How would research help increase agricultural yields

how to write agricultural research proposal and agricultural research research ethics and rural development agricultural research management information system
HelenaColins Profile Pic
HelenaColins,New Zealand,Professional
Published Date:06-07-2017
Your Website URL(Optional)
Comment
Research in development: Learning from the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural SystemsLEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN-DEVELOPMENT APPROACH LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN- DEVELOPMENT APPROACH Chapter authors: Douthwaite B, Apgar JM, often have less access to the range of resources Schwarz A, McDougall C, Attwood S, Senaratna and factors needed to support innovation Sellamuttu S and Clayton T (time, acceptability of risks in experimenting, networks, etc.). Furthermore, inequities in access to agricultural resources reduce Background productivity and the ability to secure sufficient nutritious food throughout the year. Approximately 500 million people in Africa, Asia and the Pacific depend on aquatic agricultural The CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic systems for their livelihoods. Of these, an 1 Agricultural Systems (AAS) began operation estimated 137 million live in poverty (Béné and Teoh 2014). They live in coastal zones and in 2011 with the aim of reducing poverty and improving food security for small-scale fishers along river floodplains and other wetlands, and farmers dependent on aquatic agricultural where they are vulnerable to increasing systems (AAS 2011). As well as seeking to population pressure, natural resource depletion generate outcomes that directly improve and degradation, biodiversity loss, climate change, sea level rise, and increasingly the productivity and resilience of aquatic agricultural systems through agricultural frequent and severe extreme weather events. research, the program set a goal of better The men and women who live in and depend understanding how agricultural research on these systems are an integral part of the can itself innovate such that it meets the systems themselves. Socio-cultural systems are inseparable from natural systems in that challenge framed above—helping poor and vulnerable people achieve more equitable and livelihoods make use of both ecological more sustainable livelihoods from the social- processes and the diversity of productive ecological system they are part of. To capture options for growing and harvesting food and the intent of this goal and to contrast the other products that generate income and well- being (Chiesura and de Groot 2003; AAS 2011). program’s approach with “business as usual” agricultural research, AAS coined the term Aquatic agricultural systems are vulnerable, 2 “research in development” (RinD). diverse, complex social-ecological systems to which people continue to apply traditional In this document, business as usual refers to management and productive practices in many societies. the common problem-solving process used in science where the researcher is understood to stand objectively outside the system under A central role for agricultural research in study and produce a research output, which is complex social-ecological systems is to learn then adopted and adapted by users to solve how to use research processes and outputs in ways that build the capacity of smallholder a specific problem. In the business-as-usual model, adoption or adaptation is usually not farmers and fishers to innovate faster, more the researcher’s concern. Typically, researchers effectively and more equitably as a means to are neither recognized nor rewarded if users poverty reduction. Men and women farmers adopt their output (Campbell et al. 2015). and fishers living in aquatic agricultural systems have always innovated to adapt to change The result is a disconnect between researcher and user, resulting too often in research based on their indigenous and local knowledge. technologies that do not meet local needs Today, the increasing rate and scale of change and are abandoned. Consequently, much demands that smallholder farmers and artisanal technology development does not necessarily fishers innovate better and faster than ever before if they are to maintain a state of well- have development impact. The optimistic but common term used to describe these being. Vulnerability varies by socioeconomic technologies is “on the shelf.” The business-as- group. Women and marginalized peoples tend usual model has also been called the “pipeline” to be more vulnerable to sudden change and 4LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN-DEVELOPMENT APPROACH approach (Sumberg 2005), the “central source of approach and look beneath the surface so that innovation” model (Biggs 1990), and in industry, agricultural research can equitably support the “delivery” mode or “over the wall” approach capacity to innovate and achieve sustainable (Leonard-Barton 1998). development outcomes. In contrast, the term “research in development” Overview implies an approach where the research The AAS program proposal (AAS 2011) defined is carried out within and as part of a more an RinD approach to agricultural research complex social-ecological system. In this as one that is cognizant of the multifaceted approach, the distinction between “inside” and nature of poverty and one that aims to address “outside” becomes less obvious and innovation challenges in complex social-ecological is seen as a process that links across them. systems. The RinD approach as it is now This does not mean that all research must be understood by the program has evolved from implemented directly with farmers and fishers; the initial intent to greater articulation of its indeed, there is a need for basic research to elements and requirements as the proposal has support improved productivity in aquatic been operationalized. As of October 2015, AAS agricultural systems (such as developing a has been in operation and developing the RinD new variety of rice) that requires scientists approach for 3 ½ years in five hubs. to work away from the farm. The emphasis on linking and innovation, however, calls for Hubs are defined as “locations within key all agricultural research to be cognizant of aquatic agricultural systems where innovation how its outputs support and engage with and learning can bring about development local processes of innovation to achieve outcomes” (AAS 2013, 5). As of May 2015, development outcomes. This recognition AAS was working in five hubs: the Barotse pushes agricultural researchers to think beyond floodplain in Zambia; the Southern Polder the specific problem they are aiming to address Zone of Bangladesh; the Tonle Sap floodplain in and embrace a broader perspective on how Cambodia; the Visayas-Mindanao region in the development is achieved. Philippines; and Malaita and Western provinces in Solomon Islands. Approaching systems through only their parts means we run the risk of not appreciating the The biophysical and socio-cultural context whole. Poverty in social-ecological systems of each of the hubs is unique and requires is multifaceted, and the causes of inequality adaptation of the implementation approach are often hidden (Pelling 2010; Kabeer 2012). to each context to address relevant Consequently, an approach to agricultural development challenges. Consequently, the research that aims to support poverty RinD approach is being developed through alleviation and is particularly concerned about a case study approach to learning from marginalized peoples must look beyond the implementation, with each hub as a case of easily identifiable agricultural problems that RinD implementation. This forms a core part business-as-usual models are good at solving. of AAS research on the RinD approach, which It must also understand underlying social aims to generate lessons that are useful more dynamics and the patterns of interactions broadly in the field of agricultural research and between stakeholders that may inhibit development practice. equitable outcomes for all. This more complex and socially aware approach to agricultural This working paper aims to synthesize and research builds on and extends the experience share learning from the experience of adapting and learning from farming systems research and operationalizing the RinD approach to (e.g. Gilbert et al. 1980; Scoones et al. 2009) to agricultural research in the five hubs. It seeks embrace underlying development processes to share learning about how the approach and appreciate patterns of interactions. It is is working in context and to explore the aligned with a growing field of research and outcomes it is achieving through initial practice in development that acknowledges implementation over 3 ½ years. This learning complexity (e.g. Jones 2011; Ramalingan 2013). can