|
QUARTERLY REPORT
October 1 to December 31, 1985
THE FARMING SYSTEM SUPPORT PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY:
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
SUBMITTED TO:
U. S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . .... . .1
Main Report
I. Setting . . . . . . . . ... ..... . .2
II. General Accomplishments . . . . . . . . ..2
III. Conclusions . . . . . . . . ... ..... .2
IV. Activity Reports
Hildebrand/China/10/07 to 10/15/85 . . . . . .4
Sigman/Zambia/10/24 to 11/01/85 . . . . .... .6
Jones/Zambia/10/27 to 11/01/85 . . . . .... .8
Poats/Rwanda/11/01 to 11/12/85 . . . . . 10
Attah-Krah/West Africa/11/08 to 11/20/85 ... . .. 16
Lichte/Senegal-The Gambia/ll/10 to 11/15/85 . . .. .18
(Apetofia-report in French)
Galt/Lesotho/11/25 to 11/30/85 . . . . .... 21
V. Appendix
FSSP Annual Meeting Summary Reports . . . ... .25
Advisory Council: Dale Harpstead . . . ... .25
Technical Committee: John Caldwell . . . ... .32
Agronomic: Larry Nelson ..... . . . ... 40
Economic: Don Osburn . . . . ....... 41
Evaluation Task Force: Jim Henson .......... 42
FSR Association: . . . . . . . . . 43
Livestock: Jim Oxley .. . . . . . .. 47
NEAAC: Hal McArthur . . . . . . . 51
Domestic Workshop: Jim Dean and Mike Norvelle . . 52
MSTAT: Dale Harpstead . . . . . . .
FSSP Busness Meeting: Participant List . .
. . 53
. . 54
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This quarterly reporting period involved the overall review and
planning process that was underway within the FSSP in anticipation of
1986 and beyond. Support entity involvement in this process is
important and was substantial through the Annual Meetings and Annual
Farming Systems Symposium at Kansas State University. It is longer
than most because the Annual Meeting Working Session Reports are
included which, along with other inputs, provide a base for FSSP
planning. Most important possibly is recognition of the strong
university network that has emerged to support USAID technical
assistance in general building for improved research and extension
linkages and an effective adaptive research emphasis is a benefit
resulting from the association.
1985, Fourth Quarter
I. Setting
The final quarter of 1985 is best described as one of enthusiasm
based upon several successful major training and network interactions
during the year. Training units were moving toward complete testing
and use, the case study drafts continue to emerge with good enthusiasm
for their use, plans were tracking for major courses in training, for
West Africa in French and English. The West Africa Livestock Systems
Network steering committee was planning for interactions in 1986, and
stronger bilateral contract linkages relative to farming systems were
under consideration.
The health of the FSSP, however, was not clear relative to both
funding and overall interpretation of the mid-term evaluation. The
Project Evaluation Summary was not complete to provide clear
directions for the overall planning process. Support entities
formally expressed dissatisfaction with the evaluation process, a
circumstance not attributable to any particular unit or individual but
to inadequate plans for evaluating and monitoring major support
projects. The process available in the CRSP program-does not apply to
the various "support" projects.
,II. Accomplishments
While the first three quarters of 1984 were focused primarily
toward training program's development and delivery, the final quarter,
as usual, involves greater support entity interaction with world wide
representatives at the Kansas State meetings. This interaction has
expanded both in qualitative and quantitative terms, exemplified by
the October 1985 meeting. This is a joint accomplishment by FSSP
Support Entities with particular credit due to Kansas State
University. The enclosed reports from the October 1985 meeting
suggest a small portion of the overall activity. Proceedings of the
Symposium are published annually and documented in the FSSP
Bibliography.
Emphasis on Africa programs is documented in the activity reports.
Collaboration with CIMMYT and East Africa programs was significant and
productive with major workshops in Zambia, Rwanda and Lesotho.
Planning sessions were underway by the Livestock Systems Network
Steering Committee and by the short course de41ivery team for the
farming systems methods short courses in English planned for Gambia in
April of 1986.
III. Conclusions
A general conclusion is that while farming systems may come into
disfavor in some channels, the approach and concepts are making a
difference. Adaptive research with direct farmer (male and female)
participation is becoming established as a way of thinking and an
1985, Fourth Quarter
approach to research throughout the world. Institutional adjustments
to accommodate this change are emerging slowly to suit particular
country conditions. These conclusions are reached by observing
various programs such as the KSU Symposium and interactions with the
FSSP through the newsletter, publication program and demands for
training assistance.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Hildebrand/China/10/07 to 10/15/85
Region: Asia
Country: China (PRC)
Assignment Participate in an International Multiple Cropping Systems
Conference
Name: Peter E. Hildebrand
Date of Activity: 9-12 October, 1985
Team: n.a.
Home Institution: University of Florida
Address: 2126 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
PROGRAM-ABSTRACT:
Objectives: Present a paper. Interact with other Asian Farming and
Cropping Systems Scientists. Learn about state of the art in
Chinese Agricultural Sciences regarding Farming and Cropping
Systems Research.
Accomplishments: Presented the paper and chaired the closing session.
Needs/Problems: China is working with IRRI. They have a Society for
Farming Systems Research which hopefully participates in the Asian
S network. Their needs in farming systems, however, go well beyond
the mandate of IRRI. Because the objectives of the Society for FSR
are to enhance national and international exchange in FSR, we
should add some of their scientists to the Newsletter mailing list.
I will provide the list to M.R.
CONTACTS:
Institutions: Chinese Association of Agricultural Sciences
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Individuals: Da-Jun Liu, President of Nanjing Agricultural University,
Weigang, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China (He requested information on
biotechnology activities at UF which I will supply.)
Lu Liangshu, President. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
Bai Shi Qiao Lu No. 30, Beijing, China
Hiroshi Kurihara, President, Crop Science Society of Japan, Faculty
of Agriculture, Kyushu-Tohkai University, Choyo, Aso, Kumamoto,
Japan.
Yoshizo Kaneki, Vice President. Crop Science Society of Japan.
1-1, Sakuragaoka, 1-chome. Setagaya-Ku, Tokyo, 156, Japan.
19t Fourth Quarter
Han Xiang Ling, Agroclimatologist. (Only woman to present a
paper.) Department of Agrophysics and Agrometeorology. Beijing
Agricultural University. Beijing, China.
Wang Weimin. Soil Science Institute. Chinese Academy of
Agricultural Science. Beijing, China. He requested a set of the
KSU papers.
Gao Liang-Zhi, President. Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural
Sciences. Nanjing, Jiangsu 210014, China.
Guo, Yi-Xian. National Coordinator, Cropping Systems Programs.
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Beijing, China. (He is
the IRRI contact.)
Yaun Congyi. Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Nanjing.
Jiangsu 210014, China.
Others listed as participants in program (attached).
Potential Trainers: None
Publication Potential: The CAAS is exploring with IDRC the possibility of
publishing the proceedings. However, many papers were long and
much editing will be required. I doubt that-it will come to
fruition.
FSSP INFORMATION:
Demands on FSSP: None at present, but there may be requests for training
materials and/or support in the future. IRRI has a project
involving several provinces and also has initiated an FSR training
program. Carangal and Van Der Veen are working with them.
FSSP commitment-promised responses: Add several Chinese scientists to
Newsletter mailing list. Send list of all modules to Van Der Veen
at IRRI.
Materials collected: All papers presented and some additional papers
written by Chinese scientists that are provided but not presented.
These are on file with P. Hildebrand.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Sigman/Zambia/10/24 to 11/01/85
Region: South Africa
Country: Zambia
Assignment: Resource person to the Zambia and Malawi Workshop on Research
and Extension Linkages held at Kafu, Zambia.
Name: Vickie A. Sigman
Date of Activity: October 24 to November 1, 1985
Team: FSSP- Jim Jones INTERPAKS- Jack Claar, Sam Johnson, Earl Kellogg,
John Woods
Home Institution: University of Hawaii
Address: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
Gilmore Hall 202
3050 Maile Way
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
PROGRAM ABSTRACT:
Objectives:
1. Contribute as resource person to the workshop process.
2. Conduct a mid-week and final evaluation of the workshop and write
an evaluation report.
3. Identify educational process or products emerging from the workshop
that could be adapted for use in other educational settings.
Accomplishments:
1. I acted as facititator of a group session designed to identify
problems in effecting research and extension linkages in Zambia.
Highlights from this session appear in Appendix 1 of the trip
report.
2. I conducted a mid-week and a final evaluation of the workshop. I
have submitted the evaluation report to John Woods, INTERPAKS.
3. I am in the process of developing a teaching note on role plays in
agricultural education settings. The idea to develop the note grew
from a very successful role play conducted at the workshop. In the
workshop role play, participants were divided into small groups and
assigned one of five roles: farmer, field-level extension agent,
adaptive or farming systems researcher, commodity researcher, or
subject-matter specialist. Their role tasks were to describe what
they had to offer to the other groups and identify what they needed
from the other groups in order to "make the overall research and
extension system work."
Needs/Problems:
Workshop participants identified the need to develop case studies of
country experiences with research and extension linkages. They
advised this type of resource material would be helpful in learning
about how different countries are effecting research and extension
linkages.
CONTACTS:
1985, Fourth Quarter
Institutions: not included in report
Individuals: not included in report
Potential Trainers: none reported
Publication Potential:
INTERPAKS will be producing a Proceedings of the Workshop for
distribution. There is the potential for publishing and
distributing the teaching note on role plays, possibly through FSSP
and INTERPAKS.
FSSP INFORMATION:
Demands on FSSP:
Participants provided recommendations for follow-up activity. These
recommendations are included in the evaluation report and are:
Fifteen participants responded to the final evaluation. The large
majority recommended follow-up action designed to evaluate and further
support country progress in strengthening research and extension linkages.
Seven recommendations centered on holding, within one or two years, an
in-country workshop (a) to evaluate the progress made by Malawi and Zambia
in applying solutions discussed at the workshop and (b) to identify and
explore unresolved problems. Several complementary suggestions were
provided: (a) to invite participants from other countries, (b) invite
participants from lower-levels in the reserach and extension system, (c)
focus on practical solutions to problems encountered, and (d) focus in
particular on the role of communications in effecting linkages and on the
role of the subject matter specialist in the linkage process. Three
respondents suggested that evaluation of progress be conducted through
INTERPAKS/FSSP team visits to countries.
Four other recommendations targeted increasing the exchange of
information on linkages among countries. It was recommended that exchange
visits, between Malawian and Zambian staff, be instituted in order to
facilitate learning about each other's progress and problems. It was
recommended that the FSSP and INTERPAKS Newsletters be sent to research
and extension staff in Malawi and Zambia and that a "Linkage Issues"
Newsletter be considered.
FSSP commitment-promised responses:
I am unaware of any specific commitments made in response to these
recommendations.
Materials collected: none reported
1985, Fourth Quarter
Jones/Zambia/10/25 to 11/01/85
Region: South Africa
Country: Zambia
Assignment: Attend INTERPAKS workshop on research-extension linkages in
Malawi and Zambia
Name: James C. Jones
Date of Activity: October 25 to November 1, 1985
Team: Vickie Sigman
Home Institution: FSSP
Address: 3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
PROGRAM ABSTRACT:
Objectives:
1. To gather information on the research-extension linkage
problems in Malawi and Zambia (with the possibility of
extrapolating the experiences to other countries and provide
content for training materials).
