Front Cover
 Title Page
 Executive summary
 Issues and initiatives relative...
 Table of contents
 Letter from Tej Gill to C.B. McCants...
 Grand DAN-1331-G-SS-6018, covering...
 Amendment 3 to Grand-DAN-1131-...
 Global plan for tropsoils
 Minutes of the board of directors...
 Letter to John Patterson from Thurman...
 Letter to John Malcolm from Thurman...
 Letter to Marcus Winter from Thurman...
 Letter to Leonard Pampa from Thurman...
 Minutes of the board of directors...
 Telex to William H. Judy from C.B....
 Telex to John Malcolm from...
 Report of the external evaluation...
 Recommendations of the management...
 Memorandum to C.B. McCants from...
 Pedro A. Sanchez, analysis of proposed...
 Letter to C.B. McCants from M....
 Memorandum and research project...
 Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A....
 Memorandum to C.B. McCants from...
 Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A....
 Letter to D.J. Lathwell from A....
 Letter to D.J. Lathwell, et al.,...
 Memorandum and trip report to C.B....
 Letter to acting assistant director...
 Memorandum to assistant director...
 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman...
 Letter to Thurman L. Grove and...
 Letter to D.J. Lathwell from Bal...
 Letter to R. James Cheatle from...
 Letter to John Nicholaides from...
 Letter to Thurman L. Grove from...
 Letter to Thurman L. Grove from...
 letter to R. James Cheatle from...
 Letter and Report to B.K. Patel...
 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman...
 Memorandum to D.J. Lathwell from...
 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman...
 Pedro A. Sanchez, Cameroon trip...
 letter to J.P. Eckebil from C.B....
 Telex to Tony Juo From C.B....
 Telex to Tony Juo From C.B....
 Memo to file by C.B. McCants
 Memo to file by C.B. McCants
 Memo to file by C.B. McCants
 Memo to file by C.B. McCants
 Letter to L.D. Stifel from C.B....
 Telex to C.B. McCants from Dunstan...
 Telex to Tony Juo from C.B....
 Telex to C.B. McCants from Tony...
 Letter to Joanne Hale from Goro...
 Letter to C.B. McCants from M....
 Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin...
 Funds budgeted by AID, funds allocated...
 Minutes of the board of directors...
 Tropsoils program plan, 1984-1989...
 Procedures, from "projects and...
 Letter to C.B. McCants from Goro...
 Campus-based personnel who have...
 Funds requested by each component...
 Funds allocated to each component,...
 Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B....
 Memorandum to board of directors...
 Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin...
 Allocated and projected budgets,...
 Amendment No. 6 to subgrant to...
 Amendment No. 7 to subgrant to...
 Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B....

Title: Issues and initiatives relative to expansion of the soil management CRSP in Africa; a report to AID and BIFAD
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054718/00001
 Material Information
Title: Issues and initiatives relative to expansion of the soil management CRSP in Africa; a report to AID and BIFAD
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: McCants, C. B.
Publisher: TropSoils
Publication Date: 1987
Subject: Africa   ( lcsh )
Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Africa
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054718
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Executive summary
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
    Issues and initiatives relative to expansion of the soil management CRSP in Africa: a report to AID and BIFAD
        Page B 1
        Page B 2
        Page B 3
        Page B 4
        Page B 5
        Page B 6
        Page B 7
        Page B 8
        Page B 9
        Page B 10
        Page B 11
    Table of contents
        Page C 1
        Page C 2
        Page C 3
        Page C 4
    Letter from Tej Gill to C.B. McCants and reply
        Page C 5
        Page C 6
    Grand DAN-1331-G-SS-6018, covering letter and pages 1-4
        Page C 7
        Page C 8
        Page C 9
        Page C 10
        Page C 11
        Page C 12
    Amendment 3 to Grand-DAN-1131-G-SS-1083
        Page C 13
        Page C 14
    Global plan for tropsoils
        Page C 15
        Page C 16
        Page C 17
        Page C 18
        Page C 19
        Page C 20
    Minutes of the board of directors meeting, October 17, 1985
        Page C 21
        Page C 22
        Page C 23
        Page C 24
        Page C 25
    Letter to John Patterson from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 26
        Page C 27
        Page C 28
        Page C 29
        Page C 30
    Letter to John Malcolm from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 31
    Letter to Marcus Winter from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 32
    Letter to Leonard Pampa from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 33
    Minutes of the board of directors meeting, November 20-21, 1986
        Page C 34
        Page C 35
        Page C 36
        Page C 37
        Page C 38
        Page C 39
        Page C 40
        Page C 41
    Telex to William H. Judy from C.B. McCants
        Page C 42
    Telex to John Malcolm from USAID/Yaounde
        Page C 43
    Report of the external evaluation panel based on the April, 1986 review, pages 14-17
        Page C 44
        Page C 45
        Page C 46
        Page C 47
    Recommendations of the management entity relative to programs, submitted to board of directors, November 20, 1986
        Page C 48
    Memorandum to C.B. McCants from R.H. Miller and reply
        Page C 49
        Page C 50
        Page C 51
    Pedro A. Sanchez, analysis of proposed tropsoils budget, November 18, 1986; excerpts only
        Page C 52
    Letter to C.B. McCants from M. Ray Smith and reply
        Page C 53
        Page C 54
        Page C 55
        Page C 56
        Page C 57
        Page C 58
        Page C 59
        Page C 60
        Page C 61
    Memorandum and research project proposal to C.B. McCants from D.J. Lathwell
        Page C 62
        Page C 63
        Page C 64
        Page C 65
        Page C 66
        Page C 67
        Page C 68
        Page C 69
        Page C 70
    Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A. Van Wambeke
        Page C 71
        Page C 72
        Page C 73
    Memorandum to C.B. McCants from F.G. Calhoun
        Page C 74
    Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A. Van Wambeke
        Page C 75
        Page C 76
        Page C 77
    Letter to D.J. Lathwell from A. Van Wambeke
        Page C 78
        Page C 79
    Letter to D.J. Lathwell, et al., from A. Van Wambeke
        Page C 80
    Memorandum and trip report to C.B. McCants from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 81
        Page C 82
        Page C 83
        Page C 84
        Page C 85
        Page C 86
        Page C 87
        Page C 88
    Letter to acting assistant director from R. James Cheatle
        Page C 89
        Page C 90
        Page C 91
        Page C 92
    Memorandum to assistant director from R. James Cheatle
        Page C 93
        Page C 94
    Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 95
        Page C 96
        Page C 97
    Letter to Thurman L. Grove and F. Calhoun from R. James Cheatle
        Page C 98
        Page C 99
        Page C 100
    Letter to D.J. Lathwell from Bal Ram Singh
        Page C 101
        Page C 102
    Letter to R. James Cheatle from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 103
    Letter to John Nicholaides from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 104
    Letter to Thurman L. Grove from John Nicholaides
        Page C 105
        Page C 106
    Letter to Thurman L. Grove from Willie F. Cook
        Page C 107
        Page C 108
    letter to R. James Cheatle from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 109
    Letter and Report to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 110
        Page C 111
        Page C 112
        Page C 113
        Page C 114
        Page C 115
        Page C 116
        Page C 117
        Page C 118
        Page C 119
        Page C 120
        Page C 121
        Page C 122
    Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 123
        Page C 124
    Memorandum to D.J. Lathwell from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 125
        Page C 126
    Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove
        Page C 127
    Pedro A. Sanchez, Cameroon trip report, January 21-29, 1986, pages 10-11
        Page C 128
        Page C 129
    letter to J.P. Eckebil from C.B. McCants
        Page C 130
        Page C 131
    Telex to Tony Juo From C.B. McCants
        Page C 132
    Telex to Tony Juo From C.B. McCants
        Page C 133
    Memo to file by C.B. McCants
        Page C 134
        Page C 135
    Memo to file by C.B. McCants
        Page C 136
    Memo to file by C.B. McCants
        Page C 137
    Memo to file by C.B. McCants
        Page C 138
    Letter to L.D. Stifel from C.B. McCants
        Page C 139
        Page C 140
    Telex to C.B. McCants from Dunstan Spencer
        Page C 141
    Telex to Tony Juo from C.B. McCants
        Page C 142
    Telex to C.B. McCants from Tony Juo
        Page C 143
    Letter to Joanne Hale from Goro Uehara
        Page C 144
        Page C 145
        Page C 146
    Letter to C.B. McCants from M. Ray Smith and reply
        Page C 147
        Page C 148
        Page C 149
        Page C 150
        Page C 151
        Page C 152
        Page C 153
        Page C 154
        Page C 155
    Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin B. Oyer
        Page C 156
    Funds budgeted by AID, funds allocated by the management entity and billings submitted for the University of Hawaii, September 25, 1980 - December 31, 1986
        Page C 157
    Minutes of the board of directors meeting, June 5-6, 1984
        Page C 158
        Page C 159
        Page C 160
        Page C 161
        Page C 162
    Tropsoils program plan, 1984-1989 (cover only)
        Page C 163
    Procedures, from "projects and budgets for the soil management CRSP, 1986-1987"
        Page C 164
        Page C 165
        Page C 166
    Letter to C.B. McCants from Goro Uehara and reply
        Page C 167
        Page C 168
        Page C 169
        Page C 170
        Page C 171
    Campus-based personnel who have served as leaders of active SM-CRSP funded projects, 1981-1986
        Page C 172
    Funds requested by each component and obligated by the management entity, October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987
        Page C 173
    Funds allocated to each component, October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1087
        Page C 174
    Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B. McCants
        Page C 175
        Page C 176
        Page C 177
    Memorandum to board of directors from C.B. McCants
        Page C 178
        Page C 179
        Page C 180
    Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin B. Oyer
        Page C 181
    Allocated and projected budgets, all components, October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1989
        Page C 182
    Amendment No. 6 to subgrant to University of Hawaii
        Page C 183
    Amendment No. 7 to subgrant to University of Hawaii
        Page C 184
    Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B. McCants
        Page C 185
        Page C 186
Full Text



Issues and Initiatives

Relative to Expansion of the

Soil Management CRSP in Africa

A Report to AID and BIFAD
March, 1987



I FY -

Issues and Initiatives
Relative to Expansion of the

Soil Management CRSP in Africa

A Report to AID and BIFAD

Prepared by
C. B. McCants
Director, Management Entity
March, 1987

Executive Summary

By telephone and letter the Management Entity (ME) for the
Soil Management CRSP (SM-CRSP) was informed that AID and BIFAD
were concerned that proper approvals had not been granted for the
proposed phasing-down of the program in Brazil, for increasing
the program in Africa and for revising the distribution of funds
among participating universities. This subject arose during
their discussions of a protest by the University of Hawaii
regarding the level of funding projected for its program.

The letter from Dr. Gill requested that the ME (a) provide
relevant background information that led to the planned program
and budgetary changes, and (b) cancel a trip to Cameroon by SM-
CRSP personnel that was scheduled to begin less than two weeks
from the date of the communication. A request by the ME for a
meeting with AID and BIFAD to discuss the issues was not granted.

Encouragement by AID and BIFAD, since 1984, to reduce SM-
CRSP activities in Brazil and increase them in Africa was common
knowledge in Washington and by the ME and by all program
participants; it reached a climax in 1986. Approval to explore
the potential for work in Africa, and specifically Cameroon, was
granted with acceptance of the three-year work plan which began
in 1984; authorization for the ME to modify the allocation of
funds within the SM-CRSP is provided in the grant. AID and BIFAD
personnel were in meetings where these subjects were discussed
and were informed via copies of relevant correspondence.

The Board of Directors, Technical Committee and External
Evaluation Panel were active participants throughout the
initiatives. Support and funding for an expanded program in
Africa is a major concern among universities in the SM-CRSP with
the greatest potential for loss of funds.

A pre-determined plan was followed for considering an
expansion of the program in Africa. It included consideration of
countries with agroecological zones, available personnel and an
infrastructure where a collaborative program could be undertaken
that would capitalize on available soil management technology.
Significant attention was given to the potential for linking with
existing programs.

This approach led to extensive investigation on initiating a
program in Zambia that would have been collaborative with the
University of Illinois. The initial results were favorable, but
the prospect was shelved when the outlook became dim for
continuation of the University of Illinois project in Zambia.

Attention was then directed to Cameroon due to its inclusion
in the five-year plan for the SM-CRSP, the favorable response

from the USAID Mission and the potential for linking with IITA.
The preliminary discussions were favorable and arrangements were
completed for an on-site study, April 4-11, by representatives of
IITA, the ME, Cornell University and Texas A & M University. The
trip was cancelled in response to AID's request.

Funds received by the University of Hawaii are 19% of the
total SM-CRSP expenditures through December 1986 and projected to
be 21% of the total during the three-year extension. Funding for
the program in Peru and Indonesia was approximately 58% and for
Africa 25% of the total through December 1986. Under the current
budget projections the amounts are 47% and 29%, respectively, for

Copies of communications and financial details related to
actions taken are included in the report.

Issues and Initiatives Relative to
Expansion of the Soil Management CRSP In Africa
A Report to AID and BIFAD

Prepared By
C. B. McCants
Director, Management Entity

March 1987

I. Purpose

This report is a response to Dr. Tej Gill's (1)1 oral and
written request for information about proposed changes in
research and allocations of funds in the Soil Management (SM)
CRSP. In particular, Dr. Gill inquired about:

1. The CRSP's decision to investigate the potential
for intitiating research in Cameroon. (Under this
proposed expansion, Cornell University would serve
as the lead university).

2. Recommendations to the SM-CRSP's Board of
Directors that research by Cornell in Brazil be
reduced and that changes be made in budgetary
allocations as a result of these shifts.

In a telephone conversation with Dr. Gill on March 9 and
March 13, he stated that the University of Hawaii (UH) had
contacted the AID legislative affairs office to protest the fact
that its budget was being reduced at the same time the CRSP was
considering an expansion of the program in Africa and the budget
for Cornell was being increased to support this expansion. Dr.
Gill reported that a member of BIFAD was disturbed that these
program and budget actions had not received BIFAD's approval.
Concern was also expressed about the need to avoid political
difficulties for AID and the SM-CRSP.

According to Dr. Gill, AID and BIFAD had concluded that
representatives of the Management Entity, Cornell University and
Texas A & M University should cancel a trip to Cameroon,
scheduled for April 4-11, because the travel was to undertake
activities that had not been formally approved.

1 Numbers in parentheses refer to reference documents that are
included in the appendix.

A request by the Management Entity (ME) to Dr. Gill's office
for a joint meeting with officials from BIFAD, AID/S&T,
AID/African Bureau and AID/Asian Bureau to discuss the issues
raised by them was denied.

This report attempts to respond to the concerns of Dr. Gill,
BIFAD and AID by summarizing the facts and reasoning that led the
CRSP to consider revisions in program orientation and funding

II. Facts and Interpretations Underlying the Management Office

The current grant to the ME for continuation of the SM-
CRSP states that "North Carolina State University was
selected as the ME with total program and fiscal responsi-
bility for the CRSP" (2, Article I, Section D). This lan-
language is basically the same as used in the initial grant.
The interpretation of the charge is that the ME will main-
tain close communications with AID and BIFAD to determine
their current views and long-range projections on areas of
emphasis and priorities, and will keep informed on program
capabilities and performance among participants from each
university and host country. These facts are to be analyzed
and adjustments made as necessary and feasible to provide
the maximum support for AID and BIFAD objectives; such
efforts are to be undertaken in a spirit of mutual confi-
dence and respect. The assumption has been that formalities
would be limited to those necessary to meet federal govern-
ment and University business operations and fiscal

The Management Office, under the leadership of the
Director, is charged with the responsibility to carry out
the requirements of the ME. Consultation with and advice
from the Board of Directors (Board), Technical Committee
(TC) and External Evaluation Panel (EEP) is fundamental in
the decision-making process and subsequent operations.
However, due consideration has to be given to the fact
that the Board and TC are composed of administrative and
research personnel from the constituent universities. Natu-
rally, each member advocates for his or her program. It is
not possible for the Director to always promote or carry out
actions that satisfy all four universities.

III. AID and BIFAD Signals on Decreasing SM-CRSP in Brazil and
Increasing Activities in Africa

When approval was given to initiate the program in
Brazil (3), and during the discussions on the three-year
extension of the program in the country, both AID and BIFAD
were apprehensive about this activity because it would be

centered in an AID graduate country. They, however,
accepted the ME's analysis that (a) the information obtained
in Brazil would be applicable to other regions, particularly
some in Africa, because of similarities in agroecological
conditions and (b) the information could be obtained much
more economically in Brazil than in other countries,
particularly those in Africa, because of the local personnel
availability and infrastructure development. There was a
clear understanding with AID and BIFAD that the ME would
seek to capitalize on these two features and that the Brazil
component would not be viewed as a long-term operation.