inform continuation of agricultural research RinD intends, therefore, to take a more holistic in the second phase of the CGIAR research 5LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN-DEVELOPMENT APPROACH programs and will be useful to others aiming Commitment to people and place is based on to implement research programs that seek to the assumption that people have the potential equitably build capacity to innovate in complex to innovate and bring about meaningful social-ecological systems. In the next section, change, and that a sustainable way to improve we describe what RinD was understood to be livelihoods is to leverage this potential for deeper in 2013 (Dugan et al. 2013), providing a starting and longer-lasting change (e.g. Chambers and point for the chapters that follow, which Ghildyal 1985; Hickey and Mohan 2004). AAS explore lessons about particular aspects of the aims to foster development within communities approach and their outcomes. through engaging the poor and marginalized across scales to help improve their access to The RinD approach and use of the process of agricultural research, The first step under the RinD approach in the as well as the research outputs produced. This hubs was to articulate a hub development takes time and commitment from researchers challenge collectively with stakeholders working collaboratively with local stakeholders as through a participatory planning process. everyone learns together how to make the most Scoping and diagnosis of particular challenges, of the potential that lies within the system. both biophysical and socio-cultural, was undertaken by multidisciplinary research teams. Participatory action research (PAR) is the core The resulting hub development challenges engagement process that RinD uses to ensure provide the guiding collective vision for how beneficiaries are co-owners in the process of agricultural research in each hub can contribute finding solutions to their own problems and to achieving development outcomes and set in building their own capacity to reflect and up the program of work. Stakeholders then innovate (Reason and Bradbury 2008), and is agree to tackle the hub development challenge described in Apgar and Douthwaite (2013). and implement interventions. Planning the interventions requires further articulation of A gender-transformative approach embodies specific research agendas. a commitment to and strategies for social transformation that result in equity and equality The approach used to implement these among diverse actors (Cole et al. 2014b). A interventions, described in Figure 1, utilizes four gender-transformative approach frames the elements: commitment to people and place, research process as one that combines technical participatory action research, using a gender- knowledge generation with equity-oriented transformative approach, and facilitating learning transformative learning. AAS seeks both to and networking. The approach also requires two address the visible aspects of gender and other enabling conditions: partnerships and capacity social gaps and to create opportunities for development. The elements build on a range actors to shift the underlying norms, attitudes, of theories on and experience from agricultural practices or policies that shape these gaps. research-for-development experiences (e.g. Hawkins et al. 2009; Hall et al. 2014). Effective partnerships Impact on Commitment Participatory Gender- Learning resource- to people and action transformative and poor and place research approach networking vulnerable Strengthened capacities Figure 1. Six elements that constitute the AAS RinD approach (adapted from Dugan et al. 2013). 6LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN-DEVELOPMENT APPROACH Learning and networking stress the need for research refers to learning with stakeholders adaptive management, learning and adapting as about the broader issues that are the focus of hub programs of work are implemented, as well a specific inquiry. AAS engages all three levels as using monitoring and evaluation as another to surface and document learning that is used set of tools to ensure this happens (Douthwaite to improve practice and enable others to learn et al. 2014). RinD requires those involved to and to answer research questions about RinD, be aware of their own mindset throughout contributing to the global discourse through the implementation and to learn new skills, the production of international public goods such as facilitation and networking. Effective (Figure 2). partnerships acknowledge that intervening meaningfully requires working with others, and As the basis for identifying and measuring AAS that building partnerships at all levels is the outcomes, AAS has implemented a learning pathway to greater development outcomes. system that includes hub RinD implementation teams who engage in third-person research with hub stakeholders. These teams engage in Methodology their own second-person research and annually consolidate their learning around specific This paper is the result of program-level PAR. research areas. Once a year, representatives Action researchers recognize that there are from hub teams come together for a cross-hub multiple and overlapping levels of inquiry, referred to as first-, second- and third-person review and engage in another level of second- person research with their peers from other action research (Reason and Torbert 2001). hubs. Cross-hub learning is facilitated by a First-person research refers to learning through global RinD team of researchers based outside individual self-inquiry. Second-person research the hubs. This working paper is an output of is relational and includes reflecting and learning with peers in a community about a particular this cross-hub learning. area of theory or practice. Third-person The participatory process of data collection. 77 Photo Credit: Sanjiv de Silva/IWMILEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN-DEVELOPMENT APPROACH In January 2015, the AAS cross-hub review This review process identified the following six brought together hub staff and the global team areas of collective learning about RinD from at WorldFish headquarters in Penang, Malaysia across hubs: (AAS 2015). The review process enabled hub • learning from community engagement teams to share what they had learned across • learning about partnerships contexts and to articulate common themes. Prior • learning from the integration of the gender- to the cross-hub review, each hub team had transformative approach carried out their own review with stakeholders • learning about how to make science more in which they reflected on three topics: what inclusive worked and what did not in implementing and • learning about capacity development building capacity for RinD; early evidence of • generating a better articulation of RinD and outcomes; and the continued relevance of the its value. overall hub strategic framework (AAS 2014). In the following chapters of this working paper, the first four areas of learning are investigated. 1st person 3rd person practice practice RinD team RinD team hub 2 hub 1 Hub stakeholders Hub stakeholders 2nd person 2nd person cross-hub practice practice Figure 2. AAS learning system, including first-, second- and third-person action research. 8DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Chapter authors: Apgar JM, Tolentino L, Golam The AAS RinD approach assumes that using F, Aktar S, Orirana G, Saeni E, Chea S, Hak S, participatory engagement with stakeholders Chisonga N and Lunda Kalembwe J in designing, planning, implementing and learning from agricultural research will lead to empowerment and ownership such that Introduction more lasting outcomes can be achieved. A core aspect of the AAS RinD approach is its Examples from health (e.g. Tindana et al. 2007; focus on engaging with communities through Nakibinge et al. 2009), education (e.g. Weerts a process known as PAR. This is a methodology and Sandmann 2008; Butin 2010), business (e.g. used in many practitioner-based fields to Bowen et al. 2010) and community development support engagement of stakeholders in (e.g. Tamarack 2007) illustrate that better results the process of research in order to promote can be achieved when communities are involved empowerment and behavior change (e.g. in development processes that affect them. AAS Reason and Bradbury 2008). AAS builds on believes that engagement with a select number the long history of farmer participation in of communities in a hub over the lifespan of the agricultural research (e.g. Chambers and program can inform and build a joint research Ghildyal 1985; Biggs 2008; Scoones et al. 2009) agenda. and extends it through a purposeful approach to community engagement. This chapter examines what we have learned about community engagement and PAR. Community members in the Khulna hub attending an AAS meeting, Bangladesh. 