2. To explore the problems that have been identified in the
research-extension linkage.
Accomplishments: Above objectives accomplished.
Participants detailed specific needs and identified categories of
constaints:
1. Lack of common mission
2. Lack of procedures and mechanisms
3. Lack of farmer involvement
4. Insufficient operating funds
5. Differences in training and skills
Solutions to these 5 major constraints were also generated by the
workshop participants.
Needs/Problems:
1. Farmers are concerned with long-term food security; if research and
extension can provide that, farmers will respond to their efforts.
Farmers are leary of short-term solution.
2. Countries surrounding Zambia and Malawi have not made as ge,.at
advances in research-extension linkages.
3. Research and extension linkages have been given little attention in
FSR/E programs.
4. FSR/E is not in the mainstream for agronomists. Researchers are
concerned about lack of publishing potential.
CONTACTS:
1985, Fourth Quarter
Institutions: none noted
Individuals:
Earl Kellogg
Nicolas Mumba
Russell Mulele
Joseph Mutelo
F.M. Kangaude
Enock M. Ntokotha
Sam Johnson
Bill Cook
Jack Claar
S. Kean
R. Dedert
John Woods
Office of Internation Agricultural Programs
University of Illinois
Director of Agriculture
Zambian Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Development
Assistant Director of Extension
Department of Agriculture, Zambia
Assistant Director of Research
Department of Agriculture, Zambia
Acting Chief Agriculture Officer
Department of Agriculture, Malawi
Senior Agriculture Research Officer
Department of Ag. Research, Malawi
Agricultural Economist
University of Illinois
ADO, USAID/Zambia
INTERPAKS
RELO, Zambia
INTERPAKS
Potential Trainers: none noted
Publication Potential: INTERPAKS is preparing a proceedings of the
workshop, which will include the two country reports.
FSSP INFORMATION:
Demands on FSSP: Discussion concerning role of farmer in FSR/E,
decentralization of FSR/E, communication and dissemination of
research is recorded in detail in the trip report.
FSSP commitment-promised responses: none noted
Materials collected:
Hand-drafted version
Workshop agenda
Workshop handouts
of the Malawi report
1985, Fourth Quarter
-flc
Poats/Rwanda/10/30 to 11/11/85
Region: East Africa
Country: Rwanda
Assignment: To attend the Rwanda FSR/E orientation workshop, sponsored by
the CIMMYT East African Economics Program and hosted by the Institute of
Agricultural and Scientific Research of Rwanda, ISAR.
Name: Susan V. Poats
Date of Activity: October 30 November 11, 1985.
Team: I was the only FSSP sponsored participant at the workshop. I
collaborated with representatives of CIMMYT, IDRC, ILCA, CIAT, CIP, IITA in
the coordination of the workshop.
Home Institution: FSSP, International Programs
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
OBJECTIVES OF TRIP
1. To serve as a resource person/facilitator in the Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire
FSR/E Orientation WOrkshop, sponsored by the CIMMYT East and Southern
African Economics Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
2. To meet with the University of Arkansas/USAID Farming Systems
Improvement Project, FSIP, team to determine what kind of training
support they might want from FSSP.
3. To deliver copies of FSSP documents to the CIAT Rwanda Bean Program.
the FSIP team, the USAID/Rwanda Office, ISAR/Rubona, IRAZ/Burundi and
USAID/Burundi.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1. Worked with Dr. Anandajayasekeram (CIMMYT), Dr. Joachim Voss (CIAT),
and Dr. Roger Kirkby (IDRC) to revise and plan the agenda for the
workshop and facilitate workshop activities, in the absence of the
intended CIMMYT-Mexico facilitator.
2. Delivered three of the workshop's methodological presentations, as well
as the opening presentation which laid out the workshop objectives.
3. Worked with the Training Small Group Session to determine training
recommendations for FSR/E in Rwanda.
4. Assisted the FSIP team in determining how they would initiate the
diagnostic phase of their work.
NEEDS/PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED
1. CIMMYT is supposed to conduct the FSR/E training for USAID projects in
East and Southern Africa, allowing FSSP to focus its resources on West
and Central Africa. However, CIMMYT's problem is that their trainers
currently working in Africa do not speak French, even though some of
the materials have been translated to French. This seems to point to
the need for further collaboration between CIMMYT and FSSP regarding
support to the FSR/E efforts in Rwanda and Burundi. It will likely be
1985, Fourth Quarter
useful for the Rwanda and Burundi projects to consider sending their
trainees to the FSSP FSR/E training course, to be given in French, when
it is offered in the West African region.
2. Rwanda has the mixed blessing of having been the beneficiary of a
rather varied history of FSR/E development. Currently, FSR/E exists
within the country as a department of ISAR, within various commodity
research programs (potatoes, beans, sweet potatoes/cassava, and soon to
be initiated in the maize program), in regional development projects
funded by different donors (UNDP, Swiss AID, USAID, several PVOs) and
even as part of missionary projects. The problem is the lack of
coordination among these, inconsistencies in methodological approaches,
competition among projects for scarce research counterparts, and
overlapping efforts. The ISAR Department for Production Systems should
be playing a stronger role in coordinating and advising projects, but
their staff is weak and few in number. The Arkansas USAID contract
calls for an expatriate FSR advisor to be based at ISAR to provide
support for coordination and to advise the Director General of ISAR on
FSR/E issues. This position has not been filled due to the previous
candidates not being approved either by the USAID mission or the
Rwandan Government. Rwanda desires an advisor of the stature and
recognition of David Norman, Mike Collinson, Pete Hildebrand or Bob
Hart. Unfortunately, these individuals are not available, and finding
someone to play this role, in French, in Rwanda, at the salary
stipulated in the contract is difficult. Given the situation
described, there is a strong need for more discussion and thought among
Rwandan managers of research, extension and development to study the
institutional situation at present, and determine a course of action
which will bring harmony within the national FSR/E community, and
enable the approach to become a normal part of good research and
extension work. This discussion and planning may need outside
facilitation, but needs support and backing from all of the entities
involved in order to be effective.
3. The FSIP team appears to be composed of very competent individuals, but
as yet, they are not functioning well as a team. There appears to be
disagreement on various aspects of day-to-day operations as well as
methodological concepts. It seems that the team-building effort, which
was cancelled/watered down (?), before departure, has not been
effective. There is a good possibility.that as the team is forced to
interact together to conduct their sondeos and initial on-farm trials,
that they will overcome their differences. In the meantime, it seems
unrealistic on the part of USAID to expect them (FSIP) to play a major
leadership role in the concensus-building among the other, more
experienced persons within the country, who have been doing on-farm
research longer than the FSIP team, even if their experience is not
viewed as "good FSR/E".
4. I believe that there is a lot that could be exchanged, in complementary
fashion, between CIMMYT and FSSP, in terms of planning and running an
orientation workshop. I believe the content materials of CIMMYT
continue to offer substance for FSSP to use in its materials, and I am
sure FSSP will continue to incorporate these. However, the FSSP
experiences in group process and experiential learning would be most
1985, Fourth Quarter
useful to CIMMYT trainers in order to build more "hands-on" learning
and activities within the training context.
5. Some specific comments on the workshop as a whole, from a training
perspective. I think there should be a decision whether one is running
a seminar with paper presentations, or a training workshop. This was a
combination of both. I think training needs a lead trainer, and
activities interspersed with lectures. As it was, this was a parade of
lecturers, each with a different style, and there was only minimal time
for discussion. Many simply read their presentations. I also think
the field trip should not have been cut, but included and done early on
so that people would have had time to interact on the topics while in
the field. It was nice, on the other hand, not to be responsible for
the workshop, to do my part, and sit back and listen and not deal with
logistics.
INSTITUTIONS CONTACTED
Programme National d'Amelioration de la Pomme de Terre, PNAP. This program
is based in Ruhengeri, in the north of the country and has had for the
past five years, bilateral support from the International Potato
Center, CIP, financed by Belgium AID. I worked for a year (1980)
within this program as a CIP post-doctorate.
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, IITA, Rwanda outreach
project. This project is based within the Dept. of Production Systems,
ISAR and operates in the southeastern area of the country. It is
focused on root and tuber crops other than potatoes. I visited their
office in Kigali, but did not go to their field site at Karama.
ISAR, Rwanda (National Institute for Agricultural Research). I did not
visit their headquarters in Rubona this time but met with many of the
staff and other persons with the Ministry of Agriculture.
In addition, note the institutional affiliations of the persons who
attended the workshop listed below.
PERSONS CONTACTED
A partial list of all the participants was prepared by the end of the
workshop, but there were not enough copies to go around. A copy was to
have been mailed to me, but to date has not arrived. The full list of
participants will be included in the proceedings, but that is not yet
published. A list of those present, as compiled from my notes, is given
below.
Dr. Leopold Gahamanyi Director General, ISAR-Rubona, Rwanda
Mr. Bakuzakundi ISAR, Rwanda
Mr. Retunga ISAR
Mr. Mukishi ISAR
Mr. Kayibigi ISAR
Mr. Nyabyenda ISAR
Mr. Rutaganda ISAR
1985, Fourth Quarter
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Mr.
Dr.
Dr.
Mr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
Dr.
Nyuamulinda
Hategekimana
Banyangabose
Sibomana
Bazarusanga
Nsengiyumva
Habiyambere
Niragire
Murerka
Nsabisimana
Leonard Sekayange
S.Volper
J.M. Pages
Willi Graf
Joachim Voss
Angelique Hagerud
Ruhengeri
K.B. Paul
Edward Rawson
Ron Grosz
Charles Yamoah
Donald Voth
Urs Galliker
V. Balasubramanian
M. Price
T. Alvarez
Aliya Chibinga
Murhandikire
Mubandu Mpelenda
Kayinigi Manasse
Nijimbere Mathias
John McIntire
Anandajayasekeram
Roger Kirkby
Susan Poats
David Dupras
Robert McCulloch
P. Egli
POTENTIAL TRAINERS
Other than the obvious individuals facilitating the workshop (Ananda,
Kirkby, Voss) Ron Grosz, of the FSIP/USAID Rwerere is a well-trained
trainer of trainers, and had very good comments concerning the process of
the workshop and how it could have been improved. I think it would be a
pity for the USAID effort not to use him more effectively in training other
Rwandans in FSR/E methods, beyond the scope of the FSIP. Further, I think
FSSP should consider how to get him involved in our training efforts,
especially in the francophone course next year.
Also, the slide presentation by Voss and the overhead presentation by
McIntire would make good training materials for FSSP use, and I have asked
them for copies.
1985, Fourth Quarter
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR
ISAR, Head, Production Systems Dept.
