<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 External review panel membership...
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Glossary of acronyms
 Summary
 CRSP organizational chart
 Location of collaborating institutions...
 Location of collaborating institutions...
 Project institutional roster
 1983 review process
 Project evaluation reporting...
 Project evaluation profiles
 CRSP management evaluation
 Program evaluation
 ERP site review protocol
 Back Cover


PETE FLAG IFAS PALMM



Annual report
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055292/00001
 Material Information
Title: Annual report
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 23-28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program
Publisher: Michigan State University
Place of Publication: East Lansing Mich
Creation Date: 1983
Frequency: annual
regular
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Beans -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Numbering Peculiarities: Issued in parts: Part one. Technical summary.--Part two. External review panel.
General Note: Description based on: 1983.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 19930082
lccn - sn 89013327
System ID: UF00055292:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    External review panel membership (1983)
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Glossary of acronyms
        Page iv
    Summary
        Page 1
        Page 2
    CRSP organizational chart
        Page 3
    Location of collaborating institutions in the US and Latin America
        Page 4
    Location of collaborating institutions in Africa
        Page 5
    Project institutional roster
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    1983 review process
        Page 9
        Introduction
            Page 9
        In-country reviews
            Page 9
        ERP annual meeting
            Page 10
    Project evaluation reporting methods
        Page 11
        Project evaluation scales
            Page 11
        Overall recommendation rating
            Page 12
        Five-point category evaluation scale
            Page 12
        Contribution to development in the host country
            Page 12
        Overall major project strengths/deficiencies
            Page 12
    Project evaluation profiles
        Page 13
        Botswana
            Page 13
            Page 14
        Brazil (Boyce Thompson Institute/Roberts)
            Page 15
            Page 16
        Brazil (University of Wisconsin/Bliss)
            Page 17
            Page 18
        Brazil (University of Wisconsin/Hagedorn)
            Page 19
            Page 20
        Cameroon
            Page 21
            Page 22
        Dominican Republic (University of Nebraska)
            Page 23
            Page 24
        Dominican Republic (University of Puerto Rico)
            Page 25
            Page 26
        Ecuador
            Page 27
            Page 28
        Guatemala
            Page 29
            Page 30
        Honduras
            Page 31
            Page 32
        INCAP
            Page 33
            Page 34
        Kenya
            Page 35
            Page 36
        Malawi
            Page 37
            Page 38
        Mexico
            Page 39
            Page 40
        Nigeria (Michigan State University)
            Page 41
            Page 42
        Nigeria (University of Georgia)
            Page 43
            Page 44
        Senegal
            Page 45
            Page 46
        Tanzania
            Page 47
            Page 48
        Project evaluation matrix
            Page 49
    CRSP management evaluation
        Page 50
        Finance
            Page 50
        Administration
            Page 50
        Recommendations
            Page 51
    Program evaluation
        Page 52
        The role of the CRSP in international agricultural research and development
            Page 52
        Specific contributions to development
            Page 53
        Specific contributions to US agriculture
            Page 54
        Program weaknesses
            Page 55
        Overall evaluation
            Page 55
    ERP site review protocol
        Page 56
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text














































HII. NI IS U N V R SITY T*NW













1983 REPORT


EXTERNAL REVIEW


PANEL


THE BEAN/COWPEA COLLABORATIVE

RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM

(CRSP)


MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY


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








EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL MEMBERSHIP
1983


Affiliation


Dr. Clarence C. Gray, III
(Chair)


Dr. Mel Blase


Dr. Hugh Bunting




Dr. Luis H. Camacho



Dr. Peter Hildebrand





Dr. Antonio M. Pinchinat




Dr. Charlotte E. Roderuck


Professor
International Extension and International Studies
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(formerly of the Rockefeller Foundation)


Professor
Agricultural Economics
University of Missouri-Columbia


Professor
Agricultural Development Overseas
University of Reading


INTSOY Plant Breeder
CIAT


Professor
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida


Tropical and Agricultural Research and Development
Specialist
IICA


Director
World Food Institute
Iowa State University


For further information contact:

Bean/Cowpea CRSP
200 Center for International Programs
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1035
U.S.A.

Telephone: (517) 355-4693
Telex: 810-251-0737
MSU INT PRO ELSG


Name








ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The External Review Panel (ERP) acknowledges with gratitude the
cooperation of all United States (US) and Host Country (HC) groups associated
with the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) in
providing the necessary materials, making arrangements for in-country travel
and meetings, and facilitating the flow of communications and travel that were
required for this very complex review.
Special appreciation is extended to the Host Country institutions and
government officials, as well as the on-site United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) personnel, who went out of their way to
accommodate the requirements of the ERP mission. The success of this effort
reflects the extent of their critical cooperation.
The External Review Panel is indebted to the Management Office (MO) for
its strong support during the extended, four-month review process. Without
the MO's help with countless details, the review would not have been
possible. The Panel was assisted in valuable fashion by Dr. B. L. Pollack,
the AID Program Officer for this CRSP, throughout its deliberations during its
Annual Meeting in Atlanta.








REPORT OF THE BEAN/COWPEA EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL FOR 1983

Table of Contents


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS . . . .

SUMMARY .

CRSP ORGANIZATIONAL CHART . . . .

LOCATION OF COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS IN THE US AND LATIN AMERICA

LOCATION OF COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS IN AFRICA . .

PROJECT INSTITUTIONAL ROSTER . . . .

1983 REVIEW PROCESS .

Introduction .

In-Country Reviews .

ERP Annual Meeting .

PROJECT EVALUATION REPORTING METHODS . . .

Project Evaluation Scales . . . .

Overall Recommendation Rating . . .

Five-Point Category Evaluation Scale . . .

Contribution to Development in the Host Country . .

Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies . .

PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILES

Botswana .

Brazil (Boyce Thompson Institute/Roberts) . .

Brazil (University of Wisconsin/Bliss) . .

Brazil (University of Wisconsin/Hagedorn) . .

Cameroon .

Dominican Republic (University of Nebraska) . .

Dominican Republic'(University of Puerto Rico) . .


i

iv

S. 1

. 3

.4

5
5



9

* 9
. 9
. 9


10

S. 11

S 11

S. 12

. 12

S. 12

. 12



. 13

. 15

17

19

S 21

.23

S. 25











Ecuador .. .

Guatemala .

Honduras .

INCAP .

Kenya .

Malawi .

Mexico .

Nigeria (Michigan State University) .

Nigeria (University of Georgia) .

Senegal .

Tanzania .

Project Evaluation Matrix . .

CRSP MANAGEMENT EVALUATION . .

Finance . .

Administration . . .

Recommendations . . .

PROGRAM EVALUATION . . .

The Role of the CRSP in International

Agricultural Research and Development

Specific Contributions to Development .

Specific Contributions to US Agriculture

Program Weaknesses . .

Overall Evaluation . .

APPENDIX A (ERP Site Review Protocol) .


. 27

. 29

. 31

. 33

. 35

S 37

. 39

. 41

. 43

. 45

. 47

. 49

. 50

. 50

. 50

. 51

. 52




. 52

. 53

. 54

. 55

. 55

. 56


-iii-








GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS


AI
BIFAD
BNF
BOD
BTI
CGIAR
CIAT

CNPAF

CRSP
DR
E
EAP
EMBRAPA

ERP
HC
HP
HS
ICTA

IITA
INCAP

INIA

INIAP

ISRA

JCARD
L
LS
LTP
MO
NA
PCCMCA


PI
PL
PU
PoI
S
SAFGRAD
SODECOTON
TC
UA
UPR
SAID
USDA
WID
WW


Already Important
Board for International Food and Agricultural Development
Biological Nitrogen Fixation
Board of Directors
Boyce Thompson Institute
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (International
Center of Tropical Agriculture)
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Arroz e Feijao (National Center
of Investigation for Rice and Beans)
Collaborative Research Support Program
Dominican Republic
Exceptional
Escuela Agricola Panamericana (Pan-American Agricultural School)
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecugria (Brazilian
Enterprise for Agricultural Investigations)
External Review Panel
Host Country
Highly Promising
Highly Satisfactory
Institute de Ciencias y Tecnologia Agricola (Institute of
Agricultural Science and Technology)
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Institute de Nutrici6n de Centroamerica y Panama (Institute of
Nutrition of Central America and Panama)
Institute Nacional de Investigaciones Agricolas (National
Institute of Agricultural Investigations)
Institute Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (National
Institute of Agricultural Investigations)
Institute Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles (Senegalese
Institute of Agricultural Research)
Joint Committee for Agricultural Research and Development
Limited
Less than Satisfactory
Long-Term Potential
Management Office
Not Applicable
Program Cooperativo Centroamericano para el Mejoramiento de
Cultivos Alimenticios (Central American Cooperative Program
for the Improvement of Food Crops)
Principal Investigator
Potentially Limited
Potentially Useful
Potentially Important
Satisfactory
Semiarid Food Grain Research and Development Project
Cotton production cooperative in Cameroon
Technical Committee
Unacceptable
University of Puerto Rico
United States Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
Women in Development
Worldwide
-iv-








SUMMARY


This is the second annual evaluation of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP by the
External Review Panel. Eighteen research and training collaborative projects
on beans (twelve) and cowpeas (six) make up the CRSP. There are no free-
standing projects in the US without HC partnerships. These projects involve
nine US lead universities, one US research institute, and counterpart
institutions/agencies in thirteen cooperating countries. The CRSP has been
underway for three years, with its individual projects having been initiated
for between one and two and one-half years. While some of the lead
universities are responsible for only one project, five US universities have
two projects each and one US university has three projects. Some of the
projects enjoy the support of more than one US institution; in one such
project there are five cooperating US universities. In addition, there are
several individual researchers having assignments which cross projects. On
both a formal and informal basis, projects test one another's materials and
individuals act as advisors to one another, offering different disciplinary
perspectives. These relationships are increasing, even cross-nationally, as a
result of the successes of individual projects and the rotating involvement of
project researchers on the Technical Committee (TC).
The 1983 external review process covered a period of four months and this
year focused on ERP team visits to project sites in cooperating Host Countries.
This process culminated in the ERP Annual Meeting, at which time discussion of
the many reports and written communications generated the project evaluations
and the assessment of the overall CRSP. Of the eighteen projects, nine were
rated by the ERP to be satisfactory for continuation without major changes or
adjustments. Five were judged satisfactory for continuation with a recommenda-
tion for identified changes or adjustments. Four were deemed less than satis-
factory for continuation unless major deficiencies/weaknesses are corrected.
The ERP then considered the overall management of the CRSP. Despite the
sizeable number of domestic and foreign institutions distributed in North,
Central and South America (including the Caribbean) and in East, West and
Southern Africa, the ERP felt that the MO, Board of Directors (BOD), TC and
collaborating institutions have been able to provide satisfactory administra-
tive and technical management for the individual CRSP projects. This is







particularly significant because it has been during a period of high personnel
turnover in the MO. There are several exceptions, but operations of the CRSP
projects overall have been carried out quite well. Given the number of
projects and the diversity of activities and personalities in a cross-cultural,
inter-governmental relationship, this is a surprising achievement worthy of
special recognition.
A major challenge facing all nations--including donor nations--is that of
mobilizing/developing resources and making satisfactory arrangements to use
resources. As a unique, new member of the international agricultural research
and development system, this CRSP arrangement shows considerable promise. It
is a highly acceptable and effective modality for bringing the extensive
resources of US centers of excellence to the support of food and agricultural
development in low-income, food-deficit nations. In the short term, predict-
able benefits can accrue from the transfer and/or development of knowledge and
materials under the CRSP arrangement. It is clear that this process is under-
way in the Bean/Cowpea CRSP and the direct benefits surely will exceed the
costs. For the long term, the benefits are likely to be even more rewarding:
the CRSP promotes and builds institutional and personal/professional relation-
ships which will endure long after its demise. Such relationships, time after
time, will continue to pay dividends, given the dynamic nature of agriculture
and the need to draw continually on expertise wherever it exists.









