diff --git "a/data/part_2/0baf603a770e4a938255bba179eca7f7.json" "b/data/part_2/0baf603a770e4a938255bba179eca7f7.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/part_2/0baf603a770e4a938255bba179eca7f7.json"
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"metadata":{"id":"0baf603a770e4a938255bba179eca7f7","source":"gardian_index","url":"https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/bc08a039-13dd-4a8d-a99d-597107cd72ab/retrieve"},"pageCount":96,"title":"Research in development: Learning from the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems Editors","keywords":["Front cover","Yousuf Tushar/WorldFish Photo credit: Back cover","Anne-Maree Schwarz/WorldFish"],"chapters":[{"head":"Background","index":1,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":157,"text":"Approximately 500 million people in Africa, Asia and the Pacific depend on aquatic agricultural systems for their livelihoods. Of these, an estimated 137 million live in poverty 1 (Béné and Teoh 2014). They live in coastal zones and along river floodplains and other wetlands, where they are vulnerable to increasing population pressure, natural resource depletion and degradation, biodiversity loss, climate change, sea level rise, and increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events. The men and women who live in and depend on these systems are an integral part of the systems themselves. Socio-cultural systems are inseparable from natural systems in that livelihoods make use of both ecological processes and the diversity of productive options for growing and harvesting food and other products that generate income and wellbeing (Chiesura and de Groot 2003;AAS 2011). Aquatic agricultural systems are vulnerable, diverse, complex social-ecological systems 2 to which people continue to apply traditional management and productive practices in many societies."},{"index":2,"size":162,"text":"A central role for agricultural research in complex social-ecological systems is to learn how to use research processes and outputs in ways that build the capacity of smallholder farmers and fishers to innovate faster, more effectively and more equitably as a means to poverty reduction. Men and women farmers and fishers living in aquatic agricultural systems have always innovated to adapt to change based on their indigenous and local knowledge. Today, the increasing rate and scale of change demands that smallholder farmers and artisanal fishers innovate better and faster than ever before if they are to maintain a state of wellbeing. Vulnerability varies by socioeconomic group. Women and marginalized peoples tend to be more vulnerable to sudden change and often have less access to the range of resources and factors needed to support innovation (time, acceptability of risks in experimenting, networks, etc.). Furthermore, inequities in access to agricultural resources reduce productivity and the ability to secure sufficient nutritious food throughout the year."},{"index":3,"size":124,"text":"The CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) began operation in 2011 with the aim of reducing poverty and improving food security for small-scale fishers and farmers dependent on aquatic agricultural systems (AAS 2011). As well as seeking to generate outcomes that directly improve the productivity and resilience of aquatic agricultural systems through agricultural research, the program set a goal of better understanding how agricultural research can itself innovate such that it meets the challenge framed above-helping poor and vulnerable people achieve more equitable and more sustainable livelihoods from the socialecological system they are part of. To capture the intent of this goal and to contrast the program's approach with \"business as usual\" agricultural research, AAS coined the term \"research in development\" (RinD)."},{"index":4,"size":157,"text":"In this document, business as usual refers to the common problem-solving process used in science where the researcher is understood to stand objectively outside the system under study and produce a research output, which is then adopted and adapted by users to solve a specific problem. In the business-as-usual model, adoption or adaptation is usually not the researcher's concern. Typically, researchers are neither recognized nor rewarded if users adopt their output (Campbell et al. 2015). The result is a disconnect between researcher and user, resulting too often in research technologies that do not meet local needs and are abandoned. Consequently, much technology development does not necessarily have development impact. The optimistic but common term used to describe these technologies is \"on the shelf. \" The business-asusual model has also been called the \"pipeline\" approach (Sumberg 2005), the \"central source of innovation\" model (Biggs 1990), and in industry, the \"delivery\" mode or \"over the wall\" approach (Leonard-Barton 1998)."},{"index":5,"size":154,"text":"In contrast, the term \"research in development\" implies an approach where the research is carried out within and as part of a more complex social-ecological system. In this approach, the distinction between \"inside\" and \"outside\" becomes less obvious and innovation is seen as a process that links across them. This does not mean that all research must be implemented directly with farmers and fishers; indeed, there is a need for basic research to support improved productivity in aquatic agricultural systems (such as developing a new variety of rice) that requires scientists to work away from the farm. The emphasis on linking and innovation, however, calls for all agricultural research to be cognizant of how its outputs support and engage with local processes of innovation to achieve development outcomes. This recognition pushes agricultural researchers to think beyond the specific problem they are aiming to address and embrace a broader perspective on how development is achieved."},{"index":6,"size":178,"text":"Approaching systems through only their parts means we run the risk of not appreciating the whole. Poverty in social-ecological systems is multifaceted, and the causes of inequality are often hidden (Pelling 2010;Kabeer 2012). Consequently, an approach to agricultural research that aims to support poverty alleviation and is particularly concerned about marginalized peoples must look beyond the easily identifiable agricultural problems that business-as-usual models are good at solving. It must also understand underlying social dynamics and the patterns of interactions between stakeholders that may inhibit equitable outcomes for all. This more complex and socially aware approach to agricultural research builds on and extends the experience and learning from farming systems research (e.g. Gilbert et al. 1980;Scoones et al. 2009) to embrace underlying development processes and appreciate patterns of interactions. It is aligned with a growing field of research and practice in development that acknowledges complexity (e.g. Jones 2011; Ramalingan 2013). RinD intends, therefore, to take a more holistic approach and look beneath the surface so that agricultural research can equitably support capacity to innovate and achieve sustainable development outcomes."}]},{"head":"Overview","index":2,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":87,"text":"The AAS program proposal (AAS 2011) defined an RinD approach to agricultural research as one that is cognizant of the multifaceted nature of poverty and one that aims to address challenges in complex social-ecological systems. The RinD approach as it is now understood by the program has evolved from the initial intent to greater articulation of its elements and requirements as the proposal has been operationalized. As of October 2015, AAS has been in operation and developing the RinD approach for 3 ½ years in five hubs."},{"index":2,"size":63,"text":"Hubs are defined as \"locations within key aquatic agricultural systems where innovation and learning can bring about development outcomes\" (AAS 2013, 5). As of May 2015, AAS was working in five hubs: the Barotse floodplain in Zambia; the Southern Polder Zone of Bangladesh; the Tonle Sap floodplain in Cambodia; the Visayas-Mindanao region in the Philippines; and Malaita and Western provinces in Solomon Islands."},{"index":3,"size":216,"text":"The biophysical and socio-cultural context of each of the hubs is unique and requires adaptation of the implementation approach to each context to address relevant development challenges. Consequently, the RinD approach is being developed through a case study approach to learning from implementation, with each hub as a case of RinD implementation. This forms a core part of AAS research on the RinD approach, which aims to generate lessons that are useful more broadly in the field of agricultural research and development practice. This working paper aims to synthesize and share learning from the experience of adapting and operationalizing the RinD approach to agricultural research in the five hubs. It seeks to share learning about how the approach is working in context and to explore the outcomes it is achieving through initial implementation over 3 ½ years. This learning can inform continuation of agricultural research in the second phase of the CGIAR research programs and will be useful to others aiming to implement research programs that seek to equitably build capacity to innovate in complex social-ecological systems. In the next section, we describe what RinD was understood to be in 2013 (Dugan et al. 2013), providing a starting point for the chapters that follow, which explore lessons about particular aspects of the approach and their outcomes."}]},{"head":"The RinD approach","index":3,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":106,"text":"The first step under the RinD approach in the hubs was to articulate a hub development challenge collectively with stakeholders through a participatory planning process. Scoping and diagnosis of particular challenges, both biophysical and socio-cultural, was undertaken by multidisciplinary research teams. The approach used to implement these interventions, described in Figure 1, utilizes four elements: commitment to people and place, participatory action research, using a gendertransformative approach, and facilitating learning and networking. The approach also requires two enabling conditions: partnerships and capacity development. The elements build on a range of theories on and experience from agricultural research-for-development experiences (e.g. Hawkins et al. 2009;Hall et al. 2014)."},{"index":2,"size":113,"text":"Commitment to people and place is based on the assumption that people have the potential to innovate and bring about meaningful change, and that a sustainable way to improve livelihoods is to leverage this potential for deeper and longer-lasting change (e.g. Chambers and Ghildyal 1985;Hickey and Mohan 2004). AAS aims to foster development within communities through engaging the poor and marginalized across scales to help improve their access to and use of the process of agricultural research, as well as the research outputs produced. This takes time and commitment from researchers working collaboratively with local stakeholders as everyone learns together how to make the most of the potential that lies within the system."},{"index":3,"size":49,"text":"Participatory action research (PAR) is the core engagement process that RinD uses to ensure beneficiaries are co-owners in the process of finding solutions to their own problems and in building their own capacity to reflect and innovate (Reason and Bradbury 2008), and is described in Apgar and Douthwaite (2013)."},{"index":4,"size":76,"text":"A gender-transformative approach embodies a commitment to and strategies for social transformation that result in equity and equality among diverse actors (Cole et al. 2014b). A gender-transformative approach frames the research process as one that combines technical knowledge generation with equity-oriented transformative learning. AAS seeks both to address the visible aspects of gender and other social gaps and to create opportunities for actors to shift the underlying norms, attitudes, practices or policies that shape these gaps. "}]},{"head":"LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN-DEVELOPMENT APPROACH","index":4,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":87,"text":"Learning and networking stress the need for adaptive management, learning and adapting as hub programs of work are implemented, as well as using monitoring and evaluation as another set of tools to ensure this happens (Douthwaite et al. 2014). RinD requires those involved to be aware of their own mindset throughout the implementation and to learn new skills, such as facilitation and networking. Effective partnerships acknowledge that intervening meaningfully requires working with others, and that building partnerships at all levels is the pathway to greater development outcomes."}]},{"head":"Methodology","index":5,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":123,"text":"This paper is the result of program-level PAR. Action researchers recognize that there are multiple and overlapping levels of inquiry, referred to as first-, second-and third-person action research (Reason and Torbert 2001). First-person research refers to learning through individual self-inquiry. Second-person research is relational and includes reflecting and learning with peers in a community about a particular area of theory or practice. Third-person research refers to learning with stakeholders about the broader issues that are the focus of a specific inquiry. AAS engages all three levels to surface and document learning that is used to improve practice and enable others to learn and to answer research questions about RinD, contributing to the global discourse through the production of international public goods (Figure 2)."},{"index":2,"size":98,"text":"As the basis for identifying and measuring AAS outcomes, AAS has implemented a learning system that includes hub RinD implementation teams who engage in third-person research with hub stakeholders. These teams engage in their own second-person research and annually consolidate their learning around specific research areas. Once a year, representatives from hub teams come together for a cross-hub review and engage in another level of secondperson research with their peers from other hubs. Cross-hub learning is facilitated by a global RinD team of researchers based outside the hubs. This working paper is an output of this cross-hub learning."},{"index":3,"size":94,"text":"In January 2015, the AAS cross-hub review brought together hub staff and the global team at WorldFish headquarters in Penang, Malaysia (AAS 2015). The review process enabled hub teams to share what they had learned across contexts and to articulate common themes. Prior to the cross-hub review, each hub team had carried out their own review with stakeholders in which they reflected on three topics: what worked and what did not in implementing and building capacity for RinD; early evidence of outcomes; and the continued relevance of the overall hub strategic framework (AAS 2014)."},{"index":4,"size":74,"text":"This review process identified the following six areas of collective learning about RinD from across hubs: • learning from community engagement • learning about partnerships • learning from the integration of the gendertransformative approach • learning about how to make science more inclusive • learning about capacity development • generating a better articulation of RinD and its value. In the following chapters of this working paper, the first four areas of learning are investigated. "}]},{"head":"Introduction","index":6,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":84,"text":"A core aspect of the AAS RinD approach is its focus on engaging with communities through a process known as PAR. This is a methodology used in many practitioner-based fields to support engagement of stakeholders in the process of research in order to promote empowerment and behavior change (e.g. Reason and Bradbury 2008). AAS builds on the long history of farmer participation in agricultural research (e.g. Chambers and Ghildyal 1985;Biggs 2008;Scoones et al. 2009) and extends it through a purposeful approach to community engagement."},{"index":2,"size":34,"text":"The AAS RinD approach assumes that using participatory engagement with stakeholders in designing, planning, implementing and learning from agricultural research will lead to empowerment and ownership such that more lasting outcomes can be achieved."},{"index":3,"size":74,"text":"Examples from health (e.g. Tindana et al. 2007;Nakibinge et al. 2009), education (e.g. Weerts and Sandmann 2008;Butin 2010), business (e.g. Bowen et al. 2010) and community development (e.g. Tamarack 2007) illustrate that better results can be achieved when communities are involved in development processes that affect them. AAS believes that engagement with a select number of communities in a hub over the lifespan of the program can inform and build a joint research agenda."},{"index":4,"size":12,"text":"This chapter examines what we have learned about community engagement and PAR."}]},{"head":"DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Design of community engagement within RinD","index":7,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":84,"text":"Commitment to people and place: PAR across scales Commitment to people and place and PAR are both elements of the AAS RinD approach. In AAS, PAR is composed of iterative, facilitated cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting with stakeholders at the community and hub levels. Through this process, stakeholders identify and begin to address their own development challenges through agricultural research. This process allows communities to reflect on how change is happening, thus becoming an integral part of the monitoring and evaluation system."},{"index":2,"size":13,"text":"Figure 3 shows the two levels at which the program engages with stakeholders."},{"index":3,"size":101,"text":"The AAS PAR process starts with a multidisciplinary research team scoping the biophysical and social dimensions of the aquatic agricultural system to identify opportunities and development challenges. This scoping leads to the selection of local sites for community engagement and articulation of a hub development challenge that guides the program. Then, researchers engage with communities and document community visions, priorities and action plans, which are owned by the communities. The final step of planning during the first cycle is a workshop that produces a program of work for the hub, including research initiatives that address community visions and support community action."},{"index":4,"size":91,"text":"The next cycle of stakeholder engagement starts with initiative planning. An initiative includes research and development activities with partners that directly support community action plans and answer identified research questions. Concurrently, communities continue their cycle of planning, acting and reflecting on what they have learned through implementation. An annual review workshop provides opportunity to adjust initiatives and community actions. The intent of continued engagement at two levels is to build and strengthen links between the local actions and achievement of outcomes on the ground with system-level processes of research and change."},{"index":5,"size":13,"text":"Together, the two levels of engagement aim to tackle the hub development challenge. "}]},{"head":"Scoping and diagnosis","index":8,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Initiative planning","index":9,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":2,"text":"Mid-year review"}]},{"head":"AAR and action planning","index":10,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":59,"text":"Equity. This principle helps ensure that facilitation teams (co-researchers) pay attention to the multiple voices that influence the community vision and action plans and the processes through which they are developed, implemented and reflected upon. This principle is further strengthened through the program's transformative approach to gender (see the gender chapter for further explanation of the approach to gender)."},{"index":2,"size":112,"text":"Ensuring equity in the PAR process requires strategies for the creation of \"safe spaces\" where men, women and youth can freely express themselves and safely question underlying norms that contribute to inequity and inequality. Specific research interventions to support the achievement of community visions need to be designed and implemented in ways that are cognizant of social differentiation and implications for participation and benefit. This requires initial research to understand why inequities and inequalities related to gender, ethnicity and religion exist, as well as how they affect choices and outcomes. That knowledge can then be used to design activities that facilitate change in underlying attitudes and beliefs and manage any consequent tradeoffs."}]},{"head":"Shared analysis.","index":11,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":101,"text":"The third principle focuses on an area of research practice: analysis. Implementing this principle means that researchers who are facilitating the PAR process enable other stakeholders who are co-researchers to take part in the analytical steps that lead to greater understanding of a particular issue that relates to the collective concern. Appropriate data collection and analysis methods are used, depending on the specific question being addressed. Researchers have a responsibility to proactively involve stakeholders in the process such that the group as a whole can learn, rendering the results of the research process more useful and able to address real-life concerns."},{"index":2,"size":60,"text":"Feedback. The fourth principle emphasizes the commitment to support ongoing development and enablement of joint learning. By emphasizing feedback mechanisms, researchers are required to think beyond production of a research output and consider how to keep the research connected to community visions, particularly in relation to how outputs are used and how they may contribute to achieving desired development outcomes."}]},{"head":"Box 2. Strength-based approach","index":12,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":48,"text":"When facilitators meet with people in communities, they look for their strengths. They do not start from their weaknesses. A strength-based approach, or SALT, is a mode of interaction with communities. S : Stimulate, Support, Share A : Appreciate L : Listen, Learn, Link T : Transfer, Team"},{"index":2,"size":111,"text":"Initiating community engagement: The community life competence process AAS recognized that implementing community engagement was outside CGIAR's area of expertise when designing the program. Consequently, the program developed a partnership with Constellation, 3 an international nongovernmental organization (NGO) with relevant experience who shared similar goals of building local capacity to respond to development challenges (see the partnership chapter for more on shared partnership learning). The community life competence process developed by Constellation was adapted to RinD and used to initiate engagement with communitylevel stakeholders in all five hubs during the first cycle of engagement. Constellation coaches worked closely with hub teams and implementing partners to build their capacity and guide implementation."},{"index":3,"size":281,"text":"The community life competence process is a strength-based approach in that it emphasizes a particular mindset among facilitators (Box 2). The process comprises a number of steps that lead to development of community action plans. Community mobilization is initiated through visits to selected communities to build relationships, identify community strengths and stimulate members of the community to think critically about their situations. Mobilization involves identifying local facilitators (both men and women) who can act as a bridge between the program and the community and who become community researchers. The next step is \"dream building\" to develop a community vision of success. Men, women, old and young are first engaged separately to create safe spaces for their own visioning processes. Consolidation of the different visions to develop a collective vision is facilitated where desired and appropriate. From the dream as articulated, community members (as a collective or in separate groups, depending on the context) then identify priority areas for action. They conduct a self-assessment as a critical reflection on their situation in order to identify constraints. This exercise is aimed at identifying gaps between their present situation and their desired state. Next, they prioritize areas and identify actions that a group of people in the community are motivated to undertake to move towards achieving their vision of the future (in many cases these are actions for the whole community, such as building a community-owned market). This stage is called \"prioritization and action planning. \" The result is a set of community-owned action plans (some collectively owned and some owned by smaller groups or by a particular social group such as women or youth) with commitment to implement the plans using local resources."}]},{"head":"Ongoing community engagement through PAR","index":13,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":99,"text":"Communities then proceed to implementing their action plans. The local community facilitators work with program staff, who support them in implementation. As the research initiatives take shape and implementation begins, areas of more specific joint inquiry are identified. Examples include productivity research in Bangladesh supporting implementation of technologies for shaded ponds; research on the impact of savings and lending groups for income generation in Zambia; research on access to markets in fish value chains in Zambia; productivity research to identify suitable sources of seed for SUPA rice 4 in Zambia; and piloting rice field fisheries management practices in Cambodia."},{"index":2,"size":90,"text":"Action plans and associated research lead to the observation and reflection step that enables those involved to understand the changes that may be occurring and to measure their achievements. As Figure 4 illustrates, the ongoing community engagement process is the main vehicle for a village-level participatory monitoring and evaluation system focused on outcomes and learning. Community action plans are revised on an annual basis, building on what was learned the previous year. Documentation of this process feeds into program research to understand if and how the RinD approach is working."}]},{"head":"Community engagement implementation models","index":14,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":119,"text":"In this section, we illustrate how the community engagement design was implemented in the AAS hubs. Table 1 describes the implementation models used. The hubs vary in their biophysical contexts, ranging from inland water systems (Barotse and Tonle Sap floodplains) to coastal marine systems (Visayas-Mindanao and Malaita) and delta systems (Southern Bangladesh Polder Zone). These systems face varying degrees of ecosystem degradation, and a large portion of the population in each are poor and marginalized and depend heavily on the socialecological system for their livelihoods through the provision of multiple ecosystem goods. The issues associated with achieving communitydefined development aspirations and goals are different in each hub, as they are driven by the context and the program of work."},{"index":2,"size":8,"text":"Contextual variations shaped how community engagement was implemented:"},{"index":3,"size":194,"text":"• Different biophysical systems and varying agroecological zones. These differences influence the degree of livelihood dependence on capture fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture, livestock rearing and wild biodiversity harvesting. • The hub development challenge and its associated theory of change. While all hub challenges focus on the potential of the aquatic agricultural system, the specifics of the potential vary from the flood pulses in the Barotse and Tonle Sap, to the salinity gradient in the Southern Bangladesh Polder Zone, to the rich natural resources in Malaita.   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 opportunities for linking with support networks and agricultural research. In all cases, these outputs informed the development of the hub strategic framework and the initiatives designed to address the hub development challenge."}]},{"head":"DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH","index":15,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":54,"text":"During initial community visioning and action planning, there was some adaptation of the community life competence process steps. In most cases, separate groups of male, female and youth participants first developed their own visions. A notable difference among hubs was the extent to which research was discussed during the initial visioning and action planning."},{"index":2,"size":44,"text":"In the Southern Bangladesh Polder Zone, for example, the presence of many development NGOs and projects coupled with researchers playing a facilitation role in communities led to a narrower focus of engagement on farmerled PAR, while in other hubs community action plans were broader."},{"index":3,"size":98,"text":"Building on the initial use of the community life competence process, after-action reviews became the main vehicle for implementing the reflection step (Figure 3). Different strategies were used to create links between the community-owned action plans and implementation of interventions that form the stakeholder-driven research initiatives in each hub. For example, in Zambia, an early opportunity to work with savings and internal lending communities through partner support created a unique way of implementing research on use of PAR and the gender-transformative approach while supporting community action on increasing income. Minimal presence of other NGOs in the 10 communities."}]},{"head":"Tonle Sap biosphere, Cambodia","index":16,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":61,"text":"Seasonal flood pulse of the Tonle Sap Lake and floodplain offers opportunities for improved productivity, while water governance is a major challenge for those who rely on it. Communities looking to improve water governance for rice productivity and fish farming. High incidence of poverty despite the benefit from the flood pulse, particularly among floating villages where livelihoods depend heavily on fishing."},{"index":2,"size":4,"text":"Engaged with 12 communities.  "}]},{"head":"DEVELOPING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH","index":17,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":6,"text":"Learning about the community engagement process"},{"index":2,"size":27,"text":"Through reflection and analysis within and across hubs, we have identified the following lessons about how the community engagement process is working and what its outcomes are."}]},{"head":"Start with a community vision","index":18,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":144,"text":"In all hubs, the community life competence process enabled a broad vision to be articulated. At first, there was concern that such a broad vision would raise unrealistic expectations and move outside the CGIAR mandate. However, the process gives communities the freedom to think about their future on their own terms. By not limiting their understanding of their livelihoods and lives from an external perspective and not using program language to frame issues on which to focus, communities were able to identify their strengths and take actions based upon those strengths. In reflection sessions during which community members discuss their learning and achievements, returning to the broad community vision motivates them to continue their journey. In this way, the role of research is understood as supporting that journey from the beginning, rather than leading the definition of solutions to identified \"problems\" from the start."},{"index":2,"size":155,"text":"For AAS, the visioning process has helped ground an approach that looks at the whole system in the local reality of the hub. Through building a much broader understanding of the communities and their aspirations, stakeholders can begin to identify the relationships between various system components. For example, in the Barotse hub, fisheries management was a major concern in 10 community action plans. This concern stimulated action at higher levels, requiring strengthened collaboration with important stakeholders such as the Department of Fisheries, the Barotse Royal Establishment and fish trader associations. In this case, locally defined concerns resulted in a hublevel response: the formation of village-based fisheries management committees as part of a co-management approach that brings together government, the private sector, traditional leadership and the community. Understanding local systems in the context of a broad vision provides a big picture that helps inform the research agenda, build on local strengths and create links across scales."}]},{"head":"Deepening engagement requires staging and building trust","index":19,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":43,"text":"Across all hubs, the implementation phase of initial community action plans was accompanied by strategies to deepen engagement. These strategies included building a better understanding of the critical and underlying issues that create opportunities for research, and developing strategies that include marginalized groups."