ISAR-BGM (Bugesera, Gisaka, Migongo
Project Crete Nil-Zaire/FED/ISAR
Project Crete Nil-Zaire/FED/ISAR
CIAT/ISAR Programme Haricot-Rubona
CIAT/ISAR Programme Haricot-Rubona
CIP/ISAR PNAP (Pomme de terre)
FSIP/USAID/ISAR Rwerere Agronomist
FSIP/USAID/ISAR Rwerere Ag. Econ, COP
FSIP/USAID/ISAR Rwerere Extension
FSIP/USAID/ISAR Rwerere Soils,Forests
Univ. Arkansas
Project Agricole Kibuye
World Bank/IITA/ISAR
World Bank/IITA/ISAR
World Bank/IITA/ISAR
INERA-Mulungu, Zaire
INERA-Mulungu, Zaire
Directeur, INERA-Mulungu, Zaire
ISABU-Kisozi, Burundi
ISABU-Kisozi, Burundi
ILCA, Ethiopia
CIMMYT, Nairobi, Kenya
IDRC, Nairobi, Kenya
FSSP/USAID Univ. of Florida
USAID Kigali, Rwanda
USAID/REDSO-ESA, Nairobi, Kenya
Forestry Service, Rubona, Rwanda
PUBLICATION POTENTIAL
The proceedings of the workshop, which will include all of the papers
presented will be published in the coming year and distributed. I do not
think any of the papers particularly merit a special publication, but there
might be extracts which would be interesting in the newsletter.
DEMANDS ON FSSP
1. I have promised to mail copies of all the French documents I brought to
the workshop to Tom Westing, Univ. Arkansas, to be mailed to the FSIP
team. They were able to photocopy a great number of them while I was
there to expand their own project library.
2. Add all of the names and addresses of participants to the FSSP mailing
list (this is pending receipt of-the final list of participants.)
3. Dr. Gahamanyi asked me to write up the presentation I made on
Institutionalization and include the diagrams I used. This should
include the comments regarding research and extension linkages. I do
not know if I will have time to do this.
4. Send copies of the Togo report to M. Potts, CIP Burundi and to J.
McIntire, ILCA.
5. According to John McIntire, all of the papers for the ILCA proceedings
are ready except Guido's and it will be ready soon.
MATERIALS COLLECTED
1. Manasse, KAYINIGI. Relation entire la recherche et la vulgarisation.
2. ALIYA CHIBINGA and MURHANDIKIRE. Liaison entire la rechere et la
vulgarisation agricoles a l'INERA-MULUNGU.
3. MUBANDU MPELENDA. Perspectives d'avenir dans la recherche sur les
systems de production a 1'INERA-MULUNGU.
4. Urs GALLIKER. Elaboration de themes adaptes/recherche-dialogue au PAK.
5. V. BALASURAMANIAN, M. PRICE and J. MULINDANGABO. Le manioc en essais
chez les agriculteurs de Bugesera-Gisaka-Migongo au Rwanda.
6. Resume du project d'amelioration des systems d'exploitation agricole au
Rwanda: Pasea.
7. CIMMYT's approach to a systems-based research.
8. Comparaison entire les proprietes caracteristiques des cultures, des
productions animals et des arbres et leurs implications pour la
recherche dans les systems de cultures agroforestiers.
9. Leopold GAHAMANYI. La recherche agricole et ses liens avec les
services de la vulgarisation.
1985, Fourth Quarter
10. ISAR/IITA, KARAMA. Le modele de project RSEA.
11. Leonard SEKAYANGE. Project de recherches sur les systems
d'exploitation agricole dans les regions semi-arides du Bugesera to
Gisaka-Migongo.
12. S. Volper and J.M. Pages. Seninaire sur les systems de production:
Recherche-developpement en zone d'altitude de la create Zaire-Nil.
13. F.T. Pascal. Introduction a l'approche recherche/developpement des
systems de production et a la method de recherche en milieu paysan.
14. ISAR. Essais varietaux en milieu rural/haricot/instructions.
15. Lucien FROIDEVAUX. Influence de la source d'inoculum sur la
mycorrhization et la croissance initale de pinus patula schlechtendal
et chamisso au Rwanda.
16. Lucien FROIDEVAUX. Nodulation de quelques arbres fixateurs d'azote au
Rwanda.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Atta-Krah/West Africa/11/08 to 11/20/85
Region: West Africa
Country: Senegal, Gambia and Sierra Leone
Assignment: Participate in steering committee meeting of West African
Integrated Livestock Systems (WAILS) Network in Senegal/Gambia. Inspection
tour of Gliricidia Germplasm Evaluation (GGE) Trial Sites-Senegal/Sierra
Leone
Name: A.N. Atta-Krah
Date of Activity: November 8-20, 1985
Team: n.a.
Home Institution: ILCA
Address:
PMB 5320
Ibadan, Nigeria
PROGRAM ABSTRACT:
Objectives:
To participate in:
1. West African Integrated Livestock Systmes (WAILS) Network
steering committee meeting.
2. a study tour visiting a local factory of agricultural equipment,
the ISRA (Institute Senegalaise de Recherche Agricole), some
farming villages and local markets.
3. an inspection tour of the Gliricidia Germplasm Evaluation (GGE)
Trials.
Accomplishments: Above objectives were accomplished.
Needs/Problems:
1. SYSMAR factory for agricultural equipment currently operating at
35% capacity, only 20% of agricultural equipment in production.
Reasons for low productivity:
lack of credit
competition from local artisans
declining West African export market
2. Planning for future workshop on Animal Traction
CONTACTS:
Institutions: none noted
Individuals:
Jacques Faye Director, ISRA-Systems
Leopold Sara BP 2057, Dakar
Nodor Sene, Soil Physicist ISRA-SCS
Adama Faye, Animal Scientist Kaolack Station
Lamine Niang, Agro-economist Senegal
Abdul Thian, Agronomist
Nichel Havard, Ag. Engineering
1985, Fourth Quarter
Souley Badiane, Forester
S. Sail, Agro-economist
Mamadou Lo, Agronomist
S. Sonko, Animal Scientist
M. Djouf
Dennis Amara, Lecturer
E.R. Rhodes, Research Coordinator
ISRA-CNRF
Djibelon Station, Senegal
ISRA-Systems
Djibelon Station
Senegal
Njala University College
Agronomy Department
Privat Mail Bag
Njala, Sierra Leone
ACRE Project
University Campus
Njala, Sierra Leone
Saidu Mavraray, Research Assistant
Edward Mannis, Extension Coordinator
J.R. Jindia, Ag. Economist
Elizabeth Kpoha, Nutritionist
Potential Trainers: none noted
Publication Potential: none noted
FSSP INFORMATION:
Demands on FSSP:
GEE Trials: The ISRA team intends to start some on-farm work with
farmers next year. There was also interest expressed by S. Sall in alley
farming work.
Atta-Krah comments that a lot of station research on alley cropping
could be done in Sierra Leone, even given the transportation constraints,
with a little support. Knowledge and experience gained from workshop could
be used as basis for future research and development work with farmers in
Sierra Leone.
FSSP commitment-promised responses: none noted
Materials collected:
none noted
1985, Fourth Que ter
Page
Missing
or
Unavailable
Michiel R. Goe
Dr. Kossivi Apetofia
Yesso Philidor
Solomon Owens
Dacudr M. Sarr
Janko SB Tofana
Charles F. Garman
Bai H. Kanu
Sandra L. Russo
Paul Starkey
John Lichte
Kwesi Atta-Krah
Len Reynolds
Potential Trainers:
Niger
International Livestock Centre for Africa
P.O. Box 5689
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Directeur du Projet pour la Promotion de la
Teaction Animale (PROPIA)
BP82- Atakpame- Togo
Centre de Recherche Zootechnique
Systems de Production Agropastorale
Scientific Officer/Mixed Farming Project,
Department of Agriculture
The Gambia
Agricultural Engineer
Agric. Department, Agric. Engineering Unit
Yundum Experiment Station
The Gambia
Magazine Editor
Extension Aids Unit
Ministry of Agriculture
Yundum, The Gambia
Agricultural Engineer
Farming Systems Program
IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria
Project Coordinator
Work Oxen Project-MANK
P.M.B. 766, Freetown, Sierra Leone
Forage Agronomist
Mixed Farming Project
P.O.Box 2596
Banjul, The Gambia
Consultant in Animal Traction
2 Wychwood Crescent
Earley, Reading RGG 2RA, U.K.
Consultant to FSSP
38 Walmar Drive
Sun Prairie, Wisconsin 53590, USA
Agronomist
ILCA
PMB 5320
Ibadan, Nigeria
Animal Nutritionist, Team Leader
ILCA PMB 5320
Ibadan, Nigeria
none noted
Publication Potential: none noted
FSSP INFORMATION:
Demands on FSSP:
1. Possible participation in February 1986 ISRA's workshop on
Methodologies for Livestoc Systems Research.
1985, Fourth Quarter
2. Appears to be an unclear understanding of FS Approach among
participants.
3. Need to be more explicit about invitation to conferences and
funding of "invited" participants.
4. Participants expressed need for financial arrangements to be
improved (ie. prompt reimbursements, duplicate paperwork)
FSSP commitment-promised responses:
Help manage Sierra Leone Workshop (sponsor) tentatively scheduled for
April 1986.
Materials collected:
Participant list
Proposed workshop program for Animal Traction Workshop in Sierra Leone
1985, Fourth Quarter
Galt/Lesotho/11/25 to 11/30/85
Region: Southern Africa
Country: Lesotho
Assignment: Attend the 3rd annual meeting of heads of Eastern and
Southern African research and extension, sponsored by CIMMYT/EA.
Name: Dan Gait
Date of Activity: 11/25-11/30/85
Team: None
Home Institution: UOF/FSSP
Address: IFAS/International Programs
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
PROGRAM ABSTRACT:
Objectives:
1. Attend the 3rd annual meeting of heads of Eastern and Southern African
research and extension, sponsored by CIMMYT/EA, on behalf of the FSSP core.
2. Interact with Mike Collinson in regard to establishing a presence in
Africa.
3. Present and explain FSSP FSR/E training materials.
Accomplishments:
1. All of the above.
2. Gave technical assistance to USAID/L by assisting the WSU/Lesotho
FSR/E Project Officer, Dr. Abdel Moustafa, program the upcoming evaluation in
March, 1986.
3. Gave technical assistance to ATIP/Botswana through the KSU RELO, Dr.
Curtis Trent, on (a) organization of the RELO and director of OFR/FS base, (b)
training of extension personnel in basics of FSR/E and (c) development of
"recommended options" for farmers according to the expected environmental
situation on the "drought-normal" spectrum.
4. Interacted very positively with Dr. Malik Ashraf of IITA economics in
brainstorming for FSSP/IITA relations.
5. Spoke with Arnold Radi, ADO-designate to Malahwi, about the FSSP in
general and the upcoming RFP specifically. Radi's position will be to support
the GOM in their review of the short-listed bid finalists.
6. Collected names and addresses for (a) FSSP newsletter, (b) receipt of
the FSSP training units, (c) Minimum Data Set (MDS) recipients.
Needs/Problems:
1985, Fourth Quarter
1. One of the greatest needs identified by the participants at the
workshop was for a way to publish relevant OFR results. I received a spot on
the final day of the workshop agenda to speak to (a) the forthcoming new
journal through the ASA (Production Agriculture?) and (b) the FSSP's
Networking Paper Series. I stressed getting innovative information out and
into the hands of other practitioners. Governmental clearances and procedures
thereof are a very significant impediment to quick release of cutting edge
information in many of the countries represented by the participants.
