the experiment station of Ecuador’s national institute for agricultural research, INIAP. A tour was given of the installations (including the laboratories, the gene bank, and the seed depository) and demonstration sessions were held with breeders of the roots and tubers, beans, and cereals programs. In these sessions, farmers were shown (and showed one another) how to make crosses in potatoes, beans, and maize. They also touched on elementary aspects of genetic heritability and conservation, seed storage, and pest control. The symposium culminated with a farmer-scientist plenary in which each group asked the other questions that they had been preparing during the symposium. This interaction helped to bring out issues that neither group had yet addressed (see section 5 on farmer-led research). 3 Participatory PBG 29 On the whole, the symposium was highly successful in bringing together practitioners and interested scientists and farmers, many of whom did not know of one another’s work beforehand. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 30 One participant wrote to the PRGA after the symposium: “We are about to finish our paper for the proceedings of the symposium. We hope that it is not too long as it has grown with the enthusiasm that the meeting inspired. We are very thankful that you invited us to participate because it has given us much more enthusiasm about our work with farmers and we do not feel so out on a limb as before.” The participants of the symposium (with access to E-mail) agreed to form a Spanish-language E-mail network to continue to exchange information and discuss issues in PPB. All the presentations given at the symposium, as well as excerpts from the scientist-farmer plenary, will be available in proceedings to be published by the PRGA Program in April 2000. 3.3.5 The IARCs’ Capacity Building and Awareness Building PBG listserver Eleven IARCs are signed up on the PBG listserver, representing 43 scientists. While a core of about 10 are actively involved in discussions, others “listen”, and reflect on issues normally not discussed at their home centers (e.g., novel benefit-sharing mechanisms, and how to work more effectively with farmer organizations). No CG scientist has asked to be removed from this serve in its 2½ years of existence. Mid-term meeting seminar, May 1999 Jacqueline A Ashby gave this seminar on “Mainstreaming gender analysis and participatory research in the CGIAR”. It was extremely well attended. International Centers’ Week seminar, October 1999 The subject of the seminar was “The science of gender analysis and participation in participatory plant breeding.” It sought to give an overview of key trends in the PPB field. In addition, it gave high visibility to the work of key PRGA partners. The presentations included those listed overleaf. 3 Participatory PBG 31 PRGA partners Yemen - Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA), Morocco - Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Syria IRRI - Indira Ghandi Agricultural University (IGAU) - Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology (NDUAT) -Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI) - Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station (CRURRS) - Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) - Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD) - Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) - Rossing - Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), Namibia Empresa Brasilera de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) Department for International Development (DFID) - Centre for Arid Zone Studies (CAZS) - LI-BIRD - Women in Rice Farming Project (WIRFP) Presentation PPB brings research efficiency and faster adoption in marginal areas (by S Ceccarelli) Breeding better rice varieties through participation of male and female farmers in eastern India (by T Paris) Enhancing biodiversity and production through PPB (by B Sthapit) Farmers in the driver’s seat: the Namibia millet success story (by R Ortiz) Participatory cassava breeding: targeting and reaching small farmers in the Brazilian Northeast (by W Fukuda) The impact of PVS and the promise of PPB in high potential areas (J. Witcombe) Joint products The PBG is making conscious efforts to produce products jointly with co-sponsoring and other IARCs. The aim is to build “ownership” for the PRGA theme. Within the last year, the following products were “co-authored”. · Joint “publicity” efforts International Centers Week Seminar: ICARDA, IRRI, IPGRI, ICRISAT Traveling show of PPB cases: ICARDA, ICRISAT · Joint publications Formal-led PPB paper: with ICRISAT Impact paper on PPB: with ICRISAT Euphytica paper on PPB: with ICRISAT Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 30 Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) base-broadening paper: with ICRISAT 3 Participatory PBG 29 · Joint (co-sponsored) workshops South Asia PPB Symposium: with IPGRI (IRRI, CIMMYT to present) WARDA - training Seed systems in Africa: with CIAT · Methods support PPB guidelines demanded by: ICARDA – for North Africa IPGRI – for Samoa ICRISAT – for West Africa CIMMYT – for East Africa (Forwarded to IRRI, India) CIAT: East Africa · Small-grant support: CIAT IPGRI ICARDA CIP (CIMMYT- Soleri linked) (ICRISAT- proposal developing) 3.4 PBG Small Grants Table 6 lists the funded PBG small grants. No new ones were added during the current reporting period. All but one are on track and basically following their detailed workplans. The one astray seems to be northern-driven (university-based) and the local partners in Mexico have basically pulled out. Several highlights on small grants are set out below. Here we reflect on trends common to the set. The functioning ones are well on track in terms of technical concerns—with at least half of them exploring new horizons in PPB (e.g., linking the farmer field school (FFS) model to PPB). Our concerns lie primarily in the social sphere. Grantees have basically adopted a gender and user perspective somewhat superficially and their notion of participation generally remains “functional” and “consultative”. The coming year will be focused on building capacity within the PPB small grants in three areas: i. Gender and stakeholder analysis and integration. The PRGA will be sending highly skilled social scientists to visit all the small grants during 2000. Each small grant will have to make an explicit “gender and user research plan”—in the same way that they have breeding protocols and monitoring and evaluation plans. ii. Process monitoring and evaluation. Here the goal is to encourage self-reflection within the project on the “process” of participation, including decision making. iii. Setting up authentic stakeholder committees – to advise and monitor the progress of the PPB program. Small grants will be given guidance on membership of stakeholder committees, their functions and responsibilities, and managing a transparent process of consultation. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 30 Table 6. Small grants of participatory plant breeding working groups. (For acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex 20). Proposal No. Title Institution Collaborating Institutions Site Total value PRGA grant (US$) Co-financing (US$) Total value of project Duration Status PB-01 Village-based participatory breeding on the terraced mountain slopes of Yemen ICARDA, Syria AREA, Dhamar, Yemen Kuhlan-Affar district, Haija, Province of Yemen 70,000 ICARDA: 260,000 AREA: 38,000 368,000 2 yr Grant released PB-03 Incorporation of user channels in PPB in Ecuador INIAP, Ecuador Carchi, Pichincha, Cotopaxi, Tungurahua, Chimborazo, Cañar, Ecuador 69,520 40,400 109,920 2 yr Grant released PB-07 Farmers’ practice of domestication and their contribution to improvement of yams in West Africa GRST group, IPGRI, Italy Bariba, Nago, and Fon farmers selected through surveys (resources); University of Benin in collaboration with ORSTOM, INRAB, NARS of Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Guinea-Conakry, Nigeria, and Togo; IITA in collaboration with CIRAD North, Central, and South Benin 70,000 IITA: 174,000 IPGRI: 97,080 INRAB: 98, 720 UNB: 69,120 FSA: 7,680 516,600 2 yr Grant released PB-13 Amplification and use of the concepts of participatory research in cassava improvement EMBRAPA- CNPMF, Brazil CIAT, CPAC, EPACE, EBDA, EMDAGRO, and Secretary of Agriculture of Sergipe Cruz das Almas (Bahia), Brasilia- DF, Araripina (Pernambuco), Caetité (Bahia), Aquidaba, Simão Dias, and Ribeirópolis (Sergipe), Brazil 70,000 EMBRAPA: 30,000 EBDA: 45,000 PROSERTAO: 45,000 IFAD: 40,000 230,000 2 yr Grant released PB-16 Farmer-led participatory maize breeding in middle hills of Nepal LI-BIRD, Nepal Local farming community at project sites; NMRP, Rampur Agricultural Research Station, NARC, Rampur Chitwan Gulmi and Argakhanchi districts 57,000 27,000 84,000 2 yr Grant released 3 Participatory PBG 31 Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 32 Table 6 - Continued. Proposal No. Title Institution Collaborating Institutions Site Total value PRGA grant (US$) Co-financing (US$) Total value of project Duration Status PB-22 PPB of potato cultivars for resistance to late blight (Phytophthora infestans), nematodes (Nacobbus aberrans), and frost Fundación PROINPA, Bolivia - CIP Farmers from CIAL in Morochata, technicians from NGOs (PROSEMPA and ASAR) Piusilla Community and Compañia Pampa, Morochata region, Bolivia 48,100 85,391 133,491 2 yr Grant released PB-24 Development of new methodologies useful to PPB University of Arizona, USA UZACHI, Mexico Uni. California, Uni. Arizona Oaxaca, Mexico 20,000 19,268 39,268 2 yr Grant released PB-28 Participatory methodologies for genetic improvement of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) EAP, Zamorano, Honduras IPCA- Uni. Guelph; UNIR - EAP, Zamorano; PRR; CPRO-DLO - Neths. Santa Bárbara and Yorito, Honduras 70,000 35,000 105,000 1 yr Approved PB-29 Participatory development of low- cost, simplified, rustic tissue culture propagation for cassava FIDAR, Colombia - Rural community near Santander de Quilichao, Cauca, Colombia 70,200 77,800 148,000 3 yr Grant released PB-30 Incorporating farmers’ knowledge and formal models of their decision making in participatory improvement of cassava-maize intercropping. CORPOICA, Colombia (A. Lopez’ dissertation) Uni. Wales, School of Agricultural and Forest Science Los Palmitos and Betulia (Sucre), Plato and Pivijay (Magdalena), El Carmen (Bolívar), Ciénaga de Oro; San Pelayo, Ayapel, Chinú, and Montelíbano (Córdoba), Colombia 78,000 107,374 185,374 3 yr Approved Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 32 3.5 Affiliated Projects The PBG has a range of affiliated projects, embracing different degrees of collaboration. Each is briefly described below. Future annual reports will share highlights of these developing programs. 3.5.1 Participatory Plant Breeding with Women and Small-scale Farmers in Africa and Latin America This project is funded by DFID. It embraces three locations in Ethiopia (near Awassa in the southern Rift Valley, near Nazret in the central Rift Valley, and Alemaya in the Eastern Highlands); one in northern Tanzania near Arusha; and one in the North Coast area (also known as the Caribe Region) of Colombia. The overall purpose of the project is “to identify cost-effective breeding strategies that both improve production and enhance genetic diversity to benefit small-scale bean and cassava farmers, and specifically women of Latin America and Africa”. Three different breeding models are being directly compared. The NARS in the respective regions lead these projects, with backstopping from the PRGA, CIAT- Africa, and CIAT-Colombia. Year 1 of operation has just been completed. One of the more innovative thrusts launched involves comparison of different methods for beneficiary and user-group identification. Focus groups, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), key informant interviews, and evaluation of diverse germplasm nurseries are among the methods being compared and contrasted in terms of variables such as costs, ability to reach gender-differentiated users, accuracy and depth of information obtained, and skills required for execution. 3.5.2 Values, Knowledge, and Practice in Plant Breeding for Sustainable Agriculture: Differences among Breeders and the Possibility for Collaboration with Farmers The US National Science Foundation funds this project. David Cleveland (University of California- Santa Barbara), Daniela Soleri (University of Arizona), and Steven Smith (University of Arizona) conceptualized and are carrying out the research. Starting in October 1999, it is funded for a 2-year period. The goal is to analyze similarities and differences in knowledge and practice among and between plant breeders and farmers across different crop species, environments, and social institutional settings, and how greater understanding of these similarities and differences can contribute to the successful implementation of such projects. Three case studies will be conducted whose sites will be chosen shortly. Scientists of the PRGA serve on the Advisory Group of this project. 3.5.3 IPGRI in situ Conservation A member of the PRGA serves on the Technical Advisory Group of this important program. A recent meeting, July 1999, in Nepal brought together some 70 researchers from country projects based in Morocco, Mexico, Nepal, Turkey, and Vietnam. These biannual meetings are organized to permit participating projects (funded by diverse donors) to: 3 Participatory PBG 33 · Report on methodologies developed and field findings of the national projects, · Explore spheres of contrast and comparison among findings, · Exchange experiences in PR and stakeholder involvement (including farmers’ groups, NARS, NGOs, Universities, CG Centers), · Review progress of the different projects in the light of Global Project goals and outputs, and · Clarify future challenges and tasks. The support of the PRGA was appreciated. The Technical Advisory Group requested that the PRGA continue to work to enhance both PR and GA in the context of the subprojects. 3.5.4 IPGRI Home Gardens A PRGA staff member serves on the TAC of this program. The IPGRI Global Home Gardens Project is carried out with key national partners, members of the CGIAR, and local NGOs in Guatemala, Venezuela, Cuba, Ghana, and Vietnam. The main questions the project addresses are whether and how home gardens can contribute to in situ conservation systems. Starting from the premise that genetic diversity, ethnobotanical knowledge, and traditional agricultural practices are currently eroding, the project aims to assess the extent and type of genetic diversity that is preserved in the home garden at the ecosystem, species, and intra-specific levels. Second, data are being collected to determine what factors or combination of factors affect the conservation and use of this diversity. Information on both plant diversity and home garden structure will be combined with social data and household typologies in order to identify parameters that allow individual gardens to be grouped into viable conservation systems or “conservation management units”. (There are no specific activities to report for this last annual reporting period.) 3.5.5 Support to PhD Students Scientists of the PRGA are advising and partially supporting two PhD students. Mekbib Frew is Ethiopian and started to pursue doctoral studies at the Norwegian Agricultural University, in February 2000. His research will look at the usefulness of molecular marker-assisted selection for supporting PPB programs. Antonio Jose Lopez is Colombian and started to pursue doctoral studies at the University of Wales in 1998, with fieldwork commencing April 1999. The title of his dissertation is “Farmers’ knowledge and formal models of their decision making in participatory improvement of cassava-maize intercropping.” The project aims to develop methods for incorporating both local knowledge and formal models of how farmers make decisions into participatory technology development. 3.5.6 Variations in PPB We recognize that there are substantial variations in PPB (as there are, in reality, even in many farmer breeding situations). We aim to identify the 8-10 classic types by analyzing programs along the variables listed below. These seem to be key for differentiating legal, ethical, and best practice. i. Clarification of expectations Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 34 Was there any (oral or written) agreement? Yes or no: rough or detailed (as to which of the following variables has agreement been achieved)? ii. Goals of PPB Possible goals include production increase, quality improvement, variety conservation, enhancement, farmer skill building, and empowerment. iii. Quality of participation of farmers and researchers Three elements are relevant for qualifying the quality of participation of farmers and researchers: - Degree of participation (consultative with scientist-lead), collaborative (jointly), and collegial (farmer- or community-led) - Functions performed by participants, including technical expertise, organizational skills, information giving, teaching and skill building, field labor, and providing inputs (land, seeds, funds) - Stage of involvement in breeding process, which includes defining overall goals and breeding targets, generating variability, selection in early segregating populations, variety testing and evaluation, and seed multiplication and distribution. i. Profiles of participants (in relation to the quality of participation). These are of individual and group, and male and female. ii. Type of germplasm used. The status of the germplasm under the current mainstream legal frameworks (this covers and goes beyond what formally was the category of local or exotic in the first communiqué). Who owns the material? Is any material used subject to IPRs? Does use of the material require prior informed consent of any country or community (access legislation)? What are the implications of the legal status of the germplasm for the use and distribution of any results, such as plant varieties? iii. Local views on ownership and associated responsibilities on germplasm. - Breeding or propagation processes used. Are the processes subject to exclusive rights? - Sites used for the PPB program - researcher sites, individual farmer plots, community plots. - Type of end product – homogeneous, less, or not homogenous. - Means by which product is distributed – informal or formal seed channels. Below we have outlined a range of cases in which there has been PPB collaboration. They include both farmer- and formal-led collaborations. The cases in general represent the most common of the current applications of PPB. However, several have been constructed to anticipate future trends in PPB. Case 1 Formal breeders decide to increase the production of a crop in a given farming area. There is no prior agreement with the local population, which is mixed ethnically and has no strong views on germplasm rights one way or the other. Formal breeders screen exotic stabilized materials received from an IARC and they make decisions at all stages. Formal breeders decide what to put into on-farm trials. Individual farmers, mostly male, run the on-farm trials. Farmer preferences are taken into account for the formal release of varieties. The released varieties are forwarded to the state seed distribution chain. Case 2 3 Participatory PBG 35 Formal researchers are given the government mandate to improve crop production in marginal areas and specifically seek out farmer breeding priorities there. There is no prior consultation or subsequent formal agreement with the communities involved. Researchers realize that the existing available NARS germplasm has few promising materials. They initiate a crossing program using some local germplasm and some germplasm supplied by a neighboring NARS. On-station, breeders do several cycles of screening. Interested farmers from the local target communities, some women, some men, are brought on station for evaluation of materials including feedback on specific desired traits. On the basis of farmer and breeder assessments, segregating material is put with farming communities in researcher-designed, but community-managed, plots. The material stabilizes on farm. Farmers and breeders pick the most promising finished materials. Varieties are put through formal release and multiplication process. Case 3 Farmer communities make a decision to build on and improve the quality of their existing, local germplasm. Although they want higher yields, they are concerned about keeping their local variety diversity. They highly value free exchange of materials among themselves. In fact, giving a seed gift is a true sign of friendship. An “outside” scientist is called in to help devise a strategy for “strengthening” (making more productive) local germplasm. Community leaders insist that the final product will be for the local community with the right of the locals to decide on any further distribution. A local NGO has given funds to enable this program. The contracted scientist initiates a crossing program to improve “weaknesses” in local materials and collaborates with members designated by the Community Council—composed of male elders. The community represented by the community elders approves the stabilized end products, which have been tested at farmers’ homes. The scientist is paid and thanked and the community decides its own path. Case 4 This case is a variation on case 3 where a technology is involved, which is a private company’s patent. A women’s cooperative of large size thinks it can make money from potatoes if members get rid of the tubers’ blemishes. Supported by an NGO, aiming for female empowerment, they call in a NARS researcher for consultation. He indeed confirms a virus problem and agrees that he and his institute can help the women’s group. He proposes to breed potatoes resistant to the blemish-causing insects. For this purpose a patented resistance gene will be introduced into the potato. A private company holds the patent granted for the gene. The NARS personnel alert the cooperative that the end product has to be officially cleared under the newly adopted biosafety framework. Subsequently the women’s group gets their product. Simultaneously it is put through an official release process. Case 5 In the course of making a survey, formal researchers discover an innovative farmer breeder who has developed an “interesting population” from local materials. They ask the farmer if they can have a sample, but no formal agreement is made. Scientists plant this population on station, stabilize it, and come up with a highly productive mix. The product is sufficiently homogenized to be released through a formal release process. Case 6 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 36 Scientists are concerned about the decreased use of a certain minor crop, which is important for local nutritional needs. Because this particular crop is not among the NARS priority mandates, they aim to develop a program that strengthens farmers’ own skills to maintain the crop and ensure planting material quality. Scientists invite key farmers from the region – locally recognized as experts – to pursue a specialized training on plant improvement. The communities involved have themselves prioritized the need for technical support to ensure the crop’s maintenance, but no formal collaborative agreement has been signed. Fifty local experts are trained, both men and women, and formal scientists remain on hand to give occasional advice. The training proves effective for conserving and even improving the quality of the local crop. Case 7 Formal researchers and community decide together that new genetic variation is needed. No formal collaborative agreements are signed. (Farmers’ viewpoint old germplasm is “tired” and not productive enough. Formal researchers’ viewpoint: old material is too homogenous and declining in yields.) Individual goals of the PPB are set: production increase and varietal diversity enhancement. Formal researchers give novel (to community) and substantial bean and rice materials to community (already stable lines, but not released varieties). They are materials coming from NARS gene banks in the region. Community in this case refers to select farmers, male and female who are interested in testing new germplasm and have sufficient sized plots to take large numbers. The community has not elected individual testers. Formal researchers only require that “recipient farmers” freely allow other farmers to screen their home plots and take samples of the materials they desire. Several years later, researchers make a return follow-up visit to the community. The most widely popular of the farmer-selected varieties (those grown on many plots) are subsequently put through formal release and multiplication procedures – and moved to more distant communities. The other varieties (often site- or criteria- specific) are moved through local farmer multiplication and distribution channels. Analysis of the farmer- selected germplasm shows that some of the materials are true to the originals and others have evolved into criolla types. 4 Participatory NRMG 37 4 Participatory Natural Resource Management Working Group (NRMG) 4.1 Workplan The NRMG was first formed at the inaugural seminar of the SWP held at CIAT in September 1996. As a result of intensive group work carried out during the seminar, a 5-year workplan was designed. The plan specifies four major outputs: i. Synthesis of the state of the art in applying PR-GA approaches in NRM research for different types of technologies across three scales of management4 compared. ii. Improved crop and NRM strategies incorporating better use of existing and new PR-GA methods at different scales of management developed and disseminated. iii. Organizational capacity to use PR-GA methods in NRM research, improved with a focus on farmers, local institutions, individual scientists and extension workers, and research and extension institutions. iv. Effective methods for involving gender-differentiated and other direct and indirect stakeholders in NRM developed. 4.1.1 Activities The activities planned for achieving these outputs include: · Inventory and assess current participatory methods and GA in use for improving NRM technology in processes involving individual farmers and through collective action. · Identify some cases for empirical study, to experiment with and compare different approaches. · Action research on alternative ways to scale up coverage of participatory approaches to NRM research. · Compare options for institutionalizing various approaches. · Disseminate guidelines on implementing innovative approaches, their costs and benefits, and give organizational support to participating groups and institutions for the use of PRGA in NRM research. 4.1.2 Specific Outputs for 1999-2000 The specific outputs include: · State-of-the-art analysis for PR and GSA in NRM (PR-NRM). Inventory (designed as a searchable database on Web page) of community-based NRM projects initiated with over 400 projects queried for information on types of PR methods, use of GSA, technology, and impacts. 4 Three scales of NRM are (a) field and farm level, (b) community, and (c) beyond community, for example watershed management. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 38 · Case studies of innovative research in participatory NRM from CG centers published in informative booklet. · NRM and PPB impact and cost studies: seven cases selected and data collection designed ready for collaborative field research. · Types of participation questionnaire for NRM and PPB grant recipients. “Assessing the impact of using participatory research and gender analysis “ book edited and in press. 4.1.3 Coordination of the NRMG In mid-September 1997, Brij Kothari, of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A) joined the program together with Astad Pastakia and Vijaya Sherry Chand of SRISTI as co-facilitators of the NRMG. They are consultants to the Program and contribute on a part-time basis. From 1998 to 1999, Maria Fernandez assumed Coordination of the NRM and Small Grants in view of the focus of the NRM Small Grants on the use of Gender Analysis. She left the PRGA in 1999. Ann Braun was then hired as consultant to facilitate the group. Her starting point was the small subgroup then called the NRM Scientists’ Group, which met at Chatham in September 1999, and is now known as the Participatory NRM Group (PNRM). 4.2 Progress to date 4.2.1 Inventorying “State-of-the-Art” Practice of Participatory Research in NRM Progress in analyzing and synthesizing the state of the art in use of gender-sensitive PR approaches in NRM research has been more difficult to achieve than in PPB, and slower as a result. Consultants and subsequently the PRGA gender specialist had difficulty in defining a universe from which to sample cases for inventorying, given the sheer volume and diversity of work-in-progress outside the CGIAR. About 50 cases drawn from participants in Program capacity-building events were surveyed. A paper was drafted with a preliminary typology derived from the results of the survey. It provides some insights about work in progress, but what the cases represent in relation to the large body of other work is difficult to say, and the typology is generic rather than specific to NRM as a result. A different approach was taken in drafting the document, “The Quality of Participation”, which will be circulated to small-grant recipients for use and feedback in May 2000. The document aims to help practitioners assess: · What type or types of participation they are currently using at different stages in their research process; · Whether stakeholder analysis and user differentiation are being applied at appropriate points in this process; and · If the roles, responsibilities, and skills for implementing participation in their research are consistent with the type of participation in use. 4 Participatory NRMG 39 As part of the design of the NRM impact assessment studies, a questionnaire was distributed to small grants and about 400 other cases. It asks about the types of participation and types of GA being used in different stages of innovation. Annex 11 gives the questionnaire and supporting documents, as well as the report outline of this survey (PRGA Working Document 6). The Program only recently succeeded in establishing the right partnership or internal staff capacity to provide leadership to consolidate a group of interested scientists to support this work in NRM. An important Program Milestone in this respect was the NRM Scientists’ Meeting held in September 1999, which created this group. They formed a “Book Committee” and defined other follow-up tasks to advance the state-of-the-art analysis, on which they are taking action. The NRM scientists’ group will meet again in the Program’s III International Seminar and Workshop in November 2000. Recognizing the diversity of NRM, the 5-year work-plan does not call for synthesized best practices in the form of a guide for NRM participatory research. This type of product is being developed for specific research areas such as is integrated pest management (IPM) for which a specific collaboration to support farmer-led research is under way with the CG SWP on IPM. Another area for use of participatory approaches is integrated nutrient management. In 1999, a collaborative relationship with the SWNM to support farmer-led research was developed with this in mind. Collaborative capacity- building activities with CG projects such as the Central American Hillsides Project, the AHI, and the SWNM Program have catalyzed the integration of GA and PR methods into the agenda of these programs. An important conclusion drawn from the state-of-the-art analysis for NRM so far is that within the huge volume of participatory (or community-based) management of natural resources, participatory research in NRM is surprisingly difficult to detect. This is the case for almost all of the 130 pre-proposals received in response to the Program’s call for NRM proposals in 1998. This tendency may reflect a prevailing assumption that a large backlog of on-the-shelf technology can be transferred to farmers, provided that participatory extension and the right policy incentives are in place. A second conclusion from the analysis is that an important gap in ongoing work is how to mesh farmer-led research with participatory learning processes (in which farmers and scientists exchange indigenous and scientific knowledge). How to identify and analyze women’s changing demand for agricultural technology and promote specific research and technology development action based on the above may be done via a network, or a different approach may be more appropriate. A review of sources of information was completed in 1999 (Step 1) and the results made available to PRGAinfo, the Program’s general electronic listserver. The review will soon be accessible on the PRGA Web page with links to the main sites for further information, helping to facilitate straightforward access for CG scientists who want to consult existing work. An enormous body of literature and experience is available on agricultural development efforts designed to benefit women, some of which includes technology for women. Any review of achievements to date has to significantly reduce the scope of analysis. The questions guiding this work are: Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 40 · What lessons can be learned from experience in the major areas of CG investment in research (i.e., rice, maize commodity research), from experience in a major NRM research area (e.g., soil, water, and nutrient management), and in a non-CG area of work (e.g., postharvest processing)? · What are the gaps in this work? · What is the need for the CG to address any of these gaps? A consultant was appointed in March 2000 to write a position paper drawing on the available evidence and focussing on selected examples of research areas. The position paper will provide the basis for a strategy and proposal for action (draft to be available by the CG mid-term meeting in May 2000). 4.2.2 NRM Typology A paper is in progress that sheds some light on the multiplicity of participatory approaches and methods in NRM research, and that aims at structuring and classifying the diversity of approaches in this field. The paper will consist of three parts. The first part presents the results of a study of 53 CGIAR-related projects with which the PRGA Program has come into contact. The study looks at the diversity of approaches prevailing in NRM research and analyses the relationship between different sets of variables (e.g., type of participation, objectives, and stakeholders involved). The study also discusses the issue of “labeling” of participatory approaches, that is, the discrepancy of “intention and rhetoric” and “reality” of participation. The second part of the paper is an attempt to structure and typify the multiplicity of approaches and perspectives prevailing in NRM research. This part takes into consideration different research paradigms and experiences that have been gained with innovation processes over the last five decades. The third part draws some conclusions related to future challenges in participatory NRM research. It includes some “lessons learned” and recommendations for strengthening and improving the quality of participatory research in NRM. As a result of discussions on types of participation during the Quito meeting, the Program is carrying out a field study to learn more about how the characteristics of participation, described in the literature (e.g., Biggs 1989, Pretty 1995), interact in diverse field situations. A tool has been developed to help PR practitioners identify the partners they work with and to describe the kinds of relationships these partnerships involve in the context of PR efforts. Fifty projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have collaborated in this study. During the second part of the 1999-2000 period, the data will be analyzed and the findings published in a working paper. 4.2.3 Assessing the Benefits of Rural Women’s Participation in NRM Research and Capacity Building The PRGA Program received a 3-year grant from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and other donors to support in the assessment of the benefits of rural women’s participation in NRM research. The BMZ-funded project supports the Program’s NRM group workplan. Its purpose is to help make agricultural research more responsible to farmers’ 4 Participatory NRMG 41 demands, and to increase the access of poor rural women to appropriate technology by improving the application of participatory methods and gender analysis NRM research. The specific objectives of the project are to: · Develop a typology of approaches to using gender analysis, participatory methods and organizational innovations, for involving rural women in NRM research. · Assess methods and indicators for determining the impact of different approaches. · Together with participants, monitor and assess impact in a select number of cases (sites) and build capacity through action-research and training. (See Annex 12 for summary of plan.) · Provide systematic assessment of the payoff, including costs and benefits of different approaches to involving poor rural women in participatory NRM. · Stimulate methodology development and organizational change by identifying method gaps, prioritizing areas for refining and developing methodology, and opportunities for innovation. In order to accomplish the above objectives, the project is conducting research through small grants to six cooperating projects and three regional fellowships. Regional fellows and the PRGA support training activities. Applications were invited for 3-year small grants (1998- 2000) from institutions or projects involved in field research on NRM. The grants are designed to enable the recipient institution to: · Introduce GA and the participation of rural women for the first time into an ongoing process involving research to improve NRM, and to monitor and evaluate its usefulness; OR · Strengthen an ongoing effort involving rural women, and to add to the institution's capacity to monitor and evaluate the usefulness of the approach; OR · Support an effort to innovate in an ongoing approach, and monitor its effects. The PRGA Coordination Office received over 130 applications for research grants and 20 applications for fellowships. 4.3 NRM Small Grants Table 7 shows the status of the 12 NRM small grants. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 42 Table 7. Small grants supporting participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management. (For acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex 20.) Proposal No. Title Institution Collaborating Institutions Site Total value PRGA grant (US$) Co- financing (US$) Total value of project Duration Status NRM–01 Development and dissemination of integrated Striga control practices (IPM) that are adapted to the small- scale farmers of western Kenya CIMMYT- Kenya GO-regional level GO-local level NGO Informal groups Western Kenya 36,000 35,500 71,500 3 years Grant released NRM–02 Impact of using participatory methods to solve NRM issues in the East African Highlands ICRAF- Uganda IARCs and NARS operating in these areas Kakamega, western Kenya, Kabale, Uganda, Areka 100,000 AHI 100,000 200,000 2 years Grant released NRM–03 Assessment of the impacts of stakeholder participation in the diffusion of a Vertisol management technology package in highland Ethiopia ILRI- Ethiopia GO-national level GO-local level Farmer organizations Ethiopia and Kenya 36,000 ILRI 65,000 EARO 6,000 107,000 3 years Grant released NRM–04 Evaluating the impact of farmer participatory research and extension in NRM in Zimbabwe IES - Zimbabwe GO-regional level GO-local level Farmer organizations Informal groups Zimbabwe 96,000 Not established in proposal 96,000 3 years Grant released NRM–05 Impact evaluation of participatory development of integrated insect and disease management for the potato crop in San Miguel, Peru CIP- Peru CARE and ARARIWA, Women’s Committee of Urquillos, Cusco Farming communities of Chilimpampa and Chagmapampa, San Miguel Cajamarca, Peru 36,000 CIP 31,500 CARE 13,500 81,000 3 years Grant released 4 Participatory NRMG 43 Proposal No. Title Institution Collaborating Institutions Site Total value PRGA grant (US$) Co- financing (US$) Total value of project Duration Status Cajamarca Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 44 Table 7 -Continued. Proposal No. Title Institution Collaborating Institutions Site Total value PRGA grant (US$) Co- financing (US$) Total value of project Duration Status NRM-06 Local people, devolution and adaptive co-management of forests CIFOR - Indonesia GO-local level Formal and traditional Local people in households Informal groups Forest concessionaire Indonesia, Long Loregh, East Kalimantan 36,000 83,750 119,750 3 years Grant released NRM-07 Community participation and gender involvement in assessing the effects of logging on coastal communities ICLARM Malaysia 99,942 (26,130/ yr committed) 94,323 194,265 3 years (1st yr approved ) Approved NRM FL- 08 Proposal for the establishment of a farmer-centered agricultural research network in China CIAD China CIAT, Cali, Colombia CIAD, China China 25,000 5,000 30,000 2 years Approved NRM FL- 09 Enabling IPM programs to include farmers as partners in research and learning SWP-IPM (IITA) CIAT GIPMF SWP-PRGA 20,000 80,500 100,500 6 months Grant released NRM FL- 10 Processing of Miombo indigenous fruits ICRAF Malawi University of Malawi Malawi 11,895 14,530 26,425 1 year Pre- approved NRM FL11 Exploring alternatives for conditioning and processing “mora” (Rubus glaucus) at the level of farmer associations in the Department of Cundinamarca, Colombia CORPOICA CIAT Women’s Group of the Province of Tequendama Colombia 12,000 20,150 32,150 1 year Pre- approved NRM FL- 12 Whitefly impact assessment in El Salvador CIAT IITA (SWP-IPM) Global facility for IPM El Salvador 70,000 70,000 2 years Pre- approved Total 578,837 619,753 1,128,590 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 44 4.3.1 Main Highlights from the NRM Small Grants NRM-01: Development and dissemination of integrated Striga control practices (IPM) that are adapted to the small-scale farmers of western Kenya This small grant is a collaborative project between CIMMYT, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), and a Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere (CARE) NGO in western Kenya. The project’s main objective is to use participatory approaches to develop and disseminate new agronomic practices for controlling Striga and increase farm productivity, and to develop adequate extension training material for research and extension organizations. The research aims to assess the impact of using participatory technology development and diffusion used by CARE versus the more conventional extension methods used by the Ministry of Agriculture in the development and dissemination of Striga control practices by small-scale farmers. Highlights · A participatory research needs assessment (PRNA) was conducted with farmers’ groups to identify and prioritize the research agenda. The initial phase focused on carrying out a broad-based baseline study, building new Locational Management Committees (LMCs) and identifying “adaptive research farmers” (ARF). · Sixteen LMCs were formed, one in each location of CARE’s project area. The LMCs were responsible for the selection of farmers’ groups and ARFs. The 300 farmers’ groups actively involved in project activities chose about 72 ARFs. About 40% of the ARFs selected are women farmers. · Seven on-farm trials on Striga control methods were established in different locations in southern Nyanza. With Striga Project support, the extension staff established 12 on-farm trials at eight different farms. In addition, the ARF established four trials each at two different farms. New sites and ARFs were identified to extend activities to new sites and involve more farmers’ groups in Striga control work. · The impact indicators were identified and a follow-up system was developed to assess the impact of Striga training sessions conducted by extension agents of the Ministry of Agriculture and those conducted by CARE. · Capacity building. - Training of farmers on Striga control and biology. The extension staff trained about 1200 farmers (45% women) in 60 different sessions. In various workshops, CARE trained about 72 ARFs. The Striga training courses were well received among farmers, and high demand caused their being repeated in some areas. - Workshop or training for district agricultural staff and for front-line extension agents of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD) on Striga biology, and control and training methods. - A guide on Striga control and biology was published and distributed among front-line extension staff of the MoALD in Nyanza and Western Province and among adaptive research and extension workers of CARE. 4 Participatory NRMG 45 - A poster on “On-farm research and training of farmers’ groups on Striga control using a participatory approach” was presented at the International Plant Protection Conference in Israel, July 25-30, 1999. - A presentation on “Linking research, extension, and farmers – Striga control strategies for western Kenya” is being prepared for the Third International Weed Science Congress in Brazil, June 6 to 11, 2000. NRM-02 The impact of using participatory methods to solve NRM issues in the East African Highlands (Kabale-Uganda) The objective of this AHI-ICRAF small grant is to assess the impact of PR and stakeholder differentiation and involvement in solving issues of sharing natural resources in the Kabale benchmark site. The focus is on facilitating negotiation and collective action in solving these issues that are currently dampening adoption levels of some technologies (tree planting, use of green legumes for soil fertility improvement, among others). The intervention is to test whether or not the additional effort made to differentiate and involve stakeholders and gender actually has an impact on heightening farmer involvement in research, and to empower farmers to seek new solutions to resource-sharing issues that are old and long-standing. This grant is broader than most of the others. This is because it includes a Regional Research Fellowship (RRF) to conduct action-research to assess the impact of PR and stakeholder involvement in solving resource-sharing issues in Kabale. It is also aimed at providing capacity building and technical support to the three small grants in east Africa in their implementation and the application of the impact assessment plan. The three small grants are: i. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) -Institute of Rural Development (IDR) - Addis Ababa University (AAU) in Ethiopia, ii. CIMMYT - KARI - CARE in Kenya, and iii. AHI teams. Highlights · Baseline studies completed on issues related to social organization, local institutions, resource- sharing issues, stakeholder differentiation, types of PR, and farmers’ research group profiles. Baseline survey results identified some sharing issues of core resources with associated complex aspects and often-conflicting interests and that involve different stakeholders. These include: - Resource-sharing issues that are intra-, inter-, and supra-household and gender-related (household versus community roles and needs); - Management of common property resources, wetlands and grazing lands, and hillside management (terracing, upstream and downstream effects, and conflicts); and - Some local arrangements in the management of livestock, labor, farm inputs and capital, and collective action processes. · Stakeholder identification and GA were conducted in four communities to establish local definitions and categories of resource sharing and conflict management assessment, and to identify opportunities and constraints for collective action. Resource-sharing issues and conflicts were identified as a main characteristic and constraint to sustainable NRM. Efforts were geared towards facilitating the process of forming local stakeholder committees, negotiation, consensus building, and Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 46 decision making to engage in a collective action to resolve conflicts and problems around resource- sharing issues. · An empirical and analytical study on farmers’ research organizations and farmers’ experimentation and innovation processes in NRM was begun and will be completed this year. The specific objectives of the study are to: i. Identify and describe the characteristics of farmers’ research groups and farmers’ own experimentation and innovations in NRM; ii. Analytically determine the nature, process, and dynamics of their participation in the research process; iii. Document, monitor, and assess their impacts on the success and effectiveness of the PR process; and iv. Determine the factors driving successful farmers’ research groups, and farmers’ experimentation and innovations in NRM. The study follows a research approach of participatory learning and action to strengthen farmers’ research groups, to monitor, evaluate, and document the participatory process and the impact of farmer research groups as an approach to PR. · A description and analysis was made of the types of PR at each stage of technology development, describing who makes or made the decision at each step in the innovation process, both from researchers’ perspectives and those of farmers’ research organizations. · Impact indicators and categories were developed and refined. Participatory M&E tools and methodologies for systematic M&E of the participatory process from the perspectives of different stakeholders were also developed. · Research task forces were formed and PR and GA were identified as crosscutting issues. An immediate responsibility of the task forces is to identify research needs and gaps, develop strategies on how to constantly work with farmers, and find effective ways to enhance their participation in the research process, making research responsive to farmers’ needs and demands. Participatory approaches, GA and M&E were seen as crosscutting issues and should be integrated in the three task forces. · A community-based PR approach was adopted as a general strategy for all AHI teams in the region. · Capacity building: Eight major events have taken place during this year. i. Watershed Management, Gender and Stakeholder Analysis Learning Workshop (20 participants), facilitated by PRGA Program and CIAT-Hillsides Project, with participants from AHI countries, CIMMYT-CARE small grants, CIAT-Africa, ICRAF, SWNM, and five NARS and NGOs. ii. Kabale Benchmark Site Participatory Planning, M&E Workshop (26 participants from AHI, National Agricultural Research Organization [NARO], an NGO called AFRICARE, CARE, and farmers’ representatives). iii. PRGA-Natural Resources Institute (NRI) NRM Scientists’ Meeting (1-3 Sept 1999, UK). The Regional Coordinator and Research Fellow from AHI attended. iv. Team Building and Partnership (24 participants) facilitated by the Technical Support Group (TSG) for members and partners of AHI countries, including CIAT and ICRAF. 4 Participatory NRMG 47 v. Performance Assessment and Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop (30 participants), AHI, ICRAF, IDRC, CIAT, CIP, Rockefeller Foundation, NARS. vi. Enhancing Farmer Involvement in on-farm Experimentation (25 researchers from AHI, including four participants from the two other PRGA small grants (CIMMYT, ILRI). The workshop was facilitated by scientists from ICRAF and CIAT, and was followed by a 1- week monitoring tour of the participatory improvement of agro-ecosystem management sites in western Kenya. vii. Participatory Agro-ecosystem Management Training for the Kabale site team members (22 scientists, NGOs, and farmers’ representatives attended the workshop) AHI-NARO. viii. Participatory Research Process and Facilitation Skills Enhancement Workshop (all AHI site teams). Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 48 NRM-03: Assessment of the impacts of stakeholder participation in the diffusion of a Vertisol management technology package in highland Ethiopia This small grant is a collaborative project between ILRI-ADR-Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO), Ethiopia. The project’s main objective is to undertake a more systematic approach to stakeholder and gender differentiation and their participation in the process of the technology diffusion of Vertisols (the broad bed maker [BBM] package), and their impacts. The original project (pre-PRGA support) was designed to develop animal-powered equipment to address problems of water logging in Vertisols. Under the PRGA grant, the focus is to differentiate and involve different stakeholders, particularly women, and to assess the extent to which stakeholder and women’s participation can improve technology diffusion and the situation of women farmers. Highlights · Baseline studies were conducted and completed through formal and informal discussions, and a survey of 50 BBM users and 86 nonusers. The survey provided baseline information on impact indicators against which any change could be compared. · A Site Stakeholder Committee (SSC) was formed with representatives from various extension and diffusion agencies, farmer cooperatives, farmer or community leaders, and two male, and two female, farmers. Informal meetings and consultations were held with various stakeholders. Formal meetings of the SSC were held to discuss and agree on the procedures and methods that would be followed to pursue the SSC objectives, and for putting into operation impact criteria and indicators. · The SSC organized a field day to demonstrate the BBM technology adaptations and innovations to other farmers in the study villages. The innovative farmers explained the origin of their ideas, how they applied them, and the results they achieved. These efforts have improved extension-farmer linkages and will likely improve farmer-to-farmer diffusion by motivating more farmers to adopt and adapt the BBM package for wheat production. · The type and degree of participation of different stakeholders has been evolving and has taken a collaborative mode. Institutional stakeholders were quick to understand the value of this research and have become more active in the project. · The research team identified five intermediate impact categories (improved knowledge, innovation, enhancement of skills, stronger organization and co-ordination, and increased equity) and a set of indicators to assess the impacts of the process of stakeholder participatory diffusion of the BBM package. These were put to the SSC for discussion and amendment so that they would then “own” the agreed categories and indicators for monitoring and assessing impact. Based on the analysis of the survey, the SSC is currently discussing the need for regrouping impact categories and indicators to simplify them for easier understanding by all the stakeholders. Conclusions Major advances regarding the milestones set for Year 1 of the three small-grant projects in east Africa were: · Intervention plans and project proposals were refined and implemented. · Baseline studies were completed. 4 Participatory NRMG 49 · Stakeholder committees were formed and are operational in two of the small grants, and research task forces with farmers’ representatives were formed in the case of AHI. · Gender and stakeholder analysis is being incorporated in the small grants’ research projects. · The three small grants refined their impact assessment plans, identified impact indicators, and developed strategies and systems for M&E. · Capacity-building activities focused on training workshops in participatory methods and on technical matters; some farmers participated in the training initiatives. These involved multi- institutional collaboration and partnership between international research centers, systemwide programs (PRGA, SWNM), small grants’ teams, national scientists, NGOs, and farmers. 4.3.2 Overview of NRM Small Grants When the Program began in April 1997, PPB already had an interest group in the CGIAR. This group included plant breeders and social scientists, several from CIAT, who had met face-to-face and had a body of published work and field experience on which to build. This interest group, initiated by IDRC, FAO, and IPGRI, formulated recommendations in 1995, which led to the formation of this Program. In contrast, the use of gender-sensitive, PR approaches in NRM is still incipient in the CGIAR and, until the NRM Scientists’ Meeting, the scientists did not know one another or one another’s work. This has slowed the pace of exchange about PR and collaboration in NRM. Participatory research in NRM in the CG Centers is largely focussed on the interface between adaptive research and technology transfer, and is struggling to define a research role. Unlike plant genetic resources and plant breeding—the long-standing heartland of the IARCs—NRM research in the CG is still trying to define its mandate. An internal debate continues at senior levels about whether NRM research produces the type of international public goods seen to justify CG involvement in research. Unlike in plant breeding, the corpus of scientists doing NRM research in the CG are scattered among numerous disciplines and research topics, and many of those using PR approaches are both junior and transient. The relatively uncertain status of PR approaches in NRM compared with PPB in the CG is a reflection of this situation. The Program is supporting follow-up activities, such as the meeting in April 2000 of the book committee formed by participants of the NRM Scientists’ Meeting, and the second meeting of this group at the Program’s III International Seminar in November 2000. Major advances were made as regards the milestones that were set out for the first period of the projects: · Baseline study in progress, · Impact assessment indicators identified, · Intervention plan refined, and · Stakeholder committee formed. Although most of these tasks are still in progress, the reasons for this were fully explained. In all cases, the time lag has to do with ambitious pre-project planning that did not take into account unforeseen Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 50 situations, processes, and needs that became evident only as project implementation began. It is interesting to note that a number of common challenges face the four research teams. 4 Participatory NRMG 51 These include to: i. Raise the awareness of the importance and use of PR-impact analysis (IA). ii. Initiate and consolidate institutional innovations so that IA can be done well. iii. Facilitate stakeholder interactions and consensus building to intensify PR activities. iv. Build capacities in PR-related skills (e.g., gender-stakeholder issues, action research, and documentation). v. Assess the appropriate mix of conventional and PR research methods for specific situations. These five issues involve institutional aspects more than do those of technology development. It would appear that the experience of the past 6 months situates them as critical factors when introducing PRGA innovations (Center for International Forestry Research [CIFOR]-CIP) and/or when introducing stakeholder-initiated impact assessment (Institute of Environmental Studies [IES]). The CIP - CARE project is incorporating institutional, stakeholder group, and farmer-user levels into its innovation design. The CIFOR group might benefit from doing the same. The IES might consider doing a case study on the process it is developing to carry out impact assessment with the participation of the nine institutions that implemented the PR and extension experiences. If most of the projects agree upon the need to assess the impact of PR innovations at the institutional level, a succinct set of indicators or critical factors should most likely be identified specifically for this purpose. However, some concerns are raised: · Two of the projects are facing or will be faced with a site change. This means that the original project design will need careful revision to ensure that the timing, objectives, and conditions of the PRA grant, and the BMZ project which houses it, can be met. Although we all know that these things occur, the project leaders will need to take special care to ensure that the spirit of the grant is met. · From the present reports two of the projects are evidently tending more to dissemination than to PR. In these cases the projects are expected to have clarified objectives and their concurrence with those of the BMZ project by the end of the next reporting period. It should be clearly understood that the PRGA is responsible to BMZ and must report within the commitments made to the funding agency. · In most cases it is not yet clear how the project innovations will clearly impact and assess the benefits of rural women’s participation in NRM research and capacity building. Although all of the projects are concerned with this issue, it presently seems to be more tangential than the grant conditions allow for. · We are still in the initial stages of building (i) definitions of participation as it is used in the grant situation, (ii) some common indicators for impact assessment, and (iii) clarity in the planned intervention. · At the onset of this effort, we set up a participatory-managed “NRM Impact Assessment Research Group” list on our computers so as to facilitate the exchange of ideas and experiences. The instances of exchange seem to be highly limited at this point. Because we are all part of a common Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 52 effort, these exchanges should be intensified so as to support and learn from one another over time. The most critical area for exchange at present appears to be on the issue of “common indicators” for impact assessment. These issues are raised at this point in time because we are still at the beginning. All of them should be explicitly and qualitatively addressed in the next reporting period so as to insure that time and financial resources are properly employed toward the collaborative product to which we have all agreed. 4.3.3 Capacity Building for Small-Grant Recipients Important partnerships for capacity building have been built around the small grants with other Systemwide Programs and networks. Some example are the CGIAR SWNM, CGIAR SWP- Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program, the LAC Ecoregional Program, Central American Hillsides Project, AHI, and CIP-UPWARD in Asia, as well as a new small grant for capacity building in China. Capacity building involves feeding the results of research into publications, the Program Web page, and seminars and presentations for promoting awareness of the approaches and their results among senior management and scientists in the CGIAR and its partners. For example, a series of regional symposia on PPB is being organized in Latin America (August 1999), Asia (May 2000), West Africa (April 2001), and East Africa (2001). Other significant information dissemination events and publications are listed in the Program’s milestones. Capacity building in the PRGA Program is part of the strategy for mainstreaming and involves building a learning process for scaling up which includes: · Small grants as learning cases; · Promotion of formal and informal networks among grant recipients and resource people; · Small groups of innovators, associated with small grants, that conduct comparative studies for impact assessment (e.g., comparisons of conventional with participatory plant breeding and assessments of the “quality” of participation in NRM research); · Training over an extended time period through regional learning workshops for skill building involving small-grant recipients and other partners; and · Monitoring and evaluation of the learning process involving the use of gender-sensitive, PR approaches, and building stakeholder committees in projects receiving small grants. The PRGA Program enabled team members of three of the NRM small grants (Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda) to attend the workshop on “Participatory Experimentation” organized by the AHI between 28 June and 3 July 1999. Over 25 participants from five African countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, and Uganda) participated. They represent NARS, IARCs, and NGOs. Of the eight participants from Ethiopia, five were from three different research centers of the East African Research Organization (EARO - Holleta, Awassa, and Areka) and one other was from the Awassa College of Agriculture. 4 Participatory NRMG 53 The overall objective of the workshop was to enable participants to have an enlightened view and the skills to implement on-farm experimentation with a high level of farmers’ involvement. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 54 4.3.4 PRGA Program – Natural Resources Institute (NRI) Workshop A review of progress in 1998 concluded that the NRM working group has had some difficulty in defining a common agenda—mainly because of the diversity of focus within the group. The PRGA Planning Group recommended forming a core group to provide opportunities for face-to-face contact to stimulate cohesion and the development of a critical mass. In response to this recommendation, the “NRM Scientist’s Group” was inaugurated in 1999. The CG PRGA Program and the NRI convened a group of 25 scientists conducting innovative participatory NRM research to exchange experiences and identify future directions for collaboration in this area. The workshop was held in Chatham, UK from the 1st to the 3rd of September 1999. The objectives were to define principles of participatory NRM management at the landscape scale, identify common strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the practice of participatory research on NRM and to document successful methods for participatory NRM research. The workshop was organized to exchange experiences and work in progress on PR and experimentation with technologies and strategies for: · Management of common property and protected areas, · Landscape and watershed scales, and · Soil and water nutrient management, land care, and rehabilitation. These themes were explored using the following questions: i. What innovative approaches exist for collective participation and decision making in research on NRM problems and processes? ii. Where are new kinds of linkages between farmer- and formal-led research initiatives? iii. What methods are proving most useful for PR with GSA and for improving the involvement of specific groups of actors in planning, and M&E of NRM research? The group worked together to: · Build on the experiences documented in 25 case studies prepared for the Workshop. · Develop a set of principles of good or best practice for PR on participatory natural resource management (PNRM). · Identify common problems and common weaknesses in PNRM research, and analysis of some of the factors giving rise to them. · Summarize what we do know at present and set out priority issues for future research. The products of the Chatham meeting included in-house proceedings (available upon request), and the booklet entitled “Equity, well-being, and ecosystem health,” distributed at Center’s Week 2000 as an overview of participatory NRM research in the CGIAR. A book is in progress based on the case studies presented at Chatham. 4 Participatory NRMG 55 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 56 4.3.5 Project Proposal: Enabling IPM Programs to include Farmers as Partners in Research and Learning Partners collaborating in the project are: · The SWP-IPM convened by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) · The Global Integrated Pest Management Facility (GIPMF) based at FAO in Rome · The CGIAR SWP-PRGA) convened by CIAT · CIAT’s Participatory Research Project The goal is to contribute to sustainable agricultural development by increasing the number and quality of IPM programs and projects undertaking PR with farmers and improving farmer agro-ecosystem management skills. The purpose is to enable IPM programs and projects to incorporate participatory learning and research strategies in their approach and design and to strengthen linkages with IPM implementation by farmers. Outputs Expected outputs are to: i. Develop an effective model for facilitating learning exchanges among IPM projects. ii. Equip collaborating systems and institutions with an in-depth, first-hand view of IPM projects where participatory learning and research are central strategies. iii. Enable IPM professionals from collaborating systems and institutions to apply a variety of participatory methods, tools, and approaches, and to involve farmers as decision-making partners in their activities. iv. Make an analysis and publish a synthesis of the main concepts, principles, and best practices currently applied in IPM experiences based on participatory learning and research worldwide. v. Establish horizontal and vertical linkages between participating projects. Many IPM professionals believe that increasing the impact of IPM depends on greatly enhancing the participation of farmers as partners in research and learning. Despite this open and favorable attitude towards participatory processes, IPM professionals may not know how to initiate and sustain these processes. The project will address this need by providing frontline IPM professionals with opportunities to visit and learn first-hand from projects where participatory learning and research have contributed to improved agro-ecosystem management by farmers and more client-oriented responses by R&D systems. This is envisioned as taking place in two stages. The initial pilot phase is the subject of this proposal. If the pilot phase is successful, funds will be sought for a replication phase that would include the outputs of the Pilot Phase and concepts and principles of participatory learning and research translated into practice so that IPM professionals can: i. Evaluate the costs and benefits of participatory approaches for themselves. ii. Identify ways of making their work agendas more responsive to farmer priorities. iii. Identify ways to strengthen links between farmer and conventional research. 4 Participatory NRMG 57 iv. Establish dynamic, on-line database and resource materials containing documents, video data, publications, and narrated participatory IPM experiences. v. Focus a resource guide for IPM research and training programs on developing and maintaining linkages between farmer learning groups and researchers. vi. Increase the number of participatory IPM projects. vii. Establish a platform for convincing colleagues, donors, decision makers, extension workers, and farmers that a participatory IPM approach can result in implementation of IPM more quickly or effectively than non-participatory approaches. Project activities and structure The project comprises a pilot phase of 6 months. The replication phase would consist of an additional year. In the pilot phase, the project will develop a prototype study tour and learning workshop. A small number of people (16) selected from projects centered on FFSs, community study groups that evolved from FFSs (such as Action Research Facilities) and CIALs will be involved in the study tour. Most Asian, many African, and eight Latin American countries have FFS projects. This provides a large array of possible exchanges that will produce a diversity of learning experiences that can be shared, compared, and systematized. The study tour will be embedded in a Learning Workshop framework. Prior to the study tour, each participant will produce a short case study describing the objectives, principles, key processes, strengths, and weaknesses of the project that he or she represents. Each person will participate in a pre- tour preparation process to agree on common goals and approaches to be applied during the study tour. Each participant will visit one project, with FFS practitioners visiting CIAL projects and vice versa. After the tour, the participants will meet in a facilitated workshop to exchange, analyze, document, and systematize their experiences. The workshop will distill lessons about flexible project design choices, best practices, tools and methods, and decision-support and process alternatives. Also, participants will design new projects or plan adjustments to ongoing projects, reflecting the new knowledge that they have acquired via the Study Tour and Learning Workshop process. The interaction of people from different projects via the Learning Workshop will produce new ideas of how to make participatory approaches work better. Participants will have opportunities to form relationships and alliances that will facilitate future exchange of ideas and information. Finally, a follow-up process will be developed wherein participants can evaluate the Study Tour and Learning Workshop approach as a mechanism for achieving the outputs described above. Documentation from the entire process will be produced in formats accessible to other projects and made widely available via print and electronic media. In the replication phase, a second Study Tour and Learning Workshop will be organized with improvements in structure based on feedback from the pilot phase. The second tour and workshop will involve exchanges among a small set of projects that will be selected during the second planning cycle. Participating projects may be drawn from national or international research centers, NGOs, or community-based organizations (CBOs). They can include participatory IPM projects or other agro- Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 58 ecosystem health or NRM projects that have a PR and/or learning focus. At least two participants from the pilot tour and workshop will attend the second Learning Workshop in order to enrich the discussion and analysis with the insights developed by their learning group. The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has expressed interest in funding the project and are expecting a proposal by the end of April 2000. A steering committee composed of a representative from SDC and from each of the partner organizations will be formed by the time the proposal is submitted. Each partner has agreed to contribute as follows: Partner Contributions SWP-IPM Coordinator salary Expenses for three participants GIPMF Expenses for six participants SP-PRGA Expenses for four participants Operational and workshop costs and expenses for three participants are being requested from SDC. It is expected that identification of participants, study tour sites, and planning will be accomplished in 2001. The study tour and workshop will take place during 2002. 4.4 Affiliated Projects 4.4.1 Assessing Approaches to Innovation Development in NRM through Participatory M&E The PRGA Program is a concerted attempt to increase poverty- and problem-orientation of agricultural research through improved methods and practices of research. The objective is to assess and develop methodological and organizational innovations for gender-sensitive PR and to promote their use in plant breeding, and crop and natural resource management. Past experiences have shown that realities in risk- prone areas and NRM are too complex to be dealt with through any blueprint approach, and therefore permanent approach development and adaptation is an evident requirement, which leads us to learning process approaches. Being part of the PRGA Program, this particular research project aims at generating knowledge on participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) as an instrument to support collective learning for regular and systematic reflection and adjustment of research strategies and methods – orientated by development goals and the feedback of target groups. An action research approach, that is, a process of action – reflection – and evaluation, was initiated in three ongoing NRM projects in Honduras (CIAT-Hillsides, Apoyo a la Forestería Comunal [AFOCO], and Investigación Participativa en Centro América [IPCA]). This research approach is expected to yield knowledge on PM&E through practice (inductive approach). Workshops were conducted to support project staff and selected local groups to develop their own M&E system oriented by the concept of German et al. (1996). This participatory M&E approach: 4 Participatory NRMG 59 · Is complementary to conventional logframe-based M&E. · Is not oriented towards abstract and long-term project goals, which are frequently irrelevant with respect to the actual activities and problems of the actors. It does not make a strict differentiation between changes, effects, and impacts. Rather it tries to identify subjectively important changes: M&E builds upon fears and expectations, and in this way, it determines the motivation factors (or motivation killers) that are relevant to taking action. · Involves several autonomous monitoring systems: Local self-help groups and project staff monitor their respective areas of interest, and regularly exchange their perceptions and interpretations in joint-reflection workshops. · Does not conduct monitoring for outside parties, but for the group carrying out the M&E. It is a tool for process-oriented project management. The M&E system is supposed to accompany the groups’ learning processes and should help people to develop a general ability to solve problems. The action research process is complemented through semi-structured interviews with local people and key informants. Exploratory interviews are conducted in different communities of the respective project regions to identify local people’s relation to different (participatory) projects, their perception of the mode of cooperation and the benefits and impact that projects cause, their problems and needs, NRM conflicts, and their expectations and visions. The abovementioned research methodology—the action research process in conjunction with semi- structured interviews—is expected to answer the following questions: i. What do different stakeholders (at local level and project staff) expect from the participatory project to innovation development? What are their fears? Do expectations change over time and why? ii. How do different stakeholders perceive the project impact? Are their expectations fulfilled (i.e., expectations related to development and related to research)? iii. What are the lessons learned related to a PR process? iv. Under what conditions is PM&E perceived as useful? Does PM&E lead to changes in project strategies and methods? If so, do changes in the PR approach lead to better research results, increased adoption and/or development impact? The direct beneficiaries of this research will be the participants in the three NRM projects who will be involved in the action-research and learning process. Indirect beneficiaries and intended users of the knowledge generated during this research will be the CGIAR SWP-PRGA, the international audience of NRM researchers, and development practitioners. Farmers and resource users, especially poor groups, will ultimately benefit if PM&E is more widely applied and if strategies and methods in NRM research are better oriented towards their problems and needs. The action research process was initiated in the following three selected cases in Honduras. 4.4.2 The GTZ-Supported Project AFOCO Yuscarán, El Paraíso, Honduras Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 60 This project is responsible for developing a community forestry model that should in future serve as an example for other Honduran areas under similar conditions. According to the social forestry philosophy, communities are actively participating in the conservation, and rational use and benefits of forests. The integration of farmers living in state-owned forest areas in productive forestry activities is an important element of new development models that are implemented at national level. As a result of these efforts, usufruct agreements were elaborated that assign more responsibility to local communities for the management and sustainable use of national forest resources. The AFOCO project is an integrated development project pursuing a gender-sensitive participatory approach to planning, implementing, and evaluation of development activities. Knowledge and recommendations on community forestry are accomplished through regular documentation and systematization of experiences, which is mainly done by project staff. The AFOCO project was selected because of its particular focus on developing an organizational innovation for collective NRM. This is because of its gender perspective and its reputation of being a successful NRM project – even though it is not explicitly a participatory “research” project. 4.4.3 The Participatory Research Project for Central America (IPCA) This project is financed by IDRC, Canada and coordinated through the Sociology and Anthropology Department at the University of Guelph, Canada. The IPCA project was developed in 1996 as an offshoot of CIAT’s program of Participatory Research in Agriculture (IPRA). The latter developed a methodology to foster community-based research through the formation of agricultural research committees known as CIALs. Committee members are taught how to conduct formal trials for adaptive research. To date, more than 250 CIALs have been formed in eight Latin American countries; specifically, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras. Colombia (89) and Honduras (58) had the largest number of CIALs in 1999. In Honduras, the IPCA project supports more than 30 CIALs that are made up of poor hillside farmers. Moreover, IPCA is supporting a federation process of CIALs across Honduras that has resulted in the Association of CIALs, (ASOCIAL). The IPCA project was selected because it is implementing and has gained experience with the rather prominent CIAL PR methodology. 4.4.4 The CIAT-Hillsides Project This project aims at strengthening local processes for sustainable rural development in Latin American Hillsides, based on the experiences in NRM that have been gained in the project’s reference sites. Research activities are carried out in several watersheds (reference sites) of the Andean and Central American Hillsides. The project is working on a wide range of activities, for example, on the development of guidelines and decision support tools for improved NRM, on the validation of new technologies, and on principles to initiate organizational processes for collective NRM. The contribution of this particular research project is related to a new activity that has only recently been initiated in the Municipality of Yorito, Yoro—the Supermarket of Technology Options for Hillsides (SOL, its Spanish acronym). Identified potential solutions to local demands are developed and offered at experiment farms or “SOL sites”. Local farmers and partner institutions carry out participatory evaluation of the proposed solutions on the SOL sites and also on-farm. A characteristic of the SOL is that it is linking farmer 4 Participatory NRMG 61 experimentation with formal research, and that its strategies of generating and validating technological innovations are more oriented toward satisfying producers and the market. The SOL-Project was selected because it is dealing with up scaling and extrapolation of research outputs, and because PM&E will be a key element to assure demand orientation and to receive feedback from SOL clients. 5 Farmer-Led Research 57 5 Farmer-Led Research 5.1 Strategy Several strategies for supporting farmer-led research were identified from case studies of experiences. Four strategies were identified and three of these were selected for small grants. The PRGA aims to go beyond advocacy and rigorously evaluate how different kinds of assistance (or combinations of catalyzing elements) work to sustain farmer-led and -driven research in different locales—for various R&D challenges. In this vein, the program currently supports action-research with farmer-led, community-based research along the lines that follow below. 5.2 Analysis of Experiences with Farmer-led Research 5.2.1 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences and Lessons Learned from Community-led Initiatives of Rural Development and NRM in Latin America The workshop was held at CIAT, Colombia from 21-25 February 2000. Forty-five farmers and professionals from local organizations that help them, plus a team of 12 supporting staff (group facilitators and reporters) attended. The participants came from 22 sites in 11 tropical American countries, and for each country a farmer and a local organization member (usually a professional) were invited. Annex 13 gives the list of participants and their contact data. The Workshop was organized as a series of sessions to analyze six key issues related with the processes. For these sessions, the group was split into four working groups (two groups of farmers and two of members of local organizations) where most of the analytical work took place. At each session, the four groups addressed the same key issue. Two plenary sessions were held to allow for the exchange of experiences among groups. Ample time was left between the sessions and the coffee and meal breaks in order to allow for a large integration and informal exchanges among the participants. Participants greatly appreciated this “free time to meet”, as explicitly mentioned in the workshop evaluation. A facilitator organized each group’s work, presenting the issues, moderating the discussion, et cetera. Two reporters registered each group’s discussions, working under the assumption that the richest part of the workshop will happen at the level of group work. The six key issues were: i. Participation, ii. Gender and social groups, iii. Local empowerment, iv. Conflict management, v. Innovation, and Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 58 vi. Results Each issue was analyzed starting from a short questionnaire elaborated previously and agreed with the participants. The outputs from the plenary sessions were collected, copied, and distributed to all participants at the end of the workshop. These outputs plus the reports from the working groups will be the base for a short book summarizing the findings and the lessons, to be published mid-2000. 5.2.2 State-of-the-art Paper: Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding – Done from a Perspective of Farmer Plant Breeding A state-of-the-art paper (McGuire et al. 1999) was publishes as a PRGA Workshop Paper. To identify constraints and opportunities so as to effectively link with strategic outside “scientific support” an understanding of farmers’ research is essential. In developing countries, at least 80% of planting material in any given season comes from farmers’ seed systems through farm-saved seed and local channels of gift, barter, and purchase. Although the ratio of “formal” to “farmer” seed systems will certainly change, farmer breeding in the broad sense will remain important. This is because formal breeding and seed supply systems in the commercial or public sector may not meet the needs and preferences of farmers or other users. This paper broadly defines farmer breeding to include both collective and individual processes, and to include systems of seed storage and exchange. A review of current knowledge about farmer breeding points to areas of similarity and difference from formal breeding. Farmers often bring a wider set of criteria to crop development than does formal breeding. They also seek to balance maintenance with crop improvement, and local with broad adaptation, although details are sparse on the nature and success of such balances. Farmer breeding can be considered as a series of processes for managing gene flow, in parallel to formal breeding, that influence crop genetic structure and performance, as well as who receives germplasm and information. These processes include introduction of new diversity (and its testing), recombination, selection, storage, and exchange of planting material. Knowledge remains patchy on the biological and social impact of these processes. Based on analysis of the case studies a framework was designed for four broad approaches to support farmer breeding. i. Germplasm support to increase farmers’ access to diversity through a supply of fixed or segregating lines and to work with material with local or distant origins. Seed systems may also be directly supported. ii. Skills support in breeding, testing, or seed production can offer farmers new skills, or seek to extend best local practice. 5 Farmer-Led Research 59 iii. Networking support in forming links may enhance the equity or sustainability of a PPB project, through helping establish two-way, flexible ties between individuals and institutions for germplasm or information. iv. Indirect support is aimed at overcoming constraints to farmer breeding such as by market development for products of farmer breeding. These four approaches use a range of methodological options, with different implications for the ease of supporting farmer-led PPB and the nature of its impact. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 60 5.3 Networking Support: Integration of Farmer Breeders with Formal Research Networks and Communities of Practice A Latin American PPB Symposium was held in Quito in August 1999. This International Symposium on Participatory Plant Breeding in Latin America and the Caribbean was the first time that the PRGA Program invited farmers to be participants in an international scientific meeting. We had some initial uncertainty as to how to include farmers in a meaningful way and if such a meeting would actually be of sufficient interest to them. Fourteen farmers from Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Costa Rica attended what resulted in a highly interesting and stimulating seminar. The Farmer-Breeder Program ran parallel to the scientific meeting and took place mainly on the experiment station of Ecuador’s national institute for agricultural research, INIAP. It consisted of a tour of the installations (including the laboratories, the gene bank, and the seed depository), and demonstration sessions with breeders of the roots and tubers, beans, and cereals programs. In these sessions, farmers were shown, and showed one another, how to make crosses in potatoes, beans, and maize. Elementary aspects of genetic heritability and conservation, seed storage, and pest control were also discussed. Farmers showed strong interest in learning how to make better crosses themselves. During the last 2 days of the symposium, farmers came together with the scientists and technicians and interchanged questions, observations, and experiences. One farmer, for example, asked the breeders if they had been trained to work with farmers. The scientists’ answer was an overwhelming “no”. And when farmers were asked if they felt that they could go back to their farms and make crosses (as had been demonstrated) one woman said, “Yes, of course. It’s not that difficult!” (However, several others indicated uncertainty as to whether they could do it perfectly—but they would definitely try). Other topics discussed in the farmer-scientist plenary included farmers’ interest in native versus exotic varieties; the strengths and weaknesses that farmers and scientists bring to the breeding process (what they do well, what they could improve on); and how farmers and scientists can work more effectively together. There were divergent opinions on these themes. While some farmers said that new varieties should replace local varieties, others asserted that ideally they could cultivate both exotic and local materials. The participants agreed that both farmers and scientists could benefit the most if research were done collaboratively, taking advantage of farmers’ knowledge of their environments and their own needs, and of scientists’ understanding of genetics and their access to technology and materials. Regarding how best to work together, much discussion took place about the importance of trust between researchers and farmers and of meaningful exchange of information and capacity between the two. Although time available was insufficient to arrive at conclusions and consensus on all the topics discussed, the participants agreed that having a forum for discussion among researchers and farmers at an international meeting on participatory breeding was highly positive. 5 Farmer-Led Research 61 5.4 Organizational Models to Support Farmer Research 5.4.1 Example: Small Grant NRM-02 to AHI – ICRAF Entitled Impact of Using Participatory Methods to Solve NRM Issues in the East African Highlands An approach to facilitating the participation of farmers in research has been to work with farmers’ research groups (FRGs) to understand the characteristics and dynamics of farmers’ research organizations, and the driving forces of farmers’ experimentation and innovation. This is critical to building more effective ways of organizing and working with farmers, building farmers’ capacity to innovate and experiment, and for monitoring and evaluating PR impact. A small grant to the AHI includes mandatory FRGs at the AHI-ICRAF benchmark sites in Kabale, southwestern Uganda. This is one of the PRGA NRM small grants to assess the impact of PR and stakeholder involvement in solving NRM. The specific objectives of the study are to: i. Identify and describe the characteristics of FRGs and farmers’ own experimentation and innovations in NRM; ii. Understand the nature, process, and dynamics of their participation in the research process, iii. Document, monitor, and assess their impacts on the success and effectiveness of the research process, and iv. Determine what makes FRGs successful in developing innovations for NRM. The study follows an approach of participatory learning and action research to strengthen FRGs, to monitor, evaluate, and document the participatory process, and the impact of FRGs as a PR approach. A sample of 40 operational FRGs with variable characteristics was selected for the study. These are involved in a variety of research and experimentation activities including IPM of potato bacterial wilt, IPM of bean root rot, a wide range of testing and evaluation of crop varieties, and experiments in soil fertility and agroforestry. Most of these groups have a mixture of men and women (32 groups), and only eight are exclusively women’s groups. Women constitute about 65% of farmers in mixed groups. Participation of male farmers is relatively higher at the start of the process, compared to that of women. However, as the process evolves, the proportion of men decreases while the relative proportion of women increases significantly. Other relevant socioeconomic characteristics, such as wealth categories and educational level, are being analyzed as determinants of successful group organization. The study analyzes: · Different types and mechanisms of participation at different stages of the research process, · Dynamics of group formation and management processes, · Changing roles and responsibilities of farmers and researchers, · Organizational forms and structure of FRGs, · How participation occurs and evolves over time, · Decision-making processes within groups, Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 62 · Information-sharing mechanisms and diffusion processes, · Group dynamics and relationships with the rest of community and the perceived benefits of farmers’ research groups, and · Factors influencing FRGs and innovations in NRM. Data analysis is in progress. 