<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Title Page
 List of Abbreviations
 Table of Contents
 Executive Summary
 Technical Quality and Responsiveness...
 Institutional Qualifications
 Qualifications of the Technical...














PRIVATE ITEM
Digitization of this item is currently in progress.
A technical proposal
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00008188/00001
 Material Information
Title: A technical proposal in response to RFTP No. Malawi 86-002
Portion of title: RFTP No. Malawi 86-002
Physical Description: 127 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm. +
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, FL
Publication Date: 1986
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Agricultural extension work -- Malawi   ( lcsh )
Agricultural systems -- Research -- Malawi   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Malawi
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by the University of Florida.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: "14 March 1986."
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 756679997
ocn756679997
Classification: lcc - S544.6.A6 1986
System ID: AA00008188:00001

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 2
    List of Abbreviations
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Executive Summary
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Technical Quality and Responsiveness of the Proposal
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
    Institutional Qualifications
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
    Qualifications of the Technical Personnel
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
Full Text





.- .s.~r* '-


A TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

in response to

RFTP No: Malawi 86-002




by




THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

14 March 1986











LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


ADD
AGRIDEC
ARC
ARP
ART
CAO
CARO
CIMMYT

CTTA

CTL
DAR
DOA
EAB
EPD
FA
FHA
IARC
ICRAF

.ICRISAT

IDA
ILCA
LTTA
MOA
NARC
NARCU
NCC
NCCU
NRDP
OPC
PD
PO
PP
SECID

STTA
TA
TO
TU
UF
SAID

WP
WPO


Agricultural Development Division
Agricultural Development Consultants, Inc.
Agricultural Research Council
Adaptive Research Program
Adaptive Research Team
Chief Agricultural Officer
Chief Agricultural Research Officer
International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center
Communications for Technology Transfer in
Agriculture
Commodity Team Leader
Department of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture
Extension Aids Branch
Economic Planning Division
Field Assistant
Farm Home Assistant
International Agricultural Research Center
International Council for Research in
Agroforestry
International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics
International Development Association
International Livestock Centre for Africa
Long-Term Technical Assistance
Ministry of Agriculture
National Adaptive Research Coordinator
National Adaptive Research Coordinating Unit
National Commodity Coordinator
National Commodity Coordinating Unit
National Rural Development Program
Office of the President and Cabinet
Planning Division
Professional Officer
Project Paper
Southeast Consortium for International
Development
Short-Term Technical Assistance
Technical Assistant
Technical Officer
Training Unit
University of Florida
United States Agency for International
Development
Women's Programs
Women's Program Officer











CONTENTS


Page

MARE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................. 5

I. TECHNICAL QUALITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Farming Systems Research and Extension...........................20
B. Alternative Approaches and Strategies for Developing Linkages....30
C. Planning for Agricultural Research and Extension................43
D. Setting Program Priorities Needs and Constraints...............48
E. Communications Media for Agricultural Extension....................56
F. Critical Factors Affecting Women Farmers.........................60
G. Implementation Workplan...........................................65
H. Plan for Developing Working Relations with Counterparts..........70

II. INSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
A. Institutional Commitment.......................................72
B. Mobilization of Qualified Technical Personnel......................75
C. Technical Competence and Support Capability ......................76
D. International Experience................................. ..... 78
E. Ability to Nominate Qualified Nominees ..........................85
F. Working Relationship Philosophy.................................86
G. IARCs and Other Agricultural Institutions as Resources...........87
H. Administrative Planning Ability................. ..................88
I. Institutional Support Capability ............. ........... ........95

III. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
A. Technical Competence of Candidates ...............................97
B. Previous International Development Experience...................118
C. Independent and Group Planning Capabilities.....................125

APPENDICES (see Volume II: Appendices to the Technical Proposal)












EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


I. TECHNICAL QUALITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF THE PROPOSAL


With a renewed commitment to the nation of Malawi and with optimism
toward the inherent potential for escalating Malawi's agricultural and
research development, the University of Florida tenders this proposal for
its participation in project MARE. Much thought has entered into the
deliberations over how this university, the supporting SECID universities
and AGRIDEC, Inc. might best support the Government of Malawi through this
proposed contract with the United States Agency for International
Development. The strength of this proposal lies in Florida's understanding
of the expressed needs for agricultural development in Malawi, its strong
commitment to service, and an institutional support capacity embracing the
Land Grant concepts of integrating research, extension and teaching.
This sumary generally adheres to the outline format of evaluation
factors given in the RFTP. The full text of the proposal specifically
adheres to the outline in order to address each evaluation criteria as it
is presented.

A. Farming Systems Research and Extension

The University of Florida endorses the complementarity or parallel
roles of the two vital elements of research and extension working together
to further agricultural development. The underlying concepts and
technical, management and institutional issues associated with adaptive
research are presented and discussed in relation to their roles and
potential in Malawi.
We will work with our Milawi counterparts to determine which areas of
the ARP warrant near- and long-term support, both in operations and in
skills development. Two basic and compatible functions are identified as
those through which we can best provide support to the Malawi ARP. The
first is in technical support to the program in establishing priorities for
organizational, implementation and institutional strategies. We are
prepared to work in concert with the NA to strengthen the ARP and
contribute to its mandate of speeding delivery of improved technology into
the mainstream of smallholder agriculture. We can best provide this
technical assistance by focussing on ways to improve the technical,
management and institutional aspects of the program.
Our second and concurrent function in support of the ARP is to help
develop an indigenous capacity to integrate research and extension more
fully in the development and delivery of agricultural technology through
training. We are prepared to assist in the establishment of a Training
Unit and an attendant Training Unit Advisory Committee within the MQA. We
will support both bodies in undertaking a training needs assessment,
identifying priority needs, and developing a plan for institutionalizing
in-country training.

B. Strategies for Developing Linkages

Adaptive research is in no way a substitute for commodity or discipline
research and it is not a substitute for experiment station research.











Neither can on-farm research with farmer participation substitute for the
broad-based responsibilities of an extension service. There is no
substitute for these; they are the backbone of the Malawi national research
and development effort. Extension, on-farm and on-station research are all
complementary. Extension depends on timely and pertinent information for
dissemination. On-farm research relies on linkages to commoidiy tterials
od i--r--taio rse;rch ly- f
and the productsof station research. On-station researchOcaniinef from
the field tes dgn-adapt-atdon -of technology under real farmco dti-on-s
and constraints and the feedback that adaptive research and extension can
provide.
While we recommend that DAR management take a lead role in realizing
the real and potential benefits of these linkages, there are a number of
specific ways we will provide support; liase with commodity teams at every
opportunity, particularly in the identification of new technology and in
the design and analysis of on-farm trials; assist and support the Training
Unit by describing the needed training and suggest the venue for such
training; develop a staff rotation plan for the consideration of CARO; work
with the ARTs and in the NARCU to develop joint reports with commodity
teams that include more than technical information; and make impact on
smallholder production a near-term priority.
Research and Extension linkages begin at the operational level, in the
ADDs where DAR and DOA personnel work together. We will provide leadership
to develop these linkages through the ARP, specifically with and between
the ARTs. (Recommendations are made in the correlating section of text for
linkages and linkage points between the DAR and the DAO from the management
level to the field level). We will support formal and informal meetings,
workshops and activities that bring research and extension personnel
together to define and plan research programs and activities.
Research and Extension also need to be linked to planners and
policy-makers. We suggest that this process be a phased one and are
prepared to assist MOA leadership in identifying or creating open channels
of communication to nurture a two-way flow of information. We will assume
the leadership role in educating the ARTs of the importance and
responsibility of providing timely information for the planning and
policy-making processes. Just as policy and decisions at the national level
can have a direct impact on smallholder agriculture, information relating
to how the introduction of a new technology might affect the total
production system can influence policy.
Linking programs in research and extension with an agricultural
training program is seen as an integral opportunity to provide skills
development. Our strategy is to work with the MQA Training Unit to develop
a flexible training program, proactive in nature, in support of priority
programs and projects. We will work with the TU to conceptualize plans and
objectives for a manpower development plan, draw on our institutional
resources for technical training support, and assist in developing a
catalog of training opportunities available through various outside
institutions. At the same time, we will solicit assistance of the TU as we
work with our counterparts to develop an in-house training capability.

C. Planning for Agricultural Research and Extension

The MARE Project purpose parallels the MOA's development plan to
improve per capital real income and the productivity of the smallholder
farmer. Three essential components of this plan are: developing basic











national capacity; a Master Plan for Agricultural Research; and a Plan for
Agricultural Extension.
In developing national capacity we suggest and will help facilitate the
following complements to past and present planning: that DAR and DOA
management meet to assign functional responsibilities in the process of
technology development, testing and transfer; that Departments and their
entities meet to develop job assignments to accomplish functional
responsibilities; and that Departments meet to describe the required
program, enabling, normative and diffusion linkages required to accomplish
functional linkages.
We recommend that the DAR, with advice and input from the DOA, MOA
Planning Division and the OPC Economic Planning Division, develop the
Master Plan for Agricultural Research. We would assist the DAR in this
effort through the LTTAs and diverse pool of scientists and specialists who
are available for short-term assistance. As part of our contribution we
will also make a concerted effort to work with DAR scientists to more fully
develop working relations with neighboring, regional and international
agricultural research organizations to identify promising new germplasm and
technologies.
Creating linkages with research and providing needed training have been
mentioned as part of a plan we support for agricultural extension in
Malawi. We will also support decentralization of the Extension Aids
Branch, a move particularly appropriate to the theme of decreasing the
distance between technology development and technology transfer. We
recommend, for the near-term, that the DQA focus its participation at the
operational level of the adaptive research process to capitalize and build
on the interface between research and extension at that level.

D. Setting Program Priorities Needs and Constraints

Groups and individuals sharing responsibility for developing program
priorities need a set of guidelines or criteria as parameters within which
to make reasoned decisions. Malawi's Extension and Research services have
plans and mechanisms in place for defining their priorities. Because
physical, fiscal and human resources are limited, these must be allocated
to the highest priorities. As staff are trained, as facilities to support
programs are developed, and as government gives recognition to research and
extension efforts through increased fiscal support, research and extension
activities can be expanded to other areas.
In the priority-setting process for research we recommend that the DAR
and the ARC consider the potential dichotomy of national and regional
responsibilities. Commodity Teams have the responsibility of solving the
most important problems of the nation as a whole, while ARTs will be
regionally-oriented (ADDs). Commodity Teams and the ARTs must be made
aware that they may have to devote their efforts to something other than
their first priority in order to achieve an equitable balance between
national and regional priorities (e.g., the Maize Commodity Team might be
able to make the most significant National impact on maize production by
breeding a 120-day maturity semi-flint hybrid but, a 90-day maturity flint
open-pollinated variety may have to be developed to avert food shortages in
a particular area).
We recommend that the DAR delegate the authority and responsibility for
developing sound attainable objectives, and alternatives for achieving
those objectives, to the Commodity Coordinators, the National Research











Coordinators, and the National Adaptive Research Coordinator. We will work
with these Coordinators to move aggressively to strengthen/develop close
and cooperative working relations with neighboring, regional and
international agricultural research organizations in order to identify
existing technology and/or germplasm that might fill an unidentified need.
We support the close cooperation and working relationships between
research and extension, recognizing that interaction at the operational
level is an appropriate forum for this process to begin. We perceive the
close cooperation between the research and extension functions as central
to the effectiveness of either function. Extension is expected to have a
significant input into the process of defining research priorities from
their daily contact with farmers and their participation on the ARTs to
their seat on the ARC. This is appropriate because what becomes a research
priority will later become an extension priority.
For the same reason we encourage the decentralization of the process
for making production recommendations. With advice and counsel from the
National Extension Commodity Committee Chairmen, the National Extension
Research Coordinator and DAR scientists, extension priorities can be set at
the ADD-level with due consideration given to the availability of relevant
technology and ADD resources. The expected results are location-specific
production recommendations.

E. Communications Media for Agricultural Extension

The extension/communication activities of the MARE Project should be
one component within an integrated (planned) system of components that make
agricultural change possible. MARE and the ARP can perform a logical and
integral function by providing technological input, and regularly provide
substantive and topical information for use by EAB. Through the ARTs,
LTTAs and their Malawi counterparts will be well-situated to help develop
and test materials for use by EAB, and be in a position to help monitor and
evaluate receptiveness on the part of farmers to the information being
delivered through various media.
MARE and the ARP stand ready to help coordinate a regular flow of
information within the Extension Program, between Extension and Research,
and among the farmers, extension workers, researchers and the providers of
goods and services. MARE and the ARP are in a position to help identify
constraints at the national, regional and field level over which extension
has no control, and to identify technologies and recommendations that have
relevance and cause for wider dissemination. MARE's role would be to
initiate and encourage the flow of information at each stage of the process
(integration of communications support to research and extension into the
overall extension program becoming more farmer-oriented).
We recommend that favorable consideration be given to locating the CTTA
pilot project in one of the ADDs in which an ARP is established and
functioning. This would provide an excellent opportunity for strengthening
the mass communications component of the EAB, both in content and process.
It would also provide a basis for testing and evaluating communications, to
determine the nature, form and content of messages that can be recommended
for replication by EAB and incorporation into the MQA's broader
communications program.











F. Critical Factors Affecting Women Farmers


Major emphasis of a plan of work for integrating women into the MOA's
development strategy should be placed on identifying those areas in which
women, as producers, can contribute most effectively and rapidly in
agricultural development. We will work with our counterparts to conduct a
general needs assessment and further, at the ADD-level, for a needs
assessment in the selected planning areas. The on-farm research of the
ARTs provides both an entry point for this process to begin and for the
Women's Program to grow through participation of FHAs and their field
assistants.
Extension objectives would first be to demonstrate impact with the
potential clientele. A second major objective of the extension element
related to women farmers is to develop methods of reaching them that can be
expected to be effective in other parts of the country. We will assist the
MQA to achieve this objective by redefining the role of Women's Programs
and by working with the Evaluation Sections at the ADD-level.
Successful program implementation will require training for extension
personnel (which is called for in both the MARE and IDA-financed
Agricultural Extension Support Projects). FHAs and their field assistants
will need to acquire some expertise in agricultural production. Extension
personnel will need to learn how to effectively deliver information and how
to collect information.
We will work with the MOA to develop in-country capacity and short
courses to achieve training objectives. We will also work with the
Evaluation Sections at the ADD-level to ensure that our evaluation needs
mesh with their ongoing evaluation processes.

G. Implementation Workplan

We have extrapolated the log frame from the MARE Project Paper and have
converted "end of project status" into "project objectives" to develop
verifiable activities for the TA Team. These objectives represent the
significant planning and forethought of the original project designers.
Insofar as the Malawi Government and USAID remain in accordance with the
outlined objectives they constitute a set of guidelines for project
implementation.
Procedure for implementation is related in the accompanying text, that
is, an operational timeframe and the logistics of team implementation.
What is lacking is the program planning and priority setting summarized
above in Section I-D and fully addressed in the corellating Section I-D of
the accompanying text.
An implementation workplan should reflect the current state and forward
planning of agricultural research and extension in Malawi in order to
define priorities, establish procedure and criteria, define programs for
the near-term, and otherwise illustrate how the MARE Project activities in
research and extension fit into the larger role of the MOA to strengthen
its institutional capabilities. This process of refinement must be
undertaken in collaboration with the MOA and with Malawi counterparts.
In a sense, development of an implementation plan is the first
evaluation of the project, as it was originally conceived against the
realities of present circumstances. We are prepared to work with all
parties involved, and collectively with our Malawi counterparts, to ensure
that the MARE scope of work and implementation plan is compatible with the











MOA's long-range development plan and is consistent with current
objectives.

H. Plan for Developing Working Relations with Counterparts

Working relationships, especially productive ones, have their genesis
in mutual respect and understanding which are developed over time. Our
approach to foster this kind of relationship is to select team members who
are genuinely committed to counterpart development as a means of
institution building.
We believe that institutions are built on well-trained people who are
capable of developing sound programs. Advanced degree, specialized
training at an IARC, in-service and on-the-job training all significantly
contribute to the process of human development. The MOA and the MARE and
IDA projects have delineated those positions requiring skill upgrading
through advanced degree training and have made provisions for non-degree
training of all types, without matching a specific type to a specific area.
In support of these efforts we recommend that training be a required item
on each LTTA workplan so that there is a consistent contribution from the
LTTAs as trainers (this recommendation would apply to workplans developed
for STTAs as well).
We will, as part of preparing technicians for assignment, highlight the
importance of counterpart input into program development. Although the
MARE Project Paper mandates certain expatriate technicians to develop
programs, we believe this would be of transitory value to Malawi unless
Malwians are directly involved in the process. In fact, the Project Paper
abets this, because, with the exception of the Adaptive Research
Agronomist, all LTTA are assigned advisory rather than supervisory roles.
Our aim is to develop working relations with counterparts by learning
from them and sharing with them knowledge and expertise in: technical
areas; program development and execution; planning; personnel, program and
fiscal management; and analysis.


II. INSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

A. Institutional Commitment

On philosophical grounds, our collective decision to submit this
proposal is an outgrowth of our joint historical commitment to
international development. UF has been actively engaged in international
development for almost forty years; SECID and AGRIDEC were created
specifically to provide technical assistance, training, research and
extension services to LDCs. Our specific commitment to cooperating with
the MOA in implementing the MARE Project stems from our joint recognition
and agreement with the GOM's agricultural development plan, our own
collective capacities in view of the objectives of the project, our
commitment to applied and adaptive agricultural research, and our joint
commitment to developing long-term and mutually beneficial linkages with
our Malawian colleagues.
This commitment is buttressed with written statements of commitment by
UF, SECID, AGRIDEC, participating SECID member institutions, and individual
letters of commitment from each of our long-term nominees.











B. Mobilization of Qualified Technical Personnel

UF, SECID, and AGRIDEC are prepared to provide all highly qualified
long- and short-term technical personnel from their full-time faculty and
staff. Further all of our nominees have explicitly requestedTthattheir
names be entered for consideration. We view this as important because of
our commitment to establishing relationships which will continue after the
Project's conclusion.
We are also mindful of the desire of the MOA to strengthen linkages
with the international agricultural community and are prepared to utilize
our existing linkages with the International Agricultural Research Centers
(IARCs) to facilitate such linkages. To this end we have made initiated
overtures with ICRISAT, CIMMYT, and CIP seeking their expressed interest in
assisting us in this effort.

C. Technical Competence and Support Capability

Our participating institutions have outstanding resources in the
technical areas of agricultural economics, agronomy, forestry,
horticulture, plant pathology/ plant physiology/entomology,
anthropology/sociology, and communications. This technical competence is
complemented with extensive experience in adaptive research, programs
focusing upon women's agricultural programs, extension capabilities, and our
institutional support services.

D. International Experience

Individually and collectively our institutions have extensive
international experience in implementing projects relevant to MARE. UF,
SECID, and AGRIDEC have all undertaken projects in Africa.
UF has implemented long-term projects in Malawi, Cameroon, Zimbabwe,
and worldwide through the Farming Systems Support Project. In addition, UF
has implemented comparable projects in Bolivia, Colombia, Guyana, Jamaica,
Ecuador, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Vietnam.
SECID's African project implementation experience includes efforts in
Senegal, Guinea, Mali, Kenya, Seychelles, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Zambia,
and Zaire. Other relevant projects have been implemented in the Eastern
Caribbean, Belize, Nepal, and Sri Lanka,
AGRIDEC has provided extensive short-term technical assistance and
training in Senegal, the Gambia, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Guatemala,
Ecuador, Colombia, and Honduras.
The institutions engaged in this proposal have implemented farming
systems research and extension projects; all have worked under the
technical direction of host country personn-el; and all have engaged in
institutional strengthening efforts.

E. Qualified Nominees

Individual nominees have been carefully selected, first, for their
production capacity in their respective disciplines, second, for their
ability to work in the field, third, for their commitment to the concepts
of MARE, and fourth, for their availability. We have confidence in the
people we are presenting in support of our proposal. (Detailed











biographical descriptions for each nominee are presented in the text of
Chapter III). All of our nominees are prepared to assume their assignments
(if selected) within 60 days of the signing of the contract.

F. Working Relationship Philosophy

We perceive this effort as a collaborative undertaking, requiring close
cooperation of all participants in order to optimize its implementation.
Our role will be to assist the MOA, working chiefly under the direction of
the Chief Agricultural Research Officer, DAR, and the Chief Agricultural
Officer, DQA, to further strengthen the Ministry's capacity to improve
smallholder productivity and incomes. Operationalizing this relationship
calls for a management system that addresses three levels of interaction;
MOA/USAID-Contractor; MOA/USAID-Team; and Team-Contractor.
The relationship between the MOA/USAID and the University of Florida
and its partners must take account of technical, administrative and
management issues. Overall policy, planning and implementation issues will
be addressed by an MQA-appointed Steering Committee which will interact
with our project Advisory Council. Ongoing implementation issues will call
for direct interaction between our Home Campus Coordinator, the DAR's Chief
Agricultural Research Officer (CARO), and the DOA's Chief Agricultural
Officer (CAO).
The Steering Committee-Project Advisory Council will meet annually to
develop the year's workplan and to discuss and resolve progress and
problems.
With respect to MOA/USAID-Team relationships, team members will serve
under the technical direction of the CARO and CAO, depending upon their
specific assignments. In effect, the team will serve technically and
administratively as M&A employees in their respective assignments. To the
extent that issues arise which impact upon the team as a whole, the
University of Florida will appoint one of the team members to serve as
facilitator. The facilitator's role will be to interact with the CARO, CAO
and USAID Project Officer to address any such issues.
In order to expedite effective backstopping and support of the team, we
will appoint a spouse of one of the team members to serve as an
administrative assistant. The administrative assistant will handle
logistic, procurement, financial, reporting and other administrative
details to ensure effective performance of the team.

G. IARCs and Other Agricultural Institutions as Resources

We have the ability to facilitate greater utilization of IARC
resources. Our linkages with CIMMYT, CIAT, ICRISAT, IITA, CIP, IRRI,
CATIE, AND IBPGR are through formal memoranda of understanding, joint
research and'membership on their boards. We have maintained good working
relationships with ICRAF, WARDA, ICARDA, ICIPE, ISNAR and ILCA. Again,
ICRISAT, CIMMYT and CIP have explicitly stated their preparedness to
provide their support to MARE.
These relationships will be utilized to assist the MQA in its own
strengthening and networking efforts with the international agricultural
research community.











H. Administrative Planning Ability


Effective management for the project requires establishing two closely
related and finely tuned administrative structures: one which ensures that
on-site activities in Malawi proceed according to plan; another to provide
effective and timely U.S. contractor support to the project. As prime
contractor, UF will be responsible to USAID and to the GOM/MOA for the
management of all activities under this project which are the
responsibilities of the contractor. This will include reporting and
planning requirements. We perceive, for example, the Annual Budget and
Workplan as the product of close collaboration between the MQA Steering
Committee and the Project Advisory Council of the contractor (PAC).
The PAC will travel annually to Lilongwe to meet with the Steering
Committee to discuss and develop the workplan. These discussions will also
include feedback from the field team and their MQA counterparts. The
initial workplan will focus on substantive technical and project startup
issues, scopes of work for each long-term team member, anticipated
short-term consultancy needs, procurement requirements, and the budgetary
level of effort anticipated to carry out the year's activities.
Quarterly financial reports will encompass all funds expended for a
particular quarter, including expenses in the field. In order to account
for field expenses, we propose appointing an individual to serve as
administrative assistant. The administrative assistant will forward a
complete quarterly accounting of all transactions, accompanied with
receipts to the Home Campus Coordinator at UF, who will incorporate such
expenses into the Quarterly Financial Report.
The Home Campus Coordinator will alsd be responsible for the project
semi-annual technical reports. He will travel to Lilongwe twice a year
(one of the trips being the same as for the annual work plan and budget),
meet with the Steering Committee, team members, and with USAID/Malawi. In
advance of these meetings, team members will have drafted individual
reports for submission to the Home Campus Coordinator. These reports and
results of meetings will form the basis of the semi-annual technical
report.
Each short-term consultant will also be required to submit a
comprehensive report prior to departure. The drafts will be forwarded to
the administrative assistant for processing with copies submitted to the
MOA, USAID, and the Home Campus Coordinator.
Internal administration of the project in Malawi will be kept to a
minimum, in keeping with the intent of the project. We perceive two
administrative positions as necessary: the appointment of one team member
to serve as facilitator; and the appointment of a project administrative
assistant. The facilitator will be a team member appointed by UF. As
facilitator he/she will focus on facilitating the orderly disposition of
those activities which impact upon the team as a whole. Such activities
will include serving as spokesperson for the team with USAID, GOM, and
other appropriate organizations when this is called for; oversight and
liaison with the project administrative assistant in meeting logistical
operations requirements; coordinating short-term technical assistance
activities; and oversight of performance evaluations of team members in
conformance with contractor requirements.
The administrative assistant will assist the MOA and USAID in preparing
project implementation orders for technicians and commodities; coordinate
procurement efforts and oversee acquisition of local purchases of project










commodities; serve as control officer, handling all logistical support
arrangements for short-term project consultants, maintain project records,
cahs accounts, financial records in accordance with the requirements of
USAID, the GOM and UF; assist team members regarding travel; shipment of
household an other effects; clearance of duty-free imports and other
support duties; and work closely with the Mission financial officer.
Administration in the U.S. will be overseen by the Home Campus
Coordinator, Dr. Hugh L. Popenoe, Director, Center for Tropical
Agriculture, UF. He will assume responsibility for overall project
direction regarding U.S. inputs. These will include services such as
financial management; coordination of travel for technical assistance
personnel; coordination of services for the preparation of all reports as
specified in the RFTP; and assisting in providing information and support
regarding institutional linkage opportunities with participating
institutions and IARCs and facilitating faculty/staff exchanges. UF will
appoint a Project Manager from among its staff to assist the Home Campus
Coordinator in coordinating these logistical and financial arrangements.
Policy oversight and coordination of U.S. project administration and annual
planning will be undertaken by a Project Advisory Council (PAC), chaired by
the Home Campus Coordinator. Representatives from SECID and AGRIDEC will
also sit on the PAC. SECID's Procurement Department will be utilized to
provide timely and cost-effective commodity procurement services.