CONTACTS:
Institutions:
1. CIMMYT
2. IITA
3. SAID
4. IDRC
Individuals:
A list of the participants is attached to this report. In addition to
the participants listed, I met the following persons:
1. Dr. Abdel Moustafa, Project Officer, WSU/Lesotho FSR/E project.
2. Dr. Don Lee, COP, WSU/Lesotho FSR/E project.
3. Dr. Dave Hamilton, Economist, WSU/Lesotho FSR/E project.
4. Dr. Seth Beckerman, Communication specialist, WSU.
5. Dr. Jim Henson, Head, International Programs, WSU.
6. Dr. G. L. Richardson, Agronomist, WSU/Lesotho FSR/E project.
Potential trainers:
1. Mike Collinson, CIMMYT.
2. Allen Low, CIMMYT.
3. Malik Ashraf, IITA.
4. Marcelino Avila (IDRC, Harare, Zimbabwe).
Publication potential:
The workshop proceedings will be forthcoming in early 1986, and will be
sent to all participants.
FSSP INFORMATION:
Demands on FSSP:
1. Send Michael Boateng several copies of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) from
Ken Buhr.
2. FSSP should follow up with IITA now. Stifel's replacing Juo with
Dunstan Spenser, formerly of WARDA. Malik Ashraf encourages much closer work
between IITA and FSSP, and encourages us to establish FSSP presence at IITA
itself. He understands why we favor Cameroon. IITA will soon have an inde-
pendent phone line into and out of Nigeria: they are working on their prob-
1985, Fourth Quarter
lems of communication.
3. Send UF FS minor/courses/entry requirements to:
Herve Wibaux
Alemaya University of Agriculture
P.O. Box 138
Dire Dawa
Ethiopia.
Include references to other U.S. universities with FSR courses.
4. Add persons who signed up to the FSSP newsletter mailing list.
5. Add persons who signed up to the training units distribution list.
6. Send Ken Buhr the list of those who requested the MDS.
Promised responses:
All of above, as well as the interaction with Dr. Elvin Frolik, professor
emeritus of agronomy, University of Nebraska. This interaction was in regard
to the forthcoming evaluation of the WSU/Lesotho FSR/E project.
Materials collected:
The following materials were brought back to Gainesville. In addition,
there were approximately eight CIMMYT publications which were available on a
sign-up basis. I signed up for a minimum of two copies of each of these
publications. They will be sent to the FSSP. Some of them deal directly with
design and analysis of farm trials, and I feel should be incorporated into the
background material of the collection of design and analysis units. Finally,
all of the papers presented at the workshop are included below in the section
on materials contributed to inventory.
1. "Report of a Networkshop on Draught Power and Animal Feeding in
Eastern and Southern Africa." Ezulwini, Swaziland. Oct. 4-6, 1983. Network-
ing Workshops Report No. 2. CIMMYT Eastern and Southern Africa Economics
Programmme, P.O. Box 1473, Mbabane, Swaziland. June, 1984.
2. "Farming Systems in the Lower Shebelle Region: A Framework for On-
Farm Research." M. Y. Boateng, M. I. Busuri and A. M. Yusuf. Utah State
University team/Somali Counterparts Working Paper. March, 1985.
3. "Se- .bed Preparation with Ox-Drawn Implements." G. L. Richardson and
T. Namane. arming Systems Research Project. Ministry of Agriculture and
Marketing, Maseru, Lesotho. (Submitted for consideration as a Networking
Paper).
4. The week's program is attached to this report.
Contributions to inventory:
All except 3 above, including the papers presented at the workshop. The
latter are contained in a blue binder which will be housed in SP's office.
1985, Fourtil Quarter
The workshop papers are titled as follows:
1. "Managing Maize Research with Limited Resources." R.. P. Cantrell,
director, CIMMYT Maize Improvement Program, El Batan, Mexico.
2. "Progress and Needs in On-Farm Research in Botswana." Curtis Trent,
Tshekiso Monyatsi and Elijah Modiakgotla. ATIP, Gaborone, Botswana.
3. "On-Farm Research in Lesotho." Anonymous.
4. "A Review of Results of a Systems Based On-Farm Research Approach in
Malawi." F. M. Nyirenda, H. K. Mwandemere and G. Y. Mkamanga. Chitedze
Agricultural Research Station and the Ministry of Agriculture, Lilongwe,
Malawi.
5. "The Western Sudan Agricultural ResearchProject: An Experiment in
Farming Systems Research." Dafalla Ahmed Dafalla, Director, Western Sudan
Agricultural Research Project, Sudan.
6. "On-Farm Research in Swaziland: Background and Perspectives." C.
Seubert and C. Nkwanyana. Swaziland Cropping Systems Reseach and Extension
Training Project, PSU and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
7. "A Review of Zambia's Systems Based On-Farm Research Programme -- The
Adaptive Research Planning Team." S. A. Kean, M. R. Mulele and B. K. Patel.
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development, Department of Agriculture,
Zambia.
8. "Farming Systems Research Experience in Zimbabwe." M. Avila and B. N.
Ndimande. FSR Unit, DR & SS, Harare, Zimbabwe.
9. "The Role of the Universities in the Development of On-Farm Training
Capacity in Southern Africa." M. J. Blackie and P. Ananadajayasekeram,
respectively, Professor, Agricultural Economics, University of Zimbabwe and
Regional Economist, CIMMYT/EA, Nairobi.
10. "Information Exchange in Farming Systems Research." Allen Low,
Agricultural Economist, CIMMYT/EA, Swaziland.
1985, Fourth Quarter
FSSP ANNUAL MEETING SUMMARY REPORTS
Minutes of the 9/13/85 Advisory Council Meeting, Washington, D.C.
ATTENDEES: Dale Harpstead (chair), Jean Kearns, Larry Zuidema, John
Caldwell, Don Osburn, Wendell Morse, Anson Bertrand, Don Waddley, Chris
Andrew, Ken McDermott and Dan Galt.
An agenda is attached. The meeting did not follow the agenda specifically
because it was necessary to delay items one through four until Anson Bertrand
arrived at 10:00 a.m.
ITEM 5. Reconsider FSSP emphasis on state-of-the-art synthesis or research.
Several issues were discussed under this topic inclusive of the bio-data
system, the annotated bibliography, and general state-of-the-art activities
such as the technical assistance handbook, the evaluation task force, etc.
The evaluation committee suggested shifting the bio data work to IADS
(Winrock) and expanding the comprehensive nature of the listings. Given the
budget shortage and the fact that IADS utilized the FSSP bio-data because the
IADS holdings were not specific enough, concern was expressed by the Council
about the potential value of such a move at this time.
Recommendation: Give further consideration to the evaluation committee
recommendation.
The evaluation committee recommended that annotations for the bibliography
be transferred to DIEU. S&T project management and FSSP Core recommend that
this move not be made at the present time. John Caldwell reported on a brief
visit he had made to DIEU to review annotative procedures. The procedure
seems to be logical and working well. The technical committee will take
selections from annotations and judge quality and in time provide guidelines
back to DIEU to further strengthen the annotation process. Presently, a short
type of annotation known as a"quasi annotation" is used that takes about,one
and one half hours per item. This is not the lengthy informative type
annotation but budgets have not provided money for that type of detail.
Recommendation/consensus: Wait for technical committee report.
Discussion of state-of-the-art work provided several useful results.
Recommendations/consensus. In the overall state-of-the-art area it was agreed
that a need exists to identify and specify each on-going state-of-the-art
activity and develop objectives for, and justification of, the particular
thrusts for continuing activity. A white paper should be developed that
states what has been done in the state-of-the-art area and where FSSP will be
proceeding in the future. It is proposed that Dan Galt work with the
technical committee in developing this particular paper. Presently there are
about seven major items that are principal in the state-of-the-art work of
FSSP including: (1) The Hildebrand-Poey book on FSR/E methodology; (2) the
project guidelines handbook; (3) the evaluation task force guidelines for
FSR/E project evaluation; (4) the FSR/E Intrahousehold case studies series;
1985, Fourth Quarter
(5) the Networking Paper Series; (6) the agronomic experimental design and
analysis unit and methodology follow-up at KSU; and (7) the FSSP Africa
strategy thrust II (specifically (a) the bilateral contractors methodological
and management improvement workshops, and (b) the economic analysis working
group at KSU).
ITEM 6. Future status and role of the technical committee. Dan Galt and John
Caldwell gave an update on the present status of the technical committee,
emphasizing that much of the work to present has been oriented toward
publication and documentation of the one hundred items in the bibliography.
Nevertheless, the technical committee did lay out a general field of technical
activities needed within the farming systems research area at their initial
meeting in 1984. Discussions included various alternatives for gaining more
insight in state-of-the-art, one of which would be involving some of the
senior scientists in state-of-the-art research. Changing the size and
configuration of the committee was also discussed.
Recommendation: A restatement of technical committee responsibilities gleaned
from various comments indicate that the committee should:
1. Perform as a group of technically competent critics to give
constructive criticism and technical guidance to the FSSP.
2. Deal with state-of-the-art matters and give advice/input to the
seven points under refinement in that area.
3. Take care that committee member participation in delivery
activities does not become tangled with vested interests by specific
institutions to become involved in country level programming.
4. Refine the priorities established in the initial 1984 meeting as
guidance to FSSP priority setting efforts and for others concerned
with the technical and methodological aspects of farming systems
research.
Recommendation: The technical committee should include only four US
participants, two from Africa, and one each from Asia and Latin America. In
so doing this does not alter present participation in the committee because
two terms (of the six) expire at the end of December, 1985. The
recommendation is that the technical committee in the United States be "lean
and mean" with more core support to the committee. Past support and
participation by core in technical committee activities is viewed to be
inadequate and should be further strengthened. Representatives of the core
agree with this recommendation of the advisory council.
ITEMS 1 4:
Agenda itmes one through four were addressed briefly by Anson Bertrand.
With reference to the evaluation, Dr. Bertrand indicated that it is not now
available, but evaluation notes have been gleaned from early reports by S&T
management. These cannot be viewed as final, however, and every effort is
being made to close the evaluation. The review committee felt that
insufficient joint work and management was under way between AID and FSSP
core. Specifically, Chris Andrew and Don Osburn must work more closely
together and Dr. Bertrand reaffirmed that Don Osburn is manager with Wendell
1985, Fourth Quarter
Morse as co-manager.
The financial situation was summarized generally, with reference to the
cut from $1.1 million to $680,000 for 1986 and the anticipated $700,000 for
1987. Dr. Bertrand announced that we have succeeded in getting $200,000 from
year end funds from FY 1985 for FY 1986 use with this string attached: that
FSSP will place a person in a networking capacity in West Africa. Dr.
Bertrand prefers that the location of Cameroon be investigated for this person
and instructed the Project Director to proceed with negotiations in that
regard. There is concern that the budget will not be adequate to provide for
the overall programming necessary and the mobility for the West African
representative to perform in a network capacity throughout the region.
With reference to work in Asia and Latin America, the FSSP must function
"almost exclusively on a buy-in basis". Some management capability is
necessary, however, to work in each region with the buy-ins.
Generally, the Africa strategy and plans must be reviewed very carefully
with reference to the overall budget situation. It is clear that the focus in
West Africa should be on a few networks in a few West African countries.
Discussion followed Dr. Bertrand's presentation, but, as he was unable to
continue meeting with the group, S&T management staff, including Wendell
Morse, Don Osburn, and Don Waddley, participated. Specifically, chairman
Harpstead concluded with council concurrence, that meaningful conclusions
could not be drawn from the evaluation statements gleaned to present, and that
it is difficult to make forward planning decisions on such a basis. Questions
were raised as to how FSSP was working with CIMMYT in East Africa, and why
CIMMYT had been so supportive of the overall FSSP program. The response was
generally related to overall cooperation in fielding technical assistance
personnel, provision for materials for workshops and training sessions, and
the cooperative ventures in network activities such as the Egerton College
workshop for university leaders.