The Bean/Cowpea CRSP Organizational Chart


U S A I D -- BIFAD
CARDR)


CRSP
EXTERNAL REVIEW
PANEL





MANAGEMENT ENTITY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

CRSP COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND CRSP
BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL
DIRECTORS COMMITTEE

CRSP MANAGEMENT OFFICE--MSU








US LEAD INSTITUTIONS


-3-


US
COLLABORATING
INSTITUTIONS


HOST COUNTRY
COLLABORATING
INSTITUTIONS


Figure 1.





Location of Collaborating Institutions in the United States and
Collaborating Host Countries in Latin America.


B2 2


Figure 2.


KEY:
B = Bean
C = Cowpea
* = US Institutions


Lead Institutions in
the United States:
Colorado State University
Cornell University
Michigan State University
University of California-
Davis and Riverside
University of Georgia
University of Nebraska
University of Puerto Rico
University of Wisconsin
Washington State University

Host Countries
BI Mexico
B2 Guatemala
B- Honduras
B4 Dominican Republic
B5 Ecuador
B6 Brazil
C Brazil
1


"
E






Figure 3. Location of Collaborating Host Countries in Africa.


B


KEY: --,
B = Bean t '
C = Cowpea

5- -

Host Countries:
87 Kenya
88 Tanzania
B9 Malawi
C2 Senegal
C3 Nigeria
C4 Cameroon
C5 Botswana







BEAN/COWPEA CRSP PROJECT INSTITUTIONAL ROSTER


Host Country Institution


Ministry of Agriculture


Lead US Institution


BOTSWANA


Colorado State University


Development of Integrated Cowpea Production
Systems in Semiarid Botswana


Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecygria (EMBRAPA)


BRAZIL


Boyce Thompson Institute


Insect Pathogens in Cowpea Pest Management
Systems for Developing Nations


BRAZIL


EMBRAPA


University of Wisconsin


Identification of Superior Bean-Rhizobia
Combinations and Utilization in Cropping
Systems Suitable for Small Farms in Brazil


BRAZIL


University of Wisconsin


Improved Techniques for Development of
Multiple Disease Resistance in Phaseolus
vulgaris L.


L'Institut de Recherche
Agronomique au Cameroun


CAMEROON


University of Georgia


Pest Management Strategies for Optimizing
Cowpea Yields in Cameroon


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Secretarfa de Estado de Agricultura


University of Nebraska


Biology, Epidemiology, Genetics and
Breeding for Resistance to Bacterial
and Rust Pathogens of Beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.)


EMBRAPA









DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Secretarfa de Estado de Agricultura


University of Puerto Rico


Improvement of Bean Proauction in the
Dominican Republic through Breeding for
Multiple Disease Resistance in the
Preferred Standard Cultivars


ECUADOR
Institute Nacional de Investigaciones
Agropecuarias (INIAP)


Cornell University


Agronomic, Sociological and Genetic
Aspects of Bean Yield and Adaptation


Institute de Ciencias y
Tecnologfa Agricola (ICTA)


GUATEMALA


Cornell University


Agronomic, Sociological and Genetic
Aspects of Bean Yield and Adaptation


Escuela Agrfcola Panamericana (EAP)


HONDURAS


University of Puerto Rico


Improvement of Bean Production in
Honduras through Breeding for Multiple
Disease Resistance


Institute of Nutrition of Central
America and Panama (INCAP)


INCAP


Washington State University


Improved Biological Utilization and
Availability of Dry Beans


University of Nairobi, Kabete


KENYA


University of California, Davis


Improvement of Drought and Heat Tolerance
of Disease Resistant Beans in Semiarid
Regions of Kenya








Bunda College of Agriculture


MALAWI


Michigan State University


.Genetic, Agronomic and Socio-Cultural
Analysis of Diversity among Bean
Land-Races in Malawi


Institute Nacional
Agrfcolas (INIA)


MEXICO
de Investigaciones


Michigan State University


Improving Resistance to Environmental
Stress in Beans through Genetic Selection
for Carbohydrate Partitioning and
Efficiency of Biological Nitrogen Fixation


Ibadan University
University of Jos


NIGERIA


Michigan State University


Medical Apsects of Feeding Cowpeas to
Children


University of Nigeria, Nsukka


NIGERIA


University of Georgia


Appropriate Technology for Cowpea
Preservation and Processing and a Study
of Its Socio-Economic Impact on Rural
Populations in Nigeria


Institute Senegalais de
Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)


SENEGAL


University of California-
Riverside


A Program to Develop Improved Cowpea
Cultivars for Production and Utilization
in Semiarid Zones


TANZANIA
University of Dar es Salaam, Morogoro


Washington State University


Breeding Beans for Disease and Insect
Resistance and Determination of Economic
Impact on Smallholder Farm Families








THE 1983 REVIEW PROCESS


Introduction
In 1982, the first annual external review of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP was held.
It concentrated on evaluation of the CRSP from the perspective of CRSP activity
in the United States. The members of the ERP traveled to lead institutions,
visiting with individuals responsible for technical and administrative aspects
of the projects. Following these trips, the Panel members came together for
the first annual external review meeting. This meeting was held at Michigan
State University. In attendance were personnel from each of the projects
including some HC project scientists. Reports, presentations and discussions
provided significant information for project evaluations.
In 1983, the ERP has focused on the HC perspective in carrying out the
review with all project Host Countries visited by designated members of the
ERP. Following these trips the ERP met together, as in the previous year, to
compare notes and evaluate each project's progress. This year, however,
project personnel did not attend although annual reports and other material
were provided by them. Therefore, this ERP report, generated at the 1983
annual meeting, is based only on in-country reviews, annual reports, trip
reports, minutes of various meetings, Principal Investigator (PI) responses to
previous evaluations and other project information from the Management Office.


In-Country Reviews
The in-country reviews were carried out between the end of August and early
December, 1983. HC and USAID Mission personnel were notified of the impending
reviews, sent preliminary outlines of the review issues and were asked to
respond to suggested dates.
Because of internal travel difficulties within some of the countries and
the infrequent airline-service into and out of other countries, some project
sites were visited for longer periods than others.
Prior to the trips, the Panel had agreed on an interview protocol of issues
to be explored during the site reviews. Each review team's assessment followed
this protocol. After each site review, a report of the assessment was then
distributed to the other ERP members. These reports were also distributed to
the projects' US PIs at the same time so that clarifications could be offered
before the ERP Annual Meeting. These site review reports are on file at the
MO. The interview protocol is included as Appendix A.








THE 1983 REVIEW PROCESS


Introduction
In 1982, the first annual external review of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP was held.
It concentrated on evaluation of the CRSP from the perspective of CRSP activity
in the United States. The members of the ERP traveled to lead institutions,
visiting with individuals responsible for technical and administrative aspects
of the projects. Following these trips, the Panel members came together for
the first annual external review meeting. This meeting was held at Michigan
State University. In attendance were personnel from each of the projects
including some HC project scientists. Reports, presentations and discussions
provided significant information for project evaluations.
In 1983, the ERP has focused on the HC perspective in carrying out the
review with all project Host Countries visited by designated members of the
ERP. Following these trips the ERP met together, as in the previous year, to
compare notes and evaluate each project's progress. This year, however,
project personnel did not attend although annual reports and other material
were provided by them. Therefore, this ERP report, generated at the 1983
annual meeting, is based only on in-country reviews, annual reports, trip
reports, minutes of various meetings, Principal Investigator (PI) responses to
previous evaluations and other project information from the Management Office.


In-Country Reviews
The in-country reviews were carried out between the end of August and early
December, 1983. HC and USAID Mission personnel were notified of the impending
reviews, sent preliminary outlines of the review issues and were asked to
respond to suggested dates.
Because of internal travel difficulties within some of the countries and
the infrequent airline-service into and out of other countries, some project
sites were visited for longer periods than others.
Prior to the trips, the Panel had agreed on an interview protocol of issues
to be explored during the site reviews. Each review team's assessment followed
this protocol. After each site review, a report of the assessment was then
distributed to the other ERP members. These reports were also distributed to
the projects' US PIs at the same time so that clarifications could be offered
before the ERP Annual Meeting. These site review reports are on file at the
MO. The interview protocol is included as Appendix A.








THE 1983 REVIEW PROCESS


Introduction
In 1982, the first annual external review of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP was held.
It concentrated on evaluation of the CRSP from the perspective of CRSP activity
in the United States. The members of the ERP traveled to lead institutions,
visiting with individuals responsible for technical and administrative aspects
of the projects. Following these trips, the Panel members came together for
the first annual external review meeting. This meeting was held at Michigan
State University. In attendance were personnel from each of the projects
including some HC project scientists. Reports, presentations and discussions
provided significant information for project evaluations.
In 1983, the ERP has focused on the HC perspective in carrying out the
review with all project Host Countries visited by designated members of the
ERP. Following these trips the ERP met together, as in the previous year, to
compare notes and evaluate each project's progress. This year, however,
project personnel did not attend although annual reports and other material
were provided by them. Therefore, this ERP report, generated at the 1983
annual meeting, is based only on in-country reviews, annual reports, trip
reports, minutes of various meetings, Principal Investigator (PI) responses to
previous evaluations and other project information from the Management Office.


In-Country Reviews
The in-country reviews were carried out between the end of August and early
December, 1983. HC and USAID Mission personnel were notified of the impending
reviews, sent preliminary outlines of the review issues and were asked to
respond to suggested dates.
Because of internal travel difficulties within some of the countries and
the infrequent airline-service into and out of other countries, some project
sites were visited for longer periods than others.
Prior to the trips, the Panel had agreed on an interview protocol of issues
to be explored during the site reviews. Each review team's assessment followed
this protocol. After each site review, a report of the assessment was then
distributed to the other ERP members. These reports were also distributed to
the projects' US PIs at the same time so that clarifications could be offered
before the ERP Annual Meeting. These site review reports are on file at the
MO. The interview protocol is included as Appendix A.








ERP Annual Meeting
On January 9-11, 1984, the ERP met in Atlanta to discuss and compile their
1983 findings. Projects were presented to the group by the ERP reviewers who
had visited the respective sites and had written the reports previously dis-
tributed. Subsequent discussions centered around these reports, PI responses
to these reports previously circulated to them, the information presented in
the Log Frames prepared by the PIs, Annual Reports, Trip Reports and other
information provided by the MO. The MO representative and the AID/Washington
Program Officer provided important perspectives and clarifications throughout
these discussions.
In ,the consolidation process, effort was made to ensure consistency across
projects in the application of evaluation criteria. These criteria provided a
ready means for making comparisons. Final recommendation ratings were made at
the conclusion of that process. A summary matrix displaying the ERP project
evaluations was prepared. Following the ERP meeting this summary matrix was
presented to the Technical Committee by Dr. Clarence Gray, III, Chairperson of
the ERP. The summary matrix is included in this report at the end of the
section Project Evaluation Profiles.