I. Institutional Support Capability

Specific backstopping responsibilities will include a predeparture
orientation, timely arrival of the team, rapid identification and fielding
of short-term personnel, commodities procurement, and professional support
in the form of technical documentation, texts, equipment, examples of
technology packages, computer processing and other relevant support. UF
has a Center for African Studies in place, including a Malawi Library, to
facilitate such backstopping. This resource will be augmented by the
library and extension resources of the other institutions participating in
submitting this proposal.
Rapid technical support services can be facilitated by international
couriers. We are also prepared to meet emergency short-term technical
assistance requests on a 21-day turn around basis. Personal/nedical
emergencies will be addressed through providing long- and short-term team
members with International SOS Assistance. Similarly, the administrative
assistant will be provided with a credit card to be used in emergencies for
expediting the return of any team members. On a non-emergency basis, the
administrative assistant will arrange approved home leave and R&R travel.



III. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL

We are proud to nominate eighteen long-term and 75 short-term
candidates for consideration. Each has the requisite qualifications to
work with the MQA in implementing this project; each has specifically
stated his or her intent to serve if nominated; and each long-term
candidate has submitted a letter of commitment verifying this intent.
The following Table 0.1 summarizes the capabilities of our long-term
nominees. (Table III-1 in the text provides similar information regarding











our short-term nominees). As can be seen from these tables, we are
prepared to provide the MQA and USAID with considerable choice. Moreover,
those long-term nominees not selected will be available for short-term
consultancies, further augmenting our capabilities.
UF, SECID and AGRIDEC are confident that our nominees' technical
competence, previous international experience, and abilities to
conceptualize and formulate plans of action independently and as part of a
team, have prepared them well to work with their DAR and DOA colleagues in
implementing this project. Taken together with the strong institutional
resources and commitment evidenced in Chapter II, we believe that we are
prepared to work closely and effectively with our Malawian counterparts in
making this important project a success.








TABLE 0.1


IONJ-rERM MlIlNEE'S (C I FICATICNS


INS IrmIUIAL YEARS REIvENT INT- INCEPENCENT
POSITION NCMIEES AFFLUAITION DEEE SPECIALIZATION EXPERIENCE ERTICMAL AND GRIP
EXPERIENCE PLWEIN
EXPERIENCE


Dr. Michael
Hannig


Dr. Robin
Henning


Claesc1nSECID






North Carolina
A&T/SECID


Ph.D.
Washington
State




Ph.D.
brnell


Production Econ-
ics; policy anal-
ysis; nmnetary,
fiscal & trade
impacts on farm
organization

Production Exoonm-
ics; agricultural
policy; eoonmic
development


Brazil, El
Salvador





Lesotho, South
Africa, Panaa,
EBuador, Argen-
tina, Brazil,
Uraguay, Para-
guay, Oolarbia
DMnican Rpb-
lic, St. Vincent


Multidisci-
plinary tean
mmber, research
tean leader



Chief of Party;
tean number;
individual
xnsultant


Er. Carter
Price


Arkansas/SECID


Ph.D
LSU


Production Eormn-
ics; policy analy-
ses; farm level
surveys; production
and marketing; con-
nodity marketing


Egypt, Philipp- Indeperden
ines advisor;
Mnrter of
nultidiscipli-
nary tean


Er. PJ.
van Blokland


Florida


Ph.D. Production Erxonm-
Illinois ics; farm business;
farm management; Ag-
ricultural finance;
FSR/E


23 Malawi,Tanzania ESSP tean
Swaziland, master;
Trinidad, Bar- president of
bados, Jamaica oansultirg firm,
project leader


PRCI.X-CICN
EINMI:SST
EMU=ria







Table 0.1 (cont'd)


INSITIUTICNAL YEARS EEEVANT INT- INiEPENEN
OSITICN NOMINEES AFFILIATION DEXEE SPECIALIZATION EXPERIENCE EFTINAL AND GKCUP
EXPERIENCE PLANNING
EXPERIENCE

AGRCt MIST Dr. Udai Alabama A&M/ Ph.D. Agronany, seed tech- 23+ Kerya, Sudan FSR/E project
Bishnoi SECID Mississippi nology, plant science Garbia, India leader, FSR/E
State crop production, for- tean number
nnagmennt, FSR/E

Dr. Shennan Florida Ph.D. Agranony, maize br- 6+ Malawi Chief of Party,
Pasley Florida eeding; heat breed- tean number
ing, genetics; FSR/E


ARICJLTaURAL Dr. RIbert
EX0XN4IST Peeser


Er. James
Stallirgs


AGRIDEC


Auburn/SECID


Ph.D.
Chio State


Ph.D.
Michigan
State


Land Boonanics;
farm management;
en-farm research;
extension

Eooxnnic theory,
on-farm research;
subsistence fana-
ing systte; sta-
tistics


Mali, Burkina
Faso, Egypt,
Tunisia,
Guyana


Tanzania, Swmz-
iland, Rwanda,
Burkina Faso,
Guyana


Chief of Party
multi-
disciplinary
tean mmbter


Team leader,
Department
head, multi-
disciplinary
tean matter


3RTIGTCUURIS
Dr. Alberto
Beale


Cr. Gcrege
Marlowe, Jr.


Florida


Ph.D.
Florida




Ph.D.
Maryland


Agronmy and
soils; crop
production and
weed management;
FSP/E

Horticulture;
Fruit and vegetable
crops, FSR/E


Costa Rica,
Puerto Rico,
Nicaragua,
Panam


Pr
le
di!
te


Malawi, Caner- Ch
oan, Nigeria, Re
Guyana, Costa OQ
Rica, El Sal- nu
vacbr, Malay- ar
sia, Venezuela,
Singapore, Viet
Nan, Mexico, Tai-
wan, Phillippines,
Jordan


oject
ader, multi-
sciplinary
am mntber


ief of Party,
search
ordinator
Itidisciplin-
y tean mnaber










INSrmIUITCNfAL YEARS REELVANT INU- INiEPENENr-
PCoSrICN NOMINEES AFFILIATION DEXEE SPCIALIZATICN EXPERIENCE ERNFMCNAL MA GROUP
EXPERIENCE PLANNING
EXPERIENCE


AI3R-FCESIER
Dr. Bob Karr


Mississippi
State/SBCID


Er. Ricartb
Russo


Ph.D. Forestry, Agro-for- 13
Texas A&M estry; range science;
statistics


Ph.D.
autheatern


rc. Frank Wxods 'Innessee/SECID


Agro-forestry; bio-
mass production;
multi-purpose legun-
enous trees; farming
systems research


Ph.D. Ebology, Igro- 32
Tennessee forestry; poly-
culture; plantations
silviculture; refores-
taticn


Kenya


Obsta Rica
Maxico, Argen-


VWneaela,
Etuador
Panana


Department head;
multidisciplin-
ary tean member,
project leader

Agro-forestry
researcher,
forestry inspector
tean number


Director of
Research,
multidisciplinary
tean maber,
research associate


AmRICUG
TURAL
(r44NI-
CTICNS
SPECIALIST


Dr. (brdell
Hatch


Dr. L. Van
Crowder


Pennsylvania
State/SECID


Florida


Ph.D.
Wisconsin


Ph.D.
Cbrnell


QOmirnicaticns 354-
strategies for LDCs;
TV techniques; camnn-
ications methods &
media; extension
communications

Extension xonmnic- 10+
ations media and
education; media
package development


Kenya, Seyc-
lles, Swaziland
Nepal, Philipp-
ines, Cblarbia
Argentina


olivia


Individual ..
acosultant
design tean
nbrer


Multidisciplinary
team nammer,
extension
trainer


--


'Table 0.1 (cont'd)







Table 0.1 (oont'd)


INmnTIMNAL YEARS uEEMrV INF- INoEMECE
PCSMITN NMIBEES AFFILATIN CEGEE SPE=IALIZAmTN EXIE T EMTINMAL AN GRX3P

EKEPMPIEMMNCE
Em EmltE


Or. Vickie
signan


ID. Marilyn
Swisher



Dr. Helga
Vierichd


Ph.D. Agricultural edu- I
Illinois cation research-
extension linkages;
agricultural product-
ion for ~men fanners


Florida




Kentucky/SCID


Ph.D.




Ph.D.
7tronto


Geography, soil
science, FSP/E;
applied field res-
earch; extension
technologies
Anthropology; eco-
nomic anthropology;
FSR/E anallholder
assasanent


Zabia, COsta
Rica, Belize
Mexico, Indo
nesia


Obsta Rica




Botswena,
urkina Faso


ESE Progran
extension
liaison specialist
tean maser


Project leader
research
associate


Individual
researcher
F9s -ICRKISa T
teae artber


IW3EN'S

SPECIAULSr











I. TECHNICAL QUALITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF THE PROPOSAL


A. Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E)

1. Underlying Concepts of FSR/E

The underlying concepts of FSR/E* are well-documented, having
evolved over the past 20 years through several schools of thought, and
through demonstrated programs in many countries. In the Statement of
the Representatives of the IARCs, Workshop on Farming Systems Research,
February, 1986, Hydrabad, India,

"it was agreed that the underlying concept is that
farming systems research is an approach to agricultural
research. A farming systems approach has the following
characteristics:
1. Problem solving research units which explicitly
recognizes the farmer and other agents in the food
system as the primary clients of agricultural research
systems.
2. Research which recognizes interactions between
different sub-sytems in' the farming system and which may
often require a multi-commodity approach.
3. Research with an inter-disciplinary approach that
requires close collaboration among technical scientists
(physical and biological) and social scientists.
The farming systems approach aims to improve the
efficiency and relevance of the agricultural research
system, especially in terms of increasing the
productivity and income stability of small farming
households while preserving the resource base. A
farming systems approach is best incorporated through
complementary on-farm and on-station research with
farmers' perspectives playing an integral role in
technology design and development. In a farming systems
approach, on-farm research is conducted with farmer
participation in order to understand existing farming
systems, identify problems and research opportunities,
test appropriate solutions, and monitor acceptance of
improved technologies."

In this MARE Project proposal we fully endorse this succinct and
descriptive statement and would add that to realize the maximum
effectiveness of the ARP, the two vital elements of research and
extension must work together in a parallel or complementary effort.
One way of effecting this is through an expansion of the Program,
incorporating extension and research in a National effort from the
policy level to the level of monitoring on-farm trials. The rationale
for an expansion lies in the ability of an ARP to provide valuable

*Farming Systems Research will often in this proposal be referred to
as adaptive research or the Adaptive Research Program to reconcile the
RFTP with the PP and with the nomenclature used for the Malawi on-farm
research program.











information, not only for farmers, but also for researchers, extension
workers and policy makers.
Adaptive research is in no way a substitute for commodity or
discipline research and it is not a substitute for experiment station
research. There is no substitute for these; they are the backbone of
the Malawi National research and development effort. Adaptive research
relies on commodity materials and station research and enhances the
ability of National research efforts to reach, and more directly
reflect, the needs of farmers.

a. Technical Issues
In designing agricultural research and extension projects,
specific agricultural production technologies may be desired end
products. But, the focus of the project itself falls more
pointedly on organization and management directed toward improving
the development, transfer, and delivery processes. Models are
frequently employed to provide a firm conceptual base and to help
test ideas and suggest new ones. The Technology Innovation
Process Model places adaptive research in context of a process
viewed as a continuum linking research and extension and, shows
its value in the process as well as its limitations when it is
viewed from outside the process.

Technology Innovation Process*

IWorld I I Tech I Tech I Tech I Tech I Tech | Diffuse I
IStock I Sci I Genr I Testg I Adapt I Integ I Disem I & I
jKnldg I I tion I I ation I rtion nation j Adopt I


Adaptive research addresses the functions of testing,
adaptation and integration. These functions are essential to the
technology innovation process and deal directly with a segment of
the process in which research and extension both have an interest.
In addition, the Model demonstrates the inadequacy of adaptive
research if it is not directly linked to a source of technology
(on the left) and to a dissemination function (on the right).
Adaptive research sends messages (to the left) to describe
the technology that farmers need. To adequately describe the
required technology, adaptive research must view the farm in its
entirety or as a system because changes in one enterprise may, and
usually do, affect other enterprises in the system. Biological,
economical, and social factors require due consideration in
describing technology needs. Thus, a multidisciplinary approach
is required to fully assess and describe the system. At the same
time, adaptive
research sends messages (or a finished technological product) to
the right end of the continuum so that an integral part of this
function is to train or familiarize extension in its use.



*Research and Extension. Farming Systems Support Project,1985.











b. Management Issues
The central issue of adaptive research management is to
maintain a sharply focused approach to priority farmer problems in
a cost-effective manner while effecting the linkages that are
essential to making the Program effective. Although research
requires a significant capital investment, it can through
careful planning be made cost as well as technically-effective.
In this it can be likened to a business whose clients are
smallholder farmers. As with any business, if the product does
not meet the needs of the clients or if it costs more to produce
than it is worth to the clients, the business will fail. On-farm
research stands to possibly reduce overall research and extension
costs by making technology more applicable to farmers.
In initiating and managing an on-farm research program (or
any other research program), a number of issues require
consideration before and during the implementation stage. Many of
the issues are as pertinent to the U.S. as they are to Malawi
because they have a direct bearing on the success or failure of
programs. These issues include:

1. Manpower development capabilities;
2. Adequate logistic support;
3. Adequate financing to achieve the expected function;
4. Adequate and/or effective linkages with regional and
international technology networks;
5. Ability to develop strategic plans;
6. Strength of research-extension linkages; and,
7. Personnel management capabilities.

Because some, if not all, of these issues will be limiting
factors, we will, in our advisory and adaptive research management
role, work with our counterparts to set realistic attainable
objectives and prioritize efforts (addressed more fully in this
proposal) with the full realization that these limiting factors
(management issues) will, in most cases, be exacerbated by
underdeveloped management skills. Host countries and donors have
directed particular attention to developing technical skills in
LDCs but, management skill-needs, which have often been neglected,
are of equal importance because physical, fiscal and human
limitations in this sector are usually pronounced.

c. Institutional Issues
In addressing institutional issues, it is necessary to
differentiate between the terms "institution" and "organization."
An institution, even though it has reality, is invisible and must
function through a concrete and specific organization to become
tangible.
The institution we are dealing with in adaptive research is
an innovation in the technology development and transfer process
which is expected to impact favorably on agricultural production
which will gain public support for the innovation. Through
adaptive research, it is expected that producers will be freed
from inadequate or inappropriate technology and that consumers
will be freed from food shortages and high food prices. In the











process, and concurrently, businesses serving agriculture and
those dependent on agriculture are expected to expand and increase
their activity. In order for these goals to be reached, adaptive
research must have a significant impact on the production of a
large and widespread number of farmers.
From the concept of institutions, it is possible to identify
several criteria that must be achieved in order for institution
building activities, undertaken within organizations, to
eventually result in an impact on individual action or behavior of
such a nature and scale that these organizations will have gained
an institutional status. Four such criteria are:

1. The organization must be effective in its function (valued
by Society);
2. The organization's programs must operate on a significant
scale;
3. The organization must have stability so that its impacts can
accumulate and its personnel can develop specialized skills
and knowledge; and,
4. The organization must persist over time so that its clients
can depend upon it.

From the foregoing, it follows that for adaptive research to
become institutionalized it must: (1) be more effective than
alternative approaches; (2) provide services to the majority of
smallholder farmers; (3) have a long-term commitment from Ministry
of Agriculture (MOA) management; (4) concentrate on the priority
problems of a significant number of smallholder farmers; (5) offer
farmers technology that is significantly better in terms of
production than their existing practices; and, (6) effect tangible
improvements in smallholder farmers' production within a
reasonable time frame. We will use these points as criteria in
the development and expansion of the ARP.

2. Organizational Strategy

Following a comprehensive planning and cooperative effort between
the Department of Agricultural Research (DAR) and the Department of
Agriculture (DQA) which houses the Extension Service, the M3A
instituted a well-organized ARP in 1983. This Program, which is still
evolving, was founded on the complementarities and mutual benefits that
exist between adaptive on-farm research and commodity oriented
on-station applied research. The Malawi ARP has two basic functions:
(1) to serve as a conduit for a two-way flow of information from
farmer to researcher to policy planners and back again through the
Extension Service to the smallholder and, (2) to serve as a mechanism
for both linking research more closely to extension and, on a more
consciousness-raising level, for firmly connecting applied research
investigations to the realities of the smallholder production system.
For development purposes, Malawi is divided into eight
Agricultural Development Divisions (ADDs). In light of fiscal,
physical, and human resources, the MOA plans to locate an Adaptive
Research Team (ART) composed of a biological and social scientist from
the DAR and an extension specialist from the DQA in each ADD to provide











fairly comprehensive adaptive research coverage of Malawi. Specialized
technical assistance from the DAR to this core team will be available
through the services of applied researchers on a case-by-case basis.
To assure the necessary close and continuing working relations between
adaptive and applied researchers and between adaptive researchers and
extensionists, the ARP plan calls for housing the ARTs technically
within the DAR and operationally within the DOA. Thus, management
procedures have been built into the Program that require the ARTs to
liase with applied researchers and/or extensionists through every step
of the adaptive research process. To date, three ARTs have been
trained and deployed (with the assistance of CIMMYT and the UF) to the
Blantyre, Lilongwe, and Kasungu ADDs.
Despite the fact that the ARP is still in its developmental
stages, it is regarded as a model for East Africa. Our organizational
strategy, therefore, is to support the existing ARTs, whose progress to
date will offer guidance in the training and deployment of additional
teams according to the Malawi plan. This approach is intended to
capitalize both on the dynamism built into the Program and on the
enthusiasm that exists for the emerging and potential benefits of
adaptive on-farm research.
The organization of the ARP, as with any dynamic responsive
entity, can be adjusted as necessary for efficiency and technical
effectiveness. Mechanisms originally built into the ARP accommodate
justified changes to strengthen the Program.
Based upon our experience with the ARP to date, we do not see a
requirement for a major modification of the Program. On the other
hand, it would seem to be a propitious time to address certain
technical, management and institutional aspects of the Program before
new ARTs are deployed to build or strengthen the solid foundations of
the Program. The following suggestions are based upon our experience
with the ARP, the value of which should be judged against the
evolvement of the ARP to date, and should be considered in the light of
identified National and farmers' requirements. We will encourage the
continued participation of CIMMYT (which has assisted with the
development of the ARP since its inception) in the institutional
development of the Program.

a. Integration of Applied Researchers
We will assist our DAR colleagues to integrate applied
researchers into the adaptive research process on a regular rather
than an as-needed basis. For example, should investigations
indicate that rosette constituted a major impediment to groundnut
production in a target area, members of the Groundnut Commodity
Team will participate in the surveys and in the design and
monitoring of the on-farm trials. The results of this cooperation
will be mutually beneficial: on-station researchers'
understanding of farmers' problems will be based on fact rather
than intuition (which could not fail to influence future
on-station research); on-farm trials would include the most
relevant technology; and, on-station researchers would have a base
to compare the performance of technology both on- and off-station.











b. Addressing Livestock Components
Donors are hesitant to fund livestock projects in Africa.
However, because adaptive research views a farm as a complete and
integrated system, livestock cannot be ignored. We will,
therefore, solicit the assistance of ILCA to strengthen the
livestock aspects of the ARP because this Center is the
acknowledged leader in on-farm animal research (to July of 1985,
ILCA input into the ARP had been minimal).
By developing an on-farm animal research capability, we do
not intend a priori to initiate a livestock sub-project but we
believe that no opportunity should be overlooked to make the
smallholder's system more productive. For example, as the ARTs
look at crop diversification, they may also wish to examine the
possibilities of using certain crop by-products as animal feeds.
Training in on-farm animal research techniques will be necessary
for all the ARTs and the assignment of one or more animal
scientists to the ARP may be necessary to achieve the desired
results. A judicious investment in on-farm animal research has a
high potential for return, particularly in the area of animal
traction.

c. Gender Issues
The all-male operational ARTs have acknowledged difficulty in
developing cooperative working relationships with women farmers.
To reach this vital farmer group, we suggest adding the Women's
Program Officer (WPO) as a regular member of the ART in each ADD.
This will require training the WPOs and Farm Home Assistants
(FHAs) the female Extension Agents in on-farm research
techniques, but the benefits will more than outweigh the cost and
time involved because a significant number of farmers will have
been brought into the adaptive research process. Additional
benefits will be generated because the information gained by the
ARTs will be particularly useful to the Women's Program Section of
the DOA in planning activities.

d. Value of Monitoring Trials
A major cost of adaptive research is the monitoring of
on-farm trails. These costs are static in nature, and while we
know of no way of significantly reducing them, we believe we can
get more for the money. We will use this phase of the adaptive
research process to increase our data base and expand our
knowledge of farmers' practices and their criteria for assessment
of new technology.
For example, when the cooperating farmer is performing an
operation associated with new technology, the ART will determine
what operations other farmers are doing at the same time
(opportunity costs of the technology). In addition, we will ask
non-cooperating as well as cooperating farmers for an assessment
of the technology. This will serve three purposes. First, our
understanding of the criteria that farmers use to evaluate
technology will increase through subsequent assessment. (If the
cooperators accept and the non-cooperators reject the technology,
is it because we gave the cooperators certain inputs or did we
give them training in the use of the technology? Or, the










situation might be reversed. If so, why?) Second, if the
technology is acceptable and promising, farmers' assessments will
serve as an excellent demonstration and should promote the
diffusion of the technology. Third, if farmers' assessments are
resoundingly negative, we will consider discontinuing or modifying
that particular line of investigation.

e. Role of Evaluation
We will focus on improving the efficiency and technical-
effectiveness of the adaptive research process. To achieve this,
we will strengthen the existing evaluation phase because
motion/activity is often mistaken for action/accomplishment.
The responsibility for evaluation will rest with the National
Adaptive Research Coordinating Unit (NARCU) which will evaluate
each ART and the ARP as a whole. The questions asked will require
definitive descriptive answers and might include: are we making
progress; is what we're doing really relevant; will it increase
production; have we learned something to make us abandon, amplify,
and/or modify our efforts in a particular area; what are our
strengths and weaknesses; and, is there something new and/or more
promising available? These evaluations will be discussed with the
Deputy CARO (Research Programs) after which an action
recommendation list will be prepared by the NARCU to both correct
deficiencies and capitalize on strengths.

f. Management Skills
We will work with our counterparts to improve their
management skills. We are aware that IDA will be providing
management training to both DAR and DOA personnel. Therefore, our
objective will be to assist our counterparts in putting the
lessons learned from this training into practice. In addition, we
will introduce state-of-the-art management tools in the form of
software for the microcomputers that are presently in place to
increase the effectiveness of management.