Dr. Waddley indicated that the overall cuts in FSSP funding were not
necessarily tied to performance. The change in orientation from being 50% in
Africa to 100% primarily in Africa was discussed relative to the initial
cooperative agreement. Also it was emphasized that the FSSP was the last of
the support project activities to be funded and the last in support work of
S&T.
Andrew discussed the overall budget briefly (attached to minutes).
Emphasis was given to the fact that cut-backs were presently being absorbed in
staffing of the core delivery capability and all funding was removed from the
Asia-Near East-Latin American areas except for some core coordination
capability. Cuts were made in the program development portion of the budget
such that only major networking activities inclusive of the newsletter,
completion of the annotated bibliography, and support for the world-wide FSR
symposium were retained.
A summary statement relative to the Latin American-Asian activity was made
by Galt, Andrew, and McDermott, which emphasized that the Asia Bureau had
asked for a proposal relative to a management buy-in to the FSSP. Also, a
similar request was made by the Latin America Bureau. It was pointed out,
1985, Fourth Quarter
however, that funding such a proposal can differ between those two bureaus
because the Latin American Bureau retains no funding at the bureau level. All
funds are allocated to the region at the mission level and to ROCAP. The Asia
bureau, however, maintains some funding for core type activities to be funded
at the bureau level.
Recommendation: In relation to work in Asia and Latin America, it is
recommended that the FSSP develop a merchandising technique that indicates
what can be done by the FSSP and the respective support entity commitments so
that USAID Bureaus and Missions will know specifically what can be purchased
through the support project.
ITEM 4. Consider Africa program plans and alternatives. Andrew and Galt
presented the Africa program priority thrust at present time. For 1986,
primary emphasis is on an Anglo training/workshop and a
Franco-training/workshop, along with support for 'the animal traction
networkshop #2. This is not a strategy inclusive of the location of a person
in West Africa.
It is not clear if posting a person to West Africa can be accomplished due
to lack of agreement between S&T and the Africa Bureaus on location of the
program and to the inadequacy of funding for an overall program. Discussion
included location as well as the type of person to be recruited and placed in
such a position. Andrew emphasized that the person should be fluent in French
and a plant scientist. There was disagreement relative to specifying a plant
scientist, and it was recommended that this not be a binding requisite if a
social scientist with farming systems experience could be identified.
Recommendation: The University of Florida should inform USAID that it is
impossible to initiate such a program on $200,000 only for FY 1986, and if
further funding is not assured, UF/FSSP cannot and should not begin the task.
It was suggested that the Director discuss this issue with Vice-President Ken
Tefertiller and Director of International Programs, Hugh
Popenoe in recommending that the FSSP Support Entities stand behind the
University of Florida in taking a firm position on attaining funding
sufficient to last at least through FY 1987 before initiating a search for a
person to post in West Africa.
ITEM 7. Appointment of an Advisory Council member to fill Larry Zuidema's
position in 1986. Numerous candidates were discussed. It was recommended by
the core that several university people be considered as well as someone from
the consulting firm of Winrock-International.
Recommendation: Approach Dr. Ned Raun of Winrock-International for this
opening. Dr. Raun is a trained animal scientist with considerable experience
in International work as well as leadership in Winrock-International. He has
been instrumental in working with the Small Ruminant CRSP and has helped
organize and administer a section of Winrock-International most directly
focused on farming systems research.
ITEM 9: Affirmation of the FSSP Annual Meeting Agenda at Kansas State
University. An agenda was presented and discussions resulted in revisions.
The agenda took form based upon recommendations from the previous Advisory
Council meeting. The revised agenda was reworked immediately following the
1985, Fourth Quarter
Council meeting by the FSSP core and is attached.
ITEM 10: Annual workplan strategy. Given the considerable effort over the
past three years to involve AID bureaus in the review and design process, a
question was laid before the council concerning what procedure might serve to
be more successful in this task. To present, the results have been rather
spotty and have caused considerable delay in implementation as well as
frustration and lost time in the overall planning and administration process.
Recommendation: The council recommends that the FSSP leadership meet directly
with Ken Shirper and then follow up with a workplan draft to be passed before
other bureau people at Shirper's level of authority. A short summary
statement approach (two page maximum) should be considered so that the overall
priorities and plans are read by the important decision makers. Furthermore,
it was recommended that support entities be involved on a continuing basis in
the reporting and planning effort as they were last year, and that the
instrument used last year for this purpose be used again. This needs to be
announced in On-Networking.
ITEM 8: Long term support entity relations with core and UF as funding
structure changes. It was generally recommended that, at this time, no
activity in the name of the FSSP extend into use of other donor funds. It may
be possible for Florida with other universities to implement such activities.
The FSSP is an AID creation and should involve project management staff, Don
Osburn, and Wendell Morse in all activity. At present the overall structure
of the FSSP is sound and should not be altered until further knowledge is
available about the overall plan of AID relative to this effort.
The meeting closed with plans to meet at Kansas State University.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Agenda
FSSP Advisory Council
September 13, 1985
406 Pomponio Plaza
1735 North Lynn
Roslyn
1. Report by S&T on evaluation, funding and management.
2. Report on FSSP financial status.
3. Discuss regional programs in Latin America and Asia/Near East.
4. Consider Africa program plans and alternatives.
5. Reconsider FSSP emphasis on State of the Art Synthesis Research.
6. Discuss future status and role of Technical Committee and recommend
appointments for 1986.
7. Recommend appointment of Admisory Council Member to fill Larry
Zuidema's position in 1986.
8. Discuss present long term SE relations with Core and UF.
9. Discuss and affirm KSU Annual Meeting Agenda.
10. Annual work plan strategy.
1985, Fourth Quarter
FSSP BUDGET
FY 85 86 87
(1000s) June 1- Oct 1
CORE
Administration
Salary 52.8 115.6 108.0
Support 6.3 21.3 21.3
Ind. Cost 27.7 64.3 60.8
86.8 201.2 190.1
Program Delivery
Salary 84.6 214.0 169.0
Support 30.6 96.8 103.3
In Cost 48.4 130.5 114.4
163.6 441.3 386.7
TOTAL 250.4 642.5 576.8
REGIONAL
Africa 50.0 200.0 155.0
Asia & LA 20.0 -
TOTAL 70.0 200.0 155.0
PROGRAM DEVEL & NETWORKING ( ind cost included
Newsletter 19.5 58.4 58.4
Bibliography 21.0 43.0
TA Handbook 17.5
TUD 85.0 -
Publication 13.8 19.9 20.0
Symposium 18.0 18.0 18.0
Annual Meeting 25.0 12.0
Tech Com 10.0 15.0 10.0
TOTAL 209.8 166.3 106.4
TOTAL 530.2 1008.8 838.2
FUNDING 1041.2* 636.0 700.0**
BALANCE 511.0 138.2 0
FY 85 release reached UF in early May 1985 and was recorded
for use on June 1 by the UF system. Thus, the $1123,000 is
discounted by $81,000, the amount FSSP was in the red by June 1.
** Preliminary S&T/Ag request
1985, Fourth Quarter
Technical Committee Report
Function and Composition of the Technical Committee
The Technical Committee's function should be to assure high technical
quality of project outputs. For this purpose, the Technical Committee should
take leadership in determining technical priorities and recommending
strategies to achieve those priorities in accordance with mid-project
evaluation recommendations. Monitoring should include periodic assessment of
achievement of priorities and review of technical papers, training materials,
and 100-item bibliography materials.
The Technical Committee does not-see its function as itself undertaking
project state-of-the-arts work or strengthening communications among support
entities and core. Those implementation decisions belong to management.
The Technical Committee considers international representation to be vital
for its role in determining technical priorities and strategies. The
international representatives have much more direct and up-to-date contact
with practitioners, the direct users of project outputs, through regional
associations and networks. For the international representatives to
contribute effectively to the Technical Committee, continuity and two-way flow
of information are necessary. The Technical Committee therefore recommends:
1. For continuity, that the 3 international representatives who
participated in the 1985 October 17-18 meetings be made full
regular Technical Committee members, with terms extending at least
through the next annual symposium's Technical Committee meetings in
Fall 1986.
2. For two-way flow, that a U.S.-based member of the Technical
Committee, or person delegated by core in consultation with the
Technical Committee to represent it, attend 1 regional meeting each
in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The Technical committee
requests budget support for these activities.
The project mid-term evaluation recommends building on existing viable
networks. In accordance with this recommendation, the Technical Committee
suggests that one of the following regional meetings be selected for
attendance by a U.S. based representative:
1. Africa
a. First priority:
WAFSN, March 1986,
b. Alternate possibilities:
WARDA, ICRISAT, SAFGRAD, or IITA meetings.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Page
Missing
or
Unavailable
1984
rank
Content of
priority
a. Design, monitoring,
and evaluation of
on-farm interventions
using systems criteria
b. Statistical analysis
techniques
Project evaluation for
AID Missions
Institutionalization of
FSR/E for national
institutions
Incorporation of farming
systems approach into
extension and its subsequent
application to the field
Appreciation of and
rationale for FSR/E
by national institutions
Project design for AID
missions
Training programs
FSR/E methodology
1985 Tactical Priorities
In its deliberations, the Technical Committee identified a number of areas
where project output could be strengthened through linkages and implementation
changes. The Technical Committee termed these tactical priorities, to
distinguish from technical priorities requiring state-of-the-arts synthesis
and analysis prior to implementation. The Technical Committee recommends
speedy action on the following tactical priorities:
1. The steps in planning and conducting workshops should be
documented. Core should make time available to the persons who
have conducted previous West Africa workshops for this purpose.
The publication of the report on the May A985 Gambia workshop is a
good start on this documentation.
2. "Menu-ization" of the existing training units:
a. Each unit should be split up into smaller, discrete sections
(rather than the current large sub-units).
b. Each section should indicate the level of clientele (for
example, field practitioner with no research experience,
extension subject matter specialist, university or
1985, Fourth Quarter
1985
assessment
More work needed
Good progress made (due to
input by Larry Nelson and
CARDI) deemphasize
slow progress await
evaluation task force report
Good progress made
deemphasize
More work needed
Good progress made-
deemphasize
Good progress made, but as a
tactical (non-tecnnical)
priority, need to strengthen
linkages with TSM's and AID
Bureaus
Considerable progress made, but
further refinement necessary
Impressive progress made
(broad consensus now exists)-
deemphasize
station-based researcher) for whom it is appropriate.
c. More emphasis should be placed on how to do the methods
presented in each section.
d. An introduction for trainers should be added to each unit to
indicate the purpose of the unit. This should make clear that
the unit is intended to be a large "menu" from which only those
sections needed can be selected and combined in different order
to meet specific training needs.
3. Networking between Africa and Asia/Latin America should be
strengthened. There is a longer history of experience with farming
systems in the latter 2 regions. Without cross-regional
networking, that experience would be lost to Africa, where the
major thrust of AID is taking place.
4. Linkages should be strengthened with technical expertise in the
TSM's and the Regional Bureaus of AID.
5. Linkages should be established with the Private Voluntary
Organizations (PVO's) active at the grassroots in Africa. PVO's
can be a source of information on technical priorities, contribute
to farming systems efforts, and are potential users of FSSP output.
