FARMING SYSTEMS SUPPORT PROJECT
Cooperative Agreement No: DAN-4099-A-oo-2083-00
Project No: 936-4099
The United States
Agency for International Development
University of Florida
In Cooperation With
FSSP Support Entities
A. The Farming Systems Perspective
B. Purpose: 1983 and beyond
C. FSSP Responsibility
D. Administrative and Policy of Support Entities
III. Support Response Base
A. Advancing the State of the Arts
B. Technical Assistance Needs and Response Capabilities
C. Addressing Varied Training Needs
D. Developing and Strengthening Networks
IV. A Delivery Strategy: Africa, Latin America, Asia, Near East
A. Regional Priorities
B. Request Review, Structure and Response Mechanisms
V. Africa in '83
A. Proactive Support
1. International Institutions
2. USAID Missions
2. Technical assistance
3. Network Development
4. State of the Arts
VI. LatinAmerica, Asia, Near East in '83
A. Limited Response Strategy.
B. Implementation Plans
A Policy and Administrative Guidelines under the FSSP: A First Approximation
based on the Atlanta Meeting
B Memorandum of Agreement: FSSP/Support Entities
C FSSP Cooperative Agreement
The Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) seeks to provide leadership
in developing and maintaining consensus about activity commonly referred to
by a generic term "Farming Systems Research". Farming Systems Research and
Development (FSR&D), for purposes of the FSSP, embodies two complementary
approaches including Farming Systems Infrastructure and Policy (FSIP) and
Farming Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E).
The purpose of the FSSP is to provide technical assistance, training and
networking support to practitioners and administrators of FSR/E programs. The
FSSP provides for collaborative support by at least twenty-two universities and
other institutions to assist AID missions and third world institutions involved
in developing farming systems programs.
Support entities (presently universities, consulting firms, USDA, with potential
involvement by international centers, national institutions and others) have con-
vened to suggest administrative guidelines and policies for the FSSP. The
implementation structure includes program associates, program leaders, task groups,
technical committees and an advisory council to the Director and five core program
and administrative leaders. Support entity involvement will be based in a
Memorandum of Agreement with the FSSP/UF as an instrument of the FSSP Cooperative
Agreement between USAID and the University of Florida as lead entity. Response
capability includes: 1. state of the arts work based in task groups, field ex-
perience reporting procedures, documentation and workshops; 2. technical assistance
with preproject assessments, design of FSR/E programs, assistance in design for
implementation programs, and in evaluation of FSR/E efforts; 3. training for
administrators, practitioners, AID project managers and agricultural officers
and technical assistance advisors; and 4. network development and support initially
through a newsletter, workshops, seminars and documentation center.
A response strategy for the FSSP deliniates priorities for 1983. Proactive
assistance to FSR&D will focus on Africa while Asia, Latin America and the
Near East will receive assistance on a response basis. Proactive support to
Africa will address international institutions and AID missions through net-
works, training and technical assistance oriented to laying a solid base for
future farming systems support. Priority will be in Western Africa early in
1983 followed by Eastern and Southern Africa. To present, eight responses have
been received from missions in Africa to the AID Washington D. C. cable soliciting
an expression of needs in farming systems. Responses from other regions include
Asia 6, Latin America 7, and Near East 2. Most of the requests call for
early design and pre-project assistance.
The Farming Systems Perspective
The term "farming systems" was applied in the 1970's to several
different activities being developed around the world. These activities
had a common thread and general purpose, but the methods used to pursue the
goals differed quite widely. The threads that bound them all together and
are basic to the farming systems approach were:
1. A concern with small-scale family farmers who were reaping a
disproportionately small share of the benefits of organized research,
extension and other developmental activities;
2. Recognition that a first-hand and thorough understanding of the
farmers' situation, to increase their productivity and as a basis for helping
to improve their welfare; and
3. The use of scientists and technicians from more than one discipline
as a means of understanding the farm as an entire system rather than the
isolation of components within the system.
In the 1980's, as the generic term "Farming Systems Research" (FSR)
has come into more common use, it has become evident that this comprises two
basic.approaches which, taken together comprise the farming system approach
to development. This is very near to the concept used by Shaner et al. who
termed it FSR&D./ This terminology will be adapted by the FSP. (see Figure
1). The two basic approaches to FSR&D, first recognized by Norman- under
slightly different terminology, might be called:
1. The farming systems approach to policy and infrastrucutral support
2. The farming systems research and extension (FSR/E)approach to
technology generation, evaluation and delivery.
SShaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp and W. R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming Systems Research
and Development, Guidelines for Developing Countries, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
SNorman, D. W. 1982. The Farming Systems Approach to Research. Farming Systems
Research Symposium. "Farming System in the Field," Kansas State Univ. Manhattan,
FSAP is more macro in scope than is FSR/E. Because it deals with policy,
the variables it treats are mainly outside the farm gate and more social
scientists and economists than agro-biological scientists are involved.
Methodologies are heavily weighted to surveys to provide the perspective on
farming systems as a means of more accurately assessing predictions of
farmer responses to different potential policy stimuli.
FSR/E is more micro in scope because it deals mostly with conditions
inside the farm gate. Being concerned with technology generation, evaluation
and delivery, there are more agro-biological scientists than socio-economic
scientists involved and methodology is heavy in on-farm biological research
with relatively little time devoted to surveys.
FSIP is applied, farmer oriented, socio-economic research, supported
by the agro-biological sciences in a team effort. The principal product is
information. The primary clients are policy makers and managers of infrastructure
FSR/E is applied, farmer oriented, agro-biological research, supported
by the socio-economic sciences in a team effort which includes extension
responsibilities. The principle product is technology. The primary clients
FSIP is not efficient for technology generation, evaluation and delivery
nor is FSR/E efficient in policy analysis. The two approaches use different
mixes of scientists and methods; and their primary clients are different,
but they are highly complementary and compatible. However, FSIP is not
primarily designed to create technology and FSR/E is not primarily designed
to change policy. But, FSR/E can have significant impact on policy makers
because it can provide more detailed information on farms and farmers than
FSIP can obtain. FSIP can have significant impact on agricultural technology
because it can provide FSR/E with more complete information on infra-
structure and policy than it would otherwise be'able to obtain.
Hence, taken together FSR/E and FSIP comprise a complete development
concept termed here FSA&D.
Purpose: 1983 and Beyond
1. The purpose of the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) is to develop
support for collaborating institutions and programs whose objectives
are the improvement of family farms with limited resources through FSR&D
principles and emphasis in FSR/E. This will be done through technical
assistance, training, networking, publications, general guidance and
2. The FSSP will be focused on farming in the developing countries through
collaboration with those institutions that provide support to farmers for
improving production and consumption while improving the well being of
rural populations. Emphasis initially will be on proactive support to
Africa with reactive support to other regions until viable assistance
structures are established in Africa.