3. Implementation Strategy

Key elements to the development of a successful implementation
strategy for any project are: (1) a well-conceived plan with clearly
described objectives and attainable outputs; (2) a detailed list of
resources required to support the implementation; and, (3) an
evaluation mechanism to periodically assess progress made toward
attaining the objectives and, more importantly, to refocus, redefine,
and/or modify the objectives and outputs as the situation warrants.

a. Long-Term Technical Assistants
Because the realization of these key elements requires
attention from persons possessing the necessary training and
commitment to the Malawi ARP, we will select long-term Technical
Assistants (LTTA) who clearly understand that they are to work
within the MOA and the ARP to improve and expand the Program and
not, as a matter of course, to direct their effort towards making
major changes. The first item on the LTTA agenda will be to gain











a complete understanding of the ARP in terms of its organization,
function, projects and development plans.

b. Working with Counterparts
Subsequently, the LTTA will work with their counterparts
(prior to the latter's departure for long-term training) to
determine the state of the ARP and the progress that it has made
to date. The 1985/86 cropping season marks the third year of
adaptive on-farm trials in Lilongwe ADD and the operations there
will be an excellent guage of the effectiveness of the ARP. Have
any recommendations resulted from the effort or are we near to
making recommendations? If not, why? If so, what are the
expected impacts of the recommendations (impact criterion of
institutionalization)? If the answers to these questions are
unsatisfactory, the LTTA and their counterparts will conduct an
in-depth examination of the operation of the Lilongwe ADD ART
because it is reflective of the total Program and, if warranted,
develop plans to increase the efficiency and/or effectiveness of
the on-farm research program.
We would like to stress the importance of counterpart
involvement in the aforementioned as well as subsequent efforts.
The success of the ARP to date is almost solely due to the fact
that it was developed step by step, by Malawians, for the
particular set of circumstances that prevail in Malawi. It is
incumbent on the MARE Project that the LTTAs and their Malawi
counterparts foster a spirit of cooperation in sharing their
experiences and expertise.

c. Program Development
Given that any program will need adjustments over time, the
basic question emerging for the ARP is what directions are
necessary to keep the ARP functioning at its optimum level. We
will address this question by determining the state and progress
of the ARP thus far, and this will be our first order of business.
If the corrections needed are slight, we will turn to expanding
the adaptive research coverage of the country by first training
and then deploying new ARTs (thereby fulfilling an
institutionalization criterion). Concurrently, we will fulfill
our mandate of speeding the delivery of improved technology into
the hands of smallholder farmers by exploiting every opportunity
to make the ARP more responsive and effective through relevant
training and by implementing our suggestions and others as
warranted (this again implies the necessity of planning and
prioritizing).
But, what if major corrections are warranted? How would we
proceed? Our answer would be to task the LTTA and their
counterparts with developing a plan of specific objectives or
refined objectives based on the role of adaptive research in the
technology innovation process and on cost- and
technical-effectiveness. With the advice and counsel of DAR and
DOA management, the plan would be finalized and strategies to
achieve its objectives would be developed and presented to the
Project Steering Committee for approval.











d. Training Support
Regardless of the magnitude of the corrections required to
keep the ARP operating at its optimum level, a major training
effort will be required. Training of WPOs and FHAs, training in
on-farm animal and agroforestry research techniques, training of
new ARTs to be deployed, training of Extension personnel to work
with the new ARTs, training in management and planning, and
training to satisfy unforeseen requirements may all be desirable.
A Training Unit (TU) will be established within the MOA to
coordinate this training effort and to establish an in
institutionalized training system. The TU will be guided by an
Advisory Committee whose recommendations can help determine the
level of support needed, whether appropriate training is
in-country, third country or in the U.S. There is a potential for
this commitment to training to exceed the priority requirements
for manpower development, temporarily detracting from rather than
enhancing the ARTs' job performance. This highlights the need
cited earlier for an evaluation phase where a needs assessment is
made to improve the ARP. It also elucidates a role that the
Training Unit Advisory Committee can play in identifying priority
needs.

4. Institutional Strategy

a. Assessment of Purpse
Institution building is a protracted process. Further, it is
particularly difficult to detect or measure progress towards the
institutional status of a program such as adaptive research. But,
these are not valid justifications for avoiding the necessity of
institutionalizing Malawi's ARP.
How can the ARP quickly gain credibility? The most obvious
answer is for adaptive research to make a positive impact on
agricultural production with a modicum of alacrity. Our strategy
to speed the delivery of improved relevant technology into the
hands of smallholder farmers and thus improve agricultural
production levels follows.
We will, as previously mentioned, explore with DAR and DOA
management the possibilities of incorporating our organizational
suggestions into the ARP. These suggestions were developed for
the express purpose of: sharpening the focused approach to
research in a cost-effective manner; reaching more smallholder
farmers; and, developing a continuum from the generation of
technology to its diffusion. Synthesis and analysis of the
approach over the past four years through the Farming Systems
Support Project is germaine to this process.
Significant positive production impacts usually result from
technological breakthroughs. While not ignoring the opportunity
for increasing production by improving farmers' current practices,
we will place added emphasis on the testing of new improved
technology in on-farm trials in order to achieve a more equitable
balance between the introduction of new technology to farmers and
the refinement of farmers' current practices.
We will, if warranted, expand the coverage of adaptive
research by training and fielding new ARTs in the remaining five











unserviced ADDs. A necessary precursor to expansion is a
significant impact on production from the efforts of the existing
ARTs. Unless their efforts have been productive, we see little
need to expand until the foundation exists on which to model or
pattern such expansion.

b. Strengthening Linkages
Adaptive on-fam research is not functional in a vacuum. Nor
is it an end in itself. Rather, its true worth can only be
realized in the context of a comprehensive effort that also
involves applied on-station research, the Extension Service, the
smallholder farmer and other groups or entities concerned/involved
with agricultural production. We will, therefore, move
aggressively to develop/intensify the following institutional
linkages:

1. With other organizations needed for successful program
implementation and execution (program linkages);
2. With those entities that provide the resources and/or
authority that allow us to function (enabling linkages);
3. With those groups that maintain the values and norms of the
society at large (normative linkages); and,
4. With those groups that provide the public with information
about our endeavors and accomplishments (diffuse linkages).*

c. Institutional Assessment
In addition, we will assist the DAR with an institutional
analysis of the ARP. The criteria for assessment of these
variables, based on the needs of the ARP, will be developed with
DAR personnel. Some of the critical institutional variables
are: the nature of leadership at all levels and its effect on the
ARP; organization of the DAR and ARP as it pertains to
flexibility, effectiveness and responsiveness; effectiveness of
programs as measured by output; resources available and required
to support programs; and, mentality, attitude, beliefs, and values
of personnel.

d. Basis for Setting Priorities
Finally, and probably most importantly, we will identify
results (significant impacts on production) as a near-term
adaptive research priority. The long run view of institutional
development does not preclude the need for and possibility of
achieving an early impact. With three years of on-farm research
experience, with a functioning organizational structure, with the
stockpile of technology that is available in Malawi as well as in
the IARCs, and even with the knowledge that research takes time,
there is every reason to believe that the ARTs already have
identified, and are in the best position to further identify,
relevant technologies that can be incorporated into smallholder
development on a much broader scale. The institutional framework
in place can best capitalize on these findings for the near-term
and as a basis for setting long-term priorities.

*Research and Extension. Farming Systems Support Project, 1985.











B. Alternative Approaches and Strategies for Developing Linkages

Evidence, to date, indicates that FSR programs have generally not had
very strong linkages with on-station agricultural research because FSR is
often conducted on a project basis or in some administratively independent
unit. FSR linkages with extension have remained even weaker and this has
been identified as a major constraint in the process of developing a
nationwide FSR program. The primary reason for these weak linkages is that
the extension service was not involved until the research effort was
completed.
The Technology Innovation Process Model graphically shows that dividing
the single process of technology generation and diffusion into "research"
and "extension" creates a conceptual and practical gap that is reflected in
the weaknesses of the intermediate tasks such as local testing,
location-specific recommendations and various aspects of commercialization
of inputs or seeds necessary to facilitate implementation of the
recommended technology.
Given the foregoing and our belief that the most effective means of
generating and diffusing technology is by making research and extension
full and equal partners, we have addressed this section of the RFTP by
first describing how on-station and on-farm research are mutually dependent
and are, therefore, functions of research (just as breeding and pathology
are functions) and how research in its entirety, and extension, work
together to generate and diffuse technology.

1. Linking On-Station and On-Farm Research

A poor understanding of the positive relationship that should
exist between applied commodity research programs and adaptive on-farm
research programs often occurs. Adaptive research adherents have
sometimes criticized commodity research as being irrelevant. Listening
to some, it would seem that commodity research belongs to the past and
that commodity and discipline-oriented scientists fail to understand
and appreciate the systems approach and, therefore, fail to make any
significant contributions to agricultural development.
On the other hand, commodity research scientists have sometimes
been unappreciative of the merits of the systems approach and have
maintained that commodity research is on target and is ineffective only
when held back by inadequate fiscal, physical and human support.
Both arguments create an adversarial environment in which an
"either or attitude" prevails. In fact, on-farm and on-station research
are complementary. An on-farm research program should increase the
effectiveness of on-station research. It cannot and should not replace
station research. Linkage with an on-farm research program increases
the impact of commodity research by both making it more relevant and by
expediting the delivery of the output from research to the farmer.
Also, systems are comprised of components and, on farms, these
components are commodities. Without commodity research, there can be
no new information to feed into the system.
A key for developing effective working relations between two
groups is to delineate the services that the "other" group can provide.
For example, applied research should be the first recourse of adaptive
research relative to technical matters and research methodology. Also,
applied research should think beyond and come up with something more










than the technology to meet adaptive research requests. Further,
applied commodity research should have countrywide reponsiblity for
maintaining the integrity of its commodity research program. In
effect, the technical success or failure of adaptive research is the
responsibility of the on-station applied commodity research teams.
Adaptive research can provide applied research with an
understanding of the farmers' production systems, constraints, and
problems. Adaptive research can also provide applied research with the
"fit" of technology in the farmers' systems and a general technical
description of how to improve the fit if necessary.

a. Alternatives for developing on-farm and on-station research
linkages
Figure I-1 illustrates how Guatemala organized to link
commodity groups with on-farm teams. The National Institution
Coordination Team is made up of top level management, regional
representatives and planners and policy-makers. This Team meets
to define short and long-term objectives, determine budget
allocations, and identify candidates for off-shore training and
national scholarships.
The Regional Teams are made up of heads of commodity teams
and decision makers from research and extension. These Teams work
full time to manage and provide technical planning and

Figure I-1


National
SInstitution Coordination I
| Team

/ I \



/ Regional
/ I\
/ I\
/ I\
/ I\
/ \

I Regional I I I I








Field
TeaTeam m
/ I \
/ I \
/ I \
/ I\
/ I\
/ I\
/ I\
I Field I I I I |
ITeam i I I I I










backstopping to the Field Teams. They are in frequent contact
with the Field Teams and participate in: surveys; prioritizing
research; planning and execution of on-farm trials; interpretation
of research results; and, in-service training.
The multidisciplinary Field Teams are based in communities
and work with farmers on a day-to-day basis. It is at this level
that "new" scientists are brought into the research organization
and where the practical training in on-farm research techniques
takes place.
Figure I-2 is an illustration of how Kenya developed its
research organization to effect these linkages. By basing the
On-Farm Teams at research stations, the Teams are assured of the
necessary technical guidance and backstopping from the commodity
groups. And, the commodity groups have ready access to the
On-Farm Teams which should increase the relevancy of on-station
research.

Figure I-2


Ministry of Agriculture


Research


/
/
/
/
/
/
/


Extension


I Research |
| Station |


I I
I I


I On-Farm I
| Team I


I I
I I


/
/
I I
I |I




/
/
/
/












These two examples were chosen to illustrate the widely
different approaches that have been taken to achieve the desired
linkages between field and station research (i.e., reorganization
in Guatemala and use of the existing organization in Kenya). Both
approaches have been successful which points out the fact that
there is no one best way to develop linkages. It is our opinion
that each country should develop linkages by first evaluating its
unique situation and then exploit the situation to develop the
linkages. It is also our opinion that Malawi has done just that.

b. Strategy to link on-farm and on-station research
In terms of this section of the RFTP, step (2) in Figure I-3
is the pivotal point in developing real and continuing linkages
between on-farm and on-station research because, it is at this
point where mutual benefits accrue. Here, on-station researchers
provide the technology to satisfy a need and on-farm researchers
describe the needed technology. If either applied or adaptive
research fails to fulfill their responsibilities at this point,
the research cycle is broken and, agricultural development
stagnates.
The present organizational structure of the DAR was
influenced by the roles of or-farm and on-station research in the
Agricultural Research Cycle. In fact, we and the DAR used Figure
I-3 as a point of reference as the ARP was developed.
The mechanisms are in place in the DAR to achieve the
necessary linkages but, this will not assure linkages. To fully
realize the benefits of on-farm and on-station researchers working
together, we recommend that DAR management take a leading and
active role. Some suggested management activities follow:

1. On-station and on-farm researchers must fulfill their
obligations to each other. We will liase with commodity teams at
every opportunity, particular in the identification of new
technology and in the design and analysis of on-farm trials.
2. The members of the ARTs must be on the same, or near equal,
technical level as on-station researchers. The Malawian
smallholder farmer's system is extremely complex which requires
well trained people to describe the system and, more importantly,
to capitalize on points of leverage within the system. We will
assist the Training Unit by describing the needed training and
suggest the venue for such training.
3. Plans should be developed to periodically rotate on-station
researchers to an ART and vice versa. This would serve several
purposes. First, it would develop a broader appreciation within
the DAR of the complementarity of on-farm and on-station research.
Second, it would preclude members of the ARTs from becoming
technically outdated. Third, on-farm research is fairly arduous,
both physically and mentally. The possibility exists for burnout
of on-farm researchers, especially if they think they are stuck on
an ART. Finally, a fresh outlook is often very beneficial in
terms of describing problems and solutions to problems. We will
develop a rotational plan for the consideration of the CARO.
4. A wide variety of forums should be used to frequently bring
together on-station and on-farm researchers.. Some of these









Figure I-3


fr-
The Agricultural Research Cycle and the Relationship
BetNmen Applied Research, Adaptive Research,
the ADDs and Farmers.


(1)
OtDagnosis of farmer
circumstances and
constraints and
Identification of
research prob l es
(Adaptive tea.,
AD management,
Evaluation and
Ex ten on)


Farmers
operating the same
farming system in a
region






ADAPT IVE
RESEARCH


(3)
Testing and adapting
presently available
and apparently relevant
solutions under farmr
conditions (Adaptive
team, Extension,
and Farmers)


(2)


Identification of new methods and materials
apparently offering solutions and development
opportunities (Adaptive Research team and
Multidisciplinary Commodity teass


(4)
Uno)lved t-chntcal
proble-s relevant te
farmers development
opportuniti-es
(Multidisciplinary
- COr-odtiy teams)


APPLIED,
RESEARCH


,(6)
Body of knowledge
of new materials
and techniques
presently available


y


,


Station. based crop and disciplinary
experimentation solving-priority
problems and doing exploratory
researrh tMultidisciplinary
Commo tty teams)











meetings should be fairly technical in nature. For example,
commodity researchers should participate in the planning and
analysis of on-farm trials because they have technical leadership
responsibility for their commodity. Also, on-farm researchers
should participate in planning and analysis of on-station trials
because they should keep abreast of new technology and they should
have some say in the direction of on-station research. Or,
on-farm and on-station researchers might work jointly to develop
position papers for use by policy-makers. The lack of a certain
input might be holding back the adoption of a new and promising
technology. On-farm and on-station researchers could develop a
paper to include the social, economic and biological potential of
the technology if the input were available. We will work with the
ARTs and in the NARCU to develop joint reports with commodity
teams that include technical and non-technical information.
5. However unjust, the requirement to prove the true value of
on-farm and on-station researchers working together rests with the
ARTs. They must adapt new technologies that will have a
significant impact on smallholder production and they must
challenge their on-station counterparts to identify/develop
technology to meet present and future needs. As previously
mentioned, we will make impact on smallholder production a
near-term adaptive research priority.

2. Developing Research and Extension Linkages

a. Alternatives for linking research with extension
Close communication and cooperation between research and
extension can be effected by locating them within the same
organization. An exceptional example of this can be found in the
Malawi Tea Research Foundation where research and extension
services are handled by a single organization. This organization
has been very successful as evidenced by the high quality of
Malawi tea.
A single organization, in theory at least, has broader goals
than simply generating new varieties or disseminating a particular
message. By specializing in one commodity, a critical mass of
scientists can be assembled and extension agents can be
specialized and, therefore, will be more technically competent.
Also, this arrangement facilitates self-financing through
marketing taxes and simplifies the extension message.
On the other hand, successful examples of this institutional
arrangement are almost exclusively ones which specialize in a
single major export crop. The intensity of effort devoted to
these crops would be difficult to replicate for all the major crop
and livestock enterprises found in Malawi. Expanding such an
arrangement to cover all the important crops and livestock would
result in an organization with a mandate so broad as to make it
administratively and technically unmanagable.
Some countries have formed a "unit" to act as a liasion
between research and extension. These units range from
departments within the Ministry of Agriculture to Extension
Liaison Officers attached to some research institution. The
success or failure of these units has been contingent on their












autonomy and on having a well-defined role in support of research
and extension activities.
An independent unit to coordinate the two-way flow of
information may be useful, but its success will depend upon the
quality of the communications and the attitudes of research and
extension personnel. The record of this type of arrangement has
been mixed although it holds some promise and merits
consideration.
Cooperative activities such as diagnostic data collection and
on-farm trials provide an opportunity for informal contact and
exchange between research and extension. Both of these activities
can facilitate a two-way flow of information which can make
research more responsive to farmers' problems.
The record of using extension agents to collect data is
mixed. When the agent is faced with a heavy workload, inaccurate
data is almost inevitable, especially if the data measures the
progress of a project or activity for which the agent is
responsible.
On-farm research can promote research extension linkages if
extension personnel are incorporated into the process. While the
scientists are gaining an appreciation of the complexities of the
farmers' system and of the difficulty in developing
recommendations for the diverse clientele, the extension agent
gains a better understanding of the research process. And, the
agent may be stimulated to communicate technological information
if he finds it believable and useful.

b. Strategy to link research with extension
Our strategy is to incorporate as many of the positive
aspects of each of the foregoing examples into a mechanism for
linking research and extension. This statement must be tempered
with the fact that it will probably be easier to look for
opportunities to develop linkages within existing organizations
than it will be to develop organizations to effect linkages. We
will, therefore, work within the MQA system to develop the
linkages and suggest organizational changes only as a last
recourse.
We believe that the place to begin the development of
meaningful linkages between research and extension is at the
operational level and that is in the ADDs where DAR and DOA
personnel work together on an ART. Accordingly, we will provide
leadership to the ARTs to develop these linkages because,
institutionally, inclusion of adaptive research in research and
extension activities strengthens development efforts in three
ways. First, it serves as a link between regionally specific and
National development efforts. Second, it facilitates the
processes of problem identification and program prioritization.
Third, it provides a means by which the impact of research
programs can be evaluated.
At the ADD-level, the Program Manager defines the target
areas for the operation of the ART. In addition to the full-time
extension member of the ART, other ADD personnel along with DAR
commodity team members work together to describe the system,
prioritize research requirements, and plan, execute and analyze













on-farm trials. We will work with ADD personnel and on-station
researchers at the field level to synthesize a cross-departmental
proactive team. By working together, DQA and DAR personnel can
share successes and, if necessary, failures.
We recommend that the Commodity Team Leaders (CTLs) of the
most important commodities in each ADD, present, at least
annually, a seminar on research findings and on-going research to
ADD personnel, especially to Subject Matter Specialists, Project
Officers, Development Officers, and the ART. This would keep CTLs
abreast of events in the ADD and would keep ADD personnel
appraised of what research holds for the future.
Hull* has suggested linkage points between the DAR and the
DAO that link these departments from the management level to the
level (Figure 1-4). We endorse these suggestions because: (1)
the existing organizations are already in place; (2) the MOA has,
in principal, accepted these suggestions; and, (3) Hull
represented the University of Florida when he made these
suggestions. We strongly recommend, however, that the place to
start developing linkages is at the operational level through the
ARP.
The following is a brief outline of the various linkage
points that Hull has suggested and what these points will effect.
We have emphasized the benefits that will accrue to the DQA
through the linkages. The association will be mutually beneficial
to the DAR.

The CARO and CAO are both members of the ARC. The
responsibilities, in abbreviated form, of the Council are:

1. Outline an agricultural research policy;
2. Review, establish and update priorities for agricultural
research programs;
3. Assure the consistency of agricultural research strategy with
National development strategy;
4. Recommend appropriate levels of expenditure in agricultural
research;
5. Approve annual research programs and projects;
6. Approve research activities to be implemented outside the DAR;
7. Recommend project reporting and accounting procedures; and,
8. Assure that the DAR operates within Treasury's accounting and
auditing regulations.

The National Extension Research Coordinator (DOA) would
interface with the National Adaptive Research Coordinator (DAR) to
keep the DOA fully informed of all on-farm research activities and
to keep the CAO fully informed of all ongoing and proposed
cooperative efforts between research and extension programs and
personnel.





Agricultural Extension: Observations and Recommendations. IADS, 1983.










Figure 1-4


KALAVI
HINISTIT OF AGIICLTUIIE

Listages ltween Istesileon ad leseaire


I
Priseipal I
Secretary f

i---- ------
- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- :- -- -- ---- -


I I

! !
I~I


f

I aI
I
- - ARCIC


I I 1
- -- -- -- -


!


I
CA0 I
I


----------
I I
I I

! I Adaptl
. IReseat
! !Cerdial
I -l


we
Oh 9
"tor


9 I

!---! !
S I Cereal !---
I Crlos I
----------
I !

------------------


I
S--- -i. f

IMTae Cro I




I---frain La'L !
I 1 oilseeds - -
S I fibres I I
! --------


I ------- I




I I
I I

I ----------
I---fIaiaserial I
I od Land I- -
I INeIadry I I
l------------l


9 I



II
---------------- ----- -


I !





- ------ I-
!- - - - - - - atieial I !




SsI Ctl Irec I IA1
I Verkfho !




I I




-I !IC


!I T


SIC E
- - - - iled I I NC




I! ast bres I 0 I
I 0 A--
TI



- .-. - - - - I &ad i x C
I r


I T
l----- !-- -!
9 Ilaqiseria9i--9 I
d................ u ad d I N
I I lsbandrr !


I !
Oa-rFai Adaptatisa of Teckhaelog & roblte dimtificatlon
-------------------------------------------
I I I I 9

UADD ZADOO KADD LADD SLA0D ILAD LVADD JUDO

likt Adaptiv Reselarch Tera. eash with
1Tw Adaptive Research Sciientsts l ad 0aie iterlsiallesearck Coordiator


CTO !


!
!











The National Extension Commodity Committee Chairmen (DQA)
would interface with the National Commodity Coordinators (DAR) to:

1. Consider present status, potential, problem areas, research
needs, and suggested informational messages for each commodity;
2. Serve as the focal point for Subject Matter Specialists at all
administrative levels;
3. Provide research extension linkages concerning commodities and
subject matter disciplines;
4. Bring together Subject Matter Specialists to develop
integrated extension program guides for background information for
Program Managers, Project Officers and Develpment Officers;
5. Serve as a focal point to develop linkages with extension
counterparts in neighboring countries and in regional and
international agricultural centers;
6. Assist in identifying training needs, develop training
programs and serve as instructors and/or resource people; and,
7. Serve as a resource to the CAO.

The Extension Research Coordinator (DQA) would serve as a
member of the ART in each ADD. In addition to conducting on-farm
research, he/she would: involve ADD Subject Matter Specialists
and technicians in assisting the ART; ensure adequate field
assistant help with on-farm trials through Project Officers and/or
Development Officers; and, involve ADD Subject Matter Specialists
and technical personnel in review of trial results and in
assisting the ART in the development of recommendations.
Hull suggests a number of formal and informal meetings,
workshops and activities that bring together research and
extension for the purpose of defining research and extension
programs and activities. We would support these suggestions
provided the agenda was clearly defined and that a mechanism to
review the recommendations emanating from these gatherings was
established. All too often, workshops "end" when the report is
published.

3. Linking Agricultural Research and Extension with Planners and
Policy-Makers

There is no doubt that the MOA should develop policies that
reflect both National and farmers' goals. These policies should then
be clearly stated so that all levels of the organization, from
Technical and Field Assistants to the CARO and CAO, understand policy
and, more importantly, support this policy through their plans of work.
Goals must be translated into production programs and expectations but,
these expectations must be tempered with experience from the field.
Plans must be based upon a realistic assessment of resources
available to execute the plan. Planned production campaigns based
solely on the biological potential of a commodity are unrealistic
because biological potentials are never reached on farms and rarely on
experiment stations. It is imperative, therefore, that planners have a
conduit to the operational levels of research and extension where the
practical assessments of the biological, social and economic potentials
of technology are made.











a. Alternatives for linking research and extension with planners
and policy-makers
Planners and policy-makers' access to data within a MQA is
often simplified by designating one position within the MOA as the
contact point for such access. If research and extension are only
used by planners and policy-makers on an as-needed basis, this
arrangement works well.
But, if research and extension are to take a proactive role
in developing plans and policy, this arrangement will not suffice.
An alternative is to use a fairly high level body that is closely
associated with the MQA as the access point, with representation
from research, extension, planners and policy-makers. This would
facilitate the flow of information related to matters from the
field that require attention by planners and policy-makers and the
return flow of plans and policies required by field personnel to
develop workplans.

b. Strategy to link research and extension with planners and
policy-makers
It is our opinion that the possibility exists that planned
and desirable activities within the MOA may overload the system:
linking on-station and on-farm research; linking research with
extension; linking research and extension with planners and
policy-makers; linking research and extension with a training
program; developing research and extension programs for women;
more training of MOA personnel; and new planning and budgeting
exercises. We suggest that linking research and extension with
planners and policy-makers be phased.
A positive start has been made in this regard through the
participation of the Planning Division (MQA) and the Economic
Planning Division (OPC) in the ARC. Their initial participation
will be an educational experience in that they will be appraised
of on-going and planned research and extension activities and
programs. Over time, it is expected that they will influence the
planning of research and extension programs and activities. We
will support their participation by providing relevant information
on which to make decisions in a timely manner.
We suggest that MQA leadership get out, so to speak, to the
field and explain policy and plans. Workplans will not reflect
policy unless policy has been articulated and it is difficult to
make suggestions to change policy if you do not know or understand
current policy.
We encourage the Planning Division to solicit appraisals of
the technical aspects of their plans from the operational level.
National Commodity Coordinators and Commodity Committee Chairmen
have the knowledge or access to the knowledge to make such an
appraisal.
Gradually, we will work with our DAR and DOA colleagues to
incorporate policy implications into annual research and extension
reports. If an ART finds that the lack of markets is the primary
impediment to increasing potato production, this information will
be well documented and passed through the review system to the
appropriate body making decisions on the numbers, locations and
types of markets.











