• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Prologue
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Planning process
 Program report
 Project evaluations and review...
 1983 budget report
 Conclusion
 Back Cover






Title: Collaborative research in the international agricultural research and development network
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054829/00001
 Material Information
Title: Collaborative research in the international agricultural research and development network a case study : progress report of the BeanCowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) Michigan State University
Physical Description: ii, 157 p. : ill. ; 1984.
Language: English
Creator: Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program
Publisher: Bean/Cowpea CRSP
Place of Publication: East Lansing Mich
Publication Date: 1984
 Subjects
Subject: Cowpea -- Research   ( lcsh )
Beans -- Research   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Research   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
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: UF00054829
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.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000552392
oclc - 11264677
notis - ACX6925

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Prologue
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Program goal
            Page 2
        Program purpose
            Page 2
    Planning process
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Program constraints
            Page 5
            Page 6
        Evolution of the global plan
            Page 7
            Global plan (original)
                Page 8
            Global plan (revised)
                Page 9
        Host country/US administrative linkages: Africa
            Page 10
        Host country/US administrative linkages: Latin America
            Page 11
            Bean/cowpea CRSP log frame
                Page 12
                Page 13
    Program report
        Page 14
        Reference listing
            Page 14
        Management organization
            Page 14
            Management entity
                Page 14
            Management office
                Page 14
                Page 15
                MO interaction chart
                    Page 16
                MO organization chart
                    Page 17
            External review panel
                Page 18
                Page 19
            Institutional representatives
                Page 18
            Board of directors
                Page 18
                Institutional participation on board of directors
                    Page 20
            Technical committee
                Page 20
                Institutional participation on technical committee
                    Page 21
        International travel of management groups
            Page 22
            Bean/cowpea CRSP international travel through 9/30/83
                Page 22
        Country research project organization
            Page 22
        Country research project personnel
            Page 23
            Professional researchers participating in CRSP
                Page 23
            US researchers in residence in HCs for 6 months or longer
                Page 23
            Bean/cowpea CRSP international project travel 9/30/83
                Page 24
        Women-in-development strategy
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Project-centered areas of concentration
                Page 24
            Program-centered areas of concentration
                Page 26
            Documenting the effectiveness of WID
                Page 26
        Program research achievements
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Achievements in addressing constraints by project
                Page 29
        Program training achievements
            Page 30
            1983 Bean/cowpea CRSP training component
                Page 31
            Bean/cowpea CRSP trainees by country of origin and gender
                Page 32
            Bean/cowpea CRSP student trainees by funding source and gender
                Page 33
        Linkages with international agricultural research centers
            Page 34
            Page 35
    Project evaluations and review profiles
        Page 36
        External review panel evaluations and follow-up
            Page 36
            Summary 1983 external review panel evaluation profiles
                Page 37
            Summary of ERP recommendations and followup
                Page 38
                Page 39
                Page 40
                Page 41
        Board of directors extension evaluations
            Page 42
            Summary 1983 board of directors extension rating
                Page 43
        Country research project review profiles and logical frameworks
            Page 44
            Botswana
                Page 45
                Page 46
                Page 47
                Page 48
            Brazil/BTI
                Page 49
                Page 50
                Page 51
                Page 52
            Brazil/WI/Bliss
                Page 53
                Page 54
                Page 55
                Page 56
            Brazil/WI/Hagedorn
                Page 57
                Page 58
                Page 59
                Page 60
            Cameroon
                Page 61
                Page 62
                Page 63
                Page 64
            Dominican Republic/UNE
                Page 65
                Page 66
                Page 67
                Page 68
            Dominican Republic/UPR
                Page 69
                Page 70
                Page 71
                Page 72
            Ecuador
                Page 73
                Page 74
                Page 75
                Page 76
            Guatemala
                Page 77
                Page 78
            Honduras
                Page 79
                Page 80
                Page 81
                Page 82
            INCAP
                Page 83
                Page 84
                Page 85
                Page 86
            Kenya
                Page 87
                Page 88
                Page 89
                Page 90
            Malawi
                Page 91
                Page 92
            Mexico
                Page 93
                Page 94
            Nigeria/MSU
                Page 95
                Page 96
            Nigeria/UGA
                Page 97
                Page 98
                Page 99
                Page 100
            Senegal
                Page 101
                Page 102
            Tanzania
                Page 103
                Page 104
                Page 105
                Page 106
        Project evaluations by institutional representatives
            Page 107
            Botswana
                Page 108
            Brazil/WI
                Page 109
                Page 110
            Cameroon and Nigeria/UGA
                Page 111
            Dominican Republic/UNE
                Page 112
                Page 113
                Page 114
                Page 115
            Ecuador
                Page 116
                Page 117
                Page 118
            Guatemala
                Page 119
                Page 120
                Page 121
            Honduras and Dominican Republic/UPR
                Page 122
                Page 123
                Page 124
                Page 125
                Page 126
                Page 127
            INCAP
                Page 128
                Page 129
            Malawi
                Page 130
            Mexico
                Page 131
            Nigeria/MSU
                Page 132
            Senegal
                Page 133
                Page 134
            Tanzania
                Page 135
                Page 136
        Project evaluation by AID missions
            Page 137
            Botswana
                Page 138
                Page 139
            Brazil
                Page 140
                Page 141
            Cameroon
                Page 142
                Page 143
            Dominican Republic
                Page 144
            Ecuador
                Page 145
                Page 146
            Guatemala
                Page 147
            Honduras
                Page 148
            Kenya
                Page 149
            Malawi
                Page 150
            Nigeria
                Page 151
            Senegal
                Page 152
    1983 budget report
        Page 153
        Distribution of direct and indirect costs and contributions
            Page 154
        Explanation of data components
            Page 155
        Management office expenditures by function
            Page 156
    Conclusion
        Page 157
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text







Am.















































4.











































rh*
41 I,












COLLABORATIVE


I N T E R N A T I N A L


AGRICULTURAL


RESEARCH


AND DEVELOPMENT


A CASE


NETWORK:


STUDY


PROGRESS REPORT OF

THE BEAN/COWPEA COLLABORATIVE
RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM (CRSP)

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

MAY 1984


An international community of persons, institutions,
agencies and governments committed to collectively
strengthening health and nutrition in developing
countries by improving the availability
and utilization of beans and cowpeas


R RESEARCH


IN THE









For further information contact:

Bean/Cowpea CRSP
200 Center for International Programs
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1035
USA


Telephone: (517) 355-4693
Telex: 8102510737
MSU INT PRO ELSG


Funded through USAID/BIFAD Grant No. AID/DSAN-XII-G-0261





PROLOGUE


In thoughtful discussions among the outstanding US and non-US professionals
associated with this CRSP, various points of view have been shared in attempts to
identify research strategies which will contribute to human well-being throughout
the world. From the array of national, cultural, ethnic, gender, class and disci-
plinary perspectives, their interactions with one another have opened new horizons
to the development and application of evolving science and technology. The
researchers, most of whom had been wrestling with global issues independently long
before coming together in the CRSP, have been stimulated by one another and have
found excitement and power in the expanded peer relationships. The professional
traffic of scholars among CRSP countries highlights the mutual benefits of such
relationships and emphasizes a growing appreciation of the mutual dependency. As
Professor Paul Streeten has pointed out "knowledge is a common good and its pur-
suit unites scholars across the world."1 This intellectual dependency is a
mirror image of the economic and environmental interdependence that exists among
all countries including the US and the developing countries which are the Host
Countries (HCs) of this CRSP. World hunger and malnutrition are undeniable and
poignant examples which are experienced at some level in all countries.

According to the Washington, DC Environmental Fund, the US population is
approximately 235,000,000 people. However, US land available to produce food for
this growing mass is being lost at an average of over a million acres a year,
mostly to urban sprawl. Presently, US agriculture, the most prolific in the
world, produces an abundance of food for US consumption. The US also produces,
each year, millions of dollars worth of food for export.2

Some of this surplus food is sold on the international market and helps address
the US balance of payments deficit. That deficit is recently reported to be over
$40 billion this year and expected to surpass $80 billion by the end of 1985--a
foreign debt level that dwarfs that of most developing countries.3 Other sur-
plus food from the US enters the international arena as foreign assistance to
poverty- and famine-ridden areas of the world. Such areas are often plagued by
instability and political strife which threaten the existence of all nations.
Basic commodity shortages frequently fan those flames, jeopardizing international
efforts to address such global concerns as pollution, population growth, nuclear
weapons and security. An additional complication is that developing countries
represent the largest growth markets for the sale of US exports compared to US
exports to developed countries. These same developing countries are also the
countries from whom the US imports raw materials critical to commercial industries
and defense.4

The importance of US food production to the US and the rest of the world presents
a serious and complex dilemma. The Environmental Fund projects that if the popu-
lation of the US continues to increase at the present rate and the land available
for agriculture continues to decrease, by the year 2000 all the food produced by
the US will need to be consumed within the US. A vanishing US export market
capacity and depleted food assistance program could have dire implications.
Further, no country can avoid being affected by such recent occurrences as the
expanded use of chemical warfare, changing weather patterns worldwide and the
large numbers of severely stressed national economies. All of these issues
demonstrate that the US lacks immunity to the painful unemployment, mass poverty,
hunger, drought, infestation and disease problems suffered by many countries of
the world. In reality, the US too is a developing country. It, too, will benefit
from a sharing of resources and the strengthening of national institutions with
whom it can collaborate.









Thus, for world humanitarian needs as well as for US survival requirements, the
US agricultural network, especially its Land-Grant community, must play an even
more prominent role in the international arena than it has in the past. HC and
US students entering this arena, for which most contemporary professionals were
never prepared, require from their educational institutions greater international
participation. HC and US faculty, who must face those young men and women in
classrooms and supervise their research in laboratories and in the field, require
increased international professional experience and continuing education. For US
and HC participants, CRSPs can provide an example of human resource development
based on shared scientific, technical and socio-cultural understanding.

The promise of US Title XII and HC institutions is heightened by their joining
together the best of HC and US scientific and traditional agriculture and the
related disciplines. Through their heterogeneous resources, their composite
experience and their vast research capacity, such collaboration is a natural
extension of the Land-Grant tradition. The new findings emerging from the array
of Bean/Cowpea CRSP projects only hint at the long-term potential: US and HC cow-
pea germ plasm crosses in Africa outperformed other exotic and traditional lines
during the recent severe drought there; basic research contributes to scientific
understanding of genetic, agronomic and socio-cultural factors important in the
maintenance of rich natural germplasm pools--a constantly changing trust espe-
cially important for those who rely on beans and cowpeas as food; monoclonal anti-
body procedures developed for quick, simple and inexpensive detection of seed
borne viruses in beans; native fungal isolates showing promise in biological
insect control which can minimize use of expensive and often toxic synthetic
insecticides; village level technology for increasing, among rural and urban
populations, the availability of inexpensive cowpea meal acceptable in the
preparation of traditional foods.

Through such research efforts new mutually rewarding relationships are being
fashioned with sensitivity and care. Over the long term they will provide the
foundation for strengthening communication, respect and trust among future
agricultural leaders. To the extent that the CRSPs function well and are truly
collaborative research and training programs, they will leave behind a major human
and scientific legacy. If we are lucky, they will also make a noticeable impact
on world poverty, malnutrition and hunger.
Pat Barnes-McConnell
Program Director
Michigan State University



1 Paul P. Streeten. Social Science Research on Development: Some Problems in
the Use and Transfer of an Intellectual Technology. The Agricultural
Development Council, Inc., July, 1975.

2 Bradford Morse. 'Where 80% of UN Resources Go." Christian Science Monitor,
April 19, 1983.

3 Alan Murray. "Payments Gap Rose in Fourth Period to $15.29 Billion." Wall
Street Journal, March 20, 1984.

4 Edmund S. Muskie. "The West's Stake in Third-World Aid." Christian Science
Monitor, August 6, 1980.











TABLE OF CONTENTS


PROLOGUE


INTRODUCTION . .
Program Goal .
Program Purpose .


PLANNING PROCESS .
Program Constraints .
Evolution of the Global Plan . .
Global Plan (original) . . .
Global Plan (revised) . .
Host Country/US Administrative Linkages--Africa
Host Country/US Administrative Linkages--Latin America
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Log Frame . .


2
2

3
5
7
8
9
. 10


. 12
. 7
. 8
. i9




. 12


PROGRAM REPORT .
Reference Listing. .
Management Organization .
Management Entity .
Management Office .
MO Interaction Chart .
MO Organization Chart .
External Review Panel .
Institutional Representatives . . .
Board of Directors .
Institutional Participation on Board of Directors. .
Technical Committee .. .
Institutional Participation on Technical Committee .
International Travel of Management Groups . .
Bean/Cowpea CRSP International Travel Through 9/30/83
Country Research Project Organization .. . . .
Country Research Project Personnel . . .
Professional Researchers Participating in CRSP.. .
US Researchers in Residence in HCs for 6 Months or Longer .
Bean/Cowpea CRSP International Project Travel Through 9/30/83


S 14
14
14
14
14
S 16
17
18
S 18
S 18
S 20
. 20
S 21
S. 22
S 22
S 22
S 23
S 23
S 23
S 24


. i












Women-in-Development Strategy . . . 24

Project-Centered Areas of Concentration . . 24

Program-Centered Areas of Concentration . . 26

Documenting the Effectiveness of WID . . . 26

Program Research Achievements . . . 27

Achievements in Addressing Constraints by Project .. 29

Program Training Achievements . . . 30

1983 Bean/Cowpea CRSP Training Component . . .31

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Trainees by Country of Origin and Gender . 32

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Student Trainees by Funding Source and Gender 33

Linkages with International Agricultural Research Centers . 34


PROJECT EVALUATIONS AND REVIEW PROFILES . .

External Review Panel Evaluations and Follow-Up . .

Summary 1983 External Review Panel Evaluation Profiles

Summary of ERP Recommendations and Followup . .

Board of Directors Extension Evaluations . .

Summary 1983 Board of Directors Extension Rating .

Country Research Project Review Profiles and Logical Frameworks
Botswana .
Brazil/BTI .

Brazil/WI/Bliss .

Brazil/WI/Hagedorn . . . .

Cameroon .

Dominican Republic/UNE . . .

Dominican Republic/UPR . . .

Ecuador .

Guatemala .

Honduras .

INCAP .

Kenya .

Malawi .

Mexico .

Nigeria/MSU .

Nigeria/UGA .

Senegal .

Tanzania .


. 36

36

. 37

38

42

43

. 44

45

49

53

57

61

65

69

73

77

S. 79

83

87

91

93

95

97

. 101

. 103










Project Evaluations by Institutional Representatives .


Botswana .

Brazil/WI .
Cameroon and Nigeria/UGA .
Dominican Republic/UNE.. .
Ecuador .
Guatemala .
Honduras and Dominican Republic/UPR
INCAP .
Malawi .


Mexico .
Nigeria/MSU . .
Senegal .
Tanzania .
Project Evaluations by AID Missions
Botswana .
Brazil .


Cameroon
Dominican Republic
Ecuador .

Guatemala .
Honduras
Kenya .
Malawi .


Nigeria.. . .
Senegal... . .


1983 BUDGET REPORT


Distribution of Direct and Indirect Costs and Contributions
Explanation of Data Components . . .
Management Office Expenditures by Function . .


. 157


. 108
. 109
. 111
. 112
. 116
. 119
. 122
. 128
. 130
. 131
. 132


. . 133
. 135
. 137
. 138
. 140


. 142
. 144
. 145
. 147
. 148
. 149
. . 150


. 153


. 154
155
156


. . 107


CONCLUSION .









INTRODUCTION


The Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) is a program of
coordinated projects in Africa and Latin America addressing hunger and mal-
nutrition through research on the production and utilization of beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris) and cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata). The CRSP reflects the Title XII
"Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger" mission of the US Foreign Assistance
Act under which the program is funded. Contributing to the alleviation of hunger
and malnutrition in developing countries by improving the availability and utili-
zation of beans and cowpeas, the CRSP also makes a significant contribution to
agriculture in the US. The research findings and identified biological resources
hold potential for solving or reducing important agricultural constraints to the
availability of beans and cowpeas in all legume-producing nations.

The problems being addressed by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, by their nature, are
systemic, rooted deep in a complex of interacting variables and will require
long-term research and training to adequately address. As stated in the grant
which established the Bean/Cowpea CRSP,

"This program is a long-term effort designed to bring together the
research capabilities of participating universities, collaborating Title
XII institutions including USDA and other federal research agencies,
appropriate LDC institutions and international centers into a compre-
hensive and coordinated effort in research and training to generate and
apply knowledge that can assist in alleviating principal constraints to
improved production, marketing and utilization of beans and cowpeas in
LDCs. It is based on the assumption that there are large areas of over-
lap between U.S. and developing country needs for research, marketing
and utilization of these two crops. Substantial mutual advantages are
expected to result from joint research program efforts which cut across
national boundaries and different levels of agricultural development."


The Bean/Cowpea CRSP is one of seven CRSPs which through interactions among the
partners (AID-US Institutions-Host Country [HC] Institutions) has evolved a
research and training effort to address issues of food availability in designated
areas throughout the world. Although the seven have many basic characteristics
in common, each CRSP has a configuration which is somewhat unique. These
differences emerged from the resources and needs of the respective partners, the
research requirements of the commodity and the stage of Title XII development at
the time the particular program was begun.

As the third such program to be developed, following the Small Ruminant CRSP and
the Sorghum/Millet CRSP, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP was the beneficiary of two espe-
cially critical lessons. First, it was determined that the Host Countries to
participate should be identified early in the planning process. This facilitated
HC involvement in planning the specific research, their acceptance of a role in
that research and their readiness to begin work once the program was implemented.
Secondly, to avoid a great deal of unproductive transition time, it was deter-
mined that the Planning Entity should be allowed to be a serious candidate for
Management Entity when the CRSP was implemented. These two changes from the
original guidelines for CRSP development have been major factors in the important
achievements of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP despite its short time in existence.









Even though at program initiation all prospective participants were identified,
the first year was taken up with acquiring the final approvals which could not
precede actual funding. Official government and institutional signatures on the
required documents in the US and thirteen participating HCs had to be acquired.
The task for the second year was getting the projects off the ground--funds could
begin to flow, identified professionals could request released time, students
could apply for training and, if admitted right away, could be sent off to begin
that training, approvals for equipment purchases could be requested from AID and
the lucky few receiving the approvals promptly could order the first equipment
before the end of the year. Thus, for the most part, it was not until late in
the third year that preliminary research was enough under way to suggest tenta-
tive initial findings. There are striking exceptions where important and signif-
icant results have already been obtained. These are frequently the consequences
of the program's being able to capitalize on previous long-term thinking, asso-
ciations and background research which fitted the precise needs of the CRSP and
required only its guided human and financial resources to push the work over the
top. An excellent example of this is the work reported in the first issue of
the CRSP Vanguard series by a senior US researcher, his former student who is
presently a research leader in the participating HC, and a current graduate
student working with the team (Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1, "Temperature X Photo-
period, Adaptation and Yield in Phaseolus vulgaris" by Donald H. Wallace,
Porfirio N. Masaya and Paul A. Gniffke, available from the CRSP Management
Office).


PROGRAM GOAL

By making available to the international agricultural research and development
system a new avenue to the US agricultural research network, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP
is organized to make important contributions to the resolution of difficult and
persistent problems associated with bean and cowpea production and utilization.

The grant document puts forward the following goal of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP:

"The goal to which this program is to make a significant contribution
is improvement in living conditions of small farm producers in LDCs and
increased availability of low cost nutritious foodstuffs in the market-
place for the rural and urban poor in LDCs."


PROGRAM PURPOSE

The grant document further identifies the following purpose of the CRSP:

"The purpose of this program is to organize and mobilize financial and
human resources necessary for mounting a major multi-institutional U.S.-
LDC collaborative effort in research and training. This effort is
expected to provide the knowledge base necessary to achieve significant
advances in alleviating the principal constraints to improved produc-
tion, marketing and utilization of beans and cowpeas in LDCs. A sub-
purpose is to improve the capabilities of appropriate LDC institutions
to generate, adopt and apply improved knowledge to local conditions."