In virtually all meetings with the SM-CRSP during 1984
and 1985, AID and BIFAD encouraged the CRSP to reduce the
program in Brazil and to expand the one in Africa. This
message became even more emphatic in 1986, due to pressure
from the U.S. agricultural sector to reduce support for work
in Brazil and the public concern about starvation in Africa.
Among those urging the CRSP to restructure its program were:
Dr. Nyle Brady, Dr. Jack Robbins, Dr. Anson Bertrand, Dr.
Tej Gill, Dr. John Malcolm, Dr. Fred Hutchinson, Dr. Fred
Johnson and Dr. Robert Kleiss. The prevailing opinion in
AID was recently summed-up by one high-ranking AID official
who, when told we were planning to reduce the program in
Brazil and increase it in Africa, commented, "Why reduce it
in Brazil? Why not get out?"

Given these continuing messages from all levels of
administration, it seemed superfluous and unnecessary to ask
for written approval; not to have undertaken initiatives
would have been irresponsible.

The common knowledge that the SM-CRSP should expand in
Africa is reflected in the five-year plan developed to
support the request for extension of the SM-CRSP (4).
Cameroon is specifically identified as a target country.
The fact that AID and BIFAD approved this plan was assumed
to be all that was needed to proceed with exploratory
details. The Grant (2, Article III, Section 2) lists the
procedures for initiating work with a host country. There
is no statement or suggestion that prior approval for such
initiatives is necessary from AID or BIFAD.

IV. Exploring Potential For Expanding the Program In Africa

A. Formal Communications with AID and BIFAD on Exploring
New Initiatives in Africa.

Although a large number of the communications
with Mr. Cal Martin and others were informal, there are
records of meetings or actions where the ME and Cornell

University discussed related information in the
presence of AID and BIFAD personnel.

1. At a Board meeting on October 17, 1985, the
Director of the Management Entity reviewed
the "Zambia Initiative by Cornell University"
(5, page 3).

2. On October 11, 1985, Dr. Thurman Grove of
Cornell wrote Mr. John Patterson, USAID/
Lusaka, to review his trip to Zambia and pro-
posals for follow-up activities (6).

3. On October 14, 1985, Dr. Grove advised Dr.
John Malcolm, Mr. Marcus Winter, and Mr.
Leonard Pampa, on the exploration work in
Zambia (7, 8, 9).

4. On November 20, 1986 there was an extensive
discussion by the Board on the Africa initia-
tive and phase-down of the program in Brazil.
In attendance was Mr. Fred Johnson of BIFAD.
Dr. Duane Acker was briefed on this discus-
sion (10, pages 3, 4, 5, and 6).

5. A copy of a telex to Dr. William Judy,
USAID/Yaounde, to formalize telephone discus-
sions was sent to Dr. John Malcolm (11).

6. Dr. Judy's reply to the ME telex was sent by
cable through normal AID channels (12).

B. Involvement of Board, TC and EEP in Considerations on
Expansion of SM-CRSP in Africa

All three groups have been active participants in
the informal and formal discussions on expansion of the
program in Africa. The underlying plan was that this
expansion would occur under the leadership of Cornell
University, and would depend in part on a phase-down of
Cornell's operations in Brazil. Records of the fact
that this subject was discussed occur in the Program
Plan for 1984-1989 (4), minutes of Board meetings in
October 1985 (5) and November 1986 (10), and a report
of the EEP (13).

C. Management Entity Response

Urged on by AID and BIFAD to phase-down the pro-
gram in Brazil and expand in Africa, the ME concluded
in 1986 that it should take a more assertive approach.

Thus, recommendations were made to the Board at its
November, 1986 meeting that Cornell University be
encouraged to pursue efforts to establish a collabora-
tive program in Africa and to post a senior scientist
in the region (14). The recommendations were approved
(10, page 4).

D. Divergent Views

Throughout the considerations, representatives
of the Board and TC from North Carolina State
University and the University of Hawaii have orally and
in writing expressed reservations to the Director
of the Management Entity about expanding the program
in Africa. Their concern is that such an action could
reduce the funding for their programs (15, 16, 17).

E. Initiatives

1. The Plan. We recognized that, although there is
a great need for additional soil management
information in Africa, it is a difficult area in
which to conduct collaborative research. Major
contributing factors are (a) the limited qualified
personnel and supporting infrastructure and (b)
the large number of programs that are competing
for these scarce resources. Furthermore, the cost
of an expanded program in Africa would be substan-
tially higher than the one conducted by Cornell in
Brazil. The need to reallocate funds within the
SSM-CRSP to provide the additional resources was
recognized and considered justifiable.

The basic plan was (a) to study agroecolo-
gical conditions in Africa, (b) select areas where
the Cornell expertise could be most usefully
applied, (c) examine specific sites within the
areas with the potential to carry out a collabora-
tive program and (d) submit a formal proposal to
AID and BIFAD for approval when all the SM-CRSP
criteria had been met. The purpose of advising
AID and BIFAD was not only to obtain its concur-
rence, but also to demonstrate that we had
received its message to institute program changes
and had given it a positive response.

2. Initial Investigations. Dr. Armand Van Wambeke,
Cornell University soil scientist, has extensive
experience in Africa. He, along with Dr. Douglas
Lathwell, developed a project proposal and
submitted it to the ME in October, 1984, in which

they outlined a specific plan for identifying the
areas in Africa where extropolation of information
obtained in Brazil may be technologically feasible

Texas A&M, under the leadership of Dr. Frank
Calhoun, already had a program in Niger and Mali;
the plan was to link it to other programs that
might be started in Africa. Thus, Dr. Calhoun was
kept informed on the Cornell activities, (19), and
was provided opportunities to make inputs into the
evaluation (20, 21). The ME was kept fully
informed on all the developments.

3. Investigations for a Program in Zambia. Based on
the general studies conducted in 1984 and early
1985, and discussions with Dr. Cal Martin and
Dr. John Malcolm, the decision was made to focus
on Zambia. The reasons were (a) encouragement
from the African desk of AID; (b) the country
contains agroecological zones where available
TropSoils information is applicable; and, (c)
there was a possibility of linking with the
University of Illinois's ZAMERE project.

Dr. Van Wambeke, while on a trip to Zambia on
other business, and paid by non-SM-CRSP funds,
obtained more detailed information on the soils
and agroecological zones and reported this to Dr.
Lathwell, Dr. Calhoun and the Management Entity
(22, 23).

Dr. Thurman Grove, Cornell University,
attended the SMSS Forum on Soil Toxonomy and
Agrotechnology transfer in July 1985 and during
this trip made extensive contacts with Zambian,
USAID and other personnel with knowledge of the
local situation (24). The cost of this trip was
paid by Cornell University from non-Soil
Management CRSP funds.

There were immediate internal communications
in Zambia as a result of the Grove and Van Wambeke
trip (25), as well as, communications from person-
nel in Zambia with Dr. Grove (26,27,28,29,30).
There was extensive telephone communications with
the University of Illinois and USAID/Lusaka, and
some confirming correspondence (31,32,33).

In late 1985, communications with the USAID/
Lusaka indicated that local financial support for

a TropSoils program in Zambia was dimming but
there continued to be expressions of hope that
something could be worked out so that TropSoils
could provide some local assistance (34).

Efforts to arrange for a Soil Management CRSP
supported trip by Dr. Grove to Zambia to make
a further on-site analysis were denied by USAID/
Lusaka (33). However, because of the strong
interest of the University of Illinois in linking
the ZAMERE program with the Soil Management CRSP,
it made arrangements for and paid the cost of a
trip by Dr. Grove in April, 1986, to study further
the appropriateness and feasibility of such a
linkage. The results were communicated to
USAID/Lusaka, Government of Zambia and the
University of Illinois (35, 36). Dr. Grove
recommended that Cornell proceed with its plans to
initiate a program in Zambia and to post Dr. Bowen
on-site (36, 37). AID/S&T was sent a copy of
these recommendations.

During the latter half of 1986, mission
support for the ZAMERE project decreased and the
prospects for a program in Zambia substantially
diminished (38).

4. Investigations For a Program in Cameroon. When
the prospects for a program in Zambia appeared
slim, our major attention turned to Cameroon. It
had been considered as a potential location when
we developed our plan of work in 1984 (4, page
19). Discussions with Mr. Cal Martin, Dr. Robert
Kleiss and others in AID and BIFAD indicated it
was a priority country on their agenda.

Dr. Pedro Sanchez, while attending an IBSRAM
meeting in Cameroon in January 1986, was invited
by USAID to give a report on TropSoils work (39).
The results of the seminar and follow-up events
and discussions were quite encouraging. Dr.
Sanchez communicated this assessment to the Manage-
ment Entity who then wrote to Dr. J. P. Ekekil and
advised him of our interest in exploring further
the potential for a collaborative program (40).
Cornell, Texas A&M and AID were provided copies of
this communication.

From information provided by AID, the possi-
bility was raised of linking a program in Cameroon
with an on-going IITA program. Dr. Tony Juo, the
IITA leader of that program was contacted and

arrangements were made to meet with him during the
annual meeting of the American Society of Agronomy
(41,42). The discussion was held and he strongly
favored and encouraged us to consider Cameroon as
a priority site for expanding the program in
Africa (43). During the same ASA meeting, the
Director of the Management Entity talked with Dr.
William Judy, USAID/Yaounde who also encouraged us
to examine the potential for a program in Cameroon

Two telephone calls were made to Dr. Judy to
confirm Mission interest and to request guidance on
appropriate procedures (45). His response was that
we make a formal request, via telex, which could
also serve as the official request for country
clearance as required by AID procedures. The telex
was sent, and a copy sent to AID (11).

USAID/Yaounde response, via cable through
normal AID channels, was to approve the objectives
of the trip, the date, and the travelers (12).
Communications were undertaken with IITA to obtain
approval for Dr. Juo to participate in the study
(46, 47, 48, 49). Meeting schedules were arranged,
visas were obtained and airline travel completed.
The trip was cancelled after receiving the written
request to do so from Dr. Gill (1).

V. Budgeting, Allocations and Expenditures

A. Background

The report from Dr. Gill stating that the University
of Hawaii was dissatisfied with the budget for its pro-
gram was no surprise. The ME had been informed by
University personnel of this discontent both orally and
in writing (50, 51). Exercise of political action to
influence a change, however, was not expected since the
budget had been approved by a three to one vote of the
Board (52).

B. Principles Employed In Budgeting Funds

The grant which established the SM-CRSP in 1981
contained a time-phased budget for each of the four
universities and the ME. Allocation of funds by the ME
to each university was based initially on a formula
calculated from data in the Grant. As we gained
experience, it became evident that this procedure was
unsuitable because it provided no flexibility to adjust

funding to individual program needs, program quality,
university capability or utilization of allocated funds.
For example, after three years the University of Hawaii
had used only 54% of the funds allocated by the ME and
37% of the amount prescribed in the Grant (53).

At the June 1984 meeting of the Board and TC, the
ME recommended that the SM-CRSP shift from the block
grant form of budgeting and fiscal management to one
that is project oriented. Under this form, a given
program, e.g. University of Hawaii, would consist of a
series of projects, each one self-standing and with its
own budget (54). This recommendation was
accepted. The procedure was used in developing and
reviewing the Plan of Work for the three year extension
(55). It became fully operational with the beginning of
1986-1987 program year, October 1, 1986 (56).

In June 1986, each program coordinator was asked to
develop a detailed budget for each project and submit
it to the ME by August 1. The procedure for analyzing
and acting on these requests are described in detail in
"Projects and Budgets for the Soil Management CRSP, 1986-
1987" (56).

C. Fiscal Management by University of Hawaii

This program has a history of under-utilization of
allocated funds during the peak funding period, over
expenditure during times when reduction should be
occurring and laxity in attention to fiscal details.
After two, three and four years in operation, funds used
were 25, 54 and 74% of the funds allocated, respectively
(53). During the fifth year the ME reduced the alloca-
tion from the amount calculated by the formula. This
action resulted in an increase in the use of obligated
funds to 92%.

For the period October 1 December 30, 1986, the
University of Hawaii initially requested $161,000. A
request for an additional $208,000 was made later (57),
making the total for the period $369,000. The actual
billings during the three-month period were $672,905.

D. University of Hawaii Faculty Participation

One of the fundamentals of the SM-CRSP is that the
research programs are to be led in large part by campus-
based faculty. The program is not intended to depend
primarily on field-based expatriates. The University of
Hawaii has had the fewest campus-based faculty leaders of

any university in the program (58). The absence of
campus-based faculty involvement seriously limits its
ability to conduct a program of this type, and is
considered to be one of the factors contributing to the
under-utilization of allocated funds.

Their request to employ three field-based senior
scientists during 1986-1987 was considered unjustified,
in light of the limited number of campus-based partici-
pants and the reduction in AID funding.

E. Actual Funding to Each Component for the 1986-1987
Program Year

The funding requested by each university for
1986-1987 and the funds which have been or will be
allocated are given in the Appendix (59). For the
University of Hawaii the amount to be allocated is 103%
of the request; for the SM-CRSP as a whole its 86%.

AID imposed some restrictions on the use of funds
such that certain ones had to be used prior to January 1,
1987 and others could be used only after January 1, 1987.
Thus, it was necessary for the ME to allocate them under
these terms (60). Each Program Coordinator was fully
informed on this situation and advised to use prudent
management techniques (61). The fact that the University
of Hawaii received a higher percentage of the annual
funds during the first three months of the program year
than the other components should have posed no special
fiscal management problems.

F. Projected Funding for Each Component During the Three-
Year Extension, 1986-1989

The projected funding for each component is based
on the actual funds provided during October 1, 1986 -
September 30, 1987, plus the projected funding recom-
mended to and approved by the Board (59, 60, 62, 63) is
given in the Appendix (64). A summary of the University
of Hawaii account follows:

$ 164,000 obligated October 6 (65)
$ 130,000 obligated November 3 (66)
$ 75,000 committed November 8 (67)
$ 900,000 projected December 30 (62)

$1,269,000 total

For the University of Hawaii, total reimbursements
from September 1981 through December 1986 is 19% of the
total actual SM-CRSP expenditures (68). The current
projected allocation during the three-year extension is
21% of the total projected SM-CRSP expenditures (64).

G. Redistribution of Funds

During the past 5 1/4 years, approximately 58%
of the total SM-CRSP funds have been spent in
Indonesia and Peru and 25% in Africa (68).
Under the projected budget, and assuming half of
Cornell's budget is spent in Africa, the expenditures
would be approximately 47% in Peru and Indonesia
and 29% in Africa. Given the admonitions from
AID and BIFAD to increase the program in Africa, the
projected shift in funds seems modest.



Table of Contents



















Letter from Tej Gill to C.B. McCants and reply

Grant DAN-1311-G-SS-6018, covering letter and
pages 1-4

Amendment 3 to Grant-DAN-1311-G-SS-1083

Global Plan, from "TropSoils Program Plan,

Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting,
October 17, 1985

Letter to John Patterson from Thurman L. Grove

Letter to John Malcolm from Thurman L. Grove

Letter to Marcus Winter from Thurman L. Grove

Letter to Leonard Pampa from Thurman L. Grove

Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting,
November 20-21, 1986

Telex to William H. Judy from C.B. McCants

Telex to John Malcolm from USAID/Yaounde

Report of the External Evaluation Panel based
on the April, 1986 Review, pages 14-17

Recommendations of the Management Entity
Relative to Programs. Submitted to Board
of Directors, November 20, 1986

Memorandum to C.B. McCants from R.H. Miller
and reply

Pedro A. Sanchez, Analysis of Proposed
TropSoils Budget, November 18, 1986.
Excerpts only.