},{"index":2,"size":111,"text":"Varying strategies were used to build a better understanding of the issues to be addressed through interventions and that enabled agricultural research to directly support the actions of different groups within communities. For example, in Bangladesh, homestead agricultural systems are mainly managed by women and are critical for household food security and nutrition. Separate focus group discussions with women led to a better understanding of the challenges they faced, such as not having access to quality seeds. As a result, women farmers set up research trials together with professional researchers from local universities and government agencies and have developed their skills for identifying the best seed varieties for their household plots."},{"index":3,"size":129,"text":"In the Philippines, focus group discussions identified illegal fishing gear as one of the critical issues, leading to a multistakeholder dialogue to bring illegal fishers into fisheries management discussions. The trust built through AAS researchers spending time in the communities enabled the Balingasag community to engage with a deeply rooted issue. In Cambodia, the use of a coding system enabled communities and facilitators to collect and analyze qualitative data to better understand the local situation and to feed directly into the planning of the three hub initiatives. One of them, the land and water management initiative, now includes a case study on Tram Pear Lake rehabilitation, which was informed by the results of crossvillage analysis that illustrated the need to improve water supply to increase rice and fish productivity."},{"index":4,"size":76,"text":"No participatory process is perfect, and no community is ever fully engaged from the outset. Consequently, implementing the principle of equity in community engagement requires hub teams to be cognizant of who was engaged in the process to begin with and who was left out. Different strategies can be used to build this understanding, and over time strategies may be developed to reach out to those who were not part of the initial broad visioning process."},{"index":5,"size":144,"text":"For example, in Malaita, the visioning process in Alea and Kwai communities began by bringing residents from surrounding villages together at one location to develop community visions and action plans. During implementation, however, it became clear that even though people were from the same tribe, families and church, they were not accustomed to working together. In contrast, in Fumato'o, where the participants live closer together and consider themselves one community, action plans were collectively implemented with little difficulty. Ensuring broad participation, implementation and ownership of a vision or an action plan in the context of Malaita, therefore, required adaption of the strategy to work with smaller groups that are geographically close and have the experience of working collectively. A strategy was developed to deepen engagement with a cohesive cluster and to plan to scale the approach to neighboring hamlets to develop different action plans."},{"index":6,"size":180,"text":"In Cambodia, there are high levels of inequality in villages. Here, the program works through NGO partners who have been working in the same villages for some time. This creates a challenge for us to understand if the NGO engagement process is broad enough and reaches the marginalized. In order to better understand who the program was engaging with in relation to the whole community, participatory well-being ranking was conducted and used together with a coding grid and a monitoring map. The coding system allowed monitoring of who the program was engaging with and provided a planning tool to help identify the poor and marginalized within communities. For example, in Tram Pear village, use of the coding system enabled the team to see that an action plan around rehabilitation of the lake was the result of participation by a group of people who all lived close to and benefited from the lake. This knowledge allowed the team to develop a more household-focused strategy to reach out to the most marginalized who lived far from the main part of the village."},{"index":7,"size":35,"text":"In Bangladesh, while the engagement process remained open to all, farmers were selected on the basis of their interest and motivation to do research, which did not fully address the gender or social difference dimension."},{"index":8,"size":87,"text":"Further engagement led to research on small homestead shaded ponds intended to help women overcome the challenge of low productivity. Similarly, separate discussions with men led to research on field crops. To understand the wealth status of the participants, a participatory wealth ranking method was developed. Community members set up wealth ranking criteria for their community and divided themselves according to family income. This helped AAS staff understand that the poorest sections of some communities did not participate in PAR, as they had neither land nor ponds."},{"index":9,"size":97,"text":"In Zambia, 3 of the 10 communities in Senanga District are home to two tribes: Mbunda and Lozi. The Lozi are the original inhabitants, and the Mbunda are immigrants who have integrated over time. During the engagement process, it was discovered that the Mbunda coming into the communities found the fertile land all taken by the Lozi. This pushed the Mbunda into non-agriculture enterprises. Discussions during the visioning exercise led to action on canal clearing to free more land for cultivation, which led to improved access to land and more involvement by the Mbunda in agricultural activities."},{"index":10,"size":85,"text":"From across the cases, we see that starting with a broad vision that can be implemented through a relatively consistent methodology across contexts must be accompanied by contextualized strategies to dig deeper and understand how to support communities and groups within them to tackle their own issues while avoiding elite capture. The deepening process is also critical to identifying areas for agricultural research. Treating community members as co-researchers requires diagnostic studies along with the engagement process such that research interventions support community motivation and change."},{"index":11,"size":128,"text":"Digging deeper in the community engagement process and fully embracing the equity principle of PAR has not been easy. One challenge faced is further discussed below regarding the research teams' mindsets and capacity to bring social analysis and a critical lens into agricultural research processes (see also the gender chapter). Our experience suggests that staging when to deepen engagement is important to ensure the research process first builds trust. Working through a stronger relationship built on trust means research is better able to contribute to the development process and can act upon hidden challenges that do not tend to surface in initial action planning. With time, the program can reach out to more, ensure the marginalized are involved and begin to address challenges that require deeper, transformative change."}]},{"head":"Responding to broad issues requires networking and partnerships","index":20,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":120,"text":"Not all concerns and opportunities identified by communities as a starting point are ones that a CGIAR research program could engage with directly. Hub teams were initially concerned about their inability to respond to all the identified areas, and feared that community residents might lose interest. This created a tension between holding onto a broad and holistic view of the development process and staying true to the agricultural research mandate of CGIAR. This tension was managed by developing a strategy for responding to broader community needs through partnerships and playing a bridging role so communities could connect to relevant stakeholders with the capacity and mandate to address concerns relating to infrastructural development, health and sanitation, or delivery of agricultural inputs."},{"index":2,"size":61,"text":"For example, in the Philippines, the community's dreams and action plans were presented to various stakeholders during a consultation workshop that led to government responses. In Pinamgo community, one of the priority dreams was the repair of a solar water system. As a result of sharing these plans, the local government unit committed to providing funds to buy a water pump."},{"index":3,"size":51,"text":"In a case where the issue was education, in Mancilang, the Department of Science and Technology provided a number of scholarships that enabled some of the youths to pursue a college education. This has built trust in the program and created an opening for the role of agricultural research to contribute."},{"index":4,"size":63,"text":"In Cambodia, NGO partners participating in the engagement process have found ways to link communities in order to address some of their priority concerns. For example, as a result of community visioning in one village, people realized that to achieve their dream of improving and diversifying livelihood activities they needed to renovate a bridge that connects them to the market and other communities. "}]},{"head":"Systematic reflection and documentation enables adaptation","index":21,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":131,"text":"Community engagement as a process of PAR includes a facilitated reflection step during which community participants take stock of their learning and achievements and assess the progress of their action plans. The reflection step allows the program to adapt the engagement process. This is part of the system of monitoring and evaluation for learning that functions across scales of engagement-from community to hub and across hubs. Implementation of this part of the process was less scripted than the initial community visioning and action planning (which was informed by the community life competence process), yet similar approaches have been taken across hubs. All involved systematic use of facilitated reflection meetings and documentation that captured outcomes and lessons learned. The reflection step is proving to be a good vehicle for supporting program adaptation."},{"index":2,"size":164,"text":"For example, in the Malaita hub, AAS researchers, along with partners and local resource people, connect with the community through local facilitators and community champions. After every visit to communities, a trip report is written and circulated to the whole program team. This documentation process helped identify that Alea was facing a challenge in implementation of their action plans. Then, during the community after-action review in Alea, the hub team could better appreciate the community dynamics that were challenging the implementation of their plan. The joint reflection helped the community develop a strategy to adapt the action planning and implementation process. Community members confirmed that they prefer coming together for learning. They use a central demonstration site (for ongoing work with development projects) for some of their activities so that the surrounding villages can join in but can also implement their own actions in their own villages. Documentation of the reflection process provides input to the strategy and is monitored on an ongoing basis."},{"index":3,"size":112,"text":"In the Barotse floodplain, community facilitators also reflected on their performance and challenges during the community afteraction reviews, which are implemented every 6 months and include development of new action plans informed by learning and outcomes achieved. These reflections have helped the program and community facilitators understand the challenge of an exponentially increasing workload, as more activities are underway relating to the research initiatives and evolving requirements for documentation. This understanding led to the development of a strategy to invest in supporting emerging champions and leaders who are already facilitating and guiding various smaller PAR groups. Reviewing documentation tools with community facilitators in this way helps adapt the system and builds capacity."},{"index":4,"size":70,"text":"A similar strategy is used in Bangladesh to build leadership capacity in emerging champions, which helps to ground the engagement model in communities. A system was designed that emphasizes documenting the process during the planning of each intervention and prior to subsequent actions. This generates a running record of what was done at each stage of a development or change process, as well as the outcomes associated with each step."},{"index":5,"size":80,"text":"Program staff are responsible for running and monitoring the process. This documentation system has helped adapt the program design. Also in Bangladesh, the documentation picked up on an opportunity to support changes in women's access to land. At the beginning of the program, some female farmers faced difficulties, as they did not have access to good land for horticulture research. The model was adapted to include household participation in the action research, thus enabling women to use small household plots."},{"index":6,"size":117,"text":"In Cambodia, the facilitation teams used postsession recording sheets and after-action reviews to document their learning after every facilitated event. Learning from the post-session recording sheets has led to improvement in how specific tools are used during sessions and in the way the team facilitates the participation of villagers overall. For instance, the facilitation teams learned that community participation was limited to a few groups in some of the villages. A contributing factor to this narrow participation was the village meeting style of the first sessions. In response, the team adjusted the facilitation technique to start with a SALT visit to households (Box 2) and then implemented focus group discussions across different wealth groups in the village."},{"index":7,"size":25,"text":"Reflections on how to engage both men and women to improve the gender focus led to a decision to have separate groups for most activities."},{"index":8,"size":226,"text":"In the Philippines, the initial strategy of community immersion teams was implemented in all communities. Through reflection and learning about what was or was not working, the teams adjusted their strategy. For example, in communities where the pressing issue was enforcement of fishery laws and the community thought that it could easily be resolved by employment of fish wardens, systematic reflection and documentation indicated that a multistakeholder consultation workshop was necessary before the employment of fish wardens. In another case, abaca farmers reacted to the recommendation of experts on how to eradicate a virus that infested their plants (see the inclusive science chapter for more details on this case). The experts recommended the removal of all potential host plants of the virus, one of which is a crop that farmers presently have on their farms and that provides good income. Abaca farmers reacted strongly against the recommendation, so the experts conducted further research to confirm whether the insect thriving in the replacment crop is the host of the virus causing the disease. Another strategy implemented was to conduct several focus group discussions to fully understand the perspectives of community members and further enhance the credibility of experts to the community. This approach put the community members and the experts at ease with each other and led to a satisfactory resolution and a higher level of engagement."},{"index":9,"size":45,"text":"Across the hubs, we have found that implementation teams have embraced reflection processes and are systematically facilitating reflection on specific activities and on the overall engagement process. In all hubs, the engagement process has evolved and is being refined as we learn together with communities. "}]},{"head":"Transforming ourselves is part of the process","index":22,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":116,"text":"From its inception, the program was cognizant that engaging communities through PAR is not a core skill of CGIAR. The program therefore invested in capacity development. This started with support from Constellation across all hubs and has continued through varying support strategies. The main modality for developing the behaviors and skills required for PAR has been through on-the-job training, coaching and ongoing mentoring. As noted above, in all hubs a culture of implementing after-action reviews after every event has been institutionalized, and teams have been using this process to reflect and learn-not just about the changes they see occurring in the hubs, but also about their own capacity to use a strength-based approach and implement PAR."},{"index":2,"size":16,"text":"All hub teams have embraced a new way of working with communities and with each other."},{"index":3,"size":23,"text":"The first steps of community engagement were taken with the specific guidance of the community life competence process, which required adaptation and contextualization."},{"index":4,"size":94,"text":"As teams moved into the implementation phase, they had less direct guidance and were encouraged to design processes based on their own experience with backstopping support. For many, the lack of specific guidance and clearly defined boundaries has been challenging. Some have had little experience with a learningfocused approach that starts with a broad framework and requires contextualization. Many were used to project implementation in which the project has already decided what it will focus on and comes in with a rigid plan that is implemented according to a logical framework and a schedule."},{"index":5,"size":68,"text":"Teams also grappled with learning how to let communities be in control of their own development process. The Constellation SALT mindset that was introduced to all teams (Box 2) is an example of how capacity development has focused in part on shifting our own mindset from a project-driven mentality to a strengthbased program approach. As implementation teams, we appreciate that we also are in a process of transformation."},{"index":6,"size":68,"text":"We have identified facilitation skills as important for ensuring quality in the community engagement process, implementing PAR, and understanding and using a gendertransformative approach. Facilitation skills include the capacity for active listening and critical reflection. To ensure a strength-based approach, teams have found it important to build team spirit to achieve a common vision and understand our own role as bridges and brokers rather than providers of solutions."},{"index":7,"size":37,"text":"Identifying networking opportunities and pursuing them is a skill that has enabled teams to manage expectations and look across scales. Rigorous and systematic documentation and having a good plan for information management and sharing are equally important."}]},{"head":"Community ownership in agricultural research","index":23,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":83,"text":"The with scientists led to an appreciation of the processes of engagement. This led to adapting the methodology to look beyond the field experiment and being cognizant of the broader development process (Humphries et al. 2000), as well as the value of the PAR process for organizing and learning (Bentley et al. 2006) that can lead to broader impacts. Our findings build on this appreciation for the broader process and move towards a deeper sense of co-ownership of the research process by communities."},{"index":2,"size":143,"text":"Our reflection on how we have been shifting our own mindset to enable communities to lead in research suggests that building co-ownership is a process that needs to be nurtured over time. The program has begun to make headway in overcoming some of the challenges through institutionalizing reflection processes and allowing for adaptive and flexible planning and implementation models. As Becker (2000) suggests, historically some of the challenges faced in using a participatory approach within CGIAR have included a narrow understanding of what science should do and weak institutionalization. Our findings provide evidence that using PAR to guide community engagement within the RinD approach is enabling a broader view of how science can contribute and has begun to institutionalize the processes required to shift ourselves towards a model of research that supports community ownership. Thus the program is moving beyond the historical challenges."},{"index":3,"size":76,"text":"Perhaps the most significant contribution of these findings is to illustrate that supporting participation within a technical research agenda alone is not sufficient to build community ownership. It is the link between the ongoing PAR process of engagement to support a broad community-owned and community-driven development process and the participation within specific interventions that agricultural research can support that makes for a stronger program that is more likely to build local capacity to innovate and adapt."}]},{"head":"Conclusion","index":24,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":26,"text":"We have explored and provided evidence from the six areas of learning that help us appreciate how community engagement can be successful in building community ownership:"},{"index":2,"size":72,"text":"• Starting with a broad community vision is important for setting the tone of engagement and helping the program ground its systems approach. 2. To add value in this complex institutional environment, we need to identify where and how the science insights we provide can strengthen the focus and delivery of other partners, and where the convening and catalytic roles we play can foster more effective coalitions of partners around our approach."},{"index":3,"size":30,"text":"3. Partners will devote the time and effort required to work together only if the value of doing so is clear. This requires that we identify mutual needs and expectations."},{"index":4,"size":17,"text":"It was anticipated that partners would be engaged as core institutions, key implementing partners and general partners."},{"index":5,"size":67,"text":"In 2012, the program began implementation in three of its five hubs (Figure 5): Bangladesh (Southern Bangladesh Polder Zone), Zambia (Barotse floodplain) and Solomon Islands The specific focus of this pilot was to increase levels of support to a small number of existing hub partnerships that had the potential to accelerate current research design and implementation, and to identify opportunities to scale the learning from this work."}]},{"head":"COLLABORATING FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT: LEARNING FROM RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP EXPERIENCES Methodology","index":25,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":121,"text":"As described in the introductory chapter, in January 2015, the annual cross-hub afteraction review brought together people from across hubs and the global team at WorldFish headquarters in Penang, Malaysia. Effective partnerships was one of the common themes identified from which useful learning was emerging. Six case studies were identified during the workshop, which have subsequently been expanded upon by a group of partners and AAS program staff. In this chapter we describe the six case studies. For each, we reflect on the processes and the journey that led to the emerging outcomes. We also synthesize lessons from the case studies in context of current literature around collective and knowledge partnerships and offer guidance for finalizing the AAS draft partnership framework."}]},{"head":"Case studies","index":26,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Global","index":27,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":64,"text":"The AAS proposal notes that \"global partnerships are needed to leverage our national and regional achievements and help change development thinking and policy globally\" (AAS 2012a, 59). Global development partners were expected to participate in program implementation in the hubs, while global research partners were expected to develop collaborations on research themes. The program outcomes were anticipated to be achieved through three impact pathways."},{"index":2,"size":270,"text":"One of these, pathway 3, seeks to use the international public goods produced by the program with the partners for \"raising awareness in the broader regional and global community\" (AAS 2012a, 27). Later, attempts were made to deepen the partnership within specific AAS hubs. In Bangladesh, AAS sponsored the participation of two staff members from CARE Bangladesh to attend the Summer School on Gender organized by the University of East Anglia in collaboration with AAS. In Zambia and Cambodia, while interest was high, CARE did not have the capacity to expand to the same geographical location as AAS. This means that within the hubs, the relationship has not progressed to the stage of including CARE activities in AAS core communities but remains at the level of higherlevel influencing and advocacy.  Prolinnova values the partnership with AAS because it provides widely recognized evidence to strengthen their case for promoting farmer-led participatory research in ways that strengthen capacity to innovate at the grassroots level. The network, which spans Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe, hopes that through their link with AAS, greater influence can be exerted at higher levels to create an enabling policy and institutional environment for grassroots innovation. Accordingly, the collaboration between Prolinnova and AAS is now primarily through impact pathway 3: to influence the global agricultural research and development community. The partnership also allows the Prolinnova network to gain deeper insights into how community-driven agricultural research and development can be supported more effectively. Thus, the partnership provides a platform for joint learning and advocacy for those within the CGIAR system who are committed to a transformative approach in research."}]},{"head":"Constellation","index":28,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":52,"text":"A core feature of the RinD approach is the use of PAR to guide engagement with stakeholders at hub and community level. This is our strengthbased engagement of women, men and youth at the local level through a visioning and actionplanning process that identifies opportunities for agricultural research to support community goals."},{"index":2,"size":28,"text":"From the outset, AAS and WorldFish recognized that we did not have all the skills required to implement this approach, so we approached the Belgian-based international NGO Constellation."},{"index":3,"size":90,"text":"Constellation shares the goal of supporting community-driven change as a vehicle for achieving development outcomes and has over 10 years of experience in engaging with communities. The partnership was established through a memorandum of understanding in 2012, with the main objective being to use Constellation's community life competence process model for initiating and supporting ongoing community engagement and ensuring consistency in the approach across hubs. A core principle of the partnership was the desire to learn together about using a strength-based approach to engaging communities in an agricultural research program."},{"index":4,"size":102,"text":"The partnership has been implemented over 3 years in all five hubs (see the community engagement chapter). It is based on Constellation's networked structure of international and local coaches working closely with the hub teams and hub partner organizations responsible for implementing community engagement. The Constellation global point-person for the partnership has engaged in joint planning with AAS program leadership globally to adapt the community life competence process model to the implementation processes in hubs, as well as participating in after-action reviews throughout the first 2 years. In 2014, a joint learning paper was developed in which the following partnership lessons emerged."},{"index":5,"size":46,"text":"The partnership improved and was increasingly successful over time due to systematic joint planning activities across scales. This included the involvement of Constellation coaches in a number of hub activities during rollout that helped them understand the complexity of RinD and their role in supporting it."},{"index":6,"size":31,"text":"The adaptation and use of the community life competence process as a PAR process within RinD required learning together how to support a research process built on a strength-based development approach."},{"index":7,"size":55,"text":"After-action reviews enabled shared learning and adaptation along the way. This is critical in an emergent partnership that aims to address collective goals within and across contexts. The systematic use of after-action reviews enabled the partnership to evolve and mature and even influence the memorandum of agreement structure to ensure effective implementation and joint learning."},{"index":8,"size":118,"text":"A recent joint after-action review led to the identification of challenges and tensions that we have been able to manage through the partnership, as well as the mutual understanding that we needed to evolve the partnership to a different modality. In early 2014, the planning process was adapted to reflect the learning from 2013. In April 2014, an after-action review involving partners and team members was convened by AAS. This was a pivotal moment in the program's evolution. Importantly, a collective accord was reached that agreements and work plans would be co-developed while acknowledging that this joint planning would take time, effort and coordination. This event was followed up with another planning and reflection meeting in September 2014."}]},{"head":"Activities and processes that influenced the case study trajectory","index":29,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":104,"text":"Certain activities and processes contributed to shifts in the way AAS in Zambia is now engaging in partnerships. Most notable are the opportunities the program creates for staff and partners to critically reflect on and adjust ways of working. For example, the April 2014 meeting provided a safe space for partners to express dissatisfaction with their lack of involvement in developing agreements and work plans. Discussions were held soon after the April meeting between Caritas-Mongu, CRS and WorldFish. All parties decided that a contractual relationship was unsatisfactory, and that the partnership arrangement should involve greater interaction in planning, implementing and reporting on AAS activities."},{"index":2,"size":80,"text":"Another positive influence on the quality of partnerships was the additional support provided by the results-based management pilot. This catalyzed a deeper relationship with Caritas-Mongu and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock that resulted in the design of a joint pilot project aimed at improving the ways agriculture and nutrition extension services are provided and knowledge is generated and shared among partners, with the goal of increasing productivity, improving nutrition and contributing positively towards achieving the Barotse hub development challenge."}]},{"head":"Emerging outcomes related to partnerships","index":30,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":143,"text":"Over the course of 2014, the Barotse program witnessed improved planning between staff and partners, which in some cases led to partners planning and using their own funds to implement activities together based on shared interests. This represented a shift from purely contractual arrangements to partnerships that were more collaborative. Joint planning has led to better links between overall program goals and research and development activities that aim to address the needs of people in the 10 AAS focal communities. During the 2014 annual stakeholder reflection workshop, participants highlighted that there is now greater collaboration among partners. In addition, funds to some partners were dispersed faster than in years past. Nevertheless, not all memorandums of agreement with partners were approved in a timely manner by WorldFish. This was one reason why some partners were unable to complete all activities in their work plans."},{"index":2,"size":12,"text":"A shift from contractual to collaborative partnerships takes time to fully realize. "}]},{"head":"Activities and processes that influenced the case study trajectory","index":31,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":147,"text":"The development of the research technical support system model was influenced by a number of converging factors. First, during the community visioning process it became clear that the interests of people in focal communities were diverse and efforts to address those interests needed to come from multiple sources, not just the WorldFish staff assigned to the communities. Second, to get the science \"right, \" multiple research support teams were needed, each with a specific area of agriculture-related expertise. Third, the theory of change developed by stakeholders suggests that farmers and fishers need to be better connected to high-quality science, and scientists need to engage more closely with farmers and fishers to ensure the science is aligned with the challenges farmers and fishers face. Fourth, although the initial research support team model began to create stronger farmer-scientist relationships, research team members had only a limited amount of time."