We will stress to our counterparts and associates (and, lead
by example) the equal importance for research and extension
personnel to include in their annual reports an educated guess of
how the introduction of a new technology might influence the total
production system. Research and extension might determine that,
given the relative prices of maize and groundnuts, a new maize
production technology is so promising that farmers will probably
grow more maize at the expense of groundnuts. This type of
information should be solicited and used by planners and
policy-makers to substantiate a readjustment of prices and/or an
increased expenditure in groundnut research.
What we have suggested is the necessity for an unobstructed
two-way flow of information from planners and policy-makers to
the field and from the field to planners and policy-makers.
Channels presently exist for such a flow. We encourage MOA
leadership to assure that the channels are kept open and that the
information is provided by and used at all levels.
Finally, we emphasize the importance of the ARTs in the
process. The ARTs should be the best judges of what can and cannot
be done by farmers. They and the FAs and FHAs will be aware of
farmers' goals and expectations because they are in daily contact
with farmers. By acting as farmers' spokespersons to those who
make plans and set policy, the ARTs, the FAs and FHAs will gain
the trust and respect of farmers while assuring that farmers'
views are reflected in plans and policy. We will assume the
leadership role in educating the ARTs of their importance and
responsibilities in the planning and policy-making processes.

4. Linking Programs in Research and Extension with an Agricultural
Training Program

a. Alternatives for linking programs in research and extension
with an agricultural training program
An agricultural training program might be viewed as a service
function where the training program responds to training requests
by selecting the venue and resources to fulfill the requirements.
Or, an agricultural training program could be more proactive by
determining training requirements, prioritizing training
requirements, facilitating the training and evaluating the impact
of training.

b. Strategy to link programs in research and extension with an
agricultural training program
Our experience in Malawi leads us to the realization that
training, by any measure, has had a great impact on the
institutional development of the MOA. But, our experience also
leads us to believe that the impact from training would have been
greater if the MOA had formulated a manpower development plan
based on the priority needs of the organization.
Our strategy is to work with the MQA Training Unit (TU) to
develop a flexible training plan, proactive in nature, in support
of priority programs and projects.
We will work with the TU to describe our plans and objectives
in order to conceptualize working arrangements with the TU that











will satisfy our needs while the TU is developing an MQA manpower
development plan. The first step in the process would be to work
with the TU to describe the level and type of training required
for each job description. This, when matched against the
educational levels of MOA personnel, provides a training needs
assessment for all levels of the MQA. The TU would then work with
the TU Advisory Committee to develop prioritized training
requirements. After this, the TU would facilitate the training by
either working within the MOA and/or with the University of Malawi
to develop in-country courses or by placing personnel off-shore.
It is desirable to solicit training requirements from the
field because people are usually more responsive to training when
it satisfies their requirements. This approach will have to be
well-organized and judicioysly implemented so that proposed
training does not swamp the available resources or result in
training that does not fulfill a priority requirement.
Regardless, we will take the lead by describing to the TU training
needs to support priority programs and projects. We will
encourage the TU to work with field personnel to choose the most
efficient and effective way of satisfying training requirements.
We will assist the TU in developing a catalog of training
opportunities available through the IARCs and donor agencies. The
TU should match these opportunities against unsatisfied training
requirements in a planned and orderly fashion. The TU should also
have the authority to say no when offered training opportunities
because the availability of training, however attractive, could
detract from the real job of agricultural development.
The TU can provide a service to the people who do the
training by offering short courses on how to teach. Some people
are born teachers but most would benefit from courses of this
type. How to plan lessons, how to use visual aids, and how to
evaluate the effectiveness of teaching are all useful subjects.
We will solicit the assistance of the TU as we work with our
counterparts to develop an in-house training capability.
Finally, we will provide the TU with an evaluation of the
impact of training in terms of improved job performance. From
this evaluation, the TU can describe a "best" type and/or location
of training to fill a particular need in order to make training
more relevant in terms of program planning, implementation and
execution.











C. Planning for Agricultural Research and Extension


In addressing future growth and development, the Government of Malawi
set forth in its 1983-87 development program the broad objectives of
restoring internal and external balance to the economy. Implementation of
this policy was planned through the expansion of the traditionally
market-oriented economy with the agricultural and agribusiness sectors
identified as the primary sources of growth.
With Malawi's development prospects firmly anchored to its
agrarian-based economy, on the operational level the onus for broad-based,
sustainable growth falls directly on the five million smallholder farmers;
on the planning level the onus falls on the Ministry of Agriculture, which
will utilize the National Rural Development Program (NRDP) to implement its
growth-oriented policies. The basic goal of the MOA is to provide
appropriate agricultural research and extension services to encourage
farmers to improve their farming practices so as to: increase smallholder
production for domestic consumption as well as for import substitution and
export; increase significantly overall agricultural productivity and,
consequently, smallholder incomes and welfare by assuring access to needed
inputs and services; and, preserve Malawi's natural resource base by
encouraging improved conservation practices. The MARE Project purpose, as
well as that of the two complementary 'DA-financed Projects, parallels the
MOA's development plan to improve per capital real income and the
productivity of the smallholder farmer. Taken together, the three Projects
are specifically aimed at increasing/developing the Basic National Capacity
to develop, test, and transfer improved agricultural technologies to
smallholder farmers.

1. Developing Basic National Capacity

Five elements can be considered as constituting Basic National
Capacity in agricultural research and extension. These are as follows:

1. The ability to know and understand the farmer clients and their
systems of farming. This does not mean all farmers in all areas and
all of their commodities because resource limitations will dictate that
choices will have to be made.
2. The ability to generate technology or to import it. Farmers must
be offered technological opportunities on a continuing basis.
3. The ability to test technology in the relevant farming system and
by the criteria of those systems. This will also require choice
because of resource limitations.
4. The ability to inform farmers of improved technology and instruct
them in its use.
5. The ability to transmit information and understanding between and
among units of research and extension entities. These units will be
widely dispersed because they serve farmers and, therefore, the
communication will not be simple.

Strong linkages between MOA Departments and among other groups
associated with NRDP as well as among individual Departmental entities
will be a key in developing a strong Basic National Capacity in
agricultural research and extension. With that as an underlying
concept, we suggest and will help facilitate the following as










complements to the extensive planning and implementation that has and
is taking place within the MQA.

1. DAR and DOA Management meet to assign functional responsibilities
in the process of technology development, testing, and transfer. There
should be no thought of making these assignments on an either/or basis.
In fact, most of the functions in the technology innovation process
will be intra and/or inter-departmental responsibilities.
2. Departments and their entities meet to develop job assignments to
accomplish functional responsibilities. This will require
inter-departmental cooperation to develop job assignments for those
functions shared jointly.
3. Departments meet to describe the required program, enabling,
normative, and diffuse linkages required to accomplish functional
responsibilities. From these descriptions, strategies are developed to
effect these linkages.
4. The DAR, with advice and input from the DQA, MQA Planning Division
and the OPC Economic Planning Division, develop the Master Plan for
Agricultural Research. We would assist the DAR in this effort through
the knowledge and expertise of the LTTA as well as via the extensive
and diverse pool of scientists and specialists who are available for
short-term assistance.
5. The MOA develops plans to expand its internal information system.
Joint planning sessions, workshops, seminars, and short-courses are, in
addition to more conventional means, all effective means of
disseminating information to all levels of the MQA.

2. Master Plan for Agricultural Research

The DAR initiated a planning activity in 1982 which culminated in
a major reorientation of the DAR and in a blueprint for developing a
Master Plan for Agricultural Research.* The strategy that emerged is
best described as a sharply focused approach to research based on
objectives developed through an iterative process of describing what
has been done, what can be done, and what needs to be done.

a. Internal resources
The DAR has mechanisms in place to: develop a knowledge and
understanding of farmers and their production systems; generate
relevant technology; and, test technology under farm conditions.
Until these are fully developed, until the Master Plan is
developed, and until policies and research priorities are
developed by the Agricultural Research Council (mechanism for
making choices), we recommend that the DAR intensify its efforts
to increase production of the basic food commodities per unit area
(concentrate available resources on a few national coordinated
commodity programs and ARTs) in order to meet the demands of the
growing population; and, to simultaneously release land, which is
currently devoted to food production, for crop diversification
and/or for the production of cash crops.


*Guidelines for Preparing an Agricultural Research Master Plan. LADS, 1983.











b. External resources
The opportunity to import technology should not be ignored
because it is cheaper and faster to import technology than it is
to develop technology. We will, therefore, make a concerted
effort and work with DAR scientists to more fully develop
effective working relations with neighboring, regional and
international agricultural research organizations for the purpose
of identifying promising new crops and livestock; and, conduct a
limited amount of screening on the most promising for a general
assessment of their biological, economical, and social potential
and acceptability (this suggests a quid pro quo arrangement which
will require redefinition of policy in the MOA). The resulting
data might merit more extensive testing of some of the technology
to support extending the technology to farmers and/or for
inclusion in the Agricultural Research Data Bank for use as a
resource base and from which, together with regional and
international market forecasts from the Economic Planning Division
of OPC, the Planning Division of the MQA could base feasability
studies for crop and livestock diversification.
This process would also serve as a means of forging stronger
linkages between and among the various cooperating entities, and
would function as a platform'for commonality of purpose in terms
of the Agricultural Research Council on which not only the DAR and
the DOA but the MOA's Planning Division and OPC's Economic
Planning Division hold seats.

3. Plan for Agricultural Extension

a. Implementation planning
Like the DAR, the DA has undertaken significant planning
exercises to make the department more cost-effective and
responsive to its clientele, the smallholder farmers. At present,
the DOA is refining its organizational structure in order to:
facilitate linkages and working relationships with the DAR; make
the DOA more technically and cost-effective; improve its ability
to inform farmers of new technology and instruct them in its use;
and, make the DOA more proactive rather than reactive. Specific
refinements are too numerous to mention but range from the
creation of new posts for the express purpose of interacting with
DAR scientists to an overhaul of the planning and budgeting
processes. In addition, the DOA is making a detailed analysis of
its information delivery system. The plan to decentralize the
Extension Aids Branch is particularly appropriate to the theme of
decreasing the "distance" between technology development and
technology transfer. We will support this plan through our
participation in the ARP.
The comprehensive training program that the DOA is
undertaking to improve the management and technical skills of its
specialists is important in the extreme because physical and
fiscal resources cannot substitute for human resources. Although
not as apparent or impressive as, for example, a new laboratory
filled with state-of-the-art equipment, trained people are the
foundation of an institution.











The foregoing analysis of DQA activities perhaps sounds as if
the Department is taking a hiatus from its mandated job of
extending technology to its clientele. This is not the case
because Field and Farm Home Assistants, who work directly with
farmers, will continue teaching and demonstrating the use of
current technologies that are appropriate to the smallholder.
Moreover, if the DOA's energies are not in the short-term fully
directed towards its basic function, for planning purposes, the
time is particular favorable for the DQA to stand back and/or
outside itself as it were, to consider its position in terms of
the dynamic activities being implemented in the other MOA
Departments, particularly in the DAR. Economic, land and
population pressures demand that the DOA develop sound and
comprehensive plans to meet not only the present needs but the
needs that have been forecast for the future in Malawi.

b. Operational planning
Operational planning of extension activities within the DOA
is almost totally contingent upon output from the DAR. In the
absence of new proven technology which is both acceptable and
extendable to its clientele and until its plans are implemented,
we recommend that the DOA, for the near-term, focus on its
participation at the operational level on the adaptive research
process. This participation will serve to: broaden the knowledge
base relative to the constraints to smallholder productivity;
familiarize extension with the use of new technology; facilitate
the development of the technology innovation continuum; develop
and strengthen research-extension linkages; and, make extension a
full partner in the development process from a technological point
of view.
In the traditional research and extension paradigm, the
extension agent is viewed as a passive recipient of research
results, which are forwarded to him in the form of
recommendations. Educating the agent about new technologies is
viewed as a separate step in the process of information
dissemination. One result of this paradigm is that considerable
energy is spent on agent education sometimes on topics that the
agent does not see as useful or interesting. Another result is
that agents often regard recommendations with skepticism because
they do not know how the recommendations were derived or whether
they will prove valid under local conditions.
Too often, extension agents function almost entirely in a
reactive mode, responding to opportunities and problems as they
arise. This hinders the agent's ability to prioritize his/her own
activities. The end result is often that the agent is unable to
achieve significant impact in any given sector, even though he/she
may very helpful to many farmers and even though his/her time may
be fully occupied.
For successful program implementation to achieve measurable
impact a proactive stance is required. This requires setting
both long and short-term goals, prioritizing activities to achieve
these goals, and developing measurable objectives by which success
can be measured.











Extension involvement in the adaptive research process helps
alleviate these problems. The agents are intimately involved with
researchers and the research process which ensures their awareness
of new technologies. Agent education becomes a continual on-going
process. Because the agents help develop research questions and
because they can see the results of research trials under local
conditions, their confidence in making recommendations to growers
is greatly enhanced.
Further, acting as a member of a larger group with
well-defined priorities and objectives, the agent's ability to
prioritize his/her own efforts is enhanced and the tendency for
the agent to be left as a single individual, reacting to his/her
environment on an "on-demand" basis is reduced.











D. Setting Program Priorities Needs and Constraints


Research and extension institutions are built by research and extension
programs doing what they are supposed to do in agricultural development
but, human, physical and capital resource limitations often preclude
research and extension from doing all that needs to be done. It is
imperative, therefore, that research and extension bring their resources to
bear on the most important problems. But which problems are most
important? To most of us, our problems and the things that we are
concerned with are high priority. When related to agricultural research
and extension, this necessitates a procedure and set of criteria to
maximize the possibility that the most important problems of a significant
majority of smallholder farmers are addressed by research and extension,
with due care taken to avoid overlooking promising possibilities that might
help achieve National goals.
Research and extension organizations usually have well-defined
mechanisms in place to execute programs. Unfortunately, complementary
mechansims to develop priorities upon which to base programs are usually
lacking or ill-defined and, the ineffectuality of most research and
extension organizations is attributable to this fact. It follows that for
research and extension to be effective and responsive, their planning
skills and capabilities must be commensurate with their technical skills
and capabilities.

1. Defining Priorities

Setting program priorities is a continuing iterative process in
which many persons and groups should share responsibility. For
example, extension is often tasked with production programs, with
inadequate consideration given to the requirement for thoroughly tested
and adapted technology to support the programs. Also, priorities can
be expected to shift with time because problems, goals and economic
forces are not, by their nature, static. The process of setting
priorities can and should take place within a framework that is
consistent and that facilitates reasoned judgment based on a sound
analysis of all relevant data.

2. Procedure and Criteria

Chart I-i is used to describe how functions, or responsibilities,
in defining priorities can be assigned to various groups and is
illustrative of: (1) how positions and/or groups established to
execute programs can be used to establish priorities and their
importance in the process and, (2) both the desirability and the
necessity for decentralizing the responsibilities for defining
priorities.
Chart I-i also illustrates how National goals set the general
framework within which more specific goals and priorities are developed
and established. When goals tend to conflict, as they often do, either
the body which established the goals or, in the case of inter-body
goals, some final arbitrator must decide which goal will predominate.
A case in point in Malawi is the farmers' apparent goal of satisfying
food requirements by growing unimproved maize and a National goal of











Chart I-i

Responsibilities in Defining

Level of Attention

Cabinet o

Agricultural Research o
Council

0

0

0

Secretariat to the ARC o


Chief Agricultural o
Research Officer

o

o


National Research o
Coordinators




Commodity Coordinators o
Commodity Coordinators o


Agricultural Research Priorities

Function

Define National goals

Establish Agricultural Research Policy


Establish research priorities broadly

Approve research programs

Approve projects in excess of K10,000

Conduct analyses as a basis for ARC to
establish research program priorities

Direct research programs and projects
approved by ARC

Approve projects less than K10,000

Supervise staff work of the ARC
Secretariate

Preside over sessions with National
Research Coordinators and Commodity
Coordinators to establish priorities
for research projects

Recommend research programs and
projects to ARC

Interact with the Adaptive Research
Coordinator and other members of the
Commodity Team to define problems
identified by the ARTs

Search for solutions to the problems in
the literature, through the IARCs,
neighboring countries or other research
institutions

Recommend to the National Research
Coordinator the array of problems
needing research, identify those for
which outside assistance may be needed,
and those that could be reasonably
handled by the DAR



49











Chart I-i (continued)


Adaptive Research o Interact with the ARTs and the ADD
Coordinator Program Managers to ascertain the array
of problems important in each Division
and for the Nation

ADD Program Managers o Preside over sessions with ARTs and
Extension agents in their Divisions to
arrive at priorities for each Division

Adaptive Research o Interact with Extension agents and
Teams farmers to identify the important
problems in the Division

Farmers o Make their production problems known to
Extension agents or the ARTs


food self-reliance which can, in part, be achieved by growing improved
maize.
The groups and individuals sharing responsibility for developing
program priorities need a set of guidelines or criteria as parameters
within which to make reasoned decisions. Following are suggestions for
the main headings of such a set.

I. Importance of the problem
II. Cost of solving the problem
III. Potential for increasing production if problem is solved (are
there adequate markets or will inputs have to be imported)
IV. Expected payoff if problem is solved (can the problem be solved,
how soon and what is the magnitude of the payoff if the problem
is solved)

Those responsible for determining priorities require a great deal
of staff work and analysis to supplement their knowledge of goals and
priorities. The latest information on production, value of production,
research and extension expenditures on each commodity, and current and
future market prospects are usually a matter of record and should be a
basis for setting priorities, especially for the higher levels of the
MQA.
The priorities of the eight ADDs need to be considered and will
likely differ among the ADDs. The persons and groups assigned
responsibility for setting priorities must rationalize an equitable
distribution of finite research and extension resources among the ADDs.
The criteria mentioned earlier may serve as a guide in the process,
although the relative weights of the criterion may change.
The importance of a commodity should probably have some bearing on
the resources that research and extension invest in the commodity.
Factors such as percent of cultivatable area devoted to the commodity,
or numbers in the case of livestock, or the value of production should
have some bearing on a commodity's importance. But, other factors may

Agricultural Research Strategy Plan. IADS, 1983. 62p.











warrant investment because of their importance to National goals: to
earn foreign exchange, for instance, or to better serve poorer regions
of the country.
Equally important is the combined judgment of scientists and
technicians regarding the expected payoff from various research and
extension programs and projects. These judgments are not usually a
matter of record and are difficult to elucidate. However difficult,
these judgments should be solicited and used to supplement the
knowledge of those responsible for setting goals and priorities. A
classic example of this can be found in Asia where scientists thought
they saw the opportunity to increase wheat production by introducing
CIMMYT wheat varieties and a modest investment was made in applied
research and extension. Since the early 1960s, wheat production in
Bangladesh has increased twenty-six fold. The payoff from that modest
investment has been handsome.
Those scientists and technicians having responsibility for the
execution of projects within programs should decide on project
priorities because they should be the best judge of the technical
merits of alternative approaches to solving a problem. Generally,
these priorities should be approved and indorsed by the CARO or the
CAO, as the situation warrants, to assure that the support necessary to
carry out the projects will be forthcoming.

3. Defining Program Priorities for the Near-Term

Because physical, fiscal and human resources are limited, it is
desirable for Malawi to focus its resources on the highest priorities.
As staff are trained, as facilities to support programs are developed,
and as Government gives recognition to research and extension efforts
in the form of increased fiscal support, research and extension
activities can be expanded to other areas.
Chart I-2 is a suggested model to be used in establishing research
and extension priorities. Within the body of Chart 1-2, values for
each criterion are shown to illustrate how the model can be used.
Programs were grouped into sets of priorities based on the summation of
the criterion. Those programs in Priority I tended to be rate "high"
or "excellent" on several criteria and those in Priority IV were ranked
"low" on most criteria.
The value for each criterion and the relative values of the
criteria are subjective and need to be determined by a group of
individuals having knowledge of National and farmers' goals,
agricultural resources and market potentials. After summation of the
criterion, this group could then rank the programs to establish near
(Priority I) and long-term (Priority IV) priorities. In order to
prevent spreading limited resources too thin, those programs
categorized as near-term priorities would receive the most support in
order to bring together the critical mass of human, physical and
capital resources that are necessary to solve problems unless long-term
considerations are overriding (e.g., intensification of production in
the near-term to meet National goals must be considered in terms of
such long-term criteria as potential reduction in fallow and soil
fertility, depletion and degredation).









mlawi
National Agricultural Research Proect
Research Progran Prlorities, Nar-term

Relative ------lationship to National oal s-- ---Ptential--- --- expected RPyoff-


Value Qtowth


Equity Food Sec. Trade NHtition Merhet Resources Ignitude Proability W


Proarity I


Malas
GroundMuts
oatton
Dairy
Hheat
Rice
Besnt/rln Legumes


37 High
11 High
4 Med.
3 MWd.
<1 Low
4 MId.
4 M d.


High
High
High
Nut.
Med.
Med.

High


High High Mmd. Good
High High High Ecel lent
Low High Low Excel lent
Med. Med. High Excellent
High High High Excel lent
High High Med. Good
High Low High QGod


Sail
Med.


Large

Med.
Large


Large Mad.
Large High
Large Mad.
Med. Ned.
Mad. High
Ned. High
Mad. High


Priority II


Cassava
Other OIseeds
Pastures,Nhtr tionliasbndry
Poultry
Agroforestry
Irrigation
Sheep
Tree Nuts
Fruits
Vegetables & Spices
Coffee
SorghuWl I let
Soil & rather Manaement
Mechanizatlon, O-op Storage


6 Low
<1 Low
Low
2 Med.
Low
Med.
1 Low
Med.
Mad.
Law
Law
Mod.
Med.


High
High
High
High
High
Mad.
High
Med.
Mad.
High
Mad.
High
High


High Low Law Mod.
High High High Excel lent
High MOd. High Low
High Med. High Good
Mad. Low Med. Good
High High High
Mad. High High Excellent
Low High High Excellent
High Mad. High Good
High Low High Med.
Low High Low Md.
High Low Med. Med.
High


Mad.
Med.
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Mad.
Mad.
Snael I
Mad.
Large
Med.


Mad. High
Med. M d.
Mad. High
Med. Med.
Med. High
Med. High
Low Mad.
Med. MLd.
Mad. Mad.
Ned. Mad.
Mad. Mad.
High High
High High
Med. Mad.


Priority III


Bef eedl Ing
Pigs
Goats
Rabbits
Rubber
Sweet Fbtato
Irish Potato


3 Law
<1 Low
1 Lo
<1 Low
Law
Low
Law
LOW


Med. Med. Low High Md./Gfad
Mad. Low Low High BGod
Med. Md. Low High Mad.
High High Low High Med.
Low Law Med. Low Excellent
High High Law Med. Poor
Mad. High Low Med. Med.


large
abd.
Large
MWd.
Seal I
Mad.
Med.


Mad. LoW
Low Md.
Low Law
Low Mad.
Low Med.
MNd. Med.
Med. Med.


Priority IV


Tung
Other Fibres


Low Law Low
Low LOw Mad. Low


Total


agriculturall Research Strategy Plan. IADS, 1983. 62p.


Chart 1-2


Distar
Mad.
Med.
Mad.
UhknMo
Med.
Mad.


Mad. LO
LaO Low


Di star











This is not to imply that work on Priority IV programs should stop
or slow down although this may be the case (e.g., tung). Although
additional investment in these programs may not be warranted, benefits
could be realized by shifting investments in projects within these
programs.
Over time, as staff are trained, and as facilities are
strengthened, and as investment in research and extension is increased,
some of the lower priority programs may receive more support. Or, the
priority rankings of programs may change because of markets or because
the resources brought to bear have achieved the desired results. Thus,
priorities need to be reviewed periodically in light of the latest
information although the priorities set at the highest level of the
process should not be changed more than once every few years or else
the process will become disruptive. It would, however, be beneficial
to review priorities yearly to : (1) see whether shifts in priorities
may be warranted; (2) quantify resources available and those that may
be needed if priorities change; and, (3) assure that the information
used to define priorities is continually updated.

