{"metadata":{"id":"0047c8a4b42156d2bcfc29c265837a7b","source":"gardian_index","url":"https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/7f1347a5-9d90-4754-984c-e8e77f1580a7/retrieve"},"pageCount":143,"title":"Contents to the Outline","keywords":[],"chapters":[{"head":"","index":1,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":25,"text":"Because of its recognized leadership in this area, CIAT was asked to convene the Program. Three other CGIAR centersCIMMYT, IRRI, and ICARDAagreed to actas cosponsors."},{"index":2,"size":107,"text":"The strategy and structure of the Program were designed for the task at hand. Three decentralized working groups were formed. These were the Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group (PBG), the Participatory Natural Resource Management Working Group (PNRM-wg), and the Gender Analysis Working Group (GA-wg). Each had a representative in the planning group, and each made a 5-year work plan that has provided the basis for the annual agenda of work and budgeting. The elements of the GA Group's work plan were substantially planned into the PBG and PNRM Gro u p' s 5-year work plans to ensure in tegration of gender with these are as of work."},{"index":3,"size":23,"text":"In 1997, the CGIAR Gender Program, which had been staffed from the CGIAR Secretariat, was formally incorporated into the systemwide PRGA Program. l."},{"index":4,"size":24,"text":"For an explanation of this and other acronyms and abbreviations used in the text, see Appendix 15. e• ~e ,. i (\"' 1\") .."},{"index":5,"size":9,"text":";:::, e . ' •• 1 J , L"},{"index":6,"size":92,"text":"The working groups comprise practitioners from IARCs, national agricultura! research institutes (NARis), NGOs, and indigenous research systems, mixing expertise from both the biophysical and social sciences to implement a common work plan. The members meet periodically at the Program's biannual international seminar, at research workshops, and at field sites. An important mode of work is through e-mail networks. While each working group has its specific work plan, the three have in common four elements that form the main thrust of the Program's approach: methodology development, capacity building, partnerships and networks, and institutionalization."},{"index":7,"size":74,"text":"The PRGA Program is now 6 years old. Together with its partners, the Program has been a factor in creating a strong momentum to implement participatory approaches not only within the CGIAR system, but also on a broader scale. Many respected scientists and practitioners are using these approaches in their research, and demand is growing (although as yet, unmet) for training. The Program has shown that PRGA embodies rigorous methods that are scientifically grounded."},{"index":8,"size":148,"text":"The Program's work has built a body of evidence that shows that these methods are delivering broad impact by producing technologies and resource management options that are well suited to end users' needs, thus significantly reducing the possibility of farmers rejecting newly developed technologies. In addition, PR ís producing \"process impacts\", resulting in, for example, increased human and social capital, which is essential to the sustainability of rural development and innovation. Among those who benefit most from the implementation of these approaches are the most needywomen, the very poor, and marginal groupswho are often overlooked by conventional research. Finally, the PRGA Program has demonstrated how participatory and gender-sensitive approaches can be cost efficient because of their increased impact and reduced time overall to produce relevant technologies. Although the PRGA Program has made considerable progress, as outlined above, severallessons have been learned from these achievements. These are summarized as:"},{"index":9,"size":65,"text":"• Absence of a core of PRGA expertise in the CGIAR. A survey conducted among the CGIAR centers shows that the total amount invested in PRGA activities is US$27 million. This amount is spread among 144 projects across 16 centers in the CGIAR, leading to extreme fragmentation of human and fmancial resources, and thus prompting the question: is investing resources in PRGA activities paying off?"},{"index":10,"size":4,"text":"Section 1 Program Overview"},{"index":11,"size":59,"text":"• Unmet demand for capacity development. The predominance of a researcherled type of participation in research, combined with highly limited use of gender analysis (GA) methods, has led to a huge and unmet demand for capacity development, particularly in the CGIAR centers. But capacity development efforts will not have lasting impact if these are not accompanied by organizational change."},{"index":12,"size":93,"text":"• Learning and experimentation with methods is widespread. Evidence from impact case studies also demonstrates that the use of PRGA methods in research generates a process of learning and change, particularly in method innovations that result from farmers feedback. Results of impact case studies conducted with ICRISAT, !CARDA, World Neighbours Canada, and WARDA demonstrate that user participation lead to feedback that change priorities and practices of research institutions. Systematizing methods and learning, together with capacity building to use PRGA methods more effectively, have contributed to scaling-up, that is, reaching more people more quickly."},{"index":13,"size":36,"text":"• Learning and change does not extend to organizations. However, learning and change remain at project level. The absence of feedback from project to organization has implications for learning to be sustained beyond the project's life."}]},{"head":"Objectives","index":2,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":50,"text":"Hence, while it is important to continue with efforts to build compelling evidence of impact, there is a real need to focus attention on developing capacity for PRGA, combined with organization-development skills for their institutionalization. More specifically, the strategy for the PRGA Program's phase 2 will focus on the following:"},{"index":2,"size":31,"text":"• Capacity development in methods that ensure gender-equitable, stakeholderclient representation in research decision making; and networking within a cadre of champions who support each other and who can make a clifference."},{"index":3,"size":8,"text":"• Continue to build compelling evidence of impact."},{"index":4,"size":14,"text":"• Develop action research partnerships to institutionalize PRGA approaches within acore ofiARCs and NARS."}]},{"head":"•","index":3,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":16,"text":"Communications and partnerships for disseminating information and devolving Program activities, responsibilities, and decision making to stakeholders."},{"index":2,"size":6,"text":"~;;tCtÍOll 1 p, oqran1 ( verview"}]},{"head":"Overview of progress, 2002-2003","index":4,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":4,"text":"Outputs for 2002-2003 included:"},{"index":2,"size":26,"text":"• State-of-the-art analyses were published as PPB Monographs. These four commissioned documents, now completed, are extensive studies on participatory plant breeding (PPB) and gender analysis (GA)."},{"index":3,"size":24,"text":"• More than 120 case studies of PPB were identified and described for the PPB inventory, now available on the PRGA Program's Web page."},{"index":4,"size":15,"text":"• Fifteen PPB reports from projects funded by the PRGA Program were received and published."},{"index":5,"size":16,"text":"• PRGA Program scientists advised and partially supported three PhD students work.ing in the PPB field."},{"index":6,"size":42,"text":"• The Program's impact assessment research has established and maintains an inventory of participatory projects. It conducts impact studies in collaboration with various research institutes, and engages in methods development, and capacity building in impact assessment of participatory approaches with partner institutions."},{"index":7,"size":13,"text":"• Several Intra-Center Committees were established to foster organizational strategies for PRGA work."},{"index":8,"size":50,"text":"• Methods for integrating plant breeding (PB) and natural resource management (NRM) into joint projects were developed. • With strong support from the senior management at JIRCAS and from the Lao-CIAT Forages and Livestock Systems Project, the PRGA Program designed and facilitated a workshop entitled Improving Adoption of Agricultural Technologies."},{"index":9,"size":10,"text":"• The Program collaborated in the publication of several papers."}]},{"head":"Section 1 Program Overvíe•","index":5,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":57,"text":"• The PRGA Program co-hosted, with the System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP), a workshop on The Quality of Science in Participatory Plant Breeding. Held at IPGRI, Rome, from 30 September to 4 October 2002, the workshop assessed critica! advances in the social and biological sciences shaping PPB practice, and evaluated the breadth of its impact to date."},{"index":2,"size":24,"text":"• At the same workshop, the PRGA Program presented a paper on the Benefits and Costs ofDecentralized Participatory Bar ley Breeding at !CARDA, Syria."}]},{"head":"•","index":6,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":28,"text":"The Program presented another paper on Why has impact assessment research not made more of a difference? atan international conference on the impact of agricultura! research and development. "}]},{"head":"Logical framework for the PRGA Program's second phase","index":7,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":46,"text":"The objectives of the Program's future strategies have been formed by a synthesis of experiencesgenerated from the Program's accomplishments and lessons learnedthat was combined with consultations with stakeholders and recommendations from the Internally Commissioned Externa! Review (ICER). The objectives for the second phase are listed below:"}]},{"head":"Outputs and activities","index":8,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":18,"text":"The PRGA Program's outputs and activities tend to fall into groups, according to the Program's objectives. These are:"},{"index":2,"size":31,"text":"i. Develop a capacity to encourage gender-equitable, stakeholder-client representation in research decision making, and networking within a cadre of champions who su pport each other and who can make a difference "}]},{"head":"S ~","index":9,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":6,"text":"ii. Continue building compelling evidence ofimpact"},{"index":2,"size":44,"text":"• Conduct empirical studies on participatory research methods in PB and NRM • Develop and disseminate tools and methods that enable scientists to capture the impact of products and processes, and integrate learning from impact assessment into research planning and adaptation (learning and change)"},{"index":3,"size":15,"text":"íii. Action research partnerships on institutionalizing PRGA approaches with a core of IARCs and NARS"},{"index":4,"size":104,"text":"• Conduct institutional assessments with partner organizations to assess opportunities and constraints for institutionalizing PRGA methods • Form partnerships with organizations that enable the PRGA Program to have a major impact on (1) integrating PRGA into agricultural research, and ( 2) enhancing methods and approaches that contribute to improving the livelihoods ofthe very poor, particularly rural women • Develop tools that go beyond generic gender diagnosis and analysis to ( 1) enable the design of tailored analyses, and (2) guide researchers in interpreting GA results so they may effectively address their implications in research planning and adaptation iv. Communications and partnerships for disseminating information"},{"index":5,"size":22,"text":"• PRGA interactive Web si te • Dissemination • Publications • Enhance the support function ofthe working groups PBG, PNRM-wg, and GAwg"}]},{"head":".3 .2. Gains","index":10,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":2,"text":"These include:"},{"index":2,"size":86,"text":"• Greater access toa global exchange ofPRGA expertise among a wide range of institu tions. • Accelerated learning from experiences; and new, widely applicable, methodologies for PRGA generated. • Considerable savings and increased impact from NARS generated by betterdesigned technologies. • Indigenous systems of crop development and NRM strengthened and integrated with formal research in a m u tually reinforcing way. • Poor rural women become meaningful participants in research and its beneficiaries. • Greatly accelerated development and adoption of diverse germplasm in major food crops."},{"index":3,"size":6,"text":"Section 1 Program Overv1 vr 1.1."}]},{"head":"Users","index":11,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":10,"text":"Poor rural farmer::>, IARCs, NARis, NGOs, and rural grassroots organizatíons"}]},{"head":"Collaborators","index":12,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":7,"text":"IARCs, NARS, NGOs, grassroots organizations, and universities"}]},{"head":"CGIAR system linkages","index":13,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":25,"text":"The main ones focused will be Enhancement and Breeding (25%), Crop and Livestock Production Systems (25%), Protecting the Environment (30%), and Organization and Management (20%)."}]},{"head":"Note:","index":14,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":24,"text":"See Appendix 1 for a descriptíon of the PRGA Program's logical .framework, and Appendix 2 for details ofthe distribution ofthe Program 's budget allocations."}]},{"head":"Strategies","index":15,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":51,"text":"During 2003, the PRGA Program goals have been adapted as a result of lessons learned from activities in phase 1 and of inputs received from various consultations with stakeholders during the same period. As a result, the major focus for the second phase, beginning 2003, will be on the following strategies:"},{"index":2,"size":4,"text":"• Mainstream PRGA approaches."},{"index":3,"size":18,"text":"• Increase the development of capacity in GA, PR, impact assessment, and use of organization-development concepts and tools."},{"index":4,"size":8,"text":"• Institutionalize these approaches within the organizational context."},{"index":5,"size":12,"text":"• Continue to build evidence ofthe impact ofusing gender-sensitive, participatory research methods."},{"index":6,"size":15,"text":"• Develop action research partnerships to institutionalize PRGA approaches within a core ofiARCs and NARS."},{"index":7,"size":8,"text":"• Develop communications and partnerships for disseminating information."},{"index":8,"size":11,"text":"• Devolve the Program's activities, responsibilities, and decision making to Stakeholders."},{"index":9,"size":11,"text":"The following briefly describes the most important facets of these strategies."},{"index":10,"size":6,"text":"PRGA Program Anual Report 2003 7\"'"},{"index":11,"size":4,"text":"Section 1 Program Overview"}]},{"head":". 1. Mainstreaming PRGA approaches","index":16,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":34,"text":"Mainstreaming the Program's outputs is critical to its success. Client-oriented research and development {R&D) requires skilful interactions between researchers and end users of technology to ensure that innovations are appropriate and rapid adoption occurs."},{"index":2,"size":16,"text":"Mainstreaming the use of PRGA will have been achieved if these research approaches and principies are:"},{"index":3,"size":31,"text":"• Widely accepted by donors, IARC management, and scientists as valid for achieving scientific research goals (e.g., soil analysis and gender analysis ha ve equivalent legitimacy and validity as research tools)."},{"index":4,"size":22,"text":"• Used scientifically in a discriminating fashion to improve research in the CGIAR systemnot for advocacy or for the sake of appearances."},{"index":5,"size":42,"text":"• 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 experiences, and to conduct strategic research for developing new applications and cutting-edge methodologies."},{"index":6,"size":49,"text":"• Applied to increase gender-equitable stakeholder and client participation in relevant research processes and decisions so that feedback to research, and research efficiency and effectiveness are improved; technology appropriate to different stakeholders is developed; and adoption rates increase among the CGIAR's priority client groups such as poor rural women."},{"index":7,"size":33,"text":"• U sed 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."},{"index":8,"size":23,"text":"• Used to encourage gender-equitable stakeholder and client representation in CGIAR extemal and internal reviews, impact assessment, and consultations for strategic p lanning."},{"index":9,"size":45,"text":"• Integrated into the structure and culture of the organization. Specifically, PRGA approaches and principies would be reflected in terms of reference (TORs) and personnel evaluation systems of researchers; incentive systems at the organizational level; policy statements of the organization; core funding within the organization."},{"index":10,"size":5,"text":"Section 1 Program Overv Avtt"}]},{"head":". Partnerships based on collaborative advantage","index":17,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":57,"text":"Given the complexity of research problems, the Program was designed for implementation through interinstitutional collaboration. A special task force at the Systemwide Planning Meeting developed the principies guidíng these partnerships. Partnerships among IARCs, NARis, NGOs, and govemmental regional offices (GROs) are to be decentralized . Methods are to be introduced into ongoing projects, consistent with their priorities."},{"index":2,"size":11,"text":"Emphasis is given to horizontal arrangements where collaborative advantages are sought."},{"index":3,"size":30,"text":"The goal is to ere ate a synergy between and among collaborators so that, together, they may produce or accomplish something new that cannot be done by any one organization."},{"index":4,"size":6,"text":"Table la shows the Program's partnerships:"},{"index":5,"size":10,"text":"• The principies for successful partnerships adopted by the Programare:"},{"index":6,"size":9,"text":"• Compelling, shared vísion and sen se of purpose."},{"index":7,"size":12,"text":"• Strong, skilful, shared leadership that purposely seeks to create collaborative advantage."},{"index":8,"size":7,"text":"• Shared problems of definition and approach."},{"index":9,"size":18,"text":"• Guidelines for using methodologies and organization innovations based on comparisons across agro-socioeconomic environments, technologies, and user groups."},{"index":10,"size":9,"text":"• Common leaming process derived from sharing global experiences."},{"index":11,"size":3,"text":"• Power equity."},{"index":12,"size":10,"text":"• Interdependency and complementarity.    • Promete the use of GA."},{"index":13,"size":37,"text":"Not only understand the implications of women's existing roles and responsibilities in agriculture and NRM for technology development and institutional innovation, but also identify new opportunities for innovation . that involve a concomitant change in women's status."},{"index":14,"size":36,"text":"Integration is more effective than isolation; thus GA is a central component in the Progra.m's research, capacity-building, and partnership-development activities. Analysis of differences among stakeholder groups is a first step in designing a good PR agenda."},{"index":15,"size":27,"text":"Gender analysis, together with the analysis of other differentiating characteristics within and among groups of technologies, can help ensure that technologies will be useful and u sed."},{"index":16,"size":39,"text":"The focus is on mainstreaming gender andfor stakeholder analysis principies, methods, and tools in PB and NRM research so that their use becomes an integral part of the processes of research d esign and implementation within the CGIAR system."},{"index":17,"size":14,"text":"Participatory research in PB and NRM integrates GA into the research process and involves:"},{"index":18,"size":4,"text":"• Diverse stakeholder groups."},{"index":19,"size":30,"text":"• Our capacity-building strategy gives our partners the skills needed to integrate gender and stakeholder analysis and partnership principies as critical components ofthe PR processes in which they are involved."},{"index":20,"size":23,"text":"• Our information dissemination and public awareness activities make visible the needs of both m en and women innovators and users of technology."}]},{"head":"•","index":18,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":26,"text":"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 havehad."}]},{"head":"•","index":19,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":46,"text":"The Program does not limit itself to gender as the sole user-differentiating variable for wom en in PRjust for the sake of involving them, but also to build skills in GA outside the context of PB and NRM research, and to advocate gender-staffmg policies per se."}]},{"head":"Section 1 Program Overvievv","index":20,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":55,"text":"The Program itself should be an example of gender-sensitive stakeholder participation in its own organizational structure, and functions to serve as a \"learning lab\". Gender-sensitive stakeholder representation is sought in all the Program's collaborative partnerships at all levelsfrom the Advisory Board that advises management to the formation of stakeholder committees in projects receiving small grants."}]},{"head":"Capacity building","index":21,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":36,"text":"In phase 1, the strategy for capacity development focused largely on the use of methods and approaches for conducting PRGA. Specifically, these were:    Research a pproaches built on sound use of gender and stakeholder analyses ."},{"index":2,"size":11,"text":"Participatory research methods, processes, and skills for NRM and PB ."},{"index":3,"size":8,"text":"Forming and sustaining effective partnerships for participation ."},{"index":4,"size":11,"text":"Methods, tools, and procedures for impact assessment, participatory monitoring, and evaluation."},{"index":5,"size":78,"text":"Additionally, capacity for on-going projects, using PRGA approaches, was supported through a small grants program (Appendix 3). An inherent objective of the small grants was to build local capacity through leaming workshops that the PRGA Program supports. Recipients of the grants were committed to conducting a joint workshop or seminar in their own institutions to expand awareness of the results of PRGA approaches, to promete exchanges with NARS, and to participate in international events sponsored by the Program."},{"index":6,"size":16,"text":"The Program also prometes awareness building, involving donors and senior management ofthe CGIAR centers (Appendix 4)."},{"index":7,"size":48,"text":"For phase 2, the strategy for capacity development will focus more specifically on building capacity to encourage a process of gender-equitable, stakeholder-client representation in research decision making. This will require enhancing capacity in the following areas: • Methods for using gender and/ or stakeholder analyses for technology development."},{"index":8,"size":7,"text":"• Skills and planning in organization development."},{"index":9,"size":7,"text":"• Concepts and skills for impact assessment."},{"index":10,"size":17,"text":"• Networking within a cadre of champions who support each other and who can make a difference."},{"index":11,"size":4,"text":"Section 1 Program Cverview"}]},{"head":"Impact assessment","index":22,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":25,"text":"The PRGA Program's goal in its impact assessment work during the first phase (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002) was to provide compelling evidence of impact of gender-sensitive participatory research."},{"index":2,"size":9,"text":"The strategy to provide that evidence had three components:"},{"index":3,"size":26,"text":"• Develop original impact assessment frameworks tailored to the particularities of assessing the impact of a method, as well as develop specific tools for impact assessment."},{"index":4,"size":12,"text":"• Conduct several collaborative empirical studies on applying these frameworks and tools."},{"index":5,"size":16,"text":"• Build capacity through networking for mutual support and learning among the users of participatory methods."},{"index":6,"size":64,"text":"The PRGA Program's stakeholder meetings during 22-23 April2002 (Bonn, Germany) and 30 June-1 July 2003 (Cali, Colombia) endorsed the idea that the current impact assessment strategy had been effective, and that the same strategy should be continued during the second phase. The Cali meeting also proposed placing greater effort on enhancing the usefulness of impact assessment as a tool for institutional learning and change."}]},{"head":"Five-Year Synthesis Report","index":23,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":29,"text":"This Synthesis Report tells the story of 5 years ofPRGA Program activities on a global scale and captures the essence of the Program's achievements during its first phase (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)."},{"index":2,"size":38,"text":"Because each of the four strategy elementsmethodology development, capacity building, partnerships and networks, and institutionalizationhas been the thrust of the PRGA Program's activities and has contributed substantially to its impact, they will be recurring themes throughout the report."}]},{"head":"1. Major findings","index":24,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Scientific","index":25,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":16,"text":"The PRGA approach embodies rigorous systematic methods that are scientifically grounded and whose results are valid."},{"index":2,"size":73,"text":"Participatory research and gender analysis is being implemented in many places around the world. The institutions, purpose, and way in which the approaches are implemented vary. As a result of several key studies commissioned and jor conducted by the PRGA Program, as well as an extensive inventorying process, we now have a global benchmark ofthe quantity, quality, and scope ofparticipatory and gender-sensitive research being conducted around the world by different types of institutions."