3. The FSSP is to provide a flexible environment wherein research, extension
and other development strategies are focused upon cultural, economic and
biological aspects of farming; the farmer (as a client for improved
technology) participates in the process of determining relevant technology.
The FSSP is not to become an end in itself nor is it to become a rigid
institution; FSSP activities and delivery strucutres will be modified as the
farm oriented approach is further developed.
A broad range of responsibilities well emerge for the FSSP in 1983.
Responsibility criteria for the FSSP are summarized.
1. The FSSP embracing a concept known as FSR/E, beginning and ending with
farmer involvement, will strengthen research and extension systems
particularly focused on limited resource farmers.
2. The FSSP, with AID missions, will address FSR/E needs of administrators
and practitioners as primary clientele groups who work with farmers.
3. The FSSP will focus primarily on training and technical assistance
concerned with the broad spectrum of farm level research and extension
concerns; and secondarily on the interface with policy and institutional
conditions necessary for successful farming systems research and
Thus, the main thrust of the FSSP will be in support of FSR/E which
involves different groups in the generation, testing (evaluating), and
transferring of beneficial technologies to farmers in identified regions and
farming systems. The different groups are:
Institutional management and administration
Commodity and discipline research
FSR/E activities are largely sequential and can be summarized briefly as
Initial characterization and analysis of farming systems for planning
and design of first phase work
Generation and evaluation of technologies
Commodity ad discipline research
Researcher managed on-farm trials
Regional agronomic trials
Farmer managed trials
Evaluation of acceptability
Continuing evaluation of alternatives and characterization, planning
Extension of acceptable results
Administration and Policy of Support Entities
The FSSP is to provide a catalyst for collaboration, coordination,
communication and effective utilization of the farming systems approach to
resolution of farm level production and management problems. The desire is
to provide an administrative and policy structure that will effectively
respond to demands expressed by AID Missions. Establishment of the FSSP
such that participating support entities can further strengthen their
capability for response to FSR/E training and technical assistance
needs is anticipated in the strucutre. (See attachment A).
FSSP support entities including universities, firms and others are a
source for qualified farming systems scientists. As a resource and program
coordination effort the FSSP structure can be expanded to include international
research centers and national institutions.
The implementing structure proposed by the FSSP institutions includes six
a. FSSP Institutions Universities, firms and other entities.
b. FSSP Program Associates support faculty at participating entities.
c. FSSP Program Leaders for each participating entity to provide program
leadership, communicate with the FSSP administration and serve as a
standing program advisory committee for the FSSP.
d. An FSSP Council composed of representatives from participating entities
with advisory responsibilities to the FSSP Director (a Provisional
Council named by the Director includes Drs. Larry Zuidema, Cornell
University; James Meiman, Colorado State University and Wendall
McKenzie, University of Missouri).
e. FSSP Technical Committees.- Standing committees for advisory support
to the FSSP Director and Council which will be kept to a minimum
compared to the more flexible task groups.
f. FSSP Task Groups (ad hoc in nature) to address specific needs and
maintain responsive capability and flexibility to prepare for and
adjust to changing demands placed on the FSSP. The task groups will
aid in assessment and advancement of the state of the arts inturn
serving as basis for workshops, training and technical assistance,
and material development, to mention a few needs.
An assessment of FSSP support entities will be completed, determining
institutional capability and the combined support entity potential for meeting
needs of third world farming systems programs. The support entity assessment includes
specification of: a. Program base and priority areas relative to farming
systems; b. Regional and geo-climatic focus; c. Institutional and scientist
capability in specific countries relative to the program base.
Support.. entity commitment will be ascertained and solidified through a
Memorandum of Agreement (see Draft in Attachment B) signed between FSSP/UF
and the support entity calling for: a. Identification of an FSSP Program
Leader, b. Identification of FSSP Program Associates, c. Specification
of strengthening efforts to further develop a base for FSSP work presented
in a plan for program and faculty development prior to faculty and institutional
participation; and d. Indication of a flexible administrative/implementation
posture for collaboration with other support entities in the FSSP. The
basic framework for this collaboration is being established and seeks flexibility
to provide for innovation in program development and administration (See
The FSSP will be successful only if the program base is strengthened
collectively and separately by the support entities. The purpose is not to
draw solely upon individual faculty interests without careful concern for
support entity goals, policies and programs. This will provide for coordination
and leadership in broad program areas such as:
1. Production sciences,
2. Socio-economic sciences,
3. Component and program interfaces such as:
a. Crop and livestock systems,
b. Family household and farming systems,
4. Agro-ecological/farming systems relationships,
5. Farming systems methodology, and
6. Policy, institutional and other macro interfaces with farm focused
FSSP administrative and program leadership is seated with a Director
at the lead institution who works closely with the AID/FSSP project manager
from the Bureau of Science and Technology. This liason provides the basic
mechanism for coordinating regional bureau and local mission requests.
Within the core UF/FSSP management, four professional positions cover
responsibilities in both function and program related areas. Job descriptions
will remain flexible as these people are identified such that the best
people can be tapped for work in the program and that all of the major function
and program responsibilities are embodied effectively by the Director and the
five core staff. An editorial assistant will head publication of the newsletter
and other major communication support efforts for FSSP program associates
as participants in field teams and contributors to the state of the arts.
SUPPORT RESPONSE BASE
An important issue to be addressed by support entities throughout the project,
but intensively in 1983, is development of a broad support entity base for institu-
tion building in third world countries relative to Farming Systems needs. It is
recognized that farming systems programs cannot succeed without support from an
understanding and responsive institutional and policy structure within the national
government. Well planned, integrated and complementary FSSP technical assistance,
training and networking activities will assist with this task as specified in the
Cooperative Agreement (See Attachment B). These activities are interrelated and will
not be viewed as separate components which would reduce the effectiveness of the
Farming Systems program.
Advancing the State of the Arts
The FSSP Cooperative Agreement calls for state of the arts assessments in at least
five general areas which include: alternative methodologies, the role of extension,
organizational concerns (institutional adaptation and development for farm systems
programs), the role of extension (including the research/extension interface),
training programs (content, pedagogy, clientele and cost effectiveness of FSR/E. Be-
sides these areas, the FSSP support entities have suggested topical and functional
areas for attention to advance the state of the arts which interface or are integrated
with farming systems as follows: livestock systems, household and family, water
management, marketing, policy, farm modelling, economic/statistical analysis, FS
diagnostic approaches and general methodology.
Task groups, identified to help initiate state of the arts assessments, will be
assigned from the above areas. These task groups will prepare priorities, guidelines,
and support material to advance the state of the arts and assist with training and
Reports from technical assistance and training experiences by program associates
returning from FSSP assignments.will be an important basis for compiling information.