},{"index":2,"size":33,"text":"When the support team was expanded to a system that included locally based research extension and development actors with specific expertise, a support mechanism was created that was both science-based and locally responsive."},{"index":3,"size":94,"text":"Through after-action reviews in 2013 and 2014, partners identified some of the challenges, emerging outcomes and ways forward. For example, engagement between research support team members was difficult given their respective bureaucracies, and their overall work requirements were demanding and often conflicted with those related to AAS. There were few women researchers on the teams, and capacity to conduct PAR was low, which prevented some members from participating in research activities. Also, contracts developed with research support team members made it difficult to engage with farmers and fishers outside a specific scope of work."},{"index":4,"size":80,"text":"Emerging In the early stages of program rollout, the convening role was evident in partner network analysis (Figure 7a), where WorldFish was identified as being the central link for many of the partners. After community engagement, the network map took a very different form (Figure 7b). There were much stronger links across a wider range of organizations, and WorldFish was no longer the primary link between them. We examine some of the processes that appear to have influenced this change."}]},{"head":"Activities and processes that influenced the case study trajectory","index":32,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":27,"text":"Partnerships at the national level involved engaging partners who have a mandate to cover all regions in the country and whose programs range from commodity-specific to industry-based.  "}]},{"head":"Legend","index":33,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":30,"text":"Icons represent organizations and stakeholders, while lines show who they are connected to through information sharing, funding or activities. The larger the icon, the greater the number of direct connections."},{"index":2,"size":11,"text":"In both diagrams WorldFish is represented by the large triangle. LGU_Bien_Unido"},{"index":3,"size":1,"text":"LGU_Balingasang"},{"index":4,"size":46,"text":"LGU_Dipolog VSU for home gardening and made these a basis for a city-wide program on organic vegetable production and marketing. They were involved especially at the barangay 5 level in community visioning and action planning and in identifying the theory of change and hub development challenge."},{"index":5,"size":42,"text":"Partnerships with other international NGOs (CRS and Heifer International) also started at rollout. For example, CRS recently contracted WorldFish to assist in the rehabilitation of typhoon-affected communities in Eastern Visayas, allowing the scaling out of the program in Eastern Samar and Leyte."},{"index":6,"size":46,"text":"In Dialogue that includes the partners' ideas and priorities helps shape research projects and leverage funding in support of community action plans. Some partnerships move from transactional to more collaborative ways of working with little effort, while others require more effort to ensure a successful transition."},{"index":7,"size":138,"text":"Mutual understanding can take years to emerge and require-at a minimum-the sharing of a common purpose or goal (ADB 2011). Global partner CARE participated in hub rollout activities in Cambodia, but this did not result in close collaboration in the hub despite ongoing interest. A mutual understanding has been reached that the most effective part for CARE to play may result in a role that is not directly in the hubs, but at a larger scale. Similarly, in the Solomon Islands case, having implementing partners involved from the scoping stage did not initially seem to bear fruit, but through ongoing participatory processes, alignment of purpose was eventually established as a foundation on which the AVRDC and AAS partnership is now building. Program funds are sometimes required to enable partners to move outside the geographical range of their projects."}]},{"head":"Learning Global Zambia Solomon Islands","index":34,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Bangladesh Cambodia Philippines","index":35,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":43,"text":"Conditions required to convene partners X X X X X How we sustain partners X X X X X How we strengthen capacities for leadership and foster change X X Table 3. Where the three areas of learning were emphasized across case studies."},{"index":2,"size":30,"text":"We now have enough experience to begin to comment on the enabling conditions in a partnership framework, which will be explored further in subsequent papers. These conditions include the following:"},{"index":3,"size":68,"text":"• Establishing systems for shared measurement and reflection. Facilitating data collection and measurement of results consistently across all participants ensures that efforts remain aligned, processes are equitable, and participants hold each other accountable through shared analysis and reflection. • Mutually reinforcing activities. Partner activities are differentiated, yet are still coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action. This approach will help leverage the best capabilities of each partner."}]},{"head":"• Effective communication and learning.","index":36,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":23,"text":"Consistent and open communication occurs in ways that build trust and mutually beneficial relations among all, supporting ongoing learning that is potentially transformative."}]},{"head":"Learning to sustain partnerships","index":37,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":83,"text":"It is the individuals within institutions who undertake partnership activities (ADB 2011), and the case studies have emphasized that one-on-one relationship building is essential for sustaining partnerships. Mutual trust in a collaborative research partnership has to be nurtured and developed over time and requires a commitment of technical and financial resources by external research institutions and programs. A further challenge to sustaining partnerships relates to staff transitions, and this highlights the importance of investing time and effort to orient newcomers to the partnership."},{"index":2,"size":11,"text":"Relationships should be institutionalized with co-investments for shared action and advocacy."},{"index":3,"size":43,"text":"Building on past gains while breaking new ground, such as through joint publications, is sometimes a useful way to build a common vision for research. It may also be necessary to modify the team makeup to include technical service providers to local communities."}]},{"head":"Learning to strengthen capacities for leadership and foster change","index":38,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":107,"text":"As partnerships and coalitions began to mature, lessons about deepening those partnerships began to emerge. One lesson is the critical importance of having strong leadership across AAS: within communities, partners and the three managing centers to model new behaviors, embrace emergent thinking, and be successful in convening and sustaining partnerships. This reflects learning (Kania and Kramer 2011) that a backbone support organization that has the time to perform functions such as facilitation, data collection and reporting is one of the necessary conditions for collective success. For global partnerships, this needs to be multilayered (local to global) to ensure co-ordination happens at multiple levels (Patscheke et al. 2014)."},{"index":2,"size":84,"text":"In the case studies, AAS lead centers within hubs either initially (e.g. Philippines) played that supporting role or in some cases (Solomon Islands) still do. With strong leadership there is greater potential to delegate responsibility for the research process to other partners. Capacity building in science methods for AAS hub teams and partner organizations was identified as critical to the development of collaborative research, and this capacity has to be incorporated into the resourcing of the partnership from the beginning of the research design."}]},{"head":"Conclusion","index":39,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":153,"text":"These reflections on what is being learned across scales are part of the journey toward sustained, equitable partnerships and coalitions that deliver increased benefits for the poor and marginalized in program countries. A core principle is the idea that interventions in a complex system without a fixed agenda can be a powerful lever for change. The dialogue and action space created in hubs was \"safe\" precisely because our starting point was not a fixed intervention agenda. The \"safe space\" is one where a diversity of actors operating in one geographical area can openly and critically explore and eventually adjust their interventions in the system. This also offers an opportunity for evaluating the processes that are emerging for generation and exchange of knowledge (ADB 2011) within partnerships and coalitions. Most importantly, neither partners nor partnerships are static. The RinD approach offers a practical and increasingly proven methodology for engaging stakeholders in dynamic complex systems."}]},{"head":"Introduction","index":40,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":47,"text":"Agriculture research has made notable scientific and productivity contributions over the past decades (Alston 2010), yet the sustainability and equity of its impacts have been questioned in relation to its ability to benefit women, the poorest of the poor and socioeconomically marginalized groups (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2003)."},{"index":2,"size":26,"text":"AAS has sought to address these limitations by combining three streams of research-related processes around an agreed-upon set of development challenges: What is a gender-transformative approach?"},{"index":3,"size":157,"text":"A gender-transformative approach to research is an approach that \"can be applied within research to examine, question and, most fundamentally, enable changes in inequitable gender norms, attitudes, behaviors and practices and the related imbalances of power (IGWG 2010). Through encouraging critical awareness among men and women of social inequality and practices, [gender-transformative approaches] help people challenge and re-shape distribution of and control over resources, allocation of duties between men and women, and access to and influence in decision making (Caro 2009). They also enable men and boys to question the effects of harmful masculinity, not only on women, but also on men themselves\" (Meng 2015, 1). In other words, a gender-transformative approach seeks to generate understanding regarding gender and the visible manifestations of gender inequalities and inequities 7 (such as gendered roles and relations and their outcomes), and to catalyze shifts in the norms, attitudes, and formal and informal rules that underpin these visible manifestations of inequality."},{"index":4,"size":95,"text":"The need for a gender-transformative approach \"emerges from the gap between research (and development) practice and the field of gender's conceptual development. In particular, it emerges from the predominant focus of gender efforts in research and development on interventions that address individualized demonstrations of gender inequality-gender resource gaps-but ignores their wider social causes\" (AAS 2012b, 3). While this recognition is relatively new in the field of agricultural and development research, it has been recognized, and progress has been made in gendertransformative approaches in other fields over the past decades, most notably the field of health."},{"index":5,"size":30,"text":"A gender-transformative approach differs from more commonly applied gender mainstreaming approaches in agricultural and development research in terms of the framing of issues to be addressed (Cole et al. 2014a)."},{"index":6,"size":20,"text":"Gender mainstreaming focuses on addressing visible manifestations of a gender gap, such as women's limited access to training or resources."}]},{"head":"IMPLEMENTING A GENDER-TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH APPROACH: EARLY LESSONS","index":41,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":69,"text":"A gender-transformative approach adds a level at which the central problem is framed. It does so by adding a focus on the formal and informal institutions underlying the visible gender or social gaps -in particular, on (gendered) social norms, attitudes, practices, processes, and rules or policies. The reason for this focus is that it is at this level that gender and social inequality is produced and reproduced (Kabeer 1994)."},{"index":2,"size":45,"text":"This difference in framing translates into a difference in goals as well. The goal of gendertransformative research involves addressing not only gender inclusion or more effective technical innovations, but also catalyzing the potential for shifts in any underlying informal and formal institutions that inhibit equality."},{"index":3,"size":80,"text":"The aim is to engage with and influence these institutions at multiple scales (from households to communities to larger scales). As such, a gender-transformative approach seeks to engage women and men in research as a social change process. Transformation towards equity expands the range of aspirations, options and opportunities available to individuals, households and communities, as well as increasing the agency of previously marginalized actors, and thus their ability to effectively act on their own potential (Cole et al. 2014b)."},{"index":4,"size":284,"text":"A gender-transformative approach operates by creating space for and sparking increased critical questioning and awareness (consciousness raising) of underlying attitudes about rights, roles, capacities and values and how these forces influence individuals, families and communities in relation to their livelihoods, other aspirations and well-being. Bringing to the surface the generally unquestioned norms and practices and their influence or costs for individuals, families and communities can spark cognitive shifts (McDougall and Ojha forthcoming) towards more equity-enhancing mindsets. These shifts in perceptions and thinking can lead to more equitable roles, relationships and practices between women and men, and ultimately more equitable development outcomes (Salazar 2014). Box 3 outlines the main characteristics of a gendertransformative approach. The framing challenge: Gender-only focus Hub teams identified as a challenge the emphasis of the approach in practice around gender as women and men (i.e. rather than starting by engaging with broader issues of social equity and equality early in RinD and then extending this to gender in combination with other socially constructed roles, relations, values, and meanings and categories of social difference, such as wealth, ethnicity and caste, class, and age). The Philippines hub team, for example, found it challenging to foster a collective sense of interest in and ownership of a gender-transformative approach as an element of RinD. Teams there were focused on issues relating to men and women; subsequent reflection surfaced that gendered norms were perceived by hub stakeholders to be less generally significant than power relations and inequalities in opportunity structures among other social groups in that context. An overly narrow de facto framing of the approach around gender (as a binary womenmen construct) may thus have operated as a constraint on the approach's development and implementation."}]},{"head":"Box 3. Characteristics of a gendertransformative approach","index":42,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":106,"text":"A gender-transformative approach • seeks to understand people within their context, including in terms of how culture, age and other aspects of socialeconomic identity and other exogenous factors and livelihood strategies (such as remittances) affect and are affected by gender; • makes explicit how social inequalities intersect to affect their choices and outcomes; • provides space for women and men to engage in an iterative process of critical learning, reflection, questioning and action; • engages both women and men, as transformative change stems from a shared vision; • engages with different actors across scales to redress the underlying norms and power relations that enable social inequalities."},{"index":2,"size":4,"text":"Adapted from Kantor (2013)."},{"index":3,"size":173,"text":"The capacity challenge: From conceptual understanding to practical application All teams observed that shifting from a gendertransformative approach as a concept to the approach as an applied strategy required building capacity among research staff and partners, and this involved multiple challenging factors. For example, the Zambia team said that at the outset of the These reflections, along with the realization that this separation was less than optimally effective, laid the groundwork for more integrated planning and strategies. This challenge was also reflected in organizational structuring in the hubs and in the global program, which involved generally separate gender and PAR staff and partners. Teams said that while the PAR staff worked in the hubs, the gender staff was in many cases embodied, at least initially, in a single gender research analyst. The gender analysts being (generally) relatively junior and working on their own reinforced the conceptual and capacity challenges outlined above, including overall difficulties of communication, integration of gender into hub programs of work, and translation of the gender-transformative approach into practical strategies."}]},{"head":"Looking ahead: Meeting challenges, making progress","index":43,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":35,"text":"While these challenges posed considerable difficulties, the teams persisted in seeking ways forward with the gender-transformative approach. These efforts, illustrated with examples from Bangladesh, Zambia and Solomon Islands, have led to a number of insights."}]},{"head":"Conceptual clarity and identifying principles and strategies for action","index":44,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":124,"text":"The importance of demystifying the concept within the research teams and among partners has emerged as a fundamental lesson. Implicit in this is encouraging and enabling the understanding that a gender-transformative approach need not be complex in terms of strategies or separate from existing community and multiscale engagement. In line with this learning, teams are now aiming to translate the big ideas of the gender-transformative approach into action through a range of practical strategies. The development of strategies has come through a combination of literature reviews, partnerships and capacitybuilding processes. As outlined below, the teams anticipate that taking a reflective learning-by-doing approach to these strategies, treating them as learning opportunities, and being ready to adjust as they progress will be central to their success."},{"index":2,"size":18,"text":"A second point of learning relates to understanding gender-transformative research as one type of gender research among several."},{"index":3,"size":20,"text":"Central to this understanding is that not all research activities in the program need to be gender-transformative in nature. Rather,"}]},{"head":"Box 4. Rough typology of gender in agricultural research","index":45,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":71,"text":"Gender-integrated research (or descriptive gender and social analysis): Scientific quality relies on research addressing gender and social difference in terms of data being effectively and accurately disaggregated, as appropriate to the context. Effectively assessing and analyzing contexts and research results through a gender lens contributes to laying the foundation for future gender-transformative work by increasing the collective understanding of the context and the needs, opportunities and entry points for social change."},{"index":2,"size":96,"text":"Strategic gender research distills widely applicable learning regarding gender, including research in which women are the primary subject of the research. This could include, for example, gendered dimensions of community access to decision making and benefit sharing in community-based fisheries and natural resource management, and in particular how governance can increase the flow of benefits to women. Gender-strategic research helps enable achievement of development outcomes at scale by understanding the gendered aspects of technical, agricultural and governance learning available for use by a range of development actors, including governments, bilateral agencies and civil society actors. 8"},{"index":3,"size":221,"text":"Gender-transformative research is research that leverages the research process itself to directly catalyze and contribute to gender-equitable shifts in the formal and informal rules, norms and behaviors that underpin gender inequality in processes, practices and outcomes. Building on the foundation built in AAS and the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish (such as Cole et al. 2014a), this body of research aims to contribute to achieving the gender crosscutting sub-intermediate development outcomes of gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources, reduced time burdens, and improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision making. For example, this could include research to catalyze shifts in norms and rules addressing gender-equitable access to and control over key financial and productive assets. This process could involve development, application and assessment of strategies within or in connection to the research process to spark critical questioning by men and women regarding gendered rules, norms and behaviors. Questions could relate to how gender-inequitable access to and control over key fish agri-food system assets and resources (including aquaculture technologies and training, and financial and other assets) influences the achievement of household and community aspirations; what factors shape access and control; and how these factors can be addressed to create more equitable access and control-and in connection to these-greater and more equitable achievement of local aspirations."},{"index":4,"size":7,"text":"Source: Adapted from WorldFish et al. (2015)."},{"index":5,"size":81,"text":"gender in research can be seen as ranging across a spectrum from all research involving basic descriptive gender and social diversity analysis (gender integrated), to strategic gender research, to research involving a gendertransformative approach (Box 4). Across all of these, good practice for scientific quality and ethics indicates that research activities need to be designed and applied such that research processes are accessible to and effectively and equitably engage with or draw on a balance of actors (i.e. be gender inclusive)."}]},{"head":"Re-framing gender in complex systems","index":46,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":80,"text":"Reflection on experience, reinforced by the literature (such as Resurreccion and Elmhirst 2008), underscores that the implementation of a gender-transformative approach benefits from a broader, more nuanced and integrated framing and implementation. This can be seen as comprising a re-grounding of the analysis and transformation in terms of both (i) addressing multiple forms of socioeconomic power and marginalization, which implies a focus on poor or minority socioeconomic groups (of both sexes), and (ii) engaging with the multidimensional nature of gender."},{"index":2,"size":187,"text":"In theory, the approach recognized the above points from the program outset. Learning from experience, combined with progress in analysis of findings, has further underscored their significance and the need to translate these effectively into practice. Working with multiple socioeconomic groups, enabling reflection, and undertaking analysis of the gendered norms, practices, attitudes and power relations that often disproportionately impact women enables both more effective and more inclusive social analysis for change than does a narrow framing. The knowledge generated through formal research has played an important role in capacity development for informing and operationalizing the gender-transformative approach. For example, in Zambia, drawing on the early social and gender analysis findings enabled the team to base their research on empirical data. This built credibility and thus confidence and momentum among engaged actors. It also enabled the team to target their gender research and gender-transformative approaches more effectively than if they had been working from general knowledge. Literature reviews and expert dialogues have similarly helped to ground and focus the research. For example, in Bangladesh, targeted reviews helped to identify priority areas for gender-transformative work in relation to aquaculture."},{"index":3,"size":131,"text":"Teams recognized the value of research findings in building a contextual understanding of gender early in the program and using these findings as a foundation to identify opportunities and entry points for gendertransformative work. In four of the five hubs, delayed gathering and analyzing of social and gender data and in-depth gendered context studies led to a lack of useable information regarding important local issues and entry points for gender-transformative work in the overall research. These teams agreed it would have been better to undertake this analysis earlier in the research and use it to inform strategic planning around gender in various RinD processes and initiatives. For example, it could have been used to feed back into community and hub PAR to spark gender and social equity dialogue within those processes."},{"index":4,"size":132,"text":"\"Just go ahead\" and \"learn by doing\" emerged as important rules of thumb for implementing a gender-transformative approach. Given the challenges outlined in this chapter, it is easy to see how researchers are tempted to postpone doing anything on gender issues. Teams said in the reflection sessions that it was important to build on the capacity and information they had and simply start with some small effort in a learn-by-doing mode. As one researcher commented, \"We can't wait for the perfect time or perfect strategy: we need to just dive in with GTA and learn as we go. \" For example, participatory tools that were eventually used in the social and gender analysis, such as participatory wealth or well-being ranking, could have been integrated usefully into the community engagement processes early on."},{"index":5,"size":141,"text":"Learning by doing expedites the learning process. Some would say it is the learning process. Moreover, from a systems perspective, such an approach is appropriate to complex systems. As such, formal training can be complemented with space for and a culture of team members regularly sharing, learning and discussing the concept and its application and then implementing another iteration of the action-learning cycle. Moreover, team members reported in the reflection sessions that they had begun to \"develop our own habits or mindsets as researchers of asking the 'why' questions in relation to all aspects of the research and context\" (World Café session notes). Teams also reported that it was also extremely useful to have \"outside eyes\" on hub work to help recognize when and where the gendertransformative approach is evident (or not) and how well it is or is not working."}]},{"head":"Personal, relational and institutional shifts and commitments","index":47,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":113,"text":"One factor that has enabled the teams to make progress has been their commitment to the gender-transformative approach at the level of the individual researchers and the institution involved. In several cases at the individual level, this has been reflected in the commitment of the gender analysts and the unanticipated but welcome commitment of other researchers to gender issues. In Zambia (Barotse hub), the relatively effective operationalization of the gender-transformative approach relied first on establishing strong bonds and trust within and between research and development organizations. Once established, stakeholders coalesced around salient social and gender issues and began working together to achieve better, more sustainable gender equality development outcomes (Cole et al. 2014b)."},{"index":2,"size":69,"text":"At the institutional scale, WorldFish's commitment to gender is reflected in the resources invested, interest at the senior scientist and management scales across research themes and sites, and explicit integration of gender into its overall aim. This commitment has played a critical supportive and enabling role in terms of institutional willingness to support gender capacity development and allow teams the freedom to engage relatively uncharted territory in agricultural research."}]},{"head":"Emerging insights about a gendertransformative approach","index":48,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Overall insights","index":49,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":11,"text":"Several insights have emerged in relation to implementing a gender-transformative approach:"},{"index":2,"size":34,"text":"• A gender-transformative approach is not just about getting both women and men together in the same room; it is about bringing to the surface and initiating critical reflection and identifying options for change."},{"index":3,"size":135,"text":"Its role is to engage diverse local women and men in such critical reflection and change processes regarding underlying forces and factors that shape equity, such as gender and social equity-related norms, attitudes, practices, processes and policies. • Building strong relationships among scientists (and especially between social and natural scientists), government and development actors, and women, men and youth in program communities is critical and a prerequisite before change processes can be initiated and realized. • Part of a researcher's role is to facilitate IMPLEMENTING A GENDER-TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH APPROACH: EARLY LESSONS critical reflection by asking questions throughout the PAR process. These are questions that help probe and bring to the surface the underlying causes of imbalances and the implications of the social and gender status quo. These are the \"why\" and the \"so what\" questions."},{"index":4,"size":128,"text":"• Transformative gender work is a form of social change, and as such it can only be seeded, not forced or controlled. • Early understanding of the context, such as through social and gender analysis and gender benchmarking studies, can help researchers understand the landscape and inform core RinD processes from the beginning. This type of early analysis can also be fed back into these processes to help researchers identify entry points for gendertransformative work. • Gender-transformative research is a longterm process that can be worked into the research from the scoping stage, through core RinD processes and throughout technical initiatives. • There is no single strategy on which the approach is based; rather, there are numerous strategies relating to the principle of facilitating critical reflection (see below)."}]},{"head":"Examples of strategies for a gendertransformative approach","index":50,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":110,"text":"There are multiple possible strategies for taking a gender-transformative approach. What they have in common is that they promote critical reflection and dialogue on gendered norms, attitudes, behaviors and values and promote the development of positive alternatives. Moreover, the strategies also have in common that they seek to empower individuals to take up these gender-transformative practices by, for example, promoting women's agency to participate actively in agricultural production or enabling men to share household decisionmaking power with their partners. Here we present five interconnected and overlapping strategies or-more accurately-bundles of strategies that AAS has been focusing on: critical questioning, experiential learning, tools for reflection, communication for social change, and networking."}]},{"head":"Critical questioning for learning","index":51,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":66,"text":"Questioning deeply entrenched harmful gender norms and practices is at the core of the gender-transformative approach, and is carried out via fostering group reflection and open dialogue within socially safe spaces. While it is woven throughout all the strategies presented, here we begin by presenting it as a strategy within the community visioning and reflection cycles of RinD (i.e. community engagement). Key points include the following:"},{"index":2,"size":70,"text":"• Community and subcommunity processes (such as visioning, planning and after-action reviews) can prompt community members to reflect on harmful gender and social norms and power relations. Questioning harmful gender norms opens up spaces for men and women to increase their awareness of how unequal power dynamics and harmful gender norms affect them as individuals, their relationships, their families and their communities, including in relation to community goals and visions. "}]},{"head":"Communication for social change, including media and entertainment","index":52,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":5,"text":"• Inspiring dialogue through media."