4. Establishing Priorities Within Programs

When priority programs are identified, projects within programs
must also be prioritized. To do this, objectives must be clearly
defined and stated. Then, all alternative approaches to achieve the
objectives should be listed and prioritized using the above criteria or
a modified set. As mentioned previously, those responsible for the
execution of projects should also have the responsibility for
prioritizing projects.

Example: Self-reliance in food production is a National goal. MQA
policy is to develop and extend technology to increase food
production to meet the needs of the growing population while
concurrently releasing land to devote to export crops (nearly all
of the potentially arable land is being utilized). Maize becomes
an MOA near-term priority because: maize is the most important
food crop in Malawi; it scored high when rated against each of the
criterion; and, 75 percent of the cultivated land is devoted to
maize production.
Then, the DAR Maize Commodity Team develops a list of
objectives ranging from increasing yield per unit area by breeding
new varieties acceptable to the farmers to developing/identifying
processing practices that would yield a higher finished product
than presently used practices. A list of approaches (projects) to
achieve each objective is developed.
Concurrently and until the DAR develops/identifies new the
DOA bases its strategies on existing, proven and acceptable
technologies. With this in mind, the National Extension Research
Coordinator and the National Extension Commodity Committee (Maize)
work with the ADDs, the ARTs, the National Research Coordinator
(Cereals), and the National Adaptive Research Coordinator to
develop a list of objectives that are relevant to the
circumstances within each ADD. These might range from increasing
maize production per unit area by emphasizing early planting to
encouraging women farmers to grow hybrid maize. A list of











approaches for each objective is developed to achieve the
objectives.

From this rather limited illustration, it is apparent that the
possible list of objectives and approaches to achieve the objectives
would quickly exceed the available resources and, therefore, priorities
have to be established. It also points out the need for collaboration
because the Maize Commodity Team would have to work with the
Appropriate Technology Team for the processing aspects.
The use of the foregoing example was not to describe patterns for
research and extension program and project priorities in Malawi.
Rather, the purpose was to illustrate: (1) the need for and use of
criteria to arrive at priorities; (2) the need of a process for
developing priorities; and, (3) the necessity and desirability of
decentralizing the responsibility for setting priorities. The
underlying concern is, of course, that as firm an understanding as
possible, of all of the important factors in agricultural development
in Malawi, is available and is used in the process of setting research
and extension priorities.
It is evident from the foregoing that an immense amount of
advanced planning is required, but it is probably the most important
part of the research and extension process. If considerable attention
is given to planning and priorities are carefully established from the
seemingly endless number of possibilities, execution of the project is
relatively easy and the expected payoff is very high.

5. Planning for Agricultural Research

The DAR presently has a plan and mcechanisms in place for defining
research priorities. However, we recommend that the DAR and the ARC
consider several factors in the process of defining agricultural
research priorities as outlined below.
The first is that the DAR has National and regional
responsibilities. Commodity Teams have the responsibility of solving
the most important problems of the Nation as a whole while ARTs will be
regionally (ADD) oriented. This dichotomy will likely result in
conflicting goals which will require arbitration. There are no
pre-conceived solutions to these conflicts but Commodity Teams and ARTs
must be made aware that they may have to devote their efforts to
something less than their number one priority in order to achieve an
equitable balance between the Nation and regions within the Nation
(e.g.,the Maize Commodity Team might be able to make the most
significant National impact on maize production by breeding a 120-day
maturity semi-flint hybrid but, a 90-day maturity flint open-pollinated
variety may have to be developed to avert food shortages in a
particular area).
Second, we recommend that the DAR delegate the authority and
responsibility for developing sound attainable objectives and
alternatives for achieving these objectives to the Commodity
Coordinators, the National Research Coordinators, and the National
Adaptive Research Coordinator. They must also be tasked with the
responsibility of assuring that planning becomes an integral part of
the research function.











Finally, the payoff from screening existing technology and
germplasm will normally be greater and quicker than from breeding or
developing new ones. We will work with the Commodity Coordinators, the
National Research Coordinators and the National Adaptive Research
Coordinator to move aggressively to strengthen/develop close and
cooperative working relations with neighboring, regional and
international research organizations in order to identify existing
technology and/or germplasm that might fill an identified need. These
DAR scientists must assure that this opportunity is given the highest
consideration when their subordinates are planning new research
activities (do not reinvent the wheel).

6. Plan for Agricultural Extension

Research and extension functions were conceived, authorized,
organized and funded with a common objective of providing useful
information to help the smallholder farmer and the farm family. From
this, the necessity for close cooperation and linkages between the two
functions is obvious. The MOA Agricultural Research Strategy Plan
suggests new positions to increase the opportunities for frequent
exchange and communication between research and extension personnel and
more formal groupings of research'and extension personnel for
developing recommendations and research needs. We support the concept
of close cooperation and working relationships between research and
extension although interaction at the operational level may be an
equally appropriate forum for developing meaningful relationships.
We perceive the close cooperation between the research and extension
functions as central to the effectiveness of either function.
Extension is expected to have a significant input in the process of
defining research priorities through their daily contact with farmers
and their participation on the ARTs to their seat on the ARC. This is
appropriate because what becomes a research priority will later become
an extension priority.
We encourage the decentralization of the process for making
production recommendations. With advice and counsel from the the
National Extension Commodity Committee Chairmen, the National Extension
Research Coordinator and DAR scientists, extension priorities can be
set at the ADD-level with due consideration given to the availability
of relevant technology and ADD resources. The expected results are
location-specific production recommendations.
The manner in which technology is presented to farmers is equally
important as the form of the technology. Once extension messages are
prioritized, the method of delivery of the messages will also have to
be prioritized. This will require advice from the Extension Aids
Branch and will require the ADDs to liase with the TU training of FAs
and FHAs may be required to extend new technology but this training
might not be readily available because of the exigencies of the overall
MOA Training Program.











E. Communications Media for Agricultural Extension


There are some basic premises that have to do with agricultural change
or the adoption of agricultural innovations. Adoption (behavior change)
requires an overt act by farmers in addition to favorable attitudes towards
a particular innovation and a reinforcing socio-economic environment. This
overt, or terminal phase of the adoption process requires therefore,
ready availability of production inputs and related services to make this
critical step possible and practical for farmers. This is similar to what
Hodgdon (1974) refers to as "Informatioan Potential" (receptivity to new
ideas) and "Action Potential" (ability to carry out these ideas in
practice). Adoption results from the interaction between these two
variables.
In summary, there must be: (1) an incentive system that
encourages acceptance of innovations; (2) improved production practices
adapted to local conditions; (3) an information/educational system to
inform and teach farmers how to apply innovations to specific conditions;
and, (4) a ready supply to farmers of added inputs (seeds, fertilizers,
insecticides, etc.) on which technological change depends. In the absence
of any one of these factors, agricultural change will be limited at best.
In Hodgon's terms, if the "action potential" is lacking then the
"information potential" has limited utility.

1. Communications as a Component of Agricultural Development

The extension/communication activities of the MARE Project should
be one component (No. 3 above) within an integrated (planned) system of
components that make possible agricultural change. Sociological
research has repeatedly shown that communication activities alone have
little impact on farmer's behaviors. Thus it is critical in any
communication strategy to look at the linkages among the factors
comprising the agricultural change process.
Having said this, for the purposes of this proposal it is helpful
to "pull out" the communication component and look briefly at some
pertinent variables. Critical to any communication effort is the idea
of "knowing your audience." This requires an assessment of the
agro-economic and socio-cultural characteristics of intended recipient
groups. Often this information is available from secondary sources or
can be obtained quickly from surveys. Media access is an important
part of this audience profile. Equally important is to distinguish
among groups of farmers, recognizing that there frequently are diverse,
heterogenous audiences with different information needs. This implies
a mix of communication media or a multi-channel approach. Research
and experience have shown that a combination of interpersonal and mass
media is more effective than either in isolation. Consideration should
also be given to message appropriateness for the various farmer groups.
Farmers exist within an information network and it is important to know
that network and design a communication strategy that is compatible
with it as well as able to activate it. Such networks commonly contain
informal (local community) channels of information exchange which a
more formal (i.e., extension organization) information effort should
take advantage of.
At a practical level, a communication strategy is dependent on
available resources (equipment, trained personnel, etc.) or those that











can be acquired within a project framework. Often infrastructure (both
material and human) is lacking which sets limits on what can be
achieved. Programming of communication activities requires a realistic
assessment of resource capacity; part of the process is improving that
capacity both quantitatively and qualitatively.
A final word on evaluation. While it seems obvious that it is
necessary to evaluate communications efforts to determine their
impacts, this is an often neglected component of an information
program. What is required is a constant monitoring to make program
adjustments as necessary as well as more formal evaluations to provide
data for replicating efforts. Feedback on farmers' reactions to change
messages and acceptance or rejection of agricultural innovations is
necessary if programs are to adequately respond to farmers' problems
with solutions that reflect their needs.

2. Communications Media for Agricultural Extension in Malawi

The use of mass media for agricultural extension in Malawi is
well-established and the Ministry of Agriculture recognizes its
importance through a significant budget in support of its Extension
Aids Branch (EAB). The EAB has grown from a one-person public
relations operation in 1958 to a 150-person communications support
organization in 1985, including eight sections: management;
publications; radio; evaluation and action research; mobile units;
cinema; editorial; and photography.
EAB's recent experience in agricultural communications programs
can provide valuable guidance in planning and establishing effective
media communications support for MQA agricultural research programs and
Malawi's Extension Service. Two recent studies on the effectiveness
and relative costs of various media used by extension in Malawi
(Perraton, Jamison and Orvel in 1983 and Ray, 1985) provide a framework
to do this. These studies have contributed to a potential
reinforcement of mass media for agricultural extension in Malawi
through the AID Communications Support Project
(AID/DPE-1109-C-00-4081-00). A thorough accounting of the initiatives
of the AID Communications Support Project (CSP) is given in a three
part publication Incorporating Communication Strategies into
Agricultural Development Programs, including identification of
communications constraints to disseminating agricultural technology,
both in the developing world and specific to Malawi, along with
specific recommendations for future media communications in support of
EAB, Malawi Extension and MOA national and regional agricultural
research programs.
The MOA is firmly convinced of the need for improving
communications support to its extension and development programs at
both the national and regional level. The Ray study (1985) concluded
that Malawian agricultural officials, and particularly the EAB, are
convinced that appropriate, farmer-oriented, effective mass
communication strategies planned and carried out as an integral part of
their agricultural programs are vital to continued agricultural
progress and development in their country.
MARE has an excellent opportunity to fully cooperate with the EAB
and the CSP in a number of ways. The CSP has outlined six primary
conditions under which extension can realize its inherent potential as











an effective vehicle for technology transfer. These are underlined
below with the relationship of MARE indicated in parentheses.
First, the extension program must be farmer-oriented; and the
farmer must be and feel involved. (The Adaptive Research Program
addresses this concern directly).
Second, linkages and coordination between research and extension
must be strengthened. On-farm testing to determine technology
adaptation and farmer reactions is a key step in which joint
research-extension involvement is critical. (MARE and the ARP both
address this concern directly).
Third, well-planned and appropriate multimedia communication
strategies must be incorporated into the extension program. (MARE and
the ARP can perform a logical and integral function by providing
technological input, regularly provide substantive and topical
information for use by EAB, field develop and field test materials for
use by EAB, and be in a position to help monitor and evaluate
receptiveness on the part of farmers to the information being delivered
through various media. This last function can provide valuable
feedback to the EAB).
Fourth, coordination within the extension program, between
extension and research, and among the farmers, extension, research and
the providers of goods and services must be given high priority. (MARE
and the ARP both address this concern directly and stand ready to help
coordinate a regular flow of information among all involved in or
impacting on these efforts).
Fifth, constraints over which extension can have no control-
land, agricultural infrastructure, government policies, etc.- must be
taken into consideration in determining the technical content of the
extension program. (As with number three, above, MARE and the ARP are
in a position to identify these constraints (at national, regional, and
field levels) and, at the same time, identify technologies and
recommendations that have relevance and cause for wider dissemination).
Sixth, the reoriented, redirected and revitalized extension
programs must be institutionalized. Competent staff must be placed and
maintained in position, trained, and given experience during the
revitalization process that will enable them to provide capable and
imaginative leadership to extension programs in the years to come.
Governments must recognize the new roles and methods of extension, and
provide budgetary and other support to maintain them. In some cases,
extensive reorganization within extension may be required. (In Malawi,
extensive reorganization has taken place. The MQA has proven its
interest in refining and strengthening its agricultural communications
programs through support of the EAB, and by negotiating the CSP and
MARE projects. By design MARE directly addresses this cooperative
undertaking).
Additional opportunities for MARE to interface and cooperate with
the CSP and EAB include the following:
As research and extension linkages are formed and strengthened the
research-extension-agricultural communication linkages would be
developed and strengthened. This element is basic to the success of
EAB in performing its function on behalf of the Ministry of
Agriculture. In some cases these linkages will be formalized into
networks, providing input and feedback mechanisms for EAB.











Programmatically, communications support to research and extension
programs needs to become more farmer-oriented, and integrated into the
overall extension program (constraints recognized by both the EAB and
the Ray study). Information suitable for extension is derived at the
field level. While general agricultural information is available and
relevant to farmers, information from new technology development,
introduction of different crops or practices is less so. This means
cooperative efforts of agricultural research, experiment station
testing, adaptive research on-farm including extension components
and farmers must transpire before mass dissemination is warranted or
advisable. MARE's role in this respect would be to initiate and
encourage the flow of information at each stage of the process,
providing input to EAB.
The CTTA is establishing a pilot project in one of the ADDs to
develop and test communication strategies and methodologies most
appropriate for Malawi. The pilot effort will be used to stage an
expansion of communication support programs to the other ADDs. MARE
strongly encourages that this pilot be initiated in one of the ADDs in
which an ART is established and functioning. In this way the
research-extension-farmer components of adaptive research and the ARP
can similarly stage its expansion and contribution to the dissemination
efforts of the EAB.











F. Critical Factors Affecting Women Farmers


1. Potential Contributions of Women Farmers

Women play an important role in Malawian agricultural development
from two points of view; first, as female managers of farms, and,
second, in their production capacity on male-managed farms. Because of
their importance in agriculture, improving the productivity of Malawi's
female farmers can potentially contribute to national development in
three ways: (1) by increasing production of export commodities; (2) by
increasing the production of food, fuel, and fiber products for
national consumption; and (3) by raising the nutritional level of the
farm family through improved production for home consumption. The
latter is an important consideration because improved dietary status
for children represents an investment in the nation's human resources
that can be expected to have a significant impact on national
development for the coming decades. Improved
production of items for home consumption can also free valuable
resources for cash commodity production.

2. Constraints

Despite the importance of increasing the productivity of women
farmers, this clientele may be particularly difficult to bring into the
mainstream of development activities. In general, women farmers have
limited access to credit. Lack of credit will limit the alternatives
that women farmers can adopt. It may, also, limit their access to
production information from agricultural extension agents if the agents
are also purveyors of credit. These agents spend large amounts of
their time with the farmers' clubs that usually have access to credit.
When women are viewed as poor credit risks, they are unlikely to
achieve membership in a club because the other members will not want
to include a poor risk in their credit pool. A cycle is this
established. Women are poor credit risks, partly because they lack
production information. Yet, they are unlikely to have the benefit of
new technology because they do not belong to farmers' clubs.
Women face other special constraints as well. Their household
duties may impose special labor limitations. Further, family
responsibilities may reduce the time available to women to seek and
learn new information, or participate in educational opportunities.
Most extension agents and assistants who do interact consistently
with women farmers are trained in home economics. Their role is a
valuable one that should not be underrated. Nonetheless, as the
principle communicators with women farmers, both FHA's and their field
assistants need adequate training in appropriate areas of agricultural
production. Special effort may be required to elicit information from
women farmers as well. Women are apt to defer to men, rather than
expressing their own opinions and and views, thus inhibiting the free
flow of information needed to facilitate mutual problem solving.

3. Integrating Women Farmers into Agricultural Development

a. Needs assessment
Major emphasis of a plan of work for integrating women into











the MOA's development strategy should be placed on identifying
those areas in which women, as producers, can contribute most
effectively and rapidly in agricultural development. The
complementarity of goals of women, or any subgroup of the
population, and those of National development policy should be
identified as a basis for action. It is suggested that an
effective intervention program must be based on a system of
priorities developed by the MQA that takes into account both the
need of the potential clientele and the MQA's overall program
objectives for the Nation. Accordingly, we will work with our
counterparts to conduct a needs assessment and that will be our
first order of business.
Identifying the client's needs is the key to successful
program development. Adoption of improved practices is unlikely
to occur if the client does not perceive a need for or see an
advantage to utilization of an innovation. In order to develop
effective extension programs, the service agency must know (1) the
client's current practices; (2) feasible alternatives to improve
the client's productivity; and (3) the constraints that do or may
prevent adoption of suggested alternatives.
For a service agency to be effective, its own capabilities
and expertise must match the'needs of its potential clientele.
From an institutional perspective, the relevant questions are: (1)
do the agencies involved have appropriate information and/or
services to offer the target clientele and (2) does the agency
have an effective means for delivering its information and
services?
Some of the data required for effective needs assessment are
already available to the GOM. Review of these data suggest that
the numbers and location of women farmers are well known, as is
their participation with government agencies. The data currently
available to the GOM should be used in order to select target
planning areas in which the greatest and most immediate impact can
be expected to occur as a result of efforts to reach women farmers
with improved technology.
We will work with our counterparts at the ADD-level to
conduct a further needs assessment in the selected planning areas
in order to: (1) describe the potential clientele for outreach
programs (e.g., current practices, potential constraints to
adoption of new technology, etc); (2) determine priority areas for
outreach programs (e.g., maize production, introduction of new
crops, etc); (3) determine whether the needed information is now
available or must be developed; and, (4) develop realistic goals
and objectives for impact programming. The needs assessment
should be completed as rapidly as possible and only that
information needed to develop effective extension programs should
be regarded as critical. Collecting extraneous "interesting", but
non-critical information is not warranted.

b. Extension objectives
Extension programs in the selected target areas can be
regarded as having two main objectives. The first objective is to
demonstrate impact with the potential clientele. This requires
setting realistic, measurable goals -- e.g., increasing maize











yields by at least 20 percent on 60 percent of those farms headed
by women. Evaluating impact without setting specific goals is an
impossible task.
Currently existing technology may well serve the needs of
women farmers as well as those of men farmers. It is possible,
however, that adaptive research may be required in order to
develop appropriate technologies for this client group. Women
farmers, for example, may have less labor available than male
farmers. If this were true, special emphasis should be placed on
developing/identifying labor-saving technologies that are
appropriate for the clientele. The responsibility of extension in
this case is to develop an understanding of areas where more
information is needed and to make these needs known to those
cooperating agencies that are responsible for developing
recommendations.
Extension must also understand the potential constraints to
adoption of new technology. If it were perceived, for example,
that the use of herbicides would be an important innovation for
women farmers, perhaps as a labor-saving device, acquisition of
credit to purchase such inputs could be a critical constraint to
adoption of the recommended practice. For extension's programs to
be effective, appropriate action must be taken to overcome such
constraints.
A second major objective of extension and the MARE Project is
to develop methods of reaching women farmers that can be expected
to be effective in other areas of the country. Again, this
requires some means of measuring the impact of the methods of
information delivery that are utilized. Two groups of women
farmers may be selected, for example, one receiving training
through the use of audio-visual materials and other through
participation in on-farm trials. Post-training evaluation can
then be conducted to determine which group benefitted the most and
showed the greatest adpotion of suggested practices. To the
degree that other clientele groups in the country share common
characteristics with the test groups, similar methodologies can be
expected to be effective. We will assist the MOA to achieve this
objective by redefining the role of Women's Programs and by
working with the Evaluation Sections at the ADD-level.

c. Skills Development for Extension
Successful program implementation will also require training
for extension personnel which is called for in both the MARE and
the IDA-financed Agricultural Extension and Planning Support
Projects. At least three types of training needs can be
identified. First, FHA's and their field assistants need to
acquire some expertise in agricultural production. Providing a
"complete" education in agricultural science is not the objective
here. Rather, training should be tailored to the key impact
programs) of each target planning area. That is, if increasing
maize yields is a program objective in a given planning area, FHAs
and assistants should receive intensive training in maize
production, although some generalized materials will be required
as well in order to provide needed background education for the
agents.











Second, all extension personnel will need to learn how to
effectively deliver information. Training materials should be
developed as a result of testing alternative methods of
information delivery. If cartoons were to prove effective, for
example, a training module for "putting together effective
cartoons" should be devised.
Finally, personnel will need to learn how to collect
information. Listening well is as important as teaching well in
extension work. Training in this area should include both more
formal techniques (e.g., how to conduct surveys) and informal
techniques (e.g., learning to address questions to women).
Developing easy-to-use reporting devices for extension personnel
is an important element here, too. We will work with the MQA TU
to develop in-country capacity and short courses to achieve these
training objectives.
Two types of impact evaluations are suggested. One involves
determining, at the end of a pre-determined period of time, the
effectiveness of the programs that have been instituted. This is
commonly completed through a pre-test and post-test methodology.
The pre-test, logically a part of the needs assessment
process, determines the current practices utilized by the
clientele. Measurable characteristics must be included. That is,
maize yields average 800 kg/ha on female-headed farms. This
information is used both to provide a baseline from which progress
can be measured and to set realistic goals for intervention.
The post-test requires measuring the same characteristics on
the same or similar farms to thdse included in the pre-test.
Failure to meet a stated goals that has been set is not
necessarily an indication that a particular program should be
abandoned. Rather, the post-test may provide important
information that shows why a particular program did not meet its
stated goals.
For example, post-test data may show that the goal of
increasing maize yields by 20 percent on 60 percent of all
female-headed farms in an area was not met. The data may show,
however, that yields were increased by 50 percent on a smaller
number of farms, perhaps 30 percent of women-managed farms. This
information shows that the technology that was extended was highly
appropriate for some farmers, although fewer than it was intended
to serve. It then becomes possible to sub-divide farmers into two
groups, those who found the new technology useful and those who
failed to adopt the suggested practices. Further characterization
of these two groups can suggest (1) how to identify clients for
whom the technology is appropriate and (2) alterations in the
technology that can make it more appropriate to non-adopters
and/or improved means of information delivery that will better
reach nonadopters.
Seen in this regard, impact evaluation becomes a part of an
ongoing process of program delivery. It permits extension to
better define its clientele groups and to improve its information
delivery. The evaluation should be designed to aid extension
agents in delivering needed information, not as an absolute
measure of success and failure.












Not all evaluation should be postponed until the post-test.
Ongoing evaluation of individual components of a program permits
the service agency to identify areas of weakness in either the
information being offered to clientele or in method of delivery at
an early stage in program implementation. If audio-visual
materials are developed, for example, their effectiveness should
be measured as quickly as possible with as many test groups as
possible in order to achieve maximum effectiveness from those
materials during the life of the program. We will work with the
Evaulation Sections at the ADD-level to "fit" our evaluation needs
into their ongoing evaluation processes. Further, we expect that
the WPOs interaction with the ARTs will provide a continual source
of data relative to needs of and the impact of technology on women
farmers.

4. Organized Program

The following outline suggests four main areas of activities for a
Women's Program. Time frames for each area are suggested. It should
be borne in mind, however, that needs assessment, program
implementation, and impact evaluation are mutually dependent processes
and should occur in an ongoing fashion in order to achieve maximum
effectiveness.