Even though at program initiation all prospective participants were identified,
the first year was taken up with acquiring the final approvals which could not
precede actual funding. Official government and institutional signatures on the
required documents in the US and thirteen participating HCs had to be acquired.
The task for the second year was getting the projects off the ground--funds could
begin to flow, identified professionals could request released time, students
could apply for training and, if admitted right away, could be sent off to begin
that training, approvals for equipment purchases could be requested from AID and
the lucky few receiving the approvals promptly could order the first equipment
before the end of the year. Thus, for the most part, it was not until late in
the third year that preliminary research was enough under way to suggest tenta-
tive initial findings. There are striking exceptions where important and signif-
icant results have already been obtained. These are frequently the consequences
of the program's being able to capitalize on previous long-term thinking, asso-
ciations and background research which fitted the precise needs of the CRSP and
required only its guided human and financial resources to push the work over the
top. An excellent example of this is the work reported in the first issue of
the CRSP Vanguard series by a senior US researcher, his former student who is
presently a research leader in the participating HC, and a current graduate
student working with the team (Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1, "Temperature X Photo-
period, Adaptation and Yield in Phaseolus vulgaris" by Donald H. Wallace,
Porfirio N. Masaya and Paul A. Gniffke, available from the CRSP Management
Office).


PROGRAM GOAL

By making available to the international agricultural research and development
system a new avenue to the US agricultural research network, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP
is organized to make important contributions to the resolution of difficult and
persistent problems associated with bean and cowpea production and utilization.

The grant document puts forward the following goal of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP:

"The goal to which this program is to make a significant contribution
is improvement in living conditions of small farm producers in LDCs and
increased availability of low cost nutritious foodstuffs in the market-
place for the rural and urban poor in LDCs."


PROGRAM PURPOSE

The grant document further identifies the following purpose of the CRSP:

"The purpose of this program is to organize and mobilize financial and
human resources necessary for mounting a major multi-institutional U.S.-
LDC collaborative effort in research and training. This effort is
expected to provide the knowledge base necessary to achieve significant
advances in alleviating the principal constraints to improved produc-
tion, marketing and utilization of beans and cowpeas in LDCs. A sub-
purpose is to improve the capabilities of appropriate LDC institutions
to generate, adopt and apply improved knowledge to local conditions."









PLANNING PROCESS


During planning, a thorough identification was made of HC and US problem areas,
interests and capabilities. The planning group met with HC nationals engaged in
legume research individually and in groups at national and international meetings
and conferences. International groups were invited to the US to further refine
the effort. Extensively researched and honed to the needs of the HC and the
international agricultural community, the CRSP research projects evolved from
this comprehensive process. Below is a chronology of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP
planning process as presented in the Final Planning Report.

Chronology of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP Planning Process


July, 1978

August, 1978


October, 1978

October, 1978-
June, 1979

October, 1978


October, 1978



December, 1978


January-
February,


1979


February, 1979



February, 1979




March, 1979


April-May, 1979


BIFAD authorized planning for Bean/Cowpea CRSP.

Experiment Station representatives met in Chicago authorizing
MSU to submit the planning grant proposal.

Planning grant awarded to MSU, effective as of this date.

Dr. Donald Wallace, on leave from Cornell, joined with Dr.
Wayne Adams of MSU to carry out the planning effort.

Letter to Title XII institutions requesting indications of
manifest interest--forty-three responded.

Wallace and Adams made orientation trips to University of
Missouri and USAID-Washington. LDC questionnaires subse-
quently developed and disseminated.

Wallace attended Western Regional Project #150 Participants
Meeting in Berkeley, California to present a report on the
objectives and expected planning procedures of this CRSP.

Wallace and Adams visited CIAT, Guatemala, Panama, Costa
Rica, Colombia and Chile. Collected information on
constraints. Met potential collaborators.

Adams visited Dominican Republic, FAO meeting. Wallace
visited IITA. Collected information on constraints. Met
potential collaborators.

Wallace attended Southern Region Meeting of American Society
of Horticultural Science in New Orleans to acquaint cowpea
workers of the south and southeastern US with the goals and
procedures of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.

Adams attended PCCMCA meeting, Honduras. Collected
information on constraints. Met potential collaborators.

Fact-finding team visits to South America, Caribbean and
Mexico, West Africa and East Africa--team members from
various Title XII institutions. Collected information on
constraints. Met potential collaborators.









May, 1979



May, 1979

June, 1979

June, 1979



June, 1979



July, 1979

August, 1979



September, 1979



October, 1979



November, 1979


December, 1979





January, 1980


March, 1980





March-April, 1980


Bean/Cowpea proposals received from interested institutions
responding to RFP. Proposals received from seventy-seven
persons representing twenty-five institutions.

Dr. Pat Barnes-McConnell joined Planning Office.

Planning team presented Interim Report to JRC, Iowa.

Barnes-McConnell attended Grain Legume Workshop, University
of the West Indies, Trinidad. Collected information on
constraints. Met potential collaborators.

International Peer Review Panel Meeting to evaluate proposals
received. Sixteen panel experts represented CIAT, IITA, IICA
and US senior legume scientists.

Progress report to JRC, Virginia.

Adams and Barnes-McConnell attended Grain Legume Workshop at
University of Nairobi. Collected information on constraints.
Met potential collaborators.

Barnes-McConnell visited Tanzania, University of Dar es
Salaam, College of Agriculture. Collected information on
constraints. Met potential collaborators.

Host Country Advisory Group Meeting, MSU. Prioritized
constraints relative to country needs. Subsequently matched
country needs with US evaluated proposal topics.

Meeting with JRC for approvals of Title XII institutions and
collaborating research scientists abroad.

Meeting of the representatives of US institutions approved
for involvement in further planning. Constraints by
geographic areas reviewed. Potential US research teams
designed. Country research response sheets sent to potential
developing country collaborators.

JRC meeting--approval of overseas trips by US representatives
of potential research teams.

Attendance at East African Bean Conference, Malawi--Adams and
Barnes-McConnell. Confirmation of constraints chosen for
research in Africa. Attendance at PCCMCA meeting,
Guatemala--Adams. Confirmation of constraints chosen for
research in Latin America.

Meetings on-site of potential US and HC collaborators--
a) familiarizing US collaborators with the specific
resources, problems and culture of the country in which
work to be conducted; and
















April, 1980


April, 1980





May, 1980


June, 1980


b) providing an opportunity for scientists of the US and the
HCs to get to know each others' interests, capabilities
and approaches to problem solving, in preparation for:

c) developing specific research designs and budgets to
address the problems identified.

JRC meeting--approval of ten institutions to participate in
the CRSP.

CRSP Development Meeting, Chicago O'Hare, with the ten
institutions approved for CRSP involvement. Brief report of
the collaborators' meetings, the Global Plan, decisions on
the CRSP Management Entity and the initial five institutions
to be members of the first Board of Directors.

Review and comment on the Global Plan received from
participating US institutions.

Presentation of Bean/Cowpea Global Plan and proposal to
implement the CRSP to JRC and AID (one institution
subsequently omitted).


PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS


The constraints to the availability of beans and cowpeas, as identified during
the planning process, became the basis for the development of the global or
master plan. These constraints as presented in that plan defined the major
issues which the project research was designed to address. The constraints are
as follows:

1. Limitations due to pests and diseases,

2. Plant response limitations,

3. Limitations of the physical environment,

4. Farming practices limitations,

5. Storage problems,

6. Production-consumption economics,

7. Nutrition, food preparation and health,

8. Socio-cultural factors and

9. Education, training and research capability.


The first four constraints represent prioritized agricultural production problems
and the remaining represent other related areas in bean/cowpea availability,
utilization or consumption. Both sections are important in CRSP development and
the various components of these sections are being addressed.









Specific problems are addressed within constraint areas. In recognition of the
impracticality of mounting and supporting large, comprehensive research thrusts
in each of these constraint areas, the problems were narrowed to the following
proposed activities.

1. Lack of generalized disease and pest resistance and/or effective biological
control methods in field and in storage.

2. Low yields and low yield stability.

3. Plant sensitivity to environmental stress and lack of wide adaptation.

4. Inefficiency of nitrogen fixation in the field.

5. Hard seededness necessitating prolonged cooking time.

6. Lack of understanding of traditional farming systems, including pertinent
socio-cultural issues and the role of women.

7. Difficulties in the digestibility of legume protein, for adults and
especially for small children.

8. Lack of improved practical processing and preserving methods to insure high
quality fooos from beans/cowpeas.

9. Lack of information on the comparative economic values of introduced
technology versus traditional practices (financial, health, labor costs,
including sex roles, etc.).

10. Limited indigenous professional competencies to address critical constraints.

Clearly, these are not independent problems. They are both interdependent and
universal. Based on LDC priorities and other information received, they are
problems which are geographically widely dispersed.

In the development of the research projects, the planning officers considered it
of fundamental significance that the US planners did not impose their wishes
unilaterally upon national programs. However, the reverse was also true in that
planning office responsibility demanded concern for comprehensive coverage of
constraint areas which minimizes expensive duplication of effort. In the spirit
of true collaboration, it was determined that the actual functioning research
plans would have to be prepared jointly by US researchers and Host Country
program personnel.

It should be pointed out, however, that the reality of matching professional Host
Country needs and expectations with US scientists' needs and goals, within the
framework of a global CRSP, has dictated some compromise of the ideal. The
global CRSP plan had to focus on universal problems that can be addressed through
a local and specific Host Country linkage, with enough specificity to serve a
Host Country need, and sufficient generality to permit extension of research
findings to the region or to the world.









EVOLUTION OF THE GLOBAL PLAN

The Global Plan for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP was developed by the Planning Entity
based on the identified constraints. Implemented during the first year of this
program, the plan presented a configuration of nine US lead institutions provid-
ing leadership in eighteen projects all of which are presently in existence.
Early on, just before the presentation and approval of the initial Global Plan,
a tenth lead institution (Mississippi) withdrew from involvement. After plan
approval, there were two other revisions made in the plan--Mexico was substituted
for CIAT (although CIAT remains involved) and Botswana was substituted for
Guyana. Nonetheless, the worldwide research needs for beans and cowpeas which
were identified as needing to be included in the initial efforts of the CRSP are
all being addressed.

At the time that the initial plan was evolving, much about the CRSP mode was new
and uncharted. Guidelines for program implementation had to be developed which
would reinforce the mission and keep the program on track. It was determined
that the Bean/Cowpea CRSP projects were:

1. To be individual but structurally integrated in order to make the maximum
contribution to the availability of beans and cowpeas in areas where they
are important to human diet;

2. To emphasize multidisciplinary research integrating production and non-
production issues;

3. To focus on research in traditional settings;

4. To build strong and collegial professional relationships among the HC and US
researchers in each project;

5. To make financial resources available for both HC and US research activity;

6. To contribute to the strengthening of HC institutions through the
enhancement of facilities and equipment needed to support that research;

7. To contribute to the strengthening of HC institutions through a significant
level of graduate and undergraduate study, short-term courses, conferences
and workshops;

8. To pay specific attention to the roles and participation of women;

9. To be alert to mechanisms for information dissemination; and

10. To provide an opportunity for private sector participation in research
activity and in the dissemination of products.











GLOBAL RESEARCH PLAN

BEAN/COWPEA CRSP


Nigeria

Cowpes pcceissing and pre-
servation; child health
associated vith cowpea foods


Cameroon
A F
Nun-pesticide control of
corpa* pests in field and
storage


Kenya

Drought and heat resistance
in disease-resistant beans
(or semi-arid regions


Tanzania


RI CA


IITA


Responses to bean insect and
disease problems and their
economic viability for small
farmers


Z Senegal
0
A program to improve the
quality of cowpea varieties
for production and utiliza-
tion in sent-arid zones

Brazil


Haltiple disease resistanCe
scrcenlngi covpea insect
I pathogeons N-use efficiency


Collaboration and interaction
vith CRSP programs in Brazil
and West Africa


INCAP

Cookiig cir and protein stress and
digestibility


(I'AT


1 ;cpOlls,(1u tL
N-fi xL i on

~-" ------- `


Halatw


Bean germplasm evaluations
and the basis of maintenance
of land racs diversity


Dominican Republic

Introgression of disease-
resistant germ plasm in
adapted bean cultivars
for the Caribbean.


Guyana

Cowpea farming systems
research and variety
evaluation


LATIN AME R I CA


Honduras

Increase and stabilization
of Honduran bean production
through disease resistance


Ecuador

Nature of vide adaptation in
beans and soclo-cultural
interpretations (replication
varying natural environmental
factors-see Guatemala)


Guatemala

Nature of wide adaptation in
beans and socio-cultural
interpretation (replication
varying natural environmental
factors-see Ecuador









GLOBAL RESEARCH PLAN (Revised)

BEAN/COWPEA CRSP




NIGERIA


1. Cowpea processing and
preservation; 2. child health
associated with cowpea foods


Drought and heat resistance in
disease-resistant beans for
semi- arid regions


CAMEROON


Non-pesticide control of
cowpea pests in field and
storage


SENEGAL


A program to improve the
quality of cowpea varieties
for production and utiliza-
tion in semi-arid zones


BOTSWANA


Cowpea farming systems
research and variety
evaluation in semi-arid areas


AFR I CA


Collaboration and interaction
with CRSP cowoed programs


Collaboration and interaction
with CRSP bean programs


LATIN


BRAZIL


1. Multiple bean disease
resistance screening;
2. cowpea insect pathogens;
3. N-use efficiency of bean
production


ECUADOR


Nature of wide adaptation in
beans and socio-cultural
interpretations (replication
varying natural environmental
factors -- see Guatemala)


AMERICA


INCAP

Cooking time and protein
digestibility of beans


MEXICO


Eean plant responses to
stress and N-'ixation


TANZANIA


Responses to bean insect and i
disease problems and their
economic viability for small
farmers



MALAWI


Bean germplasm evaluations and
the basis of maintenance of
land race diversity j




DOMINICAN REPUBLIC


Introgression of disease-
resistant germ plasm in
adapted Dean cultivars for
the Caribbean


HONDURAS


Increase and stabilization
of Honduran bean production
through disease resistance



GUATEMALA


Nature of wide adaptation in
beans and socio-cultural
interpretation (replication
varying natural environmental
factors -- see Ecuador)
--*-------------------


KENYA






-10-


HOST COUNTRY/US ADMINISTRATIVE LINKAGES--AFRICA

Projects were developed in the identified African countries through agreements
and collaboration with the Host Country administrative units indicated.


BOTSWANA


CAMEROON


Ministry of Agriculture
Colorado State University
Colorado State University


KENYA


Ministry of Agriculture
College of Agriculture of
University of Nairobi
at Kabete
----------------------------------
University of California
at Davis and Riverside




NIGERIA

Ministry of Economic Planning
Department of Food and Science of
University of Nigeria at Nsukka
Department of Medicine of
University of Nigeria at Jos
Department of Human Nutrition of
University of Ibadan
--------------------------------
University of Georgia and
Michigan State University


De16gation Generale A la
Recherche Scientifique
et Technique (DGRST)
Institute de Recherche
Agronomique (IRA)


MALAWI


Ministry of Agriculture
Bunda College of Agriculture of
University of Malawi
------------------------------------
Michigan State University with
Virginia State University





SENEGAL

Government of Senegal
Institute Senegalais de
Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)
Bambey Station
------------------------------------
University of California-
Riverside with
University of Arizona


TANZANIA

Government of Tanzania
College of Agriculture of
University of Dar es Salaam
at Morogoro

Washington State University with
University of Illinois






-11-


HOST COUNTRY/US ADMINISTRATIVE LINKAGES--LATIN AMERICA


Projects were developed in the identified Latin American countries through agree-
ments and collaboration with the Host Country administrative units indicated.


BRAZIL


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC


Ministry of Agriculture
Empresa Brasileira de Pequisa
Agropecuaria (EMBRAPA)
----------------------------------
Boyce Thompson Institute and
University of Wisconsin





ECUADOR

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Institute Nacional de
Investigaciones
Agropecuarias (INIAP)

Cornell University


Ministry of Agriculture
-----------------------------------
University of Nebraska and
University of Puerto Rico with
Mayaguez Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (MITA)





GUATEMALA

Ministry of Agriculture
Institute de Ciencia y
Technologia Agricolas
(ICTA)

Cornell University


HONDURAS


INCAP


Ministry of Agriculture
Escuela Agricola Panamericana
(EAP) at Zamorano

University of Puerto Rico
with MITA


Institute of Nutrition of
Central America and Panama
(INCAP)

Washington State University with
Colorado State University
Kansas State University
Michigan State University
University of Puerto Rico


MEXICO

National Institute for
Agricultural Research (INIA)
of Department of Agriculture and
Water Resources of the
United States of Mexico

Michigan State University











BEAN/COWPEA CRSP LOG FRAME


Program Goal

Make a significant contribution to
the improvement of living conditions
of small farm producers in developing
countries and increase the availabil-
ity of low cost, nutritious food in
the marketplace for the rural and
urban poor.


Purpose

Organize and mobilize financial and
human resources necessary for mount-
ing a major multi-institutional US/HC
collaborative effort in research and
training.

Provide the knowledge base necessary
to achieve significant advances in
alleviating the principal constraints
to improved production, marketing and
utilization of beans and cowpeas in
HCs.

Improve the capabilities of HC insti-
tutions to generate, adopt and apply
improved knowledge to local condi-
tions.


Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Development of important research
results addressing identified
constraints.

Stronger national research program
addressing identified constraints.

CRSP products accepted by farmers,
extension agents, HC private initia-
tives in ways which will advance goal.

Increased participation of women.


Objectively Verifiable Indicators

US/HC administrations' support of
projects.

HC and US teams functioning with good
working relationships established.

Research teams operating with effective
level of equipment, supplies and tech-
nical support.

Effective communications among all par-
ticipants especially among those work-
ing on the same constraints across
projects.

Mechanism established for the identi-
fication and support of US and HC male
and female CRSP students.

Useful secondary data identified.

Improved research infrastructure with
laboratory and field research in
process.


Verifiers

Annual reports and positive TC/ERP
reviews of progress.

Increased overall size of national
program research team with greater
multidisciplinary competence and
HC investment in the project.

Adaptation of findings by external
agents: farmers, IARCs, extension
agents, commercial interests.

Increased male and especially
female CRSP graduates in the
professional pipeline.


Verifiers

Smooth management with good
communication with MO.

US/HC quarterly and annual reports.

Formal commitment of participants.

Consistent pattern of student
training established.

Documentation of secondary data.

Primary data analyses available in
reports and publications.

HC contributions to CRSP documented
in each year's budget analysis.


Assumptions

Food and nutrition problems in the
developing nations can be solved in
part through research.

Collaboration between US and HC can be
of mutual benefit.

Achievement from this program can
reach the rural and urban poor.

Achievements of this Program can con-
tribute to development in ways which
do not increase the marginalization of
women and their families.


Assumptions
r
HC will maintain interest in the
commodity and in CRSP participation.

Coups and other forms of political or
social disturbances will not be of a
magnitude at project sites as to
severely and insurmountably affect
progress.

Necessary basic equipment, facilities
and supplies will be available or ac-
quirable within reasonable time frame.

There is a sufficiently large pool of
students from which to draw for
advanced training at least at the
secondary school graduate level.












Outputs

Strong, better quality yields pro-
duced under stressful conditions.

Greater understanding by US and HC
collaborators of the socio-cultural
and the agri-cultural environment.

Products of research packaged
appropriately for consumer use.

Information dissemination for a
variety of audiences.

Production and utilization research
findings useful for the wider
research community.

Many male and female graduates of
training programs.


Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Yield increase under an array of
stressful conditions to which produced
varieties are resistant.

Multidisciplinary research generated.

Informational materials available.

Interest of wider international and
national research and development
community in products.

Better health among those making use
of project outputs.

Male and especially female graduates
returning to HC research institutions.


Verifiers

Yield data from local and national
census.

Reports of projects incorporate
and integrate socio-cultural with
agri-cultural information.

Materials acknowledged as received
by many groups and increased con-
sumer demand.

Requests from professional community
for information and products
increased.

Site visits.

CRSP graduates identified in HC
research positions.


Assumptions

There exists in the HC at least a
skeletal infrastructure for informa-
tion dissemination.