5.4.2 An Example of Support for Farmer Research Networks: Small Grant NRM FL-08 Entitled Establishment of a Farmer-Centered Agricultural Research Network in China In general, attention to farmer-centered research in China is at a very initial stage and builds on limited experience. China Agricultural University’s CIAD is among the first agencies that specifically introduced and initiated farmer-centered research in China and will be heading this novel R&D effort begun in March 2000. The objective is to establish a network to speed up and scale up farmer-centered research in China to improve the efficiency of the current research system and promote sustainable agriculture. Members of the network include: · China Agricultural University and CIAD, · Northwest China Agricultural University, · Ningxia Academy of Agricultural Science, · Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Science, · Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Science, · Chongqing Agricultural Research Institute, · Hainan Tropical Botanical Institute, · Laizhou Maize Research Institute, Shangdong Province, and · Yanzhi Desertified Land Development Association, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. The project will have an initial duration of 2 years and will help establish five research groups on protection and application of germplasm, erosion control, IPM, desertified land management, and water-saving cropping techniques. Support was also provided to translate into Chinese two books on farmer-centered research. 5.5 Future Directions in Support to Farmer-led Research The PRGA has refined its strategy for supporting farmer-led research and articulated three thrusts for future R&D. i. Skills support To increase and consolidate farmers’ demand-pull on the formal-sector research agenda, small grant making has begun to support ongoing projects. The aim is to strengthen those initiatives in which farmers are given conceptual tools for analyzing varied research options, including those 5 Farmer-Led Research 63 with which they may not have had previous experience (i.e., potential biotechnology options and constraints). Farmer organizations need to develop new and essential skills for aggregating and prioritizing different needs and demands from their stakeholder groups; contracting research from formal programs may be an option. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 64 ii. Organizational support The aim here is to investigate whether farmers’ own research support can be strengthened and catalyzed on a wide scale. This will be crucial if farming communities are to be equipped to respond to and anticipate both evolutionary and acute changes in their biophysical and socioeconomic systems. iii. Networking support A range of hypotheses was developed to increase direct content as exchange among farmer research and formal research programs to evaluate the efficacy of these different thrusts. It demands a coordinated and geographically extensive action-research program in order to be effectively tested. Future directions of this effort will be determined after the mid-term review of the PPB work in late 2000. The hypotheses that were developed comparing strategies for supporting farmer-led and farmer- responsive research are: · The more exotic the technology that farmers require, the better the “contract research option” for meeting farmers’ needs. · The more quality characteristics needed for a product, the better the contract option. · The more organized farmers will have a greater capacity to make demands on formal research. · The more marginal and variable the production conditions, the greater the need to give organizational support to farmers’ own research. · Farmer-led research (involving a partnership with an outside agency of source expectative) leads to innovation faster than farmer experimentation alone. · Farmers’ own research in action will lead to a more equitable spread of benefits in communities than will contracted research. · Innovation will continue over time as a result of farmer-led research in site-specific locales; whereas contracted research simply gives once-off solutions. 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 63 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis The PRGA Program defined a three-step process to address the concern that the CGIAR is not doing enough to explicitly benefit poor rural women: i. Review achievements to date of effort to develop technology for women and facilitate access to available information by CGIAR scientists. ii. Identify and analyze women’s changing demand for agricultural technology iii. Promote specific research and technology development action based on the above: this may be a network, or a different approach may be more appropriate. A review was completed in 1999 of sources of information (Step 1) and the results made available to PRGAinfo, the Program’s general electronic listserver. The review is accessible on the PRGA Web page with links to the main sites for further information, helping to facilitate straightforward access for CG scientists who want to consult existing work. Annex 14 gives an outline of different types of gender and stakeholder analysis. 6.1 Integration of Gender Analysis into Research (CIMMYT-Nepal) Beginning with the September 1991 workshop on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis in Nepal, PRGA support to CIMMYT-Nepal has been on-going, mainly in the field of research support and evaluating and assessing the Chinese Hand Tiller (CHT) Project in the Terai of Nepal. 6.1.1 Chinese Hand Tiller Project A 1-week participatory evaluation was conducted with five farmer user groups to assess the effectiveness of Chinese hand tractors that CIMMYT had introduced in collaboration with the NARC farm in Bhairava. The participatory evaluation (the results of which will soon be compiled into a report) included 15 farmers, both men and women, from the five user groups from five different communities where the hand tiller was introduced. As a result of the evaluation workshop, CIMMYT decided to introduce a participatory management approach in other areas where they expect to introduce this technology. In those areas where they had been working over the past 2 years, the formation of farmer user groups is being encouraged based on their own (farmers’) criteria, with CIMMYT agreeing to broker some small loans from the national Agriculture Development Bank. In addition, capacity development initiatives for these farmer user groups will be the main focus of the new program. Local and national NGOs with grass-roots experience in social mobilization and local institutional development are being identified for support in training and capacity development for these user groups. 6.1.2 Wheat Breeding: CIMMYT-Nepal Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 64 A short training session was also conducted for one CIMMYT scientist and three national staff of the wheat-breeding program at the NARC farm in Bhairava. The training included the introduction to ranking tools for assessing farmer preferences in varietal selection. This was followed by a field trial where preference- and matrix-ranking tools were used by researchers to determine gender- differentiated preferences for wheat varieties of one farming community with which the national farm works. 6.1.3 Gender Analysis Skills’ Training: Asia Training in GSA began in September 1999 at CIMMYT-Nepal. This 1-week course was conducted in Kathmandu for CIMMYT and members of the NARC, their national partner. In terms of content, basic principles of PR and stakeholder analysis were introduced along with tools that were demonstrated in a 1-day field exercise. From March 19-24 2000, UPWARD, CIP (Hanoi), CIAT (Asia), and the PRGA gave GSA training in Vietnam. In this workshop, most participants were national partners from Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and the Philippines. During this workshop, the gender analysis component focused on incorporating gender into the project cycle. 6.2 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis in PPB Our strategy with the PBG (and the PRGA as a whole) has been to integrate both gender and stakeholder concerns into the core of research strategies, methods used, and capacity-building efforts. Two types of “gender-sensitive” thrusts are described below. 6.2.1 Integration of Gender and User Analysis in PPB Case Inventories Inventories are in the process of being put on the World Wide Web as searchable databases. Extensive inventories now exist of both formal-led PPB (about 50 cases) and farmer-led PPB (about 20 cases). These inventories analyze the technical and development-oriented content of cases. The gender and user orientation or lack of it is still in progress for each case. Five sets of questions are being asked of each PPB project: i. Who is directly involved and at what stage? Stages are setting goals, diagnosing preferences, actual breeding or selection, evaluation, seed production. ii. Who is indirectly involved? iii. How does stakeholder involvement effect the design of research? How does stakeholder involvement affect the scale of the research? iv. Who directly benefits—and how is this linked to involvement (for what type of impacts)? v. Who has control over products and processes emerging from PPB (property rights, seed multiplication and distribution)? 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 65 6.2.2 Mainstreaming Gender and User Research Issues within Ongoing Programs through Small Grants Attention to gender is a criterion of the submission and selection guidelines for small grants. Each proposal had to meet the minimum criteria of: having men and women on the research staff; working with male and female farmers; incorporating GA perspectives throughout all cycles of the proposed project; and evaluating gender-differentiated benefits of the PPB project. However, the 6-month and first year reports of nine projects receiving small grants show that few have really internalized the importance of gender and user differentiation at the heart of their research. For example, while programs may have both men and women involved in varietal evaluations, they still fail to disaggregate responses by gender (or other key social variables). Projects in some cases attribute their “problems in interacting with female farmers” as caused by their lack of female staff. One project, PROINPA, has recently hired a number of female Masters students. Others simply do not realize their limitations; they are still “analyzing the social data” while the breeding component moves at full speed. The need for skill building in GA in PPB is evident. To build gender and user analysis capacity in PPB projects, each small grant will be assisted in making an explicit “gender and user research plan”—in the same way that they have breeding protocols and monitoring protocols. 6.3 Capacity Building in Gender and Stakeholder Analysis Experience gained through PRGA-sponsored workshops on skill development suggests that a real need exists for skills training as well as demonstrated interest among participants in the Asia region to develop skills to conduct PR and GSA. Further, this also demonstrates a need on the part of the PRGA to play a more proactive role in developing content for training in these areas. The PRGA needs to outline a schedule and timetable for training and strategically identify who the participants in the training workshops should be (focus on CG centers along with national partners). Finally, there is also a real need to focus skill building on organizational development, where participants are taught skills to analyze their own institutional cultures to enable an understanding of constraints, processes, and potential that exist for incorporating PR and GA. Towards this end, the PRGA has potential to collaborate with UPWARD, CIAT-Asia, and possibly IRRI and CIFOR to develop a course outline with participatory research, stakeholder analysis, gender analysis, and organizational development 6.3.1 Contributions from PPB Gender issues and gender-sensitive perspectives are addressed within the domain of PPB with a five pronged strategy: i. Actual research on gender issues within PPB, ii. Research on methodological options, Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 66 iii. Capacity building for gender-sensitive and client-oriented research within the PPB small grants, iv. Capacity building more generally on this issue within PPB, and v. Awareness raising. Progress on these five thrusts for the year March 1999 to March 2000 is briefly described below. 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 67 Research on gender issues within PPB Our strategy with the PBG (and PRGA as a whole has been to integrate both gender and stakeholder concerns into core research work. Several such research milestones were completed in the last reporting year. Integration of gender and user analysis in PPB case inventories. Extensive inventories now exist of both formal- (about 50 cases) and farmer-led PPB (about 20 cases). Each of these inventories has a strong technical and development-oriented content. They soon will also have a strong gender and user orientation—whether or not the particular PPB project itself embraced this key perspective. (If not, the absence of key information is being noted in each inventory entry.) Five sets of questions are being asked of each PPB project: i. Who is directly involved and at what stage (setting goals, diagnosing preferences, actual breeding or selection, evaluation, seed production)? How was this decided (stakeholder analysis)? Who decides (working with experts vs. a representative group)? Are the benefits consequences of self- selection, observations of community selection, work with individuals, or work only with organized groups? ii. Who is indirectly involved? iii. How does stakeholder involvement effect the design of research? How does stakeholder involvement affect the scale of the research? iv. Who directly benefits, and how is this linked to involvement (for what type of impacts)? v. Who has control over products and processes emerging from PPB (property rights, seed multiplication and distribution)? As a result of synthetic work, the PRGA was able to draw some important insights that will affect future research design. As Table 8 shows, two-thirds of the PPB programs, which had a refined gender lens, find the “gender” variable important in discerning knowledge division and specific varietal preferences. Further, an important result of the PRGA’s work on pulling together this growing body of research is to show how diverse and specialized is women farmers’ knowledge of plant varieties all over the world. We find that many of the varietal traits that poor farmers have taken into consideration when making adoption decisions draw on this specialized women’s knowledge (Figure 2). Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 68 Table 8. The importance of women’s knowledge in participatory plant breeding cases considering gender. Cases considering gender (n = 19) Cases not considering gender (n = 17) Crop or agriculture type Country Crop or agriculture type Country Agroforestry West Africa Barley Syria Beans Malawi Morocco, Tunisia Colombia Beans Colombia Rwanda Ethiopia Tanzania Cassava Colombia Cowpea Cameroon Brazil Maize Mali Maize Honduras Mexico Ethiopia Pearl millet Namibia Maize, groundnut Zimbabwe India Maize, squash, bean Mexico Niger Potatoes Peru Potatoes Bolivia Rice East India Ecuador India East Africa Sorghum India Rice Ivory Coast Sorghum, pearl millet South Africa West Africa Various crops India Chaite rice Nepal Upland rice India Trees Burundi Varietal Traits Women Know About * Yield * Grain size/shape * Bran * Environmental stress * Drought resistance * Lodging resistance * Insect/disease resistance * Tolerance to weeds * Soil moisture * Seed storage * Earliness * Taste/texture * Adequacy for ceremonies * Medicinal qualities * Digestibility * Straw/residue quality * Satisfies hunger for longer period * Ease threshing/pounding * Milling quality * Grains broken in threshing * Flour/starch content * Cooking time * Market price * Timely availability of seed * Pleasing color * Heavy/bold grains * Suitability to different land types * Labor requirements 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 69 Figure 2. Varietal traits known to women. 6.3.2 Research on Methodological Options Identifying and Involving Stakeholders, Including Women and the Poor, in R&D The PRGA is exploring the effectiveness of using different types of diagnostic methods to identify stakeholder preferences, involve and engage stakeholders, and build on stakeholder expertise at different phases of the research program. Such social investigative tools, while central to shaping all outcomes, are rarely (perhaps never?) scrutinized in a critical manner. Much of the groundwork for framing a larger initiative is being accomplished through an affiliated DFID- funded project entitled “Participatory plant breeding with women and small farmers in Africa and Latin America”. Starting in late 1998, different clusters of diagnostic methods were tested at the project’s five sites (Table 9). Table 9. User preference diagnostic methods being used at five participatory plant breeding sites in Project R7027:C funded by the Department for International Development, UK. Method Arusha Tanzania Nazret Ethiopia Awassa Ethiopia Eastern Ethiopia North Coast Colombia Formal survey X X Participatory rural appraisal X X X Key informant interview X X X X X Informal interview X Focus group X X Exploratory germplasm evaluation of diverse nurseries X X In a March 2000 team meeting, the scientists involved identified twelve criteria for comparing and contrasting the various methods. The criteria were selected to embrace the different perspectives of donor, research manager, scientist, and stakeholder. The criteria for evaluating the methods include: i. Cost for different partners, ii. Time for different partners, iii. Ability to identify new preference groups, iv. Ability to differentiate (in detail) preference groups, v. General information categories obtained, vi. Detail of information gained (how in-depth and for what purpose), vii. Ability to derive quantitative information, Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 70 viii. Representativeness of information, ix. Skills demanded for each method, x. Ability to reach marginal groups – and how achieved, xi. Self-reflection among farmers (which methods encourage self reflection among farmers), and xii. Engagement of farmers in research relationships with researchers (which methods are more “involving” than others). Full analysis of the effectiveness of these social science methods in meeting different aims is underway and should be completed by June 2000. Interestingly, the scientists have already concluded that, “One method is not adequate for meeting all diagnostic needs. For example, there may be trade-off between “precise” quantitative information and engaging partners in PPB.” 6.3.3 Capacity Building for Research that is Gender-Sensitive and Client-Oriented within the PPB Small Grants The PBG and PRGA ostensibly highlighted gender and user issues when determining which of the PPB proposals should receive a small grant. Each proposal had to meet the minimum criteria of having men and women on the research staff, working with male and female farmers, incorporating gender analysis and perspectives throughout all cycles of the proposed project, and evaluating gender-differentiated benefits of the PPB project. Despite such a clear initial focus, review of the 6-month and first year reports of the nine-funded projects show that few have really internalized the importance of gender and user differentiation at the heart of their research. For example, while programs may have both men and women involved in varietal evaluations, they still fail to disaggregate responses by gender (or other key social variables). Projects in some cases attribute their “problems in interacting with female farmers” as caused by their lack of female staff—and one, PROINPA, has recently hired a number of female Master’s students. Others simply do not realize their limitations; they are still “analyzing the social data” while the breeding component moves at full speed. To build an analytical capacity within subprojects that is truly gender and user oriented, the PRGA will be sending highly skilled social scientists to visit all the small grants during the year 2000. Each small grant will have to make an explicit “gender and user research plan”—in the same way that they have breeding protocols and M&E plans. 6.3.4 CGIAR Mid-term Meeting Seminar Two major high-profile events focused on the “science of gender analysis and integration”. At the CGIAR mid-term meeting seminar, May 1999, Jacqueline Ashby delivered an overview of PRGA work to date on “Mainstreaming gender analysis and participatory research in the CGIAR.” This seminar, which was extremely well attended, addressed such issues as: · Critical factors for success (of mainstreaming), 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 71 · Factors associated with failure, · Evidence for impact to date (as a result of mainstreaming), · Appropriate tools and methods, and · The strategy for mainstreaming gender within the plant breeding and NRM groups of the PRGA. At the international centers’ week seminar, October 1999, a series of talks by PRGA grant recipients and collaborators (see PPB section) integrated discussion of “The science of gender analysis and participation in PPB” within the heart of the agricultural analyses. Of particular interest in this vein was the IRRI presentation (by T Paris) entitled “Breeding better rice varieties through participation of male and female farmers in eastern India.” 6.3.5 PRGA Learning Workshops During the period, the Program facilitated two learning workshops on GSA for PR at the request of CG Centers and their national partners. The objectives of the workshops were to: · Provide participants with information on PR that integrates GSA and the involvement of differentiated groups of actors in the process of designing and adapting technologies and organizational strategies for resource management. · Build a common understanding among researchers concerning the possible impact of participatory methods for agroecological research and the scope and variation of methods in use. · Familiarize researchers with tools and processes that facilitate participation and an understanding of local knowledge, and the needs and potential contributions of diverse stakeholders and groups of actors. · Increase the understanding of and capability to use methods for the analysis of gender and stakeholders. · Introduce impact assessment into PR efforts. · Socialize a group of local facilitators in those aspects which are of specific concern to researchers working with participatory methods so that they can, in the future, provide support to decentralized groups of field researchers. The workshops were planned in collaboration with CIP and CIMMYT who co-financed them. The local organizers selected participants and provided all necessary logistical support. Annex 15 gives a sample design of workshop content. 6.4 Gender Analysis in NRM The PRGA Program received a 3-year grant from BMZ and other donors to support in the assessment of the benefits of rural women’s participation in NRM research. The BMZ-funded project supports the Program’s NRM group workplan. Its purpose is to help make agricultural research more responsible to farmers’ demands, and to increase the access of poor rural women to appropriate technology by improving the application of participatory methods and gender analysis NRM research. The specific objectives of the project are to: Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 72 · Develop a typology of approaches to using gender analysis, participatory methods, and organizational innovations, for involving rural women in NRM research. · Assess methods and indicators for determining the impact of different approaches. · Together with participants, monitor and assess impact in a select number of cases (sites) and build capacity through action-research and training. · Provide systematic assessment of the payoff, including costs and benefits of different approaches to involving poor rural women in participatory NRM. · Stimulate methodology development and organizational change by identifying method gaps, prioritizing areas for refining and developing methodology, and opportunities for innovation. In order to accomplish the above objectives, the project is conducting research through small grants to six cooperating projects and three regional fellowships. Regional Fellows and the PRGA support training activities. Applications were invited for 3-year small grants (1998- 2000) from institutions or projects involved in field research on NRM. The grants are designed to enable the recipient institution to: · Introduce GA and the participation of rural women for the first time into an ongoing process involving research to improve NRM, and to monitor and evaluate its usefulness; OR · Strengthen an ongoing effort involving rural women, and add to the institution’s capacity to monitor and evaluate the usefulness of the approach; OR · Support an effort to innovate in an ongoing approach, and monitor its effects. The PRGA Coordination Office received over 130 applications for research grants and 20 applications for fellowships. 6.5 Skills Training and GSA Materials 6.5.1 UPWARD 5-Year Planning Meeting – Bogor, Indonesia The PRGA staff members were invited to the 3-day UPWARD planning meeting as resource persons. A presentation on the PRGA Program was made that stimulated discussion about how to better implement gender-sensitive PR. The meeting provided an opportunity to meet staff and affiliated researchers of UPWARD and to explore possible areas of collaboration in the Southeast Asia region. Possible priority areas of future collaboration were identified. It was agreed that PRGA learning workshops would benefit UPWARD members. It would also be mutually beneficial to enhance the visibility of UPWARD’s ongoing PR activities. It was decided that a Memorandum of Understanding should be drafted between CIP-UPWARD and the PRGA Program that would set out the kinds of collaborative activities in which we are interested in involving ourselves. The Director General of CIP signed the memorandum of understanding in June. A learning workshop is being planned for Vietnam in early 2000. 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 73 6.5.2 IPGRI Global Project on In Situ Conservation – Pokhra, Nepal A PRGA staff member has been a member of the Technical Advisory Group for this project since 1997. This participation was recently formalized under the terms of the memorandum of understanding recently signed with IPGRI. The objective of this collaboration is to support IPGRI in its attempts to strengthen PR and GA within this 5-country project. In July in Pokhra, Nepal, the Global Project held its third biannual meeting, which brought together some 70 researchers of various social and biological sciences including collaborating NARS and NGO partners representing country projects in Morocco, Mexico, Nepal, Turkey, and Vietnam. In addition to project collaborators, researchers from Universities, CG centers, and donor organizations joined the meeting in various capacities. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 74 These biannual meetings are organized to permit participating projects (funded by diverse donors) to: · Report on methodologies developed and field findings of the national projects, · Explore spheres of contrast and comparison among findings, · Exchange experiences in participatory research and stakeholder involvement (including farmer’s groups, NARS, NGOs, Universities, and CG Centers), · Review progress of the different projects in the light of Global Project goals and outputs, and · Clarify future challenges and tasks. During the meeting the PRGA staff member carried out the following: · Worked with the Technical Advisory Group in program planning. · Facilitated three Working Group sessions. · Acted as reporter in one Working Group session. · Made recommendations on ways of improving GA in participating projects. · Discussed possible PRGA support at the request of national projects (e.g., Mexico). The support of the PRGA was greatly appreciated. The Technical Advisory group requested that the PRGA continue to work to enhance both PR and GA in the context of the subprojects. To receive the proceedings and the list of participants please contact Nicky O’Neil at IPGRI (n.oneil@cgiar.org). 6.5.3 Philippines Inter-Center Meeting - University of the Philippines at Los Baños The Inter-Center Meeting was held on the suggestion of the UPWARD Coordinator who brought to the attention of the PRGA Program the large number of CG Centers working in and/or out of the Philippines with little knowledge of one another’s activities in the area of PR. The activity was co- organized by the PRGA Program, CIP-UPWARD, and the Institute of Community Education and School of Development Communication of the Philippines at Los Baños. Twenty-five invited professionals attended the meeting. The Proceedings are being prepared by UPWARD and will be distributed via E-mail soon. The objectives of the 2-day meeting were to: · Learn about the activities of the different Centers in the area of gender-sensitive PR, · Exchange ideas on ways to increase gender and stakeholder involvement in PR, · Explore with the Philippines scientific community on initiatives and opportunities for collaboration, and · Identify ways in which the PRGA Program can support PR efforts in SE Asia. Dr Gelia Castillo (advisor to IRRI’s Director General) gave the keynote address, which set the tone for the meeting and raised some important issues. She began by stating that “the Systemwide Program for Participatory Research and Gender Analysis is more wide than system”. She reminded the group that one of its objectives is to help the CG system re-encounter its truncated memory. She reviewed the efforts to bring social scientists into the CG in the 1960s and 1970s (only if someone else paid) and how 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 75 these laid the ground for PR and GA. She emphasized the importance of giving the Centers due credit for being ahead of the times. Center experience in PR dates back to the 1970s: · CIP – Farmer Back to Farmer under the leadership of Bob Rhodes · ICRAF – Forests Trees and People under the leadership of Dr. Braintree · CIMMYT – On-farm research program · IRRI – Asian Farmer’s Rice Network · CIAT – IPRA Program Participatory research is an approach, an ethic – not a program or a project. From this perspective: · It allows us to learn by doing with the help of techniques, · It involves a great deal of learning and knowing and listening, · Seeing-is-believing is not enough – it is necessary to understand, · It is not a substitute for science; it is one way of doing good science, · Through it we learn that farmers are not first or last, and · Research teamwork with biophysical scientists and farmers is a necessity. Training is actually adult learning and as a result should follow the principles that learning is: · The experience of seeking new skills and knowledge, · The discovery of the personally relevant, and · Both intellectual and emotional. Participatory research and training have much in common. They require a team approach whereby: · Team members assist one another, · The trainer and learners are motivated, · A good trainer and learner is a good listener, · All participants are experts and show respect to one another, and · What is done speaks louder than what is said – facilitate do not dictate. A summary of activities carried out by represented institutions is given below. CIP-UPWARD This is a support unit for PR in SE Asia. It facilitates the process of integrating user-sensitive research. One of its tasks is to stimulate PR and multi-disciplinary interactions among CIP and NARS programs in the regions. The unit has found nine key elements to involving users in the research process: i. Field-based R&D, ii. User sensitivity, iii. Focus on the household, iv. Food and livelihood system framework, v. Integration of scientific and local knowledge, Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 76 vi. An interdisciplinary approach, vii. Multi-agency team work, viii. A problem-based agenda, and ix. Adding value via genetic resources, biodiversity and conservation, sustainable crop management and processing, and marketing and consumption. CIFOR – Department of Gender Studies, University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB) The Adaptive Co-management Project works in the Philippines and has commissioned the Department of Gender Studies at UPLB to look at gender aspects imbedded in the stakeholder and institutional components of the project at 12 sites in the Philippines. A question of interest to the group is the link between PR and development action: the role of NGOs as an information source to the community. International Center for Living Aquatic Research Management (ICLARM) This Center has a pool of senior scientists doing PR. The gender lens is weaker, partly because of the invisibility of women’s contribution to the fishing sector. However, in Bangladesh, a study is being done on the impact of food-fish production technologies on men and women and their differential levels of adoption. ICRAF This center is backstopping agroforestry capacity building in the region. Agroforestry is seen as part of an integrated land use system. Within this context, research areas include intra household relationships, stakeholder participation from local to national level. Efforts are being made to incorporate GA more systematically. Kits for training in agroforestry and case studies for training are being prepared. The center is interested in answering the question “Can PRGA contribute to democratization and empowerment of local people and lead to better NRM?” ILRI As part of ILRI’s “globalization” program, a representative was based in the Philippines. He is coordinating a nine-country project working through NARS in SE Asia. Non-livestock researchers need to become sensitized to crop-animal interactions. This requires a systems approach. The center has 10 economists, but no social scientists. Interest is shown in the question “When should farmers become involved in PR, how long will it take, how much will it cost?” There is an assumption that PR costs more. The PRGA terminology is intimidating to outsiders. IPGRI The Coconut Network is run out of the Philippines. The network includes farmers and the private sector. The Department of Agriculture carries out research on the request of the farmer or private sector committee. The steering committee has already taken an interest in gender issues and it is planning to document PR and GA activities. The network collaborates with CIAT on research on forages under trees. IRRI 6 Gender and Stakeholder Analysis 77 Research focus at IRRI has moved from irrigated to rainfed Asian farming systems. Both men and women farmers were trained in seed management; PR was an important of the IPM program. Research has shown that gender roles and relations are part of a larger production and socioeconomic system. Farmer PR and GA is being integrated in the mid-term plan. School for Development Communication The school has a graduate program and although they do not support PR at this time they see a future role in this area, especially when they implement their new “degree through research”. Institute for Community Education This institute has well-attended MSc and PhD programs that train scientists for both CG Centers and NARS in the Asian region. The institute has been doing PR for rural development for a number of years and has written up several case studies. Identified constraints to PR An issue that was discussed at different points in the meeting dealt with the constraints that researchers of both the CG Centers and the University find when they desire to spend their time doing PR. From a professional perspective these include the following. · Researchers are given more credit for publications in peer journals than for the field-level impact of their scientific activities. · Farmers often find it difficult to trade-off time they could use in immediate productive activities for time working with scientists to find solutions that can only be used in the medium term at best. · Graduate students find it difficult to locate professors and scientists who are willing to advise on thesis and dissertations based on data generated through PR processes. · CG researchers find that their national partners are seldom located in the research areas and cannot provide the continuity and follow-up required for successful PR processes. Suggestions to the PRGA Program to help overcome these constraints · Develop an incentive program for gender sensitive PR · Work with the CG Secretariat to develop evaluation criteria that recognize PR contributions · Design guidelines for gender-sensitive PR research that can be shared with universities · Link researchers involved in PR to share methods and findings · Disseminate PR research findings across institutions and disciplines · Commission a study of the history of PR in the CG · Prepare and post a list of referee journals interested in PR and GA 7 Impact Assessment 77 7 Impact Assessment 7.1 Background While users of participatory methods have observed the success of participatory approaches in a variety of situations, and documented the results in a number of case studies, the impacts of using participatory in contrast to other approaches are rarely systematically analyzed and recorded. Similarly, well- documented analysis is needed of the impact of using GA in the development of agricultural innovations. Some important, but unanswered, questions remain: · What do projects hope to gain by including PR or GSA? What difference does PR or GSA make to the impact (outcomes) of the research? · Do different approaches to farmer PR and GA lead to different impacts? · How does the feedback from clients to research change the research priorities, objectives, and the resulting technology or innovation? · Does participation and attention to GSA affect the number of beneficiaries, the type of beneficiaries adopting new technology, or the speed at which they are adopted? · What approaches are most effective for different types of technology (e.g., knowledge or management intensive)? · What are the economic and environmental benefits of the project? In the case of economic benefits, how are they distributed? · Does participation in the project improve capacity among clients (e.g., improve specific skills, problem-solving ability, or ability to initiate and sustain participation without external facilitators)? · What are the costs of different types of PR and GA at different stages of the innovation process? Answers to these questions are important for the long-run credibility of gender analysis and participatory methods. The PRGA program’s impact assessment work tries to address these questions and also to increase PR or GSA users’ capacity to conduct their own impact assessment studies. Our impact assessment work has the following objectives: i. Develop a framework for analyzing the impacts of PR or GSA. ii. Provide empirical evidence of impacts and costs of doing PR or GSA in NRM and PPB by conducting impact studies in collaboration with various research institutes, and establishing the state of the art in impact assessment of PRGA through inventories. iii. Build PPB and NRM small grants and affiliated projects’ capacity to assess the impacts of PR or GSA by providing backstopping in impact assessment to small grants and other collaborators (through site visits, workshops and E-mail discussions, and through development of a practical impact guide). 7.2 Impact Assessment Framework Some useful guidelines and frameworks can be used for impact assessment and project evaluation, but none specifically address PR and GSA. Conventional methods of impact assessment are applicable in assessing the impacts of PR and GA, but some key issues also need to be considered when the impact Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 78 of a research method or approach is being assessed. Figure 3 describes the framework that the program has developed for assessing the impacts of PR and GA in NRM research and PPB. Figure 3. The impact assessment framework for participatory research and gender stakeholder analysis. 7 Impact Assessment 79 7.2.1 Key Components of the Impact Assessment Framework for PR and GSA Stages of innovation The impacts of using participation or gender analysis can be expected to vary, depending on the stage in the innovation process at which they were applied. Farmer participation at different stages of innovation can have different impact on the technology or innovation design, as well as the potential adoption or acceptance among the intended users. Farmer acceptance of the technologies being developed is more assured if they participate early in the design stage. When planning and setting goals, farmer participation may help to steer the research in a more focused fashion and more directly towards farmers’ priority needs. Commonly, farmer participation steers research in completely unanticipated directions. Similarly, who participates at different design stages may lead to different priorities being identified for different beneficiaries Types of participatory research In order to analyze the cause-effect relationships hypothesized to lead to different impacts, a typology of different approaches to PR or GSA was required. Five different types of PR were defined, based on who makes the decisions in the innovation process, and two types of gender analysis. A questionnaire on types of participation was sent to all NRM Small Grants and to about 400 other PR GSA projects involved in the NRM research. We have received about 70 completed surveys and the work is still in progress. The typology and the background document are available for distribution. The results will be analyzed to validate the typology and adjust it; and to create an inventory of relevant projects. Types of gender analysis A similar characterization was made for types of GA to classify the ways in which it has been used and relate these to specific approach impacts. This typology defined three distinct types of GA: diagnostic, design-oriented, and transfer-oriented gender analyses (see Annex 14). The gender typology was included in the NRM inventory and mailed to same 400 projects as the typology of participation survey. Outcomes of the PRGA We need to distinguish between different types of potential project outcomes that lead to impact in order to capture their complete range of potential project impacts. We define three categories of outcomes that lead to impact: process, technology, and costs. Process impacts. When assessing the effects of using a research approach or methodology, project impacts are generally of two types: (i) feedback to research for technology development, and (ii) social and human capital formation impacts. Process impacts relate to the entire innovation process and particular types of participatory approach used. The hypothesis here is that stakeholder participation in research results in technologies that are more consistent with clients’ needs. Examples of process impacts are: · Project’s research objectives are consistent with clients’ needs because clients are involved in project planning. · Participating clients are empowered to carry out some of their own experiments and seek and find solutions on their own. · Clients have technologies available to them that meet their criteria. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 80 · Many intended users quickly adopt the technology. · Participating clients investing resources into the research process strengthens their commitment. Technology impacts. These are related to the technology’s adoption and the direct economic benefits to its users. Technology benefits are not realized until the “end” of the innovation process. All the potential process impacts at different stages are aggregated into final technology impacts. The same technology impact can be attained from many combinations of different types of participation at different stages. Examples of technology impacts are an increase in the number of adopters among the intended users, and their income. The income share of the poor in the community is stimulated more towards the income share captured by other groups. Cost impacts. Participatory approaches have two types of cost impacts: project and participant costs. Both process and technology impacts have direct implications on the costs of research. Cost- effectiveness of a given technology or research approach cannot be assessed until the end of the innovation process. Examples of cost impacts are: · Total research costs are reduced allowing resources to be allocated to other uses. · Most costs are incurred early in the project cycle. · Some of the research costs are transferred to beneficiaries. 7.2.2 Assessing the impact of the PRGA approach The goal of the Program’s empirical impact assessment is to look at how incorporating stakeholder participation impacts on the costs and impacts of developing and disseminating NRM and PPB innovations. This implies that the counterfactual is the impact that would have occurred if the project had used only conventional methods. In our empirical studies, the conventional research and/or extension counterfactual is used when comparing technology impacts and research costs. We are making the assumption that non-participatory projects do not have impacts on human or social capital or on the research process. These impacts—which we refer to as process outcomes—result from the interaction of researchers and farmers, which means they could not occur in a non-participatory project. 