A standardized format will be developed in 1983 to be managed through word processors
which will facilitate retrival for developing training and technical assistance guide-
lines and materials. The information will serve as a network base to develop newsletters,
general contract reports, state of the arts documents and orientation materials for
FSSP program leaders and associates.
Documents prepared from FSR/E work by field practitioners will communicate advances
in the science of farming systems. The FSSP will initiate action with support entities
on the present knowledge base to assist in making it known to field practitioners.
Through workshops and publications, practitioners will be encouraged to present research/
extension experiences and results. The support entities have suggested that a publica-
tion task group address various communication alternatives including a Farming Systems
Journal. With AID/S&T/DIU an FSR/E documentation center will be established in 1983 include
ing up to 100 abstracted titles to be included in an annotated bibliography. The task
group will assist in establishing guidelines with AID for successful implementation of
this effort and for developing appropriate linkages to and among present holdings of
farming systems documents such as those at Kansas State University and Purdue University.
Workshops will be held sub-regionally, regionally and internationally for purposes
of networking FSR/E experience and information. Emphasis will be given to developing
consensus and advancing farming systems methodologies for improved FSR/E programs at
the practitioner and farmer level.
Technical Assistance Needs and Response Capabilities
Implementation assistance to AID missions in 1983 and beyond will include pre-project
assessments, design of FSR/E programs, assistance in design of implementation efforts
and assistance with evaluation of FSR/E programs.
Identifying and structuring technical assistance needs in 1983 will be a collabora-
tive process emerging between the FSSP and AID missions. FSSP efforts in the first year
will respond to well enunciated needs, identified from careful diagnostics and planning.
The FSSP entities can then prepare for delivery of training and technical assistance
support designed to meet long range needs. The opportunity for systematic program
development to address a very complex concern in support of small farm systems, demands
consistent and dedicated collaboration. Immediate response can be counter productive,
unless the need is well diagnosed and structured.
With early diagnosis and planning the FSSP will be able to further strengthen the
response capability of the support entities. The management structure of the FSSP is
flexible so that a mechanism can evolve to perfect a union between AID missions and
the FSSP for long term implementation throughout and beyond the present Cooperative
Agreement. Early technical assistance endeavors will provide important experiences for
both AID and the FSSP in developing the needs/response structure.
Access to the support entity capability involves three major components to be firmly
established in the FSSP. First, faculty (program associates) implement programs and
are often in great demand. Faculty, however, are necessary but not sufficient for
long term in depth support. Second, programs provide the knowledge and structure to
backstop faculty and if properly developed, to provide for training a broad faculty
base so that various "names" can be tapped. And third, the institution (University
or other) has overall programs and policies relating to faculty, department and college
management that become the long term base of support for international technical assistance
Nuturing the institutional and program base creates faculty depth to address Farming
Systems needs in broad multidisciplinary efforts. For this reason, early efforts in
1983 by the FSSP will be devoted to systematically organizing programs for establishing
a support base for AID missions. Similarly, the FSSP will assist AID to strengthen
overall capacity for addressing Farming Systems program management concerns within the
agency centrally and the missions.
Addressing Varied Training Needs
A primary goal of the FSSP is to assist with institutionalizing farming systems
training within national programs. To this end emphasis will be on training trainers.
located in developing countries. Only through this emphasis will sustained capacity
emerge to support an indigenous FSR/E program.
Training responsibilities are identified in the Cooperative Agreement. The FSSP
plans to identify a training task group to further specify materials, messages, delivery
techniques, clientele needs, etc. for the training program. Complementarity between
training and technical assistance will occur over the full range of technical assistance.
Discussions with FSSP support entities have identified possible courses to cover the
complex of technical assistance needs. These are:
1. Administrator course targeting administrators and managers of farming
systems projects in developing countries which would include both class
room and field orientations (this course has been presented further refinement
2. Practitioner course for individuals charged with designing and implementating
FSR/E projects (several courses have been designed and offered both in the
U. S. and in developing countries further refinement and coordination planned).
3. AID Project Managers and Agricultural Development Officers workshop/course -
offered at sub-region, region or U. S. sites, depending on time and focus (to
be developed for presentation in mid 1983).
4. Technical Assistance Advisors workshop/course for U. S. people to be sent on AID
assignment whether with long term contracts or the FSSP. FSSP entities have
pinpointed a need for continued "certification" of training and technical
assistance advisors to account for some program "standardization", continuity and
updating relative to the state of the arts. This task will be studied and
addressed with guidelines in 1983.
The above courses will be developed and taught in 1983. Courses for
administrators and practitioners with FSR/E programs are of highest priority
in the course development process and are well underway. For solid technical
assistance programs,workshop courses for AID mission people and FSSP program
associates are essential.
Mobilization of training programs, which must be need responsive and
time flexible, will be achieved by initiating the development of training
modules in 1983. These will be abstracted from the practitioner and
administrator course program including, for example, family systems and
household influences on farming systems, cropping and livestock systems,
diagnostic surveys, on-farm research design and data analysis, institutional
considerations, policy and marketing considerations, etc. Module development
will be a continuous process eminating from task groups appointed for a given
topic and/or based in subcontracts with support entities under the Memorandum
of Agreement. These modules can then be assembled and adapted to the local
and regional context. Broad based discipline and entity involvement will be
needed if these courses are to meet the systems needs of the FSSP.
Before launching courses and modules an inventory will be taken for those
presently in existence. Universities and centers, such as CIMMYT, IRRI, CATIE
(Central America) and ICTA (Guatemala),have developed courses on or related
to farming systems from which materials and ideas can be drawn. Early
involvement in 1983 of developing country practitioners and institutions is
desired to further improve the training program, to train trainers in
national institutions and to commence the process of institutionalizing
farming systems training within developing countries.
Plans will be made in 1983 for two other training courses to complement
the four courses listed above. Academic courses in FSR/E to fit into a
university curriculum have been developed by several Universities (Cornell,
Florida). These courses should be further developed and adapted for location
at both U.S. and developing country universities so that farming systems
training is coupled with discipline specific programs. Another course is
needed for in-service training with an ideal length of four to nine months
to cover a cropping season and for delivery with ongoing farming systems
projects in developing countries.
Developing and Strengthening Networks
Early in the project a world wide inventory of agricultural networks,
including farming systems, will be accomplished. Full cooperation will be
given to those entities presently assisting with network activities. Network
interrelationships will address, not only those established from outside
stimuli, but also those indigenous to a region. Also a conscious effort will
be made to include women's groups in networks due to the important role of
family systems and women in farming systems.
Emphasis in 1983 will focus on five areas to commence implementation of
the networking process:
1) The creation of an international newsletter in Spanish, French and English,
2) Planning of workshops and seminars,
3) Development of mailing lists for newsletters and other publications,
4) Organization of regional networks, and
5) Creation of a documentation center and network.