-10-









PROJECT EVALUATION REPORTING METHODS


Following the ERP Annual Meeting, a draft report was prepared by the ERP
Chairperson with assistance from the MO and distributed to the members for
their changes and approval. A final draft was reviewed and approved by the
Chairperson.


Project Evaluation Scales
Each project was assessed in seven categories. These categories are
related to the in-country review protocol agreed upon at the beginning of the
process. The categories are as follows:
1. Administration of Project

1.1 Host Country
1.2 United States
1.3 AID
1.4 Interaction

2. Technical Personnel

2.1 Host Country
2.2 United States
2.3 Collaboration

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

4.1 Host Country
4.2 AID Projects
4.3 International

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies

AID Mission Involvement
Host Country and US Commitment

5.1 Strengths
5.2 Deficiencies


-11-









PROJECT EVALUATION REPORTING METHODS


Following the ERP Annual Meeting, a draft report was prepared by the ERP
Chairperson with assistance from the MO and distributed to the members for
their changes and approval. A final draft was reviewed and approved by the
Chairperson.


Project Evaluation Scales
Each project was assessed in seven categories. These categories are
related to the in-country review protocol agreed upon at the beginning of the
process. The categories are as follows:
1. Administration of Project

1.1 Host Country
1.2 United States
1.3 AID
1.4 Interaction

2. Technical Personnel

2.1 Host Country
2.2 United States
2.3 Collaboration

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

4.1 Host Country
4.2 AID Projects
4.3 International

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies

AID Mission Involvement
Host Country and US Commitment

5.1 Strengths
5.2 Deficiencies


-11-








6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations


7. Overall Recommendation Rating

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


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


Five-Point Category 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 basis of Limited (L),
Potentially Limited (PL), Potentially Important (PoI), 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/Deficiencies (for item 5):
Brief descriptive statements included in texts of Project Evaluation
Profiles.


-12-








6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations


7. Overall Recommendation Rating

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


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


Five-Point Category 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 basis of Limited (L),
Potentially Limited (PL), Potentially Important (PoI), 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/Deficiencies (for item 5):
Brief descriptive statements included in texts of Project Evaluation
Profiles.


-12-








6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations


7. Overall Recommendation Rating

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


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


Five-Point Category 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 basis of Limited (L),
Potentially Limited (PL), Potentially Important (PoI), 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/Deficiencies (for item 5):
Brief descriptive statements included in texts of Project Evaluation
Profiles.


-12-








6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations


7. Overall Recommendation Rating

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


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


Five-Point Category 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 basis of Limited (L),
Potentially Limited (PL), Potentially Important (PoI), 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/Deficiencies (for item 5):
Brief descriptive statements included in texts of Project Evaluation
Profiles.


-12-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


BOTSWANA COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated July 1982)
deMooy


Development of Integrated Cowpea Production Systems in Semiarid Botswana


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
This is a dynamic project which has been fully accepted as a part of the
national program of Botswana. The research and training components of the
project are designed to develop information and human resources to meet the
needs for higher grain production in the country. The linkages established
with HC agencies, international and regional organizations are helping achieve
the project's objective of improving farmer technology for higher cowpea
production.
Although a HC PI has not yet been appointed, project activities are
continuing on schedule with the support of an administrator designated
temporary HC PI. The ERP was impressed that Botswana had made the necessary
arrangements to fulfill its obligations under the CRSP despite its modest
circumstances and a dearth of trained personnel. The steady, substantial
progress made to date toward the accomplishment of objectives is an example of
what is possible when there is a commitment by cooperating institutions and by
capable Principal Investigators who find ways to carry out and find support
for mutually developed plans.
Nonetheless, the long-term viability of the cowpea research program in
Botswana may be threatened by the lack of qualified graduates to carry on
research and development work. The training plan, which includes two M.S.
students who recently began their programs, is crucial to the future of the
cowpea project beyond the CRSP. Training initiatives need to be intensified
and could include training of Botswanan students in agricultural colleges in
other African countries. Further, the ERP was quite concerned over the lack
of coordination with the USAID-supported _Agricultural Technology Improvement
Project headed by Dr. David Norman although collaboration with other groups has
apparently been quite productive. The ERP was also concerned about the slow
development of a social science component. The importance of the cowpea crop


-13-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


BOTSWANA COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated July 1982)
deMooy


Development of Integrated Cowpea Production Systems in Semiarid Botswana


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
This is a dynamic project which has been fully accepted as a part of the
national program of Botswana. The research and training components of the
project are designed to develop information and human resources to meet the
needs for higher grain production in the country. The linkages established
with HC agencies, international and regional organizations are helping achieve
the project's objective of improving farmer technology for higher cowpea
production.
Although a HC PI has not yet been appointed, project activities are
continuing on schedule with the support of an administrator designated
temporary HC PI. The ERP was impressed that Botswana had made the necessary
arrangements to fulfill its obligations under the CRSP despite its modest
circumstances and a dearth of trained personnel. The steady, substantial
progress made to date toward the accomplishment of objectives is an example of
what is possible when there is a commitment by cooperating institutions and by
capable Principal Investigators who find ways to carry out and find support
for mutually developed plans.
Nonetheless, the long-term viability of the cowpea research program in
Botswana may be threatened by the lack of qualified graduates to carry on
research and development work. The training plan, which includes two M.S.
students who recently began their programs, is crucial to the future of the
cowpea project beyond the CRSP. Training initiatives need to be intensified
and could include training of Botswanan students in agricultural colleges in
other African countries. Further, the ERP was quite concerned over the lack
of coordination with the USAID-supported _Agricultural Technology Improvement
Project headed by Dr. David Norman although collaboration with other groups has
apparently been quite productive. The ERP was also concerned about the slow
development of a social science component. The importance of the cowpea crop


-13-








and the magnitude of its production problems calls for interdisciplinary
research assistance which is not yet available in the country from HC
nationals. The project needs to gather information concerning the role of
cowpeas in the agricultural systems in Botswana. This information should
include traditional seed handling relative to ecology, animal production, etc.
and the role of economic factors. Further, the areas of variety testing,
variety improvement and recommendation require solid support from seed
production programs which presently need to be strengthened.
A special direct bonus of the project has been the collecting and catalogu-
ing of cowpea germ plasm. The collection consists of more than 400 local and
100 exotic lines. Accessions from this collection have been sent to IITA and
USDA.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-HS Host Country-LS
United States-HS United States-HS
AID-S Collaboration-S I[S
Interaction-S

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-E
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-LS s *E-
Achievement of Training Objectives-HS
Publications/Information Dissemination-S -4 1S
Food and Nutritional Component-NA OVtl1
Consideration of WID Issues-S
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-E
AID Projects-LS SA /-3
International-HS

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-S f# //


-14-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


BRAZIL BOYCE THOMPSON INSTITUTE (Initiated October 1981)
Roberts


Insect Pathogens in Cowpea Pest Management Systems for Developing Nations


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 2 /

REVIEW:
This project has continued the impressive progress noted by the ERP in
1982. Both basic and applied studies are underway in Brazil and in the US,
including several collaborative research activities in other Brazilian
agencies. More than 100 fungal isolates have been identified and many have
been evaluated in the laboratory for pathogenicity to certain insects. The
socio-economic implications of implementing the biological research results at
the small farmer level need to be assessed. Field use of the technology is
being tested in small farm systems, however the practicality of such technology
remains to be determined. Also the issue of the impact of such fungi on
important beneficial predators should be thoroughly examined. This technology
should be considered in the overall context of integrated pest management. A
number of the isolates have been distributed to interested Brazilian, US and
other scientists for possible use as insect control agents. Promising
epizootiology studies are underway. They are expected to provide concepts and
methods which can be applied to similar studies worldwide. In sum, the project
is advancing technology for biological insect control in cowpea production.
The technology developed to control cowpea insects in the field, the effective
training in insect pathology at the non-degree level and the dawning efforts
in international cooperation in microbiological insect control are clear
strengths of this project. Eventually an Insect Pathology Resource Center may
be established in Brazil.
The lack of a working research counterpart PI inhibits the full institu-
tionalization of this project and undermines the researcher-to-researcher
collaborative relationship goal of the CRSP.
Training under the project is proceeding satisfactorily and considerable
interest in insect pathology is being generated in Brazil through both the
training program and the various research and communication linkages. Although


-15-








women have been included in the non-degree training components of this project,
women should be included in degree training as well. Training, information and
materials are ready to be exchanged with other researchers beyond Brazil.
The impressive research progress to date has been achieved largely through
the efforts of the US PI, the US resident scientist and the critical
administrative support and facilities provided by Brazil. That the US
personnel have operated for the most part without working counterparts suggests
that the institutionalization of the project at this points suffers. A major
concern is what will happen when the project leaves Brazil. The lack of a
working counterpart PI is a serious weakness in need of early correction. For
this reason, the project is considered to be satisfactory for continuation but
with a major adjustment required. Recent reports indicate this deficiency may
be in the process of being corrected.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S t Host Country-LS S
United States-HS United States-HS E
AID-S c- Collaboration-LS 5
Interaction-S k1-s

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-HS
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-E
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-NA
Achievement of Training Objectives-S /
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-S
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-PU

4. Linkages
Host Country-S
AID Projects-NA
International-HS

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-S I/5


-16-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


BRAZIL UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN (Initiated February 1982)
Bliss


Identification of Superior Bean-Rhizobia Combinations and Utilization
in Cropping Systems Suitable to Small Farms in Brazil


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
The 1982 ERP report identified this project as one with considerable
promise. Results in 1983 support this judgement. Breeding lines of black
beans possessing potential for enhanced BNF (biological nitrogen fixation) and
adapted to sub-tropical conditions are ready now for regional testing in
Brazil. Breeding methods to facilitate transfer of characters favoring
enhanced BNF into different types of standard cultivars are available for
immediate use. Four highly efficient nitrogen fixing strains of Rhizobium
phaseoli have been selected and, after further testing, may be available for
use in one to two years. Initial field plot trials indicate that bean
production costs can be reduced as much as thirty percent by using efficient
nitrogen fixing strains of Rhizobium instead of using inorganic nitrogen
fertilizer. The project should test if the more responsive lines work in
different settings, giving attention to the stage of application and to
competing organisms. The project might also consider issues having to do with
commercial adaptation and uses of the technology, such as large-scale
production procedures and shelf-life of the inoculum. Overall this project
has achieved substantial research results in a relatively short period of
time, results which are attributable to the US PI and the strong interest and
support in Brazil.
The US team is completely integrated with the HC team and enjoys appre-
ciation and support from the CNPAF administration. The work environment is
favorable physically, technically and institutionally. EMBRAPA is very much
interested in the project. The CNPAF administration considers the project a
success story and is incorporating its results into the institution's plans for
the future. Completion of the M.S. at Wisconsin by the HC PI will be added
support both to the project and the established network that exists in Brazil.