17 Letter to C.B. McCants from M. Ray Smith and

18 Memorandum and Research Project Proposal to
C.B. McCants from D.J. Lathwell

19 Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A. Van Wambeke

20 Memorandum to C.B. McCants from F.G. Calhoun

21 Letter to F.G. Calhoun from A. Van Wambeke

22 Letter to D.J. Lathwell from A. Van Wambeke

23 Letter to D.J. Lathwell, et al., from A. Van

24 Memorandum and Trip Report to C.B. McCants
from Thurman L. Grove

25 Letter to Acting Assistant Director from
R. James Cheatle

26 Memorandum to Assistant Director from
R. James Cheatle

27 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove

28 Letter to Thurman L. Grove and F. Calhoun
from R. James Cheatle

29 Letter to D.J. Lathwell from Bal Ram Singh

30 Letter to R. James Cheatle from Thurman L.

31 Letter to John Nicholaides from Thurman L.

32 Letter to Thurman L. Grove from John

33 Letter to Thurman L. Grove from Willie F. Cook

34 Letter to R. James Cheatle from Thurman L.

35 Letter and Report to B.K. Patel from Thurman
L. Grove

36 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove

37 Memorandum to D.J. Lathwell from Thurman L.

38 Letter to B.K. Patel from Thurman L. Grove

39 Pedro A. Sanchez, Cameroon Trip Report,
January 21-29, 1986, pages 10-11

40 Letter to J.P. Eckebil from C.B. McCants

41 Telex to Tony Juo from C.B. McCants

42 Telex to Tony Juo from C.B. McCants

43 Memo to File by C.B. McCants

44 Memo to File by C.B. McCants

44-A Memo to File by C.B. McCants

45 Memo to File by C.B. McCants

46 Letter to L.D. Stifel from C.B. McCants

47 Telex to C.B. McCants from Dunstan Spencer

48 Telex to Tony Juo from C.B. McCants

49 Telex to C.B. McCants from Tony Juo

50 Letter to Joanne Hale from Goro Uehara

51 Letter to C.B. McCants from M. Ray Smith and

52 Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin B. Oyer

53 Funds Budgeted by AID, Funds Allocated by the
Management Entity and Billings Submitted
for the University of Hawaii, September
25, 1981-December 31, 1986

54 Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting,
June 5-6, 1984

55 TropSoils Program Plan, 1984-1989 (Cover Only)

56 Procedures, from "Projects and Budgets for the
Soil Management CRSP, 1986-1987"

57 Letter to C.B. McCants from Goro Uehara and

58 Campus-Based Personnel Who Have Served as
Leaders of Active SM-CRSP Funded Projects,

59 Funds Requested by Each Component and
Obligated by the Management Entity,
October 1, 1986-September 30, 1987

60 Funds Allocated to Each Component, October 1,
1986-September 30, 1987

61 Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B. McCants

62 Memorandum to Board of Directors from C.B.

63 Letter to C.B. McCants from Edwin B. Oyer

64 Allocated and Projected Budgets, All
Components, October 1, 1986-September 30,

65 Amendment No. 6 to Subgrant to University of

66 Amendment No. 7 to Subgrant to University of

67 Letter to Goro Uehara from C.B. McCants

68 Budgets For and Reimbursement to Each
Component, September 25, 1981-December 31,


AGNC'. FC=R :i'TZ*^ NA-O,*1 AL D E'/E LOPM eNT

March 17. 1987

Dr. Charlie McCants
Soil Science Department
North Carolina State University
P.O. Box 7113
Raleigh, N.C. 27695-7113

Dear Charlie:

This is to confirm my last week's telephone conversation with you
that our office and BIFAD needs relevant background information
which lead the Soil Management CRSP to explore, as we understand,
termination of the Brazilian site, consideration of Cameroon as a
new site, and changes in budgetary allocation related to this
shift in the CRSP design. This requested relevant information
should include, minutes of meetings of EEP, Board, ME or others,
during the past year or two.

As the Agency and BIFAD is much concerned about the possible
implications of any major change in the CRSP design we request
that you submit a formal proposal to our Office requesting a
review and amendment to the current CRSP plan. Such a proposal
will be given an expeditious consideration.

In the meantime we suggest that you postpone the planned 3 person
team visit to Cameroon until such time that the Agency and BIFAD
has an opportunity to review the requested proposal and make a
decision on its disposition.

Tejpal S. Gill
Renewable Nautural Resources
Office of Agriculture
Bureau for Science and Technology

cc: D. Bathrick
R. Kleis
F. Johnson
J. Malcolm


E North Carolina State University
L School of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Management Entity
Soil Management CRSP
Box 7113, Raleigh 27695-7113 March 23, 1987
(919) 737-3922

Dr. Tejpal S. Gill
Agency for International Development
Washington, DC 20523

Dear Tej:

I have received your March 17 letter in which you ask for
information regarding certain activities of the Soil Management

The background details requested will be provided as soon
as they can be assembled and organized into a formal report form.
Preparation of an official request for approval to revise our
program operations will be delayed until the Management Entity
has discussed these recent developments with the Board of
Directors and the External Evaluation Panel and receives their
input into an appropriate response.

The trip to Cameroon has been cancelled. There will be no
plans for travel to explore new initiatives until the current
situation is resolved.


C. B. McCants

CC: Dr. John L. Malcolm

North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

WASHINGTON C ,523 DAN-1311-G-SS-6018-


Dr. C. B. McCants
Director, TropSoils
Soil Management CRSP
Box 7113
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7113

SUBJECT: Grant No. DAN-1311-G-SS-6018-00
Soil Management Collaborative Research
Support Program (CRSP)

Dear Dr. McCants:

Pursuant to the authority of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, the Agency for International Development (hereinafter
referred to as "A.I.D." or the "Government") hereby grants to North
Carolina State University (hereinafter referred to as "ME,"
"University" or "Grantee"), an amount not to exceed $870,000. This
amount represents initial funding to support the University acting as
the Management Entity (ME) of the Soil Management CRSP as detailed in
the Schedule (Attachment A) and the Program Description (Attachment B)
of this Grant.

This Grant is effective and obligation is made as of the date hereof
and shall apply to commitments made by the Grantee to support Grant
activities during the three (3) year period from September 25, 1986
through September 24, 1989.

The total estimated cost for this grant is $9,000,000. A.I.D. will
obligate additional funds, subject to funding availability, up to the
total estimated cost. However, the Government shall not be obligated
in an amount exceeding the amount stated in the first paragraph
above. The obligated amount is considered sufficient to fund
activities through February 11, 1987.

This Grant is conditioned upon the University's administration of
funds in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the
Schedule, the Program Description, and the Standard provisionss
(Attachment C) which are appended hereto and to which the University
agrees by acknowledging receipt of this Grant by authorized signature


Page 2 NCSU, DAN-1311-G-SS-6C18-00, Soil Management CRSP

Please sign the original and eight (8) copies of this grant, and
return the original and seven (7) copies to the undersigned, making
sure to return all copies marked "funds available."

Joyce E. Frame
Grant Ofricer
Chief, Food and Agriculture Branch
AID/W Projects Division
Office of Procurement

A Schedule
B Program Description
C Standard Provisions
D Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement
E CRSP Guidelines



/ /
Name: ...
Title: A.oc Dean for Research

/. C,:

Date: Sgp 9.6 nP8


PIO/T No.: 6361547
Appropriation uo.: 72-1161021.3
Allotment No.: 643-36-099-00-20-61
Budget Plan Coae: DDAA-86-13600-AGll
Project No.: 931-1311
Project Name: Soil Manaqement CRSP
Total Estimated Amount: 9,000,000
Total Obligated Amount: $870,0UO
Funding Source: S&T/AGR, AID/W
DUNS No.: 99-099-0301


,AIr 2 9 18

FPrCfe o:ina lcl an. .. 'l
Office of Financal iaiwgiw






A. Under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, A.I.D. is authorized to provide assistance in support
of the Soil Management Collaborative Research Support Program
(CRSP), including support of research projects identified for
specific problem-solving needs.

B. Title XII provides for the creation of a Board for
International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) whose
responsibilities include participation with A.I.D. in
recommending, planning, developing, implementing, and
monitoring Title XII activities.

C. BIFAD and A.I.D. have developed a CRSP approach to research in
areas falling within the provisions of Title XII. The CRSP
approach is designed to link institutions including U.S.,
international and developing country agricultural institutions,
under the auspices of a Management Entity (ME), which will be
the prime Grantee, having common interests in organized
programs of research on selected problems. The ME is to have
overall responsibility for managing the CRSP and administering
the funds made available by A.I.D. in support thereof.

D. Pursuant to the authority of Title XII, in cooperation with
BIFAD, A.I.D. developed a CRSP for research in the area of Soil
Management. North Carolina State University was selected as
the ME with total program and fiscal responsibility for the
performance of the CRSP. The administrative work of the CRSP,
organized and funded through the ME, is achieved through the
Program Management outlined below. The purpose of this Grant
is to provide continuing A.I.D. support of the University as
the ME and participating Universities as detailed herein and in
the Program Description, Attachment B. All activities of this
program will operate under the "Guidelines for the
Collaborative Research Support Programs Under Title XII of the
International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975,"
dated June 21, 1985.


A. General

1. The objective of this program is to develop and adopt
improved soil management technology that is agronomically,
ecologically and economically sound for developing nations
in the tropics.

Page 2 -

2. The funds made available under this grant may be used to
finance the costs specifically incurred by the Grantee in
the implementation of this CRSP in accordance with Schedule
ARTICLE VI FINANCIAL PLAN and Attachment B hereto and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.

B. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this Grant are to enable the Grantee
to organize and mobilize financial and human resources
necessary for mounting a major multi-institutional U.S.-LDC
collaborative effort of research and training related to soil
management by:

1. Linking institutions having common interests in organized
programs of research on this CRSP;

2. Mobilizing and coordinating the research talent from
eligible institutions to ameliorate world food, nutrition
and property problems by research in the priority area of
this CRSP; and by

3. Achieving optimum collaboration under a Global Plan for
information exchange on this CRSP with A.I.D. Missions,
International Research Centers, and LDC Institutions.


A. General

The Grantee is both the ME and Fiscal Agent assuming
responsibility for the performance of research for this CRSP.
In assuming this responsibility, the Grantee will undertake the
following tasks in the implementation of this Grant:

1. Continue existing linkages and establish new linkages with
developing country institutions (with the assistance of
A.I.D. Regional Bureaus and Missions), and work with those
institutions to define the portions of the program to be
done in the developing countries.

2. Maintain a program global plan that displays the specific
objectives, budgets, schedule of expected inputs, outputs
and indicators of each project (both in the U.S. and with
specific institutions in developing countries), and the
critical and supporting relationships among projects. The
program global plan will also define the managerial and
funding relationships among program participants.



A description of the anticipated arrangements f
subgrantee project, including relationships wit
institutions, will be included in the program global plan
to the extent that the planning for such arrangements has
been completed at the time of program plan submittal. A
copy of the program global plan will be submitted to A.I.D.
for comment and will be used by A.I.D. to assess the
progress of the program and of its component projects. It
is understood that the initiation of CRSP activities with
any additional approved host country will include the
following general procedures:

a) On-site visits by U.S. scientists to develop complete
understanding between the host government
administrators and the appropriate CRSP entity.

b) Drafting and approval of Memorandums of Understanding
between the host governments and the appropriate CRSP

c) Identifying the highest priority global problems with
host country scientists at collaborating institutions.
Specific research areas will be identified.

d) Development of detailed work plans with the
determination of exact research site.

e) Drafting of work plans and budgets by the U.S. and host
country principal investigators.

f) Planning research facilities and infrastructures.

g) Research project budget needs and research goals for
future years.

h) As the program develops, put forth efforts to seek
means for expanding attention to research other areas.

3. The Grantee, in assuming responsibility for the performance
of research for this CRSP, and for the relevance of that
research promoting program goals, will undertake such tasks
as may be necessary to integrate the research activities of
subgrantees and to promote the usage of the research
results by the LDCs extension system.

4. The Grantee shall, throughout the duration of this three
(3) year Grant, retain the right to phase out, on
appropriate notice, the activities of the program at any
overseas worksite, providing that in the opinion of A.I.D.,
there is good and sufficient reason for so doing,
consistent with program objectives.

Page 4 -

B. Eligible Subrecipients

The Grantee may make subgrants only to.those institutions that
meet the requirements of eligibility as defined in Section
296(d), Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and which are so designated (see 43 FR 37049, dated
August 21, 1978). Other U.S. institutions may receive
subcontracts, but not subgrants. The Grantee and subgrantees
may make appropriate financial arrangements with LDC
institutions as necessary to support a research project of the
Grantee or subgrantee carried out under this Grant.

C. Review and Evaluation

The Management Entity (ME) will monitor projects' fiscal
management on a regular basis. Annual programmatic evaluations
will be carried out by the External Evaluation Panel (EEP).
Other evaluations will be performed as deemed appropriate.
(See "Program Management" below)

D. Related Activities

Each subgrant should identify any activity otherwise being
conducted by the subgrantee which is relevant to this CRSP but
which is neither a part of the work encompassed by the subgrant
nor entails any obligation on the part of the suograntee under
this Grant. This should include a substantive description of
the activity, identification of the principal personnel
involved, and, if feasible, an approximation of the dollar cost.

E. Program Management

1. Management Office (MO)

The Management Office consists of two people -- the
Director and an Administrative Assistant. In May 1984 an
editor was employed. That position was jointly funded: 70
per cent from the Soil Management CRSP and 30 per cent from
the International Programs office of the University. The
two person administrative personnel staff, with the
assistance of occasional temporary labor, is considered
adequate to meet the foreseeable needs of the Management

Board of Directors and Technical Committee Meetings

An increase in the frequency of meetings of the Board of
Directors and Technical Committee, both jointly and
separately, will be necessary in the future. Now that all
programs are operational (this CRSP is an on-going effort


JUL 2 182
Dr. Henry P. Smith
Dean for Research
Research Administration
North Carolina State University
Post Office Box 5356
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650

Subject: Amendment No. 3
Grant No. DAN-1311-G-SS-1083-00

Dear Dr. Smith:

Pursuant to the authority contained in the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as amended, and the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act of 1977, the subject Agreement is hereby amended
effective the date of this letter to reallocate budget amounts
to include research on soil of the acid savannas. The total
estimated cost of this grant is unchanged.


1. Under the Program Description, add the following:

"5 Research on the Acid Savannas Brazil

Investigations with field work in Brazil with Cornell
University, North Carolina State University and the host
institution, EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropequaria will do the following:

a. Characterize the soil of the experimental sites on the
experiment station at Planaltina and on farms where
cooperative experiments may be conducted.

b. Seek ways to reduce the cost of lime and fertilizer on
the acid infertile soils of the acid savannas.

c. Develop practices to maintain an adequate balance of
bases, CA, K, and Mg in soils of the region.

d. Estimate the economic returns from lime and fertilizer
use under present circumstances and a range of possible
cost/price/yield response scenarios.


Page 2 Am. 3., CRSP, DAN-1311-G-SS-1083-00, NCSU

e. Explore ways to increase the rooting depth of field crops
and pastures.

f. Identify crops which may tolerate adverse soil conditions
or extract essential plant nutrients more efficiently,
reducing the amount of fertilizer and lime needed to
produce a satisfactory crop."
2. Under Article XIII, Budget, delete "A. Budget Summary"
in its entirety and replace with "A. Budget Summary" attached
hereto as Attachment A and made a part hereof.

All other terms and conditions of the grant remain unchanged.

Please sign the original and seven (7) copies of this grant in
the space provided and return the original and six (6) copies
to this office.

Sincerey\ yours,

Morton Darvin
Grant Officer
Agriculture/Nutrition Branch
Central Operations Division
Office of Contract Management





Fiscal Data
AID's Obligated Amount: $3,450,000
Appropriation No.: 72-1121021.3
Allotment No.: DDAA-82-13600-AG11
PIO/T No.: 931-1311-3621015

Reference 4



In establishing and funding the Soil Management Collaborative
Research Support Program, TropSoils, the Agency for International
Development (AID) drew on a comprehensive set of studies and
recommendations from the Planning Entity. The Planning Entity, an
experienced group of experts in international agricultural development,
assessed the need for such a program, articulated its goals and proposed
a mode of operation. At the same time, the Planning Entity submitted
what has come to be called a global plan. This global plan, endorsed by
AID, has from the beginning been integral to the design and management of
TropSoils. The plan that follows, updated to take advantage of new
insights gained from the first three years of operation, renews the
essential commitment to global attack and coordination on soil
constraints to food production first set forth by the Planning Entity.

TropSoils' global plan, in outline, is:

--to conduct user-oriented research based on established
principles of soil management, along with
principle-oriented research as needed, to overcome soil
constraints to crop production for developing nations in
the tropics.

--to conduct these studies in collaboration with partner
nations and international research centers so as to make
the best use of available knowledge and resources, ensure
the research is adapted to both user and setting and link
people and institutions into active soil-management

--to deploy the research efforts according to
agro-ecological zones, which are groupings of tropical
regions that share many soil and climatic characteristics
in common, so as to focus the programs and facilitate the
extrapolation of results from one area to another.

--to establish and sustain long-term research at primary
sites in each zone and develop secondary sites as needed
to adapt new technologies to achieve the efficiency and
continuity necessary for sound soil-management programs.

--to coordinate work at each of these primary sites under
the leadership of a U.S. land grant university with
proven expertise in its respective zone, so that projects
draw on all the resources and experience of the
university, both in the field and on the campus.