99 Photo Credit: Silvia Sarapura/WorldFishDEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH the program. Then, researchers engage with Design of community engagement communities and document community within RinD visions, priorities and action plans, which are owned by the communities. The final step of Commitment to people and place: PAR planning during the first cycle is a workshop across scales that produces a program of work for the hub, Commitment to people and place and PAR are including research initiatives that address both elements of the AAS RinD approach. In AAS, community visions and support community PAR is composed of iterative, facilitated cycles of action. planning, acting, observing and reflecting with stakeholders at the community and hub levels. The next cycle of stakeholder engagement Through this process, stakeholders identify starts with initiative planning. An initiative and begin to address their own development includes research and development activities challenges through agricultural research. This with partners that directly support community process allows communities to reflect on how action plans and answer identified research change is happening, thus becoming an integral questions. Concurrently, communities part of the monitoring and evaluation system. continue their cycle of planning, acting and Figure 3 shows the two levels at which the reflecting on what they have learned through program engages with stakeholders. implementation. An annual review workshop provides opportunity to adjust initiatives and The AAS PAR process starts with a community actions. The intent of continued multidisciplinary research team scoping engagement at two levels is to build and the biophysical and social dimensions of strengthen links between the local actions and the aquatic agricultural system to identify achievement of outcomes on the ground with opportunities and development challenges. system-level processes of research and change. This scoping leads to the selection of local sites Together, the two levels of engagement aim to for community engagement and articulation tackle the hub development challenge. of a hub development challenge that guides Scoping and Initiative Mid-year diagnosis planning review Hub-level engagement moments Community-level engagement Community AAR and AAR and moments visions and action action action plan planning planning Review of Community Community initial actions reflection reflection and priorities Design Annual hub Annual hub strategic review and review and framework reflection reflection and initiatives workshop workshop Figure 3. AAS program engagement cycle across scales in hubs. (AAR stands for after-action review.) 10DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Principles of engagement Equity. This principle helps ensure that Engagement with hub and community facilitation teams (co-researchers) pay attention stakeholders through PAR is designed to to the multiple voices that influence the ensure that agricultural research helps achieve community vision and action plans and the processes through which they are developed, community goals relating to production, food implemented and reflected upon. This principle security, nutrition, income, environmental conditions, etc. The focus on practical solutions is further strengthened through the program’s transformative approach to gender (see the to real-life concerns (e.g. reduced soil fertility, gender chapter for further explanation of the water availability, reduced incomes, etc.) means approach to gender). that the process is context specific. Many issues and concerns, however, occur across different Ensuring equity in the PAR process requires farming communities, thus enabling sharing of strategies for the creation of “safe spaces” where learning and scaling of impact. For consistent men, women and youth can freely express implementation across AAS hubs, we identified themselves and safely question underlying four principles to guide PAR implementation norms that contribute to inequity and (Box 1). These principles are consistent with inequality. Specific research interventions to similar analyses (e.g. McTaggart 1991; Stringer support the achievement of community visions 2007; Reason and Bradbury 2008). need to be designed and implemented in ways that are cognizant of social differentiation and Ownership. The first principle assures that by implications for participation and benefit. This returning to their own community visions to requires initial research to understand why reflect on what has been achieved, the men, inequities and inequalities related to gender, women and youth of the locality co-own the ethnicity and religion exist, as well as how they process of research and the learning that affect choices and outcomes. That knowledge emerges throughout the implementation of can then be used to design activities that their action plans and the supporting initiatives. facilitate change in underlying attitudes and beliefs and manage any consequent tradeoffs. Box 1. Principles for PAR design and Shared analysis. The third principle focuses implementation across AAS hubs on an area of research practice: analysis. Ownership: The process is owned Implementing this principle means that by the participants, who researchers who are facilitating the PAR process define real-life problems to enable other stakeholders who are co-researchers address through PAR. to take part in the analytical steps that lead to greater understanding of a particular issue that Equity: Facilitators recognize relates to the collective concern. Appropriate multiple voices and power data collection and analysis methods are used, relations and are mindful depending on the specific question being of who is participating and addressed. Researchers have a responsibility to how. proactively involve stakeholders in the process Shared analysis: The process emphasizes such that the group as a whole can learn, jointly shared rendering the results of the research process responsibilities for data more useful and able to address real-life concerns. collection and analysis to support improved Feedback. The fourth principle emphasizes the understanding and action. commitment to support ongoing development and enablement of joint learning. By Feedback: Results of the process emphasizing feedback mechanisms, researchers are fed back to the are required to think beyond production of participants for ongoing a research output and consider how to keep learning that supports the research connected to community visions, adaptation and particularly in relation to how outputs are used transformation. and how they may contribute to achieving desired development outcomes. 11DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Initiating community engagement: The processes. Consolidation of the different visions community life competence process to develop a collective vision is facilitated AAS recognized that implementing community where desired and appropriate. From the engagement was outside CGIAR’s area of dream as articulated, community members (as expertise when designing the program. a collective or in separate groups, depending Consequently, the program developed on the context) then identify priority areas for 3 a partnership with Constellation, an action. They conduct a self-assessment as a international nongovernmental organization critical reflection on their situation in order to (NGO) with relevant experience who shared identify constraints. This exercise is aimed at similar goals of building local capacity to identifying gaps between their present situation respond to development challenges (see and their desired state. Next, they prioritize the partnership chapter for more on shared areas and identify actions that a group of people partnership learning). The community in the community are motivated to undertake life competence process developed by to move towards achieving their vision of Constellation was adapted to RinD and used the future (in many cases these are actions to initiate engagement with community- for the whole community, such as building a level stakeholders in all five hubs during community-owned market). This stage is called the first cycle of engagement. Constellation “prioritization and action planning.” The result coaches worked closely with hub teams and is a set of community-owned action plans implementing partners to build their capacity (some collectively owned and some owned by and guide implementation. smaller groups or by a particular social group such as women or youth) with commitment to The community life competence process is a implement the plans using local resources. strength-based approach in that it emphasizes a particular mindset among facilitators (Box Ongoing community engagement 2). The process