}]},{"head":"Proqran1 Over view","index":26,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":50,"text":"For example, we can know what types of institutions are using which types of participation at different stages of their research projects, with what objectives and results. A close assessment of these cases tells us the main achievements and obstacles, and also the emerging challenges and issues for further research."}]},{"head":"3 .2.2. Demystiftcation of participation and gender analysis","index":27,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":121,"text":"As a scientific community we now know much more about the variable nature, and potential applications of PRGA. Not all participation is the same. We know that an array of different \"divisions of labor\" between farming communities and researchers can be used during various stages in the research process to produce distinct outcomes. The institutional environments in which these research approaches are implemented also affect the way in which the research unfolds. Moreover, we have learned that different kinds of participatory approaches give diverse clusters of both product and process impacts that bear on th e well-being ofrural communities. These findings help us make sound judgments abou t when and how to apply participatory and gender-sensitive methods when planning our research."}]},{"head":"3. 2. 3 . Support and engagement in cutting-edge research","index":28,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":49,"text":"As a strategy to push forward the field of participatory and gender-sensitive research, the PRGA Program has runa competitive small grants program. So far, 9 projects have been funded for work in NRM and 13 projects in PPB. Results show that good progress was made in addressing gender needs."},{"index":2,"size":101,"text":"Although the s m all grant projects have been the PRGA Program's main arm in the field, Program staffhave also engaged directly in cutting-edge research. For example, a Program staff member, together with outside legal expertise, have conducted a study that addressed the challenging issu e of how to attribute intellectual property rights that emerge from collaboration between researchers and farming communities. This work is beginning to fill a major gap in the intemational arena, where current agreements draw prime attention to plant breeders' rights and farmers' rights, but fail to address the division ofbenefits that could result from collaborative work."}]},{"head":".4. Rigorous evaluation of the impact and costs of participatory approaches","index":29,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":79,"text":"Appreciating compelling evidence of the impact of using participatory approaches is the only way that scientists and research m anagers will begin to incorporate these approach es into their research. While impact of participatory research is recorded, the differential effect ofusing participatory, in contrast to other, Section 1 Program O ver r. p 11 approaches has rarely been systematically analyzed and documented; nor has the effect of using varying types of participation during different stages of research been assessed."},{"index":2,"size":148,"text":"The PRGA Program has developed and applied tools for empirical impact studies in both PPB and NRM. Four impact cases studies have been completed and three more are in progress and expected to be completed. Both impact and costs were studied, with a focus on documenting impact of processes in different types of particípatory research, as well as impact of involving farmers at different stages of research. The studies evaluated impact on technology and adoption, human and social capital, and feedback to formal research. Initial findings suggest that higher degrees of farmer involvement and control in research yield higher levels of empowerment; give voice to farmers' technology priorities, including women's priorities; speed up technology adaptation; increase human capital; boost adoption; and have positive impact on farmers' profits. Empirical evidence also exists that participatory research reduces the costs of developing technologies that are not adopted by in tended users."}]},{"head":".3 .2.5. PRGA community ofknowledge andpractice","index":30,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":102,"text":"To facilitate the use of participatory approaches, the PRGA Program has u sed severa! strategies to build and articulate or network a community of knowledge and practice. We have stimulated a worldwide exchange of expertise through various listservs, organized three biannual international seminars that gathered over 500 PRGA practitioners from around the world, created three publicly accessible databases with information on projects using these approaches, and established a network of PRGA liaisons and gender focal points in all the CGIAR centers. In addition, Program staff have organized and participated in numerous training workshops on PRGA methods. Severa! training manuals have been published."}]},{"head":"Program Organization","index":31,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Staffing","index":32,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":71,"text":"To provide a core 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 internationally r ecruited specíalists 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."}]},{"head":"orogram Overview","index":33,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":39,"text":"Staff (Appendix 5) are being recruited as funding permits and outposted to partner institutions to reinforce the research of IARCs and our partners, as well as carry out capacity building. The PRGA Program's principal staff, based at CIAT, are: "}]},{"head":".4 .2 .2. Objectives","index":34,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":9,"text":"• To establish the Program's guidelines, principies, and policies."},{"index":2,"size":14,"text":"• To advise the Coordinator on strategy, including fund seeking, networking, planning, and evaluation."},{"index":3,"size":9,"text":"• To represent the Program in intemational forum s."}]},{"head":".2.3. Frequency and location of Advisory Board meetings","index":35,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":28,"text":"The Advisory Board meets regularly once ayear, although meetings can also be called on an ad hoc basis, depending on the Program's needs. However, during its 30 June-"}]},{"head":"Section 1 Program Overview","index":36,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":34,"text":"• A defmite sch edule of PRGA Annual Board Meetings will be agreed upon and board m embers will be ask ed to firmly commit themselves to this schedule 12 months in a dvance."},{"index":2,"size":38,"text":"• An annu al meeting will be held every year in the last week of June, with the location to be agreed on each yearit will p r obably rotate from one Board m ember's location to another."}]},{"head":"•","index":37,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":14,"text":"A budget line ítem for the Board m eetings will be explicitly d esignated."},{"index":2,"size":10,"text":"The schedule for the next five years is as follows: "}]},{"head":"Composition ofthe Aduisory Board","index":38,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":10,"text":"The Advisory Board is composed of nine elected m embers:"},{"index":2,"size":11,"text":"• Three representatives, one elected from each ofthe three working groups."},{"index":3,"size":26,"text":"• Five r epresentatives, one elected from each of the stakeholder groups in the initiative: NARis, NGOs, IARCs (not including the convening center), donors, and farmers."},{"index":4,"size":7,"text":"• One member from the convening center."},{"index":5,"size":14,"text":"The Advisory Board will have a regional and gender balance. Current Board members are:"},{"index":6,"size":4,"text":"Sectíor1 1 Proqram Overview"}]},{"head":".2.6. Means of appointment","index":39,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":8,"text":"Membership to the Advisory Board will be proposed:"},{"index":2,"size":35,"text":"• Either by an ad hoc nominating committee, made up of current Advisory Board members, from candidates nominated by current members ofthe PBG, PNRM-wg, and GA-wg and endorsed by the Advisory Board as a body."},{"index":3,"size":33,"text":"• Or atan acceptable stakeholder foru m . • To involve and target beneficiary groups in PPB through the development of social methods for working with u sers and better anticipating their needs."},{"index":4,"size":12,"text":"• To identify and develop effective ways of organizing PPB in research."}]},{"head":"•","index":40,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":15,"text":"To ensure u ser access to the products of PPB through appropriate seed system support."},{"index":2,"size":18,"text":"The PBG subsequently identified a fifth area, which is critical to the development of sustainable and equitable PPB:"},{"index":3,"size":21,"text":"• To ensure users can access the products of PPB through identification of appropriate property rights and other forms ofbenefit sharing. "}]},{"head":"Work Plan","index":41,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Activities","index":42,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":11,"text":"• Inventory and compare existing participatory methods across crops and environments."},{"index":2,"size":19,"text":"• Identify and compare existing strategies for strengthening farmer-led breeding (in reference to self-pollinated, open, and vegetatively propagated crops)."},{"index":3,"size":24,"text":"• lmplement experimental research to compare classical breeding approaches with participatory plant selection and participatory variety selection in reference to the three crop types."},{"index":4,"size":30,"text":"• Assess impact of various participatory strategies on the three crop types and across diverse environments with respect to farmers' obj ectives such as yield stability, production, and genetic diversity."},{"index":5,"size":16,"text":"• Disseminate results and relevant methods by crop type and environment, and according to priority goals."},{"index":6,"size":19,"text":"• Identify opportunities for institutionalizing relevant PPB methods by crop type and environment, and accordin g to priority goals."},{"index":7,"size":20,"text":"• Revise diagnostic m ethods for assessing stakeholder preferences for plant varieties in the short, m edium, and long term."},{"index":8,"size":27,"text":"• Assess methods to involve users in plant breeding, differentiating them by type, for example, gend er, wealth, and end use (e.g., consumers, processors, and seed producers)."}]},{"head":"•","index":43,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":14,"text":"Analyze th e social and economic impact of various PPB methods on different users."},{"index":2,"size":15,"text":"• Analyze the costs of alternative participatory methods to involve different users in plant breeding."},{"index":3,"size":10,"text":"• Revise methods for assessing indirect stakeholder roles and needs."},{"index":4,"size":15,"text":"• Synthesize findings on h ow to involve hidden and indirect stakeholders in participatory approaches."},{"index":5,"size":20,"text":"• Synthesize case study findings on h ow to resolve conflicts among diverse users and stakeh olders in germplasm resources."},{"index":6,"size":2,"text":"Section 2"},{"index":7,"size":16,"text":"• Publish guidelines on the cost-benefit ratios of dífferent approaches to involve and target differentiated users."},{"index":8,"size":24,"text":"• Inventory and compare different divisions oflabor among farmers • Revise the ways that existing breeding programs organize and fund links wi th farmers."},{"index":9,"size":6,"text":"• Identify promising links and innovations."},{"index":10,"size":21,"text":"• Partners of organizational innovations also monitor and evaluate (including conducting cost-benefit analyses of different links and forms) those innovations forPPB."},{"index":11,"size":10,"text":"• Formulate guidelines for decision makers on promising organizational forms."},{"index":12,"size":8,"text":"• Revise communication tools for improving farmer-scientist interactíons."},{"index":13,"size":11,"text":"• Assess various methods and tools for understanding local seed systems."},{"index":14,"size":8,"text":"• Identify strategies for strengthening local seed systems."},{"index":15,"size":17,"text":"• Revise and develop methods to link participatory approaches in breeding with local seed systems and markets."},{"index":16,"size":16,"text":"• Identify incentives and roles of CBOs and NGOs in enhancing seed and seed information flow."},{"index":17,"size":121,"text":"• Explore constraints and opportunities to include products of PPB in existing regulatory frameworks. Truly novel research developments were presented in the realm of PPB: priority setting, on-farm trial design and experimentation, impact and cost-benefit assessment, property rights, and biotechnology (particularly \"participatory\" molecular marker-assisted selection). Those integrative approaches that aim to better link the production objectives of PPB with the more holistic aims of genetic resource management and empowerment were also explored in detail. Finally, the group outlined an explicit agenda for action in \"priority areas in PPB\", including the need to work on seed policy and regulatory reform to ensure that the products of PPB actually reach the intended end users, particularly the world's more marginal men and women farmers."}]},{"head":"Capacity Building in","index":44,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Plant Breeding Group consultation","index":45,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":22,"text":"In August 2002, the PRGA Program's Coordination initiated a consultation process with the PBG about future directions. The following questions were posed:"},{"index":2,"size":14,"text":"What is your opinion of the val u e and functioning of the PBG?"}]},{"head":"2.","index":46,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":15,"text":"What type of structure do yo u feel would best suit the purpose of PBG?"},{"index":2,"size":30,"text":"3. lfyou feel devolvingmanagementofthe PBG to its members is desirable, which functions do you feel should be managed by group members and which should be managed by the PRGA Program?"},{"index":3,"size":1,"text":"l."},{"index":4,"size":22,"text":"If you feel that changes should be made to the current structure of the PBG, how would you propose operationalizing these changes?"}]},{"head":"2.","index":47,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":31,"text":"Are there other comments, questions, or observations you would like to make on any aspect ofthe PBG or about the PRGA Program in general? See Appendix 7 for the feedback received."}]},{"head":"PBG minutes","index":48,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Role and contributions on institutionaltzation","index":49,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"•","index":50,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":14,"text":"To institutionalize PPB, changes must be made in variety release systems and seed production."},{"index":2,"size":16,"text":"• Develop a mon ograph on PPB for students and researchers and/ or practitioners in PPB."},{"index":3,"size":12,"text":"• Strengthen policy influence from both internation al bodies and grassroots levels."},{"index":4,"size":8,"text":"• Draw lessons from case studies ofPPB institutionalization"},{"index":5,"size":16,"text":"• CGIAR and FAO to work together to influence policy on seed systems and seed regulation."},{"index":6,"size":13,"text":"• Conduct policy worksh ops that include ministers, technocrats, NARS , and farmers."}]},{"head":".3 .3.2. Developing methodsfor integrating PPB and NRM into joint projects","index":51,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":89,"text":"For example, to integrate clean-seeds production systems with participatory NRM What are your initial reactions to the [2003][2004][2005][2006][2007] PROA Program's logframe (Appendíx 1)? Are there areas where you ha ve questions or needfurther clarification? Are there particular items for which you wish to express support or raise concems? SUMMARY: Stakes mentioned in the logframe look determinant for the future of all research institutions. However, two aspects are not clear: (a) integrated participatory research that could generate real innovation, and (b) participation mechanisms enabling users and researchers to innova te."}]},{"head":"2.","index":52,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":109,"text":"Attached is a summary of the feedback to the PRGA Working Group Consultations held last year. What do you see as being the majar implications ofthe responses received for how the Group should move forward? Do they imply any changes for how the Group ís organized, managed, or functioning? If so, how? SUMMARY: All m embers agree that the PRGA Program's PBG has done trem endous work in, for example, building a network, generating and building collective knowledge on field cases, collecting data, distributing information, and conceptualizing. They suggest no change in organization, except a little more disconnection from the CGIAR internal and specific stakes and more paper diffusion."},{"index":2,"size":28,"text":"Sorne feel that more emphasis could be put on training in PPB procedures, including terminology and principies, methods of analyzing data, and building of collaborative (institutions) research projects."},{"index":3,"size":40,"text":"Institutionalization, however, needs special organization (either a process or tool) to define PRIORITY questions and to ATTRACT more breeders and other scientists. It could also help coordinate participatory approaches within the CGIAR or even outside th e CGIAR and NARS."}]},{"head":"3.","index":53,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":45,"text":"What do you see as being the top three issues on which the Working Group should focus over the next 3 years? Why? What WG activities would best address these issues? What suggestions do you ha ve for acquiring the necessary funding to support them?"}]},{"head":"SUMMARY:","index":54,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":84,"text":"The proposals involve the production of three major categoriesknowledge, tools, and methods (including impact indicators)that are scientifically valid (assessed by pairs). These categories can be applied to crops that are not priority for NARS evaluation of PPB methods in situ. Ways of applying can include impact s tudies (including cost-benefit analyses), institutionalization, and scaling u p. Means of applying would comprise s upporting proj ects with explicit large-scale approaches, decentralized organization to stimulate innovation, and links with conventional breeding programs (including other, non-CGIAR, organizations)."},{"index":2,"size":1,"text":"•"},{"index":3,"size":77,"text":"What ideas and suggestions do you have about Jww the PNRM-wg or the PBG operate? What lístserv sJwuld be facilítated in the future? SUMMARY: Most members prefer both n etworks to be maintained separately, although links between them should be increased because \"distinction is against the real spirit of participatory research\". Arguments are that the PBG network works better independently, it is already very large and not too specific, and h as yet to resolve its problems."},{"index":4,"size":22,"text":"PRGA Program should continue with coordination, although sorne think it would do a better job if run more independently from the CGIAR."}]},{"head":".3.4. PPB Small Grants Program","index":55,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":79,"text":"The purpose ofthe PRGA Small Grants Program is to build capacity for applying PRGA approaches to ongoing research. The funded projects con tribute methodological and organizational innovation to the field of PRGA and rigorous evaluations of the impact of applying particípatory and equ ity-enhancing approaches, with special attention to the effects on poor, rural women. Projects analyze the outcomes of these methods, comparing them with those of conventional research methods, and evaluate the effects on the research process itself."},{"index":2,"size":47,"text":"Eligibility for small grants requires partnerships among two or more different types of organizations. The program has h elped foster research partnerships among IARCS, NARS, NGOs, universities, and grass-roots organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Table 2a details several projects funded by the Small Grants Program."}]},{"head":".3 .5 . Afriliated projects","index":56,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":9,"text":"Includes su pport to students, and collaboration with partners."}]},{"head":"Support to students","index":57,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":61,"text":"Three doctoral theses continue to be funded by the PRGA Program. They are making good progress, with fieldwork near completion and dissertation writing already started. They focus on subjects key to filling gaps within the PPB field: local seed systems, farmers' decision-making in PPB in the context of a systems perspective, and how to break the nexus between poverty and agrobiodiversity."},{"index":2,"size":18,"text":". . . • • ,>n -) Pa rtict patory f ' \" Breeding Working Group (PBG) ~"}]},{"head":"Mekbib Frew Eth iopian","index":58,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":161,"text":"Began doctoral studies at the Agricultura} University of Norway in February 2000. His research is entitled Diversity of Seeds, Seeds of Diversity: Food Security through Enhancement of Sorghum. As stated in the proposal document, the project's main goal is to promote a sustainable use of on-farm sorghum diversity and increase smallscale production for resource-poor farmers in eastero Ethiopia. This region is a center of origin for the crop, with a unique diversity of farmers ' varieties, knowledge, and management systems. Despite more than 40 years of formal and scientific breeding, adoption of modero varieties is very low. The project explores the hypotheses that ( 1) a discrepancy lies between modero varieties and those preferred by farmers (who are mostly women), and ( 2) local materials can be improved without sacrificing diversity or resulting in loss of adaptation. To understand farmers' decision-making processes, the project must adopta participatory, gender-sensitive, approach, which is likely to be more fruitful than the traditional top-down approach."},{"index":2,"size":98,"text":"To improve the region's food security by enhancing biodiver sity conservation and use, baseline information is needed on farmers' knowledge and technology, and on the extent of on-farm genetic diversity and loss. The project seeks to address issues through on-farm studies of genetic diversity management, assessment of farmers' breedingmethods and seed systems, and quantification offarmers' success in variety development. Research methodology will include multisite experiments under farm and research station conditions. Findings are expected to lead to the development of a breeding strategy in which farmers and the formal sector can interact effectively and local diversity is conserved."}]},{"head":"~","index":59,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Antonio José López Colombian","index":60,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":64,"text":"Pursuing doctoral studies at the University of Wales. His dissertation Farmers' Knowledge and Formal Models of Their Decision Making in Participatory Improvement of Cassava-Maize Intercropping aims to develop methods for incorporating both local knowledge and formal models ofhow farmers make decisions into participatory technology development. The fieldwork for the doctorate is being conducted in Colombia's Caribe Region López reports the following highlights so far:"},{"index":2,"size":32,"text":"For production system characterization: three production systems and five types of farmers were identified in the Caribe Region, as according to key agrobiophysical variables, farm area, land tenure, and land tenure stability."}]},{"head":"Norkinq Group (PBG)","index":61,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":155,"text":"For farmers' knowledge and modeling: farmers have a sophisticated decisionmaking model for integrating market information, family necessity, and food security. They appear especially concerned over weed control, the amount of area to which cassava is planted, and specific harvesting procedures. In general, no strong differences by gender were noted in reference to these key concerns. However, in terms of detailed knowledge, gender and production system differences are obvious in relation to knowledge domains. For example, farmers from production system 5 clearly classify soil according to color and structure, whereas, in production systems 2 and 3, farmers identify two types of soil based only on texture. Likewise, men farmers in production system 5 had a sophisticated understanding of the relationships between maize and weed residues, mulch, soil erosion, soil fertility, and soil moisture. In contrast, women consider cassava leaf color intensity, cassava-maize attractiveness, and increases in cassava root diameter when maize residues are removed after harvest."}]},{"head":"Kirit K. Patel Indian","index":62,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":39,"text":"Pursuing PhD studies at the Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI). Kirit's project is on Breaking the Nexus Between Poverty and Agrobiodiversity: Institutional and Policy Changes for Supporting Farmer-Led Participatory Crop Improvement and Conservation."},{"index":2,"size":135,"text":"In the context of the growing success of participatory approaches, the project aims to understand the extent to which various successful PPB projects have achieved the conflicting goals of crop improvement and on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity. It examines the various instruments of incentives and benefit sharing that successful PPB projects use to encourage participating farmers and communities. The project will also analyze current policy environments to identify constraints affecting the operationalization of various incentives and benefit sharing for farmers to continue on-farm conservation and improvement of a diverse genepool. Sorne PPB projects reported in the literature from westem India and Nepal were tentatively considered for possible fieldwork and data collection. This brief report explains how the project evolved, given situations in the field, and discusses the updates on research approaches and activities being u sed."