--to team these programs, and their respective networks,
into a single, unified program, global in scope, assisted
and guided by the Technical Committee, the Board of
Directors, the External Evaluation Panel, the Management
Entity and the primary funding agency, AID.

--to encourage the broadest exchange among all components
of this unified program, through publications, site
visits, technical conferences and other regular

The background of this global plan, its components and expected
impact, follow.


Projections are that food production must increase at the rate of 3
percent per year during the 1980's and 3.8 percent per year during the
1990's to meet demands in the developing nations. Estimates are that
approximately one-third of the additional food will be produced on new
land and two-thirds by increasing yields on land already in cultivation.
To accomplish this goal, about 200 million hectares of newly cleared land
must be brought into production within the next 20 years. This area is
equivalent to all of the cropland in the United States.

There is enough land available to meet this need. However, the
greatest potential for new cropland, as well as the greatest need for
technology improvements, occurs in the tropics, where, without careful
management, soil constraints will severely limit plant growth and food


None of the tropical lands available for increasing food production
are ideal. The humid tropics and acid savannas, which for the most part
have favorable rainfall and temperature regimes, have soils whose
chemical properties constrain plant growth. The semi-arid tropics and
steeplands have many of the same kinds of soil-related problems, plus
population pressures and limitations imposed by climate.

Reference. 4


The areas eligible for agricultural development have been ic
as some of the world s most fragile ecosystems. Thus, it will be
difficult to both farm these lands and at the same time preserve
natural resource base--the soil. Already, badly managed fields have
abandoned, and valuable forests are being cut and cleared to replace

Since soils play a critical role in the success or failure of
farming systems in the tropics, it is not enough to focus only on the
crop or commodity. Appropriate soil-management technology is essential
to the task of increasing and sustaining food production under the
socio-economic conditions of developing nations. This technology is


The goal of TropSoils is to develop and adapt improved soil
management technology which is agronomically, ecologically and
economically sound for developing countries in the tropics.


Agroecoloqical Zones. While developing nations in the tropics share
in common such soil constraints as soil acidity, nutrient deficiencies,
physical problems and water stresses, these constraints manifest
themselves in varying ways and degrees from region to region. The
strategy conceived by the Planning Entity, approved by AID and
implemented by the Management Entity, is to structure the attack on the
soil constraints along agroecological zones. While a given zone is not a
homogeneous unit, the constraints are sufficiently common to provide a
focus for the research. The zones and their basic features are as

1. Humid Tropics. This is the portion of the tropics where there is
no more than a three-month dry season and temperature is not a limiting
factor to plant growth. The native vegetation is tropical rainforest.
Soil acidity and nutrient deficiencies are common chemical constraints to
crop production.

2. Semi-arid Tropics. This zone of the tropics is characterized by
a protracted dry season of six-to-nine months duration. Erratic
precipitation, wind and water erosion, desertification, soil acidity
(accompanied by phosphorus deficiency) are major constraints to crop

3. Acid Savannas. This portion of the tropics is characterized
by a strong dry season of four-to-six months duration, savanna vege-
tation and predominantly acid soils with inherently low nutrient lev-
els but generally good physical conditions. Temperature is not a limit-
ing factor to plant growth.

4. Steeplands. This category includes the densely populated regions
of the tropics where soil erosion is a major concern. Soil properties,
moisture and temperature regimes vary.

Primary Research Sites. The second component of the strategy is to
utilize primary research sites within an agroecological zone. This
feature enables the research to be concentrated in a manner that will
maximize the output from limited resources and the continuity necessary
for long-term research. There is a primary research site within each
agroecological zone and there are two in the humid tropics. The
countries with primary sites are:

Humid Tropics (Latin America) Peru
Humid Tropics (Asia) Indonesia
Semi-arid Tropics Niger
Acid Savannas Brazil
Steeplands to be determined

Lead University. A third component of the strategy is to designate
research leadership responsibility for a primary research site to a U.S.
university that has experience with the predominant soil constraints.
This approach provides a means to utilize the scientific expertise in
specialized subjects and to provide a focal point for overall program
management. The TropSoils plan provides for the following lead university

Humid Tropics (Peru) N. C. State University
Humid Tropics (Indonesia) University of Hawaii
Semi-arid Tropics (Niger) Texas A&M University
Acid Savannas (Brazil) Cornell University
Steeplands undetermined

Collaboration. The fourth component of the strategy is inherent to
the CRSP concept--collaboration. The primary participants are AID, the
U.S. universities and the collaborating country agricultural research
organization. For the various zones these are:

Humid Tropics (Peru) NCSU; INIPA
Humid Tropics (Indonesia) UH; NCSU; CSR
Semi-arid Tropics (Niger) TAMU; INRAN; ICRISAT
Acid Savannas (Brazil) CU; NCSU; EMBRAPA

NCSU: North Carolina State University
INIPA: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Promocion
UH: University of Hawaii
CSR: Center for Soils Research
TAMU: Texas A&M University
INRAN: Institut Nationale de Recherches Agricoles der Niger
CU: Cornell University
EMBRAPA: Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria
ICRISAT: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid

Reference- 4


In addition to the collaborating country institution, attention i
given to expanding the sphere of activity to a broad base of
organizations with related interests. In this group are international
agricultural research centers, to include IITA and CIAT, and count.,,.
other than those for the primary research sites, for example Mali and
Cameroon in Africa and Ecuador and Bolivia in South America.


The role of soil management in the food production is to rectify
mismatches between soil characteristics and plant requirements. Several
basic concepts undergird the TropSoils experimental approach and serve as
a base of reference for determining if a project is likely to contribute
to the program's goal:

1. The research establishes cause-and-effect relationships between
soil properties and plant growth, as influenced by climate.

2. The approach uses established principles of soil and crop
science. When necessary, basic research is conducted to clarify existing
principles or to explore new ones.

3. Technology packages generated through research are designed to be
flexible enough to accommodate both the user and the resource.

4. The soil-management technology must be effectively transferred
from the research sites to other locations, making it truly global in
scope and application.


Research to provide soil management technology for developing
'countries is dynamic and, thus, must be sustained. Research needs change
as users of the resource change. This has been demonstrated in developed
countries. Recognizing this need for continuity, the TropSoils plan uses
a collaborative approach to establish a soil management research
infrastructure within each partner nation. This collaborative approach
develops in the partner nation a pool of trained scientists and leaders
who can direct their own research and technology-exchange programs.
Furthermore, it links people and institutions into a network that will
serve to keep attention directed on ways to most effectively use and
conserve the soil resource.


TropSoils is a research program. Its goal is to develop soil
management technology that is user oriented. For the technology to

have an impact on food production, it must be applied. While technology
transfer is not a designated TropSoils goal, TropSoils does have a vital
interest in the ultimate outcome of the technology developed. Therefore,
it will seek opportunities to interface with technology transfer
programs, to provide constructive inputs and to use the results of these
interactions in assessing and prioritizing its research efforts.

Reference. 5

Executive Committee
of the
TropSoils Board of Directors
for the
Soil Management CRSP

Westpark Hotel
Rosslyn, Virginia
October 17, 1985

i. Committee Members Present
Dr. Ada Demb
Dr. Robert H. Miller
Dr. Edwin B. Oyer
Dr. E. C. A. Runge

2. Others Attending at Various Times
Dr. John Malcolm, AID/S&T
Dr. Tej Gill, AID/S&T
Dr. Anson Bertrand, AID/S&T
Dr. Jack Robbins, AID/S&T
Dr. Robert Kleiss, BIFAD
Dr. Fred Johnson, BIFAD
Dr. John Coulter, World Bank

3. General Remarks

3.1. Dr. Kleiss recently has been appointed as Executive
Director of BIFAD, replacing Dr. Fred Hutchinson. The level of
expectation for outputs by CRSPs is exceedingly high -- perhaps
more so than is reasonable, he said, and consequently critics of
the program are quick to seize on any weaknesses or limitations
to enhance their position. The situation is especially critical
within AID at this time because of financial constraints and the
resulting effect of all programs striving to maintain their
financial base. He stressed the importance of conducting pro-
arams where there is mutuality of interest for all collaborators
in the CRSP.

3.2. Dr. Robbins focused on some of the criticisms directed
toward the CRSP and suggested some actions that are appropriate.
Much of the criticism of the CRSP arises from persons without
technical backgrounds in the subject matter. Reductions in per-
sonnel within AID has eroded severely the number of people with
the technical competence to evaluate or understand many of the
S&T programs. Thus, more concerted actions by leaders of such
programs is necessary to fill the void and help blunt the crit-
icism. He spoke to the well-known issue that many field missions
are either neutral or negative toward the CRSPs. The level of

support varies in proportion to the level of CRSP activity in a
given country. At a recent meeting of ADO's in the LAC region,
those from countries where CRSPs.are active were generally
supportive; those from countries where there was no direct CRSP
activities were generally negative. He stressed the importance
of maintaining close communication with mission personnel in the
collaborating country to help get the technology developed in
place and of working with those in other countries where the
program is relevant, to the extent that is feasible. He also
stated that he "didn't think the CRSP should play a brokerage
role." (These comments and one by Bertrand that "CRSPs should
not get involved in technology transfer, but take the information
to the gate," leaves unanswered and further confuses the
responsibility of CRSPs in the dissemination of the technology
they develop). Robbins spoke at some length on the current
controversy about the contribution of AID supported programs,
past and present, to the current farm crisis situation in the
U.S. He provided several documents (copies on file in the
Management Entity office) that refute many of the allegations.

The importance of the EEP was stressed and was said to
be one of the strongest elements of the CRSP. Its role needs to
be carefully considered and it should not be expected to be
judge, jury and executioner. The EEP should not be "forced to do
management work," Robbins said. Rather it should examine
strategies employed and progress being made to achieve objec-

3.3. Dr. Bertrand was not expected to attend the meeting
due to a conflict; but due to a change in his schedule was able
to be present. He requested that we do more to help the ADOs
understand the relevance of CRSP activities. The Inspector
General is studying the contributions of AID programs to improved
farming in developing countries. Presumably this will include
the CRSPs and Bertrand is concerned there may be some adverse
effects. A preliminary report on another AID supported activity
is said to conclude that, except for the development of improved
rice and wheat varieties, the "IARCs have been totally
ineffective." He spoke of the need for more members of the EEP
to participate in the review of the field sites. Presumably he
was referring to the visit of Coulter to Indonesia, Thorne to
Brazil and Niger and Hildebrand to Indonesia. The reasons for
these actions were explained and he was advised that full panel
reviews of the program in Niger and Indonesia are scheduled for

3.4. Malcolm reported that documentation is being developed
which will allocate the SM-CRSP the remaining funds authorized
under the original grant. The amount is $2.3 million and is for
funding through September 25, 1986. The level of funding for the
three-year extension has not been established, though he is hope-
ful that the $3.0 million per year requested can be obtained. He



requested that information on accomplishments be disse
to him and others -- as rapidly as possible in order t
program highly visable. He called again for more evid
linkages among components of TropSoils.

3.5. Dr. Coulter commented on the problem of the CRSPs
meeting the high level of expectation, given the difficulty of
the task, the time required to conduct meaningful research and
the fact that measurement of progress is being judged on the
basis of program impacts. Efforts are now underway to estimate
the impact of the IARCs; this is resulting in considerable
controversy. He suggested that a more appropriate approach may
be to evaluate the CRSPs on the bases of their output rather than
their impact.

4. Management Office Report

Some of the major developments in each of the program
components that have occurred since the last meeting were
highlighted. These are outlined as follows:

Acid Savannas
Lathwell and McCants trip to Brazil in
Change in administration of EMBRAPA,
Louis Carlos Pinheiro Machado, President
Change in administration of CPAC;
Dr. Guido Ranzini, Director
Eduardo Dos Rios, New Board representative
Zambia initiative by Cornell University
Scientist exchange program

Semi-Arid Tropics
Calhoun and McCants trip to Niger in June
Status of program
Budget issues
Field review scheduled for 1986

Humid Tropics Indonesia
Uehara, McCants and Cassel visit to
Indonesia in March
Hildebrand visit in June
Field review scheduled for 1986
Change in team leader Colfer replacing
Need for increase in on-site personnel
Collaborating institution inputs

Humid Tropics Peru/Brazil
Change in government in Peru
Change in Board representative
Change in project leader for Brazil

Network development delayed
Relationship of program to IBSRAM

Management Office
Personnel changes
Emphasis on publications
Management review by AID
Annual reports and annual review
Request for external review of Management
Data in Tables 2-6 reviewed

5. Board Discussion

5.1. Annual Review. There was a consensus that an annual
review by the EEP of progress of the research and based on the
annual report is desirable. The suggestion was made that the
Board should attend this review but following considerable
discussion no formal action was taken. The Management Office
will consult with the Board, and to the extent possible, schedule
the review so as many as possible will not have a conflict and
thus can attend if they choose. The question of extent of
participation by collaborating country scientists and Board
representatives was addressed. The Management Entity was
encouraged to obtain as much participation as practical.

5.2. Budget for Semi-Arid Tropics Program. Background
information was presented by the Management Entity and the
proposed actions in Table 6 recommended. The subject was dis-
cussed at some length by the Board after which it was decided to
postpone a decision pending further study by the Management
Entity. This study is to involve Texas A & M University program
and administrative personnel and to include acquisition of more
precise data on past and future expenditure actions amd adminis-
trative procedures. The Management Entity is to submit a report
of its study to the Board for consideration.

5.3. Review of Administrative Office. The program director
called attention to the reviews either conducted or planned for
the research programs of TropSoils and suggested that a thorough
review of the administration would seem appropriate. The program
is entering its fifth year and much improvising and individual
judgements have been made regarding policies and administrative
procedures. While they seem to be working reasonably well, re-
visions can and should be made wherever they would improve
operations and efficiency. The Board, in Executive Session,
discussed the request and agreed to initiate such a review. The
details are still under development, but the following general
features emerged: (1) the review should be under the control of
the Board, not the EEP; (2) the review team would consist of the

Reference 5


Chairman of the Board plus an outside consultant with
in program management and (3) the study should involve
participation by the Program Coordinators.

5.4. Technical Committee. After discussing the historical
functioning of the technical committee, there was a consensus
that a need exists to better define its role and operations. The
feeling among the Board was that more peer reviews of projects
and progress could be beneficial. The value of a meeting of all
project leaders was discussed and there was general agreement
that this would be useful but costs and logistical problems may
make it unfeasible. The subject will be discussed further.

5.5. Budget. The Board approved funding of programs for
year 6 at 93% of the level recommended in the Program Plan. The
funding level for year 7 will be determined after the oral review
is complete, now scheduled for the spring, 1986.

5.6. Board Chairman. The Board at its February, 1985
meeting agreed that the term of the Chairman would be for two
years. The current Chairman, Dr. Demb, was elected to the
position at the October 1983, meeting. The executive committee
elected Dr. Ed Oyer to succeed Dr. Demb, subject to concurrence
by the collaborating country representatives on the Board. Dr.
Demb will communicate with the full Board on these actions.

Note from Director: Dr. Demb has been an able and
effective Chairman and a valuable source of counsel and guidance
to the Management Office. Her rational and incisive analysis of
situations and articulate presentation of her views and the Trop-
Soils program have been significant constructive factors in the
progressive development of TropSoils.

Reference. 6

New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
S Cornell University
- I Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853

October 11, 1985

Mr. John Patterson, Director
USAID/Department of State
Washington, DC 20523

Dear Mr. Patterson:

During July I attended the SMSS Forum on Soil Taxonomy and
Agrotechnology Transfer in Lusaka as a representative of the Soil
Management-CRSP (TropSoils). While there I discussed potential
collaboration between TropSoils and Zambia Ministry of Agriculture and
Water Development (MAWD) with MAWD. Minister Chinkuli and Dr. Nicholas
Mumba expressed considerable interest and referred me to Dr. Patel for
discussion of specific possibilities.

Collaboration among Cornell, TropSoils,and MAWD seems especially
appropriate. Approximately 80 percent (24 million hectares) of the soils in
the high rainfall areas of northern Zambia are highly weathered Oxisols and
Ultisols. Constraints to agricultural production on these soils result from
soil acidity and inadequate soil supply of phosphorus and nitrogen. During
the past fifteen years Cornell and other TropSoils institutions have
accumulated considerable expertise on such soils while conducting research
in South America, the Caribbean, and West Africa. Technologies have been
developed to overcome constraints and the soils are productive when
properly managed. These technologies are likely transferrable to Zambia
after adaptive research to match them to local conditions.