There are HC and US women sufficiently
interested in advanced education and
professional employment to work their
way through the system when it is
opened to them.


Increased numbers of male and female
students continually in short-term c
and long-term training.


Inputs

Necessary long-term/short-term
personnel from HC/US institutions
who can communicate with each other.

Financial contributions from AID and
US and HC institutions.

Equipment such as vehicles, lab,
field and office equipment.

Facilities and supplies for HC/US
teams.

Management support from MO, US and
HC institution administrations.

Information ana support from external
groups.


Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Annual allocation from AID.

CRSP funds flowing on regular bases to
US and HC research teams.

Annual plan of work and budget docu-
ment with US/HC contributions.

Frequent and regular communication
among AID, MO, US and HC.

Participation in CRSP research and
training activity by external groups
(i.e., AID-sponsored FSR teams, IARCs,
USAID missions).


Verifiers

Increase in communications initiated
by participants with one another.

Review of annual documents by
TC and BOD.

AID letter of credit authorizing
funds.

Regular reimbursement requests with
quarterly reports.

AID approvals to purchase indicated
equipment received.

Site visits.

Meetings and other forms of com-
munication with external agents.


Assumptions

AID will generate necessary approvals
in timely fashion.

AID will have funds available for
use by the CRSP.

All parties making input will continue
to feel the mutual benefits worth the
investments.






-14-


PROGRAM REPORT


REFERENCE LISTING

Throughout this section, reference will be made to other CRSP publications which
provide additional information. These publications, available on request from the
Management Office are as follows:

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Brochure
1983 Annual Report: Executive Summary
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Women-in-Development Pamphlet
Beans-Cowpeas Production Constraints and National Programs
1983 Annual Report: Technical Summary
Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1
Pulse Beat, Spring 1984 with Bean/Cowpea CRSP Bibliography insert
Research Highlights Vol. 1, Nos. 1-5
Women-in-Agriculture Guide--Cameroon
Monographs Vol. 1, No. 1
1983 Annual Report: External Review Panel


MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION



Management Entity (ME)--Michigan State University

Total program and fiscal responsibility for the performance of the CRSP rests
with the Management Entity. The administrative work of the CRSP, organized and
funded through the Management Entity, is achieved through the participation of
groups as follows:



Management Office (MO)

This is the operational office of the Management Entity for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.
It is located on the Michigan State University campus but maintains constant
communications with the project personnel in the US and HCs as well as the
management support groups listed below. The MO is organized with the following
staff positions.

Director 100%
Deputy Director 50%
WID/Program Specialist (50%/50%) 100%
Administrative Officer 100%
Executive Secretary 100%
Secretary-Receptionist 100%






-14-


PROGRAM REPORT


REFERENCE LISTING

Throughout this section, reference will be made to other CRSP publications which
provide additional information. These publications, available on request from the
Management Office are as follows:

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Brochure
1983 Annual Report: Executive Summary
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Women-in-Development Pamphlet
Beans-Cowpeas Production Constraints and National Programs
1983 Annual Report: Technical Summary
Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1
Pulse Beat, Spring 1984 with Bean/Cowpea CRSP Bibliography insert
Research Highlights Vol. 1, Nos. 1-5
Women-in-Agriculture Guide--Cameroon
Monographs Vol. 1, No. 1
1983 Annual Report: External Review Panel


MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION



Management Entity (ME)--Michigan State University

Total program and fiscal responsibility for the performance of the CRSP rests
with the Management Entity. The administrative work of the CRSP, organized and
funded through the Management Entity, is achieved through the participation of
groups as follows:



Management Office (MO)

This is the operational office of the Management Entity for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.
It is located on the Michigan State University campus but maintains constant
communications with the project personnel in the US and HCs as well as the
management support groups listed below. The MO is organized with the following
staff positions.

Director 100%
Deputy Director 50%
WID/Program Specialist (50%/50%) 100%
Administrative Officer 100%
Executive Secretary 100%
Secretary-Receptionist 100%






-14-


PROGRAM REPORT


REFERENCE LISTING

Throughout this section, reference will be made to other CRSP publications which
provide additional information. These publications, available on request from the
Management Office are as follows:

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Brochure
1983 Annual Report: Executive Summary
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Women-in-Development Pamphlet
Beans-Cowpeas Production Constraints and National Programs
1983 Annual Report: Technical Summary
Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1
Pulse Beat, Spring 1984 with Bean/Cowpea CRSP Bibliography insert
Research Highlights Vol. 1, Nos. 1-5
Women-in-Agriculture Guide--Cameroon
Monographs Vol. 1, No. 1
1983 Annual Report: External Review Panel


MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION



Management Entity (ME)--Michigan State University

Total program and fiscal responsibility for the performance of the CRSP rests
with the Management Entity. The administrative work of the CRSP, organized and
funded through the Management Entity, is achieved through the participation of
groups as follows:



Management Office (MO)

This is the operational office of the Management Entity for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.
It is located on the Michigan State University campus but maintains constant
communications with the project personnel in the US and HCs as well as the
management support groups listed below. The MO is organized with the following
staff positions.

Director 100%
Deputy Director 50%
WID/Program Specialist (50%/50%) 100%
Administrative Officer 100%
Executive Secretary 100%
Secretary-Receptionist 100%






-14-


PROGRAM REPORT


REFERENCE LISTING

Throughout this section, reference will be made to other CRSP publications which
provide additional information. These publications, available on request from the
Management Office are as follows:

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Brochure
1983 Annual Report: Executive Summary
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Women-in-Development Pamphlet
Beans-Cowpeas Production Constraints and National Programs
1983 Annual Report: Technical Summary
Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1
Pulse Beat, Spring 1984 with Bean/Cowpea CRSP Bibliography insert
Research Highlights Vol. 1, Nos. 1-5
Women-in-Agriculture Guide--Cameroon
Monographs Vol. 1, No. 1
1983 Annual Report: External Review Panel


MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION



Management Entity (ME)--Michigan State University

Total program and fiscal responsibility for the performance of the CRSP rests
with the Management Entity. The administrative work of the CRSP, organized and
funded through the Management Entity, is achieved through the participation of
groups as follows:



Management Office (MO)

This is the operational office of the Management Entity for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.
It is located on the Michigan State University campus but maintains constant
communications with the project personnel in the US and HCs as well as the
management support groups listed below. The MO is organized with the following
staff positions.

Director 100%
Deputy Director 50%
WID/Program Specialist (50%/50%) 100%
Administrative Officer 100%
Executive Secretary 100%
Secretary-Receptionist 100%






-14-


PROGRAM REPORT


REFERENCE LISTING

Throughout this section, reference will be made to other CRSP publications which
provide additional information. These publications, available on request from the
Management Office are as follows:

Bean/Cowpea CRSP Brochure
1983 Annual Report: Executive Summary
Bean/Cowpea CRSP Women-in-Development Pamphlet
Beans-Cowpeas Production Constraints and National Programs
1983 Annual Report: Technical Summary
Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1
Pulse Beat, Spring 1984 with Bean/Cowpea CRSP Bibliography insert
Research Highlights Vol. 1, Nos. 1-5
Women-in-Agriculture Guide--Cameroon
Monographs Vol. 1, No. 1
1983 Annual Report: External Review Panel


MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION



Management Entity (ME)--Michigan State University

Total program and fiscal responsibility for the performance of the CRSP rests
with the Management Entity. The administrative work of the CRSP, organized and
funded through the Management Entity, is achieved through the participation of
groups as follows:



Management Office (MO)

This is the operational office of the Management Entity for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.
It is located on the Michigan State University campus but maintains constant
communications with the project personnel in the US and HCs as well as the
management support groups listed below. The MO is organized with the following
staff positions.

Director 100%
Deputy Director 50%
WID/Program Specialist (50%/50%) 100%
Administrative Officer 100%
Executive Secretary 100%
Secretary-Receptionist 100%






-15-


Despite almost one hundred percent turnover in staff within the last one-and-a-
half years, the Management Office has continued (1) to monitor project activity
in US and HCs as needed, (2) to provide support and guidance to all projects,
(3) to reinforce attention to the WID perspective, (4) to reinforce communication
among the various participants of the CRSP, (5) to encourage better project
integration in the lead and HC institutions, (6) to provide staff support to the
BOD, TC and ERP, (7) to carry out the policies and recommendations of these
groups, (8) to maintain communication flow between the CRSP and AID/BIFAD, (9) to
increase the published output and (10) to represent the CRSP in wider national
and international settings.

The MO is responsible for compiling, editing and publishing the following
documents:

CRSP Brochure
Annual Report: Executive Summary
Annual Report: Technical Summary
Detailed Annual Report
External Review Panel Report
Pulse Beat
Vanguard
Research Highlights
Women-in-Agriculture Resource Guides
WID Pamphlet


The Management Office further supports the projects through communication with
outside organizations, workshops and conferences. The active level of CRSP-wide
communication is demonstrated by the MO-documented average daily output of
twenty-five phone communications (local and long distance), one telex/cable
(incoming or outgoing), twenty-five incoming pieces of mail handled, fifty pieces
of mail outgoing and two visitors (local or from out of town). There are
multiple phone and mail communications between the MO and the AID and BIFAD
program officers weekly.






-16-


BEAN/COWPEA CRSP MANAGEMENT OFFICE
INTERACTION CHART
January 1, 1984


PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION CLERICAL


WID and Program


WID and Program
Specialist


Anne Ferguson


Cassie McClendon


Deputy Director and
Information Officer

(Open as of above date)


Executive
Secretary

Sue Bengry


Finance and
Administrative
Officer

John Niles


Program Secretary
and Communications
Coordinator

Irma Gutierrez


Student Office
Assistant






-17-


BEAN/COWPEA CRSP MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION CHART
January 1, 1984


ADMINISTRATION


PROGRAM


OFFICE


CLERICAL


Deputy Director and
Information Officer

(Open as of above date)




WID and Program
Specialist


Anne Ferguson


Executive
Secretary


Sue Bengry


Cassie McClendon


Finance and
Administrative
Officer

John Niles


Program Secretary
ana Communications
Coordinator

Irma Gutierrez


Student Office
Assistant


Director

Pat Barnes-McConnell






-18-


External Review Panel (ERP) 7 members

Eminent scientists from an array of disciplines with no previous connection to
the CRSP are appointed by BIFAD to annually review and evaluate the individual
CRSP projects and the program as a whole. The ERP has completed two reviews of
the CRSP. A report of their findings each year presents the results of US and
HC site visits and project progress reviews. These ERP reports are used by all
of the other management groups in monitoring individual projects and in conduct-
ing general CRSP affairs. The comprehensive 1983 Annual Report: External
Review Panel is available from the Management Office.

After its third review to be held in 1984-85, the members of the ERP will be
rotating off in a 2-2-2-1 pattern, establishing four-year staggered terms.



Institutional Representatives (IRs) 10 members

There is one IR from each of the nine lead institutions plus an additional one
from the University of California-Riverside/Davis system. There are no regularly
scheduled meetings but frequent mailings from the MO keep them informed of over-
all CRSP activity. They are the senior link between the CRSP project personnel
at their institution and the administration there. Excerpts from IRs' letters
indicating the role and contributions of the projects in their institutions are
included in this document. These letters reinforce the extent of US institu-
tional support of CRSP activity.



Board of Directors 5 members

The Board is the policy-making group of the CRSP; members are elected from among
the nine lead institutions' Institutional Representatives. One member is a
standing member representing the Management Entity. In addition to these five
members, the Board invites consulting members to its meetings from among the HC
administrators. An average of three meetings are held per year staffed by the
Management Office. Policies passed by the Board are presented below.

1. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Policy on US/HC Distribution of Funds:

A. The existing policy previously adopted by the CRSP Board indicates that
not less than 50 percent of USAID funds for support of projects be spent
in or directly on behalf of Host Countries. In order:
(1) To insure CRSP focus on the solution of Host Country problems
rather than on the maintenance of existing research programs of US
institutions and
(2) To nourish a climate of collaboration and partnership between the
US and Host Country PIs,
this policy is upheld and is to be based on each total grant period.

B. However, experience has demonstrated that the US PI is uniquely
restricted when institutional indirect costs for project support are
taken solely from the US 50 percent of the total funds. Therefore, the
50/50 split is to be applied to the total project budget exclusive of
all indirect costs.






-19-


C. Some projects have not settled into a spending pattern in the Host
Country comparable to that in the US. Thus, in order to maintain a
50/50 split, more of each year's funds must be allowed to the half of
the team spending less. Assuming that authorized project spending
suggests the progress of approved research activity, it is appropriate
to encourage Host Country utilization of project funds. Therefore,
where Host Country spending patterns are seriously below the expected
level, the Host Country and US PIs will be requested to submit to the MO
for TC discussion the reasons for the spending patterns and their
suggestions for addressing the issue, including possible recognition of
an unrealistic Host Country budget level.

2. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Policy on Institutional Involvement:

The Bean/Cowpea CRSP Board of Directors is concerned about the degree to
which institutional participation occurs in CRSP projects beyond activities
associated with the individual PIs. Of special concern is the extent to
which PIs interact with their Institutional Representatives and the extent
to which the administration of the lead institution is aware of the project's
progress. It is strongly recommended therefore that at each institution
significant steps be taken to strengthen institutional ownership through
(a) internal project reviews with attention to greater institutional
integration, (b) identification of project strengths and weaknesses with
appropriate institutional response and (c) when relevant, institutional
participation in on-site project analyses.

3. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Policy on Project Allocations:

If there is an effective and consistent quarterly spending pattern of 80
percent (actual costs reimbursement not including encumbrances) projects may
be considered for allocations up to 100 percent of project need as requested
and demonstrated by the Principal Investigator. Maintenance of spending
patterns less than 80 percent receive allocations commensurate with the prior
spending pattern at a level which will discourage the accumulation of excess
carry-forward funds.

4. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Policy on Training:

The Bean/Cowpea CRSP has as a major goal the strengthening of HC institutions
through the training of HC nationals, a critical resource necessary for
successful long-term research. To achieve this goal, CRSP projects are to
give emphasis to the training of Host Country persons over the training of
US persons. This policy adopts a Host Country priority rather than US
exclusion and refers to both short-term training and graduate education.

5. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Policy on Participation of Non-CRSP Developing Countries:

Whereas the Bean/Cowpea CRSP has institution building and strengthening as a
major goal, the BOD endorses the concept of CRSP Host Countries inviting
scientists, representing limited-resource nations in CRSP regions of the
world, to participate in Host Country collaborative research and training
efforts which may provide mutual benefits.






-18-


External Review Panel (ERP) 7 members

Eminent scientists from an array of disciplines with no previous connection to
the CRSP are appointed by BIFAD to annually review and evaluate the individual
CRSP projects and the program as a whole. The ERP has completed two reviews of
the CRSP. A report of their findings each year presents the results of US and
HC site visits and project progress reviews. These ERP reports are used by all
of the other management groups in monitoring individual projects and in conduct-
ing general CRSP affairs. The comprehensive 1983 Annual Report: External
Review Panel is available from the Management Office.

After its third review to be held in 1984-85, the members of the ERP will be
rotating off in a 2-2-2-1 pattern, establishing four-year staggered terms.



Institutional Representatives (IRs) 10 members

There is one IR from each of the nine lead institutions plus an additional one
from the University of California-Riverside/Davis system. There are no regularly
scheduled meetings but frequent mailings from the MO keep them informed of over-
all CRSP activity. They are the senior link between the CRSP project personnel
at their institution and the administration there. Excerpts from IRs' letters
indicating the role and contributions of the projects in their institutions are
included in this document. These letters reinforce the extent of US institu-
tional support of CRSP activity.



Board of Directors 5 members

The Board is the policy-making group of the CRSP; members are elected from among
the nine lead institutions' Institutional Representatives. One member is a
standing member representing the Management Entity. In addition to these five
members, the Board invites consulting members to its meetings from among the HC
administrators. An average of three meetings are held per year staffed by the
Management Office. Policies passed by the Board are presented below.

1. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Policy on US/HC Distribution of Funds:

A. The existing policy previously adopted by the CRSP Board indicates that
not less than 50 percent of USAID funds for support of projects be spent
in or directly on behalf of Host Countries. In order:
(1) To insure CRSP focus on the solution of Host Country problems
rather than on the maintenance of existing research programs of US
institutions and
(2) To nourish a climate of collaboration and partnership between the
US and Host Country PIs,
this policy is upheld and is to be based on each total grant period.

B. However, experience has demonstrated that the US PI is uniquely
restricted when institutional indirect costs for project support are
taken solely from the US 50 percent of the total funds. Therefore, the
50/50 split is to be applied to the total project budget exclusive of
all indirect costs.






-18-


External Review Panel (ERP) 7 members

Eminent scientists from an array of disciplines with no previous connection to
the CRSP are appointed by BIFAD to annually review and evaluate the individual
CRSP projects and the program as a whole. The ERP has completed two reviews of
the CRSP. A report of their findings each year presents the results of US and
HC site visits and project progress reviews. These ERP reports are used by all
of the other management groups in monitoring individual projects and in conduct-
ing general CRSP affairs. The comprehensive 1983 Annual Report: External
Review Panel is available from the Management Office.

After its third review to be held in 1984-85, the members of the ERP will be
rotating off in a 2-2-2-1 pattern, establishing four-year staggered terms.



Institutional Representatives (IRs) 10 members

There is one IR from each of the nine lead institutions plus an additional one
from the University of California-Riverside/Davis system. There are no regularly
scheduled meetings but frequent mailings from the MO keep them informed of over-
all CRSP activity. They are the senior link between the CRSP project personnel
at their institution and the administration there. Excerpts from IRs' letters
indicating the role and contributions of the projects in their institutions are
included in this document. These letters reinforce the extent of US institu-
tional support of CRSP activity.



Board of Directors 5 members

The Board is the policy-making group of the CRSP; members are elected from among
the nine lead institutions' Institutional Representatives. One member is a
standing member representing the Management Entity. In addition to these five
members, the Board invites consulting members to its meetings from among the HC
administrators. An average of three meetings are held per year staffed by the
Management Office. Policies passed by the Board are presented below.

1. Bean/Cowpea CRSP Policy on US/HC Distribution of Funds:

A. The existing policy previously adopted by the CRSP Board indicates that
not less than 50 percent of USAID funds for support of projects be spent
in or directly on behalf of Host Countries. In order:
(1) To insure CRSP focus on the solution of Host Country problems
rather than on the maintenance of existing research programs of US
institutions and
(2) To nourish a climate of collaboration and partnership between the
US and Host Country PIs,
this policy is upheld and is to be based on each total grant period.

B. However, experience has demonstrated that the US PI is uniquely
restricted when institutional indirect costs for project support are
taken solely from the US 50 percent of the total funds. Therefore, the
50/50 split is to be applied to the total project budget exclusive of
all indirect costs.






-20-


INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPATION ON THE BEAN/COWPEA CRSP BOARD OF DIRECTORS


Technical Committee (TC)


7 members


Composed of researchers associated with the CRSP, this group is responsible for
internal project review and research coordination. Members and their alternates
are appointed by the Board. It is made up of:


Researchers from CRSP US institutions
Researchers from CRSP HC institutions
Representatives from IARCs (CIAT or IITA)


An average of five meetings are held per year staffed by the Management Office.
Some of the major activities of this group have been (1) monitoring progress of
projects, (2) reviewing requested changes in projects, (3) responding to ERP
recommendations, (4) identifying new areas for collaboration and cooperation,
(5) determining most efficient and effective methods for disseminating CRSP
information and (6) making recommendations to the Board regarding policies needed
for the successful operation of the projects.


FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88


Colorado State University X X


Cornell University X X


Michigan State University X X X X X X X X


University of California X X X X


University of Georgia X X X X


University of Nebraska X X X X


University of Puerto Rico X X X


University of Wisconsin X X X X X


Washington State University X X X






-20-


INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPATION ON THE BEAN/COWPEA CRSP BOARD OF DIRECTORS


Technical Committee (TC)


7 members


Composed of researchers associated with the CRSP, this group is responsible for
internal project review and research coordination. Members and their alternates
are appointed by the Board. It is made up of:


Researchers from CRSP US institutions
Researchers from CRSP HC institutions
Representatives from IARCs (CIAT or IITA)


An average of five meetings are held per year staffed by the Management Office.
Some of the major activities of this group have been (1) monitoring progress of
projects, (2) reviewing requested changes in projects, (3) responding to ERP
recommendations, (4) identifying new areas for collaboration and cooperation,
(5) determining most efficient and effective methods for disseminating CRSP
information and (6) making recommendations to the Board regarding policies needed
for the successful operation of the projects.


FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88


Colorado State University X X


Cornell University X X


Michigan State University X X X X X X X X


University of California X X X X


University of Georgia X X X X


University of Nebraska X X X X


University of Puerto Rico X X X


University of Wisconsin X X X X X


Washington State University X X X






-21-


INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPATION ON THE BEAN/COWPEA CRSP TECHNICAL COMMITTEE




FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 FY 88

Botswana

Brazil/Boyce Thompson BTI BTI

Brazil/Wisconsin/Bliss UW UW

Brazil/Wisconsin/Hagedorn

Cameroon

Dominican Republic/Coyne UNE UNE

Ecuador C_

Guatemala

Dominican Republic/UPR

Honduras

INCAP HC HC&MSL MSU

Kenya UCD UCD

Malawi

Mexico

Nigeria/U of GA GA&HC GA&HC GA GA

Nigeria/MSU

Senegal UCR UCR

Tanzania U-IL WSU WSU

CIAT X X X* X X X

IITA X X X* X X X
*Ct4- tin f 18 d00 rt


ar ng rom CI T an IITA re
pr3senta ive
Technical Committee meetings.


will alternate at t






-22-


INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL OF MANAGEMENT GROUPS

To carry out the responsibilities assigned by the grant, most of the groups
described above were required to travel internationally. Information on that
travel is presented below.



BEAN/COWPEA CRSP INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL THROUGH 9-30-83
(Person Trips)

To Collaborating Prof. Mtg. in
Project Country Another Country To IARCs

Board of Directors 0 0 0
External Review Panel 10 0 0
Technical Committee 0 0 7
Total 10 0 7

Management Office 28 0 2


COUNTRY RESEARCH PROJECT ORGANIZATION

The research of the CRSP is organized in sets of HC and US teams collaborating
in addressing one or more constraints to bean or cowpea production and utiliza-
tion. No projects are free standing in the US without HC alliances. All evolved
from the two-year planning effort.

Total projects 18
Africa 8
Latin America 10


Host Countries 13
Africa 7
Latin America 6


Bean projects 12
Africa 3
Latin America 9


Cowpea projects 6
Africa 5
Latin America 1


US lead institutions 9

US institutions contributing resource scientists 14


Cooperating International Research Centers






-22-


INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL OF MANAGEMENT GROUPS

To carry out the responsibilities assigned by the grant, most of the groups
described above were required to travel internationally. Information on that
travel is presented below.



BEAN/COWPEA CRSP INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL THROUGH 9-30-83
(Person Trips)

To Collaborating Prof. Mtg. in
Project Country Another Country To IARCs

Board of Directors 0 0 0
External Review Panel 10 0 0
Technical Committee 0 0 7
Total 10 0 7

Management Office 28 0 2


COUNTRY RESEARCH PROJECT ORGANIZATION

The research of the CRSP is organized in sets of HC and US teams collaborating
in addressing one or more constraints to bean or cowpea production and utiliza-
tion. No projects are free standing in the US without HC alliances. All evolved
from the two-year planning effort.

Total projects 18
Africa 8
Latin America 10


Host Countries 13
Africa 7
Latin America 6


Bean projects 12
Africa 3
Latin America 9


Cowpea projects 6
Africa 5
Latin America 1


US lead institutions 9

US institutions contributing resource scientists 14


Cooperating International Research Centers






-22-


INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL OF MANAGEMENT GROUPS

To carry out the responsibilities assigned by the grant, most of the groups
described above were required to travel internationally. Information on that
travel is presented below.



BEAN/COWPEA CRSP INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL THROUGH 9-30-83
(Person Trips)

To Collaborating Prof. Mtg. in
Project Country Another Country To IARCs

Board of Directors 0 0 0
External Review Panel 10 0 0
Technical Committee 0 0 7
Total 10 0 7

Management Office 28 0 2


COUNTRY RESEARCH PROJECT ORGANIZATION

The research of the CRSP is organized in sets of HC and US teams collaborating
in addressing one or more constraints to bean or cowpea production and utiliza-
tion. No projects are free standing in the US without HC alliances. All evolved
from the two-year planning effort.

Total projects 18
Africa 8
Latin America 10


Host Countries 13
Africa 7
Latin America 6


Bean projects 12
Africa 3
Latin America 9


Cowpea projects 6
Africa 5
Latin America 1


US lead institutions 9

US institutions contributing resource scientists 14


Cooperating International Research Centers






-23-


COUNTRY RESEARCH PROJECT PERSONNEL

Notwithstanding coups or serious coup attempts in five of the CRSP HCs, food
riots and other forms of political unrest, the projects continue their steady
forward progress. This noteworthy achievement is undoubtedly the product of
convivial professional relationships formed among the heterogeneous group of
competent people whose human natures seem to demand that, in the midst of
confusion and havoc, they seek the path of greatest dedication to the application
of science in solving social problems.

PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS PARTICIPATING IN CRSP

Males Females Total

HC 90 11 101
US 53 16 69
Total 143 27 170

US RESEARCHERS IN RESIDENCE IN HCS FOR 6 MONTHS OR LONGER
6 males 2 females 8 total

The organization of project research teams has developed based on the needs and
existing resources of the projects and the professional relationships established
between the HC and US PIs. Three successful models have emerged:

1. No US scientists are stationed in the HCs but active communication, profes-
sional cooperation and collegial relationships are maintained. This model
is especially appropriate where the HC, similar to the US, maintains a
critical mass of scientists including effective senior scientists.
Example: Senegal.

2. Junior scientists (including post-doctorates or advanced Ph.D. students) are
stationed in HCs, under close and frequent supervision of senior US PIs, to
work with national programs. This model is especially successful where there
is an effective HC team but less than a critical mass in the identified
research area. Example: Brazil.

3. Senior US scientists are stationed in HCs to work with national programs.
This model is especially effective where the HC has very limited research
personnel and the US PI acts as a stimulus to building a critical mass.
Example: Botswana.

These models of collaboration are only three among many possibilities, but they
evolved from surveys of existing needs and resources and candid negotiations
among the principals during the planning and early implementation phases.
Because the structure of model #1 is the most equitable and mutually rewarding
for the long term, those projects for whom models #2 or #3 are currently the most
appropriate are motivated to focus attention on a comprehensive plan to achieve
that level of operation.

To reinforce and maintain professional relationships within and among the US/HC
teams, project personnel consult with one another frequently, visiting one
another's programs and assessing the progress of laboratory and field research
strategies jointly developed. The international travel sustained by the projects
through the first three years of the CRSP is presented below.






-23-


COUNTRY RESEARCH PROJECT PERSONNEL

Notwithstanding coups or serious coup attempts in five of the CRSP HCs, food
riots and other forms of political unrest, the projects continue their steady
forward progress. This noteworthy achievement is undoubtedly the product of
convivial professional relationships formed among the heterogeneous group of
competent people whose human natures seem to demand that, in the midst of
confusion and havoc, they seek the path of greatest dedication to the application
of science in solving social problems.

PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS PARTICIPATING IN CRSP

Males Females Total

HC 90 11 101
US 53 16 69
Total 143 27 170

US RESEARCHERS IN RESIDENCE IN HCS FOR 6 MONTHS OR LONGER
6 males 2 females 8 total

The organization of project research teams has developed based on the needs and
existing resources of the projects and the professional relationships established
between the HC and US PIs. Three successful models have emerged:

1. No US scientists are stationed in the HCs but active communication, profes-
sional cooperation and collegial relationships are maintained. This model
is especially appropriate where the HC, similar to the US, maintains a
critical mass of scientists including effective senior scientists.
Example: Senegal.

2. Junior scientists (including post-doctorates or advanced Ph.D. students) are
stationed in HCs, under close and frequent supervision of senior US PIs, to
work with national programs. This model is especially successful where there
is an effective HC team but less than a critical mass in the identified
research area. Example: Brazil.

3. Senior US scientists are stationed in HCs to work with national programs.
This model is especially effective where the HC has very limited research
personnel and the US PI acts as a stimulus to building a critical mass.
Example: Botswana.

These models of collaboration are only three among many possibilities, but they
evolved from surveys of existing needs and resources and candid negotiations
among the principals during the planning and early implementation phases.
Because the structure of model #1 is the most equitable and mutually rewarding
for the long term, those projects for whom models #2 or #3 are currently the most
appropriate are motivated to focus attention on a comprehensive plan to achieve
that level of operation.

To reinforce and maintain professional relationships within and among the US/HC
teams, project personnel consult with one another frequently, visiting one
another's programs and assessing the progress of laboratory and field research
strategies jointly developed. The international travel sustained by the projects
through the first three years of the CRSP is presented below.






-23-


COUNTRY RESEARCH PROJECT PERSONNEL

Notwithstanding coups or serious coup attempts in five of the CRSP HCs, food
riots and other forms of political unrest, the projects continue their steady
forward progress. This noteworthy achievement is undoubtedly the product of
convivial professional relationships formed among the heterogeneous group of
competent people whose human natures seem to demand that, in the midst of
confusion and havoc, they seek the path of greatest dedication to the application
of science in solving social problems.

PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS PARTICIPATING IN CRSP

Males Females Total

HC 90 11 101
US 53 16 69
Total 143 27 170

US RESEARCHERS IN RESIDENCE IN HCS FOR 6 MONTHS OR LONGER
6 males 2 females 8 total

The organization of project research teams has developed based on the needs and
existing resources of the projects and the professional relationships established
between the HC and US PIs. Three successful models have emerged:

1. No US scientists are stationed in the HCs but active communication, profes-
sional cooperation and collegial relationships are maintained. This model
is especially appropriate where the HC, similar to the US, maintains a
critical mass of scientists including effective senior scientists.
Example: Senegal.

2. Junior scientists (including post-doctorates or advanced Ph.D. students) are
stationed in HCs, under close and frequent supervision of senior US PIs, to
work with national programs. This model is especially successful where there
is an effective HC team but less than a critical mass in the identified
research area. Example: Brazil.

3. Senior US scientists are stationed in HCs to work with national programs.
This model is especially effective where the HC has very limited research
personnel and the US PI acts as a stimulus to building a critical mass.
Example: Botswana.

These models of collaboration are only three among many possibilities, but they
evolved from surveys of existing needs and resources and candid negotiations
among the principals during the planning and early implementation phases.
Because the structure of model #1 is the most equitable and mutually rewarding
for the long term, those projects for whom models #2 or #3 are currently the most
appropriate are motivated to focus attention on a comprehensive plan to achieve
that level of operation.

To reinforce and maintain professional relationships within and among the US/HC
teams, project personnel consult with one another frequently, visiting one
another's programs and assessing the progress of laboratory and field research
strategies jointly developed. The international travel sustained by the projects
through the first three years of the CRSP is presented below.






-24-


BEAN/COWPEA CRSP INTERNATIONAL PROJECT TRAVEL THROUGH 9-30-83
(Person Trips)

To Collaborating Prof. Mtg. in
Project Country Another Country Training--IARCs

Botswana/CSU 2 0 1
Brazil/BTI 12 2 0
Brazil/Bliss 7 1 0
Brazil/Hagedorn 2 0 0
Cameroon/UGA 6 3 1
Dom. Republic/UNE 14 0 2
Dom. Republic/UPR 5 3 3
Ecuador/COR 20 1 2
Guatemala/COR 15 2 1
Honduras/UPR 8 3 0
INCAP/WSU 8 1 0
Kenya/UCD 7 0 0
Malawi/MSU 14 0 1
Mexico/MSU 4 0 0
Nigeria/UGA 4 14 2
Nigeria/MSU 3 4 0
Senegal/UCR 9 1 0
Tanzania/WSU 9 5 2
Total Project Trips 149 40.0 15.0

Average US/HC Trips
Per Project Per Year 3 .7 .3


WOMEN-IN-DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Recognizing the significant role played by women in many developing countries in
bean and cowpea production, this CRSP has incorporated a strong Women-in-
Development focus and has included a WID Specialist on its Management Office
staff. This was originally a quarter-time appointment but effective September,
1983 it became a full-time position with half of the work effort given to WID and
the remainder to more general program-related tasks such as editing the CRSP
newsletter and annual reports. A CRSP Women-in-Development pamphlet that
provides an overview of women's roles in bean and cowpea production in the HCs
and outlines Bean/Cowpea CRSP strategies to incorporate women as agricultural
producers, researchers and students has been prepared. A work plan has also
been developed and is being implemented. Briefly, three areas of concentration
are identified: those with a project focus, those related to the program as a
whole and those that address broader policy issues of concern to the WID field.



Project-Centered Areas of Concentration

The major purpose is to increase awareness of how the role played by HC women and
children in agriculture may affect, and be affected by, project activities. This
input is tailored to the individual projects and takes various forms:






-24-


BEAN/COWPEA CRSP INTERNATIONAL PROJECT TRAVEL THROUGH 9-30-83
(Person Trips)

To Collaborating Prof. Mtg. in
Project Country Another Country Training--IARCs

Botswana/CSU 2 0 1
Brazil/BTI 12 2 0
Brazil/Bliss 7 1 0
Brazil/Hagedorn 2 0 0
Cameroon/UGA 6 3 1
Dom. Republic/UNE 14 0 2
Dom. Republic/UPR 5 3 3
Ecuador/COR 20 1 2
Guatemala/COR 15 2 1
Honduras/UPR 8 3 0
INCAP/WSU 8 1 0
Kenya/UCD 7 0 0
Malawi/MSU 14 0 1
Mexico/MSU 4 0 0
Nigeria/UGA 4 14 2
Nigeria/MSU 3 4 0
Senegal/UCR 9 1 0
Tanzania/WSU 9 5 2
Total Project Trips 149 40.0 15.0

Average US/HC Trips
Per Project Per Year 3 .7 .3


WOMEN-IN-DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Recognizing the significant role played by women in many developing countries in
bean and cowpea production, this CRSP has incorporated a strong Women-in-
Development focus and has included a WID Specialist on its Management Office
staff. This was originally a quarter-time appointment but effective September,
1983 it became a full-time position with half of the work effort given to WID and
the remainder to more general program-related tasks such as editing the CRSP
newsletter and annual reports. A CRSP Women-in-Development pamphlet that
provides an overview of women's roles in bean and cowpea production in the HCs
and outlines Bean/Cowpea CRSP strategies to incorporate women as agricultural
producers, researchers and students has been prepared. A work plan has also
been developed and is being implemented. Briefly, three areas of concentration
are identified: those with a project focus, those related to the program as a
whole and those that address broader policy issues of concern to the WID field.



Project-Centered Areas of Concentration

The major purpose is to increase awareness of how the role played by HC women and
children in agriculture may affect, and be affected by, project activities. This
input is tailored to the individual projects and takes various forms:






-25-


A. For those projects identified by the External Review Panel as needing greater
concentration on WID issues the following plan has been adopted:

1. The Project Paper, Annual Reports, Trip Reports, ERP Reports and other
relevant materials are reviewed in order to document the extent to which
goals and accomplishments have addressed WID issues.

2. Planning discussions are held with the PI so as to better identify where
WID inputs may be most appropriate.

3. A Women-in-Agriculture Resource Guide is prepared. This includes:

a. A description of women's roles in the farming systems of the HC drawn
largely from secondary source materials.

b. An examination of the implications of this literature for project
activities.

c. Information on women's organizations in the HC and, where possible,
identification of US and HC researchers who could serve as consultants
to the project.

d. An annotated bibliography on farming systems and women's roles in
agricultural production in the HC. This guide is made available to
US and HC project researchers.

4. Once a specific strategy is agreed upon, efforts are made to assist in
implementation.

B. A slightly different approach is used with regard to those projects the ERP
judged as demonstrating adequate attention to WID:

1. By reading the Project Paper, Annual Reports, Trip Reports and other
relevant information, the WID Specialist identifies WID concerns that
have been successfully addressed and documents the methodologies used.

2. This information is disseminated to the other projects. For example,
copies of articles where WID concerns are well addressed are circulated
and PIs are familiarized with successful data collection techniques used
in their geographic/cultural areas.

3. Project researchers are encouraged to make mention of WID issues in their
publications and to further expand their efforts to incorporate women
through:

a. Hiring competent female researchers and technicians, both in the US
and in the HCs. Where possible, the WID Specialist assists in this
process by providing lists of relevant organizations and individuals
for consideration.

b. Training of HC and US females in both degree and non-degree programs.






-24-


BEAN/COWPEA CRSP INTERNATIONAL PROJECT TRAVEL THROUGH 9-30-83
(Person Trips)

To Collaborating Prof. Mtg. in
Project Country Another Country Training--IARCs

Botswana/CSU 2 0 1
Brazil/BTI 12 2 0
Brazil/Bliss 7 1 0
Brazil/Hagedorn 2 0 0
Cameroon/UGA 6 3 1
Dom. Republic/UNE 14 0 2
Dom. Republic/UPR 5 3 3
Ecuador/COR 20 1 2
Guatemala/COR 15 2 1
Honduras/UPR 8 3 0
INCAP/WSU 8 1 0
Kenya/UCD 7 0 0
Malawi/MSU 14 0 1
Mexico/MSU 4 0 0
Nigeria/UGA 4 14 2
Nigeria/MSU 3 4 0
Senegal/UCR 9 1 0
Tanzania/WSU 9 5 2
Total Project Trips 149 40.0 15.0

Average US/HC Trips
Per Project Per Year 3 .7 .3


WOMEN-IN-DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Recognizing the significant role played by women in many developing countries in
bean and cowpea production, this CRSP has incorporated a strong Women-in-
Development focus and has included a WID Specialist on its Management Office
staff. This was originally a quarter-time appointment but effective September,
1983 it became a full-time position with half of the work effort given to WID and
the remainder to more general program-related tasks such as editing the CRSP
newsletter and annual reports. A CRSP Women-in-Development pamphlet that
provides an overview of women's roles in bean and cowpea production in the HCs
and outlines Bean/Cowpea CRSP strategies to incorporate women as agricultural
producers, researchers and students has been prepared. A work plan has also
been developed and is being implemented. Briefly, three areas of concentration
are identified: those with a project focus, those related to the program as a
whole and those that address broader policy issues of concern to the WID field.



Project-Centered Areas of Concentration

The major purpose is to increase awareness of how the role played by HC women and
children in agriculture may affect, and be affected by, project activities. This
input is tailored to the individual projects and takes various forms:






-26-


Program-Centered Areas of Concentration:

In addition to project-centered activities, a number of program-wide activities
are carried out by the WID Specialist:

A. Workshops and Training: Training of HC nationals is an important component
of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP. Many projects include opportunities for individuals
to pursue graduate degree studies and/or participate in non-degree programs.
CRSP efforts to recruit women have been successful and will be continued in
the future. Attention will also be paid to familiarizing researchers and
students with women's roles in agricultural production in developing coun-
tries. The feasibility of locating existing WID curricula, or designing short
seminars which could be held either separately or in conjunction with other
Bean/Cowpea CRSP programs or workshops, is being investigated. Where
possible, those individuals in degree programs may also be encouraged to take
a course or participate in some formal offering related to Women-in-
Development. In a related vein, students who have conducted research
addressing women's roles in agricultural production and/or processing may be
encouraged to present their findings at appropriate professional association
meetings (AWID and others). Training is of particular importance because many
of the HC students will command top research and administrative positions when
they return home. In these policy-making roles they may significantly
influence training and research opportunities for women and build WID concerns
into development efforts.

B. While the Bean/Cowpea CRSP newsletter, Pulse Beat, is already an important
means of disseminating information, it can be used to address WID concerns in
a more systematic fashion. For example, brief reviews of relevant books and
articles can be included, female researchers and students highlighted and
WID-related findings from the various projects reported.

C. Being well acquainted with the eighteen projects, the WID Specialist identi-
fies areas of concern to women that are not currently receiving attention in
the program. Recommendations are made as to how these can be incorporated in
future planning efforts.



