Resources

The Farming Systems Development Project in Eastern Visayas, Philippines, produced useful results at an extremely low rate. This was judged an inefficient use of research resources. Rather than make assumptions about existing conditions, the researchers returned to first principles and asked what is the farmer problem and what resources are available to solve them? Proceeding along this line of questioning was not easy, as new research techniques had to be developed to provide accurate answers. A systems approach was developed , and having understood the problem, logic and farming systems research principles provided a clear path through design that elicited farmer hypotheses and testing by farmers themselves. These processes are described in this paper. The background and an overview of project activities are provided, with examples to highlight the processes involved. Two key lessons summarise the experience: (i) it is important to listen to the farmers; (ii) farmer participation does not mean asking farmers to approve researchers' experiments, but eliciting their experiments and designs.

This paper has three aims: to outline main methods for quantifying and ranking data, to encourage the reader to adapt and invent other methods, and to provide information on where more can be found out. It begins by discussing the uses of quantified information in participatory approaches. Quantifying methods outlined include verbal estimates, manual counting methods, counters and sticks, pie diagrams, and trend diagrams. Ranking methods include verbal, direct physical ranking, pairwise ranking, direct matrix ranking and ranking by weighting. Each method is described briefly and examples of its use given. A section discusses Do's and Don'ts. The paper ends with a list of sources on quantifying and ranking.

This note discusses key aspects of PRA's relating to the extent or nature of people's participation. It discusses the following: protocols to establish relationships and legitimacy, village camping as a way of breaking down barriers, ice breakers, the 1:1 ratio (at least as many villagers included as outsiders), friendly enquiry rather than lecturing, and starting on the right note (mapping and time lines generate interest and enthusiasm). It ends with a list of Do's and Don'ts.

This document reports on an RRA conducted in the Upper Mille and Cheleka catchments development project in Wollo province, Ethiopia. Its goals were (i) to test the applicability of RRA to the work of the Ethiopian Red Cross Society, and (ii) to analyse two peasant associations and suggest possible innovations to benefit their members. This introduction outlines a form of RRA known as agroecosystem analysis (AEA). Its methods and procedure of implementation are described: sub-groups examined diversification in space through mapping, transects, and analysing home gardens, and diversification in time through seasonal calendars. A second section examines the importance of diversification for security, improvement of production and purchasing power, and to act as a catalyst for overall development. The results of the RRA's in two peasant associations comprise the bulk of the report. For each, key issues are identified (e.g. land use, water resources, livestock, crops, health, forest resources), and strategies for diversification are examined (e.g. irrigation, land use patterns, revegetation, experimenting with new crops, clean water supply, development of home gardens, reforestation, credit etc.). The report ends with comments on the use of RRA in development planning and the role of RRA in developing management concepts and process in peasant associations.

This reviews a workshop held in Java, Indonesia, on programme planning using PRA, hosted by two NGO's, Yayasan Mitra Tani and World Education. The purpose of the workshop was to focus on planning aspects of PRA applications, i.e. on the purpose and strategy of field work rather than on specific methods. Participants were given a more active role in planning how to use PRA in the field. The report discusses aspects of the workshop design that worked well (e.g. high ratio of facilitators to participants, through preparation, participant selection etc.), and those which did not (e.g. lack of participant participation in workshop design, need for further methods training etc.). Participants devised their own follow-up plans, some of which are summarised. The workshop schedule is reported, as are some participant reflections on the workshop.

This report gives an overview of the work of ActionAid-Pakistan in 1992. The general section on programme work notes that a process is envisaged where PRA is used to facilitate the initial introduction to a community, leading to preliminary ideas from which to begin immediate entry point activities, to provide a basis for developing the programme further. An example is given of a PRA study whose aims were to elicit information about an area unfamiliar to staff and to develop understanding between ActionAid and the communities. The benefits of undertaking the introductory PRA are elaborated, which included community participation in project choice and facilitation of communication of ActionAid's ideas about proposed projects to villagers. The report includes a description of the programme area, local problems defined in the PRA and the initial programme objectives. The need to develop community management structures and monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure continuing community involvement is elaborated.

This paper concerns PRA capacity building in the implementation and monitoring of the Village Development Programme of Kalam Integrated Development Project (KIDP) in northern Pakistan. It discusses the adoption and institutionalisation of PRA in village planning activities of the programme, which has involved the training of village extensionists to participate in PRA teams. The selection of these persons is discussed. Among the many comments on this innovative approach, the author notes that the pace of adoption has been appropriately slow given the experimental nature of this approach. Developing an understanding of PRA before any field work begins is important, particularly since it differs from conventional prescriptive interventions. Identification of initial activities, and the involvement of women are discussed. The need for caution in developing village action plans is noted, as is the importance of follow -up to PRA activities, particularly as expectations may have been raised. The need for monitoring structures and the possibility of future training are explored.