It is expected that the FSSP.will focus heavily on training early in the
program and, as Farming Systems activities move through a development process,
network demands upon the FSSP will expand significantly into major long term
A DELIVERY STRATEGY:
Africa, Latin America, Asia, Near East
Because the intensity of agricultural development problems on a
regional basis is most severe in Africa and because farming systems and
agricultural technical assistance work have, until recent times, not focused
on Africa, AID has mandated that emphasis be given to this region early in
the FSSP program. Proactive assistance to farming systems program development
will focus on Africa while Asia, Latin America and the Near East will receive
assistance on aresponsebasis. It is expected that general expertise in the
non-African regions for.farming systems work will produce solid requests
to which the FSSP can respond effectively but at levels requiring less
assistance than in Africa. Thus, in keeping with the Cooperative Agreement,
it is expected that a majority of the FSSP work in 1983 will be in Africa.
Request Review, Structure and Response Mechanisms
Information has been-provided to AID missions through the Project
Paper about the role and scope of the FSSP. An AID Washington cable requested
that the missions respond by specifying needs and timing relative to FSSP
The request mechanism is from the mission through the AID/S&T/Ag office
(requests to the Bureaus, AID-Multi Sector Development, or the FSSP will be
channeled first to the S&T-Ag office) for review by the AID Project Manager
and placed in context relative to AID concerns. The Project Manager will
verify receipt of the request, evaluate the request to ascertain if more
information is needed and channel the request to the FSSP Director.
The response mechanism by the FSSP will be strengthened throughout 1983
as the details of the needs expressed in the requests become more evident.
The FSSP will study the requests and identify the program response base,
FSSP program associates or teams appropriate to respond to the request, and
informational and logistical support needs for an implementation effort.
The FSSP will propose a response plan and staffing for clearance by the
appropriate AID Bureau and Mission with implementation to follow including:
team development, team orientation, in country implementation, team reports
and debriefing, and final evaluation with feedback to the core FSSP program
as input to subsequent efforts.
During 1983 this request/response mechanism will begin to mature with an
immediate goal of becoming both effective and efficient. The response structure
in time, following adaptation of the FSSP to early requests, will further
mold the response capability emerging through task groups, FSSP/Support
Entity Memorandums of Agreement and subsequent subsontracts with the support
entities for certain tasks.
AFRICA IN '83
Early response to the cable announcing the FSSP and its capabilities has
been limited from Africa missions. It is expected that assistance in
identifying farming systems needs and in formulating requests would be helpful
to missions. Several proactive efforts will be undertaken in 1983 to assist
missions and other entities on a collaborative basis to prepare for broad
based farming systems training, technical assistance and networking.
Priority will be given to Western Africa early in the year followed by
Eastern and Southern Africa.
International institutions will be targeted for cooperation, collaboration
and linkages through networks. For West Africa, contacts will be made and
strengthened with donor countries whose technical assistance agencies work
in farming systems including France (IRAT), Germany (GTZ) and Canada (IRDC).
Regional institutions and international centers including IITA, ICRISAT,
WARDA, SAFGRAD are to be included in FSSP linkages. To this end a West
African Farming Systems Research Network (WAFSRN) meeting was called by IITA
in Ibadan, Nigeria in November 1982. FSSP representatives participated in
this effort along with representatives from the above entities and West
African countries. A network was formalized including a steering committee
and secretariat. It was agreed that the 1983 meeting would further establish
the formal network as well as informal networks among donor agencies and
other support institutions. Farming Systems Training courses were discussed
by IITA and by ICRISAT/SAFGRAD for 1983.
Activity by the FSSP in Eastern and Southern Africa must be linked
closely to that of CIMMYT. It is expected that 1983 will be devoted to
establishing mutual understanding and joint programming to complement
activity presently underway by CIMMYT. To this end very brief discussions
were held with CIMMYT in 1982 but further planning is necessary in 1983 if
the two AID funded efforts are to be integraged in 1984. It is suggested
that representatives from CIMMYT-Mexico and Africa, AID-Washington and
the FSSP meet in Washington early in 1983 to discuss administrative, budget
and funding details. The meeting could be followed by discussions on
program issues between CIMMYT and the FSSP, possibly held in Florida, and then
by taking the discussion to East Africa for familiarizing the FSSP with the
work presently underway. From this base solid plans would evolve for a
collaborative training, technical assistance and network effort.
AID missions will be the primary focus for early proactive support.
The approach to be followed will:
1. Assemble and analyze base line information from AID-Washington files
on planned and programmed mission activities--CDSS, Budget Submissions,
PPs PIDs, etc. An early warning mechanism is sought to better assist
the FSSP in anticipating needs and preparing for timely delivery of support.
2. Respond to present requests and those forthcoming simultaneously
with other activities. Some missions have been standing by with
plans anticipating assistance from the FSSP.
3. Provide subregional training/need identification workshops in West
Africa to include 4 to 6 country missions and bilateral contractors
in those countries with Farming Systems programs in place or anticipated.
FSSP will present concepts and approaches for effective use of FSIP
and FSR/E and the missions and contractors will enunciate needs,
problems and opportunities to better inform the FSSP concerning
preparation necessary to support local programs.
4. Mission consultation from cable requests will be a continuous activity
of the FSSP following on results from the subregional workshops and
other information/planning based exercises. The delivery mechanisms
will be the same as those presented in part III of this plan.
5. Three Summer short-course/seminars one week in duration in June,
July and August for AID personnel will focus on FSR/E and FSIP methods and
FSSP capabilities. These courses will be held either in Washington,
D.C., Gainesville or at another FSSP support entity.
Training program support for West Africa in 1983 can not be completely
anticipated. It is expected that practitioner, administrator, technical
assistance advisor and AID program leader courses will be prepared and
tested. A practitioner oriented course designed to initiate training of
trainers will be offered by IITA and the FSSP in French and English to
participants from Ivory Coast and Nigeria. This three week course starts
February 28, 1983 preceded by three days .of orientation/diagnosis with
participants held separately in Ivory Coast and Nigeria. The entire group
will convene together for approximately two weeks of training at IITA and
one week of field experience at a farming systems site in Nigeria. The
course will primarily focus on researcher managed and farmer managed on-
farm research with supporting course segments introducing the broader
aspects of FSR/E at the farm level along with institutional and policy
concerns in FSIP.
A second short course (one week in August or September) is in planning
stages by SAFGRAD and ICRISAT in Upper Volta. Leaders will include
several experienced international practitioners and participants will
be invited from the WAFSRN. The focus will be state of the arts oriented with
results from farming systems applications. SAFGRAD has suggested that FSSP
participation would be welcomed. Further planning is necessary for this
It is expected that other courses, particularly for practitioners and
administrators of FSR/E programs will be requested following the proactive
assistance in West Africa. The FSSP will be preparing modules, course
materials and trainers for this work.