ACTIVITY


Target Area Selection



Needs Assessment




Personnel Training &
Program Implementation


Impact Evaluation


TIME FRAME

2 months



4 months




2 years


4 months


PURPOSE


Select pilot project areas
on the basis of expected
positive impact

Characterize clientele
groups and develop program
goals and objectives for
each target area

Train extension personnel,
extend appropriate
technology to identified
clientele groups and test
alternative methods of
information delivery

Determine the impact of
extension programs in
target areas, further
characterize additional
clientele groups, and
select clientele groups
and/or target areas for
impact programming











G. Implementation Workplan


It is our philosophy and belief that scarce resources must be brought
to bear on the most pressing and solveable problems. Many problems in
Malawi, and elsewhere, are pressing but not immediately solveable and vice
versa. Because of the foregoing as well as our opinion that we lack
sufficient data upon which to develop a realistic plan of work, this
section of our proposal illustrates how we would rather than how we will.
In regard to the RFTP requirement for identifying training
requirements, we will reiterate our experience in Malawi and our opinions.
First, training has had a great impact on the institutional development of
the MOA. Second, although there may be isolated exceptions, in general,
the first degree does not adequately prepare young and relatively
inexperienced POs for the demands that will be placed upon them by the
complexity of the Malawian smallholder farmers' systems. This is
particularly germaine to the members of the ARTs. Third, many TOs hold
very responsible and demanding positions (e.g., Development Officers or
responsibility for research programs at sub-stations). Non-degree training
aimed at upgrading specific skills would certainly be beneficial to these
individuals in terms of improved job performance. Fourth, FHAs will
require non-degree training to improve their knowledge of how to grow crops
and care for livestock in order to brig women farmers into the mainstream
of agricultural development. Fifth, because of their importance in the
research and extension continuum, FAs and TAs will require periodic
non-degree training in order to keep them abreast of technological change
and new and improved research and extension processes. Sixth, because of
limited human, physical and fiscal resources, the management skills of MQA
personnel must be equal to or better than their technical skills.
The foregoing was intended to be illustrative and is not to be
construed as exhaustive. Training is desirable for all levels of the MOA
but training must be used in a planned and orderly fashion to satisfy
priority requirements.
In this proposal, we have stressed the importance of planning. Our
strategy to implement the MARE Project is through rigorous planning by:
(1) developing a comprehensive understanding of the MOA's state of
development; (2) working with counterparts to use their and our expertise
on priority programs to achieve the objectives of the MOA and the MARE and
IDA Projects; and, (3) using leaving something worthwhile behind as the
primary criterion in our implementation efforts.
In the following, we have described some specific activities that are
required to achieve the foregoing. Subsequently, we illustrate more
generally how we would direct our efforts toward the institutional
development of the M0A.
Prior to the arrival of the TA Team, the contractor's representatives
will meet with the GOM and USAID to agree upon items such as individual
responsibilities, Project reports, and phasing of the arrival of TA Team
members. We are aware that all Team members, although they are prepared to
do so, may not be able to arrive in Malawi at Project startup because IDA
construction may not be complete or counterparts may not be available or it
may be an inopportune time relative to the crop calendar.
As previously mentioned, successful project implementation is
contingent upon mutually agreed upon and well-defined objectives. The
first order of business in implementing the MARE Project is for the TA Team
to meet with the Project Steering Committee and the project Advisory











Committee (see Section II) to completely describe TA Team objectives within
the parameters of National goals and priorities, the MARE Project and the
IDA Projects.
Subsequently, the TA Team will meet with their counterparts to obtain a
complete description and understanding of their respective programs to
include: historical background; mandate; and, ongoing and planned
activities. The purpose of this meeting is for the TA Team to obtain
sufficient background data upon which to develop a plan of work.
After this, each TA Team member will develop a general workplan for
their tour and a specific workplan for the coming year. Team members will
review this with their counterparts and, after arbitration and modification
as necessary, will present workplans to the CARO or CAO for final approval.
Although the PP provides general guidance on the required output from
each team member, we believe that specific workplans must be developed with
specific knowledge of current conditions. Because we are restricted to the
contributions of Technical Assistance relative to the MARE Project
achieving its purpose, we believe that they can only develop realistic
workplans in-country; in concert with and with the advice of their
counterparts.
Accordingly, because the log frame in the PP reflects a good deal of
planning and thought on the part of the Project planners, we have developed
an illustrative Project workplan by translating "end of project status"
into "Project objectives" in order to demonstrate how the TA Team could
work to achieve these objectives. The objectives of the IDA Projects and
of the MOA can easily be incorporated in order to develop an integrated
approach to agricultural development in Malawi.
Our illustrative Project Workplan follows:

ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECT WORKPLAN


Project Title: Malawi: Agricultural Research and Extension

Project No.: Project 612-0215


Project Purpose: To improve the MOA's institutional capacity to increase
the the productivity of traditional crops and to identify
the most viable crops for diversifying smallholder
production.



Project Goal: To increase the incomes of smallholders.


Project Objectives TA Team Verifiable Activities














Project Objectives TA Team Verifiable Activities


1. Training unit fully
operational and undertaking
training programs for
research and extension staff.


2. Agricultural Research
Council is specifying
priorities for research
and allocating funding
according to these
priorities.


3. Five Commodity Research
NRCUs are undertaking re-
search on priority tradition-
al and non-traditional crops.


o contractor provides long and short-term
TA on a timely basis

o TA Team works with TU to develop
training requirements for all levels of
MQA personnel for them to fulfill their
job description

o TA Team and counterparts identifies
training requirements to support priority
programs and projects

o TA Team liases with TU to develop
in-country courses to fulfill priority
requirements and serves as trainers

o TA Team liases with TU to identify venue
and type of off-shore training to fulfill
priority requirements

o TA Team assesses value of training and
provides feedback to TU

o TA Team works with TU to develop a catalog
of courses available through the IARCs
and donor agencies

o ARTs identify primary impediments to
smallholder production and articulates to
on-station researchers and the ARC
Secretariate

o on-station researchers identify research
requirements aimed at solving primary
impediments to smallholder production and
articulate to ARC Secretariate

o The Women's Program works with the ARTs to
identify priority research requirements
to solve problems of women farmers and
articulates to on-station researchers and
the ARC Secretariate

o Commodity Teams work closely with ARTs in
developing on-station research projects

o Commodity Teams work closely with IARCs
and neighboring research organizations to
identify promising technologies for
investigation


__


Project Objectives


TA Team Verifiable Activities












Proec Obecive T Tam erfialeActviie


4. Eight Adaptive Research
Teams are established and
capable of using technolo-
gies of the Commodity Teams.


5. Extension Institutions
are modified to be more
effective in transferring
technologies to greater
numbers of smallholders.


o Commodity Teams develop a clear conduit to
ARC and Planning Division in order to
reflect plans and policies in research
efforts

o TA Team works with DAR to identify
specific short-term assistance to increase
the effectiveness of the Commodity Teams
and the Coordinating Units

o TA Team works with NRCUs and the TU to
identify specific skills requiring
upgrading

o TA Team and counterparts conduct an
an in-depth assessment of ARP and develop
plans for improvement if necessary

o TA Team and counterparts develop
in-service training requirements to
upgrade skills of the ARTs and liase with
TU to conduct the training

o TA Team and counterparts develop a plan to
train all ARP P.O. personnel to the M.Sc.
level and present plan to DAR management
and the TU

o TA Team and counterparts liase with
Commodity Teams to develop
commodity-specific short courses and liase
with TU to present courses

o TA Team works with CIMMYT to train new
ARTs for deployment

o TA Team works with counterparts to analyze
and develop improvements for the EAB

o TA Team and counterparts provide feedback
to EAB on the effectiveness of the means
of communication

o TA Team and counterparts identify
location-specific technologies for
dissemination by the decentralized EAB

o TA Team and counterparts serve as
trainers to Extension Agents


Project Objectives


TA Team Verifiable Activities














Project Objectives


6. Womens Program is
strengthened to increase
women' participation in
agricultural research,
extension, and training
activities.


TA Team Verifiable Activities


o TA Team and counterparts conduct a needs
analysis of women farmers

o TA Team solicts input of WPOs and women
farmers in the ARP

o TA Team and counterparts develop research
requirements for women farmers

o TA Team and counterparts work with TU to
develop short-courses to upgrade the
biological skills of FHAs


o TA Team and
impact plan
fund (e.g.,
and/or food


counterparts develop a high
for use of the demonstration
introduction of labor saving
processing technology)


___


__











H. Plan for Developing Working Relations with Counterparts

Working relationships, especially productive ones, have their genesis
in mutual respect and understanding which are developed over time and
rarely through a preconceived plan. The plan as such is, therefore, to
select team members who are genuinely committed to counterpart development
as a means of institution building.
Building on the lessons learned in the Malawi Agricultural Research
Project, we will, as a top priority, work to localize the efforts in
Agroforestry and in Agricultural Economics, Statistics and Data Processing.
Adaptive Research, Agricultural Communications, Horticulture, and Women's
Programs are, from the our point of view, localized or are near to being
localized because they are staffed by people capable of planning and
implementing sound programs some programs may benefit from refinement or
refocussing, and people usually become more productive with relevant
training which is all normal in any dynamic organization.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the we believe that
institutions are built on well-trained people who are capable of developing
sound programs. Advanced degree, specialized training at an IARC,
in-service and on-the-job training all significantly contribute to the
process of human development. The MOA and the MARE and IDA Projects have,
for the near-term, delineated those positions requiring skill upgrade
through advanced degree training. Also, all three Projects have made
provisions for non-degree training of all types without matching a specific
type to a specific area.
We will utilize this training opportunity by working with counterparts
to develop a human resources inventory and, from this, a human needs
assessment to support all programs and, especially those to which LTTA and
STTA are assigned (this will include all levels of staff). We will suggest
to the MQA that training be a required item on each LTTA workplan and that
workplans developed for each STTA include a training component.
It can be expected that training requirements will exceed the available
resources and will have to be given priorities to fulfill the needs of
priority programs. It is imperative, therefore, that operational
coordinators, be they research or extension, have an unobstructed conduit
to the TU in order for the TU to be responsive to operational requirements.
We will, as a part of preparing technicians for assignment, highlight
the importance of counterpart input into program development. Although the
PP mandates certain expatriate technicians to develop programs, we believe
this would be of transitory value to Malawi unless Malawians are directly
involved in the process. In fact, the PP abets this because, with the
exception of the Adaptive Research Agronomist, all LTTA are assigned
advisory rather than supervisory roles.
Counterpart involvement in all stages of program development serves
three important functions in institution building. First, it is an
invaluable learning experience. Second, the expertise of the Technical
Assistants coupled with their counterparts' expertise and knowledge of the
country will result in more relevant programs. Third, people are willing
to support and make work programs they have helped develop which
contributes to continuity of programs after the Project. The Adaptive
Research, Horticulture and Maize Programs are noteworthy examples of the
results of Malawians working side by side with Technical Assistants in
program development.












As mentioned here and previously, we will develop working relations
with counterparts by learning from our counterparts and by training and
advising our counterparts in: (1) technical areas; (2) program development
and execution; (3) planning; (4) personnel, program and fiscal management;
and, (5) analysis.











II. INSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS


In Chapter II the University of Florida (UF), in cooperation with the
South East Consortium for International Development (SECID) and AGRIDEC,
Inc., present their institutional qualifications to implement this
important project. We begin with an affirmation by the leadership of the
proposing institutions describing their commitment to international
development in general, and to cooperating with the Ministry of Agriculture
(MQA) in executing the MARE component of its development program. We next
demonstrate our combined ability to marshal outstanding technical personnel
from our own institutions as well as from International Agricultural
Research Centers (IARCs) to meet the technical requirements of the MARE
Project. This will be followed with an explication of our combined
technical capacities to support the MOA in implementing the MARE Project.
Chapter II next provides a description of our considerable current and
previous experience in implementing comparable projects, followed by a
demonstration of our ability to nominate for consideration multiple
candidates for each of the Project's long-term technical assistance
positions. Our ability to field selected candidates in a timely manner is
also affirmed. We then present our philosophy regarding our concept of
cooperation with the MQA. Our relationships with the IARCs and other
relevant institutions are then presented along with a demonstration of our
knowledge of the resources available at these institutions of relevance to
the MARE Project.
We conclude Chapter II with the presentation of an administrative plan
adapted to meet the requirements of the MOA, USAID, and the participating
institutions, and our combined capabilities to backstop our team and meet
project related reporting requirements.

A. Institutional Commitment

The institutional leaders of the University of Florida and its
partners, SECID and AGRIDEC are committed both to international development
in general and to cooperating with the MOA in implementing the MARE Project
in particular. This commitment can be demonstrated by examining our joint
philosophies regarding international development and our role in this
process; by describing our decision to submit this proposal; and verified
by statements of institutional commitment and the proposal itself.

1. Philosophical Commitment

UF, SECID, and AGRIDEC's leaders have developed institutional
philosophies committing their resources to participate actively in the
international development process. Institutional and legislative
leaders at the University of Florida recognized Florida's unique
geographical position and its potential for supporting international
development as an integral component of the state's own development as
early as 1927. UF's Center for Latin American Studies will celebrate
its 55th anniversary this year, making it one of the oldest such
centers in the world. Its Center for African Studies, developed in the
mid-1960's, is one of nine Title VI National Resource Centers for
African Language and Area Studies, and has unique assets in terms of
its linkages between the humanities and social sciences and the area of











rural development, particularly agriculture as it applies to the humid
tropics of Africa. Recognizing that the University of Florida could
make important contributions to agricultural development in the
tropics, the Florida Board of Regents authorized a Center for Tropical
Agriculture in 1965. The Center is organized as a component of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), the UF's statewide
complex of teaching, research and extension programs in agriculture, and
its Director reports directly to the Vice-President of Agricultural
Affairs. UF's leaders have been in the forefront of promoting AID's
Title XII Strengthening Programs and Program Support Grants. The
Center for Tropical Agriculture's Director, Dr. Hugh Popenoe, has
played a central role in BIFAD's development as well as in promoting
greater involvement of the U.S. academic community in international
development through organizations such as the National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), and the
Association of U.S. University Directors of International Agricultural
Programs (AUSUDIAP).
The South-East Consortium for International Development (SECID) was
created by the institutional executives of its member institutions
expressly to facilitate the involvement of its member institutions in
international development. Article III of SECID's Articles of
Incorporation states that "SECID is organized for the purpose of
responding to the economic and social needs of less-developed countries
and limited resource peoples .... to promote discussion of the
philosophy and objectives in promoting rural development and technology
transfer; increasing and disseminatinfg knowledge and understanding
concerning the strategy of cross-cultural education; cooperating in
developing appropriate international development educational programs;
providing technical assistance; assisting in the development of
effective administrative procedures which facilitate success of
international activities; assisting member institutions in promoting
iteractions with international development entities; and strengthening
the abilities of member institutions to meet their individual
international development objectives." Thus, SECID is the embodiment
of its member institutions' commitment to become actively engaged in
international development. Given the land-grant status of 30 of the
Consortium's 34 member institutions, this commitment has concentrated
upon agricultural development.
AGRIDEC, Inc. was incorporated in 1983 as a registered minority 8(a)
contractor with the principal objective of contributing to agricultural
development in tropical countries. This contribution concentrates on
farming systems research and extension, focusing upon seed technology,
plant breeding, economic production and marketing of non-traditional
crops, training, policy analyses and development, and computer
applications to research and extension. Its president, Dr. Frederico
Poey and his associates, actively contributed to the practical
implementation of the farming systems approach to research and
extension in the Institute of Science and Technology in Guatemala. As
a support entity for the FSSP, AGRIDEC has furnished the largest amount
of technical assistance to the FSSP and, thus, has established an
excellent professional relationship between AGRIDEC and the UF.
Thus, our commitment to international development is built upon a
philosophical foundation which reflects the thinking of our
institutional and legislative leaders and is realized by the










institutional structures which have been developed to actualize this
commitment.

2. Institutional Commitment to MARE

The commitment to cooperate with the MOA in realizing its
development program was not made hastily by our leaders. Rather, the
decision was made after a lengthy assessment of the goals and
objectives of this project, an objective examination of the
complementarities to be realized through cooperation, and the wish to
build upon linkages previously established to help Malawi realize its
agricultural and economic potential.
UF's institutional leaders along with those representing SECID have
monitored the MARE Project for almost two years. Given our collective
experience (see, Section E, below), we were struck by the
comprehensiveness of the GOM's agricultural development plan, the
thoughtful integration of donor activities to realize its objectives,
and the recognition of the importance and potential for actualization
of the research and extension components of the MARE Project.
Moreover, the existant capacity of the MQA to implement these
components with some strengthening, its recognition of the need for
mutual collaboration by implementers, and its determination to have the
technical assistance team work within, and be directly accountable to
the MQA, all pointed to the commitment of the Ministry to ensure the
success of the MARE Project.
We simultaneously examined our own collective capacities in view of
the objectives of the project. Our commitment to applied and adaptive
agricultural research, strengths in agronomy, horticulture, economics,
agroforestry, agricultural communications and women' program
development (see, Sections D, E, F, and H, below), and orientation to
cooperation rather then supervision, mirrored the stated requirements
of the MOA and USAID.
Finally, we took into account our joint commitment to developing
long-term and mutually beneficial linkages with our colleagues in any
projects we would implement. UF, SECID and AGRIDEC are all committed
to identifying activities in which to participate that give promise of
professional interactions which endure beyond the life of a particular
project. In this regard, the University of Florida's commitment to
sustaining its linkages developed during its previous participation in
Malawi was matched by the desire of SECID's participating member
institutions and AGRIDEC's commitment to developing and sustaining
similar linkages.
Taken together, then, every consideration in our assessment pointed
to the logic of committing our collective resources to seeking to
cooperate with the MOA in implementing the MARE Project. This
commitment was consolidated by our executives prior to the release of
the RFTP.

3. Statements of Commitment

Our collective commitment to cooperating with our MOA colleagues and
USAID in implementing the MARE Project is further affirmed by the
letters of institutional commitment presented in this proposal (see,
Letter of Transmittal, and Appendix A). These letters include, in











addition to UF, SECID and AGRIDEC, commitments from participating SECID
member institutions. Letters from each of the long-term technical
assistance nominees are also presented in Appendix A. As can be seen
from these letters, our submission of this proposal in support of the
MARE Project has the fullest support of our institutional executives.
We very much want to cooperate with our MQA counterparts in
implementing this project. In Chapter 1, we demonstrated our
understanding of the technical requirements necessary to achieve this;
below we give further evidence of our individual and collective
capabilities to do so.

B. Mobilization of Qualified Technical Personnel

UF, SECID and AGRIDEC are prepared to provide all highly qualified
long-and short-term technical personnel from their full-time faculty and
staff (see, Chaper III). The University of Florida and SECID are providing
the resources of 12 major universities in support of the MARE Project
including Alabama A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Kentucky, Mississippi
State, North Carolina A&T, Pennsylvania State, Southern, Tennessee,
Tennessee State, and Virginia Tech. It should be pointed out that this
includes four historically Black land grant colleges and universities
(Alabama A&M, North Carolina A&T, Southern, and Tennessee State
Universities).
All of the faculty nominated by our institutions are full-time, and all
have explicitly requested that their names be entered for consideration.
As shown in Chapter III, all our long-term nominees meet the criteria
established regarding qualifications. This commitment to provide faculty
and staff extends beyond the desire to be responsive to the terms and
conditions of the RFTP. As stated above, the impetus behind our wish to
work with our Malawian colleagues is our commitment to establishing
relationships which will continue after the Project's conclusion. The most
effective way of ensuring the development of such linkages, we believe, is
to nominate active faculty and staff who are professionally committed to
continue international agricultural research and extension activities with
their Malawian colleagues upon their return to their respective
institutions.
We also recognize that the mobilization of qualified technical
perosnnel must also take into account the need of the MOA and individual
Malawian agricultural professionals to strengthen linkages with the
international agricultural community. Accordingly, we will utilize our
existing linkages with the International Agricultural Research Centers
(IARCs) to facilitate such linkages. The institutions submitting this
proposal have Memoranda of Understanding and/or close working relationships
with IITA, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, CIAT, IRRI, CATIE, CIP and IBPGR. This
networking capacity will be accessed when MOA and USAID project officials
deem it useful in implementing the project.
This capacity to draw upon our faculty and staff, as well as from the
IARCs, will provide the MOA considerable flexibility and choice in
optimizing its long-and short-term technical assistance needs. Moreover,
we wish to reiterate that such capacity is firm rather than potential. Our
faculty and staff are committed to work with -teir MOA counterparts.











C. Technical Competence and Support Capability

A major consideration behind our joint decision to submit this proposal
was our recognition of the appropriateness of our institutions' technical
competence to implement the MARE Project. Broadly speaking, seven
technical areas are identified in the RFTP as basic resource needs. These
are: agricultural economics, agronomy, forestry, horticulture, plant
pathology/plant physiology/entomology, anthropology/sociology; and,
communications. All fourteen participating Title XII institutions offer
degrees in agricultural economics, agronomy, horticulture, and
anthropology/sociology; ten provide degrees in forestry; eleven offer
degrees in plant pathology/physiology/entomology; and ten offer degrees in
communications, including two specifically in agricultural communications.
Table 2.1 below, illustrates our collective capabilities in these areas.


DEGREE OFFERINGS


TABLE 2.1
BY PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS


F
0
r
e
s
t
r
y


INSTITUTION


PP
ah
ty
hs
oi
1 o
ol
go
yg
y


ALABAMA A&M X X X X
ARKANSAS X X X X X X X
AUBURN X X X X X X X
CLEMSON X X X X X X
FLORIDA X X X X X X X
KENTUCKY X X X X X X X
MARYLAND X X X X X X X
MISSISSIPPI STATE X X X X X X X
NORTH CAROLINA A&T X X X X X
PENNSYLVANIA STATE X X X X X X X
SOUTHERN X X X X X
TENESSEE X X X X X X X
TENNESSEE STATE X X X X X
VIRGINIA TECH X X X X X X X


The relevance of our technical competence


to the MARE Project is also a


function of our geographical location and our domestic foci. The
represented by the institutions submitting this proposal contain


states












agroecological zones similar to Malawi's. Indeed, we produce every crop
grown in Malawi, save tea and coffee. Because we are land grant
institutions operating in states whose economies are predominantly
agricultural, our institutional mission has been to provide agricultural
research and extension support to the farmers in our region. This effort
has focused upon improved and increased production of maize, rice, legumes,
forage crops and forestry. This focus is buttressed by our active
involvement in adaptive research. Five of the institutions participating
in the submission of this proposal (Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee,
and Virginia Tech) are charter members of the Farming Sytems Support
Project; Florida, Auburn, North Carolina A&T, Alabama A&M, and Southern
Universities have active ongoing domestic adaptive research projects.
Auburn, Arkansas, Florida and Maryland are lead institutions in
international FSR/E projects; SECID is currently serving as prime
contractor for four international adaptive research projects, and AGRIDEC
has been active in adaptive research training in Senegal, the Gambia and
Honduras, Guatemala, Paraguay and Peru. AGRIDEC's substantive competence
in tropical seed technology will also be a valuable asset to the MARE
Project.
The MARE Project also focuses upon improving the role of Malawian women
farmers. The institutions submitting this proposal have been on the leading
edge of addressing the issue of women'in development. Florida, for
example, has a Women in Agriculture Committee; Penn State has a Center for
Rural Women; Virginia Tech has a formally constituted Office of Women in
World Development; and Alabama A&M, kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina A&T,
and Tennessee State all have Women in Development Committees. SECID
established the first Center for Women in Development (CWID) formally
funded by AID. The Center,in addition to addressing the general issue of
women in development, has provided technical internships to AID-funded
projects to examine and promote the role of women in ongoing projects. All
of the universities participating in this proposal are active members of
CWID; Florida, Clemson, Kentucky, North Carolina A&T, Penn State, Tennessee
State, and Virginia Tech have provided faculty and graduate students to
serve as technical assistants through CWID.
Given our technical competence and broad range of degree granting
programs in the areas of greatest relevance to the MARE Project, we are
confident of our ability to assist the MOA in its efforts to provide
effective long-term training for those participants identified by the
Ministry. Thus, although contract training is to be undertaken by a
separate contractor, we are prepared to assist the MOA and the contractor
in facilitating this activity. Similarly, the faculty at our institutions
with substantive expertise in the disciplines identified in the RFTP, and
international experience, constitute an impressive resource base that can
be drawn on to provide timely and effective project-related short-term,
in-country training.
Our technical competence in the multiple disciplines called for in the
MARE Project is matched by the facilities we possess to support the project
within the context of the MQA development program. Conceptually, the MQA
development objectives of increasing the productivity and incomes of
smallholders through strengthened, indigenous agricultural support
entities, mirrors the mandate our participating land grant institutions
have received from their respective state governments. This commonality of
orientation and our extensive international agricultural development
experience (see, Section E, below), has resulted in the development of a












collective resource support base for the implementation of the MARE
Project.
Institutionally, the keystone of our support system will be the Center
for Tropical Agriculture at the University of Florida. Located within the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), the Center provides
administrative and technical backstopping for both domestic and
international programs. The Center is organically linked to the
University's statewide complex of teaching, research and extension programs
in agriculture. The Director of the Center reports directly to the
Vice-President for Agricultural Affairs and is advised on policy issues by
other center directors and department chairpersons. International program
coordinators, located in each department, provide assistance at the program
implementation level. This administrative organization permits the Center
to draw upon findings from applicable research, as well as services of the
professional staff.
The Center's considerable resources will, in turn, be backstopped by
the other institutions participating in the submission of this proposal.
All the universities participating in this proposal have international
program offices staffed by agricultural professionals with international
experience. Well developed linkages between applied researchers, extension
service personnel and state and federal agricultural officers are in place.
As mentioned above, active engagement'in Farming Systems Research and
Extension (FSR/E), both domestically and internationally, has been a major
activity of the partners submitting this proposal. This has resulted in an
FSR/E network and repository of findings which will be at the disposal of
the MOA. Similarly, the resources of our women in development centers, and
the technical expertise of our faculty in project relevant disciplines
will be available to support the MARE Project. These resources will be
strengthened by our collective library, research station, training,
technology package, and communicaiton capabilities. Finally, SECID's
Office of Procurement is prepared to provide all necessary commodity
procurement associated with the implementation of the MARE Project.
The mechanism to be in place to access these support services will be
through contacting the Home Campus Coordinator, Dr. Hugh Popenoe, Director
of International Programs, Center for Tropical Agriculture. The Home
Campus Coordinator will be backstopped by an Advisory Council of
Representative from SECID and AGRIDEC. Communications from the field
requesting support services will be promptly acted upon (see, Section G,
below, for an elaboration of our proposed project administration system).
In sum, we have both technical competence and support capabilities to work
closely with our MOA counterparts in ensuring that the MARE Project
receives relevant, effective and timely assistance.