-17-







While plans include additional training, post-graduate training needs to be
increased. Women should be more directly involved in the project research and
training, a weakness which is particularly glaring in light of other successes.
This project should repeat in Brazil and at other CRSP sites its highly
successful BNF workshop that was held last summer at Wisconsin for HC students
of CRSP projects studying in the US.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-HS Host Country-LS .
United States-HS United States-E
AID-S Collaboration-HS
Interaction-S is

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-HS
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-E
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-NA
Achievement of Training Objectives-HS .3
Publications/Information Dissemination-HS S
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-LS -
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S L5
Cbntribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-E
AID Projects-NA
International-HS
5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-NA dJ-


-18-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


BRAZIL UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN (Initiated June 1982)
Hagedorn (/It e/),


Improved Techniques for Development of Multiple Disease
Resistance in Phaseolus vulgaris L.

RECOMMENDATION RATING: 3 2-

REVIEW:
This project was late getting started and since initiation has made less
than satisfactory progress in Brazil. The ERP judges the level of administra-
tive interaction and scientific collaboration between the US and Brazilian
researchers as loose and irregular and thus unacceptable. This circumstance
has contributed to predictably disappointing progress toward the accomplishment
of collaborative objectives in Brazil.
The US PI's limited communication and involvement in the project's
administration in Brazil has contributed to slow progress in both research and
training. In addition, there appear to be no women involved in the project in
Brazil although the ERP does acknowledge the contribution of a female research
associate in Wisconsin.
There seems to prevail serious doubt about the appropriateness of the
research strategy applied to achieve the project's main goal. If the project
in Brazil follows its present course of action, especially in trying to develop
varieties instead of concentrating on developing improved methodology for
research on multiple disease resistance in beans, its contribution to institu-
tion building at CNPAF may be insignificant.
In order for this project to be on firmer ground, four conditions need to
be met. First, there needs to be a positive expression of interest in this
project made by Brazil.- Operationally this means the designation of a HC PI
prepared to contribute directly to the research objectives of the project.
Second, there needs to be a technical assessment of the relationship of the
project to the overall program of CNPAF with attention to existing work on
varietal development. Third, to achieve the objectives there needs to be an


-19-







assessment of the methodology, its appropriateness, and its likely effective-
ness in Brazil. The issue of the establishment of selection pressure (massive
epidemics) should be addressed. Fourth, a small group of disciplinary peers
should be identified to assess the present research strategy.
In the judgement of the ERP, this project is less than satisfactory and is
not recommended for continuation without correction of existing major
deficiencies.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S 19s Host Country-LS S
United States-LS /Ms United States-HS
AID-S //. Collaboration-UA 5
Interaction-UA S

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-LS -
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-NA
Achievement of Training Objectives-LS
Publications/Information Dissemination-NA ~ C
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-LS -_
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-1 7~e'&
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-~ ToL

4. Linkages
Host Country-S
AID Projects-NA
International-6-S 5

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above


6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-UA







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


CAMEROON UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA (Initiated September 1981)
Chalfant


Pest Management Strategies for Optimizing Cowpea Yields in Cameroon


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 3 2- TI /4e f(

REVIEW:
As was identified in the 1982 ERP report, thorough institutionalization of
this project remains a problem and raises a question as to its appropriateness
as a "collaborative project." The ERP site review team that visited Cameroon
in 1983 found the progress being made toward the achievement of research
objectives highly satisfactory. The problems and goals are well chosen.
However, the visit revealed clearly that the work was being carried out by the
University of Georgia, mainly through the US PI and the expatriate researcher
who has been employed by the University of Georgia to be the resident scientist
in Cameroon. In the country the small team cooperates with other related
research programs such as SAFGRAD and SODECOTON (an effective extension system
for farmers). While the project appears to be accomplishing its technical
objectives, the Host Country has been unable to provide a HC investigator and
an institutional framework for the project. The dearth of trained persons in
Cameroon is a probable reason for the lack of project counterpart personnel and
the unsatisfactory arrangement for institutionalizing the project. Neverthe-
less and for whatever reason, this circumstance is a major deficiency which
seems to preclude a collaborative program at this time. The ERP considered the
importance of cowpeas in Cameroon, the satisfactory work underway and the
imperative of conserving the cowpea germ plasm found in the country (Cameroon
may well be a significant center of diversity of the crop and its wild
relatives). For these reasons and the difficulty the nation has in conducting
a collaborative program, the ERP after considerable discussion decided that a
more appropriate model might be that of a straight USAID-supported technical
assistance project which would release the CRSP for other settings where its
comparative advantage would be better utilized. It was, in fact, noted during
the ERP visit that the longer range hopes of USAID for research in Cameroon may
be consistent with this project and may help to ensure the project's long-term
impact.


-21-







An additional weakness is the lack of attention to the training of local
participants, including women. The links with Boyce Thompson Institute are a
strength but one which has to prove itself by results. CRSP concern for inter-
national collaboration requires that the existing team set itself to addressing
these problems with the Cameroon administration. The ERP judged that this
project is less than satisfactory for continuation unless a HC PI is provided
by the Government of the Cameroon within an arrangement which will provide
training for personnel and move toward the institutionalization of the
research. In the US it is also apparent that some public relations work may
be in order.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-LS Host Country-UA
United States-LS S United States-HS
AID-S Collaboration-LS S
Interaction-LS S

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-HS
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-NA AS-
Achievement of Training Objectives-LS
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-LS
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-S
AID Projects-S /6S
International-S ,SP

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-UA //S


-22-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA (Initiated June 1981)
Coyne


Biology, Epidemiology, Genetics and Breeding for Resistance to
Bacterial and Rust Pathogens of Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
The research undertaken by the project is making an important contribution
to fundamental knowledge on bacterial blight and rust especially in the
tropics. Highly satisfactory progress continues in (a) screening bean germ
plasm for resistance, (b) determining pathogenic variation, (c) clarifying
inheritance of resistance, (d) improving research facilities, (e) promoting and
facilitating WID concerns and (f) training graduate students/project personnel.
Collaboration between US and Dominican Republic (DR) personnel is exceptional
and is reflected in the progress being made in the DR: improved research
facilities, new gene bank and laboratories, adequate field locations for
extensive field trials and nurseries and an accelerated, highly effective
breeding program. This collaborative effort (in conjunction with the Puerto
Rican project in the DR) has produced (1) a resistant line for seed multipli-
cation and release (Arroyo Loro) and (2) new sources of resistance to common
blight and rust. The project has established mutually useful cooperative
linkages with domestic and international bean improvement programs. In the DR,
administration of the project at the institution level is somewhat loose,
especially in personnel management. However, the project enjoys strong
interest and encouragement from the government through the Department of
Research of the Ministry of Agriculture and is technically integrated in the
overall DR bean research program. Internationally, DR project personnel have
developed effective cooperation with CIAT research personnel and have been
active participants in regional meetings of the PCCMCA.
Cooperating well with its companion DR/University of Puerto Rico (UPR)
project, the personnel at Nebraska have agreed to concentrate on character
enhancement, the source of its major strength. UPR, on the other hand, will
focus on cultivar development, making optimal use of their ecology which is
much like that of the DR. The Nebraska work is particularly important because
-23-








there is so much to be researched in the genetics of disease inheritance
especially relative to the different parts of the plant. The Nebraska team is
a particularly strong group for this research. A review of travel suggests
that it would be well to limit travel not directly related to the project,
such as the numbers of persons who attend professional meetings. In addition,
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 program and (2) opportunities for the professional advancement of DR
women, an effort the ERP was pleased to find would be encouraged by the
government.
TheERP found no serious weaknesses or deficiencies in this project and
therefore judged it to be satisfactory for continuation without major
changes/adjustments.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S /S Host Country-HS S
United States-HS United States-HS
AID-HS .5 Collaboration-E
Interaction-HS

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S /5
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-S -LS
Achievement of Training Objectives-HS
Publications/Information Dissemination-HS
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-HS
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S NoX
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-S
AID Projects-NA
International-S 1S

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-HS


-24-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO (Initiated June 1981)
L6pez-Rosa ( 'c )___


Improvement of Bean Production in the Dominican Republic through Breeding
for Multiple Disease Resistance in the Preferred Standard Cultivars


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
The geographical proximity of the US and HC institutions to each other and
the similarities between the two cultures is a significant strength in this
project. In addition, the project builds on a high level of competence in both
research teams as well as on the intensity and record of accomplishments of the
breeding program at Puerto Rico. Concentration on the bean disease problem as
the focus to improve bean production in the area is most appropriate. Not only
should this effort help increase the availability of beans for consumption in
the DR, but it will also help strengthen the Puerto Rican winter nurseries of
the US bean industry and of the other CRSP projects.
The results of the research need wide dissemination especially information
on the five new lines released by Freytag and the DR (Arroyo Loro). At the
Arroyo Loro station there needs to be a full-time plant breeder who has
attained a graduate degree at least at the M.S. level. The PIs should monitor
the work closely to make sure the genetic advantages of the Pompadour lines are
not lost.
This project and the project with the University of Nebraska have quite
useful complementary features and together provide an unusually high and
effective level of collaboration for bean improvement in the DR. As with the
Nebraska project, this project is being carried out in a highly satisfactory
fashion with few apparent weaknesses and with similar strengths, i.e., excep-
tional interaction between US and DR Principal Investigators and project
personnel, adequate facilities and a highly effective bean breeding program
which is an integral part of the DR national program. These commonalities
underscore and highlight the commitment and support of the Dominican Republic
and the capabilities and interest of their project personnel. However, at the
institution level the administration of the project is somewhat loose,
especially in personnel management. Additionally, while the project enjoys the


-25-







support of the government of the DR, the government policy of curtailing in-
country travel of HC project personnel by imposing unfavorable restrictions on
per diem payment is a problem to be addressed. There is a serious need for
more training in plant breeding. Further, although there are many women
involved in the project in the DR, training must open avenues for their
advancement.
Communications among the project participants and other projects in the
CRSP is extremely good. The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for
continuation without major changes/adjustments.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S Vs 'Host Country-HS .S
United States-HS United States-HS
AID-HS S" Collaboration-E
Interaction-E

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S pJS
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-S /-s
Achievement of Training Objectives-HS
Publications/Information Dissemination-HS
Food and Nutritional Component-NA S
Consideration of WID Issues-HS
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-AI

4. Linkages
Host Country-S
AID Projects-NA
International-S ~S

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-HS


-26-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


ECUADOR CORNELL UNIVERSITY (Initiated September 1981)
Wallace


Agronomic, Sociological and Genetic Aspects of Bean Yield and Adaptation


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 2

REVIEW:
The ERP team which visited Ecuador in November 1983 judged that this
project "appears to have turned around," even though certain important
components are lagging, e.g., training and the delay in getting Cornell-funded
personnel (agronomist and sociologist) on site in Ecuador. The integrated,
effectively functioning team at the working level is noteworthy. The momentum
attained promises to continue as a result of (1) the preparation of the
detailed plan of work and (2) the solution of administrative problems,
especially the flow of funds. The strengths of the project are the commitment
to the CRSP by Ecuador, the perseverance of Cornell and INIAP personnel and the
congruence/complementarity of interests and objectives of Ecuador, Cornell and
USAID, especially with regard to WID and social science/nutrition objectives.
An especially desirable feature of this project has been the accomplishment of
a highly useful survey of bean production in a representative area of Ecuador.
The findings of this survey are providing guidance and priorities for the
agronomic research component and offers much promise of making a contribution
to efforts designed to meet the needs of small farmers.
The agronomic component of this project is now in a better position to move
forward. Because this project has had a difficult history, the focus now needs
to be on the future rather than the past. There needs to be clarification of
who is the principal HC researcher in charge of the overall development of the
research.
A more clearly stated set of success criteria by which the performance of
the project ultimately can be judged is needed. For example, the project is
moving into position to be able to ask such questions as "what will be the
trade-offs with regard to increases in the marketable surplus of beans and the
nutritional levels of the small farmers' families producing them?"