Technical assistance anticipated for Africa in 1983 will evolve through
the proactive structure. Current responses (Jan.1983) to the cable from
AID Washington include three West African countries (Liberia, Mauritania, Mali)
and five others (Sudan, Senegal, Zaire, Kenya, Ruwanda). Requests primarily
call for technical assistance with identification and structuring of needs and
pre-project support. Two countries need assistance soon, two call for support
later in the year, two will call for support in 1984, and two needed further
information about the FSSP. Through network activity, in-country experience
will become a major component of any technical assistance as this experience
is identified or emerges with new program development. For this reason
-network organization and support is critical to the establishment of FSR/E
programs and the technical assistance efforts of assessment, design, implementation
and evaluation. Several institutions and support entities presently in West
Africa will be essential participants in the technical assistance work of
Network development and support in 1983 will focus on donor and international
entities as well as AID Missions and support entities/contractors involved in.
Africa. Highest priority will be with the WAFSRN followed by cooperation
with the network activities underway by CIMMYT in Eastern and Southern
Africa. Linkage for African networks to other regions of the world through
newsletters, documentation and workshops is planned. A WAFSRN newsletter
is planned and CIMMYT has established a newsletter. The FSSP newsletter will
complement these efforts by communicating farming systems activity among the
regions. The FSSP newsletter editor will serve to help establish publication
policy and program linkages as appropriate with the African editors.
Present plans are for the second annual WAFSRN meeting in November of
1983. Work early in the year by the FSSP including AID mission subregional
workshops will contribute to structuring and strengthening the support base
for the WAFSRN. Close collaboration is sought among all of the networks
with the primary purpose to strengthen the WAFSRN as a mode for linking
practitioners and administrators in the various countries. Ultimately, it
is expected and desired that peer groups will be of greater value to the
practitioner and administrator of FSR/E projects than technical assistance
advisors. The network will be a learning mechanism for approaches to FSR/E
as well as institutionalization and policy support.
State of the art work in Africa will be encouraged through network activities.
Publications and workshops will be used to encourage practitioners in making
methodological and project results of their work available to the community.
In 1983 the SAFGRAD/ICRISAT workshop/seminar and workshop presentations at
the WAFSRN meeting are a starting point. Attention will be given to similar
activities with CIMMYT. The Annual Farming Systems Workshop at Kansas State
University, while world wide in nature will involve practitioners and
experienced technical assistance advisors and trainers to further strengthen
the FSR/E methodological and knowledge base.
LATIN AMERICA, ASIA, NEAR EAST IN 1983
Limited Response Strategy
A reactive approach to FSR/E requests in Latin America, Asia and the Near
East by the FSSP will prevail early in the project and particularly in
1983. Because priority is given to Africa in the cooperative agreement a
reactive,in place of a proactive, approach will address those requests that
are integrated into mission strategies and programs. Thus, assistance will
be mission specific but designed to stimulate well established FSR/E
projects. Network activity will be encouraged so that technical assistance
support can flow among missions, technical assistance contractors, and
national institutions in the respective regions.
The course programs available to Africa can be delivered in these regions.
Experience, which is extensive in some L.A., Asian and Near East countries,
will be drawn upon for training and technical assistance program development
generally. Similarly experience in these regions will contribute substantially
to state of the arts work and communication of present programs will be
nurtured through networking, the documentation center, the newsletter and
Specific requests from AID missions are summarized as follows:
1. Asia Sri Lanka; immediate; Nepal, during 1983; Indonesia, Philippines,
India, in 1984 or beyond; Bangladesh requests information on the FSSP.
2. Latin America Paraguay, immediate; Dominican Republic, Honduras, Ecuador
in 1983 with Ecuador serving as possible support to others; Panama in
1984; Mexico and the Caribbean request information on the FSSP.
3. Near East Jordan, immediate; Egypt suggests others observe present
programs in that country.
A response plan for the above requests will be developed early in 1983
particularly drawing upon expertise within the regions. Support from
technical assistance advisors in the regions will be organized where possible
and appropriate drawing upon those support entities and other institutions
holding bilaterial AID contracts and with farming systems projects underway.
Several countries contain this capability. Further study will be necessary
to document this experience which will be covered by the FSSP through baseline
work with AID Washington.
SDraft Attachment A
Jan. 5, 1983
Policy and Administrative Guidelines
Under the Farming Systems Support Project:
A First Approximation
This is a summary of the first planning and evaluation meeting
of participating entities under the Farming Systems Support Project
(FSSP) held in Atlanta, Georgia, December 9-10, 1982. The purpose.
of the document is not to be inclusive of all policy, managerial and
administrative concerns. It gives guidance to further planning and
an administrative basis for the 1983 work plan. The desire is to
provide an administrative and policy structure that will effectively
respond to demands expressed at AID Missions. Establishment of the
FSSP such that participating support entities can further strengthen
their capability for response to Farming Systems training and tech-
nical assistance needs is anticipated in the structure. Equally
anticipated is a proactive need to further prepare AID Missions to
better enunciate needs and specific demands relative to Farming
Systems Research and Extension work.
Z STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FSSP
The FSSP is to provide a catalyst for collaboration, coordination,
communication and effective utilization of the farming systems approach
to resolution of farm level production and management problems. It
is desired that the farming systems approach enhance the realization
of opportunities to augment small farm production and income capabili-
ties within the family system and farming system structure of a given
country or sub-region thereof.
Basic to all considerations for the FSSP is the farm family and
the farm system in third world countries. The FSSP focuses on those
individuals and institutions who are responsible for research, train-
ing and extension relative to small farm and limited resource food
and fiber production systems. The countries are then to be linked
through regional networks either presently established or to be
established to further strengthen communication of experience and
information among Farming Systems practitioners and their respective
national institutions. Ultimately a strength of the program will be
experience gained in various country settings and made available
through the networks to other policy makers and practitioners in
Farming Systems. It is expected that Farming Systems experience
while unique to sets of farming systems and also unique to specific
country, cultural and other settings, will involve common threads of
institutional, behavioral and managerial experience to further assist
administrators and practitioners in similar countries.
To facilitate the farming system support effort USAID Missions
are to structure host country needs relative to training and prelim-
inary technical assistance needs with farming systems projects. FSSP
technical assistance entities including universities, firms and others
as appropriate will provide qualified farming systems scientists. As
a resource and program coordination effort the FSSP participating
entity structure can be expanded to include other entities such as
international research centers and national institutions. Coordination
and network development must also occur between the FSSP/AID Program
and other donor entities and countries such as I.R.A.T. in France,
I.R.D.C. in Canada, and G.T.Z. in Germany where farming systems
Jan. 5, 1983
expertise and programs lie.
