|
|
| PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION |
| Briefly Describe the Project |
|
|
| Contact(s) |
Name |
E-mail |
Address |
Phone-Fax |
| R.Thakur |
|
Department of Plant Breeding, Rajendra University (Pusa), Samastipur, Bihar 848125, India |
|
| |
| Principal Researchers and Organizations |
Name |
Organization |
Type of Organization |
| R. Thakur |
RAU - Rajendra Agriculture University in Pusa, Bihar |
UNIVERSITY
|
| |
| Development Personnel Involved |
|
Name |
Organization |
Type of Organization |
| | |
,
|
| |
| Key Farmers Involved |
|
Name |
Organization |
Type of Organization |
| |
|
,
|
| |
| Organization(s) Involved |
| RAU - Rajendra Agriculture University in Pusa, Bihar
(Principal research institution) |
| |
|
Country/Countries Where Project Operates |
| |
|
Project Dates |
| Year project began
1989
|
| Year project ended or will end
Not specified
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Type of Technology or Innovation |
| |
|
Objective of Including Participation |
Develop varieties with adaptation to the varying stress conditions, with superior yielding ability than the predomint local varieties | |
| |
|
Describe the Process in Which Use Was Made of Participatory Tools and Approaches |
|
1) RRAs conducted in potential pilot sites. 2) Farmer evaluation of potentially useful technologies in demonstration plots showing a large number of options to control erosion. 3) Conduct FPR trials on farmers fields on: a) cassava varieties b) fertilization c) intercropping systems d) erosion control 4) Discuss results with farmers; let them select options for next years FPR trials or for scaling up 5) Cross visits to sites where farmers have adopted selected technologies.
|
|
|
|
Was Gender Analysis Used? |
|
|
|
Objective of Including Gender Analysis |
| | | |
|
Stakeholder Differentiated Other Than by Gender? |
| |
| ACTIVITIES, TOOLS & PROCESSES |
|
Research Activities |
| Normal variety trials conducted in farmers fields, with farmer contributions to evaluation before harvest, (details not described) Farmers (with breeder input?) selected varieties for testing in farmer managed trials |
| |
|
Breeding Methods Used |
| extended testing of advanced breeding lines |
|
|
|
Participatory Tools & Methods Used |
| |
|
Who Were Participants and How Were They Selected? |
| 2-4 villages with varying numbers of farmers |
| |
|
Is Collective Action Part of the Project |
|
|
|
Are Indigenous Technical Solutions Used ? |
| |
|
Did Incorporating Participatory Research Affect Technology Generation? |
| Feedback Links Formed Between Researchers And Beneficiaries? |
|
| Changes In Priorities Of Researchers/Institutions? |
|
| Changes In How Research Is Implemented? |
|
| Changes In The Diffusion Pattern? |
|
| Other? |
|
| |
|
Did Incorporating Participatory Research Affect Human Capital? |
| Specific Skills Developed Through Training? |
|
| Problem Solving Skills Strengthened? |
|
| Participants Empowered Outside Project Context? |
|
| Other? |
|
| |
|
Did Incorporating Participatory Research Affect Social Capital? |
| Organizations Formed? |
|
| Internal Capacity Of Community To Work Together Strengthened? |
|
| Capacity To Work With Outside Groups Strengthened? |
|
| Conflict Reduced? |
|
| Other? |
|
| |
|
How Did Incorporating Participatory Research Affect the Costs of Doing Research? |
| |
|
Changes in Costs of Research in 3 Different Stages of Research |
| Design: |
|
|
| Testing: |
|
|
| Diffusion: |
|
|
| |
|
Changes in Costs Due to Incorporating Gender Analysis |
|
|
|
How did the Total Length of Time Over Which Costs Were Incurred Change? |
| Design: |
|
|
| Testing: |
|
|
| Diffusion: |
|
|
| Total Length of Research: |
|
|
| |
|
Did the Types of Costs Change? |
| |
|
Costs Borne by Participants |
| |
|
Value of Farmers' Contribution to Research |
| |
|
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION IMPACTS |
|
Has Impact Assessment Work Been Done ? |
|
|
|
Describe Impact Assessment: |
| |
|
Research Outputs: |
|
A Technology or Innovation was Developed |
, |
|
A Technology or Innovation was Tested |
, |
|
A Technology or Innovation was Disseminated |
, |
|
A Technology or Innovation was Adopted |
, |
|
|
|
Socio-Economic Impacts Observed |
|
Changes In Adoption Rates? |
|
|
|
Production Changes Of Farmer's Field? |
|
|
|
Income Changes? |
|
|
|
Effect On Welfare/Poverty? |
|
|
|
Equity Effects? |
|
|
| |
|
Environmental Impacts Observed |
| |
|
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
|
|
Does Project Have Monitoring & Evaluation Component? |
| |
|
Is the Monitoring and Evaluation Participatory? |
| |
|
Which Stakeholders Are Involved in M&E? |
| |
|
Have You Made Changes to the Project as a Result? |
| | |
|
Project Documentation and Publications |
| Thakur, R. 1996. Rice genetic diveristy: its scope in participatory rainfed lowland breeding. Pp 176 - 182. IN: Using Diversity
Thakur, R. 1995. Prioritization and development of breeding strategies for rainfed lowlands: acritical appraisal. In: Fragile Lives in Fragile Ecosystems. Proceedings of a conference held at IRRI. Los Banos, Philippines, IRRI. |
| | | | |