Discussions with Dr. Patel resulted in identification of specific research
priorities that would be appropriate for a collaborative program. I visited
the mission and spoke with Marcia Ellis. Mr. Gibson had left for his new
assignment and the new ADO had not yet arrived. Neither you nor Mr. Perry
was available.

Dr. Patel suggested that a beneficial program would involved adaptive
research on amelioration of soil acidity, management of phosphorus, and
management of nitrogen, especially organic sources, in a project situated at
the new research station at Mutanda. This location seems ideal. Population
growth is rapid in the Northwest province and local food production is
desirable. Soils at Mutanda are principally highly weathered Ultisols that
are not only extensive in Zambia, but occupy substantial areas in Angola and
Zaire. Consequently, resultant technology would be of regional importance.
Mutanda is situated near the copper belt and services are reasonably
available for expatriate staff. While this location seems desirable, we're
flexible and open to alternate suggestions.

Dr. Patel's proposal is for us to provide two professional staff for field
studies at Mutanda and one professional soil scientist to provide laboratory
support at Mt. Makulu. Junior staff, as available, would work on specific
problems under the supervision of senior staff. All staff would fulfill a
training function for Zambian counterparts. Opportunities would exist for
Zambian soil scientists to pursue graduate studies at Cornell. Dr. Patel
suggested a schedule that would have staff in place by September for the
1986 growing season. This schedule would ensure a minimum of three years
of field expeirments as TropSoils is funded through fall 1989. If TropSoils
is funded beyond 1989, we would be prepared to continue studies beyond
this date.

Dr. Patel also expressed a desire for us to conduct a workshop,
preferably in July or August 1986 on management of highly weathered
soils. This workshop would serve to identify national priorities for soil
research, it would establish coordination among soil research programs in
Zambia, and it would serve as a planning tool for the collaborative program.
Cornell has conducted similar workshops in Latin America which were well
attended and proved very useful.

Recent discussions with Dr. John Nicholaides, Director of International
Agriculture at University of Illinois, have reinforced the importance of soils
research in Zambia. Dr. Nicholaides suggested that the ZAMERE program has
identified the importance of soil constraints to agricultural production. He
expressed Illinois' willingness to collaborate with potential TropSoils
programs in Zambia. We anticipate collaboration with ZAMERE in research
programs and the workshop.

Reference. 6

We solicit your comments on the compatibility of our proposed
with USAID objectives. If our programs are complementary, we requc,. yuui
participation in the planning process. We also solicit your consideration of
financial support. Cornell's current budget does not allow for as large a
program as that proposed by Dr. Patel. However, we believe that Dr. Patel's
proposal is appropriate to the needs for soils research in Zambia. We will
investigate the possibilities of reallocation of funds within TropSoils, but
feel that we should simultaneously investigate alternate sources of
financial support. Preliminary budget estimates for a research program and
the workshop are appended. Current TropSoils support is indicated.

We look forward to your response.


Thurman L. Grove


Collaborative Research Project
Preliminary Budget Estimates*

1986-87 1987-88 1988-89


Senior Staff (3)
Junior Staff (2)

Fringe Benefits:
Senior Staff




International Travel:

Other Direct Costs:








Indirect Costs:


















Current Funding:



Additional Funds Required:



















* Assumes rental housing available and that Zambia MAWD provides routine
field equipment, e.g. tractors, plows, planters, etc.

Reference- 6

Workshop on Management of Highly Weathered Soils
Preliminary Budget Estimate

Airfare (4 Americans, 2 Brazilians, 1 IITA Scientist)

Per diem: (7 days, 7 foreigners)
(5 days, 15 Zambians)

Miscellaneous: (programs, proceedings, etc.)






(607) 256-2287

October 14, 1985

Dr. John Malcolm
USAID Department of State
Washington, DC 20523

Dear Johns

We continue in our efforts to establish a collaborative
program with the Ministry of Agriculture and Water
Development (MAWD) in Zambia. Enclosed find copies of
letters to MAWD, USAID/Lusaka, and John Nicholaides at
University of Illinois. Dr. Nicholaides has expressed
interest in collaborating through the ZAMERE program that
is managed by his office.

We thank you for your advice in this matter and will
keep you informed of our activities.


Thurman L. Grove
Cornell Trop Soils



(607) 256-2287

October 14, 1985

Mr. Marcus Winter
USAID Department of State
Washington, DC 20523

Dear Mr. Winter:

Cornell University and the Soil-Management CRSP have
entered deliberations with the Zambia Ministry of Agriculture
and Water Development (MAWD) concerning a collaborative
soil-management research program on highly weathered soils
of northern Zambia. Enclosed for your information are
copies of letters to MAWD, USAID/Lusaka, and Dr. John
Nicholaides at University of Illinois. Dr. Nicholaides
has expressed interest in collaboration with us through
the ZAMERE program.


Thurman L. Grove
Cornell-Trop Soils


Reference 9

(607) 256-2287

October 14, 1985

Mr. Leonard Pampa
USAID/AFR/Zambia Desk
USAID-US Department of State
Washington, DC 20523

Dear Mr. Pompa:

Referrence is made to our telephone conversation of
17 September 1985 during which I informed you of our
interests in collaborative soil-management research with
the Zambian Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development
(MAWD). Enclosed for your information are copies of letters
to MAWD, USAID/Lusaka, and Dr. John Nicholaides at University
of Illinois.

Thank you for your advice and comments on our
activities. We will inform you of future developments.


Thurman L. Grove
Cornell Trop Soils


Reference 10

NOVEMBER 20-21, 1986

Present were Charles McCants (North Carolina State), Ed Oyer (Cornell), Robert
Miller (North Carolina State), Ray Smith (a new Board member from Hawaii),
Lawrence Apple (from the Management Entity in North Carolina), and John Malcolm
(USAID Washington). Ed Runge was elected Secretary for this meeting. Dr. Ed
Oyer serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors for TROPSOILS.

Minutes will be distributed to the Board members and the Management Entity in
attendance and after they have had a chance to correct the minutes, they will
be distributed to Board members, members of the Technical Committee (project
coordinators for the four universities). Dr. Charles McCants will send out the
minutes after they are finally available.

Dr. Bob Kleiss from BIFAD was present for approximately an hour and a half at
our meeting. He was introduced to the group by Dr. Ed Oyer.

Dr. Kleiss indicated that a letter from the administrator of USAID was sent to
the Title XII officers at 35 different universities. There were ten points in
the memorandum and the responses are available for review in Dr. Kleiss'
office. Summaries of responses will be made and distributed. However,
individual responses will not be circulated. Dr. Kleiss indicated that the
survey was a 2 1/2 page letter and had gone out the last couple of years from
Dr. E. T. York. It was sent in late May and contained questions such as "Why
isn't the technical support to missions used more?" Questions about the
management of university projects versus contracts, etc. Generally the
responses were good. They also went out to 70 missions and 50 of the 70
missions responded. Only 17 of the 35 universities responded. There was no
discernable dicotomy in responses from these groups.

Issues were raised as to the quality of university staffing and their
preparation for assignment, promotion and tenure track for some university
employees versus less than that for other universities for their overseas
employees. Questions regarding the continuity of contractors for follow on
projects evidently was discussed. Evidently there shouldn't be a need to go
out for bids in some instances and sole source contacts can be issued. To use
sole source contracts you will probably need to visit with the AID mission
directors and the Assistant Administrator for AID in the various regions such
as the Ivory Coast for Niger and Mali. Sole source follow-ons may also have to
be discussed with the contract officers at the mission.

Evidently several summaries of these responses were made and have not been
distributed at this point. Bob Kleiss did one, Buster Brown did one, and Irv
Long did an unsolicited summary. Management of university projects came out as
a problem identified by AID missions. They want more field authority for the
Chief of Party on contract interpretations. Evidently AID has decentralized
much more to the field in recent years. Mission directors now serve 42 months
versus 31 months as an average tenure time.

Page 2
Dec. 12, 1986

Duane Acker is Agency Director for Food and Agriculture, S&T/FA, and has taken
up his responsibilities. His deputy is Bill Furtic. David Bathrick, from
Peru, has been selected to take Anson Bertrand's position and will join the
Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Science and Technology January 1, 1987. Irv
Long retired and his position is likely to be filled by Dr. Curtis Jackson.
This is the research and university relations position with AID.

CRSP evaluation is in a wind-down. Ed Hogan is doing the final report and it
is due in December 1986. Dr. Kleiss feels that it will be a positive report.

USAID still does not know the budget for the CRSP. They hope to be treated no
worse than centers and that will be a 13.5% reduction. There was also
discussion on the definition of the CRSP objectives. Is it still the narrow
research focus as identified by Dr. Bertrand or is it wider than that? Dr.
Kleiss feels we still need a clear research focus, however there is some
criticism because of the lack of technology transfer for some of the CRSP that
may be valid and needs to be addressed. CRSP's do not have the resources to do
this transfer but it is a part of the collaborative research program as
presently understood.

Dr. Tej Gil joined the group. He is acting in the position formerly held by
Dr. Bertrand (retired) as well as his previous role within AID/W. He commented
that we are in highly uncertain times with uncertain policies with new people.
One production CRSP (small ruminants) was critically reviewed and recommended
for phase out. Dr. Brady asked that they not phase out any project at this
point. The centers' cut was 13.5% and it appears that CRSP will not be cut any
more than the 13.5% according to Dr. Brady. Dr. Gill discussed various budgets
scenarios. He feels the best is the 13.5% reduction but there is much
ambiguity of what base will be used in applying this 13.5% reduction. Dr. Gill
indicates that everyone is tense at this point and morale is the poorest it has
been in his 16 year tenure.

The Inspector General's review is written. Evidently they brought up "what did
the CRSP do versus what they said they would do?" He feels there may be a need
to emphasize natural resource land conservation and environmental
safeguards over production at the present time. There are many groups around
the world that would support such an approach.

The budget approach at the present time needs to emphasize core funding and
buy-ins. For example, mission support for specific research in various
countries may be vital to carrying out objectives. The soils CRSP has more
money authorized than we can ever expect to receive. The current limit for
mission support to CRSP is about $100,000. We also discussed the possibility
of grants versus contracts. Evidently grants such as we have are much more
flexible than contracts.

John Malcolm discussed the Inspector General's Report. He feels the fact that
they are called "Inspector General" gives more status to the report than the
competency of the people preparing it even it the report is later refuted.
He -eels it is absolutely essential to document objections to reports such as
the Inspector General has prepared. We also need to keep in mind that people

Reference 10.

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 3
Dec. 12, 1986

at the various missions in countries where we work receive most of their
advancement and credit for planning programs that will be carried out in a
couple of years. They won't be in their same position five years from now.
Consequently, we need to adjust and write our output to answer this short term
need when it is possible to do so. He also stressed that communication is
essential. The three-year progress report was good. We can't be this
elaborate on a regular basis, but similar documents should be prepared when
possible. With reduced funding, he feels we should continue to use all our
sites but may have to change the way we run our business. One of the main
problems in our Soils CRSP is determining what base everyone is using to
calculate our budget. It was brought up that we have to make commitments to
graduate students on a three-year basis and it is hard to do so with our
present budgeting climate.

What strategy should TROPSOILS pursue was discussed. Should we stress the
natural resources area? Obviously it is important to have something on
technology transfer, etc. It is also felt that deemphasizing productivity
might be useful with commodity groups. I'm not sure we were in agreement on
this. We need to press forward with as much force as possible given the
reality of our present budget. If the 13 1/2% reduction is on top of the
projected funding of $200,900/month, we would be at a spending rate of about
$175,000/month. This is considerably less than all project coordinators feel
is reasonable.

The Board discussed the need for a mid-course adjustment. The Soils CRSP was
originally conceived to be a total research document. Training per se was not
included in the TROPSOILS CRSP originally. Employing graduate students wasn't
considered to be a part of training, but the purpose was to carry out research.
Consequently we refer to graduate students as junior scientists and all of
us need to do this consistently. It was also emphasized that the Soils CRSP
needs to move with the times and emphasize training, institution building and
technology transfer in addition to research. However, we will need to
prioritize among these based on the funding that is available. In summary, we
need to adjust the Soils CRSP to the times in which we are working.

We also discussed the African connection. Cornell has moved toward Africa and
maybe Zambia. The University of Illinois project in Zambia has an uncertain
future at present. Movements to Cameroon were discussed and will be discussed
further in the document.

At this time Fred Johnson joined us from the BIFAD office. He works with BIFAD
and particularly is in charge of tracking CRSP.

Cornell responsibility in the CRSP was discussed further. It was mentioned
whether or not we should continue to maintain differences between the acid
savannas and the humid tropics. The soils are both acid and many of the same
techniques apply. The bigger difference is that there is a wet/dry season in
the acid savannas and that is not true in the humid tropics. Should Cornell
phase down in Brazil? It qas a feeling of the Board that additional pressure
to reduce activity in non-USAID countries was inevitable, and that a shift in

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 4
Dec. 12, 1986

resources from Brazil could be used to increase an African connection for the
CRSP. In general, the Board would like to see Cornell maintain some ties with
Brazil but that new efforts really need to be made in Africa, probably
Cameroon. Evidently there is a Cornell-Rockefeller initiative on root and
tuber crops in the Ivory Coast at the present time. They would like to look at
Ghana and Cameroon as well but only have an invitation from the Ivory Coast so

In general, the Board felt another African site should be pursued and that
priority should be given to Cameroon. Connections with the Texas A&M program
should be in Niger and Cameroon and needs to be considered by Cornell. Texas
A&M needs to consider Cornell's interest as well. Possibly cooperation in
Niger as well as Cameroon between the two institutions can be accomplished even
with the small amount of funds. We discussed the recommendations of the
Management Entity relative to programs.


The BOD endorsed a mid-course adjustment in the TROPSOILS CRSP
program to increase emphasis on the management of natural resources
(soil and water) to enhance the well-being of farmers while
sustaining the resource base and maintaining environmental quality.
A majority of the CRSP resources should continue to support an
improvement in our knowledge and a better understanding of soils of
the tropics. The BOD requests the ME to plan and implement a shift
in program emphasis toward technology development and its
dissemination. The BOD encourages the continuation of training of
U.S. and developing country scientists to perform independent soil
management research and the enhancement of the institutional base
that can sustain soil management research. To accomplish these
goals, the BOD endorses the Management Entity's additional

1. That Cornell University be encouraged to continue its efforts to
establish a collaborative program in the acid savannas and/or
humid tropics of Africa, and to post a senior scientist in the

2. That the University of Hawaii be encouraged to initiate an
expanded program (a) to evaluate the utility of its "expert
systems" technique for making soil management recommendations and
(b) to establish collaborative relationships with other countries
in southeast Asia.

3. That North Carolina State University be encouraged to accelerate
its networking and technology validation programs in the Latin
America-Caribbean region and to explore the opportunities of and
potential for such activities in the humid regions of Asia and

Reference 10-

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Dec. 12, 1986

4. That Texas A&M University be encouraged to investigate the
opportunities and potential for increased collaboration with
other African countries and programs in the semiarid tropics and
to submit a proposal for relevant action.

It is the intention of the BOD that the program adjustments
recommended above be implemented within the funding levels available
but any major new initiatives in Africa must be dependent on
supplemental resources. This document was passed by the Board.

The big problem with the Management Entity recommendation is what to do with
them relative to our pending budget reduction. Cornell has hired Buddy Bowen
on their staff and expects to place him in their overseas program. The
question is where? His Ph.D. work was done at the Brazil location.

In conclusion, the Management Entity should work out an orderly reduction in
the Brazil operation with Cornell and channel resources to Africa to the degree
possible. Certainly we need to be careful about sending the wrong signals to
the Brazilians. Any new African initiative needs to be at a level consistent
with funding. Adequate funding for an African initiative needs to be defended
with Dr. Acker, Dr. Brady and others. Evidently there is supposed to be money
available in Africa at the mission level since these missions were not cut to
the degree the others were. There is also a need to solve problems in Niger to
the degree possible before we split our efforts in such a way that we are not
effective either in Niger or at another site such as Cameroon.

This pretty well summarizes our discussion through November 20, 1986.

The Board reconvened on Friday morning, November 21st. Budget was discussed.
We are currently funded at a $200,900 level per month. The money not
previously used was rolled forward to fund the program from September through
December 31, 1986 except for the Management Entity. Funding is now approved
through April 27, 1987. Therefore, any cut that takes place in the $200,900
per month level should take place after this time. Evidently any funding that
we receive beyond April 28, 1987 will be for one additional year on a calendar
or fiscal year basis.