comprises a number of steps through PAR that lead to development of community action Communities then proceed to implementing plans. Community mobilization is initiated their action plans. The local community through visits to selected communities to build facilitators work with program staff, who relationships, identify community strengths and support them in implementation. As stimulate members of the community to think the research initiatives take shape and critically about their situations. Mobilization implementation begins, areas of more specific involves identifying local facilitators (both men joint inquiry are identified. Examples include and women) who can act as a bridge between productivity research in Bangladesh supporting the program and the community and who implementation of technologies for shaded become community researchers. ponds; research on the impact of savings and lending groups for income generation in The next step is “dream building” to develop Zambia; research on access to markets in fish a community vision of success. Men, women, value chains in Zambia; productivity research old and young are first engaged separately to identify suitable sources of seed for SUPA 4 to create safe spaces for their own visioning rice in Zambia; and piloting rice field fisheries management practices in Cambodia. Action plans and associated research lead Box 2. Strength-based approach to the observation and reflection step that When facilitators meet with people in enables those involved to understand the communities, they look for their strengths. changes that may be occurring and to measure They do not start from their weaknesses. A their achievements. As Figure 4 illustrates, the strength-based approach, or SALT, is a mode ongoing community engagement process is of interaction with communities. the main vehicle for a village-level participatory monitoring and evaluation system focused S : Stimulate, Support, Share on outcomes and learning. Community A : Appreciate action plans are revised on an annual basis, L : Listen, Learn, Link building on what was learned the previous T : Transfer, Team 12DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH year. Documentation of this process feeds into Contextual variations shaped how community program research to understand if and how the engagement was implemented: RinD approach is working. • Different biophysical systems and varying agroecological zones. These differences influence the degree of Community engagement livelihood dependence on capture fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture, livestock rearing implementation models and wild biodiversity harvesting. In this section, we illustrate how the community • The hub development challenge and its engagement design was implemented in the associated theory of change. While all hub AAS hubs. Table 1 describes the implementation challenges focus on the potential of the models used. The hubs vary in their biophysical aquatic agricultural system, the specifics of contexts, ranging from inland water systems the potential vary from the flood pulses in (Barotse and Tonle Sap floodplains) to coastal the Barotse and Tonle Sap, to the salinity marine systems (Visayas-Mindanao and Malaita) gradient in the Southern Bangladesh Polder and delta systems (Southern Bangladesh Zone, to the rich natural resources in Malaita. Polder Zone). These systems face varying • The cultural and social diversity found degrees of ecosystem degradation, and a large within the hubs. The Barotse floodplain in portion of the population in each are poor and Zambia and the Malaita hub in Solomon marginalized and depend heavily on the social- Islands are both territories of indigenous ecological system for their livelihoods through peoples and use traditional governance the provision of multiple ecosystem goods. The systems. In Cambodia, the Tonle Sap issues associated with achieving community- floodplain is home to a majority of ethnic defined development aspirations and goals are Khmer and several other ethnic minorities, different in each hub, as they are driven by the but due to the area’s political history is context and the program of work. managed through a hierarchical government system. Participatory Visioning and monitoring and action planning evaluation cycle Plan Participatory Evaluation Implementation Reflect action research Act and learning of action plan cycle Observe Monitoring Figure 4. Community engagement process designed as PAR and participatory monitoring and evaluation for learning. 13DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH • Local, district and national research opportunities for linking with support networks and development systems in place. The and agricultural research. In all cases, these presence of formal national or international outputs informed the development of the hub agricultural research systems in the hubs strategic framework and the initiatives designed varies, as does the level of development to address the hub development challenge. intervention. • History of WorldFish and CGIAR work and During initial community visioning and action the presence of ongoing bilateral projects. planning, there was some adaptation of the The hubs sit on a continuum from areas with community life competence process steps. In a long history of CGIAR and WorldFish work most cases, separate groups of male, female in-country and large bilateral programs also and youth participants first developed their implementing research (Solomon Islands and own visions. A notable difference among hubs Bangladesh), to areas with moderate bilateral was the extent to which research was discussed funding (Cambodia and the Philippines), to during the initial visioning and action planning. one area with no prior WorldFish presence or In the Southern Bangladesh Polder Zone, for bilateral projects (Barotse floodplain). example, the presence of many development NGOs and projects coupled with researchers The community engagement implementation playing a facilitation role in communities led model in each hub has been significantly to a narrower focus of engagement on farmer- influenced by previous partnerships with the led PAR, while in other hubs community action program in the hub and which relate, in part, plans were broader. to the previous and ongoing CGIAR work in the area and the existing local capacities Building on the initial use of the community (see the partnership chapter for more detail life competence process, after-action reviews on partnerships). As is shown in Table 1, the became the main vehicle for implementing implementation model in all hubs consists the reflection step (Figure 3). Different of a mix of local facilitation teams and strategies were used to create links between external support provided through NGOs or the community-owned action plans and other partners and AAS staff. The support implementation of interventions that form arrangements vary depending on who the the stakeholder-driven research initiatives in main program-implementing partners are. For each hub. For example, in Zambia, an early example, in the Visayas-Mindanao hub, the opportunity to work with savings and internal primary supporting partners are government lending communities through partner support organizations, while in Zambia and Cambodia created a unique way of implementing research they are local NGOs. In Zambia, the Barotse on use of PAR and the gender-transformative floodplain hub is the traditional territory of the approach while supporting community action Lozi people, which requires the program to on increasing income. work with the traditional governance system (the Barotse Royal Establishment), and as a consequence the village chiefs are members of the community facilitation teams. All hubs used the community life competence process and were supported directly by Constellation during the initial visioning and action planning. This produced a similar yet locally adapted process. The outputs included a broad long-term vision for each community and a number of community-owned action plans that indicate where communities are motivated and able to move towards achieving their dream. In most cases, communities identified the support they required from external agents to implement their action plans, creating 14DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Hub Hub context Implementation model Malaita, Remote coastal marine setting with little Community facilitators facilitate activities Solomon infrastructure and few development and mobilize communities, while community Islands interventions. Mainly subsistence livelihoods. champions support them and provide a link Declining quality of marine and land resources between the community and the program and increasing populations. team. Both roles are voluntary. AAS staff (particularly a community