Documenting the Effectiveness of WID

As the program evolves, an increasingly important responsibility will be to
demonstrate the effects of having incorporated females as researchers, students
and agriculturalists in the projects. This will be done through writing articles,
participating in conferences and seminars and other appropriate means.

This plan of work was presented to the Technical Committee on April 26, 1984 and
to the Board of Directors on May 10, 1984 where it received positive endorsements.
One Women-in-Agriculture Resource Guide (on Cameroon) has been prepared to date
and is available from the Management Office.






-26-


Program-Centered Areas of Concentration:

In addition to project-centered activities, a number of program-wide activities
are carried out by the WID Specialist:

A. Workshops and Training: Training of HC nationals is an important component
of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP. Many projects include opportunities for individuals
to pursue graduate degree studies and/or participate in non-degree programs.
CRSP efforts to recruit women have been successful and will be continued in
the future. Attention will also be paid to familiarizing researchers and
students with women's roles in agricultural production in developing coun-
tries. The feasibility of locating existing WID curricula, or designing short
seminars which could be held either separately or in conjunction with other
Bean/Cowpea CRSP programs or workshops, is being investigated. Where
possible, those individuals in degree programs may also be encouraged to take
a course or participate in some formal offering related to Women-in-
Development. In a related vein, students who have conducted research
addressing women's roles in agricultural production and/or processing may be
encouraged to present their findings at appropriate professional association
meetings (AWID and others). Training is of particular importance because many
of the HC students will command top research and administrative positions when
they return home. In these policy-making roles they may significantly
influence training and research opportunities for women and build WID concerns
into development efforts.

B. While the Bean/Cowpea CRSP newsletter, Pulse Beat, is already an important
means of disseminating information, it can be used to address WID concerns in
a more systematic fashion. For example, brief reviews of relevant books and
articles can be included, female researchers and students highlighted and
WID-related findings from the various projects reported.

C. Being well acquainted with the eighteen projects, the WID Specialist identi-
fies areas of concern to women that are not currently receiving attention in
the program. Recommendations are made as to how these can be incorporated in
future planning efforts.



Documenting the Effectiveness of WID

As the program evolves, an increasingly important responsibility will be to
demonstrate the effects of having incorporated females as researchers, students
and agriculturalists in the projects. This will be done through writing articles,
participating in conferences and seminars and other appropriate means.

This plan of work was presented to the Technical Committee on April 26, 1984 and
to the Board of Directors on May 10, 1984 where it received positive endorsements.
One Women-in-Agriculture Resource Guide (on Cameroon) has been prepared to date
and is available from the Management Office.






-27-


PROGRAM RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS

In the less than three years of actual operations, CRSP researchers are already
reporting significant contributions to CRSP goals. For example,

1. Research illuminating the interaction of altitude (temperature) and latitude
(daylength) now suggests it is possible to identify each cultivar's optimal
environment (see Vanguard Vol. 1, No. 1).

2. Large collections of bean and cowpea germplasm have been made throughout
Africa and Latin America.

3. Large numbers of local and exotic bean and cowpea lines have been screened
for
Pest resistance
Disease resistance
Heat resistance
Drought resistance

4. Breeding programs were initiated incorporating these materials with those of
the US collections and the IARCs--these materials also shared with national
and international programs. Testing has begun at many sites offering an
array of altitude/latitude variations.

5. One national germplasm guide, growing out of the extensive germplasm survey
and research, has been prepared for publication.

6. Extremely early cowpeas were developed producing acceptable yield under the
recent severe African drought and heat conditions (see Research Highlights
Vol. 1, No. 1).

7. Bean-tepary crosses have progressed to field trials which have identified
drought resistance (see Research Highlights Vol. 1, No. 6 [in process]).

8. Quick, inexpensive and technically feasible methodology was de eloped for
assessment of viral contamination of lines to be transported across national
boundaries (see Research Highlights Vol. 1, No. 5).

9. Five new multiple disease resistant bean genotypes were released and made
available to breeding programs (see Research Highlights Vol. 1, No. 2).

10. Basic research on the genetics of inheritance of resistance is proceeding.

11. Research on variations among strains of plant pathogens is generating
information critical to disease control.

12. Interactions were identified among bacterial isolates, their concentrations
and host plant genotypes as important components in disease control.

13. Over one hundred isolates of insect pathogens were collected for research on
biological insect control (see Research Highlights Vol. 1, No. 3).






-28-


14. Insect control research on identified cowpea pests' life-cycles and
reproductive habits is generating important preliminary findings.

15. Experimental results with superior bean selections and superior isolates of
Rhizobium phaseoli is suggesting greater than usual levels of nitrogen-
fixing potential adequate for commercial level bean production on small
farms using traditional cropping systems.

16. Secondary research is generating important information on the role of women
in food production (see Women-in-Agriculture Guide--Cameroon).

17. Socio-cultural and socio-economic studies are generating important
information which will contribute to decision making in breeding programs.

18. Methodology is being developed for village-level production of cowpea meal
acceptable for preparation of traditional foods (see Research Highlights
Vol. 1, No. 4).

19. An extensive canvassing of the variety of methods used for evaluation of
bean quality has been done, and a report of these methods is being organized
for use by the scientific community (see Monographs Vol. 1, No. 2 [in
process]).

20. Extensive secondary research completed on the eating of legume leaves and
their role in traditional diets (see Monographs Vol. 1, No. 1).

21. Appropriate farming implements were developed (jointly with other groups)
suitable for an identified Host Country farming system and environment.

22. Collaboration achieved with other international agricultural programs funded
by AID and other bilateral donors.

23. CRSP-sponsored, -organized and -run workshops and short courses (i.e., BNF,
biological insect control, MSTAT) have been contributing to the professional
programs of CRSP students and the continuing education of CRSP professionals.

Details of research achievements--1983 Annual Report: Technical Summary.







ACHIEVEMENTS IN ADDRESSING CONSTRAINTS BY PROJECT


DOMINANT COFSTRAINT BTSWNA BRZL/R BRZL/B 6RZL/H 04ROON DR/C OR/L-R ECUADOR GTALA HNORAS INCAP KENYA'MALAWI MEXICO N1IA/M NGRIAR/l' SENEGA TNZNIA
fla-LIMITATIONS DUE TO PESTS
Achievement 3a 39-44
Achievement #4 130-138
Achievement 13 18-24
Achievement #14 39-44
Achievement #16 39-44
Achievement #22 18-24 39-44
Achievement #23 18-24
fIb-LIMITATIONS OUL
TO DISEASES
Achievement #3t 33-38 45-51 52-56 130-138
Achievement #4 45-51 52-56 72-76 130-138
Achievement #8 130-138
Achievement #9 52-56 72-76
Achievement #10 45-51
Achievement 11 45-51_ __ 130-138
Achievement #12 45-51
Achievement #22 33-38 45-51 52-56
#2-PLANT RESPONSE
LIMITATIONS
Achievement #2 91-99
Achievement #3a 91-99
Achievement #3b 91-99
Achievement 3d 91-99 100-108
Achievement #15 25-32
Achievement #22 25-32
Achievement #23 25-32 91-99 100-108
#-LIMITATIONS OF THE
PHYSICAL EWVIRONENT
Achievement #1 65-71
Achievement #2 120-129
Achievement #3c 86-90120-129
Achievement 3d 86-90 120-129
Achievement #4 65-71 86-90 120-129
Achievement #6 120-129
Achievement #7 86-90
Achievement #22 120-129
#4-FA41NG PRACTICES
LIMITATIONS
Achievement #2 11-17
Achievement #3d 11-17__
Achievement #4 11-17
Achievement #5 11-17
Achievement #21 11-17
Achievement #22 11-17
#5-STORAGE PROBLEMS
Achievement #3 39-44
Achievement #19 77-85
#6-PROOUCTI0N-CONSU4PT ION
ECONOMICS
Achievement #17 130-138
7-NUTRITION, F000
PREPARATION AND HEALTH
Achievement #17 109-111
Achievement 018 112-119
Achlvement #19 77.-
18-b'ULIUCLnT RURALL FACTORS --
Achievement #17 57-64 91-99 130-138
09-EDLCArION, TRAINING -O
RESEARCH CAPABILITY A L L PR 0 JEC TS


*See pages 27-28 for details.


**Refers to paqes in 1983 Technical Summary.






-30-


PROGRAM TRAINING ACHIEVEMENTS

From the beginning the CRSP has made an on-going effort to emphasize the training
of US and HC scientists prepared to work together in the international agri-
culture context. This effort is the result of a CRSP philosophy that research
capacity must be strengthened to build a long-term attack on constraints to food
availability throughout the world. While not emphasized to the same extent as
the training of HC nationals, US students are also supported under the CRSP.
These students, often in exchange arrangements to HCs, provide good counterparts
to HC students studying in the US. Frequently important potentially long-term
professional relationships evolve (some of the US and HC PIs were students
together years ago at a Title XII institution). In addition, US students are
provided invaluable learning experiences that will render them more knowledgeable
future professors of US and HC students studying in the US in subsequent years.
Thus, all is done with an eye toward what will exist after a CRSP project comes
to an end.

Strengthening HC institutions through short-term and long-term training in
informal and formal settings is encouraged by each of the CRSP's projects.
Especially encouraged is graduate-level education to help build a critical mass
of professional researchers in the Host Countries participating in this CRSP.

As a part of that effort, projects maintain a strong concern for the educational
advancement of women and, through the support of their Host Country colleagues,
are gradually being successful. The potential for human resource development is
especially significant in this program because of continuing efforts to reinforce
gender as well as national/ethnic diversity. The following charts and diagrams
show CRSP training activity over the first three years.






-31-


1983 BEAN/COWPEA CRSP TRAINING COMPONENT


OTHER DEVELOPING
HOST COUNTRY UNITED STATES COUNTRIES TOTAL

Degree* Non-Degree** Degree Non-Degree Degree Non-Degree
M F M F M F M F M F M F

BOTSWANA 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6
BRAZIL/ROBERTS 0 0 14 24 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 42
BRAZIL/BLISS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
BRAZIL/HAGEDORN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAMEROON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
DR/COYNE 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 8
DR/LOPEZ-ROSA 3 0 2 1 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 13
ECUADOR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
GUATEMALA 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 10
HONDURAS 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
INCAP 5 6 6 2 5 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 32
KENYA 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
MALAWI 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
MEXICO 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4
NIG./MARKAKIS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
NIG./MCWATTERS 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
SENEGAL 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 6 0 4 0 16
TANZANIA 2 1 4 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 12


Total 23 10 37 31 14 14 6 8 12 2 8 1 ***166


The majority of these students are enrolled in Masters or Ph.D. programs in
US institutions. In a few cases individuals are completing Bachelors
degrees prior to enrollment in graduate programs.

** Included here are programs of from a few days to nearly a year's duration
attended by students and technicians associated with the CRSP.

*** It should be noted that some degree students have also participated in
non-degree training and in these cases have been counted in each category.
While the total number of traineeships is 166, the actual number of
individuals is 149.






-32-


BEAN/COWPEA CRSP TRAINEES BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND GENDER*


CRSP
Host
Countries
60.8%


Degree Programs
US Citizen
Host Country
Other Developing
Subtotal


US Citizens
S25.3%










86.9%
Other
Developing
Countries
13.9~




Male Female Total
Funding Total Funding Total
CRSP Other CRSP Other


Countries


Non-Degree Programs
US Citizen
Host Country
Other Developing Countries
Subtotal


71 29 100


51 15 66


*Some trainees participated in degree and non-degree programs and, in these cases,
have been counted in both categories. The actual number of individuals trained is
149 (86 males and 63 females).


Total






-33-


BEAN/COWPEA CRSP STUDENT TRAINEES BY FUNDING SOURCE AND GENDER





Male
Degree and Non-Degree
100 Total


29.0%
Other Funding


'//. / /.


Female
Degree and Non-Degree
66 Total






-34-


LINKAGES WITH INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS (IARCs)

From the beginning, when the heads of the respective legume programs at CIAT and
IITA were invited to participate in CRSP planning (i.e., Peter Graham and sub-
sequently Aart van Schoonhoven from CIAT; Peter Goldsworthy and subsequently Shiv
Singh from IITA), CRSP and IARC scientists have maintained collegial professional
relationships which in many cases predated the birth of the CRSP. These
relationships have, in most cases, grown to the mutual advantage of both groups.
Examples of the relationships are as follows:

1. The heads of the legume programs of the cooperating IARCs alternate on the
Technical Committee (Shiv Singh of IITA and Aart van Schoonhoven of CIAT).

2. IARC scientists have taken sabbatical leaves to study with senior CRSP
scientists and CRSP scientists have spent their sabbaticals at the IARCs
(i.e., CIAT's Steve Temple to Wisconsin; IITA's Earl Watt to Michigan State
University; CRSP's Matt Silbernagel to CIAT).

3. CRSP graduate students (i.e., Paul Gniffke from Cornell) and trainees (i.e.,
Betty Gondwe from Tanzania) trained and conducted research at IARCs. The
CRSP has sponsored several such trainees. IARC-trained graduates (i.e.,
Moffi Ta'Ama) have found positions in CRSP projects.

4. IARC plant material is included among lines in CRSP trials (i.e., Dominican
Republic) and among the material evaluated in the CRSP food science research
(i.e., INCAP).

5. Conversely, CRSP material has been used by CIAT and additional lines have
been requested and are being furnished to IARCs by CRSP teams (i.e.,
Kenya/University of California tepary crosses).

6. CRSP and CIAT cooperate in agronomic and varietal on-farm research such as
presently being planned in Honduras.

7. The CRSP and CIAT have worked together sponsoring important joint profes-
sional meetings such as the Rust Workshop held in 1983 in the Dominican
Republic. At this meeting, international leaders in rust research reached
agreement on new evaluation criteria and labels to be used worldwide as the
standard in rust evaluation trials.

8. The CRSP and IITA are co-sponsoring a Worldwide Cowpea Conference in November
of 1984 in Ibadan, Nigeria.

These cooperative efforts evolved as mutual advantage was perceived by the
respective units. The MOUs between the CRSP and the IARCs demonstrate the extent
to which both groups are concerned that duplication is held to a minimum, com-
plementarity is enhanced and our respective resources are used as efficiently and
appropriately as possible to increase the availability of beans and cowpeas in
the food deficient areas of the world.






-36-


PROJECT EVALUATIONS AND REVIEW PROFILES


EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL EVALUATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP

At the Annual Meeting of the ERP, the progress reports of the projects and site
reviews were discussed at length and evaluated. A summary is presented here.
Project Evaluation Scales
Each project was assessed in seven categories related to the review issues
agreed upon at the beginning of the process. The categories are:

1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
1.1 Host Country 2.1 Host Country
1.2 United States 2.2 United States
1.3 AID 2.3 Collaboration
1.4 Interaction

3. Project Progress
3.1 Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities
3.2 Achievement of Natural Science Objectives
3.3 Achievement of Social Science Objectives
3.4 Achievement of Training Objectives
3.5 Publications/Information Dissemination
3.6 Food and Nutritional Component
3.7 Consideration of Women in Development (WID) Issues
3.8 Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers
3.9 Contribution to Development in the Host Country

4. Linkages 5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
4.1 Host Country (See complete 1983 ERP Report)
4.2 AID Projects 6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations
4.3 International 7. Overall Recommendation Rating

The items within the categories were assessed using the scales presented below.

Overall Rating: General performance was considered with projects receiving one
of three recommendations: #1 continuation with no major changes, #2
continuation with some changes recommended and #3 continuation only with
identified changes.

Five-Point Evaluation Scale (for items 1-3.8, 4 and 6): Within a project each
category was judged to be Exceptional (E), Highly Satisfactory (HS),
Satisfactory (S), Less than Satisfactory (LS) and Unacceptable (UA). In
some cases a specific criterion was not applicable and thus was rated Not
Applicable (NA).

Contribution to Development in the Host Country (for item 3.9): Evolving
development potential was evaluated on the basic of Limited (L), Potentially
Limited (PL), Potentially Important (Pol), Potentially Useful (PU), Already
Important (AI), Highly Promising (HP), Long-Term Potential (LTP) and
Beginning to Show Potential Worldwide Significance (WW).

Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiences (for Item 5): Brief descriptive
statements included in texts of Project Evaluation Profiles are presented in
the complete 1983 ERP Report.






-36-


PROJECT EVALUATIONS AND REVIEW PROFILES


EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL EVALUATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP

At the Annual Meeting of the ERP, the progress reports of the projects and site
reviews were discussed at length and evaluated. A summary is presented here.
Project Evaluation Scales
Each project was assessed in seven categories related to the review issues
agreed upon at the beginning of the process. The categories are:

1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
1.1 Host Country 2.1 Host Country
1.2 United States 2.2 United States
1.3 AID 2.3 Collaboration
1.4 Interaction

3. Project Progress
3.1 Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities
3.2 Achievement of Natural Science Objectives
3.3 Achievement of Social Science Objectives
3.4 Achievement of Training Objectives
3.5 Publications/Information Dissemination
3.6 Food and Nutritional Component
3.7 Consideration of Women in Development (WID) Issues
3.8 Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers
3.9 Contribution to Development in the Host Country

4. Linkages 5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
4.1 Host Country (See complete 1983 ERP Report)
4.2 AID Projects 6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations
4.3 International 7. Overall Recommendation Rating

The items within the categories were assessed using the scales presented below.

Overall Rating: General performance was considered with projects receiving one
of three recommendations: #1 continuation with no major changes, #2
continuation with some changes recommended and #3 continuation only with
identified changes.

Five-Point Evaluation Scale (for items 1-3.8, 4 and 6): Within a project each
category was judged to be Exceptional (E), Highly Satisfactory (HS),
Satisfactory (S), Less than Satisfactory (LS) and Unacceptable (UA). In
some cases a specific criterion was not applicable and thus was rated Not
Applicable (NA).

Contribution to Development in the Host Country (for item 3.9): Evolving
development potential was evaluated on the basic of Limited (L), Potentially
Limited (PL), Potentially Important (Pol), Potentially Useful (PU), Already
Important (AI), Highly Promising (HP), Long-Term Potential (LTP) and
Beginning to Show Potential Worldwide Significance (WW).

Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiences (for Item 5): Brief descriptive
statements included in texts of Project Evaluation Profiles are presented in
the complete 1983 ERP Report.







1 983 EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL EVALUATION PROFILES


ADMINISTRATIVE


1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4


BOTSWANA
BRAZIL/ROBERTS
BRAZIL/BLISS


HS HS
S HS
HS HS


S S
S S
S S


TECHNICAL


2.1 2.2 2.3


LS HS
LS HS
LS E


S
LS
HS


PROGRESS


3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9


S E LS HS S NA S HS Pol
HS E NA S S NA S HS PU
HS E NA HS HS NA LS S Pol


RESPONSE
LINKAGES TO ERP RATING*


4.1 4.2 4.3


E LS HS
S NA HS
E NA HS


7


BRAZIL/HAGEDORN S LS S UA LS HS UA S LS NA LS NA NA LS NA L S NA LS UA 3
CAMEROON LS LS S LS UA HS LS HS HS NA LS S NA LS S PoI S S S UA 3
DR/COYNE S HS HS HS HS HS E S HS S HS HS NA HS S PoI S NA S HS 1
DR/L6PEZ-ROSA S HS HS E HS HS E S HS S HS HS NA HS HS AI S NA S HS 1
ECUADOR S S HS HS S S HS LS S HS LS S S HS HS HP HS S S HS 2
GUATEMALA HS S S S HS HS/UA HS LS E UA S S LS LS HS WW S S HS S 2
HONDURAS LS S S LS LS S LS S S LS S S NA UA S Pol S S S S 3
INCAP S S S S E HS S S HS S S S HS LS S PoI S S HS HS 1
KENYA UA LS S LS S HS LS S S NA S S NA S S PU S S S LS 3
MALAWI S S S S HS HS HS HS HS HS HS S S HS HS LTP HS S S NA 1
MEXICO HS HS NA HS HS HS HS S HS NA S S NA S HS PoI S NA S NA 1
NIGERIA/MARKAKIS S S S S S S LS S S S S LS S S S PoI UA NA S S 2
NIGERIA/MC WATTERS HS S S S HS HS LS S HS LS S HS HS S S Pol LS NA S S 2
SENEGAL HS HS HS HS HS HS E S HS NA HS HS NA S HS AI HS HS HS NA 1
TANZANIA S HS S S S HS HS S S HS HS S S HS HS PoI HS S S NA 1
KEY:


E Exceptional UA Unacceptable PU Potentially Useful
HS Highly Satisfactory NA Not Applicable PoI Potentially Important
S Satisfactory L Limited AI Already Important
LS Less Than Satisfactory PL Potentially Limited HP Highly Promising


LTP Long-Term Potential
WW Worldwide


*See text of individual project profiles for clarification of additional issues considered in this evaluation.