},{"index":2,"size":146,"text":"Media programs can take many forms, including multimedia campaigns, radio and TV programs, video productions, and social media platforms. They contribute to behavioral and social change by providing a common language to address concerns, role modeling positive choices, demonstrating options for action, and above all, inspiring people to talk about the issues raised within their families, peer groups and communities and throughout the country. Dramatic stories and real-life testimonials where people hear firsthand how someone similar to them has been able to overcome gender and economic challenges have proven effective in motivating others to take actions they may have previously felt were too difficult to try. National dialogue programs, where broadcasters across the country discuss the same topic from various angles for a set period of time (e.g. the role of women and men in the fish value chain) can be particularly useful for stimulating national  "}]},{"head":"Examples of gender-transformative research in action","index":53,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":7,"text":"Zambia: Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILC+GTA)"}]},{"head":"Introduction","index":54,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":36,"text":"Women and men living in or along the Barotse floodplain in Western Province are not only some of the poorest in Zambia, but are also vulnerable to demographic, socioeconomic and climatic challenges (Cole et al. 2015)."},{"index":2,"size":80,"text":"The Lozi-speaking people who comprise the majority population of this area depend on the aquatic agricultural system for a variety of livelihood opportunities. In an effort to enhance the equity of the socioeconomic and political structures that influence the livelihoods of the people dependent on the floodplain, AAS operationalized a gender-transformative approach in selected communities (Cole et al. 2014a;2014b). One of the first actions was the formation of the Savings and Internal Lending Communities + Gender-Transformative Approaches (SILC+GTA) pilot project."},{"index":3,"size":281,"text":"SILC+GTA builds upon the CRS savings and internal lending community (SILC) model-a savings-led microfinance initiative that helps people in rural areas (where access to formal financial institutions is poor or nonexistent) to create accessible, transparent, flexible and self-managed savings groups. The savings accumulated are used to meet emergencies, pay for anticipated expenses, capitalize on business opportunities, and invest in productive resources. The plus sign in SILC+GTA denotes the integration of a gender-transformative approach into this well-established microfinance methodology. SILC facilitators were trained to implement gender-transformative sessions using PAR processes that promote critical reflection and spark dialogue, action and learning with women and men. Pre-pilot phase it was found that SILC groups generally comprise women, yet women's domestic responsibilities, other socially assigned roles and power struggles within their homes make it difficult for them to attend meetings and contribute larger sums of cash to enable the pool of savings to grow. Spouses of SILC group members were often unaware of the purpose of their wives' involvement in SILC groups, felt jealous or insecure about their wives' participation and improved access to credit, and provided little home support to their wives when they were called for meetings. Additionally, men did not tend to join SILC groups because they believed that the financial contributions would benefit other members more than themselves, among other reasons (e.g. that such groups are for women only). In some circumstances, gender-based violence occurred when men perceived their wives as economically more empowered. On the positive side, SILC has been shown over time to allow women to build their business skills and use their capital to pay school fees for their children or invest in businesses and increase household incomes."},{"index":4,"size":84,"text":"With support from Promundo-US, development officers from Caritas-Mongu and CRS, along with researchers from WorldFish, designed and began piloting the SILC+GTA model. The rationale for the pilot was that by involving men in SILC group formation and group activities using PAR processes, it would be possible to address harmful social and gender norms and power relations that prevent SILC groups from flourishing, as well as improving gender relations within and outside the home, and as a result, to achieve better and longer-lasting development outcomes."}]},{"head":"Methodology","index":55,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":141,"text":"The SILC+GTA project is being implemented by a group of multisectoral partners representing local, provincial, national and global organizations working in the Barotse floodplain region. The project was informed by a social and gender analysis conducted in 2013. Data obtained from the social and gender analysis is being used as one benchmark against gendertransformative changes that are monitored during SILC+GTA group meetings. As part of the SILC+GTA project, a series of 12 focus group discussion sessions were started. These SILC+GTA sessions aim to stimulate discussion with women and men on conceptual issues such as gender and power, as well as on gender-based violence and substance abuse, which were key issues identified during the social and gender analysis. PAR processes were embedded in the SILC+GTA implementation methodology to promote and foster spaces for reflection, action planning and knowledge sharing during the sessions."}]},{"head":"Results and discussion","index":56,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":155,"text":"PAR processes have allowed women and men to begin to realize that working together and giving women the opportunity to be part of economic activities can help enable them to improve their livelihoods. At the same time, a key outcome has been that communication and engagement is contributing to building social cohesion, trust and bonds among group members. These features help individuals support one another to improve their lives through increased investments that lead to increased savings and incomes. Women and men have learned how to deal with conflict, as they demonstrated when they had to deal with common issues within their community and households. As a result of (usually) bi-weekly encounters, both women and men have been able to strengthen their leadership skills and selfconfidence. One of the aims of the project is to help facilitate women's access to microfinance to improve their skills and capacities to participate in household and community decision making."},{"index":2,"size":28,"text":"Emerging results show that women are gradually strengthening their decision-making abilities and gaining respect from husbands, as well as starting small businesses and increasing their savings and incomes."},{"index":3,"size":37,"text":"In sum, findings have demonstrated that efforts to achieve institutional changes in the communities, as well as changes to socioeconomic and political structures, are needed. In addition, the SILC+GTA pilot project Training session underway in Barisal, Bangladesh."}]},{"head":"54","index":57,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":18,"text":"project's time and budgetary constraints and under pressure to deliver on numbers, which many such donor-funded projects face."}]},{"head":"Methodology","index":58,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":78,"text":"The new approach involved merging the technical sessions, with social-consciousnessraising exercises, including exercises on trust and teamwork. The strategies and exercises were derived from the Helen Keller International Nurturing Connections manual that aims at challenging intrahousehold inequalities and gender-discriminating practices that hinder women's successful adoption of and benefits from a technology. This merging of the technical with the social aimed to help women combat challenges they may face while trying to apply the new knowledge that is gained."},{"index":2,"size":59,"text":"The training was further modularized and spread out across the entire production cycle, enabling real-time application of the technical knowledge. Other major changes in this pilot included discarding the demonstration and model farmer approach, forming smaller preference-based learning subgroups, including other family members in various sessions, and using community theater groups in events to create awareness on gender issues."}]},{"head":"Results and discussion","index":59,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":17,"text":"Survey research methods and process documentation are being used to monitor the results of this gender-transformative pilot."},{"index":2,"size":222,"text":"Based on the findings and the ability of the approach to foster gender-transformative change while supporting technology adoption, this pilot will be scaled out. Preliminary findings reveal women's better scientific understanding of pond management, which the women report has led to a better status and respect within the household. Other community members were reported to seek out these household members for advice on managing their own ponds. Women's self-confidence and decisionmaking ability increased and they gained trust and respect from their husbands and other family and community members. Specifically, the smaller preference-based learning subgroups and exercises on trust and teamwork helped to counter some of the group power dynamics that the study helped to identify. The inclusion of family members in the training paved a way for women to attend the training without hindrance. Two social and gender analysis participants confirmed, \"Because our husbands, fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law were included in some sessions, it was easier for them to understand what we told them. They don't create any barriers to our participation. \" Likewise, \"Since they [other family members] were included they heard it from the masters themselves. They believe us now about the benefits of investing. \" Also, since input support was uniform across all trainees as a result of discarding the demonstration farmer model, more harmony among the groups was created."},{"index":3,"size":179,"text":"Finally, the technical livelihood incentive made the attendance of family members and participants more permissible in the social messaging exercises, which involve games and discussions around sensitive gender behaviors and attitudes. For example, the women reported behavior changes from household members after an exercise on intrahousehold food distribution. Accordingly, a consolidated comment from the women participants was as follows: \"There was an exercise with family members on distributing food and on how we usually make sure they eat better before eating ourselves. So usually we don't have much on our plates. In the past, men didn't notice this. As long as they got a big piece or the head, they were happy. Now, following this exercise men check what we are eating. They acknowledge that we work hard all day and make sacrifices and should eat equally. \" Another woman commented, \"Our husbands ask us before making purchases more than before. It is because husbands are aware of the benefits of asking their wife's opinion and since we women were able to learn a lot from the training. \""},{"index":4,"size":47,"text":"In sum, initial observation and feedback revealed that understanding intrahousehold gender dynamics and providing spaces for women and men to reflect on harmful practices that prevent them from increasing their household income, food supply and nutrition through a gender-transformative approach in technical initiatives increases participation for change."},{"index":5,"size":11,"text":"Solomon Islands: Involving women and men in aquaculture workshops, Malaita hub"}]},{"head":"Introduction","index":60,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":53,"text":"In Solomon Islands, women and men are involved in a diverse range of livelihood activities. Terrestrial and freshwater resources, inshore coastal areas, islands, and islets provide opportunities for the people living in and depending on these systems to capitalize on their aquatic agricultural resources, of which approximately 90% are held under customary tenure."},{"index":2,"size":208,"text":"In rural communities, both men and women are involved in community activities, in producing food and generating income, and in preparing food and taking care of their families, but their roles vary by gender. Men may have more opportunities to travel outside the community to meetings and training sessions than do women, who have the primary responsibility for child care and work longer hours. These different roles can affect whether and how men and women are able to participate in decisions about livelihoods and resource management, as well as how they are impacted by these decisions (Schwarz et al. 2014). When opportunities arise for both men and women to participate in meetings and workshops, there may be social and cultural reasons that mean women are less likely to speak up or contribute toward decisions. It has been observed that when selection of participants for training opportunities relies on male community leaders, most participants are men, even when the leaders are explicitly requested to invite women to events. When women do attend community events with external organizations, they often have a dual role of preparing food for the participants, and as a result can spend much of the meeting moving in and out, losing the opportunity to participate fully."},{"index":3,"size":78,"text":"To improve opportunities for both women and men to benefit from an emerging diversified livelihood opportunity, gender-transformative strategies were integrated into an aquaculture project. Between 2012 and 2014, WorldFish worked with more than 40 fish farmers in the central region of the Malaita hub. Fish farming is a new and emerging technology in Solomon Islands. Farmer workshops and training had been exclusively attended by men, although researchers noticed that women were participating in activities related to pond husbandry."}]},{"head":"Methodology","index":61,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":36,"text":"To facilitate greater engagement of women in accessing information and knowledge about fish farming, in April 2014 the research team made explicit efforts to engage married couples in farmers' workshops in which genderconscious facilitation was employed."},{"index":2,"size":90,"text":"The workshops were organized and jointly facilitated by AAS researchers who included social and natural scientists specializing in aquaculture. The facilitation process used a tool that encouraged men and women to draw a farming systems diagram in which they mapped out their respective roles in their daily livelihoods. They did this separately in groups of women and men and then shared their drawings with the full group. This demonstrated that although men were the \"face\" of fish farming, it was clear that women and children were playing a significant role."}]},{"head":"Results and discussion","index":62,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":76,"text":"The farming systems diagrams highlighted that the men were fishing, farming, gathering firewood and building houses. Women highlighted reproductive roles such as food preparation, water gathering, child and elder care, house cleaning, and clothes washing, as well as productive activities together with men such as tending vegetable gardens, pig farms and fish ponds. In aquaculture activities, men were more involved in constructing the ponds, stocking fish and harvesting, but depended greatly on women's and children's support."},{"index":2,"size":16,"text":"Women often fed the fish or took on all roles in the absence of their husband."},{"index":3,"size":71,"text":"When men and women shared these stories, a couple that was already working together in partnership and sharing roles around their fish pond stood up and shared their experience, encouraging other couples in the room that they too could benefit from working together as a team. Women and men had the space to identify the ways they could work together and share the work that arises from operating a homestead pond."},{"index":4,"size":98,"text":"Since that time, women actively participated in and contributed to a farmers' meeting in March 2015 and another farmers' workshop in June 2015. They have shown increased confidence to speak in front of men, and the men have accepted the women's presence and participation in recognition of the role they are playing in this livelihood. As AAS plans future gender-transformative approaches within PAR with these fish farming families, reflections from these recent meetings show that women felt that household-scale ponds were well integrated into their daily livelihoods and did not add a significant burden to their daily work."},{"index":5,"size":49,"text":"This integration of a gender-transformative approach into PAR processes with pond farmers has not only increased awareness among men and women farmers but has also increased the AAS team's knowledge of the roles that men and women are playing and the power of employing gender-conscious facilitation in PAR activities."}]},{"head":"Conclusion","index":63,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":135,"text":"Poet Antonio Machado proposed that \"paths are made by walking. \" In this chapter, we have highlighted some of the challenges involved in developing and implementing a gendertransformative approach within RinD and shared team learning to date regarding how these can be effectively addressed. This learning has led us to multiple strategies and a solid footing for our efforts. Moreover, in doing so, our reflections have suggested a revisiting of Machado's proposition. Our journey to date has underscored the significance not only of learning by doing, but also of working to bridge silos in this process, of being critically reflective together, and of learning from and with research partners and diverse local people over time. As such, in the context of a gendertransformative approach, we might propose that \"paths are made by walking together. \""}]},{"head":"Introduction","index":64,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":146,"text":"Other chapters in this working paper reflect on elements of the RinD approach. In this chapter, we look at cases in hubs where the implementation of RinD has led to more inclusive science; that is, where farmers and researchers are working together differently than might be expected from conventional research-for-development approaches. Better relationships between farmers and researchers are an important outcome in the overall AAS theory of change. This is because farmers in aquatic agricultural systems are vulnerable and becoming increasingly so as populations increase, natural resources are depleted and degraded, sea levels rise, and extreme weather events become increasingly frequent and severe. Farmers have always innovated to adapt to change; however, their increasing vulnerability requires that they innovate faster and more effectively. Better links to researchers have provided farmers with more connections to sources of information and technology and more opportunity to experiment and innovate."},{"index":2,"size":52,"text":"In this chapter, after 3 ½ years of AAS implementation, we reflect on what four best cases tell us about how RinD works and how it is different from research-for-development approaches that focus more on the generation of new technology than on the relationships between the people who generate and use it."}]},{"head":"Methodology","index":65,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":64,"text":"At the workshop in January 2015 described in the introductory chapter, we identified four best cases to illustrate where RinD has led to more inclusive science. We agreed to adopt a case study methodology after Yin (1989), building our respective cases to structure cross-hub learning and ensure the internal validity of our conclusions. We choose to learn from the best cases because in understanding"}]},{"head":"MORE INCLUSIVE SCIENCE FOR THE POOR: LINKING FARMERS TO RESEARCHERS USING THE RinD APPROACH","index":66,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":156,"text":"innovation, there is often less to learn where things have not worked (Perrin 2002). The cases were chosen as best examples of where implementation guided by RinD has led to researchers working with and responding to the needs of farmers and fishers in ways consistent with overall program objectives. Hub case study authors completed a first draft of the cases using a range of data sources, including their own experience as participants, as well as workshop and other process reports. Then began an iterative process in which the lead author queried the hub authors to produce final versions. As case study methodology suggests, we paid particular attention to the sequence of events and the plausibility of the causal explanation linking them as a way of ensuring the internal validity of each of the cases. Case authors checked their narratives with other members of the AAS hub teams to confirm the sequence of events, explanations and inferences."}]},{"head":"Case studies","index":67,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"Abaca rehabilitation in the Philippines","index":68,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":5,"text":"Lando LA and Perez M"},{"index":2,"size":24,"text":"In the Philippines, AAS works in the areas shown on the map in Figure 9. The hub includes areas of Visayas and Northern Mindanao."},{"index":3,"size":39,"text":"AAS carried out community visioning and action planning in eight barangays. In June 2013, two barangays in Sogod, Southern Leyte, identified their main priority as rehabilitating their abaca 9 plantations from an infestation of abaca bunchy top virus (ABTV)."}]},{"head":"The problem of abaca bunchy top disease in the Visayas-Mindanao hub","index":69,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":22,"text":"In the early 2000s, an ABTV epidemic began to seriously affect production in most of the producing provinces (Raymundo et al. 2001) "}]},{"head":"Community engagement","index":70,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":142,"text":"The idea of rehabilitating abaca emerged during the community life competence process visioning and action planning in June 2013. Participants agreed that there would be no more poor people in Sogod if abaca were \"given back to them. \" The AAS response was to commission the National Abaca Research Center (NARC), part of the Visayas State University (VSU) based in Leyte and just 2 hours away from Sogod, to conduct a rapid appraisal of the feasibility of abaca rehabilitation. The survey, completed in November 2013, found that the two barangays were losing USD 2 million per year as a result of the drop in abaca production (Tabada et al. 2013), a very substantial fall in earnings given that about 6 in every 10 people in the two barangays are living below the poverty threshold. The farmer consensus appeared to be well founded."},{"index":2,"size":187,"text":"A feasibility study was carried out by a team of VSU-NARC researchers led by Drs. Tabada, Abamo and Madayag. In setting up the research, the AAS country program leader, Maripaz Perez, used her professional relationship with the VSU-NARC director, Dr. Ruben Gapasin, and VSU president Dr. Jose Bacusmo, which had developed when she worked as undersecretary of the Department of Science and Technology. In engaging the researchers, AAS staff stressed the RinD principle of putting farmer priorities first and so underlined the importance of involving the farmers from the start to build their understanding and ownership. The VSU-NARC team began by visiting farmers' homes to invite them to come to a meeting to discuss survey design and, more fundamentally, whether it was still feasible to grow abaca in Sogod. Through this process, they confirmed farmer interest before beginning their usual rounds of focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Engaging farmers before the survey work paid dividends when barangay officials coordinated with the local police to escort the research team up the mountains to the abaca farms, something that would not normally have been expected to happen."},{"index":3,"size":66,"text":"Their report concluded that abaca can be restored in Sogod but only with the strict implementation of eradication and production protocols, including the use of resistant varieties developed by the University of the Philippines in Los Baños and VSU. AAS provided the opportunity for VSU-NARC researchers to share their results with the farmers, present their recommendations for action and build farmer buy-in for the proposed actions."},{"index":4,"size":100,"text":"The farmers agreed to implement the protocols. They initially asked for planting materials and financial support. AAS agreed to provide planting materials in the form of tissue-cultured hybrid seedlings, but not money. A key principle behind the community life competence process is that participants should own and be responsible for their own action plans motivated by a collective desire to achieve a shared vision rather than receive cash handouts. Constellation has learned that programs that rely on achieving participation through financial inducements are unlikely to lead to any sustained change in behavior. Other strength-based approaches subscribe to the same principle."},{"index":5,"size":63,"text":"AAS monitoring in May 2014 revealed that none of the farmers had acted on their action plans because the strict eradication protocol dictated that they had to eradicate karlang (a variety of taro) from their farms, as it is an alternative host to the aphids that carry ABTV. Also, farmers wanted seedlings of their traditional varieties, believing that the fiber quality was better."},{"index":6,"size":17,"text":"Karlang is their cash crop replacement for abaca and so, not surprisingly, they refused to kill it."},{"index":7,"size":17,"text":"AAS met with the VSU team to discuss the impasse and what the next steps should be."},{"index":8,"size":62,"text":"The researchers agreed with the farmers that they would first determine whether the aphids found on alternate hosts, especially karlang, were Pentalonia nigronervosa, the specific vector for ABTV. If they were not, then the karlang would not have to be eradicated. The researchers also prepared a poster of frequently asked questions written in the local language and posted it in barangay halls."},{"index":9,"size":63,"text":"During group discussions to negotiate the karlang compromise, farmers suggested including the neighboring barangays of Javier and Maria Plana in the abaca work to reduce the risk of reinfection. AAS staff saw this as evidence of the farmers beginning to understand the epidemiology of ABTV through engaging with researchers. Farmers took on the responsibility of talking to their peers in these other barangays."},{"index":10,"size":88,"text":"AAS facilitated a revisiting of community dreams in all eight barangays in July 2014 as part of an annual PAR cycle. Despite the onslaught of various typhoons (e.g. Haiyan) and other natural disasters (e.g. landslides) affecting the hub, AAS staff found that what their Constellation coach had told them was true-dreams don't change until they are fulfilled. Despite farmers not yet having received planting materials, they confirmed their dream to bring back abaca. They also reemphasized their preference for traditional but ABTV-susceptible abaca because it produces higher-quality fiber."},{"index":11,"size":134,"text":"Part of the delay in providing farmers with planting materials was due to the fact that seedlings are produced using tissue culture and there were not enough for everyone. As a result, the researchers had to design and negotiate a seedling distribution system that would be agreeable to all. After a series of conversations, they agreed to start out with 70 farmers who would receive 50 seedlings each. These farmers would then repay the planting materials in 4-5 months when their seedlings produced suckers. Each mother plant can produce 3-6 suckers in that period, and each farmer would repay with 2 suckers from each mother plant (thus 100 suckers). These would then be given to two other farmers to plant, and so on until all members of the abaca farmers committee received 50 seedlings."},{"index":12,"size":125,"text":"The interaction between farmers and researchers over the provision of seedlings and karlang proved a watershed. For the RinD team, it marked the point where farmers collectively started to believe they could help themselves. Farmers started asking the researchers about doing research on their own emerging questions about abaca, and about whether they could adjust the experimental protocols. For example, one farmer suggested comparing tissue culture materials against those growing naturally that have been certified virus-free by NARC. Another farmer requested that he do his tissue culture trials on flat land closer to his house rather than in the hills where abaca is usually grown. AAS staff facilitated agreements that both farmers and researchers would take actions based on each other's opinions, preferences and priorities."},{"index":13,"size":141,"text":"In August 2014, farmers and researchers agreed to have regular quarterly meetings. Farmers were excited and agreed they would meet on a monthly basis (even without AAS facilitation) to compare their data and continue discussions on eradication of the virus. However, many farmers were still looking for financial support and often broached the subject at reflection meetings. In reply, AAS staff continued to argue for the RinD strength-based focus of relying on their own resources. Fellow farmers also urged them to work on their farms instead of \"complaining. \" The hub RinD team has found that the farmers who ask for financial support continue participating but return at the next meeting with the same request for financial support. The RinD team is learning that changing this dependency mindset will be a long process and will entail continuous reinforcement of strength-based principles."}]},{"head":"Engagement with hub and national-level agencies","index":71,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":122,"text":"Two major events in national and hub-level engagement were the stakeholder consultation workshop and the design workshop, held in September and November 2013, respectively. The November design workshop produced a strategic plan for AAS in the Philippines. Abaca rehabilitation emerged as a priority of an existing productivity initiative. An initial theory of change workshop was then held in January 2014 that further established abaca rehabilitation as a main element of the productivity initiative and improved partnership for productivity enhancement as one of the three abaca outcome pathways. The theory of change workshop introduced participants to articulating how an initiative will bring about change and then detailing and testing that theory during implementation as a way of better appreciating how to leverage change."},{"index":2,"size":231,"text":"AAS staff worked to engage relevant agencies in support of this outcome pathway. There had been a coalition called Abaca Disease Management and Research Team (ADMART), which was set up by a former vice governor. This coalition stopped working in 2009 when the vice governor was not re-elected and funds given to the program could not be accounted for. When AAS provided  AAS staff then worked to capitalize on this agreement to organize an abaca stakeholder consultation workshop in September 2014 (Box 5). The agencies presented their work on abaca and engaged in an exercise to describe future scenarios for the abaca industry in the Philippines. During these conversations, the agencies decided to formalize the coalition discussed in July as a replacement for the defunct ADMART. However, instead of sourcing a common fund that the group would share, they decided to begin working together immediately in Sogod using their current programs and budgets. For instance, PCAARRD now plans to include Sogod in its target sites for the abaca research and development program, as well as setting up a communitybased science and technology farm. PhilFIDA, in cooperation with Department of Science and Technology 8, will channel the distribution of tissue-culture-planting materials to Sogod to support the PAR group's research, and the University of Philippines Institute of Plant Breeding will include Maac and Mahayahay as sites in the multilocation trials of abaca hybrids."},{"index":3,"size":167,"text":"In keeping with local tradition and as a display of the new partnership, the Abaca Coalition was formally launched on 2 February 2015 in Sogod with a motorcade. Members agreed that a motorcade would be an inexpensive means of letting people know who they are and communicating their intent to mobilize resources and work together. Each of the seven local agencies brought one to two vehicles that carried a banner showing the logo of the member agency and the tagline: Kauban ta sa Coalition Abaca (We are part of/We support the Abaca Coalition). Community representatives from Mahayahay hired a van, while the Maac farmers brought their motorcycles. The representatives from Javier and Maria Plana rode in the agency vehicles. After the usual opening ceremony, the vice mayor described the progress of abaca rehabilitation so far, and a small media conference followed that stressed the coalition tagline \"the future is bright with abaca!