}]},{"head":"Collaboration withpartners","index":63,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":74,"text":"A publication, Quantitative Analysis of Data from Participatory Methods in Plant Breeding, was produced. The papers in this volume were presented ata workshop of the same title and held at the Castle of Rauischholzhausen Conference Center of the Justus Liebig University, Germany, during 23-25 August 200 l. Participants were CGIAR scientists who wanted to review and discuss the different quantitative techniques used for analyzing data generated by participatory methodologies in the context ofplant breeding."}]},{"head":"articipatory Plant Breeding Working Group (PBG)","index":64,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":72,"text":"Participatory plant breeding (PPB) is gammg wider acceptance worldwideit is increasingly being u sed within the CGIARand its merits and limitations are beginning to be better understood. Many scientists involved in these efforts, however, have realized that the quantitative techniques needed to analyze the data from the participatory methodologies used in PPB are still not well known or understood by many practitioners. Further discussion and exchange of methods and ideas are needed."},{"index":2,"size":32,"text":"The workshop was organized by CIMMYT and the Justus Liebig University, and sponsored by CIMMYT, IRRI, the PRGA Program, and other participating CGIAR centers. Experts from outside the CGIAR were also involved."},{"index":3,"size":67,"text":"Scientists from different disciplines (breeders, social scientists, biometricians, and agronomists) and crop backgrounds (maize, rice, potato, cassava, sorghum, barley, and agroforestry) were brought together for the workshop. All 21 participants were experienced in PPB and had also worked on interdisciplinary teams. They represented 10 CGIAR centers (CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, !CARDA, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IITA, IPGRI, IRRI, and WARDA), Justus Liebig University, University of Wales, and Michigan State University."},{"index":4,"size":7,"text":"The workshop was organized around three themes:"},{"index":5,"size":10,"text":"• Designing and analyzingjoint experiments involving variety evaluation by farmers."},{"index":6,"size":11,"text":"• Identifying and analyzing farmers' evaluations of crop characteristics and varieties."},{"index":7,"size":9,"text":"• Dealing with social heterogeneity and other research issues."},{"index":8,"size":20,"text":"The PRGA Program agreed to provide CIMMYT with a grant of US$1500 to be budgeted toward the printingcosts ofthis publication."}]},{"head":"Participatory Pfant Breedino Working Group (PBG)","index":65,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":113,"text":"Summary: This publication reviews what has been done in 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, analyses of key technical and institutional issues, and assessment of gaps in current knowledge on PPB methods, organization, and results. The document defines PPB as comprising approaches that involve close farmer-researcher collaboration to bring about plant genetic improvement within a species. It describes goals of PPB programs, the reasons for involving farmers and other end users in PPB, and the areas in which PPB is expected to be beneficia!."},{"index":2,"size":52,"text":"PPB programs were grouped in various ways to detect and conceptualize trends. These groupings emphasized the key factors that have stimulated development practitioners' interest in PPB: the goals that PPB can achieve, the environments in which it migh t have impact, and the nature and degree of farmers' participation in different projects."},{"index":3,"size":49,"text":"Most programs focused on productivity enhancement, particularly in marginal environments. Another important goal was to ensure the possibility of releasing varieties adapted to ~ecific (often marginal) production conditions through policy changes. Other goals, such as biodiversity enhancement and farmer capacity building, were secondary in most PPB p r ograms."},{"index":4,"size":29,"text":"Formally led PPB programs tend to cluster in production envíronments of high stress (marginal) and subsistence. Surprisingly, however, an increasing number ofprojects are addressing less stressed, more market-driven contexts."},{"index":5,"size":41,"text":"Farmers' participation in formally led PPB can be considered in terms of the stages of the breeding process during which it occurs, the nature offarmers' contributions, and the degree of decision making. These three dimensions together describe the \"quality of participation\"."},{"index":6,"size":80,"text":"In terms of \"stage\", in most of the 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 diifusion process is beginning to receive more attention."}]},{"head":"Section 2 Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group (PBG)","index":66,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":69,"text":"The nature of contributions that farmers had rnade included providing key inforrnation from their knowledge and experience, and genetic materials, and being involved in the actual breeding process. The farmers' contributions provide breeders with insights needed to identify appropriate varieties and irnprove seed production and distribution systerns. The degree of participation within forrnally led PPB was overwhelrningly consultative, that is, farmers gave advice, but had no real decisionrnaking power."},{"index":2,"size":58,"text":"For this review, 48 cases were identified, studied, and inventoried. Ofthese, 11 case studies were presented in greater depth in the body of the report, having been chosen to represent the diversity of crop types, geographic regions, and scales of PPB programs, and to show sorne of the different rnotivations the formal breeding sector had for pursuing PPB."},{"index":3,"size":104,"text":"The case studies showed work in progress with farmers involved in different stages of the breeding process. Crops were of the cross-pollinated, self-pollinated, and clonally propagated types. The research was located in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Mesoamerica, and addressed farmers' needs in a wide variety of agroecological conditions from extrernely hot, dry, desert rnargins to very high rainfall, high altitude, rugged conditions. Sorne cases deal with highly rnarket-oriented production and others with subsistence-oriented systerns where production shortfalls are frequent. Most of the case studies represented production systerns in which the formal breeding sector alone, without the farmers' direct involvernent, had only limited success."},{"index":4,"size":44,"text":"Case studies involving different institutional partners and collaborative arrangernents are also represented. The cases ernphasized different broad goals, with sorne addressing issues that farmers identified and initiated, while others rnerely consulted farmers and used the information to orient selection programs or other breeding activities."},{"index":5,"size":60,"text":"The book uses the information from the case studies to describe key outcornes: lessons learned frorn thernes on biophysical and socioeconornic environrnents, breeding strategies involving farmers, issues of participation, gender /user differentiation, institutions in formally led PPB, and transfer of benefits. The review concludes by focusing on identifying gaps in our understanding that rnust be addressed by future PPB research."},{"index":6,"size":51,"text":"Section 2 Participatorv Plant Breeding Working úroup ( PBG) Farmer-led PPB excites great interest for its promise m crop improvement, biodiversity conservation, and farmer empowerment. Although its potential is most anticipated for unfavorable areas beyond the reach of formal breeding, PPB could have significant impact across a wide range of contexts."},{"index":7,"size":55,"text":"This report considers research that sought to support farmers' own systems of crop dev~lopment and seed exchange (farmer-led PPB) in light of these different goals, and from the perspectives of the range of organizations promoting PPB. It presents an overview of farmer-led breeding anda framework for support, giving the frrst major comparative analysis offarmer-led PPB."},{"index":8,"size":67,"text":"This document broadly defines farmer-led 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-led 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."},{"index":9,"size":26,"text":"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."},{"index":10,"size":123,"text":"Farmer-led breeding can be considered as a series of processes for managing gene flow, in parallel with formal breeding, which influences crop gene tic structure and performance, and determines 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, experience with crop). As a social process, farmer-led breeding and seed exchange involve particular groups differently, often giving particular roles to gender or wealth."}]},{"head":"Pa • icipatory Plant Breeding Working Grou p (PBG)","index":67,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":65,"text":"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 agroecologies."},{"index":2,"size":92,"text":"These cases address a range of goals, the most common being conservation and improvement of germplasm. Many of these cases al so 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 several cases was empowerment through promoting self-reliance. Finally, one case concentrated on h elping post-disaster adjustment. In most cases, the degree of overlap between crop conservation and development was striking. Although goal-setting generally had local input, there was little discussion ofthis process or ofproblem diagnosis."}]},{"head":".4 .3 . PPB monograph, no. 3","index":68,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Title:","index":69,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":7,"text":"BiotechnologyAssisted Participatory Plant Breeding: Complement or Contradiction?"},{"index":2,"size":71,"text":"Authors: A. M. Thro and C. Spillane Summary: Contemporary plant biotechnologies and farmer PPB have evolved from different disciplines and along different trajectories. The question has emerged asto whether they could complement each other as approaches to improving rural livelihoods in developing countries. The very existence of PPB suggests that farmers' landraces do not contain all that farmers need; and that biotechnology can offer new tools for getting and managing variation."},{"index":3,"size":20,"text":"This book explores international thinking on biotechnology and farmer PPB. The authors' goal was to encourage discussion and inform on:"},{"index":4,"size":13,"text":"• Whether and how biotechnology can benefit small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries."},{"index":5,"size":16,"text":"• Whether farmers can more fully participate, as colleagues or leaders, in shaping and creating benefits."},{"index":6,"size":11,"text":"• The potential of specific biotechnologies to strengthen farmer participatory research."},{"index":7,"size":10,"text":"Sectíon 2 P::trticioato •y PI ~nt Breeding Working Group {PBG)"},{"index":8,"size":35,"text":"The study included an extensive series of interviews, discussions, and surveys throughout 1999 and 2000, involving at least 500 farmers, participatory researchers, plant breeders, and biotechnologists in developing and developed countries. The authors conclude that:"},{"index":9,"size":17,"text":"• Real potential exists for synergy between plant biotechnology and participatory research to assist resource-poor, small-scale farmers."},{"index":10,"size":14,"text":"• Farmer participation could strengthen biotechnology research with \"reality checks\" to sharpen its focus."}]},{"head":"•","index":70,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":26,"text":"The opportunities are unrealized. Only a handful of biotechnology-assisted participatory projects exist. Most of these use tissue culture, an inexpensive biotechnology that can provide benefits quickly."},{"index":2,"size":8,"text":"Success in applying biotechnology-assisted PPB will depend on:"},{"index":3,"size":20,"text":"• Communications, that is, on mechanisms for sustained communication between biotechnologists, plant breeders, participatory research practitioners, farmers, and the public."},{"index":4,"size":2,"text":"• Investment."},{"index":5,"size":25,"text":"Public investment requires public support in donor and developing countries. But little interaction exists with the public about the agricultura! research needs of developing countries."}]},{"head":"•","index":71,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":26,"text":"Short-term benefits for farmers to compensate farmers for the risks and costs of experimentation, and address their most pressing needs, without sacrificing opportunities for long-term benefits."},{"index":2,"size":28,"text":"• An explicit social vision that is clearly articulated and shared among project partners; and, a shared understanding of what a given project would mean for that vision."},{"index":3,"size":160,"text":"• Effective \"problem transfer\", for example, a problem 1s \"transferred\" when researchers identify the farmers' needs as their own. Summary: Empírica! enquiry and experience has shown that technology is not necessarily gender neutral; neither are knowledge and information. We know that women's roles in seed handling, agricultura! production, food processing, trading, and purchase are vital to food security and family well-being, and that these roles and the knowledge on which they are based can be substantially and importantly different to that ofmen's. Yet, even as women acutely need income-generating, labor-saving, and productivity-increasing technologies to enable them to fulfill their roles more easily, gender issues still remain to be fully incorporated into technology development. The continuing failure ofmuch technology R&D to recognize women's actual and potential contribution to technology development and use is not only detrimental to the economic security and social status of women and their families, but also, indeed, to the success ofR&D in meeting national and regional objectives."},{"index":4,"size":23,"text":"This book has therefore been commissioned by the PRGA Program to address these gaps with respect to plant breeding. The document aims to:"},{"index":5,"size":29,"text":"• Provide an analysis of the methods and approaches curren ti y u sed within PPB with respect to gender issues, the use of GA, and u ser involvement."},{"index":6,"size":14,"text":"• Draw out the implications of researchers' experience with GA and u ser involvement."},{"index":7,"size":16,"text":"• Analyze and discuss the outputs currently being generated by PPB from a u ser perspective."},{"index":8,"size":22,"text":"• Identify what more can be done, and how, to achieve broader impact and capitalize on what has so far been achieved."},{"index":9,"size":10,"text":"Section 2 Particip atotry Plant Breeding Working Group ( PBG)"},{"index":10,"size":56,"text":"Rather than summarize the fmdings of each ch apter, the authors chose to conclude, where appropriate, particular chapters with a section entitled Gaps and Opportunities, which attempts to draw out the lessons of the material presented and discussed. The final chapter brings together the lessons learned in the preceding chapters, to provide pointers for the future."},{"index":11,"size":56,"text":"Chapter 2-User Differentiation: Discusses the strengths and limitations of gender analysis in differentiating and understanding u sers. It argues for gender-sensitive differentiation along the food chain . The effectiveness of gender-sensitive methods, alone and in combination with other tools, is examined, as is the question of who might carry out gender analysis in a PPB situation."},{"index":12,"size":61,"text":"Chapter 3-Diagnostic Tools: Emphasizes the importance of not subsuming particular user interests within broad-brush analytical categories like \"household\". Presents m ethods for diagnosing the interests of particular u ser categories, including stakeholder analysis and SWOT. Because such methods have poor predictive capacity, approaches to h elp predict futur e decision-making pattems and to deal with situations ofrapid change are also presented."},{"index":13,"size":57,"text":"Chapter 4--User Involvement in R&D: Highlights how women can b e located and involved in PPB. Presents ways, through institutional d evelopm ent, of opening up spaces for user involvement in, for example, the plant breeding cycle (crossing, screening and testing, and evaluation). Then follows a section on approaches to capacity building to strengthen u ser involvement."},{"index":14,"size":72,"text":"Chapter 5 -User Involvement in Dissemtnation and Communication: Argues that the manifold spaces open ed up by worldwide devolvement of service provision to local government and nonpublic actors have created opportunities to involve multiple actors and institute co-leaming. The ways in which seed is being multiplied and disseminated is examined, as is the diffusion of experimental capacity and breeding capacity among users. The issue of quality maintenance during scaling up is addressed."},{"index":15,"size":63,"text":"Chapter 6-Evidence for, and Assessment of, Gender-Differentiated Im.pacts: Argues that the literature on impact studies in PPB is inadequate for providing a gendered understanding. It assesses the contributions that sorne conventional impact studies have made, and examines the role of PPB in innovation. User participation in the provision of impact data is discussed, and the impact of PPB processes on social dynamics examined."},{"index":16,"size":26,"text":"Chapter 7-Forward-Looking Summary: The conclusions that may be drawn from each chapter are ela borated h er e. Further steps for action are presented.    ... .., "}]},{"head":"Work Plan, Activities, and Progress","index":72,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":23,"text":"In 2003, the PNRM Working Group's work plan was focused on consolidating outputs from activities conducted in previous years, specifically: Working Group (PNRM-wg)"}]},{"head":".. Coordinating the PNRM Working Group","index":73,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":37,"text":"The PNRM-wg is open to all practitioners and developers of participatory research approaches for natural resource management. The group interacts through an email discussion list, meetings, seminars, and via small, self-organizing subgroups formed to undertake specific projects."},{"index":2,"size":23,"text":"Since 1999, the Group has grown from an inaugural group of25 members to 150 from 37 countries, and has the following institutional profile: "}]},{"head":"Overview","index":74,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":14,"text":"The PRGA Prograrn' s general objective of mainstrearning includes several discrete but interrelated activities:"},{"index":2,"size":22,"text":"•Capacity development for gender-sensitive participatory research, complemented with organizational development for institutionalization • Demonstrating concrete evidence of impact for institutionallearning and change"},{"index":3,"size":6,"text":"• Supporting networks of development practitioners"},{"index":4,"size":151,"text":"• Developing learning cases • More active seeking to develop a high-level support function from stakeholders, particularly donors and influential members, who will provide intellectual direction and advocate for the Prograrn's objectives both within and outside the CGIAR As planned, the Prograrn has focused primarily on reaching the core scientists of the CGIAR, NARS, and other institutions who may have concerns about the rigor and concrete impact of participatory approaches. This emphasis was adopted on advice from the ICER and a TAC Breeding Review Panel, who felt that, given the substantial progress made in advancing participatory plant breeding (PPB) approaches and methods, it was time to advance change arnong the \"mainstrearn\" breeding community. Three separate \"institutionalization\" activities were therefore funded: a PPB workshop on the \"Quality of Science\"; a set of in-depth PPB impact studies (year 1); anda series of PRGA Prograrn working papers on the \"Quality of Science\" (year 2)."}]},{"head":"4.2.Institutional Assessments","index":75,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":126,"text":"The CGIAR centers themselves need to refl.ect, synthesize, and develop well-rooted strategies for PRGA work. CIP's recent ICER on participatory research showed that this sort of reflection is fundamental for institutionalizing the a pproach. • Existence of\"champions\" within the organization. These champions should be sufficiently senior and/ or respected for their work in the organization's hierarchy. However, although management support is crucial, change cannot be top-driven Organizational change is slow, and the process is often confronted with obstacles such as resistance; the need to continuously re-assess and build on the champions' capacity to lead change; and, frequently, the contingencies of the champions' own scientific research affecting their capacity to lead change. Nevertheless, sorne general guídelines for the functioning of these Intra-Center Change Committees are outlined below:"}]},{"head":"•","index":76,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":96,"text":"Conduct institutional analysis to identify opportunities and constraints for institutionalizing PRGA approaches within the organization The action plan that emerged was based on the identification of two major groups through which PRGA approaches are expected to be institutionalized in CIAT: the Gender and Diversity (G&D) Committee for CIAT, and the Germplasm Group. The G&D Committee was established in 2003 and is currently conducting its own study on CIAT's organizational culture. When the study is completed in October 2003, the PRGA Program and the G&D Committee will jointly develop a plan of action for insti tu tionalization."}]},{"head":"Section 4 f\\1ainstreamíng","index":77,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":208,"text":"The Gennplasm Group is an informal group ofbreeders from several CIAT projects. It is facilitated by a bean breeder (Mathew Blair), who is also the PRGA Center Liaison for CIAT. The Group, with support from the PRGA Program, has initiated a process to systematize the involvement of the client in technology development within CIAT's various germplasm projects. An initial activity is under way to promote, across all of CIAT's gennplasm projects, the existing \"practices\" already used by breeders to engage end users. When the survey is completed, a discussion workshop, which the PRGA Program will facilitate, will be held in November 2003 to generate a plan of action for systematizing the process of end-user engagement in technology development. The plan of action will include a selection of \"best practices\", and an assessment of the organizational implications (i.e., structural) for their integration into research practice. Based on this existing collaborative experience, Barun Gurung and Aden Aw-Hassan held extensive discussions on how to proceed toward developing an action plan for institutionalization in !CARDA. An institutional assessment was commissioned in late October 2002 anda final draft has been completed and submitted to the PRGA Program for review. Once this review is completed, the fmal draft will be submitted in November 2003."}]},{"head":"The International","index":78,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":35,"text":"The action plan for establishing the Intra-Center Change Committee at !CARDA is being developed and will be presented with the fmal report in November, at which time, Barun Gurung will visit !CARDA for further discussions."}]},{"head":"Forum for Agricultura! Research in Mrica (FARA)","index":79,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":106,"text":"With incomes and food security in sub-Saharan Africa worsening and natural resources deteriorating at alarming rates, there is urgent need for research to engage more effectively with the rural poor, particularly smallholder farmers, women, and target gro u ps from highly vulnerable areas suffering a dverse effects of HIV 1 AIDS and climate change. However, much of the effectiveness of research and development (R&D) systems in addressing the needs and demands of their constituency groups, particularly of smallholders and women, is critically constrained by organizational considerations. R&D systems predicated on a \"supply driven\" agenda ofinnovation cannot effectively respond to the smallholders' complex social and environmental realities."},{"index":2,"size":28,"text":"An additional constraining factor in addressing the needs of smallholders and women is the limited capacity for using gender-sensitive participatory approaches, particularly of the CGIAR centers.  2003).( 1)"},{"index":3,"size":92,"text":"The PRGA Program and FARA propose to strengthen, consolidate, and mainstream gender analysis and participatory research in a high priority, highly visible program. This program would recognize and promote gender equity and gender-sensitive participatory approaches as an important strategic process in making R&D organizations demand driven.( 2) One avenue for doing so is through developing enhanced capacity for gender-sensitive participatory approaches, combined with enhanced capacity for organizational innovations that will sustain the use of such approaches beyond the project's life through their institutionalization within the procedures, structures, and cultures ofthe participating organizations."},{"index":4,"size":1,"text":"("},{"index":5,"size":25,"text":"One key lesson learned in participatory research is that involving stakeholders early in research leads to better targeting, greater sense of ownership, and higher impact."},{"index":6,"size":48,"text":"Only by recognizing current incentive structures and feeding into existing learning processes can impact assessment contribute to better decision making and ever-increasing impact. Assessing the extent to which R&D organizations have been able to learn and change because oftheir experience is an important element in mainstreaming PRGA approaches."},{"index":7,"size":1,"text":"("},{"index":8,"size":53,"text":"-Mainstreaming\" is an umbrella concept that in eludes five separa te but interrelated components: andfor practices to initiate demand-driven agenda; and (e} formation of a high-level group that represents farmers' interests, particularly those of smallholders and women, and functions as a body that en sures accountability for instituting demand-driven agenda in participating organizations."}]},{"head":"Section 4 Mainstreaming","index":80,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":43,"text":"The PRGA Program and FARA will work closely with the three subregional organizations (SR0s)(3) in Africa to improve the performance of agricultural research for development, particularly of h ighly vulnerable target groups and areas suffering adverse effects ofHIV 1 AJOS and climate change."