-27-







Other obstacles, e.g., the lack of a functioning bean seed distribution
system for small farmers, need to be anticipated so that remedial action can
be undertaken promptly., The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for
continuation with correction of weaknesses in (1) the project's Logical Frame-
work, (2) the training component and (3) failure to have yet identified the
technical personnel it has planned to place in Ecuador.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S Host Country-S
United States-S United States-S
AID-HS Collaboration-HS
Interaction-HS

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-LS
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-S
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Training Objectives-LS
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-S
Consideration of WID Issues-HS
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-HP

4. Linkages
Host Country-HS
AID Projects-S
International-S

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-HS


-28-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


GUATEMALA CORNELL UNIVERSITY (Initiated September 1981)
Wallace


Agronomic, Sociological and Genetic Aspects of Bean Yield and Adaptation


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 2
REVIEW:
Effective collaboration between the US and Guatemalan PIs has resulted in
highly satisfactory progress toward the accomplishment of the project's natural
science objectives. To a considerable degree this has been due to the support
of ICTA, the exceptionally good relationship between the US and HC PIs and
their resourcefulness and determination to continue the research. The changed
situation in the country has now permitted the work to go forward more
expeditiously in a collaborative manner under the direction of the two highly
competent Principal Investigators.
With regard to bean plant adaptation to temperature and daylength, the
project results have been highly satisfactory and have worldwide significance.
Research findings are ready for publication, which should be done in several
languages.
By contrast, the progress with respect to sociological objectives is judged
by the ERP to be unacceptable. While there may be a variety of explainable and
extenuating circumstances for this situation, much confusion has been caused
by project administrative difficulties, problems in making the socio-economic
component operational and inconsistencies among project documents (e.g., Log
Frame, objectives). The documents need to be rewritten to show more clearly n >
the relationship of objectives to activities. Recent attention has been paid
to personnel adjustments which should strengthen the socio-economic component,
and major administrative difficulties seem to have been resolved. Linkages
with in-country units which would further strengthen the efforts should be
expanded. For example, the existing link between ICTA and INCAP can be
strengthened to support greater collaboration between the existing CRSP
projects in the conduct of the socio-economic studies.


-29-







Overall, the ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for continuation
with a requirement for resolution of the social science component, i.e.,
implementation or attention to procedures for adjusting project objectives.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-HS H5 Host Country-HS S5
United States-S # ~ United States-HS/UA f/ 5
AID-S Collaboration-HS f -
Interaction-S +s

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-LS 5
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-E
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-UA L-5
Achievement of Training Objectives-S s5/-
Publications/Information Dissemination-S ./ -s
Food and Nutritional Component--S NA
Consideration of WID Issues-LS S
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-WW

4. Linkages
Host Country-S
AID Projects-S
International-HS

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-S


-30-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


HONDURAS UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO (Initiated March 1982)
Lopez-Rosa


Improvement of Bean Production in Honduras through
Breeding for Multiple Disease Resistance


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 3

REVIEW:
While the project is located in an appropriate and reasonably safe setting
and is presently receiving encouragement from the Ministry of Agriculture, it
may have too many problems to justify its survival in its present form. Acti-
vities of this project are carried out in Honduras by a private organization,
Escuela Agrlcola Panamericana (EAP). The Honduran Ministry of Natural
Resources has provided land for field trials and limited logistical and
personnel support. To date, the work in Honduras has consisted of performance
testing of existing bean varieties on experiment stations and farmers' fields
and limited training of Honduran nationals. Some new bean cultivars/lines have
been brought in for testing by the US PI. More visits to Honduras by him would
encourage the development of greater professional collaboration.
High turnover in the Honduran PI and the lack of a satisfactory institu-
tional arrangement for collaboration with UPR are weaknesses which have
compromised seriously the value of the project. Without a permanently named
HC PI, the project operates more like a bilateral technical assistance project
than a collaborative research partnership. Graduate training has been a
problem in this project and no one is apparently being groomed to step in as
HC PI in the near future.
There is recognition that research personnel conducting variety trials in
Honduras have been effective in spite of the lack of continuity from a
permanent PI. Data have been obtained both on experiment stations and in
farmers' fields. Diseases in selected sites in Honduras have been identified,
but baseline data have not been collected beyond those from local farmers
where trials have been conducted.


-31-








Because of the important Honduran ecology, the genetic material and the
importance of beans in the country, other structures for maintenance of bean
research in Honduras other than as a full-fledged CRSP project should be
explored. For example, the US institution may wish to consider a subcontract
to Honduras as part of its successful project in the DR to consolidate research
and administration. Although linkages exist with the CRSP BNF project (Brazil/
Wisconsin/Bliss), stronger linkages with INCAP as well as the Florida Farming
Systems Support Program in Honduras would be appropriate.
For the reasons given, the ERP judged this project to be less than
satisfactory for continuation unless the weaknesses cited are corrected.
SUMMARY .
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-LS S Host Country-LS //S
United States-S United States-S V5
AID-S Collaboration-LS "s-
Interaction-LS S

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-S
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-LS
Achievement of Training Objectives-S
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-NA TPo5
Consideration of WID Issues-UA _
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-S /j-S
AID Projects-S
International-S

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-S


-32-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


INCAP WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated November 1981)
Swanson


Improved Biological Utilization and Availability of Dry Beans


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
This project involves five US institutions and an established regional
organization, INCAP, located in Guatemala. With the exception of the WID
component, the INCAP work and US support were judged satisfactory by the site
review team. Communications among the institutional components of this project
have improved considerably. The HC and US PIs appear to have an excellent
working relationship.
At INCAP the work is impressive with linkages to the Wisconsin/Bliss work
on Phaseolin, the Guatemala/Cornell project and with IITA. Better linkages are
needed with the extension service (DIGESA) in Guatemala and also with the
Nigeria/Georgia CRSP project. Important socio-economic data have been
collected and are being used in research decisions.
The team is developing standardized methods for evaluating bean quality.
They are examining both storage on small farms and processing methods as well
as the effects of various production practices. Attention should be given to
graduate training including the involvement of women. At the professional
level the record of involvement of women in this project is less than
satisfactory.
A most difficult problem has been the cumbersome arrangement for the
management of finances which has delayed transfer of funds to INCAP by the lack
of timely accounting to Washington State. This is a serious problem in a
project with so many institutional partners. This problem must be resolved so
that INCAP, in the long run, is not penalized. This project has the potential
to make very important contributions to many of the CRSP projects.
Regardless of the important work emanating from this project, when the full
ERP met the consensus was that the review procedure and reports available did
not provide an adequate basis to assess the contributions of the several US
institutions, particularly the cost effectiveness of the arrangement. While


-33-







there is no definitive evidence of a problem, in the near future all the US
campuses involved should be visited to assess their respective contributions.
It is of concern that neither the Kansas State nor the University of Puerto
Rico researchers have attended team meetings.
Given this situation, the ERP judgement is that this project is satisfac-
tory for continuation without major change but that this judgement is tentative
pending satisfactory assessment of the contributions of the several US
institutions.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S <> Host Country-E
United States-S United States-HS
AID-S Collaboration-S /J5
Interaction-S

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S I/S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-S
Achievement of Training Objectives-S /#S
Publications/Information Dissemination-S 4/J
Food and Nutritional Component-HS
Consideration of WID Issues-LS 5
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S co
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-S /,S
AID Projects-S
International-HS

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-HS


-34-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


KENYA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS (Initiated August 1981)
Webster


Improvement of Drought and Heat Tolerance of Disease
Resistant Beans in Semiarid Regions of Kenya


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 3 '

REVIEW:
The project is fully accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture and in the
University of Nairobi. Its strengths are (1) in the technical contributions
of project personnel; (2) in the systematic assembly and screening of popula-
tions of beans, teparies and bean-tepary crosses and derived materials--for
adaptation to arid environments and for reaction to pests and diseases; and
(3) in its productive and complementary associations with institutions in Kenya
and beyond, particularly in the US and with the other CRSP projects in East
Africa.
The crop physiological work has yet to be fully developed. When it is, it
will need to concern itself at least as much with studies of the comparative
morphology of growth, assimilation, nitrogen uptake, partition of dry matter
and yield as with abscission.
The period during which the University of Nairobi was closed was a serious
problem for the project. Re-establishment of a viable financial management
structure must be attended to with all deliberate speed. More attention should
be given to the systems in which beans are grown, the ways in which producers
select the seeds they preserve for future seasons and how they store them. The
project reports suggest that the work done to date in Kenya, as well as that
planned for 1984, should be assessed to determine whether the results are or
will be sufficiently proportionate to the funds allocated.
Several serious issues have been raised about this project: (1) the
approaches being used to assess drought tolerance (this deserves review by the
TC), (2) the level of project activities and accomplishments by the Host
Country in relation to the level of financial support used (this also to be
reviewed by the TC), and (3) the less than satisfactory management_ pcedures
of the project in Kenya for fiscal accounting to the University of California.


-35-








On the basis of these deficiencies, the ERP judges this project to be less than
satisfactory for continuation without major attention to the issues cited
above.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-UA S Host Country-S #6S
United States-LS L,5 United States-HS S
AID-S Collaboration-LS -S
Interaction-LS L/2

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-S
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-NA LS
Achievement of Training Objectives-S
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-S lS
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-PU

4. Linkages
Host Country-S S
AID Projects-S
International-S

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-LS .


-36-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


MALAWI MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated February 1982)
Adams


Genetic, Agronomic and Socio-Cultural Analysis of
Diversity among Bean Land-Races in Malawi


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
This project is well integrated in the national program of Malawi and fits
into the Department of Crop Production at Bunda College. The strengths of the
project are in the problem itself--which has powerful intellectual as well as
agricultural interest, in the drive and competence with which the work has been
started and pursued, and in the strong support provided by Bunda College and
the Ministry of Agriculture.
The agronomic component is just getting underway. It may be regarded as
something of a weakness that the socio-cultural and the agricultural components
are at this stage less fully articulated than they will need to be, but the
project is in fact breaking ground which is new in detail; and to develop
multidisciplinary cooperation into interdisciplinary thought and action for all
participants takes time and is seldom easy. The WID component is quite
prominent. More must be learned about the "whys" of behavior not just "that"
particular things happen. Issues needing further attention include seed
management and traditional agronomic practices.
The project is well designed and well run, but of concern is the limited
number of HC personnel working on the project. This is a current weakness
which the satisfactory training component should correct over time. The
members of the HC and US research team have developed an impressive profes-
sional relationship which will reinforce the long-term potential of this
project.
The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for continuation without
changes or adjustments.