\" The motorcade finished at the Maac barangay hall, where abaca seedlings were distributed to farmers."}]},{"head":"Emerging outcomes and learning","index":72,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":107,"text":"As of April 2015, the main outcome of the work was that farmers, researchers, AAS staff and Abaca Coalition members were engaging and working in ways different from business as usual. The organizations working on abaca in the Philippines have their own mandates and own ways of doing things, and as a rule do not really talk to each other. Before the food processing. Universities and research organizations focused on their respective research and development agendas. As a neutral third party, AAS had the convening power to bring these institutions together. As long as none of them were cast as \"leader\" or \"follower, \" they could collaborate."},{"index":2,"size":90,"text":"The AAS visioning and action planning process was not enough in itself for farmers to become proactive in rehabilitating abaca, despite it emerging as their top priority. AAS team members needed to continually remind farmers that rehabilitating abaca was their program and that they had the capacity to seek solutions to their problems. Gradually, the farmers are learning to appreciate the RinD strength-based approach, in which the main input is convening and facilitating spaces for farmers to engage with each other and agencies who have a mandate to help them."},{"index":3,"size":84,"text":"Champions played an essential role in the early successes of the abaca work. They provided leadership for activities, rallied their networks to the cause and provided initial resource support. Champions were enabled first by the realization that they were part of the community and that the community recognized them. Champions saw how the inclusive and participatory nature of the community visioning and action planning resonated well with the community and how the process could lead to more sustainable initiatives that the community could own."},{"index":4,"size":100,"text":"The AAS team attributed part of the success in changing mindsets to working within existing governance and social structures. The team always acknowledged the authority of Box 6. Abaca Coalition champions the barangay captains and local government unit officials, while stressing their mandate to provide a service to their constituents. They engaged partners according to their mandate and provided an opportunity through community engagement for them to deliver on their mission. While the AAS team did organize the Abaca Coalition, its members recognize that AAS is only facilitating and does not seek to replace their institutions nor their institutions' programs."}]},{"head":"Improving postharvest handling of fish in the Barotse floodplain of Western Zambia Longley C and Muyaule C","index":73,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":80,"text":"The AAS hub in Zambia is the Barotse floodplain (Figure 10). Hub rollout began in 2011 with a national consultation. AAS held a stakeholder consultation workshop in June 2012, where stakeholders agreed to work collectively to address the hub development challenge, which was \"to make effective use of the seasonal flooding and natural resources in the Barotse floodplain system through more productive and diversified aquatic agricultural management practices and technologies that improve the lives and livelihoods of the poor. \""},{"index":2,"size":83,"text":"In the same workshop, stakeholders identified access to markets and postharvest handling of fish as priority areas. AAS then carried out community visioning and action planning in 10 communities in August and September 2012. Two of the seven priority areas identified were also improved access to markets and improved postharvest handling. The design workshop in October 2012 to identify where hub stakeholders might best support community priorities established a value chain initiative that would work on fish as part of the strategic plan."}]},{"head":"Problems with postharvest fish handling","index":74,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":146,"text":"Postharvest fish losses are a major concern and occur in most fish value chains throughout the world (Parfitt et al. 2010). Nearly one-third of the weight of fish harvested in Zambia is lost (Béné 2011). In the Barotse floodplain, postharvest fish losses occur for a number of reasons, including damage in nets, damage during transport, damage in processing and spoilage. Spoilage reduces the price customers are prepared to pay for the fish and is a particular problem in the Barotse because of long travel times due to poor roads and lack of refrigeration. Traders buy fresh tilapia early in the morning and struggle to sell the bulk during the day. Due to lack of refrigeration, the quality and price drops over the course of the day. Most customers wait until evening when a fish seller is desperate for buyers and will sell at a low price."},{"index":2,"size":65,"text":"Processing fish is one way to reduce spoilage. Current methods of processing fish in the Barotse include sun-drying, smoking and, to a lesser extent, salting. Salt fish is produced in small amounts for markets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) and Angola. The Department of Fisheries holds training events for fishers and traders on improved methods of fish handling and processing methods."},{"index":3,"size":114,"text":"Traditional sun-drying and smoking tend to produce brittle fish that are easily damaged during packaging and transportation. Damage is also caused by insects that lay their eggs in the fish while it is drying in the sun, leading to infestation by maggots. Insects and rodents also eat fish in storage. To prevent these problems, some processors resort to the use of toxic substances to prolong the shelf life of dried fish. It is highly likely that some of these substances are harmful to humans. Where firewood is in short supply, it tends to be expensive, and dried cow dung is used as a fuel for smoking. Salting of fish provides a good technical option."}]},{"head":"Community and hub-level stakeholder engagement","index":75,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":316,"text":"Work on the value chain initiative began with rice and fish value chain assessments carried out from May to August 2013. AAS researchers collected survey data from eight fishing camps, local and distant markets, harbors, and loading points (WorldFish 2013). Most fishing camps selected were those where fishers from the AAS focal villages commonly go to fish. AAS set up a fish value chain working group over the same period to guide the analysis. The working group included approximately 30 people from the traditional authority (the Barotse Royal Establishment), the Government of Zambia, NGOs, market development organizations, traders, and input and service providers. AAS convened a fish value chain participatory planning workshop in September 2013. The aim of the workshop was to build ownership of the initiative and agree to next steps based on findings from the assessment. This was done through the participatory construction of theories of change built on participants' ideas about how interventions might bring about desired changes. Participants included members of the fish value chain working group and people from the fishing camps surveyed, as well as from the 10 AAS focal villages. During the workshop, participants formed themselves into three interest groups around the top three priority areas that emerged during the workshop: (i) fisheries co-management; (ii) cooperatives, associations and access to finance; and (iii) postharvest processing. AAS then invited the three groups to submit a proposal as to how they wished to pursue their interest as part of a fish value chain innovation platform. After the workshop, the fish value chain working group met, and on the suggestion of AAS, agreed to establish themselves as an innovation platform. During this meeting, the then Zambia country program leader insisted that the platform had to engage with fishers from the focal communities. AAS then hired a value chain coordinator, who set up the platform and established regular joint reflection and planning meetings."},{"index":2,"size":71,"text":"With AAS facilitation, the postharvest processing group increased to 20 members, including 12 fish processor-traders, three representatives from the Department of Fisheries, a nutritionist from the Ministry of Agriculture, one staff member from Caritas-Mongu (a local NGO and AAS partner), two representatives of the Barotse Royal Establishment, and one representative from Nono Enterprise, a private cold storage company. The group is convened and facilitated by the WorldFish AAS value chain coordinator."},{"index":3,"size":50,"text":"The 12 fish processor-traders came from Mongu-based trader associations and from two in particular, the Zambezi Fish Trader Cooperative Society and the Tambalala Fish Traders Marketers Cooperative Society. None of the initial membership came from AAS focal communities, although the traders were interacting with some AAS community fishers when trading."},{"index":4,"size":115,"text":"AAS received the group's expression of interest in submitting a proposal in early October and held a proposal development workshop in mid-October 2013 to help them write it up. The group chose to submit a proposal to work on fish salting as a way of reducing postharvest loss given that some of the members had experience both as processor-traders and as trainers working for the Department of Fisheries. One of the processor-traders in particular, Mr. Muzike Muzumi, had extensive experience in processing and trading salted fish. During the workshop, Gethings Chisule, Principal Fisheries Officer in the Department of Fisheries, provided training on drying and handling aspects. The group renamed itself the salted fish PAR group."},{"index":5,"size":52,"text":"The salted fish PAR group began by testing different salting and drying methods. From this process, one part salt to three parts fish was recommended. A drying rack with a slant of about 30 degrees was recommended to allow for quick runoff of water, ensuring the salted fish dried within 4 hours."},{"index":6,"size":148,"text":"At the end of March 2014, AAS convened the first fish value chain innovation platform meeting. The postharvest processing group presented their work on testing salting and drying methods. During subsequent discussion and reflection, platform members agreed that salted fish PAR group members should introduce fish salting in the AAS focal communities and promote salted fish in the markets. They realized that doing so would require knowing more about the profitability of salting fish and safety for human consumption. Five AAS communities were selected, and the members of the original PAR group went to these communities to help establish new PAR groups. WorldFish and other AAS partners (Caritas-Mongu, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the University of Zambia's Department of Food Science and Nutrition) helped them to use PAR to answer their profitability and human safety questions and trained group members how to train other people to salt fish."},{"index":7,"size":93,"text":"In July 2014, AAS held a PAR training workshop at which all but three members of the salted fish PAR group attended. This gave impetus to completing the design of the community PAR. The design document describing how the postharvest processing group would engage in AAS focal communities was completed in September 2014. It stated that the salted fish PAR group would demonstrate fish salting in selected focal villages and that participants who showed interest would form pilot fish-salting groups at community level under the auspices of the Mongu-based PAR group (WorldFish 2013)."},{"index":8,"size":66,"text":"Also in July, some fish traders took the initiative to display their salted fish at the provincial agricultural show. To their surprise, all the fish was bought and some customers subsequently went to their association store to buy more. This was their first time demonstrating salted fish, which is largely associated with Congolese and Angolan traders. They were surprised by strong local demand for the product."},{"index":9,"size":117,"text":"From 15 October to 8 November 2014, the fish salting group members conducted their planned PAR activities in four AAS focal communities based on likely interest and proximity to Mongu. This work was facilitated and led by the Department of Fisheries. The work centered on processor-traders, and the researchers interacted directly with community members to demonstrate how to salt and cook salted fish. This was the first time that the processor-traders had interacted in this way with community members. During the interaction with community fishers, the trainers discovered that a small number of participants, about 5%, already knew how to salt fish through their interactions with Congolese buyers. The PAR group invited them to help teach others."},{"index":10,"size":88,"text":"In undertaking the training, the fish salting group formulated a set of research questions to explore. These questions covered four areas: profitability of producing and selling salt fish; optimum storage and transport conditions; the demand and supply of salt fish; and how well the recommended fish salting and de-salting method works. The group expected that fishers in the communities would start selling their fish through their existing links to buyers from DR Congo and through other marketing channels targeting local consumers, which would themselves be explored through PAR."},{"index":11,"size":95,"text":"The trainers identified a number of fisherprocessors from each community to join the PAR group and subsequently take part in an after-action review training on 2 December 2014. While none of the community-based fishers had yet tried to salt their own fish because of the fishing ban, they voiced appreciation for the training, the interaction with the traders, and the assurances given that their product would sell. They discussed establishing marketing points in each community from which the traders could buy in bulk. The PAR group was expected to start salting fish in mid-July 2015."}]},{"head":"Emerging outcomes and learning","index":76,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":37,"text":"The salted fish PAR group now has 42 members, including 22 members of community-based groups. As of April 2015, the community-based PAR groups were still learning to document activities and calculate profits and losses on their own."},{"index":2,"size":141,"text":"Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries have been the Department of Fisheries staff, who found that their previously antagonistic relationship with trader-processors improved through working together. Normally the department is viewed as the \"persecutor\" due to its efforts to enforce the fishing ban. By interacting with department staff, the trader-processors in the group now understand the importance of sustainable fishing and are, apparently, persuading their peers that the department is not an enemy but a user-friendly service providing guidance and education on how to conserve fisheries. The survey found that more than 50% of households own less than 0.2 hectares and rely heavily for food and income on homestead agriculture where ponds are present and play a key role in influencing overall homestead farming systems. Pond area makes up on average one-third of the homestead land in productive use (Kabir et al. 2014)."},{"index":3,"size":78,"text":"Despite the importance of homestead ponds, their use has been largely ignored by conventional agricultural research and extension because they have not responded well to conventional aquaculture approaches: they are small, shaded and used for multiple purposes, including for drinking water, washing, aquaculture and homestead irrigation. Multiple use makes improving their productivity harder. Optimizing use of homestead ponds is best done on a household basis. This requires farmers to experiment, something that conventional extension methods do not teach."},{"index":4,"size":74,"text":"Mainstream research and extension has focused instead on larger ponds that can be managed more simply for a single purpose, such as improving the productivity of aquaculture. This allows for simpler extension messages better suited to the dominant extension approach in Bangladesh. This approach emphasizes scaling up best practices to as many farmers as possible (Dorward et al. 2003;Jones et al. 2014) and is not set up for local adaptation and feedback from farmers."},{"index":5,"size":25,"text":"Two of the best practice messages are to clear away any trees shading the pond and to use inputs not easily affordable to poor farmers."},{"index":6,"size":107,"text":"Where projects and Department of Fisheries extension efforts have promoted conventional aquaculture techniques to poor farmers, farmers have generally not carried on using these techniques after the project, nor has any best practice spread far. In addition, most aquaculture extension focuses on messages for men, communicated by men. Weak links from extension back to research and little learning across projects over time had not brought this to the attention of mainstream researchers, at least not in a way that led to any change in practice. Thousands of farmers are still being told to clear their ponds and convert them to single use.   (movement, feeding, growth, breeding, etc.)."},{"index":7,"size":56,"text":"The science team members visited each community several times before starting the research. They used different PAR tools to document groups' visions and prepare work plans. A guideline was developed for this initial process of interaction. Continuation of this interaction was achieved through further field visits by the team members during different stages of the PAR."},{"index":8,"size":51,"text":"The facilitators in each village were technical staff from the respective projects (Table 4), including AAS, and were involved in the daily communication with the farmer-researchers. The farmer-researchers, all women, contributed to the process of research design, implementation, data collection, preliminary analysis, and sharing the learning within the groups and beyond."},{"index":9,"size":110,"text":"Also in April, the research team carried out a baseline survey in the eight study villages to help inform research design. A survey was used to ask about the role of ponds in homestead systems and integration with other farming practices; the pros and cons of pond aquaculture; farmers' species preferences; women's preferences for fish feeding; annual water calendar and water use from homestead ponds; women's preferred activities in pond management; current role of women in household decision making, including homestead agriculture; women's perspectives about nutrition; women's level of participation in agriculture input purchase and product marketing; and the possible role of women in participatory technology development and knowledge sharing."},{"index":10,"size":48,"text":"In the same month, the science team presented to a science audience in Khulna a guideline for how they would engage with farmers to design the PAR. This included a model of how the science team saw themselves in relationship to the study groups and facilitators (Figure 12)."},{"index":11,"size":29,"text":"In May and June, the science team presented the draft design to farmer-researchers in group meetings for comment and suggestions in order to arrive at a final experimental design."},{"index":12,"size":19,"text":"The design focused on how to improve the productivity of aquaculture in homestead ponds while maintaining their multiple uses."},{"index":13,"size":52,"text":"Each study group agreed to evaluate three fish-stocking levels. Each treatment was made up of at least three different species chosen by the science team to fulfill one of four different criteria: allow for regular harvesting of fish for household consumption, high value of fish at market, fast growing, and cultural preference."},{"index":14,"size":36,"text":"For example, all treatments included genetically improved farmed tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) as the species that best met the regular harvesting criteria, and five out of six treatments included different carp species as the culturally preferred fish."},{"index":15,"size":48,"text":"There were three treatments and four replications of each treatment in all villages. These three treatments were the same in all four villages of each region. There were two regions, fresh water and brackish water. There were 12 women researchers in each village, making a total of 96."},{"index":16,"size":162,"text":"A feeding strategy was developed based on data from the survey and was the same across all treatments and regions. Before stocking ponds, other fish were removed by using rotenone and ponds were limed, fertilized and fenced to avoid entry of predators and prevent escape of fish during floods.  Trials began in July. Facilitators organized fortnightly meetings in each village for the women to discuss their progress. The facilitator monitored the record keeping and guided sessions on technical aspects of aquaculture research, gender and nutrition. This also allowed the farmer-researchers to compare treatments and developed their skill of sharing their observations. Follow-up from August to October 2013 found that not all fish were growing equally in each treatment. Farmers started to look differently at their ponds and critically observe how others were managing theirs. Differences of opinion started to emerge through each trying to explain their own situation. None of the women wanted to accept that their fish were not growing well."}]},{"head":"Legend","index":77,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":2,"text":"Group 1"}]},{"head":"MORE INCLUSIVE SCIENCE FOR THE POOR: LINKING FARMERS TO RESEARCHERS USING THE RinD APPROACH","index":78,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":78,"text":"Excitement grew from September to November when the fish started breeding. Some women invited researchers and facilitators to discuss their observations. Disappointment also started to grow when some women saw no breeding in their ponds. They started to identify the reasons, which included predation by fish, birds or snakes, and realized that they needed to improve pond management. Some still did not find satisfactory answers and kept asking questions about likely causes, questioning factors such as water quality."},{"index":2,"size":120,"text":"The women started harvesting fish regularly from October to March for home consumption and to give to neighbors and relatives. A few fish were sold. At this point, the great majority of the farmers were happy and becoming eager to grow more fish. At the same time, interest in the work grew, with more exchange visits and guest visitors. Receiving visitors worked to build the women's self-confidence and visibility in their community, which led to them taking on different roles in the study group and their respective communities. For example, Nomita Golder, who was leading her group, explained the research design, various research observations, and the benefits they were achieving by doing aquaculture research during a WorldFish country director's visit."},{"index":3,"size":58,"text":"From July 2013 to March 2014, the women continued to experiment, share and learn. At the beginning of April 2014, a regional learning, sharing and planning workshop was held. This provided a platform for all 96 farmer-researchers to present their research findings and priorities to a larger audience, complemented by statistical analysis carried out by the science team."},{"index":4,"size":66,"text":"The women were grouped according to their treatments. There were several presentations from each group. Almost all women participated in the presentation, although four or five in each group were generally the most vocal. They presented their group results, comparisons among the same treatment distributed in different villages, and overall different treatments across the region. They also presented their priority development outcomes after ranking. Woman farmer-researcher"},{"index":5,"size":41,"text":"The analysis presented showed that both household fish production and consumption had increased four-to sixfold (Figure 13) as a result of the trials and, crucially, that the innovation of stocking ponds with a mixture of species was being adopted by neighbors."},{"index":6,"size":194,"text":"The analysis also highlighted the unexpected outcomes of working together, including local adaptation and innovation to improve on the treatments, and increased confidence and leadership skills among the women farmerresearchers. Recognition of these outcomes helped motivate both the science team and the farmer-researcher groups. The science team used the workshop as an opportunity to plan the next research cycle with the farmer-researchers and then continued to engage with them in May and June on the research design. At issue was that while others were starting to adopt the mixed stocking innovation developed in the first cycle, adoption was starting to raise new questions, particularly around availability of quality fish seed and feed. Some groups wanted to explore using local alternatives to relatively expensive inputs. Some farmers started to supply fish seed themselves. The facilitators saw that they Farmers are now more focused on specific problems. In the first year, the focus was to identify suitable species that can increase the productivity of small shaded ponds. In the second year, the questions were different in different communities and included identifying suitable species, finding optimum stocking density, selecting the best feeds, and integrating aquaculture with horticulture."}]},{"head":"Emerging outcomes and learning","index":79,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":93,"text":"As of January 2015, 96 women researchers, 8 technical facilitators and 9 scientists were working to improve homestead ponds. Some of the women farmers are now in a leadership position in their communities and are able to use trials to answer some of their own questions. The twin success of increasing fish production and empowering women was achieved by getting farmers, facilitators and scientists to work together around an issue of common interest. Doing so led to the researchers sharing their understanding of issues faced by the women with staff from other projects."},{"index":2,"size":19,"text":"Participants had a valuable firsthand experience of working in a team with different expertise and skills to solve problems."},{"index":3,"size":73,"text":"Working this way was not easy. AAS had to invest in building staff capacity to implement PAR, which is not standard practice in large bilateral projects. The science team found that implementing and supporting the work was a challenge due to the large geographic area of the South Bangladesh Polder Zone and difficulties in traveling. The team had to learn appropriate ways to communicate with facilitators and farmers, including participatory monitoring and evaluation."},{"index":4,"size":14,"text":"Engaging farmers successfully in PAR depends very much on the skill of the facilitator."},{"index":5,"size":58,"text":"Skillful facilitation was considered one of the major elements of success. When the women researchers started to understand the potential of PAR, they wanted to broaden the questions they were asking. Keeping them focused and helping them prioritize and solve problems step by step was important. Finally, community-level changes were more effective where both men and women participated."},{"index":6,"size":22,"text":"Using the RinD approach to make community-based fisheries management more responsive to community needs in Solomon Islands Siota F and Sukulu M"}]},{"head":"Issues facing marine resource management","index":80,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":29,"text":"Throughout the Pacific (Figure 14), there is concern that small-scale fisheries will be unable to meet the nutritional and livelihood demands of rapidly growing populations (Bell et al. 2009)."},{"index":2,"size":55,"text":"Community-based resource management of marine resources has a long history here as an approach to addressing small-scale fisheries concerns and is considered an important strategy to fill the supply gap. Communitybased resource management \"describes the management that communities can carry out themselves without external assistance\" (WorldFish 2013) and is underpinned by community participation and governance."},{"index":3,"size":22,"text":"In Solomon Islands, more than 10 organizations, including WorldFish, provide support to communities to implement community-based resource management (Cohen et al. 2012)."},{"index":4,"size":104,"text":"Although widely recognized and promoted as an appropriate mechanism to improve and secure benefits from coastal fisheries, detailed accounts of implementation, evidence of outcomes, and the link between implementation strategies and broader development outcomes are limited (Cohen et al. 2012). First, many communitybased resource management initiatives have focused on fisheries or marine issues and did not explore other community issues or concerns. While many efforts resulted in the establishment of community management of marine resources, it is not uncommon for community enthusiasm for resource management to wane and other community development priorities or governance issues to derail their efforts (Schwarz et al. in review)."},{"index":5,"size":149,"text":"After AAS adopted the Constellation community life competence process approach. The first step was for community-based resource management researchers and community life competence process coaches to come together in a workshop in Honiara in September 2012 to compare and contrast the WorldFish community-based resource management engagement approach with the community life competence process approach. Participants drew on their experience of working in 11 communities across four provinces. 10   AAS rollout required engaging in the community life competence process with new communities to ensure that community perspectives were captured. In the Malaita hub stakeholder consultation workshop, a wideranging plenary discussion centered around the problem of getting a community perspective into the design process while avoiding the problem of raising inappropriate expectations. WorldFish and other stakeholders agreed that community perspectives would be sought at one central meeting with communities where WorldFish or AAS partners were already working or have strong relationships."},{"index":6,"size":162,"text":"At the subsequent program design workshop in November 2012, there was considerable discussion about the extent to which engagement with new communities in Malaita was required. The Solomon Islands model for scaling of community-based resource management was at that time shifting from the mode of long-term community-by-community engagement to one that recognized the need to scale community-based resource management to a large number of coastal communities using an inshore fisheries strategy the team (MFMR 2008). Based on past experience, the Solomon Islands team was cautious about initiating more long-term engagements and the risk to the organization's reputation that not meeting community expectations might involve. A range of research modalities in the hub was proposed to the design workshop, including through partners and networks for scaling, but it was made clear by program management that engagement with new communities through the community life competence process was non-negotiable if the Solomon Islands program was to be supported by AAS funds (Apgar and Douthwaite 2012)."},{"index":7,"size":124,"text":"Through a process of group discussions, it was agreed that community engagement and use of the Constellation competence approach was necessary in some communities. Further, it was agreed that this would take into consideration existing work and action planning in the communities to build competencies and broaden work through integrating across initiatives. Moreover, the discussion highlighted that a scaling-up strategy for the program needed to include work through partners on the ground and at the hub level and ensure that AAS was working in the scaling-up research frontier, which is seen as central to the RinD approach (Apgar and Douthwaite 2012). Accordingly, the area of focus was narrowed to North Malaita and three clusters of villages that were connected by tribal affiliation (AAS 2013)."},{"index":8,"size":210,"text":"In July 2013, AAS staff trained in the community life competence process and one of the Constellation coaches carried out community visioning and action planning in the three clusters: Kwai/Suava, Fumato'o and Alea. In common with other hubs, the community life competence process raised issues and actions that WorldFish did not have the technical skills or financial capacity to address. However, the facilitation team also saw that the process created space for the participants to talk about and share their visions and that this created an opportunity for collective action. As one participant observed, \"individual and family dreams are also part of a larger community dream, and a person's dream that is not shared is unachievable. \" WorldFish staff said that in informal discussions with some of the youth and women who attended the workshop, \"they mentioned that they liked the process, as it was not WorldFish telling them what to do, but helping them try to see their own strengths and resources and to build up from there\" (G. Orirana, personal communication, July 2013). These sentiments helped WorldFish staff become more comfortable with the community life competence process and continued to clarify where it could add value to engagement processes being used in other communities undertaking community-based resource management."