coordinator) Engaged with three clusters of communities. supports facilitation and documentation of the process. Partner NGOs and universities Total hub population: 137,596 (2009 census). provide technical support as required through implementation of research activities. Barotse Floodplain of the Zambezi River, traditional Community facilitation teams include floodplain, territory of the Lozi people. Dual governance community facilitators selected by Zambia system: the traditional authority referred to communities, traditional leaders and extension as the Barotse Royal Establishment and the officers (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock central government. Lozi culture and livelihood staff). Community facilitators are paid a small strategies intimately linked to the flood pulse; amount to cover their day-to-day expenses. The seasonal movement of people and animals local teams are supported by an NGO partner. from low to high lands. Poorest province Specific interventions that support community in Zambia. Fisheries important beyond the action plans are implemented with the support floodplain and a recent decline in natural of NGO partners and CGIAR scientists, who resource management systems due to shifting provide technical expertise and implement governance. capacity-development activities. Engaged with 10 communities. Minimal presence of other NGOs in the 10 communities. Total hub population: 522,298 (Central Statistics Office 2010). Tonle Sap Seasonal flood pulse of the Tonle Sap Lake and Community facilitators from each of the biosphere, floodplain offers opportunities for improved communities facilitate activities and mobilize Cambodia productivity, while water governance is a major communities for the ongoing process. challenge for those who rely on it. Communities Facilitators provide links to NGO partners looking to improve water governance for rice and the AAS team. Facilitators are volunteers productivity and fish farming. High incidence and receive a small per diem when they of poverty despite the benefit from the flood attend events hosted by the AAS team and pulse, particularly among floating villages NGO partners. NGO partners directly support where livelihoods depend heavily on fishing. community facilitators with facilitation and documentation. The AAS hub team, mainly Engaged with 12 communities. AAS staff, provides support for capacity development. Total hub population: 1.5 million, of which 900,000 live in water-based or stilted villages. Southern Coastal delta system with varying salinity Program officers are AAS staff assigned to Bangladesh gradients in polders (floodplains enclosed by each polder zone and who together with NGO Polder Zone, embankments) affected by climate change. partner staff are responsible for facilitation Bangladesh Agriculture- and aquaculture-dependent of all activities in communities. Scientists livelihoods. High population density and from CGIAR and partners provide technical disparity between land owners and landless. support to AAS program officers as they implement PAR agendas. Hub staff provide Engaged with 16 communities in six districts. support on systematic documentation and the participatory monitoring and evaluation system Total hub population: 7.42 million. in place. Visayas- Coastal marine areas of Visayas and Mindanao Local community facilitators are employed Mindanao, provinces. High poverty rates and dependence as field research aids. Partner community Philippines on fishing and agriculture and highly vulnerable facilitators are staff of government partner to climate change. Development challenges on organizations who work closely with local governance of fisheries and access to markets. facilitators. AAS staff are organized as community immersion teams and provide Engaged with eight communities. direct support to partner and local community facilitators, particularly with documentation Total hub population: 18.6 million. and monitoring and evaluation. Table 1. Community engagement implementation models in each hub. 15DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Deepening engagement requires staging Learning about the community and building trust engagement process Across all hubs, the implementation phase of initial community action plans was Through reflection and analysis within and accompanied by strategies to deepen across hubs, we have identified the following engagement. These strategies included lessons about how the community engagement building a better understanding of the critical process is working and what its outcomes are. and underlying issues that create opportunities for research, and developing strategies that Start with a community vision include marginalized groups. In all hubs, the community life competence process enabled a broad vision to be Varying strategies were used to build a better articulated. At first, there was concern that understanding of the issues to be addressed such a broad vision would raise unrealistic through interventions and that enabled expectations and move outside the CGIAR agricultural research to directly support the mandate. However, the process gives actions of different groups within communities. communities the freedom to think about their For example, in Bangladesh, homestead future on their own terms. By not limiting their agricultural systems are mainly managed by understanding of their livelihoods and lives women and are critical for household food from an external perspective and not using security and nutrition. Separate focus group program language to frame issues on which to discussions with women led to a better focus, communities were able to identify their understanding of the challenges they faced, strengths and take actions based upon those such as not having access to quality seeds. As strengths. In reflection sessions during which a result, women farmers set up research trials community members discuss their learning together with professional researchers from and achievements, returning to the broad local universities and government agencies and community vision motivates them to continue have developed their skills for identifying the their journey. In this way, the role of research is best seed varieties for their household plots. understood as supporting that journey from the beginning, rather than leading the definition of In the Philippines, focus group discussions solutions to identified “problems” from the start. identified illegal fishing gear as one of the critical issues, leading to a multistakeholder For AAS, the visioning process has helped ground dialogue to bring illegal fishers into fisheries an approach that looks at the whole system in management discussions. The trust built the local reality of the hub. Through building a through AAS researchers spending time in much broader understanding of the communities the communities enabled the Balingasag and their aspirations, stakeholders can begin to community to engage with a deeply rooted identify the relationships between various system issue. In Cambodia, the use of a coding components. For example, in the Barotse hub, system enabled communities and facilitators fisheries management was a major concern in 10 to collect and analyze qualitative data to community action plans. This concern stimulated better understand the local situation and to action at higher levels, requiring strengthened feed directly into the planning of the three collaboration with important stakeholders such hub initiatives. One of them, the land and as the Department of Fisheries, the Barotse Royal water management initiative, now includes a Establishment and fish trader associations. In this case study on Tram Pear Lake rehabilitation, case, locally defined concerns resulted in a hub- which was informed by the results of cross- level response: the formation of village-based village analysis that illustrated the need to fisheries management committees as part of a improve water supply to increase rice and fish co-management approach that brings together productivity. government, the private sector, traditional leadership and the community. Understanding No participatory process is perfect, and no local systems in the context of a broad vision community is ever fully engaged from the provides a big picture that helps inform the outset. Consequently, implementing the research agenda, build on local strengths and principle of equity in community engagement create links across scales. 16DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH requires hub teams to be cognizant of who most marginalized who lived far from the main was engaged in the process to begin with and part of the village. who was left out. Different strategies can be used to build this understanding, and over time In Bangladesh, while the engagement process strategies may be developed to reach out to remained open to all, farmers were selected those who were not part of the initial broad on the basis of their interest and motivation visioning process. to do research, which did not fully address the gender or social difference dimension. For example, in Malaita, the visioning process in Further engagement led to research on Alea and Kwai communities began by bringing small homestead shaded ponds intended residents from surrounding villages together to help women overcome the challenge at one location to develop community visions of low productivity. Similarly, separate and action plans. During implementation, discussions with men led to research on however, it became clear that even though field crops. To understand the wealth status people were from the same tribe, families and of the participants, a participatory wealth church, they were not accustomed to working ranking method was developed. Community together. In contrast, in Fumato’o, where the members set up wealth ranking criteria for their participants live closer together and consider community and divided themselves according themselves one community, action plans were to family income. This helped AAS staff collectively implemented with little difficulty. understand that the poorest sections of some Ensuring broad participation, implementation communities did not participate in PAR, as they and ownership of a vision or an action plan had neither land nor ponds. in the context of Malaita, therefore, required adaption of the strategy to work with smaller In Zambia, 3 of the 10 communities in Senanga groups that are geographically close and District are home to two tribes: Mbunda and have the experience of working collectively. A Lozi. The Lozi are the original inhabitants, strategy was developed to deepen engagement and the Mbunda are immigrants who have with a cohesive cluster and to plan to scale the integrated over time. During the engagement approach to neighboring hamlets to develop process, it was discovered that the Mbunda different action plans. coming into the communities found the fertile land all taken by the Lozi. This pushed In Cambodia, there are high levels of inequality the Mbunda into non-agriculture enterprises. in villages. Here, the program works through Discussions during the visioning exercise led NGO partners who have been working in to action on canal clearing to free more land the same villages for some time. This creates for cultivation, which led to improved access to a challenge for us to understand if the NGO land and more involvement by the Mbunda in engagement process is broad enough and agricultural activities. reaches the marginalized. In order to better understand who the program was engaging From across the cases, we see that starting with in relation to the whole community, with a broad vision that can be implemented participatory well-being ranking was through a relatively consistent methodology conducted and used together with a coding across contexts must be accompanied by grid and a monitoring map. The coding system contextualized strategies to dig deeper and allowed monitoring of who the program was understand how to support communities and engaging with and provided a planning tool groups within them to tackle their own issues to help identify the poor and marginalized while avoiding elite capture. The deepening within communities. For example, in Tram process is also critical to identifying areas for Pear village, use of the coding system enabled agricultural research. Treating community the team to see that an action plan around members as co-researchers requires diagnostic rehabilitation of the lake was the result of studies along with the engagement process participation by a group of people who all such that research interventions support lived close to and benefited from the lake. This community motivation and change. knowledge allowed the team to develop a more household-focused strategy to reach out to the 17DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Digging deeper in the community engagement that enabled some of the youths to pursue a process and fully embracing the equity principle college education. This has built trust in the of PAR has not been easy. One challenge faced is program and created an opening for the role of further discussed below regarding the research agricultural research to contribute. teams’ mindsets and capacity to bring social analysis and a critical lens into agricultural In Cambodia, NGO partners participating in research processes (see also the gender the engagement process have found ways to chapter). Our experience suggests that staging link communities in order to address some when to deepen engagement is important of their priority concerns. For example, as a to ensure the research process first builds result of community visioning in one village, trust. Working through a stronger relationship people realized that to achieve their dream of built on trust means research is better able to improving and diversifying livelihood activities contribute to the development process and can they needed to renovate a bridge that connects act upon hidden challenges that do not tend them to the market and other communities. to surface in initial action planning. With time, Realizing that they needed further financial the program can reach out to more, ensure the support, villagers shared their action plan with marginalized are involved and begin to address various stakeholders, including a mung bean challenges that require deeper, transformative association, a tour association and local fish change. traders, to raise funds. Stakeholders provided financial support, and during a reflection Responding to broad issues requires workshop in March 2014, villagers reported networking and partnerships that with the bridge renovated they could Not all concerns and opportunities identified focus more on fish farming, as they had easier by communities as a starting point are access to the market. In this way, the program ones that a CGIAR research program could can support responding to broader needs that engage with directly. Hub teams were initially are linked to the ability to address agricultural concerned about their inability to respond concerns through research. to all the identified areas, and feared that community residents might lose interest. This In Bangladesh, two complementary strategies created a tension between holding onto a were used. First, a research support team was broad and holistic view of the development formed in Khulna in 2013 with scientists from process and staying true to the agricultural national research institutes and universities research mandate of CGIAR. This tension to provide science and technical assistance to was managed by developing a strategy for farmers to carry out field experiments. During responding to broader community needs implementation, it transpired that the support through partnerships and playing a bridging team was unable to deliver services at the role so communities could connect to relevant expected level to communities far from Khulna stakeholders with the capacity and mandate city. In response, the hub team created a second to address concerns relating to infrastructural layer of research and technical support. The development, health and sanitation, or delivery new system consists of two layers of support of agricultural inputs. to communities: the original research support team members (the first layer) still provide For example, in the Philippines, the science and research support, but now include community’s dreams and action plans were more researchers from local research stations, presented to various stakeholders during a while the new second layer is made up of consultation workshop that led to government members of local extension services (e.g. the responses. In Pinamgo community, one of Department of Agricultural Extension and the the priority dreams was the repair of a solar Department of Livestock) who can provide water system. As a result of sharing these support on an ongoing basis in more remote plans, the local government unit committed areas. This system linked farmers to local to providing funds to buy a water pump. service providers and provided an enabling In a case where the issue was education, in environment to access technical advice. Second, Mancilang, the Department of Science and a process of building relationships between Technology provided a number of scholarships development organizations, government 18DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH departments and farmers was facilitated, which competence process), yet similar approaches has resulted in farmers receiving poultry and have been taken across hubs. All involved livestock vaccination and deworming services systematic use of facilitated reflection meetings from the Department of