},{"index":2,"size":30,"text":"A workshop will be held to designa challenge program (CP) for sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The SSA-CP would be owned by stakeholders, and would build and add value to previous efforts."},{"index":3,"size":10,"text":"See Appendix 9 for an example of a workslwp evaluation."}]},{"head":"Goals and Objectives ofthe SSA-CP Workshop","index":81,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":14,"text":"The specific objectives of the worksh op to design the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programare:"},{"index":2,"size":11,"text":"• To clarify the expected ou tcomes and objectives ofthe SSA-CP"},{"index":3,"size":24,"text":"• To analyze the current constraints of the \"INRM system\" in agricultural R&D to make it more effective and efficient, and identify emerging opportunities"},{"index":4,"size":17,"text":"• To identify the SSA-CP' s \"niche\", thus adding val u e toS ROs, NARS, and partners "}]},{"head":"LI-BIRD","index":82,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":55,"text":"A Nepal-based NGO, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development (LI-BIRD), has been conducting farmer participatory maize breeding in Gulmi District in Westem Hills, Nepal, since 1999. As well as focusing on developing a new farmer-preferred maize variety, the NGO hada specific emphasis on strengthening farmers' breeding and the informal seed selection and maintenance process."},{"index":2,"size":66,"text":"The PRGA Program and LI-BIRD began their collaborative impact study with a planning workshop in October 2002. The study's specific objective was to assess those changes in farmers' skills and economic benefits that may result from increased knowledge. Excellent baseline data exist on the participating farmers, and the same 100 farmers in two sites were surveyed to assess changes in human capital resulting from project impact."},{"index":3,"size":25,"text":"Although this study was delayed by Maoist insurgency in the Gulmi area, data collection was completed by July 2003, and data are currently being analyzed."},{"index":4,"size":58,"text":"The results of this study will be discussed at the learning workshop to be held during LI-BIRD's annual planning meeting in February 2004. The workshop will involve a facilitated discussion and feedback on the impact study's results, linking field activity and organizational adaptability. The expected outcome of the learning workshop will be an action plan for organizational effectiveness."}]},{"head":"Overview","index":83,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":69,"text":"The establishment of the Gender Analysis Working Group (GA-wg) was a major development that emerged from the recently concluded stakeholder meeting held in Cali, Colombia, during 30 June-1 July. The PRGA Program stakeholders generally agreed that a GA working gro u p had to be established to \"reverse the extreme dilution\" of gender and gender analysis within both the practice of participatory research and the CGIAR system in general."},{"index":2,"size":20,"text":"Several participants from the meetingjoined to forma working group and emphasized the following themes as important to research and development:"},{"index":3,"size":36,"text":"• An explicit gender perspective in all policies and programs • Gender equali ty as a developme nt goal in its own right • Gender equality as a cross-cutting theme; key to achieving other development goals"},{"index":4,"size":19,"text":"In setting up these objectives, the GA-wg also outlined the first tasks that the PRGA Program needs to accomplish:"},{"index":5,"size":11,"text":"• Set up a comprehensive working group on gender analysis (GA)"},{"index":6,"size":22,"text":"• Membership to the working group should comprise high-level representation, executives, all CGIAR focal points (those who were interested), and non-CGIAR members"},{"index":7,"size":29,"text":"• The PRGA and Gender & Diversity Programs should advocate and lobby the CGIAR system to get a starting function, that is, a gender coordinator, facilitator, or gender specialist"},{"index":8,"size":23,"text":"The GA-wg also set out sorne guidelines for a larger, two-tiered strategy on gender in the CGIAR and the PRGA Program. These are:"}]},{"head":"CGIAR","index":84,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":25,"text":"• Ensure that explicit gender policy statements are contained in the larger CGIAR policy documents and in those ofindividual CGIAR centers (e.g., Mid -Term Plans)"},{"index":2,"size":19,"text":"• Focus on capacity development for gender analysis methods through training, mentoring schemes for young professionals, and rural women"}]},{"head":"building on existing ones such as the PRGAinfo listserv","index":85,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":80,"text":"Create an inventory of ongoing gender projects and the outputs related to these. For example, such a process could build on earlier works such as that of Hillary Feldstein {1997){1), as well as on experiences outside the CGIAR Establish links with gender archives Revive \"classical\" papers and gray hterature (i.e. , \"unpublished stuff') Document \"best practices\", case studies, and lessons learned Identify gaps and initiate new research Create a Web site Create virtual conferences on specific themes of emerging issues"}]},{"head":"PRGA Program","index":86,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":6,"text":"In the Program, the GA-wg would:"},{"index":2,"size":6,"text":"• Play an advisory role on:"},{"index":3,"size":10,"text":"• \"How to\" mainstream gender analysis in PPB and PNRM "}]},{"head":"Defining Gender","index":87,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":49,"text":"\"Gender\" refers to the roles and responsibilities of men and women, and the relationships between them. Gender does not simply refer tomen or women, but to the way their qualities, behavior, and identities are determined through socialization. These roles and responsibilities are culturally specific and can change over time."},{"index":2,"size":18,"text":"Gender is seen as the social construction of men and women's roles in a given culture or location."},{"index":3,"size":3,"text":"ert1on 5 Gender"},{"index":4,"size":60,"text":"Gender roles are distinguished from sex roles, which are biologically determined. Gender refers to the socially determined roles played by men and women. These different roles are influenced by historical, religious, economic, cultural, and ethnic factors. As men and women are defined in the weave of specific social fabrics, the relationships they share constitute what is known as \"gender relations\"."},{"index":5,"size":55,"text":"Poor targeting, inequitable distribution of benefits and burdens, and poor operational and maintenance structures have hindered development projects from addressing issues of sustainable development in water resources management. Community participation and management approaches have also failed to address these issues, largely because communities are often seen as a collection of people with a common purpose."},{"index":6,"size":100,"text":"The reality is that a community is nota collection of equal people living in a particular geographic region. lt is usually made up of individuals and groups who command different levels of power, wealth, influence, and ability to express their needs, concerns, and rights. Communities contain competing interest groups. Where resources are scarce, there is competition for supplies, and those at the lowest end of the power spectrumthis often implies the poorwill go without. Power issues place women in a disadvantaged position. Applying a gender analysis helps development agencies better target their resources and the needs of different gender groups."},{"index":7,"size":36,"text":"People-centered approaches do not always ensure that gender perspectives are taken into account. Thus, a deliberate strategy of gender mainstreaming can be useful to ensure that these issues are part of analyses, project planning, and evaluations."}]},{"head":"The Gender Typology","index":88,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":70,"text":"The tool Gender Typology helps researchers analyze how they are using gender analysis (GA) and, likewise, how it affects their research, as well as technology design and adoption. It upholds the premise that those who participate in the different decisions made during research, particularly during technology design, have an important impact, both on the processes and products of research. Gender Typology outlines three ways in which GA can be used:"},{"index":2,"size":31,"text":"• Diagnosis oriented: Differences in gender and stakeholder problems and priorities are diagnosed. They may or may not go on to be considered in priority setting and technology design and evaluation"}]},{"head":"PRGA Program Anual Report 2003 57","index":89,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":3,"text":"• Design oriented:"},{"index":2,"size":20,"text":"In addition to being included in diagnoses, genderdifferentiated problerns and priorities are taken into account in research and developrnent design"},{"index":3,"size":53,"text":"• Transfer oriented: Different technology dissernination rnethods are designed to overcorne differences in access toan already developed technology that is thought to have similar appeal to women and rnen Each way of conducting OA may be irnplemented in the three different stages of innovation (and 16 steps) outlined in the tool Participation Typology."},{"index":4,"size":68,"text":"Related to OA, but also encornpassing other stakeholder categories, is the analysis of how projects select participants. This single aspect of participation has proved to have significant effects on the attainment and spread of impact. Many different ways exist to choose participants (or allow thern to select among themselves}. Often, a project's processes and technology outcomes has a disproportionate irnpact on those participatinghence, the importance of selecting purposefully."},{"index":5,"size":31,"text":"When a project allows its participants to select among themselves orbe selected by their communities, then, usually, the biases and exclusions already existing in the communíty become reflected in the research."},{"index":6,"size":46,"text":"Not surprisingly, the most disadvantaged and women are often excluded. By bringing up this issue and asking projects to spell out and think through their methods for selecting participants, the PROA Program has helped PR rnove away from biases found in rnuch of the conventional research."}]},{"head":".4.Establishing the Gender Analysis Working Group","index":90,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":41,"text":"The PROA Program has begun comrnunicating with representatives of the OA-wg, particularly to develop a strategy statement and to identify potential facilitators for the working group. So far, three nominations have come in and the Program is waiting for additional nominees."}]},{"head":"Note:","index":91,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":10,"text":"See Appendix 1 O for a list ofthe GA-wg members"}]},{"head":"5.5.Africa Gender Initiative","index":92,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":29,"text":"The concept paper for the Africa Oender Initiative was presented by CIAT's Rural Innovation Institute in close collaboration with the PROA Program. Details of the paper are as follows:"}]},{"head":"The problem","index":93,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":52,"text":"Persistent rural poverty is rooted in the impoverishment of women. Not only are women a growing proportion of the rural poor, but also the welfare of rural children and overall household food security in poor countries is vitally affected by women's access to resources and technology for food production and income generation."},{"index":2,"size":54,"text":"The incidence of poverty among women is growing. Sin ce the 1970s, the percentage of rural women below the poverty line has increased by 50%, whereas that of men increased by 30%. Currently, almost 60% ofthe world's 1000 million poor are women and, of the 333 million living in absolute poverty, 70% are women."},{"index":3,"size":82,"text":"Recognition of this problem and action to address it is nothing new: for at least two decades, several initiatives have been working steadily to document the worsening situation of rural women and to promote and disseminate technology designed to help poor rural women improve their access to technology, productive resources, and income. Today, however, new challenges are found not only in the feminization of poverty, but also in the globalization of the world's economy, which is changing the face of small-farmer agriculture."},{"index":4,"size":103,"text":"These concerns highlight severa! issues: frrst, the diagnosis of technology needs and constraints faced by poor rural women has to be much more dynamic, and updated on a regular basis to keep up with the rapid rate of change in their conditions and needs. Very little is known at present about how these needs and constraints are changing. Second, the development of technologies for women needs to be closely associated with the identification and development of new opportunities and increasing labor productivity, in contrast to the approaches used in the 1980s and 1990s, which focused on alleviating drudgery and women's traditional agricultura! responsibilities."}]},{"head":"Key issues","index":94,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Most technologies developed and practices promoted by public agricultura! research centers do not adequately address women's needs and priorities","index":95,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":55,"text":"Numerous tools exist for gender analysis and diagnosis but, seemingly, no tools or guides to help scientists and extension agents effectively feed diagnostic results into research planning and adaptation Likewise, a host of gender theories and models (e.g., intra-household) exists, but practica! applications enabling those theories to be used for improving women's livelihoods are few "}]},{"head":"Objectives","index":96,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":77,"text":"The overall goal of the Africa Oender Initiative is to strengthen the capacity of our national R&D partners to develop innovative agricultura! technologies and income generation opportunities that address women's special needs and constraints. This project will work in close collaboration with the PROA Program, which is currently involved in work in Africa. The goal will be to scale up the lessons learned and experiences derived from the PROA Program's on-going research. The Initiative's specific objectives are:"},{"index":2,"size":28,"text":"• To develop tools that help researchers and scientists assess information and circumstances from gender analysis, and to identify significant factors, promising next steps, and \"best bet\" options"},{"index":3,"size":18,"text":"• To provide researchers, extension agents, and development practitioners with guides and tools, and training asto their application"},{"index":4,"size":26,"text":"• To develop mechanisms for applying results from gender theories and models (e.g., intra-household), and to enable the theories to be applied to improve women's livelihoods"},{"index":5,"size":21,"text":"• To institutionalize the use of gender considerations in NARES and m the academic training of agricultura! researchers (e.g., at universities)"},{"index":6,"size":21,"text":"• To increase opportunities for rural women by sensitizing rural communities on gender issues and enhancing women's roles in R&D processes"}]},{"head":"Key focal areas ofresearch","index":97,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Empirical research","index":98,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":18,"text":"This will involve conducting research to address key gaps and challenges, and to feed results into current initiatives:"},{"index":2,"size":28,"text":"• Research on developing mechanisms to apply results from gender theories and models (e.g., intra-household), and to enable the theories to be used to improve women' s livelihoods"},{"index":3,"size":21,"text":"• Impact assessment to compare the technical, process, and cost-benefit impact of projects that apply gender analysis with those that don't."},{"index":4,"size":24,"text":"• Assessment of R&D projects to see how the integration of gender analysis influences agricultura! technology development, its appropriateness, and likely adoption by women"},{"index":5,"size":24,"text":"• Methods to improve the effectiveness of impact assessment by providing tools to use impact assessment information in learning that leads to change Gender-"}]},{"head":"Capacity building and tools development","index":99,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":9,"text":"•Capacity building of partners in using GA in research"},{"index":2,"size":10,"text":"•Tool development and testing, including decision-support tools, guides, and aids"},{"index":3,"size":8,"text":"•Application oftested tools GA, applied theory, impact assessment"},{"index":4,"size":12,"text":"• Building gender awareness, and the social and human capital of communities"},{"index":5,"size":7,"text":"• Application of theoretical concepts and models"},{"index":6,"size":16,"text":"• U se of GA m oves from diagnosis to technology developmen t and im plementation"}]},{"head":"5.5.4.2.Mainstreaming and institutionalizing the use of gender considerations in NARES and in the academic training of agricultural researchers (e.g., at universities}","index":100,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":15,"text":"• Integrating GA in existing projects versus developing special GA projects ;ection 6 Imapct Assessment"},{"index":2,"size":1,"text":"."}]},{"head":"Overview","index":101,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":109,"text":"Impact assessment (lA) work by the PRGA Program is designed to provide a body of scientifically credible evidence about the state-of-the-art in the CGIAR centers and elsewhere in the use of participatory approaches and the results obtained. This information is provided to scientists, research managers, and development practitioners who want to decide whether and how to use these approaches for agricultura! and natural resource management research. To accomplish this, the Program's impact assessment research has established and maintains an inventory of participatory projects, conducts impact studies in collaboration with various research institutes, and engages in methods development and capacity building in impact assessment of participatory approaches with partner institutions."},{"index":2,"size":56,"text":"The next section 6 .2 will critically look at the Program's impact assessment research results from the first phase (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002), and the lessons learned from the second phase. Section 6.3 will summarize the outputs achieved in the reporting period of April2002-March 2003. The concluding section 6.4 willlist the expected milestones for the next reporting period ."},{"index":3,"size":1,"text":"."}]},{"head":"2.From Assessment to Learning and Change","index":102,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":35,"text":"In this section, we take a criticallook backwards and discuss if the Program's impact assessment strategy has been worthwhile, and what the lessons were for the Program's second phase, and their implications for impact assessment."},{"index":2,"size":61,"text":"Sorne of the methodological challenges we have been facing have demanded a new and original framework. That is, the way research is designed and implemented, and how research outcomes are assessed have had to change dramatically over the past decades. Today, research must be client-driven, collaborative, and responsive to diverse objectives. These changes have significant implications for impact assessment (lA) ."},{"index":3,"size":22,"text":"First, impact assessment practitioners must document a much broader range of project impacts, for example, impact on poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability."},{"index":4,"size":76,"text":"Second, our understanding of the number of stakeholders in impact assessment has grown dramatically and now includes center management, researchers, donors, partner institutions, beneficiaries, and civil society organizations. Different stakeholders demand different types of information in different formats. Intemal rates of retum and cost-benefit analyses may have been sufficient for the accountability functions of impact assessment, but they will not satisfy those who are interested in knowing how and why a project affected people' s lives."},{"index":5,"size":51,"text":"Third, a growing number of stakeholders seek information, not about the impact of a project's products, but rather of its processes. It is important that those involved in R&D projects learn from the experience and adapt their priorities and practices to continuously improve their contribution to the ongoing process of innovation."},{"index":6,"size":133,"text":"How has the Program been able to respond to this methodological challenge? The PRGA Program staff, together with its many collaborators, has developed, tested, a pplied , and disseminated lA framework and tools with small grant recipients and working groups. We now have published guides on how to assess the impact of methods; these are found in four working documents (nos. 6, 7 , 8, and 17) and one book Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (2001) by N. Lilja and others. That these guides have been used by many of the small grant recipients is shown in their written results of project analyses. We also have over 160 cases in the Web-based project inventory, and these projects attempt to document wider ranges of im pact based on these guides."},{"index":7,"size":170,"text":"The second part of the Program's impact strategy has been to conduct collaborative impact studies. We have been directly involved in 21 projects by providing funds and sorne capacity building in lA. In 10 ofthese cases, the Program has also contributed a significant amount of human resources to conduct the assessment. In PPB, collaborative impact studies ha ve been completed with ICARDA in Syria and W ARDA in WestAfrica. Currently, we are conducting or completing studies with EMBRAPA in Brazil, LI-BIRD in Nepal, CIAT in Vietnam and Thailand, and CIMMYT on methods. The \"PPB small grants\" recipients who received lA training were CORPOICA, EMBRAPA, FIDAR, !CARDA, INIAP, IPGRI, and PROINPA. In NRM, we have directly collaborated with CIP, ICRISAT, and World Neighbours Canada, and are now collaborating with IPRA (the participatory program at CIA T) in assessing the impact of farmer research committees (also known as CIALs). The \"NRM small grants\" recipients who received lA training were CIFOR (Indonesia), CIMMYT (Kenya), CIP (Peru), ICRAF-AHI, ILRI (Ethiopia), and the University ofZimbabwe."},{"index":8,"size":127,"text":"The third and last component of the Program's impact assessment strategy was to assist with capacity development, emphasizing mutual support and learning. This was implemented by the Program's IA economist, who dedicated a significant amount of time to collaborative impact studies. The economist designs and implements, and the center or institute's staffprovide tools, framework, and resources. The small grant recipients are brought together in workshops to share experiences and build lA skills. Forexample, in Nairobi 2001, we had over 60 participants in an lA trainingworkshop. Another effort, very recently initiated, is to work with the University of Florida to develop training materials for Web-based dissemination, potentially in collaboration with African universities. Also, an IA Web page has been established to promote the exchange of experience and evidence."}]},{"head":"3ect.ion 6 lrnapct Assessment","index":103,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":122,"text":"Has this capacity building, with its emphasis on mutual support and leaming, paid off? One example is W ARDA and its 17 national program partners: over 5 years, the PRGA Program provided them with continuous training support in participatory methods and lA. Other organizations have also contributed to the training effort. All the collaborative training efforts have paid off and, by 2000, the participatory variety selection (PVS) approach to upland rice improvement had reached a sustainable level. The approach is now common practice among the NARS, not a novelty. WARDA's national partners are conducting upland, lowland, and irrigated PVS trials in about 100 sites in 17 West African countries, and had involved more than 4000 farmers in the evaluation ofimproved rice varieties."},{"index":2,"size":31,"text":"Impact assessment results are now being used to reinforce scientific credibility of these methods, attract donor support, disseminate the use of these methods among NARS, increase management support, and provide training."},{"index":3,"size":31,"text":"Although lA in PRGA has introduced a novel focus of documenting process impact (i.e ., feedback, human and social capital) , the current use ofiA results still comes up against severallimitations:"},{"index":4,"size":238,"text":"• Its focus on measurement • Extractive nature rather than empowering • Oriented toward donor needs only • Conducted to make judgments based on standard indicators • Struggle for objectivity and distance between evaluators and participants • Extemally oriented • Lack oflinks with M&E Addressing the challenges of moving from assessment to learning and changing the focus in lA is the Program's main task in lA work in its second phase. The Program will al so ídentify ways in which lA research can be more effective in ( 1) demonstrating the ability of agricultura! research to contribute to development goals, and ( 2) facilitating the use of lA results for joint decision making by various stakeholders. Assessing the extent to which R&D organizations have been able to learn and change because of their experience is an important new area for IA in the CGIAR system overall. Scientists are now increasingly applying participatory approaches to their research to better understand their clientspoor peopleand their wants and needs, and thus design technologies that fit better with the complexity oftheir lívelihoods. A similar process needs to occur in lA. One key lesson leamed in participatory research is that involving stakeholders early in research leads to better targeting, greater sense of ownership, and higher impact. Only by recognizing current incentive structures and feeding into existing (if incipient and imperfect) learning processes can lA con tribute to better decision making and ever-increasing impact. "}]},{"head":"lmpact study resultsfor April2002-March 2003","index":104,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":84,"text":"Over the past 4 years, in collaboration with many institutions and individuals, the PRGA Program has systematically collected scientifically credible empírica! evidence of the impact and costs of participatory research in NRM and PB by conducting impact case studies. These studies analyze both the impact and costs ofPRGA. Both qualitative and quantitative data are used, including existing project documentation; open-ended interviews with project staff, farmer participants, and other key informants, including community leaders and policy makers; and statistical and econometric analyses of survey data."