The implementing structure proposed by the FSSP institutions
in Atlanta includes six tiers:
a. FSSP Institutions Universities and firms.
b. FSSP Program Associates (Farming systems support faculty)
at participating entity.
c. FSSP Program Leaders for each participating entity.
d. An FSSP Council composed of representatives from partici-
pating entities with advisory responsibilities to the FSSP
Director (a Provisional Council was named by the Director
to include Drs. Larry Zuidema, Cornell University; James
Meitman, Colorado State University and Wendall McKenzie,
University of Missouri).
e. FSSP Technical Committees Standing committees for
advisory support to the FSSP Director and Council. Those
committees will be kept to a minimum in difference to the
flexible task groups and would be initiated as task groups
to ascertain the need for standing status.
f. FSSP Task Groups(Ad hoc in nature) to address specific
problems, opportunities and concerns identified by program
associates, program leaders, the director and his staff,
the council, and technical committees. It is expected that
through the task group mechanism the FSSP will maintain
responsive capability and flexibility to prepare for and
adjust to changing demands placed on the FSSP. The groups
will be initially important to assessment and advancement
of the state of the arts serving as basis for workshops,
training and technical assistancematerial development,to
mention a few needs.
CORE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND LEADERSHIP
The University of Florida was selected by AID from fourteen
universities to be the lead institution for the Farming Systems
Support Project. It is understood that the lead institution should
provide administrative, management and program leadership for the
project such that participating entities can successfully contribute
to the effort while further strengthening their program base for
Farming Systems technical assistance and training work. The Univer-
sity of Florida further believes that the FSSP will be successful
only if the program base is strengthened collectively and separately
by the support entities. The purpose is not to solely draw upon
individual faculty interests without careful concern to participant/
support entity aspirations, policies and programs.
Overall administrative and program leadership of the FSSP is seated
with a Director of the FSSP at the lead institution. The director
an. 53 1983
works closely with the AID project manager from the Bureau of Science
and Technology. This liason provides the basic mechanism for coordina-
ting regional bureau and local mission requests for technical assistance
and training programs. Within the core FSSP management staff to be
located in Gainesville, Florida four professional positions in farming
systems cover responsibilities in several areas. Job descriptions
will remain flexible as these people are identified such that the best
people can be tapped for work in the program and that all of the major
function and program responsibilities are embodied effectively by the
Director and the four core staff. Responsibilities include basically
a.'Coordination, Management and Administration of:
1. Training Programs
2. Technical Assistance
3. Network Development and Operation
4. State of the Arts Advancement
5. Documentation, Publications and Communication.
6. Newsletter Development
b. Coordination and leadership for broad program area emphasis:
1. Production Science
2. Social Science
3. Component and Program Interfaces
A. Crop and Livestock Systems
B. Family, Household and Farming Systems
4. Agro-Eco Farming Systems Relationships
5. Farming Systems Methodology
6. Policy, Institutional and Macro interfaces with
Farm focused concerns.
It is obvious that the core staff may not be able to solidly
cover all of these responsibilities within the experience framework
of the selected individuals. Neverthelessin leadershipard adminis-
tration it will be the responsibility of the director and core
staff with support from task groups, technical committees, the council,
program associates and program leaders to identify those individuals
nationally and internationally through various team structures and
university programs to address these needs.
In further support of the above team an editorial assistant is
responsible for support to the core program for publication of a
newsletter and other materials of relevance to training and techni-
cal assistance programming. The person, as a second priority, will
also assist with the development of training modules.
Clerical support at present for this program includes three
secretarial positions. Should other support become necessary either
in the basic program leadership areas or on the administrative/assis-
tant/clerical side some adjustments can be made. The.desire is not
to become top-heavy administratively but it is necessary to have a
responsive administrative support structure to create most effective
results in a complex endeavor.-
FSSP POLICY GUIDELINES
The following areas represent general guidelines for policy
1. The primary clientele for the FSSP will be research,
extension and training people working within the
national institutions in developing countries. While
the farmer is the ultimate and priority client, the
FSSP is to train and support those individuals and
institutions who work most directly with farm families
..in developing countries. To assist agricultural insti-
tutions and employees better capture the essence of their
farm clientel as a system of complex interactions will
further keep the FSSP in line with the clientelehierachy.
As a primary client the institutions with which farmers
work and within which training, research and extension
people are employed must be a target for careful diagnos-
tic, design and implementation efforts. A systems approach
is 'necessary in working with these institutions so that
the results best fit the particular socio-political condi-
tions and concerns of the national 'government yet mindful
of the basic need to be responsive to the farm family.
2. It is essential that the general approach to Farming Systems
Research and Extension be given boundaries with reference
to the roles and responsibilities of the FSSP. The desire
a. to approach but not fully embrace consensus
b. to embody flexibility and receptiveness for
evolution in that process,
c. to achieve a unified "message" generally in
a technical assistance and training sense,and
d. to raise the consci-ousness of farming systems
practicioners and administrators to a level of
effective cooperation,and thereby
e. reduce confusion and conflict in the general
approaches pursued at the clientele level.
3. A pro-active approach to interfacing with the AID Bureaus
and Missions will help structure demand for the FSSP in a
manner that should make the interface more effective and
thereby reduce confusion. This could include early mission
visits by FSSP representatives, training and briefing work-
shops and preparation of more explicit advance information
to be made available to Missions.
4. Continuous state of the arts research and communication must
contribute to understanding FSSP capabilities and thereby
facilitated more rapid and effective program implementation.
5. In implementation and coordination of FSSP support entity
involvement it is desired that the approaches not become
component based in and of themselves on either entirely
Jan. 5 1983
a functional level or with reference to regions and
countries. It is recognized that training, technical
assistance, networking and state of the arts are inte-
grated and complementary activities. Nevertheless,
it is expected that some specialization among the support
entities is quite appropriate and essential. It must
also be recognized that the responsibility of any entity
within and to the FSSP is one that contains three major
coordinents and a broad perspective of Farming Systems
a. farm level problem/opportunity diagnosis and
resolution through a wide spectrum of research
and extension, to
b. institutional and policy concerns necessary for
effective program implementation.
6. The FSSP and participating entities must develop guidelines for
a. the regional/country involvement,
b. functional/expertise involvement and
c. an appropriate mix of a and b to achieve goals
of the overall project as well as the participating
7. Also, participating entity involvement with FSSP projects do well
as management of AID and country linkages from prior contractural
commitments and interests coupled with those that would follow
from the FSSP participation, deserve serious consideration by the
entiti-es involved, the FSSP administration and USAID. The con-
tracting procedures through FSSP involvement assume a different
dimension relative to both leverage applied by participating
entities and phasingwhere interest prevails in the program of a
specific country and the potential for long term contractual
8. Non AID institution participation or involvement in the program
as well as those countries that are not AID recipients,must be
given careful consideration along with collaboration with other
donor entities in the United States and other countries. Important
in this consideration is collaboration among those who work with
third world countries. Also however, would be the parallel
involvement of countries who might be AID countries within a
regional network and those countries within the regional network
who are not AID recipients.