-37-









SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S Host Country-HS 5'
United States-S United States-HS S
AID-S Collaboration-HS
Interaction-S

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-HS S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS S
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Training Objectives-HS
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-S
Consideration of WID Issues-HS
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-LTP

4. Linkages
Host Country-HS
AID Projects-S
International-S

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-NA


-38-








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


MEXICO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated March 1983)
Adams


Improving Resistance to Environmental Stress in Beans through
Genetic Selection for Carbohydrate Partitioning and
Efficiency of Biological Nitrogen Fixation


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
This project is strongly linked into the national bean program (INIA) and
receives proper administrative support from them. The fiscal management is
simple and efficient. The activity in the HC received close scientific support
from the US PI and is an especially good example of a CRSP project.
There is an excellent fit between the training and research objectives of
the project and INIA in regard to the need to improve bean production in semi-
arid zones through the development and application of relevant genetic tech-
nology. Concerned with breeding and the physiology of drought resistance and
nitrogen fixation under limited moisture conditions, this project has moved
forward rapidly and in impressive fashion during 1983. For example: (1) fif-
teen hundred bean genotypes have been screened preliminarily for drought
tolerance in Mexico, (2) a series of some sixty crosses have been made among
lines tolerant to drought and nitrogen stress, four crosses have been selected
for detailed biometric genetic analysis for drought tolerance and its component
factors, (3) estimates have been made of the numbers of rhizobial strains and
the nitrogen-fixing capacity of host cultivars. These indicators of progress,
in this relatively newly established project, reflect commitment and capacity
of the Mexican and US PIs and their research colleagues and the strong support
of their respective institutions.
The only weaknesses are (1) the lack of trained personnel at the Ph.D.
level for the breeding and physiology research at Durango, (2) the lack of
adequate laboratory and greenhouse facilities to supplement field plot
research at Durango and (3) the limited involvement of HC women researchers.


-39-








Being new, the project has not had time to establish sufficient linkages
with other HC agencies, but it is expected that such linkages will evolve for
testing materials at various locations in the country, for seed distribution
programs and for nutrition studies.
The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for continuation without
changes or adjustments.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-HS Host Country-HS
United States-HS United States-HS
AID-NA /"s Collaboration-HS
Interaction-HS

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S Ms
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-NA
Achievement of Training Objectives-S
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-S
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS -f
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-S
AID Projects-NA
International-S

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-NA


-40-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


NIGERIA MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated November 1981)
Markakis


Medical Aspects of Feeding Cowpeas to Children


RECOMMENDATION RATING: t"2\

REVIEW:
Circumstances in Nigeria have not favored effective communication or
collaboration between and among the US and Nigerian PIs and researchers
involved in this project. In Nigeria, the PIs at Ibadan and Jos, two
ecologically different regions of the country, have maintained satisfactory
quality and pace of research against considerable odds. The lack of approval
for a project vehicle for transportation has been an added major constraint to
the research at Ibadan. On the basis of direct observations and a question-
naire administered to mothers, the physicians associated with the project (as
well as mothers) are satisfied that the allegation of cowpeas in the diet
causing diarrhea in some newly weaned infants is real; the reported incidence
by researchers was seven percent in Ibadan and thirteen percent in Jos.
The project should continue along the lines developed: (1) extract all
worthwhile data from surveys, (2) conduct feeding trials to test the reasonable
hypothesis that the phenomenon exists (this should be documented within a year)
and identify its apparent or approximate cause (by use of adequate controls,
i.e., include both sensitive and non-sensitive children, assess effects of
condiments, hulls, etc.) and (3) design further studies on use of cowpeas in
rehabilitating under- and malnourished children. These studies are increas-
ingly important because the current use of milk protein may have to be replaced
as a result of the high-cost of importing milk into the country.
Insofar as project findings help to lessen discomfort and morbidity among
infants, it will help to relieve in a small way the hardships of the rural and
urban poor. The effects of the suggested later phase of rehabilitation studies
could be considerable. In addition, new knowledge about cowpeas might con-
ceivably contribute to an increase in the small US market for black-eyed peas.
While improved from last year, there should be greater interaction among the
US and HC teams. In the US, a pediatrician as advisor to the project would
help gOide that team.
-41-







The major weaknesses of the project are the lagging training component and
unsatisfactory domestic and international linkages including those with other
CRSP projects. Efforts must be continued to strengthen communication between
Nigeria and the US with the US team taking greater initiative in reinforcing
the collaborative relationship.
The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for continuation with
correction of the weaknesses identified.
SUMMARY:


1. Administration of Project
Host Country-S LS
United States-S
AIDS
Interaction-S L


2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S
United States-S -e2$> '
Collaboration-LS


3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-s -S
Achievement of Social Science Objectives- LZS
Achievement of Training Objectives-S
Publications/Information Dissemination-LS
Food and Nutritional Component-, /$ -
Consideration of WID Issues-S


Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-UA L
AID Projects-NA
International-4 L

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-S


-42-


IL~e~A







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


NIGERIA UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA (Initiated April 1981)
McWatters.


Appropriate Technology for Cowpea Preservation and Processing and a
Study of Its Socio-Economic Impact on Rural Populations in Nigeria


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 2

REVIEW:
The activities of this project are appropriate to its goals and indeed to
wider applications including crops other than cowpeas. The strengths of the
project are (1) the strong personality of the HC PI (a two-sided coin in a
project trying to be collaborative on the one hand, in a country with stagger-
ing communications problems requiring his competence and determination on the
other), (2) the professional competence and enthusiasm of the US and HC team
in general and (3) the strong support of the University of Nigeria at Nsukka.
As with the other Nigeria project, this project suffers from a general paucity
of communication between the US and Nigerian PIs. While all the parties are
in place, the lack of joint decision-making and active collaboration must be
counted as a weakness. Logistical difficulties in Nigeria add to the problem.
The ERP acknowledges that it is the attributes of the Nigerian PI and the
competent team which have made for highly satisfactory progress in developing
appropriate technology for cowpea preservation and processing in Nigeria. The
project has developed "packages" of methods for dry dehulling and milling which
can be offered to homemakers, village millers and milling industries. The
sooner the work is put to the hard test of international publication, the
better.
The sociological component has been generally less than satisfactory, even
though social and nutritional surveys have been initiated. The project should
plainly continue as should efforts to improve communications outside of
Nsukka. The Georgia team should visit, perhaps one or two at a time, as often
as they can. Short-term, specialized training at Georgia or elsewhere in the
US should be provided; some additional collaboration may be appropriate in the
nutritional evaluation of cowpea products and mixtures. Special attention
should be given to building stronger links between the two Nigeria projects,
especially between the two US teams.


-43-







The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for continuation with
correction of the weaknesses identified.
SUMMARY:


1. Administration of Project
Host Country-HS
United States-S /,S
AID-S
Interaction-S


2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-HS
United States-HS
Collaboration-LS .


3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-LS
Achievement of Training Objectives-S /kSA
Publications/Information Dissemination-HS
Food and Nutritional Component-HS
Consideration of WID Issues-S
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-S Af.
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-LS S
AID Projects-NA
International-S


5. Overall Major Project
See text above


Strengths/Deficiencies


6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-S


-44-


II








PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


SENEGAL e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE (Initiated August 1981)
Hall


A Program to Develop Improved Cowpea Cultivar- for
Production and Utilization in Semiarid Zones


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1

REVIEW:
As with several others in the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, this project is a classic
example of the handsome benefits which accrue from a CRSP project when the
critical elements--collaborating US and HC PIs/researchers and supportive US
and HC institutions--are in place and functioning harmoniously with the strong
encouragement of the responsible HC government agencies. Collaboration
between and among these elements in this project is exceptional.
The project is strongly institutionalized and receives full backing in
Senegal. It is well managed in its administrative and financial operations.
The project has assembled a very competent team of cowpea researchers in the
US and Senegal and contributed to the upgrade of ISRA's professional capacity.
Seven recent publications from Senegal suggest the extent to which the project
has contributed to an advancement of cowpea research in Senegal.
Reported experimental results are consistent with the project's objectives
of developing improved screening techniques for drought and heat resistance in
cowpeas. Superior lines in this respect have been developed.
The area of rhizobiology needs to be strengthened in the research activi-
ties although various other possibilities for acquiring this capability should
be explored. Project support for cowpea rhizobiology in Senegal may need to
be reappraised in view of UNESCO's support for a microbiology research center
(MIRCEN) in the country. Cooperation from the University of Arizona is weak,
if not confusing, as the work there was expected to concentrate on developing
good BNF field screening techniques that could later be used in Senegal with a
minimum of high technology and supervision.
Graduate degree training, especially provided for women, is still limited
and should be intensified to include training in the US The plan to strengthen
and expand on-farm research now, especially in the area of~tropping systems


-45-









analysis and research is appropriate. Further collaboration with other CRSP
projects and personnel would also be appropriate, such as the rhizobiology work
of Bliss at Wisconsin, the biological insect control work of the Brazil/BTI/
Roberts team and the entomological research of the Cameroon/Georgia/Chalfant
team.
The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for continuation without
changes or adjustments.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-HS Host Country-HS
United States-HS United States-HS
AID-HS Collaboration-E
Interaction-HS

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-HS
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-NA S
Achievement of Training Objectives-HS
Publications/Information Dissemination-HS
Food and Nutritional Component-NA
Consideration of WID Issues-S
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-AI

4. Linkages
Host Country-HS
AID Projects-HS
International-HS

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-NA ,S


-46-







PROJECT EVALUATION PROFILE


TANZANIA WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY (Initiated June 1981)
Silbernagel


Breeding Beans for Disease and Insect Resistance and Determination
of Economic Impact on Smallholder Farm Families


RECOMMENDATION RATING: 1 -

REVIEW:
The promise shown by this project in 1982 is evident clearly in 1983.
About 90 percent of planned activities are in progress. A good start has been
made on the evaluation of biologic variability of pathogens. The breeding
program is progressing well with the expectation that useful interim materials
will be identified in the next one to two years via cooperative national
testing trials. Socio-economic information about small farmers has been
acquired recently and will provide important preliminary baseline data against
which to measure future effects of introduced changes. Subsequent work must
reflect new initiatives, however, because the questionnaire method has not yet
succeeded fully in describing the complex farming systems and priorities of the
partly subsistence producers or the importance of bean production to them. Nor
is there sufficient information about the bean market in Tanzania--volume,
sources, preferred types, direction, mechanisms including storage, official and
alternative prices and likely future trends, all of which determine the appro-
priate scope and scale of the crop research. The project's Logical Framework
should be updated to include work now being planned to develop screening
methods for drought tolerance and means to improve nutritional value of beans.
Organization and physical facilities for managing and conserving genetic
resource materials have yet to be developed. Nevertheless, the project is
helping significantly to train undergraduates who are able to conduct projects
in their final year under the CRSP umbrella.
The strengths of the project lie in (1) the correct selection of the
topics, (2) the extent of cooperation between effective PIs at Prosser, WA, at
Illinois and at Morogoro, (3) the general interest of the Department of Crop
Science at Morogoro in the project, (4) the useful link with CIAT and (5) the
obvious level of cooperation enjoyed between this project and the other bean
projects in East Africa.


