Resources

This paper describes how Community-Based Animal Health Worker (CAHW) programmes can be strengthened by linkages with veterinary specialists. Case studies are presented from southern Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania, discussing how CAHW programmes and researchers can benefit from working together using participatory research approaches. The strengths of using CAHWs for research were that researchers could address local problems with local people; CAHWs are key informants with a good understanding of disease, are willing to work in remote areas, and are close to animals to take samples and provide treatments. The limitations of using CAHWs for research are that more time is required to arrange research; researchers need to be adaptive to constraints in more inaccessible areas; and CAHWs may be bias and/or influenced by powerful elders or leaders.

This paper looks at a new PRA tool called the Innovation Tree which has helped people to visualise and analyse the way in which an innovation is spread over time between community members. It is found to be an interesting tool that distinguishes between innovators and adopters, as well as helping outsiders and the community understand some of the social and psychological dimensions that influence the adoption of an innovation. The Innovation Tree also enables investigation into how different personalities play different roles in promoting the technology to their colleagues, which is of direct relevance for developing farmer-to-farmer extension activities. The 'type one' innovator can inspire a wide range of people from different levels within a community and has a modest, mild and inquiring manner. The 'type two' innovator enthuses fewer and mainly like-minded people within the community. These innovators are more eager to go outside the community to promote the technology, rather than engage in educational activities.

This article considers the Sustainable Development Observatories of Manizales, Colombia, as an example of shared management and citizen participation in local sustainable development. The success has been due to the active participation of the city municipality, university, trade unions, institutions, NGOs and community organisations. The purpose of the observatories is to support local urban governance by updating economic, social, and environmental indicators which are formulated by citizens and technical staff. This provides communities with easily accessible information about the municipality. The paper discusses in detail the objectives of the project, various aspects relating to its function, and challenges to its operation.

This article considers the development of a series of tools developed in the Philippines and Namibia to improve the quality of agricultural extension advice at the level of individual farmers, farmer groups, and cooperatives. The tools allow these actors to build a local market picture which can be used for interaction between service providers, and act as a starting point for a more in-depth consideration of marketing and business plans and strategies.|The rationale for why it is necessary to understand the immediate marketing environment is discussed, and tools are presented which assist this process.

This chapter presents an introduction to Prajateerpu - a citizens' jury/scenario workshop on food and farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. It was a six-day exercise in deliberative democracy involving marginal-livelihood citizens from three regions of the state, which took place in 2001. Prajateerpu was devised as a means of allowing those people most affected by the government's Vision 2020 for food and farming to shape a vision of their own. It aimed to link local voices and visions of food and farming futures with national and international policy making, and introduce innovative elements such as an oversight panel, video scenario presentations, and witnesses, with the aim of ensuring a balanced deliberative process.

This article presents a number of contributions from an e-forum debate on issues of evidence, legitimacy and authenticity in Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes which grew out of a citizen jury and scenario workshop in southern India. It is based around the question: how can we ensure that citizen jury processes are fair and unbiased so that their 'verdicts' are accepted as trustworthy by all relevant actors?

This article presents a number of contributions from an e-forum debate on issues of accountability and transparency in Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes which grew out of a citizen jury and scenario workshop in southern India. It is based around the questions:|Who decides to whom and for whom citizen jury processes are accountable?|How can such participatory processes by used to hold government departments, donor agencies, and other actors more accountable, and make policies and policy processes more responsive to the needs and priorities of poor people?