9. Specific policies are necessary for the implementation structure
inclusive of the FSSP Council, technical committees, task groups,
program leaders and program associates. Selection procedures,
authority and responsibility, duration of the assignment and
committee, tenure of participants, and lines of communication/
responsibility must be delineated. The general desire is that
this structure be responsive and flexible such that those needs
evolving overtime can be met and that those task groups, technical
committees or even the council structure can be revised t best
address program needs.
Jan. 5, 1983
10. With reference to the program leaders it is desirable that
they be key program coordinators on campus or with the partic-
ipating entity organization. The commitment from the support
entities would include strong leadership at that level such
that program associates could tru'eV become solid responsive and
cohesive groups for farming systems at the respective entities.
11. Support for these entity based activities will be founded on
participation and the appropriate level of activity with re-
fec.ence to the overall AID program needs and the AID financial
structure to accommodate those needs.
12. Always those participating must be mindful of the beginning
policy concern relative to the clientele and that a major part
of the activity for this project must be in third world countries.
Even training leaders can very appropriately be placed in third
world countries as the program evolves to further gain flexibil-
ity and effectiveness in implementation.
Participants Attending The
Atlantic FSSP Workshop
December 9 & 10, 1982
Dr. Chris 0. Andrew
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Mr. Bob Hart
Rt..#3 Petit Jean Mt..
Moerilton, Arkansas 72001
Winrock International Livestock Center
Dr. Jims Jones
3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Dr. Robert Waugh
P.O. Box 771663
Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477
University of FLorida
Dr. Pete Hildebrand
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
University of Florida
Dr. J. K. McDermont
1611 N. Kent St.
Arlington, VA. 22209
International Agri. Devel. Service
Dr. I.R. Wyeth,
Institute of Int'l Agriculture
101 AG Hall
Institute of International Agriculture
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Michigan State University
Dr. Merle Esmay
210 Ag. Engineering Building
Institute of International Agriculture
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Michigan State University
Dr. Jerry Grant
221 USDA Bldg. 74078
International Programs Office
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078
Oklahoma State University
Mr. Eric. B. Shearer
Senior Ag. Economist
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Research Triangle Institute
William (Bill) C. Eckerman
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Research Triangle Institute
Dr. Sam H. Johnson, III
113 Mumford Hall
1301 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, Illinois 61901
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Dr. Robert H. Maxwell
College of Agriculture and Forestry
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
West Virginia University
Dr. M.E. Bloodworth, Coordinator
International Agricultural Programs
College Station, Texas 77843
Texas A & M University
Dr. D. Woods Thomas, Director
Agriculture Administration Building
West Lafayette, Indiana 47904
Dr. L. Van Withee, Prof.
Manhattan, Kansas 66505
Kansas State University
P. 0. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Research Triangle Institute
Agriculture Administration Building
West Lafayett, Indiana 47904
Dr. Ron Stinner
N.C. State University
Raleigh, N.C. 27650
North Carolina State University
Dr. Steven E. Kraft
Dept. Ag. Bus. Econ.
International Food and Agricultural Development Program
Carbondale, Illinois 62901
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Telephone: 618-435-2421 office
Dr. Henry W. Garren
Center for Improving Mountain Living
West North Carolina State University
Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723
Dr. Mary Rojas
1060 Animal Sci. Bldg.
Blacksburg, VA. 24601
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dr. Neal Walker, Assoc. Professor
Ag. Econ. and Rural Sociology and
Title XII Program
P.O. Box 1071
Knoxville, TN 37996
University of Tennessee
Dr. Jim Meiman
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Colorado State University
Dr. Tom Westing
College of Agriculture and Home Economics
205 Agriculture Building
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
University of Arkansas
Dr. John S. Caldwell
Chair. for International Vegetable Productic
Blacksburg, VA. 24061
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & ST. Univ.
Dr. Tim Frankenberger
Dept. of Soc.
S205 Ag. Science North
Lexington, Ky. 40546
University of Kentucky
Dr. Larry Zuidema
New York State College of Agriculture
and Life Science
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Ms. Jennifer Bremer
624 Ninth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Development Alternatives, INC.
Dr. John L. Tait
Dept. of Soc. and Anthropology
303 East Hall
Iowa State University
Amer, IA. 50010
Dr. Bill Schmehl
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Colorado State University
)n Mr. Wendell E. Morse
Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C. 20523
Dr. Donald Osburn
2-69 Agriculture Building
Columbia, Missouri 65211
University of Missouri
Dr. J. Wendell McKinsey
2-69 Agriculture Building
Columbia, Missouri 65211
University of Missouri
Mr. Donald S. Ferguson
Room 104 Poupouro Plaza
1735 N. Lynn St.
Arlington, VA 22204
Farming Systems Support Project
I. Farming Systems Support Project
The Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) makes available to USAID
and LDC agricultural research and extension institutions technical assis-
tance) in the design, implementation and evaluation of farming systems
research and extension (FSR/E) programs.
II. Purpose of the Cooperative Agreement
The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to develop, strengthen,
and expand the capacity of the recipient and collaborating institutions to
provide technical assistance, training and guidance to FSR/E programs in
developing countries. The recipient will perform as the lead entity and
will coordinate the inputs of collaborating institutions with similar
interests in FSR/E.
Project activities which will allow the recipient and its collabora-
tors to strengthen their institutional capability to assist FSR/E programs
in developing countries are the following:
1. Technical assistance in the feasibility, design, implementation,
and evaluation of FSR/E;
2. Developing country based short term training programs for FSR/E
field practitioners and administrators;
3. Networking among FSR/E practitioners;
4. Comparative analysis of FSR/E experiences and the synthesis of
5. A documentation center which will provide FSR/E publications on a
continuous basis, and
6. State-of-the-art research.
III. Scope of Work
The development of FSR/E capabilities in developing countries involves
both technical assistance and institution strengthening.: Technical assis-
tance provides immediate help in resolving specific problems on farms and
in program management. Institution building helps create within participa-
ting countries the professional expertise and commitment necessary for
self-sustaining, coordinated national programs.
(Field assistance) activities implemented under this cooperative
agreement are premised on mission collaboration and assistance. Thus,
in operation, a mission must request assistance under this project
and specify the time, duration, and level of effort that best fit into
its program. The overall level of effort of this cooperative agreement
is contingent upon the anticipated receipt of mission and developing
country costs having support equal to twenty per cent of the intended
level of effort set forth herein.
Requests for field assistance under "A Specific Activities" to be pro-
vided developing country programs will be directed to the recipient by the
AID/technical project officer.