-47-








The main weakness lies in the absence, on the Tanzania side, of any single
person who devotes more than twenty percent to the CRSP, leading the day-to-day
work of the group. Other weaknesses are the poor linkages in Tanzania between
the agricultural and social sciences. Physical facilities and organization for
managing and conserving the genetic resource material need to be developed.
Such arrangements/facilities will be required as the project progresses so as
to get useful materials from the university into the seed industry and hands
of producers. The disease studies should include comparative assessments of
loss to pests and diseases.
The ERP judged this project to be satisfactory for continuation without
changes or adjustments.
SUMMARY:
1. Administration of Project 2. Technical Personnel
Host Country-S Host Country-S
United States-HS United States-HS
AID-S Collaboration-HS
Interaction-S

3. Project Progress
Log Frame/Consistency of Objectives with Activities-S
Achievement of Natural Science Objectives-S /-S
Achievement of Social Science Objectives-HS S
Achievement of Training Objectives-HS
Publications/Information Dissemination-S
Food and Nutritional Component-S /-S
Consideration of WID Issues-HS f )
Application to Systems Used by Small Farmers-HS -
Contribution to Development in the Host Country-Pol

4. Linkages
Host Country-HS
AID Projects-S
International-S /IS

5. Overall Major Project Strengths/Deficiencies
See text above

6. Response to Prior ERP Project Recommendations-NA J5


-48-






SUMMARY 1983 EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL EVALUATION PROFILES


ADMINISTRATIVE


1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4


BOTSWANA HS HS S S
BRAZIL/ROBERTS S HS //S IS
BRAZIL/BLISS HS HS #S #I5
BRAZIL/HAGEDORN /P-S JS s A
CAMEROON 1S CS S as
DR/COYNE YS HS SS HS
DR/LuPEZ-ROSA S HS VS E
ECUADOR L-) S---5S-S-+S-
GUATEMALA (gke-4) HS #S S /#S
o HONDURAS .S S S &4S
I


INCAP
KENYA


S S S S
SWA LS S LS


MALAWI S S S S
MEXICO HS HS 0 HS
NIGERIA/MARKAKIS LS S 5 S


TECHNICAL


PROGRESS


RESPONSE
LINKAGES TO ERP RATING*


- -__ : j_ -_ -__ _ -= I,


2.1 2.2 2.3


LS HS # S
gS & tS
PS E HS


OS HS SA
IHS HS O
MS HS E


OS HS E
-S ---HS--
HS HS&d tdB&


3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9


S E AS HS /1S NA S HS PoI
HS E NA HS S NA S HS PU
HS E NA VS HS NA dS /S PoI


4.1 4.2 4.3


E LS HS
S NA HS
E NA HS


44. 44 44


S AS NA LS 49 NA OS MV( i~
HS HS i LS S NA LS S Pol
S S HS S HSHSNAHS ' PoI


S NA ADS
#S f5S tS
S NA qS


6


HS
NA
NA


/AS SA
/fIs4a
Asg5


dl 44 II 44


HS HS jS HS HS -W HS HS AI
LS--S-HS-S---S S----HS-HS--HP
ES E w.5 S S d &S HS WW


S NA #S
S -S---S-
S S HS


HS
-----iS--
S


* 44. II 41. 4


E HS OS
frS IS 6S
HS ~S HS
HS HS HS
S S LS


S S LS S S RA WAP S Pol
uS HS S fS )-S HS OS TPrTPoI
S S S S S NA LS S PU
BS lS HS HS S S HS HS LTP
HS HS NA S S NA S %T PoI
S 3S LS S LS LS S S PoI


fS S S
/S S HS
S S S
HS S S
S NA S
SNA LS


1
----2-



1


1


a fl`


NIGERIA/MC WATTERS MSS S S S HS HS 4S S HS LS f/S HS HS S PoI CS NA S S 2
SENEGAL HS HS HS HS HS HS E S HS NA HS HS NA S HS AI HS HS HS AS NA 1
TANZANIA S HS S S S HS HS S IS HS IS S LS 0S P PolH HS S IS i N 1
KEY:
E Exceptional UA Unacceptable PU Potentially Useful LTP Long-Term Potential
HS Highly Satisfactory NA Not Applicable Pol Potentially Important WW Worldwide
S Satisfactory L Limited AI Already Important
LS Less Than Satisfactory PL Potentially Limited HP Highly Promising

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


11


II









CRSP MANAGEMENT EVALUATION


Finance
The ERP requested the CRSP MO to report what proportion of the funds issued
from Washington (that is, excluding the contributions from the US institutions
required to be a minimum of one-third and contributions from HCs) went to pay
for work actually done rather than overhead, including HC training and
equipment purchased for use in the Host Countries.
The MO reported that in FY 83 total direct costs were-62 percent of AID
funds and total indirect costs were 38 percent (including costs of the MO, the
ERP, the BOD, the TC and all project indirect costs). The ERP felt that the
CRSP indirect cost figure was not out of line with indirect costs of individual
institutions and the average AID negotiated rate.
In addition, it is a policy of this CRSP that a minimum of one-half of the
projects' allocation of funds be spent in or directly on behalf of the Host
Countries (including HC students studying in the US). The MO reported that
for FY 83, of the 62 percent total direct costs indicated above, 54 percent was
spent in or directly on behalf of Host Countries. The ERP was satisfied that
the policy was being implemented.
Finally, the total cost of the CRSP was considered, including the HC
contributions and the contributions of the US institutions. The MO reported
that through FY 83 the US institutions contributed the equivalent of 59 percent
of AID contributions to US project costs. This represents 37 percent of total
US project costs, which included AID and US institution contributions together.
HC institutions likewise matched the AID funds they received, reporting
contributions of an additional 34 percent of AID contributions to Host Country
project costs. The ERP was impressed with this level of commitment by the
participating institutions.


Administration
The MO has had almost a complete turnover of personnel in FY 83. While this
has severely strained the office, the ERP agreed the MO has been very effective
in keeping the CRSP process going and in maintaining support of the individual
projects. The BOD and the TC, while not reviewed directly this year, gave
evidence of their significant contributions at every appropriate point in the


-50-









CRSP MANAGEMENT EVALUATION


Finance
The ERP requested the CRSP MO to report what proportion of the funds issued
from Washington (that is, excluding the contributions from the US institutions
required to be a minimum of one-third and contributions from HCs) went to pay
for work actually done rather than overhead, including HC training and
equipment purchased for use in the Host Countries.
The MO reported that in FY 83 total direct costs were-62 percent of AID
funds and total indirect costs were 38 percent (including costs of the MO, the
ERP, the BOD, the TC and all project indirect costs). The ERP felt that the
CRSP indirect cost figure was not out of line with indirect costs of individual
institutions and the average AID negotiated rate.
In addition, it is a policy of this CRSP that a minimum of one-half of the
projects' allocation of funds be spent in or directly on behalf of the Host
Countries (including HC students studying in the US). The MO reported that
for FY 83, of the 62 percent total direct costs indicated above, 54 percent was
spent in or directly on behalf of Host Countries. The ERP was satisfied that
the policy was being implemented.
Finally, the total cost of the CRSP was considered, including the HC
contributions and the contributions of the US institutions. The MO reported
that through FY 83 the US institutions contributed the equivalent of 59 percent
of AID contributions to US project costs. This represents 37 percent of total
US project costs, which included AID and US institution contributions together.
HC institutions likewise matched the AID funds they received, reporting
contributions of an additional 34 percent of AID contributions to Host Country
project costs. The ERP was impressed with this level of commitment by the
participating institutions.


Administration
The MO has had almost a complete turnover of personnel in FY 83. While this
has severely strained the office, the ERP agreed the MO has been very effective
in keeping the CRSP process going and in maintaining support of the individual
projects. The BOD and the TC, while not reviewed directly this year, gave
evidence of their significant contributions at every appropriate point in the


-50-









CRSP MANAGEMENT EVALUATION


Finance
The ERP requested the CRSP MO to report what proportion of the funds issued
from Washington (that is, excluding the contributions from the US institutions
required to be a minimum of one-third and contributions from HCs) went to pay
for work actually done rather than overhead, including HC training and
equipment purchased for use in the Host Countries.
The MO reported that in FY 83 total direct costs were-62 percent of AID
funds and total indirect costs were 38 percent (including costs of the MO, the
ERP, the BOD, the TC and all project indirect costs). The ERP felt that the
CRSP indirect cost figure was not out of line with indirect costs of individual
institutions and the average AID negotiated rate.
In addition, it is a policy of this CRSP that a minimum of one-half of the
projects' allocation of funds be spent in or directly on behalf of the Host
Countries (including HC students studying in the US). The MO reported that
for FY 83, of the 62 percent total direct costs indicated above, 54 percent was
spent in or directly on behalf of Host Countries. The ERP was satisfied that
the policy was being implemented.
Finally, the total cost of the CRSP was considered, including the HC
contributions and the contributions of the US institutions. The MO reported
that through FY 83 the US institutions contributed the equivalent of 59 percent
of AID contributions to US project costs. This represents 37 percent of total
US project costs, which included AID and US institution contributions together.
HC institutions likewise matched the AID funds they received, reporting
contributions of an additional 34 percent of AID contributions to Host Country
project costs. The ERP was impressed with this level of commitment by the
participating institutions.


Administration
The MO has had almost a complete turnover of personnel in FY 83. While this
has severely strained the office, the ERP agreed the MO has been very effective
in keeping the CRSP process going and in maintaining support of the individual
projects. The BOD and the TC, while not reviewed directly this year, gave
evidence of their significant contributions at every appropriate point in the


-50-







CRSP management. Further, there is important evidence that the CRSP is getting
stronger as a result of project PIs rotating through the CRSP Technical
Committee.


Recommendations
After considering the site reviews and other information provided, the ERP
agreed that the MO should strengthen its efforts in the following areas:
1. An early warning system, appropriate to the model, needs to be set up so
that MO identification of potential problems and better communication
between US and HC PIs are facilitated.
2. An open line of communication among all the components of the CRSP should
be maintained.
3. Attention should be directed to building a stronger sense of community
within the CRSP across projects. This includes:
*Research-sharing workshops;
*Sharing publications;
eIncreasing the dissemination of CRSP information through publications
which are made available to US and HC participants;
*Adding publications listings to Pulse Beat, the newsletter of the CRSP;
*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.


-51-







PROGRAM EVALUATION


The ERP stepped back from its review of individual facets of the CRSP and
discussed the Program as a whole from a more general perspective. The Panel
confirmed that after three full years in existence, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP has
proven itself as a very effective model for mobilizing HC and US resources in
support of development. The ERP members in their travels found this CRSP a
productive new initiative of a kind different from traditional foreign assis-
tance and felt this model contributes considerably to food and agricultural
development as well as to improvement of the US image abroad.