The document titled Projects and Budgets for the Soil Management CRSP 1986 to
1987 was discussed. The summary is on pages 5, 6, and 7 and are all based on
a S200,900/month basis. Obviously these will have to change and priorities
made when we know our final budget. For example, Cornell's budget on page 10
for project 103 is new and relates to Dr. Buddy Bowen's program. Existing
projects will have to be looked at very closely after funding is available.
Obviously the program coordinators, the Management Entity, as well as the Board
of Directors will have to be involved in making these decisions. Decisions on
vacant positions and other matters need to be postponed until funding is

4e were joined by Fred Johnson and John Stovall from the BIFAD Board. budget
discussions were reviewed with them as well, and how to approach Duane Acker,
who we were going to see at 10:00 was discussed. It was moved and seconded by

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Dec. 12, 1986

the Board that the Board of Directors endorse a mid-course correction for the
TROPSOILS CRSP. The recommendations of the Management Entity as modified by
the Board of Directors needs to be reviewed as part of this motion previously
incorporated in these minutes.

Drs. Johnson and Stovall indicated that cuts to AID have a lot of exceptions,
Africa, child health, etc. Taking exceptions meant the rest of AID would take
a 26% cut. Centers and CRSP were cut 13% instead of the 26% the rest of AID's
people took.

We adjourned at this point and went and visited with Dr. Duane Acker who had
replaced Dr. Jack Robins.

Dr. McCants started our discussion by indicating that a substantial base of
technology which was applicable to other parts of the world has been developed
by the Soil Management CRSP. The real questions is "how do we go the next

1. Do we expand programs in Africa?

2. Do we increase networking?

3. Do we do more in technology transfer?

4. How can we do more when funding is being constrained?

Dr. Acker asked "what is the technology that has been developed?" Various
members of the Board discussed the technology that had been developed which
they felt could be used, such as looking at the landscape in the Peru area and
determining what cropping production practices should be carried on at these
landscape positions. The fact that the semi-arid tropics has a soil chemistry
problem that overwhelms water utilization in the area is another significant
finding and needs further research.

Dr. Acker indicated that CRSP forward funding through April 1988 is in place.
The reduction in spending is projected at 13 1/2%. The real question is "what
base is being used to apply the 13 1/2% to?" During the last twelve months,
the TROPSOILS spent at the rate of $241,000/month. Gramm Rudman changes
imposed a $200,900/month spending level. That was the figure Dr. Acker had in
his printouts. Last year there was an 18% reduction in the CRSP, but there was
no reduction to the centers funded by USAID. Evidently, AID will be closing
one $340,000 project. Others could be closed but political reality is unlikely
to allow it.

It was also emphasized that the cost of operating in Africa versus elsewhere is
much higher. Certainly AID is interested in Africa and work there by the Soil
Management CRSP. The cost of technology transfer program was also discussed
with Dr. Acker. Networking of the Peru projects using Yurimaguas as a training
site for other countries was discussed.

Reference 10

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 7
Dec. 12, 1.986

The fact that soil problems in the Sahelian region are holding back the
adaptation of improved cultivars such as sorghum, millet, peanuts, etc. was
discussed. The soil acidity and fertility problem will have to be solved
before many of these cultivars can be successfully tested or grown in many
regions in this part of the world. Hawaii's experts systems extrapolation was
discussed as well.

It was mentioned to Dr. Acker that Dr. McCants, Dr. Apple and Dr. Oyer will be
visiting with Dr. Brady on Wednesday, November 26th.

In summary we had a very good visit with Dr. Acker. Good information was
mentioned by each member of the Board of Directors in attendance and Dr. Acker
seemed to be very receptive to the group.

The recommendations of the Management Entity relative to budget was discussed.
The new figures were written in by all of us on Table 1. We really couldn't
act on budget detail because of undetermined cuts. It was indicated what would
happen to budgets if the $175,000/month figure becomes reality. The Board of
Directors discussed recommendations relative to budget and it was decided to
delay action pending future information. Dr. McCants was asked to redo the
budget with this information. (Dr. McCants is presently working on this budget
and will be turning it in soon). The recommendations are reproduced here as
part of this report.


1. That the recommendations submitted in the memorandum to each
Board member dated November 6, 1986 on the subject "Allocation of
Funds from Grant DAN-1311-G-SS-6018," be approved.

2. That the projects ana budgets submitted in "Projects and Budgets
for the Soil Management CRSP, 1986--1987," be approved.

The Board of Directors also received the recommendations of the Management
Entity relative to the external evaluation panel. There are three
recommendations of the Board in this category. Again, they are reproduced
here as part of this report.


1. That the number of full members on the panel remain at three and
the responsibilities "emain the same as previously defined.

2. That a panel of associate members be kept up to date with
recognized expertise in Soil Science, Systems Analysis and
Socioeconomics and whose primary responsibility will be to
provide technical evaluations of individual research projects.

TROPSOILS Meeting Minutes
Page 8
Dec. 12, 1986

3. That the Management Entity exercise its responsibilities to
ensure that the Panel 's recommendations are implemented as

The Board discussed the need for major review of the Soil Management CRSP at
the end of 1987 similar to that held in Atlanta in February of 1986. Full
scale reviews of the Hawaii and Brazil programs will be held in the next
several months. In general it was felt that the annual review was needed and
should include Board members, EEP, project coordinators, etc. The best time to
hold this would probably be in the fall of 1987, somewhere in the October to
December time-frame. The Board of Directors moved that such a review be held
and it was seconded and passed.

The generic document with the International Board of Soil Research Management,
Inc. was discussed. Basically we are in agreement with this generic document,
but it needs to be finally approved after it is available in the final form.

This pretty well summarizes the discussion of the Board of Directors as we met
in the Westpark Hotel in Rosslyn on November 25 and 26, 1986.

E. C. A. Runge, Secretary

Reference 11




!120955 EST 1129 FEB/12/1987

043 17.33

FEB. 12. 1987






004.8 MINS



PAGE 01 YAOUND 01733 271715Z 4227 s14L93 A103I29

STFA-01 TVA-01 RELO-01 AFMG-a3 /018 As

INFO LOG-00 AF-BO /9s8 J
------------------032041 271746Z /38
P 271637Z FEB 37




E.O. 12355: N/A

STATE 39065


YAOUND 01733 2;








Department o State

Reference 12

r\aK o'~ ~9~1

Reference 13-

From: "Report of tl
External Evaluation
Panel Based on the
April 1986 Review"


A. Alternatives for matching the work program to the resources
available in view of the impending major cut in resources for
the CRSP.

1. Terminating one of the country programs

2. Making cuts in some or all of the existing programs
with attendant reduction in program objectives.

3. Finding less costly ways to accomplish the same objectives,
e.g. by closer collaboration amongst the four universities.

4. Supplementing the budget by other funding.

Various combinations are also possible.

B. Criteria used to select the agroecological zones when the CRSP
was planned were reviewed by EEP to ascertain if those criteria
continue to be valid for TROPSOILS research sites.

These criteria included:

1. Area of land involved in the zone
2.' Number of people involved in the zone; number
presently there and number zone potentially can support


3. Chances of achieving something useful by research in the
4. Level of support indicated by the USAID Mission(s) in the
5. Level of support indicated by potential host country(s)
6. Technical and socio-economic feasibility of research
7. Presence of ongoing development projects
8. Logistical problems involved in research conduct
9 Present poverty level (1/GNP) of countries in the zone

This led to the selection of these four agroecological zones for
the CRSP research:

1. Humid tropics
2. Acid savannahs
3. Semi-arid tropics
4. Steeplands

When funding below the anticipated level was apparent, the
steeplands program was dropped in order to keep a minimum size
program in any one country. The planning group considered an
annual budget of $500,000 to be the minimum acceptable level for
any program conducted by a U.S. university under TROPSOILS.

Strong emphasis was placed on this criterion of an annual budget
of minimum size; hence the decision to limit the participation
to a small number of universities, in contrast to some of the
other CRSPs which have a much larger number of participating

C Conclusion of EEP regarding continuation of research in
the four agroecological zones:

It is the opinion of the EEP that the conditions listed above
have not changed appreciably since the initiation of TROPSOILS.
Hence EEP recommends to the ME and Board that they continue
supporting the existing programs in Brazil, Indonesia, Niger and

In support of this decision, the EEP points out the following:

Since 1979, events in Africa have emphasized the need for
new technology to improve agricultural production. Such
technology cannot be imported from elsewhere without major
modifications to meet the social and economic conditions of
the countries concerned. Furthermore, the deterioration in
the semi-arid tropical areas is attracting more and more
attention from AID and donors generally.




The population pressure of people and cattle can only
increase and can only be alleviated by increasing the
productivity of the better areas and encouraging the
regeneration of the woodlands being destroyed rapidly by
demands of cultivators and city dwellers for firewood.

The world has become increasingly concerned about the
destruction of the forests of the humid tropics and there
is more and more pressure to conserve these or to convert
them to non-destructive self-sustaining agriculture. The
Amazon area and South East Asia are the primary targets for
these pressures.

Development of the acid savannahs in Latin America and
Africa with their good potential under high management
would relieve some of the pressures on the rain forests.

D. The Management Entity should take a detailed look
at finding less costly ways to accomplish the same program

Apart from closer collaboration amongst participating
universities, there may be opportunities for other international
institutions to undertake some of the work without use of CRSP

Supplementing the budget may be a possibility, though some of
the funding may be short-term. Nevertheless, if the "core" of
the program could be maintained, short-term funding could be

E. The above notwithstanding, the CRSP must adjust to a significant
cut in budget. Therefore, EEP recommends the following in
regard to TROPSOILS budgets and programs:

1. Semi-Arid Tropics:

EEP recommends CRSP funding for the TAMU-TAES/Niger Program
at no less than the level in the proposed budget.

This program may need some additional funding to maintain
its existing size. While this program has had difficulty
in getting underway and some setbacks from personnel
changes, the proposed 1986-87 budget is slightly below the
minimum size envisioned by the TROPSOILS planning group.

As indicated above, the importance of the semi-arid
tropical areas in the U.S. and world concerns requires that


this program continue to be supported at a level which
will give it good chance to provide its potential benefits.
A small amount of additional funding may be required to
examine the socio-economic aspects of the program. As a
beginning, a consultant might be added to appraise the
socio-economic studies already made in Niger by ICRISAT and
others, to ascertain their applicability to the TROPSOILS
program. This is a difficult economic and social
environment and the assistance of a socio-economist is
needed to determine the applicability of research results
to the zone.

2. Acid Savannahs:

EEP recommends CRSP funding for the Cornell/Brazil Program
at the level in the proposed budget.

If some additional work is undertaken in the acid savannahs
of Africa, additional funding will have to be obtained,
probably from non-CRSP sources.

The proposed 1986-87 budget for this project is well below
the minimum size envisioned by the planning group and has
never been as great as that minimum annual amount.

3. Humid Tropics:

a. EEP recommends CRSP funding for the University of
Hawaii/Indonesia Program at the level in the proposed
budget and that only two resident senior scientists in
Indonesia should be supported from CRSP funds: one
social scientist and one biological scientist.

b. EEP recommends funding for the NCSU/Peru Program at
a slightly reduced level.

c. EEP recommends continuation of the cooperative
arrangement under which North Carolina State
University_provides backstopping for a scientist in
Indonesia dealing with management of lands cleared
from forest.

4. Management Entity:

EEP recommends that the Management Entity look very
closely at the allocation of resources in the total CRSP in
the light of this evaluation.

Reference 14

of the
Management Entity Relative to Programs 1

1. That the research programs be designed and conducted in a
manner that will contribute (a) to an improvement in our
knowledge and a better understanding of soils of the trop-
ics, (b) to the development of technology that has immed-
iate application, (c) to an increase in the number of LDC
scientists with competence to perform independent soil
management research and (d) to establishing an institu-
tional base that can provide sustained soil management

2. That resources be allocated and utilized in a manner which
will provide effective support for each of the above stated

3. That Cornell University be encouraged to continue its
efforts to establish a collaborative program in the acid
savannas and/or humid tropics of Africa, and to post a
senior scientist in the region.

4. That the University of Hawaii be encouraged to initiate an
expanded program (a) to evaluate the utility of its "expert
systems" technique for making lime recommendations and (b)
to establish collaborative relationships with other
countries in southeast Asia.

5. That North Carolina State University be encouraged to accel-
erate its networking and technology validation programs in
the LAC region and to explore the opportunities of and
potential for such activities in the humid regions of Asia
and Africa.

6. That Texas A & M University be encouraged to investigate the
opportunities and potential for increased collaboration with
other countries and programs in the semiarid tropics of
other African Countries and to sumbit a proposal for rele-
vant action.

1 Submitted to Board of Directors for consideration at its
November 20-21, 1986 meeting.

Reference 15

North Carolina State University
S i School of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Academic Affairs, Extension & Research

Department of Soil Science > LOv i.?Lco
Box 7619, Raleigh 27695-7619
(919) 737-2655

FROM: R. H. Miller 6- .

SUBJECT: Proposed Tropsoils Budget

DATE: November 25, 1986

The news of a further USAID budget cut for Tropsoils was certainly
a shock and disappointment. It will test the patience of all of us, and
it certainly will make your task as well as mine a great deal more difficult.

There are a number of observations which eminated from the Board meeting
which need further comment. This is especially true since the Board in
Executive Session did not take any action on a proposed budget.

1. It would be my desire that the Board of Directors be involved in determining
and/or approving the final proposed budget. It was not apparent to
me if this was the procedure which will be followed. It was a topic
left without resolution.

2. I am highly supportive of the gradual move of Cornell into Africa
as discussed and approved by the Board. However, I am not supportive
of the proposed increase in Cornell's budget to support this effort
until the latter part of 1987 or early 1988 when all necessary investigations
of opportunities are completed and the Board of Directors has met to
evaluate the chance for success and future impact on Tropsoils activities.

3. Although I recognize and appreciate that all universities in Tropsoils
will be seriously hurt by the budget reductions, I am convinced that
the NCSU program will be the most seriously impacted. Our level of
program activity and large variety of initiatives make us particularly
vulnerable. I ask you sincerely to provide us an opportunity to plan
and disengage in a manner which will cause us the minimum of negative

4. It would seem useful for you, Lawrence Apple and perhaps Pedro or I
to meet with N. Carolina's Congressional delegation to talk about the
USAID agriculture budget in general and the Soil Management CRSP budget
in particular. Sometime in December or early January would seem appropriate.


cc: L. Apple

North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

North Carolina State University
l 'T1 School of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Management Entity
Soil Management CRSP
Box 7113, Raleigh 27;95-7113
(919) 737-3922


FROM: C. B. McCants

DATE: December 11, 1986

SUBJECT: Proposed TropSoils Budget

This reply is to your memorandum of November 25 on the above
subject. I appreciate you sharing these views and suggestions
with me and trust the following response will be useful.

1. It was not clear to me from the Board's action on the
Management Entity's budget proposal, what was intended
to be the next step. I discussed it with Ed Runge and his
interpretation is that, because of the uncertainties at
the time of the meeting on the base for the budget cut,
that the ME needed to reconsider its recommendations
after the situation was clarified, and submit them to the
Board for consideration. The problem with this delay is
that subgrants, including funding commitments, must be
developed and approved before December 31 for the Parti-
cipating Institutions to have access to operating funds.
I have prepared another budget based on a new set of
criteria and submitted it to Dr. Apple. The figures in
this proposal are the basis for the budgets given in the
subgrants. After he has responded to the proposal and any
adjustments made, it will be transmitted to the Board for
action. Any changes arising from Board recommendations
will be incorporated into the subgrants via the amendment

2. With respect to the Cornell initiative in Africa, aside
from personnel costs there is less than $5000 budgeted
for new programs. Thus the major portion of the funding
for any work they undertake in Africa will need to come
by diversion from Brazil or from other sources. Thus the
only way to significantly reduce the cost of the African
initiative being undertaken by Cornell would be to ter-
minate Bowen's appointment, an action I'm not prepared
to support.

3. You can be assured of my continued efforts to assist the

North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

Reference 15

N. C. State program in its difficult transition
tion. However, I do not think it will be usefu
in terms of accomplishing this by assuming sig
reallocations of funds from other programs.

4. We need to continue to make known the assets of our
program and how they can contribute to the management of
tropical soils and the significant accomplishments that
we've achieved. I don't believe, however, that it will be
productive to singularily engage legislative bodies on
this issue at this time. I'm concerned that it would be
counterproductive. At a later date and through some
jointly organized effort, we could have some impact.



From: Sanchez, P.,
"Analysis of
Proposed TropSoil
November 18, 1985

b) Page 2. Personnel: NCSU was the only university that suffered a
cut in personnel already employed for the period Jan 1-Sept 30,

c) Cornell: Africa is not included nor mentioned in any of Cornell's
projects. The Cornell budget increase is therefore to support
Cerrado research in Brazil, a low priority in USAID's eyes and very
difficult to justify. If Cornell is to be involved in Africa,
specific projects for Africa should be developed before budget
approval is given by the Board of Directors.