_~____________;_I_ ______ _______^______ __ _1_


SUMMARY






-38-


SUMMARY OF ERP RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOWUP


PROJECT RECOMMENDATION BY ERP--1983 ACTIONS TAKEN


BOTSWANA/CSU






BRAZIL/BTI



BRAZIL/BLISS




BRAZIL/
HAGEDORN



















CAMEROON/UGA


Coordination with USAID-supported
Agricultural Technology Improve-
ment Program needs to be improved.
Training initiatives need to be
intensified. Development of social
science component has been slow.

Lack of a HC PI who is a working
researcher inhibits the full in-
stitutionalization of the project.

Post-graduate training needs to
be increased. Women should be
more directly involved in the
project research and training.

Brazil needs to designate a HC PI
prepared to contribute directly to
research objective of project. A
technical assessment is required
of the relationship of the project
to the overall program of CNPAF
with attention to existing work on
varietal development. An assess-
ment needs to be made of the meth-
odology, its appropriateness and
likely effectiveness in Brazil.
A small group of disciplinary
peers should be identified to
assess present research strategy.







HC PI needs to be provided by the
Government of Cameroon within an
arrangement that will provide
training for personnel and move
toward the institutionalization
of the research. In the US some
public relations work may be in
order.


Issues have been communicated
to US PI. Further discussions
will be held while US team
is on home leave in US in
summer of 1984.


A HC PI who is a working re-
searcher has been identified
(Mr. Bonifacio Magalhaes).

Studies are in process to ad-
dress these problems.



New peer panel identified.
Wisconsin administrator and MO
director joined Pathologist's
Review Panel (PRP)for on-site
visit to assess the project
from disciplinary perspective.
With PRP report TC reviewed
project again. New US PI (Dr.
Douglas Maxwell) has been
named. Broader institutional-
ization of project at Wiscon-
sin. Dr. Almiro Blumenschein
(CNPAF Director) visited US
and new work plan was devel-
oped focusing on simultaneous
inoculation, general resis-
tance, etc. Dr. Blumenschein
reaffirmed project commitment
and new direction at BOD
presentation.

HC PI has been named (Mr.
Zachee Boli Baboule). New HC
PI and AID Mission Director
invited to US institutions for
discussion of work plan and
budget. Broader institution-
alization of project at Georgia
with participation of addi-
tional researchers and admin-
istrative support.






-39-


PROJECT RECOMMENDATION BY ERP--1983 ACTIONS TAKEN


DOM. REP./
UNE






DOM. REP./
UPR

ECUADOR/COR







GUATEMALA/
COR




HONDURAS/UPR








INCAP/WSU





KENYA/UCD


A comprehensive graduate training
plan should be constructed which
lays out (1) a broader array of
disciplines which can contribute
to the national bean research pro-
gram and (2) opportunities for the
professional advancement of DR women

There is a serious need for more
training in plant breeding.

Weaknesses must be corrected in
(1) the project's Logical Framework
(2) the training component and
(3) failure to have yet identified
the technical personnel it had
planned to place in Ecuador.


Progress with respect to socio-
logical objectives is unacceptable.
Requires implementation or atten-
tion to procedures for adjusting
project objectives.

High turnover of HC PIs and inade-
quate HC institutionalization are
weaknesses which have compromised
the value of the project. Greater
US collaboration with HC needed.




Contributions and coordination
among the five US institutions,
particularly the cost effective-
ness of the current arrangement,
needs to be assessed.

The approaches being used to assess
drought tolerance should be re-
viewed by TC. Level of project
activities and accomplishments by
HC in relation to level of finan-
cial support used should also be
reviewed by TC. HC financial
reporting to UCD is unsatisfactory.


Studies are in process to
address these problems.






Activities in process to
address this problem.

The project Log Frame is being
updated. An agronomist (Wesley
Kline) and sociologist (Dr.
Kris Merschrod) have been named
and will begin work in HC im-
mediately. Training component
weaknesses are being studied.

Broader institutionalization of
project at Cornell. New soci-
ologist (Dr. Harold Capener)
named to address ERP issues.


New HC PI has been named (Mr.
Rafael Diaz). Director of HC
institution (EAP) attended May
'84 BOD meeting and reaffirmed
commitment to project. Prev-
ious HC contributions now
recognized. New US PI named
(Dr. James Beaver).

US PI has increased level of
communication with partici-
pants. Special attention being
paid to coordinating research
objectives and procedures.

US PI and MO finance officer
joined project team for on-site
review and meeting. Univ. of
Nairobi controller has supplied
all financial reports. New
fiscal procedures in place with
UN controller in charge of all
finances. New HC PI named
(Dr. David Ngugi). Dr. Ngugi
visited UCD and developed new
plan of work, which reorganizes






-40-


PROJECT RECOMMENDATION BY ERP--1983 ACTIONS TAKEN


MALAWI/MSU



MEXICO/MSU








NIGERIA/MSU









NIGERIA/UGA





SENEGAL/UCR





TANZANIA/WSU


KENYA/UCD
(continued)


HC team and responsibilities.
Dr. Ngugi attended BOD meeting
to discuss new arrangements.
TC reviewed new project draft
plan of work.

First report now available.
More work in process to address
this issue.

Activities are in process to
address these problems. Help
of AID representative sought.






Activities to address these
problems are in process.
Closer links with other proj-
ects are being developed.
Structural problems within
Nigeria inhibit communication.
Greater resources may be re-
quired to maintain required
level of communication.

Socio-economic surveys will be
expanded. Closer links between
the two Nigerian projects are
being developed. Joint
meeting for November 1984.

Activities are in process to
address these problems. TC
requested ERP evaluation of
Arizona project.


Activities are in process to
address these problems. US
researcher to go to Tanzania
being sought.


Needs better Agronomic/Social
Science integration.


Lack of trained personnel at the
Ph.D. level for the breeding and
physiology research at Durango.
Lack of adequate laboratory and
greenhouse facilities to supplement
field plot research at Durango.
Limited involvement of HC women
researchers.

Training component needs strength-
ening. Domestic and international
linkages, including those with
other CRSP projects, need to be
improved. Communication between
US and HC needs improvement.




Sociological component needs im-
provement. Special attention
should be given to building
stronger links between the two
Nigeria projects.

Graduate degree training, espe-
cially for women, is limited and
should be intensified to include
training in the US. Cooperation
from Univ. of Arizona is weak.

Absence on HC side of any person
who devotes more than 20% to the
CRSP leading the day-to-day work
of the group is a weakness. Poor
linkages in HC between the agri-
cultural and social sciences.
Physical facilities and organiza-
tion for managing and conserving
the genetic resource material
need to be developed.






-41-


PROJECT RECOMMENDATION BY ERP--1983 ACTIONS TAKEN


MANAGEMENT
OFFICE
























PROGRAM
EVALUATION


(1) An early warning system, appro- These recommendations are in
private to the model, needs to be set the process of being
up so that MO identification of poten- implemented.
tial problems and better communication
between US and HC PIs are facilitated.
(2) An open line of communication among
all CRSP components should be maintained.
(3) Attention should be directed to
building a stronger sense of community
across projects within the CRSP. This
includes: research-sharing workshops;
sharing publications; increasing the
dissemination of CRSP information
through publications which are made
available to US and HC participants;
adding publications listings to Pulse
Beat, the CRSP newsletter; involving
HC graduate students in more cross-
project activities which will encourage
them to continue working with the CRSP
projects when they return home.
(4) More open communication with the
CGIAR system should be established.
Existing cooperation with IARCs
should be strengthened.

(1) The CRSP collegial and financial These recommendations are in
activity may alter the balance of the process of being
priorities within HCs, not in their addressed.
own best interest. (2) Collaboration
with other overseas development programs
and agricultural research efforts is in-
adequate. Especially important is coop-
eration with other US bilateral efforts
within the same HCs. (3) Economic anal-
yses of production systems and the acqui-
sition of baseline data are lagging behind
biological research. (4) Linkages with
other development agencies and institutions
in the HCs such as extension are weak.
Dissemination of research findings therefore
is likely to be poor. (5) Some HC PIs are
administrators rather than working re-
searchers. While administrative support
is critical to project success, having a PI
who is an administrator inhibits the pro-
gress of the actual research, the building
of professional collegial relationships
among peers and the institutionalization of
the project research at the operational
level.






-42-


BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXTENSION EVALUATIONS

On May 10, 1984 the BOD reviewed the eighteen CRSP projects, considering the
appropriateness of each for a three-year extension beyond the initial five-year
period. Utilizing all documentation, the BOD members engaged in lengthy
discussions of the information available as follows:

1. Progress reports by individual projects.

2. ERP evaluations and recommendations.

3. TC review and recommendations.

4. Reports from MO, lead institutions' and HC institutions' actions taken in
response to those recommendations.

5. Current and projected status of each project based on the resolutions
accomplished.

General performance, importance of the research to the CRSP Global Plan and
current potential for making the promised contribution as a result of the recent
changes were issues receiving particular attention in those projects previously
judged as less than satisfactory by the ERP.


BOD Rating Scale:

1 The project is making important contributions to the CRSP goals and is
therefore appropriate for extension.

2 The project has potential importance for the CRSP goal but is appropriate
for extension only if, after one year, the major changes made result in
significant progress.

3 The project is inappropriate for extension beyond the original commitment.









SUMMARY 1983 BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXTENSION RATING


Comments Rating
BOTSWANA Interest expressed in monitoring project strengthening as identified by ERP. 1
BRAZIL/ROBERTS Planned change important and will be monitored for effectiveness. 1
BRAZIL/BLISS Service role in CRSP significant. 1
BRAZIL/HAGEDORN Significant changes, indicated by ERP, PRP and TC and made as a result of commitment and 2
great effort on parts of US and HC administrators, are impressive.
CAMEROON Identification of HC PI plus greater institutionalization of this project within UGA may 2
have addressed concerns identified by ERP.
DOM. REP./COYNE This project will provide important foundation for disease research in several projects. 1
DR/LOPEZ-ROSA Existing level of coordination should magnify the contributions from this group. 1
ECUADOR Sociologist and agronomist on site are expected to move project forward rapidly. 2
GUATEMALA Initiation of socio-agronomic research planned FY 84 is expected to bring this component 2
more closely in line with successful agronomic component.
HONDURAS Identification of HC PI and clarification of significant HC contributions give promise of 2
rapid movement in objectives. Reports of farmers already growing the new lines impressive.
INCAP Improved coordination/communications among project researchers, service role in CRSP significant. 1
KENYA All ERP-identified problems vigorously addressed by changes in HC PI, financial reporting, 2
improvements in research design and new plan of work. US and HC administrative efforts
suggest project turn-around.
MALAWI Important contribution to CRSP anticipated. 1
MEXICO Important contribution to CRSP anticipated. 1
NIGERIA/MARKAKIS New HC PI anticipated will move research more quickly. Promised closer cooperation and 2
improved communications among researchers will be monitored for effectiveness.
NIGERIA/MCWATTERS Important contribution to CRSP goal evolving. 1
SENEGAL Important contribution to CRSP goal evolving. 1
TANZANIA Important contribution to CRSP goal evolving. 1






-44-


COUNTRY RESEARCH PROJECT REVIEW PROFILES

The following pages present for each of the eighteen projects, a one-sheet
profile which gives a brief overview of the important information on goals,
achievements, evaluations and problem resolutions. These Project Review
Profiles are useful as a quick summary of project flow.

The Profiles presented here present both the success stories as well as the CRSP
projects that have received a less-than-satisfactory evaluation. Brief
statements of what major changes have been made demonstrate (1) the level of
response to the evaluations and (2) the extent of efforts made to maintain the
viability and integrity of the original research objectives still judged by the
TC, BOD and ERP to be important for the achievement of CRSP goals. The Board
Rating for project extension based on the prior resolution activity concludes
each sheet.

Thus for each project, information is given as follows:

Goal

Description

Role in Global Plan

Achievements

Contributions
To HC
To US

Major Problems as Identified by ERP
ERP Rating

Actions Taken

Resolution

Subsequent BOD Extension Rating

Following each Project Review Profile is the project's Logical Framework.






-45-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

BOTSWANA COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated July 1982) COWPEAS
deMooy


DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED COWPEA PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN SEMIARID BOTSWANA

GOAL: Provide small farmers with an acceptable package of integrated practices
for cowpea growing and harvesting including improved varieties and
implementation as required to realize increased yields.

DESCRIPTION: This project adopts a comprehensive cropping systems approach to
improving yields. Attention is given to tillage practices, planting
practices and moisture conservation as well as variety testing, cultural
practices and harvesting techniques. A senior and a junior expatriate
researcher have been in place in Botswana although the latter will return
to the US for graduate work in the fifth year of the CRSP.

ROLE IN GLOBAL PLAN: This is the major comprehensive cropping systems project.
Dominant constraint #4 (farming practices limitations).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
1. A newly introduced variety, surpassing the nationally recognized
variety in yields, has been accepted for release by the Botswana
Ministry of Agriculture (MAG).
2. A cowpea germplasm collection was established, seeds available upon
request. A Botswana Cowpea Germplasm Catalog, with a description of
180 local varieties, is being published by the MAG and a second
volume is in preparation.
3. A once-over cultivating/planting procedure for minimum tillage
implements and reduction in draft animal power is being designed.
Demonstration plots on farmers' fields were arranged.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--Making a unique contribution to production practices, intercropping
systems and harvesting techniques, the project will contribute
practical solutions to the problems of low yield characteristic of
small farms.
To US--Some of the problems characteristic of cowpea production in
Botswana, such as soil crust formation, are characteristic of semiarid
zones in the US and elsewhere in the world, hence an investigation of
these issues has potential widespread ramifications. In addition, the
cowpea germplasm collection is a valuable resource to US agriculture.

MAJOR PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 1): None. However, US PI in Botswana
needs to coordinate better with AID Farming Sytems Project there.

ACTIONS TAKEN: This issue communicated to US PI. Further discussions to be
held while team is on home leave in US summer 1984.

RESOLUTION:
1. Better in-country coordination in process.
2. Expanded plant screening activities being initiated, with breeding
assistance identified.
3. HC PI will be in place after completion of graduate program.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 1.












LOr FPAi.E COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY,' BPTSiArNA
June 1, 1983


Objectively Verifiable Means of Verification
indicators


Narrative Summary


Program or Sector Goals:
Increase in yield per ha and yield
stability of cowpeas under specific
semi-arid conditions






Increased returns in cowpea production
per unit of labor and/ or financial input
on sample farms.


Measures of Achievement:
Yields consistently in
excess of base line
survey records.







Greater production per
farm family unit compa-
red with previous stat-
istical records.


Assur:zicns for Goal Achievement:
Means of field trials for Minimu; of 3 years of project
certain regions under various operation.
seasonal conditions compared Continuing field support from
with standard varieties and DAR and USAID.
traditional productionmethods.Sufficient level of interest
from GCB Agricultural Field
Services personnel in various
regicns of the country.
Base line survey data exist or
will be made available.
Socio-economic data recorded Small farmers willing to follow
for cooperating farmers in up on agricultural extension
field trials. recorrendatic-s and interested
in prcgressir; beyond minimum
subsistence p eduction.


Project Purpose: Conditions Indicating
1. Identification of constraints in cowpea Project Achievement:
production process stemming from a combi- Packages of improved
nation of: tillage/ cultivation, planting,cultural practices adept.
spacing, and intercropping practices, ed to specific sets of
choice of variety, draft power supply, environmental or socio-
insect and disease infestation, harvesting, economic conditions.
threshing, storage, labor or other resource
input factors.
2. Finding solutions for constraints. Acceptance of project
3. Testing of solutions for acceptability recommendations by more
in farmers' fields. than one-half of the
4. Institutionalization of research farmers in sample having
techniques and capacity. identified constraints.


Results of experiments.
Published reports.


Assumptions for Project
Achievement:
Continuation of H.C. administra-
tive and technical support


Survey of rate of acceptance Continued interest of farmers
of recommended practices by to cooperate with project.
cooperating farmers and their Participation of Agricultural
neighbors. Field Services regional staff
and Farming Systems groups.


Project Outputs:
1. Selection of HYV from local and internat-
ional germplasm collection and trials;
better adapted varieties than those
presently grown.


Magnitude of Outputs:
Number of varieties
identified, quantities
of seed produced.


Consistent superior perform-
ance of introduced varieties
in regional field trials.'
Amount of seed produced by
Seed Multiplication Unit.


Output Assumptions:
Continued cooperation with
IITA and SAFGRAD Research
Centers.


Assumr.tions















LOG FRAME (cont.)

Narrative Summary


Objectively Verifiable Means of Verification
Indicators


Assumptions


2. Packages of cultural practices for higher Variety of situations Measured and recorded obser- Cooperationwith EFSAIP in
production/ha ,and yield stability through covered by improved vations in field trials on development of appropriate
better stands, insect and weed control and practices adequate to Agricultural Research Stat- tillage/planting implements.
other cultural practices for specific envi- make substantial prog- ion, Outlying Research Appointment of active cowpea
ronments, socio-economic resource levels, ress over current Farms, and privately owned researcher as H.C. professio-
and type of draft power availability. status, farms. nal counterpart.
3. Faster methods of harvesting, threshing, Economic returns. Recorded comparisons of Presence of suitable cowpea
and winnowing with greater returns per harvesting, threshing, and lines in germplasm collection
unit labor. winnowing labor and time,
using hand labor or machine.
4. Training of H.C. research personnel Number of H.C. person- Same H.C. students capable of
at MS degree level at U.S. university nel trained and remain- fulfilling academic require-
for cowpea research career. ing involved in cowpea ments at U.S. university.
research.

Project Inputs: Current project roster Project files containing The negotiated project
1. CSU research personnel in H.C: for personnel involve- progress reports, annual input resources to be
U.e Project Leader, 2 graduate students ment. reports, official corres- sustained throughout life
on continuing basis, 1 P.C.volunteer Availability of input pondance and memo's, project of project.
agronomist. resources recorded in expense accounting. All positions on the project
2. CSU personnel on carpus: progress reports. filled within reasonable ti-e
Progr-a administrator and part-time
technical backstop.
3. H.C. research personnel:
H.C.Project Leader, 2 graduate students
on continuing basis. 1 Technical Assistant,
1/4 time R.O. in entomology and two 1/4 time
assistants, 1/4 time R.O. in phytopathology
and two 1/4 time assistants, clerical
support and supplies.
4. H.C. administrative support:
Program administrator.
5. DPR office/ laboratory facilities,
suitable land & research facilities,
equipment and materials, vehicle for
official transportation.






-49-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

BRAZIL BOYCE THOMPSON INSTITUTE (Initiated October 1981) COWPEAS
Roberts


INSECT PATHOGENS IN COWPEA PEST MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPING NATIONS

GOAL: Develop insect pathogens as pest management tools compatible with other
insect control practices for small farms.

DESCRIPTION: This project is advancing technology for biological insect control
in small farmer cowpea production. Short-term training courses in insect
pathology have generated considerable interest. An expatriate scientist
is in place in Brazil (Dr. Richard Daoust).

ROLE IN GLOBAL PLAN: This is the only CRSP project directed totally to
biological control of insects. Dominant constraint #1 (limitations due
to pests).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
1. More than one hundred fungal isolates have been identified in Brazil
and many have been evaluated in the laboratory.
2. Methods for fungal mass production and bioassay have been developed
and refinements of insect-rearing methods have made some cowpea
insect species available for pathology and non-pathology studies.
3. Short courses in insect pathology have been held in Goiania, Brazil
to provide an overview of the current status of microbial control and
to demonstrate simple techniques in laboratory sessions.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--This project will directly benefit Brazil through the development
of cowpea pest microbial control agents that can be produced
in-country and can be used by small farmers.
To US--Fungal isolates from Brazil have been distributed to interested
scientists in the US for possible use as insect control agents.
Methods for fungal mass production and bioassay are directly
applicable to other studies of entomopathogenic fungi worldwide.

