This paper, part of the Social Sciences Working Paper Series, presents studies undertaken by nine community-based, natural resource management (CBNRM)-oriented organizations in China, Viet Nam, the Philippines and Mongolia. The partner organizations, representing three broad types: academic, regional network, and community based, were brought together by a 2006 initiative in an informal network to develop and pilot methods for evaluating capacity development in community-based natural resource management. Each of the nine teams produced a comprehensive report on which this working paper is based. In a comparative analysis, the working paper addresses questions across the nine studies such as: what are various stakeholders learning from capacity development, and how can CBNRM capacity development be effectively monitored and evaluated.
This working paper represents work‐in‐progress of the CBFC project (Community‐based Fish Culture in Seasonal Floodplains and Irrigation Systems), a research project supported by the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF), with the aim of increasing productivity of seasonally occurring water bodies through aquaculture.The...
What can we learn from ongoing initiatives? There has been a lot of interest during the last two decades in employing Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for achieving development. While many of these initiatives have benefited rural women by way...
The rapidly changing nature of the global food and agriculture system suggests the need to rethink how innovation can contribute to developing-country agriculture. While scientific and technological changes in agriculture can help foster productivity growth and poverty reduction, their contributions...
The purpose of this piece of work is to investigate, through a literature review, the role of intermediaries in agricultural extension and rural development. In the first place, a general view of the roles of intermediaries, as depicted in literature,...
This report is concerned with the ‘who?’ ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ of pro-poor extension. It builds on the
analytical framework proposed in the Inception Report of the same study (Christoplos, Farrington
and Kidd, 2001), taking it forward by fleshing...