7.3 Empirical Studies in Impact Assessment of PRGA 7.3.1 Book on Impact Assessment The editing of the proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar in Quito, Ecuador on 6–9 September 1998: “Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis” was completed in April 2000. The book is Web-published and can be downloaded from the PRGA Web page. The book’s central objective was to understand the status of existing knowledge about the impact of various approaches using PR and GA in agricultural or natural resource management. In addition to papers commissioned by the PRGA Program, most of those in this publication were collected through an open call for papers. We sought work on existing experience of the PR and GA practitioners in NRM and in plant breeding. These papers were intended to briefly describe lessons learned from past 7 Impact Assessment 81 experiences, but in many cases they also include work in progress. Specifically, authors were asked to focus on tools and methods for conducting impact assessment of PR or GA. They were asked to describe the lessons learned from impact indicators or welfare criteria used for assessing the success of the PR and GA, and provide examples and reasons why some approaches were successful or unsuccessful in achieving impact or welfare gains. Authors were also requested to list their hypotheses and suggestions about how tools or methods could be improved to be more useful in future projects. 7.3.2 Impact Assessment of NRM NRM impacts and costs study An empirical study documenting evidence of impacts and costs of PR in NRM research was initiated in September 1999. For the outline of the study, see Annex 16. This study aims at assessing process and technology and development impacts of PR GSA. Most of the NRM Small Grants are in the initial stages in implementing their PR GSA innovation. While these cases are useful for assessing the process and impacts of the PR or GSA approaches, these small grants will not be useful in the short-run for providing evidence of technology and cost impacts. Therefore, additional case studies needed to be included. A request was sent to all PRGA Resource persons in October 1999 asking assistance in identifying potential case study projects. We identified six potential research cases for the empirical study, and by April 2000, a consultant was dismissed, and arrangement made to carry out fieldwork on five projects: CIP-Indonesia (Sweet potato-IPM), ICRISAT-Malawi (soil fertility), WorldNeighbors-Honduras (soil degradation), the Nagaland Project in India (agroforestry), and CIAT-CIALs in Colombia. NRM inventory In order to have a global understanding of how PR and GSA are being used in NRM research we began compiling an inventory of participatory NRM projects in September 1999. The inventory can be used to find out who is doing PR, where, how, and with what impacts. The purpose of the inventory was also to understand the representativeness of the case study projects on impact assessment. We mailed the inventory survey to over 400 projects (see Annex 17), including: · The PRGA Program-funded NRM small grants (N = 6), · The NRM Scientists’ Workshop in England 1999 (N = 27), · All projects that submitted applications for funding to the PRGA program in the past (N = 137), and · Participants of the World Bank Collaborative NRM Meeting in 1997 (N = 300). In addition we published an open call in the PRGAinfo listserver, inviting scientist to include their projects in the inventory. By April 2000 we had received over 70 completed surveys. The results of the inventory will be analyzed to identify patterns and trends by September 2000. They will also be placed on our Web site Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 82 (http://www.prgaprogram.org) in a searchable database designed to facilitate contact between researchers, practitioners, donors, and others interested in PR for NRM. 7 Impact Assessment 83 7.3.3 Impact Assessment of PPB PPB impacts and costs study In February 2000, we began the search for three potential case studies for assessing the impacts and costs of PR and GA in plant breeding. By April 2000, we had identified two potential collaborators: ICARDA’s participatory barley breeding project and WARDA’s participatory rice varietal selection project. PPB inventory plan In September 2000, the PRGA Program will begin updating its existing inventory of plant breeding projects that use participatory research. The updated inventory, with new cases added, will include more extensive data on costs and impacts and will include results of a survey on the types of participation used in projects. We will send the inventory forms to about 150 researchers involved in the PPB, including: · 48 projects from the PPB inventory previously compiled by Weltzein, Smith, Meitzner, and Sperling, · 50 participants of a Latin American symposium on PPB held by the PRGA in Ecuador in 1999, · 25 participants of an Asia symposium on PPB held by the PRGA in Nepal in 1999, and · An additional 20 researchers referred by others. Open calls will also be placed in the PRGA PPB listserver and the PPB listserver for Latin America, inviting scientists to include their projects in the inventory. The resulting data will be placed on our Web site http://www.prgaprogram.org in a searchable database designed to facilitate contact between researchers, practitioners, donors, and others interested in PR. 7.4 Capacity Building in Monitoring and Assessing the Impact of Using PR Approaches or Gender Analysis A means of building the capacity of small grants and affiliated projects to assess the impact of PR and GSA is to produce practical guides and share information about useful existing materials. We have begun to draft the following three guides. Impact assessment guide The development of this guide began in January 2000. The guide’s objective is to understand the basic concepts of PRGA impact assessment and to be able to plan individual impact assessment work. The guide introduces the following six key concepts in impact assessment of PRGA and provides practical worksheets to plan the impact assessment work. i. Who are the stakeholders in the impact assessment and what are their impact interests? ii. What are the most important impacts to be measured? iii. How does the project scope (stages of innovation) and the approach (PRGA) influence the impact? iv. What are the cause-effect relationships hypothesized to lead to impact? Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 84 v. How do we differentiate between the effect of the project and the approach (the choice of control)? vi. How do we measure impacts (indicators and methods)? In addition to the development of the Impact Assessment Guide, the Program facilitated an Impact Assessment Workshop at WARDA in April 2000 during WARDA’s annual NARS meeting. Participatory monitoring and evaluation guide The AHI Research Fellow in Uganda, in close collaboration with other African NRM Small Grants (CIMMYT-Kenya and ILRI-Ethiopia, and the CIMMYT-Nepal Research Fellow) began developing this guide in February 2000. Its purpose is to provide tools and methods for participatory evaluation and monitoring, and to show empirical examples of how these methods have been applied in projects. Quality of participation guide The impact of PR is closely related to the “quality of participation” applied. During the September 1999 PRGA staff meeting, a practical guide on “Quality of Participation” was outlined. This guide is meant for the novice users of PR and GSA and can be used as a researcher’s self-reflective tool to understand where an individual project stands on the set of “quality components.” The first part of the guide discusses important components of participation, such as: · Stages in innovation and types of participatory approaches, · Actors and partners: gender and stakeholder, · Roles or functions in PR, and · Scale of operations, size of organization. The second part of the guide discusses how to reach the “quality participation”, and tries to answer such questions as: · What are quality standards or criteria to assess the “quality” of PR? · What factors do we have to consider in managing a PR process in order to meet quality standards? A first draft version of the guide was finalized at the February 2000 PRGA staff meeting and it will soon be circulated to Small Grants and affiliated projects for comments. 7.5 Milestones Milestones Completed April 1999-March 2000 The PRGA Impact Assessment Framework was defined and the Impact book edited. An NRM inventory data collection was launched and five NRM empirical impacts and costs cases were identified, the methodology developed, and fieldwork planned. An impact assessment workshop was conducted at WARDA with NARS partners. Further milestones completed are listed under 1.3 Overview of Progress. 7 Impact Assessment 85 Milestones Planned for April 2000-March 2001 Five NRM case studies of empirical impacts and costs and an analysis of the NRM inventory will be completed. The PPB inventory data collection will be updated. The Impact Assessment Guide will be completed and three PPB cases of empirical impacts and costs launched. An Impact Assessment Workshop will be held at the 3rd International PRGA Seminar in Nairobi. 8 PRGA Highlights in the CG System 85 8 PRGA Highlights in the CG System 8.1 CIP The NRM-05 Small Grant “Impact Evaluation of Participatory Development of Integrated Insect and Disease Management for the Potato Crop in San Miguel, Peru is being run by CIP with CARE-Peru as main collaborators. In May 1999, CIP and the PRGA Program organized a workshop on gender and stakeholder analysis within PR approaches. The workshop provided concepts and tools to adjust the project leading to greater motivation and a better understanding about basic concepts and the purpose of the project by the staff involved. An email discussion list was organized and is used as a linkage mechanism so that Spanish speakers from Latin America can exchange information, experiences, and reflections about PR and GA. A baseline study and an impact assessment were begun and during the second semester of 1999 activities were oriented to finalize the base line study from both quantitative and qualitative points of view. This study is a collaborative effort between the PRGA Program, the Development Research Group from the World Bank, CARE-Peru and CIP. The base line study showed that women’s participation is limited because of sociocultural aspects such as division of roles and responsibilities. In the study area, potato production is men’s domain therefore women are less interested in participating than men are. Women are more interested in aspects related to livestock management and pea production. This situation implies a modification of the workplan. Initially the project focused just on potato IPM. As a result of the base line study, two types of activity were included in the workplan. The first type is oriented to enhancing women’s current participation in potato FFS, at least in key activities such as the evaluation of potato varieties and clones, and to provide them with key information such as the germ theory, and pesticide-health issues. This will include Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 86 the involvement of already existing women’s groups. The second type includes the design and implementation of two pilot schools on topics that may be more attractive to women (pea production and livestock management). A committee of farmer representatives has been formed and requires at least two meetings per cropping season in which farmer representatives can express their ideas about project progress. During the first meeting in October 1999, only four FFSs attended. A second meeting will be held in March 2000 and a third meeting for evaluation and planning at the end of the cropping season (about June or July 2000). These meetings will be repeated for the 2000-2001 cropping season as a way of enhancing farmer participation. The first planning and evaluation workshop with farmers’ participation was held in Cajamarca in October 1999. Twelve farmers representing four FFS participated. 8.2 ICARDA The PBG Small Grant “Village-based participatory breeding in the terraced mountain slopes of Yemen is being run by ICARDA with the collaboration of the Agricultural Research and Extension Authority (AREA), Yemen. A major aim is to speed the diffusion of barley lines selected by farmers during the first phase of the project. In 1999, three villages (Hasn Azam, Al-Wali, and Al-Ashmor) were selected in the project area and 50 barleys and 50 lentils were successfully planted including both local and improved varieties. The same genetic materials were also planted at the research station at Al-Erra using the same experiment design as in the villages with the difference that each crop was planted in separate trials. The breeder and farmers at the three villages evaluated and selected lentil at three stages of growth (before flowering, at pod formation, and before harvesting). A simple form was given to farmers to record their observations, individually and in-group, on the most interesting characters. In barley, each 8 PRGA Highlights in the CG System 87 farmer made his selection by tying numbered labels at the end of the selected plots. In Hasn Azam, a group of four women from the village also selected barley and lentil. Some quantitative data were measured. In lentil they were days to flowering, plant height, number of primary branches and of pods per plant, days to maturity, straw yield, grain yield, biological yield, harvest index, and seed weight. In barley the data recorded were plant height, days to heading, days to maturity, biological yield, and grain yield. The data were analyzed using a standard analysis of variance for randomized complete block design. In general, the selections made by the breeder, farmers, and women did not differ significantly for the agronomic traits that were measured. Early results show that farmer selections, based on diverse criteria, perform as well and sometimes better than do those of the professional breeders. The results also showed that farmers are not intimidated by the task of screening large numbers of early generation lines and can contribute to the selection of desirable traits. 8.3 EMBRAPA-CNPMF The project “Participatory Cassava Breeding: Targeting and Reaching Small –scale Farmers in the Brazilian Northeast” is run by the EMBRAPA-Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Mandioca e Fruticultura Tropical (CNPMF) and developed by: · Six research institutes and extension agencies, · NGOs of the State of Bahia, and · A development program for low-income families in the State of Sergipe. The Brazilian northeast is characterized by long dry periods. Small-scale farmers cultivate cassava as a subsistence crop for human and animal food with a productivity of 10 tons per hectare. Cassava is the only crop that can survive the climatic instability because it requires little water. It is the only source of carbohydrate and protein both for humans and animals during the dry periods. After drought, the genetic diversity is lost because the seed is fed to domestic animals. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 88 Women participate in all stages of cassava cultivation and especially in the industrialization processes. Women are involved in the selection of varieties with good roots and starch production qualities and account for 45% of all work with cassava. Small-scale farmers have little access to new technologies and are resistant to change in production systems. Changes are needed in the transfer and diffusion of methodologies of improved varieties. The project’s objectives are to: · Raise the level of adoption of improved varieties, · Get feedback from program research on cassava breeding with farmer criteria, and · Increase the cassava genetic diversity of farmers. The first PPB work with cassava in this region began in 1994 on a small scale involving six farmers in the semi-arid state of Bahia. Work then expanded in the area and outwards into other ecosystems of the northeast. Between 1994 and 1999, 239 participatory tests were carried out with new varieties of cassava. Cassava PPB is now being carried out in 49 municipal districts of Bahía, Pernambuco, Ceará, and Sergipe. The project at present involves 67 communities and 1490 families. 8.4 Assessing Approaches to Innovation Development in NRM through Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation In collaboration with the PRGA Program and the University of Hohenheim, two CIALs were supported in developing and implementing their own M&E system. This “pilot experience” is embedded in an action research process that aims at yielding knowledge on PM&E as an instrument to support collective learning in PR processes (see section 3.5 Affiliated Projects). Workshops were conducted to support the selected CIALs in developing their own M&E system oriented by the concept of German et al (1996). This M&E concept was developed for participatory projects that aim at strengthening the self-help capacity and autonomous action of local groups. The subsequent steps were followed to develop an M&E system with a women’s CIAL and a men’s CIAL. Step 1. What should be watched? Step 2. How can it be watched? Step 3. Who should watch? Step 4. How can the results be documented? Once the M&E is established and information has been collected, the M&E results are periodically used and discussed according to the following steps: Step 5. What has been observed? à Reports in regular meetings Step 6. Why did we get these results? à Analysis of findings Step 7. What should we do? à Decisions about corrective action; adapting the M&E system (Steps 1- 4) 8 PRGA Highlights in the CG System 89 Because the observation, documentation, presentation, and analysis of information that is not related to experiments but to the group’s performance is a new task, initial support by project staff is needed to guide the learning process. So far, group members perceived the M&E as being useful. Example comments given are: “Since the M&E results have been presented, we are making an increased effort to be in line with the formulated indicators.” “It helps us to measure what and how we are doing”. “The activities are fulfilled with greater responsibility and we get more conscious about the group’s problems and weaknesses”. “With the M&E system we become more conscious about the CIAL’s activities, and we learn to document information.” Whether these initial claims can be confirmed, and whether the M&E system improves collective learning and leads to increased stability of the CIALs, needs to be evaluated in the ongoing action research process. 8.5 NRM Scientists’ Meeting One of the most important events this year was the NRM Scientist’s meeting, which brought together for the first time a selected group of innovative users of PR and GA in the NRM field. This was especially important because progress is being achieved at a different rhythm in crop, livestock, and natural resource management compared with plant breeding. The NRM Scientists’ Meeting was held in Chatham, UK from the 1st to the 3rd September 1999. Until this meeting, the scientists were Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 90 unacquainted and did not know one another’s work on the use of gender-sensitive, PR approaches in NRM. Twenty-five scientists conducting innovative participatory NRM research met to exchange experiences and identify future directions for collaboration in this area. The objectives were to define principles of participatory NRM management at the landscape scale, identify common strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the practice of participatory research on NRM and to document successful methods for participatory NRM research. The scientists exchanged experiences and work in progress on PR and experimentation with technologies and strategies for: · Management of common property and protected areas, · Landscape and watershed scales, and · Soil and water nutrient management, land care, and rehabilitation. The group worked together to: · Build on the experiences documented in 25 case studies prepared for the Workshop (see Annex 19). · Develop a set of principles of good or best practice for PR on PNRM. · Identify common problems and common weaknesses in PNRM research, and analyze some of the factors giving rise to them. · Summarize what we do know at present and set out priority issues for future research. The products of the Chatham meeting included in-house proceedings (available upon request), and the booklet entitled “Equity, well-being, and ecosystem health,” distributed at Center’s Week 2000 as an overview of participatory NRM research in the CGIAR. A book is in progress based on the case studies presented at Chatham. 8.6 GSA Capacity Building The workshop on “Gender and stakeholder analysis tools for decision support in natural resource management” was jointly organized in collaboration with the AHI and the SWNM, and held in Uganda, 20-31 March 2000. Thirty participants from five east African countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, and Uganda) attended. After a 3-day session on participatory methods for identifying and classifying soil quality indicators, AHI participants (six women and 12 men) concentrated on tools and methodologies for gender and stakeholder analysis for watershed management. Participants developed action plans for incorporating PR, GSA concepts, tools, and methodologies into their current and/or future activities. The PRGA Research Fellow based in Africa further undertook in-country, follow-up workshops and backstopping visits in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, and Uganda. The second group of participants from both AHI and SWNM discussed in great depth the participatory methodologies for identifying and classifying local soil quality indicators. The aim was to evaluate their applicability in 8 PRGA Highlights in the CG System 91 country-specific situations to make necessary modifications and adaptations to prepare and develop a training guide for use in the African context. The new modified “African Guide” will be tested in a training of trainers workshop in Arusha, Tanzania in March 2001. During the September 1999 PRGA staff meeting, a practical guide on “Quality of Participation” was outlined. This guide is meant for the novice users of PR and GSA and can be used as a researcher’s self-reflective tool to understand where an individual project stands on the set of “quality components.” A first draft version of the guide was finalized at the February 2000 PRGA staff meeting and it will soon be circulated to small grants and affiliated projects for comments. 8.7 Farmer-Breeder Discussion The International Symposium on PPB in LAC was the first time that the PRGA Program invited farmers to be participants in an international scientific meeting. At first there was some uncertainty as to how to include farmers in a meaningful way and whether such a meeting would actually be of sufficient interest to them. Fourteen farmers from Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Costa Rica attended what resulted in a highly interesting and stimulating meeting. The Farmer-Breeder program ran parallel to the scientific meeting and took place mainly on the experiment station of Ecuador’s national institute for agricultural research, INIAP. It consisted of a tour of the installations (including the laboratories, the gene bank, and the seed depository), and demonstration sessions with breeders of the roots and tubers, beans and cereals programs. In these sessions, farmers were shown (and showed one another) how to make crosses in potatoes, beans, and maize. They also touched on elementary aspects of genetic heritability and conservation, seed storage, and pest control. The farmers showed strong interest in learning to make (better) crosses. On the last 2 days of the symposium, the farmers came together with the scientists and technicians and interchanged questions, observations and experiences (a summary of that session can be found under 3.3.4). 9 Information Dissemination 93 9 Information Dissemination The PRGA Program uses the following tools to disseminate results and information: · PRGAinfo listserver active, general administration and dissemination tool. · Plant Breeding Working Group listserver active. · Latin America PPB Symposium Proceedings finalized and to be distributed as CD-ROM. · Spanish-speaking PPB listserver active. · PRGA Web site maintained and dynamic. · PRGA Web site Toolbox including formats for searchable databases, new links, and updated content. · Participatory Research in NRM booklet summaries of PR – NRM cases prepared by CG Centers compiled in a promotional booklet distributed to all CG Centers. 10 Publications 95 10 Publications PPB Publications CGIAR-PRGA (Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program). 1999. Crossing perspectives: farmers and scientists in participatory plant breeding. Text written by G Toomey and N Saad. PRGA, Cali, Colombia. 46 p. CGIAR-PRGA (Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program). 1999. Guidelines for participatory plant breeding. Working Doc No. 1, Draft 3. 45 p. Available in English and Spanish. CGIAR-PRGA (Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program). 2000. Fitomejoramiento participativo en América Latina y el Caribe: memorias de un simposio internacional (1999: Quito, Ecuador). Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program (PRGA), Cali, Colombia. CD-ROM. Fukudu W, Saad N. 2000. Investigación participativa en mejoramiento de yuca con agricultores del nordeste de Brasil. Working Doc No 14. Consultative Group on International Agriculture- Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR-PRGA), Cali, Colombia. McGuire S, Manicad L, Sperling L. 1999. Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding – done from a perspective of farmer plant breeding. A global analysis of issues and of current experience. Working Doc No 2, Consultative Group on International Agriculture- Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR-PRGA), Cali, Colombia. 88 p. PBG-CGIAR-PRGA (Plant Breeding Working Group - Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program). 2000. Guidelines for developing participatory plant breeding programs. Working Doc No 1, Draft 3. PRGA, Cali, Colombia. Smith ME, Weltzien E, Meitzner LS, Sperling L. 1999. Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding from the perspective of formal plant breeding. A global analysis of issues, results, and current experience. Working Doc No 3. Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR- PRGA), Cali, Colombia. Thro AM, Spillane C. Biotechnology-assisted participatory plant breeding: complement or contradiction? Working Doc No 4. Consultative Group on International Agriculture- Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 96 Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR-PRGA), Cali, Colombia. 10 Publications 97 NRM Publications CGIAR-PRGA (Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program). 2000. Equity, well-being, and ecosystem health. Participatory research for natural resource management. PRGA, Cali, Colombia. Johnson N, Lilja N, and Ashby J. 2000. Using participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management: a preliminary analysis of the PRGA inventory (draft version). Working Doc No 10. Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR-PRGA), Cali, Colombia. Gender Analysis Publication Feldstein H. 1999. An inventory of gender-related research and training in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Centers 1996-98. Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR-PRGA), Cali, Colombia. General Publications CGIAR-PRGA (Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program). 1999. Annual Report April 1998 - March 1999. Co- sponsors Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT), International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). PRGA, Cali, Colombia. 60 p plus 16 Annexes. Lilja N, Ashby JAA. 1999. Types of participatory research based on locus of decision making. Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR-PRGA) Working Doc 6. PRGA, Cali, Colombia. References 97 References Ashby JA, Knapp EB, Munk Ravnborg H. 1998. Involving local organizations in watershed management. In: Lutz E, ed. Encouraging innovation, increasing productivity and conserving the resource base. World Bank, WA. p 118-129. Biggs SD. 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine National Agricultural Research Systems. In: On-farm (client-oriented) research (OFCOR) Comparative Study Paper. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), Neths. p 3-37. Campilan D. 1997. Making participatory monitoring and evaluation work: thirteen vignettes from the field. In: Self-assessment: participatory dimensions of project monitoring an evaluation. Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP)- Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development (UPWARD), Manila, Philippines. p 57-70. CGIAR-PRGA (Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program). 1997. New frontiers in participatory research and gender analysis. Proc. international seminar on participatory research and gender analysis for technology development, Sep 9-14, 1996, Cali, Colombia. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Publ no. 294, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. Germann D, Gohl E, Schwarz B. 1996. Participatory impact monitoring. Four booklets. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammennarbeit (GTZ)- GATE. Vieweg, Germany. Goyder H, Davies R, Williamson W. 1998. Participatory impact assessment: A report on a Department for International Development (DFID) funded ActionAid research project on methods and indicators for measuring the impact of poverty reduction. ActionAid, UK. 57 p. Heinrich GM, Monyo ES, eds. 1998. Proc workshop on farmer participation in sorghum and pearl millet breeding. 25-27 Apr 1995, Mahenene Research Station, Namibia. Sorghum and Millet Improvement Program (SMIP) of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC)- International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. 160 p. McGuire S, Manicad G, Sperling L. 1999. Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding – done from a perspective of farmer plant breeding. Working Doc 2, Consultative Group on International Agriculture-Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Systemwide Program (CGIAR-PRGA), Cali, Colombia. Pretty JN. 1994. Alternative systems of inquiry for a sustainable agriculture. IDS Bull 25:37-48. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 98 Scherler C, Forster R, Karkoschka O, Kitz M. 1998. Beyond the tool kit. Experiences with institutionalising participatory approaches of GTZ supported projects in rural areas. NARMS (natural resource management by self-help promotion) /GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Techische Zusammenarbeit), Eschborn, Germany. 243 p. Sperling L, Loevinsohn M, eds. 1997. Using diversity: enhancing and maintaining genetic resources on- farm. Procs workshop, 19-21 Jne 1995, New Delhi, India. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), New Delhi. Annexes 99 Annexes Annex 1 PRGA Program Logical Framework Matrix 101 Annex 1 PRGA Program Logical Framework Matrix (For acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex 20) Narrative summary Objectively verifiable indicators Means of verification Critical assumptions Program goal: Improve the competencies of the CG System and collaborating institutions to develop technology that alleviates poverty, improves food security, and protects the environment with equity Increased capacity to use PR-GA in at least 50% of the IARCs at the end of 5 years Impact of PR-GA on technology development processes and research organization documented in at least 10 case studies as result of appropriate use of PR-GA, from which improved benefits for rural poor and women can be projected Published results of Program’s impact studies Program monitoring and assessment of capacity building in the IARCs External review reports Reports of collaborating institutions IARCs and partner institutions willing to commit staff and budget to using PR- GA, to contribute to capacity building, and to collaborate in impact assessment Project purpose: Assess and develop methodologies and organizational innovations for gender-sensitive PR and operationalize their use in plant breeding (PB), and crop and natural resource management (NRM) Use of PR-GA integrated into CG system and partner institutions’ core research Effective methods disseminated and developed for PR- GA in technology development and institutional innovation; methods recognized and understood by relevant senior management and staff; and being applied appropriately by at least 50% of IARCs supported by Program research and capacity building at the end of 5 years Collaborating IARC, NARS, and other projects with gender-sensitive stakeholder or farmer participation incorporated in the organization and management of the research process The Program’s planning and evaluation organs, stakeholder based and include active farmer representation Program publications; IARC annual reviews, reports and publications Program monitoring and assessment of use of these approaches by IARCs and their partners Results of small-grant programs External review reports Reports of collaborating institutions Donor commitment to the Program constant over the 5- year period IARCs collaborating with the Program able to include results in their Center’s reports and annual reviews Stakeholders willing to contribute actively to Program planning and evaluation Collaborating institutions able to include results Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 102 Annex 1 - Continued. Methods and organization for PPB developed Narrative summary Objectively verifiable indicators Means of verification Critical assumptions Outputs: 1. Effective participatory methods in PB assessed and developed with focus on farmer- and formal-led breeding, including both plant (segregating lines) and variety selection (fixed lines) 1.1 Methodology guidelines published for the range approaches 1.2 Methods in use in at least four cases involving NARS and NGOs (at least one case) for each type of breeding 1.3 Publications on results and impact of methods disseminated 1.4 Workshops to exchange results conducted in conjunction with Program’s biannual international seminars 1.5 Tools developed and training materials available 1.1 Program publications, journal articles, books, program home page 1.2 Process monitoring of PPB studies 1.3 Impact assessment studies 1.4 Annual reports, workshop proceedings, program home page 1. Method development and assessment can be advanced quickly in some “model” crops to permit analysis of effectiveness in farmer- and formal-led breeding, including plant and variety selection 2. Beneficiary groups more accurately targeted and involved in PB through methods developed for involving direct and indirect stakeholders 2.1 Guidelines published on costs-benefits of different approaches for involving and targeting differentiated users (NL) 2.2 Findings synthesized on how to involve hidden and indirect stakeholders and how to resolve conflicts among diverse groups 2.3 Evidence available that PB products are more user differentiated (LS and NL) 2.4 Evidence available that indirect stakeholders such as extension personnel have been involved 2.1 Program publications, PhD dissertations 2.2 Process monitoring of PPB studies 2.3 Impact assessment studies 2. CGIAR, NARS, their partners, and farmer- researchers willing to collaborate in studies using stakeholder and beneficiary differentiation Continued. Annex 1 PRGA Program Logical Framework Matrix 103 Annex 1 - Continued. Methods and organization for PPB developed Narrative summary Objectively verifiable indicators Means of verification Critical assumptions Outputs: 3. Effective organizational forms identified for putting PB into operation and developing in research process 3.1 Ways reviewed and documented of how existing breeding programs organize and fund links with farmers 3.2 Reports available on organizational options for PPB along with cost-benefit analyses 3.3 Guidelines for decision makers on promising organizational forms 3.4 Capacity building provided through training and consultancies 3.1 Program publications 3.2 Annual reports, reports on training courses, workshops, consultancies 3.3 Interviews with farmers, researchers, and research managers participating in Program workshops, training, and collaborative research projects 3. CGIAR, NARS including NGOs, other local organizations, and farmer- researchers willing to collaborate in studies of organization 4. User access to PB products assured through identification of effective organizational forms and links to supporting seed services 4.1 Case studies synthesized on how to strengthen local seed system 4.2 Analysis published on role of the formal seed system in PB approaches 4.3 At least two channels identified that move PB product rapidly to different users 4.1 Program publications, journal articles, books 4.2 Interviews with farmers participating in Program- sponsored research on PPB 4. PPB experience sufficiently advanced in the 5-year planning period for seed multiplication and distribution issues to be studied 5. User access to PPB products strengthened through identification of appropriate benefit -sharing mechanisms and clarification of expectations 5.1 Current practices reviewed and links established within PPB projects and more broadly 5.2 Potential options for better practice analyzed, including ethical and legal concerns 5.3 Better practiced integrated in at least two PRGA funded projects by 2006 5.1 Annual reports, small grant proposals, and 6- monthly reports, publications, process M&E 5.1 Stakeholders in process accept ethical issues as legitimate 5.2 Institutional report for better practice recommendations 5.3 Legal frameworks are compatible with changes in practice being proposed Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 104 Annex 1 - Continued. Methods and organization for participatory NRM research developed Narrative summary Objectively verifiable indicators Means of verification Critical assumptions Outputs: 1. State of the art in applying PRGA approaches in NRM research, synthesized 1.1 Review papers, methods, and approaches for participatory NRM available and continuously updated as a WWW toolbox and CD-ROM 1.2 Up to four regional workshops held on cases of scientists’ participation in farmer-led research 1997- 2001 1.3 One global workshop held for CG NRM scientists using participatory approaches to NRM 1.1 Journal and PRGA home page publication on typology of NRM participatory approaches 1.2 Annual report on regional workshops 1.3 Proceedings of global workshop 1.4 Web bibliography, tool box site, and CD-ROM 1.1 State-of-the-art assessment of farmer-led NRM research is possible through secondary sources 1.2 Tools exist, people have used them, and are willing to recommend them 2. Improved crop management and NRM strategies developed and disseminated, incorporating better use of existing and new PRGA methods 2.1 Workshops conducted with at least six collaborative research projects to incorporate GSA and gender- sensitive PR methods into ongoing activities in conjunction with Program’s biannual international seminars (1998, 2000) 2.2 Review paper and references accessible on approaches for scaling up of participatory NRM (2000) 2.3 Up to six small grants on formal-led NRM partnerships; up to six small grants on integrating farmer- and formal-led NRM experimentation 2.4 Up to three community-based and three researcher-based resource monitoring tools tested, compared, and results ready for dissemination (2000) 2.1 Program annual reports, workshop reports 2.2 Guidelines published for PRGA methods and organizational strategies 2.3 Working paper on Web site 2.4 Results disseminated via NRM working group and network 2.5 Proceedings and reports available on Web site 2.1 At least six projects with 5-6 years’ experience exist and are willing to conduct action-research 2.2 Projects doing studies of impact or willing to do so 2.3 Projects selected that have accomplished some measurable impact Annex 1 PRGA Program Logical Framework Matrix 105 Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 106 Annex 1 - Continued. Methods and organization for participatory NRM research developed Narrative summary Objectively verifiable indicators Means of verification Critical assumptions Outputs: 3. Organizational capacity to use PRGA methods in NRM research improved with focus on farmers, local institutions, scientists, extension personnel, and R&D institutions 3.1 New options for organizational innovation for participatory approaches to NRM and PPB research identified from at least three case studies 3.2 Up to three case studies of collective-resource monitoring completed 3.3 Farmer representation in NRM research decision making in small-grant projects increased 3.4 Up to four regional trainer groups in PRGA actively supply training to small-grant recipients and their partners (starting 1999) 3.1 Comparative analysis and case studies of organizational options published on PRGA home page 3.2 NRM small-grant annual reports, PhD dissertations 3.3 Farmer-representatives on collaborating projects’ stakeholder committees and on PRGA planning committee 3.4 Directory of trainers for training in gender and user and impact analysis in NRM on PRGA home page 3.1 Cooperating projects are willing to test a range of methods and indicators 3.2 Cooperating projects comply with small-grant conditions to set up stakeholder committees 3.3 Training in PRGA and impact analysis is of interest to cooperating institutions 4. Effective methods developed for involving gender-differentiated and other direct and indirect stakeholders in NRM 4.1 Comparison of impacts - costs of technology design and adoption of different levels of participation compiled and published as working paper with inclusion of different types of users across types of NRM and scales of management 4.2 Guides for involving different stakeholder groups in participatory NRM made accessible 4.1 Working paper, PhD dissertations on costs and benefits on PRGA home page 4.2 Published resources on methods for stakeholder participation on PRGA home page and toolbox 4. Reliable data obtainable on a meaningful scale for estimating costs and projecting impacts; this compilation of resource materials seen as needed by PRGA networks Annex 1 PRGA Program Logical Framework Matrix 107 Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 108 Annex 1 - Continued. Use of participatory approaches and gender analysis mainstreamed Narrative summary Objectively verifiable indicators Means of verification Critical assumptions Outputs: 1. Effective methods and capacity for using gender and/or stakeholder analysis, developed 1.1 Guideline available from GWG on special methods for effective stakeholder and user participation in PB and NRM technology development oriented toward including the illiterate, poor, women, and other types of disadvantaged people 1.2 Approaches to using gender and stakeholder analysis, information on their likely outcomes and costs integrated into PBG & NRMG PR guidelines and published 1.3 Gender and stakeholder analysis integrated into Program workshops and training 1.4 Gender and stakeholder analysis being applied appropriately to target technology designed for specific kinds of users—in particular poor rural women—by at least 50% of the IARCs and/or their partners collaborating in the PRGA small-grant programs 1.5 Program organization uses appropriate procedures for representing gender-differentiated stakeholders at project Steering Committee and Program Planning Group levels 1.1 GWG guidelines, PRGA home page 1.2 PBG and NRMG guidelines published, annual reports, PRGA home page 1.3 Annual reports on training events 1.4 Small-grant annual reports; site visits to collaborating IARCs; interviews with small- grant recipients 1.5 Reports of small-grant steering committee and Program Planning Group participation 1.1 Projects interested in implementing innovations as regards gender and user analysis and involvement in research steering committees 1.2 Projects willing to monitor costs and share historical data on costs 2. Effects of using gender and/or stakeholder analysis in technology development, assessed 2.1 Results of research disseminated on effects of differentiating users by gender and other characteristics, on adoption of PPB and NRM technologies by different groups, and IARCs and/or partners using results 2.2 Results disseminated of research on effects of 2. Working papers; PhD dissertations; PRGA home page; small-grant annual reports; site visits 2. PB and NRM guidelines published Annex 1 PRGA Program Logical Framework Matrix 109 differentiating users by gender and other characteristics on design of PB or NRM technologies, and IARCs and partners using results Annex 2 5-Year Workplan 107 Annex 2 5-Year Workplan (For acronyms and abbreviations, see Annex 20) CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation Work Breakdown Structure for Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group Outputs Effective participatory methods in plant breeding assessed and developed, with focus on: - farmers’ breeding - plant selection (segregating lines) - variety selection (fixed lines). Beneficiary groups in participatory breeding through methods development for involving direct and indirect stakeholders accurately involved and targeted. Effective organization forms for operationalizing participatory breeding in the research process identified and developed. User access to products of participatory breeding assured through identification of effective organizational forms and links to supporting seed services. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 108 Activities Inventory and compare existing participatory methods across crops and environments Identify and compare existing strategies for strengthening farmer breeding (in reference to self-pollinated, open and vegetatively propagated crops) Implement experimental research for comparing classical breeding approaches to participatory plant selection and participatory variety selection in reference to the three crop types Assess impact of various participatory strategies in three crop types and diverse environments with respect to goals as: yield stability, production, genetic diversity, and other farmer objectives Disseminate results and relevant methods by crop type, environment, and according to priority goals Identify opportunities for institutionalizing relevant participatory breeding methods, by crop type, environment, and according to priority goals Revise diagnostic methods for assessment of stakeholder preferences for plant varieties in short, medium, and long term Assess methods to involve users in plant breeding differentiated by type including, for example, by gender, wealth, and end-use (consumers, processors, seed producers) Analyze social and economic impacts on different users of various participatory plant breeding methods Analyze the costs of alternative participatory methods for involving different users in plant breeding Revise methods for assessing indirect stakeholder roles and needs Synthesize findings on how to involve hidden and indirect stakeholders in participatory approaches Synthesize case study findings on how to resolve conflicts among diverse users and stakeholders in germplasm resources Publish guidelines on the cost-benefits ratios of different approaches to involving and targeting differentiated users Inventory and compare different divisions of labor among farmers and breeders in the breeding process Revise the ways existing breeding programs organize and fund links with farmers Identify promising links and innovations Partners of organizational innovations monitor and evaluate (including cost- benefit analyses of different links and forms) for participatory breeding Formulate guidelines for decision makers on promising organizational forms Revise communication tools for improving farmer-scientist interaction Assess various methods and tools for understanding local seed systems Identify strategies for strengthening local seed systems Revise and develop methods to link participatory approaches in breeding with local seed systems and markets Identify incentives and roles of CBOs and NGOs in enhancing seed and seed information flow Explore constraints and opportunities to include products of participatory breeding in the existing regulatory frameworks Shading indicates activity completed Shading indicates activity begun and in progress Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 108 Annex 2 - Continued. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation Work Breakdown Structure for Natural Resource Management Working Group Outputs Synthesis of the state of the art in applying PR-GA5 approaches in NRM research for different types of technologies across three scales of management6 compared. Improved crop and natural resource management strategies developed and disseminated incorporating better use of existing and new PR- GA methods at different scales of management. Organizational capacity to use PR-GA methods in NRM research improved with a focus on farmers, local institutions, individual scientists and extension workers, and research and extension institutions. Effective methods developed for involving gender differentiated and other direct and indirect stakeholders in NRM. 5 PR/GA refers to the use of gender analysis to identify types of users by gender, wealth and other variables, and participatory methods inclusive of different types of users. 6 Three scales of NRM are (a) field and farm level, (b) community, and (c) beyond community, for example watershed management. Annex 2 5-Year Workplan 109 Activities Inventory and assess use of current PR-GA methods in NRM research Inventory and assess use of current institutional arrangements for participation of different users in NRM research and practice Identify constraints to including specific user groups in NRM research and decision making Inventory and assess methods and indicators for determining impacts of PR-GA methods Regional workshops based on initial inventories of active projects to compare and assess PR-GA methods and organizational arrangements Global workshop of practitioners to identify the method gaps and prioritize areas for refining and developing PR-GA methodology with respect to specific types of NRM technology and scales of management Identify and select a number of cases for methodology development and capacity building and comparative analysis (partners, sites, technologies, scale, regions) Develop and assess new methods for participatory resource monitoring by stakeholders at field, farm, community, watershed, and other scales Test and develop new mechanisms for joining resource user experimenters with each other and with formal science in NRM Researchers and local users experiment with developing and testing bundles of NRM options Develop participatory methods that improve resource users’ analytic tools and concepts for understanding and managing resource processes Evaluate the use of free versus controlled experimentation of NRM technologies Develop improved methods for operationalizing PR-GA at a large scale for broad coverage in natural resource management Regional workshops for practitioners to compare, integrate, and contrast different PR- GA methods and strategies for NRM research Experiment with technology options and organizational arrangements to reduce conflict over resources Evaluate different strategies for incorporating diverse stakeholder interests into collective action Publish guidelines for improved PR-GA approaches and organizational arrangements for NRM research Develop, implement, and evaluate new options for institutional innovation and strengthening of local organizational arrangements for PR-GA methods for NRM Experiment with resource user- and researcher- generated methods for exploring and reducing resource conflicts Monitor farmer-to-farmer, locality to locality exchange and extension of PR-GA approaches within and beyond the study area Compare the costs and benefits of farmer-to- farmer and conventional scaling up of the results of participatory NRM research Promote farmer representation on decision-making committees in research and extension organizations Provide guidelines for decision makers on promising organizational options for strengthening the use of PR-GA methods of NRM research Train trainers and researchers in PR-GA approaches for NRM research Partners monitor and evaluate on-going arrangements for collaborative NRM, decision making, and implementation Inventory and assess methods from current practice to identify and include different users in NRM research Develop and test new methods for including different types of users in NRM research and decision making Assess the costs and benefits of including different types of users to technology development in NRM Assess the costs and benefits of involving particular users, such as poor rural women or other marginal groups, in participatory NRM Shading indicates activity completed Shading indicates activity begun and in progress Annex 2 5-Year Workplan 109 Annex 2 - Continued. Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development Work Breakdown Structure for Gender Analysis Working Group Outputs Effective methods and capacity for using gender analysis developed Costs and benefits of using gender analysis in technology development assessed Activities ®Assess current practices for including different types of users at different stages of PB and NRM (including variables such as gender, wealth, location, and direct and indirect stakeholders) ®Identify constraints and method gaps to effectively include different types of users, particularly less visible stakeholder, in participatory research and in organizational arrangements for PB and NRM ®Monitor and evaluate new approaches for including specific types of users in PB and NRM ®Compare costs and benefits of including different users at pre-adaptive and adaptive stages of technology development in PB and NRM, and in different contexts ®Contribute to guidelines for use of PR- GA methods ®Publish guidelines and case studies on effective inclusion of different users in technology development ®Provide training and technical assistance on gender analysis through consultancies to a broad audience ®Work with selected institutions to install permanent capacity for gender analysis ®Compare the costs of including gender analysis (did it improve design?) ®Assess the impact of gender analysis (did it improve adoption?) ®Assess the use of gender analysis and gender-sensitive participatory methods to effectively target PB and NRM technologies to particular types of users, especially poor rural women and other marginal groups (did it improve targeting?) ®Assess the costs and benefits of including different types of users in local decision making or implementing institutions for PB and NRM (did it improve research planning?) ®Contribute to published guidelines and case studies on the effective inclusion of gender analysis in PB and NRM technology development ®Contribute to training courses, workshops, and seminars to disseminate results Annex 3 Program Budget Allocation 111 Annex 3 Program Budget Allocation7 January - December 19998 Program income 1999 - US $1,792,069 Items Funds Allocated (US $) Coordination Personnel 77,122 Supplies and services 18,035 Communication and networking 20,000 Capital (equipment) 7,500 Plant Breeding Working Group Scientific staff 109,000 Honoraria 51,026 Supplies and services 6,500 Communication and networking 19,483 Participatory Plant Breeding Small Grants 343,000 Natural Resource Management (NRM) Working Group Scientific staff 138,003 Honoraria 39,450 Supplies and services 750 Communication and networking 10,250 NRM and Gender Analysis action research grants 280,500 Travel 63,823 Workshops and training 160,400 Publications 40,320 Subtotal 1,385,162 Administrative costs 407,227 Total 1,792,069 7 This budget allocation table includes funds for the special projects managed under the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (CGIAR-PRGA) during 1998. 8 Budget management and reporting for the PRGA Program are on a calendar year basis. Annex 4 List of Collaborators 113 Annex 4 List of Collaborators (For acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex 20) Regions Collaborating Institution, Program, or Project Contact Description of collaboration Africa TSBF Patrick Sikana Participatory NRM SWNM Richard Thomas Participatory NRM DFID project – Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi (CIAT Africa project) Louise Sperling, Roger Kirkby PPB project – PRGA as co-implementers AHI (ICRAF), Uganda Ann Stroud Research Fellow and NRM small grant IES, Zimbabwe Edward Chuma Research Fellow and NRM small grant ILRI, Ethiopia Mohammed Saleem NRM small grant CIMMYT, Kenya Andreas Oswald NRM small grant IPGRI, West Africa Mikkel Grum PBG small grant ICARDA, Yemen Salvatore Ceccarelli PBG small grant WARDA, Ivory Coast Nina Lilja, Monty Jones Capacity-building commitments ICARDA, Syria Salvatore Ceccarelli, Stefania Grando Capacity-building commitments Latin America CIAT Pucallpa work Peter Kerridge, Doug White, Dean Holland Participatory research CIAT Central America Jose Ignacio Sanz, Kirsten Probst Research Fellow – Participatory M&E DFID project – North Coast Colombia (CIAT Cassava project – CORPOICA) Louise Sperling, Hernan Ceballos, Luis Alfredo Hernandez, Antonio Lopez PPB project – PRGA as co-implementers DIP Group, Mexico (DFID) Simon Anderson DFID-funded affiliated project (NRM) EAP-Zamorano, Honduras Juan Carlos Rosas PBG small grant EMBRAPA-CNPMF, Brazil Wania Fukuda PBG small grant CORPOICA, Colombia Antonio Lopez PhD dissertation research in PPB U. of Arizona, Mexico site Daniela Soleri PBG small grant FIDAR, Colombia Jose Restrepo PBG small grant PROINPA, Bolivia Julio Gabriel PBG small grant INIAP, Ecuador Hector Andrade PBG small grant CIP, Peru Oscar Ortiz NRM small grant Asia Himalayan Network Barun Gurung IDRC-funded network UPWARD, Philippines Dindo Campilan NRM IPGRI on-farm conservation Bhuwon Staphit PPB LI-BIRD, Nepal Anil Subedi PBG small grant CIFOR, Indonesia Cynthia MacDougall NRM small grant CIMMYT, Nepal Larry Harrington, Joel Ransom, Scott Justice Capacity-building commitments Annex 5 Small Grants’ Conditions and Opportunities 115 Annex 5 Small Grants’ Conditions and Opportunities Small Grants Projects have been awarded on the basis of prior agreement to the following conditions: · Contribution to methodology or organizational innovation in the field of participatory research (PR)- gender analysis (GA) · Commitment to take a comparative perspective · Workplan · Evidence that project will work with farmers’ organizations or groups · Research collaboration with at least two interinstitutional linkages: International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), government organizations (GOs), non governmental organizations (NGOs), farmer organizations · Explicit consideration of issues of gender and stakeholder differences in proposed research · Involvement of both men and women in the research and proposed interventions · Strategy for multidisciplinary team work involving social and natural science skills · Plan to build on farmers’ skills · Plan for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and impact assessment (IA) · Clear definition of roles for all partners in research and capacity building · Clear statement of resources available and resources required · Plan for sustaining project activities at community level for project phase out · Plan for organizing farmer stakeholder oversight committee that will receive regular progress reports on project Grant recipients will be willing to: · Work on a common research design with agreed-upon key variables to be monitored across sites · Provide an accounting of how project resources will be allocated among partners · Participate in comparative analysis · Implement interventions agreed upon jointly · Monitor impact using similar procedures and indicators and process documentation · Organize broad-based Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (CGIAR-PRGA) seminar or workshop at Small-Grant Project Headquarters · Share experiences in annual international PRGA workshops for peer review · Co-publish with local partners and PRGA Program · Participate in annual IA seminars or workshops organized by the PRGA Program · Participate in internally or externally commissioned reviews or visits by PRGA staff, members of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and/or other CGIAR or donor agencies The PRGA Program agrees to: · Facilitate E-mail discussions, where key variables will be commonly monitored across sites · Exchange information and experience with a wider research network; the facilitator will be a mechanism of “process exchange,” whereby projects can share ideas and progress every 6 months · Synthesize lessons about what works for PR-GA and what does not, derived from comparative analyses Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 116 · Convene annual regional or international seminars, workshops, or other training, as needed, in methods for effective PR, GA, and IA · Publish research results in Program publications · Contribute expertise to seminar or workshop organized at the Small-Grant Project HQ Call for Proposals for Natural Resource Management (NRM) Small Grants 1998 3-Year Grants for Action Research and Capacity Building for Applying Gender Analysis and Participatory Approaches to Natural Resource Management CIAT has received a 3-year grant from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and other donors to support the CGIAR Program on “PRGA for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation” in assessing the benefits of rural women’s participation in NRM research and capacity building. The proposal supports the NRM Group’s workplan. It includes · A review of approaches to involving rural women in research and development (R&D) for NRM; · Cooperation with ongoing programs or projects representing different approaches that will be provided with resources for action research; · Appointment of three regional Fellows to work with these projects on their action research; and · Training and workshops. Applications are invited for 3-year grants (1999-2001) from institutions or projects involved in field research on NRM. Grants are designed to enable the recipient institution to: · Introduce gender analysis and the participation of rural women for the first time into an ongoing process involving research to improve NRM, and to monitor and evaluate its usefulness. · Strengthen an ongoing effort involving rural women and add to the institution’s capacity to monitor and evaluate the usefulness of the approach. · Support an effort to innovate in an ongoing approach and monitor its effects. Grants will provide participants in the action research with some of the following resources (US$): · Fellowships (renewable up to 3 years) providing salary for full-time involvement in the action research and capacity building (up to four fellowships to be awarded to a value equivalent to local salary and benefits for university graduate or postgraduate employee); eligibility: experienced university graduates, MSc or recent PhD social scientists with at least 5 years’ practical field experience in participatory approaches · Research grants (up to 6 awards) including: - Operating expenses to a value of $36,000 for 3 years, - A computer or equipment grant of up to $5,000, Annex 5 Small Grants’ Conditions and Opportunities 117 - International roundtrip travel for holder of project fellowship to attend two PRGA Program international workshops (1998 and 2000), and - Training support for the whole project or team engaged in the action research provided locally by the Program in the form of local courses or workshops and resources for the same ($8,000). Candidates proposed by institutions applying for the grant may be existing members of the staff or there may be a proposal to add the fellowship recipient to the staff to carry out the proposed action research. Applications should be submitted by the chief executive officer or head of an organization on behalf of its NRM R&D project or program with an agricultural component, with at least 5 years of activity up to and including 1997. Natural resource management may include, but is not limited to: use and conservation of biodiversity, integrated pest management (IPM), watershed management, forestry or agroforestry-related activities, soil and water conservation, agrosilvopastoral or range management. Individual and/or collective action may be included. Research includes formal research and experimentation by farmers and other stakeholders in a natural resource, with or without the intervention of others, individually, in groups or through organized collective action. Applicants may be associated with any type of institution, for example, IARC, NGO, university, national agricultural research institute (NARI), private sector, farmer organization, or cooperative. Of equal interest are applications from projects or programs that are currently working actively with rural women as those that are not. In the latter case, they can have identified a need to do so and should propose an approach they would like to test, monitor, and evaluate using the action research grant. Application procedure Complete the form below and send to the address shown by March 31, 1998. The information requested will enable the Program to screen applications, on the basis of which a short list will be drawn up of applicants who will be contacted for further information. Proposals and fellowship candidates will be reviewed in April. Up to six grants will be awarded; the final number will depend on the degree level and corresponding value of each fellowship awarded. A final announcement will be made by May 15. Please send the application forms to the following address (via airmail, courier, or E-mail): Coordinator Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis c/o CIAT AA 6713 Cali, Colombia Email: CIAT-PRGA@cgnet.com Tel: (57 2) 445 0000 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 118 Fax: (57 2) 445 0073 Application Form Grants for Action Research and Capacity Building for the Application of Gender Analysis and Participatory Approaches to Natural Resource Management 1. Institutional information. Institution applying:____________________________________________________________ Complete name: _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Institution's main purpose or mission: ______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ No. of permanent staff: ___________________ 2. Correspondence details. Name(s) to whom correspondence is to be addressed:___________________________________ Position(s): ____________________________________________________________________ 3. Research description. 3.1 Description of ongoing NRM activities: __________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3.2 No. of months the activities have been ongoing:____________________________________ 3.3 Geographic scope of NRM activities: Africa ___________Principal site: _____________ Asia ___________ _______________ Latin America and the Caribbean ___________ ________________ 3.4 Objective(s): 1. ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. ____________________________________________________________________________ 3.5 Main activities: 1. __________________________________________________________________________ 2. __________________________________________________________________________ 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ 3.6 Main results achieved thus far: 1. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2. ___________________________________________________________________________ 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ 4. Program evaluation. 4.1 Does the program incorporate any kind of regular monitoring and evaluation? (Yes)___(No)___ 4.2 How frequently? (Every 3 years)____(Yearly) ____(6 months) ____(More frequently)____ 4.3 What approach is used? Annex 5 Small Grants’ Conditions and Opportunities 119 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Description of main beneficiaries. 5.1 Families or households (approx. no.): _____________ 5.2 Men (approx. no.): ________________________ 5.3 Women (approx. no.): ______________________ 5.4 Beneficiaries’ ownership of assets includes: Landowners _____ Landless laborers ____ Other _____ Tenants _____ Pastoralists _____ 6. Approach to participation of beneficiaries in the activities: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Check all those that apply: 6.1 How are men and/or women participants selected? Volunteers or self-selection __________ Selected by this institution __________ Selected by farmers or other community ______ Other (specify):__________ 6.2 What kinds of activities do they take part in? Soil conservation ______ Watershed management ________ Forestry ______ Irrigation ________ Farming ______ Other (specify) _______________________ Livestock ______ 6.3 Do beneficiaries and participants make decisions about: Planning activities? ________ Use of external agency resources? ________ Implementing activities? ________ How to monitor results? ________ How to finance activity? ________ Evaluating employee performance? ________ Use of local resources? ________ Other (specify) __________________________ 6.4 What decisions do professionals make about: Planning activities? ____________ Use of external agency resources? ________ Implementing activities? ____________ How to monitor results? ________ How to finance activity? ____________ Evaluating employee performance? _______ Use of local resources? ____________ Other (specify) __________________________ 6.5 What support are beneficiary groups provided with? Financial _____ In kind _______ Training ______Other (specify)__________________ 7. Partners. Who are the main partners involved in your ongoing activities? Government national level ________ NGO _______________ Government regional level ________ Farmer organizations __________________ Government local level ________ Informal groups _____________________ 8. How do you propose to participate in the action research? Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 120 To introduce gender analysis and participation of rural women for the first time into an ongoing process involving research to improve NRM, and to monitor and evaluate its usefulness: ______________________________________________________________________________ To strengthen an ongoing effort involving rural women and to add to the institution’s capacity to monitor and evaluate the usefulness of the approach (describe how): ______________________________________________________________________________ To support an effort to innovate in an ongoing approach, and monitor its effects (describe how): ______________________________________________________________________________ Annex 5 Small Grants’ Conditions and Opportunities 121 Sample Letter of Agreement (LOA) for plant breeding (PB) Small-Grant Fund Date Name and address of recipient Dear … It is my pleasure to inform you that the Plant Breeding Small Grants Fund of the CGIAR Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (hereafter referred to as the PRGA Program) convened by CIAT, has approved a grant of US (amount) (amount in words) to (Recipient institution, country). The PRGA Program is sponsored by ACIAR, Australia, IDRC, Canada; the governments of Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland. This grant is subject to the availability of funds from our sponsors and the conditions stated below: 1. Purpose: This grant will finance the activities of the project “title” (hereafter referred to as the Project), submitted to the PRGA Program (attached as Annex 4 of this document). (Recipient institution) in representation of this project and the PRGA Program, are subject to the Conditions and Opportunities stated in Annex 1 of this document. The Project will take place in (place), from 1 January 1999-31 December 2001. 2. Budget: The grant is intended to cover expenditures shown in the proposal submitted to the PRGA Program and summarized below in US$: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Supplies Services Travel Total The PRGA Program policy specifies that no more than 9% of the above total grant can be used to cover project administration costs. 3. Reporting: (Recipient institution) will report to the Projects’ Office at CIAT convening CGIAR center for the PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. a. 6-month technical research reports for the project shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project according to the technical reporting format included in this document as specified in Annex 2. The final report format may include changes to Annex 2. · First technical report – 6 months after receipt of signed LOA – June 30, 1999 · Second technical report – 12 months after receipt of signed LOA – December 31, 1999 · Third technical report – 18 months after receipt of signed LOA – June 30, 2000 · Fourth technical report – 24 months after receipt of signed LOA – December 31, 2000 · Fifth technical report - 30 months after receipt of signed LOA - June 30, 2001 · Final technical report - 36 months after receipt of signed LOA - December 31, 2001 b. Annual financial reports detailing the funds expended by (recipient institution) in respect to this grant shall be submitted according to the financial report format. The financial administrator of (recipient institution) should certify the financial reports. The timely submission and acceptance of both financial and technical reports by the CIAT Projects’ Office are conditions to any subsequent disbursement of funds. · First financial report – 12 months after receipt of signed LOA – December 31, 1999 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 122 · Second financial report – 24 months after receipt of signed LOA – December 31, 2000 · Third financial report - 36 months after receipt of signed LOA - December 31, 2001 1. Payments. Upon receipt of the countersigned copy of this contract, CIAT will make a first payment of US (amount) (amount in words). Disbursements will be as follows: · 2nd disbursement: US (amount) after acceptance of 1st year technical and financial reports · 3rd disbursement: US (amount) after acceptance of 2nd year technical and financial reports The aforementioned payments will be made to the following bank and account. Should the below information be incomplete, please return signed copy of contract specifying the correct information: Name of account: Account no.: Bank name: Bank branch: Branch address: Swift code: 5. Co-financing. (Recipient institution) and partner institutions agree to contribute US $ (amount) toward the project, amount specified in the approved version of the proposal submitted to the PRGA Program Coordination Office. 6. Property rights. It is understood that publications or production of any material, including written material, films, and tapes that result from this project, (recipient institution) will recognize the financial support of the PRGA Program by including in all publications the following acknowledgement: “This work was carried out in collaboration with the CGIAR Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation – convened by CIAT, Cali, Colombia.” It is understood that publication of the Project results will be effected jointly by all partner institutions involved in carrying out the project unless all parties agree otherwise in writing. (Recipient institution) shall also send one copy of any written materials and one copy of any audiovisual materials to the PRGA Program Coordination Office at the below address. The PRGA Program shall have the right to use, copy and distribute them. 7. Communications : (Recipient institution) shall forward to the CIAT Projects’ Office, at the address given below, a copy of this contract signed by an authorized representative of (recipient institution). All reports shall also be sent to the following address: Head, Projects’ Office, CIAT A.A. 6713 Cali, Colombia Tel: (57-2) 4450000 ext. 3004 Fax: (57-2) 4450073 E-mail: prga@cgiar.org Any inquiries as to technical or research concerns should be directed to the PRGA Program Coordination Office at CIAT at the following address: Assistant Coordinator, PRGA Program, CIAT (ext. 3131) 8. Return of funds : Within a reasonable time after Project completion, (recipient institution) shall return to CIAT any grant funds not used for the Project. Yours sincerely, Grant M. Scobie Director General Annex 5 Small Grants’ Conditions and Opportunities 123 Agreed, in the name of (recipient institution) Per: ______________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ Date: _____________________________________ Annex 6 Donor Agencies 123 Annex 6 Donor Agencies Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) GPO Box 1571 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2 Asiatisk Plads, DK 1448 Copenhagen K Denmark Embassy of Japan to the Republic of Colombia Cra. 9a. No. 99-02, Piso 6o Apartado Aéreo 7407 Santafé de Bogotá Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40 D-53113 Bonn Germany Fax (49-228) 535-3755 Ford Foundation 320 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017, USA Phone: (212) 573-5000 Fax: (212) 351-3677 International Development Research Centre (IDRC) PO Box 8500 Ottawa, Canada K1G 3H9 Fax (1-613) 5677749 Istituto Agronomico per l’Otremare, Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Via Antonio Cocchi, 4 50131 Firenze Italy Tel: (39-055) 5061328 Fax: 506 1333 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 124 DCO-OZ (Division Research and Development Countries) PO Box 20061 2500 ED The Hague The Netherlands New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) Stafford House 40 The Terrace Private Bag 18 901 Wellington, New Zealand Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs PO Box 8114 Dept. N-0032 Oslo, Norway Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs Eigerstrasse 73 CH-3003 Bern Switzerland Fax (41-31) 324-1693 Annex 7 PG Members and Terms of Reference 1999- 00 125 Annex 7 Planning Group Members and Terms of Reference 1999-2000 Jacqueline Ashby – Convening Center representative Director Natural Resource Management (NRM) CIAT A. A. 6713 Cali, Colombia Fax: (57 2) 4457300 Tel: (57 2) 4450000 ext 3131. E-mail: j.ashby@cgiar.org Aden A Aw-Hassan – NRM representative Coordinator, Dry Land Resources Management Project International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) PO Box 5466, Aleppo Syria Fax: (963-21) 213490 - 225105 Tel: (963-21) 213477 - 213433 E-mail: a.aw-hassan@cgiar.org Ntombie Regina Gata – national agricultural research systems (NARS) representative Director of national agricultural research institute (NARI) Department of Research and Specialists Services (DR&SS) PO Box CY 594 Causeway Harare, Zimbabwe Tel: (263-4) 704531 - 728310 Fax: (263-4) 728317 E-mail: plantpro@harare.iafrica.com Bhuwon R Sthapit – participatory plant breeding (PPB) representative Senior Rice Breeder Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) PO Box 1135 Khumaltar Complex, Lalitpur Kathmandu, Bagmati Zone Nepal Tel: (977-1) 521614 Fax: (977-1) 521192 E-mail: IPGRI-APO-INSITU@x1.cgnet.com Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 126 Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Terms of the Reference for the Planning Group General operation of the Planning Group (PG) Role The role of the PG is to guide the functioning of the Program towards its main goal and aims, to provide general advice to the Program Coordinator, and to participate in resource mobilization for the Program. Objectives · Establish the Program guidelines, principles, and policies, · Advise the Coordinator on strategy including fund seeking, networking, planning, and evaluation, and · Represent program in international fora. Frequency and location of Planning Group meetings The PG will meet regularly once a year. Meetings can also be called on an ad-hoc basis depending on the needs of the Program Meeting Chair. The Program Coordinator will chair Planning Group meetings. (A “meeting” in this context means an entire periodic gathering of the PG, which may include more than one session over more than 1 day). Role of the Chair. The Chair prepares the agenda for the meeting for distribution to PG members 1 month before the meeting. The Chair leads the PG meeting, and prepares and circulates minutes, the annual progress report, and results of fund raising and donor relations to members of the PG. Composition of the Planning Group The PG will have a regional and gender balance. It is composed of nine elected members: · Three representatives, one elected from each of the three working groups; · Five representatives elected from each of the stakeholder groups in the initiative: NARIs, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs, not including the convening center), donors, and farmers; · One member from the Convening Center. Duration of terms PG membership shall generally be for 3 years (beginning with the PG meeting in Cali, Sept 1996), with provision for reappointment. The current PG will serve at least through the third Annual Meeting in 1999. Means of appointment Membership in the PG will be proposed: Annex 7 PG Members and Terms of Reference 1999- 00 127 · By an ad-hoc nominating committee of current PG members from candidates nominated by current PB, NRM, and gender analysis (GA) working group members and endorsed by the PG as a body; or · At an acceptable stakeholder forum. Annex 8 CG Liaison Persons/ Gender Focal Points 127 Annex 8 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Liaison Persons and Gender Focal Points (for acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex 20) CG Center PRGA Liaison PRGA Liaisons appointed by center Directors General IFPRI Agnes Quisumbing P Pinstrup-Andersen IITA Jim Gockowski R Booth ICARDA Richard Tutwiler Adel El-Beltagy IRRI Colin Piggin Ronald P Cantrell CIMMYT Larry Harrington Claudio Cafati WARDA Brent M Simpson Kanayo F Nwanze IPGRI Pablo Eyzaguire, Bhuwon Sthapit Geoffrey Hawtin ICRAF Ann Stroud Pedro A Sánchez IWMI Barbara van Koppen Douglas J Merrey CIAT Ann Braun Grant Scobie CIFOR Cythia McDougall Jeffrey Sayer CIP Graham Thiele Hubert Zandstra ICLARM Bobet Corral Meryl J Williams ICRISAT Cynthia Bantilan Shawki M Barghouti ILRI As yet not named Hank Fitzhugh ISNAR As yet not named Stein W Bie Annex 8 CG Liaison Persons/ Gender Focal Points 129 Annex 9 Program Personnel Principal Staff Program Coordinator (20%) – Jacqueline Ashby PhD. Contribution of Convening Center, based at Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Program Assistant Coordinator (100%) – Kathryn Laing. Funded by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA), based at CIAT. Senior Scientist specialist in participatory plant breeding and participatory methods and tools (100%) – Louise Sperling PhD. Co-funded by PRGA Program and special projects connected to the Program, based in the Netherlands. Senior Scientist specialist in Gender and Stakeholder Analysis (100%) – Maria Fernandez PhD. Funded by the PRGA Program, based in Peru. Finishing contract with the PRGA Program as of June 2000. Senior Scientist – Economist focusing on monitoring and evaluation (100%) – Nina Lilja PhD. Funded by PRGA Program, dual base CIAT, Colombia and Maine, USA with University of Maine, 2-year contract until 2001. Research Fellows Research Fellow (100%) – Kirsten Probst (PhD student). Funded by the PRGA Program through a special project supported by the German Government; working on the monitoring and evaluation of natural research management (NRM) research, based in Germany and Central America, July 1998 – June 2001. Postdoctoral fellow in Gender Analysis (100%) – Barun Gurung, PhD. Funded by PRGA as of April 1999; based at Resources Nepal, Katmandu; covering Asia and South Pacific. Contract until March 2001. Research Fellow in participatory plant breeding focusing on LAC (100%) – Nadine Saad, MA. Funded by PRGA Program as of February 1999; based at PRGA Program, CIAT headquarters. Contract until Feb 2001. Regional Research Fellow – Pascal Sanginga PhD. Funded through an NRM small grant to African Highlands Initiative (AHI) - International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF). Administered through CIAT- Africa office. Responsibilities include conducting research in an AHI benchmark site (Kabale) and building capacity and supporting the research of other small grant projects in the African Highlands. Regional Research Fellow – Edward Chuma PhD. Funded through NRM small grant to Institute of Environmental Studies (IES), Zimbabwe. Specifically development and dissemination of participatory research methods in NRM within the framework of the approved small grant project. Support Staff Program Secretary (100%) – Maruja Rubiano. Funded by PRGA Program, based at CIAT. Secretary (100%) - Angela María Cardona. Funded by PRGA Program, based at CIAT. Financial Support (100%, temporary) – Cruz Elena Espinosa, May-October 2000. Funded by PRGA Program, based at CIAT. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 130 Consultants Dan Leskein. Legal consultant for IDRC-funded IPR in PPB Project. 2000. Consultants working on state-of-the-art papers and as impact assessment and program evaluation consultants Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 131 Annex 10 Executive Summaries of Three Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) Papers 10.1 Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding from the Perspective of Formal Plant Breeding. Smith M, Weltzein E, Meitzner L, Sperling L (PRGA Working Doc 3) This paper presents a review of what has been done in participatory plant breeding (PPB) from the perspective of formal sector institutions (such as national plant breeding programs, CGIAR institutes, or extension services). It includes an inventory of PPB cases worldwide, detailed description of about a dozen illustrative cases, analysis of key technical and institutional issues, and assessment of gaps in current knowledge regarding PPB methods, organization, and results. For the purposes of this document, PPB is defined as approaches that involve close farmer-researcher collaboration to bring about plant genetic improvement within a species. The goals of PPB programs can include: · Increasing production in farmers’ fields and increased farmer incomes through development and enhanced adoption of suitable, usually improved varieties, · Enhancing biodiversity, · Providing benefits for specific types of users (e.g., the rural poor, women, farmers with marginal soils), · Modifying variety release policies and procedures and seed regulations, and · Enhancing farmers’ own breeding efforts. A range of reasons for involving farmers and other end-users in such an effort includes: · Better understanding farmers’ preferences, · Sharpening the selection process to meet different end-user needs, · Sharing the labor of evaluation trials, and · Empowering farmers through strengthening decision making, skills, and access to local and exotic germplasm. We anticipated that PPB approaches would be technically most beneficial in situations where traditional breeding efforts based on experiment stations have been less successful. Thus, PPB is expected to be beneficial in areas: · Not dedicated to large-scale commercial crop production, · Marginal for agriculture, where environments are highly variable and genotype by environment (GxE) interactions preclude widespread adaptation of one or a few varieties, · Where end uses, and thus needed varietal quality traits, are diverse or locally unique, and for crops that are of only local importance or are not the focus of formal breeding efforts. · For farmer skill building and empowerment, the range of conditions under which PPB may be beneficial might be rather broader. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 132 This report was prepared by drawing on materials from published results of PPB studies (both in formal and “gray” literature), interviews with those involved in such projects, comments drawn from the Systemwide Program (SWP) PRGA Plant Breeding Group’s E-mail listserver, and the authors’ own collective experiences with PPB projects. Information on specific cases was fed back at several stages to the practitioners involved. We apologize for any errors of fact or interpretation that may remain. Although not exhaustive, we believe this report represents almost the full spectrum of PPB practice, and regret any program omissions. The field is growing rapidly. In examining PPB programs, we grouped them in various ways to detect and conceptualize trends. These groupings emphasized the key factors that have stimulated practitioners’ interest in PPB: the goals that PPB can achieve, the environments in which it might have impact, and the nature and degree of farmers’ participation in different projects. Most programs focused on productivity enhancement, particularly in marginal environments. Often linked to this was a focus on better understanding farmers’ selection criteria and varietal preferences. A third important goal was that of ensuring the possibility of releasing varieties adapted to specific (often marginal) production conditions through policy changes. Other goals, such as biodiversity enhancement and farmer capacity building, were secondary in most PPB programs. Formal-led PPB programs tended to be clustered in production environments of high stress (marginal), and subsistence-oriented. Surprisingly, however, an increasing number of projects are addressing lower stress, more market-driven contexts. The latter include programs that aim to expand intra-crop varietal diversity in areas that have become quite uniform, that focus on areas where seed systems are inadequate, and that address diverse user preferences or needs for very specific products. Farmers’ participation in formal-led PPB can be considered in terms of the stages of the breeding process during which it occurs, the nature of farmers’ contributions, and the degree of decision making. These three dimensions together describe the “quality of participation”. In terms of stage, in most PPB cases examined, farmer participation occurred during the testing of (genetically fixed) varieties. The involvement of farmers in setting breeding priorities and targets is also reasonably common. Much less has been done to explore farmers’ potential contributions to setting the overall goals of a breeding program, generating variability, or selecting experimental varieties from among segregating populations. Participation between researchers and farmers in the variety diffusion process is beginning to receive more attention. The nature of contributions that farmers made included those of key information based on their knowledge and experience, of genetic materials, and of involvement in the actual breeding process. The contributions of farmers’ information provide breeders with insights needed to identify appropriate varieties and improve seed production and distribution systems. Involving large groups of farmers in contributing information is relatively easy. Contributions of genetic materials can provide germplasm with unique sets of traits and thus introduce new genetic variability into breeding programs, and broaden the genetic base of breeding populations. Farmer involvement in the breeding process has most often Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 133 involved conducting trials and/or selecting and evaluating germplasm, leading to increases in research efficiency. The degree of participation within formal-led PPB work was overwhelmingly consultative; that is, farmers give advice, but have no real decision-making power. For this review, 48 cases were identified, studied, and inventoried. Of these, 11 case studies are presented in greater depth in the body of the report. They were chosen to represent the diversity of crop types, geographic regions, and scales of PPB programs, and to show some of the different motivations for pursuing PPB from the formal breeding sector. These cases show work in progress with farmers involved in different stages of the breeding process (i.e., testing and evaluating varieties, selecting in early generations, generating variability, identifying and focusing breeding objectives, and disseminating seeds and planting materials). They include work with cross-pollinated, self-pollinated, and clonally propagated crops. The research is located in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Mesoamerica, and addresses farmers’ needs in a wide variety of agroecological conditions (from extremely hot, dry desert margins to very high rainfall, high altitude, mountain conditions). Some cases deal with highly market-oriented production and others with subsistence- oriented systems where production shortfalls are frequent. Most of the case studies represent production systems in which the formal breeding sector alone, without the direct involvement of farmers, has achieved only limited success. Different institutional partners and collaborative arrangements are represented. The cases emphasized different broad goals (e.g., enhancing research efficiency, influencing productivity, changing seed production and variety release policies, conservation or enhancement of local crop genetic diversity, facilitating farmer learning and empowerment, and benefiting specific end- users). Some cases addressed issues or problems that farmers identified and initiated, while others merely consulted farmers and used the information so acquired to orient selection programs or other breeding activities. Key outcomes described in these cases include the following. · Farmers’ selections strike a balance between productivity and marketability. · Farmers have an advantage in selecting visually, considering a wide array of traits, and identifying the most promising trait combinations. · Breeders are usually better placed to select for quantitative traits that are difficult to assess visually, such as disease resistance or yield potential. · Involving farmers in the evaluation of larger sets of varieties before release, or before general recommendations are made, is extremely powerful in identifying the most beneficial options for farmers. · Involving other stakeholders (i.e., women who process the crops, sales agents, or urban consumers) may reveal new options for producers. · Farmer evaluations are a regular contribution to the variety evaluation process. · Extreme stress conditions, as found in some farmers’ fields and well understood by farmers, provide key selection conditions to identify tolerances and adaptations. · Working with farmer groups or their representatives provides opportunities for scaling up the process of participatory selection. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 134 · Farmers are interested in an array of varieties for different production niches and marketing opportunities. · In areas of inherently low crop genetic diversity, PPB provides an avenue for increasing this diversity in farmers’ fields. · Farmers are very keen to test new varieties and to learn techniques for improving their own varieties. · Understanding local seed systems can be the key for effective formal-led PPB programs. · Those programs with the most immediate impact have a built-in seed component. · Significant scaling up occurred only when PPB programs devolved much of the adaptive testing to farmers. From examination of the case studies and consideration of all the PPB programs inventoried, the following generalizable lessons emerged. In biophysical and socioeconomic environments: · Many cases (about one third) took place in relatively marginal production contexts where conventional breeding had not been effective. · The social context was an equally strong driving force, as reflected in PPB programs in the more favorable areas that aimed to increase varietal diversity, help farmers gain control over the seed supply, or hasten adoption of improved varieties. · In semi-favorable areas, PPB has been introduced where marketed production must meet rigid consumer preferences or where subsistence crops are only recently being marketed and thus need to meet new quality demands. · PPB is an approach that explicitly aims to reach the disadvantaged. In breeding strategies involving farmers: · Most PPB efforts to date are focused on major staple food crops in areas with locally important quality preferences. Most experiences are with self-pollinated crops, half as many with cross- pollinated crops, a quarter as many with clonally propagated crops, and only a handful with tree species. · Sowing by tractor, broadcast seeding, and seeding of crop mixtures by mixing seed of the species involved, seriously limit the possibilities for on-farm variety evaluations or selections, simply because of complication in plot establishment and identification. · Crops with low seed increase ratio can spread only very gradually through local seed systems, and may necessitate creative integration of formal and local seed systems to provide rapid availability of good varieties. · About two thirds of the cases examined focused on identifying, verifying, and testing specific selection criteria, to ensure that varieties developed or selected truly meet farmers’ needs. Many approaches to gaining an understanding of farmers’ preferences and needs were investigated, involving either bringing farmers to the research station to view a broad range of genetic materials or asking farmers to grow and evaluate diverse materials in their own fields. · Many projects focused on developing methodology for effective interaction with farmers and exploring options for sharing responsibilities and decision making with farmers. Most of this effort has addressed farmer involvement in variety testing and evaluation. Much less effort has been Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 135 devoted to developing and testing options for farmer involvement in early generation selection, and most of this has focused on self-pollinated crops with minimal work on cross-pollinated crops. Overall, farmers showed particular strength and ability to contribute to selection involving overall judgements about complex combinations of traits. Farmers have rarely taken part consciously in generating genetic variability for breeding programs. · The need to test varieties in appropriate production contexts has been a key motivator for involving farmers in formal breeding programs. The PPB programs that were examined tended to use many more testing sites than a classical breeding program would use, but often with each farmer testing only one or a very few varieties in comparison to his or her own variety. · The focus on comparison with farmers’ varieties that is inherent in PPB approaches has encouraged a shift to improving specific traits in local materials in some breeding programs, and this has increased the genetic diversity in breeding germplasm pools in some cases. In issues of participation: · The literature on PPB provided only limited information regarding the quality of the actual participation of farmers. · Farmer input can optimally occur at various points in the cycle of breeding stages, and will likely occur at different stages as a program evolves and matures. · Whose input is most needed at what points during the annual crop cycle (i.e., men’s vs. women’s input during the cropping cycle, at harvest, during processing and use, and preplanting) must be taken into consideration. Identifying meaningful options for farmer input during the off-season when demands on farmers’ time and labor are fewer would be extremely helpful. · The degree of farmer collaboration can vary from simple responses to a survey, to a truly integrated, interactive, long-term involvement with formal breeders. The degree of farmer involvement is likely to change as a PPB program develops and as each partner identifies the more efficient forms of interaction. · Cases examined show farmer involvement occurring primarily near the end of the varietal development process (variety testing and seed production and distribution) in forms ranging from consultative, to collaborative, to collegial, or as consultative input to definition of breeding objectives (variety ideotypes and key crop characteristics). · Few of the cases analyzed have experimented with collegial participation involving a significant devolution of responsibility to farmers. This may be because many of the cases are still testing approaches. As yet, very few guidelines are drawn from experience on the degree of devolution to farmers that can be achieved in a research program that needs to maintain certain standards of data quality, which affect the replicability and validity of results. · Farmers’ participation appears essential to successful plant breeding when: - Their expertise is needed, - Their preferences are highly differentiated, - They and their communities want greater control over the germplasm and seed supply, - They need to take the lead in future breeding efforts (e.g., for minor crops), and - Desired impacts require large-scale farmer involvement in adaptive testing. · Use of farmers’ labor or farmer environments’ per se do not constitute participation. In gender and user differentiation and PPB programs: Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 136 · Farmer evaluators were chosen by diverse methods in the cases examined, but there was little rigorous discussion of the methods used. The rational for engaging in the PPB effort only rarely appeared to explicitly guide the choice of participants. · Most collaboration is still conceived as between researchers and individual farmers. Few efforts have focused on organized farmer groups that could share research responsibility more fully and spread benefits more quickly. · The treatment of gender as an analytical variable has been generally weak in PPB, particularly considering the key roles women play in breeding, selection, and conservation of crop varieties. Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 137 For institutions in formal-led PPB: · In most of the PPB cases examined, institutional arrangements have been little altered from the norm. · Challenges under current arrangements include creating shared agendas, building in accountability for research outputs, creating effective inter-institutional linkages, and ensuring effective communication between researchers and farmers. In general, very few PPB efforts have focused on these challenges. · Scaling up of the process and of PPB products is a potentially complex issue. A larger number of farmers have been involved in variety evaluation and dissemination in a few of the studied cases. Whether scaling up is necessary in generating genetic variability or in selecting in segregating populations depends on the extent to which these activities can be effectively centralized, but still effective, at addressing varietal needs over a broad area. For outcomes, results, and impacts of formal-led PPB: · Influencing breeders’ selection criteria and methods is a significant outcome of PPB. Of the cases studied, 85% obtained results relating to farmers’ selection criteria for new varieties, and these often enabled researchers to better focus their efforts on poorer farmers and/or on particular varietal needs through altering their testing conditions, modifying breeding objectives, or choosing new or different parents for breeding populations. · Breeders also investigated methods for obtaining more accurate and realistic farmer assessments through group and individual processes, and for increasing the numbers and/or representativeness of participating farmers. Through this means, breeders gained confidence in farmers’ capacity for evaluation, and the “scientist as learner” became a primary product of PPB. · About half of the cases reported identification of farmer-preferred improved varieties – often a highly significant breakthrough because, in many projects, no improved varieties had previously been available to farmers. The key to successful cases was an understanding on the researcher’s part of the prevailing problems in the target zone, and the testing of a sufficiently broad range of genetic materials. · In several projects where improved varieties were identified, increased adoption of these varieties was studied and documented. One case calculated 47% to 70% returns on investment in a PPB project based on the impact from a successful, farmer-preferred rice variety. · Many PPB cases reported a difference in varietal preference among gender, social, wealth, or ethnic classes. With PPB, researchers can focus on the needs of the poorer sector, through such strategies as testing in low-input situations and emphasizing the development of early maturing varieties. This helps researchers attend to multiple crop uses, identify a diversity of varieties to stabilize production, and ensure that varieties grown for market have quality traits that can bring good prices. · Promoting the formal release of many and more diverse varieties through PPB has contributed to increased varietal diversity in farmers’ fields in several cases. In situations where diversity is already very high, various PPB efforts are addressing farmers’ crop and seed management to provide the basis for designing PPB programs that combine productivity enhancement with crop diversity conservation and/or enhancement. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 138 · A few cases have stimulated examination and changes in variety release and seed production procedures, to facilitate identifying differentiated needs, incorporating data from farmer evaluations, and exploring methods for coordinating with local seed systems. · Institutional arrangements have evolved to incorporate decentralization in the breeding process for a few cases involving marginal production conditions. · Scaling up the impacts of PPB is intricately linked to farmer empowerment. Only a handful of cases have addressed this need through involvement of farmers’ social and political organizations in innovative partnerships. In transfer of benefits: · Among the formal-led PPB projects, only isolated cases have focused on enhancing farmers’ skills and knowledge about specific breeding, varietal, or seed production issues. · Seed system support is usually not explicitly planned within PPB projects, with a few notable exceptions. Local seed systems show evidence of working relatively effectively in a few cases, but breeders typically know little about how such systems work, what rules apply, and what channels and barriers exist for the flow of information and germplasm. A greater understanding of local seed systems seems essential to developing sound PPB projects. · For PPB projects working in marginal production environments, which are not well-served by the existing formal variety release and seed production system, integration into the formal system will require changes in that system. These may occur too slowly to be of use to an active PPB program, necessitating creativity in integrating into local seed systems instead. · Property rights and ethical issues surrounding PPB are lagging far behind technical advances. The collaboration inherent in PPB should imply joint benefit sharing. However, most formal-led PPB work has avoided issues of property rights either by feeding jointly developed varieties into the formal system (thus not recognizing farmers’ input) or by letting the developed varieties diffuse into farming communities with no official release of any sort. Better understanding is needed of local property rights, ownership, and benefits’ systems associated with varietal knowledge and seed production skills. In gaps and further work: The final section of this document focuses on identifying gaps in our understanding that must be addressed by future PPB research. Although far from exhaustive, it reflects those areas where additional research-based information can make the greatest contribution to furthering our understanding of PPB and enhancing the effectiveness of PPB programs. Breeding methodology and other technical issues · The process of goal setting needs be undertaken explicitly. At present, most programs implicitly aim for the same goal--production enhancement--as that of classical breeding programs. In a PPB program, all partners should be involved in the goal-setting stage implying that those involved, especially farming communities, have to be aware of what the potential options, and trade-offs, may imply for future benefits--and costs. Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 139 · Assessment approaches are needed that allow researchers to realistically evaluate the potential benefit from PPB in individual situations, rather than having PPB be the method of recourse when classical breeding approaches have been tried and failed. · Creative development of methodological options for effective interactions with farmers is needed, including exploration of optimal methods for obtaining farmer input and methods for enhancing farmers’ skills in selection and breeding. · Models are lacking for involving farmers in early generation selection, particularly for the cross- pollinated crops. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 140 · Various technical details are deserving of consideration, including areas such as methods for assessing and comparing crop genetic diversity, models for incorporating farmer-generated variability into breeding programs, and creative field approaches for allowing farmer participation when crops are tractor sown, broadcast sown, or sown as seed mixtures. · There are little or no data documenting the impacts of PPB programs on in-situ conservation of local germplasm. Institutional options · The assessment of organizational options, options for scaling up, and particularly options for partnering with farmer organizations, leaves a significant gap in current PPB work. · Models for decentralized seed multiplication have not been broadly studied. · Development of more effective methods for ensuring both “feed forward” and feed back of information between researchers and farmers or communities is needed to strengthen linkages between research and development. Participation and gender and user differentiation · Presently there are little data allowing us to link in any meaningful way stage, degree, and nature (or “quality”) of participation with results achieved. This leaves little basis for making logical choices of when and how to involve various partners (farmers and scientists) in a particular breeding situation. On-going studies of farmers’ seed selection and management practices may shed some light on the potential contribution from farmer selection. · Information is also scarce on numerous specific aspects user-differentiation. For example, virtually none of the documented cases have addressed the question of who should involved for which specific purposes. For example, who should evaluate genetic materials to offer technical expertise? Who needs to be involved (and when) to ensure that the needs of poor are met? Who should “participate” to guarantee equitable and efficient diffusion of seed materials? Such gaps are astonishing for work that claims to be “participatory” as all farmers are treated as a homogeneous mass. Impact monitoring and documentation · Data are generally lacking regarding impacts of PPB programs, in part because of the relatively recent initiation of these programs. · Approaches and methods for monitoring and documenting impact from PPB programs are likely to be difficult to develop (as with classical plant breeding) but work in this area is clearly needed. · Evaluation programs need to embrace both western and grassroots indicators, quantitative and qualitative measurements. Perspectives must be able to encompass the effects of PPB on farmers own systems of breeding and seed maintenance--as well as the implications for classical plant breeding programs. Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 141 10.2 Technical and Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant Breeding from the Perspective of Farmer Plant Breeding Shawn McGuire, Gigi Manicad, Louise Sperling (PRGA Working Doc 2) Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) denotes a range of approaches that involve users more closely in crop development or seed supply. For different perspectives in agriculture and development, which seek to improve crop development, conserve biodiversity, or empower farmers, PPB is seen to show much promise. This report considers work which seeks to support farmers’ own systems of crop development and seed exchange (farmer-led PPB) in light of these different goals, and of the perspectives of the range of organizations promoting PPB. It presents an overview of farmer breeding and a framework for support, and gives the first major comparative analysis of farmer-led PPB. Participatory plant breeding is considered to have potential in situations where formal breeding and seed supply systems are unable to fulfil the needs of all users. Marginal areas are commonly mentioned, but in fact decentralization may be valuable for any situation where the environment (agroecological and socioeconomic) for crop growth and use is highly variable, or differs significantly from those anticipated and tested by formal breeding. Such variation also exists in high-potential areas where farmers and users want to pursue different options than those currently on offer. PPB is also seen to be valuable for “minor crops”, or in situations of dramatic change or crisis, where formal systems are not involved or not functioning. Finally, where formal seed systems fail to supply planting material on time, of suitable quality, for accessible prices, or of suitable diversity, farmers prefer their own sources (farm-saved seed, exchange, purchase), which still supply 80% of planting material each season: PPB can support and enhance this system. This report broadly defines farmer breeding to include both deliberate actions and those bound in farmers’ practice, to consider collective as well as individual processes, and to include systems of seed storage and exchange. A review of current knowledge about farmer breeding points to areas of similarity and difference from formal breeding. Farmers often bring a wider set of criteria to crop development than formal breeding. They also seek to balance maintenance with crop improvement, and local with broad adaptation, although details are sparse on the nature and success of such balances. Farmer-breeding can be considered as a series of processes for managing gene flow, in parallel to formal breeding, which influence crop genetic structure and performance, as well as who receives germplasm and information. These processes include introduction of new diversity (and its testing), recombination, selection, storage, and exchange of planting material. Knowledge remains patchy on the biological and social impact of these processes. Farmers’ actual interest in breeding may be supported by a range of socioeconomic factors (failure of formal breeding, importance of crop, absence of policy barriers) as well as biological factors (visible diversity, self-pollination, environmental variation, and experience with crop). As a social process, farmer breeding and seed exchange involve particular groups differently, often giving roles particular to gender or wealth. A framework, based on analysis of the case studies, outlines four broad approaches to support farmer breeding. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 142 (1) Germplasm support to increase farmers’ access to diversity can supply fixed or segregating lines and work with material with local or distant origins. Seed systems may also be directly supported. (2) Skills support in breeding, testing, or seed production can offer farmers new skills, or seek to extend best local practice. (3) Support in forming links may enhance the equity or sustainability of a PPB project, through helping establish two-way, flexible ties between individuals and institutions for germplasm or information. (4) Indirect support could confront barriers to farmer breeding, or help promote it in other ways, such as market development. These approaches comprise a range of methodological options, with considerable implications for the ease of PPB and the nature of its impact. The core of this report describes and analyses 11 case studies of projects that pioneer different aspects of farmer-led PPB. They represent activities in Africa, Asia, and North and South America, initiated by institutions ranging from independent farmers’ initiatives to the CGIAR, and involve crops from all breeding systems. PPB projects are active not just in marginal areas, but across a broad spread of agro-ecologies. These cases address a range of goals, the most common being conservation and improvement of germplasm. Many of these cases also sought to expand farmers’ crop options, although only a few cases made this a central goal, exclusive of interest in conservation. An additional goal in a number of cases was empowerment through promoting self-reliance. Finally, one case concentrated on helping post-disaster adjustment. Striking was the degree of overlap in most cases between crop conservation and development. Although goal setting generally had local input, there was little discussion of this process or of problem diagnosis. Choice of locations and methods for selection and evaluation reflected both the constraints of participants, and the type of information that was meaningful to them. Germplasm was a common approach, often combined with testing novel material and, in some cases, support to seed systems (usually community seed banks). Non-local germplasm was often modern varieties (MVs), although distant farmer varieties (FVs) were also introduced: scale of collection was broadly related to organization scale, with very local groups usually concentrating on local (but thorough) collection. Local seed storage generally seemed effective in the short term, although there is scope for formal back up. Skills-development excited much enthusiasm, with external agents transferring new information, and extension of “best practice” usually organized by farmers themselves. Similarly, when farmers initiated new links, it was generally with other farmers through informal networks; links promoted by external agents could also be between farmers (through organizing groups or workshops) or between farmers and formal institutions, usually over the transfer of germplasm. Although valuable, impact from these approaches was difficult to assess, and more information on methods was needed. Focusing on basic issues and using flexible approaches appear to assist transfer of new skills to farmers. Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 143 Crop breeding systems and divisions of labor are important issues for groups pursuing selection activities with farmers. Some cases confronted resource limitations, although they were able to address these by using local organizations to work collectively to isolate and select material. In training, farmers were taught modified selection methods based on mass selection, and generally appeared to grasp the principles. Testing methods, in selection or in germplasm screening, revealed different approaches between farmers and formal institutions, with farmer testing often on local, unreplicated plots. This raises the issue of variation in the ecological and socioeconomic environment, which may affect particular users differently. Little is known of the quality of documentation in most cases, although it is one way to make germplasm and information more widely useful. Impact on crop production generally appeared positive, with germplasm supply often expanding farmers’ options significantly, overcoming bottlenecks, both biological and social, to diversity. Similarly, efforts in local storage and seed supply improved farmers’ security of access to material. Impact on crop genetic development was less frequently quantified. Biodiversity appeared to be positively affected, although most cases lacked measures and baselines to confirm this. Furthermore, links between biodiversity, farmers’ choices, and function are still poorly understood. Finally, cases offer useful indicators for empowerment, where farmers gain more control over seed supply and crop development, where roles may evolve to farmers, and where farmers may gain a critical awareness of research and policy arenas. Users directly involved in PPB projects could be clustered into two broad profiles: experimenting farmers, and poorer, more seed-insecure farmers. The former profile correlated well more formal- sector projects aiming to introduce new germplasm or skills, while the latter was often stemmed from local initiatives that worked on seed systems for security and diversity of access. Participants were self- selected, or in some cases, the community elected lead collaborators. Links with local institutions may in some cases help to reach broader groups of users. Despite an important role in farmer breeding, direct involvement of women was often limited, although wealth or status of participants varied among cases. For both wealth and gender, targeting to particular groups, especially through consideration of special roles, may be one way to side-step barriers to participation. Some cases worked through farmers recognized as local experts, who may facilitate some activities, although broader consideration of their relationships to others, and roles in farmer breeding may be needed. Technological approaches influence participation, including choice of species and testing site, and size or price of seed packets. Farmer-led PPB involves different institutions, from social movements to international research centers. Local groups of farmers were a common element, although little is known of internal structures of accountability within these groups, or their relationship with the surrounding community. Scale of activity was closely-linked to that of funding, which came through a variety of donor sources, although farmers supported most work themselves or through market sales. Some cases increased scale of impact through passing on tasks, such as training, to farmers as programs evolved, or through linking to networks. Particular types of institutions bring different strengths to farmer-led PPB, and complementary interactions show much promise in many areas, where local groups bring local knowledge and Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 144 accountability, and more formal institutions offer technical support. However, such partnerships appear to be uncommon, or strained. This may be due to structural barriers to collaboration (policy and economics), or to barriers between the cultures of very different institutions, which undermines understanding and trust. Better collaboration may only come when these barriers and how to confront them are better understood. Transfer of benefits between farmers could come through the exchange of knowledge and skills or of germplasm. Although these processes occur among farmers already, projects tried to enhance exchange through workshops and other means to increase the visibility of new knowledge and materials to farmers. The nature of germplasm and information affects the ease and speed of transfer among farmers, while social relationships affect its pattern, although this aspect was usually not considered. Some cases also worked through formal systems to transfer benefits, although the limited reach of formal seed and extension systems, and hostile perspectives hostile to farmers’ practices and seed may limit scope for this. Finally, issues around Intellectual Property Rights need to be clarified, to establish where access and control over germplasm and information is vested, and who has rights to benefits. Current frameworks say nothing on material developed jointly between researchers and farmers’ groups, or on collective systems of ownership. Openness and clarity on these issues are essential to maintain trust between institutions, and important for safeguarding rights to germplasm and benefits. Major gaps in knowledge and practice in farmer-led PPB include: · Attention to “minor crops”, especially vegetables and regionally-important crops · Discussion and comparison of participatory methods, particularly those for diagnosing problems and setting goals, and for evaluating of progress · Discussion of training methods and topics for farmers in breeding and seed production · Involvement of national agricultural research systems, including extension, in PPB · Collaboration between different types of institutions · Use of baselines and evaluations to assess impact · Development of indicators to measure impact for such goals as skills-development, biodiversity enhancement, strengthening links, and empowerment, and conceptual frameworks to analyze trade- offs between different goals · Attention to user differences in all areas, including goal-setting, methods, technologies, and overall impact · Explicit involvement of non-farmer users in PPB · Understanding, both historical and institutional, of the social movements that are initiating much PPB work · For many, quantitative analysis of impact of different methods on crop genetic advance or biodiversity Suggestions for future work include: · Goals setting, which takes a broad consideration of supporting and limiting factors to farmer- breeding, such as the framework presented here Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 145 · More involvement of networks and organizations that work in a number of locations, enabling exchange of material and information, and scaling-up of work · Use and comparison of different methods for problem diagnosis, PPB support, and impact evaluation · Development and dissemination of materials on participatory training methods and breeding approaches · More discussion of methods and approaches for establishing flexible, sustainable relationships between institutions · Process documentation of PPB efforts, especially for participatory methods, discussing decisions taken, and describing both successes and challenges encountered · Local or regional workshops or meetings among farmers to exchange experience · Encouragement and support to involve state-level research and seed supply systems, and help them to institutionalize PPB in their policies and practice · More effort to understand barriers to institutional involvement and interaction, especially differences in institutional culture · Particular attention to policy, especially seed policy and Intellectual Property Rights; on an international and regional level, drafting model legislation and developing “best practice” models · Consideration of other research on biodiversity which gives insight into the relation between diversity and performance, and which develops frameworks for farmers’ decision making around diversity · More study of the farmers’ intentions, practice, and impact in various processes of farmer-breeding, including introduction, recombination, selection, storage, and exchange Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 146 10.3 Biotechnology-assisted Participatory Plant Breeding: Complement or Contradiction? AM Thro and C Spillane (PRGA Working Doc 4) Introduction It is less than 20 years since modern biotechnologies and farmer participatory research techniques were first applied to agricultural research and crop improvement. Since then, many questions have arisen regarding the potential social and economic impact of both approaches. Modern biotechnology emerged from the natural sciences and participatory research from the social sciences. Their different starting points have led to separate evolution in markedly different directions. Even today, there is often little communication between the biotechnology and farmer participatory research communities. As a result, there may be unexplored complementarities between the two approaches that can be harnessed to improve farmers’ livelihoods. It is vital that institutional and educational straitjackets do not prevent us from exploiting these complementarities. This working paper examines current thinking on two questions: i. Can modern plant biotechnologies offer benefits to small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries? ii. Can and should these farmers and their organizations more fully participate in creating and shaping those benefits? Specifically, the paper aims to explore and advance understanding of how modern biotechnologies might assist farmer participatory crop improvement by improving the latter’s products and/or processes. Private-sector biotechnology companies cannot answer these questions, because their existence depends on responding successfully to commercial opportunities in capitalized agriculture. It is therefore up to the public sector, which has a mandate to address the needs of resource-poor farmers, to do so. Accordingly, the Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (SWP-PRGA) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) invited the authors to engage a broad range of participants in interviews, discussions, and surveys on this subject. About 500 people took part, including farmers, plant biotechnologists, plant breeders, and participatory research experts. This working paper is the result. The paper is still preliminary, and the authors would welcome readers’ comments, whether to correct errors, present additional views, or further advance our thinking. The authors’ survey showed that the biotechnology-plant breeding and participatory research sectors have no common fora in which to interact, speak different professional languages, and in most cases are unaware of how one another’s work might be relevant or useful to their own. It is questionable whether it is merely the lack of communication channels that has led to the dearth of collaboration between the two groups. It may be that the close links of many public-sector biotechnologists with the commercial sector has led to a schism, in which researchers working with poorer social groups feel there is no point in trying to work with biotechnologists (E Friis-Hansen, personal communication). A Sutherland (personal communication) proposed a list of the constraints to collaboration. Potential barriers include: Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 147 · Negative attitudes on both sides (either of on-farm researchers towards biotechnologists or of biotechnologists to sharing knowledge, methods, and materials with non-specialists), · Organizational distance (it is rare to find both types of researcher in the same organization) and geographical distance, · The movement of personnel (many on-farm researchers are on short-term projects and, in the CGIAR system, tend to be pre- or post-docs with uncertain futures), · Lack of support for collaboration from senior management, · No budgets or terms of reference for linkage activities, and · On-farm researchers’ fears of being stigmatized for being associated with biotechnology, even if they themselves have no ethical reservations. In the face of such constraints, the authors believe that much more discussion and communication will be needed between the two groups if collaboration is to increase and the complementarities between their two approaches are to be realized. Focus on small-scale and resource-poor farmers Small-scale and resource-poor farmers in developing countries number some 1000-1400 million compared to 50 million farmers in the developed world. While resource-poor farmers produce only 15- 20% of the world’s food, they are responsible for about 80% of agricultural production in developing countries. The agrarian workforce in most developing countries consists mostly of poor women, in many cases with very high demands on their labor and the labor of their children. Throughout this paper, the word “farmers” refers to small-scale and resource-poor farmers in developing countries, unless otherwise specified. Such farmers include both those in relatively isolated subsistence farming systems and those whose agriculture is linked in varying degrees to external markets, such as nearby urban areas or exporters, and who therefore tend to use a somewhat higher level of external inputs. The paper asks how plant biotechnology research might be made more relevant to the needs of these farmers. In particular, it explores how farmer participatory research approaches might be used to impart a “pro-poor” bias to existing biotechnology research, especially in the public sector. Plant breeding, participatory research, and biotechnology Less than 200 years ago, all plant breeders were farmers. The division of labor by which plant breeding became a separate, specialized activity conducted by scientists occurred gradually during the 19th century. Centralized scientific plant breeding, conducted largely on research stations, has been hugely successful. However, mainly because of the context in which it evolved and operates, its products have in some cases not been adopted by, or are not accessible to, resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Decentralized farmer participatory plant breeding (PPB) has been developed and promoted as a way of improving the service and delivery of crop improvement research to the poorest, most marginalized peoples and areas. Its aims are to develop locally adapted technologies and distribute them more effectively (technology transfer) and/or to support local capacity for generating such technologies. The latter aim encompasses “empowering” or “self-help” approaches to rural development. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 148 Farmer participatory agricultural research—of which PPB forms a part—emerged during the 1980s as a means of better understanding and meeting the needs of poor or marginalized rural people. In such research, farmers are considered to be active participants who may lead the process and whose ideas and views influence its outcome, rather than being passive bystanders or objects of research. Much participatory research seeks to empower local people to develop their own solutions to problems. The issues raised by such research have been extensively reviewed and discussed. The use of farmer participatory research in plant breeding has been the subject of a number of recent compilations and reviews. For a review of PPB per se, see other papers in this series. A distinction should be made between PPB and participatory varietal selection (PVS), although the two approaches often overlap and borrow or learn from each other. PVS is really a form of PPB, which is the larger of the two concepts. While PPB tends to involve farmers at all stages of the research process, farmer involvement in PVS tends to be somewhat more limited. In PVS, farmers play a role in selecting within stabilized materials already developed mainly by formal researchers and in feeding back their reactions to those who decide which varieties should be promoted and distributed. Modern plant biotechnologies have emerged over the past two decades as powerful tools for crop improvement, especially when integrated with proven conventional plant breeding methods. For the purposes of this paper, they are held to include both plant molecular biology techniques and tissue culture techniques. The plant molecular biology techniques discussed are genomics, marker-assisted selection (MAS), diagnostics, and transgenesis (also known as genetic transformation, genetic modification, or genetic engineering). The plant tissue culture techniques covered include in vitro selection, embryo rescue, and anther culture, as well as clonal thermotherapy, and micropropagation. While biotechnology is now often equated in the popular media (e.g., in Europe) with so-called “genetically modified” foods, the authors wish to stress that only a subset of modern biotechnologies result in transgenic products. Biotechnologies that generate products of both a transgenic and a non- transgenic nature are considered in this paper, but the paper does not review the pros and cons of genetic modification per se. Just as farmer participatory research approaches are diverse, so also plant biotechnologies vary greatly in their technical complexity and in the resources needed to apply them. Among the factors that need to be considered in selecting and defining an approach to biotechnology-assisted PPB are: · Cost-benefit analyses of alternative research approaches. Several approaches to an agronomic problem may be possible, each with different costs, time frames, and chances of success. Should biotechnology be the approach of last resort, only when all other approaches have failed? Or are there situations in which it should be given priority because it can provide the most cost-effective solution? Who decides which approaches are best? · The provision of information about biotechnology to farmers. If farmers are to decide whether or not biotechnology should be used, do they need to understand what it is and how it works? How can relevant information regarding biotechnological options be supplied to them efficiently and objectively? · The provision of information about farmers to biotechnologists. If biotechnologists are to develop products for farmers, they need to know the different needs of different groups of farmers and Annex 10 Executive Summaries of 3 PPB Papers 149 hence the circumstances into which those products must fit. They also need a greater understanding of how to deliver biotechnologies to farmers. · How to implement biotechnology research for non-commercial markets. There is an urgent need to enable and persuade biotechnologists to conduct research for poorer clients who offer neither research grants nor substantial opportunities for academic publication. The private sector may be involved in finding some of the solutions, but primary responsibility for proposing and developing the necessary incentives rests with the public sector. · Risk assessment and biosafety protocols. While biosafety review systems are necessary to regulate the deployment of transgenic products, too stringent a system can delay or prevent farmers’ access to biotechnology innovations. So also can the absence of a functional system. · Intellectual property considerations. What are the implications of any existing or planned intellectual property rights (IPRs) for the availability of biotechnologies to resource-poor farmers? Can or should IPRs be claimed for the products of participatory research? Biotechnology-assisted participatory plant breeding: putting it all together Biotechnology-assisted PPB is little more than a concept at present. Its realization as a widely used research approach requires, first, the successful integration of biotechnology as a new tool in conventional plant breeding, and second, the successful integration of participatory research methods with conventional plant breeding methods. Neither of these conditions has yet been fully met. To enable that to happen, it is essential to understand how each approach—participatory research methods and biotechnology—can be valuable to formal or informal (farmer) plant breeders. Over time, many biotechnologies that facilitate plant breeding are likely to become more cost-effective. It is conceivable that some of the “downstream” biotechnology tools that formal plant breeders are now adopting might now or in the future also prove useful to expert farmer-breeders working either by themselves at field level or with the support of researchers in a participatory breeding project. However, this possibility has not yet been properly explored. Nor has there been any exploration of whether new biotechnologies might be developed that are tailored specifically for use in PPB. The integration of participatory research techniques with conventional plant breeding is embryonic. However, it is clear that these techniques can be applied in “problem transfer”—the business of relaying farmers’ needs to formal breeders so that the latter will take them into account when setting research priorities. The techniques have also proved useful as a “reality check”, allowing breeders to evaluate what they are already doing in terms of its relevance to farmers’ needs. This is especially useful given the long time frame of much breeding research. The authors believe that biotechnology techniques may have much to contribute to participatory research, and vice versa. Farmer participatory research has in some cases generated over-optimistic expectations. The authors wish to stress that they do not see either participatory research or biotechnology as a panacea for agricultural development, rather as additional methodologies that help solve certain problems. Research partnerships in biotechnology-assisted participatory plant breeding Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 150 What sort of institutions or researchers will initiate, plan, fund, and implement biotechnology-assisted PPB projects? Farmer-initiated projects are considered the ideal in participatory research. But in the case of biotechnology-assisted projects, farmer initiation would require that farmers already possess a practical understanding of biotechnology, as well as an idea of where to request research support. It is unrealistic to expect resource-poor farmers to have such an understanding of a newly emerging technology that is often physically and intellectually remote from their world. Clearly, access to research facilities, funding, human resources, and training will be vital for biotechnology-assisted PPB. So too will be attention to the links between upstream biotechnology and downstream-applied research. Farmers tend to request comprehensive projects that integrate biological and socioeconomic activities and criteria. These are difficult to fund because of the long time frames they require to conduct biological research and achieve impact. The funding mechanisms used at present have imbued agricultural research with discontinuity and fragmentation—problems to which biotechnology-assisted PPB will also be prone. Developing the appropriate tools for such research, together with the necessary relationships between farmers and biotechnologists, will take time. Achieving an impact will take still more time. Sustained public funding will therefore be necessary. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: · Chapter 2 looks briefly at existing plant breeding and participatory agricultural research and how these approaches merge in PPB. It also looks at the “why” of involving biotechnology when working with farmers. · Chapter 3 considers how the researchable needs of farmers have been or might be identified and better represented on research agendas. · Chapter 4 explores how specific biotechnologies might facilitate the processes of plant breeding, making research more efficient for the farmer or formal breeder. · Chapter 5 looks at some plant biotechnology research products that correspond to the needs expressed by farmers. · Chapter 6 briefly explores social and economic issues surrounding biotechnology-assisted PPB. Annex 11 PRGA Working Doc 6 and Survey 149 Annex 11 PRGA Working Document 6 and Survey Types of Participatory Research Based on Locus of Decision Making Nina Lilja and Jacqueline A Ashby Introduction The purpose of this survey is to help us at the CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program) to have a comprehensive picture of the types of participatory research that various natural resource management and plant breeding projects are conducting. You may also find this survey useful in defining the type of participatory research you have been using in the past, are currently using, or plan to use in your project, and its impact. This survey is designed to help us analyze the direct impacts of who makes decisions in the innovation process. For this reason, it focuses exclusively on the contribution of the farmers and scientists in the decision-making process. There are functions other than decision making in participatory processes, but we are not including these other functions in this survey. We define innovation as a process in which the problems are identified, solutions are found and tested, and as a result the target group adopts a technology or other type of innovation. By organized communication we mean a well-defined methodology for carrying out a procedure (informal surveys, transect walk, etc. as well as formal surveys). Organized communication is not an ad- hoc opportunistic event. We also differentiate between one-way communication, which is always scientist initiated and where farmers respond to scientists inquiries, or two-way communication, which may be scientist- or farmer initiated, and scientists make sure that farmers understand their opinions and ideas or proposals and objectives, and vice versa. Please note that we are using a generic term “farmers” to describe any target group, and the term “scientists” to mean outside agencies, extension system or formal research agency. Also, please note that we are not including the “scale” of participatory research in this discussion. For the purposes of this tool, size of research organization, size of unit where basic decisions are made about the innovation process, or geographical coverage of the participatory research are all different concepts. We are defining the type of participatory research on the basis of WHO makes the decision in the innovation process: farmers, scientists, or both together, and furthermore whether the decision is made with organized communication with each other or not. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 150 Each type of participatory research can be applied in any size of the organization, or any decision- making unit, or any extent of geographical coverage for the purposes of this tool. In other words, if you are using “Type C” participatory research it does not mean that you must be working in a village size decision-making unit or that the extent of the geographical coverage of the participatory research is a few farmers. According to the definitions used in this survey, types A, B, C, D, and E are scale independent. This implies that each type of participatory research can be scaled up. Stages of innovation We have divided the innovation process into three stages: design, testing, and diffusion. Each stage is further divided into various steps; 16 in which key decisions are made that affect final impact. Design (steps 1-7 in the survey). In this stage, problems or opportunities for research are identified and prioritized, and potential solutions to priority problems are determined. The result of the decisions made at this stage is an array of potential solutions. These solutions can be any of the following: a completely new solution is invented and needs to be tested; a new application of an existing solution is identified as having potential but needs to be tested; or an existing solution can be used but needs to be promoted. Testing (steps 8-12 in the survey). This is the stage at which potential solutions chosen for testing are evaluated. Decisions are made about who does the testing, and where and how it is done. The outcome of this stage is recommendations about the innovation or technology to intended users for mass distribution. Diffusion (steps 9-16 in the survey). This stage involves building the awareness of recommended solutions among future users. It involves decisions about when, to whom, and in what way to build awareness, supply new inputs, and teach new skills to future users. The outcome of decisions made in this stage is full or partial adoption, or no adoption. Types of participatory research We have defined five different types of participatory research depending on who makes the decision. A different type of participation is possible at each of these three stages (and in their 16 steps). In parenthesis, we have included the name of each type of participation to show how they correlate to commonly used typology in the literature. Type A (on farm research). Scientists make the decision alone without organized communication with farmers. Type B (consultative). Scientists make the decision alone, but with organized communication with farmers. Scientists know about farmers’ opinions, preferences, and priorities through organized one- way communication with farmers. Scientists may or may not let this information affect their decision. The decision is not made with farmers nor is it delegated to farmers. Type C (collaborative). The decision is a shared one between farmers and scientists involving organized communication with each other. Scientists and farmers know about each other’s opinions, Annex 11 PRGA Working Doc 6 and Survey 151 preferences, and priorities through organized two-way communication. The decisions are made jointly; scientists do not make them on their own nor do farmers alone. No party has a right to revoke the shared decision. Type D (collegial). The decision is made by farmers collectively in a group process or by individual farmers who are involved in organized communication with scientists. Farmers know about scientists’ opinions, preferences, proposals, and priorities through organized two-way communication. Farmers may or may not let this information affect their decision. When this type of participatory research is initiated, a scientist may be facilitating the collective or individual decision making of farmers or may have already built the ability of farmers to make the decision without outsider involvement. Farmers have a right to revoke the decision. Type E (farmer experimentation). Farmers make the decision individually or in a group without organized communication with scientists. Examples of types of participatory research Below are illustrative examples of each type of participatory research, as they relate to two different steps in the innovation process. Example of type A. The scientist decides that the availability of water is the biggest constraint in increasing maize production (step 3), and she or he decides that the solutions to be tested are drought- resistant maize varieties (step 7). Example of type B. The scientist hypothesizes that the availability of water is the biggest constraint in increasing maize production. After a participatory ranking exercise, she or he knows that farmers perceive late maturity of their existing maize varieties as their priority problem in maize production. The scientist decides to address both problems in looking for solutions (Step 3). During the organized session to discuss the possible solutions, some farmers explain that they have experimented with earlier planting dates, and mulching to conserve soil moisture. The scientist decides to include both early maturing varieties and drought-resistant varieties in the trial, and she or he also decides to include some traditional varieties. Example of type C. The scientist hypothesizes that the availability of water is the biggest constraint in increasing maize production. After a participatory ranking exercise she or he knows that farmers perceive late maturity of their existing maize varieties as their priority problem in maize production. On an organized farmer visit to her or his maize trial, the scientist shows the farmers how and why drought- resistant varieties survive early season drought and could potentially have higher yields than earlier maturing varieties. During the same visit, farmers explain to the scientist that they want to harvest some plots early because they want to benefit from early season high prices and they want to leave the farm after maize harvest to take up seasonal off-farm employment. Farmers and the scientists make a joint decision to address both problems (step 3). In the organized session to discuss the possible solutions, some farmers explain that they have experimented with earlier planting dates, and mulching to conserve soil moisture. Farmers and scientists propose several alternative solutions, and these solutions are evaluated and ranked. These solutions include: Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 152 · Plant drought resistant varieties, but planted at an earlier date; · Plant at a usual date but plant earlier maturing varieties; · Make new crosses (try to combine early maturity with drought resistance); · Use mulching to conserve soil moisture; and · Look at alternatives to maize production. As a result of the organized discussion, farmers and scientists decide together to test the solutions 1 and 2 (step 7). Annex 11 PRGA Working Doc 6 and Survey 153 Example of type D. The scientist hypothesizes that the availability of water is the biggest constraint in increasing maize production. After a participatory ranking exercise she or he knows that farmers perceive late maturity of their existing maize varieties as their priority problem in maize production. During an organized farmer visit to her or his maize trial, the scientist shows the farmers how and why drought-resistant varieties survive early season drought and could potentially have higher yields than earlier maturing varieties. During the same visit, farmers explain to the scientist that they want to harvest some plots early because they want to benefit from early season high prices and they want to leave the farm after maize harvest to take up seasonal off-farm employment. Farmers make a decision to address only the later maturity problem (step 3). During the organized session to discuss the possible solutions, some farmers explain that they have experimented with earlier planting dates. Farmers and scientists propose several alternative solutions, and these solutions are evaluated and ranked. These solutions include: · Plant at a usual date, but plant earlier maturing varieties, and · Look at alternatives to maize production. As a result of the organized discussion, farmers decide to test solution 1 (step 7). Example of type E. The farmers decide that the late maturity of their existing maize varieties is a problem that they want to try to address (step 3). Some of the farmers have experimented with earlier planting dates and decide to set up some of their own experiments by varying the planting date of the existing maize varieties. They also decide to add to their trial some seeds that one of the farmers received from a relative who was working at the agricultural experiment station (step 7). Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 154 A Survey Conducted by the SWP PRGA: Types of Participatory Research based on Locus of Decision Making Instructions We would appreciate it if you took few minutes to fill out this survey and return it to us with your comments about the usefulness of this tool. The survey has 16 questions about who makes a decision at various steps in the innovation process. If your institute has several participatory projects, please fill out a separate survey for each project, if your project involves research, or development and dissemination of several technologies or innovations, please fill out one survey for each technology or innovation. At each stage of technology development, please mark an “X” in the column Type A, B, C, D, or E describing who makes or made the decision at each step in the innovation process (please see the attached file for typology definitions). If you have a comment to make about a particular step in the table, please write your comments in the space provided at the end of the table and refer to each row in the table by its number. In the column “Date”, please indicate the date (month and year) when the step was completed or if the step is not yet completed, but you plan to complete it in the future, please indicate the planned date of completion (month and year). If the step is not included in your project indicate “N/A”. Please note that it is possible (and likely) that you are involved in different types of participatory research at each different stage and step of the innovation process. For example, you may be involved in a project that uses participatory approaches to evaluate an existing technology. If this technology was developed without any organized communication with farmers, you are likely to describe most of the steps 1-7 as Type A, and in the “date” column you would indicate an approximate date when the technology was developed. If your current project takes this technology and begins evaluating it with farmers through organized communication you are likely to enter Type B, C, or D to describe your participatory research in the remaining steps 8-16. Please return this survey via e-mail to research assistant Peggy McKee: (E-mail: p.mckee@cgiar.org Thank you for your participation in this survey. The summary of the results will be posted on the PRGA Web page: http://prgaprogram.org Annex 11 PRGA Working Doc 6 and Survey 155 Project affiliation or name of the institute(s): ______________________________________________________________________________ Date when project begun: ____________Date when project ended or will end: ______________ Project title: Briefly describe the process in which use was made of participatory tools and approaches (e.g., list innovations or technologies developed and briefly describe how this was done, or list off-the-shelf innovations or technologies introduced and whether there was evaluation or adaptation of these and how it was done, etc). Please feel free to attach any project documents or summaries. ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ Name and contact address of the person to contact about this project (name and E-mail): ________________________________________________________ __ Would you like to receive a copy of the next survey tool on gender and stakeholder analysis? Yes__________ No ______________ Annex 11 PRGA Working Doc 6 and Survey 157 Survey: Types of Participatory Research Based on Locus of Decision Making Stage of innovation Type A: (on-farm) scientists alone without organized communication with farmers Type B: (consultative) scientists alone with organized communication with farmers Type C: (collaborative) scientists and farmers jointly through organized communication Type D: (collegial) farmers alone with organized communication with scientists Type E: (farmer experimentation) farmers alone without organized communication with scientists Date: Design 1 Who decides what is the target group or clientele at the research initiation stage? 2 Who decides what are the topics, opportunities, or the problems at the diagnosis stage? 3 Who decides what is the most important problem or opportunity that has been identified for research? 4 Who decides what are the available solutions and relevant information about the problem or opportunity? 5 Who decides that the available solutions are not adequate and more information needs to be sought or generated to reach a potential solution? 6 Who decides what is the relative importance of solutions that have been identified? 7 Who decides which solutions are worth testing? Testing 8 Who decides what is the target group or clientele for evaluating the potential innovations or technology options? 9 Who decides whether to do the testing on farm or on station or both? 10 Who decides what aspects of innovation or technology option are important to evaluate? Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 158 Continued. Annex 11 PRGA Working Doc 6 and Survey 159 Survey - Continued. Stage of innovation Type A: (on-farm) scientists alone without organized communication with farmers Type B: (consultative) scientists alone with organized communication with farmers Type C: (collaborative) scientists and farmers jointly through organized communication Type D: (collegial) farmers alone with organized communication with scientists Type E: (farmer experimentation) farmers alone without organized communication with scientists Date: Testing 11 Who decides what is the yardstick for measuring what is an acceptable solution or not? 12 Who decides what is recommended to other farmers? Dissemination 13 Who decides what is the target group or clientele for awareness building, validation, and dissemination of tested innovation or technology options? 14 Who decides when, to whom, and in what way to promote awareness of solutions and publicize information about it? 15 Who decides when, to whom, and in what way to supply new inputs needed for adoption? 16 Who decides when, to whom, and in what way to teach new skills needed for adoption? Comments: Annex 12 NRM Plans for Impact Assessment of PRGA Method 161 Annex 12 Summary of Natural Resource Management Plans for Impact Assessment of PRGA Methods (BMZ 1998-2001) (for acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex 20) CIMMYT-CARE-KARI, Kisumu, Kenya Project objectives PRGA innovation Baseline information Methods for gender and stakeholder analysis Research design Carry out adaptive research with groups of men and women farmers on Striga control Work with farmers’ groups with a participatory approach Present user perception of Striga problem, control practices, and other factors affecting crop productivity Gender-disaggregated information collected to evaluate differences in priorities and to ensure men and women have access to technology for their specific needs Comparative: before and after Use GA for training and technology dissemination Provide socioeconomic background of farming and non-farming activities interfering and/or competing with good farm management Striga workgroup (participating institutions) initiate and monitor project activities Work will be done with male, female, and mixed farmer groups Link institutions (KARI- Extension - NGOs to tackle problem Interviews for stakeholder identification with village chiefs, community committees, and local NGOs Farmers trained by project and conventionally trained farmers Introduce methods and materials with a learner-centered participatory approach Impact category Indicators Information needed Tools or methods Improved knowledge and skills enhancement Level of awareness Farmers’ knowledge of Striga control methods Adoption rate of new technologies Evaluation and diffusion to untrained farmers No. of farmers: With on-farm trials Doing adaptive research Involved in project activities Active in groups Adopting new techniques Farmers’ records Surveys Questionnaires Farmers’ meetings and group discussions Soil and plant analysis Improved farm productivity and more technology options Adoption rate of new technology increased Diverse control options available to farmers Data on farm management practices Yield data over time Stronger organization and better coordination Better linkages among institutions More effective response to farmers’ problems No of: Resource persons Cooperative actions in field Activities initiated by other Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 162 institutions Problems solved cooperatively ILRI -EIAR - Ethiopia Project objectives PRGA innovation Baseline information Methods for gender and stakeholder analysis Research design Diffuse and assess impact of Vertisol management technology (broad bed-maker) on changes in labor use and food security in the Highlands Systematic approach to stakeholder and gender differentiation and participation in process of technology development and impact assessment to determine the extent to which these make a significant difference in technology impact Information on stakeholder and gender differentiation and participation at various stages of past research Site Stakeholder Committee formed to decide on operational methods Baseline study on panel of 50 households at each site to be repeated at end of each year Constraint identification Comparison between two sites with small holder organizations Design and testing Before and after stakeholder and gender differentiation Characterization made of type of participation in use Impact category Indicators Information needed Tools or methods Annex 12 NRM Plans for Impact Assessment of PRGA Method 163 Improved knowledge Better documentation and awareness of local knowledge More knowledge of technology options Improved knowledge of sources of information and skills related to technology package NOTE: The nature of information needed to measure those indicators (if selected by the Site Committee) will also depend on how they want to measure them. We may later synchronize community- based measures with more scientific ones, but it would be premature to list them beforehand in a truly participatory approach. Key informant interviews Focus group interviews Formal questionnaire surveys on selected items Both qualitative and quantitative analyses Qualitative analyses for establishing logical links between factors such as participation and a given impact indicator Statistical analyses to establish cause and effect relationships Attempt to develop principles that can be used beyond the location-specific culture and agroecological conditions Innovation Local adaptation Innovative dissemination New decision-making process Rate of adoption Skill enhancement More capacity to adapt or disseminate More awareness of larger scale issues and externalities Stronger organization and coordination Improved collaboration among stakeholders or institutions More initiative taken by local organizations and farmers to seek assistance from external agencies Increased equity Increased awareness about gender-specific implications of the new technology Increased participation of women in decision making Decreased drudgery of women and children Higher adoption among poorer households Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 164 CIP-CARE, Peru Project objectives PRGA innovation Baseline information Methods for gender and stakeholder analysis Research design Adapt the farmer field school (FFS) approach to enhance farmers’ capacity to carry out research, evaluate options, and self-innovate in the absence of viable technological options Evaluate the intermediate impact of the modified version of the FFS approach on technology development related to insect and disease control based on a users’ differentiation approach, including gender and wealth - Stakeholder committees formed with representatives from each FFS, extension staff, and researchers who will decide on indicators and responsibilities for annual workplans, data collection, processing, and analysis Before and after comparison of (historical) adaptive vs. FFS self- innovation approaches Second comparison between farmers with access only to technology transfer or assistance and those participating in FFS Impact category Indicators Information needed Tools or methods Enhanced farmers’ capacity to tackle insect and disease problems (cont.) Adoption rate Enhanced quality of implemented practices No. and percentage of farmers implementing IPM control options - % farmers who: Integrate control practices Differentiate insecticides from fungicides Reduce no. of sprays Handle, store, and dispose of pesticides properly Enhanced group decision making Enhanced negotiation skills Enhanced access to information No of: Links with external organizations Collaborative projects with external organizations Self-initiated projects Agreements for group action No. of information sources % farmers who know how to search for information Enhanced farmers’ income and food security Increased potato yields Potato yields per hectare and per variety Decreased insect and disease damage Intensity and severity of potato late blight (LB) % tubers damaged by Andean potato weevil (APW) and/or potato tuber moth (PTM) Decreased control costs Reduced insecticide and fungicide costs Increased income Market prices based on variety and quality Income per hectare Enhanced institutional capacity to use PR and GA Existence of PR and training methods based on FFS PR and training methods (using the FFS approach) being implemented to tackle potato constraints Annex 12 NRM Plans for Impact Assessment of PRGA Method 165 Use of PR and training methods to address other constraints PR and training methods based on FFS being used to address other farmers’ problems Extension workers and researchers knowledgeable about FFS approach, its advantages and disadvantages Cost-benefits of the approach Cost of FFS approach Cost per trainee of FFS approach Total project costs Benefits of FFS approach Value above impact indicators Increased farmers’ income Opinions of other research or extension institutions regarding the FFS approach Use Internal rate of return CIFOR - SHK, Indonesia Project objectives PRGA innovation Baseline information Methods for gender and stakeholder analysis Research design Develop accessible indicators for PM&E for adaptive co-management of forest Implementation of PM&E based on previously identified (with local people) criteria and indicators for monitoring Information from the four sub- villages and three ethnic groups: village heads or not, gender or age, and wealth or aristocracy groups to identify present perception of access and control over forest resources Focus groups Individual interviews Network analysis Human well-being assessment Access to resources and benefits Mapping Comparative case studies: PM&E before and after Multi-stakeholder, -resource planning and management models Improved means of involving women Impact category Indicators Information needed Tools or methods Increased empowerment of local people Information or knowledge acquisition: access to information about local resources and their use, and all stakeholders Are people satisfied with amount of information available? Which subsets of stakeholders have information? Individual and group interviews Participatory resource mapping information flows Management functions matrices Focus group interviews on key resources Key resource matrices with future projections Secondary-source review Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 166 Local people have ability to act on information People’s perception on their degree of control over management of key resources Perceived quality of management decisions made A fairer share of forest benefits for local people Local people express satisfaction about distribution of benefits among stakeholder groups Perceptions of fairness in amounts of resources used by different stakeholder groups People express sense of security about future quantity and quality of resources Local stakeholder perceptions of quantity and quality of key resources Annex 12 NRM Plans for Impact Assessment of PRGA Method 167 AHI – Uganda Project objectives PRGA innovation Baseline information Methods for gender and stakeholder analysis Research design Integrate solutions to NRM issues by adopting participatory and systems approaches - - - Before and after use of participatory processes Strengthen partnerships, enhance collaboration and build institutional capacity Participatory or non-participatory development and dissemination approaches compared in: Catchment 1, focus on resource-sharing issues and participatory methods Catchment 2, focus on technology generation and transfer aspects Improve integration of biophysical and social science research Link local policy formulation to technology development Impact categories Indicators Information needed Tools or methods Improved involvement in decision making Range of stakeholders in making high-impact decisions Fora for decision making Decision-making processes and skills enhanced Who is making what type of decision for what activity or process? Different stakeholders’ perceptions of processes and level of participation No. and type of fora: evolution of fora? Description of processes and skills over time Tools developed for registering and mapping actor and stakeholder perceptions Baseline will document currently used or known tools Process documentation Time mapping Increased knowledge base Knowledge of technical options Documentation of local knowledge Status of information network Document scientist and farmer and stakeholder knowledge over time Map information network at various points in time and compare Control and access designated for different types of information Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 168 Increased equity Knowledge of stakeholders’ needs and interests Participation of range of stakeholders Nature of bargaining power Document stakeholders’ knowledge of each other and compare over time Document range of stakeholders involved over time Skills enhancement Skills enhanced for negotiation and facilitation Ability to express perception of issues and change on larger scale Minutes of fora Comparison of perceptions of issues, actors, and positions over time No. of activities at landscape or resource-sharing level Information content and quality for groups of stakeholders Increased generation and use of participatory methods and tools No. and diversity of uses of tools and methods Diversification of tool or method design Tools and methods documented Origin of tools and methods documented Annex 13 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences 163 Annex 13 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences Workshop for Interchange of Experiences and Lessons Learned from Community-led Initiatives of Rural Development and NRM in Latin America, 21-25 February 2000, CIAT, Cali, Colombia Name Organization or project Address Telephone or Fax E-mail Carlos A. Abalerón Fundación Bariloche Lonquimay 4102 8400 S.C. de Bariloche Argentina Home tel: [54-2944] 44-1343 abaleron@bariloche.com.ar Alberto Rubio Fundación Bariloche - Evaluación de la Sustentabilidad en Contextos Participativos Calquín Norte 168 8400 S.C. de Bariloche, Rio Negro, Argentina - rubio@bariloche.com.ar Alirio Calderon Fundación Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Calle 16 # 18-06 Ciénaga, Magdalena, Colombia - - Adolfo Carvajal Programa Presidencial para la Reinserción Carrera 45 # 3A-156, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 552-3087 [57-2] 513-0065 redvalle.77@hotmail.com Germán Escobar CIAT Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 445-000 Fax: [57-2] 445-0073 b.escobar@ciat.cgiar.org Silvina Espinosa - Calle 18 #61-24 (342K), Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 331-5282 Home: [57-2] 333-8480 silvespi@pino.univalle.edu.co Jairo Antonio Figueroa CIAL El Placer El Placer, Tambo, Cauca, Colombia Tel: 27-8927 (La Independencia) - Marino Fiscue ACIN-Cauca Office: Calle 3 # 7a-20 Home: Carrera 16A # 7A 49, piso 2, Toribio, Colombia - mafiscue@colnet.com.co Alejandro Galeano CENSAT “Agua Viva” Apartado Aéreo 16789, Bogota, Colombia Tel: [57-1] 245-6860 Fax: [57-1] 245-8906 censat@colnodo.apc.org cerrito@col1.telecom.com.co Jairo Marciano García Fundación Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Calle 17 #3-83, Santa Marta Calle 74 #2-86, Bogota Colombia Tel: [57-5] 431-0551 Fax: [57-5] 421-1746 prosierra@compunet.net.co Maria Elena Gómez CIPAV Carrera 35 A Oeste # 3-66, Tejares de San Fernando, Cali, Colombia - mariae@cipav.org.co Isabel A Gutierrez CIAT - Ecoregional Program Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 445-000 Fax: [57-2] 445-0073 i.gutierrez@cgiar.org Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 164 Pedro Herrera Video: Lo que enseña la pobreza Vereda la Primavera, Siberia, Cauca, Colombia - - Continued. Annex 13 - Continued. Name Organization or project Address Telephone or Fax E-mail Alejandro C Imbach CIAT Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia Apartado 916, 2100 Guadalupe, Costa Rica Tel: [57-2] 445-000 Fax: [57-2] 445-0073 a.imbach@cgiar.org a.imbach@racsa.co.cr Arancibia Jimenez CIAT Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 445-000 Fax: [57-2] 445-0073 a.jimenez@cgiar.org Nelson Lemus ACIN-Cauca Apartado Aéreo 216, Santander de Quilichao, Cauca, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 29-8281 - Mark Lundy CIAT Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 445-000 Fax: [57-2] 445-0073 m.lundy@cgiar.org Claudia P Muñoz CORPOVERSALLES Casa Campesina Versalles, Versalles, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 221-3333 Fax: [57-2] 221-3425 corpoversalles@hotmail.com patriciameneses@starmedia.com Adriana Ochoa Comunicación para la Ciencia y Tecnología - Tel and Fax: [57-2] 339-2423 Prensacyt@cali.cetcol.net.co Maritza Parra Red de Mujeres Afrocolombianas de Tanando, Quibdó Barrio Yesquita # 20-14, Quibdó, Choco, Colombia Tel: [57-4] 671-0194 - José Ignacio Roa CIAT Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 445-000 Fax: [57-2] 445-0073 j.roa@cgiar.org Maria Cecilia Roa - Apartado Aéreo 4443, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 321-8328 Home: [57-9] 658-2886 croa@telesat.com.co Liliana Rojas CIAT- Ecoregional Program Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia Tel: [57-2] 445-000 Fax: [57-2] 445-0073 l.rojas@cgiar.org Florencia Satizabal Universidad Nacional Palmira Colombia - florensp@mhomail.com Gueiler Vargas CENSAT “Agua Viva” Cerrito 5 Sr, Colombia Tel: 245-6860 Fax: 245-8906 - Marciano Alvarado Las Colinas - Pocotsi Project Las Colinas de la Rita, Pocotsi Limón, Costa Rica Tel: [506] 392-3990 - Frank Martinez Fundación Neotrópica - Pocotsi Project Apartado 236-1002, Costa Rica Tel: [506] 763-3242 Fax: [506] 763-3186 fpocotsi@sol.racsa.co.cr Annex 13 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences 165 Danilo Rangel Asociación Agroforestal Las Colinas - Pocotsi Project La Rita, P Pocotsi Limón, Costa Rica Tel: [506] 763-3242 - José Oduber Rivera Fundación Neotrópica Apartado 236-1002, Paseo de los Estudiantes, San José, Costa Rica Tel: [506] 253-2120 Home: [506] 556-0238 Fax: [506] 253-4210 jorivera@sol.racsa.co.cr fneotrop@sol.racsa.co.cr Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 166 Annex 13 - Continued. Name Organization or project Address Telephone or Fax E-mail Ramiro Medrano Asociación de Productores, Comunidad La Pasadita La Pasadita, San Andrés, Petén, Guatemala - - Abraham Canales Lempira Sur Project Honduras - - Oscar Castillo CATIE - Olafo Project Honduras Tel: [504] 441-0888 441-1833 Fax: [504] 441-1832 olafo@psinet.hn Germán A Flores FAO Honduras - Lempira Sur Project Apartado Postal # 246, Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras Tel: [504] 662-0916 Fax: [504] 662-0039 lempiras@simon_intertel.hn fao-hnd@field.fao.org Francisco Ramos Cooperativa Agroforestal Colón, Atlántida Ltda -Olafo Barrio Alvarado, La Ceiva, Honduras Tel:[504] 443-0750 coatlahl@laceiva.com Obeimar Balente Herrera Mok-Cinti S.C. - Sierra de Santa Marta Andrés de Urdaneta 105, Chinameca Veracruz, Mexico Fax: [926] 10176 stamarta@dns.moomsa.com.mx Elin Isabel Blandón UCA-Miraflor Estelí, Nicaragua - ucamiraflor@ibw.com.ni Juan Carlos Castro Asociación “Campos Verdes” Municipio San Dionisio, Matagalpa, Nicaragua - - José Ramón Obando Olafo - Nicaragua Municipio Puerto Marazan, León, Nicaragua - - Claudia Paniagua CATIE - Olafo, Nicaragua Frente Fundeci, León, Nicaragua Tel: [505] 311-2730 [505] 344-2246 catie@ibw.com.ni Reginaldo Reyes CATIE - Olafo Project Calle Centroamérica, Ciudad Flores, Petén, Nicaragua Tel: [502] 926-0496 Fax: [502] 926-0427 catieolafo@guate.net Bertha Simmons CIDCA- Camp Lab Project Barrio Pointee, Diagonal Hotel Tia Irene, Bluefields, Nicaragua Tel: [505] 822-2014 slilma@ibw.com.ni Dominga Tijerino CIAT, Nicaragua - Asociación Campos Verdes Apartado LM-172, Nicaragua - ciatnica@ibw.com.ni Juana Villareyna UCA Miraflor Estelí, Nicaragua Tel: [505] 713-2971 miraflor@ibw.com.ni Ramón H Alvarado Olafo Project Urb. Los Angeles, Calle 62 Oeste, Casa # 12 Apartado 87-8306, Zona 7 Panama Tel: [506] 236-8186 Fax: [506] 236-3966 ralvad@sinfo.net Delfina Astete Pro Naturaleza - Manu Project Apartado 18-1393, Lima - promanu@terra.com.pe Annex 13 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences 167 San Jeronimo, Cuzco, Peru Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 168 Annex 13 - Continued. Name Organization or project Address Telephone or Fax E-mail Claudia Bouroncle Pro Naturaleza - Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza Apartado 18-1393, Lima, Peru Tel: [51-1] 441-3800 Fax: [51-1] 441-2151 cbouroncle@pronaturaleza.com.pe Marcela Contreras Comunidad Campesina de Colpar - Acción Concertada para el Desarrollo Local Project Quilcos Colpar, Huancayo, Peru - - Lucio Delgado Pro Naturaleza - Ecology, Production, and Education Project Av. Tarapaca 4-16, Urb Fonavi, Tubes, Peru Fax: [51-74] 52-3412 ptumes@mail.cosapidata.com.pe Maria Racael Garavito Colegio “Amantes de la Naturaleza”, Tamarindo - Ecology, Production, and Education Project Av. Tarapaca 4-16, Urb Fonavi, Tubes, Peru Fax: [51-74] 52-3412 ptumes@mail.cosapidata.com.pe Emma Nuñez Grupo Yanapai - Proyecto de Acción Concertada para el Desarrollo Local Jr Atahualpa 297, Concepción, Peru Tel: [51-64] 58-1334 yanapai-hyo@peru.itete.com.pe Manuela Ramos Comunidad Nativa Santa Rosa de Huacaria - Community Tourism Manu Project c/o Pro Naturaleza (Delfina Astete), Madre de Dios, Peru - - Alcides Rosas IDAE Jr. Belén 678, Cajamarca, Peru Tel: [51-44] 82-4196 m.tapia@cgiar.org Enrique Salazar CIP-CONDESAN, La Encañada Jr. Huanuco 948, Cajamarca, Peru Tel: [51-44] 82-6361 Home: [51-44] 82-3015 code012@latinmail Doribel Herrador PRISMA 3A c Pte No 3760, Col Escalon, San Salvador Apartado 01-440, El Salvador Tel: [503] 298-6852 [503] 298-6853 Fax: [503] 223-7209 prisma@es.com.sv Susan Kandel PRISMA 3A c Pte No 3760, Col Escalon, San Salvador, El Salvador [VIP No. 992 PO Box 52- 5364, Miami, FL 33152, USA] Tel: [503] 298-6852 [503] 298-6853 [503] 224-3700 Fax: [503] 223-7209 prisma@es.com.sv Maria Elena Morros CIAE Lara Apartado 592, Barquisimeto, Edo. Lara, Fax: [58-51] 73-2264 [58-51] 73-3504 ciaelara@cantv.net Annex 13 Workshop for Interchange of Experiences 169 Venezuela Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 170 Annex 14 Types of Gender and Stakeholder Analysis Who participates in the different decisions is potentially a determinant of the impact of the participatory process on the research results—particularly the design of technologies, and thus of the outcomes of farmers’ using the resultant technology. We define gender analysis as a particular case of stakeholder analysis where the chief discriminating variable for defining the stakeholder group of interest is gender. Stakeholder analysis also considers wealth, occupation, age, or ethnicity for example, as important discriminating variables, which—like gender—are also determinants of the type and level of impact of participatory approaches and of technical change. Our framework for analyzing how using gender analysis affects the research process (the approach impact) as well as the technology design and adoption outcomes (the innovation impact) distinguishes three ways of using gender analysis in the innovation process. Diagnostic Gender Analysis This type of gender analysis is when gender differences in the client group(s) for the research are described and different problems or preferences are diagnosed, but this information is not taken into account in priority setting, design of solutions for testing or their evaluation and adoption. Diagnostic gender analysis may come to the conclusion that gender differences are not an important criterion for designing the research; or it may identify gender differences as an obstacle to adoption of technical solutions for men or women members of the client group. Design-oriented Gender Analysis In addition to describing gender differences in the client group, and in their problems and preferences, different research and development paths are designed that take into account gender-based constraints, needs, and preferences. Design-oriented gender analysis may result in different technologies being developed and adopted by men and women, and these may require different dissemination approaches. Transfer-oriented Gender Analysis In addition to describing gender differences in the client group, and in their problems and preferences, different adoption and dissemination paths are designed to overcome access to and adoption of a given technology known (or assumed to be) of similar importance to men and women. Transfer-oriented gender analysis results in the same technologies being disseminated to men and women in different ways. Uses of gender analysis can be classified using the box below to identify the stage in the innovation process in which analysis of gender differences was used, and in which, gender might contribute to different outcomes for men and for women. Inclusion or exclusion of gender analysis in various stages of innovation leads to different process outcomes and impacts. Annex 14 Types of Gender/ Stakeholder Analysis 171 Box: Type of gender analysis Stage of innovation/Type of gender analysisa 1 2 3 Design 1 Was the client group differentiated by gender at the research initiation stage? X X X 2 Were different topics, opportunities, or problems defined for men and women at the diagnosis stage? X X X 3 Was it analyzed whether men’s and women’s preferences differ about what is the most important or highest priority problem or opportunity for research? X X 4 Were different available solutions identified for men and women? X X 5 If it was decided that the available solutions were not enough and other solutions needed to be generated, were different solutions sought for men and women? X X 6 When deciding the relative importance of solutions to be tested, were the differences between women’s and men’s priorities analyzed? X X 7 When deciding which solutions will be tested, were some women’s and men’s solutions chosen for testing? X X Testing 8 Was the client group for evaluating the potential innovations or technology options differentiated by gender? X X X 9 When deciding whether to do the testing on farm or on station or both, were the potential differences in women’s and men’s opinions analyzed? X X 10 When deciding what aspects of innovation or technology option are important to evaluate, were preferences by gender analyzed? X X 11 Was it determined whether women and men have different yardsticks for measuring what is an acceptable solution or not? X X 12 Was it considered whether men and women wanted to recommend different solutions to other farmers? X X Diffusion 13 Was the client group for awareness building, validation, and dissemination of tested innovation or technology options differentiated by gender? X X 14 Were the differences between men’s and women’s preferences considered when deciding when, to whom, and in what way to promote awareness of solutions and publicize information about it? X 15 Were the differences between men’s and women’s preferences analyzed when deciding when, to whom, and in what way to supply new inputs needed for adoption? X 16 Were the differences between men’s and women’s preferences analyzed when deciding when, to whom, and in what way to teach new skills needed for adoption? X a. 1 = Diagnostic-oriented gender analysis, 2 = Design-oriented gender analysis, and 3 = Transfer-oriented gender analysis. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 172 Annex 15 Workshop Schedules (For acronyms and abbreviations used, see Annex 20) Example of Workshop Plan Day 1 Subtopics Technique Time Responsible Description of methodology 07:45-08:15 Registration of participants 08:15-9:45 Participating institutions Video, posters, etc 1h 30 min 09:45-10:00 Break 10:00-11:00 Filling out the questionnaire 1h 11:00-11:45 Welcome, presentation of participants (PP) and review of expectations Hot potato (PP) 1 hr 11:45-12:00 Objectives, methodology and workshop program Presentation 15 min 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:30 Analysis of gender and researcher or producer stereotypes Viewing figures 30 min See Exercise 1 Synthesis 50 min Audiovisual aids 14:30-15:45 Analysis of types of participation Sociodrama 55 min See Exercise 2 Synthesis 20 min 15:45-16:00 Break 16:00-17:00 Review of the basic concepts: gender, stakeholders, participatory research Chair technique 1h 25min See Exercise 3 Day 2 Subtopics Technique Time Responsible Description of methodology 07:30-09:30 Continuation of: Review of basic concepts: Gender, research, stakeholders, types of participation Preparation of synthesis per question 1 hr Presentation of results and syntheses 1 hr 09:30-10:30 Advantages and disadvantages of participatory research Brainstorming 1 hr 10:30-12.00 The process and impact of participatory research Introductory lecture 45 min Photograph analysis 45min See Exercise 4 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 The process and impact of participatory research (cont) Presentation of results and syntheses 1 hr 14:00-16:30 Methods and techniques for participatory research Gender and gender analysis: Diagnostic Lecture and practice of techniques 2h 30 min See Exercise 5 16:30-17:00 Organization of work for the next day Annex 15 Workshop Schedules 173 Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 174 Example of Workshop Plan - Continued. Day 3 Subtopics Technique Time Responsible Description of methodology 07:30-12:00 Methods and techniques of participatory research Lecture and discussion 1 hr 45 min Group work 1 hr 45 min See Exercise 6 Plenary exchange 30 min 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-13:30 Impact analysis: basic concepts Lecture 30 min See Exercise 7 13:30-14:45 Socialization of techniques applied to impact analysis Group work 1 hr 15 min 14:45-15:00 Break 15:00-16:15 Socialization of techniques to evaluate impact (continued) Presentation of results 1 hr 15 min 16:15-16:45 Introduction to the CARE experience Lecture 30 min 16:45-17:00 Organization of field visit, classification of techniques for impact assessment Day 4 Subtopics Technique Time Responsible Description of methodology 07:30-17:00 Visit to the field Transfers 4 h See Exercise 8 Methods and techniques for participatory research and impact assessment Field practice 2 h 30min Day 5 Subtopics Technique Time Responsible Description of methodology 07:30-09:00 Impact assessment: technology and methodology Synthesis and presentation of results 50 min 30 min synthesis 20 min presentation Synthesis 30 min 09:00-09:15 Break 09:15-10:15 Impact assessment: technology and methodology (cont.) Final synthesis 45 min Evaluation of participants 15 min Evaluation questionnaire 10:15-12:00 Elaboration of the Workshop Follow-up Plan 1h 45min Plenary discussion 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-18:00 Leisure 18:00 Closing Dinner Annex 15 Workshop Schedules 175 At the end of each workshop the participants rated different aspects of the workshop on a pre-designed questionnaire. The results of this evaluation for each of the workshops follow. Evaluation of CIP-CARE-PROIMPA Workshop, Lima, Peru Evaluation of the workshop methodology Very good Good Medium Bad Very bad Not rated Time available for discussion 12 62 23 4 0 0 Time available for exercises 8 58 35 0 0 0 Time available for plenary sessions 12 50 23 12 4 0 General distribution of time 15 65 15 0 0 4 Relevance of selected exercises 19 58 15 0 0 8 Audiovisual aids for lectures 50 42 4 0 0 4 Sequence of topics 39 42 19 0 0 0 Evaluation of content of workshop Very good Good Medium Insufficient Stereotypes Importance of topic 85 15 0 0 Clarity of the presentation 0 0 0 0 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 62 35 0 4 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 62 31 0 8 Basic concepts of participatory research Importance of topic 96 4 0 0 Clarity of the presentation 0 0 0 0 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 77 23 0 0 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 58 35 0 4 Gender and gender analysis Importance of topic 96 4 0 0 Clarity of the presentation 0 0 0 0 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 46 54 0 0 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 46 50 0 4 Groups of interest Importance of topic 89 8 0 4 Clarity of the presentation 77 19 0 4 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 46 50 0 4 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 46 50 0 4 Impact assessment Importance of topic 96 4 0 0 Clarity of the presentation 35 58 8 0 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 46 50 4 0 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 54 42 4 0 Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 176 Evaluation of CIMMYT- NARC, Kathmandu, Nepal Participants Number Senior Managers 5 Senior Scientists 8 Social Scientist 7 Scientist (Agronomist and Engineers) 5 Evaluation of methodology (no.) Very good Good Medium Insufficient Total Distribution of time 7 14 4 0 25 Time available for lectures 4 14 2 5 25 Time available for exercises 4 11 5 2 22 Time available for plenary sessions 5 12 1 3 21 Audiovisual aids for lectures 5 6 5 8 24 Sequence of topics 4 12 5 2 23 Evaluation of topics for interest (no.) Priority I Priority II Priority III Total Basic concepts of participatory research 3 0 4 7 Stereotypes 5 1 2 8 Gender and gender analysis 4 7 5 16 Stakeholder and stakeholder analysis 5 7 5 17 Impact assessment 7 7 4 18 Evaluation of workshop content (%) A lot Sufficient A little Almost nil Basic concepts of participatory research Importance of topic 8 13 3 1 Clarity of the presentation 4 18 2 1 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 7 9 7 1 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 3 11 10 1 Relevance of the exercises selected 3 12 9 1 Stereotypes Importance of topic 6 13 5 1 Clarity of the presentation 3 14 8 0 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 2 10 10 2 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 3 12 9 1 Relevance of the exercises selected 2 7 11 4 Gender and gender analysis Importance of topic 12 10 2 0 Clarity of the presentation 4 13 8 0 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 2 15 7 0 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 2 12 11 0 Relevance of the exercises selected 2 15 7 0 Stakeholders and stakeholder analysis Importance of topic 9 12 3 0 Clarity of the presentation 3 15 7 0 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 3 13 9 0 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 3 13 9 0 Relevance of the exercises selected 2 13 10 0 Impact assessment Importance of topic 10 13 2 0 Clarity of the presentation 4 12 8 1 Use of the exercise to reinforce the topic 2 9 14 0 Use of the plenary to reinforce the topic 4 11 10 0 Relevance of the exercises selected 4 9 10 2 Annex 15 Workshop Schedules 177 Workshop Follow-up Plan – Nepal Activities NGOs CIMMYT NARC and government offices Networking Continued contact. Regular activities. Information from the participants about their experiences while using PR&GA. How useful, successful they were, difficulties faced etc. An information sharing informal network should be established among the participants. Follow-up program for information sharing and experiences in field situations using PR concepts and tools would be good. - There should be a good network for PR&GA between the organizers and different organizations that participated in the workshop. Report to authorities. Experiences of PR in the other countries should be discussed and shared. Program Development This should be followed with certain relevant projects where we can use PR&GA at field level. Convene meeting of decision makers to brainstorm next steps. Apply information gained from PR in current or new product development project. Follow up programs required. Make project and submit to the donor agents. Establish good linkage with PRGA organization such as CIAT for follow up. A workshop on how to develop a participatory research action plan and implementation strategy. Training Skill development Awareness for senior management Participants implement and adapt workshop results in their own institutions. Communication among participants and facilitators. Setting of indicators mainly focusing on qualitative, spiritual, and directional changes. Further development, more filed exercises in order to make PR processes clear to include on-farm results. More stakeholders analysis. More field exercises need to be organized to become familiar with new tools. Equip participation for the tools to get accurate data. Training for the bosses. Exercise as implementation. Annex 16 NRM Impacts and Costs Study 179 Annex 16 Natural Resource Management (NRM) Impacts and Costs Study Cost and Impacts of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis: Six Case Studies Outline of the report Part 1: Background, conceptual framework, and methodology · Introduction · Types of participation and stages of innovation process · Expected participatory research (PR) and gender and stakeholder analysis (GSA) process outcomes · Expected PR and GSA impacts · Basic cost structure for PR and GSA in NRM research · Analysis of the inventory of participatory NRM research- from the inventory · Analysis of the NRM impact assessment literature review Part 2: Empirical findings · Description of the design of the empirical study and selection of cases and short case description · Description of status and role of women in agriculture and NRM, and use of gender analysis (GA) in case projects · Context: type of agriculture, the project, its objectives, staff, process · Description of the types of GSA in each case project and at what stages in the innovation process · Empirical evidence of costs of PR and GSA research from case studies (using the framework of three stages of innovation process) by different types of PR and involving or not involving women, and at different scales · Summary of empirical results (including an assessment of the payoff of different approaches to involving women in participatory NRM research) Part 3: Annex · Description of the development over time of the six cases studied from beginning to the current point in time (two pages each) Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 176 Process Hypotheses to be Tested and their Impacts and Indicators used to Measure the Impacts Research question Process hypothesis Process impacts Process indicators 1 Was there feedback within the project regarding (1) the research mandate, (2) the project priorities, or (3) the research objectives? Did the project change any of these as a result of stakeholder participation? Participatory research and gender and stakeholder analysis (PR-GSA) provides a means to transmit information between stakeholders. The result is that projects are designed, planned, and implemented in ways that are more consistent with clients’ needs. Project staff receives information about clients’ needs and priorities, and the information is used to make adjustments to project. Evidence of feedback within the project and of changes in mandate, priorities, or plans for implementation. Project more in tune with client needs and priorities. 2 Was there feedback to the project’s host institution or other partner organizations involved that changed their research priorities and/or practices? Similar to 1 above, except that the changes occur at the institutional level, within research organizations, extension services, NGOs, etc. Project provides information about clients’ priorities to its host institution and other partners. Evidence of feedback from project to host institution and other partners. Compare host institution’s and other partners’ priorities before and after introduction of the PR GSA approach Compare host institution’s and other partners’ research priorities to clients’ priorities. 3 Was there feedback to the farmers that changed the research priorities of the farmers? Same as 1 and 2 except the changes occur among project beneficiaries. Project provides information about available options to farmers and helps them in research priority setting. Evidence of feedback from project to farmers. Compare farmers priorities before and after introduction of the PR GSA approach Annex 16 NRM Impacts and Costs Study 177 Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 178 Process Hypotheses to be Tested and their Impacts and Indicators used to Measure the Impacts - Continued. Research question Process hypothesis Process impacts Process indicators 4 What difference did the PR GSA approach make to the cost of the research? PRGA reduces total cost of research cost per potential client in all stages of innovation process. Costs are reduced because target group is better defined and inclusion of clients’ preferences aids in quickly discarding some of the technology options that would have otherwise been tested and would have incurred research cost. PRGA approach results in a cost structure in which most costs occur early on in the research process rather than during the transfer dissemination stage. PRGA approach results in some of the research cost being transferred to clients (their time and use of other resources, i.e., land). Total research costs are reduced, which allows resources to be allocated to other uses. Most costs incurred early in the project cycle. Clients’ investment of resources into research process strengthens their commitment to the research. Compare project’s, host institutions’, and farmers’ total research costs before and after (e.g., cost/ researchers, cost/ farmers reached, cost/ participant, cost/ experiment). Compare the project’s, host institutions’, and farmers’ total research costs structure at different stages of innovation process before and after introduction of the PR GSA approach. Compare the share of clients’ research cost to the cost of projects and host institutions’ total research before and after introduction of the PR GSA approach. Continued. Annex 16 NRM Impacts and Costs Study 179 Process Hypotheses to be Tested and their Impacts and Indicators used to Measure the Impacts - Continued. Research question Process hypothesis Process impacts Process indicators 5 What difference did PR GSA make to the impact (outcomes) of the research? PRGA approach improves the success of research by improving the probability of reaching the expected impacts because client involvement ensures that the output (technology or innovation) meets clients’ criteria and preferences. A possible hypothesis is that even if total research costs do not decline the efficiency of the project increases because the benefits increase by a greater proportion than the costs. The probability that the expected and achieved impacts are the same is increased (acceptability = measure of success). Compare expected and achieved impacts of the project, host institution, and farmers before and after introduction of the PR GSA approach. 6 Did participation and attention to gender and stakeholder analysis affect the number of beneficiaries, the type of beneficiaries adopting new technology, or the speed at which they adopted? PRGA approach increases the number of (1) intended users adopting the technology or innovation, and (2) different types of clients reached. PR GSA reduces the time between release of a technology and its widespread adoption. Time between initiation of the research process and development of a technology may increase or decrease. Large numbers of intended users quickly adopt technology or innovation. Estimate the shape of the adoption curve for all intended user groups. Compare time between initiation of research project and development of technology to other projects at the host research institution. Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 180 Process Hypotheses to be Tested and their Impacts and Indicators used to Measure the Impacts - Continued. Research question Process hypothesis Process impacts Process indicators 7 Did it improve targeting at the project level? Participation and gender analysis improves targeting of specific user groups because users’ priorities and preferences are taken into consideration in the innovation process. The target clientele is reached. Compare who were targeted and who were reached most. 8 Did it improve the design or appropriateness of technology for a given beneficiary group? Participation and gender analysis results in a technology that is better suited for the clients’ needs. Clients have technologies available to them that meet their criteria. Clients assessment of the appropriateness of the technology or innovation. How did it change? Describe the technology before and after the PRGA. 9 Was the local (client) experimentation with new practices strengthened? Participation and gender analysis encourages clients to experiment on their own to solve the given problem. Clients are empowered to carry out some of their own experiments and seek and find solutions on their own. Evidence of increased client experimentation on their own initiative. Annex 16 NRM Impacts and Costs Study 181 Innovation (Technology) Hypotheses to be Tested and their Impacts and Indicators used to Measure the Impacts Research question Innovation hypothesis Innovation impact Innovation indicators 1 What were the economic and environmental benefits of the project? In the case of economic benefits, how were they distributed? PRGA approach results in higher and faster adoption rates among the intended users. Increased income and equity. Compare changes in income, welfare before and after (beneficiary assessment) Compare the distribution of income between user groups and within household. Look at environmental impacts. 2 Did participation in the project improve capacity among clients, e.g., improve specific skills, problems solving ability, or ability to initiate and sustain participation without external facilitators? PRGA approach improves clients’ problem-solving ability and their ability to work with others to identify and solve common problems. Economic and social benefits result from spillover effect. Compare the difference between anticipated and unanticipated impacts before PR GSA approach and after. Compare capacities before and after (knowledge, social status, self-esteem, skills etc.) Identify instances where the participants have engaged in other related activities after their involvement with the project. Annex 17 Outline of Analysis of NRM Inventory 181 Annex 17 Outline of Analysis of Natural Resource Management (NRM) Inventory Introduction Purpose of inventory, brief discussion of participatory research (PR) for NRM. The Data Explanation of inventory, including case selection process, data collection, et cetera. Analysis of Cases Who uses PR and gender analysis (GA), in what types of projects, and where? This section will provide an overview of the projects in general terms. Specific questions will include: · What types of organizations do PR and GA for NRM? Is it only or mostly nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or are national agricultural research systems (NARS) and International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) doing them too? · Where are they being done? Are certain countries or regions more active in PR for NRM than others? · On what types of resources are the cases focusing? Are they generally private or common property resources? · On what scale are the projects carried out, e.g., large, small, “human”, or “ecological”? · What types of technologies are being generated, e.g., institutions or organizations, production practices, mechanical or biological technologies? Why use PR and gender and stakeholder analysis (GSA)? What do projects hope to gain by including PR and GA? Were they always part of the research process, or incorporated later to address specific problems that emerged during implementation? What kind of participation are the projects using? This section will explain the participation and GSA typologies used in the data collection, and then present the results. What tools and methods are used to achieve participation? This section will look in detail at how projects incorporate users into the activities. In addition to identifying and analyzing the specific tools and methods used, we will try to draw conclusions about which tools are used at what stages of the innovation process. How is the incorporation of PR and GSA changing the technology generation process? This section will look at the process outcomes, at which are the impacts that are not related to the specific technology developed. We are looking at outcomes relating to the organization and efficiency of the technology generation process, as well as outcomes relating to the human and social capital of the individuals and communities involved. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 182 These outcomes will probably depend on the specific types and forms of participation within the projects. The results of this section will therefore be linked to the analysis of these to see whether any patterns emerge. What kinds of impacts have PR for NRM projects had to date? This section will look at what types of impact have been observed to date. Rather than analyze the specific impacts, we will look at whether they produced their intended output (i.e., identified a problem or solution, developed or tested or disseminated a technology, etc). We will also look at what types of socioeconomic and environmental impacts have been observed. Summary and Conclusions Once all above points have been dealt with, a summary and conclusions can be finalized. Annex 18 Inventory of PR Projects for NRM 183 Annex 18 Inventory of Participatory Research Projects for Natural Resource Management (NRM) Sponsored by the CGIAR’s Systemwide Program for Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Project administration and organization This section is designed to obtain general information about specific natural resource management (NRM) projects that use participatory research. It should be filled out at the level of research project, not research program. 1. Project title 2. Contact person (name, address, email) 3. Country where project operates 4. Project dates Year project began __________ Year project ended or will end _____________ 5. What is the general scale of the project? (Check one at right.) Sub-community____ Community _____ Micro watershed ____ Watershed ______ Regional ______ National _________ Other (specify) ___________________________ 6. What is the size of the project, in terms of geographic area (kms 2), number of farmers, or families served, etc.? 7. What is the name of the primary organization involved in the research aspect of the project? 8. What type of organization is the one named in question 7? (Check one at right.) International Agricultural Research Center ____ National agricultural research institute ______ Local nongovernmental organization (NGO) __________ Non-local NGO ____________ Other (specify) _____________ 9. What other organizations are involved and what kind of organization are they (using categories from previous question)? 10. What donor financed the project? Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 184 11. Briefly describe the project using just a few key words (e.g., erosion control in the hillsides, IPM for late blight in potatoes). Continued. I Project administration and organization - Continued. This section is designed to obtain general information about specific natural resource management (NRM) projects that use participatory research. It should be filled out at the level of research project, not research program. 12. On what type of resource is the project working? (Check one at right.) Soil ____ Water (non-irrigation) ______ Irrigation _____ Forest ______ Biodiversity _______ Rangelands _______ Fisheries ______ Coastal resources _______ Other (specify) ______________________ 13. What type of technology or innovation is being developed, tested or disseminated? (Check one at right.) Institutional or organizational_______ Agronomic practice_______ Crop variety _________ Fertilizer or guidelines for use __________ Pesticides or guidelines for use_______ Mechanical (cropping) ________________ Mechanical (irrigation) ________ Mechanical (livestock) _______ Agroforestry __________ Integrated pest management (IPM) _____ In situ conservation _______ Other (specify) __________ 14. What was the objective of including participation in the research process? 15. What is the target stakeholder group of the project? Farmers ____ The community ______ The poor ______ Women ______ Other (specify) __________ II Gender analysis Gender analysis involves the differentiation of stakeholder characteristics such as access to resources, needs, priorities, and constraints according to gender. 16. Does the project use gender analysis? Yes _____ No _____ (if no, skip to Section 3) Annex 18 Inventory of PR Projects for NRM 185 17. What were the objectives of including gender analysis? Continued. II Gender analysis - Continued. Gender analysis involves the differentiation of stakeholder characteristics such as access to resources, needs, priorities, and constraints according to gender. For the purposes of this survey, we have identified three types of gender analysis, which are defined below: Diagnostic Gender Analysis: When gender differences in the client group(s) for the research are described and different problems or preferences are diagnosed, but this information is not taken into account in priority setting, design of solutions for testing or their evaluation and adoption. Diagnostic Gender Analysis may come to the conclusion that gender differences are not an important criterion for designing the research; or it may identify gender differences as an obstacle to adoption of technical solutions for men or women members of the client group. Design-oriented Gender Analysis: In addition to describing gender differences in the client group, and in their problems and preferences, different research and development paths are designed that take into account gender- based constraints, needs and preferences. Design-oriented gender analysis may result in different technologies being developed and adopted by men and women, and these may require different dissemination approaches. Transfer-oriented Gender Analysis: In addition to describing gender differences in the client group, and in their problems and preferences, different adoption and dissemination paths are designed to overcome access to and adoption of a given technology known (or assumed to be) of similar importance to men and women. Transfer- oriented gender analysis results in the same technologies being disseminated to men and women in different ways. 18. Which type of gender analysis do you use in your project? (Check one below.) Diagnostic ____ Design-oriented _______ Transfer-oriented _______ III Activities, tools, and processes This section relates to the specific research activities and participatory tools and methods used in your project, as well as to the nature of participation. 19. Briefly describe the project’s research-related activities (e.g., research priorities set with community members, farmers evaluate options for in situ conservation, or institutional options for local management of community lands are tested). 20. What specific participatory tools and methods are used (e.g., participatory rural appraisal, community resource mapping, focus groups, farmers’ evaluation, etc)? Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 186 21. How were participants selected? (Check one at right.) Voluntary self-selection ____ Researcher-selected based on criteria related to leadership, skills, knowledge, or status in community _____ Researcher-selected based on equity criteria such as deliberately incorporating women or the poor ______ Selected by the community based on leadership, skills, knowledge, or community status __________ Other (specify) _______________ 22. Is collective action on the part of stakeholders important in the project? Yes _____ No ______ 23. Are indigenous technical solutions used to solve problems? Yes ______ No _______ Continued. Annex 18 Inventory of PR Projects for NRM 187 IV Process outcomes It is hypothesized that incorporating participation into the research process can have effects beyond those related to the impacts of a specific technology or other innovation. Including participation can have dynamic effects on the technology generation process and those involved in it. In this section, we identify three possible areas in which these process outcomes could occur, and ask whether any of them have been observed in your project. 24. Did the incorporation of participation affect the technology generation process? (Check at right one or more outcomes observed.) Feedback links formed between researchers and beneficiaries _____ Changes in priorities of researchers or research institutes ___ Changes in how research is implemented (e.g., use of participatory tools institutionalized) _______ Changes in the diffusion pattern of technologies, e.g., faster adoption and higher adoption ceilings __________ Other (specify) _______________ 25. Did the incorporation of participation affect the individuals involved in the project in terms of building human capital? (Check at right one or more outcomes observed.) Specific skills developed through training ________ Analytical capacity and problem-solving skills strengthened ______ Participants empowered to address problems outside the context of this specific project _______ Other (specify) ________ 26. Did the incorporation of participation affect the community involved in the project in terms of building social capital? (Check at right one or more outcomes observed.) Organizations formed _____ Internal capacity of community to work together strengthened _____ Capacity of the community to work with other communities and/or outside organizations strengthened __________ Conflict reduced _______ Other (specify) ________ V Costs of doing research Incorporating participation into the research process may change the costs associated with doing research compared with more traditional, researcher-driven processes. This section seeks to identify any changes that projects observed in their cost structure, by which we mean both the total cost of doing research and how those costs were distributed over time in different stages of the innovation process. 27. How did the incorporation of participatory research affect the costs of doing research? 28. How did the incorporation of gender analysis affect the costs of doing research? VI Technology and innovation impacts This section looks at the impacts of the technologies or other innovations that result from participatory research processes. 29. Has any impact assessment work been done in your project? Yes ______ No _______ (go to question 31) 30. If so, what kind of analysis? Continued. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 188 VI Technology and innovation impacts - Continued. This section looks at the impacts of the technologies or other innovations that result from participatory research processes. 31. Following is a list of potential outputs of a technology generation process going from problem identification through technology design and development to release and adoption. For each of the following outputs, please indicate whether it was or will be an output of your project. Please keep in mind that a specific project generally works only at certain stages of the innovation process, which means that it would not be expected to produce all of the outputs listed below. A. Was a problem or priority identified for future research? Yes ____ No _____ Not an output of the project _______ Expected future output of the project ___ B. Was a specific solution to a problem identified? Yes ____ No _____ Not an output of the project _______ Expected future output of the project ___ C. Was a technology or other innovation developed? Yes ____ No _____ Not an output of the project _______ Expected future output of the project ___ D. Was a technology or other innovation tested? Yes ____ No _____ Not an output of the project _______ Expected future output of the project ___ E. Was a technology or other innovation disseminated? Yes ____ No _____ Not an output of the project _______ Expected future output of the project ___ F. Was a technology or other innovation adopted? Yes ____ No _____ Not an output of the project _______ Expected future output of the project ___ 32. What kinds of socioeconomic impacts were observed? (Provide details where possible.) Adoption rates ______ Production increases _______ Increased income ________ Effect on welfare or poverty ________ Equity effects __________ 33. What kinds of environmental impacts have been observed? VII Monitoring and evaluation This section seeks information on the project’s monitoring and evaluation activities. 34. Does the project have a systematic monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component? Yes ___ No ___ (if no, you have finished. Thank you.) 35. Is the M&E component participatory, meaning that researchers and other stakeholders conduct and assess it? Yes ____ No _____ 36. Have you made significant changes to project activities as a result of the findings of the M&E? Yes (specify) _________________________________ No _____ Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out the survey! Copyright ã2000. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program). All Rights Reserved. Annex 19 Case Studies NRM Scientists’ Meeting 189 Annex 19 Case Studies Prepared for the Natural Resource Management (NRM) Scientists’ Meeting The meeting was jointly held by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA) and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) from 1-3 Sept 1993 at Chatham in the UK. Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia (Private Consultant); Participatory management of Kapuwai’s wetlands (Pallisa District, Uganda): a clear need and some steps toward fulfilling it. Braun, Ann (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical [CIAT]); The Farmer Research Committee (CIAL) as a community-based natural resource management (NRM) organization. Brinn, Peter (Natural Resources Institute [NRI]); Focus on integrating methods and approaches to increase gender and stakeholder involvement: collaborative management of NRM and decision- making support. Conroy, Czech (NRI) and DV Rangnekar (BAIF Development Research Foundation); Participatory research at the landscape level: Kumbhan water trough case study Dey, Madan M and Mark Prein (International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management [ICLARM]); Participatory research at landscape level: flood-prone ecosystems in Bangladesh and Vietnam Garrity, Dennis (International Centre for Research in Agroforestry [ICRAF]); The farmer-driven Landcare movement: an institutional innovation with implications for extension and research. Gurung, Barun (CIAT-PRGA); Eastern Himalayan initiative on gender, ethnicity, and agrobiodiversity management. Heong, K.L. (International Rice Research Institute [IRRI]); Farmer participatory experiments. Klemick, Heather and Devra Jarvis (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute [IPGRI]); Participatory management of plant genetic resources: in-situ (on-farm) conservation. McDougall, Cynthia (Center for International Forestry Research [CIFOR]); CIFOR- Konsorsium Sistim Hutan Kerakyatan Kaltim (SHK) adaptive co-management project, Long Loreh, Bulungan, East Kalimantan. Nelson, Rebecca (Centro Internacional de la Papa [CIP]); Farmers’ ability to manage a devastating plant disease - potato late blight. Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 190 Peters, Michael (CIAT); Participatory selection and strategic use of multipurpose forages in hillsides of Honduras. Pound, Barry (NRI); Developing and implementing an innovative community approach to the control of bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum) of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Schreier, Hans and Sandra Brown (University of British Colombia); Methods used to address resource issues in integrated watershed management in Nepalese watersheds. Snapp, Sieglinde (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics [ICRISAT]); A comparison of farmer participatory research methods. Stroud, Ann (ICRAF-AHI); Participatory agro-ecosystem management (PAM) –an approach utilized by benchmark location research teams in the African Highlands Ecoregional Program (AHI) Sutherland, Alistair (NRI); Soil and water conservation – historical and geographical perspectives on participation. Tutwiler, Richard (ICARDA); Long-term natural resource management research in intensive irrigated systems: ICARDA’s experience in Egypt. van Koppen, Barbara (International Water Management Institute [IWMI]); Water management, agricultural development, and poverty eradication in the former Homelands of South Africa. Vaughan, Kit (CIMMYT); Improving farmer risk management strategies for resource-poor and drought-prone farming systems in southern Africa. Vernooy, Ronnie (International Development Research Centre [IDRC]); Participatory mapping, analysis and monitoring of the natural resource base in small watersheds: insights from Nicaragua. Vincent, Linden (Wageningen Agricultural University); Innovation in irrigation—working in a “participation complex” Williams, Jim (NRI); Observations on the use of information tools (IT) in participatory contexts: access to information and empowerment. Annex 20 Acronyms and Abbreviations 191 Annex 20 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used Acronyms AAU Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research ACIN Asociación de Cabildos Indígenas del Norte del Cauca, Colombia AFOCO Apoyo a la Forestería Comunal, Honduras AFRICARE An NGO operating in sub-Saharan Africa AHI African Highlands Initiative, ICRAF, Uganda ARARIWA Association for Andean Technical and Cultural Promotion, Peru ARC Agricultural Research Council, Syria AREA Agricultural Research and Extension Authority, Yemen ASAR an NGO, Bolivia ASOCIAL Association of CIALs BMZ Bundesministerium für Wirtschafliche Zusammenarbeit (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development) CARE Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere CATIE Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Costa Rica CAZS Centre for Arid Zone Studies, Wales, UK CENSAT Centro Nacional Salud, Ambiente y Trabajo, Colombia CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CHT Chinese Hand Tiller Project, Nepal CIAD Center for Integrated Agricultural Development, China CIAE Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias del tado Lara, Venezuela CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia CIAL Comité de Investigación Agrícola Local CIDCA Centro de Investigación y Documentación de la Costa Atlantica, Nicaragua CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research, Indonesia CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo, Mexico CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa, Peru CIPAV Centro para la Investigación en Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción Agropecuaria, Colombia CIRAD Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement, France CNPMF Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Mandioca e Fruticultura, EMBRAPA, Brazil CONDESAN Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Ecorregión Andina CORPOICA Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria CORPOVERSALLES Corporación para el Desarrollo de Versalles, Colombia CPAC Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuaria dos Cerrados, Brazil CPRO-DLO Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research – Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, the Netherlands CRRI Central Rice Research Institute, India Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 192 CRRURS Central Rainfed Upland Rice Research Station, India DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DFID Department for International Development, UK DR&SS Department of Research and Specialists Services, NARI, Zimbabwe EAP Escuela Agrícola Panamericana, Zamorano, Honduras EARO East African Research Organization, Kenya EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization EBDA Empresa Bahiana de Desenvolvimento Agrícola, Brazil EIAR Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research EMBRAPA Empresa Brasilera de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Brazil EMDAGRO Empresa de Desenvolvimento Agropecuária de Sergipe, Brazil EPACE Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Ceará (Brazil) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome FIDAR Fundación para la Investigación y el Desarrollo de la Agroindustria Rural, Colombia FMP Fitomejoramiento Participativo, Spanish PRGA Listserver GAP Gender Analysis Program of the CGIAR GENDEV Gender and Development Research Network of IFPRI GIPMF Global Integrated Pest Management Facility at FAO, Rome GRST Genetic Resources Science and Technology Group GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammennarbeit (German Agency for Technical Cooperation) IARCs International Agricultural Research Centers ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Kenya ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India IDAE Proyecto Integral de Desarrollo Agropecuario de la Encañada, Peru IDR Institute of Rural Development, Ethiopia IDRC International Development Research Centre, Canada IES Institute of Environmental Studies, Zimbabwe IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development, Italy IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute, USA IGAU Indira Ghandi Agricultural University, India IIM-A Indian Institute for Management, Ahmedabad, India IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Ecuador IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria ILRI International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi INIAP Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Ecuador INRA Institut national de la recherche agronomique, France INRAB Institut national des recherches agricoles du Benin IPCA Investigación Participativa en Centro América project, Honduras IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Italy IPM Integrated Pest Management Program Annex 20 Acronyms and Abbreviations 193 IPRA Investigación Participativa en Agricultura - Participatory Research in Agriculture, a CIAT program IRRI International Rice Research Institute, the Philippines ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research, the Netherlands IWMI International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LI-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development, a Nepalese NGO LMC Locational Management Committee MFAT Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand MOA Ministry of Agriculture, Namibia MoALD Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Kenya NARC National Agricultural Research Council, Nepal NARO National Agricultural Research Organization of SAARI, Uganda NDUAT Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, India NMRP National Maize Research Program, Nepal NORAD Norwegian Agency for International Development NRI Natural Resources Institute, UK Olafo Name of CATIE’s Conservation Project for the Sustainable Development of Central America ORSTOM Institut français de recherche scientifique pour le développement en coopération, France OUAT Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, India PG Planning Group of the PRGA PNRM Participatory Natural Resource Management Group of the PRGA PRGA Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program of CIAT PRISMA Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente, El Salvador PROINPA Fundación Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos, Bolivia PROSEMPA an NGO, Bolivia PROSERTAO Projeto de Apoio as Familias de Baixa Renda da Região Semi-Arida, Brazil PRR Programa de Reconstrucción Rural, Honduras RRF Regional Research Fellowship SAARI Serere Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute, Uganda SADC Southern Africa Development Community SAVE Sustainable Agriculture and Village Extension project, CARE Program SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice, of the Convention on Biodiversity SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SHK Konsorsium Sistim Hutan Kerakyatan Kaltim, Indonesia SMIP Sorghum and Millet Improvement Program of SADC and ICRISAT, Zimbabwe SOL Supermercado de Opciones para Ladera, a CIAT Hillsides Project Annual Report - April 1999 – March 2000 194 SRISTI Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions, India SSC Site Stakeholder Committee SWNM Soil Water Nutrient Management program (SWP of the CGIAR) SWP Systemwide Program of the CGIAR TAC Technical Advisory Committee (FAO-UN) of the CGIAR TLAP Tropical Latin America Program (SWP of the CGIAR) TSBF Tropical Soils Biology and Fertility Program, Kenya TSG Technical Support Group of AHI UCA Unión de Cooperativas Agropecuarias, Miraflor, Nicaragua UNALM Universidad Nacional Agraria “La Molina”, Peru UNB Université Nacional de Bénin, Burundi UNIR A New Initiative in Rural Development, Kellogg Foundation project UPLB University of the Philippines, Los Baños UPWARD Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development of CIP, Philippines UZACHI Union de Comunidades Forestales Zapoteco-Chinantecas, Mexico WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association, Ivory Coast WIRFP Women in Rice Farming Project of IRRI WWW World Wide Web Abbreviations APW Andean potato weevil ARF adaptive research farmers BBM broad bed maker, created by modifying traditional plow CBO community-based organization CG CGIAR FFS farmer field schools (FAO) FRGs farmers’ research groups FVs farmer varieties (of seed) GA gender analysis GxE genotype by environment GO government organization GRO government regional office GSA gender and stakeholder analysis GWG gender analysis working group HQ headquarters IA impact analysis IGO international governmental organization IPM integrated pest management IPR intellectual property rights IT information tools LB potato late blight Annex 20 Acronyms and Abbreviations 195 LOA letter of agreement M&E monitoring and evaluation MAS marker-assisted selection MVs modern varieties (of seed) NARI national agricultural research institute NARMS natural resource management by self-help promotion NARS national agricultural research systems NGO nongovernmental organization NRM natural resource management NRMG natural resource management working group OFCOR on-farm (client-oriented) research PAM participatory agro-ecosystem management PB plant breeding PBG participatory plant breeding working group PM&E participatory monitoring and evaluation PBG participatory plant breeding working group PPB participatory plant breeding PNRM participatory natural resource management PR participatory research PRA participatory rural appraisal PRGA participatory research and gender analysis PRNA participatory research needs assessment PTM potato tuber moth PVS participatory variety selection R&D research and development