5. The cuts are not uniformly distributed. The projections for Year 7 and
8 show the following cuts as percent of peak funding years:



6. In terms of the total CRSP budget, the changes
institutions in Year 4 vs. Years 7 and 8 are:

in distribution among

% of CRSP
Year 4


% of CRSP
Year 7 and 8





Reference 17

University of Hawaii at Manoa

College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
Gilmore Hall 202 3050 Maile Way
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

Office of the Director January 15, 1987

Dr. Charles B. McCants
Soil Management CRSP
N.C. State University
Box 7113
Raleigh, NC 27695-7113

Dear Charlie:

Upon my return from the TROPSOILS Board of Directors Meeting and also after
receiving Dr. Goro Uehara's report of the Program Coordinator's Meeting, I
discussed the projected budgets for all Soil Management CRSP components
prepared by the Management Entity with our College Administration (Dean and
Director). I have attached a copy of our analysis of the obligated and
projected distribution of funds and several comparisons of monthly rates among
the CRSP components. Needless to say, we are somewhat displeased with this
projection. As a Board Member of Tropsoils, I feel obligated to present this
reaction to you and ask you to consider taking steps to correct the
disproportionate distribution of allocated funds among TROPSOILS components.

We have reread the discussion notes and minutes from previous BOD meetings
and also detailed notes and communications on the current status of TROPSOILS
prepared by Dr. Ada Demb before leaving the Board. Nowhere in these documents
and records of previous discussion and decisions of the BOD do we find any
indication of program deficiency or lack of performance in the Hawaii program
to explain or justify your projected distribution of funds. In fact, the
results of the most recent EEP review of the Soils Management CRSP provide a
recommendation that the Hawaii program be continued at the same level, with no
indication of the desirability of a disproportionate cut of the Hawaii program
with respect to the other components.

The projected distribution of funds will clearly weaken and drastically
reduce the Hawaii component activities. I know this is also true for the North
Carolina State program, but the Hawaii component will be taking a larger
percentage cut relative to all other TROPSOILS components.


Dr. Charles B. McCants

We believe that Dr. Goro Uehara has effectively defined the goals of the
Hawaii program, namely, to improve and validate its soil acidity expert system
and to develop a soil phosphorus model. Further, indications are that these
results can be readily coupled with the soil-plant water balance model at Texas
A&M and the soil nitrogen management capability at Cornell.

The informal feedback that the UH has received from Indonesia is that the
TROPSOILS is very highly regarded and praised by officials and field scientists
of both AARD and the USAID Mission. The projects are in mid-course, and
despite staff changes during the past year, the results are now beginning to be
transmitted into needed soil management recommendations for resource poor
farmers in Indonesia. But even more important is the fact that the UH program
is now prepared to produce a soil management information system based on the
work done by UH, Cornell, and Texas A&M that will provide answers to questions
about the management of soil acidity, phosphorus and nitrogen, and water
balance for both millet and rice, in environments ranging from the semi-arid to
the humid tropics. We strongly believe that the final results of the program
review in Indonesia scheduled for February 1987, will further bear this out.

In response to your memorandum of 12/30/86 to the Board of Directors
requesting Board action on the ME budget projections, I have related these
concerns to Ed Oyer by telephone. I have further indicated my negative vote on
the budget projections based on the following points:

1) The previous EEP evaluation report indicated that the Hawaii component
should be maintained at the current level (relative to other

2) It is reasonable that final decisions on the long-term budget should
await the February evaluation of the Hawaii component by the EEP.

3) The BOD voted in November, 1986 that no new thrusts in Africa
(Cameroon) should be initiated without new money being allocated to the
TROPSOILS CRSP. The relatively large expansion of the Cornell program
into Africa is contrary to this BOD action.

Therefore, I request that you consider developing a new distribution of
CRSP funds once the program review in Indonesia is completed that would provide
some level of additional support to the Hawaii component.

I would appreciate receiving your response to our concerns and the above


M. Ray
Acting Assistant Director

cc: Dr. Goro Uehara

January 5, 1987



Distribution of Funds to TROPSOILS
Components, Dollars x 1000

Obligated Monthly
Rate 1/87 4/87




Requested Monthly
Rate 10/86 12/86



Projected Monthly
Rate 5/87 9/89



Projected Monthly
Rate 5/87 9/89




+ 4.6%


- 5.2%


Percentage Change From Requested
Monthly Rate (10/86 12/86) to
Obligated Monthly Rate (1/87 4/87)


Percentage of Total Allocation to TROPSOILS Components

10/1/86 12/31/86


1/1/87 4/26/87


1/1/87 9/30/89







North Carolina State University

School of Agriculture and

Management Entity
Soil Management CBSP
Box 7113, Raleigh 2795-7113 January 30, 1987
(919) 737-3922

Dr. M. Ray Smith
Department of Agriculture Equipment
and Mechanization
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822

Dear Ray:

I have received your January 15 letter regarding the
proposed TropSoils budget. The following background and facts
are submitted for your information.

1. Initially, the Soil Management CRSP operated under a
block grant funding procedure; the various components
were allocated a predetermined amount and percentage of
available funds. In 1985, the Management Entity
recommended, with EEP support, and the Board approved
shifting the management format to a project oriented
basis; requests, evaluations and funding would be by
projects. The procedure became fully operational with
the 1986-1987 program year.

2. Utilizing the information in "TropSoils Program Plan,
1984-1989," the Management Entity prepared a "Project
Statement" for each project in the Plan and submitted
it to the respective Program Coordinator for review and
revision. The Statements, as approved by Dr. Uehara
for the University of Hawaii, are included in "Projects
and Budgets for the Soil Management CRSP, 1986-1987,"
referred to hereafter as "P and B, 1986-1987."

3. Each Program Coordinator was requested to submit a
detailed budget worksheet for each Project Statement,
including salary and related information, with the
understanding that it would be held in confidence.
An example of one such worksheet from the University of
Hawaii, with salary information blanked out, is
attached. A summary of the requested budget, by object
category, is given for each Project Statement in "P and
B, 1986-1987."

4. After reviewing all the requests, program operations
and projected funding for 1986-1987, the procedures
described on Page 1 of "P and B, 1986-1987" were

North Carolina State University is a Land-Grant University and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina.

adopted. A basic decision was that currently filled
positions would be given priority over vacant positions.

5. The primary reason why the University of Hawaii appears
to have received a disproportionate reduction in funding
is that its budget proposal included requests for a
large number of vacant positions for the research
projects. In addition, its backstopping request did not
provide the personnel details requested, even though
several special attempts were made to secure it, since I
assumed that persons were currently employed in the
positions. These facts are shown by the following data,
part of which are given on Page 33 of "P and B, 1986-
1987" and the remainder calculated from information in
the Detailed Work Sheets provided by Dr. Uehara.

Funds Requested, 1986-1987

Personnel Costs $535,000
Current employees 258,000
Vacant positions 134,000
Backstopping 143,000

Non-Personnel Costs 110,000

Total $645,000

6. Even though the necessary personnel details were not
provided, the Management Entity did include $86,000
for backstopping. In addition, funding for a vacant GRA
position ($15,000), plus funding for non-personnel costs
in excess of that requested, was provided. These facts
are shown in the following table and reported on Page 33
of "P and B, 1986-1987."

Funds Projected, 1986-1987

Personnel Costs $359,000
Non-Personnel Costs 140,000

Total $499,000

7. When we received the notification in November of a
reduction in funding, revisions in the previously
developed projected allocations for 1986-1987 were
necessary. The current allocations for the University
of Hawaii are projected as follows:

October 1 December 31 $164,0001
January 1 April 27 144,000
April 28 September 30 151,000



Reference 17


1An additional $130,000 was formally obligated and
$100,000 tentatively obligated for the October 1 -
December 31 period. Thus the total allocations for the
1986-1987 budget year will be approximately $689,000.

8. Projections beyond 1987 are highly speculative and are
for general planning purposes only. Actual allocations
will vary depending on program priorities, progress on
individual projects and available funds. Attempts to
compare funding between university components beyond
1987 is not considered to be productive.

9. While there is no a priori right of any University
to a given percentage of the budget, the 17% projected
for the University of Hawaii for January 1987 -
September 1989 in the December 30 memorandum to the
Board is consistent with the University of Hawaii's
historical relative expenditure rate as given by the
following data.

Total Billings By Components of SM-CRSP
September 1981 October 19861

Component Total %

Cornell 780,910 7
Hawaii 2,004,295 18
NCSU 4,599,587 41
TAMU 2,718,406 24
Mgmt. Ent. 1,177,545 10

Total 11,280,743 100

1This is the latest date for which billings have been
submitted by all universities.

10. In response to other points in your letter:

a. The EEP report in April 1986 assumed level funding
and I do not interpret it as recommending any special
considerations be given to the University of Hawaii.
The appearance of a disproportionate cut is due to the
requests for a large number of vacant positions which
were not funded, as previously discussed.

b. Funding for the expert systems project, referred to
on Page 2 of your letter, is provided at the full amount
requested (see Page 55-56 of "P and B, 1986-1987"),
contrary to what you apparently have assumed.

c. Substantial funding for soil-phosphorus modeling
is still provided, though after five years, no defini-
tive results from this activity have been presented.

d. The program at Sitiung has received good reviews
and Carol Colfer's leadership, influence and produc-
tivity were unquestionably outstanding. However, in
assessing the program at Sitiung, the major impact of
North Carolina State University must be included due to
the input of on-site senior scientist Dr. Mike Wade,
graduate students Dan Gill and Karim Makarim and back-up
campus faculty, Dr. Kamprath and Dr. Cassel.

e. I talked with Ada Demb many times on a range
of concerns about the University of Hawaii program.
However, I did not feel it necessary nor desirable
to formalize them in writing. Her response was always
one of support and defense of the questioned activities.
I have talked also with Goro on several occasions about
(a) lack of any meaningful research program output by
Dr. Thompson, during his time with the program (b) lack
of University of Hawaii graduate students in the field
program (only two in five years), (c) failure to utilize
funds on a timely basis, (d) questionable qualifications
of Dr. Guyton for the needs of the program in Indonesia
and (e) the low productivity of the program.

f. The CRSP is structured around major inputs by
campus based faculty. To date, there have been only
two University of Hawaii faculty with any apparent
input into the program, Dr. Uehara and Dr. Yost.

g. The decision to provide a relative increase in
funding to Cornell University was made by the Manage-
ment Entity based on the following primary consider-
ations: (1) a shift in its operations from Brazil to
Africa, (2) high campus-based faculty input into the
program, currently numbering seven, (3) quality of its
work (4) capability to conduct and manage a larger
program and (5) low backstopping costs resulting from
substantial campus administrative support.

My conclusion is (a) that the relative proportion of the
funds allocated and projected for the University of Hawaii is
consistent with its historical expenditure pattern, program
performance and management potential and (b) the amount allocated
and projected should enable it to conduct a productive program
that focuses on high priority issues within its area of

Reference 17


I'll be pleased to discuss the budget and program with you
and Goro at any level of detail you desire after the EEP review
is complete and to work with you all to maximize the outputs
consistent with available resources.

Since your letter pertains to a matter involving the Board
of Directors, I'm sending them a copy of my response.


C. B. McCants


cc: Dr. Goro Uehara
Dr. E. B. Oyer
Dr. R. H. Miller
Dr. E.C.A. Runge
Dr. J. L. Malcolm

Reference 18-

S New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
| Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853

October 24, 1984

TO: Dr. C.B. McCants

FROM: D.J. Lathwell

RE: Future sites for collaborative research

Enclosed is a project proposal Dr. Van Wambeke and I prepared for
site review for extrapolation of the acid savanna research. In addition
maps with estimates of potential areas that Dr. Van Wambeke prepared are

You may wish to fund this through the Management Entity as our overhead
rate is now approaching 70% and yours may be somewhat lower and result in
some saving to the overall CRSP costs. I leave that to you, however.

It does appear that there are significant land areas where extrapolation
of results might be tested. We believe this is worthy of investigation.



Program: Management of Soils of the Acid Savannas

Project Leader: D.J. Lathwell, Professor of Soil Science
A. Van Wambeke, Professor of Soil Science,
Cornell University
C.B. McCants, Director, Management Entity

Research Topic Title: Evaluation of sites in the Acid Savannas for future
collaborative research

Goals: To locate sites in Latin America and Africa on soils of the acid
savannas and to develop linkages with host country institutions where
future collaborative research of mutual interest might take place.

Project: Site visitation and evaluation for future collaborative research

1) To construct soils, climate, and vegetation maps of the continents
to locate and describe the acid savanna regions of the world.

2) To establish contacts with institutions in several countries where
acid savannas occur.

3) To visit several countries to determine the feasibility of
developing collaborative research programs complementary to that
under way at CPAC.

Reasons for the project:

At least one-half of the acid savanna regions are found outside the
main body of them in Brazil. Large areas occur in Colombia and
Venezuela in South America and limited areas are found in Central
America. Extensive areas of acid savannas are found in West and
Southern Africa. While we believe it is reasonable to expect that much
of the work on the Oxisols in de Cerrados of Brazil can be transferred to
Oxisols with similar properties in other regions. The behavior of the
Ultisols may be somewhat different. The extent of these two soil
orders in the acid savanna region needs to be known. This would be
followed by contact and visitation with institutions in potential host

Relevance to other programs:

If, indeed, suitable sites can be located and working relations
established with host institutions, then the results of research from
CPAC can be tested and its suitability for other regions projected.

Generalized procedure:

Information on soils, climate, and vegetation for Africa is being put
together to locate regions of similar conditions. Contacts will be



made by collaborators from Cornell and the Management entit:
determine the potential for working in these regions (or countries).
If suitable conditions are found then a collaborative program will be
explored and developed.

Potential sites for collaboration:

Panama in Latin America offers potential as Cornell already has a
program underway. The soils are Oxisols but the savannas are limited.

In West Africa, the Ivory Coast offers possibilities as a potential
site. In Southern Africa, Zambia appears to offer promise. Other
possibilities may exist in Central Africa.

Anticipated duration:

The phase of establishing contact and exploring possibilities should
take from 6 months to a year. January 1, 1985 to December 1, 1985.




West Africa

Southern Africa


Direct Costs

Copying, etc.

Indirect Costs


1/1/85 12/31/85







Reference 18


Estimates of Areas with Acid Savannahs in Africa

The source was the FAO Soil Map of Africa (1977). Ferralsols
were taken as the equivalent of Oxisols. Acrisols were correlated
with Ultisols, and the Ferralic Arenosols considered to be similar
to Psamments.

The comparison between the Cerrado in South America with
the African savannahs results in the following table (in hectares

South America Africa

Oxisols 94.5 182.6
Psamments 34.3 58.5
Ultisols 19.1 76.8

147.9 317.9
(million hectares)

The vegetation units of the FAO publication equated with
the Campo Cerrado included in the computation all the savannahs
(FAO symbol 4) and the large leaved dry forests (symbol 2c) of
the FAO vegetation legend.

An additional table (attached) gives the areas covered by
each soil component in each country. The Central African Empire,
Zaire and Zambia are most typical for Oxisols, Tanzania has
dominantly Ultisols, and Angola has large areas of sandy savannahs.

In West-Africa it would be worthwhile to contact Dr. P.
Ahn who is at the Institut des Savannes (IDESSA) in Bouake, Ivory
Coast leading a cropping system research team.