},{"index":9,"size":65,"text":"The AAS focal communities were selected to represent a gradient of dependency on marine resources. The visioning identified issues to which AAS could respond directly. A form of marine resource management was identified as a priority that all communities wanted to address, among other priority areas that included improved smallholder farming practices for root crops and vegetables, sanitation, and improvements in the community working together."},{"index":10,"size":150,"text":"It is important to understand how changing relationships among and between stakeholders affect how we deal with communities. AAS in Malaita works through the Malaita Province Partnership for Development (MPPD), a steering committee composed of partner organizations and the provincial government. The steering committee on program design advised that an agreement between WorldFish and the communities where we work in Malaita would be prudent, and a process was devised to come to a mutual understanding of purpose, roles and responsibilities. From November 2013 to January 2014, the AAS team consulted with communities in Malaita on the draft of a community research agreement that would lay out both AAS and partner commitments on one side, and community commitments to their action plans on the other. In January 2014, the draft was presented to the MPPD for their approval, and in May 2014 the Malaita hub focal communities signed their respective agreements."},{"index":11,"size":204,"text":"In September, the Constellation coach and AAS staff held facilitator training for the community life competence process in the Western hub. This was the first time that AAS staff used the community life competence process to set up a second hub. The participants included WorldFish, male and female community focal persons from three communities where WorldFish and partners had bilateral activities related to marine resource management, and representatives from two partner organizations based in Western Province. One of these communities had a long engagement around community-based resource management. Their plan on completing the training was to go back and work as a team. Participants said they would \"use the approach to address community concerns. \" 11   The trained facilitators carried out community visioning and action planning in a community that was newly interested in engaging in community-based resource management at the request of the community and a partner organization. This provided an opportunity for the community life competence process and learning from Malaita hub to be directed specifically at the community-based resource management process. In January 2015, the AAS team worked with the Western hub community to agree on the community research agreement as a way of strengthening their work on community-based resource management."}]},{"head":"Emerging outcomes and learning","index":81,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":158,"text":"Using a strength-based approach to community engagement. Before working with the community life competence process, WorldFish researchers had limited their engagement in communities to areas where expectations could be met. Working with the community life competence process has allowed researchers to better understand an underlying premise on which AAS is based: that every community has the capacity to tackle challenges and take ownership of actions to meet their development aspirations. We understand better how the process of collective visioning and action planning \"switches on\" this capacity. As a result, there has been a shift in the way WorldFish works. Instead of representing themselves as fisheries experts, researchers now play the role of facilitators. Previously responding only to community concerns about marine resources, researchers would ask \"What support can WorldFish provide to the community to improve fisheries management?\" Now the team stimulates communities to think broadly about their vision and how \"We, the community, can do a lot. \""},{"index":2,"size":219,"text":"Being more aware of differences in representation and power within the community. Part of what has been learned through implementing the RinD approach is to be sensitive to differences in levels of participation, representation and power within communities. This was learned the hard way, when people the team thought were community representatives were not actually representing broader community interests to the satisfaction of their communities. Community members explained that if the \"representative\" is not the person of their choice, they do not want to listen. However, even where community representatives are chosen and approved by the community, they still may fail to represent community interests all the time and some dissatisfaction is to be expected. The RinD approach provides tools to facilitate processes that recognize that those who represent communities must be chosen through a fair and transparent procedure decided on by the community. Another lesson is to include broad representation in decision-making committees and to structure discussions so that men, women and youth are all able to contribute. There are now visible differences in who makes decisions and does the work when it comes to implementing agreed-upon action plans, something the research team was not so attuned to before AAS. A community research agreement is now one of the early steps in developing a meaningful partnership with communities."},{"index":3,"size":185,"text":"Co-researchers in community-based fisheries management. Prior to AAS, the WorldFish approach to community-based resource management was to select work on research questions of interest to researchers and to fishers around the question, \"Is local management improving fisheries?\" For example, in Western Province before AAS, youth were employed as research assistants and an external researcher reported the results back to the community. WorldFish now engages both young men and women who are viewed as co-researchers rather than research assistants. For example, senior fishers and elders spoke with researchers to identify the local names for fish species. Using local names rather than scientific terms allowed for higher levels of local participation in data collection, interpretation and reporting. If researchers had insisted on using scientific naming systems, which would have been easier for publication purposes, local researchers would have been excluded. The role of local co-researchers will be further developed by including them in the analysis of the data, something that up to now has been done by the researchers. It is anticipated that this will improve the interpretation of the data and help ensure findings are used."}]},{"head":"Changes in WorldFish researchers' practice.","index":82,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":109,"text":"The RinD approach has brought about changes to researchers, engagement in development and community-based resource management practices in three main areas. First, in adopting the strength-based approach there has been a shift in role from fisheries expert to facilitator with new skills and tools to enable and empower communities. Second, there is increased sensitivity towards power relations within communities, drawing on facilitation skills to promote participation, and research has been further sensitized to explore elements of representation and power and what these mean for development outcomes. Third, there is an increased emphasis on fostering meaningful engagement of community members in research and on integrating research into the development process."},{"index":2,"size":93,"text":"These three shifts in practice fit well with the personal journeys, reflections and realizations of local and international researchers with experience in supporting community development and conducting research in Solomon Islands. Prior to AAS, researchers observed that just concentrating on fisheries often neglected communities' priority concerns. Researchers were feeling discomfort with the inadequacy of the standard model of doing research in or on a community and simply reporting back. And finally, researchers were aware that local power relations and culture were highly influential on who benefited from development and the sustainability of outcomes."},{"index":3,"size":81,"text":"There is some evidence emerging that gives confidence in these shifts in practice and emphasis, and it is hypothesized that these shifts will accelerate and deepen the impact of WorldFish's work with communities and ensure that community capacity to innovate and adapt in the face of change has been lastingly improved. Nonetheless, there are many questions remaining about whether these changes in process are sufficient to bring about lasting change given the range of challenges the Solomon Islands development context presents."}]},{"head":"Discussion and conclusion","index":83,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":49,"text":"This chapter is an exploration into how RinD has led to farmers and researchers working together. In this section, we begin with what hub teams have learned. We then summarize outcomes and innovations produced by using RinD in each hub and identify what the RinD approach provided that worked."}]},{"head":"What hub teams learned","index":84,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":94,"text":"The main area of learning in three of the four cases came through firsthand experience of a strength-based PAR process that began through the community life competence process facilitated by Constellation. WorldFish researchers in the Solomon Islands case learned that focusing on community strengths \"switched on\" their capacity to solve their own problems. This insight helped researchers become more comfortable in engaging more with communities. This led to greater involvement of community members as co-researchers in data gathering and analysis, which we expect to result in more relevant research that is used more widely."},{"index":2,"size":86,"text":"In three of the four cases, facilitation emerged as a core skill. The Solomon Islands team learned that facilitating a process by which the community selects someone respected by the group is important. Often this role is secured by a powerful person driven by self-interest. Both the Philippines and Bangladesh teams reflected on how facilitation is difficult, both in terms of learning the skills and in dealing with expectations. The Bangladesh team struggled in particular with communicating between the different PAR groups and their respective facilitators."},{"index":3,"size":189,"text":"Three of the four teams learned that the main outcomes, sometimes unexpected, come from researchers and farmers working together. This promotes more and better communication and creates mutual appreciation. In Zambia, the team acknowledged that the main outcome with the fish-salting initiative was that the individuals involved from the Ministry of Fisheries and those representing fish trading cooperatives went from an antagonistic to a more cooperative relationship through working together. The fish traders are now helping the ministry staff communicate the fishing ban, which is not directly related to salting fish. Also in Zambia, increased appreciation of women farmers' analytical abilities led researchers to put them forward to make presentations at a conference, which greatly increased their confidence and led to them taking on new roles. • Scientists appreciate that engaging farmers adds relevance to their work. • Farmers appreciate that trials provide answers of use to them, including ways to increase fish production in their ponds. • Women researchers learn firsthand that farmer-led experimentation helps them answer their own questions and helps raise their status in the community. They wish for others to benefit as well. Solomon Islands"},{"index":4,"size":49,"text":"• Community members are more proactive in finding solutions to their own problems through PAR, better able to ask for support rather than sitting back and waiting for the next project. • Main WorldFish community-based resource management researchers adopting more elements of the RinD approach in their bilateral work."},{"index":5,"size":46,"text":"• Community members appreciate that collectively they can solve some of their own problems. • Community-based resource management researchers appreciate how a broader and deeper engagement with communities adds to the relevance and reach of their research and feel they have the tools to manage expectations."}]},{"head":"Outcomes from implementing RinD","index":85,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":97,"text":"In all four cases the authors attest to different stakeholder groups working together differently than before. In all cases there is evidence that members of different stakeholder groups have gone through a behavioral change and have shifted to more inclusive ways of working. In all four cases the RinD approach changed the way hub-level actors interacted with farmers and researchers. These changes are the direct outcomes of RinD and are summarized together with the mechanisms that we think generated them in Table 5. Each line in the table can be understood as a hypothesis for further testing."}]},{"head":"Innovation through RinD","index":86,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":13,"text":"The RinD approach produced innovations in each case, as shown in Table 6."}]},{"head":"What did RinD provide that worked?","index":87,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":50,"text":"A process to identify an issue of common interest. All four cases were motivated by a common interest shared by two or more stakeholder groups. Their motivation to work together was built through the facilitated process of identifying it in the first place, which in itself built trust and understanding."},{"index":2,"size":95,"text":"Firsthand experience of strength-based approaches. In three of the four cases, there is strong evidence that the community-level PAR initiated through the community life competence process provided participants with firsthand experience of a strength-based approach that was transformative for those involved. Community members started to implement action plans they owned and to see the results. Researchers saw that engaging farmers as co-researchers provided farmers with a set of skills that helped them find solutions to their problems while at the same time offering researchers the opportunity to improve the relevance and reach of their work."}]},{"head":"Mandating community engagement.","index":88,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":130,"text":"A clear motivator in all four cases was the insistence on the part of AAS leadership that AAS hubs In Bangladesh, the pressure from AAS leadership for AAS bilaterals to embrace the RinD approach led directly to participatory research on homestead ponds. This began with researchers consulting women farmers to develop a statistically analyzable design to test their best bet for stocking homestead ponds with several fish species. The second round of experimentation was much closer to the community-led research agenda of the type AAS program leadership was expecting to see. In the first round, the science team convinced the women farmers of the plausible promise of using action research to improve the productivity of their ponds while themselves starting to see the value of engaging with farmers as co-researchers."},{"index":2,"size":57,"text":"In Zambia, the pressure of expectations led eventually to the postharvest processing group engaging fishers from the focal communities in PAR on fish salting. The original membership of the postharvest processing group did not include anyone from these communities, nor were these communities visited in the value chain assessment that led to the formation of the group."},{"index":3,"size":146,"text":"Regular workshops, after-action reviews and training. The pressure of expectations to bring about more inclusive engagement with farmers came largely from the global AAS RinD team based in Penang. The team itself became clearer about its role in championing and supporting RinD through its interaction with hub teams and is currently made up of staff working for the AAS knowledge sharing and learning theme and the gender theme. In practice, the pressure came through a series of workshops, meetings, after-action reviews and training events in which the staff from Penang played an important role in design, facilitation and acting as a resource. At the same time, the Program Director was prepared to intervene in support of key RinD principles, in particular the requirement that hubs carry out communitylevel PAR initiated through the community life competence process and link research to community visions identified in the process."},{"index":4,"size":87,"text":"Providing space to explore working together in different ways. Part of the success of the four cases can be attributed to creating spaces for these conversations and then keeping them going. This happened by AAS not immediately funding projects after rollout but instead providing inputs that would catalyze groups starting to work together and then supporting collaboration when it happened. AAS helped stabilize, nudge and amplify emerging changes, the most important of which are shown in Table 6. Facilitation has been a core competency in this regard."}]},{"head":"Introduction","index":89,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":150,"text":"As we saw in the first chapter, this document began in a cross-hub workshop held in Penang in January 2015. In that meeting, staff involved in implementing RinD identified areas of learning that would be of interest and useful to others, including both others working in AAS and people wanting to apply similar approaches in other programs. In January, we understood RinD to be a research and engagement approach, built on PAR, that seeks to enable poor and vulnerable people to achieve more equitable and more sustainable livelihoods from the social-ecological systems of which they are part. We understood that RinD seeks to help the poor and vulnerable to become co-owners in finding solutions to their own problems while building their capacity to reflect and innovate across scales. We recognized that RinD pushes the boundaries of agricultural research beyond a linear model of addressing identifiable agricultural challenges through technology development."},{"index":2,"size":94,"text":"During the following 8 months, four teams of people built on this understanding to explore four areas of interest identified in the workshop, through a collective process of identifying key learning and writing it up as the four learning chapters in this document. Each team has written about the experience of adapting and operationalizing various aspects of the RinD approach to agricultural research in five hubs over 3 ½ years of AAS implementation. Each chapter explored challenges faced and overcome and shared understanding and insights about the way RinD works and its added value."},{"index":3,"size":94,"text":"This chapter is written by the document's editorial committee, which includes the coordinating author of each learning chapter and two AAS theme co-leaders. In this chapter, we address the main objective of the working paper: to synthesize the learning that has emerged. First we do so across the four learning chapters. Then we pull together insights from our own individual reflections on RinD, stimulated by our involvement in the process of writing the chapters and our experience with RinD. Finally, building on the first two sections, we provide an articulation of RinD's added value."}]},{"head":"Learning about RinD through implementation","index":90,"paragraphs":[]},{"head":"How RinD works in practice","index":91,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":222,"text":"The four learning chapters portray the RinD approach emerging in each hub as a contextualized research and engagement process. In this process, a multidisciplinary and multipartner team engages with a range of stakeholders to tackle a commonly agreed-upon and geographically defined hub development challenge. The RinD team is guided by a set of principles rather than a strict blueprint. The chapters illustrate that the approach is flexible and adapts to context. A number of implementation arrangements have grown up within and across hubs as teams have sought to apply RinD principles. The chapter on community engagement describes the different ways community engagement teams organized themselves, and the partnerships chapter identifies how a range of stakeholders have worked together through different partnership arrangements to tackle their respective hub development challenges. All chapters provide evidence of engagement leading to strengthening links within and between participating farmers, fishers, researchers and hub-level stakeholders built through working together to tackle some aspect of the hub development challenge. The RinD team works to establish and maintain these links as both researchers and process designers or facilitators. The chapters on community engagement, partnerships and inclusive science describe the processes of engagement as building and strengthening over time. The gender chapter suggests that one reason engagement needs time is because social change cannot be controlled and can only be seeded."},{"index":2,"size":147,"text":"The chapters identify other factors essential to the RinD engagement process. One is to start with identification of a common vision of success-be that at hub or community level-and purposefully appreciate different people's and organizations' strengths that can assist to achieve the vision. The community engagement and partnership chapters share learning about how to enlist stakeholders and partners in the initial stages of addressing specific research agendas. They illustrate that starting with a broad vision that everyone can relate to is instrumental for building shared ownership and motivation to act, whether at hub or community level. The chapters also discuss the importance of building participation and trust slowly through a participatory research process. This allows those involved to collectively tackle more challenging aspects of their vision. Positive outcomes came through institutionalized processes for purposefully facilitating joint reflection and learning that were able to maintain and deepen relations."},{"index":3,"size":34,"text":"The gender chapter highlights the significance of approaching this joint reflection as a process of opening space for critical questioning as a means of creating opportunities for shifts towards gender-equitable norms, values and practices."},{"index":4,"size":102,"text":"The inclusive science chapter identifies some common ways by which RinD appeared to have worked to change and sustain participants' thinking, leading to action and change. Program leadership played a major role in creating the pressure of expectation that researchers should respond to community-identified needs and engage more deeply in local development processes. Motivation came from people's firsthand experience of being part of an appreciative approach that highlighted people's strengths rather than their problems. Also key was the facilitated and sometimes protracted process by which two or more stakeholder groups identified a concrete area of common interest on which to work together."}]},{"head":"Developing capacity to implement RinD","index":92,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":114,"text":"A common theme emerges across all chapters on the challenges faced in building and maintaining capacity to implement the RinD approach with sufficient quality and rigor. The community engagement chapter highlights the importance of building capacity for both facilitation and documentation, ensuring that they work together to capture and share learning for multiple audiences. Similarly, the gender chapter provides a thorough exploration into the capacity challenges faced and overcome to support the most innovative part of RinD (using a transformative approach), which rests in large part on the quality of facilitation and use of critical reflection. The partnerships chapter emphasizes the leadership capacity required to sustain partnerships and deepen relationships to achieve common goals."},{"index":2,"size":59,"text":"Across all of the stories regarding capacity, a few lessons emerge that may be useful to others. First, the capacity required for RinD is not one that can simply be imparted through training, and as the gender chapter explicitly discusses, a blended learning approach was the most useful. Relationships and partnerships were central to the success of that approach."},{"index":3,"size":102,"text":"Starting early and working to directly support learning through implementation has proved to be useful. Regular workshops and other events in hubs that were attended by global and hub staff and partners helped maintain motivation to engage more deeply and developed capacity to do so. As has been emphasized in the inclusive science chapter and elaborated in the next section, capacity to innovate is an end goal of the RinD approach, so capacity development is best understood from a systems perspective of joining the capacity of implementation teams with the capacity of the innovation system as a whole (Apgar et al. 2015)."}]},{"head":"RinD outcomes","index":93,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":107,"text":"The chapters provide evidence that action taken as a result of RinD has led to innovation and change. The inclusive science chapter identifies a set of both technical and institutional innovations that support each other. Some technical innovations mentioned include improvements to the process of salting fish in Zambia; the use of hybrid tissuecultured abaca seedlings with eradication of host plants to ensure disease-free abaca plantations in the Philippines; and identification of polyculture stocking strategies for small shaded ponds in Bangladesh. Institutional innovations include the establishment of a fish value chain innovation platform supporting fish drying and an Abaca Coalition of research and development supporting abaca rehabilitation."},{"index":2,"size":86,"text":"There is evidence across the chapters that RinD builds capacity to innovate. Capacity to innovate includes the stock of novelty in the system (e.g. new crop varieties), motivations, and a set of actor capabilities (Axelrod and Cohen 2000;Leeuwis et al. 2014) that include the ability to prioritize problems, take risks, experiment, mobilize resources and link together in pursuit of innovation. The chapters show the core RinD engagement processes as built on PAR, which works to build these capacities, as the main approach to implementing agricultural research."},{"index":3,"size":64,"text":"Table 7 summarizes how RinD has worked to build capacity to innovate across the community engagement, partnerships and inclusive science chapters. The gender chapter shows how transforming the norms of those involved may lead to more equitable innovation. Quality of facilitation, in particular ensuring participation of women and the poor and marginalized, is essential to the AAS goal of building equitable capacity to innovate."},{"index":4,"size":342,"text":"The finding that RinD works to build capacity to innovate is important. Increased capacity to innovate augments people's ability to respond to future challenges and improve their livelihoods (Mokyr 1990) and can be seen as an important outcome in its own right. Increasing capacity to innovate is a part of how AAS expects to achieve its impact goals by \"turning on\" the capacity of the poor and marginalized to help themselves by sustainably using the Farmers, researchers and key organizations motivated to work together through agreeing on shared visions and plans to achieve them (e.g. PAR process in villages) Motivation maintained through facilitation and follow-up by RinD team Ability to identify and prioritize problems and opportunities in dynamic systems environments RinD team able to use participatory methods to facilitate hub actors, including farmers, to identify and prioritize problems and opportunities; participants learn by doing Ability to take risks, experiment and assess tradeoffs Farmers' experimenting supported by researchers, better able to assess the tradeoffs relating to their trials; researchers experimenting with different approaches to engagement and reflecting on how they work (e.g. this document) Ability to mobilize resources and form effective support coalitions around promising options and visions for the future RinD teams able to set up coalitions and innovation platforms (e.g. fish value chain innovation platform, Abaca Coalition); able to play honest broker role necessary to make it work Coalition and platform members using their own resources to further the work (e.g. Abaca Coalition) Ability to link to each other in order to share and process relevant information and knowledge in support of above A network of farmers and researchers working at community level in each hub Coalitions and platforms bringing member organizations together in support of network of farmers and researchers (e.g. Abaca Coalition) Ability to understand how change comes about in complex systems and how to intervene effectively RinD team members more aware of importance of facilitation, champions and network weaving to build capacity for community-and hub-level actors to help themselves Photo Credit: Mahabubur Rahman/WorldFish Researchers exchanging views, Khulna, Bangladesh."},{"index":5,"size":125,"text":"84 SYNTHESIS: LEARNING ABOUT RinD aquatic agricultural systems in which they live. 12 Our working hypothesis is that people will use this increased capacity to improve their livelihoods in general, not just those aspects related to agriculture. Testing the hypothesis has profound implications for how RinD is evaluated. Future impact assessment will need to consider not just the impact from adoption of technology developed by RinD but also its contribution to a broader range of livelihood outcomes resulting from people's increasing ability to innovate equitably. Increasing capacity to innovate is a systemic change with systemic effects. How agricultural research influences capacity to innovate is a key area of further research if programs like AAS are to become more effective at helping the poor and vulnerable."},{"index":6,"size":122,"text":"Insights and learning about RinD from diverse perspectives Whether learning is of interest to others depends, of course, on how it resonates with their previous experience and what they might need to do with it. In this section, we leverage the diversity found within the editorial committee to pull together a broad set of insights of potential use. The editorial team includes natural and social scientists engaged in varying degrees of hands-on implementation, management and support to hub teams. To write this section, we first engaged in our own reflection as first-person action researchers on what we understand RinD to be, its key characteristics and opportunities, and the challenges of making it work. What follows is a synthesis of what we wrote."},{"index":7,"size":189,"text":"What is RinD? How we perceive and make sense of RinD as an approach to agricultural research ranges from practical to conceptual, depending on our backgrounds and experience with RinD. From a hub perspective, RinD is about how we as researchers work with communities and partners-how we value and act on different perspectives in a way that has been collectively determined. It is about trying and finding a different path. It is about defining and implementing a research agenda together with communities and partners. From a research design perspective, RinD aims to bring the conceptual and practical knowledge of participatory and strength-based development to how agricultural research is conceived and driven. Through that, RinD aims to lead to greater understanding of innovation and change processes. From a more theoretical point of view, RinD presents a way of integrating natural and social sciences that is necessary if research efforts are to be effective in complex socio-ecological systems. RinD offers an innovative way of combining systems thinking with the embeddedness of science and technology. Clearly, RinD is multifaceted, means different things to different people, and has different uses in different contexts."},{"index":8,"size":209,"text":"Two of us reflected on the long and rich history of methodological development upon which the RinD approach builds, going back at least to the 1940s in sociology with Lewin's (1946) work on improving group relationships. Action research methods were developed in psychology and agricultural development in the same decade (Chein et al. 1948;Curle 1949) and then in other fields, including public health, education, anthropology and ethnography. Within agricultural research, work on farmer participation began with farming systems research in the late 1970s (Collinson 2000) and was subsequently championed by the Farmer First movement (Chambers et al. 1989) and integrated natural resource management in the 1990s and early 2000s (Sayer and Campbell 2003). At the same time, work on farmer and women's participation and empowerment was led by the CGIAR Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (Johnson et al. 2004). A plethora of participatory and action research methods appeared, including participatory learning and action (Pretty et al. 1995), work on learning alliances (Lundy et al. 2005), and participatory monitoring and evaluation for learning (Guijt et al. 1998). Given this rich and broad history, why, we wonder, do CGIAR researchers, unlike most other PAR practitioners, still feel the need to justify the basis for their approach to their colleagues?"