Livestock, thus and documentation that captured outcomes addressing one of their main concerns. and lessons learned. The reflection step is proving to be a good vehicle for supporting We have learned that the use of partnerships program adaptation. as a strategy to address broader issues works well, but is dependent on the presence of For example, in the Malaita hub, AAS researchers, stakeholders with the necessary expertise along with partners and local resource people, working in the geographic area. For example, connect with the community through local in Malaita, some of the prioritized areas were facilitators and community champions. After sanitation and health clinics. Although the every visit to communities, a trip report is program does have links to relevant stakeholders written and circulated to the whole program such as the Ministry of Health and NGOs, the team. This documentation process helped challenge remains that these agencies do not identify that Alea was facing a challenge in have the funds nor the capacity to assist the implementation of their action plans. Then, communities at this time. A similar challenge— during the community after-action review in aligning the geographic focus of the program Alea, the hub team could better appreciate the with that of partners—emerged in the Barotse community dynamics that were challenging the floodplain. The local NGO that is anchoring the implementation of their plan. The joint reflection community engagement process has had to helped the community develop a strategy to work outside its normal focal areas, which has adapt the action planning and implementation required more investment for the NGO to build process. Community members confirmed that its presence in these locations and creates a they prefer coming together for learning. They continued dependence on program funding to use a central demonstration site (for ongoing support the broader development needs. work with development projects) for some of their activities so that the surrounding villages We are learning across cases that for an can join in but can also implement their own agricultural research program to start with actions in their own villages. Documentation a broad community vision and thus engage of the reflection process provides input to the with areas outside the agricultural field, strategy and is monitored on an ongoing basis. partnerships and networking to support broad development agendas should be in place or In the Barotse floodplain, community must be developed alongside implementation facilitators also reflected on their performance of research initiatives. This contributes to trust and challenges during the community after- and supports the holistic view of development action reviews, which are implemented that communities pursue. every 6 months and include development of new action plans informed by learning and Systematic reflection and documentation outcomes achieved. These reflections have enables adaptation helped the program and community facilitators Community engagement as a process of PAR understand the challenge of an exponentially includes a facilitated reflection step during increasing workload, as more activities are which community participants take stock of underway relating to the research initiatives their learning and achievements and assess the and evolving requirements for documentation. progress of their action plans. The reflection step This understanding led to the development allows the program to adapt the engagement of a strategy to invest in supporting emerging process. This is part of the system of monitoring champions and leaders who are already and evaluation for learning that functions across facilitating and guiding various smaller PAR scales of engagement—from community to groups. Reviewing documentation tools with hub and across hubs. Implementation of this community facilitators in this way helps adapt part of the process was less scripted than the the system and builds capacity. initial community visioning and action planning (which was informed by the community life 19DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH A similar strategy is used in Bangladesh to build reflection and documentation indicated that leadership capacity in emerging champions, a multistakeholder consultation workshop which helps to ground the engagement model was necessary before the employment of fish in communities. A system was designed that wardens. In another case, abaca farmers reacted emphasizes documenting the process during to the recommendation of experts on how to the planning of each intervention and prior to eradicate a virus that infested their plants (see subsequent actions. This generates a running the inclusive science chapter for more details record of what was done at each stage of on this case). The experts recommended the a development or change process, as well removal of all potential host plants of the virus, as the outcomes associated with each step. one of which is a crop that farmers presently Program staff are responsible for running and have on their farms and that provides good monitoring the process. This documentation income. Abaca farmers reacted strongly system has helped adapt the program design. against the recommendation, so the experts Also in Bangladesh, the documentation picked conducted further research to confirm whether up on an opportunity to support changes in the insect thriving in the replacment crop is the women’s access to land. At the beginning of the host of the virus causing the disease. Another program, some female farmers faced difficulties, strategy implemented was to conduct several as they did not have access to good land for focus group discussions to fully understand horticulture research. The model was adapted the perspectives of community members and to include household participation in the action further enhance the credibility of experts to the research, thus enabling women to use small community. This approach put the community household plots. members and the experts at ease with each other and led to a satisfactory resolution and a In Cambodia, the facilitation teams used post- higher level of engagement. session recording sheets and after-action reviews to document their learning after every Across the hubs, we have found that facilitated event. Learning from the post-session implementation teams have embraced recording sheets has led to improvement in reflection processes and are systematically how specific tools are used during sessions and facilitating reflection on specific activities in the way the team facilitates the participation and on the overall engagement process. of villagers overall. For instance, the facilitation In all hubs, the engagement process has teams learned that community participation evolved and is being refined as we learn was limited to a few groups in some of the together with communities. Understanding villages. A contributing factor to this narrow the nuances of how program implementation participation was the village meeting style takes shape in each location is only possible of the first sessions. In response, the team if reflection is happening across scales. The adjusted the facilitation technique to start cross-scale nature of the AAS monitoring with a SALT visit to households (Box 2) and and evaluation for learning system builds then implemented focus group discussions on these nested reflection steps within the across different wealth groups in the village. PAR process. Challenges remain in designing, Reflections on how to engage both men and testing, adapting and building capacity to use women to improve the gender focus led to documentation systems that support reflection a decision to have separate groups for most and learning across scales. The documentation activities. challenge is not surprising given that use of PAR requires co-ownership of processes and In the Philippines, the initial strategy of learning and thus documentation should community immersion teams was implemented support the learning of various stakeholders. in all communities. Through reflection and It therefore cannot be designed in advance learning about what was or was not working, by researchers working alone, but requires the teams adjusted their strategy. For example, a meeting of researchers and stakeholders in communities where the pressing issue was to define needs. Through our experience, enforcement of fishery laws and the community we are learning how to find the right thought that it could easily be resolved by balance of facilitation, ownership, trust and employment of fish wardens, systematic documentation skills. 20DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Shifting dependency mindsets and to address the issue of seed selection, with a managing expectations is an ongoing focus on homestead horticulture carried out challenge by women. With support from the research The rates of poverty in all the hubs are high. team, farmers designed experiments to test the There are varying degrees of development productivity of five okra varieties. The farmer- interventions across hubs (lowest in the Malaita researchers set up research plots, monitored, hub, highest in Bangladesh). In all the hubs recorded and analyzed the data, and shared their we have found a strong dependency mindset. results with the wider community. This research Taking a strength-based approach within was not cutting edge, but it focused on tangible these contexts is challenging, as we cannot actions that helped build capacity and motivate immediately meet community expectations, participants. The groups are now progressing which are based on years of experience with to more complex research that requires more development projects that have provided aid expert support, but they do so from a strong through a delivery approach and research base. The initial activity helped maintain projects that have viewed them as passive momentum while communities learned to subjects. While communities appreciate the arrange for delivery of local expert support. use of visioning and action planning, it was not in all cases a novel experience, and some Dependency mindsets are most often assumed that once the action plan was defined, associated with the experience communities the project would deliver support and inputs. have had with other programs that, in spite Getting people to believe that they own their of good intentions, treated them as subjects action plan takes time. and delivered solutions. Shifting this mindset is an explicit objective of the RinD approach. Setting up research initiatives to build on and Emerging outcomes that have been evidenced support community action plans also takes in hubs provide positive signals that some time, as these initiatives require stakeholder communities have started on a journey towards engagement at hub level and at times further relying on their own strengths. In Bangladesh, scoping to identify researchable topics. During increased capacity to do research by farmers the initial implementation phase, hub teams participating in PAR activities is leading felt pressure to deliver something tangible to greater self-confidence and increased to maintain momentum. How community leadership by the poor. Similarly, in Malaita, the expectations and the resulting tensions have program is documenting changes in attitudes been managed provide valuable lessons for and behaviors of villagers who are now starting programs adopting a strength-based approach. to collectively address resource management In the Malaita hub, the team developed and issues. In the Barotse hub, increased knowledge signed community research agreements with is leading to more participation in collective the communities. These played an important decision making. Similarly, in the Tonle Sap role in managing people’s expectations, as hub, collective action has emerged that is in the agreement clearly spells out the areas of part catalyzed by people engaging in processes involvement by both parties. This helped to of learning and reflection around their own facilitate discussions on sensitive issues such visions. These early outcomes suggest that as payment of community members. The communities are moving along a pathway that ongoing management of expectations now starts with shifts in their ability to organize and happens through the direct interactions of tackle collective challenges, recognizing that the team with communities. Local resource these changes are still fragile and limited to people, community facilitators and community those involved in the program. champions communicate important information using local dialects and are honest Transforming ourselves is part of the process about what to expect. From its inception, the program was cognizant that engaging communities through PAR is not In Bangladesh, an important strategy that a core skill of CGIAR. The program therefore helped manage expectations was to ensure invested in capacity development. This started that implementation of a few simple activities with support from Constellation across all hubs started early. The PAR process started quickly and has continued through varying support 21DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH strategies. The main modality for developing brokers rather than providers of solutions. the behaviors and skills required for PAR has Identifying networking opportunities and been through on-the-job training, coaching and pursuing them is a skill that has enabled teams ongoing mentoring. As noted above, in all hubs to manage expectations and look across scales. a culture of implementing after-action reviews Rigorous and systematic documentation after every event has been institutionalized, and and having a good plan for information teams have been using this process to reflect management and sharing are equally important. and learn—not just about the changes they see occurring in the hubs, but also about their own Community ownership in capacity to use a strength-based approach and agricultural research implement PAR. The program set out to implement an approach All hub teams have embraced a new way of to community engagement by embracing working with communities and with each other. community ownership as a principle of PAR The first steps of community engagement informed by practice and theory (e.g. McTaggart were taken with the specific guidance of the 1991; Stringer 2007). The use of PAR within RinD community life competence process, which has intentionally reached beyond a narrow required adaptation and contextualization. lens of farmers participating in research, or the As teams moved into the implementation “research-driven farmer participation” model phase, they had less direct guidance and were as described by Okali et al. (1994). The program encouraged to design processes based on their took as a starting point a hypothesis that own experience with backstopping support. For achieving better and longer-lasting development many, the lack of specific guidance and clearly outcomes through agricultural research requires defined boundaries has been challenging. that researchers engage with the development Some have had little experience with a learning- process in earnest. Thus, the program is not focused approach that starts with a broad interested in participation simply as a means to framework and requires contextualization. achieving efficiency in the agricultural research Many were used to project implementation in process (Sumberg and Okali 1997) but attempts which the project has already decided what to understand how improved lives and livelihoods it will focus on and comes in with a rigid plan of the poor and marginalized can be supported that is implemented according to a logical through agricultural research. Researchers framework and a schedule. use learning to reflect back on the intent of broadening the agricultural research agenda Teams also grappled with learning how to through community engagement to see if there let communities be in control of their own is evidence that using PAR and starting from a development process. The Constellation SALT broad development-oriented agenda will enable mindset that was introduced to all teams (Box agricultural research to have greater impact. 2) is an example of how capacity development has focused in part on shifting our own mindset From our learning, we can distinguish two ways from a project-driven mentality to a strength- in which PAR builds community ownership. First, based program approach. As implementation at community level ownership means that the teams, we appreciate that we also are in a research program is being led by community process of transformation. members and is focused on achieving their dreams, not those of the researchers and We have identified facilitation skills as important facilitators. In practice, this happens through for ensuring quality in the community the local facilitation teams and their capacity engagement process, implementing PAR, to enable meaningful participation of and understanding and using a gender- community members in planning activities to be transformative approach. Facilitation skills implemented, in the implementation itself and include the capacity for active listening and in the learning that emerges. critical reflection. To ensure a strength-based approach, teams have found it important to Our experience indicates that starting with build team spirit to achieve a common vision a broad community vision of success is and understand our own role as bridges and instrumental in building community leadership 22

Advise: Why You Wasting Money in Costly SEO Tools, Use World's Best Free SEO Tool Ubersuggest.