6. The strategy of S&T in determining project funding levels should be
clarified.
7. Core should determine if there is interest among the support
entities in undertaking annotation of the 100 item bibliography
materials, through a request for expressions of interest in the "On
Networking" newsletter. The Technical Committee will make an
assessment of the technical quality of selected annotations
prepared by DIHF, the annotation service currently being used.
Based on comparison of the level of interest among support entities
in undertaking the annotation, and the technical quality of DIHF
annotations, the Technical Committee in consultation with core will
recommend whether to change the annotation process.
Definition of FSSP State-of-the-Arts
In contrast with tactical priorities, technical priorities are areas where
state-of-the-arts work is needed to improve implementation efforts. The
Technical Committee defines state-of-the-arts as synthesis and analysis.
State-of-the-arts work must move beyond simple synthesis or combining
different methods and experiences. It must undertake comparative analysis of
those experiences, to draw lee-ons from them, to determine what methods have
been more successful than others, and to determine the reasons why some
methods have been more successful.
On the other hand, the state-of-the-arts work of the FSSP should not
include development of special projects. Such projects would be both
artificial and expensive. Rather, state-of-the-arts development should be
development through practitioners. This can be done by:
1. Introducing alternate methods through training.
1985, Fourth Quarter
2. Involving practitioners in analysis of the alternate methods based
on their circumstances.
3. Documenting the choices made by practitioners (through training
follow-up).
4. Analyzing with practitioners the results of their experience (also
through training follow-up).
1985 Technical Priorities
Based on its review of the sources of information on technical needs
described above, the Technical Committee identified 12.technical priorities
where state-of-the-arts work is needed. The Technical Committee then
prioritized these 12 priorities into 4 groups:
1. Priorities for which state-of-the-arts work is on-going through
existing FSSP-supported or affiliated task forces:
1.1 Documentation, synthesis, and analysis of farming systems
experiences with crop-livestock interactions. The Technical
Committee noted that several excellent papers from the field
were given at the 1985 symposium. These, and other similar
experiences, should be documented by the mixed crop-livestock
task force as a set of case studies. The set of case studies
should include analysis of "lessons learned." These should
then be incorporated into the training program.
1.2 Farming systems research and extension. Synthesis and
analysis underway through the INTERPAKS project should be
continued, and utilized in the training program.
1.3 Training program refinements. Work by the training units
development task forces already underway to revise the
existing units should be continued. The recommendations for
"menu-ization" discussed under tactical priorities should be
incorporated into this effort.
1.4 Development of a consistent evaluation framework for farming
systems. The on-going work of the evaluation task force
should be continued.
2. Lower priorities, for which the FSSP should draw on persons with
commodity expertise to fill in (rather than establishing FSSP-
supported task forces):
2.1 New technologies for uncertain, "harsh" environments with low
soil fertility and low and/or unpredictable rainfall.
2.2 Sustainable technologies for areas with high population
pressure under risk of environmental degradation.
3. Medium priorities, which the FSSP should address if budget
flexibility exists after adequate allocation is made to address the
higher proirities (described in section 4 below):
3.1 Methods to take both commerical and consumption goals into
1985, Fourth Quarter
account in diagnosis, design, testing, and extension.
3.2 Management information systems, for linking different
agro-ecological zones for technology transfer.
3.3 Synthesis and analysis of feedback from previous training
programs, through follow-up assessment of what participants
have actually used.
4. Higher priorities, for which the FSSP should first allocate any
budget funds available for state-of-the-arts synthesis and
analysis:
4.1 Use of iterative diagnostic information for intervention
design. The Technical Committee recommends the following
state-of-the-arts activities to address this priority:
a. Preparation of a published paper with synthesis and
analysis of examples showing why iterative
diagnostic/design is needed, and how it can be done. For
example, persons in Thailand with experience in this could
be supported by FSSP to document their experience.
b. Circulation of the paper to selected projects for review,
testing of the methods documented, and feedback.
c. Preparation, based on the above feedback, of materials for
training in iterative diagnostic/design.
4.2 Alternatives for design and analysis of on-farm
experimentation. The Technical Committee noted that several
papers at the 1985 Symposium presented alternative techniques
for on-farm experimentation not based on standard statistical
designs imposed by researchers, but rather based on farmers'
own spontaneous experimentation. These alternatives generated
considerable discussion and debate. The Technical Committee
recommends:
a. Further analysis of the information obtained by the Barker
survey of design and analysis techiques being used in
farming systems projects.
b. A request via the newsletter for other projects which are
using non-conventional design and analysis techniques
based on spontaneous farmer experimentation to provide
information on their work.
c. Establishment of a task force to document in published
form selected techniques identified through the Barker
survey and newsletter responses.
4.3 Linkage of commodity and biotechnology research with farming
systems research. The Technical Committee sees this as a key
priority, because farming systems research provides the
testing ground for products of commodity and biotechnology
research that are the focus of the New Africa Plan. The
Technical Committee recommends several state-of-the-arts
activities, which may be either simultaneous or sequential, to
address this priority:
a. National or regionally-based networkshops linking
commodity researchers and farming systems
research/extension practitioners. These should be
nationally or regionally based in recognition of
differences in agro-ecological conditions and
1985, Fourth Quarter
national-level policy and institutions. The Sahel and
humid West/Central Africa are 2 regions for which
regionally-based networkshops could be organized.
b. A policy paper should be prepared on how to address the
linkage between commodity and biotechnology research, and
farming systems research/extension.
c. Case studies should be prepared documenting existing
examples linking commodity research and farming systems,
cropping systems, or other related adaptive research
programs. Both national and regional case studies are
needed. Candidates for national case studies include ICTA
in Guatemala, NCRE in Cameroon, and RIARS in the
Philippines. Candidates for regional case studies include
the WARDA, CIAT, CIMMYT, and IRRI networks.
d. Guidelines should be prepared for the involvement of
commodity researchers in diagnostic activities, leading to
more effective joint evaluation by farming systems
practitioners and commodity researchers of on-shelf
technology suitable for adaptive research, and
identification of further needs for backstopping commodity
research.
A State-of-the-Arts Strategy and the Future of the FSSP
The Technical Committee is in a quandry. On the one hand, it takes
seriously the mandate given to it by the mid-project evaluation report to take
greater leadership in defining an implementation strategy for
state-of-the-arts synthesis and analysis. On the other hand, zero funds are
allocated for state-of-the-arts. The Technical Committee does not consider it
a productive exercise to develop an elaborate strategy based on hypothetical
or desired resources that are non-existent. The Technical Committee therefore
sees itself with 2 options:
1. Restrict itself to monitoring project outputs under existing
implementation plans if no resources can be made available to
support state-of-the-arts synthesis and analysis.
2. In collaboration with core and AID AMPT, develop a proposal for an
FSSP state-of-the-arts strategy, if AID is willing to consider
making additional resources available for synthesis and analysis
activities. The proposed strategy would reflect the level of
support that AID would be willing to consider providing.
The Technical Committee believes in the validity of the farming systems
approach. The Technical Committee also believes that farming systems
research/extension is essential for the successful strengthening of commodity
research in Africa envisioned in the New Africa Plan. The Technical Committee
thus considers the New Africa Plan to be a positive challenge for farming
systems and the FSSP. The Technical Committee therefore takes a proactive
stance, and proposes to AID a partnership between farming systems
research/extension and commodity/biotechnology research. Some of the
essentials of this partnership are the following:
1. Farming systems research/extension practitioners draw on technology
1985, Fourth Quarter
developed by commodity researchers for adaptive research. The
rationale of the New Africa Plan is based on the judgment of technical
scientists that the commodity knowledge base for many African food
crops needs major strengthening, to expand alternatives for more
meaningful adaptive research. Farming systems practitioners should
respect this technical judgment.
2. Commodity researchers draw on farming systems experience to guide
their research objectives. The needs of farm households are
constantly changing. A constant flow of information from
collaborative diagnosis is necessary to adjust the commodity research
trajectory and keep it always pointed towards the moving target of
changing farm household goals. Commodity and biotechnology research
is expensive and long in duration. Its products cannot afford to end
up being non-acceptable by farm households. Commodity and
biotechnology researchers should respect the need for input by farm
households into their research.
3. Farming systems has developed, in part, in response to problems with
inappropriate technology. The "rice garden" of the Philippines and
corn monoculture in Nigeria are but 2 examples. Conversely, there are
many positive examples of how an understanding of farm household needs
has made commodity research more effective and efficient. An example
from Africa is the sweet potato breeding program of Dahniya in Sierra
Leone. Many other examples can be found in Asia and Latin America.
These 2 regions have had much longer experience in linking commodity
and adaptive research through the "Green Revolution." A partnership
effort in Africa need not lose time and money by repeating some of the
same errors and relearning the same lessons. An Africa partnership
should be part of a global effort, and build on Asian and Latin
American experience.
Conceived as a global project with a West Africa focus, in partnership
with AID, the FSSP can be the vehicle to achieve these objectives. The
Technical Committee is prepared to develop a state-of-the-arts strategy for
this partnership. It requests the resources to do so.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Report of Agronomic Group Work Session
The importance of planning experiments was emphasized. Although several
individuals mentioned that new designs are needed for farming systems
research, we appear to be in the early stages of such an endeavor. In the
absence of such innovative designs, we are going to have to use traditional
designs. Their failure may be due more to poor choice of experimental
material and experimental technique than to limitations of the experimental
designs themselves. It was also mentioned that there are some sites where
blocking will not be workable. These sites should not be used for
experimentation.
The leader emphasized that we have to improve choice of sites and
experimental technique over time for the improvement of precision. We need to
be aware of our level of precision. If estimates of numbers of replicates
required to achieve a given level of precision seem prohibitive, one might
question the advisability of proceeding with the experiment.
One can benefit from the results of a current experiment in planning
future experiments in terms of improving design and experimental technique and
choice of treatments.
The topic of single replication per site was discussed. It was concluded
that this might be acceptable in cases where there was a network of locations
which had common cultural practices, varieties, etc. with a provision that
caution should be taken in interpretation. Probably the single replication
technique would be more applicable to qualitative variables than to
quantitative variables such as fertilizer rates. It was also concluded that
experiments could be designed with unequal replication per treatment (to cut
down on the size of the experiment). Analysis might be complicated somewhat
by this imbalance but this is not a serious problem.
The use of augmented designs was discussed. These were thought to be
desirable designs in that initial evaluation of some lines could be carried
out without using large amounts of experimental material and space. There is
again a complication of the analysis but this is not a serious problem.
Plot size, shape and orientation were discussed. In general, large plots
are more precise. This would come at the expense of larger land requirements.
For a fixed amount of land and number of treatments, probably use of more
replications with smaller plots would result in more precision than fewer
replications with larger plots. Plots normally should be long and narrow
rather than square. They should be long in the direction of the gradient.
Attempts should be made to make the blocks square.
Considerable discussion was given to the use of multiple comparison
procedures as part of the analysis of data. It was concluded that the use of
these procedures is waning. Their use should be limited to cases where there
is not a defined treatment structure (e.g. variety trials). The preferable
approach is to make 1 degree of freedom comparisons as part of the analysis of
variance with which one can focus on specific comparisons which were of
interest at the time of planning of the project. This gives the power to
comparisons which are of interest rather than distributing it over a wide
variety of comparisons some of which are not of interest.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Economics Interest Group
An economics interest group met with several other disciplines
represented. There was some discussion on the role of the economist in FSR/E.