},{"index":2,"size":81,"text":"One case study was completed during this reporting period, with ICARDA in Syria. Another impact study, with WARDA in Cóte d'Ivoire, was completed in February 2002, and written and published in 2003 as a PRGA Program working document. Two other collaborative impact case studies were started and are still in progress: one with EMBRAPA in Brazil, and the other with Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD) in Nepal. Below is a brief summary of each of these impact studies."}]},{"head":". ICARDA (barley in Syria}","index":105,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":160,"text":"Principal contact persons: Nina Lilja (agricultura! economist, PRGA Program); Aden Aw-Hassan (agricultura! economist, NRM Program); Salvatore Ceccarelli and Stefania Grando (barley breeders, Germplasm Program); William Erskine {Assistant Director GeneralResearch, ICARDA) Section 6 1.n1aprt Assess1nent Decentralized participatory bar ley breeding begun at !CARDA in 1997 when the initial 208 barley lines were planted on farmers' fields in nine villages throughout Syria. The impact case study assessed benefits and costs of ICARDA's participatory barley breeding approach, compared with the conventional (centralized) breeding approach, both at the farmers' level, and as returns to research. The program benefits were estimated, ex ante, by the economic surplus model, comparing conventional and participatory breeding. The program's cost structure was analyzed ex post, and costs of conventional and decentralized breeding were constructed for comparison. Farmer benefits were measured, ex post, by comparing adoption benefits and changes in human capital between 86 participating and 106 non-participating farmers. We also calculated the opportunity cost of farmers' time in research."},{"index":2,"size":103,"text":"The results showed potentially significant increases to Syrian agriculture from participatory barley breeding. The discounted, research-induced benefits to Syrian agriculture from conventional barley breeding are US$21. 9 The model's results also show that the benefits in reduced research lag and the 10% yield in crease resulting from participatory research increase total benefits by 90% (US$42.7). The higher adoption ceiling for participatory breeding, compared with conventional breeding, increases the benefits a further 50% (US$54.6). These are ex ante estimates of the potential benefit of PPB. Realizing these benefits depends partly on functioning extension and seed systems because, without them, autonomous diffusion may be slow."},{"index":3,"size":84,"text":"Findings indicate that the infrastructure and personnel constitute the largest share of the breeding budget, comprising 77% when combined. The breeding approach (whether conventional, decentralized, or participatory) or breeding method used (bulk versus pedígree) affects operational costs, which represent a relatively small share at 23% of the total breeding budget. The relative changes in costs were then calculated for changes in budget allocations according to breeding approach. The shift from conventional to participatory research increased operating costs by 56% (from US$XXX,XXX to $122, 154)."},{"index":4,"size":84,"text":"However, simply concluding that PPB is more costly than conventional breeding is erroneous. In reality, the share of overhead and personnel costs remains fiXed , and operations are adjusted according to the availability of funds. Also, most breeding programs today are already decentralized, and what our results show is that the changes in costs from conventional decentralized to participatory decentralized breeding is very small. Further calculation shows that the move from conventional to participatory breeding only in creases the total breeding budget by 2%."}]},{"head":"Note:","index":106,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":43,"text":"For more information about this study, see: Lilja N; Aw-HassanA. 2003. Benefits and costs ofparticipatory barley breeding. Paperaccepted as a poster presentation at the Intemational Agricultura [ Economics Association meeting, held in Durban, Rep. ofSouthAftica, August 2003. (Also forthcoming as PROA Working Document.)"}]},{"head":".3.2.2 . WARDA(ricein WestAfrica)","index":107,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":15,"text":"Principal contact persons: Nina Lilja (agricultura! economist, PRGA Program); Olaf Erenstein (production economist, W ARDA)"},{"index":2,"size":55,"text":"The participatory rice breeding and gender analysis approach has been used by WARDA since 1996, and subsequently adopted by its national partners. The approach can be characterized as \"functionally motivated participation\", that is, trying to understand better what farmers want or need, and to feed back insights to formal research for improving future on-farrn productivity."},{"index":3,"size":121,"text":"The collaborative irnpact study with WARDA was cornpleted in early 2002. Breeders and social scientists from 16 ofthe 17 national programs were interviewed during the annual Participatory Rice lrnprovernent and Gender/User Analysis Workshop (PRIGA) in Cóte d'Ivoire in May 200 l. The irnpact of incorporating participatory research approaches at different stages of the varietal developrnent process can be argued to go beyond the economic benefits associated with better crop type. \"Process irnpacts\" have occurred as a result ofthe participation itselfrather than as a result of the technologies developed via participatory research methods. Sorne of these \"institutional process impacts\" include interna! institutional changes such as changes in breeding goals and objectives, breeding rnethods, and spillover effects to varietal developrnent in other crops."},{"index":4,"size":185,"text":"They also include changes to externa! relatíonships with other institutions such as seed production systerns and varietal release rnechanisrns, and changes to these institutions themselves. The experience with implernenting participatory research has clearly provided feedback to breeders in the national programs, and this inforrnation has led to sorne perceived and specific interna! institutional changes. Half of the national scientists say that they have changed their breeding goals, and three quarters say they have also changed their breeding rnethods and the ways in which they conduct breeding. Changes in externa! institutions such as seed production or varietal release systems have been less successful, probably because less attention was paid to forrning partnerships with other stakeholders in seed and varietal release institutions and rnechanisrns, and more attention given to interactions with farmers. Only one third of the respondents said that they had created or irnproved partnership arrangernents in rice research. Involvernent of other stakeholders is therefore another area in which potential exists for irnproving labor and the institutional and demographic context of gender; or it could rernain an area lirnited to rneasuring gender differences in varietal preferences."}]},{"head":"N ote:","index":108,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":35,"text":"For more information about this study, see: Lilja N; Erenstein O. 2002. Institutional process impacts of participatory rice improuement and gender analysis in West A .frica. Working Document,no. 20. PRGA Program,Cali,Colombia. ection 6 Imapct Assessrnent"}]},{"head":"EMBRAPA (cassava inBrazil)","index":109,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":21,"text":"Principal contact persons: Nadine Saad (PhD candidate in human geography); Nina Lilja {agricultural economist, PRGA Program); Wania Fukuda (plant breeder, EMBRAPA)"},{"index":2,"size":141,"text":"This impact case study builds on a previous study on participatory cassava breeding in Brazil conducted collaboratively by the PRGA Program and EMBRAPA. (Fukuda and Saad, July 2001) (1), The main emphasis of the current study is to look at the impact of participatory research in tenns of type of cassava variety developed, its adoption, and the economic benefits of adoption. We also look at the implications of participatory research for different stakeholder groups, and determine how representative the results are to various stakeholders. The Brazilian cassava project is functional in its approach, and its main objective is to bring improved cassava varieties to farmers, based on their own selection criteria. Farmer empowennent is not a specific objective for the project. Hence, we will not specifically assess the human and social capital impact in this case. The study's specific objectives are:"},{"index":3,"size":25,"text":"• To assess the \"soundness\" of the methodology (do the results benefit in tended users? Is the approach more successful in certain types of communities?)"},{"index":4,"size":28,"text":"• To assess the adoption of new cassava clones selected and introduced through participatory varietal selection trials (is participatory research producing superior varieties for the in tended users?)"},{"index":5,"size":25,"text":"• To assess the reasons for adoption (is the biggest constraint to adoption in fact the availability of\"good clean seed\", rather than the improved characteristics?)"},{"index":6,"size":76,"text":"• To assess the economic benefits from adoption and implications for \"wellbeing\" (has the adoption of new cassava clones improved the well-being of the adopters?) Data collection began in mid-2002, with interviews of 22 participating and nonparticipating farmers in four communities. Collection was completed in late-2002, and is now being analyzed. Publication is expected in December 2003. (The final analysis was delayed because one researcher began PhD studies, and another too k maternity lea ve. )"},{"index":7,"size":7,"text":".( 1) Fukuda and Saad. July 2001."},{"index":8,"size":4,"text":"Section 6 Imapct Assessment"}]},{"head":"LI-BIRD(maizeinNepal)","index":110,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":31,"text":"Principal contact persons: Nina Lilja (agricultura! economist) ; Barun Gurung (anthropologist, PRGA Program); Anil Subedi, Sanjaya Gyawali, and Anu Adhikari (LI-BIRD) Details ofthis case study can be found in Section 4.4."}]},{"head":"Dissemination ofimpact assessment research results","index":111,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":31,"text":"The year 2002-2003 provided an opportunity to reflect on sorne of the fmdings, and the results of the PNRM and PPB impact assessments were synthesized into presentations at five international meetings: "}]},{"head":"3.3. The impact assessment Web si te","index":112,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":61,"text":"The Program created an impact assessment Web site, which provides access to all publication outputs of the Program's lA research: project inventories, impact case studies, guides on lA methods, and PowerPoint formats of synthesized results presented at the various intemational meetings. The site also offers access to other reviewed and recommended lA research methods and empirical results. The electronic addresses are:"},{"index":2,"size":15,"text":"• lmpact assessment Web page: http: //wv.rw.prgaprogram.org/impact assessment/impact.htm • lnventory Web page: http: //webpc.ciat.cgiar.org:8080 /prgainventory/inventory.htm"}]},{"head":"Methodology development for institutionallearning and change","index":113,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":55,"text":"Program staff participated in the workshop on the Role of lmpact Assessment in lnstitutional Learning and Change (ILAC), organized by the CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA). The workshop was held during 4-6 February 2003 at IFPRI in Washington DC. One of its activities was to develop a proposal for systemwide effort in ILAC."},{"index":2,"size":1,"text":",.-"}]},{"head":".4 Major Expected Milestones for March 2003April2004","index":114,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":115,"text":"• Two impact case studiesofEMBRAPA and LI-BIRDare completed and results published as PRGA workingdocuments As we mentioned in Section 1.3.2.5, to facilitate the use of participatory approaches, we used several strategies to build and articulate a community of knowledge and practice. We also stimulated worldwide exchange of expertise through three listservs (PRGA-info, PBG, and PNRM) and organized a new Web site with various services. A network was established among PRGA liaison contacts and gender focal points in all the CGIAR centers. Three publicly accessible databases with information on projects were created (Expertise, the PPB project inventory, and the PNRM project inventory), and various training events were conducted with participants from all around the world ."},{"index":2,"size":1,"text":"."}]},{"head":"l.Listservs","index":115,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":7,"text":"The PRGA Program manages three electronic listservs:"},{"index":2,"size":33,"text":"This is a general listserv used by the Program for information dissemination and administrative purposes. Members of the other Program listservs are automatically subscribed to this list. Currently, the listserv has 420 members."}]},{"head":"PBG Listserv","index":116,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":61,"text":"The Plant Breeding Group is the main listserv of the Program's working group of the same name. It currently hosts 200 members from over 100 countries anda range of different types of institutions. This listserv has been very active in discussing and contributing to several key pieces of work, including the PPB guidelines document, and the intellectual property rights (IPR) study."}]},{"head":"PNRM Listserv","index":117,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":45,"text":"The Participatory Research for Natural Resource Management Listserv is a forum for researchers from the CGIAR and partner organizations who are practicing and developing participatory approaches for NRM. It is in tended to provide continuity for the PNRM Working Group when between face-to-face meetings ."}]},{"head":"2.The PRGA Program's New Web Site","index":118,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":25,"text":"Several weaknesses of the PRGA Program's Web site were identified in the presentation given at the stakeholder meeting in Cali (30 June 1 July 2003)."},{"index":2,"size":70,"text":"(Y ou can download this presentation from: <h ttp: // v.rww. prgaprogram. org/ download 1 stakeholder m tg 03/ communication w eb.ppt>) The Program was thus prompted to upgrade the contents of the existing Web site, while it developed a new site with improved navigation, searchability, and interactivity. User input, from the PRGA Program's working groups, was considered when developing criteria for choosing a contents management application (Box 7 A)."},{"index":3,"size":13,"text":":>• .T. !Pr 1 \"f lw PRGA Prograrn's CnrnnliJ!lily of l<now!t-rJg\\~ ar1cl Practtce"}]},{"head":"Box7A","index":119,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":7,"text":"Criteria for choosing a contents management application"},{"index":2,"size":174,"text":"• A Web development application that is also a community-building tool • A Web development application that is easy to use so that the Web site can be maintained by staffwho understand the contents, have sorne Web development skills, but are not necessarily IT professionals • An application that offers an integrated set of tools for supporting the PRGA Program's communities of practice. We aim to avoid a \"patchwork\" approach where many different tools from various sources are used • A design process that is user, not technology, led and that can ensure accessibility and reliability for users who have older browsers, low bandwidths, small monitors, and older printers • Open-source applications are free. If an open-source application can provide the functionality sought, this would represent significant cost savings to the Program. Because open-source software is the product of ongoing innovation by a community of developers, and therefore belongs to the community, it is more compatible with the PRGA Program's approach than proprietary software • An application that meets CIAT's security standards while offering:"},{"index":3,"size":115,"text":"An expertise directory with defmable and extendable fields and user input capability Searchable databases of documents and resources with user input capability. This is necessary for our toolbox of methods and learning resources, and for our project inventaries Capacity to search the whole site Capacity to support multiple CGNET listservs and to permit archiving of listserv messages by linking with Web-based forums Capacity to queue user input for approval by a PRGA Program administrator • • An application that has the capacity to meet future user demands for functions such as: Asynchronous discussion Chatting Capacity to support collaborative work by small subgroups (e .g., joint writing projects, and document reviews) Capacity to support multiple-language interfaces"},{"index":4,"size":10,"text":"The PRGA Prograrn also participates in the following electronic services:"},{"index":5,"size":16,"text":"• id21, a development research reporting service, funded by DFID, that summarizes the latest development research"},{"index":6,"size":9,"text":"• Livelihoods ConnectDFID's leaming platform for sustainable livelihoods approaches"},{"index":7,"size":10,"text":"• Microfmance Gateway, which is an information forum on microfinance"},{"index":8,"size":13,"text":"• Participation Resource Centre, which is an information service for participation and development"},{"index":9,"size":10,"text":"• Severa! IDS (University of Sussex) collaborative research si tes"},{"index":10,"size":53,"text":"The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) assists the rural poor around the world to improve their lives by building on their unique assets and strengths. The IIRR achieves this through field research, training, publications, and field programs with poor communitíes and through partnerships with others designing the new We b si te."},{"index":11,"size":21,"text":"Based on consultations with Bellanet, PostNuke was identified, evaluated, and selected as the PRGA Program's Web development and contents management application."}]},{"head":"Note:","index":120,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":13,"text":"See Appendix 11 for a graph showing Web si te traffic for 2002-2003."},{"index":2,"size":61,"text":"The 10 most popular resources on the PRGA Prograrn's Web si te are: As the Program ernbarks on its second phase, with particular ernphasis on institutionalizing gender-sensitive PR in international and national agricultura! research systems, a more substantial role for the liaison officers is envisioned, coupled with more opportunities to participate in PRGA Program-sponsored activities and provide input to Program directions."}]},{"head":"Note:","index":121,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":54,"text":"See Appendix 14 for PRGA Program' s terrns of reference for liaison officers. Our goal is to provide a systematic assessment of the impact resulting from the use of participatory research (PR) and gender analysis (GA), and to make this information available to researchers, development practitioners, farmers, donors, and others interested in the field."}]},{"head":"Learning and Capacity Building","index":122,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":39,"text":"Learning and capacity building have been key elements in the PRGA Program's strategy for mainstreaming the use of participatory and gender-sensitive approaches. The Program's ICER, conducted in November 2001, reported the following on the Program's achievements in this area:"},{"index":2,"size":129,"text":"Capacity building on the design, p lanning, and implementation of participatory efforts have implications not only for improving the delivery and impact of research but also fo r wider human and social capital formation among the actors as well as in the targeted communities. The Program in this regard has made good progress. The effort oftwo regionally based (Asia andA frica) PRGA fellows has been instrumental. Prain et al. 2000 (1) Training by th e PRGA Program has in clu ded awareness building, skill enh ancement, and practica! field app lication. The Program has incorporated its findings on impact and types of participation and gender analysis into work shops offered in many parts ofthe world and in widely distributed training materials. Numerous training events ha ve been held on:"},{"index":3,"size":43,"text":"• Participatory research methods, processes, and skills for NRM and PB • Tools and methods for gender and/ or stakeholder analyses • Participatory monitoring and evalu ation, and impact assessment procedures • Elements and skills for forming and sustaining effective partnerships for participation"},{"index":4,"size":19,"text":"The Program has also built partnerships for capacity building into collaborative research projects with other systemwide programs and networks."},{"index":5,"size":33,"text":"Workshops have been instrumen tal in increasing the understanding of PRGA approaches, and building practica! skills for their application. Demand for capacity building has increased and is currently beyond the Program's actual capacities."}]},{"head":".6 .Building Capacity in Social and Gender Analysis in the Eastern Himalayan Region","index":123,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":130,"text":"This activity will bring together researchers involved in biodiversity and NRM-related projects for iterative training on social and gender analysis (S/ GA) concepts and methodologies. A team oftrainers-cum-mentors will work with 18 participants from the Eastem Himalayan Region, which encompasses northem and northeastern India, Bhutan, Bangladesh (Chittagong Hill Tracts), and eastern Nepal. A coordinating group, the Northeast Network, will help develop and implement the training program, and facilitate interaction and networking among the participants, who will thus become \"emerging regional specialists on social and gender analysis in NRM\". The project will take 2 years, and involve a series of training courses in concepts and practica! methods; the courses being implemented through a small grant and action plan. Results will be disseminated through various media, including papers for publication in refereedjournals."},{"index":2,"size":4,"text":"-: T ,•,, 1"},{"index":3,"size":64,"text":"• A need for on-going training programs that support researchers over time and build on continuallearning. Social and gender analysis is not learned overnight, nor in one short training program. Participants n eed to continually build on their skills and practice over time, and will therefore need long-term support and input through an iteratíve learning process that includes challenges and difficulties along the way."},{"index":4,"size":86,"text":"• A need for training and support for the practical application of S/GA in the field. Many researchers have sorne conceptual understanding of social and gender issues but feel ata loss asto how to practically implement S/GA practices in the field, and in a socioculturally a ppropriate manner. What are the tools and methods? How are these approaches integrated with natural science approaches and methods? How does one move beyond the \"analysis\" to a transforming agenda that improves livelihood conditions and increase equity among disadvantaged groups?"},{"index":5,"size":109,"text":"• A need for socioculturally relevant training programs. Asia possesses an incredible diversity of culture and language, so much so that training programs in Vietnam may not b e relevant toa researcher from Bangladesh . Societal, cultural, religious, and language differences a bound, and while opportunities for crossculturallearning may exist between these groups, there are also advantages to training programs tha t are socioculturally relevant andina common language. Likewise, where political and cultural h egemony issues exist such as th ose between Indians residing in the Indo-Gangetic Plains and minority groups in the Northeast, a dimension of power and, som etim es, hostility is added that can hinder training."},{"index":6,"size":78,"text":"For example, evidence suggests that many gender norms and social structures are shared across Pakistan, Bangla desh, the lndian Plains, and Sri Lanka, yet cultural groups from NE India m ay h ave more in common with counterparts in Southeast Asia. Efforts to build a socioculturally appropriate training program can help build a favorable environment for sharing and learning, as well as be more cultural relevant in discussing social and gender issues and m ethods for their analysis."},{"index":7,"size":48,"text":"• S/GA relevant to NRM research. As discussed a bove, most S/GA training programs are not directed a t NRM researchers nor do they consider issu es in the NRM context. Thus, a need exists to consider the issues and approaches most relevant to NRM research . r."}]},{"head":".6 .2 . Objectives","index":124,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":42,"text":"• To build the capacity of researchers in the Eastem Himalayan Regían to integrate and practically apply S/GA in biodiversity and NRM-related projects • To support partners in developing approaches and methodologies suitable to the regional con text of the Eastern Himalayas "}]},{"head":"•ection 8 Looking Ahead","index":125,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":75,"text":"The major objectives and strategies for the PROA Program's second phase wíll build on the lessons and strengths of the past. lt will also focus more specifically on mainstreaming PROA approaches, as described in section 1. 