}]},{"head":"Characteristics of RinD","index":94,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":17,"text":"Three characteristics of RinD emerge that, if understood together, distinguish it from other approaches to agricultural research."}]},{"head":"Broad scope of inquiry","index":95,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":111,"text":"RinD has a broader starting point than is usual in agricultural research. When reflecting upon participatory approaches that some of us have worked with and written about, we note that all focused on a particular technical area driven by the research interest of the group initiating the work, be they farmers or fishers (in the case of local farmer research committees, known by their Spanish acronym CIALs) or researchers (in the case of much participatory technology development) or both (e.g. participatory plant breeding). RinD has provided a different starting point, with visioning framed by a broad development challenge that allows participants to envision a range of improvements not limited to agriculture."},{"index":2,"size":118,"text":"We see evidence in the chapters of these visions going much beyond what researchers have been comfortable with; i.e. beyond their ability to respond. However, rather than create the feared \"raising of false expectations\" and subsequent disillusionment, the effect has been to create a broad agenda for action beyond what individual stakeholders owned or could easily subvert to their own ends. This created safe spaces that allowed different stakeholders to explore what they could do together, something they had not been able to do before. We see that RinD is distinctive in the way it gives communities in particular a mechanism to work towards overall improvements to their lives, as opposed to narrower technical fixes, albeit participatory ones."}]},{"head":"Maintaining resonance","index":96,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":166,"text":"From an implementation-on-the-ground perspective, RinD works because it resonates with implementation teams-those that are on the front lines of RinD. As the chapters have shown and we have experienced, it has the flexibility to be contextualizable and it elicits positive and more honest conversations with communities and stakeholders. Part of this is because people relate to the principles RinD is built on, in particular a commitment to helping the poor and marginalized help themselves in a particular location. However, this commitment means building and maintaining relationships over the long term with the farmers and other stakeholders within the hubs where RinD teams work. This implies a responsibility that may be unfamiliar to researchers used to working in a more hands-off manner. The responsibility can be uncomfortable for the individuals upon whom this responsibility falls if it is not acknowledged as important within their respective organizations and if it is not supported by an ethics policy and strategies for managing relationships if and when funding priorities change."},{"index":2,"size":93,"text":"Several of us highlighted in our own reflections that maintaining relationships means continuing to engage over time, in particular continuing to facilitate PAR and broker links between organizations. This would not be a surprise for people who implement social programs and know that maintaining and building participation is key to behavior change and impact (e.g. Pawson 2013). However, it can be a challenge for researchers who, while attracted by the principle of helping people help themselves, have no experience of what long-term engagement means in terms of what they need to do differently."},{"index":3,"size":74,"text":"We conclude that RinD requires a change in mindset. Changed mindsets also require effort to achieve and maintain in the face of staff turnover, funding cuts and changes in institutional priorities. Resonance can turn to dissonance if the commitment and trust is lost. Maintaining resonance long term requires, we think, long-term support from program leadership, a consistent programmatic approach, and the promulgation of generalizable lessons and principles to support the change in mindset required."}]},{"head":"Safe spaces and reflection","index":97,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":86,"text":"The creation of safe spaces emerges as a key characteristic of RinD, as is indicated in the learning chapters. We note that the safe spaces have worked by allowing people to work through differences in perspective and understanding that inevitably exist when different stakeholders work together. While participants' collective desire to achieve a joint goal drives the search for solutions, whether solutions are found depends on whether the facilitator can keep sometimes difficult conversations going for long enough to find innovations that are acceptable to all."},{"index":2,"size":214,"text":"Further, the ability for those implementing RinD to engage in self-reflection is important because it allows RinD teams to support others in their own processes of critical reflection and change. This worked when RinD teams had the leadership and facilitation skills to engage in self-reflection. Where this was missing, researchers struggled to make the shift from being outside \"knowers\" to \"enablers\" working within ongoing development processes. This suggests a need to be more purposeful in building capacity to support this shift from the outset. Being able to support others to critically reflect and change is fundamental to tackling underlying issues that might block people from achieving their broader visions of change and to supporting change in the interest of the most marginalized. While this is not yet working everywhere in the hubs, as the chapter on learning from use of a gender-transformative approach shows, the program is starting to see how it can do so, through deepening engagement and trying to be more focused on equity as part of PAR and using gendertransformative approaches. It is not enough to simply get people in the room; it requires quality facilitation for a collaborative process to work at these deeper levels. Investing in quality facilitation and reflection is pivotal to getting RinD working and maintaining momentum."}]},{"head":"RinD as part of a formal research system","index":98,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":112,"text":"Several of us reflected on what it takes to carry out RinD in CGIAR, a formal agricultural research system. While CGIAR recognizes the utility of approaches such as RinD where farmer needs drive the research agenda, the RinD experience is that researchers can find doing so a challenge. The difficulty is that commitment to engaging in a highly consultative visioning process means that researchers have less control over research prioritization. Researchers like to know up front what their research objectives and priorities are and develop detailed work plans to address them. This hits up against linear institutional planning processes that allocate funds early on based on clearly articulated plans and expected outputs."},{"index":2,"size":128,"text":"RinD requires researchers to give up some control, and this is uncomfortable both personally and institutionally. The openness of the RinD process can easily be undermined by institutionally driven processes to clarify research agendas and ensure rigor if they are not fully appreciative of the staging required. This leads to a conclusion that for RinD to prosper within formal research systems, institutions must critically reflect on the culture and power dynamics at work internally. This is difficult to do, and safe spaces don't necessarily exist for talking about institutional dynamics. We have learned that in the same way we build safe spaces and aim to engage with power with stakeholders to transform their innovation systems, we also need to do the same within our own formal research systems."}]},{"head":"The value of RinD","index":99,"paragraphs":[{"index":1,"size":173,"text":"The synthesis suggests that the value of the RinD approach lies in its ability to allow researchers to engage in complex development processes more deeply and with greater potential to bring about transformative change. RinD allows research teams to work as part of a coalition of stakeholders jointly tackling a broad development challenge. RinD creates new and safe dialogue and action spaces for stakeholders to engage with one another long enough to build trust, motivation, capacity and insight to do things differently. Mindsets change in the process. Within formal research systems, RinD is able to bring together both social and biophysical scientists to identify leverage points for well-designed and rigorous science. The resulting research output is then more likely to be widely used because its development is anchored in a strength-based engagement process focused on helping the poor and marginalized help themselves. The engagement process builds the capacity of rural innovation systems to deliver better and more sustainable livelihoods for the poor and marginalized, based in part on the use of research outputs."},{"index":2,"size":49,"text":"Each of the chapters in this working paper have shown that RinD has produced a range of outcomes that were often unexpected and broader in scope than might result from other approaches to agricultural research. RinD also produces innovations, and there is evidence that it builds capacity to innovate."}]}],"figures":[{"text":" implementation of the research-in-development approach Developing community ownership in agricultural research Collaborating for development impact: Learning from research partnership experiences Implementing a gender-transformative research approach: Early lessons More inclusive science for the poor: Linking farmers to researchers using the RinD approach Synthesis: Learning about RinD Notes References LEARNING FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH-IN-DEVELOPMENT APPROACH Chapter authors: Douthwaite B, Apgar JM, Schwarz A, McDougall C, Attwood S, Senaratna Sellamuttu S and Clayton T "},{"text":" The resulting hub development challenges provide the guiding collective vision for how agricultural research in each hub can contribute to achieving development outcomes and set up the program of work. Stakeholders then agree to tackle the hub development challenge and implement interventions. Planning the interventions requires further articulation of specific research agendas. "},{"text":"Figure 1 . Figure 1. Six elements that constitute the AAS RinD approach (adapted from Dugan et al. 2013). "},{"text":"Figure 2 . Figure 2. AAS learning system, including first-, second-and third-person action research. "},{"text":"Figure 3 . Figure 3. AAS program engagement cycle across scales in hubs. (AAR stands for after-action review.) "},{"text":"Figure 4 . Figure 4. Community engagement process designed as PAR and participatory monitoring and evaluation for learning. "},{"text":"Figure 5 . Figure 5. Timeline of development of documents and activities specifically related to partnerships during program rollout and implementation. "},{"text":"Figure 7 . Figure 7. Organizations engaged in AAS in the Visayas-Mindanao hub as mapped during a partner analysis (a) during the early stages of the rollout and (b) after the community engagement phase. "},{"text":" dialogue and provoking conversations. This dialogue encourages social normative change, increases support for healthy practices and actions, creates opportunities for communities and groups to plan for action, and, ultimately, enables improved and sustainable health-enhancing action.• Participatory community theater for development. This form of entertainmenteducation methodology engages community members to reflect on their key problems (e.g. gender and livelihoods) and encourages them to voice their concerns, plan together to overcome barriers, mobilize the needed resources, and work in concert with support from others when necessary. In community theater for development, scripts are based on investigations conducted on the audiences' lives to ensure they are grounded in reality. Breaks are often taken in the performance to get input from those watching about how they would solve the dilemma faced by the characters. Discussions follow the performance to further stimulate dialogue and reflection about the topics raised in the drama. These discussions often feed into the script for the next performance. • Community radio programs. Radio is still the most accessible medium in much of the developing world. Community radio is particularly important, as stations are primarily established to be the \"voice of the people\" within a set geographic area. Programming focuses on topics the community is concerned about and offers an outlet for listeners to voice their concerns, share their challenges and solutions, and work together to solve community issues. People who live within the community or who go on a regular basis to collect firsthand accounts of stories usually do the reporting. "},{"text":"Figure 10 . Figure 10. AAS focal communities in the Barotse hub. "},{"text":"Figure 11 . Figure 11. Location of AAS focal villages in the South Bangladesh Polder Zone. "},{"text":" CSISA = Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia CCAFS = CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security AIN = Aquaculture for Income and Nutrition CPWF = Challenge Program on Water and Food "},{"text":"Figure 12 . Figure 12. Three-layer participatory action research model, including scientist, facilitator and farmer-researcher, to allow more interaction and greater learning and sharing. "},{"text":"Figure 13 . Figure 13. Production and consumption during baseline (2012-13) and after the trial (2013-14).Fish consumption (kg/household) Treatments "},{"text":"  "},{"text":"  "},{"text":"  "},{"text":"• The cultural and social diversity found within the hubs   "},{"text":"• Local, district and national research and development systems in place. The presence of formal national or international agricultural research systems in the hubs varies, as does the level of development intervention.•  "},{"text":"History of WorldFish and CGIAR work and the presence of ongoing bilateral projects.  The hubs sit on a continuum from areas with The hubs sit on a continuum from areas with a long history of CGIAR and WorldFish work a long history of CGIAR and WorldFish work in-country and large bilateral programs also in-country and large bilateral programs also implementing research (Solomon Islands and implementing research (Solomon Islands and Bangladesh), to areas with moderate bilateral Bangladesh), to areas with moderate bilateral funding (Cambodia and the Philippines), to funding (Cambodia and the Philippines), to one area with no prior WorldFish presence or one area with no prior WorldFish presence or bilateral projects (Barotse floodplain). bilateral projects (Barotse floodplain). The community engagement implementation The community engagement implementation model in each hub has been significantly model in each hub has been significantly influenced by previous partnerships with the influenced by previous partnerships with the program in the hub and which relate, in part, program in the hub and which relate, in part, to the previous and ongoing CGIAR work to the previous and ongoing CGIAR work in the area and the existing local capacities in the area and the existing local capacities (see the partnership chapter for more detail (see the partnership chapter for more detail on partnerships). As is shown in Table 1, the on partnerships). As is shown in Table 1, the implementation model in all hubs consists implementation model in all hubs consists of a mix of local facilitation teams and of a mix of local facilitation teams and external support provided through NGOs or external support provided through NGOs or other partners and AAS staff. The support other partners and AAS staff. The support arrangements vary depending on who the arrangements vary depending on who the main program-implementing partners are. For main program-implementing partners are. For example, in the Visayas-Mindanao hub, the example, in the Visayas-Mindanao hub, the primary supporting partners are government primary supporting partners are government organizations, while in Zambia and Cambodia organizations, while in Zambia and Cambodia they are local NGOs. In Zambia, the Barotse they are local NGOs. In Zambia, the Barotse floodplain hub is the traditional territory of the floodplain hub is the traditional territory of the Lozi people, which requires the program to Lozi people, which requires the program to work with the traditional governance system work with the traditional governance system (the Barotse Royal Establishment), and as a (the Barotse Royal Establishment), and as a consequence the village chiefs are members of consequence the village chiefs are members of the community facilitation teams. the community facilitation teams.  "},{"text":"Table 1 . Community  "},{"text":"Shifting dependency mindsets and managing expectations is an ongoing challenge   to address the issue of seed selection, with a to address the issue of seed selection, with a  focus on homestead horticulture carried out focus on homestead horticulture carried out  by women. With support from the research by women. With support from the research The rates of poverty in all the hubs are high. team, farmers designed experiments to test the 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- There are varying degrees of developmentproductivity of five okra varieties. The farmer- interventions across hubs (lowest in the Malaita researchers set up research plots, monitored, interventions across hubs (lowest in the Malaitaresearchers set up research plots, monitored, hub, highest in Bangladesh). In all the hubs recorded and analyzed the data, and shared their hub, highest in Bangladesh). In all the hubsrecorded and analyzed the data, and shared their we have found a strong dependency mindset. results with the wider community. This research 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 Taking a strength-based approach withinwas not cutting edge, but it focused on tangible these contexts is challenging, as we cannot actions that helped build capacity and motivate these contexts is challenging, as we cannotactions that helped build capacity and motivate immediately meet community expectations, participants. The groups are now progressing 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 which are based on years of experience withto more complex research that requires more development projects that have provided aid expert support, but they do so from a strong development projects that have provided aidexpert support, but they do so from a strong through a delivery approach and research base. The initial activity helped maintain through a delivery approach and researchbase. The initial activity helped maintain projects that have viewed them as passive momentum while communities learned to projects that have viewed them as passivemomentum while communities learned to subjects. While communities appreciate the arrange for delivery of local expert support. subjects. While communities appreciate thearrange for delivery of local expert support. use of visioning and action planning, it was  use of visioning and action planning, it was not in all cases a novel experience, and some Dependency mindsets are most often not in all cases a novel experience, and someDependency mindsets are most often assumed that once the action plan was defined, associated with the experience communities 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 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 Getting people to believe that they own theirof good intentions, treated them as subjects action plan takes time. and delivered solutions. Shifting this mindset action plan takes time.and delivered solutions. Shifting this mindset  is an explicit objective of the RinD approach. is an explicit objective of the RinD approach. Setting up research initiatives to build on and Emerging outcomes that have been evidenced Setting up research initiatives to build on andEmerging outcomes that have been evidenced support community action plans also takes in hubs provide positive signals that some support community action plans also takesin hubs provide positive signals that some time, as these initiatives require stakeholder communities have started on a journey towards time, as these initiatives require stakeholdercommunities have started on a journey towards engagement at hub level and at times further relying on their own strengths. In Bangladesh, engagement at hub level and at times furtherrelying on their own strengths. In Bangladesh, scoping to identify researchable topics. During increased capacity to do research by farmers scoping to identify researchable topics. Duringincreased capacity to do research by farmers the initial implementation phase, hub teams participating in PAR activities is leading the initial implementation phase, hub teamsparticipating in PAR activities is leading felt pressure to deliver something tangible to greater self-confidence and increased felt pressure to deliver something tangibleto greater self-confidence and increased to maintain momentum. How community leadership by the poor. Similarly, in Malaita, the to maintain momentum. How communityleadership by the poor. Similarly, in Malaita, the expectations and the resulting tensions have program is documenting changes in attitudes expectations and the resulting tensions haveprogram is documenting changes in attitudes been managed provide valuable lessons for Understanding and behaviors of villagers who are now starting been managed provide valuable lessons forUnderstanding and behaviors of villagers who are now starting programs adopting a strength-based approach. the nuances of how program implementation to collectively address resource management programs adopting a strength-based approach.the nuances of how program implementation to collectively address resource management In the Malaita hub, the team developed and takes shape in each location is only possible issues. In the Barotse hub, increased knowledge In the Malaita hub, the team developed andtakes shape in each location is only possible issues. In the Barotse hub, increased knowledge signed community research agreements with if reflection is happening across scales. The is leading to more participation in collective signed community research agreements withif reflection is happening across scales. The is leading to more participation in collective the communities. These played an important cross-scale nature of the AAS monitoring decision making. Similarly, in the Tonle Sap the communities. These played an importantcross-scale nature of the AAS monitoring decision making. Similarly, in the Tonle Sap role in managing people's expectations, as and evaluation for learning system builds hub, collective action has emerged that is in role in managing people's expectations, asand evaluation for learning system builds hub, collective action has emerged that is in the agreement clearly spells out the areas of on these nested reflection steps within the part catalyzed by people engaging in processes the agreement clearly spells out the areas ofon these nested reflection steps within the part catalyzed by people engaging in processes involvement by both parties. This helped to PAR process. Challenges remain in designing, of learning and reflection around their own involvement by both parties. This helped toPAR process. Challenges remain in designing, of learning and reflection around their own facilitate discussions on sensitive issues such testing, adapting and building capacity to use visions. These early outcomes suggest that facilitate discussions on sensitive issues suchtesting, adapting and building capacity to use visions. These early outcomes suggest that as payment of community members. The documentation systems that support reflection communities are moving along a pathway that as payment of community members. Thedocumentation systems that support reflection communities are moving along a pathway that ongoing management of expectations now and learning across scales. The documentation starts with shifts in their ability to organize and ongoing management of expectations nowand learning across scales. The documentation starts with shifts in their ability to organize and happens through the direct interactions of challenge is not surprising given that use of tackle collective challenges, recognizing that happens through the direct interactions ofchallenge is not surprising given that use of tackle collective challenges, recognizing that the team with communities. Local resource PAR requires co-ownership of processes and these changes are still fragile and limited to the team with communities. Local resourcePAR requires co-ownership of processes and these changes are still fragile and limited to people, community facilitators and community learning and thus documentation should those involved in the program. people, community facilitators and communitylearning and thus documentation should those involved in the program. champions communicate important support the learning of various stakeholders. champions communicate importantsupport the learning of various stakeholders. information using local dialects and are honest It therefore cannot be designed in advance information using local dialects and are honestIt therefore cannot be designed in advance about what to expect. by researchers working alone, but requires about what to expect.by researchers working alone, but requires  a meeting of researchers and stakeholders a meeting of researchers and stakeholders In Bangladesh, an important strategy that to define needs. Through our experience, In Bangladesh, an important strategy thatto define needs. Through our experience, helped manage expectations was to ensure we are learning how to find the right helped manage expectations was to ensurewe are learning how to find the right that implementation of a few simple activities balance of facilitation, ownership, trust and that implementation of a few simple activitiesbalance of facilitation, ownership, trust and started early. The PAR process started quickly documentation skills. started early. The PAR process started quicklydocumentation skills.  "},{"text":" This case study examines the AAS experience with several research and development partners who have the potential to contribute to that global partnership mandate: CARE, Prolinnova (a name based on its mandate of \"promoting local innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and natural resource management\") and Constellation. CARE CARE CARE's interest in a partnership with AAS was CARE's interest in a partnership with AAS was linked to the AAS program's intent to have deep linked to the AAS program's intent to have deep impact in the lives of poor and marginalized impact in the lives of poor and marginalized smallholder farmers and fishers through smallholder farmers and fishers through systems research and a commitment to gender- systems research and a commitment to gender- transformative change within aquatic agricultural transformative change within aquatic agricultural systems. These goals aligned well with CARE's systems. These goals aligned well with CARE's approach to gender equality and work approach to gender equality and work addressing the underlying causes of poverty and addressing the underlying causes of poverty and marginalization. CARE is a key global partner marginalization. CARE is a key global partner  "},{"text":" continues to see value in this partnership, including participating in meetings at the CGIAR Consortium, explaining the value proposition and potential of the partnership between AAS and CARE, and collaborating on significant events such as International Rural Women's Day and a scaling dialogue organized by AAS in Rome in December 2014.The partnership is not without its challenges. In the absence of more visible work at the hub level, it has been difficult to maintain close collaboration and dialogue and to convince some stakeholders of the value of the partnership. Planning to scale impact is beginning to address this challenge. Another challenge relates to staff transitions. A lesson learned here is the importance of investing time and effort within both organizations to orient new people to the partnership. CARE is hoping to partner with AAS beyond research hubs and to make links to other CARE programming. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20112012201320142015 • Proposal • Rollout • Rollout in two • Results-based • Reflection on • Proposal• Rollout• Rollout in two• Results-based• Reflection on • Engagement handbook more hubs management partnerships • Engagementhandbookmore hubsmanagementpartnerships of core global • Rollout in three • Implementation pilot trial • New partnership of core global• Rollout in three• Implementationpilot trial• New partnership partners hubs in three hubs • Draft revised framework partnershubsin three hubs• Draft revisedframework    AAS partnership  AAS partnership    framework  framework  "},{"text":" During 2014, writing up joint learning was a challenge, which was recognized as an indicator that Constellation was working outside their area of core strength. In this new phase of the program, the network of local community facilitators that Constellation has helped form becomes part of the AAS program strategy for a different way of working with communities.Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, and PPS were involved in community engagement and scoping studies in 2012. In 2013, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock conducted mapping and census exercises. The Department of Fisheries, Caritas-Mongu and PPS all took part in a fish value chain study. CRS and Caritas-Mongu staff helped carry out an agro-biodiversity assessment. Memorandums of agreement were first signed by partners before implementing activities; however, it became clear that these agreements could have been improved with additional planning to ensure a common understanding of objectives, an agreed-upon process to develop integrated work plans, and identification of the key people to be involved. Constellation recognizes that the joint work Constellation recognizes that the joint work with AAS has supported the growth of their with AAS has supported the growth of their global movement of communities, facilitators global movement of communities, facilitators and coaches, stimulating community response and coaches, stimulating community response through the community life competence through the community life competence process. They are pleased that this network process. They are pleased that this network will grow and evolve beyond the extent of will grow and evolve beyond the extent of the memorandum of agreement for program the memorandum of agreement for program implementation. While the relationship implementation. While the relationship  "},{"text":" communities and considers these partnerships the key to successfully achieving outcomes and impacts at scale. A number of the partners have been involved in AAS since 2011 and have been implementing the RinD approach to address community-defined development goals. In this case study, we describe some of the strategies adopted for fostering multisectoral and crossdisciplinary collaboration in the crowded partner landscape of Bangladesh.Within the first 6 months of forming the first team, it became clear that members were not able to deliver timely technical services to communities located far from research stations or universities where members were based. During an after-action review attended by research teams and AAS staff in 2013, strengths and weaknesses of the model were identified and potential solutions discussed. The model was reimagined as a research and technical support system, in which research support team members continue to work in the same way but an additional layer of supporting partners is offered, including local extension service provider offices in more remote districts. The technical support system aims to link farmers not only to new technologies and scientific knowledge but also to local service providers (public and private) who have a presence in communities and are able to be more responsive.    Scientists from nine government and Scientists from nine government and    nongovernment organizations made up nongovernment organizations made up    the research support team (Table 2), which the research support team (Table 2), which    was led by a scientist from the Bangladesh was led by a scientist from the Bangladesh    Agricultural Research Institute. A memorandum Agricultural Research Institute. A memorandum    of understanding outlined specific roles for of understanding outlined specific roles for    each member, and the program supported the each member, and the program supported the    participation of individuals through payment participation of individuals through payment    of a small honorarium. Subsequently, a second of a small honorarium. Subsequently, a second    research support team was formed under the research support team was formed under the    leadership of BRAC to support livestock fodder leadership of BRAC to support livestock fodder    research in 2013. research in 2013. Case study trajectory (2011-2014)   Case study trajectory (2011-2014) Through the community life competence  The primary responsibility of the research Through the community life competenceThe primary responsibility of the research visioning process conducted during rollout,  support teams was to understand and analyze visioning process conducted during rollout,support teams was to understand and analyze farmers, particularly women, expressed concern the root cause of community-identified farmers, particularly women, expressed concernthe root cause of community-identified about poor access to quality seeds for vegetable problems (e.g. poor access to seed) and about poor access to quality seeds for vegetableproblems (e.g. poor access to seed) and production and subsequent household  design action research with people from the production and subsequent householddesign action research with people from the Year Partner Expertise Role YearPartnerExpertiseRole May 2013 Bangladesh Agricultural Agricultural research For May 2013Bangladesh AgriculturalAgricultural researchFor Research Institute (BARI)* Khulna University* March 2013 Department of Agricultural May 2013 Extension* March 2013 Agricultural Training Institute* August 2013 BRAC* example, during the annual reflection workshop, PPS expressed dissatisfaction about being excluded from certain 2014 planning activities. Research support Agricultural research in community RinD Agricultural extension Providing honest feedback is a necessary first step towards better ways of communicating and Agricultural training working together. The concern was revisited in early 2015, and a strategy to improve the partnership was agreed upon. Such examples of Research and development Research Institute (BARI)* Khulna University* March 2013 Department of Agricultural May 2013 Extension* March 2013 Agricultural Training Institute* August 2013 BRAC*example, during the annual reflection workshop, PPS expressed dissatisfaction about being excluded from certain 2014 planning activities. Research support Agricultural research in community RinD Agricultural extension Providing honest feedback is a necessary first step towards better ways of communicating and Agricultural training working together. The concern was revisited in early 2015, and a strategy to improve the partnership was agreed upon. Such examples of Research and development August 2013 Department of Livestock partnership strengthening are becoming more Livestock extension service August 2013 Department of Livestockpartnership strengthening are becoming more Livestock extension service  Services*  common in AAS in Barotse, enabling staff and Services*common in AAS in Barotse, enabling staff and October 2014 International Maize and partners to improve relationships, build trust Agriculture field crops October 2014 International Maize andpartners to improve relationships, build trust Agriculture field crops  Wheat Improvement Center  and develop shared understandings through Wheat Improvement Centerand develop shared understandings through July 2014 Shushilan learning by doing together as AAS evolves. Action research program Facilitating July 2014Shushilanlearning by doing together as AAS evolves. Action research program Facilitating   implementation community RinD implementationcommunity RinD October 2014 Ashroy Foundation Gender Gender support October 2014 Ashroy FoundationGenderGender support  "},{"text":"outcomes related to the case study partnership  Solomon Islands: Malaita hub Case study trajectory from planning and Philippines: Visayas-Mindanao hub Research capacity in agriculture and fisheries is vegetables. The RinD and system concept is Solomon Islands: Malaita hub Case study trajectory from planning and Philippines: Visayas-Mindanao hubResearch capacity in agriculture and fisheries is vegetables. The RinD and system concept is In 2011, WorldFish had been operating under rollout to 2014 AAS implementation in the Visayas-Mindanao generally low among organizations in Solomon new to AVRDC and so is considered a learning In 2011, WorldFish had been operating under rollout to 2014 AAS implementation in the Visayas-Mindanaogenerally low among organizations in Solomon new to AVRDC and so is considered a learning a memorandum of understanding with the At a WorldFish science week in Penang in hub started in February 2014 after a year of Islands, so there were two challenges. The opportunity. a memorandum of understanding with the At a WorldFish science week in Penang in hub started in February 2014 after a year ofIslands, so there were two challenges. The opportunity. Solomon Islands government for more than July 2011, partnerships were identified to regional and community-level consultations first was to engage with partners outside the Solomon Islands government for more than July 2011, partnerships were identified to regional and community-level consultationsfirst was to engage with partners outside the 20 years and had collaborative relationships implement AAS in Solomon Islands. At that with stakeholders in the five regions that make traditional fisheries sector, and the second was In 2014, WorldFish invited local AVRDC staff to 20 years and had collaborative relationships implement AAS in Solomon Islands. At that with stakeholders in the five regions that maketraditional fisheries sector, and the second was In 2014, WorldFish invited local AVRDC staff to with ministries responsible for fisheries and meeting, a version of Figure 6 was developed by up the Visayas-Mindanao hub: Central and to seek partners with the capacity to conduct contribute technical expertise to a publication with ministries responsible for fisheries and meeting, a version of Figure 6 was developed by up the Visayas-Mindanao hub: Central andto seek partners with the capacity to conduct contribute technical expertise to a publication environment, as well as with most NGOs WorldFish staff to plot the status and trajectory Eastern Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula, Northern quality research to complement the fisheries on food and nutrition among hub communities. environment, as well as with most NGOs WorldFish staff to plot the status and trajectory Eastern Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula, Northernquality research to complement the fisheries on food and nutrition among hub communities. working in the resource management sector. of some important relationships. Aspirations for Mindanao, and Caraga. These culminated in research capacity of WorldFish in order to This joint publication (Jones et al. 2014) further working in the resource management sector. of some important relationships. Aspirations for Mindanao, and Caraga. These culminated inresearch capacity of WorldFish in order to This joint publication (Jones et al. 2014) further Interactions outside this sector were incidental higher-quality relationships were identified for a design workshop and the development of address the hub development challenge. As highlighted to both partners where our efforts Interactions outside this sector were incidental higher-quality relationships were identified for a design workshop and the development ofaddress the hub development challenge. As highlighted to both partners where our efforts (for example, if WorldFish was invited to most of the partners. These were particularly a hub-level strategic framework and theory community priorities emerged during rollout, could be complementary. This led to AAS funds (for example, if WorldFish was invited to most of the partners. These were particularly a hub-level strategic framework and theorycommunity priorities emerged during rollout, could be complementary. This led to AAS funds attend multisectoral workshops). Partnerships ambitious for AVRDC and the Kastom Gaden of change. To address limitations in resources and because implementing CGIAR Centers being used to contract AVRDC national staff to attend multisectoral workshops). Partnerships ambitious for AVRDC and the Kastom Gaden of change. To address limitations in resourcesand because implementing CGIAR Centers being used to contract AVRDC national staff to within the sector also tended to be largely Association (KGA). The ministry responsible for regarding the hub development challenge, (the International Water Management Institute visit focal communities and scope opportunities within the sector also tended to be largely Association (KGA). The ministry responsible for regarding the hub development challenge,(the International Water Management Institute visit focal communities and scope opportunities transactional when funds were available agriculture did not figure in our planning at WorldFish pursued multilevel partnerships [IWMI] and Bioversity International) did not for supporting community action plans. Seed transactional when funds were available agriculture did not figure in our planning at WorldFish pursued multilevel partnerships[IWMI] and Bioversity International) did not for supporting community action plans. Seed through WorldFish grants to contract locally that time. Revisiting the diagram in 2014, the to ensure successful implementation. The work in Solomon Islands, it became clear that funds were also provided to initiate some through WorldFish grants to contract locally that time. Revisiting the diagram in 2014, the to ensure successful implementation. Thework in Solomon Islands, it became clear that funds were also provided to initiate some based NGOs or were limited to organizations KGA partnership had progressed somewhat, regional consultations secured the buy-in of research partnerships in the agricultural sector farmer trials. based NGOs or were limited to organizations KGA partnership had progressed somewhat, regional consultations secured the buy-in ofresearch partnerships in the agricultural sector farmer trials. sharing information at partner workshops. but most notable is a markedly strengthened collaborators and partners. This case study would need to be identified and cultivated. sharing information at partner workshops. but most notable is a markedly strengthened collaborators and partners. This case studywould need to be identified and cultivated. Joint planning was not a feature of these (more collaborative and with more alignment focuses on the partnership approach used to This case study reflects on the evolution of KGA and AVRDC local staff were involved in Joint planning was not a feature of these (more collaborative and with more alignment focuses on the partnership approach used toThis case study reflects on the evolution of KGA and AVRDC local staff were involved in partnerships except for specific donor projects of purpose) relationship with AVRDC, plus the engage multiple partners to address the hub partnerships around one community priority developing the initial theory of change for the partnerships except for specific donor projects of purpose) relationship with AVRDC, plus the engage multiple partners to address the hubpartnerships around one community priority developing the initial theory of change for the when explicit partners were named. When inclusion of the Ministry of Agriculture and development challenge. By 2014, individual research technical support area of research, articulated as a research sustainable farming and nutrition research when explicit partners were named. When inclusion of the Ministry of Agriculture and development challenge.By 2014, individual research technical support area of research, articulated as a research sustainable farming and nutrition research AAS began to roll out in Malaita, a markedly Livestock and the University of Queensland. system members had come to appreciate the initiative called \"sustainable farming for and initiative for the Malaita hub. In late 2014, AAS began to roll out in Malaita, a markedly Livestock and the University of Queensland.system members had come to appreciate the initiative called \"sustainable farming for and initiative for the Malaita hub. In late 2014, different approach to partnerships began to Case study trajectory from planning to rollout value of RinD; however, it is less clear how much nutrition and income, \" a cross-sectoral research as part of the results-based management different approach to partnerships began to Case study trajectory from planning to rolloutvalue of RinD; however, it is less clear how much nutrition and income, \" a cross-sectoral research as part of the results-based management emerge. Activities and processes that influenced the in 2014 that appreciation has become institutionalized. partnership with AVRDC -The World Vegetable pilot, a participatory theory of change was emerge. Activities and processes that influenced the in 2014that appreciation has become institutionalized. partnership with AVRDC -The World Vegetable pilot, a participatory theory of change was case study trajectory As many local and international organizations Technical support system team members Center (AVRDC). developed that included AVRDC, the University case study trajectory As many local and international organizationsTechnical support system team members Center (AVRDC). developed that included AVRDC, the University In 2012, Solomon Islands AVRDC staff were are working to improve the lives of people now appreciate fishers' and farmers' capacities of Queensland, the Ministry of Agriculture and In 2012, Solomon Islands AVRDC staff were are working to improve the lives of peoplenow appreciate fishers' and farmers' capacities of Queensland, the Ministry of Agriculture and consulted during the scoping phase and living in aquatic agricultural systems in the to innovate and are interested in using this Livestock, and KGA. Developing joint theories consulted during the scoping phase and living in aquatic agricultural systems in theto innovate and are interested in using this Livestock, and KGA. Developing joint theories 5 were participants in the first stakeholder Philippines, the Visayas-Mindanao hub program capacity to influence their individual programs of change has been a powerful tool to develop 5 were participants in the first stakeholder Philippines, the Visayas-Mindanao hub programcapacity to influence their individual programs of change has been a powerful tool to develop consultation workshop, followed by the focused on where and how the program's of work. Capacities and confidence levels of a coalition around the sustainable farming and consultation workshop, followed by the focused on where and how the program'sof work. Capacities and confidence levels of a coalition around the sustainable farming and 4 design workshop where the hub development science outputs could support the work of our challenge was validated by stakeholders. A partners, and where the program's convening farmers have been enhanced. For example, farmers are regularly using science toolkits that UQ nutrition research initiative and to build capacity AVRDC in the hub team and partners to implement field 4 design workshop where the hub development science outputs could support the work of our challenge was validated by stakeholders. A partners, and where the program's conveningfarmers have been enhanced. For example, farmers are regularly using science toolkits that UQ nutrition research initiative and to build capacity AVRDC in the hub team and partners to implement field include simple measuring and weighing tools to monitor the growth of their crops and are better able to communicate with and access expertise from scientists and other service providers. The technical support system has been improved through an increased sense of ownership and through formal agreements 2011 2014 2014 MPG KGA and KGA have committed to actions in a MFMR MECDM trials as PAR. Through the relationship with AVRDC, AAS has gained legitimacy with other agricultural partners who play a larger role in extension and networking than research organizations do. Both the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock MECDM SPC one-on-one meetings with managers in Taiwan MPG KGA 1 2 change in senior in-country staff at AVRDC senior management level through one-on-one meetings and communication between Solomon Islands AAS program leadership and the global theme leader responsible for AVRDC projects in Solomon Islands, influenced by other and catalyzing role could foster coalitions to Quality of partner* AVRDC MAL SPC concentrated on building relationships at the Emerging outcomes related to partnerships 3 MFMR in 2013 stalled progress somewhat. Efforts deliver more effective development outcomes. include simple measuring and weighing tools to monitor the growth of their crops and are better able to communicate with and access expertise from scientists and other service providers. The technical support system has been improved through an increased sense of ownership and through formal agreements 2011 2014 2014 MPG KGA and KGA have committed to actions in a MFMR MECDM trials as PAR. Through the relationship with AVRDC, AAS has gained legitimacy with other agricultural partners who play a larger role in extension and networking than research organizations do. Both the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock MECDM SPC one-on-one meetings with managers in Taiwan MPG KGA 1 2 change in senior in-country staff at AVRDC senior management level through one-on-one meetings and communication between Solomon Islands AAS program leadership and the global theme leader responsible for AVRDC projects in Solomon Islands, influenced by other and catalyzing role could foster coalitions to Quality of partner* AVRDC MAL SPC concentrated on building relationships at the Emerging outcomes related to partnerships 3 MFMR in 2013 stalled progress somewhat. Efforts deliver more effective development outcomes. and at WorldFish headquarters in Penang. with members' respective organizations. participatory theory of change for the research and at WorldFish headquarters in Penang.with members' respective organizations. participatory theory of change for the research Improvements can still be made by being more inclusive of multidisciplinary expertise and private sector actors and by linking to other platforms supported by AAS in the hub, initiative. Hence, a collaborative coalition has 3 4 been built that acts as a bridge to a broader 5 network of agricultural partners. AVRDC is able Level of development 2 AVRDC has a common mission with the CGIAR 0 0 1 Centers. AVRDC has shown that vegetable production is an integral part of livelihoods in to take a leading role on the agricultural research Improvements can still be made by being more inclusive of multidisciplinary expertise and private sector actors and by linking to other platforms supported by AAS in the hub, initiative. Hence, a collaborative coalition has 3 4 been built that acts as a bridge to a broader 5 network of agricultural partners. AVRDC is able Level of development 2 AVRDC has a common mission with the CGIAR 0 0 1 Centers. AVRDC has shown that vegetable production is an integral part of livelihoods in to take a leading role on the agricultural research Legend Solomon Islands. More than 90% of surveyed such as the knowledge sharing and learning tasks with communities, while WorldFish Legend Solomon Islands. More than 90% of surveyedsuch as the knowledge sharing and learning tasks with communities, while WorldFish platform. The focus for the technical support Orange circles represent new key implementing partners not identified in 2011. households on Malaita and Guadalcanal engage provides the bridge to the communities and platform. The focus for the technical support Orange circles represent new key implementing partners not identified in 2011. households on Malaita and Guadalcanal engage provides the bridge to the communities and AVRDC = AVRDC -The World Vegetable Center in vegetable production, which can contribute system moving forward is on strengthening provides the opportunity for joint reflection AVRDC = AVRDC -The World Vegetable Center in vegetable production, which can contributesystem moving forward is on strengthening provides the opportunity for joint reflection MPG = Malaita provincial government income. From the perspective of AVRDC, the KGA = Kastom Gaden Association on average more than 50% of total household support systems that ensure farmers and fishers can access information, new technologies and and learning through after-action reviews at MPG = Malaita provincial government income. From the perspective of AVRDC, the KGA = Kastom Gaden Association on average more than 50% of total householdsupport systems that ensure farmers and fishers can access information, new technologies and and learning through after-action reviews at collaboration with WorldFish under AAS creates other services for continued adaptation and collaboration with WorldFish under AAS createsother services for continued adaptation and opportunity for enhanced outcomes and innovation. opportunity for enhanced outcomes andinnovation. impacts for AVRDC's projects funded by the  impacts for AVRDC's projects funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural  Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research that, since 2007, have focused on  Research that, since 2007, have focused on sustainable intensification of high-value  sustainable intensification of high-value  "},{"text":"Ongoing engagement of communities and other actors in social learning processes related to their jointly identified development challenges, including  IMPLEMENTING A GENDER-TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH APPROACH: IMPLEMENTING A GENDER-TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH APPROACH: EARLY LESSONS  EARLY LESSONS  systems (Kantor 2013). In going beyond more systems (Kantor 2013). In going beyond more  common gender-mainstreaming aspirations common gender-mainstreaming aspirations  such as increasing women's participation in and such as increasing women's participation in and  access to technologies, the gender and socially access to technologies, the gender and socially  transformative aspect of RinD is expected to transformative aspect of RinD is expected to  contribute to a stronger foundation for more contribute to a stronger foundation for more  equitable and lasting contributions of research equitable and lasting contributions of research  to development processes. We refer to this to development processes. We refer to this  socially transformative, equity-oriented element socially transformative, equity-oriented element  of RinD as the gender-transformative approach of RinD as the gender-transformative approach  (see Kantor 2013; Kantor et al. 2015). (see Kantor 2013; Kantor et al. 2015).  The AAS journey towards implementing a The AAS journey towards implementing a  gender-transformative approach has been a gender-transformative approach has been a  learning-based process, combining conceptual learning-based process, combining conceptual  grounding, drawing on learning from others, grounding, drawing on learning from others,  and experiential learning among research teams. and experiential learning among research teams.  Given the newness of gender-transformative Given the newness of gender-transformative • Contextually relevant social and research in the field of agricultural research • Contextually relevant social andresearch in the field of agricultural research biophysical agricultural research drawing and to the teams, the journey has involved biophysical agricultural research drawingand to the teams, the journey has involved on participatory and other methods. This teams encountering and addressing multiple on participatory and other methods. Thisteams encountering and addressing multiple is \"technical\" AAS research and includes challenges. With the understanding that other is \"technical\" AAS research and includeschallenges. With the understanding that other research on aquaculture productivity, fish programs or teams may face similar challenges research on aquaculture productivity, fishprograms or teams may face similar challenges value chains, floodplain management, in the pursuit of gender-transformative research, value chains, floodplain management,in the pursuit of gender-transformative research, ecosystem services, and community-based the goals of this chapter are to (i) highlight some ecosystem services, and community-basedthe goals of this chapter are to (i) highlight some land and water governance. of the key challenges and learning regarding land and water governance.of the key challenges and learning regarding • PAR how these can be effectively addressed and (ii) share identified strategies for gender-transformative research and examples of such research that is in progress in AAS. • PARhow these can be effectively addressed and (ii) share identified strategies for gender-transformative research and examples of such research that is in progress in AAS. that seeks to nurture innovative capacity.  that seeks to nurture innovative capacity. These are referred to as core RinD processes. The reflections and insights presented in this These are referred to as core RinD processes.The reflections and insights presented in this • In relation to both of the above, chapter were generated through a two-stage • In relation to both of the above,chapter were generated through a two-stage engagement of diverse local actors in process: (i) identification of challenges and engagement of diverse local actors inprocess: (i) identification of challenges and transformative reflection and change related learning generated in a cross-hub transformative reflection and changerelated learning generated in a cross-hub processes regarding underlying forces after-action review held in January 2015, processes regarding underlying forcesafter-action review held in January 2015, and factors that shape equality and equity, involving representatives from each of the five and factors that shape equality and equity,involving representatives from each of the five such as gender and social norms, attitudes, hubs, and (ii) drawing on and synthesizing such as gender and social norms, attitudes,hubs, and (ii) drawing on and synthesizing practices and rules. This is the gender- across new and existing written contributions practices and rules. This is the gender-across new and existing written contributions transformative approach. by hub team members regarding challenges, transformative approach.by hub team members regarding challenges,  learning and emergent examples of the learning and emergent examples of the The RinD approach aspires to develop scientific gender-transformative approach. The result is The RinD approach aspires to develop scientificgender-transformative approach. The result is insights and technologies, to combine  insights and technologies, to combine knowledge generation with enhancing the  knowledge generation with enhancing the innovative capacity of local actors, and to  innovative capacity of local actors, and to increase the equity of the social, economic  increase the equity of the social, economic and political structures that influence  and political structures that influence the livelihoods of poor and marginalized  the livelihoods of poor and marginalized households who depend on aquatic agricultural  households who depend on aquatic agricultural  "},{"text":"Table 4 . Working areas with geographic and agroecological distribution, participating projects and 12 partner farmer-researchers in each village. Village District CGIAR research programs or projects Region VillageDistrictCGIAR research programs or projects Region Nagorkanda Faridpur CSISA Fresh water Nagorkanda FaridpurCSISAFresh water Babugonj Barisal CSISA (0 parts per thousand BabugonjBarisalCSISA(0 parts per thousand Monirampur Jessore CSISA salinity) Monirampur JessoreCSISAsalinity) Rajapur Jhalokhathi CCAFS  RajapurJhalokhathiCCAFS Amtoli Barguna AIN and CPWF Brackish water AmtoliBargunaAIN and CPWFBrackish water Batiaghata Khulna AAS and CPWF  BatiaghataKhulnaAAS and CPWF Kaligonj Satkhira AAS and CPWF  KaligonjSatkhiraAAS and CPWF Shyamnagar Satkhira CCAFS  Shyamnagar SatkhiraCCAFS  "},{"text":"Table 5 . Changes in ways of working in the four cases. Case Change in behavior Mechanism that generated the change CaseChange in behaviorMechanism that generated the change Philippines • Farmers working as co-researchers. • VSU-NARC researchers appreciate Philippines • Farmers working as co-researchers.• VSU-NARC researchers appreciate  VSU-NARC researchers exploring that engaging farmers adds relevance VSU-NARC researchers exploringthat engaging farmers adds relevance  the use of tissue-cultured ABTV- and reach to their research. Farmers the use of tissue-cultured ABTV-and reach to their research. Farmers  resistant hybrid seedlings through PAR appreciate that the trials will provide resistant hybrid seedlings through PARappreciate that the trials will provide  with eradicating host plants in four answers to their problems. with eradicating host plants in fouranswers to their problems.  barangays in Sogod, Southern Leyte. • Major abaca organizations appreciate barangays in Sogod, Southern Leyte.• Major abaca organizations appreciate  • Abaca Coalition comprised of that working together can help them • Abaca Coalition comprised ofthat working together can help them  organizations supporting this work achieve their respective mandates organizations supporting this workachieve their respective mandates  by providing seedlings and technical rather than threatening them. by providing seedlings and technicalrather than threatening them.  backstopping facilitated by AAS.  backstopping facilitated by AAS. Zambia • A postharvest processing group • Appreciation of mutual benefits in Zambia• A postharvest processing group• Appreciation of mutual benefits in  of 42 people, including fish trader- working together through PAR. of 42 people, including fish trader-working together through PAR.  processors, fishers, representatives of • Improved relationships and processors, fishers, representatives of• Improved relationships and  the Barotse Royal Establishment, staff understanding between trader- the Barotse Royal Establishment, staffunderstanding between trader-  from the Ministry of Fisheries, an NGO processors and Ministry of Fisheries from the Ministry of Fisheries, an NGOprocessors and Ministry of Fisheries  and WorldFish exploring technological helps identify a common interest and and WorldFish exploring technologicalhelps identify a common interest and  and marketing options for salting fish the means to pursue it. and marketing options for salting fishthe means to pursue it.  using PAR.  using PAR.  • Trader-processors assisting the  • Trader-processors assisting the  Ministry of Fisheries in publicizing the  Ministry of Fisheries in publicizing the  reasons for a fishing ban.  reasons for a fishing ban. Bangladesh • As of January 2015, 96 women  Bangladesh • As of January 2015, 96 women  researchers, 8 technical facilitators  researchers, 8 technical facilitators  and 9 scientists working to improve  and 9 scientists working to improve  homestead ponds through PAR.  homestead ponds through PAR.  • Women researchers lobbying for  • Women researchers lobbying for  expansion of the RinD approach  expansion of the RinD approach  (i.e. support for farmer-led  (i.e. support for farmer-led  experimentation).  experimentation).  "},{"text":"Table 6 . Innovations developed while addressing case study issues. Case Innovation Type Applicable to CaseInnovationTypeApplicable to Philippines • Use of hybrid tissue-cultured abaca seedlings • Technical • Farmers Philippines • Use of hybrid tissue-cultured abaca seedlings• Technical• Farmers  with eradication of host plants to ensure • Institutional • Organizations with eradication of host plants to ensure• Institutional• Organizations  disease-free abaca plantations.  supporting disease-free abaca plantations.supporting  • Abaca Coalition, facilitated by an honest  abaca • Abaca Coalition, facilitated by an honestabaca  broker, where partners use their own money  research and broker, where partners use their own moneyresearch and  rather than a central pot to work together.  development rather than a central pot to work together.development Zambia • Improvements to process of salting fish. • Technical • Fishers and Zambia• Improvements to process of salting fish.• Technical• Fishers and  • Fish value chain innovation platform. • Institutional fish traders • Fish value chain innovation platform.• Institutionalfish traders    • Fishers and • Fishers and    supporting supporting    organizations organizations Bangladesh • Polyculture stocking strategies for shaded • Technical • Farmers Bangladesh • Polyculture stocking strategies for shaded• Technical• Farmers  ponds.   ponds. Solomon • Establishing a formal community research • Institutional • Farmers and Solomon• Establishing a formal community research• Institutional• Farmers and Islands agreement to clarify expectations, roles and  researchers Islandsagreement to clarify expectations, roles andresearchers  responsibilities of stakeholders carrying out   responsibilities of stakeholders carrying out  PAR.   PAR.  "},{"text":"Table 7 . How RinD builds different aspects of capacity to innovate. Aspect Aspect  "},{"text":"of capacity to innovate Changes in system capacity to innovate as a result of RinD (described in the four learning chapters) Knowledge of and access to novelty (e.g. new technology) Hub stakeholders, including farmers and fishers, with access to new technology and support to use it (e.g. 120 farmers in the Philippines with access to abaca ABTV-resistant planting materials) Motivation to innovate  "}],"sieverID":"5a29c049-620d-43fd-9c78-377b35dd37ff","abstract":""}
\ No newline at end of file