MAJOR PROBLEMS AS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 2): None. However, the ERP was
concerned about the absence of a HC PI in Brazil who is a working
researcher.

ACTIONS TAKEN: Regular trips to Brazil by the senior US PI support effective
communication and provide necessary research materials.

RESOLUTION:
1. HC PI, who is a working researcher, was established (Mr. Bonifacio
Magalhaes).
2. The possibility of extending the work to include insect pathogens of
beans will be explored.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 1 (with planned changes).













Hra: ll/Boyce Thompson itlstitute/Roberts


Log FramIe Matrix


Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions


Jutputs:
(1) Isolation, taxonomic
determination, and screening
of candidate microbial
control agents.

(2) Identification and small
scale production of effica-
clous pathogens.

() Development of cost
effective, low technology,
nass production and formu-
lation methodologies.

(4) Development of
operational field applica-
tion and/or introduction
strategies (including rates,
timing, and integration
ith other control
methods).

(5) IPRC and working
data base established,
maintained, and operated
by trained insect patho-
logists.


Magnitude of Outputs:
(1) A number of promising
microbial control candidates
are found which show potential
for control of important cowpea
pests.

(2) Small and large scale test
plot applications are carried
out and result in significant
reductions in target insect
pest populations.

(3) Sufficient quality is
produced to meet demands of
operational control pro-
grams.

(4) Field applications or
introduction result in signifi-
cant reductions in insect pest
numbers thereby reducing
crop damage and producing
significant yield and quality
increases.

(5) High quality program of on-
going research in the fields
of insect pathology and micro-
bial control established and
maintained by Brasilian scien-
tists.


(1) Data will be obtained from
laboratory screening of microbes
obtained from pathogen surveys in
Brasil and elsewhere. Tests will
utilize colonies of important
cowpea pest insects established
at IPRC (Brasll and Boyce
Thompson Institute).

(2) Data will be obtained from
replicated insect control trials.

(3) Control programs are carried
out.

(4) Data will be obtained from
replicated yield and insect con-
trol trials and from surveys of
small farms where microbial
control methods are applied.

(5) Published papers and reports.


(1) Promising pathogens will be
found and isolated.

(2) Efficacious pathogens will
be discovered.

(3) Efficacious pathogens are
economically mass reproducible by
subsistence farmers or grower
associations.

(4)
a) Effective Insect pett control
can be achieved under the conditions
of large scale, operational control
programs.
b) Small farmers are able and inter-
ested in working with technical exten-
sion personnel.
c) Continued enthusiastic and effec-
tive technical and administrative
leadership in Brasil.

(5) Training of students and
technical staff is continued and
excellence in scholarship is encour-
aged.














Brazil/Boyce Thompson Institute/Roberts


Log Frame Matrix


Narrative Summary


Dbjectively Verifiable Indicators


Means of Verification


I I i I1


Inputs:
(1) Insect Pathology
Resource Center, Boyce
Thompson Institute, USA.
Project leader/principal
investigator, co-princi-
pal investigator, re-
search associate (residing
in Brasil), postdoctoral
fellow, technical personnel,
office, laboratory, green-
house, and insect rearing
facilities, field test
plots, project vehicle
(assigned to Brasil), and
equipment and supplies.

(2) CNPAF/EMBRAPA, Brasil.
Corresponding principal
investigator, three co-
investigators, technical
personnel, student and
scientist trainees, office,
laboratory, greenhouse,
and insect rearing facil-
ities, and field plots,
equipment, and labor.


Inspection of current project
roster to verify continued
personnel involvement, and
examination of annual reports
to determine if facilities
and other listed resources
have been available to the
project.


Annual project, budget, and trip
reports.


Important Assumptions


(a) The present AID/USA and host
country institution financial con-
tributions are sustained at the
planned level.

(b) The positions listed under
inputs in USA and host country will
be sustained.

(c) Administrative support will be
sustained.

(d) Student and scientist trainees
will be available/involved in the
project.

(e) Facilities, resources, services
and equipment listed under inputs
will remain available and in working
condition.


_ _ -145_ _ _






-53-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

BRAZIL UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN (Initiated February 1982) BEANS
Bliss


IDENTIFICATION OF SUPERIOR BEAN-RHIZOBIA COMBINATIONS FOR UTILIZATION
IN CROPPING SYSTEMS SUITABLE TO SMALL FARMS IN BRAZIL


GOAL: To develop superior
superior strains of
bean-maize cropping


N2 fixing cultivars that in association with
R. phaseoli produce high yields under bean-only and
systems without supplemental nitrogen fertilizers.


DESCRIPTION: The focus has been on identifying and field testing black bean
breeding lines with high biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) and on
developing methods to transfer characters favoring enhanced BNF into
standard cultivars. An expatriate scientist is in place in Brazil (Dr.
Robert Henson).

ROLE IN GLOBAL PLAN: This is one of only two bean projects which have BNF
enhancement as a major focus. The HC provides some unique ecology for
this work. Dominant constraint #2 (plant response limitations).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
1. Black bean breeding lines with potential for enhanced BNF (UW 22-34)
ready to be entered into regional trials.
2. Breeding methods facilitating transfer of enhanced BNF characters are
available for immediate use and improved methods of inoculation are
being developed.
3. Information on the effects of mixed cropping on bean plant BNF is
being gathered and isolates of Rhizobium phaseoli selected for
superior competitive ability and BNF potential have been obtained.
4. A BNF Student Trainee Workshop was held at the University of
Wisconsin, July 18-20, 1983 with fourteen students from developing
countries in attendance.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--Given the often prohibitive cost of nitrogen fertilizer for small
farmers, the development of improved cultivars that incorporate high
N2 fixation represents an efficient means of increasing yields.
To US--Success of this project will allow US bean breeders to obtain
breeding lines with enhanced BNF potential, thus considerably
reducing fertilizer N2 requirements.

MAJOR PROBLEMS AS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 1): None.

ACTIONS TAKEN: None required.

RESOLUTION:
1. The HC PI will return to CNPAF after completion of an M.S. program.
2. Sponsorship of workshops will continue stressing methodology in
breeding and improving field performance of beans inoculated with
rhizobia.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 1.

















Log framework Matrix University of Wisconsin/Brazil N2-Fixation/Bliss
July, 1982


Narrative Summary


Program or Sector Goal:

Increase production of dry beans
available to small/subsistence
farmers.


Project Purpose:
(1) Increase dry bean produc-
tion on nitrogen-poor soils
-ithout reliance on chemical
fertilizer
(2) Develop methods that allow
plant breeders to incorpo-
rate selection for N2-
fixation into improvement
programs.
(3) To educate/train Brazilian
scientists in plant breed-
ing and rhizobiology.
(4) To elucidate the plant/
rhizobia and ecological
factors that limit and/or
enhance N2-fixation.


Objectively Verifiable
indicators


Means of Verification


-L _______________________________________


Measure of Goal Achievements

Yields of dry beans on small
farms with low nitrogen soils
will increase without use of N
fertilizer. Improved breeding
lines will be released by 1988.


Conditions that will indicate
purpose has been achieved:
(1) Incorporation of enhanced
BNF traits into Brazilian
regional cultivars, e.g.
blacks, carioca, whites,
canario will lead to
increased yields on low N
fields.
(2) Other bean breeders in Bean/
cowpea CRSP and National
programs select for enhanced
BNF.
(3) Brazilian students begin
advanced training.


(1) Comparisons of yields of new
cultivars with old cultivars
on small farms with low soil
N.
(2) Improvement of other bean
lines in National program,
Bean/cowpea CRSP projects,
CIAT etc. for BNF.
(3) Improved availability of
food beans to small farmers


(1) Demonstration of value of
enhanced BNF in improved
cultivars in trials at
experiment stations and
demonstration plots and on
small farms.
(2) Use of cultural practices/
new cultivars to enhance BNF.
(3) Brazilian students complete
training.


SImportant Assumptions


Assumptions for achieving
goal targets:
(1) Needs for dry beans
produced on snail farms
with increase or remain
the same.
(2) Beans will continue to
be produced on poor
soils.
(3) Cost of N fertilizer
will increase or
remain high.
(4) Incentives for bean
production are positive
(5) Continuing market at
attractive prices
remains.


-------------I. _______------- ____


Assumptions for achieving
purpose:
(1) Low soil N fertility
continues to be a
major problem.
(2) Other limiting factors
e.g. pest resistance
are minimized by other
research.
(3) Effective interaction
between CRSP components
continues.
(4) Budget becomes more
predictable.

















Outputs:

(1) Identification of new plant
with enhanced BNF potential.
(2) Production of new breeding
lines and cultivars with
enhanced BNF potential and
adapted to Brazil.
(3) New methodology to allow
bean breeders to select
routinely for enhanced BNF.
(4) Improved knowledge of
agronomic/ecological factors
that reduce/increase E:NF
under small farm conditions
(5) Brazilian breeders/micro-
biologists trained in N2-
fixation research.


Inouts:

(1) Univ. of Wisconsin.
Project leader/Principal
Investigator. Lab, green-
house, fields.
Research Associate in resi-
dence in Brazil
(2) Michigan State Univ.
Project sub-principal
investigator, labs.
(3) CNPAF, Brazil.
H.C. Principal Investigator.
National program personnel.
Support for student trainee
(1983-1986).
Office, lab, research
facilities, transportation
in Brazil. Cooperation
with other BNF researchers
and extension personnel.


Magnitude of outputs:
(1) Yields of new cultivars
without added N fertilizer
are 90% of old cultivars
with added N fertilizer.
(2) Reduced amounts of N ferti-
lizer required for bean
production.
(3) Cultural practices for
intercropping are developed
that enhance BNF and yields
of beans grown with corn.
(4) Complete training of
Brazilian students.


(1) Yield and production data
obtained from trials demon-
stration plots, farmers
fields to show superiority
of new lines over standard
cultivars.
(2) Comparison to baseline data.


Use of project reports, budgets, Annual Project Budget and trip
etc. to determine ongoing input, reports.


Output Assumptions:

(1) Continued enthusiastic
and effective coopera-
tion between U.S. and
Host country personnel.
(2) Interest in cooperation
by/with small farmers.
(3) Interchange with
breeders/agronomists
at CN?AF and within
CRSP continue.


Input Assumptions:
(1) AID/U.S. and H.C.
financial and techni-
cal contributions
remain at planned
levels.
(2) Administrative support
remains consistent.
(3) U.S. Research Associate
will work in Srazil
1983-1985.
(4) Brazilian student train-
ing completed as plan-
ned.
(5) Interaction between
CRSP and National
Programs is effective.


_I I _1 ___






-57-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

BRAZIL 0 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN (Initiated June 1982) BEANS
Hagedorn


IMPROVED TECHNIQUES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MUTLIPLE DISEASE RESISTANCE IN BEANS

GOAL: Improved strategies and methods for attaining multiple disease resistance.

DESCRIPTION: Research focused on sequential inoculation especially the production
and use of dry inoculum. Predominant research to date conducted at WI.

ROLE IN GLOBAL PLAN: This is the only CRSP project concentrating on improved low
technology disease resistance screening methods for breeders. Dominant
constraint #1 (limitations due to diseases).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
Preliminary progress on long-term research on disease resistance techniques.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--Long-term potential good as bean production in Brazil severely con-
strained by severe multiple disease pressures. Short-term work to date
unclear as dry inoculum technique questioned by some professionals.
To US--More efficient multiple disease resistance screening methods will
allow all bean improvement centers to make faster progress in develop-
ing and releasing new varieties. Such techniques will provide for
increased stability of germplasm across environments in the US.

MAJOR PROBLEMS AS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 3):
1. Administrative and scientific communication between US and HC
unacceptable.
2. Project research strategy and management questioned by two review
teams.
3. HC and US PI designation questioned.

ACTIONS TAKEN:
1. Personnel adjustment requested in Brazil and Wisconsin.
2. Per ERP and Board recommendation, Wisconsin administrator and MO
director joined with second review team for on-site visit to assess
the project's:
a. Relationship to HC's existing program.
b. Current methodology, its appropriateness and effectiveness in
Brazil.

RESOLUTION:
1. New HC PI named (Dr. Josias Faria).
2. New US PI named (Dr. Douglas Maxwell). Michael Havey, at completion
of joint pathology/breeding Ph.D. degree in summer of 1984, will
become the project's resident expatriate at CNPAF.
3. Wisconsin and Brazil made administrative commitment to solving
problems above.
4. US Post-doc requested by Brazil identified and approved by HC.
5. New plan of work written incorporating other parameters of original
research goal--simultaneous inoculation including research on
resistance maintenance.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 2.












Log Frame Matrix-Univ. of Wis. Hagdnrn/Brazil
August 1982


Narrative Summary


Objectively Verifiable
Indicators


Means of Verification


Important Assumptions


Program or Sector Goal: Measures of Goal Achievements Assumptions for Achieving
Increase quality and produc- Yield and quality of bean lines, Comparison of yields, under Goal Targets:
tivity of dry bean lines available to small farm fami- farm conditions, of new beans Small farmers will continue
available to small farmers in lies through national programs, with baseline data. to be interested in growing
developing countries, will increase. beans for consumption and
sale.



Project Purpose: Conditions that will Indicate
Develop reliable and efficient Purpose has been Achieved: Communication with and visits More efficient multiple
field and greenhouse methods Efficient multiple disease to bean improvement centers in disease resistance screening
to identify resistance to 6 resistance screening methods are developing countries, methods will allow bean improve-
major pathogens. adopted and used by bean ment centers to make faster
improvement researchers at gains in developing and
international and national releasing new beans which will
centers for bean improvement in yield better under pervasive
developing countries, severe disease pressure.


Outputs:
1) Organize a collection of
bean lines and pathogen
isolates to use in developing
screening methods.
2) Develop inoculation methods,
and determine environal
influences, necessary to
observe reactions of beans to
several pathogens in field
and greenhouse.
3) Locate effective disease-
testing sites in Brazil.
4) Study variability of bean
pathogens.
5) Provide PhD training to
Brazilian student in plant
pathology.


Magnitude of Outputs:
Researchers at UW and CNPAF,
using a diversity of bean lines
and pathogen isolates at
selected field sites and in
greenhouses, have procedures in
hand for identifying multiple
resistance to major bean
pathogens.


A nursery of bean lines, whose
reaction to 6 pathogens are
known, will be tested at
various field and greenhouse
sites by the methods developed,
and their performance there
compared with their known
reactions.


Output Assumptions
1) Studying disease reaction
of a diversity of bean lines
to various isolates of the
pathogens undo controlled
conditions will result in an
efficient method for multiple
disease resistance screening.
2) Disease testing sites at
Goiania and elsewhere in
Brazil will be available.














Narrative Summary


Imputs:
1) University of Wisconsin
Project leader/PI
Breeding Collaborator
Research Associate
Technical personnel
Lab, greenhouse, growth
chamber and field
facilities.
2) CNPAF
Co-investigators
Lab,screenhouse, green-
house and field
facilities
Technical personnel
PhD student.

3) Collaborators at CIAT,
MITA, University of
Nebraska


Objectively Verifiable
Indications


Continued involvement of
project leader and co-investi-
gators in the research, and
good support including
technical personnel, equipment,
supplies, travel, etc.


Means of Verification


Annual project, budget and trip
reports.


Important Assumptions


for use in this research.
3) PhD training of a Brazilian
student will increase expertise
for multiple disease resistance
research at EMBRAPA/CNPAF.


1) Funding for investigators,
students, facilities, travel,
and technical personnel will
continue as planned.
2) PhD student will be avail-
able and pursue studies at
University of Wisconsin.
3)Co-operation and frequent
communication between
University of Wisconsin and
CNPAF will continue.






-61-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

CAMEROON UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA (Initiated September 1981) COWPEAS
Chalfant


PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR OPTIMIZING COWPEA YIELDS IN CAMEROON

GOAL: Develop methods for optimizing yield and quality of cowpeas through pest
management research.

DESCRIPTION: Project has concentrated on varietal screening for pest resistance,
insecticide use research and research on life-cycle and breeding habits of
cowpea insects. An expatriate scientist is in place in Cameroon.

ROLE IN GLOBAL PLAN: This is the only comprehensive cowpea pest management
project in the CRSP. Dominant constraint #1 (limitations due to pests).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
Important preliminary progress on long-term integrated pest management
research. Project works closely with IITA and builds on prior integrated
pest management work funded by AID.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--Devastating cowpea losses from insects both pre- and post-harvest
underscore the importance of this project to Cameroon.
To US--Findings will contribute to integrated pest management resources in
US cowpea industry.

MAJOR PROBLEMS AS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 3):
1. Lack of HC PI who is working researcher.
2. Lack of adequate US/HC communication and US/AID Mission communication.
3. Project management weak.

ACTIONS TAKEN:
1. Personnel adjustment requested in Cameroon.
2. Georgia administration encouraged to participate.
3. Georgia administrator and MO director joined project team meeting in
the HC.
4. Georgia administrators met in Georgia to discuss and resolve the
problems.

RESOLUTION:
1. New HC PI named (Mr. Zachee Boli Baboule).
2. New HC PI and the AID Mission Director invited to Georgia and Boyce
Thompson.
3. Georgia administrator assuming greater role in management of project.
4. New plan of work to be developed when HC PI comes to US in summer 1984.
5. Georgia work on encapsulated pyrethum and bacillus thuringiensis to be
integrated with project and increased work on control of storage
insects.
6. BTI work to concentrate on chemistry of aphid and bruchid resistance.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 2.

















CAMEROON--Chalfant


NARRATIVE SLCPMARY


Program or Sector Coal:
increase production and quality of protein-
aceous food (cowpeas) available to small/
subsistence farmers.


OB.TPCTIVELTY VERIFTAaL.E I~NTCAT0RS


Measures of Goals Achievement:
Yield and quality of cowpeas
available to small/subsistence
farm families will increase signi-
ficantly by 1986.


v'!"O'$R nW \ '*RTSTC\ATT~n


Interviews with small/subsistence
farmers through extension personnel


TIm-,~- "," Aq I' PTTn'


Assumptions for achieving goal
targets:
a. Need for cowpeas to be consumed
on small/subsistence farms
remains constant or increases.
b. A growing market at attractive
prices exists for cowpeas off-
farm.


Project Purpose: Conditions that will indicate Assumptions for achieving purpose:
Reduce cowpea losses due to insects in field purpose has been achieved:
production and storage a. Pest Management tactics used Visits to snall/subsistence farms Insects continue to be a major cause
successfully by small/subsis- with Cameroonian extension workers of yield and quality loss.
tence farmers will increase yield before, during, and after harvest
and quality 100% by 1984. to assess efficacy of recommended
A second doubling of yield and tactics on cowpea yield and quality.
b. A second doubling of yield and
quality will occur by 1987 rN
through development and appli-
cation of additional tactics.


Outputs: Mag
a. Basic scientific knowledge of biology of a.
cowpea insect/host plant relationships.
b. Pest management tactics which are usable
by small/subsistence farmers.
b.
c. Recommendations for cowpea pest management
in place in Cameroonian extension training,
extension, and advisory services. c.
d. Cameroonian entomologists and technicians
trained in entomological research methods.
d.


:nitude of Outputs:
Major insect pests, their time
of occurence, and nature of
damage identified by the end
of 1982.
Pesticide/protectant tactics
developed for use in 1983.
Cowpea lines with resistance to
one or more insect pests
identified by the end of 1982.
Recommendations for management
of 3 major cowpea pests submit-
ted to extension, training and


a. Insect data from samples
collected from field research
plots.
b. Verification of recommended
tactics and resistant lines in
demonstration plots conducted
by CREFPFY, extension agents,
Young Farmers' Schools, the Seed
Multiplication Project, and
Regional Food Crop Protection
trials.