1.1.2: • Capacity development in methods that ensure gender-equitable, stakeholder-client representation in research decision making; and networking within a cadre of champions who support each other and who can make a difference  • By the end of 5 years,"},{"index":2,"size":93,"text":"•         • Facilitate e-mail discussions, where key variables will be commonly monitored across sites •Exchange information and experience with a wider research network, facilitated by a mechanism of \"process exchange\", whereby project teams can share ideas and advances every 6 months Purpose: This grant will finance the a ctivities of the project entitled (title of project) (hereafter the Proje ct) as subm itted to the PRGA Program. The (recipient institution), representing this Project, and the PRGA Program are subject to the conditions and opportunities stipulated below. The Project will take place in (place)."}]},{"head":".","index":126,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":1,"text":"Budget: "}]},{"head":"Total","index":127,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":24,"text":"The PRGA Program's policy specifies that no more than 9 % of the above total grant can be used to cover project ad.ministration costs."}]},{"head":"Prl.ority setting","index":128,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":49,"text":"Joint priority setting was judged as a continuing weak point in PPB methodology, and emphasis was placed on the need to start the process in which the \"goals\" (e.g., higher production, production and diversity enhancement, skill building) are jointly set, and to negotiate carefully between biological and social goals."},{"index":2,"size":38,"text":"• Participatory methods working at multiple scales need to be explored more systematically. Also debated was whether local methods can be scaled up or if very different ones must be u sed for priority setting at larger scales."}]},{"head":"On-farm testing and evaluation","index":129,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":51,"text":"• In PPB, the workshop participants deemed as essential that trial design be agreed upon by all partners and that it is interpretable by all partners. Trial designs take very different forms and structures according to breeding goal, agroecological system, and socioeconomic conditions. Numerous choices are available and flexibílity is wide."},{"index":2,"size":52,"text":"• For evaluation at all stages, it is essential to use primarily farmers' criteria for evaluation, and add other criteria in consultation with them. Initial research may be needed to determine these key criteria. Determining the possibly differing needs of different stakeholders (ethnic groups, women, poor farmers) may be essential for success."}]},{"head":"Scalingup","index":130,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":60,"text":"• A prime issue was raised of whether scaling up PPB should be primarily supply-driven (policy or project-led) or demand driven (stakeholder-led). In terms ofthe latter, the following conditions would be favorable to demand-driven scaling up: systematic work with Farmer Research Committees, channeling part of the research funds through FRCs, or facilitating ways for PPB products to better reach themarket."},{"index":2,"size":35,"text":"• Many approaches are being tested or implemented for scaling up PPB, including through capacity building of NARS, setting up regional agricultura! network alliances, developing partnerships with Farmer Field Schools, and contacting farmer-led breeding clubs."},{"index":3,"size":26,"text":"• In terms of having wider impact, the workshop participants stressed the critica! need to document more clearly the complementarities between conventional and participatory plant breeding."}]},{"head":".ppendices","index":131,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Action plans","index":132,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":91,"text":"Finally, the workshop participants outlined an explicit agenda for action on \"Priority Are as in PPB\". Interestingly, this agenda is very different from the one o u tlined by the core ofthis workshop 5 years ago (in the base document for the PRGA Programsee the PBG page on the PRGA Program's Web site). Moving beyond precise technical and social breeding concerns, the workshop this time expressed the need to maintain and strengthen a critica! mass of PPB researchers to ensure scientific credibility. In this vein, three concerns for action were emphasized:"},{"index":2,"size":26,"text":"• Broader development of training m aterials (e.g., university courses and, equally, enhancing the skills of farmers and fanning communities in breeding and seed management )."},{"index":3,"size":28,"text":"• Influencing policies and policy change, with work particularly directed toward seed policy and regulatory reform to ensure that PPB products actually reach the in tended end users."},{"index":4,"size":78,"text":"• Strategies for capturing (new) finances and building new partnerships. Substantial efforts are to be made to expand the use ofPPB across time and space per se (e.g., through alliances with regional agricultura! n etworks and educational institutions), and particularly to expand its breadth of inquiry to include new crops, to extend beyond breeding to an inclusive seed system and marketing focus, and to embed the work in a more holistic context offarming systems, genetic diversity, and NRM."},{"index":5,"size":164,"text":"The very high quality of formal presentations, the working group recommendations on precisely how to move the science forward, and the strategic action plans on the \"crucial next steps\" go beyond the analyses of technical and social aspects of PPB per se. These elements themselves attest to how fast and far the scope of PPB has been expanding in the last 5-10 years. The issues no longer focus simply on \"how to\" or \"does it work\", but also on how we can design and implement PPB to ensure that the process and its benefits can be expanded more widely for a still greater, positive effect. A vital product ofthis workshop was thejoint work that was accomplished during the m eeting itself. The productive interchange was greatly enhanced by the skills of two facilita tors, Ronnie Vemooy (IDRC) and Janice Jiggins (independent), who led the workshop participants through a reflection of what might be better accomplished collectively or in subgroups, why, for whom, and how."},{"index":6,"size":101,"text":"Finally, we would like to mention Joachim Voss, Director General of CIAT, Acting Chair of the PRGA Program, and a former PPB practitioner himself. He continues to push for PPB work to take a more \"holistic\" perspectivenot just to fully embrace the notion of diversity, but also to unfold consciously within a more integrated NRM perspective. Similarly, Geoffrey Hawtin, former Director of General of IPGRI, maintains that crop and variety diversity remain vital, and relevant only through their active, creative, and evolving use. Both have prometed vigorous user perspectives in research and for research to anticípate dynamic and holistic development needs."}]},{"head":"Results of previous consultations","index":133,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":116,"text":"Didier Bazile Question 1. What are your initial reactions to the 2003-2007 log frame for the PRGA Program (attached)? Are there areas where you have questions or need further clarification? Are there particular items for which you wish to expresa support or raise concerns? How well does the proposed program respond to the needs of ourregion? Methodologies and concepts should be developed to link plant breeding (PB), and crop and natural resource management {NRM) . PBG members should be given access to CGIAR publications and an opportunity contribute to specific workshop proceedings with NGOs. Although the gender approach does not need to have specifications everywhere, clarifying why gender must be considered in participatory studies is essential."}]},{"head":"Question2.","index":134,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":52,"text":"Referring to the summary ofthe PRGA Program's Working Group Consultations held last year: (a) What do you see as being the major implications of the responses received for how the group should move forward? (b) Do they imply any changes for how the group is organized, managed, or functioning? lf so, how?"},{"index":2,"size":13,"text":"The PNRM -wg must be within the PBG to better diffuse our concepts."}]},{"head":"Question3.","index":135,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":53,"text":"What do you see as being the top three issues that the PBG should focus on for the next three years? Why? What WG activities might best address these issues? What suggestions do you have for acquiring the necessary funding to support them? (e) PBG members should rece1ve opportunities to write new projects."}]},{"head":"Question4.","index":136,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":17,"text":"What ideas and suggestions you have on how the PBG and listserv should be facilltatedin the future?"},{"index":2,"size":12,"text":"The PNRM-wg must be within the PBG to better diffuse our concepts."}]},{"head":"8.","index":137,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":53,"text":"Participatory Funding is now available for SIMA projects that are based on ecosystem approaches to human health. These funds were made availa ble by IDRC and IWMI to support research, capacity building, and knowledge sharing, using ecosystem approaches, to reduce malaria and improve health and well-being in countries of eastem and southem Africa."},{"index":2,"size":52,"text":"The Africa 2020 Vision Network seeks to reduce poverty and improve food security in East Africa by generating policy-relevant information through collaborative research activities, improving the dissemination and use of such information, and strengthening local capacity to undertake and communicate policy research. The Network encompasses Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda. "}]},{"head":"infed.org","index":138,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":62,"text":"Established in 1995, this borne page of \"Informal Educatíon\" provides a space for people to explore the theory and practice of informal education and to develop ways of working and being that foster association, conversation, and relationship. The site features an encyclopedia of informal education with over 300 articles that explore key ideas, thinkers, and practices within informal education and lifelong learning."}]},{"head":"Institute ofDevelopment Studies (IDS) Info Services","index":139,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":3,"text":"A portal to: "}]},{"head":"Sustainable Rural Development Information System (SRDIS)","index":140,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":75,"text":"A specialized online library of Intemet-based resources. The objective is to identify and organize those information resources most useful to resolving rural issues of global, national, and local importance. Relevant Internet sites, case studies, databases, maps, newsletters, and reports are cataloged for precision search and retrieval. Current SRDIS foci include decentralization, local development, and NRM. Topical areas to be developed over time include NRM, institutions, empowerment and govemance, food security, and information access and communications."}]},{"head":"Technical Centre for Agricultura! and Rural Cooperation","index":141,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":76,"text":"Better known by its Dutch acronym, the CTA advances agricultural and rural development in African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries by promoting the transfer, exchange, and use of information. CTA's tasks are to develop and provide services that improve access to information for agricultural and rural d evelopm ent and to strengthen the capacity of ACP countries to produce, acquire, exchange, and use information in these areas (recommended by Helen Hambly, NRM Document Repository, GFAR). .."}]},{"head":"UK Agricultura! Biodiversity Coalition (UKabc)","index":142,"paragraphs":[]}],"figures":[{"text":"• A book entitled Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation was submitted to co-publishers, Earthscan and IDRC, in July 2002. An external review was completed in September 2002 and the book was pu blished in August 2003. • Several weaknesses in the PRGA Program's Web site were identified. The Program decided to u pgrade the contents of the existing Web site, while developing a new Web site with improved navigation, searchability, and interactivity. "},{"text":" Natural Resource ManagementWorking Group (PNRM-wg) "},{"text":" Project title: Assessing Approaches to Innovation Development in NRM through Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Collaborating institutions: Univ. Hohenheim (reporter: Kirsten Probst), CIAT-Hillsides, AFOCO, IPCA, GTZ-Forestry Program, DED (German Development Service) • IPRA-SWNM Project title: Integrated Nutrient Management for Building the Assets of Poor RuralWomen Collaborating institution: IPRA (CIAT's Participatory Research in Agriculture Project) • University ofEssex Project title: Social and Human Capital for Improving Agricultura! Productivity and Natural Resource Management Collaboratinginstitution: Univ. Essex • SRISTI Project title: Breaking the Nexus Between Poverty and Agrobiodiversity: Institutional and Policy Changes for Supporting Farmer-Led Participatory Crop Improvement and Conservation Collaborating institutions: Univ. Guelph (Sally Humphries}, SRISTI (Anil Gupta, President}, LI-BIRD, liM-A "},{"text":" Strong center-based conviction and key change agents for PRGA a pproaches are essential for strong systemwide commitment. Intra-Center Change Committees were established to foster organizational strategies for PRGA work. Events to help form and/ or reinforce su eh Committees were planned under the PRGA Program's umbrella at CIP, CIAT, and !CARDA. The following prerequisites were collaboratively identified for forming such Intra-Center Change Committees: • Pre-existing organizational forms and/or functions related to PRGA activities, or the likelihood of such organizational forms coming into existence without the PRGA Program having to lead such formation • Demonstrated commitment and experience in PRGA activities • Commitment and support from management • Willingness and potential for institutional change "},{"text":" Center for Agricultura! Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Principal contact persons: Aden Aw-Hassan (agricultural economist, !CARDA); Barun Gurung (PRGA Program) Collaboration between the PRGA Program and !CARDA has been extensive, through both the Small Grants Program in PPB and Aden Aw-Hassan's membership of the PRGA Program's Advisory Board. Several collaborative studies between the PRGA Program and !CARDA have been conducted for several years, particularly in PPB. The reports and impact studies conducted by the Program have served as important milestones in providing evidence of the efficacy of participatory approaches in agricultura! research. "},{"text":" (a) capacity development for PRGA and organizational development; (b) development of a cadre of change agents trained in PRGA and organization-development skills; (e) a network of support and exchange between change agents; (d) adaptation of organizational struc tures "},{"text":" in the impact and costs of participatory plant breeding Synthesis and dissemination of impact results through presentations to various stakeholders Buildingand maintaining the Program's lA Web site Methodology development for improving the role of lA m contributing to institutionallearning and change "},{"text":" a selected group participated in a survey by the PRGA Program to determine the impact of participatory plant breeding (PPB) and participatory natural resource management research (PNRM) projects. These results were compiled and posted as project inventaries on the PRGA Program Web site by Peggy McKee (consultant, PRGA Program) and Doryan Colunge (Web master, Information Systems, CIAT). "},{"text":"( 1 ) Prain et al.  2000 . • ~Jc::n•.cn 7 ft' :)HGA Program's Community of Knowledge and Practice "},{"text":"• To develop training processes and materials appropriate to the regían • To assist NRM researchers interested in S/GA research to obtain peer support and to network in the regían 82 PRGA Program Anual Report 2003 --------------------- "},{"text":"• Continue to build compelling evidence of im pact • Develop action research partnerships to institutionalize PROA approaches within a core ofiARCs and NARS • Communications and partnerships for disseminating information and devolving Program activities, responsibilities, and decision making to stakeholders '•l. PRGA Program's Stakeholder Meeting The Program's Stakeholder Meeting was held in Cali, Colombia, from 30 June to 1 July 2003. Th e Meeting's principal objectives were: • To provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to give inputs to the draft ofthe Program's 2003-2007logical framework before it is finalized and approved by the Program's Advisory Board on 2 July • To provide an opportunity for each of the two working groupsPNRM-wg and PBGto formulate work plans in light of future programmatic directions and emerging opportunities in the field • To identify funding prospects and strategies for accessing funds • To identify key partnerships, especially with the CGIAR's Challenge Programs The workshop was limited to 45 persons, who represented the following stakeholder groups: the Program's Advisory Board, funding partners, center liaison officers, 7 representatives elected from each working group, selected resource persons, and staff. During the Stakeholder Meeting, the PRGA Program's Coordination and the PBG representative consulted with the wider working group for inputs to the Program's draft ofits 2003-2007logframe {Appendix 1). "},{"text":"1 : Capac ity developed to e ncourage gender-equitable , stakeholder client representation in research decision-making, and networking a cadre of 'champions' who support each other and who can "},{"text":" 955,842 PRGA Program Anual Report 2003 97 , .• ;)r:-ndi«''~:• Grant recipients will al so be willing to: • Work on a common research design with agreed-upon key variables to be monitored across si tes • Provide an accounting ofhow project resources will be allocated among partners • Participate in comparative analysis •lmplement interventions agreed uponjointly • Monitor impact, using similar procedures and indicators and to ensure documentation. • Organize a broad-based seminar or workshop at the Small-Grant Program headquarters under the auspíces of the CGIAR 'Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program) •Undergo peer review by sharing experiences at intemational workshops held annually by the PRGA Program •Co-publish with local partners and the PRGA Program •Participate in annual lA seminars or workshops organized by the PRGA Program •Participate in internally or externally commissioned reviews or visits by PRGA Program staff, members of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), other CGIAR entities, and donors For its part, the PRGA Program agrees to: "},{"text":" (a) More publications with CGIAR centers for an adequate diffusion of research results (b) Follow a specific way of organizing workshops with NGOs and publish the proceedings to demonstrate linkage between research and development with PPB andPNRM. "},{"text":" The conference, entitled Measuring the Impact of User Participation in Natural Resource Management Research, was organized by the CGIAR's Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) for 4-7 February 2002, at San José, Costa Rica. • Paper presented on the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis ín Plant Breeding at the 2002 CGIAR Annual General Meeting in Manila, the Philippines.  "},{"text":"1.2.3. Gender analysis Using GA as a research tool is basic to developing technology aimed at alleviating the poverty of severely disadvantaged social groupsespecially poor rural women. The Program's strategy is to:  "},{"text":"Table la . The PRGA Program's partners in innovation.  "},{"text":"Partners Continent lnt'l or regional Country of project  AFRICA CIMMYT  Yemen AFRICACIMMYTYemen  ICARDA  Syria ICARDASyria  ILRI  Tanzania ILRITanzania  IPGRI  Malawi IPGRIMalawi  WARDA  Zimbabwe WARDAZimbabwe  AHI (ICRAF)  Uganda AHI (ICRAF)Uganda  SWNM (SP)   SWNM (SP)   1  1 ASIA Himalayan network UPW ARD (CIP) LI-BIRD CIMMYT 1 Nepal Nepal ASIAHimalayan network UPW ARD (CIP) LI-BIRD CIMMYT1Nepal Nepal  SRBLI   SRBLI  IRRI   IRRI  IPGRI   IPGRI LATIN AMERICA  1 Bolivia LATIN AMERICA1Bolivia  CIAT  Colombia CIATColombia  CIP  Peru CIPPeru  TLAP (SP) 1 Ecuador TLAP (SP)1Ecuador  IPCA 1 Honduras IPCA1Honduras  EAP-Zamorano  Honduras EAP-ZamoranoHonduras  CBN  Brazil CBNBrazil   1  1 a.For an explanation of the acronyms and abbreviations, see Appendix 15. a.For an explanation of the acronyms and abbreviations, see Appendix 15.  "},{"text":"Section 2 Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group (PBG) 2.1. Overview  Participatory plant breeding (PPBJ is a major thematic area of the PRGA Program's Participatory plant breeding (PPBJ is a major thematic area of the PRGA Program's work. The Plant Breeding Group (PBGJ, established in 1996, initially identified four work. The Plant Breeding Group (PBGJ, established in 1996, initially identified four key outputs for advancíng the field ofPPB: key outputs for advancíng the field ofPPB: • To assess and develop effective participatory methods in plant breeding, wíth a •To assess and develop effective participatory methods in plant breeding, wíth a  focus on farmer-led breeding, plant selection (segregating lines), and variety focus on farmer-led breeding, plant selection (segregating lines), and variety  selection (fixed lines) . selection (fixed lines) .  "},{"text":"Program Anual Report 2003 21 Section 2 Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group ( PB(•' ~  • Assessed and developed effective participatory methods in plant breeding, with •Assessed and developed effective participatory methods in plant breeding, with  focus on: focus on:  • Breeding by farmers • Breeding by farmers  • Plan t selection ( segregating lines) • Plan t selection ( segregating lines)  • V ariety selection (fixed lines) • V ariety selection (fixed lines) • Developed methods for involving direct and indirect stakeholders, thus accurately •Developed methods for involving direct and indirect stakeholders, thus accurately  targeting beneficiary groups and involving them in PPB. targeting beneficiary groups and involving them in PPB. • Identified and developed effective organization forms for operationalizing PPB in •Identified and developed effective organization forms for operationalizing PPB in  research. research. • Assured user access to products of PPB by identifying effective organizational •Assured user access to products of PPB by identifying effective organizational  forms and links to supporting seed services. forms and links to supporting seed services.  "},{"text":"Participatory Plant Breeding 2 .3 .1. \"Quality ofScience\" meeting, Rome  The workshop on The Quality of Science in Participatory Plant Breeding was held at The workshop on The Quality of Science in Participatory Plant Breeding was held at IPGRI's headquarters, in Rome, from 30 September4 October 2002. It resulted from a IPGRI's headquarters, in Rome, from 30 September4 October 2002. It resulted from a key recommendation made by the panel of the Systemwide Review of Plant Breeding key recommendation made by the panel of the Systemwide Review of Plant Breeding Methodologies in the CGIAR (October 2002), which suggested that PPB approaches be Methodologies in the CGIAR (October 2002), which suggested that PPB approaches be considered as among CGIAR's core breeding strategies. considered as among CGIAR's core breeding strategies.  "},{"text":"Participatory Plant Breeding Working Group ( PBG)  Although the meeting was small, with 35 participants, it brought together sorne of the Although the meeting was small, with 35 participants, it brought together sorne of the leading practitioners in PPB within the Future Harvest Centers and 7 representatives leading practitioners in PPB within the Future Harvest Centers and 7 representatives of the genetic resources area in different centers. On recognizing that important of the genetic resources area in different centers. On recognizing that important innovative and creative work in PPB was developing within regional and national innovative and creative work in PPB was developing within regional and national networks, and civil society groups, the workshop also drew expertise from networks, and civil society groups, the workshop also drew expertise from Mesoamerican PPB networks, the South Asían \"Using Agricultura! Diversity\" Mesoamerican PPB networks, the South Asían \"Using Agricultura! Diversity\" Network, SEARICE, CIRAD, FAO, University of California, the DFID-supported plant Network, SEARICE, CIRAD, FAO, University of California, the DFID-supported plant science programs, and the NARS of Brazil, China, Cuba, Malawi, and Solomon science programs, and the NARS of Brazil, China, Cuba, Malawi, and Solomon Islands. Islands. The workshop's overall brief was to assess those critica! advances in the social and The workshop's overall brief was to assess those critica! advances in the social and biological sciences shaping PPB practice, evaluate the breadth of its impact to date, biological sciences shaping PPB practice, evaluate the breadth of its impact to date, and identify key scientific challenges. A multi-institutional organizing committee and identify key scientific challenges. A multi-institutional organizing committee debated long and hard to focus this broad brief into six key topics (Appendix 6). debated long and hard to focus this broad brief into six key topics (Appendix 6). Plenary sessions and subsequent working groups were organized around the Plenary sessions and subsequent working groups were organized around the following issues: what we know, what we don't know, and how we should design R&D following issues: what we know, what we don't know, and how we should design R&D work to m ove a given issue forward. work to m ove a given issue forward.  "},{"text":"2.3.3.3. PPBfeedback on strategy  St..rLion 2 St..rLion 2 PBG representatives p roposed working with other selected representatives to provide PBG representatives p roposed working with other selected representatives to provide feedback from the b roader group membership, using listserv e-mail, on fu ture feedback from the b roader group membership, using listserv e-mail, on fu ture directions and strategies ofboth Program and Working Group. Although all members directions and strategies ofboth Program and Working Group. Although all members are free to structure th eir own consultation process, below are types of questions that are free to structure th eir own consultation process, below are types of questions that may prove useful. These were synthesized from contributions by Bazile, Ceccarelli, may prove useful. These were synthesized from contributions by Bazile, Ceccarelli, Grando, Kimani et al., Lan~on et al., Snapp, Stroud, and consultations with PBG Grando, Kimani et al., Lan~on et al., Snapp, Stroud, and consultations with PBG members (November2002). members (November2002).  "},{"text":"ParHcipator( r-'ltnt Bref!d!na Wotking G oup (PBG)   "},{"text":"t Breeding Worl<ing Group { PBG} Because of its capacity for multidisciplinary research, its focus on poverty eradication, and its experience in animating and sustaining long-term partnerships, the CGIAR is in a unique position to integrate biotechnology and farmer participatory research. 2.4.4 . PPB monograph, no. 4 2.4.4 . PPB monograph, no. 4 Title: Participatory Plant Breeding and Gender Analysis Title: Participatory Plant Breeding and Gender Analysis Authors : Cathy Rozel Farnworth and Janice Jiggins Authors : Cathy Rozel Farnworth and Janice Jiggins • Access to enabling technologies by developing, via negotiation with proprietary •Access to enabling technologies by developing, via negotiation with proprietary  sources, a public biotechnology toolbox or strategic alliances with key public sources, a public biotechnology toolbox or strategic alliances with key public  research institutions. research institutions. • Effective and efficient regulatory systems that are designed to ensure •Effective and efficient regulatory systems that are designed to ensure  responsible use of transgenic biotechnology. They also create costs, often responsible use of transgenic biotechnology. They also create costs, often  "},{"text":"Table 2a .Projects on participatory research and gender analysis that have been funded by the Small Grants Program, together with the due dates of the first and last sets of t echnical reports .       J J      r\"\"\\ e (J'¡ rr.. r\"\"\\ e (J'¡ rr..      ,, \"' ,, \"' S a N ~ l o ~ ~ :? t .... :S )a, 3 ii1 ~ Duration in y e ars (date to date) 2 years ( 1 July 200 1-30 June 2002) 2 years (1 July 2001-30 June 2002) 4 years (March 3 years (1 Jan 2000-31 Dec 2003) 2 years (1 Jan 2002-28 Feb 2004) 1999-April 2003) 1 year ( 1 Jan 2002-30/6/02 Dates (first reporta) 28/2/02 28/2/02 11/6/02 30 June 2002 31 Aug 2002 31 Dec 2002) Agricultural 2 years Reeipient Ll-BIRD ICARDA IPCA CBN IPRA Participatory Development of Farmer-FIDAR Project title Fanner-Led Participatory Maize Breeding in Middle Hills of Nepal lsecond phasel Village-Based Participatory Breeding in the Mountain Slopes of Yemen (second phase) Metodologías Participativas para el The Cassava Biotechnology Network in Latín America: Strategies for Integratin g Small-Scale End Users in Research Agenda Setting, Testing, and Evalu ation Integrated Nutrient Management for Building the Assets of Poor Rural Mejoramiento Genético del Frijol Común [Participatory Methodologies for the Genetic Improuement of Common Beanl Managed in uitro Propagation and Biodiversity Conservation of Cassava (second phase) Study on participatory plant 15 Aug 2000; breeding/biotechnology of sorghum University 15 March 2001 through assessment of farmers' ofNorway Women Proyecto de Mejoramiento Fundación 1 year (March 12/ 5 / 02 Participativo de Papa en Bolivia !Project on Participatory Improuement PROINPA 200 1-July 2002) of Patato in Bolivia] (second phase) Metodologías Participativas para el Mejoramiento Genético del Frijol EAP-1 year ( 1 July Zamorano 2001-30 June 22 / 5 / 02 Común (second phase) 2002) variety development, selection methods, seed systems and management, genetic diversity, and conservation Farme rs' Practice of Domestication and Their Contribution to the IPGRI 3 years ( 1999-2002) 31 / 8 / 99 29/ 2 / 00 Improvement ofYam in West Africa Used in the Colombian Caribe Region Intercropping Production System 31 Oct 2001 Adoption for the Cassava-Maize 30 April 2001; Improving Technologies and Their 31 Oct 2000; Model with a Systems Approach for 1999-30 April 2002 30 April 2000; Developing a Particípatory Research CORPOICA 3 years ( 1 May 31 Oct 1999; Total amount of grant $30,000 ($15,000 authorized on 10/9/01 on signing of LOA) $30,000 ($15,000 authorized on 10/9/01 on signing of LOA) $70,000 (US$35,000 on 1 Nov 2000) $250,000 (grant paid in full after signing of LOA) $8000 ($4000 authorized on 20111/02 on signing of LOA) $33,000 ($20,000 authorized on 14/ 12/01 on signing of LOA) $39,699 ($10,000 advanced on signing of LOA; $7,732 $30,000 ($15,000 authorized on 20/ 11 / 01 on signing of LOA) $22,000 {$10,000 authorized on 271 11 / 01 on signing of LOA) authorized, following proposal approval by PRGA Program; $11,726 authorized on 18/4/02, corresponding to funds that s h ould have been disbursed in 2001) $70,000 ($35,000 authorized on 23 / 3 / 99 on signing of LOA) shortly after 20 April 1999) on signing of LOA on or $78,000 ($26,000 disbursed Dates (last reporta) 30/9/02 30/9/02 28 Feb 2003; 31 Aug 2003 11/12/02 31/12/02 15 Aug 2001; 15 March 2002 Final: 28 Feb 2004 12/ 11 / 02 22/11 / 02 Final reports: 15 Aug 2002; 15 March 2003 ---31 / 8 / 00 28/ 2 / 01 13 / 8 / 02 30 April 2002 1 -e :J -..... -,.. ..... \" tu ,...,.. o -r \"Q -~ --,... IJ'J ., iJ (D ,.. -., •.o '> ..... \"\"C r ~ 1!\"1 1 ~ o e 'O tD ._.¡ C) ., S a N ~ l o ~ ~ :? t .... :S )a, 3 ii1 ~Duration in y e ars (date to date) 2 years ( 1 July 200 1-30 June 2002) 2 years (1 July 2001-30 June 2002) 4 years (March 3 years (1 Jan 2000-31 Dec 2003) 2 years (1 Jan 2002-28 Feb 2004) 1999-April 2003) 1 year ( 1 Jan 2002-30/6/02 Dates (first reporta) 28/2/02 28/2/02 11/6/02 30 June 2002 31 Aug 2002 31 Dec 2002) Agricultural 2 years Reeipient Ll-BIRD ICARDA IPCA CBN IPRA Participatory Development of Farmer-FIDAR Project title Fanner-Led Participatory Maize Breeding in Middle Hills of Nepal lsecond phasel Village-Based Participatory Breeding in the Mountain Slopes of Yemen (second phase) Metodologías Participativas para el The Cassava Biotechnology Network in Latín America: Strategies for Integratin g Small-Scale End Users in Research Agenda Setting, Testing, and Evalu ation Integrated Nutrient Management for Building the Assets of Poor Rural Mejoramiento Genético del Frijol Común [Participatory Methodologies for the Genetic Improuement of Common Beanl Managed in uitro Propagation and Biodiversity Conservation of Cassava (second phase) Study on participatory plant 15 Aug 2000; breeding/biotechnology of sorghum University 15 March 2001 through assessment of farmers' ofNorway Women Proyecto de Mejoramiento Fundación 1 year (March 12/ 5 / 02 Participativo de Papa en Bolivia !Project on Participatory Improuement PROINPA 200 1-July 2002) of Patato in Bolivia] (second phase) Metodologías Participativas para el Mejoramiento Genético del Frijol EAP-1 year ( 1 July Zamorano 2001-30 June 22 / 5 / 02 Común (second phase) 2002) variety development, selection methods, seed systems and management, genetic diversity, and conservation Farme rs' Practice of Domestication and Their Contribution to the IPGRI 3 years ( 1999-2002) 31 / 8 / 99 29/ 2 / 00 Improvement ofYam in West Africa Used in the Colombian Caribe Region Intercropping Production System 31 Oct 2001 Adoption for the Cassava-Maize 30 April 2001; Improving Technologies and Their 31 Oct 2000; Model with a Systems Approach for 1999-30 April 2002 30 April 2000; Developing a Particípatory Research CORPOICA 3 years ( 1 May 31 Oct 1999;Total amount of grant $30,000 ($15,000 authorized on 10/9/01 on signing of LOA) $30,000 ($15,000 authorized on 10/9/01 on signing of LOA) $70,000 (US$35,000 on 1 Nov 2000) $250,000 (grant paid in full after signing of LOA) $8000 ($4000 authorized on 20111/02 on signing of LOA) $33,000 ($20,000 authorized on 14/ 12/01 on signing of LOA) $39,699 ($10,000 advanced on signing of LOA; $7,732 $30,000 ($15,000 authorized on 20/ 11 / 01 on signing of LOA) $22,000 {$10,000 authorized on 271 11 / 01 on signing of LOA) authorized, following proposal approval by PRGA Program; $11,726 authorized on 18/4/02, corresponding to funds that s h ould have been disbursed in 2001) $70,000 ($35,000 authorized on 23 / 3 / 99 on signing of LOA) shortly after 20 April 1999) on signing of LOA on or $78,000 ($26,000 disbursedDates (last reporta) 30/9/02 30/9/02 28 Feb 2003; 31 Aug 2003 11/12/02 31/12/02 15 Aug 2001; 15 March 2002 Final: 28 Feb 2004 12/ 11 / 02 22/11 / 02 Final reports: 15 Aug 2002; 15 March 2003 ---31 / 8 / 00 28/ 2 / 01 13 / 8 / 02 30 April 20021-e :J -..... -,.. ..... \" tu ,...,.. o -r \"Q -~ --,... IJ'J ., iJ (D ,.. -., •.o '> ..... \"\"C r ~ 1!\"1 1 ~ o e 'O tD ._.¡ C) .,  "},{"text":"2.3. Concept paper on PRGA for the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food Several The book is an important product of a workshop co-sponsored by the PRGA Program and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI, UK). It was held at the NRI in Chatham, England, in September 1999. The workshop explored a diversity of experiences in the management of common property and protected areas, natural r esource management at the landscape and watershed levels, soil and water management, and land care and rehabilitation. Emphasis was given to the following key questions: PNRM -wg members colla borated on an overview of participatory research and learning (PR/L) processes and their relevance to watershed management and development. This synthesis draws h eavily on the Group's book, Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation (copublished by Earthscan and IDRC inAugust 2003), and on other key resources. The synthesis will be used as a guide by researchers for formulating proposals and by reviewers for selecting them. 1 t is available online at <h ttp: // giswe b . c iat. cgiar. org 1 wcp 1 download 1 cpwf pr. pdf> • What innovative approaches are being developed for collective participation •What innovative approaches are being developed for collective participation  and decision making in research on NRM problems and processes? and decision making in research on NRM problems and processes? • • Collaborative Adaptive Management What new linkages have been established between farmer-led research initiatives and formally led ones? • Collaborative Planning and Management • • Collaborative Adaptive Management What new linkages have been established between farmer-led research initiatives and formally led ones? • Collaborative Planning and Management • Environmental Monitoring • Completing the book Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelíhoods: Uniting Science and Participation • What methods are proving most useful for participatory research with gender • Integrated Crop Management • Environmental Monitoring • Completing the book Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelíhoods: Uniting Science and Participation • What methods are proving most useful for participatory research with gender • Integrated Crop Management • Consolidating the establishment of the PNRM Resource Center by expanding and stakeholder analysis and for improving the involvement of specific groups • Integrated Pest Management of actors in planning, monitoring, and evaluating NRM research? • Integrated Soil Fertility Management the collection ofPNRM methods, tools, and resources developed by Group The book will be promoted ata workshop to be held during the Millennium Ecosystem • Participatory Action Research members Assessment meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, in March 2004. • Participatory Learning and Change • Consolidating the establishment of the PNRM Resource Center by expanding and stakeholder analysis and for improving the involvement of specific groups • Integrated Pest Management of actors in planning, monitoring, and evaluating NRM research? • Integrated Soil Fertility Management the collection ofPNRM methods, tools, and resources developed by Group The book will be promoted ata workshop to be held during the Millennium Ecosystem • Participatory Action Research members Assessment meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, in March 2004. • Participatory Learning and Change • Developing a synthesis document on Farmer Participatory Research for • Participatory Monitoring and ~valuation • Developing a synthesis document on Farmer Participatory Research for • Participatory Monitoring and ~valuation Integrated Pest Management • Participatory Research Methods Integrated Pest Management • Participatory Research Methods • Policy Development • Policy Development • Quality of Science • Quality of Science • Social Capital • Social Capital • Sustaina ble Development and Environment • Sustaina ble Development and Environment • Sustainabilitylndicators • Sustainabilitylndicators  "},{"text":"4. Synthesis document on farmer PR for integrated pest management In 2001, the PRGA co-funded a study tour and learning workshop on Farmer Participatory Research for Integrated Pest Management {FPR-IPM), together with the CGIAR Systemwide Program on IPM, the Global IPM Facility, CAB International, and SDC. Six innovative integrated pest management projects from Asia, Latin America, and Africa participated in mentored, reciproca!, study-tour exchanges. Each exchange in volved a pair of projects from different geographical regions and employed significantly different methodologies. A learning workshop, involving the study tour participants, their mentors, resource persons, andan array of other IPM projects, was held at the conclusion of the study tours to share and synthesize lessons learned and disseminate them to a wider IPM audience. The resources developed through the study tours and learning workshop were published in a 2-CD set available at <http: 1/wv.rw.prgaprogram.org /natural.htm#fpr-ipm> A small working group is developing a synthesis document, drawing on the studytour case studies and the collective analyses developed at the workshop. The document is addressed to:  "},{"text":"2.1. The lnternational Patato Center (CIP) Principal contact persons: Osear Ortiz (CIP); BarunGurung (PRGA Program)    The Working Group on Participatory Research at CIP was an important catalyst for the establishment of Intra-Center Change Committees. The CIP Working Group received considerable support from leadership, and included members from severa! projects within the Center. Barun Gurung from the PRGA Program first visited in July 2002 to discuss and develop an action plan for collaboration between the Working Group and the PRGA Program for further institutionalization. Based on discussions with the Research Director and key members of the Working Group, an initial institutional assessment was planned.An intem, under the supervision and guidance of the Working Group's Coordinator, was contracted to conduct the survey. Considerable time was spent orienting the intern to the organizational assessment framework. The study began in July 2002, and initial results were presented to CIP management and senior staff. Recently, a first draft was circulated among all Working Group members, and is expected to be finalized inOctober 2003.    The report and action plan for the future institutionalization of PRGA approaches at CIPwill be submitted to the PRGA Program inNovember 2003.     Seftion 4 Mamstrednling Seftion 4 Mamstrednling • Generate horizontal and vertical support for the initiative within the •Generate horizontal and vertical support for the initiative within the  organization through activities such as seminars, workshops, and intemal organization through activities such as seminars, workshops, and intemal  publications publications • Develop and implementan action plan for institutionalization •Develop and implementan action plan for institutionalization • Develop skills, particularly for developing and managing processes for •Develop skills, particularly for developing and managing processes for  organizational change organizational change • Critically review, evaluate, and revise action plans according to context and •Critically review, evaluate, and revise action plans according to context and  lessons generated lessons generated • Network and exchange experiences with, and so leam from, other centers •Network and exchange experiences with, and so leam from, other centers  and/ or partner institutions involved in similar activities and/ or partner institutions involved in similar activities • Analyze, write up, and disseminate experiences through, for example, extemal •Analyze, write up, and disseminate experiences through, for example, extemal  publications, seminars, and workshops publications, seminars, and workshops  "},{"text":" Findings of the PRGA Program demonstrate that end users such as women are brought into the research process at very late stages, usually to evaluate technologies that have already been developed and are ready for dissemination. Consequently, such technologies are often inappropriate for the needs of the poor and women (Annual Report of the PRGA Program, submitted to BMZ  "},{"text":"• Impact ofUser Participation in Natural Resource Management Research Publications based on the PRGA Program's lA research were also produced: • Johnson N; Lilja N; Ashby JA. 2003. Measuring the impact ofuser participation in natural resource management research. Agricultural Systems • Lilja N; Aw-Hassan A. 2003. Benefits and costs of participatory barley breeding. Paper accepted as a poster presentation at the lnternational Agricultural Economics Association meeting, held in Durban, Rep . of South Africa, August 2003. • Lilja N; Erenstein O . 2002. lnstitutional process impacts of participatory rice improvement research and gender analysis in West Africa. Working Document, n o. 20. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. PRGA Stakeholder and Donor Meeting PRGA Stakeholder and Donor Meeting 22 April2002, Bonn 22 April2002, Bonn • Impact ofParticipatory Plant Breeding: An Overview • Impact ofParticipatory Plant Breeding: An Overview \"Quali ty of Science in PPB\" Meeting \"Quali ty of Science in PPB\" Meeting 30 September-4 October 2002, Rome 30 September-4 October 2002, Rome • Benefits and Cos ts o f Decentralized Participatory Barley Breeding at !CARDA, • Benefits and Cos ts o f Decentralized Participatory Barley Breeding at !CARDA, Syria Syria \"Quality of Science in PPB\" Meeting \"Quality of Science in PPB\" Meeting 30 September-4 October 2002, Rome 30 September-4 October 2002, Rome • Impact ofParticipatory Researchand Gender Analysis inPlant Breeding • Impact ofParticipatory Researchand Gender Analysis inPlant Breeding CGIAR Annual General Meeting CGIAR Annual General Meeting 2002, Manila, Philippines 2002, Manila, Philippines • Scaling up and out the Impacto f Farmer Participatory Research • Scaling up and out the Impacto f Farmer Participatory Research CIA T Annual Review CIA T Annual Review December 2002, Cali, Colombia December 2002, Cali, Colombia The presentations listed above are available in PowerPoint format on the PRGA The presentations listed above are available in PowerPoint format on the PRGA Program's Web site. Program's Web site.  "},{"text":" module and materials on the IA of PRGA approaches are developed and taught as a graduate course at the University of Florida in June 2003 • The Program's lA Web si te offers a wide range of resources on methods for lA of participatory and gender analysis research, as well as empirical studies • Workshop on lA methods is planned and organized for mid-2004 Impact assessment for learning and change is integrated into two proposals for the Challenge Program on Water and Food (one by the PRGA Program and the other by ICARDA), and the Program's Gender in Africa Initiative • Three new impact case studies are conducted by: • Three new impact case studies are conducted by: IPRA (CIA T); a study on CIALs in Colombia, cofinanced by IPRA and the IPRA (CIA T); a study on CIALs in Colombia, cofinanced by IPRA and the PRGA Program PRGA Program CIAT-Asia; a cassava-based NRM study in Vietnam and Thailanda CIAT-Asia; a cassava-based NRM study in Vietnam and Thailanda fundingproposal was submitted to and accepted by SPIA fundingproposal was submitted to and accepted by SPIA CIMMYT; a study on the development of participatory methods at CIMMYT; a study on the development of participatory methods at CIMMYT, cofinanced by CIMMYT and the PRGA Program CIMMYT, cofinanced by CIMMYT and the PRGA Program • Impact assessment research results are synthesized in PowerPoint • Impact assessment research results are synthesized in PowerPoint presentations and working documents andjor journal articles. These are presentations and working documents andjor journal articles. These are disseminated to stakeholders at the international meetings. The following disseminated to stakeholders at the international meetings. The following presentations are planned: presentations are planned: FARA meeting, 19-20 May 2003, Dakar, Senegal FARA meeting, 19-20 May 2003, Dakar, Senegal PRGA Stakeholders Meeting, 30 June 1 July 2003, Cali, Colombia PRGA Stakeholders Meeting, 30 June 1 July 2003, Cali, Colombia International Agricultura! Economics Association Annual meeting, 18- International Agricultura! Economics Association Annual meeting, 18- 22August2003, Durban, Rep. ofSouthAfrica 22August2003, Durban, Rep. ofSouthAfrica • A course • A course  "},{"text":"The PRGA Program's Liaison Contacts in the CGIAR Centers The PRGA Program's center liaison officers are persons appointed by the Director General of each CGIAR center (Box 78). Their role is to disseminate information, research results, and small grant opportunities frorn the PRGA Program to other CGIAR scientists and research partners.  Box7B Box7B The PRGA Program's liaison contacts in The PRGA Program's liaison contacts in  other CGIAR centers other CGIAR centers CGIAR center Liaison om.cer CGIAR centerLiaison om.cer IFPRI Ruth Meinzen-Dick IFPRIRuth Meinzen-Dick liTA Nicoline de Haan liTANicoline de Haan !CARDA Aden Aw-Hassan !CARDAAden Aw-Hassan IRRI Thelrna Paris IRRIThelrna Paris CIMMYT Mauricio Bellón CIMMYTMauricio Bellón WARDA Howard Gridley WARDAHoward Gridley IPGRI Pablo Eyzaguirre IPGRIPablo Eyzaguirre ICRAF Steve Franzel; Ann Stroud (AHI) ICRAFSteve Franzel; Ann Stroud (AHI) IWMI Barbara van Koppen IWMIBarbara van Koppen CIAT Matthew Blair CIATMatthew Blair CIFOR Cynthia McDougall CIFORCynthia McDougall CIP Osear Ortiz CIPOsear Ortiz ICLARM Mahfuzuddin Ahmed ICLARMMahfuzuddin Ahmed ICRISAT Eva Weltzien ICRISATEva Weltzien ILRI Mohamed Jabbar ILRIMohamed Jabbar • Geilfus F. 1997. 80 herramientas para el desarrollo participativo: diagnóstico, ISNAR Helen Hambly • Geilfus F. 1997. 80 herramientas para el desarrollo participativo: diagnóstico, ISNAR Helen Hambly planificación, monitoreo, evaluación. PROCHALATE-IICA, San Salvador, El planificación, monitoreo, evaluación. PROCHALATE-IICA, San Salvador, El Salvador. 208 p .  Salvador. 208 p . • Lilja N; Ashby JA; Sperling L, eds. 2000. Proc. seminar on \"Assessing the • Lilja N; Ashby JA; Sperling L, eds. 2000. Proc. seminar on \"Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis\", held September 1998, in Impact of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis\", held September 1998, in Quito, Ecuador. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. 287 p. Quito, Ecuador. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. 287 p. • Sanginga P; Lilja N; Gurung B, eds. 2002. Assessing the benefits of rural • Sanginga P; Lilja N; Gurung B, eds. 2002. Assessing the benefits of rural women's participation in natural resource management. Proc. workshop on women's participation in natural resource management. Proc. workshop on \"Natural Resource Management (NRM) Small Grants End-of-Project\", held 13-17 \"Natural Resource Management (NRM) Small Grants End-of-Project\", held 13-17 November2001 , in Cali, Colombia. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia. November2001 , in Cali, Colombia. PRGA Program, Cali, Colombia.  "},{"text":"\\ppendices rerall Output 111: Action research partnerships formed to institutionalize PR&GA with co re p oup of IARCS and NARS Ln\"&tive summary Measurable indicato rs Mea na o f verificatio n lmportant assum ptions -,ed.fic outputs: Methods workshops held for • Workshop summary reports •Centers and NARS    Lppendix 2 Budget Allocations for 2 003 !Opportunities and • Action research undertaken • Program's publications, constraints identified for with 8 IARCs or partner journal articles mainstreaming PRGA PRGA Budget Allocations, 2003 institutions, and studies • Collaborators' reports and approaches into published publications agricultura! research • 5 interna! working groups institutions, and s trategies formed to s pearhead developed to institutionalize organizational c hange and these approaches respective institutions • Mentoring and capacity mainstream PRGA in their We b site • Annual report and Program's 1-lmpact • Partner institutions willing and interested in engaging in action research for supporting action interested in • Funding partners change and organizational mainstreaming PRGA Lppendix 2 Budget Allocations for 2 003 !Opportunities and • Action research undertaken • Program's publications, constraints identified for with 8 IARCs or partner journal articles mainstreaming PRGA PRGA Budget Allocations, 2003 institutions, and studies • Collaborators' reports and approaches into published publications agricultura! research • 5 interna! working groups institutions, and s trategies formed to s pearhead developed to institutionalize organizational c hange and these approaches respective institutions • Mentoring and capacity mainstream PRGA in their We b site • Annual report and Program's 1-lmpact• Partner institutions willing and interested in engaging in action research for supporting action interested in • Funding partners change and organizational mainstreaming PRGA  building provided to partner  research and capacity building provided to partnerresearch and capacity  institutions to guide and   building institutions to guide andbuilding  lend support to the mainstreaming process  2 -Mainstreaming lend support to the mainstreaming process2 -Mainstreaming Partnerships formed with organizations that en able the PRGA Program to have a major impact on: (a) • Robust partners hips are formed with Challenge Programs, regional n etworks, and prominent • Collaborators' reports • Annual report and Program's 3-Web site Communication • Potential partner institutions are willing and interested in collaborating with the Partnerships formed with organizations that en able the PRGA Program to have a major impact on: (a)• Robust partners hips are formed with Challenge Programs, regional n etworks, and prominent• Collaborators' reports • Annual report and Program's 3-Web site Communication• Potential partner institutions are willing and interested in collaborating with the integrating PRGA into n ational partners that have,  PRGA Program integrating PRGA inton ational partners that have,PRGA Program agricultura! research practice, and (b) enhancing methods and a pproaches particularly rural women livelihoods of the very poor, that help improve the or ha ve the potential to • The n a ture of collaboration takes the form of either (1) exploiting synergies in on the rural poor have, considera ble impact 5  • With support from the different partners collabora ting with interested in groups are willing and Program, working agricultura! research practice, and (b) enhancing methods and a pproaches particularly rural women livelihoods of the very poor, that help improve theor ha ve the potential to • The n a ture of collaboration takes the form of either (1) exploiting synergies in on the rural poor have, considera ble impact5• With support from the different partners collabora ting with interested in groups are willing and Program, working objectives, (2) taking opportunities to Project considerably expand the integr ation or improve the quality of the PRGA practiced, or (3) Impact assessment Title Mainstreamirlg and institutional'n Pe rsonnel Nina Lilja, impact studies Barun Gurung • Funding partners interested in Amount supporting fruitful (US$) engagem ent with p artners 163,000 144,000 objectives, (2) taking opportunities to Project considerably expand the integr ation or improve the quality of the PRGA practiced, or (3) Impact assessment Title Mainstreamirlg and institutional'nPe rsonnel Nina Lilja, impact studies Barun Gurung• Funding partners interested in Amount supporting fruitful (US$) engagem ent with p artners 163,000 144,000 incorpora ting PRGA Communications and outreach Communications Officer 40,000 incorpora ting PRGA Communications and outreachCommunications Officer40,000  approaches where they Y2 Ann Braun  approaches where theyY2 Ann Braun • Collaborative action research conduc ted with at leas t 5 partners to develop, test, and assess methods for (a) improving information resulting from lA (product and process impacts), (b) identifying lA objectives and • Annual reports, • Published studies on lA tools • Partner in stitutions and methods, and interested and willing assessments of their to participate in action effectiveness in improving research the usefulness of lA and • Funding partners stimulating organizational interested in learning and change supporting these initiatives tools to achieve them, and collaborators' reports, (e) assessing the Program's Web s ite would otherwise be absent developed and disseminated to enable scientists to capture impact of products and processes, and integrate learning from !A into research planning and adaptation (learning and c hange) ILRI-PRGA Program,J>articipatory Y:l R~ph Roothaert 47,500 or weakly applied research/Foráges \"' • • PBG a nd PNRM-wg are Non-project staff Project Manager 155,700 engaged in the partnership Y2 Louise Sperling process, as reflected in their Administrative Assistant work plans Y2 driver Capacity of IARC and NARS • scientists to use \"best PR, GA, and lA, training a • Manuals produced from PNRM-wg Facilitator 40,000 interested in and practicen for PR, GA, and mínimum of 80 trainers in a workshop outcomes PBG 15,000 contributing budget lA, and organizational variety of \"best practicen Annual report and Program's and human resources development methods is approaches; and follow-up Challenge programs 10,000. • to participate in considerably strengthened support extended to trainers Stakeholder and Advisory Board 55,000 Web s ite workshops and to host through training of trainers to enable them to provide meetings • Collaborators' reports local follow-up Other meetings (e.g., AGM, CIAT AM) 19,000 contribution of lA to organizational leaming and change • Studies and guidelines are widely disseminated to JARCs, NARS, and NGOs • Ca pacity development through training, training a nd technical training Publications production and 29,000 support to scientists in their dissemination institutes Support to partners (small grants, 85,642_. • Manuals produced on \"best PBA impact studies, EMBRAPA) practicen in PR, GA and lA, Supplies and operations 20,000 based on workshop outcomes lndirect costs 132,000 . • Collaborative action research conduc ted with at leas t 5 partners to develop, test, and assess methods for (a) improving information resulting from lA (product and process impacts), (b) identifying lA objectives and • Annual reports, • Published studies on lA tools • Partner in stitutions and methods, and interested and willing assessments of their to participate in action effectiveness in improving research the usefulness of lA and • Funding partners stimulating organizational interested in learning and change supporting these initiatives tools to achieve them, and collaborators' reports, (e) assessing the Program's Web s ite would otherwise be absent developed and disseminated to enable scientists to capture impact of products and processes, and integrate learning from !A into research planning and adaptation (learning and c hange) ILRI-PRGA Program,J>articipatory Y:l R~ph Roothaert 47,500 or weakly applied research/Foráges \"' • • PBG a nd PNRM-wg are Non-project staff Project Manager 155,700 engaged in the partnership Y2 Louise Sperling process, as reflected in their Administrative Assistant work plans Y2 driver Capacity of IARC and NARS • scientists to use \"best PR, GA, and lA, training a • Manuals produced from PNRM-wg Facilitator 40,000 interested in and practicen for PR, GA, and mínimum of 80 trainers in a workshop outcomes PBG 15,000 contributing budget lA, and organizational variety of \"best practicen Annual report and Program's and human resources development methods is approaches; and follow-up Challenge programs 10,000. • to participate in considerably strengthened support extended to trainers Stakeholder and Advisory Board 55,000 Web s ite workshops and to host through training of trainers to enable them to provide meetings • Collaborators' reports local follow-up Other meetings (e.g., AGM, CIAT AM) 19,000 contribution of lA to organizational leaming and change • Studies and guidelines are widely disseminated to JARCs, NARS, and NGOs • Ca pacity development through training, training a nd technical training Publications production and 29,000 support to scientists in their dissemination institutes Support to partners (small grants, 85,642_. • Manuals produced on \"best PBA impact studies, EMBRAPA) practicen in PR, GA and lA, Supplies and operations 20,000 based on workshop outcomes lndirect costs 132,000 .  consultancies, and learning workshops Total consultancies, and learning workshopsTotal  "},{"text":"PRGA Program Anual Report 2003 99 Example of a Letter of Agreement (LOA) on a Plant Breeding Small Gran ts Fund •Synthesize lessons about what works with PRGA methodology and what does not, as derived from comparative analyses • Convene annual regional or intemational seminars, workshops, or other training, as needed, in methods for effective PR, GA, and lA •Publish research results in PRGA Program publications Contribute expertise to seminars or workshops organized at the Small-Grant Program headquarters am pleased to inform you that a grant of US$ (amount in numbers) (amount in words) to the (recipient institution, country) has been approved by the Plant Breeding Small Grants Fund ofthe CGIAR systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (hereafter PRGA Program), convened by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (hereafter CIAT). The PRGA Program is sponsored by ACIAR (Australia); IDRC (Canada); and the governments of Denmark, Germany, Italy, J a pan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland.This grant is subject to the availability of funds from our sponsors and the conditions stated below: Date Date Name and address ofrecipient Name and address ofrecipient Dear .. . Dear .. . l. l.  "},{"text":" The grant is intended to cover expenditures shown in the proposal submitted to the PRGA Program and summarized in the table below (values are in USD): Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 1Year 2Year 3 Supplies   Supplies Services   Services Travel   Travel Total   Total  "},{"text":" The full workshop proceedings is available on the PRGA Program and SGRPWeb sites <www.prgaprogram.org> and <www.sgrp.cgiar.org> Appendices Appendices Organizing Committee Organizing Committee The workshop's Organizing Committee selected the most compelling \"key themes\", The workshop's Organizing Committee selected the most compelling \"key themes\", screened abstracts, and finalized the workshop's program. Committee members screened abstracts, and finalized the workshop's program. Committee members were: were: ASHBY,Jacqueline,CIAT/PRGAProgram ASHBY,Jacqueline,CIAT/PRGAProgram ATLIN, Gary, IRRI ATLIN, Gary, IRRI CECCARELLI, Salvatore, !CARDA CECCARELLI, Salvatore, !CARDA GONc;ALVEZ, WaniaFukudaMaria, EMBRAPA GONc;ALVEZ, WaniaFukudaMaria, EMBRAPA GURUNG, Barun, CIAT /PRGA Program GURUNG, Barun, CIAT /PRGA Program HARRINGTON, Larry, CIMMYT HARRINGTON, Larry, CIMMYT JIGGINS, Janice, independent JIGGINS, Janice, independent LANCON, Jacques, CIRAD LANCON, Jacques, CIRAD ORTIZ, Rodomiro, liTA ORTIZ, Rodomiro, liTA SPERLING, Louise, CIAT /PRGA Program SPERLING, Louise, CIAT /PRGA Program STHAPIT, Bhuwon, IPGRI STHAPIT, Bhuwon, IPGRI TOLL, Jane, IPGRI/ SGRP TOLL, Jane, IPGRI/ SGRP VERNOOY, Ronnie, IDRC (advisor) VERNOOY, Ronnie, IDRC (advisor) WELTZIEN-RATTUNDE, Eva, ICRISAT WELTZIEN-RATTUNDE, Eva, ICRISAT  "},{"text":"dices The Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Easte m and Central Africa (ASARECA) is Selection and Strategic Use ofMultipurpose Forages in Hillsides of Central America 9. Focus on Integrating Methods and Approaches to Increase Gender / Stakeholder Involvement, Collaborative Management of Natural Resource Management, and Decision-making Su pport 10. Farmer Participatory Experiments in Pest Management 11. Farmers' Ability to Manage a Devastating Plant Disease Po tato Late Blight 12. Developing and Implementing an Innovative Community Approach to the Control ofBacterial Wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum) ofPotatoes (Solanum tuberosum) 13. Participatory Management of Kapuwai's Wetland (Pallisa District, Uganda): A Clear Need and Sorne Steps Towards Fulfilling It 14. Participatory Research at the Landscape Level: The Kumbhan WaterTrough Case 15. Participatory research at landscape level: flood-prone ecosystems in Bangladesh andVietnam 16. Water Management, Agricultural Development and Poverty Eradication in the Former Homelands ofSouth Africa 17. Innovation in Irrigation Workingin a \"Participation Complex\" 18. Methods Used to Address Resource Issues in Integrated Watershed Management in Nepalese Watersheds 19. A Comparison ofFarmer Participatory Research Methods 20. Soil and Water Conservaban Historical and Geographical Perspectives on Partici pation 21. Improving Farmers' Risk Management Strategies for Resource-poor and Drought-prone Farming Systems in Southern Africa 22. Participatory Mapping, Analysis and Monitoring of the Natural Resource Base in Small Watersheds: Insights from Nicaragua 23. Observations on the Use oflnformation Tools in Participatory Contexts: Access to Information and Empowerment a non-political organization of the national agricultural research institutes (NARis) of 10 countries: Burundi, D. R. Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. It aims at increasing the efficiency of agricultura} research in the region to facilitate economic growth, food security, and export competitiveness through productive and sustainable agriculture. .ppendices  .ppendices • • • • • Active participation and interaction Table discussions Enoughfun Organization of the workshop Positive attitude of participants • • • • •Active participation and interaction Table discussions Enoughfun Organization of the workshop Positive attitude of participants Question 5:  Question 5: What 1 did not like about this workshop is ... What 1 did not like about this workshop is ... • Project planning too much research driven •Project planning too much research driven • Not enough farmer participation •Not enough farmer participation • Pre-empted focus  •Pre-empted focus • In not careful, we can derail the ~hole projec t •In not careful, we can derail the ~hole projec t • Many hidden agendas •Many hidden agendas • Sorne break-out groups were too large •Sorne break-out groups were too large • Poor representation of stakeholders •Poor representation of stakeholders ~ppendix 10  ~ppendix 10 Member List of the Gender Analysis Working Group Member List of the Gender Analysis Working Group  N ame Institution E-mail address N ameInstitutionE-mail address  DI GREGORIO, Monica IFPRI m .digregorio@cgiar .org DI GREGORIO, MonicaIFPRIm .digregorio@cgiar .org  FORERO, Claudia ISNAR e .forero@cgiar. org FORERO, ClaudiaISNARe .forero@cgiar. org  GURUNG,Chanda CIMMYT chanda_gurung@yahoo.com GURUNG,ChandaCIMMYTchanda_gurung@yahoo.com  LAWRENCE, Wendy CIDA wendy _lawrence@acdi-cida.ge. ca LAWRENCE, WendyCIDAwendy _lawrence@acdi-cida.ge. ca  PARIS, Thelma IRRI t. paris@cgiar .org PARIS, ThelmaIRRIt. paris@cgiar .org SANTOS, Rowena Bing Authors and editors (*): SNAPP, Sieglinde ICLARM Mich. State Univ. b. santos@cgiar. org snapp@msu.edu SANTOS, Rowena Bing Authors and editors (*): SNAPP, SieglindeICLARM Mich. State Univ.b. santos@cgiar. org snapp@msu.edu  STROUD, Ann ICRAF A. Stroud@cgiar. org STROUD, AnnICRAFA. Stroud@cgiar. org  VAN KOPPEN, Barbara IWMI b. vankoppen@cgiar. org VAN KOPPEN, BarbaraIWMIb. vankoppen@cgiar. org  ASHBY,Jacqueline ROCHELEAU, Diane ASHBY,JacquelineROCHELEAU, Diane  BRAUN, Ann* SNAPP, Sieglinde* BRAUN, Ann*SNAPP, Sieglinde*  HEONG, K. L . HEONG, K. L .  MARTIN, Adrienne MARTIN, Adrienne  McDOUGALL, Cynthia* McDOUGALL, Cynthia*  POUND, Barry* POUND, Barry*  "},{"text":"Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (CORAF)  was created in 1987 by the national agricultura} research systems (NARS) of West and Central Africa, Madagascar, and the French ARis (CIRAD, IRD, and INRA). CORAF's objective is to reinforce regional scientific cooperation of its member countries without substituting for national agricultura} research capabilities. The following countries constitute its membership: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, D. R.Congo,  Rep. of Congo, Cóte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,  Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.     The The  "},{"text":"Southem African Centre for Co-operation in Agricultural a nd Na tura l Resources Research and Training (SACCAR). Established in 1984, SACCAR has the objective of strengthening the NARS in member countries so they may generate, disseminate, and promote new technology through inter-country liaison and regional collaborative projects. Other objectives relate to promoting the dissemination of scientific information, and to promote, through training, human resources development, thus strengthening the capacity of research and training institutions. Member countries are Angola, Botswana, Lesoth o, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.  "},{"text":"The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA}, an apex body recently created by the SROs, is spearh eading the development of a pre-proposal for a CGIAR Challenge Program on Improving Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management in sub-Saharan Africa. This Ch allenge Program will be concerned with the way people use natural resources to sup port livelih oods and will add ress the most fundamental constraint to African agriculturepoor soil fertilityby applying a new paradigm for integrated natural resource management (INRM), and by applying it with all partners committed to jointly iden tifying and resolving problems with the full participation of the ben eficiaries. lt will employ a new m ode of competitive funding that will enable the formation of new partnership s of NARES, the CGIAR centers, ARis, NGOs, farmer organizations, and prívate enterprise, to address problems by means of targeted and tim e-bound research projects with clear objectives and deliverables. The The  "},{"text":"CGIAR and Africa's new vis ion for agricultura! research and development Multi-country Agricultural Productivity Program for Africa (MAPP ). A pillar of the NEPAD frarnework is the systematic application of agricultura} science and technology to enhance African agricultura} productivity and competitiveness. A comprehensive program to achieve this goal was developed by F ARA and endorsed by NEPAD. To contribute toward implementing the FARA program, the World Bank has formulated a Multi-Country Agricultural Productivity Program (MAPP) for Africa. This proposal has important implications for CGIAR, which is seen as contributing further to the enhancement oftechnology generation and transfer in Africa.Afrl.can Highland Initiative (AHI).AHI's research focuses on key NRM and agricultura} productivity issues in the intensively cultivated highlands of eastern and central Africa. Concemed NARis, IARCs, and various NGOs are collaborating to improve R&D approaches and set up partnerships to develop and institutionalize effective and efficient approaches for sustainable INRM and enhanced productivity. The AHI was started by ASARECA in 1995 and is now hosted by ICRAF. The Initiative is promoting integrated, interinstitutional, R&D efforts with strong community participation to solve critica! issues of soil productivity, water, and land use. AHI's mandate and role in the ASARECA portfolio is to develop, promote, and use an INRM approach for improving development strategies, practices, and policies. The CGIAR Systemwide Initiative on Malaria and Agriculture(SIMA)  brings together malaria research, agricultura} research, and targeted communities to find solutions to the malaria problem. Five specific outputs have been formulated for SIMA. These are providing a knowledge base, building capacity, developing interventions, increasing awareness, and building an international malaria network.  "},{"text":"• Preferential cr edit? Ethnic and indigenous firms vie for equal access • Choosin g better technology: does social capital help? • Networking for success and survival in Ghana: does size matter? • Unequal access to social capital? Evidence from Tanzania • Sites for Sore Eyes: Online Sources on Social Capital  "},{"text":"Manaaki Whenua New Zealand Also • BLDS: online catalog of Eu rope's largest library on international development • BRIDGE: information and analysis service on development and gender • ELDIS: the gateway to development information • GDN: th e Global Development Network links local development research and policy development organizations Keysheets for Sustainable Livelihoods Keysheets provides decision makers with a short, easy, and up-to-date reference on issues relating to sustainable livelihoods and infrastructure development for the poor. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) produces Keysheets for DFID and the Netherlands Ministry ofForeign Affairs. known as \"Collaborative Learning for Environmental Management\", this Web site records social research on improving the quality of environmental management decision making. Landcare Research/ Landcare Research/  "},{"text":"Local Livestock For Empowerment ofRural People This movement supports rural communities through the conservation and development oftheir indigenous livestock breeds and species. Previously known as the East African Institute of Social Research, MISR was established in 1948 and mandated to carry out anthropological and other forms of social research. MISR is now an autonomous institute of Makerere University. It condu cts and coordinates basic and applied research ; provides consultancy services to prívate, public, and NGO sectors; undertakes global networking with related institutions; develops and maintains a regional data bank and disseminate s information. Over the years, MISR has built a reputation for attracting local and international scholars, and for its interdisciplinary work, both conducted and published under its auspices.• Objectives, including concepts and approaches • Training activi ti es, which focus mainly on developing materials and curriculums, and capacity building • Activities for developing national and regional support programs, projects, and other focal points of research in eastern and southem Africa • Dissemination of documents, including background information, guidelines, and training materials that can be downloaded Sustainable Development lssues N etwork for 2002 A collaborative effort among civil society networks and nongovemmental issue caucuses that aim to improve communications and access to information on sustainable development issues. In particular, the initiative aims to improve communications among NGOs engaging in the World Summit on Sustainable Development.  "},{"text":"Perspectives With Agricultura! Research and Development (UPWARD) An activity of the UK Food Group to bring together public-interest UK organizations concemed with the equitable use of agricultural biodiversity for local food and livelih ood security. lssues of interest include sustainable use, conservation, benefit sharing, trade, patents, intellectual property, biopiracy, biotechnology, genetic eagineering, and biosafety. This network of scientists and development specialists works to increase participation by farmers and other users of agricultura! technology in research and development (R&D). Launched in 1989, under the sponsorship of the International Potato Center (CIP), UPWARD seeks to address three important challenges facing agricultura! R&D today: linking users and R&D professionals for more effective agricultura! innovation; bringing sustained benefits to less-favored farming areas and marginalized groups, especially women; and working with households and local communities as key actors in problem diagnosis and research activities.What Works in Youth ParticipationCase Studies from Around the World is the most recent publication to be released as part ofthe \"What Works in Youth Development\" series published by the lnternational Youth Foundation. The document examines the challenges and benefits of engaging young people in meaningful ways in society. FFS farmerfield schools (ofFAO) FFS farmerfield schools (ofFAO) FRCs farmer research committees FRCsfarmer research committees GA gender analysis GAgender analysis GO government organization GOgovernment organization GRO government regional office GROgovernment regional office HIV/AIDS human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immunodeficiency HIV/AIDShuman immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immunodeficiency  syndrome syndrome lA im pact analysis lAim pact analysis IARCs international agricultura! research centers IARCsinternational agricultura! research centers • ICER •re M internally commissioned externa! review integrated crop management • ICER •re Minternally commissioned externa! review integrated crop management ILAC institutionallearning and change ILACinstitutionallearning and change INRM integrated natural resources management INRMintegrated natural resources management IPM integrated pest management IPMintegrated pest management IPR intellectual property rights IPRintellectual property rights LOA letter of agreement LOAletter of agreement M&E monitoring and evaluation M&Emonitoring and evaluation NARES national agricultura! research and extension systems NARESnational agricultura! research and extension systems NARis national agricultura! research institutes NARisnational agricultura! research institutes NARS national agricultura! research system NARSnational agricultura! research system NGOs nongovernmen tal organizations NGOsnongovernmen tal organizations NRM natural resource management NRMnatural resource management NSSDs national strategies for sustainable development NSSDsnational strategies for sustainable development PB plant breeding PBplant breeding PGR plant genetic resources PGRplant genetic resources PM&E participatory monitoring and evaluation PM&Eparticipatory monitoring and evaluation PPB participatory plant breeding PPBparticipatory plant breeding PNRM participatory natural resource managei:nent PNRMparticipatory natural resource managei:nent PR participatory research PRparticipatory research PRGA participatory research and gender analysis PRGAparticipatory research and gender analysis PR/L participatory research and learning PR/Lparticipatory research and learning PVS participatory variety selection PVSparticipatory variety selection R&D research and development R&Dresearch and development S/GA social and gender analysis S/GAsocial and gender analysis SP systemwide program ofthe CGIAR SPsystemwide program ofthe CGIAR S ROs subregional organizations S ROssubregional organizations SSA sub-Saharan Africa SSAsub-Saharan Africa TORs terms of reference TORsterms of reference wg working group wgworking group  "}],"sieverID":"f6f6b7bd-b8f6-47d2-a180-96439d83cee3","abstract":"Section 1: Program Overview l. l. Background 1.2. Strategies 1.3 . Five-Year Synthesis Report l. 4. Program Organization Section 1 Program Overview 1.1 . BackgroundIn 1997, the CGIAR created the PRGA Program, that is, the systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation. The Program's objective was to assess and develop methodologies and organizational innovations for gender-sensitive participatory research, and to operationalize their use in plant breeding, and crop and natural resource management. The idea and plan for the Program were the result of a seminar held in 1996 among a group of 50 research and development professionals representing a range of different types of institutions and the world's major regions. All were highly experienced in participatory research and gender analysis (PRGA), gathering together to address the priority issues and challenges in the field. Although much had already been achieved through on-farm adaptive research by the time this meeting took place, there was a perception that the impact of user participation in agricultura} researchwhether as researchers, decision makers, and priority setterscould be more profound and durable.Focusing on the need to stimulate the inclusion of a user perspective, particularly that of women, in pre-adaptive research, the participants of the planning meeting determined that an urgent need existed to \"strengthen, consolidate, and mainstream gender analysis and participatory research in a high-priority, high-visibility program that recognizes farmer participation as an important strategic research issue\". The idea was to pool resources and knowledge within the CGIAR system to accelerate the development of new methodological tools, capacities, and institutional strategies for participatory research (PR)."}