The economist, like the statistician, needs to get involved in the early
design stage. Rick Bernsten, chair of the interest group, asked field
practitioners to discuss their activities with respect to economic analysis
techniques. Most field practitioners were involved in analyzing trial
results. Partial budgeting was the most frequently stated technique.
There appeared to be significant disagreement regarding appropriate
analytical techniques to use for evaluating farming system interventions
during the session. The primary concern focused on the appropriate techniques
to analyze and evaluate interventions when the constraints are labor and
capital. (A follow-up after the formal meeting revealed that disagreement
disappears when the stage of the farming systems projects is considered.) Of
the projects represented, with the exception of a representative of the Purdue
University-Burkina Faso Project who had done whole farm modeling, most were
agronomic on-farm trial types. Determining the "optimum" application level of
variable inputs or discrete technology alternatives (e.g. new variety)
requires production function analysis and partial budgeting techniques.
None of the field projects represented and reported on had progressed to
the point of combining plant and animal systems. Determining enterprise
combinations, with resource constraints, often requires one to address the
total farm resource allocation issues through whole farm analysis. In short,
the problem dictates the appropriate analytical tools.
Discussion took place regarding use of computers. The general consensus
was that the availability of micro computers is becoming widespread and most
representatives at KSU are using them in various ways. The group did not have
the opportunity to discuss their role in training activities. The role and
use of the micro computer appears to warrant further consideration, especially
at the local fielf team level.
Another significant issue discussed was the need to monitor the
performance of the farming system through time. No one was doing this, nor
did anyone have plans for doing so in the future. Agreement on selected
performance measures (liquidity, profitability, solvency, etc.) should be
considered as a high priority activity. Finally, risk was another issue
discussed by several who attended the meeting (risk from the perspective of
both the enterprise and the total system). Dealing with risk is in its early
development stage.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Evaluation Task Force Report
The Evaluation Task Force (ETF) of the FSSP was established to design an
evaluation strategy specifically oriented to farming systems projects and to
field test such a strategy on at least two projects. Membership on the ETF
include Dr. T. Cook, Research Triangle, Dr. R. Bernsten, Michigan State
University, Dr. D. Voth, University of Arkansas, Dr. M. Patton, University of
Minnesota, Dr. Dan Galt, FSSP, University of Florida, Dr. J. Noel and Dr. J.B.
Henson, Washington State University, and Dr. D. Osborn, S&T/AID.
The ETF has met twice as a group and has discussed in detail project
evaluation per se and the specific aspects and requirements for the evaluation
of farming systems projects. Resulting from these meetings and discussions
has been an initial draft of an evaluation strategy. This strategy is being
further developed and will be discussed and finalized in preliminary form at
another meeting of the ETF. When this is completed, the strategy will be
field tested on two selected projects. The information gained from the field
testing will then be incorporated as appropriate into the final strategy
document.
1985, Fourth Quarter
KSU FSR/E Symposium FSR Association Meeting
The participants in this meeting reached consensus on several points and
offered several alternatives for consideration concerning the establishment of
an FSR Association. These were:
I. There is considerable interest in an FSR Association
from both individuals and institutions.
II. Some type of vehicle for legitimization is needed for
this Association.
A. An FSR Association should attempt to foster a
close relationship with an existing technical (biological
or social science) society, in order to meet together and make
use of existing administrative links.
1. The Association could have an institutional
affiliation with KSU and be partially
supported by other institutions for the
KSU Symposium.
a. Perhaps, an Association membership fee
could be added to Symposium charges.
B. Regional Associations could be formed to include
Africa, Latin America, Asia/Near East, as well
as the U. S..
C. Memberships should be both for individuals and
institutions, with institutional fees being high
enough to keep the individual fees reasonable
enough to be affordable to all practitioners.
D. New funding sources should sought.
E. Some sort of refereed journal should be
established to give an opportunity for publication
of results arising from multi-disciplinary
research.
1. It was noted that the American Societies of
Agronomy, Crop Science and Soil Science are
very seriously considering the publication of
a new, refereed journal, "Production
Agriculture", to focus on applied agriculture
with multi-disciplinary input.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Comments and Questions Raised at the Farming Systems Support Project Meeting
(Bilateral Contractors Session) at KSU October 17, 1985
1. What use (how much) has been made of the FSSP Biodata file?
2. How much Technical Assistance on FS world-wide has been provided
through the FSSP?
3. How can Support Entity (SE) personnel be utilized better in contract
programs?
4. How much has the "Add-on" mechanism been used in supporting FS
activity? Give the SE's an indication of how they may be able to
help with add-on's.
5. There is a need to get Chief of Parties together annually on an
international basis. Funding for this activity could be built into
each contract or provided for by AID/Washington.
6. Some of the SE members believe that there should be a "Marketing
Service" for their FS specialties. They believe there may be a lot
of latent demands for assistance among various agencies and in many
countries.
7. Many want a "speedier" turn-around mechanism for FS news world-wide.
A more rapid means of learning about new designs, techniques,
systems, etc.
8. Perhaps a note of clarification is needed on how RIR and FSSP
bio-data can be accessed and any restriction on its release.
9. Dr. Dale Harpstead believes that BIFAD would have an interest in our
list of "Concerns". He said many would apply to contracts in
general.
10. There is a need for FSSP to begin to address the "Concerns" even
before the Chief of Parties and Practitioners have an opportunity to
express their "Concerns".
11. There are some who believe that there is "A good old boy" network
among the FS experts that is resulting in requests for assistance
being limited to a select few (old timers) in FS that are actually
requested by name. Often the requirement for 7 years experience and
fluency in French eliminate many otherwise excellent consultants.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Farming Systems Support Program Concerns
(A generalized list based upon initial meeting in Chicago on June 6, 1985 and
a meeting with the FSSP group at Kansas State University on October 17,1985).
I. What do campus contract coordinators, chiefs of parties,
practitioners, AID missions, and host countries need from FSSP?
1. Protocol for requesting FSSP assistance.
2. Funding alternatives for FSSP interventions.
3. A general introductory package on the FS approach to research
and extension (a set of guidelines for FS Project development
and use).
4. Kinds of assistance packages available for user groups
(consultants, short courses, training materials, training of
trainers, etc.).
5. The plan for FS assistance (advisory, consultative, training,
technical, and material resources) after the FSSP contract
fulfills its mission and the contract is closed. How can the
resources of the cooperating universities and private
organizations be accessed post FSSP? Will the FS approach be
sufficiently institutionalized in universities, scientific
societies, etc., in the USA to be a worthwhile resource base for
access by overseas units?
6. A communications system. Not one for all materials, but perhaps
for a semi-annual, quarterly or annual notice of what is
available, etc., from FSSP.
7. The FSSP, or some closely related entity, should be established
to serve as a repository for FS information generated world-wide
(e.g., from Granting Agencies, Universities, Contractors, other
countries, etc.). The general view is that much valuable ,
information remains unreported to the FS community at large and,
therefore, essentially lost to humanity.
II. What does FSSP need from campus contract coordinators, chiefs of
parties, practitioners, AID missions, and host countries?
1. Information on each existing or planned FS program
internationally and domestically (where, what kind, etc.).
2. Anticipated technical assistance and training support needed
from FSSP (kind, date, existing or needed financial support,
etc.).
3. A mechanism for feed-back of specific FS experiences (good and
bad) in a form that can be used in support of programs (case
studies, debriefings, workshops, other).
4. Constructive criticism on the present FSSP as viewed by users.
1985, Fourth Quarter
5. Suggestions on when, where, and how FS presentations (papers,
talks, conferences, informal get-togethers) might be made in a
variety of settings in order to capitalize upon other planned
events (society meetings, conferences, and other formal and
informal educational programs).
6. Suggestions on the best method for archiving and accessing FS
references and other resources. Two archival sources are
currently available:
-The KSU Developing Countries Collection
-The USAID Documentation Center
What has been the experience in accessing these? Would contractors
be interested in purchasing microfiche copies of the KSU collection?
How will documentation be financially supported in the long term?
1985, Fourth Quarter Ac
Report of the Livestock Working Group
If the discussions of the livestock working group could be characterized
in a sentence perhaps it would read as follows: It would be a mistake to
consider livestock research in mixed farming systems separate from the
mainstream of agricultural research, on-station research, the attendant
relationships of crops and cropping systems, the input of many disciplines,
the needs of national programs, the expectations of donors, and, last but not
least, the needs of farmers and their families. Clearly, the livestock
working group didn't make a mistake.
After tracing the evolution of interest and activities related to
livestock concerns, including the FSSP's Livestock Task Force, the ICARDA,
Togo and ILCA workshops and the preparation of reference guidelines at
Colorado State University, a number of project experiences were reviewed.
These included on-farm research activities in Botswana, the Philippines,
Sudan, and Lesotho. Consideration was also given to participant presentations
at the Farming Systems Symposium and to individual experience.
A number of observations and recommendations were made during discussion
of these interests and activities. While no formal recommendations were made,
the following points are presented as considerations-in livestock research in
mixed farming systems. These considerations have been formulated by
consolidating discussions of related topics from the working group session.
,They are not listed in any order of importance.
1) Determine the role of livestock.
Where livestock is a secondary enterprise it needs to be considered
explicitly at the farm level first, but not exclusive of a focus that includes
arable crop production. The interrelationships of crops and livestock should
be a focus for identifying constraints and generating the avenues of research
to be explored.
2) Involve farmers early in the process.
The experience of farmers, what farmers have to tell, share or recommend
themselves are important considerations prior to the design of research.
Farmer-oriented or farmer-perceived interests and needs not only help identify
problems but also identify areas that farmers are willing to work with at the
outset. This can be an inroad for inputting systems in other ways as other
opportunities arise.
3) Begin work at the farm level.
There is strong argument against a top-down approach as a modus operandi
for farming systems research both in crops and livestock. Otherwise, and
currently, there remains a tendency to intervene systems with technologies
rather than to complement or enhance systems through a partnership with
farmers. Socio-economic factors, the roles of sociologists and
anthropologists early in the process, can make the process more efficient.
4) Design and formality of trials in variable.
There is little similarity in methodology and no consensus on the
1985, Fourth Quarter
formality of trials. Nor should there be. Livestock research is a dynamic
and iterative process. While stringent parameters must be set, researchers
must be prepared to radically adjust their research design even if it
complicates the design and analysis. How far one can go with statistical
considerations for on-farm research with livestock is a real consideration
both for design of trials and validity of recommendations from the research.
However, variability should be exploited, looked at, and sought out. It may
be necessary to compromise on rigid statistical research and adopt measures or
parameters to otherwise weigh the merits of the work. Researchers have a
problem with this approach and with the validity of farm vs. station work
because of a perceived lack of credibility.
5) On-farm trials are distinct from station trials.
The problem of research in farming systems is mainly one of researchers
rather than farmers. Procedures for a bottom-up approach should provide the
basis for station research. In this setting the research station would
generate principles which would move straight to the farm. Farmers could then
exercise some freedom of choice in applying those principles. As it stands,
the expectations for on-farm research with livestock are too high. Data
obtained on station is the result of trying to eliminate variability. But
biological data or productivity data should be distinct from
adoption/rejection analysis based on real farm trials of farmers and
extensionist.
