facilitated by INTA and an NGO, in a program called CENADE (Center for Action and Support for Rural Development).19 In fact, in some communities there were so many organizations working on these themes that the women had sometimes been given workshops on the same topic by a number of different groups (which hardly seems an efficient use of resources). Thus, the fact that they are participating in government or NGO-run programs does not necessarily mean that FEMUPROCAN has not already trained them in this. It is less likely that FEMUPROCAN will repeat training already carried out by other organizations due to the simple fact that FEMUPROCAN asks its grassroots cooperatives to identify their individual training needs, rather than implementing the same sequence of workshops everywhere. Nevertheless, in the case of Nueva Guinea outlined above it seems clear that FEMUPROCAN was the main organization that enabled the women to carry out this project. To conclude, there are a number of organizations and institutions working on agro- ecological techniques with women rural producers, and therefore not all of the changes implemented by FEMUPROCAN's members can be wholly attributed to FEMUPROCAN as opposed to these other actors. However, it does seem that for some cooperatives FEMUPROCAN has successfully supported the introduction of these techniques, and these initiatives should therefore be counted among the organization's successes. On the other hand there are other areas and cooperatives that still have not managed to introduce these projects, and the vast majority of the cooperatives still have not converted to using all organic methods. 19 Tania, FEMUPROCAN cooperative member, San Juanillo, July 22, 2009. 151