D. International Experience

The institutions submitting this proposal have extensive experience in
implementing similar projects in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and
Latin America. Below, we present brief descriptions of the most relevant
activities. Appendix B contains a list of contracting data for Florida,
SECID, and AGRIDEC.














1. The University of Florida

** Malawi Agricultural Research -In 1980, the University entered into
a five year contract in Malawi. The overall goal of this contract was
to strengthen the research capability of the Malawi Department of
Agriculture with the ultimate aim of improving small farmer
productivity. An important part of the contract was the provision of
graduate level education for more than 30 Malawian agricultural
professionals. UF personnel were instrumental in developing the
Adaptive Research Program (ARP) and the Master Plan for Agricultural
Research, which the MARE Project will, in part, assist in implementing.

** Cameroon Agricultural University Development The Center for
Tropical Agriculture is administering a six-year USAID contract to
support the development of the University Center for Agriculture in
Dschang, Cameroon. This project, which began in 1982, entails
developing the agricultural university in Cameroon based on the U.S.
Land-Grant University model. It is a vital part of Cameroon's plan to
recognize and expand its educational system so that University programs
are more closely directed towards'the country's development needs.
More than 50 agricultural professionals from Cameroon will receive
graduate-level training at the University of Florida and other U.S.
- universities.

** Zimbabwe Heartwater Disease Control The University is engaged in
a USAID-funded contract to cooperate with veterinarian counterparts in
Zimbabwe to develop an effective antidote for heartwater disease, an
infection with possible applications throughout Southern Africa and the
Caribbean.

** Farming Systems Support Project a five-year cooperative
agreement between USAID and the University of Florida, the project is
designed to provide field support for USAID missions to strengthen and
expand Farming Systems Research and Development as a complement to
national and regional research and extension programs. Its primary
purpose is to provide technical assistance, training and networking
support to practitioners and administrators of farming systems research
and extension programs.

** Colombia Institutional Development -a project to strengthen the
Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Science at the University of
Antioquia to develop research information and teaching capabilities in
livestock production, health, and nutritional technologies in tropical
regions.

** Guyana Agricultural Diversification -an AID project to provide
short-erm technical assistance to the Ministry of Agriculture in the
areas of livestock, pastures, basic food crops, and economic studies.

** Jamaica School of Agriculture Expansion -a project financed by the
World Bank to expand and improve the existing program by supplying
technical assistance in diverse fields including soils, plant
pathology, vegetable crops, agronomy, fruit crops, and agricultural
economics.












** Ecuador Rural Technology Transfer -The University of Florida
contract in Ecuador is implemented through a project called the Rural
Technology Transfer System (RTTS). Working through the Ecuadorian
Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT), the objective of the RTTS
project is to address constraints to rural technology generation and
dissemination. Various subprojects designed to improve the rural
development process have been initiated since the contract began in
1981. The Ecuador contract is funded by the U.S. Agency for
International Development.

** Costa Rica Technical Services to Mission -Based on the University's
long history of involvement with Costa Rica, beginning in 1954, a
Technical Support to Mission (TSM) contact was signed with the USAID
mission in Costa Rica in 1981. The purpose of the contract is to
provide support to the local mission such that continuity occurs in
agricultural development and technical assistance program efforts.

** Honduras Cooperative Research -The University of Florida and the
Escuela Agricola Panamericans (EAP) in Honduras have a history of over
30 years of cooperative teaching and research activities. In 1981, a
memorandum of agreement furthered the basis for cooperative research
and instruction between the two institutions.

** Philippines Rainfed Resources -The University of Florida
cooperating through SECID with Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI),
will provide short-term technical assistance in Farming Systems Researh
and Development to the Government of Philippines at the national and
regional levels.

UF has also undertaken relevant cooperative research with a number
of international and regional research institutions. These include:
the international Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in maize,
soybeans and tissue culture of aroids; the International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in pastures and cassava; the Center for
Tropical Agriculture Research and Training (CATIE) in farming systems,
organic fertilizers, and management of forest program; the Centro
International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) in farming
systems and maize; and with the International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in biotechnology, groundnuts, and
pigeonpeas.

2. SECID

** Senegal Casamance Regional Development -a four year
project (1981-85) to provide technical assistance and training to
assist the Government of Senegal in the Casamance Region in developing
farming systems research and management capabilities for effective
planning and evaluation for the overall development of the region.
This project included technical assistance inputs for livestock
development, computer/statistical analysis, agricultural economic,
irrigation, extension, and agronomy. A central objective was
strengthening the extension capabilities at PIDAC (Projet Integre de
Developpement Agricole de la Basse Csamance) and its research/extension
links with ISRA institutet Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles) to meet











smallholder needs and improve smallholder productivity. The project
was implemented by Auburn, Tuskegee, Research Triangle Institute,
Louisiana State, Kentucky State, and Maryland Universities.

** Guinea Smallholder Production Preparation a two-year USAID
project (1984-86) to design an adaptive research project using FSR/E
methodology. On-farm and on-station research will be carried out under
this project. In addition, an extension system will be created. Other
components of the project have included operationalizing an
agricultural research laboratory, developing an extension training
curriculum focusing on adaptive research technology transfer, and
strengthening the administrative, financial, and logistics capacities
of Guinean agricultural institutions related to the project. North
Carolina A&T is lead institution, supported by Virginia Tech, Fort
Valley State and Development Alternatives, Inc.

** Mali Farming Systems Research and Extension This 10-year USAID
project recently awarded to SECID will focus upon strengthening the
Ministry of Agriculture's Department of Farming Systems Research
(DRSPR). The project will be implemented in two major regions of the
country. Like the MARE Project, this effort seeks to increase
smallholder productivity and incomes through improved adaptive research
and effective extension delivery systems. Maize, sorghum, millet,
legumes, and rice will be the traditional crops slated for improvement.
Like MARE, Mali FSR/E will also strengthen indigenous institutions,
improve networking with IARCs and other regional organizations, improve
linkages between the DRSPR and Malian higher education institutions to
strengthen the indigenous agricultural research network and secure
commodities in support of the project. Auburn University is lead
institution for this undertaking, supported by Virginia Tech, Texas A&M
and the Research Triangle Institute.

** Belize Livestock Development a four-year (1984-88) mixed farming
systems project to provide technical assistance, training, and
procurement services to assist the Ministry of Natural Resources (MONR)
and small farmers and livestock producers in a program of swine
improvement, pasture management, dairy industry development, meat
processing, and government policy and analysis and formulation.
Improved extension services are a central consideration in implementing
this project.

** Cardi Farming Systems Research a three-year (1984-87) project to
establish and extend farming systems research and development
methodologies throughout the Eastern Caribbean. The Caribbean
Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) is to be
strengthened in its ability to work with farmers to identify production
constraints, researchable problems, and solutions using FSR/E
methodologies. Maryland, Winrock International, Southern, Clemson and
Virginia Tech are implementing this project.

** Kenya Egerton College Expansion -- a five-year (1979-84)
institutional development project to expand and improve the facilities
and training capabilities of Egerton College in Njoro, Kenya. The
focus was on agricultural education, extension, and nutrition











education. SECID's team members in kenya served as faculty members at
Egerton College while 50 of their Kenyan counterparts received Masters
and Ph. D.-level training in the United States. Farming systems
research, forage production, agronomy, horticulture, agricultural
economics, range management and beef and dairy production expertise
was provided by SECID member institutions. Mississippi State and
Virginia State were co-lead institutions, supported by Penn State,
Virginia Tech, kentucky, North Carolina A&T and Tennessee State.

** Seychelles Food Crops Research a three-year project (1981-84) to
assist the Government of Seychelles, Department of Agriculture and Land
Use, to conduct applied and adaptive food crops research, extend
selected proven results of such research to smallholder farmers, and
protect the agricultural sector from the introduction of pests and
diseases from abroad. Clemson University implemented this project.

** Burkina Faso Agricultural Human Resources Development a six-year
project (1978-84) in collaboration with the University of Ouagadougou
to strengthen Burkina Faso's capabilities to train agricultural
personnel and improve extension services delivered to small farmers.
This project provided expertise in animal science, plant science,
agricultural economics, management and procurement in addition to
operationalizing the agricultural research center at Gampela. Tuskegee
and Georgia led this project, with support from Alabama A&M, and Fort
Valley State Universities.

** Mali Agricultural Officers Training a four-year project (1981-85)
designed to enhance the capability of agricultural extension officers
to provide services to Mali's smallholder farmers. Its focus was on
designing a new curriculum for implementation in three training centers
located in different geographical regions. Malian counterparts
directed the efforts of the SECID professional team. Clemson was lead
institution supported by Maryland, Georgia and Louisiana State
Universities.

** Zaire Agricultural Economics Training a five-year SECID/USDA
collaboration to provide training for 40 Zarian participants as part of
an agricultural economic development project. Georgia served as lead
institution.

** Burkina Faso Grain Marketing a two-year project to assist in
establishing policies and procedures for Burkina Faso's National
Cereals Office (OFNACER). The project's objective was more efficient
grain marketing. Lincoln University served as lead institution.

** Liberia Agricultural Research Extension Commodities SECID's
Procurement Department assisted Louisiana State University and USAID/L
by procuring a wide range of agricultural commodities for the
Agricultural Research Extension Project.

** Environmental Training and Management in Africa -- a five-year
project (1981-86) designed to provide training in environmental
planning and resource management. SECID maintained an office in
Nairobi to facilitate the planning for training _seminars. Seminars











were held in the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan,
Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Nier, Mali, Cono, go, Cameroon, and
Senegal. A criticalactor in tese seminars was focusing upon
environmentally sound agricultural development. This project was
co-led by North Carolina and Clark Universities. Support was provided
by Alabama A&M, Auburn, Clemson, Tennessee and Virginia Tech.

** People in Forestry in Africa an FAO sponsored project to
ascertain the employment-generating potential of forestry projects upon
local inhabitants. The analysis is concentrating upon Zambia as a
special case. North Carolina A&T helped implement this project.

** Southern Africa Development Analysis Project SECID subcontracted
with USDA for this project to assess the present and future potentials
of the agricultural sectors of Angola, Namibia, Zambia, Mozambique,
Zimbabwe, Malawi, Botswana, Lesotho, and Swazilan -This effort
included an in-depth assessment of livestock production, crop
production, personnel policy, and technology delivery. North Carolina
A&T, Penn State, Auburn, Clemson, Kentucky and Tennessee State
participated in this project.

** Nepal Resource Conservation and Utilization a seven-year
(1980-87) multidisciplinary effort to reduce soil erosion, seek new
energy sources, and improve living conditions in the mountainous
regions of Nepal. A new site for the Institute of Renewable Natural
Resources is being developed as part of this project. In this
capacity, 49 Nepalese participants are receiving advanced training. In
addition, a number of short-term training seminars are being planned as
in-country, U.S., and third-country training efforts. Virginia Tech,
Duke and Western Carolina Universities are implementing this project.

** Sri Lanka Reforestation and Watershed Management a five-year
(1981-86) project to assist in the development and extension of Sri
Lanka's forest resources. This project includes research and
development at several forest research stations, and participant
training in the U.S. and third-countries. A central consideration in
this project is development of an effective and expanded fuelwood
program for rural communities. Georgia is lead institution for this
project assisted by Florida and North Carolina State University.

** REDSO/WCA Technical Support to Missions a three-year (1883-86)
project to provide short-term technical assistance personnel in
agriculture and human nutrition for all USAID missions supported by
REDSO/WCA. This includes farming systems research, project evaluation,
PID and Project Paper development, and technical agricultural
assistance. All of the institutions participating in the submission of
the MARE proposal are engaged in implementing this project. To date,
we have undertaken TSM activities in the Gambia, Niger, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Zaire, Togo, Guinea-Bissau, Ghana, and Congo-Brazzaville.

In addition to these projects, SECID's Center for Women in
Development (CWID) has administered an AID grant since 1981 which
includes provision of technical assistance fellowships to examine women
in development aspects of AID-funded projects. The Center has placed











technical assistants in Senegal, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Sri Lanka, Mali,
Swaziland, Rwanda, Kenya, Brazil, and Bolivia. Technical assistan-ce in
both Burkina Faso and Swazi consisted of focusing upon the role of
women within the farming systems context. This grant has been extended
through 1986.

3. AGRIDEC

** Senegal Farming Systems Support Workshop -AGRIDEC participated in
implementing a Farming systems Workshop under the aegis of the
University of Florida in May 1985.

** The Gambia Farming Systems Support Workshop AGRIDEC also
participated in implementing a Farming Systems Workshop in the Gambia.
This was an FSSP activity.

** Paraguay Short-Term Technical Assistance AGRIDEC has been
actively involved in a wide range of short-term technical assistance
activities since 1983. These activities have include evaluating a
small farmers project from the perspective of FSR/E; implementing a
Farming Systems Research seminar; providing a course on the methodology
of farming systems which emphasized agricultural production; providing
a second FSR/E course keyed to animal production; and providing
technical assistance to SEAG to implement the objectives of the farming
systems approach.

** Dominican Republic Farming Systems Courses In 1983 and again in
1984, AGRIDEC assisted USAID in introducing FSR/E methodology
emphasizing economic analysis, and animal production in support of
AID's ARENA Project.

** Guatemala Farming Systems In 1984, AGRIDEC worked with USAID,
FSSP, and ICTA in participating in a FSSP seminar the focus of which
was improved potato production. The corporation subsequently edited a
book entitled On Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming Systems Research and
Extension.

** Ecuador Farming Systems Suppot In 1984, AGRIDEC cooperated with
USAID, CIP, I and the University of Florida in providing a farming
systems approach seminar emphasizing potato seeds, and an on-farm
research course focusing on the design and analysis of on-farm
research.

** Central America Project Evaluation AGRIDEC participated with the
University of Florida in evaluating the OCAP-CATIE Farming Systems
Project.

** Colombia Seed Technology Assistance AGRIDEC, under contract to
CIAT, gave five courses and three seminars in seed technology and
production. It subsequently supported CIAT's Seed Unit in
participating in courses seminars and preparation of didactic material.
AGRIDEC also introduced seminars and courses on seeds in Paraguay,
Argentina, and Costa Rica.











** Honduras Concept Paper In October, 1985, AGRIDEC developed a
concept for USAID focusing on the development of Honduras's private
seed sector.

** Ecuador Technical Assistance AGRIDEC assisted USAID in 1984-85 in
three activities: assisting the Ministry of Agriculture in developing
a private seed sector; supporting the President Reagan's Commission for
Agricultural and livestock development; and evaluating the Ecuadorian
National Seed Enterprise.

As demonstrated above, then, the institutions submitting this
proposal have substantial previous international experience directly
relevant to the MARE Project. This includes projects emphasizing
farming systems research and extension, institutional strengthening,
and in-country training. This experience, much of which has been
gained in projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, will be placed at the
disposal of the MOA and USAID in implementing the MARE Project.

E. Ability to Nominate qualified Nominees

Florida, SECID, and AGRIDEC are pleased to be able to be responsive to
the terms and conditions of the RFTP insofar as our ability to nominate at
least two qualified candidates for each of the long-term technical
positions called for is concerned. Table 2.2 below lists our nominees and
their institutional affiliations. In Chapter III, their specific
qualifications will be described in detail.


TABLE 2.2
LONG-TERM NOMINEES FOR THE


MARE PROJECT


POSITION NOMINEES INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION

Production Economist Dr. Michael Hammig Clemson/SECID
Dr. Robin Henning North Carolina A&T/SECID
Dr. Carter Price Arkansas/SECID
Dr. P.J.van Blokland Florida

Agronomist Dr. Udai Bishnoi Alabama A&M/SECID
Dr. Sherman Pasley Florida

Agricultural Economist Dr. Robert Reeser AGRIDEC
Dr. James Stallings Auburn/SECID

Horticulturist Dr. Alberto Beale AGRIDEC
Dr. George Marlowe Florida

Agro-Forester Dr. Bob Karr Mississippi State/SECID
Dr. Richard Russo AGRIDEC
Dr. Frank Woods Tennessee/SECID











TABLE 2.2 (cont'd)

Agricultural Communi- Dr. Cordell Hatch Pennsylvania State/SECID
cations Specialist Mr. Lloyd Van Crowder Florida

Women's Program Dr. Vickie Sigman AGRIDEC
Specialist Dr. Marilyn Swisher Florida
Dr. Helga Vierich Kentucky/SECID

Each of our nominees was informed of the likelihood of project
implementation occurring during June/July, 1986. All of the nominees have
stated their preparedness to assume their assignments (if selected) within
60 days of the signing of the contract. Florida, SECID and AGRIDEC have
developed an administrative process (see, Sections G and I, below), to
ensure the fielding of the technical assistance team in a prompt and
effective manner. Thus, we are prepared to meet the terms and conditions
of the scope of work as elucidated in the RFTP.

F. Working Relationship Philosophy

The institutions cooperating in submitting this proposal have carefully
examined Article I and II in the RFTP and are in accord with MARE's goals
and objectives. We perceive this effort as a collaborative undertaking,
requiring close cooperation of all participants in order to optimize its
implementation. At the macro-level, this necessities a close working
relationship between the GOM, USAID, and IDA officials. At the
micro-level, we perceive our role as being determined by the MQA, as
approved by USAID and described in the RFTP. Philosophically, this poses
no problem for us, insofar as we have all previously undertaken projects
where our field personnel have worked under the technical direction of
host-country officials. The existing implementation capabilities of the
MQA have been clearly stated. Our role is to assist the MOA, working
chiefly under the direction of the Chief Agricultural Research Officer,
DAR, and the Chief Agricultural Officer, DOA, to further strengthen the
Ministry's capacity to improve smallholder productivity and incomes. This
in turn imples a close and cooperative relationship with our Malawian
counterparts. Operationalizing this relationship calls for a management
system that addresses three levels of interaction: MQA/USAID-Contractor;
MOB/USAID -Team; and Team-Contractor.

1. MOA/USAID-Contractor Relationships

The relationship between the DMA/USAID and the University of Florida
and its partners must take account of technical, administrative and
management issues. At this level, we perceive the most effective
linkages occurring at two points. Overall policy, planning and
implementation issues will be addressed by an MOA appointed Steering
Committee which will interact with our Project Advisory Council
(composed of representatives from Florida, SECID, and AGRIDEC).
Ongoing implementation activities (i.e., long-and short-term technical
assistance, team support, logistics, procurement, and other project
backstopping activities) will call for direct interaction between our
Home Campus Coordintor (HCC), the Department of Agricultural Research's
Chief Agricultural Research Officer (CARO), and the Department of











Agriculture's Chief Agricultural Officer (CAO).
The Steering Committee-Project Advisory Council will meet annually to
develop the year's work plan and to discuss and resolve progress and
problems. Given the presence of two distinct and important project
components (research and extension), the HCC will provide the CARO and
CAO (as well as USAID/Malawi) with a single point in the United States
through which project implementation activities can be effectively
facilitated.

2. MOA/USAID-Team Relationships

As stated in the RFTP, team members will serve under the technical
direction of the CARO and the CAO, depending on their specific
assignments. In the case of the Adaptive Research Economist, the
National Adaptive Research Coordinating Unit will also provide
technical direction. In effect, the team will serve (technically and
administratively) as MQA employees in their respective assignments.
To the extent that issues arise which impact upon the team as a whole,
the University of Florida will appoint one of the team members to serve
as facilitator. The facilitator's role will be to interact with the
CARO, CAO and USAID Project Officer to address any such issues.

3. Team-Contractor Relationships

In order to expedite effective backstopping and support of the team,
we will appoint a spouse of one of the team members to serve as an
administrative assistant. The administrative assistant will handle
logistic, procurement, financial, reporting and other administrative
details to ensure effective performance of the team. He/she will work
closely with the facilitator who will both report directly to the HCC
(see, Section I, below, for an elaboration of these arrangements).
In sum, we are philosophically committed to a close and collaborative
relationship with our MOA colleagues which results in the effective
implementation of the MARE Project at every level of interaction.

G. IARC Resources

Malawi has a small, but growing relationship with the IARC community.
Perhaps the most tangible linkage is with the ICRISAT Regional Groundnut
Improvement Program for Southern Africa at Chitedze Agricultural Research
Station. Begun in 1982, this program has concentrated on high yielding
breeds for differing ecological zones, addressing smallholder production
constraints, and diseases. Training and research linkages have also been
established with CIAT (beans), CIMMYT (maize, wheat, triticale,and adaptive
research), and IITA (cassava). While promising, much remains to be done.
Ultimately, Malawi needs to enhance these linkages with CGIAR community in
order to strengthen its indigenous research capabilities, and to assume its
proper place as an important center of successful agricultural development.
As stated above (Section C), the University of Florida and its partners
submitting this proposal have established linkages with IARCs which will be
at the disposal of the MQA in implementing the MARE Project. The
University of Florida, for example, has undertaken cooperative research
with a number of international and regional research institutions. These
include: IITA in maize, soybeans and tissue cultures of aroids; CIAT in











farming systems and wheat and maize breeding; ICRISAT in biotechnology,
groundnuts, and pigeonpeas; and CIP in pest management and plant pathology.
Regional efforts include linkages with CATIE in mixed livestock production
and farming systems, and with CARDI in roots an tubers. The following is a
quote from the Director General of ICRISAT in response to the University of
Florida's query relative to ICRISAT participation in the MARE Project

"We believe that collaboration with USAID and National
Government is possible in the area of multilocation
testing and yield trials within the country. Since the
Malawi Government is quite concerned about its own role
in our regional work, we would strictly confine
ourselves to collaboration in areas which profit Malawi
directly. We are prepared to collaborate with you
provided our scientists sit together with your staff
and determine areas which they can easily collaborate
and which, naturally, has Malawi Government's consent.
Therefore, in principal, I agree to the suggested
collaboration. You may indicate our position to USAID."

The University of Florida encourages the establishment of an
international center in Malawi for research on "greening disease" of citrus
as outlined in an FAO study. The basis for the location of this center is,
in part, due to the fact that the scientists that were trained by the
Malawi Agricultural Research Project (612-0202) have been assimilated into
the DAR organization and are in a position to contribute significantly to
the research effort. The University of Florida is, of course, interested
in this disease because of the importance of citrus to the State's economy.
Further, the University of Florida is prepared to collaborate, outside the
MARE Project, with this center to develop a DNA probe for diagnosis of the
disease using the lessons learned in the diagnosis of citrus canker as a
basis for investigation.
SECID has Memoranda of Understanding with IITA, CIP, and CARDI, and has
undertaken farming systems training and farming systems and commodities
research for CARDI and farming systems training on behalf of IITA. Auburn
and Arkansas have linkages with IRRI and IBPGR; Virginia Tech with IRRI,
CIAT, and IITA; Mississippi State with CIAT; Kentucky with IRRI, CIAT, and
CIMMYT; Tennessee with CIP, CIMMYT, and ICRISAT; and, Clemson with IRRI and
ICRISAT. In short, through its member institutions and in its own right,
SECID and its member institutions are well prepared to augment the linkages
Florida has established with members of the IARC community.
These linkages will also be strengthened by AGRIDEC's working
relationships with CIMMYT, CIAT, and CATIE. Having worked with and under
the direction of the IARCs, we are aware of their capabilities and are
prepared to utilize our networking abilities with them to facilitate the
implementation of the MARE Project.

H. Administrative Planning Ability

The University of Florida and its partners recognize that effective
management of this project is essential to its success. Accordingly, it is
necessary to have in place two closely related and finely tuned
administrative structures: one which ensures that on-site activities in
Malawi proceed according to plan; another to provide effective and timely










U.S. contractor support to the project. As prime contractor, Florida will
be responsible to USAID and the GOCMQA/ for the management of all
activities under this project. Below, we describe the nature of this
management process, beginning with a presentation of how we intend to meet
reporting and planning requirements.