6) Flexibility is key.
Livestock research must use the tools available and crop interfaces
available. Both tools and interfaces may be modified over time making
measurements and progress as systems and their relationships are learned.
Subjective measures of farmers and researchers alike will influence this
progress. If the research is attempting to force-feed technology it is very
likely the wrong technology to be introducing. Conceptualization of a
research paradigm or a perspective on livestock research must include flexible
linkages and the ability to readdress.
7) Extension's role is waiting to be developed.
While there is an imperative need to overlap the functions of research and
extension it appears these two are operating on different wavelengths. Mutual
principles need to be delineated, supported and developed. The onus for
diffusion of a technology shouldn't be left to extensionists who can hardly
access research but must work with farmers. Extension doesn't have imbedded
in it the training or preparedness to do the job that FSR expects of it.
8) External forces play a complicating role.
Government policy, donor agencies and researchers have their own agendas
when it comes to development research. These may detract from the effort of
farming systems research and effect both short and long-term applications and
gains. Farm-level research often has to be matched to the extent
organizational and political structure. In some cases this may clash, for
example, field research findings of value that could be pursued to farmer
benefit may go contrary to government support and therefore not have an
opportunity to benefit farmers. The nature of farming systems research, its
potential for national programs and its interface with external factors
appears to be a problem that will continue. Work needs to be done in this
area.
1985, Fourth Quarter
9) Farmers adoption of principles.
Monitoring farmer practices offers an opportunity to document farmers
adoption of principles and the variation that occurs in adapting a strategy or
technology. This allows research to observe and contributes to the
flexibility of design. On-farm researchers have the best opportunity to
provide feedback to experiment stations. An alternative would be to provide
farmers access to station research. (The same might be said for
extensionists, although it wasn't).
10) Documentation.
Experiences in on-farm research with livestock in mixed farming systems
need to be documented, both for reference and to relate what is happening in
this area. Development research with livestock is different from that with
which donors, universities and basic researchers generally relate. This
experience needs to contribute to university curricula which presently is not
geared to relate it or to train for it. While the need is recognized by
practitioners, it must be conveyed to senior people in their disciplines to
address the,problem.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Livestock Work Group
Annual FSSP Meeting 1985
Name Institution
Discipline(s)
Don Osburn
Merle Esmay
Henk Knipscheel
S. Morris Talley
Rosalie H. Norem
Clive Lightfoot
Terd Charoenwatana
Cornelia Flora
Larry Burmeister
Kweci Atta Krah
Harold McArthur
Jim Oxley
James Jones
Steve Kearl
David Gibbon
Susan Poats
B.K. Singh
Tully Cornick
Chris Andrew
Don Price
SManuel F. Bonifacio
Berl A. Koch
Jan C. Noel
James R. Henson
Charles F. Eno
AID
Michigan State Univ.
Winrock
Lincoln University
Iowa State University
Cornell University
Khon Kain Univ.
Thailand
Kansas State University
Univ. of Kentucky
ILCA Ibadan
Univ. of Hawaii
Colorado State Univ.
Univ. of Florida/FSSP
Univ. of Florida/FSSP
Univ. of East Anglia,
Norwit, UK
Univ. of Florida/FSSP
FS Program Kathmandu
Nepal
Cornell University
Philippines
Univ. of Florida/FSSP
Virginia State Univ.
Univ. of the Philippines
Kansas State University
Washington State Univ.
Washington State Univ.
Univ. of Florida
Ag. Economist
Ag. Engineer
Ag. Economist
Animal Nutrionist
Soc. Psychologist
Agronomist
Plant Breeding
Sociology
Sociology
Agronomy
Anthropology
Animal Science
Anthropolgy/Ag. Econ.
Ag. Journalism
Ag. Development
Ag. Anthropology
FS Agronomist
Ag. Sociologist
Ag. Economist
Rural Sociologist
Sociologist
Animal Science
Veterinary Med/An.
Production
Veterinary Medicine
Soils
1985, Fourth Quarter
Report of the NEAAC (Near East Asia Advisory Committee)
The NEAAC has been existence for about 18 months. It was organized at
the request of Dan Gait to provide advice to the FSSP Core staff on the
role and types of activities that FSSP might undertake in Asia and the Near
East.
Several of the members representing SE institutions met on Wednesday
night to discuss what role, if any, the group should play in light of the
recent policy change to focos core effort entirely in Africa. Dan Gait
informed us that Asian activities in the future will have to be funded by
Mission buy-ins. He indicated that a cable has been sent to all the
Missions in the region indicating the types of services FSSP would be
willing to provide on a buy-in basis and requesting information on the
kinds of things they would like FSSP assistance on. Until the replies are
received and we have some idea of the nature and extent for FSSP support in
the region the NEAAC is in a holding pattern.
Several members have expressed interest in playing a facilitative role
in the development of a series of region networking and practitioner
exchange activities between FSR projects in Asia. At one point it was
assumed that some FSSP Core funds might be made available for such a
program. At present it appears that the only source funding would have to
be from a Mission buy-in with some possibility for matching support for the
Regional Bureau.
The FSSP Core staff expressed a desire to move the management of any
future FSSP response capability for Asia to one of the SE institutions
represented on the committee. We discussed at some length the implications
of such a hand-off of responsibility. The general feeling, and I believe I
speak for all those in attendance, was that complete transfer of management
responsibility would be inappropriate and not in the best interests of FSSP
Core or any of the SE institutions.
An important distinction was made between asking a support entity to
undertake a specific training, networking or Technical Assistance activity
and assuming total management of all FSSP response in the Region. In
addition to possibly creating a conflict of .interest among the NEAAC
members, it is possible that such a transfer might have contractual
implications. The University of Florida, not the support, entities has the
cooperative agreement to manage the FSSP project.
Even if it were technically possible to make such a transfer it does
not appear that this would lead to greater management efficiency. It would
add another administrative level to response system. Request would still
have to be direct through S&T Bureau to Gainesville.
In spite of our concern over assuming FSSP management responsibility
the NEAAC remains ready and willing to assist and support the Core staff in
developing an appropriate position and response strategy for the region.
1985, Fourth Quarter
Domestic Workshops
Last year Kathy Henry and I attended the FSR annual meeting. We decided
to try to increase the awareness of FSR at the University of Arizona and
became charged on fixed up.
In January we planned a seminar series called
"FSR/E in Arid Lands".
15 seminars covering aspects from Policy, Women in Development, water
management, animals and range land management just to mentioned a few of the
areas.
At the same time we planned to have a 3-1/2 day Workshop I.
We held this workshop in early March. About 45 people attended of which
15 persons came from out of the state of Arizona. The two resouce persons for
the worKshop were Tim Frankenberger and Jim Dean. The highlight of the
workshop was the Cape Verde case study.
Out of the seminar series we planned the up-coming workshop "FSR/E and
Arid Lands" which will be held the 28th, 29th, 30th of October. We had hoped
that we would be able to attract some people who might be attending the
International Symposium of Arid Lands which will be held next week. The two
resource people will be Tim Frankenberger and Tim Finau. The Workshop is
structured in the same way as that of the Workshop I.
Another seminar series is being held this semester. This series was
planned and organised by some of the graduate students who attended last
semester's seminar and workshop.
I believe this seminar series will continue because it has proved popular.
International Extension Course FSR/D concept being included.
Last comment Mauritania ADI mission became more interested.
1985, Fourth Quarter
MSTAT Report
MSTAT has been able to move ahead with an active dissemination program
during the past year. A newsletter, "MSTAT User News", is being circulated
among MSTAT users and is designed to deliver current information and to
provide a forum for users' experiences and comments. This newsletter has
been mainly a product of UNDP funding.
FSSP funding has been a major source of support for the development of
the updated MSTAT 3.0 package. This new version of MSTAT has increased
user-friendliness, is more flexible relative to available hardware,
incorporates new stat routines and can handle decimals'(among other
improvements).
Workshops have recently been conducted in Swaziland, Pakistan and
Bangladesh. Additional workshops are ready to go in Turkey, Ghana and
Ecuador as soon as arrangements can be made and/or equipment put in place.
A recent count indicates that copies of MSTAT have been sent to 60
individual countries with between 500 + 600 copies being provided. This
has resulted in significant linkages among FSSP, IARCS, CRSP's,
universities and national research programs.
1985, Fourth Quarter 53
FSSP Business Meeting
Plenary Session
October 16, 1985
Affiliation
Name
Manuel F. Bonifacio
John Hammerton
David Gibbon
Rick Hardiman
Rosalie Norem
Eric Abbot
Doyle Grenoble
Eugene W. Adams
Susan Poats
Vickie Sigman
Morris Lalley
Ravi Sangakkara
Amal Chatterjee
Stefan Toma
Larry Zuidema
Tully Cornick
Don Price
Larry Burmeister
Michael Norvelle
Pascal T. Fotzo
Laurin Wheeler
B.K. Singh
Jean Kearns
Mark B. Lynham
Delane Welsch
Andree Rassam
R.N. Mallick
s.s. Cheema
Vernon C. Larson
Martha Tomecek
Clive Lightfoot
Dale Harpstead
Steven Franzel
Larry Nelson
Jim Oxley
Hilary Feldstein
Department of Sociology
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City
CARDI
School of Development Studies
University of East Anglica
Norwich
Independent
Iowa State'University
Iowa State University
Penn State University
Tuskegee University
FSSP
University of Hawaii
Lincoln University
Faculty of Agriculture
University of Peradeniya
Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
Winrock International
Rte. 3, Morrilton, AR
Arizona State University
Cornell University
Cornell University
Vieginia State University
University of Kentucky
University of Arizona
University Center of Dschang
University of Arkansas
Winrock International
P.O. Box 1336, KTM, Nepal
University of Arizona
University of Arizona
University of Minnesota
ICARDA, F.S.P.
Winrock International
Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhiana, India
Kansp- State University
Kansas State University
FSDP-EV, Philippines
BIFAD/USAID
Development Alternatives, Inc.
North Carolina State University
Colorado State University
Population Council
FSSP Case Studies Project
1985, Fourth Quarter
Goube Moussa Gaoh
Scott Swinton
Kwesi Atta-Krah
Charles F. Eno
Habibu Suleiman
Edwin C. French
Harold McArthur
Merle Esmay
Astolfo Fumagalli
Terd Charoenwatana
Perry F. Philipp
Henk C. Knipscheer
Martha Gaudreau
Don Osburn
Ken Buhr
Federico Poey
Cornelia Flora
Chris Andrew
Steve Kearl
Lisette Walecka
Dan Galt
Jim Dean
Jim Jones
Bob Butler
Jim Henson
Jan C. Noel
Alma Owen
John Caldwell
I.N.R.A.N. BP 429 Niamey, Niger
Purdue University
Niger Cereals Research
ILCA PMB 5320 Ibadan, Nigeria
International Programs
University of Florida
ILCA PMB 2248 Kaduna, Niger
University of Florida
University of Hawaii
Michigan State University
ICTA Guatemala
Khon Kaen University, Thailand
University of Hawaii
Winrock International
University of Minnesota
AID
University of Florida
AGRIDEC
Kansas State University
University of Florida
University of Florida
University of Florida
University of Florida
University of Florida
University of Florida
Washington State University
Washington State University
Washington State University
Lincoln University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
rjc003:2 and 16
1985, Fourth Quarter
|