9 t,,

-,., 35' I I,

1 -4



b~I RYualnnna PdrlIC1IIrS
R U i. d ct r es 3

"ri ltn-n-un f- 1t 2
a. Trpicial ,sded-1 usrui -

0. TF I:

a. Lmn,"i... :1 and un-lun- n -a-4
l': Onrpen ...... bP: Ih ru~ entr, a-0
In' rn r d bd

D. a'cnln snv ler an
f i a I Sa d er t s- a n4.
h lnd a.- 2 /

p a 11 1In ", Iedecr sh-h bu___________________._3.
h Oair, o e~tlv ~ -,, ... t n h -hl 00 00 10 '00 3. 4
so'~~ c' n '' 0
It kn i-ke 1-6f- sth

r, (ak )nn.o
I IaA # &, { /( J
a. ';-, Iti i d Z 4

v h iby e ilnt 1 '
rv i,,l

a. S~Tr nv I If-nl doier II~t it uh- pat

'J. T -P r ., -tan, ain srrt
1. 1141,ph t, lmdesert Snlnn e(Iler

a. 30. 10.e

I. RhYh'N( J
a. ~rr-rle~seldclhlua (rr lv6A 4
h. Oen aln- r~ Ihonlrr rlr'?

Reference. 18

6. BROA (continued)

-I I \ .0*

~30 i ~ 1~~ 30

2 to-


~I -.-\


,g, 'I /' I, x;

Z9 2-

14 39




0 o to to 0 0 000

'It *-*''
r :-i -.'



i. Tropl iI Iowland lain forest
b. Iet ullary inunilalid l lr>|icl a tirel ---
C. Tr-p lcal swamIp i .ts l
d. 'Tr,1Verl e,,many, raI hurntl
a. Tropical semndnci dvsl rain lirest
T. Trqopic senldecrdunoul nimnltiae flrel '
c. i.aree-leaved ra n-rreen drJ, rest (Ay.timilt
it. Sntl-Ilu-lr ed ri'n-i y ein try h restl itlh uii 3rrtlll Ieris
a. M111fiK '5vrs
a. L.anr eteaved semerttlidursl lira Savanna
i1. Oen rii-greenI thorillree savanrina

d. Inunla'ed iavenna
p. TIr Vs.aIianI
I, lliylAldil dry isvanna
p. SI hrneutiuiS savanna
h. PRed aIIitI.
a. lrd-plaved sti.rhL rIl.h"es (nlaz'stal
b. Purity ever. ren hiieriy -hrli
TfMI't:ilA:T. ANDII tflli.iu/.i'.\N W(tiIDs AND huIIIK
a I. C niter .u> ii.i anin a ire. S'
h. llr l errlliesI lll lrst liel
c. lye'n hard-lt av ed frresl
. t eri'rvre ii anid iir- r rest

a. Siii rnlcal hig land 9ra.Ss Stell'
b. Tei -eia(e dry glint p rais siritie
c r -s r k si r 'ite
a. ThAilrtret andl l uculrnll
I. Very t ln itrullliy Surr lalleill

d. Sucr iiclel sleinldeser
e. I il ilph 't sr iditd eII -. -
IESfH I r t'F t IA I t)llJ
,. Suitilripli al dir rl ill c~ulhlsin yplaini
b. Drp rl a llh ilulli ,0r li111et
c. -rId lespt
d. Prnuitpal ifinlniant ile rl
t. Illln.pytit desert
1. iial i etltatiu.i

A t'tt Al2

47L'd~ tJ


Us L~rd





Oxisols Ultisols (Qf)

Angola 29445 1633 36043
Burundi 1722 -
Cameroon 3822 890
Central Afric. Emp. 32484 4507 9692
Chad 81 42 2700
Congo 492
Ethiopia 379
Ghana 180
Guinea 5434
Ivory Coast 8252
Kenya 2804 71
Malawi 3146 -
Mali 740
Mozambique 16749 -
Nigeria 2423
Rwanda 1040 -
Sierra Leone 1099
Sudan 13831 -
Tanzania 3010 31926 2878
Uganda 11547 2137
Upper Volta 111
Zaire 22556 23282
Zambia 38281 18
Zimbabwe 1022 -

182,639 58,543 76,778

57.4% 18.4% 24.1%

Areas of Soil Associations containing Oxisols (except Humox), Ultisols
and Psamments under savanna and large-leaved dry forests (Myombo) in
Africa not including Madagascar.

(source FAO, Soil Map of Africa)

Reference. 19

New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457 '.

December 10, 1964

Dr. Frank G. Calhoun
Texas A & M University
Department of Soil and Crop Science
College Station, TX 77843-2474

Dear Frank:

I am sending you herewith the documentation I had prepared for Dr.
Lathwell regarding the areas covered by soil associations containing
Oxisols, Ultisols or Psamments, where they occur under savannas and large
leaved dry forests in Africa.

From these data it results that Oxisols occupy the largest areas in the
Central African Empire, Zaire and Zambia. Ultisols would be dominant in
Tanzania and Ivory Coast. Angola and Zaire are the countries which
contain most Psamments.

As we discussed in Las Vegas, it may be interesting to estimate the
area of the semi-arid tropics in Africa where CRSP research can be
conducted or to which it can be extrapolated. You may wish to extract this
from the FAO map to identify the countries which would physically be the
most representative.

On the basis of this inventory and other considerations, we may then
ask the appropriate individuals to select a small number of locations
which would offer the highest probability for a successful soil research
activity in Africa.

I thank you in advance for keeping me informed about further
developments in this matter.


A. Van ambeke
Professor of Soil Science


cc: D. Lathwell
C. McCants
E. Oyer




Oxisols Ultisols (qf)

Angola 29445 1633 36043
Burundi 1722 -
Cameroon 3822 890
S Central Afric. Emp. 32484 4507 9692
Chad 81 42 2700
Congo 492
Ethiopia 379
Ghana 180
Guinea 5434
Ivory Coast 8252
Kenya 2804 71
Malawi 3146
Mali 740
Mozambique 16749
Nigeria 2423
Rwanda 1040
Sierra Leone 1099
Sudan 13831
Tanzania 3010 31926 2878
Uganda 11547 2137
Upper Volta 111
Zaire 22556 23282
Zambia 38281 18
Zimbabwe 1022 -

182,639 .58,543 76,778

57.47 18.4. 24.1%

Areas of Soil Associations containing Oxisols (except Humox), Ultisols
and Psamments under savanna and large-leaved dry forests (Myombo) in
Africa not including Madagascar.

(source FAO, Soil Map of Africa)



May 17, 1985


TO: C.S. McCants

FR(OM: F.G. Calhoun --

RE: Acid Savanna/Semi-Arid Tropics Program expansion Africa

Attached please find the following:

1. Analysis report for program expansion

2. Letter Van Wambeke to Calhoun

3. Response from Calhoun to Van Wambeke

It appears appropriate that analysis and dialogue on program expansion
into Africa on the part of Cornell and Texas A&M now merits your reaction to the
above documents.

Reaction of Management Entity to the joint recommendations in analysis
for this effort would be appreciated. Specific reaction to the identified
countries and the mechanisms to achieve this joint effort specifically relating
to items 5A-D and item 6 in the recommendation from Van ,Waiibeke is needed.

Speaking for the Semi-Arid Tropics Program our primary concern at this
point in time is the start up of the Mali Program, and balancing off the cost of
that expansion program with the current costs of operating a fully staffed
program in Higer. Implementation of a third Semi-Arid Tropics Research site in
Africa will require additional funds from the core budget for the Soil
,anage,nent CRSP for us to participate. A reaction from the Management Entity
would be preferable at this point in time before Texas A&M and Cornell proceed
with a proIposal for identification of a third research site for the semi-arid
tropics and an African expansion site for Cornell in the acid savannas.

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station College of Agriculture Texas Agricultural Extension Service

Reference 21.
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457

May 6, 1985

Dr. Frank Calhoun
Texas A&M University
Department of Soil and Crop Science
College Station, TX 77643-2474

Dear Dr. Calhoun:

I read the report on possible expansions of the Soil Management CRSP's
to Africa dealing with acid savannas and the semi-arid tropics.

I agree with the choices of countries which result from this study. It
could serve as a focus on locations where to start further inquiries. It
does not necessarily eliminate other possibilities.

Some remarks on the report follow.

1. I do not think that Cornell is interested in the development of soil
management packages on acid leached Psamments. I believe we would
prefer concentrating our efforts on Oxisols and Ultisols.

2. The report mentions joint research projects. I understand these are
similar research topics to be carried out in different agro ecological
zones. In my understanding it should not mean that we search for one site
which could represent both the semi-arid tropics and the acid savannahs.
The sites, of course, could be located in the same country where the two
zones occur, and this may stimulate interchange of ideas and have a
beneficial effect on the research.

3. The comments on Table 3 discussing the soil moisture regimes
confirms my impression that an attempt was made to identify a station
with an intermediate soil moisture regime between the semi arid and the
savannah environments. I do not think that it is possible to find such a

4. The four countries which have been identified (Cameroon, Kenya,
Tanzania and Zambia) should offer the best conditions for further
investigations on locations of the CRSP projects.

5. The mechanisms to achieve this would in my view probably have to
include the following steps:

(a) Consultation with the Africa Bureau at AID, Washington on
conditions in these four countries with respect to the political, economic
and social situation.

(b) A review of literature and detailed inventory of research
capabilities, infrastructure, influence of the Research Institutions and the
Ministry of Agriculture in these countries, and their willingness to
cooperate with joint projects. Include the activities of the International
Centers in the review.

(c) Visits to the four countries and prelimary discussions with
potential institutions.

(d) Installation of projects.

6. I consider that the selection of African sites will require the
appointment of a permanent senior staff member for a period between
12-24 months. He should be well versed in technical, administrative and
diplomatic skills. Ideally he should speak French and English. I believe he
should be at a centrally located site in Africa from which he can easily
travel. I believe that Kenya or a country close to that location would be

Reference. 21

Please let me know what further assistance I can give to the expansion
of activities in Africa and I will be glad to help.


.an hWambeke
Professor of Soil Science


cc: C. McCants
T. Grove

Reference 22-
. 'i New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
... Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457

August 8, 1985

Dr. D. Lathwell
Agronomy Department
8th Floor Bradfield Hall
Cornell Campus

Dear Doug,

I submit a short report on my trip to Zambia in connection with
Tropsoils' plans to set-up research activities in Africa.

I have been able to collect climatic data on the major
agro-ecological zones in Zambia. They seem very similar to the
conditions of most of the acid savannas in the tropical regions. I
also have detailed information on about 20 soils located in or close
to experiment stations or farms. The samples were analyzed at the
Lincoln-Nebraska USDA Soil Conservation Service Laboratories and the
classification of these profiles in Soil Taxonomy and the FAO system
has been done in the field.

Dr. Grove has been introduced to the Ministry of Agriculture
and interviewed with the Minister himself. I had an opportunity to
talk to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Zambia at
Lusaka, Dr. Ben Mweene; I could not see the Vice-Chancellor of the
University, Dr.Jay Mwanza who is a Cornell alumni. Dr. Mweene was
very interested in seeing US Universities involved in agricultural
research in Zambia.

At the USAID mission, I talked to Dr. James G. Snell, agricultural
economist, who said that the Tropsoils objectives were in line with
the development goals of the USAID mission. He pointed out that Zambia,
as well as Cameroon, is listed by AID among: the countries capable
of providing the necessary infra-structure for agricultural research.
I had also an opportunity to explain the Tropsoils objectives to Dr.
Kelvin Martin, Agricultural Research Officer at the Africa Bureau
in AID/Washington. Further contacts with these individuals should
be continued. I could not see Dr. Ragan, Head of the Illinois Crops
project with the Ministry of Agriculture in Lusaka.

s ^ -I
.1,l /

I will prepare a detailed report on the soil and climatic
conditions in Zambia in order to allow the Tropsoils Management Unit
to make an appropriate choice for a possible expansion of the Soil
Management CRSP in Africa. I am confident that conditions representive
of the acid savanna environment will be' found in Zambia. I do not
know whether the aridity in the southern part of Zambia will be
sufficient to be included in the objectives of agricultural research
conducted by the University of Texas.

Sincerely yours,

A. an Wamh ke--
Professor of Soil Science


cc: E. Oyer
R. Lucey

Reference 23
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Emerson Halls, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
(607) 256-5457


TO: Dr. D. Lathwell

Dr. E. Oyer
Dr. F. Calhoun

FROM: A. Van Wambeke

DATE: October 17, 1985

RE: Zambia Report

I am sending you herewith a copy of my report on Zambia.
It focuses on the physical environmental factors which are
important in considering areas suitable for research under the
Soil Management CRSP.

Although Zambia seems to offer possibilities both for the
Semi-Arid and Acid Savannah components of the CRSP, I suggest
that other countries in Africa be considered for the same

I wish to thank all sponsors of this travel for their support.
Since most data in the report have been taken from the work of
others, it is recommended to use the report for in-house purposes



Reference 24
New York State CoUege of Agriculture and Life Sciences
a Statutory College of the State University
Cornell University
Department of Agronomy
Bradfield and Enerson Halls, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853

September 13, 1985


TO: C. B. McCants
Trop Soils Board of Directors
External Evaluation Panel
Program Coordinators

FROM: Thurman L. Grove

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the report from my recent trip to
Zambia. I travelled as a representative of Trop Soils to investigate
possibilities for collaborative studies in Zambia. I'm pleased to report that
the Zambians are enthusiastic about collaboration. We will continue in our
efforts to establish a Zambia-Trop Soils program.


Zambia Trip Report

12-19 July 1985 Thurman L. Grove

The purposes of this trip were to attend the SMSS Forum on Soil

Taxonomy and Agrotechnology Transfer, to become familiar with current soil

research activities in Zambia, and to investigate possibilities for collab-

oration between TropSoils CRSP and Zambian counterparts. The nature of

this report is primarily administrative rather than technical. Professor

Armand Van Wambeke participated in the SMSS forum and will report on the

technical aspects of soil and climatic resources of Zambia.

SMSS Forum:

The forum was well attended by members of the Zambian soils community,

expatriot soil scientists working on technical assistance programs in

Zambia, and representatives from Botswana and Zimbabwe. Several high

ranking officials of the ministry including the Honorable Minister attended

the forum during the first day. The forum thus provided good opportunities

for accomplishing the objectives of the trip.

I was provided a half-hour on the formal schedule for a presentation of

the TropSoils program. I outlined the history, objectives, and current

status of TropSoils projects.

Current Research Activities:

There are limited numbers of Zambian soil scientists and consequently

few Zambian soil research projects. Most research is conducted within

Reference. 24


bilateral technical assistance programs that are staffed by

with smaller numbers of Zambian counterparts. It appears that

crop production is sparse and research on soil management is even less

common. Brief reports on several projects follow:

Soil Survey is sponsored by NORAD in collaboration with the Department

of Land Use of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development (MAWD).

Robert Magaii is leader of the Zambian Soil Survey Unit with headquarters

at the Mt. Makulu Experiment Station. There are Soil Survey Units in each

province. Soil Survey appears to be an intensive effort that employs large

numbers of Zambians and a fair number of expatriates. The Soil Character-

ization Laboratory at Mt. Makulu provides analytic support to the Survey.

The lab is well equipped and also provides analytic services to the MAWD

Departments of Research and Extension. R. James Cheatle supervises the lab

and acts as soils coordinator for the Ministry. Twenty-five percent of

Zambia's soils are mapped and one-hundred twenty-five survey reports are


Integrated Rural Development Project at Mpika is sponsored by the

British Overseas Ministry, Carl Berryman project leader. I did not have

direct contact with this project, but understand that it is a small farming

systems study.

Soil Productivity and Research Project at Kasama is sponsored by NORAD

and performed by Agricultural University of Norway, Carl Solberg project

leader, Alfred Mapiki, MAWD Department of Research counterpart. This

program focuses on agroforestry and legumes. To date soil research has

been limited. Alan Stapleton, a soil physicist, has recently joined the

project. Bal Ram Singh, a soil chemist, will join the program within a


Zam-can Wheat Research Project at Mt. Makulu and Mbala is sponsored by

CIDA and performed by a private firm from Saskatchewan, Richard Little

project leader. Wheat is an important crop in Zambia as 92% of consumption

is imported. The Zam-Can project includes breeding, basic agronomy, and

soil science. Ted Angen, a Canadian soil surveyor, works on the program

matching soil resources and genotypes. Most wheat is grown in the south

under irrigation on soils with high base status. Bill Aulakh, a Canadian

agronomist, is conducting field trials under rainfed conditions at Mbala

near the Zaire border. Soils at Mbala are Oxisols with low CEC, low pH,

and high Al saturation in the subsoils. The project includes trials with

varieties (Brazilian varieties are used on the Oxisols), green manures,

liming, and phosphate fertilization. Angen and Aulakh have visited CPAC

and with advice from Dale Ritchey have started some experiments on leaching

of calcium. There's no evidence of leaching during the first two years.

ZAMERE is sponsored by AID and managed by the University of Illinois,

Jim Ragin project leader. This is a crop breeding program conducted in

collaboration with MAWD Department of Research. A recent review of the

program recommended addition of a soil research component.

Belgian Aide Programme to Department of Soil Science at the University

of Zambia (UNZA), Jaak Lenvain, team leader, Obed Lungu, acting department

head. The Soil Science Department consists of five members of whom two are

in residence, two are in Belgium working towards Ph.D. degrees, and the

Department Head is on sabbatical leave. Two Belgian soil chemists and

Lenvain, a physicist, serve as replacements for the absent faculty members.

Lungu (Ph.D. Davis) and the Belgian chemists are doing soil fertility

trials on Alfisols at the University research farm. Vernon Chinene (Ph.D.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs