Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

IV. Best practices

IV. Best practices

As pointed out early in this paper, the increasing call for participatory gender and socio-economic difference sensitive agricultural planning has rarely been accompanied by suggestions for how it might be done. The projects in this workshop have demonstrated many effective methods for generating needed information and bringing it to the attention of planners and policy makers. A few projects even worked directly on the problem of how to use that information to make agricultural planning more responsive to the priorities, constraints, and needs of different groups of farmers. Thus, even though we are likely to spend much of the workshop discussing what more needs to be done, we need to remind ourselves how far we have already come and how much we can already learn from one another. It is therefore fitting to conclude this review by highlighting "best practices".

Best Practices


Entry Points


Use participatory planning for the design of the project's implementation strategy

Costa Rica

Make a detailed review of policy making processes


Consult with national planners about their information needs


Tools and Methods

Namibia, Nepal, Ethiopia, India

Combine PRA, Gender Analysis and the Analysis of Difference

Namibia, Nepal, Ethiopia, India

Form gender, socio-economic, and/or age specific focus groups to work with PRA/GA tools.

Ethiopia, Nepal, Namibia, India,

Adapt PRA and gender analysis tools to local needs

Afghanistan Pakistan Senegal



Work with a person, multi-disciplinary, male-female PRA facilitator teams

Namibia, Tunisia

Supplement PRA information with surveys

Ethiopia, Honduras

Provide follow-up: train extension agents to customise extension training, build capacity of community level volunteers

India Afghanistan

Use participatory monitoring


Capacity Building

Namibia, India, Ethiopia, Honduras

Train trainers over several sessions interspersed with training of field staff by trained trainers and practical experiences with PRA/GA/analysis of difference

Namibia, India, Ethiopia, Honduras

Use training of trainers as a way to involve higher level professional staff in learning and teaching PRA/GA/analysis of difference

Ethiopia, Namibia

Base PRA training on local case materials

Costa Rica, Namibia, India, Ethiopia

Involve policy makers and senior managers in special training/discussion workshops designed specifically for them and invite them to open formal PRA training sessions


Teach methods for responsive planning based on PRA generated information

Honduras, Costa Rica

Provide training for women's groups in negotiating and group development skills and support their organisations


Linkages and Institutionalisation

Ethiopia, India, Namibia, Tunisia

Promote links with policy makers, planners, and managers by inviting them to participate in discussions of implications of project results for planning

Honduras, Costa Rica, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, India

Promote links with the private sector, women's groups, farmer organisations, NGOs, and donors through training, workshops, information sessions, and involving them in PRA/GA exercises

Namibia, India, Ethiopia, Honduras

Facilitate institutionalisation by locating the project in a sub-sector line agency or in a national, regional or district planning agency

Namibia India Ethiopia

Suggest training in participatory gender-responsive planning methods in-service and pre-service training.

Previous PageTop Of PageTable Of ContentsNext Page