The Role of the CRSP in International Agricultural Research and Development
Similar to the movement of several decades ago which began the establish-
ment of a network of International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), CRSPs
were introduced into an evolving international agricultural research and
development system as a new and needed component. Their unique characteristics
present a cost-effective model, a model that can perform a critical inter-
national role beyond the mandates (and capabilities) of the IARCs and other
similar research organizations. Critical among the model's characteristics,
as demonstrated by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, are:
1. The tremendous size of the resource base including the professional
expertise, the research facilities and the administrative support
structure represented by the US Land-Grant system;
2. The diversity of professional disciplines available to be called upon as
appropriate to contribute to the problem-solving efforts;
3. The working partnerships of committed colleagues rewarded for collaborating
across national boundaries with other participating nations; and
4. The management structure whose sole function is the integration and
coordination of all of the above components while maintaining a focus on
overall program goals.
Thus, as a member of the new CRSPs initiative, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP comple-
ments and supplements IARCs and other public and private research organizations
by broadening and deepening the overall research support base. It has shown
itself to be a highly acceptable, interactive mode for technical assistance
which brings the diverse, largely untapped resources of US centers of excel-
lence into collaborative international research and training activities.
Through these efforts, the CRSP extends the worldwide network of institutions


-52-







PROGRAM EVALUATION


The ERP stepped back from its review of individual facets of the CRSP and
discussed the Program as a whole from a more general perspective. The Panel
confirmed that after three full years in existence, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP has
proven itself as a very effective model for mobilizing HC and US resources in
support of development. The ERP members in their travels found this CRSP a
productive new initiative of a kind different from traditional foreign assis-
tance and felt this model contributes considerably to food and agricultural
development as well as to improvement of the US image abroad.


The Role of the CRSP in International Agricultural Research and Development
Similar to the movement of several decades ago which began the establish-
ment of a network of International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs), CRSPs
were introduced into an evolving international agricultural research and
development system as a new and needed component. Their unique characteristics
present a cost-effective model, a model that can perform a critical inter-
national role beyond the mandates (and capabilities) of the IARCs and other
similar research organizations. Critical among the model's characteristics,
as demonstrated by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, are:
1. The tremendous size of the resource base including the professional
expertise, the research facilities and the administrative support
structure represented by the US Land-Grant system;
2. The diversity of professional disciplines available to be called upon as
appropriate to contribute to the problem-solving efforts;
3. The working partnerships of committed colleagues rewarded for collaborating
across national boundaries with other participating nations; and
4. The management structure whose sole function is the integration and
coordination of all of the above components while maintaining a focus on
overall program goals.
Thus, as a member of the new CRSPs initiative, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP comple-
ments and supplements IARCs and other public and private research organizations
by broadening and deepening the overall research support base. It has shown
itself to be a highly acceptable, interactive mode for technical assistance
which brings the diverse, largely untapped resources of US centers of excel-
lence into collaborative international research and training activities.
Through these efforts, the CRSP extends the worldwide network of institutions


-52-









and individuals cooperating in important bean and cowpea related research.
More broadly over time, it helps fashion and strengthen enduring linkages
throughout the international agricultural research and development system.


Specific Contributions to Development
There is good evidence that:
1. The CRSP is a mechanism which supports better equity within research teams
engaged in development activity. The model develops a pattern of inter-
action which is not hierarchical but collegial in nature, providing an
important avenue for the active participation of HC professionals in the
development process.
2. The CRSP provides one vehicle for the contribution to development of
science and technology as a necessary but insufficient partner along with
such factors as government pricing policy and extension. As such, the
CRSP is an important component of the US bilateral assistance program
contributing to the total AID effort to alleviate world hunger.
3. The CRSP has shown itself to be a rapid method of generating technology
fitting the specific needs of Host.Countries. It is an effective way to
transfer and build greater capacity to generate new knowledge.
4. The CRSP is a catalyst for specific CRSP-related scientific work without
which, in many countries, the work could not be done.
5. The CRSP is a catalyst for scientific activity beyond the purview of the
CRSP itself as both the research and the professional relationships stimu-
late energy and initiatives that ripple farther than the original mandate.
6. The actual research, involving the collaboration of scientists cross-
nationally, and the training of new professionals effectively supports the
institution-building components of this CRSP. Both within the African and
Latin American regions and across regional lines, professional networks are
evolving which strengthen the institutional capacities of participating
organizations.
7. The CRSP training resources effectively utilize a variety of training modes
(degree/non-degree, formal/informal, domestic/international) directly
geared and linked to the needs of the countries. Further, HC students
have the opportunity to study in the US with US professors who are working
on behalf of the students' own countries and frequently are working
intermittently in these countries.


-53-








8. The CRSP has attracted a remarkable number of US and HC scientists. In
the US it has strengthened interest and capability of US institutions to
understand and participate in development.
9. The CRSP supports attention to the role of women in agriculture and the
involvement of women in its projects. It has improved the attitude of male
professionals toward working with professional women. Attention is being
paid to efforts to advance women through the system.
10. The CRSP, in evolving a problem-solving network, has developed a community
of US and HC scientists for scientific and technological development which
should prove itself productive over the long term.


Specific Contributions to US Agriculture
1. Bean/Cowpea CRSP projects/activities are concentrated largely on producing
superior bean and cowpea cultivars and supporting production technologies
(e.g., enhanced N-fixation). Predictably, these cultivars and technologies
will contribute directly and indirectly to the development of superior
cultivars and production technologies for the United States.
2. An important related activity of most CRSP projects is the collecting,
describing, cataloguing and conserving of bean and cowpea germ plasm.
These irreplaceable genetic resources will become available over time to
the United States and to other bean and cowpea growing nations and,
therefore, will increase the range and diversity of genetic stocks
available for improvement programs.
3. New resources and procedures for the control of pests and diseases in bean
and cowpea production are emerging, i.e., insect pathogens, antiserum
procedures to assess virus strains in transported plant material. These
new technologies will not only support legume improvement programs in the
US and other legume-producing countries, but they will also expedite the
ability of nations to utilize one another's plant material in adaptation
trials and improvement programs across national boundaries.
4. The Bean/Cowpea CRSP has a limited, but highly important, focus on
improving the human nutritional characteristics of beans and cowpeas
through breeding, processing and food science programs. This focus can be
expected to have a salutory impact on bean/cowpea production research, as
well as home and commercial processing which ultimately will contribute to
United States industrial interests.


-54-








5. The Bean/Cowpea CRSP helps to build and support effectively functioning
international agricultural research networks. These networks are made up
of individual professionals, many of whom will have studied together under
CRSP sponsorship, as well as an array of research institutions which will
have been strengthened through their CRSP involvement. Such global
networks serve US agricultural interests and can frequently pay handsome
dividends in unexpected ways over the long term.


Program Weaknesses
1. The CRSP collegial and financial activity may alter the balance of
priorities within Host Countries, not in their own best interest.
2. Collaboration with other overseas development programs and agricultural
research efforts is inadequate. Especially important is cooperation with
other US bilateral efforts within the same Host Countries.
3. Economic analyses of production systems and the acquisition of baseline
data are lagging behind biological research.
4. Linkages with other development agencies and institutions in the Host
Countries such as extension are weak. Dissemination of research findings
therefore is likely to be poor.
5. Some HC PIs are administrators rather than working researchers. While
administrative support is critical to project success, having a PI who is
an administrator inhibits the progress of the actual research, the building
of professional collegial relationships among peers and the institutional-
ization of the project research at the operational level.


Overall Evaluation
Based upon clearly identified, substantial results achieved in the short
period of three years and upon benefits expected to accrue over the long term,
the ERP judged that the-CRSP mode exhibits considerable promise as a cost-
efficient, highly effective means of mobilizing and using resources of US
centers of excellence in support of food and agricultural development in low-
income, food-deficit nations. In addition, it has shown itself to be an
important, unique contributor to the international agricultural research system.
Satisfactory performance in support of the eighteen projects and the over-
all CRSP goals by the MO, TC, BOD and collaborating institutions and individuals
has been an achievement worthy of special recognition. In the concerted opinion
of the ERP, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP as a whole is judged to be satisfactory for
continuation with appropriate attention to the weaknesses identified.
-55-








5. The Bean/Cowpea CRSP helps to build and support effectively functioning
international agricultural research networks. These networks are made up
of individual professionals, many of whom will have studied together under
CRSP sponsorship, as well as an array of research institutions which will
have been strengthened through their CRSP involvement. Such global
networks serve US agricultural interests and can frequently pay handsome
dividends in unexpected ways over the long term.


Program Weaknesses
1. The CRSP collegial and financial activity may alter the balance of
priorities within Host Countries, not in their own best interest.
2. Collaboration with other overseas development programs and agricultural
research efforts is inadequate. Especially important is cooperation with
other US bilateral efforts within the same Host Countries.
3. Economic analyses of production systems and the acquisition of baseline
data are lagging behind biological research.
4. Linkages with other development agencies and institutions in the Host
Countries such as extension are weak. Dissemination of research findings
therefore is likely to be poor.
5. Some HC PIs are administrators rather than working researchers. While
administrative support is critical to project success, having a PI who is
an administrator inhibits the progress of the actual research, the building
of professional collegial relationships among peers and the institutional-
ization of the project research at the operational level.


Overall Evaluation
Based upon clearly identified, substantial results achieved in the short
period of three years and upon benefits expected to accrue over the long term,
the ERP judged that the-CRSP mode exhibits considerable promise as a cost-
efficient, highly effective means of mobilizing and using resources of US
centers of excellence in support of food and agricultural development in low-
income, food-deficit nations. In addition, it has shown itself to be an
important, unique contributor to the international agricultural research system.
Satisfactory performance in support of the eighteen projects and the over-
all CRSP goals by the MO, TC, BOD and collaborating institutions and individuals
has been an achievement worthy of special recognition. In the concerted opinion
of the ERP, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP as a whole is judged to be satisfactory for
continuation with appropriate attention to the weaknesses identified.
-55-








APPENDIX A
ERP Project Review Agenda
1983 In-Country Project Review

1. USAID Mission Involvement

a. Mission understanding and backing of project objectives
b. Mission logistic, programmatic and financial support of project
c. Mission interests for project future

2. Administration of Project

a. Government level
b. Institutional level
c. Fiscal management
d. Measures in process or needed to correct problems

3. Personnel

a. Paid/unpaid
b. Adequate number and type
c. Involvement of women
d. Effectiveness
e. Measures in process or needed to correct problems

4. Equipment and Facilitities

a. Availability--reason for unavailability
b. Adequacy--reason for inadequacy
c. Measures in process or needed to correct problems

5. Project Progress

a. Usefulness of team travel
b. Level of USA/HC team communication
c. Appropriateness of activities to goals
d. Achievement of research objectives--outcomes
e. Achievement of training objectives--outcomes
f. Expected schedule for specific project outputs
g. Attention to appropriate social science/food & nutrition issues
including WID
h. Contribution to small farmer systems
i. Measures in process or needed to correct problems

6. Linkages with Host Country Agencies and Organizations Including Extension
Food Science and Social Science Research Mechanisms

7. Summary

a. Specific project strengths
b. Specific project weaknesses

8. Reviewer Recommendations


-56-


4208B: July 20, 1983














































































A a


** A *


0*.*6*9* ** 9*9 4

S 0 S * *
**. 0**. ** *e*-*4S r


* *. -A S
p i a c a 4e *. i C a


a n o p e s S S.