Output Assumptions
CREFPHY, extension service, Young
Farmers' Schools, Seed Multiplica-
tion Project and Retional Food
Crop Protection Projects continue.


NARRATIVE SUMRY OBJECTIELY VERIFIAELE INDICATOS XEANS OF V,'RIFICATTO
































Inputs:
a. Univ. of Ga
Project Leader/Principal Investigator
U.S. entomologist in Cameroon.
Vehicle
Laboratory and field equipment and
supplies.
b. BTI
Co-investigators (3)
Laboratory, growth chamber, and
green house facilities.
c. IRA
Counterpart Principal Investigator
student trainee.
Office and laboratory facilities.
Field research facilities.
Cooperation from CREFPHY,extension
serviceYoung Farmers' Schools.
d. SAID
Logistic support
Cooperation from SAFGRAD)
Seed Multiplication Project)
Regional Food Crop Protection trials.


advisory agencies for 1983
crop season.
e. Non-chemical pest management
tactics developed by 1985.
f. Cameroonian entomologist
completes M.S. degree in 1984.
g. Cameroonian technicians trained
in field plot technique, data
collection, and entomological
lab techniques by 1983.


Salaries & Wages
Student Expenses
Expenses
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
Indirect Costs
Contingency
Total
Budget


202,663
118,130
217,150
37,950
30,705
85,300
232,095
15,500
946,693
957,250


c. Professional training verified
by M.S. degree.
d. technical training verified by
performance capability judged
by U.S. and Cameroonian
entomologists.
e. Research bulletins and articles
in scientific journals.
f. Extension bulletins.


Monthly and annual project and
budget reports.


Input Assumptions:

a. U.S. entomologist will be
available for work in
Cameroon throughout the
project.
b. Cameroonian P.I. and student
trainees will be available.
c. Adequate information exchange
from small/subsistence
farmers to project (and vice
versa) through extension and
other demonstration media
takes place.
d. Vehicle, equipment and supplies
are available and arrive on
time.


I 1






-65-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA (Initiated June 1981) 0 BEANS
Coyne


BIOLOGY, EPIDEMIOLOGY, GENETICS AND BREEDING FOR RESISTANCE TO
BACTERIAL AND RUST PATHOGENS OF BEANS (PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.)

GOAL: To develop biological, epidemiological, genetic and breeding information
on rust and bacterial pathogens, primarily rust and common blight of beans.

DESCRIPTION: The focus of this project is on character enhancement. Significant
emphasis is placed on knowledge of bacterial blight and rust in the tropics
and the genetics of inherited resistance to these diseases.

ROLE IN GLOBAL PLAN: This project, well integrated with the other two disease
projects in Latin America, is contributing important basic information for
enhancing genetic material useful in cultivar development of the other
projects. Dominant constraint #1 (limitations due to diseases).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
1. Germplasm with resistance to common blight and rust has been
identified.
2. The importance of plant genotype x bacterial strain interaction has
been demonstrated.
3. The inheritance of resistance in leaf and pod to common blight has
been determined.
4. Pathogenic variation has been determined.
5. One white resistant line (Arroyo Loro) has been developed for increase
and release in the DR.
6. New sources of resistance to common blight and rust have been
identified.
7. Laboratory and screenhouse facilities have been constructed in the DR.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--The incorporation of high levels of more stable and durable resis-
tance to bacterial blight and rust pathogens of the main DR bean types
will increase yields and hence lessen dependence on imports. Recent
food riots reinforce the importance of this crop.
To US--The genetic material and information generated by the project will
benefit bean-producing areas of the US that have conditions favoring
common blight and rust diseases. Increased understanding of the
genetics of the inheritance of diseases will assist all breeding
programs.

MAJOR PROBLEMS AS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 1): None. Focus on character
enhancement encouraged.

ACTIONS TAKEN: None required.

RESOLUTION:
An improved nitrogen fixation component may be incorporated to test lines
developed by the Brazil/University of Wisconsin (Bliss) CRSP project for
blight and rust resistance.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 1.








Revised Log Frame Matrix University of Nebraska/Dominican Republic (DR)
December 30, 1983


Means of
Verification


Important
AssumDtions


Program or Sector Goal: Measures of Goal Achievements
To improve yield and seed The utilization of biological, (a) Dissemination of Informa- Assumptions for achieving goal
quality of beans through utili- epidemiological and genetic tfon in annual reports, peer targets If the incentives and
zation of genes for resistance information and germplasm from reviewed publications and interest continue for small
to pathogens. our program in the development conferences. farmers to produce beans as a
of adapted useful cultivars by (b) Identification of our food for their own consumption
UPR and DR programs. program contributions by the and for a cash crop.
UPR and DR breeding programs
for the production of super-
ior cultivars.


Project Purpose:
(1) To develop biological,
epidemiological, genetic and
breeding information on rust
and bacterial pathogens, pri-
marily common blight of beans.
(2) To educate/train HC and US
graduate students in plant
breeding and plant pathology
so that they can contribute to
future research efforts in the
DR or other LDC countries.


Outputs:
(1) Identification of sources
of stable/durable resistance
to the strains of common
blight and rust pathogens.
(2) Identify variation in
pathogenicity and monitor
changes in pathogencity in
rust and blight pathogens.


Conditions that will
indicate purpose has
been achieved:
(1) The derived information,
methods, and germplasm will
be used in the breeding pro-
grams and pest management
strategies in the UPR, DR, and
other CRSP projects.
(2) Graduate students are
enrolled at UNL.


Magnitude of Outputs:
(1) Information on methods of
inoculation, pathogen strain
variations, germplasm sources
of resistance, and genetic
information will be utilized
in tropical breeding program
to develop resistant varieties
with reduced bacterial seed
transmission by DR and UPR
programs.


(1) Information available in
annual reports, professional
and peer reviewed articles.
(2) Information, methods,
genetic strategy and germ-
plasm being used in UPR, DR
and other CRSP projects.
(3) Genes identified by us
utilized in improved culti-
vars developed by UPR, DR and
others.
(4) Graduate students with
completed academic programs
contribute to bean improve-
ment program in DR or else-
where.


(1) Information on all of
these research areas will be
made available in annual
reports, professional reports
and meetings, and peer
reviewed papers.
(2) The germplasm, methods,
and epidemiological and bio-
logical information will be
used in the UPR, DR and CRSP
projects.


Assumptions for
achieving purpose:
(1) This depends on a continuation
of effective cooperation between
administrative and professional
elements in host country and
Univ. Nebr./Univ. Puerto Rico.
(2) Students meet requirements
of training program.
(3) Genes can be incorporated
into adapted, improved bean types.


Output Assumptions:
(1) Continued availability,
enthusiastic and effective
technical and administrative
leadership in HC.
(2) Continued availability of
facilities.


Narrative
Summary


Objectively Verifiable
Indicators











Narrative
Summarv


Outputs:
(3) Study inheritance of
resistant reactions to patho-
gens and linkage relations with
other traits.
(4) Develop more effective
breeding strategies to incorpo-
rate stable resistance.
(5) Select for reduced seed
transmission of common
bacterial blight.
(6) Develop new biological and
epidemiological information on
rust and bacterial blight
pathogens that could be useful
in pest management strategies.


Inputs:
(a) Univ. of Nebr.
Principal Investigator (PI),
Co-PI, Investigator, techni-
cians, laboratory, greenhouse,
field, equipment and supplies
availability.
(b) Dominican Republic
Corresponding Principal Invest-
igator, National Program
Technical Personnel, CESDA
Director Support, Student
Trainees, Office, Laboratory
facilities, Field Research
Facilities, Extension Service
Cooperation, Availability of
project vehicle.


Objectively Verifiable
Indications


Magnitude of Outputs:
(2) Rust resistance stability,
particularly in the black seed
types, needs new strategies.
The incorporation of red pinto
seed type, virus resistance
(UPR), high yield, and
Pompadour rust resistance will
be a major breakthrough.


To use current project poster
to determine continued per-
sonnel involvement and to
examine annual reports to
evaluate if facilities and
other listed resources have
been available to the project.


Means of
Vprificatinn


Annual Project, Budget and
trip reports.


Important
Assimntinnc


Input Assumptions:
(1) The present AID/US and HC
institution financial contribu-
tions will be available at planned
increased levels.
(2) The positions listed under
inputs in US and HC will be
sustained.
(3) Administrative support
listed under inputs will be
sustained.
(4) Graduate student trainees
will be available/involved in the
project.
(5) Facilities, resources, and
services listed under inputs will
continue to be available.
(6) Vehicle is maintained in
working condition.


IniaiosVriiaio suinin






-69-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO (Initiated June 1981) BEANS
Lipez-Rosa


IMPROVEMENT OF BEAN PRODUCTION IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC THROUGH BREEDING
FOR MULTIPLE DISEASE RESISTANCE (MDR) IN THE PREFERRED STANDARD CULTIVARS

GOAL: Produce a MDR bean germplasm base in order to provide cropping security
over time in the DR. Preserve or improve the agronomic characteristics,
yield and quality of the preferred Dominican cultivars to assure economic
and efficient production that will meet the acceptance and fulfill the
nutritional requirements of the population.

DESCRIPTION: This project focuses primarily on cultivar development and builds
on work begun under the auspices of an AID/USDA/MITA project. Five new
breeding lines with good yield potential and high levels of MDR were
released in 1983.

ROLE IN THE GLOBAL PLAN: This is one of two projects in Latin America (the
second with same US PI) concentrating on MDR cultivar development for this
region. Dominant constraint #1 (limitations due to diseases).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
1. Breeding lines L-226-10, L-227-1, 3M-150, 3M-152 and 4M-99 were made
available through official release to other breeding programs for use
as parents in crossing schemes. White-seeded line 2W-33-2 is being
considered for release in 1984.
2. Articles on the incidence of bean diseases in the DR, the practical
applications of bacterial blight research and the identification of
genotypes with stable yield traits are in preparation.
3. There is a notable high level of cooperation and complementarity with
the Nebraska project.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--Release of the new lines is a significant contribution toward
increasing bean yields in the DR.
To US--Research results will also help strengthen the Puerto Rico winter
nurseries of the US bean industry.

MAJOR PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 1): None.

ACTIONS TAKEN: None required.

RESOLUTION:
1. New US PI named (Dr. James Beaver) with the promotion of Dr. Julio
Lopez-Rosa.
2. There is an expected change in HC PI as Dr. Cesar Paniagua has
indicated his intention to leave the project when he has located a
suitable replacement.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 1.












Dominican Republic/UPR Bean/Cowpea CRSP Project


LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX
(December 1983)


Narrative
Summary
Program or Sector Goal: The
broader objective to which this
project contributes: (A-l)

To make available to the
national legume program
uiultiple disease resistant dry
bean breeding lines/cultivars
capable of achieving yield
stability over time.


Project Purpose (B-I)


- Reduce losses due to diseases
by Incorporating multiple
disease resistance (MDR) into
productive genotypes with a
seed type suitable to the
Dominican consumer.

- Enhance the capability of the
Dominican bean research team
through training, collabora-
tive research, and improve-
ment of facilities.


Objectively Verifiable
Indicators
Measures of Goal Achievement
(A-2)


- A measure of the improvement
of yield stability, and yield
level of MDR varieties over
traditional varieties
(Pompadour seed type) by 1988-
1990.

- A measure of acceptance of
MDR varieties by small
farmers.


Conditions that will indicate
purpose has been achieved.
End-of-Project status (8-2)

- Incorporation of MDR into the
SPompadour and black bean
types leading to improved
yield stability level.

- Training of graduate students
and technicians.

- Improvement of research infra-
structure such as screen
houses, laboratory equipment
and vehicles.


Means of
Verification
(A-3)


- Comparison of the performance
of MDR varieties produced by
the program with original base-
line data.

- Determine the quantity of MDR
seed planted by small farmers
and the production levels
they obtain.


(B-3)


- Yield loss studies will be
conducted to determine the-
importance of the different
diseases.

- MDR will be demonstrated by
the establishment of demonstra-
tion plots on small farms,
baseline data,and by test
plots containing traditional
and MDR cultivars.

- Physical evidence of improve-
ment of research infra-
structure.


Important
Assumptions
Assumptions for achieving
goal targets (A-4)


- Small farmers continue
to grow dry beans in the
Dominican Republic.

- The national seed program
will increase seed of the
new varieties.

- The extension service
will promote their use.


Assumptions for achieving
purpose (B-4)


- Sources of resistance
incorporated into local
varieties remain stable.

- A bean disease currently
identified as a minor
problem does not emerge
as a major problem.

- Bean research team in
DR remains active and
trained personnel
continue to work with
the project.

No natural disasters that
might destroy research
infrastructure.


''











Project Outputs (C-I)


- Identification of stable
sources of resistance to the
major diseases affecting bean
production in the Dominican
Republic.

- Incorporation of these sources
of resistance Into productive
genotypes with a seed type
suitable to the Dominican
consumer.


Magnitude of Outputs (C-2)


- Development of varieties
with improved levels of
resistance to one or more
diseases resulting in
significantly increased
yield stability and yield
level.

- Sufficient quantity of
disease-free seed of the
improved varieties to be made
available to the national
seed program.


Assumptions for achieving
output (C-4)


- Sources of MDR will be
tested at several locations
in the DR.

- MDR lines will be tested at
several locations In the DR.

- Breeder seed of the most
promising lines will be made
available to the national
seed program.


- Reasonably heritable
sources of resistance
can be identified for the
important bean diseases.

- Breeding methods are
appropriate to incorporate
these resistances into
local seed types.

- The national seed program
Is capable of increasing
seed of promising MDR
varieties and making it
available to small
farmers, and the extension
service effectively
promotes their use.


INPUTS (D-l)


University of Puerto Rico/
USDA-ARS

- Principal Investigator
- Two Co-investigators
- Two Research Associates.
- One Technician.
- Laborers.

- Adequate facilities for
personnel to conduct research
programs in breeding and
pathology.

- Administrative infrastructure.


INDICATORS (D-2)


- Use of project roster to
determine continued involve-
ment of personnel.

- Examination of annual reports
to determine performance of
personnel and to evaluate if
facilities and resources are
made available to the project.


MEANS OF VERIFICATION (0-3)
(What data needed and how to
get it)


- Use of baseline data to
measure acceptance of the
improved MDR varieties by
the small farmers and to
to verify the yield
stability and yield levels.

- Research results obtained from
the Dominican Republic and
Puerto Rico.


- Annual Reports.


ASSUMPTIONS (D-4)


- The present USAID, UPR
and HC financial support
remains at the planned
level.

- Involvement of personnel
at all levels listed in
D-1 will be continued.

- Facilities mentioned in
D-l will remain to be
available.


_ ; __ 1_ _\


(C-3)














Inputs (D-1) Indica

- Bean germplasm of potential
value to the Dominican
Republic.

Dominican Republic

- Principal Investigator.

- Adequate personnel from CESDA
and CENDA to conduct bean
research.

- Adequate facilities at the
Arroyo Loro experiment station
to conduct a bean breeding
program.

- Cooperation from Extension Service.

- Cooperation from local small farmers.


tors~~ ~ (02 en fveiiain(


Means of verification (D-3)

- Trip reports.

- Fiscal reports.

- Quarterly activities and
fiscal reports from the
HC.


Assumptions (D-4)


tors (D-2)






-73-


PROJECT REVIEW PROFILE

ECUADOR CORNELL UNIVERSITY (Initiated September 1981) 0 BEANS
Wallace


AGRONOMIC, SOCIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC ASPECTS OF BEAN YIELD AND ADAPTATION

GOAL: Examine the agronomic and socio-economic aspects of bean production by
small farmers. Adapt appropriate farming systems research (FSR).

DESCRIPTION: Agronomic and genetic research is to be developed but emphasis to
date has been on the sociological work. Through testing various types of
interview schedules and microcomputer techniques, a methodology for FSR is
being developed for this site. This methodology and the information it
generates will be used to identify agronomic problems. A US researcher
has been on-site in this country.

ROLE IN THE GLOBAL PLAN: This is one of four CRSP projects with a major socio-
economic component. It is the only one taking this particular FSR
perspective. Dominant constraints #3 (limitations of the physical
environment) and #8 (socio-cultural factors).

ACHIEVEMENTS:
1. An outline for structured interviews was developed and tested in which
respondents report farm-related practices in the region. The interview
guide is available in three languages; a team report and three
specialized reports on the zone also have been prepared.
2. From a list of all landowners in one zone, a microcomputer program was
used to pull a stratified random sample. An applied questionnaire was
designed and used to interview the sample families.
3. Work is progressing on a microcomputer methodology which will strength-
en INIAP's and similar institutions' abilities to conduct FSR. A
manual for the analysis of agricultural census data has been prepared.

CONTRIBUTIONS:
To HC--The emphasis on FSR methodology will allow INIAP to better direct
its agronomic research to the needs of various categories of small
farmers.
To US--The methodology developed has similar applications in the US. The
agronomic-genetic component will advance the work being done by the
same team in Guatemala but in a different ecology.

MAJOR PROBLEMS AS IDENTIFIED BY ERP (RATED 2): None. There was a delay in the
identification of technical personnel for residence in Ecuador.

ACTIONS TAKEN: Interviews were held with names submitted to HCs.

RESOLUTION:
1. A US agronomist (Mr. Wesley Kline) and a social scientist (Dr. Kris
Merschrod) were named and approved by HC.
2. Surveys provided guidance and priorities for the agronomic research
component to begin with the arrival of Cornell agronomist and
sociologist.
3. The project Log Frame updated.


SUBSEQUENT BOD EXTENSION RATING 2.










.LOGICAL FRAMEWORK CORNELL/INIAP

Ecuador


NARRATIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE MEANS OF IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS
INDICATORS VERIFICATION



PROGRAM/SECTOR GOAL MEASURES OF GOAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR ACHIEVING
ACHIEVEMENT GOAL TARGETS


To understand agronomic Professional publications Articles in Continued interest at
and socioeconomic aspects on interface between agro- referred Cornell and INIAP in the
of bean production by nomic and socioeconomic journals organization of small-
smallholders determinants holder production


PROJECT PURPOSE CONDITIONS THAT INDICATE ASSUMPTIONS FOR ACHIEVING
PURPOSE WAS ACHIEVED PURPOSE


1) To conduct FSR
in at least one
province

2) to develop an
economic methodology
for FSR

3) to identify research-
able problems via field
research for experiment
station programs


diagnostic research con-
ducted by Cornell/INIAP
teams;follow up by smaller team

adoption of Cornell methodology
by others


establishment of new research
programs in legumes at
experiment stations


technical reports
on province
published by INIAP

costs to apply
methodology after
two more years of
development

staff and budget
allocations within
legume program


re-establishment of stable
and high exchange rate


maintenance of self-
critical attitude by re-
searchers, currently flushed
by initial success
strong leadership within
legume program plus
resources to expand research
activities













LOGICAL FRAMEWORK CORNELL/INIAP


NARRATIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE MEANS OF IMPORTANT ASSUMPTIONS
INDICATORS VERIFICATION

OUTPUTS MAGNITUDE OF OUTPUTS OUTPUT ASSUMPTIONS


1) redefine and opera- document elaborating maps Rnd precise staff stability in the
tionalize concept demarcation rules; documentation on provinces)
"dominios de reco- application of rules to demarcation rules
mendaciones" one province

2) train INIAP staff 10 trained in FY 82; budget allocation motivation of INIAP staff
in methodology another 5-10 to be and technical reports and identification of
trained in FY 83 appropriate province for
diagnostic research



INPUTS INPUT ASSUMPTIONS


1) Cornell, on campus:
time of Co-I's,
secretaries and
G.S.'s

2) Cornell off campus:
sociologist, agro-
nomist and equipment

3) INIAP
2 counterparts, office
space and support staff,
vehicle maintenance and
per-diems for INIAP
staff.


3-4 person/months
in country


most equipment delivered;
sociologist arrived July,
1982; agronomist due
January, 1983

staff, office and
budgetary allocations


professional calendars
(We dare you!) and
trip reports


budget


informed staff do not Y.
quit in desperation with
paperwork and bureau-
cratic hassles


appropriate students
available, interested and
acceptable to INIAP


continued goodwill and
genuine interest by INIAP
staff; recuperation of
INIAP budget to permit
expenditure of counterpart
funds




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