The FSSP is basically intended to be a field support project, it can
best perform this function by taking its signal from and responding to the
expressed needs of USAID Missions. However, rather than try to do this
in an informal and ad hoc manner, project design calls for these sources
to be canvassed each year, asking them to identify their assistance needs
under this project for the forthcoming twelve month period. The Missions
may be visited by the FSSP to assist with developing plans and evaluating
opportunities and alternatives for FSR/E training and technical assistance
programs. Missions should indicate the preferred time-frames for the
services requested, giving sufficient detail regarding manpower and/or
other requirements to allow meaningful planning and scheduling -to be
undertaken and an overall Annual Work Plan formulated for AID approval
once all assistance requests have been received, reviewed and approved.
Because of the cost sharing stipulation, missions will also be asked to
identify funding arrangements for the services requested.
This cooperative agreement will support developing country FSR/E
activities throughout the world. It is anticipated that at least fifty
percent of project activities during the life of this project will support
mission programs in the Africa Bureau. During its first two years, how-
ever, this project is unlikely to include activities for East and Southern
Africa. Roughly forty percent of project inputs will be shared by
countries wTthin the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean and the
Bureau for Asia. It is anticipated that very little project support will
be directed to countries in the Bureau for Near East.
A. Specific Activities
The recipient is expected to engage in four types of interrelated
activities that are designed to strengthen the recipient, the FSSP sup-
porting organizations and developing country FSR/E capabilities. (1)
Technical assistance under this project will provide developing coun-
tries with skills required at any stage in the project cycle. (2)
Short term training courses will strengthen the capacity of host-coun-
try nations both to perform FSR/E work and to institutionalize FSR/E
methodologies. (3) Networking activities will facilitate communica-
cation among practitioners. (4) State-of-the-art research will yield
FSR/E field guidelines.
A (1). Technical Assistance
Tehnical assistance will be provided to resolve problems that
arise in farming systems programs at any stage of the project cycle.
Technical assistance teams may include production scientists (e.g.,
(agronomy, animal science, pisciculture, forestry), economic and
behavioral scientists, and organizational or administrative scientists.
- 5 -
Services encompassed within the scope of this project include:
Pre-Project: Examples are: assessment of the adequacy
of agricultural training, research, and extension to
serve limited resource farmers; current approaches to
agricultural research and extension; the appropriateness
of FSR/E in the national context; and national interest
in an FSR/E program.
Design: Design of FSR/E programs within the context of
existing national institutions or recommended institu-
tional changes and conduct of required administrative,
technical, economic, social, and environmental analyses.
Implementation: Examples are: assistance in the design
of survey instruments, delimitation of target groups of
farmers, conduct of rapid field assessments, timely anal-
ysis of information, and design of agronomic experiments
with farmer participation; identification and resolu--
tion of subsequent production and post-production dif-
ficulties (e.g., agronomic, pest control, livestock,
post-harvest) within the context of local FSR/E proj-
ects; and analysis of institutional implications
(information systems, implementation monitoring).
Evaluation: Assessment of extent and timeliness of admin-
istrative support, clarity of problem definition, cali-
ber of experimental work, relevance of training program,
nationalization of FSR/E program, and of adoption rates
by farmers; farm level impact; institutional impact and
identification of bottlenecks needing resolution.
A. (2) Training
The recipient will develop two training courses--one for agricultural
research and extension FSR/E practitioner personnel and one for policy
makers, administrators, and educators. Both courses will cover the same
topics, but with different emphases and different purposes. Generally, the
topics will include the concepts and methodologies of FSR/E work, techno-
logical diffusion, organizational issues, and the relationship between
research and extension. Both courses will be given at mission request and
will be designed to meet.country or regional needs. Courses will be held
in developing countries.
The practitioner course for field personnel will be a detailed
refresher course in specific methodologies. A training module will
be developed for the methodologies used at each stage of the FSR/E
cycle. These will include:
areal diagnostics of whole-farm systems and identifica-
tion of remedial problems;
- 7 --
experimental design, initiation of on-farm experiments
with farmer participation, monitoring of field experi-
ments, and collection of data;
analysis and interpretation of agronomic and economic
data recommendations for a new cycle of experimenta-
participation of extension personnel to disseminate
If a national program encounters difficulties during some phase of the
FSR/E cycle, the program officials can request, through the mission in that
country, a training course in those specific methodologies. The FSR/E
trainer-consultants will then adapt the relevant training modules into a
course. It may be held in one or two sessions, depending on the nature of
the difficulties and the level of the practitioners. All practitioner
training courses will include actual field work. They will use experien-
tial training methodologies.
The administrator course, by contrast, will introduce FSR/E concepts
and operations, but will focus more on policy and managerial concerns.
It will introduce the concept of FSR/E and assess its role in agricul-
tural development. Most of. the course will be devoted to organizational
and managerial issues. For example, how to institute FSR/E programs
given the existing research and extension institutional setting of their
countries and how to manage and support a decentrailized FSR/E program
from a centralized agency might be emphasized. This course should be
designed to deal with the conceptual and the operational implications of
FSR/E in such a way that the participants leave with a profound under-
standing of the importance and difficulty of implementing FSR/E programs
in their own situations.
Both the practitioner and the administrator courses will be given in
the prevalent professional language of participants. Training courses will
be limited to 30 persons per session. Participants for the practitioner
course will be employees or potential employees of the national agricul-
tural research or extension services and closely related agencies in which
they hold or are expected to hold FSR/E responsibilities. Participants
for the administrator course will be decision-makers concerned with the
agricultural sector. In all cases, individuals will be screened by the
mission and host country based upon general criteria provided by the Mis-
sion, Host country and the FSSP with final approval by the FSSP training
A (3) Networking
The marked increase of FSR/E activities around the world makes com-
munication among practitioners a paramount and timely concern. Prac-
titioners and administrators in many programs now face many of the
same problems. Their solutions to these programs and their adoption
of FSR/E methods for specific needs and circumstances can readily prove
useful to.colleagues in other national programs. This cooperative
- 9 --
agreement will promote the flow of information among those involved in
FSR/E by sponsoring regional workshops, publishing a newsletter and
annotated bibliography, and contributing materials to a documentation
*center to be established by AID.
-A (3a) Regional Workshops
'"This cooperative agreement will support regional workshops for FSR/E
.practitioners. The common focus of these workshops will be farming sys-
tems research and extension methods. Informal contact will deal with a
wide range of issues, but each workshop will be organized around parti-
cular issues in FSR/E work, e.g., methodologies technologies, organiza-
tional concerns. Each workshop will be held at an agricultural institu-
tion involved in the host country's FSR/E program, .so that a monitoring
tour for workshop participants can follow the workshop.
Both the theme and site of each regional workshop will be determined
by a FSR/E network committee to be established by the recipient in each
region. This committee will cumpLJ.rise pLacLituLL leader -from each
participating country, one representative from the cooperative agreement
core staff (the coordinator for training and networking or his nominee),
and one representative from A.I.D. (the project officer or his nominee).
This committee will meet annually to determine the topic and site of the
A (3b) Newsletter
The project will publish a quarterly newsletter beginning in the
second quarter of the first year of this agreement. The content of