Participatory Methods and the Co- Production of Agricultural
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Paper Participatory methods and the Working co-production of agricultural advisory services. Results from four case studies in Bolivia and Colombia 2012-1 Vivian Polar, Juan Fernandez, Jacqueline Ashby Carlos Arturo Quiros, Jose Ignacio Roa ISSN 0256-8748 Social Sciences Working Paper No. 2012-1 ii Paper Participatory methods and the co- Working production of agricultural advisory services. Results from four case studies in Bolivia and Colombia 2012-1 Vivian Polar, PROINPA Juan Fernández, PROINPA Jacqueline Ashby, CIP Carlos Arturo Quiros, CIAT Jose Ignacio Roa, CIAT The Social Sciences Working Paper Series is intended to advance social science knowledge about production and utilization of potato, sweetpotato, and root and tuber crops in developing countries to encourage debate and exchange of ideas. The views expressed in the papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the International Potato Center (CIP). Comments are invited. Participatory methods and the co-production of agricultural advisory services. Results from four case studies in Bolivia and Colombia © International Potato Center (CIP), 2012 ISSN 0256-8748 CIP publications contribute important development information to the public arena. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from them in their own publications. As copyright holder CIP requests acknowledgment, and a copy of the publication where the citation or material appears. Please send a copy to the Communication and Public Awareness Department at the address below. International Potato Center Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru [email protected] - www.cipotato.org Produced by the CIP Communication and Public Awareness Department (CPAD) Correct citation: Polar, V., Fernández, J., Ashby, J., Quiros. C.A., Roa, J. I. Participatory methods and the co-production of agricultural advisory services. Results from four case studies in Bolivia and Colombia . International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru. Working Paper 2012-1. 107 p. Layout Zandra Vasquez Printed in Peru by Comercial Gráfica Sucre Press run: 100 November 2012 Table of Contents Summary .................................................................................................................................. vii Preface ................................................................................................................................. viii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. ix 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. The co-production of agricultural advisory services ......................................................... 2 1.3. Expected results of participation and co-production ....................................................... 6 1.4. Expected results of implementing the participatory methods ........................................ 7 1.5. References .......................................................................................................................... 11 2. THE PARTICIPATORY METHODS ................................................................................................... 13 2.1. The SEP methodology for participatory monitoring and evaluation ............................. 13 2.2. The CIAL methodology for on-farm adaptive research and extension .......................... 17 3. STUDY FRAMEWORK AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION ............................................................... 20 3.1. Guiding questions for the case studies ............................................................................ 20 3.2. Study design, information sources and data collection .................................................. 20 3.3. Sources of information ...................................................................................................... 21 3.4. References .......................................................................................................................... 24 4. CASE STUDY: CIALS in Valle, Colombia ........................................................................................... 25 4.1. Background information ................................................................................................... 25 4.2. Context of the application ................................................................................................ 25 4.2.1. Background ............................................................................................................. 25 4.2.2. Rules in use .............................................................................................................. 28 4.3. Implementation of the CIAL method ............................................................................... 30 4.3.1. Motives for participating in the CIAL application ................................................. 30 4.3.2. Timeline and roles ................................................................................................... 30 4.4. Outcomes of the implementation .................................................................................... 36 4.4.1. Prerequisites for co-production: Learning, changes in attitudes and social capital formation ................................................................................... 36 iii 4.4.2. Embeddedness for co-productio : Institutional innovations, changes in rules,practices involving power sharing ............................................................... 38 4.4.3 Co-production ........................................................................................................ 39 4.4.4. Benefits of co-production ...................................................................................... 40 4.5. Lessons and suggestions for improvement .................................................................... 42 4.6. References ......................................................................................................................... 43 5. CASE STUDY: SEP WITH IPTK, in Ravelo, Bolivia .......................................................................... 44 5.1. Background information .................................................................................................. 44 5.2. Context of the SEP application ......................................................................................... 44 5.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 44 5.2.2. The macro context ................................................................................................. 45 5.2.3. The principal actors ................................................................................................ 46 5.2.4. Rules in use ............................................................................................................. 47 5.3. Implementation of the SEP method ................................................................................ 49 5.3.1. Motives for participating in the PM&E application .............................................. 49 5.3.2 Timeline and roles .................................................................................................. 49 5.4. Outcomes of the implementation ................................................................................... 54 5.4.1. Prerequisites for co-production: Learning, changes in attitudes and social capital formation .................................................................................................... 54 5.4.2. Embeddedness for co-production: Institutional innovations, changes in rules, practices involving power sharing ........................................................................ 55 5.4.3. Co-production: complementary inputs from different actors are combined in one or more of the following ways, if embeddedness or changes in roles and practices occur ....................................................................................................... 57 5.4.4. Benefits of co-production: ..................................................................................... 57 5.5. References ......................................................................................................................... 59 6. CASE STUDY. SEP WITH PROMYM in Chaco, Bolivia ...................................................................... 61 6.1. Background information .................................................................................................. 61 6.2. Context of the SEP application ......................................................................................... 61 6.2.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 61 6.2.2. The macro context ................................................................................................. 62 6.2.3. The main actors ...................................................................................................... 63 6.2.4. Rules in use ............................................................................................................. 64 6.3. Implementation of the SEP methodology ......................................................................