1. Reporting and Planning Requirements

The RFTP (p. 28) enumerates four specific reporting and planning
requirements which the contractor will be responsible for (in addition
to other reporting and planning requirements which may arise in
implementing MARE). These are: the Annual Budget and Workplan;
Quarterly financial Reports; Semi-Annual Technical Reports; and
Technical Reports of Short-Term Consultants. These will be provided in
the following manner:

a. Annual Budget and Workplan

The Annual Budget and Workplan will be the product of close
collaboration between the MOA Steering Committee and the Project
Advisory Council (PAC). The PAC will travel annually to Lilongwe to
meet with the Steering Committee to discuss and develop the work
plan. These discussions will also include feedback from the field
team and their MOA counterparts. The initial work plan will focus
upon project startup activities and as such will afford all parties
involved the opportunity to clarify administrative, logistical,
financial, and technical issues. Once these management issues are
agreed upon, the work plan will serve as the model for subsequent
annual efforts. The scope of work for each long-term team member
will be described; short-term consultancies will also be identified.
Procurement requirements will also be included. Upon completion of
the work plan, a budget will be prepared to reflect the level of
effort called for. The work plan and budget will then be submitted
to USAID/Malawi and the MQA for final approval.

b. Quarterly Financial Reports

The Quarterly Financial Reports will encompass all funds expended
for a particular quarter, including expenses in the field. In order
to account for field expenses, we propose appointing an individual
to serve as administrative assistant. With respect to this
reporting requirement, the administrative assistant will oversee an
imprest account to handle such field expense items as vehicle
maintenance, short-term lodging, routine household repairs,
supplies, and rentals. A complete accounting of all transactions,
accompanied with receipts, will be forwarded to the HCC, who will
incorporate such expenses into the Quarterly Financial Report.
Approved procurement requests will be forwarded by the
administrative assistant to the HCC for disposition by SECID's
Procurement office. This office will provide the HCC with all
procurement cost information for inclusion in the report. Quarterly
Financial Reports will be organized on a line item basis and will be
submitted to both the MQA and USAID, as required in the RFTP.











c. Semi-Annual Technical Reports


The HCC will be responsible for this report. He will travel to
Lilongwe twice a year (one of the trips being the same as for the
annual work plan and budget), meet with the Steering Committee, team
members, and with USAID/Malawi. In advance of these meeting, team
members will have drafted individual reports for submission to the
HCC. These reports will focus on both progress and problems
affecting the implementation of the project. These reports and
meetings will form the basis of the Semi-Annual Technical Report
which will be compiled and submitted to the MOA and USAID within 30
days of the end of the sixth and twelfth months. They will also
incorporate financial, procurement, and short-term consulting
reviews.

d. Technical Reports of Short-Term Consultants

Each short-term consultant will be required to submit a
comprehensive report prior to departure. To the extent that such
consultants are located in the proximity of long-term members, they
will discuss their draft reports with the team members and their MOA
counterparts. The drafts will" then be forwarded to the
administrative assistant for processing. Three copies will be
submitted to the MQA and USAID and one copy forwarded to the HCC.

2. Internal Project Administration

a. Administration in Malawi

Project administration in Malawi will be organized to reflect the
intent of the MOA and USAID to optimize collaboration. Accordingly,
it will be kept to a minimum. We perceive two administrative
positions as necessary: the appointment of one team member to serve
as facilitator; and the appointment of a project administrative
assistant.

(1) Facilitator

The University of Florida will appoint a team member to serve
as facilitator. This professional will not serve as Chief of
Party, the nature of the project having elinimated the need for
such function. Rather, he will facilitate the orderly
disposition of those activities which impact upon the team as a
whole. Such activities will include:

** service as the team spokesperson with USAID, GOM, and other
appropriate organizations, when this is called for;
** oversight and liaison with the project administrative
assistant in meeting logistical operations requirements;
** coordination of short-term technical assistance activities;
and
** oversight of performance eveluations of team members in
conformance with Contractor requirements.


-90











The first and second of these activities are self explanatory.
With respect to the coordination of short-term technical
assistance, the facilitator will receive requests from the CARO
and CAO. The facilitator will have a roster of potential
candidates (to be updated by the HCC on an annual basis) from
which nominees will be drawn. Once approved by the USAID Project
Officer, the HCC will be telexed the list of nominees.* The HCC
will contact nominated candidates and oversee arrangements for
their timely arrival in Malawi.
Performance evaluations are an essential part of tenure and
promotion decisions on University campuses. The facilitator will
provide the CARO and CAO (and USAID Project Officer) with
evaluation forms and will discuss team members' performance with
them. This will be done on an annual basis. The evaluations
will be forwarded to the HCC for disposition.

(2) Administrative Assistant

The objective in providing the MARE Project with an
administrative assistant is to free the team members to the
greatest extent possible to engage in the effective completion of
their technical assignments while still meeting the operations
and logistical requirements of the project. Working under the
supervision of the facilitator, the administrative assistant's
management duties will include:

** Assisting the MOA and USAID in preparing project
implementation orders for technicians and commodities;

** coordinating procurement efforts and overseeing acquisition
of local purchases of project commodities;

** serving as control officer, handling all logistical support
arrangements for short-term project consultants;

** maintaining project records, cash accounts, financial
records in accordance with the requirements of USAID, the
GOM, and the University of Florida;

** assisting team members regarding arranging for
international and in-country travel; shipment of household
and other effects; clearance of duty-free imports and other
support duties; and

** working closely with the Mission financial officer.



* If short-term consultants are required whose positions have not been
previously identified, the facilitator will telex a scope of work and
statement of qualifications to the HCC. In turn the HCC will identify
nominees and telex the field for action.











In order to ensure effective coordination of these activities,
the administrative assistant will attend a special predeparture
orientation training session at which AID, Florida, and SECID
financial and administrative reporting requirements are carefully
articulated and understood. USAID/MALAWI and GOM officials will
also be invited to attend this orientation session and
participate in these preparation activities. This will be
followed by an on-site orientation led by MQA and USAID
officials.

b. Administration in the United States

(1) Home Campus Coordination at Florida

Ongoing management in the United States will be undertaken
by a team composed of representatives from Florida, SECID, and
AGRIDEC. Close cooperation between us will permit effective
coordination of all project activities. At the same time,
specific responsibilities for important components of the
project will be overseen by an individual institutional
representative designated as Home Campus Coordinator (HCC).
The Home Campus Coordinator will be Dr. Hugh Popenoe,
Professor of Soils, Geography, Botany and Agronomy, IFAS, and
Director, Center for Tropical Agriculture, University of
Florida. He will assume responsibility for overall project
direction regarding U.S. inputs. In this capacity he will
coordinate closely with the field team and participating
institutions to provide professional support services. These
services will include: oversight of all administrative,
reporting and logistical services; assistance in identifying
resources to aid technical assistance personnel in carrying
out their responsibilities; annual planning and technical
reporting; coordination of procurement, financial management,
contract negotiations and other supporting inputs.

(2) Project Coordination at Florida

As prime contractor, Florida will oversee administrative
logistical and equipment specification and procurement
services in support of the MARE Project. These services
include: financial management; coordination of travel for
technical assistance personnel (including passports, visas,
medical examinations, and predeparture orientations);
coordinating services for the preparation of all reports as
specified in the RFTP; assisting in providing information and
support regarding institutional linkage opportunities with
participating institutions and IARCs and facilitating
faculty/staff exchanges. The University will appoint a
Project Manager from among its staff to assist the HCC in
coordinating these logistical and financial arrangements.
In addition to contract negotiations with USAID and GOM,
the University will also manage the subcontracting effort with
SECID and AGRIDEC. The University's subcontract with SECID
will also inlcude utilizing the Consortium's commodity











procurement facilities in support of the MARE Project (see (4)
below). In this regard, subcontracts will be signed with each
institution providing technical assistance personnel for this
project. Each subcontract will specify the respective levels
of effort, duration of assignment, duties and funding for that
institution. These types of contractural arrangements are
standard policy for Florida and have worked well throughout
its history of international development assistance. Copies
of each subcontract will be made available to the GOM and to
USAID/Malawi.
The University of Florida's administrative structure is
organized to provide immediate support services for its
project. Moreover, Florida's recent activities in Malawi, its
familiarity with USAID Mission and GOM procedures, and its
support systems developed for its Agricultural Research
Project offer USAID and the GOM prospect of a smooth an
effective project startup.

(3) Project Advisory Council

Policy oversight and coordination of U.S. project
administration, and annual planning will be undertaken by a
Project Advisory Council (PAC). The PAC will be chaired by
the Home Campus Coordinator. Representatives from SECID and
AGRIDEC will also sit on the PAC.
During the first two years of the project, the PAC will
meet quarterly. One of these meetings will occur in Malawi,
during the annual work plan and budget development. When
meetings occur in Lilongwe, Steering Committee, other relevant
GOM units, and USAID will attend. GOM and USAID
representatives will be notified of U.S. -based meetings and
will be invited to attend these as well.
Beginning with the third year of the project, the PAC will
meet semiannually, or more often as necessary. These meetings
will focus upon major policy issues as well as reports on the
progress and further development of the project. Such
meetings will also serve to enhance the potential for
strengthening long-term linkages between us and the Government
of Malawi.

(4) Commodity Procurement

Appreciating commodity procurement's integral role in the
successful implementation of this project, the University of
Florida is pleased to offer the services of SECID's
experienced and professional Procurement Services Department.
We believe we can provide such services more effectively than
our competitors on the basis of our successful procurement
activities to date.
As demonstrated below, SECID has provided procurement
services to many projects in developing countries. The
majority of this work has been AID-financed, either directly
through AID-funded contracts or indirectly through
host-country contracts. Other work has been performed for the











Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the Inter-American
Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).
Procurement services are performed for each of SECID's
technical projects as well as those of other consulting firms.
These services may include the acquisition of major project
commodities, household furnishings, incidental project
equipment, spare parts and shipping services. The procurement
components of SECID's current projects range in size from
several thousand dollars to several million dollars.
Interspersed throughout each of these projects is the close
collaboration between SECID procurement personnel and the
project's technical assistance team whether the team was
fielded by SECID or another contractor. Projects with major
procurement components include: two projects in Mali;
Seychelles Food Crops Research; Burkina Faso Agricultural
Human Resources Development; Senegal, Casamance Regional
Development; Sierra Leone Mission Support; Liberia
Agricultural Research and Extension; UNESCO Division of
Ecological Services (Zimbabwe); NEPAL Resource Conservation
and Utilization; Sri Lanka Reforestation and Watershed
Management; Belize Livestock Department; and CARDI Farming
Systems Research and Extension.
As evidenced by these projects, SECID has experience in
procuring and delivering many types of equipment to developing
countries. In successfully accomplishing its procurement
tasks, the Consortium has developed an extensive reference
library on product, vendor, and cost data not only for
agricultural equipment but also for many other types of
commodities as well. Its reference library is a central tool
used by its staff in formulating and refining commodity
specifications, selecting potential vendors, and estimating
costs. This together with its day-to-day interaction with
vendors assures that high quality and economically priced
items will be procured for each project.
SECID has found on many occasions that in developing and
refining commodity specifications at the project site,
product, vendor and cost information is unavailable or
outdated. Consequently, pertinent information is brought with
the Consortium during site visits and is left with project
personnel for their future reference and use.
An added dimension of SECID's capabilities in procuring
equipment is the network of resource information available
from its member institutions. Procurement staff regularly
consult with member institutions' technical and procurement
personnel on current equipment trends, equipment application,
and speciality items. Collectively, this capability will
provide USAID and the GOM with effective and cost effective
procurement services throughout the life of the project, and
beyond.
Further, SECID can arrange for appropriate training for
project personnel responsible for operating and maintaining
project equipment and for personnel responsible for project











procurement management. On several occasions SECID has worked
with vendors to provide on-site training as well as training
in the U.S. This service will be of particular importance to
the Malawi Agricultuual Research and Extension Project in the
acquisition of microcomputers, scientific and other office
equipment. Moreover, SECID has provided procurement
management training for host-country personnel in Nepal and
Kenya. The objective here was to develop a project
procurement system and phase in a host-country person to
completely and independently manage the system by project
completion.
In sum, SECID's Procurement Department is well prepared to
meet the procurement needs when identified in this project.
The department's recent development of a procurement program
for SECID's CARDI Farming Systems Research and Development
Project has honed its considerable skills to be sensitive to
the specific needs of the MARE Project. An expanded
description of SECID's procurement capabilities and processes
is provided in Appendix D of our proposal.
These, then, are the administrative components we propose
to meet the administrative, logistical, reporting, and
institutional representation requirements of USAID, the GOM,
and the institutions submitting this proposal. We believe
them to be fully responsive to the terms of reference defined
in the RFTP. In view of the structure of the MARE Project, we
remain open to discussing them fully and to the possibility of
modifying them, should the MQA and/or USAID wish to consider
alternative arrangements.

I. Institutional Support Capability

In Sections, C, D, F, G, H, and I, above, we have presented elements of
the nature of our institutional support capacity as well as how we would
provide them. The Home Campus Coordinator will serve as the primary
contact in facilitating institutional support, drawing upon the resources
of Florida, SECID, and AGRIDEC. This backstopping will include a
predeparture orientation, timely arrival of the team, rapid identification
and fielding of short-term personnel, commodities procurement, and
professional support in the form of technical documentation, texts,
equipment, examples of technology packages, computer processing, and other
relevant support. The University of Florida has a Malawi library in place
to facilitate such backstopping. The library includes books, journals, and
tape modules, all of which will be at the disposal of the MARE Project.
This resource will be augmented by the library and extensive resources of
the other institutions participating in submitting this proposal.
We recognize that at times emergencies arise which require immediate
action. Should such emergencies involve technical support, we are prepared
to utilize international couriers. We are also prepared to meet short-term
technical assistance requests on a 21 day turn around basis. If
emergencies are personal/medical in nature, we are providing each of our
team members with International SOS Assistance. This service will provide
emergency medical evacuation by jet in a matter of hours after being
contacted. The project administrative assistant will be fully apprised of
this service and trained in how to implement it should the need arise.











Similarly, the administrative assistant will be provided with a credit catd
to be used in emergencies for expediting the return of any team member s
(for example, if a death occurs in his/her immediate family). On a
non-emergency basis, the administrative assistant will arrange approved
home leave and R&R travel. The process by which financial and technical
reporting requirements are to be met, is fully articulated in Section I,
above.
In closing, we would like to add that our ability and preparedness to
backstop the MARE Project was fully discussed prior to our decision to bid
on this project. We believe that few, if any, competitors can marshal the
relevant resources we can bring to this project. We are certain that none
are more committed to doing so.











III. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL


The University of Florida, SECID and AGRIDEC are pleased to present for
consideration, highly qualified candidates for both the long-and short-term
positions in support of the MARE Project. Our candidates, both long-and
short-term, include representatives from 1862 and 1890 land grant
institutions and from AGRIDEC, an officially registered 8-A corporation,
demonstrating both the breadth of our relationship and our determination to
be fully responsive to the terms of reference stated in the RFTP. Should
we be awarded this contract, long-term nominees not chosen for long-term
assignments will be available for short-term consultancies. In Chapter
III, we begin with a description of the technical competence of our
nominees. This will focus primarily on our long-term candidates, but will
include our short-term nominees as well. The chapter then examines the
quality and relevance of our candidates' previous international development
experience. Again, primary focus will be on our long-term candidates.
Chapter III closes with a demonstration of our long-term candidates'
abilities to operate both independently and as part of a team in
conceptualizing and implementing planning functions. Candidate information
will be presented in alphabetical order.

A. Technical Competence of Candadates

Below, we describe the technical competence of our nominees, beginning
with our candidates for the long-term field positions. This will be
followed by a tabular presentation of the capabilities of our short-term
candidates.

1. Long-Term Nominees

a. Production Economist

Clemson University is pleased to nominate Dr. Michael D. Hammig,
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology for this position. A graduate of Washington State
University, Dr. Hammig's substantive areas of specialization include
production economics and policy analysis. His current research
projects include: monetary, fiscal, and trade policy impacts on
farm organization; influence of various tillage and cropping systems
on integrated pest management; and tactics for management of pest
complexes. Dr. Hammig has over 40 professional publications. He
has undertaken international development activities in Brazil and in
El Salvador.

North Carolina A&T State University wishes to nominate
Dr. Robin G. Henning for this position. An Assistant Professor of
Agricultural Economics, Dr. Henning received his Ph.D. from Cornell
University. A specialist in production economics, agricultural
policy and economic development, and government control of business,
Dr. Henning has extensive teaching and applied research experience
in developing and implementing industryand sector-wide programs in
the U.S. and in developing countries with emphasis on agricultural
marketing, price policy, and management of individual farm and











agri-business firms. He is widely published in commodity surveys
and policies. Dr. Henning has undertaken international assignments
in Lesotho, South Africa, Panama, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil,
Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and St. Vincent
(Caribbean).

The University of Arkansas is pleased to nominate
Dr. Carter Price, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Sociology, as Production Economist. Dr. Price received
his Ph.D. at Louisiana State University, where he specialized in
public policies in agriculture. He has over 20 years teaching,
research and international development experience. Dr. Price's
substantive specializations include: policy analysis; designing and
implementing farm-level surveys of cost production and marketing;
estimating revenue-cost relationships from technological
applications; public policy; principles of implementing a market
inspection service; and commodity marketing analysis and evaluation.
Dr. Price's international experience includes long-term assignments
in Egypt and the Philippines. He has published over 50 articles.

The University of Florida is pleased to nominate
Dr. P. J. van Blokland for the position of Production Economist.
Dr. van Blokland is currently Associate Professor of Agricultural
Economics, where he specializes in farm business analysis, farm
management, agricultural finance, finance hedging, farm systems, and
extension. He received his Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from the
University of Illinois. His extensive international experience
includes work in Malawi, Tanzania, Swaziland, Trinidad, Barbados,
and Jamaica. He has over 50 publications in production economics.

b. Agronomist

Alabama A&M University is pleased to nominate Dr. Udai R. Bishnoi
for the position of project agronomist. A graduate of Mississippi
State University, Dr. Bishnoi's technical expertise extneds to seed
technology,plant science, crop production, weed control and forage
management. He is currently Professor of Plant Science. Dr.
Bishnoi's research has focused on evaluating triticale varieties for
growth, yield, forage quality,and double croppign systems, and seed
technology. He has over 40 professional publications, and has made
17 presentations at professional meetings. Dr. Bishnoi's
international experience includes work in Kenya, Sudan, the Gambia,
and India.

The University of Florida is pleased to nominate
Dr. Sherman F. Pasley for this position. Presently Assistant to the
Director of International Programs, Dr. Pasley received his Ph.D. at
the University of Florida in plant breeding and genetics. His
substantive area of experience is in the area of maize breeding,
maize agronomy and wheat agronomy. His international experience was
in Malawi, where he ultimately served as Chief of Party for the
Agricultural Research Project.











c. Agricultural Economist

AGRIDEC is pleased to nominate Dr. Robert M. Reeser for the
position of Agricultural Economist. Dr. Reeser received his Ph.D.
from Ohio State University, where he majored in land economics and
farm management. Dr. Reeser has over eighteen years' experience in
conducting surveys and on-farm research trials, adapting
technologies, identifying socio-economic constraints, and developing
linkages between research, extension and smallholders. His
international experience includes assignments in Tunisia, Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, Mali, Guyana and Burkina Faso.

Auburn University wishes to nominate Dr. James L. Stallings for
this position. Dr. Stallings received his Ph.D. from Michigan State
University where he majored in economic theory, statistics, and the
philosophy of science. An Associate Professor in the Department of
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Dr. Stallings'
substantive focus has been in the area of data collection in
subsistence farming systems, on-farm economic research, commodity
analysis, and production economic. He has published numerous
articles linking research and extension issues. Dr. Stallings'
international experience includes assignments in Tanzania,
Swaziland, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, and Guyana.

d. Horticulture

AGRIDEC is pleased to nominate Dr. Alberto J. Beale for the
position of Horticulturist. Dr. Beale received his Ph.D. from the
University of Florida, where he majored in agronomy and soils. His
specialty is crop production and weed management. For the past
two-and-a-half years, Dr. Beale has served with CATIE, IICA, the
University of Costa Rica, and the University of Puerto Rico. He has
specialized in the weed management component of CATIE's Farming
Systems Project, conducting work in three ecological zones: lowland
humid tropics; semiarid tripics; and wet-dry tropics. In this
capacity, Dr. Beale specialized in systems of planting tropical
roots and tubers; fertilizer requirements of crops of major economic
potential; sugarcane; and bananas. His international experience
includes long -and short-term assignments in Costa Rica, Puerto
Rico, Nicaragua, and Panama.

The University of Florida is pleased to nominate
Dr. George A. Marlowe, Jr. for the position of Horticulturalist.
Currently Professor of Vegetable Crops, Dr. Marlowe received his
Ph.D. in horticulture from the University of Maryland. He has
extensive teaching, research, extension, and administrative
experience. His substantive interests extend to all aspects of
fruit and vegetable crops. Dr. Marlowe has long- and short-term
international experience in Malawi, Cameroon, Nigeria, Guyana, Costa
Rica, Malaysia, El Salvador, Venezuela, Singapore, Mexico, Viet Nam,
Taiwan, the Philippines, and Jordan.











e. Agro-Forester

Mississippi State University is pleased to nominate
Dr. Bob L. Karr for the position of agro-forester. Dr. Karr
received his Ph.D. from Texas A&M University, where he focused on
the correlation of annual wood increments in slash pine with indices
of weather and soil water deficits across a climate gradient in East
Texas. Dr. Karr's substantive focus is in forestry, agro-forestry,
range science, soils and statistics. He has published 14 papers and
presentations. Dr. Karr served for three years at Egerton College
in Kenya, where he introduced agro-forestry courses into the
curriculum.

AGRIDEC wishes to nominate Dr. Ricardo O. Russo for this
position. Dr. Russo received his PH.D. from Southeastern University
where he majored in agro-forestry. Dr. Russo has over 10 years'
experience in teaching and research. His substantive interests
include agro-forestry, biomass production in the humid tropics,
multipurpose leguminous trees in agro-forestry, and the use of
Erythrina poeppigiana as a coffee tree shade cover. He has
published over 20 papers, and his international experience includes
assignments in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Argentina.

The University of Tennessee is pleased to nominate
Dr. Frank W. Woods for this position. Dr. Woods received his Ph.D.
from the University of Tennessee where he majored in ecology. He is
currently Professor, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and
Fisheries. His substantive interests include polyculture,
agro-forestry, plantations, silviculture, greenhouse cultivation and
reforestation of highly disturbed sites. Dr. Wood has published
over one hundred articles. He has extensive international
experiences in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama.

f. Agricultural Communications Specialist

The University of Florida is pleased to nominate
Mr. L. Van Crowder, Jr. for the position of agricultural
communications specialist. Mr. Crowder, an Associate Research
Scientist, International Programs, undertook his graduate training
at Cornell University, where he majored in Extension and Continuing
Education. His substantive focus is training of extension workers
in designing extension programs and in the effective use of
communications media. He has conducted research on mass media and
interpersonal communication channels in Bolivia, and factors
influencing the adoption of improved technology by smallholders, and
has published several articles and extension bulletins. He has
international experience in Bolivia.

Pennsylvania State University is pleased to nominate
Dr. Cordell Hatch as Agricultural Communications Specialist. Dr.
Hatch, Professor of Agricultural Communications, received his Ph.D.
at the University of Wisconsin, where he majored in cooperative
extension administration and educational communications. His
substantive focus is upon communication strategies for developing


100











countries, television techniques, communication methods and media,
and extension communications. Hatch has conducted many seminars,
workshops and conferences for students and professionals in teaching
techniques, public speaking, general communications, radio,
television, leadership and group dynamics. His professional
international development experience includes assignments in Kenya,
the Seychelles, Swaziland, the Philippines, Nepal, Colombia, and
Argentina.

g. Women's Program Specialist

AGRIDEC is pleased to nominate Dr. Vickie A. Sigman for this
position. A graduate of the University of Illinois, where she
majored in Agricultural Education, Dr. Sigman is currently serving
as Agricultural Development Specialist, College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii.
Substantively, Dr. Sigman has concentrated on developing
research-extension linkages, including improved agricultural
production for women farmers. Her international development
experience includes assignments in Zambia, Mexico, Belize, Costa
Rica, and Indonesia.

The University of Florida wishes to nominate
Dr. Marilyn E. Swisher for this position. Dr. Swisher received her
Ph.D. from the University of Florida, where she majored in Geography
and Soil Science. She is presently serving as Multi-Country Agent
II, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida. This
FSR/E activity utilizes Dr. Swisher's substantive expertise in soil
science, conducting applied field research, and testing alternative
technologies. Widely published, Dr. Swisher has undertaken
professional international development work in Costa Rica.

The University of Kentucky is pleased to nominate
Dr. Helga I.D. Vierich for this position. Dr. Vierich received her
Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Toronto. She is
currently Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology. Her
substantive focus includes economic anthropology, FSR/E analyses of
smallholders, including women, and drought assessment. She has
published widely, focusing on her international experience in
Botswana and Burkina Faso.

h. Home Campus Coordinator

The University of Florida is pleased to nominate
Dr. Hugh L. Popenoe, for the position of Home Campus Coordinator.
Dr. Popenoe is Professor of Soils, Agronomy, Botany and Geography,
and Director of the Center for Tropical Agriculture and
International Program (Agriculture) at the University of Florida.
His principal research interest has been in the area of tropical
agriculture and land use. Dr. Popenoe received his Ph.D. from the
University of Florida, in soils. He has served as Chairperson of
the National Academy of Science's Advisory Committee on Technology
Innovations, Joint Research Committee, BIFAD, and as Scientific
Liaison Officer to IITA, and as a Member of the Board of Trustees on